I don’t see why the “no ban on gays” that’s currently expected for Catholic seminaries is so different from the “ban on gays” people thought was going to come out. If you have a guy who doesn’t have homosexual inclinations that would create a risk in an all-male environment, and he’s not involved in “gay culture,” and he hasn’t done anything homosexual in the past few years, why would you call him “gay”?
Issues Remain
One could call a person “gay†because homosexuality (or “gaynessâ€) and heterosexuality are not behaviors but states of mind. It is my understanding the great majority of homosexuals are mentally disordered individuals who will never abandon their behavior on anything approaching a permanent basis. It is important to call such a person a homosexual because a person with a homosexual state of mind is far more likely to engage in male pedophilia and sexual relations with majors than a person with a heterosexual state of mind.
The other question is whether a stronger policy could have been written. It does seem difficult to write a stronger policy. The recent policy does give the heads of seminaries substantial ability to eliminate gays. The first prohibition gives the heads the moral and actual power to expel any seminarian caught engaging in homosexual behavior. The second prohibition allows expulsions of whole groups of homosexual seminarians, who I understand segregate themselves often from heterosexual seminarians. I don’t see what the last prohibition covers that the first two prohibitions don’t cover.
A stronger policy would eliminate any person with a homosexual state of mind now or in the past. But this would probably only eliminate but a few more because homosexuals are so promiscuous.
The main issues I see are whether the Vatican will stand behind the heads of seminaries and whether homosexual seminarians will find better ways to hide their activities. But this recent language does give one hope the Vatican is moving in the right direction.
I think you underestimate the third item
which is the one I listed first in the entry. Look at it again—it would rule out “homosexuals [who] are mentally disordered individuals who will never abandon their behavior on anything approaching a permanent basis [and so are] far more likely to engage in male pedophilia and sexual relations with majors than a person with a heterosexual state of mind.”
To my mind the standard as now reported seems quite well drafted. It covers orientation, conduct and affiliations. What else is there?
Rem tene, verba sequentur.