Pedophilia, Female Priests and a Pro-Lives Ethic
by: Amanda Udis-Kessler on July 16th, 2010 | 23 Comments »
St. Peter's Basilica; photo by Myrabella
As part of its announcement about new laws disciplining child-abuser priests, the Vatican revealed yesterday that it would treat child abuse by priests and the ordination of women to the priesthood as equally grievous offenses against the Catholic Church. Also included in the list of offenses at this level, by the way, are heresy, apostasy and schism.
Moreover, survivor advocate groups have indicated that the new laws on disciplining pedophile priests are not substantial enough to address the problem at its root, that they are a “tweaking” rather than the deep change truly needed.
Spiritual and religious progressives may well find both of these outcomes disturbing, heartbreaking, and infuriating. For feminists and others who support women in the priesthood, the cause for pain and anger is clear; similarly so for survivors of priestly pedophilia. But I think we can go even farther and say that both the Vatican’s refusal to overhaul the disciplinary rules and its comparison of pedophilia to women priests share a common moral failing: neither outcome is based on a pro-lives ethic.
A pro-lives ethic differs in some ways from a pro-life ethic as traditionally understood. A pro-life ethic takes the principle of life and holds it up above the many messy realities of our lived existence. Pro-life ethics come with various levels of stringency, of course, but a common element of the pro-life ethos with regard to abortion (for example) is that the life of the mother-to-be ideally should not be prioritized over the life of the child-to-be. They are, in some sense, of equal value and worth despite the fact that the mother-to-be already has a life in the world, already is deeply caught in the web of interrelation and mutuality, already laughs and works and worries.
In contrast, a pro-lives ethic focuses on people whose bodies, minds and spirits encounter the world now as they go through their days. A pro-lives ethic intends for actual, already-born human beings to live lives of great flourishing rather than being broken by the world’s thousand meannesses and injustices. It’s not inconsequential whether or not people live happily and well. In fact, it is precisely as religious and spiritual progressives that we are committed to the thriving of people and other living beings.
A pro-lives ethic is suspicious of principles, abstractions, and institutions, and challenges them when they do not support human and planetary well-being. Principles frequently lead to bloodshed. Abstractions distract us from the real people who share our lives. Institutions, necessary to solve large-scale societal problems, can become invested in their own power and continuation at human expense. It’s not that principles, abstractions, and institutions are not human creations, and it’s not that they are always problematic. But when we let them get away from us, when we allow them to calcify and ossify and we take them for granted, we are not hewing close to a pro-lives ethic.
For those of us who consider ourselves pro-lives in the sense described above, the Vatican’s double announcement fails the pro-lives criterion on both counts. No one would claim that priestly child sexual abuse is pro-lives, but arguably neither is the Vatican’s decision that bishops need not report such abuse to civil authorities (for example). This decision sends a message (intended or not) that pedophilia by priests is not heinous enough to warrant addressing by secular as well as churchly authorities. It can also be read as the church protecting itself as an institution over and above the well-being of the survivors.
The Vatican’s decision to equate the ordination of women with priestly pedophilia similarly misses the pro-lives mark. Women with a call to serve, and with the gifts to serve, are already turned away. The Catholic Church was still woefully short of priests, last I checked. Whether or not one agrees that women have a “right” to serve as priests (political language that some may see as orthogonal to the language of religion), it is surely true that allowing women to serve as priests would benefit both the parishioners and the women themselves. All of them would grow spiritually, and many Catholic parishes might flourish as spiritual and religious communities where they are struggling now. These outcomes strike me as pro-lives. To not merely continue the ban on women priests but to equate the ordination of women with acts that involve sexual violence and the misuse of authority, and that cause emotional trauma, seems to me the height of an anti-lives ethos. It is not about thriving. It is not about well-being. It is not about what religion at its best can offer the world.
Do you think religious and spiritual progressives tend to share what I’ve described as a “pro-lives” ethic? What else might that mean to you? And what do you think of the Vatican’s announcement?
(A note to any Catholics reading this: I mean no insult to your faith. Many Catholics disagree with the Vatican on a range of issues. If you agree with the Vatican on this one, I must respectfully disagree with you.)
I was a spiritual and strong catholic until the age of 15 – I even planned to become nun. At fifteen my catholic girl’s school had a combined mass with the catholic boy’s school nearby. At this mass I was struck by the participation of the males, and the non-participation of the females. When I asked myself whether this would be what Christ intended when he established his Church, my answer came back “No” – Christ believed in and supported Natural Justice. At that moment I became non-practicing (my faith would be between me and God from then on) and at 30 became an atheist.
However since then, I have always seen the Catholic Church as necessary along with the other faiths, and respect all religions.
Now I believe it is just as you say: Institutions …. can become invested in their own power and continuation at human expense. The pity of it is is that the Church does so much to directly contradict Chist’s teachings (I still follow his philosophy athiest or not). Unfortunately, as well, I do not think the Church has really understood the Parable about the garden – the person who was praised was the one who tended it improved on it, not the one who kept it exactly the same!
There is now no way that anyone can convince me that the Pope is inspired by God.
Warm thanks for your thoughts, Stephanie. Very powerful.
Thank you for a wonderful and thought provoking article. I was also raised a Catholic but left the church in my early twenties to come out as a gay man. I am appalled by this latest pronouncement by the Vatican and am glad I voted with my feet and pocketbook years ago! I joined the Unitarian Universalists and have just become a UU minister because I believe our progressive faith as UUs is about pro-lives. In affirming the inherent worth and dignity of every person, we promote the idea that every human being should not only live a life that flourishes, but is entitled to do so. But it is not enough to merely believe this. We must also answer our ultimate call to work for justice and peace in the world, which includes challenging institutions, governments, principles, anything that does not promote life but destroys it. Isn’t that ultimately what Jesus did, which cost him his life? I am deeply challenged and inspired by your article and if I may, I’d like to use your concept of pro-lives for a sermon.
Well, Steven, what a marvelous and inspiring response! I could not agree more about your comments on Jesus or justice. I start seminary in two weeks (eek!) to pursue UU community ministry. You are welcome to use the concept of pro-lives for a sermon. I’ve already done so (I’ve been preaching for years), and if you are interested in seeing my sermon before you write yours, please let me know and I will get you the sermon. Of course, no need if you want to start from scratch – but I would be grateful for having my name connected to the concept, at least for now. Peace, Amanda
I appreciate the article very much. As a convert to Catholicism, I did not give up my right to independent thinking based on morality which is open and accepting. I believe pro-lives includes not just the issue of abortion (I believe a woman’s right to choose should be sacred) but every aspect of life from birth to death. The idea that the Vatican would equate women priests with pedophilia is unconscionable and is unsupportable in my view. I know many Catholics who think as I do, and feel the Vatican is out of touch with humanity and can be ignored when such opinions such as this are issued by the Pope. I was raised a Methodist and I came to Catholicism out of a love for its history and traditions, but with open eyes to the many flaws. I seek to forgive those flaws and remain a Catholic, at least for now.
Joanna, thanks for writing. I appreciate hearing from a Catholic for whom the ideas in the post make sense. May your Catholicism bring you deep joy. Peace, Amanda
Amanda,
I appreciate where you’re coming from n your discussion of general moral principles, but I fear you move too much to the opposite extreme.
You write:
>>Principles frequently lead to bloodshed. Abstractions distract us from the real people who share our lives. Institutions, necessary to solve large-scale societal problems, can become invested in their own power and continuation at human expense. It’s not that principles, abstractions, and institutions are not human creations, and it’s not that they are always problematic.<<
On the other hand, rejection of principles because of situational considerations often leads to bloodshed as well. In fact, it is arguable that this is more commonly the case.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as well as other religions, all established moral principles for the use of force, especially in war. People talk about the Inquisition and religious wars, but the 20th century was the bloodiest century on record– and for each incident of genocide or wartime atrocity, one can identify the adherence to a utilitarian or situational ethics that acted as a rationalization for breaking from traditional "just war" ethics.
