Chris, some very important points here. However, I'm a bit thrown off by the title of your article. Don't you mean to say that a certain kind of "chastity culture" is what enables sexual violence in this way? Wouldn't the presence of true chastity, the virtue itself and people who strive to embody it, lead to the opposite of sexual violence, not to mention a sensitivity to and avoidance of the very errors you point out? Or am I missing something?
Maybe your wording is intentionally provocative, but I think there's something to be gained by making the distinction a bit more clear. I'd be the first to admit that there's some really messed-up "chastity" formation out there in both Catholic and Protestant/Evangelical circles. I'd even argue that we don't actually talk about anything more than a stereotype of chastity, most of the time. As a result, many of us can be tempted to completely dismiss it as a repressive, toxic ideal that's had its day and should be done away with. I fear some of your readers might draw this conclusion, in the absence of clarification.
I'd welcome a conversation about what an authentic, imperfect, graced engagement with the virtue of chastity really looks like for LGBTQ and hetero folks today.
This is brilliant. This should be read by everyone 'struggling' with chastity - to understand, know and recognize that oftentimes we 'violate' another for selfish satisfaction. It's a typical gay pattern - esp. those who engage in anonymous sex, repent, go to confession, sin again - with no regard for the person of the sexual partner. Sadly the penitent is more ashamed of the sin against chastity as well as concerned for restoring his knightly armor and good reputation, rather than growing in charity and sorrow for having violated his partner - e.g. causing him to sin as well. I don't think I'm expressing that very well - but maybe I can do better by reading your essay more closely. This is quite insightful. Thank you.
I think you summed it up perfectly. People in the Church first make a category error by labeling sexual abuse as a failure of chastity--a sin of the flesh--when it is actually a far more sinister sin of the spirit involving power and dominance. But then, by relating this problem of abuse to "core wounds," Christians absolve the perpetrator of guilt. I do think some of this can be chocked up to ignorance. On the outside, sexual abuse *seems* like it's about sex, when in reality it is entirely different. I'm not sure how long ago psychologists knew this, but it often takes awhile for science to trickle down to the Church.
One question I have though, is whether it actually is possible for an abuser to change. It creates a bit of a catch-22. If sexual violence is a sin, then it can be forgiven and overcome like any other sin. (This seems to be the position of many Church leaders in the past). But if sexual violence cannot ever be overcome, then it seems more like a behavioral disorder, and thus not fully a "sin." Is it both, then?
Thanks Chris, you've raised many great and very important points. In my experience, the misuse of "chastity" in the way you're describing is a symptom of the larger institutional problem. Call the problem a misuse of the "Sin Model of Wrongdoing." When a priest (or an employee of an organization) abuses (or harasses or whatever), one relevant, true description of what they've done is that they (a) "have committed a sin." This is, say, a spiritual description. When individual Catholics *sin,* they go to confession. Where a priest, behind closed doors, forgives that person on behalf of the community, and facilitates absolution (which comes from God). If this is the only description someone in power (a priest who is also, say, a bishop, or the CEO of a medium-sized content production company) has in mind, the issue has been sufficiently dealt with. Of course, here are two other potential, true, non-spiritual descriptions of what such a person might have done: (b) "Committed a crime against the law of county / state / country X," (c) "Committed a crime against canon law," and (d) "Engaged in terminatable workplace harassment." If these descriptions are also true, then -- in addition to confession -- the priest-bishop-CEO must deal with it in at least three very distinct ways: (1) recommend the person goes to confession (or simply grant absolution after a sincere confession), (2) initiate appropriate legal protocols for the county / state / country, (3) initiate appropriate legal protocols according to canon law, and (4) initiate appropriate protocols for the company he or she is running. Confession is not intended to allow for the community (or members of it) to engage directly with the sinner. Some of the protocols of (2) - (4) *are* (and for good reason). The biggest problem in priestly abuse cases I know well is that -- very often -- the priest or bishop involved never makes the leap from description (a) to any other description. A (newer, hitherto unarticulated or barely articulated) problem is that in newer cases, even if the priest or bishop makes the jump from description (a) to one of the other descriptions (b) - (d), they run all those processes together, and / or use the multiple processes to drum up confusion (and or obfuscate a bunch of issues that shouldn't be run together). Just a couple thoughts. Thanks again for the post.
