an inch from murder - weblog

« Judge Nullifies Ex-Priest's Abuse Conviction | Main | Washington man accused in child-sex case »

April 09, 2005

Sexual abuse of a child is not homosexual activity? It's child abuse.

The pope hated gays. In his sermons and writings, and in Vatican papers expressly approved by him, John Paul II declared that same-sex relationships were "rooted in an ideology of evil." He described political support for the rights of lesbians and gays to adopt children as "gravely immoral." He said that permitting children to be raised by same-sex couples "would actually mean doing violence to these children." He told Catholics, and everyone else who was listening, that homosexuality was "an intrinsic moral evil." He warned that when lawmakers bestow rights on gay and lesbian people "neither the church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase." And while many believe his anti-gay statements were related to marriage and children, John Paul took decisive action in the first half of his Papacy against anything that could be interpreted as extending sympathy or empathy toward gay people. In a 1986 pastoral letter on the "care of homosexual persons," he told bishops to guard against the "deceitful propaganda" of LGBT people. That letter resulted in the gay Catholic group Dignity being banned from meeting in Catholic Churches.

In the wake of Pope John Paul II's death it may seem churlish to dwell on the Holy Father's homophobia. But he devoted a chunk of his life's work to convincing the family, friends, clergy, neighbors, employers, democratically-elected representatives and health care providers of LGBT people - as well as anyone else who might come in contact with them - that gays and lesbians are moral degenerates. When it comes to the pope's legacy, his jihad against gay people was no small matter. Yet you'd think it was to read the retrospectives of his 26-year Papacy published since his death April 2. Every U.S. daily rightly focused on the Pope's historical outreach to Jews and his role as a catalyst in Poland's Solidarity movement, which played a key role in the fall of communism. But there was a near complete failure to explore the pope's ardent advocacy against same-sex marriage, the Vatican's attempts - with the pope's blessings - to blame homosexual priests for the clergy sex abuse crisis and the Vatican's role - again, with the pope's blessings - in campaigning against the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. Typical of the mainstream dailies' acknowledgement that homosexuality was an issue with the pope was this line from a news analysis piece in the Los Angeles Times titled "Innovator Revised Papacy": "Minimizing debate over Catholic doctrine, he ordered bishops, theologians, priests and nuns to fall in line behind his opposition to artificial contraception, ordination of women and married men, homosexuality and remarriage for divorced Catholics." Of course, lumping the pope's treatment of homosexuality in with his treatment of divorced Catholics isn't just ridiculous, it's misleading.

It's not as if there was some sort of informal dictum to save detailed criticisms of the pope for later. Nearly every mainstream outlet focused on what the New York Times elegantly described in an editorial Sunday as the pope's use of "the tools of modernity to struggle against the modern world." The Washington Post, which marshalled astonishingly broad coverage of John Paul II's life and death, offered several detailed critiques of his reign. One, published on Sunday and titled "Many Complain Church Has Lost Touch With Poor," reports on growing dissatisfaction among Mexican Catholics with many priests' lack of empathy with the living conditions of the poor. Another, also published Sunday and titled "For Victims, Strong Words Were Not Enough," critiques the pope's handling of the clergy sex abuse scandal. "To many victims and their families, however, the pope's actions fell short," writes Post reporter Alan Cooperman. "Under John Paul, they contend, the Vatican was more aggressive about stamping out dissent within the priesthood over birth control than it was about protecting children."

Incredibly, however, the only mention of the Vatican's cowardly attempts to blame the crisis on gay priests is when Cooperman gives Papal biographer George Weigel a platform to repeat the lies: "Like many traditional Catholics, Weigel also contends that the origins of the scandal lie in the 1960s, under previous popes who tolerated dissent and allowed a gay subculture to develop in the priesthood. The solution, in his view, is to continue down the path set by John Paul: strict fidelity to church teachings that support celibacy for priests and condemn homosexual activity."

How often does it need to be stated that sexual abuse of a child is not homosexual activity? It's child abuse.

Most surprising - and disappointing - in the coverage of John Paul's death is that even outlets like Salon.com, Slate, The New Republic, and the Village Voice, all of which can be relied upon for intelligent, incisive and near-instant analysis on breaking news, pretty much ignored the pope's obsession with homosexuality. Christopher Hitchens authored a tough piece for Slate subtitled "What No One Else Will Say About John Paul II" castigating him for providing Cardinal Bernard Law with a "sinecure at the Vatican." But the piece ignores the Vatican strategy for refusing to accept responsibility for the clergy sex abuse epidemic: blame it on the gays.

Salon offers several critical looks at the Pope, the best of which is from Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice, who laments the pope's failure to bring disparate groups together: "John Paul II, for all the bridges he built to the Jewish community, Islam and the poor, blew up the bridges that spanned the divide between clergy and laity, men and women, right and left, gay and straight. This is a great tragedy."

The New Republic published a piece that may be the worst take on the Pope's legacy. In "Success Story," Gregg Easterbrook breezily notes: "History will laud John Paul II for three magnificent undertakings: his role in the downfall of communist tyranny, his revitalization of the intellectual life of the church, and his role in the worldwide expansion of Roman Catholic observance and of respect for Roman Catholic institutions. History will also judge John Paul II harshly for being wrong on women's issues. But accomplished in three major areas versus wrong in one adds up to greatness." Easy for him to say.

I could only find one media outlet that treated the pope's campaign against homosexuals with any seriousness. The Boston Phoenix's Dan Kennedy, writing in his online Media Log Monday praised an op-ed by Sister Helen Prejean for the New York Times that concludes the "effects of the pope's leadership" against the death penalty will be felt "for years to come." Kennedy then presents the circumstances of a lesbian couple with children from Detroit, Michigan, who lost their health benefits thanks to an anti-gay marriage ballot question supported by voters last fall. Would the pope, given his much-balleyhooed respect for a "culture of life," Kennedy asks, "have approved of such wanton, dehumanizing cruelty?" Why yes, he would! The next pope and the Catholic Church can do whatever it wants, Kennedy writes, but "civil society has got to speak out against the Church's increasing insistence on messing around with the lives of the non-Catholic majority."

Indeed. In a piece titled "The Pope Is Dead: Why You Should Care," the Village Voice reminds us of the role the Pope has played in the culture wars: "And John Paul never shied from making direct calls to Roman Catholic politicians, as he did in July 2003, when he asked them to block or repeal laws permitting gay marriage."

Let's not forget: the pope was the most popular person on the planet. Diane Sawyer eulogized him as the "rock star pope." There are Web sites devoted to the popemobile. His 1994 book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope was a worldwide bestseller. It is naïve bordering on ignorant to underestimate the impact that the Pope's homophobic edicts and utterances have had on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people around the world. That no mainstream media outlet, as of this writing, has deemed it newsworthy to examine the havoc wrought by John Paul on a minority of people, some Catholic, some not, but all members of the human family, shows just how far gay and lesbian people have to go before our needs are taken seriously, much less met. It is impossible to imagine that had the Catholic Church and the pope targeted another minority in similar fashion over the past 26 years, that it also would have been ignored.
----

Susan Ryan-Vollmar is the Editor in Chief of Bay Windows.

Posted by Nealus at April 9, 2005 11:55 AM

Comments

Post a comment