Public Letters

Edwina Gateley

Just to set the record straight concerning the diocese of Phoenix stating that it had “heard” that I “had a reputation for giving statements that are antithetical to Catholic teaching,” I would like to clarify what exactly that might mean (NCR, June 22). The only issues I can come up with that I espouse and that might be remotely considered antithetical to Catholic teaching are: my support for women’s ordination, my inclusion of the gay community, my belief that there is a feminine dimension of God and, finally, that the Holy Spirit (Ruha) is of the feminine gender. If these are heretical teachings or beliefs, then I would suggest that around 60 percent of Catholics are in serious error and should not participate in any public gatherings.

Had the diocese chosen to ask me about my beliefs, instead of demanding that my talks be taped, a great deal of unnecessary publicity and distress would have been avoided all round (not to mention the number of trees destroyed in the gathering of 2,000 signatures in my support).

EDWINA GATELEY
Erie, Pa.

* * *

I was one of the 2,000 or more who signed the petition “Catholic women will not be silenced” to protest the treatment and silencing of Edwina Gateley by Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix. In retaliation, the pastor of my local parish, Fr. David Ostler of Our Lady of Lourdes in Sun City West, Ariz., immediately removed me from all leadership positions in our parish ministry. I had been leading the Sacred Heart charismatic prayer community in our parish, a space John L. Allen Jr. referred to as “a place where those of differing experiences and temperaments can meet in an atmosphere of trust.” Another woman, another ministry silenced and banned for no legitimate reason, no recourse, just follow the leader back to Vatican I. What happened to this church of ours? Don’t these men know that women in this century are allowed to speak?

LYNN NORTON
Sun City West, Ariz.


 Petition to International Synod on the Eucharist


East Valley Tribune.com


Former priest travels the world to push for a Catholic clergy allowed to marry
By Lawn Griffiths, Tribune



It’s been more than three decades since love and marriage sidetracked the priesthood of Anthony T. Padovano. He wasn’t alone. One in every three priests during that period left the church, 90 percent of them for marriage.

Now, at 70, the theologian and author of 28 books still holds hope for a change of heart at the Vatican that would make an estimated 125,000 priests worldwide, like him, eligible to return to their work for the church. About 23,000 of them are in the United States. 

 "They have not left the priesthood. They are always priests," Padovano said, noting that Roman Catholic Church canon law doesn’t dispute that. But when priests marry, they no longer are "clerics" and cannot labor for the institutional church. 

 Padovano, who spoke last weekend in Phoenix to a regional gathering of the Catholic reform organization Call to Action was in Rome during the recent papal transition and advocated for change to meet the critical shortages in the priesthood. He was there with We Are Church, a 10-year-old international organization in 30 countries, which gave the Vatican 2 million signatures of Catholics in 1997 asking for significant reforms in eight major areas. 

 Between Pope John Paul II’s death April 2 and the installation of Pope Benedict XVI on April 24, Padovano and his group worked to convey their message to 3,500 media members and "give context for the writing of their stories." 

 "We gave a corporate witness that the work of the Second Vatican Council was still ongoing and that after a fairly conservative papacy, that issues for reform of the church are still alive," said Padovano, who had studied six years in Rome before he was ordained in 1960. But in 1974, he chose to marry a nun who had been a graduate student in one of his classes. He and his wife Theresa have four children ranging from 24 to 29 years old. 

 Padovano founded and served 10 years as president of the Corps of Reserve Priests United for Service, or CORPUS, which calls for the reinstatement of married priests in the church, as well as permitting women priests. Today, he is a CORPUS ambassador, speaking to national and international meetings. 

 "Our fundamental task has almost been accomplished because we have changed the hearts and minds of people," he said, pointing to polls that show 80 percent of Catholics find married priests acceptable, up from 30 percent when CORPUS began 30 years ago. 

 Padovano is fond of saying that Christ chose married men like Peter, Paul and Philip to be his apostles, and the Catholic Church found it acceptable to have married clergy — there were 39 married popes — until 1139, when celibacy became the rule, partly because of disputes over inheritance and church property. 

 "I don’t think you can have mandatory celibacy for priests without making a negative statement about marital union," he said. "You can have celibacy. That does not say anything negative about marriage, but once you say that no priest in the world can be married, you have made a terrible statement about the real spiritual value of marriage itself." 

