Posted on 11/22/2005 8:08:48 PM PST by markomalley
Nov. 22 (CWNews.com) - The following is an unofficial translation by CWN of the full Vatican document.
Congregation for Catholic Education
Instruction concerning the criteria of vocational discernment regarding persons with homosexual tendencies, considering their admission to seminary and to Holy Orders
Introduction
Following the teaching of Vatican II and, in particular, the decree Optatam Totius on priestly formation, the Congregation for Catholic Education has published different documents to promote an adequate formation integral of future priests, offering guidance and precise norms regarding their several aspects. In the meantime also the Synod of Bishops in 1999 reflected on the formation of priests in the present circumstances, with the intent to bring to fulfillment the conciliar doctrine on the subject and to render it more explicit and incisive in the contemporary world. Following this Synod, John Paul II published the post-Synodic apostolic exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis.
In light of this rich teaching, the present Instruction does not intend to linger on all the questions by nature emotional or sexual that require careful discernment throughout the whole period of the formation. It contains norms regarding a particular question, made more urgent by the present situation, that is that of the admission or non-admission to the seminary and Holy Orders of candidates who have profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies.
I. Emotional maturity and spiritual fatherhood
According to the constant Tradition of the Church, baptized males alone may validly receive Holy Orders. By means of the sacrament of Orders, the Holy Spirit configures the candidate, to a new and specific role, Jesus Christ: the priest, in fact, sacramentally represents Christ, Head, Shepherd, and Bridegroom of the Church. Because of this configuration to Christ, the entire life of the holy priest must be animated by the gift of his whole person to the Church and with an authentic pastoral love.
The candidate for ordained ministry, therefore, must reach emotional maturity. That maturity renders him able to put himself in the proper relation with men and women, developing in him a true sense of spiritual fatherhood toward the ecclesial community entrusted to him.
II. Homosexuality and ordained ministry
From Vatican II until today, several documents of the Magisterium—and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church— have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism differentiates between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.
Regarding acts, it teaches that, in Sacred Scripture, these are presented as grave sins. Tradition has constantly considered them to be intrinsically immoral and contrary to natural law. These, consequently, may not be approved in any case.
Concerning profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, that one discovers in a certain number of men and women, these are also objectively disordered and often constitute a trial, even for these men and women. These people must be received with respect and delicacy; one will avoid every mark of unjust discrimination with respect to them. These are called to realize the will of God in their lives and to unite to the Sacrifice of the Lord the difficulties that they may encounter.
In light of this teaching, this department, in agreement with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, holds it necessary clearly to affirm that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, may not admit to the seminary and Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, show profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.
The above persons find themselves, in fact, in a situation that gravely obstructs a right way of relating with men and women. The negative consequences that may derive from the Ordination of persons with profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies are by no means to by ignored.
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.
III. Discernment of qualification of the candidates on the part of the Church
There are two indissociable aspects in every priestly vocation: the free gift of God and the responsible liberty of the man. Vocation is a gift of divine grace, received through the Church, in the Church and for the service of the Church. Responding to the call of God, the man offers himself freely to Him in love. The desire alone to become a priest is not sufficient and there is no right to receive Ordination. It is the duty of the Church— in Her responsibility to define the necessary requisites for the reception of the Sacraments instituted by Christ— to discern the qualification of he who wishes to enter the seminary, to accompany him during his years of formation and to call him to Holy Orders, if he be judged to be in possession of the requisite qualities.
The formation of future priests must articulate, in an essential complimentarity, the four dimensions of formation: human, spiritual, intellectual, and pastoral. In this context, it is necessary to reveal the particular importance of the human formation, the necessary foundation of all formation. To admit a candidate to the ordination to the diaconate, the Church must verify, among others, that he have reached emotional maturity of a candidate for the priesthood.
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.
The discernment of the vocation and the maturity of the candidate is also a grave duty of the rector and the other teachers of the seminary. Before every ordination, the rector must express his judgment on the quality of the candidate required by the Church.
