Thoughts on Celibacy (Part V)

The Wild Reed’s exploration of celibacy continues with an excerpt from theologian, priest, and author James Alison's 2003 book, On Being Liked.

As you'll see, Allison (pictured at left) looks at celibacy within the broader context of both the meaning of homosexuality and the issue of gay men in the Roman Catholic priesthood.

To start at the beginning of The Wild Reed's series on celibacy, click here.

I should also say that this will be the final installment in this series. Why? Well, basically, my interest in celibacy, especially as it relates to the Roman Catholic Church, like my interest in every other institutional church-related topic, is pretty much none existent for me now. This blog may have started out as a "gay Catholic" one, but it's evolved beyond that, as the byline under its name now highlights. I dare say I'll write more about this in a later post. But for now, here are James Alison's erudite thoughts on celibacy, homosexuality and the priesthood.

______________________________

The only question at stake for the [Roman Catholic] Church on the gay issue is the following: either there is or there isn't such a thing as being gay as a normal and unremarkable part of nature.

If there isn't, then of course church authority is right to try to get people not to act according to what they are not, and all of its culture of secrecy, tolerance, cover-up and ambiguity is simply what trying to be merciful looks like in the midst of a world gone mad, which is no doubt how some in authority see it. But if there is, then we are in for a time of pain as it becomes clear how vital mendacity has been to the structure of our Church.

And here I want to take issue with a couple of voices from the Church in the United States who have taken slightly different tacks in their analysis of the problems we face. Donald Cozzens sees the presence of a disproportionate number of gay men in the priesthood as off-putting to the possibility of straight men joining. He indicates that from the perspective of many straight priests, celibacy is optional for gay priests. And indeed, one of the stupidities of our Church in its current mess is that where a stable relationship of marriage, an undisputed good in itself, would probably cause a priest to lose his job, a least in Anglo-Saxon countries, a discreet but stable same-sex relationship, or indeed discreet multiple same-sex relationships, considered by church authority to be bad, can be, and frequently are, overlooked.

Where I challenge Cozzens is in his seeming assumption that this is something to do with being gay, rather than something to do with inhabiting a field of mendacity. No. The question of truth comes first. While church authority is denying reality by indicating that celibacy is the only option for a gay person, then of course you are going to have a world inhabited by people who are there, half as willing and half as emotionally blackmailed, with all the attendant problems which that raises, including the creation of bitchy, codified subcultures, always the sign of people living in enforced infantilism, not free adulthood.

But when church authority accepts the truth: that there are some people who are gay, and that their flourishing looks remarkably like that of straight people, then you will not get seminaries full of people whose relationship to celibacy is deeply, and understandably, ambiguous. Some honest gay men who find themselves called to celibacy will join up. Just as some honest straight men do. And neither will put the other off.

For the moment, the twin forces of the non-acceptance of the anthropological reality of gay people, and the obligation of celibacy, serve to create a deeply ambiguous place, a severely queazy mentality, and one which would, I hope, put off anyone who was honest. Bt the solution to the problem lies in the recognition that the virtue of chastity, which is arduously acquired singleness of heart, and which I take to be an indispensable part of what the reception of salvation looks like in any Christian life, means learning "my body given for you" rather than "your body taken for me" in whatever circumstances we find ourselves, over time. For gay people just as for straight people. That is all. In short, getting the official teaching made adequate to discovered reality is a necessary first step towards making of the priesthood an honest profession.

– James Alison
Excerpted from On Being Liked
pp. 96-98

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Thoughts on Celibacy (Part I)
• Thoughts on Celibacy (Part II)
• Thoughts on Celibacy (Part III)
• Thoughts on Celibacy (Part IV)
• Celibacy and the Roman Catholic Priesthood
• John Allen on the Vatican's "Gay Lobby"
• It Is Not Good to Be Alone
• Diarmuid Ó Murchú on Celibacy and Androgyny
• Gay Men In the Vatican Are Giving the Rest of Us a Bad Name
• Officially Homophobic, Intensely Homoerotic
• A Fact That Should Be Neither Surprising Nor Derogatory
• Vatican Stance on Gay Priests Signals Urgent Need for Renewal and Reform
• Report: Homosexuality No Factor in Abusive Priests
• Weakland, the Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal, and Homophobia
• Keeping All the Queens Under One Roof
• Sons of the Church: The Witnessing of Gay Catholic Men - A Discussion Guide

Nienstedt, Redux

Back in February 2008 writer Tim Gihring interviewed myself and a number of other St. Paul-Minneapolis Catholics for a feature article he was writing for The Minnesota Monthly. Published in April of that year, Gihring's piece focused on "the talk of the archdiocese," namely the implications of the appointment of John Nienstedt (left) as archbishop, and how such an appointment reflected the state of the wider church.

Fast forward eight years: We have a new archbishop, Bernard Hebda, appointed in response to last summer's resignation of Nienstedt in the wake of allegations of clergy sex abuse cover-ups by the chancery and, as Gihring writes in an article published last month by MinnPost, "a seemingly unrelated set of accusations: the bumbling attempts of Archbishop John Nienstedt . . . to have sex with men."

A few weeks before the publication of his latest piece on Nienstedt, Gihring contacted me and asked if I'd share my thoughts on the following questions: "Does it matter that Nienstedt may be gay? Does his hypocrisy make his repression of others in the church that much more heartbreaking? Or is it simply prurient?"

I responded by noting how a few months before Nienstedt's resignation, I shared on The Wild Reed my thoughts on the investigation into his alleged inappropriate sexual conduct with men. I also said that my thinking on this matter, along with the possibility of Nienstedt being gay, has not changed since then. Gihring checked out the post I mentioned (Has Archbishop Nienstedt's "Shadow" Finally Caught Up With Him?) and responded, "Very insightful and compassionate, Michael, as always."

Nienstedt has been the subject of numerous posts here at The Wild Reed, owing to the fact that he led the charge of two efforts in Minnesota to amend the state constitution to prohibit civil marriage rights for same-sex couples. Both efforts failed (as I document here, here and here).

As the executive coordinator of both the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) and its 2010-2012 initiative Catholics for Marriage Equality MN (C4ME-MN), I was often compelled (and called upon by the media) to respond to and thus counter and challenge Nienstedt's words and actions around the issues of sexuality and marriage equality. (See, for instance, here, here, here, here, here and here). I also organized a number of actions and events that brought Catholics of the archdiocese together to speak out against and offer an alternative Catholic perspective to Nienstedt's anti-gay rhetoric and activism. (See, for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Quite frankly, I'm done with discussing and responding to John Nienstedt and his ilk. All the more reason, then, that I appreciate Tim Gihring's piece published last month by MinnPost. Not only does this piece provide an update on the issues surrounding Nienstedt, it also offers a helpful historical overview of Nienstedt's anti-marriage equality efforts and the opposition such efforts encountered by Catholic groups such as CPCSM and C4ME-MN. Finally, Gihring's piece offers something rarely seen in mainstream media: a humanizing, albeit tragic portrait of a churchman in denial of his sexuality, a denial which as Gihring documents, has led to much damage and scandal.

New Ways Ministry's executive director Francis DeBernardo, a leading figure on the national LGBT Catholic scene, argues that Gihring's contention that Nienstedt made a deal with Vatican officials that if he covered up sexual abuse cases, they would cover up his homosexual liaisons, is a "case . . . built totally on speculation." Nevertheless, DeBernardo acknowledges that Gihring's portrayal of Nienstedt may well describe "a gay man who did not learn to accept himself, and whose lack of self-esteem provided him no opportunity than to act out sexually in unhealthy ways, and to project his own self-hatred onto others."

Following, with added links, is Gihring's article in its entirety.

__________________________________

Does It Matter Whether
Archbishop John Nienstedt is Gay?

By Chris Gihring

MinnPost
August 19, 2016
When allegations of a sex-abuse coverup began to leak out of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis a couple years ago, they were always accompanied by another, seemingly unrelated set of accusations: the bumbling attempts of Archbishop John Nienstedt, then the leader of the archdiocese, to have sex with men.

“The archbishop has been known to go ‘cruising’ (and I am not referring to the type of cruising one does on a ship in the Caribbean) and, on one occasion, purchased ‘poppers’ (and not the exploding candy preferred by elementary school students) and followed another gentleman to his car for, well, the type of activity that men purchase ‘poppers’ for…,” wrote Jennifer Haselberger, the whistleblower whose allegations prompted Nienstedt’s resignation last summer. On her website, Haselberger helpfully links to Wikipedia’s entry on poppers: basically disco-era sex drugs.

In late July, more stories of Nienstedt’s “promiscuous gay lifestyle,” as a fellow priest put it, were released by prosecutors. Most relate to his time in Detroit, where he moved up the clerical ladder in the late 1970s and ’80s. He’s said to have frequented a gay bar just across the border in Canada, whimsically called the Happy Tap.

But even if the allegations are true, it doesn't mean that Nienstedt is sympathetic to sexual abuse — a link between homosexuality and priestly pederasty is as unproven as it is enduring. Nor does it mark Nienstedt as unusual. Catholic researchers estimate that as many as 58 percent of priests are homosexuals. To confirm that he desired men would be like discovering that the pope is Catholic.

But Nienstedt is not just any priest, of course. He staked his tenure in Minnesota fighting marriage equality — and using church money to do so. No other archbishop in the country has gone so far as to condemn the families and friends of gays and lesbians for abetting “a grave evil.”

Nienstedt, who now lives in California, writing and editing for a Catholic institute, has publicly denied that he is gay. He recently declared, as no straight guy ever has: “I am a heterosexual man who has been celibate my entire life.”

For gay Catholics, if Nienstedt does share their desires, the deceit would be heartbreaking, “a sickening level of hypocrisy,” as one described it. It may also help explain why Nienstedt not only neglected the sins of priests, but covered them up, a pattern of denial that would be hard to fathom if it were not so deeply personal.


A different era

When gay Catholics in the Twin Cities first came together, in the late 1970s, they asked to meet with then-Archbishop John Roach. They were looking for compassion and understanding, if not acceptance — and to a remarkable degree they got it.

With Roach’s blessing, the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) — an independent group of local Catholics based in St. Paul — introduced a sort of sensitivity training in parishes and in nine of the 11 local Catholic high schools. It was intended to help priests, teachers, and administrators better serve gays and lesbians, and it lasted for nearly 20 years.

“During the peak of our work,” [David McCaffrey] one of the group’s co-founders told me several years ago, “we became almost mainstream.” In 1989, the archdiocese awarded its Archbishop John Ireland Award to another CPCSM co-founder [Bill Kummer] for his social-justice activism on behalf of gays and lesbians.

The efforts paid off: “If it was okay to bash someone in the past, it isn’t now,” reported [Sister Mary Ellen Gevelinger] the director of Catholic Education and Formation Ministries in 1998. “We’re trying to teach kids what’s right.” When conservative activists objected that same year, the archdiocese defended the Safe Schools initiative.

Michael Bayly, a gay Catholic who until last year headed up the CPCSM, began compiling this history in 2009, shortly after Nienstedt became archbishop. He worried at the time that “there are some who would like to downplay or even deny such a relationship.”

But the church’s openness wasn’t limited to the Twin Cities. Bayly recalls that in 1994, when he moved to Minnesota, a bishop [Thomas Gumbleton] from Detroit came to talk with gay and lesbian Catholics on how — to quote the advertisement for the dialogue — a “wholeness in sexual expression” can be “deeply human and truly spiritual.”

In fact, Detroit was known as one of the most open-minded districts of the church. And as Nienstedt was starting out there, he was imbued with its liberal spirit.


Promoted and protected

In 1977, as the era of disco and poppers was in full swing, Nienstedt was 30, a newly minted priest in Detroit, and he became the secretary to Cardinal John Dearden, characterized by The New York Times as a “leading liberal voice in the Church.” Nienstedt himself described his mentor’s views to The Times as aligned “with the mind of the Church.”

But something changed after Dearden’s retirement in 1980, when Nienstedt went to work and study in the Vatican, which was shifting toward the neo-conservatism of the new Pope John Paul II. As a leading critic of Nienstedt has noted, the ambitious young priest saw first-hand “the changes John Paul II sought in the church and the kind of bishops whom he wanted.” When he returned to Detroit in 1985, Nienstedt’s new boss was a favorite of the pope, and, sure enough, in time Nienstedt adopted his views.

