How to defend the Church against sex scandal issues

[RichSpidizzy]

I’m putting this here since I figured it falls under controversy. (P.S. sorry so long)

I was on another forum, and I started a thread about the problems with pornography, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition and Maxim. I used What’s wrong with just looking at a swimsuit magazine? from Catholic Answer’s sister site pureloveclub.com to back up most of my arguments.

One of the members eventually responded with this:

Humans, like all animals are sexual creatures. You take that away or try to deny or supress that, you have grown men in the role of priest raping small boys.

He admitted he was trying to “add fuel to the fire because he was bored” (AKA, wanted to get a rise out of me and get me angry) but I wasn’t about to let that happen. I responded with this:

There are grown men raping small boys in all roles, not just priests. Look at all the dentists who molest their patients while under anesthesia, is it because they took a vow of celibacy to become a dentist? Do parents molest their children because their sexuality is being supressed?

For that matter, no one is “supressing” the sexuality of a priest, they took a vow to dedicate their entire lives to God. It was no surprise to them that they would be living chastely. If you don’t want to live chastely, then don’t become a priest. Nobody FORCED priests to live a celibate lifestyle, they CHOSE it. Same way you take a job and they tell you to start at 7am, are you going to complain that they are supressing your ability to sleep late? no, you just wouldn’t take the job.

There are many more priests out there not raping small boys than there are that do. Priests are human and are just as likely to sin as any other human, Pope John Paul currently goes to confession on a weekly basis, he wouldn’t need to if he didn’t sin. Remember, Christ HAND PICKED the 12 apostles, and one of the 12 ended up betraying him.

On another note about the sex scandal. there is no Church sex scandal, there is just a media that focused on their actions:

1. Because it sold newspapers. Notice you never hear about it anymore, it is no longer “newsworthy” because it wouldn’t sell, it’s lost it’s shock value.
2. Because the media wants to “expose” their sinful nature, even though the Church never proposed that they didn’t have one.

I think I made some sound points but then the same member came back with this:

There are many men raping small boys, this is true. I’m not talking about them. I am talking about men who are supposed to be leading people. I am talking about people who should know much better. I am talking about the educated men to whom we trust our children taking advantage of that trust. I am talking about these men whose actions have been covered up by the Catholic church for years. Because many people have done it, is by no means a justification.

The bond between a man and a woman is the ultimate. As many good friends as I have, the bond between myself and my woman is the deepest I can ever hope to achieve with a person who doesn’t share my blood. Take that away, try to deny the fact that we have sexual urges, desires and needs, and things will manifest themselves. Not always, but often enough to be disturbing. Blame the media all you want, but the cases are there…they are real. Sensationalizing something is not the same thing as making it up.

Most of his post is just him not getting my point, he says that he’s not talking about other men, just priest since “they should know better”. But what he still doesn’t get is that priests are still men and have no reason to know better than any other man.

The part I’m having trouble arguing against is the part in bold, where he complains that the Church covered up the scandal. How should I continue to defend the Church when I have trouble with that portion myself?

 

[renee1258]

Shouldn’t all men know better?

Also many mothers turn the other way when their husbands/boyfriends molest their children. Pretty shameful, but it happens.

 

[RichSpidizzy]

renee1258:

Shouldn’t all men know better?

Exactly, they should, but not all men do. And this includes some priests, who shouldn’t be considered any different than any other man. That’s the point he missed.

My problem is how do I defend the Church against the fact that there was an attempt to cover up the abuses. I have used Fr. Roger Landry’s A Crisis of Saints to defend the Church in light of the scandal, but his article doesn’t go into the coverup.

 

[mercygate]

RichSpidizzy:

Exactly, they should, but not all men do. And this includes some priests, who shouldn’t be considered any different than any other man. That’s the point he missed.

My problem is how do I defend the Church against the fact that there was an attempt to cover up the abuses. I have used Fr. Roger Landry’s A Crisis of Saints to defend the Church in light of the scandal, but his article doesn’t go into the coverup.

I don’t think cover-ups start out as cover-ups. They start out as “discretion.” I work for a large public organization. When we have problems we try to deal with them effectively WITHOUT getting our name plastered all over the front page of the New York Times. We have a policy of openness and transparency, but that doesn’t mean we go out and ask for bad publicity.

