Here is a translation of the document leaked by an Italian news agency today:
Update: The whole translation has been tweaked and improved. The official translation will probably vary a little bit, but I think this is fairly accurate and faithful to the original Italian.
Congregation for Catholic Education
Instruction concerning the criteria of vocational discernment regarding persons with homosexual tendencies, considering their admission to seminary and to Holy Orders
Introduction
Following the teaching of Vatican II and, in particular, the decree Optatam Totius on priestly formation, the Congregation for Catholic Education has published different documents to promote an adequate formation integral of future priests, offering guidance and precise norms regarding their several aspects. In the meantime also the Synod of Bishops in 1999 reflected on the formation of priests in the present circumstances, with the intent to bring to fulfillment the conciliar doctrine on the subject and to render it more explicit and incisive in the contemporary world. Following this Synod, John Paul II published the post-Synodic apostolic exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis.
In light of this rich teaching, the present Instruction does not intend to linger on all the questions by nature emotional or sexual that require careful discernment throughout the whole period of formation. It contains norms regarding a particular question, made more urgent by the present situation, which is that of the admission or non-admission to the seminary and Holy Orders of candidates who have profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies.
NB:
“It would be gravely dishonest if a candidate were to hide his own homosexuality to enter, notwithstanding everything, to Ordination. An attitude so inauthentic does not correspond to the spirit of truth, allegiance, and availability that must characterize the personality of he who believes to be called to serve Christ and His Church in the priestly ministry.”
I’m no expert in “Vatican-speak,” but doesn’t this sound like a way to laicize those who are actively homosexual?
To wit: the man who is found (post-Ordination) to be a practicing homosexual must have been either (a) immature, or (b) lying about his homosexuality to his formators. Therefore he accepted Holy Order under false pretenses. Therefore he is not validly ordained and may be laicized forthwith.
Thoughts?
That’s what I was thinking.
When the same sentences were taken out of context in earlier links, they appeared to be weakening the previous direction. But in context, it appears to be pretty strong.
Wonderful! I’m so glad we have such insightful analysis by the two of you.
Fr. Jim wrote:
” To wit: the man who is found (post-Ordination) to be a practicing homosexual must have been either (a) immature, or (b) lying about his homosexuality to his formators. Therefore he accepted Holy Order under false pretenses. Therefore he is not validly ordained and may be laicized forthwith.”
You don’t go far enough, Father. This isn’t just about “practicing” homosexuals, this is about homosexuals- period.
Chastity? Perseverance? Cooperation with grace? Obedience to promise made before God? Fidelity? NONE of this is of import. Does the man have “deep-seated homosexual tendencies”? Boot him! He is, after all, “gravely obstructed” from relating in a “right way” with ANY human beings.
This will be a puzzlement to the homosexual priests and bishops who have already ministered faithfully and chastely to God’s peoples for decades, for lifetimes – and to the people they have served.
I’m told that some or even many SSA people have an involuntary revulsion towards the marital act. How can such men in good faith encourage others to the married life when they can’t stomach the consummation of the sacrament of matrimony?
(This would also apply to the rare bird with an extremely prudish Victorian view towards the conjugal act itself.)
or presents profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies
It seems to me that a lot hinges on how the word “tendencies” is defined. Does it refer to orientation or to action?
Carrie,
The document distinguishes between “acts” and “tendencies” in these words:
Regarding acts, it teaches that, in Sacred Scripture, these are presented as grave sins. Tradition has constantly considered them to be intrinsically immoral and contrary to natural law. These, consequently, may not be approved in any case.
Concerning profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies that one discovers in a certain number of men and women, these are also objectively disordered and often constitute a trial, even for these men and women.
Aplman—my point is, you may not know if the TENDENCY is there unless you find out about the ACTS. If there are ACTS, then there is a prior “attitude so inauthentic [that it] does not correspond to the spirit of truth, allegiance, and availability that must characterize the personality of he who believes to be called to serve Christ and His Church in the priestly ministry.umed of the ordained, the document is not simply saying that gay men don’t relate sexually as straight men do, but that somehow their relating as human beings is seriously impaired. Normal, average, everyday relations between men and women are not sexual relations and in the lives of chaste priests everyday pastoral interactions with people are certainly not relationships of a physical sexual nature. As I read it, this document takes us beyond “what the church has always taught” about sexual morality and goes a step further, declaring that not only do homosexuals flunk the sex test, they now flunk the human relations test.
