Homosexuality in Society and in the Church. An Elephant in the Room. Monsignor Marian Eleganti.
15 Ottobre 2025
Lascia il tuo commento
Marco Tosatti
Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae, Monsignor Marian Eleganti, whom we thank wholeheartedly, offers you these reflections on homosexuality in the Church and its consequences. Enjoy reading and sharing.
§§§
Homosexuality in society and the Church
Preliminary remarks: The following article does not generally condemn people with homosexual tendencies. The Church has always distinguished between the (inviolable) dignity of every human person and their inclinations, which may be disordered. Disordered sexual tendencies, which exist among heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, are judged by the Church according to the same standards of morality and, depending on the case, are classified as sinful or seen as a weakness to be corrected. We all struggle with such tendencies. When they are controlled, this greatly distinguishes a person’s morality and leads them to holiness. This applies to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. The Church considers the acting out of disordered tendencies to be a sin. However, the path to repentance is always open. Here, the Church shows mercy. Although the phenomenon of homosexuality in the clergy is viewed in a broader context below, it does not generally affect homosexual people, but only insofar as they become abusive. Heterosexual people are neither morally superior to homosexuals nor do they sin less than them in general. Homosexuality in the clergy is a phenomenon sui generis. There is no compelling link between homosexuality and abuse, just as there is no compelling link between heterosexuality and abuse. However, the statistical frequency of male victims of the clergy is related to this and deserves a differentiated approach in our case. In other words, if we do not address the real problem (homosexuality in the clergy), we will never be able to deal with the issue of abuse properly.
Here are the statistics from the John Jay Report,
After these important preliminary remarks, let us now get to the point:
In my opinion, homosexuality plays a particularly important role in the transformation of society and its traditional ideas about marriage, family and gender. The new social standards did not simply fall from the sky but have been in preparation for decades. Homosexual (pre-)thinkers play an important role in this.
Sexuality plays no minor role in the thinking of the Frankfurt School and its heirs, the so-called postmodern deconstructionists. It is therefore necessary to examine not only the philosophy of its thinkers, but also the ‘Sitz im Leben’ (the biographical context of sexuality and thinking) of their philosophy. This is very illuminating. Although no leading representative of the Frankfurt School was homosexual, its so-called critical theory paved the way for the actual deconstructionists and the theorists of gender and queer theory (all of whom are critical or even hostile towards ‘dogmatic’ guidelines). Among the latter are well-known homosexuals. Foucault, Derrida and Butler cannot be understood without the critical theory of the Frankfurt School. They shared its distrust of ‘objective reason’. Foucault was influenced by Marcuse. Derrida radicalised Foucault. His philosophy, in turn, was of great importance for the development of queer theory. Butler (non-binary, queer) connects Foucault and Derrida. Foucault and Barthes are homosexual. Butler lives in a same-sex partnership. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick (bisexual) is a pioneer of queer theory. Paul B. Preciado (originally Beatriz Preciado) is a trans man (queer). He even goes beyond queer theory (post-queer; techno-queer). These connections must be recognised.
The European project [5] ‘Union of Equality’ attempts (Strategy 2026-2030) to implement gender ideology in the European Union. The main focus is on redefining marriage, family and sexuality. So-called gender equality and sexual orientation are to be implemented in the Member States at great expense (financing of relevant NGOs; education programmes; campaigns, etc.) in the member states (including educational programmes starting in childhood; references to natural differences between men and women are to be ignored; sex changes and related legal adjustments are to be promoted; natural parenthood and family are to be broken up in the name of sexual diversity).
Unfortunately, the Church has also been infected by this virus. Supposedly, this is about the ‘rights’ and “inclusion” of so-called ‘minorities’. These are left-wing, Marxist parameters that have penetrated deeply into church thinking, but are alien to its nature. Nor do they apply in the Church. They are wrong. The Church excludes sin and error, sinners and heretics only if they show themselves to be unrepentant and unreasonable. This has nothing to do with discrimination. Exclusive conditions of access to ecclesiastical offices (priesthood) result from a correct understanding of the sacrament and do not fall under the category of legal inequality. The Church arranges all these things in a just manner, even if many people, for various reasons, do not want to understand or accept this. The moral law applies to all members of the Church without distinction.
The Church’s teaching on homosexuality remains unchanged and does not need to be repeated here. It is based on Scripture and tradition, on the revelation given through JESUS CHRIST.
The body speaks a very clear language. Man and woman are complementary in their physicality and capable, in biblical terms, of becoming ‘one flesh’ and of producing offspring in this unifying act. In this way, they correspond to the will of the Creator and the eternal order that He has laid down in human nature. Heterosexuals and homosexuals are referred by their own physicality to this fulfilment, which can only be fully realised in heterosexuality. According to church teaching, practising homosexuals therefore live in open contradiction to it.
They must therefore deconstruct gender and sexuality in the traditional sense. Homosexual individuals constitute a vanishingly small minority of the total human population. Homosexuality cannot therefore be normative for the overwhelming majority of people in their understanding of sexuality and gender. In other words, according to the neutral meaning of the term, it will never become a generally accepted norm, which means that homosexual practices will continue to be subject to pressure to justify themselves, whether one wants to express this or not. A child raised by civilly married homosexuals will continue to have to explain to themselves and others why they live or grew up with two fathers or mothers and not in ‘a completely normal family’ ( ‘Ordinary People’ 1980), as the majority of children do with their biological fathers and mothers. The latter remains the norm, and homosexual partnerships with adopted children remain the deviation that is subject to pressure to justify itself (in this sense, the ab-normality).
The only way to achieve ‘normality’ in the neutral sense of the word described above would be to renounce and abandon the homosexual lifestyle.
Sexuality defined exclusively by lust and technique leads to the downfall of the person, to their unhappiness. This applies without exception to everyone (heterosexuals and homosexuals). It is also a recognised truth that male and female sexuality differ. This is also the case with homosexuality. A sexuality – biblically speaking – inspired by the spirit is not purely physical. It becomes so the more the spirit is absent. Pure instinctiveness is frustrating and destructive.
Many emotional friendships lose their height and their proprium precisely because they are lived out sexually or primarily serve the purpose of pleasure, as is very often the case with homosexual men. Even in heterosexuality, an effort towards chastity is necessary in order not to extinguish the spirit through pure physicality, to use biblical language.
Throughout history, there have always been excellent and exemplary friendships between two men or two women, but they would have lost their value if they had been lived out sexually. Marriage between a man and a woman deserves separate treatment. However, homosexual relationships invariably lack many of the positive aspects of heterosexual marriage: Two men do not ‘make’ a mother; two women do not ‘make’ a father. They cannot conceive children in a genuine act of love. The general norm remains heterosexual marriage, the family, understood as father, mother and child. If homosexuals did not live out their “love,” if it deserves that name, sexually, they would, in my opinion, gain more than they would lose.
Sin exists everywhere, without distinction. Likewise, the call to holiness applies to everyone. Homosexuals should therefore not be regarded as a special, quasi-natural group. In physical terms, they are heterosexuals who feel emotionally homosexual, for whatever reason. Unlike animals, human sexuality can be shaped and cultivated. Indeed, this is even our duty. To deserve the name of marriage, it must correspond to the nature of the matter (truth) and the moral law. The happiness of the child, who depends on its father and mother for its biological and psychosocial development, must not be ignored. It is generally best cared for by its biological father and mother. With them, it forms a family and grows up in their security. This model is unbeatable and should be promoted by the state. The natural family in this sense is superior to all other forms of cohabitation that call themselves ‘family’.
With these remarks, I leave the general perspective and turn to homosexuality in the ecclesiastical context and among the clergy.
Here, it should first be noted that there are powerful forces within the Church that are attempting to normalise homosexuality in accordance with secular social standards, even within the Church, and to abolish or revise its teaching on the subject (grave sin; intrinsically disordered inclination). I do not believe that this will succeed. However, the heterodoxy in some minds on this issue poses a major problem for the Church.
All abuse studies already carried out, which were commissioned by bishops’ conferences, document that around 80 per cent of sexual assaults by clergy are factually, not logically, related to their homosexuality: John Jay Report (USA, 2004); MHG Study (Germany, ‘Sexual Abuse at the Hands of Catholic Clergy’) 2018; CIASE investigation (France, 2021), to name the most important ones. As already emphasised at the outset, this does not imply that homosexuals are necessarily predisposed to become abusers because of their disposition. We are merely stating here that a striking number (indeed, the majority) of victims of sexual abuse by clergy are male. This suggests a tendency on the part of perpetrators in their choice of victims. Of course, this also has further implications that must be considered problematic, such as these priests’ ongoing difficulties with church doctrine on this and other issues, their relationship to celibacy, their ability to form relationships, and so on. Undoubtedly, there are also priests with homosexual tendencies who live chastely and follow the path of virtue.
On 8 December 2016, the Vatican published the document ‘The Gift of the Priestly Vocation – Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis’, authorised by Pope Francis. In it we read: “With regard to persons with homosexual tendencies who enter the seminary or who discover during their formation that they have such tendencies, the Church — with all due respect for the persons concerned — in accordance with its own teaching, not admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies or who support the so-called homosexual culture.” Unfortunately, even the Vatican does not adhere to this (cf. the toleration of the so-called LGBTQ pilgrimage in the Holy Year 2025 and the passing through the Holy Door by its activists).
It must therefore be noted with great regret that the ‘elephant in the room’ (the widespread homosexuality in the clergy and its significance in the abuse crisis) has continued to be ignored or, against better judgment, not mentioned by name since the outbreak of the abuse crisis in the ‘Year of the Priest’ (2009). The ‘smoke screen’ and official ‘immunisation strategy’ in this regard can be summed up in one word: “paedophilia”, not ‘homosexuality’.
However, the majority of sexual assaults by the clergy do not fall under the category of paedophilia (sexual preference for prepubescent children, i.e. up to about 11/12 years of age); rather, the majority of sexual assaults by the clergy fall under the category of ephebophilia (in our context, the sexual preference for mostly pubescent and post-pubescent young men). Nevertheless, people unanimously refer exclusively to paedophilia and suggest that all sexual assaults by the clergy exclusively affect children (girls and boys), which is particularly morally burdensome for the general public and obscures or makes taboo the homosexuality of the perpetrators. Even if the connection between homosexuality and sexual abuse is not compelling, it does play a minor role in the selection of victims: the preference for male victims and its frequency allow us to conclude that the perpetrators are homosexual.
Despite the proclaimed zero tolerance and condemnation of cover-ups, it has been proven that compromised dignitaries were protected during the previous pontificate. The media tolerated in Pope Francis what they would never have forgiven in John Paul II and Benedict XVI and would have blown up into a huge scandal. The latter, however, did more than any of the recent popes to combat sexual abuse and punish it (cf. the high number of priests laicised for this reason during his pontificate). The media deliberately turned a blind eye because Francis was their favourite and the normalisation of homosexuality in the Church was on their agenda.
We are therefore still waiting in vain for mention of a major problem in the Church: the disproportionate frequency of homosexuality in the clergy with all its negative consequences.
***
***
1 The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010. Report by John Joy College Research Team (2011). p. 11:
2 Theodor W. Adorno. Max Horkheimer. Herbert Marcuse. Erich Fromm. Walter Benjamin. Later Jürgen Habermas.
3 Michel Foucault. Jacques Derrida. Gilles Deleuze. Jean-François Lyotard. Roland Barthes.
4 Judith Butler. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. Paul B. Preciado.
5 Regarding the following: https://www.marcotosatti.com/2025/10/10/la-folle-agenda-lgbtq-delleuropa-36-miliardi-pro-vita-e-famiglia-generazione-voglio-vivere/
6 John Jay (USA, 2004) — The John Jay investigation clearly concludes that ≈81% of the alleged victims recorded in its files were male (81.0% male, 19.0% female). MHG Study
7 (Germany, 2018) — In the overall findings of the MHG study, 62.8% of victims are male (34.9% female, 2.3% not specified). However, different sub-projects provide different percentages: in sub-project 2, 76.6% of victims were male, and in sub-project 3, as many as 80.2% — so the percentage varies greatly depending on the data source. Male victims predominate in all sub-projects. CIASE / Sauvé Report (France, 2021) — CIASE notes that historically, the majority of victims have been boys (mostly prepubescent), but the ratio varies greatly over time and depending on the data set. The commission emphasises that the proportion of female victims has increased in more recent time frames (and in certain samples) and that different survey methods lead to different proportions.
§§§
Aiutate Stilum Curiae
IBAN: IT79N0200805319000400690898
BIC/SWIFT: UNCRITM1E35
ATTENZIONE:
L’IBAN INDICATO NELLA FOTO A DESTRA E’ OBSOLETO.
QUELLO GIUSTO E’:
IBAN: IT79N0200805319000400690898
***
Condividi i miei articoli:
Tag: church, eleganti, homosexuality, society
Categoria: Generale