Chicago archdiocese hid decades of sexual abuse

[Seamus_L]

Imagine if a scoutmaster or Little League Baseball coach did this, and there governing bodies decided the best course of action was to handle it internally and transfer the offender to another den or team.

 

[saggal]

Sorry, Manualman, but some of these cases stretch back into the 50’s and 60’s – before Vatican II standards were implemented in parishes across the US.

While this is certainly among the saddest and most horrific portions of our Church history, I think it needs airing again and again and again.

We do ourselves no favors by trying to ignore our Faith’s failings.

We have as a Church sinned in the past, and likely will sin again in the future. As long as humans are in charge, it is inevitable.

However, to paraphase, ‘those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat it.’

I love my husband. I do. He is imperfect. I love him anyway.

That is how I view my Church. Is it perfect? No. But I love it anyway.

 

[ringil]

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?

To whom much is given much is expected.

The Catholic Church is the True faith and should be held to the highest standard of morality.

Why are folks so focussed on a belief that the Church is being “persecuted” and not focus on the problems in the Hierarchy?

the Church has made enormous strides in protecting children but this problem will not come to rest until all crimes are brought to light and justice is found for the victims.

I believe this is what Benedict and now Francis want for the Church- not to “protect” it from media persecution.

 

[manualman]

Sorry, Manualman, but some of these cases stretch back into the 50’s and 60’s – before Vatican II standards were implemented in parishes across the US.

…
We do ourselves no favors by trying to ignore our Faith’s failings.

We have as a Church sinned in the past, and likely will sin again in the future. As long as humans are in charge, it is inevitable.
…
That is how I view my Church. Is it perfect? No. But I love it anyway.

No, this isn’t the right way to phrase it. This is what the NYT wants you to take away.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not blaming Vatican II. I’m blaming the people who tried to HIJACK Vatican II. They didn’t pop out of the earth suddenly in the late 1960’s.

Our FAITH has no failings. None. God doesn’t give faulty revelation. That’s what the NYT crowd wants you to think. We as members of the church have failings. The church, at its core, is not the sum of its members. The church is the bride of Christ, spotless and pure in spite of the flaws of the people who make up her constituency. Your language suggests you view the Church as an association of humans. That’s the least important aspect of what the church really is. Emphasizing THAT aspect of “church” at the expense of the supernatural is what got us in this mess in the first place. IMO, of course!

 

[josie_L]

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?

Perhaps you’re (deliberately) misunderstanding me (as I’ve already admitted that it’s important to bring to the fore ALL issues concerning pedophilia to protect our children), i.e., the mainstream media has hardly spoken of these conventions to normalize pedophilia to the general public, why is that, i.e., how are we going to protect our children if the MSM doesn’t even report relevant news (present day) concerning the issues surrounding Pedophilia? I am not trying to deflect, i.e., I have grave concerns for society in general (and most especially for our children). It is not enough to expose the Church’s cover-ups (even though that Church has put forth measures to protect our Children), i.e., if we are properly informed as citizens we can do all that we can to ensure the safety of children, i.e., abuse is not a Catholic problem in other words.

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.

I think you’re making this into an either/or situation, i.e., a Catholic can abhor the cover-ups and scandals within our Church (like I do), but he/she can still question why it is the media seems to be reporting exclusively or principally about the CC, i.e., the MSM has a duty to be unbiased in its reporting (or otherwise you give the general public the impression that abuse is a Catholic problem and not a societal one).

God bless!

p.s. The Church should never have covered up in the first place (no Catholic denies this) but that is nothing neither you or I can change, i.e., we can only change the present, and not just for the Church, but for the whole of society. The MSM can either help or hinder us in that respect.

 

[Tomdstone]

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 Catholic priest is another Christ, alter Christus, which is not true of lay people. Being another Christ, a priest is held to a higher standard.

 

[josie_L]

.

This excerpt seems to be out of context.
It cites a report that Times Religion writer Goldstein only reported on child sex abuse in the Catholic church from 09’-13’…but that topic might be her beat as a reporter, so this means nothing–it doesn’t mean there is a bias.
Once a reporter works on a specific issue and builds up contacts in that area, she is often reassigned other stories of that ilk since she has a background in reporting it.

