|
The Art of Pointing Fingers
By Peter Wolfgang, New Hartford
In "Sins of the Fathers—Holding Catholics Accountable" [March 22] Nicole Chardenet writes: "I want to know when people are going to start pointing fingers at Catholic laypeople and ask them, 'What are YOU doing about pedophile priests?'" Pointing fingers is, of course, the whole point of Ms. Chardenet's article. Since, as a Catholic layman, I am the one Ms. Chardenet is pointing her finger at, I would like to respond.
Ms. Chardenet asks: "Why is it the protests about pedophile priests in the media come from non-Catholics, and only the occasional priest?" Perhaps Ms. Chardenet believes this because she only reads news sources that share her views. If she were reading what, for her, must be "the other side," she would know that William F. Buckley, Pat Buchanan and Michael Kelly in their syndicated columns, William Bennett and Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal, and Rod Dreher in National Review—all Catholics and all (except Kelly) conservative—have vigorously denounced the priests in question and have called for the resignation of bishops implemented in the cover-up. Dreher, in particular, has doggedly pursued this scandal since it first broke in Boston, months before it became a national story. If Ms. Chardenet is honestly interested in Catholic opinion on this subject, she should log onto National Review Online and read Dreher's archives, as well as his postings on NRO's "blogging" site, The Corner. She should also visit the Farmington Borders and pick up the March issue of Catholic World Report.
"Why am I not seeing anger and fury from [Catholic laypersons]?" Ms. Chardenet asks. Well, it's not because it isn't there. My fellow Catholics and I have been sharing our outrage about this scandal, online and in person, for months. We just chose not to do it in a public forum. This was because we were concerned that the enemies of the Church would exploit our suffering to further their own agenda. Anyone who thinks our concern was mistaken should read Ms. Chardenet's article again.
"The Pope wants us to understand that pedophiles are still preferable to female clergy," Ms. Chardenet asserts. This is simply vicious. Church teaching on why women cannot be ordained has nothing to do with this scandal, and it is not true that the Pope is willing to expose children to abuse because of the priest shortage. Our already ailing, 81-year-old pontiff is reported to have suffered physical pain over these scandals. With this statement Ms. Chardenet crosses the line from legitimate (if ill-informed) critic to anti-Catholic bigotry. The Waterbury Republican-American's Tracey O'Shaughnessy, an award-winning columnist who checks her facts before she publishes them, wrote on March 21 that "there is no small element of a reverse Inquisition brewing in the perverse accusations made against the Church. More than a whiff of anti-Catholicism scents this scandal." Ms. O'Shaughnessy, meet Ms. Chardenet—but wear your nose plugs.
Ms. Chardenet writes that Catholics believe "the priest is the complete moral arbiter of right from wrong." This is false. She is onto something, though, when she writes that "Catholics regard their parish priests as their very channels to God." Although it's not clearly stated, Ms. Chardenet seems to be claiming that because Catholics believe that only priests can make certain sacraments available to us, we therefore feel assured of their personal holiness ("Nobody wants to believe a man of God could act in such an evil manner"), thus the "quiet culture of tolerance among Catholics" in the face of scandal. But what Ms. Chardenet, and apparently many others, believe to be Catholic doctrine is actually a heresy called Donatism that was condemned by the Church as early as the fourth century. "The truth of the Church and the validity of her sacraments are not dependent upon the holiness of her leaders," as Fr. Richard John Neuhaus recently wrote. We Catholics love our priests—but, contrary to what many non-Catholics believe, we knew long before the current scandal that they experience the same fallen nature as the rest of us.
In recommending a book on these scandals, Ms. Chardenet writes that it should be read by "everyone who gives a damn about child-molesting priests." Clearly, Ms. Chardenet gives a damn about child-molesting priests. And rightly so, for they are engaging in a "sick and dysfunctional perversion," as Ms. Chardenet correctly notes. Specifically, in Ms. Chardenet's words, "no one thinks of priests engaging in illicit acts with adult females—we all know by now that the preferred prey of supposedly celibate clergymen is young boys." Right again, Ms. Chardenet, but like the rest of the media you describe this as "their [the Church's] pedophile problem," and here is where we part company.
Pedophilia is a particular sickness, a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. The sociologist Philip Jenkins of Penn State University, as well as other scholars, have demonstrated, as Fr. Neuhaus writes, that pedophilia "is no greater, and may be less, among priests than among Protestant clergy, teachers, social workers, and similar professions." Most of these scandals do not involve priests attacking women or young children. They involve adult men assaulting teenage boys. This is called ephebophilia, and according to Rod Dreher (who mentions several sources) it is apparently an unfortunate part of mainstream homosexual culture. Among the sources Dreher cites is a book by Michael Rose due out next month, Goodbye! Good Men, that discusses, among other things, the existence of a clandestine homosexual subculture in some segments of the priesthood. (Gary Wills reviewed a similar book in a recent issue of The New York Review of Books.) Dreher's conclusion? The Church does not have a pedophile priest problem. The Church has a gay clergy problem.
The media will not put it in those terms for the same reason they will not tell us, when asking what could drive John Walker Lindh to join the Taliban, that his father left his mother for another man. To discuss these things in those contexts is to consider the possibility that there's something about homosexuality that's, well, not quite right. And the media would prefer that we not consider that.
But, Ms. Chardenet, this is where you come in. After all, you "give a damn about child-molesting priests." You are willing to publicly oppose "a quiet culture of tolerance" that allows a "sick and dysfunctional perversion to flourish." Good for you. Why, you are even willing to point fingers at the Catholic laity. How very brave of you. Since you have displayed all this courage not because you want to remake Catholicism in your own image (you were kind enough to note that you "don't want to see Catholicism destroyed," and we appreciate that) but because you care about abused kids, may I ask something of you? Would you please speak out against the homosexual culture? When someone in your neo-pagan social circle says homosexuals have the right to adopt, may I count on you to give a damn about the kids? When one of your left-wing friends tells you that they think a gay man should have the right to lead a troop of Boy Scouts into the woods for a weekend, will you break with that quiet culture of tolerance so that a sick and dysfunctional perversion is not allowed to flourish?
Now, Ms. Chardenet, I assume that holding homosexual culture accountable should be a cakewalk for you after you did the same thing with us Catholics, right? Oh sure, you will be accused of pointing fingers. And you will be. But that's okay because you give a damn about protecting kids. And besides, on this and other topics, you are by now well practiced in the art of pointing fingers.
|
|
