Jumping Through Hoops

Last week journeyman NBA player Jason Collins became the first openly gay athlete to play on a major men’s U.S. sports team. His “coming out” became the lead story on ESPN and other sports media, and it was generally celebrated as a historic event for the advancement of our culture, much like Jackie Robinson’s breaking the color barrier in baseball over a half-century ago.

One expects diverse, uninformed opinions on talk radio and in the blogosphere. Still, it seems that even much of the more dignified commentary is off the mark. For that reason, I thought I would offer a “top ten” list of my initial reactions to Collins’ announcement, realizing that all these points barely scratch the surface of this momentous societal issue.

(1) Play Ball Let’s start by saying that nobody, including the Catholic Church, is claiming that Jason Collins or other publicly “gay” athletes should not be allowed to compete on professional sports teams. Public acceptance of homosexual liaisons does have negative repercussions, but surely those with same-sex attractions must be treated with love and compassion. It would be unjust discrimination to bar them from pursuing their livelihood (cf. Catechism, no. 2358).

So let’s be clear—Collins’ announcement has nothing to do with his ability to earn his living, but everything to do with the advancement of a social agenda that is at loggerheads with Christianity.

(2) Is He a Hero? There are well over 60 million Catholics in this country whose professed faith–rooted both in Scripture and the natural law (cf. Catechism, nos. 1954-60, 2036, 2357)—teaches that homosexual acts are serious sins. This view of homosexuality is shared by tens of millions of other Christians, as well as many who have arrived at their conclusion based on their perception of reality (cf. Rom. 1:18-32).

One can appreciate a certain level of honesty and even courage in Collins’ announcement, but Christians justifiably recoil at the suggestion that Collins is now some sort of hero or pioneer in a positive sense.  The true heroes are those who quietly struggle perhaps a lifetime to control their disordered passions.

(3) National Conversation? Many news outlets talk a good game about the “national conversation” that Jason Collins’ announcement has produced, as if now we can finally have a free exchange of ideas and viewpoints on this subject. So, in the midst of such a discussion on ESPN, pro basketball commentator Chris Broussard said, “I’m a Christian. I don’t agree with homosexuality. I think it’s a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is.”

A Catholic would do well to express his or her position so succinctly and articulately. Yet Broussard’s comments were unwanted (Google “Chris Broussard Jason Collins” for a sampling of the reaction). ESPN offered its regrets that his personal viewpoint was a “distraction,” and reiterated that “ESPN is fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement.”

In other words, ESPN is fully on board with the gay agenda, and does not welcome other points of view. Beyond the chilling effect of ESPN’s reaction to one of its own, we see the network’s duplicity in purporting to be open to an exchange of ideas on the subject.

(4) Is It Right? The larger problem here is that our culture has relegated the moral law to the level of private opinion. (And especially in the area of sexuality, please keep your opinions to yourself.)

Therefore, anything that isn’t a crime in the government’s eyes must be tolerated in the name of “diversity” or a distorted understanding of “liberty.”  And in the name of tolerance the media will not tolerate any discussion as to whether it’s “good” to act upon one’s same-sex attraction, whether it’s “good” to identify oneself by one’s sexual preference, and whether it’s “good” to seek (and give!) public approval to behavior that the vast majority of peoples and cultures throughout human history has considered unacceptable.

(5) We’re Compromised The Collins announcement is just one more case-in-point that our sex-obsessed culture is compromised when it comes to sexual morality. If we as a people are willing to turn a blind eye to our nation’s pornography addiction, not to mention our society’s acceptance of the widest range of “heterosexual sins,” then it’s not surprising that many people do not feel as though they can do anything but go along with the gay agenda.

After all, if we were to acknowledge moral standards, we’d be obliged to do our best with God’s grace to live by them. I suspect many people are not ready to do that.

(6) What About Tebow? Ironically perhaps, about the same time Jason Collins made his announcement the New York Jets cut quarterback Tim Tebow. Neither Collins nor Tebow are elite players in their sport (though Tebow was elite during his collegiate career), but both find themselves immersed in media attention. Yet the coverage of Tebow, by all accounts a virtuous, openly Christian man, is mostly negative—and not just in terms of his deficiencies as an NFL quarterback. There is frequent mention of teams not wanting him because of the “media circus” caused in large part by his commitment to Jesus Christ.  Players and teams are free in their comments about not wanting someone like him in the locker room.

