Bishops Begin Distancing from Vatican Document on Gays in Priesthood

[oat_soda]

“Absolutely, it cuts both ways. . . . I think if the orientation dominates one’s personality, whether that be homosexual or heterosexual,” then the candidate is not suitable for ordination, Skylstad said. “You know, a heterosexual person who cannot live the celibate life in fidelity to his mission, in fidelity to appropriate boundaries, is not going to be called by the church to priesthood, either.”

skylstad pretty much says that a homosexual orientation is not a problem, just acting on it is. he is assuming deep-seated to mean frequently acting on one’s homosexual tendenies. also, it is interesting how this guy talks about orientation when the document calls it tendencies.

bishop skydslad has written a response to the vatican document clearly saying that homosexuality is an orientation and that we are to treat people with dignity reguardless of their sexual orientation. further, he never says that homosexual tendencies are disordered towards evil and that nobody is born homosexual ontologically. he also says that the church expects seminarians not to identify themselves principally as homosexual. he also affirms that a homosexually inclined priest can be a good priest but that it is not acceptable for a candidate or seminarian to identify themselves as principally homosexual.

it sounds like the church in the u.s. will only bar active homosexuals or those who consider themselves homosexual. it will not prevent chaste homosexuals who try to remain faithful and do not identify themselves as homosexuals. but i think the vatican document bars those who are chaste homosexuals as well.

the point is, priests should be heterosexual and have wanted to be married. this buisness about chaste homosexuals misses the point about their disordered inclination which skyslad and other gay-friendly bishops do not accept.

 

[Libero]

It says that and more. It says if the tendencies are transitory, and the candidate is free of them for at least 3 years, then ordination may be ok. That says no tendencies, period.

It would appear you are arguing that the document is contraictory, not the cardinal.

 

[AJC]

WanderAimlessly:

Looks like the lines are being drawn: PF

Not Bishop Galante of the Camden, NJ Diocese. In fact he was interviewed on the Big Talker 1210 AM in Philadelphia, earlier in the week. He explained that much of what is in this document was recommended in 1996, and that there is nothing in it he has not applied already.

Don’t be fooled by the secular media and loonely left Catholic’s hype!

 

[Confiteor]

miguel:

translation: misinterpretation

Whatever his other merits may be, Cardinal Murphy O’Connor’s interpretation of this instruction is not consistent with the Vatican’s:

Cardinal Murphy O’Connor:

"Priests are required to live lives of celibate chastity, whatever their sexual orientation, and must be able to relate freely and well to both men and women. Bishops must ensure that men are not admitted to the priesthood for whom its requirements and demands will be too burdensome or impossible to fulfil.

The Instruction is not saying than men of homosexual orientation are not welcome in the priesthood."

For the his entire statement:
rcdow.org.uk/cardinal/default.asp?content_ref=530

From Msgr Anatrella’s commentary on the instruction:

“One must free oneself from the idea that leads one to believe that, insofar as a homosexual person respects his commitment to continence lived in chastity, there will not be problems and he can therefore be ordained a priest.”

catholicnews.com/data/st…cns/0506787.htm

From the instruction’s author:

“In regard to people who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, we are profoundly convinced that it is an obstacle for a correct relationship with men and women, with negative consequences for the Church’s pastoral development.”

"Obviously, if we speak of deep-seated tendencies, this means that there can also be transitory tendencies, which do not constitute an obstacle. "

catholic.net/global_catholic_news/template_news.phtml?channel_id=2&news_id=80818

 

[Elzee]

contemplative:

Maybe the Vatican won’t need to. Perhaps in time the bishops will do something on their own.

Time…we all must give this a little time. The seminary reviews are still going on. The ban on homosexuals to the priesthood was just released. We can’t expect immediate law and order…as much as we may desire it.

However, we should expect immediate support of Rome’s decision and statement from our Bishops and Priests.

 

[fix]

Libero:

It would appear you are arguing that the document is contraictory, not the cardinal.

The document is very clear. Please read it.

If a heterosexual man were to have no more heterosexual tendencies would he make a good husband?

The document says the candidate should have no more homosexual tendencies, as long as they were only transitory, for at leat 3 years before becoming a deacon.

How do you reconcile that with te cardinals words?

 

[MikeWM]

fix:

The document says the candidate should have no more homosexual tendencies, as long as they were only transitory, for at leat 3 years before becoming a deacon.

What is a ‘tendancy’? A fleeting thought? A fantasy? An act?

How would we describe heterosexual tendencies? If the ordinand is having wild sexual thoughts about the woman working in the post office, is that a heterosexual ‘tendancy’? What if the thoughts are fleeting and he suppresses them? What if he is having sex with her? With which of those is he going to make a suitable priest?

The document is ambiguous about what a tendancy is and what ‘deep-seated’ actually means. I still don’t see any inconsistency between the the document and Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor’s position.

Mike

 

[fix]

MikeWM:

What is a ‘tendancy’? A fleeting thought? A fantasy? An act?

How would we describe heterosexual tendencies? If the ordinand is having wild sexual thoughts about the woman working in the post office, is that a heterosexual ‘tendancy’? What if the thoughts are fleeting and he suppresses them? What if he is having sex with her? With which of those is he going to make a suitable priest?

The document is ambiguous about what a tendancy is and what ‘deep-seated’ actually means. I still don’t see any inconsistency between the the document and Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor’s position.

Mike

A heterosexual having desires is not disordered. If he gives in to these desires, physically or mentally, that may be a sin but the attraction is not a disorder.

A person having same sex attraction is a disorder.

The document gives clear guidelines. I see nothing nebulous.

1 a : direction or approach toward a place, object, effect, or limit b : a proneness to a particular kind of thought or action
2 a : the purposeful trend of something written or said : AIM b : deliberate but indirect advocacy

 

[fkpl]

MikeWM:

What is a ‘tendancy’? A fleeting thought? A fantasy? An act?

With respect to sexual identity, it is a state of mind. .

How would we describe heterosexual tendencies? If the ordinand is having wild sexual thoughts about the woman working in the post office, is that a heterosexual ‘tendancy’? What if the thoughts are fleeting and he suppresses them? What if he is having sex with her? With which of those is he going to make a suitable priest?

These rhetorical questions improplerly conflate sins of lust with the proscriptions of the Instruction. This is just the type of disingenuousness we are seeing from some of the gay-positive episcopals. The Instruction is quite clear: any man who is afflicted by same sex attraction, whether or not that man is celibate and intends to remain so, is constitutionally unfit for the Sacrament of Holy Orders. By analogy, a midget is unfit for service as a firefighter. The midget is not an unworthy person because this is so. It is simply that his physical condition precludes him from being able to perform the duties required of the position.

The document is ambiguous about what a tendancy is and what ‘deep-seated’ actually means. I still don’t see any inconsistency between the the document and Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor’s position.

The document is NOT ambiguous. Syntactically it is quite clear. The adjectival “deep-seated” read in the context of the discussion of “transitory” homosexual experience in the past makes it clear that the adjective “deep-seated” is of little to no significance. It does not mean a homosexual who is actively committing the sin of lust in his mind; it also includes a chaste homosexual.

 

[MikeWM]

fix:

The document gives clear guidelines. I see nothing nebulous.

And as I’ve already said, no offense, but I’ll believe the Cardinal over a poster in these forums.

Mike

 

[fix]

MikeWM:

And as I’ve already said, no offense, but I’ll believe the Cardinal over a poster in these forums.

Mike

You should believe Rome. Obviously Rome had an intention in mind when She gave clarification by issuing this directive.

Do you think Rome intended each bishop to interpret it in a different way then what was intended?

Of course each bishop has some latitude but hopefully each bishop will read the document as Rome intended it to be read.

 

[MikeWM]

fix:

You should believe Rome. Obviously Rome had an intention in mind when She gave clarification by issuing this directive.

I assume the Cardinal knows what Rome wants. He is certainly in Rome enough. He is reputedly one of the more important cardinals. I would assume he has discussed this with many people at the top of the Church to determine what it means.

Mike

 

[Brad]

MikeWM:

And as I’ve already said, no offense, but I’ll believe the Cardinal over a poster in these forums.

Mike

Anyone can pick their “pope”. Some choose the one that agrees with them. It is unfortunate that there are some in leadership positions in the church that manufacture ambiguity but Christ told us to be very wise to these maneuvers. The Magisterium is a gift.

 

[fix]

fkpl:

These rhetorical questions improplerly conflate sins of lust with the proscriptions of the Instruction. This is just the type of disingenuousness we are seeing from some of the gay-positive episcopals. The Instruction is quite clear: any man who is afflicted by same sex attraction, whether or not that man is celibate and intends to remain so, is constitutionally unfit for the Sacrament of Holy Orders. By analogy, a midget is unfit for service as a firefighter. The midget is not an unworthy person because this is so. It is simply that his physical condition precludes him from being able to perform the duties required of the position.

Yes, I think that is very accurate.

The document is NOT ambiguous. Syntactically it is quite clear. The adjectival “deep-seated” read in the context of the discussion of “transitory” homosexual experience in the past makes it clear that the adjective “deep-seated” is of little to no significance. It does not mean a homosexual who is actively committing the sin of lust in his mind; it also includes a chaste homosexual.

True. It is only murky when some choose to make it murky.

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

You should believe Rome. Obviously Rome had an intention in mind when She gave clarification by issuing this directive.

Do you think Rome intended each bishop to interpret it in a different way then what was intended?

Of course each bishop has some latitude but hopefully each bishop will read the document as Rome intended it to be read.

Not “hopefully” as you describe but that should be our expectation. Additionally, and more importantly this should be our assumption. From the Catechism:

896 The Good Shepherd ought to be the model and “form” of the bishop’s pastoral office. Conscious of his own weaknesses, “the bishop . . . can have compassion for those who are ignorant and erring. He should not refuse to listen to his subjects whose welfare he promotes as of his very own children. . . . The faithful . . . should be closely attached to the bishop as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father”:

Let all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the college of presbyters as the apostles; respect the deacons as you do God’s law. Let no one do anything concerning the Church in separation from the bishop.

I’d like to reference a previous conversation I had with Fix on another matter:

From Orion: I admit I’m not as charitable to those who hold themselves out as “orthodox” and then criticize with a disrespectful tone Priests or Bishops as to me this is scandalous form of dissent because they should know better.

Fix’s response: You can’t read their hearts, so charity should prevail.

I totally agree with Fix and his admonition of me. And, if I’m to be more charitable to other laity, I certainly think even greater charity should extend to the Bishops.

Statement by another CAF member: Second, you have no way of knowing the mind or heart of any person, much less that of an entire non-homogenous group and have no way of knowing whether they are acting under self will or what they understand to be authority. Since no one even knows all the rules, there are many times when people act in accordance with what they understand the rules to be. That is not self will, even if it might be misinformed conscience.

Fix’s response: I can’t know one’s heart, but I can read their words.

My point is that we need to be more charitable to our Bishop’s as they are in the beginning stages of grasping the intent and ramifications of this instruction from Rome. We should not be quick to interpret a Bishop’s statement when he is still in the process of discerning the instruction. Furthermore, just as we rely on the Church to help us discern Scripture, we should also rely on our Bishop’s to discern instruction from the Pope. If the Bishop’s err in their interpretation, I have every confidence that the Pope will clarify their interpretation.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

Not “hopefully” as you describe but that should be our expectation. Additionally, and more importantly this should be our assumption. From the Catechism:

I’d like to reference a previous conversation I had with Fix on another matter:

I totally agree with Fix and his admonition of me. And, if I’m to be more charitable to other laity, I certainly think even greater charity should extend to the Bishops.

My point is that we need to be more charitable to our Bishop’s as they are in the beginning stages of grasping the intent and ramifications of this instruction from Rome. We should not be quick to interpret a Bishop’s statement when he is still in the process of discerning the instruction. Furthermore, just as we rely on the Church to help us discern Scripture, we should also rely on our Bishop’s to discern instruction from the Pope. If the Bishop’s err in their interpretation, I have every confidence that the Pope will clarify their interpretation.

I think Catholics are smart and have the ability to reason. No one is reading anyone’s heart, but we all can read words.

You point out things from other threads, which may be a rule violation, yet it seems you want to imply something to me that I have not done.

I have discussed the words by the cardinal, but have not judged his heart.

 

[MikeWM]

Orionthehunter:

My point is that we need to be more charitable to our Bishop’s as they are in the beginning stages of grasping the intent and ramifications of this instruction from Rome. We should not be quick to interpret a Bishop’s statement when he is still in the process of discerning the instruction. Furthermore, just as we rely on the Church to help us discern Scripture, we should also rely on our Bishop’s to discern instruction from the Pope. If the Bishop’s err in their interpretation, I have every confidence that the Pope will clarify their interpretation.

Agreed. Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor will have been discussing this with high-up people, probably the people behind the document. I think he is better placed to understand what it is supposed to mean than any of us. In the unlikely event he has got it wrong, I expect we will hear a change in emphasis from him. Meanwhile, as a Catholic in the UK, I’m going to believe he’s got it right.

Mike

 

[fix]

The point of the thread is bishops are disagreeing.

as here:

Skylstad’s comments are the opening salvo in what promises to be a wide-ranging battle within the U.S. church over the document’s implementation. Bishop John M. D’Arcy of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Ind., said yesterday that Skylstad’s interpretation is “simply wrong” – a rare public clash among bishops, who usually go to great lengths to preserve an image of collegiality, even when they disagree.

“I would say yes, absolutely, it does bar anyone whose sexual orientation is towards one’s own sex and it’s permanent,” D’Arcy said of the document. “I don’t think there’s any doubt about it. . . . I don’t think we can fuss around with this.”

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/29/AR2005112901852.html

Surely we are mature enough to grasp there are politics in the Church and liberal leaning bishops and conservative leaning bishops. Why all the pollyanna drama as if all that has gone on is in some way not relevant to what is going on now?

 

[fix]

fix:

I think Catholics are smart and have the ability to reason. No one is reading anyone’s heart, but we all can read words.

You point out things from other threads and it seems you want to imply something to me that I have not done.

I have discussed the words by the cardinal, but have not judged his heart.

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

The point of the thread is bishops are disagreeing.

Surely we are mature enough to grasp there are politics in the Church and liberal leaning bishops and conservative leaning bishops. Why all the pollyanna drama as if all that has gone on is in some way not relevant to what is going on now?

Any “leaning” is allowing bias to cloud discernment of the Holy Spirit. It will take prayer and possibly alot of time for this issue to be clearly resolved to the satisfaction of the Holy Spirit. In the meantime, I will trust that the Bishops (all of them regardless of their own personal bias’) are properly doing their best to exercise their God-given obligation to Shepherd their flock and are prayerfully trying to discern the infallible Mind of the Church as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Whenever one labels themselves as conservative or liberal, it is a manifestation of their own ego or pride. I’m guilty of this myself. But I aspire not to project my own sinful nature onto the Church or its Bishops.