This week I learned from a friend who works at the USCCB that there is a draft before the vocations committee that would explicitly allow homosexuals to enter a program for priestly formation. I was told one of the requirements is that they have lived a chaste life for three years prior to entering the seminary.
If one takes this to its logical conclusion it will permit and even institutionalize a gay subculture in our seminaries. Talks on chastity and celibacy would have to be talored for two kinds of candidates – straight and gay. Can you imagine the effect this would have on the straight men in priestly formation? On the culture of our seminaries? My impression is that seminaries in the US have been successful in rooting out the so-called “sewing circles” – if this draft becomes part of the new program for priestly formation the gay subculture wouldn’t be swept under the rug and not spoken of in polite company, it would be part of the institutions themselves.
26 comments
Comments are closed.
I think you’re being unduly alarmist. It’s hard to speculate on a draft that I haven’t seen, but I think the point of it is to encourage men who have a homosexual orientation to be honest about it. Being honest about yourself is probably one of the most important things required for successful spiritual formation. There are some seminaries (the one in Philadelphia springs to mind, but not its name) which treat a homosexual orientation as a bar to admission. You can’t deal with conditions successfully if people lie about them.
And I’m not at all sure what you mean by Talks on chastity and celibacy would have to be talored for two kinds of candidates – straight and gay Do you imagine seminarians to be angels untouched by the realities of the world? If you read the book “The New Men” about life at the North American College in Rome, you’ll see that when then-Msgr. Dolan gave “The Talk” about chastity, he didn’t discriminate at all according to audience, but posed the challenge of chastity and celibacy to all regardless of their orientation.
Whenever you put any limitations on applicants, there is a chance they’ll lie. Just as these gay priesthood applicants might be lying about not having had sex with another man in three years. Or a straight man might be lying about not being a rake.
Addendum:
To clear things up, I’m saying that the possibility of an applicant lying is not a good reason to not have a limitation. They only way to ensure honesty is to have an “anything goes” policy.
Homosexuals should not be considered for the priesthood, period. If they can’t find straight men for the priesthood, the Church should open the door for priests to marry. Queers are trying to destroy civilization. Fortunately, their very nature makes them weak.
How do they know the candidate has been celibate for three years? I guess I do see the difference in a celibacy talk for hetero/homo candidates… tailored to include sex with a man or a woman… or any species of anything – just to cover all the bases.
I’m not feeling too good about this if it is true… what about the 1961 Vatican directive barring homosexuals from the priesthood and those nasty expose’s of the large number of priests dying from aids keep coming to mind.
Those who’re being so alarmist about this might want to look at things like David Morrison’s blog.
It seems to me that a prudential judgment is at issue here.
Those who would weigh in on that judgment need to take into account that “homosexual” doesn’t necessarily equal “gay”/”queer” (let alone “trying to destroy civilization”).
For the record, I am thoroughly heterosexual. I also insist on clarity and honesty in speaking of issues having to do with homosexuality.
“Alarmist.” Don’t you just love how quick people are to break out the labels?
I’ve been in the seminary. I’ve been in several seminaries, including that of Msgr. Dolan, who did give talks aimed at the “sewing circles.” Of course, those weren’t included in his book. David Morrison is a great guy whom I respect highly, but he’s not a priest or seminarian. It would take a long and boring essay on the nature of seminary life and priestly formation to talk about why it’s a bad idea to have admitted homosexuals in a seminary program, but as the majority of orthodox seminarians would say, it is a bad idea. For that matter, even if they didn’t say it, it would still be a bad idea.
If I ever get the time, I might even go so far as to show how the CDF document of homosexual persons would seem to prohibit such a plan as that proposed by the USCCB, but time is one thing in short supply these days.
To those of you who would have homosexuals in a seminary as long as they’ve been chaste for three years: Would you also be in favor of coed cloisters? If not, why not?
all those bells going off ringing BAD IDEA BAD IDEA are alarming us for a reason.
I’m not convinced it’s all that dangerous: a chaste Catholic with SSA might benefit from living among straight men. I wouldn’t want to see the admitted SSA guys assigned to separate housing by themselves!
RC,
But would there be only one per seminary? Probably not. If there were 15 or 20, and that’s okay, then you might as well start mixing monks in with nuns.
Oh, c’mon. Read that fourth comment above, about “queers.” If that’s not an alarmist reading of the proposal, I don’t know what is.
My point about Morrison was that he has same-sex attraction – is “homosexual” – but is hardly “gay,” “queer,” or any sort of threat whatsoever to the Church or to the world. On the contrary.
Again, as I said, this is a prudential judgment. In fact, I’m not sure the proposal gets the judgment right. But arguing that should not be conflated with making claims that having (chaste!) people with SSA around = making the sky fall.
Permit me one further clarification.
I think “chastity” for people with SSA should be understood as including not only rejection of sexual activity, but also renunciation of any “identification” with one’s “orientation” – of the sort of thing that would be manifest in “gay pride” displays, tendency to gravitate toward a “subculture,” or the like.
If, after all, someone thinks one’s SSA wholly neutral, not a “disorder,” then it won’t be clear why one shouldn’t act on it. The Church’s teachings about the orientation and about the actions are inseparable.
In that case, the concern that “If one takes this to its logical conclusion it will permit and even institutionalize a gay subculture in our seminaries” goes away also, I think – because, in light of the emphasis on true chastity, that no longer becomes in any way the “logical conclusion” of the proposal.
Fr. JP, I stand by my statement that Sal is being unduly alarmist over this (you neglected to note the adjective; it’s an important one). It’s not a matter of being “quick to break out the labels;” it’s a matter of Sal’s drawing so-called “logical conclusions” from an unreleased draft document which he hasn’t himself seen and of which he apparently knows nothing other than what his friend (who may or may not have actually seen the document) told him. I’d also appreciate seeing how you think the CDF’s 1986 letter on the “Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” (I assume this is the document you’re referring to) would prohibit the USCCB plan that Sal refers to. I can’t see that at all when I read the letter.
Colleen, they would “know” that homosexuals have been chaste for a certain number of years they way that they would “know” that heterosexuals have been chaste for a certain number of years–they would ask them and ultimately have to trust them. You also mentioned the 1961 Vatican directive. It’s an interesting document and defies reduction to the summary of “no queers as priests” that some would make it out to be. As with many Church documents, I encourage all to read it, but I do note the following:
1) Despite what some think, it’s not addressed to bishops at all, but to heads of religious institutes (sec. 4) (it was issued by the then-Congregation for Religious).
2) With the exception of sections 5-13 (dealing with common causes of why people leave the religious state), the document reads quite well, almost as if it were issued quite recently. (I cannot imagine sections 5-13 being written today as they were written in 1961 due to their almost total dismissal of psychology and the real psychological reasons why people leave religious life. The rest of the document has a far greater sensitivity to questions of psychology.)
3) The document is far more extensive than those who have not read it realize. It is made up of 52 sections, only two of those sections (secs. 29, 30) deal with the required observance of chastity in candidates for religous life.
4) Those who claim that this document is a blanket prohibition on ordaining homosexuals to the priesthood are likely thinking of section 30 (“Those To Be Excluded; Practical Directives”). I assert that they are wrong. Section 30 nowhere states that homosexuals cannot be admitted to religious life. The section deals with chastity, and the question it asks is “Can the candidate observe it?” Considerations to look for (both good and bad) are: frequent sins against chastity (para. 1), a sexual bent of mind (para. 1), excessive weakness of will (para. 1), a habit of solitary sins (i.e. masturbation) (para. 2), a firm habit of continency (para. 3), consistent proof of habitual chastity for over a year (para. 3), no grave sins against the Sixth Commandment (para. 4), not being the occasion of grave scandal in the matter of chastity (para. 4), morbid or abnormal sexuality (para. 5). There is nothing specific to a homosexual orientation here.
