Ungracious Instruction (Benedict Shoots First, Asks Questions Later)

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Friday, December 2, 2005 | KENNETH L. WOODWARD

[presidio9]

The Vatican's much anticipated Instruction on homosexuality and candidates for the priesthood is unfortunate both in its timing and its contents. It comes ahead of a series of "visitations" by Vatican officials early next year to seminaries in the United States. The purpose is to find out how young men, both gay and straight, are being prepared for the priesthood. Is it true, as some critics have alleged, that some seminaries tolerate "lavender networks" among their students, in total opposition to the spirit and purpose of priestly formation? I'd like to know the answer to that and to a lot of other questions. The last thing the Catholic Church needs is a gay clerical subculture.

But the truth is, church authorities don't have reliable information even on how many priests are gay: Estimates vary wildly from 10% to 60%. Given this lack of basic information, the Vatican would have been wiser to conduct its visitations first and then publish its norms regarding the admission of gays to Holy Orders based on what was learned. Instead it has decided to "shoot first and ask questions later." The result is a document that is vague where it should be precise, impractical where it should be helpful, normative where it should be descriptive and in many ways simply ungracious.

There is, for example, not a single word of gratitude for those priests who, though homosexual in orientation, have led chaste lives and performed well in the ministry of the church. A reader of this Instruction would never guess that there are gay men among the priests, bishops and cardinals who man the Vatican's various departments. Had some of them contributed to its composition, it is possible that we would have a more compassionate -- dare I say even a more Christian? -- document.

[Jeff Chandler]

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

[sinkspur]

There is, for example, not a single word of gratitude for those priests who, though homosexual in orientation, have led chaste lives and performed well in the ministry of the church.

Except for a few courageous bishops, the rest of the Church, especially those in the Curia, would just like to pretend that there aren't any chaste homosexual priests.

[presidio9]

There is not such thing as a "chaste homosexual." The term you are looking for is "homophilic."

[sinkspur]

There is not such thing as a "chaste homosexual."

Yes there is. There are a good number of homosexual priests who live chaste lives.

There is no such word as "homophilic," except in relation to the binding activity of cells.

[dsc]

How low has the WSJ fallen.

[ladyjane]

The Wall St. Journal dares to say that the church should be more Christian? That's a good one.

[dsc]

"There is not such thing as a "chaste homosexual." The term you are looking for is "homophilic."

Homophilic would mean "a mild case of same-sex attraction disorder." While such men might control their pathological compulsions for periods of time, it's impossible to say when they will succumb.

That notwithstanding, SSAD is a mental disorder and an unfortunate who suffers from it is not fit to be a priest.

[guinnessman]

Keep in mind that this is the religion writer for Newsweak. He's not a big fan of anyone who's faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

[presidio9]

This is not "The Walls Street Journal" speaking. This is a contributed column from Newsweek's Ken Woodward.

[blu]

But the truth is, church authorities don't have reliable information even on how many priests are gay

Hey, I know! Why don't they ask us parishioners? Or, even better, ask the local law enforcement. That'd give them some numbers.

[JABBERBONK]

There are no "chaste homosexuals" since Christ said in the sermon on the mount, that if one commits adultery in ones heart then he had committed adultery. A homosexual by admission admits he is attracted to other men, thus he violates Gods law, as well as the Churches teachings. A true vow of celibacy would lead one toward asexuality, not being attracted to either sex.

[GSlob]

"The Wall St. Journal dares to say that the church should be more Christian?"
It is basic psychological substitution and projection - as WSJ becomes scandalously lax in its devotion to Mammon it looks to others for similar infirmities.

[Logophile]

There is, for example, not a single word of gratitude for those priests who, though homosexual in orientation, have led chaste lives and performed well in the ministry of the church.

Come to think of it, my church has not expressed a single word of gratitude for those who, though violent in orientation, refrain from committing murder, rape, or battery. Or for those who, while alcoholic in orientation, refrain from drinking and driving.

Where's the gratitude?

[sinkspur]

A true vow of celibacy would lead one toward asexuality, not being attracted to either sex.

With all due respect, that's the nuttiest thing I've ever heard. Human beings do not lose their human desires or attractions just because they dedicate themselves to God. Through His Grace, they may be able to sublimate them, with more or less success. But men do not cease being men at ordination.

There are no "chaste homosexuals" since Christ said in the sermon on the mount, that if one commits adultery in ones heart then he had committed adultery.

This logic leads one to also state that there are no chaste heterosexuals either. We know that that is not true, and that there are both chaste heterosexuals and homosexuals.