Ending celibacy solves nothing
The uproar about paedophilia in the Catholic Church has provoked the usual calls for an end to mandatory chastity for priests.
How this will make things better, rather than worse, is beyond me.
As things stand, the Catholic Church and its faithful must contend with paedophiles.
With an end to celibacy, they will still have to contend with paedophiles but will also have the sort of problems that come with priests suffering marital breakdown, adultery, and prior to that, flirting with and courting members of their congregation.
And that still leaves the Catholic Church with the problem of one set of rules for heterosexual priests and another set of rules for homosexual priests – because even in the unlikely event that the ban on marriage for Catholic priests is lifted, the rules on homosexual unions are not going to change.
The good thing about the current situation is that priests are ‘safe’ to speak to – in their vast majority, at least. You can speak to a priest without having him flirt with you, hit on you, or make suggestive remarks.
This is a great advantage for women, particularly because the most useful role of a priest is that of a source of advice and solace and a ‘receptacle’ for confidences.
Every woman knows that if she talks to a non-celibate heterosexual man in this way, he takes it as a sign that she is interested in him even if she is not. This can be tedious.
Heterosexual men tend to overlook just how important it is for a woman to be able to confide in a priest without having him get ideas. It is the same reason women can relax in the company of homosexual men. Whatever women say to gay men, it’s not going to be seen as a sexual overture or an invitation to get to know her better.
I used to think that vows of celibacy were silly and pointless, but I’ve changed my mind. Celibacy is what sets priests apart from their flock. There are those who think that priests should be just like the rest of us so that they can understand our problems by experiencing them directly, but I’m not one of them.
Priests should be different to their flock. It’s one way of maintaining respect, for a start. But more importantly, the last thing the faithful need, when they turn to priests for succour and inspiration in coping with life, is having them go through their own marital problems, difficulties with recalcitrant teenagers and so on.
When you’re looking for a calm port in a storm, you don’t want a priest who brings out the whisky and says: “Oh my god, I know exactly what you mean. My wife has been screaming blue murder for a week. She nags me, nags the kids. I can’t stand it anymore.”
When you’re married, your first duty is to your spouse and children, not to your flock. Allowing priests and vicars to marry has actually weakened other Christian churches. By allowing priests to be like everyone else, they have effectively made them just like everyone else, so few bother with them anymore. You might as well speak to a friend or neighbour.
An end to chastity will not do away with the problem of paedophile priests. The argument that links paedophilia with celibacy is illogical. If a man is so sexually frustrated that he is prepared to break his vow of celibacy, commonsense dictates that he will turn to a woman – or to a man, depending on his inclinations – but not to a child unless children were his thing to start with.
There are always women and men who make themselves available, whatever the context, now more so than ever. So the only priests who relieve their urges with children are those who are made that way. Allowing them to marry will not change their interest in children. Even when they are defrocked, they continue to be interested in children.
A lot of people seem to be under the impression that it is the nature of the Catholic Church which is capable of changing the sexual nature of priests. But this is naïve. The more obvious explanation for the presence of paedophiles in the priesthood is the same one for the presence of paedophiles in any other profession or job which places adult men in a position of trust over children.
In other words, the priests who are causing all these scandals were paedophiles to begin with, and that’s why they became priests in the first place: to gain access to children or as a way of taming – unsuccessfully – their ‘sinful’ nature. This is not the same thing as saying that a certain kind of really repressive religious upbringing is without risk of perverting a young boy’s sexuality in one way of another. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are born, but paedophiles are made.
Some people say that celibacy serves as a magnet for those who don’t wish to confront their sexuality, either because they have been led to believe that acting on it is sinful (homosexuality) or because it is criminal (paedophilia). I think this argument carries a lot of weight, most particularly because it is in Catholicism that there is so much brainwashing about the evils of same-sex coupling. But quite frankly, who cares if a priest is homosexual or not? It makes no difference to the price of eggs.
As for paedophilia, celibacy might provide a means of avoidance, but removing it will not remove the main attraction, which is proximity to children, in a position of trust.
It is unrealistic to expect the Catholic Church to be free of paedophiles. It is as at risk of infiltration by men with paedophiliac urges as is any other organisation which works with children. Yes, rigorous checking is required, particularly in these days of declining numbers of vocations, when the Catholic Church may find itself desperate enough to snatch up all-comers.
But it isn’t fair to blame the Catholic hierarchy for the presence of paedophiles in its midst. How would anyone know that a man is a paedophile until he acts and is found out?
And there’s the rub. It is what happens after paedophiles are discovered that is the source of the angst which the Catholic Church is being put through today. It is certainly responsible for failing to put in place checks and balances which ensure that children are never in a position of vulnerability towards single men, even if those single men have taken vows of celibacy.
Wherever there are children, if the primary carers are men there should also be the constant and obvious presence of women. This does not only serve as a deterrent to the paedophile, but gives the child somebody to turn to if men are seen as predatory and dangerous because of the actions of just one or two.
It is very odd how customary wisdom and social tradition dictate that groups of girls should never be cared for by men alone, lest they be preyed upon sexually, and yet that same customary wisdom and social tradition think nothing of putting groups of boys in the sole care of men, as though it is out of the question that a man would ever go after a boy. In schools and orphanages, for example, girls are looked after by women and boys are looked after by men.
Girls are never put into the sole care of men in such institutions. So why are boys?
Oddly, despite the mounting evidence over the decades that men prey on boys too, we have persisted in seeing these situations as freakish exceptions, and refuse to face the fact that even a one per cent risk of abuse is too much because that one per cent is not a statistic but real children.
This article is published in The Malta Independent on Sunday today.
94 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Excellent article!
One of the best “opinion articles” I’ve ever come accross on this delicate subject. I just would like to add that the statistics we have in hand (confirmed by the Vatican based Mgr Charles Scicluna) show that the majority of the sexual abuses are homosexual in nature and not paedophile.
To be precise, of the 3000 cases investigated, 60% are abuses on adoloscents of the same sex (homosexual), 30% are abuses on adoloscent girls and or mature women (heterosexual) and the remaining 10% are abuses on pre-puberty individuals (paedophiles).
Roberto, I believe that the statement you make that “the majority of the sexual abuses are homosexual in nature and not paedophile” makes sense in the big picture.
I suspect that these offenders find themselves in situations which give them relatively easy access to the victims, such as for instance, the fact that they work with adolescents in schools or Catholic orphanages. I believe that celibacy and Catholic discipline may create a sense of relative “loneliness” which becomes a driver to commit the offence.
“flirting with and courting members of their congregation”, Dear Daphne, it happens already. It happened to my wife years ago, in OUR kitchen by a well know priest in my presence.
The only genuine solution I sincerely think that will solve the self-created problems in our Catholic Church is this: ALL priests should only follow Jesus Christ’s footsteps. I know it is not simple, but that is the only solution. Time will come when I will be ashamed to call myself Catholic. Not because I do not believe in God, Christ and so on, but because the church’s teachings are no longer in sync with that of Christ.
The Catholic Church might solve the problem as you suggested above, after all. However, I think that your statement, ”I will be ashamed to call myself Catholic” because of the misdeeds of others does not hold water.
Neither should a faithful Catholic feel guilty because of that that others do, nor should they despise them.
Has anyone heard of that Cospicua man who raped his young daughters for many years … and this was no priest. He was just a man. Why is it that only the Catholic Church gets attacked? As regards Protestant married priests and priestesses who get involved in scandals, no one ever gets chastised except for the Catholic Chuirch. Maybe it is because we want to destroy its moral authority?
Daphne, as usual, a well written balanced article. Thank you
“………. As a result, the vow of celibacy has become an unworkable anachronism.
There is a solution to this problem. Or if not a solution, an amelioration: the Church could allow priests to marry, or form homosexual relationships with consenting adults. Pope Benedict XVI, a strict conservative in doctrinal matters, is highly unlikely to countenance such an idea. He will continue, instead, to preach against the evils of secular society and the dangerous temptations of liberalism. But this will not be of much help, because the flesh is weak, and will find a way to satisfy its needs. If this cannot be done legally, crimes will continue to be committed against people who are least able to defend themselves.”
Ian Buruma, Professor of Democracy and Human Rights at Bard College.
http://www.projectsyndicate.org/commentary/buruma36/English
“If this cannot be done legally…”
Professor Buruma’s argument is invalid because it is based on a false premise. It is not illegal for a priest to have a sexual relationship with a consenting adult.
Ian Buruma’s arguments are completely nonsensical. If a priest wishes to marry, then he is free to do so. Malta is thick with priests who have married. They are simply not allowed to carry on serving as priests once they have done so, but there is nothing to stop them getting married. It’s simply a matter of choice, but in this ‘have your cake and eat it’ culture choices are anathema. We want to be a priest AND we want to marry. Or rather, the priests themselves don’t want this, but people who are not priests are demanding it on their behalf. Yet ask any one of the very many Maltese priests who have married whether they would go back to actively being a priest if the laws of the Catholic Church allowed them to, and probably most of them would shake their heads.
Buruma speaks as though priests are prisoners who have no choice but to molest a child or fondle a parishioner in the sacristry when they decide that celibacy is not for them, the way the inmates of a real prison are supposed to bugger each other in the showers. They are not prisoners. If they wake up one morning and decide that they want to have sex, they can write to the bishop, leave the priesthood, and get married or have affairs or whatever it is they want to do. End of story. All this fuss, honestly.
“It isn’t fair to blame the Catholic hierarchy for the presence of paedophiles in its midst. How would anyone know that a man is a paedophile until he acts and is found out?” Agreed, but could you possibly accept the fact that the Catholic Church hierarchy covered up some of the cases? I cannot accept that fact, I am sorry.
I completely agree with every word that you said. It will only make things worse.
Not that there is something wrong with being gay but I don’t think that most of the Catholic priests are interested in little boys because they cannot get married. If anything, they would be interested in girls – at least that is how I see it. Take care.
Dear Daphne,
Didn’t you know that there are also paedophile women?
[Daphne – This is a good article which puts things into perspective http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8022861.stm ]
This is one of the very rare occasions when I cannot agree with you completely, on this matter of celibacy for priests. Surely, we have to accept the fact that priests are first of all, human and, as such, suffer the same human feelings, emotions and desires as the rest of us men, which, in their vast majority, as a result of their intensive training (and yes true vocation) they are able to put a lid on.
When however a priest does not possess enough attributes to be able to repel such wishes, and he happens to be exposed to young, innocent and obedient boys, it is understandable (not condonable) for him to turn his attention in their direction. That’s why I believe that priests should be allowed to get married, as clearly (without wanting to imply that a wife is a sex-slave) he can express his loving feelings to his wife.
Your point that priests would be seen as competing with other bachelors for the attention of the ladies, is valid, but there is no great harm in that – after all it’s been done before, celibate or not!
[Daphne – My point was NOT that. It was about the fact that women are reluctant to confide in heterosexual men because heterosexual men take it as a sign of interest and a come-on. Women confide in priests because they are seen as safely non-sexual, even if this is not the case. And it is on this basis that trust is built. Women never confide in men they don’t fancy because they know that this stimulates interest and then they will have to deal with that interest and they don’t want to (or worse, the man thinks she fancies him when she doesn’t and adopts an attitude of patience, pity, tolerance or avoidance. That’s why women are able to build strong relationships with gay men – they confide in them – and turn to priests who are seen as ‘non-sexual’ or out of the game. Take it from me: when a woman confides in a man or turns to him to discuss her secrets, it’s either because she knows/thinks he is gay, he’s a priest or he’s hetero and, yes, she’s interested. So hetero men are right in thinking that when a woman confides in them with her problems she is interested. Either that, or she thinks he’s asexual/non-sexual/out of the game like a brother.]
It is definitely time for the Catholic Church to take some bold steps into the 21st century, as it risks becoming irrelevant within a few decades. Such steps should include not only allowing priests to get married (I am not so sure however of allowing married men to become priests), but also ordaining women priests. Enough for now.
Iva. Solvejnijha l-problema.Nordnaw nisa qassisin.
[Daphne – Then women won’t go to confession.]
U jibdew jizdiedu l-irgiel!
[Daphne – Men don’t confide in anyone except their wives (and sometimes not even that), their most trusted friend ( and only exceptionally so) and occasionally, a confessor. Men don’t ask questions, either – which is another reason women look for a man when they want to talk in an uninterrupted flow. Typical conversation between husband and wife:
Husband: X’s father died today (names best friend).
Wife: Oh my god, how’s he feeling?
Husband: I don’t know.
Wife: What, you mean you didn’t ask?
Husband: If he wanted to let me know how he was feeling, he’d have told me. ]
I have to agree with Vince – we need women priests. After Islam, it is the Catholic Church that is most repessive of women – especially under Wojtylla.
Women complain about so many things, especially the “imaginary plot/glass ceiling” to keep them from advancing . . . I’m surprised they don’t complain at how the Church gives them such a raw deal.
Can’t they see that if they had influence in the church – a male domain par excellence – they would have more influence elsewhere too?
Question: if there were women priests, would confessing to them automatically mean we’re interested?
[Daphne – Confession doesn’t count. It’s a formal thing. If a man confides in a woman, she’ll assume there’s something wrong with him, or that he DOESN’T fancy her. When a man fancies a woman, he ignores her, brushes her off, acts ‘cool’. The last thing he’s going to do is tell her he has problems, which she might equate with weaknesses. Women know this. The most effective way to get a woman to see you as asexual/not interested/interesting is to tell her about your problems. That is, unless you’re a ‘catch’ – rich, famous, stunningly handsome (or she’s kind of desperate). On the whole, women are wary of men with problems or who talk about their problems, because women tend to prefer men who are problem-solvers, and are especially attracted to men who help solve their (the women’s) problems. This is what we mean by a ‘reliable man’.]
Your generalisations and assumed knowledge of the male psyche are truly breathtaking, Daphne. But I won’t go into that.
You also assert that a priest’s most useful function is to be a receptacle of confidences. Debatable at best. To you maybe but I think many of us would prefer a friend.
[Daphne – A priest’s religious functions are irrelevant to me because I am not a participant in religion. So yes, the priests who are my friends are just that – my friends.]
I know I would never ask a priest for any advice viz personal relationships between partners. They’re not qualified.
[Daphne – I think you are very wrong here. Just as you can’t generalise about non-priests, so you can’t generalise about priests. There are many priests who are wise and aware and above all, who have a keen sense of wrong and right, even when the border between can seem blurred. Very often, the worst people to consult when you have relationship problems are others who might project their own relationship difficulties onto yours, or mightn’t be able to resist the temptation to stir the pot. I have lost count of the number of couples I know to have split up because of egging on and bad advice by friends.]
Ending celibacy solves nothing? How’ll we know till we give it a try and till women assume an equal role in the church.
[Daphne – Chris, there was, and still is, as much abuse in secular orphanages but an employee in a secular orphanage is not a representative of anything except himself. So the victim does not direct his anger at the entire organisation because there isn’t one. Sexual abuse is not particular to Roman Catholic children’s homes. It just so happens that Roman Catholicism runs more such homes than any other single religion. Where the Catholic Church fails is in not handing these men over to the state authorities. When they commit a crime, they become Caesar’s responsibility.]
It’s almost funny how someone who has no use for religion knows all about how its priests should be!
[Daphne – It’s not as though I don’t know anything about Catholicism, Chris, come on. I happen to think that the Catholic Church is right in its ‘if you don’t like it, f**k off elsewhere’ attitude. It’s not like its faithful are paying customers it can’t afford to lose. What’s with these people who break every rule in the Catholic book but still insist on thinking of themselves as Catholics? What is it – cowardice? Fear of the unknown? The belief that there will be more opprobrium coming your way from failing to call yourself a Catholic than there was for not actually behaving like one?]
I agree that removing celibacy will not solve the problem of paedophilia but I would argue most strongly that there is a place for non celibate ministers in the Catholic Church and that it is far too male dominated.
[Daphne – You think that way, sir, because you didn’t go to a convent school. When nuns are part of your everyday life for years and run the organisation that schools you, you will 1. never think of Catholicism as male-dominated, and 2. never think that women priests are necessarily a good thing and the solution to the Catholic Church’s ills. The Catholic Church has thousands of nuns, all busy running things. I can’t see how I would have been more tempted to stay a Catholic if the nuns I knew were priests instead.]
Your comments are full of personal opinions eg the imaginary conversation which you assume is “typical” but is in fact very very different from my experience and that of many friends whose parents, brothers or spouses have died. You can’t speak for men, even though you think you can.
[Daphne – I used death because it’s the first thing that came to mind as a friend’s father has just died. You can freely substitute divorce, adultery, an alcoholic parent, a drug-addicted child, a sibling with a nervous breakdown, whatever. The fact is, and you can dispute this all you like, that women find out everything they can about people within a short time of meeting them, but men can be friends with another man for years and never discuss anything personal related to families etc. This is not ‘me’ saying this. It is the subject of endless numbers of books and studies. Men often accuse women of boring on to each other about husbands, parents and children, but what women are really doing in these situations is sussing each other out and discovering information.]
This is my final remark:
Right then, as I always suspected, I am a woman and Alison is therefore a lesbian.
Now I know why she calls me “defsa” .
“It’s not like its faithful are paying customers it can’t afford to lose.”
That’s where you’re wrong: in Germany, the tithes are obligatory. Since I’m still a catholic on paper, the church uses that number as leverage with the state.
Yes the church still needs desperate geriatrics to leave their property to the church so they go to heaven…
Nahseb jekk wiehed ikun habib tieghek m’hemmx ghalfejn jghidlek kif qed ihhossu wara l-mewt ta missieru.
Malli tmur turih is-soghba tieghek tinduna mill-ewwel. F’kasi b’hall dawn jien l-anqas nistaqsih kif int, u l-anqas ma naghti l-ghomor, imma nghid biss li ddispjecieni.
Huwa veru li bhala medja l-irgiel huma aktar riservati fil-feelings taghhom, imma f’mumenti bhal dawn, ma tantx hemm x’tiddiskuti u x’tispjega, sew jekk tkun ragel u sew jekk mara.
Issa jekk in-nisa jieqfux mill-qrar jew l-irgiel izidu f’kas li n-nisa jordnew qassisin, se tibqa ipotesi, almenu f’hajjitna.
basically what you’re saying is that the Anglican system does not work? Simply because priests are potentially viable sexual candidates? I don’t think so. What is wrong with the system is that vulnerable men/women/boys/girls confide deep and sometimes dark secrets to men who are not highly trained in handling these sort of situations.
I understand that people see this as an opportunity to let off some steam without the need to revert to a psychatrists/psychologist but there are those who feel that there is less wrong with speaking to a priest and not a professional when they have some sort of problem.
All this does is give the priest power, and we know very well that “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Seeing as they are only human, they feel that they can then get away with anything. Same could be said about the church in general, just pick up any history book.
Do I have a solution? No of course not. Although I think the entire institution is a joke, I do understand that there are those that need that comfort, social unity and assurance that it provides. But when you tell me it’s costing us €750,000 for the pope to come on his private jet and be paraded around like some sort of relic with all these scandals going on.. the first thing that comes to mind is the famous Homer Simpson quote… “DOH!”
Should be some weekend–sandals and scandals and smooth roads.
Unless it rains–there go the roads.
A very good article. Celibacy is a gift, and only those priests who really cherish this gift by actually living that way are giving a good example and are real leaders of their flock.
Definitely.
A paedophile criminal will remain a paedophile criminal. Whether he’s got a partner of a different sex, a partner of the same sex, or celibate.
The other point I made – that it should also be allowed to have women priests, would surely remove the conflict that you refer to. A woman who wants to confide to a priest something of a certain ‘flavour’ would seek a female priest to confide in.
[Daphne – You miss the point again. Women already have women to confide in – their girlfriends. If you canvas opinion among women you know, you might be surprised to find that women don’t want women priests, and that if a choice is offered for confidences/ advice between a woman priest and a man priest, they’ll go for the second. Sometimes, they might want to confide in a man: that’s where gay men, celibate priests and brothers (if they have them) come into the equation. Confiding in a heterosexual man who is neither a priest nor a close blood relation is a problem waiting to happen. And most women know this. In fact, some women, when they feel like a bit of excitement in their lives or want to cause trouble, confide in a man who is none of those things.]
I’m a woman and would have absolutely no problems with female priests. At least we would have a choice, something which we don’t have now. Personally, I could never understand the exclusion. Religion is food for the soul, and frankly, I can’t imagine any differences between the souls of men and the souls of women. One forward-looking ‘man of the cloth’ once told me that in a couple of generations’ time the Pope will introduce us to her husband! Magari!
Regarding what you mentioned Daphne, about the Church’s urge to accept all potential candidates to become priests regardless of their state of mind. I would just like to point out, that before entering the priesthood, candidates are already screened by psychologists. This isn’t to say that a more thorough profiling of candidates should not be enacted.
Well done! It’s almost impossible to find a balanced article such as this one on such a hot topic.
Daphne , it would be interesting to know the ratio or percentage of paedophile priest as compared to the rest of the population.
[Daphne – I can’t envisage a situation in which pollsters are sent out with a questionnaire asking people to tick the box against the question ‘Are you a paedophile?’]
No, I mean from criminal proceedings.
@ Matthew
‘legally’ here refers to church law.
Then the professor’s argument is even more ridiculous – which surprises me because he seems to be an academic of some standing. Consider the options available to a priest:
a) stay celibate;
b) have consensual sex and risk being defrocked;
c) rape an adult or child and risk being defrocked and imprisoned.
The priest would have to be either insane or a paedophile to begin with to choose c). Yet professor Buruma argues that that is the natural route for any lustful priest to take.
Seems like options b & c never happen in practice as proven by the latest probes into priestly misdemeanours.
Well, you talk as female pedophilia is a never-seen-before thing..
In my opinion, it’s not that children should be under the supervision of both men and women, but that they should be under the supervision of more than just one person. So as to reduce significantly the risk of rape.
Your article is refreshingly free from anti-Catholic bias, unlike what seems to be the order of the day in articles dealing with such a topic. I enjoyed reading your article!
[Daphne – Having more than one person look after the children is no solution. Look at what happened with the Christian Brothers in Australia.]
actually , “suspiciously” void of anti-catholic bias, cat caught your tongue?
[Daphne – I’m not anti-Catholic. I’m just not a Catholic. There’s a significant difference. I have none of that angst that comes from wanting to be a Catholic while being angry at the Catholic Church for not conforming to my idea of what it should be. I think the Catholic Church is right to stick to its rules and not be swayed, and quite frankly, those who don’t like it can leave. To me, Catholicism is a religion like any other. I just happen to know much more about it for obvious reasons.]
sorry ma’ nizziliex,
you have something to say about everyone (and rightly so), and then your article about the largest, most powerful and most vile organisation on our island you pussyfoot around like you’re walking on eggshells? What’s going on? Do you need them for something?
[Daphne – The reason you have a problem with the Catholic Church is the reason teenagers have a problem with their parents.]
I thought the most powerful organisation on our islands was the Gozitan mafia….
one and the same thing
Lino Cert you are missing the point, the target and the barn door. That was Daphne’s opinion – you may or may not agree with her (there is no force feeding here), but to state that the writer has a personal interest, that is tasteless.
true, tasteless I admit,
I just find it weird that she’s got so defensive of the church,
which made me wonder why, it’s so out of character
[Daphne – I am not defensive of the Catholic Church. I am merely not antagonistic towards it, precisely because Catholicism means nothing more to me at this stage than, say, Islam. Apparently, it is de rigeur, if you are Maltese and no longer interested in the religion in which you were raised, to ‘fight’ with it like a teenager breaking away from mummy and daddy. I find that attitude utterly pathetic in a middle-aged person.]
Daphne, you said that homosexuals and heterosexuals are born, but paedophiles are made. You seem too sure about this statement(s). Are these claims based on some sort of study/studies?
[Daphne – Commonsense.]
I’m not satisfied with your reply, Daphne. Once, the statement that the Earth is flat was taken as a fact and commonsense.
[Daphne – I’m not here to satisfy you with replies, Chris, nor are you my examiner. It’s commonsense that heterosexuals are not made but born. It stands to reason that homosexuals, too, are not made but born because homosexuality is often apparent from childhood (before actual sexual development) and tends to run in families – and, in fact, has been discovered to be genetic. This is something that researchers would have discovered much earlier had they studied a community like ours, where families tend to stay within the boundaries of the community and where family relationships are easily traceable, also where gay men have married in sizeable numbers and had children, passing on the gene. Quite why anyone would have thought homosexuality wasn’t genetic is beyond me. There are few things about people which are NOT genetic. I suppose it was propaganda put about by people who thought that homosexuals were wilfully so, and hence, could be made to change. As for paedophiles, check out their background and you will see that they have been made that way.]
Your statements are somehow generalizations. If you read about the research which is being done you notice that there is some evidence which may make you think that homosexuality is genetic, however it is not conclusive.
With regard to paedophilia, if you read this section of the article on paedophilia on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Biological_associations you realise that it is not as simple as you are putting it, Daphne. In fact there are some indications that paedophilia is genetic as well. But again, research doesn’t seem conclusive.
I’m simply suggesting that more intellectual honesty is needed when writing an article. Citation of research would be more then welcome, and would also increase the credibility of your arguments. I’d rather read informed opinion than opinion based on generalisation.
[Daphne Oh for crying out loud: a lecture on intellectual honesty and research from somebody quoting Wikipedia.]
I know wikipedia is not exactly the best source to get one’s information from, however you know what I am trying to tell you.
If I used a bad source, it doesn’t make your claims true, or my suggestion for you to carry a more detailed research less beneficial, by any means.
timotius…………jekk, ikollok tifel jew tifla u taqa f`xi vizzju, inti tmur ixxandara mal villagg kollu jew tipprova tostor kemm tiflah halli ma tigiex f`ilsien in nies?
allura jekk il knisja hbiet xi kazi fuq xi qassisin mhux ovju li taghmel hekk biex ma titlifx il fiducja tan nies.
jien veru ma naqbilx ma dawn il kazi imma mhux ser nistghageb ghax il knisja ghamlet hekk. ftakkru l ahwa li il qassisin huma humani bhallna.
wara kollox min hu bla dnub jitfa l ewwel gebla , qal Kristu darba
Excellent article as usual.
Recent evidence suggests that at least a quarter of cases of sexual abuse of children are perpetrated by women; in addition, it is estimated that over 80% of paedophile activity occurs within families.
It is an enormous problem which confronts me several times a year in my consulting room (I am a GP). In UK, a system of criminal checks on all applicants for posts involving child care has been instituted; it is far from perfect as, naturally, not all paedophiles have a criminal record, but it is a start.
Daphne your article is so full of assertions that frankly, are more a worrying indicator of your own prejudices and close mindedness I frankly don’t where to start….! Take for example QUOTE Every woman knows that if she talks to a non-celibate heterosexual man in this way, he takes it as a sign that she is interested in him even if she is not. This can be tedious.UNQUOTE Is that so????? As a heterosexual man, I am truly sorry that at your age, your experience of men is so limited. Maybe it is true that you should get out more and mix with a wider milieu than a restricted social circle much of which gives the impression of being inbred……but hey maybe thats my own prejudices coming to the fore….. allow me to try and answer some of the points you raise.
[Daphne – When a woman of 45 tells you that a woman never confides in a man unless she wishes to get close to him because she is interested in him, or wants to make him fancy her even if she doesn’t fancy him, I advise you to listen. And yes, women do not confide in men because they know that by doing this they are signalling interest and that’s the message men pick up. It’s the reason women in a relationship correctly identify as an enemy and threat any woman who suddenly comes along and begins treating their partner/husband/boyfriend as a confidante. You might be naive, young and fairly inexperienced, but this is in fact how many relationships break down – when a woman worms herself in as a ‘friend’ and ends up prising the man away from his partner/spouse. To give you one infamous example, it’s how Consuelo Herrera broke up Robert Musumeci’s marriage. But you’re probably too young to know about how these things work, just as Mrs Musumeci didn’t see Magistrate Herrera coming or even work out what she was up to, when an older woman would have set the dogs on her, metaphorically speaking, of course.]
In the relatively recent past, when far greater numbers of men joined the priesthood, the link between paedophile priests and celibacy, always a direct one, had a far greater impact. In our own country, it was common until two generations ago for most families to send at least one son (or daughter) into the church. The social pressure to join the priesthood unfortunately led to many priests who, perhaps, had they had a real free choice, would never have chosen their vocations. Many of these were still good priests, lonely men maybe, but not molesters. Many however became molesters – ranging from inappropriate intentional physical proximity to touching and worse – and many Maltese have had some direct experience of such men.
The celibacy of these priests, coupled with a highly inadequate sexual development in the far more strait-laced societies common across most western countries until some decades ago, is what led many to molest children several years down the road when they were entrusted with the care of such children.
Contrary to what you assert, it is far easier for such men to get off on the vulnerable children in their care than embark on the far more ‘difficult’ task of having normal sexual relationships with mature adults.
[Daphne – I cannot agree with your suggestion that men, if deprived of access to women, will turn to children instead. The explanation is in something else you said, but you haven’t noticed it. Most of those early-day priests came from ultra-religious and sexually repressed households. It was the overdose of religious coupled with sexual repression and the equation of sex with ‘bad’ that would have made them paedophiles or arrested their sexual development in such a way that they can only relate sexually to children. Whether or not they became priests is incidental. Those ones happened to become priests. Think of all the others who did not, and who went on to abuse children in a secular context or in their own family home.]
Today, it could well be the case that the direct link between priestly celibacy and paedophile priests is greatly weakened, as today the young men joining the priesthood are far more likely to be doing so out of a genuine free will, and making genuinely informed decisions that they are taking while living in highly liberal societies that are highly sexualised. So today, the dangers of men who have repressed sexual desires or feelings becoming priests are much smaller, and modern seminaries weed out these men in any case.
[Daphne – Yes, but they remain in society nonetheless.]
So yes, priestly celibacy today may not produce molesters. But it certainly did in the past. And it is the victims of these men who are today calling for justice. Today it is cases that happened several years ago that are making the news.
Two other points.
Unfortunately the flip side of the coin of having more genuine vocations is far fewer priests joining the priesthood. And this is of huge detriment to the Church. I am happy for you that you give the impression of easily finding a priest if you need one.
[Daphne – I don’t seek out priests because I am not a Catholic. There are a few priests I meet through work who have become friends. But that’s chance.]
In France for example, one priest may have to serve the needs of thousands of people. Whole parishes no longer exist across Europe. Churches have closed. I am not particularly religious, but aware as I am of the importance of Christianity in fostering western values, the status of the Church as the world’s biggest charity and so much more, I fear the ramifications of a truncated Church for our societies.
Secondly, I am sorry that you seem to find more comfort as a woman in having a priest you know is celibate to talk to. In a way this too is an indication of generational change. Sexuality in mature individuals is no barrier or hindrance to any sort of relationship between two individuals on any level.
[Daphne – And that is precisely why people are unable to sustain relationships nowadays, because they are not aware of boundaries and if they are, they fail to respect them. Or they think, as you do, that there should be no boundaries at all. But boundaries exist/ed for a reason: to protect relationships and the people within them. When you grow up, get into a serious relationship, and your wife (husband? partner?) suddenly turns up with a friend of the opposite sex and spends all the time on the phone with them or going out with them as you would with a friend of the same sex, then we’ll talk about boundaries and how you feel about them.]
Carl G. Jung, writing about The Shadow (the symbol for all the internalised psychic energy which one never actually got a chance to face directly but suppressed into one’s unconsciousness) was in the habit of saying that where there is a lot of Light so there is also much Shadow.
The Catholic Church which over the centuries was undeniably responsible for so much good has also been burdened by huge shadows which brought it many a time down to its knees.
Indeed, institutions are no different from the people who make them up. Whether we like it or not, we as individuals similarly have to face our personal Shadow, if we are to grow as integrated human beings.
I believe that St. Paul, speaking in religious terms, reflects on this matter when he speaks of wanting to do good but finds himself doing the exact opposite.
When the personal or the institututional shadow is not faced head on, and it is, by no means, an easy feat to do so, then the Shadow becomes demonic. It takes on a life of its own and sabotages all the good that one is capable of doing.
This is not the first time that the Catholic Church finds itself confronting its own Shadow. Still Shadow work is never easy.
Some of the serious issues raised by this blog are Shadow issues relating to other institutions like the Courts of Justice and behaviour of the judiciary. Not easy stuff to deal with by any means!
