Pope Francis on Gay Priests

What's your opinion of Pope Francis' infamous statement about gay priests? Actually that is not a fair question for me to ask, because most people have not read his statement, but what the Media has said about his statement. Everyone and his brother has sounded off on this topic,  so I feel no obligation to restrain myself. After so much ink has already been spilled, on paper and on-line, my remarks may be seem like overkill. In fact,  at this late date, I doubt there is any great interest about what the pope actually said. Even so, since the secular press has widely distorted and  misinterpreted his message,  I believe my attempt to add  a pinch of honesty and accuracy is justified.  

To begin with, here is a piece of advice that I followed and found helpful: watch a partial video of the pope's news conference (available at romereports.com.). The pope is speaking in Italian, but he is not that difficult to understand, especially if you have a little familiarity with Spanish, French, or Latin. And even if you do not, the nuances, his tone of voice, and his gestures add a great deal of meaning to his message. The video is much better than only reading the typed manuscript to get a proper sense of what he said. If you have to settle for a typed translation of the the interview, however,  the most accurate one I have found is at Zenit.org. , in two parts. The transcript covers the whole one hour twenty-two minutes session.

 Here's a sentence of the pope that went around the world: "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" His next statement got less attention: " The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons; they must be integrated into society". His third received as much attention as the first, but also out of proper context: "The problem isn't this [homosexual] orientation - we must be like brothers and sisters. The problem is something else - the problem is lobbying, either for this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby."

All in all, the Media made it sound like the Pope didn't have much problem if a priest was into a gay life style, so long as he was trying to behave himself most of the time. The Media's misinterpretation of the first statement was meant to create the assumption: Sure, any  gay priest might have lapses now and then, and engage in homosexual sex, but so what? Gays are only human after all, and as long as they are trying to be good, God understands. However, the second statement of the pope with its reference to the Catechism develops and clarifies the meaning of the first. It is possible for a priest to experience sexual attraction to the same sex, not submit to the temptations, summon all the good will he can muster, bring the temptation to the Lord in prayer, and work successfully to remain faithful to his calling. In such a case, who indeed would the pope be, or anyone else, to judge such a man? Judging or condemning people who have same sex attraction for the fact of attraction is unjust and makes matters worse. The real answer is to help them address the issue, give them help and support they need in order to deal with the attraction,  and integrate them into the communal life of the Church and society.  Isolating and attacking people of good will  only alienate them and sour their good will. It makes no sense for the Church to presume bad will and insincerity on their part, especially when they are seeking to live as her sons and daughters.

I believe that is what the pope was trying to say, but he did not have the linguistic tools to say it. He spoke Italian in the video I saw, and so far as I know, neither Italian nor Spanish makes a distinction between homosexual and gay the way English does. Homosexual in English generally means someone who has same sex attraction, while gay means someone who actively embraces and lives the lifestyle. But many men who consider themselves homosexual because of same sex attraction do not want to have anything to do with the gay life style. The one does not equate with the other automatically, no matter what the gay lobby says. However, in his interview with the press, Pope Francis uses the terms homosexual and gay interchangeably, because he is speaking Italian and Spanish. Given all the other observations he made in the interview, and the faith context of all his remarks, I believe the media's superficial reporting will result in much misunderstanding for all who assume their news reports to be accurate and honest.

Acceptance of  same sex attraction does not imply approval of a gay life style Acceptance is simply the human and Christian basis for dialogue and ongoing support. In this country, given the confusion and lobbying in our culture,  people who have gender identity conflict as a result of same sex attraction need assistance to deal with the issue. Such assistance is precisely what the Courage organization is designed to offer. Their website (www.couragerc.net) is a treasure trove of Pastoral wisdom drawn from the rich Tradition and Spirituality of the Catholic Church. Since the Church has to speak out clearly out against the gay lifestyle, it also has to offer its ongoing support to its sons and daughters who have same sex attraction and help them to lead a chaste Christian life. Many instructive talks, conferences, books, CD'sand DVD's are available on the Courage website. (The Director of Courage, Rev. Paul Check, was recently interviewed online by Catholic World Report). Catholics, especially deacons and priests, need to be made aware and informed of the resources the Church has to offer. The problem isn't this homosexual orientation, the pope said, because he "must be as brother ans sisters" in Christ's Church.

The problem is the lobbying. That remark certainly got the Media's attention. Like a hound dog sniffing for the scent of the rabbit it is after, the reporters had a possible whiff of something scandalous. A scandal in the Curia!  A homosexual lobby there!? They must have been disappointed when the pope didn't wash any dirty  laundry in public for them. Very few reporters picked up on the positive remarks the pope went on to make about all the dedicated, even saintly, men and women who work quietly and unobtrusively in the Curia for the good of the Church. Nothing newsworthy in that! No scoops or Pulitzer Prizes!

