PREAMBLE
This blog on the subject of Priests, and written in the context of the current sexual abuse scandals, has been written with the uninitiated in mind: those people who are not Roman Catholics, and more especially, those who are not Christians, or who have no religious belief whatever. It is I hope, a thought-provoking piece, that reflects on how such a scandal could have been allowed to happen, by men whose task it was, and is, to promote a Gospel that calls on all of us, to rise above our lesser nature and aspire to holiness of life. And the blog also reflects on how information about the crisis, and attempts to deal with it, are exacerbated by a global media, that in its elements is competitive, and often combative in the presentation of news. Or as I express it more fully in the blog:
".... with this unprecedented global media comes unprecedented exposure, not just to the reprehensible truth about the sexual abuse of children by priests and members of religious orders, but to a deluge of half-truths, ill informed comment, and demands for instant retribution, and instant solutions. And if these are not instantly forthcoming, those who are deemed to be "dragging their feet", must, in some way, be implicated in the scandal."
I did not set out to provide answers, though I have some suggestions of my own towards the end. But if this blog is about anything, then in its broadest context, it is about the inescapable paradox that comes with living in a "global village" as personified in the broadcast media. If we are not to be overwhelmed by this unprecedented access to information, then more than ever, as individuals, we must be discerning; we must not allow ourselves to be lead by the nose, but instead, take personal responsibility, however modest, for shaping the world in which we live, (however difficult or disturbing the issues), and irrespective of whether or not they are to do with religion.
_____
Note: In using the word Catholic, I am referring specifically to Roman Catholic's. Where the reference is to protestants, I make the distinction clear. And where I reference English history, it is for the purpose of illustrating the general points that I wish to make, rather than to suggest, or imply, that the Roman Catholic Church in England is somehow at the heart of the current sexual scandal. While there have been some issues in respect of individual priests: as to how the problems they presented were dealt with at the time, in context, thankfully, they have been few.
_____
IN THE BEGINNING
Given the current controversy that is scourging the church in respect of priests, a scandal that is of instant and global interest, I though that I would see if there was something useful that I could say on the subject.
Well the first thing that I must say, as a Roman Catholic, is, that (in broad terms), I am neither shocked nor surprised. Nor am I unduly worried. And lest I am misunderstood, let me quote the words of Christ in respect of Children:
"At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He called a child which he put among them and said, "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever welcomes one such child in my name, welcomes me. If any one of you puts a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea."
The Gospel of Matthew Ch. 18, 1-6
And let me also, in the context of this current controversy, quote the words of Christ in respect His Church, that he addressed to his chosen apostle Peter:
"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him. "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades [hell] will not prevail against it....."
The Gospel of Matthew Ch 16, 13-18
So in this context it is hardly surprising that we find the prince of darkness attacking the church at its heart. And where is that? In its priests. And Peter, who in time became a priest, was prone to failure, as he was to love. For when Christ, on the eve of his crucifixion and death, foretold that before cock-crow Peter would deny him three times, Peter protested. But when the cock did crow and Peter saw Christ looking at him, and his prophecy fulfilled in himself, we are told that he went out from the courtyard where Christ was being tried, "and wept bitterly." In this instance, Peter was weak rather than sinful: too reliant on his own ability. That said, it was his love for Christ and his commitment to him, that left him with the capacity to weep. And in due course he had insight: for when after the resurrection Christ gave him three opportunities to declare his love, (one for each denial), Peter became impatient at the third time of asking: "Lord", he said, "you know all things, you know that I love you."
So it was not saints but flawed human beings, whom Christ commissioned with the task of preaching, teaching and baptising in His name. And it is this same raw human nature that is staring us in the face when we confront what seems like an endless stream of deviant behaviour by priests and members of religious orders, aided and abetted by men in high places, either because they were weak and lacked the moral courage to do what was right, or because they had a misplaced set of values that sought to avoid scandal, and to protect the institution of the Church, at the expense of those who were being systematically sexually abused.
Now scandal in the Church is not new. What is new, is that in an age of unprecedented access to the broadcast media, this particular scandal has sparked a global public interest, an interest that, (in the short term at least), obscures the message of the gospels. Or as Pope Benedict XVI so starkly expressed it recently, the current scandals: "have obscured the light of the gospels to a degree that not even centuries of persecution succeeded in doing". (1) And with this unprecedented global media comes unprecedented exposure, not just to the reprehensible truth about the sexual abuse of children by priests and members of religious orders, but to a deluge of half-truths, ill informed comment, and demands for instant retribution, and instant solutions. And if these are not instantly forthcoming, those who are deemed to be "dragging their feet", must, in some way, be implicated in the scandal."
CONTRASTING TIMES
Now though I am Irish. because I was educated in England, I am acutely aware of the fact that following the Reformation, the Catholic Church in England, suffered periods of persecution that were every bit as grievous as those inflicted on the Catholic faithful in Ireland. Priests in England were hunted down, tried, executed, and put to death by the most brutal means imaginable. They were "hung, drawn, and quartered": Having first been hanged and while they were still alive, they were cut down and where necessary revived, before their genitalia were cut off, they were disembowelled and beheaded, after which what remained of their bodies was quartered and put on public display. This terrible fate was not unique to priests, but the standard punishment for those found guilty of treason; and in those times, just to be a Catholic priest in England, was to be guilty of treason. Not withstanding this, many lay Catholics risked everything in helping priest to work clandestinely among the faithful, for whom the celebration of Mass was central to their spiritual lives. One such, was Margaret Clitherow.
Born in 1556, Margaret Clitherow, at the age of 15 married a butcher, a widower with two children, and with whom she had three children of her own: Anne, Henry and William. Two or three years later, (and though her husband remained a Protestant), Margaret converted to the Catholic faith, and while helping her husband in his trade, worked clandestinely among the Catholics of York, in support of priests. In the end, and paradoxically, she was betrayed by a child, a Flemish boy staying in her house, who was so terrified of the investigators searching for evidence of the presence of priests, that all it took was the threat of a flogging to persuade him to tell what he knew: that Margaret had been sheltering priests and that Mass had been celebrated in the house. Brought before the justices on a charge of treason, Margaret Clitherow refused to enter a plea, telling her accusers: "I know of no offence whereof I should confess myself guilty." Adding, "Having made no offence, I need no trial." But she had another reason also for not entering a plea, for had she done so, her children would have been forced to testify against her, and if necessary, they would have been tortured to that end. To refuse to enter a plea carried an automatic sentence of death; and as a consequence Margaret was sentenced to be "pressed to death". On the 25th of March 1586 she was taken to the place of execution, stripped, and with a handkerchief tied around her face was laid down with her arms and feet tethered, and with a sharp stone under her spine. A door was then laid along her body and weighted down until her spine was broken and she died. Accounts of her death suggest that on the night before her execution she was deeply traumatised at the prospect, but that on the day itself she went to he death with dignity, and that her last words while being pressed, were: "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus. Have mercy on me." (2)
Now I have narrated these stories in graphic detail, not from the point of view of a fascination with the macabre, but to help those readers who are not familiar with this epoch in history, to have some sense of a past, that is in stark and shocking contrast with the present, and that in the context of the present scandal, compels me to ask the question: How did we get from there to here?
CHANGE, AND THE PASSAGE OF TIME
The most fundamental difference between then and now, is that time has brought about change and healing. Not least among the changes was the stripping of the Papacy of its temporal power, a change that came with the unification of Italy in 1870. With the surrender of the Papal States what the Church was left with was the Vatican, with its beautiful cathedral and equally impressive buildings: administrative offices for the Church's civil servants. At the local level, and again using England as a practical example, Catholics, (as in most areas of the world) are no longer persecuted by the state. Since the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1832, Catholics in England and elsewhere, have enjoyed the same freedom of worship as other Christians; and this restoration of religious freedom was given formal recognition by the state, with the lawful re-establishment of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy in England and Wales in 1850; a hierarchy that comes under the spiritual leadership of the Pope. Other factors contributing to change have been: population growth, education, mass employment, affluence, ever improving means of travel and communication, all of which have come together to make the world a smaller and more accessible place, to which can be added, multiculturalism at the local level. And much of this transformation, until comparatively recent times, was part of a slow process, and one in terms of institutions and the wider public interest, that was easily managed from a discrete distance. That is no longer the case, and that being so, it has brought into sharp focus the Church as an institution, and in particular, in the context of the present scandal, the processes by which it acquires its priests. But before we get to that, some other considerations.
