Sex, Priests and Secret Codes
The title of this post comes from a book written by retired priest, Father Richard Sipe (site has been take down) , who recently voiced his dissatisfaction with the list released by the Diocese of San Diego that contained the names and parishes of 38 priests who were accused of sexual molestation. He’s challenging the Diocese to release thousands of pages of documents that he insists show a history of lies and cover-up of catholic clergy sexual misconduct. Fr. Richard Sipe who is now an anti-catholic activist, used to be a Benedictine monk, turned Roman Catholic priest from 1959 - 1970. Even more remarkably, he was involved in the psychiatric treatment of many catholic clergy who sexually abused children, during the time when the consensus among the psychiatric community saw this sexual disorder as a curable behavior.
Since “retiring” (but still bound to celibacy) from the priesthood in 1970, he eventually married and blames the tradition of celibacy as the cause of clerical sex-abuse and the source of deception, lies, cover-up. His method of condemning celibacy is justified by bringing into question the celibacy of our Lord:
Whatever we believe about Christ’s divinity, Jesus was a man. He was a perfect moral human being. He was good in every respect. But he was a complete man, fully human, and therefore he possessed sexuality. These are logical deductions. At the very least (however distasteful the thought to Jansanists, Opus Dei-ites and their like) we must admit that Jesus had a penis. Jesus had erections, and yes, he must have experienced ejaculations no matter how deep in sleep.
The scriptures, however, say nothing about Jesus and sex. He is not presented as a married man, but neither is he presented as celibate in the clear terms that St. Paul describes of himself. There is a tradition that Christ was celibate, but that is not based on scripture. Only fourth century documents say that the celibacy of Jesus has been a constant tradition.
Why are questions about Christ’s marital status or his sexual orientation so threatening? If Jesus was married, or if Jesus was a homosexual (or even if he masturbated during adolescent experimentation) in what way would it change his example or his message?
Likewise the idea that Jesus was a homosexual can also be anchored in the bible, specifically in the evidence of his closeness with the Apostle John, and a text in Mark’s Gospel.
His belief that close relationships among men “anchor” the idea of homosexual inclinations tells us a great deal about Sipe and his distorted sense of reality. Thus, while demented, it is not surprising when Sipe preaches that priests assume power in the Church by the mandated rules of sexual morality which include issues pertaining to celibacy, fornication, homosexuality and masturbation. If priests actually believe in and practice celibacy, they abandon their “won judgment and minister without insight or compassion.” If they don’t believe in the system, they must secretly use their own pastoral judgments which bear the fruit of a ministry marked by prudence and compassion.
If there’s any good news in this story, it’s the fact that Fr. Sipe has left the active priesthood. In all that I have read so far about his account of the sex-abuse cover-up, I find that he never points the finger at himself, preferring to assume the role of an impotent spectator. In the reality of Sipe’s world, he is incapable of seeing that it was he, who was in a position to take action and do something, yet he did and said nothing for decades after leaving the priesthood. Judging by hindsight, he condemns just about everyone in The Church among the culpable, except for himself. There’s just something about a prideful heart that is incapable of enduring any feelings of guilt or shame in oneself, leaving one to search out a scapegoat to attain some sense of relief.
UPDATED: Here is a blog of Fr. Sipe and two other priests (site has been taken down) who have joined in his efforts to blaspheme The Church and the sacred nature of human sexuality, where in one section, he actually takes it upon himself to “out” all the Bishops he suspects have same-sex attraction, including those who have since died.
UPDATE - COMMENTS CLOSED: Comments are closed due to the high emotional nature of the subject, which make it rather difficult for some to take an honest and objective look at what is being discussed. This is not productive or beneficial, especially to those who are not open. Thanks for your comments which will stay up, unless you request otherwise.
.jpg)
Our human experience of sexuality is– like all things human– affected by original sin.
What Sipes does is project our experience of sexuality onto one who is like us in all things but sin.
