Year: 2005

He basically agrees with me about the current document and its impact. And he should know, since there are very few people in America as close to the current Pope as Neuhaus:

There are priests and bishops who are afflicted by same-sex attraction, and it is by now no secret that some have acted upon that attraction. Those who are afflicted but have been chastely celibate protest that the instruction cannot possibly mean that, were they candidates for ordination today, they should be refused. But that is precisely what the instruction seems to say.

That does not mean they cannot continue as good and faithful priests. Most certainly it does not in any way throw into question the validity of their priesthood and therefore the validity of the sacraments they administer. But it would seem to mean that they should not have been ordained in the first place, and those with a similar lack of ‘affective maturity’ should not be ordained in the future.

So priests who should not have been ordained should nevertheless stay as priests. Go figure. Notice also the following somewhat hysterical point made by the spokesman for the Pontifical Council for the Family:

At the same time, he said, the church affirms the validity of the ordination of its priests, including those who may have homosexual tendencies. While such priests may need special support, he said, the Catholic Church is committed to ensuring that they are not attacked and do not become the objects of gossip. “One vigorously must oppose denunciations and all forms of suspicion and innuendo which could attack the personal dignity of ordained ministers,” he said.

Smear all gays as a threat to priestly life; but keep up the closet for the thousands of gay priests who are still functioning. That sounds like an institution with “affective maturity,” doesn’t it? In practice, the only gay priests who will make it through the screening process in future will be those who have so thoroughly repressed their homosexuality that they are barely aware of it, and will seek in the newly butched-up clergy a way to live lives of self-deception. Eventually, of course, like those screwed up homosexuals ordained in the 1950s and 1960s, they may well go on to act out on their stunted sexual and emotional development, and abuse minors and children. But self-aware, well-adjusted, openly gay men who vow celibacy will be excluded. This will compound the problem of child abuse, not resolve it. It will preserve the self-loathing, clericalism and repression of dialogue that made the abuse possible in the first place.

There has been some discussion in the blogosphere about the recent Vatican document and accompanying glosses about gays in the priesthood. Among the more lucid are those from Eve Tushnet and Ross Douthat. I think it would be helpful to point out a couple of things. The first is that this is demonstrably a ban on all gay priests and seminarians, regardless of their commitment to celibacy, and is expected to be rigorously enforced. The only exception is for those “with homosexual tendencies that might only be a manifestation of a transitory problem, as, for example, delayed adolescence.” Translation: if you’re straight and had some fleeting same-sex desires in adolescence, and have not felt them for at least three years before the diaconate, you’re ok. Anyone with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” is not. If you are not clear what “deep-seated hommosexual tendencies” means, this statement from L’Osservatore Romano should remove all doubt:

“Candidates who have ‘deep-seated homosexual tendencies,’ that is, an exclusive attraction to persons of the same sex – independently of whether or not they have had erotic experiences – cannot be admitted to the seminary or to holy orders.”

In other words, even celibate gay men – gay men who have adhered to the Church’s teachings never to masturbate or have any sexual intimacy for their entire lives – are unfit for the priesthood. It no longer matters what gay priests – or gay men, for that matter – do. What matters is who they are. And who they are is a threat to the family and destabilizing to society.

THIS IS A CHANGE: There is also no doubt that this is a shift in the Church’s teachings about homosexuality. What the Church is now categorically saying is that there is something inherently sick about homosexuality, regardless of how it is expressed, that renders gays unfit for serving God. Again, the Church backs this doctrine up. Where once homosexuality was a “condition” and the Church could speak of “homosexual persons,” now there are merely “tendencies” and thr phrase “homosexual person” is not used. It says that homosexuality itself is a “problem in the psychic organization,” i.e. a psychological disorder – despite the fact that no respectable psychological organization concurs. The spokesperson for the Pontifical Council for the Family goes further:

“One must free oneself from the idea that leads one to believe that, insofar as a homosexual person respects his commitment to continence lived in chastity, there will not be problems and he can therefore be ordained a priest… [A] commitment in holy orders presupposes that the candidate has attained a sufficient affective and sexual maturity coherent with his masculine sexual identity.”

