Did John Paul II Solve the Pedophilia Crisis Before We Even Knew About It?

The National Review Board of the United States Council of Catholic Bishops authorized in 2003 the publication of “The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States: A Research Study Conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.”

On Page 28, in chapter 2.3, the study included a graph showing the number of incidents of pedophilia (including ephibophilia) and the number of priests involved in such cases in each year, from 1950 through 2002. The results are strongly contradictory to many of the false notions perpetuated by critics of the Catholic Church of both the left and right. The numbers contained in this article are somewhat round because they have been read from a graph, rather than a table.

Many false notions have greatly damaged the reputation of present leaders of the Catholic Church during the so-called "pedophilia" crisis. While there is much blame to be found, these notions cloud the truth, preventing the best possible response. Without claiming to know what that response is, I will debunk some of the false notions:

Notion 1: The pedophilia crisis was a fruit of the alleged modernism of Vatican 2.

Truth: The crisis was in full bloom before Vatican 2. It is possible that several false expectations of the what the “spirit of Vatican 2” meant may have inspired a laxity of adherence to church laws may have abetted pedophiles, but the timing shows this could not have been a major cause. Vatican 2 went on from 1962 to 1965. By 1962, there were already about 390 incidents of abuse per year. In fact, the fastest growth in the number of incidents occurred between 1959 and 1960. Apparently the increase caught the attention of the Vatican: in 1961, the Pope issued guidelines recommending that homosexuals not be admitted into the priesthood because of the grave spiritual consequences of the burdens of celibacy on the sexually dysfunctional. (Please note that celibacy is much more than mere chastity.)

The number of abuse cases increased from 60 in 1952, to 360 in 1960, a 600% increase in eight years! Between 1960 and 1969, the number of cases increased slightly less than 100% in nine years. Between 1969 and 1980, the number of cases increased only about 10 percent. The vast majority of even these cases were perpetrated by priests who finished seminary long before Vatican 2 began.

[It is quite possible that the pedophilia crisis was much worse than we know in 1950. Any priest alive then would likely be dead by now, and their accusers may be reluctant to come forward to accuse someone when the perpetrator and most possible witnesses are dead.]

Notion 2: The Church failed to limit the pedophilia crisis until it was exposed by the media.

Truth: After 1980, the number of abuse cases dropped in nearly half in the next six short years. And in half again in the next five. And in half again in the next three. In fact, by 1994, the year the media was catching on to the story, the number of abuse cases had been cut by 90 percent. By 1987, there were fewer abuse cases than there had been in 1960. And by 1995, there were fewer abuse cases than there had been in any year in the 1950s.

Notion 3: The Pedophilia crisis was caused by the Catholic Church’s demands of chastity in the priesthood.

Truth: The amazing collapse of the number of annual pedophile cases demonstrates that the church can effectively maintain a celibate priesthood without resultant pedophilia. In 2002, there were still 30 reported incidents, and one may surmise that the number may drift up as new accusers step forward. Even one incident is not acceptable. However, that rate is far, far below rates of other non-celibate vocations that include substantial contact with children.

It is important to note that what is being called pedophilia in this context is not true pedophilia. While women in the general population are roughly three times more likely than men to have been sexually abused (citing Journal of the AMA, 278 (1997): 131-135), nearly four out of five cases of sexual abuse in this study were of boys. And most of the abuse was not of children, but of post-adolescent teenagers. Only 2% of victims were of children under age 5, nearly 80% were age 11 or older.

Sinkspur, you're trying to support the argument, but your endorsement is a walking ad-hominem attack. Unfortunately, Vatican II did NOT allow victims to come forward; they didn't start coming forward for thirty or more years after Vatican II.

That is flatly not true. I know, from personal experience in two dioceses that abuse victims approached bishops in the 70s and 80s and were bought off or told that, if they went public with their accusations, they would end up in court for defamation. The Robert Peebles case is the most notorious, and his victims began approaching Bishop Thomas Tschoepe of Dallas in 1979, two years after Peebles was ordained, and were told by diocesan lawyers that they were lying. And, Andrew Greeley wrote, in 1984, that the abuse crisis would cripple the Church. Even then, he knew the extent of the problem.

And I flatly reject the notion that the priesthood is inherently homosexual.

Father Donald Cozzens, former rector of the seminary in Cleveland, sponsored a national study of seminarians in 1995. The results yielded that 30-40% of seminarians admitted to being homosexual. That, of course, doesn't take into account homosexual seminarians who would never admit it in a survey.

