Note from Pray Tell Editorial Committee: The convergence of sex, politics, and liturgy certainly makes for interesting – and sometimes explosive – reading. A recent book published by theologian David Berger has been gaining international attention along these lines.
Berger’s book Der heilige Schein. Als schwuler Theologe in der katholischen Kirche. (“The Holy Illusion. Being a Gay Theologian in the Catholic Church”) presents a first-person account of his experiences within inner circles of highly placed European Catholic traditionalists, from which he was ejected when it became known that he was openly gay. The world and experience which he describes combines homosexuality with homophobia in a particularly manipulative, punitive and toxic way. All of these matters, finally, are linked to liturgy in his account.
True problems frankly and courageously exposed? An exercise in pique from a theologian who lost his job? Pray Tell will be inviting a liturgical scholar to review the book and put it into perspective for our readers. In the meantime, to give you an idea of what people are talking about, here is our translation of “Die parfümierten Traditionalisten,” which appeared in the December 7, 2010 issue of Der Tages-Anzieger in Zurich, Switzerland. Stay tuned.
* * * * *
The Perfumed Traditionalists
By Michael Meier
Theologian David Berger describes the Latin Mass as a homosexual subculture. His book Der heilige Schein strikes a raw nerve in the clerical establishment and the Ratzinger pontificate.
Pure male-only world: The Society of St. Pius X, founded by Marcel Lefebvre, celebrates priestly ordination in Ecône, Switzerland. Picture: Keystone
David Berger: Der heilige Schein. Als schwuler Theologe in der katholischen Kirche. (“The Holy Illusion. Being a Gay Theologian in the Catholic Church.”) Ullstein-Verlag, Berlin 2010. 300 pages.
The conservative turn under Pope Benedict XVI is seen especially clearly in the return to the old liturgy and in sharpened homophobia. In his book, German theologian David Berger explains what the one has to do with the other. Der heilige Schein (“The Holy Illusion”) may well disturb church officials more than they will ever admit.
Until recently David Berger was the theologian on the pedestal in traditionalist circles: publisher and chief editor of Theologisches, the most important conservative theological journal in Germany; professor at the Papal Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas; reader for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; and member of the order of knights of Jasna Gora. The theologian, born in 1968, had access to the ultraconservative networks of the St. Pius society, the Legionaries of Christ, and Opus Dei. He owed his rapid career rise in the Roman male-only church establishment to his intelligence. And his athletic youthfulness.
Bound by Tender Kisses
As his homosexuality and his life with a partner at his side became public, his career ended abruptly. He resigned from the journal in April in anticipation of being thrown out. His outing in the Frankfurtuer Rundschau newspaper under the title “I cannot keep silence any longer” led to his expulsion from the Papal Academy of St. Thomas and attracted international attention.
Everything began with his fascination for the old Mass, a gateway drug for so many gay men who are magically attracted to a religious fairy tale world. Today Berger sees the Latin liturgy, which presents the sacred in an overemphasis on the aesthetic, as essentially a “product of homosexual sublimation.”
Undisturbed by Women
No feminine creature sullies the image of this pure male-only world. Tradition-oriented clergy are tenderly joined to one another by hand kissing, foot kissing, or ritual foot washing. Here they can live out their passion for brocade, Belgian lace, tassels, and cloth trains. According to Berger, the market trade for ecclesiastical vestments is firmly in homosexual hands. He learned from the “finely perfumed traditionalism” of writer Martin Mosebach that the old Mass is really about aesthetics, art for its own sake, such as was cultivated by the homoerotically shaded literati Gustave Flaubert, Charles Baudelaire, Oscar Wilde, or Stefan George. All this, like homoerotic love itself, has found a home outside the realm of morality, in the uselessly beautiful. But the Church condemns its inconsequence in the form of childlessness.
Homosexual priests who cannot live out their sexuality “succeed in sublimating their erotic feelings through the aesthetic of the traditional male-only liturgy.” Forbidden drives and desires are diverted in cultically recognized ways of acting. Berger thus explains the militant homophobia of aesthetes in traditionalist quarters.
The Key to the Ratzinger Pontificate
The promise in the book’s blurb to offer the key to the scandals of the Roman Church is almost an understatement. It offers the key to the Ratzinger pontificate as a whole. Under Benedict, who has readmitted the old Latin Mass, “a new haute couture wind is blowing.” The Pope is restoring the aesthetic always cultivated by the St. Pius society through pontifical delight in expensive vestments from Moiréseide, damask, and ermine. And in the tow of its holy façade he brings into the church its right-wing ideology, namely its anti-Semitism. Catchword: restored petitions for the conversion of the Jews, or the rehabilitation of the Holocaust denier Richard Williamson.
It is also symptomatic that Benedict, shortly after his assumption of office in 2005, blocked admission of homosexuals to the priesthood. For Berger, sharpened homophobia is the expression of subtle strategies of repression and projection: the most militant gay foes are oftentimes themselves homosexual and fight their own dark shadows in other people. Oftentimes a bad conscience is behind a theologian especially loyal to the Pope: gay priests who don’t fully succeed at renouncing their sexuality compensate for their “misdeeds” by becoming combatants, with arch-Catholic positions, for the axis of the good.
Very Subtle Blackmail
The theologian illustrates this most convincingly with the example of the sex scandals in St. Pölten, Austria. One of the photos which went round the world in 2004 showed the vice rector of the seminary there giving a tongue kiss to another priest. The seminary was closed, the guilty clergymen were suspended from office. But the vice rector, a good friend and doctoral student of the canon lawyer and private secretary to Ratzinger, Georg Gänswein, denied the accusations as a conspiracy of liberal princes of the Church. After he transformed himself into a convinced devotee of the traditionalist liturgy, the Church quietly lifted his suspension and allowed him to return to do pastoral work. Another example: The chief editor of the Catholic newspaper L’Avvenire, Dino Boffo, was a stalwart defender of papal sexual morality. Until he was outed as a homosexual by the newspaper Il Giornale and dismissed.
Discrete knowledge of the (homo)sexual lapses of its personnel somehow seems to come to the Church at just the right time. According to Berger, the Church willingly uses this knowledge as an instrument of subtle blackmail and exertion of power in order to make evildoers compliant. “The more reprehensible the misconduct, the greater the offering of obedience one can expect from the subordinate, right up to self-abandonment.”
For Berger himself the lapse was minor. The traditionalist website Kreuz.net, which proclaims without reserve its passion for the old Mass and its hatred of homosexuals, found a link to the Gay Games in Cologne in Berger’s Facebook profile and sought to play off his homosexuality against him. What the traditionalist milieu didn’t reckon with: David Berger outed himself and shined a light behind the pious illusions of the Church. With the cult of holy illusion, the Church would cast a mantel over its large proportion of gay clergy, and also over its many cases of sexual abuse. According to Berger, the Latin liturgy is a symptom of the divergence between fact and facade, and consequently for the façade of holiness, that is, the hypocrisy, of the Roman Church.



#1 by Fr. Allan J. McDonald on December 11, 2010 - 1:37 pm
Reply Quote
This book must be the mirror image of “Good Bye, Good Men.” In the 1970′s a certain very liberal seminary in Baltimore, where the liturgy was quite sterile, very progressive and women were studying for degrees and had high positions on the faculty and ecumenical ministerial students, male and female studied desk to desk with Catholic seminarians, the nickname was the “pink palace.” I always thought it was a bunch of hype about nothing. I wonder if this book is more of the same? Hyperbole rules supreme when one has an ax to grind. But I was puzzled by the term “campy” back then and why so many of the seminarians went to the “Rocky Horror Picture Show.”
Report Comment
#2 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on December 11, 2010 - 2:02 pm
Reply Quote
Fr. Allan, if you haven’t read the book by Berger, perhaps you should step back from comparing it with Michael Rose’s book.
Berger is a bright theologian (doctorate in the field). I’m not so sure that Michael Rose even claims to be a theologian. Rose holds that homosexual orientation and homosexual people is the problem. We need “good men” again. Berger, rather, discusses the problematic ways people do or don’t deal with their orientation. I think this is a significant difference. I find the former homophobic, but not the latter.
I wouldn’t lump Berger and Rose together.
awr
Report Comment
#3 by Samuel J. Howard on December 11, 2010 - 4:41 pm
Reply Quote
Fr. Ruff, this article repeats certain falsehoods that have been found in both early traditionalist blog posts and later translations of German media coverage.
“professor at the Papal Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas
I have yet to see any evidence that Berger held any kind of professorial position. He was a corresponding member of the Pontifical Academy of St Thomas Aquinas (which is rather a lesser thing than a “member of the Pontifical Academy of St Thomas Aquinas”). The Academy is not a theological faculty and does not have professors. It is not the same as the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (the Angelicum), with which Berger appears not to have been affiliated.
Report Comment
#4 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on December 11, 2010 - 5:56 pm
Reply Quote
Apparently the one word “professor” should be changed to “corresponding member.” Granting this, no one said anything about the Angelicum or that the academy is anything other than an academy. You say “falsehoods” – in the plural. Besides this, do you have others?
