Banning gay priests…or not.
I posted the other day about the Vatican reaffirming the ban on gay men taking holy orders. According to Radio Veritas, via Catholic World News, a cardinal in the Philippines is saying he doesn’t read it that way at all:
Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales of Manila told reporters that homosexuals who do not “act out” can be good priests. His statement came immediately after the release of a letter in which Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State, confirmed that a Church policy barring homosexuals from priestly training applies to all the world’s seminaries.
Speaking on Radio Veritas in the Philippines, Cardinal Rosales said that the Vatican did not intend to ban chaste homosexuals from the seminaries. “A homosexual inclination is not bad but acting it out is an entirely different matter, and that is what is written in the sacred scriptures,” he said.
David,
What do you see as the problem here? Selective reading, wishful thinking, or an inferior translation? Spin?
I’m not sure there is a problem, actually. I think it is a fairly typical case of the Vatican putting out some paper and bishops interpreting it as they see fit, given the needs they have. Despite the suspicion among many that US bishops try to undermine Vatican directives, Vatican officials themselves are often amused how how legalistically the Americans often take such documents. It is the difference perhaps between American and Italian cultures. That said, I don’t think that such a dynamic, or directives like these, make the church look very good.
Dave:
“Vatican officials themselves are often amused how how legalistically the Americans often take such documents. It is the difference perhaps between American and Italian cultures.”
Yes, I think this is the case. Here in Italy, nobody on the newspapers, catholic blogs, wrote about this clarification, nobody cares about it.
Read and forget this is the Italian approach. You american people are a black or white sort of people.
The idea that a document should say what is meant and mean what is said does not seem to me “legalistic”. It seems to me a fundamental requirement for honest exchange. If Cardinal Bertone thinks otherwise, so much the worse for him.
But on the odd chance that the Vatican pronouncement manages to mean what it says, would it not be logical to request all priests (bishops and cardinals included) who find men attractive–if you take my meaning–to request laicization?
I’m puzzled about another topic, birth control. I never knew a catholic couple in Italy using natural birth control method. Also a deacon’ wife of my acquaintance uses pill. I’m 50 YO, I’m married and never a priest in confession asked me anything about.
I read on catholic american blogs sometimes reference to natural birth control. Really does anyone use this in the US ? You are “più realisti del RE” we say in Italy, always ready to obey whatever law.
The Italian approach? So “Eppur si muove,” to quote Galileo (apocryphally) applies to more than whether the earth circles the sun or the other way round? and we should bear it in mind when reading Vatican (or anti-Vatican) texts?
I have heard from an unimpeachable unnamed Vatican source that Cardinal Rosales has been given an immediate offer which he can’t refuse to establish the first parish on the moon. He leaves tomorrow.
Joseph:
Is card Bertone making epicycles? That’s he continues to try to adjust a theory to make its predictions match the facts, when it has become clear that the basic premise itself should be questioned.
“would it not be logical to request all priests (bishops and cardinals included) who find men attractive–if you take my meaning–to request laicization?”
This means to empty the Vatican.
If the Vatican’s pronouncements are never to taken seriously, are we to regard the statements on sexual abuse as equally trivial? That is, the Vatican has taken a strong public stand against the sexual abuse of minors, but we all should know that as Romans, as Italians, they don’t really mean it, and we shouldn’t take it “legalistically.”
If this dishonesty is speaking peculiarly Italian, so much the worse for Italy. It is hardly in accord with the straightforward proclamation of the Gospel that Jesus calls us to.
Mary,
I don’t think Ptolemy understood epicycles quite as you do. His scientific project was accounting for the appearances of things.
The present-day appearances include empty seminaries throughout the west. Many of them, I understand, open their programs only to candidates who are “open” and “non-judgmental” about homosexuality.
It has been a long-standing truism that when the Vatican issues statements and decrees, Europeans either yawn or nod and then go on doing what they have been doing, whereas Americans take the Vatican at its word and conform or start fulminating. I do not think it is a question of Rome not wanting to be taken seriously as much as it is a question of plausible deniability. Were Rome to be questioned directly on the matter in question, the answer would be yes, of course, we meant it seriously. But apart from that it is a matter of being on the record should it be necessary to take action on something in the future. One needs to understand Roman rhetoric here and its manner of proceeding. In my opinion Americans have frequently over-reacted to Roman pronouncement, whereas Europeans have largely ignored them. And still Benedict thinks the center of the Roman Catholic Church is in Europe. That should be instructive for Americans.
Mary, if you check back in on this post, I’d love a clarification on this phrase from the earlier thread:
“In Italy we call this sort of clarification “Grida Manzoniane”, with not usefull application.”
Per piacere, che cosa e questa “Grida Manzoniana”? I love the sound of it, especially if it has to do with Manzone himself.
Mary:
Ditto to what Lee said!!!!!
If your charactierization of Italian culture is correct, it reflects very poorly on the character and integrity of that culture.
The Manila Cardinal is saying much the same thing as the US and UK bishops did and as the heads of religious orders did when Cardinal Grocholewski’s murky document came out. I wrote a piece on this under the title “Vatican Instruction, Church Reception” (http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/12/vatican_instruc.html).
Note that in his recent statement on Humanae Vitae Benedict XVI did not come straight out and reiterate that the use of contraceptives is forbidden. Also a 2-sentence clarification of the 2005 instruction adds no practical bite to it.
In both cases we are dealing with ideological noises at the service of an the image of church authority.
“The two-sentence clarification was published May 17 by the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano. It came in response to “numerous requests for clarification,” the Vatican said.” That is, it is a piece of bureaucratic noise to give a sop to those clamoring for it.
“In 2005, after more than eight years of study, the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education issued “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations With Regard to Persons With Homosexual Tendencies in View of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders.”"
The title of this document is a clear indication of its muddy quality. The word “tendencies” is old-fashioned and opaque, and the “clarification” that only “deep-seated tendencies” are meant increases the opacity; then Cardinal Grocholewski’s further clarification in an interview that what might NOT be considered deep-seated tendencies would be, say, when you had sex with a man under the influence of drink, or because you were confined to prison with other men, or when you were motivated by financial need etc., added still deeper levels of perplexity.
The nine-page instruction said the church cannot allow the priestly ordination of men who are active homosexuals, who have “deep-seated” homosexual tendencies or who support the “gay culture.” It urged bishops, major superiors and “all relevant authorities” to make sure the norms were followed.
Cardinal Bertone’s clarification said in response to questions, “It is specified that the provisions contained in this instruction are valid for all the houses of priestly formation, including those that depend on the Congregation for Eastern Churches, the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life.”
It said the pope had approved the clarification April 8.
END
The reason the Vatican produces such incoherent documents recently (I include the Motu Proprio, the Sobrino notification, the declaration on the non-ecclesiality of our sister churches etc) is that it is too small a bureaucracy to govern directly so huge a church. Subsidiarity and conciliarity and consultation would produce a better state of affairs, I suspect.
By the way, a grida manzoniana refers to the laws that were shouted to the people who were unable to read and write in times gone by. They appear in I Promessi Sposi by Alessandro Manzoni, which begins in 1628. The gride were repeated when a law needed to be reinforced; hence “la solita grida contro i bravi” (the usual cry against the highwaymen) in chapter 1.
Geooge D:
“If your charactierization of Italian culture is correct”
Berlusconi, new prime minister, has numerous charges of bribery, fraud, tax evasion, extortion and illegal political donations. You can see as in Italy we follow the laws.
And Vatica supports him.
The grida manzoniana reference implies that the Vatican is just as ridiculous and importent as the Spanish rulers of Milan who issued grida after grida against the bravi with no effect. They have as much hope of clearing seminaries of dreaded gays as “don Carlo d’Aragon, Principe di Castelvetrano, Duca di Terranuova, Marchese d’Avola, Conte di Burgeto, grande Ammiraglio, e gran Contestabile de Sicilia, Governatore di Milano e Capitan General de Sua Maestà Cattolica in Italia” had of getting rid of the pestilential bravi and vagabondi. Is not the very title of Cardinal Grocholewski’s Instruction, the fruit of 8 years’ study, the stuff of farce? No wonder Cardinal Martini is saying, in his just published nocturnal colloquies in Jerusalem, that he has lost his dreams for the Church and can now only pray for it. David Lodge, where are you when we need you?
