Factions put spin on gays in Vatican

The mystery of the Vatican Document on the ordination of homosexuals gets, if one might quote Ms. Alice in Wonderland, "curiouser and curiouser." Last week it was reported that someone in the Vatican had briefed American reporters with the information that the document would say that not even 10 years of celibacy would justify the ordination of a man with homosexual orientation.

Now this week word appears in an Associated Press dispatch and in the weekly copyrighted column of John Allen (of the National Catholic Reporter) that another Vatican briefing revealed to him that three years of celibacy is sufficient grounds for keeping a homosexual in the seminary -- so long as he is not part of a gay subculture and would not be a threat in an all-male environment. Allen also reports that these conditions were published in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. He adds that he was told "whether or not these criteria exclude a particular candidate is a judgment that must be made in the context of individual spiritual direction rather than by applying a rigid litmus test."

I would be inclined to believe that Allen's report is more reliable because he is the most able English-speaking bureau chief who covers the Vatican. However, the question arises as to what in the world is going on in the Vatican.

Moreover, Archbishop O'Brien, head of the commission that is "visitating" American seminaries, has asserted (in a Catholic Press Association story) that, when he spoke about a 10-year period of celibacy not being enough, he was expressing his own opinion and not that of the pope. It does not follow, however, that the archbishop was the source of the first briefing.

If I had to guess about what's going on is that the various factions in Rome are putting their own "spin" on the document, just as political parties in the United States put "spin" on events like hurricanes and wars and Supreme Court appointments, each hoping to convince journalists and readers immediately before an event or immediately after an event what it means

When the text of the document appears early next month we may discover that both briefings reflect different parts of the document -- and different perspectives (not to say ideologies) of the briefers.

Nonetheless, American Catholics, upset as they are by rumors of a "witch hunt" for gay priests, have a right to wonder what's going on. The first briefing suggests that the church is taking a hard line against gay priests. On the other hand, the AP story quotes a gay priest as saying that this document will be the first one in Catholic history that says explicitly that in some circumstances gays may become Catholic seminarians. If this be the case then it is a step in the direction of tolerance for the church -- a limited step perhaps, but a real one.

Some Catholics, some bishops and some laity hope for the first possibility. As one man wrote to me, if there are no gays there will be no pedophile priests. With the same logic one might argue that if there were no straight priests there would be no priests who sexually abuse women. So one briefing supports that viewpoint, and the other does not. Allen quotes his source as saying "Vatican officials are aware that there are a number of gay priests who live celibately and do fine work."

Perhaps Americans, Catholic and not, will realize that spin happens in the Vatican, too, and to be somewhat skeptical of sensational stories that report inside news from Rome.

The Catholic Church, one must say over and over again, has its own internal pluralism. One priest does not speak for all priests when he says he will not marry couples that are living together. A half-dozen bishops do not speak for the whole hierarchy when they say they will deny the eucharist to politicians who do not oppose abortion. One Vatican insider does not speak for everyone in the Vatican, no matter which way his spin may twirl. It would be most helpful if Americans, Catholic and not, reporters and readers, could grasp this simple point and not rush to judgment on the basis of a single report.

Speaking of such matters, I wonder what would happen if the new chief justice should vote against a reversal of Roe vs. Wade? Would hyper-zealous bishops deny him the eucharist?

Probably not. There are, you see, different rules for Republicans.

From: Factions put spin on gays in Vatican @ Chicago Sun-Times * More @ gay_blog.blogspot.com