What Bishop Skystad told the Washington Post

[Confiteor]

Q: Is it still possible for a man who recognizes that he is gay and stably, permanently so, but who is celibate, to enter seminaries or religious orders?

Skylstad: “I think one of the telling sentences in the document is the phrase that the candidate’s entire life of sacred ministry must be ‘animated by a gift of his whole person to the church and by an authentic pastoral charity.’ If that becomes paramount in his ministry, even though he might have a homosexual orientation, then he can minister and he can minister celibately and chastely.”

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/29/AR2005112901482.html

My note: “gay and stably”[so] = having “deep seated tendencies” BUT Bishop Skystad is open to all but those candidates for whom homosexuality (or heterosexuality) “dominates” them.

Q: You’ve talked about being able to make a gift of yourself to the church completely, and how if someone had a deep-seated homosexual orientation that might not be possible. Could you say the same thing about someone with a deep-seated heterosexual tendency?

Skylstad: “Absolutely. It cuts both ways. You’re right.”

My note: This is bizarre; if a man has neither a deep-seated homosexual or a deep-seated heterosexual tendency, he is either bisexual or confused. Deep-seated heterosexual tendencies in priests are normal; they don’t become asexual when they are ordained…

Read the rest at:
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/29/AR2005112901482.html

 

[m134e5]

I think by deep-seated heterosexual tendencies, he refers to a fear of emotions, and a fear of affection- something a lot of guys seem to have. I’ve watched when someone is hurt or upset, no guy says anything- they just stand there, shift from one foot to the other, look at the ground, and mumble “sorry man” and maybe give the guy a slap on the back, then they all scatter- they don’t want to deal with “drama”-----Not a quality of a good seminarian (or priest, or bishop).

 

[Della]

The bishop should have asked what the interviewer meant by “deep-seated heterosexual tendencies” instead of just going along with whatever he meant. I’d want to be clear what I was responding to, if it were me. Wouldn’t you? The bishop blew it here, IMHO, because now anyone can speculate what he meant by his answer instead of knowing what he thought he was agreeing to.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Della:

The bishop should have asked what the interviewer meant by “deep-seated heterosexual tendencies” instead of just going along with whatever he meant. I’d want to be clear what I was responding to, if it were me. Wouldn’t you? The bishop blew it here, IMHO, because now anyone can speculate what he meant by his answer instead of knowing what he thought he was agreeing to.

On the other hand whenever someone criticizes his answer he can claim that was not what he meant. Bishops keep out of trouble by being ambiguous.

 

[fkpl]

The reactions published to date by the American hierarchy are reflective of the deep-rooted problem existing in the USCCB.

The time for quibbling and evasion is over. The instruction is clear: a man who has homosexual tendencies more recently than a period of three years prior to ordination to the deaconate is not qualified for ordination. Only a transitory affect (which by definition has passed) is allowable. Clearly a man defining himself as “gay” on the date he is to be ordained is unqualified. Full stop.

What about this is difficult to understand? A homosexual person, whether or not intending to live a chaste and celibate life, is not qualified for the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Bishops who defy or obstruct this instruction are guilty of scandal.

 

[Confiteor]

m134e5:

I think by deep-seated heterosexual tendencies, he refers to a fear of emotions, and a fear of affection- something a lot of guys seem to have. I’ve watched when someone is hurt or upset, no guy says anything- they just stand there, shift from one foot to the other, look at the ground, and mumble “sorry man” and maybe give the guy a slap on the back, then they all scatter- they don’t want to deal with “drama”-----Not a quality of a good seminarian (or priest, or bishop).

I don’t think that could be what he meant --see below-- for that part of the interview. Besides, deep-seated heterosexuality means having a sexual attraction to the opposite sex, not whether you are emotive or not.

From Della:

“The bishop should have asked what the interviewer meant by “deep-seated heterosexual tendencies” instead of just going along with whatever he meant. I’d want to be clear what I was responding to, if it were me. Wouldn’t you? The bishop blew it here, IMHO, because now anyone can speculate what he meant by his answer instead of knowing what he thought he was agreeing to.”

Actually, there was some discussion of what was meant by this --the Bishop did the defining–changing the focus as he wished from homosexual men to what some might consider men possessed by their sexuality. He is NOT interpreting the Instruction in accordance with the Vatican’s intent. See the other posts related to the Vatican clarifications, etc to affirm this.

Q: So you’d read ‘deep-rooted tendencies’ to mean those whose self-identification and personality revolves around being gay?

Skylstad: “Yeah, if that’s the primary identification. It think the document itself really points to bishops and to vocation directors to help the candidate himself discern the appropriateness of his candidacy for priesthood. It’s a document about the discernment, primarily, as one pursues the formation process or enters into the formation process, perhaps that’s more important. Those two, along with the spiritual director, who operates in the internal forum, as we say, with the candidate, can help the candidate and assist the candidate in determining whether he’s called to priesthood.”

Q: Should vocation directors and spiritual directors encourage gay men to leave seminaries?

Skylstad: “That would be part of the discernment process and whether or not there’s a deep-seated condition in the person that would keep him from effectively ministering with authentic pastoral charity. I think that involves several aspects of his pastoral ministry Does he relate well to people? Would he be consumed by, first of all, his orientation and, secondarily, be fully dedicated to ministry? As I mentioned before, the document specifically states that he should be ‘animated by the gift of his whole person to the church and by authentic pastoral charity.’ That’s a discernment process that has to go on.”