This Doctoral Project addresses the sexual theology  of   the  Christian  church and how it relates to  child  sexual  abuse.  The  project  deals first with an analysis of  the   history of Christian sexual ethics from the perspective  of the  Roman Catholic experience,  the conservative Christian  experience,  and  the liberal Protestant  experience.  The conclusion  is reached that in none of the three cases  did  Christianity  arrive at the twentieth century  equipped  to  deal  with the major shifts in paradigm in sexual behavior  which  came  about as a result of the advent of  the  birth  control pill.  Consequently,  the Church finds itself running to catch up with technology in the area of ethics  and  in  need of a major overhaul in the area of the theology of  embodiment. The area of Christendom most equipped by foundational ethics and theology to handle this task is Liberal Protestantism.  But the suggestion is made that accommodations can be made by both Conservative  Christianity  and Roman  Catholicism to "move into the twentieth century  in the area of sexual theology.

This  problem  directly affects the  issue  of  child sexual abuse. The fact that failure of modern Christianity to  address  sexual theology impacts the social problem  of child sexual abuse is shown by a socio-psychological  study used in the paper which asserts that child sexual abusers are  "more religious and more authoritarian than  average.   The   practical  results  of  child  sexual  abuse  on  the organization  of the family is explored in addition to  the  study of child sexual abusers normed with a control group.

Page

Authoritarianism, Religiosity and Child Sexual Abuse: A Psychological Correlational Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………57

Dispelling the myths about child sexual abusers: Who is and is not the offender . . . .57        The Effect of Incest on the Organization of the Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .……..82      

Institutional Response: Church and Society. . .94

The Study: Correlation of Authoritarianism Religiosity and Child Sexual Abuse. .97      Conclusion and Suggestions for Further Work. . .114

      Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………..122

Importance of the Problem       This  project  deals with the problem of  child  sexual      abuse  and the statement found in the literature of  those working in the area of treating such disorders which assert      that  the average child molester is more authoritarian  and     often more religious than average  (Summitt, 1983, p. 182).       My hypothesis is that there will be a high  correlation between the child sexual abuser’s religion and his authoritarianism       as  well as his tendency to autocracy in  family       relationships.  If my hypothesis proves true- the implications for social policy are readily seen- as many Christian       groups  today lobby for a return to a  traditional  family- oriented  public  social policy.  Ideology that upholds  a patriarchal  family with male authority  and  female/child       submission  may be the soil in which child sexual abuse  is nurtured.        I have encountered such a denial around the subject of  child sexual abuse that I have been amaed.  Society wants  to deny that incest ever happens and churches, pastors, and  church-related  groups are part of that denial.  In a monthly conference of various Southern  California  Pastors,       the  subject  was child sexual abuse for  about  six.  Expert  after expert was heard;  yet most pastors did not want to believe the fact that a majority  of family  members who sexually abuse children were more prone  to be authoritarian and religious than not.  Many of these pastors wanted to believe that the "dirty old man, usually homosexual,   preyed on children- mostly boys.. Some wanted to  believe that a religious "conversion experience"  would automatically  solve the problem and that  any  "religious  male who would molest children-  especially his own-  would      be  one who had not truly had the conversion experience  to Jesus. In contrast-the facts are that in more than 95% of      the  cases  the molester is a heterosexual-identified  male      and the victim is a female  child  (Summit,  1983, p.180)      Even  the case of the molestation of boys,  the offender      is  less concerned with the fact that the child is  a  male      than  with  the fact that the child is a child.  For  this      reason these people are labeled "pedophiles." Further,  in      more than 90%of the cases the offender is a trusted friend or  relative-someone  the  child  knows  (Summitt, 1983,      p.180).  And  conversion experience seems to make  little difference in the propensity to molest (Ode, N.D.. p. 1).      Rather,  the offender, often a molested child himself  and      the  victim of someone else who was religious,  seems to be      caught  in a "repetition compulsion" in a vain  attempt to  heal the wounds within himself  (Ode, n.d.p.1).  This is      the problem.

