The Scandal in the Catholic Priesthood
"While those who give scandal are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder, those who take scandal - who allow scandals to destroy their faith - are guilty of spiritual suicide." - Francis de Sales
There has been much media attention to the scandal within the Catholic priesthood, and Nathan Barker has wasted little time in trying to use this tragedy to his advantage. Many point to the discipline of celibacy as the root of the problem, Nate points to homosexuality as the problem, but I disagree with both. The problem is, as usual, sin, not the mere fact that there exist gay priests. The Church has taught that you are not a sinner if you believe that you were "born" homosexual - you are a sinner if you actively live the homosexual lifestyle, pursuing sexual contacts with other males, whether they be adults, adolescent, or prepubescent. And, unfortunately for Nate, this problem exists among 2x2 workers, too!. There have been made multiple claims of sexual abuse made against workers, and, sadly, the response has been similar to the Catholic Church's dealings with the problem - shift workers around to different territories and deny allegations.
The problem is not celibacy. If celibacy was a problem, married men would never have extramarital affairs. Since workers are celibate, too, even Nate realizes that this approach against the Catholic Church will backfire. It is not enough to refrain from sexual relations outside the bond of marriage, priests (and workers) who choose to be celibate must refrain from all sexual relationships. The rationale behind having a celibate clergy is quite biblical, by the way. Jeremiah was told not to take a wife and have children (Jer 16:1-4). Older widows would make a pledge of celibacy (1 Tim 5:9-12). Paul, who was himself celibate (1 Cor 7:8) recognized that no soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits (2 Tim 2:3-4), and that the unmarried man does not have the concerns of taking care of his family and instead can focus on serving God 100% (1 Cor 7:32-35). Jesus even praised celibacy, who was celibate Himself (Mt 19:12).
The fact is that sin exists in the world. Phillip Jenkins, who actually is an ex-Catholic, has studied the issue of pedophilia within Christian clergy and has come to some startling conclusions. From his research, he discovered that the incidence of pedophilia was actually higher among married Protestant clergy! Even though there is no highly-centralized reporting system in Protestant churches like there is in the Catholic Church, a confidential survey revealed that 10 percent of Protestant clergy members have been involved in sexual misconduct, whereas among Catholic clergy this problem ranges from 0.2 % to 1.7% percent. The most extensive study which considered 2,252 priests over a thirty year period found only one case of pedophilia. On NBC's Meet the Press television show (June 16, 2002), host Tim Russert stated that there have been about 1200 accusations against the nation's 45,000 Catholic priests - this comes to a total 2.6% of all Catholic priests accused of sexual misconduct, assuming that every single allegation is actually trur. Since it is a fact that homosexuality exists in the world, and since priests represent a sub-group within the population, it should come as no surprise that there would be gay men who become priests; however, are homosexuals more sexually promiscuous than heterosexuals and therefore more likely to have sexual relationships with other men (or boys)? I'm not sure, but the point is irrelevant. What remains the underlying problem is that of sinful behavior, whether it exists within Catholic clergy, Methodist ministers, 2x2 workers, public accountants, window washers, etc. For example, Tony Leyva, a Pentecostal minister, abused perhaps one hundred boys in several southern states in the 1980s. There was also the case of the three brothers, all Baptist ministers, who were charged with child molestation in the 1990s. Inall, a reported 37 percent of Protestant pastors have confessed to having been involved in inappropriate sexual behavior with someone in the church. In my home town this year, a man was charged with 16 counts of child rape at an Evangelical Protestant church. Interestingly, the public outcry was muted in comparison to the attention the Catholic clergy. Also in my home town, a Jewish rabbi is accused sexual harassment of a woman over the course of many years. I take no joy in mentioning these sad examples, but I feel moved to demonstrate that it is not a “Catholic problem”.
Nate’s article contains within it the usual ignorant assumptions; for example, Nate writes that
“At minimum, 20 Percent of priests are believed to be homosexually oriented, according to Rev. Donald Cozzens, author of "The Changing Face of the Priesthood." Others say the number could be as high as 50 percent.” What Nate does not know, apparently, is that only 1.6-2% of priests actually go on to molest! Nate mentions the Cardinal Bernadin case, saying “The late Joseph L. Bernardin, archbishop of Chicago, was the first U.S. cardinal charge [sic] with abusing minor. However, after sensational publicity the alleged victim recanted his claim in 1994.” Actually, the “alleged victim” Steven Cook recanted because he wasn’t sure about his memory about an incident 17 years earlier. The concept of “Recovered Memory” is one of the most contentious and least scientific methods of psychological insight which has been discredited among leaders in the field.
