In Strong Terms, Rome Is to Ban Gays as Priests

New York Times ^ | 11-23-05 | IAN FISHER and LAURIE GOODSTEIN

[jec1ny]

In Strong Terms, Rome Is to Ban Gays as Priests By IAN FISHER and LAURIE GOODSTEIN ROME, Nov. 22 - A new Vatican document excludes from the priesthood most gay men, with few exceptions, banning in strong and specific language candidates "who are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called 'gay culture.' "

The long-awaited document, which has leaked out in sections over the last few months, was published Tuesday in Italian by an Italian Catholic Web site, AdistaOnline.it.

[RobbyS]

A lot has changed in 40 years, in case you haven't noticed. What the Lavender faction wanted was no reference to homosexuality at all. A significant number of bishops belong to this faction.

[sinkspur]

First, let me say that you have been almost singular in your level-headed approach to this document and this issue in the last 48 hours. It is clear that you have not knee-jerked in what is a sensitive, yet volatile matter.

And I was with you until you made this statement:

I do not doubt that there are some fine and totally orthodox priests who may have homosexual urges but live a life of chastity. But the danger to their souls and to others should they fail, is too great to take that chance.

You make the mistake of assuming that homosexuals simply cannot resist the urge for sexual activity. Clearly they can, as a not insignificant number of celibate and chaste homosexual priests in the Church today demonstrates.

Should they fail, the "danger to their souls" is no greater than should a heterosexual fail with a woman.

In actuality, after a man leaves the seminary, he is likely to encounter in his daily ministry a larger number of women than men. Are heterosexuals, by that fact, deserving of special monitoring?

Of course not. Some homosexuals are caught at a level of adolescent immaturity which obsesses with sexual satisfaction. These men should be asked to consider another vocation, since, like a heterosexual who cannot stay away from women, they are not cut out to be celibates.

We have to be careful, lest we do a disservice to the not insignificant number of homosexual men who are observing chastity and bringing God's grace to His People.

This document is the right course of action.

I agree with you here, as it clearly delineates under which circumstances a homosexual man might be considered for the seminary and for ordination. These are common-sense prescriptions, and I don't see how anyone could disagree with them.

[marshmallow]

How so? The 1961 statement was straightforward. This has exeptions that you can drive a truck through. Basically, bishops and seminary directors have the ammunition to defend whtever decisions they make. It's basicall a don't ask-don't tell policy. Those seeking female ordinations will feel tremendously heartened that if they proceed, rules will gradually be relaxed.

A couple of points.

The 1961 statement was not specifically directed at the homosexual question. It was a lengthy document aimed at all applicants for the seminary and in that document there was one sentence aimed specifically at the homosexual question. That was it.

The fact that this document was ignored (so much for the 1961 statement) has necesssitated the present instruction which specifically discusses the homosexual issue.

It does not have exceptions which one can drive a truck through. With ill will, any instruction can be circumvented, just as the 1961 instruction was. The current document says this:

If, however, one is dealing with homosexual tendencies that may be simply the expression of a transitory problem, such as for example an adolescence not yet complete, such tendencies must be overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.

I understand that to mean that nobody with homosexual tendencies (key word), may be ordained. Not just the homosexuals who are managing to keep it zipped and cry "I'm celibate", but anyone with homosexual tendencies.

Finally, as I mentioned in a previous post, this will all hinge on implementation which is why it is important that this document appears concurrently with the seminary visitations. Even the most explicit document will fail, just as the 1961 document did if those responsible for its observance simply ignore it.

The document and the seminary visitations go hand in hand.

[RobbyS]

They have succeeded in causing a back lash. Until the scandals started coming, we were generally ignorant of what was going on. They have been outed and they don't like it. Over the years we all noticed how many odd priests we encountered. Now we know they were not just eccentrics, but dangerous men. They hated it when the catechism came out, and of course it was the pope who dissed them.

[Victoria Delsoul]

"It's a clear statement by the Vatican that gay men are not welcome in seminaries and religious orders," said the Rev. James Martin...

"It raises the bar so high that it would be difficult to imagine gay men feeling encouraged to pursue a life in the priesthood," he added.

I agree with that.

The Vatican document emphasizes gays. That means, men whose homosexual tendencies are prevalent and as the Vatican document indicates, "who are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called 'gay culture.” If a gay man becomes a priest and keeps his homosexual tendencies and temptations under control, he wouldn't be called a “gay priest” but just a priest, because his homosexuality wouldn't override his commitment to priesthood, and no one would notice that at one point in his past he was homosexual.

However, in light of the many scandals the Catholic Church has faced regarding homosexual priests and the harm they've done to children, banning these individuals makes perfect sense not only to the Church and their communities, but also to the Church teachings.

God condemns homosexuality as described by Paul in Romans 1:

26:Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27:In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

[jec1ny]

I must respectfully disagree on two points. First I did not say or intend to imply that homosexuals are incapable of chastity. In fact your quote from my post makes the opposite point. My concern is that gay seminarians would be living in an environment that is nearly exclusively male (young men for the most part). The dangers of priest drawing someone into a homosexual liaison is more serious then heterosexual ones as this can have long term psychological consequences for their partner (especially if the partner was not by inclination homosexual). Whereas heterosexual indiscretions and failings, serious though they are not nearly as likely to cause someone to take up practices which are unnatural and inadmissible under any circumstances. A woman who falls for a scandalous priest can go to confession and marry someone and have a relatively normal life. The psychological injury that might be done to a young man or teenager as a result of being seduced by another man (especially a priest) is far more serious. There have been young men who have committed suicide over this.

The 2nd point of contention is your assertion that this document delineates the circumstances under which a homosexual may be ordained. It is crystal clear in saying there are no such circumstances. When it says that homosexual tendencies must have been overcome for at least three years that means the prospective candidate no longer has homosexual inclinations and has not for three years (I would prefer a longer period to be safe). But if the individual has no homosexual inclinations they are not homosexual. Ipso facto there is no provision whatsoever for the ordination of homosexuals to the priesthood.

[marshmallow]

I agree with you here, as it clearly delineates under which circumstances a homosexual man might be considered for the seminary and for ordination.

The document is crystal clear in pointing out that there aren't any.

Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere does it state that homosexuals may be ordained under certain circumstances.

On the contrary, it states that those who may have experienced homosexual tendencies must be free of those tendencies for a period of three years.

In my world, someone who is free of homosexual tendencies is not homosexual.

[Alberta's Child]

Good post. The Vatican probably focuses on gay men whose tendencies are more prevalent simply because these tendencies are far more likely to show up in the screening process for prospective seminarians.

[jec1ny]

hehehe I think I beat you to the post button by probably 10 seconds. Oddly using almost the same language.

[marshmallow]

Yeah, I was just thinking that.

I know "great minds think alike" but this is creepy.

[Victoria Delsoul]

The Vatican probably focuses on gay men whose tendencies are more prevalent simply because these tendencies are far more likely to show up in the screening process for prospective seminarians.

That's exactly right. That's what I think as well.

[nickcarraway]

The smart ones know this is better than no reference at all. They have won concessions on the printed page.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Amen and amen.

[RobbyS]

As noted above, this is the first time homosexuals have been singled out. It is a policy consistent with what is contained in the catechism.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Good to see ya, BB.

[hosepipe]

[ "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." --Jesus ]

Which church.?.

[sinkspur]

But if the individual has no homosexual inclinations they are not homosexual. Ipso facto there is no provision whatsoever for the ordination of homosexuals to the priesthood.

With all due respect, this is absurd.

This formerly-inclined homosexual who no longer has homosexual inclinations is what? A heterosexual? An android? What?

This statement means that a homosexual is making the promise that he can control himself. Heterosexuals must demonstrate the same control and make the same promise.

The onus for determining who, and who will not, be admitted to a seminary is on the diocesan bishop or the religious superior, as it has always been. There are now new guidelines in regard to homosexuals who present themselves for admission.

But you are playing word games if you think that homosexuals who are no longer "inclined" toward homosexual practice are anything but homosexual, albeit celibate.

[sinkspur]

Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere does it state that homosexuals may be ordained under certain circumstances.

Of course it doesn't. What it does is outline three specific circumstances in which a homosexual may NOT be ordained. All other circumstances, including not having "homosexual tendencies" (i.e., self-control), may be considered on an individual basis.

In my world, someone who is free of homosexual tendencies is not homosexual.

Is one who has no heterosexual tendencies, though he may have had them in the past, no longer heterosexual?

[George W. Bush]

Trust me, we are ALL, as Christians, disgusted with this scourge, and are trying everything w/in our power to remedy it.

One would hope there can be no serious debate on the issue of a shepherd turning wolf and preying on the flock among those within the broad path of Christian orthodoxy.

Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.

[jec1ny]

If you read the document in its context you will note that they are identifying persons who were immature in their sexuality. This would be for instance young men who may have been confused or had some passing infatuation. It does not apply to persons who are biologically or genetically predisposed to homosexuality. Such persons obviously can not overcome their tendencies and therefor would be inadmissible to the seminary.

As for playing word games I think it is you and other church liberals who are rather desperately seeking some means of perverting the very clear language of this edict in the hopes of allowing these people to be admitted to Holy Orders. Yes its true that bishops will still have broad control over what goes on in their seminaries and who they choose to admit to orders. We have seen this in LA Rochester and Albany. But bishops are not islands answerable to no one outside of their little domain. Rome has taken an interest in what is going on. And you may be assured that careful notes are being taken, especially in the current inspection of the American seminaries. John Paul II (Magnus) tended to have a hands off attitude in management. This pope has already been showing in various subtle ways that there is a new sheriff in town. Ask the Austrian bishops.