Church abuse report 'will shock'

[maggiemay2u]

there are child abusers in many professions
but there collegues wouldnt brush it under the carpet

l am a catholic but getting fed up with all the hypcrosy
l believe in god but human intervention has twisted gods word to suit themselves

hand over all the abusers to the authorities
and no l wont be praying for them

They not only sweep it under the carpet, but they ensure protection through privacy clauses in contracts. School teachers, public officials, fire and police, parks and recreation leaders—any public employee with a decent union is not only protected as long as possible from public scrutiny, but they’re often given administrative sanctions, and allowed to go about their merry way.

The most heavily investigated and castigated group has been the Catholic clergy, despite NYT studies demonstrating their being less likely to offend than the population, in general, and public sector employees, in particular.

This does not mitigate the actions of the deviates involved, but it’s important to look beyond the headlines.

 

[GodsGadfly]

Was John Egan a liberal? Isn’t he the priest from Boston who is now celebrating Mass at the Vatican? I wouldn’t necessarily think this is a liberal/conservative issue but I honestly have no idea.

This is a very dangerous comment, because you are confusing three different individuals:

1. Edward Cardinal Egan is the retiring Archbishop of New York. He, like most bishops, has been named in various cases for his role as a bishop, but, to my knowledge, has not to be found as grossly negligent as some.
2. Fr. John Geoghan was the Boston priest who was a notorious molestor and went to prison for 30 years for touching a child’s butt (like getting Al Capone for tax evasion). He was murdered in prison by a guy who hated homosexuals. He was a notoriously heterodox priest in his ministry. He frequently spoke in favor of homosexuality. Another notorious Boston priest former Fr. Paul Shanley–who had been laicized long before the scandal broke in 2002–would also preach in favor of homosexuality, and he had been active in the “man boy love club”.
3. Bernard Cardinal Law, the former Archbishop of Boston, who is now in Rome, serving as Rector of the Basilica of St. Mary Major [from metropolitan archbishop to parish priest: hardly a promotion] and working on various Vatican committees, particularly the one that negotiates with Anglicans who want to become Catholic, as he was the first Bishop in the US to approve the so-called “Anglican Use” and let an Anglican parish convert en masse, with their priest remaining a priest.

Now, Law had a reputation for being “conservative,” mainly because he was nominally pro-life. But many Catholics consider him far from it. After all, he had John Kerry and Ted Kennedy under his jurisdiction, and Bob Dornan-among others–had taken him to task directly for his weak voice on pro-life issues long before 2002. Plus, he was a strong proponent of inclusive language and extraordinary ministers of holy communion, hardly “conservative” positions.

 

[GodsGadfly]

one of the things that struck me most (after I had stopped throwing up) was how many of the clerical abusers listed were priests who were ordained before 1965 - in other words, men who had grown up, trained for the priesthood and been ordained in an Ireland where Catholicism permeated every aspect of life, and in a society that not by any stretch of the imagination could be considered ‘liberal’.

I don’t know if you’re writing from the US or Ireland, but I have been told on good authority (a liberal priest who was bragging that this was a good thing) that Ireland sends its “problem” priests to the US, and most of the Irish-born priests here were sent here for being too liberal or otherwise.

That said, as for being ordained before 1965, that would make perfect sense to a traditionalist. After all, the post-Vatican II problems happened because of the priests and bishops who were already there. It was the priests and bishops who told people contraceptoin was OK leading up to 1968 who created the crisis when Humanae Vitae came out.

Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote about intentional infiltration of the Church by communists. Others have talked about infiltration by freemasons. I was once puzzling over the possible connection between Communists and homosexuals. I said, “How many different infiltrations could there be??”
My wife said, “Well ,if you were the Communists or the Masons, and you were going to send men in to infiltrate the priesthood, wouldn’t you send in the homosexuals?”

But certainly this problem has always been around in the Church. Pope St. Pius V dealt with it after the Council of Trent, and said that any priest caught committing the Sin Against Nature should be defrocked, stripped of title and property, and handed over to civil authorities to be burned at the stake.

 

[GodsGadfly]

Is it usually liberal priests who do this kind of thing?

