BishopAccountability.org
	'Reflection' on Religion, Not Scandal By Dale Tuggy The Observer November 1, 2011 http://www.observertoday.com/page/content.detail/id/565019/-Reflection--on-religion--not-scandal.html?nav=5046 In "Church scandal cuts deeper," Stephen Kershnar argues (Oct. 19) that Roman Catholic child sexual abuse scandals "suggest that Catholicism is false." Kershnar supposes there's a general principle here: "If a group claims that its doctrines regarding God and morality are true and a significant number of the group's vanguard acts in a way that is both wrong and inconsistent with its doctrines, there is reason to doubt the doctrines." Hardly. Consider the movement Jesus founded and its vanguard: Jesus and his 12 hand-picked apostles. One of them, Judas, tragically acted in away which was both wrong and inconsistent with that group's doctrines. Thus, 8 percent of the vanguard turned out to be hypocritical. Is this is "significant number?" It must be, according to Kershnar's argument; he asserts that it is "significant" that 4 percent of U.S. priests were accused of child- or teen- sex abuse between 1950 and 2002, with about 80 percent, by his account, shown guilty, that is, about 3 percent of the total. Back to Jesus' case: is this 8 percent hypocrisy rate powerful evidence that his teachings were false? Hardly. It is only evidence that his movement was victimized by a traitor. So too, has the Roman Catholic church been betrayed by systematically molesting priests who go against everything it teaches about human sexuality. Of course, not all sex abuse cases involve true predators. One must factor in the temptation of non-predators; priests are men, unmarried men, trusted with powerful positions in their community, in many cases with special access to children and teens. Is any of this an excuse for sexual abuse? No. But it is hardly a surprise to Catholics, who affirm the sinful nature of fallen humanity, that priests should sometimes be tempted, and that sometimes they should give in to temptation. From such tragic sins, it does not follow, as Kershnar says, that "the messengers do not believe in the message enough to follow its dictates." Kershnar makes an analogy with a weight-loss business run by overweight people. Isn't this reason to doubt the truth of their claims? Probably not, all by itself - we'd have to consider other factors. But Kershnar adds that "they have no scientific evidence for their (diet) plan." This would indeed be a problem, as the most relevant kind of evidence for a diet plan is scientific evidence. Now Kershnar, imagining that he's driving a stake through the heart of the beast, asserts that there's "no scientific or philosophical evidence for Mary's virgin birth of Jesus, the trinity [sic], and transubstantiation." He adds that "This is in part because the latter two doctrines are incoherent," that is, self-inconsistent. First, in a column about sex abuse scandals, these desperate pot-shots are out of place. Two thousand years on, how could we have scientific evidence for Jesus' virgin birth? We couldn't. So, it is irrelevant that we don't. But not all evidence is scientific evidence. It would be foolish to decry the lack of scientific evidence for, say, Caesar's army crossing the Rubicon. The evidence for such claims is testimonial. Why is that sort of evidence not good enough? Kershnar doesn't say. Again, what would it even mean to have "scientific evidence" for the Trinity, or for transubstantiation. I don't know. But, neither does Kershnar. What Kershnar means by "philosophical evidence" I can't fathom. Trinity and transubstantiation doctrines are the product of much subtle theorizing, and different Catholic thinkers have understood them in different ways. To show that one or the other is inconsistent, Kershnar would need to start with premises to which all Catholics are committed, and then logically derive a contradiction. But he doesn't even try this. Instead, a mere assertion. Yawn. Child sex abuse occurs wherever men have largely unhindered access to children, because a small percentage of men are either tempted in this way or are outright predators. So then, why single out the Catholic church at all? Don't, for example, public schools have the same sorts of problems? Kershnar claims it is "implausible that 4 percent of schoolteachers have had allegations of child sexual abuse made against them." Yes, but of course all Catholic priests are men, whereas according to the National Center for Education Information, 82 percent of K-12 public school teachers are women. And priests are not a random sample of men, but are typically men who have never been married, and who from a relatively early age have been tracked for the priesthood. Some, including former priests, have argued that such men have a higher incidence of problems in healthy sexual development. Whether this is so, one may think that a priesthood of married men may do better; Catholics do and should debate the policy of clerical celibacy, for it has not always been a requirement within Roman Catholicism. To many observers, the most disturbing aspect of recent Catholic child abuse scandals has always been the irresponsible behavior of the church hierarchy. Here too there is a difference with public schools, although not, for instance, with other religious groups. Too often, leaders have taken the view that the public reputation of the Church must be defended even at the cost of sweeping these sex abuse tragedies under the carpet, sometimes even sending serial abusers to new parishes full of unsuspecting people. This policy has spectacularly backfired. In any case, while both suffer from this problem, the case of the Catholic Church does differ in some important ways from that of public schools. But does this "suggest" that Roman Catholic theology is false? It's hard to see how. Its official Catechism says that the church, though itself holy, "includes sinners," and nowhere is it said that these may not include priests, bishops and so on. These tragic scandals are consistent with just about any view of the Roman Catholic church. Catholics consider them a tragic betrayal of Catholic teaching and an urgent institutional problem to reform. Various Christians may think they show that clerical celibacy, or even a fully centralized church hierarchy are not the most practical policies. Atheists will note that religion can be used to provide cover for great evils. But none of these should conclude that such scandals are significant evidence for the falsity of core Catholic teachings about God and humankind. This all is pretty obvious when viewed in the cold light of reason. But in the intense heat of pain, one may ask: isn't this God's own church, isn't this one of God's special people, this priest, who has so viciously violated me or my own? The childish illusion that God micro-manages the lives and actions of these people never survives the brutality of sexual abuse. One may think that all of this shows that God was never there. To such, I would say first that I can't fathom their pain, grief, or fury. But I humbly suggest that it is reason which helps us to gain true beliefs and to avoid false beliefs, not intense emotions. Whatever one concludes about God, humankind, or religion, should be concluded after long, cool reflection. Making decisions in the aftermath of violence is likely to introduce only more chaos into one's life. That a priest has committed one of the worst crimes, shows that a good God doesn't control all the actions of priests. That bishops cover it up shows that a good God doesn't control all the actions of bishops. But even the most traditional Catholic believer should agree with these evident truths. Contact: editorial@observertoday.com
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.