Clergy sex abuse crisis 'is not over'

[MC Just]

National News Story
Clergy sex abuse crisis 'is not over,' child protection director says

'The crisis of sexual abuse of minors within the Catholic Church is not over,' Kathleen McChesney, executive director of the U.S. bishops' Office of Child and Youth Protection said.


By Jerry Filteau

2/18/2005

ASHINGTON (CNS) -- "The crisis of sexual abuse of minors within the Catholic Church is not over," Kathleen McChesney, executive director of the U.S. bishops' Office of Child and Youth Protection, told reporters Feb. 18.
McChesney spoke at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, convened to release the findings of the second national audit of dioceses, assessing their compliance in 2004 with the bishops' "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People." Her office is responsible for coordinating the audits each year and compiling them into a public national report.

The audit report itself contained firm warnings against complacency, saying there is need for "continued external oversight and evaluation" of dioceses.

An accompanying statistical study reported that during the past year there were 1,092 new allegations of past abuse by 1,083 victims involving 756 accused priests or deacons and that dioceses and religious orders spent nearly $158 million on abuse-related matters -- settlements with victims, therapy, legal fees and other costs such as child protection programs and background checks on church personnel and volunteers.

As McChesney highlighted some of the findings of the audit and statistical study and the situation still facing the church, she punctuated the data with the refrain, "We know this crisis is not over."

"We know this crisis is not over because many men and women who have been abused and their family members continue to suffer from psychological, spiritual and emotional wounds," she said. "We know this crisis is not over because, despite the efforts of many, some victims have been frustrated, hurt and sometimes humiliated, by the response of the church. ... We know this crisis is not over because over 300 reports received in 2004 identified alleged abusers previously not known."

"What is over is the denial that this problem exists, and what is over is the reluctance of the church to deal openly with the public about the nature and extent of the problem," she added.

"While a measurable amount of progress has been made, much more is required, but nothing that is beyond our ability," she said.

Also participating in the press conference were Bishop William S. Skylstad of Spokane, Wash., president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; William A. Gavin, head of the Boston-based Gavin Group Inc., which carried out the audits; and Nicholas P. Cafardi, dean of Duquesne University's law school and chairman of the all-lay National Review Board formed by the bishops to provide an ongoing independent assessment of how well they implement the charter.

Gavin, a former assistant director of the FBI, said the 2004 audits, conducted on-site by his investigators, show that "much has been done by motivated people, sincerely dedicated toward bringing closure to past misdeeds and to heal those who have been so abused."

"More, however, can and must be done before this closure is fully realized," he said.

Cafardi said completing the second year of audits "is movement in the right direction, but it is not a cure."

"For even after two years, we continue to see the depths and the pain of the crisis," he said. He added that annual audits will be needed to assure that the church continues to improve its work of child protection.

Gavin said that in 2005 all dioceses will be audited with the same "completeness."

A reporter questioned that assertion, noting the bishops have agreed that dioceses found to be in full compliance in 2004 may be allowed do a self-audit rather than an on-site visit by outside investigators in 2005.

Gavin said, "The same audit instrument for 2005 will be used for every diocese." While dioceses without compliance problems in 2004 will be allowed to fill out the 2005 responses themselves, he said, independent auditors will review those responses. If the auditors have any questions and those cannot be resolved by telephone or e-mail follow-up, "they will go on the scene" to complete the audit.

McChesney said that when one adds the 1,083 new claimants who came forward in 2004 to the 10,667 recorded in a previous study of all cases from 1950 through 2002, the cumulative number of apparent victims from the two studies is 11,750.

While the number of complaints lodged across the country in 2003 has not yet been tallied nationally, "that is something that is being discussed," she said.

"It hasn't been presented to the body of bishops" in the form of a proposal yet, "but it is possible to do that if they agree."

Bishop Skylstad said, "The bishops have certainly been very committed to sharing information on the reality of abuse in this country." He indicated an openness to gathering the 2003 data, saying, "There is no reason for us to hide that information. We want to be very open and transparent -- the charter calls us to do that."

Near the end of her opening remarks to the media, McChesney made an appeal to any victims of abuse who have not come forward yet, saying, "I urge you to consider doing so, particularly if your offender might still be in ministry. Please help us to help you and to protect others as well.

"Our goal is to heal where that is possible and to protect because we must," she added. "Continued vigilance and dedication to this effort is not a choice, it is a necessity."

[MC Just]

I know of a cure. The Vatican can send some people over to completely remove and warn the heterodox in the seminaries and remove "fishy" priests. They have all the power to put an end to this.

[crusader1234]

I think the problem is that we don't have enough Priests for the Church to feel in a position to be doing weeding.

[MichaelFilo]

I think that is a big problem, Crusader. I also know that the Church has chosen lesser priests over the troubled men who were priests before.

God bless,
Mikey

[cmotherofpirl]

It has also become a money racket for lawyers and victims who appear after FORTY YEARS and demand compensation.

[MichaelFilo]

The problem with sexual abuse at an early age is that it doesn't come up till later. Although I don't think all claims are valid, I'd be the slowest to throw out any of them. I personally would hate to be the one to start something like accuse priests of such a thing, even if it happened to me. Add that in with the mind's ability to repress things that arne't desirable in childhood, and you have a problem.

God bless,
Mikey

[Melchisedec]

Why not allow priests marriage? Wasn't this allowed until the 16-17th century, I dont remember. It could be an extreme impulse for sexual gratification, only to manifest itself in the most disturbing deviant behavior.

[Guest Eremite]

Melchisidec,

Allowing priests to marry would only give them their own children to molest, rather than someone else's.

Pedophilia is a very serious sickness, and it affects married men as well as unmarried.

