Bruges Bishop Resigns
The BBC reports today that Roger Vangheluwe, bishop of Bruges, Belgium, has resigned because of his own sexual abuse of a boy, abuse which continued into his episcopacy. The report also mentions another bishop who resigned last year, admitting abuse, and lists those bishops who have resigned for reasons other than direct sexual abuse themselves.
It strikes me that there are really three different phenomena going on: sexual abuse of minors (itself divisible into subgroups according to the age of the victims,) physical abuse of minors, and the cover-up of sexual and physical abuse of minors by Church leaders.
I fear that without careful parsing:
1. there will continue to be much sound and fury about direct abuse of minors, but little will be done to address the institutional structures of power that encouraged, enabled and enforced the cover-up.
2. we will fail to recognize the differing factors that lead to different kinds of abuse. For example, invoking the inclusion of women in authorized leadership in the Church as “the solution” fails to recognize that women as well as men participate in abuse of personal power, while women are much less likely to be sexual abusers than men. Also, questions around celibacy and clerical culture are related to the three kinds of abuse in different ways. More subtlety is needed.
Also, I wonder if any of the US bishops who were promoted to their own dioceses as a reward for their faithful participation in the cover-up will be shamed into resigning by the example of others who have done so.
The core of the institutional problem, I believe, is the cover-up and the institutional structures that fostered it. Even canning bishops who abuse won’t address that fundamental issue. It’s like removing the damaged wood from a house without doing anything about the termites that did the damage–the effect is fixed, the cause is ignored.
Elsewhere David Gibson has a thread on penance and its meanings in cases like this. Doesn’t true penance also demand an avoidance of the occasions of sin? And isn’t it by now clear that the structures of church governance, whatever may be their qualities in an ideal sense, in our all too human world have themselves become, along with the clericalism they encourage, occasions of sin? Isn’t it they that have made possible, even encouraged, the prevarications, deceptions, and coverups that lie at the heart of this crisis?
That might be a starting point for the kind of institutional change Lisa Fullam points to. But just as it is very difficult to cure those who refuse to recognize that they are ill, it will continue to be even more difficult to get those in charge of the institutions to recognize the limitations and vulnerabilities of those institutions. You can tell an alcoholic that his intake of whiskey will certainly kill him until you’re blue in the face, but if he won’t admit to himself that he really is an alcoholic, he’ll go on drinking until the end comes.
I do believe the concept of ‘culture’ is at the heart of what needs to be examined.
I’d like to see a panel of experts — historians, psychologists, sociologists, among others — do a thorough cultural assessment of the Catholic Church — institution and people, local and universal — that would identify not only the artifacts and espoused values but, more important, the underlying tacit assumptions (the unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs, etc.) of various participants in the system.
As Edgar Schein and others have noted, culture is to people what water is to fish. Much of it is invisible, out of conscious thought.
What deeply troubles me is the current pope’s hell-bent effort to reimpose/reinforce various cultural elements that were/are at the heart of an institution whose ugly underbelly has been exposed only in recent years, thanks to independent investigative journalists and a media free of official church control.
Good post and comments.
I agree, the issue is the ‘culture.’ Among the many causes of this complicated problem, I would name the SECULARIZATION of church structures of leadership and authority by appropriating secular, worldly, monarchical models. I purposely call it secularization because of the irony that the a centerpiece of conservative reforms (or unreforms) of the liturgy is recovery of the sacred and elimination of secular elements coming from contemporary culture.
Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB
I would say it is the “culture of secrecy,” which has a long history with the Church, sometimes for good valid reasons (persecutions of the Church which wanted to hide who was a Christian from authorities so as to prevent their execution), sometimes for ill ones (the scandal). It is a difficult situation, but I think the issue is that this culture helped shape the way many acted, and we see how what might have been good for a limited use, became a temptation to use for ill ends as well.
The culture and structure of this church have been created, fostered and maintained principally by those with the most to gain by its continuance as is. They will not “vote” to change what benefits them the most. Canon law is theirs to define and enforce. The rules, rubrics, restrictions are established by those who benefit the most. Even the documents of Vatican II, when read carefully, go out of their ways to perpetuate the hierarchical nature of the establishment.
Maybe the admission of dissident Anglicans into this church might begin to cause some change. They are, of course, used to the House of Laity having an alleged equal say in this selection of bishops and they also have some say in deciding who will become and remain their vicar/rector/priest-in-charge.
However, I am not going to hold my breath in that respect.
Retaining the structural and management disenfranchisement of the laity in this church will only result in an image of change and an illusion of reform.
