The John Jay study of clergy sex abuse challenges evangelical Catholics
Print Friendly Version| All Things Catholic by John L. Allen, Jr. | |
| Friday, November 16, 2007 - Vol. 7, No. 11 | |
Perhaps it's a measure of how badly the image of American Catholicism has been tarnished as a result of the sexual abuse crisis that so many bishops, meeting in Baltimore Nov. 12-15, could seem relieved at the news that the church's record on the abuse of minors is actually no better, but also no worse, than anybody else's.
That seemed the bottom line from preliminary results of a study presented to the bishops on Monday by Karen Terry and Margaret Smith of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice on the "causes and context" of the crisis. Terry said their research suggests that the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy, which peaked numerically in the mid-1970s, for the most part reflected "overall changes in behavior, attitudes, and media representations in American society during this time period."
"This is in conflict with the idea that there is something distinctive about the Catholic church that led to the sexual abuse of minors," Terry said.
To bolster the argument that there's nothing unique about the church, both researchers pointed to a recent study by the Associated Press concerning the sexual abuse of children in American public schools, which found more than 2,500 cases over five years in which teachers were punished for sexual misconduct with students that the AP described as ranging "from the bizarre to the sadistic."
To be sure, not every bishop was eager to take comfort in such results.
"It's a bit like my doctor telling me that my cancer is no worse than my hospital roommate's cancer … Our situation should be much better," said Bishop R. Daniel Conlon of Steubenville, Ohio.
Nonetheless, when the first part of the new John Jay report appears next summer, it's likely to strengthen the view that the Catholic church has been unfairly scapegoated for a much broader social problem. That contention has been voiced in Catholic circles, often in subterranean fashion, since the first stories about the John Geoghan and Paul Shanley cases broke in Boston in late 2001 and early 2002. At the peak of the crisis, however, when the PR order of the day was to avoid anything that smacked of defensiveness or denial, few American bishops were willing to say it publicly.
In today's less intense climate, the belief of some bishops that the church has been treated unfairly is emerging into the clear light of day.
Archbishop Elden Curtiss of Omaha, for example, said from the floor that the study will be of "great interest," especially as a way of debunking what he called an "unfortunate media problem" and "a myth, reinforced over time, that there's something unique about a Catholic priest, about a bishop and his staff," when it comes to sexual abuse.
In an interview with me Tuesday morning, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver struck a similar note. The AP series about abuse in public schools, he said, is "nothing for us to rejoice over," but it does suggest the need for a level playing field.
"If our culture can look at the whole picture and make judgments about what we should do in the future in terms of the legal system of our country, that's fine, as long as it doesn't isolate the church as a particular problem, or a scapegoat," Chaput said.
During a press briefing on Tuesday, Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando also cautiously suggested that, at least in some ways, the church has not been given a fair shake.
"It is a bit disconcerting when the headlines talk about incidents that happened 30 or 40 years ago, and we don't hear much about what has been done since the mid-1980s to implement programs [such as] child protection programs, background checks, and all the other efforts the church has made," Wenski said. "History will determine how much of the unfavorable publicity we got was also unfair."
Efforts to resist what are perceived as unfair assaults are also behind recent arguments from Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago and Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Center, opposing extensions of the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits against the church, and calling for a restoration of the legal doctrine of "charitable immunity" to cap monetary judgments against non-profit organizations.
To be clear, most bishops are not arguing that the suffering of victims, or the need for effective controls against sexual abuse, has been exaggerated. In summing up the results of the John Jay study, Bishop Gregory Aymond of Austin, who heads the bishop's Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People, said it represents an occasion to "renew our commitment to the healing of victims, and the protection of children now and in the future."
What a growing number of bishops are saying out loud, however, is that this is not a specifically Catholic problem, and that it's unfair to frame it that way. All things being equal, that chorus seems likely to swell when the new John Jay study appears.
* * *
Boosting the apologetic argument that "it's not just us," however, may prove to be only the short-term impact of the John Jay study. In the long run, its most significant fallout may come in the arena of today's growing discussion of Catholic identity.
In theory, Catholicism is supposed to shape a distinctive culture among its followers based on church teaching and tradition; put crudely, Catholics are supposed to be different. In the old days, visible markers that set Catholics apart, such as abstaining from meat on Fridays, were intended to symbolize and reinforce a deeper sense of unique Catholic identity. Since the mid-1960s, however, a growing number of voices in the Catholic world have warned that the church seems to be losing this counter-cultural thrust. As then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, today Pope Benedict XVI, put the point in 1984, "Among the most urgent tasks facing Christians is that of regaining the capacity of non-conformism, i.e., the capacity to oppose many developments of the surrounding culture."
What the John Jay study appears to suggest, taken at face value, is that at least in the arena of the sexual abuse of minors, a distinctive Catholic ethos is tough to discern. Abusive behavior by priests has mirrored similar misconduct in other walks of life, according to the early results, and the corporate response of the church has often reflected the same patterns as those followed by other social institutions.
Unsurprisingly, Cardinal Francis George, the newly elected president of the bishops' conference, was the first to intuit the deep implications of that finding.
At a press briefing in Baltimore on Tuesday, I asked the bishops if they felt the John Jay results suggested they had been unfairly singled out, eliciting the response from Wenski quoted above. The session then turned to other topics, mostly focusing on the "Faithful Citizenship" document about the church and politics.
Just as the session was drawing to a close, George, unprompted, signaled that he wanted to add something. Here is what he said, in full:
"May I do something that the media people tell me never to do, which is to speculate? On the question of the reporting of the sexual abuse crisis, it seems to me that it's only common sense to recognize that the media not only report, but they also select, and in that sense they create a reality. So that's a question: Is what has been created here adequate to the reality itself? There are many different aspects to that, because there are many different media instruments, and they're very different from place to place.
