Dear Tim,
With all due respect, that appears like rationalization to me at least. Changeable things change. The more we know of reality the more we will see change. That is the essence (what is that?) of the issue.

Sorry, Patrick, you are wrong on that.
There is a very good article here from Catholic Answers' "This Rock" magazine that deals with church teaching on usury:
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?r...
The practical upshot of the article is contained in the last paragraph:
"Due to advances in transportation, communications and generally expanding economies, the nature of money itself has changed in the course of time. A loan that was usurious at one point in history, due to the unfruitfulness of money, is not usurious later, when the development of competitive markets has changed the nature of money itself. But this is not a change of the Church's teaching on usury. Today nearly all commercial transactions, including monetary loans at interest, do not qualify as usury. This constitutes a change only in the nature of the financial transaction itself, not in the teaching of the Church on usury. "Still she maintains dogmatically that there is such a sin as usury, and what it is, as defined in the Fifth Council of Lateran "(ibid., 263)."
This is real development of doctrine; applying ancient teaching to new situations (like stem cell research), not inventing new teaching to apply to old situations (like sexual perversions).
And no appeal to modern societal factors will help. Homosexuality was far more accepted and celebrated in ancient Rome than in modern society, yet it was unambiguously condemned by the biblical writers.

Dear Tim J.,
Usury was a mortal sin and now is not. Moral teachings can change as our knowledge increases (or decreases, depending on your point of view).

Hey, Patrick, why not just let everyone pick their own mortal sins?
I mean, we could all take our favorite sins and strike them off the "mortal" list!
And we could even make a few venial sins MANDATORY, just so nobody could act all holier-than-thou.
Nobody likes an apple-polisher, after all.
What a concept! To think that all this time I've had the whole thing backward! I was actually trying to modify my behavior - and even my thoughts! - to conform to the moral teaching of the church.
Your way sounds much easier.
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." - G.K. Chesterton

Thomas Aquinas says that acts of masturbation, bestiality, homosexuality and usury are mortal sins. Well, we have eliminated one so far (usury).* I wonder if anything else will be eliminated as well.
* Of course this doesn't constitute a "change" in the Church's teaching, merely a growth in the sophistication of theologians and the Church.

Sorry, Tim Radcliffe, but your interpretation of the document in the Tablet yesterday Friday is pure wishful thinking. Gays will just have to get it -- the church does not want them in seminaries.
Read the document, Fr Tim:
The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual TENDENCIES. Regarding acts... Tradition has always considered them as intrinsically immoral. As regards to deep-seated homosexual TENDENCIES, which are present in a CERTAIN NUMBER OF MEN and women, these also ARE OBJECTIVELY DISORDERED and are often a trial for SUCH PEOPLE. THEY must be accepted with respect and sensitivity; every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
.. the Church, even while deeply respecting THE PERSONS IN QUESTION, cannot admit to Seminary or Holy Orders THOSE WHO are actively homosexual, HAVE deep-seated homosexual TENDENCIES, or support the so-called gay culture.
SUCH PEOPLE, in fact, find themselves in a situation that seriously obstructs them from properly relating to men and women. The negative consequences that can result from the Ordination of PERSONS WITH deep-seated homosexual TENDENCIES should not be obscured.
IT IS OBVIOUS, FR TIM, THAT THE "PERSONS" I PUT IN BLOCK CAPITALS ARE THE SAME PERSONS THROUGHOUT THESE PARARAPHS AND IT IS EQUALLY OBVIOUS THAT THE "TENDENCIES" I CAPITALIZE ARE THE SAME TENDENCIES THOUGHOUT THESE PARAGRAPHS.
So the text says: we sympathize with people who suffer from gay tendencies but we cannot accept such people in seminaries. Everything else in the text confirms that reading and confutes yours. Do not dabble in lies, Fr Tim, even for a good cause. They always rebound.

This is in reality not a formal document from the USCCB. It is a statment from the CMF, that was never debated or voted on, hence it is a ipso facto illegitimate statement on two counts.
First, it's publication, 40 days BEFORE the 1997 USCCB meeting violated established protocols of the USCCB.
Second, it's findings and statements are in direct opposition to the traditional Catholic Church teaching on homosexuality, and thus , as Pope John Paul II said in his encyclical Apostulous Suos, in 1998, such statements are to be ignored by the faithful when they contradict ANY Catholic Church teaching.
P.s. Always Our Children was written by 3 priests who were the advisors of the Committee on Marriage and Family or CMF. 3 homosexual
priests. One was a priest from Orange County who left the priesthood to live with his boyfriend. A second ran the gay and lesbian program for the LA diocese. The third was defrocked by the Vatican for his overt promotion of homosexuality. The CMF was headed by Bishop Tom O'Brien. The Bishop who ran over a married father of two in downtown Phoenix on a Saturday night and left the man to die, for which he was found guilty.
This document is often used by catholic institutions to justify things like gay pride groups, or ministry to gay and lesbians etc..
Keep in mind it is a statement of one committee of the USSCB, which violated their own protocols and church teaching.
It should be disregarded by all Catholic as a complete fraud.

