Speaking of Sullivan

The NY Daily News tells us that Msgr. Clark publically connected the dots between unchaste homosexual priests and abuse of boys. This prompted the following attempt to avoid the obvious from one of the Usual Suspects:

Marianne Duddy, executive director of Dignity/USA, the nation’s largest organization of gay Catholics, called Clark’s comments linking the sex scandal with homosexuality “incredibly horrifying and irresponsible.”

“This is a poor attempt to deflect attention away from the church’s culpability for the sexual abuse of minors by priests and its attempt to cover it up for decades,” she added.


Yes. The bishops do indeed need to start doing something about their complete failure to stop the abuse of boys, boys, boys, boys, boys and boys. Let’s see: what might be a first logical step? Perhaps… locating the source of most of the abuse cases would be wise. Now… what common thread ties these abuse cases together? What mysterious common denominator, Marianne, unites the abusers? Celibacy? No. Keep thinking. The mist will depart sooner or later. While you ponder this impenetrable puzzle, Marianne. I will suggest what the bishops need to do next.

They should bring that source–which, by some strange coincidence, happens to be the very constituency Marianne Duddy represents–to the attention of the public as a prelude to, oh, I don’t know… suggesting that the cause and effect might somehow be linked?

Some, it is true, may foolishly claim, in a fever of Sullivanitis that in doing so they are “attempting to deflect attention” from their failure to deal with the problem. But I suspect that most people of common sense will recognize that they are, in fact, finally taking the first baby steps toward addressing the problem. This ought to result, not in a pogrom, nor in a blanket claim that all, or even most, homosexuals are abusers, but in the recognition that the vast majority of the abused are victims of homosexual abuse and in a serious revisitation to the wisdom of carelessly ordaining men with homosexual inclinations. It also ought to result in a serious revisitation of neglect of teaching the Catholic faith to our seminarians. The key here is not our sexual inclinations, but our seriousness about chastity and orthodoxy. I would rather have a chaste, orthodox priest with a homosexual orientation than an unchaste, dissenting heterosexual priest. But the reality is that the present culture of the priesthood is not ordered toward producing chaste or orthodox priests of either stripe. This is an invitation for catastrophe–as the hierarchy is now belatedly figuring out–and as people like Marianne Duddy don’t want you to figure out.