benedict the great, part I

Robert Coleman

When two Catholics are properly married, divorce will be strictly forbidden. Your marriage shall be binding regardless of adultery, indeed, regardless of grave offenses like rape and molestation. Rather, the annulment procedure is followed: for good reason, marriages can be found to have never been effectively entered into. Unlike civil divorce, anullment is retroactive.

If you marry someone you know to be a rapist, chances are that neither party is copping out of that. But the vows are held to be null if, for example, a woman marries a man living a secret double-life as a rapist.

Likewise, when a priest takes a vow of celibacy, that vow is understood to be permanent. If the Vatican refuses to “defrock” a priest, absolving him of his priestly vows, it is not for the purpose of “protecting” him. In fact a priest, like an estranged married couple, can ignore the Church entirely on these matters: a couple can get a civil divorce and remarry in non-Catholic ceremonies; priests can abandon the priesthood. Sometimes priests are even removed from ministry by the Church, and not immediately defrocked. Such was the case with the former Rev. Stephen Kiesle of California (to be discussed in my next blog).

It’s easy to assume that not defrocking a priest who abused children (such as Kiesle) is tantamount to a show of approval, but this misunderstands the nature of the vow.

“Misunderstanding” is about the most charitable way I can bring myself to describe the current sentiment toward Benedict XVI and the Church.

For decades, the Church has been inundated with attacks from within, too numerous to explicate in a single blog: numerous Communists spies ordained as priests, for instance, have been outed over the last several decades; multiple convents have been transformed by rogue nuns, engaging in social and political agendas when they should remain chaste and in perpetually quiet devotion; Catholic charities have been abused by clergy and laity alike, again, in the advancement of political agenda; and Masses have been sullied.

These attacks are not new. For centuries, since the death of Christ, wolves have been infiltrating the Church that we Catholics believe was built on the rock of Peter by Christ himself. In 2000 years, that rock has not moved. But on many occasions, its been covered by mud, moss and filth, even, defiled by passers-by. Still, she sits unmoved by the slings, arrows and trappings of the age.

Over the last several decades, the seminaries, too, have been in a state of rot and decay. In addition to ordaining priests who, too often, twist theological precepts into conformity with politics and modernity—watering down the sacraments, liberalizing doctrinal teaching—the seminaries have widened their doors to gay men.

Let me pause here. Gay men, it will be said, have been unfairly called to attention for the recent sex-abuse scandals. To go right to the point, the only persons to be blamed are the perverse predators whose actions have unfairly defamed Christ’s own priesthood. Well over 90% of the world’s 400,000 priests have been unfairly called into question based on the actions of an exceedingly small percentage of their peers (and that’s a higher percentage than can be claimed of several other professions).

Whether it offends gay men that the Church forbids them from becoming priests is irrelevant. Whether it offends gay men that the Church has determined that their flock is better led—and that Christ’s priesthood is better represented—by celibate heterosexuals is not germane to the problem of, or the solution to clergy sex abuse.

While it is not an insignificant point, that is, while it is point that cannot be recalled enough, that the overwhelming majority of the sex abuse cases involve priests who are actually gay, I do not think the question of whether pedophilia bears a stronger correlation to homosexuality than it does to heterosexuality needs to be dwelled on. In fact, the opposite may well be true.

Or it may simply be that “homosexuality” is a modern construct, heretofore never thought of as an “alternative” lifestyle due to a simple fact: consensual relationships between adult men choosing other men as partners was only one among many kinds of sexual orientation crowding the field since the dawn of human history. In many ancient societies “heterosexual” men had wives, and young male lovers. Would this get them a free subscription to the GLAAD newsletter? No. Ancient man did not need to put on gay pride parades in order to choose alternative lifestyles. A 35 year old male might have had relations with a 14 year old male in some societies. This might have been the norm. Whether it was moral is a different matter.

But wait: are men who are attracted to prepubescent boys heterosexual or homosexual? As a matter of fact, what exactly shall we call men who are sexually aroused by feet, dressing up as animals, soft-core anime porn, robots, or hot air balloons? Maybe two types of “sexual orientation” doesn’t capture the whole field, after all. Maybe this or that being genetic (something we are born with) starts to become a ridiculous and untenable position when we hear that our neighbor actually prefers jellyfish to women or men. Is there a soft core anime pore gene?

Maybe it’s not out of jealous bigotry that Christians hold all forms of non-heterosexual, non-consensual, extra-marital sexual relations to be deviant. What is it to be sexually deviant but to deviate from God’s plan? Indeed, man and woman, married before God is brilliantly simple: in nature, it’s actually what works. Moreover, it is categorically non-hateful, inasmuch as inviting only peanut butter and jelly to a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is truly not intended to offend bologna and anchovies.

Thus, the Church has refused all persons drawn to sexual practices that deviate from God’s plan. The seminaries refused to heed this call. What has occurred is an explosion of sexual abuse by sexual deviants.

Is pedophilia the logical outcome of being gay and celibate? Of course not, and it’s certainly not the logical outcome of simply being celibate (gay or heterosexual) either. This point cannot be emphasized enough: since it is not a lack of sex that causes one to become a sexual deviant, let us disabuse ourselves of this patently absurd notion that the institutional framework of the priesthood (in a word, its celibacy) is the root cause of these sex scandals. The liberal Catholics and non-Catholics know-nothings can drop this idea that allowing priests to marry would have prevented the whole problem. (“Liberal Catholic.” That’s much like saying…. “Agnostic Catholic.”)

Patently absurd, yes, and I may further endeavor to declare it grossly offensive to all men, in general. What are we animals? Was St. Paul, then, or St. Augustine or, indeed, Christ himself on the slippery road toward pedophilia? Is one not stark raving mad to suggest that it all comes down to that oppressive vow of celibacy?

But pedophilia is just where we get bogged down: the vast majority of sex abuse cases are not dealing with pedophilia, they are dealing with pederasts. The former is the abuse of prepubescent children (male and female) while the latter is the sexual abuse of young male adolescents. Is there a correlation between being gay and being attracted to males? Well, I think that’s obvious. Is it totally out of the question that a gay man might be attracted to teenage boys (15, 16 or 17)? Ask the Ancient Greeks…

The point is this: while many would like to attack the Church and its institutions (the priesthood, the Papacy), it is most certainly the deviation from the Church’s teachings that have led to the current problems. It’s easy for people who have always hated the Church to claim righteous indignation and make it the target of all their hatred: it is oppressive, abusive of women, dogmatic, outdated, and, now, criminal.

Yet, the longstanding rule that gays may not become priests has done just that: it has stood, long. In 2005, the former prefect of the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith – in a sense, the Catholic Church’s top theologian – was elected Pope Benedict XVI. That same year, Benedict reaffirmed the position that gay men must not be allowed into the seminary. Indeed, Benedict XVI has reaffirmed that the reforms of Vatican II did not liberalize the Church’s teachings. It did not move the rock from its sacred place.

In my next blog, I will address the supposed “cover up” of these scandals.