WHAT DISTINGUISHES THE INSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH
FROM THOSE OF THE STATE
What makes the institution of the Church different from those of the state, is that at its core, it deals with things of the spirit, as distinct from material things, or the things of this world. And while the state may argue about, and modify its values, the values promoted by the Catholic church, are not its own values, but those given to it by Christ, of which it is the custodian, and whose mission it was, and is, to preach, teach, and baptise in Christ's name. And there is no ambiguity in Christ: When Pilate, (the Roman governor) perplexed, asked Jesus why he had been given over to him by the chief priests, he asked: "Are you the King of the Jews?". Jesus replied:
"My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here."
T he Gospel of John 18,33-36
WHAT IT IS TO BE A PRIEST IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
So it is in this context of a kingdom that is not of this world, that the Church is the custodian of a set of beliefs and consequent values that are timeless, and that are often at odds with the institutions of the state. And just as frequently, (and for a variety of reasons), they are not understood or accepted by the wider public. And central to this work of the Church are priests. And if you are not a Catholic, it would be very difficult for you to fully understand why priests have been held in such esteem by the faithful, and consequently why, "the fear of scandal" in respect of sexually abusing priests, was so great.
Central to Roman Catholic worship is the belief in transubstantiation: that in the Eucharist (Holy Communion), Christ incarnate, is present both in his humanity and his divinity, which is why the Mass is the central act of worship in the church. And it is this belief that makes the attendance at church much more than a group of believers, people who have come together in Christ's name to sing and pray. So by virtue of his ordination, and the words of consecration in the Mass, the priest, brings about the transformation of the bread and wine, into the body and blood of Christ. It is a living and personal presence in which Christ in his humanity and his divinity is at one with the humanity of the faithful. At this sacred moment of consecration, what changes is the substance, not the essence: the bread is still bread and the wine is still wine. And this belief in transubstantiation distinguishes Catholicism from most Protestant churches. Protestants in general, receive communion with faith and reverence, but not for the same reason as Roman Catholics. They do not believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist, but rather, that they are remembering the Last Supper: that moment on the eve of his crucifixion, when Christ in an upper room in Jerusalem, took bread, broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said to them: "Do this in remembrance of me." (The Gospel of Luke, 22. 19)
SEX AND SIN
There are very human reasons, (apart from the nature of the Church as an institution), as to why the Roman Catholic Church has failed to deal with sexually abusing priests; it is to do with sex per sae. And what leads me to this conclusion is, that many of the priests, bishops and cardinals, who, (for whatever reason), are caught in the present crisis, are the same age as me, and barring a few exceptions, (for there are always exceptions), most of these men, in their teenage years, would have had to live with their sexual awakening in a climate similar to my own. But before I tell you about that experience, I must put it in context.
Sex in the Roman Catholic Church is closely allied to sin, and here's why. The Church believes and teaches, that every human being was, and is, created by God for God, or as the Catechism in my youth put it, "we are made in the image and likeness of God", a likeness that is "chiefly in the soul." So our relationship to God is individual and personal. That said, we were conceived in what is known as "original sin", (a consequence of Adam disobeying God in the Garden of Eden), a sin from which we are released in baptism. After that, we are pilgrims on a journey, aided and supported by the sacraments of the Church: "penance", ("confession" and now the sacrament of reconciliation), along with Communion, are sacraments that are there to sustain us through the highs and lows of very day. "Confirmation", as the name suggests, is the sacrament whereby, (as adults?) we confirm our commitment to Christ, that was first made on our behalf by our god-parents, in infant baptism. And "Matrimony" (marriage). Sacraments for Roman Catholics are specific means of grace instituted by God. So when Catholics marry, through this sacrament, in their commitment to one another, they also commit themselves to Christ; and the command in marriage is, that they should "love one another, as Christ loved his Church." And, in extremis, (in danger of death through sickness), there is the sacrament of "extreme unction", a sacrament often accompanied by confession and communion, where the body, which is sacred, is anointed with a sacred oil (chrism), as a means of helping the repentant soul to prepare for death.
