In the week we discover that the Church has been unfairly tarred with the brush of coddling pedophiles, when in fact what has happened is the coddling of homosexuals, I think it is high time to consider, honestly, and without false compassion, whether or not it is good for the Church to ordain any homosexuals--the blanket ban Raymond Arroyo suggested to Bishop Gregory.

Of course, it is entirely possible for someone with temptations that one has conquered, or indiscretions in ones past to avoid this blanket proscription (and again it is no condemnation, as it is not for Women, who are also ineligible for ordination)--by ceasing to view themselves as special, or as set apart from the rest of humanity, who can look at their temptations and view those temptations as more or less odious, more or less culpable.

Somehow I think this will be impossible for those whose malady is so connected to self-esteem and narcissism--to simply admit they are just like their fellow man, and eschew special groupings and the self-perception of having a heavier cross to bear than the rest of us, for the solace that that brings.
al | 02.29.04 - 6:37 pm | #

Mark
I'm curious: why isn't it Lent today? I'm not Catholic...yet.
Bob Alley | 02.29.04 - 7:46 pm | #

It's Sunday. Sunday is always a feast day.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 02.29.04 - 8:00 pm | #

Al-

I'm not sure what you're arguing- Is it that gay men who have conquered their desires are no longer gay? Because I'm a celibate gay man who can be said to have conquered my desires, and I don't know what else to call myself. I'm not straight (i.e. I don't pursue women) but I can't see that I'll ever act on my homosexual inclinations.

Personally, I think the Church should ordain celibate gays as priests but I also feel that the priest needs to be honest about his orientation and certain precautions need to be taken (i.e. no letting the gay priest head an all-boy youth group camping trip). I'm not saying he needs to divulge his sexuality to everyone, but his superiors certainly should know about it. What's most important, I feel, is for those priests and bishops who wink at homosexuality to be reined in. Really. Why be a priest- or a Catholic, for that matter!- if you aren't going to play by the rules?
Al | Homepage | 02.29.04 - 8:05 pm | #

Mark,

On the subject of ordaining men with strong inclinations towards the same sex, I think it is a bad idea. There is a reason that male and female religious don't share the same living quarters and that is because it would make keeping their vows very difficult. With homosexuals, it isn't possible to separate them from the objects of their temptations against chastity either at seminary, or later if they live in community with other priests. Which makes me think that it is generally imprudent to ordain men with strong homosexual tendencies.
Publius | 02.29.04 - 8:06 pm | #

Whoops! I meant "those priests and bishops who wink at active homosexuality..."

Also, my name is not Al.
Marc | Homepage | 02.29.04 - 8:06 pm | #

Publius-

I speak from experience when I say that homosexual desires are often accentuated by estrangement from other men (which speaks volumes about the environmental origins of the orientation, but that's another post entirely) and, more importantly in regards to this issue, that the converse can also be true. So while it would be a terrible idea to put, say, eight gay seminarians in a room together, putting seven gay seminarians in a room and one gay one wouldn't be problem. Assuming my own experiences are the norm among celibate gays, the gay seminarian would actually be more likely to remain celibate provided he had real platonic friendships with other men, the presence of which go a long, long way towards addressing the root need for male intimacy that homosexuals have unconsciously sexualized.
Marc | Homepage | 02.29.04 - 8:30 pm | #

I'm not sure that a Lenten Sunday should be regarded as no different from a non-Lenten Sunday, though. Certainly they're different liturgically (Lenten Sundays have no Alleluia, just as on Lenten weekdays; no Gloria at Mass; no Te Deum or resurrection Gospel in the Office). Maybe that's a cue as to how we should treat Lenten Sundays in other respects also.
Kevin Miller | Homepage | 03.01.04 - 12:15 am | #

Kevin,

Mark is already gone 6 out of 7 days a week. Don't cause him to be gone Sundays too!
Publius | 03.01.04 - 8:28 am | #

Marc,

Maybe you have a point. But if what you say is going to prove true, then those running the seminaries will have to assign living quarters with the seminarian's orientations in mind and the whole thing depends on not having a high percentage of same-sex-oriented men going to a particular seminary at a given time. I'm not sure how that could be accomplished, at least without some sort of quota system.
Publius | 03.01.04 - 8:42 am | #

"Also, my name is not Al."

