Psychologies Magazine, May 2002.
Since the beginning of the year, in the United States, France, and Ireland, the scandal of pedophile priests, unpunished by their superiors, has severely shaken the Church. Many are questioning the link between pedophilia and priestly celibacy. Are celibacy and chastity sustainable for men who, unlike monks, are fully integrated into the world? We know that many priests live in de facto concubinage or maintain secret sexual relationships. Isn't it time for the Church to put an end to this hypocrisy and question the rule of priestly celibacy, imposed only from the 12th century onward and which has no basis in the Gospels? Even though I am personally convinced of this, it seems to me that it will not solve the problem of pedophilia, which concerns individuals with a perverse psychological makeup, whether they are clergy or laypeople.
Certainly, these crimes seem all the more heinous because they are committed by men dedicated to God who enjoy the complete trust of children. But isn't the same true in most cases of pedophilia? It is because the child is faced with an "authority" figure—father, uncle, counselor, teacher, or confessor—that they are trapped and afraid to denounce their abuser. Should we be more outraged by a pedophile priest than by an incestuous father? Both are guilty of the same crime: exploiting a child's vulnerability and trust to objectify and use them as a sexual object.
The most difficult thing to accept in the cases of pedophile priests is the attitude of the Catholic hierarchy, which protects the abusers. In all the countries concerned, the institution has avoided reporting these priests to the authorities and has, more often than not, kept them in their positions. Besides the fact that the Church primarily seeks to avoid a public scandal and to acknowledge that it harbors black sheep within its ranks, this attitude is legitimized by the seal of confession and "divine mercy" toward "sinners," who are always expected to "repent." The Catholic hierarchy demonstrates great naiveté and culpable blindness in the face of perverts, some of whom were undoubtedly drawn to the priesthood to be in contact with children. The damage to the Church is already profound, even in the eyes of those who know better than to confuse a few deviant individuals with the entire clergy. The fact that the guardianship institution prefers to protect its members, rather than its faithful and their children, cannot be justified or admissible.
May 2002