posted
Nick and JB: JB's last post seems the clincher to my gaze from afar. As serious as it may be for a Priest to break his vow of celibacy, no one is really "hurt" in the usual sense. But for the offense of pedophilia, where someone without questions IS hurt, to have it be dealt with as a lesser offense is incredible.
The only rational explanation I can think of is that it is a false "common knowledge" among those in the hierarchy that sexual abuse claims are 99.9% false and are brought about by vindictive members of the Church who have some sort of grudge against a Priest. At the very least this would show an arrogance and hostility towards the laity if not outright ignorance.
Unless the real issue is that in one instance, celibacy, a Priest breaking a well-known vow would threaten the whole structure of the Church if left unpunished. But if some kid is molested that's certainly bad, but not viewed as a threat to the power structure. Thus it would seem that, in at least certain circles, it is more important to protect the Church than the laity. I'm not Catholic and I'm not trying to be a basher of opportunity but I can see where some of you people must be scratching your heads.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
You wrote: "And let's note that the church did attempt to make restitution to the victims, although without bringing it to the attention of the State nor going public in a way that might embarrass the priest and even the injured party."
To my knowledge, no family member or relative of a person suspected of a criminal act is required to testify against their family member or relative. Extending that to the church, couldn't one have more understanding for the fact that the church as you wrote chose to make restitution to the victims without involving the state - that the church did not hand over the matter to civil authorities when the victim had not filed a case against them? Denial of the existence of the problem of pedophilia among priests, not offering help to the victims or the ignorance about how to deal with pedophile priests is another matter altogether.
There is much information available about the family dynamics of child sexual abuse which can easily be carried over to pedophilia and the reaction of the church. Denial is the first line of self-defense. The process is unconscious, even mothers are guilty of it even though it is their own flesh and blood they are dealing with. Victims of sexual abuse in families will tell you how mothers unconsciously act as accomplices to the crime and try to save their own skin! The whole family gets unconsciously involved in the dynamics of cover-up, leaving the victim alone, confused and helpless. It usually takes the effort of someone from outside the family to break this destructive dynamics and help the victim. A legal procedure involving public exposure causes the victim a lot of trauma in addition to the trauma it has suffered due to abuse. It is important to keep that aspect of compassion for the victim in mind while crying out for justice.
With the Pope summons to discuss this issue seriously, I trust the catholic church to come up with solutions in the best interests of the victims and the priests in need of help for their disease now that the push from outside has forced them out of their denial mode.
-------------------- God has only one instrument to teach me with - my life as it is. I'm patient with myself because God is not finished with me yet. Priya Posts: 158 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a "basher of opportunity" dynamism that can certainly be at play in such circumstances as these. At the polar ends of our unfortunate polarizations in our Catholic family, just such charges issue forth, presently. For example: The liberals charge that conservatives are witch-hunting for homosexual priests. The conservatives charge that the liberals are taking unfair aim at celibacy and other gender-related issues. Both sides claim that pedophilia issues cannot be used to advance the other side's pet agendas. There is a grain of truth in all of these assertions and counterpoints. Everyone mourns for the children (some now adults) who were tragic victims and prays for their healing and wholeness, struggling to forgive the unforgiveable. Everyone mourns for all priests who have been unjustifiably tainted.
I DO scratch my head at this situation, in particular, but no more than I have ever scratched it concerning Catholic Moral Theology, in general, with its STUPID manualism, codifications, etc ---
Many revisit "why remain Catholic?", although I long ago figured out, for myself, there was no place else for me to go --- pretty much following Why I’m Still A Catholic by Andrew Greeley.
