The Catholic Church wants to crack down on homosexuals in the priesthood. Ask the U.S. military how well that works.
Oh, good lord. In response to the spate of clergy sex-abuse cases that erupted in 2002, the Roman Catholic Church is launching an intensive "purification," Vatican-style. The upshot: homosexuals are officially personae non gratae in the House of God. A document recently released by the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education bars active gays and those with "deeply rooted" homosexual tendencies from the priesthood, while candidates with "passing" homosexual tendencies must have abstained from temptation for at least three years — how scientific! — in order to be ordained. Already underway is a momentous "Apostolic Visitation," aka review, whereby all 229 U.S. seminaries will be surveyed for "evidence of homosexuality." I'd like to see those exhibits in the courtroom: National Geographic penguin shots? Cher pinups? The Iliad? Let the inquisition begin!
Sorry, investigation. But like any organization mired in long-standing dysfunctional behavior, the church is fumbling toward change in a convoluted manner: instead of excising the rottenness within accurately and unflinchingly, officials are focusing on homosexuality in general. Granted, homosexuality has never been a favorite in the RCC. Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote in 1986 that "[a]lthough the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin" — phew! — "it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil." But the church's logic — purging pederasty will be achieved by purging homosexuality — is deeply troubling, suggesting as it does that it is homosexuals in general, not pedophiles in particular, who are the danger. (If girls had been the predominant targets of abuse, would the church be investigating seminaries for "evidence of heterosexuality"?)
The church is not just "any workplace," of course, but it could learn something from the competitive, corporate world. I'm not just talking about EEOC compliance, I'm talking about smart management. Faced with a rash of horrific incidents from within, a strong leader faces the big questions head-on: are there conditions in this organization that allowed illegal behavior to flourish? (In the church's case, "silence" and "secrecy" spring to mind.) Why were denial and spin allowed to impede due process? What internal changes will ensure that both the scandals and the official (non)response are less likely to happen again? A truly moral leadership — one that makes unequivocally clear, to its employees and to the public, that criminal behavior will not be tolerated — would be a start.
Presumably, the church thinks it is solving its problems by rooting out "homosexual tendencies" and expunging their human carriers. But, really, Fathers. The church is in the business of wrestling with human complexity. As Rev. Stephen J. Rossetti said in The Washington Post, "I think there are some unique challenges for [clerical] individuals with homosexual inclinations." Tarring homosexuality in general hardly qualifies as a nuanced and compassionate response to these challenges. The church prides itself on providing compassion and spiritual counseling to its laity — can't it do the same for its clergy, instead of combing seminarians' rooms for Judy Garland records?
And then there's the matter of constancy. Given its attitude, you would think the church would purge its ranks of homosexuals entirely, but consistency be damned: the ban on gays applies to potential candidates only, not to those already ordained. This hypocrisy smacks of church SOP that the scandals themselves brought to light, namely the exemption of current clergy from the law. What else could explain church actions — the hush-hushing of accusers, the lack of police reports, the shifting of accused clergy from parish to parish through the decades — in spite of senior clergy's awareness of the abuse?
Perhaps the church could look for guidance to another male-dominated, hierarchical organization: the U.S. military, which adopted the Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces (aka "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass") in 1993. Like the Vatican document, "Don't Ask" does its best to define and codify human behavior: under its aegis, according to the Human Rights Campaign, "service members may be investigated and administratively discharged if they make a statement that they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual; engage in physical contact with someone of the same sex for the purposes of sexual gratification; [or] marry or attempt to marry, someone of the same sex." So go ahead, display that photo of your lover ... as long as you tell your bunkmate it's your brother.
While homosexuality may not qualify as a "moral evil" in the military, the Department of Defense (DOD) views it as "incompatible with military service because it interferes with the factors critical to combat effectiveness." As gay soldiers presumably make the grade in terms of maintaining machinery, amassing intelligence, and other staples of military duty, these "critical factors" turn out, instead, to be the "morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." "Unit cohesion," as defined by the National Defense Research Institute, refers to both vital "task cohesion" — a "shared commitment ... to achieving a goal that requires the collective efforts of the group" — and the less crucial "social cohesion" ("emotional bonds of friendship, liking, caring, and closeness").
The NDRI's conclusion? The presence of "acknowledged homosexuals" may reduce a unit's social cohesion — probably resulting in "ostracism of the homosexual, rather than a complete breakdown of the unit" — but "seems less likely to undermine task cohesion." Oh, heck, just say it: "There is no direct scientific evidence regarding the effects of the presence of acknowledged homosexuals on unit cohesion or ... performance."
So let's get this straight, so to speak: there is no evidence that gay soldiers will fracture vital task cohesion among troops, while any disintegration of social cohesion will be the result of heterosexual discomfort. Whose problem is this? Never mind gay outrage, if I were a straight soldier, I'd be pretty insulted, too. These are military men and women, trained to perform under unimaginable pressure. Are they really going to collapse in a faint back in the mess tent when they learn that the private across the table has a boyfriend?
That said, there are always bad apples. Thirty-seven percent of service members surveyed by the DOD in 2000 reported witnessing or experiencing anti-gay verbal and/or physical assaults, and 80 percent had heard offensive speech about gays. But is this cause to boot the fags, or to discipline the straights, and establish a leadership that teaches tolerance by example? Of course, if soldiers can be discharged simply for saying they're gay, there won't be any examples left.
Such codifications are costly, financially and otherwise. According to a 2005 Government Accountability Office report, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has cost the government over $200 million to implement, and resulted in discharges of over 10,000 soldiers, including 300-plus linguists with skills in languages such as Arabic and Korean (fortunately, these aren't relevant to defense policy — oh, wait). But the tide is turning; as recruitment falls, and as we pass the 2,000 death-mark in Iraq, the military maw gapes wider. According to Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), the Army needs 30,000 new recruits to fight the war on terror; hmm, maybe those gays aren't so bad after all. And, in fact, war has always led to a relaxation of standards: a 2004 SLDN report notes that "gay discharge numbers have dropped every time America has entered a war, from Korea ... to present conflicts."
So there you have it: gay enlistees are welcome to serve their country — on pain of death.
And what about serving their God? Barring another round of Crusades (a possibility that doesn't look so unlikely these days), war will probably not induce the church to open its ranks — but again, hard numbers may. According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, between 1965 and 2004, the number of U.S. Catholics grew from 46.6 million to 64.3 million; during the same period, the number of U.S. priests dwindled from 58,132 to 43,304. As the church manipulates the pederasty scandals in order to purge itself of homosexuals, it may succeed in "purifying" its ranks — but in doing so, may shrink its numbers further.
Imagine that: two bureaucratic behemoths, determined to regulate the complexities of the human condition by weeding out all "unacceptable" behavior, in the process shrinking themselves to unrecognizable form. Maybe there is a god after all.
