Pharsea's commentary (in as far as this document is worthy of comment) is given in orange.INTRODUCTION
In continuity with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and, in particular, with the decree Optatam totius on priestly formation, the Congregation for Catholic Education has published various documents to promote an adequate integral formation of future priests, offering guidelines and precise norms concerning its different aspects. The Synod of Bishops in 1990 also reflected on priestly formation in the current circumstances, with the intention of complementing the conciliar teaching on this issue and make it more explicit and incisive in the contemporary world. Following this Synod, Pope John Paul II published the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores dabo vobis.
In light of this rich teaching, the present Instruction does not intend
to dwell on all the issues in the affective or sexual realm
that require attentive discernment throughout the entire period of
formation. It contains norms regarding a particular issue, made
more urgent by the current situation,
What "current situation"? The catastrophic shortage of priests? The decay of every aspect of Catholic life in the Northern hemisphere and - increasingly - in Latin America too? The general excellence of the ministry of gay priests? Perhaps the connivance of many bishops in covering-up the priestly child-abuse scandal?and that is the admission or not to Seminaries and Holy Orders of candidates that have deep-seated homosexual tendencies.Gay priests are being scapegoated for the clergy sex abuse crisis battering the U.S. Church. I know many gay bishops and priests who are carrying out their vocations admirably, often offering a depth of compassion not always shared in a comparable way by heterosexual priests.
[Thomas J. Gumbleton, Auxiliary Bishop of Detroit, in "America Magazine" (2002)]
The candidate for ordained ministry, therefore, must attain affective
maturity. Such maturity will allow him to relate properly with
men and women, developing in him a true sense of spiritual
fatherhood for the ecclesial community that will be entrusted to him.
"Confirmed" only in the sense of repeating again and again the same nonsense. No coherent justification or explanation or even excuse has ever been offered. In fact the state of affairs is getting so bad that paganism is being incorporated into the heart of Catholic Doctrine in order to bolster what are otherwise unsustainable positions.The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.
Previous official teaching on a higher level than this document has acknowledged that some people are characteristically homosexual, that they are not just confused heterosexuals with "homosexual tendencies" but in fact "homosexual persons" with a "homosexual orietation". The present document conflicts with this previous and more authoritative teaching.Regarding acts, it teaches that, in Sacred Scripture, these are presented grave sins.
Chapter and verse, please.Tradition has always considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law.
Citation from particular Fathers, please.As a consequence, they can never be approved under any circumstance.
Citation from Oecumenical Councils, please.
Just like usury, slavery, antisemitism, contraception, worshipping with protestants, and cremation, then?As regards to deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are present in a certain number of men and women, these also are objectively disordered and are often a trial for such people.
Only because of documents like this pernicious text!They must be accepted with respect and sensitivity; every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
But "just" bigotry is quite OK, of course. Oh dear, but what could I possibly mean by "just bigotry"?These persons are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may"It's the worst kind of prejudice. You take one small segment [pedophiles -Ed] and you assume every member of the population has that trait. The catechism says, 'Every sign of unjust discrimination should be avoided'.
This is unjust discrimination and once again, it's going against the catechism.
The second reason is homophobia: people in the Vatican and bishops who are just afraid of homosexuals. The third reason is a misunderstanding of sexuality and what homosexuality is, and equating it with child abuse. The fourth reason is
a desire to find blame. Anywhere but the bishops. A fifth reason are members of the Catholic right who are homophobic. It allows them to be rid of priests that have always made them uncomfortable and they have never liked, and to find a scapegoat for the crisis."
[A Catholic priest: "Busted.Halo.com"]
And indeed we do, even when the difficulties and burdens are handed out to us by popes and cardinals and archbishops that sit in the seat of Moses.In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, together with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the
This text is technically unclear:
- In previous teaching the distinction was made between homosexual acts and orientation.
- In this document, following the wording of the Catechism, a distinction is made between homosexual acts and tendencies, with no hint of the idea that someonw could "be a homosexual person".
- It is legitimate to equate tendencies with orientation or "being a homosexual person".
- It is also legitimate not to do so: after all, none of these terms has been even roughly defined.
- So: suffering from deep-seeted homosexual tendencies might be
- a constant battle with barely resisted urges which is a cause of anxiety and stress:
this is the line taken by at least three british Bishops;- whereas having a homosexual orientation (or having shallow homosexual tendencies) might be
- possessing a well-integrated and calmly controlled mature sexuality,
entirely compatible with the living of a celibate life.
"['suffering from deep-seeted homosexual tendencies'] could also be interpreted as having a permanent homosexual orientation. But this cannot be correct since, as I have said,there are many excellent priests who are gay and who clearly have a vocation from God.
Perhaps it is best understood as meaning that someone whose sexual orientation is so central to his self-perception as to be obsessive, dominating his imagination. This would indeed pose questions as to whether he would be able to live happily as a celibate priest. But any heterosexual who was so focused on his sexuality would have problems too. What matters is sexual maturity rather than orientation."
[Rev. Timothy Radcliffe OP in The Tablet (November 2005)]"This document is going to be read very differently by a conservative African Catholic than, for example, a bishop here in Britain. There were a lot of battles over whether to have the document and what the document would say. Presumably this is reflected in the lack of clarity .... If the Vatican wanted a ban on gay seminarians, they would have made it clear." [Rev. Timothy Radcliffe OP reported by Brian Murphy, AP religion writer]
Hence, it is possible to interpret this document as meaning that it is acceptable to be a priest if you "have a homosexual orientation" as long as you don't "suffer from homosexual tendencies", whatever these might be.
For my comments on this piece see later.
Now a second question arises: "Did the Vatican mean to introduce this three-fold distinction of action, tendency and orientation?"
It is, however, possible to take another view and think that the ambiguity was intentional. This involves adopting a very low view of Curial Cardinals! On this view, the authors of this document crafted it cunningly, with the following political purposes clearly in view:
- I think that they didn't mean to do any such thing!
- Similarly, I do not think that the Vatican intended to introduce a three-fold division of sin: "venial, grave and mortal", when the term "grave sin" was introduced and "mortal sin" was dropped.
- I think that the ambiguity present in this document is a product of carelessness or incompetence.
- I think that the authors of this text believe that it is impossible for anyone to have a "well-integrated and controlled mature homo-sexuality entirely compatible with the living of a celibate life".
- However, even if I am right, this will not stop Bishops from making use of. the loophole that the unintentional ambiguity provides them.
- Be seen to outlaw gay priests,
- in order to pacify the Conservatives (possibly including the pope).
- In fact do nothing at all,
- so as not to upset the Liberals
- and to avoid further depopulating the European seminaries.