In the discernment of qualification for Ordination, there is a grave duty for the spiritual director. While being bound by secrecy, he represents the Church in the entire forum. In meetings with the candidate, the spiritual director must especially remember the demands of the Church regarding priestly celibacy and the emotional maturity specific of a priest, as well as help him to discern if he has the necessary qualities. He has the obligation to assess all the qualities of the personality and to ascertain that the candidate does not present sexual troubles incompatible with the priesthood. If a candidate practices homosexuality or present profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director, like his confessor, must dissuade him, in conscience, from proceeding towards Ordination.
It remains understood that the candidate himself has the first responsibility for his own formation. He must offer himself with faith to the discernment of the Church, the bishop who calls to Orders, the rector of the seminary, the spiritual director, and the other teachers of the seminary to whom the bishop or the superior general has entrusted the duty of forming future priests. It would be gravely dishonest if a candidate were to hide his own homosexuality to enter, notwithstanding everything, to Ordination. An attitude so inauthentic does not correspond to the spirit of truth, allegiance, and availability that must characterize the personality of he who believes to be called to serve Christ and His Church in the priestly ministry.
Conclusion
This Congregation confirms the necessity that the bishops, the superior generals, and all the responsible involved fulfill a painstaking discernment regarding the qualification of candidates for Holy Orders, from the admission to the seminary until Ordination. This discernment must be done in light of a conception of the ministerial priesthood in concordance with the teaching of the Church.
The Bishops, the Episcopal Conferences, and the Superior Generals must be vigilant that the norms of this Instruction be observed faithfully for the good of the candidates themselves and always to guarantee to the Church suitable priests, true pastors according to the Heart of Christ.
The Sovereign Pontiff Benedict XVI, August 31 2005, approved this Instruction and ordered its publication.
Rome, November 4, 2005, Memorial of Saint Charles Borromeo, Patron of Seminaries
- Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, Prefect
- Archbishop J. Michael Miller, CSB; Secretary
Why are they liberalozing the policies towards homosexuals in the priesthood at a time like this. The exception is going to define the rule.
I tend to agree. Once expelled from a seminary for this reason, the expulsion will be like a "Mark of Cain" everywhere else the individual might try to go to later.
I think, upon reflection, that this is a good thing to have put in. At first, I was dismayed that there wasn't an outright ban. That, of course, could work. But, this way, a "pool" of prospective seminarians of homosexual tendency can be eliminated from present and future seminary attendance when they can be relied upon (almost guaranteed) to "flunk" the time period. Once out, they will never get back in (if this is actually going to have teeth in it, and get enforced), and the appropriate message will have been sent. The underground network will be essentially broken.
Seminary rectors who have facilitated the status quo for years also need to be dealt with in an even tougher fashion, else the document may be gutted. Many in this country should be dismissed forthwith. I wish that issue was directly addressed.
I've often wondered why no psychiatrists received blame in all the media surrounding the abuse scandal.
I recall that Bishop Sheed was very much against Freudianism. I gather that he knew that many priests had fallen under its spell. As regards homosexuality, Jung had what I think an interesting observation: he said that it is much more pervalent in urban societies, that in such societies there is often more confusion about sexual roles than in rural environs. No doubt that there is a natural element in the disorder. Francis Parkman found it among thr Sioux indians. A handful are unfit to be counted as braves and dress and work with the women. I remain unconvinced, however, that the cause is natural, exc ept in the way that natural weakness lead all of us to take the paths of least resistance.
By their fruits shall you know them? ;-)
Thanks for the ping! Hopefully some crackdowns will follow.
IIRC, Cardinal Law sent pedophile priests to special psychiatric treatment, and he also had a file full of things from the psychiatrists saying that the various pedophile priests had been "treated" and were no threat. In fact, in many cases, he was doing exactly what the criminal justice system did with non-violent sex offenders (and getting the same non-results, may I add!).
But the press went after him and there was never a peep about the psychiatrists and "therapists."
I don't think any changes are going to occur until the Pope does something dramatic, like remove at least one bishop.
