The Vatican acts glacially, but it seems clear to me the direction that it may well now go. This story in the Catholic News Service is a sign of the coming purge of gay people from the priesthood and the Church itself. First, a subtle change was introduced into the Catechism. As CNS notes,
[t]he wording in the catechism that describes the homosexual inclination as “objectively disordered” was added when the definitive Latin text of the catechism was released in 1997. Earlier editions of the catechism said homosexual acts were intrinsically disordered and said homosexual tendencies represented a trial for most people.
This is the difference between saying that some people can do immoral things and saying that some people, because of whom they love, are morally sick in themselves. It’s a subtle move but a critical one as part of the process of undoing the progressive stand of the Church in the 1970s and 1980s in defending the dignity of homosexual persons. A while ago, surveying the tensions in Catholic teaching between an abhorrence of any gay sexuality and a defense of gay people as human beings, I posited two directions the Church could take. It could reverse itself away from a respect for homosexual persons, call them irredeemably sick, and purge them from the priesthood and the pews, or it could go further and integrate gay Catholics and their sexuality into Church teaching. The latter was always a very long shot; but the recent scandals in the Church has given some the opportunity to take the more obvious route. If and when this new policy is formalized, many of us Catholics will therefore face an excruciating choice: do we stay or do we leave? Can we actually attend a Church that has gone from tentative outreach to gay people to a formal theological position that describes them as sick? Can we in good conscience attend a church that blithely ignored the abuse of children, but cannot tolerate even a chaste and holy priest who also happens to be gay, a Church that keeps Cardinal Law in office but would have prevented someone like Father Mychal Judge from being the priest he was? Some will dismiss this as a minor issue. I don’t think so. When a church scapegoats a group of people for its own moral lapses, when it describes, as totalitarian regimes do, a person’s love as a sickness, when it purges priests regardless of their abilities, then it seems to me the entire moral credibility of the institution is at stake.
CHICKENING IN: I think in his heart of hearts that Tom Friedman has a grudging respect for the Bush administration. Apart from Bill Safire, he’s the only Times columnist who doesn’t actively hate the president. But perhaps because of his audience or bosses or habit, Friedman’s always veering just this side of agreeing with the White House. This morning’s argument is a classic. Friedman gets the game of chicken that Bush is playing with Saddam. It rests on a very basic principle: only if Saddam actually believes that an invasion is imminent will he agree to disarm; and only if an invasion is imminent will he believe the threat. This bluff requires that Saddam truly believes Bush will invade Iraq, if he absolutely, positively can, and that this isn’t some elaborate game in order for the U.S. to avoid war. That’s where Friedman doesn’t get it. It’s precisely Bush’s cowboy image – the perception that he may just invade anyway – that alone can bring about a peaceful solution. And it’s because part of that image is actually genuine that the gambit can work. (That’s why Clinton never stood a chance of disarming Iraq or deposing Saddam. Everyone knew Clinton wasn’t a cowboy or could be talked out of any military course of action if needs be.) Bush is different, and the more his opponents portray him as a reckless, terroristic Caesar-wanna-be, the more they will be strengthening his hand. Like Reagan versus the Soviets, it often helps to have the enemy afraid of the president. The sterling consistency of Bush, and the tough talk of his aides, is therefore paradoxically our best insurance against war. So far, with a new sheriff behaving firmly but also aggressively, we’ve had more movement from Saddam than in years. Now let’s ratchet the pressure up some more, shall we? How about it, Mr Daschle?
PAGING ORWELL I: Delegates at an anti-racism conference in Barbados have just decided to expel all non-blacks from certain discussions. (I mentioned they were considering it last week.) It is a fact that many organizations now devoted to “anti-racism” are themselves racist. But it’s rare you get such a clear-cut case. Enjoy.
PAGING ORWELL II: As I write, the Hitch book on Orwell is ranked # 3 on Amazon. I’m really glad that so many of you are going to get a read of this book. And I hope you’ll be following the discussion and taking part later this month. If you still haven’t ordered the book, click here. Thanks again.
SELF-ESTEEM: The case against, posted opposite.
DERBYSHIRE AWARD NOMINEE:“It’s an election year. Turn the bums out. Stir the pot. Make political history. Cause a revolution. Don’t do it because the Republicans represent a great alternative – because they don’t. Do it because the Democrats – far too many of them – are evil, pure and simple. They have no redeeming social value. They are outright traitors themselves or apologists for treasonous behavior. They are enemies of the American people and the American way of life.” – Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily. (For a brief explanation of our various awards, click here.)
DASCHLE’S OPPORTUNISM: I’m grateful to a reader for directing me to Tim Russert’s dissection of Tom Daschle last weekend. What Russert did was confront Daschle with his rationale for supporting the threat of military force against Saddam in 1998:
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I think that we often cite the ’98 resolution as our precedent for this action. That’s exactly what we did in the ’98 resolution. We tied it down to the use of force. We weren’t as broad as this resolution now implies, and so I think that it’s appropriate to go back to that precedent and to work with the administration to ensure that that’s their understanding, as well as ours.
MR. RUSSERT: You raised the ’98 resolution. There was a resolution back in January of ’98, which you know well and I’ll put it on the screen. These were the words: “Resolved by the Senate…That Congress…urges the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs…” And you’ll see that’s one Tom Daschle from January 28. But you also went on, Senator-and this is quite striking. These are words you uttered in February of 1998
. And let me show you and our viewers. You were talking about the Clinton administration: “The administration has said, ‘Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.” The Bush White House will suggest that you were trying to give President Clinton more support when he was taking on Saddam Hussein in 1998 than you’re willing to give a Republican president in the year 2002.
Nice work, Tim. Daschle had no credible response to this. He still doesn’t have one. So he’ll give in, once it seems in his direct political interest to do so. Trust these guys with national security? You’ve got to be kidding.
The Dish 