This is all lifted from pseudo-Freudian psychology last taken seriously in the 1960s. (Yes, Freud, the man who believed all religion was bunk, but, hey, you’ve got to find the arguments where you can.)

‘REAL MEN’ AND PRIESTS: The Church is arguing that heterosexual “masculine” “maturity” is a normative good and integral to the priesthood. Again, in the spokesman’s words:

“[A priest] must, in principle, be suitable for marriage and able to exercise fatherhood over his children. And it is under those mature conditions that he renounces exercising them in order to give himself to God in the priesthood,” the monsignor wrote. Msgr. Anatrella repeatedly affirmed the need for a priest to be heterosexual in order to see himself and for others to see him as the “bridegroom of the church” and as a “spiritual father” to those to whom he is ministering. “A homosexual person would have difficulty incarnating this symbolic reality of the spousal bond and spiritual paternity,” he said.

What this means is a real shift away from what Eve Tushnet rightly respects as a distinction between identity and acts, toward a conflation of the two and the designation of gay people as inherently defective as moral beings, because of their intrinsic violation of heterosexual normativity. Again, this is very far from the previous language of the Church on this matter. The Vatican once informed us in official documents in 1975 and 1986, that homosexual persons were “made in the image and likeness of God.” The condition of homosexuality was, for many, “innate,” and not in itself a sin. Gay people were “often generous and giving of themselves,” and the notion that gays could not lead celibate lives was an “unfounded and demeaning assumption.” Now, all the emphasis is on psychic disorder, social incapacity, and an inability to relate to men and women. Some want to argue that by saying that “homosexuality” has no “social value” and no “moral virtue,” the hierarchy is not condemning all gay lives, in so far as they are gay, as worthless and without moral standing. But it is very hard in the context of this document to see how. There was once a small and narrow space within which gay Catholics could live lives of dignity and self-respect. Benedict has deliberately removed all oxygen from that space. Moreover, you might expect that the document, aware of the immense pain and injury it would inflict upon gay Catholics and gay people everywhere, would somehow address this, reach out, present a positive future for gay people, or, at least, pay deference to the great work that gay clergy have played in the past. But that is not the case, as even Ross concedes. This Pope is uninterested in reaching out; he is interested in casting out.

WHERE GAY PRIESTS NOW ARE: Of course, if all this is to be taken seriously (and I cannot go along with the cynicism of those who pretend it doesn’t matter), it forces us to a very important question. Why is the Church permitting currently gay priests to continue in their ministry? If they cannot relate to men and women, as the Church claims, if their celibacy does not mitigate their psychological sickness, if they have –

trouble relating to their fathers; are uncomfortable with their own identity; tend to isolate themselves; have difficulty in discussing sexual questions; view pornography on the Internet; demonstrate a deep sense of guilt; or often see themselves as victims

– then why are they allowed to continue in the priesthood at all? Why ban seminarians but not priests? Already, we have signs that a gradual purge along these lines will begin. And so, by the logic of the demonization of homosexuals, it should. If gay men should never have been ordained in the first place, why should they be allowed to remain? My own heart goes out to those men who have lived up to their vows, been wonderful priests, and are now told that, in so far as they are gay, they have no social value, no moral virtue and thaht if they had not already been ordained, they would no longer be. What are they supposed to do? I’d say they have a moral obligation to tell their parishioners who they are, to debunk the prejudices and smears foisted upon them by the (often closeted) hierarchy, and let the chips fall where they may. Bigotry is wrong; condemning a whole group of society is wrong; demeaning their service is wrong; perpetuating unsubstantiated libels and pseudo-pop-psychology is wrong. It is incumbent on straight Catholics as well as gay ones to say this out loud. The principles here are fairness and compassion. Defending them is def
ending the Church itself.

