Help: Vatican document on homosexuals


#1

I wonder if anyone can help me find the 1960s Vatican document on the non-admission of homosexuals to seminary and religious orders? I've tried to find it online but can't. :shrug:


#2

Here is the 2005 document:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html


#3

It was 1961.


#4

[quote="Jim_Dandy, post:3, topic:264777"]
It was 1961.

[/quote]

The 2005 document would supersede any earlier document.


#5

I want to read the 1961 document. Does anyone know the name of it? I remember reading it some time ago, but now I can't find it anywhere online..


#6

[quote="Pushkin, post:5, topic:264777"]
I want to read the 1961 document. Does anyone know the name of it? I remember reading it some time ago, but now I can't find it anywhere online..

[/quote]

I am just curious as to why you want to look at a document that is no longer in force.


#7

There is a 2001 document that is strict. It she plainly, not only active homosexuals, but also anyone with merely a gay tendency, and excludes even rose who support the "so-called gay lifestyle".


#8

"There is a 2001 document that is strict. It she plainly, not only active homosexuals,but also anyone with merely a gay tendency, and excludes even rose who support the "so-called gay lifestyle"."

It's difficult typing from the small window of a cell phone. Let me try this again..

There is a 2001 document that is more strict. It plainly excludes not only active homosexuals, but also anyone with merely a gay tendency, and excludes even those who support the "so-called gay lifestyle".


#9

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html


#10

[quote="DasErlibnis, post:8, topic:264777"]
"There is a 2001 document that is strict. It she plainly, not only active homosexuals,but also anyone with merely a gay tendency, and excludes even rose who support the "so-called gay lifestyle"."

It's difficult typing from the small window of a cell phone. Let me try this again..

There is a 2001 document that is more strict. It plainly excludes not only active homosexuals, but also anyone with merely a gay tendency, and excludes even those who support the "so-called gay lifestyle".

[/quote]

You over state here. You say any one with "merely a gay tendency" which is not what the document says.

The document says;
In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture".

"present deep-seated homosexual tendencies" is not "merely a gay tendency".


#11

[quote="ByzCath, post:6, topic:264777"]
I am just curious as to why you want to look at a document that is no longer in force.

[/quote]

Is it no longer in force? I'm not sure we know that to be the case. I think the document still has relevance and value.

Das, that '2001 document' you linked to is actually the 2005 document that was linked to earlier in this thread.


#12

You’re playing with words. “Merely” was a comparison to the homosexual act, not a degree of tendency.

Nevertheless, it remains that the tendency should not be overlooked. One with gay tendencies must not enter the seminary. Period. There is no gray area.


#13

It was originally written at an earlier date, then moved on the Vatican website and updated.


#14

What you say is not true. The document clearly states that when “deep-seated” tendency is present then they should not be admitted.

This is open to interpretation of bishops and religious superiors.


#15

To be clear, the document lays are three "groups" that should not be considered for entry into seminaries/religious life.

1) those who practice homosexuality
2) have deep-seated homosexual tendencies
3) support the so-called "gay culture"

As for #1, no one who is engaging in sexual acts should be allowed entry regardless of whether it is homosexual or heterosexual acts.

2 is a matter for interpretation for the bishops/religious superiors as to what "deep-seated" means. It is clear that it does not mean everyone who suffers from some sort of SSA as it would not qualify "homosexual tendencies" with "deep-seated" if it meant that.

3 is clear and no one who supports any sort of sin should be allowed entry.


#16

Well that's good. So I won't have to see anyone here trying to qualify for themselves whether they think someone is fit for seminary. You'll just answer: go see your bishop.


#17

[quote="DasErlibnis, post:16, topic:264777"]
Well that's good. So I won't have to see anyone here trying to qualify for themselves whether they think someone is fit for seminary. You'll just answer: go see your bishop.

[/quote]

As it is the Church who calls one to the priesthood/religious life, yes.

It is through the bishop/religious superior who calls.

Not you, not I, not anyone else.

You don't get a say, I don't get a say, in the call of another.

We can only discern a possible call within ourselves though even if we feel a call there is no call until the Church calls through the bishop/religious superior.


#18

I happen to have very mild SSA, which can probably be overcome. I have talked to my spiritual director about it, and he has said it will probably not be a hindrance to my desire for religious life. I will also be speaking with the vocation directresses of the orders I am looking into to hear their thoughts on this. So yes, DasErlibnis, there is a difference in degree. I would be different if I had deep-seated sexual tendencies which could not be overcome with any kind of counseling, therapy, or guidance. That would most certainly be a hindrance to the religious life.


#19

We must also remember that not every Church document is on the internet, not should it be. The Vatican has been very good about creating online archives, but there is no “freedom of information” act in force here.

Many documents are not intended for laityand we shouldn’t expect that they will be instantly available to us. In the case of another’s vocation, we don’t need to know anything. In the case of our own, if the bishops and religious superiors involved have received instruction from Rome,they will explain what we need to know and that is enough. Even if we don’t learn everything that is in their instruction.


#20

[quote="ByzCath, post:17, topic:264777"]
As it is the Church who calls one to the priesthood/religious life, yes.

It is through the bishop/religious superior who calls.

Not you, not I, not anyone else.

You don't get a say, I don't get a say, in the call of another.

We can only discern a possible call within ourselves though even if we feel a call there is no call until the Church calls through the bishop/religious superior.

[/quote]

God calls, we hear, we discern, and through prayer we respond. The Bishop's role is to oversee, and discern, and in Her wisdom, to affirm that a calling does or does not exist for religious or priestly life.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.