Cardinal Mahony faces scrutiny...

(Tim, w/thanks to David C.) From both outside and inside the Roman Catholic church, we've watched the exposure of sodomite priests across North America this past decade or so--priests who have raped minor boys they vowed to protect as church fathers. We've read the secular media's investigative reports. As a subscriber, I've also read the most conservative publications of the Roman Catholic communion respond to each revelation. Then too, I've followed the matter through personal letters received from a friend who was a priest, but now is doing prison time for crimes he claims he's innocent of.

Three things have stuck in my mind...

First, by now readers know I regularly contrast the preaching of the Reformers with the preaching of Protestant pastors, today --usually with the goal of pointing out how fearful and timid we are compared to the men we claim as our heroes. This present discovery of sodomite rapists in parishes across North America is no exception. Why is it that mainstream Protestant print media like Christianity Today and World, not to mention theological journals and pastors in pulpits, never point out the very first thing that would have been said by church fathers of past centuries: that the heresies and errors of the Roman Catholic church inevitably produce such fruit? That, theologically and pastorally, this fruit is inevitable?

Read anything Calvin or Luther ever wrote. Then try to imagine what they'd say today about sodomite priests raping altar boys in the rectory?Would they limit their comments to clucking their tongues over financial settlements and suggesting certain improvements in the way the church responds to such pastoral crises in the future?

No, they'd comment. Oh how they'd comment! The Reformers would pounce on this opportunity making Biblical, theological, and dogmatic declarations. Their blows against the Pope and his cardinals, archbishops, bishops, and priests wouldn't be glancing. No one familiar with the work of our fathers of past centuries could doubt if they were here today they would point out the theological consistency between the predations committed by Rome's doctrine and these rapes committed by her priests.

But rather than taking this opportunity to warn souls away from Rome, we Protestants have been largely silent, content to read of the work journalists and prosecutors are doing as we think to ourselves, "What a nasty job! I'm glad I don't have to say anything."

Has anyone in North America learned more about the doctrines of justification and imputation because of this failure within Roman Catholicism? Among those of us who claim to walk in the footsteps of Calvin and Luther, have even one of us availed ourselves of this perfect, God-given opportunity to point out the doctrinal error, even of papal infallibility and clerical celibacy, for instance?

No, we haven't. Instead, we're busy showing how kind and gentle and non-censorious we are.

We don't call it "sodomite rape," but "sex abuse." And the predators need "help." It's all so "sad" and "tragic." We pity these men who, often at the very end of their careers, are being exposed, are being humiliated for private failures now twenty, thirty, and forty years in their past. Then too, think of the financial losses these archdioceses have sustained.

Facing this pandemic of sodomite rape by men called "father," the great grandchildren of Calvin and Luther are so understanding and non-polemical.

We must have evolved.

But of course, we all know we haven't evolved. Rather, we've passed up an opportunity to guard the flock, to warn day and night with tears. We've failed to love the souls who would hear our voices if we took the risk of speaking a clear note to those under Rome's bondage.

Men, we must repent and return to our first love and duty.

Now, briefly, my two other thoughts.

Second, I can't help but think that the corruption we continue to read of extends to the very top of the Roman Catholic hierarchy--to the Pontiffs themselves. Look at it this way.

Mary Lee and I were once on a private boat in Southeast Alaska, where we saw a large ship we heard was commonly known, because of some television series, as the "Love Boat." We ran into the Love Boat in Glacier Bay National Park while watching for calving glaciers.

A few days later, our pilot told us he'd heard that the Love Boat had run aground that day. He expressed sadness, not because there was any harm to passengers, but because simply running aground was cause for the ship's captain to be terminated, immediately. Regardless of cause. Run aground as a captain and you're done.

It made quite an impression on me. No "guilty with an explanation, your honor" there. Run aground. Finis.

But there's been none of this accountability demonstrated in the Roman Catholic church the past ten years or so. Rather, most of what we've seen is lots and lots and lots of money changing hands.

So although I'm rather sympathetic to the Roman Catholic church compared to the regnant anti-Catholicism of our nation, I think it right that the courts appear now to be going after the hierarchy that ruled while this wickedness was tolerated. And let me add that there are clear implications for those of us who are Protestant pastors and approach our churches as preaching points rather than flocks. Or those of us who cultivate ignorance about the oppressions that are carried out in our congregation's homes.

Third, if this is what has come out about Roman Catholic priests, Protestant pastors should be on guard. How many times I've thanked my Dad for telling me, when I was first ordained, "Never counsel a woman alone. In fact, never have a meal at a restaurant or drive in a car with a woman, alone. Unless it's your daughter or wife. Never!"