This Belgian bishop appears to have hsd contact and previously has expressed sorrow to his victim. Like many other recent abusers and cover -up bishops, he should have been able to see that eventually there was a very good possiblity of public exposure and all the resultant scandal. . But none of these abusers/cover-uppers ever seem to be willing to privately ask their victim for forgiveness and then immediately resign and go quietly away as proof of repentence for their behavior . They hang on and on and on. Some are subjected to blackmail. Do these old men at the Vatican, those who are the cover-uppers, think that they are so important that the Christ message will flounder without them? Is not such ego sinful in itself? We have secular examples every day of leaders going away… having had enough or even going before exposure. What’s with the hierarchal hangers-on???
Lisa – excellent post and you make good nuanced distinctions. The key issue that continues to not be faced is the structure of clericalism and episcopal omission/commission – look at all of the different public reactions just this week alone.
Here is the best statement that I have seen to date in terms of confronting the core issue – from Bishop Moriarity in Ireland whose resignation was just accepted by Rome:
“I was part of the Dublin hierarchy “prior to when correct child protection policies and procedures were implemented.”
“I accept that from the time I became an auxiliary bishop, I should have challenged the prevailing culture,” he said. “I apologize to all survivors and their families.”
The “prevailing culture” – the core issue. Admire Moriarity for his stance, action. He has not only talked the talk but walked the walk. How many else will follow in his footsteps? Not many unless forced.
Then, we have John Allen who continues to try to spin a story about Hoyos vs. Ratzinger with JPII seemly mindless of the whole issue? What does the ordiinary catholic feel, hear, and see when Moriarity resigns because he did not contest the prevailing culture – what does this say about Ratzinger? He suddenly found the light or do we believe Allen that he has always tried to change the prevailing culture – the few documents that have come to light don’t seem to suppor that arguement?
To your last point – things do not seem to have heated up enough to impact recent and current episcopal appointments – examples: Paprocki (canon lawyer who blamed the whole crisis on the devil?); Gomez (Opus Dei with a very blemished record in terms of abuse, cover up, etc.); Listecki (last person who should have been appointed to a new see); you could go on and on.
So, do we magically draw a line in the sand – those bishops who now understand the crisis and are taking positive steps will be excused from any past personal failings, history, etc. Why hasn’t the Pope asked for the resignations of some of his top curial figures – Hoyos, Bertone, Sodano, etc. Why is Brady still in his position – unlike Moriarity who failed to fight the prevailing culture, Brady was actually named in two government reports for failing to protect children?
Parsing and differentiating different kinds of sexual impropriety etc. is very important. When people cry “Children are being raped! Children are being raped!” refusing to admit any distinctions between different behaviors, they are starting the drum beat that sets the “hang-em-high” mob on the march — which will soon turn on themselves. Very few priests have actually raped children in the physical sense; many have been demonized for being carried away by passionate tenderness. Instead of setting up a mindless cry of “Children are being raped” we should rather have a sober lament that “Young people have been molested and scandalized”. There is a very good quote from Richard Dawkins about this on the following thread: http://vox-nova.com/2010/04/20/sexual-abuse/#comments
“Brady was named in two government reports for failing to protect children” — what reports are you talking about? Be careful about making such statements, which may be libels.
Castrillon Hoyos was just the kind of reactionary that the Catholic right wing loved. The Vatican are now being dragged down by these people that they promoted far beyond their competence. And meanwhile a new form of abuse is being brewed up, in which we will all be forced to participate — I refer to the scandalous new translations of the liturgy into English.
As far as I know there is no government report that names Brady at all. The Murphy Report, the Ryan Report and the Ferns Report deal with areas with which Brady has had nothing to do. As far as I know the only accusation against Brady is that he was the secretary at a meeting in 1975 where 2 boys were asked to swear secrecy about the behavior of Fr Smyth, who later carried on a notorious pedophile career.
“Passionate tenderness” when it becomes physical is rape when it involves a minor. Such words as passionate tenderness are a camouflage because it just continues the deception and fraud. I am surprised Joe that you would defend such. I understand that genuine feelings may be involved initially. But no amount of rationalizations can excuse taking away someone’s youth because of one’s feelings. No.
Could you elaborate on what you are saying about celibacy?
Given the huge size of the Church (how many bishops are there world-wide?), the Pope simply cannot regularly make wise choices of bishops with advice only from some dicastery head or curial committee.
All I’m sure of is that input has to come from many sources to insure that many kinds of voices are heard.
There are a number of ways the Pope could get good advice. The people used to elect their own bishop, but these days I don’t think the laity is well-enough informed — most of us don’t know many priests well. The priests (including bishops) would know best who is best qualified, and with input from lay persons if we so choose, the priests could recommend several candidates or at least a first round of candidates. Maybe the laity could have the right of vetoing proposed candidates. Procedures might even vary from diocese to diocese or from country to country. Why not experiment? (I can dream.)