For me, the Catholic analogical imagination and sense of everything being sacred, the bells and smells, the myth and stories, the marriage of fides et ratio, the love of philosophy and critical realism, the appreciation for modern science, the sweeping Thomistic metaphysics and theology, the Great Mysteries of Emmanuel and emphasis on Presence, the timeless formative spiritualities of our Church doctors and fathers, the Word and Sacrament, the affirmation of the apophatic and kataphatic and of the implicit and explicit faiths --- all combine in a logically coherent, internally consistent and externally congruent whole --- best suited for ME in my unique cultural milieu, linguistically, culturally, socially, historically, politically, economically, etc
It is almost as if our Catholic garment of "prescriptions" of how to do philosophy, metaphysics, science, theology, formative spirituality and mysticism are so well-integrated into a systematically whole and seamless garment FOR ME, that I feel I'd be existentially naked should I ever cast it off. [Not to worry, Brad, Shalomplace is clothing optional, in this regard.]
At the same time, it is almost as if our Catholic garment of "proscriptions", of how to do the "negative side of formative spirituality", which is Catholic Moral Theology, with its Canon Law codifications, its heritage of seminary manualism, its obsession with sexual sin and lack of parvity of matter, its uninspired interpretations of the Natural Law, being so biologistic, minimalistic and one-sidedly philosophical & deductive -- is so riddled with holes as to leave one with the impression that the Catholic Moral Theological Emperor is truly wearing no clothes!
My inventory of what we've gotten right, far outweighs, in the balance, my inventory of what we've gotten wrong. Sad thing is --- spirituality and mysticism took a real back seat in seminary training to some of the silly moral theology and manualism until very recent decades.
Just like Maslow ushered in a humanistic psychology that studied healthy folks rather than the mentally ill, just like, as Brad suggested in the now running K-Pax Thread: One of the core things about Buddhism, about Buddha really, is that it strikes me that he wasn’t so much looking for the causes of suffering as he was looking to understand why happiness wasn’t the norm --- we as Catholics need to retake the definition of Moral Theology and make it a subsection, properly deemphasized, of Spirituality. IOW, we need to spend a LOT more time and pay a LOT more attention to the prescriptive and a LOT less to the proscriptive. [I hope my parallels to what Brad said and to Maslovian psychology were not obtuse -- it's all about changing focus.]
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
You mentioned Gandhi getting young relatives/acquaintances to lie down naked next to him to test to prove his victory over sexual desire. He definitely did not have any sex with them. That is just an example of something done to the extreme, Gandhi style, not an example to be imitated. He almost got himself killed and put his son in great danger with his fanatic ideas about food too. His motives were noble all along - he was willing to pay any price to realise God, but that doesn't mean he was infallible in the methods he sometimes considered absolutely necessary.
Yes Gandhi was married when he took his vow of Bramhacharya. Buddha left his wife and son behind when he decided to leave in search of Nirvana. In zen there is the concept of returning to the marketplace after enlightenment. Although it takes many years of hard work to attain enlightenment, a zen master may or may not choose marriage. Many did choose marriage. In Hinduism there is a place for the 'Pujari', the temple priest, who is a married man and who conducts the religious rituals for the community. Isn't the role of a diocesan priest similar to that of a 'Pujari'? Don't the Christian mystics also claim that only a few are called to contemplation - that mystical union which alone can be an adequate substitute for partnership and marriage? I agree with Wanda's opinion that celibacy ought to remain an ideal, but not considered the essential criterion to serve as a priest - after all even the catholic church survived eleven centuries with married priests.
You wrote: "Being married doesn't resolve all sexual problems." That is true. Availability of food doesn't prevent anyone from developing eating disorders. Starvation however creates a whole lot of other problems, which wouldn't be there if the person had enough food. Allowing a catholic priest to marry won't solve all the sexual problems that one could develop in spite of having a sexual partner, but it does prevent the neuroses that develop as a result of having to suppress the legitimate human need of having one sexual partner.
-------------------- God has only one instrument to teach me with - my life as it is. I'm patient with myself because God is not finished with me yet. Priya Posts: 158 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Basically, Catholic sexual moral theology identifies the following values to be realized in all sexual acts. Each act must be conjugal, procreative, heterosexual, unitive and consensual. Any act not meeting each of these criteria is intrinsically evil, seriously disordered and gravely dangerous.
