I haven't read the book. I have seen a number of reviews. Here is a brief one in the Guardian, by Andrew Brown, that captures the essence of what I take to be the critical consensus: the book is shocking and illuminating; but because it is (perhaps necessarily) anecdotal in what it presents, there is relatively little by way of documentation to support the book's claims. Here is Brown:
In this place of make-believe, guilt and constant innuendo the prelates live in a tension between the dreadful fear of being outed and the loneliness of not being recognised for who and what they are. So they out each other instead, compulsively. Martel’s rule of thumb is that the most publicly homophobic prelates are those most likely to be homosexually inclined themselves; the only ones who feel they can afford to be sympathetic to gay people are celibate straight people, who do exist in the Vatican. Martel quotes the estimate of the pope’s former chief Latinist that up to 80% of the Vatican staff could be gay even if obviously most of them are buttoned up. The real figure is unknowable but 80% is not entirely incredible.80% of Vatican staff gay? That's the kind of statistic that generates headlines - if it is verifiably true. But as presented here, it's one person's speculation. Is that speculation serious? Well-informed? Agenda-free? As Brown notes, it's unknowable.
Rev. James Alison, an openly gay priest, finds Martel's work to be both accurate and important. His review becomes the occasion for an essay that, while pretty long, would seem to be essential reading for those interested in the topic. I couldn't stop reading it all the way to the end. Alison's piece could become the subject of several posts on its own. Please note especially his explanation of how seminaries sow seeds of dishonesty and cynicism in gay seminarians.
As I am a deacon, I'm aware that some people imagine that I'm more embedded in the world of priests and bishops than the average layperson is. There is a sense in which that's true. Parish priests consider me a kind of adjunct member of the parish staff (even though, like most deacons, I'm unpaid for my ministry), and treat me with the sort of friendly comradeship that one encounters between co-workers in the business world - that is to say, that brand of office comradeship that exists between unequals; all priests outrank all deacons, just like all captains outrank all lieutenants. Priests and deacons collaborate a bit in ministerial duties, and there is some hobnobbing in the sacristy when we're vesting - I suppose that's the church's version of the locker room brotherhood. On the rare occasions I put in an appearance at the parish office (I have a day job), I can waltz into their offices and interrupt them without getting my head bitten off. So I have access.
But in many important respects, I'm not embedded in their world. Crucially, permanent deacons don't have priests' shared formative experience of seminary. (Unless the deacon happens to be an ex-seminarian himself - there are some former seminarians among the ranks of permanent deacons, especially among the older guys. For that matter, every parish I've ever belonged to has lay men who are former seminarians. Some of those guys have closer bonds with priests than I do.) Most of my close friends are people I went to school with, and that is the case with many priests as well. I don't hang out with any priests. I don't go on their European holy-site junkets, I don't vacation with them, and in fact I almost never go to dinner with any of them. They don't invite me over to watch the Bears game. Apparently I don't fulfill a need or fill a gap in their lives.
All of which is to say: priests typically don't confide in me. No priest ever has told me what his sexuality is. And I don't ask them (or anyone else, for that matter). In the normal course of things, I don't think at all about the sexuality of the priests I know. To me, they're asexual. I know that's kind of silly: of course they are sexual beings. And to be sure, there are one or two who ping on my gaydar (such as it is), but I don't find a priest's sexuality to be very important; or, frankly, very interesting. And unless I know otherwise (and I can only think of one priest in my life whom I suspected otherwise), I assume that, gay or straight, they're keeping their sacred promises to be celibate.
So I've lived most of my life, and even that portion of my life during which I've been an ordained minister, with views on the sexuality of priests that, in light of the Martel book, must come across as very naive. If there is parish gossip about such things, almost none of it reaches my ears. But if Martel is right (at least as implied by reviews of his book), then many, perhaps most, priests are gay, and some of them have active, albeit secret and professionally dangerous and therefore dysfunctional, sex lives.
It may be that most people aren't like me in that regard; perhaps most people have a keen interest in the sexuality and the sex lives of priests. Possibly the parish gossip on this topic is lively and I'm simply excluded from it (after all, I'm not lay, so in the eyes of a lot of parishioners, I'm not an "us", I'm a "them").
But if a lot of people are like me in having made naive and bland assumptions that aren't warranted about presbyteral fidelity to vows, then - what Martel reports could have a seismic effect on the church, at least in the US. Of course, there are still many people - presumably not a majority, at least in my parish, but still probably a sizeable number - who think that a priest being gay is a problem in and of itself. As I've written before, all it takes is a small but zealous minority of parishioner homophobes to make a gay priest's life miserable.
But beyond the question of sexuality: the notion that priests are sneaking about having covert and active sex lives with consenting adults will be very upsetting to a lot of people. It will shake people's faith. It will be yet another hard blow to the credibility of the church. It will weaken people's attachment to the church.
I may as well say it: I'm shocked and disappointed. In fact, I'm dismayed and even a little sickened. I hope it's not true that so many priests are unfaithful to their promises of chastity. I hope Martel drastically overstates the truth of the matter.
I have not read the book, although I have ordered it. The author appears to have some social science background; he did do many interviewers. After I read the book, I will likely post a review of it.
ReplyDeleteThe author does argue that the higher up in the church hierarchy one goes, the more gay it becomes. I suspect the figure of 80% for the Vatican is too high. The desire for power is likely to be high in many who end up working in the Vatican. I am sure there are many heterosexual priests who have a high desire for power and make it to the Vatican.
Once I read the book and review the literature in the area, I will give a more precise argument but here are my initial guesses about orientation and behavior that would be consistent with the author's theory.
My initial guess is that (if the author can prove his thesis) probably about sixty percent the cardinals, bishops and priests in the Vatican are gay in orientation, and about two thirds of them (40% of the whole) are sexually active. Among the forty percent who are heterosexual, I suspect half (20% of the whole) are sexually active.
My initial guess is that a third of parish priests are actively gay, a third are actively heterosexual, and a third of parish priests are celibate.
At the same time that this book about gays in the Vatican is coming out, we have increased stories of sexual abuse of bishops and priests with nuns and adult women, and their fathering of children.
I don’t think we should be surprised to find half or more of priests are unfaithful to their vows; the same is probably true for married people.
The question is really can we maintain a celibacy requirement in the Roman Rite when it is often not observed, and where the hiding of that nonobservance by heterosexuals and homosexuals has likely been a strong factor in the cover up of sexual abuse of minors.
In other words, is it likely that we will have transparency about the sexual abuse of minors while not being transparent about sexual behavior of priests with adults, much of which probably includes an abuse of power.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your description of your social position. In recent years many laypeople have taken on prominent roles in diocesan administration. However one priest who spent years in top administration admitted that they never really become insiders.
Jim, what you describe as your relationships with priests on the parish level pretty much goes along with what we have experienced. I would say that my husband is friends with the guys who have been our pastors in very much the same way as one would be friends with a somewhat up-ladder coworker. Sexuality? It simply doesn't come up in conversation. Honestly, we don't care what their orientation is. I give them the presumption that they are faithful to their vows, the same as I would presume that our married friends are faithful to theirs. We don't hang out with people who cheat around; who needs the drama?
ReplyDeleteMostly we have lived in smaller towns, but not "villages". They're still small enough that people's infidelity secrets wouldn't stay secrets very long. We did have a former pastor who isn't in the priesthood any more, who had some inappropriate relationships with adult women. Trust me, the word of that got around, big time. He self-selected out, probably just ahead of getting kicked out. My point here is that if it were all this big wink-nod, cover-up, it would get out, sooner or later.
I have no knowledge of Vatican circles, nor do I wish to. But I have worked in a large corporation. I think there are some similarities, that some people are tempted by power. Maybe part of that temptation is people "sleeping their way to the top".
I feel that the Martel piece is overstated, at least in the church that most of us inhabit. Yes, the news of clergy having active and dysfunctional sexual relationships certainly is a blow to the church. But in most places (maybe not in Rome?) double lives get found out.
I still believe that the Holy Spirit is in charge. Unfortunately this is a moment of very tough grace.
One priest said "never cheat within a 100 miles of your parish."
ReplyDeleteAnother priest friend of mine joked (I think) many years ago: Don't eff the flock! He was straight (I think).
DeleteI've made it a rule never to believe an 80% figure of anything if it an off-the-cuff guess by a single person. But I am not shocked by the general thrust of the book, from what I have read in the reviews. There are some things you just know from life. I may even not be especially disappointed anymore. Anyone who lived through the flap over Humanae Vitae must know the Church was (along with the Communist Party, which is no more) the live example of the often quoted-Frenchman's observation that "hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue."
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying. As a friend says, fake it 'til you make it.
The most bothersome thing, to me, about Martel's book is its timing. It is going to be used to divert the discussion of sex abuse from clericalism, power, privilege and protection to the libidos of gay people. Americans are always happy to talk about sex -- especially other people's -- but they get all nervous and sweaty when privilege is on the table.
I imagine we'll all have a lot more to say about the mauve dicasteries in coming days.
I have only just begun the book, but I think it is important to remember that it is very much focused on the Vatican, not on the Church worldwide. So the estimates of widespread homosexuality that I have seen so far pertain to Vatican City, not local parishes in the United States. And Martel's contention is that the higher up in the hierarchy one looks, the more homosexuality one finds. It is not necessarily the case that a homosexual individual, such as a cardinal, is a practicing homosexual, although as Martel tells it, there are a great many sexually active monsignors, bishops, archbishops, and cardinals. Some of the most "homosexual" of all he takes to be possibly in denial about their own sexuality and rabidly anti-gay in their public positions as a part of that denial. He depicts Cardinal Burke (of the 40-foot cappa magna) as a flaming queen (my words, not Martel's) who likes to be referred to as "she" (believe it or not). He does not blame homosexuals for child abuse (as the far right does), but he blames a culture in which everyone is keeping secrets for the cover-up.
ReplyDelete"Her Eminence", right?
DeleteThere might be a way to test Martel's theory: if the numbers are so high, then it should be visible in the statistics of mortality in the 1980s and early 1990s, when AIDS had a high fatality rate.
ReplyDeleteThat would be an interesting statistical study. The only problem would be if the cause of death wasn't reported as AIDS.
DeleteI like your scientific approach, Claire. I'm sure cause of death was covered up but there might be some way to decrypt it.
DeleteReally interesting point, Claire. I've never seen nor heard a discussion of the impact of the AIDS epidemic from that era on gay clergy.
DeleteThat said: I've been following (or, more accurately, catching up on) the daily dispatches at First Things' Web Exclusives blog site on the recently-concluded meeting in Rome on the sex-abuse crisis. Those updates are written pseudonymously by a reporter who styles himself "Xavier Rynne II" (but who presumably is one of the FT editors, or possibly George Weigel). Among "Rynne"'s observations in the third dispatch:
"It is not easy to imagine, for example, that [Saint Peter] Damian [the saint on whose feast day this particular dispatch was published - jp] would have been pleased with the “statement” released a few days ago, in anticipation of the abuse summit, by the Unions of Superiors General (of religious men and women in consecrated life). No one could quibble with what was obviously intended to be the money quote from this document: “The abuse of children is wrong anywhere and anytime: this point is not negotiable.” That is the ultimate no-brainer. The Unions’ statement also made unexceptionable pledges about outreach to victims, improvement of religious formation, and the importance of a deeper conversion of hearts, minds, and souls.
"But nowhere in the statement was there any acknowledgement of the violations of chastity that are still rife in various congregations of consecrated life, some of which have decimated those communities (not least through the scourge of AIDS)."
AIDS mortality among gay priests of that era: is this a known thing? As I say, until this week I had never heard the topic broached before. I am sure that, in the 1980s, it could not be talked about. Can it now? I think it can, at least in society as a whole - and would be a salutary example of transparency on the part of dioceses and religious orders.
In my previous comment, I neglected to provide the URL for Xavier Rynne II's Dispatch from Rome from which I quoted. It's here:
Deletehttps://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/02/letters-from-the-vatican-3
All of the Xavier Rynne pieces are worth reading, if you're interested in the topic of the sex-abuse summit. Most or all of them are also supplemented by guest posts from a variety of others - read those at your own risk.
Re: the part of the Rynne quote about their being no acknowledgement of violations of chastity, possibly that may be because in the past these things were treated as *only* violations against chastity. I think they were viewed as private violations of morality, such as drinking too much, which could be taken care of in Confession. Now at least the public aspect is being faced, that these are civil crimes and that they have victims.
DeleteThere was a well-publicized death of a very well-known and "out" priest in San Francisco: https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Gay-priest-Father-Bob-Arpin-dies-of-AIDS-3146386.php
DeleteJim, thanks for that article about Fr. Arpin - hadn't run across his story before. He was brave.
DeleteEven if the cause of death is not given, if there really are a large fraction of active gay men in the Vatican, that should be visible in the statistics of overall mortality:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.factlv.org/timeline.htm
Gagnon and Nardi (1997, pp. 11–12) wrote that in the United States, one gay man in nine had been diagnosed with AIDS, 1 in 15 had died, and that 10% of the 1,600,000 men aged 25–44 years who identified as gay had died by 1995. Such figures point to a decimation of this cohort of gay men born 1951–1970.
The magnitude of these deaths is further compounded by the fact that they generally occurred within major cities with thriving gay cultures rather than being evenly distributed across the country.
Selik, Chu, and Buehler (1993, p. 2994) ... also found that in 1990, AIDS caused 61% of all deaths of men aged 25–44 years (born 1946–1965) in San Francisco, 35% in New York, 51% in Ft. Lauderdale, 32% in Boston, 33% in Washington, DC, 39% in Seattle, 34% in Dallas, 38% in Atlanta, 43% in Miami, and 25% in Portland, OR. AIDS was the leading cause of death for White men in 45%, and of Black men in 32%, of cities with 100,000+ inhabitants. At the epidemic’s height, then, AIDS deaths among Baby Boom men were an essentially urban phenomenon. These deaths, compressed as they were into a single generation and a single decade, were further distilled into a small number of large cities, with devastating effects on local networks and communities.
That's a good point, that AIDS would be reflected in overall mortality statistics.
DeleteAccording to the article about this book at America, Dr. Martel does not claim unequivocally that "80%" of the Vatican staff are gay: While it has been widely reported that, according to the book, 80 percent of the priests working in the Vatican are gay,...Martel sought to distance himself from this dramatic allegation. He said the figure was told to him by a priest ... “I do not validate or non-validate this. How can one say?” he told reporters.
DeleteAlso from the America article: He claimed that during his research for the book, he conducted some 1,500 interviews over four years with...persons connected to the Vatican in 30 countries... those interviewed included 42 cardinals, 52 bishops or prelates, 27 gay priests, ...45 Holy See diplomats and foreign ambassadors and 11 Swiss Guards, as well as male prostitutes and former Vatican employees who no longer work in the ministry and are living openly gay lives. He recorded the interviews and was assisted by some 80 researchers, translators, local journalists or “fixers” and—...some 15 lawyers in different countries.
According to Wiki (info included in a comment following the America review (not exactly a friendly review!)
He has a PhD in Social Sciences and four Master Degrees in Law, Political science, Philosophy, and Social Science (University La Sorbonne). He has been “visiting scholar” at Harvard University and taught at Sciences-Po Paris and at the HEC’s Business School MBA in Paris.
He is the author of nine books, ...
As a radio anchor, Frédéric Martel is in charge of the weekly radio program « Soft Power » on French National Public Radio (France Culture/Radio France). He is the Reporter at large and a Foreign Affairs Columnist of Slate.fr
He is also a Senior Research Fellow at the ZHdK’s University in Zurich and at the Center for International Studies (CERI) at Sciences-Po Paris. He advised the European Commission and he was a member of “New Narrative for Europe”, the cultural task force of the president of the EU.
It seems that he is a serious and qualified researcher, and not a scandal-press, gossip reporter.
He said that a 300 page document listing his sources, interviews etc would be put online as soon as the book was published. I haven't looked for it yet, but I assume it's there somewhere.
Jack: Your estimates of infidelity among the married are a big high. According to the General Social Survey, reported at the website of the Institute for Family Studies: in general, men are more likely than women to cheat: 20% of men and 13% of women reported that they’ve had sex with someone other than their spouse while married, according to data from the recent GSS.
DeleteUnsurprisingly, infidelity rates increase with age.
Women in their 60s report the highest rate of infidelity (16%), but the share goes down sharply among women in their 70s and 80s. By comparison, the infidelity rate among men in their 70s is the highest (26%), and it remains high among men ages 80 and older (24%). Reminds me of the stories of the men (Kraft and other CEOs) caught in the sting in Florida.
"Unsurprisingly, infidelity rates increase with age," Um, yeah, that actually is pretty surprising. Given that people accumulate more health problems the older they get, and that women are more likely to outlive their husbands than vice versa. So some ageing Lotharios may be a legend in their own minds, but both ability and opportunity is going to drop off sharply with increasing age.
DeleteThe above is quoted from http://www.factlv.org/timeline.htm
ReplyDeleteI made a couple of corrections to the post: thanks to David for pointing out that the Martel book is about the Vatican, not the church as a whole. I've tweaked the post a little bit to reflect that. I also received a private note from a friend that James Alison no longer is a Dominican, so I've removed that term from the post.
ReplyDeleteDeacon Jim said: " I hope Martel drastically overstates the truth of the matter."
ReplyDeleteI have known James Alison as well as Robert Mickens for many years. In private conversations with both, I think that Martel is NOT overstating the case.
I have visited the Vatican about 5 times since 1988 and I can attest that it is not hard to stand in St. Peter's Square and spot a more than few of the club within the scope of 30 minutes or less. But, then, I have a well-honed "gaydar" and know of what I see.
Jim - I bow to your gaydar :-)
DeleteI just want to clarify: what I hope Martel overstates is not the proportion of gay priests - I truly don't care, although I do think that if 80% are gay, that's at least noteworthy and cause for further exploration (e.g. why aren't there more straight priests in the Vatican?) What I hope he's wrong about is the percentage who are violating their vows of chastity.
... and let me add a further clarifying point about priests who violate their vows of chastity. It just seems to me that we can't lump all violations together in the same category of immorality.
Suppose a priest has hires a prostitute one time, or has a "one night stand" (perhaps with an old high school sweetheart). Afterward, he is riven with guilt, and resolves never to do anything like that again. From the point of view of fidelity to his vocation, it's not good - but if I were allowed to make rules about this sort of thing, it wouldn't be fatal to his career, either.
Compare him to a priest who has an affair with a parishioner which lasts for three years. That strikes me as a more serious offense. I'd send that guy for some spiritual discernment about whether or not the priesthood is for him.
Finally, compare that second guy to a priest who is a serial (and parallel) philanderer, who has a file folder full of complaints against him, has fathered a couple of children and wrecked a couple of marriages. It seems clear he has no intention of abiding by the promises of celibacy, and should be ushered into a new way of life that doesn't involve wearing a Roman collar or living in a rectory.
Jim, I agree your third example is way over the top, sounds like Maciel. And I hope if it was not plain before, that now they are all on the same page that any instance involving someone underage is an automatic "out".
DeleteJim, There is a fourth situation -- a lifetime arrangement with the housekeeper, supposedly a cousin or niece. I have heard that in some countries that is approximately the norm.
DeleteAbout the live-in housekeeper, that was pretty common in the old days. When I was growing up the priests always had a housekeeper. I guess they didn't know how to cook or clean a bathroom. Of course most of the married men of the time didn't, either. I think most of the time the relationship was innocent, especially when the lady in question was a good 20 years older than the priests. Different times now, Father Dowling wouldn't have a Marie Gillespie.
DeleteNot IN private conversations … AFTER private conversations.
ReplyDeleteSort of to do with this topic, I just read a news item that said McCarrick had started out as an altar boy. Makes me wonder if maybe he had suffered abuse. Not that it excuses his actions later. But often abusers have been victims themselves. Sort of a chain reaction.
ReplyDeleteI was an altar boy in the late fifties and early sixties. I never even heard of any priests doing anything strange. And we had five priests at a time in my parish. I knew one was an alcoholic but that was it. My first reaction on first hearing of child abuse by priests was "huh?"
DeleteStanley, I never heard of it where I grew up, either. Actually one of the sisters did the server training. We usually only had one priest at a time, and he stayed pretty busy.
DeleteI was an altar boy in the early 1950s and, as Katherina mentioned, one of the sisters supervised our training by the experienced altar boys. Our rural parish usually had one priest (once in awhile he had an assistant) and the one I remember had a traveling, live-in "housekeeper." He was in ill health with "dropsy" (probably congestive heart failure) and most likely wasn't very sexual at that time and at his age. I had never heard of the abuse, even at the minor seminary I attended between 1955 and 1956. They kept us woefully ignorant of these things. We were warned about "particular friendships" (most of us never knew what that meant) and were not allowed to have a non-roommate in our rooms unless the door was totally open. So long ago and so far away.
DeleteI had never heard of abuse, either. I was an altar boy in the late 60s and early 70s, at a couple of different parishes in different cities (we moved around a bit when I was a kid).
DeleteIt wasn't just that I had never heard of altar boys being abused; I never heard of sexual abuse, period.
I daresay all of us who weren't abused were very fortunate. I could easily have been a victim - I was one of those guppies who was just lucky enough that a shark didn't come swimming by.
A few weeks before I started my freshman year of high school, my parents relocated the family to Rockford, IL. My five younger siblings attended the parish school. The pastor at that time was an abuser, although I didn't learn that until earlier this year. But my brothers and sisters were right there for him. I don't know who his victims were. None of my siblings have said anything about it to me.
DeleteI was an altar boy in the '40s in a fairly big parish with three priests, the third of whom changed every two years because we were a place the newly ordained got their baptism of blood. I never heard of abuse by priests. BUT, a friend of mine who was a heck of an athlete (as a catcher he could talk the batter into swinging at a pitch out; I saw it happen several times) went off to the seminary and was thrown out within eight weeks for printing eight-pagers on the seminary printing press. (Eight-pagers were pre-Playboy porn.)
ReplyDelete