New Vatican Directive on homosexual priests

[Cerin]

I wonder what people think of the recent Vatican directive on homosexuality and the priesthood.

What I believe the vatican has said is that men who practice homosexuality may not be priests, but there is some leeway given to those who indentify their orientation as homosexual? But that sort of doesn't make sense to me because all priests are supposed to refrain from sexual interactions, whatever the kind, so naturally someone who insisted on having sexual relations would be disqualified, whether homo- or heterosexual.

There was the most extraordinary exchange on the Lehrer NewsHour, where one of the two participant priests veered off into theological concepts, and Margaret Warner sort of reigned him back in to the practical while acknowleging that he had offered a very complex thought. It was such an unusual moment.

Perhaps someone who has a better grasp of what the directive actually says can clarify.

As I recall from the recent publicity on sexually abusive priests, it was not just restricted to abuse of boys or young men, so I wonder about the rationale behind coming out with this sort of directive as part of a solution to that problem, or if the motivation was unrelated to that.

[Primula Baggins]

I do know that in my branch of the Lutheran church, homosexuals may be pastors—but pastors must be either married or celibate.

So a celibate homosexual could be a Lutheran pastor within the laws of the church. Being homosexual in orientation doesn't require homosexual activity.

[JewelSong]

I think the Roman Catholic church has a very long way to go in dealing with sexuality of any kind, never mind homosexuality.

Equating homosexuality with peodophila is a horrible misunderstanding of the issue.

Saying that men who are in some kind of "transitory homosexual phase" can still be priests shows a marked lack of understanding of the basics of sexual preference, as it is currently understood.

How, one wonders, are they going to determine which males are very homosexual, or only a "little" homosexual?

And if one has taken a vow to be celibate, why should one's sexuality matter at all.

A huge problem.

[nerdanel]

Cerin, my understanding of the Vatican directive was that it focused on three categories of priests:

- Those who are "actively homosexual" - fair enough. My understanding of Church policy is that candidates who are "actively heterosexual" are not supposed to become priests either.

- Those who "have deep-seated homosexual tendencies" - presumably those who persist in identifying their sexual orientation as homosexual, as distinguished from those who go through a transitory questioning phase, but do not ultimately continue to identify as homosexual (?) Otherwise, the meaning of "deep-seated" is unclear to me. This is the portion that I think you are identifying as strange, because if a person with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" was celibate, then presumably it should not be a bar to his priesthood. "Deep-seated," then, makes me quite convinced that this is a belated, shoddy, ill-advised, and ineffective response to the problem of pedophilia within the ranks of the priesthood. On its face, the document seems to me to be saying not-so-tacitly that those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies cannot be trusted to control them --> those tendencies might manifest themselves around young boys. If this is what the document IS actually saying, as jewelsong says, the Vatican has far to go before they understand any manner of sexuality, let alone homosexuality.

- Those who "support the so-called gay culture" - I imagine that this is directed towards priests, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, who are involved with Dignity, who support marriage equality efforts in this country, or who advocate tolerance of homosexuality. I can't help but wonder if this would include the inclusive statements that I heard while still attending a Catholic Church in Virginia - our pastor repeatedly affirmed gay and straight identities as equally valid. I have always felt gratified that the first time I heard the word "gay" as a child was from a church, and it was mentioned in an accepting light; I will be most displeased if that church and others are no longer allowed to make such statements.

[Cerin]

Thanks JewelSong and tp for those clarifications.

On its face, the document seems to me to be saying not-so-tacitly that those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies cannot be trusted to control them --> those tendencies might manifest themselves around young boys. If this is what the document IS actually saying, as jewelsong says, the Vatican has far to go before they understand any manner of sexuality, let alone homosexuality.

Yes, I agree the whole things seems to make a mush of the concerns related to the abuse scandal.

The one thing that makes sense to me is that homosexuals who become priests will face a more tempting environment (that is, a challenge to celibacy) than heterosexuals who become priests, if it is the case that the brotherhood of priests spends alot of time with each other, that is, in a mostly male environment. But that is something for homosexuals thinking of becoming priests to consider for themselves, and I don't see what it has to do with pedophilia. Unless, as you say, the vatican is suggesting that homosexual priests are more inclined to take advantage of the boys available to them, separate from a pre-existing pathology to engage in sexual acts with children as opposed to adults.

[JewelSong]

I have always felt gratified that the first time I heard the word "gay" as a child was from a church, and it was mentioned in an accepting light; I will be most displeased if that church and others are no longer allowed to make such statements.

Be prepared to be displeased. My sense is that these kinds of statements will not be allowed or tolerated in any church calling itself "Catholic."

[Teremia]

I was irate about the injustice of this new policy at first. It makes a hash of the idea of "celibacy," for one thing, by implying that men are actually incapable of it. (Otherwise, why ban celibate homosexuals?) It also makes a bit of a hash of mercy and inclusiveness, because it suggests that people are to be arbitrarily condemned and excluded just for being who they are. Born homosexual (and with the language about "deep-seated tendencies," the Church really seems to have acknowledged that homosexuality exists, and that homosexuals are homosexual from an early age), you become a second-class citizen of the Church, excluded -- no matter what your spiritual calling, no matter what you do, no matter what you believe, no matter how you feel your "relationship with God" is going -- from the priesthood.

Unfair!

Then I recalled that the Church had already excluded -- for equally aribitrary reasons: you were born wrong -- women from the priesthood for quite some time, and though still broken-hearted to think of the suffering this new edict is going to bring to many extremely decent and holy men who are or who would like to become priests, I found myself less able to burn with indignation, and more deeply discouraged.

[Primula Baggins]

Cerin, based on my own experience as a pastor's child, whose father knows many, many pastors as friends and colleagues, I'd have to say that a male priest or pastor in a parish is very likely to encounter heterosexual temptation. It often seems to start when a pastor is counseling a woman whose marriage is breaking down. A pastor falling in love with and running off with or marrying a female parishioner is not uncommon.

About 20% of the pastors in my church are women (the percentage is growing yearly because about half of seminarians are female), and one does not hear the same thing about them—which I think is interesting. But of course, my father doesn't know many female pastors that well, as he was ordained in the 1950s and we did not begin ordaining women until 1970.

[Ethel]

Cerin, based on my own experience as a pastor's child, whose father knows many, many pastors as friends and colleagues, I'd have to say that a male priest or pastor in a parish is very likely to encounter heterosexual temptation. It often seems to start when a pastor is counseling a woman whose marriage is breaking down. A pastor falling in love with and running off with or marrying a female parishioner is not uncommon.

This happened to my aunt! Her husband was a Presbyterian minister. They had been, she thought, happily married for about 15 years when he ran away with a parishoner he had been counseling. She (my aunt) really loved him; it broke her heart.