The Elephant in the Sanctuary
Our beloved Church is indeed in deep turmoil. Scandals of the worst sort seem to surface every day adding to our shame, anger, and perplexity. Our wagons circle. We make all the usual heartfelt apologies and calls to help the innocent victims and firmly resolve never to let these disgusting things happen again. But will there ever be any substantive change?
We are hit on every level. Popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, brothers, seminarians, and even, some times, nuns, are trotted out for scanning for any possible errancy. Many State Attorneys General will follow the lead of Pennsylvania's. There will be no let up.
I note that in all the outpourings, whether serious or staged, while there are some very good suggestions, there is hardly ever any mention of the character and traits of the victimizers. Of course, the victims are our first urgent concern. They must be helped and assisted as they try to heal. Above all, the victims. But to prevent future victims we have to address the cancer infecting the Church. We are told we need transparency. We need to end the clericalism which has plagued us for years. We need accountability in leadership and no more cover ups!! Absolutely, agreed!
But what kind of people do these loathsome things in the first place? Who are the instruments/agents? Can we get any kind of clue? Much cover up and double meanings are occurring to obfuscate an already complex situation. How come after decades of sinful sexual behavior, a Cardinal, on the very highest rung of the ecclesiastical ladder is exposed as a homosexual predator? How come we are now hearing multitudes of allegations of homosexual behavior by prelates, priests, and others in the Church? Why have the perpetrators been protected? How deep is the rot?
In May of 2011, the National Review Board released its report The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010, prepared by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice based on its research after the 2002 abuse scandal. The study made it clear that the offenses were committed — approximately 80% of the time— by males (generally priests) who identified as homosexual. And the victims ranged from children (rarely), adolescent males to young men, seminarians, laymen, and priests. There were some female victims but, statistically, overwhelmingly, they were male and post-pubescent. Defying logic or basic common sense, the report held that there was no relationship to homosexuality. The confusion has to be cleared up. In the May 30, 2011 issue of America Magazine, then bishop, Blasé J. Cupich wrote a nearly 2000 word article summarizing the just released report and homosexuality was not mentioned once or the fact that it was mostly post-pubescent boys that were abused by male clerics. Why the obtuseness? Why do they ignore the “Elephant in the Sanctuary”?
Statistically, there were few (8% cited) children under the age of 12. That molesting behavior is identified as pedophilia which is committed equally often by heterosexual males. But in the later chronological developmental period i.e. post-pubescent, the victimizers are overwhelmingly homosexual or more sensitively put “same sex attracted.” This appears to be the case in the present tragedy.
Years ago in the psychologic world the term ephebophilia was used to designate male/male behavior principally in the adolescent period. Though not in the DSM (Diagnostic Statistical Manual) all therapists understood immediately that the reference was NOT to children but to adolescents. By common usage the term was used and accepted. Currently, it seems that “predatory homosexual behavior” is the more accurate designation. The evil behavior focused on teenagers and young men, priests included. Relatively, much less on children.
In the August (’18) edition of First Things, Daniel Mattson professional musician, author, motivational speaker, and self described Same Sex Attracted, put it more bluntly. In the article “Why Men Like Me Should not be Priests,” he states “Most of the horrific abuse (Penn. Report) involved adolescent boys and young men. This isn’t pedophilia. What unites all of these scandals is homosexuality in our seminaries and the priesthood: the result of the Church ignoring its own clear directives.” He bravely states that the Church needs to admit not only that it has a homosexual priest problem but also needs to stop ordaining men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies. (Clearly unbalanced heterosexual applicants are likewise unfit for priesthood and must be similarly rejected.)
There are vigorous attempts to distract attention from this obvious fact by impassioned pleas for the victims which, while necessary, are not the basic chronological dynamic bringing us to this terrible current tragedy. The victims are consequential to predatory homosexuality. They do not precede it.
What does it take to see the elephant in the sanctuary? In the famous story of the naked emperor, the crowds were shouting their delight in his fine attire until a child shouted out: “But he has nothing on!” Are we: blind; deaf; cowed; or worse?