Thank you so much for writing this.
Chris, some very important points here. However, I'm a bit thrown off by the title of your article. Don't you mean to say that a certain kind of "chastity culture" is what enables sexual violence in this way? Wouldn't the presence of true chastity, the virtue itself and people who strive to embody it, lead to the opposite of sexual violence, not to mention a sensitivity to and avoidance of the very errors you point out? Or am I missing something?
Maybe your wording is intentionally provocative, but I think there's something to be gained by making the distinction a bit more clear. I'd be the first to admit that there's some really messed-up "chastity" formation out there in both Catholic and Protestant/Evangelical circles. I'd even argue that we don't actually talk about anything more than a stereotype of chastity, most of the time. As a result, many of us can be tempted to completely dismiss it as a repressive, toxic ideal that's had its day and should be done away with. I fear some of your readers might draw this conclusion, in the absence of clarification.
I'd welcome a conversation about what an authentic, imperfect, graced engagement with the virtue of chastity really looks like for LGBTQ and hetero folks today.
This is brilliant. This should be read by everyone 'struggling' with chastity - to understand, know and recognize that oftentimes we 'violate' another for selfish satisfaction. It's a typical gay pattern - esp. those who engage in anonymous sex, repent, go to confession, sin again - with no regard for the person of the sexual partner. Sadly the penitent is more ashamed of the sin against chastity as well as concerned for restoring his knightly armor and good reputation, rather than growing in charity and sorrow for having violated his partner - e.g. causing him to sin as well. I don't think I'm expressing that very well - but maybe I can do better by reading your essay more closely. This is quite insightful. Thank you.
I think you summed it up perfectly. People in the Church first make a category error by labeling sexual abuse as a failure of chastity--a sin of the flesh--when it is actually a far more sinister sin of the spirit involving power and dominance. But then, by relating this problem of abuse to "core wounds," Christians absolve the perpetrator of guilt. I do think some of this can be chocked up to ignorance. On the outside, sexual abuse *seems* like it's about sex, when in reality it is entirely different. I'm not sure how long ago psychologists knew this, but it often takes awhile for science to trickle down to the Church.
One question I have though, is whether it actually is possible for an abuser to change. It creates a bit of a catch-22. If sexual violence is a sin, then it can be forgiven and overcome like any other sin. (This seems to be the position of many Church leaders in the past). But if sexual violence cannot ever be overcome, then it seems more like a behavioral disorder, and thus not fully a "sin." Is it both, then?
Thanks Chris, you've raised many great and very important points. In my experience, the misuse of "chastity" in the way you're describing is a symptom of the larger institutional problem. Call the problem a misuse of the "Sin Model of Wrongdoing." When a priest (or an employee of an organization) abuses (or harasses or whatever), one relevant, true description of what they've done is that they (a) "have committed a sin." This is, say, a spiritual description. When individual Catholics *sin,* they go to confession. Where a priest, behind closed doors, forgives that person on behalf of the community, and facilitates absolution (which comes from God). If this is the only description someone in power (a priest who is also, say, a bishop, or the CEO of a medium-sized content production company) has in mind, the issue has been sufficiently dealt with. Of course, here are two other potential, true, non-spiritual descriptions of what such a person might have done: (b) "Committed a crime against the law of county / state / country X," (c) "Committed a crime against canon law," and (d) "Engaged in terminatable workplace harassment." If these descriptions are also true, then -- in addition to confession -- the priest-bishop-CEO must deal with it in at least three very distinct ways: (1) recommend the person goes to confession (or simply grant absolution after a sincere confession), (2) initiate appropriate legal protocols for the county / state / country, (3) initiate appropriate legal protocols according to canon law, and (4) initiate appropriate protocols for the company he or she is running. Confession is not intended to allow for the community (or members of it) to engage directly with the sinner. Some of the protocols of (2) - (4) *are* (and for good reason). The biggest problem in priestly abuse cases I know well is that -- very often -- the priest or bishop involved never makes the leap from description (a) to any other description. A (newer, hitherto unarticulated or barely articulated) problem is that in newer cases, even if the priest or bishop makes the jump from description (a) to one of the other descriptions (b) - (d), they run all those processes together, and / or use the multiple processes to drum up confusion (and or obfuscate a bunch of issues that shouldn't be run together). Just a couple thoughts. Thanks again for the post.