No priests are "out" as gay

  • Thread starter Thread starter AnneTeresa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AnneTeresa

Guest
I had a conversation with some friends recently over gay priests. These friends are very liberal and anti-catholic. One friend said something about a priest being gay and seemed to imply that was bad. I said there is no reason a gay person can’t be a priest, they just can’t act on it. She said, do you know any “out” gay priests?

Well I do not. But I’ve been thinking about it and what does it matter if they are “out” as gay or not? They took a vow of celibacy just like a heterosexual priest did so why would it matter at all if they are gay and if they are “out” or not? They have done nothing wrong, correct? Also she seemed to think there were a large number of priests who are gay. But again, so what? I work with a large number of gay people. How is that any different?

Is my thinking correct for a catholic? I often don’t know what to say about homosexuality when things like this come up. I am also somewhat conflicted myself on teachings about homosexuality and it is very liberal where I live and work. I have noticed at times that if you don’t agree on something like homosexual marriage, they think you are disrespecting them, even if you are not.
 
Celibacy is the same rule no matter what a person’s orientation. At least that’s how I understand it. A vow of celibacy means no sex…with anyone. I don’t think a priest, or anyone else for that matter, owes anyone an explanations to who they are attracted to and why they are not engaging in sexual activity.
 
On a formal level, I think canon law says that homosexual men should not be ordained. I’m not positive of that and I’m too lazy to try to look it up.

But on a practical level, it shouldn’t matter. Priests should be practicing asexuals.
 
Texsain said:
On a formal level, I think canon law says that homosexual men should not be ordained. I’m not positive of that and I’m too lazy to try to look it up.
Click to expand...
I don’t think its part of canon law, however the Vatican issued guidelines in 2005 which says pretty much the same thing.

This is from the Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders, which as written by the Congregation for Catholic Education and signed by Pope Benedict
In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10].
Click to expand...
Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
Click to expand...
Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.
Click to expand...
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html
Texsain said:
But on a practical level, it shouldn’t matter. Priests should be practicing asexuals.
Click to expand...
I can’t think of any scenario where a priest would need to publicly discuss his sexual attractions.
 
“Gay” is a political term that has come to generally mean someone who practices homosexual acts. But “same-sex attraction” is a term that doesn’t necessarily have that kind of implied meaning.
 
livingwordunity said:
“Gay” is a political term that has come to generally mean someone who practices homosexual acts. But “same-sex attraction” is a term that doesn’t necessarily have that kind of implied meaning.
Click to expand...
True. It’s a culturally-loaded term. In reality, many, if not most, people fit on some scale between predominately hetero vs homo-sexual attraction.
 
A priest should not, in general, be discussing his sexuality publically, least of all disordered elements of his sexuality. Actually that goes for all people, but for priests all the more.

Furthermore there is the directive that has been cited above, though of course most priests serving today were ordained before that directive came out.
 
AnneTeresa said:
I had a conversation with some friends recently over gay priests. These friends are very liberal and anti-catholic. One friend said something about a priest being gay and seemed to imply that was bad. I said there is no reason a gay person can’t be a priest, they just can’t act on it. She said, do you know any “out” gay priests?

Well I do not. But I’ve been thinking about it and what does it matter if they are “out” as gay or not? They took a vow of celibacy just like a heterosexual priest did so why would it matter at all if they are gay and if they are “out” or not? They have done nothing wrong, correct? Also she seemed to think there were a large number of priests who are gay. But again, so what? I work with a large number of gay people. How is that any different?

Is my thinking correct for a catholic? I often don’t know what to say about homosexuality when things like this come up. I am also somewhat conflicted myself on teachings about homosexuality and it is very liberal where I live and work. I have noticed at times that if you don’t agree on something like homosexual marriage, they think you are disrespecting them, even if you are not.
Click to expand...
considering in the US there is roughly 1 priest per 2000 catholics I’m not surprised you don’t know any gay one if they make up 5% or less. Plus there is no reason they need to be out as priests aren’t supposed to act on sexuality anyway.
 
Father Mychal Judge, a Catholic priest that was a Chaplain of the Fire Department of New York and the first certified fatality on 9/11, was revealed to have been homosexual, but did remain celibate as any priest should, or any Catholic gay person for that matter. He’s not the best example of a good homosexual priest though since he disagreed with the Church’s teaching and apparently ‘advocated’ for change. To his credit though he did keep true to his priestly vows.
Apparently he was quoted as saying, “Is there so much love in the world that we can afford to discriminate against any kind of love?”
So obviously he needed to get some refresher courses in Catholic theology. In any case, may he rest in peace.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mychal_Judge#Gay_orientation_and_affiliations
 
AnneTeresa said:
I had a conversation with some friends recently over gay priests. These friends are very liberal and anti-catholic. One friend said something about a priest being gay and seemed to imply that was bad. I said there is no reason a gay person can’t be a priest, they just can’t act on it. She said, do you know any “out” gay priests?

Well I do not. But I’ve been thinking about it and what does it matter if they are “out” as gay or not? They took a vow of celibacy just like a heterosexual priest did so why would it matter at all if they are gay and if they are “out” or not? They have done nothing wrong, correct? Also she seemed to think there were a large number of priests who are gay. But again, so what? I work with a large number of gay people. How is that any different?

