Posted on 05/03/2002 6:38:30 PM PDT by history_matters
Cardinal Anthony M. Bevilacqua's sweeping rejection of gay men becoming priests diverges from mainstream thinking by U.S. Catholic theologians and policymakers, a range of church scholars said in interviews this week.
But his remarks echoed a little-known Vatican decree issued four decades ago that may come into play as church leaders labor toward a national response to the sex-abuse scandal in the church.
Upon his return last week from the cardinals' summit conference in Rome, Cardinal Bevilacqua weighed in on the debate about gays in the priesthood - a hot issue in the scandal - with a categorical pronouncement.
No "homosexually oriented" men, not even chaste ones, are "suitable candidates" for the priesthood, he told a news conference, because heterosexual celibates "are giving up" the good of family and children, while gay celibates give up what the church considers "a moral evil."
With his remarks, and the hard line taken against homosexuals at the archdiocese's St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Wynnewood, Cardinal Bevilacqua has put himself in the front rank of church conservatives who staunchly oppose the ordination of gays.
The cardinal's views reflect an antipathy toward homosexuality that is found in the Catholic catechism, but his statements about banning even celibate gay priests surprised most of the 14 Catholic theologians and other experts contacted for comment. Two of the 14 voiced support.
Most said the dominant view among theologians, bishops, seminary officials and other policymakers is that the decisive factor should not be a candidate's sexual orientation but whether he is "acting out" sexually.
"He's the first one I've heard make this particular argument" distinguishing between gay and straight celibacies, said the Rev. John Baldovin, professor of historical and liturgical theology at Weston Jesuit School of Theology in Cambridge, Mass.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" and "contrary to the natural law," while urging tolerance toward gays and saying they are "called to chastity."
But to say homosexual orientation alone disqualifies a person for diocesan priesthood takes church teaching into an area where doctrine is unsettled, several of the theologians said.
Church leaders "weren't willing to admit for the longest time that they had gay people in the priesthood," said Father Baldovin, so "nobody was trying to construct the difference between straight celibacy and gay celibacy."
Cardinal Bevilacqua is a canon lawyer, not a degreed theologian, but he has the last word on this matter in the archdiocese, as any reigning bishop has over a diocese. Unless rules bearing papal authority are imposed - which has not occurred regarding gays in diocesan seminaries - a bishop can interpret scripture and doctrine as he sees fit.
Cardinal Bevilacqua will have no further comment on his statements, archdiocese spokeswoman Catherine Rossi said.
The Rev. Joseph A. Komonchak, a theologian at the Catholic University of America in Washington and a consultant to the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference's committee on doctrine, was among the theologians who questioned the cardinal's views.
A gay person "can't give up his orientation," Father Komonchak said. "... That particular application of theology I've never heard before. If it's anywhere in church teaching, I've never seen it."
A Catholic University colleague, theology professor John Grabowski, said he had seen the cardinal's position "argued by a few others, but I must say it's not a common position... . It's an isolated view."
Grabowski said the argument "doesn't work. The church does teach that homosexuality is an objective disorder, but every person has disordered inclinations. That's the human condition. I don't know how you can bar a person from ordination because of that."
The opposite view was voiced by the Rev. Ray Ryland, who teaches theology at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio.
"I have not come across this distinction [on gay celibacy] that the cardinal makes, but I think he's quite right in saying it," Father Ryland said. "As a prudential judgment, I agree that persons of that orientation should not be admitted to the priesthood because of the very grave temptations they face" in seminary and parish life.
The Vatican has taken a similar stance. In 1961, Pope John XXIII issued a decree concerning people entering convents, monasteries and other religious orders. The directive, which remains valid, instructs that "those affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty [man-boy love] should be excluded from religious vows and ordination."
Scholars said the decree, developed by the Sacred Congregation for Religious, does not apply to diocesan seminarians. According to Catholic News Service, Vatican officials are considering updating and reissuing the document as part of their internal discussion about whether to impose standards for selection and training of priests.
The matter of gays in the priesthood has emerged as a thorny aspect of the abuse scandal. Some Catholic conservatives, noting that many of the reported molestations have involved priests and older boys, have renewed their complaints about the relatively high number of gay priests.
