Rant

OK. For those of you who can't stomach the religion and politics of others, or don't like to see the word "sex" in print, I suggest you sign off now. But, the rest of you, read on. The release of the Grand Jury's report on sex abuse in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia this week has me ticked (see http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/12707654.htm), and I need to vent. The report documented (hundreds of?) cases where priests abused children in their charge, and when they were accused, rather than being turned over to the civil authorities, they were merely moved by the archdiocese to other, unsuspecting parishes, allowing them to strike again. I didn't read the report, but from the sounds of it, proper authorities were never notified (can you say "cover-up"?). Well, I'm a cradle Catholic, but admittedly through the years, I've moved farther and farther toward the fringe of the church, less and less likely to just follow along and do whatever I'm told, without thinking about it. Not that I haven't known about the scandal and its many implications. My daughter was attending college in Boston when it all broke out up there a few years ago. I wasn't surprised. When you run a Church like a business, rather than by faith, all kinds of things can happen. And, when you forbid people to question and discuss issues that concern their church and that are important to them, you create even more problems. This isn't the Middle Ages, after all.

So, relative to all this, I have a few comments to make:

1. I don't think the issue is so much that some men who happen to be priests have a problem, called pedophila, which harms children. It's more that the Church was concerned through the decades in keeping the crimes quiet, presumably in order to protect its reputation, rather than in protecting the well-being of its children. Quite a few years back, we had a pastor about whom (he and the altar servers, that is) rumors began to fly, and then, mysteriously, he was gone, allegedly taken ill suddenly. Yes, he was ill all right; his name was in the Grand Jury's report this week. That's what's pissing me off. I find it easier to forgive the priests accused than the church hierarchy who kept it all quiet. Actually, that priest wasn't any friend of mine. He was arrogant and cold (maybe he had a problem with women?) He said all the right things, but I never felt that he really connected with people.

2. The problems inherent in an institution where there is a dictatorial (let's call it feudal) hierarchy of authority (each person swears obedience to the man above him—and yes, I think the fact that there are only men in authority is part of the problem) are almost insurmountable. No one can question authority. There is no transparency, no system of checks and balances. Problems aren't resolved as they would be—naturally, it seems—in a more open system. Conflicts of interest abound. At the parish level, the pastor is in charge and usually doesn't like to be questioned. Obviously, I'm not very involved in my church. I'd drive him nuts, although I'd like nothing more than to have an honest conversation with him, one where he respects my opinions and is opened-minded toward them and to the opinions of others.

3. Along with the articles published on this topic this week, there was one that addressed a different issue: the presence of gay priests in the Church (see http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/12717057.htm). In the article, the unnamed source said that the pope was soon to issue a decree that the Church would no longer accept gays in the seminary (evidently, there had been a "don't ask, don't tell" policy in effect; this would now be changed to one that via investigations at seminaries would actively root out gay men before they could become priests). What they plan to do about gay men who are already priests, I don't know, but if everyone's celibate, what's the problem? Two comments on this: (a)Why was this article timed to coincide with the release of the Grand Jury's report? I think I can answer that: in the article, the pope was quoted as saying that "there was a need 'purify' the church after the deeply damaging sex scandals of the last several years." Excuse me? Purify the Church of what, gays? I think, rather, that we need to purify the Church of pedophiles, together with all administrative clergy who felt that protecting the reputation of the church should take precedence over everything else—don't you agree? At least, I thought that was the issue at hand... I read elsewhere that sex experts agree that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to be pedophiles, which would make sense to me, but perhaps this week the Church needed a scapegoat, a detraction from the real issues? Hey, at least they're consistent: Let's protect the reputation of the Church at all costs, even if it's at the expense of gay men who are serving the Church celibately, as are, presumably, heterosexual men. With their shortage of priests, you wouldn't think the Church would be too choosy. But, again, they have a history of making the wrong decisions.

In my opinion, what the church needs is married priests, who function in normal family situations (and can therefore relate to the people they are supposed to be spiritually guiding), who have sex (and who therefore are capable of thinking about something else;we have a family joke about our current pastor: that he works "sex"—e.g., lust, adultery, etc.—into every sermon. Well, no wonder—it's probably all he thinks about. In fact, we need men and women priests, working together to bring a sense of balance to the Church. Women were demoted for some reason about 200 AD and haven't been back since, except in subservient positions. From what I understand (is that the right word here? In truth, I really don't understand it), it has something to do with Jesus setting precedent by chosing only men as his Apostles. Well, with all the male chauvinists back then (believe it or not, there were even more than there are now), who would have listened to women who were trying to start a church? The timing wasn't right, and Jesus knew it; women were considered little more than property. And, of course, there are other theories out there concerning Jesus's opinions about the place of women in the church, but I haven't researched the facts enough on that one to comment here...

OK. I'm through. That felt good—almost as good as sex. (Father, close your ears.) I invite your comments, pro and con.