Pope Benedict XVI deplored the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests and linked it to other vices, including child pornography, sexual tourism and drug abuse, which he said were all promoted by an ideology of social moral relativism.
The pope made his remarks on Monday (Dec. 20), in his annual Christmas address to leaders of the Roman Curia, the Vatican’s central bureaucracy.
Looking back over major events of 2010, Benedict put special emphasis on the clerical sex abuse scandals that broke out in several European and South American countries.
“To a degree we could not have imagined, we came to know of abuse of minors committed by priests who twist the sacrament into its antithesis,” the pope said.
[i]It was the same time, Benedict said, that even some Catholic theologians taught that “there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself†but that “anything can be good or also bad, depending upon purposes and circumstances.â€[/i]
In fact, the scandalous situation predates the deficient moral theology and cannot be blamed on that.
The larger question is how did such theology infiltrate into Catholic seminaries in the first place? (Did any Catholic theologian really ever say pedophia could be right? I just can’t imagine that, but if so, THAT is the problem.) And how did so many homosexual pedophiles (and heterosexual pedophiles) get as far as ordination, let alone being made bishops? And why wasn’t this horrific thing stamped out about 50 years ago? And why is the Vatican still handling the scandal so very badly?
These are questions that would help get at the heart of the problem in order to solve it.
The other is smoke and mirrors. You can’t blame the corrupt contemporary society if your mission is supposed to be to transform it. The question, instead is, if corrupt society did come to influence Catholic priests’ behavior, how did that inversion happen? And how you can blame the rape of children on drugs is baffling. Are priests and bishops on drugs? If so, how did that happen?
First requirement for solving this mess is to get real.
Still no acknowledgment of bishops and archbishops covering up and just moving bad priests around. I say to cover up is to condone and perpetuate the problem. Until the Pope takes on this internal cover-up, a certain amount of contempt is unavoidable.
Vashti Winterburg
Lawrence, Kansas
#1,homosexual priests abusing young males and drugs are simply two pieces in the larger puzzle of a corrupt society. They are not directly related, of course, but they are intrinsic elements in a society that has made self-gratification, narcissism and avoidance of self discipline as a standard for one’s life success. This is the Life Style that television (e.g.) has made the equivalent of a civil right. In former times, the practices of priests were overlooked and drug use was for the marginal. Now, homosexuality is everywhere condoned – see the DADT overturn – and drug use encouraged – see the growth of “medical” marijuana. You may add to this the spread of legal gambling on a massive scale, and the widespread sexual promiscuity that is encouraged at every level (e.g., Hooking up). Acknowledging this IS getting real. Our social/behavioral standards have decayed perhaps beyond repair. Can you doubt the evidence? Larry
Yes, our social/behavioral standards have decayed alarmingly.
But the church is supposed to be influencing society, not the other way around, so if the church succumbs to society, that is her problem, and how that happened is the real question.
Anastasia’s questions/points are spot on. I have the greatest respect for the Holy Father, but what is the point about talking about corruption and decay in society in this context? “You are the salt of the earth. If the salt shall lose its saltiness how shall its flavor be restored?” This quote comes out a lot better in the original semetic languages than it does in English, but it has a very clear and important meaning. It is the Church that is supposed to make the world pure, not the other way around. If pornography and “sex tourism” caused the pedophile epidemic, then the Church has truly “lost its saltiness.” How did this happen and how can it be restored? This, IMHO, is what the Pope should be talking about.
Both #4 and #5 are quite right. I too think precisely what they have said. But I have not been defending any church’s sliding slackly into the morass of contemporary manners/morals. My point was that Anastasia’s asking what the connection was between priestly misconduct and drug use is, overlooks the broad cultural fundamentals that now make these two ( among a much larger number) an intrinsic part of America.
The question, “How did this happen?” is a matter of vital importance, – except that most Americans don’t think so – see repealing DADT. And that’s the point, CM, in talking about the broad cultural context, for it is THERE the answers must be sought.
Larry
I don’t know Larry. The Church was established in the midst of the Roman Empire. It was the small light that drove out the great darkness. Now all of a sudden drugs and social acceptance of the gay lifestyle has caused it to rot from within? I get your point, but the answer has to go a lot deeper than that.
I wonder if the answer is now, and always has been, to not only do completely away with celibacy in the priesthood, but to require priests to be married to one woman? Just a thought. . . .
Because a man might break his vows of celibacy but he would never break his marital vows?
Of course he might break any vows he took, but that argument has to evolve into, “So lets just do away with priests, pastors, and for that matter – – Christians, too, since some of us take baptismal vows.”
No, what I was thinking is that there is “extra pressure” on the married clergy to act like they mean it. The wife can be a strong influence. Nothing is perfect, but the single, celibate priesthood invites difficulty. The fact that we are having this conversation supports that conclusion, at least, doesnt it?
Hmm…that must explain why they have these big scandals among evangelical pastors from time to time — involving other women and frequently other men.
Indeed, those scandals happen, and when they do, they are evidence that the “clergyman” is not what he vowed to be. But as I say, the presence of a wife can be an additional pressure-point for the Spirit to use to keep the clergy “in line.” Nothing will be perfect, but I still contend that we “ask for it” when we insist on a celibate clergy. Clearly, the problem as it exists within the “celibate” clergy throughout the Catholic world is self-evident. What would you propose?