 A founding faculty member of Ramapo College in New Jersey, where he continues to teach, Padovano lectures worldwide and frequently speaks on American TV news shows as the Catholic reform voice in discussions. 

 His speeches have raised the hackles of conservative Catholics. Cardinal Joseph Maida, archbishop of Detroit, barred him from speaking at a Detroit parish in 2003, and later that year, the bishop in Dallas, prevented him from speaking to laity and priests. The meeting was moved to a Methodist church. Padovano’s name is on Web sites, with a red warning tag, to alert Catholics of authors and speakers who "claim to be Catholic but dissent from the truth as handed down from Jesus Christ." 

 The shortage and aging in the priesthood is a worldwide issue. For example, in Ireland, where the population is 90 percent nominally Catholic, the Archdiocese of Dublin ordained just one priest last year, the first time that has occurred in hundreds of years. 

 The Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix, which had no men to ordain in 2004, is ordaining one priest this spring but expects to have two in 2006 and seven in 2007, according to vocations director Don Kline. 

 "In the United States, when John Paul II came into office in 1978, there were about 500 American parishes without priests; there are 3,000 now," Padovano said. 

 Data shows there were 105,530 parishes worldwide without resident priests. Parishes sharing a priest is commonplace. Visiting priests seek to fill the gap for the Eucharist and baptisms, but without an established relationship with parishioners. In his book, "Full Pews and Empty Altars," writer Lawrence Young said there could be a 46 percent decline in U.S. priests by 2015. The average age of priests today is about 60, and retired priests are often called on to labor until their health fails. 

 While Catholic priests do not take a vow of poverty, their pay in the U.S. is typically less than $20,000 per year, not counting housing, auto and education allowances, studies show. Protestant pastors, on average, earn about $50,000. That dichotomy "doesn’t make sense," Padovano said. "Further, in the world in which we live today, if there is a married priest, the wife of the priest is not going to be an ornament. She is going to have a career of her own as well" and supplement the priest’s income. 

 "Some concerned voices will say that this is the result of secularism, materialism, pansexualism and that people are not as heroic as they were," he said. "I don’t believe any of that is true. I think what has happened is the church’s position has lost its credibility. 

 "No one can say that marriage doesn’t make you as good as a celibate priest," he said. 

 As for the argument that a married priest has divided loyalties, reducing his devotion to the church and Christ, Padovano said, "The whole world runs on married people. It really depends on where your heart is, not whether you have a spouse or not.


