Blame '60s for sex-abuse scandal

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chickamauga
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chickamauga

Guest
(Did a search for this but couldn’t find any mention of it elsewhere… hope it’s not a repeat.)

Was flipping through the news channels yesterday and came across Paula Zahn interviewing a spokesman for SNAP (Survivors’ Network of those Abused by Priests) who was outraged over comments made by retired DC Archbishop McCarrick:
Blame '60s for sex-abuse scandal, McCarrick says

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 17, 2007

Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, the recently retired archbishop of Washington, blamed the “loose morals” of the 1960s for the massive sex-abuse scandals that have rocked the Roman Catholic Church.
Speaking at a conference in Auckland, New Zealand, last weekend, he said the priestly sex abusers had been caught up in the sexually lax climate of the 1960s – an era that he said was “when anything goes.”

washtimes.com/national/20070416-111447-8815r.htm
Click to expand...
Mark Serrano of SNAP called the Archbishop’s comments “egregious and typical” and that "“That sex crimes against children can relate to a cultural period in American history is absurd.”
Serrano’s comments are, IMO, just plain shrill and taking McCarrack out of context. After having read Mike Rose’s book "Goodbye Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption Into the Catholic Church " I think McCarrack is right on the mark.
 
My understanding is that the number of sex abuse incidents began to climb in the 1950s. While I agree that the cause is absolute laxism among clergy with regard to Catholic morality, I don’t agreet the 60s caused it. A significant number of the sinful clergy were catechized, attended seminary, and were ordained prior to 1960.
 
itsjustdave1988 said:
My understanding is that the number of sex abuse incidents began to climb in the 1950s. While I agree that the cause is absolute laxism among clergy with regard to Catholic morality, I don’t agreet the 60s caused it. A significant number of the sinful clergy were catechized, attended seminary, and were ordained prior to 1960.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Many of the priests raping children in the '50’s were in the seminary in the '40’s.

Nohome
 
Nohome said:
Agreed. Many of the priests raping children in the '50’s were in the seminary in the '40’s.

Nohome
Click to expand...
I don’t have a link handy, but if you look at the official report of the stats from the sex abuse cases, the majority of the eventual abusers seem to be rather narrowly concentrated into a few ordination classes in particular.

The problem has not been at the same level throughout history or even throughout the 20th century. So yes, it does seem evident that cultural norms and particular classes of seminarians buying into those norms played a big part in this.
 
I believe that sex abuse happened just as frequently before the 50’s. I believe that it was merely kept more hush hush, as people were less open in those days.
 
The report can be found here. Look particularly at Section 3.3 for demographic data. Ordination classes during the decades of the 1960’s accounted for most of the problem, closely followed by the ordination classes from the 1950’s and 1970’s. Other decades had only small percentages.

The report also mentions that in some particular seminaries during the 1970’s and 80’s a gay subculture developed and was apparently allowed to go unchecked.
 
Chickamauga said:
(Did a search for this but couldn’t find any mention of it elsewhere… hope it’s not a repeat.)

Was flipping through the news channels yesterday and came across Paula Zahn interviewing a spokesman for SNAP (Survivors’ Network of those Abused by Priests) who was outraged over comments made by retired DC Archbishop McCarrick:

Mark Serrano of SNAP called the Archbishop’s comments “egregious and typical” and that "“That sex crimes against children can relate to a cultural period in American history is absurd.”
Serrano’s comments are, IMO, just plain shrill and taking McCarrack out of context. After having read Mike Rose’s book "Goodbye Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption Into the Catholic Church " I think McCarrack is right on the mark.
Click to expand...
McCarrick is trying to duck his own responsibility. It isn’t the 60s or liberalism that let these predators rum loose, it’s the bishops, our shepherds. They put “the good of the Church”, avoiding publicity, ahead of actually helping the victims and putting away the molesters. Why the bishops who moved these men from one parish to another aren’t in prison as accomplices is beyond me.

If sex abuse is about the 60s I’d like to know how you explain the abuse that went on in Ireland for decades and is only recently coming to light. The abuse there started well before the 60s and the Church was able to keep it hushed up because it is a more Catholic country than the US.
 
didymus said:
It isn’t the 60s or liberalism that let these predators rum loose, it’s the bishops, our shepherds. They put “the good of the Church”, avoiding publicity, ahead of actually helping the victims and putting away the molesters. Why the bishops who moved these men from one parish to another aren’t in prison as accomplices is beyond me.
Click to expand...
I can’t agree more. It is tragic and sick what the molesters did to children, but it is criminal and downright evil that the bishops facilitated it.