Charles Williams wrote:
” No priest or bishop who is faithfully and chastely ministering to Godided that certain acts are okay and identify according to their actractions whereas an individual with ssa will id themselves as Created in Gods Image and Likeness. Thus, the ssa person with right formation is likely to be able chaste. Having said this, it is important that a “gay culture” does not take hold or hold a person back from the ultimate vocation of Sancticty. Thats what we have seen at various seminaries- I have heard stories of people at St. John’s in Boston going out in drag, the get togethers of Jesuits out west was like a cruising Mass, and have seen some priests vacationing in Ptown.
Where are the Superiors and Bishops!
Brendan
Brendan
Father “Aplman”,
Should a priest or bishop with erectile dysfunction also announce that to his parish? After all some man in the parish may be suffering from that too.
my point is, you may not know if the TENDENCY is there unless you find out about the ACTS.
Yes, Fr. Clark, exactly. If a seminarian or a priest chooses to live chastely and doesn’t announce with whom he would prefer to sin, how is anyone going to know? The definition of “tendency” is the central point of this document, IMHO. If it is defined as “desire” rather than “act”, the document is not enforcable. If we start drawing lines at relational abilities, how can those lines of rejection be defended in individual cases? IMHO, even here only some act can defend them.
Aren’t we getting ourselves boxed into a corner by deciding to define a person in terms of a sin? Why must all redeeming qualities be secondary because of a sin that may not have even been committed? We all harbor thoughts that are sinful from time to time.
Could it be that we are attempting to use as criteria a non-reality? Could it be that sexual orientation is a fabrication? That only acts have validity in judgment calls?
Dom wrote:
“Should a priest or bishop with erectile dysfunction also announce that to his parish? After all some man in the parish may be suffering from that too.”
Parishioners expect that their pastors are sexual beings who have sexual desires. That’s a given. Charles Williams wrote (above) that it would be unfaithful or unchaste for a priest to identify his sexual orientation as homosexual. While I’m not advocating public disclosure of personal things by pastors or that any or all pastors declare their sexual orientation, I disagree that to do so would be a violation of chastity.
No, aplman, the church does NOT teach that “that there is nothing morally wrong with a homosexual orientation.” The church teaches that it is an objective error, a trial and a psychological condition.
It is true that those who have a homosexual orientation should be treated with respect and solicitude, as alcoholics, compulsives or various types, neurotics and others with severe problems should also be treated. But IT IS NOT AN OBJECTIVE GOOD TO HAVE A HOMOSEXUAL ORIENTATION—in any way, shape or manner. No more than it is an objective good to be an alcholic or a compulsive gambler or any one of many other conditions human beings can fall into.
Moreover, NO ONE has the right to be ordained. It is a gift which one does not claim for oneself. Especially when the claiming involves lies and deception!
Aplman,
Automatically, there would be something wrong with a priest telling his parish he suffered from impotency.
By default, this should not be a problem if he is not getting ready to couple with someone/something.
I would consider a comment about impotency, coming from a priest, an admission of fault worthy to be reported to the bishop and if nothing were done, to the CDF.
Michigan Catholic:
I neither wrote nor implied that a homosexual orientation is an objective good.
Please reference where the church teaches that a homosexual orientation is, in itself, a “moral wrong” or an “objective error.” (And please note that there is a significant distinction between disorder and error.)
Check the CCC, aplman. Oh while you’re at, get a bible. There are many, many passages about homosexuality.
MichiganCatholic wrote:
http://www.michigancatholic.blogspot.com
66.255.204.12
2005-11-25 00:02:50
2005-11-25 04:02:50
Would you like to explain the story about Sodom & Gomorrah while we’re at it? That might be interesting.
“Check the CCC, aplman. Oh while youthor_email>
MichiganCatholic wrote:
“Aplman, you didnPlaying with the words as you have here (mistake/error) fails to rise even to the level of a weak argument. Get some references.
I’m not playing with words, Aplman. You are. It’s very very clear what the difficulty is with all this.
The party is over. And it has nothing to do with the discussion in here. It’s happening no matter what you or I say about it. It always was a foregone conclusion. It remains so.
Bottom line: MichiganCatholic has no reference to support his claim that the Church teaches that having a homosexual orientation is a moral wrong and an objective error. If he did, he certainly would have produced the evidence by now.
Bottom line: Rome has spoken and it doesn’t matter if Aplman’s nose is all out of joint. Even if he does howl like a banshee. Big deal.
I reiterate. The party is over.