Matthew Thompson writes (Solidarity 611) that my article criticises the “report into clerical abuse in France” on the grounds that it doesn’t call for the “far-reaching reforms demanded by some campaigners such as the ordination of women as priests or the abolition of clerical celibacy”
That was not necessarily the intention of what was quite a flat and neutral factual account. It merely noted that “some campaigners” had demanded measures such as “the ordination of women as priests or the abolition of clerical celibacy” and that these recommendations were not included in the final report.
It is not the role of socialists to “reform” the Catholic Church and the statistics for child abuse are complex.
There some evidence, however, that the majority of abuse is carried out by men - see, for instance, recent Office for National Statistics data into the gendered breakdown of convicted child abusers.
Moreover, it is true that much abuse is carried out within the nuclear family, that abuse is about power rather than sexual gratification, and that therefore the direct link between celibacy and abuse is complex.
However, the celibacy requirement is part and parcel of the elite requirements of the priesthood. Not only is celibacy sex-negative and reactionary on its own terms but it bolsters the authoritative position of the priesthood vis-a-vis the laity.
More fundamentally, Thompson suggests that the issue is “paedophiles being ordained as priests and gaining access to children” and that none of the proposed reforms would prevent this.
No one would disagree that part of the answer is “much more thorough vetting, safeguarding and reporting procedures to protect children in the future.” And it is true that other religions, such as the Church of England, have a problem.
However, Thompson’s implication is that this is a problem of a “few bad apples”, or existing paedophiles attracted to the Catholic Church, rather than a structural problem with the Church which enables and encourages abusive behaviour. This strikes me as naive, and ducks the question of more fundamental practices in the Church.
Micheál MacEoin, London
