![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Holy See: more on admission of homosexuals to seminaries - “What part of ‘No’ didn’t you understand?”
A friend sent me something from L’Osservatore Romano which you may find very interesting.
What follows was a Rescriptum ex audientia. This means that someone went in to meet with the Pope, asked a question which was also a written question probably submitted ahead of time, and obtained the response to that question in the meeting. A rescript was usually something written on the same piece of paper with the query and then sent back, for the sake of brevity. Simple things are handled simply. The obvious doesn’t need a complicated process – thus the rescript.
In this case the rescript is a note from the Secretariate of State. So, someone very high up, perhaps Card. Bertone, goes into the Pope to discuss their usual stack of stuff, and this question comes to the surface.
So what does the rescript say?
Here is the Italian first:
In riferimento al Documento della Congregazione per l’Educazione Cattolica ‘Istruzione circa i criteri di discernimento vocazionale riguardo alle persone con tendenze omosessuali in vista della loro ammissione al Seminario e agli Ordini sacri’, pubblicato dal menzionato Dicastero il 4 novembre 2005, e in seguito a numerose richieste di chiarimento giunte alla Sede Apostolica, si precisa che le disposizioni contenute in detta Istruzione valgono per tutte le Case di formazione al sacerdozio, comprese quelle che dipendono dai Dicasteri per le Chiese Orientali, per l’Evangelizzazione dei Popoli e per gli Istituti di Vita Consacrata e le Società di Vita Apostolica.Here is my translation:
Il Sommo Pontefice, il giorno 8 del mese di aprile dell’anno del Signore 2008, ha approvato tale precisazione
In reference to the Document of the Congregation for Catholic Education, ‘Instruction 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‘, published by the aforementioned Dicastery on 4 November 2005, and in consequence of numerous requests for clarification which have reached the Apostolic See, it state precisely that the dispositions contained in said Instruction are in force for all the houses of formation for the priesthood, including those which [juridically] depend on the Dicasteries for Oriental Churches, for the Evangelization of Peoples, and for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.Interesting no?
The Supreme Pontiff, on the 8th day of April of the year of the Lord of 2008 approved this clarification.
What does the rescript really say?
First, a "house of formation" is basically a seminary.
Obviously some people out there didn’t want to accept the clear meaning of the the document from the Cong. for Catholic Education which says that men with deep seated homosexual tendencies, not just fleeting ideas, etc., should not be admitted to seminary.
So, they wrote to the Holy See, "But Holy Father! But Holy Father!", I am sure they wrote, "This document from the Congregation can’t possibly apply to uusss! After all, our seminary isn’t a diocesan seminary. We have a _____ seminary!"
Fill in the blank with
1) "seminary for Eastern Catholic priests, run by an eparchy, etc." – which falls under the jurisdiction of the Cong. for Oriental Churches
2) "seminary run not by a diocese, but one for priests destined for missionary service" – under Propaganda Fidei
3) "seminary for a religious order or institute" – under the Cong. for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life
Basilically, what this clarification from the Pope does is day, there is no seminary in the world where this does not apply.
Homosexuals must not be admitted to any seminary in the world. Period.
The aforementioned document from the Congregation for Catholic Education must be applied to all seminaries everywhere. Just do it.
I wonder if it also applies to religious houses that do in house formation.
Comment by John — 17 May 2008 @ 6:48 pmThis “issue” is a complicated one. If one considers the sexual studies of the 20th Century, namely those conducted by Alfred Kinsey and others, one can’t deny the fact that many, if not most of us, are neither completely heterosexual or homosexual. Most persons are somewhere in between. This document fails makes no mention of bi-sexuality, only those with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies.” The fact remains that many, many Catholic clergy, for whatever reason, are homosexuals. I have been told by a dear friend that most priests in London (U. K.) are homosexuals, a few of them even practicing. While I am not condoning priests breaking their vow of celibacy, I think this issue is not over.
Comment by William Byrd — 17 May 2008 @ 7:04 pmSurely a commitment to celibacy is the most important aspect of ‘sexual orientation’ to be discerned and determined in the process of formation? Who can sit in judgment of another’s ‘deep seated’ tendency? And how many good priests would the Church have been denied if the implications of the above had been strictly enforced throughout the ages? How more beautifully can one be ‘driven from the snare of the enemy’ than by a vocation to the celibate priesthood – ‘And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil’.
Comment by Watching and waiting — 17 May 2008 @ 7:19 pmWilliam—you are not really citing Kinsey are you? His studies had many many methodological problems—most importantly his lack of a truly representative sampling. At the time he did his most important studies, few people were willing to discuss sex very frankly. So most of his data came from a small segment of American society: most notably convicts, drifters and homosexuals ‘in the life’ as it were. Sometimes the subjects were paid for testimony. All of this runs in the face of statistical and methodological rules followed by the best in social science.
Comment by Brian2 — 17 May 2008 @ 7:37 pmFrom the Instruction from the Cong. for Catholic Education:
Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem – for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 17 May 2008 @ 7:42 pmKinsey’s Secret: The Phony Science of the Sexual Revolution
Comment by Sissy — 17 May 2008 @ 7:56 pmhttp://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?id=6036&repos=1&subrepos=&searchid=243563
Would it, or could it follow from this, that any Priest ordained after this proclamation went into effect, who was perhaps found later to have said tendencies or support the “gay lifestyle” could then be removed from the Priesthood? This is the only way I can understand this type of restriction to be effective….
Comment by Chironomo — 17 May 2008 @ 8:39 pmWatching and waiting,
“Surely a commitment to celibacy is the most important aspect of ‘sexual orientation’ to be discerned and determined in the process of formation?”
