Seminaries and their screening processes

[NevermoreLenore]

Of course! It is an extremely important distinction.

A tiny percent of all priests who have sexuality abused are pedophiles

What is ‘a tiny percent’? Source? Of all sexual abusers, 25%-50% are actual paedophiles. Is there research on priest abusers, specifically?

The vast majority of priests who sexually abused were not pedophiles. Their victims were mostly teens.

Unlike pedophiles, this group often abused alcohol and drugs during the acts of molestation.

See above. Paedophiles quite often use alcohol and drugs as part of the grooming process.

 

[Cruciferi]

There’s a case going on in my former diocese, covered extensively in the news media

I saw… It simply cannot get worse.

 

[commenter]

commenter:

A tiny percent of all priests who have sexuality abused are pedophiles

What is ‘a tiny percent’? Source? Of all sexual abusers, 25%-50% are actual paedophiles. Is there research on priest abusers, specifically?

The vast majority of priests who sexually abused were not pedophiles. Their victims were mostly teens.

Unlike pedophiles, this group often abused alcohol and drugs during the acts of molestation.

See above. Paedophiles quite often use alcohol and drugs as part of the grooming process.

(https://www.americamagazine.org/guncontrol)[Explore America’s(Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church | America Magazine)[]]
Per America magazine, June 6 2011, analysis of John Jay Report data.
5 percent of priests accused were pedophiles.

Pedophiles may, possibly but unlikely, use alcohol for grooming, but will not likely be high themselves while molesting. Booze is a distraction.

For the regressed offender, his own Drinking is part of the experience. Teens are very often tempted by offer of booze. Prepubescent kids? Less so.

 

[commenter]

What is ‘a tiny percent’? Source? Of all sexual abusers, 25%-50% are actual paedophiles. Is there research on priest abusers, specifically?

I was a sex abuse investigator, not of clergy. It may be pedophiles have 25 - 50 percent of the victims, general pop.

In my Diocese, of the dozens of substantiated priests, most had one victim. A very few had several. I don’t know, but suspect, here are the pedophiles.

 

[Peeps]

This issue I’m talking about didn’t involve the priest being alone with minors at the parish. In this case and a previous case, the priest was doing everything online, catfishing under a phony female identity.

It’s so awful. I can’t imagine the horror the families are facing.

 

[NevermoreLenore]

I can appreciate your experience investigating sexual abuse. With all due respect, America Magazine, as rigorous as their investigation may be, is not a research study published in peer reviewed journals. Not that there is nothing to glean from other writings, but given the inherent difficulty of studying such a subject and analysing accurate data, I tend to default on the few studies published in the peer reviewed format. YMMV

It is note worthy that priests do NOT abuse at higher rates than other entities, such as schools, Protestant clergy, coaches, Boy Scouts leaders, etc. It is more egregious because priests are our spiritual leaders and fathers, but priests do not offend more than other populations. It is a scourge on society and anything we can do to mitigate abuse should be implemented. Sexual abuse of a child, including teens, has a powerful, traumatic impact on developing brains. I always pray for extra measures of grace and mercy for those who suffered such abuses and hope very much for their healing.

 

[commenter]

I am no fan of liberal America mag. It

I can appreciate your experience investigating sexual abuse. With all due respect, America Magazine, as rigorous as their investigation may be, is not a research study published in peer reviewed journals. Not that there is nothing to glean from other writings, but given the inherent difficulty of studying such a subject and analysing accurate data, I tend to default on the few studies published in the peer reviewed format. YMMV

It is note worthy that priests do NOT abuse at higher rates than other entities, such as schools, Protestant clergy, coaches, Boy Scouts leaders, etc. It is more egregious because priests are our spiritual leaders and fathers, but priests do not offend more than other populations. It is a scourge on society and anything we can do to mitigate abuse should be implemented. Sexual abuse of a child, including teens, has a powerful, traumatic impact on developing brains. I always pray for extra measures of grace and mercy for those who suffered such abuses and hope very much for their healing.

I’m no fan of liberal America mag, their review of the John Jay data. It was the first hit I saw on Google, too lazy to research adequately, I’m out of sex abuse field for 28 years. My expertise is outdated now.

The Church response on sex abuse was bad, but not as bad as response by other systems, including public schools and government. The media whitewashed the other systems besides the Church.

 

[NevermoreLenore]

I agree with your assessment that the media has downplayed other institutions and entities where abuse occurred to continue a particular narrative (another subject for another time).

I want to thank you for your contributions to this thread and everyone else who have offered perspectives here. Even in differences of opinion these discussions challenge me as a person, a parent, and a Christian. This topic has no easy remedies, neither in the Church or the population at large. But it is necessary to engage in such discussion. The trauma and pain of childhood abuse reverberates throughout a lifetime. Communities need to be aware and proactive to develop procedures to protect children, much like the Church has been doing.

