« On the Schism Beat | Main | An American Hero »
November 29, 2005
Document
Here it is, in pdf format, via the USCCB. Yes, it's the same document that was leaked. With notes, now, though.
UPDATE: Here's a non-pdf version, via VIS, via the Criterion, Archdiocese of Indy.
In Slate, William Saletan blasts The Purge.
What is missing from Saletan's piece, of course, and what makes it a waste of time, is the lack of attention to Catholic teaching on sexuality, and what that means. Although I have my quibbles, and, as stated before, think emphasizing adherence to teaching and committment to teaching and the living the teaching, not "tendencies" is far less of a minefield, what Saletan and other experts on Catholicism don't seem to grasp is that this document is the result of observation and experience. What it reflects is the historical experience that some things, for some reason, just seem to go together: that in recent history, in particular, priests who openly and proudly self-identify as gay have not shown themselves to be interested in proclaiming the Church's teaching on sexuality, preaching it, teaching it and applying it pastorally.
Yes, this still leaves the closet cases of the extravagently pious active homosexual, but frankly, most of those that I have known personally or via the inevitable news report about their misdeeds, have been so screwed up in other ways, obvious to all but the willfully blind, that they never should have been ordained anywya, for this and a multitude of other reasons, most of them related to immaturity and arrogance.
TMatt has been hammering on this, and he's right. What journalists need to ask, in reporting on this story, especially of those who are expressing dismay and distress at this Instruciton, is this: This is what the Catholic Church teaches about sexuality. Do you, as a self-identified, out, proud, but now saddened gay priest believe and teach the Church's understanding of what God has revealed about sexuality? Do you, as an opponent of this Instruction, ordained or not, saddened and fearful, believe the Church's teaching? What do you think a priest's responsibility is vis-a-vis that teaching? To ignore it, blow it off, manipulate it into a "vision" that "dares to challenge" a homophobic culture but dares not challenge his own desires? Or to, you know...teach it.
Oh, and in your comments, please be mindful of who this blogger is, and what she's been saying about this for years. No, it is not only self-identified gay priests who are the "problem." Priests can be sunk in all kinds of sins and shade and nuance the gospel beyond recognition out of all sorts of motives and in service of all kinds of passions: the passion for power, women, an excellent golfing vacation, what have you. But this gay stuff is the topic of the day, and we can't talk about everything every time.
So you know, responders to this Instruction (not you guys - those who will be quoted in the press) - don't bother with your hand-ringing until you've come out of the closet, not in terms of your private desired, but in terms of your stance towards the teaching of the Church. That's what's at stake. That's what we all need to be talking about.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8345ab8be69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Document:
» Discernment of Vocations from inedibleink.com
The long awaited Instruction Document has been released (pdf here at USCCB).
Its been discussed very competently at open book (twice) and its been the subject of a well done article at The Cornell Society for a Good Time. So I won’... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 29, 2005 5:11:31 PM
Comments
I think upwards of 75 percent of self-described Catholics have problems with the Church's teaching on sexuality, with that number creeping higher every day as the older generation leaves us. I think that majority is wrong, but it makes it that much more difficult to deal with this issue.
Posted by: Patti at Nov 29, 2005 8:57:28 AM
In our culture today it's hypocrisy that's often cited as one of the worst "sins" someone can be guilty of.
Why is that so rarely brought up when it comes to this issue? It's not too much to expect that a man who professes vows to uphold the teachings of the Catholic church on sexuality and everything else actually do so. It's about being who you say you are.
Why aren't "openly gay" priests who fail to do this considered hypocrites of the highest order?
Posted by: CV at Nov 29, 2005 9:02:04 AM
I think this has to be a learning moment, not only for those overt dissenters on the issue, but also for those who have substituted their own "nuanced" understanding of the issue for the Church's.
First of all, what this Document betokens, as Amy rightly observes, is the consistency of the of the Church's teaching on the matter. As the footnotes indicate (in particular, Footnote 10, the CDW notice of 2002) the Church has been teaching the same thing in and out of season on this issue.
And that teaching is that the Objective Disorder is not some accident of prediliction, but is a "situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women."
It is one that hinders from a "relating" to men and women as "affective[ly] matur[e]" "Such maturity will allow him to relate correctly to both men and women, developing in him a true sense of spiritual fatherhood towards the Church community that will be entrusted to him."
