Vatican to Start U.S. Seminary Evaluations

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050823/ap_on_re_us/catholic_seminaries ^ | AP via Yahoo!

[frogjerk]

Three years after the clergy sex abuse crisis rocked the Roman Catholic church, a Vatican-directed evaluation of all U.S. seminaries is scheduled to begin late next month.

Archbishop Edwin O'Brien, the U.S. coordinator for the review, said 117 bishops and seminary staff will visit more than 220 campuses, working in teams of three for smaller programs or four for the larger ones, Catholic News Service reported Monday.

The visits are one result of the abuse crisis that hit the American church with full force in 2002. The study will give special attention to schools' preparation for the celibate life and fidelity to church teachings on morality.

Another brewing issue that could be involved is whether seminaries should enroll priestly candidates who are homosexual but willing to abide by the celibacy rule.

O'Brien could not be reached Monday at the offices of the Archdiocese for the Military Services in Washington, which he leads. A spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said he had no further information.

The teams will review documents provided by the schools in advance and may interview teachers, students and recent alumni. Reviewers will file their reports directly to the Vatican, which will then send confidential evaluations to the bishops and religious superiors responsible for the schools and prepare an over-all evaluation, the news service said.

The teams were appointed by the Vatican Congregation for Catholic Education, which oversees seminaries, and in consultation with the U.S. bishops' committee on priestly training and heads of male religious orders.

The education congregation in Rome has also been drafting new guidelines for accepting candidates for the priesthood that could address questions about gays. The status of that document and its exact contents are unknown.

[frogjerk]

Amen.

[TheGeezer]

Another brewing issue that could be involved is whether seminaries should enroll priestly candidates who are homosexual but willing to abide by the celibacy rule.

I believe canon law forbids ordination of known homosexuals to prevent the kind of problems the Church has suffered in th elast thirty years.

[longtermmemmory]

I only pray they do not take from the pro-homo left wing infultrators.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Let's hope it has some good effect.

The New Man in Rome seems to know spot on what's happening over in the Church in America.

He had any number of visiting people from the US address it and bring evidence to Rome, when he was the leadership (doctrine) post previous before he became Pope. He has no illusions about the "filth" (his own words) that has infected the Church in some areas of the world, and is going to root it out it seems.

[frogjerk]

Get ready for the CINO's like "Catholics for Choice" to scream bloody murder when the Church purges the "filth" from some of their seminaries...

[frogjerk]

Ping!

[sitetest]

Dear TheGeezer,

"I believe canon law forbids ordination of known homosexuals to prevent the kind of problems the Church has suffered in th elast thirty years."

I don't think that such an impediment is noted in Canon Law.

I've read a document issued during the reign of Pope Blessed John XXIII that forbade? counseled strongly against? the ordination of known homosexuals, but that isn't part of Canon Law.

That the stricture has gone unenforced by the Holy See for over four decades strongly suggests that the Holy See did not/does not view it as enforceable positive law.

That being said, my own personal opinion is that known homosexuals should not be ordained.


sitetest

[NYer]

I believe canon law forbids ordination of known homosexuals to prevent the kind of problems the Church has suffered in th elast thirty years.

Those bishops amenable to 'progress' work around the law.

[NYer]

Archbishop Edwin O'Brien, the U.S. coordinator for the review, said 117 bishops and seminary staff will visit more than 220 campuses, working in teams of three for smaller programs or four for the larger ones

The teams were appointed by the Vatican Congregation for Catholic Education, which oversees seminaries, and in consultation with the U.S. bishops' committee on priestly training and heads of male religious orders.

Are the teams comprised of American bishops? How will that 'collegiality' translate into a wink and nod of approval for certain liberal bishops whose seminaries are not up to snuff?

[ninenot]

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz will be visiting Detroit/Sacred Heart as the leader of a seminary review team.

Don't know about any others at this time.

[Romulus]

The 1961 Document, "Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders" (as promulgated by the Vatican's Sacred Congregation for Religious on February 2, 1961) speaks directly to the question of homosexuality in the priesthood, as does Pope Paul VI's encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus (“On Priestly Celibacy”).

[ELS]

I pray that it won't be another whitewash.

[DBeers]

• Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on Non-discrimination of Homosexual Persons

  II. Applications

  10. "Sexual orientation" does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. "Letter," No. 3) and evokes moral concern.

  11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

  13. Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.

• Religiosorum Institutio

  30. Those To Be Excluded; Practical Directives

  Advantage to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.

  Additionally, for any interested -a Vatican statement more recent than "Religiosorum Institutio" the 1961 document. Relevant article I read a while ago:

  Clear Vatican Statement against Ordination of Homosexuals

  -excerpt:

  VATICAN, Dec 5, 02 (CWNews.com) -- A leading Vatican official has confirmed the Church's position that men with homosexual tendencies should not be ordained.

  In a letter dated May 16, 2002, Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez-- who was, at the time, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship-- said: "Ordination to the diaconate or priesthood of persons with homosexual tendencies is absolutely unadvisable and imprudent, and from a pastoral point of view, extremely risky." The letter by Cardinal Medina Estevez, which was a response to a query from a bishop, has now been published in the November-December edition of a bulletin put out by the Congregation for Divine Worship.

