Fr. Roger J. Landry
The Landing
Editorial
The Anchor
December 9, 2005
The Church has long had a written policy against the ordination to the priesthood of men with homosexual tendencies. Over the course of the last few decades, however, the policy was implemented so rarely in places that even many bishops, seminary staff, and priests thought there was de facto no policy at all.
In 1996, at the suggestion of then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education — which supervises seminaries throughout the world — began work on a new instruction to give guidelines to bishops and seminaries about how to handle candidates to the priesthood with homosexual tendencies. The result of their nine years of consultation and revision was the nuanced but clear document that we print on page three of this issue.
The essence of the document is summarized in one sentence: “The Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called ‘gay lifestyle.’”
The first thing that is emphasized is the deep respect the Church has for those with a homosexual tendencies. While the Church, in service to the truth, states that homosexual inclinations are “intrinsically disordered,” the only worthy response to those with them is love. The document notes that homosexual tendencies “often constitute a trial,” and part of the pastoral wisdom of this instruction is to recognize that the dynamics of priestly formation and life can constitute for those with such tendencies an even greater trial.
The document excludes from the seminary and ordination three classes of candidates, two of which should be obvious and uncontroversial. Those who engage in homosexual acts simply do not live by the Church’s teachings on sexual morality, and it would be insane for the Church to ordain those who do not practice what they are called to preach. Likewise, those who support a “gay lifestyle” — and look at homosexual activity as something that should be celebrated, either by living it themselves or enabling those who do — simply are not thinking with the mind of the Church they have sworn a solemn oath to represent.
The exclusion of those with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” is more complicated. Within the document, the Congregation uses the expression “deep-seated” (in the original Italian, “profoundly rooted”) in contrast to “transitory.” It recognizes that there is a huge difference between one who experiences some fleeting same-sex attractions — which, because of their ephemeral character, can and “must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate” — and another whose attractions are strong and seemingly a permanent part of one’s self-identity. The Congregation, for Pope Benedict, is establishing the bar not at whether a man can practice continence (the abstention from sexual activity), but at whether he is free of “intrinsically disordered” same-sex affections.
Does this mean that the Church thinks that a continent homosexual cannot be a good and holy priest? No. As several bishops have stated, they are aware of priests with homosexual tendencies in their dioceses who have remained faithful to Christ and served his people with great dedication and fidelity. They remain priests in good standing. The question is not whether it’s possible, but whether it is prudent and likely, for there have also been priests with same-sex tendencies who have not served with the same distinction.
For one with deep-seated homosexual tendencies to become a holy priest, he needs much greater humility than a typical heterosexual man and has to overcome many more obstacles.
First, for him to believe and teach the Catholic faith, he must be able to say with integrity, “I have a disorder in my emotions and attractions that is not my fault, but which I have to work to overcome.” Otherwise, he will be tempted to conclude that the Church is wrong about her constant teaching on homosexuality, and therefore can be wrong on other matters of faith and morals about which she definitively teaches. That would be a disaster for the man and for the Church.
He must also overcome greater challenges in seminary formation and priestly living. While it is of course possible with God’s grace for a man with profoundly rooted same-sex tendencies to remain continent, seminary and rectory living would provide temptations to him that a typical heterosexual seminarian or priest living in those same circumstances would not face. Failure here, too, would be grievous for both the man and the Church.
The Congregation, looking at the whole picture of successes and failures, has concluded by reaffirming its traditional norms with greater nuance. Anchor readers are encouraged to engage the document at that deep and honest level.