Gay and Lesbian Professionals in the Closet

Who's In, Who's Out, and Why

Teresa Decrescenzo

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9780789003317
• eBook ISBN: 9781317957713
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: LGBT Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

The closet takes its toll on its dwellers through their experiences of isolation, fear, paranoia, potentially increased internalized homophobia, and dissonance between role and identity; yet many people in the helping professions do not feel that it is desirable or even appropriate to disclose their sexual orientation to those receiving help. Gay and Lesbian Professionals in the Closet explores the different positions people take on this provocative issue, the arguments they use to support their positions, and why the issue may not be as clear-cut as it sometimes seems.While complex sociopsychological factors, cultural values and influences, and legal issues keep many gays, lesbians, and bisexuals in the closet, closeted practice may have its advantages. A closeted practitioner, whether case manager, counselor, psychotherapist, physician, or minister, can bring understanding and insight to practice with homosexual clients and their families, as well as lend substantial support to openly gay and lesbian helping professionals. Yet, as Gay and Lesbian Professionals in the Closet reveals, being closeted can compromise your integrity, as well as that of your clients, and the benefits of being out will likely outweigh those of being closeted. Being out will help readers:

• counteract stereotypes of gays and lesbians
• allow you to serve as a role model
• improve the quality of care offered by traditionally homophobic, or homo-ignorant, institutions and employees
• contribute to the establishment of affirming services and environments for both yourself and your clients
• stop segregating your sexual life from the rest of your life
• attain credibility with your clients
• not feed repression through silenceAs Gay and Lesbian Professionals in the Closet will show readers, it is always important to consider patients'needs and each work setting before coming out, but gay, lesbian, and bisexual social service providers should make decisions on a case-by-case basis, not avoid being out altogether. Being open in the workplace will remind caregivers, clients, and coworkers of the exemplary citizenship and service gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are capable of offering. Think again whether the closet carries protective cover from discrimination or tacit endorsement of homophobia.

SPEAKING OUT

A Catholic Perspective on Gay Priestly Ministry from the Closet

Anonymous

SUMMARY. Overview of Catholic doctrine and interpretation of Catholic teachings pertaining to homosexuals and homosexual practice are reviewed by two “closeted” homosexual priests. The paper considers the role of the clergy and expectations of the Church regarding pastoral ministry to homosexuals. Case studies highlighting unique contributions by ‘closeted’ and ‘open’ homosexual clergy to pastoral care of homosexual parishioners are presented. The authors discuss personal and professional dilemmas facing homosexual clergy including ‘coming out’, homosexual bonding within religious communities, and the wide range of attitudes among Catholics, lay and religious, concerning homosexual Catholics. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1–800-342–9678. E-mail address: [email protected]]

It seems ironic to be writing an essay about the closet from the closet. We wonder how much credibility such a piece will have. Upon reflection, this anonymous essay is perhaps not so much ironic as incongruous, even paradoxical. Although there appears to be no scientifically valid way to tally actual numbers, many social service closets are undoubtedly still occupied. This probably is true across the wide spectrum of professional activities described as “the helping professions.” It is especially true in the Roman Catholic Church’s professional ministry personnel, both among clergy and lay. There has been a significant shift in American society over the past two decades, such that many openly gay and lesbian persons function officially in politics, and in other highly visible professions. While there has not exactly been a sea change within the Catholic church, it is also true that there are some openly gay and lesbian persons serving in “official” recognized church functions. Specific Church teaching which makes this possible will be discussed later in this essay.

As to the matter of sex, Catholic doctrine still holds that sexual activity is reserved for married people only. The expectation is that all singles will remain celibate. Whatever violations of this mandate occur are to be taken to the confessional.

Although it would seem otherwise, considering the public media saturation with images of sensuality and sexuality, western culture has been a body-negative, and therefore a sex-negative culture. Sex-negativism leads to sex phobia, which leads to homophobia. Gorgeous airbrushed images tempt us from the glossy pages of magazines, and on the silver screens of television and movies. Despite the glamour, the real message to our psyches seems to be, “you do not look this good, you could never look this good, you do not measure up.” Thus, our cultural obsession with sex frequently ends up making us less happy with the real thing and with our own bodies.

The sexual revolution that has prompted so much openness about sex in the media may be partly a reaction to the Christian mores that initially shaped American society. Drawing especially from the New Testament, Christians have often focused on the seemingly negative references in scripture towards body and sexuality. However, there is a countervailing strain in Hebrew scriptures that affirms the goodness of the created order. At each stage of creation, God saw that it was good. God is seen as a lover wooing his people in the desert. The Song of Songs is beautiful erotic poetry. Even in the old testament there is a positive view of sexuality. Although Jesus did not say much about sexuality during his earthly ministry, he is depicted as a warm compassionate man, characteristics that often reflect full integration of one’s sexuality. St. Paul compares the relationship between Christ and the church with the relationship between a husband and wife.

At its best, the Catholic tradition has rejoiced in the goodness of creation and the gift of sexuality. Even in idealizing celibacy for singles, the church has focused on sexuality as a good gift that is given up as a symbol of longing for God. There is no denying, however, that the Church only finds sexual expression good if it is done within the context of marriage, and if the sex act is open to procreation. In other words, sexual activities that cannot result in procreation, either because of the nature of the acts or because of the use of birth control methods, are not allowed. In Humanae vitae (1968), the Church for the first time affirmed that the goals of sex are not only procreation, but also the unity of husband and wife. Expressions of sex that do not meet these criteria are judged to be mortally sinful. (Mortally sinful acts, as distinguished from venially sinful acts, are considered to be serious offenses in the eyes of God.) Same gender sexual contacts meet neither criterion. They cannot result in procreation, and they do not unite a male husband and a female wife.

The positive and negative views of sexuality have not been reconciled in Christian thought but the effort continues. According to Coleman (1995), “the Church must continue to dialogue with the human sciences in order to humbly interface about questions of human sexuality. Religious faith does not replace research. Faith which takes into account human sciences in the area of sexual morality moves a great deal in the direction of helping the church authentically express its sexual teachings.”

This paper will discuss several areas of concern for Catholic gay ministers in their work with other people, including the climate of changing theories of the nature of reality and truth; the differing perceptions and needs among those who seek help as well as the helpers; and the matter of integrity.

THE CLIMATE OF CHANGING THEORIES OF THE NATURE OF REALITY AND TRUTH

The modem scientific approach prevalent for the last several decades strives to put aside subjective assumptions and biases. Studies are “blind” and “double-blind,” and “truth” is seen as that which can be replicated by different people with the same results. Thus all truth becomes “measurable,” and “scientifically provable.” Truth is de-personalized, presumably non-biased, a reality apart. This approach has been employed successfully, not only in scientific research, but also in market advertising. Only the “objective” observer was to be believed. Any perceived stake in the outcome of research on the part of the researcher carried an unacceptable bias (whether it existed or not). Recently though, there has been some erosion of these “objective certitudes,” possibly to the benefit of research. There is an increased questioning of objective assumptions in the social sciences as well as in biblical and theological studies.

Like the myth of “value free therapy,” the scientific axiom of “bias-free research” has recently been reexamined. As a result, we have come to recognize that every researcher and every historian carries biases. Even the readers of research studies bring their personal biases, whether intended or not, recognized or not, that affect what they read into the outcome studies. The post-modern view asserts that everyone is a product of culture. Certainly, we all emerge from some context, and that context informs and affects the ways in which we approach and perceive those realities we encounter in our lives. Among those realities is research. Church doctrine is also among those realities. This change of viewpoint has affected Catholic thinking as well. We cannot speak of a monolithic belief structure to the church or even say with certitude “Catholics believe this about that.” This is not to be confused with official church teaching. The attitude of questioning authority and received wisdom is the church version of post-modernism.

The two views, modern and post-modern, often co-exist, sometimes within the same person. Many people believe that truth is God-given in matters of faith and religion and “scientifically provable” in other areas of life. However, in biblical scholarship, for instance, there has been a countervailing trend for the past half-century called “the historical critical approach.” Rather than take biblical teaching at face value, it seeks to discover the conditioning factors in the text, both historical and cultural, as well as the pressures and needs of the church and the author at the time of writing. Important factors in this approach are who wrote for whom, why, and under what circumstances?

Many Catholics from the person in the pew to professional biblical exegetes have come to view data, or facts, as always existing within an interpretative context. The factors that comprise that interpretive context are many, including race, economic position, ethnicity, culture, and socio-political position. This interpretive context is obvious in the debates we see taking place on the current American scene—debates of significant national issues among politicians, economists, and policy-makers. One of the most striking examples of the interpretive context is the outcome of the “trial of the century,” the trial of former football star and media spokesman, O.J. Simpson, for the murder of his wife, Nicole, and her friend, Ron Goldman. Irrespective of the jury decision, perhaps because of the jury decision, the majority of white Americans believe that Simpson is guilty of murder, while the majority of African-Americans believe that he is innocent. Clearly this case lends itself to decades of study by legal scholars and by social scientists, but it is also clear that the interpretive context plays a significant role in how people perceive the not guilty verdict.

Obviously, biases exist among church people. Each denomination has its examples. Catholics have several. Cardinal John O’Connor said about the homoerotic movie, “The Priest” (1995), that “It’s a terrible movie.” Yet when questioned, he admitted that he had not seen the movie. One can easily speculate as to what role his interpretive context played in his pronouncement that a movie he had not seen was “terrible.” The film is about a homosexual priest, who is not celibate. That information alone, informed by his interpretive context, would be enough to cause O’Connor dismay about the film.

Perhaps a more pertinent example, for purposes of this essay, is the well-respected sociologist, Richard Schoenherr. He spent years studying the demographics of the Catholic population, including the declining number of priests and the growing shortage of priests. Despite his scrupulous research methods, many Catholic leaders resisted his conclusions. He was accused by some of harboring a personal agenda, an unacceptable bias because he was a “resigned” priest. He was aware of the prejudices against him, and therefore took extra professional precautions to check and double check his data. Although his work became standard reference and his Full Pews, Empty Altars (1993) was highly praised by sociological colleagues and reviewers, it was dismissed by most church leaders.

