When Bishops and Formation Teams Disagree: An Incoherence at the Heart of Seminary Discernment

A gap the numbers cannot hide

In July 2026 the McGrath Institute for Church Life reported that 22% of U.S. bishops would ordain a man with deeply rooted homosexual tendencies (Berg & Lock, 2026, p. 28). Among seminary rectors the figure was 16%, among formation directors 12%, and among vocation directors 9% (Berg & Lock, 2026, p. 28) The authors, Thomas Berg and Timothy Lock, present these figures as evidence of disagreement and incoherence in formation standards — not as a range of equally valid pastoral opinions.

What the 2005 instruction actually said

The Congregation for Catholic Education's (CCE) 2005 instruction stated that "the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture'" (CCE, 2005, §2). The document distinguished these men from candidates with transitory tendencies who had overcome them for at least three years (CCE, 2005, §2). That distinction acknowledged a spectrum while drawing a firm line at the "deeply rooted" end.

As documented by Zenit staff (2026), Berg and Lock report that an emerging consensus among consulted experts holds that "a seminarian with a stable same-sex attraction should not proceed to the advanced configurator stage of formation immediately." That position tracks the 2005 instruction's own logic. A bishop willing to ordain such a man is operating outside the standard whether through a different reading of "deeply rooted" or a different estimate of what a celibacy commitment can resolve.

The relational structure the instruction protects

The doctrinal concern behind the 2005 instruction is not reducible to whether a man can keep a celibacy promise in isolation. The priesthood is a relational office. *Optatam Totius* insists that seminary administrators and teachers must form "a very closely knit community both in spirit and in activity" with their students, constituting among themselves and with candidates the kind of family that answers the Lord's prayer "that they be one" (cf. John 17:11) (Paul VI, 1965, §5). A man whose affective orientation is structurally at odds with that fraternal architecture faces a different formation challenge than one whose struggles are moral but directionally ordered toward the same communion.

The Jay Report's finding on cognitive dissonance makes this concrete: "Priests with positive views toward homosexuality were most likely to have post-ordination sexual behavior" (John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2011, p. 63). The pattern is not one of failure despite good intentions. It is rationalisation that preceded failure — a reordering of conviction to accommodate behaviour, beginning in seminary culture itself.

Accountability that cannot function

According to Berg and Lock, some seminary faculty "have encountered situations in which rectors and formation teams felt pressure to advance candidates despite their reservations" (Zenit Staff, 2026). When formation teams (who hold the daily, longitudinal view of a candidate) are overridden by bishops whose contact with a seminarian is periodic, the principle of subsidiarity is subverted. Proximity of observation should carry proportional weight in judgment.

If 22% of bishops are willing to ordain candidates their own formation teams would not advance, the problem is a broken chain of accountability. Individual episcopal preference substitutes for a system the Church's own documents designed to be deliberate, layered, and close to the candidate's actual life. Coherence in formation standards, not conformity for its own sake, is what makes the process trustworthy for the men inside it and for the Church they will serve.

References

Berg, T., & Lock, T. (2026). Do you know them to be worthy? National research on seminary formation in the United States. McGrath Institute for Church Life, University of Notre Dame. https://2077093.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/2077093/Do%20You%20KNow%20Them%20to%20be%20Worthy%20Report_Final-1.pdf

John Jay College Research Team. (2011). The causes and context of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests in the United States, 1950–2010 (updated January 27, 2012). United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. https://www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Causes-and-Context-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-in-the-United-States-1950-2010.pdf

Paul VI. (1965). Optatam totius: Decree on the training of priests, no. 5. The Holy See. https://www.vatican.va/archive/histcouncils/iivaticancouncil/documents/vat-iidecree19651028optatam-totius_en.html

Zenit Staff. (2026, August 29). 2 out of 10 U.S. bishops are willing to ordain gay priests, according to a study. Zenit. https://zenit.org/2026/08/29/2-out-of-10-u-s-bishops-are-willing-to-ordain-gay-priests-according-to-a-study/