More on that Seminary Document

There are reports, that there are reports, that the document regarding homosexuality in the seminary will allow for exceptions to an all-out ban.

The NC Reporter's John Allen cites "a senior Vatican official" to the effect that the document will have seminary officials exclude homosexually-oriented candidates:

1) If candidates have not demonstrated a capacity to live celibate lives for at least three years;

2) If they are part of a "gay culture," for example, attending gay pride rallies (a point, the official said, which applies both to professors at seminaries as well as students);

3) If their homosexual orientation is sufficiently "strong, permanent and univocal" as to make an all-male environment a risk.

Presumably, criterion number 1 intends to exclude those with a relatively recent (under 3 years) record of non-celibate behavior.

Criterion 2's meaning and appropriateness seem obvious enough.  Even if one has been a celibate homosexually-oriented man for three years, participating in "gay culture" implies that one regards homosexual activity, which is part of "gay culture," as morally acceptable, in at least some contexts.  Or at least that is a conclusion sensible observers could reasonably draw and therefore such a seminarian is a "risk". 

A commitment to personal celibacy on the part of such a seminarian would no more amount to upholding chastity than would a personally celibate heterosexual priest's public support for heterosexual porn or fornication and adultery by heterosexuals.  As there is no chaste way to fornicate or commit adultery, there is no chaste way to engage in homosexual acts.  Consequently, even if the seminarian himself does not engage in such acts, his support for a "gay culture" that does encourage such actions undercuts his support for chastity, not to mention (if we're being realistic) place him in a near occasion of sin.

The fact is, some celibate homosexuals see homosexuality as morally equivalent to heterosexuality. They hold that as there are celibate heterosexual priests who nevertheless support others' heterosexual activity in marriage, so there are celibate homosexual priests who nevertheless support others' homosexual activity in marriage or what they regard as its equivalent.

It is not enough, then, that a seminarian be personally committed to celibacy.  He shouldn't be doing things to bolster "the gay culture."

Criterion 3-- excluding men whose homosexual orientation is sufficiently "strong, permanent and univocal" as to make an all-male environment a risk--obviously makes sense.  The implications of this norm are that 1) there are men whose homosexual orientation is not sufficiently strong, permanent and univocal as to make an all-male environment a risk and 2) that those assessing such seminarians can and will make sound judgments in the matter. 

Regarding the first point, it seems likely that there are homosexually-oriented men for whom their homosexuality isn't a major struggle.  Or so the data on variation in intensities of sexual drive suggest. The example of chaste homosexually-oriented men (including some priests) I have known would seem to corroborate the point--at least for me. The question is, "Will those assessing such seminarians make sound judgments regarding a seminarian's homosexuality, especially nowadays?"

Who knows? But it's something we have at least some reason to question.

In theory, it might be reasonable to accept the three criteria and see if, with everyone making his best effort and playing by the same rules, things get better.  The trouble is, over the last forty years we've heard so many commitments, pledges, and promises to orthodoxy and fidelity in seminaries and elsewhere, and we've still had heterodoxy and the sexual abuse scandal and so many other problems despite all the exalted talk.  Many people simply don't trust the people in charge, anymore.  Many people don't think those in charge can exercise good judgment or will carefully apply the criteria.  The not unreasonable suspicion, based on four decades of experience, is that the seminary culture, if not the priestly culture, has been so damaged that only a radical change will work.

A priest quoted in the press argued that most priests wind up working with women in parish and other ministry, yet that doesn't prevent us from ordaining heterosexual men. The implication was that therefore we shouldn't worry about ordaining homosexual seminarians, who as priests live with other men, and not just work alongside them. But that seems naively or perhaps nefariously to overlook the fact that most heterosexual priests don't live with the women with whom they work.  If they did, then we'd have to revisit whether to allow heterosexual priests to work with women, not whether we should ordain heterosexual men.

It's been said that ultimately the matter will come down not to documents but to people. Of course no document matters if the people who are supposed to follow it don't or won't. Yet some norms are easier to follow than others.  Some norms can rely too much on the judgment of those who are supposed to apply them. Let's hope and pray that the new document from the Vatican establishes sound norms that make it easier for seminary authorities to deal with problems. And let's hope and pray that the people in charge are the right people to apply the norms. Or if they aren't, that they are quickly replaced by people who are. Oremus.

Comments

[Sharon]

The Church will be dammed if she does and dammed if she doesn't.

I people with homosexual orientation are not permitted to enter the seminary howls will go up about the injustice of the Church from the forces arraigned against the Church.

If people with homosexual orientation are permitted to enter the seminary and things go pear shaped down the track howls will go up that the Church was complicit in the abuse of children and adolescents.

[Ed Peters]

excellent post...one thing, let's keep moving people away from the idea that "celibate" is a synonym for "continent". theya re not the same. btw: a complete ban (for liciety only, in almost all cases) against ordaining a "homosexual" (whatever exactly that is, and however that is assessed) would be hard to square with CDF's earlier statement that "homsexuals" enjoy all the same (morally licit) rights as others, and with matrimonial jurisprudence that holds them capable of marriage. yes yes, I know, no one has the right to ordination. agreed. but keep in mind, that principle was EXACTLY the one use to bar untold numbers of orthodox men from orders in the 70s and 80s. It is a very easily abused principle. we need something more solid to rest on.

[Mark Brumley]

abusus non tollit.

[Ed Peters]

Scio, et nihil in verbis meis dicunt contrarium. Memento, titulum statumque "principle" cedo.

[Mark Brumley]

Scio, back at you.

But: The fact that authorities abused their right to judge the fitness of candidates for ordination to exclude orthodox seminarians by claiming that no one has the right to be ordained does not mean that we ought not to give authorities norms that allow them to exclude men with homosexual orientation.

Nor is there a valid comparison with someone who has no real disqualifications for being ordained being told by seminary authority that he can justly be denied ordination simply because no one has the right to be ordained. The latter is arbitrary and unjust for that reason. (I take your example, but I think it likely more reasons were given than that, even if false reasons.) Denying someone ordination because of a homosexual orientation would not necessarily be arbitrary, given the risks associated with homosexuality in the priesthood.

The CDF document did not refer to this in its discussion of rights, so to claim that an all-out ban would be hard to square with it doesn't follow. Moreover, the document and other documents on the subject make clear that notwithstanding the fundamental equality of rights possessed by persons with homosexual orientation, the exercise of those rights can be regulated due to the problems a person's homosexual orientation can pose for others. Thus, while a homosexual person may have a right, as a human being, to coach teenage boys, or at least a human right not arbitrarily to be denied a coaching position, it is not necessarily an unjust denial of the exercise of his human right to refuse to hire a homosexually oriented person for such a position.

While justice requires that equals be treated equally, it does not oblige unequals to be treated equally, but rather that they be treated unequally, in proportion to their inequality. Someone who has a problem judged by competent authority likely to harm his ability to fulfill the responsibilities of priestly ministry (including continence), is not treated unfairly in being denied ordination when others who do not have his problem are not so denied.

Even someone who otherwise might be reasonably judged capable of fulfilling the responsibilities of priestly ministry (including continence) even with a homosexual orientation is not treated unjustly if higher authority determines it lacks the wherewithal in seminary personnel to make sound judgments regarding homosexual persons who might be fit for ministry. That, it seems to me, may well be the position we are in. Consequently, an all-out ban would not be unjust, either because those being denied ordination are reasonably judged to be at too great a risk of not being able to fulfill their priestly responsibilities (including continence), or because those who would be in a position to assess whether someone with a homosexual orientation could in a particular case fulfill his responsibilities (including continence) are not competent, morally or intellectually, to make sound judgments in that regard.

The authority to exclude men on the basis of homosexual orientation could, I suppose, be abused if men with no homosexual orientation were falsely accused of it. But then they could be falsely accused of other things easier to fabricate.

I have no problem asserting that homosexuality is not an intrinsic disqualifier for priestly ordination (not referring of course to invalidity but to inadvisability). It just seems that we may be at a point where it is practically impossible to have reasonable assurance that sound judgments will, in general, be made by those in authority when it comes to assessing whether a given man with a homosexual orientation is a reasonable risk. It may be, therefore, that for the time being we need norms that reflect that reality and don't allow people in authority to make such determinations. That means we have to risk not ordaining homosexually oriented men who would be good priests because we think the more likely situation, given those in charge, is that we shall wind up ordaining homosexually oriented men who would not be able to fulfill their priestly responsibilities.

[Ruby]

This is a great blog/post. I have been having a similar discussion with my friends which has led to the question of: "will this actually make a difference?" There have been visitations in the past (in the 80's and 90's) and yet the number of homosexuals in the priest hood remained constant or increased and the sex scandal blossomed. What are your thoughts given Benedict's track record - he elevated Leveda, Bishop of SF, to the position of doctrinal czar for instance. Are there any teeth in this new effort?

[Mark Brumley]

We will just have to wait and see whether there are "any teeth in this new effort". I could speculate, but it would just be speculation.

[Patrick Buckley]

I don't trust baby boomer era seminary staff to enforce the new policy. The dissenters have taken over the vast majority of the seminaries and they will not truely cooperate with the Holy See. The center of the culture of dissent in the American Church today is actually found in the university and seminary staffs. We have a very long and hard march to build a parallel set of institutions to replace hundreds of schools that have been completely conquered by the "progessive" opposition. I would like to think that the Holy Father can change things in the American Church in "one fell swoop", but my realistic side tells me that fixing things is going to take decades of disciplined work by orthodox Catholics who will have to build a whole system of orthodox universities to replace the old system that is catholic only in name. The more exceptions that the new policy makes to accomodate a liberal attitude towards homosexuality, the more likely it is that the liberal seminary staff will be able to make the policy have no practical effect at all. Even if the policy was as strict and absolute as it could be, the disenters will lie and cheat to keep gays in the seminaries because they have no respect for proper authority or any part of the Bible that is not consistant with secular liberal values. I applaude the effort by Pope Benedict to do something, but if it is to have any real effect at all the policy must be strict and absolute. The world is watching what we do in the light of the sex abuse scandal. The stonger and clearer the ban is, the greater the prospects for the Church recovering some of her lost moral authority. What do you think?

[Jim Mac Neil]

It most be noted that the great scandals of recent times have so much more to do with the people in charge than the actual offences. Given the size of the work force of priests ther would have to be some troubled people in that number. The horror, the scandle that's rocked the catholic faithfull is the lack of care and response on the part of the Bishops. They allowed it to go on and even covered it up . If each case had been attented to properly in the right manner we would not be where we are today! It's this great sense of betrail by the people in charge that has rocked the faithfull of our church.The Bishops and the other people involved in the cover up felt they were above reproach, untouchable can do what they want. Well they can't! The only good thing to come out of this for the faithfull catholic is that they have been redirected to Christ as the center of their lives and the cult of the priest, Bishops etc. has lost hold over them and never will it return. So let the witch hunt the scape goating stop. They can't fool the people twice.