NYT: Church Report Cites Social Tumult in Priest Scandals

[zoony]

Oh wow, are you on the wrong side of this.

From Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation:

You should probably spend a little less time in knee jerk responses about anything you think makes a group of Christians or Christianity look bad, and a little more time actually investigating the issues.

Especially since you accidentally fell on the wrong side :

from the article:

William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a conservative Catholic group, however said he believes permissiveness in the church in the 1960s and 1970s - particularly at seminaries - had been a significant reason for the rise in sexual abuse. Mr. Donohue said that while he generally supported the report’s findings, he believed that the study seemed to have purposefully avoided linking abuse cases with the increase in the number of gay men who became priests during the 1960s and 1970s. “The authors go through all sorts of contortions to deny the obvious - that obviously, homosexuality was at work,” Mr. Donohue said.

:doh: (not at you techboy, at the quote above)

This "study" is an embarassment to the Catholic Church. It briefly mentions lax admission standards in the 60s and 70s, but what this is really about is blaming the sexual revolution.

What's more, I'm not convinced that sexual assaults did rise thru the 80s and 90s. I just think they were finally being reported.

This is an issue that can sink the Catholic Church, imo. They need to address it head on and start coming up with something other than blaming Bob Dylan. What an embarassment.

---------- Post added May-18th-2011 at 09:45 PM ----------

Their argument about "permissive times" being a factor would be a lot more convincing if there was a corresponding flood of cases of child rape by school teachers and youth group leaders in the 60s. To my knowledge that's not the case.

not only that, but from the article :

Kristine Ward, the chairwoman of the National Survivor Advocates Coalition, said the cultural explanation did not appear to explain why abuse cases within the Catholic church have shaken places from Australia and Ireland to South America. “Does the culture of the U.S. in the 1960s explain that? It’s hard to believe,” she said.

[Hunter44]

I don't think that the celibacy thing has anything to do with being a homosexual or a pedophilia. If someone is straight or gay or whatever then they will break their vows all the same.

I do think that the church knowingly created a haven for pedophiles.

[jnhay]

I can't see how celibacy can make someone want to molest children. The only scenario I could see being possible is that these guys had these urges before they became priests and might have seen the priesthood either as an opportunity to molest, or a way to force themselves to not act on their urges. No normal person would turn to children if they made an oath of celibacy. If anything, they'd just break the oath with a full grown woman and/or man.

[DCSaints_fan]

Its not just "the 60s". There is a substantial element in the RCC, that many like Fr. Hans Kung claim has largely taken over the hierarchy, that wants to pin almost every failing of the Church in the past 50 years or so, on Vatican II (which happened 1962, largely before of the social and culturual upheaval of the US in the mid to late 60s). While following the letter of that council, they largely ignored its spirit and hope one day to overturn it, if slowy. Or so Kung would claim.

I wonder what they would have to say about this article. Appanrelty this has been a problem since atleast the late 1940s, if not earlier. Of course, there were no lawsuits or publicity, which was the real problem.

http://blogs.alternet.org/cityofangelsonalternet/2010/09/20/pedophile-priest-rehab-started-in-1950s-says-brochure-promoting-servants-of-paraclete-scanned-here/

[Spec138]

You should probably spend a little less time in knee jerk responses about anything you think makes a group of Christians or Christianity look bad, and a little more time actually investigating the issues.

The systematic abuse and protection of abusers for decades did a great job of making the Church look bad on its own.

How am I making a knee jerk response by saying it's ridiculous to blame this on the culture revolution of the 60s and 70s? Does that not sound bat**** insane to you? It is hard for me to believe the church has any credibility at all after the airing of this scandal.

I don't really care about the homosexuality thing, I realize there is a difference in attraction to children and men/women, you win on that inconsequential point.

Especially since you accidentally fell on the wrong side

You lost me

[techboy]

The systematic abuse and protection of abusers for decades did a great job of making the Church look bad on its own.

That's true.

How am I making a knee jerk response by saying it's ridiculous to blame this on the culture revolution of the 60s and 70s?

If you had stopped there, I wouldn't have commented.

You lost me

You were so eager to mock the Catholic Church for having priests take vows of celibacy, that you inadvertently came down on the side of William Donohue, that it's all because they ordained homosexuals that couldn't control themselves.

That's pretty funny to me.

[gbear]

While I was away, I heard a report on the news saying the Vatican has released new orders for Priests to report any child abuse they know about to authorities where required to do so by law.

So where is it not required?

[DRSmith]

The Mormon Church grew to 6,058,907 members in 2010...and the Roman Catholic church grew to 68.5 million members last year.

I would take this with a grain of salt if they are including babies baptized

[scruffylookin]

They wasted money on this?

