Skip to comments.On the admission of homosexuals to seminaries
Posted on 01/14/2005 3:44:50 PM PST by sinkspur
The long-awaited document from the Congregation for Catholic Education on the admission of homosexuals to Catholic seminaries may be nearing publication. In mid-January, word was that the document could be released in a Vatican press conference as early as February. On the other hand, sources advised caution -- desk drawers in Vatican offices are full of documents that once reached the brink of publication, but for one reason or another never saw the light of day.
If released in something like its present form, the document is expected to say that "homosexuals" should not be admitted to seminaries, and hence should not be ordained as priests.
Sources told NCR that it is unlikely, however, that the document will go into detail in terms of defining "homosexuality" -- whether it refers to a transitory impulse, an enduring orientation, or something in between -- which means that in practice some discretion would be left in the hands of bishops and seminary rectors to determine whether a given case amounts to "homosexuality" in the sense intended by the policy.
In other words, orthodox bishops will obey Rome while liberal and homo bishops will have enough wiggle room to continue to flaunt Rome and common sense.
At least the laity will have a bargaining chip in order to bring pressure on the bishops to do what's right, and the media publicity will be an opportunity for catechesis in those places still willing to teach the Truth.
No doubt the USCCB will produce a watered down version.
That this question even has to be pondered to arrive at an answer is ridiculous.
In actuality it is more a matter of enforcement. The question was really never a question as far as the Magisterium has been concerned. The problem is that enforcement of already clear prohibition was in the hands of the Bishops -some very liberal.
4. If a student in a minor seminary has sinned gravely against the sixth commandment with a person of the same or the other sex, or has been the occasion of grave scandal in the matter of chastity, he is to be dismissed immediately as stipulated in canon 1371, except if prudent consideration of the act and of the situation of the student by the superiors or confessors should counsel a different policy in an individual case, sc., in the case of a boy who has been seduced and who is gifted with excellent qualities and is truly penitent, or when the sin was an objectively imperfect act.
If a novice or a professed religious who has not yet made perpetual vows should be guilty of the same offense, he is to be sent away from the community or, should the circumstances so demand, he is to be dismissed with due observance of canon 647, S 2, 1 . If a perpetually professed religious is found guilty of any such sin, he is to be perpetually excluded from tonsure and the reception of any further Order. If the case belongs to the external forum, he is to receive a canonical warning unless, as provided for in canons 653 and 668, there be grounds for sending him back to the world (cf. Stat. Gen., art. 34, S 2, 4 ).
Lastly, should he be a subdeacon or deacon, then, without prejudice to the above-mentioned directives and if the case should so demand, the superiors should take up with the Holy See the question of his reduction to the lay state.
For these reasons, clerics who in their diocese or religious who in another community have sinned gravely against chastity with another person are not to be admitted with a view to the priesthood, even on a trial basis, unless there be clear evidence of excusing causes or of circumstances which can at least notably diminish responsibility in conscience (Circular Letter of S. C. of the Sacraments, n. 16; Canon Law Digest, 4, p. 314).
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.
I suspect the Vatican document will define homosexuality with no wiggle room in addition to clearly stating that all decisions regarding determination and authority are the the Vatican's domain.
Did you not read the article?
How, exactly, would the Vatican make a determination of a local case? JPII leaves everything he possibly can to the local bishops' conferences, and he will do so in this case as well.
I suggest the document will leave no wiggle room to determine contrary to the banning of homosexuals. The Bishops will simply have to execute the plan.
If a man is not sexually active, how does the Vatican propose to identify the homosexuals?
Gaydar of course!
That which is not objectively observed, manifested or admitted will not be a problem. The fact that the document is even needed suggests there are openly homosexual individuals some possibly active sexually known by and accepted by Bishops. I would suspect the document is for these known types of cases.
Sometime before the process begins next fall, the Vatican expects to publish a long-awaited and potentially controversial document on whether candidates with homosexual inclinations should be admitted to the priesthood.
The document on homosexuality has been in the works for more than five years. An early draft of the document took the position that homosexuals should not be admitted to the priesthood; in its current form, the document takes a more nuanced approach to the whole issue, sources said.
The seminary visitation is expected to focus particularly on formation for celibate chastity and on admissions criteria. It was first announced in April 2002, after U.S. bishops and Vatican officials held an urgent meeting to map out a response to the sex abuse crisis.
Okay ... can we be frank here for a moment? While I agree with Sinkspur that there has to be some way to "measure" whether or not an individual is homosexual, we tend to already recognize the common traits (as sexist and biased as that may sound). Perhaps, dear Sinkspur, a more 'scientific' method needs to be implemented but to do so would draw down even more hellfire and brimstone on the Catholic Church which already has taken a stance against "homosexual unions". We are so un PC!! (/sarcasm).
I believe the Vatican 'knows' full well who the homosexual cardinals and bishops are or, at the very least, has a good idea. I happen to reside in a diocese that is brimming with 'actively' homosexual priests. Fr. Minkler's report to Cardinal O'Connor on this, was posted to the Internet, naming names and citing situations to justify its claims.
Fr. Minkler's (now outdated) report managed to reach the bishop's office in February of last year. When he returned from a retreat, he found a message on his answering machine advising him to come immediately to the Chancelry Office. Once he arrived, he was handed a legal document attesting that he was not the author of this report, told to sign it and report back on Monday, to meet with Bishop Hubbard. On Sunday, his sister found him dead, laying on top of a blanket on the floor of his kitchen.
This was a very orthodox priest, concerned with the ongoing decay in this diocese. At the request of the now deceased Cardinal O'Connor, he culled information from witnesses to produce this report. His 'death', though ruled a suicide, was most suspicious. What suicide victim drags a blanket into their kitchen, and lies face down on it? Nothing about his 'death' makes any sense, other than its connection to the report he wrote to Cardinal O'Connor.
Within days, the report was taken off and the web site was totally cleansed. Fortunately, I downloaded a copy, before it disapeared. Reading it through, it came as no surprise to see my (now former) pastor listed not once, but 3 times. There are certain physical characteristics that set homosexuals apart from heterosexuals. The way he walked, the way he "made eyes" at his Associate Pastor (until he was shipped out), surrounding the Risen Christ statue on the back wall of the Sanctuary with gold lame fabric and lace; wearing red vestments and covering the altar with a red altar cloth, at the Christmas liturgy. Granted, these are not 'scientific' proofs but, as a woman who spent nearly 20 years working with homosexuals, I can pick them out of a crowd, like radar.
Like Fr. Minkler, there are other orthodox priests out there who have monitored their dioceses. Ultimately, it comes from the bishop. Our bishop is a strong supporter of the feminist and gay agendas. Those of us who have met him, instinctively 'know' that he is gay. Again, that is not a scientific argument to indict him. However, over the past 27 years of his leadership, the top parishes have been assigned to his 'right hand' men. For the most part, these are run by homosexual priests.
We must, as a church, practice what we preach. It may take several generations to rout out these men but it must be done. Their effect on admissions to the priesthood, has been devastating. I have met and spoken with several 'former' seminarians who dropped out because of the homosexualism prevalent in the seminaries they attended. Here were men willing to devote their lives in service to the Lord, only to learn "they" were 'homo'phobic.
It is my daily and sincere prayer that vocations increase. What we truly need, however, are well formed, celibate, men, willing to lay their lives down in service to the Lord.
These intutions would never stand the test of a canonical church trial, which each and every one of these men would demand.
The way to "rout them out" is to not ordain them in the first place. I agree that homosexuals should be barred from seminaries and from ordination.
But, as long as the Church continues to ordain celibate men exclusively, it runs the risk of homosexuals masking themselves and continuing to infiltrate the priesthood.
Are the Eastern Rites overrun with homosexuals?
Puhlease!!! Celibacy is NOT the reason!!! It's an excuse.
Sinkie, we all know how much you would like to be a priest. You have that option but it would mean becoming an Eastern (probably Ukrainian) Rite priest, joining the Orthodox, or becoming a Protestant minister. You wouldn't be the first one. The one has nothing to do with the other. Christ was celibate .. end of argument. Puhlease .... stop projecting this argument! It doesn't wash.
Are the Eastern Rites overrun with homosexuals?
I wouldn't know. So far, I have only met a few of their priests, all of whom were celibate and very orthodox. But their ranks are far smaller in proportion to the Latin Rite priests. I am not familiar with the screening policies in place in their seminaries.
However, I will point out that those Maronite priests who wish to serve outside of Lebanon MUST BE CELIBATE. Married priests are not allowed to serve outside of Lebanon and I am sure there are solid reasons for this. The task of serving 'overseas' is far more demanding on a family. Today, we celebrated 'Sunday of the Deceased Priests' in the Maronite Church. In his homily, Father exposed what life is really like for a priest. While saying the Divine Liturgy and Consecrating the Divine Mysteries is the pinnacle of service, it doesn't end there. He went on at great length, to describe the hours spent in his ministry, not only to the parish but as a hospital chaplain, attending to the requests from the bishop, assisting the RC Diocese of Albany. He emphasized that it requires total personal devotion. There is no room for family in that lifestyle. It would be nothing less than greed, especially in the Latin Rite.
Christ was God, as well.
I'll stop projecting the argument when the Church admits married men to the priesthood. Not until.
What it would do, is unjustly cast suspicion on all the unmarried without solving the problem. Those men who genuinely believed in the value of celibacy and wished to remain in that state would have the added burden of being considered shirtlifters.
Your solution might solve the problem if only married men were allowed in the priesthood, thus doing away with the celibate state entirely. That would be lamentable.
Put me in close, day-to-day contact with a group of young men for several months or even weeks and I will tell you which of them has homosexual tendencies, or your money back. And I'm not even a spiritual director.
As opposed to ALL priests being considered shirtlifters today? Look, the Latin Rite priesthood is in a fix that it won't get out of for some time. Ordaining married men should at least be discussed, given the response of those same men to the permanent diaconate.
Well there you go, sounding just like Sr. Joan Chittister, from Call to Action. "We will not stop until the church ordains women".
Vatican II reinstituted the Deaconate. You benefited. Apparently, that is not enough. What's that old expression: "Give someone an inch and they will take a mile". Your desire to be a 'married' priest does not fit the Catholic Church. Had it not been for VCII, you wouldn't even be serving as a deacon.
If you don't like it "here", leave. But, please, don't rally to impose what "you want" on the rest of the church. That would be utterly selfish.