Sexual morality is not a core competence of the Church- Head of Swiss Catholic Bishops
From 2019 but relevant because of the scandal that is overwhelming the Swiss Church. See my comment below how the lax attitude to sexual morality after the Council and which he represents generated the problem in the first instance
Once a year, Bishop Felix Gmür is interviewed by the ARPF (Working Group of the Parish Journal Editors of German-speaking Switzerland). The ongoing crisis of the Church suggested the catalogue of topics: abuse, sexual morality and clericalism.
As President of the Swiss Bishops' Conference, Bishop Felix Gmür attended the Anti-Abuse Summit in Rome.
In an interview, he talks about the results of the summit, how clericalism can be countered and why the Church should rather hold back on the subject of sexuality.
The Catholic Church is being hit by an avalanche of reports about serious cases of abuse worldwide. How are church employees in the diocese of Basel dealing with this?
Felix Gmür: It is a great test for them, especially because one must not forget that the vast majority of pastors really do a very good job and that it is about a few outliers, especially from earlier times. They are exposed to this issue, whereas they all - to the best of my knowledge - act correctly.
Recently, the documentary "God's Abused Servants" was shown. It shocked many. What thoughts came to you when you heard about these new revelations?
Of course it is a shock. The film was mainly about France. Here you see that abuse is not only about minors, but about every dependent person. That is very important. I also said that in Rome at the "Abuse Summit". And secondly, you see here that the core of abuse is an abuse of power, of spiritual power.
You met with victims of abuse during the "Abuse Summit" in Rome. What did you learn from the exchange with them?
I have met with victims of abuse time and again since I have been a bishop. So it is nothing new for me. In Rome, I then met with three Swiss victims, some of whom I already knew. These victims had a voice at this meeting in Rome. The first thing it triggers is always great consternation, shock. But you can see that this is a worldwide phenomenon. And you realised that the most important thing is to listen to the victims and believe them. It was a confirmation of the experiences I have already had. It was important to the organisers that you can have this experience together, that all participants are on the same level of experience.
What results did the meeting bring from your point of view?
The most important thing is that a common, worldwide awareness was created that this is a crime. There are some cultures where it is not a crime and not justiciable. I say this again, although I have been accused of saying it. For the Church, it is a crime in any case. So it is something else than a sin. A crime is reported, investigated, prosecuted and punished.
In the Church's Code of Canon Law (CIC), the age of marriage is set at 14 for girls and 16 for boys. Because of this regulation, some perpetrators convince themselves that sexual abuse of young people is not so bad.
This was not an issue at the summit. It was only informed that there are cultures that allow marriage at 12. However, the Vatican raised the age of consent regarding sexual abuse from 16 to 18 in 2001. At the meeting it was made clear that the abuse of minors ("minori") is a crime in any case, regardless of their age.
What other results did the "Abuse Summit" bring?
Another is the Vatican's offer of help: if there is an incident and a diocese is struggling with it, there is a task force that then helps. Finally, the realisation of the need to track and investigate assaults has taken root worldwide. For me, I have learned that there are some cultures where this issue is taboo in the public sphere - not only in the church.
What measures must now follow in the foreseeable time of one year from Rome or in the dioceses?
From my point of view, I am now looking first at Switzerland, because we are responsible for ourselves and cannot simply delegate this. Now the prevention measures that we decided on at the last Bishops' Conference must really take effect: The extracts from the criminal record and the special private extracts must be demanded and submitted, and the diocese's cooperation with the state-law appointing authorities must be properly regulated. The preventive measures must be implemented and controlled. That is our task.
In the German dioceses, a synodal process is to be initiated in connection with coming to terms with abuse. Is a similar process planned in Switzerland?
No, there are no synodal processes planned on this topic. It is also difficult because we have great linguistic and cultural hurdles. We are already further along with our measures. We do not need to talk again, but to implement. We now have the fourth edition of our guidelines, which are valid throughout Switzerland, and they contain all the essentials. During implementation, you can see where something is missing or needs to be clarified.
Pope Francis identified clericalism as a systemic cause of abuse. Is that comprehensible to you? Where does clericalism begin for you and what must be done about it?
It is a word of the Pope and different people imagine different things under it. I think it is more effective if we talk about abuse of power in different forms. That is clearer and more direct and one can take more direct measures against it: for example, making the exercise of power transparent and comprehensible. So that you know who said or did something, when and why, and who is or is not included in processes. You can look at where the danger lies that power is not controlled. I find that more purposeful. The term clericalism, from my perception, means that power in the church is tied to the clergy.
But it is the case that clericalism also exists among non-ordained people, church members for example, who prefer a certain church system.
You can see it that way. The Pope has seen it that way and has been criticised for it. But he therefore also said that the fight against abuse and clericalism concerns the whole people of God.
Somewhere we read an interpretation of clericalism which says that clericalism is also the attitude of expecting that Rome, or the next higher authority, should now regulate everything.
