FRONTLINE'S "THE SILENCE"

Did you watch PBS Frontline's "The Silence" on child abuse last night? I did, and it was one of the most difficult shows to for me to sit through ever. The show focuses on years of abuse committed by a Roman Catholic priest, Fr George Endal, and a "volunteer", Joseph Lundowski, on Native American children in the small village of St Michael in Alaska. I wanted to turn away from the horrifying stories of the abuse by the adults who suffered at the hands of the two men when they were children. To say I was shaken is an understatement.

"I was just a kid," Ben Andrews tells FRONTLINE of the years of abuse he suffered at the hands of Father George Endal and Joseph Lundowski, a layman who was training to be a deacon. "Father Endal and Joseph Lundowski, they couldn't stop molesting me once they started. It was almost an everyday thing. Father Endal kept telling me that it would make me closer to God."

"I'm still having nightmares of Joseph Lundowski molesting, having sex with me," says Peter "Packy" Kobuk. "I get up sweating, angry, feel like I could hurt somebody, but I never meaned [sic] to get angry at my children, but the anger went on my children also."

Since some of the victims of abuse have not come forward, no one knows the number of children who were molested over the years, but the estimate is as high as 80% of the children in the small village.

After the litigation settlement, when he was free to talk to the survivors, the present bishop of the Diocese of Fairbanks, Donald Kettler, finally met with the group of people in St Michael who had come forward. When he heard the stories and saw their suffering, he seemed to grasp the grave harm done to the people. In some cases, the abuse continued into the next generation, as those who were abused, abused their own children.

Ben Andrews told of the occasion when he told his father of the molestation. His father beat him, went out and got drunk, came home and grabbed a gun which he pointed at his wife, and shot and killed another son who was standing near his mother. Ben sees himself as responsible for his brother's death because he told his father about the abuse.

What a wrenching 30 minutes! If you have the stomach for it, you can watch the segment from the link above.

Endal and Lundowski were not the only representatives of the RC Church who were molesters. It seems that the Diocese of Fairbanks may have been one of the chosen locations to send priests who had been in been in trouble elsewhere for abuse of children and young people.

Lord, have mercy! I know that other denominations, including my own, have their share of clergy who abused children, but the appalling policy of the RCC of covering up to protect the institution, rather than moving to protect the children, allowed widespread abuse to take place over so many years.

LATEST WEASELWORDS FOR CHILD ABUSE

From the Telegraph:

Roger Vangheluwe, 74, the former bishop of Bruges, said the abuse he committed was only "superficial".

"I don't have the impression at all that I am a paedophile. It was really just a small relationship. I did not have the feeling that my nephew was against it, quite the contrary," he said.
....

Vangheluwe admitted abusing one of his nephews over a 13-year period, until the boy was 18, and a second nephew for a period of 12 months. (Huff Post says 2 years below.)

More from The Huffington Post:

A former bishop's televised admission that he sexually abused two of his nephews caused an uproar in Belgium on Friday, with the prime minister, senior clergy and a prosecutor expressing shock at the way the ex-prelate made light of his offenses.

In an interview that aired Thursday Roger Vangheluwe, the former bishop of Bruges, spoke of his sexual abuse as "a little game," that involved fondling, but no "rough sex."

"I was never naked" and the abuse was never about "real sexuality," said Vangheluwe, 74.
....

Bruges Prosecutor Jean-Marie Berkvens said Friday the abuse of the second nephew lasted for two years. The victim was younger than 8 at the time.
....

The interview took place in a wooded Catholic retreat in Ferte-Imbault in central France, where Vangheluwe has been sent by the Vatican.

Throughout the interview, he sat relaxed, sometimes smiling and at times shrugging his shoulders as if to signal that the events he spoke of were not very serious.

Oh well. The abuse was only "superficial", only "a little game", with no "rough sex", and "never about real sexuality". And the one nephew did not object. Move along. Nothing to see here.

One of the tragedies of this story is that Vangheluwe is probably not lying. Very likely, he saw what he was doing exactly as he describes it. And the nephews whom he abused? What do they say? How were they affected by the "superficial" abuse? Ah, we don't know, but, from the stories of others who were abused, we can surmise that they were harmed, probably seriously, by abuse from the adult relative whom they trusted.

