By Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor
 |
Well, will miracles never cease? In a church known for compelling confession from its followers, a remarkable one from its chief advocate came across the wires on Friday. That’s right, after decades of lying, obfuscating, blocking, destroying evidence and covering up in the most un-Christian way, Pope Francis has done what many Catholics hoped his predecessors would have done years ago — apologize AND beg forgiveness. Oh, lots of Popes apologize but it’s always with a condition … a term … a little euphemism about one bad apple not spoiling the great work of the barrel, or that the church’s pedophile problem isn’t really any worse than anybody else’s. (Really, every church has a decades old issue of unmarried priests molesting little boys and girls on an institutional level?) Or that it’s just American culture fueling the problem. (Damn justice seekers reading those beatitudes so literally!)
And in an even more remarkable statement from the most protective of secret societies, the new Pope owned it. He owned it in every sense from the philandering priests to their bishop protectors who covered for them and then unleashed the wolves on another unwitting flock. “I feel compelled to personally … ask for forgiveness for the damage they have done…. I feel called to take responsibility for all the evil some priests — large in number, but not in proportion to the total — have committed and to ask forgiveness for the damage they’ve done with the sexual abuse of children,” the Pontiff proclaimed loudly an in public. “We don’t want to take a step backward in dealing with this problem and with the sanctions that must be imposed,” the pope said. “On the contrary, I believe we must be very strong. You don’t play with children’s lives!”
To understand how remarkable this statement is you have to look back to the church’s position on the now world-wide scandal of priest pedophilia. The scandal blew up in 2002 when the Boston Globe published a series of articles exposing the problem and the church’s almost cavalier approach to dealing with pedophiles in its midst. The series created a stir in Europe too where the crimes were just coming to light. The public reaction from Rome was a curious and deafening silence. It was up to the bishops in the diocese to cleanup their own messes came the private word from Rome to the provinces. The US Conference of Bishops did what every bureaucracy does when accused of scandal — they studied it. And they issued a proclamation stating what we Catholics thought was policy all along, namely that the church owes its child members a”safe environment” in all church activities. Not exactly a mea culpa or even a “we’ve got a hell of problem here Brownie.” Just a statement of the obvious. Old men talked, procedures were adopted, the laity listened and the cover up and abuse continued.
As more and more victims came forward, the church felt the need to react again. And when over 3000 cases were filed seeking billions in damages for victims, the action needed to be higher than at a diocesan or even national level. The reaction from the seat of power was now denial, diminish, and defend. A study was published claiming that only 4% of priests over a 50 year span were suspected of abuse. Then a pious statement in 2003 from then Pope John Paul II: ” there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young”. But behind the scenes the Church had no intention of doing anything besides battening down the hatches. Cardinal George Pell described the mood in Rome:
…The attitude of some people at the Vatican was that if accusations were being made against priests, they were being made exclusively or at least predominantly by enemies of the church to make trouble and therefore they should be dealt with sceptically. I think there was more of an inclination to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant rather than listen seriously to the complaints…
Publicly, the church was saying all the right things. Adopting procedures for kids to come forward, training laity and priests alike about what to look for when abuse was suspected, but in the litigation wars where the rubber met the road, the rule was scorched earth. A 2014 United Nations report issued scathing criticism of the Vatican’s historical efforts to block investigators and coverup crimes during those times. At the hearing, Sara Oviedo, the chief UN investigator pressed the Vatican delegation on the frequent ways abusive priests were transferred rather than turned in to police. Given the church’s “zero tolerance” policy, she asked, why were there “efforts to cover up and obscure these types of cases?” The church demurred with Monsignor Charles Scicluna, the Vatican’s former sex crimes prosecutor, politely telling the committee, “The Holy See gets it. Let’s not say too late or not. But there are certain things that need to be done differently.” Not all in scarlet vestments were so sanguine, however, with one Vatican emissary issuing this dodge: “Priests are not functionaries of the Vatican,” Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s U.N. ambassador in Geneva, told the committee. “Priests are citizens of their own states, and they fall under the jurisdiction of their own country.”
And some in the Curia (the Vatican’s governing bureaucracy) said all this fuss about abusive priests was an American culture problem and its perceived anti-Catholic prejudice and even its ambulance chasing lawyers. A reporter from the National Catholic Reporter put it this way:
No one [in the Vatican] thinks the sexual abuse of kids is unique to the States, but they do think that the reporting on it is uniquely American, fueled by anti-Catholicism and shyster lawyers hustling to tap the deep pockets of the church. And that thinking is tied to the larger perception about American culture, which is that there is a hysteria when it comes to anything sexual, and an incomprehension of the Catholic Church. What that means is that Vatican officials are slower to make the kinds of public statements that most American Catholics want, and when they do make them they are tentative and halfhearted [sic]. It’s not that they don’t feel bad for the victims, but they think the clamor for them to apologize is fed by other factors that they don’t want to capitulate to.
Nasty ol’ Americans with all this sentiment for justice and protecting kids! Who the Hell are they … these sexual deviates?
In ten years following the Boston Globe reports more than $2 billion has been paid out to victims either by way of verdict or settlement; cases of coddled abusers have been reported in Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Belgium, France, Germany and Australia; and several catholic diocese have faced the prospect of bankruptcy to protect assets from attachment. Justice seekers exact a high price it seems.
This is the second time Pope Francis has apologized, but the first time he’s condemned the church’s reaction to the scandal. He was not alone. In 2010, then Pope Benedict criticized the church for not being vigilant enough or quick enough in responding to the problem of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy. A representative of SNAP, a victim’s advocacy group, responded that the criticism was “disingenuous” because, in her opinion, the Church had in fact been “prompt and vigilant” in concealing the scandal.
Still this Pope Francis seems to actually “get it” and as every Catholic learns about the sacrament of penance “there is no forgiveness without contrition, and no contrition without confession.” Now, the church’s work of emotional and spiritual satisfaction to its victims can begin.
Sources: CNS; SNAP; Huffington Post
~Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor
Annie wrote:
“Samantha, there at those that would be in favor of legal
means to get Creationism taught in public schools.”
So, your world view of the origin of life is somehow more valid than creationism? Under what and whose aegis? What is the basis for your addiction for thought control of students? Disassociation with the faith crowd? Personally, I see no harm with teaching multiple versions of the origin of life, providing each student the opportunity to make up his or her own mind, as is the case for all of life, the outcome of which is unique personality, not cloned thought and obedience. You said earlier you were not in favor of legislating your belief systems. Are you making an exception now, the heck reciprocity, or are you just running your thoughts again?
david,
You read incorrectly. I’ll post that excerpt once again:
One more thing about the clergy sex abuse study: The study reported that fewer than 5% of the abusers were pedophiles. To reach that conclusion, however, it appears the researchers “redefined” what constitutes pedophilia. In a Boston Globe article, Lisa Wangsness wrote: “Major associations of psychiatrists typically define pedophilia as interest in children 13 and younger, calling them ‘prepubescent.’’’ Wangsness added that the authors of the report reached the conclusion of the low incidence in pedophilia in the abusers by suggesting that “the prepubescent period ends at age 10.” One has to ask why the authors of the report chose to “redefine” pedophilia in that way.
Elaine M wrote: “You read incorrectly. I’ll post that excerpt once again.”
Some day I hope you just say what you are actually thinking rather than posting what somebody else thinks. I read the post just fine as far as I can tell. Reposting it doesn’t make your thoughts any more clear.
david,
If you read my Turley Blawg post, you’d see that others–as well as I–are critical of that John Jay study–which appears to be flawed.
I’ll repost an excerpt from it:
One more thing about the clergy sex abuse study: The study reported that fewer than 5% of the abusers were pedophiles. To reach that conclusion, however, it appears the researchers “redefined” what constitutes pedophilia. In a Boston Globe article, Lisa Wangsness wrote: “Major associations of psychiatrists typically define pedophilia as interest in children 13 and younger, calling them ‘prepubescent.’’’ Wangsness added that the authors of the report reached the conclusion of the low incidence in pedophilia in the abusers by suggesting that “the prepubescent period ends at age 10.” One has to ask why the authors of the report chose to “redefine” pedophilia in that way.
Elaine, I read that, but reporting that the abusers mostly were not pedophiles is based upon the clinical definition of pedophilia that you posted previously. Also, it was not 5%. The report said that 22 percent of the victims were 10 and under 10, 51% were 11 to 14 years old, and 27% were 15 to 17 years old. To get close to that 5% number, it would be 6.1% were age 7 or under.
