Pope to Church: Risky Seminarians Must Go

National Catholic Register ^ | Sept. 15-21, 2002 | ELLEN ROSSINI

[Polycarp]

 

Pope to Church: Risky Seminarians Must Go

National Catholic Register
Sept. 15-21, 2002

by ELLEN ROSSINI
Register Correspondent

ROME - Last spring, in a summit with U.S. cardinals, Pope John Paul II ordered Vatican "apostolic visitations" of U.S. seminaries. Through them, the Holy See would take a look at a key source of clergy sex-abuse problems: the seminaries that train priests.

Now, in a Sept. 5 address to another group of bishops - this time from Brazil - the Holy Father has delivered a powerful signal that one principle in particular should be high on the agenda of any seminary investigation: Sexually disordered men aren't appropriate candidates for priests.

In his Sept. 5 speech at his summer residence of Castel Gandolfo, John Paul called for greater care in selecting candidates who have the capacity to live celibate lives and the exclusion of anyone with observable "deviations in their affections."

"It would be lamentable if, out of a misunderstood tolerance, they ordained young men who are immature or have obvious signs of affective deviations that, as is sadly known, could cause serious anomalies in the consciences of the faithful, with evident damage for the whole Church," the Holy Father said.

The term "affective deviations" is used by priestly formators to describe individuals with disordered sexual orientations - such as homosexuality or ongoing heterosexual activity - that are incompatible with priestly celibacy.

John Paul's comments are directly applicable to the situation in America. While the U.S. bishops have been unanimous in specifying what they want in future priests - healthy, holy men called to and capable of lifelong celibacy - they are clearly divided on the question of whether priestly candidates can possess a homosexual orientation.

The question is central to the sex-abuse cover-up scandal, as the large majority of known incidents are cases not of pedophilia - the sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children - but molestations of teen-age boys by homosexual priests who have already been active with adults.

"This whole topic is going to be addressed, especially as we go through our efforts to look at priestly formation," said Father Edward Burns, executive director for the U.S. bishops' Committee on Priestly Formation. "There are some bishops who have identified that they would not accept candidates who possess a homosexual orientation. There are some who take it on a case-by-case basis."

Bishops are in agreement that no one should be ordained who cannot demonstrate a commitment to celibacy, Father Burns said.

"It is important that any semblance of a gay element of the priesthood would have to be eradicated," he said.

But previous Vatican statements, like the Holy Father's Castel Gandolfo comments, have indicated that homosexuality as such - not only active homosexual behavior - is incompatible with the priesthood.

A 1961 instruction to the superiors of religious communities on "Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders" states:

Advancement 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."

What Kind of Men?

Bishop John Nienstedt of New Ulm, Minn., who is the newly elected chairman of the priestly formation committee, confirmed that warning, saying that he personally would have "serious reservations" in accepting a seminary candidate who is homosexual.

"I would say in the main that a person with a homosexual orientation would not be a good candidate for seminary life," he said. "The temptations are too great: You're living in an all-male environment, your closest friends are men. You're putting a person in harm's way."

Committee member Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Wichita, Kan., said that even without directly asking candidates about homosexuality, seminary rectors and bishops can discern through personal references, psychological testing and observation of moral character whether a sexual problem would present an obstacle to the ordained ministry.

"If they're sexually active we would not accept them. I think a person could be so caught up in the homosexual lifestyle where it would just overcome them, in which case they would not be a good candidate," he said. "Because I would consider homosexuality to be a disorder, if there is a serious homosexual problem, it would show itself in various ways. I would see it as not being fully mature."

However, outgoing formation committee chairman Bishop George Niederauer of Salt Lake City cautioned that the issue of selection of candidates relative to avoiding future child sexual abuse is more complicated than simply excluding homosexuals.

"What I don't want is some kind of link between being homosexual and being a molester of minors," he said. "Eighty to 90% of child sexual abuse is committed by married men or young men who will be married, so child abuse is not a heterosexual or homosexual problem; it is an illness and a disorder."

Committee member Bishop Daniel Walsh of Santa Rosa, Calif., also questioned any "causal connection" between homosexuality and the abuse cases.

