Vatican Praises film "Spotlight"

[Galnextdoor]

Sympathy for your experiences. You perhaps are in a good position to offer a valuable incite into questions i have.

Do you have any idea why the priests you have talked about were not faithful to the church and her teachings?

Why from the 1960’s for a 20 year period did some priests believe this was ok, and some superiors believed it was not an offence that required immediate banishment?

Do you still see such rebellion against the church and her teachings today?

I know these questions are addressed to someone else, but I can tell you that the priest who molested me had no respect for the people he served. He did not take the vow of poverty that most priests take and thought priests who did were stupid. I had a catechism called, “The Faith We Live By”. He said he didn’t know why people would be interested in that dusty old junk. I asked him why he became a priest. He said he was in his thirties and he wasn’t married so he thought maybe he should be a priest. He said “It beats being alone.”
He bragged that the people in the parish loved him. He said he found some old statuary taking up room in the sacristy and put it out on either side of the altar. He started laughing and said,“They just ate that up.”

As for why Bishop Law covered it up, I have no idea. I know he called to check on this priest regularly. Maybe he was afraid of how it would reflect on the Church and hoped it would go away somehow.

I think basically the Bishops had no idea how to deal with it, so some did nothing. Some did what was recommended by psychiatrists at the time. (Back in the 60’s and 70’s they didn’t realize perverts who molest children, even if they are “treated” will repeat their behavior.) They were just not equipped to handle the perverted mind set of child molesters. I think some Bishops still are too trusting about letting laymen in the Diocese deal with it.

 

[KSU]

“‘Spotlight’ is a terrible film”, says a Progressive voice:

counterpunch.org/2016/02/29/oscar-hangover-special-why-spotlight-is-a-terrible-film/

 

[abucs]

I know these questions are addressed to someone else, but I can tell you that the priest who molested me had no respect for the people he served. He did not take the vow of poverty that most priests take and thought priests who did were stupid. I had a catechism called, “The Faith We Live By”. He said he didn’t know why people would be interested in that dusty old junk. I asked him why he became a priest. He said he was in his thirties and he wasn’t married so he thought maybe he should be a priest. He said “It beats being alone.”
He bragged that the people in the parish loved him. He said he found some old statuary taking up room in the sacristy and put it out on either side of the altar. He started laughing and said,“They just ate that up.”

As for why Bishop Law covered it up, I have no idea. I know he called to check on this priest regularly. Maybe he was afraid of how it would reflect on the Church and hoped it would go away somehow.

I think basically the Bishops had no idea how to deal with it, so some did nothing. Some did what was recommended by psychiatrists at the time. (Back in the 60’s and 70’s they didn’t realize perverts who molest children, even if they are “treated” will repeat their behavior.) They were just not equipped to handle the perverted mind set of child molesters. I think some Bishops still are too trusting about letting laymen in the Diocese deal with it.

Thanks. You’d hope the Church is a little better these days in insisting it’s priests are faithful to the teachings of the church. I appreciate your response.

 

[Phemie]

I know these questions are addressed to someone else, but I can tell you that the priest who molested me had no respect for the people he served. He did not take the vow of poverty that most priests take and thought priests who did were stupid.

Unless he was a religious priest he did not take a vow of poverty.

I think basically the Bishops had no idea how to deal with it, so some did nothing. Some did what was recommended by psychiatrists at the time. (Back in the 60’s and 70’s they didn’t realize perverts who molest children, even if they are “treated” will repeat their behavior.) They were just not equipped to handle the perverted mind set of child molesters. I think some Bishops still are too trusting about letting laymen in the Diocese deal with it.

When I did my nursing training in the early 70s we were taught that pedophiles could be cured and that gender could easily be reassigned if you started in infancy. Both have since been proven false.

 

[KSU]

When I did my nursing training in the early 70s we were taught that pedophiles could be cured and that gender could easily be reassigned if you started in infancy.

That allegedly is why, early on, the problem was not dealt with correctly and was allowed to metastasize. Still today the term pedophilia is not properly understood by the public, thanks to the persistent, incorrect use of the term by media and others. It’s difficult to combat a problem if the problem is not even properly identified.

Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or, less commonly, an older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Pedophilia therefore has never been a significant problem in the clergy; nor of course are prepubescent children the victims in “Spotlight”.

The victims at issue are ** post-pubescent** children, primarily male. That is not pedophilia, and Rome has issued appropriate instructions to deal with the root cause of the true problem.

 

[Kliska]

That allegedly is why, early on, the problem was not dealt with correctly and was allowed to metastasize. Still today the term pedophilia is not properly understood by the public, thanks to the persistent, incorrect use of the term by media and others. It’s difficult to combat a problem if the problem is not even properly identified.

Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or, less commonly, an older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Pedophilia therefore has never been a significant problem in the clergy; nor of course are prepubescent children the victims in “Spotlight”.

The victims at issue are ** post-pubescent** children, primarily male. That is not pedophilia, and Rome has issued appropriate instructions to deal with the root cause of the true problem.

Do you have a list of ages? From what I’m finding it was a wide range of both prepubescent children and post-pubescent children.

ETA; My “point” is that there were both Pedophiles and ephebophiles, hence the RCC would have to (and I’m actually sure they are) looking at both problems and taking corrective measures for each, including training everyone involved in spotting a problem whether it be male/female, pre or post-pubescent.

 

[fred_conty]

To me, this is akin to saying we shouldn’t make films about the Holocaust because it makes Germans feel bad. I think that, instead, it reminds us to ensure this never happens again.

I know Hollywood has its own motives, but the Church hierarchy is responsible for making itself into a trophy.

Comparing the Nazis to the church?

The bishops have put into place checks to see that this doesn’t happen. If you have something you think hasn’t been covered by them, then you should write to your bishop with the new suggestion.

Dragging up the same incident of scandal again and again is nothing but giving scandal and does not improve the system one bit. If they truly wanted to do something constructive, then they should go after those who are still guilty and have not been brought to justice. Why always the Catholic Church? There are plenty of others who need exposure. Go after them and put the efforts to some good use. Bringing up Boston time and time again does nothing good but simple puts money and trophies in their pockets. Dirt and filth always sell in scandal sheets and they, Hollywood, know it.

 

[KSU]

Do you have a list of ages? From what I’m finding it was a wide range of both prepubescent children and post-pubescent children.

ETA; My “point” is that there were both Pedophiles and ephebophiles, hence the RCC would have to (and I’m actually sure they are) looking at both problems and taking corrective measures for each, including training everyone involved in spotting a problem whether it be male/female, pre or post-pubescent.

You are correct that the problem involved both pedophiles and ephebophiles, but from all the reports I’ve seen the latter were by far predominant. Here are but two of many such reports, and I’ve never heard of a report to the contrary:

Less than 5% of the abusive priests fit the diagnosis of pedophilia, thus, “it is inaccurate to refer to abusers as ‘pedophile priests.’”
ncregister.com/daily-news/john-jay-study-undermined-by-its-own-data/

" But the scandal that has ripped through the Catholic Church has not been, primarily, a matter of pedophilia. True, there have been some priest-pedophiles, and their cases understandably drew the greatest publicity. But the vast majority of the cases that emerged from diocesan archives involved priests who preyed on adolescent boys." catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1094

 

[Kliska]

You are correct that the problem involved both pedophiles and ephebophiles, but from all the reports I’ve seen the latter were by far predominant. Here are but two of many such reports, and I’ve never heard of a report to the contrary:

Less than 5% of the abusive priests fit the diagnosis of pedophilia, thus, “it is inaccurate to refer to abusers as ‘pedophile priests.’”
ncregister.com/daily-news/john-jay-study-undermined-by-its-own-data/

" But the scandal that has ripped through the Catholic Church has not been, primarily, a matter of pedophilia. True, there have been some priest-pedophiles, and their cases understandably drew the greatest publicity. But the vast majority of the cases that emerged from diocesan archives involved priests who preyed on adolescent boys." catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1094

From digging around in the Boston Globe, it looks like around 1/4 were pre, and 3/4 were post-pubescent, but that’s just what they found. They also said it appeared that the victims may be grouped the way they were because of access, meaning, the victims were obviously predominate ages of whatever the abusive priests had access to in their roles in the parishes.

