Temptations of the Gay Seminarian

A New York Times piece on the imminent ban on ordaining homosexual men to the Catholic priesthood seemed to find only men who valued their homosexuality over their priesthood--so maybe my objections to the ban are misplaced:

"'I do think about leaving,' said a 30-year old Franciscan seminary student. 'It's hard to live a duplicitous life, and for me it's hard not to speak out against injustice. And that's what this is.'"

[Question: If the seminarian is leading a chaste life, what is there to be duplicitous about at this point? Yes, he would have to be duplicitous in the future, but he sounds like he's talking about his life now. Is ordination a justice issue? Close the door on the way out.]

"In telephone interviews on Thursday with gay priests and seminarians in different parts of the country, all were adamant that their names not be used because they feared repercussions from their bishops or church superiors.

"'I find that I am becoming more and more angry,' said a 40-year-old priest on the West Coast who said he had not decided whether to reveal his homosexuality publicly. 'This is the church I've given my life to and I believe in. I look at every person I come in contact with as someone who's created in the image and likeness of God, and I expect that from the church that I'm a part of. But I always feel like I'm 'less than.'"

Less than? This is the language of therapy, not the gospel. The men quoted in the article sound more committed to being gay than to being priests.

However, former Times of London editor Lord William Rees-Moog (who, by the way, gets some theology wrong: doctrine doesn't change) does share my concern that throughout the ages, the Church has ordained homosexuals who served her well:

"In its long history, rich with saints, scholars and martyrs, the Church has benefited from the devotion of countless holy priests and nuns who must have had a predominantly homosexual temperament. As all priests take a vow of celibacy, it may not have been apparent to all of them whether their sexual temperament was mainly homosexual or heterosexual. Indeed, the concept of homosexuality as a separate condition, not determined by sexual acts but by sexual inclinations, is a late-19th century one, and is not wholly satisfactory. No one ever told Christopher Marlowe that he was a homosexual and he probably was not. More likely he was highly heterosexual and also enjoyed sex with boys.

"Both the Church and the liberals are on the horns of the same dilemma. Both are genuinely horrified by the widespread abuse of children and adolescents by Catholic priests. Both have to take the view that the protection of children should be the primary consideration. That certainly means that priests who have offended should be reported to the police and should never again be allowed to use their priestly function to get near children.

"The difficulty comes when the Church has to decide who should be ordained. Here there is a risk that the wrong question will be asked. The right question is: 'Will the candidate for the priesthood be a potential danger to children or the young?' Everyone agrees that is a legitimate question. As the candidate spends seven years in a seminary, the people running the seminary have a long time in which to observe and form their judgment. In making that judgment the candidate's sexual character is obviously a relevant factor."

But then Rees-Mogg adds something I think is very wrong:

"The other question - is the candidate a homosexual? - is the wrong question, because it would do an injustice to many sorts of people; to homosexuals who suffer enough injustice in the world, to others for whom their own sexuality is uncertain, 'a grey area.' No doubt, over the next century, the Roman Catholic Church will be re-examining the issues of sexuality and the priesthood, including the maintenance of a celibate clergy. In the meantime a policy of exclusion of homosexuals from the priesthood is not justified. As it would force some candidates to lie, it is also unlikely to be effective."

The Church does need to know if a candidate is homosexual--and if he intends to lead a chaste life. Ditto the heterosexual candidate. There is some notion that many men entering the seminary must have "uncertain" sexuality. That is not the case--just because you are taking a vow of celibacy doesn't make you some weird, sexually ambiguous creature. A candidate who lies in order to be ordained is obviously ipso facto unworthy to serve a God who does not lie to us.

Catholic blogger Diogenes also critiques the New York Times piece:

"Change attracted to tempted, and we get a spiritual snapshot of the perpetual sexual struggles of the homosexual priest.

"Where can such a man find refuge? What becomes of spiritual friendship when many of his closest associates (be they homosexual or heterosexual) view his gaze as the amorous retreat to the vicissitudes of the high school throb?

"'To suggest that because one has a homosexual orientation one is unable to control one's sexual impulses is, frankly, insulting.'

"Alas, feeling insulted does not a refutation make."

Okay, the ban worries me. A man can attain holiness by struggling against temptation. But maybe this is a period in history when a ban on homosexual seminarians--like the ones in the New York Times article, who appear to put their sexuality above their priestly vocation--can be justified. Still...


Related Posts by Category



Tidak ada komentar:

Favorites