The eagerly-anticipated John Jay Study on Causation and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States was released yesterday (that link takes you to the full pdf), and while the USCCB was wise to invest in a study made by a reputable secular source, the thing has landed mostly with a thud, and that’s too bad, because it is very valuable.
The lack of a “smoking gun” is the cause of the thud. Lots of people with agendas were looking for a causation report shooting bullets inscribed with their agendas — bullets that would validate their beliefs that the dreadful sins committed by a small minority of our priests, and then damnably mishandled by some bishops, were rooted in the discipline of celibacy (a stupid argument, of course, since most victims of child sexual abuse encounter it within their own non-celibate homes, and while most humans experience periods of celibacy within in their lives, it never leads them to exploit children) or that homosexuality was the culprit, which is another weak argument.
Are some homosexuals, like heterosexuals, inclined to abuse minors? Sure.
Are all homosexuals incapable of making and keeping their vows of celibacy? Of course not. A vocation is a vocation and lived faithfully and supernaturally — if we believe in faith and supernaturalism — it (like the liturgy) subsumes the self, even as scripture tells us that the thorns in our flesh are subsumed by God’s grace.
Sexual abuse of children, and here I speak from experience, so oblige me a little — is not about sexuality or sexual urgings. It is about power, and control. It is the provenance of a malformed, immature and cowardly mind that — as this report suggests — pulls its prey from what is available to it, what it has access to, and all you have to do is talk to male and female siblings who have suffered abuse by the same hand, to recognize the truth of it.
The bottom line of the study is that, while a clerical mindset closed ranks around these scandals in much the way a police department will close ranks to protect their own (as, for that matter, will doctors, teachers and others) may have contributed to the coverup of these sins and crimes, there is no definitive “bullet” of causation.
But this is where the Jay study has great value: no matter what hopeful agenda one may have attached to the outcome of this study, it’s results suggest (to me, anyway) that it may be time to abandon all agendas and face the fact, finally, that Catholicism did not cause these crimes and does not foment sexual abuse toward minors, and to admit that this crime is not a problem peculiar to the church and therefore neatly folded and packed away as such.
Up to now, the issue of sexual abuse of minors in institutions has been dramatically focused upon the Catholic church because, let’s face it, it’s shameful and reprehensible for these things to have happened within the church founded by Christ. It was an is an appropriate focus. But in the face of this report, perhaps it ought no longer be the sole focus of our attention. It might, finally, be time to look at sexual abuse in other institutions, as well — even the secular institutions and the public schools — if we are ever going to come to understand the nature and scope and reality of the problem.
As reputable a study as could be mounted has declared that yes, the church failed, gravely, to do the right thing, and this is a great shame and a mortification that will reverberate through the church for generations — perhaps past our lifetimes. But the church, we see now, did not “cause” the abuse.
We are a culture that loves scientific studies and we look to “experts” and authoritative voices to tell us why things happen, and how we are supposed to address them. But I suspect that additional studies by equally reputable agencies, done on other institutions, will land with equally inconclusive thuds because the problem of child sexual abuse involves something deeper than the psyche, itself.
But no secular institution — and no secular press — will be attracted to a study that must entertain notions of evil and goodness.
But let’s do them, anyway; let’s do studies in public schools and other institutions, and in families. What the studies will discover is that this is a vast and ancient evil, one that resides within the darkest chambers of human hearts, and which cannot be defeated with laws or therapies, but only by God’s own healing light and holiness, with which this evil is in constant battle.
No one will want to say it — it’s not attractive to the press or to the secularists, or even to some Christians whose minds are fixated on the human and material.
Evil is broad and deep. It is an ancient hiss, and it has always existed right beside what is All-Good, whether in Eden or on Calvary. The battle must be fought on both the supernatural,and natural planes.
There are a couple of very good summaries and statements on the study that you will want to read for a useful overview, and I will link to more reactions this afternoon, so check back.
For instance, George Weigel at NRO
And Russell Shaw writing at OSV, and noting:
Almost as a throwaway line, the report mentions another factor: “Many priests let go of the practice of spiritual direction after only a few years of ordained ministry.” As the discussion continues, that’s a thought worth exploring.
Good analysis at America
The problem with any report that covers 50-60 years in America during which time everthing one thought or believed was challenged and turned on it head is never going to yield clear answers. As has been pointed out above, you could be sent to jail for being homosexual and so many remained in the closet. Back before 1970 or so, if there was a problem, the Church would kick the priest out at the first sign of trouble and keep everything quiet and it was before the age when everyone who thought they were wronged sought out a lawyer and payoff. The Bishops were taught by the medical community that you could send a pervert to some soft of reversion process and they would be OK to send back into society. It would be interesting to see how many compassionate bishops fell into that mistake. To really see and understand trends, you cannot simply take raw numbers and believe they project much of anything unless you plug in all the factors.
If one looks outside the Catholic Church and outside this report, anyone looking at the active homosexual lifestyle honestly would agree that a huge part of that lifestyle is an attraction to young boys. Search Google for twinks and homosexual and you get huge hits sending you to web sites that show pictures of those that appear to be about what the abuse scandal was mostly about. It is also well documented that there was a huge influx of gays into the seminaries. It became visible to many only later, but started long before the 60′s, though not near as open as it was still against the law. By then, a few bishops who slipped through and were gay stated to have gay networks kept very quiet. As homosexual lifestyle became more open, so did those in the priesthood and seminaries. The decline in the number of men willing to enter the priesthood and live in these gay dens diminished rapidly which made the bishop in need of priest less willing to kick out perverts which should never have happened. He was told that they could be healed, but that fact soon became a very apparent distortion. By the time this really got rolling, more homosexual bishops and those sympathetic to that lifestyle being normal were in power. They protected their own.
As I posted above, it seems plain to anyone who is willing to see that the gravely disordered gay lifestyle has no place in the Catholic Church and had the Popes over time been listened to on keeping them out, most of the abuse would not have happened.
So I would not place much faith in the report because of the long time frame. I would keep it very simple. Gravely disordered people should not be accepted into the priesthood and if they lie about it to become a priest, if it becomes known they should be removed. Beyond morals, it is also a very risky legal position because right now many are out looking for the first sign that one is looking funny at any child, especially boys. Instead of doing the obvious, the Church is jumping through a thousand hoops to try to protect the kids. Get the perverted priests out and most of the problem goes away. It is like searching grandma at the airport when muslim men are the danger.
For those who use this to continue to their hatred of the Catholic Church, if not this, something else. If you belong to another church, live in a neighborhood, or send your kids to school, they are in far greater danger than being around a priest today. THAT IS FACT. If you were really concerned about the kids, you would show the same anger anywhere child abuse is found. If you don’t, why not admit that you could care less about the kids, just your hatred of the One True and Apostolic Church which Jesus has promised to be with until the end of time.
The conclusions above listed by CathyF on ephebophiles and pedophiles shows a bit of the problem. First of all, it demands at least two victims to label them as such. Second it makes the ages fit within certain ranges, which makes sense for a medical scientific report where specific things have been defined, but I suggest does not give us answers. It is kind of like global warming where some scientist want an outcome and so mix the data around for the result they want to see.
First, the perp is feeling an urge to get with a young boy. He does not stop to think that this one is 12 and if caught twice I might be a pedophile, but if both are 13, I would be an ephobephile. He is probably attracted to boys from 9-10 up to 20 year old men or older, especially if they happen to look like they are 13. Another problem is that these are the ones they were caught with. So if perp did attack a few more and did not get caught, he is left in the other catagory. I suspect that this was more than a few, but most. And what about the ones that went after a 10 year old and a 13 year old? Are they pedi-ephebophiles?
Why not look at men who are attracted to the same sex no matter the age of the child? Normal homosexuals (if one ignores the fact that they are doing something gravely evil) go after other men. The report did not go into that perversion at all, just those that went after kids. So then we get to the even worse pervert, those that attacked kids. Now I agree that an attack against either sex is gravely disordered and I would hope all would agree. But we are trying to find patterns to eliminate the cause and keep the kids safe. So does it matter if the gay perp who likes twinks, those under 18, goes after a 13 year old versus an 9 or 11 year old? It is still same sex attraction focused on kids. Put all them in the same barrel for the perverts they are.
One time is enough for me. One time and your out. Is that not the new policy? One time and your out? So why bother putting up a category that needs two victims or by age variation? I think it is for one reason….so that it does not end up a same sex attraction to boys in massive numbers. God forbid we actually find the solution to keeping kids safe. It is not priest attracted to the opposite sex that is 90% of the problem.
Lets say we are trying to find a cure and we have two possible issues causing the disease. One is relevent to 90% of the cases. If you fix that, you have saved 90% of the victims. But suddenly, those who do not like the answer say wait, we have to break down that 90% into smaller areas using meaningless catagories. It is still same sex attraction to boys, and that is still a homosexual problem with children as victims. Is this a problem for the Catholic Church? We teach that the lifestyle is perverted and that those who are active or who openly support that lifestyle should not be admitted and if in, should be removed. The ones left will be those dealing with the issue privately who are celbate. As long as they stay celebate and do not support the gay lifestyle openly, they are fine and would be hard to discover.
The spam filter is really tough here. I think anything that says gay or homosexual more than once is hit..
I resist temptation about as well as anyone else. Sorry.
Gravely disordered people should not be accepted into the priesthood and if they lie about it to become a priest
Gretta, I’m curious to know if by “gravely disordered” you mean the same thing as “sinful”. Or do you mean someone with a serious mental illness, such as delusional paranoia? Or do you mean something else entirely?
