Searching for the hows, whys of sex abuse
Print Friendly Version| All Things Catholic by John L. Allen, Jr. | |
| Friday, July 18, 2008 - Vol. 7, No. 43 | |
This week, Benedict XVI once again finds himself in a nation whose Catholic community has been rocked by repeated sexual abuse scandals, and once again the pope appears determined not to duck the issue. As he did in his mid-April trip to the United States, Benedict addressed the crisis before he even arrived, taking a question aboard the papal plane en route to Australia for World Youth Day.
(Coverage of World Youth Day can be found here: http://ncrcafe.org/blog/2682)
Echoing points he made in the United States, the pope told reporters that it's "essential for the church to reconcile [with victims], to prevent, to help, and also to see guilt in these problems." In a little-noticed coda, however, Benedict went a step further than he did in America, identifying a potential culprit underlying the crisis: a moral theory known as "proportionalism."
Here's what the pope said, in English, according to the official Vatican transcript of his remarks:
"We have to reflect on what was insufficient in our education, in our teaching in recent decades. There was, in the '50s, '60s and '70s, the idea of proportionalism in ethics: It held that nothing is bad in itself, but only in proportion to others. With proportionalism, it was possible to think for some subjects -- one could also be pedophilia -- that in some proportion they could be a good thing. Now, it must be stated clearly, this was never Catholic doctrine. There are things which are always bad, and pedophilia is always bad. In our education, in the seminaries, in our permanent formation of the priests, we have to help priests to really be close to Christ, to learn from Christ, and so to be helpers, and not adversaries of our fellow human beings, of our Christians."
So far, Benedict's aside hasn't received much scrutiny amid overall gratitude for his candor. Eventually, however, it will have to be critically examined, which at one level is a task for specialists and historians. (Redemptorist moral theologian Fr. Brian Johnstone of the Catholic University of America, for example, points out that if nothing else, the pope's dating is off. Benedict referred to the influence of proportionalism "in the '50s, '60s and '70s," yet it didn't come on the scene, Johnstone said, until the mid-60s.)
The question is of broader importance, however, because finding a cure for the crisis depends upon accurate diagnosis. In that sense, what Benedict said about proportionalism -- even if most Catholics couldn't define the term -- concerns them all.
* * *
Before getting into that, some background on proportionalism is in order.
In the early part of the 20th century, a growing number of Catholic ethicists were voicing frustration with the tools and methods of moral instruction then in use, broadly known as the "manualist" tradition. At the time, manuals of Catholic morality were composed chiefly of rules derived from natural law and backed up by quotes from Scripture. Critics argued that such an approach was too abstract and impersonal, with principles often simply asserted rather than explained.
Following the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), the search began in earnest for a new framework. A German Jesuit named Fr. Peter Knauer offered one such approach, which would eventually come to be known as "proportionalism." In simplified terms, Knauer's argument was that actions are never morally good or bad in the abstract -- rather, their morality depends upon the circumstances, especially one's intent and the "proportion" of good versus evil the act is likely to produce.
As the "proportionalist" view was elaborated by others, including American Jesuit Fr. Richard McCormick, it famously came to distinguish between "pre-moral" or "ontic" good and evil, and "moral" good and evil. For example, one can say in the abstract that killing a human being is an "ontic" evil, but whether it's morally wrong depends on the circumstances. Self-defense, to take one instance, could render killing "proportionate."
Most immediately, proportionalism emerged from the ferment just before and after Pope Paul VI's controversial 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, reiterating the church's ban on artificial birth control. The theory offered a way for moralists to avoid a direct assault on the pope's teaching, yet still conclude that under some circumstances birth control could be justified. Over time, such reasoning was extended to other topics such as homosexuality, abortion and divorce.
While debate over those issues has obviously not gone away, most analysts say the high-water mark for proportionalism as a moral theory came in the 1970s. It's been in retreat ever since, they say, due to a mounting number of challenges.
Some moralists charge that whatever proportionalists say in theory, in practice they eviscerate moral absolutes. That's the primary basis upon which the magisterium, or the official teaching office of the church, has rejected proportionalism. In his 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor, in paragraphs 75-83, John Paul II writes that Catholic moral teaching posits the existence of "intrinsically evil" acts which may never be committed, whether or not they strike a positive proportion of good over evil.
More acidly, some critics have charged that proportionalism is little more than a license for dissent from official Catholic teaching. Some ethicists also warn that proportionalism leads to a "slippery slope," in which a narrow exception to a formerly iron-clad rule gradually becomes routine. Abortion and birth control are often cited as cases in point.
To an extent, such objections appeal more to the conservative wing of Catholic theology. Others are broadly shared, even among theologians sympathetic to some of the particular conclusions reached by proportionalists.
For example, many analysts say the basic flaw with proportionalism is that it assumes goods and evils are "commensurate," meaning that they can be ranked, measured, and compared. In reality, these experts say, such assessments inevitably become apples-and-oranges exercises.
We can weigh a Honda versus a Hummer, as disparate as those vehicles may be, because there are common terms of measurement -- purchase price, gas mileage, seating capacity, and so on. However, in weighing the destruction of a human embryo against the potential of finding a cure for Alzheimer's, these critics say, no such common standard exists. In fact, it's precisely this "incommensurability" of goods and evils that makes moral choice so agonizing.
Without any rational standard by which the proportion between good and evil can be assessed, these analysts say, proportionalism reduces morality to a matter of instinct too easily swayed by self-interest or personal inclinations.
On another front, critics also charge that proportionalism presumes a God-like view of the future that human beings simply can't attain. We can never know what all the consequences of a given act will be, so the kind of analysis implied by proportionalism is beyond our capacity.
In light of such objections, many theologians say that proportionalism, as a theory, is today all but extinct. Jesuit Fr. James Keenan of Boston College describes proportionalism as a "phase," "a bridge to get us to somewhere else," after the manualist tradition broke down.
