This directive, issued by the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education, consists of a set of instructions for those in charge of seminaries and all men considering a vocation to the priesthood. This latest statement of discrimination against a group traditionally marginalized by the Church will harm a larger cross-section of the population than only homosexual Catholic men; it will have negative ramifications on all Catholic clergy and lay people around the world. Fears of a growing witch hunt within a Church that today already comes under regular attack can only be heightened with this most recent statement.
The document, while vague, provides itself as a source of guidance for those wondering if the priesthood is right for them. It asks that those with "deep-seated" homosexual tendencies do not pursue ordination, and even goes as far as to instruct that spiritual advisors and confessors "have the duty to dissuade [them] in conscience from proceeding towards" this end. It also adds to the Church's strict stance against extra-marital sexual relations by explicitly requiring that all candidates for the priesthood have been at least three years removed from "homosexual tendencies."
These guidelines, called "Instruction Concerning The Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons With Homosexual Tendencies In View Of Their Admission To Seminaries And Holy Orders," are more dangerous due to their vagueness. The document, at only 18 paragraphs, is short and sweet relative to much Catholic doctrine. However, it still manages to confuse the reader and leave a number of questions. What does a person with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" look like? The document concedes that a person who experiences homosexuality as a "transitory problem" may still be called if he has gotten over them sufficiently. But, once again, how transitory is transitory?
I would say that the Congregation for Catholic Education consciously leaves these questions to the world-correctly opting to leave discernment to Bishops, seminary rectors and those men who feel they might be called. However, it places a heavy burden on them by tightening the requirements. The document itself states that homosexuals, while "disordered," are to be treated with the same respect and value as anyone else, and that discrimination against gays and lesbians is to be avoided. The document is ambiguous, leaving a possibility that a particularly homophobic bishop could crack down on his seminaries tomorrow, while others could ignore the directive entirely.
Another of the more suspicious aspects of this directive is its possible link to sexual misconduct recently made public. The document is the outcome of a review mandated by Pope John Paul II a few years ago after the discovery and prosecution of dozens of priests in this country for sexual abuse. If the Vatican thinks that this document is going to solve the problem of pedophilic priests, it's sorely mistaken. Such a solution would ignore the many young girls who have been victims of a deep breach of trust and a lack of responsibility on the part of certain higher Church authorities. It also incorrectly implicates homosexuality as a factor in the real and obviously harmful disorder of pedophilia. According to BBC World's article on the directive, no link has ever been established between homosexuality and pedophilia.
The fact of the matter is this: according to the Church, men who are called to be priests are also called to celibacy-abstinence from all sexual acts, with both other men and with women. As a Catholic, I have known many priests. When asked by a friend the other night if I know any gay priests, I found myself at a loss. He then followed up the question by asking me if I have known any straight priests, my answer was the same-"yes, I guess, but I have no idea who."
The priesthood is a noble calling for many different kinds of men, and many different types make good priests. I know that there are many men who have formed themselves in the "human, spiritual, intellectual, and pastoral" dimensions (as the document calls for) in an appropriate way to be excellent priests. Some of these men are also gay. The Church's newest directive will only make many hetero- and homosexual Catholics disillusioned. It also has a large potential of negatively impacting already dwindling numbers in the priesthood. In fact, there has been news of current priests leaving the Church in response to such discrimination. I do not see this document as having the ability to solve an "issue made more urgent by" any current situation. It can only harm lay people who need more priests and those called who will be denied, not to mention further alienate an entire group of people around the world.
Paz can be reached at apaz08@amherst.edu