From what I know both of the cases, and of the psychology (from taking VIRTUS training), there are basically two “MOs,” one conservative and one liberal.

First, the basic MO of the abuser is to insinuate himself into a position of trustworthiness.

So, the main difference between a “liberal” abuser and a “conservative” abuser is the method.

Examples of “conservative” abusers include Fr. Maciel, the traditionalists priests in the now disbanded Fraternity of St. John, and a couple other individual priests I know of who have unproven allegations against them.

Abusers are no different than the rest of us. I’m heterosexual, but I’m not attracted to every woman I meet. Abusers are “attracted” to certain children just as healthy heterosexuals are attracted to certain people.

So one of the ways an abuser gains trust is by singling one child out of the group–the other children grow up to say, “I spent all this time around him, and he never did anything to me.”

“Conservative” abusers use power. Like Maciel actually had the gall to tell his victims that they had to pleasure him as an act of penance. According to the testimonies of his victims, he would engage in all sorts of S&M rituals and call it penance.

Another thing is things like sleeping in the same bedroom or going to saunas or whatever.

The parents see the conservative priest as a masculine role model, and trust his celibacy. They allow their kid to spend time with the priest. If the kid’s alone with the priest in the bedroom, or even sleeps overnight or something, it’s considered no different than hanging out with a trusted uncle or something.

And the priest presents his abusive behavior as “guy stuff.”

Then there’s the “liberal model”. It seems to be the more common model in the current crisis, precisely because the climate in the Church has lent to it.

In the VIRTUS video, they only really talked about one priest. The parents said, "He was such a nice priest. No one could believe it. He was very kind adn compassionate. . . . "

They went on to talk–in regard to other abusers–of how abusers weasel their way into the life of the child–and the parents–by “being nice.”
What is the most basic way parents tell chidlren to avoid abusers without being explicit? “NEver take candy from strangers.”

That’s how it starts. The classic stereotype: “Here, Joey. Would you like some candy? I know your mom says not to, but it will be our little secret, OK? Your mom doesn’t need to know about it.”

It starts with that one “little secret.” The molester goes on to offer larger and larger “gifts,” always telling the kid “it’s our secret.” If the kid expresses reservations, the abuser blackmails the kid. “I’ll tell your mom about the candy.”

Then comes the pornography. “I’ll show you some cool pictures. Wanna see? But don’t tell mom or dad! It’ll be our secret.”

And they even said abusers do similar things with the parents themselves, building the edifice of a “trusted friend” or a “fun guy.”

But VIRTUS stopped short of making the connection to the one priest they described.

They didn’t draw the parallel to the “fun,” “kind,” “compassionate” priest who says, “I know the Vatican says not to do this, but it’s OK. It’ll be our secret. Don’t tell!”

 

[Dtmccameron]

…
But certainly this problem has always been around in the Church. Pope St. Pius V dealt with it after the Council of Trent, and said that any priest caught committing the Sin Against Nature should be defrocked, stripped of title and property, and handed over to civil authorities to be burned at the stake.

No one would say the Church was trying to cover stuff up if we did that!

Trouble is, nowadays, the civil authorities don’t really favor burning at the stake. In fact, there’s only a few I think that still have the electric chair (which is about as close as we’ll get), and only a couple states that still allow hanging…

 

[Yellow_Belle]

I don’t know if you’re writing from the US or Ireland, but I have been told on good authority (a liberal priest who was bragging that this was a good thing) that Ireland sends its “problem” priests to the US, and most of the Irish-born priests here were sent here for being too liberal or otherwise.

Since when is a bragging, liberal priest a ‘good authority’ on anything but his own self-importance? Are you sure he wasn’t trying to ‘wind up’ his listeners?

That said, many clerical sex abusers were sent by Irish bishops to dioceses outside of Ireland. However, the only ones I know about were sent ‘on loan’ to UK dioceses and I can categorically state that it was **not **because they were ‘liberal’. One of the most notorious clerical sex abusers in my diocese was the epitome of the conservative, soutane-and-biretta wearing, pulpit thumping cleric, vociferous in the pro-life movement, staunch defender of Humanae Vitae, and crusader against even the slightest hint of liberalism (though admittedly there wasn’t very much of that in Ireland in the 1960s ) in any parish he served in. Of the 21 priests investigated for child sex abuse in my diocese, I would estimate that at least 19 of them would have had a reputation for being devout, dedicated and conservative. It was probably this demeanour that encouraged people to trust them with their children and that helped to camouflage their behaviour.