So. Vanghelhuwe has been sent to a French monastery, while the Vatican decides what to do with him.

The abuse started when the nephews were 5 years old and 8 years old and continued for years. I thought I could not be surprised further with stories about child abuse and denial, but it seems I can. The old mind is boggled.

Thanks to Lapin and Ann V for the links.

A GOOD MAN IS HARD TO FIND

From NOLA.com:

The Rev. Roy Bourgeois, the Lutcher native and peace activist excommunicated three years ago for publicly supporting the ordination of women as Catholic priests, now faces expulsion from his religious order and from the priesthood as well, his superiors have told him.

Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic. It's surely the loss of the Roman Catholic Church and the Maryknoll Fathers. I've long had Fr Roy's quote on my sidebar: "Silence is the voice of complicity.".

Bourgeois and Mike Virgintino, a spokesman for the Maryknolls, a missionary order of priests, confirmed that “with much sadness” the order earlier this month served Bourgeois written notice that he must publicly recant his support for women’s ordination by Saturday.

Without his compliance, a second warning will be issued, followed by the Maryknoll’s request to Rome that Bourgeois be dismissed from the order and “laicized,” or defrocked after 38 years as priest, Virgintino said.

Bourgeois said in an interview from his home in Columbus, Ga., he cannot, as a matter of conscience, recant his belief that women are called to the Catholic priesthood.

“They’re asking me to tell a lie,” he said. “To exclude women from the priesthood is a grave injustice to women, to the church, and to God.”

The authorities in the Roman Catholic Church, indeed, do a grave injustice to women to deny their call to serve as priests. Perhaps, we can persuade Fr Roy to serve in the Episcopal Church.

He worked as a Maryknoll missionary in Latin America. Living among impoverished peasants in Bolivia -- where he was kicked out -- and later in Guatemala and El Salvador, he came to feel that American foreign policy’s support for their governments was deeply anti-Christian. His anger coalesced around the School of the Americas, an Army institution at Ft. Benning that Bourgeois and other activists said taught Latin American military officers techniques, including torture, for suppressing the poor.

Defenders of the school, now called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, said the school taught military officers the values of democracy.

Bourgeois founded an organization called SOA and for years traveled the country speaking out against the school and building support to have Congress to close it. He has been arrested at least three times and served nearly four years in jail for trespassing on the base during protests. He described his support for women’s ordination as a justice issue, of a piece to the rest of his life’s work, rather than a theological issue. (My emphasis)

Amen! I view my support for equality in the policies on ordaining women and LGTB persons as a matter of justice.

From "About us" at SOA Watch:

SOA Watch is an independent organization that seeks to close the US Army School of the Americas, under whatever name it is called, through vigils and fasts, demonstrations and nonviolent protest, as well as media and legislative work.

On November 16, 1989, six Jesuit priests, their co-worker and her teenage daughter were massacred in El Salvador. A U.S. Congressional Task Force reported that those responsible were trained at the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA) at Ft. Benning, Georgia.

Recently, I noted the feast day of Óscar Romero and the martyrs of El Salvador.

Fr Roy's home town, Lutcher, Louisiana, is across the Mississippi River, not far from Thibodaux, and he has family there, including his 97 year old father. He is a homeboy whom I have long admired.

FROM A FRIEND FROM LONG AGO...

...who no longer knows me very well.

The Catholic Church is bleeding from self-inflicted wounds. The agony that Catholics have felt and suffered is not necessarily the fault of the Church. You have been hurt by a small number of wayward priests that have probably been totally weeded out by now. (My emphasis)

Walk with your shoulders high and you head higher. Be a proud member of the most important non-governmental agency in the United States ... Then remember what Jeremiah said: 'Stand by the roads, and look and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is and walk in it, and find rest for your souls'. Be proud to speak up for your faith with pride and reverence and learn what your Church does for all other religions. Be proud that you're a Catholic."

Please pass this on to every Catholic on your e-mail list.

