Therapy led to soaring abuse rate in Irish Church

[Middleman]

I wanted to share this very interesting article. It claims that the suspension of the use of canon law, in favor of therapy cures for pedophiles, led to the soaring rates of abuse that we are hearing about now.

Therapy led to soaring abuse rate in Irish Church

But the Murphy report itself is very interesting about canon law. It points out that a big problem with this law isn’t that it was used, but that it wasn’t used.

It says: “The Church authorities failed to implement most of their own canon law rules on dealing with child sex abuse…canon law appears to have fallen into disuse and disrespect during the mid 20th century. In particular, there was little or no experience of operating the penal (that is, the criminal) provision of that law… for many years offenders were neither prosecuted nor made accountable within the Church.”

Why did it fall into disuse and disrespect? It was because priests and bishops began to regard it as being overly legalistic and too focused on punishment. They decided it lacked compassion.

 

[Mark77]

“Why did it fall into disuse and disrespect?** It was because priests and bishops began to regard it as being overly legalistic and too focused on punishment. They decided it lacked compassion.”**

**Sound familiar!

Same rationale was used by many Catholics who voted for a pro-abortion President, disregarding Church teaching on the evil of abortion because; “They decided it lacked compassion.”**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[Ocarm]

I wanted to share this very interesting article. It claims that the suspension of the use of canon law, in favor of therapy cures for pedophiles, led to the soaring rates of abuse that we are hearing about now.

Therapy led to soaring abuse rate in Irish Church

I note that despite the title of the article, it only makes a single mention of therapy within the text.

*No longer did priests accused of child abuse face a canonical trial and the possibility of “defrocking”.

Instead, and with disastrous consequences, they were sent for therapy and then, “cured”, they were reassigned to ministry. *

There is a clear implication that mental health professionals gave firm undertakings that priests could be returned to ministry after receiving treatment. This seems problematic for several reasons.

1. As an ex-mental health professional (a career of more than 20 years!) I have seen a great deal of bad practice, but have never encountered therapists as being keen to offer cast-iron guarantees, particularly not where dangerous behaviours were concerned. Contrary to their stereotypical image as naive and gullible altruists, psychiatrists and psychologists tend to be conservative, sceptical, and far more likely to err on the side of caution rather than take chances.
2. The institutional church is often proud of the fact that it does not bow to secular practices or listen to self-appointed experts, but plows her own furrow with her sights set firmly on God and not on fashionable ideas. If the hierarchy surrendered this approach in the matter of abusive priests, they would need to explain why.
3. Despite the oft-repeated claim that clean bills of health were routinely given to bishops regarding their abusive staff - a claim repeated so often that it seems to have become virally self-sustaining - I haven’t yet been able to find a single case where documentary evidence of this exists. I’m not saying it never happened, or that the evidence isn’t there, just that it hasn’t been forthcoming - I would be interested to read anything that people have available, but I’m talking about a smoking gun letter, not a vague assertion that this is what happened, as is the case in this article.
4. For cases in the public domain, or even if confidentiality had to be maintained by anonymising information, I would have thought that any bishop accused of negligence would be more than justified in defending himself by producing a letter from a psychiatrist or psychologist saying, ‘Yes, he’s cured, you can send him back to work with kids again.’ The only cases I’ve come across where mental health (name removed by moderator)ut is recorded show that bishops ignored warnings from professionals to the effect that the individual was still a danger.

Can I repeat, I’m not defending professionals against bad practice, and would be quite relieved if multiple cases of incompetence by mental health services were brought to light, because it would support the basic thesis of the article, which is that concern for abusers became secondary to concern for victims. But as of yet I haven’t seen any evidence for this, just a consistent assertion that this is what happened. I think the basic point that canon law was not enforced has some merit; what isn’t clear is why this was the case, and given that many of the cases we’ve heard about go back to the first half of the 20th century, we have to ask why this might have been so.

 

[LtTony]

1. Despite the oft-repeated claim that clean bills of health were routinely given to bishops regarding their abusive staff - a claim repeated so often that it seems to have become virally self-sustaining - I haven’t yet been able to find a single case where documentary evidence of this exists. I’m not saying it never happened, or that the evidence isn’t there, just that it hasn’t been forthcoming - I would be interested to read anything that people have available, but I’m talking about a smoking gun letter, not a vague assertion that this is what happened, as is the case in this article.

1. For cases in the public domain, or even if confidentiality had to be maintained by anonymising information, I would have thought that any bishop accused of negligence would be more than justified in defending himself by producing a letter from a psychiatrist or psychologist saying, ‘Yes, he’s cured, you can send him back to work with kids again.’ The only cases I’ve come across where mental health (name removed by moderator)ut is recorded show that bishops ignored warnings from professionals to the effect that the individual was still a danger.

Important observations, imo.