Mean Men

[a_priori]

The priesthood is being cast as the refuge of pederasts. In fact, priests seem to abuse children at the same rate as everyone else.

"The Catholic sex-abuse stories emerging every day suggest that Catholics have a much bigger problem with child molestation than other denominations and the general population. Many point to peculiarities of the Catholic Church (its celibacy rules for priests, its insular hierarchy, its exclusion of women) to infer that there’s something particularly pernicious about Catholic clerics that predisposes them to these horrific acts. It’s no wonder that, back in 2002—when the last Catholic sex-abuse scandal was making headlines—a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests "frequently’’ abused children.

Yet experts say there’s simply no data to support the claim at all. No formal comparative study has ever broken down child sexual abuse by denomination, and only the Catholic Church has released detailed data about its own. But based on the surveys and studies conducted by different denominations over the past 30 years, experts who study child abuse say they see little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue. “We don’t see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else,” said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. “I can tell you without hesitation that we have seen cases in many religious settings, from traveling evangelists to mainstream ministers to rabbis and others.”

newsweek.com/id/236096

 

[Holly3278]

The problem most definitely is not a problem exclusive to the Catholic Church. I bet you all didn’t know that Protestant ministers are more often guilty of child sexual abuse than are Catholic priests. The abuse rate, while only slightly higher among Protestant clergy, is indeed higher among Protestant clergy than it is among Catholic clergy. I say this not to excuse in any way, shape, or form the abuse committed by clergy of any religious affiliation but in order to prove that such child sexual abuse is not the result of celibate clergy or male only clergy.

In my opinion, child sexual abuse is the result of serious psychological disturbances in the offender. All clergy members, both Protestant and Catholic, both active and about to become active, should receive an intensive psychological evaluation before being allowed to continue their duties. Any of them who shows a serious psychological problem needs to be removed from the ministry and treated quietly until their psychological problem is either gone or is under control to an extent that they are no longer a threat to anyone. Those clergy members who have more mild psychological problems such as clinical depression need to be immediately be put in counseling and psychotherapy as an outpatient program where they will be medicated and receive the amount of therapy needed to help them overcome their more mild psychological problems. They should be continued to be allowed to serve as clergy members but should be put under strict supervision until their psychological disturbance is under complete control and even then they should still be under some form of supervision.

That said, my solution may not be a perfect solution. Indeed, there may not be a perfect solution to such a problem. However, it is still a proposed solution and one that I believe would work a great deal to preventing such tragic events from ever happening again in the future.

Also, any priest or minister who is ever shown or is reported to have engaged in child sexual abuse needs to be immediately removed from the ministry until such charges can be disproven or proven. If the charges are proven then the priest or minister should be permanently removed from the ministry and be put in jail or prison for a very long time. If, however, they are proved to be innocent, they should be allowed to continue in the ministry with some degree of supervision in order to assure that the charges were indeed false and if not to do that then to at least placate the parents and other concerned lay people of their concerns.

Finally, I am not sure what should happen should a priest confess to another priest or bishop that he is engaged in child sexual abuse during a sacramental confession. Something needs to be done but obviously, they cannot be reported to the police or something by the confessor because that would violate the seal of confession and we cannot allow such violations of the seal of confession to occur. Why? Because if they begin to occur, people will begin to trust the sacrament of confession even less than they do now and before long, the sacrament of confession will be more of an idea than a practice. However, something must be done. Perhaps the confessors should, if they don’t already, issue a very harsh penance such as a penance involving seeking intensive therapy, voluntarily resigning from the ministry, and turning themselves into the police. Unfortunately, I am not certain that such a penance would not also violate the seal of confession.

I don’t know. I don’t know what can be done. All I know is that something needs to be done and I am only throwing ideas out there. I truly feel sorry for all of the falsely accused priests and ministers but I don’t feel sorry at all for the legitimately accused priests and ministers.

 

[Edwardjohn]

Sexual immorality has been around for a long time. There is a reason the Scriptures tell us to flee from it.

 

[markeverett49]

How would you react to the headline, “Local police no more likely to commit crimes than anyone else”??? I don’t think you’d take much comfort in that.

That said, the bigger problem is NON-pedophile priests covering up for the bad ones for all these years, in the process becoming corrupt themselves.

 

[a_priori]

That said, the bigger problem is NON-pedophile priests covering up for the bad ones for all these years, in the process becoming corrupt themselves.

One could make the case that priests covering up and putting more kids at risk are “bad” too in a certain sense. The point of the article was not to suggest Catholics feel better about bad priests. It merely shows a proportionality that has been missing on the subject during public debate. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[markeverett49]

It merely shows a proportionality that has been missing on the subject during public debate. Nothing more, nothing less.

I disagree. For one big thing, the Church has a long-established hierarchy so that we know that not only did many priests molest children, but as many bishops knew and kept sending them to other parishes. (If a teacher leaves a public school ahead of a lawsuit, that school doesn’t know where the guy goes next, but priests are not free agents in that way.)

Further, we are talking about bishops here, who are teachers of moral theology and supposedly examples to their flocks. This doesn’t make them sinless, of course, but covering up for child molestors is a mortal sin to which few are tempted. My God, endgangering children in order to protect the reputation of a priest you know is a child molestor? This is abominable, criminal, and it only makes it worse when clergy claim that they are no more likely to do this sort of thing than anyone else, or that they were doing it for the good of the universal church.

 

[a_priori]

I disagree. For one big thing, the Church has a long-established hierarchy so that we know that not only did many priests molest children, but as many bishops knew and kept sending them to other parishes. (If a teacher leaves a public school ahead of a lawsuit, that school doesn’t know where the guy goes next, but priests are not free agents in that way.)

Further, we are talking about bishops here, who are teachers of moral theology and supposedly examples to their flocks. This doesn’t make them sinless, of course, but covering up for child molestors is a mortal sin to which few are tempted. My God, endgangering children in order to protect the reputation of a priest you know is a child molestor? This is abominable, criminal, and it only makes it worse when clergy claim that they are no more likely to do this sort of thing than anyone else, or that they were doing it for the good of the universal church.

I agree, for the most part, with what you say here. I think we’re talking past each other. Priests who assault kids and those who protect them are both culpable. Abusing children and enabling children to be abused are as bad as it gets.

Here is my point. Many people in America today enjoy suggesting that the Catholic Church alone is infected with some moral pathogen that feeds on celibacy. Pedophile priests are indeed pathogens. But so are protestant ministers who abuse. This celibacy-abuse connection is overdrawn. Relationship does not equal causality.

A priest who hurts a child or a Bishop who “holds the coat” of a priest who hurts a child are committing unconscionable acts and should be dealt with swiftly and unambiguously.

 

[unafraid]

Proportionality is the first victim when a premise has at its fundament a bias. Pointing out this in no way expiates any behavior. It is noticing a nuance and giving it an airing. It is a very good point and I agree with it.

 

[Edwardjohn]

I’m wondering if any clergy, i.e. priests and/or Bishops read these threads. I’m sure that if they did they would realize that they’ve been put on notice. Or maybe not, given this is not new and was probably discussed before, or has been an ongoing discussion since the revelation. Maybe they just don’t care. I don’t know, just thinking.

 

[markeverett49]

Many people in America today enjoy suggesting that the Catholic Church alone is infected with some moral pathogen that feeds on celibacy. QUOTE]

I think this is false. Who hasn’t heard of Mary Kay Letourneau, the schoolteacher who was jailed twice for having sex with an underage boy? (I believe they’re married now.) In the past few years we’ve seen several cases of female schoolteachers having sex with underage boys–they lose their jobs, go to court, face sentencing, the whole smear. This morning I read (drudgereport.com) about swim coaches who took pictures of swimmers in the locker room. Disgusting stuff. It gets reported. What makes the Church unusual lately is its claim that ‘Hey, since other people molest children, who cares that we do?’ That’s crazy. The Church professes to be the Body of Christ, expert in humanity, and to turn around and say, “Hey, we’re no more likely to molest your kids than a total stranger–who could ask for anything more?” It is damning and disgusting. The insidious notion that priests don’t have to answer to anyone else is behind this crazy idea that covering up for pedophiles somehow helps the Church. Lay people see at a glance how bad an idea that is.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What makes the Church unusual lately is its claim that ‘Hey, since other people molest children, who cares that we do?’ That’s crazy. The Church professes to be the Body of Christ, expert in humanity, and to turn around and say, “Hey, we’re no more likely to molest your kids than a total stranger–who could ask for anything more?” It is damning and disgusting. The insidious notion that priests don’t have to answer to anyone else is behind this crazy idea that covering up for pedophiles somehow helps the Church. Lay people see at a glance how bad an idea that is.

The Church is not claiming that in noting that incidences of molestation are not ‘higher’ than outside the Church, it is therefore ‘okay’ to molest’, or that it’s all right because others molest too.

The molestation is terrible (no matter if it’s a priest or not). No question.

But while you may be the rara avis who is capable of impartially looking at the priestly cases and saying, “This is not a case of abuse being ‘worse’ because it’s a Catholic priest, this is a case of abuse, it is wrong no matter what”. . .

a rather substantial and loud majority seem to think that ‘priestly abuse’ is worse than parental abuse.

And they also think that unless a Catholic agrees with them that somehow ‘priest abuse’ is just the absolute nightmare of abuse, that said Catholic is thus claiming priest abuse is OK, that said Catholic is ‘part of the cover up’, that said Catholic is blind, stupid, and that the whole institution is rotten to the core and this abuse proves it.

that’s wrong.

The logical fallacies whereby one takes a perfectly true statement:

Some Catholic priests abused children.
Abuse of children is wrong.

and turned it into “Catholic priests abused children, thereby the whole institution is corrupt and wrong, and anybody who does not believe that abuse by a priest is worse than any crime anywhere is denying that the crime took place” etc.

are the ‘misapprehensions’ that we attempt to address.

Is the abuse justifiable?
No.
Are Catholic priests ‘better’ than any other abuser?
No.
But are they WORSE abusers because they are priests?
NO.

And I dare you to approach one of the many children who was abused by a father or other near relative and tell them, “Sorry, but you should be THANKFUL it wasn’t a Catholic PRIEST because that abuse would have been WORSE. At least YOU were only abused by your FATHER.”

 

[JimMc]

This is an absolutely horrible sin that has infected society and very sadly even the priesthood.

If anything good can come of this - perhaps it is the hightened scrutiny.
Our priests live by a higher standard - (and will be judged that way).
This scandal may well serve to purify the Church - to purge any and all evildoers from their hiding inside the Church. I pray that ANY person who perpetrates such an evil on a child receives the harshest criminal sentence possible and is Never allowed to be near another child. If they are a priest - I would even hope their criminal sentence be worse – in order that they may repent of what they did.

Now - if you have children – you have to be Very careful these days - with everybody. This article may point this out, but the greatest risk to your children are within your friends & family. Be overly protective & pay particular attention (especially pray that the Holy Spirit enlighten you as well) to any small signs from adults & other children - even ones you think you can trust.
It is sad that it has come to this - but the older I get the more real evil I see out there.
So we have to be the ones who are vigilent for our children.
You have to make sure that they are never in a situation where someone could do something this to them (I am a father - and I know - this is a full time job…).

 

[Elizabeth502]

Does no one but me see a problem with this phrase and this concept, on its face?

In fact priests seem to abuse children at the same rate as everyone else.

Hello. They are not “everyone else.” They are priests consecrated to God, and responsible for modeling honest (not deceptive) behavior, and for protecting innocent souls, not exploiting innocent souls. There should not be one priest allowed to use a protected priesthood as his own personal refuge for pederasty.

Comparative rates of pederasty should not even be an issue. If 50% of lay men were pederasts, and .000000000000001 % of priests were, the priestly pederasty would still be a problem.

It amazes me that those who talk about starting with a reduction of abortions (vs. an unrealistic immediate elimination of them) are often scathingly criticized on CAF as being supposedly soft on the issue. Yet many posters who are radically supportive of the hierarchy without question or room for criticism do not see the contradiction in radically protecting innocent unborn life yet while being strangely casual about innocent born life. It’s a real moral contradiction.

I love priests, too. The vast majority are upstanding. It is not a “numbers” issue, however. It is a structural issue. It is an issue about protectionism, authority, power differentials, and about --yes-- to some degree (indirectly) celibacy. Not that celibacy is the root, No. More that, for too many men, celibacy is equivalent to a silence about their own personal sexuality and an artificial suppression of it versus a willed, embraced avenue to freedom (which, for those so inclined and graced, it is: an opportunity for wider love within a transformed sexuality).

I won’t hijack the thread, but I will just say that the reasons for pederasty within the priesthood could have been eliminated (and the reasons are the most important issue, not the punishment-after-the-fact), and still should be eliminated if this remains an issue for even one priest.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think that people think that in pointing out that the abuse rate is ‘the same’ for priests as for non-priests, that we are ‘making light of it’ or arguing that ‘everybody sins so we aren’t any worse.’

But that is not why I, for example, point out the fact.

It is not to make light of the abuse. Far from it.

It is to correct the idea that somehow it is ‘worse’ for priests to abuse than it is for a father to abuse his child, or for the minister down the road to abuse a child, or for the scout leader to abuse a child.

Maybe it’s because it’s a little too close to ‘home’ for me, but hello, I just can’t wrap around my head that people aren’t far**, far** more upset at a father (or mother) abusing a child.

The person who brought you into this world abusing you? Often for far longer and in far worse ways than any ‘other’ of the above, because they have access to you 24/7. You might say that a child thought the priest was ‘god’. **what do you think most children think their parents are? **

A child sees a priest once a week maybe for a couple of hours, and can then LEAVE. A child sees his parents 24/7 and cannot leave.

A child abused by any of the others can go to his parents for help. A child being abused by a parent is usually threatened that if he goes to the OTHER parent, the abuser will kill them all. A child abused by a parent doesn’t have the ‘support’ of the parent **against the abuser. **

I think the priestly abuse is awful, just as I think the abuse of ministers, and scout leaders, and teachers, and ABOVE ALL parents, is awful. Not because “it was a PRIEST who abused, how scandalous” but because" it was a CHILD who was abused, how hurtful".

While I certainly think that more can be done to address errors that were made (and NOT JUST BY THE CHURCH) in dealing with past abuse, I am disgusted that in the media and elsewhere the emphasis is put ONLY on one ‘group’ and all the others are ignored. So long as even good Catholics are more ‘revolted’ by the abuse of a child by a priest than they are by the abuse of a child BY ANY PERSON, and ESPECIALLY BY THEIR OWN FAMILY, we are not going ANYWHERE in addressing the root causes of child abuse and we aren’t going to be able to address them because we’ll be blindly stuck on one ‘group’ and ignoring the millions OUTSIDE THAT GROUP as if they don’t count.