Thus, Sipes is himself guilty of looking at Jesus through his own sin-affected filter. However, Sipes, true hypocrite, declares it is the Church whose view of Jesus is falsely-filtered.
Comment by Fr. Stephanos, O.S.B. — April 4, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
Father Stephanos - very well said!
Comment by David — April 5, 2007 @ 7:02 am
Your editorial concerning Sipes is interesting, but sadly flawed. Yes, he may have been able to do something earlier on, but that is pure speculation on your part. Any attempts he made would have probably come to the same dead end as those of Fr. Tom Doyle. I felt the same way about both men for a long time until I realized something you have not; it is far better to come forward late and try to rectify a situation than not make any attempt at all. Far too many of your collared brethren have mimicked ostriches. Bishop Gumblelton is another person who came late to the party and look at what happened to him. Retirement thrust upon him and his parish snatched from under him. Did anyone get the message?
Bishops, O’Connell, Symons, Soens and Zieman are still bishops in good standing even though all have resigned their posts. All credibly accused of sexual abuse, which in most states is a crime. Where was your voice in calling for them to be defrocked? If you didn’t have one, you have no right to criticize.
As far as sexuality goes, everyone has some form of it. The Catholic Church has chosen to deny it rather than incorporate it into their religious culture as have the great Eastern religions. God the creator of all things has made sex the strongest desire a man or woman can have and has created the physical stimulus that rewards it. If it wasn’t this way, human beings would have disappeared from the earth a long time ago. As has been proven thousands of times over, it is even stronger than the love of God for many. If it wasn’t, there would be no one to love God at all. Celibacy is a farce, you know it, Sipes knows it, the church knows it and the world knows it.
Comment by vinnie — April 5, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Vinnie,
First, Sipes treated these priests. If he returned them to service then he is personally culpable. If he did not and saw that they were being returned any way, then he is likewise personally implicated.
Fr. Tom Doyle has been in rebellion from the Church for many years. His distaste for the hierarchical Church, I understand, came from his experience in marriage tribunals early in his career. In many US dioceses these have been problematic since the 1960s. However, the shenanigans of marriage tribunals were the work of those who dissent from Church teaching any way. Nevertheless, his jumping on the bandwagon of sex abuse is just another vehicle for him to vent his anger at the Church hierarchy.
As far as Church teaching on sexuality goes, I would strongly recommend that you understand what you are criticizing before you criticize it. It is not even caricature that you are throwing up as the Church’s teaching on sexuality. Have you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church? How about John Paul the Great’s Theology of the Body (or a popularization of it)? Celibacy does not reject but rather confirms the meaning of sex and sex difference. It places it into it cosmic and eternal significance. Why don’t you go to our side bar and read through our series on sex and human personhood before you dismiss as a farce something you clearly misunderstand?
Comment by David — April 5, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
The problem here is not whether or not priests and bishops have sexual feelings. The problem is not defining celibacy.
The problem is:
A priest, nun or whoever takes a vow of celibacy. When they violate that vow, they have (themselves) ’sinned’ and it’s their responsibility to get themselves on the straight and narrow, according to what vows they made. That’s fine with me.
So, if a priest has consensual sex (although I believe the priest, like a physician or an attorney carries fiduciary responsibility and hence sex cannot be consensual), that’s one problem that’s been created.
But when a priest or a bishop ‘grooms’ a child, and later seduces the child so that the child will do whatever he asks, that is a crime in this country. Usually, the predator instills fear into the child, along with the guilt that a Catholic child is fed from the moment of birth. But when the parents of this child, if they are privileged to learn of what actually happened, goes to the Bishop, tells the story, is assured by the Bishop that nothing like this has ever happened before and that steps will be taken immediately to stop this sexually immature priest or nun from abusing again, the parents believe the Bishop. The Bishop then moves the priest to another parish or another diocese and nothing is accomplished, except that the priest is free to abuse again and the Bishop knows that he (the Bishop) is placing more children in harm’s way.
Deception on the part of the Bishop, and the life of the shattered child, are both changed forever.
The priest is celibate. If the priests wants to engage in sex, let him leave the priesthood and go play elsewhere.
The Bishop is ’seen by some’ as the Vicar of Christ or the Shepherd who tends to his flock. If the Bishop hides the predator, he is then involved in criminal activity. He probably believes that he will never be caught, that he is safe, because no person is ever allowed into this files… for any reason. Until now.
Historically and in all of society as well, people have been hesitant to discuss child abuse openly. In earlier times, children were considered chattels to be used in any way that the child’s parents saw fit. Children had no rights until the last century.
Criminal activities are just that, crimes against human beings. Now, at long last, as more and more survivors are coming forward, the church has been caught in a web of deceit of their own making. Lawyers are taking these cases to court because that, in fact, is the only way these predators and their ‘minders’ can be stopped.
At least leaders in organizations with criminal intent do not purport to be the final arbiters of right and wrong.
No child or young adult should be used like a toy and thrown away.
I do not care one whit what the church does. I have long since ex-communicated them from me and mine. But for the rest of my life, I will continue to fight for the rights of children.
There were no Statutes of Limitations when I was abused in 1952 by a (hetero-sexual priest in the State of Missouri. If one does some research, one can learn when, why and how those SOL laws came about.
And to add insult to injury, we are told by hypocrites from both sides of their faces how to live, how to vote, and how to think. And all of the above is based on their tax-exempt charitable religious status. It’s great hoaxology, that has been perpetrated against mankind for centuries.
Comment by Kay Goodnow — April 5, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
David, how convenient of you to totally ignore my second paragraph. Presumably, it was just as easy as painting both Doyle and Sipe with the same malcontent self-serving brush. Actions like that can lead one to believe that you fail to grasp the reality, severity or criminality of the Clergy Sexual Abuse Scandal. Priests and bishops committed multiple acts of rape, sodomization and molestation on the most vulnerable of our society, children. The cover-up of these heinous crimes extended to the highest levels of the Vatican. But please don’t take my word for it, several Grand Juries that were convened across the United States, The Ferns Report out of Ireland, and the bishop’s own John Jay report all confirm these facts. Doyle and Sipe have taken an active part in trying to stem the debauchery and hold those responsible accountable. What have you done? Until you document your effort to rid the church of the evil doers and their protectors, it is hypocritical to chastise those who are making the effort.
With regard to celibacy and sexuality, please refrain from asking me to read JPII’s writings on human sexuality. He was at the helm of the church during the biggest sex scandal to hit the church since the reign of the Borgias five hundred years ago. That in itself is testimony to his ignorance of human sexuality and of his lack of will to address it openly. When confronted in 2002 with the beginnings of the worldwide sexual abuse scandal that started in the United States, his eloquent response to that scandal was, “Mysterium Iniquitus.†With those two words, he shed a great deal of light on his total grasp of human sexuality.
Lastly, with regard to celibacy, it is wrong and goes against the first commandment of God. Gen. 1:28 Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. Celibacy is in direct violation of God’s commandment to man to be fruitful and multiply. Where does the church come off countermanding God and forcing those who want to serve him to be celibate? The Catechism and Canon tells us that Scripture trumps the Magisterium. Secondly, and I hate to use it because it is the root of so many evils, there is Aquinas and the Natural Law. The penis has two purposes, one is urination and the is procreation. To deny either use is a violation of the natural law and as pointed out above, God’s first commandment to man.
Comment by vinnie — April 5, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
I wonder how it is that someone who demands justice for those who were sexually abused by clergy can be so catigated and vilifiled here. To call the Church to account is not anti-Catholic indeed quite the opposite. He and Fr Doyle have worked tirelessly to expose the hypocrisy of the Church in allowing known sex offender priests wander from parish to parish adding to the toll of human destruction. Furthermore when threatened with exposure hiararchies everywhere covered up and lied. How could you support this? If those of you who vilifile Sipe & Doyle truly follow Jesus and truly want a Great Church then you are called as well to expose the rot in high places. Those of us who challange this rot are followers of Jesus, authentic and true. Those who support the cover up are not. Sipe and Doyle are the true Prophets exposing hypocrisy just as Jesus did with the Pharasees. This is what it means to be a Christian.
