In the introduction to his book, Why Catholics Are Right, Michael Coren tells us some relevant things about himself: he was not raised a Roman Catholic, but became one in this twenties; his father was a secular Jew and, while he has lost work opportunities because of his Catholic stance, his Jewishness has been modestly beneficial in terms of his career. But the intro is largely a complaint about anti-Catholicism in the modern world. The world, he says, is intolerant of Catholics, not because of their views as much as the practical implications of the things the Church holds to be true. That Jesus was born of a virgin, or that he is truly present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, no one cares at all. But “No” to abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research, etc., is the unpardonable sin.
That the Church is vilified and misrepresented because of the moral implications of its teachings, is the main thrust of the book and, on the surface at least, this seems a plausible claim. As a pastor I rarely suffered rejection or criticism for any opinion I held, but to question someone’s behaviour was very risky indeed. Freedom to think what you please, no matter how eccentric, is an article of faith in the modern world. But the N-word is unacceptable. And the N-word is NO.
The Abuse Scandal is the subject of chapter one and, predictably, Coren defends the Church. But though he tries to explain, he never explains away; though he seeks to understand, he never excuses; though he attempts to put things in context, he never justifies or minimizes. This is one of the strongest chapters in the book, and it has caused me to reconsider some of my impressions of this tragedy.
Just for the sake of accuracy, he points out that:
1. The abuse in question was seldom, strictly speaking, child abuse or paedophilia (sexual assault of prepubescent children), but generally abuse of sexually developed, under age, emotionally and physically vulnerable boys. These are horrible crimes, he insists, but not the even more sensational, and more alliterative acts of “paedophile priests”.
2. The rates of abuse were no higher, and often lower, than those we find in other churches, schools, sports leagues, etc. This is not to lessen the horror of the crimes by claiming that the numbers were small, or others were also guilty, but it does suggest that this was not a “Catholic” problem per se. Fair point.
He insists that, in the context of the period, the church followed the advice given by most psychologists; that the offender be moved to break the cycle, and given counselling. And he suggests that, at that time, it was felt that these abusers were curable. I’d want to consider these claims further, though I do think we have a tendency to unfairly judge previous generations by the standards of present-day knowledge, attitudes and sensibilities.
And, finally, Coren insists, with the support of considerable evidence, that, far from denying responsibility for these crimes, the Church (the Pope in particular) has been utterly penitent and forthcoming. He cites a number of papal addresses and letters, and the testimony of many commentators, some of whom are generally unsympathetic to the Church.
Multigenerational mega-scandals are always fiendishly complex, and when the lawyers show up things become even more complicated. I, therefore, claim no definitive understanding of this horrifying mess. But I would vehemently disagree with Coren on one point. He maintains that the Church’s insistence on priestly celibacy is irrelevant to a discussion of this matter. While celibate individuals may be no more likely than others to commit acts of sexual abuse, my concern is with process of handling the situation.
As I’ve said previously, a celibate clergy is an “old-boys network” writ large, and, for these men, “Mother Church” is the closest thing they have to family. Does it make any sense at all to suggest that the structure of the institution that oversaw the sex abuse scandal had no impact on the development of this tragedy? Women (wives in particular) have a huge impact on men, especially on male group-thinking. Family and children are also great normalizing influences. It is hard for me to imagine that these men would have dealt with these matters in the same way if, at the end of the day, they had been fathers, going home to children, and sharing their concerns with mothers.
While celibacy is a normal, natural state for individual human beings – we all start out that way – the requirement of clergy celibacy makes the Roman Catholic Church unique among the major institutions of the modern world. Coren argues that, though it was codified as late as the eleventh century, it is an ancient expectation, and flows from a desire to commit fully to the cause of Christ. This may be so, but it is unbiblical, and the unintended consequences, not of individual celibacy, but of the requirement that all clergy be celibate, are immense. This is a tragedy for the Church and, sadly, I agree with Michael Coren that it is not something that is going to change soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment