| |
; |
|
Since desire was imputed as a crime
and marriage was tolerated as a defect, it was consistent
with the same principles to consider a state of celibacy
as the nearest approach to divine perfection.
|
|
Edward Gibbon, The Decline and
Fall of the Roman Empire
|
The Jewish priesthood was (and is) based on an hereditary principle,
but since the Church Fathers imagined virginity to be such a
holy state, they abandoned this model, believing it desirable
that the Christian priesthood should be chaste. The taint of
sex necessarily brought with it the taint of sin.
Chastity (no sex) was rather a high ideal, so celibacy (no
wife) was advocated as a more practical alternative, but even
this was not acceptable to the priesthood. One problem was that
the New Testament states plainly and unambiguously that a bishop
(presbyter) should have a wife*.
Another problem was that there was ample evidence that Jesus"
disciples had been married — for example, St Paul asserted
his right to take his wife with him on his travels like the
other apostles (1 Corinthians 9:5). Most critically for the
Western Church the gospels indicated quite clearly that St Peter
was married*, and the Pope,
as Bishop of Rome, claimed apostolic succession from him. In
other words the first pope, as Roman Catholics believe, appointed
by Jesus himself, is known to have been married. St Jerome said
that Peter had washed away the dirt of marriage by the blood
of martyrdom , but the uncomfortable fact remained that the
first supposed pope, like many popes after him, was married.
Many other early bishops were also married. Eusebius, the first
Church historian, refers to a number of them by name. For centuries
it was perfectly normal for priests and bishops to be married
and have families. Pope Felix III, for example, was buried along
with his family in St Paul's basilica in the fifth century.
Marriage was one thing, but sex was another. Canon 33 of the
Synod of Elvira (c.306) stated that all clergy celebrating Mass
should refrain from sexual intercourse with their wives. In
a decree of 386, Pope Siricius attempted to prohibit married
deacons and presbyters from engaging in sexual intercourse.
This was rather unwelcome in many quarters, especially where
religion was the family business, as it was to be for centuries
to come. In his Confession, St Patrick mentions that
his father had been a deacon, his grandfather a priest, and
his great-grandfather also a deacon. Attempts to stop priests
having sexual intercourse with their wives were not always successful.
The lack of success was attributable partly to the lack of biblical
authority, partly to natural inclinations, and partly to the
example set by a succession of popes and other Church dignitaries
with families and mistresses.
Eventually the papacy grew powerful enough to impose its requirements
on the priesthood, and in the latter part of the eleventh century,
Pope Gregory VII attempted to enforce clerical celibacy in Western
Christendom. This caused an outcry, not least because many men
in Holy Orders had taken them simply because it was the only
practical way to pursue a career in law, scholarship or administration.
A council of Italian bishops met at Parvia in 1076 and excommunicated
the Pope for trying to separate priests and their wives. Their
protest was in vain. Apart from sex per se, a major
problem seems to have been that married priests left their property
to their wives and children when they died. Worse, they left
not only their own property but also Church property. Celibate
priests were much better: not only would they dedicate more
time to their duties, but when they died the Church could expect
a bequest — not a widow who would need housing, or orphans
who would have to be taken care of.
Married priests had been forbidden to celebrate Mass in December
1074. By the next century the Church was prohibiting priests
from attending the weddings or funerals of their own children
and denying clerical wives a Christian burial. From time to
time it tried sending clerical wives into slavery, but more
often accepted a sort of sex tax (cullagium) in exchange
for turning a blind eye. The Eastern Churches regarded the Western
Church as heretical because of its views over clerical celibacy
, yet in practice the traditional arrangements continued as
before. Many Western clerics married and in some places livings
continued to be passed on from father to son, as they had been
previously. In Brittany, the practice of clerical marriage was
so well accepted that as a matter of custom the wives of bishops
were accorded the courtesy title of Countess. The Fourth Lateran
Council in 1215 declared that the son of a canon must not receive
a benefice in his father's church.
The Eastern Church was rather more relaxed about sexuality
and had never attempted to enforce clerical celibacy amongst
the lower clergy*. This
attitude influenced dissenting churches during the Reformation.
After breaking away from the Roman Church, the Church of England
considered the matter and, deciding to follow the primitive
church as far as possible, accepted clerical marriages, as did
other Protestant Churches. The dispute about the ban on clerical
marriages still rumbles on in the Roman Catholic Church, and
there is an increasingly strong movement within it to allow
priests to marry. The Roman Church has admitted married deacons
since the 1960s. Even today not all priests in the Roman Catholic
Church are necessarily celibate. The rule is that priests may
not marry, but this does not debar married men from becoming
priests, as St Peter supposedly did. In practice a steady stream
of married high church Anglican clergymen transfer to orders
in the Roman Catholic Church. Uniate priests are also permitted
to marry, although the Uniate Church has owed its allegiance
to Rome since 1596.
