The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
HopefulOlivia, Quid Est Veritas, Frank O, BC LV, returningtoaxum
6,178 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
3 members (Fr. Al, AlethosAnesti, RusFrog), 401 guests, and 115 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,525
Posts417,642
Members6,178
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 19
S
Junior Member
Junior Member
S Offline
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 19
Found: 1961 Vatican Document Barring Homosexuals from Ordination and Religious Vows
by John Vennari
Editor of Catholic Family News

Catholics throughout North America have been searching for it. The United States Apostolic Delegate, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, said that we weren't allowed to see it.

But now, the 1961 Vatican document barring homosexuals from ordination and religious vows is found. In fact, it can probably be found on the shelf of most Catholic theological libraries nationwide.

The 1961 Document, "Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders" was promulgated by the Vatican's Sacred Congregation for Religious on February 2, 1961. The same document is published in its entirety, in English, in the Canon Law Digest, Volume V (Bruce Publishing Co, 1963), pages 452 to 486.

The Canon Law Digest is not a periodical but a series of books that present "Officially Published Documents Affecting the Code of Canon Law". Volume V, the volume that includes the 1961 Instruction, contains documents from 1958 to 1962. Oddly enough, Volume V bears the Imprimatur of William E. Cousins, Archbishop of Milwaukee. Just last week, another Archbishop of Milwaukee, the notorious Rembert Weakland, resigned in disgrace after his homosexual liaison of 20 years ago was brought to light on ABC Television, coast-to-coast. Getting hold of the 1961 document proved to be difficult. Catholic News Services reported of it some time in March and reported that it is still in force. The document was obviously not well-known. In fact, two colleagues who have extensive expertise on the problem of homosexuality in the priesthood had never heard of it. Did it even exist? About two weeks ago, I spent an afternoon at a local theological library looking, page-by-page, through the 800+ pages of the 1961 Acta Apostolicae Sedis. The Instruction was nowhere to be found.

Just days before our latest deadline, a writer from Catholic Family News was literally smuggled 3 pages of the original Latin document from a source that the writer was forbidden to divulge. Clearly, there are highly-placed Churchmen who do not want the contents of this document known. (The front page and key paragraph of the document are published in the June 2002 issue of Catholic Family News).

The reluctance of Church leaders to make known the contents of this document was recently verified by an exchange between Roman Catholic Faithful's James Bendell and the Apostolic Delegate of the United States, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo.

On May 8, Mr. Bendell wrote a polite letter to the Nuncio asking him for a copy of the document, "rather than relying on the secular press for accuracy". Archbishop Montalvo responded on May 11: "Kindly be advised that the document, which you request, was reserved for use of the bishops. Thus I regret that I am unable to help you in this matter."

Unfortunately, this statement from the Nuncio is patently false. On page 486, the Canon Law Digest says the following about the 1961 document:

"Note: Although this Instruction was not published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis or any other public form but was privately circulated, it is nevertheless referred to by the Sacred Congregation of Religious itself as 'a matter of public law.'" (Emphasis in the original).

Then how was the document found?

On May 28, I received an e-mail from James Bendell relating that he had heard that the document might be found in Volume V of Canon Law Digest. I went to the local Catholic theological library, checked the index cards and found it. The library call letters for the book are BQV 212.B68 v. 5.

The key paragraph regarding homosexuals and the priesthood is on page 471. It occurs under Section D of the Instruction: "The Required Chastity". Here we read:

"Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers".

The Canon Law Digest from which we have quoted is not an obscure series of books. As mentioned, it was a popular collection and is probably still found in most Catholic university and seminary libraries. In the very near future, I am sure that Roman Catholic Faithful will post the entire document on its webpage1 . Look also for more coverage in Catholic Family News.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Book information:

Canon Law Digest, Volume V By T. Lincoln Bouscaren, SJ., A.M., LL.B., S.T.D. and James I O'Connor, SJ., A.M., S.T.L., J.C.D. Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, 1963

Imprimatur, William E Cousins, Archbishop of Milwaukee, 1963 Library of Congress Cataogy Card Number: 34-17225 Library call letters: BQV 212.868 v. 5

1 Please check back with the RCF website on Friday, May 31, to see the document in its entirety.

Article posted with permission.

http://www.rcf.org/docs/1961DocFound.html

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 393
D
Member
Member
D Offline
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 393
Slava Jesu Kristu,

Is this SSPX? The Latin groups are confusing.

Dmitri.

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 19
S
Junior Member
Junior Member
S Offline
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 19
The Roman Catholic Faithful is a group of Catholics who are loyal to the Holy Father, John Paul II, and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Their mission is to combat the evil that has cropped up in AmChurch. Their existence is endorsed by many orthodox Roman Catholic bishops. They are hated by the pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality and other liberal groups who are attempting to change Catholic teaching.

I post this a call to action by Byzantine-Rite Catholic to join in saving the Church.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 393
D
Member
Member
D Offline
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 393
Slava Jesu Krsitu,

I am sorry, but the very fact that they are called "Roman" Catholic Faithful puts me off. It puts me in mind of High Masses and 1950s Latin mentalities towards those of us of the Eastern Churches. Of course, we must defend Holy Mother the Church against her enemies. Let's just make sure we are all on the same side.

Dmitri

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,595
Likes: 1
O
Member
Member
O Offline
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,595
Likes: 1
Steve,
I am also an RC.

I would call on you to remember that we are guests here on a Byzantine Catholic Board.

I ask you to withdraw that latest post

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,196
Member
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,196
This was posted to another List I'm on. I read it there, and thought it sounded too much like a conspiracy theorist's rantings for my taste.

In any case, I don't think it has anything to do with Byzantine Faith or Worship.


Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,770
Likes: 30
John
Member
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,770
Likes: 30
Steve D.,

Welcome to The Byzantine Forum. Please understand that you have already broken many of the Forum rules, especially those regarding being courteous towards others. Might I suggest that you spend time reading past posts in order to better understand who Byzantine Christians are?

--

Angela,

Might I suggest that the time has long passed since you have been a guest on this board? You are family! biggrin

Also, might I offer one minor correction to your post? This is a “pan-Byzantine” board, not a specifically “Byzantine Catholic” board. The focus is on our common roots as Byzantine Christians but we work very hard to allow equal expression of all Christian viewpoints.

Admin

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,595
Likes: 1
O
Member
Member
O Offline
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,595
Likes: 1
Quote
Originally posted by Administrator:

--

Angela,

Might I suggest that the time has long passed since you have been a guest on this board? You are family! biggrin
Also, might I offer one minor correction to your post? This is a “pan-Byzantine” board, not a specifically “Byzantine Catholic” board. The focus is on our common roots as Byzantine Christians but we work very hard to allow equal expression of all Christian viewpoints.
Admin[/QB]

Dear Admin,

Thank you for that welcome - I have made many friends here. and I do feel at home.

As to my error - I ask forgiveness - put it down to the fact that I was annoyed at the discourtesy
to my friends here

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405
Likes: 38
Member
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405
Likes: 38
Dear Angela,

Can there be a better induction into the Byzantine Family than by the Administrator?

Celts are especially welcome since they have historically been as addicted to prostrations as many of us Byzantines!!

And we have so much to learn from the Scots in terms of a more frugal approach to church administation . . .

I think I'm going now . . . smile

Alex

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191
Likes: 3
Member
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,191
Likes: 3
Administrator,

Except for the length of the post how has Steve been discourteous?

Dmitri,

How does your offense at a groups name have anything to do with the content of the post. It is widely known that many American Bishops including Byzantine bishops have not followed the 1961 guidelines and have by their refusal put us all in danger.

Dan Lauffer

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,770
Likes: 30
John
Member
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,770
Likes: 30

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 393
D
Member
Member
D Offline
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 393
Slava Jesu Kristu,

Dan,

Well, that is just my point. If this document was ever meant to be followed, why did it have to be smuggled? What is really going on with this? I reference SSPX (or SSPV) because it sounds like other things I have seen them produce that have little baring on today's circumstances and are simply clouding issues already addressed in the revised Catechism.

Dmitri

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,700
H
Administrator
Member
Administrator
Member
H Offline
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,700
I think the "smuggling" idea is contrived. All that was missing was the correct bibiographical reference. The CLD (Canon Law Digest) is readily available in any number of libraries, and may be consulted without a secret key or password. You can even subscribe to it at home if you wish!

It is interesting, and I would like to read the whole thing, to get a sense of the context.

It is news to me. I had never heard this. Two things stand out as quite notable. First, it makes no distinction between the "tendency" to pederasty or homosexuality. I always considered the former graver than the latter. Also, Father Groeschel Monday night on EWTN, in a learned talk, made a helpful distinction between them. I am sorry I cannot remember what it was! But it seemed to make some sense while I was listening to it.

Second, the Nuncio seems to have made a mistake. The concregation of religious issued the document, so it was clearly meant for major religious superiors, monastic superiors, and those charged with the formation of religious brothers and sisters, monks and nuns, and members of apostolic congregations. As such, it would not normally have been read by bishops or seminary rectors. It would be interesting to know if a similar decree was addressd to them. Much of the current crisis is directed at 'seminary' formation of the diocesan clergy. (...though religious priests have also formed a part of the current sad story.) Can we look deeper into the CLD to find such a clear directive addressed to the bishops and secular clergy formators? Perhaps another trip to the library is in order?

Why wouldn't the nuncio send a copy of the decree? His explanation is inaccurate, as it seems that it was not ever meant for the bishops. But I think anyway, he is reasonable not to send it. For him to issue a copy, could be understood as an almost "official" act, lending new force to the decree. Why should he at this point, when it is readily available in print?

Also, why should he, when this is a most important moment, as the bishops themselves are about to meet (much preliminary work is being done already I'm sure), to address this crisis. They (the bishops) themselves must "own" this calamity, and actively engage a solution. They must act decisively, and boldly. It is not enough for them to merely resurrect an old decree. That was then, this is now! There must be a new answer, and a new leadership. Why would the Nuncio want to act outside of this important deliberation, when everything must be concentrated on providing a new response, and way forward now.

40 years is a long time, and this decree is not the solution, but rather an historical precedent.

Is there a similar document addressed to bishops and seminary formators? Is the document addressed to religious, sufficiently clear? (I already note one seeming over-simplicity, equating perasty and homosexuality.) Has our understanding of these conditions changed since 1961? Has our understanding changed in light of our recent experience as a Church?

The bishops will have quite a meeting, I'm sure! We must all pray for them, and for our holy Church.

Elias

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 788
Member
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 788
Thanks you, Elias, for a responsible commentary.

Axios

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Likes: 1
Member
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Likes: 1
Father, bless! Once again you hit the nail on the head.


Moderated by  theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0