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.
You ain't obsessed Mimi!!! It's like I said, the more people say these things, the better.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, anyway, it is incredibly screwed-up thinking. I can't see how it has done any member of the church any good ever.
I'm coming to the conclusion that I still have a good bit of pent-up anger toward the RCC that I have not dealt with because I did not want to be a bitter ex-Catholic.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line, Mimi, is that in the RC church loyalty to the institution takes precedence over everything else. It is easier for them to proclaim that they have absolute truth and project the blame onto society as a whole. I feel sorry for the clergy in the trenches who do not go along with the scapegoating. Unfortunately most of them say little or nothing out of fear of chastisement. I am afraid the situation will never change until a "critical mass" has the courage to speak out.
ReplyDeleteI agree with whiteycat and would add that it is blogs like Mimi's that will make reaching that critical mass a quicker process.
ReplyDeleteThe more I look across at the RCC, the more I see it as systemically and institutionally corrupt, operating with a conservatism opposed both to the real world[0], with an imperialist desire to shore-up its own power-base completely opposed to Jesus' own message. I count myself highly fortunate both never to have been a member of that establishment, and to be free to stick two fingers up at the lot of them.
ReplyDelete[0] who'd take advice on sex from someone who, by definition, isn't getting any? And: "no condoms", just tell that to a medic.
Whiteycat, you're exactly right. The leaders decided to protect the institution.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet I know priests and people in the RCC who, even now, go about the business of doing God's work in a beautiful way. My heart goes out to them.
Cathy, I don't know whether my writing (or venting?) will help at all. It is what it is.
Tim, the problems in the RCC are systemic, and the powers are still in denial. On the other hand, I've said more than once that I gained much of value from my 12 years of schooling with RC nuns. I was quite fortunate in that the great majority of the women who taught me were good, intelligent women.
I checked out your website. Your photos are lovely.
Regarding the superstitious belief that celibacy and/or having been a child sexual abuse victim causes one to become a sexual predator, just let me say one thing: Hogwash.
ReplyDeleteLots of people are celibate and never even think of laying a hand on a child. Tons, maybe millions of 'em. Why assail their integrity by implying a correlative relationship between their God-given vocation and child abuse? Why not say that being a priest makes you more likely to be a sexual abuser? After all, all the alleged perpetrators in these cases were priests. Or, have we learned that it's OK to berate and ridicule things we don't understand but never, never to question "father." There's a little subtle clericalism along with illogic in that, I think.
And tons of people, were victims of child sexual abuse and would never, ever hurt a child. Why would you even think such a thing!? Oh sure, there are cases where a perpetrator has also been abused. We learn what we're taught, after all. But being sexually abused does not render one incapable of learning new, healthy ways of relating. It's insulting to anyone who's done the hard work of recovering from childhood trauma to then imply that they are likely to become abusers themselves. It's unfair, it's re-victimizing, and it's wrong.
As usual, just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
Lindy, just my opinion, too, of course.
ReplyDeleteI think Hans Kung hit the nail on the head when he points out the billions paid out by the Roman Church in compensation as a better measure of the magnitude of the disaster than the comparatively small number of convicted child molesters in clerical collars.
ReplyDeleteI'm not and never was Roman Catholic. Having known so many angry and bitter ex-Catholics, I thank God that I was born in the luke-warm embrace of Methodism.
However, this scandal affects all Christians. How can we claim any moral credibility when so much criminality was covered up for decades?
As for the celibacy issue, I think the real issue is voluntary celibacy as a calling versus required celibacy. Requiring adolescent boys to make such a decision while in the early stages of seminary training is ridiculous, and a recipe for future disaster and misery.
The original 11th century decision for requiring celibacy for secular (as opposed to "religious" or monastic) clergy was driven by concerns over church assets and inheritance. I think that original issue has long ago passed away.
Hans Kung also rightly points out that this disaster is a creation of the church's obsession with secrecy, with preserving its mystique and charisma. There are no peasants anymore to over-awe. And those who still are peasants are eager for themselves or their children to rise in the world through education. The Roman Church needs to stop treating its laity like dependent peasants, and look upon them as responsible citizens to whom the leadership is accountable.
I also think this whole scandal should serve as warning to all those who want to transform the Anglican Communion into the Anglican Church with all-powerful bishops and dependent obedient laity.
As for the celibacy issue, I think the real issue is voluntary celibacy as a calling versus required celibacy.
ReplyDeleteExactly. And the decision by the powers to impose celibacy on all priests had much to do with property.
We can but hope that Rowan's wish to make the Anglican Communion more like Rome will be received with the skepticism that it deserves.
Celibacy certainly does not "cause" child abuse. However, people who have an unhealthy relationship with their own sexuality may well be drawn to required religious celibacy because it shields them from having to face their own inability to have a normal grown up sexual relationship with another grown up.
ReplyDeleteofftopic, but thanks for compliment on photos. :)
ReplyDeleteCelibacy certainly does not "cause" child abuse.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, Ellie. In fact, there is probably no single cause that leads a person to abuse children, no more than there is a single cause for other aberrant behavior.