2 out of 10 U.S. bishops are willing to ordain gay priests, according to a study
A report by McGrath Institute reveals that only 20% of U.S. bishops would ordain gay men as priests. The study, based on research from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, highlights disagreements among bishops, seminary rectors, spiritual directors, and mental‑health professionals regarding priestly readiness. Findings suggest a growing debate over how the Church assesses candidates for Holy Orders and the role of sexual orientation in that assessment. The report calls for strengthened seminary formation and clearer criteria for evaluating candidates. The article underscores the broader tension within the U.S. Catholic hierarchy on inclusivity and traditional doctrine.
about 1 month ago
The report summarized by ZENIT examines how U.S. Catholic dioceses and seminaries evaluate priesthood candidates, with particular attention to men who experience deeply rooted same-sex attraction. It found that 22% of surveyed bishops said they would be willing to ordain such a candidate who professes a firm commitment to celibacy, while other formation professionals expressed lower levels of willingness.
The study was published in July 2026 by the McGrath Institute for Church Life at the University of Notre Dame. Priests and formation specialists Thomas Berg and Timothy Lock used national research conducted by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate to examine how bishops, seminary leaders, spiritual directors, vocation directors and mental-health professionals assess seminarians.
Among bishops surveyed, 22% said they would be willing to ordain a man with deeply rooted same-sex attraction who was committed to celibacy. Ten percent were described as being completely in agreement with doing so.
The corresponding figures were 17% among mental-health professionals, 16% among seminary rectors, 12% among formation directors and spiritual directors, and 9% among vocation directors. The figures indicate differing approaches among the groups involved in priestly formation.
The report says that experts consulted generally favored caution before such a seminarian advanced to the later “configurator” stage of formation. In some cases, it recommends temporarily interrupting formation to examine the candidate’s understanding of his identity, affective development, capacity for celibacy and readiness for priestly service.
The article places the findings alongside a 2005 instruction from the Congregation for Catholic Education. That document said men who practice homosexuality, have deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support what it termed a “gay culture” should not be admitted to seminaries or Holy Orders.
For what it described as a temporary homosexual tendency, the instruction required that the tendency have been clearly overcome for at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.
Support for the existing criterion varied among the groups surveyed. It was viewed as useful by 68% of bishops and rectors, 63% of formation directors and spiritual directors, and 57% of vocation directors. Among mental-health professionals, 36% supported it.
The report also notes that “deeply rooted” is a disciplinary term rather than a standard clinical classification. It discusses persistence over time as a possible additional consideration, citing a practice among some Catholic mental-health professionals of treating an attraction lasting more than five years as deeply rooted unless it appears to be diminishing.
The report addresses issues beyond sexual orientation, including transparency, psychological health and human maturity. It found that 23% of recently ordained priests said they had concealed personal matters during seminary that should have been disclosed to formators.
Examples identified in the report include sexual compulsivity, unresolved trauma, immature dependencies, weak personal boundaries and psychosexual difficulties.
Berg and Lock argue that formation teams should place greater weight on long-term observation of candidates. Seminary personnel may observe a seminarian for several years in prayer, community life, academic work, pastoral activity and personal relationships, while bishops may encounter him less frequently.
The authors recommend that bishops ordinarily accept the judgment of the rector and formation team unless they have moral certainty that the assessment is substantially mistaken. They also caution against allowing priest shortages to influence decisions about a candidate’s suitability.
The authors propose two comprehensive psychological evaluations for candidates: one before admission and another near the end of the discipleship stage or at the beginning of the configurator stage.
They say assessments may have limited usefulness after roughly three years, while priestly formation can last seven years or longer.
Although every surveyed seminary rector considered an initial psychological assessment necessary for identifying areas where a candidate needed growth, such evaluations were not consistently used to create individualized formation plans. Only 48% of rectors and 51% of formation directors and spiritual directors reported using them for that purpose.
Only 36% of mental-health professionals said the assessments were used to develop individualized plans. In addition, 57% said they had encountered seminarians who were referred for therapy but later received little or no follow-up.
The report presents celibacy as involving more than external abstinence. It emphasizes interior freedom, affective stability, healthy relationships and the broader human maturity needed for pastoral responsibility.
The authors suggest that candidates should demonstrate several months of stable continence before entering the advanced stage of formation and normally complete at least 12 months of continence before ordination to the diaconate.
Drawing on the ordination rite’s question about whether candidates are “worthy,” the report describes ordination as a judgment based on sustained testimony and evaluation rather than simply the completion of an academic or training program. It calls for the Church to prioritize the quality and suitability of candidates even amid priest shortages.
Assess Catholic ordination criteria for homosexual candidates
The Church’s current formation criteria distinguish between a person’s dignity, homosexual acts, and the suitability required for priestly celibacy.
A candidate must:
The 2005 instruction, repeated in the 2016 Ratio Fundamentalis, states that the Church cannot admit to the seminary or Holy Orders candidates who:
The stated rationale is not that such persons lack human dignity. The same instruction explicitly requires respect, sensitivity, and avoidance of unjust discrimination. Rather, the Church judges that deep-seated tendencies present a serious obstacle to the affective and relational maturity required for priestly ministry and celibacy.
The norm treats differently tendencies understood to be transitory, such as an adolescent difficulty that has not yet been overcome. Even then, the instruction requires that they be clearly overcome for at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.
This is therefore not a simple test based on whether a candidate experiences any same-sex attraction. The discernment concerns the depth, stability, integration, and practical implications of the tendencies, as well as the candidate’s capacity to live the Church’s teaching and celibacy.
Candidates are expected to disclose relevant difficulties honestly to the bishop, rector, spiritual director, and other formators. Concealing homosexuality in order to obtain ordination is described as gravely dishonest because priestly formation requires truthfulness and openness.
The Church may use psychological evaluation when genuinely necessary, but such evaluation must respect the candidate’s reputation and privacy. Psychological consultation requires prior, explicit, informed, and free consent.
Psychology assists discernment; it does not replace the bishop’s ecclesial judgment. The bishop must possess moral certainty of a candidate’s suitability and must not ordain when a serious, well-founded doubt remains.
Under the cited Catholic norms: