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?
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 culturephenomena. 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.
I appreciate the humility underlying Michael S.'s conception of his role as "helping the world see through the Church's eyes," but it triggers in my mind a broader question as to what the proper scope and limits of the Catholic legal theory project are. Is the project simply to engage the legal culture with the Church's truth claims? Or are we also to engage the Church with truths discovered -- or at least helpfully articulated -- by the legal culture? Maybe the eligibility requirements for the priesthood are not readily amenable to insights derived from lives in the law (other the lawyer's natural inclination to hold up the current policy to the logic of past teachings), but won't there be other areas where legal theorists will have something to say, not just from the Church, but to the Church? I'm not just talking about prudential judgment regarding the application of theological claims to the legal system. For example, the political theory insights of John Courtney Murray and others produced some dramatic shifts in the Church's stance on religious liberty -- shifts that encompassed the theological claims underlying religious liberty, not just the implementation of fixed theological claims in the political culture. So while Catholic legal theorists are not necessarily equipped to enter into the ongoing theological discourse within the Church, don't claims grounded in legal theory have the potential to shift theological discourse?
To be clear, I don't quibble with the thrust of Michael S.'s reflection, and I don't think the Catholic legal theory project should ever become the let's-make-Catholic-legal-theory-more-like-liberal-legal-theory project, but isn't the bridge we're constructing between the Church and the legal culture open to traffic in both directions?
The Volokh Conspiracy reports on Dean Dobranski's response to the Wall Street Journalarticle on the controversy surrounding Ave Maria Law School's proposed move to Florida.
Ann Althouse has opened an interesting conversation over proposed legislation in Wisconsin requiring school districts to teach abstinence as the preferred mode of sex education. She takes a subsidiarity-friendly perspective, preferring a localized approach, but this raises an interesting question as to whether such a pressing cultural and social issue might warrant the top-down imposition of some collective wisdom.
Bishop Skylstad, on behalf of the USCCB, has issued an explanatory statement to accompany the release of the Vatican document on the admission of seminarians. (Hat Tip: Open Book) Here's the heart of it:
Formation is not a time for an applicant to begin to resolve serious issues in his life, whether they involve addictive behavior, personal finances, sexual matters, the ability to work collaboratively with others, or any other significant concern. A candidate still facing issues like these is not acceptable until they are resolved. A man who has a personal agenda that he might place ahead of the Gospel is also not an acceptable candidate. Like marriage, a priestly vocation is not centered on the search for one’s individual, personal fulfillment.
In this instruction, the Congregation for Catholic Education is exercising a Christian realism about what is expected in candidates for the priesthood. This realism understands the challenges of our time. It expresses the valid concern that all candidates must display an “affective maturity” which enables them to relate properly to others as chaste, celibate priests who can faithfully representthe teaching of the Church about sexuality, including the immorality of homosexual genital activity.This realism also makes it clear that it is certainly not acceptable if a candidate practices homosexuality or, whether active or not, if he identifies himself principally by a homosexual inclination or orientation. It is also not acceptable for a candidate to support the “gay culture” and to be so concerned with homosexual issues that he cannot sincerely represent the Church’s teaching on sexuality. In doing so, he limits his ability to minister pastorally to all those in his care.
But won't many individuals with "deep-rooted homosexual tendencies" have already resolved the issue and accepted the fact of those tendencies, even if they intend not to act on them? It's not comparable to a gambling addiction that is being worked out. Even assuming that homosexual tendencies are "objectively disordered," they still are part of the individual's identity. It seems that coming to grips with that identity is necessary to move forward with a commitment to celibacy. Does the statement presume that a successfully celibate individual necessarily has less deeply rooted homosexual tendencies than an unsuccessfully celibate individual?
Another part of Bishop Skylstad's statement seems to raise some tension, albeit implicitly, with the Vatican's position:
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.
