In fact, I do not know how people, and especially the victims of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, came to the idea that the top of the church, which gathered at the meeting, intended to debate the sexual abuse of priests, accepted anything other than fanciful statements, who were all, and especially the victims, were disappointed.
What did they expect? To make the culprits publicly exposed? Punished? Excommunicated from the Catholic Church? What kind of “real action” did they have in mind when they asked for it?
Of course, I do not want to say that concrete and decisive measures were not in place. Or that such measures would not have been earned by the victim. Because you would. At least that.
What I mean is something else. I would say that such measures would be in complete contradiction with the logic of the functioning of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is an institution which, for several reasons, can not and should not take action against perpetrators of sexual abuse.
The first reason is the fact that the Catholic Church is a distinctively homegrown social community. Its members associate a common interest, which is called survival. And this total survival. Like in every homestead, the Catholic Church also has the ultimate goal of ensuring the survival of the community. And this survival for all members. As in every homestead, it is also clear in the church that an individual can only survive as a member of the community. If he is no longer a member of the community for any reason, he can not survive.
The church, as a homestead, bites not only all its members, but its entire life. There is not even one part of the life of priests who would not be in the domain of the church. This applies to all aspects of their individual lives. Including sexuality. Therefore, although the church must not publicly recognize it, the church must also provide space for the sexuality of its members. And this regardless of the fact that sexuality might be most likely to be eliminated. Zradirala. Especially when it comes to its members.
The Pope did the most that he could as the highest authority in the household: he verbally condemned the perpetrators of sexual abuse in the church. She can not and can not do more. Because of the interests of the church. And because of his own position. And your own strength.
Moral action of own members
Otherwise, it is not unusual for the household that its members practice immoral behavior. For example, the father sexually abuses a child. But because of immoral behavior, the homestead has never outlawed its member. At least for two reasons.
First, because the home always practices double morality. One morale inside the homestead for its members. It is necessary for this morality to look through your fingers to members who violate social rules. There are completely different moral rules and standards for the homeless for non-members. Non-members, as a rule, severely punish acts for which they do not penalize their members. But who rather looks away? Sexual abuse is such a typical practice in which she looks away.
Again several reasons. The first is that billing between members of the household could seriously undermine internal solidarity in the household. The solidarity that forms the basis of internal homeland cohesion, on which survival depends. And because the survival of the household is the highest in the moral world of the homestead, all other goals and values must be subject to this value and goal. Even the moral actions of their own members.
That is why the homeland always tolerates the immoral behavior of its members. However, as a rule, the same behavior of its non-members is strongly condemned. Another reason why the homestead does not excommunicate its member who violated the rules is that he is a member of a homestead, who knows that the house knows that he has done something very wrong, left his homestead at grace and unhappiness much more than a member, who did not violate the rules.
The perpetrator of the homestead is much more held by the neck than the non-caretaker. And the house wants to control its members. Have a subordinate position. Which includes the fact that they are left to the homesteads at the mercy of the homestead. Her arbitrariness. And the arbitrariness of its leaders.
Therefore, the priests who have sexually abused children, Pope Francis can talk about what he wants. That this is a devil’s action. Etc. Etc. But this kind of action simply can not and must not be eliminated. Because of the inner cohesion of the church. And also because the sinless priesthood would have been far more difficult to control than the mastery of the clergy with sins.
It is therefore in the interest of the Catholic Church and the Pope that its members are sinners. Their sins commit them to obey the Church and the Pope much more than anything else. Of course it is not entirely clear whether Francis knows this.
Nevertheless, the Pope did the most that he could do as the highest authority in the household: he verbally condemned the perpetrators of sexual abuse in the church. She can not and can not do more. Because of the interests of the church. And because of his own position. And your own strength.
It is likely that the Pope is aware that every bishop who knows that he has committed sexual misconduct did not exclude him from the church because of them, he holds in obedience, dependence, loyalty, uncompromising support of the church, and much more than he would , if this man did not carry out illicit behavior. That’s why Francis just moralized. But he must not do anything. So he did not do it either.
Categories: Brez kategorije