It is also true that many Irish priests (some of whom undoubtedly went on to abuse) were ordained specifically for US parishes, at the request and sponsorship of US bishops. Again, I doubt if liberalism was a criterion for acceptance but you would have to do some research in US diocesan archives for that information.

 

[Don5925]

I apologize if I plow some old ground here, but I wonder what, if any, study has been done to determine what level of victimization the offending clerics experienced. I contend that this is at least in part a cultural issue. We have heard about the issues coming out of the former junior seminaries and I believe that old system has a lot to do with the issues coming out now.

The Church, as a cultural force, has not really spoke to sexuality until recently. Sex in general was a taboo subject except to say that one should not do if you are not married. Good and timeless advice, but somewhat lacking in wake of what we know now of psycho-sexual development.

A figure that is bantered about is that approximately 2% of the population falls into a sexual preference for children (pedophile or ephebophile). If that is true, we expect that 2% of the priest population is as well. We will never get away from child abuse, it more how we manage it and try to prevent it.

 

[maggiemay2u]

I apologize if I plow some old ground here, but I wonder what, if any, study has been done to determine what level of victimization the offending clerics experienced. I contend that this is at least in part a cultural issue. We have heard about the issues coming out of the former junior seminaries and I believe that old system has a lot to do with the issues coming out now.

The Church, as a cultural force, has not really spoke to sexuality until recently. Sex in general was a taboo subject except to say that one should not do if you are not married. Good and timeless advice, but somewhat lacking in wake of what we know now of psycho-sexual development.

A figure that is bantered about is that approximately 2% of the population falls into a sexual preference for children (pedophile or ephebophile). If that is true, we expect that 2% of the priest population is as well. We will never get away from child abuse, it more how we manage it and try to prevent it.

When you speak of the Church and not speaking out until recently, you’re right. Neither, however, did society as a whole. I have related in this forum, many times, my personal frustration in trying to get child molesters held accountable for their actions. Page after page of rap sheets, reflecting dispositions of counseling for repeat offenders. It wasn’t until the late 80’s and early 90’s, at least in California, that molestation was dealt with in a victim oriented way. The loony-tune intelligentsia community, despite evidence to the contrary, convinced the legislators and judges that treatment was a viable option. The bishops bought into the madness, which, given the “go and sin no more” approach to criminals, seemed appropriate.

I usually give bishops a pass until the mandatory reporting laws hit. After the laws came about, then the bishops who failed to comply need to be fried, just as the police and teachers unions should be sued and held criminally liable for fighting for secrecy for their members and administrative, not criminal sanctions for their members.

Again, predators seek out, consciously or unconsciously, positions of trust. Police, fire, teachers, coaches, caregivers (including boyfriends) doctors and clergy, are natural fits for individuals of this ilk.

Lastly, the article speaks of investigations. There isn’t information as to which were sustained and which were not. After seeing priests in the LA diocese have to pay for their own legal fees when they refused to settle unfounded complaints (they prevailed, by the way) I remain skeptical as to the allegation being taken as fact…OJ and Koby got a better shake.

 

[GodsGadfly]

Since when is a bragging, liberal priest a ‘good authority’ on anything but his own self-importance? Are you sure he wasn’t trying to ‘wind up’ his listeners?

Since it was over dinner, and he thought his listeners were on his side. My parents have the ability I lack of being able to “be polite,” and, more to my annoyance, of pretending to agree with people they socialize with, even if they don’t. It was one of the first times he came over to dinner . Knowing we came from the same town, and he was friends with my dad’s cousin, who, like most of our extended family there, is a liberal Democrat, this priest just assumed my parents shared his views.

