Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Go To Hell
The Law of Guns and Canon
Annoy.com,
May 31, 2002
http://www.annoy.com/editorials/doc.html?DocumentID=100359
By Clinton Fein
They function as entities unto themselves. They have their own standards,
their own morals, their own values and their own set of laws that govern their
conduct. Deference is given to them by both courts and constitutions globally.
Both have been beset by scandal, time and time again. Most often, it’s about
sex.
For all their differences, they are disturbingly similar. The United States
military and the Catholic Church are two among the most powerful institutions
in the world. The law of guns and canons, namely the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ), governs American men and women in uniform (and prisoners of
war, visa violators, and men with slightly darker skin than Tonya Harding with
last names like Paula Abdul). The 1917 and revised 1983 Codes of Canon law (COC),
on the other hand, also govern men in uniform, albeit uniforms that would
result in an immediate discharge if worn by men in the military. Women in
either uniform are not particularly favored by either institution.
Both patriarchal hierarchies are governed by excessive structures and
strict codes of conduct that inevitably run against the grain of human nature
and ultimately are impossible to maintain to serve the intended purpose. Both
the institutions and the laws that govern them are shrouded in secrecy and
lies and plagued by abuse and cover-ups, yet both are held up as bastions of
social virtue and moral certitude. Both duck and dive in their conduct and
twisted phraseology, their attempts to govern human relationships revealing
more about their inadequacies than their strengths. And both shoulder more
responsibility for the damage incurred on themselves and those they touch than
any outside influences, which both seeks to blame.
"De sexton," the Sixth commandment, ("Thou shall not commit
adultery") is used as a catch-all phrase for any kind of sexual problem
or crime, and conduct "in re turpi" (which refers to particularly
offensive transgressions, including ‘unnatural’ acts) are the most
frequently used by the Church to describe the conduct of their escalating
wayward priests. Similarly, the United States military insists on
adultery-free conduct for married servicemembers (Commanders in Chief
notwithstanding) and even prohibits ‘unnatural acts’ such as sodomy (the
infamous Article 125) between married adults.
In order to appreciate their similarities, it makes sense to consider the
extent to which, in many ways, they serve as polar opposites. It would serve
those seeking to bring about change in the Church by relaxing the Papal
doctrine on celibacy, homosexuals and women to study what the playing field
will look like by exploring the nuances of the "Don’t Ask, Don’t
Tell" military policy of the United States.
The Unites States military represents a microcosm of America at large, and
as such, has often been unwillingly forced to adjust its positions and
policies in order to keep up with societal changes. President Harry S. Truman’s
Executive Order, which brought an end to official segregation in the armed
forces, was only signed in 1948. The Catholic Church responds to change at a
far slower pace, euphemistically speaking. Modern science cannot even shake
some of the firmly held tenets of Christian doctrine. Graciously the Church
apologized to Galileo Galilei for his 1632 heresy conviction just slightly
before Bill Clinton apologized to America for feeding Monica Lewinsky under
the desk.
The Catholic Church has been under heavy attack by the media (who might
finally succeed where modern science failed once the talk of increased
"chatter" subsides, Evita W. Bush returns from the Rainbow tour to
Europe and they can revert back to sex, lies and who murdered Chandra).
America’s smorgasbord of fast-food journalism is so excited by the sex
abuse scandal they are grudgingly, if barely, covering the explosive situation
in the Middle East and that other place where, yawn, Donald Rumsfeld is still
planning Missile Defense Shield strategies and a war on Iraq in the name of,
yawn, terrorism. The more cynical among us are hard pressed to avoid
considering Cardinal Bernard Law reneged on the abuse settlement originally
promised to victims to pay Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft and FBI Director
Robert Mueller to take heat for withholding receipt of a certain FBI memo from
Phoenix as a distraction to move the scandal from the front pages.
More dangerous to the Church though, is the attack by decent Catholics who
have finally decided enough is enough. Watching the Church leadership choke on
its own moldy and stale diet of bigotry, deceit, blame and blackmail has
become nothing short of a spectator sport in the United States, and with the
God-answered cancellation of the XFL and the dismal failure to find the
untouchable Osama bin Laden, Americans want blood.
