Reports out of the Vatican, and statements made by Pope Francis I to members of the Latin American Conference of Religious (CLAR) in June, reveal the alleged existence of a ‘gay lobby’ within the Roman Curia, the administrative arm of the Roman Catholic Church and the Holy See. Sorting out the truth of what this ‘gay lobby’ actually is, is challenging as reaction to it from traditionalists and reactionary elements within the Church have muddied the discussion considerably.
For instance, a group known as Novus Ordo Watch, maintains the last ‘legitimate’ Pope was Pius XII, who reigned from 1939-1958, and that all Popes from John XXIII onward are ‘anti-popes’ and in fact not truly Catholic but rather ‘usurpers’ out to destroy the One True Church from within. John XXIII was the architect of the various reforms and modernizations within the Church that is known as Vatican II. Novus Ordo Watch believes him, and subsequent Popes (Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis I), to be apostate and heretical.
The issue is further clouded by the equating of homosexual priests with the pedophilic scandals with which the Church has been consumed in recent years, as if being a gay or even bisexual priest somehow predisposes that priest to abuse young boys. Those of us in the LGBTQ community of course understand one has nothing to do with the other; that pedophilia, even when practiced by an adult male towards boys, has about as much to do with being gay as an adult male preying on underage girls has to do with heterosexuality. So any reasonable discussion of homosexual priests within the Church, and what role they might have, is invariably sidetracked by the spectre of child sexual abuse.
That the priesthood attracts gay men as well as straight men should not come as a surprise to anyone. Feeling as if one has a vocation for the priesthood has, or should have, nothing to do with one’s orientation.
Perhaps - if in fact it is the case - gay men are slightly more likely to enter the priesthood it is because, as gay men, we have done considerable soul-searching already, are perhaps a bit more "internally-directed", if you will, and not as concerned about producing and raising a family as a matter of course, as heterosexual men are expected to be. We are, it could be argued, more free to seek out alternatives and, for such men, the priesthood offers a way of being of service, even of deflecting questions about one’s sexuality since sexuality is, officially at least, shelved upon taking one’s vows of celibacy (remaining unmarried) and chastity (sexually abstinent).
The current scandal, then, appears to not be so much about the existence of homosexually-oriented individuals within the Roman Curia - a not so recent situation as rumours have existed for centuries about that. But rather, many of them are apparently being actively homosexual and (this is where it gets a bit confusing and muddled depending on which source one goes to) attempting to act as some sort of lobbying group within the hierarchy of the Church, to change policies around homosexuality and/or the state of being gay.
This is likely misdirected criticism.
As Robert Mickens, Vatican correspondent for the British Catholic weekly The Tablet, pointed out in a June 13 article, the normal definition of a lobby as an organized group of people pushing a specific agenda does not apply here. Rather, what actually is being referred to is more a gay subculture within the hierarchy.
"Many of these people in the Vatican that are gay, and even acting out, are extremely conservative," he said. "These are not people that want to change the church’s teaching on homosexuality — not at all."
The senior administrators within the Roman Curia are not pushing for reform but for advantage within the hierarchy. The issues surrounding the Roman Curia are ones of intrigue, power-plays and corruption within an enclosed system. It is the very definition of ‘palace intrigue’. In fact, as applied to The Vatican, this curia is not simply the administrative arm of the Vatican but actually the Papal Court, harkening back to the days of European royal and imperial courts.
As Mickens also points out, within the rarified atmosphere that is life within the Vatican, "the big game is blackmail. It’s a mutual recrimination system — that’s what is really twisted about the whole thing," he said, adding "[it’s a situation of] ‘I know he is doing this’; ‘He knows I’m doing that’; checkmate.... [T]hat is how the game works."
The prelates (cardinals) who make up the Roman Curia are, apparently, too busy fighting and squabbling amongst themselves, seeking personal advantage and generally being total bitches with each other to ever effectively elicit policy changes within the Church itself.
Essentially, the Roman Curia can only loosely be compared to the cabinets of secular governments. It’s role is primarily to assist the current pope in the administration of the Holy See itself, although there are nine departments - known as congregations - within it, some of which, like the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith formerly headed by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, are responsible for affairs and policies within the Church itself.
Francis’ attempts at reform and even cleansing are predictably being met with some resistance from some within the Roman Curia.
Ezio Mauro, editor-in-chief of La Repubblica, an Italian daily newspaper published out of Rome, has stated the pope is "keenly aware this power structure has entrenched itself underneath the legitimate government of the church," adding, "He is probably isolated, but he intends to change things."
One of the changes Francis has introduced, and which doubtlessly has made some enemies for him within the Roman Curia, is appointing eight international cardinals, not members of the curia itself, to a commission to assist him in reforming the Church and to assist in its governance. It will likely be up to this commission to investigate and report to him what is indeed happening within curial ranks and make recommendations as to how to proceed with dealing with it.
While considerable attention has been paid to a website for gay priests seeking contact with each other, this appears to be more about sensationalism within the Italian press (which is known for sensationalizing anyway) than any ‘real’ concerns. Certainly various conservative and reactionary organizations, both religious and secular, have gone on and on about sodomites and ‘abbero-sexuals’ , but the concerns within the Vatican and the Papal Office seem more about outright corruption, including money laundering by the Vatican Bank, misappropriation of funds, bribes, abuse of junior priests and blackmail, than whether or not some priest assigned to the Holy See is hooking up with other priests or men interested in hooking up with priests. Although that too is a concern since such activity is a violation of vows, which are to be undertaken in the full knowledge and acceptance of what those vows mean.
Upon ordination, candidates are solemnly warned by the presiding bishop of the severity of the obligation to which they are committing. He instructs them that, prior to taking their vows, they are free to "turn to the aims and desires of the world" but upon accepting the ordination, that option is no longer valid nor lawful. An ordained priest cannot enter into a valid marriage and any serious transgression of his vows would not only be a grievous sin in itself but sacrilege. This, then, is the concern behind actively-sexual priests in general, and sexually-active gay priests in this instance. An ordained priest is no longer just an individual able to do as he sees fit; he is a component of the Church in all aspects of his life.
Pope Francis, who seems to be less of an ideologue than Benedict although certainly not a liberal, acknowledges there are ‘holy people’ within the Roman Curia but has also identified the existence of what he referred to as a ‘gay lobby’, after the Vatican denounced rumours of it several months ago as unverified, defamatory, and false. He has also spoken out what appears to be favourably about priests who happen to be gay, so long as they are celibate, while still saying the ‘homosexual act’ is a sin. This is a departure from Benedict’s position while Cardinal, that homosexuality itself was "intrinsically disordered" and a sin in and of itself.
Rather than outright condemning it or launching into a pontifical diatribe and bringing the whole weight of his office down on it all, as previous popes might have done, he is instead appearing to be willing to "see what can be done". This suggests some accommodation, perhaps, or a willingness at least to work with gay priests to bring them better in line with Church teachings in a respectful and supportive manner.