The Scandal

Latest news in the current Church Pedophilia Mismanagement Scandal is an oddly mixed bag.

The cardinals back a Zero Tolerance policy. No, they don’t. Yes, they really do. Stay tuned.

The thorniest issue for such a ZT policy is how or whether to grandfather it in. In other words, to use the hypothetical case that keeps being bandied about, if a priest molested a kid thirty years ago, and has been (as far as anyone knows or is willing to admit) on the straight and narrow since then, should he be forced out?

On the one level it’s a real gut-wrencher, since part of the whole Christian thang is the idea of forgiveness and the ability to change one’s behavior through the intercession of the Lord. And if a particular priest has had such an experience, and has demonstrated his reform, why punish him now?

Of course, the same can be true for any given molester today from a perspective of thirty years from now. That’s what ZT means. It means one strike and you’re out. If a ZT policy is good for today, then it must be good for the past. And if that’s so, then you need to let those other priests go. Maybe, maybe you let them resign gracefully, nothing further being said.

Or maybe not. If their reform is truly meaningful, then the shame of being outed at this late date should mean little to either the priest or their congregation. And it clears up a lie that has been perpetrated since then, if the whole matter was cleared up.

So if ZT is the way of the future, and all the cardinals are behind it — why was that not the message from the official communiqu� issued in Rome? Was the retroactive-ZT thing so much a barrier to the announcement? Or were there some who aren’t so determined that should be the policy?

The facile connection of priestly molestations with homosexuality has not been directly argued by the Church, but it’s sure been danced around. And one of the new measures that’s being proposed is more diligent screening of seminary applicants to make sure none of Those are being given admission.

But why, you might ask? According to Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia:

Bevilacqua also spoke bluntly about the issue of gay priests. Responding to a question, he confirmed that his archdiocese screens seminary applicants for homosexuality because “we feel a person who is homosexual-oriented is not a suitable candidate for the priesthood even if he had never committed any homosexual act.”
When a heterosexual man accepts celibacy to become a priest “he’s giving up a very good thing, and that is a family and children,” Bevilacqua said. “That would not be true about a homosexual-oriented candidate. . . . By his orientation he’s not giving up family and marriage. He’s giving up what the church considers an aberration, a moral evil.”

You would think, by church lights, that taking a vow of celibacy (and service) to avoid a moral evil would actually qualify someone better for the priesthood. You would think that Paul, who had at best lukewarm acceptance of marriage and suggested that the really virtuous folks should be celibate, not portraying it as a sacrifice but as a strength, would be of some inspiration here. But no. And Bevilacqua explains why:

He added that because of the all-male nature of the priesthood “the risk of someone who is homosexual-oriented is much higher.” Comparing gay priests to alcoholic priests, he said that under “tension of the priesthood there’s a tendency at time to seek some kind of outlet. . . . The risk is higher. That’s all we can say.”

In other words, there’s too great a chance that gay priests, living together in seminary or in a rectory, might be tempted beyond their vows of celibacy. Obviously this has been a significant problem, to take such a positive step, which makes one wonder whether such a ZT policy on gay priests will be applied to the current priesthood.

How many priests can the Church afford to kick out?

This was an interesting contrast to the protests that occured outside of a Mass held by a number of the cardinals in Philadelphia Sunday:

Outside the cathedral, about two dozen protesters stood in silence holding signs that said “Homo Priests — No; Married Priests — Yes” and “Protect Our Children, Fire the Cardinals.”

Of course it was a small protest and it’s dangerous to infer too much from the sentiments of three signs plucked from such a small group. But it sounds like (a) the protesters saw a quite different mechanism for alleviating outlet-seeking, and (b) at least some church objections to gay priests (among the laity) are more fundamental than Cardinal Bevilacqua’s concerns over the stresses of the priesthood.

Oh, and Cardinal Law denies he’s being transferred to the Vatican. Which returns the issue of whether he deserves to remain as an Archbishop and Cardinal in the Church in America — something that looks like he will continue to be. I suspect that, more than anything else, will remain a thorn in the side of efforts to resolve this whole matter.