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?