Report Comment
awr
#5 by Samuel J. Howard on December 11, 2010 - 7:16 pm
Reply Quote
Well, the whole idea that adherents to traditional liturgy are largely homosexual is false. (Something which I can testify to from my own personal experience.)
But I intensely question the idea that Berger was any kind of leading theologian.
His CV can be found here.
His Ph.D. was from a department specializing in religious education. A worthy study, but it’s not the usual place for rising stars. He appears not to have held any academic teaching post above the level of high school teacher.
To suggest that he was part of the inner circles of both Opus Dei and the SSPX is very odd. This are organizations with very different ways of proceeding.
Report Comment
#6 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on December 11, 2010 - 7:43 pm
Reply Quote
Samuel J. Howard writes: “Well, the whole idea that adherents to traditional liturgy are largely homosexual is false.” I’m sure it is. But I don’t see anyone making that claim here. What are you responding to?
Report Comment
awr
#7 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on December 11, 2010 - 7:55 pm
Reply Quote
Samuel J. Howard,
You really seem to want to discredit this guy – the same guy who was so prized and climbed so rapidly in traditionalist circles. Have you read the book? He documents quite well his extensive experience in this scene and his many interactions with Opus Dei and SSPX. (Yes, they’re very different from each other, but how is that relevant??)
I think his claim to credibility is primarily his experience and not his academic CV. But for the record, he was a corresponding professor of the papal academy, not just a corresponding member, and he held the position of “dozent” (i.e. teacher) in the academy. His dissertation on Thomas and pedagogy won the prize for the top dissertation of the year in Dortmund. And then he did his German “rehabilitation” (sort of a second doctorate) at the University of Lublin. “Hochschule” in German means “college” or “university” in our language. That’s the level he taught at.
See the German Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berger_(Theologe)
awr
Report Comment
#8 by Fr. Allan J. McDonald on December 11, 2010 - 3:44 pm
Reply Quote
My point was that people may or may not deal with their sexual orientation, and this could also be in the heterosexual sense of the word too, regardless of the style of seminary they attend. I don’t think stereotyping seminaries or institutions based upon liturgy or traditional verses progressive is the solution. Both persuasions if you will, have had and I suspect still have issues in terms of formation to help or stunt growth in celibate living. Both books evidently have an ax to grind. Is grinding axes the best way to promote healthy living amongst those in vows or promises regardless of the labels progressive and traditional?
Report Comment
#9 by Karl Liam Saur on December 11, 2010 - 4:06 pm
Reply Quote
I can recall that my uber-orthodox and homophobic pastor circa 1980 in the Diocese of Rockville Center believed that a homosexual orientation was a potential sign of a vocation to the priesthood or religious life. He was not alone, as far as I can tell.This man would have been horrified by a pick palace. You do the math.
Report Comment
#10 by George Andrews on December 11, 2010 - 4:29 pm
Reply Quote
Karl,
That was 30 years ago. The Church had not already shelled out billions — the lion’s’ share, 80%, to victims of homosexual priests–at that early stage of the experiment. Now it has.
Are homosexual priests more liable to betray the vow of celibacy? Unless the priesthood is 80% homosexual, statistically, the question has been anwered.
Report Comment
#11 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on December 11, 2010 - 5:35 pm
Reply Quote
I think it’s more complex than that.
This assumes that every single victim has spoken up, and thus we know the exact number of victims, male and female.
This assumes that everyone who abused a male is homosexual. Most probably are, but we don’t know for sure how many. (Macial abused males but also had two mistresses.)
This assumes that perpetrators of pedophile abuse of males are homosexual. But there is no 1 to 1 connection between orientation of perpetrator and gender of victims when it comes to pedophilia. A large proportion of the abuse was on victims under 14 – i.e., probably irrelevant to the claim you’re making.
I suspect that troubled homosexuals are not as able to observe their vows. Which is why so many products of the 1950s and early 1960s seminary probably did so poorly when society changed in the 60s. Blaming homosexuals or suggesting they can’t keep their vows could help contribute to more homosexuals being troubled – ie, harmful to the goal of fighting abuse and promoting faithful celibacy.
In short, we don’t have enough data for your claim, and the claim could do harm to the Church.
awr
Report Comment
#12 by Karl Liam Saur on December 11, 2010 - 7:26 pm
Reply Quote
Fr Ruff,
E.g., John Geoghan, who insisted that he was heterosexual but that touching boys did not therefore violate his vows in the way touching girls would have.
This kind of loopy thinking is hardly unique to this situation.
Report Comment
There’s lots of loopy thinking among ordinary Americans about how they classify sexual actions. President Clinton, for example, found large majorities of agreement with young people in how he classified his.
#13 by Sebastian Pollock on December 11, 2010 - 7:34 pm
Reply Quote
Fr Allan: I suggest you re-read Fr Andrew Greeley on the “lavender rectories”. This is far from imaginary stuff. The Church, alas, is rife with it.
Report Comment
#14 by claire bangasser on December 11, 2010 - 2:26 pm
Reply Quote
The only thing I know about homosexuality in the Catholic Church I learned from a gay priest who has now left the priesthood to live with the man of his life. He mentioned homosexuality in the Vatican where homosexual priests cannot live their orientation and thus become ‘perverts’ (his words), having many brief sexual encounters.
I do believe in projections and sense it is the case in the lot of homophobes who are just scared of their own orientation.
Will the Roman Catholic Church ever have the courage to face the question of sexuality? Will it ever be said that heterosexual and homosexual priests can lead a chaste and celibate life — when they are given the grace to do so?
I expect that for a lot of homosexual priests, having to hide their orientation, must at some point become intolerable.
Report Comment
#15 by Robert B. Ramirez on December 11, 2010 - 3:39 pm
Reply Quote
Pure male-only world:
LOL. In the picture I count more women than men.
Report Comment
#16 by David Cotter on December 11, 2010 - 3:50 pm
Reply Quote
The reviews at amazon.de are worth reading.
Report Comment
#17 by Rita Ferrone on December 11, 2010 - 5:38 pm
Reply Quote
The sales rank is extremely high, too. 300-something, as of this hour. There’s a lot of interest in this book.
Report Comment
#18 by Robert B. Ramirez on December 11, 2010 - 4:35 pm
Reply Quote
My observation is that the EF can appeal to all kinds of men. The men I know who’re devoted to the EF cherish its structure, dignity, nobility, tradition, teamwork, hierarchy, silence, and self-effacement. I have never seen anyone who showed attraction to the EF as an opportunity for queening about.
Report Comment
#19 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on December 11, 2010 - 5:42 pm
Reply Quote
I haven’t seen this either – but I’ve been to two Tridentine Masses in my life! One schismatic, one indult (under JP 2). Perhaps it’s different in large cities (where there are more open gays) than in rural areas – I don’t know.
Report Comment
awr
#20 by Jack Wayne on December 11, 2010 - 6:06 pm
Reply Quote
I would agree with Robert, at least from my own observations as a layman. I’ve seen the TLM in a lot of settings (ranging from urban Nosebleed-High Victorian Gothic church to lowly living room). One would be disappointed if they were looking for an overtly gay atmosphere at the Latin Mass.
I’ve never been to an SSPX Church, though.
Report Comment
#21 by Sebastian Pollock on December 11, 2010 - 7:32 pm
Reply Quote
I have never seen anyone who showed attraction to the EF as an opportunity for queening about.
Robert,
You must have led an extraordinarily sheltered life. England is full of EF-queens who delight in dressing up and parading about.
Report Comment
#22 by Robert B. Ramirez on December 13, 2010 - 9:49 am
Reply Quote
You must have led an extraordinarily sheltered life.
Have I? I’ve been to EF Masses at ten or so different spots in the US, and three or four across the Atlantic. I get around a bit.
England is full of EF-queens
“Beware of the Anglo-Catholics — they’re all sodomites with unpleasant accents.”
That was Waugh’s take on it.
I have been to two traditionalist liturgies in England. The Catholic one was at St. James’s, Spanish Place, and was no fuss and straight down the middle. The Anglo-Catholic one was also in central London. There the deacon struck me as a bit odd. I wouldn’t characterize it more than that. Maybe it was the head of big hair he had on. Odd. Of course I would not wish to imply anything about Anglo-Catholics as a group; I am very impressed by those preparing to be received into the Ordinariate. The learned and witty Fr. John Hunwicke’s blog is required reading for me.
I have read that sometimes EF communities acquire followings of elegantly dressed young men. I guess I can believe it, but haven’t seen it myself. And I’ve been to a few more EF liturgies, in a few more places, than our host admits to. How about you, Sebastian?
Report Comment
#23 by Jeremy Stevens on December 13, 2010 - 10:20 am
Reply Quote
Father Hunwicke’s OK when he sticks to liturgy. I could do without his anti-American jabs. Someone should remind him that our Greatest Generation did OK by the UK in their hour of need, and his constant bashing of the Iraq war sounds like something right off MSNBC or NPR. His concern for “poor old Tariq Azziz” is weird. There’s a guy who went to visit JP II just before the Iraq war with that gun-running Melkite Abp Cappucci who was released from jail by Israel after he got caught with those guns in his diplomatic immunity limo only because Paul VI promised he’d be in a monastery the rest of his life. Instead he shows up in Rome with Azziz and that little twerp Fr Benjamin, a former UN official who became a priest and recorded anti-USA rap CDs for his European audience (all of them too young to remember who bailed out their behinds back in 1941-45).
