Thursday 27 March 2014

Random Thoughts on the Church Sex Scandals and Wider Society

Having recently watched a TV programme in which the sex scandals in the Church were once again discussed I was left with a question: why are the child sex abuse scandal and homosexual acts by clergy being discussed in the same programme? Certainly both shatter the integrity of the individual priest and are gravely sinful acts, but the abuse of children is a heinous, criminal abuse of power over the most innocent and vulnerable in our society; taking a male (or female) lover or fathering illegitimate children are not criminal acts and actually sit well with the morality of today’s secular culture which is, on the whole, supportive of men and women taking lovers of either sex.

We must be ever vigilant against abuse by clergy (for perspective see here and here), but I think it is time abuse itself be seen and presented as the problem rather than the organisation in which it occurs, be that the Church, the BBC or any other institution, otherwise it is too easy to see abuse as a failure of the institution when in fact abuse is a massive problem throughout society: the NSPCC reported that in 2011-2012 there were 29,837 offenders on the Sex Offender Register for sexual offences against children (see here).

Having been brought to consider the need for abuse to be seen and reported as a social problem, I found myself irritated by the fact that abuse of the child is considered worse than the killing of the child as occurs in abortion. Further, research indicates abortion harms the woman too, studies indicating that in women who have had abortions there is increased risk of mental health problems, of premature birth with subsequent children, of cervical cancer and breast cancer, to say nothing of the risks associated with the procedure itself such as perforation of the uterus, infection, even death –see here and here.
N.B. Any Post-abortive women who are suffering can seek help through the Silent No More Awareness Campaign (see here) or via Rachel’s Vineyard (see here).

No matter how expert and clinical we make abortion, its true nature as the deliberate killing of the child is not easily dismissed by these mothers: women’s maternal instincts cannot be completely fooled by sterile equipment in clean operating rooms; they instinctively know they are engaging in the killing of their child since it is the child they are seeking to eliminate, not pregnancy. How many more women have to be harmed and unborn children killed before society begins again to value human life from the womb to the tomb? Indeed, following recent revelations by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme, it is almost possible to say that in our “civilised society” the crematoria of the Nazi concentration camps have been replaced by hospital incinerators where babies are not simply cremated as waste but burned as fuel to heat the building in which other babies will have their lives ended. And we call our society ‘civilised’...

17 comments:

  1. Dear Father, another 'controversial', but necessary observation. School teachers, police, and sadly 'fathers/andor'stepfathers' are top on the list of abuse of minors; the 'parent' divorced from the integrity of 'family', divorced from the integrity of Catholicism ain't going to make it. my mother was Catholic - the first to leave the Church after who knows how many centuries, and married a protestant. her eldest has had five marriages - outlived his first child. all the others have lived de-facto - two such ending in abortions, one in murder in the adult sense; overall a total and freeway of turning on Godly imperatives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for this.
      Yes, turning away from God has a trajectory; things can only go from bad to worse. There is much pain in your family, it seems.
      God bless you and yours.

      Delete
  2. Catholisicm and the civilization/Godly conscience with which the west has been blest for centuries has been 'aborted', 'ripped to shreds', and incinerated. all society 'cares' about now is not offending NGOs with hate lists - and who haven't a clue about love, goodness, hate, evil, or anything that really matters.
    in fact if it does matter - it's simply 'hateful' to even address it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, viterbo.
      Yes, indeed. It seems the only people one can speak hatefully about is Catholics; and the only people we don't need to tolerate in a tolerant society, are Catholics. The hypocrisy of it all is staggering.
      God Bless.

      Delete
    2. You state here that "the child sex abuse scandal and homosexual clergy" ... "are gravely sinful acts." When did homosexual clergy become an act. This language is sloppy and is just the type pf thing which creates hurt and stigma. Being gay is not, according to the Catholic Church, a sin. Yes, I am offended by this post as I am a baptised, confirmed and ordained member of the Catholic Church. I am anonymous only because I cannot tell you who I am for fear of further rejection and stigma such as that perpetuated (sometimes, like here, unwittingly) on sites like this.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous Father/Deacon,
      Thank you for your question which noted the grammatical slip implying persons are an act; I have reworded the offending sentence. Thank you also for recognising that that this was an unwitting error; one which may have given the impression that the orientation is the sin rather than the act (which, as you point out, is not the case).
      Since the post focuses on child abuse and abortion, mentioning homosexual clergy only once and as something not to be equated with the heinous and criminal act of child abuse, the fact that this single sentence has been the focus of your comment indicates how far the pain of ‘rejection and stigma’ go for you. I am sorry that this is the case. It is my contention that unless someone is parading their orientation to make a point, rejection of persons should not arise. Even then, charitable correction is what is required, not rejection.
      God Bless.

      Delete
  3. A person ought not to identify themselves with a disordered desire. A desire to do evil in thought, word or deed is disordered. I have had desires to commit various serious sins at times in my life but to contend that that is an integral part of me is a lie, according to reason and Faith. Choosing to identify oneself as "homosexual" against God's plan, not only makes it easier for one to sin, but also invites others to accept a disordered desire as something inherent to one's person, and thus tends to scandal and possible error or sin in those others. One's private disorders or desires to engage in any sin, thought, word or deed, should be kept private, and worked on through confession, etc. God did not create any soul with a desire to engage in the unnatural or sinful.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Men who have not overcome same sex attraction ought not to be ordained as the Church has stated. A priest ought not to be subject to same sex attraction. The document on this matter says that a candidate for the priesthood, if he did suffer with such disordered desires in his youth, must have overcome them and it must be a thing of the past before he could go forward for ordination. A priest is a spiritual father, who sacrifices marriage and fatherhood to serve the people as father. The John Jay survey found that the vast majority of cases of sexual molestation of children by priests involved priests with homosexual attractions. I think 80 per cent of the abused were boys from the ages of puberty upwards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Lynda.
      I seem to remember the same figures as you from the John Jay report, and recall the same teaching in the document to which you refer. Indeed I am tempted to reply to your comments simply with "Indeed".
      I think you make a good point that we ought not to identify oneself with an disordered orientation; after all, we cannot say is intrinsic to the person and for two reasons. First, we are all disordered by original sin and the homosexual orientation but an aspect of this; second, the argument from nature/nurture goes on; no gene causing homosexuality has been isolated.
      God bless.

      Delete
  5. Parading their orientation? O goodness me.
    Don't we all parade our orientation? Wearing a collar can do that.
    Take some time to notice how people express their sexuality - straight or gay - even in Sunday Mass. Expression of straight sexuality is open and allowed there. Your use of this phrase continues to betray a bias against those who wish to be freely themselves and happen to be gay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous,
      Wearing a collar does not “parade our orientation”, and yes, people do express their sexuality in their mode of dress even at Mass.
      In my former profession I cared for two men on the same ward who were homosexual; one simply accepted that we knew he was homosexual; the other was “in your face” about it and admitted this was designed to solicit a reaction. In this, it was passively aggressive.
      I admit to being biased in favour of objective truth; sinful acts which spring from sexuality of whatever orientation ought not to be dismissed if we are to care for souls. No matter how much affection I have for the homosexual members of my own family, I do not give approval to their overt behaviours. We have enough respect for one another to allow this to be the case. Approval of persons, not approval of acts.
      God bless.

      Delete
    2. Don't you agree that there is a default assumption in our society and our churches that people are other than gay?

      And for the record, there are three ranks in holy orders.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for this.
      Yes, I do think there is a default assumption that those who make up our congregations are other than homosexual. Whenever I preach on issues of sexuality (contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality etc) I make sure I stress [1] that the Church has no power to judge persons, only situations and acts; [2] that all people at all times retain their human dignity, and [3] that we have forgotten the old adage to judge the sin not the sinner and thereby fallen into a poor use of language (and attitude?). I know several homosexual persons and there are one or two in my own family, so I have seen the rejection of persons rather than rejection of an orientation. This is less common today, in my experience, and has gone in the other direction at times: that to show respect for people we have shown respect for orientations that as Catholics we ought not to respect.
      Regarding Holy Orders: there are indeed three ranks of Holy Orders (Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon) but only Bishop and Presbyter are priestly ranks; the ordination of Deacons is given "not unto the priesthood but unto the ministry" (Lumen gentium 29). Deacons do of course retain the character of the 'common' or 'baptismal' priesthood, this being common to priests (of both ranks) deacons and the laity, Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify this.
      God Bless.

      Delete
  6. See the Instruction of 2005 regarding discernment of vocation and admission to holy orders of those with homosexual tendencies. I couldn't paste the link to the Instruction on the website of the Holy See.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Lynda.
      I think this may be the link you refer to
      http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html
      God Bless

      Delete
  7. Sorry Father Gary but those of the commentors who use the term "gay" are definitely misusing the word. Whilst accepting what some say that 'it is only a word' I must add that so is 'homosexual' or 'queer' etc. What a waste of a beautiful English word

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, David.
      They say it is a development of language but I think not. I try always to use the word 'homosexual', since I consider use of the word 'gay' to be a celebration of homosexual activity, which we cannot endorse. I also try to avoid using the term 'homosexual union' since these are impossible; I speak of homosexual pairings (after all, a man and woman can unite in the act of love, but not two persons of the same sex -not all acts of penetration can be called unitive). Certainly there can be an emotional union as happens in friendships, but homosexuals can have such friendships without indulging in sexual acts.
      God Bless

      Delete

Please comment using a pseudonym, not as 'anonymous'.
If you challenge the Magisterium, please do so respectfully.
We reserve the right to delete from comments any inflammatory remarks.
If we do not reply to your comment it is through lack of time rather than interest.