The perpetrators were for the most gay men preying on adolescent boys. Having the ability to be married to women would not have made them less attracted to adolescent boys and young men. It's not as if their actions were the result of some sort of displaced heterosexual urge. The men responsible were sexually and emotionally screwed up gay men.
The issue that needs to be addressed is not whether priests should be married. What really needs to be dealt with is how the Church relates to gay men and women. As a first step they can stop naively viewing gay men as poor little victims who happen to have a really big cross to bear. This gives believers a quick and pat answer for the gay issue and usually has the effect of forcing gay people into a deep and painful emotional solitariness.
A good second step would be to reevaluate the means by which men are examined for acceptance into the seminary. There are some men who are so emotionally immature, even after having finished college or worked for several years, that they should never be considered for acceptance into the seminary. There are obviously gay men who are able to fulfill the demands of a celibate life that is required for the priesthood, so rest assured I am not saying candidates should be screened for sexuality. It just seems obvious that the priesthood is perfectly logical hiding place for many men who find it easier to ignore and suppress their homosexuality than to face it. In the process they likely to development intricate means of emotional survival that are often very unhealthy. The end result is sometimes the sort of abuse of young men that we have seen and for which the Church is paying billions.
It never fails to astound me the lengths to which people will go to avoid acknowledging that the priests who molested boys for so many years were not pedophiles. Pedophiles go after prepubescent children, which was almost never the case. With very few exceptions, the fondling fathers were chickenhawks.
Ah, but in today's society, chickenhawks don't exist. You see, gay people are all well-adjusted, monogamous family people just like you and me. In the rush to abandon the idea that all homosexuals are promiscuous and depraved (which is indeed an unfair stereotype), we've swung the pendulum so far that we dare not say that any homosexuals are promiscuous or depraved. If we do, we are quickly shouted down. We are only allowed to take note of Will and Grace, never of Michael Devlin. We may talk about Matthew Shepard, but Jesse Durkhising is taboo.
If we can't attribute the fault to the gay men themselves (because gays simply don't do things like that), then the flaw must lie in the Church itself. So when we're presented with the conundrum of the pervo-priest scandal, the cry goes up "If only priests could marry! If only women could be priests!" The latter is impossible; the former would be pointless. In the Catholic Church, marriage is by definition between a man and a woman (and secular gay marriage won't change that), and the offenders are not heterosexuals.
But when the Vatican tried to address the problem a couple of years ago, it was met with howls of fury. How dare the Church discriminate against gay men that way? Some way must be found to protect children while reserving the feelings of potential predators. So while the church hemorrhages money for the past sins of gay priests, we're expected to ordain more of them. It's like forbidding sheep to discriminate against wolves by staying in their folds.
Because pro-gay advocates are right in one regard: you can't tell a chickenhawk just by looking at him. If a homosexually-oriented man will adhere to his vows of celibacy just like a straight one would, great. But when they're going to be in a vocation that will involve a lot of time alone with young men (and being a clergyman of any denomination does), there's more temptation available for a gay man than a straight one. We shouldn't have to find out the hard way which men have what it takes to keep his vows, simply because it can't be talked about. I'm impressed that Patrick is willing to say what must not be said.
No comments:
Post a Comment