THE
VATICAN’S
RECENT
decision
to
purge
Catholic
seminaries
of
gay
men
makes
me
think
of
Groucho
Marx’s
line,
“I
refuse
to
join
any
club
that
would
have
me
as
a
member.”
In
truth,
the
church’s
authoritarianism
drove
me
away
years
before
I
was
ready
to
deal
with
my
sexuality.
Leaving
the
church,
however,
can
be
easier
than
making
it
leave
you.
Family
tradition,
rituals
instilled
early,
the
music
and
images
and
stories
—
they
can
exert
a
lasting
emotional
pull
long
after
you
have
rejected
the
core
beliefs.
This
personal
awareness
tempers
my
irreverence
when
I
wonder
with
exasperation
what
it
would
take
for
diehard
gay
Catholics
to
get
the
message
that
they
are
not
welcome.
Belonging
to
a
family
or
a
church
that
doesn’t
want
you
may
be
painful,
but
that
doesn’t
make
it
any
easier
to
turn
your
back.
It
is
supremely
ironic
that
a
key
hallmark
of
the
life
of
Jesus
of
Nazareth
was
his
affinity
for
and
kindness
toward
outcasts:
the
tax
collectors,
the
adulterous
woman,
the
Good
Samaritan.
He
admonished
against
judging
others,
decried
as
hypocrisy
public
displays
of
prayer,
and
declared
that
it
was
easier
for
a
camel
to
pass
through
the
eye
of
a
needle
than
for
a
rich
man
to
enter
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven.
How
far
the
Roman
church
has
strayed
from
its
originator.
SOME
CHURCH
OBSERVERS
have
noted
that
Joseph
Ratzinger’s
new
job
as
pope
gives
him
pastoral
responsibilities
that
he
lacked
as
head
of
the
office
formerly
known
as
the
Inquisition.
Their
hopeful
thought
is
that
perhaps
the
more
liberal
instincts
of
Ratzinger’s
youth
might
reassert
themselves
once
his
holiness
ventures
outside
the
fortress
walls
to
encounter
his
diverse
flock.
Well,
forget
it.
If
there
were
any
lingering
doubt,
the
Vatican’s
latest
action
makes
it
clear
that
veteran
gay
activist
Frank
Kameny
is
right:
this
pope’s
proper
name
is
not
Benedict,
but
Maledict.
His
latest
malediction
is
of
a
piece
with
his
notorious
1986
“Letter
to
the
Bishops
of
the
Catholic
Church
on
the
Pastoral
Care
of
Homosexual
Persons,”
in
which
he
made
excuses
for
anti-gay
violence
while
claiming
to
deplore
it.
The
new
church
witchhunt
reminds
me
of
two
priests
I
met
during
my
college
years.
One
was
an
eager
authoritarian
tool
while
also
cruising
for
sex
in
gay
bars
(I
was
a
firsthand
witness).
The
other
subtly
conveyed
gay
vibes
while
transmuting
his
celibacy
into
glowing
pastoral
care.
(I
will
offer
no
more
details
of
these
men
lest
I
myself
become
an
accessory
to
a
witchhunt.)
The
contrast
between
these
two
priests
suggests
a
further
irony:
If
the
new
prohibition
were
extended
from
seminaries
to
the
priesthood
in
general,
it
would
be
more
likely
to
imperil
the
one
whose
ideology
more
closely
matches
that
of
Ratzinger.
A
consistently
enforced
ban
on
gay
priests
would
lead
to
the
greatest
purge
since
Stalin’s
show
trials.
But
the
bishops
who
obstructed
justice
for
decades
in
cases
of
priestly
child
molestation
are
looking
for
scapegoats,
not
consistency.
Their
action
will
only
make
the
church’s
sexual
problems
worse,
since
it
is
not
homosexuality
that
leads
to
abuse,
but
secrecy,
repression
and
lack
of
accountability.
THIS
UNHOLY
POLICY
will
only
inject
more
poison
into
the
ecclesial
hierarchy.
Rome’s
ongoing
flight
from
reality
boggles
the
mind,
even
though
we
could
hardly
expect
any
better
from
those
in
charge.
What
will
it
take
for
mainstream
news
organizations
to
look
past
the
papal
pomp
and
pageantry
to
confront
the
church’s
medievalist
obscurantism,
which
has
been
ridiculed
by
Western
writers
at
least
since
Galileo’s
Dialogues,
and
is
now
resurgent?
To
my
gay
peers
who
chose
to
remain
in
the
Roman
church
as
I
did
not,
I
can
only
suggest
that
if
the
church
means
anything
as
a
spiritual
community,
it
must
transcend
the
corrupt
and
hateful
organization
that
claims
to
lead
it.
Remember
the
promise
in
Matthew
18:20:
“Where
two
or
three
are
gathered
in
my
name,
I
shall
be
there
with
them.”
They
can’t
take
that
away
from
you.
