A Ticking Time Bomb: How the Church Can Address the Problem of Homosexuality in the Priesthood

Editor’s Note: No one who is acquainted with the seminary program in the United States is unfamiliar with the notion of retribution. It is unfortunate that so sober an article as this one, dealing with so serious and so widespread a problem, should have to be published anonymously. But its author, a priest active in formation programs for more than a decade, insists that enemies of Church teaching on homosexuality are in a position within the Church to do his programs harm. This article, the second part of which appears next month, has been privately circulated among a number of bishops who have found it helpful and urged its wider circulation.

During the last few years the Catholic Church in the United States has been confronted with the problem of homosexuality among its clergy, religious, and seminarians. Unfortunately this confrontation has come about through the media in several states. I am sure that many of us are familiar with the sordid details of the cases which appeared in the press, and I am likewise sure of the deep embarrassment felt by the countless servants of the Church who have remained faithful in their commitments to the Lord. But an even more tragic reality is that for every case of homosexuality reported by the press, many priests know of several others, both in the priesthood and the seminary, that never made it into print. It is to this sad reality that I address these reflections.

I do not have a definitive analysis nor a foolproof solution to offer. I merely wish to give some observations on the problem in the hope they might help others to formulate their own thoughts on this issue. I have waited in vain for others to write on this topic. So many priests, and even bishops, admit there is a serious problem in this area, but few are willing to discuss it openly. If these reflections bring about a serious discussion of these issues I will have succeeded, but if they only bring about scandal and denial, then I will have done the Church and the priesthood I love more harm than good. I ask forgiveness in advance of anyone that I might shock or pain with these reflections. These were not easy reflections to write; I hope they will not be easy for anyone to read.

I do not mean to imply that the majority of priests or seminarians are sexually disordered. Most of them are quite normal, and deeply love the Lord and His Church. There are, however, a growing number of priests and seminarians who are afflicted with this tragic disorder. I hope these reflections will assist those who must help them to do so with compassion, firmness, and the love of Christ.

I have arranged these reflections around four basic areas: the problems faced by the priest himself; those faced by the bishop and chancery officials; those faced by the seminarian; and finally, those involving the seminary. I have asked that this article appear anonymously so that no one will concentrate on the personalities and seminaries that may be involved. That would only add further to the negative image that the clergy is already experiencing.

Four Types of Priest

Few priests would claim any longer that the homosexual priest is a “rarity.” No one can give exact figures, but most priests will admit privately their number is not few. The topic is not one which is bantered about publicly, but rare are the priest gatherings where the topic is not at least mentioned in passing.

For the purpose of organization I will divide this section into four categories: (1) the homosexual priest who is celibate; (2) the homosexual priest who occasionally “acts out”; (3) the homosexual priest who is promiscuous with some regularity; (4) the priest who is a homosexual pedophiliac. I will offer a profile of each category. It should be noted that a profile is a composite picture that is tied to no one in particular, but is meant to give an insight into a larger segment of the population. One might quarrel with an individual point of the description, but my experiences in counseling such people have led me to develop a general profile which I think is quite accurate.

The Celibate Homosexual Priest: The celibate homosexual priest is one who has suffered for many years due to his disordered sexual condition. We do not know exactly what causes homosexuality but we do know that generally a person discovers himself to be this way, he does not choose it. So too with our first priest example. During adolescence he discovered he was sexually attracted to his own sex. Early in adolescence he began to masturbate and found his fantasies during this activity were homosexually oriented. He was usually quite confused by this but would go to no one for help. The seminary authorities were usually quite homophobic and his friends could not deal with it, even if he had had the courage to bring it up. After a few months of suffering in silence the boy would bring the matter to his confessor in veiled terminology. He would confess impure actions and thoughts and desperately assure his confessor he would make heroic efforts to overcome “it.” The confessor would usually be more concerned with the actions rather than the thoughts (which often are presumed to be heterosexual), and so the real problem went undetected.

Gradually the seminarian overcame his habit of masturbation and gained control over his sexual life. There were occasional slips but nothing which could be construed as worrisome. He eventually sought professional help in the form of a competent spiritual director who guided him into a daily prayer life which would enable him to control himself sexually in every conceivable situation. Granted, the desires were still present, but because of his spiritual life he had begun to love Someone more than his desires. Like diabetes, his homosexuality was a disorder that would always be with him. It was not his fault, but it was his problem. Few people besides his confessor know of his sexual orientation, nor should they. He is a man who has struggled with a heavy burden and has, with the grace of God, emerged triumphant.

