All eyes are, once again, on Rome as the most recent round of sexual abuse scandals cast their shadow across the papal throne itself.
The Roman Catholic Church has been struggling with instances of sexual abuse of minors by priests for years, starting with allegations against the Christian Brothers order in Newfoundland almost two decades ago. Dioceses and archdioceses throughout North America have been rocked by allegations of cover-ups by bishops and archbishops and in some instances financially ruined by lawsuits.
Like spilled ink across vellum, the stain of sexual abuse against minors by those responsible for ensuring their charges lead good and decent lives, spread: to South America, where the church still holds considerable sway; then to Ireland and the UK; the Netherlands; and has now crept into the Catholic institutions of Germany, the current pope’s homeland.
The scandal, long a concern of the Holy See with both Benedict XVI and his predecessor John Paul II attempting to deal with it by making overtures of “reconciliation” towards victims, has taken a personal turn. Benedict’s brother, Monsignor Georg Ratzinger, was the choirmaster of the famed Regensburger Domspatzen, the thousand-year-old male choir and boarding school affiliated with the Cathedral of Regensburg, Bavaria.
Reports of abuse, both physical and sexual, first surfaced in February when three Jesuit-operated schools in the Regensburg diocese were investigated following allegations. The scandal then surfaced in connection with the Cathedral choir. While denying any knowledge of sexual abuse during his tenure, Monsignor Ratzinger has publicly stated that, while choirmaster, he did discipline boys by sometimes slapping them across the head.
The allegations coming out of Regensburg are particularly noteworthy, and profoundly awkward for the current papacy, because the Pope and his brother spent much of their careers in senior positions at Regensburg. Georg Ratzinger became choirmaster in 1964. Benedict, the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, taught theology at the prestigious University of Regensburg when a bishop in the 1970s.
It is inevitable, then, that questions concerning what was known and what was done (or not done) will be aimed directly at the pope. As Cardinal, Ratzinger headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith whose mandate was, in part, to investigate such allegations within the church. He and his brother have both denied knowing or hearing anything about clergy abusing minors during their time in Regensburg. This seems doubtful, given their positions of authority and that any such allegations would have, at the very least, crossed Bishop Ratzinger’s desk.
The Regensburg allegations emerged just weeks after Benedict publicly criticized Irish bishops for failing to deal with the “heinous crime” of abuse and called on Catholic bishops to approach and deal with the allegations with “honesty and courage”. While the Vatican supports a full investigation of the allegations, the Pope has been personally silent on the matter. His brother, on the other hand, has promised to fully cooperate in any investigation but denies any knowledge of wrongdoing on the part of priests and has said that any such abuse was before his time as choirmaster.
In discussions about sexual abuse and the Roman Catholic Church, two themes tend to emerge. One is the role homosexuality plays within the hierarchy and the other is anti-Catholicism. Both are difficult themes to avoid and there is a tendency to become bogged down, having either one or both becoming the focus.
It is easy to attack the Catholic Church. That it is a powerful, autonomous, even controlling entity goes without saying. There is a centuries-long antipathy by many towards “those papists” and such antipathy has often turned violent, on both sides.
The record of Holy Mother Church towards those who disagreed with Her tenets or sought to reform the Church is a bloody and often nasty one. The torture and burning of ‘heretics’, the Crusades to the Holy Land, the Inquisition (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)...these are all part of history and speak to the absolutism of the Church. In modern times, the Church, while not violent, continues to adhere to a strict and unflinching orthodoxy, at odds with an increasingly secularized society, especially in Europe and North America.
At the same time, the history of Protestantism (literally, the state of being one who protests against an established order) is rife with atrocities directed at priests and devout Catholics whenever “Protest-ants” gained power; be it in England under the Tudors or continental Europe after the Reformation. The destruction of monasteries and abbeys, the persecution of Catholics, the outlawing of the celebration of the Mass, forced conversions to the “new” Church; these are also legacies of those who sought to reform the Roman church.
One of the issues I have when reading or having discussions regarding the role of the Catholic Church in these sexual abuse scandals is the level of discourse. As I said, it is easy to go on the attack against “The Church” - and while that is understandable since “The Church” is certainly culpable in all this, having spent years covering the abuse up, moving suspect priests from one parish or diocese to another, and appearing to place the reputation of the church ahead of the pain of the abused - to me, there is a fine line between holding the church (or, more correctly, it’s hierarchy of monsignors, bishops, archbishops, and cardinals) accountable and launching off on an anti-Catholic tirade.
Anti-Catholicism is no different than anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, attacking Sikhs, or any other form of religious bigotry. Has the Roman Catholic Church a history of religious bigotry of its own? Absolutely, and it needs to be held accountable for that, both historically and in its current form, but to use such bigotry to condemn the bigotry or try and make one’s point about the abuses within the church now, is intellectually dishonest and accomplishes nothing.
As for the role homosexuality plays within the Church and what role that, in turn, plays in the sexual abuse of young males this too often simply degenerates into homophobic attacks.
When dealing with emotionally charged issues one needs to be very clear on terminology. We often read of “child sexual abuse” and that, naturally enough, conjures up images of very young children. This is not to at all suggest such abuse hasn’t occurred - it has, and it is outrageous. Too often, however, what is being discussed is not pedophilia, per se, but pederasty or hebephilia...sex with teenage boys. This alters the issue somewhat.
