Where would the world be without homosexuals? Just think of the tremendous contribution they have made throughout the ages in the world of art, music, literature and fashion. How much poorer we would be without Valentino, Michelangelo, John Galliano and Alexander McQueen (even if they usually design unwearable clothes which seem to have come out of the Folies Bergère).

Then there are our own gifted local designers and of course the most famous of them all, Oscar Wilde, who in De Profundis which he wrote in prison where he spent two years for homosexual offences admitted: “Tired of being on the heights I deliberately went to the depths in search of new sensations.” Well, that certainly brought him into trouble!

I am no homophobic. It’s just that I prefer men to be men…who prefer women. But I must say, that with the years, I understand a little more about human diversity and no longer dismiss homosexuals, as I would have done some years ago, as limp-wristed individuals who should be banished to a desert island with just each other for company.

Yes, with the years I am beginning to understand that an estrangement from the realities of human diversity is foolish and unrealistic. That we simply are not all made the same. But inevitably there is the fear of many that the cultural values and social structures that ensure their sense of self are coming unstuck, which they are. And homosexuality too, like feminism, is contributing to society as we know it, getting unstuck.

There are those therefore engaged in the defence of a way of life – by fair means or foul – that they believe to be under threat. They sustain the ideal of a familial order where everyone knows their place. It’s a language of freedom from drug abuse, criminality, sexual deviance and divorce, the promise of a paternal order that will look after us in return for our obedience. But it simply isn’t working like that anymore, no matter the pastoral letters (mostly aimed at women). Alas the old edifice, like so many of our old buildings, is crumbling by the hour.

I suppose it is quite natural that we seek to deny diversity as it makes us feel uncomfortable. Many of us have been brought up to pigeon hole everything. We see diversity as a threat to the hegemony of masculinity and heterosexuality. It is also a threat to the power and privilege of a white masculinity that has been the symbol of the patriarchal order. But I believe that any attempts to drag society back into the patriarchal past are useless. No matter what, we are going to have to learn to live with the present diversity.

* * * *

The myth of masculinity is its attempt to pass itself off as natural and universal, free of problems. But the changing position of women in many different spheres, slow as it is, is undermining the certainties of the past.

For men, a strong authoritative masculine persona is based on the repression of vulnerability and dependency. Men go on struggling to reassert a traditional masculinity, a tough independent authority. The classic figure is Rambo. Stallone advertises a destructive machismo as the solution to men’s problems. (But how many of you like Rambo? I can’t stand him…or his t-shirts).

Apart from the changing position of women we also have gays asserting themselves. They are coming out in public to tell us what their sexual preferences are. And many of us don’t like it. To many heterosexual men homosexuals are dishonourable, feminised men – letting the side down, as it were.

The Great Pretenders

Repression is dangerous in whatever sphere of life and repressed homosexuals are all around us. There are those, probably because of fear of discrimination, who try to make out that they are heterosexual but often, they are fooling only themselves. Women, more often than not have an instinct for men who are not heterosexual and are not taken in though, generally out of kindness, they go along with the game.

Some perhaps play the game too far. An acquaintance pushed by friends who were tired of the posturings, posings and flirtations of a closet gay, wrote him a sort of billet doux just to see his reaction. I never got to know how he reacted but she got a very bad conscience about it and for months on end tried to sort out what she should do. In the end she decided to confess it all to a priest. (Confession does have psychological benefits, of that there is no doubt!) The priest told her it was best to tell the man in question the truth, which she did, and having told him and apologised for her silliness, felt all the better for it. She admits that it was foolish and unkind of her but being a gentleman, he accepted her explanation graciously. ‘He knew all along that my letter was a silly joke, I am sure, but being such a nice person he simply put it behind him. I still think he would feel so much better if he did not try so hard to seem as if he is heterosexual. Who does he think he’s fooling?”

The married man who ‘comes out’

In such a small island ‘coming out’ if you are married is hard on the wife and children. There are several examples of this happening in recent years and such a public act must have untold repercussions, especially on the children of such a marriage. It is unfortunate that some of these men do not keep a low profile, if only to protect their children, but flaunt their new-found homosexuality.