www.corpus.org : Celebrating thirty-one years of service to the people of God
A REPORT FROM THE CORPUS AMBASSADOR---ANTHONY PADOVANO
I am deeply grateful for all those who supported my going to Rome for the Conclave Project.  I hope that you will find this report evidence of the value of this endeavor.Reforming the Church, Electing a PopeJoseph Ratzinger's photo did not appear in the April 15, 2005 issue of the National Catholic Reporter. Veteran Vatican expert John Allen did not include him in the profiles of twenty cardinals likely to be considered electable as pope.  In the week after John Paul II's death, as cardinals converged on Rome, Vatican commentators excluded Ratzinger as a viable candidate. He had offended large numbers of people; he was a rigid conservative and just two years short of the age (80) which would exclude him from even entering the Conclave.    I shall return to commentary and analysis of Benedict XVI In the final section of this essay.  This report will focus on an eventful week in Rome, from April 13-20, as Corpus Ambassador.    The Conclave ProjectThe remote origins of the Conclave Project began in Austria in 1995 with half a million petitions for a reformed Catholic Church. A year later, in Rome, the "International Movement: We are Church" was initiated by delegates from twenty countries and five continents.  A year after this, the International Movement marched through Rome and the Vatican and presented to the Secretariat of State some two million signatures for reform.During the intervening years, the International Movement met in conferences, issued papers and sought to galvanize support for a renewed Church.  In what seemed to be the final years of John Paul II's life, it organized the Conclave Project.The intention of the Conclave Project was the presentation of four major press conferences for the world media. The conferences would occur in the interval after the papal funeral and before the Conclave, a time when journalists would welcome background and context.  The Project invited four theologians (two men, two women) from four continents (Asia, Australia, Europe, North America) to lead these discussions.These conferences were scheduled over three days, from April 14-16. They were well attended and included, as we shall see, an astonishing representation of major world media.  The conferences were chaired by Luigi DePaoli (Italy), Maureen Fiedler (USA), Anthony Padovano (USA), and Isaac Wust (Netherlands).  The chair people and the invited theologians were available for interviews after each day's events.  The conferences took place in the building in Rome (Auditorium Cavour in the Piazza Adriana) where the International Movement was organized some nine years ago.April 14:  Dr. Adrianna Valerio (University of Naples, Italy)Professor Valerio is a Church historian and president of the "European Society of Women in Theological Research."Dr. Valerio spoke of negative attitudes about women's bodies that led church officials to exclude women from the holy.  Indeed, she insisted, feminine attributes should be seen in a positive light and included in our definition of the divine.  If this were so, no ministry could be considered incompatible to women.  And, if this were so, women would at long last be cited in text books assigned by theological faculties. When this occurs, the feminine memory and tradition of the Church will be preserved and proclaimed.April 15:  Sister Joan Chittister OSB (USA)Since the 1990's Vatican authorities have systematically downgraded the role of women, resisting John Paul II's declaration that women must be accorded commeasurate dignity in the church.  "Women are being removed from every office in the chancery except, perhaps, as vicars for religious."  These set-backs occur despite the 1985 papal letter on which John Paul II apologized for the Church's failure to respect the equality and worth of women.   On the contrary, more than two-thirds of American Catholics, "think it is a good idea to make celibacy optional, ordain married men, allow the return of married priests to ministry and ordain women."Sister Joan observed that laity are most opposed to closing parishes and to not having a priest to visit the sick and to perform the last rites.  In 1965, 549 U.S. parishes lacked a priest; in 2002 the number increased more than five-fold to 2929 (worldwide there are 105, 530 priestless parishes).This crisis led the National Leadership Roundtable to release a study in March 2005 that concluded there has been a long-term decline in episcopal authority in the U.S. church, an alienation of young women and an escalating demand for lay leadership and financial accountability.Women hold the key to the survival of the American Church.  Two out of every three of the graduates of lay ecclesial ministry programs are women (only 3% are nuns).  Yet the Vatican "completely obliterates female references from the prayers and hymns of the Church", from Scripture, and from the names for God. Women do not exist in the pronouns of the Church. If women are banished from the language of the Church, they will be absent from the mind and the structures of the Church.April 16:  Dr. Paul Collins (Australia)Dr. Collins is a Church historian, a prolific author, a media personality and a popular lecturer.

The "historical amnesia" of John Paul II's teaching troubled Dr. Collins.  "By any New Testament norm, the modern papacy is seriously deficient."  Traditional doctrines of communion, collegiality and councils have been sacrificed for papal extremism.  The resulting centralization has lost touch with contemporary theology, biblical studies, church history and pastoral needs.

A minimum requirement for reform is a lay voice in the selection of bishops and in the life of the Church.  Less than this and the ecclesial pathology of alienation and silent schism will metastasize.

April 16:  Dr. Tissa Balasuriya OMI (Sri Lanka)

Dr. Balasuriya is a theologian and the founder of the "Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians."

Professor Balasuriya asked for an extension of John Paul II's "mea culpas" to include the complicity of the papacy and church officials in the sins and crimes of the past. He asked that John Paul II's approaches to world religions be expanded to recognize divine revelation and grace in world religions.

The internal life of the Church requires decentralization, collegiality in place of monarchy, free speech in place of censure and silence, justice in place of a judicial process in which prosecutor and judge are the same person.   We must inquire why a theology and spirituality, originating with Jesus of Nazareth, is now so lacking in freedom and love.  The ministerial priesthood is in danger of extinction; only a radical reformulation of what we mean by priesthood will bring it vitality and health. We must summon an ecumenical council, a World Forum of Laity, a People's Commission on Human Rights in the Church. This is not a time for only one voice to be heard in the Church.
Commentary

The four conferences developed a series of common themes.  These were not coordinated beforehand.  Nonetheless, they emerged naturally, pre-reflectively, consistently.

