What I think the Church should do about the abuse crisis that won’t go away

[Corki]

I had read this, and have just re-read it. I understood why homosexuals who were sexually active (along with heterosexuals) might be excluded, and at the risk of offending some gays I also get the point about the gay ‘culture’. **But I am not entirely sure why the “deep-seated” desire to have sex with someone of the same sex should be more of a problem than a deep-seated desire to have sex with the opposite sex. **In any case I quite accept that there is more to the ban on homosexuals entering the seminary than a desire to reduce abuse, but my impression is that it is widely seen as a part of that package. To the extent that it is, my comments in #33 would stand.

Re: your bolded statement. Someone with a “deep-seated desire to have sex with someone of the same sex” has normally ordered desires that he is willing to deny in order to answer his call to the priesthood. Someone who has deep-seated homosexual desires has disordered desires. The Church wants whole, strong men as priests - physically, morally, mentally and psychologically. The Church knows that all of her priests are not perfect but someone who has a fundamentally disordered orientation is going to have already exhibitted a constitution that makes him unsuitable. There are many things that might make a man unsuitable for the priesthood - this is just one of them.

I don’t think the ban on homosexuals came about in order to reduce abuse. If you looked at the total history of the Church, you would probably find more priests who broke their promises by sinning with women than who had homosexual encounters. However, the apparent wide-spread laxity in applying the restriction has led to a generation of priests where there is a greater proportion of men who are not whole.

 

[Hokomai]

Re: your bolded statement. Someone with a “deep-seated desire to have sex with someone of the same sex” has normally ordered desires that he is willing to deny in order to answer his call to the priesthood. Someone who has deep-seated homosexual desires has disordered desires. The Church wants whole, strong men as priests - physically, morally, mentally and psychologically. The Church knows that all of her priests are not perfect but someone who has a fundamentally disordered orientation is going to have already exhibitted a constitution that makes him unsuitable. There are many things that might make a man unsuitable for the priesthood - this is just one of them.

I don’t think the ban on homosexuals came about in order to reduce abuse. If you looked at the total history of the Church, you would probably find more priests who broke their promises by sinning with women than who had homosexual encounters. However, the apparent wide-spread laxity in applying the restriction has led to a generation of priests where there is a greater proportion of men who are not whole.

I understand that this is the Church’s view. I do think there must have been an issue with those who are homosexual who wish to follow the chastity prescriptions deciding they "may as well’ become priests - clearly not a good start. And I know homosexuals as well as heterosexuals who find it hard to keep their minds off sex, and they are probably not the best in most leadership roles, secular or otherwise, if intimate and personal contact is required. But I can’t see why someone who merely likes the idea of having sex with someone of the same sex should not be allowed to be a priest, any more than someone who likes the idea of having sex with someone of the opposite sex.

 

[jmcrae]

I understand that this is the Church’s view. I do think there must have been an issue with those who are homosexual who wish to follow the chastity prescriptions deciding they "may as well’ become priests - clearly not a good start. And I know homosexuals as well as heterosexuals who find it hard to keep their minds off sex, and they are probably not the best in most leadership roles, secular or otherwise, if intimate and personal contact is required. But I can’t see why someone who merely likes the idea of having sex with someone of the same sex should not be allowed to be a priest, any more than someone who likes the idea of having sex with someone of the opposite sex.

It is important that the priest be heterosexual so that he has an orderly and right relationship with the women of his parish, and a right and orderly relationship with the men in his parish. It’s not primarily about having sex, but about having orderly relationships with other people.

Homosexuals - even if they are celibate - simply don’t have the same kinds of relationships (pastoral, business, or friendships) with women and with men as heterosexual men do.

Since the work of the priest is primarily to build relationships, it’s essential that he be heterosexual.

