Obviously the abusers themselves have significant mental problems. But what’s the excuse of their supervising bishops and cardinals? In other words, the most salient issue being raised by victims and the media is the handling of these abusive priests rather than the fact that there were abusive priests.
It is always easy to “Monday morning quarterback”. What is not so easy is to have perfect judgement in the middle of a crisis.
There are a number of issues to keep in mind.
It is of very recent history that psychology has amounted to a science widely recognized, and a not too brief survey would show that since its recognition as a science, there have been untold theories about the human person, some of which are best left in the dustbin. In other words, theories have abounded, to be dropped, discarded, forgotten, or set aside in favor of a new theory. It has often taken the appearance of “flavor of the month”.
And it was not until very recent that it was even understood how damaging sexual abuse could be.
Coupled with that, there is no particular reason to presume that male homosexuals started entering the priesthhood at or not long after Vatican 2. The priesthood, particularly because it has had celibacy as a rule, has been a perfect hiding place for a male homosexual, continent or otherwise. No on questioned why this young man was not married; he had the arts, music, a theatrical position, tremendous adulation, set on a pedistal, an intellectual persuit, lace, androgenous dress code; the list goes on and on.
Homosexual activity seems to have increased since the sexual revolution, or perhaps it has simply become more visibile. Prior to the onset of AIDS, it was at least somewhat safer in that most sexual diseases were generally treatable.
However, whether a male homosexual was active or not, the priesthood provided an almost perfect “hiding place in plain view”.
And there is no reason to presume that the bishops we had prior to V 2 were all straight.
And added to that fact is the attitude that most Catholics had towards their priest; he was considered wholely beyond criticism in general (with the exceptions of the ones who were known to be alcoholic,) and one simply did not presume that one so consecrated could be sexually involved with children.
In general, there was no idea how damaging sexual abuse could be. People simply had not studied the issue in any rigorous an controlled fashion; and so if a bishop foundout that a priest was having sex with boys, he might be called on the carpet, but it was presumed to be a sin and nothing more (that is, not something that caused significant and possibly life-long damage to the victim).
On top of all of this was the issue of scandal to the community, particularly the Catholic community. Everyone could continue on to not acknowledge that Father so and so was gay if it was just kept under wraps. Women loved them (why wouldn’t they, as they were no sexual threat), men respected them because that was how they were brought up, and maybe the guy was a bit effeminate, but then, so what (there was a bit of naivety on the part of many who just didn’t ask questions). So if Father so and so was caught messing with a kid, well, he went to confession, and he might get moved to another postion, but all was taken care of.
And later, as some of the ramifications became known, bishops relied on psychologists who said that the priest could be cured of the problem; so Father so and so was sent off to a sabatical retreat, to get “shrunk”, and then after going to confession, he was reassigned. After all, the experts said they could cure him, and he promised he was cured.
And on top of all of this, vicitms just didn’t come forward. The first case I know of in our archdiocese was in the 1980’s, when one priest was convicted. A long time later, people were coming forward indicating they, too had been assaulted by him.
So the net of it was that the bishop might hear of one incident; he had no knowledge of how many people the preist had abused as it appeared to be an isolated incident, the bishop was trying to protect the laity from scandal, he had no idea what damage was being wrought, experts said they could cure the guy, and it just was not that significant.
We know now it was extremely significant. But that is now, not 50 years ago or more. The priest I know of was abusing kids in the early 1960’s and what did we know? All I knew was he made me really uncomfortable and I avoided him like the plague. As a 15 year old, I had no clue what he was doing. And I doubt the bishop did either.
Again, a priest was sent to be “cured”; everyone says he is “good to go”, and nothing else seems to be coming up; problem addressed and fixed, and so he was sent back to a parish; and it might be 3, 5, 10 years or more before a report makes its way to the bishop.
If one has taken the time to read the stories of some of the victims, one hears a repeated theme; boy gets abused; boy reports to parent(s); parents come unglued that son would make such an accusation, and the matter was dropped, never to be spoken of again. It wasn’t just the bishops who did not deal well with the issue; it was all too often the parents who did not raise the alarm.
I personally know at least two of the attorneys who have sued the archdiocese, and the stories they have told me are enough to make one vomit. Victims have been treated like dirt, accused of sexually enticing the priest, threatened with excommunication; the list goes on and on.
