Bishop D'Arcy's Statement Concerning the Instruction on Homosexuals in the Seminary
I am in full support of the recent statement on “Criteria for the Discernment Concerning Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Sacred Orders.”
The church bears the serious responsibility of establishing criteria concerning who should be admitted to the seminary and ordained to the priesthood and who should be helped to some other vocation in life. Recent events have shown when the church does not do this well, the pastoral care of souls suffers, the parishes are torn apart and the people lose confidence in the leadership of that church.
The priest calls his people to a life of holiness, and they rightly expect that he, himself, is living such a life, both in public when they see him and in private when they do not.
This document reaffirms and makes more specific things the church has taught for decades. Not everyone is called to be a priest.
As the document points out, no one has a right to be a priest. They must receive a call. The church determines, through the bishop and the seminary or religious congregation, if a true vocation is present. The church must give characteristics, which indicate that a vocation is present, and also those characteristics, which would indicate that a priestly vocation is not present.
This is an inexact science. It is not infallible. A human judgment is made, enlightened by grace and divine help. This document, and many other documents, have been given to help bishops, seminaries and religious congregations determine when a candidate gives evidence that he can live this life well.
There are many footnotes in this document indicating time and again how the church, over the years, has urged bishops, religious congregations and seminary rectors to be very careful. There is an old saying which one finds in this document.
“When there is a doubt about a man’s fitness for the priesthood, the doubt should always be decided in favor of the church.”
That is: don’t ordain him.
Such a position is based on the great regard for the importance of the priesthood in the life of the church, due regard also for parishioners, and finally, respect for the man himself if there is the possibility that he is unable to live this beautiful, but demanding and difficult life. So he should be helped to a different vocation in the church.
A more specific document
This document makes more specific what has been implicit, or at least less specific, in many documents on seminary formation. It indicates that people with deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or those who practice homosexuality or those who support the so-called “gay culture,” should not be admitted to the seminary and should not be ordained. By the way, this is a position I have supported in writing for over 30 years, going back to the time when I was spiritual director in the seminary. I would like to include some of my reasoning, based on my experience in a major seminary for over 15 years and 30 years as a bishop, including 20 years as bishop of this historic See.
• To be happy, a priest must be convinced in his heart that he would be a good father and a good husband. Like marriage, the priesthood involves making a gift of oneself to another. Pope John Paul II called it an “officium caritatus,” that is, an office of love. It cannot be an escape for someone who is afraid of marriage, believed he would not be happy in marriage or would not be a good spouse or father. The priest gives up something very beautiful — a lifelong relationship with a good woman, children and grandchildren, needs that are deep within our humanity. He gives it up for something beautiful — to be a priest and shepherd after the heart of Christ. He must believe that Christ is calling him. It is a sacrifice. It’s supposed to be a sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice in the same way for a person with deep-seated homosexual tendencies. He is not drawn to marriage in the same way. Thus, immediately, there is a division in the priesthood.
• We must think of the seminary. The heterosexual man who enters the seminary does not enter a school with attractive young women. He enters with other young men and, if the vocational discernment is sound, they will help each other toward the priesthood. The homosexual candidate, however, is forced to live closely with other males. In fact, he will live most of his life with males. This is not fair to him for his own spiritual growth. In a seminary which, by nature, is somewhat closed, this leads to confusion and turmoil.
• In response to the recent crisis, which has brought so much pain and anguish to the church, a study was commissioned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and executed by the John Jay School of Criminal Justice. This study found that 81 percent of the abuse took place against males. This is in contrast to studies of other groups where the majority of sexual abuse of minors took place among young females. Of this, 81 percent, a large number of victims, were post-pubescent males. In other words, a large portion of clegy sexual abuse did not involve pedophilia. Rather, the priests in question abused adolescent males.
• In a seminary where homosexual acts are present and where a significant number of seminarians have that tendency and are living closely with heterosexual men, some of those who are heterosexual will choose to leave the seminary. Some have said if this document is implemented, it will lead to a shortage of priests. I do not believe that. I think the way out of the shortage is to ordain young men of quality — not supermen, which would eliminate all of us — but good men who would also make good husbands and fathers, and who can make a gift of themselves to others. These, in turn, will draw similar young men. So, the way out of the crisis consists not in lowering the bar, but in strengthening our admission policies and our criteria, and this document helps us in that direction. The same maturity is necessary for being a good husband and father — as for being a good priest — the ability to make a gift of oneself to another.
Spiritual direction
There was a front-page article in the New York Times on Thanksgiving Day in which a priest from Chicago seriously criticized the document — the fact that it urges the spiritual director and confessor to dissuade someone with such a deep-seated orientation from the priesthood. The objection of this priest was that the spiritual director and confessor might have to talk someone out of becoming a priest. I was a spiritual director for 15 years, and that was precisely the role that one had at times. Not just for this reason, but for many reasons.
A spiritual director is not just someone who is only listening and encouraging. He is also confronting and probing, and, while observing confidentiality, he often has the obligation to help a person choose another way of life. This is not a violation of spiritual direction, but, in the seminary, it is central to it.
Bishop John M. D’Arcy
Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend
This item 6723 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
