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!

Pope Benedict on Homosexuality (continued) Part Two

This posting continues the reflections begun in the posting of 7/26/13.

Sewald  responds to Pope Benedict’s comments on homosexuality with the observation :"It is no secret that there are homosexuals even among priests and monks. Just recently there was a major scandal on account of the homosexual passions of priests in Rome.” Pope Pope, being honest and humble, admits the truth of Sewald’s statement, but surprises me, because he does not say what I expected. I was anticipating something along the lines of the need for active homosexual priests to repent, just as priests who were heterosexual would have to repent of being unfaithful if they had sexual relations with women. Instead, the pope spoke out forcefully against homosexuals in the priesthood. This is what he said: “Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation”.

 I had been thinking, Well, just as a heterosexual has to renounce marriage with a woman, a homosexual would have to renounce sexual activity with men.  He would have to be celibate in his own way.  But the pope is not considering two kinds of celibacy, one for homosexuals, and another for heterosexuals. He views celibacy in relation to marriage,  and marriage of course between a man and a woman. He continues: “It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into the priesthood who don’t want to get married anyway.”  That makes sense to me. Being a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom does mean giving up marriage to a woman, and more than that. It means more than being a bachelor who wears a clerical collar. It means being fruitful and multiplying the sons and daughters of God in the new family his Son has established, the Church.  I interpret the pope as meaning that the refusal of, or indifference to, spiritual fatherhood is the big problem. If a man is not interested in sacrificing being a father through marriage to a woman  for the sake spiritual fatherhood, he should not be a priest.  There are certainly bachelor heterosexual priests who are not interested in spiritual fatherhood, only in the priesthood as a career or a profession. But, ultimately, spiritual fatherhood is the natural responsibility of every male no matter what he labels himself, nor what his state in life. Without spiritual fatherhood, even if he is called to be single,  he is a “barren fig tree” or a “dead branch.”

How does a man usually mature as a man, or grow and develop into his potential as a male?   Usually by getting married to a woman, having a wife and children, by working hard to earn a living, by living for the family he has, giving himself for them, raising the children, and leaving sons and daughters behind him.  If all a man had to do was impregnate a woman and then disappear, fatherhood would be easily accomplished. But a male becomes more of a man by being a husband and father, or to say it more simply,  by fathering. Celibacy is a huge sacrifice since everything in a man is directed to finding fulfillment in and through a woman, the children, and the family he will establish with her. Fathering is his natural reason for being. The responsibility he accepts in marriage is what gets him out of bed in the morning and keeps him going. If a man has no desire for a woman and no desire to marry, and therefore becomes a priest, his renunciation of marriage is no renunciation at all. By becoming a priest he embraces fathering in a different form.

Pope Benedict continues:  “The Congregation of Education issued a decision a few years ago to the effect that homosexual candidates cannot become priests because their sexual orientation estranges them from the proper sense of paternity, from the intrinsic nature of priestly being. The selection of candidates to the priesthood must therefore be very careful. The greatest attention is needed here in order to prevent the intrusion of this kind of ambiguity and to head off a situation where the celibacy of priests would practically end up being identified with the tendency to homosexuality.”

Of course the “greatest attention is needed”, but I am afraid that no amount of care and attention that can completely eliminate the problem.  When it comes to psycho-sexual identity, there are as many possible scenarios as there are individuals, because every person’s psycho-sexual development has its own pace. Same sex attraction may be discovered during adolescence, before or after entry into the seminary, as well as before or after ordination to the priesthood. There are no absolutely perfect protocols, nor any foolproof procedures. The basic issue, I believe, is to face that same sex attraction is a disorder and to deal with it in a healthy way, instead of presuming, as our culture does, that homosexuality is normal and natural, and that the gay life style is as valid an option as marriage or the single life.

Here in the Northeast and East Coast, it may be already too late to head off the situation the pope speaks of,  “where celibacy would….end up being identified with homosexuality”. Maybe it is different in some parts of the South, and in the West, and Midwest, where I am told the Church is much stronger. I doubt the situation is different on the West Coast, however. It may even be worse out there, for all I know. Perhaps demographers and sociologists can explain how our culture and values vary according to geographical location here in the United states. Maybe the situation is to fluid for any national snapshot to be taken.

Some concluding thoughts on "same sex attraction" occur to me in light of Pope Benedict’s resignation and the election of Pope Francis, which I hope to use as the basis of the next posting on this topic. I do not see the term “same sex attraction” in the writing, nor in their conversations of either pope. As far as I can tell they both use the word “homosexual” and “gay" interchangeably.  Here in the United States a distinction between the two is made. A man who struggles with same sex attraction is said to be “homosexual” whereas only those who “come out” and embrace the gay life style with its culture, are classified as “gay”.  I think this is an important distinction to make. Doing so would contradict the popular assumption that “gays are born that way” and also help explain how  a good number of men who suffer from same sex attraction successfully deal with the disorder, and  go on to successfully  become fathers in the sacrament of marriage, or spiritual fathers the priesthood. Some, I daresay have even been canonized saints.

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!