The church is only going to be sued more often in the years to come, and the man of God cannot be too careful protecting himself against false charges; but also against transference. Against a woman's fantasies or his own lusts.

Comments

I'm puzzled. How does one draw a line between Roman theology and the sexual abuse of boys and young men?

I grew up in an Assembly of God. It was at that time pastored by an extremely charismatic individual who was (25 years later) unmasked as a sexual predator whose activities were very similar to those of the Catholic priests you mentioned in your article. The next church I was in, (again, A/G), had its pastor have to leave once it was discovered that he'd been sexually abusing some of the women in the church. Both men were married, so clerical celibacy could hardly be cited as a factor.

Ross,
While rape and molestation may be too common amongst pastors across the board, the Roman Church's teaching on celibacy I think can be said to contribute to the phenomenon in Rome.

The monastic ideal thrust upon the men of the Church as a way to combat sexual misconduct in the past simply buried the lust of men seeking to escape their own flesh. There was literally an active campaign in the late 50's and 60's to bring men struggling with homosexual lust into the priesthood as a way to combat that lust. It failed.

The perverts in the A/G you mentioned were probably dealt with upon discovery of their sin by someone on authority over them, but the Roman understanding and practice of confession and absolution allowed these wicked men to continue in their sin and accumulate additional victims.

It seem that this is not much different than what Luther encountered in his visit to St. Peter's. The whoring priests of his day enjoyed equal absolution.

al sends

Actively homosexual priests is a predictable consequence of doctrine, because of confession/absolution, the channelling of lust towards available targets, and the exclusion of married men.

What surprised me most about the problem, though, was the complicity of the bishops, which is where Pastor Mahoney comes in. In retrospect, part of this must be due to the shortage of priests, and the consequent lowering of standards in all dimensions. But another contributor is the idea that the Church is the pastorate, with perhaps the addition of nuns and monks or perhaps not, but with the laity as an optional extra. The important thing is for priests to celebrate Mass, not whether anybody else shows up to it or whether has sinned in the past. And if a priest has personal problems, the first priority is to restore his ability to say Mass, not to protect anybody else.

"What surprised me most about the problem, though, was the complicity of the bishops ..."

That they were complicit cannot be doubted. But why they were complicit includes factors that are rarely mentioned by critics outside Catholicism.

An exception to this is Paul Mankowski's essay "What Went Wrong," available at several places on the net, including this url:

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/2003_07_15_Mankowski_WhatWent.htm

It's worth a careful read. And, while Mankowski will not join critics of priestly celebacy as a cause of the problem, he does emphatically point to priestly celibacy as a cover, systematically and increasingly deployed to provide a haven for sexual predators.

And, then, there's this statement by Mankowski, which has been repeated by a number of Catholic priests, for which reason many of whom departed the priesthood, some Catholicism as well:

"I would estimate that between 50 and 60% of the men who entered religious life with me in the mid-70s were homosexuals who had no particular interest in the Church, but who were using the celibacy requirement of the priesthood as a way of camouflaging the real reason for the fact that they would never marry."

Couple this observation with another by Mankowski:

"Most of the men who are bishops and superiors today were in the seminary or graduate school in the 1960s and 1970s. In most countries of the Western world these places were in a kind of disciplinary free-fall for ten or fifteen years. A very high percentage of churchmen who are now in positions of authority were sexually compromised during that period. Perhaps they had a homosexual encounter with a fellow seminarian; perhaps they had a brief heterosexual affair with a fellow theology student. Provided they did not cause grave scandal, such men were frequently promoted, according to their talents and ambition. Many are competent administrators, but they have a time-bomb in their past, and they have very little appetite for reform measures of any sort -- even doctrinal reforms -- and they have zero appetite for reform proposals that entail cleaning up sexual mischief."

For these reasons -- quite apart from any doctrinal reforms vis-a-vis priestly celibacy -- the Catholics' problem in America is virtually intractable for several generations.

And, this raises another opportunity, another rationale entirely, to present to a Catholic father and mother, who may easily be shown that they are rearing their children in an ecclesiastical community and culture which diligently harbors sexual predators. I know some who have departed Catholicism for the simple reason that they fear for the psychological welfare of their children, particularly their sons.

I'm guessing that some within the Reformed camp (not all, mind you!) would find this reason for jumping the Catholic ship unsatisfactory, insisting that only a well-seasoned theological rationale is satisfactory. But, such a practical reason for departing Catholicism is not only compelling, it places the departer into another ecclesial commnity where right doctrine on all sorts of issues may be inculcated in communion with others who embrace it joyfully and productively.

As for celibacy ... I've said this before, but what Rome expects of its priests in terms of priestly celibacy is no different from what a Reformed Church would expect of me as a single man; with the difference that their calling to it is permanent and mine might be. I wonder if it is being blamed for too much.

Wait, not so fast, this guy's name is spelled Mahony - not my fantastic name, Mahoney.

"Never counsel a woman alone. In fact, never have a meal at a restaurant or drive in a car with a woman, alone. Unless it's your daughter or wife. Never!"

This is good advice for any man. Years ago Ginger and I had made this sort of rule for ourselves, I've broken it a couple of times by going to lunch with women from work but overall not at all and I regretted that I didn't just avoid it even though it would have been very awkward to those two times at work.

Avoiding the appearance of impropriety and protecting yourself is a good idea. It's unfortunate that this is so necessary today.

However, I know a guy who will never let anyone babysit his kids, he's terrified that they'd get molested, and he doesn't believe in God's sovereignty believing that he's not "a puppet on a string" but his doctrine has made him fearful when he thinks it makes him his own man.

Sigh, I guess it's up to the Reformed Baptists (and Baptistic Presbyterians) again. Maybe it's the fact that nobody likes us anyways. [wink, (Prov 10:10A NASB!)]

Oh yea, and the Baylys, of course. : )

Actively homosexual priests is a predictable consequence of doctrine, because of confession/absolution, the channelling of lust towards available targets, and the exclusion of married men.

I can't for the life of me figure what this means.

Actively homosexual priests is a predictable consequence of doctrine

I presume the person means our doctrine makes homosexual men act out, not that our doctrine makes them homosexual. How so? We are told:

because of confession/absolution

So apparently, the fact that one will have to confess his sin to someone else to receive forgiveness means he is *more* likely to act on his homosexual tendencies, as compared to someone who can just retreat to his "prayer closet". Curious. One might have surmised it to be the opposite.

the channelling of lust towards available targets

Not sure which Catholic doctrine that is supposed to represent.

and the exclusion of married men

Also not a doctrine, but I get the gist. If only homosexual men had been able to be married priests, then they wouldn't have acted out. One might consider, however, that homosexual men might not have been very interested in marriage. Because, you know, they're homosexual. And stuff.

Look, it's a horrible mess. Really. But the reality is that homosexuality is a disorder. And a disordered sexuality is a raging fire burning at the core of a person. I think the more important take-away here is that it is a matter of prudence to exclude those with sexual disorders from the clergy. Which is what the primary response of the Church has been, going forward*. As well as removing the perps from ministry.

Did perps get shuffled around before? Absolutely! Is that a culpable offense? Most of the time, it probably was (the thinking at the time was that this sort of thing can be cured, but after a relapse or two...really?). Did a culture of secrecy aid and abet? Absolutely. Would it have been better for some bishops to have millstones cast around their necks? Certainly. But to somehow make the case that this is due to the doctrine of the pope's infallibility is a bit of a stretch.

It would be like saying that child rapists among Protestant clergy was somehow related to the doctrine of the inerrancy of the bible. Rather, it would be a spectacularly clear instance of a Protestant clergyman not living up to Protestant principles.

* I can certainly see how an celibate all-male clergy could be attractive to a certain homosexual man. But that's not a knock on the discipline, but rather on the Church's screening process for seminary. Why it took them so long to figure this out is anyone's guess. But the atmosphere of the raging '60s and '70s certainly contributed. The smoke of Satan penetrated deeply into the Church...

Oops, sorry, none of my italics worked!

Dear Rob,

Without spending the time listing my reasons, I believe the climate of sodomite rape so pervasive within the Roman Catholic church this past century is not an anomaly, but follows from its dogma in a number of very specific ways. To take just one, it's clear to me that a communion that claims infallibility in places other than Scripture is going to fall into denial, complicity, and covering up such sins much more easily than communions that affirm that Scripture alone is infallible and its authority above all others.

Not unrelatedly, a longtime friend of ours recently was ordained to the Roman Catholic priesthood and, receiving an invitation, I wondered if I had a duty to inform the hierarchy that he has had a lifetime battle with the temptation to same-sex intimacy? Mind you, I love this man and thought (for a moment or two) about going to his ordination. And yet...

The Reformers were right. The Reformers are right.

Love you, brother,

Whatever the reasons, we surely can agree that there certainly was "denial, complicity, and covering up such sins". To their shame.

We agree on most things, dear brother.

With love in Christ,

Add new comment