In the wake of the sexual abuse scandals and numerous reports of priests abusing boys and adolescent males, some Catholics have expressed grave concerns over the ordination to the priesthood of gay men. The question arises: should the church continue ordaining gay priests, that is, homosexual men committed to living chastely in holy orders?
Healthy and dedicated gay men serving in the priesthood make an important contribution to the life of the church. The burden of proof, therefore, lies with those who would seek to prevent such ordinations in the future. And the arguments advanced to support that conclusion are unconvincing.
Gay men cannot maintain chastity. This widespread stereotype is contradicted not only by the experience of many celibate gay men in orders, but also by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which recommends chastity for all homosexuals (No. 2359). As the bishops of Switzerland stated on Oct. 3: “A homosexual predisposition lived in continence does not exclude one from ecclesial ministry....”
Gay men have a higher propensity to pedophilia than do straight men. The overwhelming evidence shows that homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles than are heterosexuals. That a small percentage of gay priests are sexually abusive should not condemn those who are not: this is simple stereotyping. One reason the public sees little evidence of healthy gay priests is the implicit restriction on a gay priest publicly admitting his sexuality. Thus, the better-known “examples” of gay priests have been, by default, notorious pedophiles. The majority lead chaste lives.
Gay priests cannot truly live celibately because they do not “give up” anything but a moral evil. This argument represents an impoverished view of celibacy, viewing it simply as sacrifice, rather than as a positive way of loving others. Certainly celibacy involves sacrifice, but claiming that gay priests cannot make the required sacrifice ignores the sacrifices they make in other areas of their lives. Like all priests, they offer the church their time, their energy, their obedience—indeed, their lives. Moreover, because of the difficulty in speaking about their situations, gay priests make this sacrifice largely in silence.
Gays form cliques that exclude straight priests. Certainly any group of priests who form cliques that exclude others must be challenged. And certainly if straight men feel excluded in some seminaries and religious formation programs such situations must be quickly remedied. But, overall, gay priests work well and easily with straight priests in all manner of ministries.
Gay priests have difficulty living celibately in same-sex rectories and communities. This is one of the more challenging arguments against ordaining gay men. But the difficulty is not insurmountable, and when it poses a problem suggests the need for a healthier formation, a deeper understanding of chastity and, ultimately, the dismissal of those unable to live chastely. And again, the argument is contradicted by experience: the majority of gay brothers, priests and bishops are able to maintain their celibacy living in rectories and religious communities.
By contrast, the main argument in favor of the ordination of gay men is far more convincing than the arguments against it—namely, the real-life example of thousands of healthy and hard-working gay priests and bishops. These men lead lives centered on Christ and in service to the church—celebrating the sacraments, running parishes, schools and dioceses and carrying out every type of Christian ministry. They do this in the face of withering criticism, frequent scapegoating and widespread prejudice, sometimes at the hands of those they serve. Their witness overcomes any argument against their ordination.
One could also advert to the gifts that gay priests bring to the church. Their experience of suffering persecution, for example, can often make gay priests more compassionate toward others; and their sometimes hard-won battle for self-knowledge can serve others in confession, spiritual direction and counseling. Michael Ford, the author of biographies of both Henri Nouwen and Mychal Judge, O.F.M., told America that these men “became more authentic priests precisely because their struggles revealed to them an inner truth: that spirituality and homosexuality were not competing forces within them, but rather mutually dependent gifts from the same Divine Source.”
Ensuring that the church ordains only psychologically healthy priests is one answer to the sexual abuse crisis. Scapegoating healthy and celibate gay priests is not. Historically, the ministry of gay priests has represented a significant contribution to the Catholic Church. Preventing the ordination of gay men would deprive the church of many productive, hard-working and dedicated ministers and would, moreover, ignore the promptings of the Holy Spirit, who has called these men to holy orders.
Whether they have been public about their orientation or not, gay men and lesbian women have served the church faithfully for generations. They have served as priests, teachers, members of religious communities, bishops, cardinals, artists, scholars, musicians, contemplatives, missionaries, hospital staff, spiritual directors, liturgists, catechists and in every ministry imaginable. The draft document not only unjustly disparages gay priests and seminarians, but also dishonors the service that thousands of gay and lesbian Catholics continue to provide our church.
Moreover, if the ban is enacted, it will cause grave pastoral harm, with many people—homosexual as well as heterosexual—losing faith in church leadership and potentially leaving the Catholic fold. Such a policy will force gay priests and gay/lesbian church personnel to live in further secrecy, shame and fear—certainly not an opportune context for Christian ministry. It will alienate many lesbian/gay Catholics, their parents, family members and friends—all who know from personal experience the reality of holy and wholesome lesbian/gay lives. At a time when reconciliation and healing are needed, such a policy will only further harm and divide our church.
Let’s hope that our U.S. bishops will be as courageous as America and that they will exercise their collegial responsibility by warning that such a policy is not only unjust, but will potentially wreak disaster on a church already so badly fractured.
Today the proof is almost daily in newspapers and on television screens. Hundreds of men have come forward to say priests abused them while they were in their charge. Bishops have even been accused, and some have now admitted their guilt.
In the great majority of cases, we are talking about homosexual priests going after adolescent boys. The actual cases of pedophilia (abuse of a young child) are small. The problem is homosexual priests recruiting young boys and young men.
The reality is that homosexuality is a lot more than a “different lifestyle.” It is a mind-set that permeates thoughts and actions. No doubt there are some homosexuals who can live a celebate life. But I believe they are the exceptions and need to guard day and night against the desire to sin again. Yes, by the way, the Catholic Church still believes the practice of homosexuality is a sin. I wonder if the Jesuits agree?
The bottom line is, if you put the wolf in the hen house you are bound to have a lot of casualties.
We psychologists know that seemingly to bar gays from the priesthood will only have the opposite effect to what it intends—that is, gay men will be forced to repress their sexuality, which will only lead to eventual catastrophe. We must call upon the American bishops to resist this impossible demand. I would hope that they would have the courage to resist this seemingly easy scapegoating response, which is doomed only to cause more scandal in the future.
Perhaps these prelates have been misled because in recent years some priests have adopted some traits that are associated with the gay lifestyle or have espoused particular causes that are unique to the gay agenda. Maybe it is time for these few priests to eschew certain of these traits and causes, particularly those that lead to exclusivity or confrontation with the hierarchy. This could be interpreted as a part of their commitment to celibacy.
We also have to come up with a better term than “gay priests.” “Gay” is a value-laden predicate that is fraught with lifestyle and political connotations. Most priests who are not heterosexual are not gay in this sense. When we apply the term “gay” to these men, we wrongly attribute to them an entire sub-culture in which they do not participate. This has surely contributed to negative attitudes within the hierarchy and elsewhere.
The editorial struggles to say that it would be ill-advised to ban gays from the priesthood. Of course it would be, and for one very good reason: no sooner would the ban go into effect when we would learn that a great gay priest, who is celibate, got past the radar. What then? The scandal that would erupt by bouncing this priest would be nothing compared to what we’ve been going through all year.
The answer, then, is to screen more carefully so that immature men are not allowed to become priests.
In addition, we need to consider proportion. I think it was Freud or Jung who noted homosexuals seem attracted to art and religion in greater numbers than heterosexual men. If there is any truth to that, we need to ordain married men with families to ensure balance in the clergy. Every parish I have been in has had one or more married men I would propose for ordination. My criterion is simply dedication to Christ and the Church. That, sadly, doesn't seem enough to satisfy our bishops. Granted, parish life would stress a marriage even more than usual. That could be alleviated by ordaining older men whose children were already in the late teens or older. incidentally, the Economist noted a while back that white American middle class males don't seem to reach majority till they are 35 years old. To raise the ordination age to 45 would not be too far out of line.
For months we have followed the debate in America regarding church policy on the issue of child sexual abuse by the clergy. However, we feel compelled to comment on the direction that this debate has taken. America has focused on the suspected or abusive priest, his rights, and his continued role in the church. The recent editorial of November 11 addresses the role of gay priests in this crisis. Such discussion leads us even further from the real problem.
While these topics are of some relevance, the focus fails to address one reason that Catholic laity are so distraught over the current crisis. This crisis exists because of the intentional unwillingness of our bishops to protect innocent children from these predators. Why does America continue to ignore the real root of this problem?
We now know that many of our bishops were aware that priests within their diocese were guilty of child sexual abuse. For decades many of our current Catholic leaders turned their backs on the victimized children. They ignored their legal and moral responsibility to deal with sexual predator priests when they were identified. Many states have laws that require any individual to report physical and sexual child abuse to authorities as soon as they are made aware of the abuse. Clearly our bishops believed these laws did not apply to them. We all understand that there are times a moral code must supercede the laws of the land, but what higher moral ground were these men striving to reach? Was it pride or the need to protect the reputation of the church that allowed these men to so willingly sacrifice the innocence of children?
