www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Is gay clergy Ok?

Padraig,

I do not believe that a person who intends to be celibate runs around telling people that he is a heterosexual or a homosexual unless he intends to live out their sexual inclinations. I believe that the attempt to make homosexuality into a natural category is in itself a sign of the disorder. I also believe that enforced celibacy was a mistake which I hope Rome corrects someday. Those who have such a gift ought to be honored for having it but it's difficult for me to believe eveyone who is called to ordained ministry is also given a gift of celibacy.

The homosexual tendency is a disorder and people need help overcoming it.

Dan L

I don't understand the modern tendency to bare one's soul and every intimate detail of one's life to perfect strangers. The whole country has been watching Oprah too much. Certainly, the Church has the right to set rules as to whom it chooses to ordain, and to also determine those not eligible for ordination. I agree with you, Dan, on enforced celibacy. Celibacy is a wondrous gift when it is given by God to certain people. For those not called or disposed to it, it can be a huge cross, as well as, an occasion of sin.

Dan and ByzanTN,

The reason that an individual's sexual inclinations are brought up is because bishops now ask this as part of the screening process prior to entering a seminary. This is as it should be, regardless of celibacy issues. This is all I am referring to, not that such inclinations should be put out for general consumption.

Dan,

I think you misinterpret my last post. I believe I worded it badly. I don't dispute Church teaching on homosexuality, nor do I dispute it being a disorder. When I refer to homosexuality or gay men my intent is not to make it into a natural category. I merely refer to those people who acknowledge such a tendancy to that occasion of sin. I am certainly not saying that if we had married men in the Latin priesthood, practicing homosexuals would be OK! What I am saying is that the presence of married men in the priesthood would lessen the overall tendency or climate for such an occasion of sin to occur for someone so inclined, making them less of a risk.

The problem with Rome dropping enforced celibacy is that not everyone will view such a move in it's historical context, as we do. Many in the American Church will see this as a progressive, liberalizing move, and the American Church has proven that when given an inch they will happily take a mile. I am afraid it would lead calls for the ordination of women and who knows what else.

I am also afraid it would be impossible to find a Pope who would make such a move without that Pope being "progressive" in other areas of Church Doctrine, Liturgy, etc.

Doug

Doug,

No, I understood what you meant. I'm often too direct and make people feel uncomfortable. Please, forgive me. I was rather speaking more generally. I believe the question asked of seminarians ought not to be are you gay or straight, but do you have a gift of celibacy or are you going to get married. Since the Roman Catholic Church would not ask the latter question because marriage is out of the question in most cases then the question about celibacy should be asked. If for some reason a question about homosexual desires is asked then the person should be referred to a Christian psychologist who understands homosexual desires as disordered and if this cannot be subdued then the person should not proceed to ordination.

Dan L

Dan,

There is nothing wrong with being direct, and no offense taken. The only point I disagree with is that I feel the question of sexual inclination must be asked, in light of the NRB study of the abuse I referenced above. The fact that some seminaries came to harbour such a culture greatly offends me. I think an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure in this case.

Rgds,

Doug

I think that some valid points were made. The first being the Oprah-esque desire to tell all to everyone. It can, (yes, even in these "enlightened" times) cause scandal tosomeone to hear that their pastor is gay...even if he is gay and celibate, and far more so should he be unchaste, such as Gene Robinson. If a priest is an unmarried priest, then he should not announce his preferences, either heterosexual, or homosexual, as having chosen the monastic life, this is an issue that he should be personally dead to, one relegated only to his struggles to avoid the temptation to sin. As to the second, as the psychological tests are administered asking this question, then those administering the tests may determine the suitability of the candidate for ordination taking into account other factors. The damage that outright scandal can cause must be set against the candidates personal qualities.


Gaudior, aware that people can be scandalized by far more than the sort of scandal that makes the newspapers

Doug,

Since when do the bishops ask this?

Tony

"A key element of the visitation is that any faculty member or student will be allowed to speak with the visitation team about the condition of the seminary, he said." (CNS STORY: Vatican firm...)

I remembered these type of visits. The visitors were usually corraled away from the students, especially those who witnessed too much.

Joe

Tony,

NRB study [usccb.org]

page 81: "Before the 1990s, candidates for the seminary were not asked about their sexual orientation. Over the last fifteen years, however, as dioceses and seminaries established screening procedures, it has become routine to inquire about a candidate's sexual orientation. Currently, some bishops do not accept men with a homosexual orientation as candidates for the priesthood." The study goes on to say that other bishops do accept men with this orientation.

I didn't mean to indicate that each bishop sat each candidate down and questioned him personally. I observed that the screening was established at the diocesan level, and the decision on whether to admit these individuals was made at the same level. Therefore I would assume the procedures developed for screening, and the questions asked, would be approved by the bishop and asked on his authority.

Doug

Doug,

Here's my only point. There is no such thing as "gay" in the ontological sense. One is either "in Christ" or one is not "in Christ". Old things are passing away. All things are becoming new.

If a person by the way he lives or by his statement "I am gay" or the like makes it clear that he prefers the sexual promiscuity above Christ it is clear that he is not "in Christ" and should surely not become a priest.

If one is in Christ one prefers Christ over everything else and he is thence inclined to lead his vocation ought to be honored, encouraged, and developed.

If one is in Christ and not into his own fleshly desires he may learn to function as a good priest. If one is into the "world, the flesh, and the devil" one cannot "learn" how to be a good priest. If one is in Christ all other categories will become irrelavent and it will be evident in the way a person lives. If one is in Christ one will learn to resist all other temptations. If one IS in Christ one will not BE gay.

Here's a more or less secular illustration. If one joins the army and serves well and one is tempted but overcomes all desire to drink too much, or to murder a fellow soldier, or to take his belongings, or to have sex with him no one cares at all whether this person has such temptations or not. Conversely if a soldier proclaims I like to drink until I've blotto just before I go into battle he will not be invited into the military unless he is willing to correct his ways. If one proclaims I like to sleep with one or another of my fellow soldiers on nights of my choosing because I like their bodies his fellow soldiers are going to be very unwilling, I should think, to share a barracks with him. Why? Because as the Church teaches, this overriding desire, so overriding that one feels oneself compelled to proclaim it loud and long and to insist that it is quite normal, is in fact a disorder.

Dan Lauffer

Thanks for the quote from the Vatican, Todd:

"those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty..."

Hmmm...

Since the 60's we have come a long way away from calling homosexuals 'those who are afflicted with evil tendencies' thanks be to God!

As the original query arose from Lutheran circles and has entered our discussion here, we may want to separate what the Orthodox may never do from what some Protestants have been doing for some time.

Some of you here will know if any of the Orthodox Sees have ever covered up homosexual scandals involving priests. I have never heard of one.

But we are all too familiar with the scandals among our Western Catholic religionists. And to a degree, there have been scandals of a homosexual nature among Protestants as well.

The other thing that cannot be denied is that almost all pedophilia and pederasty among the clergy (and the laity AND the non-churched) is committed by heterosexual men. This is an indisputed fact.

It surely seems not just probable that when this question of homosexual clergy is raised, we find an all too easy target upon which to place our own guilt. In traditional language-- we find a scape goat. If we can point a spot light on their 'sin' for a few moments, we get some relief of living with our sin and our guilt and our shame.

Who knows how long men have been copulating with men (in military and prison settings) down through the millenia! The Apostle Paul surely knew of the pagan practices of idolatry (sex temples) in the communities where he and his disciples founded churches.

But the religious debate does not centre upon copulation of a degrading sort, nor of an idolatrous sort. The debate, in Protestant circles, NOT Orthodox ones, centres upon holy and godly love that Christian lesbians and gay men share while living faithful lives as Christian servants in local parishes.


Make no mistake. Pederasty is a perversion (no adjectives like 'vile' need precede the noun!).

Christian homosexuals are not perverts. blessing to all, wg

Very well said, Brian, and in only two lines. You are a man after my own heart! wg

I dispute it. Please cite your references.

In the study of the sexual abuse among Roman Catholic clergy in the United States, the majority of victims were boys (80%), and the majority of the victims were also over the age of 12 (67%)*. These are clear indications of the abuse problem is not being committed by mostly heterosexual men. In fact, it points to the opposite conclusion.

I'm not saying that we should simply look at homosexuality as the only problem, and I agree with Dan that one is either "in Christ" or not. However, homosexuality is a disorder, and the male homosexual culture, in general, places much emphasis on youth, which often leads to pederasty. If we simply ignore these issues and pretend that heterosexuality and homosexuality are two equally valid orientations, then we won't really solve the problem.

* See the John Jay Report at http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/index.htm , specifically the details on the victims at http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/incident3.pdf

Hi Dan,

You said above:
I understand your point fully and for someone in Christ this is undoubtedly true. Some bishops accept men who have faced past temptations and who are now in Christ. Other bishops fear those temptations may some day again assert themselves and choose not to take a chance with these individuals.

Alcoholism is a disorder which can be overcome with treatment and prayer. But many people will feel the temptation of the disorder for the rest of their lives. And some people will act on it. This is something true of many disorders, and this is how I think the bishops must view prior sexual disorders.

Your anology with the military is good. But let me add to it another individual. This individual never acted on the temptations he felt, and joined the military hoping the disciplined life would help him surpress these temptations. No one knows of his temptations. But he is not really suited to military life, and never really had a desire to serve. He was just hoping to supress his temptations and he hoped military life would help him. His problems are now compounded by the fact that he is unhappy with the life he has chosen. He acts on his impulse to get blotto drunk at the worst possible moment and many suffer the consequences.

This is precisely what was going in in some instances with candidates for the priesthood. From the NBR report page 84:

"According to some witnesses, certain sexually immature or conflicted individuals and certain homosexual men appear to have been attracted to the priesthood because they mistakenly viewed the requirement of celibacy as a means of avoiding struggles with their sexual identities. Others may have felt it provided them with a "cover"- a ready explanation as to why they were not married." It goes on to say that some troubled individuals felt they could "hide" in the priesthood.

So not everyone who said they were called were really called. Some were running away from something. It would be wonderful if everyone who claimed to have the gift of celibacy and a call to God were being 100% truthful, but the above evidence and the terrible damage brought to the Church and many individuals show this is not so. In the military one is often responsible for the physical well being of his fellows. A priest is responsible for our spiritual well being as well. I have two small girls Dan, confidential screening must continue, hard questions must be asked of all candidates to the priesthood. There must be more oversight during their training to make sure that the lives they lead are true to their calling.

As far as the other candidates policing their own, many were coerced into keeping silent. The report speaks to all of this.

Wild Goose wrote:
WG, please click on either of the links I put in my other posts and read the studies. 81% of the abuse incidents were homosexual in nature. (Yes, I know that heterosexual men can commit homosexual offenses). But not enough to explain away the 81% figure. These studies were done by reputable organizations. If you have some evidence that shows these reports to be in error, please cite your sources.

Doug

What does that mean. If we call something by a different name than we did in the 1960's how does that change the nature of the thing described?

This is false on its face. How can men with boy sin be called heterosexual? How might you go about proving such an assertion? My point still stands. There is no ontological reality in either hetero or homo sexuality. It is a question of behavior. For us the behavior is the behavior of Christ or not of Christ. The behavior may develop into a conditioned response but beyond that there is no evidence of any kind for your assertion.[/quote]

I have never had sex with a person of my own gender. What is your point?

This has no relationship to the issue at hand.

By definition this statement is not true.

If there was such a person you would be correct.

Dan L