Citação:

CAN GAY BE PRIESTS ?
Timothy Radcliffe

The long-awaited Vatican document on homosexuality in the priesthood, due to
be published next week, has been substantially leaked. Here the former
Master of the Dominicans, Timothy Radcliffe, assesses what it has to say
about gay men and their suitability for holy orders.

TWO WEEKS AGO I was in Nova Scotia, giving a retreat for the bishops and
priests of eastern Canada. A priest sent up a piece of paper with a question
that he was too shy to ask publicly: “Will this document on the admission of
gays to the priesthood mean that I am not welcome anymore? Does it mean that
people like me are second-class priests?” I have heard this same question,
in one form or another, from priests all over the world. The forthcoming
Vatican document on homosexuality and the priesthood is the focus of
intense anxiety, which is why we must attend to exactly what it says.
There are two principles to bear in mind: first, we must give it as positive
an interpretation as possible. This is not a matter of putting a positive
spin on documents but of trying to discern what are the true intentions of
the authors. Our media are filled with accusation and this document will be
denounced as another attack on gay people. This denunciation also occurs
within the Church. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has often
given tendentious interpretations of the writings of theologians.
Theologians, in turn, give the most negative possible interpretation to
Vatican documents. Nothing good can come from Rome! As a Church we must find
another way of listening to each other, which really attends to what is
said. Justice and truthfulness demand this.
Second, a vocation is a call from God. It is true that, as the document
says, it is “received through the Church, in the Church and for the service
of the Church”, but it is God who calls. Having worked with bishops and
priests, diocesan and religious, all over the world, I have no doubt that
God does call homosexuals to the priesthood, and they are among the most
dedicated and impressive priests I have met. So no priest who is convinced
of his vocation should feel that this document classifies him as a defective
priest. And we may presume that God will continue to call both homosexuals
and heterosexuals to the priesthood because the Church needs the gifts of
both.
The Church has a right and a duty to exercise careful discernment in the
admission of seminarians. When the document says that this has been made
“more urgent by the current situation”, then presumably it is thinking of
the crisis of sexual abuse that has shaken the Church in the West. So there
are two questions: does this document provide good criteria for discerning
who has a vocation? And will it help to address the crisis of sexual abuse?
The document insists that a candidate for the priesthood must reach an
affective maturity that “will allow him to relate properly with men and
women, developing in him a true sense of spiritual fatherhood for the
ecclesial community that will be entrusted to him”. Let us leave aside for
the moment the question of “spiritual fatherhood” and focus on affective
maturity. What does this mean?
The document states that the Church “cannot admit to Seminary or Holy Orders
those who are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies,
or support the so-called gay culture”. The first criterion is
straightforward. The same could be said of those who are actively
heterosexual. The second two need clarification.
What is it that is meant by a “deep-seated homosexual tendency”? The
counter-example given by the document is of someone who goes through a
temporary phase of homosexual attraction, and asserts that the seminarian
should have overcome this at least three years before ordination to the
diaconate. That would not cover all the cases of seminarians who are
reflecting on their vocation in the light of this document.
It could also be interpreted as having a permanent homosexual orientation.
But this cannot be correct since, as I have said, there are many excellent
priests who are gay and who clearly have a vocation from God. Perhaps it is
best understood as meaning that someone whose sexual orientation is so
central to his self-perception as to be obsessive, dominating his
imagination. This would indeed pose questions as to whether he would be able
to live happily as a celibate priest. But any heterosexual who was so
focused on his sexuality would have problems too. What matters is sexual
maturity rather than orientation.
Then there is the issue of supporting “gay culture”. It is right that
seminarians or priests should not go to gay bars and that seminaries should
not develop a gay subculture. This would be to celebrate as central to their
lives what is not fundamental. Seminarians should learn to be at ease with
whatever is their sexual orientation, content with the heart that God has
given them, but any sort of sexual sub-culture, gay or straight, would be
subversive of celibacy. A macho subculture filled with heterosexual innuendo
would be just as inappropriate.
But does supporting a “gay culture” mean only that? As the document says,
the Church must oppose “unjust discrimination” against homosexuals, just as
it does racial discrimination. That means that all priests must be prepared
to side with gay people if they suffer oppression, and be seen to be on
their side. Of course this raises complex issues. To oppose gay marriage
will be seen by some people as discrimination, whereas in official Catholic
teaching it is not. If one becomes involved in any opposition to
discrimination, then one is liable to be misunderstood. It is a risk that
one must sometimes take.
Finally, there is the question of “spiritual fatherhood”. This is not a
concept with which I am familiar. Can only heterosexuals offer this? This is
the view of the Bishop to the American armed forces, who said recently: “We
don’t want our people to think, as our culture is now saying, there’s really
no difference whether one is gay or straight, is homosexual or heterosexual.
We think for our vocation that there is a difference, and our people expect
to have a male priesthood that sets a strong role model of maleness.” I
cannot believe that this is what is intended by the document. There is
little evidence of muscular Christianity in the Vatican. If the role of the
priest was to be a model of masculinity, then he would be relevant to less
than half of the congregation and one could therefore argue that women
should also be ordained as role models of femininity. I presume that the
“spiritual fatherhood” is above all exercised through the care of the people
and the preaching of a life-giving fertile word, but neither has any
connection with sexual orientation.
It is extremely urgent that we form priests who are “affectively mature”,
and able to relate easily to men and women. This document tries to identify
criteria that will help to discern that maturity and points to issues that
are undeniably important. These criteria need to be applied equally to all
candidates, regardless of their sexual orientation. Our society often gives
the impression that heterosexuals and homosexuals are virtually two species
of human being. But the human heart is complex and patterns of desire shift
and evolve. I have known priests who thought that they were gay when they
were 30, and then discover that they were not, and vice versa. If we are to
form priests who will live their celibacy fruitfully then they must be at
ease with themselves, in all their emotional complexity, without being
deluded into thinking that it is the core of our identity. That is Christ.
“It does not yet appear what we shall be, but when he appears we shall be
like him, for we shall see him as he is.” (I John 3:2).
Our society is obsessed by sex and the Church should offer a model of a sane
but not compulsive acceptance of sexuality. The Catechism of the Council of
Trent taught that priests should talk about sex “with moderation rather than
copiousness”. We should be more attentive to whom our seminarians may be
inclined to hate than whom they love. Racialism, misogyny and homophobia
would all be signs that someone could not be a good model of Christ.
The document concludes by urging seminarians to be truthful to their
spiritual directors. To lie would not correspond with “the spirit of truth,
loyalty, and availability that must characterise the personality of one who
considers himself called to serve Christ and his Church in the ministerial
priesthood”. This is of fundamental importance. But if the criteria of this
document are interpreted in a narrow sense to mean that no one who is gay
can be ordained, then some seminarians would find themselves to be in an
impossible situation. If they speak openly, then they may not be accepted.
If they do not, then they are failing in transparency. The danger is that
the most honest may therefore leave and the less truthful stay, and so we
would form a priesthood that was immature, ill at ease with itself, and more
liable to continue abuse. It is therefore most important that these criteria
are not interpreted in a way that drives people into concealment. That would
actively impede the formation of priests who are affectively mature.

Timothy Radcliffe OP, former Master of the Dominicans, is now at
Blackfriars, Oxford. His latest book, What is the Point of Being a
Christian? (published by Continuum).