226th Meeting – Tuesday, August 13th 2002
Present: Hans Bänziger, Hans Baumann, John
Cadet, Kate Callahan, Jim Campion, Casie Casados, Tom Crichton, Arthur
Edmond-Jones, David Engel, Louis Gabaude, Melissa de Graaff, Otome
Hutheesing,
jefree, Carool Kersten, Annette Kunigagon, Gareth Lavell, Madeleine
Lynch, Paul
Mahoney, Macquis Op di Laak, Richard Nelson-Jones, David Rowlands,
Shane
Watson, David Weighell. An audience of 23.
Dr. Clarke is currently
the Professor of the History and Sociology of Religion at King's
College and
Tutor in the Sociology of Religion at
This is the full text of
his talk:
Quote from a priest in
The first concern of
everyone must be to offer their deepest sympathies to all who have been
abused.
As to the perpetrators of such a crime, I'm not sure whether they are
profoundly disturbed emotionally and psychologically or men of evil
intent and
action. It could, I presume, vary from case to case, and where it is
intentional it is hard to imagine a greater evil. This notwithstanding,
forgiveness and compassion must always be part of the Christian
response as, I
believe, it would be in the case of Mahayana Buddhism, which in the
concept of
Tathagata-gharba or Buddha nature, teaches that whatever a person is
like on
the surface, the depths of her/his mind are 'brightly shining or pure'.
It thus
holds out, as do all other forms of Buddhism, and also Christianity,
the
possibility of ultimate transformation for all. While justice must be
done and
proper compensation awarded (of course no material compensation,
however great,
can atone for the injury inflicted), one of the dangers with responses
that
lack these elements is that healing is made much more difficult for all
concerned. The well known Brazilian educator and philanthropist Paulo
Freire,
to whom I am indebted for this insight, in his classic treatise 'The
Pedagogy
of the Oppressed' encouraged the oppressed, when engaged in the task of
understanding the real cause of their poverty, to build into their
understanding of their plight and its resolution the fundamental
importance, if
they are to preserve their own integrity, of transcending the actions,
attitudes, intentions and goals of the oppressor.
Objectively, the
teaching of the Gospel on children and the Kingdom of heaven views the
kind of
abuse we are speaking about here as sacrilegious, and anthropologically
speaking it bears the hallmarks of the satanic. It is a case, as will
be seen
below, of charisma turning graceless, of God and the Devil changes
places
without a change of face. It involves, among other things, a
manipulation of
spiritual power for ends diametrically opposed to those for which it is
intended. As with the sacred, so too all mystical and spiritual power
are
potentially two edged and can, thus, be harnessed for good or evil.
While this talk focuses
on the sexual abuse of children by priests it needs to be borne in
mind, for
the sake of fairness and balance and for the wellbeing of children,
that
priests are not by a long way, as far as is known, the majority or most
frequent offenders. This kind of abuse is perpetrated in varying
degrees by
people in all walks of life, married and single, heterosexual and
homosexual,
male and female. Further proof of the involvement of married couples
was
recently provided by the police in the
A number of general
theories have been advanced in recent times to explain the existence of
child
abuse within the ranks of the clergy. One such by the American Jesuit
Fr Keenan
(The Tablet, May 11th, 2002) sees it
as essentially a problem of power. Keenan insists that 'sexual
abuse is not primarily about sex, but about power' and
continues 'the molestation and raping of
children are not primarily sexual acts; they are violent acts of power'
(Ibid.: p10).
Keenan supports his
theory, which, while well argued, is nevertheless too monocausal and
unilateralist to be totally convincing, with examples of cases in which
certain
members of the hierarchy have put questions of their own power first in
dealing
with the issue of sex abuse. He maintains that for some members of the
clergy
this is a tendency whatever the issue. To resolve the problems that
arise from
this obsession with power Keenan calls for the development of a deeper
understanding of the nature and purpose of power, of more power sharing
and
greater accountability. While these measures would not lead to the
elimination
of child abuse in the ranks of the clergy, they would doubtless make an
important contribution toward that end. And, importantly, what they
would
ensure would be access to the best informed opinion on these matters
and
greater transparency in dealing with the issue.
