Woops. If I’m not careful, I’m going to be sacked from this high-paying, all-rewarding job…
Apologies for the delay in my post – I am holidaying in rural Aus, visting grandparents and just generally trying to escape my life for a bit.
So, last weekend we went REALLY country and headed into deep rural, drought-ridden New South Wales. Mass on the Sunday was an interesting experience (”show-tunes” would be describe the music).
At the end of Mass, a man got up to talk to the congregation about an initiative – started by the bishops of Australia – to break down the barriers surrounding abuse of children by clergy. Breaking down of barriers, he said, meant opening up dialogue and encouraging every member of every congregation to play their part in ensuring abuse – physical, sexual, psychological and emotional – did not happen.
My grandparents know the guy who was talking, so after Mass we said hi to him and I congratulated him on tackling a nasty topic so openly. He said he’d already had two arguments with parishoners about it.
I asked my Pa why that is and he said people around the place are resistant to change and many don’t want to face a problem that, in this case particularly, happened just under their noses.
Is it fear that makes us want to hide from the truth? To hide from what is sometimes a nasty reality? And that sort of fear, and determination to avoid anything horrible, that continues to perpetuate the problem. Doesn’t it?
I find this particularly timely given the discussion about Harry Potter that’s currently going on on this blog – why are some people so determined to seek out evil in the oddest of places? What about the evil that is already prevalent, being perpetrated and already doing great damage?
Great post, Captain, I’ve been wondering the same thing myself this week.
One of the worst parts of the abuse scandal has been the response of some members of our communities. I’ve heard people arguing that “it isn’t really a Catholic scandal”, and comparing abuse rates inside and outside the church to “prove” it.
How can anyone fail to see that the abuse scandal is about the response of the church to the abuse – irrespective of how many cases occurred?
Worse still, I’ve heard people come up with all sorts of theories about how “much of it wasn’t paederasty”, since some of the kids were post-pubescent, as if that somehow makes it better.
Those sorts of attitudes, and false apologetics (attempting to defend the indefensible) are, as you point out, only contributing to the evil of the situation, and echo the original causes.
Captain,
The reality is that evil doesn’t limit itself just to certain times and places – it works to corupt EVERYTHING that is true, beautiful and holy.
Evil can be present in a work of fiction, it can be present in the way that one person treats another person (i.e. sexual abuse), and it can even be present when we fail to act (i.e. choosing not to help those in need).
The only entity that evil cannot corrupt, and in whom no evil is found is God.
One other really important thing to remember is that thought comes before act, and the way you think will determine the way you act.
So if something that feeds and forms our thinking (i.e. a work of fiction) is forming a paradigm within us that is wrong, or evil, then it becomes even more likely that we will fail to recognise the good, and instead choose evil (often wrongly mistaking evil for good).
“How can anyone fail to see that the abuse scandal is about the response of the church to the abuse – irrespective of how many cases occurred?”
Just to clarify my own statement, before anyone else attempts to
That any abuse occur within our church was and is an absolute tragedy.
The refusal to acknowledge or deal with the situation for so long is the scandal.
Peter,
Anyone who thinks that this scandal isn’t an issue for the Catholic Church is living in la-la land, but at the same time, anyone who thinks that this scandal is exclusively a Catholic issue is also just as ignorant of the facts.
I also think that you have got the wrong end of the stick with your comment:
“Worse still, I’ve heard people come up with all sorts of theories about how “much of it wasn’t paederasty”, since some of the kids were post-pubescent, as if that somehow makes it better.”
Firstly – these aren’t “theories”.
Anyone who is willing to examine this issue in a frank and honest way, and who is willing to accept the facts of the recent Catholic abuse scandal, will also openly accept that the vast majority of abuse perpetrated in this scandal has involved adolescent boys.
Secondly – the cold hard facts about the type of abuse is actually VERY important if we are ever going to engage this issue and implement a true and lasting solution to this crisis.
