I've been interested in the current hub-bub about the Vatican's position on admitting homosexuals to the presthood. It isn't just because it is an interesting theological or cultural phenomenon. Rather, I am intrigued because of my own experience of having spent four years in a major seminary (graduate school), departing one year short of ordination and eventually marrying a woman I adore. As such, I am familiar with many of the questions involved.

The Vatican is ordering seminaries to bar candidates for the priesthood who "practice homosexuality," have "deeply rooted homosexual tendencies" or support "gay culture," according to a document published Tuesday by Adista, a Catholic news agency in Rome.

The long-awaited instruction to seminary directors was scheduled for official release next week. It has been the subject of numerous leaks that have sparked intense debate and led some Catholic leaders, including the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to defend the place of celibate gay priests in the church. But until Tuesday, a full text had not been published.

"The church, while deeply respecting the people in question, cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture," said the five-page document, which a Vatican official said appeared to be the authentic, final version.

***

The document does not call for the removal of gay men who are already serving as priests, and it does not flatly bar the ordination of anyone who has ever acknowledged a same-sex attraction. It says men whose homosexuality is "a transitory problem" may be ordained as deacons -- a key step toward the priesthood -- if they have lived in celibacy for at least three years.

Now let's break this down.

1) There is no place in the semnary or priesthood for those sexually active homosexuals.

2) There is no place in the seminary or priesthood for those with a strong homosexual orientation.

3) There is no place in the seminary or priesthood for those who adopt lifestyle and cultural choices that seek to normalize homosexuality.

4) Those with a homosexual tendency who demnostrate the ability to live a celibate life with integrity may be ordained.

Frankly, I think the document gets it just about right. Two of the points are so basic that I don't think they can even be argued.

The first point is basic common sense. The sexually active have no place in the celibate priesthood.

The third point is equally obvious. Those attached to a philosophy or lifestyle antithetical to the teachings of the Church are not fit candidates to be pastors and teachers. Afte all, they will not be able to uphold Church teachings with integrity.

Point two, regarding theose with a strong orientation, takes a little more thought to understand. It strikes me as being something along the lines of minimizing the possibility of lapses in celibacy. Given that a seminary is an all male community and that a priest often finds himself living in a house with another priest, there are intimate non-sexual relationships that develop between these men. I'll be honest -- such bonds are necessary to preserve one's mental well-being and prevent isolation. But if there is a sexual attraction -- either solitary or mutual -- in such reliolation of celibacy OR will splinter due to the strsses the attraction causes. I have seen both happen, and the results can be tragic for those involved.

The fourth point, though, seems to be teh most important one. If a man can live the celibate life with integrity for an extended period of time, then it that man is acceptable as a candidate for priesthood. In the context of this document, we are talking about homosexual asexual activity, but I think that the rule will be applied to all candidates, regardless of orientation. After all, a priest is committing to live a celibate life for the next 30-50 years -- shouldn't he be expected to demnonstrate that he can do so for a short period before making the permananet commitment?

Now there ae some comments regarding pedophilia that i would like to take up.

"There are people on the right wing who from the beginning saw this document as a kind of magic wand that would remove the taint of the sex abuse scandal," said the Rev. John A. Coleman, a Jesuit sociologist at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. "I think that's wishful thinking -- and pretty stupid."

Actually, Father Coleman, it is you who are stupid. You are intentionally ignoring what the data show about the scandal -- that most of the cases did not involve pedophilia, which would have required that the victims be prepubescent. That data shows that many of the victims were adolescent males, which is a sign that the perpetrator was not acting upon an attraction to children but upon a sexual attraction to young men -- precisely the sort of glorification of young men as sexual objects that is found in the homosexual community (not dissimilar to the objectification of young women among heterosexual males). I realize that this is an inconvenient fact in the examination of the abuse scandal, but it is a fact.

Ultimately, I don't see this document as making a great difference. Most of the homosexual seminarians I knew (about 25% of my classmates, and a higher percentage of those who were ordained) would be acceptable under these guidelines. And the shrinking priesthood will continue to shrink as long as celibacy is retained as a Church-imposed (not divinely mandated) rule.Until the celibacy issue is thoroughly reexamined, there will continue to be a shortage of men to fill the role of priest within the Catholic Church.

Posted by: Greg at 04:05 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 969 words, total size 6 kb.