With the acceptance of homosexuals perhaps cases of these broken marriage will become rarer.

The Malta Gay Rights Movement is giving help to gays to come to terms with their sexual preferences and to come out of hiding. If they were allowed to be themselves they would stop taking refuge in the priesthood and destroying the lives of the women they marry and the children they father.

Homosexuality in the church

I personally feel that worst of all is the homosexuality within the Church. This is because we have been brought up to have such a high opinion of the priesthood that when we find out that priests are involved in homosexuality we are not only shocked but disgusted.

Catholic World News and our own newspaper two Sundays ago, ran a story involving two priests of the Tucson diocese in the USA who have been defrocked, including one who reportedly tried to buy his bishop’s silence by threatening to expose the homosexual dalliances of another prominent bishop with local teenagers.

CWN writes: “From time to time during the past few years, there have been rumours that bishops have been blackmailed. If those rumours were true, at least they would help us to understand why so many bishops failed to discipline predatory priests. In this case, it isn’t just a rumour; it’s a report from the bishop who was the object of the threats.

“The other rumour in circulation – again, a potential explanation for the bishops’ failure to discipline molesters – is the existence of a ‘homosexual network’ in the American clergy. On that score, too, the Tucson story contained an important revelation. After he admitted to molesting boys, and after he was suspended from priestly ministry, and after he threatened to expose a homosexual bishop, the priest from Tucson turned up as a consultant to another diocese! Doesn’t that sound like successful ‘networking?’”

* * * *

Unfortunately, there was another CWN story this week with equally troubling overtones. In Massachusetts, the opening of previously sealed police records exposed the evidence that has made another ex-priest the prime suspect in the murder of an altar boy. Prosecutors are still hoping to collect enough hard evidence to support charges against Richard Lavigne, who remained a priest of the Springfield diocese after that 1972 murder, and after his 1992 conviction for child molestation; he was only laicized last year – just a few weeks prior to the abrupt resignation of his bishop.

”So,” Catholic World News asks, “why was a convicted molester and suspected killer still functioning as a Catholic priest until last November? We really can’t explain that. But when we hear that the Springfield diocese destroyed all clergy-personnel files sometime in the late 1970s, we begin to suspect that there were many other clerics who had something important to hide.”

We have had stories of active homosexual priests in Malta. One of them was actually declared a persona non grata and liable to go to prison if he ever returned to Canada. Yet, back here, he was still put in charge of young boys. We all find this disgraceful but the story has died a natural death. Where is he now, many of us are wondering, this priest who was thrown out of Canada?

Who’s sons is he ruining?

I heard a story recently of a young man who some years ago was helping at his local church. But one of the priests, a homosexual, was successful in luring his friends to homosexuality. The young man, feeling isolated, committed suicide. He left a suicide note containing the story in detail, names and all. A relative took it to the Curia and that was the last she heard of it. The priest in question was sent abroad for a time but is known to have returned and is still working in a parish here. I was speechless after this story was told to me by a relative, who is still distraught after years have passed and disgusted at the Curia.

How much of this is going on, one wonders? How many priests are there who are luring young men and getting away with it?

The Gay Pride march

It takes courage to walk down Republic street openly declaring you are gay in a small island such as this.

I asked Sandro Mangion, co-ordinator of the Malta Gay Rights Movement to comment on the recent march: “To our surprise, we ended up counting more than a hundred heads marching together along Malta’s main thoroughfare on July 22. Another quantum leap had been registered in our campaign to empower the country’s substantial sexual minority to assert its active presence within society. Apart from rights and so on it was a celebration of the beauty of human nature’s diversity.

“We are present in all sectors of society. Almost everyone has a relative or a friend who forms part of a sexual minority, even if they are not aware of the fact”.

In our newspaper last Sunday Joseph M. Cachia of Vittoriosa wrote to the editor in a letter entitled Is heterosexual society under siege? Read it if you can. One thing is certain we cannot allow homosexuals to take over the world. Normality is still male and female. Let’s all remember that. And children need both a mother and a father. Homosexual marriage? You must be joking!Homosexuality is at present the object of much curiosity and, in some quarters, concern. Marie Benoît addressed the issue in the August edition of First.

From her piece I got a rather mixed message, probably an accurate reflection of the mixed feelings we, as a nation, still have on the subject. At the beginning she talks of valueing diversity, and at the end she describes homosexuality as abnormal!

But the article is also a reflection of the misinformation that abounds on the subject. In the section where Ms Benoît talks about homosexuality and the clergy incorrect and dangerous assumptions are made. The main one was that homosexual priests are all paedophiles or ephebophiles. She tells of shocking stories of priests seducing altar boys and turning young men into homosexuals.

Allow me to make a couple of points:

Homosexuality, paedophilia, and ephebophilia

Homosexuals are attracted to members of their own gender. Paedophiles are attracted to children. Some paedophiles are attracted to children of their own gender, some to children of the opposite gender and some to both. While homosexuals are usually attracted to adults, paedophiles, usually because of an arrested emotional development, are sexually drawn to children. Paedophilia unlike homosexuality is considered a mental illness. A definition of this condition is: “A sexual disorder that is defined as intense, sexually arousing fantasies, urges or activity with a pre-pubescent child.” Ephebophilia is the sexual attraction of an older person to a newly pubescent person of the same sex. Usually the victim is between the ages of 11 and 15.

Assuming that homosexuals seek to sexually abuse adolescents or children is the same as assuming that heterosexuals do so. Yes some heterosexuals (and homosexuals) have paedophilic or ephebophilic inclinations. But most do not. As the well respected researcher in human sexuality Vern L. Bullock puts it “neither group is much more prone than the other to seek out sexual relations with minors.”

Ms Benoît also recounts the story of a young man whose friends were “lured …to homosexuality” by a priest who’s pastoral duties included work with young men. However the fact is that a person cannot become homosexual because of a sexual experience with a person of his or her own gender. The causes of homosexuality are complex including both genetic and environmental factors but homosexual experimentation or abuse is not one of them. (This does not mean that this experience is not harmful! An abuse of power of this kind by a priest who is meant to be a representative of Christ can be devastating. The fact that the matter, seemingly, was not followed up by the Church authorities is most worrying.)

It is dangerous, damaging and incorrect to make the link that Ms Benoît made between paedophilia and homosexuality. At a time when homosexuals, in and out of the priesthood, are trying to gain acceptance it is important that we get our facts right.

Paedophilic and ephebophilic priests

However this does not mean that one should blindly trust one’s children or adolescents to a homosexual priest. Nor should one trust them automatically with a heterosexual one! There have been horror stories of both kinds both on our shores and abroad. When it comes to danger it seems that boys between the ages of 11 and 16 most at risk of clergy abuse. The report by the The National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People Established by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated 82% of the sexual abuse perpetrated by members of the clergy was on boys between these ages. “Because of the sex-segregated schooling and the easier availability of boys to priests, it was the adolescent boys rather than girls who were more often the victims.” (V. L. Bullough).

The Church in Malta has a great responsibility to make sure that any priest with paedophilic or ephebophilic inclinations is removed from any work or contact with children at the very least. I greatly fear that this is not being done.

It is undeniable that the Church is a perfect hiding place for men (homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual) who want to have easy sexual access to minors. The work that often involves contact with young people or children, the secrecy and self protectiveness of the institution, the automatic trust and respect giving to priests, the reluctance of all concerned to expose a clergyman all make it a perfect setting. As we have seen recently in the Church scandal in Austria whole seminaries can be involved in the viewing of child pornography and all can be covered up for decades.

Yet this is not to say that the great majority of priests, heterosexual and homosexual, are not doing admirable work at great personal cost and are as dismayed by abusive clergy as is any parent. The above-mentioned report quotes the maximum figure of 4% of the clergy (in the USA) as being involved in acts of sexual abuse of minors. Although shocking this statistic still leaves 96% of clergy who can be trusted with minors.One of my favourite all time books is an unknown little gem called ‘The I hate to housekeep book’ written in the 1960’s by Peg Bracken. Don’t be fooled by the title or by a superficial read through, for within it are hidden many philosophical insights into human nature. At one point the author writes: “If your window panes are dirtier than your neighbours’, they will like you the better for it.”

