CATHOLIC PRIESTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD CELIBACY AND HOMOSEXUALITY
by Dean R. Hoge and Jacqueline E. Wenger, Catholic University of America
(Paper presented to the Association for the Sociology of Religion, Chicago, August 16, 2002)
The extensive media attention to priests’ sexual misconduct has raised many issues
surrounding priests and sexuality. Journalists have written articles about celibacy,
homosexuality, selection of candidates for seminary, reactions of laity, financial effects, and
effects on recruiting. Many issues related to the priesthood have been opened up for debate, and
reliable information will help make the debates more constructive. In this paper we present some
new survey data from priests, which, hopefully, will add substance to these debates.
Two years ago we were commissioned by the National Federation of Priests’ Councils to
carry out a nationwide survey of priests to measure trends since Vatican II. We received support
from the “Pulpit and Pew” research project at Duke University Divinity School, directed by Dr.
Jackson Carroll. In spring 2001 we carried out a mail survey of a random sample of American
priests. We included diocesan and religious priests, active and retired. We repeated exactly the
sampling method used in earlier surveys of priests in 1970, 1985, and 1993. The sample
included 44 dioceses and 45 religious institutes, randomly chosen. We mailed out 1200 surveys
to diocesan priests and received 858 back for a response rate of 71.5%. We mailed out 600 to
religious priests and received 421 back for a response rate of 70.2%.
Many of the results of the surveys have been reported elsewhere and will be available in
our forthcoming book The New Vision of the Priesthood: Changes from Vatican II to the Turn
2
of the New Century (Liturgical Press). Here we look at priests’ attitudes on two topics: celibacy
and homosexuality.
1. Attitudes About Celibacy
The survey included four questions, as shown in Table 1. The first asked about optional
celibacy for diocesan priests, and 56% agreed that celibacy should be a matter of personal choice
for diocesan priests. The second asked about another topic debated today--whether the Church
should welcome back Catholic priests who have resigned, whether they are married or single.
Fifty-two percent agreed with welcoming back resigned priests. The third question asked about
the present policy of welcoming Episcopalian priests, whether they are married or single, and
72% agreed. The fourth asked, if celibacy became optional, would the priests ever get married?
Only twelve percent said they would certainly or probably do so, and more of the diocesan
priests than the religious priests said so (15% versus 7%).
How do priestly attitudes compare with attitudes of Catholic laity? The only topic in
Table 1 for which we have comparable data from laity is the first question --on optional celibacy.
In a 1999 nationwide Gallup survey, 71% of Catholics favored optional celibacy for priests
(D’Antonio, et al., 2001:109). This is considerably higher than the 56% of priests agreeing.
Age differences on these topics are important. Table 2 shows differences among age
groups.
3
TABLE 1
FIVE STATEMENTS ABOUT PRIESTLY CELIBACY (IN PERCENTS)
All
Diocesan Religious
Celibacy should be a matter of
Personal choice for diocesan
priests. (Agree strongly or
somewhat)
56
53
60
Priests who have resigned from
the priesthood should be invited
to re-apply for permission to
function as priests again, whether
they are married or single. (Agree
strongly or somewhat)
52
51
54
The Catholic Church in the U.S.
should continue to welcome
Episcopalian priests who want to
become active Roman Catholic
priests, whether they are married
or single. (Agree strongly
or somewhat)
72
70
76
If celibacy for priests became
optional, do you think you would
ever get married?
Certainly yes
4
5
2
Probably yes
8
10
5
Uncertain
12
13
9
Probably no
29
31
26
Certainly no
47
41
58
________________________________________________________________
4
TABLE 2
ATTITUDES ABOUT PRIESTLY CELIBACY IN FIVE AGE GROUPS
(BOTH DIOCESAN AND RELIGIOUS PRIESTS; IN PERCENTS)
________________________________________________________________
25-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66+
N =
(49) (159) (257) (293) (500)
________________________________________________________________
Celibacy should be a matter of
personal choice for diocesan
priests. (Agree)
33
41
64
73
48
Priests who have resigned from
the priesthood should be invited
to re-apply for permission to
function as priests again,
whether they are married or
single. (Agree)
23
34
53
68
50
The Catholic Church in the U.S.
