The Debate over "Tendencies"

The document has been released. Catholic World News has an unofficial translation of the document here. Everyone is talking about the Vatican's pronouncement on the ordination of homosexual men. But what does it mean?

The document lists three situations in which a man should not enter the seminary or priesthood. The first is where the person is practicing homosexuality. The third is where the person is supporting the gay culture. These two are obvious. If you are deliberately flouting a central teaching of the Church, that the act of homosexual relations is a sin, then you should not be in a position of teaching others about the truths of the Church.

But what about the second situation? That is where a person has "profound deep-rooted homosexual tendencies." What does that mean? This is the phrase that has people tied in knots. Does this mean that any man who is attracted to other men can never be a priest? Is simple orientation enough to exclude one from the priesthood?

I decided to approach this in a legalistic fashion. I first looked up the definition of "tendencies" on the Merriam-Webster website. Webster defines tendency as "direction or approach toward a place, object, effect, or limit; a proneness to a particular kind of thought or action; the purposeful trend of something written or said : AIM b : deliberate but indirect advocacy."

All of these definitions seem to involve something more than just an "orientation." Rather, they seem to indicate some sort of movement. If we apply these phrases to the current issue, homosexual tendencies would be defined as: "direction or approach toward homosexuality; a proneness to homosexual thought or action; the purposeful trend of homosexuality; deliberate but indirect advocacy of homosexuality."

Webster goes further and states that "tendency implies an inclination sometimes amounting to an impelling force." Webster also mentions the following as synonyms: trend, drift, tenor and current. Each of those words, defined, also imply movement towards something. Thus, the Vatican's use of the word "tendencies" appears not to indicate that homosexual orientation alone would exclude someone from the priesthood. Rather, the phrase seems to require some sort of compulsion on the part of the man to engage in homosexual behavior or to excuse or advocate the homosexual behavior of others.

The question then becomes, how much of a compulsion are we talking about? Surely all of us feel lust at times. Can you really exclude candidates simply for having lustful thoughts about men? Wouldn't many heterosexual priest fail if such a standard were applied to them?

I would say that such a standard does already apply to heterosexual priests. Every person has carnal desires, whether married or unmarried, gay or straight. Some people control these desires better than others. If a heterosexual or homosexual man spends a significant amount of time thinking about sex, imagining sex, then that man is not a good candidate for the priesthood. That man can still be a good Catholic and perhaps will even become a recognized saint someday. But right now, that man should concentrate on controlling his own thoughts and actions. I think this is what profound deep-rooted tendencies means.

I also think that men who would show profound tendencies toward other types of sin would not be suitable candidates for the priesthood. Thus, if a man had a constant urge to steal, even if he did not actually do so, then he should not enter the priesthood. Perhaps a monestary, if he feels such desire, but not the priesthood. He should concentrate instead on battling his personal demons.

Obviously there is an unclear middle-ground. Some men will have more than just fleeting impulses of lust that occur for everyone, yet those thoughts may not significantly interfere with their day to day goings on. It is impossible to write a definition to govern every possible situation in which men might find themselves. The Vatican deals with this by placing responsibility for the decision on both the candidate and the candidate's superiors and spiritual director. I think that a candidate who knows he has not just fleeting thoughts but compulsions to lust, again either heterosexual or homosexual, and yet feels his desire to become a priest is more important than honoring the Church's position, disqualifies himself for a more basic reason - his inability to put others' needs and desires before his own. Also, I think candidates should have faith in the ability of their superiors and spiritual director to discern, with the help of God, whether the man's inclinations amount to something profound and deep-rooted. If the candidate cannot have such faith, how will he have faith in his superiors and spiritual director on other issues? Such inability also disqualifies one from being a priest in the Church.

Many people have said that this document will discourage even those with fleeting homosexual urges from considering the preisthood. That may be true, but I don't see how this document could have been better worded. From a legal perspective, it draws the lines about as clearly as it can while still leaving room for judgment and discretion on the part of the candidate and the superiors and spiritual directors. From a theological perspective, the document simply reinforces a teaching of the Church that has been unchecked for some time. From a 'good of the Church' perspective, I believe it is more important to have fewer priests that are stronger in their faith and more clearly devoted to the teachings of the Magisterium than it is to have bodies up at the pulpit who may go astray in their preaching and counseling.

Mark Shea makes the Wall Street Journal Online!

I am a devoted fan of James Taranto's "Best of the Web" on opinionjournal.com. Opinion Journal is the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal Online. Today's piece included a discussion that has been brewing on Mark Shea's site regarding torture of prisoners. Taranto begins his piece as follows:

Mark Shea is a blogger we had never heard of until yesterday, when Andrew Sullivan
linked us to one of his posts.

Okay, obviously we Catholics need to do a better job of promoting Catholic authors.

James Taranto frequently discusses Sullivan and his blog, and his mention of Mark Shea's blog is incidental to that. However, since Mark is one of the current high-profile apologists for the Church, I suggest that Taranto should check out his blogs on torture of terrorists, particularly Mark's post dated November 24 entitled "Krauthammer Pleads for Hard Cases to Make Law," and the 88 comments that followed, many of which were follow ups by Mark debating his readers.

Specifically, Mark prefers to refer to those of us who do not oppose the current detention and interrogation of terrorists as the "Rubber Hose Right." Mark asserts that those supporting the current policies regarding detainees do so under a false scenario, the "ticking-bomb scenario," and that even in such circumstances, torture cannot be justified. However, by making these arguments, Mark appears to be side-stepping the real issue by assuming that everything which is done to the detainees to obtain information constitutes 'torture.' For example, Mark supports Senator McCain's bill, which would ban "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of detainees. However, it is unclear what would constitute such conduct. Does turning down the air-conditioning in the cell consttute degrading or cruel treatment? Does it constitute torture?

Further, Mark quotes an article by David Luban at the Washington Post. Luban argues against the ticking time-bomb scenario by stating that most information is not gathered in a time-pressed situation where we have only one hour to gather information. He specifically mentions how the interrogation of Mohamed Qatani, the 20th Hijacker, gave us information concerning Al-Qaeda, but how the Pentagon never claimed that any of that information helped prevent any terrorist attacks. Of course, it's a fallacy to think that the Pentagon's failure to state such means the opposite is true. However, and more importantly, if Qatani had been picked up two years before 9/11, it is certainly possible that we would have learned valuable information. Would that have fallen under the "ticking-bomb scenario"? Osama Bin-Laden spent years planning 9/11, and although many dots could have and should have been connected during that time, those dots weren't.
Somehow I don't find comfort in the thought that we are expected to rely on the same intelligence-gathering methods in use before 9/11 to protect the country. If any of the current detainees have information on a grand plan that is set to take place 5 years from now, I would prefer to learn about it now and not take the chance that we can learn of it some other way.

So we are back to the question of what is permissible. Forget about the words torture, abuse, cruel treatment. Let's make a list of what we are permitted to do. I would be greatly interested in hearing Mark give his opinion on the following questions:

1. If we encounter a terrorist outside the U.S., do you believe we are allowed to detain him or her? If so, for how long?

2. Are we required to provide each detainee from outside the U.S. with an attorney? Are we allowed to question the detainees without an attorney?

3. Are interrogators permitted to shout at detainees during interrogation?

4. Are interrogators permitted to deprive detainees of sleep in order to secure cooperation?

5. Are interrogators permitted to use drugs on detainees to obtain information?

6. Are interrogators permitted to slap detainees during interrogation?

7. Are interrogators permitted to withhold food in any amount to secure cooperation? If so, how much or for how long before it becomes cruel or abuse?

8. Are interrogators permitted to place detainees in solitary confinement to secure cooperation?

Mark, I do not ask you these questions to provoke you or put you on the spot. I sincerely wish to know what you consider acceptable and non-acceptable treatment.

If that makes me a member of the Rubber Hose Right, so be it.