What’s Wrong with the World

Shoot. Also darn. And I'm not Catholic, but still.

Is this 'The Vatican' speaking or some PC guy who works in the press office? my guess is the latter.
PLEASE Holy Father get a grip on the loose cannons wandering round the cura

Didn't "John Paul the Great" kiss the Koran a few years ago?

Mosques today, churches tomorrow. The Vatican knows it. Once one religion needs the permission of the State to operate, all religions are on sufferance until they, too, pose a threat to the perceived interests of the State.

Given that Switzerland isn't exactly a bastion of the Culture of Life, it's not even all that hard to figure out where the Catholic Church is most likely to make the Swiss state feel threatened.

Peace,
--Peter

The Church is full of faggots and European libearls all of whom need to be swept out of leadership. I'm not sure what that will take, but this is pathetic. Why won't the Church condemn the gazillion sleights to religious freedom in the Muslim world or the fact that Islam is a political program masquerading as a religion?

Oh, Good Grief! All the article said was:

The comment by a Vatican spokesman followed criticism from across Europe.

THIS IS NOT THE VATICAN SPEAKING. It is a spokesman who may or may not reflect the position of the Pope. Why, Steve, are you quoting the Telegraph, a British publication? There is no mention of this in Zenit, an Italian publication, which does a far more comprehensive job of reporting about the Church. In fact, since this post is about muscular Christianity, a recent article in Zenit carried the title:

Vatican: Priests Need Rambo-esque Spiritual Muscle

I do not mean to be harsh, at all, but THE VATICAN has not really issued a definitive opinion on this. Don't get overly upset.

The Chicken

Mosques today, churches tomorrow. The Vatican knows it. Once one religion needs the permission of the State to operate, all religions are on sufferance until they, too, pose a threat to the perceived interests of the State.

Exactly. Islamization is bad news, but an emboldened secularism is no picnic either.

How ignorant are you? You know France is that same place that banned burqas in the classroom and is debating banning the burqa in public. The fact that the French are condemning this is significant, because the French have in fact not been accommodating to Muslims. But pulling your best imitation of Jonah Goldberg, you're too busy filling your narrative to allow facts to get in the way.

JP2 did kiss the Koran.

It is just a Vatican spokesman, but are random spokesmen allowed to say whatever they wish without it reflecting the prevailing beliefs of the church? It sounds like something the church might say, so I'm not that suspicious.

That the French FM condemned it doesn't mean much. For all we know he condemns his own country's burqa ban. The Swiss government wasn't ecstatic about it either, for that matter. The line is pretty much the same everywhere, that it infringes on religious freedom. Not sure why; a minaret is an architectural feature, and mosques are not required to have them.

In any case, this was a referendum, so don't be looking for the political or academic elites to be changing their tune anytime soon.

Steve,

I think you just have to look at the guy with the hammer at the top of this website to see the traditional Catholic response to minaret-building.

The Swiss are not morally obligated to permit all types of architecture, religious or otherwise.

Nor are they morally obligated to give equal place to all religions and to all religious practices. The other side of religious freedom is the freedom to be against some religions, or all of them. Freedom isn't just for the advocates of a religion, but also for its opponents. After all, some opponents of some religions are exactly right.

Who is this unnamed Vatican spokesman? Is he the Secretary of State? The Vatican has to make cooing noises for the sake of millions of Catholics and Christians in Muslim countries. The Vatican has always been nervous on their account, tranquil Mohammedans might mistake latrine cleaners for Swiss high rollers.

Mosques today, churches tomorrow. The Vatican knows it. Once one religion needs the permission of the State to operate, all religions are on sufferance until they, too, pose a threat to the perceived interests of the State.

When the state came for the worshipers of Quetzalcoatl and Kali, I said nothing...

Anyone who follows Catholic news knows that "Vatican spokesman" means any one of hundreds of insignificant staffers. Most of us are accustomed to a governing body which "leaks" information intentionally like this to make an unofficial point. That would ascribe far more media savvy and interest to the Curial Offices than are warranted. It is a famously divided, amorphous, and confused body of career ecclesiastics. The Vatican is wildly permissive of this loose system, much to the chagrin of many Catholics accustomed to a more business-like approach.

I greet this "revelation" with the same level of notice as "Pope condemns Harry Potter," "Vatican Hates Twilight," and "Cars Newest Deadly Sin--Catholic Church."

To answer Matt Weber's question: Yes, random "spokesmen" are allowed to say whatever they want.

George R. is quite right about the traditional Catholic response.

Or, put differently, contemporary Vatican spokesmen can credibly and consistently condemn Switzerland for its decision as soon as Vatican City permits minarets. Until then, Vatican spokesmen, official or unofficial, ought to hold their peace.

Roach,

First of all, I love your new blog design. But I come not to praise but to condemn -- what's with the gratuitous use of one of the f-words? Everything else you say makes a lot of sense but it just seemed jarring to me to read someone comment here use that word.

Oh, come on, Mr. Spokesman.

