Chicago archdiocese hid decades of sexual abuse

[gracepoole]

Yes, there is and should be horror.

But some of the horror is misplaced, and that has led to a very great problem.

Talk to most people about "clerical sexual abuse’ and you’ll hear diatribes about the evil Catholic Church and how its crazy demands for celibacy led to this abuse, and how their evil leaders were more concerned with looking good than doing good.

But you won’t hear anything said about the protestants, the Jews, the Muslims, the secular humanists. You won’t hear anything about parents (who are immeasurably more likely to be abusers than a Catholic priest). You won’t hear about the police, the doctors, the lawyers, the schools, etc who did, in the 60s, 70s, 80s and even early 90s, exactly the same thing as the Catholic Church**** because that is the advice that was given by the authorities --I mean, by the police, the doctors, and the lawyers.

The fact is that in time that most of the abuse was committed not just ‘the Catholic Church’ but every U.S. 'societal group believed that child abuse was something that should be ‘hushed up for the sake of the child’ and every physician believed that pedophilia could and was ‘cured’.

Now take a bishop living in 1974. It is brought to his attention that one of his priests has been guilty of not even sexual penetration, but of fondling (which is of course bad enough). The bishop is told by the doctors that pedophilia is treatable. he sends the priest for treatment. The doctors pronounce the priest ‘cured’ and they suggest that he be sent out, ‘now cured’, to a situation involving children because "he is cured and there will be no more problem.’
Meanwhile, the parents of the child beg that this not get out because it would shame them. (This is the pre Jerry Springer era of ‘let’s share everything bad that happens to us so we can be victims’). The police officers say that it would be too damaging for everyone to pursue this as a crime. The lawyers refuse to touch it. And this is going on not just at St Anonymous but over at the episcopal church, the schools, private homes, everywhere.

Let’s be fair. For the cases (and there are a few) where it is late enough that doctors know pedophilia cannot be cured, where the bishop knew WITH CERTAINTY that this person was dangerous to children and deliberately sent him off without letting people know. . .yes, throw the book.

But if you are going to fault some years-dead bishop 40 years ago for not knowing, in spite of evidence given by professionals that a person pronounced ‘cured’ was not, and that despite professional advice from lawyers and police that ‘keeping it quiet’ was more damaging than not. . .

Then I say you have to go to virtually EVERY SINGLE PUBLIC SCHOOL, every single religious group, and pretty much every mother and father during the last 40 years, and pull their records, and charge them in the very same court of public opinion that you are doing to Catholic priests. if a 50 year old says that his dead father once ‘touched him’, go after that father’s estate, print his name in the paper, and try and convict him. If a school superintendent in 1974 had a teacher fondle a child, and let the teacher ‘go’ giving him a good reference after the teacher went through being ‘cured’, bankrupt that school and pillory every person who was involved as ‘covering up a crime’.

Fair is fair. Again I say, in the cases where a bishop absolutely knew that the priest had committed abuse, could not be cured, knew the priest WOULD abuse, and deliberately sent him off to do so. . .prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. But you will find remarkably few cases where you can absolutely pronounce that such was the case. And if bishop X in 1974 acted in good faith under the absolute assurance of medical and legal professionals, why is bishop X the only one considered at fault and not the medical and legal professionals, may I ask?

Why is there this huge coverup and denial that it was the medical and legal professions’ advice for decades to let these priests go to a new job without disclosing his prior acts? And their refusal to ‘bring these things to court’? And the parents, what about their complicity in this?

A school isn’t a moral authority: the Church is. That in and of itself means necessarily there will be more outrage when this kind of abuse and cover-up is uncovered in the Church.

As for the rest here…again, tu quoque. If we haven’t dissected every other group in which adults work with children, why does this mean we should not expose and hunt those in the Church who are guilty?

 

[mikekle]

This does not surprise me too much, after all, look at what large companies sweep under the rug and try to keep from getting out, they protect their employees as well from alot of less than moral activity, including criminal activity. Whenever you have a large group or company, there are going to be things that are swept under the rug and certain people protected.

