Macaulay remarks in his historical essays that a man can have a serious vice and otherwise be of upright character if his vice is one that is accepted and countenanced in his milieu. Slaveholders at one time could be otherwise decent people; but if someone enslaved another person today, he would be a monster. Judicial torture was accepted for centuries; but if a court today ordered the rack and tongs, it would be monstrous.
One of the puzzles about the abusers, including Maciel, is that they often do a lot of good. It may be that they are psychopaths who can compartmentalize their lives; it may be that they are false prophets; or it may be, in their milieu, that sexual abuse is accepted.
Until the civil courts and newspapers began their work, the attitude in large swaths of the Catholic hierarchy seemed to be that sexual abuse was a regrettable but minor failing, like occasionally drinking too much, and was not a serious matter. It is not that everyone engaged in abuse, but otherwise “good” priests did, because sexual failings are common to the human race.
As Richard Sipe discovered, many abusers seemed to have been initiated into sex by priests, who gave the impression this was an accepted practice, and that this is how priests dealt with their sexual needs. This allowed the abusers to compartmentalize their lives without being psychopaths, although they did as much damage as a psychopath.
We don’t know the full story of Maciel’s life. Despite his crimes, he may have also been a victim as a boy. His lack of public repentance is disturbing, but fortunately none of us is responsible for making the ultimate judgment about a sinner.
It s not that to understand everything is to forgive everything, but sometimes even the worst criminals have been damaged so badly before they commit their crimes that one has pity for them too. And Christ came to save not the just, but sinners.
I suspected that Maciel was sexually abused as a child too. Yes, we should have some pity on him but then a lot of people are abused as children and don’t go on to become abusers themselves. I have a hard time believing that any priest could actually believe that sexual abuse was a minor thing like too much drinking. What kind of mental and spiritual gymnastics must a priest do to really believe that? No, I believe that Maciel and any priest who sexually abuses another person knows very well that they are committing a grave sin. Thankfully, God is just.
Maciel was a nut. You don’t have to be a psychiatrist to see that. If he was anything other than a high dollar raising Cath0lic priest from a Latin American country who was in favor with the Curia for generations, he would have served a life in prison. Should we suspend judgement on his eternal reward or punishment? Of course, none of us is God. Should we use him as an example of the kind of priest the church does not need? Of course, he has earned that distinction honestly. I personally believe he was a very, very damaged individual who like so many other sociopaths was highly charismatic. The real question for me is, did no one notice this in his past? He had two or three uncles that were bishops. He had high ranking subordinates who MUST have known what he was doing to seminarians and young priests in his Order. There were bishops and Cardinals among the curia and other offices in the Vatican who absolutely had to know what he was all about. There is no question about that. Where were they when it came to stopping him from his many evils?
http://www.themcgurk.vpweb.com
The seminary culture treats sexual sins as just par for the course. It would seem that poor Maciel saw everybody else get away with it. His continuing to deny it just shows him to be a cowardly sort. A man who hurt children so viciously would have to be acoward, and those who protected him, cowards all, and at the expense of children, and all hearts and souls.
It well may be that more of their evil must flourish before the old men in the palace finally release the mean- spirited celibacy requirement. To deny sex to decent men is to attract indecent men to perverted sex. They know this, of course.
So far they seem to like it that way.
PAL
Of course you are right Lisa. The whole Roman Catholic experiment[since 50 AD] has fallen into the hands of the evil one. People who have been brainwashed into thinking all the things, the RCC tells them, have been of a more stimulating narcotic, that of the prince of evil that has led the people into temptation. Arrogance at it’s greatest, in the clergy and the parishoners.
There are two judgments: the subjective and the objective. Only God can judge a person’s subjective responsibility. But the objective judgment concerns observable facts. This is where those of us who are “well” have to respond vigorously against sexual abuse of minors. We actually may be more responsible for the abusers’ crimes than they themselves are. They have some excuse– they are sick and dominated by their distorted conscience and their compulsive behavior. What they do appears to us as nightmarish, while to them it appears perfectly all right. They have to be locked up. I approve of the death penalty only in the case of priest pederasts. Because of their moral authority the harm they cause in the victims is incalculable. What other appropriate way can their crime be redressed? A victim of priest sex abuse is left with no alternative in life, because any recourse to “God” is blocked by a thick wall of traumatic memories. I can think of no greater suffering than that of these victims. As for clerical celibacy, I do not believe this is the basis of the problem. Naturally, there are some who use “celibacy” as a shield to cover their evil intentions. These are the Tartuffes among us. But statistics tell us that percentage-wise there are more pedophiles and pederasts in all other professions, even among married clergy, than in the celibate priesthood. Marriage can be a most effective cover-up for this kind of sexual abuse of minors. We know this from the number of crimes committed by fathers against their own offspring. The problem is not celibacy, but the screening process. I believe a pedophile can be discovered before any vows are taken. The formation process for final vows lasts at least 6 years. “When in doubt, there is no doubt,” we say to each other about seminarians in formation to the priesthood. The risk is too high to allow anyone into the priesthood who manifests proclivities in this direction. The signs are not that difficult to discern.
Dr. Podles:
I read and enjoyed your book Sacriledge. In the book, you discussed how your education and training helped you to identify those who are “Confidence Artists.” Do you have an opinion about how Maciel stacks up to the typical Con-Artist profile? Thanks.
Frank