There is, however, one
dimension of priestly power, the charismatic dimension, which, whatever
reforms
were to be introduced, could never be made either wholly accountable or
transparent.
Very often priests,
gurus and spiritual leaders of all kinds exercise authority and control
on the
basis of a relationship with their followers that is based on their
claims, or
claims made on their behalf by others or by an institution, to be
guided in
their mission by a supernatural mandate. This form of leadership
constitutes
what is known as charismatic authority and often places the actions of
those
who wield it beyond the normal, everyday processes of reasoning and
scrutiny.
In recent times cases have been reported of spiritual leaders abusing
children
while their adult followers, and even the children's parents, looked on
with
approval.
(Your Convenor writes:
A recent example of the abuse of charismatic
authority, which Peter referred to in his talk, is the late David
Koresh,
leader of the Branch Davidian Cult in Waco, Texas. After the meeting, I
found
the following on Internet web sites: - In a 1993 US Treasury Department review it was stated
that "While reports that Koresh was permitted to sexually and
physically
abuse children were not evidence that firearms or explosives violations
were
occurring, they showed Koresh to have set up a world of his own, where
legal
prohibitions were disregarded freely." And from another web site, in a
report by Hugh Davies in
He asked her to sit
beside him on a bed. "He kissed me. I just sat there, but he then laid
me
down," she said. After committing a sex act, he instructed her to take
a
shower and then read from the Bible. Close to tears, Kiri said: "He sat
on
the bed and read the Song of Solomon."
Recounting more of her sexual initiation, she said that he used Biblical quotations to explain himself. He told her that, "King David from the Bible would sleep with young virgins to keep him warm."")
Koresh reportedly justified, if indeed he needed
to justify,
his sexual behaviour to his followers by telling them that he was impregnating the innocent and pure - the only
worthy recipients of it - with God's seed. Clearly, to the outsider,
this is a
case of charisma turned graceless. Some of those who witnessed such
abuse
without questioning it and eventually left the movement explained that
at the
time their faith in their leader's supernatural claims was such that he
was
incapable of sin or transgression. Although by no means all charismatic
leaders
transgress in this or similar ways, for a charismatic leader to behave
normally
in everything, including sexual conduct, could potentially, depending
on the
nature of their claim to rule, lessen their authority and power.
Sociologically
understood, this kind of charismatic authority is essentially
relational. As
was previously mentioned, it is based on faith in supernatural claims
and not
on the personality attributes of the one who exercises it. Looked at
psychologically it may be best explained in Freudian projectionist
terms. It
can be an important element of spiritual authority and, I believe, may
contribute to an understanding of several aspects of the dynamics of
child sex
abuse by spiritual guides, including priests. Charismatic authority can
facilitate, for those who possess it, the construction of a system of
access to
those whom they may wish to abuse, without arousing the suspicion of
parents or
guardians. A case of God being displaced by the Devil without a change
of face.
Another insightful,
although also monocausal, theory to explain child sex abuse by priests,
advanced by the theologian and former seminary director Donald Cozzens,
lays
the blame on the clerical system as a whole, describing it as 'a closed, all-male system of privilege and
secrecy.' (The Tablet, May 4,
2002: 8). Cozzens focuses mainly on the role of homosexual priests in
relation
to teenage boys, ephébophilia - the abuse of post-pubescent
boys, rather than
paedophilia - the abuse of pre-pubescent children. Research findings
claim that
post-pubescent boys are victimised by priests four times more often
than
post-pubescent girls. (See Richard Sipe, 'Sex,
Priest and Power: Anatomy of A Crisis').
According to Cozzens,
studies show that 30-50 percent of priests in the
What homosexual priests
are bound to accept and teach is the official Catholic instruction that
homosexuality is objectively a disorder. It is true that by a form of
casuistry
the Catholic Church can also hold that this objective condemnation of
homosexuality as disordered does not mean that every individual
homosexual is
disordered. Homosexual priests must take small comfort from such
hairsplitting.
The emotional and psychological strain of being a closet homosexual
within the
ranks of the clergy, as within any other organization, must indeed be
great.
And the possible psychosomatic effects can well be imagined.
