There was a time where I felt a certain level of concern for the Roman Church.  However I am increasingly confident that the hippie generation of the 1960-70’s that thought the world was theirs and the church would be remade to their taste have failed.  They are dying out and being replaced by a new generation of remarkably conservative and orthodox (small ‘o’) Catholics.  Pope +Benedict XVI seems clearly determined to bury the hermeneutic of rupture that was all the rage after Vatican II. 

Of course it’s really too early to say with certainty, but I have real hope for Rome’s revival.  Whereas I have none for TEC and Protestantism in general.  The Christian world is rapidly dividing into two camps.  The Apostolic Churches on the one hand, and the theological flavor of the moment sects on the other.  It won’t be easy but restoration of communion between the Orthodox East and the Roman West seems to be at least a real possibility within my lifetime. 

One positive development from all of this silliness in TEC (and Anglicanism in general) is that Rome seems to have abandoned in fact if not in theory any hope of corporate reunion with any of the various Protestant sects.  How can one hope for reunion with people who if gathered in a general council would probably not be able to agree on when to take a bathroom break?  The various Protestant sects will almost certainly just continue to theologically drift around propelled by the currents of contemporary social opinions or whatever they derive in private interpretation from their reading of Scripture to be the truth.  This is of course perfectly predictable.  A boat without an anchor is bound to drift.

A very short excerpt from the article:
The first thing Benedict should do is withdraw the murky and open-ended document on homos in the seminaries, and start again. Homosexual priests cannot be spiritual Fathers. They cannot discipline, they “nuance” all sorts of things, their “love” is permissive and unconditional, and they are oh so pastoral. In general, whether homosexual priests are latently or actively “gay,” they give a pass to all sorts of promiscuity. Yes, we’ve seen it happen. A priest represents Christ as the Bridegroom of His Church; that’s what it means to be in persona Christi. But if there is no heterosexual orientation, the husbanding relationship to the Church is simply not there. Actually, it’s more like a lesbian relationship. Think of what this will eventually lead to. If a priest need not be a spiritual Father, but is more like a spiritual mother, then the door is opened to priestesses and bishopettes, which is exactly what we’ve seen in the Episcopal Church. And if a priest need not be psychologically masculine, need not represent Christ as the Bridegroom of His Church, what’s wrong with “gay marriage,” as the Episcopal Church unofficially allows? And what’s wrong when “Joey Has Two Daddies” at an “orthodox” Catholic school, as reported by Michael S. Rose (NOR, Dec. 2005)? These are only a few reasons why there should be no homosexuals of whatever kind in the priesthood.

I was mistakenly expecting a decent article.  It’s not worth the $1.50.

Ad Orientem:
Isn’t it comforting to know that ‘cultural Christianity’ is only an affliction of those deluded Protestants. The Orthodox *always* stand out against their environing culture, and *never* get ‘propelled by the currents of contemporary social opinions’, do they?
Or do they?
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=3506

Tell me ,Charles, what are your objections to the article? I couldn’t read it because I do not subscribe, but the quote you posted seems to exactly on target. Slangy, yes, and so poorly written, but essentially correct in its judgments. LM

I agree with Ad Orientem for a good two hundred years or more protestantism and that includes Anglicans have been for the most part culturally captive whether the captivity was rationalism or Deism (Washington, Jefferson both Anglicans) or Romanticism (the Oxford Movement), and now relativism.  Rome a certainly been affected by the winds but not nearly as severely, waywardly or heretically. During the Deistic period Bibles and liturgies were rewritten in Protestantism to accommodate Deistic thought now Bibles and liturgies are being rewritten (the NRSV and hip Protestant worship most everywhere) to accommodate political correctness and the elimination of masculine imagery.  Mainline Protestantism is trying to be all things to all people building bridges everywhere but ultimately a bridge to no where.

I agree with Larry Morse. The paragraph Charles reproduced is right on the mark.  In fact, there should be no place in the Christian clergy for someone who is obssessed with defending any action Christian Tradition deems a sin. Such a person is sure to be committing the sin he is defending and will bring disgrace on himself, his church, and—as has happened in the Episcopal Church—seduce well-meaning fools to fraudulently elevate his sinful practices to the sacramental level.

#4 Larry,

I would assume that Charles’s point is that the statement quoted is presumptive about the inability of a priest to overcome one type of improper sexual desire. However, there could be heterosexual desires that posed just as much an impediment to being a father in God.

I suppose you could argue that, assuming the statement quoted to be generally true about a majority of homosexually oriented priests, there was a pragmatic case for not admitting any. However, that approach would seem to make nonsense of the work of groups like the Zacheus Fellowship and essentially validate the contention that sexual orientation cannot be altered.     

As has been argued elsewhere on this blog, the standard that should hold is fidelity in marriage (not open to a Roman Catholic priest) and chastity outside it. Thoughts and feelings may still be sinful but they are part of the human condition (though we should strive to overcome them).

The excerpt quoted seems fairly typical of New Oxford Review. It’s one of those publications where you can agree with much of what is written but still find the bitter tone unsettling. (The fact that many of its contributors are ex-Anglicans tells its own tale.) 

JB

Re # 3:
William,
I fail to see your point.  The thrust of my comments were directed at doctrine.  The article you linked makes no reference to doctrine that I am able to see.  If you are saying that sometimes people in the Orthodox Church including hierarchs do questionable or even bad things you will get a hardy “AMEN” from this Orthodox Christian.  My own jurisdiction (the OCA) is currently recovering from a scandal in the central administration.  But that just involved the theft of money, not anything which touches on the faith.

Whatever flaws that can be seen in Orthodoxy (and they are the personal sins you can think of) institutional heresy and apostasy are not among them.

The Virtue-esque tone of the article, as well as the idea that priests with a homosexual orientation have a “lesbian relationship” with the Church due to the fact that they are not “psychologically masculine”, is what led to my comment.

Correction to the above:

(and they are the personal sins you can think of)

Should read ... “and they are all* of the personal sins you can think of…”

Charles and all,
I tend to agree that the author has a serious and misguided fixation on sexuality which I see as quite common among so called Anglican conservatives.  The issue is Christian orthodoxy and not who you are sleeping with.  Too many are putting the one in front of the other.  There are perfectly orthodox homosexuals who are chaste.  And there are also very orthodox Christians who are homosexual or heterosexual who through human weakness fall pray to the passions.  God did not come into the world to save the just.  He came to save sinners.  I would love to be in a parish filled to the rafters with homosexuals, provided they understood that their physical urges needed to be resisted and that their calling in life did not include sexual activity. 

As for the question of ordaining someone with homosexual tendencies to the clergy; I am generally but not unconditionally opposed to it.  There are exceptions to most rules and I am sure there are some homosexually oriented men who have reached a point where they could serve.  But great caution and discernment should be exercised by the bishop before ordaining someone known to suffer tendencies towards this vice.

For most struggling with this cross who feel called to a vocation in service to God my feeling is that the monastic life is probably their best avenue.  The great monastic Fr. Seraphim Rose (regarded by some as a saint) fell into this lifestyle during his rather hedonistic youth.  Later in life he was asked by a visitor to his monastery for some thoughts on this period of his life.  His reply was just four words.  “I was in hell.”

Thanks for including that paragraph from the article, Charles. I’m glad I didn’t waste $1.50 on this piece of mixed-up thinking. And he thinks that the RC Church will purge the seminaries of gays? Fat chance. Those called by the Holy Spirit will continue to answer the call. Some will make it to ordination, and will seek to serve the Church and their parishes as ably and effectively as the three RC gay priests I know—all of them men beloved of their parishes.