[sitetest]

Dear Romulus,

Yes, I believed I mentioned that the 1961 document existed.

I was merely noting that this wasn't part of Canon Law, and that the document has been roundly ignored for some decades without drawing any rebuke of any bishop, as far as I know, from the Holy Father.

One might question the seriousness of a rule promulgated nearly 45 years ago, and never enforced.

I'm unaware of Pope Paul's encyclical. Can you post the relevant section? I'd appreciate it.


Thanks,


sitetest

[Romulus]

II. PRIESTLY FORMATION

Unsuitable Candidates

64. Those who are discovered to be unfit for physical, psychological or moral reasons should be quickly removed from the path to the priesthood. Let educators appreciate that this is one of their very grave duties. They must neither indulge in false hopes and dangerous illusions nor permit the candidate to nourish these hopes in any way, with resultant damage to himself or to the Church. The life of the celibate priest, which engages the whole man so totally and so delicately, excludes in fact those of insufficient physical, psychic and moral qualifications. Nor should anyone pretend that grace supplies for the defects of nature in such a man.

65. After the capability of a man has been ascertained and he has been admitted to the course of studies leading to the goal of the priesthood, care should be taken for the progressive development of a mature personality through physical, intellectual and moral education directed toward the control and personal dominion of his temperament, sentiments and passions.

[sitetest]

Dear Romulus,

Although I don't have much trouble connecting the dots in what you posted from Pope Paul's encyclical, unfortunately, it seems to leave a lot to the imagination, to interpretation.

Are there clearer definitions of things within the document?

I think that Pope John's document is a lot more straightforward.

Thanks for the cite.


sitetest

[DBeers]

One might question the seriousness of a rule promulgated nearly 45 years ago, and never enforced.

What of those rules that are 2000+ years old -one may also question the seriousness of any rule never enforced (sounds like the spirit of Vatican II) -is the Church required to enforce something to maintain it as legitimate requirement/teaching?

In my opinion, seriousness embodies legitimacy based in absolute truth... Effective enforcement of a rule is another matter all together and can not be used to moral relatively ascertain a rule to be non-serious etcetera.

e.g. The rule against adultery is no less serious if all are doing it or the Church can not enforce it...

[johnb838]

I don't see how they can ordain people who claim to be homosexual unless they deny that it's an intrinsically disordered condition. Which they don't. Men are supposed to have their sexual issues worked out if they are to be able to handle the demands and challenges of the celibate life. Many are called, few are chosen. Fewer still live up to it, but that's beside the point.

[sitetest]

Dear DBeers,

"What of those rules that are 2000+ years old -one may also question the seriousness of any rule never enforced (sounds like the spirit of Vatican II) -is the Church required to enforce something to maintain it as legitimate requirement/teaching?"

To which 2000-year old rules are you referring?

Whether it sounds like the "spirit of Vatican II" or not, it is a defense that I've heard used.

And guess what? As much as I hate it, until the pope actually does something about enforcing the rule, it's a pretty good defense, from a practical perspective.

"You're all worked up over the ordination of homosexuals, sitetest, but the pope, for all the rhetoric of 44 years ago, doesn't really seem to care. He doesn't discipline any bishop for ordaining known homosexuals."

It's similar to Chappaquiddick Ted's self-defense on abortion. He says, it's the bishops' problem, not his. He has his position, and they don't nail him personally on it, so he assumes that for all their rhetoric about the topic, they don't really mean it.

And you know, he's got a point.

If the bishops were serious about the issue of abortion, they'd excommunicate him, and Arnie, and Tom Ridge, and Barbara Mikulski, and George Pataki, and a couple of thousand other pro-choice "Catholic" politicians.

But they don't. So the pro-choice "Catholic" pols laugh at the Church, laugh at pro-lifers, laugh at the bishops.

And those who would turn away from their crimes if the gauntlet were thrown down before them, they don't. Because it isn't necessary (at least in their own judgment). Sure, they'll get their comeuppance when they must answer for their lives, but how many might repent if they were disciplined appropriately? As well, they drag others down into scandal with them. I can't tell you how many pro-choice "Catholics" who sit in the pews on Sunday have used the same lame-a$$ argument to me. "The bishops don't doing anything about Kennedy. They don't really mean it."

"Sitetest, you're a fanatic on this issue. But even the bishops and the pope disagree with you. After all, they haven't done anything to Sen. Kennedy, or our own Sen. Mikulski. Obviously, the issue isn't REALLY that important to them. Catholics can disagree in peace on this issue. All that 'there can be no dissent on this topic' is just hot air. They don't do anything to back it up."

Gee, and you know, the folks who say that to me are right. As far as I can determine by their ACTIONS, the bishops don't seem to mean it. At least, not most of them.

And if the pope were serious about not ordaining homosexuals, he'd reiterate the rule, and crack some skulls when bishops disobeyed.

If you make a rule, and don't enforce it, don't be surprised if people who don't want to follow it wind up not following it.


sitetest

[Salvation]

We knew they were coming!