After an internal uproar from all wings of the Church, it appears that the Pope has backed off his reported intent to ban all gay priests and seminarians, regardless of their commitment to celibacy or priestly vocation. This is hugely encouraging news, although it still leaves an aura of stigma around the issue of homosexual orientation:
A forthcoming Vatican document on homosexuals in seminaries will not demand an absolute ban, a senior Vatican official told NCR Oct. 7, but will insist that seminary officials exercise “prudential judgment” that gay candidates should not be admitted in three cases.
Those three cases are:
* If candidates have not demonstrated a capacity to live celibate lives for at least three years;
* If they are part of a “gay culture,” for example, attending gay pride rallies (a point, the official said, which applies both to professors at seminaries as well as students);
* If their homosexual orientation is sufficiently “strong, permanent and univocal” as to make an all-male environment a risk.In any case, the Vatican official said, whether or not these criteria exclude a particular candidate is a judgment that must be made in the context of individual spiritual direction, rather than by applying a rigid litmus test.
This language is in contrast with earlier news reports that had suggested a much more sweeping ban on gays in the seminary.
I think the sheer theological incoherence, cruelty and bigotry in the previous policy has forced a shift. I worry that celibate gay priests will still be unable to speak about their orientation and reach out to other gay Catholics; and the secrecy and shame that was the prime cause of the sex abuse crisis could linger. But in so far as in some seminaries, there has developed a gay subculture that is not conducive to serious preparation for the priesthood, it’s appropriate to set standards of public and private behavior that allow for priestly formation to take place as it should. I see no problem with that. My other concern is that the standards for celibacy be applied to straight and gay seminarians alike. No straight candidate who has been unable to maintain celibacy for three years should be admitted either, if those are the rules. I don’t think it’s harder for gays than for straights to maintain celibacy. (Of course, if a married clergy is in the works, those rules may change again.) But in general, this is a very welcome moderation of what was an extremist and brutal policy. It’s especially important that those who run seminaries be able to make prudential judgments in individual cases and not to apply broad, discriminatory litmus tests. I cannot express how relieved I am by this news. I hope it holds up. But I will reserve final judgment when I can read and study the document itself.
The Dish 