The first EF I went to the women in the back three pews complained until the gospel about some visiting women who didn’t have chapel veils on, and at the coffee hour in the hall after a bunch of people were complaining that the priest, a kind of youngish guy, didnt get some of the gestures right and I guess on Good Friday he had left out some word in the prayer for the Jews that Pope John had removed. They were annoyed about that. Then he walked in and everyone was “Good morning Father what a nice mass and sermon” and blah blah blah. Pretty much like an NO parish maybe even a little nastier. Other experiences have been better but boy do they like to complain about the priests not getting all the little movements just right.
Report Comment
#24 by Ray Marshall on December 11, 2010 - 5:44 pm
Reply Quote
The Homosexual Collective has many more issues than the Sixth Commandment in which they don’t agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church. That’s just their entry point.
First Commandment: Doubting articles of faith
Second Commandment: Breaking solemn vows.
Third Commandment: Celebrating Mass in the state of Mortal Sin is one of the greatest of sacrileges.
Fourth Commandment: Not obeying superiors
Fifth Commandment: Giving Scandal
Eighth Commandment: Lying and hypocrisy
In the vast majority of cases they would not agree with the Church on birth control, women priests, married priests, and of course the Church’s position banning the ordination of homosexuals as priests.
These homosexuals are out to destroy the Roman Catholic Church as it now stands because of its unconditional stand opposed to things that homosexuals do and desire.
Report Comment
#25 by Karl Liam Saur on December 11, 2010 - 7:27 pm
Reply Quote
The “Homosexual Collective”? Is that like the Protocols of the Elders of Sodom?
Report Comment
#26 by Ray Marshall on January 7, 2011 - 3:20 pm
Reply Quote
Non-hierarchical groups of individuals and “entities that share or are motivated by at least one common issue or interest, or work together on a specific project(s) to achieve a common objective. Collectives are also characterized by attempts to share and exercise political and social power and to make decisions on a consensus-driven and egalitarian basis.
Islam, essentially leaderless with no Caliph, and the Jews, with no Temple and High Priests, can be called collectives also, where anybody who wants to take action or make a rebuttal, may do so and is often seen to become an ad hoc leader, at least on that issue.
Report Comment
#27 by Bridget O'Brien on December 11, 2010 - 9:37 pm
Reply Quote
Well, I’m glad we clarified that there is an entire sub-set of persons who are of entirely one mind on every issue, utterly incapable of virtue, and dedicated–to a one–to the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church. How convenient and time-saving!
Report Comment
#28 by Lynn Thomas on December 11, 2010 - 9:47 pm
Reply Quote
Karl, Bridget,
They sound to me rather like the Borg from the Star Trek universe.
Report Comment
#29 by Nick Baty on December 12, 2010 - 10:42 am
Reply Quote
“things that homosexuals do and desire”. You mean like shopping at Marks & Spencer and having a huge Judy Garland collection? Not sure that’s going to “destroy the Roman Catholic Church”.
Report Comment
#30 by Bill deHaas on December 11, 2010 - 5:51 pm
Reply Quote
RBR – your experience and your “sheltered” life.
Fr. Mac: “This book must be the mirror image of “Good Bye, Good Men.” In the 1970’s a certain very liberal seminary in Baltimore, where the liturgy was quite sterile, very progressive and women were studying for degrees and had high positions on the faculty and ecumenical ministerial students, male and female studied desk to desk with Catholic seminarians, the nickname was the “pink palace.”
Really, Fr, what danger we have with women studying for degrees, high positions on faculty, ecumenical students, male & female desk to desk. Sounds pretty healthy to me….won’t they eventually all work side by side with women or will women really corrupt them? Your comments make no sense in this time and indicate a mindset I encountered in the 1960′s.
Both writers have an ax to grind. Keep in mind, tho, that the authors of both come from very different places. Rose is more like Glenn Beck – many of his stories, examples, etc. are second if not third hand – they are not personal experience. Rose was not a faculty member within the examples that he illustrates – his language is hyperbole and in some examples (those I am knowlegable of) his writing is inaccurate, not factual, and laughable in sections.
Hven’t read this new book but am interested. Read the works of Cozzens, Sipe, or Unsworth. They cover the catholic seminary scene but are based on factual experiences. Cozzens in his own analytical style touches on many of your highlighted aspects of this book. What may be new is the inside view of European hierarchy, the papal orders e.g. Opus Dei, LC, etc. and it may shed light on why many German, French, Austrian bishops speak out against the reform of the reform.
My experience in formation supports some of what Berger states. We, as a church and as seminary faculty, have not figured out the tension between gay orientation and ordination to the priesthood when that orientation must…
Report Comment
#31 by Fr. Allan J. McDonald on December 11, 2010 - 8:39 pm
Reply Quote
Bill, I write from experience. I was in that seminary at that time and did not believe the “pink palace” reputation it had earned was correct. It was a stereotype. It was healthy in terms of the women, the mix of students,Protestant and Catholic and one of my classmates was a married woman whose son was a Jesuit. Our Scripture professor for St. Paul was a Presbyterian and our Psychologist a Jew. I had a Baptist professor for John. But the pink palace reputation, whether fair or not was not in reference to its pre-Vatican II very rigid days, but what had transpired in the late 60′s and early 70′s. Liberation from the pre-Vatican II seminary model of which St. Mary’s was the Cadillac was great for those who could handle it, but for those who had never handled self-discipline but rather had it imposed externally did not fair well. My point is that there is dysfunction in all walks of life, all types of seminaries, all kinds of marriages and in the extremes of Church life today. Do we have to drag people and institutions through the mud to make our political points, whether it is the author of Good Bye, Good Men or David Berger’s attempt but in a different way and for different reasons? By the way, Richard Sipe, then married, taught us there too!
Report Comment
#32 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on December 11, 2010 - 8:50 pm
Reply Quote
Fr. Allan,
With all due respect, I believe you’ve got a few things backwards. Especially your last line about dragging through the mud to make a political point. This is so far from the reason Pray Tell ran this story that I must respond to it, lest you or anyone else miss what we’re trying to do.
As one of our editorial committee members wrote in the editorial introduction, there is something “toxic” going on in these traditionalist circles involving their poor way of dealing with sexuality. The claim is that, at least for some (a few or a lot, we don’t know), this is somehow connected to their love of the ritualistic old liturgy. Such toxicity, and such connections, are very much worth exposing and talking about – for the good of the Church.
I wasn’t there in seminary in the 70s (I was in grade school), but I get the impression that the first generation’s attempt to break out of the old rigidity and unhealthiness (which caused plenty of abuse, I’m sure) was not always real mature or balanced or moral. Whether it could have been done better, whether we had to go through such a messy stage in order to move forward – these are all interesting questions but not real relevant to how we move forward now.
Please don’t lump very different things together. No seminary that I know of is anything like the 1970s problems. Rose’s book is sort of ancient history by now. But some seminaries and some traditionalists circles are trying very hard to recreate, or move quite far in the direction of, the old seminary system. Let’s talk about that!
awr
Report Comment
#33 by Fr. Allan J. McDonald on December 11, 2010 - 8:56 pm
Reply Quote
My point Fr. Anthony is that the liberal 70′s seminary was stereotyped by others even then. I felt it at the time very unfair.
Report Comment
Yes, there are problems with extreme groups, whether the Legionaries of Christ and their rigidity or the schismatic group of St. Pius X.
How many of these are there today? I don’t think any diocesan seminaries are very extreme and all that I am aware of are trying to promote healthy sexuality and celibacy and are working with men who indicate a same sex attraction, not to out them (meaning out of the seminary) but to help them be healthy.
What you are referring to are extremes. There can be healthy seminaries and religious communities that also celebrate the unreformed Mass. There are also sick communities that fancy themselves open and post Vatican II.
#34 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on December 11, 2010 - 9:12 pm
Reply Quote
OK, that clarification is helpful. Thanks.
I still think it’s avoidance to say that any community/seminary can be healthy or sick, apart from whether they’re conservative or liberal, apart from their liturgical style, so don’t anyone try to make connections.
I think, rather, that there is a connection between a certain type of open liberalism which eliminates good discipline and boundaries and spiritual practices. It leads (or led) to sexual immorality and abuse. It breaks my heart that some of this happened in the (misunderstood) name of Vatican II, or was done by those who otherwise were promoting Vatican II, thereby discrediting even their good work in some people’s eyes.
I think there is likely a connection between a certain type of conservatism and traditionalism, including traditionalist liturgy, which is overly skeptical of the modern world, of women’s advancement, of modern psychology, of what we’re learning about sexuality, about how power and sexuality interact, how authoritarian structures make abuse possible. There is very possibly a connection, at least for some, between escaping their (homo)sexuality and escaping into an ancient, exotic liturgical world. This is the toxic aspect of the scene which I think needs to be brought to light.