Berlusconi’s right hand man has a papal title that allows him easy access to the Pope. Benedict XVI is a rightist. He may like Bush and Berlusconi because of the noises they make against gay marriage and abortion, but the deeper reason is that they share his right-wing political vision. In practice, all of them probably care no more about abortion than they liberals they oppose; witness Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone’s record as Archbishop of Genoa, allowing 400 abortions a year to be carried out in his Catholic hospital (his successor put a stop to it).
correction “importent” should be “impotent”.
On Cardinal Martini’s disillusion, I hope it does not also mean that he no longer believes we are in the countdown period to the next Ecumenical Council. I fear that the Roman Catholic Church is destined to become a fossilized but dangerous sect.
Berlusconi’s new Minister of Equal Opportunity is a young lady who poses nude in calendars and who has no qualifications for the job. She declares her total opposition to civil unions for gays. She is of course cattolicissima.
For more on Berlusconi, see Nanno Moretti’s movie Il Caimano.
Dave:
“Grida Manzoniane” comes straight from “Promessi Sposi”. In Manzoni’s book, under Milano’s Spanish domination, the Government issued all the time rules (Grida) and laws for everything.
Very often those laws were interpreted in very different ways by Governors. Anyway were largely ignored by population.
Now in Italy when the Government, or any other authority (including church) issues a rule, after a while repeats the same rule, and after re-repeats it, and so on we say : it’s only another “Grida manzoniana”.
George d:
more about Italy.
Mr Cuffaro was the Sicilia Governor, in january 2008 he was sentenced to 5 years for extorsion, in Avril 2008 he was elected Senator for Berlusconi’s party.
He’s cattolicissimo too, of course.
And when BXVI went in US spoke aloud against abortion then came back in Italy and gave Comunion to italian political pro-choice.
This is Italy and this is the Vatican, so why must we obey its silly laws?
Dave
Do you know this other italian saying, helpful to understand the Italian approach to the laws:
” agli amici le leggi si interpretano, ai nemici si applicano”?
mary:
I think we must do our best to understand the Church’s teaching and to live up to them.
As for prelates (an many forms of auhtority), as Jeus said: “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.”
PS:
That doesn’t mean there isn’t a role for conscience nor making the structure more democratic.
Responding to Mary’s posting on May 22—cultural differences between European bishops and American bishops. American bishops have many in their number who have degrees in canon law. It seems to be almost an unwritten requirement that if a bishop has a bright, energetic priest in his diocese and the bishop wants to groom him to be considered ‘bishop material’
the priest is sent for advanced canon law degrees.
In Europe, theology is the area of speciality for up-and-coming bishops. They need both—but
spirituality and pastoral care should be the area that all should really concentrate upon. We need priests and bishops schooled in spiritual direction and pastoral care (theology and canon
law as secondary areas of training).
Congratulations to Little Bear for hitting the nail on the head!
I’d just add that the JPII appointments with their emphasis on loyalty tend to want lawyers, much as many major modern beauracracies hav eexpanded legal staffs to supor their discretion.
Meanwhile, in Vatican City, it’s apparent that the administrative machinery operates in continued medieval fashion. Since grace builds on nature, I’m not sure the biblical cite above is helpful.
“No wonder Cardinal Martini is saying, in his just published nocturnal colloquies in Jerusalem, that he has lost his dreams for the Church and can now only pray for it.”
Fr. O’Leary –
Could you tell us a bit more about what Cardinal Martini has to say? With Archbishop Robinson of Australia being noisily critical of the Vatican, could it be that the dam of hierarchical omerta is about to crack?
Hi. I’m a Filipino and I would just like to share the local context of the Cardinal Rosales’ statements on gay priests.
They came out after the archbishop called for a ban on cross-dressers participating prominently in Marian processions held in the Philippines during May because some parishes have apparently allowed transvestites to play female Catholic saints during these popular processions. (That would be like giving cross-dressers a prominent role during St. Patrick Day parades in the US). For the the story on that, see http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080506-134826/Cardinal-hits-gay-sagalas-as-insult-to-Virgin-Mary.
So his statements about gay priests are actually a follow-up on that story. The cardinal might have been soft-pedalling so as not to make it appear that the Church is out on another anti-gay crusade. I doubt it if he even knew about Bertone’s letter when he made these statements.
