The reports came much later. The abuse spiked in the 60s.
That someone thinks they are called does not mean they are called. The radical feminists also claim God is calling them to be priestesses. One can save their soul without being a priest.
cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm
Maybe we can estimate this percentage. Studies have shown that gays are 1-3% of the general population (or 2-6% of the general male population). Other studies have consistently shown that male homosexuals have been involved in 20-40% of child sexual abuse cases. Since they were involved in 81% of the clergy cases, by extrapolation, this indicates they make up 8-12% of the clergy population. According to the John Jay report, the 4692 priests accused of abuse represents 3-6% of the priest population (2.5-5% adjusting for the abusers of males). So 30-40% of gay priests will be abusers. Ordaining men from a population with this kind of risk to kids is unacceptable.
Fr Cozzens book “The Changing Face of the Priesthood” is an excellent one on this very subject.
Be not afraid. Christians of all faiths in many generations have faced a great deal.
It didn’t happen in one day, one year – it won’t be cured any quicker. At this point with the new pope, the national councils are still “feeling their way” and if I judge the bunch in Washington correctly, they are waiting for some sign from Rome. If I judge Rome correctly , they are waiting to see what the individual bishops do in their coountries.
When wasn’t that the case? – prayer and looking to leadership both within the country and from Rome. And always keep in mind, sometimes the most effective things done are done behind the scenes, rather than in front of the world camera.
All of us have been through the same process - when you read some of this stuff - you want to scream, but here’s an interesting bit of behind the scenes look from someone who was involved with the dioceses in the US on this matter:Hag:
What’s the line? “Thanks. I needed that?”
I have had most of the same thoughts you expressed in your message of utmost reassurance. But when he reading this thread late the other night, I forgot them.
The whole thing really got to me for a moment. I still think rightious laypeople and clerics – respectfully and prayerfully – need to stand up.
Jim
Good article, thanks for posting. I think among the important points made, the myth that bishops did nothing in the face of the problem was disputed effectively. As the writer said many of them thought this was treatable, a ‘sexual pecadillo’ and not an ingrained behavior pattern. Also since the bishops didn’t talk to each other, they didn’t realize they were "in the middle of an epidemic.’ I also appreciated the comment on the excessive awards. This is definitely an article to refer to again.
You know Lisa, I find it difficult to believe that they really thought this was treatable, especially the real pedophile cases. As far back as I can remember, the conventional wisdom has been that it is untreatable. Why didn’t the Bishop know that? To me, it just seems like a convenient excuse to say “we were relying on the advice of experts. And we now know that advice was bad.” Baloney.
To an extent I agree it’s a bit of a copout. However given that much of the abuse happened thirty years ago, the belief about a ‘talking cure’ for sexual abuse (any kind!) was different than it is now. I just remember how at that time people simply didn’t BELIEVE this sort of thing happened, especially not with a religious person. We were very naive at that time believe me. Had someone told me in 1974 that we’d have homosexuals getting married and on prime time TV I wouldn’t have believed it either.
Right on…not only were bishops told it was treatable, they were assured these men could return to ministry. IOW this problem was treated pretty much as alcoholism used to be thought of before we understood that it is a disease and that simple contrition or prayer will not provide the “sure cure.” Had I been a bishop, sent a person for treatment and evaluation and been told, it was done and over, and that this person was now “restored” - I’m afraid at that point in time, I would have believed the “experts”.
Sorry I don’t know how old you are but for years we were assured that it was treatable – the first I ever heard that it was not was as the scandals began to break. I also think that when medical or psychological “experts” tell you something after they have treated a patient, unless you have better expertise, you do tend to believe they know what they are talking about.
This occurs in every generation prior to current times - we were much more sheltered in every way, through media, radio discussions etc. I mean no one even realized this stuff existed much less was going on. One child murder anywhere in the country made national headlines for umpteen weeks.It was a time of “innocence” – remember when Desi and Luci were “expecting” they couldn’t use the word “pregnant” on tv and had to hire a representative from Protestant, Catholic and Jewish ministry to help them oversee the scripts so they didn’t “offend” in their family show.
In the case of religious persons, I think you’re right. The thought that a priest could do something like this was almost sacrilegious. But child molester’s, in general, have been regarded as incurable for at least as long as I can remember. And that would include the 70’s when these abuse cases were peaking. At least that was my perception. So it’s hard for me to understand how any Bishop could move an abuser from parish to parish on the advice of experts, when that advice ran counter to the prevailing wisdom.
Mid 40’s. As a former Wanderer reader, I can tell you that rumors about the clergy have been circulating for quite a while. But are you saying you thought it was curable up until 2002, when the scandal erupted in the main stream media? I can honestly say I never thought that. I’m not speaking from hindsight either. How often over the years have you seen people protesting paroled child molester’s taking up residence in their neighborhoods? Why do you think people protest this? Because they trust the “experts”? And how often have you heard of these parolees repeating their offenses?Sorry I don’t know how old you are but for years we were assured that it was treatable – the first I ever heard that it was not was as the scandals began to break. I also think that when medical or psychological “experts” tell you something after they have treated a patient, unless you have better expertise, you do tend to believe they know what they are talking about.
I’m going by memory now but “rumors about the clergy” that I read and heard about were about “personal involvement” and behavior rather than child abuse. I do recollect Greeley warning us about “lavender rectories” but no one paid much attention as far as I could see.
You are confusing the incidents with the reports.
HagiaSophia said:
I wasn’t saying I had any knowledge of the clergy abuse at that time. The only reason I brought up the 70’s was to point out that my perception of child molestation as “incurable” goes back a ways. And for whatever reason, maybe I’m totally alone here, I thought this was common knowledge. Consequently, in hindsight, I’m wondering why some of these Bishops didn’t also know it when they were moving abusers from parish to parish. Yeah, I know the excuse is that they were acting on the advice of “experts.” But I’m having a hard time with that one.