'Instruction' on priests and homosexuality is iniquitous

The "instruction" issued by Pope Benedict XVI on the criteria for "the discernment of vocations with regard to persons with homosexual tendencies in view of their admission to the seminary and to holy orders" is deeply offensive. This is not only because of the inveterate prejudice the document exhibits towards homosexuals, but also the indifference, of which the document speaks silently but eloquently, to other "tendencies" among those attracted to the Catholic priesthood.

Isn't it almost unbelievable that, at a time when, all over the world, revelations of outrageous sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests are emerging daily, the focus of this new Pope is not on the "tendencies" of these abusing priests but on the "tendencies" of homosexual priests? The message is clear: the "tendency" to abuse children sexually and, thereby, to blight their lives, possibly for ever, is of lesser consequence than the "scandal" that might be attributable to the Church by the admission of homosexuals to the priesthood.

The document refers in several places to the "maturity" required in candidates for the priesthood. Wouldn't some reference to a sexual maturity, which would preclude a predisposition towards paedophilia, have been relevant here? There is an assertion that the "tendency" to homosexuality is "objectively disordered": what about the "tendency" to pedophilia? How was it that nobody at senior level in the Vatican thought to advise the Pope that the issue was screaming out to be addressed in the document – or did they do so and "His Holiness" ignored them?

There may, of course, be implicit in this "instruction" concerning homosexuality a belief that the "tendency" towards homosexuality and the "tendency" towards child abuse is the same thing or at least closely related. If such ignorance still pervades at the highest levels of the Vatican, it is now both willful and wicked.

So far this Pope has not said a single word in public, since his inauguration, about clerical child abuse. He has not issued a word of apology for the terrible injury inflicted on millions of people throughout the world by priests, who used their status as priests and as agents of Christ, to inflict this abuse. Nor has he apologised for the collective guilt of the Catholic Church as a whole in covering up these terrible crimes for centuries.

Of course, it is this same person who, as Cardinal Ratzinger and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine and Faith, issued a confidential letter to Catholic bishops in May 2001 asserting the Church's right to hold its inquiries into clerical sexual abuse behind closed doors and an instruction to keep evidence of abuse confidential.

Lawyers representing victims of clerical sexual abuse in the United States have stated that this letter was designed to prevent allegations of abuse from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by police. A senior bishop in Ireland has said this letter was not intended to obstruct police enquires into clerical sexual abuse but to indicate the confidential nature of internal church inquiries into abuse. Nevertheless, the suspicion remains that the letter encouraged secrecy generally and a reluctance (at best) to involve civil authorities.

The "instruction" concerning candidates for the priesthood with "tendencies" to homosexuality is otherwise at once offensive and hilarious.

It says: "Sacred Scripture presents [homosexual acts] as grave sins". "Sacred Scripture" is effused with misogyny, intolerance, vengeance and violence. Yes, this was reflective of the culture of the times they were written and for that very reason "Sacred Scriptures" are a moral authority for nothing.

Does anyone now regard the following scriptural injunctions as morally authoritative?

Leviticus Chapter 18

19: "You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness."

Leviticus Chapter 19

20: "If a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave, betrothed to another man and not yet ransomed or given her freedom, an inquiry shall be held. They shall not be put to death, because she was not free."

27: "You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard."

28: "You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the LORD."

The exegesis on persons with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" is bizarre. It says, "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided," and immediately goes on to instruct an unjust discrimination against such people. It says: "Such tendencies must be clearly overcome [the Vatican's split infinitive!] at least three years before ordination to the diaconate". No such suggestion about persons afflicted with "deep-seated heterosexual tendencies", whatever they might be!

The Catholic Church is a major cultural influence on Irish and other societies. Its prejudices, blindnesses, dysfunctionalities and intolerances infect our minds, as do the aspects of its more edifying characteristics, including its tradition of compassion. This "instruction" is iniquitous and we should be saying so.

vincent browne