When it comes to Collins, however, the focus is simply on his being a good teammate. Players are not allowed to express any discomfort with having Collins on their team. We saw the same phenomenon at work before the Super Bowl, when 49er Chris Culliver was raked over the coals for saying that he would rather not have a “gay” teammate.

(7)  Private Lives We frequently hear that the Church and the State should stay out of the bedroom and not meddle in the “private lives” of consenting adults. Yet, Collins’ “private” sexual preference was all we heard about on the news last week. Those of us who like to watch sports with our children should be able to enjoy scores and highlights without the R-rated social commentary.

And yet, with due regard for the innocence of our children, marriage and sexuality indeed is a public matter, as marriages create families, which are the building blocks of a healthy society. That is why marriages are a matter of public and ecclesial record, with witnesses and lavish celebrations. And that is why the State and especially the Church exercise appropriate authority in this area.

(8) Not Born That Way The popular assumption, not corroborated by science or the leaders of the gay rights movement itself, is that homosexual men and women are irremediably “born that way.”

Same-sex attractions, like all disordered sexual attractions, can be strong and deep-seated. However, like all strong sexual desires, there’s an element of choice when it comes to working against or even healing this inclination versus embracing the “gay lifestyle.”

It’s interesting that when it comes to homosexuality at least, the secularists do not uphold the ability to “choose.” Yet following one’s sexual feelings no matter where they lead is a recipe for personal misery. Conversely, there are many Christians who have overcome same-sex attractions and have gone on to live joyful, chaste lives.

Further, as Archbishop Naumann masterfully described in a recent column in The Leaven, many young people in their formative years experience some confusion regarding their sexual identity and orientation. The public support and approval of homosexuality witnessed in Collins’ announcement could surely encourage young people at a pivotal time in their lives to enter a homosexual lifestyle that would threaten their physical, spiritual, and moral health.

(9) Uncivil Rights The Collins story vividly demonstrates that the media will portray those of us who stand up for sexual morality and the good of families and children in a negative light. We simply are on the wrong side of a civil rights issue. By (erroneously) presenting sexual preference as something that is genetically established at birth and unchangeable, gay activists have effectively duped much of the public into thinking that full acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is an “equality” issue.

Deep down we know, as a matter of faith but also of reason and common sense, that God created us as “male and female,” not “gay and straight” (leaving aside, for a moment, the bisexual and transsexual communities). The biological complementarity of man and woman is unmistakably stamped on our bodies, but we’ve been guzzling the Kool-Aid for so long that we’re simply blinded to this reality.

(10) Absence of Moral Leadership Rather than offer any sort of moral leadership, our President and First Lady were among the first to applaud Jason Collins’ announcement and tell him “We’ve got your back.”

Now we see that Jason Collins and Michelle Obama will headline a May 29 Democratic fundraiser at the party’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Leadership Council gala event. Sadly, our government leaders are part of the problem, not part of the solution here.

Much more can and should be said about this, but those are some of the thoughts I’ve had recently. What was your reaction to Jason Collins’ announcement?

Who’s Hiding in the Closet Now? What Catholics Must Do to Combat the Homosexual Agenda

There was a time not too long ago that we would speak of a sexually active homosexual man or woman’s “coming out of the closet.” Now, as I watch the news, hear about recent court decisions, or even read the comics, it seems that homosexuality has not only come out of the closet, but has invaded my living space. In fact, those who uphold traditional Judeo-Christian values are the ones ending up in the closet.

Intolerable Accommodations

In his book Against the Grain (Crossroad, 2008), author George Weigel, drawing upon the social teaching of Blessed John Paul II, writes:

“Freedom must be tethered to moral truth and ordered to human goodness if freedom is not to become self-cannibalizing. If there is only ‘my’ truth and ‘your’ truth, but nothing that we both recognize as ‘the’ truth, then we have no basis on which to settle our differences other than pragmatic accommodation; then, when pragmatic accommodation fails (as it must when the issue is grave enough), either I will impose my power on you or you will impose your power on me.”

It occurred to me that while this paragraph speaks more generally of what Pope Benedict famously dubbed the “tyranny of relativism,” it also provides particular insight into the long-term strategy of the “gay rights” movement. When in a position of relative weakness, the movement seeks acceptance and “pragmatic accommodation.” When in a position of greater strength, as is increasingly the case today, mere accommodation gives way to the imposition of power. Every step of the way, the objective moral law is not “the” truth, but merely an opinion to be condemned as homophobic hate speech. The tyranny of relativism preaches, but does not practice, “tolerance.”

What, then, are some of the societal forces that have helped the “gay rights” movement attain its current position of greater strength?

Catechesis on the Sixth and Ninth Commandments

This week we will treat the Sixth and Ninth Commandments together. First, we have the Sixth Commandment (Catechism, nos. 2331-2400):

You shall not commit adultery.

It is generally understood that this commandment applies not merely to adultery itself, but all misuses of one’s sexuality. Amidst a culture that is largely addicted to sex (see this amazing article by Dr. Peter Kreeft), this commandment calls us to reexamine how we understand the incredible gift of human sexuality.

The Ninth Commandment (Catechism, nos. 2514-33) provides:

You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.

As we shall see, this commandment forbids cultivating thoughts and desires that are connected to actions forbidden by the Sixth Commandment.

It’s easy to look at the Sixth Commandment simply from the standpoint of prohibited activities. But if we look just a little deeper, we will quickly see it’s all about fostering the virtue of chastity. It is a moral virtue requiring much effort, but at the same time it’s a gift of God and a fruit of the Holy Spirit. It is expressed in our friendship with others.

Chastity is related to the cardinal virtue of temperance, in that it helps us to moderate our sexual passions according to reason and Christian morality. All men and women are called to chastity according to our state in life. Chastity is not the same as continence or celibacy, which entails refraining from sexual activity. Even married people with active, healthy sex lives are called to live chastely. Sex is not evil. In fact it’s more than good. It’s holy.

The “theology of the body” taught by Blessed John Paul II has helped us to understand the gift of human sexuality in a healthy, more holistic way that recognizes the complementarity (see Catechism, no. 372) of man and woman. Theology of the body helps us to understand our sexuality as a way of seeking the good of others rather than using them as objects.

Matters of Conscience

When it comes to controversial moral teachings like contraception, abortion, and homosexuality, why can’t I just follow my conscience? In fact, I was taught that we were always supposed to follow our conscience.

I’m sure many of us have heard this sort of objection to the Church’s moral teachings on hot button issues. People either disagree with the Church on these issues and/or have chosen a lifestyle incompatible with this teaching and are looking for a little wiggle room. But how does the Church herself understand such objection to established moral norms?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church identifies the “assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience” as a source of error of judgment in moral conduct (no. 1792). It is true that one should not be forced to act against one’s conscience. But it’s quite another to assert that a Catholic with a well-formed conscience may put the Church’s teachings in the areas of faith and morals through his or her own “approval process.”

Some Catholic commentators assert that a well-formed conscience and official Catholic teaching may come to opposite conclusions in moral matters. This opinion directly contradicts paragraph 2039 of the Catechism: “Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.”

A Catholic simply cannot claim to have a well-formed and well-informed conscience if he is ignorant of, misunderstands, or rejects outright God’s law and thus commits acts that the Church considers gravely disordered.

Hating the Sin, Loving Our Friends

I recently received a letter from a concerned parent which contained this comment: “One of our daughters has stated that she believes that they are turning against their gay friends if they support the Catholic Church doctrine on the subject.”

Is the Church really against people who identify themselves as “gay”? Of course not. But how do we explain the Church’s position in a culture that increasingly promotes homosexual liaisons and even “gay marriage”? What kind of guidance can we give parents such as one quoted above? After all, the Church has always taught—based on natural law and Scripture–that homosexual acts are serious sins (see Catechism, nos. 2357, 2396).

First, I think we should be clear as to what we mean by terms such as “love” or “friendship.” Our Lord said that there is no greater love than to give one’s life for a friend (John 15:13). Friendship entails sacrifice; love involves a sincere gift of self to another.

Further, when we truly love someone, we desire his or her good. The greatest good we can desire for another is his or her eternal salvation. This may sound good in theory, but it can be most challenging in practice when our friend or loved one is on a trajectory away from God. Are we willing to speak the truth in love to them? Do we have the courage to be ambassadors of hope and mercy? Alternatively, out of human respect, misplaced tolerance, or lack of religious conviction have we become “enablers” of sin?

The Church has always taught that we love the sinner even as we hate the sin. The Church certainly would not want anyone’s children to “turn against” or sever their relationships with their homosexual friends, but would challenge them to be “real” friends who desire their friends’ eternal well-being.