They likely dont want law enforcement snooping around too much, so I guess this is how they justify it…its still wrong though, and God knows all that is hidden.

 

[tp3192000]

Yes, there is and should be horror.

But some of the horror is misplaced, and that has led to a very great problem.

Talk to most people about "clerical sexual abuse’ and you’ll hear diatribes about the evil Catholic Church and how its crazy demands for celibacy led to this abuse, and how their evil leaders were more concerned with looking good than doing good.

But you won’t hear anything said about the protestants, the Jews, the Muslims, the secular humanists. You won’t hear anything about parents (who are immeasurably more likely to be abusers than a Catholic priest). You won’t hear about the police, the doctors, the lawyers, the schools, etc who did, in the 60s, 70s, 80s and even early 90s, exactly the same thing as the Catholic Church**** because that is the advice that was given by the authorities --I mean, by the police, the doctors, and the lawyers.

The fact is that in time that most of the abuse was committed not just ‘the Catholic Church’ but every U.S. 'societal group believed that child abuse was something that should be ‘hushed up for the sake of the child’ and every physician believed that pedophilia could and was ‘cured’.

Now take a bishop living in 1974. It is brought to his attention that one of his priests has been guilty of not even sexual penetration, but of fondling (which is of course bad enough). The bishop is told by the doctors that pedophilia is treatable. he sends the priest for treatment. The doctors pronounce the priest ‘cured’ and they suggest that he be sent out, ‘now cured’, to a situation involving children because "he is cured and there will be no more problem.’
Meanwhile, the parents of the child beg that this not get out because it would shame them. (This is the pre Jerry Springer era of ‘let’s share everything bad that happens to us so we can be victims’). The police officers say that it would be too damaging for everyone to pursue this as a crime. The lawyers refuse to touch it. And this is going on not just at St Anonymous but over at the episcopal church, the schools, private homes, everywhere.

Let’s be fair. For the cases (and there are a few) where it is late enough that doctors know pedophilia cannot be cured, where the bishop knew WITH CERTAINTY that this person was dangerous to children and deliberately sent him off without letting people know. . .yes, throw the book.

But if you are going to fault some years-dead bishop 40 years ago for not knowing, in spite of evidence given by professionals that a person pronounced ‘cured’ was not, and that despite professional advice from lawyers and police that ‘keeping it quiet’ was more damaging than not. . .

Then I say you have to go to virtually EVERY SINGLE PUBLIC SCHOOL, every single religious group, and pretty much every mother and father during the last 40 years, and pull their records, and charge them in the very same court of public opinion that you are doing to Catholic priests. if a 50 year old says that his dead father once ‘touched him’, go after that father’s estate, print his name in the paper, and try and convict him. If a school superintendent in 1974 had a teacher fondle a child, and let the teacher ‘go’ giving him a good reference after the teacher went through being ‘cured’, bankrupt that school and pillory every person who was involved as ‘covering up a crime’.

Fair is fair. Again I say, in the cases where a bishop absolutely knew that the priest had committed abuse, could not be cured, knew the priest WOULD abuse, and deliberately sent him off to do so. . .prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. But you will find remarkably few cases where you can absolutely pronounce that such was the case. And if bishop X in 1974 acted in good faith under the absolute assurance of medical and legal professionals, why is bishop X the only one considered at fault and not the medical and legal professionals, may I ask?

Why is there this huge coverup and denial that it was the medical and legal professions’ advice for decades to let these priests go to a new job without disclosing his prior acts? And their refusal to ‘bring these things to court’? And the parents, what about their complicity in this?

You make a poor case. In Massachusetts, there was a sexual abuse problem a few years before the re-occurrence that opened up the scandal that we are dealing with today. There were lots of warning signs that this abuse was going on and was totally unacceptable to the people. Cardinal Law re-assured us that he would take care of the situation, but he did not. He, along with other cardinals and archbishops decided to protect the Church from scandal and made pay-offs to keep accusers quiet rather than protect the innocent from future abuse.
Other groups of people unconnected to the Catholic Church may also have committed serious offense. These people and groups deserve scrutiny and criticism also.
The 1980’s were not that long ago. Protecting image over our children is the issue.

 

[HB11]

Maybe someone should tell her to check the non Catholic abuse stories in which the Hasidic Jews appear as well as Protestants. They are usually on page 15 of the newspaper and never have a followup. Why should we always be under the spotlight? I say its the money grubbing factor . Also Catholics are sissy about fighting back 99% of the time when picked on from what I see lately.

Although I’m in agreement that any type of child abuse be brought to light, it seems to me that the media in general is more fixated on the Catholic Church than any other institution when bringing this issue to the fore, i.e., take a look at these statistics from the The New York Times:

You can read the rest of the article (and many other articles written about the bias in the media regarding CC abuse). Refrain as much as you can from reading the commentary! :manvspc:

 

[josie_L]

Hindsight wasn’t required in this specific diocese – the archbishop was strongly advised not to move at least one abusive priest to a parish in which he’d be dealing with children and the archbishop willfully ignored this counsel.

**I feel physically ill when Catholics attempt to redirect this type of conversation by claiming the media is too focused on the Church’s abuse problems rather than that in other kinds of communities. ** Classic tu quoque and a complete fallacy. I also feel nauseous when Catholics get tired of hearing about the abuse scandal. There’s no justification here. People in Holy Mother Church knowingly perpetrated evil and evil doesn’t change just because it’s close to home.

I have no problem with the media bringing attention to any form of child abuse including those committed in the CC, however, I have to question the motives of those who primarily focus their coverage on the CC. Moreover, I have a hard time respecting the New York Times for its coverage of child abuse, while protecting the rights of a teacher who was linked to NAMBLA (National American Man Boy Love Association).

Are you aware that there are conventions (involving professors from prestigious universities) suggesting that pedophilia should be normalized rather than viewed as a mental illness, here take a look and see:

On August 17, 2011, a pro-pedophilia conference was held in Baltimore in an ongoing attempt to influence government and medical authorities toward an acceptance of what was referred to “minor-attracted persons” and their lifestyles.

This reporter stumbled across this article which led him to investigate further in order to verify that this conference indeed took place, since it was unreported in major news outlets such as the Baltimore Sun.

Of note, one speaker in attendance,
Fred S. Berlin, M.D., Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Baltimore, MD

works at a ‘sex clinic’ originally founded by “John Money, Ph.D., to give judges “leeway” to keep child molesters out of jail. Money (deceased), a pedophile advocate, also called for an end to all age-of-consent laws,” according to one of the links. Berlin was “his disciple,” according to that article.

The main emphasis of the meeting was to attempt to persuade the American Psychological Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (APA DSM) to be changed, as it was in 1973 for homosexuality, to remove pedophilia as a mental disorder in order to help pedophiliacs feel accepted by the culture. Several if not all of the talks at the event had to do with declassifying pedophilia as a paraphilia from the DSM. my.umbc.edu/news/8601

This is the original pamphlet to the convention: b4uact.org/science/symp/2011/

I’m not sure if you’ve ever heard of Dr. Judith Reisman, she’s written many articles and books pertaining to Kinsey and his fraudulent “scientific” studies on human sexuality, i.e., she’s made it her mission to have him exposed:

Q. To begin with, Dr. Reisman, allow me to extend, personally, a profound “Thank you” for your perseverance over the past 20 years in your investigation of the monstrous fraud perpetrated by Dr. Alfred Kinsey and his disciples and supporters. I vividly recall, 28 years ago, while studying psychology as an undergraduate student, the frustration that I and many of my fellow students felt at being confronted with the absurd “scientific” claims of the militant sexologists for the moral legitimacy and “normalcy” of homosexuality, pornography, pedophilia, incest, sadomasochism, adultery, group sex — virtually any and every sexual deviancy imaginable. Always, the “research” of Kinsey and his successors was cited to refute and silence the “moralistic” qualms of dissenters. Finally, 50 years after Kinsey burst upon the scene with such devastating impact, your book, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, exposes not only the incredibly fraudulent “science” of Kinsey and company, but the depraved, criminal activities of Kinsey and his pedophile associates. Everyone concerned about the terrible moral and social breakdown we see all about us owes you a big debt of gratitude for your excellent work.