In fact, this relationship is one that "configures the candidate to Jesus Christ in a new and specific way: the priest, in fact, sacramentally represents Christ, the head, shepherd and spouse of the Church." Thus the priest is instancing or standing in for the Bridegroom, and this is the standard for Maturity, and Masculinity that is required.
And homosexuality, as an "affective" "immaturity", depending upon its level of representation in the subject, is more or less directly opposed to this role. As would another pathology, such as sociopathy, stand against the "authentic pastoral charity" which would configure the life of the priest.
Posted by: al at Nov 29, 2005 9:14:06 AM
If the document said, "Sacred Scripture tells us that drunkenness is a serious sin, and therefore someone who is an active alcoholic should not be admitted to seminary, and anyone who has been an alcoholic should give evidence of having overcome the problem at least three years before ordination to the diaconate," I don't think anyone would argue with it. Of course there are differences between alcoholism and homosexuality, but the point here is that someone who has a serious difficulty avoiding some habitual mortal sin should be at least discouraged from seeking the honor of the priesthood. This problem is, as our hostess points out, with those who simply reject the Church's teaching on sexuality.
The document very wisely focuses on the issue of maturity in dealing with sexuality. One who embraces a celibate vocation (indeed a married vocation) should be mature in his approach to sexuality, which in the case of the celibate is to say that it should not be an aspect of his life that directs his actions. This requires a fundamental conversion of heart, discipline, and above all the grace of God. But for one who is to be a custodian of the sacred Mysteries, a dispenser of the Word of God, a shepherd of souls, a guardian of consciences, it is absolutely essential. Not that he must not have struggled, but that he has come to a point of confidence in his victory. I once heard a priest whom I respect give a talk (to an audience exclusively of men--it would not have been appropriate in a mixed audience) about his struggle to overcome habitual masturbation, which he was able to do before he was ordained a priest. I would think that that problem as well could be considered a sign of a disqualification to the priestly life until it was overcome. But then I don't know of any active pro-masturbation movement, any more than there are movements to promote alcoholism or habitual drunkenness.
Posted by: Henry Dieterich at Nov 29, 2005 9:17:04 AM
The interesting bit of information is that the Filipine bishops have pledged themselves to implement this document..... Yeah!!!! That makes it alright then! Them and their twenty children. Do you red neck Americans not understand that this doco is just Latin Catholics poking fun at you?
Posted by: Fr Ephraem Chifley OP at Nov 29, 2005 9:20:43 AM
Henry,
Note the document doesn't not talk about "sexual" maturity, but rather "affective" maturity.
This is a more encompassing concept then merely sexuality considered in abstraction. True, they are intrinisically related, but the document is not dealing with the sexual issue in abstraction (thereby rendering Saletan's analysis all the more invalid), but in the context of the requisite maturity as related to the role itself--in particular as instancing, or re-presenting "fatherhood"
Posted by: al at Nov 29, 2005 9:33:12 AM
Hello Amy,
Well said.
It's all about the teaching. Does the priest support it, preach it, teach it, live it?
If not, they're in the wrong place. This is a simple principle which you can apply to any minister on any issue in any church or denomination.
Saletan vastly overstates the development of Church teaching on this - and strangely assumes that refusing to admit openly identifying gays into the priesthood means giving up on hopes and efforts at their salvation.
Saletan's real problem is that he doesn't agree with the Church teaching from start to finish. He apparently would like nothing better than for the Church to adopt the ECUSA's position on homosexuality.
Posted by: Richard at Nov 29, 2005 9:35:52 AM
I don't know how many times I have to say this, but this document is nothing new. What the Church is trying to preserve is its social and financial health from violent attacks by child abusers and rapists.
Should the Church stand by and let them have their evil fun?
These sick, immature men (mostly) belong in a hospital or prison, not in a sanctuary!
And one finds it diffult to sympathize with the whiners who proclaim that they have been chaste so why can't they be a priest. Well, if they have been chaste, there is no issue. Are they planning on not being chaste and they want to preserve their pension? Or are they waiting to be assigned to a parish with lots of fatherless children to take care of?
Posted by: Minn-Ray at Nov 29, 2005 9:36:39 AM
I think Patti and CV have hit the two major points on this debate. Combine them, and you have the root. How many parishoners and even those who are nominally Catholic, are having pre-marital sex? Lots. How many of them would think themselves hypocrites for denouncing gays/lesbians for having sex? Motes and beams. Sure gay sex is banned but so is extra-marital sex and "it's not like I'm hurting anyone so who am I to judge?"
I do not support this line of reasoning but I hear it quite often.
Posted by: Dubh at Nov 29, 2005 9:37:56 AM
While Amy is right about the issue of Church teaching, it is not just because it is Church teaching that this issue is coming to a head right now. It is because homosexual attraction is a disorder and as we all know, or should, disorder left unresolved, leads to further disorder. The John Jay report showed this in that 80% of the sexual clerical perpetrators over the last 50 years or so were homosexuals engaging in ephebophilia. We have to be careful not to conflate sinful acts of priests succumbing to natural inclinations with sinful actions of priests succumbing to unnatural inclinations. This is a completely different situation and must be treated as such.
The document's emphasis on the priesthood as spiritual fatherhood should highlight the discordant situation of priests who are attracted to other men as unsuitable for the vocation of spiritual fatherhood. I suppose though the difficulty is that our culture has sold so many a bill of goods that their sexuality is their identity and so any statements to the affect that one's sexual attractions can be disordered is taken as an attack on one's very person. This mistaken notion of the human person must be corrected for those priests with same sex attraction to be able to embrace and teach the truths found in this document.
Posted by: David at Nov 29, 2005 9:58:11 AM
Sorry, Al, I was trying not to be sloppy, but I guess I failed. You're right that the document says "affective" and you're right that that is the important thing. I was being a bit more narrow, focusing on the place of sexuality in the life of the celibate. But it is true that the whole affective life of a priest is important. A priest must not, for example, be prone to develop emotionally dependent relationships or require them of others; since at the same time it is essential for survival that priests have strong and supportive relationships with their brother priests, it is essential that they be free from a tendency to unhealthy attachments, both for their own sake and that of their brothers. It appears to be difficult, based on what one reads in both popular and academic writing, for modern persons to believe that there can be any strong personal relationship that is not sexual. The damage that this assumption has wrought in every area of life has been incalculable.
Posted by: Henry Dieterich at Nov 29, 2005 10:00:16 AM
A local (suburban Phoenix) homosexual priest has resigned from his post as a pastor, blaming this document, Pope Benedict and Bishop Olmsted. Reference: here and here.
Posted by: Drake Tungsten at Nov 29, 2005 10:13:05 AM
Well, if a priest can't support basic Church teaching, then he should go. Maybe someday he'll have a conversion of heart and mind.
As Amy said so memorably not too long ago, what's important is your spiritual orientation, not your sexual orientation. And the right spiritual orientation means living and breathing Christ's teaching as given through the Church, the "pillar of truth." Otherwise, you are simply the blind leading the blind.
Posted by: thomas tucker at Nov 29, 2005 10:27:37 AM
David's statistics are not correct.
True that the report shows that 80% of the victims were male.
However ... 60% of all victims, male or female, were 13 or younger. That is the age range listed in the DSM IV as pedophilia.
40% of all minor victims were 14 - 17 years old.
Not to excuse or condone any of the illegal & immoral behavior researched in the study, just want to make sure the facts are presented accurately.
Posted by: Paul Pfaffenberger at Nov 29, 2005 10:37:07 AM
It's interesting how the priest in that link said that the Church had always had "a position" against homosexuality.
A position? As opposed to a constant Church teaching handed down from Scripture and Sacred Tradition?
Posted by: thomas tucker at Nov 29, 2005 10:37:48 AM
I'm not a particularly big fan of Bp. Skylstad, but I thought his statement was very solid.
Posted by: Dale Price at Nov 29, 2005 10:55:21 AM
For the record and to avoid arguements about the reported facts, per the John Jay Report executive summary, the age breakdown of all accusers (male and female) was as follows:
0- 7, 6.0%
8-10, 16.0%
11-14, 50.9%
15-17, 27.3%
The same paragraph notes that over 40% of the victims were males between 11 and 14.
Posted by: Drake Tungsten at Nov 29, 2005 10:56:49 AM
I still want to know what the instruction means by "deep-seated homosexual tendencies."
