gasp priests are… sinful humans? REALLY?!
And this is precisely this attitude which is the problem.
The first problem is referring to pedophilia as “sinful”. While this label is technically true, there is a lot of other things which are also “sinful” – e.g. masturbation. Now, this is a part of larger problem with Catholic view of sex which is this: there is a plethora of acts which are considered sinful, despite the fact that they are not all damaging to the parties involved. (Pedophilia on the other hand is extremely damaging. ) However, as they are all attached the same label, this creates a false equivalency between things which are not really comparable.
For example, a lot of people are “sinful”, because they are guilty of masturbation. Fr. X being sinful because of masturbation is not really that much of a shock – after all, everyone does that, so it is sort of expected (if undesirable). On the other hand, if you are trying to handwave exploits of Marcial Maciel Degollado by saying that “everyone is sinful”, then you are effectively asserting that incestuous homosexual pedophilia is so widespread in the society that “everyone” does it. Not only is such statement nonsensical – if it’s widespread, why the outrage? – it effectively normalizes pedophilia: everyone is sinful (masturbation etc.), a pedophile is sinful, so, a pedophile is just a like everyone! Rejoince, and let’s accept this lost sheep back to our flock!
The second problem is related to
in persona Christi doctrine. My country was unlucky enough to witness a convicted pedophile celebrate Mass for several years. (The aforementioned pedophile was found guilty, but received only a suspended sentence due to unusual leniency of both the prosecutor and the judge). Given that this was happening in a rural area, I doubt all of the attendees had the required theological knowledge to observe the fundamental difference between the act of consecration performed
in persona Christi, and the act of molestation performed in private capacity by the same person. I have grounds to suspects that many parishioners (especially children) got the two mixed up.
The third problem can be summed thus:
would you take advice on sexual morality from a pedophile?. Of course you would not. So why should you treat seriously a sermon on the subject delivered by the aforementioned convicted pedophile? Well – I hear you saying – because even if the man himself is sinful (ahem…) the ideas expressed in the sermon are in line with documents of the Vatican. But, wasn’t a pedophile (Wesolowski) recently discovered in the highest echelons of Vatican bureaucracy? So, how can you guarantee that the CDF documents have not been compromised by the pedophile mafia? If the head of a national church states publicly that
children drag priests into pedophilia, and then
claims that he was misunderstood then you can only conclude that he either believes that, or, he does not know what he is saying – either way, his statements are not to be trusted.
There is a great passage in the Scripture which says *Now the overseer is to be above reproach …] In the same way, deacons are to be worthy of respect *. This is nothing but a common sense observation that people will not take moral advice from shady individuals, and so, people with inherent moral authority, stemming from good conduct, should be made priests and bishop. Unfortunately, it seems, the contemporary Church has forgotten this rule. Nowadays, the teaching authority is conferred automatically on everyone who can show the proper paperwork… er… apostolic succession. Uncontrolled unusual sexual apetites? Oh come on, aren’t we all sinners?