A. Thank you, and let me also note my appreciation for the wonderfully positive review your magazine gave my book [see January 4th issue], which hasn’t enjoyed a universally favorable reception. As you said, it’s been 50 years since Alfred Kinsey published his infamous 1948 report, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, which has so profoundly and grievously affected not only American society, but the moral, social, and political order worldwide. It is difficult to exaggerate the horrendous effects of the widespread promotion and acceptance of his work. Kinsey’s “research” shook America’s moral foundations and launched the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s. Its terrible results are obvious in the skyrocketing incidence of all the social pathologies afflicting us today: divorce, abortion, sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, illegitimate births, cohabitation, pornography, homosexuality, sadomasochism, rape, child molestation, sexual crimes of all types, family breakup, endemic violence, etc. We cannot hope to reverse this destructive, downward spiral if we do not recognize and openly confront the Kinseyite falsehoods and subversive premises and ideas that undergird popular attitudes and official policies today.

whale.to/b/reisman3.html

She’s advocating changes be made to the present kinsey-based sex education in America because it is detrimental to society and most especially to the young. You can visit her website: drjudithreisman.org/

 

[josie_L]

:grouphug: I do take comfort in Christ’s words: “I am with you always.” Even in the midst of this horror, He is here with His people.

You act as if the rest of us do not share the same horror, i.e., I can and do want all abuse gone within our ranks, but I want ALL child abuse to come to an end. And if that starts with the CC, fine, but we’ll get nowhere if the media doesn’t expose the rampant pedophilia that is befalling all societal/religious institutions, i.e., people need to know how prevalent this problem is so that we can implement positive policies, not only in the CC, but everywhere else as well.

God bless!

p.s. I will to continue to question the motives of the MSM if they refuse to bring to light all issues related to pedophilia or to adequately report the dangers of pedophilia within society (where was the media outrage for a pedophile convention that aims at making pedophilia “normal”).

 

[YoungTradCath]

Please ignore my earlier post.

 

[CaptFun]

Jesus warned us it would be so. Weeds amongst the wheat. Planted by an enemy.

The problem can be a case of a weak person falling - and harming another in the process - without being part of a conspiracy as well. But as a child of the Chicago Archdiocese in the late 1950s and early '60s (pre and during the beginning of Vatican II per reference) - I have always been amazed at the culture shock that hit many Catholics in the later '60s and changing more and more through the '70s, '80s, '90s and the first decade of this century.

I’m fortunate in not remembering any sexual misbehavior amongst the clergy at our parish or school. We did have the ODD person (two nuns in grade school and one priest in High School) who was “handy” … that is, hit or slapped kids when they felt it was justified. THESE were the exception to the RULE (which was … very good, dedicated to Jesus people who sacrificed to bring his Good News to us). :sad_yes:

But my blood runs cold when I consider that as in the parable of Jesus, an enemy was sowing weeds into the “field” of the Catholic clergy with an aim to corrupt the Church.

The story of Communist turned (re-turned actually) Catholic Bella Dodd has always intrigued me. And angered me when I consider that perhaps some devious people were able to worm their way into becoming clergy of rank with a counter-agenda to the Gospel … whereas on a lower level the gatekeepers do not accept many Catholic schoolchildren for one reason or another (“no room”, grades not high enough, slow pay on grammar school tuition etc, etc).

This week the Chicago Archdiocese announced the closing of more schools, including my former grammar school in the suburbs. The facility is immaculate (visited it two years ago) but there were just 81 students left - and the once 1 - 8th grade school had been reduced to a K - 5th school. In my first grade class we had six rows of ten kids (60) in ONE classroom.

articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-01-10/news/chi-several-chicagoarea-catholic-schools-slated-to-close-20140109_1_chicago-archdiocese-6-schools-chicago-catholic

Those were baby boom years. The economy is bad now. The Dominican Nuns who once taught there (for free?) have closed their convent on the grounds. BUT the town is named after the first Chicago Cardinal (Mundelein) and one of the largest seminaries in the US is located in the same town!

