The Difficulties of Gay Catholics
Jason Kuznicki on Nov 29th 2005 08:22 pm |
What could I write to comfort my gay Catholic friends at a time like this? Not much, I’m afraid. As homosexuals are barred from the priesthood, I can’t help but wonder when the remaining gay Catholic faithful will finally declare that enough is enough.
I left the Church long ago, mostly for other reasons — but I do think I saw this on the horizon, even back then.
Until recently, the Church held that homosexual orientation was not in itself sinful and that it did not prevent full participation in the sacraments. Homosexual acts, on the other hand, were always held to be a sin.
For as long as I have known about it, I have found this compromise untenable. As Jesus himself said, to sin with the heart is also a sin. To a lesser degree, perhaps, but it is sinful nonetheless. Would not the same apply to sexual orientation, and would this principle not condemn everyone for their various lusts, each in accordance with how much they deviated from God’s plan?
I suspect the only reason the Church hesitated before this to declare homosexual orientation inherently problematic was that, oddly enough, the Church could not quite be convinced that such an orientation really existed. Confronted now with the reality of powerful and enduring same-sex attractions — and faced with the need to scapegoat someone over the pedophilia scandal — the Church has at last resolved its internal contradictions: Homosexual orientation, while not a sin, is, in the delicate language typical of its declarations, a “grave moral disorder.”
Just a bit too conveniently (think pedophilia again), this disorder prevents a believer from participating fully in the sacraments.
To the liberal conscience, there is no sense in which an innate tendency could in itself be morally disordered, and thus the Church’s former position, while regrettable, was at least comprehensible: An alcoholic is sick, not evil, and we try to understand that his actions are not fully his own. Under an analogous reading of the former policy, chastity — a free choice open to everyone — should have been enough.
Under the new policy, however, a strongly homosexual orientation, even among the perfectly chaste, is reason enough to bar candidates from the priesthood. As William Saletan complains in Slate, “Through no fault of your own, you’re doomed.”
I hate to say this, but… well, yeah. Complaining about it misses the whole point of Christianity.
To the Christian, every one of us is doomed through no fault of our own, every single day of our lives. We stand condemned not because we have done some specific act, but merely because we are human. We are bound for Hell because of Adam’s sin, and because, in the Christian belief, his taint infects us all.
I can’t say this often enough: Christianity is not about liberalism. Christianity has never believed that we are innocent until proven guilty. All are guilty until they are redeemed. And, John Locke be damned, not all are created equal.
Inequality abounds. Some are more tempted to one sin, others to another. Some commit many specific sins; others, few. Some are born again, as the Bible assures us, while others never are, and these cannot experience eternal bliss. That’s just life.
Sad as this situation may be, it is the Church’s responsibility to sort out those people who possess different types and levels of sinfulness and determine on this basis just who should serve as the representatives of God on earth. While all have sinned and fallen short, this in itself is no reason to suspend God’s law. Part of God’s law, for the Catholic, decrees that these decisions are not to be made by the ordinary believer, but by the Church hierarchy, obedience to which is incumbent upon all of the faithful.
So what is to be done?
Is it perfectly inconceivable that homosexual orientation could be a part of original sin? Is it perfectly inconceivable that, whenever it manifests, this orientation must disqualify a man for the priesthood? Really? Then the right response can only be to leave the Church. Form another Church if you wish, join an existing one, or do whatever you like. Console yourself with the awesome act of faith it takes to conclude that perhaps God is working something new in the world. I’m sure it can’t be easy.
But if you have any doubts at all about these options, then consider the following…
If it is at least thinkable that homosexuality really is a grave moral disorder, then the right response is to remain within the Church and to accept its judgments with humility. Accept that you, too, are gravely disordered. We all are.
It’s just, well, more apparent in your case. Consider it a lesson in mortification, end your sinful behavior, and move on. Be thankful that you were warned in advance; whatever sufferings you experience now are nothing compared to Hell itself.
It’s a tough choice, and I can’t say I envy those who call themselves Catholics. You are in the company of Erasmus, of Luther, and of many others who have struggled over whether to follow an institution that, while divine, is still all too human as well. It is a problem that the Church has generated throughout its history, and we will no doubt see its like again.
I know that this presumes a lot, especially coming from an ex-Catholic, but I can say for certain that if I thought that God (or even God’s inept but duly appointed representatives) had ordered me to a life of chastity, I would obey.
I would obey even if I thought that these representatives were acting on bad information, bad faith, or both. Obedience would come first, because this is God that we’re talking about, and we cannot presume that he chose these representatives in vain. Perhaps I could console myself that what He is said to demand here of homosexuals is not so very different from what He is said to demand of others — In Christianity of virtually every form, unearned guilt falls on everyone. The choice to accept it, though, is yours.
Filed in Uncategorized
Thank you for this.
Thank you for the gesture, but I need no comforting. The document is no surprise and really no great departure from the current standard operating procedure. Since priests–regardless of orientation–are supposed to be celebate by vow, then this document just reaffirms current doctrine. Eh.
