Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Objectively Disordered

The Holy See has released its long awaited statement entitled "Concerning the Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to Seminaries and Holy Orders." Bettnet.com provides excerpts from the English translation, as well as an excellent commentary by Father Jim Clark, writing in the Boston Globe. (Included in the second link, in the comments section, are links to the saga of "the politics behind the APA’s 1973 removal of homosexuality from the it’s compendium of psychiatric disorders." Of course, if it was about politics, where was the hard science?)

There are stories out now of priests who are quitting over the release of the Vatican instruction. Good. They're doing us all a favor. Especially if they are linking the Vatican's decision to any ineptitude in handling the clerical sexual abuse scandal. Why? (Drumroll, please!) Every time a priest sodomizes a male adolescent, it is the direct result, if only in that case, of same-sex attraction by the priest. That means that the behavior, by definition, is homosexual.

This is not to say that all homosexuals are attracted to young boys. It doesn't matter. A person's sexuality is a really big deal, whether its genital expression is exercised or not. For a Catholic, faith is a nuptial relationship; the Creator to the Created, Christ to His Church, a priest to those whom he serves, and so on. Anyone inclined toward such disorder at a fundamental level of human personhood, is going to be challenged when fulfilling an apostolate where this relationship matters -- that is to say, in the same way as one not so disordered, all other things being equal.

Not only that, but anyone stupid enough to let political correctness get in the way of seeing the obvious, to the detriment of the innocent, shouldn't be responsible for much of anything.


M.Z. Forrest said...

You hit the nail on the head. The gay culture has issues unique to itself. I would agree that there are those in that culture who would condemn pedastry. It is not however taboo in the culture for 40-year-old men to have relationships with 18 to 25-year-old men. I am speaking from experience having counseled coworkers in this area. Unfortunately, the sex of the other party was often the least problematic of many of these relationships.

Mary Alexander said...

"This is not to say that all homosexuals are attracted to young boys."

This reminds me of the statement that homosexual men are not promiscuous. Maybe you could find one or two that are not but the reason that the stereotype of male homosexuals exists of being attracted to much younger, often underage boys and unfathomably promiscuous, is that it it often true.

David L Alexander said...

"This reminds me of the statement that homosexual men are not promiscuous."

Maybe it does, Mary, but that's not why I said it. The reason I did is found in the next two sentences. I've seen the studies that contend that gays are more likely than heteros to be promiscuous. Even so, the phenomenon of the "chicken hawk" (gay men who prey on adolescent males) is a bone of contention in the gay community of late.

Having said that, and like I said before, it doesn't matter.