A reader writes:
Regarding your remarks on homosexuals and ordinations, I feel you missed a very important point that the document was making.
There is a difference between heterosexual attraction and homosexual attraction.
True.
The first is natural, God’s plan for us. The other is intrinsically disordered.
True.
This difference is relevant even in the celibate state of the priesthood.
True.
The church wants people of sufficient maturity and psychological health,
True.
as another said, you wouldn’t make a man with vertigo, even casual vertigo, an astronaut. It’s not worth the risk.
Okay.
Your argument implied that there is no relevant difference between a heterosexual priest with normal attraction to women, and a priest with an equivolent homosexual attraction to men.
False. My argument did not imply that, though I could have included extra qualifiers to make that clear.
If you read the reply carefully, you’ll note that all of the discussion of heterosexuality occurs *before* I give the list of four different levels of attraction. It is principally for the purposes of fleshing out the range of levels of attractions that a person may experience.
I note in passing which levels, in the case of heterosexuals, are and are not bars from ordination (level 1 is not but levels 4 is). My analysis of which levels of attraction the new document has in mind when speaking of "deep-seated tendencies" occurs *after* the list is fleshed out, and I look at evidence internal to the document to make that determination, dropping the heterosexual analogy now that the list has been fleshed out in such a way that the document can be applied to it.
I am therefore *not* saying that heterosexual seminarians and homosexual seminarians are equivalent in terms of what level of disordered desire serves as a bar to ordination. The document doesn’t go into the question of what levels bar heterosexuals from ordination, nor does it establish the two cases as equivalent in terms of ordainability. Therefore I don’t do that.
You equated tendencies with homosexual acts, which is not what the document is referring to.
No, I didn’t do this. A tendency is not an act.
If you refer back to the catechism of the catholic church, you’ll see that it refers to celibate individuals with deep-seated homosexual tendencies, at that this is often a trial to them. The context of that is clearly attraction, not homosexual acts.
This is not the case. The paragraph you are referring to (CCC 2358) does not make any reference to the individuals being discussed being continent (i.e., refraining from sex; celibacy is the condition of being unmarried). The paragraph does not specify whether the individuals in question are continent or not and seems to apply to both (even individuals who *are* homosexually active must be accepted with compassion, etc., for example–and for most of them their homosexual desires are a trial, even if some would deny that in a kind of rationalization).
That being said, the term "tendency" of itself is ambiguous and could refer either to a tendency to act or a tendency to experience certain temptations which may or may ont result in further action. The document is unfortunately ambiguous in this respect, but my sense is that it refers to the latter–to a tendency that results in temptations.
This is why I make "attraction" the keyword for each of the four levels of attraction I mentioned. To distinguish the different levels of attraction from each other, I correlated the strength of the attraction to the consequences that tend, in particular cases, to result from it.
The correlation here is not perfect since the will gets involved–a choice is made to act on the attraction–but at least some kind of correlation to the consequent choice is present. People who are only mildly attracted to someone (homosexually or heterosexually) are less likely to sleep with that person than people who are powerfully attracted. So you can look at a person’s resulting choices as at least a rough gauge of how strong their attractions are.
If a person experiences only mild, momentary attractions that do not result in him stopping to indulge in sexual fantasies then his attractions, in the main, are less than those of a person who stops to fantasize about having sex. If his attractions are even stronger then he may go beyond fantasizing and engage in autoerotic behavior. If his attractions are stronger yet then he may undertake the difficulties of actually seeking and obtaining intercourse with the person.
The thing I’m after, here, is how strong the attractions are. The resulting choices (to indulge in fantasies, to autoeroticize, to have intercourse) are only rough guides to the strength of the attractions.
What I think the document is saying is that people who experience a certain level of same-sex attraction are unsuitable for ordination–whether they are chaste or not–and I’m trying to develop a schema for figuring out what level of same-sex attraction the document has in mind.
I *don’t* think (as I explained in the previous post) that the document envisions people with absolutely *any* degree of SSA as being barred from ordination. If a person has a single moment in which he experiences a twinge of same-sex attraction, that doesn’t bar him forever from ordination. But, having had such a moment, the possibility is there that he will have future twinges.
The document refers explicitly to those having overcome tendencies toward homosexuality for a period of at least three years being ordainable, and it is not plausible to read this as meaning that those who have formerly experienced significant homosexual temptations must then go three years without the slightest twinge of same-sex attraction.
Slight twinges are just not what the document is talking about. What the document has in mind are attractions of a more significant sort.
Unfortunately, since formators can’t hook a seminarian up to a same-sex-attract-o-meter and determine precisely how strong their attractions are (nor can they quantify their own inner life on this matter in a meaningful way), they have to look to phenomenological criteria to gauge their level of attraction by asking questions like: (1) "Do you regularly fantasize about having sex with men or boys?", (2) "Do you often engage in autoerotic behavior while thing about such sex?", (3) "Do you have such sex?"
If the answer to quesitons (2) or (3) is "yes" then the candidate would be judged unsuitable for ordination.
If the answer to question (1) is "yes" then–in my opinion (though the document doesn’t spell this out)–then the document probably would bar the candidate from ordination. Having a regular fantasy life about homosexual sex would seem (to me) to constitute an tendency toward homosexuality of sufficient strength to serve as a bar to ordination under the provisions of the document.
But if the answer ot question (1) is "no" then this is not at all clear to me. I don’t think it’s plausible that the document has in mind momentary twinges. The reasons were as I indicated.
