ARTICLES

All the Bishops' Boys

California Prelates Will Continue to Ordain Homosexuals

BY CHRISTOPHER ZEHNDER

Not even the Chicago Sun-Times' religion reporter Cathleen Falsani could get from Cardinal Francis George what he and Pope Benedict XVI discussed in a private meeting they had in October -- and Falsani, almost every year, sits down with the Chicago archbishop "for a kind of spiritual-state-of-the-union chat." As usual, said Falsani in a January 16 article, George was discreet. But Cardinal George, it seems, felt no compunction "a few minutes later" when he told Falsani of the American bishops' attempt to stall the Vatican's publication of the instruction that forbids the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies."

George and other members of the U.S. Catholic bishops' conference had in October traveled to Rome for meetings with Vatican officials. Regarding the Vatican instruction on homosexuals in the priesthood, George told Falsani, "we asked them not not to publish it, but to delay it -- to wait." Why? Because, said Cardinal George, "it would color" the Holy See's visitation of American seminaries, called for by Pope John Paul II in 2002 and begun in September of last year. According to George, he and the bishops said, "'if you do this, it will be taken as a commentary on the visitations and we'll get into this whole business that the gay community is so sensitive of, "you're blaming us for pedophilia."'"

The Holy See's response, said George, was to say, "'well, we're sorry about that, but this is a universal document. It's not directed at the United States. It's directed to the whole church. So we're gonna do it.'

"They have their own schedule," said Cardinal George.

And so do the American bishops, it seems. Though in November, the Holy See released the instruction that says truly homosexual men shall not be ordained, many American bishops have enunciated their own time frame for its implementation. And it is not "now," nor even "eventually," but "never."

Northern/Central California, especially, is Never-Never Land. Nearly every bishop has given a clear non serviam to the instruction, "Concerning the Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to Seminaries and Holy Orders." As of early February, three bishops had said nothing publicly -- Allen Vigneron of Oakland, Stephen Blaire of Stockton, and William Weigand of Sacramento. The five remaining bishops who had made some sort of public statement, basically said they would ignore the instruction.

I attempted to contact the dioceses where no public statement had apparently been made. My questions were: has the bishop made any statements regarding the Vatican's instruction? Has the diocese in the past had a policy to refuse admittance to seminary or holy orders any who, in the words of the instruction, "are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture"? Has the instruction changed, or will it change, the diocese's policy of admitting to holy orders or the seminary those who "are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture"? If so, how has the policy changed or how will it change? If not, why has it not changed or will not change?"

I received no response from the Sacramento diocese to my telephone and e-mail messages. Sister Terry Davis, communications director for the diocese of Stockton, sent me a reply by e-mail on January 27. She passed my questions on to Bishop Blaire, but "he has been away and I have received no response," she said. "All I can suggest to you is that you move ahead without his response if your deadline is coming soon. The Bishop does not receive e-mail directly and I have done what I can to notify him of your message."

I had a bit more luck with the diocese of Oakland. In a January 24 e-mail, communications director Father Mark Wiesner told me that, to date, Bishop Vigneron had made no response to the document. As for the diocese's past policy in regards to admitting homosexuals to seminary and the priesthood, it "has been in line with the Holy See's instruction," said Father Wiesner. "Sexual orientation and sexual history have been part of a comprehensive assessment of seminary candidates." As for the future, "the Holy See's instruction provides some useful parameters from which we will be able to do an even better job of evaluating those who seek to be seminarians in our diocese," said Father Wiesner.

Finding Wiesner's replies somewhat less than to the point, I e-mailed him the same day further questions. In regards to his second response, I asked, "has active homosexuality or a deep-seated homosexual tendency been a basis for the Oakland diocese to refuse holy orders to candidates or for dismissing them from the seminary?" As for Wiesner's last response, I wondered whether he meant that "in the future, the diocese of Oakland will not ordain actively homosexual men or those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies?" Father Wiesner responded promptly that he would forward my "follow-up questions to the Director of Vocations for additional information." Despite this promise and my repeated phone calls to vocations director Father Larry D'Anjou, I received nothing more from the Oakland diocese.

Dr. Dierdre Frontczak, communica tions director for the diocese of Santa Rosa, sent me an article for the March 1 North Coast Catholic by diocesan vocations director, Father Tom Diaz, and "approved by Bishop [Daniel] Walsh." In "reflecting on the document," Diaz in his article said he had "a few points that need to be made." Among these were that the instruction "states nothing new from past documents dealing with priestly formation" (which is true, for the Holy See forbade the ordination of homosexuals in 1961.) "Homosexual orientation is different from living out a 'gay' lifestyle," was another of Diaz's points, a point also made by the instruction; but whereas the instruction noted that a truly homosexual orientation disqualified a man for holy orders, Diaz disagreed. For one, he said, "clarification is needed on what is meant by 'deeply seated homosexuality' in the document." But for Diaz such clarification may be merely academic, for he stated, "priests with homosexual orientation are faithful priests who live a life of chastity and Christ-like love."