In any case, I did not mean that the priests were sent from Ireland for being child molesters, necessarily. The one in question most definitely wasn’t–but he was involved in a scandalous (in terms of activities they publicly did together, regardless of whether they were “intimate”) relationship with his secretary. I meant that Ireland–at least in the 1950s and 1960s–would get rid of its “liberal” priests, so it can’t be said to be the same dynamic.

One of the most notorious clerical sex abusers in my diocese was the epitome of the conservative, soutane-and-biretta wearing, pulpit thumping cleric, vociferous in the pro-life movement, staunch defender of Humanae Vitae, and crusader against even the slightest hint of liberalism (though admittedly there wasn’t very much of that in Ireland in the 1960s )

And, note ,I did acknowledge a certain “type” of conservative priest who could also fit the mold of an abuser–just that the majority of cases in the US in the past few decades have been “liberal” priests.

Ineresting contrast, really. An abuser (or for that matter, an adulterer) either a) presents himself as being the epitome of moral superiority, to hide his sins, or b) presents himself as a fun, “break the rules” kind of guy.

Of the 21 priests investigated for child sex abuse in my diocese, I would estimate that at least 19 of them would have had a reputation for being devout, dedicated and conservative. It was probably this demeanour that encouraged people to trust them with their children and that helped to camouflage their behaviour.

Again, I acknowledged that above: particularly if the parents want their sons around a “strong male role model.”
However, I do notice you said, “investigated.” How many are proven?

The other problem with this is that any priest who exhibits extreme behavior is going to be targeted by his enemies. St. John of the Cross, St. Pio of Pietrelcina, and St. Gerard Majella, among others, were all “investigated” for allegations of sexual impropriety and/or abuse.

Actually, St. John of the Cross was investigated to find out if he was hiding any skeletons, so his enemies could denounce him, but they found none. St. Gerard was investigated, and initially found guilty (oddly enough, by St. Alphonsus Liguori, who was still head of the Redemptorists at the time, and thus judge at his trial) because he refusd to defend himself, and then later proven innocent. St. Pio was accused numerous times, always found innocent, but the allegations constantly hung over his head until the Holy Father gave him a blanket pardon for all accusations.

None of these men would be canonized saints if they were alive today, when the mere allegation destroys a priest’s reputation and vocation, even if he is found innocent.

Again, that’s not to say “conservative” priests are the only victims of false accusations: there have been plenty of movies and TV shows that depicted liberal priests being falsely accused by conservative parishioners out to “get them.”

But a priest who expresses “extreme” views, one way or the other, is likely to make enemies who might misinterpret certain actions.

 

[Yellow_Belle]

i meant that ireland–at least in the 1950s and 1960s–would get rid of its “liberal” priests, so it can’t be said to be the same dynamic.** Trust me, a ‘liberal’ priest in ireland in the 1950s and 1960s would have been as rare as hens’ teeth. And it wasn’t because we exported/got rid of them. Conservative societies - and ireland was very conservative - don’t usually produce liberal candidates for the diocesan priesthood. And even if one did manage to get past the investigations of his conservative bishop and into seminary, he would find it very difficult to survive the seven years to ordination.**

however, i do notice you said, “investigated.” how many are proven? ** All of them. The figures come from the official report of over 100 proven incidents involving 21 priests between 1960 and 2000. Obviously, that doesn’t mean that only 21 priests were involved in child sexual abuse in my diocese in that period: These 21 were those who were either convicted and served jail sentences or who were deceased or retired (a few forcibly) but against whom complaints were made and sufficient evidence produced to satisfy either a state judicial tribunal of enquiry or a church one of their guilt. The report on the Dublin diocese, the subject of this thread, will apparently list 1000s of cases of priests in that diocese involved in sexual abuse over the last 50+ years**

the other problem with this is that any priest who exhibits extreme behavior is going to be targeted by his enemies…but a priest who expresses “extreme” views, one way or the other, is likely to make enemies who might misinterpret certain actions.** Like Fr Maciel, you mean? /**

 

[MrDickerson]

I’m getting sick and tired of these damn filthy priests and bishops. I’m sick and tired of defending the Catholic Church because of these homo clergy. I am tired of it.

Any of these monsters who did/hide these filthy deeds needs to be drummed out of the Church.

St. John Chrysostom said that the road to hell is paved with skulls of bishops. I certainly believe it.