In a series of what can only be politely termed public relations
catastrophes, it appears that every time a Cardinal opens his mouth, another
nail is hammered into the coffin of papal credibility, sending the media into
a feeding frenzy and both Catholics and non-Catholics alike reeling in
incredulous horror. For all his Doctor Strangelove evil logic and demented
hand gestures, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is winning the PR battle—at
least in America—where the Church is imploding. From statements expressing
how much the Pope loves contact with children, to strategically disastrous
accusations and Clintonesque parsing from the likes of Cardinals Edward Egan,
Bernard Law, Roger Mahoney and George Francis. All that’s left is for them
to adopt Michael Jackson’s "Keep the Faith" as their theme song to
get them through the crisis.
A hastily arranged meeting with the Pope at the Vatican allowed the
Cardinals to escape into five star luxury in Italy and avoid the rapidly
boiling discontent in the forms of protests and calls for resignation—particularly,
Boston’s Bernard Law. Law, in perfect tradition, relocated a pedophile who
was publicly advocating sex between men and boys to minister children, and not
just one either—both former priest John J. Geoghan and the Rev. Paul R.
Shanley have been blessed with Law’s denial in the form of praise and
relocation. The moral and intellectual equivalent of hiring Jeffrey Dahmer as
a babysitter, or Mike Tyson as a rape counselor. And the public relations
equivalent of positioning Aldridge Ames to explain how giving a student visa
to Mohammed Atta was an isolated, unexpected mistake. Or hiring Oliver North
as a military strategist and expect anyone to believe him. (Well, except Fox
news).
In a display of the worst possible arrogance and contempt, Law has accused
children that were raped and molested, and their parents, of negligence. Los
Angeles’ Cardinal Roger Mahoney has been equally vitriolic as accusations of
abuse by him and his priests mount by the minute. From Milwaukee to Florida,
the list of abusive Bishops and priests keeps growing. The Boston archdiocese
has identified more than 80 priests in the Boston area who have been accused
of molesting minors over the past 40 years. In 1991, more than 80 women were
sexually assaulted by drunken Navy and Marine aviators at a convention,
infamously referred to as Tailhook. Silence, blaming the victim, denial
cover-ups, and eventually payouts served as a huge wake up call at the time.
The keyword du jour for the Cardinal Cleansing Conference was "zero
tolerance"—a typically shallow, overused American buzzword that has
oversimplified complex issues resulting in teachers sending children home for
daring to bring pencils to school, or publicly hoisting their skirts to ensure
appropriate panties—if any at all.
Seeped in denial, and framing the summit, was papal biographer George
Weigel’s observation that the "serious problem of homosexually oriented
clergy who are not living chaste celibate lives" was to blame along with
the "culture of dissent that has contributed immeasurably to the
ecclesiastical atmosphere in which sexual misconduct festers."
Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George sought to explain the Vatican’s
reluctance to take on a "zero tolerance policy" by stating the
Church needed "wiggle room" the exercise of which is responsible for
the current crisis to begin with. Adding insult to injury, he continued to
remarkably distinguish between a pedophile like Rev. Paul R. Shanley, preying
on young, prepubescent boys, and a heterosexual priest succumbing to the
advances of a young ‘fifteen-year-old lady’ after drinking one too many
Scotches. Perhaps a distinction does exist. Just ask the parents of a
traumatized fifteen year old tormented and plagued with nightmares of the
alcoholic pig that violated her trust and innocence in the name of Jesus,
wearing his collar.
Of Cardinal Bernard Law’s game of musical parishes for molester priests,
Cardinal George added: "He said that if he had not made some terrible
mistakes, we probably would not be here. He apologized for it. He said nothing
about resignation and we did not ask him." Indeed they didn’t, and
therein perhaps resides the biggest problem. While the frequently violated
"Don’t Ask," provision of the military policy is designed to
protect gay servicemembers from being forced to reveal their orientation in
violation of the "Don’t Tell" provision, the Church’s "Don’t
Ask" policy represents a systemic failure of Church leadership to seek
answers to what really lies beneath the plague of abuse that is tarnishing the
integrity of the Church to the core, as well as a failure to ask priests
candidly whether or not the accusations are true.