Lisa, careful parsing is so hard to sustain in a world where privilege and domination is more important than the gospel message. The recognition that the hierarchy is basically concerned about its image and not people would never have surfaced if the scandal had not made it so blatantly obvious. Many people in the church have sounded the alarm throughout history only to be guillotined or discredited because they challenged the magisterium. Look how the Vatican discredited Hans Kung, whom history will justify, because he challenged the domination of Rome. People believe bad things about Kung without ever really studying his work.
Even when Andrew Greeley stated clearly, several years ago, that many clergy were thugs right up to the Vatican, many people found it hard to believe. The pr machine in Rome was always able to make it look like things were just fine.
Sadly, today the majority of clergy and bishops are more concerned about the bad reputation they now have rather than speaking out for renewal and reform. It is system of denial that we deal with and few take responsibility for it.
Archbishop John Quinn who gave that fine talk to the association of priests which was reprinted in America, also wrote a great book “The Reform of the Papacy.” This might be a practical way for renewal that some Commonweal contributor might dissect and offer conversation on it on this blog.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2065/is_4_52/ai_68864489/?tag=content;col1
““Passionate tenderness” when it becomes physical is rape when it involves a minor.”
Yes, it is statutory rape; but then”becomes physical” is precisely the problem. No one except their parents, today, dare hug a child. People can be convicted of sex abuse without touching at all.
” Such words as passionate tenderness are a camouflage”
Well, psychoanalyst Lothstein says that pedophiles are people who “fall in love with 5 year olds” — perhaps this is something you want to camoflage?
” because it just continues the deception and fraud. I am surprised Joe that you would defend such.”
I defend nothing; merely ask you to look at what the real empirical study shows, and get beyond the ritual discourse that leads to hang-’em-high violence.
” I understand that genuine feelings may be involved initially.”
But if you say that you are exposed to denunciation — is being in love with a 5 year-old a “genuine feeling” or not rather a pathological fixation?
” But no amount of rationalizations can excuse taking away someone’s youth because of one’s feelings. No.”
Well, you are panicky here — pedophiles often have recourse to rationalizations, but no one is “excusing” their behavior here.
On the other hand, you subscribe to the dogma that every improper act of an adult toward a minor is high tragedy, taking away their youth and innocence. This is not in fact true; a psychoanalyst friend tells me that there is a huge variety in the effects of inappropriate physical touching of children by adults — some children are traumatized for life, others are consoled by the affection of the adult, others are unaffected. Naturally the pedophile who wants to act out his desires will latch on to the latter two possibilities.
I just read an autobiographical manuscript by a US academic the first chapter of which is devoted to a paean toward his nanny, who clearly had inappropriate sexual attitudes to him. I doubt if it will be allowed to be published — yet another suppression of empirical evidence.
My point, to repeat, is not to justify morally the antisocial behavior of sex abuse of minors. It is to point out that this behavior is not that of an alien species to be demonized but of people like ourselves, whom we are scapegoating for the reasons signaled by writers like Kincaid. I think it would not be amiss to meditate on Kinsey’s warning that the crackdowns on pedophilia are more damaging to children than pedophilia itself.
“Parsing and differentiating different kinds of sexual impropriety etc. is very important.”.
In the case of child molestation, I actually don’t think it is important at all. Molesting a child or teenager is horrendous at any degree; and trying to argue that some kinds of violations are worse than others just makes it seem that some of these activities are somehow within the range of “normal” behavior. These are NOT people like ourselves (or at least not people like myself); these people are predators. I don’t think we should put our energy into parsing out what degree of criminal behavior they’re exhibiting; our efforts are much better spent protecting our children from them.
Joseph, I don’t think that the driving force behind many folks’ revulsion and anger is precisely a reaction to the heinous abuse of minors.
I think that Lisa Fullam is correct: “The core of the institutional problem, I believe, is the cover-up and the institutional structures that fostered it.”
It’s the cover-up.
And I agree that there’s not one magic bullet to resolve the entire crisis, but that whatever the resolution is, it lies in grappling with the deep systemic problems at a truly effective level. A few symbolic resignations of a handful of bishops won’t address those problems effectively.
I happen to be one of those inclined to think that the full inclusion of women’s voices and of women in the governing structures of the church would go a long ways towards helping address the systemic problems–not because women are automatically virtuous, or incapable of doing every bit as much harm as the opposite sex is.