It’s not about discrediting the traditional liturgy by tying it to homosexuality – please note, this would be an anti-gay move. It’s about examining which toxic connections are there, and to what extent, within various factions and movements in the Church.
awr
Report Comment
#35 by Karl Liam Saur on December 11, 2010 - 9:27 pm
Reply Quote
A certain kind of antinomianism, for lack of a better word, can thrive in a variety of cultural contexts: not just among radicals or progressives but also conservatives, traditionalists and pragmatists (it’s always interesting to find antinomian tendencies in the scrupulous, for example). Its best breeding ground, in my experience, is in ghettos of the like-minded, where individual blind-spots are more likely to become collective.* The assumption held by many that it’s necessarily more likely in one and less likely in another is a misguided one.
* This is one of the great risks of intentionally gathered communities (which of course offer great opportunities as well). The decision by the Church to organize Catholics by and large on a territorial rather than intentional basis has a prudential wisdom to it in light of this. I am sure there are others more capable than I who can chime in on the risks of living in spiritual community that are often not perceived by those living in the world.
Report Comment
#36 by Fr. Allan J. McDonald on December 12, 2010 - 6:09 am
Reply Quote
Fr. Anthony, keep in mind that for the most part, diocesan seminaries (I don’t know about Religious Order ones) in pre-Vatican II times did not see their primary responsibility in the formation of candidates. They presumed they were well formed from their family and home environment. The goal of the seminary was academic and spiritual formation, with academics taking the front seat most often. I can remember attending an annual workshop for vocation directors at St. Meinrad’s another Benedictine institution where we were told not to send men to the seminary who were in need of serious psychological counseling especially in the area of sexuality. The major seminaries did not see themselves as “therapeutic” institutions, but rather academic. So, I would suspect that the extreme situations of those seminaries and religious houses which are going retro is that they want a simpler time when they didn’t have to worry about therapy for their members. Yes, times have changed and healthy institutions must form the total person. But the fact of the matter is that these institutions don’t make people one way or another, its the screening process that is flawed and the nature of the person that many bishops send to seminaries hoping for miracles.
Report Comment
#37 by Robert B. Ramirez on December 13, 2010 - 10:35 am
Reply Quote
there is something “toxic” going on in these traditionalist circles involving their poor way of dealing with sexuality. The claim is that, at least for some (a few or a lot, we don’t know), this is somehow connected to their love of the ritualistic old liturgy.
This says a great deal more about the mindset and prejudices of a single editorial committee member than about traditionalist circles.
I call BS on this. The suggestion that a devotion to traditional liturgy is damaging to healthy human sexuality must not pass unchallenged. Whoever chooses to spin such fanciful theories should either produce a real argument, or else retract.
Forgive my blunt speech, but this is too hateful and willfully ignorant to be borne.
Report Comment
#38 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on December 13, 2010 - 11:18 am
Reply Quote
RBR, you’re being unnecessarily inflammatory. Knock it off, please. No one said that “a devotion to traditional liturgy is damaging to healthy human sexuality.” What I did say is that some people in traditionalist liturgy circles in Europe (don’t know how many – but Berger documents it) have a troubling approach to sexuality – eg that they’re repressed or closeted or lacking in self awareness or hypocritical or unchaste or hateful toward gays. I wrote that traditionalist liturgy and these toxic attitudes are “somehow connected.” That is quite different than saying that devotion to traditional liturgy is doing the damage to the people’s sexuality.
I didn’t claim causality (from trad liturgy to troubled sexuality) because I think it’s more likely that both are caused by something else, or both are a symptom of something else. Both traditionalist liturgy and troubled sexuality seem to have in common – for some people, not for everyone in trad circles – an escape from modern world, an escape from oneself, an escape from reality, a flight into fantasy, rigidity, dogmatism, rejection of modern sciences such as psychology.
It is these connections which Berger describes from his inside view of traditionalist circles. Please note: connections, not causality. Some people, too many people, but not everyone in these circles.
awr
Report Comment
#39 by Robert B. Ramirez on December 13, 2010 - 12:47 pm
Reply Quote
Thank you for the clarification, Fr. Ruff. I certainly did not intend to be inflammatory. Now I understand you to have said that Berger’s book alleges that an unknown number of persons in European traditionalist circles are troubled in their sexuality, or repressed or closeted or hypocritical or unchaste. This is noteworthy? The same can be said of Europeans who drive red Ford minivans (I hope I’m not accidentally fingering anyone reading this). My belief is that there is nothing here peculiar to traditionalism or the Catholic faith or religious belief in general. So I am uncertain what this supposed linkage has to say about traditionalist piety, and why it has been deemed worthy of mention.
Now it is proposed that another unknown, non-zero number of persons in trad circles are unpleasant, inflexible, and have difficulties coping with reality. Again – so what? Would this be the same or a different subset of persons from the psychosexually unhealthy mentioned above?
Since you are not implying causality, are you saying that these unhappy persons are nevertheless somehow statistically over-represented in trad circles? Apart from crude anecdotal evidence, I don’t know how anyone can say this, but even if it’s true, so what? We’re sinners, and we know where to find the remedy for sin. If they are attracted, call it God’s grace at work. Let ‘em come.
Report Comment
#40 by Rita Ferrone on December 13, 2010 - 1:32 pm
Reply Quote
RBR, first you were laughing this off. Next it was too hateful to be borne. Now you are attempting to look down your nose at the whole subject, making comparisons to owners of red minivans.
You can’t wish this stuff away. Scandals are like this. Uncomfortable information comes to light, and people try to laugh it off, to deny it, then to be indignant, then to say even if true it’s irrelevant, or unimportant and sneer at it.
Better to take it seriously, look at it, and ask what causes it, what it means, and how to fix it. All big questions, and no easy answers it seems to me.
Report Comment
#41 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on December 13, 2010 - 1:38 pm
Reply Quote
Author David Berger (not PT) claims that anti-gay attitudes among (closeted) gays are over-represented in traditionalist liturgical circles, particularly among clergy. Since he is an insider in a position to know, the PT editorial committee (all 5 people, not just AWR!) considers this newsworthy. The author, a respected theologian, sees connections. PT thinks his view of the connections is newsworthy and worthy of discussion.
The issue isn’t human weakness or sinfulness. That’s rife all over, in all quarters and among all liturgical mindsets! It’s the human condition, and it includes me like everyone else. I believe in compassion for all people without exception, and do my best, however inadequately, to live that out. The issue here, rather, is our theological view of sexuality and of liturgy. The author claims that many people in traditionalist circles hold bad views, theologically speaking, in both cases: narrow-minded, escapist, anti-modern, and so forth. The author does not criticize homosexuals per se, nor does he ever seek to discredit traditionalist liturgy by associating it with homosexual orientation. Rather, he criticizes the anti-gay attitudes in these circles, and the numerous people (especially clergy) who hold these views while being themselves homosexually oriented but not very able, because of their traditionalist mindset, to deal with this honestly.
As you see, I’m trying very hard to keep this discussion on theological grounds. This is precisely what the PT editorial committee hopes to promote by publishing this book review.
awr
Report Comment
#42 by Robert B. Ramirez on December 13, 2010 - 3:40 pm
Reply Quote
You can’t wish this stuff away.
Rita, so far all we have seen is undocumented assertions.
Uncomfortable information comes to light, and people try to laugh it off, to deny it, then to be indignant, then to say even if true it’s irrelevant, or unimportant and sneer at it.
Thou hast said it. Not unlike the behavior of other entrenched elites who find themselves challenged.
Report Comment
#43 by Robert B. Ramirez on December 13, 2010 - 3:43 pm
Reply Quote
Since he is an insider in a position to know
How so, Fr. Ruff?
You say his views merit discussion. OK; let’s discuss them. What is his evidence for this impressive claim on our powers of belief? “Trust me; I know a lot of people” is not much basis for global assertions. Traditionalist circles aren’t monolithic.
The author claims that many people in traditionalist circles hold bad views, theologically speaking, in both cases: narrow-minded, escapist, anti-modern, and so forth.
So: “Many” people hold “bad” views. I am not sure what can be said about this. Could we get a definition of “anti-gay”? Are we talking about the person, or the act? Are we talking about people who’re secret, cheerful hypocrites, or about struggling and falling into temptation? And speaking of “dealing with” conditions, what makes it any business of mine? You’ve probably heard a few confessions in your life, Father. Does the problem of habitual sin ever come up? Do your encourage penitents to seek absolution and work for conversion, or to give up their bad views about themselves?
I have been attending traditionalist liturgy for about 30 years. (Not exclusively – hardly.) I know a good number of priests with traditional views. Also a lot of lay people: seminarians, altar servers, musicians, and just plain folks. Are their views of sexuality good or bad? Golly…the topic almost never seems to come up. I can imagine the coffee hour after Mass…“say, Mrs. Smith, speaking of bigotry and the challenge of modernity, we ought to exchange views on swinging some time…Ever weigh the pros and cons of threesomes?” If this is going on, it’s all behind my back. What interesting friends David Berger must have – or be looking for. Why anyone would accept his reports as normal is beyond me. Well, almost.