"The more interesting question, though, is whether or not the church herself, and particularly the priests and bishops, should be held to a moral standard that is higher than that of the general populace. That was raised by one bishop very astutely, saying that we should not be relieved to find out that our own standards just conform to what is the normal behavior, what has become so in the last several decades.
"Speculatively, and I'm not sure whether you're interested in the question or not, but [the results of the study] point to a sociological thesis or question: Is religion an independent variable? Or is it simply reduced to a cultural reality that can be explained in terms of something other than religion itself? If that's the case, then the secularists shouldn't be disturbed about religion, because it has nothing original to say anyway, and it's not going to impose itself on anybody's behavior. That's a very important question. It's not going to be decided here, and I don't know the answer to it. I have different answers depending upon which sociologist I talk to. I think that however this thing finally turns out, it will inform the larger issues that are now before us in this country about secularism, the influence of religion in society, and all those good questions that we're not going to discuss directly here."
Under the impact of deadlines and, perhaps, the sheer vastness of the subject, nobody pursued George's point, but it would be a serious miscalculation to take it as idle musing.
On my list of ten "mega-trends" shaping global Catholicism, a current that I call "evangelical Catholicism" figures prominently, referring to a strong public reassertion of traditional Catholic identity, premised on the need to defend the church against assimilation to secular society and what Benedict XVI refers to as a "dictatorship of relativism." Evangelical Catholicism is the most important mega-trend shaping the official policy of Catholicism, with consequences in every area of the life of the church, from liturgical practice to doctrinal teaching, to the vision and operations of church-run schools, hospitals and social service centers. The core objective across the board is to recover a "thick" sense of Catholic distinctiveness.
In that light, and assuming the preliminary findings are confirmed, the impact of the new John Jay study seems destined to extend far beyond analysis of the crisis itself. At least in some circles, the results will be taken as a reductio ad absurdum on a diminished sense of Catholic identity, adding to the perceived urgency of forming a generation of Catholics, beginning with priests and bishops, who are more clearly in but not of the world.
* * *
Daily coverage of the Nov. 12-15 fall session of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops can be found here: http://ncrcafe.org/blog/2682
One final note about George. As is customary, he made some brief remarks as the new president of the conference on Wednesday, in part joking about the clean sweep for Chicago in the conference elections. (George is a Chicago native, as is Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson, the new vice-president. The new conference secretary is Bishop George Murry of Youngstown, Ohio, who served as a Chicago auxiliary in the mid-1990s.)
"Maybe the headquarters of the conference should be moved to Chicago," George laughed. "No, we are who we are … but, it's a thought."
"Sometimes I control my urge to divulge all my thoughts, and sometimes I don't," he added.
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
"The Church abused and
"The Church abused and exploited and it has also been abused and exploited."
For now I will try to respond to the quote above and then to last paragraph, since it is such a multifaceted issue on many levels. The simple answer would be from a very old quote "You reap what you soe." The Church is reaping what it has sown.
"There is enough blame to go around. But how do we heal? How do we forgive? How do we focus on the solution, not the problem?"
This is not easy to comment on at all, but this is where we are. We could say "Forgive them they know not what they do" to the pedophile "priests" and to the Bishops. That would be a start, but I think what we all need to hear must come from the Bishops themselves. I think they have been too silent for too long. I personally think that a majority of the Bishops are not currently capable or willing to say too much more about this issue in the near future to the people of the Church because they are not prepared spiritually. The reason for that could very well be that they are too consumed narcissistically with identifying sins or problems as "out there" for someone else, beyond their own institution, spirit, consciousness, beliefs, and traditions, rather than seeing as very problematic "in here" within themselves and within their own institution, spirit, consciousness, beliefs, and traditions as the source to question and to work on changing for the glory of God. I think they really need a lot of prayers.
The best I can do for now is to pray. That sounds simplistic but it is the best I can come up with for now as a way to healing. I can also hope and pray that the Bishops really come to terms with this issue and not make the same mistake again. Isn't that about all we can do or ask of them for now?
The failure of the Bishops in handling the sex scandals might be summed here in Matthew 5 25-26 "Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny."
While the Bishops were not thrown into jail, the entire Church is still paying to the "last penny" for their unjust actions. Had the Bishops heeded to this reading and settled this quickly with the abused, dealt with the pedophiles properly, the court cases and possibly the settlements would have been unnecessary. It seems their judgment was against the abused initially, they were in denial, and that they thought the abused were not telling the truth.
I believe what we need for the Bishops to do is to reform their outlook and behavior and convey an understanding to us that they are men; children of God like the rest of us, and are not above the word of God. They are not above the readings of scripture and should not be so quick to judge others or just preach to us, but be preached by the word of God themselves. We are one body, but oftentimes they set themselves apart from the body and then speak and make laws for the entire body because it is an old tradition that they can hide or rationalize within for their own sometimes unjust purposes.
The case of the theologian Peter Phan comes to mind and the way the Church is handling him. If the Bishops judge him and censor his writings based on traditions or a limited view of theology and essentially deny the Holy Spirit at work and moving in the Church, aren't they continuing the same sort of "justice" on Phan as they did to the sexually abused whom they did not believe initially? Are they making a similar mistake here with the theologian Phan and alienating him by the way they are questioning him? Shouldn't they, at this juncture, be questioning themselves and some of the views and laws they have which place unnecessary burdens on others?
It would seem from both cases, the sex scandal and Peter Phan, and other issues such as marital ones, that the Bishops prefer to point the finger at others, label and judge them, then by law outlaw them or alienate them in some way unless they agree with them on every point and just do as they say and think and believe as they say. Is that a realistic expectation for them to have of others? They will reap what they soe. They act more like scribes than like shepherds of Christ when they do this sort of thing against others. The shortage of priests, the loss and alienation of parishioners, the theological misunderstandings: aren't they all a part of the same problem that the Bishops seem to be having these days? Don't these lines of thought seem to intersect here in these issues?
