Cardinal Levada Advises Priests to Cover Up Their Homosexuality

May 2006

William Cardinal Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), who has a reputation for covering up priestly sex scandals, calls for in essence another cover-up, and this in broad daylight. In a homily in Rome on February 26 (Catholic News Service, Feb. 27), Levada mentions "the situation of the gay priest who announces his homosexuality publicly...." Levada says: "Does such a priest recognize this act [revealing his homosexuality in public] places an obstacle to his ability to represent Christ the bridegroom to his bride, the people of God? Does he not see how his declaration places him at odds with the spousal character of love as revealed by God and imaged in humanity?" Catholic News Service makes it crystal clear what Levada means: "a priest who publicly announces he is homosexual makes it difficult for people to see the priest as representing Christ, the bridegroom of his bride, the Church."

Levada says a homosexual priest in effect cannot be a bridegroom, and this is certainly correct. But Levada, a master politician and compromiser, says homosexual priests should stay in the closet, so the laity won't know they're not bridegrooms.

Last September, Fr. Rich Danyluk announced from the pulpit that he is a homosexual. It happened at St. Joseph Basilica in Alameda in the San Francisco Bay Area. It was reported by the Oakland Tribune and five other major dailies in the Bay Area in January. In Fr. Rich's homily, according to the report, he recounted this story: "About two years ago his [Fr. Rich's] aunt was dying.... He arrived at her deathbed. He sat next to her and she started to cry, finally telling the priest, her nephew, she was gay. 'I'm so afraid I'm going to hell,' the priest remembered her saying. 'That's not how God works,' he replied." Apparently, the aunt wanted to repent. No repentance needed, said Fr. Rich. What a betrayal!

In his homily, according to the story, Fr. Rich said: "'This good news is for everybody or it is for nobody,' he told his congregation. The Gospel has to be for his aunt, too. For all lesbians and gays, the priest said with conviction." (If the good news is for everybody or it's for nobody, then everyone goes to Heaven and nobody goes to Hell.) Then Fr. Rich announced that he is "gay." According to the story, "the basilica erupted in applause, and pew by pew the parishioners stood. Their priest was a homosexual and they greeted the news with a standing ovation."


You have two options:

  1. Online subscription: Subscribe now to New Oxford Review for access to all web content at newoxfordreview.org AND the monthly print edition for as low as $38 per year.
  2. Single article purchase: Purchase this article for $1.95, for viewing and printing for 48 hours.

If you're already a subscriber log-in here.



New Oxford Notes: May 2006

Read our posting policy Add a comment
Its time for "CATHOLICS" to stop giving legitimacy to the words Gay, Lesbian, Homosexual. We should never give these word's legitimacy, as it implies God created these names. God did not create Behavior. He gave us the free will to execute BEHAVIOR.

God created only man/woman.

I contend the Catholic media must stop using these words as they are destructive to the proponent, and society. This results in the destruction of the family and undermining the Catholic Church.

Posted by: paulc37
May 03, 2006 08:00 AM EDT
Yes, I think Paulc37 does make a valid point -- that God created man and woman. Alfred Kinsey's idea that God also created men 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' is, well, so Kinseyan, that is, based on 'desire' rather than 'behavior.' Kinsey (conveniently) does not recognize that desires can be disordered. Nor does he acknowledge that disordered desires can and do result in sinful behavior, and that sinful behavior can lead to inveterate and habitual sinful behavior -- i.e., sinful lifestyle.

One wonders what Cardinal Levada believes...
Posted by: nortemp
May 03, 2006 10:35 AM EDT
Frankly, we should only use the word, homosexual, and avoid the "nicer" sounding words. Call it what it is, not some PC term designed to camoflauge reality. Posted by: sgraessle
May 03, 2006 10:37 AM EDT
It would be a stretch but one could suggest that PB VI did not know the story on Neideraur when he elevated him to San Francisco. But that he did not know Levada and his background is out of the question given that he knew him personally for so many years.

IMHO it is beginning to be clear that the homo lobby is dealing from strength.
Posted by: pins
May 03, 2006 05:38 PM EDT
I think maybe you folks are jumping the gun here. He is not giving his approval to the ordination of gay men nor is he saying that gays who already are priests need not practise chastity. There have always been gay priests in the Church. Some of them have been very chaste and holy. But they did NOT feel the need to stand up and declare themselves in front of their congregations. To "come out" in the pulpit can cause scandal and priests who do this are ususally seeking approval. The cardinal is right to oppose such irresponsible behaviour. Posted by: legatus-a-latere
July 04, 2006 02:45 PM EDT
How are homosexual priests (even those who are chaste) able to imitate Christ in His spousal relationship to the Church, His Bride? Posted by: Cyndy Wilson
September 04, 2006 04:56 PM EDT
It seems to me that it is meaningless to say, as a priest, that "I am a homosexual" unless he is actually committing homosexual acts. In that case, he must be dealt with appropriately. Surely, by now, the church knows that there are lots of lawyers out there ready to loot the churchs treasures via the homosexual priest - not to mention the damage to brothers and sisters in Christ. What do they teach these folks in the seminary? Many don't seem to be trained to manage a parish nor do they know how to preach a good sermon. Posted by: wunsch
March 07, 2007 08:05 PM EST
Add a comment