Jesuit Priest Questions Vatican’s Stance On Gays
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in ReligionNEW YORK - A top Jesuit official is raising objections about an upcoming Vatican document that’s expected to reinforce Roman Catholic teaching that gays are not welcome in the priesthood, while some U.S. leaders of men’s religious orders are considering a trip to Rome to express their opposition.The Rev. Gerald Chojnacki, head of the New York Province of the Society of Jesus, said in a letter to his priests that he was asking bishops to tell Vatican officials who are drafting the policy “of the great harm this will cause many good priests and the Catholic faithful.”
Chojnacki wrote in the letter, dated Monday, that he had participated in the funerals of several gay Jesuit clergy over the last few years.
“I find it insulting to demean their memory and their years of service by even hinting that they were unfit for priesthood because of their sexual orientation,” he wrote.
Listen, just because you’re gay doesn’t mean you can’t be a good priest. Also, gay doesn’t equal pedophilia. The two things are certainly mutually exclusive, but the church seems to be combining them and that’s very disturbing.
So yes, I’m glad somebody within the church has finally spoken out. Expect him to be decried from the top brass, but I hope all of us understand that “top brass” doesn’t equal “infallible.” Some would disagree with this, but we’re all human beings, and as such, we have the unique ability to be wrong.
Unfortunately, I still think this witch hunt will gain traction within the church. I hope it doesn’t happen, but I fear it’s inevitable.
This entry was posted on Saturday, October 1st, 2005 and is filed under Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 1st, 2005 at 9:36 am
Saying a priest cannot serve based upon the nature of the temptations he is resisting makes no sense theologically. As long as the priest remains celibate, what does it matter what direction his temptations come from?
If you exclude priest A for homesexual fornication simply because he’s tempted in that direction, then how can you not exclude priest B for heterosexual fornication simply because he’s tempted in that direction? Wouldn’t both priests be defrocked if they succumbed to their particular temptation in the flesh? I won’t even try to get into how you reliably test a potential priest for sexual orientation if they’re celibate.
I admit that the prospect of an openly homosexual person in the pulpit is unacceptable to me, just as an openly adulterous or drunken person is unacceptable. However, as long as the Rev/Priest maintains strict control over and does not act upon their temptations, I have no business judging them. A policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” would seem to be tailor made for this kind of situation, whether it’s in the Catholic church or anywhere else.
Maybe, since I’m not Catholic, I’m missing some obvious justification for the distinction?
October 1st, 2005 at 1:37 pm
“Also, gay doesn’t equal pedophilia. The two things are certainly mutually exclusive ….”
Not sure if you meant to insert a “not” in there or not. My understanding is, human sexuality can be either gay or straight, and then within each broad channel the whole range of deviations and perversions exists. That is, there are gay bondage freaks as well as straight bondage freaks. And there are male pedophiles who are fixated on little girls, and male pedophiles who are fixated on little boys. Maybe you’re defining “gay” as “exclusively attracted to adults of the same gender.”
While I generally support the idea that it is behavior, not desire, that should be the measure of a priest or any other professional, I sort of think certain people with certain intense sexual desires toward young children probably should not pursue careers that put them in constant and intimate contact with young children. Sort of like, if you’re an alcoholic, you probably shouldn’t work in a bar, or if you’re narcoleptic you shouldn’t be an airline pilot.
October 1st, 2005 at 3:37 pm
The construction that to ban gay priests in future is an insult to gay priests that exist today runs into a real historical problem. Are married Eastern Catholic priests insulted by the ban on married priests in the Roman rite? They certainly don’t think so. I know this because I’ve asked.
The Jesuits are letting their standards slip if this is the kind of argumentation that passes for jesuitical these days. The good Reverend is simply not thinking straight if he seriously believes that any adjustment in entry rules into the seminary is an insult to any dead priest. In a less sexually charged example, I don’t think that the Catholic Church has ever conceded its theoretical right to raise troops in military orders. It has, as a matter of discipline, abandoned the practice of arms training among the knights of Malta, et al. Is that an insult too? The Roman rite can restrict the priesthood as it wishes and such changes are simply not insulting if they are received in good faith.
BrianofAtlanta - I think that it’s very unclear whether gay priests will be banned from all rites or merely from the Roman rite. Frankly, it’s unclear whether there will be an actual ban. The order has not been released yet and Vatican politics is certainly rough and tumble enough that these stories could be attempts to shift things in one direction or another by players inside the Vatican.
October 1st, 2005 at 3:43 pm
Yes, I am and the distinction is important.
Agreed, and that’s why the church’s non-distinction between gay and pedophila is so distrubing. In essence, they’re making it the unofficial position of the church that the two things are basically the same thing.
This type of chracterization is ridiculous and demeans the lives and loves of hundreds of millions of people all over the world.
October 1st, 2005 at 3:48 pm
I’m a member of the athiest/agnostic camp myslef, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say:
If they want, they can claim that they ARE infallible as a matter of Catholic doctrine.
October 2nd, 2005 at 6:33 pm
Justin Gardner - The Roman rite essentially said that they couldn’t handle the challenges of a married priesthood. They gave it up centuries ago. Other rites have not given it up and my own parish is served by a married priest (1 daughter, he just became a grandfather this week). By not making a distinction, it’s essentially saying that it’s not currently up to the task of weeding out the pedophiles from the homosexuals and rather than have more children be savaged, they’d rather make do with fewer priests. If anybody has a right to feel insulted, it’s the bishops and religious superiors whose judgment is being dismissed as insufficient.
Icepick - You don’t quite get infallibility, I think. The Pope cannot say that dogs are infallibly better than cats. This is not a faith and morals question. What he can say is that Arianism is forbidden and out of bounds forever. The Pope, by virtue of his office, has a limited grant of infallibility in certain matters according to Catholic Doctrine. You can count how many times that power has been used on one hand. You can be a fool and still have a pointed hat.
October 3rd, 2005 at 5:06 pm
If this truly is a matter of doctine, then it is very, very unfortunate for the Church that a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth is pushing it. However it may differ in reality from the Nazi persecution of gays, it looks close enough.
The details and nuances of infallibilty are also a little beside the point. The social and political effects of the perception of infallibility are more relevant. There is supposed to have been a letter in the days of sainted Pope John XXIII to US bishops to the effect that accusations of pedophilia were to be handled strictly in house, in effect making the bishops agents of a foreign government obstructing the course of US civil law. Do you think any of them actually complied over the years? Hmmm?
These days it is au courant to wonder if Islam can be made to comport with democratic forms of government. The same question applies to about any religion. The way American Catholics are handling this whole situation, by defying their religious leaders, says that the answer is probably yes with regard to Catholicism.