My family’s involvement with a criminal conspiracy

For the past five years, I’ve been part of a big Catholic family, even before I married into it.

Due to lease logistics, I moved in with my future father-in-law for the five months before my wedding. Three of us lived in that house: me, Pop and my wife’s Uncle Joe, a retired priest. We joked that it was our bachelor pad — the widower, the celibate and the fiancé.

I stayed in a room that had once belonged to another priest — a man who was such a close friend of the family that my wife grew up calling him “Uncle Father.” He spoke at the funeral of her mother and then, three years later, he spoke at Pop’s funeral too.

After the ‘vixen and I got married, Pop sold his house and moved out here to live with us in Chester County, while Uncle Joe moved in with his brother.

Our girls went through confirmation out here. That turns out to be a pretty big deal, with the whole family — aunts and uncles on both the Irish and the Italian sides — in attendance. I even picked up Aunt Bern at the convent so she could be there.

The Reverend Monsignor William Lynn

As a lifelong Baptist, I’d never been to a confirmation before, but it reminded me of my own baptism. There was no dunking, of course, and with dozens of children in every class it was a much larger and somewhat younger crowd, but the gist of it was still familiar, even with all the additional pomp and circumstance. Between my two daughters and two of their cousins, I attended four confirmation services in as many years. At each of them, the children were quizzed on their catechism by a revered veteran priest out here — a monsignor actually.

You may have heard of him. He’s famous now — even got profiled in Rolling Stone. And he was on the news last night here in Philly.

Monsignor William Lynn, as Sabrina Rubin Ederly wrote for Rolling Stone, was:

… a high-ranking official in Philadelphia’s archdiocese. Lynn, who reported directly to the cardinal, was the trusted custodian of a trove of documents known in the church as the “Secret Archives files.” The files prove what many have long suspected: that officials in the upper echelons of the church not only tolerated the widespread sexual abuse of children by priests but conspired to hide the crimes and silence the victims. Lynn is accused of having been the archdiocese’s sex-abuse fixer, the man who covered up for its priests.

Lynn himself is not accused of abusing children. His role was to keep the abusers’ secrets secret. He is accused of covering up and hushing up the scandal on behalf of the archdiocese — protecting the institution by endangering its children. When a priest was discovered to be abusing children, prosecutors say, it was Lynn who saw to it that they were quietly reassigned elsewhere. He shuffled them off to a new location — and not to someplace where they’d be away from children, that might have looked suspicious:

Bill Lynn understood that his mission, above all, was to preserve the reputation of the church. The unspoken rule was clear: Never call the police. Not long after his promotion, Lynn and a colleague held a meeting with Rev. Michael McCarthy, who had been accused of sexually abusing boys, informing the priest of the fate that Cardinal Bevilacqua had approved: McCarthy would be reassigned to a “distant” parish “so that the profile can be as low as possible and not attract attention from the complainant.” Lynn dutifully filed his memo of the meeting in the Secret Archives, where it would sit for the next decade.

Over the 12 years that he held the job of secretary of the clergy, Lynn mastered the art of damage control. With his fellow priests, Lynn was unfailingly sympathetic; in a meeting with one distraught pastor who had just admitted to abusing boys, Lynn comforted the clergyman by suggesting that his 11-year-old victim had “seduced” him. With victims, Lynn was smooth and reassuring, promising to take their allegations seriously while doing nothing to punish their abusers. Kathy Jordan, who told Lynn in 2002 that she had been assaulted by a priest as a student at a Catholic high school, recalls how he assured her that the offender would no longer be allowed to work as a pastor. Years later, while reading the priest’s obituary, Jordan says it became clear to her that her abuser had, in fact, remained a priest, serving Mass in Maryland. “I came to realize that by having this friendly, confiding way, Lynn had neutralized me,” she says. “He handled me brilliantly.”

… In 2005, the grand jury released its 418-page report, which stands as the most blistering and comprehensive account ever issued on the church’s institutional cover-up of sexual abuse. It named 63 priests who, despite credible accusations of abuse, had been hidden under the direction of Cardinal Bevilacqua and his predecessor, Cardinal Krol. It also gave numerous examples of Lynn covering up crimes at the bidding of his boss.

In the case of Rev. Stanley Gana, accused of “countless” child molestations, Lynn spent months ruthlessly investigating the personal life of one of the priest’s victims, whom Gana had allegedly begun raping at age 13. Lynn later helpfully explained to the victim that the priest slept with women as well as children. “You see,” he said, “he’s not a pure pedophile” – which was why Gana remained in the ministry with the cardinal’s blessing.

Lynn’s devotion to the institution above all else shaped his initial defense. Prosecutors had hoped that serious charges and the threat of serious prison time would get Lynn to roll over, implicating the officials whose orders he was carrying out. But Lynn was a loyal company man, willing to sacrifice himself to protect the archdiocese, its secrets, and its culpability. He was willing to serve as the Wee-Bey for the church, taking the blame and the prison time on himself and thereby protecting others. Eberly describes the courtroom scene from last year:

“You have been charged. You could go to jail,” [Judge Renée Cardwell] Hughes says gravely. “It may be in your best interest to provide testimony that is adverse to the archdiocese of Philadelphia, the organization that’s paying your lawyers. You understand that’s a conflict of interest?”

“Yes,” Lynn replies.

The judge massages her temples and grimaces, as though she can’t believe what she’s hearing. For 30 minutes straight, she hammers home the point: Do you understand there may come a time that the questioning of archdiocese officials could put you in conflict with your own attorney? Do you understand that you may be approached by the DA offering you a plea deal, in exchange for testimony against the archdiocese? Do you realize that is a conflict of interest for your lawyers?

“Yes, Your Honor,” Lynn continues to insist cheerfully.

But that changed last month when Lynn’s former boss died. Once Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua was dead, the archdiocese’s defense team decided that a dead man made an even better scapegoat than a living loyal soldier. Bevilacqua had denied any involvement in or knowledge of Lynn’s work covering up the rape and abuse of dozens of children. But now Lynn’s attorneys are willing to implicate the late cardinal and to paint him as the lone bad apple on whom all the blame should rest.

The Philadelphia Inquirer’s John P. Martin reports:

Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua ordered aides to shred a 1994 memo that identified 35 Archdiocese of Philadelphia priests suspected of sexually abusing children, according to a new court filing.

The order, outlined in a handwritten note locked away for years at the archdiocese’s Center City offices, was disclosed Friday by lawyers for Msgr. William J. Lynn, the former church administrator facing trial next month.

… “Msgr. Lynn was completely unaware of this act of obstruction,” attorneys Jeffrey Lindy and Thomas Bergstrom wrote.

Their motion asks Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina to dismiss the conspiracy and endangerment charges against Lynn, or to bar prosecutors from introducing Bevilacqua’s videotaped testimony at trial.

That would be the testimony in which the cardinal perjured himself, swearing that he knew nothing of the list of abusive priests that he had personally ordered his underlings to shred. Martin writes that “The revelation is likely to further cloud Bevilacqua’s complicated legacy in the handling of clergy sex abuse.”

No. It clarifies Bevilacqua’s legacy. He was a liar. He lied to preserve church assets and he lied because the preservation of those assets — money, money, money — was a far greater priority for him than the protection of children or justice and healing for victims. And for this lying and this single-minded devotion to money, Bevilacqua was “elevated” to the position of cardinal.

Let’s be clear here: shredding those documents could never keep the church’s crimes hidden. The crimes Bevilacqua and Lynn worked so hard to conceal had been witnessed by too many people — by the victims themselves. The document-shredding and perjury were simply an attempt to buy time until the statute of limitations was exhausted, shielding the accused priests from criminal prosecution and thus making civil litigation more difficult and, for the archdiocese, less costly. It wasn’t just the statute of limitations they were waiting for either. The victims of such horrific childhood abuse are often prone to self-destructive behavior or even to self-destruction. The longer the cardinal and his lackey could delay their day of reckoning, the fewer victims might be left to testify against them. And the more time the church would have to “investigate the personal lives” and dig up dirt on those survivors brave enough to speak up.

Lynn and his defense team had another bad day in court yesterday:

City prosecutors yesterday continued to pile on the allegations that a former high-ranking official of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia facilitated the sexual abuse of church children by repeatedly looking the other way when confronted with jaw-dropping crimes of predator priests.

“Time and time and time again, they lie to victims because they are not concerned about the victims; they are just concerned about the almighty dollar and mother Church,” Chief of Special Investigations Patrick Blessington said of the Archdiocese, which once employed the four defendants who are to stand trial in March.

“What they’re talking about is the archdiocese as a whole,” protested Lynn’s attorney Jeffrey Lindy. He’s right. The criminal conspiracy goes far beyond his client. And “the archdiocese as a whole” should be investigated under RICO as a criminal enterprise.

Oh, and there was one more list of names. Beyond the 63 priests listed in the original grand jury report and the 35 named in the memo Bevilacqua tried to destroy, there was another list of 21 priests suspended “because of allegations of sexual abuse or other inappropriate behavior with minors.”

One of the priests on that list was Uncle Father.

You remember him — he’s the man who twice briefly lived with my wife’s family when she was a kid. They gave him a place to stay when he was between parish assignments. This was years before Lynn’s tenure as secretary of the clergy for the diocese. There was a different fixer handling things back then.

That last list, like the grand jury report and the charges against Lynn, didn’t become public until after Pop died. I’m glad of that. I’m glad that he was spared that bit of ugly truth about why the friend he trusted was between assignments. It was, he had been told, just a routine situation — nothing out of the ordinary. And that much, I guess, was true.

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

Donald Trump, dungeon master
The past is gone but something might be found to take its place
'This is disgraceful. It is intolerable.'
LBCF, No. 103: 'Antiheroes'
  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Oh, dear. :(

  • Nathaniel

    The Catholic Church is an organized crime syndicate. This to be said. Over and over. Until they stop being an organized crime syndicate.

    And for those who attempt to point out the charity it does as some kind of antidote: Look, I help children with their school work and give money to poor people. So why are people so upset about the six puppies I killed? 

  • Anonymous

     Al Capone ran soup kitchens too. 