 

[cmforte]

As a thought experiment I asked myself what I would advise the Church to do about the abuse crisis (in the unlikely event advice was sought from me, an unbeliever). Here is what I came up with:

1. 
   *]Do what it is doing. Most of the steps reported to have been taken by Church authorities seem sensible, and reasonably effective at reducing the incidence of abuse as well as allowing victims to come forward and have their experiences recognised.
   *]Recognise that the concepts of sin and forgiveness are religious beliefs that have little to do with the protection of children. Abuse of children is not morally the same as missing Mass on Sunday, even if each is believed to be a mortal sin.
   *]Decree, throughout the church, that absolution is to be delayed until abusers who confess their sin report their crime (not their sin) to the appropriate civil authorities. This will give child victims similar rights to priests who are victims of false allegations under canon 982 Whoever confesses to have denounced falsely an innocent confessor to ecclesiastical authority concerning the crime of solicitation to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is not to be absolved unless the person has first formally retracted the false denunciation and is prepared to repair damages if there are any.
   *]Stop distinguishing in any moral sense between the abuse of children before and after puberty. Children are children.
   *]Raise the acceptable age of marriage in the Church from 14 to at least 16, to prevent a false message being given to people who think it may be OK to have sex with 14 and 15-year olds.
   *]Reduce the number of people who speak on this issue for the Church to very few, and make sure they know what they are talking about. There are too many muddled messages to assure victims and the public that things are improving.
   *]Accept that if you say you are the mystical body of Christ, led by a man who represents God on earth, who is infallible on moral matters, and believe that celibacy is a higher state than being in a sexual relationship, and condemn homosexual sex as an abomination, you will be held to a higher standard than other human institutions. There is no point saying that teachers, or scout leaders, or Mormons are just as bad.
   *]Highlight the cases of victims who still love the Church, but clearly condemn the abuse.
   *] Use language that is clear and direct, that everyone can understand.
   
   Thank you for paying attention to my ideas.

1. 
   I disagree with point 5. Age of consent to marriage is irrelevant when it comes to child molestation. Homosexual acts, rape, breaking a vow of celibacy, homosexual marriage and pre-marrital sex are all sins and therefore already address this subject. Marriage, unless it is forced against one’s will or is a homosexual one (both of which are sins) is irrelevant here.
   
   But to add: I would like to see all the Bishops involved make a public form of penance. Actions speak louder than words.
   
   -Chris

 

[cmforte]

I post from the point of view of someone who is: a victim of childhood sexual abuse, a former police officer, a longtime Catholic forum poster and convert.

This isn’t new. Sexual abuse by priests of women and children has been going on for centuries. Religious have been victimized for, well, as long as their have been female religious, I guess.

Sexual abuse is about power. Abusers gravitate to jobs where they have access and control. They become scoutmasters and therapists, and coaches and clergy, especially priests. The amount of power vested in the ordinary parish priest is extraordinary. And the expectation to obey and accept without question has been indoctrinated into Catholics from childhood.

I don’t the situation would have been exposed without the Internet. These men, as adults, and some women, posted for years and we didn’t take them seriously. But finally, the victims had a way to find one another. They gave each other the courage to act. We thought it was just some anomaly. If you keep thinking this way, if we as Catholics don’t start demanding, yes, that’s right, Catholic laity demanding, the changes that will actually repair the system that by it’s very existence fosters this depravity, then it’ll just continue.

First, the celibate priesthood has to end. Like our Eastern brethren, if called to celibacy, great. Otherwise, these men must be allowed to marry. Second, accountability to the laity. No Parish should ever be run by a priest. Parishes need to be run by nonprofit professionals. Pastors come and go, congregations stay. This is actually a good thing. Priests don’t need to be deciding what chairs to buy for the cafeteria or what color to paint anything or the million commonplace details they decide or trying to be business admins, which most are frankly lousy at.

They are priests and there are areas that should be under their absolute control: all things liturgical, for instance. They should have the time and freedom to visit their flocks, develop social justice for the needy in their Parish, minister spiritually, develop ongoing studies for us in Scripture and catechism, find ways for all parishioners to be involved beyond Mass attendance.

But the power trip has to end. The money, the physical plant, all need to be handled by professionals and Parish volunteers who work with whoever the Pastor is. Once these men have wives and families, they will find the need for the self-indulgent recompense of having their own little fiefdoms unnecessary. And we will suddenly be flooded with priestly candidates from among whom the Church can chose only the most qualified.

And put the screens back in the confessionals. They were put there for this exact reason.

Until you get rid of the celibacy and the power structure, it will never end.

I only disagree with your point about celibacy. I think it would be great if priests could marry, and I predict a flood of much needed priests if this came to fruition. However, celibacy has nothing to do with pedophilia. Even the EOC, who’s priests can marry, has its own sex abuse scandal, and what about all the married men that prey on thier step-children, their kid’s friends, or even their own kids?

-Chris