The Association of United States Catholic priests (AUSCP) published a statement this month regarding homosexuals in the priesthood, calling it a “statement concerning the AUSCP’s support of 
our brothers in ministry.” The AUSCP’s document, “BEING GAY, ORDAINED, FAITHFUL TO THE CHURCH AND APPRECIATED BY THE CHURCH – Are all these possible in today’s Church?” states that it is offered by the AUSCP’s “Mutual Support Work Group” to be voted on at its upcoming Annual Assembly in June. If passed, this statement will then be circulated to the press and the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB). The AUSCP leadership team endorsed the statement on March 28 of this year.
This statement challenges the bishops to:
- admit men with homosexual attractions to formation and sacramental ordination.
- give “fraternal affirmation” to already ordained homosexuals.
- call for the “ongoing development” of Church teaching concerning sexuality in light of modern advances in the sciences.
This statement follows on the heels of years of documented homosexualist activism by the AUSCP. We’ve reported about this on numerous occasions, such as:
- AUSCP support for the adoption of children by sexual deviants,
- Allowing material promoting same-sex “marriage” to be spread at AUSCP events,
- Honoring “champions” of LGBTQ activism at an AUSCP Assembly,
- Giving a platform to pro-LGBT speakers at AUSCP Assemblies,
- Promoting “glittery” protests in support of Drag Queens.
However, the AUSCP’s new document is the clearest and most insidious act of rebellion against Church teaching on human sexuality it has attempted to date.
The Church has always, from the beginning and in all sources of tradition, including Scripture, the Fathers the Councils and the catechisms taught that homosexual sexual activities are objectively sinful, and that deep-seated homosexual tendencies, while not sinful, are disordered, meaning contrary to a natural end. The human person suffering from homosexuality has a disorder, much like other spiritual or psychological disorders. This human person is a loved creation of God and must be treated with the love due to other men, however in no way can the disorder be called “order,” nor can any sinful acts which follow from it be supported, affirmed, or approved.
The Church in her wisdom can decide whether to admit a man to formation and ordination to the priesthood, especially given the weight of responsibility and maturity required. According to the 2005 document Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders:
“The candidate to the ordained ministry, therefore, must reach affective maturity. Such maturity will allow him to relate correctly to both men and women, developing in him a true sense of spiritual fatherhood towards the Church community that will be entrusted to him.“
The instruction goes on to state clearly:
“In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture’.
Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.” [emphasis added]
So, in summary, the Church established this rule against admitting those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies due to the known negative consequences that these tendencies may present during priestly ministry. This is not to say that these consequences arise in every circumstance and the Church does not disparage those already ordained who suffer from homosexual tendencies. The Church is acting with careful prudence and making a general rule in charity.
The problem with AUSCP’s statement is not that they are requesting a change in this Church discipline. If the AUSCP’s argument was simply that priests with deep-seated homosexual tendencies are not a risk for negative consequences, we would disagree, but there is room for dispute and discussion. However, the AUSCP’s argument challenges not the prudential discipline but the underlying tradition and Church teaching, namely that deep-seated homosexual tendencies are disordered in the first place!
Parsing out the AUSCP statement
The AUSCP’s new document opens with a focus on homosexual men already ordained, stating that they “have unjustly suffered from the formal ecclesial situation in which they find themselves.” It goes on to state that they struggle, as “do all LGBTQ persons, with the teachings that describe homosexuality as ‘objectively disordered.’” [emphasis added]
The next point focuses on the discipline against admitting those with deep seated homosexual tendencies to the priesthood, stating, “The teaching goes on to insist that any man with ‘deep seated homosexual tendencies’ cannot be admitted to the seminary and ordained as a priest.”
In short, the AUSCP is establishing a foundation that the Church’s teaching regarding the “objectively disordered” nature of homosexuality is harmful to already ordained homosexual men and seminarians seeking ordination. Building upon this foundation, the AUSCP then provides its own reasoning as to why the Church’s teaching and discipline regarding homosexuals is wrong:
“Sacred scripture is interpreted in Church documents in ways that support this position but conflict with the principles of Catholic biblical hermeneutics.”
Here, the AUSCP is claiming that the Church’s understanding of Scripture is wrong because it conflicts with “proper” interpretation. In the paragraph that follows, the AUSCP explains that Scripture needs to be reinterpreted in light of modern sciences, stating:
“We believe that following more modern Biblical scholarship which includes the lens of social science, psychology, and other sciences to assist in interpreting the Bible would be fruitful. It is time for Church leadership to authorize a study of its understanding of natural law to include what the modern sciences have unveiled in the 20th century. The Church should encourage moral theologians in a pursuit of a new Catholic ethic of human sexuality and sexual behavior.”
With this statement, the AUSCP is claiming that the constant teaching of the Church is defective and should be redone according to “modern Biblical scholarship” and the sciences. From this position, the AUSCP then calls for a re-examination of the Church’s understanding of the natural law, seeking then to pursue an ENTIRELY NEW Catholic ethic of “human sexuality and sexual behavior!”
The AUSCP’s document then goes on to equate disordered homosexual tendencies with the self-identification of homosexual priests with claims that:
- “…gay priests are caught between the truth of their identity and experience, and their role as representatives of the Church and its teachings.”
- “…this leads to an ongoing identity crisis for the gay priest. ‘Do I deny who I am and go on serving God’s people (‘don’t ask, don’t tell’), or do I acknowledge who I am as a human being and Christ’s minister, and let the chips fall where they may?’”
- “[For bishops] to offer fraternal, pastoral affirmation of their gay priests and their ministry; in other words, to provide a safe environment for them to be who they know themselves to be.”
Questions for the AUSCP
The AUSCP threatened us previously with a lawsuit if we called them a heretical organization and insists that they are in good standing within the Church. With that in mind we have the following questions for Fr. Stephen Newton and all the leadership of the AUSCP that approved this statement on homosexual priests:
- Lamentabili Sane condemned the following proposition (2): “The Church’s interpretation of the Sacred Books is by no means to be rejected; nevertheless, it is subject to the more accurate judgment and correction of the exegetes.” In other words, the notion that exegetes provide a more accurate interpretation of Sacred Books than does Holy Mother Church, and therefore Holy Mother Church is subject to the “judgment and correction” of said exegetes, is formally condemned as heresy. Do you agree with Lamentabili Sane or with the condemned statement, which is heresy? Your statement that “Sacred scripture is interpreted in Church documents in ways that support this position but conflict with the principles of Catholic biblical hermeneutics” appears to suggest that you ascribe to the heretical position.
- Do you hold to this statement also condemned in Lamentabili Sane (59): “Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.” This statement of yours seems to suggest that you ascribe to the heretical position: “It is time for Church leadership to authorize a study of its understanding of natural law to include what the modern sciences have unveiled in the 20th century. The Church should encourage moral theologians in a pursuit of a new Catholic ethic of human sexuality and sexual behavior”.
The AUSCP ought to be formally condemned for the creation and endorsement of its document, “BEING GAY, ORDAINED, FAITHFUL TO THE CHURCH AND APPRECIATED BY THE CHURCH.” Given its outright call for the upending of the Church’s teaching of human sexual morality as it pertains to the Natural Law, and its alignment with propositions condemned as the heresy of Modernism, it is difficult to see how the AUSCP can escape the formal charge of heresy.
Any priests with a semblance of conscience or Catholic sensibilities left who consider themselves members of the AUSCP have a moral duty to oppose this statement and condemn the AUSCP if it is adopted. Before heading forth into modernist oblivion, AUSCP members should reflect on and internalize the wisdom of Pope St. Pius X from Pascendi Dominici Gregis and ask if this applies directly to you:
“So, too, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, when they treat of philosophy, history, criticism, feeling no horror at treading in the footsteps of Luther, they are wont to display a certain contempt for Catholic doctrines, or the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be rebuked for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, guided by the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly criticise the Church because of her sheer obstinacy in refusing to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, after having blotted out the old theology, endeavour to introduce a new theology which shall follow the vagaries of their philosophers.”
As always, Lepanto twists the truth of the AUSCP statement. The pattern is to find something not rigidly adherent to Lepanto’s way of thinking, selectively quote from it, make the worst possible interpretation the only possibility., and cast lots of stones.
The AUSCP statement calls on the Church to stop the persecution of and give equal support to celibate priests with a homosexual orientation as it does to celibate priests with a heterosexual orientation. Real journalists check with the source. Lepanto only wants to destroy, it would seem.
For those paying attention, Fr. Newton is the Executive Director of the AUSCP. Our responses to certain aspects of Fr. Newton’s comment are in bold.
1) “Lepanto twists the truth of the AUSCP statement.”
Exactly which aspect of your statement was twisted or misinterpreted by us?
2) “The AUSCP statement calls on the Church to stop the persecution of and give equal support to celibate priests with a homosexual orientation.”
Do you deny that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered because it is contrary to the created order of human sexuality, which is designed in all of its aspects for the begetting of children? If you do deny this, by what justification do you deny it? If you do not deny this, then by what justification do you call a statement of objective truth “persecution?”
