\T
The Jesuit of the Future
Benedict sees homosexuality as incompatible with the priesthood, for two reasons, First, the Latin priesthood is celibate and celibacy does not have the same meaning for a homosexual and a heterosexual and second because the homosexual has a distorted view of the relationship of men and women.
Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise, celibacy would lose its meaning as a renunciation. It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into the priesthood who don’t want to get married anyway. For, in the end, their attitude toward man and woman is somehow distorted, off center and, in any case, is not within the direction of creation of which we have spoke. (p. 152)
I think Benedict is both overstating his case and underestimating the real situation.
As to the first: It seems to me that a homosexual can take a vow of celibacy, just as a poor person can take a vow of poverty. Obviously a rich person who renounces his possession does something different from a poor person who renounces possessions he does not have, but I do not see why a poor person cannot take a vow of poverty or a homosexual a vow of celibacy.
Some homosexuals may have a distorted view of male-female relationships (as do many heterosexuals), but I do not know if that is universal. If a homosexual has a sincere desire to be chaste and has a normal masculine personality, I do not see why he would not make a good priest. If homosexuals were in the priesthood in about the same proportion as the general population (2-3%) I doubt that there would be any problem.
Benedict is concerned about having the priesthood viewed as a gay profession.
The Congregation for Education issued a decision a few years ago to the effect that homosexual candidates cannot become priests because their sexual orientation estranges them from the proper sense of paternity, for the intrinsic nature of priestly being. The selection of candidates to the priesthood must therefore be very careful. The greatest attention is needed here in order to prevent the intrusion of this kind of ambiguity and to head off a situation where the celibacy of priests would practically end up being identified with the tendency to homosexuality. (pp. 152-153)
But Benedict is deceiving himself if he thinks that the Vatican’s directives to exclude homosexuals from the seminary are being observed. The Dominicans ordained a leading gay activist. In Quebec a male prostitute was ordained. The Jesuit novices of the Western province had a drag party and put it on the internet. Seminary rectors, such as Father Donald Cozzens, who are in the best position to know, say that half or more than half of seminarians are homosexual. A Los Angeles Times poll indicated that young priests are both more orthodox and more gay than the older generation – and the two groups overlap (the data are all in my book Sacrilege).
David Berger is a Thomist who moved in conservative Catholic circles and came out of the closet in March. He claimed, and I think with much truth, that the liturgically conservative Catholicism that Benedict is encouraging is especially attractive to gays (not only to gays, I hasten to add). The scandal of the ultra-conservative seminary of St. Polten in Austria is symptomatic.
If Benedict thinks that anyone is paying any attention to Vatican directives about not ordaining homosexuals, he is sadly mistaken. There is perhaps more discretion now – no more photos of novices in drag on the Internet, but the reality remains unchanged. The priesthood in many parts of Europe and America has become a heavily gay profession. The chief effect will be to encourage the heterosexual male tendency to stay away from involvement in the church, and especially to keep their sons away from contact with gay clergy.
Leon, you probably know that the Church tolerated homosexual priests — and Popes — as far back as the Middle Ages. If your comments are correct, then two conclusions follow:
1. The Church is reaping what it has sowed for nearly a millenium and a half. If what you say about commitment to Orthodoxy and homosexuality is correct, then the problem was far worse centuries ago.
2. Benedict is an arcane academic who is fundamentally out of touch with the condition of the current Church. His response to the clerical sex-abuse crisis is the exception that proves the rule.
Let’s face it, Leon. People can disregard Benedict because 1) they know that his time is short, just because of his age and 2) Rome hasn’t bothered to discipline anybody effectively in who knows how long 3) The homosexuals have their fervent supporters in Rome.
Your thoughts?
I attended a gay minor seminary from 1958 to 1962 in Illinois. I was forbidden to see my 3 sisters, my mother or any female for 4 years. I was forced to masturbate in front of my confessor if I had an impure thought. Did Jesus recruit his apostles and disciples from the ranks of prepubescent little boys???
“I think Benedict is both overstating the case and underestimating the real situation.”
I agree.
With regards to Joseph’s first conclusion above, is there any solid evidence of an increased percentage of homosexuals in the clergy after the fifth or sixth century? If so, what credible reason(s) might be given?