Comment by Margaret Kennedy — April 5, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
“In order to begin restoring public trust in the Catholic Church, all members of the clergy who contributed to the scandal, including Bishops and even Cardinals, must be removed from authority, and as required by law, prosecuted.”
Sarbanes-Oxley is a U.S. federal law enacted in response to the rising incidence of corporate and accounting fraud at prominent corporations, as exemplified by Enron, whose annual revenues in 2001 decreased from over $100 billion to nearly zero in a matter of months. Enron’’s market capitalization prior to its collapse was over $60 billion, while its ten year annual growth rate exceeded 50%. Enron collapsed primarily because its business-model was inextricably linked to the amount of trust customers placed in its financial integrity. Once this confidence withered, Enron’’s clients became unwilling to trade long-term natural gas contracts due to a concern they may never be fulfilled. The underlying market dynamics are similar to those of a bank run, where panic-driven depositors race to withdraw their funds as quickly as possible. A mounting lack of trust quickly envelops into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
These same principles, in a sense, also apply to the Catholic Church. Were the laity and non-believers alike cease to believe in the fundamental moral integrity of the Church, a global institution that is of enormous value and importance, would quickly fail. Loss of trust precipitates failure, thus justifying the initial loss of trust. The only effective antidote for preventing this outcome is the restoration of trust. Unfortunately the U.S. Catholic Bishops have failed to meet the growing public demand for greater transparency, but instead have enacted a series of measures designed to prevent further instances of abuse in every arena except those where it actually occurred.
In order to begin restoring public trust in the Catholic Church, all members of the clergy who contributed to the scandal, including Bishops and even Cardinals, must be removed from authority, and as required by law, prosecuted. Contrary to the legislative reforms enacted in response to mounting corporate scandals, the reforms enacted within the Catholic Church in America have been superficial so as to spare those directly responsible. Whereas Enron’’s former leaders are now serving serious time in prison, Cardinal Mahoney and other leaders who were aware that priests were abusing children have not been removed or even held responsible.
With respect to Cardinal Mahoney, the estimated cumulative financial loss to the Los Angeles Archdiocese is as high as $1 billion, which the laity will be expected to cover. However, the Cardinal could have easily avoided or mitigated this scandal had he acted responsibly as a leader, given that in many cases he had full knowledge of the illicit behavior committed by select priests. As a leader, he must- voluntarily or otherwise- accept full responsibility for this scandal, just as Enron’’s leaders were forced to accept culpability as well as punishment under the law for their leadership failures. This is a prerequisite if the Catholic Church in America is to retain any shred of credibility as a moral force for good in the world.
Comment by M. Immaculata Dunn — April 6, 2007 @ 7:37 am
Bishops, O’Connell, Symons, Soens and Zieman are still bishops in good standing even though all have resigned their posts. All credibly accused of sexual abuse, which in most states is a crime. Where was your voice in calling for them to be defrocked? If you didn’t have one, you have no right to criticize.
Vinnie,
I fail to see how this issue in anyway restricts my “right” to do or say anything, or how it is relevant to my post or opinion?
The sex abuse and it’s cover-up is an injustice, and understandably, The Church is being held to a higher standard, that point is not being argued. The scandal was a result of crimes committed by individual men afflicted with sexual illnesses with subsequent cover-up ranging from individuals like Sipes who may have believed they could cure them through psychiatric means to Bishops who tried to protect priests from prosecution.
You either aren’t aware of, fail to recognize, or choose to ignore the fact that the prevalence of sex abuse is not just a Catholic problem (by most estimations is among the lowest of any occupation), but a problem among all faiths and all walks of life. So, if celibacy is such a problem and responsible for the sex-abuse, what’s the excuse of teachers, protestant ministers, Jewish rabbis, police officers, construction workers, etc….?