Much of his long struggle has been in silence and loneliness, and his affliction has brought him to a heroism he did not think himself capable of in his earlier years. He is a model of celibate love, not only for the homosexual priest but for the heterosexual priest as well.

Granted the above is a general profile, but it is accurate enough to ring true to those who have experienced this tragic disorder. I have acted as counselor to several such men over the years and consider them to be fine priests who have reached a degree of sanctity that is exemplary. Would that the rest of their brother priests could know the heroic virtue they have lived out.

Though it is not within the immediate scope of this article, one should note in passing another type of homosexual priest who has never dealt completely with his problem. This priest is afraid to admit his disorder and has so repressed it that he has warped his whole notion of human sexuality. This priest is often a “bitter” celibate who is quite ruthless in condemning the sexual failings of others. As a result of his constant repression of feelings, he is often unable to relate well to anyone at an affective level. While he does not act out sexually, he does act out in other ways, and could act out later on in life.

The Priest Who Occasionally Acts Out: The second category is the homosexual priest who “acts out” occasionally. This priest has had a developmental pattern similar to our celibate priest with one significant exception. He was not successful in dealing with his adolescent masturbatory habit, and never truly came to grips with the limitations his condition placed upon him. He has allowed his masturbation to become compulsive and feeds the fantasies which accompany the habit with varying doses of pornography. Usually this is sufficient to keep his desires satisfied, but like the gourmet who always reads cookbooks but never cooks, this is eventually insufficient. He needs to make his masturbatory fantasies three-dimensional. Thus he searches out a sexual fantasy in which he can take part.

This usually happens on vacation when there is little if any danger of him being recognized. There is no sense of love or relationship involved. This is lust pure and simple. Given the poor physical condition many of these priests are in they must often “pay cash for it,” which merely accentuates the impersonal aspect of the encounter. Guilt usually follows an incident such as this, but as it is only an “occasional” slip the priest reasons it was a “stupid mistake” which he will try not to repeat. This “firm resolution” remains for a time, but, as there is no adequate prayer life, he returns to the same routine of pornography/masturbation at a later opportunity.

Priests in this category often have the feeling of leading a double life. Many of them truly want to love the Lord and His Church and would never do anything to bring disgrace to it publicly. They are extremely “discreet” in their indiscretions, and they will not dissent from Church teaching in the area of sexual morality to any great degree. They think it an “ideal” to strive for, but unfortunately in their perception it is not realistic given their “condition.” They go through fitful efforts at reform, but abandon these when their sexual tensions become too uncomfortable. They feel trapped by a condition that has become a compulsion.

In order to cope with the guilt they so often feel, they become quite adept at moral distinctions which allow them to uphold the ideal but still engage in their sexual activities. Their prayer life is usually limited to communal liturgical prayer since that can be engaged in with a limited amount of guilt. It is the quiet time before the Blessed Sacrament they avoid. They do not want to confront themselves with what they are doing, and they certainly don’t want the Lord to do so. They pray just enough so they think they are praying, but they do not allow themselves to pray in a way which would make real change possible.

The Sexually Promiscuous Priest: The third category is the homosexual priest who is sexually promiscuous. This priest had similar developmental problems in early adolescence. Like the priest in the second category, he allowed his lust to become compulsive. While the priest in the second category lives a “double life” on occasion, the priest in this category lives one with alarming regularity. He has moved from abusing his sexuality to sexual addiction. Within this category there are two basic types; the priest who is indulging in unbridled lust and unconsciously in search of a love relationship; and the priest who is consciously in search of a love relationship. Both types of priests present a significant problem to the Church.

The first type of sexually promiscuous priest is the one you hear the most about. He has long ago moved from the cookbook to the kitchen. He has been “reported” enough and has been indiscreet enough to develop a reputation, at least among his brother priests. By the time this “talk” about him starts the addiction is already well developed. Often it began in the seminary years. There would be occasional acting out during this period but nothing so brazen as to be noticed by the seminary officials.