You can believe whatever you want. The fact is, homosexuals are drawn to the helping professions (especially the celibate Catholic priesthood) because they can hide there.

From talking with priests who are spiritual directors and priest psychologists and psychiatrists, as well as retired priests. They will all tell you how homosexuals were screened out of seminary in the first half of the 20th century.

And how would they know this? Do they have access to diocesan files?

Homosexuals who don't want to be found out will not be found out. There were no "priest psychologists" in seminaries in the first half of the 20th century.

You provide no concrete facts to support your contention that there has always been a "systemic" problem of homosexuals in the priesthood. This is the same spurious charge anti-Catholic protestants and secularists use to browbeat the Church into silence on the issue of homosexuality, and to undermine the moral authority of the (mostly celibate) priesthood of Roman Catholicism.

Surely you realize you are advancing the anti-Catholic cause with such unsupported opinions?

Homosexuals who don't want to be found out will not be found out. There were no "priest psychologists" in seminaries in the first half of the 20th century.

So, you are proving their "systemic" existence in seminaries prior to the 1950s, by their seeming nonexistence?

Peculiar logic, but it will be interesting to see how you provide concrete evidence for such a bold assertion...

Homosexuals who don't want to be found out will not be found out.

Tell that to the men who lived, ate, and shared dorms with them for eight years. Talk to a few, 80 to 100 year old priests. ask them how many men were quietly "let go" from seminary because the men who lived, ate, and shared dorms with them for eight years could see through their charade.

You have a very myopic view, biased by your experiences of the latter half of the past century.

Your views do NOT reflect the reality that many men were actively screened out prior to seminary, and during training, and that it didn't take a psychologist or psychiatrist to recognize the peculiar neuroses and psychoses common to those afflicted with homosexual attractions.

These things are blatantly obvious to a spiritual, faithful and well trained seminary director or spiritual director.

You provide no concrete facts to support your contention that there has always been a "systemic" problem of homosexuals in the priesthood.

Let me ask you something.

If you were a very Catholic young man who was attracted to males (and not to females, at all), how would you handle that?

Remember, you are a very Catholic young man in the 1920s (or 1930s, or 1940s, or, for that matter, the 1840s) whose mama expects him to marry and have children. The only thing that would please mama more would be for her fine young very Catholic son to enter the seminary.

And, if you entered the seminary, nobody would ask you why you weren't married, since you couldn't marry.

We are reading news stories today, in 2005, of teachers, scout masters, youth ministers in Protestant churces, who are ephebophiles.

Is it your contention that homosexuals seeking a haven in the helping professions (including the Catholic priesthood and Protestant ministry) is something that sprang, full flower, from the 1960s?

The accusations so sharply served by the press is nothing short of a diabolical attack to remind the clergy of human weakness, and it's an attempt to incite despair.

I see it as a parallel to a demonic oppression of one going through the process of physical death. During such a time, one may face terrific psychological attack reminding them of their past wrongs--real and imagined. I've been told that the worst suffering a Christian could endure is to judge and always find himself unworthy, leaving himself unforgiven rather than allow God to forgive and complete the Reconciliation. I imagine the demonic oppression to be as such: "You can't be a Christian, you are one of us. You belong in Hell with us. Here are your offenses." When the attack shifts: "What will become of you to others who find out?" The isolation continues and an invitation extends: "Stay welcomed with us. 'They' can never understand how we suffer because of 'them'." It's cyclical and disruptive of any rest. (I wondered if this is why my Grandpa was so afraid of death and what caused him to wake in the middle of the nights to pray a rosary in front of my deceased Grandma's photo.)

Perhaps this easy to understand considering since it's how Mel Gibson portrayed Satan's attack upon Jesus, essentially saying that the weight of sin is too much for Him to suffer.

The Spiritual Hope upon such an diabolic oppression is that one is much closer to real life upon approaching and inevitable physical death. The soul expands our flesh the way air fills a balloon. When the soul departs flesh, the owner of that soul is more alive, if in Grace, then he ever was when hindered by unglorified flesh.

This present wicked and unrelenting attack upon the Church is indicative that Christianity will become more alive in its Spiritual existence than ever before. Whatever the physical sufferings and psychological humiliations, we can sing praises in Spiritual Hope that what lay beyond these evil times is a wonder of enlightened blessings.

These things are blatantly obvious to a spiritual, faithful and well trained seminary director or spiritual director.