"If these things happened - and most of them happened 20, 30, 40 years ago - these priests were trained under the old system," he said. "I think we are seeing the effects of the sexual revolution of the '60s. Some of them were not prepared for the sexual licentiousness of our society."

Homosexual Abusers

However, the known data on priestly sex abusers - and on abuse by homosexuals in general - does, in fact, point to a causal connection.

Philip Jenkins, author of Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis, has intensively researched the subject of clergy sex abuse. Jenkins, professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University, based much of Pedophiles and Priests, which was written in 1996, on data released by the Archdiocese of Chicago following abuse scandals there in the early 1990s.

Commenting last spring after the current scandal erupted, Jenkins noted that most clergy-abuse cases have involved minor boys who have sexually matured. "The proper word for a man who has sex with a boy of 16 or 17 is homosexuality," Jenkins said.

Sociological data also indicate that homosexuals as a group are far more prone than heterosexuals to engage in sex with minors.

"Although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses," said Tim Dailey, a senior fellow for culture studies at the Family Research Council.

Dailey released a report in May detailing the link between homosexuality and abuse of minors and noted that even homosexuals acknowledge the link.

"In The Gay Report, by homosexual researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, the authors report data showing that 73% of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19 years of age or younger," Dailey said.

The Visitation

Apostolic visitations to all 48 U.S. seminaries were ordered by the Holy Father in April in the specific context of the abuse scandal and confirmed in Article 17 in the bishops' June charter for the prevention of child sexual abuse by clergy.

The last apostolic visitation, headed by then Bishop John Marshall of Springfield, Mass., began in 1984 and was completed in 1989-90, according to Father Burns of the bishops' priestly formation committee. As well, voluntary visitations occur each year at the request of individual seminaries.

No information is yet available on when the apostolic visitations will begin or who will compose the teams. Father Burns said Sept. 6 that the bishops are still awaiting a "conversation" to take place between the three bodies that will organize the visitation: the bishops' conference, the U.S. apostolic nunciature and the Congregation for Catholic Education.

"The bishops are ready for a sense of direction on how to proceed with the apostolic seminary visitations," Father Burns said.

John Paul's comments Sept. 5 provide them with direction in several key areas. Along with his strong signal not to ordain homosexually oriented candidates "out of a misunderstood sense of tolerance," he called also for a general renewal of seminaries, including a more careful selection of professors who are holy, well trained theologically and faithful to Church teaching.

He said in some parts of the world seminaries and theology institutes are promoting a "mutilated vision of the Church" and were forgetting "the essential: that the Church is participation in the mystery of Christ incarnate."

In some cases, the Pope said, legitimate theological efforts to make the Christian message more accessible to modern men and women had not been "duly controlled," resulting in "compromising the nature of theology and even the content of faith."

The Holy Father said bishops had a responsibility to watch over their seminarians' theological studies to ensure quality and sound doctrinal content.

Said John Paul, "The existence in some theological schools and seminaries of poorly prepared professors, [some of whom] are even in disagreement with the Church, causes profound sadness and concern."

He explained that it is not acceptable to let "those who are formed, to be exposed to the disorders of formators and professors who lack explicit ecclesial communion and clear evidence of seeking holiness."

Dissent

Some U.S. bishops and many laymen have also expressed concern about the connection between homosexuality and dissent from Church teaching on sexual issues.

"The crucial thing, from my point of view, is they reject the teaching of the Church," said Dale O'Leary, a Catholic writer who for the past seven years has studied what she and others refer to as same-sex attraction disorder.

"You see so clearly that [men who have sex with men] do not understand what sexuality is. They really do use people as objects," said O'Leary.

As well, individuals who have identified themselves as "gay" and who believe that they cannot give up homosexual behavior and/or urges may feel a psychological imperative to dispute Church teachings on sexuality, noted the Catholic Medical Association's 2000 statement, "Homosexuality and Hope."

Said the CMA statement, "Such persons may feel it is futile and hopeless to resist same-sex desires and embrace a 'gay identity.' These same persons may then feel oppressed by the fact that society and religion, in particular the Catholic Church, do not accept the expression of these desires in homosexual acts."

Bishop Nienstedt said someone who identifies himself as "gay" would not be called forward to ordination because his agenda - that a homosexual lifestyle and a heterosexual lifestyle are morally equivalent - would directly contradict what he would be called to proclaim as a Catholic priest.

"In order to be a priest, they're going to have to have a sense of their own person, they're going to have to be happy with the Church's teachings on sexual issues, they will need to enter into a sense of spiritual fatherhood," said Bishop Olmsted in agreement.

Bishop Nienstedt noted that upcoming apostolic visitations will not be the first occasion for U.S. seminaries to look closely at these concerns.

He said he hopes the visits will also reveal the great progress made in the last 20 years to form and ordain the best and most dedicated priestly candidates.

"I believe that the programs we have in place - the formation programs, seminars, workshops that are being done on chaste celibate living - have been very substantial, and the young men I see being ordained today reflect very well the tradition of the Church," he said.

They're dedicated, they're disciplined and they're highly motivated to give themselves completely to Christ, their whole being, their sexuality being a part of that."

A survey released last month by Catholic University of America sociologists Dean Hoge and Jacqueline Wenger gives support to that perspective. Titled "Catholic Priests' Attitudes Toward Celibacy and Homosexuality," it was based on a sampling of 858 randomly chosen priests from 44 dioceses and 45 religious institutes.

The survey recorded a sharp spike in orthodox views among younger priests. Whereas 73% of priests between ages 56 and 65 supported the statement, "Celibacy should be a matter of personal choice for diocesan priests," only 33% of those between ages 25 and 35 agreed.

Said Bishop Nienstedt: "If anything, the present seminarians are really the disciples of Pope John Paul II. They're not afraid. They've been inspired by this pontificate. They've been called to a kind of dedication and solid intellectual, spiritual and apostolic formation that he reflects."

Ellen Rossini writes from Dallas.
(Register staff, CNS and Zenit contributed to this report)

[Orual]

Doublespeak: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Doublespeak is language deliberately constructed to disguise its actual meaning, usually from governmental, military, or corporate institutions.

The word doublespeak was coined in the early 1950s. It is often incorrectly attributed to George Orwell and his dystopian novel 1984. The word actually never appears in that novel; Orwell did, however, coin Newspeak, Oldspeak and doublethink, and his novel made fashionable composite nouns with speak as the second element, which were previously unknown in English. It was therefore just a matter of time before someone came up with doublespeak.

Doublespeak may be considered, in Orwell's lexicography, as the B vocabulary of Newspeak, words "deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not only had in every case a political implication, but were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them."

Successfully introduced doublespeak, over time, becomes part of the general language, shaping the context in which it is used.

[Catholicguy]

<>Tell us how the Pope is engaged in doublespeak here<>

[patent]

He could have said homosexuality, but that isn’t the only deviation that we need to keep out of the seminary these days.

Please, patent, don't play games. You know very well that homosexuality in seminaries is the major, number one, all-encompassing problem that they must deal with. And not to forget - tossing out every homosexual priest that got through those seminaries without being challenged is also of prime importance.

I’m not trying to play games here. Yes, numerically homosexuality is number one, but pedophilia is also a problem, and pedophilia is not exclusively homosexual (unlike pederasty, which is). The real world is more complex than just one issue. If we are going to combat this thing at its root source, we can’t narrow the focus to far. The modernist idea of sexual license must be combated in all its forms to permeate the priesthood with a true culture of chastity and celibacy. One of the reasons the homosexual culture was able to permeate certain of our fallen seminaries was because it was first preceeded by sexual license in general, paving the way for worse things to follow.

patent  +AMDG

[Orual]

<>Tell us how the Pope is engaged in doublespeak here<>

I'm sure you can figure that out for yourself and you don't need me to explain that by using euphemisms and politically-correct language, the Pope skirted the issue. The word is homosexuals. That's what we need purged from the seminaries and the priesthood.

His use of "deviations in their affections" is ambiguous. It could mean deviating from their love of God to love of sexual relations with women, or obsessions with non-religious activities, or sex with goats.

[justanotherfreeper]

One of the reasons the homosexual culture was able to permeate certain of our fallen seminaries was because it was first preceeded by sexual license in general, paving the way for worse things to follow.

I would argue it was the acceptance of contraception, which tore sex apart from procreation, marriage and the family. Once sex is not a mysterious, sacramental union that always opens the possibility you are creating an immortal soul but just another cool thing to do on a boring Saturday night it's tough to argue it should be restricted to married couples. (In fact, contraception came before sexual license, as even an atheist, immoral female didn't view sex as a real, consequence-free option.)

[justanotherfreeper]

Whereas 73% of priests between ages 56 and 65 supported the statement, "Celibacy should be a matter of personal choice for diocesan priests," only 33% of those between ages 25 and 35 agreed.

Umm -- admittedly, this is progress, but it still means one third of our priests thinks celibacy is optional. Am I the only person who thinks this is a tad high?

[Orual]

I’m not trying to play games here. Yes, numerically homosexuality is number one, but pedophilia is also a problem, and pedophilia is not exclusively homosexual (unlike pederasty, which is). The real world is more complex than just one issue. If we are going to combat this thing at its root source, we can’t narrow the focus to far. The modernist idea of sexual license must be combated in all its forms to permeate the priesthood with a true culture of chastity and celibacy. One of the reasons the homosexual culture was able to permeate certain of our fallen seminaries was because it was first preceeded by sexual license in general, paving the way for worse things to follow.

I think we all know the difference between homosexuals, pedophiles and pederasts. That's not the point here. You agree that homosexuality is the number one problem, so how is it narrowing the focus to proceed with all haste to purge these horrid men from the seminaries and the priesthood? It is the focus.

I am in disagreement with the reasons you state for the incidence of homosexuality in seminaries, but that's another topic for another thread on another day.

[xzins]

I think we should let the proctologists make the decisions on this one.

[patent]

I think we all know the difference between homosexuals, pedophiles and pederasts. That's not the point here. You agree that homosexuality is the number one problem, so how is it narrowing the focus to proceed with all haste to purge these horrid men from the seminaries and the priesthood? It is the focus.

You don’t kill a noxious weed by chopping off the biggest and most visible shoot. You dig it out of the ground, or send poison to its roots, and kill the whole dang thing. Otherwise it grows right back up again.

patent  +AMDG

[Orual]

You don’t kill a noxious weed by chopping off the biggest and most visible shoot. You dig it out of the ground, or send poison to its roots, and kill the whole dang thing. Otherwise it grows right back up again.

This is exactly what I'm saying - dig them out, weed them out, destroy them by any means necessary. Remember that feckless Bishops' Conference where it was decided that there would be no second chances? What a farce that was. The majority of them left denouncing the zero tolerance decision and announced they would run their own dioceses as they saw fit. Or unfit.

[yendu bwam]

Ten reasons why homosexuals should not be ordained:

1) They will be inordinately tempted to sexual sin in seminaries and in the priesthood, where they live in close quarters with other men. It's like having heterosexual men living in close quarters with women - showering with them - dressing with them, rooming with them, etc. etc.;

2) They will be sexually tempted (as we have sadly seen) by sexually mature teenage boys - leading in a not insignificant number of cases to extreme sin, and horrific abuse of those boys; 3) They will not be able to impart correct ideas of Catholic sexual morality to children and adults, having a disordered set of feelings and attractions themselves;

4) They will be tempted by the lies and promises of the gay activist agenda (you should express yourself sexually, you are normal, you will be a hero if you fight to normalize homosexuality within the Church, etc. etc.);

5) A great, great many parents will not trust priests around their sons until homosexuals are removed from the priesthood. And if they can't trust their priests with their sons, they will not trust their priests on other far less important things;

6) Most homosexual priests in the Catholic Church are active homosexuals. As such, they undermine the laity's confidence that the priests follow scripture and the Church's teachings in general;

7) Active homosexual priests break their vows. They make a mockery of their promises to God and the church. A priest who willingly and unrepentently breaks his vows inpires no confidence in parishioners;

8) They provide poor role models for young men whose sexuality is just developing;

9) Opportunities for blackmail within the Church will be significantly diminished; 10) We will not have priests dying of AIDs.

[patent]

>>>>The majority of them left denouncing the zero tolerance decision and announced they would run their own dioceses as they saw fit.