A gay Catholic grad student at Notre Dame writes the following:

I apologize if my own anger and pain about the document detract from the larger points I attempt to make, but this instruction feels like a truly personal attack.

Always bear in mind that when God surveyed his creation he deemed it good. Not perfect, good. As creatures we must recognize the value of other despite any deficiencies. Let us not lose sight of the dire consequences this document will likely have. None of its effects have only theoretical ramifications. It harms the flesh and bones of Christ’s Mystical Body, gay and straight, lay and ordained.

This document fundamentally renders the Catholic Church less catholic, less compassionate, and less Christian. Furthermore, it will exacerbate the priest shortage at a time when so many Catholics lack the nourishment provided by a communal celebration of the Eucharist. It alienates not only gay and lesbian Catholics but their loved ones as well – who have perhaps struggled but succeeded in accepting their homosexual loved one as a good person in whom the Spirit is active.
As a gay Catholic I find it difficult to conceive a place for myself that maintains any semblance of intellectual, spiritual or emotional integrity; I see a dismissal of my ability to achieve a humane communion with my fellow persons and with Christ. The Vatican has now further marginalized an already marginalized group by pandering to people’s worst fears and stereotypes. This document amounts to a predation upon those men with whom I share a unique emotional commiseration and who thus speak more effectively to my particular spiritual struggle. It attempts to amputate part of the Mystical Body.
We cannot pass this position off as a ‘hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner’ exhortation otherwise a commitment to celibacy would suffice. The equation of predilection to actual act has dangerous implications for all Catholics. The inclination to sin, common to all humans and part of our imperfection, should never be squared with sin itself lest we abandon the hope for living in a Christ-like way by overcoming the inclination to sin to instead act with love and justice.

What those who condemn homosexuality fail to realize is that it is not only or even primarily about sex, just as heterosexual attraction is not primarily about the act. A non-normative attraction does not constitute an ‘affective immaturity’ that precludes normal relational interactions. In fact, in my experience and the experience of every other gay person I know, the stifling of our sexuality through denial, self-loathing, an attempt to enter straight relationships, or a spiritually unsatisfying celibacy causes much more dysfunction in relationships of all types than does admitted homosexuality. The ‘trial’ of homosexuality comes from the fear of reprobation or the actual rejection of others, to which the Church now contributes under the pretext of stabilizing the priesthood. Once we come to terms with our own sexuality and remember that we are still children of God, we can begin to see ourselves as God does: good, imperfect but unquestionably good.

I think that is what is so immensely painful about this latest attack on some of God’s children. It is an attempt to conflate a sin with an identity. That is a profound attack on the Body of Christ. From the Vatican itself.

“President Bush has articulated his policy vision more consistently and more eloquently than any President since Lincoln,” – John Hinderaker, Powerline.

An emailer makes a challenging point:

When I read the Derbyshire bit on your blog today, I was thinking about his negative view on homosexuality: if he thinks that who one desires is not a matter of choice (as he implies by saying it is an ‘unfair’ truth that men really only want 15-20 year olds), then how can he possibly justify marginalization of gay relationships?

I did a Google search to see if he thought homosexuality was inborn, and it turns out he does. That does not, however, mean that gays shouldn’t be marginalized, according to him. Homosexuality is a ‘social negative,’ he says. In fact, it would be better for everyone, he thinks, if they marginalized themselves. He says,

“Tolerance is not approval; and while I do not agree with the pope that homosexuals are called to chastity, I do think that they are called to restraint, discretion, reticence, and a decent respect for the opinions of the majority. I certainly do not think that they ought to be allowed to transform long-established institutions like marriage on grounds of ‘fairness.’ Nor do I think they should be allowed to advertise their preference to high-school students, as they do in some parts of this country. Nor should they be strutting about boasting of ‘pride.’ (How can you feel pride in something you believe you can’t help?)”

