“Deep-Seated Tendencies”

A reader writes:

I am a young man discerning the possibility of religious life.  The only issue is that I have a history of homosexual attractions.  Now, I never acted out on them, I don’t indulge in homosexual fantasies, I don’t support the "gay" culture, and to be honest, when I have attractions they are generally pretty mild and really more annoying than anything else. 

I keep trying to put the idea of the priesthood or brotherhood out of my head, especially because of this new document, but it wont go away.  I truly believe that I might have an authentic call.  Fr. Jim Llyod, a priest who works with Courage (you might be familiar with them) wrote this in one of this articles…

"Should a candidate with a flagrant homosexual background, strong same sex urges, and frequent autoerotic behavior be assessed in the same manner as the devout and believing candidate who has little or no same sex experience and minimal Same Sex fantasy life? Factually, both types have applied to seminaries. Does tendency mean the former or the latter?

One point does seem patently clear.  A seminary and the priesthood should not be clinics for sexually obsessed (or repressed) individuals. However, the candidate with the occasional but managed “tendency” could be ordained (and has been) to become an effective and holy priest. Such men, ordained to Christ’s priesthood have largely remained faithful to the Lord, the Church and the priesthood itself.

Ultimately, it is fidelity that matters, not psychosexual orientation. These are not gay priests. They are men of God with a managed SSA quality. The distinction is essential.  Gay is a life criterion. It is a lens through which all things are measured and is a form of political activism."

I gravitate much more towards the latter than the former.  It is important to me to stick with what the Church teaches.  I guess my question is, what does "profoundly deeply rooted homosexual tendencies" actually mean?  Do you think, with the description I gave to you, that I would be excluded from the priesthood?  What about the brotherhood?

The document is now out, which is helpful, but it does not go into a great deal of detail on the difference between those who can and cannot be ordained. This is no doubt due in part to the fact that it is hard to draw a clear line. The Holy See also may want to state the requirements rather generally so that they can be further fleshed out with additional pastoral experience–i.e., just how much inclination towards homosexuality is enough to make someone unsuitable as a candidate for ordination. Having a single moment of same-sex attraction isn’t. Having a constant, compulsive homosexual fantasy life is.

What the document speaks of–in the translation carried by Zenit (which is superior to the rushed one that CNA had and which may or may not be the official translation )–is of those who "present deep-seated homosexual tendencies" versus those who "with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem." It goes on to speak of these tendencies needing to "be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate."

It seems to me that the foundational question here is what they mean by "tendencies." My suspicion is that they mean something rather strong by this.

Let me give you a parallel example from heterosexual sexuality:

Heterosexual guys frequently have passing moments of attraction to women to whom they are not married, but these don’t (usually) lead to sexual fantasies. There’s a difference between "Wow, she’s hot" and "Wow, let me stop and fantasize about being in bed with her." There is a further step from fantasy to acting outwardly in some respect. For example, moving from having a fantasy to engaging in autoerotic behavior. And there is a step further from moving from autoerotic behavior to actually engaging in sexual relations with the person, which would be actual adultery (for a married man) or fornication (for an unmarried man).

Now: The mere fact that a heterosexual man may have moments of attraction to women he isn’t married to does not mean that it would be fair to say that he has "tendencies to adultery" or "tendencies to fornication." There may be a disordered desire there, but these are just passing moments of attraction that don’t result in deliberate sexual fantasies or worse.

Such passing moments of attraction also don’t singificantly impair a man’s ability to relate to women in a proper way or with his overall affective (emotional) maturity. For a man seeking to live chastely (either being faithful to his wife or remaning abstinent if he is single) they are an annoyance.

They also are no barrier to ordination.

They better not be, because every single heterosexual priest there is has them.

In any event, it would be exaggeration to call them "tendencies to adultery/fornication" since a man who is emotionally mature and committed to chastity will not act on them by seeking to commit adultery or fornication.

(A heterosexual man with a tendency to fornicate would be barred from ordination. We don’t need priests going to bed parishioners.)

Looking at this, we might discern four levels of attraction:

1. Momentary attraction
2. Attraction so strong that it tends to result in sexual fantasies
3. Attraction so strong that it tends to result in autoerotic behavior
4. Attraction so strong that it tends to result in sexual behavior with another person

If we ask which of these the new instruction envisions when it refers to "deep-seated homosexual tendencies," it seems to me that #3 and #4 obviously would count and #2 probably would count (i.e., someone who regularly fantasizes about homosexual sex even if it tends not to result in autoerotic behavior or homosexual sex).

It seems to me, though, that #1 may not count. The document expressly holds out the possibility that someone may have had homosexual tendencies at one time but overcome them. I suspect that even for such persons there are likely to be momentary attractions they experience later in life, even if these don’t result in homosexual fantasies or worse. My understanding is that homosexual reparative therapy is such that it (at least normally) doesn’t remove forever all such momentary attractions. Even someone who only had "homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem" is likely to feel such momentary attractions later in life.

Since the document expressly holds out the possibility of ordination for those who have overcome these tendencies, it seems to me that the document may not envision passing moments of same-sex attraction as significant enough to serve as a bar to ordination.

At least, it isn’t presently clear that that’s what the document has in mind. (The Holy See may always clarify later.)

It seems to me reasonable to suppose that mild, transient attractions do not count as "deep-seated tendencies to homosexuality." This means, at a minimum, that we have a doubt of law situation. When one encounters a doubt of law situation, liberty is presumed–for as our old friend, Canon 14, tells us:

Laws, even invalidating and disqualifying ones, do not oblige when there is a doubt about the law.

So: If, as you say, you’ve never acted out on your attractions, don’t regularly fantasize about homosexual sex, and experience only mild, passing same-sex attractions that are an annoyance then it seems to me that you would be free to explore the possibility of ordination.

Whether your attractions are such that they truly would be a barrier to ordination would be something that you and your formators to discern. You would need to be honest and open with them about these attractions, seeking neither to minimize nor overemphasize the extent of them. You want to give them an accurate picture so that a properly-informed determination can be made.

This seems to be what the document means when it says that the candidate "must offer himself trustingly to the discernment of the Church, of the bishop who calls him to orders, of the rector of the seminary, of his spiritual director and of the other seminary educators to whom the bishop or major superior has entrusted the task of forming future priests."

I also have a question about whether a vocation in a religious order (either as a priest or a brother) is the right thing for you. Joining a religious order would mean putting yourself in a large, same-sex community, and I wonder if that would potentially exacerbate the attractions. It might or might not. Your pre-novitiate period would probably tell you that.

Since the ink on this document is not yet dry and since ancillary materials that could shed light on its interpretation are not yet avilable to me, I could be wrong about the above, but reading the document itself and trying to figure out what it likely means, it does not strike me that at present you would be prevented from exploring ordination.

Hope this helps!

20