However, if the Church, the hierarchy as well as all the faithful, face this frightening monster that has reared its head from within, honestly, they stand a very good chance of becoming a church once again.
It is only then that all those who are wearied and heavily burdened with the problems of existence may find solace and a haven for their troubled souls. This is my sincere prayer!
A very interesting and reasoned out article.
Paedophilia is not only found in the Catholic Church and only a minority of Catholic priests are abusers. Paedophilia is also considered as a mental disorder.
However I fail to understand your point that paedophiles are made. Is paedophilia a ‘natural’ tendency in some persons, in other words an inbuilt urge? If so how are they ‘made’?
[Daphne – They are made because paedophilia is the result of arrested or otherwise abnormal sexual development.]
QUOTE When a woman of 45 tells you that a woman never confides in a man unless she wishes to get close to him because she is interested in him, or wants to make him fancy her even if she doesn’t fancy him, I advise you to listenUNQUOTE
Phew!!!! This inexperienced dude who is not so far of your age will let your words do the rest of the talking……buuuut oh dear, I see that word ‘boundaries……..
[Daphne – I’m surprised to find that somebody not far off from 45 writes as you do. It is a style more commonly associated with teenagers. Anybody reading this would think you are 17, and I’m being charitable here.]
….of course there are ‘boundaries’ in every type of relationship (I am using the word relationship in the broadest sense here….I hope that is clear……..!!!!) But you were talking about a specific situation…a woman confiding in a man who is a priest who is or is not celibate……and between two mature individuals this is possible without splitting the axle your world turns on regardless of the celibacy or otherwise of the priest!!!!! Or the man, if you want to expand the argument!!!! Have some more faith in human nature!!! I am not saying its always the case but its certainly the case many times over….!!
Anyway better go now as my gf says hi and she wants to know who I am talking to……would not want to break up a relationship now do you?????????????
Currently prior to the opening of a case in the church tribunal one is informed that he is free to take the matter to the state authorities. Then once the case is opened/closed what follows is a matter of utmost secrecy and no-one knows what happens to the priest involved.
Daphne do you think that the church should forward results of their investigations to the police once a priest is found guilty of paedophilia?
[Daphne – Yes.]
I’d go one further. I think that the church should refer anyone who comes to them with a report of paedophilia immediately to the police, rather than wait till the outcome of their investigations, which may never see the light of day. Paedophilia is, after all, a criminal offence, so to hell with any effect any publicity given to such offences may have on the church.
The church, of course, should also take the necesary action within itself, but such cases should always be handled by the police.
Today, the Vatican issued guidelines how paedophilia is to be dealt within the Catholic Church and one of the items states that paedophile priests are to be referred immediately to the civil authorities.
Paedophiles are all over the place. They were and will always be, celibacy or not. The Catholic Church is no exception. The problem here is that, for donkeys’ years, the Catholic Church has concentrated on paedophilia the sin. It is now having to confront, in a serious and transparent manner, paedophilia the crime.
This is no easy matter. Joseph Ratzinger, one of the greatest living Catholic theologians, is in for a tough time. He has been valiant in his battle against this curse for more than thirty years. Now it is marking his papacy. I am sure he is constantly in contact with the Holy Spirit for inspiration and illumination. He will need plenty of both.
PS : A+ for Daphne’s article.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100412/local/security-stepped-up-for-popes-visit
“I think the Catholic Church is right to stick to its rules and not be swayed, and quite frankly, those who don’t like it can leave.”
True. But not in situations where the law not equal for all. I don’t give a hoot about the Roman Catholic Church but I find it unfair that, for instance, a priest paedophile is treated differently to a secular one: the first is defrocked and the second is sent to prison.
[Daphne – For the first to be sent to prison, a report has to be made to the state authorities, which cannot act ex ufficio in prosecuting. This report requires the consent of the victims, who have to testify in court, as without them, there is no evidence. It is usually the victims who are reluctant to testify, in Malta at least. Where the Catholic Church goes wrong is in not giving the right degree of importance to the secular prosecution process, trying to keep the law in its own hands by discouraging victims from making reports to the police.]
Haven’t the victims of both paedophiles been through a similar experience? Can I set up an organisation, make its rules and regulations – even for criminal acts – whereby its members become immune to civil prosecution when there is evidence that a criminal act has been executed? Is it ok if I just set up some ‘response team’ which becomes the prosecutor and judge for criminal acts?
[Daphne – The Catholic Church is not a state within a state. Its members are not immune from prosecution. Like any other organisation, it has internal mechanisms for dealing with problems, but those internal mechanisms do not replace the law and order system of the country. It is my view that the Catholic Church should report the these priests immediately to the police for investigation when it receives reports of abuse, with or without the consent of the victim, and let the police take it from there. The problem that arises with this is the ethical dilemma of what to do if a victim comes forward and says ‘I don’t want you to tell the police; I want you to deal with it yourselves.’ Wherever minors are involved, the wishes of the parents in keeping things concealed should be over-ridden and a report made to the police.]
Is it OK to coerce the young victims to sign declarations that they will remain silent?
[Daphne – Any such declaration is by its very nature invalid. Those under the age of 18 cannot be signatories to anything.]
Is it OK then that with the passage of time when these children have grown up to have the nerve to say that it is the victims who did not and do not want to take legal action after the church has kept everything under wraps for decades, knowing that crimes have been committed?
It is not reminiscent of communist regimes when the Catholic Church has evidence of child abuse instead of handing it to the police, it covers it up? I don’t know, but I doubt that was the teaching of Jesus Christ.
“Celibacy is what sets priests apart from their flock.” This is a myth . It is a known fact that there are priests in heterosexual and homsexual relationships. In some cases they have also produced offspring and I am not referring to the famous Mrs Borg Olivier case but to other cases, less ‘celebrated’ known mostly to parishioners of particular localities. These are not exceptions.
[Daphne – Of course they are exceptions, for heaven’s sake. It’s the reason they stand out, precisely because they are exceptions. This is the equivalent of the statement ‘politicians are corrupt’, made just because a few of them are. It weakens an argument. Some priests have sex with other adults and some of them father children. These are the exception, not the rule, and in all cases they lose respect.]
The rule is that priests are human and have intimate relationships. These may be priests – are priests – who are doing a world of good, but that is not the issue here.
[Daphne – You start off from the stand-point that everyone wants a sexual relationship. This is clearly not the case. Some people spend their entire lives avoiding intimacy and no, they are not priests. Why everyone should assume that all priests (and nuns, for that matter) are gagging for ‘intimacy’ is hard to understand. If you actually bother to speak to people who have taken vows of chastity you might find that for many of them, it is actually a relief to do away with the demands of sexuality and intimate relationships. Some people actually find all that stressful and the monastic, ascetic life attractive. Human nature is rather more complicated than these simplistic assertions.]
When a priest then regards an intimate relationship with an adult as breaking the vow of celibacy and tries to suppress his sexuality, it is not uncommon for him to turn to children: children will keep silent if ordered to do so, and they are too young to understand that what the priest is doing to them is wrong.
[Daphne – Oh come on, honestly. Assess your argument clinically, rather than emotionally. What you are saying here is this: a priest is unwilling to break his vow of celibacy with an adult, so he resorts to breaking it with a child instead because this is the lesser evil. It is quite patently NOT the lesser evil, and beyond that, it is a criminal act. The only men who have sex with children are those who are attracted to children. Are you a man? Well then, if somebody locked you up in a building with no women but plenty of children, are you going to start having sex with them?]
They say that when Jesus Christ appointed St Peter as the first pope, the latter was married, so were other popes and priests which followed. Celibacy is a church-imposed rule and not a regulation coming from Jesus Christ.
[Daphne – This is really disingenuous, but a common argument. The reality is that all church rules are man-made and not God inspired because religion is an artificial construct, entirely man-made to satisfy humankind’s desire for an explanation as to the meaning of life and something beyond this life. If you don’t like the rules you are free to leave. You are not free to insist that any religion – not just Catholicism – is refashioned to suit you. Those who feel strongly enough about this have, throughout history, started their own religions.]
Those who read on the subject know that there are may debates on celibacy . There are cardinals who say that it causes more harm than good, and there are those who, like you, believe that it ending it solves nothing.
I don’t have the answer.
