Pedophilia in Germany

Okay, time to comment on the current "scandal" involving the Catholic Church in Germany. A few points:

1. Why are things that happened thirty, forty, fifty, and even sixty years ago and were mostly publicly reported at the time suddenly "news"? Would it be news in any other context? Or is this an editorial attack on the Catholic Church and the Papacy, and a pogrom against Catholic clergy, masquerading in cowardly fashion as news reporting?

2. Why does the press demand Pope Benedict speak out on the matter? What does it have to do with him? There are daily stories of sexual abuse by public school teachers; is there a similar demand for the Minister of Education to comment publicly whenever a new one surfaces? Or the Minister of Health, whenever a doctor or psychiatrist is caught in flagrante? Isn't the implication here that the Church is responsible, while the Ministry of Education or Ministry of Health is not? Why the double standard?

3. Why does sexual abuse by Catholic priests supposedly call Catholicism or even religion into question, but sexual abuse by public school teachers does not call education into question? And sexual abuse by doctors, psychiatrists, and nurses does not call medicine into question? Why the double standard?

4. Note that the great majority of the cases uncovered, in Germany and elsewhere, seem to involve, specifically, homosexual sex. So why is this always implied or openly declared to be a reflection on Catholicism and celibacy, yet never on homosexuality? Why does the press complain that the Church should do more to prevent such things, yet raise merry hell at the slightest move towards the most obvious preventative measure, of banning homosexuals from the priesthood? Why the double standard?

5. Why fixate on celibacy, or Catholicism, as the supposed cause, when the statistical evidence (backed by simple logic) is clear: that celibate Catholic clergy offend at no higher rate than the general average of clergy, regardless of denomination, or of other helping/caring occupations. Why the double standard?

6. Why _not_ harp on homosexuality, when there is clear statistical evidence (backed by simple logic) that homosexuals are significantly more prone to pedophilic acts than the general population? Why the double standard?

7. If those who attack the church are really motivated by concern to prevent child sex abuse, why are they working so systematically against the best interests of the child? We know that, far and away, the most likely person to assault any child is a close family member. And we know that mothers are more likely to assault a child than fathers. In other words, the greatest possible risk of sexual assault is produced by leaving a child alone with its mother. Yet the entire thrust of society, and of the church-bashers specifically, seems to be to accomplish this very aim: cutting off children systematically from fathers, extended families, and the support network of a faith community. Perfect, if your plan is to promote child abuse.

8. Abuse by a close family member is not just the most common, but obviously the most damaging form of abuse. If a given priest is abusive, a child can almost always easily escape the situation. If a single parent is abusive, there is no escape, and infinitely greater opportunity for abuse.

9. In such a case, of domestic abuse of a child, resort to the local priest might well be the child’s only hope. Why then are the enemies of the Church working feverishly now to prevent this?

10. If some priests genuinely are, inevitably, pedophiles, what is the point of urging the Church to end the rule of celibacy? How does this solve the problem—by having their own children? Brilliant!


Why the double standard?

Because it's a pogrom. It’s a pogrom against the Catholic Church, and at the same time a pogrom against children.

Up to now, the Vatican, and individual bishops, have invariably turned the other cheek, responded with Christian humility, and quietly accepted the criticism, however unjust. I suspect this is about to change. Turning the other cheek only works if the other party has a conscience to which to appeal. When this approach does not succeed, one is justified in moving on to countering the attack squarely and in kind.

John Paul II was a conciliator and a diplomat, by nature and by experience. He did everything the Church could in turning the other cheek in the culture wars, up to and including elaborate public apologies. I think the media and the irreligious are mistaken in assuming the Catholic leadership will always feel a Christian obligation to sit there and take it. I think that Benedict was elected by the College of Cardinals precisely because his style and his instinct is more combative and more ready to call a spade a spade. He used to be known, after all, as “God’s Rottweiler.” Benedict is on public record as not caring if sticking to the truth reduces the membership of the Catholic Church to a fraction of what it is today—nor should he care, if that is what is in the balance.

Benedict has himself taken a lot of garbage without striking back; but with him you sense there is a limit. Now they are going after his own brother, and to some extent Benedict himself. They think they can destroy him; I think they are grossly misjudging him. He is a fighter by instinct, and he is probably the brightest man alive.

I also think they are grossly underestimating the support he will have within the Church, if he raises the middle finger at last. I note with some pleasure that Cardinal Brady in Ireland has also struck a combative note, refusing the calls for him to resign over the "scandals" there, on the very sensible grounds that
he has done nothing wrong.

Too many good men have suffered in this pogrom. We are at war. It is time for us to go out and buy swords, then head to the ramparts.