Yes, the “New Springtime” is right around the corner!

 

[GodsGadfly]

Trust me, a ‘liberal’ priest in ireland in the 1950s and 1960s would have been as rare as hens’ teeth. And it wasn’t because we exported/got rid of them.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, because every priest in America I’ve known with an Irish accent has been incredibly liberal.

Of course, here’s something else to consider:
we usually talk about “liberal” and “conservative,” but some people use another description, which applies to the likes of Cardinal Law or Bishop Loverde:“company men”; the guys whose primary concern is their careers and ambitions. Those who appear “conservative” and talk the talk, but are not concerned with the Gospel so much as their own reputations and bank accounts. They know how to speak without “getting in trouble,” but their actions are usually quite liberal, in order to appease their rich donors.

But J. Kevin Boland-the bishop of whom the priest made the comment–is hardly a conservative. A “company man” at best, he has a long history of supporting pro-choice politicians, inclusive language, etc., and his chancery is full of people who despise Pope Benedict.

All of them.

Fair enough. Then say “found guilty”; not “investigated.”

Like Fr Maciel, you mean?

No. Like St. Pio.

One of the cases I’ve been referring to obliquely is Fr. Christopher Buckner in the Diocese of Arlington. 1. Bishop Loverde has a history of punishing ultra-conservative priests in the mold his predecessor encouraged. 2. The Diocese has never specified what the allegation against Fr. Buckner is. They’ve only said “inappropriate contact with a parishioner.” 3. It’s been 2 years now, and there hasn’t been any progress in the Fr. Buckner case that I’ve heard of.

My wife knew Fr .Buckner well. I met him once. My wife has friends who also know him very well. Now, again, there is the MO of the “conservative priest” who seems so moral that everyone trusts him, and if he molests 1 kid, it’s easy for the community to rally in favor of the priest over the kid, esp. when the priest has a reputation for making enemies. Plus, Fr. Buckner used to take kids on trips to the Holy Land, and it’s easy to see how that might have provided opportunities.

So, it’s easy to see both sides of the issue. He could be an innocent being railroaded by some lay enemies and the Diocese, or he could be the most reprehensible of predators. But if the Diocese is going to keep the thing under wraps–and not make any progress in the case in 2 years–then one has to wonder it it’s not the former, rather than the latter.

I’ve already said I think Maciel is the archetype of an abuser . He founded an order whose whole purpose is to teach. Now, unlike other Orders, the LC has a very specific “apostolate”: forming schools to raise young men to join the LC. I interviewed for a job at one of their schools once, and the principal made this very clear. They’re not out to win converts, as such. They’re not out to specifically educate the poor or to provide catechesis. They’re out to recruit. It’s a giant pyramid scheme.

The Order’s stated apostolate is to recruit for its own Order. The purpose of Regnum Christi is to support LC and to recruit for it.
Secondly, they have that vow–which Pope Benedict lifted a couple years ago–about not criticizing the Order or its superiors, or the Church or a bishop. They are very opposed to traditionalism for this reason. They have also been a major group for enabling bishops who enable abusers. The LC, like (in many cases) the KofC, jumps to the defense of a bishop or pastor any time an allegation is raised, and immediately set to work attacking those who make the allegations.

The principal I interviewed with also “protested too much” a bit in saying taht people don’t like that LC schools require 2 half hour sessions a week of spiritual direction with a priest. At the time, I nodded in agreement that mandatory spiritual direction should be a part of any Catholic school.

I knew I wasn’t getting the job when he commented on my disability by saying, “We prefer our teachers to have a certain . . . distance . . . a certain air of authority.”

When I got home from a trip (the interview was a side trip from our spring break), I did online research and found out about the allegations against Fr. Maciel. This was like 4 years ago. Everything made perfect sense, when I compared those allegations to what that principal had told me.

Maciel basically founded an Order that would be a network of abusers.