Take it away, Paul Simon!
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 03.01.04 - 10:39 am | #

So basically we're going to re-engineer seminaries to make provision for a group who shouldn't be identified to other seminarians anyway ('cause that's not really going to promote solidarity is it!)?!? To what end? The purpose of seminaries is to produce holy priests (for a Church and Culture in desparate need of them), not to serve as a lab for social engineering, or for seminarians to work out their temptations. . . .

Marc unwittingly points out one of the central problems in the whole affair, when he asserts that SSA afflicted are searching for the following: "platonic friendships with other men, the presence of which go a long, long way towards addressing the root need for male intimacy that homosexuals have unconsciously sexualized"

The problem with this is that Straight men are not going to seminary for this--certainly not looking for this, and not to provide it. And in fact, they find this dynamic disconcerting and distracting. They are already giving up enough, especially in this culture. Does anyone think asking them to take on the role of affirming recompenser for broken peer group relations will make it easier or more difficult to achieve their actual goal of becoming a priest?
al | 03.01.04 - 11:06 am | #

Publius,

Not trying to do that - just trying to clarify the underlying theology.
Kevin Miller | Homepage | 03.01.04 - 11:21 am | #

Publius-

I agree that the whole thing depends on not having a high percentage of men with same-sex attraction in any particular seminary. I don't know why a disproportionate number of priests these days is gay, but it's a problem, both for the priesthood and for the laity. Most straight men aren't going to feel comfortable following the advice of an obviously gay priest.

Al-

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that gay men are "searching" for platonic male friendships, only that the presence thereof goes a long way towards mitigating ssa. Every man, gay or straight, has a psychological need for male friendship, but most can hardly be said to be actively searching for it.

You say also that straight men are not going to seminaries to provide men with ssa with platonic friendships. Of course not. But did I suggest that gay men go to seminaries to find such friendships? No, I didn't. I would assume that anyone, gay or straight, who enters the seminary does so out of a burning desire for priesthood. All I did was give a reason why the presence of an all-male environment doesn't necessarily make it more difficult for gay men to resist their particular temptations.
Marc | Homepage | 03.01.04 - 12:04 pm | #

Al writes:
Does anyone think asking them to take on the role of affirming recompenser for broken peer group relations will make it easier or more difficult to achieve their actual goal of becoming a priest?


What part of "Christ" don't you understand?
Jim | 03.01.04 - 12:06 pm | #

Jim,
I guess the part where the ministerial priesthood is going to be converted into a support group for homosexuals.

As with the sex scandal, you are twisting the priesthood to accomodate the needs/pathologies of a very select group of people, with very specific problems. In fact, a recent statement by the Curia said the priesthood was not to be treated as an alternative mode of therapy, and was not capable of dealing with the psychological issues you are discussing.

This wouldn't be such a problem, perhaps, if there weren't alot of other people out there with different problems. However, that is not the case, and this is not the case, and trying to turn the priesthood from the sacrificial minister who calls people to repentance and conversion, into a therapeutic social worker just distracts from the work he already has to do. Believe me, it is a distraction, too, because these sorts of relationships are very disconcerting to a straight male--jealousies, obsessions, the particularizing of friendships. . .

Apparently you guys don't understand the burden priests already have--to give up the normal consolations and goods of family life for the purpose of the ministerial priesthood. Apparently you account that burden as negligible and don't view the additional pressures our culture adds to that burden as difficult enough.
al | 03.01.04 - 12:24 pm | #

Al is simply not going to be happy until every single seminarian or priest with even one smidgen or other smallest measure of same sex attraction is expunged root and branch, whether they are active or not, whether they live the Gospel or not, heck like Kralis, whether they are virgins or not.

That this cannot be squared with the rest of the Church's teaching on the topic appears to matter little.
David Morrison | Homepage | 03.01.04 - 1:03 pm | #

We are living through a scandal of unparalelled proportions, and it is still treated as if this was some kind of "rights" issue--that the "class" of homosexuals was being "unfairly discriminated" against.

The question here is not practical--how best to facilitate the existence of men with SSA in the seminary, or how best to limit homosexuals access to temption on the job--or even moral really--as Navarro Valls indicated when he said a blanket ban doesn't imply any final determination as to the person--it is what is best for the Church.

And other grouping of "objectively disordered" (habitual onanists, necrophiles, the pathologically promiscuous) will be a priori disqualified from the seminary, leaving it to a case by case derogation from that rule to judge whether someone has sufficiently mastered their temptation to be made special provision for.

Yet in this case, because of the sanction such a blanket rule implies, this prudential and obvious rule cannot be applied, because this "class" refuses to accept the sanction. Is this the best way to help the Church and the priesthood in this time of crisis?
al | 03.01.04 - 1:16 pm | #

And frankly, David, I've never said anything like that. I don't believe in "purging" ordained priests of all homosexuals because of the scandal that would cause (though I do believe in removing any and all "active" ones).

But the fact that you hyperbolically impute that position to me shows who is thinking about this question rationally, and who is coming to the question with a set of "prejudices".
al | 03.01.04 - 1:32 pm | #

Right, al. You've never said such a thing. Nor would you. After all, you think it'd be imprudent!
Kevin Miller | Homepage | 03.01.04 - 2:45 pm | #

Quite right. Drawing attention to the number of people with SSA in the priesthood would be scandalous, provided that it is a high as many current estimates indicate.

Only those whose affliction itself constitutes a scandal--ie. in behavior or in cases where it has lead to failure to adhere to doctrine--should be removed to non-pastoral positions.

Again I'm not disputing the validity of the orders (except in cases of fraud) just the obvious ill effects.
al | 03.01.04 - 3:25 pm | #

Does that mean I'm dispensed from beerly abstinence on Sunday?
Ed | 03.01.04 - 4:01 pm | #

I am strongly in favor of men who happen to have SSA to be ordained. Partly for the example they can set. Partly for the example straight priests can set. Same example.

If seminaries and bishops clearly teach celibacy, then SSA and straight priests can stand on equal ground. In my parish there are a heckuva lot more women at Mass and etc. than men, so straights will have plenty of opportunities to show how much better they are...

I can certainly understand that more scrutiny could be applied to SSA candidates considering the all-male environment of seminaries and priestly orders in general. But to uniformly reject gay candidates seems to assume that those with SSA are capable of more evil in the world than straights. And that is not what life has reported to me.
Christopher Rake | Homepage | 03.01.04 - 4:34 pm | #

Al,

Obviously, no one who is looking to the priesthood to provide free therapy ought to be allowed in, regardless of their objective disorder. Nor should those who haven't mastered their temptations, regardless of their temptations. But I don't see how a gay seminary student who agrees with Church doctrine on homosexuality and who has entered the seminary out of a passion to serve Christ and the Christian community poses any sort of a problem. I'd say admit him, provided you can be confident of his future celibacy.
Marc | Homepage | 03.01.04 - 4:43 pm | #

I tend to agree with Cardinal Bevilacqua: ""When a heterosexual celibate chooses to become a celibate in the priesthood," the cardinal said, "he's taking on a good - that is, his own desire to become a priest - and he's giving up a very good thing, and that is, a family and children that could follow. That would not be true of a homosexually oriented candidate. He may be choosing the good, but... he's giving up what the church considers an aberration, a moral evil."
al | 03.01.04 - 5:37 pm | #

The sacrifice of family is peculiar to priestly and religious life in the case of the heterosexual candidate. The sacrifice of disordered sexual indulgence is not proper to the homosexual candidate; it is demanded of homosexual religious, secular clergy, and persons in the world. Cdl B. has a point that the gay candidate is not making a type of sacrifice that a straight candidate does, but he hasn't explained why that type of sacrifice qua sacrifice, not merely 'these are requirements of this state of life' is required.
Ed | 03.01.04 - 5:47 pm | #

Ed,
The Cardinal's remarks go to Christopher's, above.
al | 03.01.04 - 5:57 pm | #

Al, I was being sarcastic. When you'd only refrain from something out of prudence, then it's perfectly reasonable for someone to say it'd be the logical extension of what you have been saying. As usual, you're being disingenuous.
Kevin Miller | Homepage | 03.02.04 - 1:33 pm | #

Nobody has answered my beer question yet.
Ed | 03.02.04 - 3:04 pm | #

I see lent hasn't improved your temperment, Dr. Miller.