Posted by: Michael at Nov 29, 2005 11:02:22 AM
It is important to point out that for the majority of people in this culture, homosexuality is considered 'the third gender'.
This document does state that homosexuality is considered a disorder.
We refuse to call an unborn baby a fetus; we need to refuse to call a man with a SSA a homosexual.
There is no gene nor reputable study to support the American Psychiatricts back track on this. Why do we accept their terms?
Posted by: adifferentAmy at Nov 29, 2005 11:36:54 AM
hand-wringing.
Posted by: Steve at Nov 29, 2005 12:10:30 PM
And that teaching is that the Objective Disorder is not some accident of prediliction, but is a "situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women."
Really? What I'm getting so far is that the teaching is the Objective Disorder actually is some accident of prediliction that gravely hinders one from relating correctly. That is interesting.
Separately, however, I'm wondering if the document does leave us where we've been all along, since as others have said, it all comes down to cases. (And since I'm in favor of ordaining properly disposed SSA priests, partly because the Church would be gutted absent the service of current SSA priests and bishops, that's fine with me).
I notice that the following from Bishop Skylstad has been passed over in this thread:
Since news of this document was first discussed in the media, the question has been asked whether a homosexually-inclined man can be a good priest. The answer lies in the lives of those men who, with God’s grace, have truly been dedicated priests, seeking each day not to be served but to serve their people, faithfully representing in word and example the teaching of the Church in its fullness, including God’s revelation that sexual expression is intended only to take place between a husband and a wife in a loving, faithful, and life-giving marriage.
I agree with Amy that something is amiss if a priest puts something other than the Gospel and Christ at the center of his identity. (So, Saletan, when you mock the rejection of "gay culture" with "whatever that is," that's what it is). And those who want to say the ground has shifted decisively against SSA ordinations can reasonably cite this document to the extent it conceives of SSA as a passing lark.
But if we're left with decisions about how deeply rooted a deeply rooted tendency is, and a statement by the bishop affirming that a homosexually inclined man can be a good priest... well, there you are.
Posted by: Christopher Fotos at Nov 29, 2005 12:11:16 PM
"I'm not a particularly big fan of Bp. Skylstad, but I thought his statement was very solid." I agree, his statemet was a pleasant surprise that certainly is more explicit.
Posted by: Fortiterinre at Nov 29, 2005 12:16:56 PM
The National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People issued “A Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States” (February 27, 2004) as part of its mandate from the USCCB as to the “causes and context” of the sexual abuse crisis within the Catholic Church. The Report specifically states that “Any evaluation of the causes and context of the current crisis must be cognizant of the fact that more than 80% of the abuse at issue was of a homosexual nature.”
That is a fact.
Posted by: Craig Martin at Nov 29, 2005 1:19:49 PM
Michael wrote:
I still want to know what the instruction means by "deep-seated homosexual tendencies."
I think the clue is that this term appears in the document twice. At the beginning of section 2, this documentit cites the Catechism's distinction between acts and inclinations. The Catechism uses the term "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" as either a synonym for, or as an example of, homosexual attractions. Then in the next paragraph, "deep seated homosexual tendencies" is listed as one of the three disqualifiers.
The obvious reading of this is that DSHT refers to either (1) homosexual orientation, or (2) a particularly strong version of homosexual orientation.
So there are two interpretations that are semantically justified, and one that is not:
1. Any man who has same-sex attractions over an extended period of his adulthood has DSHT. This interpretation matches the way the Catechism is usually interpreted as referring to the act / orientation distinction.
2. DSHT refers to same-sex attractions of a particularly strong nature, such that living in a same-sex environment would be a near occasion of sin. This was John Allen's original interpretation. If I were a bishop this would be my preferred interpretation unless the Vatican clarifies this further.
3. This simply says that a man must remain chaste for three years, regardless of the strength of his homosexual inclinations. This is not defensible given the phrasing of the document.
Happy liberals and unhappy conservatives seem to read this in sense # 3; happy conservatives and unhappy liberals seem to read this in sense # 1. John Allen is one of the few who proposed sense # 2.
Posted by: Lawrence King at Nov 29, 2005 1:37:24 PM
Dear Lawrence King,
Can you use a different acronym for "deep-seated homosexual tendencies"?
Whenever I read your acronym DSHT, I parse it as Deep SH.T.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Nov 29, 2005 1:49:45 PM