But because that exclusion has resulted in a toxic imbalance in how we see things and do business. And because those long unjustly excluded from any social structures are likely to learn coping skills and tools of analysis that the excluding structure sorely needs for its survival, if it has the wisdom to listen to those it has demeaned.
Joe, just because a person is a psychoanlyst does not mean they are right. Some of the most messed up people are psychoanalysts. Certainly one must be protective of the survivors of abuse and not to exploit them to further one’s objective. We let God judge all people while we note that even Jesus had very harsh words for those who abuse children.
Fr. O’Leary: You’re selectively reading Lothstein. From the same article on Lothstein: “You have to distinguish pedophiles, who were interested in children under 13, prepubescent…from people interested in adolescents, 13 to 15 years old, or interested in later adolescents.” Given that Lothstein apparently classifies pedophiles as psychopaths, it’s rather hard to believe that when he says they fall in love with five-year-olds he means that the love is healthy, or even genuine. We would never say of adults who have serial sexual affairs that they fall in love again and again. And if they said that of themselves, we’d probably say no, you’re fooling yourself to justify your lack of self-control. You showed the same credulity in the case of the Irish priest who was planning to leave the priesthood to marry a teenager.
Your anecdotal redoubt doesn’t serve you well here. I also know someone who was molested as a child. She tells me that the abuse made it impossible for her to have healthy romantic relationships for most of her adult life. It’s difficult for her to believe that the molester was in love with her, even though he told her that many times in what most people would recognize as an attempt to win her trust–and silence.
I don’t know how many times I can say it: this blog will not provide a home for the advancement of Kinsey’s or NAMBLA’s arguments that punishing pedophiles causes more harm to their victims than the abuse itself. Nothing could be more transparently self-justifying.
Apropos of John Allen’s argument that the real Vatican villain was Cardinal Hoyos let me report that not long ago I had lunch with a senior prelate from a different part of the country who said that the frustration in dealing with the Congregation of the Clergy before matters moved to the CDF was beyond frustrating. The desire to remove unworthy priests from ministry was stonewalled mainly by inaction. Good bishops were left in limbo wile waiting for Roman action. If there ever was a case for the implementation of the principle of subsidiarity it is in dealing with the issue of clergy abuse. There ought to be a good way for local bishops to handle these issues with sufficient safeguards in place to protect innocent clergy from false accusations.
Grant, I already pointed out to Bill that the love of a pedophile for a 5 year old is an unhealthy obsession.
I also pointed out, as you do, that child abuse can be the source of a lifelong trauma.
Your dismissal of Kinsey’s comment just shows you are censoring these threads, for no good reason.
Irene Baldwin, of course some violations are more serious than others — think Josef Fritzl. Your comment is irrational and unjust.
i
JC,
My main point is that different factors contribute to the crisis in different ways. On celibacy: I don’t know of any reason why sexual abstinence as such would cause a man to abuse little kids. Celibates who act out sexually are more likely to seek peers, or if they’re emotionally stunted, older teens.
However, I think celibacy may contribute to the other aspects of the crisis in at least two ways. Cozzens, e.g., notes that unrecognized anger (along with other things like obsessive-compulsive trait, depression and others,) is more common among priests than the general male population, a factor which does seem pertinent to the physical abuse of the vulnerable.
Second, celibacy and the cover-up. Our theology of priesthood teaches that priests are ontologically set apart from mere laity, uniquely conformed to Christ. Such a theology seems like it would be conducive to creating an in-crowd sensibility–a perfect set-up for a cover-up of misdeeds among the brethren, eh? And of course if a priest is acting out sexually himself (if Sipe’s correct, the odds of that are 50-50,) even if in an age-appropriate relationship with a female non-parishioner, he is hardly in a position to report the misdeeds of others without risking his own disgrace.
Irene,
Sexual misconduct needs to be sub-divided because different forms have different psychological roots. Pedophilia is a deep-seated, essentially incurable (but controllable, if the person wants to control it,) drive to seek out pre-pubescent children for sex. Perps tend to have lots of victims, male and female, and the question of who they abuse is determined largely by access.
Sexual relationships with teens are a different matter. For example, if a newly-ordained priest in his mid-20′s strikes up a sexual relationship with an older teen, it is less likely to represent deep-seated psychopathology than other factors. It is still wrong, still a violation of professional ethics, and may still be harmful to the victim. But psychiatrically, it is a different phenomenon, more likely related to–though perhaps not reducible to–questions of dealing with celibacy, sexual/emotional maturity, how one handles power, etc. Priests who abuse teens tend to have fewer victims, and do not seem to be as driven to abuse as those who attack little kids. Causes are different, thus the responses should be different. Both kinds of sexual abuse (and those others I haven’t mentioned here,) need to be stopped, but good responses start with a good assessment of the problem and its underlying causes.
