Look, it’s perfectly simple…
From the BBC today:
So that’s all abundantly clear then.
Basically, if you are thinking about becoming a priest, you must not have committed any homosexual act, nor ever have been tempted to do so, unless that temptation came not from a ‘deep seated tendency’, but only from a ‘transitory problem’ that occurred over three years ago.
Candidates are required to honestly assess themselves under these guidelines, and I can only imagine the soul-searching as the poor lad tries to work out whether that crush on George Clooney in Ocean’s Eleven counts as ‘a transitory problem’, and whether he was over it by Ocean’s Twelve.
(They’ve avoided applying the new rule to the existing priesthood however, presumably on the grounds that it might reduce the total number of priests in Britain and America to approximately seven. Or perhaps the current gay clergy are the "grave sinners" who are "deeply respected" and are "not to be discriminated against".)
The Vatican has published long-awaited guidelines which reaffirm that active homosexuals and "supporters of gay culture" may not become priests.
But it treats homosexuality as a "tendency", not an orientation, and says those who have overcome it can begin training to take holy orders. At least three years must pass between "overcoming [a] transitory problem" and ordination as a deacon, the rules say.
All Catholic priests take a vow of celibacy, regardless of orientation.
The guidelines make no reference to current priests, but only to those about to join a seminary.
Some Catholic theologians feel the document is not sufficiently clear, the BBC's Peter Gould says. That it refers to "tendencies" rather than orientation "has left many people scratching their heads," Jesuit scholar Father Thomas Reese told him.
[…]
The 18-paragraph document was published with little fanfare on Tuesday morning. The Vatican is not offering further explanation
[…]
Critics have long objected that gay seminarians might feel they have no choice but to lie about their sexual orientation.
The guidelines specifically address this issue, urging candidates for the priesthood to tell the truth. "It would be gravely dishonest for a candidate to hide his own homosexuality," the document says.
Observers say the new rules might lead to a dramatic drop in the number of priests, especially in the West.
[…]
The document, drafted by the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education and approved by Pope Benedict on 31 August, describes homosexual acts as "grave sins" that cannot be justified under any circumstances.
"If a candidate practises homosexuality, or presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director as well as his confessor have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding towards ordination," it says.
"Such persons in fact find themselves in a situation that presents a grave obstacle to a correct relationship with men and women."
But the paper also stresses the Church's deep respect for homosexuals, who, it says, should by no means be discriminated against.
So that’s all abundantly clear then.
Basically, if you are thinking about becoming a priest, you must not have committed any homosexual act, nor ever have been tempted to do so, unless that temptation came not from a ‘deep seated tendency’, but only from a ‘transitory problem’ that occurred over three years ago.
Candidates are required to honestly assess themselves under these guidelines, and I can only imagine the soul-searching as the poor lad tries to work out whether that crush on George Clooney in Ocean’s Eleven counts as ‘a transitory problem’, and whether he was over it by Ocean’s Twelve.
(They’ve avoided applying the new rule to the existing priesthood however, presumably on the grounds that it might reduce the total number of priests in Britain and America to approximately seven. Or perhaps the current gay clergy are the "grave sinners" who are "deeply respected" and are "not to be discriminated against".)
posted by Brit at 3:49 AM
19 Comments:
Aren't semantics wonderful? You can solve any problem with language.
Language and doublethink. Or in this case, about quadruplethink.
Recently I read something (no, I can't remember where) that had never occurred to me regarding the Church's ongoing vocation crisis:
The number of vocations in a society has varied inversely, and significantly, with the acceptance of homosexuality in that society. Why? Because until a generation ago, it was far easier for a spiritual Catholic male to enter the priesthood than continually have to think up new excuses he could give his mom as to why he wasn't married.
Given the numbers, it seems at least 60%, and probably far more, of the priesthood have always been gay.
So the disordered have been the Church's primary, and often very effective, shepherds. And I wouldn't be surprised that their effectiveness in that role is due precisely to having a foot in both camps, so to speak.
With regard to increasing the number of vocations, there is no getting around the fact that post-Industrial societies scarcely give a tinker's darn about homosexuality. The alternative for the Church, then, is to open up the priesthood to married men at the very least.
Unfortunately, active heterosexuality is also prohibited. Despite being attaining the status of "orientation," as opposed to a mere "tendency."
My irony meter just went to 12.
It is a curious one.
It could be argued that the strength of the Catholic Church (in this country anyway) over the Church of England, is that it 'sticks to its guns' as far as morality is concerned, rather than bowing to every whim of society. The CofE offers no certainties or authority to its flock: you want openly gay clergy, women clergy, gay married clergy, atheist clergy? OK, you've can have 'em all! And numbers attending have nose-dived.
The Catholics have avoided this problem by 'moving with the times' in millenia rather than months.
So why aren't they just keeping quiet about all this? It can only cause disruption and disaster. Non-practising gays are, as you say, the very backbone of the priesthood.
It must be because of the paedophilia scandals. But is this the right way of going about it? Don't they first need to establish whether gays are any more likely to abuse altar boys, than heterosexuals are likely to turn into Humberts?
The silly part is that married priests were the norm for the first millenium of church history. But Brit is right about the glacial pace of change for the Church. The Church is so steeped in history and tradition that a change of the magnitude of allowing married priests could ignite unknowable consequences. I think that is their major fear - the unknown. Also, the illusion that the invisible hand of God is guiding the church becomes so much harder to maintain.
But you can't expect them to be persuaded by the practicality of continuing to look the other way on gay priests. While it was a dirty little secret, the fact of gay priests could not be used to question the sexual morality of the Church. But if the fact is openly acknowledged and accepted, then the fact that the Church is so dependent on the existence of a sexual perversion would almost make it seem that God has created homosexual men for that very purpose.
Admission of failure is not an option.
The Church priesthood has, of course, every right make up its own rules for entry to the club. The point my original post was to wonder:
1) why the Church has introduced this particular new ruling
2) why the Church has decided to introduce any ruling about ‘deep seated gay tendencies’ at all at this moment in time?
On point 1:
The wording of the new guidelines themselves is bizarre and muddied to say the least: what’s the difference between a ‘tendency’ and a ‘transitory problem’? How do you know the problem won’t come back? Why three years - does something special happen after three years? Why does it only apply to new clergy and not existing clergy? Can men with gay tendencies not have a vocation? If they think they hear a calling, are they mistaken because God doesn’t call gays – even celibate gays? Can only heterosexuals be celibate - do gays always laspe? How do they think they can enforce it?
On point 2:
Your mentioning of paedophiles brings up the main question: why now? The suspicion is that this move is in response to the paedophile scandals.
If so, why should it make any difference? No predatory paedophile is going to be dissuaded by these vague questions about tendencies. It also hinges on a dubious link between having gay tendencies and being more likely to be a paedophile.
If the Church is serious about tackling paedophiles, then surely better responses would be to put in safeguards about leaving priests alone with children, as schools now do with teachers.
As to being “old time Protestants who loved to fulminate against The Scarlet Woman of Rome”, you’re close, but not quite right. I was brought up as a Catholic, did long, noble service as an altar boy and went to a school run by De la Salle brothers. And just as nobody likes to criticise communists more than an ex-commie, so it is with lapsed Catholics.
I came into contact with scores of priests and brothers, and witnessed two official allegations of paedophile abuse by priests on members of my peer group. One resulted in an acquittal, the other involved the priest being disgracefully shunted off to another parish far away, until later transgressions resulted in arrest.
But of course the paedophiles are the bad apples. Sincerely, the vast majority were lovely, kind, generous, intelligent people - and one I still count as a great friend. But even of the lovely, kind, generous intelligent ones, how many were average males whom I could easily imagine in heterosexual relationships were it not for their vocation? A couple at most.
If this proclamation will dissuade any priests, it will be the good, conscientious, celibate ones with 'tendencies'.
I think they should be far less concerned with gay tendencies, and far more concerned with paedophiles. The hush-it-up, move-em-out-of-the-way attitude in the past - the recent past - has been nothing short of a disgrace.
But this isn't any good at all - it won't eliminate a single bad apple, and will probably dissuade a lot of good ones.
Peter:
On reflection, your four-figure irony meter reading is at least plausible. Question: is that beyond red-line for a Canadian? Based on my 7-years living in England, for Brits that level of irony is scarcely noteworthy.
Ahem. I will continue stoking your meter.
Is it celebacy, discrimination against gays or the whole Church structure you are aiming at? And why would you care?
In order: No. Ummm. No. Because the Church strives to be a moral beacon for the rest of us.
Celibacy is clearly the church's call. Between A) and B), your explanation of the why behind celibacy is as concise -- and convincing -- as any I've seen. But, given human nature, demanding celibacy is not a cost-free decision. Which is where the irony meter starts spinning. The Church decries society's increasing acceptance of the gay culture, which also acts to decrease those willing to undertake vocations. Yet if society were to suddenly return to the 50s, the Church would promptly exclude the very candidates it willingly accepted in the 50s.
C) & D). Orrin has it half right. Men are nearly always the perpetrators of sex crimes of all kinds, whether the victims are male or female. Focussing on homosexuality not only ignores most of the crimes, but it uniquely targets homesexuals, when heterosexual men are just as likely to be perpetrators. The problem here is that, to be on the safe side, vulnerable people should never be left under the supervision of men other than fathers in "private and isolated circumstances." Which is why you don't hear much about this sort of thing with the Scouts, for instance. Scoutmasters are not the kind of authority figure priests are, and boys are never left alone with scoutmasters. (How do I know? My son is a Boy Scout, and I have participated with him.)
So my objection, is not so much that it targets gays, but rather that it (and Orrin) uniquely target gay men for sins heterosexual men are just as capable of committing.
I'm not sure what your opinion on the nature of homosexuality is, so I don't know how far I am from agreeing with you. But the more fundamental question is its cause. These Vatican guidelines, guilty throughout of astonishingly empty argumentation where they don't rely on wholesale equivocation, completely sidestep the notion of cause, other than by using mealy-mouthed words such as "tendency".
Why do you suppose that is? I have a guess. Because the Church truly objects to homosexuality, but can't square the corner with the very real likelihood that God is involved with every ensoulment, and also makes some people homosexual. I don't mean to belittle the Church's position in the least. Rather, I only mean to note that if homosexuality as an orientation is a matter of choice, then it may also be a target of moral opprobrium. But acknowledging God creates gays (here, IMHO, much more than that nasty evilution theory is where rational inquiry threatens religious tenets) automatically throws several parts of the Bible directly in the dumpster.
Unless, that is, one concludes that God made people in such a way that we would have someone to kill because he commanded us to do so.
I think you misunderstand our comments as fulminating against Papism, or even being critical of the Church in any way(absent my line about the guidelines, which is a pointed criticism of a document, not an institution). To the extent our observations, are true, then the Church is in a real predicament. And, contrary to your opinion, I think it is brought on by a certain amount of delusion about the sexual orientation of most priests, and how acceptance of homosexuality in the wider society is drying up the Church's pool of recruits.
BTW, Peter -- my primary task at work today is software documentation. Your post provided me several much needed brain breaks in forming a reply. I am truly in your debt.
He takes vows of poverty and obedience as well and swears to keep the secrets of the confessional even unto death. That would be impossible if he had a family to provide and care for, so I presume you want those vows thrown out too;
Why impossible? I don't think that the vow of poverty is much enforced anymore, priests own property and earn income on the side. Being a public school teacher is practically equivalent to a vow of poverty, yet school teachers marry.
Married servicemen take vows of loyalty and fidelity to their service that puts more extreme demands on their home life than the average parish priest will ever have to match.
And aren't lawyers subject to a similar oath of non-disclosure with regard to their clients? How does marriage prevent you from fulfilling that oath?
..but there is no doubt the Church understands the reality of human sexuality far better than you guys.
If they think that they can meet their vocational requirements from healthy, well adjusted heterosexual males in today's liberalized sexual atmosphere and maintain the celibacy vows, then I don't think that they understand sexuality that well.
Peter:
Your interpretation is correct -- I do believe the Church strives to be a moral beacon for all. However, by that I do not mean to imply that the Church is in any way accountable to anything but the morality for which it aims to be a beacon.
Some theists accuse non-theists get accused of being moral freeloaders. Clearly, I think that is self-congratulatory nonsense. (caution: the following sentence contains irony) I concede, though, that it is fair to say that theists in general, and the Church in particular, may very well think more about morality then do non-theists.
That is all to all of society's good, provided that the product of their moral deliberation has some moral basis. When it does not, the result is often lasting damage to the Church's credibility as a moral beacon.
This directive, as vacuous as anything I have ever read, comes to very firm conclusions about gays, driven by some passages in the Bible, but based upon nothing. In other words, had those passages, purportedly directly from God, not been in the Bible, the Church would not have felt compelled to direct as it did. (It is also worth noting that Catholic writings of only two or three generations past, used the same sorts of words, and reasoning, with respect to Jews.)
My issue with this is that the Church is, IMHO, letting culturally bound statements in the Bible that did not come from God get in the way of making a truly moral judgment. While I happen to think the Church has been astonishingly anti-human in its attitude towards sex, it is on very firm ground in insisting the only safe place for sex is within the confines of marriage, both for reasons of health and the ever present prospect of resulting children.
So why should the sanctuary of marriage be denied to gays?
In essence, I agree with your position on sex and marriage far more than you think I do; what's more, I'll bet Duck and Brit do, as well. We (if I may be so bold as to speak for them) just happen to be able to arrive at that conclusion through purely material considerations.
What I am unable to do, however, is use material considerations to arrive at the conclusion that gays must never marry, and therefore must be forever celibate.
If the Church was to come the conclusion that God made some people homosexual, what conclusions would that lead them to? Probably the one it has eventually arrived at, more or less, regarding heterosexualilty: it is a natural force that is to be sanctified and sublimated in marriage.
I'm afraid I wandered off the topic for a bit. I'll try to get a bit closer. Up above you mentioned that priests must take a vow of poverty, which pretty much mandates a celibate clericy. But I think it is pretty clear that the consequence of the poverty vow greatly changes the composition of the priesthood with respect to the rest of the population. Priests are self-selecting, after all.
Hence the overwhelming irony. Homosexuals have probably always been a majority in the priesthood. Further, if notions about the causes of homosexuality prove correct, gays might very well be superior candidates for the priesthood because they understand, and can better relate to, women far better than most men. All without the burden of resisting sexual attraction.
Yet despite all that, they are now unsuitable for the priesthood, despite having been the majority of effective priests over the centuries.
The Church is in a heck of a predicament here. I hope (believe it or not) that I hope it finds a way out. But I predict that thei this latest move will strengthen the precipitous downward trend in vocations.
I don't see that is to anyone's benefit.
Peter:
BTW, I have an unfair advantage today.
I had to come home from work early to pick up a sick son from school.
Peter,
Since I'm no longer a Catholic I try to limit my beefs with Catholicism to those things that impact the larger society. As far as those things that affect only the Church and its members I am happy to let them do as they will.
I would say that the celibacy vow is unnecessary. Now, if the Church had no problem finding an abundance of high-quality celibate heterosexuals to meet its vocational needs, then there would be no discussion.
But we are having this discussion because they aren't finding that abundance of candidates. Celibacy is not a normal condition, you should grant that much. While not impossible, celibacy is an extremely high degree of difficulty move for the average healthy heterosexual male to pull off, equivalent to a quadruple twisting backflip/lutz in the pike position. So your vocations will be filled either by the most freakishly talented spiritual atheletes, or those who see the priesthood as a refuge from their own psycho-sexual demons.
We are constantly reminded by yourself, OJ and other members of the Judeo-Christian Continuum that man is fallen. That utopian schemes aimed at perfecting Man are doomed by man's innate sinfulness. Yet here we have the One True Church representing Christ on Earth thinking that it can buck this trend, and fill its ranks with a cadre of spiritual supermen.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Peter:
Clearly there are other reasons for insisting that the only safe environment for sex is within marriage, and the betrayal aspect you mention is chief among them, and one I should have included, and for more than just health concerns. Presuming a betrayed woman, she could find the resources available to her children reduced by the presence of new child outside the family. Further, like in-group murder, in-group deceit is considered immoral no matter what culture you look at, so sexual infidelity is a double whammy.