Do they know the profound affect they have on the entire Church when they make decisions for the entire Church and do not include in the discussion more members of different theological understanding but that are compatible with the word of God? Why does it seem they are dealing with this issue of Phan with the same sort of denial, in a sort of paranoid state of "protecting the Faith" or "protecting the Church", as they did with the sex scandal issue?
The question is: how will the Bishops decide on truly protecting the Church? Are they acting and speaking in ways that truly defend the Faith? Are they being hot or cold or tepid in their faith? These are for them to answer and to work out their salvation with trembling and fear of the Lord like the rest of us.
The only way to a solution to any of this is to grow in our Faith of Jesus Christ and pray that He has mercy upon us all for all of our sins and that He makes us worthy to call us His children and brings us all home to Him. I pray that He will show us all the way to His salvation and healing. He is our only Hope. He is calling us all to Him and to Follow Him in the way to righteousness and healing.
Some bishops express relief
Some bishops express relief on hearing the "good news" that Catholic priests abuse children at the national average rate. Completely missing is any discussion of the second, often more heinous crime often committed in these abuse cases: bishops who facilitated repeat offenders such as Geoghan, Porter, Shanley, and many others. The utter failure of moral leadership by those who demand unquestioning obedience is the real source of the extraordinary interest and anger about abuse in the Catholic church. Yet the bishops are still telling sob stories about how they are the victims of anti-catholic media. Talk about a culture of narcissism!
-RCOB
I am in agreement with just
I am in agreement with just about everyone's comment. Is that possible? I will try to explain.
The Bishop's Legal Front
1. The Bishops want to protect the assets of the Church.
2. In having a legal institution such as the John Jay College perform the study proves #1.
3. The results of that study, so far, seem to indicate that the secular institutions with cases of sexual abuse of minors are not being sued for assets like the Church is. The Bishops comments reflect only that study of monetary losses and so they feel the Church is being singled out "unfairly" litigiously, monetarily. This study is important for them to proceed in to protect Church assets.
The Bishop's Standards of Conduct
1. The Catholic Church's priest and Bishops are held to a higher standard in the secular world and by its Church members and the entire Christian community.
2. The actions of the Bishops by moving pedophiles around have contributed to the legal problems and issues of trust within the Church.
3. Bernard Law, just one example, harbored a law breaker, but was promoted in the Church.
This basically outlines where we are now. As Catholics, how do we respond to all of this? It is frustrating to say the least. Yes, we should forgive, move on, but how?
The issue of trust is a big one, and I have to admit that I distrust any corporate entity, whether secular or religious, when its main concern is strictly about protecting its assets legalistically and in the process ignores the issues of morality of its own conduct while it is telling us what is moral to do in every facet of our lives. On the other hand, this is our Church, and I don't want to see our contributions going to a bunch of lawyers.
Might it be considered that the lawyers put a big portion of their earnings from these cases into a trust to help the poor and hungry in their communities where the crimes took place?
I realize this is not a complete answer, but at least in this litigious battle of "fairness" that is fought legalistically we might find some justice somehow by incorporating such a trust for the poor?
The Church is a "not for profit" organization. Do the Bishops have a legitimate legal point to argue against further money and/or assets being taken away from the Church?
This issue is a huge mess of a situation. It is an example of how sin is so destructive for everyone involved. What lessons can we draw from all of this?
Just one more point, even though it is unpopular to talk about in public, because it is private, but the Church makes it public law for its members. The Church has a policy of not allowing one to masturbate. I don't know on what basis the Church basis this law for everyone, or even when such a law started, but I think I would have preferred that the pedophile priests masturbated than in what they ultimately did perform! It would have saved us all a lot of grief and heartache! Such a law, and the law against priests from marrying, indicates a very serious psychological problem, hang-up and mental block of the Church hierarchy's understanding of human sexuality and what it demands and imposes on others. Perhaps herein lies the seed of the "demon" and the fruit of such laws?
For an organization that
For an organization that holds such high standards for the 'people of the church', you would think that they would have higher standards for their priest. Because of the actions and words of the Bishops, I know that I can not trust them or what they say. Consequesntly, I can not trust any priest. The Bishops do not address the problems that come up about their priest, they are not transarent in what they do with priest that are accused or or if the abuse is substantiated. The bishops do not tell us where the priest, religious, or lay ministers that have abused (abuse was substantiated) are.
What is even sicker is that these abusive priest and Bishop enablers are still revered by people who refuse to see their lies and deceit.
We are taught to put our trust in these men. That means that they should answer to a higher standard. TYruth, honesty, compassion, transparency, faithfulnes to their call to server the people of teh church. No worse than average id not acceptable.
The sex abuse crisis had two
The sex abuse crisis had two elements: 1) What clergy did to kids; and 2) The leadership's response. What happened to the kids was awful. There might be better and more profound words to describe what took place - but it was awful.
In my mind, the more unpardonable sin was how leaders, like Cardinal Law, responded and the lack of personal accountability. John Jay's study, while helpful looks at the wrong question. In my mind, why did these 'moral' leaders sit on the sidelines and let this happen - time and time again - is the more important question.
There is a famous sociological study about the murder of Kitty Genovese. In that study the researchers wanted to understand why so many people who saw the murder did nothing to stop it? In the case of Kitty - they just didn't want to get involved. In the case of the Church leaders, like Law, who knew priests were abusing kids, their response was - to transfer them to another parish. What was their thinking? Why did they believe that moving them to another setting would cure the problem? Why did they not respond to concerns expressed by others about these clergy? How did they rationalize their actions and decisions, when they knew such moral wrongs were being committed? How could they play "old maid" with other dioceses and knowingly deal their old maids so they could prey on others?
Personally, JP2 response - or lack thereof - was a terrible sin. This issue alone should prevent him from sainthood. To certain extend, he was complicit by his failure to hold the Bishops and Cardinals accountable and for not meeting and turning his back on the victims who went to Rome to meet and talk about what happened.
Jon Hus
There is a dimension that
There is a dimension that goes beyond "we are no worse than the others."
What about the trust afforded to priests as ministers? Do the findings of John Jay affect the trust given to priests in the sacrament of confession?
Claiming victim status in that the secular press is Catholic bashing is a lame response to this serious issue.
The results of this study,
The results of this study, that child sexual abuse within the Church correlates with wider social trends, rather than being disproportionately manifest in the Church, is certainly significant. But it shouldn't offer comfort or an opportunity to shirk responsibilities or fail to recognise the real, and deserved, damage this has done to the Church's moral standing.
In terms of individual clergy, it is good that the presumption put about that celibacy somehow predisposes clergy to abuse minors, should be challenged. It may well be that priests who do not have a partner to go home to, or a family to balance their lives, may be more at risk but then so might any single person or indeed person in an unhappy relationship. The issue is rather that we expect priests, who guide other on moral issues and indeed dispense absolution as part of their professional duties, to be stronger - and catholics are brought up to believe they are.
More significant is the corporate response of the Church. It has been seen, like all large organisations, to put it's own survival first. In covering up the Church abused its authourity and to do so exploited (1)its highly secretive procedures and codes, (2) the overwhelmingly steadfast loyalty of its 'staff' or clergy in keeping secrets and looking the other way, and (3) its ability to deal with problem clergy by moving them round the country at the drop of the hat.
The issue of celibacy is probably more significant in respect of (2) and (3) than in respect of the loneliness of priests. The church is the priest's partner and family, hence his loyalty (2), whilst it would be much more difficult to uproot a married priest with a family at short notice without questions being asked and, ultimately, answers found (3).
The corporate response of the Church was just like any other large organisation - but this one claims to be instituted by Christ who promised that the gates of hell should not prevail against it.
The increase and decline in
The increase and decline in sexual abuse in the Catholic Church may have paralleled that in the general society. But this means that the moral and religious beliefs of Catholic priests has no effect in deterring them from the commission of serious crimes; nor did the bishops' beliefs cause them to exercise any more compassion and responsibility than secular leaders did.
Moreover, no secular organization:
Requires that you belong to it or risk eternal damnation.
Requires you to confess your sexual sins, including thoughts, to one of its representatives or risk eternal damnation.
Requires you to obey its leaders or risk eternal damnation.
If the Church wishes to renounce these requirements it can comfort itself that it is no worse, and no better, than anyone else.
Church authorities have harmed victims and in justice must make restitution. If they offer to make adequate restitution without lawyers being involved, lawyers will not collect fees. Releasing the full truth is part of making restitution.
When a minor is sexually abused by a priest, severe psychological problems, especially involving trust, ensue. These harm employability and marital stability; emotional pain may lead to alcoholism and drug abuse. The financial consequences alone over a lifetime are easily in the 500,000 - 1,000,000 range. There are over ten thousand known victims in the United States, and these represent only a portion of the victims. The Church has gotten off very lightly so far.
I agree with Stephen
I agree with Stephen Harrington's comment below. I take no consolation in the news that the percent of sex abuse perpetrated by Catholic priests is no more no less than the general population.
Rather than consolation I think this is a terrible indictment. What does Catholicism count for? What does it mean to be a trusted member of that community - a priest?
If a guy on the street commits a crime it's one thing. If a judge commits a crime, that's a bigger deal. If a member of the Supreme Court commits the same crime, that's huge. The higher the position, the greater the scandal.
The other side is also missing from the Bishop's reaction. The heirarchy acted as a law unto itself - the deceit, the obfuscation, concealing, transferring, paying victims for their silence. The historical record of our Bishops is terrible and continuing to try to paper over it only continues to exasperate the situation.
Fr. Juan Romero Palm
Fr. Juan Romero
Palm Springs
Of course the church was "targeted" and the perception of her DEEP POCKETS certainly factored in to the calculus of those STICKING IT.
That we have a "sexual abuse scandal rate" not so different from that affecting the public school system is not good news, nor is it a surprise. Public school personnel and Catholic church employees are made of the same human clay. For a lot of reasons our moral behavior "should be" much better, but the reality is that it does not seem to be much better at all. Nevertheless, GOD KNOWS HOW TO DRAW OUT GOOD FROM EVIL!
As Catholics, we can take justifiable comfort and even pride in the way we finally got around to responding to the sexual-abuse-situation in church once we as an institution when we decided to do so, and we did DECIDE. In a sprit of SERVANTHOOD, not relishing in the pain of either perpetrators or victims, we have something to teach society at large: 1)humbly acknowledge the presence of a cancer in our coprorate body, and 2) take whatever steps humanly possible to eradicate it from that body, the institution. In these things, we can be a model and servant to those institutions that will allow us to do so.
Peace!
Juan
The notion of Catholic
The notion of Catholic bashing and targeting is silly. My non-Catholic friends - of which I have many - were as saddened as I was about this mess. In fact, I found most Catholics more angry and upset than non-Catholics about what happened. The press, in my view, also played the story straight. I ask: How many of the stories that they reported on had to be retracted because they were wrongly reported? I know of none.
Did some lawyer get rich from the litigation? Yes! Was this wrong? No! The Church had lawyers who should have said: "Look it it guys, setting aside the moral question, Fr. Porter's (the first public revelation) actions leave the Church open to litigation. If we try to hide it, we know that won't work. This guy has been a pig. So, we better deal with this mess in such a way that limits our liability and protects the assets of the Church." So the church failed on two scores: 1) on the moral question; and 2) on the legal question. And to think there shouldn't be consequences for such failures is simply wrong. Put another way, if I commit a Mortal Sin and die, without confessing my sin, the Church tells me I should plan on very long stay in Hell.
One major difference between
One major difference between priest sexual abusers and those in other types of employment is that priests have taken a vow of celibacy. Also, because of their religious connection priests had the confidence of parents who trusted them in situations in which they would not have trusted other adults.
