Reading Tea Leaves and Church Documents

One wonders why it is so difficult for the Church to issue easily comprehensible documents.

PUBLISHED ON

January 20, 2025

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Recently, the Italian bishops’ Episcopal Commission for the Clergy and Consecrated Life released “Orientations and Norms for Seminaries” a document that, among many other matters, addresses the seminary formation of men who experience same-sex attraction. The pertinent paragraph, 199, cites “The Gift of a Priestly Vocation” (hereafter “The Gift”), a 2016 Vatican document (which, in turn, is citing “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,” a 2005 Vatican document) that states:

In relation to persons with homosexual tendencies who seek admission to Seminary, or discover such a situation in the course of formation, consistent with her own Magisterium, “the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture.” Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women.

And here we have the rare occurrence: a text that states very clearly that men who “practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture’” cannot be admitted to the seminary, which very clearly means that they cannot be ordained to the priesthood. 

Paragraph 44 of the Italian bishops’ set of norms cites the whole of the paragraph presented above and then follows with a virtually unintelligible sentence:

Orthodox. Faithful. Free.

Sign up to get Crisis articles delivered to your inbox daily

Email subscribe inline (#4)
In the formation process, when reference is made to homosexual tendencies, it is also appropriate not to reduce discernment only to this aspect, but, as for every candidate, to grasp its meaning in the global framework of the young person’s personality, so that, by knowing himself and integrating the objectives proper to the human and priestly vocation, he arrives at a general harmony

The Italian document goes on to say that the seminarian with deep-seated homosexual tendencies must be educated in the importance of achieving chastity and of being able to live a chaste, celibate life; but it makes no comment on his fitness for ordination.  

Both those opposed to homosexual men being ordained to the priesthood and those who approve of homosexual men in the priesthood have interpreted paragraph 44 to mean that if a candidate who has homosexual tendencies accepts chastity as a gift, freely chooses it, and can “live responsibly chastity in celibacy,” he could be ordained to the priesthood.  

While such an interpretation is within the realm of plausibility, Bishop Stefano Manetti, president of the Episcopal Commission for the Clergy and Consecrated Life of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, issued a clarification that could be interpreted to challenge that interpretation (tea leaves and more tea leaves!). He speaks of the need for candidates to the priesthood to achieve self-knowledge, something he says many young men lack, even those who enter seminary. He urges that the young men need to discover the truth about their sexual orientation. While he does not explicitly state that should they discover that they experience deep-seated homosexual tendencies they are ineligible to be ordained to the priesthood, it is reasonable to draw that conclusion. Why do I say that? While he does not explicitly state that should they discover that they experience deep-seated homosexual tendencies they are ineligible to be ordained to the priesthood, it is reasonable to draw that conclusion. Tweet This

The original document states:

In the formation process, when reference is made to homosexual tendencies, it is also appropriate not to reduce discernment only to this aspect, but, as for every candidate, to grasp its meaning in the global framework of the young person’s personality, so that, by knowing himself and integrating the objectives proper to the human and priestly vocation, he arrives at a general harmony.  

This passage could reasonably be interpreted not to be addressed to the question of admitting homosexual men to the seminary but to the question of how to deal with a young man already in the seminary who discovers in the course of his formation that he has homosexual tendencies. The document is recommending that that candidate not be immediately dismissed for the single reason of his homosexual tendencies but that he be led to understand the “full meaning of the discovery” of his sexuality. Once he understands the full meaning, it seems possible that he would come to understand that he is not qualified to be a priest—among other problems, as the previous instruction stated, because he is “in a situation that gravely hinders [him] from relating correctly to men and women.”  

Nothing in “Gift” explains why men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies cannot relate correctly to men and women. Perhaps the possibility of a sexual attraction to other males or an inability to identify fully with heterosexual males would be an impediment to relating correctly to them. As for relating to females, one might suppose that males who are not attracted to females may have even greater difficulty understanding females than heterosexual males—or at least at understanding a female’s great challenge of understanding heterosexual males? 

