BishopAccountability.org
	Priests Pay the Price for Scandals By Muriel Porter The Age [Australia] October 3, 2005 Scapegoating gay clergy is dangerous and will not stop sex abuse. A PREDICTED move by the Pope to ban even celibate gay men from joining the priesthood is a tragic over-reaction to the clergy sexual abuse scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church in recent years. Reports from Vatican-watchers around the world suggest that a worldwide ban could be imposed within weeks. In the United States in particular, a year-long Apostolic Visitation of the 229 Catholic seminaries, about to begin, is expected to search diligently for any hint of homosexual behaviour, even "particular friendships". Sadly, the Catholic Church's response is just part of a disturbing pattern manifesting itself in all the churches. The clergy, it seems, rather than church hierarchies, are paying the price for the scandal. They have become the scapegoats for the churches' humiliation. They are the new victims of the sexual abuse crisis. Before the scandals erupted in Australia and other parts of the world in the late 1990s, people who had suffered sexual abuse by clergy or other church workers found it very difficult to have their complaints taken seriously by church authorities. Frequently, they were not believed. Even when they were, their experiences at the hands of the hierarchy were so humiliating that it was almost as painful as the initial abuse. The public furore that resulted once litigation forced the issue into the open changed all that. Civil courts awarded compensation payments that stunned many church leaders. Some were forced to resign over their previous inaction. Churches scrambled to restore public confidence, or at least to restore the confidence of their insurers. All major denominations in Australia now have programs and protocols to deal with complaints. People who believe they have suffered sexual abuse can now be confident of an appropriate, respectful response when they approach church institutions. That is a significant and important change, one that was too long in coming. Sexual abuse is horrendous in any context, but at the hands of the supposed representatives of God, in the context of the service of God, it is doubly so. Some have described it as "soul stealing". So the new regimes can only be welcomed for the way complaints are received, and the way clergy are trained in this regard. But even as the culture has changed, subtle manoeuvres have shifted the blame for abuse away from church leadership and the institution in general, and dumped it onto all clergy. While no one would quarrel with retribution justly and appropriately exacted on clergy found guilty of sexual abuse or harassment, the reality is that some church bodies have introduced protocols that effectively assume an accused priest is guilty until proven innocent. In fact, in some parts of the Anglican Church in this country, it is extremely difficult for any accused person to obtain a finding of innocence at all. Anecdotal evidence suggests that where accusations are not sustained, or even sometimes where they have been withdrawn or were mistaken, the cases are just left open, lingering inconclusively. Doubts then persist around the priest's name and reputation. The continuing insecurity can inflict deep psychological pain. Without a union or professional association to speak on their behalf, they are isolated and powerless. In the Catholic Church, and particularly in America, the blame game has gone even further by targeting a group of clergy and trainee priests purely on the strength of their sexual orientation. Certainly, it is true that sexual abuse by Catholic clergy has tended to be against boys and youths, where sexual abuse by Protestant ministers is more often against adult women. It is easy to put this comparison next to American statistics that suggest that up to 30 per cent of Catholic priests are gay, and jump to the conclusion that homosexual orientation is the problem. But that is nonsense. The real issue is that the old-style seminary training system, which took recruits in their early teens, produced some men who were sexually and psychologically immature. They were frozen in a stage of development when same-sex attraction is common. If they also had problems with power - and all sexual abuse is about power - then sexual abuse of the vulnerable could be the tragic result. Instigating witch hunts or creating scapegoats will not prevent sexual abuse. Targeting men of homosexual orientation will only force them underground, which is ultimately dangerous. Secrecy inevitably breeds deceit, anger and frustration, none of which is conducive to healthy priestly ministry. Far, far better to encourage priests and ministers of both homosexual and heterosexual orientation to rejoice in their God-given natures without shame or embarrassment, even if the church requires that they live under the discipline of celibacy. Healthy self-acceptance, and the emotional maturity it brings, offers the only real protection against the culture of sexual abuse. Dr Muriel Porter, the author of Sex, Power and the Clergy writes regularly for The Age on religion.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.