ARTICLES
March 2006 ARTICLES
Contents © 2006
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
All the Bishops' Boys
California Prelates Will Continue to Ordain Homosexuals
BY CHRISTOPHER ZEHNDER
Not even the Chicago Sun-Times' religion reporter Cathleen Falsani could get from Cardinal Francis George what he and Pope Benedict XVI discussed in a private meeting they had in October -- and Falsani, almost every year, sits down with the Chicago archbishop "for a kind of spiritual-state-of-the-union chat." As usual, said Falsani in a January 16 article, George was discreet. But Cardinal George, it seems, felt no compunction "a few minutes later" when he told Falsani of the American bishops' attempt to stall the Vatican's publication of the instruction that forbids the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies."
George and other members of the U.S. Catholic bishops' conference had in October traveled to Rome for meetings with Vatican officials. Regarding the Vatican instruction on homosexuals in the priesthood, George told Falsani, "we asked them not not to publish it, but to delay it -- to wait." Why? Because, said Cardinal George, "it would color" the Holy See's visitation of American seminaries, called for by Pope John Paul II in 2002 and begun in September of last year. According to George, he and the bishops said, "'if you do this, it will be taken as a commentary on the visitations and we'll get into this whole business that the gay community is so sensitive of, "you're blaming us for pedophilia."'"
The Holy See's response, said George, was to say, "'well, we're sorry about that, but this is a universal document. It's not directed at the United States. It's directed to the whole church. So we're gonna do it.'
"They have their own schedule," said Cardinal George.
And so do the American bishops, it seems. Though in November, the Holy See released the instruction that says truly homosexual men shall not be ordained, many American bishops have enunciated their own time frame for its implementation. And it is not "now," nor even "eventually," but "never."
Southern/Central California, especially, is Never-Never Land. The bishops of Fresno, San Bernardino, Monterey, and the archbishop of Los Angeles have given a clear and public non serviam to the instruction, "Concerning the Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to Seminaries and Holy Orders." The dioceses of San Bernardino and Orange by press time had given no public response.
I attempted to contact the dioceses that had made no public statement. My questions were: has the bishop made any statements regarding the Vatican's instruction? Has the diocese in the past had a policy to refuse admittance to seminary or holy orders any who, in the words of the instruction, "are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture"? Has the instruction changed, or will it change, the diocese's policy of admitting to holy orders or the seminary those who "are actively homo sexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture"? If so, how has the policy changed or how will it change? If not, why has it not changed or will not change?"
Father Joseph Fenton, spokesman for the diocese of Orange, said he would provide me a reply, but never did. I tried to contact Father Howard Lincoln, press liaison for San Bernardino's Bishop Gerald Barnes. I received a phone message from "Sandra," Father Lincoln's secretary, who referred me to the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The instruction, said Sandra, is "not a diocesan issue, it's an issue of the bishops of the United States." I would find on their web site, she said, the necessary information. Presumably, the voice of the U.S. bishops is the voice of Bishop Gerald Barnes.
The U.S. bishops' web site offered a press release detailing a statement made by the conference's president, Spokane's Bishop William Skylstad. Skylstad, who called the instruction "a timely document," noted that "we live in an era when the issue of sexual orientation is much discussed." He affirmed the Church's teaching that sexuality is given "to humanity to bring about a loving relationship between a man and a woman, the lifelong union of a marriage open to the creation of new life." So far, so good.
Skylstad continued that the Holy See in the instruction "expresses the valid concern that all candidates [for Holy Orders] must display affective maturity, which enables them to relate properly to others as chaste, celibate priests who can faithfully represent the teaching of the Church about sexuality, including the immorality of homosexual genital activity." Hence, "it is certainly not acceptable if a candidate practices homosexuality or, whether active or not, if he identifies himself principally by a homosexual inclination or orientation." It is also not acceptable if a candidate "support[s] the 'gay culture'" and if he is "so concerned with homosexual issues that he cannot sincerely represent the Church's teaching on sexuality."
But the Vatican's instruction says that even a celibate man who suffers from a deep-seated homosexual attraction has not, by of virtue that attraction, reached affective maturity and so should not be admitted to holy orders. Does Skylstad also affirm this? It seems not, for his statement skirts this issue, which is really the heart of the Holy See's instruction. Instead, he wrote, that the instruction raised the question, "whether a homosexually-inclined man can be a good priest." And the answer, according to the bishop, "lies in the lives of those men who, with God's grace, have truly been dedicated priests, seeking each day not to be served but to serve their people, faithfully representing in word and example the teaching of the Church in its fullness, including God's revelation that sexual expression is intended only to take place between a husband and a wife in a loving, faithful, and life-giving marriage." Thus, it appears, according to Skylstad, despite the instruction, truly homosexual men may still be admitted to holy orders. And this, apparently, is also Bishop Barnes' position.
In the past, Fresno's Bishop John Steinbock has expressed his support for ordaining homosexuals. In an October 20, 2004 letter to Jose Ovalle, a parishioner at St. Patrick's in Merced, Steinbock wrote, "I have stated publicly that what is important of any priest, whether he has a heterosexual or homosexual orientation, is that he is living a celibate life style, faithful to the Lord Jesus and the teaching of the church, and then indeed he can be a good priest. This is not against the Magisterium of the Church." Yet, given the Vatican's latest instruction, one might have supposed that Steinbock would change his opinion. After all, in January 2002, in the letter, "Life-Giving Love of Husband and Wife in Light of the Teaching of the Church on Marriage and Family," the bishop took a courageous stand in defense of the Church's very unpopular teaching on artificial contraception. This alone might lead one to assume that Steinbock, despite his original position on ordaining homosexuals, in the end would think with the Church.
But the December 25, 2005 issue of the Fresno diocese's Central California Catholic Life indicated otherwise. An article by Monsignor Anthony Janelli described a discussion on the Holy See' instruction at the annual meeting of the administration of Saint John's seminary in Camarillo with bishops and vocations directors. In discussing the Vatican's instruction, said Janelli, "we referred to the commentaries by Bishop Skylstad, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Mahony and Bishop Steinbock." The gathering's conclusion, said Janelli, was that the instruction "is overall a restatement of guidelines published in 1985. And in conjunction with this we agreed that the seminary and all of our dioceses are already implementing all of the criteria called for by the instruction."
Janelli wrote, "everyone [at the meeting] was in agreement with the Cardinal's [Mahony's] summary of the [instruction's] criteria in which he states: 'The Church cannot admit to the Seminary or to Holy Orders those who: Practice Homosexuality; Present deep-seated homosexual tendencies; Support the 'gay culture'."
A rather fair summary of what the instruction said. But the gathering "in trying to clarify the meaning and implications of these criteria," discovered another meaning, other implications. Janelli wrote that in his article he wanted "to look at the criteria in the context of what they say about the criteria that we want in a person we admit to the Seminary and Holy Orders." The monsignor said he was sharing his own thoughts on the matter, though most of what he said was based on "commentaries from Bishop Skylstad, Cardinal Mahony and Bishop Steinbock."
"It seems," continued Janelli, "we could express these criteria in this way. The Church can welcome to the Seminary and to Holy Orders those who practice Celibate Chastity; present an affective maturity that enables them to enter into healthy and positive relationships with both men and women; support the vision and values of the Church concerning Chastity in Marriage and the Single Life." According to Janelli's reading, it seems, the Vatican's criteria in the end say nothing about whether a homosexual orientation does or does not disqualify a man for holy orders.
Bishop Steinbock, according to Janelli, "at the end of our discussion" indicated his orientation to the question by referring to a sentence concluding Cardinal Mahony's commentary; Steinbock, said Janelli, "affirmed it as the fundamental hope of everyone." "It is my prayer," wrote the cardinal, "that all who are ordained or vowed for the service of the Church, whether they are heterosexual or have homosexual tendencies, may reaffirm their deep commitment to Christ and to a life of chastity and celibacy after the example of Jesus himself."
Cardinal Mahony's commentary, "A Brief Statement on the Vatican's New 'Instruction,'" had been published in the December 2 Tidings, the newspaper of the Los Angeles archdiocese. But Mahony's thoughts on the Vatican instruction were already apparent in November, soon after the document was released. Mahony's spokesman, Tod Tamberg, told the November 23 Los Angeles Times that the cardinal "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. The seminary application process should treat all people and their gifts distinctly, with no variation based on orientation."
Bishop Sylvester Ryan of Monterey, whose diocese includes the central coast to Santa Barbara County, took a different tack than his brother bishops. He did not paraphrase the meaning out of the Vatican's instruction or indulge in vague indirection but insinuated a doubt as to the instruction's authority. In a January 2006 pastoral letter, "The Vatican Instruction on Homosexuality," Bishop Ryan made a distinction between canon law, which "provides us with the laws that govern us as a community of faith,"and documents like the current instruction. "An instruction ... from a particular congregation, as we have in the recent instruction on homosexuality from the Congregation for Catholic Education," wrote Ryan, "is NOT LAW but a commentary or interpretation of a law, and has only the authority of the content of the instruction along with the accepted competence of a particular congregation." The latest instruction, said Ryan, "is a commentary on issues that pertain to the Canon Laws that guide bishops in accepting men to study for the priesthood."
But what authority does the instruction have? Does it bind the likes of Bishop Ryan? Quoting canon 241 -- "a diocesan bishop is to admit to the major seminary only those who are judged qualified to dedicate themselves permanently to the sacred ministries; he is to consider their human, moral, spiritual and intellectual qualities, their physical and psychic health, and their correct intention" -- Bishop Ryan merely stated, "a priest is required to live a life of celibate chastity 'permanently,' whatever may be his sexual orientation, and must be able to relate affectively and responsibly to both men and women." Presumably, because the canon nowhere mentions sexual orientation, the bishop thought it is a non-issue. And because the instruction is merely an instruction and NOT LAW, he can ignore it.
This, in effect, is what Ryan said in his pastoral, when he wrote, "for the past twenty years bishops and seminary faculties have fulfilled these requirements as to the selection and evaluation of candidates for the priesthood with the guidance of several documents that have dealt with sexual orientation. The bottom line in all these documents remains the same: No one can be admitted to study for the priesthood if he is not capable nor has he shown clear evidence of his ability to live a chaste, celibate priestly life regardless of sexual orientation." [Emphasis added.]
But is an instruction, such as the Vatican's latest, binding on bishops? Charles Wilson, with the San Antonio, Texas-based St. Joseph Foundation, which specializes in canon law, said, in response to Ryan's pastoral, "the purpose of an instruction, according to canon 34, §1, is to 'clarify the prescripts of laws and elaborate on and determine the methods to be observed in fulfilling them. They are given for the use of those whose duty it is to see that laws are executed and oblige them in the execution of the laws.' As Bishop Ryan stated in his letter, the general criteria for acceptance of candidates for priestly ordination are set forth in canon 241, §1. The recent instruction issued by the Congregation for Catholic Education, which has competency for seminaries and formation programs around the world, does indeed clarify the criteria contained in this canon."
But is Bishop Ryan or any other bishop bound to follow a Vatican instruction? "Strictly, speaking, he's bound to follow it," said Wilson. But, he added, "most of the instructions are ignored and nothing is done about it."
And the Holy See agrees with Wilson -- at least as to the authority of its instructions. In a cover letter to the instruction, 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 instruction 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."