[Daphne – When I read treatises by priests calling for an end to celibacy, the only thing I can think of is that they want to have sex themselves but don’t have the guts to do something about it and leave the priesthood. They want to be priests who have sex with the Vatican’s blessing. Well, tough. They chose to become priests. Nobody forced them, and they knew the conditions when they joined. This is like somebody who joins the army and then says: ‘Listen, I don’t think it’s fair that we have to wake up at 4am to walk for 10 miles every day in freezing weather while sleeping in barracks rather than with our girlfriends.’]
Congratulations on Taste – when I went to buy The Malta Independent I was told that there were none left as lots of people had pre-booked the newspaper to ensure they got a copy. I then went through it at mum’s – utterly professional!
This article is an eye-opener and serious food for thought – it was discussed on Radio 101 yesterday morning.
Some priests are not just guilty of paedophilia but of more.
Just to give an idea, they continued and some still continue to administer the Holy Sacraments after performing these heinous acts.
Personally, I am left with a feeling of confusion as to what is right and what is wrong and where to go when difficulties arise.
I agree with the premise but I don’t agree with your excuses. Following your thinking psychiatrists, psychologists, gynaecologists, doctors, lawyers and others should take celibacy vows so women would feel safe talking to them.
[Daphne – Women feel safe talking to them precisely because there are strict rules which govern relationships between doctors and patients. Any attempt made by a doctor to form a sexual relationship with a patient, or any suggestive remark or action in the consulting room, will result in severe action taken against the doctor if reported. By bringing these forward as examples, you merely reinforce my point. Lawyers have no similar restrictions, which could be one reason why so many of them seem to have personal lives which are a total mess.]
There should be checks and balances, like everywhere else to keep the power wielded by these valued members of society in check (more on this later).
The celibacy laws in the church are important for one simple institutional reason: the church avoids the problems that come with dynasties, resulting in a relatively more egalitarian society.
[Daphne – You cannot be serious.]
I can only think of democracy as being a better solution as it provides a 5-year check on rulers with a strict constitution. Many other religions, including the Jewish faith, Islam and Hinduism have ended up with a caste system where the priestly profession is bound by blood.
For the Catholic Church this would be a big problem because it is more centralised. Imagine the papacy or a politically important/wealthy bishopric becoming the de facto fief of a specific family dynasty. There were threats to this effect multiple times in church history.
**About checks and balances:** the problem secularists have with the Catholic Church is that it is dictatorial in nature. Obedience is valued to a fault, effectively giving a lot of power to the far right members, with the liberal faithful bowing their heads in obedience.
Secularists also feel that the church unduly influences public discourse on civil society whilst getting hidden funds and special treatment from the richest countries in the world.
[Daphne – Now here we agree, but I have to add one thing. The Catholic Church can only influence the state and public discourse with the consent of the governed. So blaming the Catholic Church is a bit foolish. It is the governed who should be blamed.]
The real story that should come out of this pedophilia debacle is that church leadership is fallible and should participate in civil society as an equal stakeholder by using reasoned debate based on facts instead of whipping its adherents to a frenzy with superstitious mumbo jumbo.
[Daphne – The Catholic Church has every right to whip its adherents to a frenzy with superstitious mumbo-jumbo. We cannot accord this right to political parties and then deny it to the Catholic Church.]
I still remember Fr Anton Gouder on Xarabank threatening MPs with mortal sin if they vote for gay marriage or divorce.
[Daphne – He is free to do so. And they are free to ignore him. We are all adults here. If MPs are frightened by such threats, then they are not mature enough to fill that seat in parliament. You cannot blame the Catholic Church or priests for the unformed backbone of other adults.]
I doubt the popes of old had any qualms in entering wars to gain territory or commission/approve of terrorist acts in England and Holland or putting people to the stake for material gain or to keep the faithful in line. They had special dispensations because they were leading the state—and they wore an expensive frock.
The Catholic Church should lead by example not by diktat. It tells the faithful to live an exemplary life upon pain of punishment by the state but at the same time shield heinous crimes by pedophile priests, who end up repeating those crimes over and over.
Is it a case of two weights and two measures? Is god so discriminatory as to give eternal damnation to the broken victims and paradise to the pedophile priest simply because he wears a frock?
[Daphne – I really, honestly cannot understand why adults feel such angst about these things beyond the student years. If you don’t like it, just stop being a Catholic. Who or what is stopping you? You were raised a Catholic but you were free at every point beyond the age of 16 to stop being one. Why all this trauma and soul-searching, why all this fuss and fighting the Pope? Leave the Pope to those who want him and go off and find something else or nothing at all. All this Catholic navel-gazing is just too much. It’s like a Woody Allen film without Jews.]
‘I really, honestly cannot understand why adults feel such angst about these things beyond the student years.’
This is very, very true. I think that the blurry distinction of state and church and this significant public outrage at Catholic authorities in Malta are two sides of the same coin. They are both the result of poor education and the inability to choose to live an independent/non-religious life.
dudu, some people are really arguing for a secular state and couldn’t give two hoots about the private predilections of any particular cult beyond them being fodder for stand-up comedy.
I gained my emancipation decades ago…
Daphne – You cannot be serious
Yes, I am. There’s no material gain in me writing here. If you can illuminate me with some pertinent points on church history please do. Your piece is very flawed and shows a lot of bias. For example a priest in remote villages wielded a lot of power and his vow of celibacy doesn’t keep him away of women’s pudenda…or children if whatever his flaws are. Because a priest is the ultimate authority and you cannot argue with him.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-pedophiles-paradise/Content?oid=1065017
> So blaming the Catholic Church is a bit foolish. It is the governed who should be blamed
That’s why all this media attention on paedo-priests and the church’s gross mishandling of it. I’m all for eroding the church’s influence as it’s not based on reason but on tribal superstition. Voters should vote by using reason nor feelings. If I did that I would have voted for Sant … twice.
> If MPs are frightened by such threats, then they are not mature enough to fill that seat in parliament
Maybe you think the pulpit and the confessional aren’t frightening to MPs. Fighting the church’s demented view on society requires a lot of the governing party’s resources that currently need to be used elsewhere. The local church is effectively implementing a lot of hurdles to keep the hate and discrimination flowing and increase the damage for the party that pushes a more liberal agenda.
> If you don’t like it, just stop being a Catholic.
I’m openly atheist and debate these things with family and friends (to their great distress) most of whom are catholic. I’m considering removing myself from the church’s birth register in fact. I don’t plan to get a divorce and don’t plan to get a gay marriage license. I’m arguing for local civil society to be fair and for civil society to fight for equal representation for all.
It’s funny, you don’t like the Italians’ arte dell’arrangiarsi (Divorzio all’Italiana comes to mind) but you’re suddenly so protective of the papacy. An institution that Europeans fought to get off their backs for centuries, starting with german emperors, the Dutch, the British and finally the French… you think the ideals of the enlightenment are being fulfilled now?
You seem to be an avowed secularist/humanist. Why this sudden need to defend a powerful institution that unduly influences the state? An institution that does all the things you rile against?
I hate Woody Allen films… I prefer reading Finkelstein, Klein, Chomsky, Philip Weiss etc… who all are liberal to a fault and point their finger at fascists everywhere, including the US and Israel.
Daphne, I think that none of all of this is as simple as you’ve made it out to be.
First of all, while I generally agree that most women who confide all their problems in a man are looking for attention which goes beyond problem-solving, I am not too sure that, today, so many women confide in priests. However yes, some women actually invent sob stories specifically as bait.
I also agree that allowing priests to marry is not going to solve or minimally influence the problem with paedophilia in the Catholic Church.
Where I do not agree with you at all is your “take it or leave it” stand. I think that it is perfectly fair to criticise anybody who occupies a position which is in itself representative of a value or of a fundamental institution in one’s life, if they are not doing so properly.
Religion in much more than a golf club or a cooking club, religion is supposed to be a way of life, and it is fundamental that the institutions regulating it and representing it are worthy of doing so.
Not to mention that in most Catholic countries, religion is still very influential on government policy. Any form of irregularity should therefore be brought to light and the members of the Catholic Church are perfectly within their rights to demand it.
