The Scandal Driving the Church Sex Scandal

American Thinker ^ | April 01, 2010 | Selwyn Duke

[neverdem]

We've all heard the story. Hundreds of young sexual abuse victims long afraid to come forward for fear of embarrassment and scorn, abusers escaping prosecution and quietly moving to different jurisdictions, authorities covering up the crimes to avoid scandal and litigation. It's a saga of grave, grave sin.

Of course, you would assume that I'm talking about the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal.

And you would be wrong.

I'm describing the situation in America's schools -- something that, although mirroring the problems dogging the Church, is strangely ignored.

Let's examine the similarities using statistics from the United States. According to the John Jay Report, 10,667 people made allegations of child sexual abuse (not all were substantiated) committed by priests between 1950 and 2002; according to an AP investigation, at least 1,801 educators committed sexual misconduct involving minors between 2001 and 2005. So the per annum tally is:

Number of people making allegations against priests - 205

Criminal educators - 360

Now, since it's logical to assume that numerous individuals made accusations against the same priests, the number of clerical transgressors is no doubt less than 205. Yet even if we use the 205 figure, the number of offenders appears to be approximately 76 percent greater among educators. But that doesn't even begin to tell the whole story.

While it's obvious that a certain percentage of cases must have gone unreported in both education and the Church, the latter has been subjected to intense media scrutiny while the former has remained off the radar screen. Thus, it's reasonable to assume that the percentage is higher in education. As to this, the AP tells us about a Congress-mandated study placing the number of students sexually abused by an education worker at some point between kindergarten and 12^th grade at 4.5 million. Furthermore, the AP found that most of this sexual abuse is never reported and that even when it does come to light, often no action is taken.

Of course, the other side of the coin is that the number of teachers nationwide is greater than that of priests, so a raw-numbers analysis may be deceptive. So let's examine the rate. Wapedia reports the following: "A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse by Dr. Thomas Plante of Stanford University and Santa Clara University states that 'available research suggests that approximately 2 to 5% of priests have had a sexual experience with a minor' which ‘is lower than the general adult male population that is best estimated to be closer to 8%.'"

Now let's look within the numbers, at the nature of the abuse and abusers. While we hear a lot of media reports about sultry female teachers seducing young teenage boys, the reality is that almost nine out of ten school offenders are male.It's also true that in the cases of both the Church and the schools, the abuse is, by definition, not pedophilia, as the abused were mainly adolescents, not children.

Here critics may point out that there is a difference: The abuse among priests is mainly homosexual in nature. This is true, but I can't imagine that it would bother the secular left very much. After all, this is the set that for years has maintained that there is a moral equivalence between heterosexual and homosexual behavior and that saying otherwise is bigotry. Unless they're now changing their tune...

Another similarity is the cover-up by school officials, who, as stated earlier, were motivated by the same priorities as the most remiss bishop: a desire to avoid embarrassment, scandal, and punitive court judgments. As an example, the AP presents the story of Gary Lindsey, an Iowa teacher who was fired from his first job for sexual misconduct but then allowed to work elsewhere for about thirty more years. During these decades, Lindsey transgressed against other students, dodging the hangman every time with the complicity of school administration. And his is no isolated case. In fact, the practice of transferring sexual predators is so common that it has become known as "passing the trash," and the abusers have been dubbed "mobile molesters."

Despite this, we currently have trash being passed daily -- it's called media reportage. Why don't we hear stories about people who believe that the schools should be defunded, or that parents should stop sending their children to them (similar things are said about the Church)? Why has the Vatican been placed in the unenviable position of having to defend itself with the "Look, others have the same problems" argument? Why does Rome have to take up the cudgels for itself and point out that its woes just reflect the wider society? It's because the media aren't doing their job.

...That is, at least, what their job should be. What some within the mainstream media see it as being -- to attack traditionalist institutions -- they're doing very well. 

The Church receives such disproportionate scrutiny for the same reason why the media will happily smear Pope Pius XII as a Nazi sympathizer when he was possibly WWII's greatest hero and why they paint the Crusades as imperialistic wars when they were but a defense against Muslim aggression: The media views the Church as an enemy. They despise its teachings on abortion, the all-male priesthood, and, in particular, sexuality. You see, if the schools taught such things, then they too would surely be in the crosshairs. But their embrace of all the left's favorite isms grants them great immunity.   

Now, this might be where I'm supposed to issue the obligatory statement about how we're all appalled by the sex crimes in question.

But it's not really true.

And what comes to mind is late Massachusetts congressman Gerry Studds. In 1983, it was revealed that he had had sexual relations with a 17-year-old male page, which, as ephebophilia (attraction to older adolescents), is precisely that of which many transgressing priests are guilty. And what was his punishment?

The liberals in his district reelected him six more times until his retirement in 1996.

By the way, some may point out that Studds' behavior was legal, as the age of consent in Washington, D.C. was 16. Of these people, I would ask: Are you equally charitable with priests who had "legal" relationships with teenage boys?

Then there is serial sex criminal Alfred Kinsey, the bug researcher-cum-human sexuality "expert" who ran a pedophile ring disguised as a research team. If you read the piece I wrote about him (and trust me, this one is worth the time), you'll find that his research included things such as encouraging pedophiles to continue committing crimes so that he could collect more "data." Yet there has never been a hue and cry for a pound of flesh from the Kinsey Institute; the University of Indiana in Bloomington, where the deviant plied his trade; or Paul Gebhard, a still-living Kinsey co-author and partner in crime. On the contrary, the left not only defends Kinsey, but it even lauded him in a whitewashed 2004 film.                   

So do the Church's critics really care about sexual abuse? Some do, for sure. But there's no doubt that many of those using the issue to attack the Church do not. And "using" is the key word. If they truly cared about sexual abuse of youth, they would take pains to emphasize that it isn't limited to the priesthood. Oh, I'm not saying that they would necessarily do this to defend the Church; they would do it to truly expose the problem. Instead, they're simply interested in exposing the Church to ridicule, and to this end, they use these abuse victims as a convenient vehicle through which to attack a hated adversary. This is typical of the left, which makes a practice of using people as human shields, props, and political hammers.

Of course, crimes against innocence are abhorrent, and those committing them should be rooted out wherever and whoever they may be. Likewise, those who knowingly and negligently facilitate their abuse must be punished harshly, and the incompetent should lose their positions. But this just states the obvious. If we really want to move toward a more sexually sane society -- get at the root causes, as it were -- then we must delve more deeply. 

We can argue about facts and figures. We can debate whether sexual trespass is worse in schools or in churches, and many will, no doubt, try to make the case that the secular world is a safer place. But of this there is no doubt: The social phenomena making us a more libertine and morally unmoored civilization are the handiwork of the left.

It was not the Church that sexualized society with Kinseyesque sex miseducation and prurient messages everywhere -- in movies, shows, music and on the Internet. That was leftist academia, Hollywood, and their brothers in porn. It was not the Church that expanded the First Amendment to include protection of obscene imagery. That was leftist judges. It was not the Church that spread moral relativism and its corollary, "If it feels good, do it," an idea that can find pedophilia no worse than peanut butter. That was leftist philosophers and the millions who wanted freedom to sin. It was not the Church that, reducing man to mere beast, found a basis for his behavior in the animal kingdom. That was leftist anthropologists and their acolytes. And it was not the Church that first subordinated punishment to "rehabilitation" and subscribed to slap-on-the-wrist pseudo-justice. That was leftist psychology. Of course, insofar as the Church has allowed itself to become infected with the spirit of the age, it is culpable. But know that it is the infected, not the infection.

As for the cure, the Church has done much in recent times to root out sexual abuse -- far more than the schools. Even closer to the point, its teachings provide necessary guide rails for man's sexuality. Yet critics call this age-old wisdom "antiquated." The left obviously prefers to take its lead from the Kinsey Distorts, Hugh Hefner, and Hollywood. But if the pleasure principle is going to be our master, then we shouldn't wonder why we're taking our children on a field trip through Caligula's court.

Contact Selwyn Duke

[AliVeritas]

You have so much info, I figured you had that for comparison.

I know someone who works with priests in CT, I will ask him in person for it and forward.

[SkyPilot]

There are problems in all institutions, but the attempt to dilute the problem in the Catholic priesthood doesn't help the argument.

Back in 2002, when the homosexual priest scandal broke over the levy, thousands cried and demanded that the church defrock and toss out homosexual priests.

The Catholic church failed to do so then, and it fails to do so today.

The Gay Priest Problem

This former priest told me that his gay clerical colleagues constantly taunted the straight priests in their diocese, telling them that they might as well get girlfriends, because nobody cared. In fact, said the former priest, this was true: the bishop was in their corner, and nobody would care at all. The former priest said the rigors of the celibate life were tough enough without having to deal with many of one's fellow priests making a mockery of it. This man told me every heterosexual in his ordination class eventually left the priesthood, demoralized.....Sipe, who is probably the expert on the sexual lives of Catholic clerics, told me that the seminary system is the problem. Many seminaries are run by corrupt gay clerics, he said (Fr. Doyle agreed). If a seminarian struggling with homosexuality and chastity is admitted, the attempt will quickly be made to corrupt him by getting him involved in sexual activity. If he falls, he's done for. Even if he repents and lives a blameless celibate life thenceforth, the network has something on him, and is willing to use it. He's been neutralized. Besides, the network takes care of its own. It's impossible to say for sure how many bishops are thus compromised.

As it turned out, I interviewed a woman who had worked for him closely in one of his previous assignments, and who had gone to him to report that one of his priests was engaged in some very perverse sexual acts in the church. The woman told me that Bishop X. did nothing about it, and even informed the malign cleric, who taunted the woman by saying, "He's not going to touch me. When you have them by the balls, their hearts follow." This priest eventually went to prison (I checked) for sexually abusing minors, and this bishop's career advanced to a plum see. Unless you've spent a lot of time talking to people who have dealt with this stuff personally, it's hard to believe this situation really exists. I interviewed a seminarian who had been studying in a religious order's seminary, but who left for a diocesan seminary because, he said, gay sex was open and rampant in the particular order seminary in which he was studying. He told his own parents about what he was dealing with, and they didn't believe him. They couldn't believe him: priests didn't do these sorts of things, as they saw it. I firmly believe that John Paul II was so dreadful on the scandal because he couldn't face the extent and degree of the corruption.

Fr. Cozzens was, and is, correct. And Fr. Shaughnessy, the Jesuit who identified the Catholic Church's inability to deal straightforwardly with the powerful gay subculture in its clerical ranks, is also correct about the broader institutional effect of this culture of denial. But I don't look for the Roman Catholic church, or other churches dealing with the issue in its clergy, to talk about this honestly, or at all, anytime soon. Too many people, gay and straight on all sides of the issue, inside the churches and outside, are too invested in keeping up appearances. UPDATE: I ran across just now an old post from Grant Gallicho at the Commonweal blog asserting that conservative Catholics are distorting statistics to make the scandal seem like an exclusively gay problem. Grant quotes directly from the John Jay Report: The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female.

The church and whine and complain all it wants about how "unfair" the criticism has been. The real issues is that the church REFUSES to deal with the cancer of rampant homosexuality in its ranks.

Father Cozzens estimated on Meet the Press several years ago that the number of homosexual priests was probably 50%, or higher. Father Doyle agreed.

This isn't a "problem." This is a cancer that has just about succeeded in killing the body, but the patient still denies he is sick.

[Wpin]

Your logic is illogical...

[Elsie]

During your whole school life, how often, if at all, has anyone (this includes students, teachers, other school employees, or anyone else) done the following things to you when you did not want them to?

[Elsie]

During your whole school life, how often, if at all, has anyone (this includes students, teachers, other school employees, or anyone else) done the following things to you when you did not want them to?

WHAT!?

So what are the 'rules' if the person DID 'want them to'?

[A.A. Cunningham]

So keep kids away from teachers and priests; got it.

Correction: So keep kids away from teachers and priests and married men and protestant ministers and rabbis and coaches; got it.

[count-your-change]

The tearful couple are to live happily ever after until the pregnancy can’t be hidden any more, whereupon they are required to declare their undying love for one another and everyone should just “understand”.

[count-your-change]

Please do. I have not heard of a polling of anyone seeking such specific information.

[little jeremiah]

The Lavender Mafia was the influx of homosexuals in the seminaries in I guess the 60s-80s. A good book about this that I haven’t read and wish I had on my book shelves was “A Few Good Men” but I can’t remember the author. I almost bought it on Amazon a couple of times. Michael something.

Once the homosexuals get in there, they hire/appoint/favor more of their creepy kind, and exclude/disfavor normal men, especially those who oppose their disgusting agenda. They also had homosexuals influence the psyhochological testing that men who wanted to become priests went through - that was really bad.

[Anti-Utopian]

What a brave new sexually liberated world the Left has given us.

[D-fendr]

You’ve bought into the media agenda on this.

[count-your-change]

How so? and just what is this “media agenda” you speak of that I’m accused of buying into?

[D-fendr]

The Catholic Church has cleaned house with the Pope leading the way.

Given the current situation, singling out the Church, and Pope Benedict, for attack is solely based on political or religious agendas.

The article for this thread elaborates, as well as this one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2484819/posts

The media agenda is to bring down the Church and Christians in general.

[D-fendr]

More links here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2480925/posts?page=40#40

[count-your-change]

The news media in their wildest imaginations could not do the damage to the Catholic Church that it has done to it's self.

No matter what their agendas, political or religious, it was the tolerance and protection of truly evil men by the Catholic Church that made a scandal possible and inevitable.

Several times priests used the term “brother priests” but how many times do you suppose they referred to any of the victims as “my brother”? Avoiding the scandal in the newspapers was far more important than “the weightier matters of the Law, justice, mercy and faithfulness”.

“The Catholic Church has cleaned house with the Pope leading the way.”

And it only took the pain of a $2 billion to $3 billion payout to produce virtue.

[D-fendr]

Regardless of your personal opinions about the past events and motives, the current situation reveals an agenda by the media contrary to the facts, most evident in the huge effort to smear and scandalize Pope Benedict. Regardless of the truth the left and the media have had this agenda for quite some time.

That’s the topic of this thread and others I linked to.

[lentulusgracchus]

They also had homosexuals influence the psyhochological testing .....

Oh, crap. Hadn't known that little detail. Of course, we both know the garbage that Judson Marmor and Robert Spitzer pulled with the Hooker study (itself badly compromised), when they rolled the American Psychiatric Association and helped set up Division 44 at the American Psychological Association back in the early 70's. Wonder what the human cost is so far, from what these people did? Ruined lives, drug dependencies, suicides. They've got to feel all warm and fuzzy every time a homosexual counselor helps "skin" a "questioning" or "bi-curious" patient. As for the patient ..... good luck, honey.

[lentulusgracchus]

No matter what their agendas......

Uh, no, it doesn't work that way.

Motive does in fact subvert authority -- as when a public official acts within his offices, but with ulterior, corrupt agenda.

No doubt you would like us to brush by the fact that over half -- over three quarters -- of New York Times front-page editors are gay/bi/out. This according to one of their number, who was publicly contemplating their happy estate under the guiding hand of "Pinchy" Sulzberger, the scourge of straight journalism.

[lentulusgracchus]

[Your quoted source]

And Fr. Shaughnessy, the Jesuit who identified the Catholic Church's inability to deal straightforwardly with the powerful gay subculture in its clerical ranks......

Oh, I wouldn't say they have an inability ..... they are just refraining from employing all their abilities in deference to public opinion.

They are perfectly capable, left to their own devices, of solving the problem.

[xzins]

The Roman Catholic Church is becoming more and more dear to me as it is attacked again and again.

Is it a coincidence that this happens at the time taxpayer-funded abortion is an issue again. Who is standing stalwartly against it, and has led the charge opposing abortion in every century? The Roman Catholic Church.

In my Methodist Church and in the Presbyterian Church, 2 churches also dear to me, the news of the week is of the nice liberals within it who either support abortion or gay marriage or any other liberal cause. The desire is to attack the growing Calvinism and the growing evangelicalism in mainline Protestantism.

Again, Satan is attacking conservative Christians in whatever denomination and trying to rout them.

I guarantee that within a fortnight we’ll hear of “evangelicals” outed regarding paedophilia, homosexuality, theft, greed, or any other number of abuses.

Fire away. I have on my flame-retardant, Servetus suit.