Per the "hiding": Well. The Catholic Church is about forgiveness. Also Scripture warns against accepting testimony against a presbyter unless its by more than one witness.

The Church jails no one. It is neither an arm of law enforcement. A person who is victimized may go to the police if a matter is serious enough. When a person goes to the Church INSTEAD - It is often understood that even they want to keep things quiet (though they want justice done). Not knowing the truth of things, sometimes the Church has moved priests, had them go to counseling etc, etc. – though it sometimes acts more
forcefully when a sin has been admitted.

Aside from the “hiding” (or not trumpeting the sins of another publicly if you will) - there may well have been SOME sabotaging of the Church via “enemies from within” – though that is another level of disgusting we’d probably rather not think about. Yet avoiding the topic of a possible cancer does not really expedite any healing nor protect the Church from further infiltration.

These scandals have hurt the Church. So we, the faithful ought to work all the harder to
give a true witness to Jesus per charity, good works, justice and mercy.

As to Bella Dodd and Fulton Sheen (who also warned us of enemies a long time ago):

youtube.com/watch?v=37HgRWTsGs0 < Bella Dodd video

In the early 1950s, Mrs. Bella Dodd provided detailed explanations of the Communist subversion of the Church. Speaking as a former high ranking official of the American Communist Party, Mrs. Dodd said:

“In the 1930s we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within.”

The idea was for these men to be ordained and progress to positions of influence and authority as Monsignors and Bishops. She stated that: “Right now they are in the highest places in the Church” — where they were working to bring about change in order to weaken the Church’s effectiveness against Communism.

She also said that these changes would be so drastic that "you will not recognise the Catholic Church." Dodd gave testimony on communist infiltration of Church and state before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee in the 1950s.

On Tuesday, August 5, 1952 she publicly announced that on April 7th of the same year, she was received back into the Roman Catholic Church. Not being able to secure her baptismal certificate from Italy after inquiry, she was therefore conditionally baptized by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, New York.

romancatholicheroes.blogspot.com/2009/03/bella-dodd.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bella_Dodd

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/isxEwBxmS5c/hqdefault.jpg

 

[Sarabande]

Of course you are allowed to heal.
But honesty and openness is part of the healing process…especially for the victims whose voices and cries were silenced or ignored.
Everybody had to face the enormity of this.
The victims are the ones who need the most healing and it is important to many of them that these documents are released–as these were yesterday–in order to help prevent this from happening to other children in the future.
The few victims I’ve met *want *such records to be released.

.

Of course I know that, but it still doesn’t mean I can’t feel the way I do. I personally have friends who were abused by priests and am an abuse survivor myself, although I was abused by a relative. I know all too well what needs to happen, and when all of this is reopened the wounds that I suffered as an abuse victim keeps festering. I never said any of this was a bad thing, but it is still difficult. I am actually open about talking about my abuse with relatives and friends I trust because I think people need to stop putting it aside and pretend it doesn’t happen. That’s how abuse happens. Talking about it helps me be a survivor rather than a victim. But again, it doesn’t mean it’s easy or feels good and I think I am allowed to feel that way.

 

[gracepoole]

Are you aware that there are conventions (involving professors from prestigious universities) suggesting that pedophilia should be normalized rather than viewed as a mental illness, here take a look and see

I don’t live under a rock so yes, I’m aware of these efforts. But they have nothing to do with the guilt of abusive priests and the subsequent cover-up perpetrated by the Church. To discuss them here seems like deflection.

And again, even if other communities have histories of sexual abuse and even if these cases aren’t reported at the same rate by the media, how on earth does that matter in terms of the Church’s complicity in its own abuse problem?

You act as if the rest of us do not share the same horror, i.e., I can and do want all abuse gone within our ranks, but I want ALL child abuse to come to an end. And if that starts with the CC, fine, but we’ll get nowhere if the media doesn’t expose the rampant pedophilia that is befalling all societal/religious institutions, i.e., people need to know how prevalent this problem is so that we can implement positive policies, not only in the CC, but everywhere else as well.

God bless!

p.s. I will to continue to question the motives of the MSM if they refuse to bring to light all issues related to pedophilia or to adequately report the dangers of pedophilia within society (where was the media outrage for a pedophile convention that aims at making pedophilia “normal”).