Thirdly – I don’t know of anyone who has tried to defend this abuse scandal on the basis that this scandal involved the abuse of adolescents, people are simply pointing to the facts when they raise this issue, they aren’t trying to excuse what happened or make out that adolescent abuse is better than pre-pubescent abuse.
People who raise this VERY important issue are not engaing in apologetics – they are simply trying to dialogue with the rest of the Body of Christ to try and get them to realise the truth of this scandal, and the real causes behind it.
If we aren’t prepared to deal in truth, then good luck finding a solution and bringing about healing.
“The refusal to acknowledge or deal with the situation for so long is the scandal.”
I 120% agree with you here Peter – and I would also add that the actual sexual abuse of another person is also a grave scandal too.
“The refusal to acknowledge or deal with the situation for so long is the scandal.”
Also agreed Peter
Hi Maximus,
RE #4…
I agree that we have to see the reality of the situation, which is exactly why the number of people focusing on the age of the victims is problematic.
Statistics are not facts, and this has major pastoral implications: by relying on the bell curve to indicate your problem area, you have just told all of the younger victims that their abuse was just an anomaly – whether that was your intention or not (and I know it wasn’t).
Stats have their use in identifying the *largest part* of the problem: but to suggest that stats provide the truth is ridiculous: statistics, by their very nature, involve closing our eyes to the actual truth in relation for a set of “easy to deal with” trends.
Read the historical accounts.
Sexual abuse of children by priests has always been a huge problem.
This is not a new phenomena by any measure.
In my view it is a consequence of an all male celibate priesthood, because that sort of priesthood tends to attract a disproportionate number of men with sexual problems – be they asexuality or some type of sexual disorder that prevents normal marital relations (homosexuality, pederastry etc).
The point of it is really what we are going to do to stop it.
The hierarchy is always going to act to protect themselves.
God is relying on us to protect our children.
Good on those who are speaking out and acting to stop this abuse, which is still going on today.
That’s always the first step for positive change.
To recognise a problem and have the courage to speak up about it.
God Bless
Chris:
What an interesting thing to say – that the abuse is still going on today.
I’ll have your definitive proof, please.
Otherwise don’t you dare continue to slander our priests in this way.
OH please please, have we not already had this argument?
I’m glad you said In my view as this is a view that many hold although it seems like an logical conclusion, I believe it is erroneous. This problem exists in many areas of work and religious groups. While you may be correct at some level, I also think that more and more people are learning to identify those with sexual problems and not let them enter.
#8
“Read the Historical accounts.
Sexual abuse of children by priests has always been a huge problem”
Chris, I’ve looked for historical acounts and couldn’t find any. I’d appreciate a reference.
In my view it is a consequence of an all male celibate priesthood…….
When I first saw this, I considered venting my spleen as I did on a previous occasion, but then realised that Chris use “In my opinion”- as noted by Gianna – which put a whole different slant on thecomment.So instead of reacting as in the past, I decided to treat this in an Apologetic/Catechetical moment, because I’m with FXD – this is a slander on our priests.
Excuse me – just been called away – the Wisdom of the aged will return shortly
Now, where were we?
Oh yes, that’s right, the disordered sexuality of the male celibate priesthood – found only in the Catholic Church – what’s more, the Latin rite predominantly.
Let’s consider when Moses, acting on God’s word, established the Levitical order of priesthood for the Israelites. This was just after the Golden calf incident which occurred when Moses was up on Mt Sinai receiving the Decalogue.
When Moses called for those who would stand with him for the Lord, it was only the Levites – Moses own tribesman – who came forward and said, “We are on the Lord’s side.” Ex.32:27….
He said to them,’Yahweh, God of Israel, says this, “Buckle on your sword, each of you, and go up and down the camp from gate to gate, every man of you slaughtering brother, friend and neighbour” ‘. The Levites did as Moses said, and of the people about three thousand men perished that day. ‘Today’ Moses said,’you have consecrated yourselves to Yahweh, one at the cost of his son, another of his brother; and so He bestows a blessing on you today.’
And, incidentally, another example of God decreeing death – just to add to the previous comments on that matter.
