Faith: Pedophelia - making distinctions

WASHINGTON, April 24 (UPI) -- It may not be altogether proper to appeal to Luther in making sense of Catholicism's crisis. But let's try it anyway:

The devil never ceases to "cook and brew" the two realms together, of which all Christians are citizens -- the spiritual and the secular, Luther said.

The pedophilia scandal is a case in point. It didn't take ideological hitchhikers long to jump on board in the pursuit of their own agendas.

Feminists and advocates of homosexual rights are exacerbating the general confusion by adding their voices to the already unbearable cacophony. It's time to make some proper distinctions.

Pedophile priests have committed a crime and a sin, said Pope John Paul II. These are two different categories. All crimes are sinful of course, in the sense that they are expressions of original sin -- man's estrangement from God.

On the other hand, not all sins are crimes. Adultery and homosexual acts between consenting grownups are contrary to God's will and therefore sinful, at least in the eyes of faithful Christians, Jews and Muslims. But they are no longer against the law and thus no crime, at least in most countries around the world.

Pedophilia is both. But this insight alone does not get us any further as we ponder what to do with abusive priests. It is at this point that the argument over "one strike and you're out" becomes intriguing.

As a crime, pedophilia calls for punishment, including the offender's removal from office. As a sin, though, even pedophilia cannot be excluded from forgiveness.

Thus, the 12 U.S. cardinals and other prelates meeting with the pope in Rome are not only right but also have the Christian duty to mull over the question of how to give a repentant offender the love he is entitled to.

The Christian Church -- Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox -- is by definition an institution of grace. Therefore we should not be horrified if the American bishops meeting in Dallas in June decide to reinstate formerly wayward priests once they have undergone genuine Christian conversion.

It would be foolish to ever again place such men in the position where they could harm children. But there are other ministries where they can be useful.

From a secular point of view one might recoil at such a thought. But from the theological perspective, it would simply be wrong not to consider this option.

Homosexuality, which according to many traditionalist Catholic theologians such as the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, is at the root of the current crisis, is another case in point. But it requires a longer line of argument.

From the theologian's point of view, homosexual orientation is an expression of human sinful state because -- the clamor of "gay" rights activists notwithstanding -- it is not an order of creation. This is not something that God wanted -- at least not if you take Scripture seriously.

But though in a fallen state like all human beings, simply being a homosexual does not mean committing a sin. Therefore, a homosexual -- like a heterosexual -- has his place in the ministry if he remains chaste.

To claim, as CNN commentator Bill Press did Wednesday, that "even married gay and lesbians" -- married to people of their own sex that is -- should be eligible for the priesthood, is disingenuous.

It is a sign of the confusion that comes out the blending of secular and spiritual concerns Luther opposed so adamantly. In the secular world, homosexuals are of course entitled to the same consideration as all others.

But the church is not a secular institution. It is bound to a different set of rules -- Biblical rules, which declare homosexual behavior an abomination in the eyes of God.

There are theologians who declare these rules outdated. They promote the consecration of practicing homosexuals.

They see nothing wrong with ministers acting contrary to the Bible he or she is ordained to preach. But in so doing they are abandoning biblical ground rules in favor of secular ones.

In so doing, they are eliminating the distinction between the finite realm of the world and the infinite realm of the spirit. Thus, by Luther's definition they are doing the devil's work.

The result is chaos that has already led many to leave churches following this line because they see no reason to stay in an institution that is indistinguishable from the world.

In some Catholic seminaries, this attitude has led to precisely the disaster the church is in now. It's hard to argue with conservative Catholic theologians on this point.

Among the hitchhikers of the present crisis are also those who now sense an opportunity for advocating the ordination of women and married men.

Again, at least where women's ordination is concerned, secular preferences seem to override Luther's warning against "brewing and cooking" the two realms together.

The Church of Rome shares with the Orthodox and some Protestant denominations a theology according to which a woman cannot take the place of Christ at the altar. Other, perfectly respectable churches representing a minority in world Christendom take a different view.

But for Rome to throw its own theological arguments against women's ordination overboard and to risk perpetuating the schism with the Eastern churches is unthinkable at this point.

One can sympathize with traditionalist theologians, who claim that the promoters of women's ordination are taking advantage of a horrible disaster, knowing all too well they are not going to succeed. In secular language this is called cynicism.

They are also not helping the cause of the ordination of married men, to which they hitch their agenda.

There may be valid practical arguments against the abolition of the celibacy rule, although this Protestant commentator finds them difficult to fathom.

But if priestly celibacy were an essential pillar of the spiritual realm, one wonders why the apostle Paul recommended that even bishops be married (1 Timothy 3:2). And one also wonders why the Vatican tolerates married priests in its Eastern-rite churches or tolerated them in the first 1,000 years of its existence.

But again, even on this issue the proper distinctions get lost in the media circus over abuse in the church. The ordination of married men would not automatically provide a shield against sexual crimes.

On the other hand, it might attract men to the priesthood who -- if they led exemplary married lives as did Protestant pastors in the past -- could transform the communities in which they serve.

In more civilized centuries, the Lutheran and Anglican parsonages helped shape the cultures of Germany and Britain. Today's empty Catholic parsonages of countries like France -- empty in the literal sense of the word, as there are no priests there -- contribute to this country's spiritual desolation.

But to link this issue to the fads and aberrations of the secularized society is doing it a disservice because it fails to draw the proper distinctions.

Ideologues promoting the ordination of married men as a "civil right," argue wrongly along secular lines. However, it can also be advocated as an act of love for the ever-increasing flocks without shepherds. Then it would indeed be a theological matter and a genuinely Christian one, too.

Alas, this fine distinction is getting lost in all the brouhaha over pedophile priests.