This priest is a person prone to “binges.” There are binges of piety and binges of lust. As ordination approached he made a good faith effort at reform, but never developed the necessary prayer life to enable his effort to endure. He has no spiritual director and is not really interested in relating to one. He will occasionally go to confession, usually during one of his “binges of piety.” But even here he does not really want to deal with the problem, and often passes himself off as one who is “occasionally active.” Gradually the pious moments become fewer and fewer, and he becomes more and more dependent on his sexual addiction. He begins to visit other large urban areas near his assignment with the sole purpose of “picking up” someone. He will begin to frequent the gay bars and, when asked, often identifies himself as a “teacher.” He knows enough about the educational endeavor to answer the questions his “partner” might have during the “chatty” stage of the evening. Since priests are sufficiently well paid, they can stay at the better hotels and thus impress the “partner” they will use for the night. Such liaisons are usually ended at breakfast with a polite promise to “call later.” Of course, the “call” rarely comes.

In more advanced cases the priest will move from the large urban areas to the gay scene of his own diocese. He is often well acquainted with the other gay priests in the area, and they act as a support group for one another. They supply each other with a ready ear for the latest gossip about the sexual adventures of other gay priests or mutual friends in the gay scene. He eventually begins to have liaisons in his own town and even in his own rectory. By this time he has usually been discovered by suspicious members of the parish staff or parishioners who may have seen him in “that” part of town. He has often been called in by the chancery, but this only makes him more cautious. He spends more time wondering who the “squealer” is than considering whether he should seek help. He assures the diocesan official that he will “deal with it,” but has little intention of doing so.

Another complicating factor is multiple addiction. In other words, the priest who is a sexual addict is very often an alcoholic or drug abuser as well. Since these addictions are more socially acceptable, and since their symptoms are more noticeable, these are usually dealt with first. Unfortunately, the underlying sexual problem is often missed. When he is sent away for treatment of the other addiction, he retreats into “the closet” only to emerge later.

The Priest in Search of a Stable Relationship: The second type of priest in this category is the one who is searching for that “stable relationship” which will give his life meaning. This priest is not primarily searching for sexual satisfaction; rather he is searching for emotional fulfillment. He does not find it in his priestly ministry, nor in his spiritual life, so he goes in search of meaning through sexual encounters. He realizes he will have to go through many partners in order to find the “right one,” but he craves emotional partnership so much he is willing to endure the more sordid side of the process. He is an eternal optimist.

No matter how many times he is disappointed in love, he always thinks the “next one” might be the “real thing.” He is occasionally embarrassed by his promiscuity, but not embarrassed enough to stop the quest. He is prone to “go with someone” for a period of time. They may be seen at the gay bars together and he loves to talk about the relationship with members of his “emotional support group.” Eventually the relationship ends (often in a spat over someone else), but the longer it has lasted the closer he thinks he is to finding the “real thing” next time. The relationship is often unstable from the start, since the “other person” the priest is involved with may not be searching for the same type of relations* the priest is This type of priest is doomed to a life-long quest for happiness along a road that will bring only disappointment and depression. Such priests at times despair to the point of attempted suicide, or they leave the active priesthood.

The Priest Pedophile: Our fourth category of priest is the homosexual pedophiliac. This is the category one sees in the press most often, and thus it is the most acutely embarrassing to the Church. Since it involves the reprehensible seduction of innocent children and ruinous lawsuits, one can understand the almost paranoid reaction of the Church to the subject.

There is no “typical” profile of the pedophiliac which would allow you to predict with accuracy a prospective offender. He is usually a priest in middle age when discovered, but the causes and the arena of action vary. Most often he is interested in pre-pubescent boys, although he may also be interested in early adolescent boys. The condition is often chronic and the rate of recidivism is quite high compared to other sexual disorders. The pedophile priest is one who is typically passive in peer relationships and considers himself inferior in many situations.

The priest pedophile is extremely dangerous to children, since he is in a vocation which gives him a perfect “cover.” He will often associate with children to an inordinate degree. He will try to gain access to the family of the object of his desire. This provides easy and safe access to the child. Only after much planning will the pedophile act out in an overtly sexual manner. The priest pedophile may also be attracted to the innocence that is involved as well as the desire to “teach” the child through sexual experience.

Most often the pedophile priest has been in one of the other categories of sexually disordered priests and has only gradually moved into pedophilia. He begins with fantasies, progresses through child pornography, and finally acts out. He is rarely “caught” in his first offense. By the time he is prosecuted or receives disciplinary action from the Church he has already seduced several boys. It should be noted that while on a national scale pedophilia is primarily heterosexual in orientation, in priests it is almost always homosexually oriented.

The Church’s Response

No doubt the reader is quite depressed by the four conditions exhibited, and well he should be. In each case we are speaking of a psycho-sexual disorder that causes untold harm to the priest who is afflicted with it, his victims and accomplices, and the Church he serves. It is not enough to feel sorry for these priests. We must treat their illness with care and firmness, not only for their sakes but for the sake of the Church. Let us look at some pastoral responses we might use to help a priest in this condition. Since I will deal with the response of the bishop and chancery staff in the next section, I will concentrate on what a brother priest can do for a priest in one of these conditions. We will be dealing with the priests who act out occasionally or regularly with adults, since the celibate priest who is homosexual has already dealt successfully with the problem in counseling and spiritual direction. The priest pedophile will be taken up separately since there are legal as well as moral considerations to be examined.

Confrontation: What should we do when we discover that a brother priest is acting out sexually on occasion or with some regularity? We must first make certain there is a problem. Priests suffer enough from false accusations without having such a serious charge leveled against them through misunderstanding. But once we are morally certain a priest is in one of these categories, we have a responsibility to help him. We do him no favor by saying “it’s none of my business,” or “if it’s that bad, I’m sure the bishop is already taking care of it,” or “I’m not perfect either.” We are dealing with a serious disorder which can destroy someone spiritually and sometimes physically, and we are bound in conscience to attempt to help.

Second, we must pray for the priest and for ourselves. We must pray the priest will be open to accepting help, and we must pray we will be able to provide him the help he needs. After prayer it is always wise to take the matter up with your own spiritual director. Present him with your evidence and suspicions and see if he comes to the same conclusions you do. Then the two of you should attempt to work out a plan of action which will truly help the priest in question.

One aspect of this plan is certain: he must be confronted. Who will do this and when it will be done are part of the plan of action, but that it must be done is essential. Priests in these categories usually think they have been coy enough not to have been discovered. They must be confronted with the fact that they are mistaken. Rest assured you are probably not the first one to “discover” them, nor will you be the last. It is quite possible you are not the one to do the confronting. Perhaps you are an intimate friend or someone they hold some animosity toward. In each of these cases special problems are involved, and it is best if these are dealt with while talking with your spiritual director.

If it is decided you are the one to confront the priest, then it should be done quickly, compassionately, and firmly. It will take great courage to confront the priest on such a delicate subject; procrastinating only makes it more difficult. Make an appointment to see him, and let him know it is on a matter of extreme delicacy. After a few pleasantries are exchanged, state precisely the nature of your visit. Tell him you have serious reasons to suspect he is an active homosexual. State the evidence, but be cautious in revealing your sources.

If the priest thinks his whole world is coming down on him, he may attempt to lie his way out of the problem or to take others down with him. Assure him the reason you are confronting him is that you care about him and want to help. Assure him also of your love for the Church, and that his actions can cause grave scandal if they have not already done so. Offer to put him in contact with a good spiritual director who is also trained to deal with this problem. Promise him your prayers and assure him you don’t want to look down on him, but that you must insist he take some concrete action to deal with his disorder.

Do not threaten the priest, but do be firm. Ask for some guarantee that he will be making a good faith effort. What exactly does this mean? No universal guidelines can be given, but the least that should be asked for is a call or letter from the priest/confessor or counselor which indicates the priest is seeing him regularly.

Facing the Facts

Once the priest begins to see a spiritual director, what should take place in these meetings to bring about a healing of the problem? First, we must make clear we are not speaking here of “curing homosexuality.” As stated earlier, from all the evidence we have, such a cure is not possible. What I mean by healing is this: he must learn to control his sexual addiction and joyfully keep his vow of celibacy. This will not be easy for the priest. If he were able to do so on his own, he would not be in this dilemma now.

