By chhotebhai
Kanpur, June 23, 2022: When we were young, being gay meant that we had the joyous abandonment of a child, an attribute that St Paul gives to being children of God (cf Rom 8:21). Today, being gay is understood as a man having a sexual relationship with another man; just as lesbian means women being in a sexual relationship with each other. They are the first letters of what is ever expansively called LGBTQ…
Such groups have Pride Parades where they proudly portray their sexual proclivity. I have never been able to swallow these public displays of sexuality. I am a married man. It is my conjugal right and also a divine gift to have sexual relations with my spouse. That happens within the confines of our bedroom. It is perfectly legitimate and morally acceptable.
However, it is not an absolute or inalienable right. I cannot have marital sex in broad daylight in an open park or on the beach. By doing so I would be infringing on the rights of others. As the old saying goes, “Your freedom ends where my nose begins.”
Let alone the sexual act itself, can I publicly boast of my sexual prowess, or lack of it? Can I publicly say that I have sex so many times a day, a week or a month? Or as the joke goes – having sex bi-weekly, tri-weekly and finally just to try weakly! Surely social decorum demands of me that what is essentially a private act should remain just that – private.
It is for this reason that I am unable to stomach the Pride Parades. Even if a person is LGBTQ…, what is the need for broadcasting it? By so doing one is actually belittling the relationship. It would not then be based on love, but a boastful pride and a public assertion of what is essentially a private affair or relationship.
Being gay has hit the Catholic headlines with a 51-year-old Franciscan priest in Germany, Markus Furhmann, being elected as a provincial. Nothing extraordinary about that, but for the fact that he had recently publicly declared that he was gay. Priest commentators in India, including a moral theologian, have hailed this development. In contrast, the laity is in a state of confused silence. How can the ignorant laity challenge a moral theologian in a prominent seminary?
I don’t claim to be wise, nor do I pretend to be ignorant. Hence I would like to enlighten my fellow laity on the subject. The moral theologian, referred to above, cleverly sought to obfuscate the issue by calling it a case of homophobia; hate or discrimination against homosexuals. It is for this reason that I had earlier commented that a moral theologian could be like a shrewd criminal lawyer, who through clever arguments, is able to defend the indefensible.
A case in point is the flawed judgement in the Franco Mulakkal case. Such defence lawyers specialise in obfuscating issues, by diverting attention from the essentials to the peripherals. In the Mulakkal case the judge went off on a tangent about repairs to the convent kitchen, instead of focussing on the rape accusations! Here too, what is essential to being a Catholic priest?
As things stand today he is expected to be perpetually celibate, for which he makes a public profession of faith. The Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II on January 25, 1983, categorically states that “Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence and therefore bound to celibacy” (Can 277).
So this is not a matter of being homosexual or heterosexual, but a question of continence; that is abstention from all and every form of sex or sexual stimulation. Though not at all easy, that is the perfection to which a consecrated celibate is called.
The official Catechism of the Catholic Church, also promulgated by Pope John Paul II, but on October 11, 1992, is again categorical in stating that “In the Latin Church ordained ministers are to live a celibate life, and who intend to remain celibate” (CCC 1579). This is not so for the Eastern Rite Churches where priests and deacons may be married (CCC 1580). I presume that Furhmann belongs to the Latin Rite and is therefore bound by celibacy.
Defending his sexual orientation Furhmann said that “there is too much institutional hypocrisy in our church.” Is he not a part of that hypocrisy when, on the one hand he has vowed to be celibate, and on the other he publicly states that he is sexually active? Besides, if he can justify his acts, then why can’t all the sexually errant bishops in India use the same reasoning? There would be no end to it.
As a layman the only vows I have made are in the sacrament of matrimony. But I have always been inspired by St Francis of Assisi. I was in the Porziuncula Basilica in Assisi on March 1, 2017, that happened to be Ash Wednesday. Located in this premises is the miraculous garden of thornless rose bushes. It was here when Francis was once consumed by sexual passion (after all he was a human being like the rest of us) he threw himself onto the huge thorns so that the excruciating pain of those piercing thorns would help him overcome his sexual temptation. His penance bore fruit. However, those rose bushes thereafter never grew thorns again, an eternal testimony of how physical penance can help one control one’s emotions.
It is in this same then chapel of Porziuncula that Francis and his companion Friars Minor adopted the rule of chastity at the Pentecost Chapter. This rule was approved by the then Pope Honorius III through his decree “Solet Annuere” on November 29, 1223.
I presume that this decree and rule are extant and binding on Furhmann and his colleagues. I presume that he also wears the distinctive Franciscan habit with a cord and three knots. They stand for the three evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience. Has Furhmann unknotted one of them?
When a priest seeks to be ordained, the people are asked if they accept that person. Hence ordination, like the sacrament of matrimony, is not a one way street. It is not a private act. It is a public commitment to the ecclesial community. It cannot be wished away.
If, for any reason, a priest feels that he is no longer capable of living that commitment then he should apply for dispensation and be relieved of that bond. He cannot have his cake and eat it too; being “celibate” on the one hand and being sexually active on the other.