Without going into theological details, I think the Church is very clear [even to a non-Christian like me] that sinfulness is the general human condition against which we all must strive, and from which Christ redeems those who follow him.
Speaking from the inside [I am bipolar], serious mental illness is a personal condition over which the individual has little, if any control. And it remains with you all the while, even when you use Rx drugs to manage it. You can resist temptation and not commit sins. But there is no way to resist a mental illness and cease to be “mentally ill”. The best you can do is to avoid socially inappropriate behavior, and for some even this is not wholly possible.
Elizabeth, since the spam filter will not let me post a simple, non-contentious concluding paragraph, I suggest that you turn it off if you want to invite serious commentary.
Greta, I know dozens of gay men. Dozens. None are attracted to young boys. Your statements are slanderous.
Does everyone feel better now that they have engaged in this obsessive exercise of jab your finger in the wound and pour salt and acid in it? Have you accomplished a lot?
Sorry, I refuse to play.
Ok, so let me see if I can follow the math of your seminary theory, Greta. Men who were educated in the 40s and 50s, and ordained in the 50s, sexually abused boys in the 70s because in the mid-80s a bunch of seminaries were going to be taken over by gays. And their crimes, which wouldn’t be reported to anyone until 2002, were covered up in the 70s (a quarter century before anyone knew about them to cover them up.) And the covering-up bishops, educated and ordained in the 30s and 40s, were also gay because of that incredibly powerful mid-80′s “lavender mafia” could reach back in time 40 or 50 years and convert them.
Yes, of course, that’s so TOTALLY more plausible than what the priests who actually lived through the experiences overwhelmingly reported. That seminaries were completely inadequate in preparing men for lives of chaste celibacy, and for the loneliness, isolation and stress of the parish priesthood. That the vast majority of them (80%) sinned against chastity with consenting adults, and a small minority abused and exploited children sexually. That, starting in the early-mid 80s, bishops, superiors, priests, seminary professors and the culture at large became aware of the terrible toll of sexual abuse on victims, and specifically sexual abuse by priests. That they worked hard to come up with tools to prepare seminarians better, and that some of that worked its way out to the older priests who had been in the seminaries during the age where anyone with more emotional depth than Animal House’s Bluto was a “faggot.”
Oh, yeah, that doesn’t make any sense at all compared to the time-travel theory!
Oh, and for all of you folks who think that sexually abusing children is hunky-dory a-ok as long as worthless females are the only victims, check out the table & graph on page 104. You are getting your “90% of the problem” solved — the ratio is now down to 55-45.
“Kenneth, now come—be honest.
You dislike the Catholic Church. That comes through loud and clear, in all your posts here.
If it were simply a matter of abuse of power, you’d be equally enraged over the sex scandals of the U.N., the porn industry, the worldwide sex trafficing network, the ongoing abuse of women and children in the Islamic world, the horrific doings in Africa, the fact that “important” males, such as the socialist politico who just got busted for raping a maid, can commit crimes for years, and have them covered up. . . and so on. (As witness the elite’s and the literati’s contnued adultation of Roman Polanski—hey, it wasn’t “Rape-Rape!”)
The crimes the church has covered up are horrendous, and it’s good that they’re being revealed. The narrowness of focus on it, however—-it’s not just the church abusing kids—and the constant introduction of side issues, such as the bickering over “Is it pedophilia or is homosexuality to blame?” and what went on with Stonewall, and so on and so forth, indicate that the concern here is less with abused children than it is with bashing the church.
Far too many critics simply want the church to go away, and see the current scandals as the tool to accomplish this end.”……………………………
If the craven and dishonorable men responsible for the crisis are truly representative of the Church and not its aberrations, then yes, I dislike the Catholic Church. I am not yet convinced that the Church’s soul has been fully corrupted by its rapists and enablers, but much of what I see and hear from that institution and its defenders on a daily basis continues to push me toward that conclusion.
I’m also not sure why you presume I’m not outraged by secular pimps and traffickers or by guys like the IMF one or Polanski. They are all scum and deserve harsh justice. Likewise the abusers in Islamic and African societies. I have not commented on them at length because the focus of this thread has been on the John Jay Report, which, by design (not my own), is on the Catholic Church.
If there’s a special focus on the Church regarding abuse, it’s because it took place on a scale that is simply staggering. It’s also fair to say that not many people expected world class child sex trafficking from the organization that calls itself Christ’s corporate headquarters on Earth. We expect active and calculated participation in evil from ordinary street pimps. Bishops, not so much. It’s what you might call “extra troubling.”
Does the Church have its enemies and detractors? Of course. A few hundred years of Roman emperors, the Protestant revolution, the Enlightenment thinkers, various anti-immigrant movements in the United States, the Communist empire (which very nearly assassinated one pope), present day militant atheists, you name it. Many hundreds of millions of very strident, determined people working over dozens of centuries to “make the Church go away” or to at least damage its credibility and influence.