A comparison between priest abusers and other groups of abusers makes no sense because the groups are not comparable. Nor can the culture of the moment be blamed. Christianity developed in a region where the sexual antics of the Greeks and Romans were well known. Yet no leeway was given to the early Christians due to the culture of the time.
Yes, it is time to move on, but only after church leaders have accepted full responsibility for behavior that should not and would not have happened if the priest abusers had been living the full meaning of their vows.
I find it interesting that
I find it interesting that some are reading the results of this study and how it relates to the Catholic clergy as, "Well, maybe the Catholic priests have been singled out--scapegoated." At the same time, there is a parallel discussion relating to whether or not Catholic clergy should be accountable to some higher standard than the at-large secular public. This "higher standard" seems to be the measure to which our clergy are being compared by the media. So here's some food for thought: is this media treatment scapegoating, or is it actually something that we should expect and welcome; to whit, shouldn't we WANT our clergy to meet a higher standard, and if so, shouldn't we welcome media criticism when it fails to meet that standard? In return, the Church response should be, "You're right, we have a problem in this area; we'll try and get to the root of this and fix it." So far, I've seen evidence that this is, in fact, occurring. Shouldn't that be what we're trying to do, see what the Church's role is in the problem and then do something credible to try and fix it?
Mike Tarlton
Greenacres, FL, USA
The real hubris is not on
The real hubris is not on the part of priests and bishops but those of us who think that somehow being Catholic should mean that we would sin less than other people. It is tragic from a leadership standpoint that the bishops did not handle the situation properly, but expecting that the public should think that we are somehow better than other people, whether we are ordained or not, is really tragic. It is really pathetic.
Clerical culture is not
Clerical culture is not something the public created. It is something that clergy and hierarchy creates, and not only does that involve the idea of service, but also that there is some "ontological difference" in being a priest. It also involves centuries of assumed privilege and power. The public, as well as every catholic, has the expectation of a higher standard, and has been deeply affronted by its absence. The expectation hasn't changed through all this, just the knowledge that the clerical culture has been used to cover up its underbelly. Yes, we all expect more.
James O'Connell I can best
James O'Connell
I can best write about the Irish situation. It seems fair to say that Irish priests were proportionately no more involved in sexual abuse of young persons than members of other caring professions. We can simultaneously take comfort from that, and take no comfort that our faith did not raise us above others since we are meant to be the salt of the earth. However, what has done most harm in Ireland has been the cover up of paedophile crimes, not least a cover up in various forms, not least in irresponsible transfers, by bishops.
In earlier days these actions were seen as sins rather than as crimes and thought to be capable of being dealt with through forgiveness and repentance. The Church also saw itself as an institution over against the state and with every right to deal with its own problems. Later on however that was no longer possible. The state was seen to have rights over criminal behaviour, and yet ecclesiastical superiors still protected the institution at a terrible cost to individuals. It would have restored some trust in the rulers of the Church if several bishops had been removed. One might compare how in the U.S. and elsewhere banking executives are being removed for incompetence and cover up. Are the children of darkness more humanly aware than the children of light?
Lord knows, and "here today"
Lord knows, and "here today" can testify, that I am not the biggest cheerleader of the magisterium, but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water and give credit where credit is due. No one is condoning the actions of priest abusers or the actions of bishops who sheltered them. The study is pretty valid and reliable, consistent with most other studies concerning the incidence of sexual abuse of minors. This wasn't a whitewash nor was it an absolution. It may be the Church's prophetic voice in generating society to look more closely at sexual abuse of minors and for all not to live in denial and think that priests have the market cornered.
I do not believe that this was a conscious conspiracy to both abuse children and to cover it up. I believe Cardinal George has some insights in this regard and I don't throw out these compliments too readily. Be careful not to allow anger to flaw logic and pronounce sweeping judgements, lest we become like those we hate.
Missing are the comparative
Missing are the comparative statistics. It's true enough that child sexual abuse is a societal problem, shared by the Catholic part of that society. However, are priests more likely to offend? less likely? The current report seems to be saying that the rates will be about the same.
I've been looking for an answer to this question since 2002. We know that something around between 4% and 5% of priests offend. It's now becoming clear that comparable rates exist among other jobs that bring people into contact with children; it could even be worse in public education. One researcher stated to me that he believed the rate among men in general to be about 8%, but he didn't have firm research to back it up. What that would mean, then, is that children are safer with a priest than, say, at a family reunion, given that most sexual abuse occurs in the family.
Any fool knows that a sexually obsessed society like the U.S. will have a lot of sexual abuse issues, including its religious communities. I hope the John Jay folks are able to contribute to the discussion by telling us how the priesthood of the Catholic Church, which reflects the whole Church in a particular manner, fits into that larger social context.
John, Why do you think that
John,
Why do you think that the rest of us are so upset? Of course we realize that sexual abuse happens elsewhere and that it is being reported more than it has been. The difference is that the other abusers do not set themselves up as being authorities on morality, nor try to dictate how others should live their lives, in a moral sense. To cover up an abuse is to take on the characteristics of the abuser - is that not enough to give us pause? The bishops comparison of themselves to others should not even enter into the picture.
Peter
Three points: Cardinal
Three points:
Cardinal George's comment,"The more interesting question, though, is whether or not the church herself, and particularly the priests and bishops, should be held to a moral standard that is higher than that of the general populace. That was raised by one bishop very astutely, saying that we should not be relieved to find out that our own standards just conform to what is the normal behavior, what has become so in the last several decades." appears to suggest that the general populace considers molesting children to be "normal". I am sure he didn't intend to say that. No one considers molesting children to be normal, nor is it anyones norm.
The Report would appear to lack any hard numbers such as percentage of incidence of molestations in various situations and communities. For number counters the issue is whether the Church has more than its share of child molesters in the priesthood. It would not appear that the Jay Study provides any data, at least so far.
