Why Celibacy is a Major Contributory Factor to Catholic Clerical Sexual Abuse

man in thobe standing on gray concrete pavement
Photo by Jan Kroon on Pexels.com

The current popular view on the persistence of Clerical sexual abuse (CSA) in the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) puts emphasis on the moral and psychological weaknesses of the individual priests rather than on the structural loopholes of the Church’s social network and control systems as a result of the imposition of celibacy to priestly life. What surfaced in many lawsuits against predator priests is the admission of many bishops think of CSA solely in terms of moral fault and sin (Doyle 2006).

Despite the growing scandals of CSA abuse involving priests and bishops around the world, the Catholic hierarchy still refuses to view the mandatory clerical celibacy as a disorganizing factor in the diocesan priestly life which deprives the secular clergy of social support and direct social control of their behavior which can resist CSA. Church authorities continue to understand clerical sexual abuse as mere moral and psychological aberrations of some problematic priests and bishops that need clinical treatment and spiritual direction.

priest using microphone
Photo by Marcelo Chagas on Pexels.com

Some prominent writers on CSA do not view the mandatory celibacy as connected to sexual misconduct by priests. Father Stephen Rosetti (2002), Father James Martin (2017), and Andrew Greely (2004), for instance, argued that celibacy is not the cause of the current CSA, especially child clerical sexual abuse (cCSA). Responding to the views that priests are more likely to be child molesters than others because they are celibate and that a celibate priesthood attracts a larger proportion of men with sexual problems, the priest-research professor and consultant to the papal Commission on the Protection of Minors Father Stephen Rosetti did not see mandatory celibacy as the cause of CSA and cCSA. He argued that researchers and clinicians have generally accepted the fact that celibacy does not cause child sexual abuse because the sexual difficulties and inner psychological problems that give rise to cCSA are largely in place long before a person enters into the formation process for a celibate priesthood.

man sitting near the window
Photo by Ali Arapoğlu on Pexels.com

Father Martin too argued, celibacy is not the cause of CSA since celibacy does not cause pedophilia. To him, blaming celibacy is an enormous simplification that leaves out many important causes. He then enumerated some major causes of the Clerical sexual abuse: First, improper screening of candidates for seminaries led to some psychologically sick men being ordained as priests. When some bishops received reports of sexual abuse, the reports were tragically downplayed, dismissed or ignored. Second, the crimes of sexual abuse often went unreported to civil authorities, out of a misguided concern among church officials for “avoiding scandal,” the fear of litigation, or an unwillingness to confront the abusive priest. Third, grossly misunderstanding the severity of the effects of abuse, overly relying on advice from psychologists regarding rehabilitation, and privileging the concerns of priests over the pastoral care for victims, some bishops moved abusive priests from one parish to another where they repeatedly offended (Martin, 2017).

closed eyed man holding his face using both of his hands
Photo by Ric Rodrigues on Pexels.com

Finally, the sociologist-priest Andrew Greely (2004) also dismissed the view that celibacy is to be blamed for the current CSA and cCSA in the RCC. This is his reaction to the argument to what he considered a simplistic view: “4 percent of Catholic priests are abusers. Priests are committed to celibacy. Therefore, the frustrations of celibate life led to abuse. Therefore, celibacy must be abolished.” He argued that most experts in sexual abuse of minors and children attribute CSA to a deep and incurable syndrome acquired early in life. Married priesthood won’t cure it. An abuser who marries is a married abuser (Greely, 2003).

These three clerical authors have rightly argued that clerical celibacy is not the direct cause of CSA in the RCC. Thus, abolishing celibacy for priests won’t stop the current clerical sexual misconduct. The obligatory celibacy is not the immediate cause of the CSA. They are right to say that celibacy does not produce pedophilia. But these authors were just responding to the view that simplifies a complex issue. This post argues that clerical celibacy is not the proximate and immediate cause of CSA but its main contributory factor for the persistence of CSA in the RCC, whether it involves minors or adolescents and adults both male and female. Celibacy provides diocesan clerics absolute privacy and deprives them of direct social control by family members if married priesthood is allowed in the Church which can greatly regulate priestly behavior and minimize opportunities for CSA. Pedophilia and child clerical sexual abuse could not be resolved by married priesthood but by a strict screening of candidates to the priesthood in the seminary and immediate dismissal from the clerical state for those guilty of cCSA.

abbey aisle altar arches
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The causes mentioned above by Fr. Martin only underscores the lack of lay participation in the internal affairs of the Church. The screening of candidates, downplaying, dismissal, or ignoring of clerical sexual crimes are not done by the laity but bishops who have the sole authority to discipline erring priests in the Church. Furthermore, the avoidance of scandal by covering up CSA cases as well as reliance on psychologists and psychiatrists are common patterns done by bishops and clerics and not by the laity who have no authority to deal with abusive priests.

