"Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you."
Jean-Paul Sartre
Those who used to visit this blog on a regular basis—before I became anti-American—know I refer to myself as a "good Catholic boy". Sometimes, when writing or posting an entry, I understand confusion might arise from contradictions inherent in a profession of faith and the content of my average post (vituperative calls for the disembowelment of the U.S. president and other profane shit). Some see easily through the fog clouding my intent. AKMA, a priest of the Protestant persuasion (we used to shoot them in Ireland—but it was for their own good, I assure you), has always done so. He shows a healthy appreciation of human nature and has taught me that not all Prods are Heathen.
In fact, I've always regarded the Adam family as closet Catholics. That I regard Frank similarly would not, I know, gladden our favourite peacenik's heart, but there you go.
Speaking of closets, we might as well cut to the chase and this excellent New York Times op-ed by John L. Allen, At the Vatican, Exceptions Make the Rule. Allen's the National Catholic Reporter's Vatican correspondent, but that doesn't atomatically qualify him as an idiot. Hear him out. His piece, ostensibly about a soon-to-be-announced ban on gays entering the seminary, points to the heart of a healthy Catholic outlook.
Yeah, reread that last sentence—it could be taken as a classic piece of underhand casuistry.
It's important to remember that, as Allen points out, the issue is not whether you regard discrimination as healthy, unhealthy or ideal. There's far more to it than that.
The forthcoming Vatican document on gays in seminaries will unleash a wrenching debate about Catholicism and homosexuality, but one thing it is certain not to mean is that in the future there will be no gays in the priesthood. The continued presence of gays in the priesthood will be the product not just of difficulties in enforcement, or the dishonesty of potential candidates, but also of design.Ring them bells St. Peter | Where the four winds blow, | Ring them bells with an iron hand | So the people will know. | Oh it's rush hour now | On the wheel and the plow | And the sun is going down | Upon the sacred cow.
Although this is a difficult point for many Anglo-Saxons to grasp, when the Vatican makes statements like "no gays in the priesthood," it doesn't actually mean "no gays in the priesthood." It means, "As a general rule, this is not a good idea, but we all know there will be exceptions."
Understanding this distinction requires an appreciation of Italian concepts of law, which hold sway throughout the thought world of the Vatican. The law, according to such thinking, expresses an ideal. It describes a perfect state of affairs from which many people will inevitably fall short. This view is far removed from the typical Anglo-Saxon approach, which expects the law to dictate what people actually do.
While Italians grumble about lawlessness, fundamentally they believe in subjectivity. Anyone who's tried to negotiate the traffic in Italian cities will appreciate the point. No law, most Italians believe, can capture the infinite complexity of human situations, and it's more important for the law to describe a vision of the ideal community than for it to be rigidly obeyed. Italians have tough laws, but their enforcement is enormously forgiving. Not for nothing was their equivalent of the attorney general's office once known as the Ministry of Justice and Grace.
The British historian Christopher Dawson has described this as the "erotic" spirit of cultures shaped by Roman Catholicism. Catholic cultures are based on the passionate quest for spiritual perfection, Dawson writes, unlike the "bourgeois" culture of the United States, which, shaped by Protestantism and based on practical reason, gives priority to economic concerns. As one senior Vatican official put it to me some time ago, "Law describes the way things would work if men were angels."
This value system means that while Vatican officials often project a stern moral image on the public stage, in intimate settings they can be strikingly patient and understanding. Policymakers in the Vatican tend not to get as worked up as many Americans by the large numbers of Catholics in the developed world who flout church regulations on birth control, for example. It's not that Vatican officials don't believe in the regulations. Rather, they believe the very nature of an ideal is that many people will fail to realize it.
Of course, one can debate whether a ban on birth control, or on gays in seminaries, ought to be the ideal. The point is that although Vatican officials will never say so out loud, few actually expect those rules to be upheld in all cases.
Some in the Anglo-Saxon world see this as a form of hypocrisy: the church apparently issues laws while winking at disobedience. But Vatican officials view it instead as a realistic concession to fallen human nature.
On background, some such officials have said that the point of the forthcoming document is to challenge the conventional wisdom in the church, which holds that as long as a prospective priest is capable of celibacy, it doesn't matter whether he's gay or straight. Vatican policymakers and some American bishops believe that's naïve. In an all-male environment, they contend, a candidate whose sexual orientation is toward men faces greater temptations and hence a greater cause for concern.
That's a debatable proposition, but it does not add up to an absolute conviction that no gay man should ever be ordained a priest. Rather, it means that bishops should take a hard look at such candidates, but in the end, they'll still use their best judgment.
Those determined to apply this decree in uncompromising fashion will be able to do so. But while the Catholic priesthood of the future may include fewer homosexuals - and it will certainly have fewer gay seminarians and priests willing to speak openly about their situation - it will not be "gay free."
On the ground, as bishops and seminary teams make decisions, many will still draw on that classic bit of Italian clerical casuistry: "If Father Christopher were here, he would understand."
I think they're looking for trouble if they're asking bishops to have a hard look at gay seminarians, but their safety is not our immediate concern. Allen identifies debatable ideals but, more importantly, he highlights the value and inevitability of an apparently illogical and hypocritical inconsistency.
Any religion holding its adherents to impossible standards is bound to fail. But failure's no reason to let go of the ideal. And breaking the impasse is easy. You merely acknowledge your universal status as natural-born losers. Why the hell not? It's cheap, easy and obligation free.
Catholics, thank God, are held to very little (although this can be a jail in itself). But 'freedom' is extremely difficult for most to appreciate or handle—particularly those who grew into a Church run by people who believed their own propaganda. We're quite capable of compromising ourselves and don't need the Church to do it for us.
A broader education might have engendered a realization in the old school that most of us are savages interested only in the flavor of the month and that some flavors linger longer.
We need a "finger pointing", no matter how much or frequently it manages to piss us off. I mean, we're talking human beings here, and that means all of us.
'Cept gays, of course.
"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does."
Jean-Paul Sartre
Ring them bells St. Catherine | From the top of the room, | Ring them from the fortress | For the lilies that bloom. | Oh the lines are long | And the fighting is strong | And they're breaking down the distance | Between right and wrong.
Bob Dylan | Ring Them Bells