The Church closet is being ripped off its hinges, as she seeks to upgrade
her current policy of sheltering pedophiles with relocation strategies that
endanger children, paying off victims for their silence and continuing the
systemic hierarchy of failure. Seemingly floored that the Church would be
revealed as a bastion of homosexuality as its leaders sashay about in satin
and sashes like aging beauty-pageant contestants, trying to pick up the pieces—serving
as a showcase to every aspiring drag queen by offering the only outlet where
silky dresses and ornate jewelry can be worn legitimately and with impunity
and still engender pride in Mom and Dad.
Celibacy has always been the perfect excuse to avoid repeating the
embarrassing flaccidity on Prom night in a pre-Viagra age, where taking vows
to refrain from carnal intimacy with women was nothing short of a blessed
relief that finally put to rest the stereotypical, yet unavoidable, questions
pertaining masculinity, sensitivity, sexual orientation and prolonged
bachelorhood. Any man who looks you in the eyes and tells you they are
"married to the Church" has sexual identity issues worth
questioning.
Similarly, the military, which has always prided itself on turning boys
into men, (using recruiting posters homoerotic enough to confuse the branding
with Abercrombie & Fitch catalogs), continues to serve as the perfect
setup for Cody Cocksucker to delay marrying that clingy girl-next-door or Phen-fen-popping
cheerleader and hide among more than a few good men for a few good years.
Now, the Church’s version of the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell"
policy that spawned the current crisis is under the most microscopic of
scrutiny since the secular world challenged the Church to admit that Aristotle
was wrong. Particularly as many Catholics, including some leaders, suggest
factors such as homosexuality, the strict refusal of the Church to ordain
women and the strict celibacy requirements of Priests are at the very heart of
the scandal.
It was not until recently that the United States military finally admitted
(to the few left still in the dark) that there were gays serving in every
branch and every special unit, receiving Purple Hearts and Bronze Stars. It
was a reasonable assumption if one was to have merely looked at the costs
incurred in first training them, then investigating them and rooting them out.
That’s just called treason, however. The best thing Al Quada has going for
it is "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell".
In a similar vein, the Catholic Church has spent millions and millions of
dollars covering up incidents of abuse and pedophilia by relocating the
culprits and paying off victims and their families in return for silence that
has enabled the most insidious denial. No gays in the military. No pedophiles
in the Church.
Now, incredulously, importantly earnest writers with gentle manners—such
as National Review’s William F. Buckley—are singing the praises of the
rector for New York’s Archdiocese, Monsignor Eugene Clark, for being ‘brave’
enough to mention the ‘elephant in the room,’—the fact that the scandal
facing the Church is not a pedophile problem. It’s a homosexual problem.
Comforting, of course, to the fifteen-year-old slut who took advantage of the
poor Priest who couldn’t handle his booze. And to the family of that wicked,
sick, disgusting faggot, Father Mychal Judge, who got what he deserved when
the second tower fell on top of him, cocksucker, as he administered last rites
to fallen firemen on September 11, 2001. Better dead, the bastard. Not quite
the type we want marching in our Saint Patrick’s Day parades.
For many Catholics, such as the firemen who loved and respected Mychal
Judge, his sexual orientation was unimportant—perhaps even more so, since he
was, after all, a priest. Most servicemembers on active duty care more about a
fellow servicemember’s ability to shoot straight when they fire a weapon
rather than be straight when they ejaculate. Monsignor Clark believes, as do
many other Church elders, that pedophilia is rampant in the Church because of
the presence of active homosexuals since there are more male to male
occurrences of pedophilia. So much so, they have begun referring to the
problem as ephebophilia—homosexual attraction to adolescent boys. As if
shifting letters and changing grammar—as they do priests, from parish to
parish—will solve the problem. Given that women can’t be ordained, and the
Church’s sanctuary for and protection of anyone harboring sexual dysfunction
of any kind, the problem clearly points to the composition of the Church,
rather than homosexuality.
‘Active’ is the operative word, however, and is the root distinction
between the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policies of the Church and
the military respectively. The first of many disastrous moves by President
Clinton, the military’s "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy was an
unworkable compromise passed to appease bigots and avoid the real issue. (And
stroke the shattered ego of the uglier, less election-worthy Southern
Democrat, Sam Nunn). The military had no other choice than to admit that there
were just too many gays in its ranks to argue that gays couldn’t serve
admirably without admitting that the military was fundamentally unprepared and
ineffective as a cohesive unit.
So a flawed policy, that continues to this day, allows an absurd charade to
exist, which communicates that although the military knows that gays are rife
among their ranks, they don’t want to know who. The biggest difference
between the two policies boils down to conduct. The military policy makes no
distinction between speech and conduct. A celibate servicemember professing to
be gay will be discharged for homosexual conduct. There exists a rebuttable
presumption that the statement alone will invariably lead to prohibited
conduct, and therefore is conduct already.
In early March, Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls told The New York
Times that "people with (homosexual) inclinations just cannot be
ordained.that does not imply a final judgment on people with homosexuality,
but you cannot be in this field."
The Church, in its "love the sinner, hate the sin" paradigm of
hypocrisy, clearly does distinguish between conduct and speech. Celibacy,
however, is celibacy. Homosexual conduct is a sin only if acted upon, even if
by a heterosexual; celibacy by a homosexual is not. In other words, it makes
no difference if a priest is gay or straight really, because it makes no
difference who the hell they aren’t allowed to fuck.
The military’s "Don’t Tell" provision, in theory, is designed
to prevent straight servicemembers—not from the anguish of knowing that some
in their unit are gay, mind you—but rather from discovering who. For the
Church, however, the "Don’t Tell" concept is designed to prevent
public knowledge of the abuse, avoid criminal prosecution and to suppress
potential claims. Secrecy, lies and denial remain the key ingredients to the
effective implementation of both policies.
The Church insidiously strong-arms its aggrieved into adopting a "Don’t
Tell" position by paying victims to refrain from taking civil action or
otherwise making an issue in order to avoid scandal "for the good of the
Church." The military, "for the good of the military," believes
the presence of closeted soldiers in foxholes—or the immediate discharge of
mission-critical gays that reveal their orientation truthfully—will somehow
engender unit cohesion and bolster military preparedness. A servicemember is
to stay in the closet and engender trust by lying to commanders "for the
good of the military," while an abuse victim, "for the good of the
Church," must become complicit in protecting evil within the power
structure, facilitate a complete avoidance of cleric accountability, deceive
the laity and remain silent in the knowledge that abusive priests from Fort
Lauderdale to Poughkeepsie are plowing prepubescent ass with impunity.
Deference is given to the military brass by congress and even the Supreme
Court to override constitutional protections afforded to civilians and impose
what they feel is in the best interest of the military. For the Catholic
Church, the arrogance and denial reflected by the Church leadership highlights
a reliance on "clericalism"—an ideology gleefully embraced by the
leadership, and reinforced on the laity which suggests that somehow the silk
clad clergy are entitled to special privileges and respect. The Church takes
advantage of victims already abused by its own, by encouraging and maintaining
an enduring attitude that it is sinful or wrong to make any kind of accusation
against a priest or a bishop or that priests and bishops would never do
anything evil or wrong. In addition to their internalized fear and blame, an
abused child is further faced with challenging deeply held convictions among
his or her parents, the Church and even civic leaders, that making accusations—let
alone bringing charges—against a priest or bishop is nothing short of an
attack against the Church and religion itself.
