I was sitting in a little Italian bistro with my longtime friend, a Retired Big Shot in the NYPD whose marriage I witnessed and whose kids I baptized into the Body of Christ. While enjoying s bit of pasta and glass of Chianti, I found myself defending those historic figures (like Michelangelo ) who, for one reason or another chose not to marry. The assumption, in the mind of my friend, was that “non-married” translates into homosexual. Starting with Jesus, through Paul and the long line of saints, I argued that, while marriage is the right and ordered pathway for the overwhelming majority of the human race, celibacy can be a healthy option for some people. Being unmarried does not, ipso facto, necessarily indicate a same sex proclivity. It, in fact, might mean something else. But in certain walled off bubble cultures, it is thought that the Catholic priesthood, for example, means homosexual, and that the majority of priests have the same-sex orientation. “They simply are not interested in women, they have no feeling for marriage and hence they become priests.” This is so absurd that I would belly laugh if it weren’t so damaging. I know there are homosexuals in the Catholic priesthood. I know that most of the hurt from the scandals came from the repulsive behavior of homosexual priests. But I also know that the overwhelming majority of priests is striving for holiness with a sexuality attuned to God’s Will. My observations are confined largely to this slice of the population. So, these observations are basically to challenge the facile notion that “unmarried equals homosexual.”
Read more here.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

2 comments:
I agree with your main point but it could be that Rome has carried the celibate thing further than it need go. It is critical to those in vows in the religious life per se....but as with Peter, it is not critical to the diocesan clergy. Christ picked Peter (whose mother in law is mentioned) not the celibate beloved disciple John to be Pope. We manage to not talk about that.
Hi there Father,
I agree with your remarks regarding the questioned status of the unmarried, since my divorce people have questioned my status. And I agree with you that being married or not is not a predicate for those assumptions which are ridiculous.
I am an artist and student of Art History and to my knowledge it is unequivocably thought that Michaelangelo was a homosexual from the abundant letters and love poems that he wrote as well as the models that he used for the Sistine Chapel as Michaelangelo used male models exclusively in his art.
Libyan Sibyl - holding the Book of Life
http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Schede/CSNs/CSNs_V_SibProf_08.html
Delphic Sibyl
http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Schede/CSNs/CSNs_V_SibProf_12.html
As you can see it is quite apparent that the modes used for these females were men, indeed, all the models for the Sistine Chapel were men which he transformed through the wonder of art into women where necessary.
He wrote many letters to his assistants who actually lived with him. It is not known that he was ever in a long standing relationship. In the end his sexuality is not important he remains a master for all time who has never had an equal with his virtuoso sculpture, painting or architecture.
Post a Comment