The sex abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church has caused a great deal of speculation and fighting–ideological, political, theological–and all (theoretically) for the betterment of the church.

A new study, which I expect to do little to squash the fighting and speculating, attempts to make good PR for the Roman church by countering the arguments of its critics.  But it does nothing to change the debate; it simply adds more ammunition to a war that already has far too many casualties.  And worse, it ignores the real problem: power.

Psychologists have long contended that abuse, and particularly sexual abuse, is not about sex, per se, or deviance, but the exercising of power or dominance over another.  In this way, the study reveals nothing surprising or unexpected.  The abuse of (predominantly) teen and pre-teen boys was not a symptom of the church’s stance on sexuality.  I for one never thought it was.  What it is, however, is something much scarier for the institution: an institutional hierarchy that seems to have driven many men to seek power through domination.

Of course I am not condoning, defending, or supporting the RCC’s handling of anything.  What I am pointing out is that the Church’s ecclesiological problem led to a sex abuse problem.  I do believe that RC clergy would be healthier without the celibacy requirement, but I also believe they would be healthier without a top-down hierarchy.  Their system is all about power–who has it and who doesn’t–and is predecated on people’s respect of the (male) individual in power.  The truth of the matter is that the same hierarchical model would be far less dangerous if women were involved in leadership and holding positions of real power.  I say this, not because women can do it better or that women are immune to this behavior (far from it), but that the diversity of people in power brings a natural balance to the arrangement.  Diversity in leadership levels things, bringing the laity and the clergy closer.

What the study does reveal, and I hope it is used usefully and not as some lame excuse, is that the social upheaval of the 1960s seemed to spark something in the clergy trained in the 1940s and 50’s toward this abusive behavior.  I believe that this only really makes sense in light of the power argument.  This loss of influence, seemingly deteriorating morals, and a profound sense of impotence led a bunch of men to abuse the powerless because of the hierarchy that made them feel powerless to effect the world around them and gave them a bunch of people they could dominate.

The issues of sex, gender, social unrest are only the window dressing of this conversation.  And there will be no resolution until the RCC deals with the institutional crisis.