New Report on Seminaries Is Deficient on Gay Priests

I recently returned from hosting a four-day New Ways Ministry retreat for gay priests, brothers, and deacons, an annual program we have been organizing for over 20 years.  Each time I attend these gatherings I am impressed that the men who attend serious about ministering to their communities, and also struggle because of church officials’ lack of acceptance of gay men in the clergy and religious life. As a result of this struggle, many remain closeted, a condition which also causes loneliness, isolation, and the inability to be fully authentic with their communities.  One of the benefits past participants have told us is that these retreats provide them opportunities to meet and share personally with others in the same situation.  Over and over I have heard them say that the retreats offer them a chance to be totally honest and free.

It is with this recent experience in mind that I read a new report from The McGrath Institute for Church Life at the University of Notre Dame entitled “Do You Know Them to be Worthy?” It is subtitled “Twelve Proposals for Bishops, Rectors, Seminary Formation Teams, and Mental Health Professionals in Assessing the Suitablity of Men for Holy Orders.” Many of these proposals are very good. They are aimed at identifying and supporting  psychological health of priesthood candidates from the seminary application process up to ordination. I applaud the institute from recommending initiatives which are long overdue, and, if implemented can lead to priests’ abilities to lead whole, healthy, and holy lives, and to minister effectively.

However, the report’s two proposals that deal specifically with gay priests are woefully inadequate and will foster an atmosphere of dishonesty that will only lead to individual and communal damage.

The report’s first mistake, is that the topic of gay priests is raised in a section entitled “Proposals Aimed at Supporting Chastity and Celibacy Formation.” This categorizartion assumes that the greatest challenge that gay men have in the priesthood is a tendency to engage in sexual activity.  That categorization is an inaccurate and demeaning assumption.  It reflects a wider premise among church leaders to view gay men primarily as sexual creatures, and ones who cannot integrate their sexuality in healthy ways.  Aren’t heterosexual priests also sexual creatures?

My experience over 30 years of ministering with gay priests has informed me that their greatest challenge is their inability to be open with their bishops, superiors, and parish communities about their identity.  This repression sometimes, but not always, leads to psychological trauma and can result in erratic sexual behavior.  It is not their gay identity which causes these problems for these priests. The cause is homophobic policies, structures, and leaders which prevent these men from living honest and authentic lives.

The second mistake is the report’s use of the terminology of “same-sex attraction” (SSA), as if being gay was an isolated behavior instead of a personality facet which interacts with all other personality facets and determines the way these men interact socially.  Proposal 11 states: “We urge bishops to foster and actively engage in the necessary conversations—theologically and pastorally—regarding the admission to Orders of candidates who experience same-sex attraction (SSA).”  Referring to “same-sex attraction” ignores the concept of sexual orientation, a term which reflects is much better suited to discuss healthy integreation of sexuality into one’s life–even a celibate life. No theological or pastoral conversation can possibly happen, so this proposal defeats itself.

Proposal 12 continues the use of this language and muddies the waters even more: “We propose a more meaningful way of defining “transitory same-sex attraction” (T-SSA) and “deep-seated same-sex attraction” (DS-SSA) for use in seminary formation programs.”   Yes, some men may experience sexual curiosity about other men, and this type of curiosity may only be temporary.  But, after three decades in LGBTQ+ ministry, I have not met any gay man who describes their sexual orientation–the dimension of their identity which covers their holy, God-given desire for strong social and emotional relationships with other men–to be a “deep-seated same-sex attraction.” SSA language implies that being gay is primarily about sexual activity. Not true. It is about relationship.  Why are the people who use SSA language so reluctant to acknowledge that love between men (or between women) can be anything more than physical?

In explaining Proposal 11, the report authors state: “[Same-sex attraction] is a difficult topic given both the complexity of same-sex attraction itself, and the multiple layers of discourse—theological, pastoral, psychological—in which this topic necessarily comes packaged.”  “Complexity” is a common way to frame the topic of gay people, implying that only experts can be expected to sort it out.  Gay men are the best experts on what it feels like to be gay. For them, being gay is not complex. It is a simple fact of life. The only times “complexity” plays a factor is when homophobic attitudees, policies, behavior, laws, and institutions make it difficult for gay men to own their identity and to share the reality of that with others.  If church officials continue to view gay people as a complex problem, they will never be able to develop wholesome policies about integrating them into church life and ministry.

And let’s remember that the report of Synod Study Group 9 changed the description of gay people from a “controversial” issue to an “emerging” one.  The report’s proposals about gay men would have benefitted by this kind of thinking.  They could have recommended that as an “emerging” issue which could have led to a recommendation that the best way bishops, superiors, rectors, and seminary formation teams could approach the issue of gay priests is by learning more about science and theology that affirms gay people, and learning more about the reality of their lives simply by talking with them.

The report’s recommendation that “seminarians who manifest a stable SSA should not be accepted into the configuration stage [graduate theology courses]” is as flawed as the Vatican’s 2005 document which recommended that gay men not be accepted in the priesthood.  This 2005 document is refernced in the current report. (The use of the term “stable SSA” to describe a sexual orientation seemed an odd choice. To me, “stable” means”balanced, calm, normal,” but here it implies something that is permanent.)

In Proposal 12, in a discussion about the terms “transitory same-sex attraction” and “deep-seated same-sex attraction,” the report authors state: “Those terms were in fact developed within ecclesial documents. They do not emerge from the mental health profession. Hence, while this distinction has been largely well received in the sphere of seminary formation and is considered helpful by most, the Church nevertheless must articulate with greater precision.” The acknowledgement that these terms are church language, uninformed by the scientific community or gay people themselves, reveals, perhaps unintentionally, that these terms are deficient.

The biggest problem concerning gay men in the seminary and the priesthood is their inability to be free of any constraints or repercussions in discussing their sexual identity with whomever they choose.  That institutional closet hurts not only these men, but the church as a whole.  The institutional church’s repressive attitudes towards gay priests prevent any researcher from knowing how many gay men are actually in the priesthood.  So even reports like this one continues to be defective because of the lack of hard data. Unfortunately, the way this report uses language and the assumptions that it makes about gay men help to perpetuate fear and deprive the entire church about the true reality of gay priests.

—Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry, July 24, 2026