Abandon gay ban plan

The Vatican is reportedly preparing to issue a directive which would effect the exclusion from the priesthood of men with a homosexual orientation.

Reports, especially from the United States, suggest that a gay sub-culture seems to have taken hold in some seminaries, with allusions to the notion that celibacy is not always observed in these institutions.

If these reports are indeed true, then such seminaries would not be ideal environments for the training of future clergy.

The Vatican is correct in seeking to address this situation. (Likewise, it must be noted, the reported rampant practice of heterosexual sex in some seminaries warrants vigilant inspection.)

Placing a blanket ban on all vocations of homosexually oriented men, however, is not the way. Surely, each case–regardless of whether the candidate is homosexual or heterosexual–should be assessed on its own merits.

If a candidate is sufficiently mature and mentally equipped to handle the strains of the priestly vocation, especially in regard to celibacy, his sexual orientation (other than paedophilia) should be of limited consequence.

The timing of such a directive would be unfortunate, coinciding with the media frenzy that has followed revelations of sexual abuse of minors by priests.

While it is true that many, perhaps most, of the victims were boys, the Vatican runs danger of holding all homosexual clergy and candidate priests accountable for the crimes of the few (many of them not homosexuals, but in fact paedophiles).

If the total number of aberrant clergy involved in the scandal is indeed negligible, as the Church rightly says it is, then we must assume that an overwhelming majority of homosexual priests have not engaged in sexual corruption.

Indeed, there is no evidence to indicate that homosexual priests are any more likely to break their vow of celibacy than their heterosexual counterparts.

By issuing the directive in the wake of the clergy sex scandal, the Vatican risks being seen as scapegoating homosexuals.

In this, the Vatican seems to misread the source of the anger the scandal has produced. Yes, the public is angry with those malevolent priests who have abused minors. But the public is angrier yet at those bishops who demonstrably tolerated situations where these priests could perpetrate such molestations in first place.

It is difficult to predict how the Vatican might enforce the directive. Apart from driving homosexuals with a vocation ever deeper into the closet, it is likely that many vocations directors will use their discretion in interpreting the directive.

One thing the Church does not want is another silent rebellion of the conscience.

Finally, one may reflect on the repercussions the directive will have on the morale of the many homosexual priests (and, one might guess, a good number of bishops and even cardinals) who have served the Church with undiminished integrity, only to be told that the Vatican considers them unsuitable for the priesthood.

This would indeed be an unworthy denigration. It would also serve as a counterwitness to the teaching of The Catechism of the Catholic Church: that “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.