Posted on 11/24/2005 12:13:22 PM PST by NYer
The Forum: "Spin control" on the Vatican document
by Phil Lawler
special to CWNews.com
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.
But that's not what the document says.
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.
And there's the rub! Major question is how will this instruction be enforced and who will do the enforcing? Will Pope Benedict XVI take on this challenge and call the reprobate (Jadot) bishops to task, read them the riot act and exercise his right to strip them of their office.
NOTHING will change in LA until the administration there changes, because of the hubris in their hearts that they are above the law of God (or perhaps that what they say IS the law of God, along the lines of some in the ECUSA and other groups).
Of course, the administration may shift before they think it ought to.
Homosexual death cult.
I think Pope Benedict XVI avoid a serious confrontation with the disobedient Bishops at first. He will be patient for awhile; but if they remain obstinate he is the type of man who has the will and the courage to enforce his letter with serious sanctions. I am completely certain that he knew his letter would create a firestorm of controvery with the liberals in and out of the Church, and that there would be a battle. God bless the Holy Father for his courage and conviction.
Ping!
I believe you are right. He is a man of action who does not mince words. As the former Prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrineof the Faith, he received thousands of letters from catholics worldwide, complaining of abuses in their local dioceses.
On God Friday this year, JPII was too incapacitated to lead the faithful in the Stations of the Cross at the Coliseum. That task fell to Cardinal Ratzinger. The mainstream media paid little heed until he reached the 9th Station - Jesus Falls for the Third Time. After reciting the Prayer, he read his meditation.
MEDITATION
What can the third fall of Jesus under the Cross say to us? We have considered the fall of man in general, and the falling of many Christians away from Christ and into a godless secularism. Should we not also think of how much Christ suffers in his own Church? How often is the holy sacrament of his Presence abused, how often must he enter empty and evil hearts! How often do we celebrate only ourselves, without even realizing that he is there! How often is his Word twisted and misused! What little faith is present behind so many theories, so many empty words! How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him! How much pride, how much self-complacency! What little respect we pay to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, where he waits for us, ready to raise us up whenever we fall! All this is present in his Passion. His betrayal by his disciples, their unworthy reception of his Body and Blood, is certainly the greatest suffering endured by the Redeemer; it pierces his heart. We can only call to him from the depths of our hearts: Kyrie eleison – Lord, save us (cf. Mt 8: 25).
That one sentence garnered worldwide attention as the media rapidly spread it around the globe. How much humble pie must Cardinal Ratzinger have swallowed over the years as he approached our Lord in prayer each and every night, praying for His church. Ironically, following his election, many in the media looked at his 'advanced' years and proclaimed him an 'interim' pope. As was true with JPII, the joke is on them!
The instruction has been issued at precisely the same time as the visitations are occuring.
I'm hoping that the inspectors will have a nice dossier on the non-compliant seminaries such as Mahony's pink palace. Speaking of which, maybe the current criminal litigation proceedings in LA will do us all a big favor and send this nauseating troublemaker to the hoosegow.
We'll just have to wait and see if it flies, but I'm not holding my breath.
Yes! I don't believe in coincidences ;-D This was all carefully crafted by B16. He just slammed the hammer down on the Franciscans at Assisi. Next?
Spiritual Directors, whose work is done in absolute secrecy, are the weakest link of several in the enforcement and effectiveness of the Vatican "Instruction".
And it is that SECRECY shrouding the homosexual problem that must be broken!
Where is the binding MORAL teaching from the Pope?
The following are quotes from a Rocky Mountain News story, March 8, 2002: "Remarks on Gays Confuse Some Catholics" which was published just two months after the Boston Globe broke the story - and many thanks to the judge who refused to seal the previously secret church documents.
"The church is very strong and clear on THE FACT that (sexual) orientation is not the problem..." said Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
http://www.usccb.org/sdo.htm
"It should not matter if they're straight or gay."
"Flags are going up because in the U.S. homosexuals have LONG BEEN ALLOWED to study for the priesthood."
Leading to: http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=2791
So, what happens to these spokespeople of the bishops,
and to these pastors,
and to these bishops and leaders,
and to all those homosexual men who were ordained and who now hold offices of power and authority, and who were so clearly misinformed, and misinforming, about Catholic morality and teaching?
Do they lose their jobs?
Do they lose their credentials to teach?
Do they lose their power to govern?
Do they lose their authority to lead?
The instruction relies on the honesty, integrity and conscience of homosexual seminarians and their (potentially homosexual) spiritual directors, vocation directors, seminary rectors and bishops – all who have shown a deplorable deficiency when it comes to truth, integrity and conscience. The gatekeepers and enforcers of the document are among those who have been most prominent in saying for years that “there is nothing wrong with homosexual priests, just as long as they are celibate (whatever that is, since they do not want to marry women).”
"The Church will not ask, but if someone comes out of the closet, he is out."
Well, not exactly. If he makes it to ordination - even if he has to lie, deceive, or is in-correctly guided, then there is no "outing" either physically, or by sexual orientation once he is a priest.
And currently there are no canonical penalties or consequences for being a homosexual priest or bishop. They can (and they have already) reach (reached) levels of absolute power and control in the hierarchy.
The instruction is a significant step, a necessary one, but it is just one step of several that need to be made.
The "new instruction" seems mostly a rehash of the old with perhaps some guidance for the young man confused about his sexual orientaition as result of issues in adolescence. God can work miracles but I would be skeptical that a 21 year old confused person will have sufficiently "straightened" himself out by 24 to be entrusted with Holy Orders.
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.
The problem is that of unreliable subordinates who, however, have control of the property. We have bishops who belong in the ECUSA. We have bishops loyal to Rome. We have bishops in the middle. In it in the interest of all of them to stay in union with Rome, but unfortunately the hearts and minds of many are not with the pope.
"So, what happens to these spokespeople of the bishops,
and to these pastors, and to these bishops and leaders,
and to all those homosexual men who were ordained and who now hold offices of power and authority, and who were so clearly misinformed, and misinforming, about Catholic morality and teaching?
Do they lose their jobs?
Do they lose their credentials to teach?
Do they lose their power to govern?
Do they lose their authority to lead?"
The answer should be Yes. Their true calling was not to the priesthood, their true vocation is religious though (just like St. Francis of Assisi) and their cross to bear is no harder than those who they misled, misgoverned and mistaught. They need to take St. Benedict's words to heart, Ora et Labora and refocus themselves perhaps by (re?)reading the classics of Catholicism such as The Imitation of Christ.
If the cleansing isn't done by the dioceses, it will be done by the Hand of God. The Pope pulled no punches when he spoke and there was a reason - time is of essence:
"Should we not also think of how much Christ suffers in his own Church? How often is the holy sacrament of his Presence abused, how often must he enter empty and evil hearts! How often do we celebrate only ourselves, without even realizing that he is there! How often is his Word twisted and misused! What little faith is present behind so many theories, so many empty words! How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him!"
We can only hope that the document will read so unequivocally.
Something is seriously amiss then. Obtaining holy orders on a lie is like conscrating the Eucharist without believing in the Real Presence: both are spiritually void of any validity.
The church founded by Jesus Christ some two thousand years ago did not, has not, and will never include homosexuals. That is made very clear by a number of scriptures. Active homosexuals have no place in the Lord's body or in heaven. It about time that the Catholic Church has come to that decision. Many Protestant churches have acknowledged this fact for years.
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.