Posted on 11/29/2005 6:25:38 AM PST by markomalley
The instruction of the Holy See on the admission of men with deeply-rooted homosexual tendencies to seminaries and to Holy Orders, which has been in preparation for almost five years, is a timely document.
We live in an era when the issue of sexual orientation is much discussed. The Church affirms both the dignity of all human beings and the respect that should be shown all people irrespective of sexual orientation. The Church also teaches God’s revelation about the purpose of sexuality. God has given this gift to humanity to bring about a loving relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong union of a marriage open to the creation of new life. As the Book of Genesis says, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body” (Gen. 2.24). The Lord Jesus confirmed this in his own teaching (cf. Matt. 19.5). All sexual activity outside this marital covenant falls seriously short of God’s plan and is objectively sinful.
A priest is called to teach these truths in their totality. He is also called, in the Latin Church, to forgo marriage and his own family life, after the example of Christ himself, as a witness to the Kingdom of God and to his complete commitment to the priesthood and to his undivided service of the Church. As a celibate man, it follows that he must abstain from all sexual activity.
This witness is contrary to the spirit of our times which often considers personal fulfillment to depend on expressing oneself sexually. In this environment, even men who sense a call to the priesthood can experience confusion about sexual matters. In discerning priestly vocations, the Church seeks applicants who, at the time of their application and throughout the formation process, manifest emotional maturity, integrity of life, spiritual depth, and intellectual aptitude.
Formation is not a time for an applicant to begin to resolve serious issues in his life, whether they involve addictive behavior, personal finances, sexual matters, the ability to work collaboratively with others, or any other significant concern. A candidate still facing issues like these is not acceptable until they are resolved. A man who has a personal agenda that he might place ahead of the Gospel is also not an acceptable candidate. Like marriage, a priestly vocation is not centered on the search for one’s individual, personal fulfillment.
In this instruction, the Congregation for Catholic Education is exercising a Christian realism about what is expected in candidates for the priesthood. This realism understands the challenges of our time. It expresses the valid concern that all candidates must display an “affective maturity” which enables them to relate properly to others as chaste, celibate priests who can faithfully represent the teaching of the Church about sexuality, including the immorality of homosexual genital activity. This realism also makes it clear that it is certainly not acceptable if a candidate practices homosexuality or, whether active or not, if he identifies himself principally by a homosexual inclination or orientation. It is also not acceptable for a candidate to support the “gay culture” and to be so concerned with homosexual issues that he cannot sincerely represent the Church’s teaching on sexuality. In doing so, he limits his ability to minister pastorally to all those in his care.
However, if homosexual tendencies are indicative of a passing problem in the candidate’s life, he can be considered for Holy Orders if he has demonstrated that these tendencies have been overcome at least three years prior to ordination to the deaconate, which is the point at which a man becomes a cleric.
Since news of this document was first discussed in the media, the question has been asked whether a homosexually-inclined man can be a good priest. The answer lies in the lives of those men who, with God’s grace, have truly been dedicated priests, seeking each day not to be served but to serve their people, faithfully representing in word and example the teaching of the Church in its fullness, including God’s revelation that sexual expression is intended only to take place between a husband and a wife in a loving, faithful, and life-giving marriage.
When Jesus told his apostles how difficult it would be “for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven,” they responded with amazement. Jesus’ reply reminds us of the power of God’s grace: “For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.” (Cf. Matt. 19.23-26).
I urge all bishops and major superiors to make this Instruction the occasion for a comprehensive discussion with seminary rectors and vocation directors about the affective maturity which every priesthood candidate must manifest. I also urge a prayerful and honest discussion of the norms presented in the Instruction by bishops and major superiors with their presbyterates, religious communities, and seminary candidates.
In particular, bishops and major superiors should be available to speak directly with brother priests and seminarians who personally face the problem of homosexual inclinations. These discussions should manifest both fidelity to the truth about the priesthood expressed in the Instruction and also the respect, compassion, and sensitivity which the Catechism of the Catholic Church says should be extended to all those who face this struggle.
It expresses the valid concern that all candidates must display an “affective maturity” which enables them to relate properly to others as chaste, celibate priests who can faithfully represent the teaching of the Church about sexuality, including the immorality of homosexual genital activity. This realism also makes it clear that it is certainly not acceptable if a candidate practices homosexuality or, whether active or not, if he identifies himself principally by a homosexual inclination or orientation. It is also not acceptable for a candidate to support the “gay culture” and to be so concerned with homosexual issues that he cannot sincerely represent the Church’s teaching on sexuality.
The insertion of these qualifiers subtlely, but completely mischaracterizes the verbiage and intent of the document released by the Vatican:
In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, together with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, deems it necessary to clearly affirm that the Church, even while deeply respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to Seminary or Holy Orders those who are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.If a candidate is actively homosexual or shows deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director, as well as his confessor, has the duty to dissuade him, in conscience, from proceeding towards Ordination.