Still defaulting to insult before addressing the points.
. . . . And obviously fail to see the irony in calling someone disingenous while deriding them sarcastically. And didn't the Holy Father recently remark on the ills of sarcasm.

At any rate you still (if sarcastically) take my meaning perfectly: there is no right to anything (least of all to the priesthood, since there is no "right" to it at all) based on the "grouping" of homosexuals. Therefore prudence alone dictates what's to be done in each instance.

Ed, since the Sundays don't count amongst the 40 days of lent, then I think you can have beer on Sunday. I do.
al | 03.02.04 - 4:04 pm | #

As a woman who is excluded from the priesthood by virtue of sex (and I have no problem with that) my concern about the sexual orientation of those admitted to seminary and ordination is their attitude toward women. Is it the attitude of Christ? Is it the attitude of heterosexual patriarchy? Is it an attitude of homosexual preference for an original creation in which God had not created woman at all and had instead provided for asexual reproduction?
caroline | 03.02.04 - 5:15 pm | #

Caroline-

Since no one knows what causes homosexuality, I don't think that we ought to jump to the conclusion that gay men are closet misogynists. As a gay man myself, I can assure you I respect women and give them their due, both when they are in the traditional roles of wife and mother and when they are acting outside those realms as poets, painters, astronomers, whatever. The feminine principle, embodied by women, is literally half of creation. Why would I want to live in a universe without it?
Marc | Homepage | 03.02.04 - 5:58 pm | #

But Marc--are you open to what that "feminine" principle has to teach you about yourself? About how incomplete and inadequate you are, and how you need something outside of yourself, something which may in fact reject you (as you are) and cause you to have to go back and reform yourself to be completed?
al | 03.02.04 - 6:02 pm | #

My own view on the ordination of men with same-sex attraction is that they should be screened more carefully, in view of the scandal, but that some degree of same-sex attraction should not be an automatic disqualification if the man is psycholically and spiritually mature and has an established track record of living chastely.

Al writes: "We are living through a scandal of unparalelled proportions, and it is still treated as if this was some kind of 'rights' issue--that the 'class' of homosexuals was being 'unfairly discriminated' against."

Those who have argued for allowing mature, faithful men with same-sex attractions to be ordained have specifically denied that men with same-sex attractions are a distinct "class." Al is the one who originated the idea that having same-sex attraction makes you essentially different--i.e., a member of a "class."

We have simply said that the determining factors for priesthood should be doctrinal orthodoxy, the maturity to be faithful to the vow of celibacy, and a desire to serve as a good and holy priest.

My guess would be that Paul Shanley or John Goeghan did not meet those criteria at the time they applied to the seminary.

It also should not be forgotten that the rebellion on Humanae Vitae was probably not exclusively the province of same-sex attracted priests, and the cost in souls of the Humanae Vitae rebellion is probably higher by many orders of magnitude than the cost of these scandals.

This is not to downplay the scandals or the fact that most of the youth abused by priests were male. It is simply to point out that in focusing on all same-sex attracted priests and seminarians, you're lumping the innocent with the guilty on the priest scandals, and you're ignoring many of the guilty in the broader collapse of Catholic teaching on sexual ethics.
Ron Belgau | Homepage | 03.03.04 - 2:15 am | #

Ron Belgau,
It is the coiners of the phrases "SSA" and "homosexuals" who have made this a class issue. I'm advocating lumping all "paraphilias" together, or to use the Church's vernacular "deviant affections" and then using the preexisting criterion, given in Canon law (that immature sexual hangups or dysfunctions, be they promiscuity, onanism or homosexuality) are all disqualifications that can be derogated from.

If someone was a compulsive mastubator there's no way they would ordain him, nor would they ordain someone who was battling the habit on a day to day basis. If someone, by the grace of God, had conquered the habit, then they wouldn't identify themselves as a compulsive masturbator (Self-Sex Attracted), even though obviously the residual temptation is there. They would acknowledge the past sin and move on. The same would hold true of a compulsive fornicator.

Why is this different?
al | 03.03.04 - 8:03 am | #

Al,

I appreciate your description of the endless interplay between the masculine and the feminine. In a word, yes, I am open to what women have to teach me. The fact that I am not sexually attracted to women doesn't mean that I don't value them, or desire their esteem and approval. The need to get into bed with a woman, or to marry one, if you prefer, is a powerful motivating force for men to reform themselves, but it isn't the only one. A man who isn't attracted to women can still want to serve them well and have them look on him favorably, certainly.
Marc | Homepage | 03.03.04 - 10:48 am | #

Al-

I see your point. But I think the reason why someone, such as myself, who is no longer struggling daily with same-sex attraction would continue to identify as gay is because the only other option is to identify as straight, and that seems disingenuous, since I'm not out pursuing women. Now in my own head, I identify kind of as a spiritual eunuch, because again, I have very little sexual feeling, at this point, for women or men. But since the phrase "spiritual eunuch" isn't commonly tossed about, it's just simpler to declare myself a chaste homosexual. So the criteria for admitting ssa priests ought to be that they have transcended the brunt of their same-sex attraction, not what words they use, for social efficiency, to define themselves.
Marc | Homepage | 03.03.04 - 10:55 am | #

I think the criteria for "SSA" recovering candidates for the priesthood should be if they are ready to validly and without reservation contract marriage, then they are ready for ordination. Because they will be married--to the Church.
al | 03.03.04 - 11:22 am | #

When a heterosexual celibate chooses to become a celibate in the priesthood," the cardinal said, "he's taking on a good - that is, his own desire to become a priest - and he's giving up a very good thing, and that is, a family and children that could follow. That would not be true of a homosexually oriented candidate. He may be choosing the good, but... he's giving up what the church considers an aberration, a moral evil."

This is a very carefully crafted distinction and no doubt one in good faith. But of course I disagree.

A gay candidate will have little trouble creating a same-sex family today, particularly if he is willing to relocate to gay-friendly regions of the country. The way things are going, it may soon be true that he can marry (in civil procedure) and of course gays and lesbians can already adopt children.

One could just as easily say that a gay candidate for the priesthood is deeply motivated for betrothal to the Church if he is willing to forego that and serve a Church that teaches his deeply felt attachments are disordered.

So no sale on that objection. Ordain good priests; I really don't care about their orientation.
Christopher Rake | 03.03.04 - 12:52 pm | #

Christopher,
That's a specious argument. By that reasoning women could have sex changes to be priests (before they actually had to stipulate that in Canon Law), so we should just ordain 'em as is.
al | 03.03.04 - 1:45 pm | #

Al-

You mean they shouldn't be allowed into the seminaries unless they are willing to be married to an individual woman? Married to an individual woman is a far different thing from being married to the Church, I would imagine, so I don't see the connection outside of metaphor.
Marc | Homepage | 03.03.04 - 3:14 pm | #

Marc,
Is it?

Its at least all of the work and sacrifice, and less of the consolation for concupiscence (ie. I am for this, but this person is for me too).
al | 03.03.04 - 3:28 pm | #

Uh, so now we're into sex-change operations... I do not believe that is much of a rebuttal.

I do not believe gay priests are uniquely more (or less) evil than straight ones. I don't believe they are tempted more or less by life on this good earth. All other things being equal, I'd be happy to have one as a parish priest or as my confessor.

Funny thing is, chances are I already have.

