Cardinal's words on gay priests surprise scholars

The Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | Fri, May. 03, 2002 | JIM REMSEN

[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."

[saradippity]

I think Cardinal George was anticipating that which I tried to address in my post #30 something previously.There is a good chance that there would be a vindictiveness on the part of many bishops in the Lavender Mafia who would take immediate and possibly wrong action against an orthodox priest who may have committed what we used to call a venial sin while continuing to hide,stonewall and in other ways blur the activities of his fellow L.M.'s.

I am sorry that so many of you overlooked what Cardinal George said about being a spiritual father and the need to marry the Bride of Christ which would,at least to me,mean that theologically it is not possible to ordain those who prefer or are attracted to men,sinceyou would be taking a vow to act in Persona Christi,married to your Bride the Church. A man who was disordered in his sexuality would be starting out with a lie,thereby entering the Culture of Death.

He also said fidelity to Church teaching was imperative.This is significant both before entering the seminary and as an ordained priest.

[Slyfox]

Cool!

[Bonaparte]

"The way that a man thinks is right... leads to death."

Preach it, brother!

[RobbyS]

Check this out: Meet the Press,Apr. 28. I am most interested in Neuhaus' Remarks.

[Bonaparte]

" It is like saying that someone who dreams of robbing the church treasury can be the church treasurer, as long as he promises not to touch the money."

Or a satanist who dreams of desecrating the sacraments.

[maryz]

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?

I had that thought, too. It may just be something he didn't quite think through all the way or one of those things that don't quite sound in words the way they "sounded" as an unspoken thought (I've had that happen often enough).

[maryz]

They forgot their mission and now they are cowed by the thought of drag queens picketing churches and throwing condoms at newly ordained priests . . . .

I still wonder whether these things happened when and where the local bishop was trying to weed out gays in the seminaries. I've heard they've been doing some of that over the past ten years or so. And I don't think I've heard of incidents in the sees of the truly left wing bishops.

[maryz]

BTW, the word "celibate" simply means "unmarried." The vow of celibacy is a vow not to wed; the vow of chastity is the vow not to fool around.

The Latin word from which it's derived means "unmarried." In normal present-day English it means refraining from sex. I enjoy etymologies, but they do not determine current meanings, else, for example, we wouldn't be able to use the word "arrive" unless we meant by boat or swimming, since it means "to reach shore," and we wouldn't use the word "dreary," except as it is used in Beowulf to describe the bloody mess left by Grendel.

[maryz]

I should have that I know there are people who use the word "celibacy" in the etymological sense (while letting their hearers believe they are using the common meaning), but they are weaseling -- they are being disingenuous and they know they are.

[ejo]

So glad to see you are back....Bevilacqua, known as the priest's priest. May the Lord with his multitude of angels be ever at his side during these coming years.

[maryz]

Can someone explain the concept of a "moral evil"?

Am I correct in assuming that the phrase was never heard before the Church had to deal with homosexuals?

The concept of moral evil has been around since there have been people, as far as I know. A staple of philosophical discussion for centuries has been the distinction between moral and physical evil. My own field of study has been literature, where the theme of moral vs. physical evil has been played over in all variations.

[sit-rep]

So does someone who has same-sex attraction but feel that it is a sin to act on such attraction kill themself, as someone else sarcastically suggested?

I am a grown man, one who does not get fooled easily these days. It is clique to the Homo's to infiltrate the church...Why?, I have my suspicions. No one can tell me that "...oh, only a small percentage of these Homosexual Priests who are gay, act on the urges". There are too many cases old and new, of Priests dying from aids to proove me wrong.

The act is not normal, regardless of what the socialists say. To have same sex urges is not normal, no matter what the socialists say. The human race are mammals made to multiply. A woman gives birth and the new life grows to do it again. Being Homosexual among Normal human beings is a flaw. You want to call it genetics, fine call it genetics, but it is still a flaw no matter what the socialists say.

