"Gay" priests and "gay" marriage.

Catholic Insight Staff

In an article on "Gay Priests and Gay Marriage" in the American weekly the National Review for June 3, 2002, author Stanley Kurtz points out that the sexabuse scandal plaguing the Catholic priesthood poses a serious threat to the power and credibility of the Church: the sky is falling. The uproar over priestly sex abuse, especially the calls to do away with both priestly celibacy and the Church's traditional teaching on sexuality, offer spectacular confirmation of the warnings issued by the opponents of "gay marriage" he states. Catholic Insight's

summary of the article follows below.

The argument has always turned on the question of whether same-sex marriage would reduce "gay" promiscuity, or whether "gays" would subvert the monogamous ethos of traditional marriage. The priesthood scandal shows clearly that the opening of an institution to large numbers of homosexuals, far from strengthening norms of sexual restraint, has subverted the norms themselves. And today's attack on priestly celibacy may herald an assault on marital monogamy.

Post Vatican

After Vatican II, the U.S. Catholic Church allowed homosexuals to enter the priesthood in increasing numbers. So long as a homosexual adhered to the vow of celibacy which all take, there was no reason to deprive him of ordination, it was thought. If someone had uttered a warning cry in the 1970s when homosexuals were flooding into the seminaries, that substantial numbers of gay priests would deliberately flout the rule of celibacy, that they would gain control of many seminaries, would openly "date," and would promote a homosexual culture which would drive heterosexuals away from the seminaries--such a person would have been ostracized as a hysterical gay-hater. Yet all of these things have come to pass.

In Jason Berry's book Lead Us Not into Temptation: Catholic Priests and the SexualAbuse of Children (1992), as the proportion of homosexuals increased dramatically many gay priests were visiting the seminary "on the make," frequenting gay bars, and "befriending" high school students. A study of 50 gay priests showed that only two were abstaining from sexual activity; 60 percent said they felt no guilt about breaking their vows; 90 percent rejected mandatory celibacy; and many engaged in sex in public toilets and parks. So sexual abuse of boys by homosexual priests, the typical form of abuse in the current scandal, was part and parcel of a larger gay subculture within the priesthood. In one famous case, the Rev. Paul Shanley advocated abuse in an address to the founding convention of NAMBLA (National Association for Men Loving Boys Loving Adults).

The cultural changes of the sixties eroded the ethic of celibacy among heterosexual priests as well, and, ironically, though these priests tended to leave the priesthood, the "gays" who rejected celibacy tended to stay within the Church and in word and in deed opposed the requirement of celibacy.

What Kurtz shows is that there is a connection between sexual abuse and an openly "queer" culture. The opening up of the priesthood to large numbers of homosexuals seriously weakened the norms of sexual restraint.

Part II

Turning to "gay" marriages, Kurtz turns back to a debate he had in the summer of 2001 with Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch, two advocates of "gay marriage." They considered that same-sex marriage was the best way to "domesticate" sexually promiscuous gays. But the priesthood scandal is proof that just about every one of their fundamental assumptions is mistaken.

In the 2001 exchange, Kurtz says, Sullivan assumed that only gay couples prepared to be governed by monogamy would marry. Kurtz took the opposite view, citing a study which showed that many gays with no commitment to monogamy, in fact, with a desire to subvert it, planned to marry. The priesthood scandals showed that a homosexual presence in an established institution did in fact result in the undermining of traditional sexual morality, rather than domesticating the homosexuals.

The priest scandal, Kurtz says, shows us how long it takes to undermine an institution. It has been at least thirty years since the homosexual presence in the priesthood began to increase markedly. Only now, after three decades, is the Church experiencing an authentic emergency--one provoking a call for removing or reducing the number of homosexuals in the priesthood, or abolishing celibacy.

Of course, he continues, the lessons he is drawing from the priest scandal all depend on the idea that priestly celibacy and marital fidelity are in some sense related. Celibacy is premised, in part, on the idea that a priest cannot devote himself entirely to a wife and his vocation. A priest is married to the Church, and his celibacy expresses his fidelity to that holy marriage. He makes a personal sacrifice; similarly, marriage is based on mutual sacrifice and fidelity.

The experience of the Church, Kurtz writes, has clearly shown that, even those gays who join the most traditional of institutions are radical enough to deliberately subvert its sexual norms. So the conscious subversion by gay priests of the rule of celibacy foreshadows the subversion of the traditional ethos of marital fidelity under a regime of "gay marriage."

Of course, he adds, the mainstream presence has done everything in its power to deny or minimize the connection between the priesthood scandals and homosexuality. And the press's fears are justified. For "gay marriage" to be successful, it has to be perceived as a struggle for human rights. The press, therefore, refuses even to admit the possibility of gay sexuality being of any greater consequence than skin colour. Advocates of "gay marriage" are fond of comparing those who warn against it to racists who spread silly stories about the effects of miscegenation. But the real model for "gay marriage" is the priesthood scandal.

The sexual culture has not been tamed but has dramatically subverted a venerable social institution. Should the connection take root in the public mind, "gay marriage" may not become a reality at all.