Cardinal's words on gay priests surprise scholars

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."

The big thing is the "IF" Maybe we tempt them with pretty women and the guys who behave normally we keep? :-).

Your facetious example proves my point. Bevilacqua will not be able to determine who is gay and who is straight.

Should a straight man, who admits a debauched life but who says he has reformed, be accepted into a seminary over a man who is effeminate but who has never been sexually active?

But how you do you know they are celibate?

The same way I know a heterosexual celibate priest is celibate.

They tell the truth, they live the truth, and Christ lives in them.

That, by the way, is the way I can tell you don't cheat on your wife.

Should a straight man, who admits a debauched life but who says he has reformed, be accepted into a seminary over a man who is effeminate but who has never been sexually active?

How about rejecting both?

If he were made pope

None for me, thanks. Nothing against Cardinal Bevilacqua, whom I admire, but all the same -- if there's one good result of the present scandal it's that it puts paid to any idea of an American pope for the time being.

Should a straight man, who admits a debauched life but who says he has reformed, be accepted into a seminary

Yes. That's how we got Father Corapi.

McBrien of Notre Dame is an Ivy Tower pinhead blowhard. The issue is obvious to ordinary people. Although I see no reason why a sexually disordered man needs to tell anyone if he truly remains celibate. What's wrong with that?

You don't find what you are NOT looking for. First set your goal. The problem is the shrinks are NOT looking for homosexual behavior because they don't think it is wrong! To them their professional knowedge is reality and the teachings of the Church is moonshine.(Ask the sobs!!!) I think it is the other way around. Modern psychology is founded on a false notion of human nature. As for your first remark, the word "gay" apples to all libertines. No rakes need apply either. When exceptions are made, we should be very clear what the situation is. If God has called a person of bad sexual habits to the priesthood, that person will find some way to serve. But we have been glossing over the matter.

How about rejecting both?

Fine.

Then, do you reject the heterosexual man who may have had a fling or two but has been celibate for a few years as well as the homosexual who has been celibate?

Ratcheting your logic up a bit further, how do you determine, if both men are celibate, who is homosexual and who is heterosexual? Show them dirty videos and see who gets aroused, as RobbyS suggested?

The good cardinal spoke off the cuff. He is, after all a canon lawyer and is not a theologian.

But, I will never know for sure because they are celibate, and love the Lord with all their hearts.

And How do you know they are celibate ?
For that matter how do you know hetro priests are celibate ?

You with these priests every hour of their lives ?

Although I see no reason why a sexually disordered man needs to tell anyone if he truly remains celibate. What's wrong with that?

Nothing.

The good cardinal spoke off the cuff. He is, after all a canon lawyer and is not a theologian. We have suffered much from "theologicans" since Vatican II! I have heard that Cardinal George has a relative who is gay. Assuming that is the case, he may have let family feelings get the better of his judges, or let him qualify what should not be qualified. All the evidence suggests that too many gays equals trouble.

If God has called a person of bad sexual habits to the priesthood, that person will find some way to serve.

By definition, a homosexual celibate does not have any "bad sexual habits."

"Do I look fat?"

Save for the lack of hair and the "I need a man" expression on your whiskered face - I'd say you're doing OK.

All the evidence suggests that too many gays equals trouble.

Active gays, I would agree.

You've got lots of celibate gays in the priesthood now. That is a fact.

Is that trouble?

(There have ALWAYS been gays in the priesthood, some active, most not.)

God Bless Cardinal Bevilaqua, since the rest of the whackos can't see the forest from the trees.

If there is any diffuculty with the Cardinals position after the last 4 Months of Agony in watching the church implode on the Homosexual abusers in the priesthood, the cardinals detractors need their heads examined.

Look up Richard Sipes Book, "Sex, Priests and Power" where he states of 50 Gay Priests interviewed by a Priest only 4 were celibate and 22% had 500 sexual partners or more.

Get a grip on Reality.

See page 132

The Boy Scouts is way ahead of the Church on this matter.

By definition, a homosexual celibate does not have any "bad sexual habits."

Then by definition a homosexual has to remain celibate his entire life whether a priest or not where a hetosexual person can find RELIEF in marriage

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.