Sunday, October 10, 2021

French clergy and the latest sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church

The Catholic Church was in the news again for yet another sex abuse of children scandal, this time in France (French clergy sexually abused over 200,000 children since 1950, report finds | Reuters). Over 200,000 children (some reports say 300,000) were abused by priests (and nuns) over the course of seventy years. The sheer number of children is staggering, and it goes without saying that these children must have suffered in silence for many years before the Church decided to do something about the global sex abuse scandals that have plagued it for many years now. All the victims deserve monetary compensation (large amounts of money); however no amount of money can erase the memories that these children, now adults, have. No amount of money can wipe out the feelings and knowledge of betrayal. Adults whom you trusted were not trustworthy. They were instead predators, preying on young children who were most likely told by all the adults in their lives to respect and listen to the adults in their lives.

Every time I read about another sex abuse scandal in the Church, it makes me angry and sad. My respect for the Church decreases; I don’t know when or if it will hit rock bottom. I hope it doesn’t reach that point. I hope that the Church manages to make the huge major changes it needs to make in order to survive well into the 21st century. But it cannot have reactionaries at the helm if it is to undergo a revolutionary renaissance.  

Random thoughts:

I am fairly sure that the clericalism in the Church is not what Christ envisioned when he founded his church. Clericalism is a policy of maintaining or increasing the power of a religious hierarchy (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clericalism). Clericalism exists to protect clericalism and the organization of the Church. It exists to provide careers for bishops and cardinals. It exists to protect the power of bishops and cardinals—its leaders. Just the word ‘power’ ought to flag the interest of all the faithful. It ought to get Catholics asking why it is necessary for the clergy to have power over anyone, especially since Christ was not interested in earthly power. He was interested in quite the opposite: ‘The first shall be last and the last shall be first’. Those who think they are important will be relegated to last place, while the unimportant will find their place with God. I say again for anyone interested in listening; Jesus Christ was not a clerical type. I doubt he would have been interested in sitting protected inside the Vatican. He was more the type to be wandering around speaking to people, meeting people, meeting the poor, challenging authority. I can bet that there are a number of clerics who don’t particularly like this picture of Christ.  

The Church needs to do the following: open its doors wide so that all the world can see inside it; end the mendacity that has defined it for so long; release priests from their vows of celibacy (or make celibacy voluntary) and allow priests to marry; and stop trying to control the sexual lives of its married and unmarried parishioners when it cannot even control the sexual lives of its priests who have taken a vow of celibacy. The Church has had far too much to say for far too long about how ordinary Catholics live their sexual lives. While most of the latter were trying to follow archaic and illogical rules (e.g. concerning birth control), some priests (and some nuns) were acting on their sexual proclivities for children exactly as they pleased, protected by the willing silence of the Church on the one hand and the unwilling and often forced silence of their victims on the other hand.

As a consequence of this criminal behavior on the part of clerics, ordinary parishioners should cease to support the Church financially. It can be a temporary cessation, but it is the only way to force change. Hit them in the pocketbook. Yes, it means punishing all clerics, but this is how we were treated in Catholic schools—the entire class was punished for the transgressions of one or two students. We had nothing to say about that; we were told to sit down and be quiet, to accept our punishment. Protests were out of the question. Clerics should do the same—accept their punishment. I think they will begin to look at the vow of celibacy and of poverty in a new way when donations are no longer running in, and that will be a good thing. I have stopped giving to the collections as of this month, and will continue this policy until I see that the Church treats its sex abusers as the criminals they are and turns them over to the police, as well as using its wealth to compensate the victims of such priests. I want the Church to use its vast wealth to pay through the nose for what it’s done to children. And if you think I’m being harsh on and judgmental about the Church, you’re right. I am. I’m angry, and there’s nothing wrong with my being angry. How I decide to deal with that anger is my prerogative; not donating to the Sunday collection is one way of dealing with my anger.  

For those who rant and rave about how much better everything was before, and that we need to return to the Church of old--we absolutely do not. The Church of old looked the other way when dealing with pedophilia and sexual abuse, as the French scandal clearly points out. Most of the abuse went on between 1950 and 1970, exactly around the time we were growing up. The Church swept most sex abuse scandals under the rug in an effort to preserve the organization, transferred the offenders to other parishes, got offenders psychological help if possible, and carried on as though little had happened. But they did not turn the offenders over to the police.  From 1950 until well into the 1980s, the Church was still mostly ‘traditional’ in its approach to most things, still strict about sexual matters, about birth control, about divorce—about most secular matters. I have no desire to return to the Church of old, steeped as it is in bygone traditions. Will reciting the mass in Latin prevent sex abuse scandals? If the priest does not face the parishioners while on the altar, will this lessen the number of sex abusers in the Church? Doubtful. While some traditions are good, others are not. Traditions such as unquestioning obedience to the clergy or not questioning their advice on marriage, divorce and sexual matters are impossibly dated and fated for the scrap heap.

Not all pedophiles act on their desires, but the Church still needs to weed out pedophiles as best it can, vigilantly. Pedophilia is not defined as a crime, acting on pedophilic desires is a crime. But the Church would be best served by ridding its ranks of pedophiles. A priest friend I know blames the sex abuse scandals on homosexuality in the Church. I do not agree with him at all. Homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia or sex abuse. There may be homosexuals who are pedophiles, just as there are heterosexuals who are—in the Church as well as in society at large. Weeding out homosexuals will not prevent the sexual abuse of children.

Most priests and nuns are not sex abusers, thank God. One thing that strikes me as rather odd, and that is that the majority of them are rather silent on this issue. I would have expected that they would protest more as a group within the Church, to church leaders. I would have expected more anger, more discord, and more opposition. That is also one way that the Church will change and grow into the organization it needs to be for its faithful. There needs to be room for dissent, debate, disagreements and discussion. The faithful deserve nothing less. In fact, the faithful are pretty much fed up with the sex abuse scandals in the Church. They are fed up with dealing with hypocrisy and betrayal, as well they should be. If the Church wants to hang onto its parishioners, it should make the changes it needs to make, and fast.


The four important F's

My friend Cindy, who is a retired minister, sends me different spiritual and inspirational reflections as she comes across them and thinks I...