Another example is John Boswell’s Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (1981). Boswell was Chair of the history department at Yale University and the book was highly praised by his colleagues and by scores of reviewers as well. The acceptance of this book in Catholic circles was generally tentative and critical. His second book, Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe (1994), is even more vigorously dismissed by Catholics despite his extensive research and careful comparisons of vast quantities of material. By the time of the book’s publication, it was well known that Boswell was gay, suggesting to church officials that he had an unacceptable bias (or interpretive context).

A final example is Taking a Chance on God (1988), by John McNeill. His dedication reads, “I pray that with God’s merciful grace this book may serve the spiritual good of my lesbian sisters and gay brothers and all who read it.” This book is one of the most informed and compelling books on spirituality published during the past decade. The authors highly recommend it for all spiritual journeyers. Yet, it does not get read beyond the gay and lesbian market, when it should be required reading for all Catholics, both clergy and lay. John McNeill is a psychologist and a Jesuit theologian. Because his writings and speaking were contrary to received Catholic teaching he was forced to resign as a priest, although he continues to work as a psychologist.

A more nuanced, pluralistic dialogue approach would yield a richer, more enlightened, even profound view of reality in our society at large and in the Catholic church as well. Recognizing that every person has different needs, gifts, and backgrounds, it should be obvious that one rule, or even one set of rules, especially a rigid set, does not fit all. This reflects William Blake’s view when he said, “one law for the Lion and the Ox is tyranny.” Moral theologians have focused on personal responsibility within the moral law as opposed to focus on the law applying to every person.

“Redemption” has been used by many Christians in a narrow sense to refer to the overcoming of personal sin, but it also refers to the achievement of wholeness (holiness) through the struggle with the darkness both within us as individuals and in society at large. Each person must find a coherent pattern that makes sense of erotic inclinations, spiritual aspirations, beliefs and behaviors. When one person achieves personal integrity in the face of homophobia it is a victory for the whole body of Christ. When we struggle with the scourge of AIDS “all creation groans and is in agony.” Like the pains of childbirth, the pains of the present give way to surprising new life. Hope is the virtue of believing in positive futures. It is the antidote to despair and cynicism. It can also be the driving force that enables the fight for personal integrity to continue.

DIFFERING PERCEPTIONS AND NEEDS OF CLIENTELE AND PRIESTS

Gay and Lesbian Catholics, and people seeking guidance who think they may be gay or lesbian, approach the Catholic church with apprehension. On the one hand, they have felt the homophobic judgementalism or have at least heard of it. On the other hand, they are drawn by what priest-sociologist Andrew Greeley calls the “Catholic Imagination” (1990). He says that “the Catholic institution may be in trouble but that the Catholic community prospers precisely because Catholics like being Catholic (italics mine)… Catholics are more likely to image God as present in the world and the world as revelatory instead of bleak…. The Catholic imagination is ‘analogical’ in that it assumes that God is present and discloses himself in the world…. The world and all its events, objects, and people tend to be somewhat like God…. Catholics tend to see society as a ‘sacrament’ of God, a set of ordered relationships, governed by both justice and love, that reveal, however imperfectly, the presence of God” (p. 4–7).

The Catholic imagination provides a sense of the goodness of creation, the sacraments, the sense of community and belonging which is a powerful attractor. For many the Catholic faith has its roots in a person’s childhood and it conditions one’s entire worldview. Rejection by the church can be extremely painful. Rejection can be perceived or real. It can relate to the authentic teachings of the church or common presumptions about the teachings of the church. The official teachings are established by bishops, but they are often oversimplified and sensationalized in common practice and teaching. In pastoral practice it is priests who primarily interpret and apply them for parishioners.

Church teaching made the distinction between gay identity and homosexual actions for the first time in 1976. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops in their pastoral letter “To Live in Christ Jesus” made the following statement:

Some persons find themselves through no fault of their own to have a homosexual orientation. Homosexuals, like everyone else, should not suffer from prejudice against their basic human rights. They have a right to respect, friendship and justice. They should have an active role in the Christian community. Homosexual activity, however, as distinguished from homosexual orientation is morally wrong. Like heterosexual persons, homosexuals are called to give witness to chastity. (Granick & Nugent, 1995, p. 11)

This has allowed a possibility for acceptance of gay and lesbian people by the Church. However, there has been a common perception that gay persons are by nature at least sexually active if not promiscuous. Because of current church teaching and in spite of the cultural misperception or assumptions, priests have been allowed to speak openly of being gay and still are allowed to function as priests in a pastoral setting (provided they also are seen as living a celibate life).

While teachings such as these are promulgated by the entire body of teaching bishops of the country, they may not have the unqualified support of all of them. Furthermore, while the teachings are the official stance of the...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• About the Editor
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• The Social Service Closet Considered
• Coming Out at Work
• Speaking Out
• Index