For pushing back on gays in the church, among other issues, Nienstedt would be promoted and promoted and promoted again. He would also be protected: Among the revelations in the documents unsealed last month is that the Vatican envoy to the United States quashed an investigation into Nienstedt’s homosexual activity and ordered evidence destroyed.

The evidence that exists, in the form of corroborated witness accounts, suggests that Nienstedt spent his time in Minnesota, from 2001 to 2015, living a precarious double life: indulging his homosexual tendencies, even as he railed against them.

Haselberger, who worked closely with Nienstedt in the archdiocese office as an adviser on church law, believes his proclivities help explain why he coddled abusive priests — he may have been attracted to them. And the so-called Delegate for Safe Environment, a priest overseeing child-abuse prevention in the archdiocese, came to the same conclusion about Nienstedt two years ago: being gay “affected his judgment.”

But Nienstedt’s silence protected far more priests than he could have known or been attracted to — dozens across Minnesota. And aside from suspicions of a relationship with one of the most notorious, Curtis Wehmeyer, his intervention — or lack of it — appears less about personal favor and more about institutional preservation. He saw sin, and looked the other way.

Instead, the deal that Nienstedt long ago made for the benefit of his career — to follow the church into conservatism — now seems a kind of ecclesiastical quid pro quo: if he covered for the sins of the church, the church would cover for his. The internal investigation of him, reportedly quashed by the Vatican, had been his idea — he was that confident that his name would be cleared.

But the deal may also have been a trap. By closing the door to homosexuality, marking its expression as the work of Satan and the most aberrant of sins, Nienstedt had nowhere to go with his own desires. He left himself no way out.

At the end, as multiple investigations closed in, Nienstedt still stuck to the pattern, claiming both that he was unaware of abusers under his watch and that any accusations of homosexuality were merely retaliation for his anti-gay policies. He had no choice but to double down on denial.

– Chris Gihring
MinnPost
August 19, 2016

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Gay Men in the Vatican Are Giving the Rest of Us a Bad Name
• Archbishop Nienstedt's "Learning Curve": A Suggested Trajectory (2007)
• Thoughts on Archbishop Nienstedt (2008)
• Progressive Perspectives on Archbishop Nienstedt's Anti-Gay Activism (2011)
• Has Archbishop Nienstedt's "Shadow" Finally Caught Up With Him? (2014)
• No Resignation for Nienstedt ... But Perhaps an Upcoming "Reassignment"? (2014)
• CCCR Responds to Archbishop Nienstedt's Resignation (2015)
• And What of the Investigation into Archbishop Nienstedt's Alleged "Sexual Improprieties"? (2015)
• Gay Men in the Vatican Are Giving the Rest of Us a Bad Name
• CPCSM and the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis (Part 1)
• CPCSM and the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis (Part 2)
• CPCSM and the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis (Part 3)
• CPCSM and the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis (Part 4)
• CPCSM and the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis (Part 5)
• CPCSM and the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis (Part 6)
• How Times Have Changed
• For the Record
• CPCSM’s Year in Review – 2006 (includes an announcement of the January 29 death of CPCSM co-founder Bill Kummer.)
• Sad News (The Wild Reed's July 10, 2011 announcement of David McCaffrey's death.)
• On the First Anniversary of Marriage Equality in Minnesota, a Celebratory Look Back at the Important Role Played by Catholics
• Saying Farewell to CPCSM

Related Off-site Links:
How Important is It to Know If an Archbishop is Gay? – Francis DeBernardo (Bondings 2.0, August 27, 2016).
A Timeline of Former Archbishop John Neinstedt’s Anti-LGBT Activism – Andy Birkey (TheColu.mn, June 16, 2015).
Jennifer Haselberger Was Ignored, Bullied Before Blowing Whistle on Archdiocese, Records Show – Jesse Marx (City Pages, July 15, 2014).
Betrayed by Silence: How Three Archbishops Hid the Truth – Madeleine Baran (Minnesota Public Radio News, July 14, 2014).

John Allen on the Vatican's "Gay Lobby"

As someone who's written about homosexuality and the Roman Catholic priesthood (see, for instance, here and here), I appreciate veteran Vatican watcher John Allen's recent Crux article, "Decoding What It Means to Say the Vatican Has a 'Gay Lobby'."

Here's, well, the crux of what Allen has to say (with thanks to Terry Nelson at Abbey Roads for first bringing Allen's insights to my attention) . . .

[W]hen Italians say there’s a “gay lobby” in the Vatican, they don’t mean an organized faction with the aim of changing Church teaching on homosexuality or same-sex marriage.

Instead, what they have in mind is an informal, loosely organized network of clergy who support one another, keep one another’s secrets, and help one another move up the ladder. The group is perceived to have a vested interest in thwarting attempts at reform, since they benefit from secrecy and old-guard ways.

It’s called “gay” because, the theory goes, a Vatican official’s homosexuality can be a very powerful secret, especially if he’s sexually active, and threatening to expose him can be an effective way of keeping him in line. It’s hardly the only such possibility, however, and, in any event, the emphasis is not on sex but secrecy, as well as the related impression of people getting promoted or decisions being made on the basis of personal quid pro quos.

That’s not to say that the perception of a widespread presence of gays in the clergy isn’t a strong part of the picture, especially in light of the furor last fall over Polish Monsignor Krzysztof Charamsa, the former Vatican official who outed himself on the brink of a controversial Synod of Bishops on the family.

Yet the speculation over a “lobby” isn’t really about sexual orientation, but the impression of a system in which people living personally conflicted lives look out for one another. In that sense, the term “gay lobby” is often synonymous for Italian-speakers with corruption, secrecy, and a sleazy sort of personal patronage.