The remaining issue, how bishops responded to information that their priests were molesting children is still not addressed.
The rest of the story? In
The rest of the story?
In failing to deal with their guilt feelings, some real, some unreal, the bishops allowed themselves to be shamed into the Dallas decision.
They seemed all too willing to give away Church money to assuage their guilt.
They lumped all priests together: those guilty of improperly touching, those who had repeatedly raped, those that had been falsely accused (creditable? To whom?), those whose offense was years ago and who had repented—They were all told: You’re out. Does it seem silly to ask: What would Jesus have done? Should the same standards be applied to other public sinners? One strike and you’re out?
The bishops seem to have forgotten about the “new morality” of the 70’s, which they seemed often to tolerated quite well: Sex is ok if no one is getting hurt. Touching is ok for celibate men and women if they don’t go all the way. Duhhh.
In the early 20th century it was common to take high school boys and girls into seminaries and religious houses for formation. Now we know that this delayed their sexual maturing. Some never matured, having a teen view of sexuality most of their lives. Some “played around” in later life as if they were teenagers. Well, we’re sorry, but one strike and you are out. Many parents felt it was too young for their boys and girls to be leaving home. They were right.
In conclusion: The Church seemed of old to be the only institution which was skilled in dealing with sinners, healing their sick and wounded lives. But the Institution seems to have gone berserk on this issue. As Jesus once said: “When the Son of Man returns will he find Faith on Earth?” Ans: Unless we all learn to love more genuinely, probably not.
Jstab, I read your comment
Jstab, I read your comment with great compassion. I have spent too many sessions with too many clients not to be know that the real issue is abuse of authority and trust over children. It doesn't matter whether that abuse is from a parent, a teacher, a coach, or a priest, except for this fact. The more power the person has over the child the harder the experience is to heal. A priest has the power of heaven or hell, that makes it worse. He represents God.
My mother was too much of an independent for that to have sunk in too far with me. However, my dad worked in professional athletics, and that was different. My coaches were God to me, not the parish priest.
My point is that it all depends on where the power lies in the life of a child, and that sexual abuse in children destroys innate innocence exactly like abortion destroys innate innocence. In one case you have to live with it, in the other you live with God. To whitewash this with the devil made us do it, as Paprocki did, or with the everyone else was doing it, is just wrong.
But you are also correct in your statement that reliving the victimization through the court process is most healthy for the bank accounts of the lawyers and not the victims. Healing is far more than money. Restoring innate innocence is an incredibely difficult task. I wish you all the best.
Yea, but the devil made them
Yea, but the devil made them do it according to Bishop Paprocki. Let's not forget the devil.
The new John Jay
The new John Jay findings should provide us no satisfaction. The bishops who talk about a unique Catholic identify on one hand should take no comfort in knowing that in the sexual abuse area we are no worse than anyone else.
What the bishops never mention is their own pivotal role in the scandal. They are the ones who empowered the pedophiles through a misguided emphasis on suppressing if not the scandal than the appearance of scandal. What about the transfers, cover-ups, secrecy, intimidation and dissembling? Not a single bishop has been called to justice for any of that. They remain in the mansions, their credibility in tatters, trying desperately to "turn the page." It won't happen.
This reaction to the John
This reaction to the John Jay study puts me in mind of those Catholics who attempt to defend the Church's behavior during the period of the Holy Inquisition by saying that "Stalin and Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot" killed a lot more people. That may be so, but should the "bride of Christ" really be comparing herself to fellows like these?
On the matter of child sexual abuse, it is true that it occurs in any institution in which large numbers of children are gathered, and it is also true that pedophiles are attracted to seek careers in such institutions. However, neither the public school system, nor the Boy Scouts, nor any other such institution serving children claims to be "God's representative on Earth" or "founded by Christ". So, I do not think it unfair, indeed, I find it fitting, that the Church and its personnel be held to higher standards than mere secular institutions.
It's ludicrous for
It's ludicrous for "cashelguy" to state that the recent John Jay abuse report on clergy sexual "is a whitewash" and to impugne the integrity of Cardianl George.
I can speak for Cardinal George, my archbishop. This man is not “an enabler of clergy abuse," as Voice of the People recently called him. Cardinal George is one of those rare church leaders of our times who makes a difference in the moral tone of our national life. He is intellectually brilliant, pastorally sensitive, and personally a man of deep prayer and holiness. Voice of the Faithful,"cashelguy" and others like them seem to have that Watergate syndrome that still infects the political life of this country: destroy our leaders. They tried it on Nixon and succeeded. They tried it on Clinton but failed. They’re now trying it on Bush. This taste of blood in the water is now infecting even religious life in this country: get rid of a good man like Cardinal George, who has done only good since coming to Chicago ten years ago and has never condoned even a whiff of clergy sexual abuse. Voice of the Faithful wants to exact a pound of flesh from this poor man and destroy him. You don’t oppose evil with another evil.
The fact that sexual abuse
The fact that sexual abuse of minors occurs no more or less in the Catholic Church than in other institutions is not at all comforting. What the bishops always seem to forget is that in the Catholic Church:
1) Bishops KNOWINGLY tranferred abusers year after year after year
2) In the public schools, the predator was reported to the authorities and sent to jail
Notice the difference in those two statements. In addition, even when an abuser was finally prosecuted, the bishops hid files, denied culpability, or flat out lied and answered 'I cannot recall' more times than a mafia hitman.
For me, the actions of the Bishops were as sinful, if not more so, than the actual abuser's.
At this point in the clergy
At this point in the clergy abuse scandal, I don't think there is much point to casting stones. No other organization in American society has paid such a high price, suffered such a loss of face, nor has responded in such a just or humane way than the Catholic Church in the United States. Despite all the problems, the Bishops have consistently, for the most part, attempted to respond as Christ would. Those Bishops who responded with arrogance and "cover-up" were the exception, not the rule. The Catholic Church in America has a very great deal to be proud of because of the comprehensive and systemic reform that they have undertaken. It is now time for healing - for those abused and for the abusers - in order for us to live consistently as disciples of the Risen Lord.
Could you name one Bishop or
Could you name one Bishop or Cardinal who was held accountable for his actions by the Pope? Yes, the church paid the price - but let us no forget where every dime for the settlements came from - either directly or indirectly - from the pockets of the laity. I am not aware of any Bishop or Cardinal writing a check to help defray the cost of his errors or sins.
Law got a promotion and was permitted to participate in the election of Benedict ... McCormack is still a Bishop in NH...I am not a vengeful person, but when I hear Bishops, Cardinal and the Pope preach to me about moral issues, I shake my head in disbelief.
Very interesting story and
Very interesting story and comments. Cardinal George showed some insight I had not noticed in him before.
But we keep going off on tangents and losing sight of the basics. Somewhere I have read that the church is the body of Christ and its job is to emulate Christ to the fallen (secular) world. Not too far away I also read that the church is a gathering (ecclesia) of sinners, and that both priests and bishops are part of the church.
Based upon those basics, it is no surprise that sexual sins of all sorts have tarnished the clergy since -- at least 300 AD? Given any large group of men, anyone will find a significant percentage of pedophiles, of homosexuals, of philanderers, of fetishists, of -- every sort of perversion in the psychiatrist's textbook.
Neither is it a surprise that some bishops some of the time are "self-serving, self-protecting, and all but useless." Nothing protects -- nothing can completely protect -- the clergy from their sinful nature.
But let us get on with our mission. We have a sacrament that ministers to the sinful individual. Let us also confess our corporate sins openly and honestly. Yes, our clergy have sinned -- just as our laity and the unchurched (teachers, doctors, lawyers, farmers, housewives, etc.)have sinned. I for one am heartily sorry for all their (and my own) sins, and pray for the unmerited mercy of God.
Let us do all we can on a practical level to protect the victims. But let us also remember that it is humanly impossible to be perfect -- that is reserved to God alone. Though I despise my weakness, I will sin again, and so will every other member of the body of Christ.
Hip, Hip, Hooray! "Perhaps
Hip, Hip, Hooray!
"Perhaps it's a measure of how badly the image of American Catholicism has been tarnished as a result of the sexual abuse crisis that so many bishops, meeting in Baltimore Nov. 12-15, could seem relieved at the news that the church's record on the abuse of minors is actually no better, but also no worse, than anybody else's."
Somehow Allen's statement above about our bishops' reaction to the "Causes and Context" report, doesn't make me feel all that "relieved."
"It's not just us." Marvelous! What exactly is this supposed to do for me, break into a song, rejoice and sing a Te Deum?
I don't think so.
Whether it is Archbishop Chaput's, "level playing field," Archbishop Eldon Curtiss's, "unfortunate media problem" and "a myth, reinforced over time, that there's something unique about a Catholic priest, about a bishop and his staff," or Bishop Wenski's, "the church has not been given a fair shake," none of our bishops takes any responsibility for their own negligence at best and complicity at worst.
Sure, more abuse happens in families then anywhere else and percentage-wise, teachers are no better then nor any worse then priests.
But what the bishops are not saying is that what is truly unique about our church is that the bishops played so big a part in making it as worse as it could possibly be. They have yet to tell the whole truth, publish the names of all known sexually abusive priests, and, in cases like the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, put the records out there. They were forced into the public venue in Boston but only the Philadelphia Grand Jury members had access to the Philadelphia records.
I have not heard one of them say, for himself or in the name of the USCCB, that if it were not for their callous disregard of victims of clergy sexual abuse, the harassment and intimidation of victims and their families by the bishops themselves, or lawyers acting in their names, there would be fewer victims of childhood sexual abuse by priests who were also sexual predators, molesters, rapists, and sodomizers.
The only one who came close to saying anything worthwhile, as quoted in Allen's article was Bishop Robert Conlon of Steubenville, Ohio, when he says, "It's a bit like my doctor telling me that my cancer is no worse than my hospital roommate's cancer … Our situation should be much better."
I am awaiting the day when a few good men, and true among our bishops, break ranks and encourage the states' constituents to support the complete removal of statutes of limitation regarding the sexual abuse of our children - by anyone.
Removal of statutes of limitation is the single, most effective method in holding sexual predators and any enabling institutions accountable.
But while I await that day, I am not going to hold my breath!
Maureen Paul Turlish
maturlishmdsnd@yahoo.com
American Catholics were
American Catholics were supposed to be different because they were the newcomers to the predominantly Protestant United States and it was feared that they would leave their religion in order to assimilate culturally. Since Catholicism is now the largest of the Christian religions in the United States, it seems rather pointless for it to try to be countercultural.
The results of this study
The results of this study will not surprise sociologist or psychologist, and George's comments certainly reveal his knowledge of this field. The very sad thing about this is the reality of the part of media. The findings of this study will not probably make national headlines or in any part influence the stigma now attached to the Catholic Church and Priesthood more specifically. The current discoveries and attention of public school employees that have sexually abused minors - or the million more other cases of relatives, coaches, and family friends who abused minors seldom ever hit the papers or news media proportionately to when the offense is committed by a Catholic Priest. I'm sure variables such as higher moral standards or inconsistency of practice what you preach play a role. However, I believe one of the most significant reasons that the Church was targeted was due to the perception of the church's deep pockets by opportunist lawyers.
If a relative or family friend sexually abuses a minor, when it is revealed in later years, do they sue them? Many times they don't even prosecute them. Priests were pursued, and I am not saying they should not have been, because there was an entity to sue. There was a story to tell. I am in no way, shape, or form condoning the actions of the priests, bishops, or church, but I am angry that so much money has been paid out by the church. The people have been punished for the sins of the fathers. The church has been stained by the actions of a few. And most importantly, the victims were victimized again - not by the church, but by the attorney's who supposedly represented the victims.
