Admission of Homosexuals to Seminaries

Finally, the Vatican document that many anticipated would ban gay men from admission to Catholic seminaries has been released.

New Oxford Review has an English translation posted on their website, here.

The document says,

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, together with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, deems it necessary to clearly affirm that the Church, even while deeply respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to Seminary or Holy Orders those who are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.

But, also, it says,

When dealing, instead, with homosexual tendencies that might only be a manifestation of a transitory problem, as, for example, delayed adolescence, these must be clearly overcome at least three years before diaconal Ordination.

I had hoped for a complete ban on admission of homosexuals to the seminary. At first glance this document doesn't appear to mandate that. However, I think the exception it makes for men who have "clearly overcome" their homosexuality for "at least three years" is referring more to men who may have been confused about their sexuality or were homosexual for a short time because of some other kinds of problems rather than men who are completely sure of their homosexual orientation.

The document also states, "If a candidate is actively homosexual or shows deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director, as well as his confessor, has the duty to dissuade him, in conscience, from proceeding towards Ordination." I think this is a bold charge. We will have to see whether spiritual directors at certain seminaries or in certain religious orders follow this mandate from the Congregation of Catholic Education.

One line, though, is relevant to all those discerning religious vocations, including myself. It says, "The mere desire to become a priest is not sufficient." We also have to be qualified. In today's situation where many dioceses have a shortage of priests, it is tempting to accept whoever wants the job. The Church still has to be selective, though, and those of us who are discerning also have to keep in mind that simply wanting to be a priest isn't enough. We have to have the call from God.

Update Soon

Sorry it has been awhile since my last update. I've gotten busy with papers, speeches, and things like that. Look for an update today or tomorrow.

Carter: Democrats Not in Mainstream on Abortion

The website of New Oxford Review contains a link to a a Washington Times story that reports that former Democratic President Jimmy Carter believes his party has gone too far with the pro-abortion agenda. The article says:

Former President Jimmy Carter yesterday condemned all abortions and chastised his party for its intolerance of candidates and nominees who oppose abortion [. . .]

"These things impact other issues on which [Mr. Bush] and I basically agree," the Georgia Democrat said. "I've never been convinced, if you let me inject my Christianity into it, that Jesus Christ would approve abortion."

Mr. Carter said his party's congressional leadership only hurts Democrats by making a rigid pro-abortion rights stand the criterion for assessing judicial nominees.

"I have always thought it was not in the mainstream of the American public to be extremely liberal on many issues," Mr. Carter said. "I think our party's leaders -- some of them -- are overemphasizing the abortion issue."

Hopefully, Jimmy Carter is someone that the left-wing democratic leadership will listen to. Pro-life democrats do exist. They have an organization called Democrats for Life. One of Tennessee's Democratic congressmen, Lincoln Davis, is pro-life. However, by and large the Democratic Party has gotten in bed with the radical pro-abortion movement, and has made that movement's agenda its own. The party doesn't even really seem to respect its own members who are pro-life. Maybe Jimmy Carter can talk some sense to the Democratic Party's out-of-touch leadership.

Is Your Honor a Republican or a Democrat?

Jurist is reporting that the prosecutor in Tom DeLay's criminal case is asking the judge in charge of selecting a new judge for the trial to recuse himself.

You probably know that DeLay's lawyers asked for a new judge because the one they had had contributed money to moveon.org, a radical liberal website which was apparently selling some kind of anti-DeLay t-shirt. Their request for a new judge was granted, and they were assigned an administrative judge to find a new judge for the trial. The prosecution is now asking the administrative judge to recuse himself because he has contributed money to Republican campaigns.

I actually thought that DeLay should get a new judge because, if nothing else, the fact that the judge had contributed to moveon.org just looked bad. If DeLay was found guilty, it could have cast suspicion on the whole proceeding. But the prosecution's request has made me realize how ridiculous this can get.

Since judges are usually political appointees, what judge are you going to find that hasn't contributed money to some politician's campaign at some point in his life? This could go on and on ad infinitum, with each side asking for a new judge. It has to stop somewhere.