|
Published: July 17, 2008
Don’t blame celibacy
Catholic ethicist says retired Australian bishop wrong about cause of sexual abuse crisis
“Annoying and misleading” is what Sulpician ethicist Fr. Gerald Coleman has called a retired Australian bishop’s attempt to link celibacy with clergy sexual abuse of children.
Writing in the July 11 San Francisco archdiocesan Catholic San Francisco, Coleman, the former rector of St. Patrick’s Seminary in Menlo Park and currently the vice president for ethics for the Daughters of Charity Health System, challenged Geoffrey Robinson, a former auxiliary bishop of Sydney, Australia. In May, Cardinal Roger Mahony forbade Robinson to speak in the Los Angeles archdiocese, as did Bishop Tod Brown in the Diocese of Orange and Robert Brom of the San Diego diocese. Robinson ignored his fellow bishops.
 Robinson has recently completed a speaking tour on his book, Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church: Reclaiming the Spirit of Jesus, in which he calls for a reexamination of Church teachings on extramarital sex, women’s ordination, homosexuality, and papal power in order to properly respond to sex abuse by clergy. Robinson formerly headed the Australian bishops’ conference’s committee that drew up policy to respond to sexual abuse victims.
According to Coleman, Robinson admits in his book that “celibacy is not the sole cause of sexual abuse by priests and religious,” and that if “celibacy were abolished tomorrow,” clergy sexual abuse would not disappear.
But though Robinson traces back clergy sex abuse to various factors, he says, according to Coleman, that “celibacy and its lifestyle” are “the primary culprits that create an abusive environment” and that “this problem cannot be honestly addressed until the question of obligatory celibacy is faced.” Robinson, according to Coleman, thinks “obligatory celibacy… contributes to depression, misogyny and homophobia. This unhealthy environment contributes to the sexual abuse of children by priests and religious.”
But Robinson’s arguments are flawed, said Coleman, because most sexual abuse occurs within families. Coleman cites two studies, “A Sourcebook On Child Sexual Abuse, License to Rape, The Dark Side of Families” and “Child Sexual Abuse” as proof. According to Coleman, studies show that 30% of sexual abuse of minors is done by fathers, uncles, or cousins; 60%, by acquaintances; and about 10%, by strangers. Some studies, said Coleman, show that 20 million Americans have been abused by parental incest.
Robinson’s treatment of celibacy and sexual abuse is “superficial and is more the result of other fundamental disagreements he has with the Church,” said Coleman. The “sexual disorder of pedophilia or ephebophilia” (an older person’s sexual attraction to post-pubescent youth), not celibacy, said the Sulpician ethicist, is at the root of clergy sexual abuse.
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 5:04 AM By St. Christopher
The root cause of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is the advent of a strong homosexual clergy and sub-culture. Bishop Robinson is only looking for a second career in his efforts to "re-examine" traditional Church teachings. How original. He can appear with his peeps on all the mainline media's talk shows that always seem to have on as guests a member of "Catholics for Choice" or some such protest group. Just shake the dust from your sandals and walk away from such people, as they will not be convinced.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 5:06 AM By Simon
It's not the Church teachings that need reexaming. Most of the sexual abuse that took place in the Church can literally be traced back to the beginnings of the sexual revolution of the 1960's in which free sex and all sorts of other perversion were being glamourized as the new norm by the mass culture and media. As Coleman's study points out 20 million Americans have been abused by parental incest. Sixty percent of that abuse by acquaintances according to this study. The culture of death and its continual galmourization and promotion is vastly responsible for the unhealthy environment created in the western world that unfortunately has impacted on every single aspect and institutions of our countries and society. How does Robinson whose arguments are totally flawed and baseless explain the high levels of sexual abuse in the public education system of America which according to Hoftsta University Studies far surpasses any abuse that has occurred in the Church? The culture of death and all that it entails and promotes will pass away into the dust bins of history as if it never even happened. Such is the promise and the power of Almighty God whose eternal kingdom will reign for ever and ever. Keep your eyes on God and his eternal promises of love, hope, and mercy and eternal salvation to each of you, not on the divisionary tactics that are all meant to confuse and deceive. Only God's big picture counts in this spiritual battle here on earth because we are all fighting principalities of the spirit world not the flesh. Wear the armour of God for this spiritual battle provided by the Sacraments of the Catholic Church. When all is said and done the things of this world will all pass away and perish in an instant as if they never existed. Put your faith in God and his Church which is the Body of Christ on earth. Follow the truth not the deceptions of this world. God Bless You all.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 5:08 AM By Cathii
It is high time that the church accepted that some of its policies contribute toward the large number of abuse cases by priests.... Besides which, Robinson is an Australian and us Australians are a pretty smart bunch! LOL
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 5:31 AM By Fr. M.P.
Another false prophet prelate promoting lies. Faithlessness resulting in commission of grave sins is the real cause. Listening to the Church teachings, not breaking them, is what will prevent this abuse. This is the opposite of the homosexual demands, as the North American Man-Boy Gay Love Association wants. We see the results of those homosexual desires - 81% of the victims can tell you about that.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 6:29 AM By Greg Bullough
Coleman misses the point. Or rather, as he is an intelligent
man with an axe to grind, he attempts to distract from Bp.
Robinson's...that sacerdotal celibacy is a link in the chain
of clerical elitism which has lead to the abuse crisis, among
other ills.
Robinson's comments are, therefore, anything but
superficial.
The assertion about most abuse occurring within families
is another attempt at disingenuous distraction. Are we
therefore willing to say that some level of abuse of the
young and the vulnerable is acceptable within our clergy?
A clerical caste into which sexually troubled or immature
men may retreat in failed attempts to escape their
discomfiture, along with a culture of that caste's
irreproachable status amongst the laity is a very dangerous
combination. That, I believe, was the good Australian
bishop's point.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 7:19 AM By Lionel
Celibacy ? What makes Robinson and Coleman believe that priests are celibate ?
