October 08, 2005
A forthcoming Vatican document on homosexuals in seminaries will not demand an absolute ban, a senior Vatican official told NCR Oct. 7, but will insist that seminary officials exercise "prudential judgment" that gay candidates should not be admitted in three cases.Those three cases are:
* If candidates have not demonstrated a capacity to live celibate lives for at least three years;
* If they are part of a "gay culture," for example, attending gay pride rallies (a point, the official said, which applies both to professors at seminaries as well as students);
* If their homosexual orientation is sufficiently "strong, permanent and univocal" as to make an all-male environment a risk.In any case, the Vatican official said, whether or not these criteria exclude a particular candidate is a judgment that must be made in the context of individual spiritual direction, rather than by applying a rigid litmus test.
I spent four years in the Catholic seminary before leaving and, little more than a year latter, marrying.
Now let's look at those three points very closely. What are the conditions unde which someone should not be admitted to the seminary as a candidate for the priesthood?
* If candidates have not demonstrated a capacity to live celibate lives for at least three years;
May I say "DUH!" These men are entering a process of formation for lifelong celibacy. Is it an unreasonable expectation that they should show the capacity for celibacy by having lived it for a period of time? Speaking from experience, I believe that a three year period of celibacy prior to entering the major seminary should be a minimum requirement for everybody. Being celibate for such a period is not an easy thing to do in today's society if you do not have such a calling. To live a life of celibacy with integrity is hard work -- and I've known many deeply spiritual men who would have made great priests who have recognized that they could not continue with their studies because of their inability to live a celibate life with integrity. The issue played no small part in my decision not to complete my preparation for priesthood.
* If they are part of a "gay culture," for example, attending gay pride rallies (a point, the official said, which applies both to professors at seminaries as well as students);
The teachings of the Church on homosexuality are unequivocal. If a man is taking a public stand against the teachings of the Church on the matter, is the priesthood really an appropriate place for him? It is all well and good to seek to be an agent of change in a democratic society, but the unchanging truths of the Christian faith are not open to debate.
* If their homosexual orientation is sufficiently "strong, permanent and univocal" as to make an all-male environment a risk.
Some folks, both heterosexual and homosexual, are led around by their sex drives. We all know such folks. In the case of a homosexual male who is very sexualized, being thrust into the all-male world of seminary life and priesthood could be an occassion of sin. I recall one young man who quit the seminary when his older partner broke off their relationship a few weeks prior to diaconate ordination -- while the older man was willing to be celibate (though not until the 11th hour), the younger thought of the priesthood as a much more exclusive gay bar. At least one of them (and probably both) should never have been permitted to enter the seminary to begin with -- for the same reason a heterosexual man who expressed a desire to remain sexually active should not be admitted to the seminary.
I encourage people to notice something about the position taken in this document. Homosexuals are not deemed to be more sinful than other people. They are not deemed "unworthy" of ordination. Rather, special guidance is being offered on which individuals should and should not be admitted to the seminary based upon their ability to live out the priesthood as models of Christ's love and as teachers of the truths found in Scripture and Tradition. Far from being based upon hatred and bigotry, they are based upon love and pastoral concern.
Posted by: Greg at
05:11 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 762 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: at Sat Oct 8 09:19:51 2005 (Kj/al)
First, by that logic, it would be necessary for all gynecologists to be women -- and for all obstetricians to be mothers. It would mean that no male could ever effectively counsel a femal, and vice-versa. It would also limit the effectiveness of homosexuals in the counseling fields, because what could they possibly know about a heterosexual? Heck, that might even be a legitimate basis for refusing to ordain homosexuals -- after all, they cannort relate to the problems of 97$ of their flock.
Celibacy is a wonderful part of MANY religious traditions (Catholic, Orthodox, and Buddhist, to name several), not an absurdity. But i would argue that the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church should set it aside as a mandatory practice, and follow the example of the Eastern Rite churches and the Orthodox, who require celibacy only of monks and bishios.
Posted by: RHymes With Right at Sat Oct 8 12:19:43 2005 (LHcsR)
21 queries taking 0.0092 seconds, 31 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.