Posts
 |
| Ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. |
Aside from the appalling damage done to the victims of such abuse, physically, emotionally and spiritually, it is worth considering that financial settlements from such abuse risk bankrupting many dioceses. This is utterly unjust: money donated to the faithful for religious, charitable, and devotional purposes is instead being siphoned off to private pockets to pay for these misdeeds by those put in stewardship over the funds.
Every time a new scandal breaks, everyone editorializes that “we must no longer tolerate this. We must do something about it.” As if we had not seen this before, and said this before. Talk is cheap. But still the scandals go on and on.
To be clear, the incidence of sexual predation and abuse among Catholic clergy actually does not seem to be worse than that among other clergy of other denominations, or teachers, or the general public. But that is little consolation, if the scandals are destroying the faith of many and bankrupting the church. Can something be done?
Something can. Something rather simple.
The independent John Jay report in 2004 found that 81% of victims of abuse by Catholic clergy were male.
Consider that number. This necessarily means that the perpetrators were homosexual.
It is anyone's guess what proportion of Catholic clergy are gay, but nobody has suggested the figure is as high as 81%.
It seems likely that most of the problem could be eliminated at once by barring homosexuals from the priesthood.
This might seem unjust to gay men who want to be priests and are perfectly innocent of any misconduct. But nobody is entitled to be a priest; it is a calling. Accordingly, if it is for the good of the church and the flock, such a measure is justified.
And it would be possible to do. Psychological tests have been developed for the court system, to determine homosexual orientation.
Sadly, one can also see why, despite all protestations to the contrary, it must be difficult for homosexuals to avoid preying on the young.
Consider their situation. If 3% of the population has homosexual tendencies, the figure often cited, that automatically means, if you are homosexual, 97% of people to whom you are sexually attracted are repelled by the very idea of having sex with you. This is on top of the inevitable romantic rejections all the rest of us feel, trying to find a match among the other 97%. Enough of us often experience extreme sexual frustration and feelings of rejection. Just imagine what it is like for homosexuals; 97% of the time they can expect some expression of disgust, and quite likely to lose all contact with the object of their infatuation. The other three percent of the time, maybe a one in ten or one in twenty chance like the rest of us. And they have little way of knowing in advance who is who—unless, perhaps, by the coded message of a clerical collar.
What are you going to do? The temptation must be overwhelming to try to interest some young boy, someone too young yet to fully grasp what it is all about, and groom him to the practice.
It is just not credible to insist this cannot be going on. It must be.
This also suggests that, for the most part, homosexuality may well be a learned behaviour. Homosexuals probably often seduce others into homosexuality.
Why would it not be so? Aren't the rest of us deeply influenced by our first loves, and by our first sexual experiences?
Once a certain proportion of the clergy is gay, and sexually active, it will also naturally tend to poison the well. Other clergy who are not gay, in particular young men entering the seminary or starting out as altar boys, are going to be sexually accosted, and discriminated against if they do not play along. The more so if they go all moral and religious, and so seem likely to object to the conduct in others, or even be likely to report it.
And so, with due respect to all the decent people who are homosexual, it is time to ban homosexuals from the Catholic clergy. There are other career paths they can pursue.
No comments:
Post a Comment