Was there really a need to clarify?

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. "

- Bill Clinton

According to CNS:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- In a clarification approved by Pope Benedict XVI, the Vatican said its 2005 document prohibiting the admission of homosexuals to the priesthood applies to all types of seminaries.That includes houses of formation run by religious orders and those under the authority of the agencies dealing with missionary territories and Eastern churches, said a statement signed by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican secretary of state.The two-sentence clarification was published May 17 by the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano. It came in response to "numerous requests for clarification," the Vatican said.In 2005, after more than eight years of study, the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education issued "Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations With Regard to Persons With Homosexual Tendencies in View of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders."The nine-page instruction said the church cannot allow the priestly ordination of men who are active homosexuals, who have "deep-seated" homosexual tendencies or who support the "gay culture." It urged bishops, major superiors and "all relevant authorities" to make sure the norms were followed.

Two of the three make sense - it would be counter-productive to have a rule of clerical celibacy and make exceptions for homosexuals.

And actively supporting gay culture to a degree is understandable in so far as it would be scandalous for a priest to participate in gay sacramental marriages (that phrase is a complete oxymoron), and to a lesser degree marches or displays of bear behaviour or participating in leather daddy conferences.

The one I suppose I take exception with is the "deep-seated" clause. It seems rather counter productive to force people out of the seminary who have healthily integrated their sexuality into the construct of their being and therefore been able to comply with the same rigors and requirements of not being sexually active as their heterosexual counterparts.

After all it's the pushing back and not discerning appropriate integration that led to much of the scandal over the past few years, and the priesthood - like all "helping" vocations is a huge draw for homosexuals who tend to be (generalisation) programmed for those types of callings.

I suppose in the end it's that need for clarification that should serve as a testament to the fact of my previous statements about "helping" vocations, and to a degree about the need for a comprehensive understanding of appropriate integration of sexuality into ones priestly vocation.

Sphere: Related Content