The only true problem I have with the document is: “In light of this teaching, this department, in agreement with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, holds it necessary clearly to affirm that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, may not admit to the seminary and Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, show profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.”
This is far too vague (which actually could go to support priests of gay orientations, rather than against them). How do you define “support of the so-called gay culture”? What are “deep-rooted homosexual tendencies”?
In the end, each bishop will modify this vague document to serve his diocese’s needs. If gay men are all they have to chose from (and, increasingly, this is becoming the case), the bishop will interpret the document as he sees fit.
This document doesn’t really address the real issue: the Church’s antiquated position on sexual morality. And pointing to this document as injustice truly isn’t getting to the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem: the interpretation of Scripture regarding homosexuality and the supposed primacy of procreation.
What does this have to do with liberty, or libertarianism? An individual’s choice to voluntarily abide by the dictates of the Church is up to him. This reminds me of all those angry lefty Irish types–think Sinbad O’Connor–who get all worked up at the teachings of the Church re birth control etc.–teachings that its followers are free to disregard.
No one is saying that people don’t have the right to attend the church, but judging everything solely on the moral ground of whether or not a policy is inherently coercive leaves a lot out. There are two levels to moral judgment: whether or not something violates one’s liberty, and then whether or not we judge that action to be right per se. No one here is saying the Church should be made to allow gay priests, but that doesn’t mean we brush the issue off all together just because people are at liberty to not participate in the Catholic Church.
Stephan –
This has nothing to do with liberty or libertarianism. Positive Liberty has always been about many different topics, and authors may write about whatever they wish.
And I’m sorry if I sounded whiny, but even those awful Irish lefties are right up to a point: When the Catholic Church uses its influence over the state to restrict abortion and birth control, their claims take on a new meaning.
Dave –
My understanding is that the policy really has changed. Formerly, you could admit any sexual orientation at all, so long as you were able to practice chastity. Now, though, all you need to do is support “gay culture,” and you’re ineligible.
As I understand it, the new ruling would disqualify a man who sang in the Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington DC, but did not have sexual or romantic relations with anyone. Like I pointed out above, it’s certainly the Church’s prerogative to decide something like this. It’s also the individual member’s prerogative to either stay (and continue in effect to accept that homosexuality is sinful, perhaps now more sinful than they realized) or to leave, and to conclude that God is working something new in the world. It can’t be easy.
Radaladzinsky says: “No one here is saying the Church should be made to allow gay priests, but that doesn’t mean we brush the issue off all together just because people are at liberty to not participate in the Catholic Church.”
Sure. Agreed. Whatever “brushing off the issue means.” But if we are veering from libertarianism here to mere personal opinion, my opinion happens to be that people that are stupid enough to take the advice of a bunch of, well, mystics, deserve what they get. I don’t feel sorry for them or that it’s really an issue worth fretting about. Just me. Sorry.
Jason Kuznicki Says:
“This has nothing to do with liberty or libertarianism. Positive Liberty has always been about many different topics, and authors may write about whatever they wish.”
Gotcha. Okay. Fine.
“And I’m sorry if I sounded whiny, but even those awful Irish lefties are right up to a point: When the Catholic Church uses its influence over the state to restrict abortion and birth control, their claims take on a new meaning.”
Well. Sure. But I thought Cue-ball (Sinead) and her ilk were not whining so much about the Church’s influence over the state but its own very policies. Moreover, as you probably know, libertarians can disagree about abortion (not birth control). I myself used to be a Randian “it’s a blob of cells” moron; nowadays the callousness and dishonesty and utter selfishness/meanness of most advocates of abortion rights appalls me. They say a woman has a “right to choose” without even mentioning the fetus. Look. It seems quite obvious to me that a late term abortion is in most cases tantamount to infanticide. So we have a spectrum. Not saying it should be illegal, but why abortionists act like this is the most important issue in the world is beyond me. I would give in on this issue one way or the other to move past it and focus on the real issue: lowering taxes.
Jason: I have been conversing with a Church insider (one who is close to Rome and has a good reading on the pulse of policy), you are correct, the policy has changed. But, as I have stated and the insider has affirmed, the document is written in such a vague way that each bishop will interpret it as they see fit. Most will then, essentially, ignore it’s more discriminatory nature. They cannot afford not to ignore it.
The ruling might disqualify a priest would might want to sing with GMCW, if the Cardinal Archbishop of Washington wished to enforce in that way. But consider this: a diocesean priest must be approachable by ALL in their congregation. If an outwardly gay priest sings with GMCW, it could make some parishoners uncomfortable and thus, make the priest inaccessible to them. And before someone cries, “Well, that’s just too bad,” the priest has sworn to be loyal to the bishop they serve and part of that loyalty (as well as the overall calling to the priesthood) requires that they minister to all in their congregation to the best of their abilities. More disturbing might be if a bishop banned his priests from attending a GMCW concert or, worse yet, denied them the opportunity to have gay and lesbian ministries in their dioceses. (This is something that I’m watching closely). Priests, in their zeal to minister to all in their flock, can’t afford to appear outwardly gay before this document was ever written (despite the injustice that this scenario generates), so this document really doesn’t change much of anything.
Again, we should be watching how this document affects how the Church ministers to their GLBT congregants, not how just or injust it is to diocesean priests.
One other note: apparently this document has not yet been released by the Congreation On Catholic Education at the Vatican (which comes from a Congregation, not from the Pontiff). Which means this document is probably still in draft.
Never mind, I just found the reference to it.
From Globe and Mail: Bishop James Wingle of St. Catharines, Ont., a member of the executive of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the document must be seen in the context of a broad range of guidelines for priestly vocations that the Catholic church periodically issues.
“This isn’t [addressing] the whole picture, just one particular facet. And it contains a clear affirmation that it is not about demeaning or bashing persons who have homosexual tendencies.”
He said the document clearly separates what the church calls tendencies — sexual orientation — from the sexual act.
The homosexual tendency isn’t prohibited, he said; the act is, which is precisely parallel to the church’s rules for its priests on heterosexuality: the tendency isn’t prohibited but the act is.
He said the document impressed him with its careful attention to what he called nuance and the room it left for cultural interpretation. “It will provoke a great deal of careful attention,” he said.
Suzanne Scorsone, director of communications for the archdiocese of Toronto who holds a doctorate in anthropology, called the document a framework that would permit bishops and seminary rectors considerable discretion in its application.
The discretion, she said, will be applied to the careful and respectful exploration of a priest’s attitudes and the limits that should be imposed on his behaviour. For example, she said, the prohibition of “support of the so-called gay culture” could allow for a priest to attend a gay pride parade to hand out education material on HIV-AIDS. But she agreed that it could not allow a priest to ride half-naked on a float wearing a clerical collar.
This is some indication that my theory on “vague interpretation” is in the right direction.
Dave,
You make some very good points. I really have trouble with the following, though:
You know as well as I do that several ministers from other denominations sing in GMCW. Would you say — whether here or to them personally — that they are unapproachable because of this? I don’t think that you would. What, other than this policy itself, makes a Catholic priest unapproachable to his congregation, merely because he sings with a gay chorus?
Well, I have always been ineligible for at least one sacrament, and not because of any “disordered” sexual orientation. Lack of a Y chromosome bars me and all women “in perpetuity” from ordination in the Catholic Church.
As for Kinsella’s attitude on abortion, “why abortionists (presumably Kinsella means “women” by this term) act like this is the most important issue in the world is beyond me. I would give in on this issue one way or the other to move past it and focus on the real issue: lowering taxes.” He’s mighty free with other people’s bodily integrity and civil liberties, considering this is one issue he will never have to face in his own body. Perhaps he would like to be assigned to compulsory kidney or bone donation, and have a random infant or child assigned to him for care, whether he wishes to parent or not.
A few non-gay people sing in gay and lesbian choruses, btw. There are a couple each of non-lgbt in the local choruses.
Thank you Nancy. To amend a phrase “I can’t help but wonder when the remaining female Catholic faithful will finally declare that enough is enough.” My tendency was to become an Episcopalian instead, but I guess starting my own church is a more interesting suggestion…
Nancy –
I quite agree with you on all counts. While I am certainly in favor of lower taxes, I also think that abortion should always be permitted for just the reasons you state. Libertarians would be rightly horrified if the government decreed that citizens must donate blood or organs against their will, even if the forced donations meant that someone else’s life could be saved. Abortion is quite the same to me, and even if we conclude that the fetus is a full person (which I think it is not), I believe the same principle applies.
As to straight people singing in gay choruses, you are again entirely right. Straight people are welcome, and some do participate. I actually chose the gay men’s chorus example for exactly this reason, because the Vatican document says that supporting gay culture is reason enough to bar men from the seminary. If that’s the case, the new ruling could affect straight men as well (depending of course on interpretation — but then, what seminary candidate wants something so important as this left up to interpretation?)
Wow. Fifty + percent of the Catholic population is precluded from becoming a priest because they are female and you worry about the one straight guy who wants to be a priest but is in the gay/lesbian choir.
Jason said… “Libertarians would be rightly horrified if the government decreed that citizens must donate blood or organs against their will, even if the forced donations meant that someone else’s life could be saved. Abortion is quite the same to me, and even if we conclude that the fetus is a full person (which I think it is not), I believe the same principle applies.”
This analogy isn’t perfect because it ignores the agency a parent (or conceiver) has in creating the need in the first place. The fetus would not need a place to develop were it not for the action of both participants in the sexual act.
If we are equating fetuses with sentient human life (which I don’t), but for the sake of argument let’s say we do, then a more proper analogy would be whether it would be morally justified to force a bartender to donate part of his liver to a customer to whom he has served too much alcohol resulting in liver failure for that customer.
Marcela –
You certainly put things into perspective, and I don’t disagree in the least. But then, I’m not Catholic either, so this is all somewhat of an armchair exercise for me. In particular, it assumes the justice of the ban on female priests — something I would never do in real life. But then, in real life, I don’t believe in God, either.