First, I was responding directly to those who spoke directly to me – like the following comment from tp319200:

It is a disgusting fact that in our lifetimes the Church leaders have let us down so badly. Our new Pope Francis and his predecessor Pope Benedict seem to have begun to clean the ranks of this evil. When she was quite young, my oldest daughter held Cardinal Bernard Law’s hat and I was so proud of her. Today she cannot identify with this church and I don’t blame her. I personally wish that she spat on Cardinal Law’s hat for his outrageous continuance of the Church’s cover-up and continuance of moving evil priests around. I also have lost respect for "His Holiness "JPII.
It is very hard to move past this outrageous disregard for our children’s welfare. Our children are the Church in the future, past and present. There is a lot of time needed still to heal the awful wounds our church leaders have subjected us to.
I pray that our leaders will continue to address this problem and clean up our Church.

So no, I wasn’t “act[ing] as if the rest of us do not share the same horror.” But just as you “will to continue to question the motives of the MSM if they refuse to bring to light all issues related to pedophilia or to adequately report the dangers of pedophilia within society,” I will continue to question the choice of fellow Catholics to attempt to diminish the seriousness of the Church’s guilt by claiming that “other groups have this problem, too!” or “no one reports about Protestant abuses!” or “the media is out to destroy the Church!” If a group (like the Church) doesn’t want to be slandered in this fashion, I’d suggest foregoing sexual abuse of children and the subsequent cover-up of it.

 

[manualman]

I think the real causes of the coverup scandal really haven’t been well investigated yet. Nor will they EVER by the secular media.

Does anybody really think it’s a coincidence that the worst of the coverups occurred during an era when NOBODY in the hierarchy (at least in this country) was seriously talking about sin, repentance and Grace? The era (I grew up in it was received the typically appalling catechesis) was characterized by a psychologization of the church and pastoral approaches. Sin was out of fashion. Kumbaya, baby. Everybody is good and just needs to be loved more to overcome their problems. Satan was relegated to fanciful myth status. Evil only dwelled in the far away rich and powerful class, not us ordinary everyday folk. A brother priest who had done wrong just needed more hugs and some counseling to get right…

I really don’t think bishops and chancery officials sat at their mahogany desks, twirling mustaches and conspiring about how to keep the abuse going, nor do I think they were completely heartless and reassigned those priests KNOWING they’d abuse again. I think they genuinely bought into the trite cra… crud they and their subordinates were teaching us kids in those days. (Granted the likelihood that there were a few actual abusers in the hierarchy’s ranks as well).

IMO, the best defense against abuse is the re-recognition that evil is REAL, it is present in OUR hearts and those around us. Nobody is exempt from its temptations and only Grace can protect us from destroying ourselves and one another via sin. We NEED Christ, we need our Savior because our fall is real and has real consequences. When we forget how fallen we really are, people are capable of literally anything. In short, they forgot what the gospel really is, so their priesthood and even bishop’s charisms held no power to protect them. They became just like any other men, which is why they did no more to protect kids than school principals, football coaches, counselors and all the other myriad of people who have failed to protect kids from abuse over the years.

 

[Joe_5859]

So what is the proper response to news articles like this?

I sort of feel stuck. On the one hand, I definitely do not want to come off as though I am trying to downplay the abuse or reroute the conversation to other things. I understand how people can be put off by defensive reactions from Catholics. It can make it seem like we don’t care about the abuse but only about our image when the fact is these were terrible sins and a grave violation of trust. I’m sure Catholics will be answering for these sins for centuries to come.

But on the other hand, how many times do we go through this and how profusely must we apologize for exactly the same thing? Everytime the press decides to print a new article about the same old problem? This article is yet another article about actions (and inaction) taken by priests and bishops decades ago. By now, this should really surprise no one. That was the reality. It is what it is. We cannot change the past. But at present, the Church is leading the way in combatting abuse.

Again, I really don’t want to sound like I am complaining about “us poor Catholics” getting the raw end of the deal from the media when obviously those who were abused suffered a far greater injustice. But is the correct course to simply let the media control the entire narrative? I am honestly asking.

