Imagine (and you don’t need to try too hard) how some Christian communions might promote their accomplishments and uniqueness.
The hipsters might say something like, “we are the church of the city and for the city.”
Doctrinalists might come up with something like, “we put the strict in confessional subscription.”
The transformationalists (not quite as urban as the hipsters) might talk about “a gospel for all — here Stephen Coulbert’s deep gravelly voice when you read “all” — of life.”
And the social gospelers might promote a communion that is “ushering in Christ’s loving and just reign.”
But what would you say about a communion that touted, “we know how to make effective and gracious use of gay clergy”? I’m suspecting that this would not be the best Call to Communion.
And yet, for all of the Roman Catholic complaint about the sexual laxity of the mainline Protestant denominations, and for all of the teaching about marriage, celibacy, and theology of the body, Roman Catholics ordain homosexuals in what seems to be record numbers.
Please, dear reader, keep in mind that I really dislike cheap shots based on below-the-belt issues. Sex is such an easy way to push the outrage-porn button. So I am not trying — really really trying not to — play any kind of homophobia card. Nor am I knowingly playing on anti-Catholic bigotry. I am seriously curious about how a conservative church reconciles its teaching about sex with knowingly ordaining homosexuals. Not to mention infallibility and certain knowledge. This is a conversation that has been public. It is out of the closet. And yet Bryan and the Jasons went right along — nothing here to see.
How is it, then, that you can promote your communion’s wonderful views of marriage and celibacy, and look to your church as the sensible and chaste alternative to mainline Protestantism, but don’t comment on the numbers of priests that are pretty staggering (even while accusing mainline churches of ordaining lesbians).
Here are a few, scattered and old discussions of the phenomenon (which some might call a problem):
From 2002:
For more than a decade, now, voices have been heard expressing concern about the growing numbers of gay priests and seminarians. Vicars of priests and seminary administrators who have been around awhile speak among themselves of the disproportionate number of gay men that populate our seminaries and presbyterates. They know that a proportionate number of gay priests and seminarians would fall between 5 and 10 percent. The extent of the estimated disproportion, naturally enough, will vary depending on general perceptions, personal experiences, and the frequency of first-hand encounters with self-acknowledged gay priests.
The general perceptions, in turn, are often shaped by various studies and surveys which attempt to measure the percentage of priests who are gay. An NBC report on celibacy and the clergy found that “anywhere from 23 percent to 58 percent” of the Catholic clergy have a homosexual orientation. Other studies find that approximately half of American priests and seminarians are homosexually oriented. Sociologist James G. Wolf in his book Gay Priests concluded that 48.5 percent of priests and 55.1 percent of seminarians were gay. The percentage appears to be highest among priests under forty years of age. Moreover, the percentage of gay men among religious congregations of priests is believed to be even higher. Beyond these estimates, of course, are priests who remain confused about their orientation and men who have so successfully denied their orientation, that in spite of predominantly same-sex erotic fantasies, they insist that they are heterosexual.
Here’s an attempt to turn gay priests into an asset:
Traditional Catholic theology as summarized in the catechism (No. 1578) states that men are called to the priesthood by God. So despite statements that homosexual priests are either a scandal or embarrassment, Catholic belief is that all men called to holy orders are responding to a divine call. (As an aside, it is perhaps unsurprising that in a church that enjoins celibacy on homosexuals, some gay men would choose the celibate life of the priest.) Some have argued that the ordination of homosexuals somehow represents the church in error. But homosexual priests, like heterosexual priests, are ordained through the divine authority of the church, which has that responsibility and right (No. 1578) and, according to traditional Catholic theology, imprints on the priest an indelible spiritual character (No. 1582).
Therefore, one can state that God has called, and is continuing to call, homosexuals to serve as priests in the church and that the church confirms this call through ordination. The question, then, is not whether God is calling homosexual men to the priesthood, but why. Theologically, how might one understand these signs of the times?
The school of suffering. The vast majority of homosexuals in the United States are acquainted with the suffering that comes from being a misunderstood and often persecuted minority. This commences from early adolescence and can continue for the remainder of one’s life. Homosexuals are frequent targets of prejudice, ridicule, rejection from their own families and, sometimes, violence. Here, therefore, are men who understand suffering, stigma and frustrationthe very types of experiences that Christian theology teaches can lead one closer to companionship with the Christ who suffers. To use the words heard during Lent, the homosexual is often despised and rejected by others, a man of suffering…one from whom others hide their faces (Isa. 53:3).
Being schooled in this unique experience of suffering can result in a profound sense of compassion and identification with the most marginalized in society: the sick, the lonely, the refugee, the materially poor, the outcast, the least of my brothers and sisters (Mt. 25).
Then some challenge the statistics:
Fr. Cozzens claims that statistics show that 50 percent of priests and seminarians are homosexually oriented. A gay culture in the priesthood or seminary, he says, makes it very awkward for heterosexuals, who as a consequence doubt their vocations and withdraw. Seminaries must therefore consider the kind of support that is needed for heterosexual seminarians in a gay culture. We are not told whether the prevalence of homosexual orientation and gay expression is bad or good. Fr. Cozzens seems to suggest that it is simply a fact of life with which we must learn to live. This is very unpersuasive on a number of scores.
First, I do not believe the statistics. The very few surveys and studies that have been done on homosexuality among priests are almost certainly flawed by the factor of self“selection. Those who, for whatever reason, are interested in homosexuality among priests respond at a far higher rate than others. Had I received a questionnaire in such a survey, I would not have responded. As for Fr. Cozzens’ depiction of seminarians, I can only say that they must be very different from those whom I have known during fourteen years of seminary work. Are there seminarians who identify themselves as homosexual? Certainly. Are there some who are sexually confused and in need of counseling and spiritual direction? Absolutely. But is there a dominant homosexual culture in seminaries that makes life difficult, if not impossible, for heterosexuals? That does not jibe with my experience.
It is very possible that in the 1970s and ’80s there were a significant number of seminarians who were sexually confused, and were encouraged in that confusion by a sexually charged society. They were not challenged to harmonize their ideas and their lives with the teaching of the Church, and today some of them are priests. Some are effective and faithfully celibate, while some are actively involved in the gay subculture. The latter pose a very real problem, but the incidence of the problem, I am convinced, is nowhere near the figure proffered by Fr. Cozzens. His claims are both unsupported and irresponsible.
I understand that a clergy shortage might be one explanation for these figures and reflections. I also can comprehend that someone who is gay but doesn’t practice may be capable of executing priestly duties. But what is odd is conceiving of the convert to Roman Catholicism who might think first about joining the Christian Reformed Church because of the denomination’s position on homosexualism and homosexuality.
I have this to say to encourage recent Protestant converts: [imagine sound of crickets, that’s my normal voice]
LikeLike
Probably more ‘lost generation’ response. The problem is vocations. So, I want all the trad converts to consecrate their first bon son to the priesthood, to show you really mean it. Come on, put your certitude on the line. No more journeying, let’s commit the blood to the one true church. Generations did this before you.
LikeLike
“It is very possible that in the 1970s and ’80s there were a significant number of seminarians who were sexually confused, and were encouraged in that confusion by a sexually charged society”
So, now it’s societies fault? Yea, well, I hate to counter his experience with my experience but unless the society he’s referring to was living in the rectory or formation center, then we’ve got a large difference of opinion. I don’t recall a lot of sexual confusion either, it was pretty well staked out. I remember my first year back from college and one of the novitiates, who I knew from Jr. Seminary, trying to tell me that homosexuality wasn’t a sin. He wasn’t confused.
LikeLike
But what is odd is conceiving of the convert to Roman Catholicism who might think first about joining the Christian Reformed Church because of the denomination’s position on homosexualism and homosexuality.
You remain confused about Catholicism.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/05/with-gay-vatican-priest-firing-time-to-finally-understand-francis-who-am-i-to-judge/
LikeLike
OK, I understand that confusion, but where does that leave those who survive the abuses of those accused by the RC’s very own antagonists, SNAP? In other words, if it difficult to judge those inside the “church” on the basis of their same-sex inclinations, what about the youth under their oversight who suffer abuse? I brought this up a few years ago to a spokesperson who was firmly against the LGBT lobbying in my state because their ultimate interest was legal same-sex marriage. She said that pedophelia in the “church” was not the same thing as gay adult relationships. Oh, really? Is that to say that none of those who enter the RC priesthood do so because they see it as an easy route to satisfy their warped desires, no matter how young the victims?
LikeLike
vd, t, that’s not a Roman Catholic website. But I see your point. If I thought like you, I’d know what Roman Catholicism means.
BTW, Mollie’s post is about journalists:
She doesn’t deny Cozzens’ book’s findings. But you dodged them.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I haven’t read your article(yet), but I always love your pictures! How do you choose just the right one?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 15, 2015 at 9:02 pm | Permalink
vd, t, that’s not a Roman Catholic website. But I see your point. If I thought like you, I’d know what Roman Catholicism means.