should continue to welcome
Episcopalian priests who want to
become active Roman Catholic
priests, whether they are
married or single. (Agree)
71
59
68
72
79
If celibacy for priests became
optional, do you think you would
ever get married? (Certainly
or probably yes)
16
14
12
15
9
________________________________________________________________
5
The age differences on the first two items are very similar: the youngest priests are the
least in agreement, and agreement increases with age until the 56-65 year-old group, after which
it decreases. That is, the youngest priests are the least in favor of optional celibacy and the idea
of bringing back resigned priests who are now married. It is important to note that the 56-65
year-old priests were typically ordained in 1963 to 1972 (when they were 26 or 27 years old),
that is, during and immediately after Vatican Council II. They were more open to reform and
innovation than earlier priests, and from other recent surveys we know that they are more open to
reform and innovation than the priests ordained recently. The priests ordained soon after the
Council and continuing until the early 1980s were unique. Priests ordained in recent years
commonly emphasize that they are different from those ordained around the time of Vatican II.
Survey data such as is shown in Table 2 confirms these differences.
Are age differences among diocesan priests different from age differences among the
religious? We found no systematic differences, but on the question of optional celibacy the
young diocesan priests are clearly more traditional than the young religious priests.
The trends in attitudes in specific age groups since 1970 form an important pattern. Figures 1
and 2 depict the patterns for the first two items in Table 1.
Figure 1 depicts survey responses in 1970, 1985, 1993, and 2001. The solid line is from
1970, and it shows the huge difference between younger and older priests at that time; the young
men favored optional celibacy, but the old men opposed it. The 1985 data (broken line) depicts
how each age group had moved to the right since 1970, as we would expect, but the 25-35-yearold group had turned more traditional. The 1993 data (dotted line) depicts a further move to the
6
FIGURE 1
Celibacy should be a matter of personal choice for diocesan priests.
(percent: Agree strongly or somewhat)
90
80
70
60
1970
50
1985
1993
40
2001
30
20
10
0
AGE 25-35 AGE 36-45 AGE 46-55 AGE 56-65
AGE 66+
7
FIGURE 2
Priests who have resigned from the priesthood should be invited to re-apply for
permission to function as priests again, whether they are married or single.
(percent: Agree strongly or somewhat)
80
70
60
1970
1985
50
1993
2001
40
30
20
AGE 25-35 AGE 36-45 AGE 46-55 AGE 56-65 AGE 66+
8
right, but with the youngest groups much more traditional. The 2001 data (dot-dash-dot line) is
again a continuation, with the youngest priests more traditional than ever, and the 56-65 yearold group the most in favor of optional celibacy. Here we see a pattern found more generally in
our series of priest surveys--that the new vision held by the Vatican II priests in 1970 was a
temporary, not a permanent, vision, and which later priests turned away from, beginning in the
1980s. In the future, if present trends continue, the young priests will come to resemble the old
priests in 1970 (and those of the pre-Vatican II era).
Figure 2 is similar, but a bit more extreme in the responses of younger priests. On the
third and fourth items in Table 2, concerning married Episcopalian priests and asking if the
priests would get married if allowed to do so, the age differences in the responses were
surprisingly small.
2. Attitudes About Homosexuality
The 2001 survey included two items about homosexuality. We asked about homosexual
subcultures in seminaries, dioceses, and religious institutes because of the argument of Donald
Cozzens in The Changing Face of the Priesthood (2000) that homosexual subcultures have
important consequences. Cozzens and other observers (e.g, Martin, 2000; Coleman, 2002)
consider the impact of homosexual subcultures the single most important issue in the overall
topic of homosexuality in the priesthood. In their view, it matters less if a priest has a
homosexual orientation than if he and others form a distinct subculture of gay men. Cozzens
asserted that if homosexual students in a seminary tend to socialize together and thereby
9
socialize much less with heterosexual students, it sets up a division and a competition for
dominance in the seminary culture. If the homosexual groups are strong they can intimidate
heterosexual students just as exclusively heterosexual groups might intimidate homosexual
students. Cozzens said that homosexual men often make very good priests and should be
encouraged, but homosexual subcultures in seminaries, dioceses, and religious institutes should
be discouraged (p. 101).
We asked the priests in the 2001 survey two questions about homosexual subcultures.
Table 3 shows their responses. We allowed for multiple responses to the questions in Table 3,
including “yes, clearly” and “probably but not clearly,” instead of just “yes” or “no,” because in
pretesting we found that many of the priests were unsure about whether or not there exists, or
existed, a homosexual subculture. This was partly due to vagueness about the concept of
“subculture” and partly due to lack of information. Some of the priests told us in focus groups
that they had suspicions about homosexual subcultures in their seminaries but honestly were
unsure. In addition, several priests said that other subcultures existed in their dioceses or
religious institutes--such as the arch-conservative group or the radical group, or even the avid
golfers. To help clarify the concept “subculture,” we added the explanation in the first question
of Table 3.
