- Status
C
CNA_News
Guest
Vatican City, Dec 7, 2016 / 12:37 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The updated version of the Vatican’s document on priestly formation, released Wednesday, deals with issues of clericalism, homosexuality, and the protection of minors, among other things.
“To be a good priest, in addition to having passed all the exams, a demonstrated human, spiritual and pastoral maturation is necessary,” Cardinal Beniamino Stella, prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, told L’Osservatore Romano Dec. 7. He was commenting on The Gift of the Priestly Vocation, his department’s new edition of its “fundamentals of priestly formation.”
“I think it is superfluous to add that other minor innovations could be gathered from the text, from the standpoint of approaches to the question, vocabulary used, the formative methodology proposed, and the impulse given by the current Pontifical Magisterium,” Cardinal Stella added.
Media coverage of the document has emphasized that it reaffirms the existing Vatican instruction that homosexuals may not be admitted to seminaries.
The Gift of the Priestly Vocation quotes from the Congregation for Catholic Education’s 2005 instruction on the matter in saying that “the Church … cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture’.”
It distinguishes such cases from those in which homosexual tendencies “were only the expression of a transitory problem,” and itself states that “it must be remembered that, in a relationship of sincere dialogue and mutual trust, the seminarian is obliged to reveal to his formators … doubts or difficulties he should have in this regard.”
The document then goes on to discuss protection of minors and the accompaniment of victims, saying this must be given “the greatest attention” and that the Church must be vigilant that seminarians “have not been involved in any way with any crime or problematic behaviour in this area” and that “formators must ensure that those who have had painful experience in this area receive special and suitable accompaniment.”
It adds that lessons on the protection of minors are to be included in formation, including how to deal with exploitation and violence such as trafficking of minors, child labor, and sexual abuse of minors or vulnerable adults.
The document also recommends that bishops responsible for seminaries be in dialogue with the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, established by Pope Francis in 2013.
Clericalism is discussed within the context of priestly identity as the basis and purpose of formation. The Gift of the Priestly Vocation says that seminarians “should be educated so that they do not become prey to ‘clericalism’, nor yield to the temptation of modelling their lives on the search for popular consensus. This would inevitably lead them to fall short in exercising their ministry as leaders of the community, leading them to think about the Church as a merely human institution.”
It reiterates that priestly ordination, while making its recipient “a leader of the people”, “should not lead him to ‘lord it over’ the flock.”
Cardinal Stella noted to L’Osservatore Romano that the new version of “the fundamentals” was necessary because “the historical, socio-cultural and ecclesiastical contexts have changed” since the document was last updated in 1985.
Significant changes have happened regarding “the image or vision of the priest, the spiritual needs of the People of God, the challenges of the new evangelization, the language of communication, and many more,” he said. “It seemed that the formation of Priests needed to be revamped, renewed, and restored to the centre.”
He added that the congregation had “been encouraged and illuminated by the Teaching of Pope Francis.”
The cardinal recalled the four pillars of priestly formation: human, spiritual, intellectual, and pastoral.
Full article…
“To be a good priest, in addition to having passed all the exams, a demonstrated human, spiritual and pastoral maturation is necessary,” Cardinal Beniamino Stella, prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, told L’Osservatore Romano Dec. 7. He was commenting on The Gift of the Priestly Vocation, his department’s new edition of its “fundamentals of priestly formation.”
“I think it is superfluous to add that other minor innovations could be gathered from the text, from the standpoint of approaches to the question, vocabulary used, the formative methodology proposed, and the impulse given by the current Pontifical Magisterium,” Cardinal Stella added.
Media coverage of the document has emphasized that it reaffirms the existing Vatican instruction that homosexuals may not be admitted to seminaries.
The Gift of the Priestly Vocation quotes from the Congregation for Catholic Education’s 2005 instruction on the matter in saying that “the Church … cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture’.”
It distinguishes such cases from those in which homosexual tendencies “were only the expression of a transitory problem,” and itself states that “it must be remembered that, in a relationship of sincere dialogue and mutual trust, the seminarian is obliged to reveal to his formators … doubts or difficulties he should have in this regard.”
The document then goes on to discuss protection of minors and the accompaniment of victims, saying this must be given “the greatest attention” and that the Church must be vigilant that seminarians “have not been involved in any way with any crime or problematic behaviour in this area” and that “formators must ensure that those who have had painful experience in this area receive special and suitable accompaniment.”
It adds that lessons on the protection of minors are to be included in formation, including how to deal with exploitation and violence such as trafficking of minors, child labor, and sexual abuse of minors or vulnerable adults.
The document also recommends that bishops responsible for seminaries be in dialogue with the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, established by Pope Francis in 2013.