Second, it just may be the case that our children’s friends are so hostile to the Church that our children’s espousal of Catholic teaching on homosexuality alone would end the friendship. Here we have to affirm the challenging truth that fidelity to Jesus Christ and His Church must be the priority. We hold out every available olive branch, but we cannot deny Christ just to keep a friend. Our Lord on several occasions reminded us that our vocation as Christians would at times require us to face rejection, even from those close to us (see, for example, Luke 12:49-53). Yet He does give us the consolation of His Holy Spirit to help us in those difficult situations.

 

Gay Parenthood

One argument offered in support of same-sex marriage is that children raised by same-sex couples have no more problems than children raised by their married biological parents. Aware that a major impediment to their agenda is public concern about the welfare of children raised by same-sex couples, gay activists have encouraged researchers to “disprove” this concern. They offer their “findings” to the courts in marriage cases.

The majority of these studies do not compare children raised by same-sex couples with those raised by married biological parents, but with children raised by single mothers or in other less-than-ideal circumstances. Further, many of these studies have been shown to be externally or internally invalid. And in some cases, researchers simply ignored their own findings and skewed their conclusions to fit their agenda.

Persons with same-sex attractions (SSA) are human beings. It’s natural for them to want to experience the joy of having children: to love, to nurture, to leave a legacy. There’s nothing wrong with a woman wanting to become pregnant and bear a child, or a man wanting to experience the joy of seeing his son grow into manhood or his daughter develop into a beautiful woman.

Yet children are not trophies, or a way to meet one’s personal needs, or props to help forward an ideology. People aren’t a means to an end; they’re meant to be loved for their own sake. Therefore, no one has a “right” to a child. It’s children who have the rights. When circumstances separate a child from one or both biological parents, adults should try to create a situation for him or her that is as normal as possible. No matter how honorable the intention, no one has the right to compound the tragedy of separation from biological parents by subjecting a child to another suboptimal situation.

At this point, children raised by same-sex parents are being subjected to a massive social experiment not undertaken for their benefit, but to further the gay rights agenda.

Activists might claim that couples with SSA are “rescuing” children by adopting them out of poverty or other hard circumstances. Although laudable, this intention doesn’t negate the real problems caused by same-sex parenting—problems deeper and longer-lasting than material deprivation. This argument also loses force when one considers the many roadblocks to adoption faced by stable, well-to-do married couples. Same-sex adoption doesn’t necessarily provide more homes to needy children; it often keeps those children away from married couples who would otherwise adopt them.

Of course, when reproductive technologies are used to create babies for same-sex couples, these children aren’t being “rescued” from anything. Instead they’re being intentionally (and immorally) conceived to be placed in suboptimal situations. At best, this is treating the child as an object, a possession, without regard to what may be best for him or her.

On pp. 218-19 of her outstanding book, One Man, One Woman: A Catholic’s Guide to Defending Marriage (Sophia, 2007), author Dale O’Leary summarizes the risks to children of same-sex parenting as follows:

(1) Each of these situations is either fatherless or motherless. Children flourish when they can identify with a parent of their own sex and feel loved and accepted by a person of the other sex.

(2) These children are fatherless or motherless because of adult decisions–often based on a need to feel validated or “complete”–not unavoidable circumstances. Either by adopting them or conceiving them artificially, their care-givers deliberately choose to deprive their children of a mother or a father.

(3) In every same-sex household, one or both parents have no biological relationship to the child. Often compounding the situation are complicated and often contentious legal and emotional relationships with sperm donors, surrogate mothers, former spouses, and ex-partners.

(4) Persons with SSA have a psychological disorder rooted in childhood trauma, which can negatively affect their relationships, their attitudes toward the other sex, and their attitudes toward parenting. They are also more likely to have psychological disorders and therefore are more prone to engage in behaviors that might negatively affect their children.

(5) Adults with SSA are part of a community that views itself as oppressed and in conflict with the greater society. This at-war-with-the-world stance places a burden on the children.

(6) Homosexual behavior is considered sinful by many religions, and same-sex parenting is otherwise stigmatized to some degree in mainstream society. The majority of people in most communities believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. Right or wrong, this can’t help but isolate the children raised by same-sex couples, creating feelings of differentness and inferiority.

(7) The community of adults with SSA tends to have attitudes toward sexuality that encourage sexual experimentation and don’t adequately protect minor children from exposure to sexually explicit materials and sexual exploitation.