Read " A SECRET WORLD" Sexuality and the Search for Celibacy, by Richard Sipe. Remember that celibacy means no sex in any form. Nocturnal dreams ? That's sex.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:20 AM By Albino Luciani
www.bishop-accountability.org/abusetracker for daily verified coverage of the ongoing and clear and present danger, of massive and uncorrected curia criminal collusion, in these matters.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:32 AM By Gabe
I doubt whether Coleman even read Robinson's book, or just extracted quotes taken out of context. If he had read the book, he would have found that although Robinson did say that the matter of celibacy needs to be studied seriously by the hierarchy of the Catholic church, he did not in any way say that it was the cause of sexual abuse by priests. It may be one cause, but he did not say it was THE cause. Get your facts right, Coleman, before you comment.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:41 AM By Elizabeth
I believe Robinson was suppose to speak at the University of San Francisco??? Does anyone know if this took place?
I also thought I heard that AB Niederhauer asked him not to come......
Enlighten me someone.....
P.S. This former Bishop should be placed in a ministry out of the way perhaps ministring to the elderly!!!!
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:51 AM By John L. Sillasen
The glaring fact: If celibacy were wrong, Jesus would have said so. St Paul would have said so. Endless saints would have said so. Instead they promoted it for spiritual benefit of the Church.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:53 AM By Eileen
How curious that Gerald Coleman is calling the kettle black? Didn't Gerald Coleman initially, (whoops, I meant to) forget to use the word celibacy when he wrote about his support for homosexual domestic partnership? Wasn't that omission and support for homosexual domestic partnership, annoying and misleading? Does this make Gerald Coleman a Suspicious ethicist?
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:39 AM By Weeorphan
I am 66, a never married male, a chastely celibate Catholic, and have not fornicated for 24 yrs. I have never indulged in pedophila or homosexuality, and though tempted on occasion by normal carnal desires, have fought the good fight by the supernatural grace of God, and long refrained from offending my Immortal Beloved. There may be some truth that forcing men to celibate vows can nurture concupiscence, but candidates for the priesthood should undergo severe scrutiny to determine their real vocation. To suggest that a priest cannot handle celibacy per se, is arrogantly dismissive of the power of God's supernatural grace in supporting this lonesome lifestyle.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:16 AM By betty
I never thought that celibacy was at the root of clergy sexual abuse.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:48 AM By Jay
Several websites that have Bishop Robinson's biography say he retired in 2004 for "health issues". Yet if you look at his website, http://bishopgeoffrobinson.org/ he's giving a lecture nearly EVERY DAY in a new city! Pretty exhausting schedule for man with "health issues"
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:01 PM By Paul Livingston
I heard the easiest explanation of pedophiles. They are predators looking for a place to prey on children. The priesthood is a good hiding place. The Bishops have protected them for years and even participated in the abuse of children. This Aussie Bishop is just a man with a set to stand up and be counted. He has a set to call a spade a spade. You Catholics that are blinded by the good the church used to do ! You need to take a good look at what is really happing. Try not taking me as as a non Catholic. I was a child raped at 6 in my Catholic school. Never should that have happened. Ever never. Next out of your mouth will be public schools have not had to pay out or the uncles or fathers that abuse. But the ones lobbing against new laws that protect children are the hired gun lobbiests paid by the Catholic church. So chew on that a wile and call be back.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:26 PM By Pax Christi
Wonder if the Religious Education Congress organizers are working feverishly to add Robinson to the next dissent-fest?
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:59 PM By John L. Sillasen
The Western Church with celibate clergy has been plagued by corruption for centuries but has not fallen; whereas, the Eastern Church with married clergy fell to the Soviet government and is scattered. The remedy is not some technical detail, but holiness. The technical details, ie the rules, are made to point out the areas which need to be corrected ... rules do not a Church make, but serve like grease to a machine. Holiness is symbolized by oil, which keeps the machine from heating up like the devil.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:03 PM By Fr. J
If only celibate priests were abusers then the criticism would be true, but that isn't the case. Most abusers are actually homosexuals. So if you want to stop abuse then...oh but that isn't pc is it? No need for homosexuals to hide anywhere anymore. They are out and proud. There is far more abuse in secular schools and organizations. It's funny how those who say it is wrong to criticize Islam for the "actions of a few" are ready to outlaw the Church for the actions of fewer.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:21 PM By Eileen
Paul, You are absolutely correct that bad men have hidden and protected evil-doers. What happened to you was pure evil. Catholics who truly care to see why this really happened are marginalized as uncharitable. Paul, there ARE Catholics that are outraged at the unimaginable pain that you and others have suffered. These scandals have only opened many Catholics eyes that you only place Christ and His Church's Teachings on a pedestal. Cardinals, Bishops, and priests who have been faithless wolves will be held accountable in a higher court. There should never be a comparison to other religion's issues of abuse. Clergy or lay members of the Catholic Church, which rightly claims to be the True Church and standard bearer, should never point to the failings of others and say, 'See..it's there too!'' A father should never point to another household and say, "Look, that household is currently just as bad as mine, but still believe in me". They should only point the finger at themselves and admit their own evil and grave wrongdoing. Imagine how much faith it takes to still remain a Catholic because of the profound belief that Jesus is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament! This is Christ's promise! This is the reason we still believe! This is the reason that many of the wolves who are still in positions of authority, seek to destroy even that belief. We are so sad for your pain. Put your faith only in God. Only God, can completely understand your suffering and heal it.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:38 PM By Rosie
None of the priests who were abusers were celibate at the time. By being abusers, they violated their celibacy. Then they pointed their fingers at others and said there's "far more abuse" somewhere else.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:45 PM By Thomas H
A point I would like to put you some of you 'arm chair theologians' about celibacy in the catholic Church. Why can former protesant ministers ( who convert to Catholicism) and are married allowed to receive Holy Orders and remain married? How come Eastern Rite catholics have married clergy. John I don't understand your comment about the soviets and the Eastern Church with married clergy. Could you explain?
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:51 PM By Bill Parks
Here are some notes I wrote down as I listened to a presentation given by Bishop Geoffrey Robinson on June 5, 2008, in Cleveland, Ohio which was sponsored by FutureChurch.
1) Bishop Robinson's book, "Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church," was a response to the revelations of sex abuse in the Catholic Church.
2) Unhealthy psychology, unhealthy ideas concerning power and sex and unhealthy living conditions and institutional factors contributed to these problems.
