Skip to comments.Cardinal Speaks (Mahony blames abuse crisis on Pre-Vatican II type priests, Latin and cassocks!)
Posted on 07/17/2007 2:05:50 PM PDT by baa39
Just got off the phone with Cardinal Roger Mahony. Below are my notes from the conversation. (snip) What about the charge that the problem is a lack of discipline and orthodoxy in the seminaries?
Well, first of all that's one of the things that we still are studying. As you know, the bishops are conducting a study of causes.... In our case, many of the priests came out of the "good old days" -- Latin-only, cassocks-only.... Most of our cases did not come out of post-Vatican II, they came out of pre-Vatican II.
Of course today, our screening process, our evaluation process, the fact that we take in older men, we don't take in guys out of high school or even grammar school -- it's a whole different frame of reference for the process of choosing seminarians. There's psychological evaluation, constant monitoring. We do everything we can to make sure that the people being ordained don't have a problem.
On why he didn't call the police when he learned of abuses:
Unfortunately, in those times we just didn't do that as readily, we didn't understand the depth of the problem.... The McMartin trial was first time in the state of California that this whole issue came into the spotlight, into the light of day...
(Excerpt) Read more at insidesocal.com ...
At least it can be rebuilt and done RIGHT.
I believe there are insurance policies that will be covering most of this. I didn’t even know such things can be covered by insurance, but one learns something new everyday.
In the Portland Archdiocese, much of the legal wrangling was with the insurance companies, who came around and are paying a big chunk. However, in the Spokane Diocese (state of Washington), they aren’t so lucky. Bishop Skylstad there has informed his people that they “share in the responsibility” for the abuse, and would they kindly fork over $4000 per family to pay the claims. (And we thought Mahony had nerve!)
He didn’t give exact numbers, but Mahony stated that the majority of the funds will come several insurance policies and the rest from other sources(i.e. laity or rainy day funds).
I disagree... have you toured the building? It is a wonderful work of architecture. Architecture and especially religious architecture is evolving with the advances of our modern world and culture. Just because it is not replication of cathedrals from the Middle Ages does not make it a mistake. Many people put their most creative work into the cathedral. Many, many artisans DONATED their work. Just because it was built during the reign of Mahoney, does not diminish it.
... but then again I love the arts. Historically the Catholic Church has been one of the foremost benefactor of the arts and architecture. (At least this is one thing he may have done correctly).
Why no mention of brothers and nuns? Probably because the incidents were treated identically, but the cover-up succeeded, and I doubt there are as many orphanages in the US now as there was 85 years ago. There are many orphanages in Mexico where I am now writing this, and I hear stories. I can’t say anything to you that would recompense you for what you endured, other than to note that you endured and thrived despite the circumstances.
According to insurance payouts, the rate of RC related abuse and non-RC related abuse is about the same. That means there is a lot more of this out there that is not made public but in other denominations. Not in any way trying to minimize what happened, but I am saying that there is a lot that is not mentioned, and it is not confined to one religion. It is heinous in each circumstance.
Can you please show pictures of the new cathedral to show me what is so nice about Our Lady of the Angels, at least a website that has pictures this new cathedral. One that gives a virtual tour. Thank-you.
Paging Pope Benedict
c. 1401 case for sure.
From the bottom of my heart, heartly wish that Mahony be blessed with two scorpions dropped down his drawers (after a box if itching powder is sprinkled down them first).
There are a couple of facts about the abuse scandal that many people do not know. The first is that there are provisions in canon law for dealing with priests who are accused of misconduct, including sexual misconduct. However, the bishops of this country chose not to use these provisions, not to try these accused priests before tribunals. If they had, they could have gotten rid of the guilty ones. The second fact is that when the bishops approved their much-ballyhooed Charter on the Protection of Youth and Children, they exempted themselves from its draconian provisions. The bishops have truly behaved an irresponsible and hypocritical fashion. Mahony’s excuses are just that, excuses.
I think this is where the culpability of "the spirit of Vatican II" (as opposed to the Council itself) comes into play. The "spirit" of Vatican II blended with and fed off the "spirit of the '60s" -- the sexual revolution, "do your own thing," God wants us to be "happy," etc. Self-discipline, self-denial, sacrifice were out. And the "helping professions" (the therapists to whom offenders were sent for an enlightened "cure") only added fuel to the fire.
Sex abuse was still in the closet 30 years ago, most kids weren't taught to be aware of it either and when it happened, a lot of them were too embarrassed to tell anyone. It was a different climate.
Yes. The root of the problem is that many of them had bought into the psychologization of sin. Either they themselves were poorly catechized, or they simply lacked faith, and trusted in the world.
When psychologists recommended "rehabilitation," many bishops went along willingly. This was a gross abnegation of responsibility, since sin falls well within what should be their sphere of competency. Similarly, bishops should be well acquainted with the philosophical shortcomings of various schools of psychology. But Freudianism, Jungianism, and Behaviorism were very potent cultural forces from the '50s to the '80s. They are only now being seriously and generally questioned.
You've got a good point there.
But there IS another secular notion which was influential, that was/is the Therapy/Treatment model.
For decades after, it seems, WWII, there were influential people in the dioceses and in the religious orders who believed that what should have been called a crime and a sin, was actually just something of a psychological nature that needed compassionate treatment.
Plus there was a widespread conviction in therapeutic circles that criminal proceedings against offenders would re-traumatize the victims: that it was pointless and cruel to get victims under oath to testify against their abusers.
Therefore, all the victims needed was money (to pay for therapy) and all the priests needed was a transfer (to facilitate therapy) + a "second chance."
The Church's legitimate interest in a compassionate approach, + loyalty to brother priests, + avoiding "re-traumatizing" the victims, was twisted into this policy of clerical offenders being sent off for treatment, paralleling the alcoholic-priest model.
In other words, it wasn't all pure corruption, if I can use that paradoxical term. There was also wrongly-directed compassion involved.
When are these so-called "therapists" going to go on trial?
Evolution can be either positive or negative. Most "advances of our modern world," like modern art and architecture, have gone in a southerly direction, to put it kindly.
Sorry, but I can't agree. It's not a compassionate approach if evey word coming out of your mouth is a lie. The church had ZERO intentions of making sure the priests never did it again. They supoposedly threw some head shrinkers at them, personally I think they just had other priests tell them, "what they did was wrong in God's eyes and don't do it again". That is not a psychological therapy, that is trying to guilt someone into doing the right thing. They already knew it was wrong and chose to do it anyway. So the church then just sends them to prey on other children in a new parrish.
I believe that your list of reasons assumes the church itself was concerned about the victims. I contend that is patently false since they let sexual preditors loose on a new parrish and didnt' follow up on the priests AT ALL. Compassion for victims should include NOT allowing the horrible act to happen to another person.
In fact, I know of a priest in my home town diocese who, prior to our area, molested at least on prior parrish. He was was then sent to THREE other parrishes since the one in my area. A FOUR TIME repeat molester, adn the church just sent him off to another parrish to do it all over again.
I personally know of situations in my childhood diocese of Erie, PA where the "therapeutic" model reigned supreme: a genuine attempt to help the youths who had been molested, but based on the wrong-headed idea that "treatment" or "counseling" was the key to everybody (abuser and abused) being able to make a "new beginning."
On the other end of the state - Diocese of Allentown, it was pedophile free reign. Pay the money, ship the priests off to a new parrish, ignore the problem completely - Wash, rinse, repeat.
Good news, I did some google search and found the website for the OLAC. Is taking a look, but it is deep for a website. I am suprise there is no virture tour, but other then for that it is a good site.