![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldI haven't commented on the Catholic Church's banning of non-heterosexual men from the priesthood since, to be honest, I don't have enough of a relationship with the Catholic Church to be particularly shocked by this latest sign of the institution's homophobia. I tend to agree with Jason Kuznicki at Positive Liberty that as unfair as this may be, it does seem to be consistent with the internal logics of the Church. I'm sorry.
It's a matter of public record that a high proportion of priests are gay. Although the precise figures vary, it seems safe to say that the proportion of gay priests is well in excess of the ~3% of the male population that's predominantly gay. Commentators like Richard John Neuhaus, editor of the conservative monthly First Things, have welcomed this, Neuhaus suggesting on his blog that eliminating gay priests will encourage straights to enter the priesthood.
What Neuhaus and his peers don't seem to recognize is the possibility that the Catholic priesthood has always attracted a disproportionately large number of non-heterosexuals, simply because the Catholic priesthood's requirements of celibacy would be very attractive to someone looking for an excuse not to follow traditional patterns of heterosexual matrimony. "I'm not getting married, why would I? I'm doing God's work." If it was possible for these potential applicants to lead fulfilling lives regardless of the fact that they weren't straight, the priesthood's attractiveness to gays would diminish, as it in fact has. If it was made impossible for anyone who wasn't heterosexual to adopt a clerical vocation, then they won't. In an era when one of the leading problems of the Catholic Church is its inability to attract new priests, this generic ban on a major segment of incoming applicants could prove crippling. Might it not be fitting, too?
It's a matter of public record that a high proportion of priests are gay. Although the precise figures vary, it seems safe to say that the proportion of gay priests is well in excess of the ~3% of the male population that's predominantly gay. Commentators like Richard John Neuhaus, editor of the conservative monthly First Things, have welcomed this, Neuhaus suggesting on his blog that eliminating gay priests will encourage straights to enter the priesthood.
Will the instruction result in a collapse of priestly vocations? Only if you believe vocations depend upon the three percent of the male population that identifies itself as gay or is afflicted with strong or exclusive same-sex attraction. The instruction will, I expect, make the priesthood more attractive to those who are in the other 97 percent of men and who discern a call to the priesthood, which includes the admittedly difficult discipline of chaste celibacy.
What Neuhaus and his peers don't seem to recognize is the possibility that the Catholic priesthood has always attracted a disproportionately large number of non-heterosexuals, simply because the Catholic priesthood's requirements of celibacy would be very attractive to someone looking for an excuse not to follow traditional patterns of heterosexual matrimony. "I'm not getting married, why would I? I'm doing God's work." If it was possible for these potential applicants to lead fulfilling lives regardless of the fact that they weren't straight, the priesthood's attractiveness to gays would diminish, as it in fact has. If it was made impossible for anyone who wasn't heterosexual to adopt a clerical vocation, then they won't. In an era when one of the leading problems of the Catholic Church is its inability to attract new priests, this generic ban on a major segment of incoming applicants could prove crippling. Might it not be fitting, too?
