The Gospel of Celibacy

by Terry Mattingly

When it comes to nightlife in Washington, D.C., Dupont Circle is one of the places where people go to be seen.

So Amy Welborn wasn't surprised to see familiar faces while visiting the hot spots with a friend in the late 1970s. It was easy to spot the Catholic University seminarians _ with their girlfriends _ even though the future priests were not wearing clerical garb.

For more, go here: http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=RELIGION-FAITH-10-05-05.

Hereafter Mark Brumley opines:

A former seminarian friend of mine from my hometown of St. Louis tells stories of "celibate dating", by which he means dating by men who are supposed to be discerning a priestly vocation that includes celibacy.  Just the thing Amy Welborn mentions in the Mattingly column.

Surprise, surprise. That sort of thing led to a crisis of seminary life in the 1970s and 1980s, and of priestly ministry in the 1990s. What a shocker. That, along with heterodoxy of doctrine, bad moral theology, and homosexuality in the seminary.  (I will spare readers stories I have heard from seminary officials, former seminary officials and former seminarians about the homosexual network, the Daughters of Trent, and other such things.)

Now we're getting the seminary visitations.  No doubt, things have already improved in a lot of places.  But it still isn't enough.  We'll see whether the visitations yield only marginal results or something more significant.  Stay tuned.

One observation about the Mattingly column and Amy Welborn. I love Terry Mattingly's stuff and Amy Welborn's stuff. It's great that a big-time religion news writer and columnist (yes, you are, Terry) actually knows the name of someone like Amy Welborn.  Terry is among the best.

And yet:

Meanwhile, American bishops are bracing for another document about sex and the priesthood--new rules from the Congregation for Catholic Education that are rumored to bar the ordination of all homosexual priests, celibacy or no celibacy.

"A total ban of that sort is unworkable and I think everybody knows it," said Welborn. What Rome is trying to say is "that a self-identified, politicized, gay man who doesn't believe the teachings of the church just isn't going to fit in. That kind of man isn't going to be a priest that practicing Catholics can trust.

Now, Amy's opinion on this is certainly interesting and hardly unique. But I wonder if Terry Mattingly couldn't have found someone more directly involved in seminary formation and experienced with the specific problems in question to quote on the subject of whether it is unworkable to bar homosexuals from ordination. Many of us have opinions on the subject--I freely give mine, so I certainly don't fault Amy for giving hers. But it would have been more helpful in Terry's column to hear from a rector, a spiritual director, or others daily involved in the seminary formation process.

Also, Amy says that a total ban on ordaining homosexuals is "unworkable". If she means that some people can hide their homosexuality and get ordained, then her comments are certainly true enough.  People who hide their orientation hide their orientation. But if she means that it is unworkable to set up a rule against ordaining someone known to have a homosexual orientation, it is by no means self-evident that it is "unworkable", nor is its alleged unworkability something "everybody knows".  The real question is whether such a norm will be observed by seminaries and bishops.

Such a norm may prove "unworkable" in the sense that seminary officials and bishops may not observe it. If so, then we're half-way down the slippery slope to being right back to where we started.  Having disobeyed a norm against ordaining known homosexuals in one instance, such officials and bishops may well ignore a norm against ordaining those who delight in their homosexual orientation. Then the only solution would be the drastic measure of removing the officials and the bishops. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but let's also be willing to see it happen if that's what it takes to deal with the problem.

It may be that the Vatican will ultimately set down a new rule--even though the old one is apparently still in force--that generally excludes all candidates for ordination who are known to have homosexual inclinations.  That will not, obviously, exclude from ordination those with a homosexual orientation who aren't known to have a homosexual orientation. But then requirements of orthodoxy in faith for ordination won't exclude those who embrace heterodox views but who aren't known to do so. Should we ordain those known to be heterodox just because we can't exclude those not known to be heterodox? You can only do what you can do.

Of course one argument is that allowing openly homosexually-oriented men to be ordained, provided they commit to chastity, means we won't have men trying to conceal their homosexuality in order to be ordained, which of course is true.  But it doesn't follow from that that such men will be chaste. Those who are open about their homosexuality but who aren't really committed to chastity can lie about a commitment to chastity just as easily as someone can lie about having homosexual inclinations in the first place.

But what about the truly chaste individual with a homosexual orientation who evinces great sanctity?  Will he be excluded by the new norm? It may be that such individuals will be accepted on a case-by-case basis, so that the purden of proof would shift to someone with a homosexual inclination to make the case that his orientation is not debilitating or disqualifying.  But it might also be the case that the new norm will see as problematic even someone whose homosexual inclination seems sufficiently sublimated. The risk of misjudging or creating problems for others by ordaining such a seminarian may be deemed too great.

