No recuerdo haberlo mencionado. Me llegó ayer, de Iberlibro.
Aquellos que denuncian un perfil liberal en las comunicaciones vaticanas harían bien en tomar en consideración, si no lo hacen ya, los nombres que componen el departamento de prensa y la portavocía de la Santa Sede. En la imagen, Thomas Rosica, primero por la derecha, cuyas debilidades y deslealtades pueden identificarse en Same-sex “marriage” advocate Gregory Baum lauded by Canadian Catholic media.
Visto lo visto, no tiene nada de sorprendente que Rosica haya retuiteado precisamente esto:
(Enlace del tweet: What Catholic conservatives need from the Synod — and Pope Francis.) Puede que retweet y endorsement no sean necesariamente sinónimos, pero, en este caso, tú y yo sabemos la verdad.
anónimo ha dicho:
Father, I want to know your thoughts on something. When I want to the seminary for a vocations day, about half of the other guys my age in attendance looked/acted/whatevered stereotypically gay. I, myself, have SSA, but it’s never been a big deal, and I’m very masculine. The guys talked about the gay relationships they left to come and discern the priesthood. This made me wonder – do you remember a lot of gay men in seminary? Was there ever any problems with funny business between them?
[Responde el padre Angel:]
First, I want to thank you for opening your heart to consider a vocation to the seminary. And I just want to say that in looking at other guys, you always have to avoid “judging a book by its cover” as far as thinking that another guy is gay because of his outward appearance. I’m sure you know this, but I just say it for clarification. That being said, I’m very concerned about what you heard in their conversations—but more about that later. First, I’ll answer your question.
I entered the seminary over 30 years ago. I don’t know if I can even begin to describe to you what a different world that was.
My generation grew up in the 1970’s, when there was plenty of porn, plenty of extramarital sex, plenty of gay relationships, and plenty of drugs. However, those of us who went to the seminary were extremely naive and sheltered. We had grown up, for the most part, in traditional Catholic families, with intact marriages, and strict discipline.
To be blunt, if there were a lot of gays in my seminary, I did not notice it. I think that a lot of us in my seminary just didn’t want to notice that issue or talk about it.
Although most guys who left the seminary got married and had children, we did notice that some would leave the seminary and have male “roommates.”
The seminary faculty would have conferences about human sexuality and celibacy. They were more on the traditional side. They spoke of gays as people who must be treated with respect and sensitivity, but who should still be taught to leave gay partnerships to live a celibate life within the parish community. If seminarians were caught with gay partners, they were dismissed.
Nonetheless, when I would meet seminarians from other seminaries across the country, they seemed to be very tolerant and accepting of gay dating and gay sex, and seemed not to take celibacy as seriously as we were taught to in my seminary.
This led me to believe that in the 80’s, in the Catholic Church in the U.S., there were many priests and seminarians who had a loose and permissive attitude toward sexual relationships in general, including the gay lifestyle. Many seemed to accept the culture of secrecy in which seminarians and priests would have sex with women or men and then go to confession and “just try to do better.”
It was this permissive attitude, coupled with a culture of secrecy and sweeping things under the carpet, which led to the sexual abuse crimes which would be uncovered later on and which in 2002 caused such searing scandal to rock the Church. And we should be clear that it was not only minors, but clergy affairs with adult women and men which caused great harm and scandal when these were uncovered.
To answer your question: No, I remember that most of the seminarians back in my youth were not gay and the struggles they spoke about were from meeting pretty girls and wanting to date them. However, a few of them were gay and although they hid it from the rest of the community, at times they engaged in sexual conduct with other seminarians. The faculty did not tolerate this behavior when it became known.
If candidates can openly talk about these matters now, that is a much more healthier thing for the Church and the seminary. But the goal should not just be for potential seminarians to talk about whether or not they are gay. The goal should be for them to realize that if they are already dating and having sex with gay partners, that is a strong indicator that the life of celibacy and the priesthood is not for them.