 

[MaryT777]

When I was in nursing school in the 80’s all perpetrators that were found to be “curable” were sent to treatment. They still believed at this point in time pedophilia might be curable. Thus the decades old claims are ridiculous unless the psychiatric community thoughts on pedophilia are taken into account throughout that time.
Mary.

So what is the proper response to news articles like this?

I sort of feel stuck. On the one hand, I definitely do not want to come off as though I am trying to downplay the abuse or reroute the conversation to other things. I understand how people can be put off by defensive reactions from Catholics. It can make it seem like we don’t care about the abuse but only about our image when the fact is these were terrible sins and a grave violation of trust. I’m sure Catholics will be answering for these sins for centuries to come.

But on the other hand, how many times do we go through this and how profusely must we apologize for exactly the same thing? Everytime the press decides to print a new article about the same old problem? This article is yet another article about actions (and inaction) taken by priests and bishops decades ago. By now, this should really surprise no one. That was the reality. It is what it is. We cannot change the past. But at present, the Church is leading the way in combatting abuse.

Again, I really don’t want to sound like I am complaining about “us poor Catholics” getting the raw end of the deal from the media when obviously those who were abused suffered a far greater injustice. But is the correct course to simply let the media control the entire narrative? I am honestly asking.

 

[Sarabande]

When I was in nursing school in the 80’s all perpetrators that were found to be “curable” were sent to treatment. They still believed at this point in time pedophilia might be curable. Thus the decades old claims are ridiculous unless the psychiatric community thoughts on pedophilia are taken into account throughout that time.
Mary.

That would partly explain why contemporaries of mine from the 80s and 90s were still being abused and the perpetrators were still being moved around.

 

[gracepoole]

So what is the proper response to news articles like this?

I sort of feel stuck. On the one hand, I definitely do not want to come off as though I am trying to downplay the abuse or reroute the conversation to other things. I understand how people can be put off by defensive reactions from Catholics. It can make it seem like we don’t care about the abuse but only about our image when the fact is these were terrible sins and a grave violation of trust. I’m sure Catholics will be answering for these sins for centuries to come.

But on the other hand, how many times do we go through this and how profusely must we apologize for exactly the same thing? Everytime the press decides to print a new article about the same old problem? This article is yet another article about actions (and inaction) taken by priests and bishops decades ago. By now, this should really surprise no one. That was the reality. It is what it is. We cannot change the past. But at present, the Church is leading the way in combatting abuse.

Again, I really don’t want to sound like I am complaining about “us poor Catholics” getting the raw end of the deal from the media when obviously those who were abused suffered a far greater injustice. But is the correct course to simply let the media control the entire narrative? I am honestly asking.

Wow, do I understand where you’re coming from… But I don’t think “we” need to apologize for anything. The Church let down many people – the victims (obviously), priests who weren’t involved but now have to shoulder the burden of a distrustful flock, the faithful who are horrified by the actions of those who were entrusted with their spiritual welfare… You’re right that we cannot change the past. And it’s good to see Benedict and Francis cleaning house now! Unfortunately, I think we all just have to deal with these stories as they are uncovered. Listening and praying seem to be the only appropriate response. When victims of any horror (not just this one) come forward, I think listening and praying are what we can offer. It’s painful to not have any other recourse – and it’s disgusting to have our faith associated with such ugliness. But this is part of the pain wrought by the entire scandal. And I really, *really *hope I don’t sound dismissive when I say this, because that’s *not *my intention: but our pain throughout this process is the most tolerable, I’d wager, when compared with those of others involved.

I know that’s not a satisfying response… Unfortunately, I don’t think there is one.

 

[gracepoole]

When I was in nursing school in the 80’s all perpetrators that were found to be “curable” were sent to treatment. They still believed at this point in time pedophilia might be curable. Thus the decades old claims are ridiculous unless the psychiatric community thoughts on pedophilia are taken into account throughout that time.
Mary.

But in the case of Chicago (which is what the OP refers to), this was happening as recently as 2005. And the offending priests were still being shielded, even after the diocese was given clear warnings.