Do these church leaders expect us to accept the untenable excuse that their failure to act was the result of inadequate church policy regarding abusive priests? Adults who sexually abuse children occupy every socio-economic group, age group, race, and occupation. Many priests lament that now they are unfairly viewed with suspicion and distrust due to the attention given to sexual predators within the priesthood. Priests will continue to be treated differently because the laity realize that nothing has changed nor will it change until every bishop who chose to ignore his moral responsibility is replaced.
The final insult to our intelligence is the absurdity of allowing the offending bishops to participate in effecting a solution to this problem. How can Catholic laity possibly trust the church hierarchy to do the right thing in this situation when they already proved themselves to be untrustworthy?
The church has all the authoritarians it can use, what it needs is leaders. Moral leaders who fail to act morally cease to be leaders. Since the authority in the church is already in place for decades to come, it will be a long time before we can expect substantial change in our moral leadership.
We are left wondering how we can follow the authority of the Roman Catholic Church when its actions contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Ordaining gay men?
One postive thing about your publication's absenteeism on big issues is that silence is superior to stupidity. For example, those claiming the Prophet is a terrorist.
Hopefully, Mr. Roth's letter was at minimum a catalyzer for objective and synoptic thought.
In addition, we need to consider proportion. I think it was Freud or Jung who noted homosexuals seem attracted to art and religion in greater numbers than heterosexual men. If there is any truth to that, we need to ordain married men with families to ensure balance in the clergy. Every parish I have been in has had one or more married men I would propose for ordination. My criterion is simply dedication to Christ and the Church. That, sadly, doesn't seem enough to satisfy our bishops. Granted, parish life would stress a marriage even more than usual. That could be alleviated by ordaining older men whose children were already in the late teens or older. incidentally, the Economist noted a while back that white American middle class males don't seem to reach majority till they are 35 years old. To raise the ordination age to 45 would not be too far out of line.
For months we have followed the debate in America regarding church policy on the issue of child sexual abuse by the clergy. However, we feel compelled to comment on the direction that this debate has taken. America has focused on the suspected or abusive priest, his rights, and his continued role in the church. The recent editorial of November 11 addresses the role of gay priests in this crisis. Such discussion leads us even further from the real problem.
While these topics are of some relevance, the focus fails to address one reason that Catholic laity are so distraught over the current crisis. This crisis exists because of the intentional unwillingness of our bishops to protect innocent children from these predators. Why does America continue to ignore the real root of this problem?
We now know that many of our bishops were aware that priests within their diocese were guilty of child sexual abuse. For decades many of our current Catholic leaders turned their backs on the victimized children. They ignored their legal and moral responsibility to deal with sexual predator priests when they were identified. Many states have laws that require any individual to report physical and sexual child abuse to authorities as soon as they are made aware of the abuse. Clearly our bishops believed these laws did not apply to them. We all understand that there are times a moral code must supercede the laws of the land, but what higher moral ground were these men striving to reach? Was it pride or the need to protect the reputation of the church that allowed these men to so willingly sacrifice the innocence of children?
Do these church leaders expect us to accept the untenable excuse that their failure to act was the result of inadequate church policy regarding abusive priests? Adults who sexually abuse children occupy every socio-economic group, age group, race, and occupation. Many priests lament that now they are unfairly viewed with suspicion and distrust due to the attention given to sexual predators within the priesthood. Priests will continue to be treated differently because the laity realize that nothing has changed nor will it change until every bishop who chose to ignore his moral responsibility is replaced.
The final insult to our intelligence is the absurdity of allowing the offending bishops to participate in effecting a solution to this problem. How can Catholic laity possibly trust the church hierarchy to do the right thing in this situation when they already proved themselves to be untrustworthy?
The church has all the authoritarians it can use, what it needs is leaders. Moral leaders who fail to act morally cease to be leaders. Since the authority in the church is already in place for decades to come, it will be a long time before we can expect substantial change in our moral leadership.
We are left wondering how we can follow the authority of the Roman Catholic Church when its actions contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Ordaining gay men?
One postive thing about your publication's absenteeism on big issues is that silence is superior to stupidity. For example, those claiming the Prophet is a terrorist.
Hopefully, Mr. Roth's letter was at minimum a catalyzer for objective and synoptic thought.