The recent visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the United States is
cause to reflect on what his papacy has meant so far for gay
people. There is some good, but much bad and ugly, to report.
The largest and most pressing public-relations problem
confronting the Catholic Church in the United States today is the
fallout from the priest sex scandal. Some conservative Catholics
have blamed "homosexuals" for the sexual abuse of children by
priests, since most of it involved male priests and boys under
their supervision. Some suggested that the Church purge all gays
from the priesthood.
But an anti-homosexual purge presents both practical and
theological problems for the Vatican. As a practical matter,
homosexuals are probably disproportionately drawn to the
priesthood. It offers young gay Catholics some palliative for the
guilt and shame they may feel for being homosexual. It also shields
them from embarrassing questions about why they aren't married.
Theologically, the Church distinguishes between innate
homosexual orientation, which is not a sin, and homosexual acts,
which are. For Catholicism the orientation itself is blameless, so
expelling someone from the priesthood for that alone is hard to
justify.
Under Benedict, the Vatican's response to the priest scandal has
been a mixed bag. On the one hand, current homosexual priests have
not been purged, though like all priests they must remain
celibate.
On the other hand, in late 2005 the Vatican declared that those
who "show profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies" are not
suitable candidates for the priesthood. If, however, these
"homosexual tendencies" are "simply the expression of a transitory
problem" then the person can be ordained if the tendencies are
"overcome at least three years before ordination."
That's a bit convoluted, and the details will have to be worked
out over time, but it suggests that mere homosexual orientation
unaccompanied by any homosexual acts now justifies forbidding a man
to enter the priesthood. In practice, of course, this will not
prevent all homosexuals from becoming priests. But it will bar
those who understand and openly acknowledge their
homosexuality.
If the Vatican under Benedict has blurred the distinction
between homosexual acts and orientation, the Pope himself has at
least maintained another distinction of importance to gay
people.
During his U.S. visit, Benedict spoke of the priest scandal in a
way that differentiated between homosexuals and pedophiles. "I
would not speak in this moment about homosexuality but pedophilia,
which is another thing," he said. "We would absolutely exclude
pedophiles from the sacred ministry."
This statement accomplished two important things. First, it
reaffirmed that while pedophiles would be expelled from the
priesthood, homosexual priests would not be. Second, it repudiated
the association of homosexuality with pedophilia, an old and
harmful defamation against gay people that has been used to justify
much discrimination.
It is significant that a man of Benedict's standing would
separate the two, while so many who admire him do not. Despite his
religious objection to homosexual acts, Benedict has not ignored
all we have learned from the study of homosexuality. He recognizes
that homosexual orientation and pedophilia are distinct phenomena.
He deserves credit for his willingness to say so publicly.
That's what makes his implied, but extravagant, criticism of gay
marriage so disappointing. According to the Institute for Marriage
and Public Policy, a conservative think tank opposed to gay
marriage, Benedict has spoken publicly about marriage 111 times. In
these speeches, he has connected the traditional definition of
marriage to preventing violence, maintaining legal order, and even
preserving world peace.
In his January 1 World Day of Peace message, Benedict said:
"Everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage
of a man and a woman . . . constitutes an objective obstacle on the
path to peace."
Elsewhere he has bemoaned the "growing crisis of the family,
which is based on the indissoluble bond of marriage between a man
and a woman." When this "truth about man is subverted or the
foundation of the family is undermined, peace itself is threatened
and the rule of law is compromised, leading inevitably to forms of
injustice and violence."
The implication is that gay marriage, along with many other
modern developments, will contribute to human catastrophe.
Throughout history, gay people have been blamed for everything
from the fall of the Roman Empire, to the Black Plague, to every
hurricane, tornado, and earthquake that has ever struck
civilization. Add global destabilization to the list.
Benedict is correct that weakening families undermines social
stability, with many potential harmful consequences. But to accept
Benedict's conclusion, we would have to believe that gay marriage
will somehow hurt heterosexual families. Like many others, he seems
to bundle gay marriage with a miasma of genuinely harmful trends
like illegitimacy and rampant divorce.
The problem is that there is no good reason to indulge that
fear. There is no evidence yet that gay marriage has undermined
traditional families or contributed to violence, lawlessness, and
war in countries like Canada, the Netherlands, and Spain. It is no
more plausible to think gay marriage will produce cataclysms than
to believe (as expressed by the late Jerry Falwell) that accepting
"the gays and the lesbians" contributed to 9/11.
Benedict's concerns about gay marriage are not strictly
theological ones. They are empirical, testable by evidence and
experience, and thus subject to reasonable criticism outside his
faith tradition. Day by day, year by year, they become harder to
take seriously.