Catholic World News is reporting that B16 has approved the document from the Congregation for Catholic Education barring the ordination of homosexuals.
EXCERPTS:
The new document– which was prepared by the Congregation for Catholic Education, in response to a request made by the late Pope John Paul II in 1994– will be published soon. It will take the form of an "Instruction," signed by the prefect and secretary of the Congregation: Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski and Archbishop Michael Miller.
The text, which was approved by Pope Benedict at the end of August, says that homosexual men should not be admitted to seminaries even if they are celibate, because their condition suggests a serious personality disorder which detracts from their ability to serve as ministers.
Priests who have already been ordained, if they suffer from homosexual impulses, are strongly urged to renew their dedication to chastity, and a manner of life appropriate to the priesthood.
Informed sources in Rome indicate that the Instruction probably will be made public after the Synod of Bishops, which meets in Rome from October 2 through 23.
GET THE STORY.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)
One thing I’d be careful about with the story: It says that John XXIII approved a policy to the same effect and that it remains in force. This appears to be inaccurate. There was such a policy approved for religious priests (as opposed to diocesan ones) during John XXIII’s reign, but (a) it was not a policy for all priests and (b) it may well not be in effect at this point due to changes in Church law, which has been extensively renovated since that time.
This is a minor point, though, and should not detract from the heartening newsrumor that B16 has given his approval to the document.
I’m not heartened at all. If the wording is as stated using only the term “should not”, the seminarys in America and elsewhere will ignore it in the future as they have in the past. After all, after VII the rules for Friday abstinence were loosened and the new words here in the Us are basically that Catholics “should” abstain from meat on Fridays but as you, Jimmy, have pointed out it is written in such a way that we really don’t have to. So there are things that we “should” or “shouldn’t” be doing all day long but until there is meat put on these bones it won’t matter much. I pray that the real statement(s) are much stronger or it will make no difference at all and it will take many years and more lives destroyed before we see what has actually happened.
Whit hit the nail on the head. The key question is will the Vatican take any action with this truth? Properly the question should focus on the bishops, but they have shown a complete unwillingness to address this issue.
This is going to go over really well in the Canadian media. Expect human rights trials.
In what other areas should this “serious personality disorder” be the soul defining criteria under which we judge an individual?
Other Eric, your email address suggests that you define yourself by your sexual orientation. I find that ironic.
No one is judging homosexual persons. We are only saying that it is not prudent to ordain them as priests at the present time.
Whit:
What about “Shall Not”? Would that be sufficient?
Other Eric –
To add to what BillyHW said, personality disorders can’t be said even to be the sole criteria for determining fitness for the priesthood, much less for judging a person; there are plenty of other requirements that must also be met. One must be willing to be celibate and be male, for starters, but one must also go through extensive training, throughout which their fitness for the priesthood will be re-evaluated. A serious personality disorder may be a sufficient reason to bar someone from the priesthood, but certainly not the sole factor.
Hi BillyHW!
If one is going to say that it is imprudent to ordain a man because a particular condition he has preempts any other consideration and that demonstrated behavior is irrelevant, doesn’t same-sex attraction logically become something which a man can form his entire identity around? Isn’t it ultimately contemptuous of human individuality for consideration of a candidate to cease based upon the presence of any condition regardless of haw the candidate deals with that condition? Fundamental identity, it seems, becomes rooted in the temptations a candidate faces.
If the Church is going to make a prudential judgment that a candidate with same-sex attraction is ill-equipped to handle the rigors of the priesthood and that he is, in the final analysis, a ticking time-bomb poised to prey upon the innocent, what is to stop every faithful Catholic from making the exact same prudential judgment about mere association with such a person?
Hi Bill Quinnan!
There may be other emotional disorders that would render a candidate unfit for the priesthood, but that is not what we are saying about same-sex attraction. Indeed, it is irrelevant how well a potential candidate would perform in any of the other areas. He could have been celibate for a period of years, male, orthodox in every respect, and an eloquent theologian but if he has same-sex attraction, that trumps all.
It could certainly be an eliminating factor all by itself, but so could lots of things. One could be fully knowledgable, heterosexual and male, and be barred from the priesthood because one has a history of getting into fistfights in the seminary. Or, one could be excluded because of an attraction to little girls.
But I’m curious if there actually are any priests who are orthodox in every respect, who pass all Church teachings faithfully on to the flock. who have remained celibate for years and who would consider themselves homosexual.
In what other areas should this “serious personality disorder” be the soul defining criteria under which we judge an individual?
