The Anglican Communion’s divisions over sexual ethics have harmed its ecumenical dialogue with Rome, the head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity has claimed.
Speaking to the Pope and 123 cardinals in a private meeting at the Vatican on Nov 23, Cardinal Walter Kasper said that while relations with the Orthodox and some Evangelical groups were improving, talks with the Anglicans had stalled. “What we held to be our common heritage has begun to melt here and there like the glaciers in the Alps.”
Cardinal Kasper’s address, published in L’Osservatore Romano, noted that recent years had seen openness to dialogue with Rome from the “ecclesial Communities born from the Reformation.”
“A certain agreement has been reached in the realm of the truths of faith” and “in many places, there is fruitful collaboration in the social and humanitarian sphere” characterized by “mutual trust and friendship,” motivated by a “profound desire for unity.”
“The Anglican Communion’s divisions over sexual ethics have harmed its ecumenical dialogue with Rome, the head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity has claimed.”
================================================
The statement “”The Anglican Communion’s divisions over sexual ethics have harmed its ecumenical dialogue with Rome….” evokes two immediate comments from me.
The first comment is that I was given first hand testimony of the homosexual domination of a Roman Catholic seminary in the United States by a friend over ten years ago when I was a dinner guest at his home in Northern Virginia. My friend, a devout Roman Catholic, had been a seminarian at that seminary. He and a fellow seminarian, both heterosexual in inclination, had been ‘marginalized’ and essentially ‘sent to Coventry’ by a large majority of both student and faculty homosexuals at the seminary. The pressure became great enough that it caused him to quit the seminary, but it did not cause him to quit the Roman Catholic Church. When I last spoke with him, he was happily married, the proud father of two girls and still active in his Roman belief.
The second comment is second hand, but it comes from someone who has actively interacted with Roman Catholic priests with heterosexual inclinations. The gist of the comment is that the percentage of Roman Catholic priests in the United States who are homosexual is very high and it is causing/has caused serious problems for the Roman Church. I would not repeat this information if I were not very highly sure of the objectivity and integrity of my source.
So my question for the “Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity” regarding sexuality has to do with what has the Roman Church done with “the log in its eye” on the matter homosexual behavior on the part of the Roman Church.
I am liturgically ‘high church’ and Anglo-Catholic and strongly support ecumenical dialogue between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Church, but if the Roman Church is going to raise sexuality issues, then that church should not “judge” the Anglican Communion “lest it be judged.”
I do not believe the gay/liberal agenda folk care a wit about the effects of their position. Getting their way in ECUSA is all important. Once achieved, they will simply move on to destroy another Christian Church, then another, etc.
What the Catholic Church (the Vatican in this case) has done about “the log in it’s eye” is issue a document stating that persons of persistent homosexual inclination should not be admitted to seminaries. Moreover, there have been two rounds of visitations to the American seminaries to address this issue, among others. For these two actions alone we have been vilified. It’s a “witchhunt” you see. You can also see a shift in the bishops being appointed. My now deceased bishop, a good man of distinctly liberal leanings, has been replaced by a stalwart man dedicated to the Catholic Faith and the people of this diocese. The days of Rembert Weakland are past. Mainly, we have stood firm in the historic belief that same-sex attractions are disordered and that same-sex acts are sinful. What we haven’t done is elevate to the episcopacy a man who plans a June wedding with his boyfriend.
#3, Words Matter,
Point well taken. This is an area where none of us can boast. The best thing that any of us can do to promote better ecumenical relations and eventual reunion is to clean up the mess in our own tradition, whether Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, or whatever. By taking responsibility for reforming ourselves, we make our churches more fit to enter into closer ties with the rest of the universal Church.
But we orthodox Anglicans have a special responsibility to make it clear that the movement called “Affirming Catholicism” does NOT represent either authentically catholic Christianity or authentic Anglicanism. This is even more important because many bishops are publicly identified with the movement, including the Archbishop of Canterbury.
David Handy+
AnglicanFirst may believe that the Roman Church is in no position to say anything critical about Anglican sexual ethics, especially those dominant in the institution formerly known as ECUSA, and he may have a point. Except for the fact that the Roman Church has yet to give homosexual behavior sacramental status.
In the mid-1980’s as a R.C. permanent deacon I attended two graduate classes at each of three RC seminaries. The first was used by various RC orders, not diocesan,and was approximately 75% gay men (who were quite cool and actually openly distant towards me); the other 25% or so were women and were friendly. At the other two seminaries (mostly diocesan) I guessed the proportion that was gay men was less – maybe 25%. These two student bodies were a bit cool, but less hostile than the first one was. I went on to become a parish director of religious education and our diocesan D.R.E. association (of fifty or so) was 40 women and 10 men all of whom were gay.
In my limited experience it seemed the “don’t ask don’t tell” of the military appeared to be at work, at least in this diocese. (Five of the eight priests I served with were gay, but I don’t believe more than three were active in the gay lifestyle. I have no idea of other parishes in my diocese and I was not aware of any of them molesting youngsters. JimA EMC
NO! This can’t be true! Several lib/prog/reapp commentators here have insisted that the actions of ECUSA/TEC have had NO effect on RC-AC dialogues! They wouldn’t prevaricate would they? WE had this discussion after Frankie was forced off the ‘Mariolatry’ dialogue results (recall this was after the VGR ‘incident’ and Frank abated the field so as not to poison the results). Hmm, Kasper apparently has not heard.
#6 makes an important point: the VAST majority of Catholic priests, including with same-sex attractions, have never molested a child. Yes, most of the molestation cases in the American Catholic Church were homosexual in nature, but even if half of the diocesan priesthood were same-sex oriented, the percentage of molesting priests would still be under 10%. Put the other way, 90% or more of those priests with same-sex attractions haven’t ever touched a boy. The percentages for homosexually and heterosexually oriented priests are almost certainly better than for men in general.
It should also be pointed out that the vast majority of Roman Catholics are NOT from the United States.
Like TEC with the Anglican Communion, just because a situation exists in the American branch, that does NOT mean it is widespread or desirable for the rest of that Church throughout the world.
It is a misguided American imperialism that has invaded the US brand of Christianity that makes us think our view has to be adopted by the rest of the world.
The Vatican is right to go slowly in ecumencial talks.
“The Anglican Communion’s divisions over sexual ethics have harmed its ecumenical dialogue with Rome”
A charitably mild statement.
I’m amazed that the Vatican is still wasting its time thinking about reaching some sort of agreement with “Anglicanism.” What the Vatican should get out the recent events in Anglicanism is that there is no one in Anglicanism with whom to agree on theological matters.
Whatever statement ARCIC or other groups might be able to formulate, because there is no teaching authority in Anglicanism, no Anglican is in fact obligated to accept anything ARCIC or a similar group might agree upon. We’ve already seen, through the example of the Lambeth decision on homosexuality, the Windsor Report, the proposed Anglican covenant, etc., that large parts of Anglicanism are fundamentally unwilling to agree to any binding statement of common beliefs among Anglicans. Any binding agreement on the role of Mary, the papacy, etc. would be equally rejected as being contrary to the purely individualistic grab-bag approach to theology adopted by TEC and most parts of Anglicanism in the first world.
The Anglican members of ARCIC or a similar group can speak for themselves and no one else. You could just as easily reach an meaningful agreement with a bowl of Jell-O. I’m amazed that the Vatican is still even thinking about the possibility of ecumenical progress with Anglicanism. It’s a fundamentally pointless exercise unless Anglicanism were to change in such a way that Anglicanism was defined by binding common beliefs with some person or body competent to define what those beliefs are. That seems highly unlikely to happen.
Rome just isn’t “listening”…thats all.
#11, Jason S,
You’ve put your finger on a crucial point, a raw nerve, if you will, that makes me wince with pain. Our celebrated “diversity” and “comprehensiveness” makes meaningful dialogue almost impossible. We do indeed suffer enormously because of our lack of theological clarity and cohesiveness, compounded and aggravated by our lack of any universally recognized body that can adjudicate disputes across provincial boundaries.
You seem to lament that the creation of such a living magisterium is “highly unlikely.” And humanly speaking, I suppose I’d have to agree. There is FIERCE resistance to the whole idea in many segments of worldwide Anglicanism. But if such a major and radical developemnt were to take place (miraculously), that would reflect a tremendous change in the whole character of Anglicanism. That would not be merely a case of “renewal,” rather it would represent nothing less than a “Reformation.”
Precisely. It’s one of many reasons why I am firmly coninced that a New Reformation is exactly what we desperately need.
David Handy
Passionate Supporter of that New Reformation
While it is a certitude that homosexual men have always been called into ministry over the centuries, for the most part, they hav enot made an issue of their orientation and have probably also for the most part, kept to their vows of celibacy or the rubrics of Scripture.
It has only been relatively recently in the reappraising west (USA, W. Europe, Canada, etc.) that the homosexualist agenda has gained political traction and an open push towards acceptance of homoerotic sex by ignoring tradition and scripture.
To say that the ’60s probably opened the flood gates to this process is merely to state the obvious.
The differences as I see them are these:
1) Within TEC, ACoC, CofE, etc., much of the apparatus of power and institution has been fully captured by the homosexualists and they are remorselessly pushing their agenda. They are happy in celebrating the sin, the sinner and losing any grasp on the concept of sin.
2) With the RCC, the problem has been clearly seen for the destructive thing that it is and Rome is now taking appropriate action; to try to keep homosexuals from the seminaries, to replace those bishops who’s liberal leadership enabled the homosexualist agenda, with fully orthodox bishops and finally, to return deliberately to the majesty of the tradition of the church.
#8: And that da ta comes from where? LM
The data for priests is from the John Jay study commissioned by the Catholic bishops. Here is a summary page regarding prevalence: [url=http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/prev2.pdf]John Jay College Study[/url]. They say the overall rate is 4%, although it varies widely from diocese to diocese. That rate is consistent with Fr. Andrew Greeley’s opinion, published long before the John Jay study. Whatever you think of Fr. Greeley, he’s a heck of a sociologist. Phillip Jenkins, in [i]Pedophiles and Priests[/i] reported on a study in the Archdiocese of Chicago which found something like 3.4% of priests had accusations lodged against them, with about a third of those cases being clearly bogus. He referred to a Boston study with essentially the same results.
Father Donald Cozzens, in [i]The Changing Face of the Priesthood: A reflection on the priest’s crisis of soul[/i], claimed that 50% of priests had a homosexual orientation. Here’s more discussion of the subject: Homosexual orientation among Roman Catholic priests. Obviously, there is wide disagreement on the subject.
If I may digress, here is a point where “words matter”: it’s important to distinguish between those men who suffer from same-sex attraction and live faithful, chaste lives, those who espouse the homosexualist ideology, while maintaining personal celibacy, and those who simply live a lie, maintaining a priestly facade while engaging in a same-sex relationship, a series of relationships, or casual sex. Hence, when someone speaks of a “gay priest”, or “gays in the priesthood”, it’s wise to ask for definitions.
The rate of offense among men in general is problematic. The John Jay study notes that
“we do not have data reflecting the prevalence of abusers”, with reference to the general population. I once overheard a woman on television say 5% to 10% of men commit abuse, which started me looking for some figure to compare to the rate among priests. The best I ever got was in a conversation at a sex abuse conference with a researcher who gave me his opinion that the rate is about 8%. That’s the rate I use, but advisedly. My point in #8 was that the vast majority of Catholic priests are not child abusers, including the homosexually oriented ones. In fact, the majority of priests (something like 65%-80%) had one accusation, some no more significant than a kiss in a moment of weakness.