5) The one paragraph of section 30 that does mention specifically-homosexual acts mentions them in the same breath as specifically-heterosexual acts (para. 4, “If a student in a minor seminary has sinned gravely against the sixth commandment with a person of the same or the other sex, . . . .”). Again, the focus of this section of the document is on chastity and whether or not the candidate for religious life (or advancement within religious life) can observe it–the focus is not on a homosexual orientation.
6) The line from section 30, paragraph 4, that some people point to (Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.) has been ripped from its surrounding context, and context should always be a matter of concern to Catholics–we’re not fundamentalists. First of all, it is in a section concerning itself with persons who have committed sexual acts while in the clerical or religous state. Secondly, I would argue that it’s not concerned with the homosexual orientation per se, but with “evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty” for those who have already entered religious institutes–if they cannot observe chastity, then unlike some other failings of chastity which can be put on probation, these specifically cannot.
Incidentally, persons such as “pufflemer” would probably benefit from reading the CDF’s 1986 letter also (you can find it here). They might even wish to pay attention to section 10 (para. 1) or even section 16 (para. 2).
Kevin,
There is a reason why male and female religious are kept separate: so that temptation would be avoided. The same reasoning leads to conclusion that a man with SSA should not be put in an all-male environment, especially if there are others with SSA around.
TPFKAAC,
Fine. That may be a reasonable prudential judgment. But it doesn’t have all that much to do with “subcultures” and “queers” and the like.
One also, I think, needs to take into account the possibility that SSA may be a matter of degree. Thus, see David M’s post.
“morbid or abnormal sexuality (para. 5). There is nothing specific to a homosexual orientation here.”
Surely a homosexual orientation is a morbid and abnormal sexuality.
Charles, I think your comment is a perfect example of why people need to actually read the Vatican document in question instead of just ripping things from it and presenting them wholly out of context. In this case, here is what section 30, paragraph 5, of the 1961 document from the Congregation for Religious actually says about “morbid or abnormal sexuality” (and it’s obviously not talking about a homosexual orientation):
Very special investigation is needed for those students who, although they have hitherto been free of formal sins against chastity, nevertheless suffer from morbid or abnormal sexuality, especially sexual hyperesthesia or an erotic bent of nature, to whom religious celibacy would be a continual act of heroism and a trying martyrdom. For chastity, in so far as it implies abstinence from sexual pleasure, not only becomes very difficult for many people but the very state of celibacy and the consequent loneliness and separation from one’s family becomes so difficult for certain individuals gifted with excessive sensitivity and tenderness, that they are not fit subjects for the religious life.
Again, the 1961 document can be found at this link, and I encourage people to actually read it (and other church documents) for themselves.
As Negrodamus predicted: I should have become a Catholic priest instead of a rock star — then I would have just been transfered, instead of charged with child molestation.
As Michael Jackson points out, we ALREADY HAVE an Deeply Rooted Institutionalized Gay Subculture in our Seminaries.
You’re obviosly in denial about the Historic Gay Subculture of the Catholic Church. Haven’t you heard about the Ongoing Abuse in the Catholic Church? http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse
Now that we’ve established that you’re in denial, you should examine yourself and your motives more closely, because you may be in denial about other things, like Your Own Sexual Preference, and you don’t even know it! (That’s how denial works.)
Why would you ever possibly care one way or the other, about what sex somebody else chooses to love? The most obvious and likely reason is that YOU Are Constantly Struggling With Homosexuality Yourself. It may not be obvious to you, since you’re in denial, but it’s obvious to everyone around you who’s figured it out.
Most people won’t tell you to your face how Totally and Obviously Gay You Appear, when you spend your precious energy and short life Hating and Fighting Against Homosexuality. But everybody around you can tell because it’s obvious: Real heterosexuals aren’t threatened by homosexuals, like you.
