It is very interesting that he recognizes the embedded presupposition that there is indeed a PROBLEM relating to the celibacy of his clergy.
In my time in boarding school, my contemporaries and I in school were regularly rounded up to do religious retreats. We were never asked overtly to join the priesthood. The manoeuvre was far more powerful. There was an implied pressure to open one's eyes and see the vista of the nirvana of priestly life and if we did not join it, we would thereafter by lowly unworthies forever.
At 18, those who joined entered the seminary. I do not know the number of years that they had to spend in the study of priesthood. Upon graduation they were then consecrated into their office as priests. They were to be celibates. This they, if they could, they would keep their vow. However, to engage in paedophilia did not mean that one broke one'e vow of celibacy. These are two very different kinds of transgressions.
The question is what is the scope and depth of maturity of a 18 year old school boy who studies the high ethereal matters of theology and philosophy and now becomes a priest? What are his experiences of life? He has none.
Now, as "father so-and-so" they have the near absolute power over their parish.
It is said:
Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
When one is that immature, one is done.
No comments:
Post a Comment