Did the “Deviant” Behavior of the 1960s & 1970s in the US Lead to an Increase in Catholic Clergy Sex Abuse of Children?
Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/05/29/did-the-deviant-behavior-of-the-1960s-1970s-in-the-us-lead-to-an-increase-in-catholic-clergy-sex-abuse-of-children/
Recently, the findings of a controversial five-year study into the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church were released. The study, commissioned by the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops, was conducted by researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York. The study concluded that homosexual priests were no more likely to be abusers than heterosexual priests. It also found that celibacy was not to blame for the sexual abuse of children. Authors of the study wrote: “The most significant conclusion drawn from this data is that no single psychological, developmental, or behavioral characteristic differentiated priests who abused minors from those who did not.’’
Karen Terry, PhD., John Jay’s principal investigator for the report, claimed that the bulk of the cases occurred decades ago. Terry said: “The increased frequency of abuse in the 1960s and 1970s was consistent with the patterns of increased deviance of society during that time.” She added that “social influences intersected with vulnerabilities of individual priests whose preparation for a life of celibacy was inadequate at that time.” The poor training of priests combined with social isolation, job stress, and few support systems were also said to have been contributing factors to clergy sex abuse of children.
From the report: “The rise in abuse cases in the 1960s and 1970s was influenced by social factors in American society generally. This increase in abusive behavior is consistent with the rise in other types of “deviant” behavior, such as drug use and crime, as well as changes in social behavior, such as an increase in premarital sexual behavior and divorce.”
Speaking for myself, I find it hard to believe that drug use, premarital sex, and divorce outside of the priesthood in the 1960s and 1970s could be societal factors that could have contributed to an increase in the incidence of Catholic clergy sexually abusing children. I also fail to see how the insufficient training and preparation of priests could have been a cause of the sexual abuse of children. Wouldn’t anyone with a conscience—anyone who knows right from wrong—understand that sexually abusing children is an abhorrent crime?
Fr. Thomas Doyle, a Dominican who is an advocate for victims of clergy abuse, said he believes the report is missing data “about the increased number of cases of abuse that are coming forward that occurred before the 1960s.” He has worked with lawyers in this country and said that he has seen “cases of hundreds of adults in their 60s and 70s that have only begun coming forward.”
Fr. Doyle noted that the study conducted by John Jay was limited to the United States and the years from 1950 to 2010. He said there are indications that clergy abuse occurred in other countries as well—and before the period studied. Evidently, scores of people in their 60s and 70s who live in the United Kingdom are just beginning to tell stories of their abuse by members of the clergy in private Catholic schools. Fr. Doyle claims that these incidents of abuse “had nothing to do with sociocultural changes in the ’60s and ’70s.”
He said the John Jay study focuses on the behavior of priests but really does little to address the behavior of bishops. “In that sense, he said, the report ‘misses the essential point, which is: When the abuse and abuser became known to church authorities, why were they allowed to continue doing what they did?’”
Fr. Doyle said that continuing reports of sexual abuse in other countries “throws a monkey wrench in the theory” of the causes of the abuse that were reported in the study. He added: “The patterns we’ve seen are similar in every country: significant amounts of sexual abuse of vulnerable groups and the pressure of a religious culture on victims and parents against saying anything.”
Other critics of the report claimed that it downplayed the “church’s responsibility for creating conditions where abuse flourished, relieving church leaders of an obligation to make fundamental changes.” In his statement, David Clohessy of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests said: “Predictably and conveniently, the bishops have funded a report that tells them precisely what they want to hear: It was all unforeseeable, long ago, wasn’t that bad, and wasn’t their fault.’’
One more thing about the clergy sex abuse study: The study reported that fewer than 5% of the abusers were pedophiles. To reach that conclusion, however, it appears the researchers “redefined” what constitutes pedophilia. In a Boston Globe article, Lisa Wangsness wrote: “Major associations of psychiatrists typically define pedophilia as interest in children 13 and younger, calling them ‘prepubescent.’’’ Wangsness added that the authors of the report reached the conclusion of the low incidence in pedophilia in the abusers by suggesting that “the prepubescent period ends at age 10.” One has to ask why the authors of the report chose to “redefine” pedophilia in that way.
