Who is called by God?

IT is admirable that the leadership of the Catholic Church has at last been convinced of the need to act against paedophilia among Church personnel. The Church in the United States in particular has become most pro-active in rooting out child abusers within the clergy.

It is regrettable, however, when the war on paedophilia is also being waged on false fronts.

Last month, papal spokes-man Joaquin Navarro-Valls suggested that the Vatican had identified a correlation between homosexual priests and the sexual abuse of minors. As a consequence, it is preparing to screen out homosexuals as candidates for the priesthood, and has even called into question the validity of past ordinations of homosexuals.

This approach is myopic, misguided and uncharitable.

There is no conclusive data suggesting that homosexuals are any more inclined towards paedophilia than heterosexuals. Dr Nicholas Groth, director of the Sex Offender Programme in the Connecticut department of corrections, reports that “the belief that homosexuals are particularly attracted to children is completely unsupported by our data.”

Likewise, a Massachusetts study found that not one of 175 male adults convicted in the state of child molestation was homosexual–or indeed heterosexual. All were “fixated child molesters,” that is men who are attracted exclusively to children.

It is thus incorrect to presume that men who compulsively violate boys are by necessity homosexual. Paedophiles tend to be stimulated not by gender, but by the child’s age.

Barring homosexuals from the priesthood will not solve the appalling situation of clerical pederasty, but may create a whole new set of uncertainties.

Chief among these is the status of homosexual priests already in the service of the Church. Their sexual tendency–which The Catechism of the Catholic Church says is not of their own choosing (paragraph 2358)–is often not known to the public. If celibate, they have committed no sin related to their sexual orientation. Their numbers are not negligible.

When Dr Navarro-Valls said that homosexuals “cannot be in this field” (that is, the priesthood), he insinuated that the ordinations of priests who are homosexual may technically not be valid.

Should the validity of such ordinations be regarded, even implicitly, as retroactively disputable, the legitimacy of every sacrament these priests have ever administered may be subject to doubt. Can this be the will of the Holy Spirit?

The notion that homosexuals should not be priests must be deeply hurtful to the many who have served the Church with integrity and dedication, their sexuality notwithstanding. Can this be God’s justice?

There is little in the Gospel or Church tradition that might preclude a scrupulously celibate homosexual from joining the priesthood. Indeed, the Catech-ism teaches that “every sign of unjust discrimination [in regard of homosexuals] should be avoided” (2358).

The Vatican is correct in saying that the priesthood is not a question of rights. The genuine call to priestly or religious vocations comes from God and by his grace.

Among those who have heard and answered this call over the centuries have been homosexuals. Are we asked to believe that God was wrong in calling them? Was the priesthood of homosexuals such as the great pastor and writer Fr Henri Nouwen just a big mistake?

Each vocation must be discerned on an individual basis. If a homosexual candidate to the priesthood seems unlikely to control his sexual temptations, his application must be rejected–but the same criteria must be applied to heterosexuals.

Importantly, the authority to implement suitable policies governing the selection process of candidates to the priesthood should reside with the local bishop, not with a central authority far removed from the environment in which he and his priests function.

This month the Church asks us to pray for vocations, a prayer most Catholics will eagerly join in. How sad it would be if we were obliged to ask God to exclude from his calls an entire class of people.