Another problem the spiritual director must face is the fact that this priest often comes to see him involuntarily. The spiritual director must overcome the animosity of the priest at the situation and enable him to see this as a real opportunity for dealing with a problem which has caused him all sorts of grief in the past. The director must also fan the flames of a dying spiritual life. Rare is the priest who is sexually active and has anything but a purely external prayer life remaining. It isn’t that he doesn’t want to pray; it is simply too painful for him to do so with any regularity. A daily prayer life would make him too uncomfortable and constantly remind him of his “double life.”

Another problem the director must face is denial. I am speaking here of a specific type of denial, moral denial. As stated earlier, the priest who has this problem has often tried to deal with it himself on several occasions and failed. He often has a deep desire to love the Lord and desperately wants to “do the right thing,” but because of his addiction never seems to be able to “stop.” Eventually these efforts become more and more depressing, and he is on the brink of despair. He hears there are other “theological opinions” which state such acting out may not be so wrong, as long as there is a “stable relationship” involved. He desperately wishes this were so since this would solve his problem by declaring it to be no problem. Though he is suspicious of this position as top good to be true, espousing it gives him some relief from the guilt and enables him to think of himself as a “good person” who is “trying.”

The director must convince the priest he has a problem before he can expect him to deal with it. I am not speaking here of trying to convince the priest he is a horrible person. I am speaking of convincing the priest he is a good person with a serious psycho-sexual disorder. Only when the priest is convinced he has a serious disorder can we expect him to make a serious effort to overcome it.

Once the priest admits he has a problem and is willing to make a serious effort at change, the director must determine whether the priest needs professional psychological help, as well as spiritual direction. It is always better to err on the side of safety and ask the priest to meet with a trained professional who can put his problem into a total psychological profile. Once this meeting has taken place, the priest patient, the priest director, and the psychologist should meet to discuss a holistic approach to the problem. It is important to choose a psychologist who sees homosexuality as a disorder. The last thing wanted is for the priest/director and the psychologist to be acting in opposite directions.

I will not enter into the psychological treatment which may be necessary for the priest, for that is beyond my competence and the scope of these pastoral reflections. I will address a few practical points on the spiritual direction to be given to such priests.

The Plan of Life: The spiritual director should insist upon meeting the priest at least once a week. He should work with the priest in developing a daily prayer regimen which should include the following: Mass with at least five minutes of preparation before and five minutes of thanksgiving after; recitation of the Divine Office; the complete recitation of the rosary; fifteen minutes of meditative time before the Blessed Sacrament; fifteen minutes of Scripture reading in the evening; fifteen minutes of reading from one of the great spiritual classics; several acts of mortification spread throughout the day; and a period of quiet meditation at the end of the day.

It is important that prayer be spread throughout the day so that the priest realizes his whole day is to be sanctified. It is very undesirable for him to “compartmentalize” his prayer life into sacred and secular periods. His strongest temptations are likely to come in these long “secular” periods.

Each week, in addition to meeting with his spiritual director he should also receive the Sacrament of Penance. He should use the spiritual director as his confessor. To separate the two is inviting deception. He should also engage in a fast on Friday of each week.

The mortifications and fast are extremely important to his recovery. One of the reasons the priest has been unable to conquer this problem himself is his inability to say “no” to himself and mean it. He must begin to develop confidence in himself, and his ability to control himself when he gives an order. If he cannot successfully deny himself the little things in life, he will never be able to deny himself the more tantalizing ones. He should not limit his mortifications to those he has chosen, but should learn to accept the little ones that come his way as part of everyday life.

The director should also make certain the priest understands the problem is not just his “acting out.” The problem is his homosexuality, and his inability to live a celibate life up to this point. Thus his habit of masturbation and addiction to pornography must also be dealt with openly and firmly. The habitual masturbation will be the last to be conquered but a good faith effort must be made at the outset, otherwise his fantasy life will continue to tempt him to act it out. The director should also insist that all pornography be destroyed since the treatment of any addiction must begin with control of the fantasy life. The priest must be reminded that all this will take a long while and will require almost heroic efforts. He should not be surprised at moments of weakness and should promptly contact his director should they occur. He should constantly be reminded the Lord loves him and is anxious to help him conquer this problem. The director is the living embodiment of the love the Lord and his Church have for him. Neither man must ever lose sight of this perspective.

Up to this point we have presumed the priest is willing to be helped, or he is going for help. What should be the response of the brother priest, however, when the homosexual priest refuses to go for help, denies the allegations in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, or is involved in pedophilia? These questions bring us to the second major area of concern, the role of the bishop and chancery staff in responding to the problem.

The Bishop’s Responsibility

As stated earlier, the priest who has “discovered” the indiscretions of another priest has two areas of concern: the priest and the Church. These are not mutually exclusive. They must both be satisfied. In the cases above we have presumed the priest is getting professional help, and thus the Church is also being helped. But if the priest is unwilling to go for help, or if the allegations are so serious and frequent as to bring grave scandal to the Church, then the brother priest must inform the bishop of the problem. This is especially true in cases of pedophilia when innocent children are involved, and major financial resources of the diocese could be in jeopardy.

In such cases the bishop is almost totally dependent on information received from other priests or parishioners. He does not live in the rectory with the priest and certainly has no knowledge of the sexual indiscretions of his clergy unless someone tells him.

How does the bishop receive his information? In a number of ways; a brother priest can inform him of “rumors” about a particular priest; an angry or suspicious parishioner can come to see him; a friendly police chief can call and ask that he “do something about Father before I have to”; or he can receive an anonymous tip. Sometime these matters are brought directly to the bishop, while at other times they are relayed to him through other diocesan officials.

Once he receives the information he must then judge whether or not the accusations are true. Hardly a day goes by when a bishop does not receive some complaint about some priest. Often it is the result of the priest doing his duty, or it could be the result of a simple misunderstanding. When a complaint about the sexual indiscretions of a priest surface, the bishop naturally wants to believe it is either a false accusation or a tragic misunderstanding. This is especially true when an accusation such as this has never been made about the priest before. Some of these priests, remember, are very adept at leading a double life and putting up a front of total respectability. It is not easy to change totally one’s opinion about someone after one phone call.

The next step is to confront the priest with the accusation. This should always be done. Even if it is not true, the priest has a right to know that the accusation has been made so he can ascertain what caused the accusation to be made in the first place. Obviously something happened to bring the matter to the attention of the bishop. If the priest does not take steps to remedy the situation, then the misunderstanding is likely to occur again.

Some bishops do not deal with the first accusations themselves. They leave this to their auxiliary, vicar general, or chancellor. They do so for a number of reasons: they don’t want the priest to think they put too much credence in the accusation; they want to remain on good terms with the priest; or they find the whole subject too distasteful or embarrassing to talk about. Regardless of the reason, the bishop should always deal with the problem himself. The bishop is the father of the diocese and should be a father to his priests. Accusations about the faith or morals of any priest should be personally dealt with by the bishop, though he may feel the need for consultation. Please God, the accusations will not be so numerous as to require special assistants.

Policy of Pastoral Care: If the bishop is convinced there is some truth to the accusation, then he must have a plan of action. Every diocese should have such a pastoral care plan in place from which the bishop and his staff can work. Many dioceses have such a plan for alcoholic priests; they should also have one for homosexual priests. (A special pastoral and juridical policy should be developed for the priest pedophile.)

This pastoral care plan should include the following points: (1) the priest must receive competent professional care at both the spiritual and psychological level; (2) the priest should not remain in his assignment during the time of treatment; (3) the time of treatment should not be less than six months; (4) the bishop should personally meet with the priest and his spiritual director prior to his reassignment in the diocese; (5) the priest should only be assigned to a parish where other priests are in residence; (6) the priest must be faithful to the program of spiritual direction and continued therapy (if that is deemed necessary by the psychologist); (7) the bishop should meet at least four times a year with the priest, and at least one of these times the priest’s spiritual director should be present. It should be noted the priest will remain in “good standing” during this period of treatment.

This plan of action does presume a number of things. It presumes the bishop has investigated the various institutions where treatment might be obtained for the priest. He should be personally convinced the program he is insisting the priest enter has a chance of helping him. He should also talk to members of the psychological staff at the institution, to ensure that the psychological therapy and the spiritual direction the priest will receive when he returns to the diocese will not conflict. The bishop should also make certain there are several spiritual directors available in his diocese who are trained to deal with this disorder in a priest. It does little good to insist the priest have a spiritual director unless you can assure him they will be good spiritual directors. The bishop should take a personal interest in the development of a team of trained directors for his diocese, not just for this problem, but for the general welfare of his priests.