The Boy Scouts just were sued in Oregon for one abuse case for 16 million.
Is it not reasonable that institutions like the Boy Scouts and the Church, girls swim/soccor teams etc that rely on men making a high degree of sacrifice [in time and uncompensated work] to be especially diligent in screening.But more important than that un-scientific ‘science’ +screening, have a system of close ongoing observance of their behavior?
Oganizations like logging, artic fishing, I would think, do not attract men who want to ‘hang around’ with the young. When an organization that is attractive to the ‘young seekers’ turns a blind eye because they need and like, and protect the almost free labor who is to blame? This is not rocket science folks.
“If there ever was a case for the implementation of the principle of subsidiarity it is in dealing with the issue of clergy abuse. There ought to be a good way for local bishops to handle these issues with sufficient safeguards in place to protect innocent clergy from false accusations.”
Professor Cunningham, I agree. Surely the church can borrow safeguards and protections for the accused from the American criminal justice system: open trials, jury of peers, speedy trial, etc. Rome can serve as a court of appeals. But let’s keep it all local and aboveboard to the extent possible.
Lisa and Ed – your attempt to make this more nuanced and show different levels should be supported. May I make some suggestions:
a) using the John Jay study, out of the 4.7% who have abused; less than 200 priests/bishops met he DSM criteria for pedophilia; the other thousands of confirmed abusers were priests/bishops who harmed children who were 11 or older with the smallest % of victims in the 15-18 yr. old group.
b) we know that past and current seminary training for the majority of candidates stunts their emotional growth and denys or limits their ability to test/grow/develop sexually if you compare the same type of cohort to a Catholic university student population – thus, you have priests who are ordained and within a few years, test their sexuality – the most frequest but not exclusive target are teenage boys.
c) Then, we have society and laws – any sexual behavior between an adult and (varies by state) a youth under the age of 18, 17, 16, commits sexual abuse.
d) Given both Rome and bishops inability to monitor, manage, or prevent this abuse, the best alternative is to report all allegations; move the ordained out of active ministry (suspension); and allow the civil courts and diocesan boards to do an investigation. The settlement in LA showed that less than 1% of all allegations were false (and this was with 50+ years of cases)…..but, the gap in this is that the settlement did not allow allegations against priests/bishops who had died to be defended. Yet, it clearly is the best alternative rather than making the vicitms fight every step of the way against both hierarchy, diocesan legal teams, but even civil law (e.g. SOLs). Reality – any of us working in corporate American can have abuse charges or sexual harassment brought against us – we defend ourselves in court…..sorry, but the people of God should all be equal when it comes to it….don’t believe that a priest or bishop should be treated differently.
Jim – you are completely correct – if subsidiarity and collegiality had been developed after Vatican II, the church and the conferences of bishops might have had a better chance to confront this abuse crisis. (Lisa – in terms of stratification, I just see abuse – whether that be sexual, physical, emotional, etc……then, your stratifications by age; circumstances, development, etc. can be weighed by a judge or jury).
Jim P & LC: I agree with both of you.
It’s amazing that the local ordinary has discretion as to whom he will/will not ordain into the permanent diaconate and the priesthood, assuming that the plumbing is correct.
He needs the same discretion to undo mistakes within the confines of REASONABLE due process. One way to ensure that is to have a disinterested group of people review the portions of canon law that deal with due process and ensure that they are indeed reasonable, i.e., treating all parties (including the victims) fairly, equitably and justly.
As to Cunningham and Pauwels suggestion about local control; there were local sytems put into place after the Dallas accords, called diocesan lay investigation boards. . When a small group of lay people met with A/B Levada 2003, he insisted that his lay board remain secret. ‘They are competent people and are entitled to secrecy so they will not be harassed by victims complaints’ I agreed they may be competent but pointed out that San Francisco has State, Federal and Appellate judges listed in the phone book with names numbers and addresses and they had just indicted 20 Hells Angels. I got a cold stare. but a month later he did name the group, The chairman of which later charged interference in investigations and resigned. The question folks is not new ideas. the real question is how to get the hierarchy to act while pulling their teeth. I remind Pauwels Cardinal George completely ignored the complaints and findings of his lay board in the fr McCormick case. It’s failure to act.. ‘no new ideas’ needed.
The Church is active in many of countries in which a thirty-year-old groom and a fifteen-year-old bride is still considered more or less optimal. If one accepts (which I do not, although that is not the point here) the proposition that homosexual relationships are as valid and healthy as heterosexual relationships, one will easily accept that a thirty-year-old man with a fifteen-year-old boy is not an abomination. This equivalence would be even simpler if one held the opinion (which I believe nobody here does) that marriage between two male individuals is as reasonable as marriage between a male and a female and that the only difference is a legal technicality attributable to prejudice.
Obviously, even in countries in which the age of consent is fourteen, it is not acceptable for a man who has vow to be celibate or a married man to pursue any such relationship. But inevitably, the idea will not be automatically considered worse than the idea of adultery with a prostitute or other adult woman.
Clearly, there are excellent reasons to deplore marriages in which the woman is so young. But it is a sociological fact that such marriages are still fairly common in many parts of the world.
Joseph O’Leary:
Your engine is making funny noises. You probably can’t hear them from the driver’s seat, but everybody else can and you’re scaring the crap out of us all. For God’s sake, go check yourself out for loose screws before you get us all killed.
Felapton, I support gay civil unions and civil marriage, as I suspect many do here. Your use of “abomination” counts as a funny noise to me. Quot homines, tot sententiae.
Lisa Fullam pointed to an aspect of the situation that few dare to speak about: the role of blackmail. If 50% of priests are sexually active, then if they denounce a fellow-priest for misbehavior with minors, they expose themselves to the danger of a vengeful tu quoque. But of course revenge can find other outlets, too.
We saw Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos drag John Paul II and Benedict XVI down with him, following this dynamic.
JSO’L: I really should probably avoid the word “abomination.” The Hebrew Bible (as you undoubtedly know) has two words for things we’re forbidden to do: a sin (khet-tet-hay) and an abomination (tav-ayn-bet-hay). The basic difference is that a sin is something that pisses God off and an abomination is something that grosses Him out. Killing people is a sin, presumably because the God of the Old T doesn’t exactly shy away from doing it himself. Homosexuality, onanism, eating animals which feed on carrion or excrement and wearing polyesther are just abominations. But the word has a much more toxic sound in English and I should really avoid it.
But “punishing pedophiles causes more harm to their victims than the abuse itself” is an much funnier noise, more like a collapsing steering rod than a loose fan belt. One of these days you’re going to open your morning newspaper and see “… a clerical commentator on the Commonweal web site insists ‘punishing …’ …” Please! leave that stuff on those weirdo blog sites you keep posting links to. Quod licet bovi non licet Jovi (nec sacerdoti Jovis.)
Good distinction between sin and ‘abomination’ — but one may add that what those texts in Leviticus actually reveal is not that sex between two men “grosses Him out” but that it grossed out the Jewish community who wrote those texts at that time.
“punishing pedophiles causes more harm to their victims than the abuse itself” Of course sexual abuse of children should be punished by law. You have invented a false quotation here. What I said was: “I think it would not be amiss to meditate on Kinsey’s warning that the crackdowns on pedophilia are more damaging to children than pedophilia itself.” The meaning is that the total social effect of anti-pedophile crackdowns is more damaging to children than the original pedophile abuse. It’s the demonization, the exaggerations, the false, wall-eyed psychology, the puritanical fanaticism, the ritual rote-language, the sowing of suspicion about all adults and all children, leading people to flee children as if they were plagued, the equiparation of dalliances between adults and 17 year olds with the mostrosities of a Fritzl, the fear, the panic that create the damaging effect. By the way, the “weirdo blog sites” are also the only kind of places where clerical sex abuse could be spoken of before it became a topic on everyone’s lips, so don’t be too fast to dismiss them. Also, I am quite happy to make my views public; your suggestion that this would “get us all killed” is an admission that we are living in a diseased climate of opinion.
Cardinal Danneels has rejected suggestions that he must have known about the behavior of the bishop of Bruges: http://www.lesoir.be/actualite/belgique/2010-04-24/danneels-dement-toute-manuvre-d-etouffement-de-l-affaire-vangheluwe-766248.php
I, too, am extremely uncomfortable with a few of Father O’Leary’s assertions. The ones that freak me out the most are those that include references to boys and their nannies.
We had a predator priest in my parish when I was growing up, Father Francis X. Trauger. Nothing nanny-like about this guy. Thanks to the media, once the scandal hit, he was laicized, but his molestation of pre-teen and teenage boys had been going on for a couple of decades with the full knowledge of Cardinal Krol & the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. The Archdiocese just kept moving him from parish to parish (all churches with schools). I believe “Father Frank” never did go to jail for his many crimes.
A few weeks ago Richard Sipe posted on his website a brief alert about O’Leary with the (I understand) belief that someone in Rome may read it and take note. O’Leary – appears you left Ireland more than 20 years ago but become extremely defensive when anyone questions the behaviors of Irish clerics esp. bishops as outlined in various Irish government reports. Since that period of time, the internet shows that you were turned down for a prestigious position in an English university; that you have spent years in Japan as a tutor or instructor? So, do you continue to report to an Irish bishop? Do you or have you done any type of pastoral work in the last 15 years?
What exactly is your role and who are you accountable to?
Bill De Haas, you are probably confusing Richard Sipe with some other website that carried a denunciation of me by Carolyn Disco; I often reference Richard Sipe’s statistics, which people were pooh-poohing as vituperatively a few years ago as you are now pooh-poohing my factual, empirical, and open remarks. Indeed, I believe Sipe was hounded out of the priesthood for daring to mention the unmentionable.
The deep moral ambiguity of the present regime of suspicion and panic needs to be questioned. It has nothing to do with protecting children, but is a function of visceral anger (socially conditioned) and ideological agendas.
I am not one to blow my own trumpet, but I think most people can see that coming second in the interview for head of department in the Faculty of Divinity at Edinburgh University (and being formally assured by the university that the decision was a difficult one) or coming among the first four in Durham university (in a solicited and rather half-hearted application) is nothing to be ashamed of. I have preferred to be full Professor at one of Japan’s top universities, where I have learned much, much about Japan and Buddhism and enjoyed the breadth of humane literature — which gives insight into the matters under discussion that the angry people do not want to even contemplate — begin, please, with Britten’s great opera Peter Grimes, directed against the persecution of pedophiles.
I do not answer McCarthyite questions on my ministry.
I am not extremely defensive of the Pope or my fellow clergy — I just point out lies when I see them, let the chips fall where they may — for instance the lie that Benedict masterminded a cover-up of sex abuse from 1981 to the present.
Mr De Haas, what is your own agenda? Your itch to delate people to Rome is curious, and seems to be characteristic of the dominant mood on this website. I thought of shifting Commonweal from my file marked Liberals to my file marked Centrists (along with Vox Nova, which is actually now more liberal than Commonweal), but if the strident denunciators prevail, I shall have to class it under Neocaths, along with Ignatius Press, and the like.
Irene, the nanny anecdote was strictly true and the academic does not seem to realize that he is going to meet an avalanche of vitriol. Rousseau had similar confessions I think. I don’t say any of that child abuse was justified or moral, only that it did not have a traumatic effect — and I say that in confirmation of what psychoanalysts say (that the variety of effects of child abuse is quite wide)..
Checking Sipe’s site (advanced search) I was able to confirm that he never mentioned me. He is a man of empirical research, so I would be surprised if he subscribed to the knee jerk approach or to the idea that anger and abuse are intrinsically cleansing.
1. I think it’s fair to say that if the a married clergy were the norm, rather than the exception, the cover-up would not have lasted nearly as long. However, what I still don’t get: although I personally have never been married, I’m an uncle,even a great uncle. I’ve watched two generations of my various siblings’ children grow up, and now their children. I presume that this is also the case for a great many priests and bishops. So how in the Hell could they have stood by and condoned what amounts to a massacre of the innocents that eclipses the one described in the Gospets. The system that made that silence not only possible, but nurtured it has no right to continue in anything like its present form!
“, the sowing of suspicion about all adults and all children, leading people to flee children as if they were plagued,”
Fr. O’Leary — this is insane.
“If one accepts (which I do not, although that is not the point here) the proposition that homosexual relationships are as valid and healthy as heterosexual relationships, one will easily accept that a thirty-year-old man with a fifteen-year-old boy is not an abomination.”
————-
A thirty-year-old PRIEST is in a unique position of power. If he wants relationships with women or men of his age or older, he must first relinquish his power and be reduced to the laity.
Many/most Catholics believe that what a priest binds on earth is bound in heaven. There is no way to have a consensual relationship of any sort — professional, sexual, emotional, etc. — with a person with that power.
To talk about child brides or about what “one will easily accept” about unordained men and the teenage boys they use for sexual gratification is to forget/ignore/obscure the fact that priests are different.
The closest I know to such situations is the not-uncommon case of the 35-year-old university professor dating his admiring 18-year-old student, sometimes leaving his wife and family for her. I may be old school, but I frown sternly upon such situations. I replace “married professor” by “priest” (which makes it much worse), and “18-year-old” by “16-year-old” (which also makes it much worse) to get a sense of what those cases might mean: it’s not good.
Thanks, Prof Fullam.
So, if priests are more depressive, it still doesn’t mean that depressives are more abusive, does it?
I was thinking that celibacy is a factor in that it just worsens clericalism by setting priests further apart from the laity. The stat that 50% of priests are not celibate is yet another reason to end this discipline, apart from the scandal.