The natural law, or essential tradition, provides the procreative and heterosexual criteria. The divine law, revealed in the commandments, provides the conjugal and consensual criteria. The unitive criterion comes from the existential tradition, which combines the insights of modern science, reflections of theologians and experiences of human beings.
Using these criteria, the use of artificial contraception within marriage fails the procreative criterion but a married couple having sex, technically, can, even when using birth control, meet all the other criteria. Masturbation fails to meet conjugal, procreative and unitive criteria. Homosexual activity fails to meet conjugal, procreative and heterosexual criteria. Someone fornicating or commiting adultery fails to meet the conjugal criterion. Of course there are other objective evils such as breaking one's marriage or celibacy vows that can come into play.
Traditional church teaching overemphasized the essential tradition, using natural law, until recent years, even to the exclusion of the existential tradition, and in it there was no parvity of matter (basically meaning that the violation of any single one of the criteria vs another was equally instrinsically disordered and gravely dangerous). A most thorough treatment of how the Natural Law informs Catholic Moral Theology can be found here: BIRTH CONTROL AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH .
It is almost as if, setting the unitive criterion aside, one could calculate how seriously sinful an individual act was by the arithmetic addition of how many individual criteria were being violated. In theory, you could take your place in hell next to history's mass murderers (and people who missed mass or ate meat on Fridays), simply for masturbating or using birth control (and masturbating clearly fails to meet more criteria). [There are a lot of technical loopholes that can make one exculpable --- one must be willful and knowledgeable, for instance.] You can almost see the type of twisted logic that can lead to the hideous conclusion that a single act of child molestation was not as serious as a priest getting married without being laicized. None of this is that simple, however, but I am afraid this glimpse I've given, using hyberbole, is far closer to the truth of the actual situation than any of us realize or would want to admit.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Priya, you make some good points about a lot of things, especially concerning the merits of allowing priest to marry. I view that as a separate discussion from the pedophile issue, however. I don't really think pedophilia is an acting out caused by sexually-frustrated, basically-normal, heterosexual (and even homosexual) priests. Most "healthy" priests who get too frustrated either masturbate or find a lover; these are common occurrences. And so allowing priests to marry will not really resolve the pedophilia situation--unless one of the criteria for becoming a priest would be, say, several years in a relatively healthy marriage. I think we all know that's not likely.
JB, I wish I could say it ain't so to some of your points about legalisms and natural law, but I can't. The situation for confessors has always been that the Church's teaching is one thing, and pastoral practice is another. For every moral theologian who's adamant about, say, the teaching on birth control, there are 100 priest/confessors who show compassion to penitents and give them proper counsel concerning their rights in conscience.
You can recognize the attraction of objective/essentialistic approaches, however: things are more clean, defined, etc. Let a few more people with actual life experience in some of these areas have a voice in the policies and I think we'd see some changes. Back to the problem of a two-tiered Church.
Phil
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phil wrote: "You can recognize the attraction of objective/essentialistic approaches, however: things are more clean, defined, etc. Let a few more people with actual life experience in some of these areas have a voice in the policies and I think we'd see some changes."
Agreed. And, furthermore, far more than the transcendent anchorage for ethical moorings sought by some natural law proponents, its attraction, to me, lies in the very Catholic perspective that human beings are inherently sacred and good: noetically, aesthetically and ethically, aspiring to truth and beauty and goodness. Despite our Adamic fall and whatever its epistemical, aesthetical and ethical impacts, human beings are existentially oriented, independent of Revelation, to the very theological imperatives made known through Revelation. In that regard, I must continue to side with Thomas Aquinas and not with Calvin or Luther.
After all, and of perhaps over-riding importance, to me , this fundamental Catholic approach is what also affirms implicit faith and grounds the anthropological methods in our transcendental theology. This approach makes our Catholic-Buddhist and Catholic-Hindu dialogues fruitful. Yes, there is MUCH attraction in objective/essentialistic approaches. What I advocate is more cognizance of existentialistic approaches. Inherent instincts and philosophical reasoning have normative force. Human statutes have normative force. Divine Revelation has normative force (and its interpretation is problematical due to cultural, lingusitic, historical, exegetical, social, political and other human realities --- is why we don't ascribe it the most force, necessarily). Evolutionary, existential and experiential factors have normative force. Changes in policies should derive from all of these normative forces if we are to ever be considered a reliable, credible and authoritative source of morality in the modern world. This is not a caving-in to post-modern subjectivism but, rather, would be a wonderful affirmation of everything universal about our rich and catholic tradition.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
". And so allowing priests to marry will not really resolve the pedophilia situation--"
It won't resolve the problem of itself, but priests will be allowed to marry when the church has a healthier view of sex and sexuality. That will create a whole different climate within which to educate priests, and how the laity are pastored, especially in these areas. And that brings us back to Phil's two-level system as the heart of the dysfunction.
Posts: 38 | From: kansas | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Actually, what I learned today from a priest friend who has some knowledge of Canon law is that a civil law marriage or concubinage situation is considered a worse offense than molestation because it indicates a greater degree of committed infidelity to the vow of celibacy, not because it is a more heinous offense. When you think about it, that's absolutely correct, so long that one is not considering these offenses in terms of injustice to the parties harmed. It seems the Code in question is not addressing that particular angle of the issue. Leave it to the media to give a bad spin to things, however.
[ 04-23-2002, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
so long that one is not considering these offenses in terms of injustice to the parties harmed
ah, and there is the crux
it is further enlightening to ask which offenses the code considers de facto the most serious vis a vis the penalties involved, for instance, those of Shanley or those of our sisters and brothers who have been excommunicated for a laundry list of less heinous delicts
there is, ironically, an implicit fundamental option/orientation approach which the canon law commentary seems to be appealing to? for instance, in looking at an isolated instance versus a pattern of behavior? and i could affirm this --- but where does one find support for this type of approach in the curial part of the magisterium, nowadays?
the article did allow some nuancing in the same direction you described but i think the negative spin is still substantively on the mark
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I thought I made it clear that pedophilia is a mental disease which results in criminal behaviour to be just as commonly found among married men - so celibacy and pedophilia are only related in the sense that perhaps some men with pedophile tendencies choose the priesthood, perhaps to keep their disease in check with spiritual strength, while others with pedophile tendencies choose other professions which bring them in contact with children.
I had in fact suggested that somebody open a new thread to discuss other issues related to sexuality but not to pedophilia which is a class by itself, it being a mental disease manifesting in criminal behaviour with long term damage done to its victims.
-------------------- God has only one instrument to teach me with - my life as it is. I'm patient with myself because God is not finished with me yet. Priya Posts: 158 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
nick m
unregistered
posted
Dear Ana and others:
I hope your right, Ana - that allowing married priests would imply a healthier church, but the motivation might just as well be to maintain adequate numbers of clergy, or to throw a twisted pitch to homosexual priests. I don't see the current dilemma of pedophilia prompting a change in that area, though, in my humble non-Catholic opinion.
Also, I just saw a segment of evening news covering the big Vatican powwow over pedophilia. Now, I want to keep in mind Phil's caution of media misconstruals, but what I think I heard one U.S. cardinal say was that the current situation is substantially about the presence of homosexual clergy. Which reminds me of J.B's earlier post regarding conservative/liberal spin doctoring of the issue in general. But doesn't it look like Catholics are left with either believing their wounded hearts are being exploited for political agendas, or that their men in red are actually ignorant enough to think that sexual orientation has anything at all to do with pedophilia?
Just when you hoped failing moral theology had a conscience-ridden therapeutic shadow to cast . . . oh well.
And, this issue is much farther reaching than how it affects Catholics, since an increasing number of people who have fled the public schools are taking their children to Catholic schools that otherwise often have a good reputation . . . and, I think, how people see and relate to authority in other domains.
