12/05/2001 The Tablet
Sexuality in the seminary
James O'Keefe
A high proportion of homosexuals is found in some local Churches among Catholic priests and Catholic seminarians. Does it matter? How should these Churches react? These questions are considered by the rector of the Ushaw seminary in Durham.
THE questions raised by Mark Dowd in his Tablet article ("Gays in the priesthood", 5 May) and in his television programme Queer and Catholic are very important.
We must be clear, however, for a start, that the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not say that homosexual orientation is "intrinsically disordered". It does say that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered".
Mark Dowd writes in his Tablet article that Archbishop Bertone, secretary to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, declared recently that "men with a homosexual orientation should not be admitted to seminary life". The quotation comes from a Catholic News Service (CNS) report following the publication of the book La Confessione, containing conversations with a homosexual priest, by the Italian journalist Marco Politi. The CNS report went on: "In a written statement provided to CNS, Archbishop Bertone said: âIt cannot be denied that when homosexuality becomes widespread or acceptable in a certain cultural or geographical region, this can have negative effects even within the priesthood.' Although the homosexual inclination is not sinful in itself, it âevokes moral concern' because it is a strong temptation to actions that âare always in themselves evil', the archbishop said."
Some believe that the archbishop described the homosexual orientation as "objectively disordered". This is not what the report says. CNS itself, however, is quite inaccurate when it goes on to remark that "the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls the homosexual inclination âobjectively disordered'". It does not. At the very least, there needs to be consistency of expression, clarity and compassion in approaching this extremely sensitive subject. Many people are hurt and confused not only by the language, but by what can appear to be a different approach when an "official statement" differs from a statement in the catechism.
I know from those of my friends who are gay in orientation that the Church's uncompromising stand does present a real challenge for many. It need not be a particular problem for seminary rectors, however, because of the Church's expectation that priests in the Catholic Church are to be chaste celibates. Men and women who can embrace chastity and celibacy can offer courageous witness in our world to non-possessive love, to an openness to vulnerability, availability and personal integrity.
I would personally be very sad if there was ever a time when there was no witness to celibacy among secular priests. Of course celibacy is a matter of discipline in the Catholic Church, not an intrinsic dimension of ordained priesthood, and the present rule could change at some time in the future.
The current presumption is that there are more gay seminarians and priests today than there were in the past. How can we know? I started in junior seminary in 1959; we simply did not have the language to talk about the affective side of our lives, or about sexuality or orientation. It is true, however, that a significant number of priests gave up active ministry after 1968, and many of them married. It may be that these departures left a higher proportion of homosexuals in the secular priesthood.
Certainly, the proportion of gay men in formation for ministerial priesthood in the Catholic Church is higher than that in the population as a whole. I am very cautious about the percentages suggested by the American seminary rector Donald Cozzens, who appeared on the television programme, and the researcher Richard Sipe. Some of my colleagues in the United States are very critical of the ways they have reached these conclusions. None the less, the proportion of gay men in Catholic seminaries and the Catholic priesthood does raise questions.
One adverse effect of these large proportions of homosexuals may be that heterosexuals who have made the sacrifice involved in accepting celibacy for the sake of the kingdom begin to feel that the sign value of what they have done is being negated. For while they have had to give up the prospect of marrying, becoming a parent and having children, no such choice has been made by gay men. Some (not many) seminarians have given as their reason for leaving the seminary and formation the preponderance of homosexual seminarians in the community. Men whose own human development needs to include relationships with women are at some disadvantage.
Homosexual students and priests have their own difficulties to overcome. There are very few role models for them. As one friend of mine says: "What is missing is the narrative." In other words, the story of gay priests cannot yet be told; many of us might not know how difficult it is for gay clergy to operate in a society which is still so prejudiced.
I do not believe for one moment, however, that Sr Jeannine Gramick is right, as quoted by Mark Dowd, when she says that "homosexuality is a time bomb ticking in the Church". I am certain that seminary rectors are more concerned about the personal, spiritual, academic and pastoral formation of all their students than the sexual orientation of any of them.
Our society is obsessed with sex (not the same as sexuality), but is not well informed about it. We are only approaching the low foothills in our appreciation of the mystery of sexuality and the integration of sexuality into our personality. It is only since the first half of the 1900s, following the work of Freud and Jung and others, that we have been able to talk about these things. It is only 50 years ago that the advice to seminarians before their summer holidays included the phrase: "And beware of women, especially those of the opposite sex."
THE real issue for us is maturity and integrity, not orientation. It is vital that future priests are able to relate at real depth to a wide range of people. If a student is misogynist or homophobic or only comfortable with other gay men, then I believe that he is not called to diocesan priesthood. I do not believe that a seminarian should be asked to leave a seminary just because his orientation is homosexual. It is far more important that he is passionate about being a herald of the Gospel, can preach and preside in the local community.
The work and guidance of the Holy Spirit is what fundamentally attracts us to the Catholic priesthood, but it is always useful for us to reflect at the human level on our motives, which are unconscious as well as conscious. We could benefit from some honest reflection on what it is about the local worshipping community that attracts a preponderance of gay men to enter the priesthood. Various explanations have been advanced: that these men feel safer in a virtually all-male environment; that gay seminarians are relieved at not having to admit that they are not attracted to women; that the priesthood has resemblances to the caring and acting professions, for elements of both are included in the role of the priest. Others wonder if the pull is towards a cultic or conservative priestly profession which can appear to give clarity and security in a complex world.
It seems that we are not yet able to have an informed and honest discussion about such things. We certainly need clarification about judgements such as "intrinsic disorder". I would have serious concerns about a student who seemed only interested in pursuing comfort or status. I am inclined to call these intrinsic disorders, yet we do not use such language about the abuse of power. The effects of original sin are alive and well in all of us. At the same time, our baptismal commitment invites us to make moral choices which are increasingly life-giving and motivated by real love.
So there are questions to be asked about the sexual integration and maturity of all future priests, including those who are gay. We need to look carefully at the basic principles involved in human and personal development, affirming that we are all loved by God and that our sexuality is a gift from God.
Observers and commentators such as Mark Dowd are pushing a political agenda alongside pastoral concern for gay people in general and seminarians in particular. There is nothing wrong with that, but the two need separating out. The political debate needs to be carried on with rigour and consistency. Pastoral attitudes must be compassionate and open to change. But conversion of heart must always be the beginning and end of any truly Christian approach.
Sexuality in the seminary
James O'Keefe
A high proportion of homosexuals is found in some local Churches among Catholic priests and Catholic seminarians. Does it matter? How should these Churches react? These questions are considered by the rector of the Ushaw seminary in Durham.
THE questions raised by Mark Dowd in his Tablet article ("Gays in the priesthood", 5 May) and in his television programme Queer and Catholic are very important.
We must be clear, however, for a start, that the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not say that homosexual orientation is "intrinsically disordered". It does say that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered".
Mark Dowd writes in his Tablet article that Archbishop Bertone, secretary to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, declared recently that "men with a homosexual orientation should not be admitted to seminary life". The quotation comes from a Catholic News Service (CNS) report following the publication of the book La Confessione, containing conversations with a homosexual priest, by the Italian journalist Marco Politi. The CNS report went on: "In a written statement provided to CNS, Archbishop Bertone said: âIt cannot be denied that when homosexuality becomes widespread or acceptable in a certain cultural or geographical region, this can have negative effects even within the priesthood.' Although the homosexual inclination is not sinful in itself, it âevokes moral concern' because it is a strong temptation to actions that âare always in themselves evil', the archbishop said."
Some believe that the archbishop described the homosexual orientation as "objectively disordered". This is not what the report says. CNS itself, however, is quite inaccurate when it goes on to remark that "the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls the homosexual inclination âobjectively disordered'". It does not. At the very least, there needs to be consistency of expression, clarity and compassion in approaching this extremely sensitive subject. Many people are hurt and confused not only by the language, but by what can appear to be a different approach when an "official statement" differs from a statement in the catechism.
I know from those of my friends who are gay in orientation that the Church's uncompromising stand does present a real challenge for many. It need not be a particular problem for seminary rectors, however, because of the Church's expectation that priests in the Catholic Church are to be chaste celibates. Men and women who can embrace chastity and celibacy can offer courageous witness in our world to non-possessive love, to an openness to vulnerability, availability and personal integrity.
I would personally be very sad if there was ever a time when there was no witness to celibacy among secular priests. Of course celibacy is a matter of discipline in the Catholic Church, not an intrinsic dimension of ordained priesthood, and the present rule could change at some time in the future.
