(no subject)
Dec. 3rd, 2005 11:46 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaThanks to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
badsede for providing a link to an (unofficial) English translation of the just-published document for the Congregation for Catholic Education about the non-admission of gay men to seminary, in response to my rather snarky post Thursday night on the matter.
To be honest, after reading it i am convinced it is even worse than i had feared.
The straightforward way to address sexual misconduct in the seminaries and in other church organizations would seem to be (1) establishing rules of conduct and educating people about them and (2) disciplining or removing people who violate them. This is no different from the way we make and enforce laws in society at large: you establish an ethical standard, engage in character formation by educating people about that ethical standard, and then trust that most people want to be good. When they aren't, you remove them.
I get the sense that this text means that the Catholic Church has concluded that this way of addressing the matter is not sufficient. It could be asked whether that failure was the result of not actually applying the approach above -- there are scattered accounts for example of errant priests being shielded from removal or other consequences.
But now instead the goal is to try to guess beforehand who will be the troublemakers, and prevent them from entering the seminary. This could mean anything from asking a few questions about one's life and experiences, which would be relatively unintrusive, to literal hunts for people not who have actually broken rules but who might. It's very tricky and problematic, and from what i'm reading (see for example here and here, thanks topamscoffee and arisbe for the links respectively), there is considerable confusion within the church as to what is actually expected or intended.
So, rather than clarifying what the Church will do, this text seems to muddy the waters further. There will be great variance in how this text is interpreted and implemented -- variance which will be unfair to anyone, gay or straight, who applies for ordination.
But even more disturbing than that is what the document says about the meaning of being gay. There's a joke that whenever you hear someone say, "I'm not a racist, but..." they are going to then say something incredibly racist. The author(s) of the document tries to mitigate the implications of his statements about homosexuality by starting with,
Which i take to mean that the author wants you to do as he says and not as he does:
In other words, it is okay for us to find out who these people are (by way of an as-yet-undetermined degree of intrusiveness) but none of the rest of you should. But we are justifying doing this because:
Boom. How many professions out there require people to "properly relate to men and women"? Lots. Teaching, counseling, healing, administrating, managing, etc. But i ask, how can the Church exclude people from serving for this reason, while expecting that this will not ripple outward and worsen the social pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians? It is not possible. Anyone outside the Church who takes the Church's position seriously is now expected to think of gay men as "objectively disordered," "immature," and unable to "properly relate to men and women." If gay men are not fit to serve as priests for this reason, why should they be fit to serve as doctors, managers, teachers? How many impressionable Catholics will read this text, and see the Church's actions, and implement them in their own hiring decisions? How many will decide it would be wrong to do otherwise?
Furthermore, the onus is put on the candidate for ordination: he is told,
Many gay and lesbian Christians already feel a tremendous amount of guilt, and see their same-sex attraction as a sin and a failing. It is natural for people to hide their failings, because all of us want to be liked and accepted, and all of us want to be able to enter the professions for which we have aptitude and into which we feel we have been called. The paragraph above will reinforce this self-loathing within all Catholic homosexuals, whether or not they intend to enter the priesthood. Finally it means that the rejected candidate is expected to feel responsible for his own rejection.
In providing the link,badsede added the caveat, "You will also need to learn how instructions like this are used and get a fairly good grasp of the difference between Catholic culture and American culture in things like this." So there is some extent to which the ecclesiastical culture may take the document in a different way than i have. But i am more concerned, frankly, with what the rest of the world will make of it.
badsede for providing a link to an (unofficial) English translation of the just-published document for the Congregation for Catholic Education about the non-admission of gay men to seminary, in response to my rather snarky post Thursday night on the matter.To be honest, after reading it i am convinced it is even worse than i had feared.
The straightforward way to address sexual misconduct in the seminaries and in other church organizations would seem to be (1) establishing rules of conduct and educating people about them and (2) disciplining or removing people who violate them. This is no different from the way we make and enforce laws in society at large: you establish an ethical standard, engage in character formation by educating people about that ethical standard, and then trust that most people want to be good. When they aren't, you remove them.
I get the sense that this text means that the Catholic Church has concluded that this way of addressing the matter is not sufficient. It could be asked whether that failure was the result of not actually applying the approach above -- there are scattered accounts for example of errant priests being shielded from removal or other consequences.
But now instead the goal is to try to guess beforehand who will be the troublemakers, and prevent them from entering the seminary. This could mean anything from asking a few questions about one's life and experiences, which would be relatively unintrusive, to literal hunts for people not who have actually broken rules but who might. It's very tricky and problematic, and from what i'm reading (see for example here and here, thanks to
pamscoffee and arisbe for the links respectively), there is considerable confusion within the church as to what is actually expected or intended.So, rather than clarifying what the Church will do, this text seems to muddy the waters further. There will be great variance in how this text is interpreted and implemented -- variance which will be unfair to anyone, gay or straight, who applies for ordination.
But even more disturbing than that is what the document says about the meaning of being gay. There's a joke that whenever you hear someone say, "I'm not a racist, but..." they are going to then say something incredibly racist. The author(s) of the document tries to mitigate the implications of his statements about homosexuality by starting with,
As regards to deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are present in a certain number of men and women, these also are objectively disordered and are often a trial for such people. They must be accepted with respect and sensitivity; every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter.
Which i take to mean that the author wants you to do as he says and not as he does:
In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, together with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, deems it necessary to clearly affirm that the Church, even while deeply respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to Seminary or Holy Orders those who are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.
In other words, it is okay for us to find out who these people are (by way of an as-yet-undetermined degree of intrusiveness) but none of the rest of you should. But we are justifying doing this because:
Such people, in fact, find themselves in a situation that seriously obstructs them from properly relating to men and women.
Boom. How many professions out there require people to "properly relate to men and women"? Lots. Teaching, counseling, healing, administrating, managing, etc. But i ask, how can the Church exclude people from serving for this reason, while expecting that this will not ripple outward and worsen the social pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians? It is not possible. Anyone outside the Church who takes the Church's position seriously is now expected to think of gay men as "objectively disordered," "immature," and unable to "properly relate to men and women." If gay men are not fit to serve as priests for this reason, why should they be fit to serve as doctors, managers, teachers? How many impressionable Catholics will read this text, and see the Church's actions, and implement them in their own hiring decisions? How many will decide it would be wrong to do otherwise?
Furthermore, the onus is put on the candidate for ordination: he is told,
It would be gravely dishonest for a candidate to hide his own homosexuality, regardless of everything, to arrive at ordination. Such an inauthentic attitude does not correspond to the spirit of truth, loyalty, and availability that must characterise the personality of one who considers himself called to serve Christ and his Church in the ministerial priesthood.
Many gay and lesbian Christians already feel a tremendous amount of guilt, and see their same-sex attraction as a sin and a failing. It is natural for people to hide their failings, because all of us want to be liked and accepted, and all of us want to be able to enter the professions for which we have aptitude and into which we feel we have been called. The paragraph above will reinforce this self-loathing within all Catholic homosexuals, whether or not they intend to enter the priesthood. Finally it means that the rejected candidate is expected to feel responsible for his own rejection.
In providing the link,
badsede added the caveat, "You will also need to learn how instructions like this are used and get a fairly good grasp of the difference between Catholic culture and American culture in things like this." So there is some extent to which the ecclesiastical culture may take the document in a different way than i have. But i am more concerned, frankly, with what the rest of the world will make of it.
