On The Other Hand, Foolish Approval of the Document

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights offers a Foolish response to the document. Catholic News Agency has the story.

Observe:

The Vatican document says that while homosexuals must be respected, the Catholic Church “cannot admit to seminaries and to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, who present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or who support the so-called gay culture.” Donohue said most practicing Catholics would welcome this decision.

“The Vatican is prudent not to have an absolute ban on admission of homosexuals to the priesthood: there are too many good men with homosexual tendencies who have served the Church with distinction,” said Donohue.

“But there is a monumental difference between someone who is incidentally homosexual and someone for whom the gay subculture is central to his identity,” Donohue pointed out. “Only those blinded by sexual politics will fail to make this distinction.”

Mr. Donohue gets it exactly right. Foolables to the right and left of the Church do not. Ironically, they both share the same distorted perception that Mr. Donohue correctly condemns: seeing no difference between someone with SSA and someone that self-identifies as gay. Calling for an outright ban of all men with homosexual attraction (SSA and gay) or demanding that gay men, who celebrate what the Church condemns, be allowed into Holy orders express the same profound error. They accept as a given that a person is what their tendencies to behave make them.

The Church sees the situation differently. She recognizes that temptation is not sin. She understands that those suffering from SSA and committed to chastity may worthily serve her and Christ. She also sees that those with SSA that celebrate their gay identity lack the willingness to commit to her or Christ.

May more Fools stand with her.

Update: Amy Welborn also demonstrates the wisdom of the Document:

Already, the discussion has taken a sharp turn into Self-Pity and Oppression land. The self-identified "gay priests" have been trotted out, the sensitive have started mourning for their demeaned brothers who might be swept up in the "deep homosexual inclinations" net. And this is a reaction that was thoroughly predictable.

This is why I have never been an enthusiast for the simple view of "don't let homosexuals be ordained" idea. Well, one of the reasons, the other being that in two thousand years of church history there have been men who have homosexual tendencies or SSA, or what ever you would call it, who have been ordained, have not caused any trouble, and have, like anyone else, aspired to holiness. We've had this discussion before.

But the other reason is simply that when it comes to guidelines, as reasonable as it might seem to do the "no homosexuals in the seminary thing," it doesn't get at the problem. The problem is not, in simple terms, the homosexual priest. The problem is priests who don't believe what the Catholic Church teaches on sexuality, who don't preach it, who don't witness to it in the confessional, and who don't live it in their private lives.

Do you see the difference?

Check out the whole post!

Update II: The Upper Canada Catholic has a Foolish response as well:

So let’s summarize the Instruction by its corollary; here is a list of men who can be admitted to the priesthood:

• Men who are not really homosexuals, but only acted-out in sexual immaturity more than three years prior to vocation;
• Men who may very well be homosexual, but are celibate, do not support the gay culture and whose homosexuality is something other than “deep-seated.” As the Instruction is silent on what “deep-seated” means, this will be left to the local Ordinary to discern on a case-by-case basis. Sounds fair and flexible to me.

The Instruction appears to me to be well thought out, based on common sense, and is consistent with the teachings of the Catechism. It affords all candidates an opportunity to be assessed for priestly vocation on their individual merits, regardless of sexual orientation. Above all, it does not constitute a sweeping bar on homosexuals in the priesthood. No doubt some will be disappointed, but I am sure they will unite in support of the Holy Father.

Again, read it all!