This is a fair question. The quick answer is that the opposing approach has been tried and failed. How that failure is established is by examining the many complaints from seminaries in this country. At that point the question becomes, are we dealing with immoral people that are homosexuals or is homosexuality such a profound issue that it causes further issues? The evidence seems to suggest that the former approach was taken for several decades. Now the latter approach will be taken. The interest seems to be the health of the priesthood and ultimately the homosexuals themselves. Let me be clear, I am not referring to the molestation issue.
“Isn’t it ultimately contemptuous of human individuality for consideration of a candidate to cease based upon the presence of any condition regardless of haw the candidate deals with that condition?”
How does this square with *dying to self*? If we are to decrease so that God may increase in our lives, it seems to me that would include even that aspect of “human individuality” that our society seems to think should trump all, Other Eric – sexuality. That someone would voluntarily be celibate is a scandal in our society, especially among homosexuals, it seems, who (in these days of so-called “queer apologists”) see homosexual acts as some sort of sexual sacrament in the church of the self. (Note the rejoicing over Laurence v. Texas a few years back.)
At the root of the issue here is the infiltration of seminaries by homosexuals over the last 40 or so years – the horror stories have been well-documented – with seeming impunity. It was seen by activist gays as a way to push the homosex agenda to the Catholic masses – which they view as the last bastion of sexual repression in existence – & undermine it from within. (And the choir played on?) Given that the homosexual agenda actively pushes for a lowering of age of consent laws in all nations, condones sex between adults & minors (& younger!), & frequently cites Kinsey’s (an advocate of sexual activity in kids as young as 4!) pseudo-science as if it’s scripture – not to mention the fact that the vast majority of priests involved in the sex scandal of 2002 were active homosexuals preying on teen boys . . . doesn’t the Catholic Church have a right to protect it’s faithful? Shouldn’t the Church do what must be done to keep men with these & other disorders (yes, I said the “D” word) out of it’s seminaries? (I might remind folks that homosexuality was considered a disorder until homosexual activists relentlessly lobbied the APA for a change in the early 1970s.)
I agree with what others stated above. It’ll be very interesting to see what sort of info & action the seminary visits will produce from Rome.
In a healthy Church with a healthy priesthood in a society with a healthy revulsion for perverted sexual activity, it might be prudent to ordain homosexuals in rare cases.
None of these conditions apply.
The following is a well-researched essay on certain aspects of the controversy:
http://www.hli.org/homosexuality_not_molestation.pdf
So, I’m curious. In the effort to sanitize the priesthood of homosexuals, how many here would suggest that the church develop a “golden parachute” program to allow already ordained priests with same sex attraction to continue their lives with dignity, a decent retirement, job training etc.?
Hi Gene Branamin!
It seems to me that in a blanket ban on those who experience same-sex attraction that the Church would be agreeing with society and the queer activists. Orientation would become an intrinsic facet of one’s humanity. It is a ban based on reasoning that teaches the faithful to be suspicious that such an individual is even capable of dying to himself. The article linked to above, affirms:
The ban, on the other hand seems to be saying of a man with same-sex attraction that clear recognition of the dangers and heartbreak his desires could cause can never be attained. He will always be a threat.
Bill Quinnan asked, “But I’m curious if there actually are any priests who are orthodox in every respect, who pass all Church teachings faithfully on to the flock. who have remained celibate for years and who would consider themselves homosexual.”
Try this article from Fr. John Harvey of Courage.
“Courage, an apostolate of the Roman Catholic Church, ministers to those with same-sex attractions and their loved ones. We have been endorsed by the Pontifical Council for the Family and our beloved John Paul II said of this ministry, ‘COURAGE is doing the work of God!'”
Bill, it’s a question that should be asked more, and that article I linked to seems to answer Yes.
If the document is released, it puts Courage in a curious position. Pre-document, they are fully orthodox, but post-document, they’d have to change their mind about some things (or at least make an assent of the will.)
-Ryan.
Okay. So let’s pretend I’m going to the seminary. (Not to be ordained of course; just to study theology.) Let’s pretend that I, an adult heterosexual female, am going to stay for several years in a dorm full of unrelated adult male persons, both students and teachers. All the time.
Now, it’s probable that both they and I could remain completely chaste. It’s possible even that they and I would never ever have the slightest hint of an impure thought about each other, and I would never be in danger of anything bad happening to me, and we would totally regard each other as brothers and sister. But it wouldn’t be the way to bet.
Now, you can say all you like about how after all, the guys’ future parishes will be full of unrelated women. But they won’t be living under the same roof as those women, and they won’t be seeing them day after day after day under the peculiar stresses and unity of study and formation and trying very very hard to be good. Even in a co-ed dorm at a secular college, it’s the responsibility of both men and women to do their best not to overstress morals. And even with the most moral or least interested young people, things often happen. All sorts of things. Ask an RA sometime.