One of the most important things to do is to educate your child. Do not think they are too young. It isn’t necessary to promote worry in your child, but approach it matter-of-factly and focus on situational awareness and empowering your child to speak up and advocate for him/herself. This is not a one-and-done conversation; it needs to be part of ongoing discussions and teaching children concrete life skills. As a parent, proactively protect your child; never give anyone that kind of access to your child, be alert regarding an adult paying special attention to your child (wanting to take the child places, buying him/her gifts, integrating themselves into your family life–these are all grooming behaviours to make you and your child feel safe). Carefully consider sleepovers. Check the databases in your area to see where sexual assault offenders are in your neighbourhood. And I cannot stress this enough: TRUST YOUR GUT. If something feels off, don’t dismiss it as silly or illogical; our brains can pick up on things and your intuition leads you a certain way even if you cannot figure out exactly what feels wrong. If someone makes your child feel uncomfortable, even a family member, TRUST YOUR CHILD’S GUT FEELING. They may be sensing something you aren’t and don’t dismiss their reticence just because they lack the ability and language to express themselves. Err on the side of caution.

Forgive me if this sounds preachy. I’ve picked up on a lot of this through my profession, but what I’m saying is in many parenting books, discussed in paediatric offices, and taught in schools (this is my disclaimer that I’m not violating TOS by offering specific psychological advice–what I’m saying is readily available from many sources). I feel like the previous paragraph is too bossy, so if the information isn’t helpful or it offends anyone please just let me know and I can delete or amend it.

 

[kapp19]

No you seem pretty on point. Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. Will look over the article you linked…

What’s your take on the various diocesan child protection programs? In my experience, they are a joke… meant largely (though not exclusively) to create plausible deniability in court - “We trained him/her with x program!” When you have to get thousands of people through such a program every year (for volunteering and employment) how is there supposed to be anything like rigor? What can be done? I have no idea.

Another big issue I have - and it is from observation - is the potential for overreaction in these cases. Before I am jumped on: imagine the following case (changed slightly from a real case I am familiar with)… A seminarian goes to help with a parish retreat, where kids are sleeping in a large hall. After one night, he is accosted by another chaperone - some kid has “complained” about him. A few months later, his diocese decides that this behavior was egregious enough to dismiss him and ban him from setting foot on church property except for normal liturgies… without ever even telling him what he was accused of. Later, by accident, he learns that some boy thought he was looking at him too long from far away, watching him sleep, and he was uncomfortable…

Following this, I think we should “believe kids” when there is reasonable cause for doing so - as kids make false accusations too, whether from malice or vanity. Parents should know if their kids are prone to tall-tales… or sheer malice. There are, of course, the famous cases (like McMarten, Oak Hill, Little Rascals, etc.), but smaller scale incidents are possible too which can then ruin someone’s life, with due process thrown out the window. This is why, now that we have the technology readily available, I am a fan of just putting cameras basically everywhere on church property. I also had a “metanoia” after watching the “trial” of a certain candidate for SCOTUS - the importance of detailed calendars can’t be understated. ANY person who is a “target” for false accusations should note where they are each day, what they are doing, and who else is with them.

As for seminaries, there has been some progress on all sides in most places in the West. But you just can’t fix everything. And the point, after all, is not to discover whether a man is an abuser (past, present, or future), but to train him to be a priest. When the former starts to overshadow the latter, there is a problem… it becomes an annoying distraction which demoralizes and/or becomes the object of derision.

 

[commenter]

As a volunteer with the Church I was required to take training and do brief updates monthly. I also had to take training for Boy Scouts about 20 years ago.

The BSA training was good. It emphasized not only the risk of abuse by adults, but also sexual abuse by other boys, far too often neglected in most training. The BSA training emphasized leadership always working in adult pairs, so one adult is almost never secluded with one boy. Mentoring is done privately but in view of others.

The Diocesan training was ok. I learn some things about online predators and systems I didn’t know before.

But this training doesn’t weed out a predator who wants to get in. It may tell him what characteristics screeners are looking for, so he won’t present as obvious!

In the long run we have to restore basic morality, train young people in absolutes of Truth and Good, that evil and Satan really exist, that Relativism is wrong.

We have to build a better pool of future seminarians and volunteers - and future police.
I’m not saying reading the Catechism will prevent all abusers, but we have to recognize the narcissistic, amoral culture will keep overwhelming our screening systems for priests, cops, teachers, etc.

Keep in mind the police officers who recently killed a Black man in Minneapolis had to go through far more screening and diversity training than their predecessors.

 

[PapyrusDouay]

When my husband first became a police officer, the agency’s selection process was vigorous and included home visits, interviews of people with whom he interacted, and psychological testing and assessment. It seems that seminaries should have a similarly rigorous application process (or do they? I don’t know).

Actually, in my experience (which spans both Law Enforcement and Religious life)… the process was very VERY similarly. Background checks were similar…they both looked into debt/credit history, criminal history, computer usage trends, social media accounts, etc. The psych eval for religious life was actually more comprehensive, medical evaluation (similar evaluation, religious life was more in depth including full dental exam and records, although I’m sure the standard are different), the friars didn’t call my references like the police did, but my references had to write letters and the friars spent a long time…a couple years actually…getting to know me and my family on a personal level before I even applied And began the formal application. Religious life also has a spiritual interview and a behavioral interview. The friars didn’t have a polygraph or physical fitness test. There some differences like that, but overall it was very similar. I assume the process for seminary is similar to religious life.