Celibacy is in direct violation of God’s commandment to man to be fruitful and multiply
Are we to assume that all infertile and unmarried folks are in direct violation of God’s commandment? Or is it possible that this may not apply to every human being.
With regard to celibacy and sexuality, please refrain from asking me to read JPII’s writings on human sexuality. He was at the helm of the church during the biggest sex scandal to hit the church since the reign of the Borgias five hundred years ago.
During JPII’s reign as pope is when the inicidence of the abuse hit it’s lowest points. The majority of the abuse took place from the 60’s - 80’s which just so happens to coincide with the sexual revolution, let the facts speak for themselves.
Comment by shelray — April 6, 2007 @ 8:07 am
Vinnie - you and your friends are obviously motivated by hurt, anger, but all too little logical thought. It appears that the primary problem is a lack of understanding of the nature of the Church.
Further, the condemnation of the entire Church and all bishops for the sins of a very few is in itself bigoted. You and your friends paint with a very broad brush and conflate very many issues into one. In very few cases has there been any “cover up.” In most cases, it was bishops following the advice of medical experts who at the time thought that they could cure anybody and (this being the primary problem) often ignoring canon law for “pastoral reasons.”
Your theological opinion about celibacy is greatly flawed. You will have to contend with Jesus’ admonition that some are called by God to make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of God and that those who are called ought to receive the calling (Mt 19). You will also have to contend with Paul’s admonition for those to remain celibate as he was. You will also have to deal with the evidence that celibacy was practiced by Christians from the very beginning of the Church (revisionist history notwithstanding) for those called to the priesthood and religious life.
Your understanding of St. Thomas and natural law need some work, as does your proof texting approach to Scriptural exegesis. For the former, I would recommend reading Servais Pinckaers’s “The Sources of Christian Ethics.” For the latter, I would recommend reading the CCC or the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s “Interpreting the Bible in the Church.”
Rejecting reading JPTG for the reasons you cite are quite irrational. In addition, you will have to explain what you mean when you say that Scripture “trumps” the Magisterium. I do not find that word in the CCC and certainly it does not put them at odds as you seem to suggest. That is in fact, impossible. It is logically inconsistent to accept Scripture and reject the Magisterium. One would not have the Bible without the teaching office of the Bishops.
Whatever the source of your rebellion against the Church that Christ established, the solution to your problems is the healing that comes from Jesus Christ alone, through His grace. This grace comes through the Sacraments but to make it fruitful one requires cooperation. As St. Cyprian said, one cannot have God as Father unless he has the Church as Mother. You cannot find Jesus’ healing if you continue to rebel against and spew calumnies at His Bride and Body.
I do wish you and your group of friends you have brought with you, the peace that only Jesus can give but you all are going to have to first soften your hearts because He cannot come into a heart that is so full of hatred. May the peace of Easter and Our Risen Lord bring healing and peace.
Comment by David — April 6, 2007 @ 9:52 am
David, I wonder why you think you are right! The last post was a santimonious piece of patronising theology I have ever heard. You think only a “few” Bishops Covered up and then only because of medical experts! Oh NO! There is ample evidence that the Church had a POLICY of cover-up throughout the world. Now they are found out we have people like you denying it. Like holocaust deniers!
Jesus loves the truth and truth will make us free. Denying this blot on the Church’s landscape is nothing more than fear.
Comment by Margaret Kennedy — April 6, 2007 @ 11:17 am
[...] few days ago, we did a post on Richard Sipe in the context of a new book that he coauthored with two others. One of the [...]
Pingback by COSMOS~LITURGY~SEX » Fr. Doyle Responds — April 15, 2007 @ 12:12 am
[...] Shelray’s post on Richard Sipe and my post on Fr. Doyle’s, Mr. Sipe’s compadre, e-mail in regard to the post, the [...]
Pingback by COSMOS~LITURGY~SEX » More on the Fr. Doyle Thread: Of St. Blog’s, Orthodoxy, and Charity — April 19, 2007 @ 5:31 pm