This kind of thing continues to piss me off.
Given the discussion over my comments about the actions of the United Methodist Church I think I should add this disclaimer: I absolutely believe that the Catholic church has the right to make any decision they want about anyone joining the clergy, taking communion, stepping foot on their property, etc.
That said — man, I wish they wouldn’t.
As I understand it, celibacy is already a requirement of the Catholic priesthood. I would think that means that no one who “practices homosexuality” should be a priest, but no one who practices heterosexuality should be either.
Beyond the clear implication that gays are more likely to be pedophiles (which is, in my mind, the most objectionable piece of this), is the church saying that homoerotic desires are somehow, by nature, harder to control? That homosexuality is somehow fundamental to one’s being? If it is that fundamental to one’s being, does that mean, perhaps, that it is a preference one is born with? And if it is something one is born with, could that make it part of “God’s Plan”?
Note: I’ve received a few emails/comments pointing out that my logic in this post is flawed. I addressed it in one comment, but I wanted to include it in the post as well. I wasn’t trying to construct a serious intellectual argument here. Rather, I was responding to one of the arguments I’ve heard for churches trying to get gays to adopt straight lifestyles, which is that homosexuality is a choice rather than innate preference. The argument I’ve heard goes that it can’t be innate, because God wouldn’t make someone gay. What the Catholic church seems to be saying is that “gayness” is innate, but if we’re using the logic that other religious groups have applied, then if it is innate, it’s gotta be endowed by God. I should have been more explicit about what I was getting at. (updated 12/7/2005, 16:59)
I want to make love to you.
Um….Thanks but no thanks?
I think this letter and directive against ordination of those who “practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture'” as priests in a lot a ways in a response to the recent revelation about the number of Catholic priests who have sexually abused young boys. I’m not saying that justifies the directive, but it might place in a more understandable context. Also, the above comment from “h” notwithstanding, the leap from the directive to homosexuality as “somehow fundamental to one’s being” to “a preference one is born with” to homosexuality as “part of ‘God’s Plan'” is kind of a long one (I think you’d probably find yourself falling headlong into an intellectual abyss before you made it to the other side).
On a separate but related note, the whole notion of celibacy for priests is a fabrication of the early Christian church that overlays the original teachings of Jesus, who in fact most likely was married.
I do understand that this is in response to the whole pedophelia (“Beyond the clear implication that gays are more likely to be pedophiles…”), and that makes it, in my mind, not more understandable, but more objectionable.
Also the fundamental-innate-God’s Plan thing was not an attempt at a coherent intellectual argument. My understanding is that some anti-homosexual Christians believe that homosexuality is a choice — a sinful choice, that is — and that a different choice can be made. The idea, I believe, is that it can’t be innate, because things that are innate are assumed to be part of God’s plan, and therefore aren’t sinful. Apparently Satan doesn’t have access to the genetic code.
Homosexuality is an act, just like smoking a cigarette is an act. Sure, you can argue that I’m genetically predisposed to smoke this cigarette or that I was raised to smoke this cigarette but that doesn’t make my smoking this cigarette any better or worse. The same goes for homosexuality. It’s done because people want to do it. To put it another way: You don’t find people trying to defend their actions in a murder case by playing the ‘nature vs. nurture’ card.
In the Catholic Church all sins are innate in all of us as a result of our defiance in the Garden of Eden. They call it ‘original sin’. From the moment Adam and Eve considered eating from the tree of life in Eden they knew sin, whereas before they did not. The serpent (Satan) presented the idea to them. From the moment mankind knew sin it has always been with us in the form of ‘original sin’.
Think of it like the Babylonian memes in Snow Crash. Ever since the serpent gave Adam and Eve the idea and they began to process it they were infected with the Original Sin meme. Ever since then their offspring (us) have been born with the original sin meme, which is a virus that contains every bit of nastiness that humans can commit. Original Sin is Evil (the proper noun ‘Evil’). The Church has the only anti-meme for it. At least, that’s their sales pitch.
Back to the subject: Homosexuality is a sin. All sin is innate; therefore all homosexuality is innate in all of us just as much as murder is innate in all of us.
I haven’t read the pronouncement from the Vatican on this matter yet but I’ve skimmed a few articles and from what I can tell there is at least one cardinal (from Baltimore if I recall correctly) who says that it leaves a loophole that will allow homosexual priests.
Personally, I think homosexuality is just another kink. Some people like whips and chains, some people like to dress up like Disney characters, some people like to do it with somebody who has the same reproductive organs that they do. S&M, B&D and scat aren’t sins (in and of themselves) and homosexuality shouldn’t be a sin either. It only became a sin because of a misinterpretation of the myth of Sodom and Gomorrah.
To me, Sodom and Gomorrah says that gang raping somebody just because they’re not from your village is bad. Fast forward to the dark ages and it’s ok to torture people for being foreign, but homo gang rape is never ok, unless it’s with a hot poker and under the direction of your local clergy and/or inquisitor.
For the church to care what kind of sex their priests aren’t having is ridiculous. They’re supposed to be asexual, not heterosexual.
I disagree with notion that homosexuality is only an act. Granted, some people do experiment with it, but that in itself doesn’t make them homosexual. Whether or not it’s genetic, I’m can’t say with 100% certainty, but it’s likely the case. Genetics likely dictates far more about how we turn out in life than anything else — even more than how we were raised, although this also plays a significant role — and, as science advances, we’ll likely have the ability to locate the genes responsible for various problems and perhaps, one day, correct them (I’m not going to get into the ethics of this here). Incidentally, defendants in murder cases are beginning to use defenses related to genetics, arguing that they are predisposed to violence, for example. The science isn’t really solid enough to make such arguments convincingly today, but it’s definitely coming.
Also, the whole notion of homosexuality as a sin appears throughout the Old Testament. Leviticus 18 comes to mind, but it appears elsewhere as well.
I agree that the directive basically is ridiculous on its face but, as I mentioned before, not surprising in the context of a scandal of boys being molested by priests.