I’m fascinated by the way in which different cultures adapt to the reality of homosexuality. Among the various types of cultural roles, one that appears over and over again is the that of the shaman or priest.
There are legends and cultural festivals about the special significance of the hijra (a gender-blurred category of people in India that includes homosexuals and other gender-ambiguous people). There are the two-spirited (sometimes called berdache) people of certain First Nations groups. The 'yan daudu – who are frequently male prostitutes – of the Hausa in Africa play a part in the pre-Muslim/pre-Christian religions that have survived.
Reams of paper have been used up trying to explain this religious role in different cultures around the world. Post-modernists tend to favour the idea of “carnival” – that the breaking the rules helps a person step out of the mundane world. It may be as simple as the fact that homosexuals are less likely to have children, and so we more time on our hands for other occupations. I don’t know.
Once I was lamenting that there was no traditional, special spiritual role for homosexuals in Western Civilization, but then a friend of mine pointed out that we do: the Catholic priest. I don’t know if it’s true, but it’s an interesting idea.
I don’t go to Catholic church, so I’ll refrain from commenting on their numbers, but I do work for the Synod Office of the Anglican church, so I’ll try to present my arguement from that point of view.
Anglicans/Episcopalians may marry and have children…there is no vow of celibacy to hide behind, and thus…the labels of homosexuality/heterosexuality are more prevalent.
Many Anglican priests who are gay are not exactly hiding in the closet, but neither are they screaming here I am. Regardless, amongst the clergy at least, it is known who is and isn’t gay.
Having worked closely with the clergy for years…I’m privy to such information. In my area (which I am am told is representational of Dioceses at large), the number of homosexuals is no higher or lower than the general population.
There is no ‘hiding behind the collar’ in Anglicanism…and precious few men, who know the church, would use their vocation as a shield against their own sexual orientation. It’s ineffective.
That I am aware, this is a statement from a single individual from the period early in the breaking scandal in Boston. I am sure that that individual is not alone in his beliefs, but I have never seen any statement from anyone (else) within the RCC that would make this even a general consideration–and it is certainly not expressed as a rule.
There is a general movement among some extreme groups (typically those who do equate pedaphilia with homosexuality, such as Trosch, referenced above) who have made a lot of claims associating the Second Vatican Council with today’s “permissive” seminaries that are supposedly “letting in” more homosexuals and “turning out” more gay priests. (In conjunction with the pedophilia charge, it should be noted that the number of accused pedophiles within the priesthood currently is much higher among men ordained prior to 1965 than those ordained subsequently. Whether this is due to fewer pedophiles entering the seminary after Vatican II or simply the result of fewer men entering the seminary following Vatican II has not yet been established.)
Trosch’s claims for “half” and “up to 58%” are simply bullshit (regardless who his source was). The rate may, indeed, be higher than that of the general population, but I have yet to see reputable data to support that idea.
Thanks for the correction, Tom! You can, I’m sure, imagine how difficult it is for an interested and sympathetic non-Catholic layman to get objective discussion on controversial subjects, particularly if he is disinclined to wade through the turgid prose of the typical Vatican Congregation teaching document.
I would not want to overstate my case, either, of course. Jocquin Navarro-Vallis is not some mere Vatican clerk, but one of several Vatican spokesmen. (There are also periodic references to a 1961 order issued by Pope John XXIII barring homosexuals from the priesthood, although the document, itself, is really unclear as to whether it initially meant sexual orientation or sexual activity. On the other hand, Navarro-Vallis’s statement was made without reference to any actual teaching or order of the Church and had all the hallmarks of being little more than his own personal belief.
Given a demand for celibacy, sexual orientation is supposed to be irrelevant to ordination. Certainly, to the extent that anyone in the church (more frequently among various political advocacy groups than among official congregations) purports to believe that homosexual activity is simply a choice of a sinful action, opposition to a sexual orientation upon which one does not act is meaningless.