As a married man I cannot even pretend to say that I don’t have sexual temptations. It is another matter that, by God’s grace, I have so far remained faithful to my spouse of 38 years and my matrimonial vows. If, however, I were to have a gay relationship with a man, while being bound in matrimony to my spouse, then it would be a breach of contract and a ground for my wife to divorce me; as provided for in Section 10(2) of the Divorce Act 1869 that applies to Christians.
So whether one has received the sacrament of ordination or of matrimony, one has to play by the rules. To the likes of Markus Furhmann and sundry moral theologians I would humbly suggest that they pay a visit to the rose garden in Porziuncula, Assisi. Yes, we all have human frailty, but we are also receptacles of divine grace and strength, if only we are open to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete.
(The writer is a firm believer in Franciscan spirituality. One may also read “The Gay Right”, first published in July 2009.)
Chhotebhai, your article seems to imply that the LGBT community are making a choice and celebrating that choice in public. That would be incorrect. An example: Our family friend, who is gay, was affectionately spoken to by his grandma,, She said “XXX I fully respect your choice of being gay, and still love you totally”. His reply, “Grandma, I would never make such a choice, for the suffering is too much. I wish I was not gay. But that happens to be my sexual orientation. Choice has nothing to do with it.” Let us be clear just as our Catholic Catechism clearly says [para 2358], being gay or lesbian, is not a choice. This does not apply to those who choose to experiment for kicks. Being gay or lesbian is an orientation, exercising that orientation is a choice. I believe most gay and straight priests know their orientation, but few of both sexual orientations are sexually active. The scandals in the church, sometimes makes us think otherwise.
Could I have a clarification: Has Markus Fuhrmann publicly stated ” that he is sexually active”? I know he has stated his sexual orientation as being gay, but I am not aware that he says he is sexually active. The two are as different as chalk and cheese. One honors his celibacy, the other disgraces it. Do enlighten me re Fuhrmann.
David Lobo
Dear Chhotebhai,
Thanks for your article on Homosexulaity and gay priests. You have not only pointed out priests but also all of us Baptised Chrsitians. It is a reminder for all of us irrespective of our official status in the church. As baptised Christians we promise to abide by the law of God in the Scriptures and the law of the Catholic church.
Its an introspection. I pray for myself and for all that we may not give into the temptation of justifying actions that are wrong. Hope and pray all the moral theologians and others in India and elsewhere give attention to this.
Praying for you to be forthright in bringing issues that affect the universal church.
Lilly Fernandes
While I respect the writer for his views, unfortunately this article is completely wrong in associating gender orientation and identification with sexual preferences and needs…it would be nice to first study and understand the concepts that are universally accepted. Requesting readers to first understand the concept of LGBTQIA+ and the ponder on this topic.
Of course one has to play by the rules, be they for men and women, for religious, clergy and heirarchy. We are bound by our unspoken vow of baptism which do empowers us. I wonder how faithful we are to our commitment to Christ. Not very, I’d think in the prime duty of loving our neighbour. The vows of poverty are no less important than those of chastity. The pomposity and extravagance if someone holy orders has to be seen to be believed. As the old man said to a priest, If you observe your vow of chastity as you observe your vow of poverty, then God help us all.” The vow of chastity does not deny human sexuality. It seeks a commitment of resisting temptation, overpowering urges, and then living a life in society, among men and women and children without a feeling of guilt. Priesthood is denied to women, but it is not denied to the third gender with predominantly male physical visible attributes. The issue in chastity is of control. Not a denial of characteristics hod has given us. That is true even within the bonds of holy matrimony. I strongly oppose marital rape and would like it criminalised. That may not be a popular position. But no one will deny that self control is at the root if marital accord.
Who are we to judge,the Holy Father said. That does not mean we condone sexual crimes. Rapists need to be in jail, whatever be their civilian or ecclesiastical rank. Many criminals go Scot free for want of evidence. That is the main reason that rape often involves murder. No one to complain. Money power or political influence can often overcome the judicial process, we have seen. Higher authorities need to take a comprehensive view using the instruments of Canon law and the land’s criminal code to ensure the criminals do not escape punishment. For the person who comes out of the closet and commits no crime, understanding is all he or she seeks, and deserves. It may seem strange, but LGBTQ can be and mostly are nice people who observe all the laws they have sworn to obey. The criminals are mostly straight.
I have two comments:
1) Quote: “When a priest seeks to be ordained, the people are asked if they accept that person.” Today during the ordination ceremony this has become a “ritualist” component. Are the lay Catholics in a position to raise their objection, even if it is genuine, during ordination ceremony? NEVER! After the ordination, the priest becomes a free-bird and wields his so called “spiritual powers” to suppress the voice of the laity. The recent clerical sex abuse cases are the classic examples, including frightening Franco and Villain William. The more you dig, more skeletons will come out. This is the bitter reality which cannot be hidden or buried.
2) In the Sacrament of Marriage too, the bride and bridegroom take oaths to be truthful to each other. In spite of such oaths how many married couples are faithful to each other? There are numerous cases of “divorce” that take place within a year or two of their married life. I have seen many such cases. In one case, the divorce took place within a year after they were married in a church. The boy married a Hindu girl in a Temple. Now the couple has a child and seem to be happy in their married life. In another case, a couple got married in the church. After two years they got separated. Now, the girl married a Muslim boy and they seem to have been happily settled down.