For all that, your own bishops have done more to accomplish that end in the past 20 years than it’s enemies could ever dream of doing in the centuries they have been at work…..
If you want to fulfill their age-old dream, keep on casting the engineers of the abuse crisis as “the real victims.”
1. knowing a few gay people who you think are not abusing kids proves nothing. Many would have sworn under oath and bet their house that the priest would never do anything wrong. We know they did. It is not something one makes public
2. No one has said why it matter is a pervert went after a 9 year old or 17 year old. Both are wrong. both are gravely disordered. It also does not matter if it was one kid one time of a series of kids according to the current policy of the Church. Is that not correct? One and out. So please explain why putting them in catagories matters.
3. if we drop the catagories and list the number of priest who went after boys of the same sex, the numbers are very clear.
4. Only fools do not acknowledge that a large part of the homosexual community has strong attraction to twinks (boys between 10-18 which can also include men who look like young boys). It has been part of that lifestyle forever and it is well know. Label it something else, but it is part of the gay lifestyle.
I will add a couple more. If you can weed out priest/seminarians with same sex attraction of any type, you will eliminate many who would go on to abuse boys. The Popes have advised they be weeded out for a very long time. That is what a good chunk of the investigation that just went on was all about.
I am tired of hearing about maturity. A young gay person might decide that he is not truly gay which was why the church set a time frame of not being involved in that lifestyle and set the possibility of now clearly understanding that it was only a childish confusion, admit them. I think even that is dangerous, but will go with what the leadership in Rome thinks on the issue. But anyone who admits to being gay should be a red flag and danger point and anyone who allows them to remain and get hit with a child abuse claim that was involved with keeping them in should go to jail with them. No exceptions.
Also, anyone that teaches against church teaching on this matter should be removed. They are openly supporting a lifestyle that has led us to this mess and have no place in the Church as priest or bishops.
A final point, I agree that any bishop that clearly knew of the issue and after learning that they could not be cured as the docs had been telling them should be thrown out. I do not know what they knew, when they knew it, and how it was handled in detail, but if a bishop is being protected, then the Catholic Church loses and someone on judgement day will pay a terrible price.
Some say that no one is free of sin and that this is a sin and should be forgiven. I have no problem in forgiving, but they need to be out of the priesthood without exception. It has cost the Church dearly and we must have zero tolerance to avoid it if possible and deal with it with a fury if it occurs. I am not in any way excusing any abuse of girl or boy, by gay or straight. I do know clear church teaching on the matter, and think it should be followed to the letter.
Heterosexual males do not go after male teenagers or boys, even if public sex is taking place at Woodstock and free love is the norm. As someone earlier noted, the report defies common sense in this regard.
“1. knowing a few gay people who you think are not abusing kids proves nothing. Many would have sworn under oath and bet their house that the priest would never do anything wrong. We know they did. It is not something one makes public
2. No one has said why it matter is a pervert went after a 9 year old or 17 year old. Both are wrong. both are gravely disordered. It also does not matter if it was one kid one time of a series of kids according to the current policy of the Church. Is that not correct? One and out. So please explain why putting them in catagories matters.
3. if we drop the catagories and list the number of priest who went after boys of the same sex, the numbers are very clear.
4. Only fools do not acknowledge that a large part of the homosexual community has strong attraction to twinks (boys between 10-18 which can also include men who look like young boys). It has been part of that lifestyle forever and it is well know. Label it something else, but it is part of the gay lifestyle.”
Only fools do not acknowledge that an ENORMOUS part of the heterosexual community has a strong attraction to girls between 10-18. It has been part of that “lifestyle” forever and is well known. In fact for many centuries it was considered the norm for older men to marry girls who today would be junior high age… Our culture so routinely sexualizes very young girls in music, advertising culture etc that we don’t even notice it anymore.
Chew on these numbers as you peddle this bigotry…
Try entering the term “twink” on Google image search. You’ll find about 2.52 million. Now try the term “barely legal” You’ll see 5.76 million result, and about 99% of them females. And that’s just one search term. Aside from the niche market depicting older women, essentially the entire pornography industry is aimed at fulfilling fantasies about very young women. And that’s just the legal market. Both genders are victimized by international trafficking, but girls are by far the bulk commodity in those markets.
We’d better weed out all the men with opposite gender attractions from the seminaries too, because we all know how THEY are…..
Brother Jeff, heterosexual males DO go after young men and boys in epic numbers, and that fact has been very well documented for thousands of years. When I was a crime reporter for a number of years, ALL of the men I ever saw get busted for solicitation or child porn involving underage male victims identified as hetero. They were essentially all upstanding, outwardly straight, married family guys. More than a few were thought to be quite the “lady’s man.” I doubt whether a single one of them would have self identified as gay, and indeed, it’s not evident that was even their primary attraction.
If you look to the ancient cultures like the Greeks and the Romans, it is clear that young men and boys were usually sought as lovers because they were viewed, in essense, as “female substitutes.” A man was not considered gay at all so long as he was not performing the “feminine” role. It was not unusual for generals to take along a young male lover on campaigns because it was simply more practical than taking his wife or mistresses.
Additionally, a great many of the men busted over the centuries for homosexual behavior in navies or prisons were not gay. They had an obvious preference for women and only went the other way when circumstances limited their opportunities. You may also be surprised to know that a huge number of gay porn actors and even escorts are hetero off the job. That’s a fact. The connections between orientation and behavior are not nearly as neat as you would like.
The spam filter really needs to be fixed here!
I will say—spam permitting—that behavior is one’s orientation. We are what we do. So it’s nonsensical to argue that there’s no relation between “orientation” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) and action.
Freddie Mercury dated women for a number of years. Did that fact make him a straight guy?
Of course there’s a relation between orientation – ie a person’s primary preference, and how they usually act that out. But it much more fluid than you suppose.
The idea that being gay, or for that matter straight, somehow predisposes one toward abuse is ludicrous and not supported by any of the science in this area. Abuse has to do with power and manipulation of younger victims, and very often acting out the damage that was done to the abuser himself earlier in life. The specific gender of the victims has to do at some level with the abuser’s preference, but also much to do with other factors such as availability of victims etc.
Weeding out people with same sex attraction in and of itself will do nothing at all to deter abuse. It will only shift who is abused. In the decades when abuse in the Church flourished, abusers primarily had access to boys and young men in segregated schools and as altar servers. The abusers in scout master positions targeted…wait for it…boys and young men. The overwhelming number of men I have seen arrested for high-school age abuse were straight guys targeting underage girls. Same with the skating coaches etc.
As I mentioned above, the idea that abuse is the natural result of gay men’s supposedly universal preference for “twinks” also holds no water. There is that subculture in the gay community for sure. But there’s also plenty of opportunities for legal outlets for that, and if you look at the online ads, you’ll notice a few other trends: For every one interested in young looking smooth men, there are many many more who specify an interest in big manly, hairy men. In addition a fair number of the men interested in “twinks” seem to be married, straight(ish) guys on the down low. No real clear pattern to suggest that gay men would normally be drawn toward pedophilia any more than their hetero counterparts.
No Kenneth, those guys you’re referring to were homosexually inclined. That is why they were caught with other men. That’s what homosexuals do.
Straight men do not prey sexually on other men. You can continue the propaganda all you want but you have an audience of about 1.
Brother Jeff, it seems to be this whole controversy has devolved into:
1. An effort to bring down the Catholic Church as an institution, by portraying this as being an exclusively Catholic problem, and. . .
2. An effort to defend gay males, and keep them from being accused as child abusers.
The kids, alas, do not matter here. It’s only the Agenda that matters.
Kenneth,
I find your comments very sound! The issue is exploitation of the innocent and willful neglect by those in a position to protect and defend. Across the board this is wrong and also not confined to homosexuals and/or Catholic clergy. And it is certainly not fair to assume that because SOME in any particular group are guilty, that ALL should be blamed or presummed guilty. Some (NOT ALL) men exploit women; some (not all) women abuse men…in fact, in recent years we have seen cases where female teachers have exploited underage boys; some employers exploit employees; some children exploit other children (it’s commonly known as bullying); some governments exploit thier citizens; some priests, as we know too well, exploit those who look to them in trust…all regardless of gender, race, age, or sexual orientation. Sometimes the exploitation is of a sexual nature, sometimes it is manifest in other forms of violence and/or manipulation. It is always wrong!!! and it is always the weak and/or innocent who suffer.
So, I would say: 1) Anyone who uses another for their own gain or pleasure is quilty of exploiting that other. 2) anyone who is in a position to stop such exploitation and knowingly looks the other way is quilty of being both an accomplice and a facilitator of such abuse…as the old addage says: “evil prevails when the good do nothing”. 3) I don’t think it takes a “Dallas Charter” or a John Jay Report to figure this out!!! I think both have been a waste of time and money and serve as little more than smokescreens, perpetuating only more and more specuation… ad nauseum…, muddled opinions & confusion ! IT IS NOT THAT COMPLICATED to figure out! Horrible, yes! Complicated, no.
Kenneth, I think your comments have been the most clear and consistent in pointing these facts out. I’m a Catholic and I respect how rediculous the handling of the sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church must look to those on the outside. And I believe that Catholics need to look at this thing with a whole lot more honesty and less defensiveness. We are no more exceptional as individuals in our capacity for good or bad behavoir than any other group of individuals…and it is individuals who committ crimes.
“AMSTERDAM (AP) – The Dutch Catholic Church and the Salesian order are investigating revelations that a Salesian priest served on the board of a group that promotes pedophilia with the full knowledge of his boss.