This is from Sexual Abuse in Social Context: Clergy and Other Professionals
In 2001, clinical child psychologist Wade F. Horn reported on the work of researchers at Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health. The researchers found that nearly 20 percent of low-income women, recruited through family planning, obstetrical or gynecological clinics, had experienced child sexual abuse.
Horn summarized the researchers’ findings on poor women as follows: “Family friends and acquaintances compose the largest group of perpetrators (28 percent), followed by such relatives as uncles and cousins (18 percent), stepfathers (12 percent), male siblings (10 percent), biological fathers (10 percent), boyfriends of the child’s mother (9 percent), grandfathers and stepgrandfathers (7 percent), and strangers (4 percent).â€
Note that the largest single group of perpetrators was family friends (28%), but the total of family members was 64%.
The data for schools is also included in the same report, drawing from In loco parentis: Sexual abuse of students in schools, (What administrators should know) by Charol Shakeshaft and Audrey Cohan.
But your data does not touch a crucial element, the number of men who did not report a priest. Given the number who did speak up, the implication ( unknowable) is that there is a enormous number of men who would say nothing for all sorts of acceptable reasons, e.g., “I don’t want my wife and children to know.” Moreover, the number of homosexuals in seminaries who were active is apparently very large, for the books I read spoke of large numbers of priests trolling homosexual bars at night with their teachers, and many heterosexual seminarians have complained bitterly that they were exiled because they were heterosexuals in a seminary that was literally controlled by homosexuals.
Finally, given the last half of your comment , are we to conclude that the homosexual abuse issue in the priesthood is much overrated and overstated? That it is minor compared to the broader social issue? (I have to say also, that I do not trust work done by priests on the subject of the priesthood any more than I trust research done on, say, learning to read done by professional educators.)LM
Non-reporting, particularly due to homosexual embarrassment, would be an across-the-board issue and wouldn’t affect the percentages for comparison purposes. Secrecy is a critical factor in sex abuse, in families, schools, and religious groups, and permeats the whole process. As I will note below, the bishops (who I blame for the whole business) were only acting exactly in accord with cultural norms. That doesn’t excuse them; it’s just a fact.
Well, [i]of course[/i] there are large numbers of seminarians, and others, acting out. The Catholic Church is huge – my middling sized parish has an ASA higher than several of the smaller TEC dioceses – and there are large numbers of people in any category you want to name. That’s why we have to talk in percentages. I hesitate to say that any sexual abuse is “minor”, but the Catholic problem is part of a larger social issue. The fact is that your kids are (statistically) safer in church than at a family reunion.
If research done by people who know something about the subject is a problem for you, then… well… ok. The fact is that the John Jay study wasn’t done by priests but by professional researchers. Phillip Jenkins, btw, is a sociologist (historian?) and an ex-Catholic Episcopalian. His [i]Pedophiles and Priests[/i] is a must-read on the subject. However, if you want to believe that the Catholic bishops have engaged in a massive cover-up then believe it. There is some evidence of some cover-up, but, again, but that all misses the main point of the whole problem, which is the same problem killing the Episcopal Church.
The main point of the scandal is the inculturation of the Catholic Church into American culture, particularly as displayed by the failure of the bishops to rise above the therapeutic culture, the sexually lax cultural norms, and the corporate culture that had them listening to lawyers than to their people. It’s not about sex, but about the failure of shepherds to keep the wolves out of the pasture and tend to the sheep who were injured by the few real predators. It’s about bishops (and priests and laypeople) desperate to prove they belong in the U.S. It’s the same problem as allowing CINO (Catholic in Name Only) politicians receive Communion. It’s about choosing Caesar over Christ, an act of worship as real, if not as obvious, as offering incense to the emperor. The good news is that the Catholic Church can self-correct, since we transcend the culture.