Has there been some kind of massive intellectual blinding? Some kind of massive brilliant sales job presenting that which is evil as if it were good? It would be frightening if we discover that this is also an epistemological problem. Are we being told that reality is all within the mind? That all is subjective? Are we being told, in effect, that that which is intrinsically evil (i.e. same sex genital behavior, as taught by the Catholic Catechism) is no longer evil but has become “a blessing”? And that unequivocally upholding the Catholic teaching of 2,000 years has now suddenly become an act of uncharity and injustice? Let us recall the insights of Thomas Aquinas who taught that evil must mask as good in order that the human will might reach out and embrace that which is before it.
Such is the modus operandi of the Father of Lies. Dare we dot the i’s and cross the t’s? And what is the position of the Church of Jesus?
In 2005 there was a Vatican statement:
“…..the Church cannot admit to the seminary or Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, have deep seated homosexual tendencies or support the so called ”gay culture”. (CCE)
In 1961 the Vatican held that “…men with homosexual tendencies cannot be ordained…”
IN 1993, The USCCB, in the Norms for Priestly Ordination, taught that before ordination a man must arrive at some level of heterosexual maturity.
Bishop Morlino of Wisconsin blames the homosexual subculture in the Church on the Bishops who, too often, have simply looked away. We shall find out.
He holds that priests need to articulate in a convincing and compelling way why heterosexual intimacy outside of the marriage covenant is sinful as well as why every homosexual activity is also always seriously sinful. But he explicitly links clerical abuse to homosexual behavior; the Church must reject sin and admit that a homosexual culture among some clerics, and I add, prelates, has caused great harm to the Church. It is a common human practice to put a “good face” on the evil that we do. It is called rationalization, or attributing a noble motive to an evil act. Gay priests in defending their same sex behavior claim:
“I do not violate my celibacy by gay sex. It is only if I have sex with a woman I might sin….”
“I am not bound by the law of chastity because I am different, We are held to a different standard…”
“This is my nature. It is natural, God given, for me. To be heterosexual would be unnatural…”
“I have a right to love…”
“Anal sex makes a man more receptive to receiving Jesus….’
“Sodomy does not constitute a violation the vow of celibacy.”
Priest confessors have told penitents who seek help in achieving chastity to “Go find yourself a boyfriend. Things will change.” and ”Don’t be too quick in breaking up with your boy friend…’’ The priest confessors often turn out to be gay themselves The implication is obvious.
Dr. J. Wolfe did a classic study, GAY PRIESTS (1991) on 101 gay priests and found that NONE of them agreed with the Church’s teaching on sexual morality. How would this speak to their work in the pulpit, the confessional, the counseling session and their own private lives? Of course, there are good gay priests who struggle valiantly for chastity. Struggle probably, more acutely than their straight brother priests. More acutely because their narcissistic wound is deeper.
In the October issue of First Things, R.R. Reno writes of an ex-Jesuit Novice whose Novice Masters regarded homosexual relations as healthy, even necessary for proper priestly formation. Sometimes, the Novice masters insisted that they be the agents of this ”formation”. This an example of the “elephant“ of which we speak!
In the 1970’s when I was a young practicing priest/psychologist with several gay priests in my appointment book, I was deeply moved by the punishing guilt these men felt after a fall. Their enormous pain overshadowed everything. There was no denial. They were clear-eyed. They knew they had sinned, unlike the zombie-like look I see on the faces of some young modern clerics who seem not “to know. Years ago, I suggested in a position paper that it would be more charitable to discourage gay applicants and spare them the wrenching guilt of my clients. I was called homophobe and worse. My intentions were pastoral and compassionate. I was classified as hard-nosed and harsh. But, I spoke from the “trenches”, not the Ivory Tower.
Today we see the results of ignoring such advice. With the jettisoning of real guilt, we gained relativism which mixed with other negatives, results in this horrific outcome: Homosexual predation of teens and young adults by homosexual prelates and priests with apparently little guilt.
Something has gone very wrong. The elephant is the problem! Unless it is identified and sent back into the jungle, all the talking, posturing, committees, and promises will do little: “…Sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
St. Michael, scourge of liars, help us!!