Celibacy is not the proximate cause of sexual abuse but can be considered as its ultimate cause. But from the point of view law enforcement or behavioral control, celibacy hinders the wider regulation of clerical behavior by the laity which can minimize opportunities for sexual deviance. It ultimately prevents effective clerical behavior as it disables the laity to participate in the internal management of the Church and monitor clerical behavior to prevent sexual misconduct in the Christian community.

people in front of the cathedral
Photo by Kai Pilger on Pexels.com

The Catholic Church requires ordination which is inseparable to celibacy to participate in ecclesiastical governance. This celibacy requirement obstructs the genuine lay empowerment in the Church which can greatly minimize CSA. Celibacy is the main stumbling block to the laity’s capability, as Vatican II recognized the realm of “secular world” such as surveillance of behavior, as experts in secular affairs who can effectively supervise priestly behavior and sanction sexual abuse. It also facilitates absolute privacy for clerical life and, thus, prone to clerical deviance with the lack of active regulation of priestly behavior by the laity which constitutes 99.9 percent of the total Catholic population.

grayscale photo of people raising their hands
Photo by Shelagh Murphy on Pexels.com

CSA is usually done in absolute privacy with priests who are usually alone with their victims. Compared to the religious priesthood, diocesan priesthood lacks an immediate clerical community which can provide mutual support and direct monitoring of clerical behavior. Child sexual abuse by pedophile priests is only a small percentage of the total cases of clerical sexual abuses in which the most common type is sexual abuse is done heterosexual or homosexual priests against adolescents and adults, such as rapes of nuns by priests which is not the focus of the current clerical sexual abuse investigations and media reports. Thus, a married priesthood is the appropriate response to this type of sexual abuse as family life can provide direct supervision or behavioral control of clerical behavior.

Thank you for reading this blog. Follow this site for more updates.

Some Factors Why Clerical Abuse Persists in the Catholic Church

filipino GIF

1. Introduction

Why many cases of clerical abuse in the Catholic Church remained unresolved  is often attributed to the conspiracy of bishops, supervisory priests, and erring clerics. With this collusion, the reporting and prosecution of cases become difficult and tedious. Cover-up as well as mere transferring of assignment, instead of bringing the accused to justice, seem to be the common response of bishops in dealing with criminal abuse of secular priests such as sexual abuse. Cardinal Law who resigned as Archbishop of Boston on 11 April 2002, for instance, admitted that he just transferred pedophile priests to new parishes despite knowing that they are guilty [1]. Clerical abuse has caused scandals and severe damage to the Church not only spiritually but also financially. Dioceses in the United States, for example, have paid out more than US$2 billion in compensation claims. In July 2007 alone, the Los Angeles diocese paid out US$660 million to 500 victims. In Canada 81 victims at the Mount Cashel Orphanage were paid US$16 million in 2003[2]. Thus, one may ask: Why is clerical abuse persisting in the Catholic Church?

way GIF

2. Canonical Standards

someone debate GIF

The main legal normative standard in the Catholic Church is the Code of Canon Law. Canon law is the name for the law of the Catholic Church that includes the Code of Canon Law (CCL) and many other canonical documents issued by Popes, Roman Congregations, Bishops’ Conferences and Bishops. “Whereas moral, sacramental and even pastoral theology can only indicate what is fitting and proper conduct, leaving it to each faithful to make responsible use of his freedom to act accordingly” (Achacoso, 2010, p.188). But Canon Law is said to stipulate what is juridically binding and hence owed if not outright enforceable” (Ibid). However, most of the canonical provisions, unlike the state’s penal code, deal with church administration, general norms, hierarchical structure, institutes of consecrated life, and only a few concerning criminal offenses of the clergy such as sexual abuse of minors that require penal punishments.[3]

boy GIF

One of these provisions include canon 1395 of the 1983 CCL explicitly provides that sexual contact with a minor qualifies as one of four classifications of sexual offenses for which a priest may be permanently removed from the clerical state. The other three grounds include any form of coerced sex, a public offense against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, and continued open concubinage with a woman after an official warning. Permanent removal from the clerical state constitutes one of the most serious penalties contemplated by canon law. Canon 1389 of the 1983 Code also imposes a penalty including deprivation of ecclesiastical office, for bishops or officials who abuse church power or omit through culpable negligence to perform an act of ecclesiastical governance. “A bishop who fails to employ the appropriate provisions of canon law in a case of sexual abuse of a minor is liable to penal sanctions imposed by the Holy See” (Coughlin, 2003, p.980).

