Besides being unfair to a large number of current and future clergy, and extremely dishonest to the actual history of the church, banning gays would not protect children or impede pedophiles. This idea is wrongheaded in every possible way.

Sexual abuse and domination of a child is the issue, and I find it very troubling that this very specific sort of act is ever used synonymously with homosexuality. A couple of the boys I grew up with were victims of a predatory Catholic priest – in one case that I know of, the victim self-identified as a gay adult. It was no less traumatic an experience for him to share an orientation with the villain. And of course none of this addresses the behavior of heterosexual predators (see news items at Silent Lambs, for example). Authority used in a criminal way, predatory abuse and domination of children are the issues that need to be addressed. As with any kind of rape or molestation, it has to do with power.

The solutions are rather simple. Provide guidelines and support for situations that involve children. Never put a child in a situation of control by only one adult. Encourage reporting of inappropriate behavior and confrontation/discipline by the church rather than switching known dangers around. Establish at what point behaviors have to be investigated by the state in addition to the church. And so on.

In the article I’ve excerpted below, Rees-Mogg makes the point that seminary training is a long period of time for observation of character – a time when predatory and pathological qualities might be noticed in anyone, no matter their orientation. Read the whole thing for an excellent context.

The Church’s gay dilemma – William Rees-Mogg, September 26, 2005 The Times
A Vatican ban on homosexuals would not prevent the abuse that has blighted the clergy

In its long history, rich with saints, scholars and martyrs, the Church has benefited from the devotion of countless holy priests and nuns who must have had a predominantly homosexual temperament. As all priests take a vow of celibacy, it may not have been apparent to all of them whether their sexual temperament was mainly homosexual or heterosexual. Indeed, the concept of homosexuality as a separate condition, not determined by sexual acts but by sexual inclinations, is a late-19th century one, and is not wholly satisfactory. No one ever told Christopher Marlowe that he was a homosexual and he probably was not. More likely he was highly heterosexual and also enjoyed sex with boys.

Both the Church and the liberals are on the horns of the same dilemma. Both are genuinely horrified by the widespread abuse of children and adolescents by Catholic priests. Both have to take the view that the protection of children should be the primary consideration. That certainly means that priests who have offended should be reported to the police and should never again be allowed to use their priestly function to get near children.

The difficulty comes when the Church has to decide who should be ordained. Here there is a risk that the wrong question will be asked. The right question is: “Will the candidate for the priesthood be a potential danger to children or the young?” Everyone agrees that is a legitimate question. As the candidate spends seven years in a seminary, the people running the seminary have a long time in which to observe and form their judgment. In making that judgment the candidate’s sexual character is obviously a relevant factor.

The other question — is the candidate a homosexual? — is the wrong question, because it would do an injustice to many sorts of people; to homosexuals who suffer enough injustice in the world, to others for whom their own sexuality is uncertain, “a grey area”. No doubt, over the next century, the Roman Catholic Church will be re-examining the issues of sexuality and the priesthood, including the maintenance of a celibate clergy. In the meantime a policy of exclusion of homosexuals from the priesthood is not justified. As it would force some candidates to lie, it is also unlikely to be effective.