IP: Logged |
posted
JB, I think we have one of those situations where it might help to actually go and count the horse's teeth instead of wondering how many it has. I'd like to see what Canon Law actually says in those numbered codes and why. We both know that Catholic moral theology already condemns illicit sexual contacts of all kinds, and common sense tells me that this applies to priests as well. So I don't think there's ever been any doubt about pedophilic acts by priests being very seriously wrong. Those C.L. codes are usually written in reference to certain situations to inform Church leaders in their decision-making. Whatever is written there doesn't "trump" the very clear condemnations of all sorts of sexual misconduct found all throughout Catholic teaching.
I'll see if I can find the codes in question and any commentaries on them; maybe you or others can do the same. Right now, my mistrust of the media is at an all-time high, and that includes even the Catholic media. "Bashing opportunities" such as you referred to in another post seem to run rampant as anyone with any pet peeves about Catholicism seems to be seizing the moment to try to connect the dots between pedophilia and their peeve. Goodness knows there's enough real evil out there worthy of condemnation without adding bogus issues--not that this one necessarily is, of course. Time to "count the teeth."
----------- I thought I made it clear that pedophilia is a mental disease which results in criminal behaviour to be just as commonly found among married men - so celibacy and pedophilia are only related in the sense that perhaps some men with pedophile tendencies choose the priesthood, perhaps to keep their disease in check with spiritual strength, while others with pedophile tendencies choose other professions which bring them in contact with children.
I had in fact suggested that somebody open a new thread to discuss other issues related to sexuality but not to pedophilia which is a class by itself, it being a mental disease manifesting in criminal behaviour with long term damage done to its victims.
Yes. Maybe I was mixing up your post with someone else's, as it seems to me there have been a number suggesting that allowing priests to marry (which you did recommend) was one solution to preventing pedophile cases (which you didn't suggest). My bad. I think you've made some very good points on this topic.
Phil
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phil wrote: "JB, I think we have one of those situations where it might help to actually go and count the horse's teeth instead of wondering how many it has. I'd like to see what Canon Law actually says in those numbered codes and why. We both know that Catholic moral theology already condemns illicit sexual contacts of all kinds, and common sense tells me that this applies to priests as well. So I don't think there's ever been any doubt about pedophilic acts by priests being very seriously wrong. Those C.L. codes are usually written in reference to certain situations to inform Church leaders in their decision-making. Whatever is written there doesn't "trump" the very clear condemnations of all sorts of sexual misconduct found all throughout Catholic teaching."
Those are excellent points, Phil. We do both know that, in Catholic moral theology, virtually every sexual sin is mortal but that, at the same time, the road to exculpability is wide
Phil continued: "I'll see if I can find the codes in question and any commentaries on them; maybe you or others can do the same."
Here's my quick search; just browse for the canon # 1395 in these urls, below. My quick reading is that, although most bishops are indeed going to need more authority to deal effectively with this problem than that currently available to them in canon law, there may be many cases where laicization petitions could have and should have been instituted but were not. For all the reasons I cited before, regarding the imbalance between essentialistic and existentialistic approaches in Catholic teachings on sexual morality, I'm not optimistic about the very foundations on which the canon laws have been codified. Still, for all the reasons you cited, I absolutely must agree with you that there is far more danger of this becoming a bogus issue in the secular press than there is promise of it getting prudently aired out and fruitfully resolved.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to be clear that I'm not saying married clergy would solve the problem of pedophilia. As priya says, that is a disease separate from the issue of married clergy. I'm thinking that a church that would allow marriage of its clergy would finally have a more sane, healthy view of sex and sexuality. Therefore, the seminaries would be healthier and aware and it would be harder for unlealthy men to be there. Pedophiles have been getting in 'under the radar' because the radar was faulty.