– John Allen
Excerpted from "Decoding What It Means to Say
the Vatican Has a 'Gay Lobby'"
Crux
January 15, 2016

Related Off-site Links:
Two Bishops: The Vatican Isn’t a "Den of Thieves," But Has a "Gay Lobby" – Inés San Martín (Crux, January 14, 2016).
Vatican Gay Lobby? Really? – Francis DeBernardo (Bondings 2.0, January 17, 2016).
The Vatican's Secret Life – Michael Joseph Gross (Vanity Fair, December 2013).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Gay Men in the Vatican Are Giving the Rest of Us a Bad Name
• A Ewe Questions Her Shepherds
• To Be Gay in the Vatican
• Homosexuality and the Priesthood
• Quote of the Day – May 9, 2014
• Why I Take Hope in Pope Francis' Statement on Gay Priests
• Officially Homophobic, Intensely Homoerotic
• A Fact That Should Be Neither Surprising Nor Derogatory
• Vatican Stance on Gay Priests Signals Urgent Need for Renewal and Reform
• Report: Homosexuality No Factor in Abusive Priests
• Weakland, the Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal, and Homophobia
• Keeping All the Queens Under One Roof
• What Is It That Ails You?
• What the Vatican Can Learn from the X-Men

"I Am a Happy and Proud Gay Priest"

And he does look happy, doesn't he?
He and his boyfriend.

I'm happy for them both.

The priest is Monsignor Krzysztof Charamsa, who was fired yesterday from his mid-level position in the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith after coming out in newspaper interviews in Italy and Poland. In these interviews he said that he was happy and proud to be a gay priest, and that he was in love with a man whom he identified as his boyfriend. Charamsa's firing sadly confirms my previously expressed contention that truth-telling is the greatest of sins in a dysfunctional church, and must therefore be swiftly punished. Still, I remind myself that expulsion is often the cost of true discipleship. I also take heart from the fact that Charamsa's courageous stance is a hopeful sign that not all gay men in the Vatican are giving the rest of us a bad name.

Francis DeBernardo, Executive Director of New Ways Ministry, has issued a thoughtful statement on both Charamsa's coming out and his firing. Here's part of what he writes:

[Monsignor Charamsa's] revelation is an acknowledgement of the truth of the way God has made him, and, like millions of other LGBT Catholics, his self-acceptance and self-affirmation will help him better understand God’s love for him. For the Catholic Church, his news is another step in our growing process of coming to better terms with our LGBT brothers and sisters.

It is sadly disappointing that the Vatican fired him when they learned of his announcement. He now joins the long list of LGBT people and allies who have been fired from jobs in Catholic institutions because of LGBT issues. It is unfortunate that Church leaders did not see Charamsa’s announcement as an opportunity for further dialogue with someone they have known and trusted.

We hope that his news will help the bishops of the world gathering in Rome this weekend for three weeks of synod discussions which will include pastoral outreach to families with LGBT members. His witness to the holiness of the lives of LGBT people and the goodness of their relational lives could help these church leaders discern more appropriate and accepting forms of pastoral care. His testimony of struggle and overcoming fear should help these bishops see the challenges and joys that many LGBT people and their families face.

Of course, I've long concluded that there will never be "more appropriate and accepting forms of pastoral care" that are universal and lasting until the official teachings of the church on both gender and sexuality are changed – a process that can only begin with these same teachings being forthrightly challenged and named for what they are: erroneous and dysfunctional. In her recent op-ed, "The Pope's Encore: Reforming the Church," theologian Mary E. Hunt rightly considers the promulgation of such theological teachings as an example of an "anti-LGBTIQ effort" and thus "morally repugnant." Yet, as you'll read below, she also offers a "papal next step" toward the development of a "healthy, good, natural and holy" theology of sexuality.

It is time to end the gay charade in the Roman Catholic Church. The sea of men in every church and papal meeting during the U.S. visit underscored a homosocial power structure. It is an open secret that a high percentage of clergy and religious leaders are same-sex loving people, whether sexually active or not. For those same men to collude in anti-LGBTIQ efforts, including legislation and theology, is morally repugnant. A papal step next step would be to speak openly and frankly about the range of sex/gender options among Catholics and help people see the many healthy, good, natural and holy ways there are to love.

I'm happy that Monsignor Charamsa is modeling for the members of the hierarchical church this "next step." I just love the images of him and his partner Eduard. May the Spirit of clarity and love which inspired their relationship and compelled Charamsa to embody and speak his truth, similarly inspire and transform the hearts and minds of all within the clerical caste of the Roman Catholic Church. Let the transformation of this terribly dysfunction system and its impoverished sexual theology begin!


Related Off-site Links:
Vatican Sacks Gay Priest After Highly Public Coming Out – Philip Pullella (Reuters, October 3, 2015).
Vatican Fires Gay Priest on Eve of Synod – Nicole Winfield and Pietro DeCristofaro (Associated Press via Yahoo! News, October 3, 2015).
Gay Priest’s Revelation Is Big Step for Himself and the Church – Francis DeBernardo (Bondings 2.0, October 3, 2015).

UPDATES: More Details Emerge About Gay Priest Dismissed from Vatican After Coming Out – Bob Shine (Bondings 2.0, October 5, 2015).
Gay Priest Fired by the Vatican Says the Church Should Stop "Destroying Our Lives" – John L. Allen Jr. (Crux, October 14, 2015).
Gay Priest Who Lost Vatican Job Assails the Church in Letter to Pope Francis – Gaia Pianigiani (The New York Times, October 28, 2015).
Not All Gay Catholics Are Pleased About How Vatican Priest Came Out of the Closet – Anthony Faiola (The Washington Post, November 11, 2015).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Truth-Telling: The Greatest of Sins in a Dysfunctional Church
• When Expulsion is the Cost of Discipleship
• Homosexuality and the Priesthood
• Officially Homophobic, Intensely Homoerotic
• A Fact That Should Be Neither Surprising Nor Derogatory
• Let's Face It: The Catholic Church is a Gay Institution . . . and That's a Good Thing!
• Vatican Stance on Gay Priests Signals Urgent Need for Renewal and Reform
• Report: Homosexuality No Factor in Abusive Priests
• Catholic Church Can Overcome Fear of Gay People
• The Many Manifestations of God's Loving Embrace
• What Is It That Ails You?
• What the Vatican Can Learn from the X-Men
• Trusting God’s Generous Invitation
• Sons of the Church: The Witnessing of Gay Catholic Men - A Discussion Guide
• Remembering and Reclaiming a Wise, Spacious, and Holy Understanding of Homosexuality
• Remembering John McNeill

A Ewe Questions Her Shepherds

.

It is my understanding that many of you are gay and even regularly, actively engage in homosexual activities, albeit clandestinely. Those of you who do this would be living a lie. Yet you welcome closet homosexual clergy living duplicitous lives at table and even permit them to consecrate the host. However, homosexuals who honestly portray their sexual orientation you do not welcome. Why are you threatened welcoming to the table people who have the courage to present themselves authentically but are not threatened welcoming to the table people whose lives are a tangled web of lies and hypocrisy?

– Excerpted from "Some Thoughts on the Upcoming Synod on the Family"
Questions from a Ewe
September 27, 2014

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Gay Men in the Vatican Are Giving the Rest of Us A Bad Name
• Homosexuality and the Priesthood
• Officially Homophobic, Intensely Homoerotic
• A Fact That Should Be Neither Surprising Nor Derogatory
• Vatican Stance on Gay Priests Signals Urgent Need for Renewal and Reform
• Keeping All the Queens Under One Roof
• Oh, Give It a Rest, Papa!
• What the Vatican Can Learn from the X-Men

Related Off-site Links:
Love, Marriage and the Vatican: Americans' Attitudes about Marriage and the Catholic Church – Paul Herrnson and Kathleen Weldon (The Huffington Post, September 29, 2014).
Next Month's Extraordinary Synod on the Family in Rome is "Dangerously Homogenous" – John O'Loughlin Kennedy (The Irish Times, September 23, 2014).
How LGBT-Friendly Are the Appointees to the Synod on Marriage and Family? – Francis DeBernardo (Bondings 2.0, September 11, 2014).
The Makeup of Synod of Bishops on the Family is Disappointing – Thomas Reese (National Catholic Reporter, September 10, 2014).

Quote of the Day

. . . I remain puzzled and disheartened by what seems to be a massive disconnect between the reality of a high proportion of clerics who are gay and the public, demeaning, negative policies and actions regarding gays within the Catholic church. What kind of pressures and controls can help explain this resounding silence among the clergy on an issue that strikes so close to home – and what will it take to overcome this stance in the future?

One can only surmise whether the positive statements made by bishops about gays in [David] Gibson's [recent Religion News Service] article are, in fact, due to input by clerics who are gay. Whatever the case, it is a very hopeful sign for the church at large. Because once a bishop agrees that "God accepts and loves gays," it is a modest additional step to add "as they are." From there, all else is possible. Let the conversation continue.

– James Ewens
"In Search of the Gay Clerical Voice in Vatican Statements About Gays"
CORPUS Newsletter
May/June 2014

Related Off-site Links:
In Rare Public Split, Catholic Bishops Differ Sharply on Anti-Gay Laws – David Gibson (Religion News Service, February 13, 2014).
Catholics and Same-Sex Relationships: A Pathway to Doctrinal Change? – Terence Weldon (Queering the Church, February 14, 2014).
Homosexual Relationships: Another Look – Bill Hunt (The Progressive Catholic Voice, September 8, 2012).
Notre Dame, Catholic University, Welcomes Gay Athletes in New Campaign – David Gibson (Religion News Service via HuffPost Gay Voices, May 8, 2014).
"Spiritual Paternity": Why Homosexual Men Cannot be Ordained Catholic Priests – Paula Ruddy (The Progressive Catholic Voice, January 14, 2009).
Homosexual Priests and Spiritual Paternity – Ed Kohler (The Progressive Catholic Voice, January 26, 2009).
GayCatholicPriests.org – News and Information About Gay Catholic Clergy Worldwide.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Homosexuality and the Priesthood
Gay Men in the Vatican Are Giving the Rest of Us a Bad Name
Why I Take Hope in Pope Francis' Statement on Gay Priests
Vatican Stance on Gay Priests Signals Urgent Need for Renewal and Reform

To Be Gay in the Vatican

Writes Michael Joseph Gross in his recent Vanity Fair exposé, "The Vatican's Secret Life":

To be gay in the Vatican is no guarantee of success, mark of belonging, or shortcut to erotic intrigue. Most basically it is a sentence of isolation. Gays in the Vatican are creatures of a cutthroat bureaucracy whose dogmatic worldview denies or denigrates their own existence. They live in a closet that has no door. Among recent Popes, Benedict made the most concerted effort to sharpen Church doctrine on homosexuality, which he once called “a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil.” He tried to cull gays from clerical ranks, most notably in 2005, when men with known “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” were prohibited from being ordained, even if they were celibate.

Denunciation and exposure have made gay priests figures of fascination—though less as people than as symbols—especially to the secular far left and the religious far right. Both sides find these clerics to be politically useful. The left uses them to level charges of hypocrisy. The right sees them as a stain in need of removal. They all got a shock late last July when Francis made his first direct public statement about gay clerics since becoming Pope.

During an impromptu press conference aboard the papal jet, en route from Rio de Janeiro to Rome after his first overseas trip, Francis was asked about the so-called gay lobby. His response, delivered with casual humor and punctuated by shrugs and smiles, was as follows: “So much has been written about the gay lobby. I still haven’t run into anyone in the Vatican who has shown me an identity card with ‘gay’ on it.” He pantomimed holding up such a card in his left hand and then went on: “When you find yourself with a person like that, you have to distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of somebody forming a lobby. . . . If a person is gay and is searching for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge him?”

He spoke these words with a palpable warmth, unlike the embattled, wary tone that other Popes have adopted. This may well have been the first time in history that a Pope has publicly uttered the term “gay”—the word that most men who feel romantic love for other men use to describe themselves—instead of the pathologizing 19th-century medical term “homosexual.” Then, in a lengthy interview with a Jesuit journal, the Pope went further, stating that the Church’s ministry should not be “obsessed” with a few divisive moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage. “When God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?” the Pope asked rhetorically. “We must always consider the person.”

– Michael Joseph Gross
"The Vatican's Secret Life"
Vanity Fair
December 2013

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Gay Men in the Vatican Are Giving the Rest of Us a Bad Name
Why I Take Hope in Pope Francis' Statement on Gay Priests
Astounded
Homosexuality in the Priesthood
A Fact That Should Be Neither Surprising Nor Derogatory
Officially Homophobic, Intensely Homoerotic
Blaming the Gays
Report: Homosexuality No Factor in Abusive Priests
Donohue's "Blame the Gays" Tactic Refuted by John Jay Study Researcher
Bill Donohue's Homophobic Claims Refuted by Bishops' Study
In a Right Gay Tizzy: The Catholic Hierarchy's War on Gays
Let's Face It: The Catholic Church is a Gay Institution
Keeping All the Queens Under One Roof
Vatican Stance on Gay Priests Signals Urgent Need for Renewal & Reform
Catholic Church Can Overcome Fear of LGBT People
Quote of the Day – November 21, 2010

Why I Take Hope in Pope Francis' Statement on Gay Priests

In undermining – if not abolishing – the judgmental
"spiritual paternity" argument against gay priests, Pope Francis
plants seeds of hope, renewal and transformation

Do you remember how, about four or five years ago, there was a lot of talk about something called "spiritual paternity"? It was actually an idea, a theological concept, used to support the judgment that gay men and women are ontologically deficit in such a way that they are incapable of serving as priests.

Speaking in October 2008, Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski of the Congregation for Catholic Education stated that "Homosexuals [and women] cannot be admitted to the priesthood because of the nature of priesthood in which a spiritual paternity is carried out. . . . When we ask why Christ reserved the priesthood to men, we speak of this spiritual paternity."

The cardinal's statements were in relation to a Vatican document on homosexuality and the priesthood, one that made it clear that homosexuals were barred from being priests by the "paternal" nature of priesthood and their inherent lack of "affective maturity."


Judgmental and insensitive

I recall how many people were deeply offended by the judgmental and insensitive tone of both the Vatican document and Cardinal Grocholewski's remarks on gay priests.

At a Vatican press conference at around the time of the release of the document, Grocholewski was asked if homosexuals committed to lifelong celibacy could be ordained. He said "no," adding that:

The candidate does not necessarily have to practice homosexuality (to be excluded.) He can even be without sin. But if he has this deeply seated tendency, he cannot be admitted to priestly ministry precisely because of the nature of the priesthood, in which a spiritual paternity is carried out. Here we are not talking about whether he commits sins, but whether this deeply rooted tendency remains.

I don't know about you, but I look back on those statements and the notion of "spiritual paternity" and see a lot of judging going on in relation to gay men and the priesthood. Now, at the time, I don't think anyone was that surprised by this anti-gay rhetoric or even its increasing intensity. After all, Joseph Ratzinger was pope and he had for decades been obsessed with issues relating to homosexuality. My own belief is that Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI was attempting to work through his own issues regarding same-sex attraction. The problem, of course, was that the rest of us ended up being saddled with his impoverished theological conclusions. Chief among these is the notion that homosexuality is an "inclination" which "intrinsically disorders" a person towards "grave moral evil," i.e., sexual activity with someone of the same gender. Now, this may match his reality, but for the majority of gay people striving – and more often than not succeeding – in living lives of integrity and wholeness, such concepts and terms are both erroneous and offensive. The idea of "spiritual paternity" is, I believe, another example of an erroneous and offensive concept cobbled together to support the hierarchy's profoundly dysfunctional notions of gender and sexuality.

Pope Francis, unfortunately, isn't directly challenging these foundational notions of the hierarchy nor the 'official' teaching' that results from them. However, his words today to journalists traveling back with him to Rome from Rio de Janeiro are a step in the right direction and may well pave the way for future developments.

While nothing Francis said suggested acceptance of what the hierarchy labels "homosexual acts," homosexual people, said the pope, should be treated with dignity and not blackmailed or pressured because of their sexual orientation.


"Who am I to judge?"

And then, according to media reports, the pope said the following in relation to homosexuality and the priesthood:

If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?

Many commentators are saying that this statement shifts the hierarchy's message not just on gays and the priesthood but on gay issues in general. For one thing, it's apparently the first documented use by a pope of the word "gay" – the term that gay people themselves most often use yet which some within the church view as implying "ideological commitments" at odds with being Catholic. Also, the pope's conversational tone is a welcome change from the more dogmatic approach we're used to from members of the church hierarchy. And what's hopeful about this and may signify a shift is that the pope conveys a willingness to listen and an openness to dialogue. And as many of us know, such qualities allow the Spirit to break through in often unexpected ways so as to guide us in new ways of understanding.

Yet there's another way the pope's statement on gay priests shifts the message on gay issues in general. This is because his statement undermines, if not completely abolishes, the whole "spiritual paternity" argument against gay men becoming priests. We can no longer say, or rather judge, that a same-sex attracted man lacks something in his nature or his level of maturity simply because he is same-sex attracted. I would argue that this same line of thinking has positive implications for gay men in contexts other than the priesthood. It also has positive implications for women, including within the context of priesthood, as we can no longer say, or rather judge, that a female lacks something in her nature or her level of maturity simply because she is female.

The way of the Spirit

The implications of the pope's in-flight news conference remarks are quite something, aren't they? And it could be that they are implications of which the pope himself is still growing into full consciousness. That tends to often be the wonderful trickster-like way of the Spirit, wouldn't you say? And I have no doubt that it was God's Spirit that inspired the speaking through Francis of these particular words – words which, seed-like, contain much potential for hope, renewal and transformation within the church.

My prayer is that Francis continues to be open to the Spirit and thus continues to say and do things that challenge all those things – be they unjust economic systems, selfish attitudes, or judgmental theological concepts – that hinder and obstruct the flowering of that abundant life that Jesus proclaimed for all.


Related Off-site Links:
Pope Francis Signals Openness Towards Gay Priests – Lizzy Davies (The Guardian, July 29, 2013).
Pope Francis Offers Respect for Gay Priests, Signaling a New Papal Direction – Francis DeBernardo (Bondings 2.0, July 29, 2013).
Pope Francis on Gays: Who Am I To Judge Them? – Paul Brandeis Raushenbush (The Huffington Post, July 29, 2013).
Pope on Homosexuals: "Who Am I To Judge?" – John Allen Jr. (National Catholic Reporter, July 29, 2013).
Pope Francis on Not Judging and Marginalizing Gays: My Reflections – William D. Lindsey (Bilgrimage, July 29, 2013).
Will Francis' Statements on Women and Gays "Make a Mess" Inside the Church? – Mary E. Hunt (Religion Dispatches, July 29, 2013).
Catholic Reactions to Pope Francis' Comments on Accepting Gay Priests – Francis DeBernardo (Bonding 2.0, July 29, 2013).
Pope's Comments on Gay Clergy Mark Change in Style If Not Substance – Emma Margolin (MSNBC, July 29, 2013).
"Spiritual Paternity": Why Homosexual Men Cannot be Ordained Catholic Priests – Paula Ruddy (The Progressive Catholic Voice, January 14, 2009).
Ministry, Not Maleness, is the Theological Starting Point for the Priest – James Moudry (The Progressive Catholic Voice, February 18, 2009).

UPDATES: Pope's Comments Raise Hope for Change Among Minnesota Catholics – Jeff Strickler (Star Tribune, July 30, 2013).
How Pope Francis' Gay Comment Was Oversold by the Media – Sara Morrison (Reuters via Yahoo! News, July 30, 2013).
Catholic Pundits in Damage Control After Pope Says Something Halfway Nice – Evan Hurst (Truth Wins Out, July 30, 2013).
Pope Francis and Gays: “Loving the Sinner” is Still Intolerance – Tim Padgett (Time, July 30, 2013).
Pope Francis Asks "Who Am I to Judge?" But Real-Life Gay Catholics Continue to Experience Marginalization – William D. Lindsey (Bilgrimage, July 30, 2013).
A Single Step Can Begin the Longest Journey – Herbert W. Chilstrom (Star Tribune, August 3, 2013).
Pope Francis and Gay Priests – Terence Weldon (Queering the Church, August 9, 2013).
Pope Francis and the Gay Elephant in the Room – Phillip Clark (Expressions: Liberated, August 18, 2013).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Homosexuality and the Priesthood
Officially Homophobic, Intensely Homoerotic
A Fact That Should Be Neither Surprising Nor Derogatory
Report: Homosexuality No Factor in Abusive Priests
Vatican Stance on Gay Priests Signals Urgent Need for Renewal and Reform
Gay Men in the Vatican Are Giving the Rest of Us a Bad Name
Catholic Church Can Overcome Fear of LGBT People

Quote of the Day

If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?

– Pope Francis
Quoted in Rachel Donadio's New York Times article,
"Pope Says He Will Not Judge Gay Priests"
July 29, 2013

Related Off-site Links:
Pope Francis Offers Respect for Gay Priests, Signaling a New Papal Direction – Francis DeBernardo (Bondings 2.0, July 29, 2013).
Pope Francis on Gays: Who Am I To Judge Them? – Paul Brandeis Raushenbush (The Huffington Post, July 29, 2013).
Pope on Homosexuals: "Who Am I To Judge?" – John Allen Jr. (National Catholic Reporter, July 29, 2013).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Homosexuality and the Priesthood
Officially Homophobic, Intensely Homoerotic
A Fact That Should Be Neither Surprising Nor Derogatory
Report: Homosexuality No Factor in Abusive Priests
Vatican Stance on Gay Priests Signals Urgent Need for Renewal and Reform
Gay Men in the Vatican Are Giving the Rest of Us a Bad Name
Catholic Church Can Overcome Fear of LGBT People

Progressive Catholic Perspectives on Cardinal O'Brien's Admission of Sexual Impropriety

.
UPDATED MARCH 4, 2013

I really wish Catholicism would get over the sexual purity expectations and get some perspective. Perhaps then we wouldn't have closeted sexually active men exposing themselves as either utter hypocrites or lonely men with a sex drive, or both. If any of the publicity about these allegations are true, it turns out it's the usual combination of alcohol and loneliness. . . . I guess I didn't react the same way [to news that Cardinal O'Brien has admitted to sexual impropriety] because I wasn't terribly surprised, and maybe quite a bit more sophisticated about these kinds of impropriety. That these are gay sexual advances is meaningless to me because I don't buy into the whole idea that somehow improper gay sex is somehow worse than improper straight advances. The impropriety with Cardinal O'Brien is the use of his position over his subordinates for access. That's what makes this abusive.

– Colleen Kochivar-Baker
"Cardinal O'Brien Admits to Sexual Impropriety"
Enlightened Catholicism
March 3, 2013

Cardinal O'Brien, like the pope, most of the other cardinals, bishops, monsignors and priests, played the same Catholic clergy gay game: ruthlessly condemn and persecute homosexuality in public, while in private ruthlessly seduce male seminarians and/or priests lower on the totem pole for companionship and sex. It's well know – from Monsignor Georg to the handsome new young male seminarians – that if you're on the path to becoming bishop or cardinal, you get to pick who rises up behind you. The problem is, not every seminarian or priest is willing to play that game. They won't go public with accusations that you hit on them, but the bold ones will privately inform the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Cardinal O'Brien was the most virulently anti-gay cardinal in the UK. So he deserves to end his hypocritical career in scandal and shame.

– Phil Attey
March 3, 2013

Besides the abuse and harassment involved in this case, the real tragedy is that because of institutional Catholicism’s negative attitudes toward homosexuality, Cardinal O’Brien felt he could not have sought help to accept himself and to deal with his sexuality in mature, healthy, and holy ways. . . . If more church leaders were to acknowledge and accept their sexuality, the Catholic Church would be a much healthier, and much of the physical abuse caused by clerics’ behavior and emotional abuse caused by misguided teachings could be avoided.

– Francis DeBernardo

"Cardinal O'Brien Apologizes for Sexual Misconduct"
Bondings 2.0
March 4, 2013

Related Off-site Links:
Scottish Cardinal Admits Improper Sexual Conduct – Joshua J. McElwee (National Catholic Reporter, March 3, 2013).
Priest Who Accused Cardinal O’Brien Says the Catholic Church Would 'Crush Him If It Could' – Joseph Patrick McCormick (Pink News, March 3, 2013).
Unfit for Purpose and In Denial: A Church That Has Lost All Authority – Kevin McKenna (The Observer, March 3, 2013).
Vatican Nightmare Continues: Cardinal Admits to Sexual Misconduct – Adam Taylor (Business Insider, March 4, 2013).
Sex, Lies and . . . Catholic Clergy – Terence Weldon (Queering the Church, March 4, 2013).
Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow Philip Tartaglia Urged to Start New Dialogue with Gay Community – Scott Roberts (Pink News, March 4, 2013).
Homosexual Relationships: Another Look – Bill Hunt (The Progressive Catholic Voice, September 8, 2012).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Gay Men in the Vatican Are Giving the Rest of Us a Bad Name
Quote of the Day – February 28, 2013
Homosexuality and the Priesthood
Officially Homophobic, Intensely Homoerotic
Let's Face It: The Catholic Church is a Gay Institution
Benedict and Georg
Benedict and Georg Redux
Thoughts on Celibacy (Part IV)
Celibacy and the Roman Catholic Priesthood
It Is Not Good To Be Alone
Diarmuid Ó Murchú on Celibacy and Androgyny
Weakland, the Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal, and Homophobia
Gay Bishop Feels "No Diminution of God's Love"