* * *
As should be clear, there may well be legitimate reasons to question proportionalism as a moral theory. But what about its purported link to the sexual abuse crisis, which was the substance of Benedict XVI's statement?
Here, opinions seem mixed.
Some voices in the church are inclined to agree, arguing that it can't be mere coincidence that the volume of acts of sexual abuse by priests peaked in the 1960s and '70s, at precisely the moment when revisionist theories that weakened moral absolutes had the greatest influence in seminary instruction.
In a 2005 lecture at the Kenrick-Glennon Seminary in St. Louis, Archbishop Raymond Burke (recently appointed prefect of the Apostolic Signatura) linked proportionalism to the sexual abuse crisis.
"When the error of consequentialism or proportionalism was taught in seminaries, it was harmful in two ways. First of all, it risked the compromise of the moral life of the future priest, and, second, it prepared the future priest to propagate the error in his teaching and counsel of others," Burke said.
In broad strokes, Catholic author George Weigel concurs. I reached Weigel in Cracow, where he's taking part in an annual summer seminar on Catholic social teaching.
"If you graph the incidence of sexual abuse over the years, using the John Jay College figures, there seems to have been a spike in the years in which the teaching of moral theology in American seminaries downplayed the notion of 'intrinsically evil acts,' " Weigel said. "It's hard to imagine that didn't have something to do with the corruptions that led to the spike."
Weigel conceded that "no serious moral theologian using proportionalist methods would ever describe the sexual abuse of an adolescent boy as a moral good." Nonetheless, he said, "this meltdown in the idea of absolute norms was, if you will, the moral-theological component of a culture of clerical self-deception and auto-absolution."
Other experts, however, are skeptical.
Margaret Smith, data analyst for a John Jay study of the "causes and context" of the sexual abuse crisis commissioned by the U.S. bishops, cited two difficulties with the theory that proportionalism is to blame.
First, she said, the John Jay research found incidents of sexual abuse as far back as 1950, the very beginning of the time frame the bishops asked them to consider (1950-2000). Obviously, those acts of abuse cannot be explained by proportionalism. Second, she said, there was a "dramatically lowered incidence" of abuse among priests who graduated the seminary in the 1980s, some of whom were formed in the 70s when proportionalism was still in vogue. As a result, Smith said, if anything, proportionalism is "arguably associated with a decrease rather than an increase" in abuse.
Smith stressed that the portion of the "causes and context" study dealing with seminary instruction is not complete, and that further research may yet establish a connection between proportionalism and abuse. Further, Smith said, the results which have come in suggest that changing attitudes towards authority in the '60s and '70s, as well as a growing individualism in the broader culture, may well have played a role -- and that, she said, was perhaps the point Benedict "was reaching for."
Nonetheless, Smith said, her hunch is that when all the data is in, proportionalism will not loom large.
"This is behavior much more deeply embedded in the personality of individuals than a particular theory of moral action," Smith said. "I think the analysis of causes will have more to do with things like preparation for living a life of celibate chastity, and how to understand and deal with intimacy."
Keenan, who says he's not a proportionalist but is sympathetic to some of what they were trying to achieve, likewise expressed doubt about any connection between proportionalism and the crisis.
In fact, Keenan said, figures such as McCormick might have questioned the status of moral absolutes, but in practice they referred to "virtually exceptionless norms," meaning acts so abhorrent that it's all but impossible to imagine circumstances in which they might be justified. As examples, Keenan said, proportionalists routinely invoked the torture or rape of children.
"During this time period, people were trying to figure out whether you could practice contraception, not commit rape, Keenan said. "I don't know of a moral theologian in the world who would say that pedophilia is not always wrong."
Johnstone, who over the years has been critical of proportionalism, agreed. He called it "unthinkable" that anyone familiar with the theory could have used it to justify the sexual exploitation of minors. As a result, Johnstone said, he's "totally unconvinced" of any connection between proportionalism and the abuse crisis.
Keenan argued that broader factors such as the overall formation process in seminaries, and not the content of theological debates, ought to be the focus of attention.
"I find it hard to think that the classroom was the breeding ground of licentiousness," Keenan said.
* * *
Obviously, Benedict XVI has put his finger on a question where reasonable people will reach different conclusions, and no single perspective is likely to have all the truth.
On the one hand, it's hard to believe that the collapse of traditional moral verities in the 1960s and '70s, commonly known as the "sexual revolution," didn't play some role in fomenting an unusually high number of sex abuse cases in that period. On the other, it also strains credibility that blame for the crisis should be laid at the feet of serious theologians such as Knauer and McCormick. Whatever the defects in their theory, one suspects that if proportionalism had never come down the pike, abuser-priests would have found some other way to rationalize their behavior.
Which way church officials come down will have important policy consequences. If the diagnosis is that a defective moral theology helped to generate the crisis, then the antidote would seem to be increased doctrinal vigilance, along the lines of the recent Apostolic Visitation of American seminaries.
If, however, what happens in the classroom is ultimately judged to be less decisive than what happens outside, then such efforts could be misplaced. They may risk stifling the intellectual debate to which seminarians should be exposed, without any -- pardon the term -- "proportionate" benefit in terms of preventing abuse.
At a minimum, one thing seems clear.
As difficult as it may have been for Benedict XVI to publicly acknowledge the pain caused by the crisis, and to meet with victims, in many ways that was the easy part. Assigning responsibility and adopting remedies is, in the end, even more complex. Depending upon how he proceeds, the pope may find that the universal applause generated by his candor gives way to more mixed reviews.
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
The pope's comment is
The pope's comment is interesting, but unintentionally misleading, a red herring inviting us all to an intellectual investigation about the degree to which cultural and/or theological factors influenced the the behaviors that sparked the sexual abuse crisis. However, what is needed is a rhetorical analysis of such assertions. With the notable exception of the National Review Board and a couple of bishops, the hierarchy has resolutely refused to attend to (let alone address) the clerical mentality that led bishops to allow perpetrators continuous access to young people and children. One of the outcomes of this avoidance is that, while priests are now under the "one-strike-you're-out" policy, bishops get a pass. It's incoherent, a treating of the chief symptom.
