Diarmuid Martin’s Marquette Speech
In response to requests on another thread, here is Archbishop Diarmuid Martin’s Marquette Lecture from April 4. It’s been noted on that other thread, there’s no mention of consequences for cover-ups by bishops. But for many of us, it is the cover-up that is the moral core of the crisis.
Any organization that allows access to kids will draw pedophiles. Simple as that–they’re sick, not stupid. Boy Scouts, Little League, elementary schools, you name it. The problem with the Church’s response is the near-lockstep way in which leaders shuffled pedophiles and abusers of teens from place to place, and gave them unrestricted access to kids over and over, and responded to people raising questions about those abusers with lies, obfuscations and clever legal tactics again and again. Sure, there are also tales of cover-ups in cases of abuse in other churches, schools, etc., but most of those tales seem to be anecdotal, not reflecting an almost uniform culture of cover-up like we’ve seen in the church, diocese after diocese, nation after nation. For example, I’ve never heard a school board say, when a pedophile is discovered, “well, it’s not like we’re the only group with pedophiles.” (At the time of the first explosion of the crisis in Boston, I recall one leader of another denomination who, when asked if that church had a problem with pedophiles, answered simply, “Yes. Three. They’re in jail.”) Clearly the Dallas Charter (also without penalties for those who cover up for pedophiles,) doesn’t really do the trick, given the alacrity with which bishops have ignored its requirements, (viz. Chicago, Philly, and who knows where else.)
Martin calls for a restorative justice approach to the mess. While that’s a nifty idea, he suggests that bishops can be the mediators of such a process, and I think that’s naive at this point. So, I suppose, since the people of the Church (laity, clerics, leaders) seem unwilling to take any effective action against leaders who covered up for pedophiles, we must again wait for the secular government to do our work for us. Or is Martin’s lecture a good start for a larger conversation? How might we, the whole Church, proceed from here?
“Any organization that allows access to kids will draw pedophiles.”
Are you saying that a pedophile will knowingly decide to pretend to have a vocation to the priesthood and undergo seven years of formation solely to have the opportunity to sexually abuse children once he is ordained? Really? I think becoming a priest is a wee bit more complex than offering to serve as Troop Leader in the Boy Scouts.
I think The Abp. should certainly have mentioned the Bishops being accountable -remember he called on several colleagues to resign, and BXVI refused their resignations.
I thought his speech was valuable for pointing out how many “did not notice” the abuse – does this still go on?- and his underscoring how the problem of clericalism not only persists bu tmay be growing.
And, that clericalism is much bound up with a problem in the Church thast makes power/control over persons such an occasion to offend.
Finally, going forward, getting all the truth out instead of protecting the institution is a necessary precondition to genuinely dealing with the problem.
p –
You’re assuming that all the motives of all the priests for becoming priests are worthy ones. The problem is that pediphiles *do* choose to go where the children are available. That’s why some become Scout masters, etc., which combine authority, built in respect, and opportunity for the sick perpetrators. In other words, some priests are mentally sick and were sick when they were seminaries. The seminaries now recognize this and apparently many are working hard to eliminate those who, though perhaps well-meaning otherwise, don’t belong in the priesthood,
“The seminaries now recognize this and apparently many are working hard to eliminate those who, though perhaps well-meaning otherwise, don’t belong in the priesthood.”
I agree with you, Ann. The Vatican’s issuance in 2005 of “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders” was a necessary step in cleaning up the sexual abuse scandal.
Attention tends to focus on coverup by superiors and officials who enabled and concealed abusive priests. Another segment of the clerical community with a role in the systemic coverup was described in a finding of the first of the three Philadelphia Grand Jury investigations (2003):
(p.8) “Finding 10. Many non-offender priests have remained silent in the face of clear evidence that a brother priest is sexually molesting a minor, and in some cases have actually covered up the abuse. The Archbishop and his appointed administrative managers foster this silence in order to avoid scandal in the Church and do not encourage priests to report suspected abusers.”
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2003_09_25_First_Philadelphia_Grand_Jury_Report.pdf
It is probably unlikely that “non-offending” contributors to the coverups will be identified unless somehow in further investigations, but the Grand Jury finding suggests that the clerical values and priorities surrounding criminal sexual abuse of youngsters were hardly limited to the relatively few individuals publicly named as responsible. It would be of interest to know how many of the 400 priests Cardinal Rigali recently met with “privately” were non-offenders complicit in his Archdiocesan coverup. Who is qualified to do the restoration?
Ms. Fullam, thanks for your post. Some of the response by faithful Catholic laypeople has taken place in the secular realm. There are Catholic lawyers, judges, district attorneys, legislators, social workers, therapists, reporters, etc., who have taken action individually. Collectively, the laity of the Archdiocese of Boston—in massive numbers—stopped giving to the Cardinal’s Appeal when Cardinal Law refused initially to step down. That Appeal is, in effect, the Archdiocese’s operating budget, so it was a classic example of “hitting where it hurts” that helped lead to Law’s ouster soon after.
All of which is (in my view) woefully adequate, nonetheless I think there’s some value in recognizing when we have done (at least a part of) the right thing.
Lisa – NCR published an article today from John Allen about Martin’s talk. Let’s just say that Martin is caught between a rock and a hard place but at least is trying to speak out and offer an approach. Per Allen and other reports, Martin does not have the support of other bishops or some priests. Yet, by and large, catholics and Irish see him as a guiding light. So, would suggest that his restorative justice approach would include the very steps that you have called for – there would be no restorative justice if episcopal cover-up, etc. is not named and dealt with.
Earlier reports suggest that your blog theme may be an agenda item at the June USCCB meeting – a reponse to the Philadelphia situation, etc.
Most knowledgeable folks admit that the Dallas Charter has significant gaps – never addressed episcopal misdeeds and accountability; and that its basic approach to priests can, at times, deny the rights of a cleric.
So, all current approaches continue to keep the bishop in control of the process – he names boards; he names policy; he decides how and when to act on “credible” accusations, etc. Yet, the historical record strongly indicates that the issue starts and ends with incompetent and unaccountable bishops. And you are basically asking them to “police” themselves?
If anything to date, it has clearly been established that the only process that works is to report all accusations to civil authorities, period.
Here is an angry response from Richard Sipe on your points/questions:
link – http://www.richardsipe.com/reports/2011-02-22-us-bishops.htm
High Points:
- “The conclusions of every grand jury are similar:
The Catholic Church preaches purity and tolerates sexual abuse;
Bishops and church workers deceive victims;
The church cannot be trusted to deal with sexual abuse by its priests and bishops;
Bishops, cardinals and superiors hide priest abusers in other dioceses or other countries;
Diocesan officials hide or destroy documents that record knowledge of priest abusers;
Cardinals, bishops and superiors obstruct investigations whenever and however they can;
They fail to make reports to responsible agencies and parishes;
Bishops use mental health professionals that are not objective in the assessment of clergy abusers;
Review Boards set up supposedly to help victims, “betray them;”
Church officials use lawyers to intimidate victims rather than pastoral procedures to comfort and heal victims;
Diocesan “investigations” of priest abusers are negligible, bogus or sham;
The church fails to recognize the seriousness of harm to victims;
It allows offending priests to remain in ministry;
Many known offenders serve in church offices;
Offenders remain without adequate supervision;
Many priest offenders not yet reported are still active in ministry;
When impartial citizens examine the Catholic Church they react: “As terrible as all the criminal depravity was [in the Philadelphia Archdiocese] the grand jurors were just as appalled by the cynical and callous handling of clergy abuse by the Philadelphia hierarchy, up to and including the Cardinal.” (Page 111)
The time for apologies and words is over. The Roman Catholic Church is sexually corrupt.
Victims of clergy abuse should not go to diocesan officials. Report to civil authorities. Church authorities cannot be trusted.”
Sorry, my usual response is: “until a catholic bishop goes to jail, the USCCB will not change”
That man may be a bishop, but I love and admire him anyway. Who can be unmoved by someone who really believes in the power of truth?
