The big questions facing that out gay Catholic priest

The big questions facing that out gay Catholic priest May 30, 2013

It is my experience, through my decades on the religion beat, that liberal Catholics genuinely love talking to mainstream news reporters.

That said, I have also observed — click here for a classic example — that liberal Catholics, especially if they are wearing collars or have the word “sister” in front of their names, do NOT enjoy answering doctrinal questions in the vicinity of recording devices.

Off the record chats? Sure. Background material for those wonderful paraphrased passages in The New York Times that go on and on with no hint of on-the-record attribution? Go for it. Discussions of “reform” in the church, with the questions all framed in precisely the terms they want to see them framed? You betcha.

You see, there is this place called the Vatican and, from time to time, non-liberal Catholics (many of them laypeople who own recording devices or know how to use Internet search engines) have been known to send troubling verbatim transcripts to the powers that be in Rome or to the headquarters of any local Catholic dioceses that happen to be quite loyal to Rome.

You can see this religion-beat reality, methinks, lurking in the background of the recent St. Louis Post-Dispatch article about the openly gay Catholic priest who is doing what authors tend to do — doing lots of interviews and speeches about a book that he wants to sell. This book — “Hidden Voices: Reflections of a Gay Catholic Priest” — used to have the word “Anonymous” on the cover, but Father Gary Meirer has put his name on a new edition.

So here is the opening of this news feature:

ST. LOUIS — Standing in front of a stained-glass window on the campus of the University of Missouri-St. Louis earlier this week, the Rev. Gary Meier addressed a congregation of sorts. It had been nearly a year since the Roman Catholic priest had stood before a flock.

That was last June, when Meier told his parishioners at Saints Teresa and Bridget Church in north St. Louis that he would take a leave of absence “to discern what ministry God was calling me to do.” Meier, 49, had talked to St. Louis Archbishop Robert Carlson and told him that he could no longer teach the Catholic church’s stance on homosexuality.

“I have tried over the years to reconcile my silence as a gay priest with that of the Church’s increasingly anti-gay stance. I have been unsuccessful,” Meier writes in his book “Hidden Voices: Reflections of a Gay, Catholic Priest.” “I was hopeful that I could find a way to have integrity while remaining part of a hierarchy that is anti-gay — I was unsuccessful.”

Now, this story does include a brief, accurate, summary of what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality. As always, the key is that the church draws a bright red line between issues linked to “sexual orientation” as a condition and the moral status of homosexual acts. This has obvious implications for debates about the priesthood. Thus:

The church does not have an official position on gay priests, but bishops in the past have mostly argued that celibacy is celibacy and a good priest is a good priest. In recent years, however, some bishops have expressed concerns about the priesthood. In 2002, Archbishop Wilton Gregory, then bishop of Belleville and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, spoke of the difficulties in seminaries with “a homosexual atmosphere or dynamic that makes heterosexuals think twice” about entering the priesthood.

“It is an ongoing struggle to make sure the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men,” Gregory said.

The catechism of the Roman Catholic Church calls homosexual acts “acts of grave depravity” and “intrinsically disordered” because they “close the sexual act to the gift of life.” But the catechism also says that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”

So what, in my opinion, is the problem with this story?

Well, it’s right there in the overture. The key is that Meier went to his bishop and, in a candid move that some on the Catholic right would even praise, openly confessed that (as paraphrased in this report) he “could no longer teach the Catholic church’s stance on homosexuality.”

That’s the heart of the story. So what’s the logical next question? What’s the key information that this story needs to provide, in order to understand the future of this man’s ministry in a canonical Catholic context?

Right, that question is: “So, Father Meier, what are your beliefs about homosexual orientation and, especially, homosexual activity? How do they differ from the teachings of the church in which you have taken vows?”

Now, if asked these kinds of questions, would this priest answer on the record? I would say that, based on my experiences through the years, the odds are good that he would not.

The closest this story comes to addressing this central issue is this:

Since his public declaration of his sexual orientation, Meier said, he has received a lot of support on his Facebook page. One woman, though, scolded him for accusing the church of a “lack of love.”

“That’s not at all what I’m saying,” Meier told his audience. “But I am accusing the church of a lack of tolerance and acceptance.”

It should be noted that Meier stressed that he has maintained his vow of celibacy. However, I would trust that he also took vows to defend the teachings of the church. Once again, this doctrinal question is at the heart of this story about his future. As the story does note:

The Rev. John Beal, a professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America, said that if a priest rejected the idea that “homosexual acts are gravely immoral, that would be a reason they can’t continue in ministry, because they’re dissenting from the teaching of the church.”

