A response I can respect
One fun aspect of the “comments” feature is watching my readers duke it out about various things. It saves me the trouble of having to answer everything myself, for which I am grateful since I have a life. One reader makes the amazing allegation that the “entire” purpose of my blog is to “take down homosexuals” based on my remark that–as things pertain to the discussion of the Scandal–my mission has been to say what the mainstream media more or less refuses to say. Funny. I could have sworn the purpose of my blog was to write about whatever interests me, ranging from loopy geocentrism to our chances of settling other planets to commentaries on the gospel of John to whatever else in the world there is that is original, counter, spare, strange, fickle, freckled (who knows how?) But as it happens, right now the main issue in our Church’s national discourse is the Great Enema (or perhaps “Pearly Gate”?) and how we came to this pass.
I don’t think any honest person can look at the facts and pretend that we came to this pass in any other way than by permitting an outlaw culture of homosexuality in the priesthood, many of whose member committed (and were aided and abetted in their abuse) by other members of the culture and by cowardly bishops who chose to protect the abusive homosexual priest and not the victim. I also think this culture is facilitated, as Kathy Shaidle notes, by people who are far readier to obfuscate this in defense of homosexuality than they are to clearly condemn homosexual abusers for homosexual abuse. Again, Exhibit A: Andrew Sullivan.
My prudential suggestion is “Keep in the priesthood those homosexual priests who have shown over time that they have taken their vows of chastity and orthodoxy seriously, but don’t add to the risk by ordaining more.” This hardly seems like “taking down homosexuals” to me.
Meanwhile, one of my non-hysterical commenters writes: “I advocate that to combat that problem, candidates with same-sex attraction be heavily scrutinized. But I can understand why someone would think that is too risky and the better alternative would be a simple ban, at least for the time being. After all, under my plan, many of the same men doing the scrutinizing are the same men who have allowed the abusers to go unchecked for the last three decades.” Similarly, I can appreciate the merits of my reader’s suggestion. It may well be that a case-by-case scrutiny would be better. Ultimately, neither of us will decide. But it is good to be able to discuss the problem without the canards of “hate” being flung around. The main goal is to have priests who are serious about chastity and orthodoxy.