A five-year study commissioned by the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops to provide a definitive answer to what caused the priest sexual abuse crisis has concluded that neither the all-male celibate priesthood nor homosexuality are to blame.
Instead, the report says, the abuse occurred because priests who were poorly prepared and monitored, and were under stress, landed in the midst of the social and sexual turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s. Known incidents of sexual abuse of minors by priests rose sharply during those decades, the report found, and the problem grew worse when the church’s hierarchy responded by showing more care for the perpetrators than the victims.
The “blame Woodstock” explanation is the same floated by bishops and Pope Benedict XVI since the church was engulfed by scandal in the United States in 2002 and in Europe in 2010.
If we “blame Woodstock” for the combined insidious and infantile attack on Judeo-Christian culture that emerged in the 1960s, grew in strength in the 1970s and which has left us with a legacy of an a-social/anti-social/ignorant/moronic appreciation critical moral values that has left Western Soiety adrift in a cesspool of relativism, then the use of the term “blame Woodstock” is accurate.
When the majority of cases were homosexual predators abusing post pubescent males you can darn well point a finger at homosexuality and say it is at fault in those cases.
Interesting that they admit that the abuse happened “because priests who were poorly prepared and monitored, and were under stress, landed in the midst of the social and sexual turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s” Yet fail to connect the dots that part of that turmoil was the growing acceptance of homosexual relationships.
So which part of the “Woodstock” excuse propelled Cardinal Law and others to shuffle priests from parish to parish, knowing that the priests were serial offenders? Blaming the culture while failing to take responsibility for the failure to report and protect shows the immense level of cowardice infecting the Church of Rome. Some of these prelates ought to be in prison for conspiracy and obstruction.
What 2 and 3 said.
To suggest that the “Woodstock” excuse illumines the problem of priestly sexual abuse is to ignore the numbers of priests ordained in the 40s and 50s who were also promiscuous, sexual abusers and alcoholics. Perhaps the church ought to exam the whole matter of priestly formation during the century of the church triumphant in the United States.
Calling them “post-pubescent males” might be a “nicer” way of saying that boys were abused but it doesn’t take away from the fact that we’re talking about CHILDREN and that it is especially disordered.
If a grown man (over the age of 25, as in the case of priests) raped your 14-year-old daughter, would you consider it to be normal for a man to pursue sex with girls that young? And would you qualify it as “post-pubescent” sex? Of course not. Normal heterosexuals want sex as part of a relationship and with another fully consenting adult. The same would hold true for homosexuals.
Desiring minors isn’t a general characteristic of homosexuality. Grooming and coercing a minor for sex is treated very differently, by morality and by the law, than coercing or raping an 18+-year-old adult. If one of them came after my “post-pubescent” son, I wouldn’t have called him an evil homosexual — I would have correctly called him an evil pervert, just as I would any heterosexual who went after a teen-age girl.
This article on the Family Research Council might disabuse of your misconceptions about homosexuals and sex abuse.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3
Post pubescent boys and girls are not young children they are teenagers and someone who is sexually attracted to them will not be sexually attracted to a child. In fact from a strictly biological view it makes sense. But fortunatly biology is not the sole determiner of our moral values so yes adults over a certain age having sex with young teens is legally and morally wrong. But it is not the same as having sex with a child who has not yet reached puberty.
The term is “ephebophile”. In the colorful Vernacular of the Homosexual community, they are also known as “chicken hawks”. A valuable service, indeed, as the chickens rapidly turn into roosters (capons?), continuing the tradition of sodomy. It would seem that the Catholic church should recognize (or at least admit) that they have been a haven for this practice for centuries. Blaming it on the sixties is a cop out (sorry). At most the “liberation” of the sixties made it acceptable to talk about the subject without universal condemnation. They started nothing.
All institutions where children are found are subject to targetting by those who wish to abuse and harm vulnerable people. The issue is how we deal with that. The problem in the US catholic church was how the issue was dealt with, or not dealt with, when reported. There is an institutional culpability which is as far as I can see not being recognised. While this denial continues, there appears little prospect that the necessary change in mindset to deal with protecting the vulnerable, and promptly dealing with perpetrators will take place.
Blame everyone and everything but yourself seems to be the continuing message at all levels from the Vatican down. In England at least the churches, including the Catholic Church, helped by government legislation has sought to make child abuse as difficult to perpetrate as possible by acknowledging the problem, and putting procedures in place to anticipate and deal with the problem. If the problem is not acknowledged, the institutional safeguards are unlikely to be put in place. Catholics elsewhere would do well to take a lead from their English cousins.
From the article:
[blockquote]In one of the most counterintuitive findings, the report says that fewer than 5 percent of the abusive priests exhibited behavior consistent with pedophilia, which it defines as a “psychiatric disorder that is characterized by recurrent fantasies, urges and behaviors about prepubescent children.
“Thus, it is inaccurate to refer to abusers as ‘pedophile priests,’ †the report says.
That finding is likely to prove controversial, in part because the report employs a definition of “prepubescent†children as those age 10 and under. Using this cutoff, the report found that only 22 percent of the priests’ victims were prepubescent.
The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders classifies a prepubescent child as generally age 13 or younger. If the John Jay researchers had used that cutoff, a vast majority of the abusers’ victims would have been considered prepubescent.[/blockquote]
In my examples, I used the age of 14 for post-pubescence because of the APA classification of 13 and under as pre-pubescence. But look at the age the Vatican used — 10. In that, they’re saying that those who abuse 11- or 12-year-olds aren’t pedophiles. Seriously?
Do they honestly think that way or is it a way of ameliorating the statistical impact?
I think physical charaterestics are a more honest determination of puberty. Especially in females as the age of FMP seems to be getting younger and younger. That mind you is only in terms of how to classify a sex offender’s perversion for medical purposes. It would not mean reclassifying it legally. I don’t care if a ten year old boy has beard stubble and a voice change. He is still a ten year old child in all other respects.
“But look at the age the Vatican used—10. In that, they’re saying that those who abuse 11- or 12-year-olds aren’t pedophiles. Seriously?”
Teatime,
Where in the article do you find the statement that the Vatican used the age of 10 as the upper limit of pre-pubescence?
According to the article, the study was commissioned by the U.S. Catholic bishops, conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in NYC, and paid for by the US Catholic bishops as well as the research agency of the U.S. Dept. of Justice and Catholic organizations and foundations (none of which are identified as “the Vatican”). Looks pretty American to me. (I won’t insult anyone’s intelligence by addressing the canard that the Vatican micromanages decisions of bishops’ conferences or that all these Catholic organizations – not to mention the Dept. of Justice – were somehow responding to directives from the Vatican.)
Were KJS to commission a study, would anyone refer to it as issuing from Lambeth Palace?
Note also that some articles point out that no other institution, religious or secular, has conducted this kind of study of sex abuse w/in its own ranks. Even if the study has its flaws (and what study doesn’t), it’s an important step forward and should be lauded on that basis alone. Now, will other religious groups be willing to engage in the same kind of self-scrutiny? And if they do, what will the nature of the criticisms against them be? Should be interesting.
Anne,
Of course a KJS-commissioned study has nothing to do with Lambeth Palace. Does Lambeth Palace appoint our bishops? No. Does Lambeth Palace even have anything to do with whom we elect as our Presiding Bishop? No. Does Lambeth Palace oversee the operations, governance and policies of TEC? No.
The Anglican umbrella of churches is completely different in structure and oversight than the RCC. The American bishops and conferences answer to Rome, are overseen by Rome, and reflect/enforce Vatican policies. I would find it difficult to believe that the Americans would commission a study on this sensitive topic without the Vatican being aware of the details and parameters.
But that’s an interesting issue being brought up in a U.S. federal court, isn’t it? The Vatican has been ordered to turn over records regarding an abusive priest. It’s expected to resist the order, claiming state sovereignty. The outcome could define the relationship between priests, bishops and the Vatican as it concerns American law.
In one sense age is not the issue. The issue is men who prefer males of whatever age for their sex. This is called homosexuality. Giving this abnormality other names doesn’t change the disorder. If it walks like a duck etc. Larry
Teatime,
I still don’t understand why you said the Vatican set the age of pre-pubescence at or before the age of 10? I too am sure the Vatican was aware of the study. But are you suggesting the Vatican pulled the strings of the John Jay Institute when it conducted the study? If so, please supply your evidence.
Here is a list of the donors who contributed to the report (according to the first page):
• The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
• National Institute of Justice
• Knights of Columbus
• Raskob Foundation
• Catholic Mutual Group
• Sisters of Charity Ministry Foundation
• Luce Foundation
• Catholic Health Association of the United States
• St Joseph Health System
• Greater Cincinnati Foundation
• Assisi Foundation of Memphis
• Daughters of Charity Foundation/Province of the West
• “Anonymous†donations
• Individual donors
You can [url=http://www.usccb.org/mr/causes-and-context-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors-by-catholic-priests-in-the-united-states-1950-2010.pdf]download the whole thing[/url] from the USCCB’s website.
Distinguished from the comments that impugn the study because of caricatures and mis-information, here is a criticism that strikes me as well-reasoned and based on an authoritative perspective:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/critics-say-new-study-misses-real-reasons-for-priest-abuse-crisis/
thanks, Anne. It’s nice to know that there is common sense somewhere. And yet, the criticisms leveled are ones that we knew already, are they not? The difference is that the man speaking here is a specialist – one of those people without whom we are not capable of knowing anything. Larry
Anne, I didn’t write “set,” I wrote “used.” And that’s indeed what they did — according to the article, they used these parameters in their findings that 22 percent of the abusers are pedophiles. The Church commissions studies such as this one to gather statistics and then it uses those statistics in its reports, letters, and articles from the Vatican down to individual dioceses.
If you want to play with semantics, that’s fine — have at it but I’m not playing. But surely you don’t believe that any large segment of the church is going to commission a study in a vacuum and its findings are not going to be referenced, quoted and noted by the whole church? Again, I never said that the Vatican set or manipulated the study’s parameters but I am saying that the Church, including the Vatican, uses the findings in its communications.
Ironically, with the order of the federal judge in Oregon for the Vatican to release documents regarding an abuser, that splitting hairs argument has been the same — the bishops “aren’t employed” by the Vatican. Now, the Vatican chooses the bishops, holds them accountable and can silence or remove them, too. The bishops cannot act in a unilateral way in their respective dioceses but must consult with and follow the will of the Vatican. However, in this matter, the argument is that since the bishops aren’t paid by the Vatican, then they’re something like independent contractors in their diocese. As my dear, departed mum used to say, “bulltaddy.”
If their employment really is by the diocese, then the diocese should have authority in their “hiring” or selection. But the Vatican chooses and names them, the dioceses do not. And the dioceses have no power to get rid of the baddies, either.
They can’t have it both ways — they can’t insist that the central authority in Rome makes all of the decisions, appointments, and claims supremacy only to disavow that notion by invoking technicalities when the storm clouds are brewing. If, as is expected, the Vatican refuses to comply with the court order, then the arguments and the outcome of them will be very interesting.
Teatime,
Your first paragraph makes statements that, withouth evidence, are your own projections of how the Catholic Church works. Who is the “they” in your statement that “they” used certain parameters? You’re assuming, it seems, that “they” means all the parties involved in the John Jay report, all of whom were directed by the Vatican. Not even Laurie Goodstein (no friend to the RCC) has made that claim. I think you’re also assuming that bishops are mere rubber stamps of the Vatican. Not so. Read the documents of Vatican II. As for the Vatican using this report, that remains to be seen. And if it does use it, how will it use it? Could we please remain in the realm of actual fact?
Larry,
I agree that many readers of this particular blog already “knew†the criticisms stated by Fitzgibbons. But there are readers/speakers/writers in other fora who “know†that sex abuse in the RCC has had to do with (take your pick) clergy celibacy, un-thinking obedience to superiors, a bunch of old, white men running the Vatican, etc.
Something tells me you share my wariness about specialists. One could also challenge or even dismiss the statistical data of the John Jay report. For all that, however, the data and the professional interpretation of same will, in my opinion, provide a sounder basis on which to grope our way to an understanding of exactly what happened and why. Though something tells me the logically air-tight explanation will ultimately elude us. Evil doesn’t really submit to logic.
Which brings me back to my requests for clarification on earlier statements on this thread. We might not be able to shed light on every nook and cranny of this hideous mess. But I hope we can be supportive (even critical in a supportive way) of efforts at making sense of it – such as the John Jay report and Fitzgibbon’s response. I suspect you also would agree with me (if I do not presume too much) that such support includes checking the tendency to spin caricatures and inaccuracies.
From the link at 18: [blockquote]The report “says that 81 percent of the victims were male and 78 percent were post-pubescent,†he reiterated. “Since 100 percent of the abusers were male, that’s called homosexuality, not pedophilia or heterosexuality.â€
“A homosexual is defined by his actions, not his identity,†he said. [/blockquote]
But I do agree with you Anne. As to specialists: I was a high school teacher and administrator for most of my professional life. Teaching has “specialists” the way a mutt has fleas. they are called consultants. And like fleas, they are parasites. My objections to specialists is therefore colored grimly by having to deal with degreed incompetence.
Still, your link is clear and sensible and correct, and I shouldn’t let my aggravation get the better of me. Nevertheless, I have seen this again and again: What the past knew as a matter of course fell out of fashion until and only until a specialist told us that what we knew as true is true. Remember when we were being told that there was no significant difference between men and women? And then the specialists actually studied the differences and concluded that there are enormous difference therein. Epiphany! So here. Larry