Catholic Apologetics International

How Many Priests and Bishops are Homosexual?

Richard Sipe, a psychotherapist and former priest, has studied celibacy and sexuality in the priesthood for four decades. He has authored three books on the topic. He once estimated that 30% of the priesthood is homosexually oriented. Elsewhere, he is quoted as estimating that between 25% and 45% of American priests are homosexual in orientation. He told the Boston Globe: "If they were to eliminate all those who were homosexually oriented, the number would be so staggering that it would be like an atomic bomb; it would do the same damage to the church's operation...It would mean the resignation of at least a third of the bishops of the world. And it's very much against the tradition of the church; many saints had a gay orientation, and many popes had gay orientations. Discriminating against orientation is not going to solve the problem."

Father Donald Cozzens, an author, psychologist, and Catholic seminary president says that there is such a high percentage of gay priests in the church that he is concerned that "the priesthood is or is becoming a gay profession." In his book, "The Changing Face of the Priesthood," -- published in the year 2000 -- he estimates that 50% of Roman Catholic priests have a homosexual orientation.

Actual surveys: In the Fall of 1999, the Kansas City Star sent a questionnaire to 3,000 priests in the U.S. 73% did not reply. The low response rate could be anticipated. One would expect homosexuals and bisexuals to be reluctant to respond to the questionnaire since it deals with such a sensitive issue, and originated from a newspaper. Homosexual and bisexual priests would probably be less likely to reply to the survey. Among the 801 priests who did reply: 75% said they had a heterosexual orientation; 15% homosexual; 5% bisexual.

According to Amanda Ripley of Time Magazine, estimates range from 15% to 50%.

According to Bill Blakemore of ABC News, "...nobody knows what percentage of the American priesthood is gay; estimates range from less than 10% to more than 30%."

A NBC report on celibacy and the clergy found that "anywhere from 23 percent to 58 percent" of the Catholic clergy have a homosexual orientation.

Author and sociologist James G. Wolfe estimated that 48.5% of priests were gay.

During 1990, Rev. Thomas Crangle, a Franciscan priest in Passaic, N.J., mailed a survey to 500 randomly selected priests. Of the 398 responses, about 45% said that they were gay.

If we assume that all of the estimates are of equal validity, then about 33% of priests have a homosexual orientation -- about one in three. However, as Father Donald Cozzens stated: "Beyond these estimates, of course, are priests who remain confused about their orientation and men who have so successfully denied their orientation, that in spite of predominately same-sex erotic fantasies, they insist that they are heterosexual." Many regard themselves as not homosexual because they have never acted on their fantasies, desire and orientation. To that might be added an unknown percentage of priests who have a bisexual orientation.

Los Angeles poll: The NYT survey does not mention the Los Angeles poll of October 2002, which revealed that currently the American priesthood has a much higher percentage of homosexuals than does the general population. The poll shows ". . .a combined 15% of priests identified themselves as homosexuals (9%) or "somewhere in between, but more on the homosexual side" (6%). But, said the poll, "among younger priests‹those ordained 20 years or less‹the figure was 23%. (Ordination classes in the eighties and nineties have been much smaller than in the forties and fifties).

Deborah Caldwell @ BeliefNet: Before one understands the perils of this solution, it's important to test the premise. Is the Catholic clergy increasingly gay? Apparently the answer is yes. No statistics are truly reliable, but several studies have been done over the years that place the figure at between 10 and 50% of the priesthood. The most reliable statistic is believed to come from a study by A.W. Richard Sipe, in his 1995 book "Sex, Priests, and Power: Anatomy of a Crisis," who writes that 30% of priests have a homosexual orientation, far higher than the percentage in the overall populations.

Two years ago, the Kansas City Star reported that hundreds of Roman Catholic priests across the United States were dying of AIDS-related illnesses, and hundreds more were living with HIV, the virus that causes the disease, according to medical experts, priests and health statistics. Though the actual number of AIDS deaths is difficult to determine, it now appears priests are dying of AIDS at a rate at least four times that of the general U.S. population.