While it grounds itself
in Biblical sources and Natural Law, and legislates in favour of the
majority,
the official Catholic teaching on homosexuality as disordered from a
biological
and psychological perspective is based on an ideal type construct that
does not
allow for the complex nature of human sexual orientations. The reality
would
seem to be that for the majority of people the heterosexual orientation
is the
principal one, the driving force as it were. However, it is not
necessarily the
only one. For some people homosexuality is the dominant orientation and
for
others both of these orientations are equally pronounced. This kind of
reality
suggests that Catholic teaching on sexual orientation needs to be
refined if it
is not to do damage to those whom it adversely affects, and, according
to the
available evidence, there are many.
Some mental and
emotional relief is provided by those within the ranks of the clergy
and in the
wider church who would accept this interpretation of the complex nature
of
human sexuality. Such support can help to offset the isolation and the
self-doubt and even self-denial of the homosexual priest and lay
person. This
cannot however, it seems to me, compensate, where 'loyal' Catholics are
concerned, for official disapproval. Official acceptance is, it would
seem,
indispensable to the pursuit of self authenticity, that most treasured
of human
and spiritual ends, which, the evidence shows, is one of the most, if
not the
most, treasured goal of so many today as we move from a world in which
identity
was once ascribed, provided largely by the community to which we
belonged, to
one in which we must construct our own.
While official Catholic
teaching on homosexuality may be causing stress and anxiety to
homosexual
priests themselves, the presence of so many homosexual priests within
their
ranks may pose serious relational and other problems linked to the vow
of
celibacy for heterosexual clergy. It is not difficult to imagine how
those
heterosexual clergy who are committed to the concept of a celibate
priesthood
in which celibacy is voluntary, might speculate on how such a large
presence of
homosexual priests could affect decision-making about this issue.
Without
suggesting that they might tend to blame gay priests and bishops for a
lack of
commitment to the cause of optional celibacy, heterosexual clergy may,
however,
be persuaded that homosexual colleagues cannot fully empathise with the
arguments for the abandonment of mandatory celibacy, or be best suited
to put
the case for this on their behalf. Thus, heterosexual priests may feel
that
their colleagues and superiors who do not fully share the same concerns
and
aspirations are, in no small measure, determining their fate.
Considered not only from
the perspective of interpersonal relations between the clergy but also
from
other angles, mandatory celibacy seems highly problematic. It is, of
course, a
law that is unfair in its implementation in that it is incapable of
being
enforced in the case of homosexual priests, while this is not the case
with
heterosexuals. Moreover, theologically, if not self-contradictory, it
is, at
the very least, paradoxical. That there should be a celibate clergy is
not an
issue, but what surely must be is that a church rule which all admit is
not a
matter of faith but of discipline, is allowed to make the reception of
one
sacrament, that of marriage, an obstacle to the practice of another,
that of
ordination.
Again, historically, the
question needs to be asked has celibacy been effectual, has it
fulfilled its
purpose? It does have a long history in the Western Catholic Church,
dating
back to the time of Augustine in the 4th century, and this makes
generalization
rather unwise. Celibacy was not compulsory for all priests until the
12th
century, and then not so much for theological and spiritual reasons but
rather
as a means of combating nepotism. While nepotism may have been
curtailed and
certain economic conditions alleviated, the introduction of celibacy
did not
prevent the Church from becoming a major landowner in many parts of the
world
including the poorest places, among them Latin America. As a
consequence,
celibacy itself did not and does not remove from the minds of the poor
of Latin
America and
While its merits, in
terms of the freedom to be at the service of others and its symbolic
power
which points to the greater importance of the spiritual life and the
heavenly
realm over and against things material and physical, are repeatedly
brought
forward in defense of celibacy, it also needs to be recognised that it
has
proved an intolerable burden for many priests, no matter how great the
effort
they may have made to be faithful to it. There often follows in the
life of
celibate priests - in 50% of the cases we are told - a relationship
that is
secretive and, therefore, robbed of much of its meaning and value for
both
parties. Other priests, and I've known some intimately as fellow
students, or
as my own students, or simply as good friends, have turned to drink,
while
others have been impeded for years from the total engagement in their
work that
they feel they ought to have been able to give.
