Seminary Problems Go Way Back?

[Ham1]

I’ll go out on a limb here…

In addition to much of what has been said above, perhaps it might not have been the healthiest atmosphere for young boys to go and live in high school seminaries away from their families at the age of 13 or 14. Boys of this age need to continue to develop socially and emotionally by living with their parents and siblings. Sending them away to seminary at such a young age seems to be a recipe for stunted psychological development which could quite easily lead to same sex attraction and other disorders.

 

[miguel]

koda:

Greeley was in the seminary in the 40’s and this was already a problem (though he says it got much worse), so we’re talking way before Vatican II or the sexual revolution of the 60s. From what he says there seems to have been no real attempt to hide what was going on as even the teachers were involved. Greeley stayed to himself and read a lot. Other than the sexual misconduct, he cites the basic mood of the place as being one where the most important ideal was that the students learn discipline. If you wanted to study more than what they provided, they were suspicious. He says that many, if not most, of the preists that resulted from this system were completely unprepared for real life, not to mention the changes of Vatican II.

The John Jay report includes abuse statistics going back 50 years.

usccb.org/ocyp/webstudy.shtml

 

[LSK]

Ham1:

I’ll go out on a limb here…

In addition to much of what has been said above, perhaps it might not have been the healthiest atmosphere for young boys to go and live in high school seminaries away from their families at the age of 13 or 14. Boys of this age need to continue to develop socially and emotionally by living with their parents and siblings. Sending them away to seminary at such a young age seems to be a recipe for stunted psychological development which could quite easily lead to same sex attraction and other disorders.

You may have an excellent point. I think the idea that by having young men who have developed well socially, emotionally and morally by living with their families, or in a family-like situation, may be the best defense against emotionally crippled priests.

 

[fix]

koda:

Greeley was in the seminary in the 40’s and this was already a problem (though he says it got much worse), so we’re talking way before Vatican II or the sexual revolution of the 60s. From what he says there seems to have been no real attempt to hide what was going on as even the teachers were involved. Greeley stayed to himself and read a lot. Other than the sexual misconduct, he cites the basic mood of the place as being one where the most important ideal was that the students learn discipline. If you wanted to study more than what they provided, they were suspicious. He says that many, if not most, of the preists that resulted from this system were completely unprepared for real life, not to mention the changes of Vatican II.

I guess I am missing his point. Vatican II did not change any moral teachings, or any thing about what we are to believe. What changes were so profound a priest could not adapt and decided to act out on homosexual impulses?

My assertion is some of these men were immature, or not well in some way, and the atomosphere allowed them to act in a way that previously would not have been tolerated by society or encouraged by so many within and without the Church.

 

[snoopy]

LSK:

I also believe, and this is only the opinion of a woman Catholic who grew up in the Church, that part of the problem was not an active, evil intent by the Church hierarchy to cover up the actions of these men and hurt more children but a misplaced trust in the medical and psychological experts of the day.

I remember being taught that sexual predators could be treated and cured in high school psychology classes. This was being espoused by experts up into the 1980’s and early 1990’s. Experts believed that with proper treatment, various kinds of pharmacological cocktails etc a sexual predator - be it a rapist or a pedophile - could be successfully treated and returned to society. Those people who claimed this was a falsehood were hooted down and told they were over-reacting and not treating these people with enough Christian Charity.

Obviously, if a hierarchy has received hundreds of complaints someone should have figured out pretty fast that the so-called treatments were not working…but, if one combines this mindset with our knowledge that nothing is impossible with God, I can understand why hope sprang eternal in the hearts of many who tried to change these men into real priests, instead of the sexual predators that they remained.

What part of CRIMINAL ACT did the bishops and cardinals not understand. What I’ve been saying over and over is that it should never have been the church heirarchy’s call to put them in therapy and decipher whether they were “cured” or not. What ever gave them the right to decide to put them into treatment or into the hands of God or whatever. They had no right to place the predators into the hands of medical or psychological experts. They had one job to do, and that was to turn them over to the police. It was then, and is now a criminal act. They had no right to try to resolve the issue within the walls of the church. They had a responsibility to turn them over the the law just as it would have been if it was a murder instead of a rape.

 

[EtienneGilson]

fix:

Are not most the cases found to be in the 1960s-80s?

Since the John Jay report only measured sexual abuse from 1950-2002, to say “most” of the cases were in the 1960s-1980s (three fifths) misses the point. In addition, the number of reported cases is regulated by three factors: the actions of the bishops in preventing additional cases from a single priest or religious, the number of clergy and religious at that time and the number of people who did not report cases, likely higher in the 1950s.

The first factor, the actions of the Bishops will title the scales towards the 1960s-1980s because in the 1990s Bishops became much more aware of the problem of repeat offenders and took more pains (unfortunately often not enough) to prevent relapses.