Might I suggest that this is another case in which it would have been good for someone involved in this story to have asked the questions in the “tmatt trio,” that set of three basic doctrinal questions that I have often used when interviewing clergy and other Christian leaders during this era in which the whole liberal vs. conservative thing has become so rooted in the language of politics, as opposed to doctrine.

Once again let me stress that I developed this set of questions in the mid-1980s as a journalistic tool. The goal, when asking these questions, is to listen carefully to the answers. It is especially interesting, of course, to note when people remain silence or try to find a way to maneuver around the questions without answering. Different types of believers, of course, have different answers. The goal is to listen carefully and then respond with follow-up questions that yield nuggets of on-the-record doctrinal, as opposed to political, information. The goal is to transcend mere labels.

Here are those questions, once again:

(1) Are the biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus accurate? Did this event really happen?

(2) Is salvation found through Jesus Christ, alone? Was Jesus being literal when he said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6)?

(3) Is sex outside of the Sacrament of Marriage a sin?

In this case, question three is the key.

Please read the whole Post-Dispatch report then ask this question: What, precisely, does Father Meier believe? What parts of his church’s moral theology is he struggling to teach?

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

14 responses to “The big questions facing that out gay Catholic priest”

  1. Nigra Sum sed formosa.

    Why are they letting the priest go his own way? They need to do everything possible to retain a priest who actually preaches and defends the Church.

    Where was this parish again? I only ask because I attend 5 parishes and in all honestly have never heard anyone, clergy or otherwise, say anything regarding human sexuality from a pulpit, altar, nor anywhere else near a parish. For the record, I have only ever heard a homily on Mary once in my life and also one homily mentioning the rosary by a visiting priest.

    Now, this. I am confused. Does he not believe that the Church IS Jesus Christ? Why would anyone think the Church, sullied by mudslinging and betrayal, is anything but inviolate, impeccable, infallible, and beautiful?

    I once heard Dr. Kreeft say if someone does not think there is a mystical marriage of Christ and His Church, then they do not worship the same God as we.

    • Jim, where the heck are you at? “Here” Missouri, there are regularly homilies about birth control, abortion, sexuality, and Mary, oh Lord, don’t get me started on the homilies about Mary. There are whole conferences devoted to Mary. The whole thing is surreal.

    • ” the Church IS Jesus Christ”

      Huh? I mean yes, we are all part of the body of Christ, but:
      1. Church militant, suffering, or triumphant?
      2. Really the whole of Christ? Or just an indwelling for the Holy Spirit, with Christ as a separate person?

  2. JIM:

    What does your post have to do with the journalism issue covered in my post?

  3. I get the possible rationale for such a priest to not make on-the-record dissenting statements.

    What I do not get is why the reporters would not push the issue and really really try to get just such a statement. I do not see most reporters being experts enough in canon law to even recognize the delicacy the priest would need to maintain. Curious this.

    • Because, Thinkling, the priest might implicate himself and we can’t have a key ally in undermining the moral structure of society getting himself in trouble with his bishop by being public and explicit in his dissent.

      • Well yes, that seems like a good reason for the priest to be discrete. But that doesn’t address my query about why he would not be pushed on it by the reporter. Wouldn’t that type of sound byte be a great get for the reporter? Don’t forget reporters can’t tell the difference between redemtion and salvation [broadbrush], let alone canonical details about facilities, oaths, etc.

        • Oh sure, it would be a great get — if that’s what the reporter was after. But what I’m saying is that the media don’t want to get a collaborator in undermining the moral structure of society in trouble. In other words, the media won’t press a priest on this issue because they don’t want to expose his function as the useful idiot in their attempt to remake the moral world.

  4. I like those three questions and wish they were asked more by reporters. I think they would help us much better understnad the views of people involved. I wish someone would ask them of Jefferts Schori.

    • If you like those three questions, explain, in-depth and precisely, what number two means, especially given the qualifier of “being literal.”

    • That document covers the discernment of new vocations, not the conduct of already ordained priests.

  5. Either I am behind the times posting or you behind the times blogging. Why make this the “sin of sins”? Modern Psycholgy is far more offensive. Divorce, and re-marrying, is highest amongst Christians. Granted, being “openly gay” is on the rise and flaunted, which can provide a great moral talking point, yet it did not concern Jesus one wit. Read Scripture. This blog is sad. Make the sin laziness or greed or racism or adultery or gossip or complaint or blame instead of homosexuality and what good Christian would last until the second paragraph?
    The Jews hated the Samaritans. Good press to go after that ilk. The same pathetic thinking exists today about going after LGBT.

    • The difference between homosexual acts and all those other sins you listed is that afaik there isn’t a coordinated movement to say that those things are right or good. Posts like these are a response to the efforts to see homosexual acts as normal or natural

Close Ad