| Gay Priests...Is there a problem?
by Rev. Dr. Marie Fortune, founder of the FaithTrust Institute in Seattle, Washington (she has been working to end clergy sexual abuse for many years)
I am not at all certain that a rational response to the Vatican’s denial of the priesthood to gay men is possible at this point. To attempt such a response suggests an original rational position.
The implication that this policy clarification-- with the dispensing of 250 Vatican officials to the U.S. to find and remove gay priests from seminaries and parishes-- will somehow “take care of” the proliferation of disclosures of pedophilia by priests is hypocrisy without shame.
As a pastor who has worked for many years to address child sexual abuse in our churches, I fear that not only does this scapegoat gay priests, but may also further distract the church from the real problem of the sexual abuse of boys and girls.
In the face of denial of current biblical scholarship and social science and relying only on “tradition,” the Vatican has issued Instruction on the Criteria for Vocational Discernment with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders, signed by Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, on November 29.
Tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’ (CDF, Persona humana 8). They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementary. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
The Vatican ignores the healthy, faithful gay and lesbian parents who have gone to great lengths to birth or adopt and parent their children.
The requirement of priesthood is stated as this:
Applicants must give evidence of an overall personal balance, moral character and proper motivation. This includes the requisite human, moral, spiritual, intellectual, physical and psychological qualities for priestly ministry (Code of Canon law, c. 241, 1).
This will be made especially evident in stability of mind, in an ability to make weighty decisions, and in a sound evaluation of men and events. The students should be accustomed to work properly at their own development. They are to be formed in strength of character, and, in general, they are to learn to esteem those virtues which are held in high regard by men and which recommend a minister of Christ. Such virtues are sincerity of mind, a constant concern for justice, fidelity to one's promises, refinement in manners, modesty in speech coupled with charity.
Nowhere does sexual orientation (race or gender for that matter) enter this picture. But never mind.
I can’t help but wonder what adult women who were molested as children by priests feel about this “solution” to the problem of pedophilia. If we extend the logic of this directive, which implies that an individual’s’ sexuality, is the cause of pedophilia, then we must conclude that heterosexuality is also the cause of pedophilia and deny the priesthood to heterosexuals. Which then basically excludes all males from the priesthood since it is some males (both gay and straight) who are pedophiles.
And finally we get to enforcement, which not unlike the problem in the U.S. military, is always a puzzle. Is the problem genital sexual contact between male priests and other men? And how will that be discovered? Is the problem healthy, self-affirming, celibate gay priests who are out? Easy to discover and remove. Is the problem unhealthy, closeted gay priests who may or may not be sexually active? How will we find them? Only a McCarthy-like process can hope to identify and remove all the gay priests from the Catholic Church. “Are you now or have you ever been . . . ?”
On the bright side, Bishop Skylstad, President of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, was reported in the Washington Post as acknowledging that the barring of men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” implicitly also applies to those with “deep-seated heterosexual tendencies” when he said “Absolutely it cuts both ways. . . I think if the orientation dominates one’s personality, whether that be homosexual or heterosexual”, then the candidate is not appropriate for ordination to the priesthood. Needless to say, Rome does not agree with this interpretation and neither do some other U.S. Bishops. But Bishop Skylstad is making the argument that celibacy is the issue, not sexual orientation. His position at least avoids scapegoating gay priests.
Make no mistake: removal of gay priests from the seminaries and parishes will not solve the problem of pedophilia by priests or sexual abuse of adult women or men by priests. By this action the Vatican reveals that its concern is not for the health and safety of parishioners who are vulnerable to abuse by priests, but rather for the “purity” of the priesthood. Sadly the Church will deny itself competent, healthy gay priests and further diminish its available pool of candidates for the priesthood. God does indeed work in strange and mysterious ways.
|
