Tick...Tick...Tick...
Time Bomb.
This is the story I hoped would never come, yet subconsciously knew was just waiting there, prone to erupt at some moment or other when we least expected it. [Click here.]
Just when do the women start stepping forward?
Since I grew up as a religious, practising Catholic through the gray-tinged 1950s—and in light of the flood of accusations, the bad press and the court actions which the American Catholic Church has undergone over the last few years—I've had many chats with my peers about our memories of any ambient church homosexuality during that time.
No one I've spoken with about that era recalls any impropriety. Granted, this is a very small sample and the possibility of denial is great. More often, the reaction has been one of shocked reverence: "Could you imagine Father George when we were kids? No way! He was Father George!"
But the absence of personal experience did not preclude there being an active mythology surrounding the concept of groups of men living apart from women, in much the same way there is mythology involved with our homophobic fantasies of men living in prison or "on a battleship." In that atmosphere, it was difficult for us to believe that a seminary was not some sort of den of homosexual debauchery.
Of course, it wasn't. But the Twentieth-century mind was just as susceptible to fear-mongering as was the Twelfth.
One can only assume there was/is a percentage of priests who would describe their sexual orientation as homosexual. One can also assume that that percentage is most likely no greater than it is in the general population. Meaning that the preponderance of priests have a heterosexual orientation.
However, as it was explained to us as children, a priest's individual make-up is immaterial, since he vows both celibacy and chastity at ordination. Therefore, you should be able to deal with your priest with all comfort and freedom from sexual tension.
As we've seen recently, that has not always been the case for scores of young boys in parishes across the country; an ongoing story that still has legs.
But, throughout all of the reporting on the actions of homosexual priests, I've had a nagging dread. What of that majority of heterosexual priests? What of the unknown number of those men who have forsaken their vows as well?
Where, I wondered, were the women? If a man chooses to, or is compelled to, forsake his vows, does it really matter what his leanings are? Are straight men any stronger at keeping vows then gay men? The divorce courts would argue not.
Politicians who have charisma, standing, power and often good looks—and in the case of President Clinton, an empathetic mien—often have women attracted to them on a national scale. Is it implausible to assume those same qualities in a man would be attractive on a local scale as well? Or would be exploited on a local scale as well? Especially with the allure of the "Unattainable Man?" or the "Safe Man?"
When does this story come out, and how hard must the Church establishment be working to keep it from coming out? And how much more damaging would this be, and just how much more can this organization withstand and still survive?
When do we see the first rumblings from women who came to their priests for counselling; the thousands of women who volunteered to help with the upkeep of the church and altar; the high school and college students; the nuns who worked closely with the priests to keep the parish's community thriving? If The Sopranos can flirt with it as a fictional subplot, what is the degree to which it actually sits beneath the surface within that community?
I am hardpressed to believe that there is not a wider scandal brewing for the Catholic Church, and that it is thoroughly ill-prepared to handle it.
Get Angry! Have your say. Write your elected officials now!
Register to Vote! [Click Here.]
posted by Gotham 12:21 PM
