Gus Lloyd doesn't know how "clericalism" is the source of abuse in the Catholic Church. How does clericalism lead to the sexual abuse of children or any vulnerable adult by a priest? This was a part of his commentary this very morning as I was driving to the church office.
GOOD QUESTION Lloyd!
It is the clericalism of bishops who are not careful in whom they select to be ordained.
It is the clericalism of bishops who don't properly supervise their priests.
It is the clericalism of bishops who are in a state of denial about the nefarious activity of their clergy.
It is the clericalism of bishops who think they can heal perversion and that breaking the law, either canon or civil doesn't deserve penalties to include the "death penalty" for active ministry.
However, in terms of clericalism, when laity who naively so trust their priests that they entrust their kids or vulnerable adults to them in an unsupervised setting, is a recipe for disaster.
Most parents, though, would never entrust their teenage daughters to a priest and a priest wouldn't want that, but they would entrust their teenage sons and normal priests at one time didn't see anything wrong with that because so few thought the priest was gay and would take advantage of a teenage boy. It is a betrayal of trust but also the ignorance of the sexuality of some priests. It is a betrayal of the vow/promise of celibacy! It is hypocrisy and criminal hypocrisy to boot.
One notorious Jesuit, now dead by the grace of God, was so respected and idolized, placed on a pedestal, that no one could believe he could take advantage of teenagers and children and he used this adulation to take advantage of his victims and ruin the lives of countless kids/teenagers and the Catholicism of countless parents and other family members.
The proliferation of this scandal and the number of victims can be squarely laid at the feet of his Jesuit brothers and superiors. That's clericalism that those who knew could care less about what he was doing. Don't rock the boat. And kids who were abused wouldn't come forward because he was such a respect priest and so high on his pedestal.
Clericalism can be blamed when perverts are set free to do what they want to do without consequences. That needs to be addressed. But the ordained priesthood need not be dumbed down when healthy men are ordained and properly supervised.
8 comments:
How can you call these guys perverts when the Democratic Party's newest darling is one? He also questions others religious beliefs. You cannot make this stuff up.
Wow, absolutely the truth. Thanks for this post, Father. Light in the darkness. Perfect for “Spy Wednesday” of Holy Week.
Bee here:
If clericalism is defined as a misuse of priestly authority and power, then I agree with this article. I have a very strong feeling the attitude we saw (and still see among some bishops) is a misuse of power and and arrogant lack of accountability, and a sense they are not accountable to anyone, not even to God.
Is is pride? The kind of pride that infects a dictator, who thinks he IS the law, therefore all must accept his decisions and judgements without question? And alongside that attitude, is there a reluctance to act as a moral authority? Is is the same infection many parents have now who want to be friends with their kids instead of act with authority toward them, being very permissive and lax with them, to the child's ultimate detriment?
Or was it a coup d'etat; an overthrow of the Church begun by theologians who taught far out theories and interpretations of Revelation in the seminaries, who diverged from settled doctrine and introduced what amounts to heresy and a denial of the Truth of Christ to young men who could not distinguish the subtleties of the lies? And these priests, infected with this thought in seminaries, eventually became the bishops that put these ideas into practice...was it this?
I do not accept any excuse from the bishops for allowing clerical sexual abuse to happen. There is no excuse, not not even the excuse that their actions were an attempt to be pastoral. This was not a mistake. This was a far reaching policy. This was a heretical act among the leaders of our Church. Even lay people knew at the time to protect children from sexual molesters. Bishops are guilty of being accessories after the fact. And now that they are caught, they lie. So yes, if that is what clericalism is, then yes, it was clericalism.
God bless.
Bee
Bee, I have written about this before, and you are right, it is no excuse. But when the focus was on perverted priests and not bishop enablers, there was no since of a crime being committed, civil or canonical and there was absolutely no empathy for children placed in harms' way. And it there was a concern, it was "they'll get over it." And when it was with teenagers, they was some thought that the priest was seduced or it was consensual.
But my main point is that the bishops were discussing publicly at their bishop's meetings and televised on EWTN in the late 90's and early 2000's before the Boston Globe broke their news, what to do with these priests.
Prominent priest psychologists or psychiatrists and two of them I have in person heard as a vocation director were telling bishops that they could cure these men unless they were true pedophiles in which case they needed to be chemically castrated before being returned to ministry.
The whole thing was to cure these men and return them to active ministry. I have to say they also recommended that what they did be made public to parishes that accepted them and that the priests be in on-going AA type recovery programs.
They wanted to make all of this like being an alcoholic. They did not think of victims of would be victims. I challenged one of these psychiatrist about this and he kind of shrugged his shoulders by saying we are doing all we can to prevent this.
That's the foundation of the modern, post Vatican II part of this. What remains a mystery to me is how bishops dealt with pre-Vatican issues and to what extent did it exist in the priesthood then.
Father McDonald,
Given that human beings are human beings, we know from history that there were sex scandals prior to Vatican Disaster II, most of which did not come to light for many many years after the fact.
Since the priesthood likely did not have as many homosexuals in those days, many of the scandals likely involved heterosexual relationships. I assume some of these priests left the priesthood to marry. Others renewed their commitment to celibacy.
I also suspect, prior to the sexual revolution, when rectories and religious housed a large number of individuals, sexual escapades were not as widespread as they became since there were many "watchers" around to keep tabs on each other. I also think that the hierarchical mindset, then, as is now, was to do nothing to attract scandal (counter-productive but a natural reaction).
I can understand if a bishop was confronted with a situation (not involving minors) where he might try to work with a priest who had adult sexual relations with either a woman or a man, provided this was not a pattern and there was a sincere commitment to return to celibate practice. Of course, that priest would have to be monitored in some way. As we know from some of the cases that have come to light, bishops tried to rehabilitate folks who were serial sex addicts and who were incapable of remaining celibate. That is where I find real fault with the hierarchy's response.
Sandro Magister just published an article that claims that Pope Francis withheld Benedict’s letter about clerical abuse which was meant as his contribution to the February summit meeting on abuse.
http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2019/04/17/between-the-two-popes-there-is-%E2%80%9Cfracture-%E2%80%9D-the-silence-of-francis-against-benedict/
If so, the height of clericalism comes from Francis himself.
I try listening to Seize the Day and The Catholic Guy but can't stand them. The yuk yuks and bad jokes are so bad and so corny and so predictable. p.u.
Bee here:
Father McD, after reading your response, it occurred to me that bishops in the '60's and 70's abandoned the sytematic theology of St. Thomas Aquinas (natural law) for new fangled theologies, and grasped at the answers offered by psychologists, trusting in their ideas far more than the ancient wisdom of the Church. On that I hold them accountable for not accepting and carrying on the teachings of the Church.
I recall those years were filled with pop-psychology that promised a cure for every kind of psychological difficulty through "talk" and "understanding." It was everywhere: talk shows, newspapers, magazines, books. "I'm Okay, You're Okay." Heck, it's still going on. Dr. Phil has become a multi-millionare marketing the same promise.
In church there was no more talk of sin and the free will ability to control your temptations. But how many lives have been destroyed falling for that? Thanks priests and bishops....
Sad that so many of the priests who became bishops were so easily swayed by fads and bad theology and abandoned the reliable and ancient wisdom of the Church. And having done so, are they really good Catholic shepherds, even today, or are we often being led by blind guides?
God bless.
Bee
Post a Comment