This is the forshadowing of our ordained priesthood. Now, sure , they were not celibate, but there were strict conditions on their marrying. They had to marry only a virgin, and were forbidden from the law of marrying a brother’s widow. Not much, you might say, but the Israelites were a pretty promiscuous and rebellious bunch. The Levites had to abstain form intercourse before holy days, and on the Sabbath. Much in the same way that Orthodox priests do. So there were restrictions on the sexual activity of the Levites.
I don’t want to go into detail on the celibacy requirement for our priests. At ordination, they are made “in persona Christi” – Jesus was a celibate male, probably the strongest reason for celibacy. Jesus could have married – there would have been many women disciples who would have been very eligible. He chose not to. He could have chosen some women in the ranks of his apostles – He chose not to. Even though Peter and Phillip were married, it is the Tradition of the Church that they remained continent after Pentecost – a tradition preserved in the clerical continence in the Latin Rite for ordained deacons who are married. Eatsern Rite priests cannot marry – but married men can become priests with strict rules relating to nuptial rights, and they cannot re-marry if their wife dies.
As with many things, for much of what I say I use my own experience in life, having been on this earth for 60 plus years. Several years ago, for various reasons – mainly medical – my wife aked that we forego sexual activity. As someone who is still very fit and active – even today I outlasted my 34 yr.old employee on the heavy work on my building site – this was a very difficult period. However, after some months of prayer and unexpected self discipline, the lack of sexual acrivity became normal. Nowadays, I’d rather have a beer
– do you believe me???
And one day, I would like to be enter the diaconate- clerical continence poses no problems for me.
The point I’m making is : men do not have to have sex to be men. It is more manly – with the benefit of experience – to forego in a sacrificial way, that to which we are most drawn. I sacrifice my sex life for love of my wife. Why then is it strange or unnatural for men to forego sex, family, business opportunity, wealth, for the love of Christ?? Of course, this requires prayer and siscipline – but why is it so difficult to understand that Jesus gives His special help to those He has called to do His work – to be Him.
That, Chris, is why I have so much difficulty with your continued labouring this point. I could go on, but I think the point is made.
Chris, I will pray for you to see the wisdom of Celibacy.
Don,
I’m not opposed to celibacy, but the Church has never defined it as an absolute requirement for the priesthood. It is only a discplinary and not a doctrinal requirement in the Latin rite.
If you think that Ex.32:27 is an example of good moral behaviour, or that it was the will of God, then I think you are a million miles away from correctly discerning the divine will.
God never wills any human being to kill another human being.
God Bless
Chris Sullivan
I have been watching the ‘Harry Potter and the death of God’ thread with some interest, hoping that you would come back and answer TTM’s points. You didn’t.
Then FXD mentioned that he assumed that you would come in somewhere else and continue your comments about God not killing anyone, after having ignored dealing with the issue in that pervious thread. And you have:
I was surprised that it took so little time. It does appear to be somewhat duplicitous.
It seems as though you have modified your approach a little; perhaps it is best to refer you back to what TTM said on this issue in the ‘Harry Potter and the death of God’ thread:
http://www.beingfrank.co.nz/?p=437#comment-17497
AMDG
Chris
# 13
I’m not saying you are opposed to celibacy, but your continuing – as you have just done – on about it not being a requirement. If the continued teaching of the Magisterium is not enough for you, there’s not much more I can say. But if someone wished to be like Christ – a total attempt to be like him – a male celibate priest would come closer than anything else don’t you think? Who has done this? Well, Francis of Assisi springs to mind, and Padre Pio- both Franciscans, and both being granted the Stigmata; except that Francis wasn’t a priest.
It’s really the aberrant sexuality of priests that you go on about was the main point of my post – an attempted refutation of your opinion.
If you think Ex. 32:27 is an example of good moral behaviour, or that it was the will of God, then I think you are a million miles away from discerning the Divine Will.
Hey mate, I’m only repeating Scripture – you know, the Word of God, and I didn’t express any opinion on the morality of the quote – but Scripture tell us that Moses was carrying out God’s instructions. If you wish to dispute that, feel free.