‘It Is Not a Closet. It Is a Cage.’ Gay Catholic Priests Speak Out

[OraLabora]

Mitigating factors, such as poor catechesis, may lessen the degree of sin.

Or no catechesis. The vast majority of Catholics in my part of the world have simply abandoned the faith.

I was one of them but I returned 21 years ago. I’m distinctly in the minority though.

I’ve come to believe that the Church’s sexual ethic is broken. It was broken in Jansenist Québec around the time I was born, and it is broken now by a hierarchy seemingly unable to enforce it now among even themselves.

 

[gracepoole]

gracepoole:

You believe that it’s virtually impossible for people to remain celibate when unmarried?

Most don’t even want to try, so we can’t know if it is possible or not. They have also, for the most part abandoned the Church or whatever ecclesial community the belonged to.

In my last workplace before I retired, the most respect I got for my faith was from a Muslim woman, which I returned. Certainly not from secular Quebecers.

But then I sympathize with the seculars. The Jansenist Church in Quebec until the 1960s behaved abominably, especially towards women.

What “most” attempt is not the standard for morality.

 

[Thorolfr]

You believe that it’s virtually impossible for people to remain celibate when unmarried?

Sounds like you grew up in the quintessential era of sexual freedom while being outside the Church for a long period of time. Perhaps it really shouldn’t be surprising, then, that you see celibacy for the unmarried as you do?

I think that It’s unnatural for people to remain celibate for their entire lifetime. I would think that it would be difficult for most young people to wait until marriage, but to expect someone to remain sexless permanently seems unrealistic to me. I know that I couldn’t have done that, especially when I was younger.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

If they don’t to try then they probably won’t want to become priests In the first place.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

That might be because of your background,

 

[OraLabora]

What “most” attempt is not the standard for morality.

Never said it was. Just reporting the facts.

Alas those supposed to teach us the moral standards have been found wanting. Three cardinals…

 

[OraLabora]

I think that It’s unnatural for people to remain celibate for their entire lifetime. I would think that it would be difficult for most young people to wait until marriage, but to expect someone to remain sexless permanently seems unrealistic to me. I know that I couldn’t have done that, especially when I was younger.

It occurred to me that part of the issue is one of sex drive. I’ve known people with very low sex drives and for them remaining celibate for life is probably easier, and maybe the priesthood is a natural place for men like that. Like you though I couldn’t have done it.

The problem though would be having people with low sex drives dictating the moral law to those with normal sex drives. Maybe in the days folks married at 14 it is possible to say you’ll go to hell if you masturbate. But expecting someone with a normal sex drive who marries at 28 to not have sex and to not masturbate for 14+ years isn’t realistic, IMHO.

The Rule of St. Benedict makes clear that we are all differently abled (in all matters not just sex) and that the strong must show patience, mercy and indulgence for the weak. Very few of us actually become saints.

When the Natural Law bumps up against the Law of Nature, it’s pretty tough to overcome the Law of Nature.

Of course, there is a different way to look at all this, one I find more prevalent in Latin-derived countries than Anglo-Saxon countries: the Church’s moral teachings are not a set of rules to follow, but a set of ideals to reach for, recognizing that we will almost always fall short and need recourse to Christ’s mercy through sacramental confession.

 

[Annie]

Of course, there is a different way to look at all this, one I find more prevalent in Latin-derived countries than Anglo-Saxon countries: the Church’s moral teachings are not a set of rules to follow, but a set of ideals to reach for, recognizing that we will almost always fall short and need recourse to Christ’s mercy through sacramental confession.

I disagree with y9ur pessimism of continence, which is like a self-defeating prophecy, but am very interested in this quote from your post. Would you mind if I started a thread in moral theology about it?

 

[OraLabora]

I disagree with y9ur pessimism of continence, which is like a self-defeating prophecy, but am very interested in this quote from your post. Would you mind if I started a thread in moral theology about it?

It may be different for men vs women but as a man I cannot say, I can only see it from my perspective. There’s a grain of truth to the old saying that 90% men have masturbated and 10% are liars.

I feel quite strongly about that quote, reducing the Church’s moral teaching as simply leads to one of the devil’s best tools, scrupulosity and despair at never being able to be perfect. It’s exactly what the devil wants.

But I’m not the thread police so as long as you attribute it to its source I have no objection.

 

[goout]

OraLabora:

I believe we were discussing celibacy ? Celibacy is the unmarried state.

Not on this side of the pond.
But OK. If you say you really are referencing marriage in general, fine.

What evidence do you have that providing people the opportunity to split loyalty between a family and a parish will increase vocations?

There is math…
you automatically increase the pool of candidates for priesthood by a huge number.

You also admit a statistically sexually healthier pool of candidates. We are talking statistics here now, not forcing those statistics on to individual priests.

