The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF version'Arrogant clericalism' never assessed in John Jay report
May. 21, 2011
Karen Terry, principal investigator for the John Jay College report on the causes and context of clergy sexual abuse, speaks during a press conference at the headquarters of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington May 18. (CNS photo)
COMMENTARY
In the last few days I have carefully read the entire 143-page John Jay report on the causes of clergy sex abuse in the United States and have again reviewed the executive summaries and conclusions of 17 of the 27 reports on clergy sexual abuse that have been published between 1989 and 2011.
Most of these are from official sources such as the U.S. grand juries, the three Irish reports (Ferns, Ryan, Murphy) or the two Canadian reports that resulted from the Mt. Cashel debacle of the eighties. Others are from Church sources such as the National Review Board Report of 2004, The Bernardin Report of 1992 or Church sponsored reports such as the Defenbaugh Report (Chicago, 2006) or the first John Jay Report from 2004. Most of the reports contained a section on causality. None of the reports said anything about the effect of the culture of the sixties or seventies as a factor of causality but every one of them pointed to the various kinds and levels of failure by the bishops as the essential cause of the phenomenon of sexual abuse of children and minors by clerics.
Some of the reports went into more detail about socio-cultural factors that had a causal effect but none of these factors included somehow shifting the blame to the “increased deviance of society during that time” as Karen Terry said in her statement released with the report. There was unanimity about the effect of culture, but it was not the culture outside the church but the culture within. Arthur Jones hit the nail squarely on the head in his NCR column on May 18 when he named arrogant clericalism as the culture that in many ways created the offending clerics and allowed the abuse to flourish.
There is a third source of information that perhaps provides the most accurate data on clergy sexual abuse in our era and that is the data obtained by victims’ attorneys in the six thousand plus civil and criminal cases from the U.S. alone. Add to this the information from similar cases in Canada, Ireland, Australia, the U.K. and several other European countries and you have a picture that is much different than that proposed in this latest John Jay report. The report refers to the sixties and seventies as the peak period with cases dwindling off after that period. This apparently fits in with what some of the cynics have called the “Woodstock Defense.”
The time lag in reporting is not to be explained by sociological data and its interpretation but by the emotional and
psychological impact of sexual violation on a young victim. Most take a decade or more to find the security and courage to come forward. The victim support groups and plaintiffs’ attorneys here and abroad are seeing a significant increase in victims who were violated in the fifties and even the forties. As one of my astute friends remarked, these are the victims from the Big Band era so what does that constitute, the “Benny Goodman” defense?
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
Those who see the main conclusions from the Executive Summary as support for the bishops’ blame-shifting tactics are probably right. Yet these conclusions are only a part of the whole story and in some ways they are of minor relevance. The finding that the majority of cases occurred in the 1960s and 1970s can be quickly challenged. It is more accurate to say that the majority of cases reported in the post 2002 period involved abuse that took place in the period from the sixties to the eighties. Its way off base to assume that the majority of incidents of abuse happened during this period. Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald founded the Paraclete community in 1947 to provide help to priests with problems. From the beginning he was treating priests with psycho-sexual issues and in a letter to a bishop he said that 3 out of every 10 priests admitted were there because they had sexually molested minors.
Fr. Gerald wrote that letter in 1964. Unfortunately it is difficult if not impossible to do a study of abuse victims between the 30’s and the 50’s but Fr. Gerald’s information leaves no doubt that sexual abuse by priests was a significant phenomenon long before the free-wheeling 60’s and 70’s. The one constant that was present throughout the entire period from before the 60’s to the turn of the millennium has been the cover-up by the bishops and the disgraceful treatment of victims. The John Jay researchers were commissioned by the bishops to look into the reasons why priests molested and violated minors. They were not asked to figure out why this molestation and violation was allowed to happen. That would have been deadly for the bishops and they knew it.
Nevertheless the researchers could not avoid the blatant role played by the hierarchy. In this regard the report should not be written off as largely either irrelevant or enabling of the bishops’ never-ending campaign to avoid facing their responsibility square on. That’s why it’s important to read the whole report and not depend on the Executive Summary or Karen Terry’s statement or the statements of any of the bishops or church sponsored media outlets. Well into the body there is recognition of the real issues that have caused the anger and are the basis for the thousands of lawsuits and official reports. The section entitled “Mid-1990’s Diocesan Response” on pages 86-91contains a sobering antidote to the soft-peddling about priests who lost their way in the Woodstock Era. To their credit the research team included information critical of the bishops’ responses on several levels. A few quotes:
The failure of some diocesan leaders to take responsibility for the harms of the abuse by priests was egregious in some cases. (p. 89)
Parishioners were not told, or were misled about the reason for the abuser’s transfer (p. 89)
Diocesan leaders rarely provided information to local civil authorities and sometimes made concerted efforts to prevent reports of sexual abuse by priests from reaching law enforcement even before the statute of limitations expired. (p. 89)
Diocesan officials tried to keep their files devoid of incriminating evidence . (p. 89)
Diocesan leaders attempted to deflect personal liability for retaining abusers by relying on therapists’ recommendations or employing legalistic arguments about the status of priests. (p. 89)
Dioceses, the interviewee reported, would intimidate priests who brought charges against other priests; he reported that the law firm hired by the diocese wiretapped his phone and went through his trash. (p. 90).
The interviewee was a priest-victim who had come forward in 1991.
These citations do not represent exceptions. This was the operating procedure that was standard throughout the institutional Church until the public revelations that began in 1984 and reached a boiling point in 2002 caused widespread media attention, legal scrutiny and public outrage which in turn forced the bishops to change their tactics. The John Jay report refers to the organizational steps taken by the bishops in response to the “crisis” and points out that no other institution has undertaken a public study of sexual abuse and as a result there are no comparable data from other institutions (Executive Summary, p. 5).
A similar study of the institutional response itself would show that the organizational steps including the John Jay and other reports were the result of the intense pressure on the bishops from outside the clerical enclave to face the reality of the nightmare they had caused. It is true that some of these policies and procedures are very positive steps in the right direction. What cannot be ignored however is the harsh reality that the Catholic hierarchy from the top down will remain defensive, in futile search for the trust, respect and deference they once enjoyed but which now is a memory.
The report gave short shrift to mandatory celibacy and the all-male environment of the clerical world. This will feed right into the defenses of those who try to claim that the problems are all from outside influences. Yet the influence of mandatory celibacy and the sub-culture of which it is an integral part play a major role in the socialization and maturation processes of the men who will eventually violate minors. The clerical culture should have been the subject of the 1.8 million dollar venture because if looked at closely and honestly it would have yielded information that not only provided believable reasons for the abuse nightmare but valuable though radical steps to take to avoid similar travesties in the future. That would have been much too dangerous for the hierarchical establishment though, because without doubt, it would point to needed fundamental changes.
There will be a variety of levels of both praise and criticism of this document. Among the more valuable will be the critical responses of other academic professionals, especially sociologists, which will help place the document in a more realistic and relevant light.
The report was released along with statements by Karen Terry, the lead investigator, Diane Knight, chair of the National Review Board and Blase Cupich, chair of the Bishop’s Committee for the Protection of Children. The most disturbing sentence of all of the documents presented with the report is from Karen Terry’s statement: “The problem of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests in the United States is largely historical, and the bulk of cases occurred decades ago.” I am quite certain that Dr. Terry had no idea of how offensive this statement is to the thousands of victims who were abused decades ago and who still live with the intense pain that never goes away. These people aren’t “historical” they are now. What happened to them years or decades ago is still real and still destructive in their lives.
While the bishops and their defenders bask in the illusion that this report validates their standard defenses and their self-affirmation for the procedures and policies they have created to try to heal the wound, the reality of the “phenomenon of sexual abuse” is something this report will not be able to answer. What is important is not why the thousands of clerics went off the tracks and raped and violated tens of thousands of innocent children.
What is important is what the institutional Church has done, or to be more precise, not done, to help heal the thousands of victims who still live in isolation and pain. More than anything else these men and women have had their very souls violated and in the words of some, murdered. Rather than go to such great lengths to try to exonerate themselves the bishops could have done what they should have done…..try, at least, to begin to understand the profound depth of the spiritual wounds inflicted on these many men and women, once innocent and trusting boys and girls. Abandon the insincere promises, the endless efforts to hide the secrets and the debasing legal strategies to pound the victims into submission. Once the official Church figures out how to authentically respond to its victims, and actually does it, then and only then will this abominable disgrace start to slowly move towards being historical.
Tom Doyle is a priest, canon lawyer, addictions therapist and long-time supporter of justice and compassion for clergy sex abuse victims. He is a co-author of the first report ever issued to the U.S. bishops on clergy sex abuse, in 1986.
We don't need a study to
We don't need a study to confirm what we already know. The bishops covered up crimes so there would be no scandals. They acted just like corporate executives in covering their behinds and preserving their corporate image. If they can get away with it in the future, they will do the same thing, since they are accountable to nobody but themselves.
I don't care how many studies are commissioned or how many task forces are started, unless there is some consequences for their actions nothing will change.
Catholics need to get rid of
Catholics need to get rid of these bishops. An entire transformation of the universal Church is required. Replace the papacy with a synod of patriarchs and elected men and women to succeed presbyters and overseers.
The episcopate as we know it today is as worthless as the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin became by the second century CE.
we have already had a
we have already had a betrayal of the faith by the bishops which I suspect is the cause of the molestations during this time period. That event is called Vatican II
The sexual scandal is 1000
The sexual scandal is 1000 years old and can not be blamed on Vatican II. You can look for a remedy or delude yourself into believing that the Church is a whole different place. Without a remedy and that must take into consideration, mandated celibacy, openness and selection process, this crisis in leadership over scandals, sexual financial and etc. will drive the Latin church into obscurity. We the laity have choices, either intervene or lose the Church to a small group of reactionary fanatics as represented by anonymous of May 24.
Not reading Vatican II "Signs
Not reading Vatican II "Signs of The Times is devastating for RCC trads. Times have changed. The earth has moved while regressive prelates hide their heads in arrogance and rubrics.
Traditionaly utilized maneuvers to keep criminal behavior a secret are systematic responses the heirarchy and voluntary oligharchs employ point to centuries of dealings in the same "pro forma" manner. They point to the bulk of history and toward a future of business as usual if deep structural change is denied.
Secrecy, prevarication, denial, ambiguity, outright lieing, semantics, legardemain, disinformation, intimidation, patriarchal/fraternal arrogance etc are a previously unchallenged tradition whose practice has continued because the practitionars have always been allowed to get away with it. What traditionalist fail to see is what John the 23rd saw and that is the "signs of the times.
The same scandalous behavior in an prosperous information and higher education age is the spanner that gummed up the works. The idea of civil and human rights gummed up the works.
RCC power and influence will fail to keep the lid on scandal in the face of a freer more educated laity that recognize abuse and speak up.
"we have already had a
"we have already had a betrayal of the faith by the bishops which I suspect is the cause of the molestations during this time period. That event is called Vatican II"
And horses can fly.
You've got to be
You've got to be kidding.
Vatican II's whole purpose was to open up the church. Make it more
open and responsible. Those conservative bishops torpedoed it....
Gosh. I've heard a lot of
Gosh. I've heard a lot of things blamed on Vatican II but this takes the cake!
VII is now the cause of the worldwide sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy?
Give me a break, Anonymous. What color is the sky in the universe that you inhabit?
the cause of the molestations
the cause of the molestations during this time period. That event is called Vatican II
Did you ever read about the sexual abuse of children in the 17th century by the Catholic religious order, The Piarists? That was a bit before Vatican II, wasn't it? Do try to take your reactionary head out of the sand for a while, Anonymous. Sexual abuse by priests and religious within Roman Catholicism, and perhaps within other denominations, and the covering up of this crime, go back quite a long way.
Vatican II had nothing to do
Vatican II had nothing to do with the sexual abuse. If you had read the article above in full you would have noted that sexual abuse of minors was going on long before Vatican II. In fact if more bishops had taken Vatican II seriously, maybe the councils of lay people that were supposed to have been formed in the parishes would have found out sooner about this problem and perhaps forced the bishops to be Christian about it.
These molesters foresaw both
These molesters foresaw both Vatican II and Woodstock and started a campaign to molest children in opposition or sympathy? So the argument is if a person senses a bad event coming, then rape a kid. Where is the Grand Inquisitor when we need him.
Your ideas lack doctrine of
Your ideas lack doctrine of catholic tradition and faith. Please attend Catholic study group
Sheesh. Where do you think
Sheesh. Where do you think _Father_ Tom Doyle studied? In a one-time bible-study-pre-101 in a church basement?
An anecdote which is
An anecdote which is illustrative of the clerical culture Fr. Doyle is speaking of: in our diocese a few years ago, an abuse victim came out to the press. He told of incidents which had happened in the 1980's when he was an altar server. It involved inappropriate touching, rather than rape, but still had left its mark. The person and his parents had gone to the pastor at the time (the perpetrator had been an associate pastor). What they were told was that "He is going through a difficult time, if he harms himself as a result of this coming out, it is going to be on your conscience." What needs to happen is not lack of compassion for priests going through a "difficult time"; but a sense of equality for all people in the Church, especially that a child and his or her family is not responsible for the well-being of a perpetrator.
What they were told was that
What they were told was that "He is going through a difficult time, if he harms himself as a result of this coming out, it is going to be on your conscience." What needs to happen is not lack of compassion for priests going through a "difficult time"; but a sense of equality for all people in the Church, especially that a child and his or her family is not responsible for the well-being of a perpetrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any parent told this by a priest who didn't report this incident to the bishop and to the police should have their head examined. I pity the child who has parents this stupid and irresponsible.
You can't exactly count on
You can't exactly count on the Bishop, can you? And the Church successfully controls most of the urban police departments and District Attorneys in the big cities as well, until very recently. In Philadelphia my friends are still attacking Lynne Abraham, the first D.A. in city history to convene a Grand Jury on this issue, for being 'anti-catholic.' They insinuate that because she's Jewish, she went after the Church. Now we have a Catholic D.A., and he just filed another Grand Jury report and the Church immediately suspended another 21 priests from their ministries, immediately.
Blaming the trusting, obedient parents for the malfeasance of the pastor is like doubling down on the abuse. It's just a mentality a lot of our old school members can't escape.
This is a very astute
This is a very astute commentary. Doyle's analysis is a never ending series of strikes of an hammer's face on the coffin nails of the episcopal desire for 'back to normal'.
One thing is clear, the laity may never go 'back to normal' when the bishops were allowed to operate with out scrutiny or accountability. If there ever is a moment that laity need to provide the just counterweight to the clerical organization that is the human authority structure of the institutional church it is now. We may not ever let go of this on the pretense of 'his excellency' knows more. Well now we know that they hardly know more than the heads of domestic churches, the households of faith which are the constituent elements of both civil and ecclesial society.
In the end this most recent study will be seen as essentially rigged. Recall that the data that the dioceses were originally told to report was from 1950 forward. While there were many usual reasons for this year (it will be interesting to go back to the archivists of each diocese and ask for their record retention rules or guidelines from 1950 forward and from 1950 backward) to have been picked what is clear is that you can not then say you are reporting on an universe of data that is inclusive. Though I think that no doubt if people are reticent even today to report being violated by a cleric, it is conceivable that people before 1950 were less able to make those reports. Though no doubt they were made -- but did the reports make it into the archives?
In the end blaming Woodstock is an admission that the hierarchy is woefully ill equiped to both select, educate, and validate vocations for the presbyterate. Curiously, if this Woodstock thesis were to hold water then the study would have been about clerics (including bishops) keeping the company of women, not of raping and violating children.
Well put, Fr. Tom. You are a
Well put, Fr. Tom. You are a prophet of our time. Thank you for giving voice to the victims have been repeatedly violated by the bishops who make war on them. If only you were pope, the church would be in much better shape.
"The sixties made me do it" defense may pass muster in chancery halls, but no sane person buys it.
Blaming it on the 60s is
Blaming it on the 60s is laughable, totally absurd. Priests and bishops have been getting away with covering up wrongdoing for centuries. Should we blame the cases of child abuse in the LA archdiocese going back to at least the 1920s on the "flapper age", Rudolph Valentino, Ramon Navorro, and the age of speakeasies, bathtub gin, and the age of Chicago gangsterism?
It's bad enough the bishops are venal liars. They're also stupid.
Absolutely right on the mark,
Absolutely right on the mark, anonymous. And yes, your assessment of the bishops is accurate: They are stupid, indeed, and that's no exaggeration. Their overcompensation via dress and demeanor is laughable to boot.
So, you're saying that John
So, you're saying that John Jay skewed their findings to suit the bishops? That's extraordinary. What proof do you have? John Jay would lose all their funding. Why would they risk their reputation for such a silly purpose? Don't you really mean that a major, specialized university looked at the same factors you've been looking at, and came to different conclusions? Why do you say, without any proof, that future responses by other sociologists will place the document in a more realistic light? Sociologists don't usually offer opinions without examining the evidence. Where is your proof for any of these statements?
"Where is your proof for any
"Where is your proof for any of these statements?"
**********************************************************
By placing the definition of pedophilia molestation at the age of 10 and under, they came up with a percentage 22% of the molesting priests
were pedophiles. If you take their data and use the definition of 13 and under as does the American psychiatric community, that number becomes 60%!
Why would John Jay cook the data? Because they want to be hired by the bishops again! It's Deja Vu all over again like when the tobacco companies would fund "reputable" researchers to dispel the harmful effects of cigarettes back in the 60's and 70's. Somehow the "data" always managed to support their thesis when nobody else's did. BTW, I'm still waiting to hear WHO funded the OTHER 50% of the study costs.
The proof of my suspicions will be confirmed if they do not publish this study in a major scientific journal so that it can be critiqued by knowlegable experts in the field. I seriously doubt they will, as they will NEVER be able to defend using the age cut off of 10 and under to define a pedophilic assault on a child.
Finally, they did not present to my knowledge one iota of evidence to support the "Woodstock" theory of abuse. As if abuse never existed in the volumn it did after Woodstock before Woodstock. I would argue it was just as bad or worse, but it was rarely reported and the few who tried were stonewalled by the diocese and/or the local authorities. For the John Jay "researchers" to imply the worst is ancient history is to ignore the fact that we will not really know the true minimum toll of current abuse for at least 30 years as the current victims slowly come forward.
Peer review. Excellent idea!
Peer review.
Excellent idea!
As for who provided the other
As for who provided the other 50% of the funding, would the words "Knights" and "Columbus" make a list of possibilities?
The ages for the report is
The ages for the report is skewed, but so is your analysis. The true pediphiles are the ones who had multiple victims, mostly under 11 or so. These 150-175 true pediphiles accounted for about 3500 victims.
Take these 175 true pediphile priests out of the abusive priest pile and take their 3500 victims out of the victim pile and you have the average age of the victims well into the teens and most of the 4500 remaining priests mostly having one or two victims, with about an 80-20 split between teen boys and teen girls.
The whole problem of analysis of all this is because every victim between 5 and 17.9 years old is considered in the same group, which is ridiculus.
We have ROUGHLY 3 groups of perps; true pediphiles (5% of the perps), homosexual ephebophiles (80% of the perps) and heterosexual ephebophiles (15% of the perps).
As your constant misspelling
As your constant misspelling of 'paedophile' ( pediphile ) shows, accuracy is not exactly your strong point, Michael. Paedophiles are paedophiles, ephebophiles are ephebophiles, and the sexuality of the perpetrator is irrelevant.
I looked at the statistics
I looked at the statistics for the state of New Hampshire/Diocese of Manchester. The church report claims only 7% were abusers. I lived there and knew many of the priests in the 1970's. Over 30 of the priests that were in active ministry in mid-1970's were found to have been abusers. if that is 7% of the priest of the diocese then the they had over 430 priests in the diocese - at least 3 priests per parish and in reality the were lucky to have one. Statistics can be skewed to tell any story you want.
In the parish I grew up in, of the 11 priests that served there from the mid 60's to today, I know of 6 who have abused (two came after me). That's over 50% for one parish.
In 1993/4 the Diocese of Belleville (IL) lost 13 priests identified as a ring of pedophiles - that was on the order of 10% in one group, and there were others that were not related to the ring that have been credibly accused.
In their arrogance, the Bishops keep the location of all these accused abusers private. Their status and location should be published so parents and guardians can protect their children and those who are vulnerable.
The Bishop's secrecy also puts doubt on the other priests of their diocese. If teh bishops are not honest about the abusers - can they be honest about those who are not. What about the priest in your parish?
they who pay the piper calls
they who pay the piper calls the tune
Although I basically agree
Although I basically agree with the article, the author makes his own unproven assumption: That, in five, ten, or twenty years, thousands of new victims will come forth, accusing priests for abuse during the eighties and nineties. He then takes this unproven assumption and uses it as a fact. But until the proof comes in, fairness requires that we hold our judgment on this.
The "proof' has been coming
The "proof' has been coming in for the last 50 years! By and large, it has taken victims 10-30 years or more to summon the courage to come forward. Why should the coming decades be any different? YOU (anonymous) are putting forth the REAL unproven assumption that what has been the case the last 50 years when it comes to victims coming forth will somehow magically go away...
Marlene First any academic
Marlene
First any academic will say they examine evidence and then offer an opinion; also intelligent viewers can look at the same evidence and interpret it differently, especially when the evidence is not concrete. What is clearly not examined in the cult of the cleric that the bishops protected. To paraphrase the political axiom - it is not the crime that is the major problem, it is the coverup. We really don't need a set of sociologists to say there was a coverup.
oh c'mon. Their aqnalysis
oh c'mon. Their aqnalysis boiled down to, "we couldn't find anything else, so let's blame the '60s." If JJU is basing their academic reputation on this study - nobody;s going to take them seriously, anyway.
If it's because they couldn't
If it's because they couldn't find anything else, I'm betting it's because of the limited data they were given.
The study is useless because
The study is useless because it does not address the overwhelmingly homosexual nature of the abuse, except to offer the absurity that men being sexually interested in males is not evidence of homosexuality. Then what is, may I ask? Political correctness is the enemy of truth, not bishops, except to the extent that they allow themselves to be bullied by the political correctness police, which they did in the Jay study.
Marlene, the bishop provided
Marlene, the bishop provided the information, (and withheld what they wanted to.) They also paid funded it. That is the reason why the numbers are much smaller than they are in reality. I stand on that comment, that it should be multiplied a hundred times. The clergy are far more to criminalize children than the average population. Go to www.richardsipe.com, where you find information by 3 experts on the subject, information nowhere as intensly compiled. Get educated, will you?
Read carefully Ms.Freedman.
Read carefully Ms.Freedman. John Jay merely allowed the bishops to direct the headlines. Neither Mr. Doyle nor John Jay have come to significantly divergent conclusions.
Marlene, to enlighten your
Marlene, to enlighten your ignorance further, go to www.reform-network.net and see Vinnie Nauheimer's assessment of what he calls the JOHN JAY EXCUSE. In fact Nauheimer highlights the ongoing abuse with history on criminal clerical soul murder of children. He cites such documents as those of St. Damian of the 11th century, the council of Elvira of the 4th, Pope Pius the eleventh, and multiple Vatican documents of various time periods. None of the consistent need for reports of corrupt clerical history through nearly 2000 years has to do with the 60tis and 70tis. Are you still insisting on the impossibility of ongoing shameful corruption among the clerical culture??? And are you calling the devastated victims lairs???
It would be more accurate to
It would be more accurate to say the study was *limited* rather than *skewed." Fr. Doyle is saying that this particular study did not ask *all* the relevant questions. It focused almost exclusively on the nature, metholds, victim preference and history of the perpetrators. (I have read a good portion of the actual report.) Its scope was limited to that, although it does briefly address the response of the hierarchy. This is what the bishops asked those conducting the study to do. The bishops wanted information that would enable them to "weed out" unsuitable candidates for the priesthood.
Doyle also points out that plotting the accusations *on record* onto graphs may be giving an incomplete picture of how prevalent the problem still is in the church. It can take decades for victims to process what happened to them. Despite the perception that "everybody and his brother" is coming out with an accusation to "cash in" on the crisis, it is EXTREMELY painful for victims to talk about these incidents even decades later. Often, they either need to 1) reach a crisis point in their lives (addictions, criminal behavior, broken marriages, mental breakdowns, etc.) OR 2) simply gain more life experience before they can tell anyone what happened to them.
As a practicing Catholic, I would personally like to believe that the worst is behind us. But after looking at the report, I think Fr. Doyle's criticisms are reasonable.
Perhaps the next study the bishops' commission should focus solely on their response to accusations and the attitudes and policies that led to them. Then they could "weed out" unsuitable candidates for the office of bishop.
The issue is not with John
The issue is not with John Jay, the issue is that the study had to rely on information provided by the Church. That information was incomplete and might not have been completely honest. I say this based on recent events in Philadelphia. The Bishops withheld information from their own review board. For more information, please visit Catholics4Change.com.
Actually, John Jay would lose
Actually, John Jay would lose funding if they did not skew their results to suit the bishops, since half their funding came from the bishops.
I doubt it would be that
I doubt it would be that venal. Based on other comments here, I'm guessing they had limited access to the all data that was available to the chanceries. Mental reservation, don't you know.
Actually, John Jay would lose
Actually, John Jay would lose funding if they did not skew their results to suit the bishops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous, the US bishops have a history of "skewing" results. Ask the Gallup organization when they studied Catholic attitudes in the 1960s. The bishops were so shocked,some questioned the integrity of the polling organization. Some wanted to keep the findings under wraps. All of them hoped nobody would read George Gallup Senior's findings and analysis.