Inclusivity emerged as a priority, with all the attendant categories of collegiality, freedom and pastoral sensitivity.  This inclusivity requires structures of accountability, of shared responsibility, a recognition of charisms and the unpredictability of the Spirit.

There was a sense in all the conferences that, even recognizing the values and accomplishments of John Paul II, papal centralization has gone too far. The Scriptures, the sensus fidelium, a critical analysis of tradition, and openness to the world at large and its religions specifically * all this is substantial to the agenda of a new Church.

The coherence and consistency of these messages, coming from so many continents and from speakers whose education and experience are world-class, all this formed a message in its own right.

Theological Conversations and Media Interviews

One of the richest experiences of these days in Rome were the
theological conversations and the enlightenment and solidarity which came from them.

I spent hours in discussion with the four invited theologians: with Valerio and Balasuriya but most especially with Chittister and Collins.  These conversations included long dialogues with the leaders of the world-wide "We are the Church" movement: Luigi De Paoli (Italy), Isaac Wust (Netherlands), Tobias Raschke (Germany) and, of course, the Americans (Rea Howarth, Maureen Fiedler).  It is important to name also leading analysts and commentators from the world media. An impressive tapestry of shared information, interwoven themes, strengthened convictions and new patterns of thought emerged.  It is difficult to quantify the consequences which follow from so much conversation with so many astute and committed participants.

I was not able to get a record of all the media representatives throughout the three-day series. I did identify twenty-four of them and list them here to provide a sense of the scope of the exposure and the considerable influence that followed from it:

APT (Associated Press Television)     
NDC (Oslo, Norway)
Australian Age (Melbourne)        
Newsweek
Baltimore Sun                
NTV (Germany)
BBC (British Broadcasting)        
Public-Forum (Germany)
Beliefnet (Paul Wilkins)            
RAI (Italian TV)
Catholic News                
Religious News Service
CBC Canada                
Reuters
CNN                        
Rome Report
Interfaith Voices                 
The Tablet (England)
Japan Broadcasting            
Temoignage Chretien (France)        
O Globo (Brazil)                
Washington Post
National Catholic Reporter         
YLE (Finland)
(Editor, Management)

I did formal interviews, one on one, sometimes for as long as thirty minutes with the following ten news organizations:

ABC
CBC TV Canada
Associated Press                
CNN International
Australian Age (Melbourne)        
Herald News (New Jersey)
Beliefnet                    
Interfaith Voices
CBC Radio Canada            
Newsday (NY)

Conclave and Election

As I arrived in Rome the final nine days of Masses after the papal
funeral were celebrated.  The outpouring of people to honor John Paul II was remarkable and unprecedented.  The city was filled with photos and banners in tribute to him.

The media had followed John Paul II closely so there was a sense in many people that they knew him.  His age and infirmity made him seem a grandfather for the world. Indeed many felt that any contact with a pope was a spiritual connection with God or with something sacred for which they yearned.  There were also the attractions of monarchy and celebrity.  It was not easy to analyze the phenomenon. It occurred and it was, in its own right, impressive, beautiful, unforgettable.  For many of the young, there was no prior memory of the passing of a pope. For crowds of Poles, he represented one of Poland's finest hours.  The strength and certitude of John Paul II was a magnet for masses of people in a world of ambiguities and accelerating uncertainties.

Nonetheless it is clear that the affection for the man and the admiration for his gifts do not translate easily into an endorsement of his policies or his teachings. For large numbers, John Paul II proved that the divine is not out of reach but these same people were convinced that their experience rather than his program would bring them to God or the sacred. They were not willing to surrender what life or the sense of their own faith taught them and to replace it automatically with John Paul II's vision of God, life and the world. Not in all cases. Not for the most part.

On Monday (April 18) and Tuesday (April 19), I assembled with thousands in St. Peter's Square.  There was black smoke after the first ballot on Monday night. I was here also in 1958, in October, a year short of ordination to priesthood, a seminarian at the North American College and a theology student at the Gregorian University.  That Conclave gave us Angelo Roncalli, John XXIII, 78 years of age, little known, but, soon, massively loved.  This Conclave would bring us Joseph Ratzinger, also 78, well known, at the moment more feared than loved.  Roncalli's vision captivated the young Joseph Ratzinger who, with Hans Kung and Karl Rahner, wrote compellingly of Vatican II and its promise. All that may not be past.