New Oxford Review: Notes: It just so happens that surveys of the sort Buffer wants have been done, and with very little effect. The latest one was done by the Los Angeles Times, as reported in its October 20 and 21, 2002 issues. (The Times says it's the "most extensive" survey of priests done since its previous survey in 1994.) Of the 45,382 priests in the U.S., the Times sent surveys to 5,000, of whom 1,854 responded. The Times pronounces this "statistically representative." The results?

A combined 15 percent of priests say they are "gay" (9 percent) or "on the homosexual side" (6 percent). Now, the Times admits that 15 percent is "lower than some estimates of the percentage of homosexuals in the priesthood, which have ranged up to 50%" (we've seen estimates as high as 60 percent). Why the large discrepancy? The Times addresses the question: "The poll respondents were guaranteed anonymity, but results on the sexuality questions could have been influenced by wariness of the media and fears among gay priests that disclosing their sexual orientation amid the current crisis would be ill-advised." In other words, the Times is saying that homosexual priests lie — which is not surprising because active homosexual priests are living a lie. So here we have what Buffer wants, a "representative group," but the Times can't vouch for its accuracy.

Or maybe the survey wasn't "statistically representative" after all. Look, 3,146 priests did not respond — that's 63 percent. If a good number of priests who did respond would lie about their sexual (dis-)orientation, it's even more likely that homosexual priests who saw the questions about sexuality simply threw the survey in the trash. In the survey business, this is called "self-selection," which can invalidate a survey. And this is no mere quibble. But let's put that possible problem to the side. What about dissent? The Times does not ask about dissent in seminaries. But what if it had? The Times found that only 53 percent of priests think that sex outside of marriage is always wrong, and only 49 percent think that homosexual behavior is always wrong, while 46 percent favor the ordination of women. If priests picked up their dissenting opinions in the seminary, would they have admitted it, given the "current crisis" the Times speaks of, in this case the pending papally mandated investigation of U.S. seminaries? Moreover, most dissenters don't consider dissent to be dissent; rather, they consider it to be the orthodoxy of the future. It's unlikely that any question about dissent in the seminaries would have yielded accurate results. Well, so much for "surveying a representative group"!

Robert Sungenis, Response to Deal Husdon Catholic Apologetics International, www.catholicintl.com/rs_answers_dh.html

The Doyle study gives us even more room for pause when we consider the other statistics it reveals. Doyle's study also found that in 1990 about 12,000 priests were sexually involved with adult women. This is confirmed by the thousands of paternity suits filed in court against priests. He also estimated that 6,000 priests were involved with adult men in homosexual relationships. Now, if we add the 3,000 active pedophila cases to the above figures, the total number of cases of sexual immorality in the American priesthood (not counting all the other countries involved in similar improprieties, of which reports show that there are over a dozen other sections of the world with the same problems), that is a total of 21,000 priests in America involved in some type of illicit sexual relationship, out of approximately 45,000 priests in 1990. The total is 47% - a number far higher than the 1-3% you hear from some apologists trying to downplay the present crisis by focusing only on pedophilia cases. Twelve years later, in 2002, the statistics are only worse. Crisis Magazine itself, in the October 2001 issue, documented that 100% of the 188 Catholic dioceses (some say 193 dioceses) in the United States have faced, or are facing, claims of priests in illicit sexual relationships.

Robert Sungenis: Sex, Lies and Video Tape: www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/judgement.html

During a press conference in Rome on April 24, 2002, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop Wilton Gregory, was interviewed regarding the homosexual problem in the Catholic Church. In his own words he said: "...it is an ongoing struggle to make sure that the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men" (Newsweek, May 6, 2002, p. 23). The implications of this statement are obvious. Since "struggles" implies victories and defeats, then not only have homosexuals established themselves in the Catholic priesthood, but they have, at one time or another, "dominated" the priesthood. Not surprisingly, the statistics reported by Newsweek bear out the allusion to "dominated," since "between 35 and 50 percent of Roman Catholic priests are homosexual" (ibid). "The facts show that there is 20 times as much homosexuality as there is pedophilia, and the whole structure of many seminaries and many chancery offices promotes and protects it" (The Wanderer, May 2, 2002).