Given that the percentage of gays in the general population is in dispute – with one side saying 2-3 percent and another saying 10-15 percent – I’d say you’re gong to have trouble contributing to this thread. Your anecdotal experience means zip, debatewise.
Tom seems to think it’s only die-hard, traditionalist, conservative Old School Catholics who are claiming that the priesthood is now becoming dominated by gay men. He’s mistaken in that belief- but I’ll get back to that in a moment.
I’m a conservative Catholic who married into a wonderful family of extremely liberal Catholics (liberal both politically and religiously) with close ties to one of the most liberal orders of Catholic priests. I talked recently to a retiured priest from that order, who had been, until recently, the head of a seminary.
Now, this gentleman stands on the far left of every issue, religious or political. He has absolutely no problem with homosexuality per se (he lives in Berkeley, and has loads of gay friends and confidantes). And yet, I’ve heard him say several times that he’s extremely troubled by the DEGREE to which gay men now dominate seminaries. He says that seminarians today are OVERWHELMINGLY gay, to the extent that gay culture now dominates many of them. Indeed, he says regretfully, most promisaing straight seminarians decide after a few weeks or a few months, “I don’t belong here,” and drop out.
I concede, this is anecdotal evidence, not backed by serious study or data. But I’ve heard the exact same complaint by men like Garry Wills and Richard McBRien, neither of whom is what I’d call a Catholic (let alone a conservative!). Wills has gone so far as to say “An all-gay clergy is likely to be John Paul II’s most enduring legacy.”
Not exactly. I have pointed out that some members of the extreme right seem to deliberately confuse homosexuality and pedophilia and that those loud people tend to exaggerate the number of gay men in seminaries.
It is, of course, possible that there is a much higher percentage of gay men in seminaries than in the past. Of the two seminaries with which I have continuing experience, one has been accused of “harboring” gays (and the charge has been denied) and one has a faculty that seems to be leading the school right into the 1950s (and I have no idea how this affects the proportion of gay men in the seminary).
I do find it ironic, however, that if those who decry the increase in homosexual seminarians are correct, it would seem to indicate that such men are less likely to be pedophiles, based on the differnces in reported pedophilia for men ordained earlier or more recently.
If we are going to speculate on causes, I would (with no research to support me) offer celibacy in the 21st century. In a society that has only scorn for celibacy (and where an unmarried man is more and more frequently assumed to be gay), it just may be that fewer straight men want to take on a celibate lifestyle, whereas a gay man might choose to seek the priesthood where celibacy provides a “protection” from charges that he has a problem for not finding a woman to marry.
(Are these claims of an increasingly homosexual priesthood limited to the U.S.? North America? Western Industrial societies? Where is it supposed to be occurring and what are the social dynamics that surround it?)
Those posters (like Kalhoun) referring to Trosch …hope you’re aware that his bishop stripped his parish from him, for among other things…advocating “justifiable homicide” against doctors who perform abortions…
Trosch ain’t exactly close to being a reputable source concerning Catholicism.
[QUOTE=astorianI concede, this is anecdotal evidence, not backed by serious study or data. But I’ve heard the exact same complaint by men like Garry Wills and Richard McBRien, neither of whom is what I’d call a Catholic (let alone a conservative!). Wills has gone so far as to say “An all-gay clergy is likely to be John Paul II’s most enduring legacy.”[/QUOTE]
Grr, expert opinion DOES count as “serious data.” Especially if the question at hand is about a limited population (Catholic priests), then you are going to have to trust what people within the population say about it.
A systematic study might or might not improve the level of that data (you might have two sides at each other’s throats who say opposite things).
This whole “anecdotal evidence” doesn’t count for anything, ever, is starting to get beyond silly. It’s starting to dumb-down the level of debate on this board.
And what “expert opinion” has been presented in this thread? The OP starts off with an assumption for which we have seen no actual supporting data. We can discuss perceptions of why that assumption might be correct. We can challenge the assumption. Until someone shows up with genuine data, this is just a friendly back-and-forth of speculation.
(I seriously hope you do not consider McBrien or Wills to have “expert opinion” on the topic. Wills is a political commentator and McBrien is a theologian. Any testimony they provide, unless substantiated by evidence, is just as much anecdotal as the opinions expressed, here. Had someone quoted Andrew Greeley on the topic, we would have, at least, the input of a genuine sociologist who makes his living conducting such studies.)
I will confess that I had not seen McBrien’s comments prior to this thread. I will also note that I would give McBrien’s anecdotal evidence a certain amount of weight, simply because he is probably acquainted with several seminaries (although it is also true the visiting professors can come away with rather odd views of the establishments they visit). I will not extend the same acceptance to Wills, simply because I have no reason to believe that his anecdotal evidence as a layman talking to other people is superior to my experience.
The fact that McBrien’s comments are at such odds with my experience also raises (for me) another possible scenario–that there is not trend among U.S. seminaries, but that each seminary develops its own culture that may or may not look like other seminaries and that any person’s anecdotes are shaped by the particular seminary with which one is acquainted.
I recall the year I studied at Louvain/Leuven, one of the colleges was the American College established as a major seminary by U.S. bishops. The students included men from all across the U.S., but there were several diocese (and one abbey) that sent several men each year. Among the guys from Albany or Hartford or St. Meinrad’s, one could detect very different approaches to liturgy, Scripture, dogma, canon law, and other topics. They hardly walked in lock step on every issue, but each group brought a general trend of beliefs and attitudes. I wonder if there are, indeed, seminaries where a gay culture is developing and other seminaries where it is not and that any individual’s perception is colored by the culture of the particular seminary with which one has experience.
I don’t know if any has or not. I was just saying that the “anecdotal evidence” canard is especially inappropriate here.
Speaking of anecdotes, my priest friend said that when he was in the seminary in the 1970s, a huge bunch of the seminarians were openly gay and would go out cruising on a regular basis. The vow of celibacy was a joke (or, if not taken yet, the notion of sexuality as taught by the Church).
My best friend went to visit his non-gay cousin in a CA seminary. The guy had a whole wing of the old building to himself. While they were walking around, they could hear the loud sex noises of two gay guys getting it on. Presumably at least one of them was a priest. My best friend’s sister said she questioned her faith at that point.
Ever since a local priest has confessed to molesting a little girl back in the 1960s, my mom has not gone to Mass. She basically says she’s not Catholic any more.
Everyone seems to have their own stories, and the picture begins to come together: Lots and lots of priests are gay; many of these are having sex. This equals hypocrisy, because the Church teaches otherwise. Add to this the abuse scandals, de facto schism with Rome re teachings about contraception, etc., and you have a US Church that is circling the bowl.
Re the OP itself, I doubt that gay priests are anything new. My guess is that the monasteries were full of boys who could get a little jolly at times. There was probably the hetero faction that went out whoring and drinking, and then there were those “other” guys who always seemed capable of entertaining themselves. Maybe 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 was genuinely pious.
It’s known that many of the popes had mistresses and bastard children, and that was true for many of the high-up clergy, who were filthy rich.
The real question is to what degree was this all hidden from society? Did people look the other way when Father Bill was seen exiting the cathouse in the wee hours? Obviously, sometimes people like Abelard got in trouble for their deeds.
Just for the record, McBrien’s comments were made before a national TV audience of 40 million or so- he made them on an episode of “60 Minutes” which was dealing primarily with former priests who had left their vocations to get married.
Not surprisingly, the “60 Minutes” crew was gung ho for allowing these men to return to the priesthood if they so desired (and many of them DID so desire), and less surprisingly, they turned to Richard McBrien for support.
While the topic had little or nothing to do with homosexuality, McBrien oiffered the opinion that the requirement of celibacy HAS led to a much higher percentage of priests who are homosexual. And while he made a point of saying “Gay men can be good priests- they ARE good priest,” he said specifically that a “gay culture” now dominated most seminaries, and he considered this unhealthy.
Make of that what you will- he isn’t necessarily correct, obviously.