The current presumption is that there are more gay seminarians and priests today than there were in the past. How can we know? I started in junior seminary in 1959; we simply did not have the language to talk about the affective side of our lives, or about sexuality or orientation. It is true, however, that a significant number of priests gave up active ministry after 1968, and many of them married. It may be that these departures left a higher proportion of homosexuals in the secular priesthood.
Certainly, the proportion of gay men in formation for ministerial priesthood in the Catholic Church is higher than that in the population as a whole. I am very cautious about the percentages suggested by the American seminary rector Donald Cozzens, who appeared on the television programme, and the researcher Richard Sipe. Some of my colleagues in the United States are very critical of the ways they have reached these conclusions. None the less, the proportion of gay men in Catholic seminaries and the Catholic priesthood does raise questions.
One adverse effect of these large proportions of homosexuals may be that heterosexuals who have made the sacrifice involved in accepting celibacy for the sake of the kingdom begin to feel that the sign value of what they have done is being negated. For while they have had to give up the prospect of marrying, becoming a parent and having children, no such choice has been made by gay men. Some (not many) seminarians have given as their reason for leaving the seminary and formation the preponderance of homosexual seminarians in the community. Men whose own human development needs to include relationships with women are at some disadvantage.
Homosexual students and priests have their own difficulties to overcome. There are very few role models for them. As one friend of mine says: "What is missing is the narrative." In other words, the story of gay priests cannot yet be told; many of us might not know how difficult it is for gay clergy to operate in a society which is still so prejudiced.
I do not believe for one moment, however, that Sr Jeannine Gramick is right, as quoted by Mark Dowd, when she says that "homosexuality is a time bomb ticking in the Church". I am certain that seminary rectors are more concerned about the personal, spiritual, academic and pastoral formation of all their students than the sexual orientation of any of them.
Our society is obsessed with sex (not the same as sexuality), but is not well informed about it. We are only approaching the low foothills in our appreciation of the mystery of sexuality and the integration of sexuality into our personality. It is only since the first half of the 1900s, following the work of Freud and Jung and others, that we have been able to talk about these things. It is only 50 years ago that the advice to seminarians before their summer holidays included the phrase: "And beware of women, especially those of the opposite sex."
THE real issue for us is maturity and integrity, not orientation. It is vital that future priests are able to relate at real depth to a wide range of people. If a student is misogynist or homophobic or only comfortable with other gay men, then I believe that he is not called to diocesan priesthood. I do not believe that a seminarian should be asked to leave a seminary just because his orientation is homosexual. It is far more important that he is passionate about being a herald of the Gospel, can preach and preside in the local community.
The work and guidance of the Holy Spirit is what fundamentally attracts us to the Catholic priesthood, but it is always useful for us to reflect at the human level on our motives, which are unconscious as well as conscious. We could benefit from some honest reflection on what it is about the local worshipping community that attracts a preponderance of gay men to enter the priesthood. Various explanations have been advanced: that these men feel safer in a virtually all-male environment; that gay seminarians are relieved at not having to admit that they are not attracted to women; that the priesthood has resemblances to the caring and acting professions, for elements of both are included in the role of the priest. Others wonder if the pull is towards a cultic or conservative priestly profession which can appear to give clarity and security in a complex world.
It seems that we are not yet able to have an informed and honest discussion about such things. We certainly need clarification about judgements such as "intrinsic disorder". I would have serious concerns about a student who seemed only interested in pursuing comfort or status. I am inclined to call these intrinsic disorders, yet we do not use such language about the abuse of power. The effects of original sin are alive and well in all of us. At the same time, our baptismal commitment invites us to make moral choices which are increasingly life-giving and motivated by real love.
So there are questions to be asked about the sexual integration and maturity of all future priests, including those who are gay. We need to look carefully at the basic principles involved in human and personal development, affirming that we are all loved by God and that our sexuality is a gift from God.
Observers and commentators such as Mark Dowd are pushing a political agenda alongside pastoral concern for gay people in general and seminarians in particular. There is nothing wrong with that, but the two need separating out. The political debate needs to be carried on with rigour and consistency. Pastoral attitudes must be compassionate and open to change. But conversion of heart must always be the beginning and end of any truly Christian approach.