The long-awaited "gay doc"

Unknown | 11-4-95 | CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION

[Balt]

A simple rehash of what the Church has previously taught, with some PC crap thrown in as a non-sequitor about how we respect everyone and shouldn't kick a gay person when we meet him in the street. Not one word of practical advice from the congregation in charge of seminaries about how to interview prospective candidates regarding their attitutes toward homosexuality and sexuality in general, nor anything about the problem of effeminism. Likewise, nothing at all about those already ordained, especially those who have publically identified themselves as gay, and what should be done with them. Most disturbing of all, no catalog of penalties to be applied to bishops and seminary officials who choose to ignore Church teaching regarding homosexuality or who knowingly accept gays into the seminary -- which I'm sure they will continue to do, since the document mandates no enforcement mechanism. And why should it? It doesn't really give us anything to enforce.

This is a document written in the style of Paul VI: a beautifully crafted but naive restatement of doctrine, perfectly orthodox from beginning to end, but rendered impotent by (1) the striking lack of enforcable canons, (2) a date by which they must be implimented, and (3) the penalties to be applied for disobediance. In other words, a document that will change or improve nothing whatsoever.

[Balt]

It should be noted that this is an unofficial translation.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

A document with no link, and no way to check it out?

[newberger]

What do you man by "unknown"? Where did you find it?

[big'ol_freeper]

Thanks Padre.

[Tantumergo]

"A document with no link, and no way to check it out?"

Its close enough in translation to the official version for it to make no difference.

And, yes, it is a totally inadequate, ineffectual waste-of-time document which is already being ignored by the bishops (you should see the official press release of the English idiots), and it will do nothing whatsoever to remedy the situation.

Another grand failure of fatherhood by these pathetic eunuchs who are supposed to be our spiritual fathers. May it be unto them as it was unto Sodom & Gomorrah!

[Knitting A Conundrum]

I don't know the source. If that is for real, so be it, but I don't give strong creedence to unsourced documents until I know their provenance...perhaps I taught how to write term papers too long, but that sort of thing bugs me.

[Tantumergo]

"I don't know the source."

Its the Congregation for Catholic Education - I received an embargoed copy this evening.

[Lord let me see]

The Long-Awaited Document:

http://www.adistaonline.it/congregatio.PDF?PHPSESSID=b5c1aad6ca6b54c5c323932f7993ed10

Waited for what? This?

Deep-rooted? Tendencies? Transitory problem of homosexuality?

Who will make the decisions? Spiritual Directors? Whose work is Sealed in Confessional Secrecy? They are to persuade "deeply rooted" and direct
"un-deeply rooted" homosexuals in conscience and in secrecy?

Where's the MORAL teaching? WHERE IS THE MORAL TEACHING???

NOTHING HAS CHANGED!

Dust in the wind.

[Balt]

Thanks for providing the source for the original, as I had failed to do so.

And, yes, I agree: not teeth means no progress. IMHO, this document was crafted by someone who wanted to remain faithful to the long-held teaching of the Church, but whose primary audience was the editorial directors of the NYT in the vein hope of them recognizing how compasionate and understanding we all are.

Why not just paste a "kick-me" sign on your rear end?

[Balt]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/22/D8E1NF900.html

[Lord let me see]

Tomorrow morning (Nov. 23) NPR's "Morning Edition" will have a segment on the new Vatican document regarding homosexuals in the seminary. Michael S. Rose, author of "Goodbye, Good Men" will talk about the whole business.

Another English translation available at NOR:
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1105-vatican

[NYer]

This is a document written in the style of Paul VI

Say no more! The piecese are all beginning to fall into place now.

"Archbishop Jean Jadot, Pope Paul VI's apostolic delegate to the United States from 1973-1980, has no regrets about the spate of bad bishops he infficted on the Catholics of this country."
Still Proud Of Bishops He Gave U.S.

So, it was Pope Paul VI who opened Pandorra's box and is ultimately responsible for all the novelties, liturgical abuses and lost catholic souls!

"Unknown | 11-4-95 | CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION"

Is this your source?

[fortunecookie]

So, it was Pope Paul VI who opened Pandorra's box and is ultimately responsible for all the novelties, liturgical abuses and lost catholic souls!

Bishops who are scrambling to maintain their hold on control of these novelties and liturgical 'norms' in the light brought by Pope Benedict's papacy. Thank you, Archbishop Jadot for that. It seems like the lid to that box won't be closed easily and these Bishops will fight it all the way.

[Frank Sheed]

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=40891

Another take on it from Catholic World News. In their private subscription thread, the overall take is positive. I suppose those who read more "Vaticanese" need to check this over to see how strong it is.

Frank

[jec1ny]

Setting aside for the moment the fact this alleged document was posted without attribution (which is a fairly serious no-no), it does contain some interesting wording. Much hot air and verbiage has been expended in recent weeks (yes even here on FR) about the fear that those with homosexual inclinations who could remain chaste for three years would be allowed to remain in seminary. This document does not do that. It states...

"When dealing, instead, with homosexual tendencies that might only be a manifestation of a transitory problem, as, for example, delayed adolescence, these must be clearly overcome at least three years before diaconal Ordination."

Overcome means not there anymore. Clearly Rome has opted for a zero tolerance policy. The issue of sanctions are a legitimate point but since the bishops would logically be the ones responsible for enforcement issuing a catalog of anathemas and excommunications is kinda pointless. Rome simply does not have the means to micro manage the world's seminaries. Like it or not it must be handled on a local level. As for a "date effective" clause thats a non issue. In the absence of a specific "effective on" date, all juridical documents issued by the Holy See take effect upon publication.

[hispanichoosier]

Not one word of practical advice from the congregation in charge of seminaries about how to interview prospective candidates regarding their attitutes toward homosexuality and sexuality in general, nor anything about the problem of effeminism.

I think you miss the point of this document. It's an "instruction," not a manual. Instructions are on a lesser level than encyclicals but still meant to be general in themes, not specific.

[jtal]

If this is the real document, then I'm really disappointed.

So, I believe the timeline is this:

1961 : Vatican prohibits ordination of gay men

1960s to 2005 : Massive ordination of gay men, resulting in innumerable cases of sexual assault on teenage boys.

2005 : Vatican says, OK, we'll allow SOME gay men to be ordained.

Wow, so by loosening the prohibition against gay ordinations, you hope to achieve WHAT exactly? I am disappointed they didn't simply reissue a complete ban, with the words "THIS TIME WE MEAN IT!" added.

-jtal

[NYer]

Thank you!!!! for the link. Now, coming from the diocese of Albany (and feel free to substitute the names of those bishops elevated by Archbishop Jadot to their current status), there is a problem with this paragraph.

"The call to Orders is the personal responsibility of the Bishop or the major superior. Holding present the opinion of those to whom the responsibility of the formation is entrusted, the bishop or the major superior, before admitting a candidate to ordination, must reach a morally certain judgment on their quality. In the case of a serious doubt in this respect, they must not admit him to ordination. "

For more than 2 decades, our bishop has called to orders only homosexual men. Since the sex abuse scandal when it was discovered that in many of these 'liberal' dioceses, one found the greatest number of abusers, the bishop has placed a very heterosexual and manly priest in charge of eliciting new recruits. The very orthodox catholics distrust anyone who acts on behalf of this bishop. I know of one family where the son felt called to the priesthood, and he explored multiple religious communities before selecting the one where he would attend their seminary.

This will be an immense challenge to those who support a different agenda from that of the Holy Father.