For example, dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki radically contradicted "just war" principles. These say that (1) one cannot deliberately target civilians, and (2) the use of force must be proportionate to the acts of aggression committed by the opponent. US nuclear attacks violated both of those principles. But the US gov't thought it was justified to do so, because they believed that continuing to prosecute the war by conventional means would lead to much larger numbers of casualties.
Whether those calculations were accurate is one thing. But we can say that there have been enormous consequences from that decision, which on balance nullify it even from a utilitarian consideration. The longer term consequence of 1945 was a cold war, nuclear proliferation, and the very real possibility that the whole of human life might be annihilated by accident. The US and the Russian Federation still have nuclear missiles aimed at each other. Even if we avoid thermonuclear war, a regional nuclear war in the Middle East or South Asia would still be catastrophic.
We could have avoided all of this if the US govt had adhered to the general moral principles of traditional Western ethics. Why didn't they? This brings us to the one of the strongest arguments for believing that some moral principles are absolute.
We often find ourselves in urgent or emergency situations in which we face tremendous pressure to take dramatic actions that contradict moral principles. The US was under tremendous pressure in the war in the Pacific in WWII. The pressure of these situations can distort our thinking, and prevent us from considering the long-term consequences of our actions It is precisely because moral principles have a general or "abstract" character that they can restrain us. We can see that they are true when we enjoy peace and leisure, and they can hold us together when times of crisis overwhelm us.
Jason, I see your point. I suppose I might argue, however, that the example you cite (in all its detail) is the single best “exception that proves the rule.” Virtually all of the other violence of the century that I can think of was principle-driven, rejected a “pro-lives ethic” (because it involved ethnocentrism or antisemitism or was about political gain or…), or both. At their best, moral principles do hold us together in times of crisis and clarify their value in times of peace and leisure; I thought I was pretty clear to say that a pro-lives ethic is “suspicious” of abstract principles and that it only rejected them when they were clearly leading to suffering, (Perhaps I should have said, “unnecessary suffering” in the original post.)
All of that said, even during times of peace and leisure it is morally necessary to examine whether everyone in a society is flourishing or whether members of some groups are oppressed. Some people still see the 1950s as a perfect example of “peace and leisure” for the US (arms race notwithstanding, which I admit is a pretty big “notwithstanding”). I look at the 1950s and see racism, sexism and homophobia, among other things. I also see a nervewracking amount of strong-handed socialization (check out the book “Moral Hygiene”).
So- delighted to have someone write in with a disagreement, and thank you for helping me clarify my thoughts further, for better or worse.
Cheers, Amanda
Amanda,
I’m grateful for this chance at dialogue, also.
The rise of nuclear weapons is part of a broader trend in the 20th century that broke with the moral traditions of the Abrahamic religions.
Judaism, Islam and Christianity all teach that the ends do not justify the means. They all teach that, when we pursue certain goals, we must observe certain moral parameters, which have an absolute quality. (As the Qur’an says on the use of force, “Do not transgress the limits…”) Chief among these is the categorical imperative to never deliberately kill a civilian in war. Classical liberalism built upon this idea that human beings cannot be treated as mere instruments to means. The movements against torture, slavery, sexism, etc all built upon this. A good statement is Immanuel Kant’s description of society as a “kingdom of ends;” i.e., each human being is an end in her/-himself. This continued to be carried over by atheists and agnostics, such as George Orwell.
Starting in the 19th century, and accelerating in the 20th, there is the growing public acceptance that the end can justify the means– that any action can be justified, so long as it looks like it could achieve a public policy goal such as the victory of democracy, socialist revolution, etc. So, in the World Wars, various nations believed they could do anything necessary to achieve victory, and no on one protested.
