Catholic Sensibility

A frequent visitor brought my attention to a fellow blogger's essay and I couldn't resist having a go. Most of the commentary (in the Cincinnati Enquirer) has been negative, with one essay, written by a Catholic school teacher, mocking the instruction as an "absurd 'final solution.'" Having read the document as well as the pre-release build-up, it might well be that the hierarchy has opened itself up to being mocked. Not being a Cincinati resident, I didn't read the essay in question. But it is true that the Vatican leaked various "final solutions" before promulgating a document. The final result changes little on the seminary and clerical landscape. Bishops, seminary rectors, and diocesan vocations personnel now have an excuse if they want to stonewall a homosexual candidate. They also have the leeway to admit a homosexual who is not sexually active. At worst, it gives the people who make the call some leverage with homosexual candidates they don't like. A person could be led along, make commitments, then be bounced for no other reason than being disliked. Being a homosexual is a convenient excuse for the powers-that-be. This strikes me as patently unjust. The Vatican would have done better to address sexual activity as a concern for incoming seminarians and priests. Instead, it appears as if the CDWDS bent to the prevailing winds of scapegoating. If I understand the critics correctly, they take umbrage to the notion that the Vatican has equated pedophilia with homosexuality. But as both the exhaustive John Jay Report and the New York Times study have shown, the overwhelming majority of the cases involve victims who were teenage boys and young men; pedophilia involves prepubescent children. Rich plays patty-cake with statistics. Approximately twenty percent of reported under-age victims were female, and another twenty percent were pre-pubescent. Some were both, however. While an election with a three-to-one swing might be considered an overwhelming majority, ignoring thousands of abused boys, girls, and adolescent females (not to mention adult women sex partners) does not contribute to an overwhelming solution for sexual acting out, not in my book. The number of pre-pubescent victims alone is a scandal that cannot be blamed on homosexuals. The distinction is an important one. Unless we know who did what to whom, it will be impossible to prevent future scandals.

A sensible thought. We'd all like to know the sexual activity of priests with adults. The Jay study didn't touch womanizers or sexually active gay priests. As long as we content ourselves with the warm fuzzy that our kids are safe from gay priests, it will indeed be more difficult to prevent future abuse.

There is also the mistaken impression that the Vatican has instituted a vast departure from previous policies. Pope John XXIII - a favorite of progressives - strongly discouraged the ordination of homosexuals in 1961, and the Congregation for Divine Worship under Pope John Paul II reaffirmed that teaching in 2002 by stating, "[a] homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency, is not fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders." The new instruction incorporates this latter pronouncement.

I have no such misconception, nor do most thinking progressives. As these prudential opinions are not binding, Catholics are free to disagree. As for my own position, I've stated many times that going after homosexuals who shouldn't be priests is about as effective as targetting priests and priest-candidates whose names start with the letter S or J or something. Yes, you will eject people from the clergy who shouldn't be there. In that sense, you can clap yourself on the back and say, "Job well done." But your job wouldn't be over.

So why did the Vatican believe a restatement was needed? In part, it has to do with the scandals. But American Catholics constitute a mere 6 percent of the worldwide Catholic population. Although the world may dance to our tune on foreign policy, in ecclesial matters we carry far less clout.

Rich seems to labor under the misconception that sex abuse is solely an American problem. Maybe he needs to get around the world more. Sex abuse is, at its core, an addiction of power. Not every abuser has genital sex with a victim. Many cases have been uncovered that involved voyeurism, masturbation, masochism or other fetishes. So long as the priesthood is connected with power and privilege above service and humility, it will attract abusers.

For far too long, priestly formation has been influenced by the prevailing cultural zeitgeist, which these days is reflective of self-assertion and narcissism in all matters, sexuality included.

And from previous generations, we still have self-assertion and narcissism as expressed by big homes, servants, cars, travel, food, drink, and other indulgences. These were often willingly given to clergy by lay people in gratitude. But it is also true that many priests and bishops came to expect such perks, much as any other American aristocrat might.

In the wake of the church's latest instruction, many self-identified "gay priests" took to the airwaves to denounce it. Suffice it to say that a man who feels compelled to do such a thing on national television is putting the zeitgeist, not Christ, at the center of his identity. That is what the instruction sought to correct.

Not necessarily. Protesting does not always imply people have their priorities askew. Priests with undeniably fruitful and healthy ministries come forward and their witness cannot be denied. Clearly they give lie to the CDWDS/John XXIII notion that homosexuals are unfit for ordination.

It's fairly clear that the incidence of abuse by clergy has dropped as greater awareness has come to bear upon child abuse and the misconduct of sexual predators. We can probably say with conviction that seminary screening practices in place since Vatican II have improved the situation, rather than contributed to any decline.

If Rich is sure that the overwhelming blame can be placed at the feet of homosexual clergy, then we have to conclude that active gays in the priesthood predate Vatican II and the sexual revolution. And that might well be a tough pill for some conservative Catholics to swallow. The scapegoat game is so much easier and carries its own self-centered satisfaction.

Sexual predators are not shaking in their cassocks. Part of the profile of an abuser is to be an effective and plausible liar. How else could some of these perpetrators seduce so many children and teens? And often not just kids, but parents, teachers, and colleagues as well?

The Vatican instruction on gays in the seminary should not be taken for what it can't deliver: a renewal of virtue, service, and holiness in the priesthood. That problem remains on the table. Few people seem to want to have a go at it.