Where does this statement come from? I recall a couple complaining, but nothing resembling a majority of hundreds of Bishops. If that were true the policy never would have passed. As for whether its a good policy? Frankly in my view it presumes a guilty until proven innocent posture that I think violates all notions of traditional Catholicism, in which priests actually have rights under Canon Law. IMHO, the Bishops, too weak to do their jobs and actually clean up their seminaries, passed the buck by going to this policy. They tried to give themselves an easy out at the expense of their priests.

patent

[yendu bwam]

You don’t kill a noxious weed by chopping off the biggest and most visible shoot. You dig it out of the ground, or send poison to its roots, and kill the whole dang thing. Otherwise it grows right back up again.

True, but lopping off that shoot would be a great first step.

[heyheyhey]

I am so glad... however, there will be the usual dissenting Bishops who will ignore him

Maybe not.
Once the Pope's views on the issue become more public, the dissenting Bishops will be under the pressure of peoples' opinion :-)

[Orual]

Yes, I realized after posting that I shouldn't have said "majority" of the Bishops, otherwise it would have been voted down. Had I been more careful I would have said the majority of Bishops after leaving the conference had no intention of carrying out the policy.

Homosexual priests have been afforded the shelter of their Bishops and the coffers of the dioceses for many years so I'm not at all worried about innocent priests being unjustly charged without being given an opportunity to defend themselves.

They must start in the seminaries, and they must start now. We know that there are a number of homosexual priests who graduated from those seminaries and are presently loosed on an unsuspecting congregration. In almost every case that has been made public, the guilty priest was a trusted and loved pastor. He was invited to homes, made to feel as if he was a member of the family, and all the while he was taking advantage of the kids in that family. At least now parents will have their guards up and hopefully will not even think about letting a priest sleep over or allow their child to be alone in the rectory or permit them to take trips alone with the priest.

[Desdemona]

From Patent

"You don’t kill a noxious weed by chopping off the biggest and most visible shoot. You dig it out of the ground, or send poison to its roots, and kill the whole dang thing. Otherwise it grows right back up again."

From YB:

"True, but lopping off that shoot would be a great first step."

You're both right - depending on the weed. Some spread faster if you try to pull them up without getting the whole root. To get the whole root takes digging, and a lot of it (much easier about two hours after a good rain). And when using poison on a well-established plant, trust me, it takes multiple applications, even when using Round-up.

The first thing you have to do, though, is remove any blooms, lest they spread seeds which will germinate wherever they land. Sometimes, this means lopping off the largest shoot, as that is where the blooms will be, sadly usually old growth.

Conversely, and this is where the church has failed, IMO, more than weeding, the garden needs nourishment. "Weeds" choke off desired plants, yes, but many good plants die because they are neglected (see the fuscia on my front porch). (How many Catholics out there are disenfranchised due to neglect?)

This pope has tended the pretty plants and made them grow and it has been a long monumental effort. He's stepping it up a notch. It seems that he's had it with the pussy-footing and wants action. Time to add some Miracle-Grow.

[Desdemona]

Of course, it would be very bad to add Miracle-Grow to weeds.

[yendu bwam]

Of course, it would be very bad to add Miracle-Grow to weeds.

Good one!

[yendu bwam]

This pope has tended the pretty plants and made them grow and it has been a long monumental effort. He's stepping it up a notch. It seems that he's had it with the pussy-footing and wants action. Time to add some Miracle-Grow.

I understand now what you're saying. I'm with you.

[Tantumergo]

"The first thing you have to do, though, is remove any blooms, lest they spread seeds which will germinate wherever they land."

Interpreted allegorically I think you have hit on the right solution - CASTRATION!!

"Sometimes, this means lopping off the largest shoot, as that is where the blooms will be, sadly usually old growth."

Yes and lop off that bit as well - celibates don't need it anyway! If a man's serious about the priesthood, would sitting down to urinate be a credible objection? After all it has been foretold by a prophet:

Is 56:3 "...And let not the eunuch say: Behold I am a dry tree.
4 For thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs, They that shall keep my sabbaths, and shall choose the things that please me, and shall hold fast my covenant:
5 I will give to them in my house, and within my walls, a place, and a name better than sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name which shall never perish."

Now lets see if I can find some fundamentalists to run this past!!