I say this because I know first hand about being a victim of sexual abuse. In my case, the perpetrator was not a priest, but a street hockey coach. If I were to seek justice through financial renumeration, it would be recreating the scenario all over again because most victims somehow get a "reward" for the abuse, usually money but also attention, gifts, and/or privileges. True healing takes place through many years of counseling. True justice takes place when the truth is known and consquences levied. To make someone publicly re-live the victimization, put the church in a "defendant" position and then "reward" the victim with financial settlements, I believe, creates a negative positive reinforcement for the victims.
Simultaneously, some or many have attempted to discredit the values and moral teachings of the church by pointing to the behaviors of the priest abusers and reaching the false conclusion that the Church is a sham. But the damage has been done. My anger now is probably due to the fact that what the John Jay report reveals, I have always known. I have researched and studied about this topic for over 30 years. To designate the scarlet letter of sexual abuse to priests does a disservice to the general population. However, the blessing, if there is one in all of this, would be that at least the church was or is capable of being a starting point for people to come forth and report sexual misconduct of any type. History will hopefully put things in better perspective than the National Enquirer does today.
Sorry for the lengthy comment, but as you may see, this is a very personal issue for me. While the John Jay report does not give us any reason to rejoice, it may serve as the beginning of healing for the church, becuase as I have stated above, true justice takes place when the truth is known.
I never did think that the
I never did think that the Roman Catholic clergy was any better or worse than other sectors of North American society when it came to sexual abuse and pedophilia. What I think is still the most henious part, and the part for which the Church is to be most condemned is the way that some bishops and other members of the hierarchy avoided "scandal" by moving priests from one place to another where they could continue abusing young people, or blamed the victims. The cover up and denial on the part of the hierarchy is an abomination as far as I am concerned. Even that word is mild for the disappointment and disillusion I feel. It is bad enough that anyone abuses others sexual, especially when people in position of authority do it, and worst of all when they do it to children. For the "offical" Church to turn a blind eye, to deny, and to abet members of the clergy to continue abuse after it was reported to them is almost unforgivable.
jstab,I will keep you in my
jstab,I will keep you in my thoughts and prayers.Regarding the Catholic Church," To Whom Much Has Been Given,Much Is Expected." I pray that all of us will have the courage to ask the Holy Spirit to guide us during this difficult period of History.
I hope I am not alone in
I hope I am not alone in thinking there is no consolation to be drawn from the knowledge that we are simply like everybody else in the clerical abuse scandal. The claim that one's religious commitment should make a difference should not be dropped lightly.
Stephen Harrington
It is clear by the ratings
It is clear by the ratings that you are not alone. And thank God. However, there is a danger in the belief that one's religious commitment makes one any less prone to their own humanity and weaknesses. Sometimes, it is that very arrogance which enabled the sin to continue.
I believe that the greatest sin of sexual abuse is the breach of trust. In a perfect world, a child should be able to trust that the adults, especially those responsible for their safety, would not hurt them. Trust is the foundation of most psychological and spiritual theories of development. That is why it is believed that the closer the relationship, the deeper the wounds of abuse. Incest, which is unforunatley probably the most prevelant form of sexual abuse, is the most tragic because of this. It is no co-incidence, with priests titled "Father" rendering the act spiritually incestuous, that the priest abuse horror was so devastating TO EVERYONE. Herein lies why the John Jay report is no consolation. I believe it has more to do with spiritual maturity (cause) and spiritual responsibiliy (effect) than with religious commitment.
Make no mistake, I am with you on this. Sorry about the semantic dissection, it happens on blogs!
The very idea that Cardinal
The very idea that Cardinal George, who sheltered a priest abuser his own advisory board told him to remove from ministry, has anything valuable to say on this topic is laughable. Let's also not forget that Cardinal George was handpicked by Bernard Law to be Archbishop of Chicago. This study sounds like a whitewash to me. Claiming that everybody else does it is a more pathetic excuse coming from an institution that represents Christ than it is coming from a little kid. The Catholic bishops in this country have hit an all-time low. They are self-serving, self-protecting, and all but useless.
The amount of comments on
The amount of comments on this topic seem to suggest we are still very much experiencing the aftershocks from the quake the shook that church and the world. Many good things have been stated here and "butterfly" did an excellent job at summing it up. We all agree the crimes and sins were more than tragic. We acknowledge the poor decisions and inability of some (or many) bishops who did not deal with this problem directly. However, I do think that an injustice has been done both by the "church" and to the "church", "By the church," I mean the clerics of all ranks and "to the church," I mean the people of who give of their time, talent, and treasures for the sake of the worshiping community.
It was not the money of abusing priest or the reassigning bishop that was distributed to the victims (and their lawyers). It was the people's money. If a public official commits a crime, does a settlement come out of the taxpayer's pocket? (I am really asking, not asserting). I think every Catholic should be offended that these kinds of settlements were so easily issued and applauded. Not that I would begrudge the victims justice for these acts - because there is no price one can put on robbing one's innocence. However, I think this just reflects the recent era of outrageous lawsuit settlements and the need for tart reform on all levels.
As for higher standards, I could understand and see both sides of the issues. However, what standards do we hold to parents, politicians, professional athletes and celebrities? Their sexual conquests and exploits (with the exception of pedophila or rape)are usually applauded. To what standard do we hold the President (Clinton) of the United States? Is it OK to have sex and lie about it under oath? Was he not suppose to be a model of fidelity and ethical practices? And as for Hillary, was she a victim, a forgiving wife, or was she like the Bishops, living in denial and cover up("This is a right wing conspiracy")?
I don't want to compare apples and oranges, but this issue is so multi-faceted. An injustice doesn't justify another injustice. The Church abused and exploited and it has also been abused and exploited. There is enough blame to go around. But how do we heal? How do we forgive? How do we focus on the solution, not the problem?
No Justice, No Peace. Know Justice, Know Peace.