On Homosexuality and the Priesthood
Okay, here is the second promised (and substantive!) update for today.
Firstly, there was an article on the Drudge Report yesterday about an "anti-gay church" protesting at the funeral(s) for GIs. Suffice it to say that these people are crazy and think that God is "allowing" the terrorists to attack the United States because we "harbor" gay people. The "church" members carried signs and shouted things like, "God hates fags" and "God hates you."
Charming.
There are a number of obvious problems here, but the most glaring one is the obviously grotesquely distorted view of homosexuality that these people hold. I'm certainly not going to apologize for the (sinful) activities that homosexually-oriented people engage in, but it is important, as always, to seperate the sin from the sinner. Blanket condemnation of a group of people because of a trait they have which they cannot control is not right. It defies basic human decency as well as logical theology. Did these people miss the parts where Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners? The call from God and the True Church (i.e. ours and certainly not theirs) is that of conversion and repentance, not of wholesale judgment and death.
I've addressed this sort of issue before (I think...), so normally I wouldn't revisit it like this, but there is another article going around a lot of the "Catholic blogosphere" (ooohhh how I hate that word), which can be found here. It's about a supposed Vatican plan to block the ordination of gay priests. The document has supposedly been circulating around the Vatican for some time and gone through at least three revisions.
I have a lot of problems with this, one of which is demonstrated by the response that a lot of the more "traditionalist" people tend to have towards this. The response is generally something like, "Oh thank goodness, why didn't they do this fifty years ago?"
Now, I will certainly respect the Pope and the Vatican on issues like this. If Pope Benedict chooses to issue such a document and bars homosexual men from entering the seminary, I might question the logic behind it but I will accept it. This isn't an Iraq War issue where dissent would be legitimately allowed. However, since it's still up in the air I'll go ahead and air my opinion on it.
I sincerely hope the Pope doesn't allow this document to be published in any official capacity. I will admit that there are those who are far wiser than I that should be making this sort of decision, but in my own limited capacity this seems, to me, to be a very bad idea.
The first reason is that homosexuality is not a choice. I don't know if it's genetic or if it's a product of the culture or environment someone is raised in and I don't pretend to. However, what I DO know is that no one in their right mind would ever choose to be a homosexual. Why would they? From a logical standpoint, it makes no sense whatsoever.
Let's look at it this way... Assuming that homosexuality has become "socially acceptable" within the last, say, 15 years (which it certainly hasn't, except in certain areas), that means that it took an increasing awareness of (if not presence of, assuming they've been around for a while, which is a legitimate assumption) the homosexual community for this acceptance to be achieved. Now, assuming that we were all capable of "choosing" our sexual orientation, we would have a choice between one or the other. In a world where there was absolute equality between the two (or at least total social acceptance of homosexuality as okay), the choice might be a bit complicated.
However, the world is obviously not like that. The "acceptance" homosexuality has gained in recent times is only a by-product of their existence at all, which means that those people, before this "acceptance," "chose" this route- but no one would do that. Who would want to be a pioneer in such a bizarre field, if it meant persecution and rejection, not being able to have a family and always being "closeted" for fear of social reprisal? Hardly anyone.
I think this demonstrates fairly clearly why no one in their right mind would choose such a lifestyle. So now, what's the point of this demonstration?
The point is that it's essentially a type of discrimination against homosexuals to enact this sort of thing. I am not, in any way, denying that the Church has the right to analyze someone's vocation and determine if it is legitimate or not, which, I suppose, is what you could argue here. You could say that the Vatican is deciding that if you have a homosexual orientation, you cannot, in fact, have a legitimate vocation.
That would, however, seem to fly in the face of existing evidence. I read an article some time ago that was written (under a pen-name) by a current priest who is also a homosexual. He put forth a compelling argument. Indeed, why should someone like him be denied the chance to be a priest, simply because he is attracted to men and not women?
If this is the by-product of the sex scandals here in America, this is a very wrong by-product, I say. I'm not going to debate whether the sex scandals were the result of pedophiles or homosexuals, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that all that came out of that scandal was the product of homosexually-oriented priests. That, in my opinion, is rubbish.
Indeed, do we not have an example of heterosexual scandal from a priest just recently? Now, I'm not condeming the rector of St. Patrick's in New York, because I don't know the truth, but we have here an allegation of an affair between him and a woman. You can bet that there are plenty of women that have had affairs with priests in the past. Does this mean we should exclude heterosexuals from the priesthood?
No, of course not.
The problem here is one of chastity and celibacy. I'm not going to pretend to understand the difficulties of maintaining the vow of celibacy for either a homosexual or a heterosexual priest, but I assume that it's difficult. Indeed, it is a sacrifice. Is it more difficult for a homosexual? Well, frankly, I don't know. Admittedly, the "gay subculture" we have here in America promotes promiscuity on a wide scale, but doesn't our own culture as well?
I mean, seriously. Let's get down to the issue here: What is the problem with homosexual priests? I would really like an answer to this. Is it because we're afraid that they'll prey on altar boys? Well, you can have heterosexual pedophiles too... Pedophilia and that sort of sexual predation is not about a "sexual orientation," it's about a sexual perversion that is entirely different and it's unfair to blanketly assume that just because a man is a homosexual, that he is also going to prey on children.
So what is it? Will he have a harder time "resisting the urges"? Doesn't this seem rather condescending, to assume that just because a man is attracted to another man, he will have a harder time controlling himself? Have you ever seen a Victoria's Secret commercial? Good heavens people, we've got scantily clad women cavorting around all over the place! Heterosexual men are certainly not shielded from temptation- just ask, um, just about any guy in college.
The article said that the document would attempt to say things like they don't want homosexuals to go to seminary because they think it's unfair to put temptations around them like that. Now, this I can understand. It's a legitimate concern. This is the ONE instance in which I will concede that homosexuals would probably have a harder time of it than heterosexuals. (On a side note, it's not like all the seminaries are filled with a bunch of Brad Pitt clones- I mean, really, is it THAT hard? I'm being flippant, I probably shouldn't be...)
However, with propery seminary formation, surely this wouldn't really be a concern?
A lot of these problems seem to stem from an improper understanding of sexual orientation. Is it really that important? Let's ask ourselves, seriously here, why is it so gosh-darned important whether a guy likes other guys or women? We are ALL called to chastity in our lives, not just the heterosexuals or homosexuals. All of us. That's it, end of discussion.
The sad thing here is that oftentimes the resistance to homosexual priests seems to be coming from the more orthodox and traditionalist of the Catholic, um, crowds? that's not the word I want, but oh well. People often seem surprised that I would mount this kind of a defense because they automatically assume, well, basically, that I hate gay people.
This isn't true at all. I simply don't understand why all this emphasis is placed on sexual orientation. I don't care which way you swing, so to speak, because we should all be "swinging" towards God. Unfortunately, it does seem that a lot of conservatives/traditionalists rather DO act like they hate gay people. See, it's this kind of lack of compassion that forces homosexuals away from the Church and into the arms of this rebellious and destructive gay subculture that permeates places like San Francisco.
Virtue finds and chooses the mean, not the extremes. The virtue for homosexuals here is not the extreme of fornication that the rainbow toting activists encourage. Now, however, is it unhealthy repression and denial. The mean here is to come to the Church and into the metaphorical arms of those people who express what is a true love of them- that is, a compassion tempered with orthodoxy.
This compassion stems, of course, directly from the command to "love your neighbor." True love of another is coupled with a desire to see that person be happy and holy and have a good and personal relationship with God. It is not, as many liberals unfortunately think, simply giving people permission to do what they want. This is folly. Telling someone that it's okay to do something if it feels good is not, in fact, love at all- it is, rather, a distorted and corrupted form of "love," something which masks itself as compassion but in itself truly leads down a path to damnation. True love of another is telling them several things:
First, that they are not evil. No one is inherently evil. We all have flaws and crosses to carry, but it is our ACTIONS that define us, not our inclinations.
Secondly, that sinful actions are not going to be good for them if suddenly the Church was to say "Oh, just kidding, go ahead and screw your brains out."