Mosques today, churches tomorrow. The Vatican knows it. Once one religion needs the permission of the State to operate, all religions are on sufferance until they, too, pose a threat to the perceived interests of the State.

That is a fair point. The Vatican is in an awkward position - say nothing (a possible option) and then when the state wants to confiscate or limit the Church's operation, have your silence on the referendum thrown back at you, or say something, and be accused of appeasing Islam, etc.

I suppose a via media might have been to criticise the ban, along with criticism of bans or retrictions on church building in Muslim countries - a kind of "we don't want to stoop to their pathetic level" comment.

I, too, object to Roach's language. It's not my thread, but for myself, I say, bag it, Roach.

Lydia,

The Church is full of faggots

Is homosexuality not rampant among the RCC's priesthood in the West? The RCC ignored clear biblical instruction that church leaders are not to be sexually immoral. As I recall from a discussion on this blog, the RCC's justification for allowing homosexuals to become priests is that if they're celibate, it's just temptation.

I wonder what Paul and Peter would have said about the church not letting priests get married easily, but allowing homosexuals that promise to be celibate in as priests...

I'm not defending Roach's tone per se, but it seems to my cynical mind that the RCC has, on certain issues rationalized its positions right out of the very tradition it claims to defend. If Roman Catholics from 500 years ago could see the rampant homosexuality and generally conciliatory tone toward Islam, the Great Schism probably would have been ended in a coup at the Vatican.

I mentioned _language_. "Open, practicing, even activist homosexuals" would have done much better.

Mike T, you need to be a little more careful. There are indeed a number of gay priests, unfortunately. However, none of these were made priests at the approval of Rome. The formal Roman policy, when last enunciated (so far as I know, anyway), is _still_ that a homosexual man should not present himself for the priesthood, and the diocese should not accept him, because he is not satisfactory material for the priesthood. The fact that some (in this country, many) bishops didn't care what Rome says does not mean that the RCC accepts homosexual priests. Insofar as there is a specific RCC position on this point, it has to be the official position stated by the Vatican, and that still opposes homosexuals becoming priests.

Tony,

Then why does the Vatican not excommunicate everyone involved? Given the severity of it all, the Vatican could even go so far as to also formally lift all restrictions on marriage so that it could widen its pool of candidates.

Aren't we getting a little OT?

Pardon the tone. I realize there are good, decent, not-messed-up-in-the-head priests out there. But I'm an irrascible Irishman, and I generally let my "yeahs be yeahs." No offense to the Church. But I see no reason to use polite language for these people destroying my Church.

I wonder what Paul and Peter would have said about the church not letting priests get married easily, but allowing homosexuals that promise to be celibate in as priests...

How is this any different than a priest tempted to masturbate, watch porn, or just sin in general? A temptation to sin is not itself a sin nor is it specifically condemned. Human beings are tempted in different ways. Sometimes we forsake sin and sometimes sin forsakes us.

People should avoid near occasions of sin. Living barracks style with other men is a near occasion of sin for homosexuals. Plus, homosexuals are generally effete, weird, mentally disturbed and generally not the people any man or young boy in Church looking for a role model and for someone to tell him how to live is going to look up to. We don't need misfits and weirdos of all types in the priesthood, and the fags are making us think that priests are these limp-wristed pansies we see in all too many Catholic Churches rather than the masculine dudes that looked like linebackers serving as chaplains on Iwo Jima.

Lydia,

Aren't we getting a little OT?

Not really, as it is relevant to the general topic of the church taking a strong stance on anything which might be construed as, you know, "muscular Christianity."

Kurt,

How is this any different than a priest tempted to masturbate, watch porn, or just sin in general?

Because homosexuality has generally been regarded as a deviant nature, rather than a deviant, isolated act.

Roach - don't frighten the horses!

You write: "homosexuals are generally effete, weird, mentally disturbed..."

...well, not all that much more than average, in my extensive experience...

You continue: "...and generally not the people any man or young boy in Church looking for a role model and for someone to tell him how to live is going to look up to..." etc.

Probably true.

"We don't need misfits and weirdos of all types in the priesthood, and the fags are making us think that priests are these limp-wristed pansies we see in all too many Catholic Churches rather than the masculine dudes that looked like linebackers serving as chaplains on Iwo Jima."

So what ever happened to the "masculine dudes?" How did they get driven out by a pack of "limp-wristed pansies?"

For crying out loud, Roach. I support the Church's position that those with same-sex attraction should not present themselves to be priests (or nuns, if they have lesbian inclinations), and that vocation boards should refuse them if they do. I'm not Catholic, but I think the position makes sense. I think it can be reasonably defended. But your defense just doesn't sound reasonable.

Doubtless this will fall into the "too much information" category, but, as a heterosexual guy who has, nonetheless, been the object of numerous gay pickup attempts, I can state quite definitively that plenty of "masculine dudes" play for the other team. Some of them even try when you're out in public with your wife and sons.