Old Zhou-
The question is NOT how this current instruction squares with the highly questionable "Always Our Children" committee document (which has never been submitted for approval or given any official status by the USCCB), but how both square with consistent magisterial teaching on the matter.
"Always Our Children" constitutes a gross miscarriage of catechesis.

The question seems to be whether "homosexual tendencies" is taken as simply temptations that were not acted upon, or rather actual homosexual acts?
The ambiguity on whether or not homosexual tendencies encompasses acts, or simply internal temptations that were vanquished, seems unfortunate.
I can see people saying both things, and that despite the earlier distinction between homosexual activity and tendencies.
So what do you think?
Is the document saying you can't have have committed a consensual homosexual act in the last three years, or that you haven't been tempted by any homosexual urging in the last three years?

Is it not true that according to the document, someone could have committed homosexual acts while a seminarian and still be ordained?! Why? It requires three years of chastity not before entering the seminary, but before *ordination* as a deacon!
Isn't the seminary formation period for diaconate ordination longer than three years?
If this is the official document, I think its sound teaching is vitiated by its loose standards and enforcement mechanism.
Far better, I would think, would be to deny even entrance to the seminary to anyone who had ever had a consented to homosexual experience.

How does the current Instruction square with "Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers, A Statement of the Bishops Committee on Marriage and Family National Conference of Catholic Bishops" (1997):
More than twenty years ago we bishops stated that "Homosexuals...should have an active role in the Christian community" (National Conference of Catholic Bishops, To Live in Christ Jesus: A Pastoral Reflection on the Moral Life, 1976, p.19).
What does this mean in practice?
It means that all homosexual persons have a right to be welcomed into the community, to hear the word of God, and to receive pastoral care.
Homosexual persons who are living chaste lives should have opportunities to lead and serve the community.

It would seem that the prohibition against individuals who support "gay culture" might go a long way toward keeping out those who would simply like to sidestep the ban.
There is no foolproof way to keep liars of any persuasion out of the priesthood. Bishops and other leaders who are unwilling to accept the teaching will find a way around it. We must watch carefully those in positions of responsibility in our seminaries, and never hesitate to howl and make a stink when we see practices unfaithful to the teaching of the church.

And the kind of person who's lost his virginity by homosexual experiences while a teenager, that's the wind of candidate we have for ordination? Are we that lacking in people who have practiced a modicum of chastity for more than three years?

The document seeminly has a large loophole, which seems to me sufficient to keep the status quo.
What about moderately-rooted homosexual tendencies? Apparently that gets a pass?
It all goes on how you interpret "deeply rooted." And who's in charge of that interpretation, eh? But an exegetical battle over ambiguity is precisely what we don't need. If there isn't a bright-line rule, I don't see how serious reform can be effected.

Not that this has anything to do with your post, Jimmy, but why do hate the .pdf file format? It's universally readable by anyone who has the (free) Adobe Acrobat Reader software installed, unlike Microsoft Word documents which are notoriously incompatible with between versions of Word itself.

One thing the document does not make entirely clear is whether or not such ordinations would be valid. I am actually somewhat surprised, especially given their clarification at the beginning of the document about invalid female ordinations, that this was not explicitly mentioned. How should this be taken?

I would argue that any self-described homosexual would thereby display deeply rooted homosexual tendencies.
The words "homosexual" and "priest" should hereafter never be seen together.
If only this document were applicable to those already in the priesthood.

Seems a very sensible document.
I was particularly glad to see the reference to "homosexual culture". Even those who are not avowed homosexuals can cause damage by their support of the gay agenda.
Now let's see what little phrase may be used by dissenters to try and make the document un-say every point it was intended to make.
You know, like has been tried with the phrase "for the sake of our salvation".

I'm with you, Jimmy. All the speculation all over the 'blogosphere is unwarrented. Let the document be released, compare it to the one released in 1961 regarding this issue, and then comment.