As for the comments on hope for a real change of heart amongst the men in red, and the media reporting that the cardinals will try to blame the problem of homosexuality: both areas look bleak for real truth. In Andrew Greeley's column (I know he is part of the media, but I think a little more truthful), he writes that is is hard to believe in the sincerity of Law and Egan while in Law's diocese there is still an active countersuit against the parents of the victim, claimin that they are responsible for not teaching their child to beware of strange males. And Egan's lawyer's are putting up an argument that the priests don't really work for the church. as jb says...let us pray Ana
Posts: 38 | From: kansas | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, JB, for understanding my point. And thanks for all those links. I'll print some of them out and take the ones dealing with Canon Law to bed with me to insure that sleep comes quickly. Who needs melatonin when you can read about Canon Law, right?
The issue of homosexuality in priesthood has come up several times on this thread and is a front-burner topic in the Vatican discussions. As priya and others noted, pedophiles aren't necessarily homosexuals; just what percentage are, however? Also, it seems that one of the issues is the disproportionately high number of homosexuals in Catholic seminaries. A priest friend told me yesterday that in another Catholic diocese he's close to, 7 out of 8 priests ordained there during the past two years are homosexuals. They aren't in active relationships, of course, but given that kind of high percentage, it seems that "straights" have become increasingly wary of the priesthood. It's becoming known as a vocation for homosexuals, and that's no more good than the contrary.
--------------
Related topic: often, celibacy is blamed for a decline in vocations to the priesthood and religious life. But prior to Vatican II, there was no shortage of priests, and religious orders were constantly building larger residences to accommodate new members. Celibacy was just as sure a requirement then as now, and my guess is that there were just as many adjustment problems and even molestation incidents per capita then as now.
Vocations declined after Vatican II, however, and the Council is often blamed for contributing to this--especially its retention of celibacy as a requirement for priesthood and religious life.
I've seen this written in a few places, but not many, and as it's an idea that makes sense to me, I'll air it here: the reasons priestly and religious vocations declined is not because of Vatican II, but because the Baby Boomers had "come of age."
Think about it. Who are the prime candidates after the Council ended in (1963?). How was this generation different? Why might men from this generation be not as attracted to priesthood? Consider the rise in materialism, the loss of respect for authority, the release of Humane Vitae, and other diminishing issues. The Church could have allowed marriage and even provided knock-out brides for this (my) generation and we still would have opted out.
Now what's today's generation like? Why are more being drawn to the priesthood--especially more homosexuals? New thread, perhaps?
----------------
I meet with several Protestant ministers for spiritual direction, and they have all stated that they recognize the wisdom of mandatory celibacy for professional ministry. Their struggles in finding a balance between ministry and marriage/family are many; the divorce rate is high. As St. Paul noted in first century Christianity, a man who is married has to serve his wife and so can't serve the Church as fully. There's no getting around this, no matter how valid the point about marriage giving priests more experiential familiarity with the struggles of the people whom they serve. This consideration along with the point I made earlier about how celibacy can provide a context for total surrender of all one's energies to God still points to celibacy as a very compelling lifestyle for ordained ministers. Even if marriage were allowed, I believe celibacy would still be emphasized as the "better choice" for the ordained.
Phil
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
nick m
unregistered
posted
Good point Ana, one I heard from another source, that married men in the seminaries would create a different psychological atmosphere. But I wonder if allowing priests to marry might be an area of power not easily relinquished by the celibate hierarchy. But if it were allowed, I'd imagine the mix of influences would separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of true celibate calling. How many 20 year olds could possibly be mature enough to understand what's at stake sexually in marriage, let alone in the celibate life? Just to have to ask these difficult, painful questions in a different, not just academic way, around men who bring sexual energy in a more open way into the priesthood could be very disorienting.
Phil, perhaps homosexuals are simply able to be more public regarding their orientation, both in and outside the church. As for baby boomers, our little counter culture, as unrealized as it is, was probably the beginning of confronting the assumptions of the tribal mentality, which seems to be one of the forces behind the papacy's resistance to implementing Vatican II resolutions.