And thirdly and finally, true love tells us that, after telling someone that their actions are destructive, we then tell them, "Now, let me show you what is really true and right and good," that we show them the TRUE way to eternal life and salvation, that is, through Christ Jesus and adherence to His Church and her teachings, that true happiness comes from living a life of purity and holiness, a life which is demanded of everyone, not just them.
~
Okay, I've deviated pretty far and this post is certainly pretty long, but I think I've made the points I want to. I would be extremely appreciative if people who think that homosexuals should not be ordained would comment, because I would like to hear the other side of the argument (and attempt to respond to it, if I can). Thanks.
On another side note, I would like to say that the reason for the length of this article is because I feel that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about this issue and it is one that is extremely easy to corrupt and turn against the Church. The attitude of many so-called "traditionalists" and "conservatives" is one that unfortunately turns a lot of homosexuals away from the Church. Homosexuals can be likened, in some senses, to people who have been discriminated against in the past because of their race.
That is to say, I think they're in danger of being driven yet farther from the Church, and that bothers me. Why should they be driven away because of these hard-line positions that people take? It's one thing to have a disagreement with someone over, say, transubstantiation, but the attitude taken by many conservatives, while not as overtly extreme as the one mentioned in the first article I cited, is essentially the same. A true compassion that pours forth from the Gospel is one that embraces everyone, regardless of race and gender, sexual orientation or economic status.
Sometimes, I think, it's very easy for conservatives to miss the "compassion" side of things because we associate that sort of thing with fluffy liberals. Indeed, in the past I probably would have supported such a measure to ban homosexuals from the priesthood, but I think lately I've been attempting to reconcile the demands of the compassion (WWJD, if I might be trite) with the rigors of orthodoxy and I do not think that something like banning homosexuals from seminary is a good idea.
Firstly, there was an article on the Drudge Report yesterday about an "anti-gay church" protesting at the funeral(s) for GIs. Suffice it to say that these people are crazy and think that God is "allowing" the terrorists to attack the United States because we "harbor" gay people. The "church" members carried signs and shouted things like, "God hates fags" and "God hates you."
Charming.
There are a number of obvious problems here, but the most glaring one is the obviously grotesquely distorted view of homosexuality that these people hold. I'm certainly not going to apologize for the (sinful) activities that homosexually-oriented people engage in, but it is important, as always, to seperate the sin from the sinner. Blanket condemnation of a group of people because of a trait they have which they cannot control is not right. It defies basic human decency as well as logical theology. Did these people miss the parts where Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners? The call from God and the True Church (i.e. ours and certainly not theirs) is that of conversion and repentance, not of wholesale judgment and death.
I've addressed this sort of issue before (I think...), so normally I wouldn't revisit it like this, but there is another article going around a lot of the "Catholic blogosphere" (ooohhh how I hate that word), which can be found here. It's about a supposed Vatican plan to block the ordination of gay priests. The document has supposedly been circulating around the Vatican for some time and gone through at least three revisions.
I have a lot of problems with this, one of which is demonstrated by the response that a lot of the more "traditionalist" people tend to have towards this. The response is generally something like, "Oh thank goodness, why didn't they do this fifty years ago?"
Now, I will certainly respect the Pope and the Vatican on issues like this. If Pope Benedict chooses to issue such a document and bars homosexual men from entering the seminary, I might question the logic behind it but I will accept it. This isn't an Iraq War issue where dissent would be legitimately allowed. However, since it's still up in the air I'll go ahead and air my opinion on it.
I sincerely hope the Pope doesn't allow this document to be published in any official capacity. I will admit that there are those who are far wiser than I that should be making this sort of decision, but in my own limited capacity this seems, to me, to be a very bad idea.
The first reason is that homosexuality is not a choice. I don't know if it's genetic or if it's a product of the culture or environment someone is raised in and I don't pretend to. However, what I DO know is that no one in their right mind would ever choose to be a homosexual. Why would they? From a logical standpoint, it makes no sense whatsoever.
Let's look at it this way... Assuming that homosexuality has become "socially acceptable" within the last, say, 15 years (which it certainly hasn't, except in certain areas), that means that it took an increasing awareness of (if not presence of, assuming they've been around for a while, which is a legitimate assumption) the homosexual community for this acceptance to be achieved. Now, assuming that we were all capable of "choosing" our sexual orientation, we would have a choice between one or the other. In a world where there was absolute equality between the two (or at least total social acceptance of homosexuality as okay), the choice might be a bit complicated.
However, the world is obviously not like that. The "acceptance" homosexuality has gained in recent times is only a by-product of their existence at all, which means that those people, before this "acceptance," "chose" this route- but no one would do that. Who would want to be a pioneer in such a bizarre field, if it meant persecution and rejection, not being able to have a family and always being "closeted" for fear of social reprisal? Hardly anyone.
I think this demonstrates fairly clearly why no one in their right mind would choose such a lifestyle. So now, what's the point of this demonstration?
The point is that it's essentially a type of discrimination against homosexuals to enact this sort of thing. I am not, in any way, denying that the Church has the right to analyze someone's vocation and determine if it is legitimate or not, which, I suppose, is what you could argue here. You could say that the Vatican is deciding that if you have a homosexual orientation, you cannot, in fact, have a legitimate vocation.
That would, however, seem to fly in the face of existing evidence. I read an article some time ago that was written (under a pen-name) by a current priest who is also a homosexual. He put forth a compelling argument. Indeed, why should someone like him be denied the chance to be a priest, simply because he is attracted to men and not women?
If this is the by-product of the sex scandals here in America, this is a very wrong by-product, I say. I'm not going to debate whether the sex scandals were the result of pedophiles or homosexuals, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that all that came out of that scandal was the product of homosexually-oriented priests. That, in my opinion, is rubbish.
Indeed, do we not have an example of heterosexual scandal from a priest just recently? Now, I'm not condeming the rector of St. Patrick's in New York, because I don't know the truth, but we have here an allegation of an affair between him and a woman. You can bet that there are plenty of women that have had affairs with priests in the past. Does this mean we should exclude heterosexuals from the priesthood?
No, of course not.
The problem here is one of chastity and celibacy. I'm not going to pretend to understand the difficulties of maintaining the vow of celibacy for either a homosexual or a heterosexual priest, but I assume that it's difficult. Indeed, it is a sacrifice. Is it more difficult for a homosexual? Well, frankly, I don't know. Admittedly, the "gay subculture" we have here in America promotes promiscuity on a wide scale, but doesn't our own culture as well?
I mean, seriously. Let's get down to the issue here: What is the problem with homosexual priests? I would really like an answer to this. Is it because we're afraid that they'll prey on altar boys? Well, you can have heterosexual pedophiles too... Pedophilia and that sort of sexual predation is not about a "sexual orientation," it's about a sexual perversion that is entirely different and it's unfair to blanketly assume that just because a man is a homosexual, that he is also going to prey on children.
So what is it? Will he have a harder time "resisting the urges"? Doesn't this seem rather condescending, to assume that just because a man is attracted to another man, he will have a harder time controlling himself? Have you ever seen a Victoria's Secret commercial? Good heavens people, we've got scantily clad women cavorting around all over the place! Heterosexual men are certainly not shielded from temptation- just ask, um, just about any guy in college.
The article said that the document would attempt to say things like they don't want homosexuals to go to seminary because they think it's unfair to put temptations around them like that. Now, this I can understand. It's a legitimate concern. This is the ONE instance in which I will concede that homosexuals would probably have a harder time of it than heterosexuals. (On a side note, it's not like all the seminaries are filled with a bunch of Brad Pitt clones- I mean, really, is it THAT hard? I'm being flippant, I probably shouldn't be...)
However, with propery seminary formation, surely this wouldn't really be a concern?
A lot of these problems seem to stem from an improper understanding of sexual orientation. Is it really that important? Let's ask ourselves, seriously here, why is it so gosh-darned important whether a guy likes other guys or women? We are ALL called to chastity in our lives, not just the heterosexuals or homosexuals. All of us. That's it, end of discussion.
The sad thing here is that oftentimes the resistance to homosexual priests seems to be coming from the more orthodox and traditionalist of the Catholic, um, crowds? that's not the word I want, but oh well. People often seem surprised that I would mount this kind of a defense because they automatically assume, well, basically, that I hate gay people.
This isn't true at all. I simply don't understand why all this emphasis is placed on sexual orientation. I don't care which way you swing, so to speak, because we should all be "swinging" towards God. Unfortunately, it does seem that a lot of conservatives/traditionalists rather DO act like they hate gay people. See, it's this kind of lack of compassion that forces homosexuals away from the Church and into the arms of this rebellious and destructive gay subculture that permeates places like San Francisco.
Virtue finds and chooses the mean, not the extremes. The virtue for homosexuals here is not the extreme of fornication that the rainbow toting activists encourage. Now, however, is it unhealthy repression and denial. The mean here is to come to the Church and into the metaphorical arms of those people who express what is a true love of them- that is, a compassion tempered with orthodoxy.
This compassion stems, of course, directly from the command to "love your neighbor." True love of another is coupled with a desire to see that person be happy and holy and have a good and personal relationship with God. It is not, as many liberals unfortunately think, simply giving people permission to do what they want. This is folly. Telling someone that it's okay to do something if it feels good is not, in fact, love at all- it is, rather, a distorted and corrupted form of "love," something which masks itself as compassion but in itself truly leads down a path to damnation. True love of another is telling them several things:
First, that they are not evil. No one is inherently evil. We all have flaws and crosses to carry, but it is our ACTIONS that define us, not our inclinations.
Secondly, that sinful actions are not going to be good for them if suddenly the Church was to say "Oh, just kidding, go ahead and screw your brains out."
And thirdly and finally, true love tells us that, after telling someone that their actions are destructive, we then tell them, "Now, let me show you what is really true and right and good," that we show them the TRUE way to eternal life and salvation, that is, through Christ Jesus and adherence to His Church and her teachings, that true happiness comes from living a life of purity and holiness, a life which is demanded of everyone, not just them.
~
Okay, I've deviated pretty far and this post is certainly pretty long, but I think I've made the points I want to. I would be extremely appreciative if people who think that homosexuals should not be ordained would comment, because I would like to hear the other side of the argument (and attempt to respond to it, if I can). Thanks.
On another side note, I would like to say that the reason for the length of this article is because I feel that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about this issue and it is one that is extremely easy to corrupt and turn against the Church. The attitude of many so-called "traditionalists" and "conservatives" is one that unfortunately turns a lot of homosexuals away from the Church. Homosexuals can be likened, in some senses, to people who have been discriminated against in the past because of their race.
That is to say, I think they're in danger of being driven yet farther from the Church, and that bothers me. Why should they be driven away because of these hard-line positions that people take? It's one thing to have a disagreement with someone over, say, transubstantiation, but the attitude taken by many conservatives, while not as overtly extreme as the one mentioned in the first article I cited, is essentially the same. A true compassion that pours forth from the Gospel is one that embraces everyone, regardless of race and gender, sexual orientation or economic status.
Sometimes, I think, it's very easy for conservatives to miss the "compassion" side of things because we associate that sort of thing with fluffy liberals. Indeed, in the past I probably would have supported such a measure to ban homosexuals from the priesthood, but I think lately I've been attempting to reconcile the demands of the compassion (WWJD, if I might be trite) with the rigors of orthodoxy and I do not think that something like banning homosexuals from seminary is a good idea.
posted by Jason | Monday, August 29, 2005
9 Comments:
AI raises some interesting points, but I believe that since statistics demonstrate homosexual priests are more inclined to abuse children, homosexual candidates to the priesthood should receive much more scrutiny before being considered for priestly vocation.
More than 80 percent of minors under the age of 18 who were sexually abused by Roman Catholic priests in the United States since 1950 were male, suggesting the strong role that homosexuality played in the crisis and highlighting whether the Catholic Church should try to limit or prevent gay men from joining the priesthood.
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1399042/posts
No 1.
Well, first of all, let's dispose of the pedophilia straw man. By clinical definition, pedophilia is sexual contact, or desire for such, with pre-pubescent children. Now you can argue all day long about whether homosexuals are more inclined towards genuine pedophilia than the population at large. I think they are. But that doesn't matter.
While some very sickening priest personnel files were released here in Boston that did involve genuine pedophila, they were very few. Almost 85% of the victims were young boys ages 12-18, meaning they were pubescent or post-pubescent teenagers.
