Defending Priests Against "They're all pedophiles."?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Keyeotee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Keyeotee

Guest
This may be a silly question, but it’s one I ponder on quite a bit.

My argument is usually this: “You only say that because it’s publicized. However, you look up to a priest, but you also look up to your uncle. Say your uncle were to sexually abuse you… How come all uncles are not getting persecuted?”

But then it usually comes down to “Why do you keep them around?”. This is the part that troubles me. Catholics believe in the utmost forgiveness of their enemies. But, this is an issue. Repeat offenders being sent to receive help and then just shuffled to a new parish to commit the same evils.

How can someone stand up for the dignity of priests and disprove the common thought of priests being sex offenders?
 
That accusation is simply based on very cheap rhetoric rather than based on objective facts. The best way to crush it is to provide objective proof of their error.
 
I generally just go with the truth… I actually had to defend against this just a few hours ago.

Satan has been attacking the Church from the beginning.

It is the truth, yet not acceptable evidence to them.

It is okay, if God calls them to the Church they will see the truth. If not, they were almost predestined to hate you anyways or so it would seem.
 
One may as well call all teachers pedophiles, as a greater percentage of them are than priests.
 
This may be a silly question, but it’s one I ponder on quite a bit.

My argument is usually this: “You only say that because it’s publicized. However, you look up to a priest, but you also look up to your uncle. Say your uncle were to sexually abuse you… How come all uncles are not getting persecuted?”

But then it usually comes down to “Why do you keep them around?”. This is the part that troubles me. Catholics believe in the utmost forgiveness of their enemies. But, this is an issue. Repeat offenders being sent to receive help and then just shuffled to a new parish to commit the same evils.

How can someone stand up for the dignity of priests and disprove the common thought of priests being sex offenders?
By stating that as terrible as it is, and as terrible as the mishandling of it was, it still makes no sense to generalize from guilty people to innocent people. Your first argument, why don’t people believe that all uncles, or all teacher, or all coaches, etc, are sex offenders, is still the way to go.

The fact that others also got involved in covering abuse up in some cases involving priests (and in cases of teachers and the like as well) is terrible, but it doesn’t change what you said before. As to why we keep them around - we shouldn’t. We shouldn’t have kept them around. Granted, it was not as well known that recovery to the point where a person can be trusted around children again is nigh impossible when much of this happened, which gives something of a shape of an explanation of why some of it was done, but that does not change that decisions were at the least objectively bad ones, and quiet likely worse than that.

Further, the fact that forgiveness is offered to everyone does not in any way imply that we must continue to allow people, even those who have been forgiven of their past sins, to continue to endanger others. A serial killer may seek forgiveness and be forgiven, but this does not by itself mean that he must be let out of prison. It’s possible that he has changed and accepted that wrongness of his past actions, and it’s even possible that he has changed to the extent that he would never even consider murder again even if the exact same circumstances in which he did it before arise again. But if so, if he has truly accepted what his actions are, then he should accept that prison is the consequence of these actions and that we cannot chance him repeating them. Forgiveness does not by itself restore lost trust, and while in many cases this lost trust can be rebuilt, in some full trust can never be restored.

So the mere fact that a priest (or any other abuser) can be forgiven does not excuse any amount of covering stuff up at all. And that’s not even to touch on the dishonesty involved in such an action.
 
This may be a silly question, but it’s one I ponder on quite a bit.

My argument is usually this: “You only say that because it’s publicized. However, you look up to a priest, but you also look up to your uncle. Say your uncle were to sexually abuse you… How come all uncles are not getting persecuted?”

But then it usually comes down to “Why do you keep them around?”. This is the part that troubles me. Catholics believe in the utmost forgiveness of their enemies. But, this is an issue. Repeat offenders being sent to receive help and then just shuffled to a new parish to commit the same evils.

How can someone stand up for the dignity of priests and disprove the common thought of priests being sex offenders?
Key,

This is a filter. The mind filters with generalizations, distortion and deletions. The first thing to do is recognize this. Next you ask questions.

Do you know all priests?

How is it you came to believe this?

A continuum of questions gets to the root of the generalization and there is no argument once the generalization is dispelled.
 
First of all, you need to school these haters in the proper terminology. A very tiny minority of humankind is actually pedophile (and you could also get into whether they are fixated or unfixated). A very tiny minority of humankind are priests. Therefore, a vanishingly small number of priests have ever actually committed pedophilia.

Pedophilia is a very specific term. It indicates a sexual interest in prepubescent children. Most children hit puberty at age 13. The majority of sexual abuse cases in the world, and by extension in the Church, occur with people older than 13.

The majority of sexual abuse cases in the period we underwent the scandal were cases of some combination of homosexuality, ephebophilia, and pederasty. It is extremely inconvenient to label these crimes correctly - and yes, they are terrible crimes which cry out to Heaven for vengeance - and the bishops who hid the priests share the blame. But In order to get a good story out there, our enemies spread the word that we are all pedophiles. And it is extremely inconvenient for them to use the other terms. Because beginning in high school, young girls are sexualized and pimped out to the world as usable sex objects. Young boys to a lesser degree, and certainly valued by the homosexualists. Since gay relationships are supposed to be acceptable, it is unthinkable to posit that the priest may just be “merely gay” and that the victim may be “consenting” - although by law, no minor here may legally consent to anything.

Our society also has a deep-seated tendency to judge past events by present standards. It is hip and cool to say that Columbus was the death knell for the Americas because his “discovery” led to slaughter and indoctrination on a continental scale. We know the truth is more nuanced than that. Looking at the sexual abuse scandal from the present, we wonder why the victims didn’t go straight to the police. We wonder why those cases went unreported to authorities even after complaints were made to the Church. We wonder why bishops felt a need to protect their clergy - as chief shepherd of a diocese, the priests are near and dear to an ordinary’s heart, and represent a huge investment in time and spiritual capital to form and train a priest so he is ready to minister to souls. The truth is that people in authority, in the past, observed a culture of silence about sexual abuse, because it was shameful and rare and uncomfortable to deal with in the open. Thanks to the sexual revolution, we can talk freely about sex - even on CAF boards - but this spread slowly, especially to the Christian faithful. Those were puritanical days for us.

The simple facts are that some priests forced themselves on unwilling youngsters from a position of authority, and some bishops were complicit in those crimes. But I have explained the nuances here. It doesn’t excuse or dismiss any crimes and sins committed in the past, but it helps us understand, and it helps us put things into perspective, especially when someone comes at you with a hateful line of “pedophile priests!” you have some talking points to address in a calm fashion. And time will heal all wounds. These crimes happened 1-2 generations ago, and even the victims are aging and dying now. Nothing will be left in a few decades but a wounded Church and angry societies still hurling insults at us. We will weather this storm, just as we weathered all the others.
 
Only a very small percentage of priests have been accused of molesting minors. And even fewer than that number were convicted (I’ve heard stories of kids who were mad at someone and accused said person of molesting him. They later admitted they were lying. Sad, but true… everyone has a right to a fair trial. Unfortunately, the accusation is enough to ruin a reputation of a good person.)

I do agree that the Church needs to crack down on sex offenders. There needs to be a zero tolerance policy and the person cannot be allowed to be alone with children, has to register as a sex offender and follow state laws.

People get so bent out of shape at the Church, but forget, to put things into perspective, that only 40 years ago the state laws were such that pedophiles could return home after just 24 or 48 hours in jail. No rehab programs, no sex offender registry. And the sentences were lightest for cases within a single family, which if I’m not mistaken is the majority of cases. Hollywood had some really bad cases of child molestation, especially grown men molesting young boys. Society as a whole has come a long way in just a few decades.

This is for another thread, but I think there needs to be a distinction between pedophilia (pre-pubescent), hebephilia (early adolescence, or 11-14), and ephebephilia (late adolescence, or 15-19). Most of the cases have been homosexual hebephilia and the minor end of ephebephilia, not pedophilia. A low percentage of the victims were pre-pubescent and even fewer were girls.
 
There are also Scout masters who are pedophiles, school teachers who are pedophiles, and ministers of other faiths who are pedophiles. Does that mean that all scout masters, school teachers, and ministers of other faiths are pedophiles? Hardly.

To claim that “all priests are pedophiles” defies even natural logic. You might want to start with that.
 
In 1994, the Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse issued guidelines to the nation’s then 191 dioceses to help them develop policies to deal with the problem of sexual abuse of minors. Almost all dioceses responded and developed their own policies (USCCB document: Guidelines for dealing with Child Sexual Abuse, 1993-1994). By this time, pedophilia was recognized as a disorder that could not be cured, and a problem that was becoming more prevalent due to the increase of pornography. Before 1994, bishops took their cue from experts in the psychiatric profession who believed pedophilia could be successfully treated. Priests guilty of sexual abuse were sent to one of several treatment facilities across the United States. Bishops often relied upon the judgments of experts in determining whether priests were fit for ministry. This doesn’t mitigate the negligence on the part of some in the hierarchy, but it does offer some insight.
catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0011.html
That was the drill of the day: after being treated, the patient (I prefer the term offender) returns to work. It’s still the drill of the day in many secular quarters today, particularly in the public schools. A more hard-line approach, obviously, makes more sense, but the therapeutic industry is very powerful.
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1811
Why, for example, are the psychologists and psychiatrists who pledged to “fix” abusers treated so lightly? After all, employers from the corporate world to the Catholic Church were told over and over again that therapy works and to give the offender a second chance.
edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/19/donohue.catholic.church/index.html?iref=allsearch
Why did it fall into disuse and disrespect? It was because priests and bishops began to regard it as being overly legalistic and too focused on punishment. They decided it lacked compassion. Therefore, they stopped using it. No longer did priests accused of child abuse face a canonical trial and the possibility of “defrocking”. Instead, and with disastrous consequences, they were sent for therapy and then, “cured”, they were reassigned to ministry.
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7068604.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2
 
I think the answer as to why priests accused priests were sent to new parishes is because of the following
In 1994, the Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse issued guidelines to the nation’s then 191 dioceses to help them develop policies to deal with the problem of sexual abuse of minors. Almost all dioceses responded and developed their own policies (USCCB document: Guidelines for dealing with Child Sexual Abuse, 1993-1994). By this time, pedophilia was recognized as a disorder that could not be cured, and a problem that was becoming more prevalent due to the increase of pornography. Before 1994, bishops took their cue from experts in the psychiatric profession who believed pedophilia could be successfully treated. Priests guilty of sexual abuse were sent to one of several treatment facilities across the United States. Bishops often relied upon the judgments of experts in determining whether priests were fit for ministry. This doesn’t mitigate the negligence on the part of some in the hierarchy, but it does offer some insight.
catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0011.html
That was the drill of the day: after being treated, the patient (I prefer the term offender) returns to work. It’s still the drill of the day in many secular quarters today, particularly in the public schools. A more hard-line approach, obviously, makes more sense, but the therapeutic industry is very powerful.
catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1811
Why did it fall into disuse and disrespect? It was because priests and bishops began to regard it as being overly legalistic and too focused on punishment. They decided it lacked compassion. Therefore, they stopped using it. No longer did priests accused of child abuse face a canonical trial and the possibility of “defrocking”. Instead, and with disastrous consequences, they were sent for therapy and then, “cured”, they were reassigned to ministry.
timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7068604.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2
Why, for example, are the psychologists and psychiatrists who pledged to “fix” abusers treated so lightly? After all, employers from the corporate world to the Catholic Church were told over and over again that therapy works and to give the offender a second chance.
edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/19/donohue.catholic.church/index.html?iref=allsearch

Similarly, but different, teachers accused of abuse have been reported of being moved to another school district. I have read it is so common it has its own name, ‘moving the trash.’ Here is a story from PA about it
At a public hearing last month, state senators choked back tears as they listened to parents sharing how their children were sexually abused by teachers who were allowed to move from one school district to another with no record, free to repeat their predatory ways on even more unsuspecting students
 
“All scientists are mass murders because Dr. Mengele was a mass murderer.”

