Maria Steen
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI with Pope Francis The View
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has published an essay commenting on the sex abuse scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church for some time. The former Pope broke his usual silence in order, in his own words, “to contribute one or two remarks to assist in this difficult hour”.
At the heart of his thesis on why we have seen so much sexual abuse by clergy is the idea that the perpetrators (and many in power in the Church who protected them) ultimately rejected God, bought into a completely permissive culture with regard to sex, and allowed a collapse of Catholic moral theology that rejected Natural Law and the idea that there are some acts that are always wrong – in essence, the adoption of moral relativity.
His words have come in for much criticism, from the New York Times to the National Catholic Reporter to the Atlantic which refers to the “strange text” that the former Pope has “unleashed on the world” calling it “incoherent, inaccurate, and at times truly bizarre”. The same critics who are quick to shoot down Church teaching – especially the doctrine of papal infallibility – are now pointing to it to support their claim that Benedict’s words should be dismissed, as he is no longer Pope.
Striking
It is striking that none of his detractors has tackled the central themes raised in his missive. They deride the idea that he cites increased displays of nudity as contributing to the cultural decline, but fail to address the link between the flooding of our culture with pornography and violence against women and children.
They dismiss the idea that the sexual revolution in any way contributed to the crisis within the Church, but fail to recognise that the men who present themselves for the priesthood are as much products of the culture in which they live as anyone else.
They rail against the idea that so-called “progressive” theology has anything to do with the sex abuse crisis, instead sticking to the mantra that the problem is “internal and structural”. A more nuanced – and honest – approach would be the admission that it is both. As Benedict XVI points out, a theology that allows the ends to justify the means, one which rejects the idea that there is anything that is an absolute good – or indeed a fundamental evil – is bound to lead to a situation whereby people will try to justify their behaviour – no matter how dastardly.
The truth is that human beings (including priests, bishops, cardinals and even Popes) will use whatever structures and powers they have to cover up their sin. We hide and try to blame others. This truth about humanity is – quite literally – the oldest story in the Bible. When Adam is confronted by God in the Garden of Eden, what is the first thing he says when asked if he has eaten the fruit of the tree of which he was forbidden to eat? “It was the woman you put with me.” Translation: “It was the woman’s fault, and really it was yours, God, for putting her with me.”
Behind the cover up and the efforts to shift responsibility are the simple facts of an unchecked human passion, a willingness to ignore the rules and a giving-in to the desire to sin.
And so, there is more than a grain of truth in what the former Pope says. He states that the change in sexual mores in the 1960s was “on a scale unprecedented in history” with the previously normative standards regarding sexuality collapsing entirely. At this stage, that view cannot be seriously questioned by any thinking person. The empirical evidence shows clearly that throughout the world generations of people became far more sexually permissive since the ‘60s, with most people having multiple sexual partners, a dramatic rise in STIs, a boom in divorce rates and indeed abortion rates, and a corresponding decline in marriage.
Interestingly – for those with a concern about current proposals to overhaul the sex education curriculum in this country – Pope Emeritus Benedict, speaking from his experience of the Church in Germany, links state-prescribed sex education initiatives to the culture which no longer “conceded any norms” in relation to sex. This is what parents of school-aged children in Ireland are facing today. Witness the Provision of Objective Sex Education Bill before the Dáil and the push by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment to prescribe a “fact-based, objective” approach to sexual education (which is anything but), without troublesome moral norms that make people feel guilty about certain behaviours. These are exactly what the former Pope is talking about.
The fact of the matter is that abusive men ignored their conscience which must have told them what they were doing was objectively wrong. They justified themselves and their behaviour by reference to a new theology which claimed that morality changes depending on the time and the society. They lost control of their sexual appetite and indulged it without restraint. And those who covered up the crimes of some men, and the behaviours of others – which although not falling into the category of crimes were nonetheless deeply sinful and scandalous to the faithful – were guilty of the sin of pride, of not wanting to lose face in the eyes of the world. Pride and unrestrained sexual desire are the sins at the heart of this crisis.
That willingness to ignore the rules – or to change the rules to suit oneself – is at the heart of the Pope’s criticism of the new attitude adopted by many theologians and others who would describe themselves as progressive. He highlights the mixing of seminarians with lay people and women in a way hitherto unknown to candidates for the priesthood, the institution of homosexual cliques in seminaries as well as a change in the criteria for the selection of bishops after the Second Vatican Council, as all contributing to the breakdown of the priestly life and the scale of scandals that broke as a result.
If there is nothing objectively wrong in acting on one’s sexual impulses, then what is wrong with a priest doing the same? This thinking is rooted in the idea that priests are just the same as everyone else, rejecting the idea that they are “set apart” from society. The idea of a priesthood set apart is often criticised as contributing to a superior attitude, and indeed to the crisis in which we find ourselves. There is something in that. But right reason would suggest that the idea of priests being “set apart” is not that they are not subject to the same human impulses as the rest of us, but rather that a higher standard of behaviour is demanded of them – which makes sexual abuse by the clergy all the more egregious.
This flawed thinking – that there is nothing wrong with obeying one’s impulses, and ignoring the fact that there are sexual behaviours that are right and wrong – gave permission to these men to act on their impulses, whether it was breaking their vow of celibacy with women or men on a consensual basis, or abusing – in the most vile way – children and young people or those under their authority.
No change can be brought about with regard to the sexual abuse crisis without first making a proper diagnosis – and indeed that is what the Pope Emeritus is doing in this essay. Not until we honestly look at and address the underlying causes of the disease can we hope to root out this cancer that has infected the Church. Many in the Church have been seduced by the ways of the world, shoving God to the margins – or out of the picture altogether. But Benedict XVI says: “A society without God…is a society that loses its measure.” We no longer have a compass that points us in the right direction, towards good and away from evil – and if ever there was proof of this statement, the sex abuse crisis is it.