Catholic sexual abuse cases in Australia have involved convictions, trials and ongoing investigations into allegations of sex crimes committed by Catholic priests and teachers that have come to light in recent decades, along with the growing awareness of sexual abuse within other religious and secular institutions.
A USA grand jury report recorded dozens of Penn priests accused of molesting 1,000 minors in 70 years. Now 12 other American states have announced their own formal investigations into Catholic clerical child sexual abuse.
The German Catholic church presented the results of an investigation into decades of sexual abuse of children in 2018. The report detailed the cases of 3,677 mostly male children in 27 dioceses who were sexually abused since 1946. 1,670 clerics were implicated. The report detailed how 60% of abusive priests eluded punishment, or were moved to other German parishes to conceal their crimes.
But was sexual abuse in the Catholic Church a C20th phenomenon, ignored because no church had ever investigated its own clerical wrongdoings before 1980? No!
Errant Catholic clergymen were a feature of medieval life, probably because of the nature of their profession: a] the decision to put boys into the priesthood was made by parents; b] the men lived celibate lives and c] the priests visited families in the privacy of their homes or schools. [Jewish and Islamic clergy were never celibate, so I have excluded them from this post. No doubt they were charged with other wrongdoings].
The problem wasn’t a product of the bishops’ indifference. On the contrary, ensuring that the clergy remained on their pedestal was paramount to the medieval church. In fact the ecclesiastical authorities were eager to uphold the highest of standards, and protect themselves from the wrath of God. They established mechanisms for disciplinary action in the case of failure. Across Christendom, monasteries, parishes and colleges were subject to assessments run by their own diocesan bishops.
In Catholic England, records first appeared in late C13th. In the 1430s, in an investigation by Canons Ashby Priory in Northamps, the Bishop’s Commissary found that the monks were indulging in feasting and games, frequenting the village inn, skipping choir services and not wearing their monastic habit. In the late Middle Ages, these results were serious: neglected parishioners, damage to the Catholic church’s reputation and some outbreaks of violence. Monk John Shrewesbury from Dorchester Abbey apparently abducted a woman in 1441 and smuggled her into the monastery bell tower in a trunk, where he had carnal relations with her.
The problem wasn’t a product of the bishops’ indifference. On the contrary, ensuring that the clergy remained on their pedestal was paramount to the medieval church. In fact the ecclesiastical authorities were eager to uphold the highest of standards, and protect themselves from the wrath of God. They established mechanisms for disciplinary action in the case of failure. Across Christendom, monasteries, parishes and colleges were subject to assessments run by their own diocesan bishops.
In Catholic England, records first appeared in late C13th. In the 1430s, in an investigation by Canons Ashby Priory in Northamps, the Bishop’s Commissary found that the monks were indulging in feasting and games, frequenting the village inn, skipping choir services and not wearing their monastic habit. In the late Middle Ages, these results were serious: neglected parishioners, damage to the Catholic church’s reputation and some outbreaks of violence. Monk John Shrewesbury from Dorchester Abbey apparently abducted a woman in 1441 and smuggled her into the monastery bell tower in a trunk, where he had carnal relations with her.
Clergy enjoying sex with each other
Patheos
Medieval clergymen also had a bad record of frequenting brothels aka stews. The most notorious were situated in Bankside South London, on land owned and controlled by the bishop of Winchester.
Although monks and nuns technically led cloistered lives, they were also an important part of wider society. They regularly left cloisters to visit family, conduct business, teach children and enter politics! Most of the secular deacons were members of a non-cloistered religious institution, and many of them lived lives similar to their flocks. They often travelled to other parishes, to administer to the spiritual, social and medical needs of the poorest families, but they also lodged in local alehouses!
She desperately disposed of the baby in the privy.
From the Miracles de Notre Dame, in Ancient Origins.
In 1531, Bishop of Lincoln John Longland went to the Augustinian abbey of Missenden in Bucks. He convened a special tribunal to investigate monastic bad behaviour - drinking, gambling and fornicating with prostitutes. A local canon, Robert Palmer, was accused of carnal relations with a married woman. But Palmer claimed that it was Abbot John Fox who had shared the woman’s bed. The Abbot was accused of many offences - nepotism, financial misconduct and of ignoring Palmer’s affair with the married woman. After investigations, Longland passed judgment on both Palmer and Fox; Palmer was imprisoned indefinitely and Abbot Fox was suspended from office.
In early C16th, anti-monastic pamphlets were filled with vivid descriptions of clerical misdemeanours. But this does not mean that late medieval clergymen were more tempted by bad behaviour than their predecessors. Rather it shows that the authorities made inspections of churches and monasteries specifically to unearth clerical failings!
From the Miracles de Notre Dame, in Ancient Origins.
In 1531, Bishop of Lincoln John Longland went to the Augustinian abbey of Missenden in Bucks. He convened a special tribunal to investigate monastic bad behaviour - drinking, gambling and fornicating with prostitutes. A local canon, Robert Palmer, was accused of carnal relations with a married woman. But Palmer claimed that it was Abbot John Fox who had shared the woman’s bed. The Abbot was accused of many offences - nepotism, financial misconduct and of ignoring Palmer’s affair with the married woman. After investigations, Longland passed judgment on both Palmer and Fox; Palmer was imprisoned indefinitely and Abbot Fox was suspended from office.
In early C16th, anti-monastic pamphlets were filled with vivid descriptions of clerical misdemeanours. But this does not mean that late medieval clergymen were more tempted by bad behaviour than their predecessors. Rather it shows that the authorities made inspections of churches and monasteries specifically to unearth clerical failings!
When the first Protestant clergy were appointed in the mid 16th century, were they allowed to marry or were they still a relic of Catholic law?
ReplyDeleteJoe
DeleteLuther's attack on the Catholic Church re the clergy having to be unmarried caused priests to disregard the law, by making the women wives through a church sacrament. Luther praised marriage as the noblest condition in creation, so the movement favouring clerical marriage strengthened. Also marriage protected Protestant priests from scandal.
Owen Chadwick, Oxford Academic.
The argument that marriage within the Catholic faith would have, at least helped all those poor children, victims of cruelty, goes without saying.
ReplyDeletealso single sex schools for young boys has not had a very good press either.
thelma
DeleteIf priests could not live with celibacy, they should have left the priesthood and got married. It would have been perfectly understandable.
But to live with the glory of priestly celibacy while rooting children or school boys was disgusting.
There is a lot of talk in the US and EU countries about transgenders and changing the sex of children without parental permission, and justifying pedophiles. Isn't this child abuse?
ReplyDeleteThey want to turn children into invalids. Transgenders live only 40-50 years. They have to take medications all their lives. They will never have children.
Irina
DeleteI agree totally with you that treating transgender children badly is cruel, and will probably seriously shorten their life expectancy.
But I have read no reports about the medieval Catholic church punishing its young congregants over mixed or changed genders.
In the first millennium of the Roman Catholic church, priests were allowed to marry. Celibacy became mandatory in 1139. Eastern Orthodox priests are allowed to marry.
ReplyDeletejabblog
DeleteBy the late 2nd century, the Catholic church's bishops were called priests and were increasingly given priestly roles as the generations moved on. And while there were always some who were celibate in the Christian tradition, things change. It was a slow, thoughtful process and you are quite right that celibacy for Roman Catholic priests was not demanded until the Second Lateran Council in 1139. Even then, they really only enforced the law of no marriage after ordination and of continence within a clerical marriage.
Hello Hels, Although I am sure that there was occasional policing of such crimes, the balance of power was so much in favor of the clerics that many could act with impunity. Even in relatively recent (or ever current times) making an accusation against a respected community leader was likely to boomerang--the victim was blamed, and the miscreant went free.
ReplyDelete.
While sexual abuse was not the issue at hand, a similar situation is explored in Nathaniel Hawthorne's novel The Scarlet Letter. While Hester does not name her minister/lover, whose crime as a church leader is probably much the greater, the weaker person is persecuted beyond reason, and her crime is even "visited upon" her daughter, almost like vengeance in an ancient Greek drama.
--Jim
parnassus
DeleteThe Church's senior bishops were certainly able to act with impunity, but the regular priests were not. As I noted, the ecclesiastical authorities were eager to uphold the highest of standards, and protect themselves from God's wrath. Medieval monasteries and parishes were subject to assessments run by their own diocesan bishops who created disciplinary actions in case of failure. Those assessments were written up and saved against the priests who were caught, even if many more priests were not caught.
Abuse in any form by the clergy is disgusting but sexual abuse is the worse and the religious hierarchy to do anything about it for so Catholic Priests were allowed to marry it wouldn't have happened, I disagree it still would have happened but maybe not on the scale it has. As the post shows the abuse of children goes way back, partly because children had no voice and most likely would have been believed if they did say something.
ReplyDeleteJo-Anne
DeleteSex between "celibate" adult priests was against Church law, but if they gave meaningful consent, most people would have understood. But if the victims were children, congregants or young admissions to the priesthood who did not give consent, it was rape, illegal and as you say, disgusting.
I am not so sure about the cause = effect of priests not marrying and thus stopping the offences, although it may well have reduced them.
ReplyDeleteAndrew
DeleteThere were always some priests who were celibate by choice in the Christian tradition, but there were more who found life-long celibacy painful and lonely. Of course some people found marriage itself to be painful and lonely, but the men should have been given a choice after, for example, two years of celibacy in the monastery.
basically it all comes down to controlling the expression of sexuality . The more it is suppressed in any u-institution the more warped its expression becomes. The church was a repository for younger sons , unmarriable daughters or disgraced daughters and so were full of people "with issues".
ReplyDeleteIn the Jewish faith no doubt there are also many examples of suppressed homosexuality being expressed inappropriately . It is time that we saw that sexual orientation exists on a spectrum like most other human issues and that we need to except that without being ruled by ideas which were formed in a very different time when a more black an white and intolerant view of the world was the norm . We also as a species need to recognize our enormous capacity to do harm to each other and the planet . We need to face ourselves humbly and that includes all religions . That's my rant for the day !!
mem
Deletethe Church was indeed the repository for problem sons and single daughters.. possibly due to parental poverty rather than religious fervour. But whatever the motive, where could the young people find protection?
I think all humans understand the capacity we have to harm each other. But I had assumed that most humans believed that God and the Church, specifically, protected the weaker people.
All the investigating and prosecuting is too little too late in my opinion, closing churches altogether seems a far better idea to me. I do know others won't agree with me, but that's fair, everyone gets their own opinion.
ReplyDeleteRiver
DeleteClosing churches, temples and mosques must never be closed. But if there is still evidence that sexual abuse and clerical crimes continue, then the secular punishments must be strengthened and carried out. An ecclesiastical court might have jurisdiction in religious matters but rape is a secular crime.
Sexual abuse throughout the ages including our time as well. How interesting to read it all, Hels. Here in my State many English Churches have had to be sold to raise money to pay those people who were abused. Those clergy were all married too, make one wonder!
ReplyDeleteIt's such a shame and disgrace that Priests/Clergy abuse children and so on, no matter how or when.
Margaret
DeleteI don't understand how your churches are taking responsibility for the clergy's evil behaviour and selling the properties to pay for the crimes. Unless the bishops knew what was happening inside the monasteries etc, and were hiding the information, surely the individual priests ( or gangs) were fully responsible for the their own adult behaviours.
It makes sense that the sexual abuse and clerical crimes were nothing new. I hope when people started coming forward in the 1980's and beyond that the church will change the way it handles those abuses.
ReplyDeleteErika
DeleteMedieval sexual abuse and clerical crimes may have taken some time to formally investigate in clerical courts. But for the Church to record some of these crimes.. really demanded serious action. More than fasting, for example.
I too hope the modern Church changes the way it handles such abuses, but I also think the police and the secular courts should take proper responsibility.
One close friend of mine was sexually abused by a married clergy man. The perpetrators wife and children were terrified of him so obviously his marital status didnt protect anybody from any style of abuse.
ReplyDeleteSexual abuse is never about sex, it's about power.
The church will be paying for their moral weakness on this issue for decades to come
kylie
DeleteI'm not certain that sexual abuse is never about sex. There are many ways of exerting power over a weaker person, but for a celibate cleric to force adults and children to have non-consensual sex seems about sex. Otherwise that celibate cleric might have chosen physical abuse, drugs, blackmail or any other vicious method of abuse. But for a married cleric to terrify his own family, and to sexually abuse a different woman as well, are indeed hideous crimes.
In the case you are familiar with, did the Church deny the crimes? Or did they apologise and pay for their moral weakness and lack of responsibility? The only case I knew about personally was when a bishop was told OFTEN about women in a particular congregation being sexually abused, but did nothing except move the priest on to a new congregation :(