The problem is lobbying of any sort, the pope said. Lobbying cannot be ignored because it can become a concerted effort to promote error as truth, evil as good, and wrong as right. Lobbying can take the special interest of a minority and pushes with all its resources to promote that interest of a segment over the common good of society as a whole. By lobbying, a small segment can gain power and influence out of proportion to what is rightfully theirs, and even go so far as to entrench its power by having its interest legislated into the law of the land. Of course the pope can not be so naive as to let the errors of the gay life style be confused with the splendor of Sacramental Marriage in the Church, the true nature of human sexuality in the plan of God,  and the beauty of the Catholic Theology of the Body, no matter what any lobby says to the contrary!

Fr. Robert Barron: Chesterton on Church

"...Recently I was perusing one of Chesterton's most popular books, Orthodoxy, and my attention was drawn to chapter 6, 'The Paradoxes of Christianity'. In this section of the book Chesterton recalls his puzzlement when he read the critiques of Christianity that came from so many different quarters. On the one hand, Christianity - especially Catholicism - was criticized for being too worldly, too caught up in wealth, property, pomp, and ceremony.Where, for instance was the spirit of the carpenter of Nazareth in the expensive theatrical display of the Vatican? On the other hand, Christianity was reviled for its excessive spiritualism, its indifference to the concrete concerns of the world, its tendency to pine after 'the things of heaven'. Similarly, some critics complained that Christianity, with its stress on sin, penance, and punishment, was excessively pessimistic, while others held that, given its emphasis on the love of God, the intervention of the saints, and the promise of eternal life, it was ridiculously optimistic. Finally, certain enemies of the faith maintained, probably with Joan of Arc, and the Crusades in mind, that Christianity was bloodthirsty and warlike, while others held, probably with Frances in mind, that Christianity was too pacific and nonviolent. What puzzled Chesterton, of course, was not that the Church had its critics, but that its critics were so varied, so at odds with one another, so mutually exclusive.Whatever, this Christianity was, he concluded, it must be something strangely shaped indeed, to inspire such a wildly divergent army of enemies. 

     Then it occurred to him that perhaps it was not Christianity that was misshapen, but rather its critics. Perhaps it was they who, from their various eccentric points of view, saw the rightly shaped Christianity as distorted: 'suppose we heard an unknown man spoken of by many men. Suppose we were puzzled to hear that some men said he was too tall, and some too short; some objected to his fatness, and some lamented his leanness; some thought him too dark and some too fair. One explanation...would be that he might be an odd shape. But there is another explanation. He might be the right shape.' It could be the case, in short, that 'it is Christianity that is sane, and all its critics are mad - in various ways' It is the sheer depth and breadth of the Church, the complexity and multifacetedness of it, which narrow-minded enemies cannot grasp. Christianity, Chesterton surmised, was perhaps, too capacious to be easily comprehended.

     However - and here is Chesterton's main point - it does not seem that Christianity is merely 'sensible,' standing . as it were, in the middle, taking in both extremes. It does not seem to be the case that the Church is somewhat worldly and some what otherworldly, to some degree life affirming and to some degree life denying, a little optimistic and a little pessimistic. on the contrary, there seems to be, everywhere in the life of the Church, a quality of excess, frenzy, enthusiasm: Francis of Assisi was 'more a shouting optimist than Walt Whitman' and St Jerome, 'in denouncing all evil, could paint the world blacker than Schopenhauer.' One Christian saint could be more starkly ascetical than the severest Stoic, another Christian saint could celebrate life more ecstatically than a priest of Dionysus. In defending the celibacy of the clergy, the Church could be 'ferociously against having children',  and in upholding marriage and family, it could be at the same time, ferociously for having children.' The Church consistently and poetically placed opposites side by side, and allowed them to coexist in all the purity, power, and intensity; Christianity encouraged lamb and lion to lie down together, without ever forcing the lion to become lamblike or the lamb lionlike. Chesterton offers us a wonderful image: The Church 'has always had a healthy hatred of pink. It hates that combination of two colors which is the feeble expedient of the philosophers. It hates that evolution of black into white which is tantamount to a dirty grey.' "

Bridging the Great Divide, Robert Barron, Bowman & Littlefield, pp. 5, 6

What a beautiful exposition of Chesterton's vision of the Church! I can't help thinking that much of the cultural Catholicism of today is precisely the bland "pink", or the dirty "grey" that are foreign to the Church's nature. Also, no individual saint, no matter how great, could ever perfectly harmonize or contain the richness of the Church in his own personality, first of all because all of us are limited creatures very much affected by original sin, and secondly because the virtues of a saint would have most likely been developed as a result of his conversion, and served as a corrective to the abuses of his day and age. So every age challenges us to sanctity with its unique blend of circumstances.