The second factor, the number of religious also tilts the scales because of the vocational boom during the 1960s and 70s due to various factors, including the war in Vietnam. The Church witnessed a sharp increase in vocations in the 1960s and a sudden decrease in the 1980s thus impacting the demographic.

The third factor tilts the statistics again because of the relative young age of victims in the 1990s and the more conservative mindset of those abused in the 1950s. Furthermore, a greater percentage ofthe victimes from the 1950s have died and never reported their case.

Miguel:

But just in case we don’t have common sense, we have the John Jay report…hard data…81% of the victims were male…only 22% of the victims were pre-adolescent children…pretty strong correlation with homosexuality if you ask me.

I again highly recommend the article by a clinical-psychologist who was invited to address the 2002 meeting of Bishops on the issue. A passage reads:

The John Jay study, for example, found that 64 percent of the accused priests abused only males; 22.6 percent abused only females; 3.6 percent abused both girls and boys, and in 10 percent of the cases, the gender was unknown. Statistics were similar in the 2005 study.

Not only were most reported victims male, they also were pubescent; 60 percent were first abused between the ages of 10-14. These are not, however, biologically or psychosexually fully developed males and cannot be construed as homosexual partners for any adult.

ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005d/120905/120905i.htm

It is also important to remember that many of the cases were crimes of opportunity and priests and religious tend to have much more and much more private/secluded contact with young males.

 

[Ham1]

LSK:

You may have an excellent point. I think the idea that by having young men who have developed well socially, emotionally and morally by living with their families, or in a family-like situation, may be the best defense against emotionally crippled priests.

I just read in Our Sunday Visitor a reference that I believe is from the new document on homosexuals in the seminary that talks about seminarians with homosexual tendencies because of delayed adolescent development. It is well acknowledged that people go through a “homosexual” phase in normal development.

Now before someone freaks out, this is the time in every normal child’s development when he is interested in socializing with children of the same sex. For example, 8 year old boys like to play with 8 year old boys. However, this phase can extend into the teenage years with some children. Take those children out of the home and put them into a seminary with other boys and it’s easy to see how wires get crossed and we end up with priests with same sex attraction.

In all seriousness, it is this same point that makes me worry about the Legionaries practice of taking 14 yr old boys out of their homes and off to a far away seminary.

 

[fix]

EtienneGilson:

Since the John Jay report only measured sexual abuse from 1950-2002, to say “most” of the cases were in the 1960s-1980s (three fifths) misses the point. .

How is the point missed? Is there evidence of more homosexual abuse prior to what was investigated?

 

[fix]

EtienneGilson:

I again highly recommend the article by a clinical-psychologist who was invited to address the 2002 meeting of Bishops on the issue. .

You mean this person?:

Your misogynistic refusal to wash the feet of women insulted the dignity of we the children of Eve, Sophia, Mary, and the Magdalene. Your closing of vibrant parishes without consulting the People of God involved in them bears scant resemblance to the Galilean’s devotion to and inclusion of the masses. Most egregiously anti-Christ in nature, and glaringly reminiscent of the Pharisees, however, is your exiling of priestly “friends of God and prophets (Elizabeth Johnson, theologian at Fordham, “She Who Is and Truly Our Sister.")” Is there such a log in your eye that you truly do not apprehend the meaning of your rejection of the…
pewlady.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_pewlady_archive.html

 

[EtienneGilson]

Instead of ad hominem attacks on the alledged author, please deal with the text itself.

Besides that, the person who wrote the article, Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea surprisingly isn’t the person you quote by the name Elizabeth Johnson.

If you would have read the article you would have seen:

Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist in Charlotte, N.C., where she treats survivors of childhood sexual abuse. She addressed the U.S. bishops’ meeting in Dallas in 2002 on the long-term consequences of sexual abuse. Her book Perversion of Power and Sexual Scandal in the Catholic Church: A Psychosocial Analysis of the Sexual Abuse Crisis will be published by Vanderbilt University Press in 2006. She coedited a book Predatory Priests and Silent Victims to be published by The Analytic Press in 2006. She is the coauthor of Treating the Adult Survivor of Childhood Sexual Abuse (Basic Books, 1994), which has become a classic text.

 

[koda]

fix:

I guess I am missing his point. Vatican II did not change any moral teachings, or any thing about what we are to believe. What changes were so profound a priest could not adapt and decided to act out on homosexual impulses?

My assertion is some of these men were immature, or not well in some way, and the atomosphere allowed them to act in a way that previously would not have been tolerated by society or encouraged by so many within and without the Church.

What I think he means is that things became more open and priests had more contact with lay people, were asked more questions, etc. Also may have had their faith challenged more. Yet they had been so protected from the real world, and had not been taught to deal with real problems, that they were simply at a loss. He says that there was really no in-depth study of theology so these guys didn’t have a deep basis for their faith - in fact, they had mainly been taught to be obedient (which may say something about the sexual atmosphere too).

 

[fix]

EtienneGilson:

Instead of ad hominem attacks on the alledged author, please deal with the text itself.

Besides that, the person who wrote the article, Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea surprisingly isn’t the person you quote by the name Elizabeth Johnson.

If you would have read the article you would have seen:

I am questioning her credibility and understanding of the abuse issues.

At their June 2002 meeting in Dallas, the US bishops heard from a psychologist named Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea.

Or at least one of them is still hearing from her. In a letter sent to Archbishop Sean O’Malley of Boston-- with copies helpfully sent to all the pastors in the archdiocese-- the bishops’ chosen expert says:

Almost surely, if Jesus returned today to St. Peter’s Square (or Holy Cross Cathedral), he would do so as a tattooed, multiply pierced individual wearing jeans and an old camouflage jacket. He (or she) would dine with gays and lesbians, bless the children born in test tubes, and gather unto him the sea of sexual abuse victims. He would, as he did, spend his time lifting the marginalized and powerless of today’s world while taking down the arrogant who teach with forked tongues. He (or she) would remind the modern day Pharisees - you and too, too many of your episcopal brethren - that people are more important than rules or accoutrements of power. As before, almost surely, the Swiss Guards would call the Romans to remove the disruptive truth teller from the temple. Sound familiar?So now we have a glimpse into the thinking of the USCCB’s chosen expert. And we’re left to wonder how, with thousands of shrinks to choose from, the bishops’ conference selected this one as an expert witness.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=3140

 

[fix]

koda:

What I think he means is that things became more open and priests had more contact with lay people, were asked more questions, etc. Also may have had their faith challenged more. Yet they had been so protected from the real world, and had not been taught to deal with real problems, that they were simply at a loss. He says that there was really no in-depth study of theology so these guys didn’t have a deep basis for their faith - in fact, they had mainly been taught to be obedient (which may say something about the sexual atmosphere too).

Well, I agree with that much, but we have plenty of examples through out Church history of “simple” folks with little training who became saints. Theology is important, but one does not need specialized training to know certain actions ought never be done.

 

[miguel]

snoopy:

What part of CRIMINAL ACT did the bishops and cardinals not understand. What I’ve been saying over and over is that it should never have been the church heirarchy’s call to put them in therapy and decipher whether they were “cured” or not. What ever gave them the right to decide to put them into treatment or into the hands of God or whatever. They had no right to place the predators into the hands of medical or psychological experts. They had one job to do, and that was to turn them over to the police. It was then, and is now a criminal act. They had no right to try to resolve the issue within the walls of the church. They had a responsibility to turn them over the the law just as it would have been if it was a murder instead of a rape.

I agree. But there was nothing preventing the parents of the abused to take similar action.

 

[jman507]

Sorry to be flip, I think it goes back to Genesis 3.

Ok, you all have good points, but it is also good to take the far perspective too. I’m sure that there was problems in seminaries ever since seminaries began, and all through out Church history. That is not to down play, that we sould be searching out steps to try to keep it from happening. The Church may be perfect, but the people of the Church are all sinners.

 

[miguel]

(quoted by) EtienneGilson:

…Not only were most reported victims male, they also were pubescent; 60 percent were first abused between the ages of 10-14. These are not, however, biologically or psychosexually fully developed males and cannot be construed as homosexual partners for any adult…

This is hair-splitting. Male on male abuse certainly can be construed as homosexual, whatever the age. And when it is done to pre-pubescent children, it is also pedophilia.

 

[EtienneGilson]

miguel:

This is hair-splitting. Male on male abuse certainly can be construed as homosexual, whatever the age. And when it is done to pre-pubescent children, it is also pedophilia.

Once again, if you had read the article you would realize that pedophilia, ephebophilia and homosexuality are distinct disorders.

When those actions are done to pre-pubescent children, it is not ALSO pedophilia, it is pedophilia, not homosexuality.

But I suppose all higher learning is “hair splitting” to some. Thankfully the USCCB does not agree.

 

[miguel]

EtienneGilson:

Once again, if you had read the article you would realize that pedophilia, ephebophilia and homosexuality are distinct disorders.

When those actions are done to pre-pubescent children, it is not ALSO pedophilia, it is pedophilia, not homosexuality.

But I suppose all higher learning is “hair splitting” to some. Thankfully the USCCB does not agree.

…only the “higher learning” that gets us into trouble. According to the APA, homosexuality is no longer on their official list of disorders. This is at odds with the Church’s position. Why should the Bishops place their trust in them? The Bishops also tell us they relied on bad advice from the “experts” in placing these abusers back into parishes after so-called therapy. So here we are still placing our trust in these “experts”.