The  emotional trauma that incest leaves in its wake is  an important subject for the church. The church must look  at  how it perpetrates the problem through denial and  take steps  to protect the children of our  society.  In  other      words, the  church must become part of the  solution.  In      order  to do this, the church must begin to address  these      issues and begin to make the church a sanctuary for incest      victims  of  all  ages rather than  for  the  perpetrators.      Problems  which  may not look on the surface to be  incest-      related,  such as running away from home,  may be a symptom      of an incest problem. I counseled one woman who had repeatedly      run away from her incestuous  grandfather  who was      brought  back on more than one occasion to her  pastor—who      disbelieved  her  story  and promptly returned her  to  her      grandfather  every time.  The pastor had assumed that  she      was  just a rebellious teenager who mad up  awful  stories      about  this pillar of the church! My work with this woman      in  healing  the  breach of trust  with  the  pastor-- God’s      agent—was  more  difficult than dealing with  the  initial      incestuous  relationship(Anonymous  counselee,  personal      communication, 1977). Further, the church must look at its own sexual ethics.   I  believe that the spiritualized Victorian nineteenth century      sexuality with which we have all been raised cannot be       Biblically  justified.  And  I further believe  that  this       theology  contributes  to the problem because it  does  not       take into account the strength of  sexuality, particularly       male  sexuality and because it does not deal with the demonic       aspects of repression. I find very few people, male or       female, who can live up to the Victorian sexual ethic which grows out of this sexual theology. Even though this theology  has been Biblicized and sanctioned by the church,  the  wounding  which  grows from this theology wounds  all  of   us.  It  is  this aspect I wish to  explore: how  wounding   begets wounding.

       To effectively discuss the Roman Catholic tradition, it  will  be  necessary  to trace the development  of  Catholic  theology from the early patristic era.  It is here, from  the second to the fifth century, that foundations for what  I will demonstrate to be an extremely repressive  theology  were laid.       While the Church Fathers affirmed St. Paul in the Bible  regarding  the  indissolubility of marriage, the need  for  fidelity, and  the mutual duty of spouses, they  reinterpret the Biblical theology in three major ways: 1:  In  attempting to develop a middle  ground  between asceticism  and licentiousness practices by the  pagans  as  well  as  some who called themselves Christians  but  were later  branded  "heretics", the Fathers found  comfort  in   Stoicism. 2:  From  the  Stoic  idea of  the  purposefulness  of  humanity, the Fathers adopted the sexual theology that the  purpose  for human sexuality was procreation  of  children.  Sexual  abstinence was therefore as virtuous after a person  was married as before. As a result of such views,  there arose  a  double  standard  of morality; one for ordinary Christians and one  for  those  who were called to a  higher  purpose  (Kosnik, 1979, p.51).  The  church  thinker whose ideas tend to  be  identified  with   church  dogma  regarding  human  sexuality  is   St.  Augustine. While he did do some things to help clarify the  sanctity  of marriage and to hallow the moral value of  the  conjugal act; nevertheless, the whole of his teaching of   human sexuality is conflicted and ambiguous. His teachings are  decidedly  anti-body and he tends to equate  the  body  with  sin.  Rosemary  Reuther,   in her essay of  "Virginal  Feminism in the Fathers of the Church", states,         Augustine  believed  that  the  seat  of  ....disordered  affection due to sin is the male  penis, wose spontaneous tumescence, in response  to sensual stimuli and independent of  consciousness, is  the literal embodiment of that "lay in the  members  that wars against the lay of  the  minds".  "Augustine’s  horrified description  of the  male erection and its key role in  his  doctrine of sin and the transmission of original usually  brings embarrassed laughter from - historians of doctrine,   if they have the temerity to refer to it at all. It is usually supposed  to  reflect   some   personal   sexual   hang-up  of Augustine’s  resulting from obsessions caused  by  his  illicit sexual experiences, and thus not to reflect of these doctrines themselves. A personal   obsession  it may well have been, but  one  that reflected  a collective obsession of  Augustine’s    religious culture. Such a pointing to the erection of  the penis as the essence of sin was  a     biographic- but nevertheless a perfectly consistent expression of .......this entire system of

       The FBI manual of pedophilia states:

             The incestuous father is typically authoritarian,                 domineering,  and  inspires  fear in  his  family                 (Meiselman II,  57).  His demonstration of power                 typically  manifests itself in a tendency to  be                 overcontrolling and overtly restrictive. He may                 require  that his daughter come  home  directly                 after school and, [when she is old enough] forbid                 her  to interact socially with boys her own age.                 Frequently  the father exercises control  through                 excessive  disciplinary actions or  by  granting                 the victim special factors. These favors alienate                 the   victim   from   the  mother  as   well   as                 siblings,  who  may be jealous and  perceive  the

                child as being spoiled by the father (FBI,  1984, p.7).

