ARTICLES

Is His Hat on Straight?

Levada on Homosexual Priests, Adoptions

BY CHRISTOPHER ZEHNDER

It was bad enough that it was an American bishop -- but William Levada? Acquaintances of mine expressed just this sentiment, or one near to it, when they heard last year that Pope Benedict XVI had appointed San Francisco's archbishop to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Others, though voicing their dismay, admitted that the pope could have chosen worse -- though, they were quick to add, he could seemingly have chosen much (much) better, too.

But for better or worse, Archbishop (now Cardinal) Levada is the Holy See's guardian of doctrinal orthodoxy. How has he been doing in his new position? Though appointed last May, he arrived in Rome only in August; thus he has hardly had the time to distinguish himself. Yet, though the Church worldwide may have barely noticed the new doctrinal prefect, California, particularly Levada's old stomping grounds, the Bay Area, has continued to attract his attention. It is generally admitted that George Niederauer got the San Francisco archdiocese through Levada's influence (they are old friends, even owning a retirement condo together in Long Beach), and in March of this year, Levada intervened in the question of whether San Francisco Catholic Charities should facilitate adoptions by homosexual couples. Since as archbishop, Levada himself had seemingly allowed such adoptions to occur, his reply to a query in March from archdiocesan spokesman Maurice Healy appeared to have the character of a "do as I say, not as I did" response.

But, except for Levada's appearance in San Francisco in January to give a deposition in a bankruptcy case involving the archdiocese of Portland (where he had reigned before coming to San Francisco), the big news about him was his elevation to the curia. In a March 27 consistory, Pope Benedict XVI invested William Levada with the gear and title of a cardinal-prince of the Church. Prior to this event, Time Europe magazine published an interview with Levada, whom the magazine called "the most influential U.S. prelate in history." The interview was of interest in giving a glimpse into how the American prefect views some issues he has to deal with as doctrinal prefect.

Interviewer Jeff Israely asked Levada a number of questions, including the pressing, "how will you feel when you get your red hat from the Pope?" To which Levada replied that he was "honored" -- "but," he added, "you also want to make sure your hat is on straight." This question of feelings (along with another, "does the responsibility of your new office feel overwhelming?") aside, Israely proceeded to other, perhaps, less poignant, matters. For instance, Levada was asked whether the Vatican (an "absolute monarchy") should be "more democratic?" To which, Archbishop Levada responded with neither a yes nor a no, nor even a qualified yes or no; rather he said that "the question presumes that there is not open discussion in the Vatican. The Pope expects us to give him our best insights. You must remember that, yes, this is a monarchy, but the monarch is elected." Asked whether Pope Benedict XVI "is open to debate," Levada noted that the pontiff "introduced for the first time a 'free discussion' period in the Synod of Bishops." This policy, said the archbishop, "we also adopted ... in our meetings at the Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith], and the members appreciate it." As Levada explained it, "the Congregation has members who are like a board of trustees, and I'm the equivalent of the chairman."

Reminded that, at November's synod of bishops, he himself had introduced the question of whether Catholic politicians who vote contrary to their faith should receive communion, Levada mused that, "when you see Catholic politicians who favor abortion rights ... you have to ask yourself how this person squares this with his personal faith. Catholic politicians need to take this seriously. Maybe they need to say I'm not able to practice my faith and be a public representative."

In June 2004, Archbishop Levada addressed this question in a talk he gave before the conference of U.S. bishops. He concluded that if politicians were guilty of formal cooperation in evil by supporting pro-abortion legislation, a bishop might refuse them communion, to avoid public scandal. But, said Levada, only those politicians or voters who support pro-abortion legislation for the express intention of killing innocent life are guilty of formal cooperation in evil. Those who support abortion for other reasons (presumably, for example, to protect a mother's health, to keep abortion "safe," or for political expediency), though in error, are not guilty of formal cooperation in evil, he said. (See "What's A Bishop To Do?" September 2004 Faith; www.sffaith.com/ed/articles/2004/0409cz.htm.)

It was the cardinal-elect's explanation of the Holy See's November instruction forbidding ordination to truly homosexual men, however, that was the most interesting part of the interview. "The document is very clear," said Levada. "It says a person with deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not suited for the priesthood." Indeed. But what, in Levada's mind, is meant by "a person with deep-seated homosexual tendencies"? Seemingly, it means one who engages in homosexual acts -- that is, not someone simply with "homosexual tendencies" but one who has acted on those tendencies, who has lived the "gay lifestyle." Thus, Levada: "somebody who comes to the seminary from a gay lifestyle cannot be a priest." But does this mean that a man who continues to harbor homosexual desires, who has homosexual tendencies, is forever barred from the priesthood? Seemingly, no, in Levada's mind. The doctrinal prefect laid down a criterion for admittance -- a criterion, incidentally, nowhere found in the Vatican instruction. According to Levada, "if you can show us after five or 10 years that you have been able to live a celibate life, [ordination] could be possible." Thus, according to Levada, a "gay" man may be ordained as long as he can remain celibate.

(The instruction, however, singles out "homosexual tendencies" as disqualifying one for ordination. Those afflicted with homosexual tendencies, says the instruction, have not attained "affective maturity," which affects the "human formation" of a person, "the foundation of all formation" -- spiritual, intellectual, and pastoral. "To admit a candidate to diaconal Ordination," says the instruction, "the Church must verify, among other things, that the candidate for priesthood has attained affective maturity.")

But if the now Cardinal Levada seems to have strayed from the letter of the Holy See's instruction on admitting homosexuals to the priesthood, in March he adhered to the Vatican line on the question of adoption of children by homosexuals. The question of homosexual adoption was in the news on account of the Massachusetts Catholic bishops' decision that Catholic Charities in their state would no longer be permitted to place children with homosexuals. (When faced with a state law mandating the Church to place children for adoption in homosexual households, the Massachusetts bishops subsequently said Catholic Charities in their state was pulling out of the adoption business.) The December 6, 2005 issue of The Advocate (a nationwide pro-homosexual publication) had noted that, despite a 2003 statement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (under then-Cardinal Josef Ratzinger) against adoption by homosexuals, "the social service agencies of the Boston archdiocese and the San Francisco archdiocese have placed children with several gay couples.... Catholic Charities CYO, which serves the Northern California counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin, has placed three children out of 136 with same-sex couples since 2000." This being the case, on March 9 the Boston Globe contacted San Francisco archdiocesan spokesman Maurice Healy to ask whether the archdiocese "planned to continue allowing gay adoptions and whether Levada supported those adoptions while in San Francisco."

Healy contacted the Holy See and Levada and received a response from the latter. "I was asked about Catholic Charities' adoption placement of three children with gay parents during my tenure as Archbishop of San Francisco," wrote Levada in a March 9 e-mail to Healy. "According to my recollection, Brian Cahill, executive director of CC/CYO, informed me that these placements had occurred, principally to find placements for three children or teenagers who were judged difficult to place." Here Levada's language suggests that the adoptions were a fait accompli by the time Cahill told him of them -- a reading that is supported by a clarification Maurice Healy sent to the Chronicle, in which he writes, "Archbishop (now Cardinal) Levada was informed by Catholic Charities after the fact that three adoptions to homosexual couples had taken place." However, Levada in his statement does not say that he disapproved of the adoptions at the time. He merely adds that "these placements involved prudential judgments about the needs of the children, the teachings of the Catholic Church, and the overall policies and goals of CC/CYO."

(The December Advocate story noted that, out of 136 adoptions since 2000, Catholic Charities had placed three with homosexual couples. In March, however, the number of homosexual adoptions through Catholic Charities since 2000 had jumped to five between 2000 and 2005. Did Levada know of all five? No, said Maurice Healy. According to Healy, Levada was only told of three of the homosexual adoptions.)

Levada suggested that his position on adoption by homosexuals changed in 2003, the year the Holy See released its Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons. Speaking of homosexual unions, this document said, "the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral...."

In his e-mail, Levada said that "after the 2003 statement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ... it has been, and remains, my position that Catholic agencies should not place children for adoption in homosexual households. The reasons given in the document, as well as the potential scandal for the faithful should an Archdiocesan agency act contrary to the clear teaching of the Church's magisterium, require that a Catholic bishop follow this clear guidance from the Holy See in his oversight of Catholic diocesan agencies."

Here, in his March 9 e-mail to Healy, Levada clearly upheld Church teaching. But in the years following the 2003 Vatican document, did he, as archbishop, forbid Catholic Charities to facilitate such adoptions by homosexuals? In his statement, Levada stops short of saying he did, saying merely that "it has been" his "position that Catholic agencies should not place children for adoption." [Emphasis added.] And while Levada said a Catholic bishop is required to "follow this clear guidance from the Holy See," he did not say that he followed it.

As for the adoptions the archbishop did approve -- when did they occur? Before or after the publication of the Holy See's instruction in 2003? In a March 22 e-mail query to archdiocesan spokesman Maurice Healy, I asked this question. He replied the same day, giving me only Levada's March 9 e-mail statement in reply. The statement does not clearly say when the adoptions were approved.

That Archbishop Levada did not change the policy of allowing adoptions by homosexuals after 2003 is suggested by a further reply from Healy. I asked, "has Archbishop Levada said why he allowed those adoptions to take place or why he did not work to change Catholic Charities adoption policy in light of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 2003 statement?" To which Healy replied merely with a reference to Levada's March 9 e-mail statement ("according to my recollection ... goals of CC/CYO"), which merely says the adoptions were justified (by Levada, Cahill, or both is unclear) by an exercise of prudence.

Though press reports subsequent to the Boston Globe article are unclear as to whether the archdiocese has or has not, in response to Levada' s e-mail statement, halted adoptions by homosexuals, it is clear that at least Catholic Charities had a policy allowing such adoptions even after 2003. Further, a March 21 "Statement by the Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco" does not say Catholic Charities' policy was ever changed (or necessarily that it will be changed), but merely states, "we fully accept and faithfully teach what the Catholic Church teaches on marriage and family life. In light of these convictions, we currently are reviewing our adoption programs to determine concretely how we can continue to best serve children who are so much in need of a home. We realize there are people in our community, some working sidebyside with us to serve the needy in society, who do not share our beliefs, and we recognize and respect that fact."

For his affirmation of Church teaching, Levada was chastised by the San Francisco board of supervisors. On March 21, the board unanimously approved a non-binding resolution condemning Levada's March 9 statement. "It is an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great city's existing and established customs and traditions, such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need," said the supervisors. The Holy See's 2003 statement, said the resolution, used "hateful and discriminatory rhetoric (that) is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors." As for Levada, the resolution said he "is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear." It also called on Archbishop Niederauer to defy the Levada's directive.

WILL NIEDERAUER STOP THE VIOLENCE?

Will Archbishop Niederauer adopt Cardinal Levada's position that a Church agency should not facilitate homosexual adoptions and ban them at Catholic Charities of San Francisco? Rather than submit to a state mandate to place children in homosexual households, the bishops of Massachusetts announced in March that, beginning in June, Catholic Charities in that state will not longer offer an adoption service. Will Archbishop Niederauer adopt a similarly uncompromising stance?

Some press reports have suggested that the San Francisco archdiocese had decided to ban adoptions by homosexuals. "Archdiocese halts same-sex adoptions at Catholic Charities," said a March 21 headline in the San Francisco Chronicle. The article quotes archdiocesan spokesman Maurice Healy saying, "these kinds of adoptions are not in sync with church teaching, and we've committed ourselves to being in sync with church teaching" -- a statement that might suggest the archdiocese would ban such adoptions. The same article quoted Brian Cahill, executive director of Catholic Charities of San Francisco, who said of Healy's statement, "this is an outright statement that is false. Mr. Healy is, A, mistaken, B, doesn't speak for Catholic Charities and, frankly, it's clear to me that he's not speaking for the archbishop these days."

Healy's statement in the Chronicle, of course, does not say in so many words that the archdiocese would ban further homosexual adoptions. That the archdiocese will not ban adoption by homosexuals, at least any time soon, is indicated by its endorsement of a March 21 Los Angeles Times story. The endorsement, following the official posting on the archdiocese's web site of its March 21 statement, noted the Times story "much more accurately reflects the situation than" the Chronicle story. And the Times said the archdiocese was not barring homosexual adoptions: "without barring adoptions by gay families outright, the city's new archbishop made clear he believes that placing children in samesex households conflicts with Roman Catholic teachings on homosexuality."

In my March 22 e-mail to Maurice Healy, I noted the Times' assertion. I noted that Niederauer did not directly say that Catholic Charities would cease placing children with same-sex couples. I drew attention to Healy's own statement to the Chronicle and Cahill's response. And I asked, "does the archbishop's statement mean that Catholic Charities' placing of children with homosexual couples is henceforth forbidden? Or does it mean that the archdiocese is looking into the matter, but in the meantime homosexuals may still adopt children through Catholic Charities? Or does it mean something else?" Healy's reply was, "see the Archdiocesan statement."

TOP