I remember disappointment in St. Peter's Square the night John XXIII was elected. It had mostly to do with his age and, perhaps, superficially, to his unphotogenic figure after the elegance and poise of Pius XII.  The disappointment this time was also palpable to me. If I do not misjudge it, it had nothing to do with age (this time, perhaps, an asset) and nothing to do with visual attraction.  Ratzinger is an imposing figure.  I know from Maureen Fiedler's conversations in the Square, anecdotal and random, that even the conservatives wanted a pope who would open the Church in different ways. Maureen, with microphone and recorder, found mostly conservatives who wanted continuity with John Paul II. Nonetheless, they spoke convincingly of a need to define women differently in the Church, of the necessity for a married priesthood, of the priority of compassion over "truth," of creating a sexual ethic in the Church that is responsible and yet resilient.  Many in the Square did not applaud this time. No one was disrespectful. There was joy, of course, in many places. But also a great deal of silence, thoughtfulness and premature departures.

I was immediately impressed with Ratzinger's choice of the name Benedict. I gave an interview with ABC minutes after the announcement in St. Peter's Square in which I observed that Benedict XV was, quite likely, the most liberal pope between Gregory XVI at the turn of the nineteenth century until Pius XII, midway in the twentieth century. Leo XIII, two popes prior to Benedict XV, was liberal in social justice issues but Benedict XV exhausted himself seeking to end the First World War and in stopping the police state mentality his predecessor imposed on free speech in the Church.

Names have mattered in the recent past. John XXIII did not become Pius XIII and signaled a different pontificate. The anti-pope who had the name John XXIII called a council of reform and reunion in the fifteenth century. John called a council of reform and reunion in the twentieth.

Paul VI took the name of the world-travelling apostle Paul. He was the first pope to return to Jerusalem and to speak in NewYork at the United  Nations and to address the World Council of Churches in Geneva. John Paul II envisioned himself as defined by the council John XXIII called and the world outreach of Paul VI.  If the name of Benedict XVI matters in the same way it may be a sign of hope.  Ratzinger did not take the name of the last pre-conciliar pope, Pius XII, or of his immediate predecessor.

In any case, we have a pope (habemus papam).  Even a pope cannot resist the forces for reform in the Church.  If one sees John Paul II as a reactionary, it is also important to add that he did things which would have been seen as heretical had there not been a Council. He prayed in a synagogue and a mosque and with leaders of all the world's religions at Assisi.  He spoke favorably of Martin Luther in a Lutheran Church and he apologized for the crimes Christians committed in the world.  He asked Protestants to help him redefine the papacy (Ut Unum Sint) and he allowed a married priesthood in the Latin Church to convert Protestant pastors.  He reached an agreement with Lutherans on the meaning of justification, faith and works.  Ratzinger signed the document at Augsburg, a document which had it been signed at the height of the Reformation might have presented a split.  It is not my intention or my preference to gloss over the disappointment and heartache John Paul II caused in many responsible and courageous and graced Catholics.  I seek only to affirm that even a reactionary papacy cannot withstand totally the powerful forces for reform which, I believe, come from a Council and the Spirit.  If this be so, then, Benedict XVI will not be Joseph Ratzinger but a pope and a pastor who may surprise us all, himself included.

TO READ MORE INFO ON CURRENT HAPPENINGS IN THE CHURCH GO TO WWW.CORPUS.ORG/FORUMS/



A Gay Priest Speaks Out

The Vatican, homosexuals & holy orders
Rev. Gerard Thomas


Sometime in the next few months, the Vatican will issue a much-anticipated document addressing the issue of whether gay men can be ordained priests. The policy is being written by the Congregation for Catholic Education in preparation for the upcoming Vatican's apostolic visitation of seminaries in the United States, the in-depth review that is part of the Vatican's response to the sexual-abuse crisis.

 Exactly what Rome will say is unclear. Some observers predict an outright ban on admitting homosexuals to seminaries and religious orders; others foresee less drastic restrictions. No one, however, expects the Vatican to issue a warm welcome to gay men who feel called to the priesthood. But while banning or severely restricting gay men in orders would surely delight those U.S. Catholics who blame gay priests for the sexual-abuse crisis or have been railing against the "gay subculture" in the clergy, to a gay priest like myself, the imminent release of this document looms like terrible, if not entirely unexpected, news from the doctor.