All institutions have an innate tendency to protect themselves and to hide their dirty laundry. We have to learn that the truth has a power to set free which half-truths do not have. The first condition for restorative justice is that all parties are willing to tell the truth and to take ownership of the truth, even when the truth is unpleasant. As I said at a recent liturgy of lament in Dublin: “The truth will set us free, but not in a simplistic way. The truth hurts. The truth cleanses not like smooth designer soap but like a fire that burns and hurts and lances”.
Bill deH. –
I complained about Abp. Martin’s not attending to the cover-up problem. But I do have a great deal of respect for his admitting the seriousness of the sexual abuse. That is a huge first step to healing, and I’m sure it was a terribly difficult one for someone who has been part of that sexually sick culture for so long.
How many of us would have done what he has? Action taken singly is immeasurably more difficult than action taken with others. His courage in speaking out has apparently isolated him from that culture, making him something of a pariah. He deserves our prayers.
“The culture of clericalism has to be analysed and addressed. Were there factors of a clerical culture which somehow facilitated disastrous abusive behaviour to continue for so long?” D. Martin
Yes, there were and are factors of clerical culture in play, specifically the bishops’ narcissism, grandiosity and denial of their culpability in criminally endangering children.
Mary Gail Frawley O’Dea, the psychologist who spoke in Dallas in 2002, has a whole chapter on clerical narcissism in her brilliant book Perversion of Power: “Instead of communicating guilt, shame or remorse” bishops portray themselves as humble bearers of a cross of unearned rebuke.
“Under the circumstances, that self image depicted the narcissistic sense of moral superiority and false humility endemic to clericalism.”
She quotes bishops who consider the abuse scandal as that nice abstraction,
“the passion of the church” and who else but themselves as the “victims.” This is the abysmal level of clarity they exhibit.
In an unpublished paper, Eugene Kennedy nails the point: “The astounding presumption of their ontological superiority explains to us as it justifies to them their condescending and demeaning style of relating to their people, treating them as children to be set right in their ways…”
“these attitudes and gestures … telegraph their overarching, sexually triumphant message: We have power and you do not and we enjoy using it over you.” Is Kennedy the only one to find an erotic charge in such behavior?
That may be strong wording, but it resonates with a survivor whom McCormack is trying to ‘out’ right now. It’s part of his intimidation tactics, which go back to 2002-3 by the way. The survivor feels punished for questioning authority, “just as the priest who sexually abused him as a child coerced him into complying with his deviant sexual demands.” In his mind, there is an emotionally equivalent ‘bend over’ feature to McCormack’s attack. http://votf.org/featured/17408 with link to all legal documents.
It will take authority exercised from the outside, by courts and legislatures, to force bishops to wake up. The genuine threat of criminal prosecution should hang over every chancery. Since bishops have shown themselves incapable and unwilling even to consider their own personal responsibility for enabling predators, (from Benedict on down) others must act.
Bringing that pressure to bear is our responsibility in all this, since bishops have shown themselves singularly incapable of self-examination. The centers of power need to shift to bring about true accountability and reform.
I repeat the conclusion of a law enforcement official familiar with cases all over the country. After reading the latest Phila grand jury report, it was really stunning to this official how similar the approach to these cases are, despite the geographic distances between dioceses. Conclusion: it really smacks of a coordinated effort. Reread this, and ponder the implications.
Also, what will the uSCCB do at this late date?
The NYT editorial said maybe in June.
As a group, they exemplify the problems Sipe points to and their leadership, put kindly, is desultory.
I have a very slight acquaintance with a bishop, who in spite of the scandal is still a beloved priest. I suspect if enough people told him what they think, he might criticize the really dreadful bishops at the upcoming USCCB meeting. (Maybe he already criticized them privately — he seems to be that sort of person.).
More and more I’m thinking that I ought to write a very respectful letter to him telling him what I think before the June meeting and hand-deliver it to him. And I’m thinking that everyone who knows a bishop ought to do the same thing. It might make no difference, but since there have been a a couple of bishops who have criticized Philadelphia a bit publicly, I’m sure there must be others who agree. And the laity and lower clergy ought to give them our support. I don’t know my archbishop at all, but since he was one of the two who spoke out, I really should write to thank him for it. I’m sure it took courage.
My point is that we have an obligation to do what we can to support the decent bishops even if the results are negligible. They deserve our support.
Bill deHaas has it right:
The time for apologies and words is over. The Roman Catholic Church is sexually corrupt.
Victims of clergy abuse should not go to diocesan officials. Report to civil authorities. Church authorities cannot be trusted.”
Sorry, my usual response is: “until a catholic bishop goes to jail, the USCCB will not change”
I believe that about half of the problem was created because of the Culture of Therapy that so permeates contemporary culture. Because Church authorities bought into the Culture of Therapy, they treated errant priests as victims of the “sickness” of lusting after children, and sent the to “therapy centers” to be “treated” for their sickness. But the consensus seems to be that there is no “cure”. To compound the problem, the Church authorities then accepted that the “victims” were cured and sent them back out to another parish, and of course we all know the aftermath of that fiasco. And of course it didn’t end there, because the authorities, upon realizing that the “victims” were not cured after all, did their criminal cover-ups. The lust for children cannot be “cured’, only controlled.
There is a piece in today’s Wall Street Journal headed” Vatican Issues Financial Rules” describing new measures that have been devised to ensure that financial dealings at the Vatican will be more transparent. The crusher is that they have created a watchdog outfit to monitor the tens of thousands of euros flowing through the Vatican Bank but “Vatican Institutions ranging from its bank to its doctrinal offices are required to report only those transactions that they themselves deem suspicious.” Sound familiar?
Good catch, Susan. Very familiar, and very suspicious. Big PR push; then comes the hook.
We have USCCB audits of abuse allegations, but in the fine print, you see excluded from any reports, those abused by religious brothers, seminarians not later ordained, and mentally handicapped whose abuse did not begin before their 18th birthdays. (Now, I feel like a broken record about this.) The so-called auditors cannot see personnel files or other confidential materials.
We have zero tolerance, except for bishops.
We have Review Boards, but bishops determine what they see.
A diocese was in compliance with the Dallas Charter if it had just selected a prevention training program, much less implemented it. Movable goals over the years guaranteed full compliance, even when full compliance did not exist.
The USCCB Admin C’tee’s answer to Phil: we will really, really enforce a Charter full of holes; trust us. (We still have all the power.)
Link to the piece Susan quotes from above: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704530204576236740766160636.html
The article appears to be open to the general reading public.
How do you say “smoke and mirrors” in Latin?
In Belgium a year ago, Bishop Vangheluwe of Bruges admitted publicly that he had sexually abused his nephew for years. (An attempt by Cardinal Daneels to cover up the abuse until V. retired with honor had failed because the target of the cardinal’s pleadings had prudently recorded the conversation.) V. resigned and disappeared. Statutes of limitations preclude criminal charges.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has decided on the appropriate disposition – the geographic cure. This is familiar from the Ratzinger treatment of Fr. H. in Munich 30 years ago and countless cases here and abroad since then. The bishop has been ordered by the CDF to leave Belgium for treatment. Belgians are reported to be unimpressed. As long as the Vatican continues to trivialize such criminal behavior, the notion of restorative or other justice within the Church by the Pope’s underlings is a pipe dream.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/bishops-were-warned-abusive-priests/01/pope-paul-vi-may-have-bee_n_521284.html
Let me try the first link one more time:
POPE PAUL VI MAY HAVE BEEN WARNED OF PEDOPHILE PRIESTS IN 1963:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/01/pope-paul-vi-may-have-bee_n_521284.html
Joseph – this is very old, old news. Original letters and meeting reports between Rev. Fitzgerald and Paul VI:
http://www.richardsipe.com/2009-09/Father.Gerald.Fitzgerald.pdf
Some points:
“……Fitzgerald gave reports to three popes, consulted with bishops from around the world and interacted with troubled clergy many that had alcohol and sexual problems.”