By "tribal mentality" I mean the sacrifice of individual development for collective identity, which is easily seen in families where a child's growth threatens parents who lack enough emotional maturity to support differentiation and separation. Differentiation is poorly tolerated, which might be one of the less hallowed reasons behind the need for exclusive celibacy in the church, since abstinence without considerable psychological maturity would naturally create a certain loyality like we see in obviously dysfunctional families.
Pardon my psychological reductionisms, but I see too many similarities between the church, especially in its more fundamentalist veins, and families that are so dependent upon a collective identity that abuse of individuals is hardly named. That's why I think internal legislation of changes that are sorely needed and even universally recognized within the church will be so slow in coming. It may be more than just forcing the issue from the outside or a threat of division within, or a rally for new conscience and more spiritually-based moral theology, especially if this analogy between church and family has merit.
[ 04-24-2002, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: nick m ]
IP: Logged |
posted
Hi all... This is an issue we discussed at an Episcopalian gathering last night. Most there are pursuing some form of ordained ministry and were curious as to problems and their resolutions within our church. None of us are naive enough to think that this is only a Catholic issue. This is what I learned. The Episcopal church views all forms of illicit sexual contact by priests consensul or not as an abuse of their power and definite cause for disciplinary measures... including removal from ministry. Is the case of a priest having an affair with a member of his staff and the case of a priest engaged with a child handled differently? Probably... the first having consequences only in regards to his position - his serving within the church, the second adding the "legal" consequences - sin vs sin and crime. What I understand is that the church views both/all as sinful and morally and ethically incompatable with a call to serve. Perhaps what enables us to deal with/address/uncover them is our organizational structure... the fact that more power is given to the laity than seems to be the case in the Catholic tradition. I struggle with the idea of celibacy for clergy.... and the ordination of women for the very reasons you stated Phil. Watching our priest who is a woman struggle with the responsibilities of raising a family and her position - well it is not an easy balance to maintain and I think that there are times when either the family or the flock suffers. On the other hand, who am I to say that a woman cannot be called to ministry and that she will not be given the gifts needed to fulfill both roles? This is why I tend towards the view that while celibacy is perhaps the ideal, it is not or should not be the expectation... required. Both marriage and celibacy bring their own perspectives into the church - their own understandings of life and relationship and maybe both should have their place. Perhaps a celibacy not forced or required would have more meaning, be a richer and more fulfilling offering to our Lord being freely given - not only for the priest but also for the church as a whole. It's a difficult question. Peace, Wanda
Posts: 278 | From: Pennslyvania | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ana, I think you're right that Cardinal Law, in particular, has a long way to go to regain credibility. Frankly, I don't see how he can overcome the perception that he's more willing to protect priests than youth. Apparently, he believes he's still more of an asset than a liablility to the people of his diocese, which also speaks volumes.
And Nick, I totally follow your point about boomer's making a break with tribal/mythico-emotional consciousness. I think that's definitely the larger context of the "authority issue" I pointed out, especially insofar as the leaders of the Church are viewed as heads of a kind of spiritual family. Not trying to beat a "dead horse" here, I do believe the Humane vitae issue was a watershed in this regard, for here was an instance of the Pope rejecting the 35-4 vote of his own Birth Control Commission, which had studied and dialogued for years, even interviewing over 3,000 married couples during the course of their work. The Commission seemed to represent what the spirit of Vatican II was recommending, and Humane Vitae seemed to be a rejection of this--the Pope telling the Church what it should believe rather than clarifying what we actually believe, which is the appropriate role of the Pope in such disputed matters. Catholicism has never again been the same, and I'm sure many boomers decided they wanted nothing to do with such an authority-protecting institution.
I don't follow your point about homosexuals being more open about their orientation, as "the norm" and general expectation has pretty much always been that the majority of priests are celibate heterosexuals and so the heterosexuals aren't facing the stigmas about this as the homosexuals are. What we are seeing in seminaries now is a disproportionately high percentage of homosexuals in priestly formation in comparison to the population at large. I think that is a matter of concern, without wishing to imply anything negative about our homosexual seminarians. It would not be a good thing for the Catholic priesthood to become identified as a vocation primarily for homosexuals. But that seems to be what is happening.
Wanda, you wrote: Perhaps what enables us to deal with/address/uncover them is our organizational structure... the fact that more power is given to the laity than seems to be the case in the Catholic tradition. That's such a significant difference indeed. I noted with interest that the Cardinals meeting this week called for more participation from the laity on boards and committees evaluating abuse claims. Such mention seems to be missing in the resolutions and policy drafts emerging from the meetings, however.
Phil
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the catholic church is making themselves look worse if they are not willing to adopt a zero tolerance process. Anything else would seem to say that it's ok to commit 1 act of molestation against a child but if you do it multiple times, then you will pay the consequences. This is absurd! Don't they realize that people who behave in this manner don't just do it once but are repeat offenders? I have my thoughts on why they wouldn't be willing to adopt a zero tolerance but I would like to hear from someone else.
Posts: 31 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I seem to recall but couldn't locate a reference, here at Shalomplace UBB, that distinguished pedophilia vs pederasty or ephebophilia. Isn't this an important distinction? Do the psychological theories and clinical facts indicate different origins? treatments? prognoses? Does the apparent pattern of the victims mostly being post-pubescent teenage males mean anything vis a vis prevention of this problem? It seems like we can go far astray if we don't count the teeth in this particular horse's mouth.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
JB, I'm not sure I've heard of those definitions. Tell us more.
Steve, I don't think anyone's really arguing against a zero tolerance policy where there is clearly a case of molesting a minor. The only cautions I've heard bishops making is that any priest accused of molestation is entitled to some kind of due process. It's not simply enough to accuse a priest; recent incidents where priests and even bishops were wrongly accused makes that clear.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
It reads: "... the victims of Catholic clergy and religious tend to be older than those of other child molesters. All the available research points in the same direction. Indeed, there is an influential view within the Catholic Church that the Church’s main problem is with ephebophilia rather than paedophilia (Rossetti and Lothstein, 1990). Ephebophilia refers to sexual abuse of pubescent or post-pubescent minors, whereas paedophilia, technically refers to sexual abuse of prepubescent children. In a discussion paper commissioned by leaders of the Catholic Church in Australia on sexual abuse by priests and religious, the research team concluded that most sexual offences against children committed by priests and religious can be described as homosexual ephebophilia (Towards Understanding, 1999, p.20). While it may be true that the Church’s biggest problem is with abuse of adolescent boys, this does not mean that the problem of abuse by clergy and religious is any less serious than would be the case if the victims were generally younger."
There are FAR too many questions than can be answered by the casual shoot-from-the-hip articles and editorials we're seeing in the media. Not only is your previous caveat about media suspicions on the mark (re: some reporters' axes to grind), there seems to be a jungle of underinformed perspectives and misinformation, too.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
The front page headline on USA Today, "Vatican summit confounds, angers." When you read the article, one is left wondering what's to be confounded or angered about, save that Cardinal Law didn't resign. Seems like the men in red had some very frank discussions and took some good steps toward articulating a strong national policy.
An NFP commentator yesterday, ". . . sexual abuse crisis that has literally paralyzed the Catholic Church in the U.S. . . ." Notice the word "paralyzed" in there. Says who?
There's a frenzied media feed going on in all this as reporters gleefully sieze the opportunity to bash one of their favorite targets, organized religion--and in this case, a religion which challenges most of their pluralistic preconceptions about morality.
Meanwhile, surveys show that around 90% of Catholics haven't had their faith affected in the least, and I'd have to say that those who have had misplaced it to begin with.
Phil
[ 04-26-2002, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
. Shalom Place
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
in this regard.]![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