Please do not misunderstand. The Catholic Church should not, and cannot, condone the abuses that have occurred. The handling of problem priests in certain cases has been less than satisfactory, with tragic results. All people of faith, Catholic or not, should be justifiably outraged by the sinful behavior of priests, but they should remember that this problem is NOT unique to Catholic priests. It should also be remembered that these problem priests are an aberration, compared to the 98% of faithful priests of integrity who serve their congregations with sincerity and honesty:
It would undoubtedly be to the great advantage to the Church were all priests saintly men, though even in that case there is no guarantee that all Catholics would be equally submissive to the directions of those angelic priests. Yet it would not really be ideal for the Church to have only angelic priests. We must face the realities of life, and the essential frailties of human nature. The only way in which all priests could be rendered angelic always would be for God to render them either absolutely immune from all temptations or incapable of yielding to temptations. But surely, even though one is a priest, he should have to meet his own temptations just as any other man, and should be capable of losing his soul as well as of saving it. It is not ideal that a man should have a through-ticket to heaven just because he has been ordained a priest. Priests are subject to the same laws of virtue as all other men. They have to fight for it, doing violence to themselves, and resisting the temptations life itself carries with it. And on the law of averages, it is to be expected that some will fail even whilst some fight their way to the heights of holiness. Others will remain fair average quality. But the Catholic Church remains ever the same, whatever be the variations in the personal holiness of her priests. We cannot say that the Catholic Church is right when we meet a saintly priest, and then say that the same Church is wrong when we meet a careless priest. An unworthy priest may not practice what he preaches; but at least he will not dare to preach what he practices, in those matters at least where he falls short of Christian virtue. And the Church must be judged by those who do live up to her teachings, not by those who do not.” (Rumble & Carty, vol 2, 296)
The approach of the Catholic leadership, right or wrong, was to believe that priests who molest could be rehabilitated. In the 1960s and 1970s, they were only following the consensus among the mental health profession (Harvard University, for example) that sexual abuse was a treatable problem. It was also believed that the biggest long-term risk to the abused child would be the psychological damage inflicted by police investigations and court proceedings. So, they were reprimanded harshly, sent to counseling, told to make a retreat, and often transferred to another parish. Unfortunately, what seemed to happen too often was that the priest simply starting molesting at his new location. The situation appears to have been compounded by local bishops who, in the minds of many, should have been more proactive in dealing with these priests. I happen to agree that there have been two betrayals of trust - at the abusing priest's level and at the level of the bishop who should have dealt with them more forcefully. Does this mean that my belief in the Catholic faith is shaken? No, because this has nothing to do with Catholic theology. Sinful leaders in the Old Testament offered child sacrifices (Jer 32:32-35); there were even cult prostitutes in the temple of the Lord (2 Kgs 23:7). Jesus predicted that scandals would arise (Mt 18:7) - He knew that Judas would betray him (Mt 14:43-46), yet He still chose him as one of his Apostles. Peter betrayed Jesus 3 times, but He chose him as the leader of His church (Mt 16:18). The entire group of disciples ran away when Jesus was arrested (Mt 14:50). Thomas refused to believe in Jesus' resurrection, initially (Jn 20:24-25).
If there was such a thing as a perfect church, would it still be perfect after you and I joined it? There will always be weeds among the wheat (Mt 13:24-30), but thankfully, the infidelity of a few will not nullify God's fidelity to us (Rom 3:3-4). Even when we are unfaithful, God remains faithful (2 Tim 2:13). Jesus even recognized the legitimate authority of the Pharisees, even though they were “hypocrites”, “a brood of vipers”, “blind guides”, and “whitened sepulchers full of dead men’s bones”, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." (Mt 23:2-3)
The scribes and Pharisees were “hypocrites”, “a brood of vipers”, “blind guides”, and “whitened sepulchers full of dead men’s bones”, yet their authority was valid even though many of them were corrupt. Some people are predicting that the Church is in for a rough time, and maybe it is. But the Church will survive because the Lord will make sure it survives. One of the greatest comeback lines in history was uttered two hundred years ago. As his armies were swallowing up the countries of Europe, French emperor Napoleon is reported to have said to Church officials, ”Je detruirai votre eglise” (“I will destroy your church”). When informed of the emperor’s words, Ercole Cardinal Consalvi, one of the great statesmen of the papal court, replied, “He will never succeed. We have not managed to do it ourselves!” If bad popes, immoral priests, and countless sinners in the Church hadn’t succeeded in destroying the Church from within, Cardinal Consalvi was saying, how did Napoleon think he was going to do it from without? (This Rock, May/June 2002, p. 74) In other words, even though they were sinful, their office was still legitimate. Caiaphas was a sinful temple priest, but God still conferred special teaching authority on him (Jn 11:49-55). Those who sin will have to answer to God for those sins; meanwhile, they are still legitimately ordained as ministers of God, because God's graces are not restricted by a sinful priest's inability to maintain that obedience of love (Rom 16:26). It would be no different from refusing to listen to a doctor's recommendation to quit smoking just because he smokes himself.
Sadly, what Nathan is doing is nothing more than indulging in scandal-mongering. “A close examination of history will reveal that ecclesiastics are not the only ones with a skeleton in the cupboard. All groups, classes, and professions, have a past history which is not without blemish. But, confining ourselves to ecclesiastics, if indeed the historical ecclesiastic has much to live down, it is equally true that he has much more that redounds to his credit. The holy, gentle, Christ-like priest appears much more frequently on the stage of this world than the one who has proved unworthy of his calling. But the good ecclesiastic is not “news”. He is merely what he is expected to be. It is the occasional bad ecclesiastic who is “news” to a world which delights in the abnormal and unexpected. Moreover, evil men resent the goodness of others, if only for the reason that goodness wherever it appears is the condemnation of evil conduct. And as the evilly-disposed do not like being condemned, they watch the Church with malicious eyes, ready to pounce on anything to her discredit, exaggerate it out of bounds, and broadcast it to all who are willing to listen. It is an indictment of our poor human race that the scandalous can always get much more publicity than the edifying.” (Rumble & Carty, vol 2, 294)
|back|