Abuse is abuse when an individual, regardless of age, is coerced or does not consent to sexual activity. The argument then becomes, can a 14-year old or 15-year old truly consent to sex, be it with a peer, an older male, or one’s priest? Is it ‘abuse’ when a priest has sex, despite his vows of celibacy, with a 17-, 18- or 19-year old? Age of consent is a volatile issue and guaranteed to elicit strong reaction. That a priest has violated his vows is a whole other issue and, while serious, is something his bishop rightly needs to deal with - and is only peripherally related to this issue.
Does it matter if the sex was “only” masturbation or is it more serious if penetration occurred? As a society we can’t even agree on what constitutes ‘the sex act’; some see oral sex as sex while others don’t, especially (apparently) amongst young people. For others, anything other than full intercourse is foreplay or just messing around, but not actually “sex”…or it isn’t until it involves a younger person, and then it becomes “molestation.”
The issue is not about whether a particular priest is homosexual. That many are gay will come as no surprise to anyone. The issue is about abuse; the abuse of authority, the abuse of position, the abuse of minors, the focus on one’s own desires and needs, and the total disregard of one’s actions on the emotional and psychological well being of another.
Years ago, when I was still “churched” and became involved with Dignity Canada, a gay Catholic organization (and one not supported by the church) I knew many gay religious - priests, seminarians and a monk or two - and they were all devout, caring, warm, loving men. Loving in the way the church wants its priests to be; agape as opposed to eros, although eros was sometimes a part of who they were too, and being gay was integral to how they responded to the world.
None of them, as far as I knew, were interested in young boys. To the church, however, their homosexuality was synonymous with being at the very least potential child abusers and, if found out, were removed from the diocese. While homosexuality was always an open secret, especially behind seminary walls, an environment of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ existed within the Church and its seminaries for years before the American military adopted it.
There also needs to be a distinction made between homosexuality and gayness. Being gay is not the same as being homosexual, although obviously if one is gay one is a homosexual, but if one is homosexual it doesn’t necessarily mean one is gay.
Homosexuality is the orientation while gay is the identity and not all men with a homosexual/same-sex sexual orientation identify with the cultural and social identity we in the modern era refer to as ‘being gay.’
It is the difference, on one level, between what one does and who one is. This, too, elicits strong reaction and argument, and certainly within popular culture “being a homosexual” and “being a gay man” are perceived as synonymous. It’s just too complicated to get into the often-subtle distinctions (let alone introducing what is commonly referred to as ‘bisexuality’, a continuum in itself, into the mix!) and so the culture understandably short-forms it all into “gay.”
So when we discuss sexual abuse within the church we need to be very careful we don’t tar everyone with the same brush. Sexual abuse, be it within the church or within society in general, needs to be addressed far more effectively than it is currently, and addressed objectively. It is an issue that pushes buttons for people. There is a major ‘ick’ factor involved, especially when it involves actual children, rather than teenage boys.
The focus needs to move away from protecting the church and more towards what the church refers to as ‘reconciliation’ with victims, many of whom left the church as adults and harbour considerable anger and hurt. However, reconciliation cannot happen in isolation – it is multi-faceted and the church needs also to examine the root causes of abuse within its ranks and address them.
In recent years, to its credit, the church has begun that process. However, it is still caught up in the mindset that in order to address the abuse, it needs to weed out those already in the hierarchy who are homosexual and somehow institute systems to prevent those who are homosexual, or who have “homosexual tendencies” from ever entering the church. I think this is totally misguided.
It is not having “homosexual tendencies” that is the problem. It is a culture of repression, of denial, within the church that is the problem. It is not even about celibacy. One can be comfortably, even openly, homosexual or gay and be celibate. It is the culture of secrecy surrounding sexuality that creates a twisted expression thereof.
If one is in a culture where not only being sexual is condemned but also being homo-sexual is seen as anathema, one is going to push that aspect of one’s psyche down. We know the damage the closet does and we are all aware of our own ‘walking wounded’ within secular life who for whatever reason cannot come to terms with their orientation, and therefore do not expose themselves in any way shape or form to positive ways of being gay. Push something down here and it will pop up there. This is a basic law of nature, and it is no less so when dealing with the human psyche. And where it pops up is often not something within our control, and most certainly it will pop up where it shouldn’t.
If one has overwhelming needs and no way to channel them properly and believes one cannot - or actually is unable to - be part of a community that celebrates and supports who we are, be it our own GLBTQ community or the church community, one is going to seek to express those needs with what is available and, in one’s mind, not as likely to expose the activity. In too many instances this perversely translates into becoming involved with what psychologists would call “inappropriate object choices”; vulnerable youths.
Will the church ever be an environment in which being gay (or lesbian, bi or trans) is supported, let alone celebrated? Not in my lifetime. The current Pope has frequently demonstrated he is ill disposed towards our community.
As Cardinal and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he issued several documents highly condemnatory of homosexuality, calling it ‘intrinsically evil’ and ‘deeply disturbed.’ This hardly speaks to the Vatican reaching out and helping to create a welcoming environment in which all can work and support each other and deal with the issues and sub-issues of sexual abuse and the emotional isolation that can lead to abuse.
We have, however, seen this outreach in the United Church, The Unitarians, and other churches. And while the structure of these churches is markedly different from that of the Roman Catholic Church, being more congregational and ‘bottom up’ rather than hierarchical and ‘bottom down’, it does illustrate that creating a respectful and mutually supportive environment in which personal responsibility is not abdicated, is possible.