The church is bleeding from self-inflicted wounds all right, but the following statements in bold print are nothing more than propaganda. Just 2 days ago, I posted on the story from Philadelphia of 21 wayward priests who had not been weeded out until now. Who is responsible for their remaining in ministry if not the "Church", the one, true Roman Catholic Church? Tell me. Who?

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

With respect to the alleged continuing cover-up of child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, the hierarchy seems to fear that acceptance of their own humanity and full admission of responsibility for their mistakes in response to child abuse will result in the collapse of the entire edifice of their church.

(Thanks to Wade, who inspired the thought by his words in an email.)

21 ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS PLACED ON LEAVE IN PHILADELPHIA

From CNN:

Twenty-one priests have been placed on administrative leave following a review of suspected child sexual abuse by members of the Catholic Church in Philadelphia, according to a statement from the city's archbishop.

The church investigated 37 priests identified in a grand jury report as remaining in "active ministry with credible allegations of child sexual abuse," according to Cardinal Justin Rigali.

In addition to the 21 announced Tuesday, three other priests have already been placed on administrative leave after the report was released in February, Rigali said.
....

Last week, three Philadelphia priests and a parochial school teacher were charged with raping and assaulting boys in their care, while a former official with the Philadelphia Archdiocese was accused of allowing the abusive priests to have access to children, the city's district attorney's office said.

CNN Senior Vatican Analyst John Allen said the charges against the former church official appeared to be unprecedented and could have national implications.
....

Monsignor William Lynn, who served as the secretary for clergy for the under then-Philadelphia Archbishop Anthony Bevilacqua, was charged with two counts of endangering the welfare of a child in connection with the alleged assaults, Williams said.

The church investigated after the names of the priests were released in a grand jury report. And before the report from the grand jury, did the church know nothing of the allegations against the priests?

The grand jury believed that more than 30 priests have remained in ministry in Pennsylvania despite solid, credible allegations of abuse, Williams said.

Rigali had initially challenged that claim.

The charges against the three priests are sickening to read. And finally someone who participated in an alleged cover-up is charged. It's about time! It's way past time! I'd imagine that right about now, a number of people who participated in cover-ups around the country are running scared.

What led me to leave the Roman Catholic Church was not the crimes of abuse, horrific as they were and are, but the cover-up by presumably sane leaders who believed protecting the institution from scandal was more important than protecting innocent children and teenagers. And it seems the necessary lessons have not yet been learned even today, which nearly makes my head explode.

Lord, have mercy.

H/T to Ann Fontaine at The Lead for the link.

HARD TIMES ALL AROUND

St Francis de Sales Church

From NOLA.com:

For sale: distinctive home or office space featuring stained-glass windows, flying buttresses, vaulted ceilings and a wide-open floor plan perfect for entertaining large crowds.

Interested? You might just be the buyer the Archdiocese of New Orleans is looking for.

Archbishop Gregory Aymond announced this week that the Catholic Church is selling or leasing 13 vacant properties, including seven churches. They are: Annunciation, Blessed Sacrament, Incarnate Word, St. Francis de Sales, St. Maurice and St. Simon Peter, all in New Orleans, and San Pedro Pescador on Florissant Highway in St. Bernard Parish.

The properties were either destroyed in Hurricane Katrina or closed during a post-storm reorganization in 2008, archdiocesan spokeswoman Sarah Comiskey McDonald said. But, unlike St. Henry's and Our Lady of Good Counsel, the properties for sale were not churches whose closings touched off angry protests, she said.

The Roman Catholic Church is not alone. Other congregations are having to sell their buildings, too. I'm glad St. Henry's and Our Lady of Good Counsel are not for sale. If you click the link above, you will see that the parishes appeared to be viable and were paying their way, and that it was rather the shortage of priests in the RCC which led to their closure.

AND SO IT BEGINS...

From Ruth Gledhill in the London Sunday Times, which you cannot read online without a supscription:

Priests and worshippers from to 20 Church of England parishes are to convert to Catholicism under a new scheme that allows Anglican opponents of women bishops to defect to Rome.

The founding members of the new Anglican Ordinariate, who include three former Church of England bishops, two of their wives and three Anglican nuns, will today be received into the Catholic Church in a low-key ceremony at midday Mass at Westminster Cathedral. The bishops are due to be ordained as Catholic priests in two weeks.
....

John Broadhurst, former Bishop of Fulham - whose resignation from the Church of England took effect at midnight last night and who is among those being received - told The Times: "This could herald a real transformation of the religious scene and be an aid to the conversion of England." (My emphasis)

Besides Father Broadhurst, the others being recieved today are Andrew Burnham, former Bishop of Ebbsfleet and Keith Newton, former Bishop of Matabeleland who retired to England in 2005, Edwin Barnes, former Bishop of Richborough and David Silk, former Bishop of Ballarat in Australia.

Not simply low-key, but nearly under the radar unless you're paying attention, which Ruth Gledhill always does. So the "stampede" out of the Church of England begins.

Anglican opponents to women bishops did not need a special scheme to defect to Rome. They were always free to do so. And "Father Broadhurst" won't be "Father" for two weeks, because as of the stroke of midnight, he was, and still is, a layman.

Some might say layman Broadhurst's commentary, the words in bold print, on what the reception will mean to all-England is a tad over-hyped, and I might be one who would say just that - "an aid to the conversion of England"? Really?

From America Magazine:

The 1230 Mass today at London's Westminster Cathedral looked like any other. But for the hint in the booklet for the feast of Mary, Mother of God, that after the homily would be a "Rite of reception and confirmation", there was nothing at all to indicate the significance of what was to happen. The celebrant, an auxiliary bishop of Westminster, Alan Hopes, said nothing at the start of Mass, and it wasn't until the end of a lengthy homily on Mary as Theotokos, or God-bearer, and the controversies of the fourth-century Council of Nicea which led to this Feast, that Bishop Hopes mentioned that they would be receiving some former members of the Church of England into full communion.

They included, he said, three former bishops and their relatives, as well as three Anglican nuns.

It would have been hard, if you had just dropped into the Cathedral for Mass, to understand the significance of what was happening.There was nobody around to explain that these are the founding members of the world's first Ordinariate, the scheme created by Pope Benedict to allow for the corporate reception of Anglicans.

Is there not a touch of irony in that the anti-women bishops bishops and nuns were received into the Roman Catholic Church on the feast of Mary, Mother of God? What would Mary say?

H/T to Jim Simons at Three Rivers Episcopal for the link to the article in America, and thanks to Ann V. for calling the post at "Three Rivers" to my attention.

TWO DIFFERENT VIEWS FROM INSIDERS

From E. J. Dionne at TruthDig.com:

How in the name of God can the Roman Catholic Church put the pedophilia scandal behind it?

I do not invoke God’s name lightly. The church’s problem is, above all, theological and religious. Its core difficulty is that rather than drawing on its Christian resources, the church has acted almost entirely on the basis of this world’s imperatives and standards.

It has worried about lawsuits. It has worried about its image. It has worried about itself as an institution and about protecting its leaders from public scandal. In so doing, it has made millions of Catholics righteously furious and aggravated every one of its problems.
....

The church needs to show it understands the flaws of its own internal culture by examining its own conscience, its own practices, its own reflexes when faced with challenge. As the church rightly teaches, acknowledging the true nature of our sin is the one and only path to redemption and forgiveness.
....

But defensiveness and institutional self-protection are not Gospel values. “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.”
....

The church needs to cast aside the lawyers, the PR specialists and its own worst instincts, which are human instincts. Benedict could go down as one of the greatest popes in history if he were willing to risk all in the name of institutional self-examination, painful but liberating public honesty, and true contrition.

And then comes something even harder: Especially during Lent, the church teaches that forgiveness requires us to have “a firm purpose of amendment.” The church will have to show not only that it has learned from this scandal, but also that it’s truly willing to transform itself.

I don't know about history giving Benedict the title of the greatest pope ever, but if Benedict followed Dionne's directives, he could move the church well forward to recovery. It seems to me that criticism and suggestions for a change of direction from within the fold of the Roman Catholic Church carry greater weight than those from outsiders, which the hierarchy can defend with charges of persecution as it is reported that Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, of the Diocese of Brooklyn, did at the Chrism Mass last night.