The clinical term for attraction to this group is called ephebophilia. But since all the offenders were male, as were all the victims in the 85%, we can get rid of the fancy term, and just call it what it is called on the street: gay priests "chicken-hawking," which I am told is a well-known term in the homosexual community, and means hitting on and having sexual contact with teenage boys. This is a well-known usage among homosexuals, I have read, and is a very widespread practice. In some of these cases that we read about in the pervert priest files, these activities took the form of initiation. Which is exactly what chicken-hawking is all about: satisfying various urges by the adult homosexual for young sex partners, while recruiting new members into a lifestyle that cannot naturally reproduce.
This causes enormous psychological and psycho-social damage to the victim, especially when it involves betrayal by a trusted semi-parental figure, like a priest.
No. 2
This kind of contact leads to life-long confusion about sexual roles and orientation, especially since the victims are at a time in their life when they are trying to establish their sexual identity.
That is why so many of these victims are not exactly your leading citizens. They tend to be from broken homes, or in homes where various social pathologies are playing out. Often the priest is contacted and asked to take the boy "under his wings" a la Bing Crosby or Spencer Tracy. And if the priest is a homosexual with an entirely different agenda, then the path to enormous damage and enormous legal claims is wide open. Some never establish themselves again in life. While it may be too much to claim that they were not "dented cans" before the homosexual priest buggered them, in fact, the Church in the various settlements is accepting them as people who would all be major league baseball players, doctors, nurses, and investment bankers, but for the pervert priest abuse.
Given the 85% figure (again that of all the sexual abuse that has been revealed in the last 3+ years, 85% was perpetrated by male priests on boys between 12 and 18: not nuns on girls, though there was some of that, or nuns on boys, though there were a couple of instances of that, or priests on teenage girls, though there were a few instances of that) representing the vast majority of these sex abouse cases, one has to come to the conclusion that, but for those 85% of cases, we would be talking about something very different.
Without the 85%, there would be a handful of instances of priest/religious predation. While there might be disturbing headlines and settlements in the (total) $10 million dollar range, the nature of the problem would be entirely different. We would have an annoying and disturbing set of circumstances. But it would have been easily dealt with. There would be no total settlement cost approaching 1 billion dollars. We would not have seen people staying away from Mass in droves. We would not see so many wallets slammed tight against the Church. We would not see the pressing need to shutter so many churches so quickly, so that the diocesan structures can pay the setlement costs and their regular expenses.
No. 3
Given the 85% figure, the nature of the crisis becomes obvious. It is not a pedophile priest crisis. If it were, there would be more cases of priests going after toddlers. But there are not. It is a gay priest crisis.
Now, lets run some numbers. Eighty-five percent of the abuse was done by male priests to teenage boys. Of the men currently in the priesthood, surveys taken by Father Sipe and others indicate that up to 1/3 of the total priesthood self-identifies as gay. Among religious priests, priests in orders, that percentage may climb to nearly one half.
There are many reasons for this. The priesthood, like the "helping professions" generally are natural magnets for closeted homosexuals. They can feel useful by "helping" others while getting some prestige at the same time. Moreover, many men in a certain age cadre that now dominates the ranks of US bishops actively sought out places in the priesthood in the mid-late 1960s in order to avoid military service during the Vietnam War. And a disproportionate number of these genteel draft-dodgers were homosexuals. And finally, the priesthood offered a chance for men who were confused about their sexual orientation to hide out, to not have to deal with women except superficially, to be safely closeted and respected. And the vow to never touch a woman was no burden.
So we are now reaping the whirlwind. The seeds were sown back in the 1950s and 1960s as seminaries, in order to keep numbers high, looked the other way and did not enquire very deeply about the sexual orientation of the candidates for priesthood.
Now, whatever the historic realities, the Church has always stood against homosexual acts. In fact, sodomy is one of the four sins crying out to heaven for vengeance. In the pontificate of Pope John XXIII, one of the Vatican dicasteries issued a letter addressed to the bishops of the US instructing them to not ordain homosexual men, because it was considered imprudent to have homosexual men in a situation in which they would be in contact with young boys on a disproportionate basis.