Special care should be given to the first assignment the priest receives upon returning from treatment. It should not be a parish where the tensions would make the assignment difficult for any priest. It should not be an unsupervised assignment where he will be alone. This is not just to “keep an eye on him,” but to provide him with good priestly friendships so he will not revert to his other “friends” again.

Finally, the periodic meetings with the bishop should reinforce the priest’s realization that the bishop and the Church really do love him and wish to help him. A person will do almost anything for someone he is convinced loves him. The effort the priest must make to recover from his disorder is almost heroic. Such an effort can only succeed in a context of realized love.

Uncooperative Priests: The bishop must also have before him a plan of action for those priests who will not cooperate with therapy, or who deny the allegations entirely.

If the priest denies the accusations and the bishop is convinced the claims are true, the bishop must proceed with a full internal investigation, but with the utmost confidentiality in order to preserve the good name of the innocent. This will do two things. It will help clear the priest who has been falsely accused, and it will let the priest who is attempting a “cover-up” know the bishop is not taking the accusation lightly.

If the investigation leads to no convincing evidence the priest cannot deny, then the bishop is left with little alternative but to drop the case. However, the priest should be clearly told the bishop has his suspicions, and if another accusation is made it will be almost impossible for him not to presume some guilt. This entire procedure should be carefully documented and filed, in case there is another incident. Another member of the bishop’s curia, who is an ecclesiastical and civil notary, should be present at all of these meetings to ensure there is a witness to what was actually said and done.

If the priest admits to the truth of the accusations but refuses to accept help, or if the bishop is dealing with a likely case of pedophilia, then much sterner measures are required. In both cases the bishop should suspend the priest. In the first case he should be suspended until he accepts help. If the indiscretion is known to the public, then a public announcement of the suspension is called for, at least in the parish in which he is serving. In the case of suspected pedophilia the priest should be suspended pending a formal investigation of the charges. This is regularly done in other professions and should certainly be used in such a serious accusation as this. The suspension is not meant to imply the priest is guilty, only that the charges are serious enough, and the initial evidence compelling enough, to warrant an official investigation by Church authorities. If the bishop does not wish to use a formal process to suspend, he can achieve the same effect by removing the priest from his assignment and giving him a series of formal precepts to obey.

Priests and Little Boys

The Priest Pedophile: If the bishop is dealing with a case of admitted pedophilia, then he must be extremely cautious. Not only must the grave scandal and harm to the child be repaired, but the laws of the state must also be followed. The bishop must not be put in a position of “hiding” the priest or of attempting a “cover-up.” Pedophilia is a serious crime and the Church must not be seen as obstructing justice in order to protect one of her priests. The bishop should cooperate fully with the authorities and personally attend to the welfare of the child and his family.

If the family of the child does not wish the police to be involved in the case, and this is possible according to the laws of the state, then the bishop must take decisive action to satisfy the family of the child that this offense will not be tolerated of any priest. The bishop must immediately discipline the priest involved and remove him from his parish; he should be on his way to treatment as soon as possible. The family should be assured the priest will never be assigned in the diocese again, and that the Church will meet any financial obligations regarding the child’s psychological care. If the priest remains obstinate about treatment, then the bishop should not hesitate to threaten to return him to the lay state against his will. The new code provides for diocesan bishops to use this punishment, and there is no more appropriate case.

Up to this point we have been speaking about homosexual priests, and a pastoral response to them by their brother priests and the diocesan bishop. Another major area of concern is the seminary formation of these priests. Obviously, these men did not become homosexual after ordination. Homosexual priests were homosexual seminarians. The problem should have been confronted and dealt with successfully prior to ordination (though some do not realize their disorder until after ordination). This has obviously not been done in an alarming number of cases. What responsibility must the seminary system take for this problem facing the Church, and what response must the Church make to insure that her future priests are educated in a healthy psychological environment? This is the issue I will address next month.

Author

  • Monsignor X

    Monsignor X, vocation director at a major U.S. Diocese, has been active in formation programs for over 10 years.

tagged as:

Join the Conversation

in our Telegram Chat

Or find us on
Item added to cart.
0 items - $0.00

Orthodox. Faithful. Free.

Signup to receive new Crisis articles daily

Email subscribe stack
Share to...