The USCCB has been a bunch of ostriches. A collection bureaurcrats who can't face facts and act on the findings handed to them, should not be administering a mom and pop shop, let alone a diocese and other people's money. A total overhaul of the Catholic Church's administrative apparatus in which incompetents and fools are selected by some old man in Rome responsible to nobody, who in turn feel they are responsible to no one, but the pope, is a prescription for anarchy and abuse.
The John Jay report has a
The John Jay report has a whole chapter about physcoanalyzing the conduct but never once quoted or got evidence from one psychoanalyst. I guess this study group, so erudite in canon law believes they can be psychoanalyst with out any training. This report is very weak in this section and in its entirety. It is one more attempt by reactionary Catholics to deny the problems that exist in the RCC-- faulty power structure in the leadership, mandatory celibacy, homophobia, misogyny, and all the lies in an attempt to "prevent" scandal.
This report borders on the delusional. It is neither accurate or complete. Its sources are extremely questionable. It reminds a professional of Bishops attempts to white wash the offending priests by sending them to "Catholic Hospitals" for cure. Most of these institutions fell under professional scrutiny as being no less then charlatan attempts to profit from the Bishops' dollars. When I was in a Catholic medical school in the 1960's I was taught that pedophile had to do with sexual molestation of under age kids (under the age of 18), It was thought to be incurable and there were many Catholic Social Workers trained in this Catholic Institution the very same way. Why Did the Bishops not look to Social Services in their own diocese for help from these Catholic Social workers? Could it have been that they suspected that these people would not agree to what the Bishops wanted. I personally can not believe Catholic Social Workers would have let the priest predators continue to function in their or any other diocese. No, the Bishops sent these men to "suspect" clinics that were controlled by OBEDIENCE to the Bishop and not medical or social ethics. This John Jay Report is again an attempt to decrease scandal, defend and even obey decadent Bishops. This type of false study surely can only make the situation worse for the Bishops and the Church. It may, however, bring more Catholics to a fuller understanding that they not the bishops ARE the church and to obey such decadent men in fact is not ethical.
I remember when the cigarette
I remember when the cigarette companies paid for studies that showed that smoking was not harmful to your health. They paid for the studies, get it? The Bishops put in 1.8 million dollars on the study. Do you think that there isn't a whole lot of soft-peddling of their culpability going on? Even if you love the Church, you can't be that blind.
It's not like it's never happened before in the history of entities trying to cover their hindsides. It would be best to take a mature and neutral view of such a report.
I have a tendency to believe the reporting of the Boston Globe and other newspapers on just how much dodging and weaving has gone on in this unfortunate chapter in the Church's history. The Bishops have entirely too much unchecked power.
“Abandon the insincere
“Abandon the insincere promises, the endless efforts to hide the secrets and the debasing legal strategies to pound the victims into submission.”
That will not happen until this generation passes away: the Boomers had (and have) a difficult time keeping their pants on. I agree with the report: it was and is a cultural problem. Now that the Boomers are seeing their mortality they assuage their own guilty secrets by saying “at least I was not a priest! Look at them, the priests did it too! I did nothing wrong, everyone was doing it!”
I believe God is merciful and just.
The only difference between
The only difference between 'boomers' and other generations is people felt free to talk. The 'doing' has been going on for eons. The talking is a recent phenomenon, which is why secrecy no longer works at all for the Vatican.
The boomers had a hard time
The boomers had a hard time keeping their pants on? So they were the first generation to have sex? How did they get here if their parents were so chaste? Plus the issue is not keeping one's pants on or off, the issue is child abuse.
The priests who abused kids in the '60s and '70s were not boomers, the kids were. I guess they had a hard time keeping their pants on if a dirty old priest was forcing them off. But don't blame the boomers.
Arrogant Clericalism..... For
Arrogant Clericalism.....
For what are our Pope, bishops and priests a model. For being pedophiles, denying their vows, or being pedophile protectors (still a denial of their vows), for not protecting innocent Catholic youth, for continuing to only talk about ways to end child abuse, for refusing to help victims, for refusing to turn over Diocese documents which would help rid the diocese of pedophiles, for lying about the scope of the disaster, for blaming the victims or society for the abuse ....is the example/model set by the Catholic clerics. They are good models for "good Catholics" protecting the church at the expense of innocent children and those lay Catholics who are burying their heads in the sand. The clerics and their accomplices (including Catholic lay folk who are not demanding change) are not good christian models,they are not models of morality and definitely they are not models for sainthood. Clerical arrogance and the inaction of Catholic lay folk have destroyed the Catholic church as a Christian institution. How can clerics say their morality comes from the words of the Gospel when they in no way follow the words of the Gospel?
I only hear a lot of silence and papal "bull". The innocent continue to be abused, the clerics continue to spew words but no action, and the lay folk are silent.
Howard (recently left the catholic church)
It is very important to work
It is very important to work at keeping some perspective on all of this. While I sympathize with your outrage at how the institutional Church has responded and handled this entire situation, I would hope that we all keep in mind the far larger number of "clerics" and religious men and women who have been true to their devotions to Christ and the Church, who have lived lives of example, and who have never harmed anyone. They have been in some ways the unintended victims of the abuse crisis as well, and their church's failures to deal head-on with a problem of concern to all Catholics.
This may be so, & I hope and
This may be so, & I hope and want to believe it is. But priestly virtue is for the most part despite, not because of, the cardinals and many bishops.
I would hope that we all keep
I would hope that we all keep in mind the far larger number of "clerics" and religious men and women who have been true to their devotions to Christ and the Church, who have lived lives of example, and who have never harmed anyone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, but unless we have statistical evidence to bolster your assumption, it would be premature to conclude "the far larger number" of priests and bishops are indeed leading the life you describe. Don't forget, in the early 1980s the clergy harped endlessly on how tiney the number of sexual abuse cases were both here and in Canada, to take just a few instances.
Now, almost 30 years later and 3.7 billion dollars of Catholic Church funds paid out to victims and to cover other costs, with almost every western country reporting decades of abuse priestly pederasty, we have no reason whatsoever to believe your soothing balm applied to the Church's wounds should give us reason to be reassured.
Howard, be of good faith and
Howard, be of good faith and do not despair of Divine Presence — Water is Primary, Oil is Secondary.
============================================
“Cosmic Ordination” is an evolving process, an ascendant refinement of self-conscious Life, derived in water, cosmically ordained and cosmically confirmed in the oil of DNA.
Ordination and Confirmation are derived awarenesses; they are “secondary” to Baptism — even as Pope John Paul II affirms that the “Petrine” is secondary to the “Marian.”
Divinity Consciousness is primary in Water even as human self-reflectivity evolves in Conscious Light. Photo-electric consciousness is photosynthetic awareness in Divine Food, in Daily Bread, the sustaining construct of Divine Instance and the source of oil present to Life in the “Naturalis Sacramentum Ordinis.”
Divine Instance in the Sacrament of Natural Order is the Universal (Cosmic) Bread of Life, the Panis Angelicus. In the Sacrament of Natural Order, we are bread to one another. We live by Divine Presence; we consume Divine Presence, we are consumed in Divine Presence.
In the “Process of Trinity”, the Process of Word (Trimorphic Resonance), femininity is the primacy consciousness in whom arises the ascendant Word of conscious Self-reflectivity.
“Memento homo quia pulvus es, et in pulverem reverteris.” We are HUMUS, the rooting ground of life.
This claim of clerical abuse
This claim of clerical abuse spiking in the 60tis and 70tis for many is an insulting claim. If the truth be reported it would be,that before world war 2, sexual abuse by clergy has not been reported at all or greatly under-reported. I claim those crimes were more numerous, not less, during the prior centuries
The past 70 years the media has become more secularized, technological, and speedy, which opened up the floodgates of information actually made widely available to a more educated public. I for one am certain, that it is the present bad publicity to previously uninformed populace, which might support a drop of clerical sexual abuse. In the main, the press finally dares to print the unvarnished facts about those crimes.
For over a thousand years, the clergy simply were worshiped, adulated as the only educated, righteous, and sinless persons in their communities, who were bowed down before. People could attack each other, but never even utter even anything less than reverence and high praise about their priests. These men often have molested, raped, and abused the children of entire communities with impunity, and without anybody even uttering one word. I know, because I was born and raised in one such a town. We expected to go to hell if ever we dared to breathe anything bad about our pastor even within our families. If a child would let anything slip out, it would have dire consequences.
Yes, it has been the sad history and culture of the priesthood of our Roman Catholic Church to destroy the future of its children wholesale. Now, what can we expect from the priesthood going forward?
And no mention of
And no mention of under-reoorting, non-reporting by victims prior to 1960s and who knows what got swept under the carpets before the 1960s when people refused to be silent and began questioning everything?
Remember the Magdalene's in Ireland ...
Just because no one complained or if they did were ignored and undocumented doesn't mean this hasn't been going on for a long time ... In the general population, too, but the Church as well.
Peaceful, there was plenty
Peaceful, there was plenty going on prior to the 1960's.
Founder of the Servants of the Paraclete, Fr Gerald Fitgerald, wrote to dozen's of bishops of his time and Paul V1, calling clerical abusers unrepentant, manipulative and dangerous vipers.
He also stated:"We are amazed to find how often a man who would be behind bars if he were not a priest entrusted with the care of souls, NCR 2009.
His arguement in 1952 was, "tampering with with the virtue of the young, the charity to the Mystical Body should take precedence over the charity of the individual".
Wouldn't it have been wonderful to have a clergyman with that mentality in 2011, what was being expressed to a bishop and a Pope in 1952, even if unheeded and thats not new is it.
I bet he wouldn't have accepted the thousands of children being fathered by same either.
Not so in Australia, an extension to St Vincents maternity hospital was requested by Archbishop Mannix to take care of women in "situations created" by his clergy, still utilized into the early 1980's by consecutive Archbishops and their personal secretary's who of course, have since climbed the ecclesiastical ladder.
Not all infants accounted for either by the way, with many records lost.
Great analysis Fr. Tom,
Great analysis Fr. Tom, echoing my own sentiments about the shallow, one-note, nature of most of the coverage.
It is clear that:
Because of these factors, true understanding of why these heinous acts became so frequent remains elusive.
Very few really can "handle the truth," to quote Jack Nicholson's character.
With the present mostly
With the present mostly corrupt and criminal officials and warped clergy, this sexual abuse of our children and vulnerable adults will NEVER be history, in this self righteous Roman Catholic Church. They have been and are forever THE SCANDAL for the entire world. They are a detriment to true Christianity, which they have perverted by their anti gospel lifestyles, distorted teachings, lying, deceiving, and any crimes imaginable.