Such a scheme would, of course, be deeply dishonest. Its only purpose would be to avoid any blame attaching to them for whatever happens in practice! The flaw in this plan is that it would inevitably become apparent that many Bishops would not implement the strict interpretation of the Instruction. This had already happened by the end of December 2005. The Vatican now has the unenviable choice of either disciplining various Cardinal Archbishops or acquiescing in the fact that their interpretation of the Instruction has become a "probable opinion".
Unless the Vatican issues an "authoritative clarification" of the Instruction, the net effect is going to be almost the opposite of what the conservatives wanted. While they now have an instrument that they can use to justify whatever action they care to take against gay seminarians, the liberals are already responding by making it clear that they welcome gay men - who are willing to embrace celibacy - in their seminaries. This means that it will soon be very clear to any gay man wishing to explore a vocation to the priesthood where he will be welcome and where he will not be welcome. The result will inevitably be that gay men who are called to the priesthood will flock to certain bishops and seminaries, leaving others with far fewer applicants. This will, in turn, lead to some diocese experiencing even more difficulties in recruiting priests than others and, in the long-term, pressure on the conservative bishops to moderate their policy.Such people, in fact, find themselves in a situation that seriously obstructs them from properly relating to men and women.Evidence of conflict within the Vatican is provided by the text of the cover letter that was circulated to the Bishops alongside this Instruction.
The remainder of my commentary takes the document at face value, on the basis that no significant distinction is to be drawn between a seminarian with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" and one with a "homosexual orientation".
It is good to see that the ex-superior of the English province of the Dominicans knows and is willing to put on the record that "there are many excellent priests who are gay and who clearly have a vocation from God". I wish that I could agree with the rest of what he says. I think that the intentions of this document are manifest. Jesuitical speculations about how it might be spun are inappropriate. This teaching is not infallible and there is simply no need to ask what the text itself must or can be taken to mean. The only issue is the practical one of what it will in fact be taken to mean and how it will be implemented. The document makes no mention of "deep-seated heterosexual tendencies" and no vatican document ever will make mention of such. The issue here is not commitment to celibacy, but of self-identification as gay.
"[this] has its roots in the stereotype of the gay man who is incapable of controlling himself. Ironically, there's a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger in a 1986 document, 'The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons', that says, 'What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexuals is always and totally compulsive'. So,
this notion that gay men can't keep celibate is a stereotype,
it goes against the catechism,
and against what Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, says.....It has to repeated over and over that the vast majority of gay priests, like their heterosexual counterparts, are celibate. I don't know of any in my circle of friends that are sexually active. If they are, they leave."
[A Catholic priest: "Busted.Halo.com"]
Oh really! But not children, it would seem? This is the most absurd, puerile and arrant nonsense. I find no such difficulty at all, whereas it is manifest to me that some of my heterosexual acquaintances have just such a difficulty and do indeed suffer because of it greatly. Not because they are heterosexual - !!what a silly idea!! - but just (surprise, surprise) because thhey are not perfect individuals, unlike the authors of this drivel who obviously account themselves as having "attained affective maturity, such as allows them to relate properly with men and women, and has developed in them a true sense of spiritual fatherhood for the ecclesial community that is entrusted to them".The negative consequences that can result from the Ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies should not be obscured.I suppose that all this sentence means by "properly" is "heterosexually", which makes it trivially true and trivially unimportant. In fact, just trivial drivel!
"There might be a ray of light shining through the publication of this document: I think it brings to light in a very public way the fact that
the Vatican really doesn't know what it's talking about when it comes to gay people.
We are "seriously obstructed from properly relating to men and women?" What the hell is that supposed to mean? To extract but one small example from my own life, I am more comfortable confessing my sexual sins to a gay priest, as it makes it easier for him to properly relate to me in the person of Christ because what I've done doesn't have the potential to interest him quite so much as it might a (turning my own irony on) healthy, well-adjusted, virile, heterosexual priest (turning it off). Lord help us!"
[A female correspondent (November 2005)]
So let's have them stated openly. This document proceeds to say nothing on the matter whatsoever!When dealing, instead, with homosexual tendencies that might only be a manifestation of a transitory problem, as, for example, delayed adolescence, these must be clearly overcome at least three years before diaconal Ordination.In the course of time there have been very many celibate priests who felt attracted to other men. A man with a life-long homosexual orientation can still be a very good priest.
[Bishop Niederauer of San Francisco, California, in an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune, 2006]
Note that the authors of this document can only conceive of "homosexual tendencies" as problematic! What about "heterosexual tendencies that might only be a manifestation of a transitory problem, as, for example, delayed adolescence"? Obviously, this entire mode of thought is silly.
Over recent years a very bad job has been done in this regard. The Church is largely staffed by "yes men" who simply do whatever they are told: for fear of the consequences of standing up for what is right. The episcopate and presbyterate is full of relativist-liberal-synchretists with no respect for authentic doctrine or the Apostolic Tradition and no sense of liturgical propriety.The formation of the future priest must articulate, in an essential complementarity, the four dimensions of formation: human,"My question here is who discerns the suitability of those who are discerning everyone else? Is it men like Cardinal Law? Where was this discerning when he was coming up through the ranks to end up in the biggest scandal in the Roman Catholic Church in America? The clear intent once again is to say that the church must weed out gay men and women, although lesbians are never addressed in this matter, from the process that leads to ordination or reception into a religious community. Does that mean that Fr. Mycal Judge, who gave his life serving God at the World Trade centres should not have been a Priest? What of the gay priests who have died in battles around the world ministering to our nations soldiers? Should they have not been priests?"
[Old Catholic ArchBishop Bruce J. Simpson, OSJB (November 23, 2005)]
In fact, it has not done, over the last half century at least.In this context, it is important to recall the particular importance of human formation as the necessary foundation of all formation. To admit a candidate to diaconal Ordination, the Church must verify, among other things, that the candidate for priesthood has attained affective maturity.
The call to Orders is the personal responsibility of the Bishop or the General Superior. Keeping in mind the view of those to whom they entrusted the responsibility of formation, the Bishop or General Superior, before admitting the candidate to Ordination, must arrive at a morally certain judgement regarding his qualities. In the case of a serious doubt, he must not admit him to Ordination.
The discernment of the vocation and the maturity of the candidate is
also the grave duty of the rector and other formators in the
Seminary. Before every Ordination, the rector must give his judgement
on the qualities of the candidate required by the Church.
In discernment of the suitability for Ordination, the spiritual director
has an important task. Even though he is bound by secrecy, he represents
the Church in the internal forum. In meetings with the candidate, the spiritual
director must clearly recall the
Church's demands regarding priestly chastity and the specific affective
maturity of the priest, as well as help him discern if he has the necessary
qualities. He has the obligation to evaluate all the qualities of the personality
and assure that the candidate does
not have sexual disorders that are incompatible with priesthood. 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.
