What's your number?

There was much discussion recently of a 79 year old pastor and his married church secretary...an old story. But too depressing for words. So were the excuses and justifications.

The John Jay Report report noted fully 4% of Catholic priests molested children between 1950 and 2002. No numbers on how many priests who had sex with adults. That issue wasn’t studied, for some reason. I suspect the reason was the Church didn’t want to know that number.

In spite of the official self-pats on the back and praise for the “vast majority” of priests, there is no detailed study into the sexual habits of priests. All informal studies indicate that celibacy, as we commonly understand it, is mostly observed in the breach. I am unwilling to praise the “vast majority” of priests when I’m not sure what “vast” and "majority” mean.

Often, apologists for the sex abuse crisis compare the rate of priestly sex abuse of children with men in general, or other subgroups such a boy scout leaders, coaches and teachers.

This is misplaced. I wouldn’t be part of any secular organization that had such high rates of sex abuse and consistently mishandled it, offering excuses as solutions.

So, here’s my question:

What’s your number?”

How high does the incidence of clergy sex abuse have to be before you conclude the organization is too corrupt to continue?

1%? 5%? 10%? 25%? 50%?

Do you have any number at all?

Here’s mine: <1%

I don’t expect perfection from priests. I accept they are human-uncharitable, untruthful, prideful, etc.--as the rest of us are.

I have a difficult time with too many sins to list here. I do find it easy to avoid some “biggies.” My axe murdering days are over. In fact they never began. Same for sexual abuse of children. If these “biggees” are difficult for you, let me suggest that you don’t have time to be a priest. Your full time vocation is to deal with these “biggies.”

I expect the institutional church to do a very good job of screening out such people, and eliminating those who get past the initial screen. That’ why my number is <1%. Less than one percent of all priests should ever have sexual abuse issues.

If current church leaders can’t do that, then get new ones. I personally believe the institution has failed and it should be completely scrapped.

Comments

[Lee]

I think they did a terrible job of screening in the past.

What I'd like to see is how many of the priests ordained in lat 10 to 20 years - since the Church got stricter - have been involved. If the percent has dropped, good. if not, then we have further problems to address.

I'd also agree with the 1 percent figure - for the post 1985 priests.

[Lee]

Let me amend that - even if the number of bad priest does excede 1 percent, I don't think the Church would be too corrupt to continue. I forgot that part of the question.

I think that the men and women in the Church reflect the culture. ButI also think that no matter how bad it gets, the core of the faith as something created through the power of the Holy Spirit will remain. The institution itself may have to undergo transformation, however.

Now, is our culture too corrupt to continue...hmmm

[jcecil3]

UC,

Forgive the sentence fragments I am about to make....

I think a single case of child sex abuse is one too many.

But I don't like the way you frame the issue. We're supposed to weed out "the biggies". What exactly does that mean?

OK. I agree that axe murdering is a biggie. So is sex with a child by an adult.

Rape? Yeah. I'd call that a "biggie".

Cover up of sexual abuse?

Sure. That's a biggie.

Consensual sex between homosexual adults???

I don't always consider it "a biggie" in the sense you imply, but plenty of Catholics do.

And even if I don't always place it in the "biggie" category, I suppose I would be troubled by a priest having one night stands every night with crisco in one hand and meth in the other with a new guy picked up at the local leather bar each night.

Is the issue a "one time" fall into sin, or does it become a "biggie" when it is repeated over and over, or combined with other offensive behavior.

Cover up of gay sex?

Could be compassion rather than a biggie.

Consensual sex between heterosexual adults where one is male and one is female???

It's kind of like the question with gay priests. A one time occurence is one thing, while serial offenses might be another.

If a priest is keeping an extensive collection of porn, is that "a biggie"???

What about the priest who drinks too much?

The priest with a drug habit???

The priest who has a bit of the Irish temper????

What if he is a genuine bona fide heretic.....and I don't mean just holds a controversial opinion or two, but flat denies almost everything in the creeds and tries to offer animal sacrifices to the goddesses upon the altar while hooded adherents chant satanic verses?

I'm not real gung ho on the way conservatives hunt for heresy under every USCCB statement, but there has to be a line somewhere where we can say, "Whoa. That's not the faith of the Roman Catholic Church." Could heresy be "a biggie" if the heresy is "big" enough?

What if the priest embezzles money. That would seem to be "a biggie", and I'm told by many priests that people are less tolerant of finanical mismanagement than sexual impropriety by priests.

So, what if embezzlement is not the issue, but the priest is simply stupid when it comes to finances....he honestly loses thousands but never stole it. Is that "a biggie"?

The CCC says masturbation is a grave and intrinsically disordered act. I have a hard time believing that more than one percent of the priest haven't done this one. Is that "a biggie" ???

It is according to the Vatican.

And that is sort of where I am heading.

The way the Vatican sees it, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

There is not and never will be a perfect priest, other than the great high priest, Jesus Christ.

And there never will be a priest who hasn't done "a biggie".

Of course, what do we do when a priest commits "a biggie"?

Can some things, such as axe murder and child molesting, be soooo big that we kick the guy out?

Maybe so. But where exactly is the line. And, when we kick him out, does he cease to be a priest - theologically???

Augustine said "No. No matter if the priest is a great sinner or a heretic, the sacraments are still valid. Once a priest, always a priest. The laity need not be scrupulous about whether a sacrament is valid because of the lack of holiness of the priest."

Augustine was concerned with assuring those who received sacraments from the Donatist that the sacraments were still valid. He wasn't trying to defend priests who err. He was trying to reassure laity who discover their priest is not so holy.

Am I arguing that we throw up our hands and do nothing about sex abuse?

Really, I am not.

I think there are very serious reforms we need to make, and I am enraged that the bishops won't do what they know needs to be done. They drag their feet somehow hoping the hard work can be avoided because the issue will magically go away by itself. They're wrong. It won't go away by itself.

But part of what they need to do to make it better is "fess up" about ALL the biggies they have to deal with - about the full extent of the problems and issues.

They need to engage in honest dialogue willing to raise the hard questions - such as whether mandatory celibacy or the exclusion of women might be contributing factors to some of the "biggies" they face.

Only with information can we begin to seek solutions.

Do they need to share this information with the entire laity?

Maybe. Maybe not. The big issue is that they won't admit the full extent of the biggies they face to themselves - individually or collectively (and I've been behind the scenes to see the denial up close and personal).

I don't know if I am making any sense, but I think it oversimplifies the issue to label a certain action as "the biggie" and ignore all other aspects of the life-style in question.

The bishops may have something valid to say about forgiveness, compassion and pastoral care to the perpetrator of abuse.

However, if what they have to say does not protect children, it's the wrong solution. You are right that this is a biggie.

What the bishops may have a hard time grasping is why this is a bigger biggie than many other things they suspect are going on in the chanceries.

And the answer to that is not so much to start trying to explain why this is a bigger biggie, as to find out what else is occurring, and begin to sort through the mess identifying the "biggies" and the "not so big" and looking for what the underlying common institutional causes for this going on so long has been.

Then, seek changes to the institutional structure that discourage both the biggie itself, and the cover up.

I still don't know if I am making sense. Feedback?

Peace!