Response to Gay Seminarian Discussion

My 2 cents worth in a discussion amongst our young adult group on the not-yet-released document.

I'm heartened by G having pointed to John Allen's article (used to be here) on what the Vatican means when it says Thou Shalt or Thou Shalt Not. It is certainly different from my understanding of what a rule is. If you missed the article, the gist was that for folks in the US, a rule is what YOU MUST DO. In the Italian mindset, which informs Vatican policy-making, a rule is what everyone would adhere to if this were a perfect world.

That understanding, assuming that it is valid, cushions the concern and (dare I say it?) "let-down" I felt when I began hearing enough of the story to realize that it wasn't just a rumor. For the first time, I found myself disagreeing with something that may become Church policy. I don't think that the honeymoon is over, but was certainly a shock to the system.

I thought I'd contribute to this discussion from the relatively new convert position. I'd given a great deal of thought to the question of ordination of gay and lesbian individuals as the Presbyterian Church (USA) wrestled with the question at each bi-annual General Assembly. Like Sean's premise with his students, I felt comfortable separating the orientation and a person's acting upon it.

Despite my personal reservations about ordination of women as pastors and elders, I think I was comfortable with the idea of ordination for pastors, elders and deacons who had (not "who suffered from" or "who were afflicted with" or even "who lived with") attraction to persons of their own gender, so long as they remained celibate. The Presbyterian Church does not require celibacy of her ministers, but current Presby polity (not those promoting the "gay agenda") enjoins upon these folks to live celibate lives to avoid sin or scandal/rumors. This is because, in the Presbyterian debate, the question was not strictly about sexual orientation, but about allowing persons actively living in sin (i.e., sexually active LGBT's) to serve as ministers.

That debate continues, but now I'm looking through a different lens. As a Catholic, I find that, at least on the surface as reported in the media, Holy Mother Church doesn't seem to be as "reasonable" as I think I am.

I've read the commentaries & blogs, talked to folks who know about the environment of seminaries, and looked in the Scriptures. Like many of you, I want any focus on sexual orientation to separate what a person is tempted towards, and how a person lives, empowered by the Holy Spirit. I want us to honor those men who are able to live chastely in our sex-obsessed world, not look for pink triangle tattoos. Like Chris, I want to talk to a priest who understands living with temptation, not one who has had to deny part of himself to embark on what he has experienced as a call from God.

I read the list of questions that the seminary visitors/auditors must answer and there are only two directly related to sexuality (however one defines it--thanks to Sean for his description of this part of our identity as our search for wholeness.)

Other parts of the document address what we all want in those men shepherding us: I want priests devoted to prayer, priests who don't spout new age philosophy, priests with administrative skills, priests with compassion, smart priests, priests who can make the truth clear to parishioners of all ages, etc. I'm willing to accept a celibate man, irrespective of with whom he is not having sex.

Like my dear husband, I'm holding the wait and see attitude, I hope that whatever document is ultimately promulgated is reasoned and sensible.

Izzy had written:

Count me among those taking a wait-&-see approach, but I confess that I'm not waiting very optimistically. I hope that both the working paper for the seminary audit and the expected document on gays in the clergy will avoid the equation of gays with pedophiles. I also kind of hope that this spurious equation has been made now by the news media rather than anything in the Catholic documents; given the collocation of sex-abuse scandals and the seminary audit, it would be easy for American media to assume that the audit is mainly to do with the much-publicized scandals.

I am less hopeful that official documents will show an even-handed approach to chastity and challenges that seminarians face. Will heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals all be treated as having the same challenges to chastity and the same resources available for maintaining chastity? If seminaries in the American Church, which has a disproportionate share of gay rights advocates, are forbidden from admitting chaste gays, will Irish seminaries be forbidden from admitting sober alcoholics?

But before I start tearing my hair and cheeks over what will be said, I'll wait to hear what it is. Who knows, we may even get a carefully nuanced document that appreciates the differences between SSA, homo- and bi-sexuality, and makes a good bit of sense when we read it. I don't say we'll all be happy with it when it arrives, but we ARE talking about the Church that produced the eminently reasonable Humanae Vitae, another document widely reviled and left unpracticed in the American Church.