“Hence, leaving them on duty or wandering from diocese to diocese is contributing to scandal or at least to the approximate danger of scandal….We find it quite common, almost universal with the handful of men we have seen in the past five years who have been under similar charges – we find it quite universal that they seem to be lacking in appreciation of the serious situation. As a class they expect to bound back like tennis balls on the court of priestly activity. I myself would be inclined to favor laicization for any priest, upon objective evidence, for tampering with the virtue of the young, my argument being, from this point onward the charity to the Mystical Body should take precedence over charity to the individual and when a man has so far fallen away from the purpose of the priesthood the very best that should be offered him is his Mass in the seclusion of a monastery. Moreover, in practice, real conversions will be found to be extremely rare. Many bishops believe men are never free from the approximate danger once they have begun. Hence, leaving them on duty or wandering from diocese to diocese is contributing to scandal or at least to the approximate danger of scandal.” (Sept. 12, 1952, )”
“1962: Fr. Gerald had been in communication with the Congregation of the Holy Office, now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. At the request of the prefect, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, he prepared a report dated April 11, 1962. In this report his discussed the various types of sexual problems of priests, including sexual abuse of minors:
“On the other hand, where a priest for many years has fallen into repeated sins which are considered, generally speaking, as abnormal (abuse of nature) such as homosexuality and most especially the abuse of children, we feel strongly that such unfortunate priests should be given the alternative of a retired life within the protection of monastery walls or complete laicization.”
”
“Fr. Gerald had a private audience with Pope Paul VI (1963-1978) and on August 27, 1963 submitted a report to the pope at the pope‟s request. Concerning priests who sexually abuse minors he said to the pope:
“Problems that arise from abnormal, homosexual tendencies are going to call for, not only spiritual, but understanding psychiatric counseling. Personally I am not sanguine of the return of priests to active duty who have been addicted to abnormal practices, especially sins with the young…..Where there is indication of incorrigibility, because of the tremendous scandal given, I would most earnestly recommend total laicization.”
“1972:
Dr. Eugene Kennedy Dr. Victor Heckler published a psychological study of U.S. priests commissioned by the U.S. Bishops‟ Conference. His findings concurred with those of Baars and Terruwe and concluded that American priests were
7% psychologically and emotionally developed
18% psychologically and emotionally developing
66% underdeveloped
8% maldeveloped.
Kennedy and Heckler stated that the underdeveloped and maldeveloped priests (74%) had not resolved psychosexual problems and issues usually worked through in adolescence.
“Sexuality is, in other words, non-integrated into the lives of underdeveloped priests and many of them function at a pre-adolescent or adolescent level of psychosexual growth.”
Sorry, this is background and foundational information for anyone who is truly trying to understand the crisis in our church.
I find it objectionable when a Dublin archbishop bemoans the lack of theological culture in Ireland, considering how little use the Irish bishops ever made of the numerous good theologians they had at their disposal. In an effort to revamp biblical culture the Archdiocese distributed St Luke’s Gospel free of charge — but in a dress-up formal full of church images of stained glass windows etc., in fact reeking of the clericalist milieu that stifles real biblical awareness.
Bill de Haas shows clearly that in 1962 (and in Crimen Sollicitationis) the issue of sex with minors was subsumed under the issue of homosexuality, and the latter treated as the worst crime, a crime against nature. After the Council many gay priests acted out their sexuality, and like the Vatican did not make a distinction between sex with adults and sex with minors, failing to take into account the vulnerable position of the latter. Nor did they make a distinction between sexual morals and the deontology governing professional relationships. ‘Repeated sins which are considered, generally speaking, as abnormal (abuse of nature) such as homosexuality and most especially the abuse of children’ sums up the moral perspective in play. The priest who spoke to Paul VI in 1963 is not any more enlightened: ‘Problems that arise from abnormal, homosexual tendencies are going to call for, not only spiritual, but understanding psychiatric counseling. Personally I am not sanguine of the return of priests to active duty who have been addicted to abnormal practices, especially sins with the young…..Where there is indication of incorrigibility, because of the tremendous scandal given, I would most earnestly recommend total laicization.’ It is unsurprising that one of the most decisive responses of the Vatican to the abuse scandal was a document banning homosexually oriented people from entering seminaries. Vatican documents continue to describe homosexual orientation as intrinsically disordered, a proclivity to moral evil, and an anomaly. This prevents rational discussion of the moral issues.