The order’s top official in the Netherlands, Delegate Herman Spronck, confirmed in a statement that the priest – identified by RTL Nieuws as 73-year-old “Father Van B.” – served on the board of “Martijn,” a group that campaigns to end the Dutch ban on adult-child sex.
The group is widely reviled but not outlawed.”
brother jeff, you are wrong. straight men prey on other men every day. in prisons. does that make them gay? of course not. your statements are not supported by fact. your statements are wrong because of the facts.
greta, you too. Google? Are you serious? A “twink” in common parlance is a thin, gay man in his 20s. You are clearly determined to perpetuate a slanderous and disproven stereotype that gay men are sexually attracted to minors. Please stop.
Kenneth,
As a hetero woman I can tell you I have never felt any attraction to another female much less acted as if. I can’t identify with how a homo***ual male or female feels, I can only guess. As a presumably gay man, you can only guess at how a straight male feels and you have no credible evidence to state that straight males go after other males all the time.
This fluidity you talk about isn’t hetero. It is probably related to one or more issues such as feti**es, bi-s**uality, and plain old hedonism – some people will go after anything, including inanimate objects. It’s not behavior you will find among people who live a chaste life and understand that normal **xuality isn’t just about ‘getting some’.
It’s a little more info than we needed to know that you like to peruse the hook-up want ads. But it tells me a lot.
What comes out of the data is that up to 2002, a vast proportion of the accusations were that priests who were ordained in the 50s abused kids (overwhelmingly boys) who were born between 1955 and 1965, and the abuse happened during the 70s. What is most fascinating is that, between 2002 and 2010, the “next generation” of reports has NOT been a new generation of priests nor a new generation of victims nor a new era — between 2002 and 2010 the reports were from people born between 1955 and 1965, abused in the 1970s, by priests who were ordained in the 50s.
Anyone who thinks that drumming this or that population out of seminaries, or the priesthood, is going to solve THAT problem has some serious problems with logic. Or has a time machine.
The timing of the rise and fall of the abuse scandal makes the claims of Bella Dodd (and others) seem more believable doesn’t it? The Blessed Mother told us at Fatima that Communism would be the great enemy of the Church. I usually run away fast from conspiracy theories but this one has given me pause.
“While in the early 1950s, Mrs Bella Dodd was also providing detailed explanations of the Communist subversion of the Church. Speaking as a former high ranking official of the American Communist Party, Mrs Dodd said: “In the 1930s we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within.” The idea was for these men to be ordained and progress to positions of influence and authority as Monsignors and Bishops. A dozen years before Vatican II she stated that: “Right now they are in the highest places in the Church” – where they were working to bring about change in order to weaken the Church’s effectiveness against Communism. She also said that these changes would be so drastic that “you will not recognise the Catholic Church.”
The kids, alas, do not matter here. It’s only the Agenda that matters.
Oh, good grief, folks! Everyone knows what should be happening. Anybody should be protected from being molested by a priest. Right?
Good. Now, whose job is it to protect people from priestly abuse? The “senior guys” [as cathyf has called them], in the seminary, in the bishopric, in the College of Cardinals, all the way up to the Pope himself. Seems solid so far?
Has that been happening over the past couple of decades? Doesn’t seem to have been. Right?
What is needed? For the “senior guys” to stop circling up the wagons and establish unequivocally three things: abuse will not be tolerated, reporting abuse will be encouraged, and examination of reports will proceed fairly and justly, and real action steps will be taken if abuse has really happened.
This means somewhat different things in the Seminary than in the World, but in both it is a balance between proactive teaching and reactive, but fair response.
“Straight men prey on other men every day.” Lol. This is another attempt by the gay lobby to suggest that everyone is really homosexual. Since they can’t reproduce, this is how they try to multiply their numbers.
Now notice in the above comment no group of people but the “senior guys” are mentioned. Because the problem is abuse, not any particular group of either the abused or the abusers–with the mild exception of the fact that priests are, by definition, supposed to be celibate men.
So the problem of addressing abuse is a problem for those who have the authority to do something about it. And there is no reason why everybody, in the Church or out of it, cannot speak together in a single voice about that.
Beyond that, everybody here has plenty of temptation to struggle with and nobody is free from sin or inherently insulated from evil–any sin or any evil. To believe you are is the sin of Pride, right?
So nobody should be throwing stones at any particular group of anybody else, [just like Christ said, right?] whatever their status in the world. And everybody should stand up for the protection of everybody else, no matter what their age or status happens to be.
Right?
For the bishops, seminary deans/leaders, cardinals and the Pope to deal with the abuse problem they have to admit that they did not do their jobs in the first place and then to truly seek forgiveness. This may mean begging if you will that we as the laity understand the frailties of human nature and the need to control scandal that drove these men to cover up abuse. They need to reconcile themselves to their own humanity. This humanity does not include governing others, nor does it include condemning others for their shortcomings. The idea of Vatican 2 – opening windows has to occur, not changes, but opening windows. Until then this self-inflicted scandal will not go away.
As a person who was abused I wanted an apology and an acknowledgement that I was not the culprit. What I got was go to another church and avoid the priest – tough to do in a one church town. I was not seeking, nor am I seeking money or other recompense. I was looking for acknowledgement of the pain I felt and that was rebuffed.
To blame any group with a set of characteristics that we like of don’t like as the root of abuse is at best ludicrous, and at worst mean-spirited. We need to recognize that no one group is more apt to abuse than another. There is no research to suggest that homosexuals will abuse more than heterosexuals. It, abuse is about power and powerlessness and both homosexuals and heterosexuals are apt to abuse power.
It is better I think that we hold those who abetted the abuse responsible, that those who ignored or blame the abused are the real scandal.
Just a few more thoughts.
Andy,
You are so right!!! It’s as though our shepherds have catered to the desires of the wolves and have allowed them to feed on the sheep they were given to feed and protect.
It’s as simple as that.
I have come across the same type of dismissals and denials of real concerns when I’ve turned to the Church for help in other matters. Makes one feel quite lost and abandoned and unwanted and uncared for.
This type of dynamic is WRONG and cowardly, whether found in the Church or anywhere else. It has nothing to do with ideological leanings, sexual orientation, Catholicim per se, or what have you. It’s about POWER and CONTROL and IMAGE over SUBSTANCE!
And thank you John Marshall for your comments as well…
Actually, it seems to me people have been going after the “senior guys”, and the bishops, for some time, not to mention the Pope, who is frequently targeted as being the one ultimately to blame. (Would they were as dedicated in going after, say, the U.N.).
Then, everyone becomes jittery about possibly offending gays, or saying something insensitive, and the whole effort bogs down in pointless arguments along the lines of, “Is it pedophilia, or is it homosexuality?” They see the problem, but they’re nervous about doing anything about it; among other things, it might involve criticizing liberal church policies of the last few decades.
Because it’s more important to be politically correct, than it is to protect kids.
(When a crime has been committed, it’s always best to call the police.)
R S sums it up well.
@brother jeff: either you’re not reading an entire post before typing your response or you are unable to undestand what you ae reading. i don’t think i can help you.
@andy- well stated, and while it is likely of little help, i am sorry my church hurt you. i believe your actions in response to that hurt (at least as reflected in your post above) is deeply pleasing to God.
Brother Jess and Rhinestone Suderman
I find it sad that you reduce everything to an agenda – that the gays are out to get us. I will repeat that there is not a shred of research that says gays are more apt to abuse than persons who are straight. Saying that they have been after the “senior guys” is not rue – the “senior guys” set themselves up for this – they did not call the police – they hid it, the tried to confuse the issue by making it a gay issue, they attacked the abused, and until forced to they never acknowledged that it was a problem.
The church is not the UN, it does not have to follow “political correctness”, nor is the argument about “homosexuality vs. pedophilia”. That is the easy way to dismiss the problem – which is not liberal church policies, because it was the conservative policies that have caused this self-inflicted scandal – it about being accountable.
I think of the Sacrament of Penance – we acknowledge we have committed a sin and ask forgiveness. It, penance focuses on being accountable for your actions. Right now and in the past the church seemed more concerned with image and power and not in reaching out to people. It is not about sexuality, it is about abuse of power. Please for the sake of the church drop that line of argument – it does far more damage than it does help. Making excuses for immoral and illegal behavior or ascribing it to one group or another merely removes the need to be accountable.
I might add that he priest I had to deal with had his priestly faculties removed after having an affair with a teenage girl and her brother, who was over 18. I guess straight men can have an attraction to men or perhaps homosexuals can be attracted to women.
If I seem strident about this I have personal reason, and think that there may be many others who are not part of any group who merely want acknowledgement that we did nothing wrong.
I don’t understand your remark about “political correctness”, vis-a-vis the U.N.; are you saying that, because it’s politically correct, or follows the rules of political correctness, that no one should go after it?
Now that’s sad!
As for the whole thing becoming a debate about pedophilia vs. homosexuality—isn’t that we see happening, right on this thread?
Here’s what I find truly sad:
All the apologies, all the assurances that the victims didn’t do anything wrong, all the programs, all the lawsuits filed against priests and the church (and all the bankrupt parishes, and all the money paid to lawyers) are never going to be enough. The church will never be able to grovel enough, apologize enough, have-priests-arrested enough, to satisfy its accusers. This has been going on for years, and it’s never enough, and it’s never going to be enough.
Nothing is going to satisfy, short of the Church folding up shop completely, and going away, i.e., “We were wrong, we’re an evil institution, we don’t deserve to exist”—that, or turning into the Episcopal Church lite, with female “priests”. same-sex marriage and enthusiastic approval of abortion on demand.
The “issue” isn’t the real issue here; it’s something else. It usually is.
(And, in the end, the lawyers will be the only ones who win.)
The church hasn’t apologized – look at what happened in Philly recently – where is Cardinal Law, the list is rather long – the lawyers got involved because the church was not honest – it is not about the church folding up shop – it is about practicing what it preaches – it is about recognizing that absolute power corrupts absolutely. No one is saying the church is evil , it is flawed because it is made of humans – and human when in power do not like to admit they are wrong or committed errors. It ruins the power gig. And please don’t bring abortion into this issue, or same-sex marriage as they are not even remotely involved.
As a matter of clarification I am saying I don’t expect the church to be politically correct, I do expect honest and accountable actions, which have nothing to do with political correctness.
I do not see the debate here about homosexuality vs. pedophilia – rather to me it is about abuse – abuse of power and position; abuse of trust – no group has a monopoly on that. The church needn’t grovel, it should however, be honest, which it has’t and that is where lawyers get involved. Coverups lead to lawsuits, which leads to money being lost.
TO me it all comes back to power and a desire to maintain that power, instead of being servants the church has become governing and instead of reaching the hurt it has turned its back on them unless forced to confront them.
But I agree only the lawyers will win.
One last thing. . .
Abuse is a crime, and, when a crime has been committed, you should go to the police: not the bishop, not the Pope, not a counselor—the police. Treat it like the crime really is. (After all, even a very dedicated bishop can’t actually arrest a priest, and put him in jail—or keep him in there, if he makes bail, or has a cunning lawyer.)
RS, yes, abuse is a crime, but virtually all of the crimes cataloged in this study were reported long after the statute of limitations had expired. So when you report them to the authorities they say, “Sorry, nothing we can do for you — sue the Church if you want something.”
When abuse is reported in a timely fashion, the law enforcement professionals are pretty valuable in sorting out the truth. But they don’t want anything to do with 30, 40, 50 year old cases, because it’s extraordinarily rare that they can figure out much of anything about what did or did not happen. So the way it works is that lawyers bring people forward who say that they were victims, and they collect money. We’re fast approaching $3 billion of money.
I have to say that my hunch is that a lot more of the first billion dollars went to victims than the third…
RS
Remember many of these crimes occurred when the illegal nature of abuse was really cloudy. In the 60s and 70s the police were loathe to be involved so going to the authorities was not in the cards. Also during that time “no priest” would have done such a thing. And during that time we knew pedophilia was curable. The context of the abuse should reduce your outrage that people did not go to the police.
The church on the other hand should have been more open and willing to believe and or support the abused, not continue to abuse them. I pray that this does not occur again, but in my heart I fear – I fear for children again and I fear for all of us who do not have recourse to those in charge.
“All the apologies, all the assurances that the victims didn’t do anything wrong, all the programs, all the lawsuits filed against priests and the church (and all the bankrupt parishes, and all the money paid to lawyers) are never going to be enough. The church will never be able to grovel enough, apologize enough, have-priests-arrested enough, to satisfy its accusers. This has been going on for years, and it’s never enough, and it’s never going to be enough.”
………………………
ONE apology would be enough if there was any evidence of sincerity behind it and a real commitment to make victims whole and to come clean about abuse cases BEFORE the cops and attorneys and journalist bust them on it.
Like any corporation which gets a bad public rap for doing evil, the Church has two choices. A) Stop doing evil stuff (deceptively simple yet effective) or B) Get a better PR firm and campaign.
Unfortunately, corporations, including but not limited in any way to the RCC, invariably go for Option B. It never works, but they go for it every time.
Spin never works, when it’s done in lieu of right action, and it never will, because people are never as dumb as one needs them to be….
Over 80% homosexuals going after boys between 10-18.
You can call it whatever you want and try to put lipstick on it, but if homosexuals were not allowed in as was the teaching of the Catholic Church, much of this would have been avoided.
Some of the statements here to try and defend the gay lifestyle is beyond hope.
If a bishop even states the Church teaching or policy on homosexuality, they are attacked by the gay community and their eager supporters. Then people complain about bishops not doing anything. The bishops were told by the medical community that these things could be repaired and the priest returned to duty. Up until 1973 homosexuality was termed sexual deviance and that homosexuals were pathological. It was seen as a disease and there was a cure.
It is also interesting to see why the medical definition was changed. Dr. Spiegel was asked to testify about the mental health of homosexuals as the president elect of the American Psychiatric Association . Oddly enough he was a homosexual who had not told anyone. He changed the long accepted 81 word definition in 1973 on his own. There were strong rumors that he was going to be outted if he did not make the change.
On the so called time line issue, not sure there is any issue or proof there in the report. As the issue became open, the perverted rats went back into their holes and hid. Then when the Church pushed hard for the bishops to act by the Popes, some of them started to clean up the mess.