Beneath the child abuse scandal [NCRep]

[St_Francis]

I don’t really understand this article. he talks as if he thinks the only thing that differentiates priests is their celibacy. Since all those who are unmarried are called to celibacy, this is simply not true.

What is the important part about the priesthood? They are the ministers of the sacraments. *That //i]is the central point of their “culture.”

Moreover, the reports of the priests’ psychological “under- or maldevelopment” were made by people in the same profession which was telling the bishops that pedophilia could be cured, that the children would be more scarred by exposure, and all the other clap-trap which led to the actions on the parts of the bishops which caused the scandal.

To be perfectly honest, the priesthood has always had those who broke their vows of celibacy. And it has also had good and chaste priests, luckily in greater numbers overall.

---

The author inaccurately says 6-9% of priests were found by the John Jay report to have abused children and/or adolescents, when the report said 4%, which included accusations which had been deemed unsubstantiated, as well as a number of accusations against priests who were no longer living. Over one-fourth of the priests acccused had allegations which were deemed unsubstantiated or not credible (in the cases of some of those who had died), so the percentage of priests involved in this ghastly activity may well be under 3%.*

 

[philiswilling]

I don’t really understand this article. he talks as if he thinks the only thing that differentiates priests is their celibacy. Since all those who are unmarried are called to celibacy, this is simply not true.

What is the important part about the priesthood? They are the ministers of the sacraments. *That //i]is the central point of their “culture.”

Moreover, the reports of the priests’ psychological “under- or maldevelopment” were made by people in the same profession which was telling the bishops that pedophilia could be cured, that the children would be more scarred by exposure, and all the other clap-trap which led to the actions on the parts of the bishops which caused the scandal.

To be perfectly honest, the priesthood has always had those who broke their vows of celibacy. And it has also had good and chaste priests, luckily in greater numbers overall.

---

The author inaccurately says 6-9% of priests were found by the John Jay report to have abused children and/or adolescents, when the report said 4%, which included accusations which had been deemed unsubstantiated, as well as a number of accusations against priests who were no longer living. Over one-fourth of the priests acccused had allegations which were deemed unsubstantiated or not credible (in the cases of some of those who had died), so the percentage of priests involved in this ghastly activity may well be under 3%.*

This issue of child molestation and sexual abuse seems to use these small percentages as if to suggest this is not a big problem for the church. I don’t know the percentage of offending priests myself, but I’m willing to go along with the above. But this isn’t even 50% of the abuse problem. What is the percentage of priests, bishops, cardinals and yes popes that hid these men-criminals, protected them from public scrutiny, transferred them from parish to parish, around the country, got them into rehab many many times due to recidivism? How many of them cried foul when millions of dollars began being paid out due to court decisions in favor of the plaintiffs because diocese could end up bankrupt?

Well that percentage is huge over for any of our leaaders over the age of 60 years! The criminal was protected by our hierarchy while the victims were not only ignored but in many cases accused of fabricating their horrible experience. Which bunch created to worst part of this travesty? The 3% to 6% of pedophile practioners or the 50% or more of the Vatican and their field subordinates? This is one very important reason why our very good most honorable priests get caught up in this. They are held guilty by association. When the churcch used to say “Trust us, we know what is best”, that generally happened. But that trust is gone today. Secular credibility is shot, and why not?Our “corporate” organization does not hold the high ground any longer.

So please do not try to deflect any part of this issue as being smaller than it is. This is truly a Catholic problem in more than 1 way.

 

[St_Francis]

This issue of child molestation and sexual abuse seems to use these small percentages as if to suggest this is not a big problem for the church. I don’t know the percentage of offending priests myself, but I’m willing to go along with the above. But this isn’t even 50% of the abuse problem. What is the percentage of priests, bishops, cardinals and yes popes that hid these men-criminals, protected them from public scrutiny, transferred them from parish to parish, around the country, got them into rehab many many times due to recidivism? How many of them cried foul when millions of dollars began being paid out due to court decisions in favor of the plaintiffs because diocese could end up bankrupt?

Well that percentage is huge over for any of our leaaders over the age of 60 years! The criminal was protected by our hierarchy while the victims were not only ignored but in many cases accused of fabricating their horrible experience. Which bunch created to worst part of this travesty? The 3% to 6% of pedophile practioners or the 50% or more of the Vatican and their field subordinates? This is one very important reason why our very good most honorable priests get caught up in this. They are held guilty by association. When the churcch used to say “Trust us, we know what is best”, that generally happened. But that trust is gone today. Secular credibility is shot, and why not?Our “corporate” organization does not hold the high ground any longer.

So please do not try to deflect any part of this issue as being smaller than it is. This is truly a Catholic problem in more than 1 way.

I agree that this has been a huge problem in our Church, but my point in mentioning his exaggeration of what the John Jay report said in terms of percentages is that everyone was saying he’s such a highly respected person, etc. OK, he’s highly respected, but he uses inaccurate numbers and makes an already terrible problem two to three times the size that it is? I was not saying that the problem is smaller than it is; I was saying that the problem is smaller than he says it is.

The other, and more important, point I wanted to make is that he was very focused on celibacy being so central to priestly “culture,” whatever that may be. I disagree, and I think that the Church would disagree. Sexuality or celibacy are only one part of being a priest, and not the most important part. The most important part is that the priest is the minister of the sacraments, that he is in persona Christi. Maybe he’s a non-Catholic who simply stumbled into this speciality, I don’t know. But I do think that he is taking a very secular point of view when it comes to the priesthood.