Posted on 05/03/2002 6:38:30 PM PDT by history_matters
Cardinal Anthony M. Bevilacqua's sweeping rejection of gay men becoming priests diverges from mainstream thinking by U.S. Catholic theologians and policymakers, a range of church scholars said in interviews this week.
But his remarks echoed a little-known Vatican decree issued four decades ago that may come into play as church leaders labor toward a national response to the sex-abuse scandal in the church.
Upon his return last week from the cardinals' summit conference in Rome, Cardinal Bevilacqua weighed in on the debate about gays in the priesthood - a hot issue in the scandal - with a categorical pronouncement.
No "homosexually oriented" men, not even chaste ones, are "suitable candidates" for the priesthood, he told a news conference, because heterosexual celibates "are giving up" the good of family and children, while gay celibates give up what the church considers "a moral evil."
With his remarks, and the hard line taken against homosexuals at the archdiocese's St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Wynnewood, Cardinal Bevilacqua has put himself in the front rank of church conservatives who staunchly oppose the ordination of gays.
The cardinal's views reflect an antipathy toward homosexuality that is found in the Catholic catechism, but his statements about banning even celibate gay priests surprised most of the 14 Catholic theologians and other experts contacted for comment. Two of the 14 voiced support.
Most said the dominant view among theologians, bishops, seminary officials and other policymakers is that the decisive factor should not be a candidate's sexual orientation but whether he is "acting out" sexually.
"He's the first one I've heard make this particular argument" distinguishing between gay and straight celibacies, said the Rev. John Baldovin, professor of historical and liturgical theology at Weston Jesuit School of Theology in Cambridge, Mass.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" and "contrary to the natural law," while urging tolerance toward gays and saying they are "called to chastity."
But to say homosexual orientation alone disqualifies a person for diocesan priesthood takes church teaching into an area where doctrine is unsettled, several of the theologians said.
Church leaders "weren't willing to admit for the longest time that they had gay people in the priesthood," said Father Baldovin, so "nobody was trying to construct the difference between straight celibacy and gay celibacy."
Cardinal Bevilacqua is a canon lawyer, not a degreed theologian, but he has the last word on this matter in the archdiocese, as any reigning bishop has over a diocese. Unless rules bearing papal authority are imposed - which has not occurred regarding gays in diocesan seminaries - a bishop can interpret scripture and doctrine as he sees fit.
Cardinal Bevilacqua will have no further comment on his statements, archdiocese spokeswoman Catherine Rossi said.
The Rev. Joseph A. Komonchak, a theologian at the Catholic University of America in Washington and a consultant to the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference's committee on doctrine, was among the theologians who questioned the cardinal's views.
A gay person "can't give up his orientation," Father Komonchak said. "... That particular application of theology I've never heard before. If it's anywhere in church teaching, I've never seen it."
A Catholic University colleague, theology professor John Grabowski, said he had seen the cardinal's position "argued by a few others, but I must say it's not a common position... . It's an isolated view."
Grabowski said the argument "doesn't work. The church does teach that homosexuality is an objective disorder, but every person has disordered inclinations. That's the human condition. I don't know how you can bar a person from ordination because of that."
The opposite view was voiced by the Rev. Ray Ryland, who teaches theology at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio.
"I have not come across this distinction [on gay celibacy] that the cardinal makes, but I think he's quite right in saying it," Father Ryland said. "As a prudential judgment, I agree that persons of that orientation should not be admitted to the priesthood because of the very grave temptations they face" in seminary and parish life.
The Vatican has taken a similar stance. In 1961, Pope John XXIII issued a decree concerning people entering convents, monasteries and other religious orders. The directive, which remains valid, instructs that "those affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty [man-boy love] should be excluded from religious vows and ordination."
Scholars said the decree, developed by the Sacred Congregation for Religious, does not apply to diocesan seminarians. According to Catholic News Service, Vatican officials are considering updating and reissuing the document as part of their internal discussion about whether to impose standards for selection and training of priests.
The matter of gays in the priesthood has emerged as a thorny aspect of the abuse scandal. Some Catholic conservatives, noting that many of the reported molestations have involved priests and older boys, have renewed their complaints about the relatively high number of gay priests.
Gay priests and rights activists have said the cardinal and other conservatives are scapegoating gay priests. Homosexuals, they argue, are no more likely to be pedophiles than anyone else, and no more likely to break their promise of priestly celibacy than heterosexuals.
In his news conference last Friday, Cardinal Bevilacqua said without elaborating that he believed gay priests were at a "much higher" risk of becoming sexually active. "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."
The Rev. Donald Cozzens, a onetime Cleveland seminary rector and the author of The Changing Face of the Priesthood: A Reflection on the Priest's Crisis of Soul, said the cardinal's priesthood theology harked back to the tradition of asceticism. But the church, he said, primarily teaches that a person chooses priestly celibacy "because it feels like the path God has ordained for me for spiritual maturity, not as an ascetical practice like giving something up for Lent... . His framing of the issue is creative. It is fairly new to my ears."
The Rev. Richard McBrien, a theology professor at the University of Notre Dame and a former president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, said Cardinal Bevilacqua's outlook seemed to be based on "a fundamentalistic interpretation of Scripture" that "no one with any serious scholarly credentials in the field of biblical studies" shared.
The cardinal's point of view is "rather fundamentalist," said the Rev. Don Clifford of St. Joseph's University, a longtime professor of dogmatic theology.
Further, the 72-year-old priest said, "many people who had the most positive influence on me, on reflection, were very likely gay... . They presumably were living chaste lives and had tremendous influence on their ministries."
The debate about gays is part of a "long-term discussion" within the church, Father Clifford said, and "I always bet on the Holy Spirit to see how it comes out."
...diverges from mainstream thinking by U.S. Catholic theologians and policymakers.
The Roman Catholic Church is self-destructing faster than I would ever have imagined.
If the past year was not enough to order a wake-up call for Church leadership, then the Church is doomed.
Hey! I'm with you on that one. (patting you on back!)
On the contrary, I thought giving up an evil for a good...was a good thing.Just read that statement again:
He may be choosing the good, but...he's giving up what the church considers an aberration, a moral evil.
Strange that a Catholic cardinal would condemn someone who gives up something bad for something good. So what is the celibate homosexual to do? Go out and kill himself?
Bevilacqua's strange theology is contradicted by Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, who said "how will we know who is homosexual and who is not, if they are celibate?"
Fr. Donald Cozzens is close to the truth when he says there are 30-50% of priests who are homosexual. Only, you won't know, because they are celibates.
Bevilacqua's position may be adopted in his diocese, but it won't be part of the statement coming out of Dallas in June.
Barbra! Streisand types. (whatever that means...)
Seriously, this country is all messed up. Everyone is afraid to be called some kind of "phobe" and the Catholic Church went politically correct in the 1970s. They forgot their mission and now they are cowed by the thought of drag queens picketing churches and throwing condoms at newly ordained priests and their "reputation"... well, looks like they reaped what they sowed.
You know, I remember when the homosexuals threw condoms at the newly ordained priests at the Holy Cross Cathedral in Boston a few years ago - Cardinal Law's Cathedral. It was sickening, gross and HARDLY REPORTED! But, eventually it would be reported and people would start to understand the agenda at work.
What's IS the difference, Robby, if they are both celibate? How do you know who is gay and who is straight in the priesthood, if they are both celibate? One likes striking floral arrangements and the other doesn't?
I personally know a priest who went to jail for offenses alleged by some teen age girls,went to jail for ten years,who is now being considered for more severe action in Rome.
In the "olden days", the original charges,if we lay prople would have confessed them, would have gotten all of us a couple af decades of the rosary for petting with clothes in tact.Because of some draconion action taken by our legislators over another matter,he faced a possible life sentence. He was young and was convinced by the prosecuting attornies to plea bargain. He did,we would have received a penance of 2 Hail Mary's for "copping a feel".
Meanwhile we have had pederasts and active homosexual priests (that means they put their penises in someones rectum),sashaying around. Several of the pederasts did get jail sentences but the majority of active homosexual priests just stand up Sunday after Sunday telling us that we must be hospitable and non-judgemental,blah,blah.
By the way does anyone know how Cardinal Mahoney is doing?
At one point I believed it to be the natural choice for a gay man who was serious about his Catholicism to become a priest - he could both serve the Church, and not commit acts that go against the Bible's teachings.
For obvious reasons, I no longer feel that way (Disclaimer - I'm not Catholic).
Cheers, from a resident Loon fresh from the shelling on on the War Weary Prostitutes thread.
I thank God I've been so blessed as to be surrounded by family, friends, associates, teachers and religious who belied "disordered desires" as the quintessential human condition!
Tell it to the Holy Spirit who left his seal on you.
2359Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Can someone here tell me how that differs from the calling that STRAIGHT people are asked to embrace?
I'm not defending active homosexuals. But, I know many priests, and I suspect some of them are homosexual. But, I will never know for sure because they are celibate, and love the Lord with all their hearts.
I will lay considerable coin on the table that Bevilacqua will never repeat his bizarre comparison between "good" heterosexuals and "evil" homosexuals. Orientation, in and of itself, is not determinative of anything.
Sure does. Although, to take a birds eye view... what's equally (actually more) important is what type of character. And what is morally right and wrong? Is there truth and what is it?
We've got to come back to the word of God (the entire Bible) and it clearly states in both the old and new Testament that God hates the act of homosexuality. He loves all people... but hates sin. And it's our sin that gets in the way.... everyone of us (Rom 3).
Sounds like the problem has been that folks aren't using God's word to determine what the church's view should be. If they would, there wouldn't even be a discussion (about such a black and white matter).
Do people think that just because Jesus didn't teach on it that it makes that behaviour ok? Or do they think that the Holy Spirit who spoke through Paul was not the one and the same God who revealed himself through Jesus?
The problem with the religious liberals is that they want to pick and choose what parts of the religion they like. It's still that same rebellious nature in the heart of a man that defies God and tries to do it 'MY WAY' like Sinatra used to sing.
If we deviate from the Word of God, then all bets are off. Things quickly degrade into moral relativism. And we all know where that leads. The way that a man thinks is right... leads to death.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.