Seems to me that freely and publicly admitting pedophilic tendencies (and lusting after 15-year-olds still counts – at least, adults sleeping with 15-year-olds is illegal, and most people are agreed that it’s illegal for good reason) is advertising a preference of a far greater social negative. I’m sure many, or some, high school students read NRO. And if he’s not strutting about boasting, he’s certainly saying it with a ‘wink-wink, come on guys, you know I’m the only one who’s brave enough to say what we’re all thinking’ kind of bravado. If he thinks gays should exhibit restraint, discretion, etc., my goodness, by his own reasoning, why shouldn’t he?

Good question, I’d say.

The genius of the South Park writers is that their glorious parodies are so often too close to reality. Gay cowboys with chocolate pudding? Coming up … And then there was that amazing scene from last year’s best movie-comedy, “Team America.” It was a parody of the dreadful musical, “Rent,” called “Lease!” One of the show-stoppers was a big musical number called, “Everyone Has Aids!” My favorite lyric: “C’mon, everybody, we got quiltin’ to do!” And then in this morning’s NYT, we got a full-page pull-out with the slogan: “WE ALL HAVE AIDS” (Funny, even I don’t have AIDS. I was unaware that Will Smith, Tom Hanks and Bishop Tutu did, but I hope they’re doing well on their meds). Glamor Vanity Fair-style pics of the usual AIDS groupies and hangers-on. But this time: with no shoes on! You can get your “WE ALL HAVE AIDS” t-shirts here. Available at Barney’s. Where else?

A reader clues me in:

Methinks Derb comes to his conclusion about female boobies by drawing on his personal biases only. Some straight men – me for instance – really have a thing for M.I.L.F.’s. If you are unfamiliar with the term, it is an acronym for “Mom I’d Like to Fuck,” popularized in the 1999 movie “American Pie.” In my opinion, a proper MILF need not be a mother per se, but no one under 36 need apply. Yes, a true MILF will still retain some youthful qualities – enough so that the Maxim “reading” demographic will still be able to exclaim “I’d hit it.” At the same time, there is a maturity of mind and body that is rare in 20-somethings and entirely lacking in the teeny-bopper crowd. Typically, a woman stops being a MILF after she reaches menopause, at which point she may very well graduate to GILF status in the eyes of some men. For an example of a classic MILF, I refer you to Patricia Clarkson, who recently appeared in Good Night, and Good Luck.

I’m grateful for the enlightenment. Not all straight men lust after barely legal teens, as Derb does. Speaking of which, this is aparently the only picture taken on Derb’s wedding day. (Hat tip: Yglesias.)

The cover-letter accompanying the Vatican’s ban on all gay seminarians has some added detail. The policy is to be stringently enforced; and celibate gay priests are also to be barred from any teaching role in seminaries. Again, what matters is not how good a teacher or theologican they are; not whether they abide by their vows to celibacy; what matters is that they are gay. That is now itself a bar. Tell me how this isn’t unvarnished discrimination. To allow gay priests to remain in their orders, and then to treat them as second class priests? Am I the only person gob-smacked by this?

“Even with the strenuous body-hardening exercise routines now compulsory for movie stars, at age 36 the forces of nature have won out over the view-worthiness of the unsupported female bust. It is, in fact, a sad truth about human life that beyond our salad days, very few of us are interesting to look at in the buff. Added to that sadness is the very unfair truth that a woman’s salad days are shorter than a man’s – really, in this precise context, only from about 15 to 20.” – John Derbyshire on why under-age and teenage female boobs are the only ones he finds worth looking at.

South Africa’s post-apartheid Constitution explicitly granted gays and lesbians full rights as citizens. There is no valid citizenship without the right to marry the person you love; and so the global movement toward equality in marriage advances again. Who would have guessed twenty years ago that the land of apartheid would now be ahead of the United States in its support for civil rights and equal protection of laws?