Having said all this,  let us now deal with the theological and  practical  problems which arise from this theology  as clergy  today attempt to grapple with the problem of  child sexual abuse. First to be mentioned is the problem of denial.  Often  there  is  an unwillingness of the part of  the  clergy  to admit that such problems exist (at least in their congregations)  to the extent that the social service people  indicate.  The  attitude  is  that since  they  are  Christian people,  and  God is to some extent with them,  they do not have  these problems.  Churches want to hold to  the  myth  that their faith in God takes care of all worldly problems.       Many  clergy  are loath to examine just how their  theology  may help perpetuate child sexual abuse. Repressive sexuality was "the way they learned,  the way it’s always  been  done, and the way it should always be done." They fear the consequences of an open and honest stance toward sexuality.  They fail to see how repressive sexuality reaps its own reward.  As Ruether says, "The by-product of violent libidinal  repression  ....generates  its own  opposite  in  vivid  sensual fantasizing under the guise  of  antisensual  polemics" (Reuther, 1974, p.172).  One need only note just  how  many "Freudian slips" in the church are  sexual;  just   how  many hymns and liturgies  contained  veiled,  probably   subconscious  sexual  messages  to recognize the  truth  in  Ruether’s comment.        Within  churches,  there is the problem of  the  myriad  ways  to  approach Biblical interpretation.  For the  more conservative church,  obviously many passages can be interpreted to fortify the authoritarian position of the father.   Delaplane states,  "A child protective service worker  complained  to  a victim advocate that he went to a  house  to  remove  an  abused child and was confronted by  the  father   with the objection, `What do you mean I can’t beat my child¿ I’m a Christian!’" (Delaplane n.d., p.3).        The  reality  of the situation is that  many  Catholics  have  grown  up in a pre-Vatican II world in which sex  was  highly  repressed and thus are dysfunctional in this  area.  In  fact,  Catholics are disproportionately represented  in  the ranks of criminals and child sexual abusers (Renvoize, 1982,p.86).  The failure of Thomistic theology in this area  is  too often demonstrated by the sexual wounded-ness pastoral counselors see in the lives of Roman Catholics. Kosnik  states,  "inadequate  theology......fails to formulate  the  Christian ideal in a manner faithful to fundamental  values  yet also (be) responsive to the changing historical,  sociological,  and  cultural conditions in which this ideal must  be  realized" (Kosnik, 1979, p.98).        Liberal Protestants did not escape the fruits of  their authoritarian  heritage.  Clarence Snelling,  professor of practical  theology at Iliff School of  Theology,  told  me that in his generation,  person after person came to him as  pastor  and told stories of being sexually abused by  their  fathers.  Snelling’s generation was the 1920’s-world war II  generation  (Snelling,  1985).  While there are  signs  of redemption  of  the horizon in liberal  Protestantism,  the   heritage has been,  as has been demonstrated,  a reaping of  theologized  Victorian morality.  Perhaps liberal  Protestants  have escaped more lightly than have  fundamentalists  or Roman Catholics, but the results are there nevertheless.       Fundamentalists  have  reaped the  whirlwind  of  their  reaction  to "liberalism" of the late nineteenth and  early  twentieth centuries.  " Religion serves,  in many ways,  to   impede  the  development  of flexible  thinking  processes.      This  ultimately results in adult thinking that  is  rigid,   confined,  and stereotypical" (Chesen, 1972, p.8). The results  of  religious dogmatism are psychologically  that  a religious  "fail-safe" is built in to the mind  to  protect   from  any new information which might challenge the core of  dogmatic faith.  A dogmatic thinker is protected by his or  her religious fail-safe from the surrounding new input  and  can  avoid and shut out consideration of the conflict altogether.  The  mind tells the individual simply that he  or  she is right.  His or her "faith" tells him or her so. In  this  way the dogmatic/authoritarian thinker  is  protected  from any consideration that he/she might be wrong.  Fundamentalism too often thrives of dogmatic thinking"  (Chesen, 1972, p.26).       In both Protestant and Catholic  fundamentalism,  "profound lifelong religious indoctrination" may assume the form of  a  punitive conscience in the adult.  This  serves  to  stifle the person’s conscious recognition of normal drives; they  are  therefore unable to deal with them in  times  of  stress" (Chesen, 1972, p.34).       In the case of child sexual abuse,  the abuser is often an abused child himself.  In these cases, he is often only repeating  a behavior that he has learned and in many cases  there is a sort of "repetition compulsion" involved—if  he can  just  repeat the experience over and over through  his  own son/daughter,  perhaps he can get it right; heal his own inner wounded child!  In  other cases,  repressive  sexuality has tended to lie dormant  in  the  subconscious,  building as the basic sexual drive went  unrequited  and  finally exploding in child  sexual  abuse, which the offender may have rationalized as more acceptable  than masturbation, an affair, or sex with a prostitute.