The traditional emphasis on celibacy and chastity has had a
number of unfortunate effects. One was the prevalence among
priests of the crime of solicitation. Obliged to confess
their sexual desires and deeds to their priest while sitting
next to him, or kneeling at his feet, many women fell easy pray
to their sexually frustrated confessors. Confessional boxes,
introduced in the sixteenth century, helped to reduce the incidence
of solicitation, although it still continues. The problem seems
to have been exacerbated by the requirement to enquire in detail
into sexual sins. Since 1611, when it was confirmed that sins
of the flesh could never be trivial, priests have been obliged
to enquire into the nature, frequency and circumstances of such
sins — with predictable consequences.
In the past steps had to be taken to reduce the amount of incest
among the clergy*. However,
this seems to have been a relatively minor problem compared
to the general sexual abuse of children,
which for centuries went unpunished. Only in the late twentieth
century was the issue of child abuse by clergy taken seriously,
and the scale of the problem revealed by secular authorities.
In 1990 the amount of child abuse practised by Roman Catholic
priests in Newfoundland became too great a scandal to contain
any longer. An official report disclosed that over a period
of about two and half years more than twenty priests, former
priests, and others associated with the Church had been charged
with sexually abusing boys. The head of the Newfoundland Church,
Archbishop Alphonsus Penney, having failed to tackle the problem
for at least 15 years, made the observation that "we are
a sinful Church" and offered his resignation*.
The report estimated that as many as a third of the priests
in Newfoundland harboured unnatural sexual tendencies, and suggested
a link with enforced celibacy. There is no reason to suppose
that the figure of one third is not representative of the whole
Church, although other estimates are as low as 3 per cent. Richard
Snipe, a former Benedictine monk who has studied the subject,
estimates that in the USA roughly half of the priests break
their vows of celibacy, and 6 per cent of those pursue children
or adolescents*. A single
centre in New Mexico treats 80 priests each year for "psychosexual
problems"*, but it
is likely that most cases are neither treated nor publicised.
In any case, the phenomenon of widespread child abuse in the
Catholic Church turned out to be widespread - massive abuse
and concealment has been discovered everywhere that secular
authorities have carried out investigations. Typically, abusing
priests are each able to abuse dozens, sometimes hundreds, of
children over a period of years and are only rarely caught.
An investigation shown on British television in 1992*
exposed a number of cases from which the following pattern emerged:
the priest had typically been reported to his Church several
times over a period of years but no action had been taken either
to help him, punish him, or prevent him repeating his crimes.
If the victims" families threatened to publicise the affair,
then a cash settlement was offered and the priest was moved
on to another parish. Typically no effort was made to keep him
away from children, and he would abuse more children in his
new parish. One priest had been moved on four times. If prosecution
threatened, then the Church would hide the alleged offender,
and in at least one case send him abroad and enable him to stay
out of the jurisdiction of the authorities. The Church had on
numerous occasions gone out of its way to protect from justice
men who had abused dozens of children over more than 10 or 20
years. In Ireland the position was if anything worse*.
In 1994, Albert Reynolds' government collapsed amid allegations
that it had blocked the extradition to Northern Ireland of a
priest who had sexually abused children for decades at a Belfast
Catholic school. (The priest later was convicted of dozens of
abuse charges)*. In the
decade up to 2008 thousands of cases were exposed — following
the same pattern as in the UK. Abuse was so prevalent that it
was common for numerous teachers and religious Brothers from
the same school (typically Christian Brothers or Marist Brothers)
to be prosecuted*. Two
government reports
In 2009 the Irish Government's Commission to Inquire into Child
Abuse (The Ryan Report) revealed widespread abuse of children
in schools run by Catholic religious orders - denied and covered
up over decades. A few months later the Murphy Report publicised
the result of public inquiries conducted by into the sexual
abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin. The report
concluded that
the Dublin Archdiocese's pre-occupations in dealing with
cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s,
were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal,
the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation
of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare
of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to
these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own
canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application
of the law of the State.
The 720-page report said that there was "no doubt that
clerical child sexual abuse was covered up" from January
1975 to May 2004. The complaints of parents and their children
were ignored and other families placed in immediate danger as
prelates suppressed scandals and used canon law to protect offenders
at the expense of innocent children. Uninvolved priests turned
a blind eye to their allegations.
Both reports confirmed the conventional patern: endemic abuse
over many decades, a conspiracy of silence among the clergy
and bishops, failure to report crimes, pay-offs in exchange
for undertakings to stay silent, movements to new parishes for
known offenders, and new opprtunities to abuse, and finally
attempts to conceal evidence when investigated by the civil
authorities. The Murphy report said that the Church had "obsessively"
hidden allegations of child abuse in the Dublin archdiocese
between 1975 and 2004, protecting itself rather than vulnerable
victims.
Another country where widespread abuse has been exposed is
Australia. The Christian Brothers admitted to abusing children
both physically and sexually over many years in their orphanages.
Children taken from Britain and Ireland without their parents
consent were entrusted to Roman Catholic orphanages at places
like Bindoon Boy's Town, Clontarf, Casteldare and Tardun
under the care of the Brothers*.
Sexual abuse seems to have been particularly rife at Bindoon.
