Last week Philadelphia’s Archbishop Chaput said remarried divorced Catholics
shouldn’t receive Communion unless they abstain from sex…likewise for same sex
couples. Furthermore, he said those same
people shouldn’t be allowed to serve on parish councils, instruct the faithful,
serve as lectors or dispense Communion. (I
think they can still operate heavy machinery and definitely can contribute
financially.) He feels such people are
in “irregular” relationships that offer “a serious counter-witness to Catholic
belief, which can only produce moral confusion in the community.”
Coincidentally, that same week, a priest confessed to me that he is
sexually active. This places him in the
worldwide majority of priests, since according to psychologists who study
priests’ sexuality, 50% of U.S. priests and a higher percentage of priests from
other global regions are sexually active.
By the way, this priest felt his sexual activity was “sinful” but seemed
prepared to suffer this sin repeatedly in the future.
Regardless of one’s opinion about the sinfulness of priests’ sexual
relationships, aside from converted married former Anglican priests, any sexual
activity Roman Catholic priests have is categorically dishonest and unhealthy
because it is secretive.
This guy, like other sexually active priests, which means the majority
of priests, not only receives communion, he consecrates the host. I guess Chaput is ok with sexually active
priests receiving and consecrating the host because it’s not “irregular.” It’s become so regular that it is the
majority of priests who have secret, dishonest, unhealthy sexual relationships.
Not only do sexually active priests consecrate and dispense communion,
they lead parish councils, instruct the faithful, read the gospel, and preach
all while leading an inherently dishonest life.
Archbishop Chaput, pardon me, but THAT is what I find a counter-witness
and morally confusing. I’ll go so far as
to say the deception and hypocrisy are morally repugnant.
Many laity are hypnotized by glittering chasubles and shiny
chalices into believing priests actually abstain from sex. It is my understanding that all priests regardless
of sexual activity tend to know which ones are sexually active with women, with
other men, or with minors. The unwritten
code of conduct is to turn one’s head to not see other priests’ sexual activity
lest that priest make your sexual activity known. And thus, they band together to form a sick group
illusion to the faithful of abstaining from sex though actually having sex, all
while instructing the faithful about how “sinful” their relationships are, and
marginalizing them based upon those relationships which are usually 1000 times
healthier than any relationship most priests have ever known.
It is time for the faithful to say, “No more!” (“Non
amplius!” for Latin fans.) No more lies about priests’ sexuality. No more hypocrisy about sexual morality from
men with the unhealthiest of unhealthy sexual relationships. No more cult-like, zombie-esque laity accepting
the celibacy myth either.
Here’s what I suggest. Walk up
to your local priest and ask about his sex life. Priests instruct about ours all the
time. They also serve in public roles
that carry explicit restrictions around their sex lives. So it’s entirely appropriate that we start
openly discussing their sex lives.
Clergy’s sex lives deserve at least as much and probably far more
scrutiny than that of remarried divorced or homosexual algebra teachers, who
rarely weave moral theology into discussing things like the quadratic equation.
Why not walk up to the priest before Mass and ask, “When was the last
time you had sex? Was it with a man or a
woman? Have you gone to confession since
having sex or are you planning to celebrate Mass in a state of mortal sin? How many times have you had sex, confessed and
then had sex again? True reconciliation
requires a firm commitment to amend your behavior. I just want to make sure you’re not doing
anything that is morally confusing before I receive communion you consecrated.”
Try using a questionnaire if verbally
asking these intimidates you.
Most likely even if the priest just zipped his pants 30 seconds before
your discussion, he will deny being sexually active. Don’t waiver because in addition to having the
moral fiber to engage in secretive sex, priests also are capable of lying. It is actually a requirement for their secret
sex lives. For example, the priest about
whom I spoke, previously elaborately, explicitly and emphatically spoke about
his total abstention from sex…which turned out to be an elaborate, explicit and
emphatic total lie.
If he blusters, calmly remind him that his clerical brotherhood fixates
on sexual morality so you feel obligated inquiring about his sex life. Good leaders lead by example so you just want
to understand the example he sets.
By the way, the code word often used in lieu of saying “sex” is
“celibacy lapse.” Help him understand
that they are the same thing. If he’s
had a celibacy lapse, he’s had sex.
Point out that many remarried divorced people are probably just having
celibacy lapses themselves. Likewise for
homosexual couples…just celibacy lapses.
Mind you, I disagree with the clergy celibacy/chastity requirement. But, it is the current requirement and is certainly
no secret to any man entering the priesthood.
It’s a rather universally known fact amongst Catholics and non-Catholics
alike. And, spiritual credentials and
privileges are often instantly granted based upon this sham of a “sacrifice.” Thus, though I disagree with the requirement,
I firmly believe a sexually active priest should leave the priesthood and enter
a healthy, honest, committed relationship.
If all sexually active priests did this, we would be left with precious
few priests, driving the crisis needed for change. I applaud the 125,000 or so priests since the 1960s who have
done this already.
As previously mentioned, I think secretive relationships are
categorically unhealthy. Furthermore, I
worry about children conceived in these relationships who are either aborted or
raised without knowing truthfully who their fathers are. But, I find the hypocrisy and deceit the most
difficult to swallow. Sexually active priests,
having only secret, dishonest, unhealthy sexual relationships revile the laity
for their sexual practices, especially those in "irregular" situations who do so in an open, honest and
healthy manner.
I have more respect for my homosexual relatives and friends who
publicly affirm their commitment through marriage than I have for any priest
who skulks around in secret having sex while pretending he doesn’t, trying to
hide his partner, deluding himself that his situation is special because he has
a “holy calling” but still has this irresistible need to have sex. Become an Anglican priest and answer your calling
while engaging in an honest sexual relationship. That’s assuming the priest wants to have a
committed relationship versus being what the kids these days call “a player,”
one who prefers sex in non-committed relationships, freely moving from partner
to partner. Sorry, but players’ values
conflict with Christian leadership moral guidelines. Please just leave the priesthood if you're a player..
Bottom line regarding Abp Chaput’s sex related guidelines: I say, “You
first.” You priests recuse yourselves from
ministry based upon your sexual practices first and then worry about the laity
after that’s all tidied up. In the
meantime, Cardinal Sarah’s new suggested guideline for celebrating Mass with
priests’ backs to the congregation might be so priests shamefully hide from
facing the people they regularly dupe.
Or, maybe he just thinks priests’ asses are so darn attractive that we’d
rather see them than the host.
