The terrible revelations of sexual abuse in Ireland and Germany have confirmed the reality that the abuse of children by clergy is not a phenomenon confined to the United States. Nor, as Kieran Conroy, the bishop of Arundel and Brighton in the U.K., stated recently, is the crisis a media creation. "It is real," he said. "It is a reality." Outrage among the Irish and German public is the predominant, natural and justified response. But buried beneath the shock and anger, especially for Catholics, however, is a searing question: How could this happen?
There is an important resource that may begin to answer this question: the detailed analysis of the roots of clerical abuse in this country, which was conducted by The National Review Board, the group of lay people who researched and reported to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2003. Some questioned the independence of the board, but I think that their situational analysis, carried out by committed and highly qualified lay Catholics, is accurate.
Looking at what the National Review Board viewed as the root causes of the crisis in this country may shed light on what happened in Ireland and Germany and elsewhere. On the whole, the board's analysis is about the most accurate and insightful that we have about the American situation. Of course, these are presented by the board as reasons, not excuses. There are no excuses for these crimes.
The board asked two main questions. First, Why did so many priests abuse minors in the U.S.? Second, how could the U.S. bishops have dealt with the issue so poorly, or not at all? Regarding the first question, as I far as I understand, roughly 4% of U.S. priests from 1950 to 2000 were accused of abuse. This is slightly higher than that in other professions, including those who deal with children, like schoolteachers. (Most abuse, most studies show, takes place within families). But any number is too high and leads to the question of how, especially in a religious organization committed to helping others and living out what Christians call Gospel values, this could happen.
The board answers how so many priests could have been abusive by looking at two causes. (Their responses are in boldface. My own comments follow their points.)
1. Improper screening for candidates in the past.
From many conversations with men who entered minor seminaries or religious orders in the 1940s and 1950s, I know that the entrance requirements were less rigorous than today. One priest explained to me that to enter his religious order one needed merely to submit a recommendation from another priest and meet with the local provincial. If the provincial gave his approval, the candidate was accepted.
Compare this to what I faced when I entered the Jesuit Order in 1988: a battery of psychological tests (which culminated in a lengthy psychological evaluation to the Jesuits), six face-to-face interviews, an eight-day retreat, as well as having to submit a comprehensive autobiography, recommendations from six friends and co-workers, a physician's examination, and so on.
Such procedures today -- and especially those put in place after 2002 -- help to begin to weed out those with any serious psychological problems, such as pedophilia. Tragically, they were not in place many decades ago, in this country or abroad.
2. Poor formation or training for candidates.
Once again, it should be noted how different priestly formation and training are today as compared with even 30 or 40 years ago. At least in the U.S., it is difficult for a man to reach ordination without substantial exposure to issues on sexuality, intimacy and chastity, as well as questions of sexual abuse and professional boundaries. In the past, however, a great many priests at the time of their ordination failed to receive adequate training or counseling in any of these issues, setting the stage for problems in the future.
The board's second question was: Why did the church leaders respond to the problem so poorly for so many years? Here is where the board's analysis is especially astute.
1. Some bishops and other leaders did not understand the broad nature of the problem, but treated it sporadically.
Like many other people, even well educated men and women, particularly if we are talking about the 1960s, 1970s and even 1980s, most of the American bishops simply did not grasp the terrible prevalence of in our society of such things as pedophilia, incest and spousal abuse. (Megan's Law, for example, was passed as late as 1996, a testimony to this fundamental lack of understanding of these things in American society.) The bishops were among those still in the dark about this dark side of human behavior, and simply were at a loss to appreciate the magnitude of the problem. The same was most likely true in Europe as well.
2. Many bishops put needs of institutional concerns above the concerns of the people. Historically, there is a deep antipathy to "scandal" in the Catholic Church.
In the church, where the community is seen as the "Body of Christ," that is, a visible representation of Christ's presence, and where Tradition is seen as one way that the Holy Spirit leads the Christian community over time, an attack on the church is often interpreted as tantamount to an attack on the faith itself. Similarly, the notion that the faithful needed to be "protected" from scandal (lest it lessen their love and respect for the church) made bishops less likely to admit even obvious problems with abusive priests. The horrible irony was that in protecting the faithful from "scandal" by concealing evidence of abusive priests, as well as shuffling them between parishes, some of the American bishops created the greatest scandal in the history of their church in this country. The Irish and German churches are also now seeing the fallout from "avoiding scandal."
3. The threat of litigation caused many to adopt an adversarial stance.
Protecting the church is, particularly for a bishop, much more than simply protecting the "institution." The financial losses that might be incurred from lawsuits were also (accurately) seen as losses that would damage the great many social services provided by the church: parishes, schools, hospitals, shelters. Some American bishops felt the need to protect this network of social-service agencies and so followed the advice of those lawyers who suggested adopting the most aggressive attitudes towards lawsuits. Sadly, those bishops failed to realize that those institutions, noble as they are, were not the only things that they should have been protecting.
4. Some bishops failed to comprehend the magnitude of the harm suffered by victims.
Needless to say, when some U.S. bishops failed to even meet with victims, a shockingly callous act, it was easy to ignore their suffering.
5. Many bishops relied too heavily on psychiatrists, psychologists and lawyers when making decisions.
Even today, and even more so in the 1960s and 1970s, when many cases were first brought to light, many bishops turned to mental-health professionals who themselves held conflicting opinions about the treatability of pedophilia. Is it curable? Is it genetic? Can a man be placed in active ministry after treatment? What is the best type of treatment? Would being placed in active ministry help the man in his "cure"?
Bishops, hardly experts in these matters, often relied on flawed advice. Or they chose experts who told them what they most wanted to hear: that the man could be cured and returned to ministry. Still, it needs to be underlined that this does not excuse the bishop who moved the man who repeatedly abused and was just as repeatedly reassigned. One need not be a psychologist to see the stupidity of such decisions. And of course more recent decisions, say in the 1990s, are even more indefensible, given society's (and the psychiatric profession's) growing knowledge about pedophilia.
6. Many bishops avoided confronting abusive priests.
The simple inability to confront and deal with difficult situations, whether out of apathy, ignorance or fear of conflict, seems to have played a major role in the crisis. This is something that cuts across cultural lines, and may have even been worse in European countries.
7. Many bishops placed interests of priests above those of victims.
The image of the bishop as the "spiritual father," who protects and guides his priests has deep roots in the Catholic Church. Tragically, often overshadowed was the bishop's larger and more important role as "pastor" or "shepherd" of all of the people in his diocese. Even worse, the welfare those who were most vulnerable--young children--was often ignored.
8. Canon law made removal from ministry onerous.
The process of "laicization," that is, returning the priest to the "lay state," and stripping him of his rights as a priest (the ability to celebrate Mass, wear a collar, call himself "Father") is a cumbersome ecclesiastical process, designed to preserve the rights of the priests. Entering into it may have seemed overwhelming for some bishops. Indeed, Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee, as reported this week by The New York Times, was forced to appeal directly to the Vatican to remove a notoriously abusive priest from ministry.
Those were the board's findings. I would like to add four more reasons that I note from my own observations over the years.
1.) Some American bishops, mostly elderly men, were themselves uncomfortable, for a variety of reasons--some personal, some cultural, some familial, some related to their formation--discussing any matters of sexuality, particularly homosexuality, as well as the more frightening topics of pedophilia and ephebophilia, and the terrifying prospect of child sexual abuse. Again, this may be even more pronounced in Ireland and Germany among bishops and clergy.
2.) Some bishops here were hampered by the inability to discuss the possibility that the scandal would lead to dramatic change in the church. If one fears a discussion of difficult church issues (celibacy, clerical culture, episcopal authority) one will naturally be more afraid of an issue that might provoke open up such discussions.
3.) Some bishops were unable to accept personal responsibility or their own sinful (sometimes criminal) actions. From the beginning of the crisis, many of the bishops seemed to confront the crisis in the manner of a C.E.O., rather than as a Christian pastor. Some seemed to have forgotten that an essential part of the traditional "sacrament of reconciliation" (that is, "confession") in the church is penitence: the need to make amends for one's sins. It is not simply enough to confess, to admit sinfulness, and to beg for forgiveness from God and the person you have offended. One needs also a "firm purpose of amendment" and the willingness to engage in some form of penance. But public penance, like the resignation of Bishop John Magee in Ireland last week--is too rare.
And of course, like anyone else, clergy are subject to the law of the land, and, if found guilty of crimes, should be be treated like anyone else.
Around the time that the scandals were breaking in the U.S., a Catholic sister I know said that the Christian response was at odds with what she called the "corporate response." Quoting from the parable of the Prodigal Son in the Gospel of Luke, she described what a Christian response from an offending bishop would have sounded like: "I have sinned against God and you, and I no longer deserve to be called your bishop. I will resign and spend the rest of my life praying for victims." Beyond any criminal penalties to be paid, such an action might have been understood by Catholics. Tragically, some bishops, the "teachers" par excellence in the community often ignored the treasures of their own Christian heritage
4.) When cases of abuse were raised prior to 2002, some bishops viewed the media as adversaries. Prior to the crisis, Cardinal Bernard Law said that he "called down" the power of God against The Boston Globe. Despite some lingering anti-Catholicism in the American media's coverage of the crisis (for example, their facile conflation of celibacy and pedophilia, the overlooking of abuse in other professions, and their stereotyping of all priests as abusers and all bishops as conspirators), the church needs to be grateful for the role of the media for revealing what the church itself was unwilling to confront. The "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People," adopted by the U.S. bishops in their meeting in Dallas in 2002, would not have happened without the Boston Globe.
Those are but a few reasons for the causes of the sexual abuse of children by clergy in the United States, as a board of committed Catholic laypersons saw them. This may begin to explain how and why these sinful actions and awful crimes happened. And how and why these terrible crimes and grave sins happened in Ireland and Germany, and elsewhere.
Catholic sex abuse cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
High-profile resignation in Irish church abuse scandal - Yahoo! News
Pope says 'sorry' for Irish church abuse - CNN.com
Catholic sex abuse cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BishopAccountability.org - Documenting the Catholic Sexual Abuse ...
Catholic abuse claims sweep Europe - Europe- msnbc.com
Stop spinning, lying, and defending an institution that has royally screwed up and still to this day not only refuses to admit guilt but has blamed gays (a victim of the Church) and the Pope's personal preacher compared the current crisis to anti-Semitism (especially rich considering how much the Church encouraged it). The Church has not paid for its crimes until every single priest who ever harmed a child is doing hard time in the general population, the Pope resigns and also does some hard time for the coverup, and full reparations paid to every person and family harmed by this. Your Church has committed crimes that if any secular organization or other religious organization did so would have been charged under RICO and every single member tossed in prison and I'm willing to bet the Church would have cheered such a punishment on every step of the way as the "Work of God."
Vatican's stance that homosexuals are to blame, is not supported by any statistics. There is no proof that celibacy increases the chance of becoming a child sexual abuser.
The vast majority of child sexual abusers are heterosexual white males, whether the victim is male or female.
Homosexuals comprise a statistical frequency which is similar to the frequency of homosexuals in the adult population.
pure and simple
$10,000 italian tailored designer frocks and wearing custom made italian shoes........so much for being pious....
it IS the problem!
The parents cannot avoid punishment for harboring a murderous child, nor can a Church protect pedophiles, sexual or physical abusers, and avoid the penalties. Now you come to the crux of what is going to happen in Caesars' court in the future: the members are going to be held responsible as well. Is it not true that a person who defends and protects and continues support of a pedophile is complicit in any future acts of the perverted? Were not the followers of Charles Manson as guilty as he? Are the followers of bin Laden not as guilty as he, are the Imams of Islam not responsible for inciting their followers? Are not the people who send money to the Imams just as guilty? The members, the tithers are the enablers of the evil...yet they deny culpability.
Catholics must ask themselves this, "Are you willing to be thought an accomplice to pedophilia? To sexual predation? To physical and emotional abuse? Are you willing to face Caesar and put your home, and families security on the line?
The Church needs to do its own bit of asking for forgiveness and ought to say about 2 million Hail Marys.
http://jdrourke.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/dearest-pope-benedict-arnold/
Vatican assets, including US real estate, are immune from being seized for victims compensation (linked many times before.)
We've set up this great system, where we don't allow priests to marry,
women can't be priests, and in fact, we really don't like women very
much at all, anyway. I mean, they ARE occasions of sin, am I right?
And, yet, somehow, we get these deranged people who take out their
desires on little children, mostly boys. I mean, go figure.
How could this happen? Who could have foreseen this?
In every single way, Benedict truly is the Nixon for our times. As Head of the Inquisition under the last pope, he was charged with suppressing the rape and molestation of children by priests, and he did his job so well, Europe is only now coming to terms with the atrocities committed against children, while they ignored the firestorm in the United States.
Make no mistake, pedophilia in the church has been widespread for solong, the Vatican was writing canon laws in the sixteeenth century to supporess it just as Benedict threatened the Victims and the clergy with excommunication should they report the abuses to civil authorities.
Benedict is complicit in Crimes Against Humanity, and it's time for an indictment. The first of many.
Nixon was a lawyer; he undoubtedly knew this, and was green with envy.
Anyone who TRULY believes himself to be God's representative on Earth and allows this kind of behaviour on his watch has much to account for when his time comes. In the meantime, the Catholic church would do well to PURGE its collective Conscience and find someone worthy of the moniker to lead it out the morass in which it find itself...!!!
In the pope's case credibility isn't just something he must have in order to carry out that job, it is EVERYTHING.
Priests book no dissent, no questions that haven't been carefully prepared and offered beforehand, and remember all too well their adoring mothers who shot to the moon the day their little boys were ordained. Mommy let them get away with anything because they were seminarians, let children and families disintegrate before they stop taking advantage of all before them. And they do: of children, students, altar boys and choir members, parishioners without the good sense to question, let alone be appalled by such naked disregard for the Human Condition beyond their own petty desires and thrills.
Let not a priest explain away the church of Rome when there's so much at stake personally for the writer. Let someone who's been there and walked away because a conscience is still functioning, instead.
And so I write, as well.