The Filipino hierarchy is almost to a man conservative. There are some progressives on social justice issues but there are no flaming liberals here (though the cardinal himself is known for his support for environmentalist issues). Thanks to the Church’s pervasive influence and vigilance, divorce is illegal (a distinction we share with only one other country, Malta) and the right to life from the moment of conception is enshrined in our constitution.
But yes we do share some similarities with Italy. Even the new Jesuit general, who spent a lot of years in the Philippines, noted that our country could be called the Italy of Asia. And also, our bishops might be conservative, but some do think out of the box and are not afraid to point out the hard questions. See one of our theologian-bishops tangling with Venice’s Angelo Scola right in the middle of a Vatican press conference here http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/sb100305.htm.
Joe, many thanks for that valuable information and context.
Also, Joseph O’Leary, please do give us more on Cardinal Martini. The cardinal did have an interesting essay in the recent America magazine on passing on the faith in a postmodern world.
Bob:
“I’d just add that the JPII appointments with their emphasis on loyalty tend to want lawyers, much as many major modern beauracracies hav expanded legal staffs to support their discretion.”
Also true of the nomination of the Democratic party. The vast, vast majority of prominent leaders and presidential nominees including the present batch are, in fact, lawyers.
But this conversation is taking us away from the substance of the core issue. The Church hasn’t, in fact, in law or otherwise banned gays from the priesthood. It is simply addressing an issue that does need to be addressed forthrightly.
As someone who has a background in seminary and religious life, I can tell you that this issue (homosexuality in the priesthood) needs to be addressed honestly. It may be hard for progressive laity to hear this but when Bishop Gregory said that there are incidents where straight men feel uncomfortable in settings, he was speaking truth. I am not advocating homophobia or hyperover-reaction but it IS an issue.
Mary
Empty the Vatican? Do tell. Why not?
Joseph S. O’Leary
“The reason the Vatican produces such incoherent documents recently (I include the Motu Proprio, the Sobrino notification, the declaration on the non-ecclesiality of our sister churches etc) is that it is too small a bureaucracy to govern directly so huge a church. Subsidiarity and conciliarity and consultation would produce a better state of affairs, I suspect.”
The idea that a world wide organization can be run by a gang of Eureccentrics all striving to be in unison with an absolute monarch is…what?. Words fail. One result is what might be called a culture of prevarication.
George,
Is it the case (I am assuming it is) that straight men sometimes find themselves in the minority? And why would that be?
Perhaps I’m being an American legal rigorist here, but if the “lenient” reading of the instruction banning ordination of gays–that the categories described apply not to orientation but to homosexual acts or a strong tendency to want to act out homosexually–is intended or acceptable, then the document itself is nonsensical. Since all priests are required to vow celibacy and expected to practice sexual abstinence, there would be no point in singling out those drawn sexually to other men. The only meaningful aspect of the instruction, then, would be banning from ordination the category of men who support “the so-called ‘gay culture,’” whatever that means. (A friend of mine said–”What, no show tunes?”)
My sense of the effect of the Instruction was not that it will change policy in seminary admissions. Those seminaries that bar gay men from admission will continue to do so, and those who admit them will continue to do so, both camps citing this document, In reality, I think the Instruction’s effect was two-fold: first, it reminded gay seminarians and those among their instructors and rectors who are gay, that their sexual orientation must be kept absolutely secret unless they want to risk expulsion. In view of the culture of secrecy that fueled the sex abuse crisis, perhaps not the best tack to take. Second, it served as another slap in the face to ordinary Catholics who are gay or lesbian, who may not take the time to parse the language of Vatican documents and gauge whether they really “mean it” or not. The pain and sense of exclusion caused to these ordinary Catholics, especially the young, should not be ignored.
I’ve long disagreed with the instruction. I think it is ham-handed and foolish and have said so on many occasions. Part of the problem of interpreting this document is how one defines a homosexual or “deep-seated homosexual tendencies.” It sounds like a silly question in many ways, but differing definitions or differing assumptions lead to somewhat different outcomes. A while back, I was most surprised to read an internal Rota opinion authored by Msgr. Cormac Burke in which he seemed to opine that, in an annulment context, a person is not really a true homosexual unless he, in addition to having sexual interests in the same sex, (which many ostensibly heterosexual people do), he must also have a positive aversion to or revulsion from the opposite sex. Mere indifference to the opposite sex doesn’t cut it. I think this is a rather narrow definition of homosexuality, as would many people, I suspect. I can’t help but wonder if this narrow definition of homosexuality is illustrative of the way that some Vatican canon lawyers’ or some bishops’ thinking on the issue in the ordination context. It could mean that the vast majority of priests or candidates that the average person would label as gay or homosexual are not so in the eyes of the Curia. It also may explain the late Cardinal Joos’ somewhat controversial opinion that the vast majority of gays are not really homosexual, but simply perverts.
If that is the working definition of homosexuality, then the policy is less objectionable in its purpose…I would just assume not have hateful misogynists in the clergy, though I have known a few to serve the Church despite their anti-female dispositions. But if that’s the case, the policy is far from what the average person thinks that it is, which in itself needlessly creates credibility problems for the bishops and the Holy See.
David:
From my experience the issue is one of working through the complexity of sexuality. A seminary or religious house is lived in community. You become intimate and close to the people whom you live with, study with and pray with. A person is discerning the call of God (and what that even means in real terms), reflecting on their own identity and beginning to understand the life of the Church in a different way. On that level there is no experience like it and I would highly recommend it.
However, wherever you have an environment where people of the same sex are living together and sharing intimacies about themselves, that love and friendship is going to manifest itself sexually at times even if only subliminally. If you have people who are erotically moved by the opposite sex, it is going to be difficult for them as individuals. But if you have a majority or even large minority who are experiencing this erotic attraction (‘deep seated tendencies”?) a certain ‘vibe’ is going to permeate the atmosphere. And this I believe has historically been the case and is the real issue that should be addressed.
It isn’t like seminaries are these hotbeds of licentiousness or pick up bar but there is a definite undercurrent. If you are not aware of this (and why or how would ‘heterosexual’ people be attenuated to it), then there is this sense of something in the air, somehow you don’t quite fit.
I do know guys who told me that they never had even fantasized about sex with another male or even seriously considered it until being in that environment. I did hear stories of directors kissing directees. This creates confusion, stress and problems of identity.
I do think this needs to be explored and with hindsight of many years, I can see how that could happen. But in the moment it is frightening and some leave for this and other reasons
So, the broader issue is sexuality and identity. And sexuality is now very politicized which isn’t helpful.
It shouldn’t be a secret but neither should it be overly public. These are deeply personal and human issues. These are best left to the prudential decision of people in charge of religious formation who can have frank and candid discussions in the relative privacy of the home so to speak.
I do think though that there is a risk of even discussing this as many laity will wonder if they want their son or daughter in that environment. I personally think that we, as a Catholic community, need to start seriously looking at older more mature candidates for the priesthood and religious life. Presumably, they would have had the opportunity to work some of this out and can be in a better position to integrate their experience in a mature way. I think religious formation today, in practice, presumes a certain level of maturity that is beyond the capacity of your average 20 or 21 year old (just my opinion). We are still labouring under the model of having young men right out of high school doing their seven years or whatever and being ordained but the practice of formation presumes a greater level of maturity.
George,
Thank you for the very interesting response. I am guessing you would say that the seminary would be different from other all-male experiences such as fraternities, all-male college dorms (if they exist anymore), or the military? What about English boarding schools? Would it make a difference if men attending seminaries didn’t live so intimately with other men? Is that a necessary part of training for the priesthood?
The idea that gay me “have a positive aversion to or revulsion from the opposite sex” would be hilarious if it wasn’t for the fact that this cleric has stated it in a Rota opinion (for crying out loud!) with an apparent straight (pun intended!) face. He needs help!
While that idea imight be considered advantageous to gay men seeking ordination, the overwhelming majority of whom would not meet the good Msgr’s definition by a country mile, the downright idiocy of the statement mitigates any potential value that it might have.
Mary and Joseph O’Leary, thanks for the Manzoni references, which I like very much.
Mary, as for “agli amici le leggi si interpretano, ai nemici si applicano”–I hadn’t heard it, but I understand it completely. More commonplace I guess is the adage, “Tutto a proibito, tutto e permesso.”
I think Patrick Rothwell and others make good points about the problems with the document. Look, it incubated in a bureaucracy for 7 years or more. No way it could have come out right, I suppose.
Two things: that there are issues regarding gays in the priesthood that must be addressed is clear. Many of them, if we are honest, have to do with gay men either acting out or suppressing, rather than dealing with their sexuality as straight men do. (And whether they do so in the priesthood better than gays, I cannot begin to say).
Second, the underlying rationale with the gay ban was that a priest ios a father figure and a groom to the church, to the Bride of Christ, and thus he must not only be physically configured as a man but also erotically configured to love a woman. (I’m not making this up.) This argument has many problems, obviously. (Such as the fact that the NT also identifies the church as the vine, I believe–ouch!) But it does work to exclude any man who has homosexual feelings, even if he represses them.
So it does result in a don’t ask, don’t tell approach–and a recipe for trouble.
David:
“Second, the underlying rationale with the gay ban was that a priest ios a father figure and a groom to the church”
But in the Catholic Church apart Roman rite’s priests who have compulsory celibacy, there are armenian rite priests, eastern rites priests…. which are allowed to marry.
So they are a wife and they “are a groom to the church” too. Are they adulterer ?
correction “they are” should be “they have”.
“Berlusconi’s new Minister of Equal Opportunity is a young lady who poses nude in calendars and who has no qualifications for the job. She declares her total opposition to civil unions for gays. She is of course cattolicissima.”
Sorry, but for which of those two jobs — Equal Opportunity, or posing nude for calendars — does the young lady have no qualifications? The first, the second, or both perhaps?
” Second, the underlying rationale with the gay ban was that a priest ios a father figure and a groom to the church, to the Bride of Christ, and thus he must not only be physically configured as a man but also erotically configured to love a woman. (I’m not making this up.)”
David — Thanks for this. It shows so very clearly that Rome doesn’t realize that metaphors are by their very nature *imperfect* conveyors of truth. They all limp. They mean only *part* of what they say, so inference from *other evidence* is required to determine *just which part* of the meaning is intended by the speaker.
So far as I know (which I grant freely is not very much), Rome has not presented any evidence extrinsic to the groom metaphor that a groom’s genitalia and ordinary physical inclinations are parts of the Holy Spirit’s intended meaning of “groom”. If such evidence has been offered, I ‘d like to hear what it is.
The lady is admirably qualified for her calendar job.
I love this: agli amici le leggi si interpretano, ai nemici si applicano.
Martini’s book was reported in La Repubblica, Rome. One think he said is that he has gay couples among his friends and they never thought of asking if it has ever come into his mind to condemn them.
John Heard, the Archdiocese of Sydney’s poster boy for a faithful, orthodox gay Catholic, declares — probably with clerical prompting — that the Instruction excludes only active gays or those who have deep-seated gay inclinations, that is, who cannot keep their mind off sexual temptations. To gays like himself, who are above all things orthodox, he says: GO FOR IT!
I thought this was dotty at first, but now I see that it is exactly the “interpretazione” the Vatican wants to communicate to gays who are its “amici” — that is, faithful, orthodox, John Paul II Catholics who are not too excited about Vatican II.
Behind all this lies the undeveloped and abusive nature of the Church’s current teaching on homosexuality.
Don Franco Barbero reports on Martini:
COLLOQUI NOTTURNI A GERUSALEMME
È il titolo dell’ultimo libro del cardinale Martini, ora pubblicato in Germania. Lo attendiamo in lingua italiana per settembre.
Si tratta di un’opera straordinariamente “sovversiva” che esce dal cuore di un vero credente alle prese con Dio. Martini non è mai stato un teologo rivoluzionario, ma un pensatore profondo e moderato anche per gli alti incarichi che ha rivestito.
Ora, alla bella età di 81 anni, fiaccato dal Parkinson, il suo animo e il suo eloquio si aprono ad una profezia solcata dalla malinconia, eppure profondamente ancorata dalla fiducia in Dio.
Marco Politi (Repubblica del 19 maggio) riporta un riassunto del prezioso volume da cui traggo solo tre brevi passaggi:
“C’è stato un tempo in cui ho sognato una chiesa nella povertà e nell’umiltà, che non dipende dalle potenze di questo mondo. Una chiesa che concede spazio alla gente che pensa più in là. Una chiesa che dà coraggio, specialmente a chi si sente piccolo o peccatore. Una chiesa giovane. Oggi non ho più di questi sogni. Dopo i 75 anni ho deciso di pregare per la chiesa”.
Ancora: “Tra i miei conoscenti ci sono coppie omosessuali, uomini molto stimati e sociali. Non mi è stato mai domandato né mi sarebbe venuto in mente di condannarli”.
Ancora: “Possiamo anche lottare con Dio come Giacobbe, dubitare e dibatterci come Giobbe, rattristarci come Gesù e le sue amiche Marta e Maria. Anche questi sono sentieri che portano a Dio”.
Sono parole di fede e di coraggio. Forse il libro esce prima in Germania perché così a Roma hanno qualche mese per prepararsi al terremoto.
Qui senti la fede; qui il linguaggio umano e la sapienza evangelica si danno la mano. Grazie, cardinal Martini.
One thing John Heard may be mistaken about is that his own brand of in-your-face confessional directness about his sexuality would be acceptable to vocation recruiters. Don’t ask, don’t tell is still the effective rule, I think.
Ann, “…What God Has Joined Together…” refers to God’s intention of Marriage and the bringing forth of new Life.
David Gibson wrote:
“Second, the underlying rationale with the gay ban was that a priest ios a father figure and a groom to the church, to the Bride of Christ, and thus he must not only be physically configured as a man but also erotically configured to love a woman. (I’m not making this up.) This argument has many problems, obviously. (Such as the fact that the NT also identifies the church as the vine, I believe–ouch!) But it does work to exclude any man who has homosexual feelings, even if he represses them.”
My apologies for the tardy contribution.
Let me preface this by stating that here I am seeking only to inform and discuss.
David, my reading of the Congregration for Clergy’s instruction from 2005, which may be found here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html
… is that the “underlying rationale” for not accepting homosexuals to seminary and holy orders is, not simply a Biblical metaphor, but also the church’s view of human formation as a necessary part of priestly formation. The document contains several references to the notion of “affective maturity”. It doesn’t offer a definition of “affective maturity” (the document itself is quite brief), but the meaning of that term is unpacked at some length in a preceding document from the same Congregation called Pastores Dabo Vobis, which may be found here:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_25031992_pastores-dabo-vobis_en.html
(cf particularly paragraphs 43 and 44).
To summarize what this all means, I believe the string of logic would go something like this:
* In order to fulfill their priestly ministry, priests must be fully mature human beings
* This maturity is particularly important in regard to his relationships with men and women.
* This affective maturity is made all the more urgent by the requirement for celibacy
* A person with “deep-seated” homosexual tendendies (as opposed to “transitory” tendencies) has interpersonal relations with men and women that are of a different nature than would be the case for a heterosexual man
* Thus, “deep-seated” homosexual tendencies are an obstacle to achieving the affective maturity that a priest must have in order to live out his ministry.
This is my admittedly amateur attempt to understand why the church teaches something that runs counter to my intuition.
Does it help that this issue is so clouded so as not to have a open discussion of it or to define it?
I like the blog by George D. We need to examine the seminary culture vs. realistic living situations and pastoral activity of priests. I think here there is a great divide. While I am sure that all male environments do make for increased sexual activity and curiosity amoung males, i.e., prisons, dorms, etc., I think the seminary environment increases the homosexual flavor by putting men in “dresses” and the “theatrical” nature of the liturgy. It is like having drag queens on broadway.
This being said, I think the greatest danger to the church and to the priesthood is not the sexual orientation of the priest, but rather, the sexual maturity and psychological health of the priest.
“You have heard it was said, ‘you shall not commit adultery’, but I say to you, EVERYONE who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with his heart.”-Christ
This is Christ’s definition of adultery from the start, married or not. To look at anyone with sexual desire is to break this Commandment.
God would never refer to anyone acording to sexual desire. He tells us that he created Man and Woman. The only Sexual Love relationship He refers to is the one that is found in Marriage.(“What God Has Joined Together”) His desire is that all Marriages are Holy.
To be a “homosexual” priest is an oxymoron. From the start you are in a contradiction with the 7th Commandment.