Vatican City, Dec 13, 2019 / 03:00 pm (CNA).- A senior official at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has defended clerical celibacy in the wake of the abuse crisis.
In an essay published in a Spanish magazine, Fr. Jordi Bertomeu Farnós said that there is “no evidence” celibacy has any relation to instances of sexual abuse, and warned that priests have been unfairly branded a suspect class.
In the essay, published in Palabra Dec. 10, Fr. Farnós laid out the context of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, noting that the high-profile nature of the scandals has resulted in a number of mistaken presumptions about the causes of abuse.
“Although unfortunately, in all social classes, professions, ethnic groups and, of course, religions, there is the phenomenon of child abuse, Catholic priests are seen or even increasingly treated as ‘suspects’ of having committed this horrible crime.”
Speaking against attempts to link the discipline of celibacy to crimes of sexual abuse, Farnós said that “regardless of other circumstances and arguments that have emerged in the recent Synod for the Amazon,” “this conclusion does not present any logical connection with the problem we are dealing with here: there is no scientific data that demonstrates that a married life would put an end to the deviant behavior of these few priests with this sexual disorder.”
“There is no evidence that priestly celibacy directly causes any deviant sexual addiction, as evidenced by those cases of men or women who, due to life’s circumstances, must live as celibate.”
“In addition,” he added, “celibacy has never been considered as a relevant parameter to identify abusers. Rather, most abusers are married men. Priests, mostly celibate men are… usually characterized precisely for their psychological balance, for their availability and selfless delivery to all, not only to the Catholic faithful.”
Farnós went on to offer a strident defence of the discipline of celibacy which, he said, was often unintelligible to modern society.
“According to some, in a sexually uninhibited and eroticized society… with numerous cases of addiction to all kinds of pornography and sexual deviations or paraphilias, priestly celibacy would be a pernicious life option,” he said.
According to this mindset, Farnós argued, celibacy is only recognized as “perpetual self-censorship of sexual desire,” and must lead to “psychological problems related to immaturity” that result in pedophilia.
“If the experience of celibacy has always been countercultural,” Farnós says, today it is “even more” so.
“Our society needs many young people to show everyone the goodness of living a true, chaste and free love. Living the consecration as ‘anointing’ and not simply ‘function’ encourages everyone, particularly those who have received the marriage vocation, to surrender without fainting despite daily difficulties,” he said.
“Priests are called, therefore, to surrender with a totalizing love to be ‘signs’ of a more real love than any utopia.”
Pointing to other examples of institutions rocked by abuse scandals, Fernós said that attempts to link celibacy to abuse lacked evidence.
“The data offered by other Christian and non-Christian churches, without celibate sacred ministers, belies that claim,” he said, pointing to the example of the Unity Church of Australia, which has 240,000 members, no hierarchy, and which elects married male and female clergy, but has recently made headlines for 2,500 cases of child abuse.
“Contrast such data with the Catholic Church, with 466,000 priests and 6,000 cases reported to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” he said.
In the essay, Farnós pointed out that while the vast majority of cases of sexual abuse occur in the family, no one draws the conclusion that family members are ipso facto prone to abuse.
“If 73% of sexual abuse of minors seems to occur in the family environment, it cannot be affirmed that ‘being a father or being a mother predisposes to abuse,’” he said.
Farnós said that media coverage of the scandals had rightly highlighted the seriousness of all cases, but given rise to “certain statements destined to provoke the social panic and discredit of the Church, unfairly stigmatizing the social group of the clergy.”
Noting that the CDF has received approximately 6,000 cases of abuse world-wide, “an excessive number that shames us as Christians and particularly as priests,” Farnós said that priest account for only 3% of abuse cases reported to civil authorities.
“In the last two decades, we have attended with pain, particularly in some regions of the Catholic world, to an unworthy, improper, inconsiderate and even vexatious treatment of priests for the mere fact of [their] being [priests],” he said, pointing to “irresponsible” coverage of clerical abuse by the media.
The CDF official did, however, acknowledge that the vast majority of sexual abuse cases in the Church, some 80%, involve men preying on boys or young men, but warned against drawing any causal link between homosexuality as an orientation and a disposition to abuse.