The bishops - who protect the homosexual priests, seminary rectors, etc. under them - have skated away for so many decades now that they just assume that they are untouchable.
You are absolutely correct. The only way we will know if they are taking this seriously is if the Bishops are held accountable too.
I really hate to do this but this is a snip from a CWN article.
...And why, boys and girls, was it a foregone conclusion that the bishops would "sidestep" the issue? Because the question of whether gays should be ordained cannot be addressed without first addressing a considerably more explosive question: the number of bishop-disputants who are themselves gay and have a profound personal interest that there be no public examination of the connections between their sexual appetites, their convictions, and their conduct of office.
Let's do a little stock-taking of those U.S. bishops who are publicly known to be gay:
Retired Bishop Dan Ryan of Springfield, IL. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Retired Bishop Tom Dupre of Springfield, MA. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Retired Bishop Patrick Ziemann of Santa Rosa, CA. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Retired Bishop Kendrick Williams of Lexington, KY. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Retired Bishop Keith Symons of Palm Beach, FL. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Retired Bishop Lawrence Soens of Sioux City, IA. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Retired Bishop Joseph Hart of Cheyenne, WY. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Retired Bishop Anthony O'Connell of Palm Beach, FL. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? Through the offices of the civil justice system.
Non-Retired Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, FL. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? The papers reported his $100,000 sexual harassment pay-off to his communications flack.
Retired Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee, WI. Did he tell us he was gay? No. Did his brother bishops tell us he was gay? No. Then how did we find out? His lover broke the news on Good Morning America .
Nota bene: this isn't a roster of gay bishops. This isn't even a roster of gay bishops who have misbehaved. This is list of only those gay bishops whose misbehavior has gotten them in trouble with the law -- and that so deeply that their proclivities were objectively undeniable. What percentage of the total of gay bishops do they represent? I don't know and you don't know. And about the only things we do know are...
link to the article:
http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=2791
There are probably some people who have more or less of the personality characteristics we think of as "masculine" or "feminine," but I suspect that environmental factors are ultimately responsible for full-fledged homosexuality - that is, an absent or brutal father, a manipulative mother, etc.
But the reasons really don't matter. I suspect that once upon a time, in the pre-Freudian days when sex was not considered the be-all and end-all of life, some people who probably had homosexual tendencies because of whatever reason may have been successfully able to sublimate these tendencies and be good priests or religious. But ever since we enshrined sex, life has become much more difficult for people like that, because they feel that sexual expression has become some sort of mandate, and they'll go crazy if they don't "do it." Or even if they're not doing anything, they feel they're being dishonest and repressed if they don't sit around and wallow in the thought that they're "gay."
Once upon a time, people (clergy and devout laity alike) used to spend their time thinking about Christ, about judgment, about Heaven, etc. Now they spend it thinking about themselves.
Go to mass and notice how much of it is therapy talk. Half the time the homily is about something therapeutic (such as the dread "self acceptance"), the songs are all about "Me," and the whole atmosphere is sentimental and quasi-psychiatric.
Non-Retired Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, FL
This one has always bothered me, because I live in Florida, and also because I remember his disgraceful behavior at the time of Terri Schiavo's death by starvation.
He was famous for taking pictures of young male diocesan employees in Speedos (which he had given them!), and of course pursued one employee so hotly that the man finally sued him and won. He was also involved in a peculiar financial scandal involving no-bid contracts for diocesan construction. And then, during the Schiavo affair, he was away from his diocese at Easter, visiting Bangkok(!). Yet he is still a bishop in good standing and I have never heard a word of admonishment to him from either Rome or his fellow bishops.
Don't think we did, or at least not enough of us. Else we wouldn't be in the present fix. But I agree with you about the tome of the average homily. It does not tell us to be holy, only to be good neighbors.
The only thing I knew about him was how invisible he was during the Schiavo fiasco.
"I don't think any changes are going to occur until the Pope does something dramatic, like remove at least one bishop."
I nominate Bishop Lynch.
I second that!
lavender bumpus ad summum
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.