Fr. Steve Lantry, S.J.
Tacoma, WA
You are right on the button
You are right on the button with this comment, slantrysj (Fr. Steve). I think that the red herrings will go on for some time. This was a crisis of clerical culture: clerical mentality and the resulting (mis)management issues, of which the mis/dis-information remains a major headline. A truly Catholic-Church-issue in how it has played out over the centuries..and with us yet because it is still not yet being dealt with well.
vir ecclesiasticus John,
vir ecclesiasticus
John, Thanks for an interesting piece.
It does seem clear that the widespread revisionism among moralists of the 60s and 70s facilitated a capitulation to the sexual revolution. For example, what I later came to recognize as a popularization of Charles Curran's "theology of compromise" was widely taught in Catholic High Schools in the 70s and - regardless of what the authors intended - was received by students of that era as permission for a whole range of unchaste behaviors. Of course, the revisionist moralists did not endorse pedophillia and were trying to improve upon the traditional moral theory of the manuals, the deficiencies of which were then evident, but their efforts against the doctrine regarding intrinsically evil acts had devestating consequences (even if we grant that the traditional approach to intrinsically evil acts was deficient). It seems the connection between revisionist moral theory and the abuse crisis may turn out to be rather indirect, but given the was revisionism facilitated the Catholic embrace of the sexual revolution, it is hard to imagine it had no role in the crisis. If it contributed to a widespread breakdown of chastity, I would say it contributed to the crisis.
The interesting thing about the emerging situation is that there seems to be some significant progress in basic moral theory among those working toward a retrieval of Thomistic moral theory in the wake of Veritatis Splendor. God willing, the "red media/blue media" problem among Catholic moralists will not continue to keep these developments somewhat under the radar.
Very good article. Orion:
Very good article.
Orion: of course if one is "Progressive", it is always going to find traditionalism to be at fault. Your comparison of fantasy and rape as equivalent is false. Masturbation and rape are both mortal sins (which does not infer equivalency either), but it doesn't appear as if you've heard of the sacrament of reconciliation, in which, if a Catholic honestly and with a spirit of true penance avails himself of, he is forgiven of his sins--mortal and venial. Your email itself is evidence of sloppy moral thinking that is being critiqued by the pope and this article. We are all sinners in need of forgiveness, and thank God that He gave us a sacrament to facilitate such a gift.
Mlou: Yes, there was also bad formation of bishops, as should be clear by their handling of this mess. And no apology from any pope or authority figure in the Church will ever be sufficient--those with legitimate (and often illegitimate) abuse claims are now encouraged to hate, to elevate their victimhood to the level of identity, do demand contrition of the Church and to mock as inadequate any attempt the Church makes to address their pain, all while demanding enormous sums of money. This is sad in so many ways.
Catnip: you're right. Proportionalism may have not been precise enough of a term for the pope to use as this sort of moral reasoning predates the late '60's. But it is indeed part of the complicated fabric of moral obfuscation that was in place when many future abusers were being trained in seminary.
G.E.M. Anscombe's seminal 1958 essay "Modern Moral Philosophy" (available online in full text) addresses the then-growing popularity of certain strains of utilitarianism of her day (she coined the term "consequentialism" to represent these as they would generally argue that an action is only morally wrong as judged by its consequences). She was incensed that there were so many actions which could not simply be called immoral, as well as the fact that many ethicists seemed to want to meaningfully invoke the moral terms of obligation after they had done away with the only touchstone for moral obligation the West ever had: Judeo-Christian biblical law.
Perhaps the pope was thinking of these developments when he answered the question, but I won't presume to guess as he is immeasurably more intelligent and aware of all this than anyone posting on this site, including me.
Cafeteria Catholic Bishops
Cafeteria Catholic Bishops Pick and Choose
Some bishops objected to the content of the Pastoral Letter on Marriage
drafted at the USCCB meeting in Florida
not for any doctrinal errors
but because "it relies too heavily on the social sciences
at the expense of a systematic presentation of
Catholic doctrine on marriage and family."
The bishops have no qualms about rejecting secular science,
just as they do with birth control, abortion, use of condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS, etc.
But, it is a very different story
when it comes to their own involvement in clerical crimes against children.
Several bishops urged the John Jay Study team
to take a hard look at what mental health professionals advised
on the question of priests who have abused someone
if they could safely return to ministry.
The John Jay team
considered the mistaken advice given to the bishops
by mental health counselors and therapy centers and
what attorneys were telling bishops to do,
whether it was productive or not.
When it suits their purpose
(like protecting themselves from the consequences of secrecy and cover-up)
the bishops do not hesitate to use secular science and expertise.
We are not supposed to notice their careful picking and choosing.
If a study defends their position,
they use it,
if it exposes guilt,
they bury it.
This demonstrates the Bishops’ cafeteria mentality
in pursuit of truth.
We deserve better.
An edited and reformatted article by
The Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church,
http://arcc-catholic-rights.net/
rschutz1@prodigy.net 1-877-700-2722 (ARCC).
.
Love, John
See my website: Sacred Quest at www.torchlake.com/poetman
(Deacon) Bernie
(Deacon) Bernie Lyngdal
Tomahawk WI
dberniel@verizon.net
Although coming at this issue from many different directions, all the posts above provide enlightenment.
Yes, abuse existed in the past and as we all have learned, it was usually at the hands of a trusted family member. Priests were considered family. That abuse is way down now could just be because the trusted position of the priest has diminished, and the bright light of possible exposure exists at an intensity never known before.
Formation problems? If that was the case, then why didn't we see more priestly burglaries, murders, and the like? I do not believe it is possible to turn off moral responsibility in just one or a few areas and maintain it in most cases.
A sign of the times? Close, but not close enough That is, because of the times, a lot of people did a lot of strange things. Yet, there is no way to relate pedophilia to those strange things that did not reach critical mass.
My own humble opinion is that it was a spike in misbehavior by a few augumented by the irrational behavior of the bishops who believed they were untouchable.
Bernie: you asked
Bernie: you asked "Formation problems? If that was the case, then why didn't we see more priestly burglaries, murders, and the like? "
Theft - how much money has been embezzled from the congregations that we simply dont know about - YET?
Murder - there is evidence of Vatican level involvement in this century in a variety of different scenarios, although, those who hold to orthodoxy are doing their best to silence the evidence.
Other crimes - There is still a veil of secrecy around a great deal of leadership activity. Just as the true scope of the pedophile problem was revealed once the that coverup was uncovered, who knows what crimes are waiting to be revealed when more of the Vatican code of silence is removed.
Once again, the Pope
Once again, the Pope shifts the blame for the abuse crisis, now invoking proportionalism as the culprit. In fact, proportionalism is merely a commonsense criterion helpful for making moral judgments. Let's face it: any moral theory that does not take into account the reasonably anticipated consequences of one's actions rapidly risks becoming a rigid idolatry of principle rather than a humane and thoughtful discernment of how one should act. Consequences ALONE do not suffice for moral judgments, (proportionalism is not reducible to act consequentialism or utilitarianism,) but no morally reflective person fails to take consequences seriously.
Thomas Aquinas held that for an act to be morally right, it should be done for the right reasons, in the right way, in the right circumstances. His example was that ordinarily it is right to return borrowed goods to their owners. However, if one borrowed a sword from someone who, in a homicidal rage, demands its return in order to commit murder, it is wrong in those circumstances to return the sword. An ordinarily right action--returning the sword--is rendered wrong by circumstances. What Thomas did not hold, and most proportionalists did, is that the reverse is also true--that an act ordinarily wrong might be right in some circumstances. Consider the same example--it's wrong to refuse to return borrowed goods. In the circumstances noted, it becomes right not to do so. When cicumstances change, the moral weight of actions can change.
What the bishops did, it seems to me, is to apply an incorrect principle absolutely. Trained in an era of moral absolutes, one principle they learned was not taught in the tradition but inhaled with the clericalist air of seminaries, viz: always act so as to protect the good name of Church leadership at all levels. If Father spends his evenings drinking himself into a lonely stupor because of the lack of human intimacy in his life, well, say that he's immersed in the Spirit, not spirits. If Father seems to have an inordinate attraction to little children, well, it's really his extraordinary love for the little ones, not social immaturity or sexual perversion. And if Father rapes them, well, cover up by whatever means necessary: villify the parents, blame the victims, employ the priciest legal counsel available to avoid legal or financial accountability.
Of course, what the bishops sought to do was less about protecting the good name of the Church than about shoring up their own power. To date there has been virtually no bishop accountability in this mess. Blaming moral theory is merely a new dodge designed to distract from the real issue at hand--bishops who believed that it was a moral absolute to protect clerics at any cost. At best, blaming proportionalism for priest abuse is a clueless misreading of the crisis. At worst, it is a cynical ploy designed to continue the cover-up of the role of the bishops--all the way up to the Bishop of Rome--in the crisis.
Pedophilia is an illness. I
Pedophilia is an illness. I don't think the teaching of any moral philosophy can change that. In older days, when not much was known about pedophilia, homosexuality, etc, young men were not screened for these kinds of illnesses. Therefore, boys who had sexual problems, felt there was something wrong, or were uncomfotable with their sexual urges, thought that vowing to be celebate would make the problems go away. Of course it didn't. Leah
The pope's speech sounds
The pope's speech sounds really wonderful. It seems that there is a sincere attempt to work toward resolution. However, when one really looks at it critically, one realizes that it is mostly superfluous verbosity. Strip away the execess verbosity, remove the flowery rhetoric, and one can see that this is just one more attempt to pass the blame off onto something else or someone else so that the Magisterial authority doesnt not have to admit their responsiblity.
Wouldnt it be nice for once to hear the pope say "we really messed this one up", or, even better "we were wrong, we apologize for our error", instead of trying to snow us with meaningless rhetorical exposition on some "-ism" in an attempt to redirect the responsibility elsewhere. To admit their error instead of blaming the victims.
One of the main tenets of leadership is that leaders are ALWAYS responsible for the actions of their subordinates. Whether the magisterium acknowledges it or not, the truth is "THE POPE AND THE BISHOPS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MESS". Every bishop who reassigned a pedophile to another parish instead of having him arrested and prosecuted is guilty of criminal complicity. Every one of these bishops is a co-conspirator, a criminal, just as guilty of the crime as the pedophiles they reassigned.
Wouldnt it be refreshing to hear the pope say "I'm sorry for the pain and suffering the actions of the Magisterium has caused these innocent victims".
Wouldnt it be healing to hear "I'm sorry, we (the Magisterium) have failed you (the laity)"?
John B. Larrere This is a
John B. Larrere
This is a slippery slope for conservatives because with absolutism, God has sovereignty over human life therefore pacifism and opposition to the death penalty must be supported. How many conservatives are ready to do that. Life is life.
I was a seminarian at
I was a seminarian at Dunwooodie Seminary in the 1970's, and proportionalism was never ever taught there (then Father William B. Smith, now Msgr. Smith, saw to that--Fr. McCormick was only mentioned to refute his theological speculations). However, the number of people who later were suspected of sexual abuse who had attended or graduated from Dunwoodie was probably about the same as other dioceses had.
First off, as Catnip alluded
First off, as Catnip alluded to in referring to situation ethics, proportionalism is really just a flavor of consequentialism (notice in Mr. Allen's article that Archbishop Burke recognizes the connection between consequentialism and proportionalism). The term “consequentialist” being coined by G.E.M. Anscombe in 1958 to refer to utilitarian philosophers. The beginnings of utilitarianism are traced to, at the latest, Jeremy Bentham who died in 1832. So even though the term “proportionalism” may have come into the seminaries in the mid 60s, the philosophical principle itself is much, much older. Further, re-read Benedict's actual comments and see that our pope does not limit the conversation to what happened in the 50s seminary, but is speaking about the philosophical mileu generally – within which secular and Catholic ethicists alike were saturated.
