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."
Cicero, I can hardly wait for your prediction to come true. We know that Christ can turn evil into a greater good.
I just want my Church and country to be better for my kids and unborn grandchildren.
But don't you see? This says so much more about you and your view of sexuality than your understanding of the priesthood and the mystery of vocation. You are never going to understand Catholicism till you abandon this Career Counselor's view of the priesthood, as something chosen pragmatically, to fit the man to the job -- in this case, the idea that the priesthood belongs to men who're asexual or sexually dysfunctional.
You have a view of the priesthood as a class of men that's fundamentally aberrant. You have a view of the priesthood as the refuge of men who're intrinsically disordered, inadequate, or somehow lacking -- not necessarily in a viscious way, but nevetheless pitiful, incomplete, and unmanly.
As a celibate man no doubt I take too strong a personal interest in the subject, but to maintain that men are fundamentally (no pun) classified according to a taxonomy of sex -- that the only meaningful measure of a man is taken horizontally -- is to degrade him to the objectified status of anonymous Australian (or was it Phillipine?) comfort girls cheering the arrival of the fleet.
This question, very well put, is the heart of the matter.
Prior to the "delisting" of homosexuality as a mental disorder by the APA in 1972, the question "what IS the difference" was thought to be clear.
Now, sinkspur, you and many others have found clarity on the other side of the question-"there IS no difference".
I honestly am not sure about this-but you may be wrong.
And I'm sure the "bastard" children appreciate your preference.
If you prefer bastard children and concubines, then I'm sure you'd prefer optional celibacy to alleviate that.
Logically, such a definition is the antithesis of the sacrifice of carnal love (celibacy) and dedication to service of others that is required of the priest -- for the good of the faith, and the faithful, he is called to serve and protect.
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."
This "call to chastity" is a prohibition not to commit acts "contrary to the natural law." It is not an affirmation that homosexuals, since they are called to chastity should be admitted to the priesthood.
A homosexual is a man who defines himself by his sexual preference above all other facets of his life.It is this focus on his sexuality that would make him unsuitable. Heterosexuals do not put 'heterosexual' first on their identity list.
A candidate for the priesthood would not have to 'prove' that he is attracted to women. He would just be a 'man' who wanted to serve God in His ministry.
Is this, as I suspect, your gut feel, or do you have some statistics to back this up?
This "call to chastity" is a prohibition not to commit acts "contrary to the natural law." It is not an affirmation that homosexuals, since they are called to chastity should be admitted to the priesthood.
Is fornication contrary to natural law? Are reformed fornicators called to the priesthood?
Does God only work with virgins, or can He call sinners to serve Him? Peter denied that He even knew Jesus AFTER he was called.
It has been proven that there is no "special" gene. Homosexuality is created from either environment or choice. I don't know the stats on pediophilia, but NAMBLA is a start. Also, someone has mentioned AIDS. I wonder what the stats are on this among priests?
EdReform has many good links on homosexuality. Ed, maybe you could give us some?
Seems like the church's way to find out is to ordain them.
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.