Battle lines drawn over Vatican stance on gays (a MUST read!)

Nov. 23 (CWNews.com) - Ordinarily the secular media in America do not become involved in theological disputes within the Catholic Church. But when the topic is as controversial as the acceptance of homosexuality, the ordinary rules do not apply.

A new "Instruction" from the Vatican-- scheduled for release on November 29, but leaked one week earlier by an Italian news agency-- has stated in clear, unmistakable terms that homosexuals should not be ordained to the priesthood or admitted to seminary training.

The public release of the Vatican document in its final form ends weeks of furious lobbying by groups within the Church, and equally aggressive efforts to "spin" the story. The results of that publicity campaign were evident in the headlines that greeted the Vatican announcement; most media outlets stressed that the Vatican was banning active gays from the seminaries. The door would still be open, most reports implied, to men who do not act out their homosexual impulses.

The full text of the "Instruction" from the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education explains that homosexual impulses are, in themselves, a sign of a serious personality disorder. While such impulses are not inherently sinful (in the way that homosexual acts are gravely sinful), they interfere with a candidate's ability to achieve what the document calls "affective maturity and spiritual paternity." So anyone who identifies himself as homosexual-- whether or not he is sexually active-- is not an appropriate candidate for priestly ministry.

The New York Times, in its accurate treatment of the Vatican document, reported: "Several critics worried that that language would make it nearly impossible for men who believe their basic orientation is gay-- but who are celibate-- to become priests."

For more than a decade, knowledgeable Catholic journalists had been aware that the Vatican was working on a document about homosexuals in seminaries; Pope John Paul II (bio - news) had commissioned a study on that subject way back in 1994. But the topic leapt onto the American headlines in mid-September, when the Roman news agency I Media announced that the Instruction would bar gay men from ordination.

CWN broke that story to English-language readers on September 22. Within days the New York Times, citing its own sources in Rome, issued a similar report: the document would impose a ban on homosexual seminarians.

Notice: At that point, the Vatican document had already been completed; the original CWN story noted that the Instruction had been approved by Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news).

Nevertheless, the public disclosure that the Congregation for Catholic Education would take a tough stance on gay seminarians touched off a vigorous effort to change the content of the Vatican statement, or delay its public appearance. Leaders of American religious congregations headed for Rome, explaining that they would caution against the release of a "divisive" document.

Guided by strategic leaks from Rome, other news outlets predicted that the document would be less sweeping than the first reports had suggested. Early in October the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, citing informed Vatican sources, said that the Instruction would allow for the admission of men who are homosexual but celibate. Corriere della Sera introduced the notion that a 3-year period of sexual continence would be deemed adequate evidence of chastity.

Meanwhile many seminary rectors in the US assured reporters that they would not-- and perhaps could not-- discourage homosexual men from entering priestly training. Seminary officials claimed that it would be impossible to identify homosexuals-- even, in one case, going so far as to claim that homosexual activity is not a sign of homosexuality! A Pittsburgh seminary rector told that city's Post-Gazette that it is very difficult to discern whether or not a young man is homosexual. He explained:

You can have an orientation and never engage in homosexual acts. And you can have some young man who has too much to drink and engages in perversions he never would otherwise. That doesn't mean he's gay.

Bishops, too, joined in the chorus, issuing pre-emptive criticism of the stand the Vatican was expected to take. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin told the British Catholic publication, The Tablet, "You don't write off a candidate for the priesthood simply because he is a gay man."

The president of the US bishops' conference, Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane, proclaimed: "There are many wonderful and excellent priests in the Church who have a gay orientation, are chaste and celibate, and are very effective ministers of the Gospel." If Bishop Skylstad's words seemed to prepare readers for a policy that would restrict the priesthood to celibate homosexuals, he served notice that any more aggressive stance would meet heavy resistance. "Witch hunts and gay-bashing have no place in the Church," he said.

For American bishops, seminary rectors, and religious superiors, such public statements served a dual purpose. First, they offered justification for the policies that clearly have been followed throughout the American Church for years; seminaries have admitted men who are identifiably homosexual, and bishops have ordained them to the priesthood. Second, the statements implicitly reassured jittery liberal Catholics that no matter what policy the Vatican adopted, most American Church leaders would continue to follow the same policies. If the Vatican banned gay seminarians, American Church leaders would interpret that directive as a ban on active homosexuals only. If the document went further, and closed the doors to those with homosexual impulses, the bishops and seminarian officials would protest that they had no way to identify homosexuals, and refuse to conduct a "witch hunt."

Earlier in November, it appeared that the foes of a strong Vatican stand had gained the upper hand. The Italian daily Il Giornale printed excerpts from the forthcoming document, and suggested that the seminary doors would be closed only to men with "deeply rooted" homosexual tendencies.

Diogenes, the pseudonymous commentator of the CWN Off the Record weblog, was disheartened by the arguments reproduced in Il Giornale, and sadly concluded that bishops and seminary rectors would take the document as a confirmation of existing policy. He argued:

After all, no bishop and no religious superior anywhere in the Church will claim to have conducted his admission and formation program differently from the new norms over the past decades ("OK, we used to admit and ordain sexually active homosexuals who were deep into the gay scene, but in light of this Instruction I guess we won't any more...").

But the New York Times-- which, to its credit, has been accurate in its reporting throughout the controversy--followed up on November 11 with a story suggesting that the document would be fairly clear in calling for a ban on all self-identified homosexuals-- active or not. The Times report contained an unambiguous statement from a supporter of gay priests:

Mark D. Jordan, a professor of religion at Emory University who has written several books about the church and homosexuality, said that the language would "clearly" exclude even celibate gay men.

As the date of publication approached, a group of avowedly homosexual priests-- later identified as a small number of clerics, mostly from Chicago-- threatened to protest the document by "outing" themselves and perhaps even some American bishops. (Diogenes encouraged the gay priests to carry out their threats.)

Now the statement is out. The actual publication of the text, anticipated in the November 29 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, will be an afterthought; the text is already in circulation, and the only likely changes will be niceties of translation.

The Vatican Instruction is clear. Even Diogenes, who had been skeptical just a few days earlier, enthusiastically welcomed the clarity of the Instruction.

The lines of authority are clear, too. It is now the duty of bishops, religious superiors, and seminary officials to enact the policy. And so now a second battle begins: the struggle for faithful implementation of the Church's announced policy.

In some religious communities, the resistance to the Vatican directive may be difficult to overcome. As the Los Angeles Times reported, "A spokesman for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles said the instructions would have little, if any, effect on how seminaries in the Los Angeles area admit candidates."

But for Catholics who take Church teaching seriously-- whether they are bishops setting policy, seminary rectors testing students, religious superiors assessing novices, or young men considering a priestly vocation-- the Instruction should leave no lingering doubts.

I am in full agreement. This business is deeply embedded in the American Church. Deeply.

The corruption runs from top to bottom. Even the really very decent priests and bishops do not ever talk about this business except perhaps in private. A massive cover up is and has been in place. This is not an empty claim but comes from fully reliable individuals in a position to know.

Exposure and transparency about clergy homosexuality, naming names, describing who, what, and when is needed. A true and accurate description of past and present transgressions is urgently required.

Let us pray that the coming war of words will not come to a war of acts. Even so, defeat is not an option.

I appreciate your posts and read them. Thank you for your pings.

Usually I have nothing constructive to add to the discourse but could not resist my #21. My statement can be taken to be inflammatory but is truthful and accurate. There are some extremely good and brave priests we perhaps can help and who at times may need our support.

The Gates of Hell itself shall not prevail. Absolutely. But our own Christian formation puts us in this battle.

Character is destiny. God is Truth, as Augustine said.

...The president of the US bishops' conference, Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane, proclaimed:
"There are many wonderful and excellent priests in the Church who have a gay orientation, are chaste and celibate, and are very effective ministers of the Gospel."
If Bishop Skylstad's words seemed to prepare readers for a policy that would restrict the priesthood to celibate homosexuals, he served notice that any more aggressive stance would meet heavy resistance....
"celibate homosexuals" ?!?

Isn't that like cigarette smokers who do not smoke?

If one does not have sex, does it really matter WHO one does not have sex with?

If one does not have sex, does it really matter WHO one does not have sex with?

First you need to define terms. Celebate means not getting married, chaste means not having sex, of course celebate has come to mean both but in Church definitions I think it is still seperate. What a number of seminarians were taught back in the 70s was that you could practice homosexual sex and remain celebate. It was called the 3rd Way or some such thing. I knew a young man who was taught this by a priest. He was brought into the life-style by a priest! I was not sure at the time if the priest was a member of the order he was in formation with or not, and my friend was very careful not to tell me the priest's name. Not long after this he was kicked out of the seminary and years later finally left the Church altogether. Unfortunately, many do not leave when they can't accept the teaching of the Church but stay and try to "reform" the Church.

So, what happens to all those homosexual men who were ordained

I suggest their choice be made known to those they serve. Let their parishioners or students know who these priests are. If they are celibate, if they are pure, they should have nothing to fear. At the least, it would take away the ability to "hide in the Church."

Where is the controversy?

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up to vile affections. For even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventers of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who, knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such things are worthy of death; not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Cr 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

>> Because at this point there are no penalties associated with the instruction, my guess is that the bad seminaries and bishops will try to flaunt it at which point the ball is back in BXVI's hands. <<

Absolutely true. And yet, I still believe that this document is a fantasticly positive step. Benedict understands what Bush does not: To win ideological conflicts, you need to constantly equip your supporters with firm, constant support for their arguments.

