But this non-Catholic (Lutheran) & heterosexual has a few questions:
1. Is it true that the Roman Catholic Church is "Benedict's church"? Is it true that the Roman Catholic Church is "fragile"? See Peter Schneider, Benedict's Fragile Church, New York Times (March 22, 2010).
Hasn't the Roman Catholic Church been around for at least 1,500 years? Doesn't it have more than 1,000,000,000 nominal members (some of whom are possibly more than "nominal")? Has it suffered from scandals before (e.g., the Italian Renaissance; see also "Martin Luther-Indulgences, Reformation")? Is it possible that the Catholic Church will outlast Peter Schneider, the BBC, and other such entities -- and that it will survive the clergy sex abuse scandal and, even thrive (if not necessarily in Western Europe)?2. Do 60 or so discovered cases of possible child abuse by Catholic priests in Switzerland (during the past five or so decades?) constitute a "wave"? See Deutsche Welle story -- also carried by the New York Times -- reporting that the "wave" of child abuse cases had reached Switzerland.
How many Catholic priests have there been in Switzerland during the last five decades or so? Thousands? How many thousands?
So are teachers in our high schools, junior high schools, and elementary schools nothing more than a collection of vipers & sexual predators?Isn't it true -- is it true -- that child sexual abuse by secondary & primary school teachers is more common than among the Catholic clergy? Therefore, doesn't it follow that the teachers of our children are nothing more than sexual predators?
Of course, there is no risk, is there, that actively encouraging people to come forward with charges of decades-old sexual misconduct -- and perhaps reap substantial financial rewards through civil litigation -- might induce some people to misremember the past? People are never as vile or as self-deceiving as that, are they? What a ridiculous thought!
What else could possibly explain the almost-complete silence of the media, tort lawyers, and some victims' organizations about child sexual abuse by Protestant clergy?Was Sinclair Lewis wrong in suggesting that Protestant clergy sometimes commit sexual abuse? See his novel Elmer Gantry. See also Daniel Burke, "Study: 3 Percent of Women Victims of Clergy Sexual Advances,"Ethicsdaily.com (September 11, 2009).
Was I mistaken in believing that the most common instances of child sexual abuse are those committed by parents on their children?Perhaps the rule should be: sex by clergy: OK; having children: not OK? Is this the idea here?Is child sexual abuse by married adults less common than child sexual abuse by unmarried adults?Should celibacy by Tibetan monks also be done away with? Or should we embrace celibacy there on the ground that celibacy in Tibet is quaint & admirable -- and an effective form of birth control in a part of the world that very much needs effective birth control, perhaps even more effective than the PRC's one child policy?
I wonder what would happen to those homosexuals who would presumably no longer be interested (or as interested) in becoming Catholic clergy? What would they do? Stop being homosexuals? Would they become public school teachers? College teachers? Fitness instructors? Newspaper reporters? Members of Congress? Well, then, our children would be safer, yes? Institutions such as Congress can surely be counted on to make sure that their members do not engage in homosexual sexual misconduct; there is surely no sexual predation in Congress and other similarly venerated institutions against minors.Or do SNAP, the New York Times, the BBC, etc., believe that homosexuals should be barred from being teachers, members of Congress, and so on?A Modest Proposal
What a dimwit I have been! I apologize. A light has dawned in my foggy noggin. I now realize what the solution to the problem is. (You do know what the problem is, don't you, dear Reader?)
The solution to the problem is this:
All organizations that harbor any sexual predators must be done away with.
This of course includes, not just the Roman Catholic Church, but also Protestant churches, Jewish synagogues, high schools, middle schools, junior high schools (and, of course, elementary schools), universities, research institutes, newspapers, TV and radio stations, courts, police departments, large corporations, all large associations & organizations of any description whatever, any small association or organization in which there has been child abuse (as a prophylactic measure, the institution of the family should be abolished since it is in the family that child abuse happens most often), Congress, and so on.
Yes, I know: the destruction of such organizations & associations is a high price to pay. But at least we could all go to sleep at night knowing that our children are safe. (They would be sleeping safely in schools run by the government. They would be safe there.)
Would hanging or shooting the leaders of such organizations and associations be an even more effective remedy? Perhaps such capital remedial measures should be considered (along with, in the U.S., an amendment to the Constitution). Monetary penalties may not be enough. Prison may not be not enough. Even flogging may not be enough.
Well, OK. Perhaps I am getting carried away just a bit: I acknowledge that abolition or destruction of such organizations or institutions might be a bit extreme in some cases. I see a possible alternative:
Organizations should be required to make sure that their members regularly engage in gratifying sexual intercourse or other satisfying sexual activity with other freely-consenting adults.
Short of this sensible remedy (i.e., the imposition of fines against sexually inactive people for being sexually inactive), organizations & associations of every stripe should be liable in spades (i.e., many dollars) for every sexual misdeed -- known or not, foreseen or not -- of every one of its members. That's clearly necessary. And, of course, such monetary penalties fall far short of lynching or shooting -- even though it must be admitted that in some instances monetary penalties could destroy or severely damage institutions such as schools, churches, and hospitals.
We can & should invert Kant's dictum about the horror of punishing the innocent thus:
It is better for the world to perish than for any institution (particularly a religious one) that harbors & succors -- whether wittingly or unwittingly -- even a single sexual miscreant to escape severe punishment.
It's here: the law of evidence on Spindle Law. See also this post and this post.
6 comments:
All well and good. But here's some of what people don't like:
• abuse - whether sexual or not (and some of the cruelties in the Irish Child Abuse Commission Report will make you weep) - carried out by people in positions of power over people with none
• abuse which has no redress
• a system which by default disbelieves the complainant, not least because of the perceived impossibility of abuse by God's anointed representatives on earth
• a system which allows the abuser not only to carry on abusing, but to carry on representing himself as God's anointed etc. with all the social and spiritual deference that demands
• a system which, even having recognised the abuse, concerns itself more with the spiritual welfare of the abuser than with the welfare of the abused
• a system which, after all the above has finally come to its attention, concerns itself more with its public image than with the welfare of the abused.
• the systematic betrayal of spiritual investment
Need I go on?
None of the above denies the wonderful work carried on by most RC institutions, the charitable work, the spiritual support and the common human decency evinced by so many of that faith.
What riles the media most is the holier-than-thou attitude of the Church. The media is famously chock-full of sinners. Ordinary sinners, boozers and adulterers. Yanno, they don't like being preached to by people who seem worse than themselves.
It is a mistake to confuse the genuine hurt and outrage with shriller elements of the media and other opportunists who throng like crows to roadkill. There are real issues here, and you risk clouding them. Things which are worth looking at include: evidence (child witnesses, elapse of time, competence etc), influence, territoriality, statutes of limitations, compensation, compensation-corruption.... Some of your defence is spot on, but it's far from the whole story. Please don't come out as an apologist for an institution which badly needs reform.
And "power" is the key word. The Church isn't a victim, though it's good at being passive-aggressive.
Anne,
Many thanks for your post.
I readily concede (though, fortunately, I have no personal knowledge of this) that some or many (but be careful with the word "many") Roman Catholic priests have committed unforgivable sexual abuse against minors. However, I suspect that the rage in America about such abuses has itself led to injustices.
One possible & probable injustice is that many innocent priests have been found to be wrongdoers.
Another possible & probable injustice -- this is partly just a comparative one -- is that the Roman Catholic Church is being held to standards of conduct that have not been applied to comparable institutions and organizations. It is possible (I think it is probable) that this is being done by some people & entities in part for mercenary reasons and in part because of simple anti-Catholicism.
I fear that these two injustices -- excess condemnation of the innocent and the singling out, for invidious reasons, of a particular religious organization -- may spread to other parts of the world.
As a cautionary tale, I strongly recommend Dorothy Rabinowitz's NO CRUELER TYRANNIES. Rabinowitz recounts how, in case after case, day care workers in America were convicted in the 1980s and early 1990s of "mass sexual abuse" of children in their care even though the stories told by the children were in substantial part literally incredible (e.g., day care workers who rode on brooms, day care workers who cut off children's penises, etc.). Today almost everyone looks back at these cases and wonders how it was possible for all sorts of people -- including judges & jurors -- to be so gullible.
The explanations for the "child day care disaster" (to which Oprah Winfrey contributed with the mantra "Believe the children!") are many. But plainly part of the reason for that earlier disaster was widespread revulsion and horror about child sex abuse: the horror about child sex abuse made many people lose their common sense.
The clerical abuse cases are different from the mass child care abuse cases because in many of the cases of alleged abuse by priests -- unlike in the mass day care abuse cases -- the persons accused of wrongdoing actually did commit the charged wrongs & crimes. But there is, I think, good reason to believe that many innocent priests are being caught up in the campaign to punish the guilty and that the role of the Catholic hierarchy is often being grossly misrepresented.
Sex and religion are toxic matters. Great care must be taken that feelings about sex and religion do not distort our judgments -- or the legal process.
Peter Tillers
Anne,
An important postscript:
Although I readily agree that priests who sexually abuse minors should be punished and made to pay (money), I don't think it's my business -- or yours -- to reform the Roman Catholic Church. To wit: if the Roman Catholic Church wants to have a celibate clergy and if the Roman Catholic Church wants to have an all-male clergy (and if it wants to sell indulgences), that's the business of the Roman Catholic, not mine. That's part of what freedom of religion is about.
Peter T
Peter
Many thanks for your thoughtful response. I hadn't heard of Dorothy Rabinowitz's book, and it sounds like a worthwhile corrective to hysteria. We have had our witch-hunts this side of the Atlantic too, with dreadful outcomes. The Catholic Church wasn't involved then (though anti-Catholicism is deep-seated here). As you say, sex and religion are toxic matters.
I didn't know that innocent priests were being caught up. That's appalling. There are enough bad ones to be going on with. The Irish report I cited earlier is evidence of that. It covers only a part of Ireland, and priests aren't the only perps. Leaving aside (as if one could) the physical and emotional damage to the immediate victims, the insult to the faithful is well summed up by Michael McCarthy here.
As for standards - by its own admission, the Church has fallen short of its own not a few times. Here in UK, childcare institutions are these days held to very high state standards. There is less of a problem than in the USA with state/federal intervention: we are more tolerant of statist intervention, and indeed, demand it. What's deeply resented over here is the suggestion that the Church should operate its own legal system and be its own judge above civil law. There is a long history of hostility to the idea of the Church being supranational and extraterritorial. At times like this, their plea for it seems like a convenience. With regard to Ireland, the Church supported a young penniless country with subsidised schools and hospitals. No one was willing to say a word against. It was the perfect environment for abuse and denial.
"I fear that these two injustices --excess condemnation of the innocent and the singling out, for invidious reasons, of a particular religious organization -- may spread to other parts of the world"
Maybe so. But maybe too, there is a religious organisation which is particularly self-serving, secretive and tentacular, and much to condemn.
No, I certainly don't think it's my business to reform the Church. But it's not beyond me to criticise it.
Anne,
Your last comment is also entirely fair, and I cannot find anything there to disagree with.
My best wishes,
Peter
A celibacy rule is not the explanation for the following episode of sexual abuse: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-05-09-vienna-virginia-church-abuse-case-lawyers-insurers_n.htm
Post a Comment