Church Report Cites Social Tumult in Priest Scandals

[Zenlitened]

Source: New York Times

A five-year study commissioned by the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops to provide a definitive answer to what caused the priest sexual abuse crisis has concluded that neither the all-male celibate priesthood nor homosexuality are to blame.

Instead, the report says, the abuse occurred because priests who were poorly prepared and monitored, and were under stress, landed in the midst of the social and sexual turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s. Known incidents of sexual abuse of minors by priests rose sharply during those decades, the report found, and the problem grew worse when the church’s hierarchy responded by showing more care for the perpetrators than the victims.

The “blame Woodstock” explanation is the same floated by bishops and Pope Benedict XVI since the church was engulfed by scandal in the United States in 2002 and in Europe in 2010.

But this study is likely to be regarded as the most authoritative analysis of the scandal in the Catholic Church in America. The study, initiated in 2006, was conducted by a team of researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. It was financed by the bishops, with additional money contributed by Catholic organizations and foundations and the National Institute of Justice, the research agency of the United States Department of Justice.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/us/18bishops.html?_r=1&hp

[Demoiselle]

1. Oh, PULEEEZE!

Another thing to blame them damn hairy hippies for....

[roguevalley]

20. this has been going on for centuries. How about explaining that

to us? Hippies?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. riiiiiight. blame us for your crimes.

Stress causes the sexual abuse of kids? Sorry, but that is like Newt saying he was unprepared for an interview that would ask real questions. After appearing 34 other times on the same program.

There is no question that the Vatican embarked on a plan to protect its own at all costs. They even threatened parents to keep things secret and quiet. They actively hid documents, they transfered wrongdoers to other states, even to other countries.

[Auntie Bush]

3. That's on par with Newt's explanation of why he cheated on his wife. nt

[SpiralHawk]

4. Wow - this is sooo weasly republicon. No personal responsibility. Sooo republicon.

The Repubs are always whining and scampering away from their evil deeds, and lamely trying to shift blame on to someone else. Soooo skanky. So lacking in integrity or honor.

Their priestly bedfellows, so to speak, are also corrupted by those foul freaky Republicon Family CessPool Values.

DisssGustiNg.

[defendandprotect]

17. +1-

[KansDem]

5. This is pretty bad...

Consider this quote from the article:

In one of the most counterintuitive findings, the report says that fewer than 5 percent of the abusive priests exhibited behavior consistent with pedophilia, which it defines as a “psychiatric disorder that is characterized by recurrent fantasies, urges and behaviors about prepubescent children.

“Thus, it is inaccurate to refer to abusers as ‘pedophile priests,’ ” the report says.

This finding is likely to prove controversial, in part because the report employs a definition of “prepubescent” children as those ages 10 and under. Using this cutoff, the report found that only 22 percent of the priests’ victims were prepubescent.

The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders classifies a prepubescent child as generally age 13 or younger. If the John Jay researchers had used this cutoff, a vast majority of the abusers’ victims would have been considered prepubescent.

I believe having sex with any minor (17 and younger) makes you a "sex offender." Now, if you want to argue that it's better to be a "sex offender who rapes" than a "pedophile who rapes," then have at it...

[Aerows]

7. Oh - so I guess

it's completely acceptable for them to have sex with an 11, 12 or 13 year old. Considering that is classified as a major felony in every state in the US, I'd say that it might be okay according to the Church, but it certainly isn't okay as far as law abiding (and sane) people are concerned. Except the Church doesn't like priests having sex with anyone, frowns on birth control, abortion and homosexuality.

I'd like to know the Church's stance on Viagra. I'm guessing it would be okay for men to take that and probably priests, too. That would make about as much sense as this "study".

[Sherman A1]

6. Pardon me, for a moment

:banghead:

[chollybocker]

8. lol

catholic church - lol

Anyone who gives a single tax deductible, tax-free penny to this pedophile factory is just aiding and abetting.

[unkachuck]

9. "...priests who were poorly prepared and monitored, and were under stress..."

....I think the devil made them do it....

[Heywood J]

10. This is bulllshit, on its face.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Congregation_of_the_Servants_of_the_Paraclete

Although Fitzgerald started the Servants of the Paraclete to assist priests who were struggling with alcohol and substance abuse problems, he soon began receiving priests who had sexually abused minors. Initially, Fitzgerald attempted to treat such priests using the same spiritual methods that he used with others. By 1948, Fitzgerald had set a policy whereby he refused to take priests who were sexually attracted to young people. In a letter sent to a priest in 1948 Fitzgerald said “It is now a fixed policy of our house to refuse problem cases that involve abnormalities of sex.” The policy was changed, possibly at the insistence of bishops, because Fr. Gerald’s letters reveal that he had indeed offered help to several priests with such sexual problems in the years between 1948 and his death in 1969.

Over the next two decades, Fitzgerald wrote regularly to bishops in the United States and to Vatican officials, including the pope, of his opinion that many sexual abusers in the priesthood could not be cured and should be laicized immediately.

For example, in a 1952 letter to Bishop Robert Dwyer of the Diocese of Reno, Nevada, Fitzgerald wrote:

"I myself would be inclined to favor laicization for any priest, upon objective evidence, for tampering with the virtue of the young, my argument being, from this point onward the charity to the Mystical Body should take precedence over charity to the individual, <...> Moreover, in practice, real conversions will be found to be extremely rare <...> Hence, leaving them on duty or wandering from diocese to diocese is contributing to scandal or at least to the approximate danger of scandal."

In 1957 Fitzgerald wrote to Matthew Francis Brady, the Bishop of Manchester, New Hampshire:

"We are amazed to find how often a man who would be behind bars if he were not a priest is entrusted with the cura animarum."

In a letter written in 1957 to Archbishop Byrne, his ecclesiastical sponsor and co-founder of the Paracletes, Fitzgerald wrote:

“May I beg your excellency to concur and approve of what I consider a very vital decision on our part - that we will not offer hospitality to men who have seduced or attempted to seduce little boys or girls. These men Your Excellency are devils and the wrath of God is upon them and if I were a bishops I would tremble when I failed to report them to Rome for involuntary laicization....It is for this class of rattlesnake I have always wished the island retreat - but even an island is too good for these vipers of whom the Gentle master said - it were better they had not been born - this is an indirect way of saying damned, is it not? When I see the Holy Father I am going to speak of this class to his Holiness.”

Yeah, it was that social turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s that caused priests to molest as early as the 1940s. They were informed by the man in charge of "fixing" these priests that they couldn't be fixed. They chose to ignore the warnings and place these priests back with the community.

This study is bullshit whitewash.

[Zenlitened]

13. Exactly. The allegations of abuse go back 60 years, at least. - n/t

[chollybocker]

15. I think you dropped a zero or two.

Pedophilia is as old as X itself. It found safe harbor within religions centuries ago.

[Arugula Latte]

11. The entire Church is based on lies and delusion, so it's no wonder their excuses are too.

[Zorra]

12. Might of been social/sexual turmoil for a bunch of sexually repressed skypilots.

Was a whole lot of the fun and adventure with fringe benefits of positive social changes for a lot of us.

[Lugnut]

14. Bullshit!

Stress, my ass. They're trying to put lipstick on the pig. The "Catholic Church" is and always has been a big bad joke on the faithful. They've protected their pedophile priests for as far back as I can remember and I'm 65 years old.

[defendandprotect]

16. Do they explain why they're no longer having trouble paying for their pedophile lawsuits?

And whether it has anything to do with Bush/Obama giving them taxpayer money for

their "faith-based" organizations -- ?

[No Elephants]

18. "The social tumult made me do it."

:barf:

Catholic Church just can't seem to make an honest confession and repent of the confessed sins so it can move forward, proving huge irony is not always the least bit amusing.

[happyslug]

19. The Actual Report is NOT to be released till 2:00 pm Wednesday May 18, 2011

When I first wrote this comment I mistook the earlier (2004) report for the new 2011 report, Here is the 2004 Report:

http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/index.htm

Reading the 2004 report I do NOT see anything like a "Blame Woodstock" statement, but it does show an increase in abuse from the 1960s through the 1980s, then a rapid decline. Why that is the case is NOT mentioned in the report (Through I suspect the problem was the reluctance of BISHOPS of the 1960s through the 1980s to discipline their priests. i.e. Such people could be "Cured" with treatment thus terminating such priests OR making sure such priests did NOT interact with Children under 18 was NOT practiced at that time period).

This is supported in part III of the report, when over 50% of accused priests were sent to some sort of "Treatment", which was the norm in even most NON - Religious related cases of child sexual abuse from the 1950s till the 1990s.

The above is for a 2004 Study released by the US Conference of Bishops, the 2010 Report is for sale here:
http://www.usccbpublishing.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=1602

An 2009 "interim" report on that above Report:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2009_11_17_John_Jay_Causes_and_Context_Interim_Report/

The interim report found the following:
The Interim Report found that:

- Data on cases of abuse reported after 2002 reflect the same pattern of incidence found nationally – the rise of sexual abuse in the 1960s and the decline in the 1980s. There is no evidence that unreported cases will be brought forward that change the overall time frame of the problem.

- The pattern of deviant sexual behavior by clerics is consistent with several other behavioral changes in society between 1960 and 1990, including use of drugs, and an increase in divorce and criminal behavior.

- Clergy who as seminarians had explicit human formation preparation seem to have been less likely to abuse than those without such preparation.

- Diocesan responses to charges of abuse by clerics changed substantially over a 50-year period, with decreases in reinstatement and more administrative leave given to abusers in recent years.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2009/11_12/2009_11_17_USCCB_JohnJay.htm

Reading between the line on the "Interim Report" implies the blame is on the Bishops, who failed to discipline their Priest AND were more concerned about the rights of the "accused" i.e. the priests) then the Victims. This was added by confusion from experts on how to handle such people.

[closeupready]

21. Stupid. Do they expect us to believe that crap?

Sorry. Not buying. :mad:

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

22. Tear gas is an aphrodisiac

As anyone attending an anti-vietnam-war protest knows.

Or maybe it's the tears that were the aphrodisiac.

But, this could be irrelevant, as I never knowingly partied with priests.

:hi:

Dunno about Woodstock. I think I am the only person of that era who did not attend.

[JAnthony]

23. Wasn't it STRESS that made Newt Gingrich cheat on his wife, too?

And didn't he join Catholic church, too?

Coincidence? I think NOT!!!