[Daphne – We’re speaking at cross purposes here. When I say ‘take it or leave it’ I do not refer to crime or wrong-doing like child abuse, but to rules on celibacy and adultery. Those are the rules of the club. If you don’t like them, leave. And yes, religion is a club, not a way of life. It is perfectly possible to live a decent way of life without espousing any particular religion. Millions do it, and I hope I am one of them. Religion gives people a sense of belonging, and that’s why those who are in ‘subsequent’ relationships insist on acceptance by what they consider to be ‘their’ religion, even though they have patently rejected it through their actions.]
This is the same reasoning on which I firmly believe that you are perfectly within your rights in exposing a magistrate who is shedding a bad light on the judicial system, a system in which you want (and more importantly have a right) to believe.
It is perfectly legitimate to demand that the individuals representing an institution in which we believe, model the values that institution represents.
[Daphne – That’s not a correct comparison. You cannot compare a state system – justice – with the administration of a religion, however many people belong to that religion, unless you are speaking of a theocracy, and we are not that.]
And by the way, if your golf club, gym, children’s music club, football club or any other organisation, condoned paedophilia – would you simply not renew your membership and join another club, or would you take other action, would you not report those responsible to the police?
Why can’t a priest be reported to the police? This, in my opinion, is the solution, priests should not be shielded by the Church, they should be brought to justice as would any other individual responsible for the same deeds.
[Daphne – Who is saying that priests cannot or should not be reported to the police? I find it absolutely ridiculous that the Catholic Church hierarchy is blamed for the failure of PARENTS AND INDIVIDUALS to go to the police.]
eh not quite, you know. How many priests have you heard of that got arrested, anywhere in the world?
[Daphne – Whenever the victims file a report with the police, the police prosecute. To answer your question: there are at least three priests undergoing prosecution right now in Malta. The case has dragged on for seven years. Can we blame the Catholic Church for this? No. Unfortunately, people who grew up in Malta find it very, very difficult to separate the powers even in their own mind: they want the police to take action, so they go to the bishop.]
Do you think that it’s just because the parents and the same persons who are abused do not report?
[Daphne – Yes, it is precisely because of that. I speak about what happens here. I am hardly in a position to speak about what happens elsewhere.]
I’ll try and find you a link to an interesting investigation that the Iene carried out on this issue, and you will see the reaction of the state police in various countries, including Italy, Spain, and Ireland. I am assuming Malta is no exception.
[Daphne – You should not assume. If you think that somebody can file an official complaint with the police about sexual abuse in childhood and that the police will ignore it, you are unfamiliar with the set-up here.]
The police do not get beyond convent doors, on the rare occasion that they even bother to investigate, that is.
I agree with the ‘take it or leave it’ with respect to adultery, as I said in your subsequent article. In this one you were speaking about paedophilia and not adultery.
I too am not religious, but it is principally because I don’t feel that the Catholic Church, as opposed to Jesus Christ, represents any of my beliefs, but that’s not to say that I wouldn’t like that to change.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100412/local/partners-at-papal-mass-restrictions-only-for-formal-invitations-curia
Last week Lily Gruber conducted a program “Otto E Mezzo” entitled-“Pedofilia Un’Ombra Sulla Chiesa”. It was a well balanced programme with bishop Karl Golser as a guest.
In the introduction Malta was mentioned as having 5% paedophile priests. The bishop has given an email address and a telephone number where one can report cases of paedophelia by priests and he will pass the informatoin to the prefecture. In fact this morning he will be meeting the Prefect of his region to discuss how they will be handling the issue.
This link will take you to the programme.
http://www.la7.tv/richplayer/?assetid=50175436
By the way in certain countries this crime has no time limit wherein it can be reported to the police.
Bishop Gosler is bishop for Bolzano and Bressanone.
Daphne,
Le Iene are doing a good job of exposing such misdeeds in Italy. I wonder what the Catholic Church is doing in such cases. Why it wouldn’t take proactive measures in view of such outrage worldwide is a mystery to me.
The Catholic Church should make it clear once and for all that it has zero tolerance for these acts and will be handing over such complaints to the police for further investigation.
It should go one step further and initiate legal action against these criminals for the reputation damage that they are causing.
It is useless for the pope to acknowledge these actions and ask for forgiveness, if he continues to act passively in these circumstances.
No wonder this love-hate relationship towards the Catholic Church seems to prevail amongst Christians.
As for us laypersons, paedophilia coming from a priest is gross but coming from women, words simply fail me.
Everybody could attend the Papal Mass on Sunday, a Church spokesman said yesterday, while confirming media reports that separated MPs were not given the option of bringing their partners as guests.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100412/local/partners-at-papal-mass-restrictions-only-for-formal-invitations-curia
If homosexuality were purely genetic then if gay people did not have children, they would eventually die out.
[Daphne – Gay people do have children.]
I remember reading an article about the effect hormones in a mother’s womb can have on the development of a foetus (specifically on sexuality) but I cannot remember if that was merely a theory or the result of a study.
I do feel that, contrary to your opinion, chastity is a factor to consider in these cases. You are quite right to point out that chastity does not lead to kiddie-fiddling – no argument there – but chastity does lead to a severe testing of the spirit.
[Daphne – Amazing, isn’t it. The married ones say that marriage tests the spirit, and the celibate ones say that celibacy tests the spirit.]
We expect and assume that priests will hold back but they don’t always do so. Some of them turn to members of their congregation (some of the comments provide an insight into this) and those priests who are also paedophiles turn to children.
[Daphne – Paedophiles will always prey on children, whether they are subject to a vow of celibacy or not. Your argument is inconsistent. What will removing celibacy solve in respect of paedophiles? Is it going to make them suddenly interested in women or men? No.]
The real news here is that priests in the RC church are supposed to deny themselves these desires. When the desire is illegal, that makes things worse. The outcry in other countries is not because the priests succumbed to “earthly temptations” but that they did so with children and then this was hushed up. In fact, we never see reports of priests who have sex with adults because this is not news.
Chastity does make things worse, I feel. It truly is a case of “Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers”.
[Daphne – I’m beginning to think that rather a lot of people fail to understand the nature of paedophilia.]
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2006/07/homosexuality_a.html
Vatican news:
Nei casi di abusi sessuali su minori da parte dei preti “si deve sempre seguire la legge civile per quanto riguarda la denuncia dei crimini alle appropriate autorita'”. Lo si legge sul sito della Santa Sede, dove oggi è stata pubblicata la guida sulle procedure canoniche della Congregazione per la dottrina della fede. Non si tratta di un documento nuovo – ha spiegato il Vaticano – ma dell’interpretazione delle norme in vigore dal 2001. Negli episodi più gravi il Papa può anche ridurre direttamente il colpevole allo stato laicale, senza passare per un processo canonico.
TV7 – 21.10 L’Infedele – CHI VUOLE RICOPRIRE DI FANGO IL PAPA?
“This report requires the consent of the victims, who have to testify in court, as without them, there is no evidence. It is usually the victims who are reluctant to testify, in Malta at least.”
That is exactly the point. A report can be made by the Church authorities when they have evidence of child abuse. It happens in France for instance. The victims will probably give their consent if they are assured assured of protection. They must also be sure that they will not have to go through the trauma of facing the perpetrator in court, etc. The prime minister is aware of this problem and has stated that he will be looking into it.
“Its members are not immune from prosecution.”
They are automatically immune from prosecution in these cases when crime evidence is kept from the police. It’s of course different if they commit murder for example.
“It is my view that the Catholic Church should report the these priests immediately to the police for investigation when it receives reports of abuse, with or without the consent of the victim, and let the police take it from there……….Wherever minors are involved, the wishes of the parents in keeping things concealed should be over-ridden and a report made to the police.”
Exactly. This is what we must push for , and judging by the PM’s comment this morning, it seems that this will be on the agenda when he discusses the issue with the church authorities.
“Any such declaration is by its very nature invalid. Those under the age of 18 cannot be signatories to anything.”
The young victims I refer to are 18 or over and had been abused as children.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/235227: ‘In Ireland it was revealed that Cardinal Sean Brady had reportedly been present at a 1975 tribunal at which child victims were forced to sign an affidavit affirming they’d keep silent on the matter of their molestation.’
“Of course they are exceptions”
Heterosexual and homosexual relationships between priests and lay people are not the exception. I know very few who are not in, or were not, in a relationship. They obviously do not flaunt it, and only a few are privy to this information. I rest my case here as I am not in a position to give you proof for this.
“You start off from the stand-point that everyone wants a sexual relationship.”
There are of course exceptions but human nature has made us this way, in order to ensure procreation and thus the continuation of the human race.
“Assess your argument clinically, rather than emotionally. What you are saying here is this: a priest is unwilling to break his vow of celibacy with an adult, so he resorts to breaking it with a child instead because this is the lesser evil. It is quite patently NOT the lesser evil, and beyond that, it is a criminal act.”
Clinically, this is called rationalisation. As you say, it is not a lesser evil and it is a criminal act, but there is a higher probability that the priest child abuser will get away with it as it is easier to threaten or blackmail a child – a dependent of yours to boot – to keep his/her mouth shut. Life is made even easier by the institution the priest belongs to, such as in the case cited above when later on the victims were ‘forced to sign an affidavit affirming they’d keep silent on the matter of their molestation.’
“This is really disingenuous, but a common argument. The reality is that all church rules are man-made and not God inspired.”
What about those 10 rules called commandments?
[Daphne – I’m guessing Moses came down from that mount, found chaos, and said, right, I’d better spell out 10 basic laws and tell them they come from God and he’ll smite them dead if they don’t get in line.]
“When I read treatises by priests calling for an end to celibacy, the only thing I can think of is that they want to have sex themselves but don’t have the guts to do something about it and leave the priesthood.”
I agree with you, though I don’t think that the solution is to leave the Church, but to remove the celibacy vow. In the Protestant reformation, the abolition of clerical continence and celibacy (they blamed it for widespread sexual misconduct among the clergy) was an important element of the reform.
I don’t see that these societies (where Protestantism was or maybe still is the major religion) are any worse than Roman Catholic ones because their pastors are married. On the contrary, and I know I am going off at a tangent now, but I must say that I appreciate the Protestant work ethic much more than I do the laid back attitude in Roman Catholic countries, but that’s another issue.
Dear Daphne,
As a married priest myself I find some of your comments unfair. There was never a question of a hierarchy of loyalty between my children and my congregation. There are no problems in the numbers of Confession either. Priests are set apart by their ordination and not their marital status. Are you dismissing the faithfulness, dedication and courage of so many thousands of married priests in the Orthodox, Anglican and even Catholic traditions?
BTW, my teenage children are a source of joy for me and my wife and support me extremely well in my ministry.
However, I totally agree that there is no correlation between the celibacy and abuse of children.
[Daphne – Of which church are you a minister?]
I am an Anglo-Catholic priest in the Church of England.
Anglo-Catholic at Sevenoaks, London
Parish of St John the Baptist, Sevenoaks, Kent, UK
Daph you really have stirred a hornets nest here. I have noticed that nearly all the comments at leaning towards the two extremes. There is no ‘middle of the road’.
I am not referring to paedophilia here as I have written once on that subject which also included comments on rapists and molesters. However my comment was censored (rightly so maybe ) as I have not an ounce of pity for these sub-humans. To hell with human rights here.
As I was saying, I would like to point out my disagreement on some aspects of your comments (and those of others). However I thought that I would waste your time as it would be a rather long statement.
@ Roberto
I just can’t understand your warped logic. You state “the majority of cases are homosexual in nature but not paedophile”. So are you and Mons Charles Scicluna implying that there is nothing wrong in the clergy abusing adolescents, and paedophilia is only in those cases of pre-pubescent age?
It just amazes me that many apologists for the Catholic Church are implying that the Catholic Church is the victim of false news, or is being picked on. There was an outrageous comment on timesofmalta.com, in which it was alleged that nearly all youngsters experience some sort of abuse, but everyone is picking on those perpetrated by the clergy! I have to use an exclamation mark here.
The problem is that the Catholic Church has deemed itself above the law, and did not show zero tolerance to offending clergymen by defrocking them and reporting them to the police.
On the contrary, in most cases it posted them to a new parish in some other country to spice up the appetite of these abusers – like missionary work in Brazil. Now is that not a perfect prize for these predators?
What Mons Scicluna does not divulge in his statistics is whether one single priest of the 44 cases investigated has been reported to the police and served one single day in jail.
On the other hand, the Pandolfino brothers are serving a 10-year jail term. Their “mistake” was that they did not enter the priesthood and commit their abuses while serving as priests, because they would not be in jail today. This is the harsh reality.
“If a man is so sexually frustrated that he is prepared to break his vow of celibacy, commonsense dictates that he will turn to a woman – or to a man, depending on his inclinations – but not to a child unless children were his thing to start with.”
I agree 100%
My remark about the ten commandments was tongue in cheek, but it is what Roman Catholics believe:
from THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
The Ten Commandments are precepts bearing on the fundamental obligations of religion and morality and embodying the revealed expression of the Creator’s will in relation to man’s whole duty to God and to his fellow-creatures. They are found twice recorded in the Pentateuch, in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, but are given in an abridged form in the catechisms. Written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, this Divine code was received from the Almighty by Moses amid the thunders of Mount Sinai, and by him made the ground-work of the Mosaic Law. Christ resumed these Commandments in the double precept of charity–love of God and of the neighbour; He proclaimed them as binding under the New Law in Matthew 19 and in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5).
If anybody is interested, the Church’s official guidelines on dealing with cases of sexual abuse were posted on the Holy See’s website this morning in the Focus section. They were subsequently reproduced on VIS the Vatican Information Service. Very interesting reading indeed for laymen like myself.
One of the best articles on this subject that I have ever read. Well done.
Daphne, unfortunately I do not agree with most of what your wrote in your article especially where you stated “But it isn’t fair to blame the Catholic hierarchy for the presence of paedophiles in its midst.” – Of course I blame the Catholic hierachy for leading a systemic cover-up regarding child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests.. for not going to the police and report the paedophiles, instead they hush victims up and quickly move the offender around.. but they are never punished. The sickest thing is that when moved around, they would still have access to children.. The Church never protected the children but it protected its own interests and there is proof that the Pope is involved in the cover up. It seems to me that for you a peadophile priest is today’s normality.. personally I do not trust the Catholic Church..
Daphne’s analysis of the paedophilia issue was crystal clear. Agreeing or disagreeing is in the game. Saying that as far as Daphne is concerned a paedophile priest is today’s normality is plain ludicrous. May I suggest that Daphne’s analysis is read and reread. After all not everybody has an IQ over 70 (Terman Score). Once again check the VIS website for the rules of engagement before blurting out nonsense.
An article which definitely serves as a point of departure for a healthy discussion.
Fr. John Caruana
Guajara-mirim – Rondonia – Brasil
As always you give a very interesting point of view which one could debate much further. I agree with you that the Catholic Church cannot avoid having a paedophile in its midst.
I agree that celibacy would solve nothing or very little. I’m not sure that a married priest would not serve his flock as well as a celibate one but I’m sure that having a family would give him less time to spend on his extended family.
I don’t understand but know for a fact that women feel very comfortable speaking to priests about everything under the sun probably even more comfortable than speaking to their husbands – mur ifimhom!
However what bothers me as a Catholic is not that there was a paedophile priest but a) that this person is a disgrace to us Catholics and all that Jesus has taught us; b) that they tarnish the good name of so many other priests who are exemplary – I heard someone say that all priests are paedophiles – nothing further from the truth; c) that they are bringing the Catholic Church into disrepute and doing the complete opposite of what they are supposed to do as Catholic priests – evangelise; d) that instead of making us proud to be Catholics we carry their shame; e) that those who wanted to whip the church and us Catholics found easy pickings – maybe this is good in itself as we might get to heaven faster.
I think that the Catholic Church has mishandled the situation over the years. I don’t blame the hierarchy because I’m sure that their mistakes were a result of the shame they felt at the disgusting behaviour of their colleagues.
What I blame them for is not learning from their mistakes. I expect that after several years the Catholic Church should have an almost watertight system of weeding out the ‘sikrana’ and an effective way to deal with offenders in a human but efficient way to protect the innocent.
Jesus said that one of the worst sins is scandalising the innocent.
People who are lonely go and have an affair or watch porn and not turn to children. Only mental issues lead to paedophilia. FULL STOP!
I’m sure the best for you fendi online with low price for more detail
you must read hermes replica handbags to get new coupon , just clicks away
check man coach coach men bag at my estore at my estore