The system was such that there was no adult to whom the children
could turn for help. All contact with the families of these
boys had been broken, and they grew up believing themselves
to be orphans (see page 356). They had no contact with women.
One boy tried telling a priest during confession about being
abused by one of the Christian Brothers. The result was that
the Brother found out and gave the boy a beating*.
When public accusations were made in the 1980s they were denied*.
When the number became too great to deny, an independent inquiry
was forestalled by setting up an internal one, which seems to
have been less than thorough and not entirely impartial*.
The man in charge of it tried suggesting that children from
Britain had been responsible for homosexual activity at Boy's Town*. Later he acknowledged
that there was some evidence against some Brothers there*.
By now victims were talking openly about what had happened to
them years earlier when they had been children at Boy's Town and other orphanages in Western Australia. One Brother,
Gerald Faulkner, confirmed that there had probably been nine
or ten Brothers abusing boys*.
Meanwhile, independent academic research revealed that sexual
abuse had been common at Clontarf — up to 50 boys had been
abused each year*. A
total of 16 Brothers were named by victims of sexual abuse.
It also emerged that one Brother had been moved from state to
state when repeated complaints had been made against him*.
Although this had happened more than once, no independent investigation
had been made into the allegations, and in each case he was
sent to another orphanage. By now it was no longer possible
to maintain the denials. On 3 rd July 1993, an apology was printed
in Western Australian newspapers on behalf of the Christian
Brothers. It covered both physical and sexual abuse inflicted
between 1901 and 1983 at four orphanages*.
No help or compensation was offered.
No one now doubts that hundreds of children in Australia were
abused by dozens of Brothers over many decades. Similar patterns
of abuse and cover-up were exposed in Britain, the Republic
of Ireland, Canada, the USA, Austria and France — wherever
investigations were undertaken. In 2007, two days before being
required to appear in court in July 2007, Cardinal Roger Mahony,
Archbishop of los Angeles, agreed to a $660,000,000 pay off
to 508 victims of sexual abuse in his diocese*.
The pattern was identical to all other dioceses in the US and
abroad where abuse had been exposed, refusal to act on repeated
accusations over many years, concealment, denial, protecting
known paedophiles, refusing to accept fault, dragging out court
proceedings up until the last minute, then settling out of court
with minimal apologies and no acceptance of personal accountability.
In some states the Catholic diocese has had to pay hundreds
of millions of dollars in compensation and have gone into Chapter
11, in order to limit their liability.
In many other countries, where the Church is still powerful,
no investigation has been carried out. In many of them there
has still not been a single case of clerical child sex abuse
exposed. There are only two serious possible explanations for
this. Either extensive abuse has been taking place only in selected
countries, or else it is universal and is still being concealed
in other countries. There is no reason to suppose that rates
of abuse are different in different countries, nor that they
have changed over the last millennium. Furthermore, in all countries
where extensive abuse has come to light, the truth has emerged
despite the Church's best efforts to conceal it. There
must therefore be a suspicion that extensive abuse is quietly
going on within the Church in dozens of other countries just
as it always has. No one within the Church seems to have thought
this possibility worth investigating. The same applies to the
Anglican Church, where exactly the same pattern of systematic
long-term abuse and concealment has been repeatedly played out.*
The Vatican gives every appearance of continuing to protect
alleged paedophile priests. In 2006 an alleged victim in the
US won the right to mount a lawsuit against the Vatican. As
the judge, Michael Mosman, said, the Vatican appeared to be
involved in an "international conspiracy" to spirit
Father Andrew Ronan out of Ireland and between parishes in America.
The judge went on to point out that Ronan, a known child-molester,
had been given private access to children, after twice being
exposed for paedophile behaviour.*
The Vatican compounded its record by stretching the case out
and maximising the plaintiff's costs, for example by insisting
that all documents be translated into Latin, the official language
of the Holy See. The story was much the same in other cases.
The Vatican had denied requests to cooperate Ireland's Murphy
Report on the grounds that the requests had not been made through
the correct diplomatic channels.
Here is Christopher Hitchens's summary of the Roman Church's culpability:
The Vatican, and its vast network of dioceses, has in the
past decade alone been forced to admit complicity in a huge
racket of child rape and child torture, mainly but by no means
exclusively homosexual, in which known pederasts and sadists
were shielded from the law and reassigned to parishes where
the pickings of the innocent and defenceless were often richer.
In Ireland alone — once an unquestioning disciple of
Holy Mother Church — it is now estimated that the unmolested
children of religious schools were very probably in the minority.*
Voltaire may have been understating his case when he said that
it is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined
that virginity could be a virtue. Over the centuries
many thousands of men have been denied normal pleasures and
a family life, not because of any scriptural requirement, but
because of the dubious views of the men who influenced the Western
Church in its formative years, combined with the need to safeguard
Church assets. The consequences are plain for all to see, although
a similar pattern of systematic abuse and institutional concealment,
on a smaller scale, has also been exposed in the Anglican Church,
which does allow its clergy to marry*.
|
|