But the letter did not address the religious orders. And moreover, the letter was ignored by the bishops, A) because Vatican II happened a few years later, and all the remnants of "old church" were swept aside in the spirit that all we would ever need would be the "spirit of Vatican II" to take care of things. The letter was among the things ignored. B) it was ignored because it lacked the signature of the Pope. It had only a Vatican cardinal's signature.
No. 4
If 85% of the sex abuse is by homosexual priests on young boys, and gay men make up a third of the priesthood, there are some sober realities that that information requires.
First is a reluctant conclusion that this is a gay problem.
When the Boy Scouts were battered by numerous lawsuits because various homosexual adult scoutmasters abused teenage boys, they came to the conclusion that, to survive as an institution, they needed to ban homosexual men from acting as scoutmasters. This has led to the Boy Scouts being the focus for hatred and retaliation by the highly organized and affluent homosexual lobby. But nevertheless, if you have an organization in which young boys are exposed to adult men, if you want the organization to survive, you need to preemptively assure that the adult men entrusted witht he care of the boys are not inclined to sexually abouse them.
Unfortunately, since homosexual men are disproportionately inclined to sexual contact with teenage boys, the only way to insure that homosexual men do not prey on teenage boys while under the aegis of the organization, is to bar homosexual males from positions in which they have unlimited and unsupervised access to teenage boys.
Since you can't make homosexual men priests and then limit their ministry unnaturally (Father X can't be parish Youth Minister, Father Z can't visit the school unless Sister Superior promises to not leave his side for a second, Father Y has to be watched when couching the softball game at the parish picnic), it is better to not make them priests at all.
In fact, I accept that homosexual men, men inclined to an act that is "objectively disordered" cannot be validly called to the priesthood. They have a vocation, in whatever trade or industry they can make a go of it. They have a deeper vocation to overcome the unnatural urges that heredity or acculturization has saddled upon them. Given that they have such a struggle to overcome, and that the presence of teenage boys would be a constant temptation for them, they ought not, in Christian charity, be placed in a position which makes the tempation worse.
No. 5
There is a deeper reason for prospectively barring homosexual men from entry into the priesthood. That is the issue of role models.
In a society in which homosexuality is chic, hip, trendy, where many TV shows are suggesting that homosexuality is not just OK, but cool, where many many young people are being tempted to "experiment" with homosexual activity, where truly evil organizations like NAMBLA (which Father Shanley, one of Boston's most notorious pervert priests, was present to give his blessing to when it was founded) are promoting such experimentation in order to keep a supply of fresh young flesh for its members, society needs stable mature, manly men who are not afflicted with effeminacy and "objectively disordered" inclinations to counteract all these influences.
Bing Crosby and Spencer Tracy became iconic "priest" role models because they were manly, not effeminate. Because they were mature, not sexually immature, because they were normal men, not flamers. Unfortunately, the success of their movies led the general public, including the church-going or at least socially Catholic population to believe that all priests were like them, that all could be relied on to act as substitute fathers for troubled boys. That all would take the boys out to baseball games and on camping trips in perfect chaste safety.
Why shouldn't the Catholic priesthood, whose members stand as Alter Christus when on the altar, contain only men who are, in fact, good role models for young people? Do we want to further promote homosexuality, joining the Church's voice to the chorus coming from society that says, "it's not just Ok to be queer, but hip."
Should not the entire priesthood reflect the unchanging view of Holy Mother the Church about what is normative behaviour, and what is not?
The argument that homosexuals ought to be treated like people from different races who were discriminated against in the past does not bear scrutiny. First of all, race cannot be changed. It is the way people are. There is much evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. But it takes a lot of work. People may dispute this, but there are folks out there who claim to be "ex-homosexuals." There are no "ex-blacks" outside Michael Jackson's family.
Besides race is mostly pigmentation. Sexual orientation is behaviour. The defining thing about homosexuality is gay sex. The Gay Culture does not consider a person with homosexual urges who consistently refuses to act on them gay. For them, unless they want to swell their numbers for statistical purposes, people are gay if they engage in gay sex.
Then there is the obvious comparison with women. Women have been discriminated against historically. They are being denied ordination now. Ought they not be ordained to make the priesthood truly equal opportunity and fair?