 

[ReConverted]

It seems this horrific evil that has been done to the “Little Ones” was not cleaned of all its poisonous effects. It is still surfacing to satisfy justice. Holy Father Benedict had to rid 400 perpetrators over a two year period. Millstones are extremely heavy I am told.

Yep.

 

[ProVobis]

I think the real causes of the coverup scandal really haven’t been well investigated yet. Nor will they EVER by the secular media.

Does anybody really think it’s a coincidence that the worst of the coverups occurred during an era when NOBODY in the hierarchy (at least in this country) was seriously talking about sin, repentance and Grace? The era (I grew up in it was received the typically appalling catechesis) was characterized by a psychologization of the church and pastoral approaches. Sin was out of fashion. Kumbaya, baby. Everybody is good and just needs to be loved more to overcome their problems. Satan was relegated to fanciful myth status. Evil only dwelled in the far away rich and powerful class, not us ordinary everyday folk. A brother priest who had done wrong just needed more hugs and some counseling to get right…

I really don’t think bishops and chancery officials sat at their mahogany desks, twirling mustaches and conspiring about how to keep the abuse going, nor do I think they were completely heartless and reassigned those priests KNOWING they’d abuse again. I think they genuinely bought into the trite cra… crud they and their subordinates were teaching us kids in those days. (Granted the likelihood that there were a few actual abusers in the hierarchy’s ranks as well).

IMO, the best defense against abuse is the re-recognition that evil is REAL, it is present in OUR hearts and those around us. Nobody is exempt from its temptations and only Grace can protect us from destroying ourselves and one another via sin. We NEED Christ, we need our Savior because our fall is real and has real consequences. When we forget how fallen we really are, people are capable of literally anything. In short, they forgot what the gospel really is, so their priesthood and even bishop’s charisms held no power to protect them. They became just like any other men, which is why they did no more to protect kids than school principals, football coaches, counselors and all the other myriad of people who have failed to protect kids from abuse over the years.

My observation of this matter is about the same as yours. Yet I can’t forget the “welcoming Church” atmosphere following (maybe coincidentally) Vatican II. Removing the Friday meat abstinence, dropping certain studies in school including Latin, allowing use of conscience, etc. certainly didn’t seem like the Church was going to be stricter in its disciplines. Much of this feeling, I’m afraid, still remains. Even the “smoke of Satan” comment by the Pope went largely unheeded.

 

[BettyBoop416]

Although I’m in agreement that any type of child abuse be brought to light, it seems to me that the media in general is more fixated on the Catholic Church than any other institution when bringing this issue to the fore…

As the Church claims to be the ultimate moral authority, it’s not at all unreasonable to hold the Church to a higher standard and to sharply focus media attention on it’s failings.

 

[Joe_5859]

Wow, do I understand where you’re coming from… But I don’t think “we” need to apologize for anything. The Church let down many people – the victims (obviously), priests who weren’t involved but now have to shoulder the burden of a distrustful flock, the faithful who are horrified by the actions of those who were entrusted with their spiritual welfare… You’re right that we cannot change the past. And it’s good to see Benedict and Francis cleaning house now! Unfortunately, I think we all just have to deal with these stories as they are uncovered. Listening and praying seem to be the only appropriate response. When victims of any horror (not just this one) come forward, I think listening and praying are what we can offer. It’s painful to not have any other recourse – and it’s disgusting to have our faith associated with such ugliness. But this is part of the pain wrought by the entire scandal. And I really, *really *hope I don’t sound dismissive when I say this, because that’s *not *my intention: but our pain throughout this process is the most tolerable, I’d wager, when compared with those of others involved.

I know that’s not a satisfying response… Unfortunately, I don’t think there is one.

Thank you. I think you’re probably right. Listening and praying is about all we can do.

It’s like I want the whole thing to be a band-aid that you just rip off quickly and then you are done with it. But the healing process is a lot slower than that for those involved and I wouldn’t want anyone to think I’m trying to hurry them along in that regard just so I can stop being uncomfortable. That’s the “temporal consequences of sin” in action. And sin is definitely ugly.