National News
By Ann Rostow

Priest Story Defies Media Analysis

BOSTON - The unrelenting press coverage of the Catholic priest scandal is focusing on two camps, with a few straggling pundits wandering through the murky middle ground. Camp one says gay priests are the source of the problem. Camp two says sexual orientation is absolutely irrelevant. Adding to the lack of precision reflected in the media, are the anecdotal reports that tell us nothing about the underlying phenomenon. Priest X molested altar boys A, B, and C, in 1980. But Priest Y molested girls in 1975. Priest Z fondled a 17-year-old male last year. But another priest had an affair with a female parishioner for a decade. The overall story is further complicated by a profusion of statistics that seem to come from nowhere. Gay priests represent 15 to 50 percent of the priesthood. Which is it? Gay priests are no more likely to pursue young men than straight priests are likely to pursue young women. Is that true? How do we know?

Nowhere as well, has the press examined the predilections, not of gay or straight men in general, but of men who chose to enter the priesthood at a relatively young age. Are these seminarians young men who have come to grips with their sexuality and have experienced a profound calling to faith and a lifetime of celibacy? Surely not all of them. Of the percentage that may have decided to become priests without the necessary maturity, how many are gay and how many are straight? It would be no slur on the GLBT community if more of these men are gay. In fact, it stands to reason that this would be the case, since it's far more difficult - and more time-consuming - to come to grips with a healthy gay sexual orientation in our society than a straight one. Finally, of these immature priests, many of whom may be gay, what percentage overcome their sexual conflicts, and what percentage act them out with behavior that ranges from the inappropriate to the abusive? What policy would put a stop that behavior?

The salient problem in the Catholic Church is not gay priests, but predatory gay priests. These men, in turn, are being singled out against a backdrop of other Catholic ne'er do wells in the priesthood, including pedophiles of both sexual orientations, as well as heterosexual molesters, and other vow-breakers. Overseeing the whole mess, has been a cadre of craven hypocrites, who are due their share of condemnation.

This week's news alone includes every example of the confusing coverage of the Catholic scandals. Boston Globe columnist, Ellen McNamara turns the issue into one exclusively of pedophilia, and blames the higher-ups. "The Cardinals," she writes, "can chose to distract themselves in Rome by discussing homosexuality, or they can do the hard work of reform by asking each other why they put their self-interest ahead of the interests of children and covered up these crimes." A New York Times feature on a gay Catholic church in San Francisco quotes a church official, Patrick Mulcahey: "The church needs to stop confusing pedophilia with homosexuality," he says. "Pedophiles are child abusers - of both boys and girls."

In irrelevant anecdote news, Reuters reports on a gay priest in Nerja, Spain, who has stepped down after his ex-lover showed parishioners a videotape of the two men in a compromising position. The Desert Sun, in turn, has a long article on the activities of Rev. Paul Shanley, a priest accused of molesting 26 boys, who has spent the last decade running a gay men's resort in Palm Springs. Shanley's resume includes membership in the North American Man Boy Love Association.

From the "blame the gay men" side comes the remarks of Monsignor Eugene Clark, who told a Sunday audience at New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral that letting gay men into seminaries was "a grave mistake." About 150 gay men and lesbians protested in front of the Cathedral in the rain in outrage. Speaking on last Sunday's Meet the Press, Rev. Richard Neuhaus of the Institute on Religion and Public Life told Tim Russert that men with same sex attractions "pose an enormous problem in context, such as seminaries, where you have an all-male situation, in which, by definition they're going to be sexually erotically attracted to one anther. And in which… heterosexual men are going to be made to feel uncomfortable. In some sense, being outsiders, and in another sense being, if I may coin a phrase, sex objects, objects of other men's desires." Bishop Wilton Gregory, the head of the U.S. Conference of Bishops, warned that it was "an ongoing struggle to make sure the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men." As for Detroit's Adam Cardinal Maida, he said flatly that the Catholic Church is "not facing a pedophilia-type problem, but a homosexual-type problem." The Church, he continued, "needs to look at our seminaries and see that we're doing a good job screening candidates."

Numbers crunched this week were found in a Boston Globe feature by author and former priest, Donald Cozzens, who said studies suggest that between 30 and 50 percent of priests are gay. But a column in USA Today quotes a national survey of priests in 2000, which found 15 percent were gay and another 5 percent were bisexual. Neuhaus, on Meet the Press, contributed the fact (derived from Cozzen's book) that "95 percent of same-sex abuse by priests targeted adolescent and older teenage boys." Although Cozzens writes that there are "nearly 25,000 priests active in the priesthood and in our seminaries," an article in the current Newsweek says "the ranks of Catholic priests in the United States are dwindling, down to 45,200 in 2001 from 58,600 in 1965." USA Today, meanwhile, says that as of last year, there were 30,223 "U.S. diocesan priests" and "46,075 priests including those in religious orders." At any given time, says Newsweek (quoting author and former priest A.W. Richard Sipe), "fifty percent of priests, no matter what their sexual orientation, are sexually active in some way." From a column by Dave Ford in the San Francisco Chronicle, we learn that "most male to male pedophiles identify as heterosexuals."

While the Catholic priest scandal continues to dominate the news, the very nature of the scandal remains elusive, as does its roots and its solutions. It's no wonder that very few people know exactly what to think. And that many of the ones who claim to know have arrived at their convictions by simplifying the story.

Committee Trashes Anti-Marriage Amendment

BOSTON - Although foes of same-sex marriage managed to collect enough signatures to put an anti-marriage constitutional amendment on the state ballot, the process for amending the Massachusetts constitution is somewhat elaborate. An amendment that emerges from the initiative process has to be ratified by one fourth of the state legislature in two successive sessions. While that might seem easy, there's a possibility that the measure won't meet even that low threshold. And if it does, the marriage question won't reach voters until late 2004 at the earliest.

In an optimistic development, the Legislature's Joint Committee on Public Service voted 15-0 last week to recommend that the lawmakers vote no on the amendment The amendment not only bans recognition of same-sex marriage, but also outlaws same-sex couples from receiving the benefits of marriage, a turn of phrase that threatens domestic partnerships, civil unions, parental rights and even standard contracts. The scope of the language has led Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) to challenge the amendment under the state constitution before the high court of Massachusetts. And it's possible that middle of the road lawmakers will hesitate in the face of the extreme wording. After the unanimous vote, anti-marriage activists told the Boston Globe that the committee "deliberately and maliciously distorted the effects of the amendment," which Sarah Pawlick of Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage implied was a simple measure "to preserve the traditional one man-one woman marriage."

Backers of the amendment (which is actually two amendments combined to one end), are fearful that a freedom to marry lawsuit could end up legalizing marriage or civil unions in Massachusetts, just as a similar lawsuit did in Vermont two years ago. Both the Vermont suit and the Massachusetts suit were brought by the New England legal group, GLAD, and both were based on the strong individual liberties articulated in the early constitutions of the first states. GLAD is awaiting a ruling on a motion for summary judgment in a Suffolk County court that was argued earlier this year.

Adding to the situation in Massachusetts is a controversy surrounding the method in which signatures were gathered to put the anti-marriage amendment into play. An Arizona contractor, Ballot Access Company, was hired to canvass supermarkets and street corners in order to fill petitions both for the marriage measure, and for a proposal to ban the sale of horses for food. Save Our Horses came up short in the name game, and has taken legal action against the state, accusing Ballot Access of giving a pitch about horses, and substituting the marriage petitions for a signature. EqualMarriage.org has chimed in with similar charges, noting that Ballot Access made more money per signature from the anti-marriage campaign. Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, the accusations have further tainted the marriage amendment. According to the Globe, committee members were concerned about the petition drive, and said the irregularities "call into question the fairness and legitimacy of the process itself."

In related news, the province of Quebec is also the scene of a marriage trial moving up the court system. In stark contrast to Massachusetts, however, the response of Quebec lawmakers has been to set the stage for the passage of civil unions, which is expected this June. The marriage suit, brought by two men, is expected to wind up before the High Court of Canada at some point over the next couple of years.

Posted May 3, , 2002