I do want to take a moment to speak about The New York Times mischaracterization of the role of the Holy Father when he was Archbishop of Munich and then Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The fact is that the paper omitted significant facts with respect to the case of a certain priest in Wisconsin. The reality is that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did not have competency over Canonical Trials in 1996 when the case is believed to have first been referred to Cardinal Ratzinger. Moreover, the priest in question, a Father Murphy, was in the midst of a Canonical Trial. He died before a verdict was rendered. The case of the priest in the Munich Archdiocese also is presented as a definite error of judgment when all the facts are not known.

This evening, I am asking you to join me in making your displeasure known to the editors. I might even suggest cancelling our subscriptions to the New York Times, but we need to know what the enemy is saying. Enough is enough! Two weeks of articles about a story from many decades ago, in the midst of the Most Holy Season of the Church year is both callous and smack of calumny. I ask you to stand up with me and send a message loud and clear that the Pope, our Church, and our bishops and priests will no longer be the personal punching bag of the New York Times.

Don't deal with the problems; attack the messenger. The New York Times is the enemy. When you have the poorest of defenses, go offensive and attack the critics. Dionne chooses the better path in confronting the problems head on and suggesting Gospel solutions that just might work to begin the long climb upward to restore the reputation and moral authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

Thanks to IT for the link to Dionne's column and to Whiteycat for the link to the article on Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio's sermon.

HANS KUNG ON CLERICAL CELIBACY - 2

Read Hans Kung's piece in the National Catholic Reporter titled "Ratzinger's Responsibility".

I know that some of you disagree with me about a connection between celibacy and child abuse amongst priests in the Roman Catholic Church. Mind, I am, by no means, suggesting that celibacy is the sole cause of child abuse by clergy. We know of the connection between having been abused as a child and turning to child abuse as an adult.

In the days of my youth, all sexual outlets were forbidden by the Roman Catholic Church except sex between a man and a woman after a church wedding without the use of any form of birth control. Tell teenage boys and girls with raging hormones, that masturbation is a mortal sin for which they will burn in hell for all eternity. Tell the young teens that having sex with a person to whom you're not married is a mortal sin for which you will burn in hell. An equivalency forms in the minds of a good many of the young people that the two actions are on a par. How can you, in good conscience, urge the teens to wait to have sex, if you forbid them the one sexual outlet that brings harm to no one? If you're going to burn for masturbating, why not just go ahead and have sex at the age of 13, 14, or 15?

Tell seminarians and priests that they may never have a deliberate sinless sexual outlet in their whole lives if they want to be priests. Do you see how screwed up this kind of thinking is? Do you see how such screwed up thinking could lead to abnormal acting out?

In his piece in the NCR, Fr Kung asks and responds to 4 questions:

1st Question: Why does the pope continue to assert that what he calls "holy" celibacy is a "precious gift", thus ignoring the biblical teaching that explicitly permits and even encourages marriage for all office holders in the Church?
....

2nd Question: Is it true, as Archbishop Zollitsch insists, that "all the experts" agree that abuse of minors by clergymen and the celibacy rule have nothing to do with each other? How can he claim to know the opinions of "all the experts"?
....

3rd Question: Instead of merely asking pardon of the victims of abuse, should not the bishops at last admit their own share of blame?

4th Question: Is it not time for Pope Benedict XVI himself to acknowledge his share of responsibility, instead of whining about a campaign against his person? No other person in the Church has had to deal with so many cases of abuse crossing his desk.

Please follow the link to the article in the National Catholic Reporter, because I have not quoted the complete texts of Fr Kung's questions, nor have I included his responses in my post.

Even if you disagree with the premise that there is an association between celibacy and child abuse by RCC clergy, Fr Kung's article is worth a read.

And yes. Feel free to call me obsessed.

STILL BEATING....

From the New York Times:

A widening child sexual abuse inquiry in Europe has landed at the doorstep of Pope Benedict XVI, as a senior church official acknowledged Friday that a German archdiocese made “serious mistakes” in handling an abuse case while the pope served as its archbishop.

