Freakonomics and the Vatican

So, first Julie D. at Happy Catholic links to this article on Freakonomics. The author of the article, Orson Scott Card (the Orson Scott Card? Of Ender’s Game? I don’t know…there’s no bio data on the author of the article) writes about this book: “Well, there’s a book – and a mini-movement – that is trying to cut through all the fog and insist that we face facts in all sorts of areas of American life. It’s called “Freakonomics,” and it gets its name from the book Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt (economist) and Stephen J. Dubner (science writer).”

Mr. Card also states: “In the process of reading it, you’ll also be given a short but effective course in analyzing causal assertions – or, in other words, you’ll be trained to hear statistical assertions skeptically, because you’ll have a clearer idea of how they can be massaged and manipulated and misunderstood.

“You’ll also be given a wake-up call about how many of the statistics on which we base public opinion and policy are simply made up.

“You know, lies.”

Then The Anchoress writes “Witch Hunt”: Goodstein Drops the Ball.

Per The Anchoress, “There are only a handful of reporters at the NY Times I really respect, and Laurie Goodstein, who covers religion, has been one of them. She is generally very balanced in her reporting, very careful to make sure she is presenting all sides.

“She doesn’t do it in this piece, though. This piece, while taking the time to quote folks in the pew, spends a great deal of time fomenting sympathy for gay priests and seminarians while skipping over the “whys” of the current ‘witch hunt.’”

The Anchoress is referring to the document expected from the Vatican banning gays from the priesthood. As she points out in her article, the document hasn’t even been published yet, but already the following meme is out: “Ms. Goodstein’s story is framed: Mean, homophobic, intolerant Catholic church is bearing down cruelly on gay priests and seminarians, because it (the Church) is hateful.” (parentheses mine for clarification)

Perhaps a bit of Freakonomics is in order here?

Is the causal assertion of Ms. Goodstein’s article valid? Is the Holy Roman Catholic Church merely being hateful? Or, perhaps, does the Holy Roman Catholic Church have a reason for its position? One having to do with the types of sex involved in the scandals?

For it does seem that the majority of the scandals involve priests and boys. The argument that pedophiles are not homosexual because when asked most pedophiles self-identify as “heterosexual” seems a bit disingenuous.

Freakonomics might also be in order to determine why these men were unable to control their sexual impulses. Was it because of “sexual immaturity?” (I find that idea plausible, given that most of the men accused entered the seminary at 14 and spent the next eight years in an all-male environment.) Was it because of the requirement of celibacy?

The most important question I haven’t seen asked: why are some men, gay and straight, able to keep their vow of celibacy? What is different about them?

There’s a great scene in the movie Keeping the Faith. Brian Finn has wanted to be a priest his entire life and becomes one. One of his best friends from childhood returns home and suddenly he realizes he loves her. (There’s much more to this movie, but this will do.) At one point Fr. Finn is in the study of the older pastor of his parish. Their dialogue goes something like this:

“Has this happened to you?” Fr. Finn asks.

“Oh, about once a decade,” the older priest answers.

And, maybe, that is the difference right there: reassurance from someone who has been there, who knows from personal experience that keeping the vow of celibacy is a challenge and a challenge that never goes away. Someone who also believes that the vow of celibacy is worth keeping.

So… now I have another book to add to my list. Two—when the Vatican actually publishes the document.