Or it might be something very different: many psychologists report that often men with homosexual tendencies have serious psychological issues that hinder them from relating well to others—such as anger management issues, self-loathing, and a sense of inferiority. Many are narcissists. Clearly, heterosexuals may have the same characteristics and would be thereby disqualified for ordination. 

Perhaps formators think that males who desire to have sex with other males are nearly incapable of achieving chastity (which may likely be true). Heterosexuals who cannot accept chaste celibacy as a gift and are incapable of living it are also not to be ordained. The sexual appetite of homosexual males exponentially exceeds that even of heterosexual males so chastity is exponentially greater especially when they live in the seminary among around 100 other males. After all, they will likely be hit on not only by other seminarians who have hid their homosexuality from formators, and, sorry to say, they may be hit on by some of the priest faculty and the presbyterate as well.

Possibly if a homosexual male has lived a life of chastity for at least a decade before entering, which includes avoiding all porn, and have led a sacramental life and one soaked with prayer, he will be graced with the infused moral virtues that will enable him to resist the temptations he faces. He would need to be surrounded with chaste, understanding heterosexual priests who could guide him in his ministry. Not enough of those exist, sorry to say.

So, once a candidate realizes his homosexuality is clustered with other disqualifying characteristics, he may acknowledge his unsuitability for the priesthood and voluntarily withdraw or understand better why he cannot continue.

The document “Gift,” following upon the question of admitting homosexuals to the seminary, addresses the question of the protection of minors and of the vulnerable. While it does not explicitly raise the concern that men with homosexual tendencies might be prone to preying on minors and the vulnerable, one might infer that such a concern exists.

(Let me briefly answer a question often asked: if homosexuals are permitted to marry women, why can’t they be allowed to be priests?  Men with same sex attraction who marry women do bring unique problems to the marriage which a mature, loving woman hopefully can manage. If things go bad, great damage will be done but will be limited.) 

The Italian bishops’ document recommends that a seminarian with deep-seated homosexual tendencies come to a more comprehensive understanding of himself. I think the meaning behind that may be that the seminarian should not leave the seminary with the belief that he is a despicable person because of his homosexual tendencies and thereby is unworthy to be a priest. Certainly, he should come to understand why having deep-seated homosexual tendencies—and accompanying problems—is not compatible with the priesthood. Yet, it is extremely important that he realizes that he is a beloved son of God and that he possesses God-given gifts that are to be used to serve the Church in a myriad of other ways than becoming a priest. 

He will learn that chastity is a necessary element of any worthy Christian life, and hopefully he will be instructed in some of the ways that chastity is achieved and maintained. It is to be hoped that he can be paired with a capable spiritual director who will continue to form him as a disciple of Christ and that he will be able to retain the healthy friendships he has built with other seminarians. Both should help him maintain chastity by being accountable and should help him find suitable ways to spread the Gospel. If that is what the document means, it shows a much-needed, sensible pastoral approach to helping men with homosexual tendencies discern “out of” the seminary but, one hopes, “into” other service to the Lord.  

The statement of the Italian bishops’ conference does not provide any such commentary or exposition and leaves its true meaning somewhat of a mystery. If what I have inferred from the cryptic document and clarification is true, we don’t want to miss the message about appropriate pastoral care for homosexuals seeking to be ordained priests; it is important. 

Sadly, because the meaning of the Italians bishops’ statement is far from crystal clear, to some extent, it permits those who advocate for admission of homosexuals to the priesthood to push their agenda. The cynical may conclude that the ambiguity of the document is deliberate and designed to budge the door open to the priesthood for homosexuals—and they may be correct. The other explanation is that those who wrote it are incompetent. Either way, it is simply wrong that one needs to be adept at reading tea leaves to understand Church documents.

Author

  • Janet E. Smith, Ph.D., is a retired professor of moral theology.

Join the Conversation

Comments are a benefit for financial supporters of Crisis. If you are a monthly or annual supporter, please login to comment. A Crisis account has been created for you using the email address you used to donate.

Donate
tagged as: Church

There are no comments yet.

Editor's picks

Item added to cart.
0 items - $0.00
Share to...