Remember also back during the priest scandal that there was a major question about whether the Church allowed the ordination of homosexuals willing to live chastely?
Some folks were arguing that the Church forbade the ordination of homosexuals on the basis of a 1961 document. This was bandied about vigorously by people who obviously don’t know beans about how ecclesiastical law works, but it was, unfortunately, a non-starter.
The document was released under the authority of the Sacred Congregation for Religious, meaning that it only ever had authority in religious congregations and the like (think: monks, etc.). It did not apply to diocesan priests, which are the majority of priests in the Church.
Further, as a document released back in 1961, there was a likelihood that the document had been abrogated in some way since that time. Church law has just changed too much following Vatican II, the revision of the Code of Canon Law, and the deluge of documents that have been coming from Vatican dicasteries in that time. It might still be in force, but without carefully shepherdizing the law, there would be no way to tell for sure. One can’t simply grab a 1961 document and start touting it as an authoritative statement applicable to today without doing a bunch of careful research.
So the document in question was not an adequate basis on which to show that the Church currently forbids the ordination of homosexuals willing to live chastely. One would need another document.
And then we got one.
In the November-December 2002 issue of Notitiae, the journal of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, there was a Responsum ad dubium (Latin, "response to a doubt"; basically an official Q & A) that stated: "A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency, is not fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders."
Now, one could perhaps argue with that jurisdictionally, asking whether it was within the CDWDS’s authority to issue a dubium on that topic, suggesting that perhaps instead it should come from the Congregation for Clergy or the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts or something, though ordination is a sacrament, and the discipline of the sacraments falls within the CDWDS’s jurisdiction.
So what might solve this kind of debate?
A more substantial document (i.e., something more than a Q & A) approved by the pope–especially if it’s approved by him in forma specifica (Latin, "in specific form"–which invests the pope’s own authority in it in a special way). That would settle the quibbling.
Well . . . there’s apparently such a document in B16’s hands right now.
From the article:
“some degree of experimentation and ambivalence about orientation is not unusual”
That kind of thing just scares me. Funny enough I didn’t experiment with my orientation growing up.
Yeah, I’m with Nick.
So the Church is apparantly not agreeing with those who say “that it doesn’t matter if a candidate is gay, as long as he’s capable of remaining celibate”. Could someone explain to me why not? Why does a candidate’s sexual orientation important, since whether homo or hetero, he will have to be celibate? Are homosexuals always less competent to remian celibate?
So the Church is apparantly not agreeing with those who say “that it doesn’t matter if a candidate is gay, as long as he’s capable of remaining celibate”.
In my understanding, not quite: Remember, the Pope hasn’t said anything yet. I am personally unsure whether we have enough facts on the issue for the Pope to say one way or the other. However, it’s entirely possible/probable that he’s accumulated more knowledge than me about the condition of homosexuality’s effect on the ability to remain chaste in the priesthood, whether it’s from scientific resources or anecdotal evidence that the pope is privy to, which proves valuable and enlightening in some way. Whether he knows enough to decide one way or the other, we can’t know, and it’s possible he might just say, “We don’t know enough about this yet” and push it to the background for now.
Could someone explain to me why not? Why does a candidate’s sexual orientation important, since whether homo or hetero, he will have to be celibate?
This question is what is being examined, actually. Like I said, it might get pushed aside into the “We Don’t Know Enough Yet” pile.
Are homosexuals always less competent to remian celibate?
Again, that’s probably the central question the pope will be contemplating–whether the hardships particular to homosexuals threatens the integrity of their chastity to the point where it is a real point of determination, as to whether the priestly life is best for him and his potential flock–i.e., is truly his calling. I see real, charitable concern over chastity and souls here, not judgments.
Just the same, the 1961 document also takes into account heterosexuals with such a strong disposition for intimacy that they too, would suffer unduly in the priesthood to the point where their integrity is threatened, such that it really isn’t a wise path for them. Whether that is also part of the document Benedict is holding, the article doesn’t say.
There seems to be at least, overwhelming anecdotal evidence that the challenges are too great for homosexuals to prove reliable leaders in the priesthood, that their entrance into the priesthood has done far more harm than good, and that their particular weaknesses may have even led to graver unresisted temptations such as the victimizing of children (and overwhelmingly boys). I’m not really one to evaluate whether such evidence is helpful, but I don’t think it’s wise to totally disregard such evidence. It is at the very least, worthy of examination.
The truth is that chastity is something we are all called to–even married folks. Most of us have had our own issues with chastity, whether it’s temptations to fornicate, use birth control, entertaining illicit sexual thoughts, porn, etc. Chastity isn’t an issue that is foreign to any walk of life. Is the weakness of the homosexual orientation such, that the challenges to chastity are much harder to overcome than it is with most heterosexuals, who also must fight to remain chaste? If temptations are relatively equal, then you have another question: Does the seminary and priestly life put a candidate in a position where there is too much temptation which they wouldn’t otherwise have, if they were heterosexual?
The answers aren’t obvious to me, but the issue is worth examining.
Is the Church in the US ready to see the number of current seminarians drop overnight by some substantial percentage?
If a man has been forthright with his formators during the process of acceptance and seminary studies, and is now ruled “not fit” because of a new rule, is the Church ready for the suits in civil law which will inevitably result?