sad father maxi GIF by South Park

The penalties under CCL against clerical abuse are of two types: expiatory and medicinal. On the one hand, the expiatory penalties aim to deter offenders, to restore right order and to repair the harm caused to the community. They include removing a parish priest because of sexual abuse. Medicinal penalties, on the other hand, are aimed at reforming the offender. They include penalties such as excommunication, interdict, and suspension. Unless they are automatic penalties, the offender must be warned first and told if he carries out this action then he will be suspended (c. 1347) (Daly, 2009, p.34). An excommunication (c. 1331) is the harshest penalty in the Catholic Church. This means that the priest is cut off or expelled from the Church. This sanction is usually reserved for serious cases such as a priest marrying a woman in civil court without authority. An interdict (c.1332) is a medicinal censure that “prohibits a person from ministerial participation in and reception of the sacraments and sacramentals.” A suspension (c.1333) prohibits the clergy from “some or all acts of the power of orders” and the “power of governance,” (such as performing the sacraments or administering Church property), or from “some or all rights or functions attached to their offices” (such as witnessing marriage [4].

pope francis news GIF

Despite the strict provisions of some canons of CCL against clerical abuse, canonical penalties are only seen by the Church as a last resort when all other pastoral efforts to help the erring individual by warnings, instruction etc. have been exhausted and have failed (c. 1341). Pope Francis’ address to the Roman Rota, the Church ecclesiastical court, for instance, exhorted canon lawyers to consider, above all, mercy and compassion, when applying canonical sanctions to specific cases in the Church (Mckenna, 2015, p.19). This ecclesial attitude towards mercy rather than strict legality implies that the legal standard is not the absolute normative standard in the Church. It is then only one of the many normative criteria to consider when judging misbehavior of priests. Other non-canonical and informal ecclesial norms that do not prescribe penal sanctions must first be explored by bishop-judges or supervisory priests who are handling abuse cases before turning over abusive priests to the civil authority.

2. Non-Canonical Normative Standards

clouds building GIF by South Park

The Catholic Church as a complex religious institution in society does not only have a legal code but also a myriad of doctrinal, ethical, sacramental, and moral normative standards to judge orthodoxy of human acts and beliefs of church members and priests. It is also surrounded by a variety of the social and cultural norms of society which can influence ecclesiastical decision-making.

pbs digital studios GIF

In the absence of a professional judicial system, the varied and conflicting use and applications of the Church’s normative standards by bishops or church officials may not be always subject to judicial review. The CCL has given the bishops or local ordinaries vast discretionary powers in their dioceses to decide cases in their own jurisdictions. The Vatican seldom interferes in local cases unless these erupted into public scandals such as the sexual abuse of priests in the United States that attracted the attention of the Pope and Roman Curia.

Under this environment of normative pluralism, ecclesial investigators then encounter a multiplicity of normative considerations aside from the legal provisions of Code of the Canon Law (CCL), the legal code of the Church, in deciding canonical cases.[5] Legality is not the only criteria for the Church hierarchy in deciding cases, but also morality and, ultimately, the unity of the Church as one Body of Christ. “The Church’s response to clerical abuse undergirds the belief that criminal abuse by clergy should be sanctioned by the Church internally—if at all—in accordance with canonical commands of contrition and forgiveness, and not by civil authorities” (Logan, p. 321-321). The State’s version of legality is not the only standard for Church to judge clerical abuse.

priest GIF

Aside from the institutional concern of applying appropriate norms and sanctions to specific cases of clerical abuse, the Church also complies with society’s cultural norms and expectations concerning religious institutions. Thus, bishops face with a variety of normative criteria in deciding complex cases of clerical misbehavior. Although the CCL provisions are clear against clerical abuse, such as sexual abuse against minors, the bishops can choose from other religious and cultural normative standards to judge clerical abuse with the view of protecting the image of the Church in society, avoiding public scandals that undermine the moral authority of the Church in society.

GIF Credits: Giphy.com

References

[1] The Guardian.2010. “How the Boston Globe exposed the abuse scandal that rocked the Catholic Church”. Retrieved 3 May 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/21/boston-globe-abuse-scandal-catholic.

[2] Brendan Daly, “Sexual Abuse and Canon Law”, Compass Review 23, (4) (2009), 33. Retrieved 3May 2017, http://compassreview.org/summer09/5.pdf.

[3] Canon law is the of the Catholic Church. It includes the Code of Canon Law and many other canonical documents issued by Popes, Roman Congregations, Bishops’ Conferences and Bishops. The current ecclesiastical code in the Catholic Church is the Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church was promulgated on January 25,1983, and went into effect on the First Sunday of Advent that same year (Daly, 2009, p.33). In the Catholic Church, very few rules carry a penalty. Only those few actions that injure the life of the Church or seriously imperil the soul of the offender carry a penalty (King, 2011, p.13).

[4]“Canon 1395 of the 1983 of the 1983 CCL explicitly provide that sexual contact with a minor qualifies as one of four classifications of sexual offenses (the other three include any form of coerced sex, a public offense against the 6th commandment, continued open concubinage with a woman after an official warning) for which a priest may be permanently removed the clerical state (Coughlin, 2003, p.980).

[5] See Code of Canon Law. Available at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM.

[6] Canon Law, Crimes, and Fitting Punishments. Retrieved from http://www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/zfitpunish.HTM.