Posted on 03/08/2005 5:08:12 PM PST by dangus
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.
There are, and always have been, disproportionate numbers of homosexuals in the priesthood. It's an all-male, celibate vocation.
I do concur that the post-concillar notion of Freudian psychology in the seminaries probably worsened the situation. Freudian pshychology is based on the false notion that exploring dysfunctional behavior extinguished it. In reality, the person rather learns to justify it. Freud didn't realize that dysfucntional behavior was never extinguished because, at heart, Freud didn't really believe any behavior was dysfunctional. Church people who used his techniques should have or did realize that.
>> 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. <<
It IS well established that the pedastery crisis WAS largely full blown before Vatican 2, which was the great change and so which is the relevant time frame. As for priests in office before the 1950s, we have no way of knowing whether they took their secret pervesions to the grave with them.
Martin Luther is a terrible historical source; he almost certainly lied about even going to Rome. He does, however, seem to have been set off by the pedastery of his day. (How widespread this was is hard to know.) That he did not explicitly state what was going on, but made only veiled references which only now seem plain lends him credibility.
>> 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. <<
While I don't believe the priesthood is necessarily an inherently gay profession, I do concur with this.
>> 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. <<
While I don't believe the priesthood is necessarily an inherently gay profession, I do concur with this.
A 95% reduction, suddenly occurring in a few short years is simply because of the aging of the priest population? If the frquency of abuse rounded off then slowly drifted down, perhaps even gradually picking up speed, that would make sense. But rising to a peak, then immediately collapsing 95%? It just can't be.
Who would believe a kid over a priest?
You gotta read this (below), it's simply mindboggling. Believe it or not, it was the same thing with Fr. Paul Shanley.... the cops approached area parents who admitted their boys had been abused but they liked the priest and only wanted to see him moved, not prosecuted! --- that was in the late 60s.
After several parish assignments in the Fall River diocese, Paquette was accused of abuse by more than a dozen minors. However, Clovis A. "Toby" Gauthier, the New Bedford police officer who investigated the accusations in the 1960s, was never able to persuade their parents to press charges.When Gauthier gathered 12 families from St. Kilian's Parish to discuss the abuse, the parents were more interested in protecting Paquette than their children, Gauthier said recently.
"One husband and wife said that they were involved in the church, and if they made the accusations, they might as well pack their bags and move out of town," Gauthier said.
He said Paquette was well respected and earned a reputation for being a strong fund-raiser.
"I told them if they didn't bring charges, this would not be the end of it. And it wasn't," said Gauthier, who subsequently learned Paquette was accused of sexual abuse elsewhere.
Gauthier, realizing his "nice-guy approach" wasn't working, tried to get tough with the parents, telling them details of the abuse Paquette was allegedly inflicting on their children. "One mother responded, 'Do you know how lonely the life of a priest is?' I couldn't believe it. I said, 'Are you kidding me!'" recalled Gauthier, who is retired.
For the full ugly story: "Past still haunts accused priest "
When you come right down to it, the clergy reflects the people like a mirror.
Me too. The old "sin makes you stupid" thing. So stupid in fact, you can't even recognize the sin and it builds on itself over unrepented time.
Oh yeah? Then why were rogue bishops like Law & Mahony transfering pederast priests well into the 1990's instead of defrocking them?
I do believe it is important to stress that this is not, mainly, a pedophelia problem, but a homosexual epheobophelia problem. Though pedophelia was in fact a part of it. The most high profile cases, Shanely and Gheghan, were in fact true pedophiles, preying on pre-pubescent children, and preying on both boys and girls.
Well, you call them rogue. My guess is that they feared that if they actively went after the bad guys, they'd be implicated, too. I dunno. I tried to avoid speculating. I'm only noticing that the problem was 95% solved by the time Crossan's book exposed how bad things were, and that they weren't caused by Vatican 2. Beyond that, such speculation in unwise.
The Church did NOTHING about the sexual abuse crisis until 2002, when lawsuits and publicity forced the issue.
If not for that, the Church would still be harboring predators.
And they have done precious little since.
Except drain diocesan bank accounts, close parishes, and sell the property to pay off judgments.
But yeah, the US Bishops did not do very much until 2002.
What really makes me angry is that very few Bishops have been held accountable for their complicity, and none ever took responsibility for his deeds. I remember after the scandal broke here in Boston, the most Law ever admitted was that he did things that "in retrospect, are wrong." He filled his letter to the parishes with excuses and suggestions that his actions were correct given the information he had at the time. It took over a year for this pitiful excuse for the shepherd to tender his resignation.
Just last month I heard a homily at Boston's Holy Cross Cathedral that refered to the reporters that broke the scandal as agents of the devil. As far as I'm concerned, they did the Church a great service.
It's time we get a pope who's not afraid to crack some heads and hold Bishops accountable. As one writer put it, we've been overdosing on the medicine of mercy for too long.
In my book, that's exactly the kind of thing a rogue does.
Are you kidding me?
That's despicable. These priests ought to be doing penance for the harm their brothers have done instead of castigating the people who exposed the miscreants.
Throw them in jail, or at least remove them from office. Yet John Paul II "the great" fails to even do the latter.
The sad thing is this priest is otherwise quite orthodox.
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.