The New York Times ends its center-fold article on “Gay Catholic Priests Speak Out” – “It ‘s Not A Closet It’s A Cage,” with “They are sexually traumatizing and wounding yet another generation. We have to stand up and say no more sexual abuse, no more sexual traumatizing, no more sexual wounding. We have to get to right when it comes to sexuality.” The article ends with: “What if every priest was truly allowed to live their (sic his) life freely openly honestly?’ he asked. ‘That’s my dream’”
I immediately wrote at the end and bottom of the page: “The question: (what is the meaning of sexuality in the human person whose prototype is Jesus Christ, Son of the Father and Redeemer of Man?
Answer: The divine Person of the Son of the Father is pure relation as self-gift. When enfleshed, Jesus Christ is full obedience to death on the Cross. Man, made in the image and likeness of the enfleshded Son, “finds himself only by the total gift of himself. The sexual urge is ontologically rooted in the thrust of the human person for the Creator, but gift means freedom. For freedom, there must be restraint. But this is not repression. but the fulfillment of the urge for a particular person must pass th rough the anthropological architecture of reason and freedom. The human person must master self to get possession of self to be able to make the gift of self as sexual. If there is no restraint, there is no identity as a person and no possibility of gift.
Christopher West reports:
“Recently, a former Catholic priest appeared on Oprah to defend his
choice of leaving the Church in order to get married. This priest had
battled with desire for this woman for several years and finally
decided his only options were to marry her or repress his sexual
desires. Indeed, as he announced to a national audience, “repression”
is the only choice for a person who remains celibate.
Is this true? Are our only options when it comes to sexual desire to
“indulge” it or “repress” it? Granted, to a world bound by sexual
lust, life-long celibacy seems absurd. The world’s general attitude
towards Christian celibacy might be summarized like this: “Hey,
marriage is the only ‘legitimate’ chance you Christians get to indulge
your lusts. Why the heck would you ever want to give that up? You’d be
condemning yourself to a life of hopeless repression.”
The difference between marriage and celibacy, however, must never be
understood as the difference between having a “legitimate” outlet for
sexual lust on the one hand and having to repress it on the other.
Christ calls everyone – no matter his or her particular vocation – to
experience redemption from the domination of lust. Only from this
perspective do the Christian vocations (celibacy and marriage) make
any sense. Both vocations – if they are to be lived as Christ intends
– flow from the same experience of the redemption of sexuality.
First, marriage is not a “legitimate outlet” for indulging our sexual
lusts. As Pope John Paul II once pointed out, spouses can commit
“adultery in the heart” with each other if they treat one another as
nothing but an outlet for selfish gratification (see TOB 43:3). I
know it’s a cliche, but why do so many wives claim “headache” when
their husbands want sex? Could it be because they feel used rather
than loved? This is what lust leads to – using people, not loving them.
Liberation from the domination of concupiscence – that disordering of
our appetites caused by original sin – is essential, John Paul II
taught, if we are to live our lives “in the truth” and experience the
divine plan for human love (see TOB 43:6, 47:5). Indeed, Christian
sexual ethos “is always linked . . . with the liberation of the heart
from concupiscence” (TOB 43:6). And this liberation is just as
essential for consecrated celibates and single people as it is for
married couples (see TOB 77:4).
The Times ends its two-page center-fold article that begins with the lying tag of “It’s not a closet. It’s a cage” with: “What if every priest was truly allowed to live their [sic his] life freely openly honestly?” And they put into the mouth of a Fr. Greiten: “That’s my dream.” Nasty false jounalism!!
 The New York Times National Monday February 18, 2019, A11- 12.