3) Inadequate response to abuse created as much scandal as the abuse.
4) Why did so many intelligent good people, our bishops, cause such bad response to abuse? Sex abuse is about power and sex. We have to investigate the causes of the abuse. We must be free to ask questions.
5) Power - a) Priesthood put on a pedestal - very unhealthy idea - promoted by both religious and laity. This must change because it establishes a false series of relationships. Priests are ordinary human beings. They are not perfect but pretend to be perfect. b) Infallible papal authority - ex Cathedra - wrongly extended to many levels. Creeping infallibility.
6) Papal energy invested in protecting papal authority and 1,000 year old traditions and 1,000 year old laws enacted by the church and resulting in more creeping infallibility.
7) Very deep culture of presenting nice appearances. Bishops required to take an oath not to God and not to the church but to the Pope. Bishops are on a short leash of one half inch tied the pope. Bishops are Pope's men and not the victims' of sex abuse men.
8) With authority goes responsibility. There was silence over abuse by a silent pope - Pope John Paul II. (Note taker's note: However, it may have been Pope John Paul II's advisors advice that caused this silence - notably Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI.)
9) There is over one thousand years of Catholic Church history and laws and it is hard to change the Catholic culture.
10) Love and sexual relationships discussed in the O. T. Many purity laws about uncleanness.
11) In hundreds of years prudish teachings -- one sex thought was taught to be a mortal sin and could lead to eternal punis
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:48 PM By btj
Bill Parks, I heard the same talk at USF's Lone Mountain campus; your notes are very accurate and Bishop Robinson was very good.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 6:26 PM By Paul Livingston
Eileen,
Robinson was very concerned to learn how deep the Abuse/theft in the US had become or how ingrained it was in the Church. Bishops covering for bishops and not trusting each other! He said he could talk to a good majority of the Bishops in Australia on a personal level. He said he had trust in a few and would relay his findings from his travels to the other Bishops. Needless to say the Bishop remains truthful and a man of integrity. That is much more than I would say about Brown, Brome, or Malhoney here in California. Many more Bishops across the USA fall into the list of clerics who look the other way.
Three abused victims had Mexican dinner with the Bishop the night before he spoke here in San Diego. The one thing that sticks with me is that he was so marginalized when he brought up abuse to the Pope. He said he had chosen a side and that was with us victims. Now you don't hear that much of the time. I'm used to being called names and having Good Catholics pick fights with me and verbally abuse me for what happened to me as a defenseless child. I did not pick to be raped! I DID NOT CHOOSE TO ASSIST OTHERS BY SPEAKING ABOUT MY ABUSE. But my speaking about abuse and rape of children has assisted in freeing others from the prison of keeping that secret. That feels good! I KEPT THE SECRET 27 YEARS.
I'm not an attorney but submitted a 36 page brief to a San Diego judge to assist me in helping an abuse survivor of Fr. Anthony Woods out of Kentucky, to let me try and help this guy that has never been able to ask for help before he heard my life story. The point is I feel so good knowing it is making a difference speaking about such deplorable acts that are committed all over our world by men that are not accountable to any law in or out of our country or most other countries. Men that are swaying the law makers not to stiffen up the statutes of limitations to protect children which leave our children with laws that protect the pedophile men who abuse children. The men that are just worried about bottom line on the monthly financial s in the church should all have been top Enron execs. Were dealing with a supposedly God based institution that is operatin
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 6:59 PM By Anne T.
Weeorphan, keep up the good job. We all end up celibate if we live so long, even if we are married and our partners are alive. One or the another of marital partners always have medical problems at times. Also, most heterosexuals couples are too busy, even when young, to try to keep up with what the T.V. and movies portray. They are fantasy.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:46 PM By John L. Sillasen
Thomas H, the Soviet Union replaced the Orthodox priests and abbots with government men, KGB agents. But how they accomplished it had to have something to do with the position of power and authority of the Orthodox Church in Soviet domain. I'm pointing to the possibility that a married clergy was not capable of providing a strong enough populace to resist the Communists. So far in history, the only Christians besides the Catholics who have not been overpowered by secular governments are the Evangelicals ... even their forebear Protestant denominations are losing their Christian identity rapidly. The Roman celibate clergy is the only long standing organization successful in resisting worldly governments. So, it looks to me that the hypothesis I've presented holds plenty of water.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:56 PM By John L. Sillasen
He does not look like anyone I would trust, and his words prove it.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:16 PM By K Fadok
John Sillasen, I kindly encourage you to check your facts on the history of the Eastern Rite. First, the tradition of married priesthood in the Eastern Church (The Trullan Synod-692 A.D.) predates Pope Gregory's mandate of priestly celibacy (11th century A.D.) for Latin Rite priests by hundreds of years. And to say that the Eastern Rite Church 'fell' to the Soviet Regime due to its married priests is a disheartening and inaccurate interpretation of history. The Church did not "fall and scatter"- it was ruled illegal, forcibly dissolved, and those who refused to convert to Russian Orthodoxy were driven underground. The faith of the people flourished despite persecution, thanks to the Grace of God and His Blessed Mother...if that's not what you would deem 'holy' then I simply do not know what to say. This had absolutely NOTHING to do with married priests...the strong faith of those in the Underground Church in the face of persecution should serve as an example for us all. That being said, I invite you and encourage you to attend a Divine Liturgy at an Eastern Rite Church. As a Ukrainian Catholic by birthright who was raised in the RCC, I have experienced a reverence and holiness that is lacking in many Latin Rite parishes today. Slava Isusu Christu-Glory to Jesus Christ!
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:44 PM By Jmac
Eighty-one percent of the Catholic Church abuse cases (according to the John Jay report) involved homosexual men, almost all priests or bishops, with adolescent boys. This seems to support the notion that in many ways we'd be a lot better off with a married clergy. Yes, I know that marriage does not absolutely rule out this sort of crime. Does anything?
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:49 PM By ann
Lionel, you said"Nocturnal dreams ? That's sex". That may be sex, but except under limited circumstances, it is not sinful sex.
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 8:30 AM By Fr. M.P.
Thomas H, the Church has always provided the possibility of married men becoming priests (but NEVER priests getting married). The first Pope, St. Peter, was married. In the Eastern Rites, this practice continues for priests (but not Bishops). This is 'T'radition. In the Latin (Western) Rite, a discipline (not dogma) was setup that only non-married men who remain celibate may be priests. But the Church will make exceptions to the discipline, but still remain consistent with 'T'radition, when select married Protestant ministers convert. If the Church discerns that they are called to the priesthood, they can be ordained. Note that once ordained, even to the Deaconate, a man cannot marry or re-marry. The main reason for celibacy is to focus exclusively on their spiritual bride - the Church - as Jesus did. You can read some more at [http://www.catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp]
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 8:31 AM By John L. Sillasen
Thomas H, I wonder if the difficulty in conceptualizing this idea that the Church informs the society stems from the modern proclivity to compartmentalize the nature of the Church. The consequence of compartmentalizing nature is followed by the compartmentalzing of the supernature of the Church. When the Church is thus stuffed into the sidelines, that's when society is vulnerable to the forces of evil. So,when a church does this to itself or allows it to be done to itself, then the consequence is devastation. God did not create man so that man can tame God like a beast in a cage, on display for those who visit the "compartment" He has been consigned to. This is being done today in the West, but so far it is not entirely successful. Married clergy is such a compartment that shuts the priest off from much of the society he is intended to engage. St Paul tells us clearly that the celibate priest is not in effect burdened by concerns which reduce his priestly nature to a minimum. God is a jealous God, and when a priest divides his life into compartments such as marriage on the one hand and being a priest on the other, then that is a big vulnerability, and the hostile one can more easily succeed in attacking through a vulnerability. Hence the basis for my hypothesis that married clergy in Russia provided the vulnerability for the devil to over run the Church there and cage Her. Side note: Soviets were defeated by a Catholic Pope, a Presbyterian president, an Anglican prime minister, and a Lutheran/Jewish Bible smuggler -- where were the Orthodox prelates in that historic battle?
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 11:02 AM By Lisa T.
Eileen, Here is a quote from San Francisco Faith article****************************************"In the past, Father Coleman has defended domestic partnerships, including those among homosexuals. In a 2001 "Open Letter" to the San Francisco Faith, the Los Angeles Mission, and San Diego News Notes, Coleman said homosexual relationships should be "chaste;" but he equated this modifier with "committed," leaving it unclear whether, in the term "chaste," he included refraining from genital activity. Coleman, as well, voiced his support for civil recognition of "committed, life-long homosexual partnerships," which, he said, should have "an important status, deserving our respect and protection." http://www.sffaith.com/ed/news/2004news/0405news.htm*************************************************************Here is a quote from Fr. Coleman's writings********"Fr. Coleman came out in support of civil unions for homosexuals. "Some homosexual persons have shown that it is possible to enter into long-term, committed and loving relationships, named by certain segments of our society as domestic partnership," he wrote. "I see no moral reason why civil law could not in some fashion recognize these faithful and and loving unions with clear and specified benefits."
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 3:18 PM By John L. Sillasen
K Fadok, the underground Church has always thrived. But I'm not talking about that. I'm suggesting that a strong society is served better by a celibate Church in union with Rome. I'm suggesting that the reason the Communists were able to take over their empire was in large part or solely due to the weakness of the Orthodox churches there, a weakness inherent in married clergy. The small local churches may, as you say, do quite well; however, the Church is responsible for all of society, and is not commissioned to exclude engagement with it. Rather the Church, as Rome does, is required by God to constantly engage the rest of society. It has succeeded since the beginning and has been celibate in part from that beginning, and celibate by rule for almost that long. Celibate by rule is what forces the padres out into the general run of society. Married by rule keeps the priests in the homes and not in the spotlight of rulers. It is very easy to see, if you're not inside looking out the window, which is where married clergy are. Again, St Paul explains it.
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 4:16 PM By Thomas H
John, again your hypothesis that married priests in the Russian Orthodox church and the eastern rite of the RC paved the way for soviet takeover is stretching it a point. Religion under the tsars was pretty much a part of the state, a tradition which evolved from the Byzantine empire (after all the Russians called Moscow the "third Rome"). The people were used to this connection, so when Lenin took over it was not much different in making atheism a state religion under marxism. The russian people were pretty much use to this lack of separation of church and state. The reason why communism took root in a predominately agrarian society rather than an industrial one (as Marx predicted) was because the Russian people after centuries under the tsarist regime were used to a strong ruler and state control over their lives. If most clergy were celibate at the time of the Reformation, why was the Reformation so sucessful in parts of Europe. Look at the case of Cuba, Poland Hungary, and Czechoslavakia predominately Catholic countries which fell to communism despite a celibate catholic clergy. So your ideas don't hold much water. BTW Rasputin was married and he was pretty much in the spotlight with the tsarina Alexandra and tsar Nicolas II. He(Rasputin) certainly didn't stay home with his wife!
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 4:48 PM By Bill Parks
Here is a continuation of more notes (which are listed above) of Bishop Robinson's lecture:11) In hundreds of years prudish teachings -- one sex thought was taught to be a mortal sin and could lead to eternal punishment. Extreme ideas like this led to mental problems. While, sexual abuse was considered just another sin and forgiven in confession.12) God created sex and is not upset by sex itself but He is upset when it harms another person or the community or oneself.13) How do we bring about changes? It's difficult to change a 1,000 year old culture. But communism fell. Confrontation may be necessary to bring about changes. 14) Confrontation should lead to peaceful conversations with the power structure in the church. Confrontation must lead to conversation not only with the leadership in the church but also with everybody.15) The Pope can only bring about substantive changes into the church because it is an absolute monarchy. Rome dictates change and the bishops must assent to papal dictates. 16) The sex abuse scandal has caused a lack of faith in the Catholic Church.17) ) Pope John Paul II while exercising strong leadership in other fields was neglectful concerning the sexual abuse scandal.18) Abused persons are not guilty. They are the victims of the power structure in the church.19) There is an unhealthy psychology operating in the lives of many priests due to the requirement of celibacy for all priests. (Note takers notes: Jesus chose 11 married men out of 12 as His first apostles and the Catholic Church does not permit married men to be ordained. Who is right? Jesus Christ (God) or the pope and his bishops? Satire: We don't need Christ's example or direction or the Holy Spirit's guidance because we have the pope and cardinals to guide us????)20) Institutional factors operated in the sex abuse scandal by transferring abusive priests to other localities by their bishops to avoid prosecution.21) Many Catholics believe that the church has an oppressive teaching approach to sex and power.22) The Catholic church has beauty (truth, the mass and worship) and ugliness (sexual abuse).23) The church needs healthy people in healthy relationships.