“The report found that 51 percent of victims, including females, were between 11 and 14; 27 percent were between 15 and 17; 16 percent were from 8 to 10; and nearly 6 percent were under 7. Male victims tended to be older than female victims, Terry said.”

boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories5/022804_victims.htm

 

[KSU]

“The report found that 51 percent of victims, including females, were between 11 and 14; 27 percent were between 15 and 17; 16 percent were from 8 to 10; and nearly 6 percent were under 7. Male victims tended to be older than female victims, Terry said.”

boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories5/022804_victims.htm

In the above link it also is reported that “Karen Terry, the principal investigator for the team of academics from John Jay College of Criminal Justice that carried out the research in the other quantitative report, said… Boys accounted for 85 percent of victims in both the 11-to-14 and 15-to-17 age categories”…and that “In nearly 10 percent of the reported cases, the gender of the victim was unknown.”

Accordingly, if one were to add to the known figure of 85 percent the number of 11-to-17 aged boys in the 10 percent gender-unknown group, and then add to that sum the number of boys in the 18 and up group of victims, it would hardly be unreasonable to say that approximately 95 percent of the victims (if not more) were post-pubescent males.

In short, the popular contention that “pedophilia priests” caused the problem is neither true nor helpful to a solution. Moreover, the 95 percent figure comports with the contention in an earlier posted link that 5 percent or less of the abusive priests fit the diagnosis of pedophilia.
ncregister.com/daily-news…-its-own-data/

I’m less concerned with exact ages and numbers than with making sure that the real problem is properly identified. If it’s not, and Rome’s 2005 directive regarding elimination of the true problem is thereby left to gather dust, it is a certainty that there will be a “Spotlight II”. The abuse scandal is bad enough without our enemies accusing us of being a pedophile Church. That accusation is a scandal in itself, and I count today’s Hollywood and the rabidly secular print and TV media, including the Globe, in our enemy category.

 

[Kliska]

In the above link it also is reported that “Karen Terry, the principal investigator for the team of academics from John Jay College of Criminal Justice that carried out the research in the other quantitative report, said… Boys accounted for 85 percent of victims in both the 11-to-14 and 15-to-17 age categories”…and that “In nearly 10 percent of the reported cases, the gender of the victim was unknown.”

Accordingly, if one were to add to the known figure of 85 percent the number of 11-to-17 aged boys in the 10 percent gender-unknown group, and then add to that sum the number of boys in the 18 and up group of victims, it would hardly be unreasonable to say that approximately 95 percent of the victims (if not more) were post-pubescent males.

Working in the psych field, I think that it is dangerous to assume data that we just don’t have. What can happen is that presupposition gets in the way. We have the actual data that points to around a 1/4 and 3/4 ratio. Regardless, both types of disordered behavior needs to be the focus of how to spot, and then what to do about it, let alone how to attempt to prevent it and produce a culture where it is much less likely to happen.

In short, the popular contention that “pedophilia priests” caused the problem is neither true nor helpful to a solution. Moreover, the 95 percent figure comports with the contention in an earlier posted link that 5 percent or less of the abusive priests fit the diagnosis of pedophilia.
ncregister.com/daily-news…-its-own-data/

I’m less concerned with exact ages and numbers than with making sure that the real problem is properly identified. If it’s not, and Rome’s 2005 directive regarding elimination of the true problem is thereby left to gather dust, it is a certainty that there will be a “Spotlight II”. The abuse scandal is bad enough without our enemies accusing us of being a pedophile Church. That accusation is a scandal in itself, and I count today’s Hollywood and the rabidly secular print and TV media, including the Globe, in our enemy category.

Pedophile priests do cause a problem. Ephebophile priest do cause a bigger problem. To say otherwise is to again cover over issues present, or to try to be politically correct. It should always be that the victim is the most important aspect to all of this, their lives, and perhaps their eternal lives, will feel the effects of the abuse. If the Church appears to be hiding the scandal any more, in any way, it will blow up in their faces. Instead, it should be front and center all they have done to make sure something like this never happens again, and that ever single thing that can be done for the victims is indeed being done. It seems the Vatican doesn’t have an issue with the movie Spotlight, and measure have indeed been taken. The movie certainly didn’t make this protestant any more or less angry with the RCC for the mess. I think it will also help parents protect their kids in many situations, even those that have absolutely nothing to do with the RCC.