As soon as they refute this, problem solved 😛
 
Read “The Courage to Be Catholic” by George Weigel. He deals explicitly with the sexual abuse issues. I wish I could summarize his work in an acceptable way, but I am still reading it.

He does point out that the crisis is not about Catholic sexual ethic, nor has it to do with priestly celibacy. It does call us all (guilty and not guilty priests, parishioners affected and unaffected) to find the gaps in our own lives and deals with them in order to live more deeply in the Catholic faith.

One thing that seems to get people to calm down about the matter is to point out that pedophilia has been discovered in a very small percentage of clergy (less than the national average of adult pedophiles), and that the media did give the case in the Catholic Church more attention. Of course, one or two people who have approached me with this have said “what about the undiscovered cases?” I have no good answer for that since I trust that those clergy who are afflicted with this temptation are doing what they can to get help, but that is not a good enough answer for those who do not believe in the power of the sacraments.

Unfortunately, it took Penn State for most of my acquaintances to drop their focus on the case in the Catholic Church. 😦
 
My usual response:

“You’ve learned nothing from the abuse crisis. The lesson is NOT that catholic priests are often molestors. The lesson is that people you’d never suspect, even priests, can be molestors. If you think your kids are safe just because you keep them away from priests, they’re probably being molested right now.”

This, of course, starts an argument. A good way to get their attention! Now that you have their attention, you can point out that studies have shown that teachers more often sexually exploit students, coaches more often sexually exploit athletes, even counselors have a similar rate of abuse as priests.

Contrary to public bigotry, priests are no more likely than anybody else to abuse kids. You can’t trust ANYBODY with your kids just because of the position they hold. You need to do your best to investigate people’s character, not just trust that somebody else has vetted them properly to hold the position that they do.

Hypocrisy is, of course, an attention grabber. And a priest guilty of abuse is indeed guilty of more than a plumber molestor is. It is a shameful scandal. But it is plain bigotry to paint the entire vocation with the brush of those who betrayed it. Nobody concludes that the FBI is an organization of traitors due to the spys caught within it. Everyboyd sees clearly the betrayal. That they don’t see abuser priests the same way is evidence of people’s prejudice against catholicism in the first place.
 
One might also want to look at the actual data provided in the original John Jay Report. The chart on page 28 of the report (page 34 of the pdf document) indicates that the peak of the abuse cases was in the 1970’s and has declined steeply since. It’s a serious matter, but it is largely a matter of what happened 30 years ago.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf
 
How can someone stand up for the dignity of priests and disprove the common thought of priests being sex offenders?
I’m not sure, but I know that a priest at my parents Church was accused of this and believe my parents when they tell me they have known this priest for like 20 years and the accusation was completely false. I also believe them when they told me that the accusation was devistating to this priest, it put him in a state of turmoil and took a huge toll of his life. The accusation happened back when this was a hot topic and many people were actively suing priests for this sort of thing.

I know that if I were falsely accused of something like this it would be devistating. It would ruin my life.

It’s very unfortunate that because there were some instances of this, and that maybe the Church didn’t handle known instances in the past as well as they maybe could have (by transferring a Priest who actually did molest someone and it was discovered and known and taking no other action - I’m not sure if they required counseling or something like that for the priest), I think it had the unfortunate effect of adding fuel for those that are anti-Catholic. It’s also very unfortunate that this has become a sort of running joke for comedians (this may have died down some from when it was a hot topic with the media) and the generalization I believe has hurt the Church and Catholic Religion tremendously. People who are not Catholic, or who are anti-Catholic or anti-religion have been spoon fed specific instances and the general idea that all priests or many priests do this or have done this.

