Recently, strong rumors and several communications from Dicasteries in the Vatican have more than hinted that , in the future, the Catholic Church will bar homosexual persons or persons with the same sex tendency from entering Catholic seminaries throughout the world. In effect, the theme seems to be that homosexuality and the Catholic priesthood cannot congenially co-exist.
As might be expected, there has been a flurry of angry protests from some religious leaders, particularly those of religious communities. E-mail correspondence has been intensified and filled with indignant cries about this “backward” step which may be taken at some unforeseen date. Charges of rigidity, ecclesiastically out of touch old men, insensitivity, discrimination against the gay community have all been surfaced in recent weeks.
Historically, in Church crises, the Vatican has been exceedingly slow to act, apparently believing in some kind of “Time will take care of it” principle. It has been suggested that the present unheard of quick reaction is in response to the sad priest scandals which surfaced last year. No one could help but be gratified that Catholic leaders do recognize the severity of damage done to Catholics by these unfortunate and sickening behaviors of some priests. Although the numbers are relatively small ( 2/3 of 1% --cf. The Catholic Defense League, 2003 ) the impact on society has been monumental. Disillusion, disappointment, anger, loss of Faith and trust all followed the publication of the scandals. It was imperative that the Vatican leaders become involved immediately for the protection of children, minors and the body of the Faithful. On that level, the Vatican should be applauded. Yet, there are some flaws and ambiguities in the publications and rumors so far.
There are some unclarities about the whole question. For example: What is meant by the term “ homosexual”? Does it differ from what is called “ gay”? Are there degrees of ““tendency”? Does a minimal SSA ( same sex attraction) and never acted out tendency disqualify a man from priesthood? Is it assumed that SSA persons would have more difficulty keeping celibate chastity than the heterosexual or straight candidate ? Is a reformed SSA person with a minimal, distant homosexual history, (and a controlled tendency) out of consideration ?
It is important, it seems to me, to address these questions with honesty and compassion. Yet, it is also important to make some preliminary points before any attempts at clarification. For example, the media, either from ignorance or design, consistently refer to the “ pedophile” scandals of the “pedophile” priests. This is almost totally inaccurate since pedophile refers, technically, regardless of legal stretching, to molestation of persons under the age of puberty, roughly about 12 years ( or younger). The fact is that 96+% of all the priest crimes over the years has been with TEENAGE males, 15, 16, 17 or 18 years of age. This is same sex behavior.
Whether consensual or not, this is technically homosexual behavior. To label such wicked behavior as “ pedophile” is to obscure the factual issue , at hand, since the molestation of pre-pubertal children is done equally by heterosexuals. Let us not call the current crimes of priests, pedophilia but be more accurate and honest by naming the actions as homosexual acts. For the more sophisticated, the term is “ ephebophilia” NOT pedophilia.
Recently, I was consulted by a 33 year old man interested in the priesthood who owns a graduate degree from a prodigious Catholic University and who has a high level military background. Many years ago when he was practically an adolescent he had an unfortunate misshap. He engaged in one homosexual encounter which he has deeply regretted. Since then he has lived “as a celibate” with full interior ( and exterior) chastity. He feels that he has been discouraged (from applying to a seminary) because of that one slip years ago. However, he distinguishes the gay life style from the homosexual or SSA mode . Gay means seeing life and all reality through the gay “lens”. All things must be colored and interpreted with the gay agenda in mind. This applies to things spiritual, political, social, economic, theologic. A gay person will not only rationalize his own same sex behavior ( physical, verbal or fantasy) but will also , by various means, encourage or permit others - in all things - to do likewise. This latter point would ( as research is now indicating) apply even if he himself were totally celibate.
Such a lens would allow him --- nay! impel him--- to oppose Church teaching either openly or ( more usually ) by insinuation on matters of traditional morality, particularly in same sex behavior. He will “ drag his feet” in backing the Holy Father who, he will suggest, is really out of it and is basically a Neanderthal Pole stuck back with the Nazis and Soviets.