When looked at in the
wider context of the caring professions in contemporary society
-parents,
teachers, doctors, nurses, aid workers, etc.- it can hardly be claimed
that the
Catholic priest is by virtue of his celibacy any more available for the
service
of others than are many others who may or may not be celibate. The idea
that
the celibate are freed by their celibacy to offer themselves totally to
their
flock is patently not the case. Availability means more than just
physical
presence. It means also having the experience necessary to empathise,
an
experience that comes mostly from a close relationship with another,
whether
successful or not. Moreover, as has been pointed out by sociologists,
the
clergy have become increasingly like other professionals - doctors,
dentists,
psychologists, etc.- where availability is concerned, with their times
for
seeing parishioners posted on their office doors.
All of this questioning
of the need for mandatory celibacy is not to deny the fact that no
direct link
can be established between a celibate priesthood and child abuse.
Neither the
abolition of mandatory celibacy nor the expulsion of homosexual priests
would
eradicate child sexual abuse from the ranks of the clergy. Nor would
the
ordination of women priests. While, from what is presently known, the
majority
of abusers are what is referred to as 'regressed homosexual men', women
are
also known to have sexually abused children.
The Hierarchy and
responsibility:
Much criticism has been
made of the way the issue of child abuse has been handled by the
hierarchy.
Individual bishops appear to have made serious errors in the way they
have
handled certain cases. This seems inexplicable. One possible mitigating
factor
could be the fact that advice on how to treat paedophilia and
ephébophilia was
not necessarily always consistent. For example, while a psychotherapist
might
suggest that paedophiles could be successfully treated, a psychiatrist
might
argue the opposite. This could pose something of a dilemma for anyone
in
authority who had to make a judgment on the care and future career of
paedophiles.
The present policy of
bishops in the
(Your Convenor writes:
In conversation with Peter before he gave his
talk, I had asked him how it was that bishops had not handed
self-confessed
criminals over to the authorities to be dealt with in law. Peter's
reply was
that the bishops made the distinction, in their own terms, between
crime and
sin.)
Possible mitigating
factors notwithstanding, the questions have to be asked: Whose good did
the
bishops have in mind? Were they concerned above all else, as Keenan
suggests,
with protecting a system of hierarchy and privilege from exposure and
did this
contribute to a failure to value above all else the integrity and
autonomy of
the abused child? Following Keenan, and until evidence to the contrary
is
provided, in the latter question the provisional answers in both cases
must be
in the affirmative.
The position of the
There are those who have
wanted a strong centre and they have had one for over 20 years. This
centre has
moved quickly to close down debate on important issues bearing on the
priestly
ministry, including celibacy and the ordination of women. It has also
proved
adamant in holding to its policy on contraception despite the tragedy
of the
Aids epidemic, which as we all know, affects most seriously and gravely
the
most poor.
For this writer, by no
means a radical in matters theological, Vatican II was a momentous
event, a
time when it was good to be alive, it was a time of grace when the
Church was
truly open to the Holy Spirit. I would hazard a guess that without it,
the
situation of the Catholic Church, which is losing its hold over
Catholics in
many parts of the world - for example in both Latin America and
Conclusions:
It is too early to
assess the damage to the Roman Catholic Church brought on by the child
sex
abuse affair. Evidence shows that prior to the recent revelations,
confidence
in the authority of official Catholic pronouncements was declining
remarkably.
The crisis, as Keenan has pointed out, could have a positive outcome if
it
pushes the Roman Catholic Church to accept the necessity for greater
democratization and diversity, if only to interest and engage
effectively with
the young, the vast majority of whom in Europe show little or no desire
to
engage with official teaching as presently transmitted from above, or
to pass
on the teachings of Christianity to their children. (see The European
Values
Study, 1991). In a survey undertaken in the mid-1990s in
The recent scandal, for
which only a very tiny minority of clergy are directly responsible,
will
clearly do little to reverse these trends. Moreover it will, doubtless,
and
most importantly, impact negatively on belief in the sense that people
who were
once gripped or held by their Catholic faith come to simply hold on to
it,
loosely and ineffectively, if at all. And this at a time in history
when,
arguably, it is most needed.
Following an
enlightening question and answer session, the meeting adjourned to the
Alliance
Cafeteria where members of the audience engaged Peter in more informal
discussion over drinks and snacks.