 

[Galnextdoor]

The movie certainly didn’t make this protestant any more or less angry with the RCC for the mess. I think it will also help parents protect their kids in many situations, even those that have absolutely nothing to do with the RCC.

I think that people should stop saying the Church was responsible for what happened. I am a cradle Catholic. My parents were converts. My father did his best to make sure that his children were educated in what the Catholic Church teaches. He ordered copies of encyclicals and read them. We owned a Catholic Encyclopedia set. He owned Catholic dictionaries, The Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas, and numerous other Catholic resources. I know that the Church has never taught that child molestation was okay. I know that the Pope’s have never condoned what happened. What these perverted men did, had nothing to do with anything they were taught by the Catholic Church. Just the opposite.

These pervert priests were using the Church. I think that they saw a system that they could manipulate due to the fact that many Bishops were naive and lacked understanding of the perversities in the world. I have given much thought about why the priest who molested me allowed me to answer the phone when then Bishop Law called. I have thought about things he said. I have thought about his actions toward the Church.

It would not surprise me if the reason he had me answer the phone when the Bishop called was a way for him to taunt Bishop Law.

 

[Kliska]

I think that people should stop saying the Church was responsible for what happened. I am a cradle Catholic. My parents were converts. My father did his best to make sure that his children were educated in what the Catholic Church teaches. He ordered copies of encyclicals and read them. We owned a Catholic Encyclopedia set. He owned Catholic dictionaries, The Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas, and numerous other Catholic resources. I know that the Church has never taught that child molestation was okay. I know that the Pope’s have never condoned what happened. What these perverted men did, had nothing to do with anything they were taught by the Catholic Church. Just the opposite.

These pervert priests were using the Church. I think that they saw a system that they could manipulate due to the fact that many Bishops were naive and lacked understanding of the perversities in the world. I have given much thought about why the priest who molested me allowed me to answer the phone when then Bishop Law called. I have thought about things he said. I have thought about his actions toward the Church.

It would not surprise me if the reason he had me answer the phone when the Bishop called was a way for him to taunt Bishop Law.

The main issue with “blame” was the hiding of the crimes, and the criminals, and the way the victims were treated (or not treated). Is the RCC to blame for molestation? No, however it is now obvious (and admitted to by the RCC officially), that they are indeed to blame for the way it was handled and not handled. I’m sure that there are many reasons why those in the church hierarchy shuffled the offenders around, none of them good enough to function as an excuse, but rather as an explanation.

 

[Padres1969]

The main issue with “blame” was the hiding of the crimes, and the criminals, and the way the victims were treated (or not treated). Is the RCC to blame for molestation? No, however it is now obvious (and admitted to by the RCC officially), that they are indeed to blame for the way it was handled and not handled. I’m sure that there are many reasons why those in the church hierarchy shuffled the offenders around, none of them good enough to function as an excuse, but rather as an explanation.

Agreed. I don’t think anyone is blaming the church for the actual molestation itself, rather it was the response to it that the church is criticized rightly for. The church moved priests around when accused and attempted to “reform” them internally (and unsuccessfully in far too many cases). And many bishops were aware of cases and even the extent of the issue, payoffs were made, etc…, and little was done to stem the tide. Cardinal Law being one of the offenders in that regard which Spotlight skewers him for, again rightly.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Yes, I’ve seen the film “Spotlight.” I thought the writer/directors did a great job …] communicating the way we lay Catholics have buried our heads in the sand and shut the door on offering genuine compassion and healing for victims of abuse…

You of course can speak for yourself, and declare that you have buried your own head in the sand. You are also free to confess that you have “shut the door” on offering compassion.

BUT…you cannot and do not speak for me.

So kindly take more care in the way you talk about what “we” lay catholics have or have not done in relation to pedophiles hiding in the clergy.

Thank you.

 

[Galnextdoor]

The main issue with “blame” was the hiding of the crimes, and the criminals, and the way the victims were treated (or not treated). Is the RCC to blame for molestation? No, however it is now obvious (and admitted to by the RCC officially), that they are indeed to blame for the way it was handled and not handled. I’m sure that there are many reasons why those in the church hierarchy shuffled the offenders around, none of them good enough to function as an excuse, but rather as an explanation.

I don’t think the Roman Catholic Church is officially to blame. The Church is a body that teaches us how to become closer to Christ. The Catholic Church was established by Jesus. I think that there are individuals who were in charge who were to blame.

I think that when people in the Church knew better, they did better.

 

[Galnextdoor]

Agreed. I don’t think anyone is blaming the church for the actual molestation itself, rather it was the response to it that the church is criticized rightly for. The church moved priests around when accused and attempted to “reform” them internally (and unsuccessfully in far too many cases). And many bishops were aware of cases and even the extent of the issue, payoffs were made, etc…, and little was done to stem the tide. Cardinal Law being one of the offenders in that regard which Spotlight skewers him for, again rightly.

There are people who blame the Church for the actual molestation itself. They can not separate people from the religion. In their minds, they think the religion somehow condoned it. They brand all Catholics as complicit. If this film does something to change the minds of these people, I think the film may have some benefit.

 

[Kliska]

I don’t think the Roman Catholic Church is officially to blame. The Church is a body that teaches us how to become closer to Christ. The Catholic Church was established by Jesus. I think that there are individuals who were in charge who were to blame.

I think that when people in the Church knew better, they did better.

I’m sorry, but as an outsider, but a fellow Christian, I disagree. The Church is, and always will be, a structure of humans regardless of it’s start. The RCC itself says it is a hierarchy which is visible, and has taken responsibility and apologized as appropriate. In this case, there were issues all within the hierarchy. The blame is there. The blame doesn’t fall on official teaching, but it does fall on select humans to do indeed make up the self-labelled hierarchy of the church.

I’m a bit of a realist when it comes to human nature… in my line of work it is a must if any true change is going to take place. Not all humans who know better do better… I’m sure there were those in the church who did what they could, I’m sure there were those that didn’t.

 

[Padres1969]

There are people who blame the Church for the actual molestation itself. They can not separate people from the religion. In their minds, they think the religion somehow condoned it. They brand all Catholics as complicit. If this film does something to change the minds of these people, I think the film may have some benefit.

Well the movie may not have entirely that benefit. After all the movie calls to question the response of not only the heirarchy, but of the laity as well. Many in the laity were equally complicit with the clerical hierarchy of helping to cover up the abuses. And yes some lump all Catholics in as being culpable, but they’re not in the majority in my experience.

And yes some lump the church as an organization in as being culpable. That is a more defensible position. When you consider a bishop acts as the leader of a administrative jurisdiction of the church and that multiple bishops worldwide were involved in the scandal (and many when caught like Law were inexplicable assigned to roles in Rome itself rather than tossed out on their backsides as they should have been…) It becomes difficult to separate the individuals from the institution, when the institution isn’t distancing itself from the abusive individuals or their enablers.

 

[KSU]

A few posters are confusing the infallible magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church with officials in local Churches. Non-Catholics can’t be held responsible for not knowing the difference between the magisterium and local prelates, or for believing the OP article’s flagrant misinformation about the status of the newspaper which liked the movie. Nevertheless, the newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, can’t on its own speak for the Church.

The magisterium can correctly be called the “Church”; local prelates, even as a group, can not. Certainly, some local prelates, rather than using common sense, took the word of psychiatrists; or were careerists rather than pastors, and so covered up; or may even have been complicit. And, yes, it’s true that many (most?) ignored the magisterium’s 1961 instruction that gays should not be ordained. (The magisterium issued another, stronger instruction in 2005).

So, please, try to not blame the automobile industry for drunk drivers. Moreover, of the hundreds of thousands of religious and secular entities around the world , all of which have the same horrible problem with the weakness and sin of its members, only the Catholic Church spends the proportionately great sums of money, effort and time necessary to combat the problem and comfort the victims–billions that the Church could otherwise put to good use in hospitals, charities and renovations and new buildings. Yet guess which entity gets the bad press while others sit back and rake in the cash?