Such a GAY orientation will tease the GM ( gay man) into the trap of duplicity wherein he will give lip service to Church teaching or remain silent allowing the perception that silence gives consent and then behave privately in opposition to Catholic stances and, if he is a priest, he will give advice and direction, sacramental or otherwise, in a way that supports same sex behavior. Clearly, this is dissonant behavior involving the person with two conflicting dynamics. A duplicitous mode follows which cannot but hurt the priest (?) who is so involved.
On the other hand, while my client admits that he, himself does suffer from SSA, he totally accepts, supports and believes the Catholic teaching as coming from the Will of Jesus as expressed through His own Church. He accepts his own homosexual “ thorn of the flesh” as a platform for his own growth in personal holiness. He is prepared to carry this Cross of his and to practice celibate chastity. He understands the Catholic view that the homosexual psychosexual orientation is basically “intrinsically disordered” but at the same time guiltless. He is NOT responsible for his orientation but he IS clearly responsible for his behavior. Similarly, his SSA tendency is not to be laid at his door ab initio. But he is mandated -- as with all other wayward, captial sin tendencies---- to control and order his total being to God’s plan and will.
Should such a man be excluded from giving himself to God as a priest ? I suggest that most Catholics would readily and joyfully welcome such a man for ordination. Many of us have known SSA priests who have been faithful priests, upholding the catholic tradition personally as well as pastorally. Of course, the same thinking would have to be applied to the heterosexually oriented priest. He, too, is bound, like his homosexually oriented brother priest, to fidelity and chastity.
Should a heterosexual man who does not observe the basic commandment of chastity be ordained to the priesthood? Should the man who treats God’s law superficially be allowed to minister to confused and wavering people? Should a man with a lax and permissive attitude towards sexual morality be allowed to function as a priest? Should a priest who gives false direction contrary to Catholic teaching and practice be allowed to function—for example—in the confessional ? The above questions are sheerly rhetorical written with tongue in cheek. The obvious response is a resounding NO!
Is it not fair and just to apply these criteria across the board? Heterosexual or homosexual or gay ?
Then, to the question: Should homosexual men be barred from Catholic seminaries and priesthood, ipso facto? The answer has to be: “It depends……..” To ordain a gay man ( as defined above) would be imprudent, naïve and disloyal to Christ and His Church, to the Catholic people and ultimately to the man himself. Depending TOO much on the action of God’s grace, mutatis mutandis, could be presumptious since Catholic tradition has always held to the need of personal cooperation. It is neither quietism nor Pelagianism. It is a joint action between God and man. Grace DOES build on nature.
Further, it is my own clinical observation ( after 35 years treating SSA persons) that it is MORE difficult for the SSA person to maintain his chastity. Where he is successful here, he is not only a hero but a saint. Imagine a vigorous, healthy and normal young man living in a sorority with many beautiful attractive young women !!!! This would be more difficult for him than if he were living with a group of rough and ready males. The transposition to the SSA person living in a religious community is fairly obvious.
The compulsion dimension attendant upon the SSA personality cannot be ignored. Too long has the Church turned away as if nothing were happening. We can no longer blink at the obvious. Clearly, the struggle of the SSA person is very real and painful but the larger focus must be kept. St. Pius X gave the operational criterion a long time ago: Whenever there is a doubt about any candidate for the priesthood, the doubt must be resolved IN FAVOR OF THE CHURCH !!!
This is appalling for those who do not understand the power of sexuality gone disordered. Sometimes, well meaning but misplaced and uninformed compassion would argue that everyone should be given a chance and all should trust that God’s grace will fill up the gap. But recall the Catholic principle of Grace building on NATURE, How disordered is this person’s nature ? How far “gone” is he ?
The root question remains: How can one know another ? How skillful is the interviewer ? How committed is the interviewer to the CATHOLIC position ? Is there an agenda with some recruiters to increase the homosexual sub-group within the Church --- as some investigators are claiming?
With it all, there are, however, some definite conclusions we can make.
Besides being naïve, it would be ignoble of the Church to cave in to the pressures of self interest groups. The self concept that the Catholic Church is guided by the promised protection of the Holy Spirit should be more than enough to persuade Bishops et al that our decisions and policies are dictated not by funded polls but by obedience to a HIGHER AUTHORITY.