PRIESTLY SINS
Putting Pedophilia in Perspective;
Scandal resurrects incorrect stereotype about gay men
By Dave Ford, Chronicle Staff Writer
Originally published in The San Francisco Chronicle, April 28, 2002
There are multiple tragedies arising from the pedophile-priest scandal rocking the Catholic Church: innocence invaded, families disfigured, faith shattered.
But there's an equally odious semantic configuration oozing from church officials and from media reports about the scandal: the conflation of "homosexual" and "pedophile."
This canard used to be employed to underscore the incorrect belief that homosexual men, by dint of their orientation, were attracted to young boys and unable to control their desires. Gay men are coming for your children, the sentiment went. That stigma effectively barred gay men from positions of authority over young males as teachers, camp counselors, Boy Scout troop leaders, sports coaches.
It is, of course, untrue. Homosexual men are no more attracted to young boys than heterosexual men are universally attracted to young girls. Moreover, most male-male pedophiles identify as heterosexuals.
The pedophilia-homosexuality trope used to be a convenient fund- raising tool for certain religious organizations. They're coming for your kids, but we can save you; give us money. But the facts didn't support the notion, and it was rightly discredited.
So why has it appeared in certain media reports about the church scandal? Laziness, more than anything. Some media are simply reporting, without critical analysis, the laughable Catholic contention that many homosexuals wind up in the priesthood to "cure" their identity-dystonic sexuality.
"The Church says that, instead of the truth—that predators go into the Church to get power," says Andrew Vachss, a juvenile justice lawyer who has spent three decades legally shielding kids victimized by child abusers. His latest book, "Pain Management," is the 13th in the crime series featuring the character Burke. He lives with his wife, Alice, in the Pacific Northwest, and is—full disclosure—a longtime friend.
Vachss contends that because most of the abuse victims were teenagers, it suits the Catholic Church to say the priests who molested them were not really pedophiles. A pedophile is an adult for whom the preferred sexual object is a prepubescent child—13 years or younger. By insisting that molesting priests are not pedophiles, the church suggests that the priests are "curable," and further implies that the relationships were "homosexual" rather than strictly abusive.
If the relationships were "homosexual," then the so-called victims in some way must have consented. That, in turn, makes them "gay"—an appalling and, indeed, abusive leap of logic.
"It's quite deliberate," Vachss told me last week. "The intent is to blame homosexuals as opposed to pedophiles. Since there is so much homophobia, it's a way of diverting the fire."
Vachss points out that homosexuals—men attracted to men—are no more pedophiles than male-male pedophiles are homosexual. Pedophiles are pedophiles, period, whichever gender they prey upon.
It's important that media coverage reflects that distinction. The media are doing powerful and socially useful work in their focus on the church scandal. But ask yourself: Inasmuch as you might have seen headlines or stories referring to a "homosexual pedophile," how many times have you seen the phrase "heterosexual pedophile?"
Rarely, if ever, I'm betting.
For its part, the Catholic Church now is being forced to confront decades of poisonous secrets and to open itself to outside scrutiny. This is all to the good. But it should resist wavery mendacity. It needs to take full responsibility for recycling abusive priests to new parishes.
And it needs to fix the problem without relying on played-out stereotypes of gay men that rightly went the way of stacked-heel shoes, mood rings and Pet Rocks.