Gay priests and rights activists have said the cardinal and other conservatives are scapegoating gay priests. Homosexuals, they argue, are no more likely to be pedophiles than anyone else, and no more likely to break their promise of priestly celibacy than heterosexuals.
In his news conference last Friday, Cardinal Bevilacqua said without elaborating that he believed gay priests were at a "much higher" risk of becoming sexually active. "When a heterosexual celibate chooses to become a celibate in the priesthood," the cardinal said, "he's taking on a good - that is, his own desire to become a priest - and he's giving up a very good thing, and that is, a family and children that could follow. That would not be true of a homosexually oriented candidate. He may be choosing the good, but... he's giving up what the church considers an aberration, a moral evil."
The Rev. Donald Cozzens, a onetime Cleveland seminary rector and the author of The Changing Face of the Priesthood: A Reflection on the Priest's Crisis of Soul, said the cardinal's priesthood theology harked back to the tradition of asceticism. But the church, he said, primarily teaches that a person chooses priestly celibacy "because it feels like the path God has ordained for me for spiritual maturity, not as an ascetical practice like giving something up for Lent... . His framing of the issue is creative. It is fairly new to my ears."
The Rev. Richard McBrien, a theology professor at the University of Notre Dame and a former president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, said Cardinal Bevilacqua's outlook seemed to be based on "a fundamentalistic interpretation of Scripture" that "no one with any serious scholarly credentials in the field of biblical studies" shared.
The cardinal's point of view is "rather fundamentalist," said the Rev. Don Clifford of St. Joseph's University, a longtime professor of dogmatic theology.
Further, the 72-year-old priest said, "many people who had the most positive influence on me, on reflection, were very likely gay... . They presumably were living chaste lives and had tremendous influence on their ministries."
The debate about gays is part of a "long-term discussion" within the church, Father Clifford said, and "I always bet on the Holy Spirit to see how it comes out."
My apologies.
He da man!!!
This a$$hole, pardon my french, needs to be defrocked and excommunicated. I personally don't give rat's spit for what McBrien has to say. He's been a heretic on the scale of Arius ever since I've known of him. He's a disgrace to the roman collar and a near occassion of sin to unsuspecting Catholics. I pray for his repentance and his removal and for forgiveness for the anger his name invokes in me.
He is one of the few cardinals we have whose fidelity to the Magisterium is well known.
So, you don't believe priests molest girls, or you're ok with that?
About "all the rest of it is a dodge" - so, we shouldn't be proactive? Our only problem is the priests we know are molesters? That is just plain one dimentional thinking. First off, all known molesters names are now in the hands of the law. They will decide the fate of those molesters, not the Catholic Church. Second, what about the possiblility of molesters coming up from the seminaries and their effect on the future of children? Shouldn't we address that problem and go to the root cause?
Now, due to the GREATLY OVERWHELMING number of young male victims, due to the number of priests dying of AIDS (much higher than the general population) what does that lead you to believe? That is evidence that, guess what? Most of the abusing, evil priests are HOMOSEXUALS.
Where are all the abused girls? Not that it doesn't happen, but where are all the abused girls???
Time for you to read "Goodbye! Good Men" - but I bet you won't.
I have written letters asking that they talk about "agape",which is what Jesus Christ had for us and what the Father had for us and what we are to have for one another. I believe the Bible used love to mean that transcendent love of humanity as well as brotherly love.The Greeks had several words for it,when the scriptures speak of love they are not talking about "eros",but in our feel good saturated society,every homily about love usually just affirms for the "sinner" a scriptural affirmation of the goodness of "eros" and their own little loving relationship,cause few in our dumbed down,government educated populace know the difference.
I am not dismissive of "eros",it has a place in many of our lives,but it should never be primary.
YET!
Ironic, isn't it? However, I do think that the pyschology practiced by Fr. Groeschel is a bit different than say the psychology practiced by Hans Kung.
And you forgot to mention a graduate of St. John's Seminary in Brighton, Massachusetts (1962) - among the alumni are Geoghan and Shanley.
I understand Francis Cardinal George is in charge of the largest seminary in the United States, located northwest of Chicago in the town of Mundelein.
Among local residents this multi-diocesan seminary has the reputation of having a quite large and conspicuously gay seminarian population. Do you or any other Freepers have any information on the seminary at Mundelein?
That said,I think we need to demand statistics that are accurate. Then as in any reasonable organization its time for risk assessment. If it turns out that 98% are man-boy abuses,then an analysis needs to be made.There are statistics of significance or deviation from the norm,that can be applied. If the abusers are found to be homosexual {and they will be found to be IMHO)then it means that the Church needs to determine objective criteria,act to remove them from the priesthood and take great pains to not admit them to the seminaries.
Great care will need to be taken to assure that a priest who inappropriately touched someone over their clothing is not lumped in with a sodomizer when doing risk assessments.For instance, Cardinal Mahoney's well orchestrated accuser should not be used to swell the statistics of man-woman abuse. Does anyone know how Cardinal Mahoney is?
Frankly, is there anything in Catholic doctrine, which would suggest that a Priest who does not really understand the most basic forces that drive his flock, would be competent to serve as a Priest? Most of my Catholic friends are quite down to earth, family oriented people, to whom the traditional mating quest is a fundamental part of what they see for their own children. Even apart from the compelling moral issue, how could a Priest with deviant orientation be expected to represent the Church's role in guiding those children's spiritual development?
Am I, a non-Catholic, missing something; or is the Cardinal being assailed by people who have some sort of sick axe to grind?
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
CHILD abusers.
all known molesters names are now in the hands of the law
Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
You heard the Cardinals: serial and notorious, i.e. more than one victim and the public has to know about it, and doing a female while drunk just ain't that big a deal, goshdarnit. No, I don't believe "all known" abusers names have been turned over because they waved a shiny object in front of certain people and it suddenly became a need to "purge all the homosexuals!"
And yes, I am concerned about the future and the priests coming out of the seminaries: where's my assurance that their victims aren't going to be paid off while they get shuffled from parish to parish? WHERE THE HELL IS THAT ASSURANCE? I'm not Catholic; I don't give a rat's ass who gets ordained and who gets defrocked -- WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO DEAL WITH THE CRIMINALS?
Where are all the abused girls?
Paid-off and/or hiding in seminaries for being evil sluts and misleading those poor defenseless priests.
I'm sure I don't need to tell you that a teenage girl who enters into what she thinks is a consensual relationship with a man is going to have a lot easier time with her future sexuality than a teenage boy who does the same.
I don't know where they are -- they exist and I want to know that they won't in the future.
Now, if you Catholics want to get rid of homosexuals AFTER ASSURING ME THAT FUTURE CHILD MOLESTATIONS WON'T BE HIDDEN AND PAID OFF, then fine. Have at 'em. Ban those dog-named-Spot owners too, for all I care.
DEAL WITH THE CRIMINALS NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.
GOOD for Cardinal Bevilacqua! Those theologians and policy makers are part of the reason for the problems we're having right now. For the last forty years they've blurred the lines around the teachings of the Church so much that you can hardly get the same answer from two or three different priests these days when you ask a question about a particular teaching. Of course, some priests don't even THINK about looking it up in the Catechism, or suggesting that any Catholic can do that for themselves!
I would like to think so, but I don't. I believe some people, both lay and clergy, would be satisfied with whatever decrease in abuse they get from banning known homosexuals from the priesthood.
"95%" "98%" were teenage boys -- ban homosexuals! I'm not hearing anything about the 2-5% that aren't teenage boys -- a stat I'm not quite believing anyway simply because of the number of pre-teen boys we're hearing about.
I'm not hearing anything about future molestors, and they will exist even if all the known homosexuals are gone. "Serial and notorious" -- what the heck does that mean? 5? 6? More than one per parish? The victim doesn't accept the pay-off and goes to the press?
No more paying off victims, no more hiding the accused, and law-enforcement investigates accusations, not the Church.
Give me that and you can go ahead and discuss and set whatever internal policies you want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.