I mean seriously, it's very simple what has/is going on.

The priesthood, as a vocation, has fallen off a cliff in the last 50 plus years. Nobody is going into the priesthood. This means that the Church must take in lesser candidates (including many with likely some mental "issues") in order to stem the tide of the shrinking number of clergy.

Molesting boys has nothing to do with "not getting any" or being gay or the free love 60's. It has everything to do with being mentally unstable and being on a powertrip.

Look at the people you are attracting to the priesthood. That is where the answer is.

[mardi gras skin]

I would take this with a grain of salt if they are including babies baptized

LDS numbers include non-practicing/participating "members." Like Southern Baptists, they're considered a "low-demand" group. Meaning, they count every head they can get.

[Rocky21]

I have to laugh at the premises put out here that priests having sex with altar boys is not gay.

It seems a little gay to me.

[Thiebear]

I don't remember the free love of children of the same sex in the 1960's and 1970's?

do you?

Or are we latching on to that as an excuse.

Last time i checked, if someone did something 'wrong' and nothing happened to them other than a transfer to a new location.

Others would find out and more would apply that want to do that same 'wrong'.

Simple human motivation.

[Elessar78]

Ugh, not another one of these. These molester priests are in the vast vast minority of the whole Catholic Church. Could it have been handled better, absolutely. Too much condemnation of the Catholic Church as a whole for the actions of a very small segment of the group. It's so easy to overlook the many good things the RC church does. The bad things get so much more play, because there's nothing "sexy" about feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and extending basic humanity to those that need it.

99% of priests aren't child molesters. 99% of priests stick to their vows of celibacy. Those people that think that because fewer make take the vocation of the priesthood that the church lowers their standards are sadly misinformed. Each seminarian has to go through a required period of discernment where they go out into the world and see if they are willing to forego the pleasures of the flesh and the lay man's life. Do depraved individuals slip through the cracks? Absolutely. Just like a few devout muslims turn into terrorists and evangelical preachers who turn out to be gay.

But to condemn the whole Church? Gimme a break.

To add that it's a waste of $2 million to find the root cause of the problem, equally ludicrous. Uh, learn from your mistakes so you're not doomed to repeat them?

[zoony]

I have to laugh at the premises put out here that priests having sex with altar boys is not gay.

It seems a little gay to me.

so the priests who are molesting little girls are hetero?

---------- Post added May-19th-2011 at 09:13 AM ----------

Ugh, not another one of these. These molester priests are in the vast vast minority of the whole Catholic Church. Could it have been handled better, absolutely. Too much condemnation of the Catholic Church as a whole for the actions of a very small segment of the group.

I disagree. Not that it is a miniscule percentage, but the Church handled it attrociously and continues to do so.

It's so easy to overlook the many good things the RC church does. The bad things get so much more play, because there's nothing "sexy" about feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and extending basic humanity to those that need it.

All the more reason, in my mind, for the Church to hit this head on and FIX it. The Church is doing itself and its members a severe disservice.

[grhqofb5]

I have to laugh at the premises put out here that priests having sex with altar boys is not gay.

It seems a little gay to me.

I'm not up on the terminology, but it would appear to me that you have at least 4 classifications of sexual behavior:

(1) Heterosexual (Men who desire women, women who desire men)

(2) Homosexual (Men who desire men, women who desire women)

(3) Heterosexual Pedophile (Men who desire little girls, women who desire little boys)

(4) Homosexual Pedophile (Men who desire litte boys, women who desire little girls)

I realize the whole "bi" thing will created numerous different categories, but these are the 4 standard ones. So yes, it may be correct to describe group (4) as homosexual, depending, or course, on your definition.

[Elessar78]

I disagree. Not that it is a miniscule percentage, but the Church handled it attrociously and continues to do so.

They have handled it attrociously and I openly admit it. They under-estimated the ability of stories to get out and cause havoc. At the same time there are now multiple cases of individuals shaking down the church for hush money on bogus charges. It's open season on the church legally and in the media.

I think many responses here are too knee-jerk: You put a bunch of guys and no access to sexual release and this is what you get. That's not how it works. I've put my thoughts out there which are based on my wife's Master's Degree research on Sex Offender treatment. Pedophilia isn't caused by repression or "can't get any from anywhere so I'll prey on ANY powerless kids." Pedophiles have a type. For example; Young boy, 5-6 years old, caucasian. And it's always that type they go after. Much in the same way us normal guys prefer blondes or brunettes, ass over breasts, cougars, big women, curvy women. The differences are the normal preferences are socially acceptable. Pedophiles preferences are socially reprehensible.

So these priests slip into the clergy, maybe not fully aware of their proclivities yet. Perhaps, in a similar way for gay men not to come out until later in life. Sure they may have an inkling of these "desires" but it takes time to come to terms with them in an adult manner. I'm not saying these priests are victims, but the reasoning that people put forth (that they are sexually starved and lash out at the first available victim, like they were ravenous with hunger and you put a steak in front of them), pedophilia doesn't work like that.

[Rocky21]

Zoony,

Why can't we "reply with quote" to the mods?

[DRSmith]

LDS numbers include non-practicing/participating "members." Like Southern Baptists, they're considered a "low-demand" group. Meaning, they count every head they can get.

Seems to me only those active in a faith should be counted

[zoony]

Zoony,

Why can't we "reply with quote" to the mods?

I have absolutely no idea. It seems nobody does. Business as usual around here

[techboy]

I have absolutely no idea. It seems nobody does. Business as usual around here

My guess would be that moderator comments are to be considered perfect as is, with no reply needed or gainsaying brooked.

[mardi gras skin]

Seems to me only those active in a faith should be counted

I agree.

[Spec138]

You were so eager to mock the Catholic Church for having priests take vows of celibacy, that you inadvertently came down on the side of William Donohue, that it's all because they ordained homosexuals that couldn't control themselves.

That's pretty funny to me.

If that's how I came across I certainly don't think homosexuality caused the child molesting. It was weird that they added it all and just seemed like another jab at the gays to me by making the world know at least their priests weren't gay too.

Anyways your conclusion about my view on celibacy is a total non sequitur. I think repression of sexual urges has something to do with the molestation, not that celibacy unleashes the gay which causes priests to molest children. That's why I admitted you were right about the difference in pedophile attraction vs. gay/straight adult attraction.

Edit: For the record, I have zero respect for Bill Donohue. He's one person who truly makes me sick. Here's a video of him

.

[techboy]

I think repression of sexual urges has something to do with the molestation

Wait, so you think that if you were stranded alone on a desert island 20 years, you'd be a pedophile when you're finally rescued?

Or, do you suppose it might be possible instead that people with tendencies toward pedophilia might gravitate towards jobs like the priesthood, pastorships, or teaching, where there are plenty of potential victims?

And, in fact, the data suggests you're wrong. See this article in Newsweek, for example:

Yet experts say there's simply no data to support the claim at all. No formal comparative study has ever broken down child sexual abuse by denomination, and only the Catholic Church has released detailed data about its own. But based on the surveys and studies conducted by different denominations over the past 30 years, experts who study child abuse say they see little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue. "We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "I can tell you without hesitation that we have seen cases in many religious settings, from traveling evangelists to mainstream ministers to rabbis and others."

Since the mid-1980s, insurance companies have offered sexual misconduct coverage as a rider on liability insurance, and their own studies indicate that Catholic churches are not higher risk than other congregations. Insurance companies that cover all denominations, such as Guide One Center for Risk Management, which has more than 40,000 church clients, does not charge Catholic churches higher premiums. "We don't see vast difference in the incidence rate between one denomination and another," says Sarah Buckley, assistant vice president of corporate communications. "It's pretty even across the denominations." It's been that way for decades. While the company saw an uptick in these claims by all types of churches around the time of the 2002 U.S. Catholic sex-abuse scandal, Eric Spacick, Guide One's senior church-risk manager, says "it's been pretty steady since." On average, the company says 80 percent of the sexual misconduct claims they get from all denominations involve sexual abuse of children. As a result, the more children's programs a church has, the more expensive its insurance, officials at Guide One said.

[zoony]

Or, do you suppose it might be possible instead that people with tendencies toward pedophilia might gravitate towards jobs like the priesthood, pastorships, or teaching, where there are plenty of potential victims?

]:

This is absolutely it.

But I still don't give the Catholic Church a pass, simply because I don't think even THEY have fully recognized this yet. The screening process for the priesthood needs some radical and very conspicuous change.

[Jumbo]

I was "raised" Catholic. It didn't take, nor has any other religion (fully--in the sense of identifying myself as one of them and believing everything any of them present). The idea that such issues as child molestation, particularly as conducted by authority figures, is significantly more present in the Catholic Church Priesthood than in similar (authority figures) social-demographic populations (factoring population-size ratios) reflects typical popular ignorance and lazy brain. The Church has often handled such manners in unacceptable, disgraceful, and even criminal manner. It's a hard line, but IMO, as an institution, they (from priest all the way up the spiritual/bureaucratic ladder to pope) earn every negative consequence they receive. At other times the Church has handled many cases with courage, compassion, remorse, and integrity. They need to make doing the latter 100% of the time a goal, and to forget about defensively redirecting the conversation to how widespread the probem is culturally (I would say "humanly"), or complaining that they are getting undue focus and work to eliminate such travesties and prosecute every offender.