When the document says that certain individuals can be ordained who had "homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem" it does not go on to say that these individuals also must have *never acted* on those tendencies. For all we know, they may have had a homosexual fantasy life, engaged in homoerotic autoerotic behavior, or even had homosexual sex.
This seems to be confirmed by the comments of Cardinal Grocholewsi (the head of the congregation issuing the document) on Vatican Radio regarding those who experienced a transient problem:
"For example, some curiosity during adolescence; or accidental circumstances in a state of drunkenness; or particular circumstances, like someone who was in prison for many years."
Or, in some situations, he said, homosexual acts may be a way to please someone in order to obtain favors.
"In such cases, these acts do not originate from a deep-seated tendency but are determined by other transitory circumstances, and they do not constitute an obstacle to admission to the seminary or to holy orders. However, in such cases, they must cease at least three years before diaconal ordination," he said. [SOURCE].
So people who have actually engaged in homosexual acts are potentially ordinable according to the cardinal who is the principal signatory of the document in question.
But the thing about homosexual act (like illicit heterosexual acts) is that they scar people. They reinforce illicit desires, and people who have had them are in some measure haunted by them. The memories of them and the desires that these memories can stir up come back to people’s minds from time to time.
As a result, it does not seem plausible to me that the congregation is expecting seminarians who have previously had a problem with homosexuality–including homosexual acts ("in a state of drunkenness," "in prison for many years")–are expected to go for three years without the slightest twinge of same-sex attraction.
This suggests (as common sense would) that momentary twinges are not what the document has in mind. To serve as a bar for ordination, something more than this is required–such as a stable homosexual fantasy life, for example (in my opinion).
And as noted in the previous post, the above indicates that we are at least in a doubt of law situation, in which case Canon 14 indicates that the candidate is free under church law (which is what we’re talking about here–not what the law should be but what the law is) to pursue ordination, opening himself trustingly to the discernment of the Church and being completely honest about the extent of his attractions.
Your narrow argument equating tendency with comission of sins seems to end up with the conclusion that as long as one is chaste and orthodox, a "homosexual" could be ordained.
No, for the reasons indicated. The acts are merely used as rough guides to gauging the strength of attractions (tendencies), and I think that a person with regular fantasies about homosexual sex would not be ordinable. (Whether a seminarian with regular fantasies about homosexual sex woud be ordainable is a different question and one for which I do not have information on the Church’s law or practice in that regard.)
Again, it is wrong to equate "tendencies" with the commission of sinful actions. Tendencies is better read, with the Catechism, as temptations.
Agreed.
If tendencies meant sin, the catechism could not say that people with deep-seated homosexual tendencies didn’t chose their state, that for most of them it is a trial. For that to be true, we have to be talking about temptations, not about sinful indulgence.
The Catechism is not dispositive to the intepretation of this document. You have to read the document itself and relevant legislative background, such as the comments of the principal cardinal signatory regarding its interpretation. The Catechism is a tertiary source here at best.
Further, the Catechism paragraph in question does not presuppose chastity, and people who are caught up in sin frequently find that sin a trial–even if they are strongly tempted toward it. This is certainly true of homosexuals.
As a friend of mine was once told by his psychologist sister, "[Name witheld], don’t ever be a homosexual; they lead such miserable lives."
Many homosexuals–even those who are not Catholics–often feel consumed by guilt for what they are doing and wish that they could get rid of their homosexual desires.
Given the referenec to the catechism, it seems pretty clear that deep-seated tendencies has to do with people who have a permanant attraction to men, even if they are chaste and holy.
"Permanent" is too strong. "Stable" would be better. "Permanent" excludes the action of God’s grace and the potential of reparative therapy. The question is: How strong does the attraction have to be? Momentary twinges don’t seem to be what is envisioned.
This would mean they do not consent to fantasies, want to live chaste lives according to church teaching, etc. That is not enough. And that’s precisely what the document says. Or do you disagree?
I don’t disagree that the document precludes people with stable same-sex attractions from being ordained. In fact, I would go further than you do and say that even if the person doesn’t consent to fantasies about homosexual sex his attractions may still be strong enough to trip the document’s provisions. If he regularly finds himself regularly tormented by fantasies about homosexual sex–fantasies he doesn’t willfully engage in–then his attractions may be sufficiently strong to trip the document’s provisions.
It would strike me that he’d be prevented from being ordained until he’d healed sufficiently that he no longer had a tormening tendency toward such fantasies for at least three years. He needs a level of peace and maturity such that he no longer feels tormented by his resolution to live chastely. He needs to no longer be a "white knuckle" fantasizer but someone who has been able to get past that so that even if he occasionally has memories and disordered desires momentarily stirred up then he can set them aside.
That seems to be all that one could realistically expect of someone who once had a significant if transient problem with homosexual desires or behaviors.
Since the document allows people who have overcome such transient problems to be ordained it seems that one cannot ask such people to ever after NEVER be haunted by memories or have disordered desires momentarily stirred up or have a flash of involuntary fantasy.
And if individuals who have had and overcome such experiences can be ordained despite the fact that they may have momentary twinges of same-sex attraction then, a fortiori, those who have never moved beyond the momentary twinge stage in the first place would be ordainable.
Which was the case with the gentleman who wrote in.
I hope this clarifies matters, and I’d like to thank you for respecting Rule 20 with regard to the original post and e-mailing your disagreement rater than putting it in the combox. This allowed me to prepare a more thorough and thoughtful response than I could have under combox time pressures, which is one of the reasons for Rule 20. Like I say, I don’t mind disagreement; Rule 20 is to help handle disagreements productively in delicate pastoral situations.
