Document Shows Homosexuals Much Sensitivity"
Interview With Cardinal Cottier on New Vatican Instruction
VATICAN CITY, DEC. 1, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The new Vatican document on homosexuality and admission to seminaries and holy orders is not an "attack on homosexuals," says Cardinal Georges Cottier.
Rather, the document is an effort "to understand their situation" and sufferings, explained Cardinal Cottier, who until today was the theologian of the Pontifical Household.
The Instruction "Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admissions to the Seminary and to Holy Orders," was published Tuesday.
It was written by the Congregation for Catholic Education, with the approval of Benedict XVI.
Cardinal Cottier, 83, whose successor as Pontifical Household theologian was named today, shared his views of the new Instruction with ZENIT.
Q: What is new in this document?
Cardinal Cottier: The novelty above all lies in the fact that it offers a synthesis of what had already been said and presents it as a whole. It is a text which seems to me to be very thought out.
Q: Perhaps the novelty is in the reference to "gay culture" and the sensitivity of tone in the choice of words. It deplores, for example, "discrimination."
Cardinal Cottier: Above all, I would underline its sensitivity. It is in no way, as has been said, an attack on homosexuals. On the contrary, there is an effort -- and an invitation to make this effort -- to understand their situation and the problems that these persons frequently suffer.
The document shows that there is a path and salvation for homosexuals in the measure that they bear their homosexuality in union with the suffering Christ. The document shows them much sensitivity.
On the other hand, it doesn't mince matters. It makes the distinction between persons who engage in homosexual activity and those who have "deep-seated homosexual tendencies," and those who have slight, "transitory" tendencies, linked to episodes in their lives, of which I would say they can free themselves. Therefore, there are degrees.
In regard to the "gay culture," it is true that it is a new phenomenon, very recent. The proclamation of the "gay culture" as a social claim is something of these last years. This is why it is talked about.
Q: The document underlines the need for "emotional maturity" of the candidates to the priesthood facing "spiritual paternity" and of a "correct relationship with men and women," whom the priest will meet in his pastoral ministry.
Cardinal Cottier: It is a very important point. In regard to formation, it says that the human, spiritual, intellectual and pastoral aspect must be taken into account. It is a question, therefore, of an ensemble of qualities.
And there is much emphasis on the human aspect, making a judgment based on studies: the fact that homosexuality impedes, in a certain sense, "emotional maturity," a term which appears on several occasions.
Emotional maturity is also necessary for those who want to live consecrated celibacy fully, perfect chastity. Emotional immaturity can also affect the relationship with the other sex.
In general, homosexuality is accompanied by this emotional immaturity. It is an affirmation that is going to be criticized, but that is based on experience.
Inasmuch as representative of Christ, bridegroom of the Church, the priest is called to exercise a spiritual paternity among men and women. For this reason, emotional maturity is necessary, which implies a spirit of sacrifice and self-forgetfulness out of love for the other.
Q: Also underlined is the role of the spiritual director and the personal responsibility of the candidate to the priesthood.
Cardinal Cottier: The document reminds us that it is not enough to feel called to the priesthood to have the right. It is always the bishop who calls to the priesthood.
But the bishop has collaborators who are the directors of seminaries, and the spiritual director in what concerns the internal forum, in which the person is obliged to secrecy.
What the spiritual director is requested to do is to help the candidate who has deep-seated homosexual tendencies to understand himself and to help him decide that he is not made for the priesthood.
It must be a journey made by the person himself. It is very important. It doesn't mean that these persons are "thrown out" or "rejected." What is simply done is to help them realize that that is not the path the Lord wills for them.
If all this is done with great sensitivity, and great charity, the persons will be given great respect. And then disasters as the ones we have had will be avoided.
I would like to add something to what is much talked about -- too much, perhaps, I don't know: pedophilia and homosexuality.
There is a word that is never used and that, however, is important when we see the work that priests do; it is the word "ephebophilia."
It is not pedophilia, which is attraction to small boys, but refers to attraction to adolescents. It is a very ambiguous and decisive age for every one. And I think it is a very extended form of homosexuality.
I think it is necessary to present this clarification, as families entrust adolescents to priests -- scouts, summer camps, pilgrimages, groups. In those cases, these boys must be totally respected.
Q: How can one understand the Instruction's expression which seeks "to guarantee that the Church will always have suitable priests who are true shepherds according to the heart of Christ?
Cardinal Cottier: There is only one Shepherd in the Church. The Pope, bishops and priests are shepherds as they participate in this prerogative of Christ. They must live in great union with Christ.
And, if the interior life -- life of prayer, of union with the Lord, love of the Eucharist, constant meditation of the Word of God, prayer -- is lacking, one fails to fulfill this mission, of being that representative, image in our midst of the one Shepherd, that is Jesus Christ.
Q: What is the authority of this document written by a Vatican congregation?
Cardinal Cottier: Vatican congregations have authority to the extent that they are authoritative collaborators of the Pope.
I take the liberty to remind you that at the end the Pope has requested, with his signature, that this phrase be published in the document: "The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, on 31 August 2005, approved this present Instruction and ordered its publication."
The authority of the Pope is implicated by the fact that it is a text of a congregation, and the congregation responsible for Catholic education, which counted on the collaboration of the Congregation for Divine Worship -- two important congregations.
There are texts of congregations that are working documents; they have no need of the explicit approval of the Pope. Here, his approval is given and the order that it be published. The Pope's authority is present.
ZE05120102
Thursday, December 1, 2005
Thanks to Steve Bainbridge for
raising the authority/conscience issue and to Michael Perry for the citations
(Readings in Moral Theology No. 6 Dissent in the Church, Charles E. Curran and
Richard McCormick, eds. also has excellent essays espousing a variety of positions
on these issues). There is clearly a distinguished tradition within the Church
supporting the statement of Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism 973: “If, however,
after appropriate study, reflection, and prayer, a person is convinced that his
or her conscience is correct, in spite of a conflict with the moral teachings
of the Church, the person not only may but must
follow the dictates of conscience rather than the teachings of the Church.”
At the same time, there is a
counter tradition within the Church which is more in accord with what I
understood Patrick to be saying, i.e, a duty of assent to the teachings of the magisterium.
Moreover then Cardinal Ratzinger took the position in the Curran case that “In
any case, the faithful must accept not only the infallible magisterium. They
are to give the religious submission of intellect and will to the teaching
which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of Bishops [enunciate] on faith and
morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend
to proclaim it as a definitive act.” Curran and McCormick, supra at 362. I am confident
he made other similar statements on behalf of the Congregation.
The difference between these views
of conscience are between a conception of subjective conscience (Consider Avery
Dulles, Curran and McCormick, supra at 97, “According to the Catholic ethical
tradition, conscience is the ultimate subjective norm of all human action”) and
a conception which understands conscience as right or objective conscience.
Related to this issue is the
question of what counts as a teaching of the Church. If the Church is the
People of God with the hierarchy playing an important leadership role, what is
the status of hierarchal teachings that are not
accepted by the faithful (recognizing that the question of what counts as
acceptance could be very difficult to ascertain on some issues and easy on
others)? I am unsure. Consider this passage from Lumen Gentium, “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are
by the Holy One,(111) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this
special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in
matters of faith when "from the Bishops down to the last of the lay
faithful" (8*) they show universal agreement in matters of faith and
morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the
Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching
authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God
accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.(112).”
I think this passage is ambiguous, but I know some maintain that a proposition
can not count as a Church teaching if it is not accepted by the People of God.
I would be grateful for comments on this issue.
Catholics
like me, and I believe that includes most American Catholics (consider the
evidence accumulated by Andrew Greeley) face the question why remain a Catholic
if you reject the theory of authority put forward by the leaders of the Church.
Greeley himself has asked Catholics why they are still Catholic and has come up
with interesting answers. Hans Kung has spoken eloquently on the subject. In my
opinion, Garry Wills has not. Such answers appear regularly in Commonweal, The Tablet, and
the National Catholic Reporter. They often sustain me in hard times. Apart from such reasons, however, what seems
very important to me is not forever to be absorbed with dissent or anger against
Church leaders, but to recognize that Catholics of all stripes have much in
common, that we work within a rich spiritual and theological tradition, and that most of what
we do in our daily lives has little to do with the conflicts dividing us.
Steve
Jonathan Watson joins our ongoing conversation on homosexual priests:
There is one thought on MOJ which has shown itself in bits and pieces, but which is never outrightly discussed, and that is the question of this document being both a warning to seminaries and a reaction-by-confirmation to the scandals involving homosexual priests. This is the elephant in the closet to which MOJ commentators haven't spoken.
Father Richard John Neuhaus writes: "[T]he Church pastorally cares and prays for people who struggle with disordered desires. But she should not jeopardize the mission of the priesthood by ordaining those who are thought likely to succumb to such desires." Nor, I suspect, those who hold that such desires are normal and normative (supporting a "gay" culture). It should also be noted that gay culture in the majority of the world is not supportive of monogamy in any real way, and so supporting that culture would be to promote promoscuity.
Canon 1029 of the Code of Canon Law states on the ordination of priests that: "Only those are to be promoted to orders who, in the prudent judgment of their own bishop or of the competent major superior, all things considered, have integral faith, are moved by the right intention, have the requisite knowledge, possess a good reputation, and are endowed with integral morals and proven virtues and the other physical and psychic qualities in keeping with the order to be received." I suspect that under physical and psychic qualities falls not only homosexuality, but also sexual addictions, and other things which the Church considers to be disorders.
I remember vaguely the journal articles and discussions spurred by selective fertilization by blind and deaf individuals seeking to have a blind or deaf child. The danger with normalizing that which is not normal is that the individuals who do need help will not receive it. The Vatican, clearly in the minority in this world, believes that supporting a gay culture is trying to do precisely that - normalizing something inherently unnatural. Doing so might prevent homosexuals from receiving treatment or assistance otherwise needed.
The Catholic News Service has obtained a 1985 memo from the Congregation of Education (cited in the new document) (Hat Tip: Open Book) addressing the question of homosexual priests:
A church source said the memorandum was issued in the middle of the Vatican's visitation of U.S. seminaries in the mid-1980s and was circulated to many but not all U.S. bishops.
After making it clear that the virtue of chastity and commitment to celibacy are required of all candidates to the Latin-rite priesthood -- including heterosexuals -- the document stated:
"A candidate who is homosexually active or who leads a homosexual lifestyle (whether he is homosexual or not) is not acceptable.
"A high standard of chastity and integration of the personality is required before admission to seminary, such that latent or repressed homosexuality is also a counterindication requiring that the candidate not be accepted -- it would not be fair to the individual nor to the seminary community," it said.
The memorandum said that in the discussion of homosexuality distinctions needed to be made among practice, orientation and temptation. The first two -- practice and orientation -- are "counter-indications of acceptability," when orientation is understood as "commitment to or support of homosexual practices or lifestyles."
It said temptations not directly linked to that kind of orientation would not in themselves disqualify a priesthood candidate.
Although the memo is offered to show that the Vatican's stance hasn't changed, isn't there a difference given the memo's definition of disqualifying orientation as "commitment to or support of homosexual practices or lifestyles?" In other words, if an individual with "deep-rooted homosexual tendencies" commits himself not to support homosexual practices or lifestyles, wouldn't he take himself out of the disqualified category laid out by the 1985 memo?
Rob
As we explore ways in which Christianity can engage the culture, we also should take note of the ways in which the culture has engaged Christianity. I'm constantly noticing the extent to which Christians have become a market niche, a trend encouraged by certain pop culture phenomena. This morning I was listening to Christian radio and was intrigued disturbed by an advertisment for Christian cruises, during which we can fellowship with other Christians, be entertained by family-friendly comedians, listen to concerts every night by top Christian artists, and (in the advertisment's words), "spend five full days in total luxury." Here's the website:
With incredible talent and an even more incredible love for God, the artists bring a dimension to this family adventure that makes it closer to a spiritual retreat than simply a fun vacation. Lives are changed. Commitments are renewed. Spiritual batteries are recharged, and relationships are strengthened. Along with nightly concerts in four concert halls, there will be uproarious clean comedy and uplifting Christian speakers to round out the renewal.
This incredible journey will take place on Carnival’s 70,000-ton luxury liner, the Paradise. One of the world-class cruise line’s most spectacular ships, it boasts a Nautica spa, wide variety of restaurants, sparkling pools, and spacious cabins. You’ll enjoy the choice of formal dining at the Captain’s Gala Dinner, casual dining on the Lido Deck, or 24-hour stateroom service. Whether a midnight buffet or lunch by the pool, your dining options are nearly mind-boggling and certainly mouthwatering.
Nothing like a midnight buffet to bring us closer to Christ.
Rob