When Jesus told his apostles how difficult it would be “for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven,” they responded with amazement. Jesus’ reply reminds us of the power of God’s grace: “For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.” (Cf. Matt. 19.23-26).
So why is it beyond the power of God to mold an individual with "deep rooted homosexual tendencies" into a "truly dedicated priest?" Consider the relevant portion of the Catechism:
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
If "Christian perfection" is a legitimate aspiration for individuals with deep-seated homosexual tendencies, why not the priesthood? Is the Church cabining God's transformative power, or is the fact that the tendencies remain "deep seated" a sign that God's transformative power has not been at work and thus that the individual has not been called to the priesthood? Does the latter possibility rest on the presumption that homosexuality can be "cured?"
I tend to mind my own business in public -- that is, until someone decides to start using obscenities around my kids, at which time I enter confrontational mode, motivated by the worthiest of causes. But is my cause worthy? What's the problem with swearing? And if it's not OK for kids, why is it OK for adults? My evangelical sensibilities bristle even when I hear folks swear in an adults-only context, especially when it's done by fellow followers of Christ. In this regard, check out Joe Carter's long overdue "Christian Critique of Swearing."
Certainly my sensitivity has dulled over the years since a childhood when I would equate a stray four-letter word with a greased chute to Hell (especially since one of the coolest Christians alive does it), but the question persists: is it OK for Christians to swear? Is opposition to swearing tied up in a legalistic approach to faith? Should the ongoing cultural engagement project challenge the rapidly loosening standards of proper speech in our public life?
I'm still looking for guidance on what the Vatican means in its statement that individuals cannot be admitted to seminary if they "support the so-called gay culture." Amy Welborn offers this:
[W]hen it comes to guidelines, as reasonable as it might seem to do the "no homosexuals in the seminary thing," it doesn't get at the problem. The problem is not, in simple terms, the homosexual priest. The problem is priests who don't believe what the Catholic Church teaches on sexuality, who don't preach it, who don't witness to it in the confessional, and who don't live it in their private lives. . . .
I've already heard lots of little snide remarks and questions about the "gay culture" aspect of the document. Well, this is an attempt to get at what I'm talking about, and to me, the whole thing would be far simpler if the document simply emphasized that a candidate for priesthood is indicating his sense that he is being called to minister to God's people as a Catholic priest. Brilliant. Which means that when it comes to this foundational revelation of what the creation of man and woman as man and woman implies, symbolizes and concretizes - they are on board. Completely. And they will embrace what the Church teaches, will teach it themselves, and will commit to helping, with compassion and understanding, Catholics live this out themselves. Again, brilliant.
I guess I have trouble seeing how targeting "gay culture" does the trick. Maybe I'm missing the nuance because I don't have a firm enough grounding in moral theology, but I see the Vatican providing more fodder for those who wish to caricature the Church's teachings on sexuality as driven in large part by anti-gay prejudice and fear. The question remains, in my mind, why not focus on celibacy? Why not focus on the "sexually permissive culture," instead of the "gay culture?"
Apparently the Vatican document on gays in the priesthood was posted on an Italian news service website prior to next week's official release:
The long-awaited document is scheduled to be released by the Vatican next Tuesday. A church official who has read the document confirmed the authenticity of the Internet posting by the Adista news agency.
The document said that "the Church, while deeply respecting the people in question, cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture."
I'm anxious to read the document itself, especially the reference to the support of "gay culture." I'm assuming that the Vatican is not particularly concerned with our pop-culture conceptions of that term, but I'm wondering what it means in particular: Support for civil rights for gays? Support for gay marriage? Support for equal treatment of the gay lifestyle within the Church? Embracing the gay lifestyle as an equally viable alternative to heterosexuality in general? An unabashed devotion to Queer Eye? Or something else?
A proposed "national curriculum" for babies and toddlers in the U.K. provides a fascinating case study of how (not) to implement conceptions of the common good while honoring subsidiarity, family autonomy, and cultural pluralism.