And Diaz concluded: "no one should be primarily identified or discriminated by their sexual orientation, as we are more than beings of race, language, and way of life but people made to the image and likeness of God. All of us need to live a life of sexual maturity in our sexual orientations." Thus, it appears, the diocese of Santa Rosa will continue to ordain homosexual men.

San Jose's Bishop Patrick McGrath made it clear as early as November 29 that the instruction would have no effect in his diocese. To McGrath, the Vatican document merely "reaffirms that Catholic priests are called to a lifetime commitment to celibacy in service to the Church and its people;" and, said the bishop, celibacy is already a requirement in his diocese. Seemingly, as far as McGrath is concerned, the instruction made no special refer ence to homo sexuality. Rather, McGrath continued (quoting Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane), the document "expresses the valid concern that all candidates must display an 'effective [sic] maturity' which enables them to relate properly to others as chaste, celibate priests who can faithfully represent the teaching of the Church about sexuality, including the immorality of homosexual genital activity." That the instruction says that homosexual men as such do not have affective maturity, escaped, perhaps, the bishop's notice.

But even McGrath's new metropolitan, San Francisco archbishop George Niederauer, has indicated that the Vatican's instruction changes nothing for him. This is nothing new, for before the document was issued, Niederauer was on record as supporting the ordination of celibate homosexual men (see "Could Be Worse But Could Be Better," February Faith); yet, after the document was issued, Niederauer (then bishop of Salt Lake City) told the December 12 Intermountain Catholic that the Vatican in the instruction was basically only insisting that priests achieve "affective maturity" -- "all the loving and relating that a priest does must be centered in Christ and consistent with the priest's commitment to Christ and the Church." When the interviewer asked, "can a man who is homosexual be an effective priest?" Niederauer did not answer directly, merely saying, "if any priest has the affective maturity described above, and in the document, then with God's grace, he can effectively minister as a priest." Niederauer said further that homosexuality itself was not a problem for a priest, only a too exaggerated attachment to a homosexual identity. "Any Catholic priest's identity," he said, "must be centered in Christ the Priest ... a priest cannot think of himself or present himself as mainly something else: a Democrat, a Republican, an American, a Frenchman, or as someone who has a particular sexual orientation."

In the past, Fresno's Bishop John Steinbock has expressed his support for ordaining homosexuals. In an October 20, 2004 letter to Jose Ovalle, a parishioner at St. Patrick's in Merced, Steinbock wrote, "I have stated publicly that what is important of any priest, whether he has a heterosexual or homosexual orientation, is that he is living a celibate life style, faithful to the Lord Jesus and the teaching of the church, and then indeed he can be a good priest. This is not against the Magisterium of the Church." Yet, given the Vatican's latest instruction, one might have supposed that Steinbock would change his opinion. After all, in January 2002, in the letter, "Life-Giving Love of Husband and Wife in Light of the Teaching of the Church on Marriage and Family," the bishop took a courageous stand in defense of the Church's very unpopular teaching on artificial contraception. This alone might lead one to assume that Steinbock, despite his original position on ordaining homosexuals, in the end would think with the Church.

But the December 25, 2005 issue of the Fresno diocese's Central California Catholic Life indicated otherwise. An article by Monsignor Anthony Janelli described a discussion on the Holy See's instruction at the annual meeting of the administration of Saint John's seminary in Camarillo with bishops and vocations directors. In discussing the Vatican's instruction, said Janelli, "we referred to the commentaries by Bishop Skylstad, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Mahony and Bishop Steinbock." The gathering's conclusion, said Janelli, was that the instruction "is overall a restatement of guidelines published in 1985. And in conjunction with this we agreed that the seminary and all of our dioceses are already implementing all of the criteria called for by the instruction."

Janelli wrote, "everyone [at the meeting] was in agreement with the Cardinal's [Mahony's] summary of the [instruction's] criteria in which he states: 'The Church cannot admit to the Seminary or to Holy Orders those who: Practice Homosexuality; Present deep-seated homosexual tendencies; Support the 'gay culture'."

A rather fair summary of what the instruction said. But the gathering "in trying to clarify the meaning and implications of these criteria," discovered another meaning, other implications. Janelli wrote that in his article he wanted "to look at the criteria in the context of what they say about the criteria that we want in a person we admit to the Seminary and Holy Orders." The monsignor said he was sharing his own thoughts on the matter, though most of what he said was based on "commentaries from Bishop Skylstad, Cardinal Mahony and Bishop Steinbock."

"It seems," continued Janelli, "we could express these criteria in this way. The Church can welcome to the Seminary and to Holy Orders those who practice Celibate Chastity; present an affective maturity that enables them to enter into healthy and positive relationships with both men and women; support the vision and values of the Church concerning Chastity in Marriage and the Single Life." According to Janelli's reading, it seems, the Vatican's criteria in the end say nothing about whether a homosexual orientation does or does not disqualify a man for holy orders.

Bishop Steinbock, according to Janelli, "at the end of our discussion" indicated his orientation to the question by referring to a sentence concluding Cardinal Mahony's commentary; Steinbock, said Janelli, "affirmed it as the fundamental hope of everyone." "It is my prayer," wrote the cardinal, "that all who are ordained or vowed for the service of the Church, whether they are heterosexual or have homosexual tendencies, may reaffirm their deep commitment to Christ and to a life of chastity and celibacy after the example of Jesus himself."

Bishop Sylvester Ryan of Monterey took a different tack than his brother bishops. He did not paraphrase the meaning out of the Vatican's instruction or indulge in vague indirection but insinuated a doubt as to the instruction's authority. In a January 2006 pastoral letter, "The Vatican Instruction on Homo sexuality," Bishop Ryan made a distinction between canon law, which "provides us with the laws that govern us as a community of faith," and documents like the current instruction. "An instruction ... from a particular congregation, as we have in the recent instruction on homosexuality from the Congregation for Catholic Education," wrote Ryan, "is NOT LAW but a commentary or interpretation of a law, and has only the authority of the content of the instruction along with the accepted competence of a particular congregation." The latest instruction, said Ryan, "is a commentary on issues that pertain to the Canon Laws that guide bishops in accepting men to study for the priesthood."

But what authority does the instruction have? Does it bind the likes of Bishop Ryan? Quoting canon 241 -- "a diocesan bishop is to admit to the major seminary only those who are judged qualified to dedicate themselves permanently to the sacred ministries; he is to consider their human, moral, spiritual and intellectual qualities, their physical and psychic health, and their correct intention" -- Bishop Ryan merely stated, "a priest is required to live a life of celibate chastity 'permanently,' whatever may be his sexual orientation, and must be able to relate affectively and responsibly to both men and women." Presumably, because the canon nowhere mentions sexual orientation, the bishop thought it is a non-issue. And because the instruction is merely an instruction and NOT LAW, he can ignore it.

This, in effect, is what Ryan said in his pastoral, when he wrote, "for the past twenty years bishops and seminary faculties have fulfilled these requirements as to the selection and evaluation of candidates for the priesthood with the guidance of several documents that have dealt with sexual orientation. The bottom line in all these documents remains the same: No one can be admitted to study for the priesthood if he is not capable nor has he shown clear evidence of his ability to live a chaste, celibate priestly life regardless of sexual orientation." [Emphasis added.]

But is an instruction, such as the Vatican's latest, binding on bishops? Charles Wilson, with the San Antonio, Texas-based St. Joseph Foundation, which specializes in canon law, said, in response to Ryan's pastoral, "the purpose of an instruction, according to canon 34, §1, is to 'clarify the prescripts of laws and elaborate on and determine the methods to be observed in fulfilling them. They are given for the use of those whose duty it is to see that laws are executed and oblige them in the execution of the laws.' As Bishop Ryan stated in his letter, the general criteria for acceptance of candidates for priestly ordination are set forth in canon 241, §1. The recent instruction issued by the Congregation for Catholic Education, which has competency for seminaries and formation programs around the world, does indeed clarify the criteria contained in this canon."

But is Bishop Ryan or any other bishop bound to follow a Vatican instruction? "Strictly, speaking, he's bound to follow it," said Wilson. But, he added, "most of the instructions are ignored and nothing is done about it."

And the Holy See agrees with Wilson -- at least as to the authority of its instructions. In a cover letter to the instruction, issued December 1, Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, prefect of the Congregation on Catholic Education, said, "the norms of the instruction ... must be taken into consideration in the drafting or updating of the 'Ratio Institutionis Sacerdotalis' of every country. Moreover, it is clear that the aforementioned norms are to be faithfully observed by all superiors to ensure a suitable preparation of future priests in view of the good both of the candidates themselves and of the church." The instruction itself says the same thing -- "Bishops, Episcopal Conferences, and Superior Generals should assure that the norms of this instruction are faithfully observed for the good of the candidates themselves and always to assure for the Church suitable priests, true shepherds according to the heart of Christ."

TOP