The Homosexual Seminarian or Priest

The following reflection on homosexuality in the priesthood springs from my musings  on Pope Benedict's statement about that topic. For the full quotation see the blog entry for March 1, 2013

Priesthood and homosexuality are "incompatible" says Pope Benedict. The reason he offers is that there is no renunciation, no sacrifice. The homosexual priest is not giving up marriage, "offering it up"or "sacrificing" it, since he would not want to get married anyway. He would 1) not want to father a child, 2) not be interested in the ongoing burden of fatherhood, 3) not be motivated to embrace a lifelong marriage to one woman, 4) nor look forward to a life that included a wife and a family.  A heterosexual priest would be sacrificing all of that.  The homosexual priest would not. So why should he want to be a priest, a man whom all call "father?" 

 

Perhaps one reason is so that "magically" by means of the the sacrament of Holy Orders, he can supernaturally assume a fatherhood he does not naturally experience? He experiences a lack, an absence, which he will not admit to himself as a negative,  and uses  Holy Orders as the means to somehow turn it into a positive? If so, it doesn't happen. He doesn't somehow because of ordination desire to father the way a heterosexual would. 

The maxim states: "Grace builds on nature". If nature is defective, the grace of Holy Orders doesn't repair the defect, it just builds on the flawed foundation. Yes, the homosexual priest will validly consecrate, validly give absolution, validly forgive sins and baptize, etc. because Christ works through the sacraments, but the homosexual priest won't experience himself fathering the way a heterosexual priest would. 

Presumably the homosexual would, as a priest, experience even more sexual desire for men because the brotherhood of the priesthood is masculine and the masculine is what attracts him. To start with, the sexual tension of the seminary would be tantalizing. Perhaps that very thing would attract him to the priesthood. I suppose being around men who did not know he was "turned on" by them  would increase his excitement? 

Suppose I was a seminarian and thought I was gay, because I experienced same sex attraction without acting it out. Would I have the humility and courage to discuss the matter with my spiritual director? Or instead of addressing the issue, would I be tempted to ignore it, deny it, and continue on with my studies? After all, I have invested a lot of time and effort in my studies. It wouldn't be too hard for me to rationalize the situation. What would I tell myself? One obvious fact I could point to is: there are certainly a good number of homosexual and gay priests out there already. If they can do it, why can't I? That would probably be enough to convince me to bury the problem, or not even acknowledge it as a problem. Now that homosexuality has been normalized in American life, what's the problem? The challenge becomes hiding my orientation and getting myself ordained. After ordination, it won't be too hard to fit myself in with brothers who understand me.

 Of course, there are plenty of other rationalizations I can employ as well. I can see that many men father physically without fathering spiritually. They engender kids but don't raise them. I also can see that it is possible to father spiritually, without fathering physically. Many priests, teachers,  coaches, uncles, grandfathers, etc. end up fathering kids who haven't experienced the closeness of their natural father. So, as a seminarian experiencing same sex attraction, I tell myself "I can father spiritually even though I have no desire to father physically. After I get ordained, all I have to do is carefully say the right things and mouth the correct pious platitudes. Of course, because I believe my rationalization, it doesn't dawn on me that "saying the right things" and mouthing the correct pious platitudes" won't work. It won't work because my heart won't be in it.  It will be just some more boring preaching that puts people to sleep. Or more drivel that entertains people and makes them feel good  by telling them what they want to hear.

If I am hiding my same sex orientation instead of dealing with the issue, I am not going to receive the spiritual fathering that  I need because I won't be open to it. I won't be aware that I lack that manliness, because its absence starts to feels natural. In today's culture,  since gay is being mainstreamed and legalized to include even marriage, I can tell myself that it is only a matter of time till the Church changes its teaching and accepts gay marriage and gay priesthood as perfectly okay. In fact, becoming a homosexual or gay  priest is my right as a human being. Therefore I can proceed full steam ahead to ordination. Once a priest, I can do my part to strike a blow for full equality of my gay brothers! Goodness, there is nothing we can't convince ourselves of if we really try. 

Of course, I am a product of my times, so I can't be sure that my attempt to imagine how a seminarian with same sex attraction would act in today's world is accurate. Back in my seminary days I suppose my rationalization for getting ordained would have been that priesthood was an easy way to escape being bothered by single women,  to avoid explaining why I was still single, or why  I didn't have a girlfriend. 

That's certainly not the motivation today!