 It is also represents a serious moral error.

 Few doubt that the impetus behind the Vatican's proposed statement is the sexual-abuse crisis that has convulsed the Catholic Church in America for the past three years. And if American Catholics took note that the crimes overwhelmingly concerned priests preying on young boys and adolescent males, those in Rome drew unwarranted deductions from those facts, prompting some Vatican officials to take aim at all homosexuals in the priesthood. As Vatican spokesman Joaqui­n Navarro-Valls said in March 2002, "People with these inclinations just cannot be ordained".

 Yet many men with such "inclinations" are already ordained. To be sure, no reliable data exist about the number of gay priests in the United States, and estimates vary widely. Many bishops and religious superiors, who are either embarrassed by the presence of gay priests under their jurisdiction or who deny their existence, are understandably skittish about conducting research that would confirm the presence of homosexual priests in the church. (My completely anecdotal impression is that probably 25 percent of priests are homosexual.) Still, even if research were conducted, it is unlikely that gay priests would feel comfortable participating. Frank answers might jeopardize their ministries, especially since some bishops seem to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. "We feel a person who is homosexual-oriented is not a suitable candidate for the priesthood, even if he had never committed any homosexual act", said Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, archbishop of Philadelphia, in April 2002.

 In addition to the lack of data, a strict code of silence concerning homosexual priests has been imposed. Bishops and religious superiors have forbidden many priests from speaking, writing, or preaching about their homosexuality. (This is the reason I am using a pseudonym for this article: I have been instructed not to speak publicly about my sexual identity.) Thus gay priests like myself are caught in a double bind. If we speak the truth and discuss freely our existence in the church, and, more important, our experience of leading fulfilling lives as celibate men, we will be censured or removed from ministry. If we remain silent, though, we guarantee that the positive example of the celibate gay priest will remain hidden. Voiceless, the gay priest cannot defend himself within the church. Stereotyped, he cannot escape the suspicions of society at large.

 Yet on this subject, as in so many other areas, the church needs to embrace more transparency, not more silence. For celibate gay priests, like all of God's people, have an important story to tell.

 To take but one example, I have often wanted to remind my parishioners that media coverage of the sexual-abuse crisis portraying all gay priests as abusers was inaccurate and unjust. But I could not offer convincing arguments or testimony without admitting that I knew gay priests or happened to be one myself. This is all the more frustrating because, while too many Catholic commentators equate "gay priest" with "sexually active", the overwhelming majority of gay priests, in my own experience, are faithful to their promise to be celibate, and lead lives of healthy service to the church and the community at large. Moreover, despite some predictable misunderstandings and insecurities on all sides, homosexual and heterosexual priests work comfortably together.

 Further, it is simply a calumny to say that gay priests are necessarily sexually active, or worse, that they are pedophiles. There are thousands of devoted priests ministering today who are gay and have found healthy ways of living celibately. The uncharitable accusations about the "gay subculture" in the priesthood stems primarily from the stereotype of the gay person as utterly incapable of keeping a vow of chastity or promise of celibacy. That is a falsehood. Moreover, the refusal of the hierarchy to welcome healthy, celibate gay priests as role models perpetuates that falsehood. In such an environment, where celibate gay priests are invisible, the only public examples of gay priests are, by default, notorious pedophiles. Is it any wonder, then, that Rome is busy preparing this new document?

 This kind of hypocrisy makes it impossible for American Catholics, let alone the Vatican, to come to a more accurate view of the lives and ministry of gay priests. This, in turn, entails a great spiritual loss.

 If the Incarnation shows us anything, it is that God loves us in our humanity, even in our weakness, as St. Paul says-perhaps especially in our weakness. We all have a need to see ourselves as loved by God as we are, even in those parts of ourselves that embarrass or sadden us. Perhaps we think ourselves too plain, too unintelligent, too untalented, or too unsuccessful to warrant God's love. But God's love is always far greater than we can imagine, and embraces our entire selves. In my own life, one of the most profound experiences of God's love came when, after many years, I finally accepted that I could not change myself into a straight man: I was gay and that was simply the way God had created me. Encountering God's love as I am was a transforming experience, one that I have wanted to share with parishioners not as an example of any personal sexual liberation, but as a sign of God's infinite, and always surprising, understanding. Does this basic acceptance of God's love seem like a commonplace sentiment? For most straight men and women, yes. But for gay people, it can be a profoundly difficult proposition to come to believe.

