The Vatican released the much-anticipated document on the criteria for admitting, or not admitting, men with homosexual tendencies to the seminary or Holy Orders at the end of November.

Its objective: “To guarantee to the Church suitable priests, true pastors according to the Heart of Christ.”

The policy statement, issued by the Congregation for Catholic Education may have been partly occasioned by the reports of sex abuse by clergy, but drafts of the document have been presented to plenary sessions of the Congregation since 1998.

Further, when the new document, simply referred to as the Instruction speaks of the “present situation”, it could well be considering the wider context of a culture that seeks to approve homosexual activity.

A 1986 letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” had said that “increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity”. The Instruction is a strong reaction to pressure of this kind.

Some have described the Instruction as vague and ambiguous. It is certainly nuanced. The difficulties arise, in particular, from a phrase used repeatedly in the document to describe one of three groups of persons who should not bother to apply: men with “profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies”.

It does not attempt to define precisely what the term means, beyond comparing members of this group with those for whom the tendency is a “transitory problem”, as a result, for example, of “adolescence not yet complete”.

Adequate formation of future priests

The other groups of persons who may not be admitted to the seminary and Holy Orders are those who engage in homosexual acts and those who are part of the “gay culture”.

The Church has always made the distinction between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies. It does so in the Catechism, as well as in the 1986 letter to bishops.

It makes the distinction again in the present document, calling once more for compassionate treatment of those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies, but stating that those who engage in homosexual acts are committing a grave sin.

On two points the Instruction does not allow for any quibbling. First, is that regardless of anything else that might be said about “profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies”, they are disordered. It is not a normal condition. The document rejects any notion of a third gender.

The second point on which the Instruction is unequivocal is that no one has a “right to receive ordination”. A vocation, says the Instruction, “is a gift of divine grace, received through the Church, in the Church and for the service of the Church”.

It is, therefore, for the Church to decide who should be ordained and who should not. The desire of the individual to enter the seminary and his good intentions are not enough reasons for him to be accepted.

It is clear that the Church sees the issues regarding the admission or non-admission of persons with homosexual tendencies as a complex issue.

It sees it as a “personal responsibility” of the bishop and a “grave duty” of the rector, but also sees clearly defined roles for the spiritual director, the community and, indeed, the candidate himself. The Instruction states: “It remains understood that the candidate himself has the first responsibility for his own formation.”

Here lies the strength of the document. What some have described as vagueness and ambiguity is really the Instruction's attempt to arrive, as far as possible, at a definitive statement, which nevertheless requires the commitment of everyone to be workable – those in authority as well as the candidate himself.

Ultimately, the Instruction is intended to promote the adequate formation of future priests. It has to be faithfully observed but requires the serious discussion of bishops, seminary staffs and priests.