One thing that will always stand in the way of addressing this problem is the repeated insistence in characterizing it as a “pedophile” priest problem. It is not primariliy a “pedophile” problem, and it was and will never honestly be addressed so long as people insist on calling it that.
What a marvelous reflection by Archbishop Martin. The Holy See would do well to put him in charge of abuse cases worldwide – and give him the teeth to make changes.
I’d like to call attention to this passage from his notes:
“That first case that I had to deal with led me to have serious misgivings regarding the earlier examination of files, which I was told was done rapidly over the previous Christmas period by three priests. My first decision then was to have all files re-examined by an independent outside expert asking him to verify if there were any indications in any personnel files regarding possible worrying behaviour by priests. … The National Office for the Safeguarding of Children in the Catholic Church in Ireland has no powers other than moral compulsion to demand compliance and thus depends on the complete voluntary cooperation of the Church authorities. A Church with moral conviction should however have no need to rely on moral compulsion. Only the truth sets us free. … I decided then to widen my investigation of files beyond personnel files. Files were discovered in the most unlikely of places; at times there were files on a particular priest in up to ten different diocesan offices or with Auxiliary Bishops or even retired officials… My requests to retrieve all existing documents on child sexual abuse from current and former diocesan officials went at times unanswered even after repeated requests. In one case I saw diocesan documents for the first time when I was asked by the Government Commission of Investigation to comment on them, having been told that the Commission had made discovery of these documents from a former diocesan official. This dispersal of information and the lack of communication between various authorities in the diocese contributed very significantly to the misreading of the seriousness of the behaviour of some offenders … I tell these events not to re-open history, but to illustrate just how difficult it is to bring an institution around to the conviction that the truth must be told. All institutions have an innate tendency to protect themselves and to hide their dirty laundry. We have to learn that the truth has a power to set free which half-truths do not have. The first condition for restorative justice is that all parties are willing to tell the truth and to take ownership of the truth, even when the truth is unpleasant. ”
These anecdotes have the ring of truth about them. Archbishop Martin was in the same position that many bishops worldwide have found themselves in: coming into a diocese in which they have little or no personal history, and attempting to steer the vast and entrenched diocesan bureaucracy away from the self-serving practices that until then had always obtained.
Bishops can’t undo the awful history of the dioceses that are bestowed upon them, histories that unfolded before the bishops themselves arrived. But they do have the responsibility to reform their bureaucracies.
And they have the responsibility to tell the unvarnished truth.
And they have the responsibility to work for restorative justice.
“It is not primariliy a “pedophile” problem, and it was and will never honestly be addressed so long as people insist on calling it that.”
I agree. First, there are two (at least) ways in which the crisis is not purely a pedophilia problem. One, as I noted in the original post, is that pedophile priests were enabled to continue their abuse when bishops shuffled them from parish to parish, diocese to diocese. Sometimes this was done with the knowledge of the bishops receiving them, other times by lying to other bishops. This practice was so widespread as to reflect, ISTM, either a reflex culture of silence or outright conspiracy. Charity requires me to assume the former, until shown otherwise.
Second is this: true pedophiles are those who molest pre-pubescent kids. They tend to have many more victims than ephebophiles, and most understand themselves to be straight, at least when they have sex with adults. They tend to molest any kid they can, regardless of sex. Most of the abuse cases in the Church were described as “ephebophilia,” men having sex with post-pubescent boys. Now this is not always the case of a man seducing a 16 year-old who looked 20, but sometimes a man attacking a 13 year old boy. There seem to be variants of this problem–most of us would see a man having sex with a 13 year old as clearly pathological, while a 24 year old recent ordinand hitting on a 16 year old falls closer into the category of misplaced “romance” on the part of a developmentally-immature man–still wrong, still abusive, still criminal, but psychopathologically not the same thing. These latter cases tend more often to track with orientation–immature, repressed gay men acting out when they have the chance.