Q & A Period.24) Ap
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 5:07 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Parks,
This statement -- "one sex thought was taught to be a mortal sin and could lead to eternal punishment. Extreme ideas like this led to mental problems. While sexual abuse was considered just another sin and forgiven in confession" -- strikes me as a serious oversimplification. While it is true that the full advertance of the understanding and will to even one lustful thought is a mortal sin and does damn the soul, it also can be forgiven in confession. All sexual acts undertaken outside of marriage are grave sins, according to the Church, and so are damning. And all such sins -- even sexual abuse of minors -- can be forgiven in the confessional. The statement as you express it thus presents a false dichotomy.
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 6:55 PM By betty
I hope you will pardon my questions but I couldn't stop thinking about a 6 year old child being raped at a Catholic school. When I was 6 years old I was never alone with an older adult. My mjother watched me and my sisters and brother as we went off to school together in the morning. My older sister was assigned to walk me home from school and make sure I was safe. I played outside in the back yard and my mother glanced out of the window every now and then to see if I was okay. I went to a crowded city school where there were at least forty children in a classroom at any moment. If anyone tried to get one child alone, the other thirty-nine would have raised such a ruckus that people would have come running to see why nobody was with them. When relatives visited us in our home children were told to go play somewhere and stay out of the way (which we did). Grown-ups sat down and talked to each other, not yo us.
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 9:49 PM By John L. Sillasen
Thomas K, it is not stretching a point; it is an hypothesis based on observation, very plain and clear cut observation. It has nothing to do with the personal faith of members of those communities, but of the structure of those communities compared to the structure of the Roman community.
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 9:55 PM By John L. Sillasen
Bill Parks, are you making the assumption that the sex abuse problem stems from Pope John Paul II? If so, then where is your evidence?
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 12:50 AM By Wayne T.
The pope’s words and actions fell short of the expectations of many whose lives have been devastated by clerics and the Church. This disappointment is understandable given the legacy of non-response to this problem by a Church in denial. For those of us who are pragmatically optimistic as we continue to forge a path to justice and compassion, there are significant elements of hope embedded in his words and especially in his visit with survivors. The scourge of sexual devastation by the representatives of the Church has woven itself into the Church’s culture for centuries. More has been accomplished to eradicate it in the past two decades than in the previous thousand years. If anything, the pope’s words in April 2008 have reassured me that the efforts of victims, their supporters, the secular media, the attorneys, the sympathetic lay people and clerics and even those few supportive bishops have made a difference.
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 8:52 AM By Thomas H
John, were you there to observe whether celibate orthodox priests were less likely to cooperate with the soviets then their married counterparts. Do you have any statistics to back up your ideas? What observations? Your ideas are pretty farfetched and you are using
them as another reason to support celibacy.
Celibacy has a practical point in the fact that celibate men and women can focus on doing the work of the church. Being married or being in hetereosexual relationships complicate matters. Public education once realized it years ago. A century ago young women teachers were routinely fired if they got married or had a relationship. They were better suited or focused on educating children if they were celibate.
Celibacy also is a good economical strategy for the Church. It costs the Church and the parish alot less for celibate priests. Celibacy has pratical as well as spirtitual reasons. for existing. The reason why Catholic education costs so much now is that there are no longer any nuns, priests or brothers who worked for close to nothing.
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:09 AM By Brian
So Coleman says since relatives abuse children then celibacy is not the cause of clegy abuse. Apples and oranges arguement there.. John L . It all goes back to the Bible is your answer for everything. Jesus and the saints did not say celibacy was wrong so that's it. You have a faith in this and in my opinion is close minded. It is a leap of faith and many others are like lemmings to that leap of faith also. Do you an angel named Earl confirming all that you belive ? Although I don't know exactly where to put celibacy on the list of causes of the clergy abuse , it is on there and the list is not that long. The enables are on the short list also. The percentages to apply to each item on the list is open to debate , but celibacy is on there even if your only view is Jesus embraced it so it is not the problem. You asked why it mattered which faith I chose because they are thrust upon me. This is entirely false because no faith at all is an option for some. Then there is the fact that I stated many times that the enablers were part of the reason I chose against the Catholics church and 3rd the catholics church was ok with me possibly being abused as an alter boy in the 60's. 4th , A couple of years prior to one priest being outed as an abuser , he had the arrogance to chastise me that I did not attend the Catholic chucrh. Good thing I was an adult when I encountered him instead of a young potential victim of his. So myself and 1 out of every 10 adults is a former catholic because we refuse to be a lemming. We can disagee and I enjoyed your discussion and have stated your personal choise is ok with me. It just not acceptable to force it on others. I can not undestarnd why you asked the questions unless you don't feel I am entitled to an opinion at all since it disagrees with your opinion. You clearly don't think the molesters and enablers are a problem for you. Did you ever encounter one of the molesters ? Why bother discussng at all ?
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:33 AM By John L. Sillasen
"fell short of the expectations of many": This reflects on the many, not on the Pope. *** Thomas, what is it about the word, "hypothesis", that constrains you?
