Dear Mr. Bemis:
I read your screed against the father of John Walker Lindh, for whom I hold no brief.
But why are you raging against a secular man who followed what he thought was the right course for him? Please note: I'm not asking for your or the Church's endorsement of that path. But where is your outrage against the enabling hypocrisy of the Cardinal Law's of this nation who positively endorsed the sexual abuse of young men and boys?
I hope to see an article about that soon. If I've missed a previous one, my apologies. But the vast homosexual orientation–and its acting out–of Catholic priests is extremely damaging. If I were not a practicing Catholic, or one who did not care about the welfare of the Church, I would not bother to respond. But I do. And you do. The laity MUST speak out. In this regard, the clergy have failed.
Yours truly,
John H. Gilmore
Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your e-mail regarding my February 15 Catholic Exchange column “Men Without Chests.”
The point of my column was two-fold: first, to illustrate that divorce and family abandonment have devastating consequences, particularly on children and; second, that the media – who are seemingly always searching for “root causes” of prominent events – tend to look the other way when offenses are committed by one of their “protected” groups, like homosexuals.
But my writing “Men Without Chests” certainly should not be taken as providing the Church a pass on the sexual preying of young men by the clergy. Like you, I am outraged by the recent scandals involving pedophile priests and the Church hierarchy that enable such destructive behavior. To their credit, Catholic Exchange has run a number of articles on the priest scandals and continues to provide ongoing coverage.
Furthermore, I completely agree with CE's Senior Content Editor Mark Shea, who said, “The priests who committed these crimes and the bishops who repeatedly and knowingly lied to victims and exposed still more victims to the depredations of these men should be removed from their offices and made to face criminal charges. Period.” Catholic Exchange has spoken out, is speaking out, and, I presume, will continue to speak out.
Thank you for taking the time to write.
In Christ's name,
James Bemis
See the following Catholic Exchange articles related to the scandal of priestly pedophilia.
• “Boston Travesty”
• “Readers Weigh in on Reaction to Scandal”
• “More Viewer Reaction to the Boston Travesty”
• “Should Cardinal Law Step Down?”
Editor's Note: To contact Catholic Exchange, please refer to our Contact Us page.
Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange or its authors (regarding articles published at CE) become the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.
Dear Mr. Bemis:
I just read your February 15 article [“Men Without Chests”] on the American Taliban, John Walker's, gay father, Frank Lindh. I agree with you that this situation may very well have some relationship to John's actions AND that the media have declined to report what I think is a relevant fact. If Frank Lindh had abandoned his wife and kids to take up with another woman, the media certainly would have reported that.
However, I'm not certain what you really want. Please bear with me while I attempt to explain:
Let's go back to the early 1980s, when Frank Lindh and Miss Walker first met and got married. In my opinion, social pressure against homosexuality (which is also reflected in your article) meant and means that men who are not 100% certain of their heterosexuality end up marrying women in hope that it would 'cure' them. I'm certain that you will agree that, at minimum, this is not a good idea, and that what every heterosexual woman deserves is a heterosexual man.
If you disagree, then I would ask you whether, if you had a daughter, would you give her hand in marriage to such a man?
You should also know that this is the official position of the Church, i.e., homosexuality is an impediment to marriage and a man who is a homosexual has an obligation not to get married (to a woman, of course). In order to avoid violating this prohibition of the Church, it would seem to make sense, at minimum, to avoid contributing to social pressures that may lead some men to enter into invalid marriages.
This is probably the most logical argument in favor of toleration of homosexuals that religious conservatives of whatever religious persuasion really should support, in their own interest. Don't pressure into marriage those who are not the marrying type!
In the short term, while the American Taliban's parents are already married (etc.), what, exactly, do you appear to be suggesting? Should he have lived a secret double life? Or what? Not even the Church believes that a man who has concluded that he is homosexual can just “be heterosexual.” Of course, this is distinct from all of the other problems of divorce (family abandonment, etc.) that are justifiably worthy of society's concerns. Do you suggest that Walker's parents simply continue to maintain their family even though their personal marital relationship no longer exists? Seems like a reasonable suggestion to me, but only if you think that someone like them at the courtship stage should not be pressured into an invalid marriage.
I welcome any comments you may wish to share with me. For what it's worth, I'm not Catholic (though I went to the same Jesuit high school as Pat Buchanan and Bill Bennett) and I am gay.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my views to you.
Sincerely,
Karl Olson
Mr. Olson:
Thank you for your e-mail regarding my February 15 Catholic Exchange column “Men Without Chests.” I apologize for taking so long to respond.
I certainly agree with you that no one should be “pressured” to get married. The expectations of well-meaning parents and friends often do place burdens on couples to marry, and sometimes this leads to unfortunate consequences. (This sort of “pressure” in itself, however, does not invalidate a marriage.) Generally, I would say, society would be better off with fewer marriages, if that meant fewer civil “divorces.”
I say civil “divorces” because divorce is a fiction created by the state. As G. K. Chesterton said, “If there is such a thing as marriage, then there's no such thing as divorce.” Chesterton reflected the Catholic view that divorce is a “superstition,” meaning that the bonds of matrimony, since they are made in Heaven, are unbreakable on earth.
Our Lord said that when husband and wife are joined, the “two shall become one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” It is a fallacy to think anyone – including the government – can sunder them. Even the Church can annul a marriage only if it wasn't valid in the first place.
Therefore, I disagree with your assertion that the Lindh's marriage was somehow made “invalid” by Mr. Lindh's taking up with another man. Once the sacrament of matrimony has been consummated, you can no more cease being someone's husband or wife than you can stop being a brother or sister. Bad or even evil behavior by one side doesn't invalidate the relationship and the state has no power to grant a “divorce.” Saying it doesn't make it so.
This leads me to the second point you raised, “What should the Lindh parents have done about Frank Lindh's homosexuality?” First, as the bonds of matrimony are indissoluble, Mr. Lindh should have continued fulfilling his role as husband and father, rather than running out on his responsibilities. Second, since engaging in any extra-marital sexual activity – including homosexuality – is a sin, the Church expects those with homosexual longings to live a chaste life. Thus, Mr. Lindh should have refrained from any sexual activity other than with his lawful wife. Finally, both Mr. and Mrs. Lindh should have sought solace and reconciliation in the Church through prayer and the intermediation of a trusted priest.
No one expects that this would be easy for either Mr. or Mrs. Lindh. But each day, many are saved from the slavery of sin by prayers to Our Lord and His Blessed Mother. This is the hope and refuge of all of us; it is what makes our suffering bearable. Without recourse to Christ, we would all be condemned to a life of despair.
In charity, we should pray for the good of the Lindhs, including John. Additionally, I will pray that God's graces flow to you also, Mr. Olson. Thank you for taking the time to write.
In Christ's name,
James Bemis