Home > The Priest Made Me Gay

The Priest Made Me Gay

by Open-Publishing - Sunday 30 October 2005
3 comments

Discriminations-Minorit. Religions-Beliefs USA Wayne Besen

by Wayne Besen

A New York socialite who claims a priest turned him into a sodomite is suing the Catholic Church for $5 million. J. David Enright IV, 51, says Rev. Joseph Romano molested him as a 7-year-old boy at summer camp, and as a result he was unable to live as a suburban heterosexual.

"Romano bent my life," Enright told the New York Post. "I believe my life would be very different now. I’d probably be married, living in Greenwich, with four children in boarding school. I had a completely straight life in business, socially on Park Avenue and Fifth Avenue. Then there was this other world, which was slinking around Greenwich Village gay bars, finding mates."

This story of self-loathing is horribly wrong on so many levels. But let’s first cut Enright some slack, for he is clearly a traumatized victim of child abuse and internalized homophobia. He is spewing nonsense as he tries to make sense of a childhood stripped away by a priest who couldn’t keep his clothes on.

However, his frivolous lawsuit must be addressed because it contains damaging assertions that erroneously tie homosexuality to child abuse. At the very heart of his claim is the notion that homosexuals are simply misbehaving heterosexuals who perform deviant acts because they were screwed up as a result of poor parenting or child abuse.

"Ex-gay" leader Richard Cohen best personifies this theory. He claims to have had a flashback of childhood abuse after banging a pillow repeatedly with a tennis racquet to release pent up anger.

"All of a sudden, I saw male genitals coming toward my mouth. I screamed. I felt shocked. I felt horrified." The accused perpetrator was a family friend, Uncle Dave, who allegedly molested him between the ages of 5 and 6. "I cried and the tears flowed for the next few years, as I worked through memories of sexual abuse…I learned that to be close to a man I must give him my body."

The truth is, there is no link between sexual abuse and sexual orientation. The vast majority of child abuse victims grow up to be heterosexual. The myth that abuse leads to homosexuality is kept alive because anti-gay political groups fear losing support if Americans believe that gayness is natural and inborn.

For example, a November 2004 Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates poll shows that 79 percent of people who think homosexuality is inborn support civil unions or marriage equality. Among those who believe sexual orientation is a choice, only 22 percent support civil unions or marriage rights.

If the right wing is to trick Americans into believing homosexuality isn’t natural, they must invent an unnatural process by which people become gay. If they can assert a brokenness caused by abuse, this gives them a pretext to justify discrimination. It allows them to essentially say, "homosexuals don’t need rights, they need rehabilitation."

What is hurtful about Enright’s ludicrous lawsuit is that it revives disgusting stereotypes of gay men as pedophiles at the very time the Vatican is trying to pin their abuse scandal on faithful gay priests. Unfortunately, gay priests make an easy target because out of an estimated 10,000 minors molested, 80 per cent of the victims were boys.

But are these perverted priests gay? A glance at the available social science says that their orientation probably is not homosexual. A 2000 study by Dr. Michael R. Stevenson concluded, "A gay man is no more likely than a straight man to perpetrate sexual activity on children." A 1994 study by Dr. Carole Jenny found that less than one-percent of the children in her study were abused by a gay man or lesbian. In 1978, Drs. Nicholas Groth and Jean Birnbaum found that none of the 175 molesters in their study had an exclusively homosexual adult orientation.

So, why were boy victims overwhelmingly chosen instead of girls? It is likely that priests picked boys instead of girls because they had greater access to young men. The Groth and Birnbaum study shows that molesters are not particularly picky about the sex of their victims:

"Those offenders who are sexually attracted exclusively to children show a slight preference for boys over girls, yet these same individuals are uninterested in adult homosexual relationships. In fact, they frequently express a strong sexual aversion to adult males."

Molestation is clearly not a gay issue, but a problem that has cost the Roman Catholic Church nearly $1 billion for settlements and jury verdicts. Additionally, from 1965 to 2000, the number of priests in the U.S. dropped 30 percent, the number of nuns, 54 percent.

The celibacy and anti-gay rules are chasing out dedicated servants, while attracting unhealthy people with dark secrets who sometimes view priesthood as a 12-Step program to overcome their issues. The Catholic Church did not make J. David Enright IV gay. It did, however, turn him into an unhealthy victim who is sadly unable to accept his God-given sexual orientation. If the man were any more messed up, he’d be a perfect candidate for the priesthood.

http://www.waynebesen.com/columns/2005/10/priest-made-me-gay.html

Forum posts

  • "Among those who believe sexual orientation is a choice, only 22 percent support civil unions or marriage rights."

    Those stats don’t back up your argument very well Wayne. All it says is that the people who swing to being sympathetic to gays back civil unions or marriage.

    Those who do not, don’t.

    (Thinking homosexuality is inborn, is a sure tell on someone’s favourable opinion of gays.)

    "So, why were boy victims overwhelmingly chosen instead of girls?"

    Well, there is more of an issue here than just having a preference for the genitals. It has to do with identifying with the person. Priests are men and they identify more with boys. There is also the emotional state of priests, those that have not been able to evolve with time, but are stuck in an adolescent stage.

    Adult relationships, those we get into after mid-teens, help us move into an adult emotional stage. For many priests they have not experienced this, and their emotional stage is stayed in their teens, often early teens.

    So they act out on boys, often in their early teens.

    It is not gayness as most gay men understand it. Where there is an equal sharing or, if not equal, a learning experience between partners.

    It becomes a top down power play, much as an adolescent gets pleasure from being able to control a weaker person his own age.

    That there is sexual satisfaction for the priest is an add-on. Something to compensate him for his lack of a satisfactory sexual experience with someone same gender or not.

    Most 50% 60% 70% of priests, monseigneurs, bishops, archbishops and cardinals, and likely popes, are emotionally undeveloped, and the irony is that people go to them for counselling, for sexual advice and many other issues.

    It always amazes me why people cannot figure this out.

    I suppose the fact that these people are supposed to be vehicles of a deity, and a spokesperson, blinds the issue.

    It isn’t gayness you are talking about, or heterosexuality with this issue of Catholic priests. It is merely emotional undevelopment.

    Other religious faiths who practice the belief of no sex for their representatives (priests) suffer with the same results. Much which is hushed up. But the Catholic church, being the largest such faith with such a practice, is the most observable. Also it is within our sphere of knowledge - these past few years at least - unlike the Eastern and various Indian (from India) creeds etc, which we do not hear about, and within their groupings is treated as something not to be spoken to strangers about.

  • It seems that is the reason why the catholic church is against gay marriage. Come on brothers you have already established one of the largest gay community on earth and moreover superstitious people pay your way through life, too.

  • Anti-Catholicism - the last socially acceptable bigotry.