The Vatican's version of the 'spin a cause' wheel would probably be slightly different. Equipment failure would be replaced by Satan's interference. Unknown, would be on it more than once.

The short extract below is taken from an NCR article on the German abuse crisis which has now implicated Pope Benedict. I quote it as an introduction because I do not believe that changing the rules on celibacy actually addresses the root cause of clerical abuse.

ABC News and other media reported Friday that the Archbishop of Vienna called for a thorough examination of the link between celibacy and child sex abuse by priests and the Archbishop of Salzburg asked whether it was an appropriate way of life for priests today.

But overnight, Pope Benedict quashed any suggestions of a change in the vow of celibacy, calling it the ultimate commitment to God. (This is only true if you think denial of sex and intimate personal relationships is what God wants.)

Father Thomas Williams, a Catholic priest and professor of theology and ethics in Rome, says there needs to be more study into any links between clerical celibacy and child abuse.
"I think studies need to be done and we need to know whether there is a causal relationship," he said, according to the ABC News report.

"Is, for example, the incident of child abuse higher among celibate clergy than it is among, for example, non-celibate clergy of other faiths to start?

"Or is it higher among celibate clergy - Catholic priests for example - than it is among other people that work with children; so in public schools, the boy scouts; whatever.
"These are studies that need to be done."

******************************************************

I don't know that conducting such studies is going to explain anything. They might serve to describe something, but I don't think the root problem of the clerical abuse scandal is celibacy. I think it's power. I think it's the confusion in men between sex and power. Catholicism's example of this issue is unique to an all male clergy and power structure, but it's hardly unique in it's root causes. In other words, it's only unique in it's preferred historical expression.

Do other ministers and spiritual leaders practice sexual exploitation? Absolutely they do, especially those whose charisma attracts powerless people, or whose ego is so out of control they see all their preferred sexual objects as available prey. Marcial Maciel is an example of the latter, Ted Haggart is an example of the former. Optional celibacy might have an impact on the abuse of children as the preferred object of prey, but it won't change anything about the clerical power dynamic and the linkage of sex with power.

This confusion of sex with power is not limited to spiritual leadership. It pops up all the time in people who have lived unbalanced lives in which emotional maturity is stunted. It doesn't have to be abuse which stunts that maturity. Tiger Woods is a perfect example of sexuality gone amok due to another form of emotional immaturity. He could not make the distinction between being the consummate predator on the golf course and a consummate predator in the bedroom. That he had a host of willing victims does not change the underlying dynamic. He equated sex and power.

Jesus specifically asked for a reversal of roles in his spiritual leaders. They were not to have power over others, but serve others. They were to reject all forms of secular power in favor of service and love. It was in this self giving that they would demonstrate power. This power dynamic thing is why I have so much difficulty with the priesthood. JPII wrote some truly wonderful things in his Theology of the Body, but what he couldn't do is transfer that 'self giving' thinking to any other facet of his theology. Self giving was compartmentalized as applicable to sex in a traditional marriage. He got that part right, but mutual self giving is the healthy aspect of any relationship. Healthy relationships are the micro examples of the cosmic truth about love.

The entire culture surrounding the Catholic priesthood is unhealthy in this context. The culture describes superior, elevated beings who exercise spiritual power over others, not service to others. Of course there are many priests who truly see their calling as one of pastoral service to others. Catholicism is very fortunate there are many who see the true calling in service to God through service to mankind. But that is not really a product of seminary training, it is a product of personal choice and maturity. It is a consequence of the Spirit working through a very flawed system.

What I would like to see done is a qualitative study with the religious who truly get what Jesus was teaching. What is their underlying motivation? How do they see their vocation? How do they live their lives? How do they sustain their ministry? How do they understand love? What has impacted their decisions about their own priesthood, and finally what do they see as impediments in the Church to the authentic expression of their priesthood and the Church's mission? An LCWR investigation which truly sought answers to the above questions would be meaningul.

I've been close friends with a number of priests. Some of whom would not be close theological compatriots, but the one thing they all mentioned as really debilitating to themselves and their priesthood was their loneliness. Very few people saw past the collar to the man whose needs were just like anyone else's. Ordination may change the 'ontological' spiritual status of the priest--whatever that means--but it doesn't change the human longing for companionship and the wholeness God intended for us in meaningful relationships. Being married to an intellectual construct is no substitute for real relationship. The brain does not work that way. It will seek out solutions for loneliness and in our current framing of the priesthood, many of those solutions are not healthy. Many of them confuse power and sex.

Adding married priests or women to the current framework does not guarantee the Church will ordain the kind of servant leader Jesus spoke about. We need to change our root core understanding of authentic spiritual authority. We need to listen to our healthy priests and not be afraid of where that might take our construct of the priesthood.

This isn't going to come from Benedict. It isn't going to come from the top down. It will undoubtedly come from the laity who finally empower themselves to find the kind of spiritual leadership that fills their real needs. The abuse crisis is certainly showing us what we don't need and what we have refused to admit. Let's not waste this opportunity if only because meaningful change in the clerical construct represents real restitution for the many many victims of clerical abuse.

In my own personal opinion, I think one of the more important steps the Church could take is to separate parish and diocesan management roles from spiritual direction and sacramental leadership. We might actually wind up with pastoral bishops rather than corporate CEO's.