The “right” in the Church has made this the casus belli for war against gay priests. And when the 2005 document barring gay men from ordination was released, there was essentially no response from priests, gay or straight, thus confirming the right’s view. The “left” in the Church has basically said “gay priests are not more likely to abuse than straight priests.”
There’s a logical fallacy at work. Consider: the overwhelming majority of rapists are men. At the same time, not all men are rapists. To label all men as rapists is deeply unfair. Most (but by no means all) ephebophiles are homosexual. But that doesn’t mean that gay priests are abusers any more than all men are rapists. Heck, take this line of thought to its logical conclusion–by and large, sexual abuse of kids is a male problem. Not entirely, but very high percentage of the time. If we want to keep sexual abusers out of the priesthood, we should stop ordaining men. Or we could all take a deep breath and realize that the problem of abuse in the Church is a problem of institutional secrecy, mismanagement, (sometimes deliberate) deceit, the well-documented high rate of psychosexual immaturity among seminarians and priests and sexual abuse, and we should work to address both the management issues and the task of keeping abusers out of the priesthood.
In today’s NYT, a full page ad from Bill donahue.
Homosexuals and greedy lawyers are the problem.
Sounds like he and the Abp. are on the same (anti-NYT) page again.
A depressing (IMO) picture in New York for the Church.
“–most of us would see a man having sex with a 13 year old as clearly pathological, while a 24 year old recent ordinand hitting on a 16 year old falls closer into the category of misplaced “romance” on the part of a developmentally-immature man–”
Lisa –
Does this mean that the “immature” ordinand hits on a boy because the ordinand is just immature or because he’s homosexual or both? My understanding is that homosexuality is not a matter of being immature — it’s an orientation that starts early, whether or not the boy is emotionally mature or not. In other words homosexuality is not defined by immaturity at all.
What I’m really wondering is what the bishops mean by “immaturity” in seminarians and priests.
Ann,
Immature people come in all orientations. The same straight immature 24 year old guy who “falls in love” with a 16 year old girl is much more likely to be treated as “making a mistake” than “get this guy out of ministry.” Psychosexual immaturity is said to be higher among seminarians (see data link in this or a nearby thread,) than in the gen. population. Cause or effect? Hard to say, and likely both. But certainly not only a gay phenomenon. I know a priest who likes to get naked with (adult) women, engage in sex play, but never, never does he see this as relational, but only “being himself.” Which self? The 15 year old boy inside the decades-older man? He does formation for his community. Great.
The implication of the bishops’ doc. on ordination of homosexual men, OTOH, seems to reflect a Freudian definition of homosexuality as indicating immaturity. Not really in synch with the rest of contemporary psychology. Tony Anatrella, a consultant for the doc., is a Freudian, and wrote a more clearly Freudian doc (or interview?) at the time that 2005 doc. was released.
Coda to the above. One of the curiosities of the no-gay-priests doc. is this: in general, when the magisterium speaks of sex, it means sex acts, not orientation. So “deep-seated homosexual tendencies can be read as “deep-seated tendency to act out homosexually.” Logically, then, “deep-seated heterosexual tendencies” would also be grounds for denying ordination. But the doc. only addresses homosexual tendencies. Why? Either the doc. is about keeping homosexual men, mature or immature, inclined to act out or perfect in continence, out of the priesthood, (Then-USCCB president Bishop Skylstad’s interpretation denied this,) OR it is based in a psychological framework that sees homosexual men as immature or incapable of celibacy by definition.
I am tired of 15 year old boys in roman collars making excuses for themselves or worse, having excuses made for them. They are using our resources, they are living off the land, they don’t have any recognizable standards and they are nothing but a drain. Basta! They are NOT priests in any conventional sense of the word—they are not leading, they are not serving, they are hiding behind a title. And the bishops who don’t supervise this—their name is legion—are complicit. But maybe they’re 15 years old too.
“OR it is based in a psychological framework that sees homosexual men as immature or incapable of celibacy by definition.”
Hi, Lisa, I believe it does see them this way – it’s pretty explicit about it. I recall you were very helpful once long ago in helping us understand what is meant by that strange phrase “affective maturity”.
Lisa –
Thanks for unravelling this. Yes, if the bishops are Freudians they do define homosexuality as immaturity. (Ironic, that, given how the official Church used to utterly despise Freud.) It’s my understanding that Freud’s whole theory of homosexuality has been mostly abandoned. Poor bishops, always 50 years behind the times.
And isn’t it unfortunate how they misuse the words “deep-seated tendency to act out” as de facto meaning more than just a tendency. But what can you expect. They’re talking Vaticanese whose first rule seems to be: obfuscate!
Habing noted Mr. Donahue’s full page ad ( a resonance of the posture of Abp. Dolan?), I cite today’s NCR editorial, including its echoing of ABP. Martin that justice can only happen if the full truth is known.
No mention of homosexuality or “greasy” lawyers there.; what webs we spin.
I am tired of 15 year old boys in roman collars making excuses for themselves or worse, having excuses made for them.
When I see a recently ordained priest looking hardly older than my teenage son, I must say that my heart melts. On the other hand I can hardly take them seriously during their homilies about life. They may try to talk about human love, but what do they know about it, really? They have not been parents, they have not had a spouse, they have not yet been in love, they have not lost a parent. They hardly know anything about love.
On the other hand I am very conscious that they are still in their formative years, and it is a puzzle to me how I can help them mature.
Molly & Claire: dont’ forget that these “15 year old” priesty boyz are EXACTLY what the old pre-V2 minor seminary system used to crank out! Psycho-sexually immature. Full of the pap they were fed about being ontologically special. Called “Father” by people 3 times their age. Etc. The entire system was and remains geared to fostering this other-worldly concept of Men About Others who then think that their words are law and full of wisdom.
How can we help them mature? How do parents help their children mature? Challenge, correct and, because many of them are madly in love with Latin, remind them of this: “Nunquam stercus” (No more BS).
What did Abp. Martin say about seminarians? And what does your seminary turn out?
I stil think the wisdom of Fr.Cozzens(who has been there) is quite relevant, though he’l lbe fobbed offas another “liberal” by the radical Orthodox.
Thanks for those sane reflections, Lisa Fullam.
More out of Belgium today: the disgraced bishop there acknowledges abusin ga nephew for some time, but says it wasn’t pedophilia(no penetration.)
Talk about immaturity and lack of insight!
Meanwhile the indubitable mMr. Donahue will republish his lengthy ad this week in the Chicago Tribune (noting he has lots of support from the hierarchy and others.)
More deflection from the problems raised by the Abp. here at getting at the truth by blaming homosexuals and lawyers.
Talk about lack of maturity……
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0415/breaking38.html
“He left Belgium last week under Vatican orders to seek “spiritual and psychological treatment” abroad and Belgian media say he is now in a French monastery. The Vatican has said the final decision on disciplining him lies with Pope Benedict.”
“ In both cases, his abuse occurred years ago and can no longer be prosecuted, a justice official told Belgian radio.”
This is not a case of cover-up by a bishop but of sexual abuse by a bishop. Still, this gives us another chance to understand in more detail how the Vatican works regarding sexual abuse. When is laicization warranted? What disciplinary measures exist for bishops? When and why should a bishop be treated differently from a priest? How does the Vatican justice system work for wayward bishops? Does the fact that someone cannot be prosecuted by secular justice influence the Vatican justice system?
June 2010: “THE POPE has criticised raids on the Catholic Church by Belgian police investigating sex abuse claims. Pope Benedict described the raids as “surprising and deplorable” yesterday and demanded that the church be allowed a role in investigating abusers within its ranks.” — Well, here’s a chance for all to see what happens when the Vatican is in charge.
The self same bishop has now left the monastery in France and the superior is referring questions to the apostolic nuncio in Brussels.