The archdiocese said that a priest accused of molesting boys was given therapy in 1980 and later allowed to resume pastoral duties, before committing further abuses and being prosecuted. Pope Benedict, who at the time headed the archdiocese of Munich and Freising, approved the priest’s transfer for therapy. A subordinate took full responsibility for allowing the priest to later resume pastoral work, the archdiocese said in a statement.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said he had no comment beyond the statement by the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, which he said showed the “nonresponsibility” of the pope in the matter. (My emphasis)

And we are to take the statement by the Rev. Lombardi at face value? Not if we attend to the words of Fr Thomas P Doyle.

The priest from Essen, “despite allegations of sexual abuse, and in spite of a conviction — was repeatedly assigned work in the sphere of pastoral care by the then-Vicar General Gerhard Gruber,” who worked under Benedict, at the time Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger.
....

But Mr. Gruber took full responsibility for the decision to reinstate the priest to pastoral work. “I deeply regret that this decision resulted in offenses against youths and apologize to all who were harmed by it,” Mr. Gruber, according to a statement posted on the archdiocese Web site.

There was immediate skepticism that Benedict, as archbishop, would not have known of the details of the case.

Rev. Thomas P. Doyle, who once worked at the Vatican Embassy in Washington and became an early and well-known whistle-blower on sexual abuse in the church, said the vicar general’s claim was not credible.

“Nonsense,” said Father Doyle, who has served as an expert witness in sexual abuse lawsuits. “Pope Benedict is a micro-manager. He’s the old style. Anything like that would necessarily have been brought to his attention. Tell the vicar general to find a better line. What he’s trying to do, obviously, is protect the pope.”

I take no pleasure in writing this post. In fact, I feel sick. I'm no admirer of Benedict XVI, and I never was. I remember him as Cardinal Ratzinger in his role as Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, or the Enforcer, as he was known in the US. The theologians, presidents, and professors in the Roman Catholic universities, and certain bishops dreaded his periodic visits to the US to assure that all were following the orthodox line. The list is long of the great thinkers and teachers in the RCC who were silenced or otherwise disciplined by Cardinal Ratzinger. Although I had been out of the RCC for nearly 10 years, my heart sank low when he was elected pope. He was not an unknown. My heart sank for the sake of my many family members and friends who are still part of the church.

As pope his policies and practices have been even worse than I expected. I think of him declaring just last year that married couples in which one partner is HIV positive are forbidden to use condoms.

From CNN:

Pope Benedict XVI refused Wednesday to soften the Vatican's ban on condom use as he arrived in Africa for his first visit to the continent as pope.

He landed in Cameroon, the first stop on a trip that will also take him to Angola.

Sub-Saharan Africa has been hit harder by AIDS and HIV than any other region of the world, according to the United Nations and World Health Organization. There has been fierce debate between those who advocate the use of condoms to help stop the spread of the epidemic and those who oppose it.

The pontiff reiterated the Vatican's policy on condom use as he flew from Rome to Yaounde, the capital of Cameroon, CNN Vatican analyst John Allen said.

Pope Benedict has always made it clear he intends to uphold the traditional Catholic teaching on artificial contraception -- a "clear moral prohibition" -- Allen said. But his remarks Tuesday were among the first times he stated the policy explicitly since he became pope nearly four years ago.

The world and the Roman Catholic Church would be better off if the pope resigned. There I've said it.

Other recent posts on child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church at Wounded Bird are here, here, here, and here.

NOT TO BEAT THE SUBJECT TO DEATH....

Yesterday, I resolved not to write more about celibacy and the Roman Catholic Church, but I received more than one email message with links to articles in various media outlets on the statement by Archbishop Schonborn, of Vienna, on celibacy and child abuse in the the RC church, and I decided to post on the subject one more time.

From the Guardian:

The Archbishop of Vienna today said priestly celibacy could be one of the causes of the sex abuse scandals to hit the Catholic church.

In an article for Thema Kirche, his diocesan magazine, Christoph Schonborn became the most senior figure in the Catholic hierarchy to make the connection between the two and called for an "unflinching examination" of the possible reasons for paedophilia.

He wrote: "These include the issue of priest training, as well as the question of what happened in the so-called sexual revolution.

"It also includes the issue of priest celibacy and the issue of personality development. It requires a great deal of honesty, both on the part of the church and of society as a whole."

Schonborn is not the first person to suggest a link between celibacy and paedophilia – the theologian Hans Kung has made the same assertion.

A spokesman clarified the archbishop's words, insisting he was "in no way" seeking to question the celibacy rule or call for its abolition.

Archbishop Schonborn is, indeed, not the first person to suggest a link, nor is Fr Hans Kung, because I, and a good many others, suggested a link when the revelations of abuse first became public a good many years ago. Of course, our questions did not make the leap to the media.

What I don't understand is the statement by a spokesman that "in no way" was the archbishop questioning the celibacy rule. If you believe there may be a link between celibacy and child abuse, why would you rule out questioning the wisdom of the celibacy rule? If the intention is to conduct an "unflinching investigation" of the reasons for child abuse by RC clergy, why cut off what seems a logical component of an open and honest way forward in the investigation?

Who is the spokesman who clarified the archbishop's statement? Was the spokesman from the Vatican?

The Guardian continues:

Writing in L'Osservatore Romano (the Vatican newspaper), Lucetta Scaraffia said women might have helped remove the "veil of secrecy" surrounding the abuse.

She used the word "omerta" – the Mafia code of silence – to describe the conspiracy involved in hiding the offences.

"We can hypothesise that a greater female presence, not at a subordinate level, would have been able to rip the veil of masculine secrecy that in the past often covered the denunciation of these misdeeds with silence," she said. (My emphasis)

Brava, Lucetta Scaraffia! The all-male, patriarchal culture of the of the clergy in the RCC could, indeed, have contributed to the conspiracy to cover-up the misdeeds, rather than deal with the abuse openly and honestly, which would have meant that many cases of abuse could have been prevented, rather than allowed to continue for decades.

Note that Scaraffia says "a female presence, not at a subordinate level". My question then is, what would the female presence "not at a subordinate level" look like? For instance, what would be the equivalent non-subordinate, female presence to a cardinal?

In the comments, Paul (A.) suggests the picture below in answer to my question just above.

WHY BOTHER?

You may wonder why, since I am no longer an insider in the Roman Catholic Church, I continue to pay attention and be bothered by the church's policies and actions. In the nearly 60 years that I spent in the RCC, there was much that I loved about the church. I'm grateful for my 16 years of RC schooling, where, for the most part, I was well taught. I grew up in a seriously dysfunctional home, alcoholic father, depressed mother. I won't bore you with the details, but my RC school was my safe place, my place of refuge and peace away from the sometimes nightmarish atmosphere in my home. The nuns were, with only one exception that I can think of, good and intelligent women. Under their nurturing, my sense of self-worth and moral core were planted, cared for, and grew. Of course, we were taught a bit of nonsense, too, but on the whole my RCC schooling was a strong, positive force in my life, and I will always be grateful for those years.

The church was a force for good in other ways, such as in my years at Loyola University, I learned the evils of racism. All I knew growing up was racism. Racist attitudes were a given, not questioned, until I encountered the teachings of the Jesuits. The voices for peace in the church were instrumental in turning me against the Vietnam War. I could go on.

The first seeds of discontent with the RCC were sown when I had three babies in four years, and I had to face the fact that I must break the church's birth control rule or, very likely, end up in a mental institution, because I had what I now believe was postpartum depression after my third child, which went untreated, because the illness was not yet named at the time. The decision to use birth control was difficult. Looking back, common sense tells me that the choice should have been easy, but it was not.

Anyway, to make a long story short, I stayed with the RCC through good times and bad, more good than bad, until the sex abuse scandal broke in our diocese. The sexual abuse of children was horrific enough, but that the powers covered up the abuse and moved the priests from one parish to another to continue the abuse for years was the final straw for me, and I took my leave about 14 years ago.

