Reason for the Catholic Church's Priest Sex Abuse Problem

Stories--you could say scandals--involving sexual abuse of young persons by Roman Catholic priests have been in the news lately, and this is not the first time by any means. It's been a repeated story and by now a long-standing vexation for the Church.

Now, I want to say as soon as I can and as strongly and emphatically as I can that pedophilia (sexual attraction to children) and homosexuality are two different phenomena and not connected. In fact, studies have shown that most men who have a sexual attraction to very young persons are heterosexual. However, I discuss both of these sexual inclinations here because I believe the Church is seen as a refuge for both of these categories of people.

Quite a few years ago, as a result of a position I then held, I was sent, anonymously, an article--also anonymous but supposedly written by an insider--with estimates of the percentages of homosexuals in the priesthood, in monasteries and convents, and in seminaries. The numbers were estimates, and even so I don't have them at my fingertips. Suffice to say they were surprisingly, amazingly high.

I have what I believe is a very reasonable explanation for these data.

What I believe happens is this: A (probably young) man or woman perceives in him/herself urges or attractions--for the same sex, for minors, or for both--which he has been taught (sometimes very emphatically) are wrong, shameful, sinful. He  sees the Church as a solution, believing that once he has taken his celibacy vows, his efforts and desire to remain true to those vows will help him to suppress those unacceptable desires.

Unfortunately, and very sadly, it typically does not work.

Copyright © 2018.

People Are the Problem--I Mean, Human Numbers

Many of the problems of our planet--depletion of fish in the ocean, extinction of animal species, pollution, climate change, scarcity of resources such as water--can be traced to a root cause: people. That is, too many people, or overpopulation. How so?

• Fish are being depleted simply because there are too many people who want to catch and eat those fish, in relation to the number of fish there are. Supplies of fish are not unlimited, and many fish species are close to exhaustion.
• Animal species are being lost from the ecosystem due to loss of habitat (due to natural areas being turned into housing tracts and shopping centers--so called "development") and also hunting, which often is for food for people.
• Pollution, simply, is due to people and their activities: their manufacturing, their burning fossil fuels, their producing all forms of waste.
• Climate change, as many people understand, is due to the production of greenhouse gases, which is due mainly to our burning of fossil fuels but also to other causes such as raising of livestock (cattle emit methane, which is a greenhouse gas).
• Scarcity of water is due to human activities: drinking bathing and cooking, of course, but also manufacturing and agriculture. Of course more people means more water consumed and this is already a critical problem in some places.

In some parts of the world, such as Latin America, where the birth rate is producing a growing population, a serious obstacle to controlling population has been the Catholic Church.

In America, we have many single mothers who have four, five, or six children. (I hope it will not sound racist if I say that these are often "minority" women.) When there is no father in the home, this is a recipe for poverty. Some of these women work two or even three jobs to try to support their children, and their jobs are often low-paying. Also, their children are apt to receive a less-than-ideal amount of supervision and thus they get into trouble.

I don't know why these women don't use birth control more. I can only guess. Some of them may be Catholic (but what percentage?). Many presumably don't know enough about the available means of artificial birth control or are the victims of misconceptions and misinformation.

If they work at jobs that provide health insurance (and, surely, many of them do not), they should have access to birth control through their employer-provided health insurance. However, the Trump administration is doing what it can to worsen the population problem. Under former President Obama's health care plan (often nicknamed "Obamacare"), employers, through their employee health insurance plans, made access to birth control easier. But Trump and his cabinet want to make it easier for employers to opt out of providing this coverage on "conscience" grounds, i.e., they can claim it violates their religious beliefs. (In the interest of the greatest accuracy possible and to avoid over-simplification: there was provision for such objections, which involved submitting a form, but some employers--for example, Catholic  hospitals--object even to doing that, and Trump is trying to make greater accommodation for these employers.)

And, perhaps even worse, Trump has undermined, curtailed, and even eliminated US aid to family planning programs in other countries.

Copyright © 2018

A New Archbishop for Chicago

Just now, our local (Chicago, Illinois, USA) television concluded the broadcast of the installation ceremony of a new Roman Catholic archbishop for Chicago. For those who care, his name is Blase Cupich and he had been the bishop of Spokane, Washington. More important, he is expected to further the policies and attitudes of Pope Francis.

 

I'd like to share some thoughts and reflections on this event.

I am not a Catholic nor even a Christian, but who the local Roman Catholic archbishop currently happens to be still might affect me. Who the archbishop happened to be at the time undoubtedly affected my Jewish ancestors in Europe as it could be a matter of whether they, as Jews, would be persecuted or, more likely, how vigorously they would be persecuted. (I find, more and more, that when I think about cathedrals or the Catholic Church I think about the persecution of Jews by their Christian neighbors for nearly 2000 years.)

And even today, I can still be affected by who currently is in power in the Roman Catholic Church because, if the Church preaches anti-gay prejudice, that has the potential to stir up those who hear such words and incite them to anti-gay prejudice and even anti-gay violence which I could be the victim of. Also, the Church has been influential in opposing anti-gay discrimination laws and same-sex marriage at the legislative level.

So, who the leaders of the Catholic Church are has the potential to affect me personally in several ways, and I am glad that the current pope and similarly his appointee, the Archbishop of Chicago, show signs that they are going to be more liberal, more human and more humane.

Copyright © 2014

Further to My May 27, 2012 Posting, "Some Anti-War Thoughts on Memorial Day"

I just read something interesting. This guy writes,

I think half of us understand firsthand the caring that is at the heart of the U.S. military, but for others of us who are not part of the tradition, we just look from a distance and don't quite get it.

An interesting and provocative idea. I felt the finger was pointing to me as one of those who don't "get it," and that maybe I should re-examine my thinking on the subject.

Well, I feel that I might do so, at least to the degree of making a distinction between the "grunts" on the one hand and the generals (whom I still hate heartily) on the other.

My first-hand experience of the military consists of having been a cadet in Basic ROTC while in college. (I had to take ROTC. I was attending a land-grant college, and two years—that is, "basic" ROTC—was compulsory, though I tried to get out of it. I did manage to graduate with one-half credit hour less of ROTC than was required; it's a long story, how I managed that.)

I chose Air Force ROTC out of the choice of Army, Air Force, and Navy, simply because Air Force ROTC cadets did not drill with a rifle—and I didn't want to touch a gun, even a mock one.

In the late Spring, when the weather might be quite warm, we Air Force cadets had to drill in our heavy wool winter uniforms—the only ones we had—and it was not uncommon for a cadet to collapse from heat on the drill field. So much for "caring" on the part of the higher-ups.

I don't think I would personally like very many military people or veterans. Statistics show that veterans (and, even more so, veterans' organizations) are politically conservative and they vote Republican. And I believe they are consistently hawkish and they love war. They get together to share nostalgic recollections of the good old days of bombing the shit out of tens of thousands of civilians. (I know, that's harsh.)

Even if the lower-ranking personnel are deserving of my sympathy, I think maybe I can draw a parallel with the Catholic Church. I have a friend who is a former Roman Catholic priest. We don't talk very much about his having been a priest and not at all about his leaving the priesthood; it probably had to do with his being gay.

But he has been telling me that it's the Church hierarchy—bishops and so forth—who are conservative and opposed to a lot of social changes both within and without the Church; and—again according to my friend—even the rank-and-file priests are critical of the position of the bishops and the Church hierarchy, and at least in their hearts oppose those conservative forces in their church.

So maybe it's similar with the military: maybe there is a wide chasm between the higher officers and the men in the lower ranks.

My most popular (in terms of number of pageviews) posting on this blog has been the one I titled "The Military Dehumanizes People," posted on May 25, 2009. And I stand by every word of what I said there.

Update: Expanded on June 10, 2012.

Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein

What a Theocracy Might Mean

After being truly struck by a couple of Iowa voters who, when interviewed, said we need "God in America" or "God in government," as I previously wrote, I want to write a bit more about what theocracy means, what a theocracy might be like.

When religion and the government are in the same hands, you have people making laws according to what they believe God likes and wants. To me it is supreme arrogance for anyone to claim to know what God wants; and certainly not everyone is going to agree about what God wants. No matter how confident this or that person is as to what God's will, wishes, likes (etc.) might be, we will have a difference of opinion in a society as diverse as America. We do, after all, have not only different religions in America and even within Protestantism we have many denominations and sects.

These differences of opinion can mean religious war; and in a theocracy, religious war is civil war. We should look at the example of the Muslim world where the two main branches of Islam, Sunni and Shia, are constantly at war with one another, bombing and murdering one another.

The Inquisition was a good example of the Church and the State, while not officially one and the same, practically being one. In Spain, once Christians had reconquered all of the Iberian peninsula from the Moors (and in fact a bit before), the Inquisition was started. Many Jews and Muslims—who had previously lived in harmony with Christians—now had three choices: leave the country, convert or at least pretend to convert, or be tortured to death.

