Celibacy does not cause pedophilia. But what the exclusively male, celibate culture has bred in Roman Catholicism is the obvious lack of awareness that a mother or a father would bring to such a problem or discussion. . . . the nearly complete lack of parents involved in such evaluations of exploitative priests left the "clerical culture" to become a hot-house of self-protective and myopic values."This is an important insight. He is not saying that all priests have to be fathers or even husbands. But when not only women, but any men who are fathers, are systematically excluded from its decisions about priests who abuse children, the culture is badly skewed away from the child to the fellow priest.
Another factor that should be considered in the cover-up of these scandals is the observation that abusers are much more likely than average to have been abused themselves. One has to wonder: how many of the priests and cardinals making decisions about how seriously to take these claims, and whether to allow accused priests to work around children again, were themselves abused a generation ago by a priest? How many of them may be abusers themselves and covering up their own guilt? And where are the confessors of these abusive priests? I know the confessional is confidential, as is psychotherapy -- but sexual abuse of a minor is a rare exception that is required by law (in the U.S., anyway) to be reported. Allowing the Church to skirt that law is a serious mistake.
The implications are growing stronger, in large part from investigative reporting in the New York Times, that Pope Benedict is indirectly implicated in cover-ups. In reporting by Nicholas Kulish and Katrin Bennhold on March 26:
The future Pope Benedict XVI was kept more closely apprised of a sexual abuse case in Germany than previous church statements have suggested, raising fresh questions about his handling of a scandal unfolding under his direct supervision before he rose to the top of the church’s hierarchy.As Cardinal Ratzinger, he had approved sending a priest, who had molested multiple boys in a previous job, for psychiatric treatment. Ratzinger was copied on a memo shortly thereafter that the priest would be returned to pastoral work within days of beginning treatment, apparently without restrictions. However, I have read in a different article that the psychiatrist had strongly advised in writing that the priest must not be allowed to work around children. He was later convicted of molesting boys in another parish.
The case . . . has acquired fresh relevance because it unfolded at a time when Cardinal Ratzinger, who was later put in charge of handling thousands of abuse cases on behalf of the Vatican was in a position to refer the priest for prosecution, or at least to stop him from coming into contact with children. The German Archdiocese has acknowledged that “bad mistakes” were made in the handling of Father Hullermann, though it attributed those mistakes to people reporting to Cardinal Ratzinger rather than to the cardinal himself. . . .The Pope's role is even more disturbing because of another case from Wisconsin reported in another Times article by Laurie Goodstein on March 24th:
In that short span [Dec 1979 to Feb 1980], a review of letters, meeting minutes and documents from personnel files shows, Father Hullermann went from disgrace and suspension from his duties in Essen to working without restrictions as a priest in Munich, despite the fact that he was described in the letter requesting his transfer as a potential “danger.”
Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI -- did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit. . . .In 1996, Cardinal Ratzinger failed to respond to two letters about the case from Rembert G. Weakland, Milwaukee’s archbishop at the time. After eight months, the second in command at the doctrinal office, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, now the Vatican’s secretary of state, instructed the Wisconsin bishops to begin a secret canonical trial that could lead to Father Murphy’s dismissal.
But Cardinal Bertone halted the process after Father Murphy personally wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger protesting that he should not be put on trial because he had already repented and was in poor health and that the case was beyond the church’s own statute of limitations.
Does Ratzinger/Benedict just not get it? The Church and its priests are not above the law. Repentance does not excuse you from the consequences of crime? How many people have been executed despite the fact that, during their long wait on death row, they have become devoutly religious and repented over and over again?
As to Pope Benedict's recent letter addressing the scandal that has finally erupted in Ireland, I suggest reading Mickey Nardo's blog of March 22, "Maybe it's time . . ."
What a mess. Is the Catholic hierarchy -- in its all-male, non-father group of "fathers" -- capable of realizing its huge blind spot? Probably not. The latest comments from the Vatican are accusations of a concerted attack against the Pope, especially from the New York Times.
Ralph
This is the same Pope Benedict who, on the eve of his historic trip to AIDS-ravaged Africa, proclaimed that the use of condoms increases the spread of HIV.
ReplyDeleteHere's his logic: condoms are not 100% effective; abstinence is. Therefore condoms increase the spread of HIV.
Welcome to the 16th century, Benedict.
I have done a huge amount of research on this topic - I wrote a major article for Pittsburgh mag years ago, interviewed victims, pedophiles, visited treatment facilities. Virtually all pedophiles were abused as children, adn their abusing others is an attempt to take control of their own lives. Pedophilia is a compulsive illness, characterized by relapse. It's incurable, and it's questionable if it's controllable.
ReplyDeleteThere are issues in context that never get covered.
The reason so many cases occur in the Catholic Church - although recent stories about kids being abused over 2 decades in the Vienna Boys Choir have gone largely unreported - was early on the Church was one of the few corporations where gay men could rise to positions of authority. It was a relatively safe place to be gay. When pedophiles came forward, two things conspired to their not being prosecuted.
One, there were closeted bishops who were afraid they might be outed by the priests accused of abusing children. Two, at the time these cases first started being reported, the Church did not recognize this as an illness, a medical issue, so they treated it as a sin. If you confess your sin, you have to be forgiven, and you have to trust the sinner will sin no more.
Think of the times, too. Most of these cases involve teenagers, not young children, so that's an issue of ephebephilia, not pedophilia. In the 1970s, much abuse of teenagers was treated as if they were being 'mentored' into coming out.In Boston I worked with many former altar boys who talked about their abuse at the hands of priests as if it was just a passage into their sexuality.
I still think it was abuse. It was not age-concordant, there was a power dynamic. But this is how it was being interpreted by many at the time.
richard
Forgot to add - I do believe the Pope must step down. He may not have personally done anything horrid, but if he couldn't be a good steward as Cardinal, he can't be a good steward as Pope.
ReplyDeleteOne diocese, I think Chicago, has now made it mandatory that any allegation of sexual abuse has to be turned over to the police.
That should be the standard.
Again, though, I would like to see the same level of outrage at the Vienna Boys Choir, or the child trafficking ring that was run out of Unesco several years ago. Those abuse cases get less attention.
richard
I agree with all of this, Richard, including the distinction between pedophilia and ehephbelia. Traditional thinking is that sex between men and teenage boys is less traumatic than that men and younger boys.
ReplyDeleteAnd it probably is in some cases, especially for the gay boy who may eagerly participate and regard it as initiation into what he desires. But for others it is experienced as betrayal of trust and a loss of respect -- even where the boy is big enough and strong enough to defend himself if he wishes.
The betrayal of authority and trust confuses the issue and makes it traumatic, even when it might not be physically traumatic.
Well, I actually do know how to spell "ephebephilia," even though I garbled it above.
ReplyDelete