Anne wrote:
‘ “, the sowing of suspicion about all adults and all children, leading people to flee children as if they were plagued,”
Fr. O’Leary — this is insane.’
It’s a bit over the top but I’m not so sure it’s totally inaccurate. If you’re a teacher or someone who works with children or young adults, the protocols that you’re obliged to follow are much more strict than they were years ago.
Sometimes, I’ll be watching an old movie and I’ll be shocked at how trusting people were with others regarding their children. Maybe it’s the script writers’ fantasies, but then again, this was an age before blanket TV coverage of every missing young girl (but only of the white sorority type) and cable TV’s prurient crusades against sexual deviancy.
I agree with Joseph O’Leary about the negative effects of witch hunts against sexual deviants. The worst was the ‘gotcha’ tactics of MSNBC’s “To Catch A Predator” in which the show lured would-be offenders on camera to be arrested. The show was canceled shortly after one man, having been told he was on network TV, pulled out a gun and shot himself in the head. They didn’t broadcast that bit, of course.
JC,
Nope–priests as a group show more depression than men generally, (again, must be careful with statistics–are they more likely to seek mental health care? Are they more likely to recognize signs of depression?) but that doesn’t mean that depressed people abuse kids. The subgroups (depressed priests, abusive priests,) may not overlap much in the population of priests generally. Or they might–I don’t know of data that addresses this question. Substance abuse, though, does seem to overlap with abuse, though of course not entirely. Not every alcoholic priest abuses kids, but lots of abusers abuse alcohol or drugs too. Here again, not a correlation with pedophilia, but with abuse of older kids.
But the core of this problem is the cover-up. What’s being done to address that?
A heterosexual Italian priest who is also a scoutmaster says that his normal affection to his charges could easily be spun as pedophilia.
Cardinal Newman, as headmaster, warned his teachers not to take the boys to their rooms as natural gestures of affection would not be interpreted as such by “the world”.
An Irish missionary entrapped men in Manila by approaching them with offers of sex with minors and then calling the police.
A priest who gave presents to a 17 year old man approaching 18 is suspended when his mother accuses him of grooming her son in view of a sexual advance.
A woman working for the government advertises her sexual favors, adding “you’ll like to meet my young son, too” — leading to the arrest and shaming of a man who shows up at the rendezvous (to see her, and with no interest in the fictive son).
Alcohol is a major inhibitor of sexual constraint, and it is also a classic “excuse” for improper behavior, so its correlation with abuse is hardly surprising.
“this is insane”
I wrote to the Irish Times on this topic and said that priests dread any display of physical affection to children. I was answered by someone who said “we all know the difference between healthy and unhealthy affection, and our priest hugs the kids at Mass with no problem”. I suggest that even in the ultra-public and controlled environment of the Mass most priests would be more cautious than that. If children come for a blessing at communion, only a very courageous priest would bend down and make a gesture of physical affection. A ritualized pat on the head is the most they will administer. It’s a cold world out there!
Father O’Leary,
You’re right. I meant to copy/paste from your post and accidentally took Grant Gallico’s paraphrase, which does indeed have a different connotation. Sorry about that.
All right, I now give up trying to persuade you to prudence on this subject. I’ll bring lobster if I have to visit you in prison.
Ann Olivier, on “insane”, the phrase you quoted was of course deliberately highly-colored — I am not sure if you are versed in the analysis of literary style. Guess I’d better stick to the flattest style here in future, suppressing my Irish exuberance. Otherwise I could be taken away by men in white coats. Wow, the USA is a dangerous country!
Gerelyn, I think you are inadvertently being as unfair to me as I was inadvertently to Fr. O’L. In the sentence before the one you quoted, I noted (probably clumsily) that a man who has a vow either to God or to another woman should not be thinking about another relationship with any woman no matter what her age may be.
I do not excuse any part of any of the cases that have come to light. But the Church now has a few thousand convicted sexual offenders on our hands and I don’t think anybody knows what to do with them. The answer “put them in prison and trust their cellmates to see to it that they do not come out alive” is not consonant with the faith we profess. Defrocking them and dumping them back out into the world is an abrogation of responsibility. Handing them over to their clerical brethren, who have already proved themselves excessively credulous if not outright complicit is not an attractive solution either. So what is to be done?
Those who resort to threats and fatwas here would do well to meditate on American traditions of freedom of expression defended as follows: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Happy-Hour-Vid-Jon-Stewart-Gives-Extremists-the-Daily-Show-Treatment-3349
Felapton, that is the very issue Timothy Radcliffe addressed.