The Official Gay Priest Matrix

So, there's information out now.

The new Pope is about to issue an edict asserting that gay men are not welcome to apply for jobs as priests. In part it's because of all the pedophilia stuff going around.

In the press coverage of this important development, Vatican wags have been quoted as saying that the logic of that connection is not, per se, amenable to normal analysis. In other words, are gay priests a greater risk to children than straight priests?

I tried to work it out, thus:

Fig. 1

The Vatican figures that the quantum of risk to children is reduced by outlawing gay priests, right? Since pedophilic priests are not desired, any pedophilic man needs to be kept away from the priesthood. So far, the Holy See hasn't seen how to screen for pedophilia, but Rome was not built in a day.

The church is in something of a pickle when it ordains anyone as a priest. You are a priest forever. Regardless of your sins, your problems, your faults, your taste for sex with children, your thirst for alcohol, your liking for recreational drugs, your sloth, your avarice, your envy, your lust, your gluttony, your vanity, you are a priest forever.

I was a high school seminarian in Chicago. I went to school with a couple hundred young men who were thinking of becoming priests. As a group, they were really great guys. A handful of them ultimately were ordained. And, some, but not all, of them are now practicing their priesthood.

At least one of that small number is gay. Maybe more than one. Shocking? OK, no, not really, but I'd put a high bet on this.

The Vatican cannot purge them from the roster. The most they could do would be suspend their license to practice priesthood stuff, pretty much.

But I'd sure as hell love to know how many of those gay priests that I went to high school with actually went pedophilic on us.

Know what? I'd be prepared to believe that none of them, not one, attacked or molested a little boy, ever. In fact, the majority of them probably abstained from all forms of sex throughout their lives. The were and have been - now don't be shocked - celebate. Because when they were ordained, that's the vow they took. And, knowing these guys, they'd take that seriously. That's how they were as people.

So, the pink box in Fig. 1 bothers me somewhat. It's hard to escape the Vatican's position as being based on an assumption that fellers in the pink box are unacceptably risky. The Vatican wag said that it would be like an alcoholic working as a bartender, since priests, men, lived together in rectories. What a dilemma!

I have a modest proposal. Consider this:

Fig. 2

If the Church ever changes its mind regarding the ordination of women, the picture changes somewhat. I don't recall reading a lot of stories about nuns molesting children - do you? The evidence (or lack of it) seems to indicate, then, that while women can certainly be pedophilic, not that many women, especially those associated with religious practice, have chosen to act on that inclination (1). So if the Church is worried about ordaining pedophiles, my advice would be to seek out lesbian priests. Here are my main points:

1. With the church's refusal to ordain male homosexuals, the current shortage can only grow worse.
2. Lesbians, by all evidence, pose a lesser risk of attacking children - especially boys. What's in it for them?
3. The matrices show TWO red boxes for male priests, and only ONE red box for female priests. 4. Can't you count??
5. I'd even be willing to lose the pink box on fig. 2 and give another half-point (2) to the lesbians who want to become priests. Wouldn't you agree?
6. Let me ask any Catholics out there who went to a parochial school and was taught by nuns: put your hand on a Bible and tell me that Sister was straight, not gay. Nuff said.
7. Lesbians can live in rectories with men. Like I said, what's in it for them?
8. If the Church is not motivated in this most recent decree by protecting children, then something else is in the mix: homophobia.

That might be worth discussing. Is being homosexual sinful in Catholic teaching?

Well, the way I got taught, no. BEING homosexual is not sinful. The homosexual ACT was sinful, but then, so was heterosexual sex between unmarried people (3). So, if someone was gay but wanted to go to Catholic heaven, they simply had to abstain from all sex - just like all the other straight Catholics.

Got it?

So - what gives?

More and more Catholic religious personnel - priests and nuns - are coming from countries other than America. In no small part, this is because Americans cannot wrap themselves around or comply with the Church's rules. In small but significant steps, the USA is becoming a Catholic missionary beneficiary for countries in Southeast Asia and even Africa (4).

The Church is now walking an even more conservative course, and will do so for many years to come - probably beyond my lifetime. It is incredibly sad to see this happen, especially after having been so excited about the church's "aggiornamento" under Pope John XXIII (5). A lifelong dream of seeing Christian faiths united is even more remote than before.

And yet - I can't stop being Catholic. Ain't it a pisser?

----

(1) Much to their credit.
(2) Or more...
(3) Hell, some conservative Catholics apparently believe that heterosexual sex between married people is fornication unless you're trying to have chidren. I'm not joking about that one - a volunteer CCD teacher, not a priest or nun, spake that one to my daughter...
(4) That's no joke - it's quite for real.
(5) "The twenty-third," OK?