Mark Dowd former dominican friar says 50% of clergy are gay.
It’s in the Daily Mail, so I refuse to click the link; but it indicates in itself that this is not likely to be an unbiased, accurate report. And it’s written by a man who left religious life (by his own admission) largely because of his sexuality and has since made a career out of presenting himself in the media as a liberal, modern Catholic. Not that he might not have a point, but just to point out what the source of this story is.
Even at my church i notice the effeminate nature of the clergy, I have good gaydar. Some men can be quite diva-eque, then you know they’re not straight. Or soft-mannered in that dame like way.
It is not as simple as saying ‘effeminate’ = gay. It is perfectly possible that the celibate priesthood attracts a higher proportion than in the general population of men who express their virility in different ways without massive numbers of them having ‘deep seated homosexual tendencies’. In fact, it seems quite likely, although there’d be no way of backing this up statistically: but logically, wouldn’t you think that a man who doesn’t have to spend his energies being ‘masculine’ enough to attract a good wife would be more free to express his maleness in a way he is comfortable with?
If this is the case, then this system of celibacy is attracting the wrong types of men. There should be a healthy proportionate representation of men as clergy, not over-represented by a minority. Isn’t this a case for supporting married clergy, so that they attract men with life experience and well, not gay. They way the celibate system works means it is attracting the wrong people.
Big if! And also slightly offensive use of the ‘wrong people’. The people who are called by God are the right people and we have to trust in the long process of discernment that goes on that most if not all people who end up ordained have genuinely been called to the priesthood, or at least believe that we don’t have the authority to presume to tell people in general that they are ‘wrong’ for the priesthood (with obvious exceptions of certain people personally known to us). But, I’ll assume that what you mean is that more of the ‘right’ people aren’t hearing the call; that’s a less offensive take on it.
Now, there is a logical reason why the clergy might contain more people with same sex attraction (much as I hate that term) than in the general population, and that is that men who have come to terms with their ssa know that marriage is not an option for them (I’m not talking about people who might be ‘bisexual’ or whatever, but people who are only sexually attracted to other men) and so they’re left with a more straightforward discernment of priesthood/religious life or single.
That aside, the argument seems fallacious. Many of our clergy are ‘homosexual’ (or whatever term you choose to employ); many are not. Does it matter how many fall into each category? Do we even need to know? What we need to be concerned with is making sure that our clergy, of whatever sexuality, have enough support in living chastely. What we need to be concerned about is clergy (and laity) who define themselves by their sexuality and make a point of letting their congregations know about it.
And no. Even if I thought that lowering the proportion of ‘gay’ clergy were a necessary or desirable aim, I don’t think allowing clergy to marry would help.
And also the obvious of attractant for gays being a clergymen is living with men, which in itself attractive, which is kind of wrong. If you get my meaning. Isn’t this an environment of too much temptation?
Given the current situation in this country (where Mark Dowd also lives), it would seem foolish at best for a man to choose the diocesan priesthood as a way to live with other men since it is rare and becoming rarer after leaving seminary. And then they’d have to take the chance that the man/men they were living with were attractive to them etc.
Even apart from the obvious stupidity of such a choice, there are practical steps in place to address this: there are rigorous psychological tests before someone is accepted for priestly formation, and ongoing monitoring, support and discernment. For a man to proceed to ordination with unresolved issues over his sexuality (e.g. finding living with other men to be a proximate occasion of sin) would mean an utter failure in all the systems over a number of years. Not that it would never happen, particularly if the man were determined to conceal it deliberately, but I would imagine it to be an extremely unusual occurence.
So, if we disassociate ‘clergy with same sex attraction’ from ‘gay clergy who have unreconciled issues with their sexuality’ then I don’t see the problem.
I pray to God that the future of the church doesn’t go bad because of this, like mark dowd’s prediction.
It puts me off the church stuff a bit, my faith is unblemished, it’s just the church side.
My faith is in the Church. The one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church which is tormented by sinners and attacked on all sides but which will prevail. Read Lumen Gentium. No faith without the Church.