Nohome
 
Note that when bishops tried to crack down on priests who rejected Humanae Vitae, Rome reversed their actions and directed them to use a pastoral rather than *judicial *approach in these matters. New bishops were often appointed for the openness to using a pastoral approach. It is not surprising then that they used a pastoral approach in this area also.

The Vatican needs to take a significant share of the blame in this.
 
Part of the culture of the 50/60’s was a therapeutic approach to criminal behavior. Bishops were told that these men would be cured. I think that the Bishop’s were duped by a psychiatric establishment that emphasized treatment over protection.

One of the Bishop’s advisors, Dr. Fred Berlin in a letter to the APA has advocated the need to destigmatize pedophilia. The logical consequence of this approach is not to alert communities to pedophiles who have been treated and “cured.”

In the early 1990’s Berlin acknowledge that the main treatment (Freudian therapy) was a colossal failure.

The Bishop’s took a self serving and easy way out; but it was the way that this problem was handled in the culture.
 
Gabriel_Gale said:
Part of the culture of the 50/60’s was a therapeutic approach to criminal behavior. Bishops were told that these men would be cured. I think that the Bishop’s were duped by a psychiatric establishment that emphasized treatment over protection.

One of the Bishop’s advisors, Dr. Fred Berlin in a letter to the APA has advocated the need to destigmatize pedophilia. The logical consequence of this approach is not to alert communities to pedophiles who have been treated and “cured.”

In the early 1990’s Berlin acknowledge that the main treatment (Freudian therapy) was a colossal failure.

The Bishop’s took a self serving and easy way out; but it was the way that this problem was handled in the culture.
Click to expand...
The police, courts, and juries weren’t fooled. They locked 'em up.
 
But isn’t it sad that we even need to have this conversation?
Thank God that my Parish Priests were not of the affore-mentioned persuasion.
John
 
GreenJeans said:
The police, courts, and juries weren’t fooled. They locked 'em up.
Click to expand...
That’s only recently and not everywhere. A lot of these sex offender therapies were done in prisons and with parolees. The sex offenders list was only started a few years ago. The worse case I remember of the state letting a “cured” sex offender go was a man in Masachusettes who was released and ended up in Montana. There he kiled a boy and served up to his neighbors. Also, remember the famous Willie Horton case. He was a sex offender in Massachusettes released on furlough. During his furlough, he went to Maryland, raped and killed a woman.

Recently, Vermont has had several cases of sex offenders released after 60 days.

In responding to the quetionable results of treatment, I think Kansas placed some of these guys on mental health committment for life.

Here in Texas, we have had several cases of sex offenders going from district to district. Recently, we have had a big scandal of several prison employees accused of abusing juveniles. The state won’t release information about these allegations.
 
Gabriel_Gale said:
That’s only recently and not everywhere. A lot of these sex offender therapies were done in prisons and with parolees. The sex offenders list was only started a few years ago. The worse case I remember of the state letting a “cured” sex offender go was a man in Masachusettes who was released and ended up in Montana. There he kiled a boy and served up to his neighbors. Also, remember the famous Willie Horton case. He was a sex offender in Massachusettes released on furlough. During his furlough, he went to Maryland, raped and killed a woman.

Recently, Vermont has had several cases of sex offenders released after 60 days.

In responding to the quetionable results of treatment, I think Kansas placed some of these guys on mental health committment for life.

Here in Texas, we have had several cases of sex offenders going from district to district. Recently, we have had a big scandal of several prison employees accused of abusing juveniles. The state won’t release information about these allegations.
Click to expand...
You said, “A lot of these sex offender therapies were done in prisons and with parolees.” Note the prison time. They locked them up. They were not simply caught and released to a new town with a promise to see a shrink every week. The culture did not condone catch and release. Only some people believed that.
 
Chickamauga said:
I think McCarrack is right on the mark.
Click to expand...
I think McCarrick is taking a cop-out. I place the blame for the sex scandals squarely on the shoulders of the priests who abused and molested innocent children and on the bishops who helped them cover it up.
 
GreenJeans said:
You said, “A lot of these sex offender therapies were done in prisons and with parolees.” Note the prison time. They locked them up. They were not simply caught and released to a new town with a promise to see a shrink every week. The culture did not condone catch and release. Only some people believed that.
Click to expand...
That’s been happening in some recent cases in Vermont. Although, you might consider 2 months in jail and therapy as adequate time. Some of these folks have had minimal, if any prison time (probation, deferred adjudication). Actually, that’s what the deals often amount to…caught, release and a committment to therapy. I will say that many in the therapeutic communities have argued against imprisonment for some sex offenders.

In my experience wit sex offenders many were given a deal, probation and therapy. For most, therapy was a matter of showing up since they believed that they had done nothing wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top