[Socrates]

The problem is that many seminaries have become bastions of homosexuality and other deviant sexual behavior, and are run by those who condone such behavior. Fortunately, some of these have been cleaned up, but all the "pink palaces" definately need to be shut down.
(This topic has been discussed and argued at length in earlier threads.)


Melchisedec - The celibate priesthood has been the norm since the early centuries of the Church. The truth is that the Anglican Church has always allowed married priests, yet has worse sexual abuse problems than the Catholic Church (though this fact is largely ignored by the "mainstream" media).
If the priests involved were heterosexual, they would satisfy their "extreme impulse for sexual gratification" by having affairs with women, not by molesting teenage boys. A quick look at the facts and common sense shows the idea that priests molest boys because they are not allowed to marry to be nonsense. The problem is usually pre-existing sexual problems in the men who become priests.
I know many good priests who are celibate and live holy lives. This discipline requires a high degree of holiness, humility, and focus on the sacred.

Crusader - We need quality, not quantity. We should not accept bad men or perverts to fill numbers. Bad priests do great damage to the Church, and discourage men from wanting to join the priesthood. Good and holy priests do great good for the Church, and their presence helps the Church and draws men to the priesthood. Many seminaries are corrupt, and turn down good orthodox men.
Good seminaries (such as in Arlington) attract many good men and are flourishing, while bad seminaries face a "vocation crisis."

Edited February 23, 2005 by Socrates

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Feb 23 2005, 11:04 AM'] Why not allow priests marriage? Wasn't this allowed until the 16-17th century, I dont remember. It could be an extreme impulse for sexual gratification, only to manifest itself in the most disturbing deviant behavior. [/quote]
[url="http://www.reformation.com/"]http://www.reformation.com/[/url]

A little outdated, but nonetheless shows that sexual abuse does occur even amongst married men and women.

[Guest]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Feb 23 2005, 10:04 AM'] Why not allow priests marriage? Wasn't this allowed until the 16-17th century, I dont remember. It could be an extreme impulse for sexual gratification, only to manifest itself in the most disturbing deviant behavior. [/quote]
priest SHOULD be allowed to marry
no where is it biblical that they shouldnt marry...

ya Jesus didnt marry but that doesnt mean all priest shouldnt marry......
if priest married, sure it would take away some of the time devoted to the church
but on the same token, to out right deny a priest the option to marry is very unfair........ As much as a priest sacrifices and serves in his life, he should have the privlege to take along a wife if he so chooses......

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]priest SHOULD be allowed to marry
no where is it biblical that they shouldnt marry...
[/quote]

Priests have never been allowed to marry. Married men have been allowed to become priests, but if their wife died, they could not remarry. This is an oft ignored (but crucial) distinction.

[quote]to out right deny a priest the option to marry is very unfair........ As much as a priest sacrifices and serves in his life, he should have the privlege to take along a wife if he so chooses......[/quote]

The theology of the priesthood in the West places heavy emphasis on the fact that the priest does indeed marry, but sacrifices a human spouse for a divine spouse (the Church). Since men are not forced to become priests, but rather do so of their own volition, it is erroneous to call the discipline of the west "unfair". A man is free to embrace the vocation of matrimony, if he so pleases. But he has to make a choice which vocation he will embrace.

Even in the East, celibates are the only ones ordained as Bishops. I never hear claims that this practice is "unfair".

As for the biblical practice regarding clerics and marriage, the Apostles did permit married men to become priests, but they didn't have much of a choice. Most men in their culture were married. As the culture in the west gradually become very heavily open to celibacy, the discipline of the Church grew with it.

Edited February 23, 2005 by Eremite

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' date='Feb 23 2005, 03:50 PM'] priest SHOULD be allowed to marry
no where is it biblical that they shouldnt marry...

ya Jesus didnt marry but that doesnt mean all priest shouldnt marry......
if priest married, sure it would take away some of the time devoted to the church
but on the same token, to out right deny a priest the option to marry is very unfair........  As much as a priest sacrifices and serves in his life, he should have the privlege to take along a wife if he so chooses...... [/quote]
[b]1)[/b] It's a discipline, so it can change. However, I highly doubt that'll be anytime soon considering celibacy does free up time and responsibilites, for priests and their busy schedules.

[b]2)[/b] Married men can become priests in the Eastern Rite, but once they're priests they cannot marry.

[b]3)[/b] The average income of a [i][b]diocesan[/b][/i] priest will not be enough to support a family. ($10,000-$12,000?) Let's not forget to mention [b][i]religious[/b][/i] priests, who don't own anything but share everything.


More reasons can be listed, but someone else will cover them for me.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]The average income of a diocesan priest will not be enough to support a family. ($10,000-$12,000?) Let's not forget to mention religious priests, who don't own anything but share everything.[/quote]

The discipline of celibacy is not up for negotation for religious priests, because celibacy is an intrinsic part of the consecrated life. This is why the Church distinguishes between the "vow" a religious makes and the "promise" a diocesan priest makes. Religious make a vow because celibacy is inherent to the religious life. Diocesan priests make a promise, rather than a vow, because celibacy is not inherent to the priesthood, but rather a discipline in force for priests.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Feb 23 2005, 04:04 PM']
The discipline of celibacy is not up for negotation for religious priests, because celibacy is an intrinsic part of the consecrated life. This is why the Church distinguishes between the "vow" a religious makes and the "promise" a diocesan priest makes. Religious make a vow because celibacy is inherent to the religious life. Diocesan priests make a promise, rather than a vow, because celibacy is not inherent to the priesthood, but rather a discipline in force for priests. [/quote]
D'oh! I looked over that detail.