Rod Dreher, editor of National Review Online writes: "Stephen Rubino, a New Jersey lawyer, says that of the over 300 alleged victims of priest sex abuse he has represented, roughly 85% are boys, and were teenagers when the abuse occurred. Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, an eminent Catholic psychiatrist who has treated scores of victims and priest-perpetrators, says 90% of his patients were either teen male victims or priests, or priests who abused teen boys." Because the victims are teenagers, this shows that the issue is not one of pedophilia as much as it is one of homosexuality.

Dreher goes on to say that the reluctance of bishops to call it a homosexual problem "arises, no doubt, partly out of a fear of antagonizing homosexual anti-defamation groups, who resent the stereotype of male homosexuals as pederasts. It's much safer to focus inquiry on the question of mandatory celibacy, or the issue of ordaining women...For journalists, to confront the issue is to risk touching the electrified third rail of American popular culture: the dark side of homosexulality....homosexual priests occupy positions of influence in the vast Catholic bureaucracy; and there seems little doubt that this is the case in the American Church."

Richard Sipe, a laicized priest and psychotherapist, after studying the issue for forty years and reviewing thousands of case histories, estimates that 30% of Catholic priests are homosexuals. He writes: "This is a system. This is a whole community. You have many good people covering it up. There is a network of power. A lot of seminary rectors and teachers are part of it, and they move to chancery-office positions, and on to bishoprics. It's part of the ladder of success."

Fr. Donald Cozzens, former rector of St. Mary's Seminary in Cleveland and author of The Changing Face of the Priesthood, puts the figure much higher (Donald B. Cozzens, The Changing Face of the Priesthood, p. 101f). Confirming these results are the inordinate numbers of Catholic priests dying of AIDS - a rate much higher than that of normal male population. An extensive survey by the Kansas City Star revealed that, "there are at least 400 known deaths of priests from AIDS, and probably twice that number -- ranging from four times to eight times the rate in the general population." Two thirds of the priests interviewed said they knew at least one priest who had died of AIDS, and one third knew at least one priest living with it (January 2000: poll of 800 priests, Wills, p. 193).

Cozzens also reports of the "gay subculture" in many seminaries, and that the priesthood has become a "gay profession." Gay faculty and students put so much pressure on normal students that the latter are frequently forced to terminate their education and vocation. Supporting this, Thomas Fox, editor of The National Catholic Reporter, concluded from his interviews that, "In some cases there have been reports of predominately gay seminaries and homosexual climates within them that became so pronounced that heterosexual seminarians felt uneasy and ultimately left" (Sexuality and Catholicism, 1995, p. 177). Garry Wills states: "Gays themselves register the change. In a survey of 101 gay priests, those ordained before 1960 remember their seminary as having been 51 percent gay. Those ordained after 1981 say their seminaries were 70 percent gay" (Wills, p. 194).

Polls conducted by Richard Wagner (for a 1980 dissertation at the Institute of Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco) and James Wolf (Gay Priests, 1989) reveal the following statistics about homosexual priests: "...the Wagner respondents averaged 226 partners in sex...22% of them had over 500. Half of the Wagner sample, but three quarters of the Wolf one, knew they were gay before ordination. Those who knew by then that they were gay had experienced sex in the seminary, and some of their superiors knew it. They were allowed to proceed to ordination, perhaps (this is not clear) by complying with the judgment that this was 'just a phase' or a lapse...About a third of the priests' superiors know they are gay -- the same number whose parents know" (Wills, p. 195).

In 1982 the thoroughly footnoted and indexed book titled The Homosexual Network: Private Lives and Public Policy, authored by Catholic priest Enrique Rueda, documented the spread of homosexuality throughout the Catholic Church. Rueda also tells of the growing network of support groups, counseling referrals, newsletters, and organizations of homosexuals and pro-homosexuals in the Catholic churches of America. He reports that in the late 1970's a key staffer at the Office of Public Affairs and Information at the U.S. Catholic Conference/National Conference of Catholic Bishops was a leader of the Washington, D.C. homosexual movement, as well as president of Dignity/USA (the radical pro-homosexual clerical group). As for the NCCB, its originator, the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, was himself accused of homosexuality. The three cases against him, and three other bishops, were quietly settled out of court. Francis Cardinal George, who replaced Bernardin in Chicago, although showing no signs of deviant activity himself, has sanctioned "gay masses" and has a "gay ministry" in his diocese. This only encourages the gays to think that their lifestyle is acceptable by Church standards. Bishop Robert Lynch, the former general secretary of the NCCB recently admitted that, after he "crossed the boundaries" of professional relationships with a male member of his staff, he also paid off the victim with $100,778 to keep him quiet about harassment charges (The Tampa Tribune, March 23, 2002).

What is also disheartening are some of the attitudes of individual Catholics. Newsweek reports that fully half (51%) of Catholics say they would attend a church with an "openly gay" priest; 44% are in favor of gay marriages; 39% would accept a gay priest in a committed relationship; and 56% are in favor of allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children (May 6, 2002, pp. 25, 29). If true, these statistics are appalling.

Quoting Louis Vitullo, 57, a Chicago lawyer educated in Catholic schools and a regular churchgoer: "I think what I'm interested in is a good priest, and I don't think a good priest is determined in any way, shape or form by his or her sexuality." Even William Donohue, the staunch pro-life defender, found himself indirectly defending gay priests when interviewed by Newsweek. Donohue stated: "I think the issue for them is whether he can live up to his vow of celibacy. I'd take a chaste gay priest any day over a promiscuous straight one" (May 6, 2002). Perhaps Donohue was caught in an off-key moment, nevertheless, his comment is totally irresponsible. Donohue poses the issue as if we only had two choices: (a) homosexual priests who don't engage in sexual acts, or (b) heterosexual priests who do engage in sexual acts, and thereby implies that we may have to choose one or the other -- the very argument that gay priests and their advocates use to justify themselves. For example, Mark Jordan, a professor of religion at Emory University and a gay Catholic states: "If there were no homosexuals in the priesthood, we would soon cease to have a functioning church" (Newsweek, May 6, 2002, p. 26). Obviously, the right choice is a heterosexual priest who refrains from all types of sexual activity. According to Michael Rose, there are plenty of those men available, but they have been systematically eliminated from Catholic seminaries by the homosexuals entrenched in the faculties. The bishops in charge of these seminaries, in the majority of cases, turn a blind eye to the decay.

Added to this is the plethora of books, written by Catholics, which have condoned homosexuality, attempting to base much of their adovcacy on the so-called "silence" of Scripture in condemning it. John McNeil, a Jesuit priest, wrote The Church and the Homosexual (1976), claiming that all the passages in Scripture which seem to condemn homosexuality can be explained in various ways which are not condemnatory. One of the more popular is that the only sin of the homosexuals in Sodom was their inhospitality toward the visiting angels (Newsweek, May 6, 2002, p. 26). This slanted interpretation has actually been around for many years and somehow survives even in the midst of its absurdity. I remember hearing it when I was a college student at GWU back in the late 70's. The homosexual guest who proposed the interpretation received instantaneous laughter from the rest of the class.

Recognizing its absurdity, some gay apologists have tried a different approach. McNeil's book was followed by the work of gay Catholic scholar John Boswell in book titled: Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (1980). Boswell attempts to make a case that rape, not inhospitality, is the sin of the day at Sodom (pp. 92-99). Why? Because this explanation helps him neutralize the distinction between males and females. If the men of Sodom are merely seeking sexual satisfaction and are thus indiscriminate as to who their partner will be, then, as the reasoning goes, homosexuality cannot be the focus of the passage.

Never mind that the men of Sodom refused to have sex with Lot's daughters and demanded that the men be given to them. Boswell thinks he has a way of escaping this dilemma. He points to the incident in Judges 19:22ff in which the owner of the house, confronted with the same demands Lot faced in Sodom (i.e., to have sex with the male visitor), offers his virgin daughter to the men instead. Because the men take the daughter and rape her, Boswell concludes that the only sin involved here is rape. Of course, he fails to mention that the rape of the daughter, although certainly a sin, was merely an inadvertent event in contrast to their actual desire to have homosexual relations with the male guest -- an act outrightly condemned by the owner of the house as an "evil thing" (Judges 19:23).

Prior to Boswell's book was Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (1955) by Anglican Derrick Bailey. The major claim of all three books (McNeil, Boswell, and Bailey) is that St. Paul's condemnations of homosexuality were not directed at the homosexual orientation itself but against heterosexuals committing the "perversion" of homosexual acts! In other words, those who already admitted they had an orientation toward homosexuality would not be sinning if they followed through with their inclinations because they were being true to their calling. They would paraphase St. Paul's wording in 1 Corinthians 7:18, 24 as: "Was any man called as a homosexual? Let him not become a heterosexual....Let each man remain with God in that condition in which he was called." The only ones sinning would be the heterosexuals who became homosexuals and thereby deserted their original calling. As one with any common sense can see, this kind of interpretation is as perverse as the sin they carry. We should expect nothing more from such perverted "exegetes."

Of the explicit commands in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13-14 against "men lying with men," Boswell, followed by Robin Scroggs (The New Testament and Homosexulity, 1983) claim that since the context is condemning the mixing of diverse objects, these are purely ritualistic prohibitions germane to the cult of Israel, but have little to do with the non-ritualistic context of New Testament times. This, of course, is as absurd as the above interpretation. In Leviticus 18 there is no "ritualistic" context. From the beginning of the context (Lev. 18:1) till the end (Lev. 18:30) there is no "ritual" mentioned. All the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 refer to prohibitions against any illicit sex. That these laws are not merely "ritualistic" commands for the cult of Israel is made very clear in verses 24-25 as Moses indicates that the surrounding nations, who did not have the "ritual" laws of Israel, had already been judged for the same sexual perversions:

"Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants."

The same is true of Leviticus 20:1-27. There are no cultic ritual commands in the text. Each command deals only with illicit sexual behavior. The only command that deviates from this is that which condemns the use of "mediums and spiritists" (Lev 20:6, 27), but that applied to all peoples. Identical to Leviticus 18:24-25, we have the same indication in Leviticus 20:23 that the surrounding nations, which did not practice the rituals of Israel, had already been judged for engaging in perverted sexual practices, including homosexuality. In other words, the prohibitions of illicit sex are not confined to Israel. They are universal in scope.

Scroggs might also have something to do with the current trend among certain Catholic bishops to separate male pedophilia from male homosexuality. Coming to the New Testament, Scroggs posits that the traditional reference to homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is really a condemnation of pedophilia. Appealing to the ancient Greek philosopher Philo, she writes: "...Thus it is clear that when Philo reads the general laws in his Bible against male homosexuality he is thinking entirely about the cultural manifestation in his own environment [pederasty]" (The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 88). Of course, she doesn't explain why she considers Philo the only authority on the subject, nor does she admit that even though Philo is adamant in condemning pederasty it does not mean that he would have given a free license to homosexuality. Needless to say, Scroggs' logic is typical of homosexuals who are looking for the slightest loophole in Scriptural injunctions in order to give themselves social legitimacy.

Unfortunately, Scroggs tries the same exegetical tricks with the most formidable passage in the New Testament against homosexuality, Romans 1:24-32. She again claims that the issue is pederasty, not homosexuality. For the added difficulty of lesbianism mentioned in Romans 1:26 ("For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural"), Scroggs claims that this refers to female pederasty, "because Philo spoke of pederasty in his Contemplative Life" (Scroggs, p. 115). Again, why Scroggs deems Philo as the final authority on the meaning of Romans 1 she does not say. The mere fact that Philo mentions pederasty as a sin among the clergy is enough for Scroggs to conclude that homosexuality simply never entered the mind of St. Paul as a sin against God. These convenient applications and dismissals permeate the literature among homosexual and lesbian authors.

END