« On Air | Main | Document, Redux »
November 22, 2005
That Document
PDF here (Italian)
Translation at Roccos - credits for translation there too, and duly noted.
In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, together with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, deems it necessary to clearly affirm that the Church, even while deeply respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to Seminary or Holy Orders those who are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.
Such people, in fact, find themselves in a situation that seriously obstructs them from properly relating to men and women. The negative consequences that can result from the Ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies should not be obscured.
When dealing, instead, with homosexual tendencies that might only be a manifestation of a transitory problem, as, for example, delayed adolescence, these must be clearly overcome at least three years before diaconal Ordination.Unofficial translation from Italian by Robert Mickens, THE TABLET
This text was received by the Italian news agency, ADISTA
Will this make no one happy? Probably. Some will be convinced that it leaves too much room for "nuance," which will open the door to liberal interpretations. Others will be unhappy that it gives any negative evaluation of homosexuality or "gay culture" or that homosexuality could in any individual, be caused by delayed adolescence.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8345aae4a69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference That Document:
» Vatican Document on Gay Priests from Vitamin B16
Chastity Means No Sex
... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 23, 2005 8:45:57 AM
» Document leaked, translated from CatholicSphere
The Vatican Document "Concerning the Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons With Homosexual Tendencies In View of Their Admission to Seminaries and Holy Orders" was leaked to the press, and has been very roughly translated to English.
... [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 23, 2005 8:58:31 AM
Comments
I see Rocco as a useful source of information, but MY, the smug little snot he can be sometimes:
"Well, our friends at Adista have leaked the homosems document in advance of its release on Monday. That's A-D-I-S-T-A -- remember the name. Lawler is furious that the Left has just walked all over him on this story, in every way possible which is, gratefully, how God would have it...."
Anyway, my take on the document is that if it is *followed* it will actually do much good. But this will be the test of Benedict's pontificate. Facta, non verba. Oremus pro Benedicto!
Posted by: Kurt at Nov 22, 2005 4:46:25 PM
What is a "Dicastery" - what does the word mean and where does it come from? Why does Rome consistently have a difficult time with simple words to express what it is about?
Posted by: Dan Crawford at Nov 22, 2005 5:01:04 PM
http://www.secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/dicastery.htm
Hope that helps, Dan.
Posted by: Michael in Denver at Nov 22, 2005 5:04:23 PM
... those who are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.
It might not make anyone happy, but it'll probably cause a chuckle or two.
"'Actively'? Do you mean like right now? No, I'm not actively homosexual."
"'Deep seated'? Hmmm. I could give it up if I really tried and, well, I'd give anything to be a priest, so ... "
"'Support the gay culture'? You mean like showtunes and stuff? I hate those, so I guess I'm your man."
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Nov 22, 2005 5:07:25 PM
Dan,
Rome has been using the word "dicasteria" (office/department - rooted in the Greek word for judgement)for over a thousand years now. The fact that the English equivalent "dicastery" is not a common word doesn't seem to me to be Rome's problem.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Nov 22, 2005 5:16:19 PM
This, of course, was my point, Rich. Anyone determined to get around this document *or any other document* (and allowed to) will do so.
Posted by: Kurt at Nov 22, 2005 5:17:56 PM
On a less humorous note, but to continue with my point, I know a recently ordained priest who studied in Rome. He is a very handsome (but non-gay) young man who was "hit on" by three different Roman monsignori during his time there. The success of this document will all be in the determination with which it is implemented.
Posted by: Kurt at Nov 22, 2005 5:22:28 PM
Given that the document reaffirms that the Bishop (or Religious Superior) is personally responsible ("La chiamata agli Ordini e responsabilita personale del Vescovo..."), and that the Bishops need to do the right things, "it is necessity that Bishops...carry out an attentive discernment regarding the suitability of candidates to Holy Orders, from the admission to Seminary to Ordination," well, I don't expect a lot to change unless the Bishops (and Religious Superiors) change.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Nov 22, 2005 5:29:06 PM
I will have to go anon for this one. The document is clear. It won't keep someone out who did something at a friends sleepover in 6th grade. BUT if they self-identify as "gay" and/or have ongoing homosexual tendencies THEN they are out. That is "deep-seated". They are absolutely out if they are a practicing homosexual. If the policy is followed accordingly it means that in effect homosexuals should not be ordained. Any other interpretation is solely designed to get around the document and avoid what it really says. IF we adhere strictly to the document then we will clean house. IF we don't, then our problems will continue. Let's face facts, homosexuals should simply not be ordained.
Posted by: anonfornow at Nov 22, 2005 5:31:58 PM
I am not here to argue that homosexuality is a sin, but will an order be produced for arrogance? How about envy? Gluttony?
Brad
Posted by: Broken Messenger at Nov 22, 2005 5:41:08 PM
ugh..
previous should read "not here to argue that homosexuality is NOT a sin..." Okay, going away now.
Brad
Posted by: Broken Messenger at Nov 22, 2005 5:42:06 PM
Homosexuality is not a sin.
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Nov 22, 2005 5:42:55 PM
anonfornow,
Why in the world would you need to be anonymous to post such a non-controversial interpretation of the Instruction. Or is it that you fear that some might start parsing your subtext (unhappy with the qualifier "deep-seated").
The times call for men who know what they think, why, and aren't afraid to stand up and say what they believe needs to be said despite flack. My name is
Tom Haessler
Posted by: Tom Haessler at Nov 22, 2005 5:45:10 PM
Canonically (and this is important, not just legalese mumbo-jumbo), the document is an Instruction. It's approved in the ordinary manner, NOT "in forma specifica", which means that this document is an act of executive authority - the authority of the issuing Congregation for Catholic Education. As an Instruction, it is NOT law (cf. canon 34), and cannot overturn existing laws.
As an administrative act, it is still binding, but the binding portions of the decree seem more exhortary than punitive. In that, it presupposes that the people it's dealing with and bishops and rectors it's addressed to are men of good faith.
Some would say that's a stretch and naive. I'm not sure what the alternative is - suspect everyone of being evil? How does our dogma of the forgiveness of original sin in baptism fit in here?
The document places the onus of discernment primarily on the seminarian - where, I believe, it belongs. That certainly permits liars, cheats, and perverts to try and get around the norms of law. It doesn't authorize or encourage a "witch hunt" that many people say is called for. It does permit good bishops and rectors to use this document as a tool to clean up their seminaries and foster healthy vocations. It permits bad bishops to remain bad bishops; it permits bad rectors to remain bad rectors; it permits lying seminarians to become lying priests. It doesn't eradicate sin with the stroke of a pen. Short of curtailing everyone's God-given rights and freedoms, I don't know how a mere document could do any more - even if it was more forceful, it would not be able to weed out every possible unsuitable candidate for the priesthood.
What we (as lay people I mean) can do is hold our bishops, priests and seminarians feet to the fire (as I would hope our bishops, priests and seminarians do to us, as well) - pressing their honesty. If someone you know is a seminarian flagrantly leading a life of immorality or struggling with psychological problems - talk to him, urge him to leave, get help - tell him that unless he does so, you've got not choice but to bring it to the next level. Fraternal correction is the solution to the current situation, I'm convinced.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Nov 22, 2005 5:47:52 PM
Wise words, Tim. Thank you.
Posted by: Amy at Nov 22, 2005 5:49:24 PM
I expect a fevered kremlinology will develop around the precise explication of the phrase, "deep seated."
Even on the anecdotal evidence of the experience of friends and acquaintances with whom I have spoken about such matters, the ways in which people experience their sexual orientation seem various and complex.
Most people I know experience orientation, gay or straight, as fixed, uncomplicated and without much in the way of nuance. I'd include myself in that category. Yet I have met gay people who thought (sometimes for many years) that they were straight, as well as straight people who once thought they were gay, but changed their minds. I have also spoken with people who were genuinely confused and with some who described their orientation as "fluid."
Thus I don't remotely envy those who are put in charge of discerning such things among candidates for the priesthood!
Even if everyone was completely determined to play it by the rules, I suspect that we would still find priests who acted in good faith concluding later in life that they weren't as straight as they once thought they were.
Posted by: Nick at Nov 22, 2005 5:52:28 PM
This document, and the comments of Tim Ferguson, remind me of Revelation 22:11-13, just a few verses short of the end of Holy Scripture:
He that is unrighteous,
let him do unrighteousness still:
and he that is filthy,
let him be made filthy still:
and he that is righteous,
let him do righteousness still:
and he that is holy,
let him be made holy still.Behold, I come quickly;
and my reward is with me,
to render to each man
according as his work is.I am the Alpha and the Omega,
the first and the last,
the beginning and the end.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Nov 22, 2005 5:55:42 PM
I think anonfornow's plain spokenness will be controversial, once people realize that "SSA"="ongoing homosexual tendencies".
Which pretty much demolishes the old "its not the type of temptation but the strength of the resistance that matters."
Sure people with "ongoing homosexual tendencies" can live heroic lives in fighting them. Its just that that doesn't leave them much time for pastoring God's sheep.
Posted by: al at Nov 22, 2005 6:05:12 PM
The key phrase is this:
"This Congregation reaffirms the necessity that Bishops, Superior Generals, and all those responsible carry out an attentive discernment regarding the suitability of candidates to Holy Orders, from the admission to Seminary to Ordination. This discernment must be done in light of a concept of ministerial priesthood that is in conformity with the teaching of the Church."
In other words, the ball is still where it always was -- with the Bishops and religious superiors. And, in a way, it echoes the explicit emphasis of the role of the bishop/superior in the Instrumentum Laboris for the seminary visitations, almost seeming a commentary that they haven't been as on top of things as they need to be....
As for "a concept of ministerial priesthood in conformity..." well, there are as many of those as there are Bishops and religious superiors; every man has a differing definition.
Remember, too, that these are baseline criteria and seminaries and superiors are free to tack on whatever additional criteria they see fit within the bounds of their competence.
The line about "the particular importance of human formation as the necessary foundation of all formation" is good; I could start rattling off houses where that's not the case.
And, yes, it's good to be first ;-)
Posted by: Rocco Palmo at Nov 22, 2005 6:07:03 PM
What seems wrong to me is that this document allows men to be ordained if they've slept with other men befpre the three years prior to their ordination as deacon.
According to this, an actively homosexual seminarian would not be hindered from ordination if he has gay sex during his formation! Men who are actively homosexual may be even be accepted as candidates to a seminary!
Shouldn't the document reques a three year "sex-break" from those entering seminary, not those being ordained?!!!
Posted by: Eric Giunta at Nov 22, 2005 6:16:37 PM
Al, the fact is that the degree to which men may struggle with same sex attraction and whether that struggle would be one that would interfere with their studies in seminary or with being a priest varies from individual to individual. For example, for some reason some men who live with no SSA have a great deal of difficulty with chastity (St. Augustine, for instance) while other men do not.
Some men living with a degree of SSA do so to such a degree that they would not be good candidates for priesthood. Other men who also live with a degree of SSA but find it has little impact on them will not be in the same boat.
People living with SSA are no more exactly alike as people who don't live with any.
Posted by: David Morrison at Nov 22, 2005 6:21:30 PM
Eric - way to be inflammatory, even using three exclamation points!!!
did you read the document? It says nothing about a "sex break" or permitting sexual activity in the seminary. It states that homosexual tendencies (tendencies, not activity - see the earlier portion of the document for clarification on the difference) should have been resolved at least three years before ordination.
The document clearly states that homosexual activity does not belong in a seminary and those who are actively homosexual should not be admitted to the seminary.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Nov 22, 2005 6:32:13 PM
Tim Ferguson wrote, homosexual activity does not belong in a seminary and those who are actively homosexual should not be admitted to the seminary. I would assume this also extends to heterosexuals. After all, there are women on the faculty and staffs of many seminaries now, and many religious seminaries are co-ed. And even at single-sex seminaries, the guys do get off campus now and then.
The call is to "observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Can 277 §1). Why is this so hard to understand?
Posted by: Old Zhou at Nov 22, 2005 6:42:59 PM
In other words, the ball is still where it always was -- with the Bishops and religious superiors.
Which should people in places like, say, Rochester great comfort.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Nov 22, 2005 6:48:56 PM
Insert "give" between "should" and "people"
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Nov 22, 2005 6:50:07 PM
