Is there an example of a Bishop/Archbishop/Cardinal who handled claims of abuse in a proper way right from the start?

[Maximilian75]

A very strong papabile as well…

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I can’t imagine wanting to hide a bad guy in my flock, whether it’s 2018 or 1968.

First of all, the child abuse laws and prosecutions in 1968, legally speaking and apart from the Church’s behavior, were nothing like they were today. A kid who alleged abuse against a respectable member of the community was often thought to be lying and his story was disbelieved by law enforcement as well as others. There wasn’t mandated reporting like there is today, and prosecuting such a case against a respectable citizen with no witnesses other than the child was likely to be pretty difficult.

Second, the Church has a long past history of trying to handle legal complaints against its members within its own authority framework rather than submitting its clerics to the civil authority. This goes back a long way into European history and was rooted in the need to have a Church that wasn’t being bullied around by a government that might be unfriendly and might just decide to arrest all the priests for political reasons.

Third, even apart from the Church’s history, it would have been normal behavior in 1968, 1978 and maybe even 1988 for some organization faced with a potential scandalous behavior of one of its employees to try to solve the matter internally in order to avoid a public scandal. Even if there was good reason to think the guy was guilty, society also wasn’t fully aware of the damage such abuse did to children over the long term. Many thought that if the kid wasn’t physically injured, it wasn’t so bad and the kid would just forget about it. Attitudes didn’t start changing about this until around the 1980s, when it became apparent that kids who had been sexually abused, even if it wasn’t a violent situation, were carrying a lot of psychological scars into their middle age.

I am not trying to excuse the Church’s past behavior and I am glad this issue is now being addressed through law enforcement, and that law enforcement in general has better mechanisms for handlind abuse cases which seem to be even more rampant in the local public schools than they are in the Church. (A lot of the stuff with teachers is hushed up unless you know where to look on the web for it.) But I can totally see how it happened.

 

[ShowersofRoses]

I appreciate your balanced perspective in these posts, @Tis_Bearself, on why the Church acted the way it did in handling these issues in the past.

People get hysterical and like to point fingers and blame those in Church leadership for past handling of these cases, but I think it’s wrong to indiscriminately apply 2018’s attitudes to 1960’s and 70’s behavior.

As we’ve learned more about the causes and effects of abuse, the Church has reacted more appropriately. I hope it continues to improve.
But many people have tunnel vision and want somebody to blame instead of looking at the big picture.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

To be fair, many if not most people react to a crime against children on an emotional level, not a rational level. They have not studied law, they have not read up on the history of child sexual abuse law in the USA, and they don’t care. They just want to see any “monster” who harms children put away.

I can understand this reaction, especially among people who have children of their own, and people who may have been sexually abused as children or knew someone who was.

 

[ShowersofRoses]

Oh, I understand that! It is a gut-wrenching, emotional topic.

I just appreciate having some logical reasons to take a breath, step back, and put the past in perspective instead of lashing out in blind rage.

 

[FiveLinden]

Before using words like ‘hysterical’ it would be good to look at the careful, balanced and distressing report of the Australian Royal Commission. Religious institutions | Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse

 

[Annie]

And 500 years later, a Pope had to do it all over again. (Hmmm, seems like a trend?) Flashback: Pope condemns ‘horrendous crime’ of sodomy, hands guilty clerics to secular authorities | Blogs | LifeSite

 

[FiveLinden]

And 500 years later, a Pope had to do it all over again. (Hmmm, seems like a trend?) https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/flashback-pope-condemns-horrendous-crime-of-sodomy-hands-guilty-clerics-to

this illustrates the problem. We are talking about abuse against children. You are talking about people of the same sex having voluntary sexual relations. Child abuse is a crime of violence. It is covered by the 5th commandment, not the sixth. Church failure to recognise this, which you are continuing Annie, is one of the ways we ended up with inadequate responses to abuse. What the Church does with a celibate adult who has sex is irrelevant to what the Church should do to a child abuser.

 

[Annie]

We are talking about abuse of post-pubescent young people, people who would have been considered adults in those days when many women married at 15 or 16.

Humans are humans no matter the century, and I imagine these draconian punishments were put in place for the same sort of despicable behavior that we are dealing with now.

And remember that the punishment was for acts which can be done between members of the same or the opposite sex.

The main problem with people of any orientation consumed by lust is that they need greater and greater causes to generate the same effect. They are like drug addicts in this respect. This is why we have “trophy wives,” as men want younger women, and why there is a definite trend of older men with younger men among homosexuals.

Notice that I am pointing out licentious behavior in both orientations. Notice that Pope Pius V referred to certain acts rather than types of couplings.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

We are talking about abuse against children. You are talking about people of the same sex having voluntary sexual relations.

Actually, what McCarrick is alleged to have done is similar to what Annie posted.
It was likely not so " voluntary" in those days for a young person (male or female) in their teens, or perhaps as young as 11 or 12, to partner with a wealthy and powerful older man who decided he wanted them, even though people were considered adults by the time they hit 14 or 15.

Much of the clergy sexual abuse that has gone on in recent decades has been with post-pubescent teenagers who were either under the current statutory age for consent or, even if slightly above that age, did not fully consent because they felt compelled in some way or had been groomed from a younger age to be abused. It’s still a crime of power.

 

[FiveLinden]

Much of the clergy sexual abuse that has gone on in recent decades has been with post-pubescent teenagers who were either under the current statutory age for consent or, even if slightly above that age, did not fully consent because they felt compelled in some way or had been groomed from a younger age to be abused. It’s still a crime of power.

Read the Australian Royal Commission. Average age = 11. Not the mode,not ‘typical’ but average. The Church has a problem with priests and religious abusing children, as well as adolescents. It also has a problem with priests and religious abusing positions of power to coerce vulnerable young people and adults.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I am not doubting what’s in the Australian report or that some priests abused children age 11 and under, but in the USA many of the high-profile cases such as McCarrick and “The Keepers” have involved clergy abusing kids aged about 11 or 12 and up, in other words pubescent or post-pubescent. Annie’s reference is on point to those cases. I have no idea why you’re arguing about that or even what your point is in arguing. Kids in US are still considered minors below the age of consent up to age at least 14 or 15 depending on state, and if the abuser is a person in an authority position over the kid, like teacher, then the act is criminalized up to even higher ages.

 

[FiveLinden]

I have no idea why you’re arguing about that or even what your point is in arguing.

Thanks for suggesting I make this clear. I realise I have not. I object to efforts to minimise the true nature of the offences committed by (according to the Royal Commission) 7% of priests. A regular part of this on Catholic sites is to say ‘they weren’t children they were adolescents’ and ‘most of them were boys so it’s a homosexual issue’. The first is of no importance in assessing gravity as you point out Bearself, and the second is a terrible calumny on homosexuals who are no more (perhaps less) likely to abuse children than heterosexuals. The Church itself in the midst of this crisis contributed to this false understanding by banning homosexuals from admittance to seminaries but taking no action to assess candidates for sexual interest in children. I hope that helps make my concern clear. I appreciate Bearself that you are a constant critic of the who have hidden or carried out abuse. The Australian Royal Commission is entirely even-handed in its assessment of different religions and organisations. Many did terrible things. But that makes its careful analysis of the failing of Catholic institutions particularly worth taking note of.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Oh good grief, I’m not minimizing the crime because the victims were adolescents. Adolescent victims are horribly damaged by abuse too, as shown by “The Keepers” and dozens of other articles and documentaries out there. And as I said, the US laws criminalize predatory behavior for ages up to mid-teens and, depending on the situation, sonetimes higher. The priest near me who got 20 years was sending porn shots of teenage girls to girls on the Internet who were in their young teens. Nobody thought this was okay just because the girls were 13 and 14 rather than 6 or 7.

Is this bizarre age-based “justification” used in Australia or some country other than USA?

 

[Annie]

the second is a terrible calumny on homosexuals who are no more (perhaps less) likely to abuse children than heterosexuals. The Church itself in the midst of this crisis contributed to this false understanding by banning homosexuals from admittance to seminaries but taking no action to assess candidates for sexual interest in children.

Generally references in the US are to the report on abuse in the US, which seems to had different ratios than Australia.

However, I would like to make a different point, which is that in the US, the victims were mostly post-pubescent males. There is a book called Goodbye Good Men which details what was happening in our seminaries–blatant homosexual activity.

Cardinal MacCarrick sought teens as well as an 11-year-old, and this is not unknown among homosexuals.

You are absolutely right that not all homosexuals engage in such heinous behavior, nor that such behavior is not limited to homosexuals.

I think part of the problem is that we protect girls from men-- we do not have men supervising Girl Scout camp-outs, but we want to think boys are safe with men, and we have not taken such care for boys as we have for girls.

The attraction of men for young adults means we have traditionally protected girls, but not boys. We are suspicious if an older man pays attention to a girl but not if an older man pays attention to a boy.

There is an additional violation going on with homosexual predation of cutting young men off from older men, who should act as guides and mentors

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think part of the problem is that we protect girls from men-- we do not have men supervising Girl Scout camp-outs, but we want to think boys are safe with men, and we have not taken such care for boys as we have for girls.

There has been a huge rise in awareness of this in US in recent decades. It was also fueled by the court case about gay Boy Scout leaders. I don’t think parents since 2000 would be just letting their sons go off on a camping trip or other outing with a priest or other older man nowadays like they used to do. And some alternative groups to Scouts have been formed.

Today as part of the homily, the priest read a letter from the Bishop of Pittsburgh diocese regarding the report about to be released on clergy sex abuse in Pennsylvania. The letter noted that 90 percent of the abuse complaints in the report occurred before 1990. That sounds about right, since after the 1980s there has been progessively heightened awareness in US society that minors may be harmed by people formerly thought harmless, such as respectable-looking neighbors, teachers, and clergy.

 

[FiveLinden]

Is this bizarre age-based “justification” used in Australia or some country other than USA?

I have seen it often in US-based sources including here, on Micheal Voris, and on Lifesite news. Usually of course people are not saying that post-pubescent sex is acceptable, but they are trying to 1) avoid the ‘child-bause’ label and b) say it is related to homosexuality.

 

[FiveLinden]

The difference between the Australian Royal Commission and most of the results of investigations in the US is that the Royal Commission was an inquiry seeking truth with no power to sentence and most of the US revelations have come in the context of litigation. I would be very surprised given the similarity of futures if not constitutions that the actual US results differ much from the Australian results. The Australian investigation also allows a comparison between different religious orders (some had no offenders or very view, one had 40%(!) of members accused) and between religions (none as bad as the worst Catholic institutions but some close) and secular organisations (many pretty bad).

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I wouldn’t spend 2 minutes reading garbage from Michael Voris and Lifesite News on this topic. No thinking person would. That trash is the equivalent of the comments section on news articles where some idiot is always claiming the 13-year-old girl enticed the 40-year-old man sexually. Fantasies of disturbed people.

Michael Voris, by his own statement, formerly had a lot of verboten sex with both genders and has now renounced all that and done a 180 in the other direction. While it’s good that he fixed whatever was wrong in his life (assuming he actually has, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt right now), people like that are not good authorities on sexuality topics because it’s too emotional for them and tied to their own experience. If you are going to cite such unreliable sources, please state it up front because it’s not worth having a long discussion over Voris or Lifesite on this topic. I will now depart this thread.

 

[FiveLinden]

I was, of course, citing them as UNreliable sources. But from comments here and on their sites they seem to be widely believed.