Category: Old Dish

Judith Klinghoffer makes some interesting points (but I disagree with her on abuse of detainees).

Yes, the season of good will is at our throats once again. This basically sums up my view of the “war on Christmas” debate. The perspective-free purists who object to department stores saying “Merry Christmas” are about as likable as the fish-in-a-barrel-with-an-AK-47 bloviators like Bill O’Reilly. I just wish both groups would find a very small, sound-proof room somewhere, shut the door tight and yell at each other for a while. Then the rest of us can continue to love Christmas or hate it for our own individual reasons. For my part, I pretty much hate it. But I sure as hell don’t mind seeing a creche on public property. I mean, c’mon, ACLU. Get a grip. (Hat tip: Glenn.)

If you want to see where the future of Iraq war politics is, check out Hillary Clinton’s evolution. My take in the Sunday Times.

DOUTHAT CONCEDES: Ross now agrees that the new Vatican policy is a ban on all gay priests, celibate or not, and that this is a “mistake”. But he says he doesn’t “agree with Andrew’s interpretation of the document’s implications.” I’d be grateful if he could spell that difference out. The shift away from the distinction between homosexual acts and homosexual personhood seems very clear when you compare the current document and its quasi-official interpretation in “L’Osservatore Romano.” John Allen reports that many bishops in many countries are simply saying that the instruction doesn’t say what it says. I’m relieved that they will be directly disobeying Benedict’s ban on all gays, but that doesn’t mean the ban doesn’t exist. Allen then quotes a Vatican insider, saying that we’re not supposed to take any of this seriously; and that mature, adjusted gay priests and seminarians will continue to be ordained and serve God. Here’s hoping. I should say, perhaps, that in so far as any new Instruction is genuinely and narrowly aimed at preventing heterophobic networks among gay priests, or seminaries where cliquishness rather than seriousness is the norm, then it is a very good thing. But part of what may have contributed to disturbing sub-cultures in clerical contexts is the kind of closet and secrecy that expresses itself in camp and irony. Take the secrecy away and you can clear the air.

TWO SEMINARIAN CANDIDATES: Let me put that another way. You have two seminary candidates in front of you. One seems uptight, and says he may have had transitory gay feelings a while back, but they’re gone now, or briskly denies any same-sex attraction at all and says he finds gayness repulsive. The other is a young man who clearly tells his superiors that he is indeed gay, but understands the Church’s teachings on sexual expression, and has no more intention of violating his commitment to celibacy than if he were straight. Which one is less likely to act out sexually in self-destructive or immature ways? It seems to me that if the Vatican were really serious about its own doctines about gay sex, it would want many openly gay priests. Those priests would serve as role models of chastity, while also being the least likely to act out from some repressed impulse. They could also help gay Catholic lay people grapple with the Church’s teachings on sexuality. Wouldn’t that be a much healthier situation than the one we have today? And a more Christian one?

An emailer asks why we didn’t deploy torture during the Cold War, when our entire existence was on the brink:

Is there any evidence that torture actually generates a net positive effect for the side doing the torturing? It is easy to spin out scenarios about terrorists with nuclear weapons, etc., but scenarios are not evidence.

Consider the Cold War. Here was a lengthy struggle with a determined and ruthless adversary. Intelligence gathering was a big part of the struggle. Certainly, the risks to both sides were far greater in that struggle than in the current “war on terror.” And clearly torture was used (e.g., against American prisoners of war in Korea and Vietnam). Yet I am unaware of even a single instance from the beginning of the Cold War through the end, where torture generated any valuable information for anyone. I would like to challenge torture proponents to point to even one authenticated example.

By contrast, if you look at the most effective spies on both sides, the ones who did the most damage (or good, depending on your perspective), you will see that they were motivated by two forces: idealism and money. And if you look at the really effective spies, it was mostly idealism. (I’m thinking, for example, of Kim Philby on their side and Oleg Penkovsky on ours).

Now I can’t think of anything better calculated to prevent an idealistic young Arab who might want to cooperate (at the risk of his life and his family’s lives) with our side in this current struggle from doing that than the knowledge that the torture of young Arabs is approved American policy. So what our current policy stance amounts to is weakening or throwing away a method in the gathering of intelligence that has proven in the past to be of enormous value in favor of a method that has proven to be of no value. As Talleyrand once said, that is “worse than a crime; it’s a blunder.”

No, it’s a crime first and a blunder second.

CATHOLICS, DRUNKS, GAYS: An emailer adds a little more nuance to the debate:

Regarding your “translation” posted on Friday that “if you’re straight and had some fleeting same-sex desires in adolescence…you’re ok,” please do not forget the other examples of “transitory” homosexual tendencies given by Cardinal Grocholewski in his interview on Vatican radio:

“For example, some curiosity during adolescence or accidental circumstances in a state of drunkenness, or particular circumstances like someone who was in prison for many years.”

“Accidental circumstances in a state of drunkenness?” So if you’re a repressed alcoholic man who only acts on his same sex desires when drunk, you’re eligible to be a priest, but if you’re a well-adjusted celibate gay man, you’re not? By the way, what on earth does “accidental” mean? You accidentally pulled your dick out and got it sucked by another man? Or accidentally put your mouth on another man’s dick? Or accidentally jerked someone off? What on earth is the Cardinal talking about?

How about “Someone who was in prison for many years??” So if you’re a felon who only got buggered in jail you’re morally superior to a law-abiding openly gay man? Besides making not a lick of sense, the Vatican is resurrecting the most cliched stereotypes imaginable regarding homosexuality. I spent years trying desperately to believe that my sexuality amounted merely to “some curiosity during adolescence,” and found plenty of books in my public library that reassured me that my desires would pass as soon as I reached full adulthood. No doubt all those books were written by straight people.

One day, the Church will get serious about ministering to gay people as they actually are. But we have to get past all this denial and prejudice first.

A fascinating piece in the NYT. Here’s Communist China’s legal definition of “torture”:

The authorities ban only the sort of torture, called kuxing in Chinese, that meets a narrow definition of violent punishment leaving a lasting impact, like scars or disability, Mr. Nowak said. Officials have not done enough to outlaw physical or psychological abuse that does not produce a visible injury, Mr. Nowak said.

Notice that this is more expansive than that proffered by the Bush administration’s John Yoo, who now works at AEI, and who legally defined torture only as something that would lead to imminent death or major organ failure. Of course, China’s torture policies extend to Chinese ‘citizens’ as well as ‘enemy combatants,’ and that’s an important distinction. But what the administration actually allows to be done to other human beings in its custody is now no better, and legally, even worse than Communist China. Here’s the most general kind of torture used by the Chinese government:

He said his investigation showed that such techniques include hooding and blindfolding, beating by fellow prisoners, use of handcuffs and ankle fetters for long periods, exposure to extreme heat or cold, being forced to maintain awkward postures for long periods and the denial of medical treatment. Sleep deprivation, he said, is perhaps the most common violation of what he called international standards of prisoner treatment.

In other words: no different than America’s standards under George W. Bush for military detainees. Just remember that when the Wall Street Journal next editorializes about repression in China, they have already conceded that China doesn’t endorse “anything close” to “torture.”

My other half stumbled across the beagle-mutt below two weeks ago. She was given up to the local animal shelter and was about to be euthanized. He fell in love with her. And so our family now has four members. She’s utterly unlike our other beagle, Dusty. Dusty’s a Snoopy-style beagle. Her usual facial expression consists of something along the lines if: “And your point is …?” – usually after ransacking the garbage, or puking on the couch, or rolling in a dead fish on the beach. Eddy, as we’re calling the new adoptee, just flings her love around, knocking anything and anyone out of the way. I gave in to my DP’s request, because he’s always wanted another dog, and he’s a very shrewd judge of dogs. He was right about this one. Dusty hasn’t been too ornery about her new sister, and her aloofness is softening a little. Anyway, in a pretty depressing time, I thought I’d post something a little cheerier. As I write, the DP is yelling “Drop it!” in the background. What else?

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “AIDS has become a huge industry that has made careers, fame and fortune for many. But the rush over the corpses and voices of people with HIV in the pursuit of power, institutionalization and fundraising has been disgraceful. Part of the reason is because of the lessened presence on these boards by people who were fighting for their own lives. We did some research at POZ last week to see how people with HIV were represented on the boards of major AIDS organizations today. What we found is disturbing: GMHC: 13 on the board, only 2 HIV+; God’s Love: 26/1; APLA: 20/1; Chicago AIDS Foundation 40/2; Whitman Walker 42/4; SF AIDS Foundation 16/6; Amfar: 25/1.” – Sean Strub, AIDS activist and founder of Poz magazine. By the way, the claimed donated cost of the massive celebrity media campaign to tell the world that Will Smith has AIDS (when he doesn’t) is $600 million.

Mark Blumenthal investigates where we are.

Money quote:

The United States can win this global war without employing torture. That we will not resort to what comes so naturally to Islamic terrorists also defines the nobility of our cause, reminding us that we need not and will not become anything like our enemies.

I don’t agree with everything in Hanson’s piece, and believe he has failed to grasp how torture in our current war is different than that which has occurred sporadically in the past, because today, torture is legal policy, approved by the president. To give a simple example, American troops have improvised “waterboarding” in the past. On the two documented occasions before the Bush torture era, the men involved were subsequently court-martialed. Today, they are given legal cover by the Justice Department. But Hanson is always worth reading; and he grasps the deep importance of the moral component of this war. My health is returning and my own response to Charles’ thoughtful piece is forthcoming.

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.