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."
You ask for stats to back up my argument of “self-identification,” but, unfortunately for our society, all you have to do is look around. How many organizations define themselves as gay and/or lesbian? How many define themselves as straight or heterosexual? How many laws protecting gays/lesbians have been proposed or passed, as opposed to laws protecting heterosexuals, specifically, by that term? How many “tolerance” programs, teacher-training programs, textbooks, etc. that present homosexuality as an “alternate lifestyle” have been mandated in schools? How many such programs have been introduced in the public sector that glorify heterosexuality?
How many media stories, sitcoms, TV series, talk shows (and talk show hosts) day after day, tell us the stories of those who identities as “gay” are central to the story? Why is there a group of Congressman who identify themselves as “gay,” when there’s no such group identifying themselves as “straight?” Why are there “gay pride” parades, and no “staight-pride” parades?
And lastly, if homosexuality is not a problem for a priest, why is it such a point of contention? If a homosexual wants to enter the priesthood so earnestly, and he is good, spiritual, celibate man, why would he identify himself as “gay?” What would be the point – if he doesn’t engage in homosexual acts? Could it be the same rationale – acceptance of this “sexual identity,” -- that propels the proliferation of laws and programs for acceptance throughout the country? Could it be the aim of those homosexuals who want to enter and/or remain in the priesthood that not only their “identity” be accepted, but, as in society itself, that the homosexual act be accepted? Is that why celibacy itself is under attack?
???? The irascible, appetitive, and concupiscible tendencies latent or manifest in the average and typical human condition are not on the same level as same-sex attraction. We don't have people receiving multimillion out-of-court settlements because they saw a priest eat too much or grimace with distemper. This "scholar" really needs to do some homework. Homosexuality is considered a "grave disorder." That's a whole different ballgame. So to speak.
Hey,Cardinal McCarrick! You've got a problem over at Catholic Univ. with this Grabowski character. He needs to start studying theology and philosophy all over again from ground up.
Either you believe that it's ok for priests to molest little girls, or you don't believe that little girls are molested by priests. Which is it?
I want all molestors dealt with, and you seem to be fixated on just the boy-molestors.
So which is it: girls aren't molested by priests or priests should be allowed molest girls.
There is, of course, another option, but I don't see a reason to stoop quite that low.
Wrong.
celibate
celibate (sèl´e-bît) noun
1.One who abstains from sexual intercourse, especially by reason of religious vows.
2.One who is unmarried.
adjective
1.Abstaining from sexual intercourse, especially by reason of religious vows.
2.Unmarried; unwed.
[Latin caelibâtus, From caelebs, caelib-, unmarried.]
chaste
chaste (châst) adjective
chaster, chastest
1.Morally pure in thought or conduct; decent and modest.
2.a. Not having experienced sexual intercourse; virginal.
b. Abstaining from unlawful sexual intercourse.
c. Abstaining from sexual intercourse; celibate.
3.Pure or simple in design or style; austere.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin castus.] - chaste´ly adverb
- chaste´ness noun
I already addressed it in #160, but you knew that, didn't you.
You know what I think? I am usually not this direct, but you deserve it.
I believe you have never accept Christ, I don't think you ever will, and you are destined to spend eternity in Hell.
I disagree that the priesthood is a "greater good." It is a different good from marriage, and the two are not incompatible (as the Eastern Rite experience testifies). Plus, this view that the priesthood is superior to the plain old lay life is an ugly form of clericalism that we need to get rid of.
think in terms of a life long accumulation of Sacramental Grace and the transmission of Faith onto the next generation and the Sacramental graces from that generation and so on...it is an enormous amount...remember -"To God, all points in time are present in their immediacy."CCC)
Tis a bizarre concept to speak in terms of an "amount" of grace, as if Divine Life were like water in bottle, "accumulating" as in a storehouse. Grace is not a thing; it is the Life of God present in one, which makes that person grow in identification with Christ as one acts more and more like Christ.
But the priesthood does not, in itself, demand this; the Church in the Latin Rite demands this. I agree with you that Bevilacqua seems to be saying that the priesthood is a "greater good," which is why his theology is bad. There are many gifts, but One Spirit.
Let's rid ourselves of this triumphalist notion that the priesthood is a superior way of life. It is not. It is a different way of life, to which some are called. Others are called to do other things in the Vineyard.
The "superiority" of Holy Orders has led many a man to think that he is, in fact, superior to the rest of men, which is as pharasaical a view as one could have.
The Catholic Catechism disagrees with you:
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
And, in 2357, the Catechism says "Its (homosexuality) psychological genesis remains largely unexplained."
Possibly environment, but possibly genetic as well.
I believe you have never accept Christ, I don't think you ever will, and you are destined to spend eternity in Hell.
"Hell" would be an eternity with people like you, but I doubt that's what you meant.
I'm not arguing for "welcoming" homosexuals into the priesthood. What I am saying is that Bevilacqua's explanation of why homosexuals should not be admitted is weak, and flawed.
There are many homosexuals in the priesthood today. You can guess who they are as well as I can. But, most of them are also celibate, which means you will not be able to roust them out of the ministry under present canon law.
I chuckle at those who say we should use "psychological testing" to screen out homosexuals, when some of those same posters, on another thread, said it was modern psychology which has gotten us into the current mess.
They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
This is very true, but the Cardinal's point is do they belong in the Church as priests?
It's quite likely he doesn't (most priests I know and you know don't identify themselves in any way sexually), but there seems to be a desire now that he do so, so that he can be rousted from the priesthood or prevented from entering a seminary.
See, that's the problem here. When I was in the seminary, back in the 70s, there was no "identification" of one's sexual orientation. It was never discussed, no one ever talked about sexual attraction to women or men. It was as if we were asexual. In fact, much of our training just assumed we were; that we had all come to terms with celibacy, that that issue was settled, and now let's all just ignore our urgings and follow the Lord. When a man decided that he couldn't do that, he left on his own, or, if he was discovered in some compromising position, he was kicked out.
Now, I know that some of these men were homosexual; I could guess which ones, but I could be wrong. The thing is, they didn't talk about it, act on it, or give any hint that they were "gay".
It would be real shame at this point to force these men to somehow declare their sexual orientation in some kind of witch hunt to rid the priesthood of all gays.
This is what Cardinal George was referring to when he said on MTP that it is a difficult thing in most cases to determine which priests are gay. Nor, I would contend, should the Church do that.
Screen for homosexuality in the future, but let's not destroy some of these good men who are trying their best to live holy and celibate lives because we want to "purify" the Church of gays.
You couldn't do that even if you tried.
That's over the top, SP. Why not pray for him, instead, or just not say anything at all?
You're a better man than this.
This week we were treated in this community to an article in the local paper explaining where a 64 year old priest assigned to the neighboring parish had disappeared last year. He married the Director of Liturgy!
The other neighboring Parish just learned that a priest who had served there 18 years (now deceased) had molested numerous boys during his life as a priest. He, too, was moved around the State -- like the priests in Boston. Parish members have suggested removing his name from the Parish hall because it is an embarrassment. Prior to this revelation he was noted (in all his parishes) as a pastor who could "get things done" in a building campaign.
And then there was the Deacon I knew in another city (married with 8 children) who left his wife for a parishioner just 2 years after he was ordained. So much for married clerics.
We must pray for the leaders of our church.
I have a dear friend who was in the minor and major seminaries for about 12 years, and he reports the same thing.
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.