Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Study blames U.S. clergy sex abuse on poor training of priests, upheaval of the 1960s

Editor: The Bishops need to start taking responsibility for what they've failed to do in their training of priests and opening the doors of the Church to modern psychological techniques, moral relativism, Marxism and ultimately, Modernism.  It's a convenient time to point out what happened in California with the IHM Sisters at the hands of practitioners like Doctor Coulson who destroyed the lives of the Nuns there by appealing to their desire for becoming more modern.  They became more modern, alright., here and abstract here. Rather than identifying the problem, doing public penance and making restitution, the Bishops have instead, by and large, attempted to nullify the problem through various meaningless gestures and participate with those outside the Church who want to make this a cause for more, not less, Liberalism entering into the Church.  This Liberalism takes the form of sex education, which was part of the problem in the first place, increasing more lay involvement and pushing for an end to clerical celibacy, priestesses and an electoral process for Bishops.

In fact, this observation about the moral ineptitude of the Bishops and their conferences is not that controversial or original as Catholic Church Conservation notes: Cardinal Baggio in 1977 when Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, addressed the Circulo di Roma, a group of diplomats and intellectuals based in Rome.

While dressing up his assessment of Bishops' Conferences in a generally positive light, he declared that, « as they were entirely human institutions, they reveal grandeurs and servility, ambiguity and contradictions, such as improvisation and inexperience, empiricism, group mentality when it comes to expressing an opinion, bureaucratic and administrative inertia, a refusal to take responsibility, a loss of energy and time- these defective elements lead one to consider sometimes that the Bishops’ Conferences are a aberration of pluralism »
Considering that sex-abuse is far more likely to occur among Protestants, and Jews, this study reiterates the true source of the problem, which is Liberalism and Modernism, sins upon which modern Judaism and Protestantism are founded.  

Although the victims studied by the researchers were all legally minors, the authors said only a percentage of accused priests - less than 5 percent - could be technically defined as pedophiles.

Associated Press
Updated: 05/17/2011 11:50:26 PM CDT

WASHINGTON - Researchers commissioned by the nation's Roman Catholic bishops to analyze the pattern of clergy sex abuse over decades have concluded that homosexuality, celibacy and an all-male priesthood did not cause the scandal.

The report from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York said about 44 percent of the known abuse cases involved priests who were ordained in the 1940s and 1950s, at a time when seminaries did not properly train them to live a celibate life. These men were not equipped to withstand the social upheaval of the 1960s, which was a time of an increase in sexual deviancy and a spike in crime in society at large, the authors said.

The full report is the last of three studies commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops as part of child protection reforms adopted in 2002 at the height of the American abuse crisis. Dioceses nationwide have received allegations from more than 15,700 people against about 6,000 clerics since 1950, according to reports John Jay and others compiled for the bishops. The findings are scheduled to be released Wednesday. A person close to the bishops provided a copy to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity since the person was not authorized to release the information.

The debate over what caused the crisis has fallen along ideological lines, with liberals blaming mandatory celibacy or the lack of women in positions of authority. Conservatives pointed to gay priests, since the overwhelming majority of known victims were boys.

The John Jay researchers, however, said that the offenders chose boys mainly because the clergy had greater access to them. [This is the politically correct thing, of course, denying the obvious link to deviant sexual behavior and mental conditions which lead to the abuse.] According to the researchers, abuse cases peaked in the 1970s, then began declining sharply in 1985, following a similar trajectory for the rate of abuse in society at large.

The bishops hoped the results of the study, which were first reported by Religion News Service, would help them better identify potential offenders. The researchers, however, said they found no "psychological characteristics" or "developmental histories" that distinguished guilty priests from clergy who did not molest children.

"No single 'cause' of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests is identified as a result of our research," the authors wrote.

Although the victims studied by the researchers were all legally minors, the authors said only a tiny percentage of accused priests - less than 5 percent - could be technically defined as pedophiles. The John Jay researchers define pedophile as an adult with an intense sexual attraction to prepubescent children. However, victim advocates have disputed that classification, since boys ages 10-14 were the largest group of known victims, which could include children who had not yet gone through adolescence.

Critics argue the study cannot be trusted since the raw data was provided by the bishops.

In February, a Philadelphia grand jury alleged that the local archdiocese kept 37 credibly accused clergy in public ministry, despite repeated pledges by the nation's bishops that no offenders would stay on duty. In response, Philadelphia Cardinal Justin Rigali suspended about two dozen clergy and hired a former prosecutor to review the cases. Ana Maria Catanzaro, the head of the Philadelphia review board, which was formed to advise bishops on abuse cases, said last week that the archdiocese had "failed miserably at being open and transparent" and had kept some cases from the board.

"What Philadelphia does is reveal the flaws in the process," said Ann Barrett Doyle of the advocacy group, which is compiling a public database of all records related to the scandal.

The Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests said the study is useless for protecting children because the focus is on priests, not bishops. No bishops have been disciplined by the pope for keeping offenders in ministry without warning parents or police.

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the bishops' conference, said the bishops fully cooperated with the $1.8 million study, which was funded by the bishops, foundations and a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice.

"John Jay was chosen to do the study because of its independence from the church," Walsh said. "John Jay was free to consult whomever they wanted and they did so."

H/t CDL and Stella Borealis. Link to article, here.


Anonymous said...

I know this is a big report and a lot of money was thrown at it but there are just so many flaws in their research:
The problem isn't a cultural shift, but the culture of cover-ups inside the Catholic Church.

Tancred said...

That report really doesn't refute the study. It just expects us to believe certain cultural stereotypes of dirty hippies as people who are benign and harmless. That's really not the case. Perhaps you should try addressing the claims rather than expecting people to walk down memory lane to Woodstock with you.

Actually, considering that the overwhelming majority of these claims are involving Sodomy, it's a fair guess that the ones committing the crimes are homosexuals.

In any event, the claims of this report that the problem lies with the cultural shift and increasing decadence and moral degeneracy of Western Civ is a valid one. Especially when you consider the degenerates who populate the news and media entertainment complex, but it comes more clearly into focus when you take into account that one of the architects of the so-called "Sexual Revolution", Doctor Alfred Kinsey, actually abused children during his researches, but yet, he's a kind of champion and secular Saint of those in the Left and the Media who want to destroy the traditional institutions which are the remaining pillars of the Western Civ such as it has become.

It's so much easier to be an anti-Catholic bigot than to actually address the plank that's stuck in your eye. We can't think of anyone less savoury than a dirty, Vanity Fair Reading, sexually depraved white liberal, can you?

Anonymous said...

@ Anon1 (above...since I will become Anon2): Don't you think that possibly the fact that there was a cover-up (which was wrong - not debating that) is being used as a way to divert attention from the underlying societal problems that have resulted in not only sexual problems of all kinds, but also abortion & the deterioration of sacramental marriage.

Perhaps the arrow is pointing in the wrong direction. The cover-up is an exceedingly useful tool to divert attention to the fact that there is a REAL problem for everyone here, not just the Church. And the strongest tools to address the problem might come from within the Church's rich philosophical undermining the Church & using the diversion tactic would be a great way for those in favor of more "liberal" points of view (including those who are writing articles about the study in the media)to win more followers to their side.

Just like we all know that child sex abuse is always wrong, there are other moral absolutes, which are being brushed under the rug by silencing one of the few remaining voices against moral relativism in the modern world.

Dan said...

That the report retreats from the glaringly obvious fact that the problem is homosexuality - and the Church's tolerance of it in its priesthood - shows it to be flawed on its face. I certainly cannot disagree with the opinion of Tancred, above. But there is no escaping the fact that cowardice, the fear of a media lynching, prevented the authors from facing the bleak truth.

If the Church is going to continue to try to play down the homo angle then we are going to go from bad to worse in this mess. That the Church is in fact still playing down the sin of sodomy is evidenced in the fact that the disgusting Rembert Weakland is even now being allowed to mince about the world masquerading as a Catholic bishop with not the slightest reprimand from Rome. Yes, he is "retired". I know that. But he's still recognized as a "bishop" by a Rome which long, long ago should have cashiered him.

When the Weaklands, the Mahonys, the (yes)Levadas and the rest of that fairy crew are finally sent to a monastery in the desert I will begin to believe that Rome is getting serious about a problem as hideous and as revolting as the homosexual infestation in its ranks.

chiapet said...

I guess Anon's been reading Jack Chick or Leon Podles, not sure which.

Tancred said...

At least the study has identified PART of the problem.

Anonymous said...

The "homosexual infestation" has been in the Church for centuries. The Roman clergy, including the traditional clergy, was and is designed expressly for gay men. The priesthood is majority gay and probably has been for a very long time. This means that most gay priests aren't molesters. Don't like that most priests are gay? Support optional celibacy for the secular clergy. That'll even the score a bit.

Getting rid of gay priests, even if it were possible, isn't going to solve the abuse problem on its own. Replacing the gay priests with straight priests won't necessarily eliminate abuse since straight people abuse as well. Being straight doesn't preclude mental illness or abusive behavior.

The only solution is thorough individual psychological screening. Rejecting self-identified gay applicants and selecting self-identified straight applicants isn't screening. It's just more denial about sexuality. Any "bans" on gay seminarians will just result in more sexually confused men self-identifying as straight just to join up at seminary.

I'm traditional, but also pragmatic. Abuse is a complex problem that can't be blamed on any one issue. However, this is where the bishops and faithful always seem to go on this issue.

Tancred said...

Abuse isn't that complex really. Most of the perps are also sodomites. The media likes to attribute the issue to the Catholic Church, so it's been very costly in cultural terms. Moreover, if you just followed the rules and kept sodomites out of the Seminaries and got rid of them when their disordered inclination became evident, things would be better.

As it is, we have a society that thinks that prepubescent children should learn about what depraved individuals do.

The Church never tailored the priesthood for sodomites. The fact that they were arrested and turned over to the secular arm for punishment when they were caught is a fairly strong indication that it wasn't.