Dunno. But you’re confused about Catholicism in general and very confused in whatever you’re trying to say with this post.
Don’t read this.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/05/with-gay-vatican-priest-firing-time-to-finally-understand-francis-who-am-i-to-judge/
LikeLike
Susan, when you have provisional knowledge, it’s easy.
LikeLike
Well, at least this hasn’t changed much. Crickets. Uhh, what elephant?
LikeLike
sean, does make you wonder if the koolaid causes loss of eyesight (except when picking cherries).
LikeLike
Bro. Sean, my flock can be counted on to stick to the party line. Join us Friday night for the KoC bar-b-q!
LikeLike
Fr. Crickets, now there’s a juxtaposition KoC bbq and seminarians.
LikeLike
“The other day as I was going up the stairs I mean a man who wasn’t there / He wasn’t there again today / I wish I wish he’s go away”
Catholics look the other way. The gay problem runs straight up the ladder, and the only conceivable cure will be a married priesthood, something that would undermine the clergy/laity distinction so key to the Church’s identity. It sounds mean-spirited to say, but it’s just sharing my experience when I add that I have yet to meet a priest who does not seem just sort of maladjusted. Even if you read the bio of an old hero like Fulton J. Sheen, his comments on meeting Paul VI… eesh! The formation process is woefully broken. The irony is it is far longer and restrictive than any Protestant one, and yet it produces the most theologically ignorant and socially-challenged cadre. Vatican II shows the irony well in that a global council introducing whopping novelties was rubber-stamped by a group of priests who preferred to let experts handle things. Just strange.
LikeLike
It’s mostly just supply and demand. Like left handed pitchers priests are in short supply so you take who you can get. If it it makes the RCs feel any better most Protestant denominations have the same issue of being in short supply of qualified men who are willing to become pastors.
LikeLike
There’s problems coming to terms with sexuality in RC moral theology. It’s been there for a long time. Self-emasculation(monastics), celibacy, sex only for the procreative opportunity. As good as RC moral theology traditionally has been, they can’t shoot straight on this issue. It’s always been a struggle.
LikeLike
sean, “can’t shoot straight.”
hee
hee
LikeLike
Gotta keep with the theme.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted December 16, 2015 at 6:17 am | Permalink
Susan, when you have provisional knowledge, it’s easy.
Reading back now on what you just fired off, you do realize you just mocked yourself, Darryl?
And subverted yourself: “Provisional knowledge” is not faith, in fact it’s not even knowledge. What you pass off here as the “Reformed faith” is no more than a working hypothesis. I would not want to stake my immortal soul on being one of John Calvin’s “Elect.”
Your behavior is quite antinomian. You are no healer: Old Life is not a hospital, Dr. Hart, it is a theological abattoir.
LikeLike
I would not want to stake my immortal soul on being one of John Calvin’s “Elect.”
…
As usual Catholic who accuse Prots of ‘not getting’ things just don’t get Calvinism. No one is ‘staking their soul’ on being elect: they stake their soul on the work of Jesus on the cross. You’d think in this age when Francis is practically lip-kissing atheists, Catholic apologists would see the good in Prot arguments, not the bad. They’re the ecumenically madcap ones, not the 5 pointers. But as usual, the popes are the most liberal and nontraditional ones in the room, even as they try to lean into an unspoken “I AM tradition!” It takes a whole lot of work to uphold the Catholic edifice as imagined by either progressive popes, or differently by conservatives. Either way, at a certain point the barage of arguments gets just as, if not more, convoluted that those around Free Will and Predestination. What’s that, the Jesuits won the latter skirmish? OK, let me got be tutored by Fr. Radcliffe under the open Mercy Doors on the Jubilee… Errr, or maybe not. Francis may be the the gift that keeps on giving, but somehow at Christmas I increasingly can’t take the Catholics seriously. If Calvinism is an abattoir (nice!), RC is a maybe the house of mirrors. One deals in bloody meat, the other distorted reflections.
LikeLike
What does Cardinal Dolan not understand about 1 Tim 3:
LikeLike
Am I not correct that the pedophile priest scandal that got so much coverage on national news involved many victims who had been abused as boys?
Not saying that all who struggle with same-sex attraction are pedophiles or that there aren’t heterosexual pedophiles; but since homosexuality is a sexual deviancy, why would the Roman church ordain homosexual men to a position which will put them in situations where they will be tempted to act out their deviancy on potential young victims (for example, working, at times alone, with altar boys)? Is that not playing spiritual Russian Roullette with the souls of gay priests by inviting them to temptation and (even of more concern) putting children at risk for molestation? (I can think of one family that, from what I understand, ended up leaving the Roman church during this clergy sex scandal because they have two young boys and did not feel their children were safe in that communion.)