But for the sake of the good that I received from the RCC, I still care about the church, and I want the institution to be better than it is. Just as I call the powers in my own church, the Episcopal Church, to account, I continue to call the powers of the RCC to account because of the many years I made my home there.

I was thrilled when Katharine Jefforts-Schori was elected Presiding Bishop, but I did not hesitate to call her to account when she asked LGTB members of the Episcopal Church to remain in "a crucified place" and when she waited far too long to speak out publicly against the draconian laws proposed in Nigeria against LGTB persons.

In the beginning of his essay, Richard Sipe writes the following words and quotes the words of Thomas Keating:

I am pursuing this discussion in the spirit of contemplative transformation espoused by Fr. Thomas Keating who challenges us to confront the biases that keep us from facing truth when we fail to ask penetrating questions: “Are you so enamored with your religion that you have a naïve loyalty that cannot see the real faults that are present in a particular faith community? Do you sweep under the rug embarrassing situations and bow to the security or esteem needs of the community?”

I end my post with the words.

HANS KUNG ON CLERICAL CELIBACY

From Ruth Gledhill in the Times Online:

A leading Roman Catholic theologian has linked clerical sex abuse with priestly celibacy, blaming the Church’s “uptight” views on sex for child abuse scandals in Germany, Ireland and the US.

Father Hans Kung, President of the Global Ethic Foundation and professor emeritus at the University of Tübingen in Germany, said that the Church’s attitude was also revealed in its opposition to birth control.

The German church rejected any suggestion that abuse was linked to celibacy, homosexuality or church teaching.
....

Robert Zollitsch, Archbishop of Freiburg and head of the German bishops’ conference, branded clerical abuse “outrageous” and begged forgiveness from the victims but denied any link between abuse and celibacy.

Writing in The Tablet, Father Kung, who in 1979 was stripped of his licence to teach Catholic theology after he rejected the doctrine of Papal infallibility, welcomed the apology but described the denials of any link between abuse, celibacy and other teaching as “erroneous”.

He said that it was the case that abuse was found also in families, schools and other churches. But he asked: “Why is it so prevalent in the Catholic Church under celibate leadership?” He said that celibacy was not the only cause of the misconduct but described it as “the most important and structurally the most decisive” expression of the Church’s uptight attitude to sex. (My emphasis)

Fr Kung's article in The Tablet appears to be available by subscription only, but the article on the German church's resistance to the state's intervention on the abuse is free.

In the comments to my recent post titled Gay Roman Catholic Bishops, I caught flack for saying that mandatory celibacy, in my opinion, contributes to the abusive behavior by priests in the Roman Catholic Church. I don't know what priestly formation is like now in RC seminaries, but for many years, young boys began seminary training at age 13. In some cases, abuse occurred in seminaries. My contemporaries, and those several years younger, were taught in RC seminaries that women were occasions of sin. Imagine! Half the human race was an occasion of sin! Well, perhaps not old ladies.

Rather than having one determining cause, I suspect that, in most cases, more than one cause led priests into abusive behavior. Men who had been abused as children and men predisposed to child abuse very likely made their way into seminaries and through the ordination process, but I believe that mandatory celibacy and the warped attitudes toward sexuality and toward women within the culture of Roman Catholic clergy, especially the hierarchy, had an effect.

Whether celibacy is imposed as a condition of service upon a Roman Catholic man who believes he is called to serve God as a priest, or whether celibacy is imposed upon an LGTB person in another denomination who feels a call to serve God as clergy as a condition for being permitted to serve, mandatory celibacy is just plain wrong.

Understand that I do not in mean to suggest that genuine calls to live celibate lives do not exist. From the early church on, we see examples of saints who lived holy, celibate lives. But the call to celibacy is between God and an individual and is not to be ordered from outside.

I did not come to my opinion lightly. I come with 60 years experience of life in the Roman Catholic Church. I'm not saying that I am right and that those who disagree with me are wrong, however, that the distinguished theologian, Fr Hans Kung, is of a similar opinion, heartens me and makes me think that my reasoning is not entirely off the wall.

H/T to MadPriest at OCICBW for the link to Ruth's article.