Statistically speaking, a pool of candidates which includes a much wider range of sexually healthy candidates will get you just that in greater numbers.
And do not accuse me of saying that celibate priests are unhealthy per se. I am not saying that. I am saying that the stew of all the factors contributes to the problems we have. And the exclusion of married priests is part of that. And it is maybe the one thing that can be changed legitimately.

 

[vz71]

you automatically increase the pool of candidates for priesthood by a huge number.

So you are saying that men may choose priesthood after they have a wife and kids and likely a job to support them?

I find that dubious at best.

 

[gracepoole]

It occurred to me that part of the issue is one of sex drive. I’ve known people with very low sex drives and for them remaining celibate for life is probably easier, and maybe the priesthood is a natural place for men like that. Like you though I couldn’t have done it.

The problem though would be having people with low sex drives dictating the moral law to those with normal sex drives. Maybe in the days folks married at 14 it is possible to say you’ll go to hell if you masturbate. But expecting someone with a normal sex drive who marries at 28 to not have sex and to not masturbate for 14+ years isn’t realistic, IMHO.

The Rule of St. Benedict makes clear that we are all differently abled (in all matters not just sex) and that the strong must show patience, mercy and indulgence for the weak. Very few of us actually become saints.

When the Natural Law bumps up against the Law of Nature, it’s pretty tough to overcome the Law of Nature.

Of course, there is a different way to look at all this, one I find more prevalent in Latin-derived countries than Anglo-Saxon countries: the Church’s moral teachings are not a set of rules to follow, but a set of ideals to reach for, recognizing that we will almost always fall short and need recourse to Christ’s mercy through sacramental confession.

I hope this doesn’t come across as too heavy-handed or left field… Earlier today I was teaching a class on Holocaust literature and we were discussing the White Rose movement. These were college students in Nazi Germany who actively resisted the Third Reich and encouraged others to do the same. Our conversation focused on this: while most today prefer the myth that bystanders couldn’t have acted, resisters definitively prove this is false. It was incredibly difficult to choose the path of the righteous, of course. But it was the morally righteous path nonetheless.

I find myself thinking along the same lines in this discussion of celibacy. Clearly, despite one’s own personal or anecdotal evidence to the contrary, lifelong celibacy is possible. Numerous saints attest to this fact. This is not to say that it’s easy or that missteps don’t occur. But some see the commitment as so significant, so sacred, that they’re very willing to make it. As I said earlier, we don’t determine what is moral or even morally possible based on what most will or won’t do. Thankfully.

It’s also unhelpful to define the possibilities of celibacy on one’s own experiences. In the 1950’s the average age at which men and women in the US lost their virginity was 21. Now it’s closer to 18. The average number of sexual partners has increased, as well. I mention this simply to point out that while it’s easy to say “my friends and I couldn’t manage celibacy so therefore it’s probably impossible,” this ignores social factors that encourage or discourage this option.

Finally, if it hasn’t been considered yet, perhaps the Vatican’s own explanation of priestly celibacy should be read:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...nts/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_theol_en.html

 

[Thorolfr]

It’s also unhelpful to define the possibilities of celibacy on one’s own experiences. In the 1950’s the average age at which men and women in the US lost their virginity was 21. Now it’s closer to 18. The average number of sexual partners has increased, as well. I mention this simply to point out that while it’s easy to say “my friends and I couldn’t manage celibacy so therefore it’s probably impossible,” this ignores social factors that encourage or discourage this option.

Of course there is a reason that some people are considered to be saints and that’s because they’ve done things that most people can’t do. I also think that many people overestimate the difference between people in the past and people now, assuming that it’s just our modern culture that makes chastity so difficult.

I’ve been reading a book by a religious studies professor, Douglas L. Winiarski, Darkness Falls on the Land of Light: Experiencing Religious Awakenings in Eighteenth-Century New England (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2017) which has a few pages about what young people did back in the first half of the 18th century in puritan New England (p. 83):

Religious and civic leaders recognized youth as a “chusing time,” and many young people chose rebellion over obedience. They gathered for frolicks in barns, mills and outbuildings, went night walking at taverns, coupled with sexual partners after training days or husking bees, or met in a variety of clandestine spaces to read titillating literature. Few young men and women managed to escape from this flourishing subculture. Their ranks included future clergyman such as Joseph Green of Salem Village, who lamented an adolescence spent in the pursuit of “fading vanitys and pleasures of this world”…Likewise, the aspiring but melancholic Maine minister Joseph Moody devoted much of his anguished devotional diary to lamenting a failed courtship and bewailing his inability to control his autoerotic impulses. Even Cotton Mather’s son, Creasy, fathered an illegitimate child. Adolescent rebellion was neither unusual, nor isolated, nor restricted to the unchurched or the ungodly.