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:45 AM By John L. Sillasen
Brian, I may have encountered abused altar boys. When I was in the Jesus Freaks, before I knew much about Catholicism, I found that many of these Jesus people were raised Catholic. They had some serious axes to grind over their experiences growing up. Some had been altar boys. I never asked, but I sensed from information that broke about the scandal in recent times, that they either witnessed or suffered such abuse. One young man was likely raised Catholic, and in his later teen years worked as a cabin boy on a merchant ship, servicing the captain and perhaps other perverted sailors. He joined the Jesus Freaks for the purpose of redeeming his life. He looked the picture boy of cabin boys, as well. Quite a character, and in the 8 months I was in that group, he never "backslid", and I believe he would have gone on in his state of repair. I have seen many many children who obviously have been sexually abused ... their body language cries it out plainly. God has little sympathy for those who harm children, as we know from Scripture, both Old and New Testaments. I would cut them no slack, if I ruled the land. I might sentence them to years of prison awaiting execution, so that they may repent, however. I had one apply here for a room rental a few years ago. He was one weird character, who I looked up on Megan's list, and found his mug shot right off ... He could not understand why I did not rent to him, even after I explained that a day care center was located next door ... they tend to be utterly callused.
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 3:39 PM By NC
I would find this back and forth funny, if it weren't so serious. I almost think the two sides are talking about completely different parts of the same issue. Though there are some direct points of conflict. First, I don't think there is anyone who is a faithful Catholic who doesn't feel sympathy for the abuse victims. Catholics, like everyone else, carry baggage with them. Catholics are sinners too, and every individual has their own problems. While I wish we could all be more understanding, I don't see why we wouldn't expect Catholics to get defensive when their priest is accused of something. Catholicism is the most politically correct group to attack. We should forgive them for getting defensive. There have been false accusations, which ruin priests' reputations, and some the abuse settlements hurt parishioners more than the priests or bishops responsible, so although they respond wrong, Catholics have reasons to be defensive. We should also recognize the truth that celibacy in-and-of itself i no way raises the risks of abuse. If other related factors raise the risk, we can eliminate those, leaving celibacy intact. To a great extent this is what the church is doing. I know a newly ordained priest in my area, and he has talked about how the seminary had a extensive program to weed out high-risk men, and to train those who remained to help keep children safe. The changes are real. Not just talk. It might take a little while to see the extent, but we'll see major differences.
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 4:56 PM By John L. Sillasen
If one's loyalty is first to men and secondly to God, then so be it; Catholic tradition teaches the opposite, that our loyalty first is to the truth; defend the truth against any man.
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 4:59 PM By John L. Sillasen
Celibacy decreases the risks of abuse to zero.
|
Posted Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:57 AM By Nate
What the defendents of the Church are stating is that it is made up of fallible people, that the mistake was in the acts of abuse by the individual priests and the false tolerance of the bishops above them, that this does not prove that the Church is a wicked institution, or that celibacy is the problem. They than are pointing out that the general society is being swamped with abuse of many sorts by men who are not celibate.as a counter example. There is no way to derive a truthful answer to this problem based on reason, only faith, and thus Robison's faith in man's failing and the Church's faith in celibacy as an achievable goal both seem plausable. In my guy, I trust the thousand year old organization over the bishop who has only lived one lifetime and in Australia for the most part.
|
Posted Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:04 PM By A. Roldan
The historical evidence dating from the fourth century demonstrates that mandatory celibacy has been consistently violated by Catholic clerics through sexual abuse of minors and vulnerable adults. A study of homosexual priests conducted by a Catholic priest at the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality found that of a sample of fifty gay Catholic priests ranging from 27 to 58 years of age, only two, or 4 percent, were abstaining from sex at that time.
|
Posted Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:39 PM By M. A. H.
The statutes of limitation are a major problem because abuse victims are unable to come forward for years or decades. That is simply the dynamic. Meanwhile, Catholic bishops across the country have been organizing to lobby against extending the statutes of limitations because of the potential financial impact in lawsuits and settlements. The bishops are well-organized. They have vast amounts of money to pay for advertising campaigns and expensive lawyers and lobbyists, which the victims do not have. Today's group of Catholic bishops is the worst crop of bishops in contemporary memory because their goal throughout the abuse crisis has been to protect the institution as they see it. They have not shown any evidence of wanting to fully understand what happens to the people that are abused and their families - their spiritual devastation, their concept of God and the church.
|
Posted Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:45 PM By John L. Sillasen
Without question the best places to go for information on the evils of the Catholic Church are such as those involved in "advanced studies of human sexuality" ... Certainly without any doubt their phd researchers would be uncovering new discoveries of what sex is all about on a daily basis. Let's see, one man and one woman ... nah, that'd never warrant any advanced studies. How about ... hey for advanced funding maybe even from the government how about every other remotely possible combination of people, animals, plants, inanimate objects both natural and manmade? Yeah, there's sure to be revolutionary science in such stuff ... but, how to pay for all the high level sexologists? Pull the wool over the public eyes and then whisper sweet nothings in their ears ... and presto, the money rolls in. Man, what a racket; makes me wonder sometimes why I choose to follow Christ instead of some business or job of engaging in sex all day every day for mega dollars ... wow, no wonder it's so hard to get through to the free sex people.
|
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 8:09 AM By John L. Sillasen
I forgot to include extra terrestrials, so that'd open up a whole additional universe for advanced human sex studies.
|
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 10:01 PM By Not Celibate
First Century
Peter, the first pope, and the apostles that Jesus chose were, for the most part, married men. The New Testament implies that women presided at eucharistic meals in the early church.
Second and Third Century
Age of Gnosticism: light and spirit are good, darkness and material things are evil. A person cannot be married and be perfect. However, most priests were married.
Fourth Century
306-Council of Elvira, Spain, decree #43: a priest who sleeps with his wife the night before Mass will lose his job.
325-Council of Nicea: decreed that after ordination a priest could not marry. Proclaimed the Nicene Creed.
352-Council of Laodicea: women are not to be ordained. This suggests that before this time there was ordination of women.
385-Pope Siricius left his wife in order to become pope. Decreed that priests may no longer sleep with their wives.
Fifth Century
401-St. Augustine wrote, “Nothing is so powerful in drawing the spirit of a man downwards as the caresses of a woman.”
Sixth Century
567-2nd Council of Tours: any cleric found in bed with his wife would be excommunicated for a year and reduced to the lay state.
580-Pope Pelagius II: his policy was not to bother married priests as long as they did not hand over church property to wives or children. 590-604-Pope Gregory “the Great” said that all sexual desire is sinful in itself (meaning that sexual desire is intrinsically evil?).
|
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 10:48 PM By John L. Sillasen
The New Testament does not imply that women offered sacrifice at Christian altars. Clerical celibacy arose, for reasons explained by St Augustine, and also for the very reasons explained so clearly by St Paul ... to provide the Church with optimum shepherding. Married men simply do not have the full resources to do this as do celibate priests. Married men can hardly find time to mow their lawns, let alone minister the flock. Rebuttal: Professional 9 - 5 married priests. Yeah, right. Isn't that one of the problems with too much of the clergy today, in that they imagine themselves as business executives or something along that line? Employees on the time clock, employers managing the time clock, entrepreneurs dreaming up new ways to be priests, creative artistic geniuses creating new and original never before thought of churches? Hey, those who do not want to be holy priests should go and get a job, profession or career ... theirs is not a priestly vocation. There are countless laymen and women who live spiritual vocations but who are not clergy ... they are frequently married, raise children, have jobs, businesses, professions, are lotto winners kickin' back, and so forth, not to mention kids who depend on their parents ... and others in lieu of parents in many cases. A parish filled with faith can handle any situation; a parish with a priest who is like an absent father has little faith and so has to dream up all sorts of devices to substitute for the simple way God has arranged it.
|
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 10:55 PM By John L. Sillasen
Another problem with Not Celibate's thesis is his sense of guesswork ... I'd guess by it that he worships the god of guesswork, instead of the God of truth. He suspects that, because the Church waited for centuries before proclaiming that no women can be ordained, then prior to that there were ordained women. This is the same illogic that claims that since Jesus is said in the Gospel to be the "first born" of Mary, then she bore more kids after Him. What Not Celibate is doing is creating an imaginary world by spinning words by superficial efforts in some attempt to fool those who are not well versed in analyzing language. This is an abusive and dishonest way of engaging other people. He mentions various false religions, and fails to reveal that the odds, which he depends on, would give the Church many converts who came to the light of reason. In other words, not all gnostics or manpersisted in their false beliefs, but humbled themselves and came into the Church.
|
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 11:07 PM By John L. Sillasen
Furthermore, in defense of St Gregory the Great, pope, who said (if we believe Not Celibate) that all sexual desire is sinful in itself, what is wrong with such a statement? Sex is meant for married couples, and this includes the desire. Apart from marriage, the (and I quote Not Celibate) sexual desire is sinful: What is errant about this? Nothing. If there is sexual desire and there is no legitimate object, such as the generativeness and proclivity of the marriage, then how could such desire not be sinful? So, what we have here in Not Celibate is a devious attempt to deceive by means of grossly distorting the meaning of words and ideas, plus profaning and calumniating the great Saint Pope Gregory. Celibacy as the norm developed, becoming obvous to the faithful, in an age of a rapidly expanding Church, a Church era where the Church was beginning to take over empires. The Church left the side streets and became center stage; no longer was there any time for the clergy to involve itself in marriage; such a luxury was gone. *** Another point of fact was the persecutions which occured frequently: An unmarried man would more easily be picked out as a possible Catholic priest ... so you see, the specious and disingenuous arguments of Not Celibate fall apart miserably.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:43 AM By Not Celibate
Popes who had illegitimate children after 1139: Innocent VIII 1484-1492 several children, Alexander VI 1492-1503 several children, Julius 1503-1513 3 daughters, Paul III 1534-1549 3 sons, 1 daughter, Pius IV 1559-1565 3 sons, and Gregory XIII 1572-1585 1 son.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 22, 2008 3:00 PM By Not Celibate
Celibacy is frequently a dangerous state in which the self-centered egocentrism of childhood remains unchallenged throughout adulthood. As a result a tremendous number of celibate priests remain immature, cursed with the arrogance that comes with a life-time of never being challenged, lacking the courage that comes when one enters into a close enduring relationship with an equal adult. Many fear this childish arrogance and unexamined self-satisfaction often reaches deep into the Roman Catholic hierarchy itself. Many in the hierarchy also strike me as incredibly naive about sexual matters, placing all sexual indiscretions in the same shameful category. Homosexuality between consenting adults is just as sinful as paedophilia, which is equally as perverted as transvestism or having an affair with a woman, married or not. An underlying assumption is that these problems occur because some men simply do not have the strength of character and self-control to maintain their vow of celibacy. Sexual indiscretions have been treated with such cowardice and secrecy and their discovery the source of such shame that serious help for the errant priest to face and deal with his problems has often been effectively unavailable.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 22, 2008 7:08 PM By John L. Sillasen
Not Celibate, your arguments continue to harp on sin and fail to rise to the level of doctrine. I've already shown you where you argumentation is faulty; it's salted with rumor and emotionalism.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:37 PM By Not celibate
G.R.: My book starts from the opposite end, the fact of abuse, and says that, if we are to overcome it, we must seek out the deepest causes both of the abuse and of the inadequate response to abuse, and, in doing this, we must be free to follow the argument wherever it leads. If it causes us to question teaching or practice concerning creeping infallibility or sexual morality or obligatory celibacy, we must be free to do so. The bishops do not address these issues, or how we are to overcome abuse if we are not free to ask the questions that arise.
I remain convinced that we have a long way to go and that, if we are ever to look to the future with a clear conscience, we must be free to ask the questions that spontaneously arise from the terrible fact of abuse and the inadequate response to it. Until that happens, we are trying to manage rather than truly confront the problem.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 10:01 PM By John L. Sillasen
" if we are to overcome it, we must seek out the deepest causes both of the abuse and of the inadequate response to abuse": No, this is an error, and a grave one. First one needs to seek God: "Seek first the Kingdom of God" and all your needs will be met. Good psychology has no great benefit without being founded on faith in God. Not Celibate is approaching his issue with vengeance; however, "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord". Forgive your abuser; forgive yourself; trust in Jesus and His Mother the Blessed Virgin Mary, and in the Church ... the true Church, not the wolves in sheep's clothing. Jesus tells us first to worship God and second to love our neighbor ... the eleventh and greatest commandment ... no mention here of vengeance or "heal thyself" type psychology. Seek God. The life is in the Blood of Christ, seek life as it is being offered by the Lord our Savior. We are cautioned not to delve deeply in the corruption we find ... sex abuse has a potent demonic dimension to it ... leave it be and seek Jesus. There is no reason to dig into evil. Seek that which can save you, namely Jesus. Knowledge of evil will not save anybody ... only God can do this. Seek Jesus, the Godman who saves.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 11:54 PM By Not Celibate
Bishop Robinson's "difficulties" with the statement from the Australian Bishops…
I have had the opportunity to study the statement of the Australian bishops more carefully. I have several difficulties with this statement.
Firstly, it says that I question the teaching authority of the church and quotes John's gospel concerning the promise of Jesus to send the Holy Spirit to the apostles "in order to lead them into the fullness of the truth". In this the statement appears to confuse teaching authority with infallibility. I do not deny that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit and I do not deny the teaching authority of the church, as even a cursory reading of my book would show. What I question is the teaching on infallibility and especially on "creeping infallibility", in which, even without the formal apparatus of infallibility, Catholics are told that they must believe many truths. The bishops appear to brush aside the very real problems associated with this phenomenon.
Secondly, it says that my questioning of authority is connected to my "uncertainty about the knowledge and authority of Christ himself." But surely the real question is not where my doubts concerning the knowledge of Jesus come from, but rather where the certainties of the bishops come from? I point out that the biblical evidence is conflicting and that "We are, after all, speaking about what went on within the mind of Jesus, an individual unlike any other who has ever walked on this earth, a person within whom the divine and the human were bound together in a singular manner." The bishops make no attempt to explain where their certainties come from.
|
Posted Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:12 PM By Not Celibate
Mr. Sillasen, you have demonstrated that you do not have a clue concerning child abuse in the Catholic church. For some reason you seem to be in some form of denial or you have been brainwashed of any rational thought concerning the horrific crimes against children by catholic priests and the hierarchy that enabled them. There is no reason to dig into evil is your response. Lets just pray about it and let it go. That is your solution and I'm sure the church and the hierarchy agrees with you 100%. First of all the victims have nothing to forgive or repent for as they committed no evil or did anything wrong to begin with. The Hierarchy is on the hook for this and the ones that participated in this evil will surely end up in Hell. The Hierarchy will never be the solution because they are as guilty as the abusing priests they enabled. The victims were/are treated like an enemy of the church. The hierarchy made them (victims) the evil ones and the abusive priests the victims. The abusive priests and hierarchy have not repented or demonstrated any form of compassion for the victims. The hierarchy has done everything in it's power to silence the victims and their families. You and others like you need to understand that the victims demand that they should be believed and seek justice for what happened to them not vengeance. I won't go on any longer as I know what I have written here are things that matter little to you. You are the one that is in error on this issue.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:27 PM By joe
i would like to meet with as many of those posting on this page as possible. if interested please contact me at
|
Posted Wednesday, July 30, 2008 5:16 PM By Jennifer
Sexual abuse is the Catholic church is not caused by homosexuality or by celibacy nor by the sexual revolution in the 1960's. I know many survivors that were abused in the 1940's and 1950's and I have talked to a few that were abused in the 1930's. Peter Damian wrote extensivily about sexual abuse in the Catholic church during his life time in 1007 till 1072. It is not new nor is it only a US media problem, it is ingrained and world wide. Sexual abuse is caused by a power and control mentality, it is the ultimate power over someone. Boys were a primary target because boys were more accessible. But if you look at the victims in the Oakland diocese and in the US you will see a prevaliance of women. I being one such surivor. The secrecy and the moving of the offending priests from parish to parish and from diocese to diocese is what has made the crime so much worse in the Catholic church.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 30, 2008 8:17 PM By Kay
Good for you Jennifer and Not Celibate. Finally the voice of reason. The problem is on this website no one wants to hear the truth or even discuss possibilities. JLS seeking God will not change the abuse. If that were true then all those priests who were sent on a retreat when caught would have been cured. We need to take a strong stand. Any priest who abuses a child will go to prison and any Bishop who helps an abuser evade prosecution should spend a few years there himself. Only problem is if we start prosecuting bishops there would only be a handful left worldwide. As said before sexual abuse is not about sex. It is about power. The way priests have lived and still do has been part of the problem. They are catered too. They have someone to make their meals, wash their clothes, clean their dwellings, do their shopping, and sit at their feet while they spew their power crazed judgments. It has been said that women cannot be priests because Jesus picked only men. If that statement is true than only married men should be allowed to be priests because Jesus picked men who primarily were married. Priests are not allowed to be married because (and only because of one thing). The Vatican does not want to share the inheritance. It's true that being married would not change the abuse any, but maybe it would help create a more mature and caring priest. And help eliminate so many of the egocentric judgmental men we have today.
|
Posted Thursday, July 31, 2008 5:24 AM By Fr. M.P.
Kay said "As said before sexual abuse is not about sex. It is about power." Feminist poppycock. Sex abuse is about the vice/sin of lust. That's why is it called "sex abuse." And it's mostly homosexual lust since 81% of the cases are with adolescent boys. It's caused by failing to live the 6th Commandment. For a detailed theological explanation, you can read Summa Theologica, Second part of the second part, questions 151-155, particularly 153-154.
|
Posted Saturday, August 09, 2008 7:32 PM By Not Celibate
Fr. M.P., The official voice of the Catholic Church has consistently framed clergy sexual abuse as a moral/volitional issue in keeping with its fundamental teaching on human sexuality. Recent popes have referred to abusive clerics as sinners and abuse as sin. This approach has had a profound influence on the response to the offending clerics and to their victims as well. In keeping with the Catholic theology of penance and forgiveness, the clergy abuser is encouraged to acknowledge his sinful actions, seek God’s forgiveness and sin no more. Victims are encouraged to forgive those who have abused them. This unrealistic emphasis is not on the abuse and its powerfully destructive effects on the victim, but on a future wherein the sexual abuse is not a cause for embarrassment for the Church. The fallacy of considering clergy abuse only in terms of sin is that it serves as an excuse to overlook the criminality of the act. It also serves as a distraction from the need for accountability on the part of the abuser as well as the ecclesiastical system that formed, enabled and in the end, covered for the abusive cleric.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|