In the 20th century, different sides have used “principles” such as ethnocentrism, nationalism and anti-Semitism. But these are not principles comparable to “do not target civilians.” The latter are categorical imperatives guiding action– regardless of he social identity of who does the action, and who suffers it. 20th century “isms” are often simply prejudices that say one part of humanity has more of a right to justice and good treatment than another part– which violates one of the basic principles underlying traditional morals: all people are created equal.
Jason, you are absolutely right here. The challenge for me is that I can’t simply take up “traditional morals” whole cloth. Parts of the Hebrew Bible describe early Jews as experiencing a Godly call to kill members of other tribes. Both Hebrew Bible and Christian Testament have fomented some of the worst racism, sexism and homophobia known to humanity. I find a tremendous amount of wisdom in the Bible, and am profoundly inspired by the story of Jesus. The Abrahamic religions have much to teach people about love, compassion, generosity, and so on. But the traditions are mixed blessings. Sometimes they are pro-lives, sometimes not. When they are, I am very grateful for them. But when, for example, Paul (supposedly) claims that he suffers a woman not to preach (despite the fact that there is evidence of female deacons in the early church), we get back to the point of my original post here; the Catholic Church has used this material to reject women’s experienced calls to the priesthood. It does no dishonor to all that is good and lifegiving about the Abrahamic traditions to acknowledge that there are life-denying elements in them. That said, we may just need to agree to disagree here – not sure yet.
The Catholic church is equating the ordination of women as grevious a sin as pedophillia – the mind boggles. If women are going to be shown as much respect and protection by the church as the pedaphiles have been shown in the past then perhaps it’s a step in the right direction for women.
Awesome response, Ingrid. Thanks for including it. And thanks for reading my blog. Best, Amanda
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-somerville/female-priests-as-sinful_b_649802.html
Fabulous post, Michele. Thanks for sharing it here. Peace, Amanda
Equating pedophilia with ordaining women as priests and the treatment of women by the governing religious ultraorthodox in Israel makes me wonder how these highest levels of Catholicism and Judaism can condemn Sharia law.
Good point! I had not been thinking comparatively, but that makes sense. Thanks for writing.
For a bunch of smart men, there are some major jackasses in Rome. Conflating the two issues may be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. I’m a trained theologian and I find it embarrassing. I just wish the people in charge had the grace to be embarrassed themselves.
Thanks for writing, Karen. What’s your focus in theology, what’s your denomination, etc.? I am about to start seminary and for a sociologist to deal head-on with theology is a little scary!
Amanda, Thank you for this insightful piece. I am currently running for Assembly in Calif. and have been working on how to address the abortion issue, should it come up in a candidate forum. I would very much like to cite your ideas and will credit you in the process if that is ok with you. The “pro-lives” approach will spur people to think more thoroughly and not just follow the knee jerk reactions we’ve all been conditioned to perform.
Linda, thank you for writing in, and I am totally honored. Please feel free to cite me and the idea if it becomes necessary. Also, if you are interested, I’ve preached on this topic and could email you the sermon if you found a way to provide me a regular email address. (For various reasons, I don’t post my email address here, but if you can provide one…)
Good luck with your assembly race, Amanda
Amanda, yes, please do send me a copy of your sermon. Thank you. lindap_a@verizon.net
With such Hebrews 6:6 “We crucify Christ afresh and put Christ to an open shame” example in our midst; let us remember Archdiocese of Denver Bishop George Roche Evans (1922-1985) who called for the ordination of women; opened the doors of Denver St Thomas Seminary for women to receive the same Canonical Degree as the Males; and died of colon cancer from the PTSD those living Hebrews 6:6 inflicted upon him.
After 88 years St Thomas was closed; reopened four years later with the first Opus Dei Bishop (from Mexico) in America – and no women candidates for the priesthood.
The War Widows
Wheat Ridge Colorado
That is very powerful, Chaplain Murphy. Thanks for posting it. Peace, Amanda