So the Church and the sacraments are there at every step of the way, should we choose to use them, as an aid to holiness of life. And in the context of the current controversy surrounding priests, it is important to make the point that from a Roman Catholic point of view, the sacramental life of the church exists, and is effective as a means of grace, irrespective of the worthiness of the priest who administers it. And this distinction applies also to the Church: The essence of what the Church is, remains unchanged, and unchangeable, however sinful its leadership, or its membership. And that is the case because the authority of the Church, does not come from its members or the Pope, but from the same Christ who appointed Peter, "warts and all" to lead it.
This then is the backdrop to the Roman Catholic belief that sex, as ordained by God, is for the purpose of procreation. And integral to this is the belief that the soul is present from the moment of conception, hence the Churche's well publicised opposition to abortion, and its view on homosexual sex, (as distinct from those who are homosexual). In a Roman Catholic context, abortion is wrong, and for Catholics, sinful, (save in those cases of emergency, where it is not possible for a doctor to save both the mother and the unborn child, and where there are children already - though the doctor's first duty is to try to save both).
Now when I look back over my own life, I am often struck by how little has changed, and sex is a case in point. Here in England, it is widely accepted that most parents do not talk to their teenage children about sex. And surveys also show that many teenagers and adults, looking back, regret their first sexual experience. Frequently it was the result of peer pressure; and they regret also the lack of help and support from their parents. For many parents, the hope is, that the school will do it, that is give the necessary factual and practical information, and that their child, somehow, will emerge into adulthood unscathed. Now if you add to this reticence of parents, (that has nothing to do with religion), the Roman Catholic viewpoint, that sex does not exist for itself, but is inextricably linked to one's spiritual life, sex becomes even more problematic. Linked to the sacred and sin, it has an extra personal dimension: so that if the natural inclinations that come with puberty, are indulged in, sex becomes a matter for the confessional. And here, in the story that I am going to tell you, is what I believe to be a reasonable reflection of how things were in my youth.
When, as a teenager, I got to the point where one half of the world was scary, (the female half), because I was out of my depth with emotions that I couldn't handle, what I most wanted was an adult to talk to; and I knew who it was that I wanted to confide in. But before I could have that conversation, an incident blew up in class relating to sex, (something that I was not involved in). The immediate response of the teacher was stern and inquisitorial, and as I observed it, any notion that I had that I would confide in him, as we say, "went out the window." And the reason why I want to share this personal detail with you, is, because it helps to illustrate the point. The teacher in question was a warm and humane man, who, as well as being respected by us, respected his students, with the result that in the normal course of every day, we had a relationship to one another that was easy. But he was also a devout Catholic, who, when confronted with an issue about which it was not unreasonable of him to be concerned about, showed that he had no inclination to deal sympathetically with people's sexual vulnerability. And in broad terms, this was the general environment, from which, most young men, (exceptions allowed), went on to become priests. They would not have discussed sex with their parents. They would have dealt with the issues as best they could privately. And most of them would not have had any personal and emotional relationships with girls (having been educated in single sex schools), outside their own family. As for their training for the priesthood, (and as I never trained to be a priest), I am making what I believe to be a reasonable assumption based on what I know; that any discussion of sex and sexuality, would have been highly theoretical, that is, in the context of their studies in philosophy and theology, etc. After which, as rookie priests, (all be it supported by a priestly spiritual life), they would have had to bear the burden, not only of their own sexuality, but through the confessional, with the broad range of sexual burdens as carried by others.
Continued /
_____
Note: This blog, "Priests: Part 1", was first published on Windows Live Spaces, by me on 30th April 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment