Paedophile Priests: Are there really that many?

[TheLordsSouljah]

Hey peeps, it's been a while since I have been on here. I was reading a few threads and I notice there has been a lot going on with priests and child sexual abuse cases at the moment.... Our own Cardinal Pell from Australia who is now in Rome was interviewed for several hours until 3 am only a few days ago from Rome, testifying in for the Royal Commission into sexual abuse.... I know there is a lot going on. 

HOWEVER! While it may be easy to think, through all this, that the scarlet is so great on the baptismal robe of the clergy as a whole that the Church has become far more 'shamed' than all others in terms of the number of these crimes, it is actually not true. I found this great article a few years ago, and although it is five years old, Mr Castleman confirms that the statistics are relatively static. Anyway, in interesting read from Psychology Today.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201003/beyond-bad-apple-priests-who-the-pedophiles-really-are

[BarbTherese]

Probably very true, but doesn't give me cause to take a long sigh of relief.  In the instances under discussion that I am aware of anyway here on Phatmass, they are absolutely unspeakable horrors that have taken place within The Church, The Mystical Body of Christ on earth.  Not to say that you have had a big sigh of relief etc.

Just my general comments: That paedophilia is everywhere seems to be very true and all are unspeakable horrors to my mind - yet we need to speak about the horrors out of respect and concern for those who suffered so terribly and how to positively address that - and in a search to find out why and specifically why so widespread within the priesthood of The Catholic Church.  To state that it is 'the age in which we exist' or similar (reason possibly only - but positively no excuse at all) is not a response to the question of why within Catholicism specifically nor any sort of response to those who are hoping and praying earnestly for "never ever again".  And in that probably very long journey, we just might find responses to the overall frightening and tragic journey that society generally seems to be taking........the drift it seems to blindly favour and choose.  We now know that we were on that journey too blind in our belief our children were quite safe in The Church. 

Incidentally, I am in South Australia   

[Luigi]

1. Bank robbers go where the money is. Car thieves go where the cars are. Pedophiles go where the children are - Catholic churches have schools for children.

2. Catholic children are taught to respect priests; the trust factor allows priests to get close to children and probably increases the victims' willingness to cooperate because they believe the priest would do only good. Pedophiles may choose especially trustful children as their victims.

3. In the sacrament of confession, the priest is likely to hear from young people who are beginning to experiment with sex/sexuality, who might be (seen as) more cooperative - or at least reticent - victims.

4. From a sociological perspective, pedophiles aren't interested in marriage and the priesthood doesn't allow marriage. Entering the seminary eliminates questions from family and friends about why a young man is not dating while simultaneously conferring honor on the seminarian and his family.

5. From a psychological perspective, the priesthood confers (public) honor on them; if they feel dishonorable because of their sexual desires, the esteem of the priesthood may compensate for their low self-esteem.

6. The Church offers all believers the hope of healing; I wonder how many pedophiles are trying to extirpate their sinful desires by taking up a life of daily Mass, praying the daily office, leading Perpetual Help devotions, and so forth. Some pedophile priests may have made a conscious decision to enter the priesthood because it would enable them in their pedophilia, but others may have entered thinking the priesthood would be a panacea for their pedophilia.

 

The above reasons - except #3 - apply equally to religious brothers and religious sisters.

 

[enitharmon]

To me the more disturbing aspect of all this is not the pedophile/pederast priests--though this itself is very disturbing even though the percentage of such priests is low--but the way the Church (including its hierarchy) has sometimes reacted to it (as in Boston) and covered it up without seriously trying to prevent it.
 

[Guest]

Just now, enitharmon said:

To me the more disturbing aspect of all this is not the pedophile/pederast priests--though this itself is very disturbing even though the percentage of such priests is low--but the way the Church (including its hierarchy) has sometimes reacted to it (as in Boston) and covered it up without seriously trying to prevent it.
 

 

Edited March 3, 2016 by Guest

[Luigi]

In terms of the Church's handling of it, and the so-called cover-up, clearly not all cases were addressed as they occurred.

I think when these cases first started coming to light forty or fifty years ago, it was probably such a shock to the bishops who were in place that they often didn't know what to do about it. Keep in mind that the bishops who were in place forty or fifty years ago were probably in their fifties and sixties, meaning they were born around 90 or 100 years ago. They could very well have been in denial because such cases were largely unheard of then - or at least never discussed in public.

Those bishops who did address allegations turned to the leading experts of their day - psychologists & psychiatrists - who, at the time, thought that avoidance therapies and whatever other therapies were in vogue could cure the offenders. Many child-abusing priests did go for therapy and were returned to their dioceses after some expert signed off on a form that said they were safe for ministry. I don't think we can hold it against bishops for trying to do the right thing only to find out - after the fact - that the experts were wrong and these priests were not, in fact, safe for ministry.

The bishops may also have been motivated to some extent by the decreasing numbers of priests - they were desperate to keep what priests they had, so when an expert told them he was safe for ministry, the bishop was probably hearing what he wanted to hear in the first place.

I also can't hold it against the bishops for trying to keep these sorts of stories from getting into the newspapers. The Catholic Church has always been viewed negatively in the United States, and these kinds of stories would not have improved the situation. And I have to say that the bishops were right in their estimation - other denominations have just as big a problem with pedophile ministers, the Boy Scouts have just as big a problem with pedophile leaders, and any number of schools (public and private) have just as big a problem with pedophile teachers. Yet the media focuses almost all of its attention on Catholic priests rather than the full extent of the problem.

One of the first people to really sound the alarm on this issue was Father Gerald Fitzgerald, the founder of the Servants of the Paraclete. His order was originally intended to help alcoholic priests dry out. A number of the priests he treated at his facility in Jemez Springs, NM had the additional problem of pedophilia, although many of them didn't admit that during treatment. They'd dry out, then he'd place them in a ministerial situation - kind of like a practicum or internship - at a parish in the diocese (I think Jemez Springs is in the Santa Fe diocese, but I could be wrong). Many of the pedophiles acted out with the children of that diocese. When the problem came to his attention - and the extent of the problem - he wrote prolifically to any number of bishops (and I believe a pope or two). He was the voice of one crying in the desert, but again, I think the problem was too new and too little understood for most bishops to take him seriously.

http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/bishops-were-warned-abusive-priests

[BarbTherese]

1 hour ago, Luigi said:

Yet the media focuses almost all of its attention on Catholic priests rather than the full extent of the problem.

I think that it is probably a sort of 'tall poppy syndrome'.  We make pretty big claims for ourselves and have been in a position to shout it pretty very loud indeed.  The Catholic priesthood and our hierarchy were very loud and respected voices in our society.   Not so much other institutions I think.  I know that when I was a child a visit by a Catholic priest was regarded as the highest of honours, be that visit in a school or the home.

My problem most often is that the immediate attention and focus of our Church leadership seems to have been on the reputation of The Catholic Church, rather than turning with horror to what these children suffered and through Catholic priests.  The focus has been on either rehabilitating (attempting to), shifting around or even covering up the crimes and criminals  - not on those who suffered and endured and with absolute horror and compassion.  This is complete abandonment, to my mind, of very basic Gospel teachings and as such extremely serious indeed.

[BarbTherese]

Have been watching a documentary this afternoon on FoxtelGo (kindness of my son and his fiancé) about the band U2.  One of the commentators said something that jumped up at me: "The media was out to get U2.  When a band has been that good and on top for that long, they come to represent the status quo".  I wonder if that is where The Church had been prior to the lid coming off the scandals and light flowing into the darkness - i.e. we were seemingly that good and on top for that long, we represented the status quo - social acceptance.

I wonder if the media focus and hype on these scandals is not only about sensationalist reporting and bad news sells, but also about challenging status quo and rocking the boat that needed to be rocked off its' cultural socially acceptable perch?  One thing about rocking the status quo boat is that it does create an opening/window for new lights and fresh air to flow.  While I am not stating that rocking any status quo boat is necessarily always a wise move.   This all might tie in (to me) with what Pope Benedict/Josef Ratzinger in 1969  predicted/forecasted/prophesied as a potential very long journey we will undergo (rather than undertake I think): http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/the-church-will-become-small-and-will-have-to-start-afresh/

This also speaks to me about the doctrine of Divine Providence and what the CCC has to say about what is termed God's Permissive Will:

 

Quote

 

Catholic Exchange http://catholicexchange.com/gods-will

The permissive will of God refers to that which God allows to happen. For example, God allows sinful behavior, even though He does not desire it. Why does God allow sin? God truly loves us and love necessarily implies freedom. God lovingly allows us to freely choose or reject His will for our lives. When man rejects God's will, he freely sins. God permits such sin, as a consequence of the freedom He gave man, but He would never ordain such sin. The Catechism addresses the issue of God's permissive will succinctly:

"Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil. He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it:

"For almighty God. . . , because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself (no. 311).

(formatting is mine)

 

 

 

We are living through terrible times in The Church and horrific evils have occurred within our midst - but we can be confident in Faith above all things that good will come out of it even if not evident in one's own lifetime and not of necessity in accord with anyone's vision whatsoever.  But it will come to be.  This is not a call to passivity .... and surrender to Divine Providence never ever is such a call ......  for the very good that comes out of these shocking evils may well begin to grow out of all our efforts on all levels to deal the very real problems we can now see and seem to see, will see.

 

 Timed out! That last sentence of mine needs correcting.  Should read "all our efforts on all levels to deal with the very real problems we can now see and seem to see, will see."

Edited March 4, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

Years ago I used to have an exercise book for myself called "Thoughts".  One thing I wrote was "never complain about other people's rubbish - I just might find the rubbish tin in my own backyard suddenly explodes".

[HisChildForever]

On March 3, 2016 at 4:23:20 PM, Luigi said:

In terms of the Church's handling of it, and the so-called cover-up, clearly not all cases were addressed as they occurred.

I think when these cases first started coming to light forty or fifty years ago, it was probably such a shock to the bishops who were in place that they often didn't know what to do about it. Keep in mind that the bishops who were in place forty or fifty years ago were probably in their fifties and sixties, meaning they were born around 90 or 100 years ago. They could very well have been in denial because such cases were largely unheard of then - or at least never discussed in public.

Those bishops who did address allegations turned to the leading experts of their day - psychologists & psychiatrists - who, at the time, thought that avoidance therapies and whatever other therapies were in vogue could cure the offenders. Many child-abusing priests did go for therapy and were returned to their dioceses after some expert signed off on a form that said they were safe for ministry. I don't think we can hold it against bishops for trying to do the right thing only to find out - after the fact - that the experts were wrong and these priests were not, in fact, safe for ministry.

The bishops may also have been motivated to some extent by the decreasing numbers of priests - they were desperate to keep what priests they had, so when an expert told them he was safe for ministry, the bishop was probably hearing what he wanted to hear in the first place.

I also can't hold it against the bishops for trying to keep these sorts of stories from getting into the newspapers. The Catholic Church has always been viewed negatively in the United States, and these kinds of stories would not have improved the situation. And I have to say that the bishops were right in their estimation - other denominations have just as big a problem with pedophile ministers, the Boy Scouts have just as big a problem with pedophile leaders, and any number of schools (public and private) have just as big a problem with pedophile teachers. Yet the media focuses almost all of its attention on Catholic priests rather than the full extent of the problem.

One of the first people to really sound the alarm on this issue was Father Gerald Fitzgerald, the founder of the Servants of the Paraclete. His order was originally intended to help alcoholic priests dry out. A number of the priests he treated at his facility in Jemez Springs, NM had the additional problem of pedophilia, although many of them didn't admit that during treatment. They'd dry out, then he'd place them in a ministerial situation - kind of like a practicum or internship - at a parish in the diocese (I think Jemez Springs is in the Santa Fe diocese, but I could be wrong). Many of the pedophiles acted out with the children of that diocese. When the problem came to his attention - and the extent of the problem - he wrote prolifically to any number of bishops (and I believe a pope or two). He was the voice of one crying in the desert, but again, I think the problem was too new and too little understood for most bishops to take him seriously.

http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/bishops-were-warned-abusive-priests

Why not go to the authorities? Clearly this was criminal behavior. Common sense says you notify the police of the crime. 

[Guest]

I want to know why any of these men who ever had anything to do with this ever keeps a position in the Church? How is that possible? Are they in need of men to fill the positions that badly? And if they are please in God's name tell me why people freak out so much when even the idea of allowing straight married men in is mentioned? How did Cardinal Law keep a position? This is crazy. I didn't realize how messed up this all is. It's my own fault for negligence. I'm really confused right now. Go watch Spotlight.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Guest

[BarbTherese]

I do think that where paedophilia may have occurred in our priesthood around 40 or years or so ago, a couple of things may have applied:

1.  There was not a clear understanding that paedophilia is a crime with an MO (modus operandi) likely to re-occur i.e. paedophiliac is a serial offender very often, either in his past or likely in his future, or indeed both.

2.  Our bishops may have been in conflict between the terrible offence itself and the paedophiliac's promise it would never happen again.  Our bishops may have honestly thought that that promise together with therapy was an answer.

3.  My question.  How long has paedophilia been a criminal and jailable offence or has it always been a criminal offence and jailable?

    Despite the above, I still find it very difficult to understand why primary focus of our hierarchy where they were involved was on the offender and the reputation of The Church with little or no real active concern for the child or children..........rather than on the poor child or children who had suffered so terribly and probably would suffer for the rest of his or her life.  I find that very difficult to understand when The Gospel calls for it as primary focus.

Our bishop (where involved) seem to have abandoned The Gospel in the instances of priest-paedophilia and now we are seeing the terrible results for The Church of that abandonment.  I really do hope and pray that the lessons of our history have indeed been learnt !!!

..................or the lessons of history unlearnt are bound to repeat...................

"If men could learn from history, what lessons it might teach us! But passion and party blind our eyes, and the light which experience gives us is a lantern on the stern which shines only on the waves behind."
Samuel Taylor Coleridge

[BarbTherese]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

I want to know why any of these men who ever had anything to do with this ever keeps a position in the Church? How is that possible? Are they in need of men to fill the positions that badly? And if they are please in God's name tell me why people freak out so much when even the idea of allowing straight married men in is mentioned? How did Cardinal Law keep a position? This is crazy. I didn't realize how messed up this all is. It's my own fault for negligence. I'm really confused right now. Go watch Spotlight.

Rest easy, Josh.  I posted into another thread or post that Rome has spoken on the matter of deep seated homosexual tendances and acceptance for formation into the priesthood http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

This might bring you further consolation:  Pope Frances defrocks Archbishop for abusing boys http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=56006 

Quote

 .........excerpt only........"Pope Francis has instituted a zero-tolerance crackdown on clergy who abuse children, saying they would not have any special privileges and that even high-ranking offenders would be severely and swiftly punished.

 

 

Pope Francis is the first Pope to take such drastic measures to deal with the problem of child sexual abuse in the Church although both Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI also took steps to protect children. The measures now instituted by Pope Francis are the most significant in history, ensuring that offenders cannot use the Church as cover and will face certain prison time if found guilty"

 

My comments; Personally, I think we are seeing a knee-jerk reaction from some quarters in The Church to what happened IN THE PAST - and in these serious instances this is fair enough.  However of equal importance for our future is to investigate and understand why it all happened in the first place and deal with that.  I have great faith in Pope Francis - he is not only a meek and humble man............he is very intelligent and I suspect that when he decides to put his foot down, it will probably go right through floorboards and probably even cement.  I think we saw the very real potential for this when he very sternly told off the person who grabbed him, causing The Holy Father to almost fall onto a person in a wheelchair.

Edited March 5, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

As for Cardinal Law.  He resigned in 2011 from a very quick look indeed at his history.  Pope Francis became our Pope in March 2013.

I think that Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI both had real problems dealing with the issue of paedophilic priests and hierarchy, cover-ups .............. while Pope Francis is still 'writing his story'.

There might be triggers for disillusionment rather often in our journeys including in our Catholicism - and disillusionment can be very painful indeed - but it is a good thing after all to be deprived of one's illusions - or to realise that what one thought applied did not......or even worse perhaps, had never applied.   There is a rather beautiful and important prayer in The Mass "Look not on our sins but on The Faith of Your Church".  For me personally, "our sins" represents The Church as a humanly functioning institution - while "The Faith of Your Church" represents The Mystical Body of Christ, which does include we on earth still engaged and struggling daily with our poor fallen humanity, those in Purgatory and all in Heaven.

Edited March 5, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

Cardinal Law is going to become even more unpopular after people watch Spotlight.