Report Comment
#44 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on December 13, 2010 - 3:53 pm
Reply Quote
RBR,
Report Comment
OK, you don’t believe the guy. Let’s leave it at that.
awr
#45 by Robert B. Ramirez on December 13, 2010 - 9:51 am
Reply Quote
your experience and your “sheltered” life.
What about them, Bill? What’s your experience with the EF?
Report Comment
#46 by Bill deHaas on December 15, 2010 - 1:57 pm
Reply Quote
Nothing I would waste my time reporting on. It is escapism; unadultered ignorance; a museum piece that distorts ecclesiology, the mission of the church, and interferes with the movement of the church into the future.
That being said, I do know too many folks and believe I understand why they do EF. That is their choice but, like Rita, too often I find that these folks can not just leave it at their choice – it spreads to attacking others, the OF, gossip, etc.
Report Comment
#47 by Cody C. Unterseher on December 11, 2010 - 6:48 pm
Reply Quote
One wonders if Sapientia Press of Ave Maria University will be courageous enough to keep Berger’s little book Thomas Aquinas & the Liturgy in print. It’s an very useful contribution, and I’d hate to see it fall victim to unnecessary and unhelpful suppression.
Report Comment
#48 by George Andrews on December 11, 2010 - 8:24 pm
Reply Quote
Father>>I suspect that troubled homosexuals are not as able to observe their vows. Which is why so many products of the 1950s and early 1960s seminary probably did so poorly when society changed in the 60s<<
but how do we keep them from being troubled? Celibacy is about self-denial. It's troubling to young men whether or not they are homosexual! Even more so if they get stuck in a perpetual adolescence as many clergy seem to.
I'm afraid there are those here who would say celibacy is the problem. 'Repressing urges' whether natural, or those against nature, is what causes the trouble….or who will not admit that homosexuality per se is a disorder. I hope I am wrong about where this string seems to be headed!
Report Comment
#49 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on December 11, 2010 - 8:38 pm
Reply Quote
I never said that celibacy is the problem, nor do I believe that. I sure wish you’d respond to all the points did make!
On the “disordered” language: the Church did not hold this throughout history until very recently, speaking instead (and very strongly) about the immorality of acts, so I am not convinced that it belongs to the unchangeable deposit of faith. This language arose primarily as the Church’s first, tentative responses to new views coming from psychology. In such areas I personally think it is best to be open to how the dialogue will develop, especially as modern science and psychology continue to develop. But then, I’m one who believes everything Vatican II taught about the Church’s careful, open, critical engagement with the modern world.
awr
Report Comment
#50 by George Andrews on December 11, 2010 - 9:23 pm
Reply Quote
>>I never said that celibacy is the problem, nor do I believe that. I sure wish you’d respond to all the points did make!<<
Sorry! I didn't mean you, Father! I gathered that from your first response!…..regarding answering all your points….I'm off to the library!
Report Comment
#51 by Ceile De on December 13, 2010 - 12:13 pm
Reply Quote
for once I full agree with Fr Ruff. wow.
Report Comment
#52 by Joe O'Leary on December 12, 2010 - 1:34 am
Reply Quote
Five fat books, 79 articles and 43 book reviews, and he is only 42 yo — certainly he seems a very industrious fellow. The world he describes is one I have never come in contact with, and seems to be a weird enclave. But it also seems to have disproportionate influence in the Church, as a breeding ground of cardinals. That, I suppose, is to be expected — absolute monarchies in their decadent phases commonly give power to such cliques.
It is correct that the tenet that homosexual orientation is disordered dates only from 1986. The CDF claims support from the natural sciences (in the Latin text of Homosexualitatis Problema) and from the human sciences (in the English text), but in reality that support has evaporated.
Report Comment
#53 by Jeremy Stevens on December 12, 2010 - 8:53 am
Reply Quote
Not to worry. Coming soon to a Lent near you is the new corrected translation of Preface II for Lent where 2008′s “inordinate desires” which was a literal translation of the Latin has been changed by that anonymous reviser working for Vox Clara and the Congregation to “disordered affections.” Maybe they made such a dramatic non translation of the Latin because they work over there and see that world this writer describes.
Report Comment
#54 by Joe O'Leary on December 12, 2010 - 1:45 am
Reply Quote
Of course there is something shamelessly opportunistic about this sort of tell-all narrative. As one of his ex-colleagues rightly notes, he should beat his own breast first.
Report Comment
#55 by Bill deHaas on December 12, 2010 - 9:12 am
Reply Quote
To the point of the posting and with caution that individualized experience may not be the rule -
Report Comment
a) have experienced three straight years of newly ordained classes at St. John’s, Camarillo, CA (LA archdiocesan seminary with students from many other CA diocese) and Kenrick, St. Louis, MO (also with students from other dioceses
b) under the significant influence of Burke in STL, more than 50% of all ordained opted to have First Masses in the EF style. These masses had all of the lace, finery, etc. that Berger describes in his book. Formation directors were agast at the time spent planning and implementing these masses…..many concerns that the focus was on all of the details rather than the eucharist. These students were encouraged by some local clergy; classmates who shared the same focus, etc. Faculty were often scandalized by this. Subsequently, these guys were assigned to parishes and the real process began – tension between these guys and pastors; with the parish board; at times with the liturgy, elementary school, etc. These tensions continue and have created much damage and hard feelings;
b) last year, experienced a First Mass in Dallas – no announcement (warning) at our parish. First generation newly ordained who has trouble speaking english has a 3 1/2 hour EF mass complete with at least 15 folks in the sanctuary (his fellow seminarians). No one in the parish is included in this. What was funny is that a number of these guys could barely speak latin but all the lace, incense, outdated vestments were on display. My only thought was that there were lots of things he could have focused on over his last year of studies but EF was not very important in terms of his future ministry.
c) My experience is that some dioceses do have growing tension between a sub-culture and the diocese….read what has been happening in Miami, FL.
#56 by Robert B. Ramirez on December 13, 2010 - 10:50 am
Reply Quote
a First Mass in Dallas – no announcement (warning) at our parish. First generation newly ordained who has trouble speaking english has a 3 1/2 hour
I am trying to understand how this can be. Are you perhaps including the time devoted after Mass to First Blessings? Was there a two-hour homily? Did everybody break for lunch halfway through? This is twice the length of pontifical solemn Mass with full choir, and all the trimmings. Was there no MC? Was there no assistant priest to keep the newly-ordained man on track?
Please help me understand what took place that caused this Mass to run so long. I really would like to know. I ask because I find it hard to imagine how a priest could drag Mass out to this length even if he were trying.
Report Comment
#57 by Bill deHaas on December 15, 2010 - 2:06 pm
Reply Quote
What is an “assistant priest” – what world do you live in?
Actually, I counted – there were at times 17 clerical males in various stages of formation on the altar. There was an MC but also two other “minor” MCs; a deacon, sub-deacon (thought those went away?); and a newly ordained bishop on the first step of the sanctuary at his prie-deu (my daughter said he was in time out).
Okay, it probably was just over two and 1/2 hours – 10:30 and the 12:30 bilingual mass started 20 minutes late. Let’s see – we had a chanted gospel; a chanted EP in latin; every incensing took at least 10 minutes (obviously, no one trained them on this – looked like they tried to teach themselves); we had a special homily; then we had a 15 minute family/parent mini-liturgy (Mexican custom) in which the newly ordained gives gifts to his mother and father with special blessings (this had to be explained in english because it was done in spanish). Every homily; mini- discourse, etc. was done in both english and spanish. There was another sermon at the final prayer that was a mini-euology for the newly ordained. The various processions alone took 10 minutes each what with KCs, family, the clerical hordes in the sanctuary; etc.
Know the bishop – thought he was going to have a coronary on the spot.
Report Comment
#58 by Robert B. Ramirez on December 15, 2010 - 2:53 pm
Reply Quote
Bill, an assistant priest is a regular feature at First Masses in the EF, especially if they’re Solemn Mass. His job is to keep the newly ordained out of trouble. (They also provide the same service at pontifical masses.) Subdeacons (nowadays a post typically filled by an instituted acolyte) also figure in the EF celebration of solemn Mass. I see you don’t have much experience with the EF.
I have a certain amount of experience in both EF and OF. That is the world I live in – since you ask.
If those 17 clerical males (btw, all clerics are male) had some sort of liturgical function, there was nothing wrong with their presence in the sanctuary. If there were six torchbearers, two acolytes, a crucifer, thurifer, and MC, that’s 11 right there, not counting the sacred ministers. A second MC is very useful in maintaining order if the procession is lengthy or a prelate needs attention or unusual elements are present, such as the gift-giving and blessings you mentioned. Other servers may have acted as boat or bucket bearers. Training is essential to keep men from running into one another; perhaps the ones you saw were lacking in experience serving in complex liturgies.
Chanting scripture takes no more time than proclaiming in the spoken voice.
Don’t see how “every” incensing could have taken 10 minutes — and seeing how you’ve already admitted to exaggeration, I doubt that it did. If they were not trained in this, it doesn’t say much for their seminary formation, does it?
The liturgy you describe is extraordinary in multiple senses and in no way resembles the typical EF Solemn Mass which would be hard pressed to clock in at more than 60-75 minutes (on the outside). I attend one every week that’s just about 65 minutes.
Glad to hear the bishop survived.
Report Comment
#59 by Bill deHaas on December 12, 2010 - 12:37 pm
Reply Quote
In terms of his description of the Tridentine culture as a “gateway” drug – here is a link to Richard Sipe’s play on this:
http://www.richardsipe.com/Burke_Gallery/The%20Cost%20of%20Looking%20Good%202007%5B2%5D.pdf
From my comments above, when Burke was head of St. Louis archdiocese, he nurtured the soon to be ordained clerics; encouraged their pursuits of TLM/EF; and attended most EF First Masses in all of his regalia.
If any of you have ever been in a formation director position, you will understand the concern the above paragraph conveys. A bishop does need to support his clerical candidates but he needs to be removed by one step; working with formation; and being advised and directed by those same formation team members. Too often over the past 15 years, the need for a “warm body” has led to hasty and unwise decisions in terms of ordination; not slowing the process down for some individuals; and overriding seminary formation team recommendations based on who knows what?
What Berger states in his book about the shared TLM/EF experience; the lace, etc. was overly demonstrated in the archdiocese of St. Louis for a number of years.
Fr. MAC – you say: “But the fact of the matter is that these institutions don’t make people one way or another, its the screening process that is flawed and the nature of the person that many bishops send to seminaries hoping for miracles.” Most of what you say in this post has my agreement. But, seminaries are not just academic institutes – in fact, would argue that this is only 50% of their task. You can have the best screening process in the world and you will still need to “form” and develop clerical candidates. No screening process can identify every psychological or emotional issue or identify troubled individuals. In fact, pedophilia often does not externally manifest itself until the late 20′s.
Report Comment
#60 by Fr. Allan J. McDonald on December 12, 2010 - 1:02 pm
Reply Quote
Bill, You are right, seminaries are not just academic institutions, but some professorial types do miss the good old days when they were. Today we can’t count on the family of origin or the culture supporting Catholic values, especially the Catholic understanding of sexuality, chastity and celibacy, so if the seminary isn’t forming healthy candidates in these areas, then we’re in trouble. Richard Sipe, though, expects monastic prayer, spirituality and discipline for those promised or vowed to celibacy. He may bring a pre-Vatican II Dominican prejudice to what a secular priest can and can’t do in that regard.
Report Comment
#61 by Bruce Ludwick, Jr. on December 13, 2010 - 10:37 am
Reply Quote
Bill, of course you are welcome to your opinion. However, as a St. Louisian who has a number of friends that will be ordained for our diocese this year (and in future years, God willing), I have to say this little rant on Cdl. Burke’s dress is a little over-the-top. Whatever your predilection for liturgical garb, Burke was interested in their development as priests and men in general (as is the current archbishop). There was certainly no pressure to celebrate the EF, just a presentation of it as an option if they so desire. In any case, I know a few seminarians who have no desire to celebrate the EF and would probably fall into the middle-of-the-road group on liturgy and pastoral style in general: nonetheless, they are very forthright in stating that Cdl. Burke was a deciding factor in them committing to the priesthood.
In addition, these are men from various walks of life: one had a very promising business career in his 30s; one came straight from high school; one from the armed forces; another was engaged, but broke it off to join. I’ve found that the candidates here are very balanced and a good cross-section of Catholics.
Report Comment
#62 by Bill deHaas on December 15, 2010 - 2:10 pm
Reply Quote
Bruce – apologize if you took this to be a rant. I tried to straddle a middle ground – yes, there were others who had no interest in an EF or TLM mass (think I stated 50%). Agree that some were supported and encouraged by Burke personally – but, am also pointing out that this can work both ways. I will not divulge my sources but my information comes from actual formation directors. Did you actually attend any of the EF or TLM first masses as we did? Again, don’t mean to offend but the “theology” behind this original post is the issue…and these examples get to theology.
Report Comment
#63 by Bruce Ludwick, Jr. on December 15, 2010 - 5:02 pm
Reply Quote
Bill,
No offense taken…more or less. The description of dress did seem rant-like. I’m not a lace fan, but if someone is wearing some out of a pure intention, who cares? Many of them live quite simply in their daily life. Regarding Cdl. Burke, I just think it’s difficult to ascertain what a bishop REALLY thinks, regardless of who he is. They do tend to hold the cards close to their chest. I’d rather not speculate, out of charity.
I suppose it is not unreasonable to assume some of the seminarians might lean a little toward what you are speaking of; I just think it’s inaccurate to assume that an interest in the EF = closeted homosexuality. It’s a stretch. I’m not sure about your issues with the First Masses: that’s very personal, right? I think it’s within reason that they choose what form they wish: it may be their last opportunity in some time! Regarding their relations with pastors, one could have said the same thing with the changes in the 1960′s and 1970′s…it’s the human condition!
For what it’s worth, the seminarians who have come out under Burke and Carlson have a solid liturgical formation (i.e., they understand the “unchanging principles” of liturgy, OF or EF.) Before them, you have many priests who were “conservative” or “traditionalist” in their thought, often in a very subjective way, but seem rather incomplete in their liturgical formation.
I suppose “on the ground” things here look rather different. On the whole, the newly ordained are very charitable, friendly, and seem to be truly interested most of all in helping people grow in sanctity and love of God and their neighbor. That’s what it’s all about, right?
Report Comment
#64 by Jonathan Day on December 12, 2010 - 2:16 pm
Reply Quote
Some of those figures in Richard Sipe’s slideshow seriously underestimate the cost of those vestments. Tridentinum made a “precious mitre” for Abp Burke, before he became a cardinal, for EUR 35000; that’s £29,300 or US $46,300. I believe they are the same people who made that papal hanging with the tiara that was used for a few days.
Report Comment
#65 by Lynn Thomas on December 12, 2010 - 2:32 pm
Reply Quote
If the assorted prelates are spending their own personal funds for such costumes, ok, fine. I think their sartorial taste is awful, but, their money, their choice. If Church funds are buying these duds, someone should cry “Foul!” in a loud voice. Better to wear simple garments with modest ornamentation and feed the poor, educate the children, shelter the homeless, etc…..
Sheesh!
Report Comment
#66 by Laurence England on December 13, 2010 - 8:00 am
Reply Quote
It sounds to me there is a lot of prejudice on this blog all round. A great deal of misunderstanding!
I cannot comment on the author of the book this website is highlighting, since I have not read it. I am quite open to the fact that the theologian may have experienced some quite real nastiness, yes, among traditionalists. Yes, I expect there is prejudice against homosexuals among the traditional element of the Church and no, not all prelates who support traditional liturgy are holy.
However, it is grossly unfair to use this as a stick to beat the traditional element of the Church, because many have seen the horrendous effects of the changes to the Church and the liturgy since the 1960s.
The liberalism that emerged from that period has been incredibly damaging. This cannot be stressed enough! As a man with a same-sex attraction, I love the Latin Mass, but it is unfair to link the two, as if, somehow all TLM adherents are repressed homosexuals!
Here in Brighton, many women, as well as men, love the TLM and I for one can certainly see how the splendour of the traditional liturgy captivates the hearts of the Faithful. So much of the modern liturgy seems to be about drowing out God’s voice, of clouding His Face, of putting ourselves at the centre of the Divine Worship, rather than Almighty God.
Whatever it was that the modern liturgy was meant to inspire, I believe with all my heart that is has not worked. You only have to look at the state of the Faith, the rate of lapsation, the dearth of vocations, to see it.
Which are the orders in which vocations are growing? It is widely reported that vocations are rising in orders in which the Divine Worship is taken seriously, in which Our Lord Jesus Christ is given the Honour and Glory which belongs to Him alone. Why? It is not because of lace! It is because the whole of the Liturgy of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is centred on Jesus Christ, not the people or the personality of the Priest!
Report Comment
#67 by George Andrews on December 13, 2010 - 12:54 pm
Reply Quote
Laurence E>Here in Brighton, many women, as well as men, love the TLM and I for one can certainly see how the splendour of the traditional liturgy captivates the hearts of the Faithful. So much of the modern liturgy seems to be about drowing out God’s voice, of clouding His Face, of putting ourselves at the centre of the Divine Worship, rather than Almighty God.<<<
Well said!!
People need to realize it was the EF, despite what PT would say- Its failure to relate to modernity-, that drew many converts. Dorothy Day said it was the sight of all, rich and poor, kneeling together to receive Communion which made her want to become a Catholic. Bonhoeffer, who never converted, was greatly impressed by the Masses he attended in Rome back in the 'bad old days'.
I am afraid that much of what drew such people – what they found beautiful and compelling – has been extinguished.
Report Comment
#68 by Jordan Zarembo on December 13, 2010 - 11:34 am
Reply Quote
One unfortunate consequence of the extreme liturgical polarization experienced in some places is the unwillingness of many Catholics to cross the bright lines between ad orientem as opposed to versus populum, chant versus modern hymns, ritualism versus didacticism, etc. The extreme liturgical divisions of almost 50 years have created a situation where people drawn to more ancient liturgical usages have been forced to tolerate the painfully apparent emotional and sexual oddities that Prof. Berger describes. I think that the way to spiritual as well as psychosexual health is through a tolerance of all liturgical styles in moderation.
