THE IRISH CONCESSION

Jerry Harkins

It is not nearly well enough known that bestiality is only a venial sin. The theological basis for this classification of the offence — if offence it be at all — has to do, I understand, with the fact that dumb animals don’t have souls to be sullied, neither, then, are they capable of giving, and are equally incapable of withholding, informed consent to the commission of the act. So feel free with a frolicky ferret.
                                                                                                               —Eammon McCann

Mr. McCann is an Irish journalist who writes frequently about religion but, about this, he is only partially correct. Exodus 22:19 states explicitly, “Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.” Leviticus 18 lays down the law in numbing detail with regard to this abomination as well as to incest and homosexuality. And Leviticus 20:15-16 says that anyone, man or woman, who commits such an abomination shall be put to death and their blood shall be on themselves. The official Catechism of the Catholic Church defines lust, the third deadly sin, as “…disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.” It goes on to say, “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” This is derived more or less from Aquinas who classifies bestiality as “unnatural vice [which] flouts nature by transgressing its basic principles of sexuality [and] is in this matter the gravest of sins.”

Which is precisely where McCann goes wrong. His entire focus is on the beast who he assumes cannot sin because she (or, I suppose, he) lacks a soul. This, of course, is wholly irrelevant to the culpability of the human actor and is, moreover, entirely too narrow a view of sin. Some acts, of course, are sinful in themselves (mallum per se) but the vast majority of “offenses against the will of God” are sins because of their effects. The effect of bestiality is carnal pleasure absent the possibility of procreation. It is this effect that is seriously opposed to the will of God for reasons that are not as clear as they might be but that need not concern good Christians.

McCann fell into heresy, I suspect, because the Church has long made a singular exception known as The Irish Concession. In Ireland, bestiality is only a venial sin. Here’s how it came about. Toward the end of his life, St. Patrick withdrew to the wilderness — the mountain known today as Croagh Patrick in County Mayo — to fast and pray during the forty days of Lent. While he was there, he negotiated with God a charter of special blessings for the Irish. Among these was the proposal that for them, alone and for all time, bestiality should be defined as a virtue. At first, God was furious but Patrick reasoned with him by pointing out that all other nations were allowed the form of birth control known as Vatican Roulette. Unfortunately, this method requires a degree of mathematical sophistication and record keeping skill entirely at odds with Irish culture. God quickly saw both the logic and justice of the argument and agreed to permit bestiality among the Irish as a “natural” form of birth control. He would not go so far as to call it a virtue, but he was willing to reduce it to a venial sin. Patrick, who had bigger fish to fry, capitulated and so it has been ever since.

The Concession, agreed to in haste by both parties, raises a number of interesting questions for moral theologians. Since these are not dealt with elsewhere, I will attempt here to provide definitive guidance for confessors and other concerned professionals.

Question: Does The Concession apply to Irish men and women who may have acquired the mathematical and record keeping abilities needed for the rhythm method? I reply: Yes, absolutely. In fact, at the famous meeting between Patrick and God, an angel asked this very question and the two principals broke into an unseemly fit of laughter at the thought of an Irishman who could count. Therefore, no exception was made and it is now too late to change the rules. Practically, however, the devil does not lose much by this. The few Irish persons who have mastered the art of counting are almost all Protestants who are doomed to hell anyway.

Question: Is The Concession strictly limited to those of Irish blood? I reply: No. The Concession was granted not because its beneficiaries were Irish but because they could not count to 28. Thus, like the Pauline Privilege which is not restricted to men named Paul (or women named Pauline), The Irish Concession applies with equal force to all those who, for cultural reasons, cannot count. For example, it applies to some Italians and other aboriginals. However, unlike the case of Irish mathematicians and accountants, it does not apply to Italians who can count. (Moral theology is a subtle discipline and you just better get used to it.)

Question: Is it licit to use a condom while engaged in bestiality? I reply: No. It is never licit to use artificial means of birth control, even to prevent a sexually transmitted disease. If, however, one wishes to use a condom for purely sanitary reasons, there will be no objection as long as a pinprick is made in the tip. The virtue of prudence suggests that the pinprick be made before the condom is donned.

Question: Is it lawful to look at dirty pictures while having intercourse with a sheep? I reply: There is no objection as long as they are dirty pictures of sheep.

Question: Does The Concession apply to intercourse between a male person and a ram, or a female person and a ewe? I reply: No. Homosexuality is a separate abomination and is not included in The Concession.

Question: How about heterosexual perversions such as French kissing? I reply: As is the case with sexual intercourse between humans, practices engaged in by way of foreplay are generally acceptable, while those performed for their own sake are not.

Question: Does The Concession apply to members of the clergy? I reply: Yes because it is a lesser evil than all the alternatives. As St. Paul taught, it is better to bugger than to burn.

Question: When a person and a sheep have a sexual relationship, are public displays of affection permissible? I reply: Yes, as long as the relationship is well established within the community and is based on mutual affection and respect.

Question: Given a person/sheep relationship of mutual affection and respect, may that relationship be solemnized in the church? I reply: No. Obviously there can be no sacerdotal recognition of the relationship as long as the person’s spouse is living, and there can be no sexual relationship to recognize once the spouse is dead (but see below). If, however, a widower or widow and a sheep are prepared to undertake the rigors of a companionate (i.e., sexless) relationship, then there would be no objection to the blessing of the couple on the steps of the church or in the rectory.

Question: If a sheep showed itself unwilling to have sex with a person, would it be considered rape if the person forced the issue? I reply: The question has never come up. There has never been an instance of a sheep refusing sex to an Irishman. Sheep are occasionally reluctant to have sex with members of the Italian clergy which is why God created goats.

Question: Goats? Does The Concession apply to species other than sheep? I reply: Liberal theologians believe the rule applies to any species not specifically listed as unclean in Leviticus 11 or Deuteronomy 14. Under this interpretation, a frolicky ferret would make a permissible partner as would a goat. In practice, ducks are often used by persons too poor to own a sheep. Our sources are unanimous, however, in condemning the use of pigs. By tradition, pigs are regarded as unclean and are, therefore, exported to England. What the English do with them is unknown.

Question: Does The Concession apply to single, widowed or divorced persons? I reply: First, there is no such thing as divorce. As to single persons, of course not. Sex involving a person who is not married is always seriously sinful. (Nor would it be permissible for a single person to “marry” a sheep except in Massachusetts.) In the case of a widow or widower, The Concession remains in effect through the period of mourning.

Question: Is the moral stature of pedophilia in England similar to that of bestiality in Ireland? I reply: No. The similarities often adduced by Anglican apologists — cultural prevalence and natural contraceptive effectiveness — are superficial in the absence of clear evidence of divine acquiescence. Jesus’ remark, “Suffer the little children to come unto me…” (Matt. 19:14, et al) was made in an entirely different context as the Protestants would know if they had the true apostolic succession.

Question: Is it licit for a person having a sexual relationship with a sheep to eat lamb? I reply: It depends on how you define the word “eat.”

Question: What is meant by the phrase, “Lamb of God?” I reply: That’s enough questions for today.