According to the Code of Canon Law, the sexual abuse of or contact with a
minor under the age of 16 is a violation of a priest’s obligation of
celibacy. In other words, it’s about the priest, not the victim. Clerics
guilty of sex abuse of minors are to be punished with appropriate penalties
not excluding dismissal from the clerical state according to these canons.
Clearly dismissal is not an automatic punishment for unequivocal guilt. The
Code does not mention homosexuality or homosexual acts specifically, because
fortunately someone was smart enough to realize back then that fucking kids is
wrong for heterosexual priests as well.
Despite mention of punishments inflicted on clerics for homosexual crimes
in the Christian Penitential Books of the 6th to 11th centuries, Catholic
Church authorities, such as Cardinal Bernard Law, suggest that the problem of
sexual abuse of young boys and girls by horny, drunk and pedophilic priests is
a recently surfaced problem, which only now, is serious enough to be discussed
at Vatican meetings and Bishop Conferences. We and, more importantly, victims
are supposed to take comfort in the fact that despite the references to sexual
abuse of minors as a specific crime in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and again
in the revised Code of Canon Law of 1983, the hierarchy is finally willing to
admit—half-assed—that there might be a pedophile problem—by blaming
homosexuals.
Since, as the codifications suggest, the problem is hardly a new one, and
if the problem was important and severe enough to be included in the canons
and Penitential Books, how on earth can the Church claim ignorance of its
horrific effects on children, reassign priests accused of raping and molesting
children, and worse, why would they pay millions of dollars to keep the abuse
a secret? Granted, no organization relishes the attention and public relations
damage that results from such disclosures, but none are quite as vocal in
their judgments and condemnations either. Endangering and hanging out violated
children to dry is hardly a noble fucking alternative for which one can claim
moral authority.
Even if one is to assume the best, and accept that the Church leadership
genuinely, if ignorantly, thought that silencing victims and relocating and
transferring priests from parish to parish was going to remedy the situation,
how could they have possibly ignored the growing evidence of rampant
recidivism of priests "cured" and what explanation can be given for
their failure to conclude that shuffling priests does not solve the problem of
pedophilia any more than electro-shock therapy does homosexuality. Especially
if armed with more than enough medical evidence making clear the extensive
harm to victims, their families and to society resulting from child sexual
abuse. If fucking causes unwanted pregnancy, you don’t keep fucking. You
either use birth control, or stop fucking. Or become Andrea Yates.
While the "Don’t Ask" component of the military policy resulted
in the removal of questions pertaining to sexual orientation from recruiting
questionnaires and forbade officers from asking about a servicemembers
orientation, the Church has implemented a rigorous screening program designed
to ensure a heterosexual priesthood. "Asking" is part of the
process, although, as pointed out earlier, the Church is asking the wrong
questions of the wrong people. Clearly neither the military nor Church’s
screening programs—asking or avoiding—works in keeping out homosexuals.
The argument for and against the ordaining of women is inextricably linked
to the issue of homosexuals in the Church, and once again, the military policy
offers a telling comparison. (No pun intended). While the President and his
men derided the Taliban for their appalling treatment of women as a
justification for their continued destruction of Afghanistan, close advisor,
Karen Hughes, mysteriously resigned from her White House post, First Lady,
Laura Bush, collected sewing kits to send to Afghani women, and good old
American female servicemembers (those who weren’t sitting submissively in
the back of cars wearing full body covering and Burkas in Saudi Arabia) were
discharged at a rate nearly twice their presence in the service. Women
comprise approximately 14% of the total force strength, yet 30% of gay
discharges for 2001 were women.
The military spares no expense in both the implementation and violation of
its "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy. Notorious for witch hunts
and campaigns to weed out men and women they have spent millions of dollars
preparing and training, a mere suggestion, or incorrectly interpreted glance,
is enough to trigger an investigation. Successfully too, according to figures
released March 14, 2002 by Washington D.C. based watchdog group, the
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). Citing Department of Defense
figures, the Pentagon fired a record 1,250 men and women—or 3-4 service
members every day—for being lesbian, gay or bisexual. The figure is the
highest number of gay discharges since 1987, seven years prior to the
implementation of the Pentagon’s "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell"
policy.
The opposite attitude prevails with the Church, however, which all but
denies accusations or complaints about pedophilia and child abuse, and ignores
rumors and red flags that would sooner have triggered a sexual harassment
investigation at Enron than a pedophile investigation by the Church.
Rather than confront the widening crisis, the Catholic Church is surrounded
by enablers and other two-bit commentators who will do anything to scapegoat
others instead. Crisis Magazine, an aptly named Catholic answer to the
National Enquirer, has already begun pointing to statistics on women abusers
in order to justify the Church’s dismal record in protecting children:
"In 1994, the National Opinion Research Center showed that the second
most common form of child sexual abuse involved women abusing boys. For every
three male abusers, there’s one female abuser. Statistics on female sex
offenders are more difficult to obtain because the crime is more hidden."
Whether the Church is spitting out this data—coupled with comments like
those of Joaquin Navarro-Valls—to support their inaction, or hint at why the
ordination of women might not be such a good idea, it’s worth taking note.
Particularly by those lobbying the tone deaf Catholic church. Straight women
who refuse to succumb to the advances of lecherous commanders and other
leering male servicemembers are accused of being lesbians or sluts, of course,
if they comply. This Whore/Dyke syndrome provides a depressing glimpse of what
one can expect if the Church ever deigns to ordain women. As sure as priests
diddle kids, this is the methodology that will be used to weed women out. What
better than to rid the Church of women by accusing them of being lesbians? Or
child molesters?
Despite shrill protestations by Church leaders suggesting there is no
conflict between the regulations and norms contained in the Code and other
Church law provisions, and the secular or civil law on matters related to the
impropriety of sexually abusing, molesting or otherwise harassing children,
the proof is in the ever-expanding mountain of evidence that tells a very
different story. In spite of all of this, the Catholic Church continues to
assume the right to speak out on various public issues, which it claims are
grounded in religious teaching and impact on the civic culture.
How dare the Pope, his clergy and religious leaders assume moral authority
with their hypocritical frowning on harmless acts such as masturbation,
pre-marital sex, birth control, anal and oral sex—all roads culminating in
sinful (albeit consensual) pleasure in the absence of procreation, yet in the
protection of the procreated, remain dangerously and irresponsibly silent and
allow the unconscionable sexual abuse of children to fester along all roads
leading to, and emanating from, Rome?
In April, the head of a Vatican council, Archbishop Julián Herranz, stated
bishops should not be required to turn over records on abusive priests to
prosecutors. Reverend Gianfranco Ghirlanda, an influential Vatican canon
lawyer, published an article in the magazine Civilta Cattolica suggesting
bishops not cooperate with law-enforcement officials in sexual molestation
cases involving priests, nor tell a parish that receives a pedophile priest
about his history because that would ruin the priest’s "good
reputation."
The Church is facing a crisis of unprecedented proportions in modern times.
And while the comparison to the military’s policy is instructive, the major
difference is that the military’s policy, for all its unfairness, hypocrisy
and traitorous conduct that weakens the country’s effective argument and
defense against terrorism, the voluntary actions of adults are central to the
issue. The Church’s conduct makes them, at least, accessories in the rape
and abuse of children physically and emotionally, which, coupled with their
implausible denial, is nothing short of criminal, for which they should be
tried and punished, Canon law be damned.
Parents can no longer turn a blind eye either. Short of arming our children
before sending them to confess their sins or Sunday school, and teaching them
to aim and fire when a priest makes an unwelcome sexual advance, the reality
is that trusting a Catholic priest, or even a Bishop, alone with a child today
should be considered nothing less than gross negligence and child
endangerment. We now have more than enough evidence to discount pleadings of
ignorance, and in addition to shaking the walls of denial surrounding the
Church, parents should be held accountable the same way as they should for
allowing their young children to navigate the Internet unaccompanied or
leaving a small child alone in a car on a sweltering day with the windows
closed.
[Home] [Editorials] [US
Military]