No one really knows if the percentages of priests who are homosexual has varied over the centuries. The problem of active homosexuality and pederasty was severe in the Middle Ages, as Peter Damian’s Book of Gomorrah shows. Then as now, church authorities did little or nothing to correct the situation.
The last pope to take severe measures against corruption in the clergy was Pius V. Benedict has done a few things, such as speeding up the removal of abuse priests, but has not addressed the larger problem of both sexual corruption and laxity in enforcing discipline. If a pope tried to do that, it would probably tear the church apart – ever one has his favorite vices, and it is easier just to let the corruption simmer. Perhaps that is the way it has to be – remember the parable of the wheat and the tares. Discipline may be an inadequate way of dealing with corruption – but fresh actions of the Holy Spirit (Bernard, Francis, Teresa of Avail) can do a lot to improve standards. None of this excuses church authorities from doing their duty, and they have consistently failed, as Benedict himself admits.
Leon, I understand your fatalism and pessimism (if I’m reading you right, and I might not be). But (and I *know* you agree with this) protecting the innocent and honoring God’s name are more important than maintaining an artificial “unity.”
If the Church has to be destroyed to accomplish those goals, then so be it. Perhaps this would be a good thing. Far too many Catholics have relied too much on institutional loyalty and liturgical aesthetics to define their faith. If the corrupt ecclesiastical system is destroyed, then Catholics will have to define their faith without such externals or the esoteric theology that accompanies many of them. Then we’ll find out what Catholics *really* believe.
We need to see bishops and cardinals deposed(that’s the word?).
I am tired of words and words and more words.
And now for something completely different…
Leon, how about you re-posting the picture and have a caption-naming contest? Here are my two entries:
1. Girls just wanna have fun.
2. In 40 years, this man might become Pope.
Perhaps we have to be driven back to the catecombs in the sense of the Church loosing every last vestige of social prestige and power. In a reduced, poor and politically pwerless Church, will careerists and those who seek a comfortable sanctuary find a place?
What the Catholic Church refuses to address is the inevitable fact that a celibate priesthood will attract the wrong men as candidates.
Right now, Catholic boys grow up in an environment where they have to choose between loving a woman and pursuing ministry. That is a false choice, and it has created the problem of a sissified priesthood.
Allowing married men to become priests would completely change the equation.
1. There is some recent theological opinion that committed homosexuals cannot make a valid vow of celibacy. The reasoning is based upon the fact that the validity of the vow is based upon a capacity and desire relative to the possession of the goods of marriage and property. The vow of celibacy requires a sincere renunciation of a positive goods of marriage; these goods are the pleasures of heterosexual sex, and the begetting are rearing of children. The committed homosexual does not see these as goods that apply to himself, therefore, he cannot renounce them as goods, and hence cannot make a vow of celibacy. (If a man is poor because he sees no good in property or wealth as it applies to himself, then he cannot make a valid vow of poverty, anymore than the angels can make vows of poverty or chastity, since lacking bodies, the goods of material wealth and sex do not apply to them. ) The situation with the bisexual could be more complicated, in that the bisexual may see marriage as a good, in which case the vow of celibacy would apply.
2. Although homosexuals may be drawn to trappings of the priest, a rigorous seminary training contained strenuouss ascetical discipline would discourage the more effeminate homosexuals; at least some of them would leave.
3. To Crowhill: a married priesthood has had no effect on seminary recruiting for Anglicans for over a generation. It is falling, and some of those who do enter have homosexual tendencies. Also, a recent study showed that the Anglican clergy also molest younger males at levels comparable to those here in the US. the problem of homosexuality in the clergy is not closely linked the the celibacy requirment.
Is celibacy essential to the priesthood? I wanted to marry and have children but felt God wanted me to give these up for the Kingdom. Fine. But doctrinally, does one have to make this interior sacrifice to qualify for ordination?
As well, the position seems based on rather questionable science. I used to be in the mental health field , and these arguments strike me as about as plausible as those st. Thomas gave concerning the “inferiority” of women.
For example, should I deny the opportunity to marry (a member of the opposite sex) in the Church to a homosexual? The answer is not so obvious as you might think. The term “homosexual” covers a very wide range of people with a variety of behaviors and emotions. I have known homosexuals who are masculine, disciplined and able to function heterosexually.
This is too big and complex an area for the Church to make prudential decisions and judgements based on sloppy and questionable science.
1. “Is celibacy essential to the priesthood?”
Celibacy is good for the priesthood but it is clearly not essential, since there are priests who are married in the Eastern and Orthodox rights. However, a vow of celibacy/chastity is essential to the professed religious who is required under a religious rule (e.g., the Benedictines) to make such a vow. It is plausible that a vow of celibacy made by a committed homosexual would not be genuine or sincere, since there is no renunciation of a goods of marriage, and the theological argument is that the validity of the vow requires such a renunciation of a good.
In general, any vow entails certain conditions. For example, sexual potency in the male is a condition for a valid marriage, since the marriage vow is not considered completed until there is intercourse/consumation. If there is no consumation, then there is no marriage. A necessary (but not sufficient) condition for consumation is sexual potency in the male. Potency has both physiological and psychological causes. So long as the man is impotent, for whatever reason, be it physiological or psychological, he cannot validly marry.
I suspect that a confirmed homosexual can be validly ordained to the priesthood. Perhaps there is some theological argument that shows that habitual sodomy is an impediment. Not sure that it is and impediment. However, there was recently a case of the NewYork priest Kavanaugh, who was defrocked because of only homosexual tendencies (there was no sodomy) that interfered with his ability to provide proper direction to a seminarian.
2. As to the marriage of homosexual to a female. There is no problem in terms of the valid conditions for a marriage, to wit, sexual potency, the intent to have children, and to raise them in the Church. If the homosexual possesses these qualities and intentions, then he is free to marry, so long as his bride would not view his homosexuality as a diriment impediment. (Whether or not it is advisable or prudent is another question.)
3. Not sure where the “sloppy” or “questionable” science is. The position I ennunciated had little to do with the current state of the behavioral sciences, and is based on the logic and/or conditions of making vows. As to the issue on the rate of molestation between Anglicans and Catholics, there are many (including Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna) who have indicated that celibacy contributes to molestation of minors. There claim seems to based on the belief that Roman Catholic clergy are more prone to molest than other clergy. A question of “more” or “less” is an inherently statistical question, that requires a statistical answer. Nothing “sloppy” about that. The statistics DO NOT SUPPORT the belief that a “celibate” clergy are more prone to molestation. The statistics do show that homosexual tendencies are disproportionately associated with molestation of male youths.
Rick, you’re quite correct in writing that the stat’s don’t indicate any connection between celibacy and molestation. Also, I agree that the fact most of the abuse cases in the Church involve teenage boys (young men) is worrisome with respect to homosexuals in the priesthood.
What’s “sloppy” in the science of many holding the position of “no homosexuals” in the priesthood is the assumption that for every homsexual man heterosexual marriage is an impossibility and therefore celibacy is not a sacrifice. Psychologyu labels as “homosexual” anyone who is PREDOMINATELY (as well as exclusively) attracted to the same sex. As well, that homosexuals somehow do not understand the dynamics of male -female relationships is too big a generalization. Yet this is a claim made seemingly by the pope himself.
Again, what I’m concerned about is making assumptions and statemants about homosexuals that justify excluding everyone and anyone who qualifies for this adjective, from ordination. Pepole with this condition are simply too varied to come under blanket descriptions. Nonetheless, I am concerned that an interest in teenagers SEEMS to be more a homosexual than heterosexual problem among abusing clergy in North America.
Rick,
Anglicanism is trying to destroy itself in so many different ways, I don’t believe you can make a meaningful correlation between one, narrow issue (they allow married men in seminary) and the fact that they’re losing seminarians.
It is, in my opinion, absolutely undeniable that the celibacy requirement will (1) keep some men who would otherwise be good priests from pursuing the priesthood, and (2) attract men who see the priesthood as an escape from their problems with women.
Father Michael Koening,
I thinks some definitions are in order. I would distinguish between these three types: a male with same sex attractions (SSA), a homosexual, and a gay.
–A male with SSA is sexually attracted to other males, and need not actively engage in sexual activity with males. Males with SSA may or may not also be attracted to females.
–Homosexuals are males with SSA who develop a HABIT of engaging in sexual behavior with other males. HABITS consist in a desire for, and regular active participation in, the same sex behavior, even in the context of sexual opportunities with females.
