Law Enforcement and the Scandal

[DianaCC]

Often in discussions of the clerical abuse scandal I hear that victims and their guardians went to the hierarchy rather than to law enforcement. Does anyone know why?

 

[The_Scott]

Often in discussions of the clerical abuse scandal I hear that victims and their guardians went to the hierarchy rather than to law enforcement. Does anyone know why?

I can’t know for sure, of course. But let me make a guess.

I believe they did such a thing because, for all intents and purposes, the abusive clergymen were “employed” by the bishop. This is similar to how, for instance, you may complain to a boss of Wal-Mart or Best Buy if you received poor service (note: I’m not saying that the abuse equals Wal-Mart’s inadequacy, it’s just an analogy).

They may have felt that the Bishop (or whoever in the Church) would take care of the abusive priests, which may or may not include turning them in.

 

[Corki]

Often in discussions of the clerical abuse scandal I hear that victims and their guardians went to the hierarchy rather than to law enforcement. Does anyone know why?

Also, many of these cases were 40 or 50 years ago. Going to the police would have meant they had to testify or at least give a statement. It was the same thing with rape or spousal abuse in those days. There was a repressed culture surrounding anything sexual and people didn’t want their problems made public. Fortunately, we have come a long way in that regard.

 

[DianaCC]

I can’t know for sure, of course. But let me make a guess. I believe they did such a thing because, for all intents and purposes, the abusive clergymen were “employed” by the bishop. This is similar to how, for instance, you may complain to a boss of Wal-Mart or Best Buy if you received poor service (note: I’m not saying that the abuse equals Wal-Mart’s inadequacy, it’s just an analogy). They may have felt that the Bishop (or whoever in the Church) would take care of the abusive priests, which may or may not include turning them in.

That’s what confuses me. I understand going to the principal if the coach does something, but committing [insert horrible crime here]?

It makes perfect sense to me that a bullying victim’s dad would pay a gentlemanly visit to the bully’s dad and end the conversation with a reminder that the next step will involve the police. I get it when a mom finds a joint in her son’s jeans and has a motherly chat with him rather than calling the DEA. But I just can’t wrap my head around how clerical abuse victims essentially protected their abusers by not going to the police at all.

Oh well. I know of mothers who know that their children are being abused by someone in or near the family and blatantly cover it up. I guess we’re living in the end times.

 

[jpjd]

I think the reason may have to do with not wanting the publicity that would accompany a police report. I would imagine that these victims have a certain amount of shame, fear, confusion…many mixed emotions; and can’t deal with the thought of their family, friends, relatives, neighbors knowing what happened to them, going to trial, etc.

 

[DianaCC]

I think the reason may have to do with not wanting the publicity that would accompany a police report. I would imagine that these victims have a certain amount of shame, fear, confusion…many mixed emotions; and can’t deal with the thought of their family, friends, relatives, neighbors knowing what happened to them, going to trial, etc.

Strange how the more horrific the crime, the less inclined the victims are to report it.

 

[michelleds]

Also, many of these cases were 40 or 50 years ago. Going to the police would have meant they had to testify or at least give a statement. It was the same thing with rape or spousal abuse in those days. There was a repressed culture surrounding anything sexual and people didn’t want their problems made public. Fortunately, we have come a long way in that regard.

add to that the fact that even today male victims of sexual crimes don’t want to report.

Just to put the facts out there (from the John Jay Report):

–during the period from 1950 to 2002, a total of 10,667 individuals had made allegations of child sexual abuse. Of these, the dioceses had been able to substantiate 6,700 accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA, about 4% of all 109,694 priests who served during the time covered by the study.

–The number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 70s, declined in the 80s, and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s.

–Of the 4,392 priests who were accused, police were contacted regarding 1,021 individuals and of these, 384 were charged resulting in 252 convictions and 100 prison sentences; 3,300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died.

–one-third of the accusations were made in the years 2002 and 2003. Another third of the allegations were reported between 1993 and 2001

–81% of the victims were male

–of all the victims, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years

now, if you take the fact that the 60’s and 70’s were the peak levels of incidents and 2/3 of all accusations were made between 1993 and 2001, you can see that both privacy concerns as well as statute of limitations might cause victims not to go to the police.

 

[puzzleannie]

Often in discussions of the clerical abuse scandal I hear that victims and their guardians went to the hierarchy rather than to law enforcement. Does anyone know why?

in many jurisdictions there were no laws requiring pastors, child care workers, parents, teachers etc. to report suspected child abuse until quite recently even within the last 10-15 years nor sadly were there even uniform policies for police and other agencies even to investigate such charges. At the time some of these alleged acts occured not all states even had child protective services or similar agencies so there was not always an expectation that civil law enforcement would or could act.

It seems to be more common in reviewing most of the cases that have become public from that earlier time that vicitms and families did not report to anyone, so I doubt a general statement about who said what to whom will be of much value. What seems to be more helpful is establishing a pattern of how specific bishops, dioceses and other authorities responded when complaints were made.

in short there are societal and cultural reasons why victims would not go to law enforcement with allegations, but every reason why a complaint about a priest or church worker should go to his “supervisor” that is, the bishop.

not sure if OP is questioning the victims’ response, or that of the hierarchy