hi irish. who said the numbers dropped?The number of abuse cases dropped sharply after 1984. I have heard that JPII made changes at the seminaries that lead to that, yet I have no idea if that is true.
Does anyone know the reason sexual abuse dropped so sharply after 1984?
(Note to the mods: if this is the wrong place, please move).
ok pat, i went to the site. so, a catholic organization is investigating priest abuse statistics. and they conclude abuse is declining.Go here: bringyou.to/apologetics/PriestAbuseScandal.htm
You will find a graph in he middle of the page that shows a sharp decline.
Not just declining, falling dramatically since the mid-1980s and that was long before it broke into being public knowledge. I wondering why it dropped at that time.ok pat, i went to the site. so, a catholic organization is investigating priest abuse statistics. and they conclude abuse is declining.
According to the Summary in the John Jay report:Not just declining, falling dramatically since the mid-1980s and that was long before it broke into being public knowledge. I wondering why it dropped at that time.
hi irish, well, from what ive seen from court cases and testimony of victims, abuse was in full swing thru the 80s and into the 90s. take a survey for yourself. dig into the news. lots of victims who come forth are in their 20s, like 24, 25…etc. they were born in the 80s.Not just declining, falling dramatically since the mid-1980s and that was long before it broke into being public knowledge. I wondering why it dropped at that time.
If you take a look at the site I posted, and then scroll down to the graph, you will see the abuse cases plummeted after the mid-80s. Yet, most of those cases were not claimed or reported until much later, so many people think that the abuse took place when it was reported and that is not the case.hi irish, well, from what ive seen from court cases and testimony of victims, abuse was in full swing thru the 80s and into the 90s. take a survey for yourself. dig into the news. lots of victims who come forth are in their 20s, like 24, 25…etc. they were born in the 80s.
And a lot of them went through the seminary in the 40s & 50s since a lot of the abuse dates back to the late 50s, early 60s. Some of the priests I know who have been accused (that includes some who were pastors when I was a child and I’m 55) were not products of Vatican II by any stretch of the imagination.They realized the repercussions of Vatican II had on Seminaries. Seminaries really opened up, allowing these abusive people into the Seminary without proper evaluation of their call.
Notice the large amount of abusive priests that were in Seminary shortly after Vatican II.
(cliche warning) Vatican II didn’t happen in a vacuum! The large amount of faithless clergy preceded VCII, which is why John XXIII was warned not to convene a Council. And the Holy Spirit had to work overtime to prevent that Council from falling into error. And there are two other events regarding 1984 (not the book!) that I’m surprised haven’t been mentioned. Hint: Fatima & Pope Leo XIII.And a lot of them went through the seminary in the 40s & 50s since a lot of the abuse dates back to the late 50s, early 60s. Some of the priests I know who have been accused (that includes some who were pastors when I was a child and I’m 55) were not products of Vatican II by any stretch of the imagination.
Phemie, my experience (and age) is the same as yours; two of the priests in my childhood parish (in Massachusetts, unfortunately a hotbed of wayward priests, it seems) have been removed from ministry.And a lot of them went through the seminary in the 40s & 50s since a lot of the abuse dates back to the late 50s, early 60s. Some of the priests I know who have been accused (that includes some who were pastors when I was a child and I’m 55) were not products of Vatican II by any stretch of the imagination.
I’d like to think that it’s the same here, but I have my doubts. We were appalled to discover, about three years ago, that one of the seminarians from our diocese was a very troubled, very active homosexual young man, well known to our daughter (longtime classmate) and quite open about his proclivities. My husband spoke with the bishop, who professed complete ignorance of the young man’s background.I know first hand that my diocese has revamped and upgraded the vetting procedures for seminarians in the last ten years or so…
nice guessPhemie, my experience (and age) is the same as yours; two of the priests in my childhood parish (in Massachusetts, unfortunately a hotbed of wayward priests, it seems) have been removed from ministry.
One reason I have heard (and just one) for the abuse perpetrated by those in seminary in the 40s and 50s is the rightfully abandoned practice of entering a “minor” seminary in about the ninth grade. These boys should have been enjoying typical adolescent pursuits, socializing in groups with boys and girls, but were instead isolated and held apart, discouraged from relationships of any sort with girls. In some cases, as I understand it, this resulted in a stunting of “psychosexual” development, which could lead to the aforementioned abuse. (I’m by no means a psychologist; it was a priest who has done much to educate people about possible causes of the abuse from whom I heard this.) Anyway, that’s one theory; when the minor seminaries were done away with, at least that possible cause disappeared.
hey dixie, jesus used o say…by their fruits shall ye know them. roten fruit, rotten vine.I’d like to think that it’s the same here, but I have my doubts. We were appalled to discover, about three years ago, that one of the seminarians from our diocese was a very troubled, very active homosexual young man, well known to our daughter (longtime classmate) and quite open about his proclivities. My husband spoke with the bishop, who professed complete ignorance of the young man’s background.
He is no longer a seminarian, but instead is a sort of chief altar server at our Cathedral. I pray for him, but am also relieved that, as troubled and disordered as his behavior is, he will apparently not be ordained.
Are you by any chance suggesting the sexual orientation of this young man is somehow related to the abuse scandal?I’d like to think that it’s the same here, but I have my doubts. We were appalled to discover, about three years ago, that one of the seminarians from our diocese was a very troubled, very active homosexual young man, well known to our daughter (longtime classmate) and quite open about his proclivities. My husband spoke with the bishop, who professed complete ignorance of the young man’s background.
He is no longer a seminarian, but instead is a sort of chief altar server at our Cathedral. I pray for him, but am also relieved that, as troubled and disordered as his behavior is, he will apparently not be ordained.
I am suggesting that there wasn’t always a lot of vetting of seminarians done, even up to recently, and this was evidence of that. In this instance, the young man in question seems to be an ebophile (attracted to adolescents) which, I think we could agree, would not be a good thing in a priest.Are you by any chance suggesting the sexual orientation of this young man is somehow related to the abuse scandal?