As regards the matter of homosexuality as a sin, the remarks in this Ochlophobist post strike me as sensible and balanced. Where the priesthood is concerned, the unsuitability of homosexuals is obvious. What is not obvious to many is that this unsuitability is not unique, that each form of unsuitability will have its own consequences. For example, I'd not make a good candidate for the (Orthodox) priesthood, because I am irascible - and they'd likely observe as much and tell me so. The reason for this is not so much that an irascible man might well lash out at people and bring the Church into disrepute, drive people away, etc., though all those things are true. The reason is that an irascible man can be excessively prideful, and a proud man will be absolutely dreadful in pastoral work, as well as a danger to his own soul in ministry.

Right. And about those Swiss minarets. . .

MIke:

Then why does the Vatican not excommunicate everyone involved? Given the severity of it all, the Vatican could even go so far as to also formally lift all restrictions on marriage so that it could widen its pool of candidates.

Mike, the Vatican could easily start excommunicating some of the worst offenders. But only certain offenses are subject to the censure of excommunication, and being a homosexual priest (i.e. having the orientation) is not one of them. Nor (at a guess, I haven't looked it up in Canon Law) is choosing to ordain such a man. So, if the RCC is going to abide by its own laws, it cannot excommunicate most of them merely on account of the orientation.

In theory, there probably are sufficient grounds in Canon Law for most of the worst offending bishops to be removed. Much more unfortunately (for the Church, that is), the Vatican has shown a very decided distaste for removing bishops (or priests) from office, at least since the 1960s. This is IMHO a terrible burden for the Church faithful, but there it is. The Vatican most of the time refuses to exercise its office of authority in a penal manner no matter what the provocation, and this naturally has its consequences: just as in any other organization, failure to penalize those who violate the principles of the organization tends toward encouraging further abuse and toward destroying the organization itself.

As for the idea that the Vatican could go so far as to also formally lift all restrictions on marriage so that it could widen its pool of candidates , that would be a solution worse than the problem. At the moment, the gay priest problem is limited to between 1-5 % of the priests, pretty minor in terms of total numbers. To eradicate all restrictions on priests marrying would be, in effect, to change in a very fundamental manner the meaning and purpose of the priesthood itself, and NOT for the better.

In any case, the reason there are too few priests is NOT because of the restrictions on priests marrying: certain dioceses have _plenty_ of (heterosexual) candidates for the priesthood as it is, particularly those dioceses which maintained the high standards and traditional meaning of the priesthood without monkeying around with the progressive revolution. It is generally those dioceses which bought into the modern priest claptrap that are having problems finding men who would want to be a priest under those conditions (who would want to...well, gays might).

But Lydia is right, this is not really on topic, except as another instance of the Church at the highest levels failing to exercise muscle it its own interest.

While I agree with Maximos that there is a sufficient theoretical basis for a government to distinguish between the acts of one religion versus those of another religion in fostering or putting the brakes on religious practices, I am less confident that this a good example of that theoretical principle.

It may be that the right place to exercise the appropriate cultural protection of Christian mores and sensibilities was in laying down the law before accepting tens of thousands of Muslims into the country. I believe that a country full of Christians has every right to establish a Christian state, and such a state has every right to restrain visitors who do not share its Christianity from erecting new customs at odds with the religion professed by the state. But those non-citizens (including permanent resident aliens) will intermarry and/or have children, and the status of those children as citizens is the crux of the problem: If you give them full citizen status even though they are the children of non-Christian outsiders who reside in the country at sufferance, you create huge problems. So to avoid those problems, you need to restrict their status as citizens - which means that they could end up having no citizenship anywhere, and various other problems.

In any case, the notion that the government must be absolutely neutral toward all religious practice is sheer bunk - it cannot be done, even if you want to, and there are plenty of reasons not to want to (Moloch worship, anyone?).

In any case, the notion that the government must be absolutely neutral toward all religious practice is sheer bunk - it cannot be done, even if you want to, and there are plenty of reasons not to want to (Moloch worship, anyone?).

Next time a "tolerance" fanatic gets hot and bothered about people saying they won't support atheist or Muslim candidates, ask them how they would feel about someone who worships the Aztec pantheon, Kali or Ba'al running for office.

If they get bothered, then remind them it's like that old joke about prostitution. We've already established what they are/how far they will go. We're just now haggling over the price/limit.

Lydia, here's a longer piece I wrote on gay priests for your review:

http://mansizedtarget.com/2005/09/16/a-defense-of-the-churchs-policy-on-gay-priests/

The Church is full of faggots ...

I can you understand writing "The Church is up to her arse in faggots..." but your statement seems insensitive.

I'm not sure what that will take, but this is pathetic. Why won't the Church condemn the gazillion sleights to religious freedom in the Muslim world or the fact that Islam is a political program masquerading as a religion?

The Catholic Church is polite. It is waiting for the first condemnation of Islam to come from America -which is filled with nukes,faggots, atheists, greenies, vegans,commies, warmists, white supremacists, deniers, birthers, truthers, and those who watch The View.