Vatican Prepares Draft Directives Against Admitting Gays as Priests

Arlington Catholic Herald ^ | 10.10.02 | John Thavis

[Coleus]

Update on this Issue in the Comments section below this article:

VATICAN CITY -- The Vatican has prepared a draft document containing directives against the admission of homosexuals to the priesthood, informed Vatican sources said.

The document takes the position that since the church considers the homosexual orientation as "objectively disordered" such people should not be admitted to the seminary or ordained, the sources said Oct. 8.

The question of excluding homosexuals from the priesthood had been quietly considered at the Vatican for years without finding a consensus. It received new and more urgent attention in the wake of U.S. clerical sex abuse cases, many of which involved homosexual acts.

The Congregation for Catholic Education prepared the draft document in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and other Vatican agencies, the sources said. The draft was being circulated for comment in October among a wide range of consultants, including theologians, canon lawyers and other experts, they said.

At the same time, the education congregation has finished work on a separate document that examines how psychological sciences can be used in discerning vocations -- another hotly debated issue at the Vatican in recent years. Its publication was expected before the end of the year.

The document on psychological testing will take the form of guidelines or orientations for bishops to use in their seminaries, the sources said.

However, the draft document on homosexuals will take the form of directives or norms, to be used throughout the universal church, they said.

"The document's position (on admission of homosexuals to the priesthood) is negative, based in part on what the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' says in its revised edition, that the homosexual orientation is 'objectively disordered,'" said one source.

"Therefore, independent of any judgment on the homosexual person, a person of this orientation should not be admitted to the seminary and, if it is discovered later, should not be ordained," he said.

Last year Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, secretary of the Vatican's doctrinal congregation, said in a Catholic News Service interview, "Persons with a homosexual inclination should not be admitted to the seminary."

In September a U.S. Vatican official at the Congregation for Bishops, Father Andrew R. Baker, articulated arguments against acceptance of homosexuals as priesthood candidates in an article published by the Catholic magazine America.

Father Baker said that if a man has a predominant or exclusive same-sex attraction that in itself is grounds for bishops to have "a prudent doubt regarding the candidate's suitability" for receiving the sacrament of orders. Church law says if such a doubt exists the person should not be ordained.

Father Baker said homosexuality was a "disordered attraction" that can "never 'image' God and never contribute to the good of the person or society." He cited potential difficulties for homosexual seminarians or priests; they included problems dealing with their tendencies in a largely heterosexual society, questions about adherence to church teachings, and possible temptations presented in male environments like the seminary or the priesthood.

Father Baker said his article reflected his personal opinion and not the official position of the Vatican. While some Vatican officials have expressed similar views, others are concerned that such an attempt to "weed out" candidates to the priesthood would rely too heavily on interpretive evaluations of an individual's sexuality.

The officials who spoke to Catholic News Service said there was no definitive time frame for the document on homosexuality and admission to the priesthood.

"Only the Holy Spirit knows that," said one official.

Because of the sensitivity of the issues involved, Pope John Paul II and other top Vatican officials will be carefully reviewing it before publication, the sources said.

"There could be changes, especially because this is an interdicasterial (interdepartmental) work. There are some passages that must be written with very careful attention," said one official.

The wording in the catechism that describes the homosexual inclination as "objectively disordered" was added when the definitive Latin text of the catechism was released in 1997. Earlier editions of the catechism said homosexual acts were intrinsically disordered and said homosexual tendencies represented a trial for most people.

The document on psychological testing, titled "Orientations for the Use of Psychological Methods in the Admission and Formation of Candidates to the Priesthood," was discussed at the education congregation's plenary assembly in February.

At that time, the pope told the congregation's members that guidelines on the use of psychology to evaluate seminary candidates could help identify real vocations and ensure that such decisions are made with "a wider sense of awareness."

The pope said the support from psychological sciences should be used in a balanced way as part of the overall vocational path, integrated in a candidate's formation program. He said recourse to psychological methods can only be understood in the context of the "climate of faith" that marks the vocational decision.

Psychological methods "do not eliminate every type of difficulty and tension, but favor a wider sense of awareness and a freer exercise of liberty" when it comes to the challenging choice of a priestly vocation, he said.

Many Vatican officials have privately voiced apprehension about over-reliance on psychological methods to screen candidates to the priesthood. The document is said to address those concerns by stressing a balanced approach that recognizes the potential contributions of psychology, but within a limited sphere of competence.

[AlaskaErik]

Homosexuals are sexually deviant predators. This will do nothing to stop them from becoming priests so that they can prey on a captive audience. They will simply lie about their orientation.

[squirt-gun]

The singular word "disordered" is even better.

[Zetman]

"Interesting--I hadn't seen that interpretation before, make sense. Priest can't marry as a vow of celibacy. They can't have sex outside of marriage (though shall not commit adultery) so in the case of a Priest, a vow of celibacy is the same as a vow of no sex. In other words, they could be true to the vow of celibacy and have sex (home or hetero)but at that moment they have committed a mortal sin--just as bad as breaking the celibacy vow (maybe worse in the eyes of the Church)."

---

Actually, no. As you said, "Adultery" is when a person has sex with another person who is already married. However, two SINGLE AND UNMARRIED people who have sex with each other is called "fornication". This is also not allowed, and is considered to be a sin. Although fornication is not specifically mentioned in the 10 Commandments, it IS mentioned in the New Testament, and it is most assuredly a "no no".

The only sex that is "allowed", according to Christianity as I understand it, is heterosexual sex between a monogamous man and woman who are of age, and consensually married to each other - in the eyes of the church and the eyes of God. If one does not fit into this category, one is expected to remain celibate - whether one is a priest, or not.

[lp boonie]

I don't disagree. What I am troubled with is homosexuals who are already Priests. Many have lived chaste lives and kept their vows. Should they now resign?

[Zetman]

"I don't disagree. What I am troubled with is homosexuals who are already Priests. Many have lived chaste lives and kept their vows. Should they now resign?"

*******

My opinion is yes, they should resign, or be removed. Mainly for the reasons that I mentioned in my previous post: the temptations are too great. For the sake of their own salvation, as well as potentially that of others, they should resign. I am sure there are many other ways that God would have for them for them to serve - he has a Plan for all of us. However, I believe that the priesthood would not be in their best interest, nor the best interest of the church.

[lp boonie]

I think we are talking about a lot of Priests.

[saradippity]

You are correct and the dissidents and progressives have long been very crafty in using the word "celibate" with a big wink to their oh-so,knowing confreres in the lavender mafia and their sympathizers. They nod sagely and agree that celibacy is good,knowing full well they have no intention to marry,never had and never will. They prefer "intimate" relationships with those of the same sex,any old age,it seems. Well,actually younger is better,like teenagers for example.

I always use the term "chaste,celibate" when describing qualifications for the priesthood. Just to be sure there is no mistake on the front end of a discussion.

[Zetman]

"I think we are talking about a lot of Priests."

*****

Unfortunately, you may be right.

The thing that puzzles me the most is: how did this happen?? How did we "suddenly" wind up with so many homosexual priests?? From what I can tell, this is a relatively recent "difficulty" within the church (since sometime in the 20th. century). Before that, homosexuality in the priesthood was not a common problem. If this is true, I am curious to know what caused this problem to suddenly appear after nearly 2,000 years of church history?? I have heard plausible theories, but no simple answers.

Either way, a lot of priests may need to be removed from the priesthood. That would be very troublesome for the church, especially in light of the fact that there is such a shortage of priests. However, I believe that such removals are an unfortunate necessity. The church may need to shrink for awhile, as it restores itself back to what it should be. However, in the long run, that may not be such a bad thing!!

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Psychological methods "do not eliminate every type of difficulty and tension, but favor a wider sense of awareness and a freer exercise of liberty" when it comes to the challenging choice of a priestly vocation, he said.

"Wider sense of awareness and a freer exercise of liberty"? What does that mean? Whenever you spot recourse to fuzzy jargonology in a bureaucratic church document, pay close attention.

Many Vatican officials have privately voiced apprehension about over-reliance on psychological methods to screen candidates to the priesthood. The document is said to address those concerns by stressing a balanced approach that recognizes the potential contributions of psychology, but within a limited sphere of competence.

Why have they done so only "privately"? Has the church become a maze of secret societies where everyone is afraid to speak the truth in public?

Speaking as someone who was on the scene during the great era of clerical misadventures in psychobabble (the 1970s)and the monstrously absurd distortions which were introduced by that into the Catholic community for the purposes of foundation-sponsored liberal social engineering, I can observe that the problem is that there does not exist a logically coherent scientific consensus on what defines competent and valid claims in "psychology." Anyone familiar with the development of modern psychology and psychiatry knows (and particularly in the area of sexuality)that it eventually falls into the biases and subjective interpretation of the psychologists, how they read and interpret the scientific record, where they were trained, who trained them, and what the biases and ideological vectors were that led them, their teachers, and the founders of the modern theories into the field. In the 1960s and 1970s, a lot of these theories were wrong - especially anything rooted in Freudianism.

The other OBVIOUS factor in all of this is that spotting "crazies" does not necessarily require examination by psychologists or psychological testing. Keep in mind, it was psychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists, and the "experts" who recommended "treating" pedophiles and returning them to priestly ministry after merely administering "counseling" by psychological "therapists."

This latest church document had better include citation of the varieties of criticism and analysis of church misadventures in psychology. That could start with the information detailed in Goodbye, Good Men. Unfortunately, a thorough study which clarifies this probably does not exist precisely because of the cover-up mentality which pervades liberal abuses of psychopolitics within AmChurch, the academic community, and liberal ideological circles in general.

I would certainly like to know what "wider sense of awareness" means when the cover up on many of these matters not only continues but that Catholic families are shelling out for the bills that keep the liberal psychopolitics mafia deeply embedded in Catholic institutions and clerical bureaucracies.

[afraidfortherepublic]

I thought that they did this routinely years ago -- that it was not until the Lavender Mafia took over some of the Seminaries that things changed.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Marriage has nothing to do with it. Look at all the married Protestant and Jewish clergy who get into trouble sexually.

[NYer]

Catholic Ping - Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[Coleus]

I thought that they did this routinely years ago -- that it was not until the Lavender Mafia took over some of the Seminaries that things changed.

they addressed the issue back in 1961

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/mar/02032701.html

[Sun]

"it is time for priest to marry"

Well, actually your comment could be another thread.

These priests who abused minors do not want to marry women; they are homosexuals.

In 1961 the Vatican told bishops that seminaries should not allow homosexuals. Some seminaries did not listen, and look what happened.

I heard a man interviewed on Catholic, former Congressman Bob Dornan's radio show, and he said that he wanted to become a priest a number of years ago, but was not allowed, because he said that homosexuality was a sin in an interview. This happened to many good, heterosexual men, and Rose even wrote a book about it: "Goodbye, Good Men."

The boyscouts have it right.

[afraidfortherepublic]

they addressed the issue back in 1961

Yeah, but they seemed to forget about it from 1962 on...

[Romish_Papist]

"Also, anyone who has... lived promiscuously as a heterosexual would not be admitted ... no matter how many years in his background that might have occurred."

Regarding the promiscuous heterosexual thing this might come back to bite them. Not saying it's wrong mind you, just saying that some people DO wake up to the wrongs they have been partaking in and DO make 180 degree changes. Many saints of old were wild youths who lived impious lives before God changed them, and they, well, they became saints. Not really sure what I'm getting at here, just felt like it needed saying. I will of course, submit to whatever Rome decides.

[Deo volente]

Some further reading for you on "church misadventures in psychology",

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/coulson.htm


Dr. William Coulson was the assistant to humanistic psychologist Carl Rogers.
Unfortunately, I can not find the article on-line where he describes how he wrecked an entire order of nuns after introducing them to "encounter therapy". It's in a 1994 issue of Latin Mass magazine.
But the article I've linked above gives you enough information to understand what happened.

I find that the Church out here in Los Angeles is still very much infected with the errors of humanistic psychology. It permeates the annual Religious Education Conference, and the archdiocese is full of priests preaching psychobabble.

[Coleus]

You may have a point

Saint Augustine was a playboy and had an illegitimate son. Both were baptized at the same time by St. Ambrose.

[Romish_Papist]

Exactly!

[Arthur McGowan]

The two phrases ("intrinsically disordered" and "objectively disordered") apply to two different things: homosexual acts and same-sex attraction. It is only ACTS which are morally good or bad; it is ACTS which are in themselves evil that are called "intrinsically" evil. To have same-sex attractions (or opposite-sex attractions) is neither moral or immoral, since no act of the will is involved. But since same-sex attractions are an attraction to acts which are intrinsically immoral, the attractions are objectively disordered. Opposite-sex attractions are attractions to acts which may be immoral in some circumstances, but which are intrinsically good. Of course, nowadays the majority of people with "opposite-sex attractions" indulge in sodomy--i.e., the use of contraception, which renders "normal" sex acts sterile. Thus, most "heterosexual" adults today are sodomites.