So the pope’s dating was not off in talking about the “idea” of proportionalism in ethics stretching back before the 60s. No, the idea of proportionalism is as old as the hills, going back much further to the early 19th century, at least. The 60s ethicists who did the work to promote proportionalism were already utilitarians.
Further, many seem to be missing the point about moral absolutes. The problem is not that this or that ethicist would explicitly promote any particular grotesque act. The problem is that these philosophies undermine confidence in moral absolutes as absolutes. So even if a seminarian remembers nothing about details of the theory, the notion that moral absolutes exist will have been seriously wounded; it will not be not be internalized the same way in the seminarian’s mind and soul -- perhaps later to be cast aside completely by an agent in the grip of some passion. It is what’s missing from consequentialist ethics which lead to grave results. We weak and frail human beings need complete confidence that we must do one thing and must not do another.
And let’s not fail to recognize that this “aside” as Mr. Allen puts it, is also continuing a central theme of this papacy: speaking about the ill effects of the “the dictatorship of relativism.”
Further we are told that , “Over time, such reasoning was extended to other topics such as homosexuality, abortion and divorce.” Over time seems to suggest some point of time beyond the mid 60s, when in fact Bentham had extended these philosophical principles into some of those areas over 180 years ago.
“In light of such objections, many theologians say that proportionalism, as a theory, is today all but extinct.”
Well, perhaps Mr. Allen ought to contact David S. Oderberg. This Reading University philosopher tells us in his “Moral Theory: a non-consequentialist approach.” that consequentialism is “still the overwhelmingly pre-eminent theory used in applied ethics in Britain, the USA, Australia, and elsewhere in the West.” And if the reader is still unconvinced, then please google Peter Singer.
"Keenan argued that broader factors such as the overall formation process in seminaries, and not the content of theological debates, ought to be the focus of attention."
This is hardly a mere theological debate, see Bentham and Peter Singer(and even if it were a mere theological debate, who should be concerned with it if not the pope?). If attention to sound moral theology is not a bulwark of the seminarian’s “formation process,” then we should probably not call it a “formation process” to begin with.
"I find it hard to think that the classroom was the breeding ground of licentiousness,[Keenan said]"
And faithful Catholics find it hard to believe that Jesus’ 1st century classroom was its breeding ground.
"On the one hand, it's hard to believe that the collapse of traditional moral verities in the 1960s and '70s, commonly known as the "sexual revolution," didn't play some role in fomenting an unusually high number of sex abuse cases in that period."
And the sexual revolution was predicated on the “success” of consequentialism.
"On the other, it also strains credibility that blame for the crisis should be laid at the feet of serious theologians such as Knauer and McCormick."
And whoever suggested we blame Knauer and McCormick? It’s the philosophical principles themselves which are being highlighted. No reasonable person blames Plato for the totalitarian horrors of the 20th century, but principles for them are there in Plato's work.
"Whatever the defects in their theory, one suspects that if proportionalism had never come down the pike, abuser-priests would have found some other way to rationalize their behavior."
You could say the same about your suggestion that the sexual revolution played its role, but you fail to.
"If, however, what happens in the classroom is ultimately judged to be less decisive than what happens outside, then such efforts could be misplaced."
If what happens in the classrooms has any consequence at all on what happens outside, then such efforts are not misplaced. Right? I mean it’s not really a matter of, “Well, unless this or that cause is the one and only cause, we ought not to address it.” Medical doctors certainly don’t operate according to such logic -- and God bless them for it.
Earlier, some of the
Earlier, some of the sexual urges were drowned in alcohol. This was accepted by the laity, sympathetic with the apparently sacrificial life of the clergy. Some offenses were smothered by the threat of eternal damnation for those who complained about being raped by clergy or having a testicle crushed, or telling the truth if questioned about such treatment by alteri Christi
The problem is that the
The problem is that the Roman Catholic Church has made itself the authority over Scripture. Peter alleged to be the first pope was married. Jesus healed his mother-in-law of a fever (Matt. 8:14-15).Maybe it is time to rethink this tradition of unmarried clergy from an examination of Holy Scripture and not tradition.
Surely, the cause for
Surely, the cause for any significant evil is multi-factoral. If the quoted authors want to do correlations -- which is scientifically weak -- they might more easily say that Vatican II or the liturgical reform were the cause of pedophilia. After all, the great increase of pedophilia seems to have occurred about the same time that many of the liturgical rules changed. And, as a parallel, it might be noted that not only did the liturgical rules officially change--which upset many and called into question old certainties--, but as a consequence, a host of other liturgical "deviations" occurred at the same time. Perhaps we should blame the liturgical renewal and experimental liturgies on proportionalism. The list would be endless.
In short, there were "deviations" all throughout Church, US, and world culture at the time. That period was a time when, as most historical commentators would observe, there was great uncertainty in most areas of life. For example, lots of priests left the priesthood at the time. A decade earlier that had been taboo. Should we "blame" that on proportionalism too? The historical critical method of reading scripture became stronger around this time. Another victim of proportionalism? The election of John Paul II?
One should distinguish between what one does and what one tries to justify. All of us commit sin, and sometimes we have the courage to admit it. If a priest were a pedophile or an adulterer in the era of proportionalism, it is much more likely that he admitted he was a sinner or, alternatively, that he simply practiced that fine art of self-deception which usually masquerades as "not thinking very carefully about what one is doing."
The frequently heard claim that pedophiles told their victims not to tell anyone suggests that they were aware that what they were doing was wrong, not that they had worked out its justifiability according to proportionalism or any other theory. And, as the cited moral theologians indicated, if they had tried to use proportionalism to justify their pedophilia, they would not have succeeded without even bigger doses of self-deception.