All of which puts the Church on very firm ground when insisting that marriage is the only morally acceptable context for sex.
And puts the Church on theological quicksand when it just as vociferously denies that same sanctuary for gays. Even though children aren't possible, everything else is on the table. Once upon a time not too long ago, when it seemed that gays chose their orientation out of some perverted moral weakness, we now know better. The Church is now in the bind of having to continue the institutional habit of demonizing homosexuality without simultaneously acknowledging that God made the gays the Church is demonizing. Hence the appallingly mealy mouthed language.
or that the Church declared the practice of Judaism to be a sin? [references, please]
My point wasn't that the Church had declared Judaism a sin, but rather, with respect to Jews, the Church as frequently used the same mealy-mouthed language. And worse, probably. "Over the centuries the anti-Jewish teaching was refined, developed, and made ever more negative until, in the 20th Century, the majority of Christians in Europe had such a negative (and false!) understanding of Judaism and such a negative attitude toward Jews that they became easy prey for the Nazi racial categorizations that rationalized genocide." from Reflections on Anti-Semitism and the Church, (Cardinal William Keeler, June 2004)
I don't have a beef with celibacy. I feel it is utterly of no moral consequence whatsoever, and don't have any opinion one way or the other about whether, for any given individual, it is possible, advisable, or healthy. However, as Duck has noted, celibacy is far from a cost-free decision. Demanding it has consequently made the Catholic priesthood far from representative of the larger male population.
Do you believe married men should be entitled to leave or dally if the sex isn't frequent enough and the poor dear is convinced his emotional health is suffering as a result?
If there are minor children, absolutely not -- the primary duty spouses owe each other is to their children.
Peter:
I think you have misunderstood (or, more likely, I have obscured) the point I was trying to make. I'll try again.
I have absolutely no opinion as to whether the Church's celibacy requirement is justified.
I do have opinions as to the effect celibacy has had on the composition of the priesthood, and the reduction in vocations. These opinions are based upon observations that might have some relationship to objective reality. To the extent these observations are "true," and that my opinions correctly flow from those observations, then they raise some serious issues the Church must confront.
So, to reiterate: It appears that celibacy has, with respect to sexuality, resulted in a priesthood that is not at all representative of the overall male population, to the point where the rate of homosexuality among ordained priests is probably at least 10 times, and may be as much as 25 times, higher than the normal male rate.
It also true (while always being aware of post hoc ergo propter hoc) that the reduction in vocations is inversely proportional to society's acceptance of homosexuality.
So it seems that the vow of poverty has celibacy as its consequences, which in turn (it seems) has other consequences. Therefore, I predict that the Church will, so long as it insists upon celibacy and a heterosexual priesthood, will face an institution threatening lack of vocations. But it won't be due to any hyper-sexualization of society, but rather that our society no longer demonizes homosexuality, because our society has, collectively, come to realize that homosexuality in and of itself is no more the result of a choice, and hence has no more moral component, than left-handedness.
The preceding has nothing to do with the spiritual or doctrinal reasons for celibacy. It clearly does, to the extent it is true, raise the issue as to whether the Church can survive the celibacy requirement, no matter how profound those spiritual and doctrinal reasons may be. My prediction is that it will not. The depopulation of the priesthood represents unprecedented demographic collapse, dwarfing even what faces post-Soviet Union Russia.
(BTW, Letter of Response to friends in the aftermath of the Vatican Instruction 29 is particularly thoughtful.)
So I shall rephrase your last sentence from:
No, those are all fine and dandy, but celibacy should be abandoned because some people can't cut it.
to
No, those are all fine and dandy, but celibacy (and the insistence upon heterosexual priests, and putting the priesthood off-limits to women) might cause the Church church to be abandoned, because men won't cut it.
There is a difference between not being promiscuous and being celibate.
One is a matter of maturity, and a standard that we can and should hold people to, the other is unnatural.
By "unnatural" I don't mean that it's an urge that cannot be overcome, but it clearly IS the natural order of things to procreate, and we have even been directed by God to have sex.
The reproductive urge, manifested mostly by lust in men, and by lust and maternal desire in women, is our strongest non-personal-survival drive.
It's not like giving up chocolate, or even cigarettes, it's a very, very difficult thing for most men to stay celibate ALL OF THEIR LIVES.
Even if you've gone years without even thinking about sex, it can sneak up on you, blindside you with intense desire.
Aside from Catholic priests, Mormon boys of college age typically go on religious missions of up to two years, and one of the mission rules is complete abstinence.
The only reason that works at all is because Missionaries are ALWAYS in pairs, except when using the bathroom.
Ask them how easy it was, and if they could imagine a LIFETIME of abstinence, especially without a companion to support them, and to provide deterrence.
Assuming that one could live without air, it's like asking people to hold their breath for a lifetime.
It can be done, but only by a few, and fewer still would CHOOSE to do so.
If we're to think of Catholic priests as Medal of Honor winners, instead of average GI's, then it's bad news for the Church when looking at the number of people who have so honored us with their achievements and sacrifices.
Yes, all Mormon missionaries, male or female, are paired off.
The assignments aren't permanent, companions change every six months or so.
If there's ever an odd number of people, then a group of three is formed - no missionary is ever a free agent. (In theory).
Female missionaries get up to hijinks too, it's not just the guys.
Although more females than males would be willing to be celibate for life, in neither instance are you going to get more than a very small minority to agree.
Women crave sex too.
On the point of celibacy "warping" people, it can do so, but the bigger point is that it SHAPES people in ways different from the norm.
I take no position about the desirability of that occurring, but I note that people who have been celibate for a lifetime are fundamentally different from the majority of humans, who have participated in one of the most basic human experiences.
It's as if Catholic priests had never eaten food, or at the very least, had sworn off it.
Peter, you seem to be very cavalier about dismissing the force and effects of the sex drive, which is especially odd coming from an addict - I would have assumed that you knew quite well how constant, unfulfilled desire can wear away at a person.
Peter:
Do you mean to say that men and women cannot both crave sex for wildly different reasons?
Peter:
So, women "crave" sex too, eh?
Yes, they do, and quite often.
Try asking some about it.
Failing that, it's an easy subject to brush up on - there have been thousands of books and periodical articles written about it.
I don't quite know what that unfortunate shot was about, but I trust it made your day.
It did not, for the simple reason that I took no "shot".
This is one reason why you and I rarely communicate effectively - you love to infer things from my posts, whereas I am very rarely attempting to imply anything. I write it plainly, or don't say it.
Therefore, you often believe that I'm saying something that I am not.
For instance, if I were to write "Do you like the band N'Sync ?", I wouldn't be attempting to imply that you were gay, I'd be asking if you like N'Sync's music.
My points here were twofold:
Peter, you seem to be very cavalier about dismissing the force and effects of the sex drive, which is especially odd coming from an addict - I would have assumed that you knew quite well how constant, unfulfilled desire can wear away at a person.
1) You are incorrectly assessing the amount of influence that the sex drive has over the thoughts and behavior of the average person, male and especially female, which leads you to improperly assess how easy it is for a person to remain celibate for life, and also to improperly assess how being celibate for life would/does affect a person's outlook on life, and ability to understand fellow humans.
2) It is my understanding that you are a proud and unrepentant tobacco addict, and if that's so, I was attempting to get you to relate your cravings for tobacco to the cravings that most people feel for sexual activity.
In other words, it can be put off due to circumstance, or by force of will, but it's always there.
Talk to people who have quit smoking, or who have attempted to quit, and you'll find that although a few can just lay them down and walk away, most people cannot, and it's very hard to accomplish, sometimes taking many, many attempts.
If I have misunderstood about your tobacco use, then I apologize for my ignorance and the misunderstanding.
In any case, the reference was never intended to be insulting, it was just an attempt to promote empathy and understanding.
Speaking of misunderstanding, you've been reading my comments for over two years now.
In that time, how often have I been intentionally insulting, even to trolls and the irrational, even when THEY are being insulting ?
Although I occasionally am, it's rare.
Flamewars aren't my bag, man.
Funny, Peter, funny.
As I've mentioned before, your sense of humor is your saving grace.
Or humour, as some of you might prefer.
Post a Comment
<< Home