It has been difficult to ignore the media furore that has
surrounded the Archbishop emeritus, Keith Patrick O’Brien and his fall from
grace in yet another sexual scandal for the Roman church. Given his outspoken
views against homosexual relationships the knee-jerk reaction of ‘hypocrite!’
has been widespread.
Those who have never gotten drunk and done regrettable
things that we would never dream of whilst in a state of sobriety are entitled to completely unalloyed glee at
the spectacle of a moralist revealed as a hypocrite. The rest of us should reign-in
our delight. I say this not to trivialise O’Brien’s behavior, nor to take
anything away from those who have been hurt by his actions and words, or deny that he has
abused a position of power. But I do believe that O’Brien himself is a victim
of the fear-fuelled moralism of the Roman curia.
This moralism
approaches questions of human sexuality from a position of ugly, intransient
dogmatism. But questions about human sexuality are not questions of
correctness, they are not about being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. It is precisely
because they are questions about human sexuality that they are anthropological
questions, they are questions about love and the very essence of being human.
When approached as dogmatic questions they can never be answered in a way that
will honour and affirm a richly diverse and beautiful creation. Dogmatism will
always seek uniformity rather than celebrate diversity and in seeking uniformity
dogmatism will seek to re-forge or ultimately cast out that which does not
conform.
The crux of the matter
is a combination of fear-fuelled moralism on matters of human sexuality and the
blanket expectation from the Roman church of unrealistic standard of continence
from its priesthood. By no means am I suggesting that there is no place
for celibate vocations. Celibacy is neither pointless nor impossible. I have known some very good, loving and
trustworthy people who have taken vows of celibacy and so far as I know they
have kept them. I do not believe that we are living in the golden age of sexual
freedom and expression that the media all too often constructs for us. But I do
feel that when the Roman church talks about sex it often focuses on fear rather
than love and charity.
It goes without
saying that O’Brien’s anti-gay rhetoric probably masked deep seated fears about
his own sexuality and that his fears have caused him to create much told and untold
pain for many LGBT Roman Catholics. I cannot help but wonder to what extent O’Brien
is himself a victim of the churches teaching. A cleric who – before the whiff
of a red cardinals hat - was once considered a voice for tolerance in the Roman
church, O’Brien was clearly under pressure to speak out against gays forcefully
during the marriage equality debates. And that he did, calling homosexuality a
"grotesque subversion”. And thus has emerged the familiar and sorry tale of a
powerful, sexually repressed man who is the victim of an authority's soul-destroying
desire for absolute uniformity and same-ness, who has in turn used his power to
victimize many others.