The Framers of the US Constitution had the negative example of England one to two centuries earlier. In the period between the death of Henry VIII and the first Elizabeth, there was considerable jockeying back and forth between Catholics and Protestants. The country was Catholic one day, Protestant the next. It was hard to know which side your bread was buttered on, it changed so fast. And the consequences of who was in power at the moment were not inconsequential. For example, Catholics—at least wealthy ones with big houses—had secret rooms and passages built in their houses where priests and other artifacts of their worship could be concealed. Queen Mary, who ruled, I believe, on and off in the period between Henry VIII and Elizabeth, was known as "Bloody Mary" because of her practice of burning Protestants at the stake. And Elizabeth, once in power, executed Catholics who she believed had been plotting against her. There was armed strife and many people lost their lives. "By 1643, hundreds of thousands of Christians had been slaughtered by other Christians because of the way they worshipped Christ."*

(There was again strife later in the 17th century when King James II, suspected of being secretly more Catholic than Protestant, was forced out in the so-called "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 that installed the Protestants William and Mary.)

It seems that wherever there is not complete religious homogeneity—and there is nearly always someone with differing ideas—there is likely to be strife. Theocracy is a recipe for terrible conflicts.

You know, I just said to myself, looking over what I wrote: "God, I shouldn't even have to write this!!"
_________
This quotation is from an article, "God, Government and Roger Williams' Big Idea," Smithsonian, January 2012; adapted from the book, Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul by John M. Barry, copyright 2012 by Viking.

Update: This posting was updated with additions on January 13, 2012.

Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein

Very Interesting Words of the Pope

Pope Benedict XVI, when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote a bit about the issue of literal interpretation of the biblical creation story in Genesis, particularly when a modern scientific view would seem to be in conflict with the Bible.

I think it's very interesting that he seems to show a much more reasonable point of view (i.e., less insistent on the literal truth of the Bible) than your average Protestant fundamentalist.

It [i.e., Genesis] says that the Bible is not a natural science textbook, nor does it intend to be such. It is a religious book, and consequently one cannot obtain information about the natural sciences from it.
………..
And so the suspicion grows that ultimately perhaps this way of viewing things is only a trick of the church and of theologians who have run out of solutions but do not want to admit it, and now they are looking for something to hind [hide?] behind. And on the whole the impression is given that the history of Christianity in the last 400 years has been a constant rearguard action as the assertions of the faith and of theology have been dismantled piece by piece. (Source: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm)

Of course I tend to think it is "a trick of the church and of theologians" and a "rearguard action," etc.--but I must say, I'm impressed that he anticipates that point of view.

He also says, vis-à-vis the conflict between creation and evolution,

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the "project" of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities.

The view I am trying to express here is surprise: I don't think of the Catholic Church, and especially the present pope, as liberal.

On the other hand, over the centuries, the Church has shown a certain wisdom, or at least a well-developed survival instinct, in that it has managed to have the flexibility to change when confronted by successive challenges from science: First the Copernican revolution (even though they tried to suppress it; the story of the Church's silencing of Galileo is well known), which made the Earth no longer the center of the solar system, as the Church had taught. Then the advent of geology, which showed the great age of the Earth, as opposed to, for example, the reckoning by a certain English bishop that the Earth was 5400 years old. Then Darwin and his theory of evolution—all these seeming to contradict the creation story in Genesis.

Now the present pope, I think rather deftly—whether convincingly is up to the individual reader—endeavors to save the theological view once again.

Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein

Excuse Me, But--Aren't Catholics a Minority?

Some voices on the political Right are complaining against those who, in their view, advocate imposing "minority mores" on the rest of us. I have to think that they are talking about things like gay rights and same-sex marriage.

Consider that, recently, it was the influence of Roman Catholics who succeeded in getting the Stupak amendment added to the health-care reform bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. This amendment prohibits coverage for abortion in any federally-administered health insurance.

And a week or so earlier, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops, donated $185,000 to further the passage, in Maine, of Proposition 1, which overturned same-sex marriage in that state. Plus, the Catholic bishops had done much the same in California, helping to assure passage of Proposition 8, which overturned same-sex marriage in that state. They not only used dollars but lobbied heavily--and in California they were notably joined in that effort by the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons).

Leave aside for the moment the issue that, supposedly or theoretically, church groups are barred from political action or advocacy, at the peril of losing their tax-exempt status—which is apparently never enforced against the Catholic Church or any right-wing church, although an action for removing the tax-exempt status was brought against a minister who had spoken on the other side of the aisle during the reign of George W. Bush.

The people complaining, as quoted above, about "minorities" who want to impose their mores on the majority must not have been talking about U. S. Roman Catholics—although, last I heard, Catholics were a minority—as are Mormons, for that matter. Catholics just happen to be a wealthy and well-organized minority, not to mention sufficiently powerful that they will not be ignored by politicians.

So, as always, the Right is hypocritical: they inveigh against the very things that they themselves are guilty of. It's "if you want rights, you are a minority who does not speak for Us. But when it's us—well, disregard the fact that we are not the majority, just because we happen to be right!"

Well, if they mean Right—Amen to that.

Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein