Newsflash Archives > "Nothing Extraordinary"?

"Nothing Extraordinary"?

An analysis of the new Vatican document on homosexuality and the priesthood, dated November 4 and published in Rome on November 29. [This article will appear in the January issue of "Inside the Vatican" which also contains the magazine's choices for the "Top Ten People of 2005."]

- by Inside the Vatican staff

Last month we published the text of the Congregation for Catholic Education's new Instruction dealing with the admission of homosexuals to seminaries, entitled Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders. This month we analyze the gestation, purpose, background and tone of the text, what it says and leaves unsaid, its significance, and reactions to it. - The Editor

The long-awaited Vatican document on criteria for the admission of men with homosexual tendencies to Catholic seminaries, approved by Benedict XVI on August 31, 2005, was officially published on November 29. (It is dated November 4, feast day of St. Charles Borromeo, patron of seminaries.) There is no explicit connection made in the document between its instructions and Borromeo, the zealous 16th century reformer of seminaries and clergy. But Borromeo instructed priests to never forget that they are shepherds of souls and to always remember that nothing is as necessary as praying and meditating, night and day, particularly before, during and following Mass. "Thus we will be able to overcome the difficulties we meet, countless as they are, each day," Borromeo wrote. "In any event, this is what is demanded of us by the task entrusted to us. If we act thus, we will find the strength to give birth to Christ in ourselves and in others."

Why so long in coming? This document took almost 10 years to prepare, and it is only three pages long. Why so long? The brief answer is: because the subject is so explosive and controversial.

In 1996, the Congregation for Catholic Education was asked to draw up criteria on homosexuality and the Catholic priesthood. In 1998 and 2002, trial drafts were presented at plenary meetings of the Congregation. During 2003 and 2004, John Paul II, who had become increasingly concerned about homosexuality's impact on the priesthood, was pushing the Congregation to complete its work. A plenary session in February 2005 finally approved the Instruction. It was published at the end of November.

Many things made a speedy writing of the text difficult. The Education Congregation had to consult six other Vatican departments in addition to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger. All the while, changes outside the Church were putting pressure on the Vatican. Homosexuals in the West were campaigning for recognition of their identity as a group and for acceptance of their practices.

Their considerable success led to unprecedented political and social recognition and a sea change in the attitude toward homosexuality among large segments of the public. Psychologists, politicians, liberal Protestant churches and the media played active roles in promoting the "Gay Revolution." Like abortion, homosexuality came to be seen, in most industrialized countries, as normal, moral and an acceptable choice for individuals to make. Christians defending traditional teaching came more and more to be depicted as prejudiced individuals denying civil rights to a persecuted minority, homosexuals.

This moral summersault has made some in the Vatican want to go slowly with public reaffirmations of teachings based on Scripture and natural law. Liberal Catholics, even some under the Pope's very window in the Vatican, have increasingly been questioning Scriptural and Church condemnations of homosexual acts.

From 1961 up to today, the official Instruction on homosexuality and the priesthood was one approved by John XXIII in 1961. It was strict, stipulating that entrance "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."

This 1961 document was widely ignored. At most seminaries, homosexuality has not been an obstacle either to admittance or to ordination.

Many contend that most of the homosexuals who entered the priesthood from 1970 to 1990 have remained celibate and lived the lives of faithful priests. But there's considerable evidence some did not keep their vows and have lived as active homosexuals, ignoring or rejecting Church teachings. Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., remarked on American national television in November that 400 US priests have died of AIDS, conveying some idea of the dimensions of the problem.

What does this have to do with the difficulty of drawing up the new document? No one in the Vatican in recent years has wanted to insult priests who consider themselves homosexual but have lived exemplary priestly lives. Homosexuals within the Church, especially those in positions of authority, in religious orders, in the episcopacy and even in the Vatican, quietly reminded their fellow priests that whatever must be said must be said with Christian love. Such views were listened to and carried weight. The long struggle to produce clear criteria on homosexuality, dissent and sex abuse scandals gives us a window on the state of today's Church. That the Congregation did manage to produce a reasonably strong statement is a ray of hope. It indicates that there still some committed to reforming priestly training and limiting the corruption that has demoralized Catholicism for 40 years.

Those who put the document together wanted to move bishops and seminary directors to carry out their responsibilities with greater dedication to Church teaching than in the recent past. Equally important was that the document not stir up irrational prejudices. They wanted a clear statement in accord with Catholic teaching, not overly polemical, harsh, extreme, or in any way uncharitable.

The document is brief, its language moderate and its focus narrow. Its purpose is to correct one specific practice, not to theologically or philosophically comment on contemporary culture, evil or the concupiscence of humankind. Even the Prefect of the Education Congregation, Cardinal Grocholewski, speaking on Vatican radio simultaneously with its publication, pointed out its ordinariness: "This document contains nothing extraordinary because, on the problem of homosexuality, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has pronounced itself many times."

Thus, by design, the document does not have breadth or sharpness of the 1961 Instruction, nor the directness of some of John Paul II's statements on the subject. The authors of the document did not think the world's bishops required an historical review of teaching on homosexuality. Thus, the document quotes no teachings from the Old Testament, the New Testament, or passages from St. Paul, or Augustine, or other Fathers.

We can give the documents essential message in one sentence. "The Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called 'gay culture'." The document draws on the Catechism's distinction "between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies" saying a candidate to the seminary, while he may have "homosexual tendencies," must not commit homosexual acts. The tendency is not sinful, the acts are "grave sins". Though same-sex desires may be "found in a number of men and women" and are "objectively disordered," nevertheless, these individuals "must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." Those "who are actively homosexual, have deep- seated tendencies or support the so-called gay culture" cannot be admitted to a seminary. But, those whose tendencies are not "deep-seated" can be admitted after any transitory problem has clearly been "overcome at least three years before diaconal Ordination." This is the most undeveloped thought in the entire document.

The document is a functional directive. It would take a large volume to treat homosexuality and the priesthood in any definitive fashion. The Instruction is more an exhortation to take a course of action than a developed argument as to why that action must be taken. The document always uses general and delicate terms. It does not employ the words "sodomy" or "pederasty." It does not mention Pope John XXIII's traditional document on the subject, nor John Paul II's direct condemnations. Even when it draws on the Catechism, it chooses more general language. The catechism says "homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity," but the document tells us they are "grave sins." Depravity is a particularly heinous sin. On the crucial question of not admitting or ordaining openly active gay men, the document is unequivocal. But to try to answer whether it waters down the traditional teaching of 1961, it might help to consider some statements from that Instruction.

John XXIII's Document

Here are three quotes from the Instruction John XXIII approved on February 2, 1961, Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders.

1. "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."

2. "If a student in a minor seminary has sinned gravely against the sixth commandment with a person of the same or the other sex, or has been the occasion of grave scandal in the matter of chastity, he is to be dismissed immediately as stipulated in canon 1371."

3."A 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."

What can we say about these quotes? Their tone is very different from the new document. The 1961 text conveys a sense of authority. The 2005 statement seems seems less confident that its criteria will be faithfully followed. The bar against gays in the seminary has been slightly lowered in the new document; greater reliance is placed on the possibility of reform and conversion. Sins that would have disqualified applicants or seminarians in 1961 would not so automatically disqualify them in 2005. It is not clear whether the Vatican has become more accepting of candidates with "homosexual tendencies," is relying more on the power of grace to influence those who have given in to homosexual tendencies, or feels it no longer has the clout to strictly police its priesthood.

Reactions

In one respect the document was instantly successful -- it got the media's attention, reached a huge audience and was intently commented on around the world.

The comments fall into three groups. At one extreme it stirred up a frenzy of criticism among gays, liberals and the ruling class of secularists. At the other extreme were traditional Catholics who found it too limited and permissive. They complained it failed to define homosexuality in depth, adopted what they consider the overly-subjective three-year period of abstinence, and lacked apostolic passion.

In the middle were the bishops, the target audience. Typical was the response of Denver's Archbishop Charles Chaput, who spoke admiringly of the text's brevity, saying 1,500 words work out "to about an average Sunday homily. And like many of the best homilies, it [the Instruction] seeks to apply common sense and the wisdom of the Church to problems of the day." He specifically endorsed the main message: "the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture."

