An article on the front page of the NY Times this morning detailed a report the Catholic church had put out as to the causes of all the recent molestation incidents.
Usually when I see an article about the scandal in the Catholic church on the front page of the Times, my instinctive sympathies go to the church. The Times has had an obvious vendetta against the church ever since John Paul II came out for Palestinian rights and Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territories. And whenever there is a scandal about a rabbi who molests children (and there have been several such), it never seems to make the front page of the Times.
But none of that negates the fact that a lot of priests are, in fact, child molesters. And that, frankly, will never change as long as priests are supposed to be unmarried and celibate.
The report just issued by the church today reportedly attributes the recent rash of molestations not to homosexuality within the priesthood nor to their celibacy, but rather to the backdrop of social upheaval in the 60's and 70's.
I hereby nominate that explanation as an entrant for the Lame Excuse Hall of Fame. It deserves to be enshrined next to that of the child molester who once said about a six year old girl, "Hey, she seduced me!"
There's nothing like an incredibly lame excuse to expose someone's -- or some institution's -- true character.
My feeling is that the Catholic church has always been a bastion of both homosexuality and child molestation (and no, I'm not confusing the two). What else could it possibly be given its strictures? The only difference is that the situation has become public recently in this media-driven, confessional age. There has also been a lot of publicity attendant on the fact that it is not a shameful thing to have been the victim of such when young, and this healthy development has encouraged a lot of victims to speak out.
The fact that the church has turned a blind eye to such molestation and has merely shuttled around the priests who have been caught makes one think that such predilections must reach high up into the organization. After all, the church hierarchy is composed of like-minded men, who have taken similar vows of abstinence and foregone marriage, and started out as regular priests. The only difference is, the higher ups have been more skilled at climbing the "corporate" ladder, which means they probably have even lower character.
Usually a Times article leaves me wanting to say, "Bless me Father, for I have sinned -- I have read the New York Times."
This morning's article makes me want to add, "But I don't think you're someone whose blessing I'd want."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
John, Yes, you have to question the New York Times' decision to put the story on the front page. But after reading that article, I wasn't sure whether I had lost more respect for John Jay College, which conducted the study, or the Catholic Church itself. The conclusions were ridiculous. I'm left to wonder whether the Church has learned anything from this scandal. Julie
Julie --
You're right. All the church wants to do is cover up the scandal and have things get back to "normal," with priests once again operating under cover of darkness, doing as they please.
Post a Comment