Jason T. Powell

Dr. Jean Timberlake

American Composition

21 April 2001

Can Priests Be Gay?

      “We can’t go there anymore”, John says over the phone to Tom.  “Come on John.  I don’t see what the big deal is. He’s still a good priest”, replies Tom.  “The big deal is that he is gay!” John exclaims.  “I can’t even imagine taking the Holy Eucharist from a gay man. My family, the Pettys, the Smiths, the Murphys and a couple of others are not coming back, at least not while that man is at the altar”, John replies.   This is a scene that is becoming more and more common as society grows more tolerant of homosexuality.  With this has come the outward openness from homosexuals of their identity in every walk of life.  We have gay doctors, policemen, lawyers, and military servicemen.  They’ve demonstrated overwhelmingly that their sexuality has no bearing on their job performance and they shouldn’t be prohibited from doing any job they are able to do.  This has even been said by some in regards to the priesthood.  That leaves us with the question, “Can gay men be priests?” 

    An active homosexual may not be a priest.  A homosexual who is abstinent may be one.  Providing that they were abstinent I’d find it totally acceptable for a gay man to be a priest.  The opposition will cite Paul's verses on each one staying as they are when called to the ministry.  They will say I was in a relationship, marriage, or civil union before so it is okay if I am now.  The opposition will tell you this, “Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches”(New American Standard Bible, 1 Cor. 7.17). and “Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called”( New American Standard Bible 1 Cor. 7.20).

The opposition has taken a passage out of a group and read it disregarding all context.  That is called a "proof-text".  This is when one has already a decided and fixed position on the matter and then will pull out only items that support one’s position from the text.  This is done with no regard to context and leaving out the rest of the text. We will look at some of the text the opposition chooses to leave out throughout this discourse.  A thief for example would not remain a thief while seeking to enter some service to the Lord. If someone was some sort of molester, abuser, or frequenter of prostitutes for their services they’d no longer continue to do that either. They’d confess, repent, atone, and abstain.  Anyone of those who has taken the steps to be on the right path and met the other requirements can enter the priesthood.  It is no different for the practicing homosexual.  Engaging in unmarital sexual relations is fornication (New Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus).  A homosexual fornicator has no more leeway than a heterosexual one would.  There is no double standard.  It is fornication in both cases.  Augustine tells us that our desire is the source of evil and our will is the cause  (Augustine 34).  An alcoholic could want a drink, a thief could want to steal, or a liar may want to tell a lie.  No evil has been done until our will has taken an action upon our desire.  Augustine was a fornicating pagan himself before his conversion to Christianity.  The text is also clear that all have sinned and fallen short (New American Standard Bible, Rom. 3.23).  This being the case, merely having done something or thinking something would not exclude one from holding a religious post.  The murderer, thief, or fornicator has sinned no more or less than the other.  This is why it is perfectly allowable that a gay man may be a priest and a practicing homosexual may not.

   In an attempt to get around being a fornicator some gay men have sought to have marriages or civil unions.  The reasoning of those trying to establish their basis for their same sex marriage are negated when look at the rest of what Paul said in the very same chapter that they say calls them to stay as they are.  Paul says, “But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband”(New American Standard Bible, 1Cor. 7.2). and, “But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I” (New American Standard Bible, 1Cor. 7.8).  What Paul means by this is that he'd rather those who entered into priestly service to remain single but to keep from engaging in immoral activities marry if one must.  Some of the opposition and some gay priest are advocates of same sex unions as away around this. This does not hold much weight when held against the scripture. The scripture tells us in Genesis that, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (New American Standard Bible, Gen. 2.24).  Jesus also quotes this in Mathew 19.5.  In both the Hebrew and Greek the role and word for husband is masculine and the role and word for wife is clearly feminine (Strong).  So a gay man may become a priest but while in his priesthood he is to remain single and celibate or married to a woman if that rite allows marriage.  According to the text sexual behavior outside of marriage is fornication.  It doesn’t matter if it is heterosexual or homosexual it’s fornication in either case, which is not acceptable behavior for anyone let alone a priest. 

  The biggest reason aside from all the text that infer that this type of behavior is prohibited for priests are the direct statements on the matter in both the Old and New Testaments.  You don’t even need to touch a single page in the Old Testament to get the biblical perspective on it.  Going into the Old Testament just shows you it didn’t somewhere in the middle change.  Some of the opposition will tell you that Jesus changed all of this when He came and died on the cross.  Jesus however says: 

         Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.  For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others   to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (New           American Standard Bible, Mat. 5.17-19)

This is important because although we do not go about stoning a person for infractions of religious or civil law, because we don’t doesn’t mean the measure has changed.  To suggest for example that since we don’t stone adulterers adultery must now be okay isn’t the fullest examination of the text.  If one were to read Malachi 3.6 and Number 23.19 they should walk away with the idea that the Lord doesn’t change.  Just because our opinions, times, places, or dates changed doesn’t in the slightest change anything ever written by anyone.  Had any of the passages regarding fornication changed Paul would have not been able to say this, “and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error” or “and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them”(New American Standard Bible, Rom. 1.27 and 32).  Paul was able to say this because of what Jesus said in Mathew.  Now one doesn’t have to agree with or like the position of this text or any other.  Not liking or agreeing with a text doesn’t change what is written. 

     Let’s say you can have a priest that is a practicing homosexual.  Well that’s fornication so why not any other fornicator.  If this is an allowance made for homosexual priests why not the heterosexual ones as well?  If that is allowed why not an adultery since that’s fornication too?  Hey, if you can have fornicators as priests why not also……..  It could just go on and on.  The heart of the matter is that priests are supposed to be representatives of God.  They are entrusted with teaching and guiding those in their charge the desires and wishes of God.  At what point is there a standard?  When there is a standard whos standard is it?  At what point do we nullify the commands of God for the traditions of men? 

    My original position was a flat out “No, a gay man may not be a priest.”  After closely examining the matter though my opinion was changed.  A gay man may be a priest while a practicing homosexual may not.  Can a practicing homosexual minister and help people?  Most definitely they can.  Can they hold the office of a priest?  According to the doctrine supported by the scripture they most definitely can not.

Works Cited

Augustine. Free Choice of the Will. Trans. Benjamin,      Anna S. and L.H. Hackstaff. Englewood Cliffs:          Prentice Hall, 1964.

“Fornication.” New Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus. 1991 ed.

New American Standard Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1971.

Strong, James H. “Wife.” The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. 1997 ed.