Little Faith in Catholic Hierarchy

  • Thread starter Thread starter HabemusFrancis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And while the society is determine to excise it, the Church is determined to treat it with psychotherapy and make-up. Ain’t gonna work.
As far as I can tell the problem was that the Church in the 1960’s decided to change the millennia old position of viewing the issue as a serious spiritual issue. Instead the Church in the 1960’s trusted the advise of psychologists and psychiatrists that this was an addiction that could be treated.

As I stated previously, this has proven a grave falsehood for anyone who has given into these thoughts for any length of time. In the beginning before a person acts to much on this it may be possible to treat it (these are considered level 1 offenders). After that they becoming practically impervious to treatment and these thoughts and feeling literally can take them over. When not around children they can act fine, but as soon as the temptation presents itself they lose control of their thoughts and behaviors. There are many reasons I have come to feel the whole situation reeks of demonic activity and modern science is helpless to deal with it.

The Church has since been learning that Psychotherapy does not work, I pray that it returns to its roots about the issue and views it as a severe spiritual affliction. This is not the only time the Church trusted the young and untested field of Psychology for guidance and was severely mislead.

This is a horrible issue, but I cannot blame the entire Church for the actions of some leaders and priests. There are a billion Catholics and the issue affects us all, I cannot blame the good priests who have had to suffer from this as well. Today, people make a sport to be derogatory to priests acting like they are all predators.

This honestly strikes me as a large scale spiritual attack planned years in advance using Psychology as a Trojan Horse. The Bishops trusted the “professionals” over their own
time proven teachings and got hammered.

God Bless
 
Please excuse me for not having the facts at hand…but I do recall reading where a Protestant writer ( he may have been a pastor?)had researched sexual abuse among Protestant clergy…many if not most are married… and found more cases of abuse than among Catholic clergy…also…I believe there are somewhere around 450,000 Catholic priests worldwide…that number would have been much greater decades ago…so going back from the fifties to the present millions of priests would have come and gone…you have to put that into perspective when factoring in the number of sexual abuse cases among Catholic priests…this is not trying to cover up the terrible abuse that victims suffered…maybe someone here can clarify these two instances I have stated…🙂
 
Even homosexuals can be celibate. Celibacy, if followed, is the solution to the problem, not an contributor to the problem.

The problem is the failure to follow their vow of celibacy.
While I find much of Weller’s reasoning repugnant, he’s correct that men with deep seated same sex attraction shouldn’t become priests until / unless they have a LONG history of dealing with that issue successfully and chastely.

The basic problem is that celibacy is supposed to be a sacrifice of something good made for the sake of something greater. When a man willingly forsakes the goods of marriage for the glory of Christ, it is a decision process that actually helps him discern the call. Finding himself willing to do that affirms that the call is genuine. When a homosexual man loves God and wants to live morally, the priesthood seems like an ideal offer since he’s already morally obligated to be celibate (there’s no valid outlet for his sexual desires). This significantly degrades his ability to discern whether God is calling him to be a priest or whether priesthood appeals to him so that he won’t have to otherwise deal with a bunch of embarrassing questions about why he never dates or marries. In other words, the SSA significantly degrades his ability to discern a call and introduces powerful improper motives to become a priest.

Weller implies that a homosexual priest is more likely to break his vows and have illicit sexual relations. Underneath, this further implies that such men innately have less control over their urges than hetero men. I don’t think that’s true. I think the REAL issue is that it is far more likely that a homosexual man will choose to be ordained priest for the WRONG reasons than a heterosexual man. It’s the decision to become a priest for improper motives that greatly increases the sexual immorality risk factor, not the SSA itself. I think that’s the real reason the church officially discourages homosexual men from entering the seminary.

(And btw, I think the “estimates” of gay priests Weller mentions is beyond absurd and into tinfoil hat territory).
 
While I find much of Weller’s reasoning repugnant, he’s correct that men with deep seated same sex attraction shouldn’t become priests until / unless they have a LONG history of dealing with that issue successfully and chastely.
Agreed.
Weller implies that a homosexual priest is more likely to break his vows and have illicit sexual relations. Underneath, this further implies that such men innately have less control over their urges than hetero men.
Now, that is something I never wrote.

The problem was not the child molesters – it was the bishops. I mean, the child molesters are guilty as hell, but you have child molesters everywhere. Any sufficiently large population is going to have child molesters. That’s unavoidable. The problem is how the molesters are dealt with. The way bishops dealt (an, in some places in the world, still do) with the problem was the same way they dealt with previous homosexual excesses of their priests (usually the same ones) – by hushing things and moving the offender somewhere else. The problem was that this way of handling things was providing the molester with fresh victims in each parish. Instead of minimizing the damage by immediately sending the offender to jail or monastery, the damage was being maximized.

Underage molestation cannot be viewed in isolation, it’s a part of a larger problem which is sexual immorality of the clergy. If bishop tolerates sexual activity of his priests, then the statistic dictates that sooner or later one of them is going to engage with an underage partner (either knowingly or not). That’s simply unavoidable. However, if the bishop has a lax attitude to such behavior in general, then he will find it very difficult to act when he is legally obliged to. This lax attitude stems from a misguided belief that a disciplinary action would cause more harm than hushing things.

And while we’re at it, I have nothing against homosexuals in the priesthood. The problem is that clerical homosexuality is shrouded in secret and hypocrisy, which creates a perfect environment for serial rapists.
 
My apologies, I misunderstood you (didn’t mean to put words in your mouth).

But your logic SEEMS to suggest that homosexually inclined priests are more likely to commit sexual immorality than heterosexual ones (or married ones). Surely we all know men who cheated on their wives? So I’m unclear on how you think married priests would reduce the problem. According to your logic, bishops would be just as likely to cover up sexual immorality by married priests as by celibate ones. And statistics show that most molestation of young people occurs by married men. Wouldn’t a bishop be afraid that a married priest carrying on with the choir director (or her daughter) would be scandalous? How’s it different?

If you’re not suggesting that homosexual men are more likely to commit molestation, then I’m just not following your point here.
 
If one looks at history, maybe 2000 years of history, you will see that the catholic church has always had a celibate priesthood. Have they also had this so-called problem with pedophilia and sexual frustration, that they are being accused of today? How did they possibly cope in the past when there were so many more celibate priests? The fact is that paedophilia is evenly distributed throughout society & not just found in one demographic as well as people who.dont want to know.
The other problem some lucky woman would face if a priest left primarily because of an issue with celibacy, was making a marriage work - which is about a lot more than sex & can simultaneously cramp your sex life, especially with work & family & financial.stress. Or can priests just remove celibacy without marriage? All good? I was reading an article in a womens magazine the other day where Helen Mirren is saying that you dont need sex in marriage, & she might know at her age & grace. So, what happens if the priest leaves the priesthood due to celibacy issues & marries Helen Mirren? If people today have trouble with the concept of the celibate priesthood, as it has been for 2000 (or at least a very long time) years, then the problem is with society today, most likely.
 
If one looks at history, maybe 2000 years of history, you will see that the catholic church has always had a celibate priesthood. Have they also had this so-called problem with pedophilia and sexual frustration, that they are being accused of today? How did they possibly cope in the past when there were so many more celibate priests? The fact is that paedophilia is evenly distributed throughout society & not just found in one demographic as well as people who.dont want to know.
The other problem some lucky woman would face if a priest left primarily because of an issue with celibacy, was making a marriage work - which is about a lot more than sex & can simultaneously cramp your sex life, especially with work & family & financial.stress. Or can priests just remove celibacy without marriage? All good? I was reading an article in a womens magazine the other day where Helen Mirren is saying that you dont need sex in marriage, & she might know at her age & grace. So, what happens if the priest leaves the priesthood due to celibacy issues & marries Helen Mirren? If people today have trouble with the concept of the celibate priesthood, as it has been for 2000 (or at least a very long time) years, then the problem is with society today, most likely.
I think you are right. It may be Satans attempt to corrupt the church, and put it in a bad light. this may be the first step too, cant imagine whats coming next!
 
I think most people are now aware that the rate of sexual abuse by clergy has historically been no higher among Catholics than among Protestants, or any other faith. Insurance companies who insure religious organizations report that the rate of abuse claims is no higher among Catholics than Protestants, and due to the institutional measures put in place by Pope Benedict, the rate of abuse among Catholic clergy has fallen currently to next to nothing (still too high, but far better than it has been.) The majority of abuse complaints I have seen in the paper where I live recently have been in Protestant denominations, none in Catholic.

The sticking point for a lot of people inside and outside the Catholic Church is the question that the OP brings up - did the hierarchy not recognize, overlook, or worst of all, cover up instances of abuse?

There are some issues that should be recognized here:

One is human nature, which bishops share with the rest of us. We tend to avoid thinking that those people we like and with whom we work are capable of such a horrible act.

A relative of mine, who is a teacher, knew a popular teacher at the public school she worked. She noticed that young boys hung out in his classroom with him a lot, especially ones with bad family situations, and that he would playfully mock-wrestle (while standing) with them. He seemed like a very nice man, was personable and kind, was married with two children, and was a well-regarded and well-liked teacher. She cautioned him that it wasn’t a good idea to allow himself to be placed in a situation where there was physical contact with middle-school kids, and that a false allegation could be made against him. He thanked her and agreed, and the behavior stopped. Not long after that, he was arrested for possession of child pornography, and hands-on offenses against boys were also charged. My relative said she was shocked, despite having seen some actions that caused her concern, because she never thought a person like him would be capable of such actions.

We create an image in our minds of “the kind of person” who would molest children, and there really is no such thing. Most of the people I know (professionally) who have been arrested for offenses against children look just like your uncle or your next-door neighbor or your dad or your co-worker, or your priest, for that matter. While there are some people who raise your hackles and make you instinctively pull your kids a little closer to you, most don’t. This is an important thing to recognize. It also means that we tend to give the benefit of the doubt, if we are in a position of authority over a co-worker whom we like and whom we have never suspected of wrong-doing. And this is one of the reasons some bishops did what they did.

(cont.)
 
Another reason is collegiality. The priests I have spoken to have a strong sense of brotherhood, and this is a good thing. But it also leads to a tendency to favor the word of a member of your group.

Both these phenomena are actually virtues - Charity, the desire to think well of others, and Fraternity, the desire to foster bonds of community - but any virtue has its shadow side, as we know, and can lead to wrong-doing if taken to an extreme.

This is a phenomenon that is seen in other groups that have been accused of child abuse - as the recent case of allegations against another faith in New York has shown, there is a tendency to close ranks. It is extremely common in the profession that has historically shown the highest number of allegations of sexual contact with children, teachers.

As the Wall Street Journal reported last year,
In the last five years in New York City, 97 tenured teachers or school employees have been charged by the Department of Education with sexual misconduct. Among the charges substantiated by the city’s special commissioner of investigation—that is, found to have sufficient merit that an arbitrator’s full examination was justified—in the 2011-12 school year:
• An assistant principal at a Brooklyn high school made explicit sexual remarks to three different girls, including asking one of them if she would perform oral sex on him.
• A teacher in Queens had a sexual relationship with a 13-year old girl and sent her inappropriate messages through email and Facebook.
If this kind of behavior were happening in any adult workplace in America, there would be zero tolerance. Yet our public school children are defenseless.
Here’s why. Under current New York law, an accusation is first vetted by an independent investigator. (In New York City, that’s the special commissioner of investigation; elsewhere in the state, it can be an independent law firm or the local school superintendent.) Then the case goes before an employment arbitrator. The local teachers union and school district together choose the arbitrators, who in turn are paid up to $1,400 per day.
online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390443437504577547313612049308

That’s not to say “the teacher’s unions are bad, so we’re okay by comparison.” But it is important to recognize the institutional problems that will exist in most organizations run by fallible humans. We see this kind of things happen when doctors are accused of sexual abuse, when law enforcement and correctional officers are accused of sexual abuse, and certainly when those in the entertainment industry are accused of sexual abuse - all institutions with track records on child abuse that are worse than clergy.

(cont.)
 
One must also view the bishops’ handling of these issues in the historical context of when they occurred.

Bear in mind that the vast majority of these cases, and the ones that are still being reported today, happened in the 1960s to 1980s - a period when child abuse issues were not handled well by anyone. I have been professionally involved in this field for 25 years, and I can tell you that the way child abuse allegations are handled now, as opposed to the way they were handled when I first started, is like the difference between night and day.

Back then we didn’t have hardly any of the things we take for granted:
  • Victims’ Rights legislation
  • Mandated Reporter laws
  • Juvenile Forensic Interview certification and protocols
  • Victim Service Specialists
  • DNA databases
  • Crimes Against Children interagency task forces
  • The Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Program
  • Organizations like the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
  • Computerized Registered Sex Offender databases
  • Mandated Youth Safety Training for organizations that deal with children
  • Special Victims Units in Police Departments
We also didn’t have much training or awareness in law enforcement or the schools, forensic science was much less advanced, the research database was much less advanced, and worst of all, we had some pretty messed-up misconceptions about child abuse and sexual assault as a society.

Many of the cases, I would guess, that the bishops had to handle were either not reported to the police, or the police were unable to proceed, because the victim’s family were concerned about how their child would be seen if it was known that they were a sexual assault victim. It was popularly felt that a boy who had been sexually assaulted by a male might be seen as “queer,” and that a girl who was sexually assaulted was in some way devalued or may have “been asking for it.” Parents didn’r want their child put on the witness stand, understandably. Those are horrible attitudes, but anyone who lived through that time can tell you they were not uncommon.

In many (most?) cases, the police or the prosecutor didn’t know how to effectively interview a young victim, and in the absence of a lot of the techniques now used to gain evidence against an offender, the prosecutor would often tell the police that it was a “he said / he said” situation, especially if the accused held a position of authority and had no prior criminal record. The prosecutor would probably just tell the investigator to “keep an eye” on the offender.

So, place yourself in the role of a bishop: you have a report that a child was molested (anything from inappropriate comments to touching to penetration). The parents don’t want to file charges, or the police investigated, decided it was a “he said / he said” situation and the county attorney declined to file charges in the absence of any physical evidence. You have had no problems with the priest before, or maybe you have suspicions but are unsure. You can’t laicize him based on the unsubstantiated allegation. What do you do? Send him to therapy, send him to a retreat, move him to a new parish to get him away from the child who made the allegation? Not easy choices.

Remember, the psychological establishment, society, and the criminal justice system all had very different views of the issue back then. For better or worse, many bishops based their ideas on how molestation worked and what outcomes were possible, on what those institutions believed.

And what did they believe?

(cont.)
 
Pope Benedict took some heavy abuse in the media after he said that the abuse problem arose because of the deformed morals and views of child abuse of the past decades. The media claimed that popular culture and society, unlike that awful paternalistic Catholci Church, always hated child abuse, but Pope Benedict was exactly right.

Most Americans now rightly condemn the idea of sexual contact between adults and minors, and as memories are short, many forget that this was not always the case. Many members of the left wing intelligentsia in America and Europe adopted an attitude that child molestation could a positive action, and urged that sexual relations between a child and an adult be decriminalized and even celebrated.

It should also be noted that the move to normalize child molestation was intimately linked with the gay liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s, despite efforts to whitewash its origins today. This may be one of the reasons that current efforts to re-engineer sexual morality on issues such as same-sex marriage is looked upon with suspicion by conservatives today.

The medical diagnosis of Pedophilia was, as Pope Benedict said, often described as an artifact of a restrictive morality by many sex researchers in the 1970s, and there was a widespread consensus that it was “curable,” which is much less prevalent nowadays, but one which was probably a common belief advanced by any counselors or therapists the bishops consulted at the time. Most of the current law enforcement, prosecutive, and therapeutic communities use a strict risk management model to view the issue, and don’t view it as a curable disorder. Many sex researchers in the 1970s argued that consensual sexual relations between adults and minors could be beneficial to the minor and even desirable. (Morally and legally, there is of course no such thing as a minor’s ability to “consent” to sex with an adult.)

Unfortunately, this morally degraded view of human sexuality filtered down to some Catholic seminaries at that time, provided in some cases by lay psychologists and theologians, often not even Catholic - non-Catholics are often surprised to learn how many instructors on theology and other matters in Catholic seminaries and universities are not Catholic. (Protestant seminaries and Bible colleges experienced some of the same problems at this time, incidentally.)

If you’d like some evidence of this, read “Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church” by Michael S. Rose for an accurate but often depressing historical view of the 1970s seminaries’ experimentation with the Human Potential Movement ideas of Maslow and Rogers, and how they wreaked chaos on a generation of some seminarians - most of whom rightly resisted the corruption of traditional Church teachings and morality, sometimes at the cost of their own vocation. Many were forced out of the seminary for their orthodox Catholic views on sexuality and morality. It should be understood that these teachings were NOT accepted by the Church, then or now, but were aberrant teachings in violation of orthodoxy.

Unfortunately, some of those holding these secular views of sexuality tended to be the staff (many of them lay officials) in charge of admissions at the seminaries. Some of the men accepted into the seminaries by those staffers had known same-sex attractions, and in some of the seminaries, open expression of those attractions was not only discouraged, but even celebrated in the 1960s and 1970s. Men who had declared a gay orientation were sometimes told by seminary directors that it was possible to have a same-sex attraction and still be a priest, as long as one remained celibate, which appears to have been a recipe for disaster.

This was by no means common, and seems to have been most common in only certain seminaries, but the introduction of such secular values on sexuality in the seminaries was the greatest mistake and the greatest cause of the scandal within the Church. (Pope Benedict ended this practice definitively, which dramatically reduced the abuse problem. He took a lot of flack from the liberal side of the Church for this, who would have preferred to allow the ordination of those with an admitted homosexual orientation. It would be hard to argue, however, that the scandal was not largely a problem of homosexual behavior, given the older age of the victims, the nature of the alleged acts, and the overwhelmingly male gender of the victims, and the statistical research showing that male molesters who are attracted to boys have a statistically higher victim count.)

Society at large was facing the same swing to the left on sexuality. The secular teachings on human sexuality in the the late 1960s and 1970s, were based on the explosive rise of “Personal Liberation” groups (female, gay, etc.) that led some of those in the therapeutic, medical, and academic and “human potential” fields to theorize that pedophilia could also be simply an “alternative mode of self-expression, and that traditional views on the need to protect children against sexual predators were old-fashioned, prudish, and stood in the way of self-actualization of both the offender and the victim. This was also fueled by the “deinstitutionalization” movement of R.D. Laing and others that decried the confinement of mental patients against their will, including sexual psychopaths, and which was supported by some liberal judges.
 
In Millard v. Harris (1968), U.S. District Court Judge David Bazelon ruled the confinement of a male who compulsively exposed himself to children was not justified, because his exhibitionism only affected “unusually sensitive adult women and small children.” (!!!) Laws that had formerly allowed the institutionalization of diagnosed child molesters were argued against in scholarly works such as Nicholas N. Kittrie’s *The Right to Be Different *(Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1971), and Fred Cohen’s The Law of Deprivation of Liberty (St. Paul, Minnesota: West, 1980).

In Europe you also had literati like homosexual activist Tony Duvert, whose 1973 novel Strange Landscapes won the prestigious Prix Médicis and promoted pedophilia as part of a doctrine of gay sexual liberation.

The European left wing had an obsession for the normalization of pedophilia, as shown in an article from the on-line international edition of Spiegel:

spiegel.de/international/…702679,00.html

(CAUTION: The article uses some graphic language to describe what went on in the circle of the left-wing intelligentsia)

From the article: "Hardly any leftist texts of the day did not address the subject of sexuality. For instance, “Revolution der Erziehung” (“The Revolution in Education”), a work published by Rowohlt in 1971, which quickly became a bestseller, addresses sexuality as follows: “The de-eroticization of family life, from the prohibition of sexual activity among children to the taboo of incest, serves as preparation for total assimilation – as preparation for the hostile treatment of sexual pleasure in school and voluntary subjugation to a dehumanizing labor system.”

In France in 1977, the cream of the French intelligentsia signed a petition to parliament demanding the end of all age-of-consent laws (which already allowed sexual relations between adults and children as young as 15 at that time). The petition was signed by the philosopher Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Louis Althusser, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and André Glucksmann, Roland Barthes, by the novelist/gay activist Guy Hocquenghem, the actor/play-writer/jurist Jean Danet, writer and filmmaker Alain Robbe-Grillet, writer Philippe Sollers, and pediatrician and child psychoanalyst Françoise Dolto, among others. In 1979, many members of the same group of individuals published a letter calling for the release of all those imprisoned for sexual offenses against a child, and again called on the French Parliament to abolish all age-of-consent laws.

Foucalt (a moral relativist of the very type denounced by the Pope), Danet, and Hocquenghem debated the issue on French radio. The dialogue was broadcast on April 4, 1978 by radio France Culture, and the transcription was published in French as La loi de la pudeur and reprinted in English as The Danger of Child Sexuality The text was later included under the title Sexual Morality and the Law in Foucault’s book Politics, Philosophy, Culture – Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984.

All 3 denounced any laws against sex with children. Danet claimed children morally could give consent to sex and decried court prosecutions of pedophiles, claiming that "what takes place with the intervention of psychiatrists in court is a manipulation of the children’s consent, a manipulation of their words…It could be that the child, with his own sexuality, may have desired that adult, he may even have consented, he may even have made the first moves. We may even agree that it was he who seduced the adult. But we specialists with our psychological knowledge know perfectly well that even the seducing child runs a risk, of being damaged and traumatized. (…) Consequently, the child must be ‘protected from his own desires’, even when his desires turn him towards an adult” (Brrrr…) Hocquenghem argued that in court “everybody knows” the child really consented: “The public affirmation of consent to such acts is extremely difficult, as we know. Everybody - judges, doctors, the defendant - knows that the child was consenting - but nobody says anything, because, apart from anything else, there’s no way it can be introduced”.

A letter in support of the release of a child molester charged with molesting children aged 6 to 12 was published in Le Monde on January 26, 1977, which stated: “Today they risk a long prison term either for having had sexual relations with minors, boys as well as girls, or for having encouraged and taken photographs of their sexual play. We believe that there is an incongruity between the designation as a `crime’ which serves to legitimize such a severity, and the facts themselves; even more so between the antiquated law and the reality of every day life in a society which tends to know about the sexuality of children and adolescents.” This letter was signed by 63 French intellectuals, writers, philosophers, and doctors, including the atheist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, and Ronald Barthes.
 
Political movements to decriminalize age-of-consent laws gained steam in the 1970s, with groups such as the Campaign for Homosexual Equality demanding a reduction to age 16, or age 12 “in cases where a defendant could prove the existence of meaningful consent” in May, 1974; the Sexual Law Reform Society demanded a reduction to age 14 in September, 1974; and in 1976, LIBERTY (also known as the National Council for Civil Liberties, the British equivalent of the ACLU) demanded the reduction of the age of consent to 10 years of age, only when both individuals are younger than 14, with a close-in-age exemption of two years if one of the involved individuals is older than 14 but younger than 16. (Got all that?) NAMBLA and the Danish Pedophile Association simply demanded the abolition of all age-of-consent laws.

Sociology and psychology textbooks of this era often downplayed the trauma to the child from sexual assault and seemed to advocate a policy of non-reporting, as in Stephen P. McCary and James Leslie McCary’s *Human Sexuality *(3rd ed., Monterey, California: Wadsworth, 1984): “Early sexual contacts do not appear to have harmful effects on many children unless the family, legal authorities or society react negatively.” Many psychology textbooks of the era identified a child molestation as likely to be a one-time aberration in behavior rather than a persistent pattern of pornography-based fantasy and behavior.

A series of events in the late 1970s and 1980s, including the linkage of incest with the concerns of the feminist movement, and a series of high-profile cases of abduction by pedophiles (like the Stephen Stayner case, which resulted in the best-seller I Know My Name is Stephen and a popular made-for-TV adaptation), and the rise of the missing-child movement which resulted from the abduction and murders of Etan Patz and Adam Walsh, which finally resulted in legislative action and the creation of organizations such as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the recognition that the sexual abuse of children is sadly common. But it wasn’t like that for much of the 1970s, as Pope Benedict stated.

It is true that the bishops that faced allegations of sexual abuse erred in relying on the professional “research” of the era, which severely underestimated the physical, psychological, and spiritual toll on the victim, and which instead focused on a therapeutic response which posited the possibility of a cure, or at least the reformation of predatory behavior.

Far-left Catholic theologians such as Anthony Kosnick wrote in in the Catholic Theological Society of America book, Human Sexuality: New Direction in American Catholic Thought (1977):

“…at this time the behavioral sciences have not identified any sexual expression that can be empirically demonstrated to be of itself, in a culture-free way, detrimental to full human existence…enlightened and well-integrated individuals might well free themselves of conflict by simply reflecting on the relativity of their society’s sexual ethic and proceed discreetly with their sexual project.”
 
Basing the theology of a response to the molestation of a child on the liberal “humanistic” psychological schools of the 1970s was catastrophic to the Church. The use of retreats for the therapy and eventual return of offending priests, such as the Servants of the Paraclete in New Mexico, has been condemned by many in the Church and outside.

It’s interesting to note that the founder of that order, Father Gerald Fitzgerald, started the organization in the 1940s to help treat priests who were dealing with a wide variety of psychological disorders, including substance abuse, alcoholism, and sexuality. Fr. Fitzgerald originally believed that a model of spiritual healing based on intense prayer could change undesired behavior, and was somewhat successful using that model with those dealing with alcoholism and substance abuse, but as he began to deal with those with a sexual attraction to children, he found that model unusable, writing in 1957 that, “Experience has taught us these men are too dangerous to the children of the parish and neighborhood for us to be justified in receiving them here,” stated that they were untreatable, and campaigned for their forced laicization to the bishops. Some bishops heeded his advice, and some didn’t as they preferred to accept the advice of outside experts that such conditions were treatable.

Fr. Fitzgerald developed a very clear-eyed view, after years of dealing with pedophiles, that they should not be returned to an active ministry, as they had a lower chance of recovery than even the drug addicts and alcoholics under his care, and were very likely to molest children again. He recognized the fraternal bonds within the priesthood, and that bishops would be prone to optimistically return them to their parish, based on a clerical model of compassion and forgiveness, but he warned that they were, in his experience, essentially untreatable. Fr. Fitzgerald warned back in 1947, however that “…leaving them on duty or wandering from diocese to diocese is contributing to scandal or at least to the approximate danger of scandal…charity to the Mystical Body [of Christ, i.e., the Church] should take precedence over charity to the individual [priest].”

Fr. Fitzgerald felt that a priest who molested children should either be confined to a remote monastery for the rest of his life (and he attempted to create such a site on a remote island), essentially warehousing them where they could not harm others, or discharged from the priesthood. When he wrote to his ecclesiastical sponsor in 1957, Archbishop Byrne, Fr. Fitzgerald didn’t try to conceal his opinions:

“May I beg your excellency to concur and approve of what I consider a very vital decision on our part - that we will not offer hospitality to men who have seduced or attempted to seduce little boys or girls. These men, Your Excellency, are devils and the wrath of God is upon them, and if I were a bishop I would tremble when I failed to report them to Rome for involuntary laicization…it is for this class of rattlesnake I have always wished the island retreat - but even an island is too good for these vipers of whom the Gentle Master said - it would be better they had not been born - this is an indirect way of saying damned, is it not?”

Pope (Saint) Pius V would have agreed, as way back in 1568 he ordered that any priest found guilty of sexual abuse be stripped of his priestly status and bound over to the civil authorities for presumed execution, as this would send a message that “whoever does not abhor the ruination of the soul, the avenging secular sword arm of civil law will certainly deter.”

(Crisis Magazine had a recent article about Fr. Fitzgerald, one of the unsung prophets of the Church: crisismagazine.com/2013/fr-gerald-fitzgerald-and-the-path-not-taken)

(It may be possible to manage molesters, given sufficient motivation by the offender. Some facilities claim a high success rate - but I would argue for a 1 strike, you’re out rule in regards to continued access to the innocent, and laicization for any cleric involved.)

With regard to those who sexually offend against children, one wishes that the bishops of the past few decades would have paid more attention to Father Fitzgerald, Pope Pius V, and especially Matthew 18:6 when considering modes of therapy. The 1970s and 1980s were a ruinous time when traditional Catholic wisdom on such abuse was ignored by some (by no means all) in a position of authority.

I thank God for the past leadership of Pope Benedict and the continued leadership of Pope Francis in this matter.
 
We haven’t come that far as a society, though - the sexual exploitation of children through commercial sexual trafficking is still common but often denied by those who would profit from it (see the recent fracas between Ashton Kutchner and the Village Voice), and by those who claim that a 14 or 15 year old forced into nightly sexual assault by strangers in some way acquiesced in her violation because she is a “prostitute,” and thus can be safely ignored as her pimp/child molester commercially profits from her degradation and suffering. The Catholic Church has been in the forefront of the movement for the abolition of the sexual trafficking of children, through Catholic Social Services and outreach organizations such as Dignity House.

You still have retrograde beliefs being offered in the secular world on child abuse - Betsy Karasik, a columnist for the Washington Post, has suggested that teachers shouldn’t be prosecuted for molesting the children in their care: washingtonpost.com/opinions/sex-between-students-and-teachers-should-not-be-a-crime/2013/08/30/dbf7dcca-1107-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage, and a prominent English left-wing barrister has argued for lowering the age of consent to 13 to “end the persecution of old men,” primarily influential ones in the entertainment industry: telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/10045699/Allow-legal-sex-at-13-to-stop-old-men-abuse-persecutions-says-barrister.html

I know all that’s probably a lot more information about why the situation in the Church got so bad in past decades. Being* in* the world but not of it, would probably have been a better course for the hierarchy of the Church in past decades, but at least the ship has been steered back onto a better course.
 
It is not a coincidence that this problem had its peak during the time of the so-called “Sexual Revolution”. The problem is a lot worse in secular institutions such as public schools. But the media is mostly only interested when a priest gets accused. And a significant number of the allegations against priests have been proven false. Some people (crooks) see this as an easy money opportunity and are motivated by greed. They see others getting millions of dollars, and they want some of the action.
 
Arizona Mike: Thank you for taking the time to give a fuller picture of the various events over the past 50 years. I have heard snippets of these issues here and there, especially how there are those who wish to legalize pedophilia and use psychology as a excuse to do so. I was not aware of all the players and how far back these movements went. This partly explains why Europe’s legal system have been lowering legal ages and helps me understand why I have been encountering these beliefs inside the field of Psychology. I came across an academic paper the other day from Germany talking about the “benefits of incest” and I almost fell out of my seat. It is amazing what people will rationalize without God in their life.

However, you did an excellent job of summarizing the nature of this tragedy and that there were those in the Church who tried to steer it in the right direction. As I stated previously I feel that it was a grave mistake to trust the advise of the relatively modern field of Psychology and Psychiatry over the Church’s teachings when it came to such heinous acts. Like I said before, it strikes me as a very well planned attack on the Church which used Psychology like a Trojan horse.

God Bless
 
Arizona Mike: Thank you for taking the time to give a fuller picture of the various events over the past 50 years. I have heard snippets of these issues here and there, especially how there are those who wish to legalize pedophilia and use psychology as a excuse to do so. I was not aware of all the players and how far back these movements went. This partly explains why Europe’s legal system have been lowering legal ages and helps me understand why I have been encountering these beliefs inside the field of Psychology. I came across an academic paper the other day from Germany talking about the “benefits of incest” and I almost fell out of my seat. It is amazing what people will rationalize without God in their life.
You’re very welcome. As Chesterton said, if you don’t believe in God, you’ll believe anything.
 
But your logic SEEMS to suggest that homosexually inclined priests are more likely to commit sexual immorality than heterosexual ones (or married ones).
This is because heteronormative society has safeguards against heterosexual immorality, but not against homosexual immorality. There is a reason we segregate people by gender in certain situation and there is a reason why parents are weary of leaving their children alone with someone of the opposite gender. But people are much less suspicious of someone of the same gender as the child.

And people are even less suspicious of someone trusted by the community – e.g. a priest.

Another aspect is that teenage molestation (regardless of orientation) is rarely committed by young men – it is usually commited by men aged 40-50 and up. This is because young men tend to prefer older partners, middle-aged men prefer same-age partners, and older men often develop a taste of younger (below 20) partners. So if you have a priest with a history of homosexual behavior, the chances of him molesting someone below 18 will increase as he ages. At the same his bishop is receiving repeated information of his homosexual activity, and thinks that they are no big deal. By the time the priest develops taste for young boys, the bishop develops a habit of trashing complaints without reading.

In other words, if someone is unable to control his sexual impulses, that becomes usually becomes apparent before he develops interest in underage partners and/or nonconsexual sex. Bishops should eliminate such individuals from priesthood immediately, and not wait until they start doing real damage.
Surely we all know men who cheated on their wives? So I’m unclear on how you think married priests would reduce the problem.
Sure, but how long can you be cheating on your wife until she finds out? Let’s be honest here, I don’t think that you can do it for more than 1-2 years on average. Women are very vigiliant.

Besides – and that’s the point here – if Holy Orders were limited to married people, priesthood would not be attractive for homosexuals.
According to your logic, bishops would be just as likely to cover up sexual immorality by married priests as by celibate ones.
Yes, but they would be unable to do so effectively. No cover up is possible once the woman has proof that her husband is cheating and files for divorce.
And statistics show that most molestation of young people occurs by married men.
Yes, because most men are married. That’s stating the obvious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top