That is why I started precisely with us. We are responsible for Switzerland and for the concrete situation here. I cannot and do not want to hand this over to Rome. Because it is our business.
But this attitude must also go all the way to the grassroots in the other direction, right?
Yes, strictly according to the principle of subsidiarity: Where problems arise, they must be solved. One should only pass on a problem when one reaches a limit oneself. In this sense, the Vatican has set up a task force. If a bishop in his country reaches his limit with regard to abuse, this task force can be called.
Is the task force the point of contact for the grassroots at diocesan level when it comes to problems with non-transparent structures, for example?
Of course, it always depends on the concrete example and often both sides - state-church and pastoral - are involved. But depending on the problem in a parish, the pastoral region or even the diocesan region is the contact.
Another thesis is that a new way of dealing with and thinking about sexual morality could help to get a grip on the abuse crisis or even clericalism. Church teaching is very strict on the subject of sexual morality. Would it make sense for the church to take more notice of scientific findings and the changed reality of people's lives?
That's right, there is a need for action. If you say that findings are not being taken up by the church, then that is true at the level of the catechism. It hardly finds its way in there. But insights are received in the mode of reflection and questioning by many people in positions of responsibility. And here, a - let me call it a "more relaxed approach" to the subject - would really serve everyone.
Is such a "more relaxed approach" possible in training?
I don't have any feedback on the current training, but I remember that it was possible in my own training.
So there, too, we have to look to the dioceses?
And to the universities.
Is theology too dried up for these issues?
According to my perception - sexual morality is not my speciality - theology has suggestions for a "more relaxed approach" to it. Above all, the findings of the human sciences are being taken up. However, one must also realise that many people are not aware of the official sexual morality or, according to my perception, many do not adhere to it; this is a sign of the times that must be recognised.
It is a sign of the times that needs to be recognised and to which one does not react with defensiveness, but asks: Why is it like that?
Exactly. It is a sign of the times and then it depends on how one interprets this sign of the times.
What should be the attitude of the Church with regard to sexual morality? Should it not look into people's living rooms rather than their bedrooms?
It should look into the living room and into the workplace. Sexual morality is not the core competence of the church and it should speak less about it. It should talk less about it and also not moralise, but give priority to people's conscience decisions and not judge them.
(Cathcon: It is this lax attitude that has led to the problem in the first instance.)
So it should take on a supporting role?
Yes, that is the role of the Church, to support. In my opinion, it is primarily a matter of encouraging people, if they have questions or want to be accompanied, to deal with their kind of relationship. With their commitment or difficulties. In this discussion, sexuality is one aspect, but no more. If, on the one hand, everything is limited to the sixth commandment (thou shalt not commit adultery) and, on the other hand, the church's statements are extended to other forms of sexuality, then it is difficult.
Looking at the diocese of Basel, what are sensible next steps for a church that is so shaken that even faithful, politically moderate basic Catholics have trouble with their church?
The Church must rethink the structures that encourage misconduct. The second is that the Church must look at its core, that is, at its focus on Jesus Christ. And with a view to this Jesus, it should accompany people in their life of faith, in their doubts. Why is life meaningful? What do I make of it? How does God help me? Where do I draw strength and hope from? - All this is the task of the church and it should concentrate more on this again. But it has to do its homework: The decision-making processes must be made transparent, looked at and changed where necessary.
Pope Francis has spoken of decentralisation and recommends greater country responsibility in the area of abuse prevention. If you transfer that to the question of structural changes: What does this mean for the interrelationship between the local Church and the universal Church? Where do these dimensions collide?
One is the challenges we have to solve here. For example, on the one hand, the cooperation within the pastoral side, that is, between the various ministries - that is, the ordained and non-ordained pastoral workers, the catechetical staff, the volunteers. On the other hand, there is the cooperation between the pastoral side and the structure of the state church. That doesn't even concern the whole of Switzerland, but my diocese, and I can't delegate that. On the other hand, there are questions that are not decided by one bishop alone, but by a college of all. Either at the Swiss level or in the college of bishops from Central Europe or Eastern Europe and so on. These are heterogeneous groups that reflect very different national realities. It is not helpful if a bishop simply decides something. Rather, it is expedient for everyone to identify a question together and then seek an answer.
Would it be conceivable for the bishops of the German-speaking countries to say: we have determined that the abolition of compulsory celibacy or the ordination of women as deacons makes sense and then strive for an appropriate solution? Because a system that is not really changed does not change.
So it is a question of a regional solution? I have to come back to the issue of prevention. On the issue of prevention, we are striving for a solution for all German-speaking countries, because this is also a cultural issue. The issue of celibacy will be discussed at the Amazon Synod in October 2019. But I don't know if it will remain regional. I think it could also be discussed in the European countries. We have always been global in the Church and are even more so today, and the German-speaking countries in particular are larger than is generally assumed. One could certainly initiate such a discussion, that would be good.
.jpeg)
Comments