Granted, these words are formally directed at men who are only aspirants to the priesthood, but undeniably they cut much deeper. Those bishops who have "deeply-rooted homosexual tendencies" are not few in number, and they must be rattled by the Church's judgment that their own priesthood -- while canonically valid -- is spiritually flawed. Bishops who are not themselves homosexual but who have welcomed homosexual priests are likewise in a bind: if they've advised homosexual priests not to speak about their libido they fall afoul of the demand for authenticity; if they've encouraged priests to acknowledge themselves as gay they must admit the Church regards the priest as unfit and the bishop as flat wrong.

Both sets of bishops -- those gay and those gay-friendly -- have been caught out by the Instruction and will be struggling frantically to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Pay attention to their use of the phrase affective maturity, because this is the key term in the Instruction, and the Holy See and gay-positive clergy employ the phrase with radically contrary meanings.

By affective maturity, the Holy See means the kind of psychological integration and adult equanimity that exclude homosexual tendencies; such propensities may have existed in a man's adolescence, but if he attains emotional maturity he has, by definition, put them behind him.

Gay and gay-friendly clergy, by contrast, insist that affective maturity entails acceptance of whatever one's sexual orientation happens to be. For them, the homosexual who sees his libido as disordered and wants to free himself of it is less mature than the homosexual who has made the decision to live as a gay man, i.e., who accepts and affirms his homosexual tendencies as a given, as part of his identity. A self-proclaimed gay like Fr. Leonard Walker would be regarded by gay-positive bishops as a paradigm specimen of affective maturity, by the Holy See as a lamentable example of the opposite.

But it doesn't end there. Gay-positives insist that an indispensable condition of affective maturity is "comfort" with one's own sexuality (mature men are comfortable being themselves), and this in turn excludes opprobrium or aversion directed at a "sexuality other than one's own." In this view, a heterosexual at peace with his sexual identity does not object to gays as brother priests, any more than a white man at peace with his racial identity would object to blacks. That's why men like Fr. Timothy Radcliffe are keen to assert that those who oppose gays in the priesthood are affectively immature, and it is they who shouldn't be admitted to Holy Orders.

Many bishops (and their fellow travelers) have been operating for years in opposition to long-standing Church discipline, anticipating that the discipline would change. It hasn't -- and what we see now is the flailing of the these men as they try to salvage their authority while looking for room to manoeuvre (the parallel with clergy who anticipated approval of contraception prior to Humanae vitae is obvious). The Washington Post reports that Bishops Skylstad, Clark, and McCarrick have (predictably) declared that the Instruction does not exclude homosexual priests, while Bishop D'Arcy has (predictably) affirmed the contrary. The situation in Canada is much the same:

Archbishop Weisgerber said he was pleased that the Vatican makes clear that the church is not questioning the priesthood of homosexual men who already have been ordained. He said he hopes it is clear that "the church is not saying you should not have been ordained. "So many members of the clergy, like men in the culture at large, are struggling with this," he said.

This is disingenuous, as Weisberger is trading on the ambiguity of the deliberately equivocal phrase "questioning the priesthood." Validity is not at issue, but the Instruction makes it clear that homosexual priests -- and a fortiori gay priests -- are deficient in what the Church means by spiritual paternity. The Church has blocked one of the commonest exits, the "don't ask don't tell" ploy, by her insistence on "truth, loyalty, and openness" in these matters. Bishops, rectors, and spiritual directors can no longer give the homosexual candidate a wink and say, "you can proceed, just be discreet" -- or if they do, there's no doubt but that they're complicit in the attitude of deceit that the Church has specifically reprobated.

As USCCB president and a gay-positive bishop, William Skystad will serve as a bellwether on the Instruction's implementation. He has opined that the document is "timely," that it urges a "realism," and that it "expresses a valid concern" -- all of which are positive, but all of which can be said of a document the speaker wholly rejects. When it comes to the question of the Instruction's truth, Skylstad punts:

Bishop Skylstad said that the discussion in the media about this document raised the question "whether a homosexually-inclined man can be a good priest."

No, the media discussion didn't raise the question, the Instruction raised the question. And answered it. Does Skylstad find the answer in the Instruction? He does not.

Bishop Skylstad said that "the answer lies in the lives of those men who, with God's grace, have truly been dedicated priests... &c."

That, boys and girls, is called blowing smoke. Expect more of the same.

The Rev. Donald B. Cozzens, a Catholic author and former seminary rector, called the letter a "bombshell" because it affects current priests, not just future ones.

Some experts on church law said yesterday that the letter is nonbinding and can simply be ignored by bishops. But others predicted that it will usher in a gradual purge of gays from leadership positions in the church, even if they have kept their vows of celibacy.

Because priests who teach in seminaries are frequently transferred to serve in parishes and vice versa, "it could be implemented gradually, without anybody knowing" for certain why a clergyman was moved, said Sister Katarina Schuth, a professor at University of St. Thomas in Minnesota who is a leading researcher on Catholic seminaries.

"It's an amazing statement coming as it does on the heels of so many people assuring us that this document does not relate to priests already ordained," said the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest in New York.

The two-page cover letter, dated Nov. 4, was sent to bishops around the world by the Congregation on Catholic Education, the Vatican department responsible for seminaries. It accompanied a six-page "instruction" that said men who "practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture' " should not be admitted to seminaries or ordained as priests.

The instruction was published by the Vatican on Tuesday, but the letter was not. Its contents were first reported by the Catholic News Service on Wednesday, and the full text was obtained by The Washington Post yesterday.

Most of the letter is devoted to the bureaucratic history of the instruction, emphasizing the heavy involvement of the department formerly headed by Pope Benedict XVI, known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The letter says that the instruction "does not call into question the validity of the ordination" of men with "homosexual tendencies" who are priests. "They are to continue to exercise their ministry, taking care to live with integrity. . . .," it says. But it adds: "Because of the particular responsibility of those charged with the formation of future priests, they are not to be appointed as rectors or educators in seminaries."

The letter was signed by the top officials of the education congregation, Polish Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski and Canadian Archbishop J. Michael Miller.

The Rev. Ladislas Orsy, a canon lawyer at Georgetown University, said the cover letter does not have the same legal authority as the instruction.

"What kind of canonical force does it have? I'm speaking professionally, not editorializing. The honest answer is none," he said. "It's not a piece of legislation. It would be like a letter from a committee chairman in Congress."

Orsy said the letter should be viewed as nonbinding advice to bishops that concerns only future appointments of seminary instructors, because "we have a sweeping principle in canon law that no rule is retroactive unless it specifically says so."

Nevertheless, several Catholic scholars said the letter is a logical step from the instruction.

"Priests still struggling with homoerotic desires are perhaps not the best-placed to act as evaluators or counsellors of candidates for the priesthood who are working through similar issues," said papal biographer George Weigel.

Cozzens, whose survey research indicates that a quarter to half of all U.S. priests are gay, said the letter "doesn't say that rectors or professors in our seminaries who have already been appointed should be removed, but one wonders if that's not what might begin to happen -- a kind of culling of gay rectors and professors."

Furthermore, he said, "I think it could also raise questions about people working in chanceries and about bishops who happen to be gay. And why stop there? I see it as a logical extension of the instruction, but it underscores the problematic nature of the instruction."