So basically, I think it’s not really fair or helpful to anyone suffering seriously from SSA to put them in the position of Lenten fasting every day for years, while working at a steakhouse.
And yes, I feel that strong SSA probably is a clue that you don’t have a vocation to be a priest or brother (or a nun, on the other side), just as an unhealthy obsession with food probably means you should avoid becoming a chef, even if you have awesome natural cooking talents.
In response to Maureen, I quote from an article by Fr. John Harvey of Courage, an organization which helps persons with same sex attractions to live celibately:
“The unspoken premise behind the opinion that men with same-sex attractions are not suitable candidates for the priesthood is the presumption that a person with same-sex attractions can not control his desires and develop a life of interior chastity. Yet, the Church expects all of her members to strive for interior chastity, and for the unmarried, chastity is expressed through a celibate lifestyle, either as a single lay person or a vowed religious. If we truly believe that unmarried lay people with same-sex attractions are capable of living lives of chaste celibacy, why should we automatically assume that a young man with same-sex attractions who wants to enter the seminary is incapable of the chaste celibacy which is required of him?”
His argument is based on personal pastoral experience, rather than speculation.
Hi Maureen!
I guess in addition to the ban on those with same-sex attractions in the priesthood we should also discourage such from entering into organizations such as Courage or any of the reparative therapy programs sponsored by NARTH, all of which encourage close association with members of the same gender as a pivotal component of a chaste life or the road to healing. Close association and stress will lead to recidivism be it in a seminary, a Courage meeting or a group therapy session.
“It seems to me that in a blanket ban on those who experience same-sex attraction that the Church would be agreeing with society and the queer activists. Orientation would become an intrinsic facet of one’s humanity.”
No. No more so than alcoholism or any other disorder. Can it be overcome? Yes, I believe it can. In my above post, note that I addressed, specifically, the militant homosexual activists that are so powerful these days they can persuade psychiatists to drop a diagnosis based on pseudo-science! My point is that there is a root cause to the issues the Church has been going through. (Milquetoast bishops fall in there, too, somewhere.) That element must be addressed. Is a ban on all men who suffer from SSA the answer? Maybe. It could be one way to begin to solve the issue within the Church. Perhaps it’s also a way for SSA-afflicted men discerning the priesthood, who desire to be in line with Catholic teaching, to be guided to the help they need from agencies like Courage, etc. And perhaps the seminaries will get to the point that men with SSA who do desire to live chaste & celibate lives (as we are all called to do) can be re-admitted in the future. But why single out those with SSA? It seems to me that the rigorous evaluation of all men discerning the priesthood can only strengthen the evaluation process & could lead to a population of stronger priests. And perhaps more men would rise to the challenge.
I simply do not see how such a ban would be agreeing with those homosexual activists. At all. The gay agenda states that homosex is normal & should be accepted by everyone & those who do not are hateful, repressive, & intollerant – especially the Catholic Church. Any man discerning the priesthood with a history of addiction or behavioral/mental disorders, etc should be specifically, compassionately evaluated prior to entering & during his time in the seminary – & guided toward help for that condition, in needed. (Frankly, all seminarians should be watched closely, objectively, & compassionately. I’m sure there are pressures that are unique to the seminarian experience.) But the homosexual activists want the sexual aspect ignored because *it’s just who they are*. I’m sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.
It should not be overlooked that any Catholic man struggling with SSA would be expected to live a chaste and celibate lifestyle. There is nothing to keep him from being holy and doing good.
It is the militant nature of homosexual “culture” that makes measures like the ban prudent. There is evidence that the Catholic priesthood, like the Boy Scouts, has been systematically (and cynically) infiltrated by gay activists.
In a pastoral sense, just as it would be imprudent for a man with SSA to marry a woman while still wrestling with the issue (IMHO), so it would be imprudent for him to enter the seminary. He will have enough on his plate to deal with the cross of SSA without additional complicating factors.
Exactly, TimJ. Put very succintly, that was the very point I was trying to make in my 2 posts. Thanks.
From Matt C. Abbot:
http://www.hli.org/homosexuality_not_molestation.pdf
Thanks for sharing that. If anyone passed that by because they didn’t feel like reading it, please reconsider. It is well-done.
In your original post, you refer to Blessed John XXIII’s 1961 policy. In footnote 4 of a 2003 Lay Witness article, Fr. Andrew Baker quotes three more recent documents on the ordination of men with same-sex attractions.
http://cuf.org/LayWitness/online_view.asp?lwID=167