And so on down through the ages.
Christopher Rake | Homepage | 03.03.04 - 4:17 pm | #

Uh, Christopher, actually it is, since it works on the same logical underpinnings that your argument does.
al | 03.03.04 - 4:23 pm | #

Al,

In regards to the Priest being "married" to the Church, yes I see what you're saying. But I think when you say that a man who isn't willing to marry a woman shouldn't be allowed in the seminary, you take the comparison too far. Let me explain: I love women, and I would be happy to marry one (i.e. provide for one and a family, etc...) except for the fact that I'm not sexually attracted to them, and I feel that a married woman deserves a husband who can have that sexual passion for her. Now, that one eccentricity, if you will, doesn't say anything about my maturity, my level of commitment to people or things I love or the general nature of my character. So I think there are some men who have very specific reasons for not wanting to marry women but would still make great priests. (Not saying I'm one, by the way... got no desire to be a priest. Just saying...)
Marc | Homepage | 03.03.04 - 11:02 pm | #

Marc,
I think the "theology of the body" might have something to say about the ability to be married to someone you don't want to sleep with. I mean, in romantic love (and not just simple lust) you want to be united with the person, and sex is a manifestation of that, an important one for rational animals like ourselves.

And think of the Canticles of God's desire for his Church. Not to be platitudinous here, but doesn't that tell us something?
al | 03.04.04 - 7:20 am | #

Al,

True, in romantic love you want to join with the other person, but there's a biological response that permits that to happen. I don't think the fact that, for whatever reason, that biological response is redirected towards members of the same gender among homosexuals ought to disqualify them from the priesthood. I think that such a redirection is almost always unconscious, usually the result of either biological errors or childhood trauma or a combination of the two, and says little about the person's adult character.
Marc | Homepage | 03.04.04 - 12:02 pm | #

There's been a great deal of comment here about whether or not celibate homosexuals can be priests. The operative word is "celibate" - and that has nothing to do with sexual orientation. The Catholic Church requires its priests to be celibate, no matter if they happen to be drawn to women or to men. The burden is the same on the priest in either case. And there's no more temptation for homosexuals than heterosexuals - there are altar girls, women eucharistic ministers, women alone in the confessional, just as there are altar boys, etc.....

As long as celibacy is expected of the clergy, that is the only issue which should be addressed. How can you say that someone who likes men, but is celibate, is any less qualified for the priesthood than someone who likes women? Neither can act on their desires, so the desires are immaterial. And if they do act on them, they have committed a sin by breaking their vow of celibacy - the type of sex involved is secondary.

You can make a case for not allowing anyone to be ordained based on "potential sinfulness". Someone who likes wine could become an alcoholic; a man that plays penny ante poker might gamble away the parish treasury; pick any human shortcoming, and it can be turned into a similar statement. What matters most is the depth of commitment an individual has to the priestly service of the church. Anyone who gives in to earthly pleasures to the harm of others or their ministry has broken the same rule - that of obediance to the Church of Christ.
Boojum | 03.04.04 - 2:12 pm | #

Celibacy is demanded of ALL priests.
Therefore, only homosexuals who embrace
celibacy and who put aside ALL sexual
activity should be considered as
legitimate candidates.

Al, As a celibate gay I can't agree with
much of what you've said. You accord way
too much importance to ssa, assuming
that even as mature adults we cannot control
our impulses. Marc's responses to your
arguments are pretty much mine. I agree
with much of what he says
John Palubiski | 03.07.04 - 2:53 pm | #

I wanted to say something about Mark's
Lent blogging. You claim that since it's Sunday,
and that Sundays are always feast days,
that it's therefore OK. Seems to me, though,
that Sunday is a day of rest, and thus
should be the one and only day you DON'T
blog. What gives?
John Palubiski | 03.07.04 - 3:04 pm | #

John-

Blogging can be a very peaceful activiy. Perhaps that is why Mark feels he can blog on Sundays. I don't think that "day of rest" means that you have to be completely immobile.

Also, thanks for the agreement on ssa. I think I'm probably in the minority on this, but I think ssa can be a virtue. It's clear to me that Michaelangelo had ssa coming out his wazoo, and that this was responsible for his beautiful depictions of masculinity (David, the Medici's). What would Western Civ have been without them?
Marc | Homepage | 03.07.04 - 5:41 pm | #

I think we focus too strongly on defining our sexual attractions. We have to label ourselves as straight, gay, bisxual etc. Rather we should avoid labeling the person to such an extent and become much, much tougher on behavior.

Let's face it, priests who have sex with boys shouldn't be priests. And if men want to go into the priesthood and all they can think about is their sexual attractions, then they are in the wrong place.
Tess | 03.11.04 - 9:10 pm | #