It is 10.57 am here in
It is 10.57 am here in Sydney on Saturday morning. The Pope has just delivered a very pastorally sensitive apology to the victims of clerical sex abuse in Australia. Here is the link. http://www.smh.com.au/news/world-youth-day/pope-sorry-for-abuse/2008/07/19/1216163201767.html Thank you Holy Father!
Now if only some of the Australian bishops who have made some pretty appalling gaffs in the last week could and would only learn how to keep their mouths shut if they have nothing of worth to say in this awful and shameful part of our history.
The one paragraph statement
The one paragraph statement by the Pontiff on a heady topic such as proportionalism in regards to pedophilia among priests is one very weighty matter that is worthy of a major thesis and not merely the one paragraph statement made by the Pope in Australia. To dissect it does not do either the serious topics justice -- or the Pope. And perhaps proportionalism has been determined by Vatican investigations to have been a major reason for those reprehensible actions by the Catholic clergy in that country (John Allen quotes American and German theologians in his article, but no Australians). Regardless, it seems reasonable to assume that the proportionalist view could be at least partially to blame for the sexual abuses by the clergy. Certainly, there are other reasons. By shining a light on proportionalism as a way of rationalizing moral issues, the Pope gave those training seminarians and future priests themselves something to reflect upon and correct, as well as me, as I attempt to improve my own morality that was formed during the 60s and the 70s. Never have I heard proportinalism addressed as such in a homily at Mass. I pray that in the future I am up to receiving more such challenges to my way of thinking and living, whether it be from the Pope or some other source.
As a survivor of sexual
As a survivor of sexual abuse by a member of the Catholic clergy I would like to make two points. First, the sexual abuse of children has been taking place in the Church since the third century. This is not a new development beginning in the 1950's. Secondly, the idea that one must be taught not to sexually assault a child is ludicrous. There is documented evidence of this corruption and criminal activity going back centuries. I encourage everyone to read a copy of "Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes: The Catholic Church's 2,000-Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse", by Thomas P. Doyle, A. W. R. Sipe, Patrick J. Wall,.
I don't care what fancy name
I don't care what fancy name the Pope uses to explain the rampant pedophilia in the Church. Iit is a crime against society and needs to be punished. There is no excuse on earth for molesting a child. To make excuses for these priests by saying they were sick or maladjusted is an abomination. You can just as well make the same excuses for murderers and serial killers. A crime is a crime and that is all there is to it. Priests who molest children should be excommunicated and jailed. Period. There is no proportionalism here at all. Child molestation is a crime and a very serious crime. You ruin a child's spirit, soul and cause an unending lifetime of pain for the victim.
This problem will continue to exist until the very essence of the power structure of the church is examined. The same root problems that existed in the 40s, 50s 60s, 70s,80s, 90s etc are still in place. Here are a few--all male clergy, celibacy, Top down hierarchy....altar boys at the bottom. The weakest man in the group gets it.
Just like prisons and the Army and all boys boarding schools. If the feminine element is lacking, it will be created in the weakest individual on the totem pole. The archetype of man/boy love exists in the very nature of an all male priesthood. At its best it can be healing to both, but in its worst it is devastating. The only remedy is to make the priesthood more inclusive. Allow married men and women into this all male domain. Put strict regulations into place as the Episcopal church did. No priest should be with a parishioner of any age unless another adult is present. If there is a priest and children or a child meeting in any context, another adult must be present. Even in a private situation like confession, there should always be another adult nearby. The counseling rooms and confessionals should have glass windows to provide the transparency and safety needed. In addition, all predator priests after serving their time in jail should be required to wear an ankle monitor at all times and be placed on his state's sexual predator list.
Once again, the elephant in
Once again, the elephant in the room is being ignored. While a small percentage of the most heinous crimes of sexual abuse involved the rape of very young (i.e., prepubescent) children -- in other words, pedophilia proper -- the vast majority of the sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church were situations of homosexual predation: An older man (a priest) using a young man (an adolescent boy) for his sexual gratification. Moreover, even though these crimes are legally defined as rape, they do not generally fit the common conception of that term (i.e., a violent sexual act forced upon an unwilling victim who is not strong enough to fight off the attack). Instead, the sexual act (or, more often, acts) occurred after a period of "grooming" during which the predator would develop a relationship of trust, if not affection, between himself and his victim, bringing the boy to the point of complicit cooperation. Of course, this is extremely evil, not only because of the sexual abuse that occurred, but also because the predator-priest would systematically destroy a young person's conscience. It's easy to see how such a priest, struggling with same-sex attractions, could persuade himself that his behavior was morally good, or even holy, because it was an expression of his "love" toward the object of his homosexual lust. And how did he accomplish this self-deception (as well as the deception of his victim)? Through a process of moral proportionalism.
"Just like prisons and the
"Just like prisons and the Army and all boys boarding schools. If the feminine element is lacking, it will be created in the weakest individual on the totem pole. The archetype of man/boy love exists in the very nature of an all male priesthood."
Read this Sulpicius and study it carefully. There is far more truth in this statement than Benedict's postulating on proportionalism. The archetype of man/boy love was imported into the all male priesthood with Constantine and his Roman troops. This is the exact thing St. Damien was railing about over 1000 years ago. The exact same thing Michelangelo painted on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel.
Thanks to pamwv for the initial quote.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
The whole proportionalism
The whole proportionalism analysis strikes me as yet another way to blame external forces, rather than taking direct ownership of the problem of priests molesting and raping children and vulnerable adults.
Reality check time: I know of no accepted, serious, ethical construct which even remotely suggests that it is at all reasonable for a priest to force himself sexually on a child. Proportionalism or otherwise.
And with regard to the "sexual revolution," you'd have to be pretty far on the fringe of even that movement to hold the position that the above was okay. "Free love" doesn't mean "rape my children."