Clericalism is discussed within the context of priestly identity as the basis and purpose of formation. The Gift of the Priestly Vocation says that seminarians “should be educated so that they do not become prey to ‘clericalism’, nor yield to the temptation of modelling their lives on the search for popular consensus. This would inevitably lead them to fall short in exercising their ministry as leaders of the community, leading them to think about the Church as a merely human institution.”
It reiterates that priestly ordination, while making its recipient “a leader of the people”, “should not lead him to ‘lord it over’ the flock.”
Cardinal Stella noted to L’Osservatore Romano that the new version of “the fundamentals” was necessary because “the historical, socio-cultural and ecclesiastical contexts have changed” since the document was last updated in 1985.
Significant changes have happened regarding “the image or vision of the priest, the spiritual needs of the People of God, the challenges of the new evangelization, the language of communication, and many more,” he said. “It seemed that the formation of Priests needed to be revamped, renewed, and restored to the centre.”
He added that the congregation had “been encouraged and illuminated by the Teaching of Pope Francis.”
The cardinal recalled the four pillars of priestly formation: human, spiritual, intellectual, and pastoral.
Full article…
G
gilliam
Guest
English language version: “The Gift of the Priestly Vocation,” including questions of ordaining gay men (#199-201). clerus.va/content/dam/clerus/Ratio%20Fundamentalis/The%20Gift%20of%20the%20Priestly%20Vocation.pdf …
P
psalm90
Guest
Maybe the document explains more fully than these headlines do, but what about homosexuals in consecrated life, men and women?
V
Vouthon
Guest
“Deeply rooted homosexual tendencies” - what does that actually mean though?
It is interesting that it doesn’t say “homosexual tendencies/same-sex attraction” per se, so I am not all that sure that the media depiction of these guidelines as amounting to some sort of “gay ban” is accurate.
I can understand that seminary could be a cause of temptation for pious gay men aspiring to a celibate life.
But “deeply rooted” could be interpreted to mean not just a person who experiences SSA but a person who defines himself by his same-sex attraction.
Francis’ famous ‘Who am I to judge?’ statement in 2013 was made in response to a question about gay men in the priesthood, so I am not sure if this is intended as a blanket prohibition of men with SSA.
I have always wished that the Church would someday canonize a celibate gay person who could become a role model for homosexual Catholics. I am a bit jealous of the Eastern Orthodox in that respect, who have Blessed Seraphim Rose. What is wrong with having a priest or religious like that too?
Don’t we all struggle with inclinations to sin?
It is interesting that it doesn’t say “homosexual tendencies/same-sex attraction” per se, so I am not all that sure that the media depiction of these guidelines as amounting to some sort of “gay ban” is accurate.
I can understand that seminary could be a cause of temptation for pious gay men aspiring to a celibate life.
But “deeply rooted” could be interpreted to mean not just a person who experiences SSA but a person who defines himself by his same-sex attraction.
Francis’ famous ‘Who am I to judge?’ statement in 2013 was made in response to a question about gay men in the priesthood, so I am not sure if this is intended as a blanket prohibition of men with SSA.
I have always wished that the Church would someday canonize a celibate gay person who could become a role model for homosexual Catholics. I am a bit jealous of the Eastern Orthodox in that respect, who have Blessed Seraphim Rose. What is wrong with having a priest or religious like that too?
Don’t we all struggle with inclinations to sin?
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
There was an excellent piece today written by Fr Thomas Reese, SJ, who recommends that Bishops and Religious Superiors cease the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy so that existing priests can come out of the closet and the Church can begin to look at the situation honestly and with transparency. No one really knows the numbers but people have reported 15% to 60%.
Fr Reese mades good points and it’s worth the read.
ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/yes-there-are-lots-good-gay-priests#.WEnGrYj-3Yg.twitter
Fr Reese mades good points and it’s worth the read.
ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/yes-there-are-lots-good-gay-priests#.WEnGrYj-3Yg.twitter
T
TMC
Guest
You are correct,. This is not a change to current policy which is not a “gay ban.”“Deeply rooted homosexual tendencies” - what does that actually mean though?
It is interesting that it doesn’t say “homosexual tendencies/same-sex attraction” per se, so I am not all that sure that the media depiction of these guidelines as amounting to some sort of “gay ban” is accurate.
I can understand that seminary could be a cause of temptation for pious gay men aspiring to a celibate life.
But “deeply rooted” could be interpreted to mean not just a person who experiences SSA but a person who defines himself by his same-sex attraction.
Francis’ famous ‘Who am I to judge?’ statement in 2013 was made in response to a question about gay men in the priesthood, so I am not sure if this is intended as a blanket prohibition of men with SSA.
I have always wished that the Church would someday canonize a celibate gay person who could become a role model for homosexual Catholics. I am a bit jealous of the Eastern Orthodox in that respect, who have Blessed Seraphim Rose. What is wrong with having a priest or religious like that too?
Don’t we all struggle with inclinations to sin?
On your other point, the Church has an opportunity to eventually canonize Mychal Judge, and we can pray for that to happen.
