Deliver Us from Evil

Sometimes I wonder what our bishops are thinking. Every time I think they’ve retired the “They Just Don’t Get It!” trophy for good, another bishop comes up with a new out-of-touch-with-reality idea that proves yet again the disconnect between many church officials and the rest of the Body of Christ.

Last week Indiana’s Bishop John D’Arcy visited his hometown parish in Brighton, Massachusetts and spoke on the priesthood. Based on media reports of his remarks, the bishop offered crystal-clear insight into the befuddled state of so many bishops’ thinking these days.

To his credit, John D’Arcy was among the few diocesan officials who aggressively warned against the perils of re-cycling abusive clergy, so he was an exception to the rule of bishops turning a blind eye to child-rape and other crimes. But he now appears unhinged by the combined impact of the abuse crisis, the dramatic downsizing of his native diocese (including the closing of his native parish) and the worsening shortage of priests, mass goers and money.

Of course, this bishop did not invent the twisted logic by which the church manages to rationalize its standards for the priesthood, but his highly public attempt to apply that logic resembles nothing so much as the emperor parading his new clothes.

My guess is the bishop’s intent was to scapegoat gay priests as the villains of the sex abuse scandal (not surprising since the traditional scapegoat candidates—Jews, pagans, Masons, Communists, Protestants, couples who practice birth control, and women in general—all have the unfortunate airtight alibi of not being priests). But his rhetoric turned out more laughable than provocative.

His immediate concern appeared to be the screening of candidates for the priesthood:

“We must be very careful of who we accept in the seminary and who we ordain as priests…It’s time to ordain men of quality, not just to look for numbers.”

So far, so good: nobody opposes quality over quantity. Having set the “quality” standard, Bishop D’Arcy then defined “quality” as “men who would be good husbands and fathers.” He later explained this was his way of saying only heterosexual men, not gay men, should be ordained priests.

This is where the wheels start to come off the logic train. To see why, let’s review some Catholic teachings on priestly vocations. Begin with the entire human population, deduct everyone who's not Catholic, and then:

Exclude Women. They are not eligible. Period.

Exclude men with no vocation to the Priesthood. That was the old “quantity” trap: ordaining unqualified men whom God was not calling to priestly ministry.

Exclude men whom God does call to priesthood unless He also calls to celibacy. After all, celibacy is a special vocation not all have, but it’s mandatory for Roman-rite priests.

This logic builds on three callings or “vocations: #1 Priesthood, #2 Marriage & parenthood, and #3 Celibacy. Only men called to both #1 and #3 are eligible. So men whom God calls to #1 and #2 are not allowed to answer both calls!

Still with me? Now, let’s add Bishop D’Arcy’s position to this logic :

Exclude men whom God does call to priesthood and also calls to celibacy, if they are not sexually attracted to women. In the Bishop’s view, “If we ordain men with pathologies and difficulties, they will draw the same kind.”

Seek out men who “would make good husbands and fathers.” He thinks such “good men” will attract more “good men” to the priesthood.

So we are left with candidates who are:

#1 Called to ordination, but

#2 NOT called to marriage and parenthood, but

#3 Called to celibacy, but

#4 Exclusively heterosexual.

Here’s the rub: How likely is it that the men left over “would be good husbands and good fathers”? We have a logical knot here: if they would be good husbands and fathers, it’s because God has gifted them with #2, vocation of marriage. If He hasn’t, if they have no such vocation, then how could they be good husbands and fathers? And if He has called them to marriage, how could He also called them to celibacy? Is Bishop D’Arcy suggesting even God doesn’t know God’s will? Or that God calls people to do contradictory things? We all learned in Catholic school that even God can't perform a contradiction—and God creating a “celibate father” sounds a lot like God creating “a rock too big for God to lift.”

When one listener thought “the bishop is sincere when he says they only want a few good men,” she might as well have said “VERY few.”

Even so, her reference to the US Marines’ slogan is telling, because it locates Bishop D’Arcy’s ideal in that unattached masculinity we’ve often admired in our military: tough good men “rubbing shoulders” with each other to perform tough tasks, unencumbered by women, children, or even sex. I am reminded of Norman Mailer's description of the Apollo astronauts as resembling “jocks in a seminary.”

I have known such priests, and know some today, and they often make very good priests, indeed. But they are a rare, even endangered species, since the vast majority of such unusual men in today’s culture prefer bachelorhood, with all its freedom (including sexual freedom). To single them out as the only acceptable candidates dooms us to more shortages and more parish closings.

As for the gay men who meet all the other qualifications, Bishops D’Arcy chose another rhetorical tack, arguing that putting gays in the seminary is too much temptation. “We don’t put these men in with attractive women…You’re putting him in with men. It’s not fair to him, it’s not fair to them, it’s not fair to the Church.” This used to be called the “occasion of sin” argument: if a situation is too tempting to resist, you must avoid it. The trouble is, this argument has two big holes.

First, if all the men accepted have a vocation to celibacy, they will all have to live that out amid the temptations of real life, included lots of attractive parishioners, men and women. Certainly the bishop wasn’t saying the seminary environment is more sexually charged or more morally risky than the outside world? The Church teaches it is not wrong to be gay, as long as one remains celibate. It also teaches that God always supplies the grace we need to do His will. If God wills gays to be celibate, they must receive the grace to do it. To suggest that the straight candidates can resist temptation but the gay ones can’t pre-judges the moral character of the gay men.

Second, just how are gay men to remain celibate in our culture, if we refuse them priesthood? They won’t do it by remaining in isolated solitude. They need a supportive environment of like-minded people equally committed to celibacy and to the church. Wouldn’t seminary be the perfect environment for maintaining a celibate life in service to the church? If we exclude these men from that promising supportive environment, what alternative does our culture offer them? What alternative does the Church offer?

Bishop D’Arcy did not say—naturally enough, since Church officials resolutely refuse to face the truth: in making celibacy mandatory for priests, the Church has invented the one environment in our entire culture where gay men can live according to Church teachings. And now the Church would exclude them from that environment? Pass the trophy, please.

Even so, Bishop D’Arcy hopes the autumn meeting of the US Bishops will address seminary screening, and will move to ban gays. It would, of course, be well nigh impossible to prove someone’s sexual preference, especially if he’s celibate. It would also stigmatize thousands of good men currently in the priesthood. Above all, it would allow our “leaders” to pretend they had solved something. In a word, such a policy would enable their continued denial.

For the sad fact is that we still don’t know why so many priests raped children and adolescents, and we still don’t know when, if ever, our officials will figure out that their new clothes aren’t any more becoming than the old robes.

Send Your Comments and Questions to bfswain@juno.com