The excerpt you posted doesn’t mention that The New York Times also reported extensively about cases of sex abuse by a Brooklyn rabbi and cantor from 09-13–I count dozens of such articles in front of me at first glance.

They also reported extensively during that same time span about abuse cases in the Mormon Church…and I also see news stories on abuse in Protestant churches. A quick Google will show you all these news stories.

It might just be that there is much more abuse happening in the Catholic church, and that’s why it’s reported on more or why the story seems to keep getting bigger and bigger.

.

How do you know that there is more abuse in the Catholic Church than in other institutions, i.e., were statistics given? If you can’t supply me an answer then I’ve made my point.

p.s. The Media Reports that the articles written by Laurie Goldstein between 2010 (not 2009) - 2013 were exclusively Catholic, i.e., she supposed to be writing on religious matters, i.e., not just Catholic issues.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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?

I believe you missed the point. I said absolutely nothing about NOT exposing those who are guilty in the Church, Why on earth would you imply that my post says this when it did not? And as for a school not being a ‘moral authority’, what then about other churches? (plus historically schools were considered moral authorities as well.)

Also I believe that holding the Church to a higher standard is one thing, but it appears that the majority of people insist that because the Church’s TEACHINGS are moral absolutes and truth, and its leaders are supposed to help SPREAD THOSE TEACHINGS, this somehow means that the Church’s authorities should be ‘impeccable’. That is not true, and should not be the ‘criterion’ to measure and find those ‘in the Church’ who sin are somehow ‘worse’ than the man on the street sinning.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

A Catholic priest is another Christ, alter Christus, which is not true of lay people. Being another Christ, a priest is held to a higher standard.

See my post below. Higher standard does not mean that we expect our priests to be absolutely without sin, and yet, the whole complaint of people about clergy abuse often veers to anticlericalism in a subtle way:

it is posited that:
A: A Catholic priest should be held to a higher standard than the ‘normal’ person.
B. This is because he should be like Christ.
C. Christ was sinless.
D. Therefore the priest should be sinless.
E. If the priest is not sinless, he is therefore WORSE THAN other sinners because he should be sinless.
F. If the priest is not sinless, this calls into question the whole moral standing of the Church, because if it’s priests are not sinless, they aren’t like Christ, so the Church is not like Christ and is therefore against Christ while claiming to be ‘like Christ’.

The whole thing is wrong because acting to be like Christ, who is God made man, does not mean the person will not sin. And holding a person who is trying to act like Christ as being WORSE when he sins than somebody who says, “I’m not trying to act like Christ, I’m just a regular person” is itself a fallacy, IMO.

Hey, suppose I’m a father who sexually abuses his kid (I’m a woman, but this is a hypothetical). Tell me that it is WORSE for a priest to abuse my child than for me, the parent, to abuse my child.

 

[josie_L]

A Catholic priest is another Christ, alter Christus, which is not true of lay people. Being another Christ, a priest is held to a higher standard.

Yes, priests are held to a higher standard (because of who they represent), so perhaps the level of hypocrisy is greater when one fails to live up to that standard by abusing a child than for example a teacher who does the same, however, all people have a duty to protect children, i.e., we are all essentially called to a higher standard that would include safe-guarding the innocence of children (so whether a priest molests or a teacher does the end results are the same). A child molested is a child molested (although I can’t even begin to imagine the betrayal of being molested by a parent or a very close relative).

 

[josie_L]

I believe you missed the point. I said absolutely nothing about NOT exposing those who are guilty in the Church, Why on earth would you imply that my post says this when it did not? And as for a school not being a ‘moral authority’, what then about other churches? (plus historically schools were considered moral authorities as well.)

Exactly, I for one want those who are guilty in our Church exposed (clean house), but I want people who are committing the same abuses in other institutions to be exposed as well (so all children, not just Catholic ones are safe).

 

[ProVobis]

Oh please, what else is new?