I have always been of two minds about this #12, but I suspect that the marrried priest is the lesser of the two evils, if I may put it that way. But would you REQUIRE that they marry? No more celibacy, even by choice? The early church permitted married priests, but the fear that the family would encourage nepotism turned out to be justified, didn’t it? Would it not be more direct to make the rule that no homosexuals could become priests, and that the heterosexual priests could marry if they chose? It may well be that the fear of nepotism no longer makes much sense – conditions now very different from the church in, say, 1500. Larry
#12 jkc1945:
Your argument rests on the presumption that celibate clergy are more likely to offend than married clergy. So far as I know, this has yet to be demonstrated; and in fact sources cited on previous threads have found that essentially all professions that have access to children offend at close to the same rate, married or not.
What is still missing is an acknowledgment that without the post-WWII social revolution in the West, these abuses would be denied, excused, and covered up as they had been for centuries and still are. Modernity did not create the abuses, it revealed them and it is slowly forcing the glacial Roman establishment to confront them. Benedict has a good point about the down side of liberation from submission to authority, but the phenomena are more coincidental than causally related. Satan has always been working to undermine the Church in all of its branches and when a branch of the Church is more concerned with its role in society than its personal and institutional holiness, it will mistakenly believe that the world needs to reconcile itself with its ecclesiastical authority above all else, be it RC or TEC.
An active and alarmed laity is often a good thing.
Yes, Ratramnus, as we’ve seen in Montreal, in Ireland, and in other places. It has been when the society was most respectful and submissive to the Church that the greatest abuses occured. I do not reject the virtus of respect and submission to the Church, but I don’t think the answer is EITHER as simple as “society made me do it” OR getting rid of the celibacy requirement. This is a problem that requires some truly deep soul searching. Benedict has the intellect to do it if he choses to.
Comparison with sex abuse in the Anglican Church in Australia:
[blockquote]A key finding of this study is the [b]similarities in pattern of abuse found between the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches[/b]. Similarities were found in patterns of male victim characteristics, location and types of abuse, accused person characteristics, and delayed reporting and disclosure of abuse.
This similarity is [b]despite significant differences in the nature of clergy vocations (the Anglican Church does not require singleness or celibacy)[/b]. The similarity between the Anglican and Catholic churches is also [b]despite significant differences in ministry involving children[/b]. [[i]p. 39—emphasis added[/i]][/blockquote]
[url=http://www.anglican.org.au/docs/Study of Reported Child Sexual Abuse in the Anglican Church May 2009 Full Report.pdf]Study of Reported Child Sexual Abuse in the Anglican Church, May 2009, Patrick Parkinson, Kim Oates, Amanda Jayakody[/url]
The inclusion requirements of the study were to survey all concluded cases of reported child sexual abuse since 1990 within the church by clergy and church workers. Importantly, the study did not include reported cases from Anglican schools or Anglican children homes.
I must say #17, that this is astonishing information. Celibacy apparently is NOT the issue so I stand corrected. But what then is the answer? Why these churches? is it that they favor an authoritarian vision of the priest’s role, and that the young are taught to be submissive, making them vulnerable? The truth is, this is dreadful information. Larry
#18: I’m only speculating, but I suspect the reason the Catholic Church gets most of the blame here is a combination of these factors:
(a) the Catholic Church is so much larger than any other Christian denomination — for that matter, larger than any other single institution I can think of that regularly interacts with children — that similar percentages of offenders translate to greater absolute numbers.
(b) by happenstance, the Catholic Church was the first church to get “outed” about abuse in a big way. It could just as easily have been another church, or a secular organization.
(c) public anger (justifiable anger) at the pattern of consistent cover-ups of offending clergy.
What is the answer? So far, the best answer anyone has come up with is:
(a) Make a positive effort, via criminal background checks and the like, to screen offenders out before you hire them, or admit them to seminary.
(b) Institute procedures that make it difficult for offenders to find opportunities — e.g., no adult is ever to be alone with a child behind a closed door. [Rules like this have the added bonus that they help protect adults who follow them from false accusations of abuse.]
(c) When abuse does occur — and it will, inevitably, in any large enough organization in which children are involved — you must react swiftly and transparently. This is difficult to do, not only because it violates the survival instincts of large organizations, but also because you have to carefully balance the need for visibility [so that everyone can see that you are responding properly] against the need for privacy [for the accuser and for the accused]… but some such balance must be found, because people need to know that your organization responds quickly and appropriately to cases of abuse.
It’s hardly a perfect formula, but as I say it’s the best that anyone has found so far, and a sight more than most churches (or secular organizations) have managed.
To find the right answers, one needs to ask the right questions. They include: How did the church, which is supposed to be transforming society, allow society to corrupt her instead? How did deficient moral theology get past the seminary doors? How do so many perverted people make it to ordination (much less to becoming bishops)? Why wasn’t this thing stamped on, hard, about 50 years ago, instead of tolerated? Why is the Vatican still, to this day, handling it all so badly?
These are the sorts of questions that need pondering, and honest answers.