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska, found it confirming "the perennial and traditional teaching of the Church," that those "afflicted" with "the unfortunate and serious disorder are not suitable candidates" for Holy Orders. He felt the document said what needed to be said and was very close to what he was already doing in his diocese.

William Skylstad of Spokane, Washington, who is also president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, stressed a view he has often spoken out on: "There are many wonderful and excellent priests in the Church who have a gay orientation, are chaste and celibate. Witch hunts and gay bashing have no place in the Church."

Matthew Clark, Bishop of Rochester, New York, likewise chose not to emphasize the document's central message about banning from the seminary men who have "deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called gay culture." Speaking directly to any gay men who might be contemplating applying to a seminary, he said that in his diocese: "We try to treat all inquiries fairly. You will be no exception."

In Ireland, which was recently shocked by revelations of massive sex abuses in the Church, Dublin's Archbishop Diarmuid Martin praised the document, while noting that it did not exclude gays from entering seminaries. In London, the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor praised the text, noted its indictment of "an eroticized gay culture" that exists in some seminaries, while concluding: "The instruction is not saying that men of homosexual orientation are not welcome in the priesthood." One surprising reaction came from American traditionalists. They argued that the new Instruction fails to hold the line on homosexuality and is disturbingly ambiguous. They could not fathom why the Pope had approved the document. In Europe, some saw the text as an indication that Benedict has left behind his Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith role as disciplinarian and enforcer and deliberately chosen the mantle of Father of all Christians, figure of unity, dialogue and reconciliation, Pastor of lost sheep, man of peace. Meanwhile, gay activists seemed uniformly infuriated by the document, calling it negative, offensive and anti-gay.

Gene Robinson, the Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire, and the first openly gay Anglican bishop, attacked the Catholic Church as soon as the text appeared. "I find it so vile that they [Catholic leaders] think they are going to end the child abuse scandal by throwing out homosexuals from seminaries. It is an act of violence that needs to be confronted." He took a swipe at Benedict XVI, saying: "Pope Ratzinger may be the best thing that ever happened to the Episcopal Church. We are seeing so many Roman Catholics joining."

The reason for this fury may be that the document was seen as aiming at control of gay sex. But the document is rigorously aimed at reforming Catholic seminaries, nothing else. Still, restraining the sexual desires of any group is one thing this culture and its media -- groomed on sexual myths and fantasies -- gets worked up about. The heated responses to the document recall the fury unleashed by Paul VI's Humanae Vitae (1968). Both documents reveal the chasm that has opened between the Church and Western culture in our time.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI

One of the initial statements on homosexuality from Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was in October 31, 1986. On that date the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith issued its "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons." It repeated traditional teaching, which would later appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in1994: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."

As the extent of the abuse scandals became more and more known, John Paul became increasingly insistent that the admittance of homosexuals must be curtailed. On Holy Thursday, March 21, 2002, he sent a letter to all priests. Among other things, there is this sentence: "Some of our brothers have betrayed the grace of ordination in succumbing even to the most grievous form of the mysterium iniquitatis (mystery of evil) at work in the world."

In May 2002, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, having consulted Cardinal Ratzinger, sent this instruction to bishops: "Ordination to the deaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person or one with a homosexual tendency is, therefore, not fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders."

In his last book, Memory and Identity (2005) John Paul II calls homosexuality an "ideology of evil." As for gay marriage, he writes: "It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man."

In a letter to the Congregation for Catholic Education on February 1, 2005, when he was suffering from influenza and approaching death, Pope John Paul was still deeply troubled by the sex scandals that had brought tragedy to the Church in the US, Austria and Ireland. He wrote to the Congregation that would produce this new document: "Right from the moment young men enter a Seminary their ability to live a life of celibacy should be monitored so that before their ordination one should be morally certain of their sexual and emotional maturity."

• Subscription Rates
• Subscribe Now
• Renew Your Subscription
• Gift Subscriptions
• Cancel Your Subscription
• Change Your Contact Information