Church Question

A friend asked me a question the other day. It was prompted by the Vatican releasing a statement last week about the sex-abuse of children, where the blame was placed squarely on the shoulders of gay priests. Link here.
He stated (rightly) that in his understanding, same-sex sexual abuse isn’t about being gay and he wanted to know if there was any evidence that most of the priests who molested these young boys were gay. My response:

I think it’s more of an issue of shame, impotence (sexual and institutional), and psychological repression. Many priests are caught in the middle. Gay? Maybe. But more importantly, the glaring and unspoken issue for me is this: What goes through the mind of a man who (ostensibly or obviously) cares for people, in order to justify the systematic dismembering of a child’s innocence, and what is its cause? The church seems uninterested in that question.

There has never really been a healthy attitude about sex in the church -to my mind, nor a realistic one.
As an example: the genuine experience of hundreds of thousands of LGBT human beings has been dramatically shelved in favor of principle- an argument that only makes sense if the church isn’t really very interested in the experience of human beings in the first place. They’re mainly interested in, as demonstrated historically, a scapegoat to draw attention away from (sadly) institutional inefficiency and insufficient care for persons.

Gay orientation may play a small role in sexual abuse, but from what I understand, it’s more of a disease of repression: repressed anger, frustration, etc.- emotions that the church has done little to address, by the way- not of sexual orientation. And with the guilt and shame being created by more forceful suppression, it’s not going to get any better

One comment on “Church Question

  1. Kyndra says:

    Having been part of a survivors of molestation support group, and sharing experiences with others there, I learned that in many cases of male on male molestation from my generation it was not so much a case that the perpetrator was gay, but that boys are an easier, less protected target. The double standard of the time was that little girls were regarded as delicate and precious and therefore people would rush to prosecute when a pedophile touches a little girl, but less so with little boys. Also, boys can more easily be made out as trouble makers if and when the perp has to obfuscate to avoid prosecution.


Comments are closed.