[updated 6/22/02]

The Catholic Church’s Child Molestation Problem

A group of cardinals had a long road trip recently, and I’m not talking about the baseball team. Roman Catholic cardinals made a trip to Rome to deal with the ongoing molestation crisis in which a small but still troubling number of priests is giving a black eye to the Catholic Church. The true problem was how the Church did not adequately handle the process, which often was swept under the rug, pushed to other parishes, or just plain ignored. While the accused (or accepted as guilty) priests often got off lightly, the minors involved, their families, and believers in general had a much worse time of it. Those molested obviously are liable to be troubled, but so are those who have put their faith in the church, only to see it be unable to protect one of the more defenseless group of people (our children) from a truly “notorious” crime by those who we are taught are specially endowed with the power of the Holy Spirit to be servants of God here on earth.

Of course, those with a cynical view about the Catholic Church (or organized religion in general) will not be that shocked that priests can do wrong. Even for those a little less jaded, it is unfortunately true that any earthly institution (and history surely backs this up in the case of the Roman Catholic Church) is flawed. Therefore, perhaps it was inevitable at some point some scandal would come along to remind us that giving too much discretion even to the most trusted institutions is dangerous. After all, we have a healthy disrespect of families, who in various cases were victimized by cases of molestation. The trust and power of the Church makes it that much more possible at some point the still sinful members will fall. Therefore, if this controversy causes it to be put under a bit more scrutiny (legal and social) than once before, it seems surely justified.

Now, I fear there is an inherently troubling aspect of the Roman Catholic Church that complicates this development. The core of the Church is its institutional structure, it’s handing down doctrine and policy from above, and it’s lack of community involvement in such policies as compared to other Christian faiths. A recent article makes this clear in a small way: the ability of lay members of the faithful to clean out chalices was seen as a notable development … until recently, even this trivial act could only be done by clergy. Such an autocratic system is quite liable to keep the Church tied to the past, as well as hidden from the public, even when it makes questionable decisions. This is a troubling when doctrine that a sizable majority of American Catholics reject (not allowing contraceptives being an obvious one, but also women in the priesthood, marriage among priests, divorce with remarriage allowed, etc.), but especially so in cases like this. Nonetheless, the Church seems to have no plans to allow community boards such as those present to oversee various police departments, or make any major changes at all. At some point, the Church will rue this outdated autocratic and conservative policy.

Ironically, the Church’s structure and doctrine has been an important part of why there is a molestation crisis. First, it has allowed the problem to be hidden and to fester, thus putting the needs of the institution above those of the faithful. The Church surely thought (partly for admirable reasons of forgiveness of those involved, forgiveness and penance a major and beneficial aspect of the faith) it was ultimately protecting the sanctity of the Church, and therefore also protecting the faithful themselves. This has turned out to be clearly a sin of pride; the sin of thinking one is more important and strong than others. Openness is now as much as ever extremely important, as well as humbleness, even for the greatest (at least in authority) among the clergy. A path that will cause a lot of pain, including in prestige and probably compensation, but that pain is no way comparable to the pain of those hurt by the molesters and those who have protected them over the true victims in all of this … the community of believers at large.

The fact that we are talking about male priests molesting boys also raising a second very troubling issue: gays in the priesthood. An open secret is that many homosexuals go into the priesthood, as a way to serve God because their faith holds that carrying out their sexuality is sinful. Catholic faith holds that homosexuals themselves are not sinners, but acting out on their homosexuality is. Therefore, the priesthood serves as a way to avoid violating God’s law, as well as being among some others who understand their personal struggles. Furthermore, given that the numbers of gay priests are much greater than many wish to admit, they are liable to find others who share their sexuality. This provides an emotional connection on various levels, even if no sexual activity is carried out. A troubling practice of putting teenagers on a “fast track” to priesthood before they are able to deal with their sexuality also was once a much more common practice. The fact many of the cases of molestation happened in the late 1970s and in the 1980s also shows many of these priests grew up in times when homosexuality was less understood and accepted by society as a whole than it is today. Thus, sanctity like the Church was even more comforting back then.

The all boys club nature of the church (putting aside nuns, who generally act separately from priests, deacons, and altar boys), the fact that male companionship is available is clearly one factor involved in gays joining the priesthood. It is a way to be emotionally close to males without the risks present in seeking out them in other contexts, while also serving their God. Furthermore, such emotional connections might very well be returned, either by other gay priests, altar boys who are struggling with their sexuality (or for some other reason), or simply by other priests or minors who welcome the connection offered. The choice of minors is surely not limited to gay priests. Male teachers and others who interact with children surely have been known for various reasons to have sex with young girls. Furthermore, abuse of minor girls (including “consensual” sex with girls too young to truly consent) has been known among male clergy of various faiths. Sex with minors, including by authority figures, is in most cases a heterosexual affair. Nonetheless, the opposition to homosexual acts and all male nature of the Roman Catholic Church makes man/boy molestation much more liable to occur in this situation. Finally, the taboo nature of it as well as the lack of danger of pregnancy (though sadly not other sexual problems, like VD) has furthered the cloud of secrecy involved.

Of course, one might say the problem is the doctrine. Surely not the Roman Catholic Church, who are more liable to blame homosexuals in general or sexual permissiveness, or general immorality than their own actions and beliefs. If it was all those things, why is the problem so troubling in the Roman Catholic Church? If allowing priests to marry, women to join the priesthood, or (shocking!) admitting homosexual acts are not sinful is not the issue, why are not those faiths that accept one or more of those not equally amidst a scandal of this nature? I don’t think it’s a shocking statement to make that the smaller pool of priests and mixed up views on homosexuality (all acts are sinful, so acts with boys … some of whom might very well be gay themselves … are not so uniquely sinful) aggravates the problem. Instead of reducing the pool even further by not allowing homosexual priests at all (which would be on par with a warning by one woman member of the military to General Eisenhower during WWII that removing lesbians will decimate the number of women in the military), perhaps major changes to church policy would be a better way.

Since such developments will most likely not be forthcoming anytime soon, we must look at the alternatives. Though the Church doesn’t seem that open to the idea, clearly some degree of civilian oversight must be in place. A major problem in this scandal has been the secrecy of the Church, secrecy that has not been used for the good of all, as well as well as its autocratic nature. Let’s accept as a given that the Roman Catholic Church is an institutional faith, one in which a select group is felt to be given by the power of the holy spirit (via the sacrament of “Holy Orders” or technically in the case of the pope, the election by a select group of cardinals) the authority to be our spiritual authority. They can do this without keeping themselves totally clothed from public scrutiny in doctrine as much as in practice, including in matters of a controversial nature, including finance, leadership choices, and criminal/civil liability. Furthermore, they should accept more input from not only a select group of theologians, but also the priests themselves and even the faithful in general. The community of believers must be able to know that the authority they give to their leaders is justified, and the decisions of their leaders are truly informed and with the interests of all truly respected as well as protected.

The actual solution likely to be offered is not surprisingly much less broad. First of all, it has been started to be accepted that those who molest children are dangerous individuals that must be isolated from other children and be treated as the menace they might be. This includes letting authorities know about the allegations made, which was once kept a private matter, even though we have discovered how horribly the Church handled it on their own. Sadly, we have seen how the Church is not a neutral party, so cannot be trusted on its own to handle problem priests. Serious cases also will result in a type of “one strike and you are out” policy in which molestation will lead to the end of one’s service in the Church. The word used was “notorious,” [a later official report of the new standards did not use this word] which unfortunately seems to suggest only those who are victims of public criticism will be targeted, especially since the public still has such a small role in such decision-making [a lay national review board has been put in place]. Nonetheless, one must be careful, however, of suggesting complete zero tolerance. Zero tolerance has a habit of going out of control, making even the trivial cases punished harshly, and thus throwing such a broad net that by necessity the policy is handled in an arbitrary manner.

After all, “molestation” is so broad of a word. As has been seen in some cases involving teachers and nursery schools, there is a tendency in such emotional areas to go overboard with false accusations and hysteria. Let’s say a priest that we find out is homosexual hugged a troubled boy in a questionable way or took a picture of his church group at camp or a beach. Zero tolerance policy is liable to use such innocent actions as a means to end the career of a good priest. Even a more sexual act (a kiss let’s say or discussing with boys their homosexual urgings and letting them know that the priest himself sometimes has urges like that, so it’s okay) might cross a line, but a "one strike and you are out" policy would be too extreme. [One case that came out after I wrote this piece was a consensual "affair" with an adult man, another some charge of molestation of a teen that happened about twenty years ago.] For instance, many would accept if in even troubled cases the acts are admitted to be wrong, help provided to all sides, and the priest is sent away to a place away from children. Harsh treatment is sometimes required, but retaining some degree of forgiveness, the possibility of penance, and some way to carry out one’s service to God in a safe context is a truly Christian way that still is worth upholding. [

Finally, a word on the suggestion by some that “pedophilia” is the wrong word to use in many of the molestation charges involved here because we are mostly talking about teenage boys. It is quite true that in some case we should take in consideration that the minors involved are teens, some of whom probably consent to the sexual activity involved. Now, I do find it weird that certain conservatives are arguing that sex with minors has shades of gray … they are right, but they are not usually so open minded on untraditional sex. Still, we are talking about children here, many thirteen or under, and “pedophilia” seems to be a fitting word in such cases. Yes, this scandal involves homosexual activity, but just like in other cases where adults have sex with children of the opposite sex, and that is where our concern should ultimately lie. If we are going to try to play with definitions or concern ourselves with homosexuality instead of the inability of the Church to protect children from predators, all of this controversy is likely to be much ado about nothing. It is time to face up to facts, no matter how unpleasant they might be for all involved.

Links: A few interesting essays on by law professor Marci Hamilton on the legal aspects of this issue can be found here: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20020328.html, and she suggests a recent court decision upholding the right to view virtual child porn actually helps us reach a solution to the problems of child abuse: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20020425.html.