Elaine wrote: “The study concluded that homosexual priests were no more likely to be abusers than heterosexual priests.”
This is a questionable statement considering that the study found that 81% of the victims were male. Is your source defining homosexual as something other than male to male sexual relations? The link to the Boston Globe article that you had does not work.
Here is a link to an easy to follow summary of the facts of the John Jay Study:
https://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp
How ludicrous to pretend it never happened and not be cognizant of the fact that once the desire to enact such legislation is present, the likelihood that there will be continued attempts is also possible. Head in the sand syndrome can be dangerous.
“We almost had” discrimination in Arizzona. Almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and govt. work. There are plenty of injustices in this world to fret about, how ludicrous to continually harp on something that “almost happened.”
Samantha, there at those that would be in favor of legal means to get Creationism taught in public schools. In Arizona we almost had discrimination against homosexuals and anyone else a Christian business owner may have objections to serving. Personhood laws have been attempted for years now based on a Christian beliefs of life beginning at conception. Hobby Lobby is using legal means in an attempt to deny reproductive preventative health care to their employees. I don’t think that it’s rational to be surprised by pushback from non religious people. Some examples of what I mean by legislating religion into the secular areas of our society.
Annie wrote: “Samantha, there at those that would be in favor of legal means to get Creationism taught in public schools.”
I am one of those people, because I do not believe in censorship in education. The book burning practices by the Nazi’s was revolting. There is a scene in the recent movie, “The Book Thief.” How revolting.
I object to the federal government classifying creation models of origins as religious and thereby they rationalize that they should be banned from schools. I object to scientists who object to any criticism of the evolutionary models of origins and arguing that such critics should be banned from publishing or teaching. I object to those who claim creationists should be banned from running for public office and expressing the viewpoint that they would never vote for a creationist.
On the other hand, I do not favor the legislation that some have attempted to pass that forces creationism to be taught in public schools. The courtroom is not the place to decide what is and what is not allowed to be taught in our public school system. Teachers, principals, and school boards can best determine the curriculum because they are more in touch with the community, and they are more knowledgeable about the issues involved.
Annie wrote:
“I’m not in favor of legislating my non belief system on believers, so why not reciprocate?”
Legislation already exists separating church and state. Exactly what sort of reciprocity are you looking for?
I don’t know a single soul who’s in favor of passing legislation to force you to go to church or whatever, short of Islamic extremists that I hear of in the media. But I do know lots of people that, on the surface, would outlaw, if in their power, religion of all stripes. Some would also like to see jailed those who don’t get in politically correct lines.
Pedophilia is defined as a sexual interest in prepubescent children.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19327034
Another argument of the church for the thesis that their problem is primarily a homosexual problem instead of a pedophilia problem is the fact that 75% of the victims of priests have been post pubescent, thus not matching the clinical definition of pedophilia. Human sexuality is a very complex issue.
There is a link between being gay and pedophilia. The Kinsey report found that 37% of gays admitted to having sex with someone under 17 years old. This is not to say that being gay makes one a pedophilia. It just means that age is less of a boundary for them, probably because of the hedonistic nature of that lifestyle.
If we consider that most pedohiles are male, and that the victims of pedophilia are about one-third male and two-thirds female, that means that a disproportionate number of victims are same sex victims. Homosexuals make up about 3% of the population but commit about 30% of the pedophilia. That means that pedophiles are 10 times more likely than heterosexuals to be engaging in homosexual activity.
The interesting thing about priests is that about 80% of their victims are male (same sex behavior). This is what has led the church to considering their problem a homosexual problem more than a pedophilia problem. See:
http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2010/07/22/catholic-churchs-issue-is-homosexuality-not-pedophilia/6536
I think that the defensiveness about Christianity doesn’t help. Christians criticize other religions or non Christians at will. As I said, why not live and let live? I’m not in favor of legislating my non belief system on believers, so why not reciprocate? I see many non believers voicing concern over the push to inject religion in secular areas, I think the concern is based in reality, hence some push back from non believers.
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/04/01/priest-kept-in-ministry Still having trouble with the archbishop of St. Paul cooperating as of last week.