Before this document, if a seminarian is ill-at-ease with the homosexual subculture in a seminary, the director would give HIM the boot, explaining he was too "rigid" and "intolerant" for his pastoral duties. Now, the seminarian will know he is right, and can report the matter to the bishop. And if the bishop does nothing, he can report the bishop to Rome. Will every such battle be won? No. 99.9% will be lost, in fact. But the rare victory will trun the tide, until few such battles need to be fought.

It about time that the Catholic Church has come to that decision. Many Protestant churches have acknowledged this fact for years.

Actually, the Catholic Church has ALWAYS had that point of view, even if many of its bishops openly disregarded it. The sad fact is that increasing numbers of protestant sects are now publicly tolerating homosexual relations as the moral equivalent of marriage--and ordaining openly gay ministers.

Salvation--

This is an excellent source of RC news and detailed analysis. Much is free but the inside info is for subscribers only. For more info on subscriptions, go here:

http://www.cwnews.com/help/help.cfm?category=2

Note that the online service has a referral program which can get you big discounts on your yearly subscription for new sign ups. I highly recommend this source, EWTN's Recent Headlines and Catholicity.com as sources for info.

Frank

"Obtaining holy orders on a lie is like conscrating the Eucharist without believing in the Real Presence: both are spiritually void of any validity."

Absolutely right. Unfortunately, though, there are many bishops and superiors for whom this intruction will mean nothing, and they will continue to be complicit in encouraging these poor lost souls to seek ordination.

Despite RobbyS labelling these faithless prelates as "unreliable subordinates", they are not, in fact, "subordinate" to the Pope. Unless they preach outright heresy or publicly attempt a schism, and charges can be brought against them which can be made to stick, the Pope can do nothing against them. Flouting of instructions and guidelines from Rome carries no canonical penalty whatsoever when you are a bishop. To this extent, the instruction has been a waste of time and energy and the only difference it will have made is that some of the fags joining the seminaries this year may have a slightly guilty conscience.

It looks to me that the Pope genuinely wants to clean up the Church, but he knows that he doesn't have the power to do it. The only way these problems will be fixed (short of poisoning the heretics) will be when the lay faithful rise up and throw out the bad bishops and refuse to accept their ministry.

Unfortunately, most Catholics have forgotten how to do this over the last 400 years.

"Inferiors" is better than "subordinates," as the relationship of the bishops to the pope is somewhat like that of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to the members of the inferior federal courts. The Chief is the head of the federal system, but he has limited authority over federal judges. But many Catholics, and especially traditionalist Catholic DO think that the pope is the "boss" of the bishops expect him to be the "hiring and firing" person in the Church. This perception is encouraged by at look at the monarchial structure of the Church, where the bishops act as a nobility. and certain of them as electors of the pope.

""Inferiors" is better than "subordinates,""

I am not sure we can say that anymore in the post-Conciliar ecclesiology. Some would argue that this would be an Ultra-Montanist view of the Church rather than the traditional Catholic view.

"But many Catholics, and especially traditionalist Catholic DO think that the pope is the "boss" of the bishops expect him to be the "hiring and firing" person in the Church."

Perhaps that is so, but that is also the reason why they will continue to be disappointed by his failure to do any firing. It is only in the last 100 years or so that the Pope claimed the right to appoint bishops - that was never the traditional practice. Even the legislation that made consecration of bishops without Papal mandate an excommunicable offence is only 51 years old - hardly traditional!

"This perception is encouraged by at look at the monarchial structure of the Church, where the bishops act as a nobility. and certain of them as electors of the pope."

The Church is certainly monarchical, but that monarch is not the Pope - it is Christ the Sovereign King. The Pope is only His Vicar amongst other vicars - albeit he is the Prime Vicar among vicars.

No. Celibacy is not having sex (and, secondarily, not being married, which is how the homosexuals restrict the definition for it to include them). Thus, children, single adults not having sex, widows and widowers, etc. are celibate. Chastity is maintaining sexual conduct according to one's station in life: celibate if not married, being sexually faithful to one's spouse if married. Thus, one is being perfectly chaste in having sexual relations with one's wife or husband, when that partner is, indeed, the only one. And a person under vows or promises of chastity is both celibate and chaste if unmarried or chaste if married and faithful to the spouse.

Therefore, all celibate people are chaste, but not all chaste people are celibate.

If one does not have sex, does it really matter WHO one does not have sex with?

Sometimes Same-Sex Attraction is accompanied by a deep revulsion towards the marital act. I don't see how such men could be fit for the priesthood, since they have a revulsion for the consumating act of the sacrament of matrimony. Such men could very well be severely mentally compromised in teaching about Christian marriage or encouraging others towards it.

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.