Don’t even try to defend a cover-up. It is indefensible. However, with our perfect 20/20 hindsight we now know these offenders are pretty much incurable. That was definitely not the case 30 years ago. Working with our company’s harassment board, we are taking a stronger stand these days when any sexual issue comes up. Our new motto: “Have we learned nothing from the Catholic Church?”

 

[OhioBob]

To some degree the Church always reflects the times in which she lives. As Mercygate notes, the Church handled cases of abuse in the past in much the same way that society did in general - they tried to remedy the situation privately through therapy and sanction. We can see that now in hindsight. To presume that priests were purposely moved to new locations so that could continue to abuse is ludicrous.

Was the Church too trusting in being able to “cure” abusive priests, or of those same priests being able to change their ways after sanction and prayer? Sure they were. Just as society in general was in those days. We see that now.

That doesn’t make it right. It is still a tragedy. And I believe that the Church has learned from it.

 

[otm]

OhioBob:

To some degree the Church always reflects the times in which she lives. As Mercygate notes, the Church handled cases of abuse in the past in much the same way that society did in general - they tried to remedy the situation privately. We can see that now in hindsight. To presume that priests were purposely moved to new locations so that could continue to abuse is ludicrous.

Certainly that charge has been made. It has been made by victims and their attorneys, and has been strongly implied in at least one if not two books. However, the charge that is closest to it would be one of “reckless disregard”, and I suspect that in at least some instances, that charge could be proved.

OhioBob:

Was the Church too trusting in being able to “cure” abusive priests, or of those same priests being able to change their ways after sanction and prayer? Sure they were. Just as society in general was in those days. We see that now.

That doesn’t make it right. It is still a tragedy. And I believe that the Church has learned from it.

Listening to what has been said in the last six to nine months, I think that the majority of bishops have gotten the message; but it appears that at least some seem to think that it has all been taken care of, and we need to move on. That may indicate that the learning is at best shallow.

 

[JimG]

I think that if you study which priests, from which seminary class years, were primarily involved in the abuse, you will find it was a result of allowing a homosexual culture to thrive at certain times in particular seminaries. The term “lavender mafia” has been used to describe the situation.

One would think that any seminary program would include ongoing spiritual formation, with frequent confession and formation of conscience. But I don’t think that these particular men ever saw what they were doing as wrong. They seem, rather, to have viewed the expression of their sexuality as an inherent ‘right’. They were, in effect, incurable. That is what, perhaps, some bishops did not fully realize.

Note that the same disorder has infected our whole society to a greater or lesser extent. Before the late 1960’s, Catholics, at least, took “occasions of sin” seriously enough to try to avoid them. Now everyone thinks that soft core porn found in mainstream magazines is OK, and hard core porn is not much worse. The result is a generation of sex addicts who find they are unable to adjust to normal marital relationships. .

 

[otm]

RichSpidizzy:

The part I’m having trouble arguing against is the part in bold, where he complains that the Church covered up the scandal. How should I continue to defend the Church when I have trouble with that portion myself?

People want simple answers to complex questions. It is very difficult to answer, even if you are talking with someone who is not emotionally livid.

Part of the problem: this is often referred to as sin of which no one speaks. While that statement is not totally true, it has way more truth in it than most want to believe.

Many of the victims did not speak up of the abuse, out of fear of retaliation, fear of loss of reputation (amazing what a boy concerned or questioning his sexual identity will do to hide those questions), shame, and/or any other number of reasons and excuses that they did not speak up.

Many vicitims spoke up to adults, but adults couldn’t or wouldn’t hear; more than one has commented about the retaliation by parents for daring to accuse a priest of such a thing. Any knowledge of the dynamics of abusive families will show this occurs extremely often. The Church can’t do much if the reporting is short-circuited by the very people who are responsible for protecting children: their parents.

Many people in the Church, at the time of the abuse, were unaware of the damages (physical, emotional, psychological, etc) which abuse causes, as was most of the public, and many, if not most health care officials. The result was that often, this was treated as a nuisance, and a peccadillo, and a sin, but not of the serious consequence we now know it to be.

Many times, the family did not want this publicised, so the victims were the ones who wanted it “covered up”.

Many times, the bishops and chancery were trying their best to deal with a situation which they saw as potentially causing grave scandal (whihc we now can see could have caused grave scandal then, if for no other fact than that it has now done so), and attempted to deal with it in private.

Psychologists and psychiatrists both led the Church to believe that an abuser could be “cured”. Priests, if an when they were found out, were sent off to be “cured”, came back, and abused again. However, see the above paragraphs; some bishops in good faith, with what they knew at the time, placed the abusers back in parishes, etc., and it was some time after that they learned of any abuse. Not all abusive priests were placed back where they could abuse, and not all priests discovered to have abused did so again. Out of the @ 4000 priests who have been accused of abuse, only a small group were the egregious, repeat offenders.

The best analysis I have seen is by George Weigel, The Courage To Be Catholic (I think that is the name of the book). It is about $25, and worth every penny.

 

[otm]

JimG:

I think that if you study which priests, from which seminary class years, were primarily involved in the abuse, you will find it was a result of allowing a homosexual culture to thrive at certain times in particular seminaries. The term “lavender mafia” has been used to describe the situation.

One would think that any seminary program would include ongoing spiritual formation, with frequent confession and formation of conscience. But I don’t think that these particular men ever saw what they were doing as wrong. They seem, rather, to have viewed the expression of their sexuality as an inherent ‘right’. They were, in effect, incurable. That is what, perhaps, some bishops did not fully realize.

Note that the same disorder has infected our whole society to a greater or lesser extent. Before the late 1960’s, Catholics, at least, took “occasions of sin” seriously enough to try to avoid them. Now everyone thinks that soft core porn found in mainstream magazines is OK, and hard core porn is not much worse. The result is a generation of sex addicts who find they are unable to adjust to normal marital relationships. .

I can’t quote statistics, but the abuse stretches back to priests ordained prior to Vatican 2. I would be very careful about trying to put this as something that got into full swing in the 70’s and 80’s.

 

[JimG]

The following table showing the numbers of cases and percent of offenders by decade of ordination is from the John Jay Report. While their have been abuses in ordination classes from all decades, the decades of the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s seem to have more than their fair share. :

Table 3.3.2 DECADE OF ORDINATION
Decade - - - - #Cases- - - Percent- - Cumulative
1890 – 1919 - - - 33 - - - - .8% - - - .8%
1920 - 1929 - - - 79 - - - - 2.0%- - - 2.8%
1930 - 1939 - - - 245- - - - 6.1%- - - 8.8%
1940 - 1949 - - - 501- - - 12.4% - - - 21.3%
1950 – 1959 - — 931- - - 23.1% - - - 44.3%
1960 - 1969 - - - 1,021- - - 25.3%- - - 69.7%
1970 - 1979 - - - 791 - - - - 19.6% - - - 89.3%
1980 - 1989 - - - 339 - - - 8.4% - - - 97.7%
1990 - 2002 - - - 94 - - - - 2.3% - - - 100.0%

 

[caroljm36]

I’m suspicious of the numbers. First, the reporting problem prior to, when, 1970? when it was the crime that dare not speak its name.

And the percentages–is this irrespective of the decline in vocations since Vat II?

 

[JimG]

I’m not enough of a statistician to interpret the numbers. But a look at the charts here certainly seems instructive.

 

[RichSpidizzy]

caroljm36:

I’m suspicious of the numbers. First, the reporting problem prior to, when, 1970? when it was the crime that dare not speak its name.

And the percentages–is this irrespective of the decline in vocations since Vat II?

I don’t think those are the years the cases were reported, I believe they are the years the offenders were ordained. The statistics show the majority of offending priests “Graduated” between 1960-1969, not that they committed the abuses during that time period.

BTW, thank you all for your answers, they realy helped clear things up for me. I probably won’t continue the discussion with the member from the other site though, since our last interaction on the subject was already a few days ago.

 

[clmowry]

otm:

I can’t quote statistics, but the abuse stretches back to priests ordained prior to Vatican 2. I would be very careful about trying to put this as something that got into full swing in the 70’s and 80’s.

The data in JimG’s Link would seem to indicate that this is exactly what happend.

The number of accusations (it doesn’t report confirmed incidents, just accusations) rose dramatically and steadily in the 60s, 70s and 80s and then began to drop just as dramatically in the 90s returning to below the pre-1955 level in 1996.

Let’s hear it for the sexual revelotion …

Chuck

 

[AmyS]

RichSpidizzy:

The part I’m having trouble arguing against is the part in bold, where he complains that the Church covered up the scandal. How should I continue to defend the Church when I have trouble with that portion myself?

All I can really say is to tell them yes it is was wrong… I have tried to explain to people that it was a sign of the times 30 years ago that is. The Catholic Church wasn’t the only one who did that at that time. I can give you examples if you would like… I would have more of a problem with them doing it now.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

RichSpidizzy:

Exactly, they should, but not all men do. And this includes some priests, who shouldn’t be considered any different than any other man. That’s the point he missed.

My problem is how do I defend the Church against the fact that there was an attempt to cover up the abuses. I have used Fr. Roger Landry’s A Crisis of Saints to defend the Church in light of the scandal, but his article doesn’t go into the coverup.

Is “defending the Church” the best approach, though ? If something is morally indefensible, it should not be defended. Being truthful about this business - and being truthful about any other blemish or vileness in the Church - is always the best course of action, no matter what. There are things which can only be admitted, not defended.​

Besides, “defending the ill-done” is wrong anyway.

There is no getting away from the fact that whole thing has done immense harm, is an international scandal, and is completely horrible. ##

 

[justinmatter]

The part I’m having trouble arguing against is the part in bold, where he complains that the Church covered up the scandal. How should I continue to defend the Church when I have trouble with that portion myself?

cover-up sounds bad doesn’t it?
Like the good sons of Noah, throw the mantle of charity over the defects you see in your father, the Priest -75, The Way, St. Josemaria Escriva
obviously, there was cover-up involved but one must remember that it was done with the best of intentions and not with the intent of letting the offenders continue their practices.

there is a certain value in the quote i have put there. besides, how many of us like washing our dirty linen in public? do you seriously think the church should make a public spectacle and open trial of each priest accused of immorality? i think in-house cleaning definitely needs to be tried first. if the victim approaches the church first, obviously he/she doesn’t want public scandal and the church needs to be appreciative and act justly and swiftly. if the victim directly goes public, that automatically becomes a public scandal and everyone is up in arms.

i have a question though- what if the offendor actually went and confessed to another priest or the bishop? wouldn’t that incapacitate the confessor from acting out against the offender?

 

[BayCityRickL]

I think it’s hard to “defend” the Church, when there is no defense.

They just have to make the best of a bad situation, and presumably follow Christian principles as they go along. I don’t see evidence that the hierarchy has learned much.

Certainly, the newspapers don’t carry stories about the Church asking or teaching forgiveness, or earnestly seeking reconciliation with victims. That seems to be even a greater scandal.

In my parish, there is a business-as-usual, sell-the-raffle-tickets attitude.

 

[RichSpidizzy]

## Is “defending the Church” the best approach, though ? If something is morally indefensible, it should not be defended. Being truthful about this business - and being truthful about any other blemish or vileness in the Church - is always the best course of action, no matter what. There are things which can only be admitted, not defended.

Besides, “defending the ill-done” is wrong anyway.

There is no getting away from the fact that whole thing has done immense harm, is an international scandal, and is completely horrible. ##

Oh no, I’m not trying to defend the Church’s protection/hiding of the offenders, I’m just trying to prevent the stereotype from forming that the Church is permanently wrong and evil because of it.

 

[mayra_hart]

the truth church scandals in the church are not an argument against the catholic claim to be the true church. in the ot, we find baby sacrifice and temple prostitution involving leaders of the ot religion(jer 32:32-35; 2 kgs23:7). of the twelve apostles, one betrayed christ,one denied him,one refuse to believe in his resurrection, and they abandoned him at the garden of gethsemani. the catholic church is both human and divine. because it is human, it will have scandals. because it is divine,it will last forever. scandals are found in all denominations;they have nothing to do with the catholic church being the true church. what paul wrote concerning the jews applies also to christians: " what if some were unfaithful? does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of god? by no means! (rom3:3-4) chist"s faithfulness to his church remains even when some of its members are unfaithful: "if we are faithless, he remains faithful for he cannot deny himself (2 tim2:13). scandals do not prove that the catholic church is false. they only prove what is obvious: that the church contains sinners as well as saints, tares along with the wheat. bless you all