T
TCEL
Guest
"*
I have always wished that the Church would someday canonize a celibate gay person who could become a role model for homosexual Catholics. I am a bit jealous of the Eastern Orthodox in that respect, who have Blessed Seraphim Rose. What is wrong with having a priest or religious like that too?
Don’t we all struggle with inclinations to sin?*
I’m sure there are gay saints we don’t know about.
And yes, we all certainly struggle with sin, but this is one area where the rubber hits the road regarding marriage, and where the cultural divergence on the meaning of marriage has practical fallout. I haven’t really examined this issue a whole lot, but I thought I heard somewhere that for a priest to truly live out his vocation as a priest, he must have a real appreciation for marriage and be giving up the actual good of marriage, not the cultural definition? This is not to say that gay people can’t see what is desirable about marriage, obviously. I would appreciate it if someone else piped in on this.
Edit: For sure, there are married priests. I think what I’m trying to say is, with the practice of celibacy, how can someone give up what someone isn’t particularly attracted to? For example, we should all be able to see what is desirable about the religious life.
V
Vouthon
Guest
Celibacy is not intrinsic to the vocation of the ordained priesthood like it is for the consecrated life of the religious.
Until the Gregorian Reform in the eleventh century, great numbers of Catholic priests were married throughout the length of the first millennium in the West. The celibacy ruling was intended by the reformers to make the clergy become more like monks.
To that extent, while sexual abstinence or rather the renunciation of marriage has been an expected standard for seminarians for a thousand years, it isn’t actually intrinsic to their vocation as it has been handed down to us from the Apostles - most of whom were, of course, married men.
For this reason, I am not convinced by this argument against admitting celibate, pious men with SSA who understand and adhere to orthodox doctrine concerning the immorality of homosexual intercourse.
T
TCEL
Guest
For sure, celibacy isn’t intrinsic, even though Christ modeled it and St. Paul preferred it. No, but if Christ is the Bridegroom, and the Church the Bride, it makes sense to respect that as much as possible. Again, if they aren’t attracted to women, that seems to undercut the understanding that our bodies reflect certain intentions of God, inasmuch as His covenant relationship with His people. Again, how can one fully understand the Church as bride if one isn’t attracted to women?
E
exnihilo
Guest
There are plenty of celibate Saints. Any one could be a role model. Why is same sex attraction so special it would need a Saint who fought the temptation? Do we need a Saint who fought the temptation to masturbate? I think I understand your intention and it is well meaning. But I think one of the big problems we have in our culture is the carving out of same sex sexual desires as being somehow special. It becomes an identity for people and that is where the battle is because people want their identity accepted.I have always wished that the Church would someday canonize a celibate gay person who could become a role model for homosexual Catholics. I am a bit jealous of the Eastern Orthodox in that respect, who have Blessed Seraphim Rose. What is wrong with having a priest or religious like that too?
Don’t we all struggle with inclinations to sin?
I believe he was a member of Dignity which is problematic.
D
dans0622
Guest
I don’t consider it to be “an excellent piece” but I also don’t see how any bishop/ordinary/rector could legitimately pursue a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
Dan
C
commenter
Guest
Both Fr. Reese, and ncronline, have frequently dissented from the Catholic Faith on other topics, so their credibility for presenting a Catholic view is low. If you could find another author, and another media outlet, that presents something you agree with, that would carry more weight with most Catholics on CAF.
T
TMC
Guest
I realize many posters on CAF tend toward the Traditionalist mindset, but that is no reason to defame a priest in good standing.
J
J_Peterson
Guest
I’m going to keep my thoughts on this to myself but that headline is not at all accurate.
C
commenter
Guest
I don’t mean to defame a priest in good standing, or any standing, and apologize if I did. I think it would be fair to say that that website itself has been definitely identified as dissenting by many bishops, and many other mainstream sources within the Catholic Church. It would be fair to say that NCRONLINE and,perhaps, that individual priest have been (rightly or wrongly) **regarded **as dissenting, by many, who “tend toward the traditionalist mindset” (your wording).
Thus, it’s a fair suggestion to point out posters might consider making a point using sources more credible than these in the eyes of likely readers. as per your description.
C
Cle_GDP_10
Guest
I don’t think the intention of the poster was to defame Fr. Reese. Instead, he was pointing out the problems associated with NCR.
A
abucs
Guest
R
RCinMT
Guest
The National Catholic Reporter is a garbage outlet. That being said, any calls for an end to a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the seminary is odd to me. We’re asking men to be celibate so the question becomes who cares to which sex they may be attracted? Why does it matter? If a priest upholds his vow of celibacy than their particular attractions are irrelevant and as is pointed out in several places in Church teaching, we reject identifying somebody on the basis of their attractions. We’re human beings, Christians, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters…those are the IMPORTANT things that we are–our attractions aren’t us.
- Status