Activists: seminary screening ‘intrusive’

BY SIMON CALDWELL
CANDIDATES for the priesthood are being grilled about their sexual experiences under tough new procedures to stamp out child abuse in the American Catholic Church.
They are being confronted with a list of shocking intimate questions from pyschologists trying to weed out men who they think could go on to commit sexual assaults.
The questions include: “When did you last have sex?”, “What kind of sexual experiences have you had?”, “Do you like pornography?”, “Do you like children?” and “Do you like children more than you like people your own age?” Men training to be priests are also asked detailed questions about masturbation fantasies, the reasons why any earlier romantic relationships failed, and the nature of their relationships with their parents.
They are being routinely tested for HIV/Aids and made to sit exams to test such conditions as depression, paranoia and “gender confusion” in an attempt to search for clues about possible deficiencies in their characters.
The questions form part of a gruelling screening process introduced by the US bishops following revelations in 2002 that hundreds of priests have abused thousands of young people over the last 40 years.
Mgr Stephen Rossetti, a Church psychologist, said that the screening was “very intrusive”, but he added: “We are looking for two basic qualities – the absence of pathology and the presence of health.” The screening procedures were drawn up following an instruction from the Vatican in 2008 which warned the bishops that they had to go further than to simply establish that the candidate was capable of living a chaste life.
The Vatican insisted that the sexual orientation of the candidate must be determined as well – a demand which was interpreted as a witchhunt for trainees who were homosexuals.
Critics said the orders – which apply solely to American dioceses and were revealed in the New York Times on Monday – disqualify gay men from entering the priesthood even if they were celibate.
Seminary rectors had previously estimated that nearly half of US seminarians were homosexuals by orientation. Some had reported flourishing gay sub-cultures among students and claimed the priesthood had become a largely “gay profession”. But the new screening process mean very few gay people are being accepted as priests, according to the Times.
Dr Robert Palumbo, a New York psychologist who screens candidates for the Diocese of Brooklyn, said: “We have no gay men in our seminary at this time. I’m pretty sure of it.” Gay rights activists said the procedures proved the US bishops were blaming the abuse crisis on gay priests.
Marianne Duddy-Burke, the executive director of DignityUSA, a Catholic gay rights group, said it was “impossible in this atmosphere” for gay men to present themselves as candidates for the priesthood.
“The bishops have scapegoated gay priests because gays are an acceptable scapegoat in this society, particularly among weekly churchgoers,” she said.
The Vatican ordered a review of the US seminaries after an analysis of abuse statistics concerning the US Church revealed that more than 80 per cent of offences were of a homosexual character, rather than paedophilia, and involved young men and teenage boys rather than children.
Figures revealed by the Vatican earlier this year have similarly revealed that of 3,000 cases from the last 50 years 60 per cent involved the homosexual abuse of adolescents or young men, 30 per cent were of a heterosexual nature against teenage girls or women while 10 per cent involved paedophile crimes against children. Officials from the Brooklyn diocese rejected claims of a witchhunt of homosexual candidates. “We do not say that homosexuals are bad people,”said Fr Kevin Sweeney, the diocesan director of vocations.” And sure, homosexuals have been good priests.
“But it has to do with our view of marriage,” he said. “A priest can only give his life to the Church in the sense that a man gives his life to a female spouse.
“A homosexual man cannot have the same relationship. It is not about condemning anybody. It is about our world view.”