No sarcasm. But when stories like these come out and it’s surprising, I’m just like, “Orly, where have you been?”

That’s not to take any gravity away from the situation. But rather than acting all surprised that something happens, I wish we as a society–not CAF but the world in general–would take a different approach, free from the hoopla.

I can’t help but wonder, though, if these documents weren’t released in conjunction with the reports that under Pope Benedict, 400 priests were defrocked. Maybe more such reports will be forthcoming and I hope we don’t become desensitized to hearing about the harm sexual abuse has caused.

FWIW, another article:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-reaffirms-child-protection-pledge-as-documents-release/

 

[josie_L]

I can’t help but wonder, though, if these documents weren’t released in conjunction with the reports that under Pope Benedict, 400 priests were defrocked. Maybe more such reports will be forthcoming and I hope we don’t become desensitized to hearing about the harm sexual abuse has caused.

FWIW, another article:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-reaffirms-child-protection-pledge-as-documents-release/

Yeah, I thought of that too!

 

[Sarabande]

So then you do understand how talking about it, revealing it, helps you to be a survivor than a victim. And of course you are allowed to “feel” how you feel-- I’m sorry to hear of your own abuse.

I can see how reading about this case would make you revisit your own wounds and that is difficult…but…what did you mean when you said “we are never allowed to heal”?
(you may not want to explain it, but I was just worried that you were saying that victims would heal better if the information was not brought out in the open…)

.

Thank you, DaddyGirl. To explain, I definitely was NOT saying that victims heal better if this information did not come out into the open and I apologise if that was how it was perceived. Keeping things hidden isn’t good for anyone. It was more of a personal emotional response to how much pain I sometimes have to experience every time I hear about abuse. It doesn’t matter if the perpetrators are Catholic priests, Jewish rabbis, Protestant ministers, or relatives and friends.

My heart breaks and cries for every child, every woman, every man who is/was ever abused. You feel this connection with other survivors and victims that can’t be explained unless you were unfortunate enough to experience it and it takes so much strength not to cry out loud in public whenever you hear about it. It is a heavy burden to carry and a huge responsibility as well, especially once you go from “victim” to “survivor” status… at least to me. Discovering the truth about these perpetrators in the priesthood also made me feel victimized as a Catholic and someone who loves my faith and turned to my spirituality for comfort. I still do, but for a few years, my faith in religion and the Church, itself, was shaken. And I know many people who felt the same, although was never abused.

I want to do what I can in my own small capacity to prevent children and adults, and most importantly, my own children, from experiencing such atrocities. Abuse victims also experience a lot of unfair stigmas which is one of the reasons why many of us keep these things to ourselves. That is all want to share about my feelings on this, but I hope I have made my thoughts clearer on this.

 

[Seamus_L]

I just wish some priest or lay person would have gone over the Cardinal’s head and reported the abuse to the police. There are limits to obedience, and this is a good example of it.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I just wish some priest or lay person would have gone over the Cardinal’s head and reported the abuse to the police. There are limits to obedience, and this is a good example of it.

We should not have to wait until the year 2014 to test evidence which should have been presented by witnesses in 1974 or 1984 or 2004 and which should have been presented to the POLICE and to THE COURTS.

At some point in time, when a minor, someone has made allegations to their parents that they were raped / sexually assaulted.

If those parents covered up that crime or disbelieved the allegation of their own child, then such parents need to be duly interrogated and their culpability exposed.

Sadly, family breakdowns, divorce and dysfunction seems to have increased sharply in the decades since the 1970’s and it would be a tragedy to think that this has in any way contributed to the neglect of children such that innocent children didn’t know who they could trust.

Parents and family ought to provide a secure and protective environment to safeguard children and defend their legal rights.

What loving and attentive parents wouldn’t go straight to the police upon hearing that someone raped their child?

What loving parents aren’t aware and suspicious of what their child is doing staying back late at school/church or ‘’spending time with a priest’’ on the weekend and coming home acting abnormally?

 

[Lion_IRC]

This is pretty much the same type of information that I’ve seen about Los Angeles and many other dioceses in the past. And it is all about cases that are decades old…

I dont mind hearing about this.
The more details the better.

OK victims. Now it’s your chance to give evidence. Let’s have a look at it.

The evidence!

The specific details. Who did it? What was the exact nature of the offence. Where exactly did the offence take place. Who did you report the matter to - your parents? The police? Which police station did they report the matter to? Did you make a sworn statement?

When anyone -]gossips/-] says…oh this XYZ diocese scandal is terrible, as if they know all about it, I want to know from them;

• When did they first become aware?
• When exactly did they report what they knew?
• What the police said when they reported the matter?

 

[josie_L]

We should not have to wait until the year 2014 to test evidence which should have been presented by witnesses in 1974 or 1984 or 2004 and which should have been presented to the POLICE and to THE COURTS.

At some point in time, when a minor, someone has made allegations to their parents that they were raped / sexually assaulted.

If those parents covered up that crime or disbelieved the allegation of their own child, then such parents need to be duly interrogated and their culpability exposed.

Sadly, family breakdowns, divorce and dysfunction seems to have increased sharply in the decades since the 1970’s and it would be a tragedy to think that this has in any way contributed to the neglect of children such that innocent children didn’t know who they could trust.

Parents and family ought to provide a secure and protective environment to safeguard children and defend their legal rights.

What loving and attentive parents wouldn’t go straight to the police upon hearing that someone raped their child?

What loving parents aren’t aware and suspicious of what their child is doing staying back late at school/church or ‘’spending time with a priest’’ on the weekend and coming home acting abnormally?

This is one aspect of the abuse scandal that I just don’t get, i.e., I have no children but if I did and my child came to me to tell me that he/she was abused by a priest, and the Church wasn’t doing what needed to be done, I would definitely go to the police.

 

[Tomdstone]

See my post below. Higher standard does not mean that we expect our priests to be absolutely without sin, and yet, the whole complaint of people about clergy abuse often veers to anticlericalism in a subtle way:

it is posited that:
A: A Catholic priest should be held to a higher standard than the ‘normal’ person.
B. This is because he should be like Christ.
C. Christ was sinless.
D. Therefore the priest should be sinless.
E. If the priest is not sinless, he is therefore WORSE THAN other sinners because he should be sinless.
F. If the priest is not sinless, this calls into question the whole moral standing of the Church, because if it’s priests are not sinless, they aren’t like Christ, so the Church is not like Christ and is therefore against Christ while claiming to be ‘like Christ’.

The whole thing is wrong because acting to be like Christ, who is God made man, does not mean the person will not sin. And holding a person who is trying to act like Christ as being WORSE when he sins than somebody who says, “I’m not trying to act like Christ, I’m just a regular person” is itself a fallacy, IMO.

Hey, suppose I’m a father who sexually abuses his kid (I’m a woman, but this is a hypothetical). Tell me that it is WORSE for a priest to abuse my child than for me, the parent, to abuse my child.

The priest is another Christ. It is not just a matter of a priest acting like Christ. He is not just acting like Christ; the priest is another Christ.

 

[Lion_IRC]

This is one aspect of the abuse scandal that I just don’t get, i.e., I have no children but if I did and my child came to me to tell me that he/she was abused by a priest, and the Church wasn’t doing what needed to be done, I would definitely go to the police.

I want to know why the parents didnt report THE RAPE OF THEIR CHILD TO THE POLICE!
the very instant they found out about it.



abc.net.au/news/2012-11-23/abuse-inquiry-urged-to-stand-up-to-catholic-church/4388274

Mr Foster has told the Victorian parliamentary inquiry into child sex abuse that it should be mandatory to report any allegations of abuse to a state authority.

YA THINK?

Mr Foster is reported to have said :
"There should be no time limit for civil or criminal claims in regard to sexual crimes against children.’’

YES there bloody well should be a time limit!!!

You should have no more than half an hour to ring the police!

Thats your child PAL!

Youre supposed to PROTECT THEM!!! FFS

Exactly how much time DO you need to decide whether their rape should be reported?