Despite what Farnós called “certain ultraconservative ideological positions,” the data available to the CDF showed that “there is no direct relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia or between the latter and a ‘progressive style’ of clergy.”
“Affirming the direct connection of homosexuality with pedophilia from the data […] not only involves the commission of a great injustice, but also the criminalization of a certain sexual identity,” Farnós said, while at the same time observing that cultures of active homosexuality were a contributing factor to sexual abuse.
“It is […] possible to affirm that a certain homosexual subculture typical of some clerical groups and present in certain seminars or novitiates, with the consequent tolerance towards active homosexual behaviors, can lead to pedophilia.”
These, Fornós said, “deserve greater attention from pastors, who have the pastoral and disciplinary means to invite [clerics] by example, the word and even coercion to a chaste life that does not pose a danger or scandal for the priest himself and for the Church.”
Offering his own reflections on preventing future abuse, he said that bishops need to focus on the selection of candidates for the priesthood, moving away from “a superficial predisposition to welcome all,” and identifying men “capable of living loneliness as a moment of grace and maturation, integrating aggressiveness and maintaining healthy relationships with adult people for a long time.”
“We should insist on candidates for ministry [suitable for] their future public and social role,” he said.
“They will be moral reference points and, therefore, should be exercised from the first moment of their formation in great self-control, with the aim of never scandalizing or even moving anyone away from the faith, the great gift that sustains us.”
[…]
If the Pope gets to decide from afar, what role in worship does the local Ordinate have? Does he just enforce the dictates of the Pope or does he not have a say over the manner in which his flock engages Our Lord in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? I understand he has charge over catechesis, confirmation and ordination; but, does he not also form the conscience of the flock under his care? I feel pity for any Bishop who wishes to grow his flock, instill right worship and true devotion and ONLY have one tool in his tool chest with with to accomplish his task: the NO Missae of Paul VI.
Every bishop of a diocese is a successor to an apostle and is sole the sole authority in his diocese. No bishop or Pope can in anway impose their personal views or opinions on any bishop/apostle of a diocese. Pope Francis is going way beyond his role as the successor of Peter.
There can be honest disagreement about the direction in which PF is leading the Church, but this tendency to micro-manage the bishops is surely unsettling to the liberal mind.
Fortunately, in my diocese we are ignoring Traditionis Custodes. And should things get uglier after April 3, plans are already being made to continue with the TLM with a diocesan priest and a real church location. The octogenarian modernists have already lost. They just don’t realize it yet, so blinded are they by envy and hate.
You’re a schismatic. Your bishop does not have the authority to ignore TC. Stop making an idol out of the TLM and start being Catholic.
Dear Friend,
When was the last time you attended a solemn high mass? When was the last time you knelt at the altar of the communion rail to receive Our Lord and do your part to finalize the oblation? When did you last gaze at the pews full of well dressed, well behaved young people, sitting with their (many) siblings and parents attentively “assisting” in the holy offering? Tell me, Friend, when did you last walk into a Catholic Church and NOT fear trampling on the precious body of Our Lord and savior? Every piece, every fraction, every fragment is the WHOLE of His body. He gets handed out like a carnival ticket in the NO Missae. I’ve seen fragments get trampled, or nearly so, because of insensitive, haughty and arrogant, modernist “Catholics” who don’t even believe in the Real Presence. The abuses are plain scandalous and shocking. Do a deep dive this Lent like I did 2 years ago when my local NO priest shut us out of the church for fear of a cold virus. Seek out that which you condemn and go. Study the counsel and its deeply jaded and nefarious players. Start with Michael Davies. He’s a good place to start. God bless. Don’t condemn. God is at the TLM. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT.
Right, Mr. Tabish. Turning my back on the NO in 2018, I’ve never looked back except to lament the loss of God’s people still stuck there.