I haven’t had a conversation with anyone about this topic or heard anyone speak of this topic for a while, but I think that it’s important at least to point out that Priests help people and to provide specific examples of ways that one or more priests have helped us specifically if such a topic is raised. Also, I think it’s important to point out that this has become a sterio-type, all humans (including priests) are less than perfect and some humans (including priests) do terrible things and to try and separate instances of priests who have done this from the Catholic Religion, to emphasize that it is no reflection on God or Jesus Christ whom is my Lord and Savior.

I know my parents were actively involved in providing the priest at their church with moral support and when my mother conveyed the pain that the priest who she knows that was falsely accused I could tell that the weight on his shoulders was an extreme burden, almost unbearable.

Those are a few of my thoughts on the topic.

God Bless,
Bill
 
Would this same person be okay if someone says all Muslims are terrorists?
 
Those are many good points, Abbysinnia. I think at the time (1970s-1980s) sexual disorders (including pedophilia) were treated as if they were addictions. I haven’t studied the literature, but the poor response rate to treatment would suggest that pedophilia does not have the same psychologic pathology that addictions do. A few friends of mine who work in the mental health field say that there is some suggestion that it falls more in the personality disorder spectrum. That was unknown at the time of most of the incidents.

Since psychology, psychiatry, and the neurosciences are (like other branches of sciences) evolving, the bishops could hardly be faulted for following what was then believed to be state of the art treatment. What I think is blameworthy and short-sighted is to knowingly reinstate a priest to active ministry where he would be in contact with children or adolescents. If the model at the time was addiction, that would be the equivalent of giving a recovering alcoholic a job in a liquor store!

Even with the priest shortage that has been growing since the 1970’s, these men could fill other roles, such as weekend assistant in a parish (no youth groups, nothing like that, just say a couple of Masses and hear confessions in “the box,”) diocesan advisory boards, and so forth, where they would not be endangering children. Of course, hindsight is 20-20, and generally speaking, one doesn’t see the speeding bus before being mowed down by it.

I think it’s really important to note, however, that there are quite a few priests who get brought up on charges, which later turn out to be unfounded. In any sort of position where someone is dealing with counseling people who might be disturbed, that happens occasionally. It actually happened to a psychiatrist friend of mine, who was placed on administrative leave when a patient accused her of physical abuse. The patient was angry at the psychiatrist because the doctor would not give her a weekend pass, based on her behavior that week.

Complaints, however, have to be investigated. One priest friend of mine in the downtown parish where I frequently attend weekday Mass tells me that there is a whole coterie of psychiatrically disturbed people who hang out at the church, and when he sees a particularly flamboyant female go into the church (I’ll call her “Diva Mary,”) he makes sure that at least there is a sacristan or cleaning person in the church before he enters the building. Apparently, “Diva Mary” once launched herself at Father, clung to his feet, and tried to wipe his feet with her hair a la Mary Magdalene! Father was pretty shocked and set off balance (literally as well as figuratively,) but after disentangling himself, and enlisting one of the women in church to help him get Diva outside, realized that she could have taken that as a rejection and filed a complaint of “abuse” with the authorities.

Things can get that whacky.
 
This may be a silly question, but it’s one I ponder on quite a bit.

My argument is usually this: “You only say that because it’s publicized. However, you look up to a priest, but you also look up to your uncle. Say your uncle were to sexually abuse you… How come all uncles are not getting persecuted?”

But then it usually comes down to “Why do you keep them around?”. This is the part that troubles me. Catholics believe in the utmost forgiveness of their enemies. But, this is an issue. Repeat offenders being sent to receive help and then just shuffled to a new parish to commit the same evils.

How can someone stand up for the dignity of priests and disprove the common thought of priests being sex offenders?
There are a number of reasons:
  1. Priests, ministers, policemen, teachers, physicians… etc. are held to a high moral standard when dealing with people under their care. The outrage is greater, by comparison to others.
  2. The number of priests was very large. That was the huge shocker. Every time that it seemed to be over, then more allegations were made. Even spanning the oceans.
  3. The response of those who should have taken more preventive action was outrageous, because they were priests too, and also held to a high standard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top