 

[Yellow_Belle]

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, because every priest in America I’ve known with an Irish accent has been incredibly liberal. **I’m ok with agreeing to disagree but I also think that our differing opinions on this matter may be a function of our differing ages, too. I was brought up in 1950s and 1960s Ireland and I’m guessing you are much younger than that. The priests with Irish accents you know were almost certainly ordained after the mid-seventies when traces of liberalism did begin to appear in the Irish Church, especially in its national seminary. **

Of course, here’s something else to consider:
we usually talk about “liberal” and “conservative,” but some people use another description, which applies to the likes of Cardinal Law or Bishop Loverde:“company men”; the guys whose primary concern is their careers and ambitions. Those who appear “conservative” and talk the talk, but are not concerned with the Gospel so much as their own reputations and bank accounts. They know how to speak without “getting in trouble,” but their actions are usually quite liberal, in order to appease their rich donors. **Interesting point. At least with a liberal we know where we are, eh?: with the pseudo-conservative ‘company’ man it’s hard to tell. **

Fair enough. Then say “found guilty”; not “investigated.” **But they weren’t all tried in a criminal court before a jury of their peers and found guilty. Many of them were deceased. They were investigated and the charges against them proven before a judicial tribunal. There is a difference. One of the most notorious ones committed suicide rather than face dozens of charges of abuse in a criminal court. Because he was never ‘found guilty’, many people in his former parishes still refuse to believe that he did anything wrong, despite the victim, witness and forensic evidence (much of it given over by the Church authorities) produced at the judicial tribunal and detailed in its official report. **.

 

[Ryniev]

This is a very dangerous comment, because you are confusing three different individuals:

1. Edward Cardinal Egan is the retiring Archbishop of New York. He, like most bishops, has been named in various cases for his role as a bishop, but, to my knowledge, has not to be found as grossly negligent as some.
2. Fr. John Geoghan was the Boston priest who was a notorious molestor and went to prison for 30 years for touching a child’s butt (like getting Al Capone for tax evasion). He was murdered in prison by a guy who hated homosexuals. He was a notoriously heterodox priest in his ministry. He frequently spoke in favor of homosexuality. Another notorious Boston priest former Fr. Paul Shanley–who had been laicized long before the scandal broke in 2002–would also preach in favor of homosexuality, and he had been active in the “man boy love club”.
3. Bernard Cardinal Law, the former Archbishop of Boston, who is now in Rome, serving as Rector of the Basilica of St. Mary Major [from metropolitan archbishop to parish priest: hardly a promotion] and working on various Vatican committees, particularly the one that negotiates with Anglicans who want to become Catholic, as he was the first Bishop in the US to approve the so-called “Anglican Use” and let an Anglican parish convert en masse, with their priest remaining a priest.

Now, Law had a reputation for being “conservative,” mainly because he was nominally pro-life. But many Catholics consider him far from it. After all, he had John Kerry and Ted Kennedy under his jurisdiction, and Bob Dornan-among others–had taken him to task directly for his weak voice on pro-life issues long before 2002. Plus, he was a strong proponent of inclusive language and extraordinary ministers of holy communion, hardly “conservative” positions.

Please accept my apologies. I am not Catholic and got my names mixed up. I was refering to #2 and #3 and apparently wasn’t clear on my facts.

Again, I am sorry for anything I wrote that may have upset anyone. I was only trying to point out that I didn’t think this was a liberal/conservative issue. Thank you for your understanding.

 

[MDK]

…I honestly have no idea.

Please get a truthful idea, then.

 

[Ryniev]

Please get a truthful idea, then.

Seriously, was that really necessary after I just admitted the error of my ways and apologized? How very gracious.

 

[MDK]

Seriously, was that really necessary after I just admitted the error of my ways and apologized? How very gracious.

I was responding to your post #8… and you apparently apologized in post #73. Did it occur to you that perhaps there are a number of posts and pages between the two, and perhaps post #73 had not been read yet? Therefore, when you take this into account, now do you need to apologize to me as well? Please don’t worry. I don’t take offense at this as it was done out of ignorance, not desire.

Nevertheless, even if I had read post #73 before replying to post #8, it is necessary not only to apologize, but to get the right idea. If you had the right idea, you likely would not have to apologize. It was not meant as you interpreted, but to move forward toward the truth. Please do not waste any time, in seeking the truth. Jesus is the Truth, so understanding truth is not unimportant.