No. Women cannot be priests. There is no record that Jesus included any women among the Apostles. The priesthood belongs exclusively to men, because Christ Himself so ordained. Likewise, there is no evidence that any of the Apostles were gay. Is it too much to say that the lack of overtly gay Apostles argues for a non-gay priesthood? I think not.
No. 6
And finally, there is the liability issue. If gays make up a disproportionate percentage of the priesthood, and also a disproportionate percentage of the ranks of sexually abusive priests, they raise a disproportionate amount of liability that needlessly jeopordizes the existence and health of the Church.
In an age where over a billion dollars has or will soon be siphoned from the limited wealth of the Church here in the US, where so many young people depend on close relations with the Church and its personnel for moral and daily guidance, we cannot afford to maintain gay men in the priesthood. The risk is too great.
A billion dollars is a lot of money for an institution that runs on a shoestring. If we take more hits like this, there will be no Catholic Church left in the US. Every single church building, school, rectory, convent, monastery, seminary, hermitage, chancery, oratory, shrine, and chapel will be sold off to line the pockets of plaintiff's lawyers.
The unique psychological damage done by homosexual predation, which is much worse than the damage done by heterosexual predation (would anyone claim that a 16 year old boy who was "abused" by a 26 year old nun is really "damaged," or a 17-year old girl "abused" by a 28 year old priest: no, absent coercion, there is not damage in these instances, as they are just nature taking its course--but they are sinful), makes it imperative to bar homosexuals from positions of authority in the Church.
If we allow gay men to stay in the priesthood, to continue to form a dominate group within the priesthood, we will take that hit.
And it is feasible to implement, given the batteries of psychological testing and profiling candidates for the priesthood have to go through. All you have to do is re-adjust the perameters of the testing to screen out homosexuals. There is a lot more to it than just checking off the "heterosexual" box on the questionairre.
Moreover, our young boys, who will one day make up our cadre of priests, deserve to be able to come to priests for questions and guidance, for confession and instruction without fear of homosexual rape. By putting men with questionable sexual orientations in positions in which they had unrestricted and unsupervised contact with just the thing many, if not most, homosexual men are most tempted by (teenage boys), the Church did those boys, and the priests a disservice. The nature of the priesthood requires that contact to be effective.
Therefore, if the Church is to survive, it cannot allow homosexuals to make up such a huge percentage of the priesthood.
As far as possible, the Church must do what it can to protect the teenagers from potentially predatory adults, while counselling those adults to seek conversion. It will not have done all it can do, until it prospectively bars homosexual men from the priesthood. It may seem harsh, but it is necessary.
One last thing, is that this ban is required to reverse the current trend towards a very feminine Church. At the vast majority of parishes, the personnel that makes the parish tick is disproportionately female already. A manly influence from non-effeminate priests is needed to counteract this influence, or church-going will become a "women" thing.
And with a third of all priests now homosexual, when homosexuals make up, at most 5% of the total population there is a disproportion that must be redressed. The heavy homosexual influence in the priesthood is not healthy, and must be redressed. In fact, any homosexual presence in the priesthood is not healthy, and should be eliminated, over time.
We have the means. Most Catholics who know the fact and have reflected upon the statistics, have the will. It must be done for the future of the Church. It is the right thing to do. Let's get it done now, while Pope Benedict is healthy and in command of the situation. Let's not wait for the next crisis to make it even more imperative. Because by then, a personality who understands the problem may not be in charge.
I disagree with this rather long argument because of it conflates terms, gay as orientation and gay as action. It is unfair to tell someone that they are barred from service in the priesthood because some other abused it. The call to chastity and strength should be emphasized in an open church, not in a church resembling a witch hunt which undertakes the assumption that all gay men are too out of control to be trusted. AI- perhaps you could elaborate on your point of the need for greater chastity and the need to root out those with serious criminal disorders, not the need to root out all those with differing orientations. The church is stronger for those who overcome the tendencies, rather than give up the struggle. The greater glory of God exists in the nobility of victory, not the laziness and easy way out of defeat in the face of temptation.
Methinks this blog is much more American than Inquisitorial... Such a shame...
Post a Comment
<< Home