Click on image for larger version; I could not find an online copy of the Boston vocations poster
John Thavis at the CNS Blog (one of the regular sidebar links here) posts the following regards a document just issued by the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education (whose work includes oversight of seminary education). The links within the post below offer background (first link) on the document issued on Thursday (second link).
VATICAN CITY – In 2005, the Vatican issued a long-awaited document saying the church could not ordain men with “deep-seated” homosexual tendencies. That document did not say, however, who should determine whether a candidate for the priesthood has homosexual tendencies.-ConcordPastor
On Thursday, the Vatican released an even longer-awaited document that partly answers that question. The “Guidelines for the Use of Psychology in the Admission and Formation of Candidates for the Priesthood” states that psychological evaluation should be used when there is a suspicion of “psychic disturbances” or “grave immaturity” in a candidate — such as uncertain sexual identity or deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
It also said that in judging a candidate’s capacity for living the charism of celibacy with joy and faithfulness, his sexual orientation must be evaluated.
One lingering doubt about the homosexuality document was whether a homosexually oriented man who was nevertheless committed to celibacy could be ordained a priest. At Thursday’s press conference, Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, whose Congregation for Catholic Education issued both documents, gave a rather forceful “no,” and here are the essential parts of his answer:
“The candidate does not necessarily have to practice homosexuality (to be excluded.) He can even be without sin. But if he has this deeply seated tendency, he cannot be admitted to priestly ministry precisely because of the nature of the priesthood, in which a spiritual paternity is carried out. Here we are not talking about whether he commits sins, but whether this deeply rooted tendency remains.”
Cardinal Grocholewski was then asked why, if a man with strong heterosexual tendencies but who is celibate can be ordained, the same could not be true of a man with homosexual tendencies? His answer:
“Because it’s not simply a question of observing celibacy as such. In this case, it would be a heterosexual tendency, a normal tendency. In a certain sense, when we ask why Christ reserved the priesthood to men, we speak of this spiritual paternity, and maintain that homosexuality is a type of deviation, a type of irregularity, as explained in two documents of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Therefore it is a type of wound in the exercise of the priesthood, in forming relations with others. And precisely for this reason we say that something isn’t right in the psyche of such a man. We don’t simply talk about the ability to abstain from these kinds of relations.”
(Complete CNS Blog post)
"In any case, the priest-psychologist noted, "many more or less pathological psychic ineptitudes manifest themselves only after priestly formation"
ReplyDeleteWhat then? What kind of support is there for priests who need it?
Also, seems to me too much focus on homosexuality. Better to focus on psychological problems that would cause a man to act on his impulses, gay or straight. And forgive me but perhaps bishops should go through some psychological testing before heading up a diocese.
Anne
It is obvious from Grocholweski's comments that the male hierarchy that runs this church is grasping at straws to maintain its power and control. Blatant statements such as "Christ reserved the priesthood to men" is a desperate, inappropriate misuse of scripture to justify the "paternity" position of dominance which the current church hierarchy thinks it has. This is sad. All this noise is not about the nature of the priesthood but rather about keeping the status quo dominance. Eventually the faithful will figure this out and, if it has not done so already, move on, led by the Spirit, without them.
ReplyDeleteI used to get upset when I read statements like this. Now I just sit back and am amazed at how the Spirit is doing such a terrific job of dismantling the current church organization and giving (painful) birth to a new Church.
The image of the Holy Spirit as a force bent on dismantling the Church (for the sake of renewal) is certainly provocative and one I'd have a difficult time adopting as an ecclesiological construct.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do believe the Church is in need of reform and renewal at every level, I'm not easily persuaded that one group or another is huddled desperately looking to secure its own interests or agenda for their own sake.
What I believe is needed is greater openness in every sector of Church life to all the ways in which both the tradition and new insight can renew the institution: now that's something I can imagine the Holy Spirit empowering!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteA few thoughts that I have not only thought about before writing but that I have prayed about.
ReplyDeletePart of what bothers me is this discussion of what is normal and what is disordered. I, for one have a terrible time with that.
It just feels very exclusionary and what I love and long for is the inclusional nature of Jesus and the church. As the church is not a building or an organization, but an assembly of people - well it gets sticky on who is in and out.
Another matter heavy on my heart is that somehow homosexuality becomes all about sex, when in fact most homosexuals that I know are pretty average human beings. Rather mundane actually - with houses to pay for, partners to deal with, often children to love and care for and feed, lawns to mow, bills to pay and all the things of life as I know it as a heterosexual married woman.
"Therefore it is a type of wound in the exercise of the priesthood, in forming relations with others. And precisely for this reason we say that something isn’t right in the psyche of such a man." I read that and I think - what?!
A wound?
What does this say of the many celibate homosexual priests that are already in active and often wonderful ministry?
Is this another tenuous at best thread to try to tie the abuse scandal to sexual orientation?
I think I have been rendered speechless...there are so many flaws in this line of thinking.
ReplyDeleteIt makes no sense to me that any man, who is willing to embrace the charisms of priesthood, be he heterosexual or homosexual should be excluded from the discernement process. ANY candidate who is not determined to be psychologically healthy should excluded.
It seems all we can do is pray...
With the hiearachy's track record of identifying and dealing with "disordered individuals", I would think that they would be the LAST ONES to be positioning themselves as determiners of who is suitable and who is unsuitable for the priesthood....
ReplyDeleteTheir entire approach to this is obsolete, flawed.
ReplyDeleteAll candidates should be treated the same. That means all get psychological exams, and thorough background checks.
The cardinals use of the term "wound" in the exercise of priesthood still bothers me. They are definetly using this as a tie to the sex abuse scandal.
I find the cardinal's responses to questions disappointing. It's odd to me that while so many church teachings on contemporary issues (stem cell research, abortion, cloning, for example) seem to incorporate the wisdom of the natural and social sciences, anything that's said about sexual orientation seems to ignore or reject the same wisdom.
ReplyDeleteWhere does this leave the future of priestly discernment, exactly? What will happen to current seminarians who are gay?
The document referenced in this post is now available in English. When I've had a chance to read it, I'll comment here.
ReplyDelete