Thoughts on Clergy Sex Abuse

I’ve been in somewhat of a pensive mood during Lent. Lent is the time for reflections on the Stations of the Cross. Our church has an out door Stations of the Cross layout in an enclosed sunken garden area. It’s peaceful, secluded, yet the outdoors location with birds chirping and distant traffic reminds me of how connected we all are, how we are all members of the Body of Christ, and damage to His Body damages all of us as well.  The Stations mean a lot to me, perhaps since I might be the only adult Catholic who has not seen Mel Gibson’s Passion.  If you can’t find a nice church during Lent, don’t pass up the opportunity to do the Stations online. I’ve been reflecting on the damage to the Body of Christ I’ve witnessed over the past few years. It hurts.

There’s an interesting discussion at Open Book on the clergy sex abuse crisis.  For the most part comments are thoughtful, often very deep and painful.  It helps me to hear what a lot of my fellow Catholics have to say about the crisis as I struggle to make sense of this.

I do believe there are some common held beliefs that are not accurate. Here’s some:

1. The sex abuse crisis is a result of Vatican II or any 20^th century event.
2. The worst is behind us as we have eliminated those heterodox priests ordained in the 1970’s
3. The clergy sex abuse crisis is mostly about the homosexual abuse of boys.
4. We get the bishops we deserve because the abuse arises out of the American loosening of sexual mores in 1the 1960’s and 1970’s.

I thin that history shows that clergy sex abuse has been ongoing throughout Church history, for at least the last 1000 years. For some reason, it’s either been accepted as routine or simply ignored as a social phenomenon.  I don’t know why.  It’s widespread as well, in Africa, Asia and Europe.  It is deeply rooted in all aspects of the Catholic priesthood.

The John Jay report, showing 80% of the victims were boys, was specifically limited to sexual abuse of children. There was no clergy wide survey of adult sexual abuse. That would, I predict, show 80% female victims and it appears to be widepsread. The point is, I shouldn’t have to guess.  If the Church was clearly interested in solving this problem it already would have done the homework, and it hasn’t done so.

I don’t make any kind of blanket condemnation of bishops. I think many are trying to do a good job, as they understand it. I do think some confused their own identity with that of the Church.  That’s a human failing that, institutionally, the Church doesn’t seem to do much to prevent. As their recent report indicates, they still aren’t collectively capable of addressing the issues. I do single out Bishop Bruskewitz for failing to participate in the Survey and Report. He owes it to his flock and to all Catholics.

Interestingly there was also a number of comments about the Pope’s responsibility. I don’t believe the Pope has handled things well for a number of reasons. I’m not saying I’d be a better Pope, but I would have handled this issue better. I think, ultimately, that what puzzles most catholic parents. The Church’s handling of this issue is simply bizarre-- beyond explanation.

Here’s what I’d like to see:

1. A church wide inventory of all sex abuse claims
2. A church wide survey of all religious to determine the extent that celibacy is observed
3. Make a decision whether celibacy is to be a norm or an ideal
4. Make a decision whether celibacy is worth the costs

Comments

[Shakie G]

I don't think celibacy is the problem. I think the problem has been this idea that the priesthood is the 'best' vocation, the 'holy' vocation. This attitude draws the wrong sort of people to it, and too often in the past we've shuffled these people through the seminary because we beliebved it too. The young priests I know today have overcome this, and the attack on the family today is something that is waking up married people to the necessity and sacredness of their vocations. Healthy families will breed healthy priests in a way that nothing else will.

[Shakie G]

I don't think celibacy is the problem. I think the problem has been this idea that the priesthood is the 'best' vocation, the 'holy' vocation. This attitude draws the wrong sort of people to it, and too often in the past we've shuffled these people through the seminary because we believed it too. The young priests I know today have overcome this, and the attack on the family today is something that is waking up married people to the necessity and sacredness of their vocations. Healthy families will breed healthy priests in a way that nothing else will.

[Steve Bogner]

I think mandatory celibacy needs to be eliminated, but that's independent of the sexual abuse issue, in my mind. It's an issue of justice and compassion.