They were not obvious, in the 1950s during the papacy of Pius XII, to the "well trained" seminary officials who supervised Paul Shanley, William Porter, or John Geohagan, the most notorious ephebophiles in the history of the Catholic Church.

>>>>>Is it your contention that homosexuals seeking a haven in the helping professions (including the Catholic priesthood and Protestant ministry) is something that sprang, full flower, from the 1960s?

I cannot speak for another poster, but I have no doubt that men with a homosexual orientation have always been found among the Catholic clergy. The difference is that, before Vatican II, Catholic culture was one that frowned on sexual expression, but after Vatican II sexual expression was encouraged, even among the clergy, by crack-brained psychologists like Eugene Kennedy who felt that one needed to be sexually active to be "mature."

That's a nice scenario, but you provide no concrete facts to support your contention that there has always been a "systemic" problem of homosexuals in the priesthood.

And if that priest remained celibate his whole life, never buggered any boys or slept with other men, I guess then yes, there probably were such men in the priesthood prior to the 1950s who slipped through the vigilance of the seminary and prescreening.

But we aren't talking about priests who remained celibate their whole life, never buggered any boys or slept with other men, are we? We are talking about sexually active homosexuals who buggered boys and engaged in homosexual behavior.

Of the latter type, you have no proof of their "systemic" existence within the ranks of the priesthood prior to the 1950s, except in small numbers, miniscule numbers compared to post 1950.

try to be honest, now.

They were not obvious, in the 1950s ... to the "well trained" seminary officials who supervised Paul Shanley, William Porter, or John Geohagan, the most notorious ephebophiles in the history of the Catholic Church.

Ah, but maybe they were. Some "progressive" dioceses started grooming a homosexual subculture in the 1950s, and it looks like the cases you indicate illustrate this fact. Boston would probably rank among the "progressives" of that time, given their go-ahead to JFK to distance himself from Catholic thought.

The difference is that, before Vatican II, Catholic culture was one that frowned on sexual expression, but after Vatican II sexual expression was encouraged, even among the clergy, by crack-brained psychologists like Eugene Kennedy who felt that one needed to be sexually active to be "mature."

"Catholic culture" may have frowned on sexual expression, but people with nefarious intentions who could get away with "sexual expression" got away with it.

If you were a 12 year old kid in 1945, and Fr. Murphy, admired and saintly pastor in a 2,000 family parish, took liberties with you, just what would you do?

Who would believe you? Your parents? The remote and very purpled bishop Fanfani (who likely would screen you with a Vicar General or Chancellor or some other bureaucrat whose job it was to make problems go away)? The district attorney, who would be told by Bishop Fanfani that the kid was hallucinating?

It is my contention that homosexual priests preying on young, trusting, never-tell-a-soul adolescents have been a problem throughout the Church's existence. The Church has now been forced to admit and address the issue.

I'm all in favor of ridding the priesthood of active homosexuals, or active heterosexuals, for that matter.

Just what would that do the priesthood, in terms of numbers?

>>>>>>It is my contention that homosexual priests preying on young, trusting, never-tell-a-soul adolescents have been a problem throughout the Church's existence. The Church has now been forced to admit and address the issue.

I don't doubt it. But I think the incidence of it was far greater in the period after Vatican II, because of changes occuring both in the Church and in the broader society. There is no doubt that it is harder to live a life of chastity now, when the society is hypersexualized and those abstaining from sex are portrayed as freaks (even within some quarters in the Church), than during an era when chastity was considered a virtue and "virgin" was something other than a term of abuse.

There is no doubt that it is harder to live a life of chastity now, when the society is hypersexualized and those abstaining from sex are portrayed as freaks (even within some quarters in the Church), than during an era when chastity was considered a virtue and "virgin" was something other than a term of abuse.

Those who abstain from sex for the sake of the Kingdom are to be admired and held forth as examples as contrarians for the Gospel. I know several priests who fit this model, and they are truly men of God in their mission.

In their candid moments, some of them will tell you (as they've told me) they are often lonely, and they long for one person who will simply indulge their desire to be held and told they are wonderful human beings.

No sex, mind you. Just be held, and admired, and told they are simply indispensable in someone's life.

I've heard that from good priests, who miss what they've given up.

But, I tell them, that's what "giving up" means. When you marry, you give up everybody but the one you marry. It's no trick to make love to 1,000 women. It is quite an accomplishment, however, to make love to the same woman, 1,000 times.

Answering a call to celibacy is a decision that must be made before one can answer a call to priesthood, in the Latin Rite. I'm just not sure that's what the Good Lord is demanding of His priests today.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.