The validity of all the above is totally dependent on the unjustified premises implicit in the earlier parts of this text.It remains understood that the candidate himself is primarily responsible for his own formation. He must offer himself in trust
This is outrageous! This document insists that not only must a man tacitly accept the Magisterium's cruel, un-Christian and unjustified condemnation, but thatSuch an inauthentic attitude does not correspond to the spirit of truth, loyalty, and availability that must characterize the personality of one who considers himself called to serve Christ and his Church in the ministerial priesthood.he is expected to condemn himself when he honestly believes that he is guilty of nothing!
It is most gravely unjust and wicked - amounting to material mortal sin on the part of those individuals doing so - for the Magisterium to teach the poisonous doctrine that it does. It is most gravely unjust and wicked - amounting to material mortal sin on the part of those individuals doing so - for the Magisterium to demand that those targeted by this teaching to "out" themselves so that a clearer aim can be taken at them!
"Are we indeed going towards 'Zero-risk Brave New Church'? The thought is horrendous. How do they propose to implement this policy? Depth psycho-analysis, lie detectors, getting confessors to betray the seal of confession, betrayal of the internal forum, summary denunciations, intrigue, blackmail, etc.? I have seen seminaries 'purged' by those who are truly more bent than those they were expelling. The Mafia thrived on Prohibition in America in the 1930's! Such a system would keep the twisted manipulators in and the sincere men out."
[A priestly correspondent (July 2005)]".... if the criteria of this document are interpreted in a narrow sense to mean that no one who is gay can be ordained, then some
seminarians would find themselves to be in an impossible situation.
If they speak openly, then they may not be accepted. If they do not, then they are failing in transparency. The danger is that
the most honest may therefore leave and the less truthful stay,
and so we would form a priesthood that was immature,
ill at ease with itself, and more liable to continue abuse.It is therefore most important that these criteria are not interpreted in a way that drives people into concealment. That would actively impede the formation of priests who are affectively mature."
[Rev Timothy Radcliffe OP: in The Tablet (November 2005)]I know many priests and bishops who are gay and who are good priests and bishops. In terms of implementing the Instrumentum Laboris [the goal of which is to] identify and remove same-sex oriented seminarians [I think] that is an impossible objective. One of two things will happen: either you'll find candidates who have so severely repressed their sexuality that they really haven't come to a clear determination whether they're homosexual or heterosexual, they're repressed, and that's very dangerous. People that do that, sooner or later are going to break out, in a sense, and they won't be able to maintain that severe repression that is required all their life - and so you get problems. Or people will not tell the truth, they'll just go deeper into the closet, as they call it, and will evade those kind of questions. So we're still going to be ordaining homosexual people, only they won't be identified, they won't be comfortable with themselves, they won't be at peace with themselves, they'll be living a dishonest life. [Thomas J. Gumbleton, Auxiliary Bishop of Detroit, in a radio interview (2006)]
For "loyalty and availability" mean "willingness always to do exactly as you are told without any thought or question".
My personal experience of Catholic priests in the contemporary Church is that they are
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, on 31 August 2005, approved this Instruction and ordered its publication.Certainly not "true shepherds".
- generally philosophically illiterate,
- often ill-informed theologically to a degree amounting to material heresy
- and have no semblance of piety whatsoever.
Rome, 4 November 2005, Memorial of St Charles Borromeo, Patron of Seminaries.
Zenon Card. Grocholewski
Prefect
+ J. Michael Miller, C.S.B.
Titular Arch. of Vertara
Secretary
The first few paragraphs of this letter seem to be of little interest, however there is a bomb-shell towards the end.The new document is the result of a long process of preparation. Already in 1996, in fact, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith invited this congregation to prepare an instruction concerning the criteria for the discernment of vocations with reference to those with homosexual tendencies. Subsequently, the same congregation forwarded abundant documentation on the question.
The draft versions of the document were submitted, for examination, to the fathers of this congregation at the plenary sessions held in 1998, 2002 and 2005. Furthermore, the texts were sent for evaluation to the following dicasteries: the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, the Congregation for the Clergy, the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. In the plenary assembly of 2005 the fathers approved the instruction, acknowledging it to be helpful and very useful.
The Holy Father Benedict XVI, on Aug. 31, 2005, approved and ordered the publication of the present document, which had been presented to him by the prefect of this congregation.
The instruction is based on the conciliar and post-conciliar texts concerning
the priesthood, as well as on those texts that refer
to the problem of homosexuality, such as the Catechism of the Catholic
Church and the documents of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The document does not treat all questions in the area of affective maturity
and sexuality that require an attentive discernment
during the entire period of formation. It only contains norms concerning
a specific question, made more urgent by the current situation, and that
is: whether to admit to the seminary and to holy orders candidates who
'practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support
the so-called 'gay culture.'
The aforementioned document does not call into question the validity
of the ordination and the situation of priests who, in fact, have been
ordained with homosexual tendencies or of priests in whom such tendencies
have manifested themselves after ordination. Like all other priests, they
must remember the promise that they made on the day of their ordination
to live perfect chastity in celibacy. They are to continue to exercise
their ministry, taking care to live with integrity the mission they have
received, in faithfulness to the Gospel and to the magisterium. Because
of the particular responsibility of those charged
with the formation of future priests, they are not to be appointed
as rectors or educators in seminaries.
This paragraph brings to the fore the basic contradiction within the Instruction. It suggests that it is all right for gay men who has been ordained (but by implication shouldn't have been) to continue in his ministry because it is possible for them "to live perfect chastity in celibacy" and "to live with integrity the mission they have received".The Congregation for Catholic Education, in publishing this document, wants to offer bishops, major superiors and all superiors whom it may concern, a useful tool for carrying out an attentive and prudent discernment regarding the suitability of candidates for holy orders, from their admission to the seminary until their ordination. The norms of the instruction, therefore, must be taken into consideration in the drafting or updating of the 'Ratio Institutionis Sacerdotalis' of every country. Moreover, it is clear that the aforementioned norms are to be faithfully observed by all superiors to ensure a suitable preparation of future priests in view of the good both of the candidates themselves and of the church.
This is at odds with the premise of the Instruction:"Such people, in fact, find themselves in a situation that seriously obstructs them from properly relating to men and women."The only way to avoid this contradiction is to highlight the subtle change in terminology here. In this text of letter the words "deep-seated" are never prepended to "homosexual tendencies", so it can be made out to refer to a wider category of persons than does the Instruction. In which case the following would appear to be the full story:It should be noted that this letter was not subject to the extensive process of consultation outlined in its own first few paragraphs, but rather was issued personally by its two signatories alone. Hence it tells us more about them and their attitudes than about the "teaching of the Magisterium". Moreover, the difference in terminology between this cover letter and the Instruction suggests what the effect of the extensive consultation: namely an insistence that the Instruction should only address the undefined category of persons who have "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" and should not debar anyone from teaching in seminary.
- No "practising homosexual" should be ordained.
- If a "practising homosexual" has been ordained, he should be defrocked.
- No man of a homosexual orientation should ever be ordained, in any circumstances: no matter what his belief, spirituality or level of psycho-sexual maturity.
- If a man of a homosexual orientation has been ordained, he should be debarred from any seminary position: no matter what his belief, spirituality or level of psycho-sexual maturity.
- No man - of any sexuality - who 'supports gay culture' should be ordained.
- By implication: any priest - of any sexuality - who 'supports gay culture' should be defrocked for heresy.
The text of the document will be published on Nov. 29, 2005, in L'Osservatore
Romano. Until that date, it remains strictly
confidential.
Hoping that this latest document will contribute to an even greater
improvement of the formative path to holy orders, we willingly
take the opportunity to express to you our sentiments of highest esteem,
remaining Yours most devotedly in Christ,
Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, prefect
Archbishop J. Michael Miller, CSB, secretary
"The instruction is not saying that men of homosexual orientation are not welcome in the priesthood. But it is making clear that they must be capable of affective maturity, have a capacity for celibacy and not share the values of eroticised gay culture."I challenge the Cardinal to explain how someone of a "homosexual orientation" can be said not to have "deep-seated homosexual tendencies", without descending to the most deplorable jesuitry?
[Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor: quoted in the Guardian Newspaper (30th Nov 2005)]:
http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news&articleid=258065
The Cardinals distinction between "gay culture" (what ever this is - which he seems to think it is OK to support) and "eroticised gay culture" (which is a "no-no") is fascinating, but not in keeping with the document which makes no such distinction. I suppose that its use of the epithet "so-called" might serve the same function. I wonder what would count as OK and what wouldn't? This is simply embarrassing!
On November 29th, Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham, said that the document only establishes "behavioural" tests for admission to the priesthood, leaving open the possibility that a homosexual candidate without behavioral difficulties could still be admitted. On the same day, bishop William Skylstad of Spokane, Wash., president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, endorsed an intermediate reading saying that the instruction would rule out a candidate "so concerned with homosexual issues that he cannot sincerely represent the church's teaching on sexuality." The question of whether "homosexually inclined men" can be good priests, Skylstad said, therefore depends on how they live and what they teach. He continued: "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."
The United States Conference of Major Superiors
of Men, issued a statement indicating that the aim is "men who are well
integrated and psychologically mature, faithful to church teachings, and
who posses a clear understanding of the meaning of, as well as the spiritual
and emotional capacity to commit to chaste celibacy for life."
If any priest has the affective maturity described
above, and in the document,
then with God's grace, he can effectively
minister as a priest.
What the Church, the bishop, and the seminary must determine in the course of a priestly candidate's formation is whether the candidate has the gifts of affective maturity, has made them his own, and is living them out faithfully.
Any Catholic priest's identity must be centred
in Christ the Priest. Thus, a priest cannot think of himself or present
himself as mainly something else: a Democrat, a Republican, an American,
a Frenchman, or as someone who has a particular sexual orientation. As
important as sexual orientation may be in the structure of human personality,
the priest must be principally
"of Christ". In addition, it would be inconsistent
for the priest and confusing for the Catholic faithful if a priest differs
from the Church in any of its moral teachings.
[http://www.icnp.com/indstory/indexstory2.html]
There have been in the course of time very many
celibate priests who have felt themselves attracted to other men .... a
man with a life-long homosexual orientation can still be a very good priest.
[http://www.katholieknederland.nl/interactief/weblogs/detail_objectID5947.html]
I studied and was ordained in Roma, Italy and
believe me - most priests in Italy are gay. I now live in Holland, and
most
priests here are gay. I have long had the feeling
that there are more gay men amongst us european preists than amongst american
priests. The crackdown in America is most likely [due to]:
a deep-seated protestant and american homphobia in general, and the pedophile
scandals for which the bishops will not take any responsibility, the need
for scape-goating.
At the Dutch Catholic internet forum Rorate my reaction to a news item was posted in which I deplored the recent Instruction. That was followed by a comment that ''I should re-read the Instruction, as it is not directed at homosexual persons only but at all candidates to the priesthood: both hetero and homo are reminded that they should be able to live a celibate life'', and that the Church's negative characterization of the homosexual orientation is merely based scientific fact and not meant personally - after all, homosexuals are flawed as human beings in this way, just as others are flawed in other ways. My answer to this comment was not posted. But the Vatican's anti-gay stance is itself flawed and invalid in principle because it is not based on anything scientific. And that we are flawed persons just as the rest of mankind is obvious. What people do not wish to understand, is that the condemnation of our orientation as ''inherently disordered tendency to an evil'' does not make us merely ''flawed like the rest of mankind'', but denigrates and illegitimizes the most basic goal of all human beings: to love and be loved.
I am now no longer being silent. I am telling
anyone who will listen precisely what I think of the recent Vatican instruction,
even
people for whom I celebrate Mass. I realize that
I risk being eventually left without any public Masses to celebrate. But
I am not incardinated here, receive no stipend from this diocese, and if
the people who know me and would like me to continue saying Mass for them
will not protest loudly against the injustice of the recent Instruction,
then they do not need me as their priest. Nor, in my opinion, do any Catholic
Bishops or Faithful deserve the services of a priest whose sexual orientation
they are not willing defend. [A priestly correspondent
(December 2005)]
Yes, I am bitter. I am even bitter that I am bitter, for, looking back, being bitter most of one's life makes one's life seem a waste. Especially as one finally realises as life is entering its last phase, that this bitterness is probably not going to go away soon enough to matter, and that life did not need to be like this at all.
The cause of my bitterness is not the unfortunate
circumstances of my birth and childhood, nor the decades marred by illness
(alcoholism): I have survived these things and
worked through them. The lasting ''Causa meae tristitiae" (Cause
of my sadness)
is the Vatican, which has for several decades
now taken captive the Catholic Church, which was and is supposed to be
an anchor of certititude, a spiritual home, a source of comfort, hope,
strength and joy, a loving Mother reflecting a good and merciful God. Since
1970, I feel caught between the anvil of persecution of the Roman-rite
liturgical and spiritual tradition by the
Insitution charged to defend and pass on that
tradition (something unheard of in the history of mankind), and the hammer
of increasing demonisation of the homosexual orientation and those priests
and faithful who own it.
And in November 2005 one was made to drink the
last bitter drop: the final, utter and public rejection by the Church's
Magisterium, which i now choose to call ''the
Vatican Church''. And still I call myself catholic, because, in spite
of everything, I know that I belong to the Communion of Saints, a long
line of catholic people who believed and worshipped just as I do,
who are awaiting me in Heaven, who better represent the Church than does
the post-conciliar Magisterium (the Vatican Church), which has betrayed
the Church's Tradition and Spirit, and has sacrificed the Church's gay
sons and daughters upon the
altar of Moloch.
Suffering for and with the Church can indeed be
sweet, because one is suffering for and with one's Holy Mother, Christ's
Bride.
But suffering because of the Church makes one
very bitter indeed, because She is our spiritual Mother, and we cannot
defend ourselves against Her. I am working on a solution to this dilemma.
I think that it will involve distinguishing between the Vatican Church
and the Roman Catholic Church. I read something like this at the gaypriest2
forum. The solution seems to try to distinguish in my mind and heart
and soul between the very human and fallible Vatican Burocracy (which is
universally but unjustly referred to as ''The Church''), and the true Church,
which is the Communion of Saints, the Mystical Body of Christ, as manifested
on earth in the the confession of the orthodox apostolic faith, the celebration
of the traditional liturgical rites, and the communion of with the successors
of the Apostles and with fellow believers/worshippers. These make up the
Church's divine nature.
I must keep reminding myself that the Vatican
burocracy is not THE CHURCH, anymore than I am ''THE CHURCH'', The Vatican
Burocracy is only a part of The Church - and, as we are now and again during
the past 2000 years painfully reminded, not always the best part of the
Church. I must keep reinforcing the idea that The Church is not limited
to the Vatican burocrats, but surpasses time, space, hierarchical position,
the faults and misconceptions of Her members, and is thus big enough and
divine enough to include me as well as all others how identify themselves
with Her, in an unavoidable process which will lead to final victory in
sptie of the temporary setbacks, which, in cases such as ours, span the
whole of our lives.
[Added (February 2006)]
I find the future cardinal Levada's reasoning behind his claims that gay priests who have come out of the closet (!) cannot represent Christ in the liturgy because a gay man cannot play the role of Christ as the Bridegoom for the people of God, who are the Bride, and because paedophile priests are gay, to be based on several fallacies:
The reality is that there are more gay priests and seminarians in Europe and Latin America than there are in the United States. This will become evident by even a casual reading of the posts to gay priest's websites in those places. Even after the 'Instrustion,' our Mexican brothers continue to advertise call boy service and 'Orgie Fiestas' on their site, and from European sites, and even in the mass media we learned that there were gay clerics even in Pope John Paul II's household. And Rome does not seem to have come down as hard in those places as it did here. The difference, I believe is TOLERANCE.
Among some Pre-Colombian American people, homosexuals were seen as important members of society, and in Europe the Church itself became a refuge for gays and their lifestyle early on. John Boswell goes into this in some depth in his works.
This would be a wonderful opportunity for our
Church leaders to reach out to the faithful, particularly here in the Untied
States, to teach a little love and tolerance, and the important contributions
continually made by gays - yes even gay priests and religious. Instead
it is joining the Conservative Protestant Right, and beating up on the
gays in an attempt to divert attention away from its failures of leadership.
Just one priest's thought. [Another
priestly correspondent (December 2005)]
The next group affected are celibate gay priests who are very hardworking and already being blamed - even though a minuscule percentage are sexual abusers - for the crimes of a few. This group is going to be more demoralized and stigmatized. I think quite a number of them will leave, not because they can't stand the stigma but because with any integrity how can you stay in an organization that tells you it will no longer accept people like you?
Another affected group is men who are gay and considering a vocation. They will, most likely, just not apply. Archbishop O'Brien said that he thinks that even someone who has lived celibately for 10 years should not be ordained, so imagine you're a gay man who has a vocation to the priesthood or religious life. You've been celibate for 10 years and you apply and are told no. There's no way you're going to apply. No self-respecting, healthy person who understands their sexuality as homosexual is going to enter.
The fourth group would be Catholic gays and lesbians for whom this will be another slap in the face. They are basically being told they can't live celibately. If they're living in an environment that is designed to be supportive of celibacy and are being told they can't live celibately, then what hope is there for the regular gay person? I think they'll also see it as another affront.
Finally, you have the regular Catholic lay people who accept and know their gay priests and see them as loving, holy and dedicated men. They will be angry that their priests are being treated like this and will find in a couple of years even fewer priests since priests will leave the priesthood and seminary or will simply not apply. I think it's going to an utter disaster for the Church.
It will also drive underground any discussion
of sexuality in the seminaries. If you do have a seminarian who is gay
he is not going to discuss his sexuality in any healthy way and it will
create this unhealthy environment which gave rise to the environment of
the sexual abuse crisis. That's not to say that not talking about your
sexuality makes you a pedophile but it makes it harder to weed people out
like that and makes it more difficult for people to lead emotionally mature
and psychologically healthy and integrated lives. The best way to screw
up a person's sexuality is to tell him he can never talk about it, he should
be afraid to talk about it, or if he does talk about it, he'll be punished
- because of this silencing and the inabillity of gay priests to speak openly
about their experience - the only model of the gay priest that the people
in the Vatican and in the public see is the sexually abusive priest. It's
not surprising that they would draw this conclusion that we have to get
rid of the gay priests. Unfortunately, they are not looking at the vast
majority of gay priests. It's the worst kind of prejudice."
[A gay Catholic priest: "Busted.Halo.com"]
The new text addresses exclusively the question of homosexuality. That bothered some people even inside the Vatican. 'They should have written a more general document on self-control or on chastity', said one bishop who advises the Vatican on doctrinal and other issues. 'This instruction says very valid things, but there are many temptations or instincts that need to be controlled before ordination', he said. 'Instead,
they have written an instruction that singles out homosexuals, which can create misunderstandings.'
The bishop said it was clear the Vatican was not taking a 'don't ask, don't tell' attitude on homosexuality. The document urges bishops and seminary officials to 'be vigilant' in applying the norms, which underlines that the Vatican is serious about this, he said.
Three years ago, in the first story published
about the Vatican document, Vatican officials described its content in
much the same terms to Catholic News Service. Why did it take so long for
the document to appear? 'The core of the document never changed, even as
the text evolved', the education congregation official said. 'Initial drafts
took a wider view, saying much more about homosexuality in general. But
after the complexity of the question was seen, it was decided to stick
to the essential question of ordination', he said."
[John Thavis, Catholic News Service http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506714.htm]
Priests fall in love. It is simply a fact of life. I have and others have and you simply pray for the grace of God to know what to do. That dilemma has lead nearly ten thousand men to leave the priesthood in the United States in the last forty years. The conferral of the Sacrament of Holy Orders is not a magic bullet that eliminates human emotion or desire. If anything it should open the human heart to the deeper realities of love. Celibacy is a choice made, not a mystical gift of the Spirit that makes it easier to be isolated or alone.
Homosexuals are no different in this than heterosexuals;
in the words of St. Thomas, human beings are made to love. However, since
the language of the Church recognizes that homosexuality itself is "intrinsically
disordered," this must mean that they are
unsuitable for the priesthood. Well, we are all
intrinsically disordered; we have all been touched by original sin and
will never
be fully whole until we achieve perfect union
with Christ.
If the Church pursues its present course in this matter how far can we, should we take it? Should we ban any individual that may have had a sexual relationship in their life? Archbishop O'Brien has said even homosexual men who haven't been active should be banned. Do we remove the men, who may be homosexual, who have already been ordained? Those individuals would obviously present a threat. In one brief statement the Archbishop has managed to insult and devalue all those men in active ministry who have been celibate and faithful to the teaching of the Church.
And if they are truly looking for the root
causes of the scandal
then perhaps they should dissect a dysfunctional
and top-heavy organization
that has tried to protect its reputation more
than it tried to protect its children.
Not an easy reality to face but one that has to be addressed. To use any group of individuals as scapegoats, ban them from the Church, and then say we are all better now simply won't work.
There was an old saying in the Church: error has no rights. Whenever the Church found itself in positions of power it has pulled this concept out to defend its position. Now it must realize that the saying applies to the Church too. The responsibility for the crisis cannot be swept under the rug or shifted to a "homosexual subculture" whether one exists or not.
I am not a major advocate of gay rights.
However, I cannot stand by and watch the Church use homosexuals as a scapegoat
for a scandal that had more to do with ignorant or arrogant prelates. The
hierarchy of the Church was fully informed to the depth and nature of this
scandal almost 20 years ago. In the early 90's they had to deal with this
scandal and the National Bishops Conference assured people that it was
taken care of. No one in a position of power in the Catholic Church can
say that they didn't know. After 1992 the people who had the priest personnel
files did know and simply did little or nothing that was effective. It
appears now that they may have found a different way to shift the blame:
ban homosexuals and we can get back
to having a safe church. If they go through with
this they may find that they will lose much more than they know.
The fact of the matter is that the child sexual
abuse scandal has nothing to do with either homosexuality in the priesthood
or
celibacy. For the Vatican or Archbishop O'Brien,
or any other person in a position of authority to shift the focus to those
issues simply illustrates the point that they have failed to grasp the
issue. If we continue to make the outside of the cup and dish look clean
without truly cleansing the inside then we have failed at a true chance
at renewal and reconciliation with our people and our God.
In my own life, one of the most profound experiences
of God's love came when, after many years, I finally accepted that I
could not change myself into a straight man:
I was gay and that was simply the way God had created me. Encountering
God's love as I am was a transforming experience, one that I have wanted
to share with parishioners not as an example of any personal sexual liberation,
but as a sign of God's infinite, and always surprising, understanding.
Does this basic acceptance of God's love seem like a commonplace sentiment?
For most straight men and women, yes. But for gay people, it can be a profoundly
difficult proposition to come to believe.
I have long hoped to testify before my parish to this foundational experience of God's love in my life, but I am of course forbidden to do so. And when a minister of the Word cannot publicly proclaim the freedom that the Word brings to his own life, it is a real loss for a community of faith.
My own path to the priesthood is similar to that of many gay men. In the American Catholic milieu in which I was raised, the pressures against coming to terms with my sexual identity were overwhelming.
Growing up, I told no one that I was gay. Entering
the seminary in my twenties, I was, as a gay man, fearful of not receiving
eventual permission for ordination, so in the initial interviews, questionnaires,
and psychological tests required of applicants, I
denied my homosexuality. (Later I sought forgiveness
for this in the confessional.)
Eventually, though, I came to feel secure enough to reveal this facet of myself to my superiors. Doing so seemed a deepening of my original "call," an invitation to spiritual growth, and a way to allow God to love me as I am. Further, I realized that my decades spent fearing rejection and feeling marginalized had fostered within me a deep love for the materially poor of this world, who are marginalized and rejected in far worse ways.
Fortunately, and to my surprise, my honesty was welcomed by my superiors and my fellow seminarians. Many conversations about sexuality followed - with seminary rectors, spiritual directors, other seminarians and priests, as well as with psychologists and pastoral counsellors. Over the years, my growing understanding of who I was helped me live a life of celibacy with more honesty and comfort. Priestly celibacy, of course, is not easy. Making this total offering to God requires honesty, patience, and sacrifice. It also requires the willingness to engage in an honest and open discussion of one's sexuality, something a Vatican ban on homosexual priests would make impossible.
Few doubt that priestly celibacy and chastity within religious communities have long appealed to gay men and lesbians. Although the concept of "homosexuality" is a relatively new one, the phenomenon is not. Throughout the history of the church, homosexual men and women have found the priesthood and religious life both a refuge and a fulfilling way of life. As Richard John Neuhaus noted (First Things, June-July 2002): "It would seem more than likely that, in centuries past, some priests who have been canonized as saints would meet today's criteria as having a 'homosexual orientation'." For many Catholics, the only surprising thing about gay priests is that we are still thought to be a source of shame whose existence must be kept secret.
Many years ago I felt the first stirring of a
vocation to the priesthood. It was an enormous gift in the order of grace.
I believe
the priesthood is the vocation for which I have
been born, and this belief has been confirmed again and again over my years
of active ministry. I am celibate and hardworking and healthy and loving
and faithful. I am also a gay man. Why is this wrong?
A member of Pharsea's World Yahoo! Group has translated
the original Italian into the following English text.
Pharsea believes that this is a huge improvement
on the original transliteration that he received.
We have nothing to hide, do you? This question arises from the open letter that a group of homosexual priests is submitting to the Christian community and to the Catholic hierarchy; the latter, through the recent Instruction of the Congregation for Catholic Education, means to have them disappear from ecclesiastical "presentability."The recent Instruction of the Congregation for Catholic Education, concerning the criteria for the discernment of vocations with regard to persons with homosexual tendencies, moves us to offer some reflections on this matter. We address ourselves to our brothers in the priesthood, to Pastors and religious Superiors, to consecrated men and women, to all men and women in society.Ours are not your instincts that cannot be restrained but only hidden behind a forced chastity,The homosexual priests who have entrusted this open letter exclusively to Adista do not wish to have anything to hide. And it is precisely for this reason that this Church forces them to remain hidden, to keep their face concealed: they are forced to ask for an assurance of anonymity, even though they have had the courage to sign their names openly in the text of the letter given to Adista's editors.
ours is not your pedophilia,
ours is not your obsession with sex,
we do not identify ourselves with a sexual tendency.
We consider ourselves persons, and that is what we want to be, just persons.The following letter was signed by 39 priests: 26 diocesan and 13 religious, coming from all regions of Italy (altogether 18 dioceses and 6 religious institutions).