I’m convinced that the path to sanity is liturgical diversity beyond most people’s comfort zone. So, one parish wants to say the EF or an OF Latin Mass ad orientem? Another parish prefers a more evangelical style? One parish wants both at different times? If I were a bishop, I would gladly attend and support one and all. Let’s not forget that “high church” doesn’t have to mean “boys’ club” — if some Anglo-Catholics have allowed women a greater role as ministers in the sanctuary, we high church Roman Catholics can certainly allow women a greater role as readers, acolytes, and subdeacons. The emotional and sexual toxicity of rad-traditionalism and some quarters of the EF should not result in the suppression of Latin, chant, ad orientem, or other older forms of worship simply because such liturgical tradition can result in dysfunction. The solution is an incorporation of these aspects into a contemporary church that values the contributions of men and women in sober and historical liturgy. It’s a tough challenge that will tax everyone’s expectations, but I’m willing to make the leap if others are also willing to join me.
Report Comment
#69 by Jonathan Day on December 13, 2010 - 1:05 pm
Reply Quote
At last the secret is out, as it always must come in the end,
The delicious story is ripe to tell to the intimate friend;
Over the tea-cups and in the square the tongue has its desire;
Still waters run deep, my dear, there’s never smoke without fire.
Behind the corpse in the reservoir, behind the ghost on the links,
Behind the lady who dances and the man who madly drinks,
Under the look of fatigue, the attack of migraine and the sigh
There is always another story, there is more than meets the eye.
For the clear voice suddenly singing, high up in the convent wall,
The scent of the elder bushes, the sporting prints in the hall,
The croquet matches in summer, the handshake, the cough, the kiss,
There is always a wicked secret, a private reason for this.
(HT to WH Auden)
Report Comment
#70 by F C Bauerschmidt on December 13, 2010 - 4:22 pm
Reply Quote
I don’t mean to be falsely irenic in all of this, but I don’t think people need to see this post as an accusation. It is a report of an accusation, but that is not the same thing as an accusation. Given that the accusation is out there, and it makes claims about liturgy, it seems perfectly reasonable to me for PrayTell to report on it, as a way of inviting discussion.
Likewise, I don’t think those who strongly deny the accusation are necessarily engaged in a cover up or are in denial or anything like that. They are simply saying, “this accusation that you report does not ring true to my experience.” It seems to me that the original post invited precisely this sort of response and no one has an reason to be defensive in offering such a response.
As long as people give reasons for why they react to the report in the way that they do, it seems to me that a productive discussion of the report can be had.
Report Comment
#71 by Rita Ferrone on December 13, 2010 - 6:07 pm
Reply Quote
Fritz, I agree. The post is not an accusation of anything.
The book appears to be an expose in response to a specific action that was taken against the author — he was removed from his position for being gay. It documents in some detail that the judgment against him can and must be leveled against his very accusers. Into the bargain, politically dubious views are claimed to exercise a strong influence in the same circles that curried him then rejected him.
Naturally, people find all this disturbing, but one of the things I find interesting is that folks are disturbed for various–very different–reasons.
Some commenters seem to think there are not any gay clergy to speak of among traditionalists. Another suggests that the book is part of a gay conspiracy. Yet another finds the idea of gay clergy being preyed upon or blackmailed by other gay clergy as the essence of the problem. The point was raised that some “third thing” such as a flight from modernity, and a flight from one’s self (re: sexual orientation) may be what accounts for a convergence between homophilic- homophobia and interest in the old Mass. Some have alluded to the influence in Rome of groups like Opus Dei and the LC, and are concerned that corruption or duplicity within such groups has negative effects on governance as a whole. We have also heard a chorus of “you too, you too!” lest anyone think there is a problem in the trad circles that is at all specific to their context or circumstances.
For myself, I think every problem has specific circumstances–liberal, conservative, traditionalist, secularist, whatever. And Catholicism is home to several groups with political as well as religious and liturgical commitments. How these interact is part of history. It matters. It’s important. It’s a description, not an accusation.
Report Comment
#72 by Brian Stevens on December 13, 2010 - 4:53 pm
Reply Quote
Fr Ruff,
just to make you aware that Lawrence England who made a comment above has made a post and several comments about yourself and the pray tell blog.
His blog is at :
http://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.com/
The first post entitled ‘PrayTell – the liberal catholic establishments contribution to the blogosphere’ makes a number of unsubstantiated and outrageous claims.
There are also a number of comments in the third post down entitled ‘he was right’ (initially about cardinal kaspers claim that the uk is a third world country) attacking your orthodoxy.
I feel it’s only right that you should be made aware of these highly critical comments so you may have the right of reply if you wish.
Report Comment
#73 by Sebastian Pollock on December 13, 2010 - 7:06 pm
Reply Quote
A very sad little man, it seems.
And, for those who don’t know, Laurence England appears to hail from Brighton, which boasts the largest gay population in England outside London. It has an area called Kemp Town, site of one of the earliest Catholic churches in England after the post-Reformation period, but known to all and sundry as Camp Town, for obvious reasons.
Methinks some on this forum do protest too much.
Report Comment
#74 by Lynn Thomas on December 13, 2010 - 9:31 pm
Reply Quote
Emphasis on ‘sad’, I think. Wow. He knows what he knows, and won’t be confused or dissuaded by the facts, especially the ones that don’t fit his view of the world and the Church. I think if I ever start a blog, his comments won’t be welcome.
Report Comment
#75 by George Andrews on December 14, 2010 - 12:53 pm
Reply Quote
Dear Sebastian and Lynn,
SP>>A very sad little man, it seems.
And, for those who don’t know, Laurence England appears to hail from Brighton, which boasts the largest gay population in England outside London.<<<<
What is your point here? Other than cowardly innuendo?
SP
Obvious only to people who delight in scandal.
SP>Methinks some on this forum do protest too much. >>
And me thinkum you should only postum when you have a point! Imo, Mr. England’s presented his opinion courageously . He struggles against homosexual desires. That offends some on this forum. Logically that-ridiculing someone who struggles against such desires- can only arise from :
a) homophobia
or
b) the belief that homosexual desires should be unbridled.
Neither of these sentiments fit into my Faith.
Report Comment
#76 by Joe O'Leary on December 13, 2010 - 8:20 pm
Reply Quote
I don’t find the awful revelations of David Berger disturbing, but rather delicious, like the Auden poem Jonathan quotes!
Report Comment
#77 by Brian Stevens on December 14, 2010 - 1:26 pm
Reply Quote
George Andrews – I think Sebastian and Lynn can be justly acused of innuendo. M
Report Comment
#78 by Lynn Thomas on December 14, 2010 - 9:48 pm
Reply Quote
What innuendo, Brian? I followed the link and read some of Mr. England’s comments. Some of them struck me as being entirely inconsistent with facts, others as really oddball opinions. I agreed with Sebastian’s characterization of ‘sad’. That is also an opinion, mine, and nothing more.
I really could not possibly care less about Mr. England’s sexual orientation. Utterly inconsequential to me. I disagree with his reasoning and conclusions, and said so. End of story.
Report Comment
#79 by Brian Stevens on December 14, 2010 - 1:51 pm
Reply Quote
George andrews – i dont think sebatian and lynn can justly be accused of innuendo. Mr england has stated many times on his blog that he is homosexually orientated. In fact you could say that he has made a virtue out of it. I do find it worrying that he plans to marry a female in a catholic church. It rings of the ex-gay therapy movement which has been entirely discretited as ethically repugnant and emotionally damaging by all reptable psychological and psychiatric associations. Indeed, many ex-gay movement leaders have had their hypocritical behaviour and beliefs exposed in the press. Whether Mr England is right to pursue sacramental marriage given his personal circumstances may be matter of opinion but I think we have the right to question him when he tries to spread his homophobic rants as authentic catholic teaching. He shows an incredible misunderstanding of correct church teaching and theology on homosexuality and other topics. He uses this to condemn and ridicule those who cannot live up to his example.
Given that the true scientific definition of homophobia refers to persons who are homosexual in nature but have not yet resolved these internal conflicts, and then seek to project their difficulties by attacking homosexual others. I would say that Mr england’s behaviour can accurately be decribed as homophobic, and as such he is a very good example of the toxicity within traditionalist circles to which Fr ruff describes.
Report Comment
#80 by Fr. Allan J. McDonald on December 14, 2010 - 2:30 pm
Reply Quote
Most Catholic priests and Protestant ministers will preach messages that sometimes apply to themselves. This doesn’t mean that they hate those who might fall into this or that sin or this or that orientation. A married clergyman who might be tempted to adultery or may be in an adulterous affair might preach even more vehemently against it. This isn’t phobia, but seeking strength in difficult temptations in life.
Report Comment
Now if this married clergy is seeking to oust every adulterous minister in his denomination despite his own foibles, then there is certainly a dubious moral double standard. But the preaching against adultery isn’t the problem, its the person who is duplicitous in his inner rage.