Seems to me that the Vatican put out a document and plain black-and-white language that was, within minutes of its release, was watered down by our wonderful USCCB to be practically meaningless.
May God preserve us until the current crop of bishops retires and is replaced with bishops who are actually Catholic, rather than episcopal-lite.
No ... you're not wrong; you're absolutely right. Don't want to offend the gay bishops who have stocked their seminaries with like minded, libido oriented, homosexual candidates.
And the enforcement of these rules will vary, diocese by diocese, counting on the attitude of the bishops. There will be no changes in some dioceses until the bishops who are doing what they are doing are gone.
This doesn't sound watered down to me:
"This realism also makes it clear that it is certainly not acceptable if a candidate practices homosexuality or, whether active or not, if he identifies himself principally by a homosexual inclination or orientation. It is also not acceptable for a candidate to support the “gay culture” and to be so concerned with homosexual issues that he cannot sincerely represent the Church’s teaching on sexuality. In doing so, he limits his ability to minister pastorally to all those in his care."
I think and hope you're wrong. It looks like a very good statement to me.
I see that the and shown in the USCCB bishop's statement would be interpreted as meaning both of the following statements must be true in order for the whole to be true:
The point is, in the culture of the the Mahoneys of the world, if both the above points are not 100% true, then a candidate would be qualified for seminary. So a candidate could decry unprotected bathhouse sex and then the above is not true...
The other watered-down statement is this: if he identifies himself principally by a homosexual inclination or orientation. Again, this statement could be interpreted if a person identifies himself first as a homosexual and then as a Catholic. (homosexual is the primary identification, Catholic is the secondary identification in this instance) -- if a candidate says he identifies himself as first, a Catholic, and then, as a homosexual (e.g., "I am a dedicated Catholic, first and foremost. Regardless of orientation, the MOST IMPORTANT thing in my life is my stand as a Catholic," might be enough to meet this criterion in the eyes of some seminary directors, vocations directors, spiritual directors, and bishops).
I certainly hope you two are right about this. In a world where the local bishops' council seeks to support the Vatican, you would certainly be right. But we've all seen too many examples in the past where our bishops have been more concerned with political expediency than with faithfulness to orthodox teachings.
Cardinal Mahony thinks it's irrelevant.
"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.
http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-fg-vatican23nov23,1,6354896.story?page=1&ctrack=1&cset=true&coll=la-news-learning
Mahony needs to be taken to task.
"Objectively" means that the activity is always sin (versus sin determined subjectively e.g. matter of conscience). "Seriously" -another way of signifying the sinful activity to be grave...
Not exactly. Objectively means that the act itself is sinful, but avoids making a statement about the subjective guilt of the individual, which may be mitigated by various factors, including ignorance. It's the usual way that moral theologians speak of such things.
In my opinion the "sexual orientation" lingo is problematic. Accepting the conceptual premise of "sexual orientation" tends to by omission suggest heterosexual and homosexual somehow equivalent when the reality is that there are only heterosexuals and heterosexuals that suffer the homosexual disorder -predisposed (oriented) toward homosexual activity which is intrinsically disordered...
Yes, what you said!
Surely you are familiar with the expression: 'Give a man enough rope and he will hang himself'. That is what Mahony is doing. From the LA Times .
"The California Supreme Court on Wednesday let stand a court order forcing Cardinal Roger M. Mahony to give authorities the confidential files of two former priests accused of child molestation.
Mahony has fought for three years to quash grand jury subpoenas on the grounds that opening the files would violate the church's constitutional right of religious freedom.
Deputy Dist. Atty. Brent Ferreira said he believes the ruling would apply to efforts by plaintiffs' lawyers to unlock the secret files of more than 200 priests whose alleged abuse is at issue in 560 legal claims. "
Now he will ignore a directive from the Holy Father.
Cardinal Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles, "has said over and over that he chooses potential priests by focusing on their ability to lead a holy, chaste life and the ability to lead other people closer to Jesus," archdiocese spokesman Tod Tamberg says.
I'm confident that Benedict XVI has a plan in place to deal with clerical dissenters. It's simply a matter of time before the gallows is erected.
And isn't it interesting that the Vatican document does not use the term "orientation," but does affirm that "such persons" must be treated with respect, thus affirming their human dignity while not affirming their lifestyle or normalizing their pathology.
I see your point! That's a bit of a loophole.
...celibate priests who can faithfully represent the teaching of the Church about sexuality, including the immorality of homosexual genital activity.
It is such an odd thing to say, in my view. Technically, couldn't two men holding hands and kissing be excluded from falling under this judgement? Something cryptic about it.
Wiggle room for those who are part of the lavender militia...
Imagine what kind of frame of mind that went in to constructing that phrase. It creeps me out some.
I hope the Holy Spirit can supply these guys with wisdom, because they undoubtedly believe they aren't doing anything against the Word.
And, with my own bishop, Matthew Clark, I'm convinced he thinks he bringing the Gospel, as it was intended, to his flock.
How do you talk someone out of that view?
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.