c. 2005 Religion News Service

EMMITSBURG, Md. _ When Joe Yokum considered a call to the Catholic priesthood five years ago, the first thing a seminary official asked him was not his understanding of the Trinity or salvation, or even why he wanted to be a priest.

“Do you consider yourself to be a homosexual man?” recalled Yokum, now 27 and a third-year seminarian at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary here. Jarred by the question, Yokum answered no.

“He wanted to know right away,” Yokum said of the questioner.

If Yokum had answered yes, he probably would have been denied admission _ even before Tuesday’s (Nov. 29) release of new Vatican rules that are designed to keep men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” from becoming priests.

As Catholics sift through the new rules, Yokum’s experience demonstrates an often overlooked fact: many seminaries, including Mount St. Mary’s, have made it routine practice to screen for gay men. It’s a policy that’s been on the books _ although sometimes ignored _ for nearly 45 years.

Different challenges _ including personal honesty, rules of confidentiality and individual bishops’ discretion _ render the screening system less than “foolproof,” seminary officials concede, and may hinder enforcement of the new rules.

If the established practice at the nation’s second-largest Catholic seminary is typical, and officials here say it is, the new rules will change little on the ground at the 193 schools that train America’s future priests.

At Mount St. Mary’s, nestled in the quiet hills of Western Maryland, Monsignor Steven Rohlfs said it is standard procedure to “filter out” gay men. He said most or all of the 156 men “in the house” are heterosexual.

“Do I believe it’s so? Probably not, but that’s the presumption,” he said.

Rohlfs added that it would be “particularly problematic” for a gay man to apply, either to a bishop or to Mount St. Mary’s, under current policy. “We probably would never see him (sent to the seminary),” Rohlfs said.

Under current practice, any disclosure of a homosexual orientation would be cause for dismissal. A heterosexual man struggling with celibacy, meanwhile, could be allowed a leave of absence with the possibility of return.

In addition, the new requirement that “such tendencies” be overcome for at least three years simply reflects current practice at most seminaries _ as well as a celibacy requirement that applies to both gay and straight men.

In fact, sometimes the requirements are more strict. Most seminaries demand celibacy for at least the first three years of seminary. But at Mount St. Mary’s, Rohlfs said he wants men who have demonstrated celibacy and chastity for at least two years prior to that.

“If someone was sexually active the year before he entered the seminary, that would be a bad sign,” Rohlfs said, adding that a seminary considering such a man “would be mad to take them.”

So while little is likely to change, in practical terms, at Mount St. Mary’s, the experience there illustrates the challenges the Vatican’s new rules could face worldwide.

Those challenges include:

Honest Self-Reporting

When Yokum first applied to seminary, he underwent 10 weeks of evaluation and psychological testing in his home diocese of Columbus, Ohio. And while the system is designed to catch problem areas, it nonetheless relies on honest self-reporting from the applicant.

A gay man who was committed to entering the priesthood could still lie about his orientation, although the new Vatican rules warn it would be “gravely dishonest” for a candidate to conceal his sexuality.

Timothy Radcliffe, the former global superior of the Dominican religious order, said gay men could find themselves in an “impossible situation” where total honesty leads to dismissal, and concealment violates the new rules and the spirit of the priesthood.

“The danger is that the most honest may therefore leave and the less truthful stay,” Radcliffe wrote in the Tablet, a British Catholic weekly, “and so we would form a priesthood that was immature, ill at ease with itself, and more liable to continue abuse.”

Rohlfs admitted that, absent a “presenting incident” that brings orientation into doubt, seminaries can only know so much. “We don’t follow anybody on weekends,” he said.

Adam Keiter, a 26-year-old seminarian from Wichita, Kan., said honesty about sexuality is the best policy. “If you’re not being honest with yourself, it almost seems that you’re wasting your time,” said Keiter, a second-year student.

Confidentiality

The new Vatican rules put heavy emphasis on spiritual directors _ church-approved counselors who work with seminarians _ to “dissuade” a gay man from seeking ordination, especially if he exhibits “disturbances of a sexual nature” or “practices homosexuality.”

The problem, however, is that spiritual directors are bound by what Rohlfs called “dang-near absolute” confidentiality. Anything revealed in the private sessions could not be used by seminary officials in the general evaluation of a seminarian’s progress.

“The spiritual director can urge the seminarian to withdraw if he feels he’s not ready or not mature, but if the seminarian chooses not to follow that advice, the spiritual director can do absolutely nothing,” said the Rev. Donald Cozzens, a former seminary rector who now teaches at John Carroll University in Cleveland.

Still, Rohlfs said problems that are revealed in private _ even if they remain there _ will eventually be exposed in public. “If a man falsely reports his ability (to be celibate), eventually that house of cards will come crashing down,” he said.

Bishops’ Discretion

While seminaries use their own extensive tools for evaluation, much of the initial _ and critical _ testing occurs back home, where local bishops set their own standards for men considering the priesthood.

Rohlfs said the bishops in the 33 dioceses that send him seminarians know who would make the cut at Mount St. Mary’s. And Bishop Blase Cupich of Rapid City, S.D., a former seminary rector in Ohio, said most bishops and seminaries have a “good working relationship” on who would be accepted.

Still, there is wiggle room.

At Seton Hall University’s Immaculate Conception Seminary, for example, rector Robert Coleman relies on bishops and religious superiors to set their own celibacy requirements for the 140 seminarians that are sent to the South Orange, N.J., seminary.

If a bishop approved a gay man for seminary, Coleman said he would accept him, assuming the man wasn’t “calling a press conference” about his sexual orientation.

Indeed, the new Vatican rules say the call to ordination “is the personal responsibility of the bishop” and the heads of religious orders. The “morally certain judgment” demanded of the bishops in the new rules could mean many things for many bishops, observers say.

While conservative bishops are likely to toe the Vatican line on gay applicants, others might not. Bishop Matthew Clark of Rochester, N.Y., for example, urged “young gay men” who are considering the priesthood to still apply. “We try to treat all inquiries fairly,” he said in his diocesan newspaper. “You will be no exception.”

But given the current climate, Rohlfs doubts that any bishop would accept a gay man for the priesthood, or at least try to send him to Mount St. Mary’s. “I would think that bishop would be very hard-pressed to find a seminary that would educate that man,” Rohlfs said.

But, at the same time, Rohlfs acknowledged that there are exceptions to every rule, which has always been the case in seminary life. The new Vatican rules, Rohlfs said, are probably no different.

“Is it possible (for a gay man) to be ordained and be a happy priest and be highly effective? Yes,” Rohlfs said. “But the prudential policy has been made that it is not likely to happen.

“Will there be exceptions? I’m sure there will be. Will that happen to the majority of cases? Probably not.”

MO/JL END ECKSTROM

Editors: Check the RNS photo Web site at https://religionnews.com for several photos of seminarians and teachers at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary. Search by subject or slug.