       Had  the theology of the person allowed him to  lead  a  more  permissive life in which the volatile sexual emotions were acknowledged,  the person would have been more  likely  to  have been able to allow those drives to be expressed in more  socially acceptable ways.  As our study  will  demonstrate,  less rigid,  more democratic family style and less authoritarianism  leads to less sexual  abuse.  Presumably  one  of the tenets of democratic child-rearing is  openness  for children to learn and explore sexuality.

       Renvoize states,  "it is in sexually severe,  not sexually  lax,  families,  that children are most in danger of sexual abuse" (Renvoize, 1982, p.105). And Finkelhor (1979) found  that  girls  with  mothers who punished  them  for  asking  questions  about sex or for exploring their own bodies were  75%  more vulnerable to sexual abuse than was  the  typical  girl  in the study (Renvoize,  1982,p.98).  Thus the open, democratic approach to sexuality leads children out of  the  path of sexual abuse and to a healthier,  happier lifestyle  and less social disturbance of the family. But fundamentalist theology does not allow for such flexibility.        T.  W. Adorno and his colleagues made a study (1950) of   the  authoritarian personality shortly after World War  II. His  raw  data suggested that "only fully  conscious,  very  articulate, unconventional Christians are likely to be free of....authoritarianism" (Adorno, 1950, p.743).  His  study  suggested  that  either  fundamentalist  religion  produced  authoritarians or authoritarians were drawn to  fundamentalist  religions.  But the data suggested that these  religions  were  selected  not because of any  deep  piety  but because  of the fact that these religions provided a structure  in  which the authoritarian  personality  felt safe.       Fundamentalism, in short, was effective because it provided   the  authoritarian  personality  with a clear-cut  list  of "do’s  and  dont’s";  something  "to hold on to"  (Adorno,  1950, p. 734).

       One  such  interview  by Adorno led  to  the  following  conclusions  concerning  the authoritarian personality  and  religion:  (1)  a restrictive superego in  which  material   pleasure  is denied and obeying and being obeyed is highly  regarded;  (2) a compulsive and punitive religious  belief;   (3)  an overly rigid conscience which,  however,  may  show strains of ambivalence; (4) a God-concept which is confused  with an earthly,  strong,  helpful, "father" (Adorno, 1950,  p. 737).       This pattern found in the  fundamentalist-authoritarian leads to an overly adjusted, conformist individual. He/she both  loves and hates the "father" and transfers this ambivalence  onto groups and persons with  lesser  power,  both politically and physically. Any person or group who threaten  the "status quo" threatens the authoritarian-religious as usurpers of control. The identification of the authoritarian  character  with  strength  automatically   excludes anyone  and everything that is regarded as "down",  "weak", "non-strength". This is accomplished with moral invectives  reinforced  by selective proof-texted Biblical  Scriptures. (Adorno, 1950, p.759).

       It  is worth noting that the above description  of  the  authoritarian-religious in no way applies only to Christian  fundamentalists.  Jewish  fundamentalists (strict Hasidim)  and Moslem Ayatollahs and their followers also exhibit  the  same  degree  of rigidity.  Everywhere authoritarianism  is  authoritarianism   and  fundamentalism  is   fundamentalism (Adorno, 1950, p.759).       Thus  it  is that we arrive to the latter part  of  the  twentieth  century  with a confused and  confusing  sea  of Christian/cultural  sexual ethics.  Adding to this problem  is the practical fact that the advent of the birth  control  pill in the 1950’s and 1960’s has ushered in a new paradigm       in sexual ethics. No longer able to suppress female sexuality with the fear of getting pregnant, society casts about  for  a new anchor,  some new foundation with which to regulate sexual behavior.  Some will, no doubt, take refuge in  old,  secure sexual mores. But this shift in paradigm will  not allow,  practically,  these old forms to function  much  longer.  The  confusion  we  see in the area  of  sex-role definition, sexual behavior, turmoil in the Western nuclear  family,  and  child  sexual abuse are combinations  of  all these factors to challenge us as Christians to re-think our  moral and sexual theology.  It is to this task I now turn.

       As  we analyze the three strains of Christianity  which   we  spent some length in the last section reviewing,  we find  problems within each that will hinder our search  for   healing our cultural sexual schisms. Within fundamentalism that same rigidity which  creates   the  authoritarian problem prevents its healing.  Further,  fundamentalism’s extreme individualistic natural focuses any   treatises  of  sexual mores of the individual and  not  the   system. For example, some books of child sexual abuse have  begun  to surface in the conservative Christian  community.       One of these is David B.  Peters(1986),  who has written  a   book,  A  Betrayal of Innocence,  about child sexual  abuse from  a  conservative Christian standpoint.  Some  of  his   insights  are valid and certainly anything written for conservative  Christians serves to break the silence  surrounding  child sexual abuse and dispel some of the myths  concerning  this  pervasive problem.  For  example,  Peters recognizes  that incest is a real problem for the  modern   family  and  tends not to scapegoat "secular  humanism"  or  homosexuals  or Communists for these  problems.  The  main  problem  with  the  book,  in my opinion,  is the  lack  of critique of a system which would through its  authoritarian  natural  and system of Biblical interpretation reinforce the offender and not the victim.

       One  of  the  major  things that  can  be  accomplished  through the fundamentalist/conservative Christian camp is a  commitment  to  a reinterpretation of the Bible  and  other  Jewish and Christian traditions.  Many Bible passages  can  be interpreted to fortify the defense that "the husband and  father is the head of the house and, therefore, can enforce   the  obedience  of  his wife or children as he  sees  fit"(Delaplane,  n.d.,  p.2).  But even within the traditional  prooftexting style of Biblical interpretation,  value judgments  must  be  made.  Gay rights proponents  within  the church have long asserted that this type of value  judgment  is made concerning Levitical law. Persons who condemn homosexuality  of  the basis of Levitical law  regularly  admit  "maimed"  persons to the priesthood,  eat  shellfish,  rare  steak,  and wear trousers. This, claim proponents of homosexuality,  represents  a  value judgment to adhere to  one component of Levitical law and ignore others.

       If  conservative  Christians are intellectually  honest  they  will admit that there are value judgments within  the  prooftext.  Given  that reality,  it is a small  thing  to begin  to  emphasize the very high ethic of compassion  and  justice  which is inherent in the overall emphasis  of  the  Bible and specific to certain texts. Many people are leery of the harsh accounts of the Hebrew Scriptures. Yet, it is significant  that historically among Jewish people down  to  the   present  day  the  tradition  of  protection  of  the vulnerable is a given.  Certainly no one would find justification for abuse of a spouse or child in the teachings of Jesus,  and St.  Paul’s teaching in the epistles regarding  parental  authority and spousal relations  contain  mitigations  in this regard,  upholding the highest standards  of  mutual respect. In this sense, fundamentalists and conservative  Christians  may begin to emphasize justice for  the child abuse victim while still holding their same method of Biblical interpretation.        Systemic problems within conservative Christianity  and  fundamentalism are less pliable,  because religious institutions are generally accepted,  for all of their imperfections,  as representative of God. And when teachings occur of  "spare the rod and spoil the child",  as appeared in  a  recent article in the Long Beech Press-Telegram, many children  find  themselves feeling that they are at  fault  and abuse,  physical and/or sexual,  is what they deserve since daddy is to be obeyed (Rosemond,  1986).  Presently I will  set  forth  an ethic based on agape which  will  address  a  tentative solution to some of these systemic problems.

      Within the Roman Catholic tradition, teleology mandates that  moral  theologians grapple with what is the  "highest  good" for humanity and the world.  The question for  them, as has been stated,  is "what is the goal of this act?" By  following  the  Aquinian tradition of defining the goal  of  sexual acts as procreation alone,  this moral theology  has  had  problems moving into this new moral paradigm with  the advent of the birth control pill. Further assumptions that  Aquinas  borrowed from Aristotle were false anthropological  assumptions about the nature of women.  These  assumptions   can be critiqued based of the same arguments that were used  to  critique Aquinas; assumptions about human sexuality  in  the last chapter, that they were based on male observations  in  "nature".  These assumptions led to the erroneous conclusion  that natural always intended to produce males so  a   woman is a man gone wrong (Nelson, 1978, p.63). Again, this point  is reinforced by natural law perspective,  with  the real  danger  being  that  woman will  be  reduced  to  the procreative role.       The theory of natural law is supposed to have the great advantage  of being objectively based and rationally defensible  as a basis for moral judgment.  Yet  when  examined closely  it  is seen to be too narrowly defined as  Aquinas has  it  in that it defines "nature" only  in  the  spatio-temporal sphere. Further, in its detailed prescriptions it become  unclear,  irrelevant and inapplicable to modern society.  If the prescriptions do not become irrelevant they  become accommodated to the changes of society.  And lastly, as we have demonstrated, they become absurd, as in the case of the masturbation vs. incest dilemma. Therefore, as D.J. O’Conner (1967) concludes, the theory of natural law is, in  finality,  as relativist as any other (O’Conner, 1967, p. 79).       But  neither  do we throw the baby out  with  the  bath water.  We  cannot deal with our sexuality apart from some  understanding of nature.  What is being repudiated here is  not natural law per se,  but Aquinas’ particular  interpretation of natural law.  To consistently reinterpret natural law and ourselves is always necessary.

       Other  problems  with the Roman Catholic stance are  (1)  tradition,  particularly those traditions that are grounded  in the cultural sexism of the modern times and those traditions  which  ignore  "the growing  gap  between  what  the  Catholic  Church  officially teaches in matters sexual  and what  the  faithful  have come  to  believe (mainly through science) and  practice" (Kosnik,  1979,  p.98),  and (2) the authority of the Pope. The  latter  may  be interpreted as a sign  of  advance  or  conservativism  depending  of the persuasion of  the  Pope.      This  present Pope (John Paul II) has not thus far shown any proclivity to progressive reform in sexual theology;  in fact,  quite the  opposite is the case.        The  liberal Protestant moral theology has been  critiqued  by feminist theologians such as Ruether and  Harrison for seeing the world colored through western glasses tinted by "modern institutions of marriage,  family relations, and sexuality."  Liberation theologians have criticized  relational  ethics of the grounds that they are too romantic in  the area of community, family and conflict. Harrison says,     

  "I  suspect  Protestant  liberal  intimacy-romanticism  has       combined  [in American culture] to create a scenario  of  a       perfect  world  where  natural and human  spontaneity  would       merge to end all moral dilemmas (Harrison 1985, p.81).

  Harrison (1983),  in her book on abortion, describes in   more  detail  the historic struggle of women  to  gain  the reproductive  right to their own bodies which current moral  theology  lacks.  Her main criticism of  both  traditional Catholic   and  Protestant  Christianity  is  its  lack  of  balance,  of inclusivity, of allowing the female experience  and  historiography  to be admitted to the  moral  theology debate. This is the "paradigm shift" to which I referred—the  advent  of the birth control pill and  the  scientific possibility for women to—en masse—solve the  problem  of fertility (Harrison, 1983, p.161©.  As Harrison  so  aptly argues,  this  development places procreative power for the  first time in modern history in the hands of women;  and this  is  a powerful and  profound  political  happening  (Harrison 1985, p.125). This is a good sign,  for anything  which  contributes  to  a more open,  democratic  style  in   sexual  matters may contribute to the alleviation of  rape,  child abuse and child sexual abuse.       But  in my opinion,  liberal  Protestant  relationalist  moral  theology  contains embedded in it the strains for  a  most  productive  look at the problem of  the  revision  of  moral  theology  in  the late  twentieth  century.  First, Reinhold   Niebuhr  articulated  a  philosophy  of   norms, particularly  at the level of community,  that  pointed  to reciprocity  and mutual love as a basis for human beings to live together. At the level of institution and society, he advocated  justice based on equality,  which rests  on  the  power  of  the people in that society.  Although  much  of Reinhold  Niebuhr’s  moral theology could be criticized  on the basis of masculinist norms,  at least here are embedded  the seeds of a moral theology that will include a  balanced  male/female participation (Neibuhr, R. 1949, p. 190).       H.  Richard  Niebuhr also articulated a moral  theology  which  encompassed the theory of "responsibility",  or  the  life  which  he  sees  patterned  in  Jesus,  the  life  of response. Ethics is therefore a hermeneutic exercise which involves the person in application of the gospel message of   Jesus   to   make  it  come  alive  in   his/her   everyday life (Niebuhr,  H.R.,  1963,  p.67).  It is on the basis of living  a  life of response that James  Nelson  and  Joseph Fletcher  have  articulated  a  "response-oriented"  sexual ethic.

       On  the  basis  of this articulated  ethic  applied  to sexuality,  "we  are called to respond to the presence  and activity  of  God in the midst of varied and changing  contexts.  We are called to a life of responsible  initiative and creative action in the newness of each situation and in its continuity with the past. Sexual acts are evaluated in  terms  of  their  fittingness  to what  God  is  doing  and intention  in   the   midst   of   human   relationships" (Nelson, 1978, p.120).       Before turning to application of certain moral criteria to child sexual abuse,  It will be helpful to first articulate a moral sexual theology which is a synthesis of fundamentalist,  Catholic  and  liberal Protestant  thought.  A synthesis of these three styles,  while difficult,  is  not  impossible.  It  can be possible that what is fitting  can  also be right and good. But this is not romantic panacaea.   There is no theology without its theology of suffering,  of  the cross.

       The  premises  are that (1) suffering exists,  and  (2) the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus has revealed the full scope of Christian existence,  which is eschatological.  The epistle to the Hebrews quotes Jesus’ prayer in  the  Garden of Gethsemane as revealing the ideal  Christian attitude  toward  existence;  the resurrection is  seen  as  proof  that  the Jesus prayer was  answered.  The  passage suggests  that by reflection of the  suffering,  death  and exaltation  of Jesus,  the Christian community has  learned  that  the Kingdom of God,  for which it prays (and in which love  is  the only effective law because God  is  love)  is already  eschatologically changing the world as we now know  it, and has been doing so for 200° years. God is through the community establishing the kingdom by transforming  the  present world with everything that is in it—nothing excluded—in  the  image of the risen Christ.  That means  that sickness  and suffering,  as we find it in this  world,  is  also  undergoing  the process of  transformation  into  the image and likeness of Christ,  but the process has not come  to  an end.  Christian prayer for the suffering is not for God to make "pie in the sky" but for the divine transformation of the present order of the world and for the gift  of  the  Holy Spirit-agape.  The Pentecostal coming of the Holy Spirit upon the church is the promise of that transformation,  and  everything done in the name of Jesus is  the anticipation  of  the  eschaton.  In  that  eschatological  light, suffering has taken on a new, positive meaning.       In this light the premise,  "no pain,  no gain," can be  verified.  In  the area of sexuality,  women in particular can   testify   to  the   suffering   involved,   if   only   biologically. The first experience of intercourse is painful  to  most  women  but is the  means  to  intimacy  with the beloved.  Childbearing  is suffering but afterwards yields the joy of a new life.  The purpose here is not to glorify suffering  (Biblically,  pain  in childbirth is seen  as  a curse,  as  is all suffering)»  but to emphasize that  when  seen  eschatologically,   suffering can take  on  a  positive meaning. So we bear in mind the critique of romanticism of  the  relational ethic and eschatological romanticism  with the   acknowledgment  of  the  reality  of  the  cross  and  suffering in our moral theology.       I  am grateful to Norman  Pittenger,  Anglican  process  theologian,  for  the insights which follow in my  proposal for   revisions   in   Catholic  moral  theology   and   in fundamentalist theology.  Pittenger,  moving from within a  tradition  which espouses teleology,  advocates making  the  goal of sexual activity agape (Pittenger, 1978, p.65). When the telos of sexuality is love,  the natural law of Aquinas  is  expanded  to include abstract notions  instead  of  the limited Aquinian notion of only tempero-spatial concepts to  be considered in a telos.  Scripturally, the notion of love  as  the end of sexuality can bear up.  Jesus says that to  love God and neighbor as self—on these depend all the  law and  the prophets.  Christian love is therefore by definition  a  participation in the love of God  brought  to  the world in the human being in Jesus Christ. In the Christian  doctrine  of the incarnation we do not see the exception to  the  rule when God became human but the chief  exemplification of all that is good,  noble and human.  Jesus  stands  before  us  as the completion of what God can and  will  do  with  our human striving for becoming who God has  intended us  to  be.  Christian love as the highest moral  category  therefore  offers  us an opportunity to correct  the  self-centered  attitude  that seems so "natural" to  most  human beings—what Reinhold Niebuhr rightly identified as the sin of pride (Niebuhr, R., 1941, p.186ff). Love becomes a moral imperative and not just a sentiment.  Christian love  furthermore  opens  for us the knowledge of who we are in  the becoming.        In  the human existence there is a God-given  drive  to  love,  to express ourselves in love and find in that reciprocity  a fulfillment of others.  The capacity to love  is the most profound truth about humanity—we can love.  The  desire  to  love,  of which sexuality is one of the  signs, even  with all its distortions,  is not accidental;  it  is  integral  to human life and  existence.  Furthermore,  the  love that constitutes the basic category of human existence  will and must always reach out of itself in such a way that  it becomes personal and personalizing, thus contributing to the  creation of the other as a  person  (Pittenger,  1978,  p.77). Receptivity, too, can be and is a creative process.   Reaching out and receiving,  reciprocity of intimacy—this,       too, is part of our human inheritance.        To  ascribe love as the highest good inevitably  forces us  to relativity in choices,  but relativity is pinned  to love.  Thus  relativity is not an "anything goes"  concept but,  as Pittenger says, "the perception that there must be  adaptation  of the central ethical principle to  the  given  situation" (Pittenger, 1978, p.72).        As  Nelson  says,  "Love is not the only  principle  of Christian  sexual  ethics,  but  it  is  the  central  one"  (Nelson,  1978,  p.109).  The  ethical  principle and  the   central ethical norm is God as Love and as Lover.  Related to this central norm are others,  such as freedom, justice, truth, faithfulness, keeper of covenant, hope and peace, to  name a few. Yet it speaks to human beings in their finite and  sinful condition and to the circumstances in which  we  are placed.  And this is both natural and inevitable since we  are being made in the image of God,  an image  that  in  concrete   manifestation  in  our  midst  is  Jesus  Christ  (Pittenger, 1978, p.77).       Catholic  sexuality  begins to admit  strains  of  this  response-based  morality  in  Vatican II in a  paper  which "called  for a renewal of moral theology in which  morality is seen as a vocation,  a way of life,  a total response to God’s  invitation lived out from the depths of  a  person’s  being" (Kosnik, 1979, p.110).  Kosnik  and other  Catholic  moral  theologians are moving to a  more  response-oriented  style of decision-making about moral theology. For example,  Kosnik critiques Aquinian theology on two  fronts:  the  fact that morality cannot merely be objective but  must  also include the subjective  criteria  of  human intent;   and  the  fact that human sexuality is  infinitely more  complex than could have been imagined by  a  medieval  thinker such as Aquinas.        Kosnik  suggests that human sexuality under a telos  of  growth  and integration be judged by certain norms.  Among  these norms are the self-liberating aspect of sexual  activity, the quality of other-enriching growth that can occur,  the  degree  of  honesty,  fidelity and joy  that  the  act  serves,  the degree of social responsibility displayed, and  the  degree  to which the act is life serving  rather  than  life-defeating.  Obviously,  with specific pastoral guidelines,  some  of the more obvious problems of the  Aquinian   theology  that   have  been  articulated  would  be  solved (Kosnik, 1979, p.112ff)       Nelson,  in  articulating a relational ethic with agape  at its core, suggests these guidelines for sexual acts:

             "First, love requires a single standard and not a                 double standard for sexual morality...Second, the                 physical  expression  of  one’s  sexuality   with                 another  person  ought to be appropriate  to  the                 level   of  loving  commitment  present  in  that                 relationship...Third,  genital sexual  expression                 should  be  evaluated in regard  to  motivations,                 intentions, the nature of the act itself, and the                 consequences  of the act,  each of these informed                 and shaped by love" (Nelson, 1978, p. 127).

      The  motive should be love of God,  self and  one’s  sexual partner.  The  intention  should be human fulfillment  and  wholeness.   The  nature  of  the  act  itself  should  be  evaluated in light of wholeness and love.  Some acts, such  as rape or mutilation are inherently wrong. They are wrong  not  only because they are unloving,  but because they  are  unjust.   The   consequences  ought  to  be   weighed   and responsibility taken for the outcome of the act,  as in the  conception of a child,  for example (Nelson,  1978,  p.127- 129).

       These  principles can then be applied to the problem of child sexual abuse. Often, as I have said, there is an unwillingness on the  part of clergy to admit that problems of child sexual abuse exist  in their congregations to the extent that the social service  people  indicate.  Many are afraid it  "would  be  damaging  to their witness" to admit  such  problems.  But  denial  is  a  problem inherent in the whole  child  sexual  abuse  syndrome,  and  if we subscribe  to  the  principles  suggested  above,  we must be honest and confront  reality.       And always the body of Christ has at its best taken on evil  and done its best to eradicate it.        Among the most practical things we can do is to exhibit an  attitude of openness and honesty around the  issues  of  sexuality.  Families  who  are victims of incest  have  an uncanny knack for knowing who may be open to their problems and who may be judg-ment-al, or deny or avoid the problem.

     A  revision of our sexual ethics may be in order to  be able to admit the sexuality of youngsters and to take steps to  protect them based on that knowledge.  While  education  such  as some child sexual abuse experts advocate is a  key approach,  there  are other measures that may be  taken  to protect  children,  which include physically protecting the child  whenever possible and believing a child who  reports sexual abuse. These measures are discussed in more depth in the last chapter.        Churches   and  clergy&nbs