Is my thinking correct for a catholic? I often don’t know what to say about homosexuality when things like this come up. I am also somewhat conflicted myself on teachings about homosexuality and it is very liberal where I live and work. I have noticed at times that if you don’t agree on something like homosexual marriage, they think you are disrespecting them, even if you are not.
Click to expand...
One of my priests growing up was gay (I found out later). He was a wonderful priest. Very passionate about the faith. I understand those who say a priest should not discuss sexual matters, but what if it was “discovered” somehow that he was gay or if he was a bit effeminate (though that doesn’t always mean they’re gay)? Would he still be accepted by the Church & it’s followers? Or would followers stop attending masses he’s apart of? Would they avoid him? If that’s so, then gay people aren’t really accepted in the faith even if they’re celibate. Meaning it’s not really about “loving the sinner, hating the sin”. It’s about homophobia/hatred/bigotry.
 
There was a priest at my wife’s College who was “gay” meaning same sex attracted and effeminate. While he was controversial it is charitable to assume he was chaste. I would think there would be some who struggle with this and I would also think that seminaries would reject a candidate that was known to be this way but while I dont agree with the man’s political views I have to believe he was a priest of Christ’s Church.
 
Aelred Minor pinned it when he said no priest should “be discussing his sexuality publically, least of all disordered elements of his sexuality. Actually that goes for all people, but for priests all the more.”

There has been the directive that no man with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” should be ordained.

It is also said that if a man wouldn’t be a good husband, he wouldn’t be a good Priest. Now, I don’t know how true this is, however, it does make sense because celibacy is a sacrifice: giving up marriage. However AGAIN, many homosexual men do desire to marry women, and that should be taken into account as well.

OP, you’re right in what you said to your friends.
 
Seeker1961 said:
Celibacy is the same rule no matter what a person’s orientation. At least that’s how I understand it. A vow of celibacy means no sex…with anyone. I don’t think a priest, or anyone else for that matter, owes anyone an explanations to who they are attracted to and why they are not engaging in sexual activity.
Click to expand...
Celibate or chaste?
 
Seeker1961 said:
The vow is to be celibate, correct?
Click to expand...
There is no vow for secular priests. There is a legal requirement for both chastity (remaining in the unmarried state) and continence (refraining from sexual activity).

Obviously all celibates are morally required to be continent, but still both are specifically required by law. That’s why a priest who has extramarital sex is in violation of Church law, even though it’s not a violation of celibacy specifically.

Also it’s possible at least in theory (if and for whom it currently applies in real life is debated) for a cleric to be exempted from the celibacy requirement but not the continence requirement. That is, a married man could be ordained but not permitted to engage in the marital act once he was ordained. This obviously is not an ideal situation, which is one of the reasons for generally linking celibacy to continence.
 
So from what I’ve gathered from comments, there is a canon law that says priests who are homosexual should not enter seminary. But some of the current priests became priests before that law. So really, what my friend was implying–that the church is non accepting of priests who are homosexual, is really correct then.

I’m kind of surprised–I wouldn’t think it would matter in how they do their job if they follow the church teaching on sexuality. I wonder why they ruled this.

I also agree that a priest shouldn’t be talking about his sexuality. I think this is just my friend’s way of getting at the church being “anti-gay” and also probably hiding stuff by not being honest (i.e., “out”) about it. I do know some priests who sure seem by all appearances to be homosexual and I really don’t care if they live their vows anyway.
 
AnneTeresa said:
I’m kind of surprised–I wouldn’t think it would matter in how they do their job if they follow the church teaching on sexuality. I wonder why they ruled this.
Click to expand...
They ruled this way because the Church recognizes that homosexuality is a disordered orientation. It is similar to how they do not ordain men with some mental illnesses. The Church teaches that homosexual attractions are a disorder and something that could be detrimental and hamper a man from fulfilling all his priestly duties, and might interfere with his ability to teach Church theology and be in alignment with the Magisterium. The priesthood just probably isn’t the best way for a man with homosexual tendencies to serve the Church.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
There is no vow for secular priests. There is a legal requirement for both chastity (remaining in the unmarried state) and continence (refraining from sexual activity).

Obviously all celibates are morally required to be continent, but still both are specifically required by law. That’s why a priest who has extramarital sex is in violation of Church law, even though it’s not a violation of celibacy specifically.

Also it’s possible at least in theory (if and for whom it currently applies in real life is debated) for a cleric to be exempted from the celibacy requirement but not the continence requirement. That is, a married man could be ordained but not permitted to engage in the marital act once he was ordained. This obviously is not an ideal situation, which is one of the reasons for generally linking celibacy to continence.
Click to expand...
There you go. I was trying to get people to think about what they are saying and be precise. This answer & the two just following are more precise.
 
AnneTeresa said:
So from what I’ve gathered from comments, there is a canon law that says priests who are homosexual should not enter seminary. But some of the current priests became priests before that law. So really, what my friend was implying–that the church is non accepting of priests who are homosexual, is really correct then.

I’m kind of surprised–I wouldn’t think it would matter in how they do their job if they follow the church teaching on sexuality. I wonder why they ruled this.

I also agree that a priest shouldn’t be talking about his sexuality. I think this is just my friend’s way of getting at the church being “anti-gay” and also probably hiding stuff by not being honest (i.e., “out”) about it. I do know some priests who sure seem by all appearances to be homosexual and I really don’t care if they live their vows anyway.
Click to expand...
No, not a Canon Law, but rather a document, a directive from the Congregation 🙂
See here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top