ARTICLES
January 2006 ARTICLES
Contents © 2006
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
It's Not As If They Changed Anything
Rome Says No Homosexuals in the Priesthood
BY CHRISTOPHER ZEHNDER
The Holy See has said that bishops shall not admit men who are truly homosexual to the priesthood.
Cardinal Roger Mahony, however, has said he will.
That is, if his media representative, Tod Tamberg, truly spoke for his boss. Speaking to the November 23 Los Angeles Times (in an article, "Vatican Issues a Qualified Ban on Gays in Priesthood"), Tamberg said that the instruction, released by the Congregation for Catholic Education on November 22, should not be "taken out of context." Some people, said Tamberg, when they hear media sources say that the Vatican has banned homosexuals from the seminary and priesthood, "will think: 'Oh my God, this means no gay will ever be ordained in the priesthood again or anybody with a homosexual orientation will never be ordained again.'" But Tamberg assured those people, "that's simply not true."
According to the Times, Tamberg noted that homosexuality is just one spiritual challenge for men contemplating the priesthood. "Any impediment that would prevent a priest from fulfilling that duty is cause for examination or disqualification," he said. "That could be one's sexuality that, one way or the other, gets in the way; it could be alcoholism; it could be that that person is incredibly selfish and not willing to give of themselves in the measure that is required of a priest."
But will the archdiocese of Los Angeles henceforth ban homosexuals from the seminary? The answer seems to be, no. Cardinal Mahony "has said over and over that he chooses potential priests by focusing on their ability to lead a holy, chaste life and the ability to lead other people closer to Jesus," Tamberg told USA Today. "The seminary application process should treat all people and their gifts distinctly, with no variation based on orientation."
Others, too, have sought to relegate the Vatican instruction to the category of helpful suggestions. One of these is Father Thomas Rausch, professor of theology at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. The document, Rausch told the Los Angeles Times, "still leaves up to the local bishop the important role of admitting candidates to the seminary. So, in that sense I don't think it's going to have a major impact." And besides, said Rausch, to forbid homosexuals entrance to the seminary "clearly would be discriminating against gay candidates, and that would clearly be unjust." (One wonders what Rausch thinks of the instruction's statement, that the "mere desire to become a priest is not sufficient and there is no right to receive sacred Ordination.")
But if Cardinal Mahony thinks he can dispense with the Vatican's latest ruling (as he did in September 2004 with the liturgical document Redemptionis Sacramentum; see "Pope Roger," November 2004 Mission), the Holy See itself would disagree. In a cover letter issued December 1, Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, prefect of the Congregation on Catholic Education, said, "the norms of the instruction ... must be taken into consideration in the drafting or updating of the 'Ratio Institutionis Sacerdotalis' of every country. Moreover, it is clear that the aforementioned norms are to be faithfully observed by all superiors to ensure a suitable preparation of future priests in view of the good both of the candidates themselves and of the church." The instrument itself says the same thing -- "Bishops, Episcopal Conferences, and Superior Generals should assure that the norms of this instruction are faithfully observed for the good of the candidates themselves and always to assure for the Church suitable priests, true shepherds according to the heart of Christ."
Further, the fact that the instruction (bearing the impossible title, "Concerning the Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to Seminaries and Holy Orders") has been so long in preparation suggests that the Church does not regard it lightly. Despite speculation that it was written in response to the sexual abuse crisis in the United States, Cardinal Grocholewski's cover letter says the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith first asked for its preparation nine years ago, five years before the abuse crisis broke. Draft versions were prepared in 1998, 2002, and 2005. On August 31, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI approved the instruction and ordered it published.
The instruction, furthermore, is no mere speculation, but it roots its conclusions in the Church's traditional teaching on homosexuality. As a confirmation of the "Church's teaching on homosexuality," the instruction says, the Catechism of the Catholic Church "distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies." Though not sinful like homosexual acts, homosexual tendencies, says the instruction, "are objectively disordered and are often a trial" for those afflicted with them. Furthermore, those afflicted with homosexual tendencies have not attained "affective maturity," the instruction says. Affective maturity is of grave importance, since, says the instruction, it affects the "human formation" of a person, "the foundation of all formation" -- spiritual, intellectual, and pastoral. "To admit a candidate to diaconal Ordination," says the instruction, "the Church must verify, among other things, that the candidate for priesthood has attained affective maturity."
Thus, the instruction gives the unsurprising conclusion that the "Church, even while deeply respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to Seminary or Holy Orders those who are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture. Such people, in fact, find themselves in a situation that seriously obstructs them from properly relating to men and women." The only seeming exception the instruction makes to this prohibition is in regard to "homosexual tendencies that might only be a manifestation of a transitory problem, as, for example, delayed adolescence." Such a transitory problem must be "overcome at least three years before diaconal Ordination."
The "exception" for those with a "transitory" homosexual problem suggests that men with homosexual tendencies can enter the seminary. A religious superior, Father X (he requested anonymity), told me, when referring to a three-year probation, that the Vatican congregation probably had in mind what is typical in seminaries -- that ordination to the diaconate occurs after the third year of theology studies, and priestly ordination up to a year later. This does not forbid pre-theologate seminary programs to enroll men who admit to having a homosexual problem. And, as Father X pointed out, the lack of a prohibition will be taken as a "loophole," with folks like Tod Tamberg saying the instruction does not forbid admitting "gays" to the seminary. Such people, said Father X, "define the gay population as anyone who has ever had a passing thought. And it's in their interest to extend the population as widely as possible. But the document is quite clear; it is the Church's traditional position. It's not as if they changed anything."
Indeed, for the distinction made between "deep-seated" and "transitory" homosexual tendencies, the latter having to be "overcome," shows the Church wants no homosexuals ordained to the priesthood. But what exactly is the difference between a "deep-seated" and "transitory" homosexual problem?
Richard Wetzel, an Orange County physician and author of the book, Sexual Wisdom, A Guide for Parents, Young Adults, Educators, and Physicians, told me that homosexuality "is not a simple issue" but is "the most nuanced in the area of sexuality." The difficulty is, said Wetzel, "we can't really say what a 'homosexual' is. It is much like labeling someone an alcoholic or a manic/depressive. Sometimes it is obvious, but often enough it is not. If someone gets drunk twice a week, on weekends only, is he an alcoholic? Is he an alcoholic or just a stress case if once a month he gets drunk in response to stress and beats his wife? While many people are clearly bipolar, those who are not so clearly are called cyclo thymic; but there is clearly a gradient involved. There are lots of shades of gray in any aspect of mental health, and the difference between two individuals may be based on a myriad of spiritual, social, psychological, and physiologic factors."
Wetzel said the Church is "wise to allow for the enormous variation in how homosexual tendencies manifest" themselves -- and some variations, at least, are transitory. "As one might have a temporary fall into depression or alcoholism, one might also temporarily invest in homosexual attractions," Wetzel said. "This does not mean the person is a 'homosexual' and does not necessarily mean the person faces a life-long struggle."
But is three years a sufficient period to judge whether someone's sexual orientation is transitory or deep seated? "Everyone argues about how long it takes to become 'sober' after a period of any sort of addiction," Wetzel said. "I consider the gay lifestyle to have many characteristics associated with addictions. I have always told my patients they are not sober from drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes for at least two years, and more like five, from the last use. Obesity/gluttony also has many characteristics of addiction, and I don't accept any success in managing it until at least ten percent of weight has been kept off for two years. All these issues are related, and no one can say what the right length of time is. Three years is reasonable, but, again, much else must be considered in such a decision. Since addictive types of behavior are well known to be the most difficult to change, one must have every reassurance before ordaining a person to lifelong ministry."
And what sort of assurances would superiors need? How would they judge the fitness of a candidate? "All of this works only with the transparent frankness of the subject and decent spiritual direction and psychological guidance," said Father X. "So, if all those things are working, if the seminarian is frank and open with the spiritual director, and the spiritual director is sound, then they should be able to discern and recommend that the candidate leave, if that is the case."
But failing honesty, the task of judging whether a candidate is homosexual or not is not always easy. There are some indications of a homosexual problem, said Father X, but they are not always sure signs. For instance, "effeminacy," he said, "though it can be an indication, is a problem all of its own." Other signs include, said Father X, "tendency to particular friendships (that's the most common one), certain emotional immaturity, narcissism. Usually, homosexuals have problems in other areas -- difficulty accepting authority and father figures, crushy romantic attitudes, and all that. But there are plenty of perfectly unrecognizable signs -- although, I must say, among the clergy they are pretty easy to spot, generally speaking. But sometimes one can be wrong."
However, the more serious problem facing the Vatican's instruction will be not how but whether it will be implemented. "If someone is reading the instruction with a good will, with a sincere desire to do what the Church wants done, then the document can be a very fine guide," opined Father X. "But if one is quibbling and bending over backwards, saying, 'this does not mean that gays will never be ordained again,'" then the instruction will be a dead letter.
As it appears to be already in the archdiocese of Los Angeles. Tod Tamberg's response to the instruction suggests that nothing will change in the archdiocese or at its St. John's Seminary in Camarillo. And since this institution trains priests not only for the archdiocese but for dioceses throughout California and the southwest, the future of the Catholic Church in these regions may perhaps prove quite dim.
At least, as long as Roger Mahony is archbishop of Los Angeles.