Premarital intercourse ranked among the most pervasive forms of rebellious behavior among young people. Rising rates of bridal pregnancy suggest that sex among unmarried men and women was a common aspect of eighteenth-century courtship in an era that witnessed a gradual loosening of social surveillance and regulation. More than three dozen Haverhill residents appeared before the Essex County magistrates during [Rev.] Brown’s pastorate to answer charges of bearing children out of wedlock…

I’ve read through 17th and 18th century New England court files myself and was surprised at how many people were fined for fornication, some of whom went on to be upstanding and prominent church members. Quite a few of the people fined for fornication were married and they were undoubtedly discovered because their first child came a little bit too soon after they were married.

 

[OraLabora]

I think we have to recognize that we’re dealing with a physiological process though. We have two cats, and one regularly horks up hairballs, and the other one never does. Similarly, sex drives are not all created equal. Neither is response to hunger or dependencies. I can enjoy a nice glass of single-malt whiskey on a Saturday evening; another person feels the compulsion to knock back a forty-ouncer every day. Note I am looking at the sex drive it from a man’s perspective. You’re better placed than I am to see it from a woman’s POV. Many men have a very high sex drive; some have very low drives. It makes it difficult to assign a degree of virtue to those who resist sexual temptation. A moral choice that is subjected to a physiological drive might not always be exercised with full freedom of will. It’s a bit different, I think, than a poor moral choice for self-preservation or preservation of reputation (i.e. the coverup part of the Church’s scandal).

CS Lewis once said, in I forget which book, that a sex addict who resists his or her temptation for one day has more value in God’s eyes than someone who simply doesn’t have that temptation and remains chaste with little or no effort. My confessor also says that God expects effort, but is realistic about the chances for a perfect result.

The sex drive has been compared to hunger in its strength. I can certainly as a man relate to that. I can also relate to the fact that as my sex drive wanes with age (I’m 60 and diabetic), I find it easier to resist its urges now than I did at 20!. So there is a correlation.

My spiritual reference, besides scripture, is the Rule of Saint Benedict, which clearly is full of wisdom concerning the fact that we are not all equally-abled or equally strong.

I mentioned somewhere in all this, I forget if this thread or another related one, that I have the deepest respect for men (and women) who are called to, and able to maintain chastity while celibate. But clearly, not everyone is called to celibacy.

Again I come back to the notion that we need to view the Church’s morality as an ideal to strive for and not a set of rules to follow. The latter leads to scrupulosity and despair. Sacramental confession needs to be part of the process.

I will also say that the Church would have way more credibility if homosexual, or simply sexually-active clergy would come clean, admit their foibles, admit that they have this temptation, that sometimes yes, they fall, and ask for our prayers (I’m talking about gay or heterosexually active clergy; obviously pedophiles need to be removed from ministry ASAP). They really do need to deal with this crisis by beginning with a good dose of humility and an admission that they’re human and just as subject temptation as the laity.

 

[OraLabora]

I’ve read through 16th and 17th century New England court files myself and was surprised at how many people were fined for fornication, some of whom went on to be upstanding and prominent church members. Quite a few of the people fined for fornication were married and they were undoubtedly discovered because their first child came a little bit too soon after they were married.

Excellent point, and don’t forget the Victorian era, which was essentially lipstick on a pig. The prudishness covered an underlying licentiousness. Winston Churchill’s father died of syphilis…

Any reading of St. Paul’s epistles will confirm that these issues are nothing new.

 

[prayerrider]

My thoughts exactly. Any man who will only consider the priesthood if he can be married, too, doesn’t belong in the priesthood.

 

[OraLabora]

My thoughts exactly. Any man who will only consider the priesthood if he can be married, too, doesn’t belong in the priesthood.

Sorry, but that’s too simplistic. For example, a vocational call may come later in life. I’ve read of men becoming priests in their 50s and 60s after becoming widowers.

A man may be thus already be married when he hears the call, but obviously cannot act on it in the Roman rite and what could be a very solid vocation ends up going unanswered. Men hear the call to the permanent diaconate often later in life. They are eligible. Married men are not. A married man 35 or older can become a permanent deacon.

A similar process for could be implemented for priests who hear the call later in life. The job of parish administrator could be delegated to a layperson so that a priest’s life could be compatible with family life; and that job would be open to women, who cannot ontologically be priests. Having more women in positions of responsibility in the Church would be a good thing.

 

[prayerrider]

I only know of a couple of seminaries who ordain men over 50. And men who are still raising kids have that major conflict of interest.
I just don’t think ordaining married men is the answer. Better catechesis, mentoring by good priests and eliminating altar girls could help.

 

[OraLabora]

I just don’t think ordaining married men is the answer.

We won’t know until it is tried.

Actually it already exists in the Roman rite: converts from other ecclesial communities, such as married Anglican priests who become Catholic.

I haven’t heard any horror stories from that quarter. Have you?

 

[prayerrider]

I’m a member of the OCSP. As far as I know, that’s a very exceptional scenario, not intended to become the norm. Any new vocations from within the Ordinariate will be younger, single men. I believe Bishop Lopes himself is single.