Giovanna, what faction of society is being given a pass on pedophilia?
Good point Annie, however, it does seem to continue to resurface over and over again, when everyone knows what happened and that the church has faced the problem since that time. Not only have legal matters been put into place, but the church has completely revamped their procedures in dealing with such cases.
You referred to the matter being swept under the rug, but the Catholic bishops tried to get many of these priests psychological help years before this problem surfaced. Obviously the treatments didn’t work. Pedophilia, we’ve ALL come to learn, can not be helped by present day modern psychology/psychiatry.
And yes, it is pounding nails when you continuously condemn one faction of society and ignore other others. It’s also pounding nails when a person’s adrenaline get excited about speaking destructively about the church and Christianity as a whole.
When it comes to crime and punishment, the judicial system focuses on bringing to justice the defendant(s), certainly not his family, his friends, his employer, his political party, his gender, his ethnicity, or his creed. Anyone attempting to demonstrate guilt by association is a biased vigilante. I find it embarrassing belonging to a human race with every other person, it seems, an agenda-driven vigilante, wholesale condemning or handing out free passes, according to the prospects for gain.
Steve H., I was unable to locate any untruths in the author’s post.
Perhaps you do not approve of his style; that is a subjective standard. But the style is one that does not cede the author’s personal authority to anyone, nor is he going to be distracted by magic-thinking when it comes to speaking about this serious issue. It’s hard to see, in that light, how it approaches anything like an “internet rant,” whatever that happens to be.
Mr Turley, I subscribed to your newsletter months ago because I value your opinion on legal matters, legislation, and the like. You, and the many who write on your blog, impressed me as clear-headed thinkers who want to advance the rule of law and who write thoughtful opinions and respectful responses. But you’ve allowed your weekend contributor, Mr Esposito, to wander into the realm of “internet rant”. His article, above, degrades the quality of this blog, your website and, frankly, you. You’ve got some work ahead of you in regaining my respect and admiration.
“Let’s not discuss it” will not help to prevent it from happening again. Those who want others to stop talking about what happened seem as if they want it buried and forgotten. It’s not “pounding nails” into Christ’s hands when the abuses are discussed. Jesus didn’t do anything wrong, it was Catholic priests and those who engaged in a cover up that allowed these priests to continue their disgusting activity for years in different parishes who were the sinners and they most certainly didn’t represent any Jesus I ever learned about.
Why Pope Francis’s Apology Isn’t Good Enough for Sex Abuse Victims
Pope Francis asked forgiveness Friday for the sins of priests who abused children. But victims’ groups say it is too soon for apologies—because the abuse and cover-ups haven’t stopped.
4/11/14
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/11/why-pope-francis-s-apology-isn-t-good-enough-for-sex-abuse-victims.html
Excerpt:
SNAP, a 25-year-old survivor group with more than 15,000 members worldwide, has been lobbying to get the church to stop talking and start taking concrete steps toward the goal of removing every priest now accused of abusing a minor from active priesthood. They also want the church to punish bishops who knowingly moved or continue to move abusive priests from parish to parish, and to turn over church records on abusive priests to local secular authorities.
The number of abuse cases has dropped drastically in the last decade or so, since major sex abuse scandals in Los Angeles, Boston, and Ireland have come to light. But SNAP says cases of Catholic priest child sex abuse are still being reported on a regular basis. And many cases are being hidden, especially in the developing world. “To us, when church officials talk about forgiveness, they implicitly imply that the crisis is over,” said Clohessy. “That’s just wrong.”
A number of victim websites, including SNAP and Bishop Accountability in the United States, and One in Four in Ireland, track ongoing criminal cases against priests and bishops. Clohessy said he hopes the pope’s words act as a warning shot across the bow. “This is the first time a pope has talked about sanctioning bishops,” he said. “If there are half a dozen bishops on this planet who feel the slightest tinge of fear and respond today with even a scintilla of action, then his remarks helped.”
The history of this scandal is WELL KNOWN! The continual links to the Boston Globe series is curious. The question, even here amongst commenters isn’t what occurred, that is agreed upon. The question is what needs to be done. James saying Cardinal Law needs to be prosecuted would be a big step in salvation. He needs to experience some fanny love in a Ma. prison. But, that isn’t going to happen. Law is a golden boy.