How Do Actively Gay Catholic Clergy Understand Themselves?

By -
Much of the discussion about actively gay Catholic clergy have centered on the question of "What has gone wrong here?" Some answers have pointed to the decline in sexual morals in our modern age while others indicated that the real problem lies with the antiquated rules of the Catholic Church.

But this morning I was struck by an orthogonal question: "How do actively gay Catholic clergy themselves understand what they are up to?" After all, they are the public face of an institution the doctrines of which stand adamantly opposed to their lifestyle. A few of them, like James Martin, publicly reject those doctrines. And a few of them are probably merely cynical: "Hey, I've got a decent job, and I get access to lots of guys!"

But I am suspicious that we might find a form of esotericism at work in many cases, where there is a (sincere) belief that the doctrines of the Church are, indeed, sound for the masses, while those who truly understand the concealed meaning of Christ's teachings are justified in ignoring them.

Of course, by the very nature of esotericism, it is difficult to discover a practitioner's true beliefs: these are, quite rightly per esoteric doctrine, only to be revealed to the few who can understand and bear them.

So, has someone out there looked into this? And what have they found?

Comments

  1. mistah charley, ph.d.9:21 AM

    that's an excellent question - i imagine some take the "esotericist" position you propose,

    some sincerely reject Humanae vitae in all its profound misunderstanding of sexuality, for both the masses and the upper classes,

    and there may well be some who wish they could stop doing what they consider sinful and regret their compulsion to carry on

    one shouldn't assume that priests are any more coherent and internally consistent than most people

    with regard to esotericism in general -

    when jesus was asked by his disciples why he spoke in parables, he allegedly said something like "so that those who get it will get it, and so that those who don't get it won't get it"

    Matt. 13:10-17

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more