One cannot read the recent charges filed by the Philadelphia District Attorney and not be struck by the fact that it seems that the Roman Catholic Church is subject to the same kind of distorted loyalty as Freemasonry. It is personal fraternal loyalty above all else. It is distorted loyalty above virtue, above principle and in the case of the Church, its own children’s well being. It is indeed shocking that there is even probable cause that within the past five or ten years, the Church has been covering up and perhaps actively allowing child abusers in their own midst.
Of course, everyone is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And that has not happened. It may never happen. But what has happened is that the grand jury has found that there is a reasonable basis to believe it is so. True or not, how could the Church allow itself to be put in this position? One would think that the horrific revelations of the past many years would have made the Church extra sensitive to this issue.
Sadly, many, many good men are slandered by these accusations. Let us hope that this time the Church will have learned the lesson that the perception of evil can sometimes be as bad as the evil itself. It is not sufficient to just deal with either the perception or the reality of evil to the exclusion of the other. The Church needs to do both. It needs to stop the child abuse and its cover-up. Just as important, it needs to stop any perception of doing either. Its future depends upon it effectively doing both.
You are correct in noting that in view of the child abuse of a few priests; the hypocrisy of I know not how many Freemasons, is relatively harmless. What is similar is the cover-up. Spawned by denial and disinterest, it is the twisted loyalty to each other that renders these two laudable institutions alike. It seems that the human condition is such that we tend to cling to each other even in the face of all manner of immorality. While this “fraternity above all else” may be the model of Freemasonry, it is far from the Christian norm. Jesus was a revolutionary who spoke out in the face of contrary institutions and individuals. I like to think the Christian model is “morality above all else.”
When they came for the gypsies, no one spoke out and they were taken away. When they came for the Catholics, no one spoke up and they were taken away. When they came for their political opponents, no one spoke up and they were taken away. When they came for the Jews, there was no one left to speak up.
I think the causes of child abuse are many and varied. Certainly some teachings and social structures contribute to it. For instance the Branch Davidians come to mind. The use of guilt as a means of obtaining conforming behavior is a bit more removed, but it may contribute.
The fact remains that many, many men and women were and are subject to the same Catholic influences and are horrified by the acts of a few both within and outside the clergy.
Anyone who is married and especially with children knows that all your time and energy is not your own. Rightfully we chose to use them for our family as well as ourselves. of necessity, this leaves less time and energy (money too) to do other things. As it stands now most men (not all) who are Roman Catholic priests have made the commitment to devote all or most of their time, energy and money to the service of others through the Church. If they can do this without distortion, and many men can, they can accomplish a great deal of good. The problem is with the men who cannot do this no matter how hard they try. These men need to be identified, sometimes even to themselves, and encouraged to do something else.
Celibacy is a Church rule that even now has some exceptions. Allowing married priests will not eliminate the celibate ones. It will just create another class of priests who have less to give to their vocation. Clearly their special nature will be eroded. The Church has dealt with this by the use of married deacons and other attendants who help out as much as they can or chose to without the special status as priests.
In the seminaries, I do not think gay or straight is the issue. The issue is whether these men are effectively able to deny acting on their sexuality. The proportion of gay or straight men trying to do so should not be a factor. Both are able to minister to the people as long as their sexuality is controlled. It would seem that the first step in controlling sexuality is recognizing its existence.
A lot of issues here
