The Real Problem
I just heard a short interview on NPR's "Weekend Edition Saturday" about the continuing problems the Curia and hierarchy are having with the revelations of sexual abuse and cover-up. For once, at last, the person interviewed was clear, concise and sensible about the part of this that the media wants to talk about.
You may notice that I just said "the Curia and hierarchy," whereas NPR's introduction to this interview said "the Church," as all the media do. There are two terms with multiple meanings that come up a lot in this coverage which particularly make me wince. The media only knows one meaning for each, and so is forever misunderstanding when someone uses one of them in the other meaning, which people do, both in English and in other languages. One is "the Church," which sometimes means "the people of God, the body of Christ," and sometimes means "the human institution with certain offices and practices." The other is "scandal," which sometimes means "the grave sin of causing faith to be lost," and sometimes means "something that fills the pages of tabloids." Another term I wish could be used in these discussions, but can't be used with the media, is "the sense of the faithful," that is, that the Holy Spirit, over time, speaks through the convictions of the whole people.
They interviewed Father James Martin, editor of America magazine. He said what I've been wincing at the news for weeks -- again -- and it was a relief to hear the obvious aloud. Celibacy does not cause abuse. Big one, for starters. So many people don't seem to get that, and I can't get my mind around why it escapes them. You know what else does not cause abuse? Homosexuality. There's nothing special or unique to this situation about the root causes; they are tragically the same throughout society. What is the horrible unique problem is the response, which was and in some places remains tragically rooted in clericalism. That's the institutional villain that made this problem world-wide. Not celibacy. Not homosexuality. Not even patriarchy. Clericalism. That is, the practice of supporting, defending and maintaining the clergy first.
Can you cure excess clericalism by letting priests who desire to marry do so? Can you cure excess clericalism by ordaining women priests? Can you cure excess clericalism by finally carrying out the power devolution mandated by Vatican II? How can you cure excess clericalism? Those are important questions in response to this situation. But those aren't the questions I see asked in the media; I see asked, "Would letting priests marry prevent abuse?" The answer is no, foolish media. No. Marriage does not stop predators in any other profession from committing abuse; there is no reason to suppose it would have a different effect in this calling.
Earlier this week, a different NPR program interviewed a psychologist who has treated many clerical abusers; that interview was not what it should have been, and annoyed me. It cited statistics that I must question and asserted that people who do not have typical experiences in dating and progressive physical intimacy are necessarily psychologically immature, and cannot have -- say, from observing parents, siblings, friends, community, literature, science -- a coherent understanding of human relationships. This guy sounded like he wanted to make sex a high-school graduation requirement.
A piece of context that is rarely introduced in these articles is that it was fairly easy to leave religious orders voluntarily (or to be defrocked) under John XXIII, but very, very, very hard under John Paul II.
There's a famous, doubtless apocryphal, anecdote. Napoleon wants to do something with which Rome disagrees. Napoleon loses his temper with the Cardinal ambassador, and says, "Don't you understand that I can destroy the Church with a word?" The Cardinal laughs ruefully. "We [the clergy] have been trying for hundreds of years and haven't managed to destroy the Church yet."
You may notice that I just said "the Curia and hierarchy," whereas NPR's introduction to this interview said "the Church," as all the media do. There are two terms with multiple meanings that come up a lot in this coverage which particularly make me wince. The media only knows one meaning for each, and so is forever misunderstanding when someone uses one of them in the other meaning, which people do, both in English and in other languages. One is "the Church," which sometimes means "the people of God, the body of Christ," and sometimes means "the human institution with certain offices and practices." The other is "scandal," which sometimes means "the grave sin of causing faith to be lost," and sometimes means "something that fills the pages of tabloids." Another term I wish could be used in these discussions, but can't be used with the media, is "the sense of the faithful," that is, that the Holy Spirit, over time, speaks through the convictions of the whole people.
They interviewed Father James Martin, editor of America magazine. He said what I've been wincing at the news for weeks -- again -- and it was a relief to hear the obvious aloud. Celibacy does not cause abuse. Big one, for starters. So many people don't seem to get that, and I can't get my mind around why it escapes them. You know what else does not cause abuse? Homosexuality. There's nothing special or unique to this situation about the root causes; they are tragically the same throughout society. What is the horrible unique problem is the response, which was and in some places remains tragically rooted in clericalism. That's the institutional villain that made this problem world-wide. Not celibacy. Not homosexuality. Not even patriarchy. Clericalism. That is, the practice of supporting, defending and maintaining the clergy first.
Can you cure excess clericalism by letting priests who desire to marry do so? Can you cure excess clericalism by ordaining women priests? Can you cure excess clericalism by finally carrying out the power devolution mandated by Vatican II? How can you cure excess clericalism? Those are important questions in response to this situation. But those aren't the questions I see asked in the media; I see asked, "Would letting priests marry prevent abuse?" The answer is no, foolish media. No. Marriage does not stop predators in any other profession from committing abuse; there is no reason to suppose it would have a different effect in this calling.
Earlier this week, a different NPR program interviewed a psychologist who has treated many clerical abusers; that interview was not what it should have been, and annoyed me. It cited statistics that I must question and asserted that people who do not have typical experiences in dating and progressive physical intimacy are necessarily psychologically immature, and cannot have -- say, from observing parents, siblings, friends, community, literature, science -- a coherent understanding of human relationships. This guy sounded like he wanted to make sex a high-school graduation requirement.
A piece of context that is rarely introduced in these articles is that it was fairly easy to leave religious orders voluntarily (or to be defrocked) under John XXIII, but very, very, very hard under John Paul II.
There's a famous, doubtless apocryphal, anecdote. Napoleon wants to do something with which Rome disagrees. Napoleon loses his temper with the Cardinal ambassador, and says, "Don't you understand that I can destroy the Church with a word?" The Cardinal laughs ruefully. "We [the clergy] have been trying for hundreds of years and haven't managed to destroy the Church yet."