Scooter is correct. Pope Francis’ order may be mean-spirited, it may be vicious, it may be malevolent, it may be intended to damage the church–but it is also unquestionably lawful and proper for the pope to approve or disapprove of any liturgical format he sees fit, whether from worthy or unworthy motives. He may have adopted a double standard in dealing with the heterodox, whom he favors, and the orthodox, whom he detests. It does not matter. A lawful order is a lawful order. It doesn’t have to be nice. It doesn’t have to please our sensibilities in order to demand our obedience. Francis has as much right to suppress the TLM as Pope St. Pius V did to suppress many pre-Trenten liturgies, which he did do at the same time he issued the prototype of the Tridentine Mass. If Francis were to order bishops and priests to hold church “weddings” for same-sex couples, that order would have to be defied because it would be an unlawful, immoral order which seeks to overturn the natural law, something no man or woman can do, least of all the pope. But this does not do that. It has been said by some saints that Christ values obedience to the lawful exercise of proper church authority by duly empowered actors above all else, regardless of whether that authority is exercised in a wise or kind manner. Perhaps this is a test of obedience to and by Christ. If so, then anyone who counsels defiance of the order is failing that test. “Scooter Toloody” has said what needs to be said. Francis has as much right to crack down on the TLM as Benedict did to widen its use.
Actually it is not lawful. Read the documents of VII and consult a Canon Lawyer.
Mr. Norton, if you care to read Pius V’s document Quo Primum you will quickly conclude that Pope Francis does not have the legal authority to dispense with the TLM. It is very clear.
It is an unlawful order. The Pope does not own the Church. It is not his possession or plaything. He is charged with preserving the Church, instructing the Church in Truth, not in falsehoods. By your logic, the Pope would be within his authority to outlaw the praying of the rosary. This is extent that papolatry has reached in our era.
Bishops chose to ignore the Vatican regarding the blessing of same sex relationships, yet no one screams schism at them. Communion on the hand was banned by the Vatican, but many Bishops ignored that too. The latin mass was never banned, indeed it can never be banned as the Trent declared an anathema on anyone, including a Pope who alters or bans it.
When the Holy See is schismatic, how can defiance of its anti-canonical actions be schismatic? Not everyone idolizes clown and tango Masses like Francis, nor do they value his mendacity.
How rigid of you!.
Just like Our Lord asks of we Eye pluckers. Love your satire.
Not concerned about the pronouncements of Pope Scooter.
What is significant about April 3″
Rumours abound that on that date there will be issued tighter still restrictions on the TLM.
But go to the Rorate Caeli website where it is strongly averred that PF is losing interest in the liturgy war.
Pope Francis has also confirmed, through his lack of any disciplinary actions taken against the ‘dirty schism’ German Bishops, that if you want to perform immoral acts in the Catholic Mass, go to a Progressive Catholic Church in Germany to do so. Pope Francis confirms that you do not need any Vatican permission to do so.
For crying out loud, it’s time for traditional Catholics to practice the same manner of noncompliance that the DemoCatholics already do to support abortion, same-sex deviancy and whatever other demon driven things they allow for.
Scooter Toloody,
Name-calling… the blunt instrument of thoughtless, last ditch argument. Your judgmental and mean-spirited posting is perfectively representative of Pope Francis and his ilk. Congratulations. A little charity ( and humility) on your part would go a long way.
I suggest you follow Mr. Tabish’s soul-saving advice and get to know that which you condemn. I pray for you to find peace of soul.
Is the letter of Pope Francis’, Guardian of Tradition, a magistrial teaching or simply his personal view point as regards the latin liturgy? Clarification is needed in order to stop all the disunity that is prevailing by this issue.
There can be honest disagreement about the direction in which PF is leading the Church, but this tendency to micro-manage the bishops is surely unsettling to the liberal mind.
What previous generations considered sacred remains sacred and can not be abrogated. The problem within the church is the laity are informed of the dubious formation of the Novus ordo, and the manipulation by its designer (Fr.Bugnini). Young Catholics are attracted to the consistent celebration of the tlm, and the spiritual depth of its customs. Young priests are attracted to its direction of prayers to the sacrifice of Christ to the heavenly Father. The Vatican must be aware of the abuses within the N.O, and foster with the bishops an authentic celebration of the N.O ad orientem with the use of some Latin with gregorian chant. Right now priests are celebrating without consistent guidance. Draconian leadership will only foster more strife and confusion within the ranks.