Fr. Roger J. Landry
The Landing
Editorial
The Anchor
October 14, 2005
During the height of the clergy sex abuse revelations in 2002, when Pope John Paul II summoned the Cardinals of the United States to Rome, they asked him to appoint a special apostolic visitation to examine American seminaries. They knew that one of the causes of the crisis was that certain candidates to the priesthood should never have been admitted to the seminary or approved for holy orders. They were also convinced that seminaries had to do a better job of screening, forming and evaluating men on the road to the altar.
That apostolic visitation of the 229 U.S. Catholic seminaries has just begun. The Vatican has appointed as “visitors” 62 bishops and 55 priests, who will head out in teams of three to five members to evaluate each seminary. They have been given 46 areas of inquiry in ten categories, including human, spiritual, intellectual and pastoral formation, the concept of the priesthood, seminary governance, admissions policies, and ordination criteria.
Most of the media attention given to the visitations, however, has focused on the 19th of the almost four-dozen questions: “Is there evidence of homosexuality in the seminary?” Attention to the question has been magnified by the expected release of a Vatican instruction that will reiterate the Church’s long-standing policy, presently unenforced in many places, that men with homosexual orientations should not be admitted to the seminary. The new document is expected to state that candidates with same-sex attractions should not be allowed to enter if their attraction is sufficiently “strong, permanent and univocal” to make an all male seminary a moral risk, if they take part in a gay subculture, or if they have not demonstrated the ability to live a celibate life for at least three years.
Critics have raised warning flags, claiming that the document and the visitation are a one-two punch constituting a “witch hunt” that seeks to “scapegoat” homosexuals for the clergy sex abuse crisis. There is no link between pedophilia and homosexuality, they say, and this merely deflects the attention from the real causes of the clergy sex abuse crisis.
In response to these oft-repeated charges, it is important to remember the sober findings of the lay National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People, which published its probing report, “The Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States” in February 2004. The Review Board — which included President Clinton’s attorney Robert Bennett, former chief of staff Leon Panetta, and several others who could never be accused of “homophobia” or a conservative agenda — mentioned “issues relating to homosexual orientation” among the most notable causes of the sex abuse crisis. They wrote:
“The overwhelming majority of reported acts of sexual abuse of minors by members of the clergy victimized boys [ages 11-17]. Accordingly, the current crisis cannot be addressed without consideration of issues relating to homosexuality.… We do not seek to place the blame for the sexual abuse crisis on the presence of homosexual individuals in the priesthood as there are many chaste and holy homosexual priests who are faithful to their vows of celibacy. However, we must call attention to the homosexual behavior that characterized the vast majority of the cases of abuse observed in recent decades. That eighty-one percent of the reported victims of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy were boys shows that the crisis was characterized by homosexual behavior.…
“It seems clear to the Board that the paramount question in this area must be whether a candidate for priesthood is capable of living a chaste, celibate life, not what that candidate’s sexual orientation might be. But given the nature of the problem of clergy sexual abuse of minors, the realities of the culture today, and the male-oriented atmosphere of the seminary, a more searching inquiry is necessary for a homosexually-oriented man by those who decide whether he is suitable for the seminary and for ministry. For those bishops who choose to ordain homosexuals there appears to be a need for additional scrutiny and perhaps additional or specialized formation to help them with the challenge of chaste celibacy.”
This “more searching inquiry” and “additional scrutiny” are what is now underway in the seminary visitations and what will be required by the expected Vatican document.
While this attention will be unpopular in circles imbued by the principles of the sexual revolution, it is a big first step toward an open discussion of the long-hushed issue of a homosexual subculture in seminaries and presbyterates.