Catholic Sensibility

Not everybody agrees with me on this. But yesterday's report on Philadelphia priest sex abusers plus some commentary on the abusers who circumvented "orientation purity" of archdiocesan seminarians post-1988 probably supports my theory. 1. People who molest children or seduce adolescents possess a psycho-sexual pathology that surpasses (if not overpowers) their sexual orientation. 2. Such perpetrators are addicts. Perping is out of control. Their addiction is a powerful and irresistable brew combining sex and power. 3. The hierarchical nature of the Church tends to attract and support people addicted to power, regardless of their sexual orientation or their sexual acting out. 4. For a religious victim, there is no greater power to be wielded than over one's spiritual life. And for many, there is no more powerful spiritual figure than the parish priest. 5. Not only do addicts groom their victims, but they also groom their co-dependents. They use charm to con their friends, supporters, loved ones, peers, and superiors. There are no "uncharming" addicts, only creeps. And no one is safe from being charmed. Cardinal Bevilacqua is probably not a criminal. But he is probably a co-dependent dupe. 6. The suave ones are creeps, too, of course, but they cultivate an air that makes it easy to blind others to their dysfunction, their creep-dom, if you will. If you take the training materials of VIRTUS or other programs seriously, you will begin to recognize the signs of abusive behavior. Prefer an alternative? Fine. Go to Al-Anon. Listen to the stories and you'll get a bead on the creeps soon enough. 7. The much bally-hooed ban on homosexual seminarians is a diversion. No more. The Church has the power to do this, obviously, but it only diverts serious attention from the core problem. Not all priest perps are homosexual, but virtually all of them are power addicts who use sex and other inappropriate means to dominate and control their victims. Address the root addiction (power, not sex) and we'll see some action. If the institutions of the Church are serious about addressing the problem of sexual misbehavior and abuse, they will need to approach the problem from the viewpoint of addiction, not moral misbehavior. A ban on gay seminarians is laughable for sex perps. Real perps will charm their way past the admissions board, the seminary administration, their spiritual directors, their classmates, and their bishop. Be they gay or straight sex addicts, they will cultivate a surface appearance of charm and talent, leaving mostly admirers in their wake. Simple gay guys who have no sexual attraction to minors will either compromise their integrity or they will simply not apply. It would not surprise me to learn that sexual predators would be in favor of the ban on homosexuals, or actively supported it. Why? Addicts consider themselves above the rules. Such a ban would not apply to them anyway. The excitement of the "forbidden" is even intensified by such obstacles. Take it from a person who has a family of origin flush with booze and the effects thereof. None of the Church's sex or cover-up scandals shocks or surprises me. It hasn't for twenty years. And if we continue heading in the current direction, neither will it surprise me that the scandals will continue. And not only that, efforts to prevent future scandal will continue along the same co-dependent lines as today: allow ourselves to be charmed by the guilty so as to scapegoat the innocent. That is, unless Catholics collectively wake up and see the underweared emperor in our midst and call him out. I don't see a reasonable alternative.