We are Catholic priests, diocesan and religious, of homosexual tendency; and that fact has not prevented us from being good priests. Some of us have spent our lives in mission work; others of us are parish priests and pastors of souls, beloved and respected by our people; still others of us pass our lives as priests in teaching, which we do with dedication and professionalism.
One suspects that this document originated in
reaction to recently reported cases of pedophilia, especially in the Church
in the United States and Brazil. But the homosexual tendency is not simply
synonymous with pedophilia. One receives from the document another impression:
that its authors think that homosexuals are inevitably part of a gay culture,
exhibitionist, seeking to
offend, recognizing no boundaries, a philosophy
of life which often appears in the eyes of many as opposed to every moral
law, and in which everything is allowed. Certain manifestations of the
gay world have their origins in a reaction to the years of ghettoization
and persecution in which the homosexual world was imprisoned; but it is
not true that such manifestations are joined in by the entire gay world.
In any case, not a single one of us has adopted any extreme behavior, nor
does any of us believe in a hedonistic permissiveness in which moral laws
do not exist.
The document seems to say that the greatest difficulty
to be overcome in order to be a good priest is one's sexual tendency. But
then it passes lightly over certain styles of life which, though they are
beyond reproach with regard to sexuality, create scandal among the faithful.
We are referring to luxury and pomp, to the attachment to money, to positions
of influence and power, to
remoteness from the people's problems. By contrast,
we consider our homosexuality a real treasure, because it helps us share
in the marginalization and suffering of so many people. To paraphrase Saint
Paul, we can thus become all things to all people, powerless with the powerless,
marginalized with the marginalized.
Experience shows that the fact of our homosexuality, when it is lived in the light of the Gospel and under the action of the Spirit, gives us the opportunity to support and encourage our brothers and sisters with homosexual tendencies in their way in the faith, thus effectively carrying out the pastoral mission that the Church regards as necessary and desirable.
The very Church which has received the ministry of reconciliation (4) needs itself to be reconciled with homosexuality. For that is reality, for so many believers: sons and daughters of God, men and women of good will, who have the right to find the Church to be the roof that shelters their souls.
To be sure, like all honest people, we cannot deny our fragility, which is a condition of our human nature. We carry the gift of God in vessels of clay (5); but this circumstance of ours is not an obstacle to our being shepherds after God's heart.
At this time, following the publication of the document to which we have referred, we are feeling great sorrow, at the suggestion that our vocation is not authentic. We feel like children abandoned and unloved by that very Church to whom we both promised and gave fidelity and love. We feel ourselves to be "fratres minores," the least of brothers, in a house of priests which we could have got into only by sneaking.
(1) Cf.. Presbyterorum Ordinis, n.14.
(2) Cf.. C.I.C., can 1051.
(3) Cf.. Pastores dabo vobis, n.35.
(4) Cf.. 2 Cor. 5,18.
(5) Cf.. 2 Cor. 4,7.
the letter just published by the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education
is liable to bring the Catholic Church
into widespread disrepute as one of the last
European bastions of homophobia and bigotry.
The text claims that the decision to instigate
a witch-hunt of gay seminarians is based on the teaching of Scripture and
Tradition.
This is contentious. Any fair reading of Scripture
must conclude that the "homosexuality proof texts" are anything but clear
and
that many other much clearer injunctions (such
as calling no-one but God "father" and never swearing an oath) have been
set on one side by the Catholic Magisterium since earliest times.
Moreover, there is a substantial testimony within Catholic Tradition (most
recently popularized in the works of the late Prof. Boswell) which conflicts
with the modern teaching of the Vatican.
The document insinuates, but does not say, that the reason for its publication is the prevalence of child molestation amongst Catholic clergy, until recently "hushed up" by conservative Bishops such as Cardinal Law. However, it puts forward no evidence that gay clergy are more likely to be responsible than others; and - of course - no significant disciplinary action has ever been taken against any Bishop who acted to suppress the truth in this regard.
The document compromises previous official teaching
by repeatedly talking of "people with homosexual tendencies" rather than
"homosexual persons". Its claim to treat gay
people with respect need hardly be commented on. It is a clear example
of "unjustified discrimination", because it is not concerned with whether
a seminarian is orthodox in belief, charitable and pious in
disposition and generally fitted for priestly
life in the Roman Church: but only whether he "has deep seated homosexual
tendencies". Manifestly, a man with "deep-seated heterosexual tendencies"
would be welcomed with open arms!
The document is profoundly insulting to all gay
men, because it insists on treating "homosexuality" as a developmental
disorder
indicating psychological immaturity and resulting
in an inability to relate "properly" to either men or women!
It is outrageous that the document insists that not only must a gay seminarian tacitly accept the Magisterium's cruel evaluation of his life and being, but also that he must condemn himself as essentially depraved when he honestly believes that he is guilty of nothing!
What now is the status of the very large number of gay catholic priests and bishops? This document makes it clear that
it is not enough that they are celibate,
not enough that they refrain from speaking
against the official line,
not enough that they believe in their hearts
that the official line is true,
not enough that they believe that they are
themselves intrinsically disordered,
not enough that they believe even that they
are psychological cripples.
No! No matter what he believes or does - or
does not do -
no gay man is fit to be a Catholic priest.
These are dark days for the Church. With falling
congregations and fewer and fewer priests; and with a faltering message
that
often amounts to little more than a twisted and
self-obsessed puritanism, with little "Good News" for anyone, what hope
is there for the barque of Peter?
I write in the aftermath of the publication of the recent Instruction of the Congregation for Catholic Education.
Since:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither
bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female: for ye are
all one in Christ Jesus."
Moreover, because:
Finally, because
I therefore suggest to Your Grace that the present official teaching is:
Pending that day, I ask the prayers of the Blessed
Mother of God, her Holy Spouse Joseph, the Holy Martyrs Sergius and Bacchus
for your Grace's well-being and salvation, and remain your brother in Our
Common Lord Jesus:
Hence the Instruction is not discriminatory; rather it is an expression of the Church's maternal solicitude for men who feel called to the priesthood but who need to address the issue of the way they live out their sexuality before they can be considered for admission to a seminary. You will note that the Instruction identifies three categories of persons whom it suggests would encounter problems in formation; it most certainly does not suggest that all men who have a homosexual orientation are unsuitable for Holy Orders.
The three categories are as follows: those who practise homosexuality; those who present deep-seated homosexual tendencies; and those who support the gay culture. The reason for the exclusion of those in the first category is self-evident: a man needs to prove that he can live chastely for a good period before he can be admitted to seminary. Those in the second category, as I understand it, would experience particular difficulties in refraining from homosexual acts (the sexual drive connoted by "deep-seated tendency" is of a stronger nature than that evoked by the phrase "homosexual orientation"). Those in the third category promote what is a deeply hedonistic culture and so would be similarly unhappy in embracing celibate chastity.
I hope that this response helps. Certainly, the
Instruction expresses "profound respect" for all those who would identify
themselves as belonging to one of the above categories.
As with heliocentricity and the spherical shape of the Earth, the Church is again making an enormous fool of herself and causing untold pain on her 'beloved children'. The church also feels that a great injustice was done to us by the removal of homosexuality from the Psychiatric societies list of mental illnesses in the '70's because we can no longer see ourselves as ill and in need of treatment.
"Holy Mary, Mother of God, Pray for the leaders of your Son's Church, His Bride. Save us from those who would 'save' us by destroying us. Save us from men who view what God has created and call it evil.
Lord Jesus, accept our imperfect gifts of love, and allow us to be in complete Communion with You, One Body One Blood One Mind and One Spirit in You."
The Vatican's new policy on gay priests has been leaked. Officially, it proposes the incorrigibility of deeply rooted gay tendencies. Unofficially, it exposes the deeply rooted, incorrigible antigay tendencies of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict XVI. For decades, while moderate clerics defended celibate gay priests, Ratzinger pressed for a purge of homosexuality not merely as an act or a lifestyle but as an orientation. Now he's in charge, and he's got ambitions beyond the church. He wants to cleanse us all, inside and out.
To its credit, the Vatican has sought to incorporate modern psychology and biology in its discussions of homosexuality. The first document to do so was the Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, issued in 1975 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Declaration tentatively accepted that some people were "definitively" gay due to "some kind of innate instinct" for which they weren't "personally responsible." Nevertheless, it maintained that according to scripture, "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." The solution was to separate the involuntary from the voluntary "the inclination from the acts" by helping homosexuals to "overcome" their "condition." Eight years later, the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education, acknowledging the role of "physiological or psychological factors" in homosexuality, drew the same conclusion.
But in 1986, the CDF changed its tune. In its
Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual
Persons, the CDF said that liberals had twisted
the meaning of the Declaration, applying "an overly benign interpretation
"to the homosexual condition itself", as opposed to homosexual acts. The
condition was the problem, said the Letter: When people "engage in homosexual
activity, they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination
which is essentially self-indulgent."
Masquerading as a clarification, the Letter turned
the Declaration upside down. On the old view, the inclination was disordered
insofar as it tended toward the acts. On the
new view, the acts were disordered insofar as they "confirmed" the inclination,
and the inclination was "essentially" self-indulgent, regardless of its
manifestation in acts. What had happened to the CDF between 1975 and 1986?
Ratzinger had taken charge of it. His name, absent from the Declaration,
was on the Letter.
But Ratzinger didn't control the whole Vatican, and other departments continued to distinguish homosexual acts from the inclination. In 1990, the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life issued Directives on Formation in Religious Institutes, the first Vatican document on gay priests. It called for the exclusion not of celibate gays but of those who defended a non-celibate life and did "not seem to be able to overcome their homosexual tendencies."
In 1992, Ratzinger upped the ante. In an analysis
of Legislative Proposals on the Non-discrimination of Homosexual Persons,
the CDF repeated that "the inclination itself must be seen as an objective
disorder" and extended this principle to civil law.
"'Sexual orientation' does not constitute a quality
comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination,"
said the document. "There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination
to take sexual orientation into account." The obvious areas were adoption
and education, but the CDF sought broader precedents for antigay legislation
in housing and employment, noting that "the state may restrict the exercise
of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons."
If homosexual orientation was sick and infectious, why should purification stop at the priesthood? Three months later, Pope John Paul II released the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Ratzinger had chaired the Catechism's drafting committee beginning in 1986, the same year he issued the CDF's hard edged Letter. But the Catechism, unlike the Letter, was a six year product of "consultation among all Catholic Bishops, their Episcopal Conferences or Synods, and theological and catechetical institutes". John Paul called it the "symphony of the faith" and the difference showed.
The Catechism dealt with "homosexual acts" and "homosexual tendencies" in separate paragraphs. It framed gay tendencies as a "trial" for their bearers and concluded, "Homosexual persons are called to chastity". This would be hard for them, but it would be morally sufficient. Through "self-mastery" and "prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection," it said.
Other bodies within the hierarchy defended this
view against the CDF. In 1995, the Pontifical Council for the Family declared,
"A distinction must be made between a tendency
that can be innate and acts of homosexuality that 'are intrinsically disordered.'"
In 1998, the Congress on Vocations to the Priesthood and to Consecrated
Life in Europe said the crucial test for a prospective priest was to be
"able to control these weaknesses." The 1998 document, circumventing Ratzinger's
1986 and 1992 pronouncements, invoked the recommendation of the 1990 Directives
"to reject not [candidates] who have such tendencies but
rather 'those who cannot manage to control such
tendencies.'"
Ratzinger never believed such control was possible. Two years ago, under his signature, the CDF examined Proposals To Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons. It urged governments to "contain" gay unions "to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon." Even in latency, homosexuality, like smallpox, would always be a threat.
Now comes the Instruction Concerning the Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons With Homosexual Tendencies, issued by the Congregation for Catholic Education. This is the same Vatican department that said 22 years ago that "homosexuals must be received with understanding and supported in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties." But the new document, unlike the old one, carries Benedict's imprimatur. And its message couldn't be more different.
The Instruction says the church "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." It says a would-be priest must be turned away if he "practices homosexuality or presents profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies."
Notice two things. First, deep-rooted "tendencies" are now independent and automatic grounds for dismissal, regardless of whether you "practice" homosexuality or "support" gay culture (whatever that is). Second, even if these tendencies are merely a "situation" in which you "find yourself," they "gravely obstruct" you from relating properly to men and women. Through no fault of your own, you're doomed.
The Catechism's paths to perfection: "self-mastery, chastity, prayer, and grace" no longer suffice. The church won't settle for your self-restraint, even with God's help.
One part of the Instruction permits ordination
of priests whose gay tendencies have been "overcome at least three years
before ordination." But this rule applies only to immature candidates passing
through a "transitory" phase, not those with "deep-rooted" homosexuality.
The policy also says it's "gravely dishonest", and therefore disqualifying,
to "hide" your homosexuality to get into
the priesthood. You're damned if you show it
and damned if you don't.
The facile defence of Ratzinger's campaign against
gay inclinations in the clergy is that the Catholic sex-abuse scandal proved
these inclinations were too dangerous to tolerate. But even if you buy
the argument that the abuse stemmed from homosexuality rather than pedophilia
and sexual segregation (I don't) it doesn't explain why he targeted gay
inclinations in 1986, long before the scandal exploded. Nor is it comforting
that his Instruction applies only to priests. As he made clear 13 years
ago, if homosexual tendencies are a contagious disease, the infection (and
the purge) will go on.