Bishop Skylstad "Nuances" Latest Vatican Document on the Priesthood and Homosexuality

Of course, it's not the least bit surprising that the Bishop of Spokane has difficulty reading and understanding this document. Perhaps he was 'educated' by Cardinal McCarrick in reading comprehension?...

Anyway, let's see what he says and compare it with what Rome says...

...This realism also makes it clear that it is certainly not acceptable if a candidate practices homosexuality or, whether active or not, if he identifies himself principally by a homosexual inclination or orientation...

I've searched high and low and can find no reference to the use of the adverb "principally" in the Vatican document. What effect does the use of this qualifier have? Are we to understand that a candidate who identifies himself "principally" as a Catholic then as one with homosexual inclinations is an acceptable candidate for the priesthood? What if his homosexual tendencies are deeply-rooted but he "principally" identifies himself as "Catholic"...?

The Vatican document states, in part:

...this Dicastery, together with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, deems it necessary to clearly affirm that the Church,...cannot admit to Seminary or Holy Orders those who...have deep-seated homosexual tendencies...

I may be wrong but it sounds like equivocation to me.

Then we read this:

...It is also not acceptable for a candidate to support the “gay culture” and to be so concerned with homosexual issues that he cannot sincerely represent the Church’s teaching on sexuality.

Always the spinmeisters, the use of the conjunctive "AND" is nowhere to be found in the Vatican document. One cannot wonder if this is another attempt to water down or negate the impact of the clear instruction approved by the Holy Father. Again I defer to the Instruction:

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.

The Holy See clearly states that one who supports the "gay culture" cannot be admitted. This must be viewed as one who would support it in word or action. PERIOD! No ANDS, IFS, or BUTS! In Bishop Skystad's statemet, both conditions are necessary to deny a candidate entrance to a seminary. Let's read it again:

It is also not acceptable for a candidate to support the “gay culture” [FIRST CONDITION] and to be so concerned with homosexual issues that he cannot sincerely represent the Church’s teaching on sexuality [SECOND CONDITION].

I would hope that perhaps my views are somewhat jaundiced in this respect but we have all witnessed too many instances of episcopal mangling of Vatican directives and instructions.

Lastly, there is another statement from Bishop Skylstad:

It expresses the valid concern that all candidates must display an “affective maturity” which enables them to relate properly to others as chaste, celibate priests who can faithfully represent the teaching of the Church about sexuality, including the immorality of homosexual genital activity.

Does the good bishop and President of the USCCB wish to say that other homosexual activity (kissing, for example) is OK, provided one's private parts remain untouched or unused?

Can Bishop Skylstad be any less ambiguous? Hopefully, no. It does appear, though, that the special "task force" charged with nuancing the Instruction did not have enough time to properly review it and render it meaningless. Perhaps, the Holy Father will clarify the meaning of the document for the US Bishops who are still confused about it? We can only hope and pray!

And, one final "Lastly"...if Dignity USA is happy with Bishop Skystad's statement...what else is wrong with it?

Debbie Weill, executive director of DignityUSA, which includes gay and lesbian Catholics, said she was encouraged by the bishop's statements.

"Bishop Skylstad is going as far as he can, understanding his position as president, because he clearly cannot come out in opposition to a Vatican document," Weill said.

Lovely!