I think the problem of outing closeted individuals who may have a same sex attraction, or at least like things that those who stereotype homosexuals think they like when it comes to liturgical accouterments and a retro lifestyle, is not so much calling them to accountability for their duplicity, but calling into question the Church’s teaching on this subject and those who hold these teachings and actually preach about it. One can teach what the Church teaches without being homophobic, even if that person is a homosexual. It’s on this level that I think this book has a political and religious agenda or ax to grind, not to clean house, bring therapy to the conflicted and passive aggressive or change quaint practices but to bring the Church into line with secular thinking and practices on this subject.
#81 by Jordan Zarembo on December 14, 2010 - 3:45 pm
Reply Quote
I agree to the point that if a man willingly accepts ordination into the Roman Catholic Church he must preach the doctrine of the Church. You are right that preaching the Church’s view on homosexuality and homosexual behavior is not necessarily homophobia. However, there is a line between explaining the Church’s position charitably and harassing others with aggressive and hurtful statements. I, and probably most others here, do not know for sure if Prof. Berger’s accusation of virulently homophobic homoeroticism in the SSPX is entirely true. However, even in regular churches I have experienced priests that have used the pulpit to smear gay people. No one will be convinced of any doctrine through coercion or malice.
Strident preaching against homosexuality will often elicit scepticism about the priest’s sexual orientation. Is this reaction just? Perhaps not — people should not be so quick to stereotype others. Still, a priest who engages in strident preaching against homosexuality should recognize potential responses to his behavior. All of us at times should evaluate the way in which our behavior might hinder rather than help our convictions.
Report Comment
#82 by Fr. Allan J. McDonald on December 14, 2010 - 4:41 pm
Reply Quote
Jordon, I agree with all you say. I seldom if ever preach on sexual issues lest anyone think I’ve got the problem, I’m a sexaphobic!
Just kidding. But I do think that if this subject is broached in a homily, it should be within the Church’s overall understanding of sexuality as gift, and not just from the genital expression of it, that all are called to chastity, even the married (fidelity) and that marriage is between a man and women for a lifetime and that natural law governs genital sex within its proper context and finally, confessions are heard each Saturday or by appointment any time.
Report Comment
I think the specifics of sexuality should be handled in a classroom setting where questions can be asked and discussion can occur.
I do think that very few of us in the clergy are persuaded by tactics accusing those who teach the Church’s teaching as being homophobic. It’s bullying of another kind.
#83 by Karl Liam Saur on December 14, 2010 - 7:50 pm
Reply Quote
Preaching about homosexuality in a reified way – which is, frankly, the only way I’ve ever heard it preached about – is a formula for failure. Gay people are people, not footballs to be scored to show one is courageously preaching the hard sayings of the Scriptures and Tradition, which is how the reified approach tends to come off.
Report Comment
#84 by George Andrews on December 14, 2010 - 2:34 pm
Reply Quote
BS>Given that the true scientific definition of homophobia refers to persons who are homosexual <
Dear Brian, I did not know that! So therefore it is impossible for a non-homosexual to be homophobic?
Report Comment
#85 by Brian Stevens on December 14, 2010 - 4:19 pm
Reply Quote
George – according to the original scientific meaning and definition, homphobia is not possible in persons with non-homosexual tendancies. Indeed, the concepts was coined by measuring anti-homosexual beliefs through a scale developed for this purpose followed by an experiment were electrodes were attached to the participant’s genitals – they were then shown hetero and homo erotic images. Sexual stimulation to the homo erotic images was highly correlated with those expressing stronger anti-homosexual beliefs. The experiment has been replicated on many occasions with consistent results, and the literature has been developed upon this seminal set of experiments.
In the true accurate scientic sense, the generic meaning of homophobia used generally today is properly termed ‘anti-gay prejudice’ or ‘sexual prejudice’.
Report Comment
#86 by George Andrews on December 14, 2010 - 9:00 pm
Reply Quote
>> electrodes were attached to the participant’s genitals – they were then shown hetero and homo erotic images.<<
Brian!
Are you serious? Don't you see problems with such a test?
1) it is immoral by any standard. I ask the clergy here to explain how having people watch pornography, even for the grand purpose of advancing social science, is justifiable.
2) it is invalid. Unless the test is a Dr. Mengele project, I suspect that those involved were volunteers. Most people I know would not participate in such an experiment. So you end up with the small segment of the population who don't mind having their genitals wired. hmmm. It cannot be representative!
Report Comment
#87 by Joe O'Leary on December 14, 2010 - 6:09 pm
Reply Quote
“You are right that preaching the Church’s view on homosexuality and homosexual behavior is not necessarily homophobia. ”
Since the teaching is wrong and destructive it objectively has the same impact as homophobia.
Report Comment
#88 by Joe O'Leary on December 14, 2010 - 11:46 pm
Reply Quote
The teaching is particularly wrong in describing samesex attraction as an “anomaly” (Vatican document against recognizing civil unions, 2005) and in claiming support from the natural and human sciences for this view.
Report Comment
#89 by Brian Stevens on December 15, 2010 - 5:58 pm
Reply Quote
George said: >> electrodes were attached to the participant’s genitals – they were then shown hetero and homo erotic images.<
Are you serious? Don't you see problems with such a test?
1) it is immoral by any standard. I ask the clergy here to explain how having people watch pornography, even for the grand purpose of advancing social science, is justifiable.
2) it is invalid. Unless the test is a Dr. Mengele project, I suspect that those involved were volunteers. Most people I know would not participate in such an experiment. So you end up with the small segment of the population who don't mind having their genitals wired. hmmm. It cannot be representative!''
—
Yes the experiment would most probably be considered unethical in the modern age but back in the 50s etc it wasnt thought so.
I said erotic images not pornography, there is a subtle difference and the church is probably not against eroticism as such after all many religious painings are also erotic to some degree.
I said electrodes wre attached to the male genitals not that they were electrocuted – i can't really see what is objectionable to this, the devices mesasure stimulation of the sexual organs but they dont cause the stimulation.
I also said that the experiments were replicated many times and that includes different and representative participant groupings.
btw, i am a clinical psychologist with a doctorate and published research experience in the field of sexual health among other areas. The set of experiments are considered seminal and the results are convincing – they were the foundation of much more research into 'homophobia', all of which has been consistent with the original research findings. The research also contributed to the removal of homosexuality as a mental disoder from the DSM in 1973 (due to lack of scientific evidence to support the diagnostic category) – and it's replacement with homophobia.
Report Comment
#90 by Joe O'Leary on December 15, 2010 - 9:09 pm
Reply Quote
These experiments seem highly significant to me. They give a new basis to one’s intuitive hunches about vocal homophobes who say “shut up about homosexuality, we don’t want to hear any more about homosexuality” and who go on saying this over and over again…
Report Comment
#91 by Carlos Antonio Palad on December 18, 2010 - 10:24 pm
Reply Quote
” Okay, it probably was just over two and 1/2 hours – 10:30 and the 12:30 bilingual mass started 20 minutes late. Let’s see – we had a chanted gospel; a chanted EP in latin; every incensing took at least 10 minutes (obviously, no one trained them on this – looked like they tried to teach themselves); we had a special homily; then we had a 15 minute family/parent mini-liturgy (Mexican custom) in which the newly ordained gives gifts to his mother and father with special blessings (this had to be explained in english because it was done in spanish). Every homily; mini- discourse, etc. was done in both english and spanish. There was another sermon at the final prayer that was a mini-euology for the newly ordained. The various processions alone took 10 minutes each what with KCs, family, the clerical hordes in the sanctuary; etc.”
I don’t think that Mass was EF at all. No EF has:
1) A chanted Eucharistic Prayer (except for priestly and episcopal ordinations)
2) Mini-liturgies in the vernacular inserted into the middle of the Mass
3) Mini-discourses sprinkled throughout the Mass
I HAVE seen and heard of Masses (EF and OF) where the celebrants and acolytes/servers, in order to inject or enhance “solemnity” in the Mass, try to do and say everything as slooooowlllly and as sluggishly as they could, as if moving like sloths or praying with a sleep-inducing pace express reverence; and by inserting all sorts of affected movements (in EF Masses) or little speeches or rituals (in OF Masses) to drag out the Mass as long as possible. I suspect that what you saw was an OF Latin Mass along those lines.
Report Comment
#92 by Ann Olivier on January 8, 2012 - 8:45 pm
Reply Quote
At Pope Benedict’s Christmas Mass he warned us not to be taken in by glitter — it can lead us to overlook what is real and important. He was at the very moment he was saying those words wearing lavish vestments highly embroidered in gold and a particularly large and shinney golden mitre.
This, to me, illustrated some bad liturgical theology. What his clothes said contradicted his message.
Is this the sort of bad liturgical theology of traditionalists we’re supposed to be considering here? Is my criticism fair?
Are aesthetic, traditionalist gay priests responsible for such bad liturgical theology? If so, we still should remember that not all gay men are aesthetes, nor are they all traditionalists. But if that particular sub-set of our clergy is responsible for bad liturgical theology, just where has their theology and liturgy gone wrong? And are there *other* priests, not in that the gay-aesthete-traditionalist sub-set who are are also responsible for the too much gold and too much lace, etc.?
Perhaps we should be asking: what are the theological errors of aesthetically over-the-top liturgies? And who causes them to be implemented?
Report Comment