I was reminded of this while reading Marie Benoît’s article ‘The Love that now dares speak its name.’ (August issue of First). She says that she is no homophobe but I think that like the neighbour with the cleaner window panes, she is happier that she is, in a way, better off.

She criticises closet gays for not telling her about their orientation but doesn’t she realise that sexual orientation is a private matter? How would she feel if during a middling conversation someone asked her what her salary was or which candidate in the general election she has voted for? I’m sure that her answer would be a straightforward ‘None of your business!’ And she would be right because in our society, we have come to treasure a certain degree of privacy. What people do or do not do and with whom, is a private matter so this is not a question of being the ‘Great Pretender’ as she puts it. Why should we tell people with whom we have only a cursory and superficial relationship anything as intimate as our sexual preferences? One should only share the nature of one’s sexual preferences with someone one is interested sexually in or at the most with someone with whom one is on thoroughly personal terms. On the other hand some people argue that sexual orientation is a part of the whole person and it therefore has a social aspect. In this light many gays decide to ‘come out’ not because they want to tell people about their sexual preferences ‘per se’ but because they feel better in a society that accepts them and perhaps their partner as a couple. Those who are in loving, long standing relationships are tired of being invited to functions and asked to bring along a ‘guest’.

Certain parts of her article can be considered defamatory and had they been printed outside this island she would have been actively prosecuted. In some states it is now illegal to in any way mention child abuse and gays in the same article and this is because research has shown time and time again that most cases of abuse are by men against girls or as a recent case in the United States, women against boys. Likewise in some countries it is illegal to say that the holocaust never happened because historical facts unequivocally declare the opposite and people who try to say otherwise are stopped because they foment hatred in society.

Her use of the phrase ‘heterosexual society’ does not make sense because society is neither homosexual nor heterosexual. It is a mixture of people with different needs and all that the gay rights’ movements are saying is that it is alright to have a diverse society because it enriches us all. She seems repulsed by the idea of gay marriage but this is only because her idea of marriage is an archaic and dreamy one. Forget the white gown, the confetti and the 10-thousand pound reception and what is one left with? A contract between two people which facilitates social and financial transactions. Many gays have higher than average spending power, so much so that one often speaks of the ‘pink economy’ and therefore they are net contributors to ‘heterosexual society’. Meanwhile they are forbidden the rights of married couples. One local example is the fact that a married or engaged couple (man and woman) receive a VAT refund on all that they spend on building their house. This does not apply to gays of course, even those in long standing relationships, because the contract called marriage does not exist for partners of the same sex in Malta.

One problem with many ‘opinion pieces’ such as Mrs Benoît’s is that they are based on perceptions and not on solid research. Children brought up by one or more gay parents do not become gay (and aren’t gay children heterosexual ‘products’?) and even the statement that children need both a mother and a father is loose because it is based on what the writer thinks and not on any solid evidence. Scientific research on sexual orientation is a relatively recent area, most probably because researchers were afraid to embark on any research which might have raised eyebrows with peers. In ethology, the study of animal behaviour, researchers had often noticed that some individual animals demonstrated a consistent sexual preference for members of the same sex. These observations were never reported though because they were thought to be inappropriate. What we do know now is that in most animal species in the wild, homosexuality exists. This is a very puzzling matter nonetheless because it is an accepted tenet in biology that the function of an individual is to pass on his genes and this can only be done (at least in mammals) by having sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex. So why are some animals and some people gay? No one can give a really good answer but what we do know is that the theory of evolution, which forms the basis of all modern biology, states that any characteristic that gives some disadvantage to a species is weeded out. This has clearly not happened to homosexuality either in people or other animals. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that homosexuality must be benefiting the population as a whole. Explaining how, can only be conjectural at this stage of our understanding but if we go back to Mrs Benoît’s first paragraph we might have a possible answer when she says: “Where would the world be without homosexuals? Just think of the tremendous contribution they have made throughout the ages…”