In that regard, the situation may be similar to that of ordaining someone known to have a significant alcohol abuse problem. The risk of the problem becoming debilitating to the person or his ministry under the circumstances of priestly life and ministry may be deemed too significant.

But even if the analogy with alcohol abuse is problematic, those who favor a case-by-case scenario have to reckon with the fact that there's a likelihood that some authorities will judge people as "safe risks" who won't be.  Not just because you can't know the future, but because the standards by which such judgments are made will not be consistently applied and the judgment of some authorities in question will be poor. That's part of how we got to where we are: some authorities who certainly didn't support homosexual activity by priests nevertheless misjudged some homosexually inclined seminarians' ability to be chaste in the all-male environment of the presbyterate. Or the judges misjudged their seminarians' commitment to chastity. An across-the-board ban has the advantage of being relatively easy to apply because it doesn't require someone to make the more-likely-than-not subtle and complex judgment whether a seminarian's homosexual orientation is likely to prove a problem for him or his ministry.

In any case, we'll see.

That's probably enough said by me on that.  For the moment. The visitations are not, as Terry Mattingly and Amy Welborn rightly observe, just about homosexuality, as important as that issue is. Let's pray that all of what needs to change gets changed as a result of these visitations.

Comments

[Carl Olson]

Excellent comments, Mark. I've also been puzzled (and a bit amused) by claims that any attempt to keep homosexual men from seminaries is "unworkable" or "unenforceable." It reminds me of parents who shrug and say, "Well, kids are kids; they're going to [pick one] drink, smoke pot, have sex, cheat in school. What can you do?" The answer, of course, is to be a better parent and be proactive in addressing those potential problems. Which is what Benedict and many bishops want to do. Besides, some seminaries have done a masterful job of keeping orthodox, heterosexual men away, so why can't it work the other way — as it should?

[Valerie]

I think the seminary vistitations could be a very good thing that will let a light shine. Seminaries, like other institutions, can be used for advancing the personal agendas of those running them--and they are not always those of the Church. As the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and some of those running the seminaries have been unchecked....

Also, Father Fessio made a very good point on National Public Radio's Terri Gross's show last night--seminaries which do require seminarians to uphold all the teachings of the Church, including whole hearted endorsement of the Gospel of Life and human sexuality are full. He said Lincoln, Nebraska, with Archbishop Bruskewitz is exporting priests.
I know as the mother of boys that I would not encourage any of them to enter the seminary if it meant they would be subject to a questionable sexual situation. It is hard enough to discern a vocation and it is hard enough to live up to the teachings of the Church--without having someone ostensibly in authority in the Church tell you your belief in the Church's teaching is intolerant.
We, in the pews, need strong leaders and examples who espouse clearly and with charity the Gospel.

[Joseph Previtali]

I think that it is important in this whole conversation that we keep in mind that there does not exist a subjective right to be ordained a priest. The Church is the custodian of the sacred mysteries, and as such, has the right to discern how best to dispense them. I have found this point helpful to keep in mind in discussing qualifications of candidates for Holy Orders.

[Matthew]

Humanae Vitae...if the world would follow this, submit to the Church, life would be normal

[Boethius]

Matthew, don't you know that Humanae Vitae is "unworkable"?

[Mrs. Harmon]

I agree with Joe.
And I want to know if he's one of the "American seminarians" mentioned at the end of John Allen's piece from yesterday:
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/sb100605.htm

[Mark Brumley]

Mrs. Harmon: Like Joe would tell us right here and now.

[Nino Baldino]

It sounds cute to you but as a former catholic (small C) hs teacher who had a 'chaplain molesting some dozen boys in the school its not so funny. Its the case of evil men joining the church to cast doubt on the pristhood and detroying innocence in our youth. The boy scouts have it right ,too bad your friends dont.!!! Nino

[Sammuel Denizard]

Wow. This is some really fucked up shit. What planet do you people live on?

[David]

How come there is no discussion about the risk of admitting heterosexual candidates to be priests? Are heterosexual men innoculated against sexual temptation? I think not. History, both ancient and recent, tells of popes and priests who have left women pregnant, and of bishops and priests who decide to run off with their female parishioners.

Using the lines of argument espoused here that gay men will find it hard to live in a seminary, what about life after seminary? Priests spend most of their lives outside the seminary, living on their own own and, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, they will have plenty of opportunities to have sexual relations with people of either sex if they wish to do so.

Let's be clear: the ability to be celibate does not depend on whether you are homosexual or heterosexual.

The level of discourse here is of such an immature level that it makes me sad. Instead of prejudging situations and predicting other people's future behaviours, why don't you do something useful and good and go out and give a helping hand to the poor or a helping hand at the parish, and stop prying and casting those stones?

God bless us all
David