...if only Baptist pastors could marry!
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not making light of this sad, tragic situation; nor am I excusing my own Church for its deficiencies in dealing with the sexual abuse scandal, which were many.
But one thing I've learned from the sex scandal and its aftermath is that a married priesthood (or even a female one) would not in the least solve the problem of the exploiting of children for sex.
Every parent in America should realize at this point that there simply are no completely safe adults, as far as your children are concerned. It doesn't matter whether they are clergy members in your church, trusted teachers in your school, youth group leaders, neighbors, extended family members or long-time friends; reports I've read concerning the sexual abuse of children have shown that predators come from all of those backgrounds. Some of them are married, with children of their own; but the sickness within their souls that causes them to prey on children is not at all diminished by that fact.
A married Catholic priesthood would not solve the problem of child sexual abuse by adults. I think a cultural reformation is necessary for that; for now, it would seem that parental vigilance is the best weapon against child predators.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I am a bit cynical with calling a 16 year old a "child". Most 16 year olds today are taller than the average 50 year old counterpart. A century ago this 16 year old "child" would be married or about to be married, but today that idea is unreasonable and ludicrous. And this is part of the problem. The age of consent is arbitrary but I know it has to be some number. If it is 14 we get too much damage to the young; if it is 18 we get too many cases that we want to over look because we will jail too many young adults. I say 16 is about right but I do not really like that either, but it is what we should try to live with.
I am in favor of priest celibacy but I know the old system of men entering the minor seminary as a young teen and then becoming ordained 10 years is unrealistic in our sex-saturated culture. Even the major seminary starting at 18 is a streatch.
And although I am in favor of celibacy basically, I can see having some of the married "permanent" deacons, after age of 45 migrating over to the priesthood as a stop gap measure due to current priest shortages for a few decades.
As far a "cultural revolution" to make children (birth to 17?) safe from adults would need to be totalitarian as an attempt and would fail anyway. I am not cynical, just realistic about the nature of people and the presence of evil. Remember, we already tasted the forbidden fruit.
Peace
Goodguyex, about 15% of the boys abused by priests during the Catholic scandal were either sixteen or seventeen years old--so if we don't consider this girl a victim of abuse, we can't consider these boys victims, either.
But I do think a 16 year old is a victim if he/she is preyed upon by an older adult who is in some position of authority.
Erin:
Yes, there is the issue of authority in these matters. And laws and attitudes come into play here, such as psychiatrists and their patients. I suppose we can apply the same logic in our thinking. But a 16 year old is not yet an adult, but an adolescent (meaning "more of an adult") but certainly not a child. The only context that any of us calls a 16 year old a "child" is regarding sexual activity.
The point is that there is no one-size-fits all approach here. I can say that when I was 16 (or even 12) no male teacher, coach, priest, etc was going to sexually abuse me unless I was physically overpowered. And unless the victims were some pathetic emotional cripple, I would say the same for 95% of heterosexual youth. And if they are not, or were not heterosexual youth, maybe we could still call them victims but that may in itself at least streatch, if not abuse the word "victim" a bit.
Goodguyex, I think it would be helpful to differentiate rape vs. abuse. You talk about "physical overpowerment", and I would use the word "rape" to describe that sort of incident. Abuse can mean seduction, manipulation and taking advantage of those whose maturity level does not make any sort of true consent (or the true intimacy and trust of equals that should exist in a sexual relationship.)
I have no problem at all saying that an adult who enters into a sexual relationship (whether the instigator or the tempted party) with a teenager abuses that teenager. Even if the teenager seems an enthusiastic participant, it's just not a level playing field emotionally and spiritually. The adult's job is to say no and/or stay away.
We don't need an arbitrary age of consent (whatever rational discussion goes towards setting it) to recognize inequalities in relationships. There is a list of descriptives; citing physical strength or intimidation is just one item on that list.
Please allow me to be clear on my position: I do not mean that we should do away with age of consent. I do mean that there should be a strong ethic of protection for those who need it, and one need not know the age of the victim to identify the need for protection.
The only utility in an age of consent is in the legal concept of emancipation, the ability of the person to engage in commerce, contracts and the like without requiring the approval of another person. There are inherent assumptions behind this concept, like literacy, level of education and a general societal concern for the maturity of the individual and the critically important component of experience in attaining maturity. The passage of time by itself doesn't bring maturity, but it surely provides opportunities for experience to provide the needed lessons.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.