There are many heterosexual married men who are sexual abusers.

For me, the big problem here is that good governance from a hierarchy requires members of that hierarchy who are not afraid to speak out against injustice. It's all too easy for a hierarchy to brush things under the rug - it's a self-preserving command and control mechanism. It's human nature. And it's not working.

[Fred K]

St. Ignatius, at least with regard to his own order, suggested that one's calling was to follow Christ completely in the consecrated life; those who came attached to the priesthood were not suitable. To me, that suggests that the desire for power and office instead of service is a large part of the problem. Thus, many feel "called" to exercising power or influence over children or other parishoners . . .

One question: the Catholic Church is a fairly decentralized, feudal, federalist type system. Would increased centralization solve the problems of sexual abuse of children by priests? Could such centralization cause other difficulties?

Fred

[Unapologetic Catholic]

Thanks, Steve Fred and Shakie. I don't mean to suggest that married hetersexual priests will not sexually abuse children or even that celibacy should be optional. In my own clumsy way, it appears tha the chruch ahs made not much of an institutional effort to prevent or deal with any form of celibacy violation.

Should it do so? I think so. Is the organization correct (governance and centralization raised by comments)? I don't think so.

I think there has to be a way around the chain of command, an ombudsman or some way to circumvent a command and control system that is toxic.

[Todd]

Peace, UC.

I think your mythbusting points are spot on. I do agree with those who have said that celibacy is an important issue, but not as closely related to sexual abuse as some might think.

One point I'd add: for clergy who choose celibacy (be they whatever fraction of the priesthood) some means of living the lifestyle with adequate support needs to be put into place. Lonely priests are vulnerable to alcoholism, and other addictions, as well as self-justification for seeking out sexual gratification. Celibacy shouldn't have to be an exercise in heroism; God knows there are more than enough challenges for a parish priest these days without piling on burdens.

[John]

The latest on Monsignor Dale Fushek and the Life Teen teen scream.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/issues/2005-02-24/news/feature.html

No one asked me but perhaps any male supporter of father Dale Fushek should have to testify that they have never been in the rectory hot tub with him and they do not have FD or MD written upside down on any of their belongings. Scary .. What's next upside down crosses?

[Bebaios]

The conclusion is illogical: that celibacy is the problem. Sexual abuse derives from lust, and lust is not celibacy. Most of your commentor say the only reason celibacy should be eliminated because "I think so," "I say so." Yet the condemn the attitude of superiority in some imaginary ideal past, which we have now overcome in liberated enlightenment. I suppose that same enlightened mind determined that only a small fraction of priests "choose" celibacy. Look, guys, all's I'm asking for is something that has even a semblance of intellectual rigor, wisdom of life, and faith of the Church (not either/or, but both/and). Begin with the premise that Jesus Christ is the son of God, a celibate, no more exposed to alcoholism than a priest who shares his priesthood. Go and learn what it is that the Church is the bride of Christ, and tighten up the rigor of your logic.

[Talmida]

Bebaois, Jesus may well have been celibate, however there is zero evidence to support the assertion. Jesus did not demand celibacy. Jesus' apostles were not celibate. When Paul preached celibacy, he did not hold up Our Lord as the example to follow.

Celibacy was not an entrenched part of the priesthood until the end of the first millenium.

If Jesus does not ask it, why should Rome?

I agree with you that some intellectual rigour would be nice -- far too many commentors idealize the past of the Church as it was immediately prior to Vatican II; I much prefer the past as Jesus taught us to live it in the Gospels.

[Unapologetic Catholic]

I don't know if celibacy is a problem of not. All things being equal I'd favor it. The point I was making is that part of the problem is lack of observance of celibacy. If it's really not being observed at the levels that are indicated by research, then it is a fraud to advertise priests as "celibate" and it needlessly endangers the laity. I agree 100% that sexual abuse is casued by lust. How many priests can restain themselves from the sin of lust? What level of compliance with celibcay is considered accpetable by the Church? 100%, 95%, 40%?

I really don't know the answers. I just don't thinkthe Churhc is trying very hard to really address this issue in a logical manner