More on the “witchhunt”

Two interesting pieces in the NY Times, today, on the Vatican’s inspection of US Seminaries and the so-called “witch hunt” taking place regarding gay seminarians (not, it must be noted, ordained priests).

The first is an op-ed piece by Amy Welborn who examines exactly what this inspection – which some are finding so troubling – entails:

When you read through the set of questions to be asked of all seminary administrators, faculty and students – the Instrumentum Laboris – you find that there is exactly one question on that issue: “Is there evidence of homosexuality?”

Along with the resurrection of warnings against “particular friendships,” that makes two sentences in a document that is 11 pages long and covers a lot of territory: What are the seminary’s standards for admission? Is the seminary’s spiritual life vibrant and rooted in Catholic tradition? Are seminarians capable of intellectual dialogue with contemporary society?

Amy explains why the inspections are necessary, not simply regarding homosexuality:

…Why is it considered unfair to expect priests and seminarians to live by the values of the institution they serve? Others may call it a purge, but I call it truth in advertising.

… (the) seminary also owes us, the people in the pews, psychologically mature priests who aren’t engaged in an eternal and ego-driven struggle with their own problems, who are prepared to serve, to teach and preach – with integrity and honesty.

The second piece is a news story by Andy Newman which is fairly even-handed, but which fails in the same way Laurie Goodstein’s piece failed last week, in the paper’s utter refusal to look at the culpability of the bad, non-celibate priests who have caused all of this difficult scrutiny and who are – in the end – responsible (along with negligent Bishops) for what is possibly an over-correction by the Vatican. What is once again simply being glossed over, in all of this reportage, is the simple truth that something like 80-90% of the victims of priestly sexual abuse were adolescent males. The gay overtone is ignored.

Newman’s piece highlights the service of Fr. Mychal Judge, the great Capuchin priest and Chaplain to NYC Firefighters, who died on 9/11, at the WTC. Fr. Judge was a celibate, gay priest and by all accounts a remarkable, holy man. He was -frankly – the epitome of what any priest should be – gay or straight, and an excellent argument in favor of the ordination of gay men who are serious, committed, devoted and graced enough to be all about serving the Lord, and not their sexuality.

One would be surprised to find that (just like me) other conservative Catholics are of the opinion that the issue here is about celibacy and faithfulness to a priest’s vows, and not sexuality.

Bombastic Willie – William Donohue, himself, – is quoted in this piece as favoring the ordination of truly committed gay men: “I don’t really care, and I don’t think most Catholics care if a priest is gay” as long he does not act on his urges, said William Donohue, the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and a fierce critic of what he has called declining moral standards.

The Vatican document on gay seminarians has not yet been completed, and exactly how the authorities would go about screening out homosexuals remains an open question. The Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, a conservative Catholic who edits the religious journal First Things, said that he doubted that the final document would include celibate gays in the ban. Such a policy, he said, “would raise enormous theological and moral problems in the teaching of the church.”

Mr. Donohue said that the while the Vatican did need to address the sexual abuses committed by priests and damage they have done to the church, “the answer to the problem is not all of a sudden to roll out of bed and have this universal prohibition.”

Exactly right. And the thing is, while I don’t know if I think much of many in the curia, I think a lot of Pope Benedict XVI who has – for all some determined-to-hate will not admit it – displayed a truly gentle, approachable and pastoral mein since taking the chair of Peter, and who – if you read him – is not a man who doesn’t make sense.

Interestingly, it seems to me that while the liberals are drama-queening it – anticipating the worst – and carrying on about the “cruelty and bigotry of the church,” (hello, Andrew!) before the church has even DELIVERED its final document, it is in the “conservatives” that we are witnessing a “whole issue” or even “wholistic,” if you like, approach to this matter. The conservatives are saying, “sexuality does not – should not matter -” but they are honestly acknowledging that the problems of pederast priests (who preyed on males, aged 12-16) greatly outweighed the problems of pedophile priests (preying on small children of either sex) by an enormous ratio.

Pederasts or pedophiles, those folks have got to be made GONE, and we must have some sense that our seminaries are not breeding grounds for more of them. And I am still waiting for the celibate gay priests – whom I SUPPORT – to stop pointing weepy fingers of victimization at the Vatican and start pointing them at the priests (and Bishops) who perpetrated and covered up these heavy crimes. Instead of pulling on the tattered robes of victimhood, they should be pulling off their collars and getting into the faces of the priests and bishops whose behavior is at the root of all of this, because THOSE are the guys – not Benedict – who have wrought all of this unholy mess.

My own gut feeling: Rome will not ban gay priests – but the men who DO enter our seminaries -both gay and straight – are going to really, really have to convince that they put their faith and their vows before their inclinations. In other words…they’re going to have to win back the trust of a church and a people greiviously harmed. The church will not be able to withstand a second round of scandal or another lavendar mafia, moving predator priests from one job to another. And if that means a little bit of difficulty and suffering while we work this all out, I would hope our gay priests would be men enough to deal with it.

My brother Thom reminded me of what the nuns used to say: the behaviors of a few are ruining it for everyone else. Just so. The gay community needs to stop stamping its feel in high dudgeon and show some willingness to identify where some of its own members have screwed things up for the others.

When I was a little girl, we were taught about the principles of self-abnegation, to spend less time focusing on our tiresome selves and more time looking to and worshiping God. It seems to me that part of our problem here is that for 40 years people – and priests are people – have been more or less trained to think of self-abnegation (self-disregard) as a negative thing. We’re all so busy “celebrating” ourselves! (I celebrate myself as a gay man! I celebrate myself as a small-framed woman! I celebrate myself as a fatty!) that we have forgotten that the saints did not spend time celebrating themselves and “feeling good” about themselves. They acknowledged their puniness, praised God and looked for someone to serve, for the sake of Christ.

Perhaps that old, very basic, lesson is one that needs to be re-taught – that we are called first to worship GOD…not our genitalia, not our desires, not our inclinations, not our “identities” or any of that…NONE of that is what we are here for, and yet it has become – overwhelmingly – what we have focused on.

I don’t think Jesus looks at someone and says “Are you gay or straight?”

I do think he looks at someone and says, “Are you for me or against me? Do you want the wide, easy path – or the narrow one? Will you take up your cross or lie over there the side and beg for alms and curse the world?”

And each of us – gay or straight – has to make an answer to that, remembering that Jesus was himself, an observant Jew who followed the law of Moses, and who prescribed that others do the same – that they ritually cleanse, and show themselves to the priests – that he never said, “go and do your own thing,” but “go, and sin no more.”

Christianity is not for wimps, and Jesus never said that it wasn’t going to cost you. If we are going to profess Christ and him Crucified, then gay or straight, we are going to have to deny gratification to some of our “thorns in the flesh” and offer them up in return for grace.

I believe a gay priest can do that as well as a straight one. And the idea that the church, which has always ordained gay men, is somehow “intolerant and bigoted” is a silly one. The church has been very tolerant. And for her tolerance she was deeply betrayed. Trust must be restored. I’d say the ball is, frankly, in the gay priest’s courts.