–Gays are open homosexuals who seek to advance the homosexual lifestyle as a social or personal good. Not all homosexuals are gays, since some homosexuals find that homosexual lifestyle is very problematic.
My views on ordination are these:
A man who is “gay” at the time of his ordination IS NOT validly ordained since he enters into priestly orders with the full intention of violating Christian doctrine. His presence in the priesthood is inherently subversive, and would indicate an impediment to ordination, in a manner analogous to that of man who “marries” a woman with no intention of remaining with her for life or faithful (such a marriage would be readily annulled.) A man who becomes gay after he was ordained should be defrocked.
Homosexuals may or may not be validly ordained, but in any case, they SHOULD NOT be ordained. The moral and spiritual conflicts that arise from the homosexual behavior are so profound, and so difficult to alter, as to make a joyful and effective SPIRITUAL ministry practically impossible. Also, there are ever-present risks to the common good of the Church and to the laity. In addition, although homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness (a position by both APAs that is highly questionable) the risks of associated mental illness is very high (for example, even as recently as 1999, US govt research shows that active homosexuals [ages 18 – 35] are FIVE times more likely to attempt suicide than sexually active heterosexual males, and NINETEEN times more likely to attempt suicide than same-aged virgin males.)
Homosexuals CANNOT make a valid profession of perpetual chastity, for reasons cited in an earlier post.
A man with only SSA who is not a homosexual IS VALIDLY ORDAINED. He may also make a good priest so long as he possess the following characteristics: 1. He is not prone to masturbation 2. Finds females somewhat attractive. 3. Has not had early sexual experience with males (as would be the case of a kid molested by a priest, who then later wants to become a priest) 4. Relates well to assertive heterosexual males 5. Had normal male competitive instincts as a boy.
Crowhill
Some 20 years ago I came across statistical surveys that indicated that celibacy requirements have little impact on the rate of recruiting seminarians, comparing Eastern, Orthodox, and Anglican Rite seminary recruitment with Roman Rite recruitment. The rates are not that different. If you have more current data please let me know.
There are probably a certain percentage of men who enter seminary training who are sexually confused. The differences in the percentages between Rites of these confused recruits are not available. Nor are there data that related the confusion to the celibacy requirement. Not sure how we can debate your points, except by way of anecdotal information.
Rick,
If you were referring to Fr. Charles M. Kavanagh of New York, he was defrocked for sexual abuse of a minor, not just for having ssa.
See: http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2010/12/church-court-defrocks-new-york-priest-after-finding-him-guilty-abuse
John,
I was referring to Kavanagh, but I didn’t want to suggest that he was defrocked for ssa. As you say, the charges against him were “sexual abuse of a minor”. It seems to come down to a case of of sexual stalking. But details seem rather short on any indication of frank sexual behavior. The stories listed at bishopaccountability.org do not specifically show that frank sexual contact occurred; the term I saw was “inappropriate touching” which is pretty vague, and falls well short of sodomy, or other typical homosexual behaviors, and lengthy descriptions of stalking. (maybe I missed a story with a more explicit description.)
More by David Berger on himself:
The Perfumed Traditionalists: The author responds
Pray Tell
Jan 7 ’11
http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2011/01/07/the-performed-traditionalists-the-author-responds/
I have read with interest the lively discussion at Pray Tell about my book Der heilige Schein. Als schwuler Theologe in der katholischen Kirche. (“The Holy Illusion. Being a Gay Theologian in the Catholic Church,” 3 reprints within 4 weeks). After reading through all the comments, I thought it might be helpful to respond to some of the main points raised, and to expand upon the reporting provided so far.
Am I trying to discredit traditionalists by linking them to homosexuality? No, not at all.
First, there is no reason for me to get even. I have benefitted greatly from my academic career with traditionalists. They generously opened their publishing media to me and made possible my habilitation (a sort of second doctorate – Ed.). I owe my knowledge of classical philosophy and theology, especially Thomas Aquinas, to conservative clergyman.
Second, for me homosexuality is no devaluation of the person. Every person has an inalienable dignity apart from their sexual orientation. Indeed, I have observed that homosexual males have particular gifts which have very much benefitted Catholic liturgy, sacred music, and the liturgical arts in general. To say that there are many homosexual men in the Tridentine scene is, if anything, a compliment.
