High levels of homosexual orientation among American Catholic priests have been an open secret for decades. Citing data by sociologist Paul Sullins, University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus noted in a 2021 Public Discourse article that, historically, homosexual orientation in the priesthood has been roughly four to five times higher than among the general population, which is staggering. However, as Regnerus notes (again citing Sullins), the share of American priests with homosexual orientation has begun to decline significantly, particularly in the 1990s and 2000s, after rising in the 1980s.
Clearly, younger priests are far more conservative on this issue than older ones.
Regnerus own ongoing research, based on the 2021 Survey of American Catholic Priests, has generally supported this claim. According to Regnerus, “a self-identified homosexual orientation is notably more common among ordinations that occurred before the year 2000 — between 11 and 15 percent — than it is after 2000 (2–3 percent).” Regnerus notes that the same is true of respondents’ selection of the category “somewhere in between, but more on the homosexual side.” That response was given by 7–9 percent of respondents ordained before the year 2000, but among only 3.2–3.5 percent of those more recently ordained.
What about priests’ views on homosexuality? Have the attitudes and beliefs about this changed along with professed orientation? It seems so. Here, changes toward the conservative Catholic position on homosexuality have been even more remarkable. According to Regnerus, “Among priests ordained before 1981, 34 percent responded ‘always’ to the question about homosexual behavior as sinful, and an additional 33 percent said ‘often.’” Regnerus reports that the “always” response “grows in a linear fashion up through the most recent cohort: 45 percent (1981–1990), 57 percent (1991–2000), 82 percent (2001–2010), and 89 percent among those ordained after 2010.”
Also, a far higher number of priests today identify as heterosexual. For the pre-1980 group, the number was less than 60 percent. For those priests ordained after 2010, it was closer to 90 percent.
What accounts for this sea change?
Regnerus notes that at least one reason is the tightening of standards for admission to, and retention in, Catholic seminaries. He reports that that shifts are “in step with new scrutiny placed on sexual orientation during the ‘vocational discernment’ process, shorthand for the process in which Catholic men commence their seminary education, continue their studies, or leave the seminary altogether.”
As Regnerus points out, this change in Catholic seminary admission and retention policy is consistent with remarks that had been made by Pope Benedict XVI (2005-13) about the rampant “homosexual cliques” in these seminaries, and their connection to declined standards in the formation of those training for the priesthood. It is also consistent with a 2005 document, approved by Benedict and reported by Aleteia, that “called for active homosexual candidates, those with ‘deep-seated homosexual tendencies,’ or those who support ‘gay culture,’ not to be admitted to the seminary.”
Loosening Catholic Standards for Priesthood?
Given this, traditional Catholics can only hope that recent reports of Italian seminaries relaxing their standards on this issue (denied by the Church’s defenders) are unfounded and, if there is any substance to those reports, stillborn. Were such a change in policy to spread to the United States, we could see a reversal of the encouraging trends that Sullins and Regnerus note.
For traditional Catholics, the massive shift on priestly identification with and support for homosexuality is a remarkable and positive development. Clearly, younger priests are far more conservative on this issue than older ones. And they are far less likely to have a homosexual, or mostly homosexual, orientation.
This news has been underreported to say the least. In the Catholic Church, the trends are certainly not all toward sexual liberalism, particularly among new clergy.
READ MORE from David Ayers: