CLGS Responds

Article on Vatican Instruction
Bernard Schlager
Director of National Programming, CLGS

26 February 2006

God Will Continue to Call Gay Persons to the Roman Catholic Priesthood

I find the recent Vatican Instruction on the admission of men with homosexual tendencies to seminary training and priestly ordination to be a queer sort of blessing for American Catholics in general and for LGBT Catholics in particular because it brings out of the closet something that has been a poorly-kept secret now for decades: the Roman Catholic priesthood in this country has become a significantly gay profession. By this I mean that the presence of a good many gay men both in seminaries and in the priesthood is an inescapable fact of American Catholic life today.

Are there reliable statistics for the percentage of seminarians and priests in active ministry who, to quote the Instruction

1) Practice homosexuality
2) Present deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or
3) Support the so-called "gay subculture"?

No, such statistics are not available but there is, I believe, an accurate understanding on the part of many American Catholics that a sizable number of their priests are homosexual. And, I would argue, many Catholics in this country are simply not troubled by this. In fact, it seems to me that these Catholics have subscribed to the view that gay priests are just as holy, just as effective, and, of course, just as humanly flawed as are priests who happen to be straight. And many Catholics believe this because they do not understand homosexuality to be "objectively disordered" nor do they believe that all homosexual acts are "grave sins" or "intrinsically immoral" as the Vatican teaches.

To tell you a bit about my background: I am a gay man who entered the seminary at the age of 14. For eleven years I studied for the priesthood and, in the process, joined a religious order in my early 20s. While in the order I came out to myself and to others in a community of religious men who were mostly gay themselves and who were wonderfully supportive people. I was fortunate to live in a seminary with a rich and life-giving gay subculture.

In the early 1980s there was the sense (at least in the seminary where I studied) that Roman Catholic theology was in the process of being transformed, albeit slowly, by an honest dialogue about human sexuality that might result in a more humane understanding and a more authentically Christian appreciation of LGBT persons - both in society at large and within the Church itself.

For example, in 1976 Father John McNeill published The Church and the Homosexual (with the permission of his Jesuit superiors) and the appearance of such a book offered the hope that a mature theological and pastoral conversation on homosexuality was beginning to take shape within the Catholic Church.

In hindsight, however, the hopefulness of the late 1970s and early 1980s was unwarranted. McNeill was silenced by the Vatican (in 1977) and in 1986 the Vatican issued its pronouncement that settled on the term "objectively disordered" to describe homosexuality. In that same year American bishops were instructed to ban the gay advocacy group Dignity from use of any church properties in the United States. When I left the order in 1985 there was an increasing sense of unease among its gay seminarians and priests that the still-youthful papacy of John Paul II would eventually condemn these American attempts to bring about change on the issue of homosexuality.

Why do I say that the 2005 Vatican Instruction is a blessing of sorts for LGBT Catholics in particular and for all American Catholics in general? Because, in bringing the issue of gay seminarians and gay priests out of the closet, the Instruction calls upon Catholics (and, in particular, bishops, priests, and seminarians) to face squarely an issue that for far too long has been hidden from public view and that has sometimes even been ignored in seminaries and houses of formation with significant numbers of gay men. Because this Instruction calls for the expulsion of men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" from seminaries it will require bishops and superiors of male religious orders to accept or to reject at least some of the premises and conclusions contained in this document.

For instance, the bishop of a diocese will now need to decide whether or not he will accept (or continue to accept) "out" gay men as candidates for the priesthood even if this bishop has, in the past, ordained men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" who have proved themselves to be excellent priests who are able to embrace maturely a celibate way of life. Such a bishop will certainly be struck by the Instruction's bizarre inconsistency in calling for the removal of gay seminarians, on the one hand, while allowing ordained gay men to remain in active ministry, on the other.

The Instruction provides gay seminarians and gay priests, as well, with questions that many may feel compelled to address. How are they to respond (from their lived experience as gay men of faith who have accepted God's call to priestly ordination) to a document that explicitly calls into question their suitability to serve the Church as priests?

A few men may decide (as some already have) to leave the seminary or active priestly ministry as a way of voicing their opposition to the Instruction. Others will find a variety of ways (largely quiet) to counter the Instruction by continuing to live lives of integrity. Tragically, some (and perhaps most, I fear) will opt for the old and illusory safety of the closet in an attempt to be faithful to what they see as their God-given vocations.

Certainly, Vatican officials must realize the dangerous course that they are charting with an Instruction that, despite its warnings to the contrary, will encourage homosexual seminarians to repress their sexual identity and that may well sanction witch hunts designed to root out gay seminarians and priests.

According to a few recent news reports that I have read about George Niederauer, the newly-appointed Archbishop of San Francisco, there is cause for optimism that, in this Catholic diocese at least, the Instruction will not be implemented in such a way that will result in the wholesale banning of gay men from admission to the seminary and subsequent priestly ordination. As has been pointed out by several commentators, Niederauer is a bishop who has publicly criticized efforts to blame gay priests for the horrendous pedophilia scandal that has rocked the Roman church in this country. He also is a priest who enjoyed an evidently successful ministry in a West Hollywood parish with a significant lesbian and gay population. These two items certainly seem to provide reason to hope that, as incoming ordinary if the San Francisco archdiocese, Bishop Niederauer will not apply a strict interpretation of this Vatican Instruction.

In closing, let me say that I believe that most American Catholics will respond to this Instruction (when and if they hear about it) as they have responded to other Vatican statements on human sexuality in the past 40 years or so. That is, they will respond with a healthy dose of skepticism and, more importantly, by evaluating the document's premises, arguments, and conclusions in light of their own experiences with LGBT family members and friends. And some American Catholics will, no doubt, draw upon their largely positive experiences with priests whom they know to be gay or whom they believe might be gay.

Will this Instruction's call for the wholesale dismissal of gay men from seminaries make sense to a Catholic laity that, like the larger American society, increasingly rejects attempts to demonize gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people? I don't think so, and I believe that the ever-increasing visibility of LGBT people within American society and communities of faith has the potential for contributing positively to a discussion about the wisdom and justice of portraying gay people as defective individuals.

By issuing this Instruction the Vatican has, I hope, sparked a debate that will be ongoing and one that will lead at least some Catholics (at various levels within the Church) to step forward and name this document for what it is: a misguided attempt to deprive the Church of her gay priests.

Certainly one of the many strengths of the Roman Catholic Church in America today is a highly-educated laity that has increasingly shown its ability and willingness (since the Second Vatican Council, in particular) to assess critically church statements that deal with sexuality and sexual morality.

I believe that this Instruction will be read in time by American Catholic clergy, religious, and laity as a deeply-flawed document because most Catholics believe, from their own experience as people of faith, that God has called, that God is currently calling, and that God will continue to call gay persons to priestly ministry within the church despite human attempts - however officious - to interfere with the realization of that call.

back to top