Homosexual Priests and Laymen
Do I really think there are more troubled homosexuals in traditionalist liturgical circles than elsewhere? Yes. All my experiences tell me that this is the case.
For one thing, this is endemic to traditional liturgy, in which one can sublimate homosexual feelings very well. This is a technique that even the Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to suggest to homosexually oriented men. When these men sublimate in this way, this is nothing reprehensible from the Church’s perspective. This has happened throughout history. Much mysticism is animated by such sublimation.
For another thing, these conservative circles cultivate an extreme homophobia. This leads people not only to sublimate their orientation, but also to hide it and to live it out in anonymous situations. This way of living it out falls victim in turn to repression, and this repression gives birth in turn to homophobia for these people.
I should be clear that I am speaking more about homosexually oriented clergymen here than laymen. The proportion of homosexual laymen who prefer the old liturgy is only a bit higher than in the general population. But among clergymen it’s about half of them. This is tied to the reality that in traditional Catholic families there is only one way out for dealing with the shame of a homosexually oriented son: becoming a priest. Thus one makes a virtue of necessity. Repeatedly people in these circles said to me, often with a smug smile, “You’re still not married? You should become a priest. That would be wonderful!”
My Credibility
Why should anyone think I’m a trustworthy source of information? It is true, as some of my critics have pointed out, that my book is merely anecdotal and not based on rigorous social research. It is a report of my experiences. However, this report attains a certain credibility because of two aspects:
1. For over ten years I was completely at home in every possible traditional quarter. I edited German’s most important traditionalist journal, Theologisches, for seven years. Internationally, I had close contact with the Opus Dei university in Pamplona and also, through my position as corresponding professor of the Papal Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, with the Vatican. (This is not the Angelicum, as an American traditionalist site mistakenly portrayed it!) During this time most everyone knew of my homosexual orientation, which opened my path into traditionalist gay circles.
2. Since my outing and the appearance of my book, I have received basketfuls of letters and numberless emails from Catholic priests, seminarians, and religious from all parts of the world. 95% of the submissions confirmed to me that my story from my book is very representative. Some have even written to me, “You have portrayed everything much too mildly. The reality is much more extreme!” Even to the point of a tale of two homosexual priests who were “married” in the traditionalist rite, with exchange of rings and the whole business. I have been pleased that my book found affirmation from the commentators in all the large (inter)national German language newspapers. They pretty much were in agreement in their judgment, which was pointedly expressed by the Tages-Spiegel (Zurich): “The promise in the book’s blurb to offer the key to the scandals of the Roman Church is almost an understatement. It offers the key to the Ratzinger pontificate as a whole.”
The Way Forward
What advice would I give to the hierarchy to address the problems I discuss in my book? How can the Church be made more healthy and holy?
The Vatican document of 2005 which states it is impossible for a homosexually oriented man to become a priest must be replaced as soon as possible and shelved. It has practically dogmatized dishonesty and lying among the clergy. Nowhere are there as many lies as when seminarians are asked if they are homosexually oriented.
The Church must finally face the reality that it has a very large group of homosexually oriented priests. Only when we allow these priests to speak about their orientation without fear or condemnation can we offer them help, so that they can hold to their celibacy the same way that their heterosexually oriented brother priests can. Only then will we have that honesty which the Pope has made the highest commandment in connection with abuse cases.
Pope Benedict’s Legacy
Above all history will speak of a tragic Pope who, because of his love for the aesthetic of the traditional liturgy and its milieu, and for whatever deeply personal reasons, lavishly pulled extreme forces to the very center of the Church. For this he has accepted that Catholicism in Europe and the U.S. is increasingly transformed into a fundamentalist sect, a “holy remnant,” and distances itself ever more from the rest of society.
Where I Am Now
I have as much admiration as ever for the great tradition of the Catholic Church. It is most amazing how the Church was able through the centuries, right up until the Enlightenment, to adapt itself and to play a role in the development of art and culture. Only with antimodernism did the Church lose this capability.
I am as fascinated as ever by the magnificent philosophical-theological synthesis of Aquinas – although I have increasingly learned to read this synthesis from a historical-critical standpoint and not as a timelessly valid intellectual structure.
I still attend the traditional liturgy, but only in places where nobody knows me. After several murder threats from traditionalist quarters, I have been advised to stay away from such liturgies for security reasons.