Reality Check,
By your logic then, you must be in denial about your belief that the Catholic Church is right in all its teachings about sex. In your post, you imply that the Church is sexually repressive and that her sexually repressive teachings are false. But, using your logic, that must mean that you are in denial and you really believe their true. You just don’t want to admit it. Everyone else can see How Obviously Orthodoxly Catholic you look; why can’t you just admit it?
Bill,
In this context “abnormal” seems at first glance to have a simple statisticsl significance, meaning strongly sensual by temperament. However, they also use the term hyperesthesia which means supersensitive.
“morbid” is defined as
1. Of, relating to, or caused by disease; pathological or diseased.
2. Psychologically unhealthy or unwholesome.
3. Characterized by preoccupation with unwholesome thoughts or feelings.
4. Gruesome; grisly.
All 4 of these definitions apply to homosexual acts and/or homosexual feelings and not to strong heterosexual sensuality per se.
Combine these terms in context and we get a description of highly erotic, supersensitive men, who, although they have not committed sins against chastity, are troubled by unnatural desires. In short, the men described here, in a delicate old-fashioned way, are effeminant men with homosexual desires who have never acted out. They are making the point that men of this sort would be in grave spiritual danger in religious life. They are much safer spiritually living with the emotional support of their families and friends.
Bear in mind that the very concept of “a homosexual” is a very recent invention. Before the nineteenth century there was no notion that there was some such special class of person. Traditional moral and pastoral theology considered that anyone could potentially commit sexual sins with the same sex, while recognizing that some people are more likely to be tempted to this than others. A well-rounded teaching on chastity would include all categories of sexual sins for all hearers. Some people would need one part more than others; individual pastoral counseling would necessarily focus on the individual’s particular difficulties. Anyone who is obsessed by sex, or whose sexual interests form a major part of his identity, or who is unable to refrain from sexual sins of any kind, is not a suitable candidate for priesthood or religious life.
Traditional moral and pastoral theology considered that anyone could potentially commit sexual sins with the same sex
Traditional moral and pastoral theology was quite right on this point. This is evidenced in our day by all those stories about teenage girls having sex with their female friends, yet still maintaining a straight or at least bisexual self-identification.
Hmmm, I guess I am being referenced. For the record, I don’t advocate a blanked policy of accepting men with SSA into seminaries, just as I don’t advocate a blanket policy of refusing them. I think the whole concept of blanket, one size fits all policies in regard to same sex attraction (homosexuality) in regard to seminarians and priests need to be left on the shelf.
What I do advocate are policies which address this subject on a case by case basis and which does not assume that every man with a degree of SSA is going to be unsuitable or well suited. Some men with SSA, particularly those with a long history of acting out, may never be able live the degree of chastity that a seminary might demand. Others, particularly those who have never acted out, may. Still others may have a whole host of other barriers to their being seminarians.
But the point is that in the light of the Church’s teaching on this topic, which eschews taking a blanket approach to men who live with SSA, everyone deserves to be treated and understood as a human being, not a cypher.
Charles, I think you had it almost right when you said this part of the document refers to highly erotic, supersensitive men, who, although they have not committed sins against chastity, are troubled by unnatural desires. If you replace the word “unnatural” with the word “sexual,” I would agree totally with that statement. This is not something limited to a homosexual orientation; highly erotic heterosexual men are in my opinion equally unfit for the priesthood because the nature of their sexuality makes them especially likely to act on it, i.e. they are unsuited for a life of celibacy.
However, I do disagree with your characterization of In short, the men described here, in a delicate old-fashioned way, are effeminant men with homosexual desires who have never acted out. I don’t think this at all follows from the previous description of “highly erotic, supersensitive men.” In this case, I think you are projecting certain characteristics of certain men of a homosexual orientation onto the class as a whole. Again, it comes down to whether or not the individual person can observe chastity.