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    Actual organized crime syndicates do the same thing. The Yakuza never claim to be anything but the Yakuza, but still helped out countless folks during the last couple disasters in Japan. I suppose their drug-running and sex traffic goes towards their humanitarian effort, so they deserve the same pass the RCC gets. 

  • Tricksterson

    Except i don’t have nearly the problem with drugs and gambling that I do with organized religion.

  • http://www.metagalacticllamas.com/ Triplanetary

    [deleted]

  • Patrick O’Malley

    Amen.

    And John Wayne Gacy was a good clown. and and Jeffrey Dahmer made good chocolate, …

  • Ouri Maler

    I’m sorry that you have to deal with that. :(
    But mostly, I’m utterly horrified at the whole, entire thing. I’m…I dunno, I’m getting this impression that the global outrage isn’t even remotely as big as this would justify.

  • Anonymous

    Powerful stuff.  Whenever I hear or read about some member of the church whining about government intrusion into church affairs, I think of examples like this.  I remember that a lot of those spokespeople are just “company men”, and they don’t give a lick about the needs of mankind as a whole.  It’s unbelievably sad and awful.

  • http://accidental-historian.typepad.com/ Geds

    It was, he had been told, just a routine situation — nothing out of the ordinary. And that much, I guess, was true.

    And that’s chilling.  Like, psychological horror movie, shivers up the spine chilling.

  • Patrick O’Malley

    Just another day in the Catholic Church Of Child Rape.

  • VJBinCT

    needs to be made into a movie.  Nobody seems to read books or newspapers anymore, and TV’s gone the second the sound bite ends.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    VJBinCT: Google “The Boys in St. Vincent”.

  • Anonymous

    A friend of mine from college ended up leaving the Navy and becoming a Catholic priest.  During the contraception manufactroversey, he posted on Facebook a couple of articles about religious liberty.

    He is a good man, honest and generally fair.  I have fond memories of him from College, he was one of my few friends there.  Between that and the roiling sea of authoritarian-sympathetic contacts through my family and other acquaintances on FB, I couldn’t bring myself to bring up the recurring child molestation and coverups of same, and add that if this was his idea of religious liberty, then perhaps he should be content with the wolves that he his church has chosen to lie down with, and not complain when they eat him in his sleep.  I feel dirty for not calling him out on that.

  • Br. Jay

    This is so sad.  I know many good priests, and enjoy much of the liturgy and folk trappings of Catholicism.  But sadly as we know power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  • Albanaeon

    And my family wonders why I refuse to consider going back to the Church.  Yes, I do know that the abusive priests were a minority, and that a lot of the best people I know in the world are priests, but this goes WAY beyond a few bad apples.  This is an institutional wide conspiracy to protect their name over the victims rights and their own people’s safety.  And then the birth control issue comes up and the Bishops try to play that they have a higher morality?  Give me an f’ing break.  

  • Anonymous

    After a certain point, even refusing to acknowledge the problem and condemn the way it was handled makes one, to some degree, complicit. Unless the best people you know are vocal in challenging their leaders on this, they are part of what’s wrong in the Catholic Church.

  • Patrick O’Malley

    There were 4,392 “Jerry Sanduskys” in the Catholic church as they admitted in their John Jay report.  In Philly, it was just proven that Cardinal Bevilacqua shredded documents that were prepared by Msgr Lynn showing 35 known pedophile priests that the Philadelphia Catholic church was hiding and moving.

    Many of those pedophile priests, like Fr Cudemo, (who got a 12 year old girl pregnant and took her for an abortion), are free thanks to Msgr Lynn and others, and live on a Catholic pension, at about Jerry Sandusky’s age.

    They might be in your neighborhood, watching your kids.  Thanks, Catholics.

  • Anonymous

    Thank you for sharing a bit of your personal story. I’m glad that “Pop” didn’t find out either. The guilt of knowing that he’d let a fiend into his home and around his kids might have killed him.

    Since this scandal first broke, I (like everyone) have felt incredibly sorry for the rape victims. But I also feel sorry for Catholics who were not raped but who have pictures of weddings, confirmations, etc. that they’ve had to throw in the garbage because the priest in the photos turned out to be a pedophile. That trashes the memory of otherwise happy occasions in their lives.

  • Lori

    I’m so sorry that people your family trusted have turned out to be so very unworthy of that trust.

  • Tricksterson

    omerta is alive and well.

  • Rzinsius

    Both of my sons were baptized by a priest who is now on trial for sexual abuse crimes. He was not in our parish when they were old enough for school, thankfully. Interestingly, another local priest who served at a parish I attended is in prison for sexual crimes. A very unpleasant twofer…

  • Anonymous

    I’m so sorry, for both of you– and for all their victims.

  • Otrame

    And these people have the unmitigated GALL to claim moral authority, not only over their own believers, but over everyone.

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

     

    And these people have the unmitigated GALL to claim moral authority, not only over their own believers, but over everyone.

    There’s something else happening here. To the church, the loss of moral authority is a side-effect, an unintended consequence. To the church’s perspective, there is a deeper, more fundamental horror created by this scandal…

    The ritual of confession is an important part of the Catholic faith. It’s how fallen men and women can regain grace, serve penance, and be forgiven. It’s supposed to be a tool of redemption, by which the lost might find their way again.*

    But the pedophile priests confessed their sins, were given forgiveness, and did not “go and sin no more”. The kept sinning, over & over again. This ritual failed, and it failed not a layperson weak in faith or a new convert ignorant of traditions, but it failed those who most strongly felt their faith, followed faith as a calling. As an analogy, one might say that the pedophile priests were the spiritual equivalent of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, or perhaps an auto-immune disorder attacking the body of the church from within.

    I’m not trying to be sensationalistic with these metaphors. Priests, of all persons, should most understand and honor and benefit from these rites, shouldn’t they? That is what it means to be a priest: to be closer to God than the layperson. That this sacred rite failed in the most profound, explicit means possible should shake the foundations of anyone who has truly embraced these teachings.

    I think that, more than money, was what drove the cover-up. Money is an earthly thing, but faith is eternal, and to consider that these priests used the ritual of confession as a ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card, and were not moved by the Holy Spirit is the sort of things that makes a person really question a lot of other unquestioned things.

    *IANACatholic, so maybe I’m overstating the importance of confession.

  • http://www.metagalacticllamas.com/ Triplanetary

    You raise good points, but on the other hand, it’s always been the case that greater spiritual authority gives a person greater license to be evil. Priests and cardinals and the like are assumed to be pious by virtue of their title and authority; this in practice gives them more latitude to sin.

    In this sense the Catholic Church is basically, and has always been, a racket. There are those who truly believe, but there are probably also those who are “in on it.” So certainly, I think it’s true that the coverups were partly motivated by a desire to preserve the moral authority of the priesthood, but the motivations for this are far from pure and spiritual. They’re very much greedy and worldly.

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    certainly, I think it’s true that the coverups were partly motivated by a desire to preserve the moral authority of the priesthood, but the motivations for this are far from pure and spiritual.

    Absolutely. One troublesome aspect of a cover-up is trying to understand the motives of those involved. Yes, some were complicit themselves, others were trying to protect the church’s wealth and prestige, but not every priest that helped shelter peodphiles was driven by greed or shared guilt. Some of them, I suspect, want to protect not the church (from lawsuits) but the faithful. (from a loss of faith)

    I don’t know, much as I’d find it very satisfying to believe that a bunch of witch-doctors were concerned that their main magic trick would be revealed to be that inefficient, it just doesn’t sound like the RCC to me.

    Really? Go steal a consecrated communion wafer, write about it on-line, and see if you don’t get a response consistent with fearful witch-doctors. I’m not saying all RCC priests everywhere see it this way, but I think some of those involved probably do. I choose to believe that there were some good, moral priests who chose to participate in a cover-up because they did not want to harm the faithful through a loss of faith in a basic, fundamental tradition.

  • http://www.metagalacticllamas.com/ Triplanetary

    I choose to believe that there were some good, moral priests who chose to participate in a cover-up because they did not want to harm the faithful through a loss of faith in a basic, fundamental tradition.

    Then in what sense are they good and moral? Because they didn’t, themselves, rape children? Sorry, that’s not something we pat people on the back for.

    These supposedly good, moral priests allowed abstractions about faith and eternal life to take greater precedence than the immediate needs of rape victims. Child rape victims. That does not make them good and moral in my book, no matter how good they think their intentions are.

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    These supposedly good, moral priests allowed abstractions about faith and eternal life to take greater precedence than the immediate needs of rape victims. Child rape victims. That does not make them good and moral in my book, no matter how good they think their intentions are.

    Not disagreeing. Not even a little.

    I think some of the priests tried to weigh the harm done to the real, existing victims against the potential harm done to the faithful who believed in the rites and rituals.

    Do I think they made a good, moral choice? No. I think they made a terrible decision. Do I think they are as heinious as the pedophiles they protected? No. Do I think they acted out of malice or guilt or selfishness or greed or lust for power? No. That’s all I’m arguing for here: that it’s not just predators and selfish enablers involved.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    I don’t think I could disagree more.

    One person covering up rape caused more people to be raped, and he knew it. That one person is, in a very real sense, causing more people to be rape victims than one rapist ever could. Covering up rape re-victimizes the people who were raped, and allows rapists to go on raping.

    I think the people who covered it up are, in a way, *worse* than the rapists they’re covering for, and not just because the cover-ups victimize thousands more people than one rapist ever could. A rapist is a human being who follows his personal urges for power in a way that the system allows and encourages. Someone who covers up rape is doing it coolly, calmly, with malice aforethought. The people doing the covering are far more important to the system than any one rapist. 

    The people covering up rape are the link in the conspiracy who could have broken the whole thing. They didn’t. They chose to side with rapists rather than rape victims. I can’t think of anything more evil.

  • Patrick O’Malley

    Amen.

    And add in the billion Catholics who sit by and defend them or allow them to get away with it.  If Catholics did “What Jesus Would Do”, they would do everything possible to 

    – throw the child rapists in jail
    – throw the “cover up conspirators” in jail
    – help the victims

    Instead, the Catholic sheep follow the word of bishops rather than the word of God, and love the criminals while they disdain the victims.  Just What Satan Would Do.