If a Homo kills himself, this would be another flaw. As in a Normal human being the same. Killing one's self is a cop out...a flaw in their thinking.

Or do you honestly believe that people choose to have same-sex attraction (as opposed to choosing to act on such attraction)?

As stated above, I do believe people choose to have same sex attraction, and it is a flaw; a quirk if you will in the head. I do not think other mammals desire another member's appendage in their anus, or orally. Sure, they hang out together as human friends would, but when the run across some babes(female), they generally fight for the domain don't they. Only humans, with the ability to think, act upon urges of same sex attraction.

There may be a few Homo Priests out there who do not, nor ever acted on the mental quirk we speak of. Because of this, I will never, send my son with a priest if he is even suspected of bieng a Homo, away for camp. And because of this, I say, keep the mentally flawed out of areas that contact our Children. Keep the mentally flawed out of our Churches, Scouts, Schools, Society. Anywhere they can contact our kids.

With this, I think it should be law that if one of these creatures do infact make contact with a kid, it be the parents of said child who determine the fate of said predator.

God forbids Homosexuality. If a Church down the street has a Mentally flawed priest giving Sermons and in charge of a house of God, he should be ousted on premise alone. The Bible rejects and lashes out at Homosexuality, so the followers of the good book should at least turn away from the sinner instead of embracing/accepting the act.

JMHO

SR

[Catholicguy]

Strange that a Catholic cardinal would condemn someone who gives up something bad for something good.

HAD he done what you, falsely, asserted he had done, that would have been strange.

The only "strangeness" involved here is your misinterpretation of his words.

[american colleen]

Just an observation, but it appears on the surface of things that a chaste homosexual is an oxymoron.

Yes, it does seem like that is so. IMHO only, it seems to me that it springs from always putting sex at the forefront of your life. Living in Boston, all the radio shows are all about "the scandal" all the time. Any caller who calls up the shows who is gay, announces it within 30 seconds of his call. It always strikes me "so? why do I care"? But it is so important for them to let you know where they are coming from. It is who they are. It's sad when someone's sexual orientation defines them as a person.

[JoshGray]

Do you ask "why do I care" when the caller identifies himself as Catholic or "not Catholic"?

[american colleen]

Being Catholic is germaine to the conversation in this topic because it usually revolves around celibacy and the faith of Catholics. Whether you are homosexual or not shouldn't matter.

[SkyPilot]

A gay person "can't give up his orientation," Father Komonchak said.

Bovine Scatology!

I know two men very well who were in the "gay lifestyle." One is now married with 6 children (yes--six). If you listened to his story about being a homosexual, I betcha $50.00 you would cry. It was tragic. He sought help to get out of it-- and the psych "doctors" told him the problem was he was THAT HE WANTED OUT OF IT!

You should see this man today. He is one of the most perfect husbands and fathers you would ever want to meet. But he will tell you the truth about what it is to chained to that Hell.

Today, we have exhanged that truth for a lie.

[JoshGray]

heh.

Homosexuals are being scapegoated by various members of the Church in an attempt to deflect criticism away from the fact that they've been harboring known molesters of children of both sexes and other criminals for years, but it's "not germaine" to outside commentary?

Sorry, but it became relevant as soon as the scapegoating started.

Now, whether or not a commentator is Catholic is only germaine while discussing the Church's policy on priests -- I really don't think a non-Catholic has any business voicing an opinion on celibacy, banning homosexuals from the priesthood, etc. If the discussion is about the criminal actions of the Church, it's irrelevant.

[SkyPilot]

Homosexuals are being scapegoated

Straight out of the "talking points" being circulated in e-mail, pro-homosexual websites, and fed to sympathetic reporters.

If you can't dispute the facts (homosexual men are attracted to young boys), pound the table about being "scapegoated."

[Always Right]

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.

Well, well, well, what do we have here..."diverges from the mainstream thinking by U.S. Catholics"????? I don't think so. The Catholic church is still strongly against homosexuality unlike the radical pro-gay media. The media is so far gone, they just can't believe such a simple truth.