Perhaps, but nevertheless it seems implicit in this document that a committment to celibacy is built on certain necessary physical, psychological, and spiritual foundations. To be homosexual is not to be in all ways equivalent to a heterosexual except for one small detail (I happen to be attratcted to these sexual characteristics instead of these…); rather, it is to have an extremely integral part of one’s personality fundamentally perverted and disordered. It is a great irony that many modern Catholics claim that the ancient Church was repressed and did not place enough emphasis on the power and centrality of sexual expereince in human life, but those same modern Catholics turn around and pretend that sexulaity it totally under control and a merely secondary concern when it comes to homosexuality. Granted, not all homosexuals are great sinners, nor do all have extreme proclivities, but they all do share a very deep-seated problem which makes celibacy difficult and leads to particularly grave scandals. It also cuts at the heart of being a pastor and a symbol of the preisthood. I think we can all agree that a heterosexual person might be committed to fidelity in marraige but have conditions or tendencies that make that desire difficult or impossible to realize—the situations are analogous.
“Who can sit in judgment of another’s ‘deep seated’ tendency?”
First of all, the document seems to assume that the candiate for the seminary is going to be honest with his superiors during his foundation. Even so, are you implying that one’s deep-seated sexual tendencies are beyond the grasp of spiritual advisors, psychiatristsm, and friends? I think the document is referring to “deep-seated” as somthing that is recurring and persistent or permanent as opposed to temporary and fleeting. I do not think it is referring to it as somthing in the deep netherworlds of the sub-conscious.
“And how many good priests would the Church have been denied if the implications of the above had been strictly enforced throughout the ages?”
I think that you think that the answer to this question is a lot. I am not sure that anyone knows. Similarly, there are lots of married men who think they have what it takes to be good priests, but the Church, in her wisdom, does not let them. We trust that even this is part of the divine plan.
“How more beautifully can one be ‘driven from the snare of the enemy’ than by a vocation to the celibate priesthood – ‘And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil’.”
The whole problem is that this does not seem to reflect the reality on the ground. By pretending that homosexuality is something so easily dealt with, overcome, or supressed the devil has done incredible damage to the Church. The idea that homosexuaols enter seminaries and start battle with the devil is simply ludicrous in light of the scandals we hear about all the time.
Comment by Cosmos — 17 May 2008 @ 8:59 pmI thank God again and again for Pope Benedict. This reaffirms my faith that he will clean all houses, and finally bring us an end to the presence of predatory homosexuals in the priesthood.
Comment by Bill — 17 May 2008 @ 9:14 pmI see this rescript as reaffirming the earlier document and I note that the Holy Father in speaking about the issue in the US mentioned not ordaining pediophiles. I was wondering if he was backing away from the all incluseive ban on homosexual entering the seminary. This is good news. However, the document makes no mention of those already ordained and I believe that would involve individual cases brought to the Roman Rota or other Canonical body. It may be taht this problem will not go away for many many years because of homosexuals who have been ordained. What we can pray for is that they like any other priest will abide by their vow of celibacy. Rember it is the action that is sinful. This rule simply recognizes that homosexuality is a serious disorder that precludes the Church from ordaining them as priests. Let us pray as well that seminaries will be obedient to the directive of the Holy See.
Comment by Larry — 17 May 2008 @ 9:27 pmThis “issue” is a complicated one. If one considers the sexual studies of the 20th Century, namely those conducted by Alfred Kinsey and others, one can’t deny the fact that many, if not most of us, are neither completely heterosexual or homosexual.
Kinsey himself was a switch-hitter. Gee, I wonder whether that affected his “scientific” findings.
Most persons are somewhere in between. This document fails makes no mention of bi-sexuality, only those with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies.”
Bisexuals are homosexual.
Your error consists in assuming that there is something sexual in all human friendships—an approach that contradicts reality. I have several male friends and am sexually attracted to none of them. I also have several female friends (some married to the male friends) and am sexually attracted to only a few of them.
It is low grade flim-flam to say that friendships between persons of the same gender are homosexual.
The fact remains that many, many [Fr. Z adds: B as in B. S as in S.] Catholic clergy, for whatever reason, are homosexuals. I have been told by a dear friend that most priests in London (U. K.) are homosexuals, a few of them even practicing. While I am not condoning priests breaking their vow of celibacy, I think this issue is not over.
Comment by William Byrd
If there are homosexuals in the clergy, it is proof not only that there has been incompetent formation for some years but also that the spirituality of the priesthood has been trivialized.
And, no, the issue is over.
Comment by RBrown — 17 May 2008 @ 9:46 pmI keep reminding myself and those around me that the numbers speak for themselves. The vast majority of predators in the priesthood have been homosexuals going after teen boys. Call it ephebophilia if you wish, or don’t talk about it at all if you wish to be politically correct, but facts are facts. Faithful celibate homosexual men will suffer not for who they are or what they have done, but for the sins of a number too large to be dismissed. Sin will be with us until the Second Coming, even in the priesthood, but lets try to put this nightmare to rest. No, means no.
I once heard a man say that it is his homosexuality that is the root of his vocation and why God is calling him to the priesthood. You want him hearing your son’s confession in the “reconciliation room”? He was not admitted to seminary.
Comment by drew — 17 May 2008 @ 9:58 pmI think had better close the com box for the times I cannot watch it. Save your comments up and, if I open it again, don’t even think of posting something you haven’t really thought about or something that contradicts the teachings of the Church.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 17 May 2008 @ 10:10 pmThis is an excellent article, originally posted on Zenit, which provides an excellent analysis by Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons as to why homosexuals cannot be admitted to any seminary. I would encourage anyone to read it – http://www.narth.com/docs/tendencies.html
God bless.
Comment by avecrux — 18