Joseph Sobran’s
Washington Watch

“I’m Gay; Ordain Me!”

(Reprinted from the issue of December 8, 2005)

As expected, the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education has released its document affirming that the priesthood and sodomy don’t mix. The seven-page statement was carefully phrased, taking pains to explain the obvious, but the bottom line inevitably annoyed the avatars of sexual “liberation”: The priesthood is not for homosexuals.

One must wonder why this is even an issue. You’d assume that any young man applying to a seminary had already resolved to abandon any thought of amorous relations, normal or perverse, and to consecrate his person to following the chaste precept and example of Christ.

If he’s keeping his options open, so to speak, how can he even suppose he has a vocation to the priesthood? After all, laymen are bound to chastity, which, even with the option of marriage, is hard enough; but a priest assumes an even more severe obligation for his entire life. If he is conscious of himself as homosexual, how can he seriously aspire to this?

Such a young man will not only be subject to special temptations, but he may present temptations to others of the same infirmity, if they can be ordained too. If he loves the Church, charity itself should direct him to avoid the priesthood. Besides, the Christian should always put his duties ahead of his rights.
 
Saddam the Martyr?

Democrats were quick to complain that President Bush’s November 30 speech at Annapolis contained “nothing new,” but though that may have been literally true, it missed the point.

Without seeming to concede anything to critics of the Iraq war, Bush was in fact trying to reassure the country that it won’t go on forever. He may be singing the same old lyrics, but he has definitely changed his tune.

The speech emphasized that the “Iraqis” (meaning the pro-American Iraqis, as opposed to the resistance, which he calls the “terrorists”) are rapidly taking over the task of defending their own “freedom” (meaning the new regime installed by the U.S. military). Though he refuses to give a deadline for the withdrawal of American troops, Bush wants us to feel that the end is in view.

But if the new regime is as popular as he insists, why should it be so hard to prepare the Iraqis themselves to defend it? This is an obvious question, but it doesn’t seem to occur to the president. In his view, the resistance — excuse me, the “terrorists” — don’t just hate the foreigners who have invaded and occupied their country; they hate freedom and democracy, and pulling American forces out prematurely would only expose the freedom-loving masses to cruel tyranny.

Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein has finally gone on trial, and he lost no time in taking over the show, boldly scolding the judge for subservience to the invaders. He may not be too popular himself, but he knows his only chance now is to play on the unpopularity of the occupation — which Bush refuses to admit is even a factor.

Yet it’s clear that most Iraqis want the U.S. troops to go home as soon as possible, and even the U.S.-installed regime reflects this feeling and indeed acknowledges the legitimacy of resistance.

Ramsey Clark, the former U.S. attorney general, has joined Saddam’s defense team, not, presumably, because he doubts Saddam’s crimes, but because he denies American jurisdiction over Iraq. Clark used to annoy me, as he still annoys many conservatives (and neoconservatives in particular); but it must be said that he is an honest man who has spoken out for years against the horrors of malnutrition and disease inflicted on Iraq by U.S.-enforced sanctions.

This isn’t mushy liberalism; it’s simple humanity. He was trying to get the world’s attention on this even during the Clinton years, so he can’t be accused of partisanship.

If Saddam is acquitted, which is most unlikely, it will be a major embarrassment for the Bush administration, even if it proves that the new Iraqi judicial system isn’t entirely rigged; but if he is convicted, it will appear that the system is rigged, and he may die a patriotic martyr.
 
Revolutionary America

This confusing situation was indirectly illuminated in an article in the November 5 issue of the British magazine The Spectator. John Laughland, whose work I have always admired, observed a curious fact: that as formerly Communist countries have adopted Western decadence (Havana now has bars for transsexuals, for example), “the West has itself adopted many of the old nostrums of Communism, and especially the twin doctrines of revolution and internationalism. Revolution has now become a completely positive word in the Western political lexicon.”

Bush himself, Laughland reminds us, has said that a “free Iraq” would mark a watershed in “the global democratic revolution” and, moreover, that America is pursuing “the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”

How did utopianism make such a sudden and dramatic comeback? No sooner had a Democratic president announced that “the era of big government is over” than his Republican successor proclaimed a new era of world revolution!

Since when do Republicans talk like Lenin and Trotsky? Since they started embracing Trotskyite neoconservatives, one of whom, Michael Ledeen, Laughland credits with coining the phrase “global democratic revolution.”

Bush’s war has inspired surprising enthusiasm among old leftists like Christopher Hitchens and several heads of Eastern European states, “nearly all of them former Communist apparatchiks.” Such people have no use for traditional governments or national sovereignty; “regime change” is their passion.

Countries that won’t submit to U.S. hegemony are now “rogue nations,” by definition threats to America itself.

Sharing Bush’s optimism about the war is the leading Democratic neocon, Connecticut’s Sen. Joe Lieberman, just back from Israel, which, writing in The Wall Street Journal, he calls “the only genuine democracy in the region” and therefore the only country where no regime change is needed.

As for Iraq, Lieberman says, “America cannot abandon the war between 27 million Iraqis and 10,000 terrorists.” But again, if those are the real odds, why are American troops even necessary? He vaguely cites polls showing that “two-thirds [of Iraqis] say they are better off than they were under Saddam.”

Wait a minute, senator. You mean the other third don’t agree? That’s not exactly a tiny minority.

Maybe U.S. troop numbers can be reduced by 2007, Lieberman allows. Yet it is “likely that our presence will need to be significant or nearby for years to come.”

Thus justifications for the war have gone from hysterical predictions of mushroom clouds less than three years ago to mealy-mouthed excuses today. Americans and Iraqis alike are sick of the occupation.


Optimism and pessimism, says Chesterton, are only modern words for the ancient sins of presumption and despair; SOBRAN’S heartily agrees. If you have not seen my monthly newsletter yet, give my office a call at 800-513-5053 and request a free sample, or better yet, subscribe for two years for just $85. New subscribers get two gifts with their subscription. More details can be found at the Subscription page of my website.

Already a subscriber? Consider a gift subscription for a priest, friend, or relative.

Joseph Sobran