My first thought was great, here we go with some RC bashing, but I was pleasantly surprised by the cover article for Maclean's magazine with the title The Truth About Priests. Yes it does point out the abysmal failure of the Roman Catholic church worldwide to address sexual abuse. And it asks lots of tough questions about the way the church has functioned and still does. But it points out that studies in the United States show at the worst of this terrible scandal somewhere between two and four percent of Roman Catholic priests were abusers. Now, this is two to four percent too many, but it also tells us that between ninety six and ninety eight percent were not involved in abuse.
We do tend to hold clergy to higher standards, in part because of their positions of trust and also because they are seen as representatives of a God of love, justice, and compassion. The violation of these principles is shocking and unacceptable. But the article notes that there is no evidence that being a priest, either gay or straight, puts a person at greater risk or propensity for being a sex offender.
As I have said before, I have been outraged by the revelations of violation of trust, yet I have been associated with priests who are hard working, much loved by parishioners, and committed followers of Jesus Christ. They have suffered from the infidelity of colleagues, and can say or do little in their own defense.
Think about it. There has been a rash of violations of trust by female teachers in recent years (a small percentage of men have been at it for a long time.) In the state of Florida there have been a number of high-profile cases involving women teachers and teen boys which has left officials bewildered. While this is statutory rape, I'm sure that there hasn't been a call for an end to female teachers, nor would it occur to us that all women teachers violate their codes of conduct, and the laws of the jurisdictions in which they live.
One thing is certainly true: sexual abuse is "soul murder," as one survivor chillingly puts it. How have you processed these disturbing revelations? How are clergy different from others in your opinion?
4 comments:
For me anyone in a postition of power is held to a higher standard or accounting of their actions/behavior- elected government officials, police officers, judges, doctors, nurses, lawyers, ministers, teachers, or even volunteers who work with the vunerable.
As for how do I handle the bad news - I don't assume that one person represents the whole profession,(although I am very cynical about elected officials) I offer up prayers for all the people involved and affected by the situation, and I rexamine my own actions/behaviours for ways that could be harmful/hurtful to/of others. One of my favorite children's stories is asking children to point to something and showing them that when they point to something that there are 3 fingers pointing towards themselves.
Clergy are different because faith is such a personal experience.It sits at the very core of an individual. It's vital in a way that nothing else is. Clergy are supposed to offer a kind of bridge or at least point in the direction of God. They are our guides. If the bridge you are counting on collaspes it's your faith that has been tampered with.
As this whole Tiger Woods fiasco has unfolded, it has been interesting to read the many viewpoints discusssing celebrity accountability. Some have said that at no point did Mr. Wood "preach" about fidelity etc. I suppose his "squeaky clean" appearance lead many of us to believe, or want to believe, he was a good guy, and in all ways deserving of his huge success. Others ,though, say when he accepted huge endorsements, flowing from his hero status, he does become accountable...
I guess the hard part when the clergy go wrong in this way, is that they have in fact preached to their congregations about good, Christian living. They have willingly accepted a leadership role, and continue on in that role even when trouble begins. They are living a lie which betrays their faith, and feels like a betrayal to followers of that faith.
The clergy are human with all the good and bad that goes with being human. Yes, we do expect more good from them undoubtedly, than from your average "Joe". I suppose we really expect preachers to practise what they preach.
All of you suggest that the role of clergy is a high calling and despite human fallibility there is a standard based on trust which is different from others, even though we have high expectations of those in positions of authority.
I would have to agree. There is a document called Ethical Standards and Standards of Practice for Ministry Personnel in the United Church of Canada which was finalized last year. You might look at it and see whether it fits with your expectations. Actually living up to this is another matter.
Post a Comment