Straight Talk

I am truly blessed with many fond childhood memories. I had a loving father and mother and many other family members who cared deeply about me.

Even so, my dominant reality, at least during my school years, was that I was a fat kid. I was relentlessly teased, pushed around, and called names, and I felt powerless to do anything about it. By the time I hit adolescence, I was filled with rage, rebellion, and negative feelings about myself. In my late teens I finally started to get a handle on my weight, but ever since I’ve considered myself in “recovery,” always in need of vigilance lest I return to the nightmarish girth of my youth.

I realize that homosexuality and obesity are two very different conditions, but there are some important points of similarity. For one thing, I know from experience how bullies on the playground (some of whom don’t change their stripes as adults) prey on kids who are different, so I can sympathize with those who have been mercilessly persecuted because of their not-so-hidden sexual identity struggles.

Leaving aside the bullies, there are several typical responses to the fat kid. Some disdainfully point out the obvious (“you’re fat”) and what should happen (“you need to lose 50 lbs.”), but through word and attitude communicate indifference (or worse) to the poor guy’s situation. On the other side of the spectrum, there are those who want to offer an easy way, who want to make the child feel good about being fat.

While my built-up defenses might have suggested otherwise, and I didn’t always respond favorably to constructive weight-loss suggestions, deep down I wanted to change. I appreciated efforts–even seemingly unsuccessful ones–to reach out to me. The people who cared most about me offered diets, changes in lifestyle, and fitness regimens to help me escape an unwanted condition. They offered a plan which typically involved hard work and discipline. Even more, they offered hope.

Homosexual persons need a similar message.

Scouts’ Honor

In “Scouts’ Major Failing” (Kansas City Star, 3/8/12), commentator Mary Sanchez issued an open letter to Robert Mazzuca, an executive with Boy Scouts of America who was in town earlier this week for a prayer breakfast. The purpose of her letter was to call upon Boy Scouts to change their policy prohibiting openly homosexual men from serving as scout leaders and volunteers.

Sanchez uses the pronoun “we,” as though she speaks for all or even most KC-area residents, which clearly is not the case.

She says that there are many among the 2.7 million young men currently involved in scouting “who now or later will identify as gay,” and that the Boy Scouts “is failing them.” She does acknowledge that Boy Scouts have chartering organizations, most of which are churches, which presumably have moral reservations in this area. Therefore she is “insistent” that Boy Scouts’ leadership needs to be proactive in making its organization more accepting of homosexuality.

When it comes to homosexuality, the Catholic Church makes some very important distinctions. A person with same-sex attraction must always be treated with dignity, respect, and compassion. However, homosexual acts, as consistently taught in Scripture and throughout Christian history, are gravely sinful. Because homosexual acts are sinful, the inclination to commit such acts is considered a disorder. In that sense, any inclination to commit immoral acts is a disorder. The term used for this in Catholic theology is concupiscence, and all of us struggle against inclinations to various sins.

Sanchez, meanwhile, uses the commonly accepted term “gay,” which in today’s parlance refers to someone with same-sex attraction who identifies himself according to that attraction and who has embraced it as a good thing. While most people still accept in some fashion “the other commandments,” our sexually promiscuous culture has gone to great lengths to legitimize sexual activity that our Judeo-Christian culture has traditionally regarded as sinful, including homosexual acts.

Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church, and many others therefore do not think it is healthy or wise to encourage developing, adolescent men who may experience same-sex attraction to identify themselves as “gay” and to become part of the “gay culture.” Sanchez disagrees, and that is her right. But she does not stop there, but rather lectures the Boy Scouts and Christian churches for not agreeing with her–for not abandoning their deeply held beliefs and buying into the spirit of the age.

Sanchez begrudgingly acknowledges that the Boy Scouts have the right to prohibit openly homosexual men from leading groups of young men because of the U.S. Supreme Court (Boy Scouts of America v. Dale), but she openly questions whether the Boy Scouts–and by extension, the Christian churches with whom they closely work–should continue to have this right. In an age where the government is trying in unprecedented ways to take away our right to the free exercise of our religion, one cannot help but be disturbed by attempts to tell Christian churches, organizations, and parents what we must teach our children regarding homosexuality.

We are not that far removed, if we are not vigilant, from having the expression of Catholic teaching regarding homosexuality considered a criminal offense. An article appearing this week at National Review tells the story of a Canadian gentleman who took out an advertisement in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, and he and the paper wound up getting fined $9,000 for “exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule.” Here is the entire text of the offending advertisement:

Romans 1:26
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
1 Corinthians 6:9

That’s right: three Scripture passages on homosexuality. The Bible is now considered hate speech, and those who teach what it says can expect to be prosecuted if the United States follows the lead of other secularized Western nations.

For those of us who hold, as a matter of faith and/or science, that same-sex attraction is a disorder, it is eminently sensible not to place someone who openly embraces such a disordered inclination in a position to mentor
impressionable, pubescent boys who are in the process of developing
their own sexual identities.

It would also be unwise to send an openly homosexual man on overnight outings with adolescent boys in the same way that it would be foolish to send a heterosexual man on overnight outings with adolescent girls. It’s a matter of prudence, not discrimination.

Sanchez acknowledges the great effects the Boy Scouts have had on her own siblings as well as on the greater Kansas City community. The Boy Scouts have developed a formula based on Christian values that has withstood the test of time. God bless them for remaining true to their principles in a society that needs their principles and values now more than ever.

Courage to Be Chaste

This week the National Catholic Register published an informative interview with Fr. Paul Check, the executive director of Courage, an organization that ministers to people with same-sex attractions. Check out the entire interview here.

I thought Fr. Check provided an especially clear, down-to-earth summary of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality:

“There’s a distinction we always make among the person, the inclination and  the action. The person is always good: a child of God, redeemed in Christ and  invited to grace and glory. As for the inclination, the Church teaches that it’s  disordered when put alongside our understanding of what it means to live and act  in a way consistent with our human nature, in this case, in the realm of human  intimacy and love.

“It’s the ultimately procreative power of sexual activity that tells us why  the world is divided into two sexes. Therefore, the same-sex inclination is  described by the Church as disordered because it’s at variance with that design  and order in nature. That inclination takes a person’s deepest aspirations and  desires and confuses them by layering on top of them an erotic same-sex  attraction. Underneath that layer, however, there is the fullness of human nature to include authentic desires relating to human intimacy. And although the  inclination is disordered, we stress that this is absolutely no basis for a  personal moral condemnation.

“But the action–the deliberate choice to engage in homosexual activity–that action is gravely immoral.”

Archbishop Naumann has noted that we cannot credibly oppose same-sex “marriage” without at the same time providing a compassionate pastoral response to those with same-sex attractions. Fr. Check puts it this way:

Addressing the Meltdown

Blessed John Paul II biographer George Weigel authored a thought-provoking editorial entitled “Priests, Abuse, and the Meltdown of a Culture” published today at National Review Online.

The editorial provides insightful commentary on the 300-page report entitled “The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950- 2010,” prepared by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, which was released by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops this week.

The editorial has a most provocative opening:

“The American narrative of the Catholic Church’s struggles with the clerical sexual abuse of the young has been dominated by several tropes firmly set in journalistic concrete: that this was and is a ‘pedophilia’ crisis; that the sexual abuse of the young is an ongoing danger in the Church; that the Catholic Church was and remains a uniquely dangerous environment for young people; that a high percentage of priests were abusers; that abusive behavior is more likely from celibates, such that a change in the Church’s discipline of priestly celibacy would be important in protecting the young; that the Church’s bishops were, as a rule, willfully negligent in handling reports of abuse; that the Church really hasn’t learned any lessons from the revelations that began in the Long Lent of 2002.

“But according to an independent, $1.8 million study conducted by New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice, commissioned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and released on May 18, every one of these tropes is false.”

Weigel not only proceeds to unmask these popular misconceptions, but also offers commentary on the cultural factors in the Church and world in the 1960s-80s that contributed to the horrific sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church in America.

One point not given adequate treatment by the report, according to Weigel, is the role of homosexuality. Even though 81 percent of the clerical sex abuse victims were male (and given studies that show that girls are usually three times more likely to be abuse victims), the study did not find that priests with same-sex attractions were significantly more likely to be abusers than priests with heterosexual attractions.

I thought Weigel’s concluding comment on the broader societal context of the crisis was right on the mark:

“If the John Jay study on the ’causes and context’ of clerical-sexual-abuse problems in the Catholic Church prompts a broader public reflection on the fact that the sexual revolution has not been, and is not, cost-free, and that its victims are often the vulnerable young, then the Church will have done all of American society a signal service in commissioning this study that looks into its own heart of darkness.”