Elephant Debated

Catholic blogger, Amy Welborn, has responded to Mary Eberstadt's vitally important new article on the role of homosexuality in the priesthood scandal, "The Elephant in the Sacristy" [link is to FR Thread], and Welborn's response has been seconded by Instapundit. No doubt, this is only the beginning of a long-running controversy over Eberstadt's extraordinary article (Go read it at once!). Let me dive into the debate by commenting on Welborn's remarks.

The most important thing to note about Welborn's response is that she says she "mostly agrees" with Eberstadt. Given the many critically important points in the "Elephant" piece — the centrality of homosexuality to the scandal, the media coverup of that fact, the role of child abuse as a causal factor in priestly abuse, the untenability of the pedophile/ephebophile distinction — that fundamental agreement is worth emphasizing.

Now what about Welborn's criticisms? First, Welborn argues, in contrast to Eberstadt, that celibacy really does make a difference. Take away mandatory celibacy, says Welborn, and "the pool of candidates" would change, pushing the identity of the priesthood in a different "direction." Welborn is euphemizing a bit here with this talk of "different direction," since it's obvious that what she means is that an end to celibacy would diminish the proportion of homosexuals in the priesthood. Whether or not the abolition of celibacy would have that effect, the critical point here is that Welborn concedes that the cause of the current crisis is the high proportion of homosexuals in the priesthood.

Furthermore, in her remarks on Eberstadt, Welborn also effectively affirms the Michael Rose thesis from Goodbye Good Men. That is, Welborn notes that the high proportion of homosexuals in the priesthood does in fact tend to drive heterosexuals away from the priesthood.

Welborn's second point is that, contrary to Eberstadt's claims, there is in fact a culture of secrecy in the priesthood, and that this larger culture of secrecy has in fact contributed to the coverup. It's not just a question of gay bishops protecting gay priests, says Welborn; "it's about a stunning variety of dysfunctionals protecting fellow dysfunctionals."

But Eberstadt never denies the existence of a wider culture of secrecy in the Church. In fact, she affirms it. Eberstadt merely points out the fundamental role of homosexuality as the prime mover of the crimes themselves. Also, Welborn seems to pose the alternatives as homosexual bishops covering for gay priests versus heterosexual bishops hesitating to punish abusers out of fear that their own sexual or financial sins might come out. No doubt, all of that goes on, but there's a third possibility as well: heterosexual bishops covering up for homosexual bishops, not out of a fear of personal blackmail, but simply out of fear that the disproportionate place of homosexuality in the priesthood and the widespread disregard of celibacy vows (by homosexuals in particular) will become public. I know that a number of very well-informed Catholics have expressed shock to me since the publication of my own piece on the priest scandal that the proportion of homosexual priests is so high, and the disregard of celibacy so blatant, widespread, and ideologically based. The fact is, the painful truths about homosexuality and the Church that we now take for granted in our debates were successfully hushed up for years. Covering up those facts, deeply damaging as they are to the prestige and self-understanding of the Church, was the most important reason for the bishops' silence. So even the wider culture of clerical secrecy can have a lot to do with homosexuality per se.

Finally, Welborn seizes on some statistics in the Eberstadt piece that show a high proportion of pedophiles in the now infamous St. John's Seminary in Boston in the late 1950's and early 1960's. Welborn's point is that so many pedophile accusations prior to the Vatican II reforms proves that the culture of the Sixties cannot be blamed for the scandal.

Yet Welborn fails to note that Eberstadt's statistics (originally given by two Boston Herald reporters) show a near doubling of the percentage of pedophilia accusations at St. John's from 1960 to 1968. This massive increase confirms the idea that the cultural changes of the Sixties were driving the scandal. Although Eberstadt herself doesn't emphasize these issues of cultural history, they need some unpacking. For example, it's a mistake to think that "the Sixties" began only in, say, 1965, or even 1968. Historians of the Sixties have long emphasized that there were many anticipatory developments, from the introduction of Playboy and stars like Marilyn Monroe in the Fifties, to the Beat Generation of the same era. The reforms of Vatican II didn't materialize out of nothing. They followed on cultural changes that had already been registered at liberal seminaries in liberal towns like St. John's in Boston. So a higher percentage of pedophile accusations than is normal in the population at large in a liberal Boston seminary in the early Sixties, followed by a near doubling in just eight years, is entirely consistent with the notion that the developing culture of the Sixties has been driving this scandal.

In short, the Eberstadt thesis is upheld. But don't take my word for it. Go and read this extraordinary article yourself.

— Stanley Kurtz is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

The reforms of Vatican II didn't materialize out of nothing. They followed on cultural changes that had already been registered at liberal seminaries in liberal towns like St. John's in Boston.

No, the reforms of Vatican Two didn't materialise out of nothing. They were decisions taken at an Infallible Ecumenical Council (ALL Ecumenical Councils are infallible. It is intrinsic to their nature)by the Bishops of the world and approved by the Pope.

If he can't get this correct, if he thinks an Ecumenical Council represented a bunch of goofball prelates staring at Lava Lamps and contemplating their navels and thinking-up ways to destroy the Faith, then everything else he says is, IMO, called into question.

The stories, columns and opinion pieces posted here make one wonder whether or not there are any Catholics left on the right. For them, it appears the Gates of Hell have prevailed and the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church and Ecumenical Councils are the Ecclesastical equivalent of a love-in.

Good analysis of two interesting articles. Eberhart's article (see link at top of Kurtz' article) is long but very much worth reading. Her conclusions were that drastic measures were required to undo decades of homosexual infiltration and control. If the result meant that Catholics would have to drive 50 miles to Mass - but had a decent church with a faithful clergy - (I'm paraphrasing here), then that was how it would have to be. I think that's a very good observation.

BlackElk posted this in an answer to me on another thread -- I hadn't heard it before, and I think more people should be aware of it. There are few enough laughs coming out of all this.

Walter Cardinal Kasper of Germany was scheduled to attend the American bishops' meeting this week to give the Cardinal Bernardin award (presumably for public heresy or worse private behavior) to former Archbishop Rembert Weakland, of all people, according to the AmChurch Commonweal magazine, published just before Rembert was caught with his, ummm, pants down.

Archbishop wins "Common Ground" honor

Catholic Common Ground, a group started by the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, will give its annual "Initiative" award to Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland.

The Initiative Report, the group's newsletter, made the following announcement in its March 2002 edition (p 6):

"Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland of Milwaukee is the recipient of the 2002 Initiative Award, given to someone who has furthered reconciliation and/or dialogue on important issues within the church.

"A staunch defender of the directions set by the Second Vatican Council, Archbishop Weakland is no stranger to controversy. Yet, his approach to conflict has consistently involved entering into a dialogue with his critics and actively listening to their concerns. His leadership in two highly public conflicts illustrate this point-his chairing of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops committee that drafted a pastoral letter on the economy in 1984 and his recent engagement with the Roman Congregation for the Liturgy over the proposed renovation of the Milwaukee Cathedral".

On reaching his 75th birthday on April 2, Archbishop Weakland submitted his resignation to the Holy See, as required.

The same issue of Initiative Report, reports that Cardinal Walter Kasper will address the Common Ground group (June 21, 2002, 8 p.m., Silver Spring Hilton, Silver Spring, MD). A year ago Pope John Paul II appointed the newly-made cardinal (the bishop of Rottenburg-Stuttgart, 1989-1999) president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

Cardinal Kasper has been deeply involved in dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans, and was instrumental in arranging the October 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. He also publically criticized Dominus Jesus, a document released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope John Paul II. The document explained that though other religions have merit, and though those outside of the visible Catholic Church can be saved, salvation comes through Christ alone by way of the Catholic Church.

Glad to hear you hold Ecumenical Councils in such high regard. Now, kindly pick up copies of the Acta of the first three (Nicea, Constantinonple I and Ephesus) and look at the sections discussing the Creed. The first two wrote it, including the passage which Englishes as "I believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified".

The Third forbade changes. Now, kindly explain your communion's use of a different Creed.

Fortunately, Vatican II was not an Ecumenical Council, only a conventicle of the Patriarchate of Rome which has been separated from the Church by heresy since the 11th century. The Orthodox pray for your conversion and restoration.

The Third forbade changes. Now, kindly explain your communion's use of a different Creed

I'll give you one quick explanation so you can reject it and move on to other arguments - you have an inexhaustible supply of nursed hatreds, imprecations, accusations ect (none of which, BTW, will forestall re-Union).

Later Creeds do not imply earlier ones are incorrect. Later Creeds simply convey more information, draw out more truths from the Original Deposit of Faith. You appear to think that the Holy Spirit finished His work and anything that is different is "change" and, therefore, heretical. Try the word development instead of change and maybe you will be LESS likely to spend your time suffused in sulphurous angst, concretised in the "surety" of a dead and long ago past, quick to accuse other Christians of heresy, blasphemy and all manner of evil actions.

You seem to think one Ecumenical Council can bind future Ecumenical Councils from being led by the Holy Spirit to adeeper understanding of the Deposit of Faith. That really is a very odd intellectual mindset and no Ecuemnical Council ever asserted such a thing. "A perfect and complete understanding of the Original Deposit of Faith has been acheived and from henceforth NO development of Doctrine shall be allowed" is a thought so foreign to an Ecuemnical Council and to Church Fathers that it seems an embarassment to have to say these things to you publicly. But, I know that it is not only necessary, I know you will reject it.

I would have expected to occur exactly what has occured, that over time, the Holy Spirit would lead us to understand more fully the Original Deposit of Faith even as Jesus slowly revealed Himself to His followers. But, that is just me...

"Welborn notes that the high proportion of homosexuals in the priesthood does in fact tend to drive heterosexuals away from the priesthood."

And, isn't it likely to drive the lay faithful away from parishes and educational institutions where priestly sodomy is flaunted, thus further bankrupting the Church? Church historians of the future will have to ask precisely how much the homosexual scandals have cost the Church in the U.S. in damage to public credibility as well as in the financial disasters pending.

"...a near doubling of the percentage of pedophilia accusations at St. John's from 1960 to 1968. This massive increase confirms the idea that the cultural changes of the Sixties were driving the scandal. Although Eberstadt herself doesn't emphasize these issues of cultural history, they need some unpacking. For example, it's a mistake to think that "the Sixties" began only in, say, 1965, or even 1968. Historians of the Sixties have long emphasized that there were many anticipatory developments, from the introduction of Playboy and stars like Marilyn Monroe in the Fifties, to the Beat Generation of the same era. The reforms of Vatican II didn't materialize out of nothing. They followed on cultural changes that had already been registered at liberal seminaries in liberal towns like St. John's in Boston. So a higher percentage of pedophile accusations than is normal in the population at large in a liberal Boston seminary in the early Sixties, followed by a near doubling in just eight years, is entirely consistent with the notion that the developing culture of the Sixties has been driving this scandal."

Bingo.

I know that a number of very well-informed Catholics have expressed shock to me since the publication of my own piece on the priest scandal that the proportion of homosexual priests is so high, and the disregard of celibacy so blatant, widespread, and ideologically based.

If "the disregard of celibacy is so blatant and widespread," then the church should re-evaluate the concept. If the clergy is going to have sex, it should be with their wife, not an altar boy.

Church historians of the future will have to ask precisely how much the homosexual scandals have cost the Church in the U.S. in damage to public credibility as well as in the financial disasters pending.

The costs of this are utterly incalculable. I mentioned on another thread a couple of priests I'd heard of years ago (in the 70s) getting involved with women (they didn't leave); it struck me since this scandal broke that maybe they knew about the high rate of homosexuality in the priesthood and were largely reassuring themselves that they weren't gay. I mentioned another priest who was assigned to work with "troubled priests" in Boston, and was so appalled at what these people had done that he started drinking heavily.

Look, too, at the damage it's done to the pro-life movement. I heard one guy say, "No wonder they're against abortion -- they need a steady stream of kids to diddle"; if he's saying it, others are thinking it. Can you picture Cardinal Law ever again using one of his favorite formulations, "It's for the children," and being taken seriously? Personally, I think I'd throw up if I ever heard him say it again.

And this last is part of the embracing question of moral authority. Can bishops who, at best, covered up and, at worst, encouraged or participated in behavior that the majority of people -- even people who aren't religious -- find utterly repugnant argue convincingly against, say, stem-cell research, which can't draw on even the emotional response that partial-birth abortion draws?

The millstone sounds better and better.

If "the disregard of celibacy is so blatant and widespread," then the church should re-evaluate the concept. If the clergy is going to have sex, it should be with their wife, not an altar boy.

From the Eberstadt article:

Even more illogical, if that is possible, has been the idea that allowing priests to marry would somehow reduce the kind of sexual offenses of which the scandals were made. "Right," in conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher's tart words. "As if wives are the answer to the sexual urges of men who get their kicks from adolescent boys."

And this last is part of the embracing question of moral authority. Can bishops who, at best, covered up and, at worst, encouraged or participated in behavior that the majority of people -- even people who aren't religious -- find utterly repugnant argue convincingly against, say, stem-cell research, which can't draw on even the emotional response that partial-birth abortion draws?

Isn't it chilling? And I don't think they have a clue as to the damage they have caused that has yet to happen. I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but Satan couldn't have devised a better plan than what has unfolded and what will unfold in the future.

I'd guess that most Bishops will not dare to mention "the children"... it'll be Hilary!'s domain. Scary.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.