 |
|
|
|
||
|
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
|
|
April
30, 2002 2:40
p.m. |
|
he
ongoing drama of the Catholic Church in a liberal society is tantalizing.
Day by day, the bishops run into U.S. orthodoxies. Here are three postulates
of U.S. liberal sociology.
1. People makes mistakes, and society should recognize that such mistakes
are, as often as not, the result of tensions and ambivalences and confusions
and inequalities in the society that has nurtured them.
— However. In
the matter of the Catholic priests, we do not want to hear that kind of
thing. We want to be reassured that every priest who is accused of improper
relations with boys (or girls) will be reported directly to prosecutors
who should be given exclusive dominion over the priest's life and career.
And we expect that the priest complained of should immediately be withdrawn
from clerical life and duty.
2. Some people are homosexual, some people have red hair. It is a lingering
prejudice of a society not yet secure against the call of cultural atavism
that homosexuals are thought of as in any way different from heterosexuals,
save obviously in the matter of whom they elect to have sex with. Prejudice
against homosexuals, qua homosexuals, is on the order of prejudice against
women, Jews, and blacks.
— However. A commitment to First Amendment rights requires the protection
of religious freedom, and the Catholic Church, while not condemning the
man or woman who has homosexual inclinations, does condemn the practice
of homosexual sex. This inevitably gives rise to a level of prejudice
that the Catholics have to come to terms with. If all Catholic homosexuals
are expected to be celibate, then the Church is in effect imposing on
the entire Catholic homosexual community standards of behavior reasonably
demanded only of priests who take voluntary vows.
3. It has never been established that the culture in which
sexual appetites are indulged in newspapers, magazines, movies, and books,
is on that account, a society mandated to sexual promiscuity. The same
First Amendment that preserves the right to exercise one's own religion
preserves also the right of the sensualist and the pornographer to display
his wares, and of the Hollywood actor to observe his marriage vows only
for as long as it is convenient for him/her to do so.
— However. The Catholic Church opts to exact vows of celibacy in
its ministry. That exaction, we know from nothing more than a wise study
of mankind, is in most cases inordinate, and unrealistic. The temptations
of a celibate priestly order are manifest, but the enforcement of their
outworn code is a matter for the bishops to undertake, and civil authorities
to step in where there is child abuse. Now, even if the libertine imperative
can be resisted by normal men and women, people who don't translate rampant
sexual indulgences of others into a license to personal promiscuity, the
Catholic priest is different. The priest, by the rules of the Church,
is a male, and has to be required to observe civil standards of appropriate
behavior. There are not many instances of Catholic priests abusing girls,
but a good many, as we have seen, of Catholic priests abusing boys. This
is not to be translated into the suggestion that homosexuals have a greater
propensity than heterosexuals to violate their vows to celibacy. It means
merely that the Church has to take stronger measures to guard against
rule-breaking. But such measures must not call for any
prejudice against ordaining homosexuals.
But can we talk about
such things? Monsignor Eugene Clark, the rector of St. Patrick's Cathedral,
is a radiant light of eloquence, evangelical charm, and courage. In his
renowned sermon of last week he elaborated on five "grim influences"
that have taken their toll. He spoke of a flawed moral theology, an attack
on celibacy, the fear to exclude homosexuals from the priesthood, a weakening
of high standards in choosing candidates for the priesthood, and an understanding
of the influence of our pagan culture.
Somebody walked out of the church after hearing the homily. Where will
he go, one wonders?