Repost from April, 2010:
Many Catholics have been rightly shaken by the allegations about the Pope and his handling of the child sexual abuse. Contrary to media reports, however, the actual facts of the cases that have been dug up to smear the Holy Father have only showed how courageously and efficiently he has acted throughout the whole sordid affair. The latest attack from the Associated Press is also laden with amateur errors and blunders. In fact, it shows a frightening hatred for the Pope that seasoned journalists would distort, manipulate, and ignore basic rules of journalism to smear the Pope and stop his house-cleaning of the Catholic Church. As the Catholic League has pointed out in a recent ad in the New York Times: it’s not about “the children”; it’s all about the moral teachings of the Catholic Church and how the sexual voyeurism is going to take a major hit under Benedict’s watch.
But what about the substance of the question regarding child sexual abuse? How did it happen? Some people say it’s celibacy. But that doesn’t explain why child sexual abuse is exponentially much higher outside of the Catholic Church, does it? No, it does not.
So what is the cause of this plague that has attacked the Church and Society these past forty years? Well, it’s actually not that complicated at all, but it does require some explanation.
The problem is rooted in the understanding of sex. When sex is a sacrifice and it has meaning for a culture, there is very little abuse of it. This is because it retains its nobility and purpose, as well as its mystery and transcendence. Sex is supposed to be a language of love, but our current culture has made it a language of war.
Today, sex is also rather meaningless. Because of contraception, sex has been stripped of its natural connection to procreation. So it’s no longer about sacrifice. It’s about entertainment. For a large portion of society, it’s about orgasm only. That’s why the West’s birth rates are suicidal and why it is on the edge of demographic collapse. Sex was also once considered a remote participation in the economy of God. But today, we’re into sexual idolatry instead.
Let me repeat: Sex is predominantly understood today as entertainment. And if it’s about entertainment, then it cannot really be that meaningful. If it’s just a “little fun”; if it’s just “casual”; if it’s really not “all that serious”; if it truly is about entertainment, then what can be wrong with a little bit of sexual voyeurism? And where do you suppose this voyeurism will lead, if not to children? After all, entertainment is not serious. Entertainment doesn’t harm anyone, does it? Remember, folks, there is little meaning to sex in our age. And if there is little meaning to it, then why are so many people upset that children are being asked to engage in the entertainment? If sex is not serious, then why is its abuse being taken so seriously?