It does, though, come down to 'formation.'
It was in formation that bishops acquired the idea that "giving scandal" to the Church was to be avoided at all costs. They did learn it in seminary, and no doubt had it reinforced in their 'formation' on the track to receiving the crozier. "If you want to become a chancellor, a vicar for priests, an auxiliary bishop, have a diocese of your own, become a metropolitan, and become a cardinal, this is what you do" was the pretty clear message.
And while pointing the finger at the bishops in the large is all well and good, let us not forget that in the small, the rank-and-file clergy often followed the same policy of "charitable silence" when confronted with these issues amongst their brethren. Where did they learn this? During "formation."
And was not the admission to sexually maladjusted young men to seminary following a period of work with a vocations director part of "formation?"
Wasn't the failure to act upon those issues when recognized or to furnish them with a means to properly cope (rather than acting out) also part of "formation?"
Isn't the sort of self-indulgent clericalism which allows an abuser to somehow rationalize his actions something which should be watched for and guarded against in "formation?"
Wasn't it an unfortunate, and sick, part of "formation" that caused vocations directors and other clerical mentors to sexually exploit candidates for the priesthood and young seminary students, thus perpetuating a pattern of abuse from one generation to the next? That was more like "mal-formation."
But then again, maybe wrapping fancy words around the tired old "society's to blame" excuse was part of young Father Ratzinger's "formation."
It strikes me that the abuse
It strikes me that the abuse crisis also has something to do with narcissism. That’s the prevailing pathology among clerical types. It’s often identified as clericalism, but it’s actually narcissism. Consider this: when I became a pastor, I was asked to name an amount that I wanted to have for my monthly groceries and food. Some of my colleagues had cooks and housekeepers and most of their expense went to pay their wages. Others ate every meal at a restaurant and most of their expense was given to them in the form of cash. I decided to set up a charge account at a grocery store so that I had some accountability. Once I was shopping and a parishioner came up and started a conversation. She noticed that I had some generic brand of vanilla ice cream in my cart. I told her I really loved vanilla ice cream, and she said, "Oh, you should get Breyers. It's the best." I explained that I knew Breyers was delicious, but because it is a premium brand I thought it was a little pricey. She said, "Oh Father, you deserve the best! Just think of everything you've given up for us." I took the generic brand back to the freezer and picked up some Breyers. It's a little thing, I know, but it shows how innocently it all begins. The same priest who decides he deserves a little extra treat because he gives up so much for the church is the same priest who, left unchecked, will decide he deserves a lot more as time goes by, including little sexual treats. Consider this: one of the most important symptoms of pathological narcissism is grandiosity. Grandiose fantasies permeate every aspect of the narcissist’s personality. They are the reason that the narcissist feels entitled to special treatment, which is typically incommensurate with his real accomplishments. The grandiosity gap is the abyss between the narcissist’s self-image and reality. When narcissistic supply is deficient, the narcissist decompensates and acts out in a variety of ways. The narcissist is usually fully aware of the difference between true and false, real and make-believe, the invented and the extant, right and wrong. The narcissist consciously chooses to adopt one version of the events, an aggrandizing narrative, a fairy-tale existence, a “what-if” counterfactual life. He is emotionally invested in his personal myth. The narcissist feels better as fiction than as fact — but he never loses sight of the fact that it is all just fiction. Throughout, the narcissist is in full control of his faculties, cognizant of his choices and goal-oriented. His behavior is intentional and directional. He is a manipulator and his delusions are in the service of his stratagems. Hence his chameleon-like ability to change guises, his conduct and his convictions on a dime.
Jongarinn You
Jongarinn
You wrote:
"Grandiose fantasies permeate every aspect of the narcissist’s personality. They are the reason that the narcissist feels entitled to special treatment, which is typically incommensurate with his real accomplishments. The grandiosity gap is the abyss between the narcissist’s self-image and reality. When narcissistic supply is deficient, the narcissist decompensates and acts out in a variety of ways. ... He is emotionally invested in his personal myth."
Did you realize you are describing the Magisterial Authority of the Catholic Church?
I have two ideas on the
I have two ideas on the roots of priest abuse. First is the chuch prohibition of sexual fantasy. Fantasy provides in adolescence a workshop for exploring adult sexual intimacy. In someone who is kept from this mental rehearsal play, the script for their sexual interaction remains prepubescent and so their partners are chosen from their peers. So a 50 year old priest could choose a fourth grader as an emotional and sexual peer. The second thought I have is much simpler. When they asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks, he said : "
That's where the money is" If you ask a pedophile why he became a priest, he might answer: "That's where the kids are." Another idea that came to me as I typed, a number of these men were abused themselves as children, so the cycle unwinds. Only the second of these expanations applies to intelligent, charming sociopaths.
My own hunch is that the
My own hunch is that the culprit here is not "proportionalism" as much as it is traditionalist Catholic moral teaching on sexuality. The traditionalist teaching is this: it is mortal sin deserving of eternal damnation to deliberately fantasize about "normal" heterosexual sex. It is also a mortal sin deserving of eternal damnation to rape a child. Assigning the same dire punishment to both of these radically different behaviors is apt to lead to confusion in some people that the acts themselves are morally equivalent.
For example, if we lived in a society the inflicted capital punishment for both murder and littering, some folks would begin behaving as if littering were as serious as murder, while others would come to the conclusion that murder is as trivial as littering. Assignment of punishment is as much an educational tool as it is a matter of justice.
The fact is that traditionalist Catholic sexual morality, in consigning normal and near-universal behavior such as sexual fantasizing ("impure thoughts") and masturbation to the category of mortal sins meriting eternal damnation is completely impracticable and unworkable and has led to problems, both psychological and moral, instead of solving them.
I don't see why
I don't see why "proportionalism" could not occupy a fairly significant place at the table here. It's very touchy-feely to assign the blame the problem to lack of preparation for celibate chastity and "intimacy" issues. If this problem was at its apogee in the 60s and 70s, what about all the priests ordained before? How did they cope with celibate chastity and the problem of "intimacy"? Or those priests ordained since the 60s and 70s?
The notion that things are only evil in relation to something else, or "proportionalism," is simply another name for situational ethics. And Pope Benedict is right: it has never been Catholic teaching, although many Catholic philosophers and ethicists used it to argue against Humanae vitae. One doesn't have to put the responsibility completely at the feet of "serious" Catholic theologians, such as Knauer and McCormick, but, in combination with the societal decay of the 60s and 70s, it is entirely credible that Catholic theologians who gave in to modernist philosophical trends may have given a "green light" to others down the food chain (university professors, DREs, etc.) to see formerly "black and white" truths as only relative to certain conditions.
One can quibble about the Pope's chronology for the impact of proportionalism, but one certainly cannot argue with his analysis.
In a superb article, "The
In a superb article, "The Strengths of Priests Today" published in America for July 1, 2001 (at the height of the sexual abuse crisis), retired Abp. John Quinn of San Francisco wrote: "we have to dispose of the illusion that there was a time in the past when these behaviors did not occur and that there will be some future time when these behaviors will cease to occur. As long as there is human nature these problems will occur, and they have always occurred. In the past they were not properly understood."
You make a good point
You make a good point jaystl. Nevertheless I would make two comments: 1) Even though one must consider most abusers so sick that their total culpability may be questionable; some if not many, in their will, their formation, their understanding of sacrament know the nature of the instruments they employ(ed) to acheive their purpose and the vulnerability of the victims with all these entail. Horrific. Regardless of the degree of validity of your comment, recognition of the horror of the act must never be diminished, which leads to...
2)...the horrible responsibility on the shoulders of hierarchy, seminary superiors and administrators, parish, diocese...the entire, and I say entire, mechanism of church institution to ensure that not one priest molests one child. They failed. The horror of clerical abuse of one child is exceeded by the horror of its proliferation. Could anything be worse? Maybe, the failure of those responsible for sanctum and inner-sanctum of the institution to make every effort to prevent abuse is one, another is the systematic and mandated cover-up (by the highest levels of authority, including our present pope)denial (before God, victims, law, and public of trust), harrassment of victims and the toleration even facilitation by persons whose accountability, culpability and responsibility are/were not diminished. To this day, the church has not satisfied its community of believers that they are self-aware and repentant to a degree consonant with their responsibililty and accountability. Without that, no one of sound mind can be respectful of the church's mandate nor confident that they have enacted preventative measures.
When will the pope and the
When will the pope and the rest of the hierarchy get it? Bad formation? While that may be the case, there was NO BAD FORMATION of the bishops who continually protected and transferred abusive priests.........over DECADES. And as far as saying that sexual abuse cases 'peaked in the 60's & 70's'..........maybe that was because until recently, pedophilia was the type of crime that the victims themselves tended to downplay or hide out of a sense of embarrassment and/or guilt. And with the way they are still being treated by the vast majority of bishops and cardinals, it is a wonder that any of them come forward to seek healing.
I find two things about this
I find two things about this article interesting, the first is the number of incidents in the 60's and 70's and the drop off in the eighties. The other, as you point out mlou, is that this has been going on for decades and bishops felt compelled to keep it in house at the expense of the victims. My question is why? What were these bishops so afraid of that protecting pedophiles was more important than prosecuting pedophiles. The quick answer is the image of the priesthood, but I'm beginning to think it goes much deeper and more personally than that.
Fr. Paul Shanley, the serial pedophile from Boston, said it was generational in the seminary, and that Cardinal Cushing surrounded himself with boytoys and Shanley himself was one of them. At the time I read this interview with him in 2003, I thought it was a case of self justification. But now I'm beginning to wonder if it wasn't the truth.
That whatever was going on in the seminaries in the forties and fifties spawned a whole generation of abusive priests who were secretly moved from parish to parish, some of them for fifty years, without any punishment. Was this also done to insure their silence, especially from those educated in Rome? What's the coverup really covering up? Why did John Paul II refuse to act on Fr. Maciel, and to go so far as to stop Benedict from pursuing his case? For that matter why refuse to speak on this issue at all?
Please note this: http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
The drop off in the 80's may
The drop off in the 80's may have more to do with other organizations, such as the boy scouts, being catapulted into the headlines by pedophile allegations.
When a criminal has been engaging in criminal activity with impunity, it tends to make them a little nervous when they suddenly see others getting caught and punished for similar crimes. The pedophile priests (and the bishopric) probably thought they if they scaled down their criminal activities for a while they would never face prosecution. Hence the drop in the 80's.
The pedophile scandal in the boy scouts and other organizations however opened the door to bringing the criminal priests to justice for their perversions. It truly is unfortunate there is a statue of limitations on raping children.
In answer to your question about why the coverup, the same reason for so many other decisions the magisteria make ... they have to protect the image of bishopric infallibility at all costs, ALL COSTS. All costs means that the bishopric really doesnt care how many lives are destroyed by their criminal actions .... bishopric infallibility is all that matters. Hopefully, it wont be much longer before the bishopric will be targeted and prosecuted for their actions in the coverup.
And I am still asked why I do not trust our leadership ... duh!!!!!
I remain unconvinced that
I remain unconvinced that the sexual abuse by priests began or peaked in the 60's & 70s.
Dennis, I didn't mean to
Dennis, I didn't mean to imply that sexual abuse peaked in the 60's and 70's. That's much more likely an indicator of which generations of victims felt free enough to speak out about it, reflecting the trend in general society. I'm sure legions of previous victims took their abuse to their graves.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
I was doing some research
I was doing some research this week and accidently ran across a very interesting piece of ancient history.
Remember the issue of pedophilia in the Boy Scouts in the 80's?
.... guess whose voices were among those condemning those responsible?
If you guessed ... the catholic clergy ... you guessed correctly!