I put in the new commenting system specifically for this post, you know. Both Ed and Kim (who needs a cool nom de plume, si'l vous plaît) believe my reasoning on why some gays join the priesthood is a bit...well, if not mendacious, then maybe just unwarranted. Kim points out that, particularly around the time of World War II and the Korean War, getting into the priesthood was a very, very honorable profession1, and no doubt many young adults at that time chose the priesthood for that reason. I accept that, and I constrain my points to men who have become priests post-Vatican II (which, ironically, coincides with post-sexual revolution2).
She would also probably agree with Ed, who writes:
I believe you are mostly correct regarding the gay priests thing. I'm not sure you are correct regarding why homosexuals become priests, though. I've always figured that devout [C]atholics who are also gay would be more likely to accept chastity as a condition of the priesthood (since they are already required to be chaste anyway). I never figured there was some sort of motivation beyond that. Gays just have greater opportunity since they don't have to give up something they don't already have to give up.
I might accept Josh's argument except that many gay priests clearly aren't giving up what they ought to be giving up anyway.3 If you think I'm disingenuous, this fascinating National Reviewarticle goes one step further:
"In his new book, Goodbye! Good Men, Michael S. Rose documents in shocking detail how pervasive militant homosexuality is in many seminaries, how much gay sex is taking place among seminarians and priest-professors, and how gay power cliques exclude and punish heterosexuals who oppose them. 'It's not just a few guys in a few seminaries that have an ax to grind. It is a pattern,' says Rose. 'The protective network [of homosexual priests] begins in the seminaries.' The stories related in Rose's book will strike many as incredible, but they track closely with the stories that priests have told me about open gay sex and gay politicking in seminaries. The current scandal is opening Catholic eyes: As one ex-seminarian says, 'People thought I was crazy when I told them what it was like there, so I finally quit talking about it. They're starting to see now that I wasn't.'"
Both Rose's book and the National Review article are biased toward the anti-gay priest camp, but this Kansas City Starreport from 20004 is both more progressive and more compassionate while still arguing (through inferences) that gay sex is quite common among priests.5
Are you saying that celibate gay men should not be allowed to be priests?
No, I'm not. They should be allowed. They should be allowed to minister at all Christian Churches, in fact, except for in United Church of Christ denomination, where they should be required to be in an active sexual relationship.
That last part was a joke, right?
Um, yeah.
Then what do you suggest? You certainly don't seem to be pro-status quo.
I'm not, and to a degree the sexual-centricity of this discussion isn't really appropriate. Celibate priests sin in other ways. Non-celibate priests do good work; one article -- which I can't find, alas -- argued that priests in sexual relationships were actually better priests, because they did more good works to try to rid themselves of the guilt they have.
I don't quite buy that.
Neither do I, but I don't think that sexually active priests are necessarily worse priests, either. Nor do I think gay priests are bad priests: The best priest I've ever had was likely gay, based on his effete demeanor (which doesn't necessarily mean anything) and his oft stated call for compassion for gays (which probably does).
So what are you saying, then?
I'm saying...I guess I'm saying if there are a large number of gay priests in the priesthood -- and all signs point to the "yes, there are" billboard -- then the Catholic Church needs to figure out why there are so many and figure out ways to specifically minister to these gay priests. I do honestly believe that many of them have come to the priesthood hoping that doing good deeds would fill up that romantic/sexual hole in their lives, and when it doesn't top off the gap, there are going to be temptations. (Except for that priesthood part, the same goes for gay Christians trying to remain chaste, or for that matter, straight unmarried Christians trying to remain chaste. Us straight people, however, have the advantage of hope; even if we are remaining chaste until marriage, and even if we don't have a current significant other, there's always hope that one will come around, followed by some honeymooning bada-binging. Gay6 Christians who choose to remain chaste -- a small minority, I suspect, though many gay Christians don't have a dogmatic issue with gay sex -- do not have that hope, and I think we forget that sometimes.)
Um, you're rambling just a bit there, good buddy.
That's because I'm not quite sure what I should say.
---
1 It's not dishonorable now, mind. Or at least it wasn't six months ago.
2 I bet Carman7 would find importance in that coincidence.
3 Obviously, some heterosexual ones aren't, too, and male and female ministers in non-Catholic churches are having affairs -- hey, maybe even with each other! -- and nuns of all sexual preferences are breaking celibacy vows -- hey, maybe even with priests! It's all good. Er, bad.
4 Also the year I initially read it.
5 Based on the reporting, I suspect the Star writers would prefer that (a) priests be allowed to marry and (b) gay priests be allowed to have open romantic relationships. That's the mainstream liberal view, so no surprise there.
6 This is a bit late to be mentioning this, but when I say "gay," I really mean "homosexual," or "gay/lesbian." I've been told before that "gay" is generally considered by the GLBT community as a male-only word, and I don't mean to exclude lesbians, bisexuals, and, uh, transgendered individuals from this discussion.
7 To bring it all full circle: as a gay friend in college pointed out to me, Carman's videos are even more fun once you accept the hypothesis that Carman is gay; the kitchiness, the shirtless muscular men, and Carman's inability to realistically portray an attraction to a woman all begin to make sense.
oh so lovingly written by
Matthew |
i sincerely do not know what you are doing here. are you lost? were you
looking for your delicate calico cat, and did you follow her up two flights of stairs
to this room? she is not here. she was here, yes. we gave her a warm bowl of milk, we talked with her about campaign finance reform for a time, and then she bid us good day. i believe she was
going to the post office two blocks down, but i don't quite recall.
for surely you did
not find your way from prinsiana, the least traveled site on
the internet. if you did, though, perhaps you are looking for humor. perhaps you are looking for profundity. perhaps you are looking for answers.
i'm sorry, but you shall go naught-for-three.