 I have long hoped to testify before my parish to this foundational experience of God's love in my life, but I am of course forbidden to do so. And when a minister of the Word cannot publicly proclaim the freedom that the Word brings to his own life, it is a real loss for a community of faith.

 My own path to the priesthood is similar to that of many gay men. In the American Catholic milieu in which I was raised, the pressures against coming to terms with my sexual identity were overwhelming [see Valerie Sayers, page 36].

 Growing up, I told no one that I was gay. Entering the seminary in my twenties, I was, as a gay man, fearful of not receiving eventual permission for ordination, so in the initial interviews, questionnaires, and psychological tests required of applicants, I denied my homosexuality. (Later I sought forgiveness for this in the confessional.)

 Eventually, though, I came to feel secure enough to reveal this facet of myself to my superiors. Doing so seemed a deepening of my original call, an invitation to spiritual growth, and a way to allow God to love me as I am. Further, I realized that my decades spent fearing rejection and feeling marginalized had fostered within me a deep love for the materially poor of this world, who are marginalized and rejected in far worse ways.

 Fortunately, and to my surprise, my honesty was welcomed by my superiors and my fellow seminarians. Many conversations about sexuality followed-with seminary rectors, spiritual directors, other seminarians and priests, as well as with psychologists and pastoral counselors. Over the years, my growing understanding of who I was helped me live a life of celibacy with more honesty and comfort. Priestly celibacy, of course, is not easy. Making this total offering to God requires honesty, patience, and sacrifice. It also requires the willingness to engage in an honest and open discussion of one's sexuality, something a Vatican ban on homosexual priests would make impossible.

 Few doubt that priestly celibacy and chastity within religious communities have long appealed to gay men and lesbians. Although the concept of homosexuality is a relatively new one, the phenomenon is not. Throughout the history of the church, homosexual men and women have found the priesthood and religious life both a refuge and a fulfilling way of life. As Richard John Neuhaus noted (First Things, June-July 2002): "It would seem more than likely that, in centuries past, some priests who have been canonized as saints would meet today's criteria as having a homosexual orientation". For many Catholics, the only surprising thing about gay priests is that we are still thought to be a source of shame whose existence must be kept secret.

 If Rome bars homosexuals from the priesthood, many diocesan seminaries and formation houses for religious orders will undoubtedly lose good men during a time of drastically reduced vocations, while gay men already in orders will be further demoralized. There are other risks. Some priests, both straight and gay, hope that Vatican instructions dictating punitive steps against gay seminarians may be ignored or circumvented by sympathetic seminary rectors and novice directors. But subterfuge will only contribute to an ecclesial culture of hypocrisy. Will religious superiors encourage those to be ordained to practice deception in preparation for the sacrament of holy orders? Will some candidates simply refuse to discuss their homosexuality, closing themselves off to a healthy integration of their sexuality and thus laying the groundwork for spiritual inauthenticity-or worse?

 Some have suggested that the Vatican may simply ask gay men to affirm that they have never been sexually active, or sign a document asserting their adherence to the church's teaching on homosexuality and rejection of the "gay lifestyle", or pledge never to discuss publicly their experience as gay men. Such restrictions can only be seen as tacit acceptance of the stereotype that homosexuals are inherently less psychologically healthy than heterosexuals-less capable of living celibately, less trustworthy, less valuable as members of the clergy, and, in general, less valuable as human beings. Restrictions would therefore represent an unjust discrimination against gay men. And as the Catechism instructs, concerning gays and lesbians, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in this regard should be avoided". (2358).

 Many years ago I felt the first stirring of a vocation to the priesthood. It was an enormous gift in the order of grace. I believe the priesthood is the vocation for which I have been born, and this belief has been confirmed again and again over my years of active ministry. I am celibate and hardworking and healthy and loving and faithful. I am also a gay man. Why is this wrong?