Quote of the Day

Whatever one's thoughts about Pope Benedict and the man Joseph Ratzinger behind the Petrine Office, the sight of his final leave taking from the Vatican today was a deeply moving experience. His beloved secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, was in tears and no doubt the relationship between them is a tender one. I don't begrudge Benedict the comfort of this personal, intimate friend in his declining years. What I object to is the glaring contradiction of a deeply repressed gay man in an evident homoerotic relationship with a younger companion who has expended so much energy attacking gays within and without the Church. In the past the couple has been the object of campy gay jokes, quite understandable in light of the fact Benedict exhibits many of the characteristics of a gay man in profound denial. However, now is not the time for derision or sarcasm, the situation is simply too sad for words. Instead the departure scene today struck me as the final unfolding of a tragedy, both a personal one for the man behind the office and a universal one for the church as a whole. How did we get this far and what will happen now, we wonder, as we wait for the next turn of events. One feels an unbearable sadness for the never ending cycle of denial and self deception that seem to mark the Vatican culture surrounding the office of the Papacy. One accepts this situation in a spirit of faith, that the Spirit knows what she is about in purifying the church through one contradictory trial after another. Yet we long for respite and for some sign of hope for the institution that carries the Catholic Christian mystical tradition. . . .

– Jayden Cameron
"In Sede Vacante"
Gay Mystics
February 28, 2013

Related Off-site Links:
As Pope Departs, Discord Remains at Vatican – Rachel Donadio (New York Times, February 28, 2013).
The Complex Legacy of Benedict XVI – John L. Allen Jr. (National Catholic Reporter, February 28, 2013).
Now Gathering in Rome, a Conclave of Fallible Cardinals – Laurie Goodstein (New York Times, February 26, 2013).
A Vatican Spring? – Hans Küng (New York Times via The Progressive Catholic Voice, February 28, 2013).
Heart Burn and Hope Lead to Zero TV – Colleen Kochivar-Baker (Enlightened Catholicism, March 2, 2013).
Two Popes, One Secretary – Andrew Sullivan (The Dish, February 27, 2013).
Is Pope Benedict Gay? – Terence Weldon (Queering the Church, March 23, 2012).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Benedict and Georg
Benedict and Georg Redux
Gay Men in the Vatican Are Giving the Rest of Us a Bad Name
Quote of the Day – February 11, 2013
Homosexuality and the Priesthood

Thoughts on Celibacy (Part IV)

.

Andrew Brown of the British newspaper The Guardian has written an insightful op-ed on the recent resignation of Cardinal Keith O'Brien amid claims of "inappropriate acts" towards fellow priests. Much of Brown's op-ed focuses on the Roman Catholic Church's "damaging strictures of celibacy" for its priests. Following is an excerpt.

Celibacy is difficult and sometimes lonely for anyone. The traditional remedy for loneliness, in Scots and Irish Catholicism, involved medication with whiskey and manly bonding. If your inclination is in any case towards men this is not going to be very helpful. Getting drunk in an atmosphere of sentimental affection with the object of desire is a tough test in self-control. We should not be surprised if some men sometimes fail it.

. . . Of course, the real problem is that the Roman Catholic church expects an entirely unrealistic standard of continence from its priesthood. Some priests can manage celibacy. The evidence from all around the world is that most can't. They certainly can't always. In the developing world the problem is largely one of priests having unofficial heterosexual families, as Cardinal Tagle of the Philippines – an outside candidate for the papacy – pointed out last week. In countries where that isn't an available alternative, the priesthood becomes a refuge for gay men – especially in societies where homophobia is the public norm.

This fact adds irony to O'Brien's denunciations of gay marriage. You can't really expect better from a church that still hasn't come to terms properly with heterosexual marriage, as its position on artificial contraception shows. There are many great Catholic feminists, some of them nuns. But you would never guess this from the official doctrine, which still proceeds as if marriage were something in which a man took the initiative, rather than a partnership of equals. And a church that can't treat women as equals is certainly not going to be realistic about marriage between two men.

All Christians are called to be perfect, and in that sense all Christian moral doctrine is unrealistic. But there are some forms of perfection that are damaging to try for. The demand that all Catholic clergy should live as if sex were something that only ever happened to other people is one of those. It has outlived its usefulness and is now an engine of cruelty and hypocrisy. It's a very great shame that O'Brien's fall will be used by the Vatican's enemies of progress to discredit his brave and sensible suggestion last week that the celibacy of the priesthood be reconsidered.

To read Andrew Brown's commentary in its entirety, click here.


NEXT: Part V

Related Off-site Links:
Cardinal Keith O'Brien Resigns Amid Claims of Inappropriate Behaviour – Severin Carrell and Sam Jones (The Guardian, February 25, 2013).
Cardinal O’Brien’s Resignation Highlights Increasing Problems for Anti-LGBT Hierarchy – Bob Shine (Bondings 2.0, February 26, 2013).
Conservatives Circle the Wagons Now That Another of Their Champions Has Fallen on His Crozier – Colleen Kochivar-Baker (Enlightened Catholicism, February 25, 2013).
What Lies Behind Religious Homophobia – Mark Dowd (The Guardian, February 25, 2013).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Thoughts on Celibacy (Part 1)
• Thoughts on Celibacy (Part 2)
• Thoughts on Celibacy (Part 3)
• Celibacy and the Roman Catholic Priesthood
• Now We Know
• It Is Not Good to Be Alone
• Diarmuid Ó Murchú on Celibacy and Androgyny
• Gay Men in the Vatican Are Giving the Rest of Us a Bad Name