The goal of talking openly is for potential seminarians to be honest, to be practical, and to be realistic with the sacrifices that the priesthood truly requires of a man’s heart.
The priesthood requires that men truly search their hearts and know themselves and what they want. If they really want celibacy, they will start to live celibacy years before they apply to the seminary, because that is the sign of a man who realizes what he should sacrifice for the Church.
We must not go back to the permissive and liberal attitudes which pervaded the Church through the 70’s and 80’s. Seminaries need to be stricter, not looser, in their requirements for the priesthood. It is not a good sign for me that guys are dating, and having sex and then talking about this as something you can just quit cold turkey.
That means, essentially, that they are applying to the seminary without having lived a deeply spiritual, Catholic, and celibate life for at least some years before applying to the seminary. It is noble that a gay man wants to leave his boyfriend and go off to the seminary. But that he had a boyfriend to begin with, and was likely engaging in sex with him, is a counter-indication that he has a vocation to the priesthood.
I hope that the Holy Spirit continues to comfort, strengthen, and inspire you, and the men you were on retreat with, to make those decisions which will redound to God’s glory and the salvation of souls. God bless and take care, Fr. Angel
Vía. Énfasis añadido.
El padre Angel es un tesoro del catolicismo en Internet. En cuanto al meollo, en cierta ocasión mi hermano señaló la fotografía de un grupo de seminaristas de una ciudad próxima y dijo acremente:
Tiene gracia, ahora que lo pienso: Mel* llevaba razón:
Communism was dead and buried. The greatest crises in the Catholic Church today had to do with pedophilia and homophobia. Mel was still worried about The Commies.
Escribe Joe Eszterhas en Heaven and Mel.
*Mel Gibson, se entiende. Es sólo que llamarlo Mel lo hace un poco, no sé, más cercano. (Parpadeo, parpadeo.)
Ya en el nombre hay una indicación nueva. Ningún Papa durante dos mil años había elegido este nombre, el del gran santo de Asís, que reformó la Iglesia con el Evangelio.
La afirmación del artículo es cierta en términos literales, por supuesto: Jorge Mario Bergoglio es el primer papa que gobernará la Iglesia bajo el nombre «Francisco». Bergoglio lo hace, según se ha informado, en homenaje a San Francisco de Asís, quien vivió entre los siglos XII y XIII. La cuestión es que el nombre «Francisco» resulta significativo no tanto porque sea la primera vez que se utiliza como porque emparenta con il poverello d’Assisi. Pero si éste vivió a caballo entre los dos primeros siglos del segundo milenio, es obvio que ningún Papa anterior a estas fechas pudo tenerlo presente en sus deliberaciones. No es que tenga mucha importancias, más bien ninguna, en realidad, pero ha sido un buen pretexto para actualizar el blog. Hundo mi cabeza entre los hombros y digo «lo siento».
Cardenal Ratzinger, 1985:
Ultimately the authority on which these biblical scholars base their judgment is not the Bible itself but the [worldview] they hold to be contemporary. They are therefore speaking as philosophers or sociologists, and their philosophy consists merely in a banal, uncritical assent to the convictions of the present time, which are always provisional.
Extraído, tiene gracia, de una columna firmada por Albert Mohler, presidente del Seminario Teológico Bautista Sureño, en relación con el ascenso al Papado del Cardenal Ratzinger. Creo que sus comentarios de entonces siguen siendo vigentes hoy. (La cita que reproduzco arriba tiene que ver con los puntos en común que unen a ambas religiones.)
¡Je! No es que el «common touch» posea un efecto redentor, ¿eh, muchachos? No lo bastante, no lo bastante. El patriarcado blanco se perpetúa, etcétera.
Supongo que los lectores del New York Times
ya han sido instruidos mediante un sencillo titular ya se han formado una opinión fundada sobre el nuevo Sucesor de Pedro. Estamos a la espera, mientras tanto, de que Hans Küng realice una declaración pública sobre el particular.