By Stanislaus Alla
New Delhi, June 28, 2022: Since the news broke on the June 14 election of a German Franciscan priest, a self-declared gay, as a provincial, some Indian Catholics began to discuss gay priests and the morality around the subject of homosexuality. This article strives to help the Catholics to have a greater clarity and understanding on this topic.
Possibly, the first point that needs some measure of explanation is how one defines ‘gay’ (gay or homosexual persons are not to be confused with eunuchs or those of third gender). Even if they are not the best, to begin with, dictionary definitions can help. Merriam-Webster says: “of, relating to, or characterized by sexual or romantic attraction to people of one’s same sex” and Oxford Dictionary states: “(of people, especially men) sexually attracted to people of the same sex.” ‘Attraction’ to the person of same sex is central here, and, there is no indication that ‘being sexually active’ is a constituent part of the definition.
Catechism of the Catholic Church #2357 makes a very similar point: ‘Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.’ Here too, there is no mention of sexual activity in the definition. Moving on, CCC refers to the unexplainable aspects (origins of homosexual orientation continue to be contentious among scientists and scholars: different theories try to explain but there is no consensus on this) and then clearly declares that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’
Lest we miss, note that #2358 calls the inclination itself ‘objectively disordered.’ Much ink is split on trying to understand this enigmatic phrase. Sexual acts between homosexuals would be against nature, is the mostly given argument. What is not clear is, is something ‘disorderly’ in the homosexual person himself! No conclusive argument is made in this front, and, in the meanwhile, homosexual persons continue to be welcomed, respected and given opportunities similar to those offered to heterosexuals. ‘They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity’ and ‘Every sign of unjust discrimination in this regard should be avoided’ the Catechism continues to exhort, reflecting a shift from the way they were treated in the past by the Catholics and by the Church. ‘Homosexual persons are called to chastity’ states # 2359. Let us not forget that the CCC, given in 1992, was written for all: those called to marry, to live celibate lives and single lives. In sum, per se, sexuality activity is not intended in the very definition of the word ‘gay.’
However, traditional understanding of homosexuality and gay persons dominated the discourse for millennia among most cultures and major religions. On its part, Christianity upheld prejudices and perpetuated them. Even now several think that homosexuality is a choice, a deviation, a medical or psychological condition that needs medication/therapy and it is correctable and treatable. Basically, in this view, it also means that something is wrong with the person and such deviant orientation is not to be ‘norm’alized. Within and outside the Church, such an understanding has been challenged by many individuals and movements, researches and writings across the world.
History attests that since homosexuals did not fit into the ‘normal’ paradigm of what sexuality is, they were harassed, discriminated, persecuted and even killed. Historical consciousness of such discriminations made people to see and consider it as a justice issue. Like in the spheres of patriarchy and hierarchy, prejudices prevailed against ‘sexually deviant’ persons. One may not like the way they behave or display or Parade themselves but it is important to see their cause from the prism of justice, and how some of the historical wrongs can be rectified. Empowered, in light of these developments, people with homosexual orientation began to identify themselves boldly and seek a space to grow as God’s beloved, simply normally.
Related questions are, when does one know that he is a homosexual: in teenage or earlier or later, and, is it a passing or lasting dimension? The other is, even if one knows, will he reveal it freely or conceal it due to a sense of shame and fear attached to it. The knowledge or awareness does not automatically mean that one is sexually active. A sexually active homosexual seminarian (or equally for that matter, a heterosexual seminarian) can be expelled but if one promises to be committed, to live a celibate life, can he be thrown away?
The 2016 Vatican document titled ‘The Gift of the Priestly Vocation’ give some directions. More than prohibiting them (those who have homosexual orientation) it challenges all clergy and religious to live celibate lives. Pope Francis elsewhere made it clear: “to urge homosexual priests and men and women religious to live celibacy with integrity, and above all, that they be impeccably responsible, trying to never scandalize either their communities or the faithful holy people of God by living a double life. It’s better for them to leave the ministry or the consecrated life rather than to live a double life.”
Why did the Pope add homosexual priests in this list, if he thought them unfit, in the first place, to be priests or Religious? His challenge is to all, clergy and Religious, to take celibacy seriously and not to lead double lives. Recall how many sex-scandals, involving the heterosexual priests and religious irrupted globally. Committing sexuality-related sins by both heterosexuals and homosexuals is a larger phenomenon among the clergy and Religious and Pope frequently refers to this (relevance of compulsory celibacy and age of admission for seminarians are important issues that need to be addressed as well). That homosexuals have uncontrollable urge and are incapable of living celibate lives and that heterosexuals find it easy to live celibate and faithful lives is a myth that is largely busted. What became clear is that apart from one’s sexual orientation, God calls people to priesthood, and gifts them with the grace to be celibates. Those who fail, whichever be their sexual orientation, would have to account for it.
Finally, a comparison made between my explanation of a gay priest and Franco Mulakkal’s case was most shocking. I am not worried for being called ‘a criminal lawyer’ who is trying to ‘defend the indefensible,’ which I hardly did, but that comparison is flawed, and, it is good for the Catholics to get this clearly. Though it is common knowledge, it is critical to distinguish between sin and crime. Simply put, religion defines sin and state defines crime. In several cases they do overlap. For instance, rape and murder are crimes as well as sins. In other cases, sins are not crimes. For instance, adultery, prostitution and homosexual activity (though I have never approved of it for the gay priests and at no point Father Fuhrmann, the German Franciscan, said that he is sexually active) are not crimes -though they were in the past. They are grave sins whereas rape is a reprehensible crime that needs strictest punishment.
In several instances, sexual sins are simply sins and not crimes. So, comparison between rape and homosexual activity is best avoided, out of respect for the rape victims. Some Catholics may live in adulterous relationships or live with homosexual partners contrary to the Church’s teachings and against the promises they made but it is important not to call them criminals. If the state were to imprison all those who live in adulterous relationships or live unfaithful lives, imagine the number of jails needed! Though tough, faithfulness in all relationships is an indispensable virtue and all can strive to be faithful.
(Jesuit Father Stanislaus Alla teaches moral theology at Delhi’s Vidyajyoti College of Theology.)
Methinks all this is directly linked to the present Pope’s “Who am I to judge?” comment. Christ has given the his Church the right to judge in clearly unambiguous terms: “What you bind on Earth shall be bound on Heaven; whatever you loose on Earth shall be considered loosed in Heaven.” And yet, the Pope creates confusion by being so ambiguous in his utterances – perhaps callous, too. Going by the comment under question, one can clearly conclude that the very idea of sin is a misnomer and if so, ‘Confession’ has no relevance. And if sin is non-judgeable and Confession has no relevance, on what grounds can being sexually active, whether as a heterosexual or a homosexual, whether as as married or avowedly single as lay or ordained or consecrated be considered a sin by the Church?
Time the Church offered due clarity in the free-for-all atmosphere its chief pastor has brought about.
Stanislaus Alla seems to blunder – and foolishly so. After all, what exactly was the holy or unholy purpose behind Fuhrmann’s so-called ‘coming out’ with a self-declaration of his sexual orientation really? Explicitly affirming whether the friar is sexually active or not is hardly the point, given that no gay every ‘comes out’ with such a self-disclosure without being sexually active. Which brings us to the question of ‘masturbation’. Given that ‘homosexuality’ in clerical/religious/consecrated circles is clearly sought to be accepted as is evident from Alla’s treatise on the subject, the question uppermost in the minds of many is. “If homosexuality and its ramifications are permissible among the consecrated and the ordained, why is MASTURBATION still considered a sin, a sin that needs to be ‘confessed’?” Can Alla or Pope Francis answer this question convincingly rather than ambiguously, please?
It appears the Catholic Church is promoting gay culture. It was already existing (in the curia, etc). Once powerful American Cardinal McCarrick is a clear case study. He was defrocked in 2019, he was defrocked following a Vatican investigation into years of sexual abuse allegations against him. He faces three counts of indecent assault and battery on a person over 14, according to court documents. So the election of Father Fuhrmann, the German Franciscan priest, a self-declared gay, as Provincial, is very shocking. Over and above his self-declaration, the priest should have left priesthood on his own. But on the contrary, he has been rewarded! Father Stanislaus Alla’s dissertation on the difference between sin and crime does not alter the case. How does Fr Alla measure whether Father (?) Fuhrmann is sexually active or not? It appears he is trying to find new types of dispensation for an “inclusive” clergy which really smells the sheep!
As for celibacy and priesthood that is another issue that needs to be addressed separately.
The central issue here is neither of choice nor of criminality. It is about a public commitment to total and perpetual continence and celibacy, usually taken after at least 10 years of intense “formation” for which lakhs of rupees are spent and crores invested in infrastructure.
When Alla wrote his first article on the issue followed by my riposte two readers pointedly asked me if th German priest at the centre of the debate is sexually active. I immediately wrote to Alla seeking a clarification but got no response. He now states that the priest concerned has not specifically said so. This is central to the issue. If a priest publicly declares that he is gay and a homosexual then what is one to conclude from such a statement, but that he is sexually active.
I doubt if a sexually active priest would make a public statement that he is indeed so, as it would invite immediate punitive action.