Regardless of how the Bishops
Regardless of how the Bishops or critics of the Jay report interpert or spin the report several questions remain: How preversive is the abuse today? Have those abused been treated with justice (not just the letter of the law)? To be just, should the Catholic church waive any statute of limiations? Is there a way to protect minors and address those clergy who have an inability to not abuse minors from doing more harm?
Perhaps to address the last question: Both the clergy suffering from the disordered action and the public need protection from the disordered mistreatment of minors. Those so disordered need to be removed from the public to protect themselves in order to do no more harm and the public from being harmed further. There is an historical presedent. In cases where individuals have had highly contagous diseases they have been seperated from society--TB being a prime example. This action was taken to protect both parties. The proposal? The church purchase a large tract of land and offer to any religious, with no questions asked, the opportunity to live out their lives there. The choice to live on the tract would be voluntary. So long as the person remains in residence necessities would be provided. The cost would be patrically off set by pensions. Religious faculities would remain and visitors, not minors, would be allowed. Residences could leave at any time but would lose all religious designation and would receive no further support from the church. Any remaing pension due would go to cover the deficit incurred while in residence. This broad outline has two goals: protect the abusers from themselves and the public from the abusers. If not this way, how? Surely we can find some more productive and cooperative way to address these devisive issues than the agrumentive, authoritative, finger pointing accusations that produce nothing.
"Regardless of how the
"Regardless of how the Bishops or critics of the Jay report interpert or spin the report several questions remain: How preversive is the abuse today?"
How pervasive is the abuse today??
The "good" USCCBer's would have all of us believe that the problem is well on its way to being solved, that everything is in place so that abuse is not a serious item any longer.
I will say this and I fervently hope I'm wrong with respect to the abuse:
I think we've seen only the tip of the iceberg.
This idea is too good for
This idea is too good for those evil doers. The belong locked up for good with not options. Anything else a a sham.
This semi-quarantine
This semi-quarantine reservation is not a bad idea in the abstract. Currently if applied to active American Catholic clergy there will be a place for probably two hundred men, most of them over 65 years old.
But what about the 2-3 million or so other adult Americans (18-80) who are not Catholic priests? Could we consign Nevada for such a reservation of pediphiles, ephebophiles, pederasts of both sexes?
Michael, Sure, there are
Michael,
Sure, there are many many others who are not Catholic priests or religious, who are guilty of abuse. The Church and its leaders are supposed to be better than this.
For my part, I want to be able to look at the Church as, at minimal, an honorable institution, with people of virtue and goodwill running the show. We know they won't be perfect; I'm certainly not either.
IMO that is not what we have got with the Church right now and far from it.
It would be nice if the hierarchy considered child abuse as seriously as they consider abortion. Protect life yes, but that does not give anyone a get out of jail card if they ruin or warp lives.
Honest to God, shame on the bishops who have allowed this. The internet will not let them hide forever. I wonder how Bishop Finn is feeling about now, and Cardinal Rigali. They should be feeling ashamed. If they don't, there is something off there.
The most important issue
The most important issue isn't child abuse, or seeking ways to treat those priests in need of treatment. It is the hierarchy's continuing abuse of power, permitting repeated acts of sacrilege to go uncorrected and unpunished. Next, the deliberate use of confidential information, via the seal of the confessional, to hide wrong doing, and the repeated misuse of church funds by bishops to ensure silence. The clerical culture of excuse-making and denial is still very much with us. With, at least two popes, fully aware of what was happening.
There is no reason to believe anything has changed and until bishops start doing time in the slammer and legal action is taken against the Holy See, it won't change
Thank you again, Fr. Doyle,
Thank you again, Fr. Doyle, for saying what needed to be said. If the hierarchy would only listen to you, there might be change: the fact that they do not says all we need to know about their real intentions.
and if only the pope would
and if only the pope would listen to Father Kung and the theologians in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland and resign.
Father Doyle really
Father Doyle really understands all the complexities of the clerical sexual abuse crisis and about the difficulties of men having to live mandatory celibate lives. The clerical hierarchy can't allow themselves to listen to Father Doyle, because their whole belief system and the power that comes along with it would all dissipate. I wish I could tell you just how completely accurate Father Doyle's observations are. He has explained in detail just what transpired in a parish where I worked and where I was a member, as well as the mishandling of the abuse issues by the Bishops of that diocese. It was not in some backwoods rural area of this country, but in a well respected community in a major population center. As a mental health worker I have a good understanding of sexual abuse in the general population, and an understanding of how problematic the church's teaching on human sexuality and gender identity is. Father Doyle has an even more informed understanding of both the psychological aspects and the issues that make clericalism such a problem.
What about the arrogance
What about the arrogance among the laity?
"What about the arrogance
"What about the arrogance among the laity?"
What arrogance from the laity, Michael?? You mean the fact that the laity engages in moral autonomy and that they think for themselves? That's hardly arrogant: That's being a grown up and thus the refusal to be infantilized by the hierarchy.
only aimed against one
only aimed against one another, rather than the love which Jesus commands, with the Word: Love one another.
Are you implying that laity
Are you implying that laity are involved in the covering up of abuse, or that it is arrogant to question the hierarchy?
Jesus went around questioning hierarchies all the time.
Post new comment