  • Patrick O’Malley

    However, they have a simpler set of rules, called commandments, like “Don’t lie”, and “Don’t worship false idols”.  They didn’t have to think, they just had to do what they were told in their commandments.

    Instead, they lied about child rapists, and more children were raped as a result.  They followed bishops and cardinals that are the “false idols”, like Bevilacqua, who also didn’t follow the commandments, and was blatantly in disregard of “What Jesus Would Do”.

    God’s most innocent had their lives ruined, and it could have been stopped.  The Catholic church forgives them all, but God won’t.  God is more just, and isn’t stupid enough to fall for the 10 minute Catholic confession.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sue-White/1605859612 Sue White

    I choose to believe that there were some good, moral priests who chose to participate in a cover-up because they did not want to harm the faithful through a loss of faith in a basic, fundamental tradition.

    Did they really think they could cover it up forever?  How do their lies help the faithful, now that the truth is out?

  • Nick

    “One troublesome aspect of a cover-up is trying to understand the motives
    of those involved. Yes, some were complicit themselves, others were
    trying to protect the church’s wealth and prestige, but not every priest
    that helped shelter peodphiles was driven by greed or shared guilt.
    Some of them, I suspect, want to protect not the church (from lawsuits)
    but the faithful. (from a loss of faith)”

    Hmm. As a wise man named Tim Minchin once said:
    “If you cover for another motherfucker who’s a kiddy fucker, fuck you, you’re no better than the motherfucking rapist.”

  • Baeraad

    I don’t know, much as I’d find it very satisfying to believe that a bunch of witch-doctors were concerned that their main magic trick would be revealed to be that inefficient, it just doesn’t sound like the RCC to me. Catholics are supposed to go to confession good and regular, aren’t they? That “go and sin no more” thing notwithstanding, I always got the impression that it was more like a sort of spiritual hygiene – you can’t keep from getting dirty, so you need to make sure to take regular showers, that sort of thing.

    So I really think it’s more a case of a particular kind of logic:

    1) The Church is the highest embodiment of good and the only hope for salvation. Nothing can change that.
    2) However, lay-people are foolish and fickle and do not understand the unalterable fact of the Church’s goodness. There is a risk that they might actually *judge the Church by its actions* instead of accepting that it is inherently good regardless of its actions.
    3) This would lead those lay-people away from the Church and therefore away from goodness and salvation.
    4) So for their own sake, we must make sure that they never find out about any less-than-stellar actions performed by or within the Church.

    It makes perfect sense, as long as you accept 1) as your premise. And taking a bad premise and then building an impeccably logical argument on it – *that* sounds very much like the RCC to me.

    Disclaimer, mind you – IANACatholic either, so this is just a not-all-that-educated guess.

  • Anonymous

    Insisting that the laity does not know what is good for it is the main cause of every scandal involving the Catholic Church throughout its history: the Crusades, the Inquisition (technically still ongoing), the sex-abuse scandals, the whole birth control issue…

    It’s also one of the biggest reasons why I left the RCC in the first place.  I am an adult, and I do not like being treated as if I were a child.

  • Lizzy L

     Chris, for a non-Catholic, I think you’ve done a pretty good job discussing confession. But the thing is, you have NO IDEA if these abusive priests, or the priests like Lynn who covered for them, ever disclosed their sins in confession (or as ew now call it, Reconciliation) or ever repented of them if they did. What happens in the confessional is always, always private, and so, your conclusions have no factual basis, because there’s no way for you for anyone to know what these men said in the confessional.

    But I want to take issue with one thing you say in your comment, that “to be closer to God than the layperson” is “what it means to be a priest.” This is entirely nonsense: indeed, this belief is the core of “clericalism,” which is in fact a sin, a sin which the institutional church struggles with, is constantly guilty of, and  constantly repents of.

    Who is holy among us, who is closer to God, has nothing to do with the priesthood. Closeness to God cannot be discerned by looking at titles or positions. Popes have been monsters, and laypeople have been saints. The catechism states, “the ordained ministry is at the service of the baptismal ministry.” Ordained priests receive the sacrament of ordination, and take vows to serve in a special way, but through baptism, all Christians partake in the “priesthood of all believers;” we are all called to serve each other and to be Christ to one another.

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    you have NO IDEA if these abusive priests, or the priests like Lynn who covered for them, ever disclosed their sins in confession (or as ew now call it, Reconciliation) or ever repented of them if they did.

    You are entirely correct that we have no way to “know” what these men said in confessional without someone breaking the sacrement. But as a person of reason, I must follow the evidence I have to draw what I believe are reasonable conclusions about what I cannot know.

    We know that somehow, other priests learned of the acts comitted by these pedophiles.  (if they did not know, how could they have covered it up?)

    It seems wildly improbable that an accused pedophile who was unrepenant to his superiors would be allowed to continue as a priest, especially if those allegations were found to have merit. Conversely, if an allegation was not investigated and the alleged offender was allowed to continue their practice, it seems reasonable to infer that the Church had, through it’s own methods, addressed the issue of his guilt, punishment, and absolution.

    Would a priest facing allegations such as these seek Reconcilliation for his sins? Would other priests, having heard allegations, encourage him to seek Reconcilliation? Might his superiors ‘encourage’ such an act, with all of the coercion of their station? These things seem reasonable to me.

    Would a priest be sheltered and protected by the church heirarchy if he was unrepenant? Or even if he was percieved as unrepenant?

    What might an observer infer if this priest’s confessor was also involved in his transfer and in covering up his actions?

    Lastly, if the Church were unable to determine the validity of the allegations, if the priest had recieved no discipline or reprimand, if there had been no Reconcilliation, then certainly referring the matter to secular authorities (such as the police) would be expected. But as the matter was not referred, but in fact hid from those secular powers, by modus tollens, we must conclude some internal resolution was found, and the rite of Reconcillation seems the most plausible answer, given the subsequent actions.

  • Patrick O’Malley

    It could be simpler than that.  A pedophile priest goes to confession, admits raping a child, is forgiven in 10 minutes, and that’s it.  The church has canon law which states that no one should report anything that would bring scandal to the church, so everyone stays quiet.

    In fact, the pope issued an edict called “crimen sollicitationis” which said that in these cases, 

    1) the pedophile should be forgiven
    2) the child should be forgiven (Catholic priests therefore blaming the child)
    3) anyone who talks about it would be excommunicated and condemned to hell

    The Catholic church is a dark, dangerous place.

  • Patrick O’Malley

    Since things like confession are private, no one can know for sure, so you have to make some intelligent guesses.  Here are some:

    – every pedophile priest probably went to confession after raping a child (this is very consistent in the grand jury report)
    – pedophile priests are child rapists with virtually no limits and full protection
    – each pedophile priest probably raped 20-40 children, as the Philly Grand Jury report shows (and these were conservative numbers).  Some (like Porter, Geoghan, Shanley in Boston) raped over 100
    – each pedophile priest probably raped each child 10-100 times

    Therefore, each pedophile priest probably did 100-1000 confessions in his lifetime to other priests, any of whom could have said “your sins are retained until you give yourself up to the police and help the child”.

    They didn’t, so the priests in confessions are also enablers. 

  • Kirsten

     many of them never confessed at all. i am afraid that many of the abusers joined the church because they WERE abusers, and they either thought they would have access to lots of victims, or that they would “lose their temptations” by joining the church. the first group didn’t care about confession, the second might have…

    people who are tempted by something, who deliberately or not get put in a position to give in to that temptation *apparently without consequence* will inevitably give in to that temptation.
    if the temptation is , say, a bad diet no one is harmed but the individual. if the temptation is to abuse? lots of people get hurt.

  • Patrick O’Malley

    Realize that confession was also INVENTED by the Catholic church, which they never told me in 12 years of Catholic education.  It isn’t in the bible, or bestowed by God.

    Jesus said to Peter (and only Peter, not to every priest for the last 2000 years), “Whoever’s sins you forgive, they are forgiven, whoever’s sins you retain, they are retained”.  Jesus may have meant that each individual has the right to forgive or not forgive people who do harm to them.  He didn’t necessarily mean that a 3rd party priest could let them off the hook.

    Even if you expand Jesus’ idea to mean that a priest could forgive someone for sins committed to another, Catholics completely forgot the “retained” part, or the fact that someone should have to suffer consequences of crimes.  Jesus never said sins are forgiven without going to jail, or making sure the victim of child rape was taken care of.

    However, the Catholic church created confession as a “get out of hell free” card, and in the old days, they used to charge money for it.

    Now, a priest rapes a child, goes to confession, and in 10 minutes is cleared and goes to heaven, according to the Catholic church.  Meanwhile, the child has a lifetime of nightmares and psychological problems, and Catholics are taught to shun, discredit, and ignore them.

    That is the cold and heartless evil of Catholic church.  All forgiven in 10 minutes.

  • Jon Frater

     *sighs*

  • http://www.metagalacticllamas.com/ Triplanetary

    the ordained ministry is at the service of the baptismal ministry

    So how come the ordained ministry is doing its damnedest to deprive half its baptismal ministry of access to necessary reproductive health?

  • Anonymous

    I’ve said this about Bank$ters, but I think that it applies to the Catholic Church as well: The only difference between them and The Mafia is that The Mafia has worse lawyers and better ethics.

  • Patrick O’Malley

    The mafia has a code of honor, and has never raped a child.  

    Prisons have a code of honor where pedophiles are the lowest form of life and get beaten.  In the Catholic church, they get hidden and reassigned.

  • http://twitter.com/Rhysdux Rhysdux

    I just found 
    http://bishop-accountability.org/member/index.jsp

    I was shocked to find a priest that I knew from my teen years, when I was being dragged to church.

  • Anonymous

    Triplanetary:

    These supposedly good, moral priests allowed abstractions about faith and eternal life to take greater precedence than the immediate needs of rape victims. Child rape victims. That does not make them good and moral in my book, no matter how good they think their intentions are.

    Albanaeon:

    And then the birth control issue comes up and the Bishops try to play that they have a higher morality?

    Both of you said very well what I’ve been struggling to say about this issue. As if the child rape wasn’t bad enough, and as if covering up the child rape for decades (if not centuries)(or longer) wasn’t bad enough, the rationalizations coming from the Church hierarchy as to why child rape and covering it up aren’t so bad (“It was the 60s, man“!) when compared to the moral hazards of birth control makes me wonder if the Catholic Church has finally jumped the the pinhead.

    But then I think about things like the Albigensian Crusade, the Northern Crusades, the First through Ninth Crusades, the … Children’s Cru — well, let’s just say there have been a lot of Crusades — I think about those things: how the Church showed as little regard to its victims yesterday as they show to their victims today; how the Church fully and completely rationalizes and thereby absolves its bad actions; and how the Church is as rich and powerful as it ever was, how it is still treated with respect and deference in public discourse, how its Bishops are regarded as serious people with serious things to say about public morality, and I … I … I just don’t know what to say. It just never fucking ends, does it?

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    “Hundreds of years” is closer the right answer, which is “nearly two millennia”. The history of the Catholic Church is a history of how absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

    And any religious group that doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state will go that way too, even if they haven’t already. Sexual abuse is the inevitable outcome of that kind of power and self-righteousness. I often think that the ability to sexually abuse people with no repercussions is the reason people seek that kind of power.

  • Anonymous

     The thing that a lot of people don’t seem to understand is that the separation of church and state protects the church just as much as it protects the state.  If there is one constant in the history of organized religion, it’s that it’s at its worst when it has political power or easy access to it.

  • Anonymously

    ((Trigger Warning: Sexual Assault))

    My grandparents were hardcore Roman Catholics that spent their life supporting the church and their little remote parish.  When the priest raped my uncle they didn’t leave the church because the Bishop came and talked to them and asked them to keep quiet for the sake of the church because this was an ‘aberration’ and that the church would send the priest to a monestary where it couldn’t happen again while he prayed for god to fix him.  The truth is that they moved him to another small town parish in a different part of the country where he raped again so they moved him to another and anther.  When the sex abuse scandals were discovered my grandparents left the Roman Catholic Church and upon investigating and discovering how they had been lied to sent letters to everyone up the hierarchy including the pope using language I didn’t know my grandmother even knew.  They are still devotely Christian but they have recognized that the Catholic Church is not.  They have become denominationless Protestants in that they now believe in a personal relationship with God rather than through any intermediary.  These kind and generous people who tithed every penny they could despite living in appaling poverty, gave time and expertise to the church now refer to it as ‘The Church of Mammon’.

    The harm caused by the church covering up this abuse isn’t limited to the eight boys (that we know about) who the priest raped either.  Having received no counselling or treatment and been told to pretend it never happen my uncle molested his sister and later me.  His sister became an alcoholic and caused enormous harm to her family.  I, having never disclosed or received any treatment, in turn molested another.  Even though it is hard to know how to split the personal responsibility between my uncle, aunt, and myself with the response to the harm caused to us, it is absolutely clear that there has been a cascade of abuse and harm from the initial priest’s abuse (who quite possibly could have been abused himself even earlier).  So many lives were harmed and people traumatized by this in just one instance makes the toll across his eight victims, and the hundreds of other abusing priests literally incomprehensible.

  • eyelessgame

    As a teen I was good friends with a priest who, I later found, had been transferred into our diocese immediately after allegations about him had been made at another diocese sixty miles away.  He was running a teen youth group at our parish.

    I suppose I was like most people in never suspecting anything about him. But I knew, at the time, a few teen boys who very well might have been new victims (“troubled teens” who stayed at the rectory with him for a while): I don’t know them now and never did find out if he was abusing them.

    I left the church for other reasons. But I certainly don’t give these bastards any moral authority, and he’s part of why.

  • Brandi

    For extra hilarity, compare the Church’s reaction to liberation theology:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology#Reaction_within_the_Catholic_Church

    Have any of the molesting priests been excommunicated?

  • Ian needs a nickname

    …and a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. (Matt 10:36)

  • Green Eggs and Ham

    I’m gonna say it again.  Every nation that has diplomatic relations with the Vatican should break those relationships until the RCC accepts that priests are also subject to secular law.  I suspect pigs will fly before the Vatican accepts that though.

  • Patrick O’Malley

    Ireland has already started, throwing the Vatican embassy out because of the Vatican’s involvement in rampant child rape in Ireland.

  • Brandi

    … and apparently some Baptists decide to go a step further than the RCC:

    http://www.news4jax.com/news/Kids-turned-away-from-church/-/475880/8807406/-/15jjbj9/-/index.html

    Well, at least they aren’t covering up for him…?!

  • Tricksterson

    There’s a New Black Panther Party?  Interesting.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    Yeah. After the Black Panthers were acquired by Bain Capital during a really odd merger, they spun off the political aspects to a subsidiary and downsized half of their membership. Nowadays, all they do is play croquet and produce snarky reviews of Victorian era penny dreadfuls though.

  • FangsFirst

    Okay, so, am I the only one sitting here reading comments and thinking, “Statistically, it can only be considered impossible that almost everyone commenting here just happened to have been at one of the parishes where a rapist priest was stationed or moved to, so the numbers we’ve seen are incomprehensibly wrong in the low-type-direction”?

  • Lori

      Considering what turned up in the Milwaukee lawsuit, I’d say that
    people have been vastly underestimating both the number of abusers and
    the number of victims.

    In that case a class action by 550+ victims lead to revelations of an
    additional 8,000 victims that were known to the church, but previously
    unreported. I seriously doubt that Milwaukee is all that unique. As the saying goes, you do the math.

    When I hear the Bishops talking about how the Church is being persecuted
    because it’s delicate moral conscience is being offended by birth control I can’t decide if I want to throw up or deck them. That is not only not
    true, it’s the opposite of true. If the Church weren’t granted massive
    privilege and totally unwarranted deference it would be facing RICO
    charges in all 50 states.

    I’m not usually an advocate of going crass on a sensitive issue, but I think someone should publicly ask the Bishops if they’re are so hell-bent on opposing birth control because they’re afraid their priests will quit if they don’t have a steady supply of new victims.

  • FangsFirst

     I just…I can’t fathom how there are that many people who have no internal repulsion at sexual abuse, but plenty of people are dumb and don’t understand consent, but that many who don’t get it when it comes to children?

    It’s like all the awful jokes about that being a magnet for practicing child rapists aren’t exaggerations, like they really do go, “Ah! Of course! I will become a priest!”
    …Even then, it’s staggering to think there are that many “people” of such a nature.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

     I think for most of us it’s easier to care about and “side with” someone we know compared to a faceless, nameless stranger. It’s like the “blue wall of silence” or “Omerta” — you’re loyal to your friends because they’re your friends, and damn everyone else. “My people, right or wrong”.

  • FangsFirst

    I should clarify, I guess, that I know for sure the non-rapist clergy members and the plain ol’ parishioners are probably thinking that, and thinking it’s such an extreme minority that a broad stroke is unfair, that sort of thing–very much like, yeah, “the blue wall of silence.”

    What’s boggling my mind is that this many active, practicing child rapists exist at all . That they are all centered in one institution is just even more unfathomable–even before we get to how willing anyone is to cover it up.

    But there are that many people–regardless of religion, or anything else for that matter–that don’t have an internal alarm saying, “‘Ang on a minute, maybe molesting a child is, I don’t know, WRONG, and perhaps I oughtn’t to do it”?!
    Is this not supposed to be an aberrant mentality? If it’s aberrant, how are there so many, and how are they seemingly all in the Church? Statistically this is just…absurd. Ridiculous. And I’m trying to be careful with my words here, because I don’t mean “I don’t believe people,” I mean, “holy crap, how do I process this information? There’s an active child molester in seemingly every community with a Catholic church in it?!”

    It’s like all those poor taste jokes are no longer exaggeration and the non-rapists must be a minority. Or there are way more priests than I ever realized…I guess it could be that. STILL…

  • Lori

    Yes, even revising the number of abusers upward quite a lot, only a very small minority of priests are child rapists. Setting aside older Church history and focusing just on the current scandal, you’re still talking about a scary number of pedophiles. Six decades of priests is a lot of priests, even with their declining numbers, so even a small percentage is a lot.

    One thing to keep in mind when talking percentages though is that the higher you go in the Church hierarchy the higher the percentage who were involved in the cover-up, until you get to the very top were 100% were involved. I don’t know this for a fact, but I would be willing to bet a large amount of money that I can’t afford to lose that there isn’t a single Cardinal worldwide that isn’t in this thing up to his red hat. Dolan certainly is and yet he’s going around telling people he wants to be a saint. Funny how that’s not the thing that makes Rick Santorum want to throw up. 

  • FangsFirst

    That is a good point, though it gets confusing once one factors in there’s no prison, or anything that removes them from the population, so sure it was ten or twenty or forty years ago for some…but they’re still there. Maybe age has toned down the hormones of some enough or whatever.

    Though, of course, yes, that means that whole new generations of non-rapists have entered the clergy, more each year, so that’s a relieving thought in percentage terms…

  • Patrick O’Malley

    Lori, you’re wrong.  Its not “a very small minority”.  

    The Catholic church admitted 4,392 “Jerry Sanduskys” in their own John Jay report of 2004, and they claimed that was “only” 4%, or as you would say, “a very small minority”.  

    However, they cheated the statistics.  They included priests that were only there for a year or two. The percentage in the 70s and 80s was 9.9%, as you can see at see at http://bit.ly/yKiTt8 where they prove that a Catholic priest is 100 times more likely to be a child sex offender as any other type of person.

    No institution in history is even close, and no other institution knowingly, purposely moved known pedophiles to places where they raped more children.

    This is the organized crime family of the child rape world.

  • http://redwoodr.tumblr.com Redwood Rhiadra

    One thing to remember is that, even though only a relatively small number of priests were actual molestors, the coverup itself, by moving them around between parishes, exposed a vastly larger number of parishes to the molestors.  So it’s not really all that surprising that so many of the Catholics on this thread have learned that they knew one of these men.

  • FangsFirst

     

    by moving them around between parishes, exposed a vastly larger number of parishes to the molestors.

    I suppose it would only take 2 moves to triple exposure, but at even a third of commenters, that still remains worrisome. Though maybe there were more moves? Do we have numbers on how many moves were averaged or anything?

  • http://redwoodr.tumblr.com Redwood Rhiadra

    I don’t think there’s any good statistical data. Looking at the list from this page covering a suit against the Diocese of Bridgeport (involving seventeen priests)), it looks like most of them served in at least five locations, and several in over a dozen. This may or may not be typical, of course.

    http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ny-ny/TremontAndSheldon.htm

  • Anonymous

    There may also be some self-selection involved.  It strikes me that a Catholic who has never encountered a child-raping priest, nor has anyone in their household, would be more inclined to have no problem with the Church compared to someone who knows someone who was raped as a child by a priest.  Thus, the ones who know such a situation happened would be more inclined to speak out.  The ones who didn’t experience that… well, presumably they are not attempting to speak out to defend the child-raping priests.

    This is absolutely not to dismiss any of this.  If even one child was raped by a priest that is a crime; if that crime was covered up then all who participated in the coverup are complicit in and accessories to the rape of a child.

    The Church, like many reactionary, hyperconservative hierarchies, is finding itself in an era where there is no easy way to prevent communication between parishes, in fact between *states*.  It is almost trivially easy now to find out what’s going on with the rest of the Church all over the blessed world.  Now running into someone from another parish is no longer a matter of chance (“Oh, you’re Roman Catholic too? How lovely, what parish? Who’s you’re priest? … Wait, *who?*”) and moving a child-raping priest across the country is no longer as effective a panacea as it once was.  (“I wonder whatever happened to that child molester who posed as our parish priest? *google* He’s a MONSEIGNEUR now?!”)  It is also much easier to bring these sorts of things to light.  (“RELEASE THE HOUNDS!”) The Internet is like a magnifying glass and a megaphone.  The Church can no longer rely on secrecy through obscurity, and its only their two-thousand-year-old habits that are keeping them from adapting to the times in an honorable and viable manner.

  • Patrick O’Malley

    Its not “a relatively small number”.  That is a classical Catholic lie.

    The Catholic church admitted it was 4%in their own John Jay report of 2004, and they made the statistics misleading.  They included priests that were only there
    for a year or two. The percentage in the 70s and 80s was 9.9%, as you can see
    at see at http://bit.ly/yKiTt8 

  • http://mmycomments.blogspot.com/ mmy

    Repeat:

    Or, Patrick, we could focus on the fact that all organizations that uphold the existing kyriarchy/patriarchy are involved in abuses of the powerless. And thus do something about the source rather than fixating on only one of the symptoms.
    [Child abuse is not specific to any church or organization. Anyone who thinks that their child is safe just because the child has not been left with “those people” is likely to find that there are other people around just as dangerous to the same child.]

  • Nathaniel

     Your posts communicate that you are far more interested in carrying water for the Catholic Organized Crime Syndicate them going after organizations known to harbor child rapists.

  • http://mmycomments.blogspot.com/ mmy


    Your posts communicate that you are far more interested in carrying water for the Catholic Organized Crime Syndicate them going after organizations known to harbor child rapists.

    And exactly how is calling someone out for not challenging the patriarchy carrying water for a patriarchal organization?

  • Nathaniel

     By suggesting that desire to punish the Catholic Crime Syndicate is due to an ulterior motive.

    When it comes to stopping the Catholic Crime Syndicate, I don’t particularly care about people’s motives. I care about stopping children from getting raped.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    1. There ARE craploads of priests around-more than most people think, I expect
    2. The average priest moves every few years; those with scandal attached more often, so you come to know lots of priests
    3. Working close to child protection, I can tell you that the number of people of any stripe who abuse children is sickening. No, it’s not all centred in one institution. No, I can’t fathom it either

  • Patrick O’Malley

    Its not all centered in one institution, but the Catholic church is much, much worse than any other institution, and no other institution has protected and mobilized pedophiles worldwide like the Catholic church.

  • Dan Audy

    Pedophilia is a fairly common form of mental illness (studies suggest somewhere between 1-3% of males) though it is important to note that many (most?) men who have pedophilic attractions do not act on them because they recognize that they are unacceptable and are able to exert self-control over their behaviour.  The problem with the RCC isn’t that they had more pedophiles in it than the general population but that it did absolutely everything wrong in preventing or minimizing abuse.  They first provided them with authority and opportunity which are major factors in pedophiles offending.  Then after they had sexually abused someone they covered it up and relocated them without providing any meaningful treatment (praying pedophilia away is about as effective as praying gay away) which both vastly expanded their potential victims and emboldened the pedophilic priests who recognized that there would be no meaningful consequences.

    The way the RCC works (even when not covering up abuse) cycling priests through multiple parishes allows even a small number of pedophilic priests to have a extremely widespread impact.  In larger communities the number of Catholic churches nearly ensures that a offending priest will have been present and smaller (particularly rural) communities are generally less desirable posts and thus easier to ‘disappear’ a priest to.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Yup. Messed up attitudes to sex and power fosters abuse and the cover up. Those attitudes are particularly common in the Catholic church hierarchy; moreso the higher up you go, in my experience.

  • FangsFirst

     

    (studies suggest somewhere between 1-3% of males) though it is important to note that many (most?) men who have pedophilic
    attractions do not act on them because they recognize that they are
    unacceptable and are able to exert self-control over their behaviour.

    Probably worth noting I’m abysmal at maths, but this (in my head) should mean a smaller number of people. And that’s why I did carefully mention “practicing,” as I know it’s something that is often ingrained psychologically, and some men do recognize it’s wrong and control it.

    But, yeah, I guess that’s a good point: the actions encourage it by giving less cause to control or hide it, rather than making it spontaneously appear (which seems a bit ridiculous) or anything like that.

    And I suppose for someone who originally intends to control it, a vow of chastity that isn’t supposed to have any weird stigma attached for that choice would be a draw (then possibly a temptation once power and authority are added…)

  • Tricksterson

    That 1-3% is that under the usual definition of “pedophile”, namely anyone who so much as ogles a female before the exact minute of their 18th birthday?

  • FangsFirst

    That 1-3% is that under the usual definition of “pedophile”, namely
    anyone who so much as ogles a female before the exact minute of their
    18th birthday?

    I would think in the context of a study, ephebophilia and hebephilia would be excluded, but of course that all depends on who did the study…
    (I also rather think that the percentage would be MUCH higher if they factored that in, depending on how the attraction was measured)

  • Dan Audy

    The 1-3% is those with a sexual preference for pre-pubescent or early pubescent children.  It is relevant to note that it is typically a preference rather than an exclusive attraction.  If it were ‘anyone who so much as ogles a female before the exact minute of their 18th birthday’ the rates would be virtually 100% of the heterosexual male population.  It isn’t considered disordered to be attracted to mostly/fully physically developed girls.  Even acting on that attraction isn’t considered disordered despite being illegal and probably harmful to them.

  • FangsFirst

    It’s not considered psychologically disordered in a medical context, but that’s what I meant by “depends on who did the study,” myself.

    Still…in my late teens I wandered messageboards (after my mainstay lost its hosting space), and some were heavily populated by teenagers, leading my sister to once worry at my mother that I was a pedophile. Which gave me a complex, made that much worse when I spent years 20-23 of my life having every woman that decided to flirt with me be either visibly 16 or admit to it. No one seemed very comfortable with that (including me, though I was flattered, of course).

    It was bad enough that the first time my SGF flirted with me, my coworkers would pull me to the side and tell me to be careful and otherwise show concern, because she looks very young. In fact, I was concerned about it, but one of my rather clever friends, as she was ringing up the purchase my SGF was making at the time, asked her where she went to school. She named a university in the area. Still–one of my coworkers thought she looked twelve.

    (as it happens, she’s all of two years younger than me, and that’s all–but this is, at least, a common problem. She’s dropped off her younger brother/gone to pick him up/gone to see his teachers at middle then high school and been told to get back to class…sometimes so insistently she has to pull out ID…)

    I’d say there’s enough stigma for someone to look down on it enough to include it–though, no, not psychologists by and large.

  • Patrick O’Malley

    Also, Catholic confession allowed priests to spread the news about what they were getting away with, giving lots of other priests ideas about what they could get away with.  As more of them learned how easy it was, and what a powerful pedophile protection program they had, they knew they could get away with it.

  • Patrick O’Malley

    Realize that their church, the Catholic church, who they think controls their eternity, is telling them to 

    – ignore child rape
    – child rape isn’t a big deal
    – everyone is lying (until we find out they were hiding the truth for decades)
    – everyone is anti-Catholic (when everyone is really anti-child-rape

    The Catholic church is using their power to convince the world that child rape is no big deal and should be hidden, and that the victims should be fought viciously.

    God is proving that the Catholic church isn’t God’s church.

  • Patrick O’Malley

    Amen.

    And Milwaukee is the old neighborhood of Cardinal Dolan, the #1 bishop in the US, who presumably got that title for covering it up so well for so long.

  • Matri

    Okay, so, am I the only one sitting here reading comments and thinking, “Statistically, it can only be considered impossible that almost everyone commenting here just happened
    to have been at one of the parishes where a rapist priest was stationed
    or moved to, so the numbers we’ve seen are incomprehensibly wrong in
    the low-type-direction”?

    Considering the sheer number of these “people” being moved every few months for over a decade or more, it is a statistical impossibility only that no-one here would have encountered one or more.

  • Patrick O’Malley

    The number of pedophiles in the Catholic church is probably 3-6 times the number that they know about.  It is well known that fewer than half of adult rape victims come forward.

    The 10 year old child raped by a Catholic pedophile priest is usually told 

    1) that he will never be believed
    2) that he will go to hell for saying anything
    3) or that it is his fault

    To see an example of #3, Msgr Lynn suggested to an admitted pedophile priest that he might have been seduced by a 10 year old boy.  

    You read that right.

    Look at the news report at http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006b/042806/042806a.php

    When that child sees every Catholic trashing every victim that comes forward (like Cardinal Dolan does on his blog), they are more likely to keep quiet, and the psychological damage is unimaginable.

    Read the Philly Grand jury report, or the report above, to see what the Catholic church did to these children, and then show me proof that there is a more evil institution in America.

  • http://www.oliviareviews.com/ PepperjackCandy

    For the record, if I had been Catholic, the two churches that I would have attended have two (what are we calling them? rapists? molesters?) apiece on the list. The other parish that kids I knew went to had one.

    Also, two of my friends attended the school for one of those churches during the tenure of one of the rapists/molesters.

  • MaryKaye

    I’m afraid I can’t be confident that younger people whose teachers and mentors and role models were rapists will come out okay themselves–many no doubt will, but it seems like a situation ripe for trouble down the line.

    And as the cover-ups and denial have not stopped, it seems unrealistic to think that the organization can now police itself.

    I work for an institution which was convicted of Medicaid fraud several years ago.   A lot of emails have been sent around about transparency and accountability, but practically all of the people involved in fraud are still there, especially at the top level–the cover-up people like the one Fred describes.  Do I feel confident that the fraud has stopped?  Frankly, not very.  And most of what hope I do have is that increased Federal scrutiny because of the first offense will make further fraud seem too risky–not that we have really changed our institutional culture enough.

  • Matri

    And most of what hope I do have is that increased Federal scrutiny
    because of the first offense will make further fraud seem too risky–not
    that we have really changed our institutional culture enough.

    Oh, you mean the policies of the Republican “DE-RE-GU-LATE!” Party?

  • Matri

    You know, what needs to happen is for them to gain a world-wide reputation as an organization that not only helps place molesters into target-rich environments but will also relocate them to a safe location when they get into trouble and will protect their identity and persons from prosecution, thanks to their nation-wide network of tax-free government-protected fronts.

  • Matri

    And we can even acronym it into M.E.N.

    The Molester’s Enabling Network.

  • Anonymous

    Wow. Now I’m wondering which one is more successful: the Catholic Church or the Witness Protection Program.

  • Lori

    It depends on how you define success. If you’re talking about permanently keeping the identity of protected people secret then WitSec is way ahead on points. In spite of the Church’s very best efforts the names of criminal priests are coming out by the hundreds and to the best of my knowledge WitSec has never had a breach anywhere near that severe.

    If you define success as criminals being protected while continuing to commit crimes then it’s the Church all the way. WitSec has had it’s problems with that, but they certainly don’t have a near 100% recidivism rate. That’s because, with some notable exceptions, if you’re in the program and you get busted they throw you out.

  • Tricksterson

    Any time you are comparing an activity of the RCC to anything or anyone else, bet on the guys with the funny hats.  They’ve been doing this for a very long time.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    The Roman Catholic Church seems to have learned from Colin Thatcher: “Deny, deny, deny.”

    Interestingly Colin Thatcher had the same attitude towards law enforcement and accountability as the Roman Catholic Church. He once berated a police officer for telling him his Camaro was parked the wrong way on a street and is reported to have said, “I’ll park any goddamn way I want. Do you know who I am?”

    Anybody I see now in a priest’s frock I tend to kind of not want to be around because of shit like this.

  • Otrame

    The ad-choosing software could use some adjusting. I’m seeing one that says “Did you know that many non-catholic ministers and lay people are thinking of joining the catholic church? Find out why.”.

    I used to watch a catholic tv show that often interviewed people who joined the church as adults, sometimes returning, sometimes former Protestants. The six or so Protestant ministers I saw all had exactly the same reason: their former denomination now allowed female ministers. It was pretty pathetic.

  • http://www.metagalacticllamas.com/ Triplanetary

    The six or so Protestant ministers I saw all had exactly the same
    reason: their former denomination now allowed female ministers.

    Jesus fucking Christ.

  • Anonymous

     You’re not the only one.

    My parents used to dislike Mobile archbishop Oscar Lipscombe for being “too liberal.”  I dislike him for a very different reason: he’s relocated at least 3 priests.  In other words, he too is siding with rapists against their victims.

  • Anonymous

    Some priests were moved as many as six times.  It varies from person to person.

    Also, while some of the earlier known offenders have stopped  molesting children, there are still some who have been doing this for decades.

  • Anonymous

     Seriously?  The only reason they changed denominations is because they didn’t want women in leadership positions?

    I didn’t realize it was still the 19th century.

  • Keromaru

    Sure. This is the reason for the RCC’s outreach to conservative Anglicans–it goes hand in hand with the increasing tolerance toward gays, especially in the Episcopal Church. The parishes that left TEC can join and get rites modeled after Anglican use, sort of like Eastern Rite Catholics. Sure, I personally think TEC’s decision could use a better theological anchor, but I do think they’re the right decisions.

    I’m pretty sure if I ever left for some other denomination, it’ll be on the strength of its theology, not the shape of the clerics’ genitals.

  • FangsFirst

     Ah, yes.
    Always a handful of people who wanted to (or did) leave my mom’s churches. Because, well…woman!

    (not so coincidentally, it was either always or almost always men who took issue)

  • P J Evans

     At least one CofE bishop changed churches because he didn’t think women should be ordained. (There also are a lot of churches that have trouble with the idea that QUILTBAG doesn’t mean ‘second-class person’.)

  • http://mmycomments.blogspot.com/ mmy

    Or, Patrick, we could focus on the fact that all organizations that uphold the existing kyriarchy/patriarchy are involved in abuses of the powerless. And thus do something about the source rather than fixating on only one of the symptoms.

    [Child abuse is not specific to any church or organization. Anyone who thinks that their child is safe just because the child has not been left with “those people” is likely to find that there are other people around just as dangerous to the same child.]

  • Lori

    Or, Patrick, we could focus on the fact that all organizations that uphold the existing kyriarchy/patriarchy are involved in abuses of the powerless. And thus do something about the source rather than fixating on only one of the symptoms.

    [Child abuse is not specific to any church or organization. Anyone who thinks that their child is safe just because the child has not been left with “those people” is likely to find that there are other people around just as dangerous to the same child.]

    This is true, but kyriarchy/patriarchy is a big problem and one has to start somewhere. When it comes to protecting one’s child from abuse the first place to look is one’s own family. Beyond that though, the Catholic church is a really good place to start. While child abuse is not specific to any church or organization the accumulation of abuse, owing to nature of the organization and the extent of the cover-up, is unique. There are only a few other organizations that have the numbers and the scope to even be able to do what the RCC has done and continues to do.

    If the Church had, at any point in the decades since this scandal first came to light, made any genuine attempt to change I’d be a lot more willing to treat them as just one part of the big picture. They haven’t and I’m just not. In less than a 2 weeks span they’ve publically launched a faux scandal based on their delicate conscience while promoting a man for doing their dirty work so very well. The RCC hierarchy is in a unique position WRT abuse and I think they need to be treated as such.

  • Alicia

    I think that’s the thing for me, that makes them worse than almost every other organization that’s been linked to coverups of child abuse. Not only do they refuse to apologize, refuse to take even token steps at making sure this doesn’t happen again, they also get to set themselves up as this holy order that is far above secular laws and regulations. At the same time they’re screaming about how being forced to provide equal health coverage to their female employees is a violation of their rights, they’re systematically violating the rights of their own people and ignoring all of the laws at the same time.

    I feel as if you can be either sanctimonious or corrupt, but both is just way too much for me. The hypocrisy is unbearable.

  • http://mmycomments.blogspot.com/ mmy

    Lori — I am just suspicious of people who turn up suddenly (and Patrick is not a long time poster) to vent their spleen about one, and only one, patriarchal organization.

    And from reading his posts I get a sense that he is using those children instrumentally — this is he sees them mainly a tool against an organization he hates rather than as ends in and of themselves to be honoured and cherished.

  • Lori

    And from reading his posts I get a sense that he is using those children instrumentally — this is he sees them mainly a tool against an
    organization he hates rather than as ends in and of themselves to be
    honoured and cherished. 

    This assumes that he is not himself one of those children. I’m not defending and instrumental attitude, but I also don’t think I’m in a position to know if he has good reason to hate the Church or he’s his trying to honor and cherish himself.

    We’ve had one person in this thread (anonymously) acknowledge that he’s both victim and abuser because of priest abuse and the Church’s cover-up. I don’t know what Patrick O’Malley’s situation is and he does not in any way owe it to me to tell me, but it wouldn’t exactly be a stunning surprise if his intense hatred of the Church has a perfectly reasonable basis.

    There are tens of thousands of direct victims of pedophile priests and their enablers, there are hundreds of thousands of people who love someone who was a direct victim and we will never know how many secondary and tertiary victims the Church has racked up through it’s vile conduct. That’s a lot of rage.

  • http://mmycomments.blogspot.com/ mmy


    This assumes that he is not himself one of those children. I’m not defending an instrumental attitude, but I also don’t think I’m in a position to know if he has good reason to hate the Church or he’s trying to honor and cherish himself.

    Speaking only from my personal experience and from case studies I have read — those who have been abused (that I know of) tend to lash out more at the underlying authority structures and less on the specific manifestation of those structures. Also I have been recently interviewing people who remember when bias against particular religious groups was codified into local law in areas of North America and the Patrick’s language is more similar to the latter group (those biased against a particular religion) rather than those who are lashing out at religions for doing the work of patriarchy.

    For example, much of the work of the KKK locally was specifically anti-Catholic.

    I have watched the ways in which members of virtually any “mainline” religion were allowed to abuse children (for example, being allowed to deny their children needed medical care.) One of the main “symptoms” of those who are more anti-a-particular-church rather than anti-any-church getting an exemption is the type of language Patrick is deploying.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    When the last two Popes of the Roman Catholic Church have proven themselves willing to support hidebound, out-of-date, reactionary viewpoints on human sexuality (for all the encyclicals Pope Rat can circulate glorifying labor and the worker, it’s the social-agenda ones that get the most impact, such as anything he says regarding abortion), and have proven rather waffly over the abuse scandals now coming to the fore…

    I’m going to damn well condemn the entire organization for being unwilling to deal with this clearly systemic issue.

    How is it any different from rightly pointing to Rumsfeld of being the culpable party in fostering an environment that gave us the horrific acts at Abu Ghraib? Toss out all the low people on the totem pole you want, if the top brass doesn’t lay down new rules it’ll just keep happening.

  • Patrick O’Malley

    No.  We will maintain focus, rather than being distracted by Catholics who say, “look over there instead”.

    The Catholic church is the world’s largest pedophile protection program.  Despite lies by Catholics, no other institution is even close.  There has never been any other institution that admitted 4,392 “Jerry Sanduskys” out of 100,000 people in a voluntary report (like the Catholic John Jay report of 2004).

  • Anonymous

    And “the archdiocese as a whole” should be investigated under RICO as a criminal enterprise.

    I do so long to see that happen.  I may be showing ignorance, but I wonder why it hasn’t yet?  The DA in my city is using RICO to go after members of penny-ante small gangs, so you’d think some eager prosecutor would have already tried RICO prosecution of the RCC’s systemic cover up of child rape. 

  • Anonymous

     Your
    posts communicate that you are far more interested in carrying water
    for the Catholic Organized Crime Syndicate them going after
    organizations known to harbor child rapists.

    Wow, does that seem fair to you?

    I do so long to see that happen.  I may be showing ignorance, but I
    wonder why it hasn’t yet?  The DA in my city is using RICO to go
    after members of penny-ante small gangs, so you’d think some eager
    prosecutor would have already tried RICO prosecution of the RCC’s
    systemic cover up of child rape.

    We can all probably think of a pretty obvious reason why local politicial officials might be more comfortable going after penny-ante street gangs than the largest single organized church in the world!

    (I’m not saying that this is a good or a valid reason, but these are elected officials and recent events have proven — if it isn’t obvious already — that the Catholic Church is pretty damn good at political manuevering. The feds don’t want to mess with them, and neither does the sheriff of Bumbleton County, Alabama (pop. 3500 and a mule))

    Whatever the actual reason, government prosecutors are unlikely to attempt to indict the Vatican, even though their behavior fits well within the legal definition of “racketeering”. Successful civil lawsuits have been filed against the Church under the RICO statute but from the perspective of a victim seeking relief their attorneys are much more likely to seek relief under doctrines like vicarious liability (in short, the Church is guilty because its agent did something wrong) or a negligence tort.

    It’s not so much that your idea is bad — it makes a lot of sense just from a legal perspective, but it’s so tricky politically that it would be hard to convince either a risk-averse elected official or a traumatized victim of abuse to pursue the riskiest path possible for relief.

  • Anonymous

    it’s so tricky politically that it would be hard to convince either a risk-averse elected official or a traumatized victim of abuse to pursue the riskiest path possible for relief

    Yes, that might be true for a little while longer, but I think the facade could be cracking – I mean, they’re already being prosecuted, and that prosecution is bringing to light some very unsavory things.

  • Dan Audy

     I think using RICO charges against an organisation that is clearly not criminal in focus, even if the bishops engage in widespread criminal conduct, would dangerously expose how abused those RICO laws are and lead to a strong public push to either eliminate them or tighten them dramatically to only apply to actual organised crime which would take a very powerful tool out of the prosecutors toolbox.  Further it would be a disaster of a prosectution both from a legal standpoint and from a public perception standpoint. 

    Legally, they would be up against the First Amendment where sins are confessed and forgiven.  They would have to make a very challenging argument that RCC’s right to practice their faith is overriden by mandatory reporting laws or the potential harm to unspecified children.  Given that the courts have allowed Jehovah Witness’ to refuse blood transfusions for their children causing actual harm to identified individuals, I think that the only hope to a favourable ruling would be if the judge let the fear behind child rape weigh higher than established caselaw.  Beyond the First Amendment issues is also the fact that the RCC is so well capitalized that it could drown the state under legal fees the way the state typically does to other defendants.

    On a public perception stance it is a nightmare.  No matter how much a handful of hyperbolic screamers might claim it is obvious that the purpose of the Roman Catholic Church is not criminal in nature and using RICO laws against it would be abusing the intent and spirit of the law to use overly broad language.  People are pleased that Al Capone got caught on the tax evasion loophole because they recognize that he was a criminal, when non-criminals are caught in loopholes it damages trust in the entire justice system.  The Catholic community would be enraged over the criminalization of an entire organisation over the behaviour of a few, other religious communities would recognize how easily the same process could be abuse against them, and even non-religious and atheists could be angered over the blantant abuse of the law.

  • Anonymous

    They would have to make a very challenging argument that RCC’s right to practice their faith is overridden by mandatory reporting laws or the potential harm to unspecified children

    Holy Smokes!  Would that really be considered a challenging argument to have to make?  Wouldn’t the potential harm to children satisfy, I dunno, a rational basis review?

     The Catholic community would be enraged over the criminalization of an entire organisation over the behaviour of a few

    I think that’s one of the questions – is it really just a few?  Of course I agree  that the majority of regular parish priests are decent, committed men doing their best.  But as Lori pointed out in an earlier comment, the higher up you go in hierarchy, the more clergy were involved in the criminal conspiracy.  We’re talking about the Cardinal here – he didn’t get to that high a position by being a maverick who did things his own way. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

     

    Holy Smokes!  Would that really be considered a challenging argument
    to have to make?  Wouldn’t the potential harm to children satisfy, I
    dunno, a rational basis review?

    I’m almost positive you’re thinking of strict scrutiny there. that’s a really high standard. most laws don’t make it, right?

  • Anonymous

    Right, most don’t –  but you’d think preventing child abuse would pass even strict scrutiny, wouldn’t you?  Also, maybe I am misunderstanding Dan Audy’s comment, but is he saying the RCC is now presently exempted from mandatory reporting laws? 

  • P J Evans

     I don’t think they’re supposed to be exempt from mandatory reporting laws, but as I understand it. the higher up you go, the more likely you are to run into members of the hierarchy who think that there’s still a clerical exemption from laws, as there was in the middle ages. I suspect there’s enough evidence to indict several bishops and archbishops (including some with red hats) for covering up crimes, though. I’m pretty sure that Mahony was one of them. I suspect every archbishop is, even if they’ve managed to hide all the evidence.

  • Anonymous

    Right.  Which is why, even though I don’t entirely disagree with the posters who pointed out the difficulties of a RICO prosecution, I still don’t think you can rule it out forever and ever

  • Dan Audy

     

    Holy Smokes!  Would that really be considered a challenging argument to
    have to make?  Wouldn’t the potential harm to children satisfy, I dunno,
    a rational basis review?

    Because Catholic religious practice requires the confession of sins, I believe that having the laws override the First Amendment would require it to meet the standards of strict scutiny.  I believe that it has a chance of passing strict scutiny (which is often described as where laws go to die) but given the deference courts tend to treat freedom of religion I would say that it would really be a coin flip either way.

    Right, most don’t –  but you’d think preventing child abuse would
    pass even strict scrutiny, wouldn’t you?  Also, maybe I am
    misunderstanding Dan Audy’s comment, but is he saying the RCC is now
    presently exempted from mandatory reporting laws?

    Not the RCC in specific but pastoral communication is considered confidential communication on similar standing to that with a lawyer.  The hodgepodge of state laws across the US mean the answer is different in many places but while clergy are mandatory reporters in 26 states only 2 of those specifically deny priviledge to pastoral communication in the case of abuse.  What that means is that the clergy is required to report any evidence of abuse that they witness but not any admissions of abuse that occur in a part of religious practice (for example confession).

  • Lori

    The Catholic community would be enraged over the criminalization of an entire organisation over the behaviour of a few, other religious communities would recognize how easily the same process could be abuse against them, and even non-religious and atheists could be angered over the blantant abuse of the law.

    I agree with your general point about why it would be inappropriate to use RICO against the RCC, but I’m going to say again that we are not talking about criminalizing of an entire organization over the behavior of a few. We’re talking about an organization that, to a truly disturbing degree, gave itself over to criminal conduct by not only covering up crimes, but facilitating them. How many people in how many layers of a hierarchical organization need to be involved in misconduct before we acknowledge that the organization itself is effectively corrupt?

    Criminal activity is not the purpose of the Church, but over the last 6 decades criminal activity became pervasive in all but the lower levels of the hierarchy. The last two heads of the Church were corrupt on this issue and considering the situation with the Cardinals I have no reason to think that the next Pope won’t also be someone with dirty hands. I have no issue with lay Catholics as a group and I know that the majority of parish priests are not abusers, but the problem in the RCC doesn’t lie with a “few” and if the organization is criminalized the RICO statutes won’t be to blame.

  • Dan Audy

    Criminal activity is not the purpose of the Church, but over the last 6
    decades criminal activity became pervasive in all but the lower levels
    of the hierarchy. The last two heads of the Church were corrupt on this
    issue and considering the situation with the Cardinals I have no reason
    to think that the next Pope won’t also be someone with dirty hands. I
    have no issue with lay Catholics as a group and I know that the majority
    of parish priests are not abusers, but the problem in the RCC doesn’t
    lie with a “few” and if the organization is criminalized the RICO
    statutes won’t be to blame.

     Don’t misunderstand me.  I don’t believe that ‘the Church’ as a whole should be punished because I believe that collective guilt is an abhorrent concept.  However, I believe that any priest, bishop, or cardinal that can be shown to have known about and participated in covering up or relocating abusing priests should be criminally charged on an individual basis.  I’m pretty sure the Pope can’t be charged due to diplomatic immunity covering the head of state but he deserves to be. 

    How many people in how many layers of a hierarchical organization need
    to be involved in misconduct before we acknowledge that the organization
    itself is effectively corrupt?

    Judging corruption is very different when talking about from a moral standpoint versus a legal standpoint.  I’m quite confident in opining that the Catholic Church is immensely corrupt and has been for centuries.  From a legal standpoint I am extremely uncomfortable with the way RICO criminalizes membership in an organisation rather than actual conduct which seems to violate freedom of association in an extremely troubling way particularly when looking at a religious organisation.  I don’t know at what point to draw the line between a corrupt organisation (from a legal standpoint) and one that has been taken advantage of by corrupt individuals but I feel that the defining points need to be knowledge of and intent to participate in criminal conduct.

  • Keromaru

    Yeah, can we please cool it?  I’m not Catholic anymore, myself, but was raised that way, and I don’t appreciate the whole tradition and the laypeople of the Catholic Church being dragged through the mud along with the corrupt clergy.  Catholicism is so much bigger than the men in charge.

  • JohnK

    I think using RICO charges against an organisation that is clearly not
    criminal in focus, even if the bishops engage in widespread criminal
    conduct, would dangerously expose how abused those RICO laws are and
    lead to a strong public push to either eliminate them or tighten them
    dramatically to only apply to actual organised crime which would take a
    very powerful tool out of the prosecutors toolbox.

    That’s not abuse. The model federal law might have been designed to combat the Mafia but state legislatures who copied it deliberately intended it for use against any organization that involves itself in pervasive criminal conduct. No one can argue that an anti-abortion organization, a police department, or a corporate franchise are inherently “criminal in focus” to the point that they’re akin to the Mob but state and federal civil suits have been permitted against them. I agree with you that a prosecution is a nonstarter but it’s not because doing so would be an “abuse” of the statute that was written for that purpose.

  • http://mmycomments.blogspot.com/ mmy

    @Invisible_Neutrino:disqus : What concerns me with any of these discussions is that they get side-tracked into how much damage one particular religion is doing rather than focusing on the way in which giving any religion a bye should be addressed. I am thinking particularly of the way in which parents have been given a pass (or a slap on the wrist) for not giving their children medical treatment. I am thinking of the way in which the physical abuse of children (such as beating them) is given a pass if the parents do it for “religious” reasons. I am thinking about the fact that parents are allowed to “opt out” of life-saving vaccinations for religious reasons. I am thinking of the people who are allowed to refuse to give needed medical assistance to children who are pregnant from incest because….”religion.”

    I am thinking about how much those do abuse children but don’t wear “pointy hats” are able to escape scrutiny because…well because “those people” are members of a “cult”…while people who have their children committed to “gay-recovery” camps are treated with comparative sympathy.

  • Lori

     

    What concerns me with any of these discussions is that they get
    side-tracked into how much damage one particular religion is doing
    rather than focusing on the way in which giving any religion a
    bye should be addressed. 

    When the scope of the problem with one group is truly significantly greater than then problem with other groups I don’t think it’s a side-track to focus on that group.

     I am thinking particularly of the way in which
    parents have been given a pass (or a slap on the wrist) for not giving
    their children medical treatment. I am thinking of the way in which the
    physical abuse of children (such as beating them) is given a pass if the
    parents do it for “religious” reasons. I am thinking about the fact
    that parents are allowed to “opt out” of life-saving vaccinations for
    religious reasons. I am thinking of the people who are allowed to refuse
    to give needed medical assistance to children who are pregnant from
    incest because….”religion.” 

    Those things are terrible, but they don’t happen because “religion”. They happen because “parents”. In some cases it’s “parents” + “parents’ religious beliefs”, in other cases it’s not. For example, most vaccination refusers aren’t motivated by religion. For a great many reasons, some of which are entirely legitimate, the state is reluctant to interfere in how parents raise their children. Even so, the right of parents to deny medical treatment is not taken for granted, and in many jurisdictions Child Protective Services can and will step in to force life-saving medical care against parental wishes.

    I am thinking about how much those do abuse children but don’t wear
    “pointy hats” are able to escape scrutiny because…well because “those
    people” are members of a “cult”…while people who have their children
    committed to “gay-recovery” camps are treated with comparative sympathy.

    I do not in any way, shape or form support or sympathize with parents who send their children to gay-recovery programs or who withhold medical treatment from their children. However, there is a huge difference between parents who make those kind of parenting decisions with full knowledge of what they are doing, based on religious beliefs, however heinous I find those beliefs, controlling only the life of their own child and a church that lies about abusing other people’s children and then hides behind religion to get away with it.

    IMO there’s no way to look at the big picture of all these things, because it’s simply not all one picture. Lumping the RCC sex abuse scandal in with gay-recovery and faith-based medical (non)treatment muddies both issues in ways that I don’t think are helpful.

  • Ursula L

    To the extent that any confidentiality of confession is relevant, the moment church authorities said one word to each other to plan the cover-up, they’re already talking about the abuse outside the confessional.  

    They were willing to ignore the rules about confessions being secret in order to talk to each other about ways to protect the institution from being harmed by having the abuse made public. In doing so, they lost the moral right to claim “confidentiality” when it comes to protecting the children being abused. 

    ***

    There are also reasonable ethical ways to have confidentiality being respected, but also protecting the public.  

    For example, I go to counseling, and my counselor, when I started the treatment, explained both that what was said in counseling was confidential, but that the one exception was that if they thought I was going to harm myself or someone else, they would take steps to ensure that everyone is safe. Being a reasonable person, I happily signed the paper saying they could do this if necessary, because, while my depression doesn’t actually make me a risk to anyone, if something else developed, I’d want the protection of having them ensure I didn’t hurt anyone. 

    The church, if it wanted, could work out something similar.  At the very least, they could make it a condition that if you want to work with the laity as a representative of the church, you give the church permission to use information you share in the confessional for the narrow purpose of intervening to prevent future abuse.  

    There are monastic communities where the people within the community have little or no direct contact with the outside world.   Assigning priests with a record of abuse to such a community, based on information from the confessional, would prevent future abuse.  And it would do so in a way that limited the amount of information made public from the confessional.  It could even be done within the system of confession – the appropriate penance for a priest who abuses children is to devote themselves to such a community, ending all potential interaction with children.  

    The church was reassigning the abusive priests anyways.  Making the new assignments ones where the opportunity and temptation for further abuse is removed should have been common sense. 

  • Lori

     

    The church was reassigning the abusive priests anyways.  Making
    the new assignments ones where the opportunity and temptation
    for further abuse is removed should have been common sense.   

    This was suggested by some within the church and it was explicitly rejected for a number of reasons, all of them appalling.

  • Nathaniel

     From what I recall, the biggest reason is that there simply aren’t very many people who want to be priests anymore. Making enforced retirement for any of them one which could leave a pew empty.

  • Lori

    That was definitely part of it in later years, but it wasn’t the initial issue. The original suggestion to essentially quarantine pedophile priests was made before the priest shortage became acute. The main objection at that time was basically that sending them away would arouse suspicion and people would figure out what they had done. There was also concern that the priests didn’t want to be placed in isolated monasteries. The Church wasn’t sure it could force them accept such a fate and didn’t want them to leave the Church and therefore be out of Church control.

    That was partially because some people continued to hope that there was some way to get the priests to stop “sinning”, but much of it was blatant self-interest. The Church’s own experts were telling them that these men were not going to stop molesting. If they rejoined the “civilian” world and lost the cover of the Church they’d very likely get caught in circumstances where their victims or victims’ parents would go to the cops, not the Archdiocese. Once that happened someone was going to ask questions about past behavior and that would bring scandal and lawsuits right to the Church’s doorstep.

    That scandal had to be avoided at all costs because the goal was to protect the reputation, authority and bank balance of the Church, so the decision was made to keep the pedophiles within the Church and create the illusion that there was no problem. That put the hierarchy in the position of effectively facilitating further child rape, but that was considered the least worst choice, and a massive cover-up was born.

  • Ursula L

    I suspect that the toleration and protection of rapists as priests contributes a great deal to the lack of people willing to become priests.

    What decent human being would voluntarily join the leadership of an institution that protects rapists?  Who would put themselves in the position where their job title tells the public that you either rape kids or protect people who rape kids?  Who wants a job where you don’t know whether the colleague who just transferred in is a rapist who was moved to your area to cover up his crimes? 

    If the Catholic church is an institution that protects priests who are rapists, eventually they will only have rapists willing to be priests.   

    And eventually, they will only have a laity composed of people who are okay with the protection of rapists at the expense of their victims.  

    Someone who genuinely wants to serve the public and the laity by joining the clergy will think twice about becoming clergy in a church where the hierarchy cares more about protecting rapists than protecting rape victims.  

    I find it amazing that the Catholic church was able to cover up this issue for so many decades without anyone within the clergy deciding to become a whistle-blower, deciding that they could no longer serve as a member of this particular institution. No one who decided that their vows to serve the church required them to protect the people they were assigned to minister to, even if it put their job at risk.  For all that they say that three can keep a secret if two are dead, this is a secret that was kept for an amazingly long time.  

    There must have been dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people involved in the cover-up – all of the abusive priests, all of the administrative people who facilitated the cover-up.  But there must have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people who knew at least a little of what was going on.  

    Non-rapist priests who reported suspicions to their supervisors, and who were distressed by the response they saw.  Non-rapist priests who saw colleagues transferred in or out for inexplicable reasons.  Non-rapist priests who reported abuse, saw the abusing colleague removed, only to run into that individual later at a conference or meeting, and realize that they were in a position to abuse again.  

    No one within the church had a Huck Finn moment, where they decided it was better to go to hell than to remain loyal to a church that was protecting rapists.  

  • Nathaniel

     Damn. Good point.

    Although to be far to those unknown priests, I would be willing to bet money that there were some priests who went Huck Finn. Or tried too, before the Church made it very clear just what they’re prospects were in polite society if they did squawk.

  • Ursula L

    The thing about going Huck Finn is that it requires a genuine belief in hell, and a genuine belief that the thing you are doing will send you to hell.  Whether it is a theological hell, or hell on earth.  

    If the church made it clear that priests who went public about abuse would face poor prospects in polite society, that’s rather the point about the moral imperative of “going Huck.”  The church will make your life hell on earth – but that’s better than being someone who helps protect rapists.  You may genuinely believe that you will suffer eternal damnation for breaking your vows of obedience and doing real harm to the church as an institution – but you’d rather burn in hell forever than see children being raped and be expected to help protect the rapists.

    There is a tendency to think of “going Huck” in a sanitized way.  Huck might say that he’s going to hell for protecting his friend, but we know better.  We know he is doing the right thing, and believe that a just god will not send Huck to hell for what he’s doing.  

    And this sanitization of Huck’s dilemma robs his sacrifice of meaning, and obscures the moral point being made.  

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    I just can’t help thinking about the parallels between this and the Satanic Panic of the 90s, back when the entire country was convinced that there was a massive cult conspiring to rape and murder small children. 

    Of course with that one, some people actually went to jail (often on VERY shaky evidence) – after all, there wasn’t REALLY a massive cult working to bail its members out.  >:(

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    I just can’t help thinking about the parallels between this and the Satanic Panic of the 90s, back when the entire country was convinced that there was a massive cult conspiring to rape and murder small children. 

    Of course with that one, some people actually went to jail (often on VERY shaky evidence) – after all, there wasn’t REALLY a massive cult working to bail its members out.  >:(


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X