As the table shows, 19% said that a subculture clearly exists in their diocese or religious
institute, and 36% said “probably but not clearly.” Diocesan and religious priests gave similar
responses. Regarding their seminaries, 15% said there were clearly homosexual subcultures, and
26% said “probably but not clearly.” Again diocesan and religious priests gave similar
responses. Age differences are shown in Table 4.
10
TABLE 3
TWO QUESTIONS ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL SUBCULTURES (IN PERCENTS)
All
Diocesan Religious
There has been talk about homosexual
subcultures in seminaries, dioceses,
and religious institutes today. A
“subculture” refers to a definite
group of persons, who has its own
preferential friendships, social
gatherings, and vocabulary. Is there
a homosexual subculture in your
diocese or religious institute?
Yes, clearly
Probably but not clearly
No
Don’t know
19
36
17
28
18
36
17
29
21
36
17
25
In the seminary or seminaries you
attended, was there a homosexual
subculture at the time?
Yes, clearly
15
17
12
Probably but not clearly
26
26
26
No
44
40
51
Don’t know
15
17
11
________________________________________________________________
11
TABLE 4
AGE BREAKDOWNS ON ITEMS ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL SUBCULTURES
(IN PERCENTS)
________________________________________________________________
25-35
36-45
46-55
56-65 66+
N, diocesan =
(43) (125) (183) (208) (294)
N, religious =
(6)
(36)
(74) (88) (212)
________________________________________________________________
Is there a homosexual subculture
in your diocese or religious
institute? “Yes, clearly.”
All
18
34
25
18
13
Diocesan
19
30
20
17
12
*
44
35
21
13
All
45
39
28
8
3
Diocesan
47
38
25
11
3
Religious
Was there a homosexual subculture
in the seminary or seminaries
you attended? “Yes, clearly.”
Religious
*
42
37
2
2
________________________________________________________________
* The sample for religious priests age 25-35 is too small to
report.
12
The differences in responses from the young men and the old men were important. The
percentages saying “yes, clearly” about their dioceses or religious institutes were 18%, 34%,
25%, 18%, and 13%, respectively, in the five age groups. That is, the 36-45-year group most
often reported having observed homosexual subcultures. Also, in the younger age groups the
religious priests reported higher percentages than the diocesan priests.
How about seminaries? The percentages saying “yes, clearly” about their seminaries
were 45%, 39%, 28%, 8%, and 3% in the five age groups. Here are large differences, either
resulting from (a) vague and incomplete memories on the part of older priests, (b) invisibility of
homosexual subcultures to older priests, or (c) actual increases in the numbers or visibility of
homosexual subcultures in the seminaries. To control for the weaker memory of older priests
and the tendency of older priests not to recognize a homosexual subculture, we looked at the
responses to the question about homosexual subcultures in seminaries by years since ordination.
We found that the percent saying “yes, clearly” was a strong 38% for those ordained less than 20
years, dropping to 22% for those ordained 20-29 years, to 5% for those ordained 30-39 years,
and to 2% for those ordained 40 years or more. Years since ordination has a strong independent
effect. Our conclusion, based on these data and on our focus groups, is that homosexual
subcultures increased in visibility, and probably also in numbers, in recent decades.
Statements by Priests about Homosexuality
We talked with about 75 priests in personal interviews and focus groups, and we asked
about their perceptions of homosexuality. Those interviewed were clear that the presence or
13
absence of a homosexual subculture had a much bigger impact in their seminaries than in their
dioceses or religious institutes. In fact, no priests described negative impacts in their diocese or
institute. But we heard numerous negative reports about homosexual subcultures in seminaries.
In one focus group, three priests talked about the obvious homosexual subculture in their
seminaries and its effects on them.
Priest #1:
Indeed there was [a homosexual subculture] when I was first went to seminary in 1982.
There was a very strong subculture, one that actually shocked me. It was something! I
thought it had some negative effects. It created a certain kind of an atmosphere and a
certain kind of irreverence; that for me was a problem. I just didn’t expect that.
Priest #2:
My first negative experience was that certain of the seminarians were kind of predators to
other people in the seminary community. It made me angry when some people’s minds
were played with, and they decided to leave seminary. But that’s the main concern I had
about that. There was an incident, and so the seminary decided to clean house. Basically
I experienced it in a negative way, because we were in preparation for celibacy, and some
people did not care. I had a problem with that.
Priest #3 addressed the broader issue of priestly sexuality:
It had a negative effect on me, in the sense that it categorized everyone because of the
subculture, a subculture which may or may not have been the majority, in this case the
14
minority. It categorized everyone in that if you want to be a priest, you have to be
sexual! And that’s not true across the board. I don’t think the issue of homosexuality by
itself was a problem. I think the issue was how the authorities dealt with it--how the
issues of priesthood, the issues of masculinity, the issues of spirituality, and the issues of
celibacy were brought to bear on that particular issue and from that particular perspective.
Clearly there were heterosexuals there who were also taking the celibacy issue, and all of
that, just as lightly, and had little things on the side as well. It wasn’t just homosexuals.
The priests distinguished between men who formed a subculture and others who simply had a
homosexual orientation. A 37-year-old diocesan priest described his experience.
It [the subculture] was extremely corrosive. It was a corrosive element to the nth degree.
It was a back-biting, unpleasant, vicious group. It was not solely those who had
homosexual orientation. That’s the wrong way to look at it. There were many who had
that orientation but were perfectly fine and reasonable human beings and weren’t really
shoving your face in it. Just somehow you knew, or you sensed it, or they told you in
confidence or something. But other than that, they were pious, good, hard-working guys
who just were getting on with it. But there was a homosexual lifestyle subculture, which,
when I first entered the seminary, ran the seminary practically. Thoroughly tolerated by
the faculty, in fact in some instances supported by it and promoted.
A 32-year-old priest found the groups of gays in the seminary to be inclusive:
15
There were certainly scholastics who were gay, people who were out to me. And
sometimes they would socialize together, but there was never anything like an all-gay
small community or an all-gay faith sharing group or an all-gay liturgy group. And I
never encountered anybody who sought that. And those are the things that I would
identify as a subculture, an exclusive socialization. Did guys who were gay socialize
together? Yes, I think they did, but not to the exclusion of anybody else. And sometimes
I think that socialization is probably very helpful in terms of getting the affective support
that people needed for themselves and their ability to do ministry as a gay man in our
culture.
A principal reason why subcultures had a greater effect in seminaries than later is that in
seminaries, men preparing for the priesthood are thrust into a close, communal setting. Once out
in the parish, priests interact much less with each other and are less affected by whatever
subcultures might exist.
One 49-year-old diocesan priest voiced common attitudes we heard about homosexual
priests’ personal responsibility:
My bottom line on this is, yeah, it’s fine to ordain a homosexual person. But I think that
they have the moral responsibility, just as a heterosexual or a bisexual, to live by what the
church claims in its priests, and that is that you’re going to live celibately and chastely. I
think homosexual priests who come out publicly and make a big deal about it, especially
from the pulpit, I think that is professional malpractice. I think it is a personal thing,
which needs to be dealt with in private. I think belonging to homosexual clubs and
16
frequenting homosexual bars is inappropriate for priests. So all those things have to be
taken into consideration. Though I think that a homosexual person has the right as a
priest to come out publicly and say they’re homosexual--but you do that in a professional
way. You don’t do it inappropriately from the pulpit, and get in the media and flaunt the
fact that you’re having an affair with somebody. The same rules apply whether you’re
heterosexual or homosexual: you’re supposed to live chastely and celibately. Bottom
line.
CONCLUSIONS
Discussions of celibacy and homosexuality in the priesthood are more active now than
ever. This research has produced five new findings that are pertinent to the discussion of these
difficult issues.
1. Laity are more accepting of the idea of optional celibacy than are priests, and older
priests are more accepting than young priests.
2. Younger priests are less in favor of inviting back married or single resigned priests than
older priests.
3. A clear majority of priests favor continuing the policy of welcoming married or single
Episcopal priests into the Roman Catholic priesthood.
17
4. If celibacy were optional, not many priests today would choose to get married.
5. Homosexual subcultures exist in some dioceses, religious institutes, and seminaries.
Younger priests report the existence of homosexual subcultures in seminaries much more
frequently than do older priests.
More research is needed to help frame the upcoming debates about celibacy and homosexuality.
Here we have been able to present some new data, but much more will be needed as the U. S.
Catholic community struggles with growth and change.
REFERENCES
Coleman, Gerald D. 2002. “Human Sexuality and Priestly Formation.” Seminary Journal 81623.
Cozzens, Donald B. 2000. The Changing Face of the Priesthood. Collegeville, Minn:
Liturgical Press.
Martin, James. 2000. “The Church and the Homosexual Priest.” America 183 (November 4):
11-15.