Would the Church encourage homosexually oriented priests to resign, and assist them in petitioning to be reduced to the lay state (yes that is how they talk), and in making the transition to lay status? The latter may require job retraining etc. which would come with a substantial pricetag.
1. Whether or not gays have more trouble living chastely is not the central issue. The fact remains that sex scandals involving gay priests have far worse effects than sex scandals involving heterosexual priests. This risk is simply too high for The Church, so such gay men should not be ordained.
2. The real empirical question that needs to be asked is, What is it that attracts gay men to the priesthood? My personal belief is that we have effectively emasculated the priesthood in the past forty years, and we would do well to go back to the old ways. That would attract higher quality, more committed, and more orthodox men. And it’s also the reason why an order like the FSSP really does not have a vocations shortage.
“The fact remains that sex scandals involving gay priests have far worse effects than sex scandals involving heterosexual priests.”
Why? Because it’s worse when little boys are abused than little girls, since females are expected to being abused?
“What is it that attracts gay men to the priesthood?”
And why are heterosexual men attracted to the priesthood?
One obvious explanation for a Catholic, gay man to consider priesthood would of course be that since he is not interested in getting married he is not actually sacrificing anything (except sin).
It is interesting that the primary arguments here against gay seminarians/priests are sociological, not theological. The real questions is, does God call homosexually inclined men to the priesthood? If he does, then we better accept that fact.
It seems to reduce down to the following, in my opinion.
1. God does not call homosexually inclined men to the priesthood, therefore we have made a tremendous mistake by ordaining such men in the past.
2. God has in the past given a vocation to homosexually oriented men, but has now changed his mind.
3. God has in the past and still continues to call homosexually oriented men to his priesthood, but now we don’t want them and so are willing to thwart God’s will.
If there is another possibility, I don’t see it.
One of the worst aspects of the priest abuse scandals was the victimization of children. The child victims were mostly males. What alot of people don’t know is that pedophilia is a dominant aspect of homosexual culture.
Unless I am mistaken, heterosexual priests who break their vows of celibacy generally do so with women/girls who are at or near the age of consent. That doesn’t make it right, but it does make it less damaging and scandalous than pedophilia.
As a Boy Scout leader, I am also aware that pedophiles will seek out professions and associations that will bring them into closer contact with potential victims. Homosexual orientation would be an indicator of an increased risk of predatory pedophilia.
Anna – It does not indicate that anyone thinks that the victimization of boys is worse than the victimization of girls, only that victimizing children is worse than victimizing adults. I hope we would all agree to that.
“Why? Because it’s worse when little boys are abused than little girls, since females are expected to being abused?”
Anna, this is grossly unfair. You’re twisting my words here and attacking a Straw Man. I used the broad term “sex scandal” in my post for a reason. I was not simply talking about sex scandals involving the underaged.
A singular focus on a conjectural or actuarial assessment of possible misbehavior on the part of an individual priest is misplaced. Any policy implemented should take into account possible consequences for the priesthood assessed as an organism. Context or environment influences dispositions, behavior, and one’s conception of self. We must ask what makes for a salutary set of social relations among priests and their superiors and what is taught when the generic priest is understood to have particular characteristics.
Vocation directors have to use certain guidelines when choosing their men. During the 1960’s there were a lot of seminaries which admitted men with homosexual orientations because they had the new and “liberal” understanding that this orientation was “natural” rather than a psychological disease. (Likewise, all of my homosexual acquaintances believe that their desires are natural.) The thing is, they aren’t. Any student of biology or natural law will instantly understand this, though it’s so un-PC that no one will say so publicly.
“Orthodox” seminaries (and the Vatican) today understand that homosexuality IS a disorder. Prudent vocation directors don’t pick men with disorders, addictions, etc. Would we make our seminarians eat, study, and share dorm rooms with beautiful, devout swimsuit models? Of course not, but that’s what life is like for a homosexual seminarian. And after ordination, the disorder persists.
I think homosexuality is one of the heaviest crosses that God has asked of so many men and women. I shudder thinking that my two little children will probably grow up surrounded by gay couples showing PDA in the parks, the grocery stores, everywhere you turn. How many children now will have to question their own orientation unnecessarily?
When a heterosexual priest promises celibacy, he gives up a good thing (marriage). When a homosexual priest promises celibacy, he gives up an evil thing — and what is the good of that?
Flatcat,
yes, there’s a distinction, although ideally speaking celibacy is not a “giving up” but rather a “falling in love” as our new pope recently put it. It’s a gift received, a total devotion to ministry that is a gain, not a loss.
In the same respect, the things we “give up” on Sundays (the unnecessary work) are not the substance of the Sabbath blessing. the Sabbath is a gift of time and peace to spend actively seeking our God and pursuing the good. It’s not a day of restriction, but a day of journey. (In a broader context this applies to all of God’s commandments.)
There’s nothing metaphysical that prevents a homosexual from being validly ordained. (The only basic requirements for priesthood are male gender and baptism!) The question is rather one of prudence for vocation directors.
That requirement for priesthood is being of the male sex. A woman displaying, “the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with” being male can represent the “male gender”, but it doesn’t make her a man.