3) “Real journalists check with the source.”
The words of your statement speak for itself and needed no clarification. Would you have provided a statement if we asked? But since you’re here, why not address the two questions at the end of the article regarding “Lamentabili Sane”?
Michael Hichborn,
Please, what part of “proposed statement” do you not understand?
By way of illustration: I propose to you that you acknowledge the historical truth that some Christians were slaves on the Muslim ships that were sunken in the Battle of Lepanto.
Would you accept a web statement from me, that you have been asked to defend the murderous actions of Christians, killing other Christians?
Please reply. Or should I say you could not defend the murderous battle?
This is of course, a process of hyperbolic simplicity. So are your comments.
Paul Leingang, auscp communications
Mr. Leingang,
1) “what part of “proposed statement” do you not understand?”
What part of “Leadership Team endorsed 3.28.23” do you not understand?
2) Your “illustration” regarding the Battle of Lepanto is not only a nonsequitur, but is itself non-sensical. Not only were the majority of Christian slaves freed in the battle, but fighting enemy invaders wherein enslaved captives died does not constitute “murder.”
On the other hand, the Leadership Team of the AUSCP “endorsed” the statement in question, giving the statement approval and support. Surely, if the Leadership Team believed the statement to be a poor reflection of the mission and purpose of the AUSCP, it would not have received their endorsement, yes? Fr. Newton claims that the statement “calls on the Church to stop the persecution of and give equal support to celibate priests with a homosexual orientation.” I’ve already asked this of him, but I’ll ask it of you as well:
Do you deny that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered because it is contrary to the created order of human sexuality, which is designed in all of its aspects for the begetting of children? If you do deny this, by what justification do you deny it? If you do not deny this, then by what justification do you call a statement of objective truth “persecution?”
AUSCP: by promoting homosexuality and LBGTQ lifestyle, you do not serve God- you serve the devil. If you are a priest with homosexual or other gender association issues, you need to do the right thing: resign and leave the priesthood. If you persist in your confused lifestyle, you are in strict disobedience (Non Servam) to the Church teaching handed down by God Almighty through Jesus. There are plenty of passages in scripture which state the effeminate and homosexual will not attain heaven! If you don’t believe consequences of Sodom or Gomorrah apply, Revelation 2-3 speaks makes it clear God does not tolerate sexual deviants. If this teaching is too hard, leave the Church! May the Holy Spirit guide you to the Truth.
Amen!
Adding to your comment:
If a priest has disordered tendencies of homosexuality (not only grown men, but those who prey on seminarians, altar boys, laity’s children is satanic), and ONLY IF he is wholly resigned to the sacrifice it takes to be a good priest, without spreading that error/heresy to others (laity), and is united in Christ where he finds his fulfillment in the Lord, then be that priest. That priest, through the cross of Christ and sacrifice for the good of the Church should keep it to himself and the Lord, and fulfill his duty to God. If he cannot, then one shouldn’t enter the seminary, or, should leave the priesthood if he cannot choose God and His Church over his desire for sex whether male or female. It’s NO different than a straight priest to sacrifice his sexual tendencies toward women, which is the natural order, but not allowed in the priesthood either.
It’s like these homosexual priests/men have no self-control, no sense of sacrifice. There are many married couples who cannot have sexual relations for various reasons. Some cheat, some divorce and some, the ones who take their VOW SERIOUSLY, remain. Because faith in God is stronger than this weak baloney going on in the world! I am so over it. Either a priest is faithfully in or out. And, shame on the married who abandon their spouse over it, too! Weak and faithless. That’s the hard Truth!
Please, Father Newton, simply answer the specific Lepanto questions.
Sir (Mr Leingang) : You state some Christian Muslim slaves were killed by Christians during a war. Do you believe that God would condemn enslaved Christians who died faithful to the end to eternal damnation? Wouldn’t they have been Martyrs and received the crown of life similar to the murdered babies by Herod (the “Holy Innocents”)? The lesson of Job is that God giveth and taketh. Throughout Scripture we are told God is merciful and rewards to each what is due. Life does not end when we die.
By the way: the homosexual act is one of the 4 sins that cries to heaven and there is no admission to heaven for those who commit such acts. Those within AUSCP that believe homosexual priests (or Religious) and/or the LBGTQ lifestyle is acceptable to God need to repent be converted and believe in the Gospel or leave the Church. If one had such tendencies, repented and lives as a chaste servant of God, bless the Lord! But after such a conversion, anyone who continues to identify as homosexual or promote the homosexual lifestyle is really scandalous and sinful.
This is a matter of Truth. God is Truth. To deny the Truth is to deny God.
Excellent work, Michael Hichborn.
Drag that liar.
It’s the same with all these LGBTQ deviants, always striving to insert some half-lie; “men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith”.
NO mindset, ideology, practice that involves the lowel bowels and sexualizing children is from anyone but Satan. That these types insist on indoctrinating children shows their willingness to queue up for a millstone.
You are talking about homosexuality. We are talking about celibate men with a homosexual orientation. This has nothing to do with any statement on the sexual morality of the Church, except to acknowledge a distinction between the orientation and the individual the church teaches. That’s a twist. Another one is saying the leadership endorsed the statement. The leadership team endorsed presenting the statement to the assembly for approval or disapproval. That is certainly a twist. I realize that Lapanto would prefer to live in the days of Pius X, but what was called Modernism then is one hundred years old and could not be called Modernism today. I await your twising of these comments.
Fr. Newton, I will quote each of your assertions in italics, and respond in bold.
1) “You are talking about homosexuality. We are talking about celibate men with a homosexual orientation. This has nothing to do with any statement on the sexual morality of the Church, except to acknowledge a distinction between the orientation and the individual the church teaches.”
If you are talking ONLY about celibate men, then why does your statement say, “The Church should encourage moral theologians in a pursuit of a new Catholic ethic of human sexuality and sexual behavior”? Clearly, from the suggestions of your OWN document, this is NOT just about celibate homosexuals, but about seeking to challenge the Church’s teaching on “human sexuality and sexual behavior.” Such things would NOT be called into question if your document was ONLY about celibate homosexuals.
But more to the point, your document calls into question the Church teaching that homosexual orientations are “intrinsically disordered.” Sexual relations are designed for the creation of new human beings, and every use of this faculty which is contrary to that end is “intrinsically disordered.” Therefore, by extension, the inclination of the use of that faculty in a manner that is contrary to its nature is also intrinsically disordered. You cannot divide the intrinsically disordered nature of the act from the intrinsically disordered inclination to that act. As such, “deep-seated homosexual inclinations are intrinsically disordered.” Unless, of course, you want to argue that homosexual acts are somehow in accord with God’s natural design of sexual intercourse.
2) “That’s a twist. Another one is saying the leadership endorsed the statement. The leadership team endorsed presenting the statement to the assembly for approval or disapproval.”
Be honest here – suppose a working group of the AUSCP wrote a document that racist priests should be ordained and celebrated for their racism, and that membership in the Ku Klux Klan was an acceptable way for priests to behave, would the Leadership Team “endorse” such a proposal to be presented to the assembly for approval or disapproval?
3) “I realize that Lapanto would prefer to live in the days of Pius X, but what was called Modernism then is one hundred years old and could not be called Modernism today.”
Perhaps you weren’t paying close enough attention to the article, but your document literally states something condemned by Pope St. Pius X as ‘Modernism’ in Pascendi Dominici Gegis. Since you seemed to miss it, here’s what your document said:
And here’s what Pope St. Pius X condemned:
Perhaps you would care to explain how the AUSCP statement does NOT line up with Pope St. Pius X’s condemnation here? Or … like a Modernist, are you going to tell us that what he wrote is “outdated?”
Fr. Newton,
No response? It’s probably just as well. It’s pretty hard to maintain a lie in the face of undeniable Truth.
With all due respect, Father Newton, your proposed document calls for a re-examination of Church teaching based on nebulous “scientific advances” and a biblical hermeneutic that is contrary to what Holy Mother Church” teaches and has always taught. My question is this – if this is only about celibate, chaste priests with a homosexual orientation, why does your organization seek this change in Church teaching? Do you advocate a change in Church teaching that ALL sexual activity outside marriage (defined as one man, one woman, your conference speaker notwithstanding) is objectively, gravely, sinful?
Priests with homosexual tendencies do not deserve a place in the Church of Jesus Christ. This is no longer the time to infiltrate but a time to expose the Truth. They should resign post haste.
To a non-Catholic, this Newton appears to be full of words, but shuns clarity of thought and, frankly, honesty. It looks like the response of a partisan hack more than a man of learning or deep faith.
It probably occurs to many other non-Catholics, as it does to me, that this Church is hopelessly gone astray and governed by fools, deviants, and/or corrupt men.
Better to be led by married men of good faith and character, as well as fidelity to the faith, than by this group of mal-contented and sexually deviant who are better suited to base politics and pursuing their own hubristic and low forms of “faith” to assuage their guilty minds.
Where have the good leaders gone to in the Catholic Church? There are much too few and if they exist, far to reticent to put the Church back on solid theological and dogmatic ground.