In the end I think the only way the Roman church will be able to effectively address this issue is to follow Scripture and permit ordained clergy to be married. “Therefore an overseer (= “bishop”) must be above reproach, the husband of one wife…” (First Timothy 3:2, ESV). But I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
LikeLike
Geoff, it was an issue of the lack of vocations. It was also an issue of embracing modern views of sexual identity and expression. Rome is still struggling with this as is evidenced by the recent synod. What shouldn’t be overlooked is the sheer breadth of what the RC communion tries to confess, it’s massive and often at odds with itself. It’s why you find Burke and Kasper under the same tent. There’s a sociological component of anonymity and acceptance and even sanctification of any activity deemed as ‘human’ or part of the human experience. The anthropological orientation(pastoral application) of dogma at Vat II just can’t be understated.
LikeLike
Sorry, should read, overstated.
LikeLike
What’s the problem given the composition of the priests?
LikeLike
Joe M
Posted December 17, 2015 at 2:51 pm | Permalink
I would not want to stake my immortal soul on being one of John Calvin’s “Elect.”
…
As usual Catholic who accuse Prots of ‘not getting’ things just don’t get Calvinism. No one is ‘staking their soul’ on being elect: they stake their soul on the work of Jesus on the cross.
He died only for the members of your “elect” little club, not for all men, just you lucky ones. Everybody, Protestant and Catholic alike, understand you just fine. Your version of the Christian religion is not all that complicated, sorry to disappoint you.
LikeLike
vd, t, Joe M is a Roman Catholic.
tsk tsk
LikeLike
Some Cardinals know there’s a problem:
LikeLike
Well, it’s only a matter of time for us, too, if we don’t develop a true, Biblical, solid apologetic to address the Gay dilemma in our churches.
Look at the rise of Gay Men in church leadership among protestants. Wesley Hill, Sam Allberry, Ed Shaw, and their sympathizers, like Scott Sauls and even Tim Challies, now, too.
10 years from now, Gay Men in the Protestant pulpit will be more common than you have probably thought.
LikeLike
Well, that should make Mermaid and Susan more communicative:
LikeLike
Still there in the room but behind the closet door:
LikeLike
If there are five seminarians in the library conference room, how many of them have danced to a Gloria Gaynor song? I know the answer.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Is a celibate heterosexual elder or pastor fit for office?
LikeLike
James Young, Francois Hollande has no authority over me.
LikeLike
Terry Mattingly to the rescue: blame the journalist.
No capacity to wonder about the bishops who teach one thing and implement another.
LikeLike
Darryl,
No capacity to wonder about the bishops who teach one thing and implement another.
Remember, nothing you say invalidates the perfect separation between doctrine and practice that Bryan and CVD have so carefully worked out in their hermetically sealed superior paradigm that exists in Plato’s world of the forms.
LikeLike
Robert, funny how the gap between Protestant theory (sufficiency of Scripture) and practice (30k denominations) always shows Protestantism’s error.
LikeLike
DGH and Robert,
Or the inconsistency of doctrine to doctrine.
Some of the men God is giving over to damning wrath are the same He gave a saving charism to: gay priests serving ‘Jesus-in-a-wafer.’
What a morally confused god who offers MoC: motives of confusion.
CvD,
The Apostles! Boo!
You,
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
LikeLike
Darryl,
Sometimes I wonder if these guys can say “double standard.”
LikeLike
Like Johnny Caspar discovered in Millers Crossing, running things is hard:
LikeLike
Eurocentric. Vocational strain. Legalese that exonerates at all costs any potential Vatican complicity. Personal culpability/skeleton/knowledge? Probably time for all the clergy to excuse themselves and let lay charism take this over.
LikeLike
The golden parachute in the Rome.
LikeLike
Administrative leave or defrock?
LikeLike
Even Terry Mattingly says this doesn’t reflect well on the ones who are in succession of the apostles:
LikeLike
Serious:
LikeLike
If you doubt the bishops about reassigning priests, how can you trust them on doctrine or its development?
LikeLike
Maybe someone could have some bumper stickers made up and distribute them, DG, …saying:There is no fear of God before my eyes.
LikeLike
See?
And this is the context for Bryan and the Jasons’ defense of papal audacity.
Wow.
LikeLike
The report:
LikeLike
Phil Lawler is speaking tonight at Hillsdale College:
LikeLike