Pennsylvania Grand Jury report on abuse

[mu03eng]

I don't know, Mike. Do you really think it matters to a child who's been sexually abused if his predator was a Catholic priest or an atheist Boy Scout leader? Or gymnast or football coach? I'm the first one to fault the church for what amounted to a massive cover up, but I don't agree that extra outrage should be assigned to priests, rabbis and ministers. They're sick, but no sicker than other pedophiles.

If moral character is a central tenant of the occupation there should be extra outrage for this heinous type of moral failing. Whether a priest or a scout leader they should be held to higher account. And who really should be held to higher account is the leadership of those types of organizations. The leadership failing of the dioceses has nothing to do with whether the predators were made or born and everything to do with failed moral character which is central to their charter.

[muwarrior69]

Re-read: incidents per capita within religious organizations.  Unless there’s some sort of Baker, Mailman and Journalist religion that sprang up overnight, you’re building straw men from hay in different barns.   

To be clear, in other religions, the perpetrators are oft held up as a deity of some manner, or at the very least, something more significant than a simple messenger.

Something that non-Catholics seem to overestimate is the role that priests and deacons play in the Catholic faith... Catholicism teaches us that we are all messengers of God.  And - in something of an ironic twist - the relationship of lower clergy to laypersons more closely resembles a “first among equals” view as opposed to a reverent, master-apprentice relationship.  Priests may be leaders of their parish, but it’s really more of a business leadership gig, i.e. priests are not held up as higher-level beings any more than the manager at Starbucks is revered as some all-knowing barista.

That said, to a pre-pubescent child, any adult - especially one that is recognized and respected by others - immediately commands trust.  An adult who exploits that trust for their own despicable means deserves no trust, respect, deference or otherwise.  But to say that it’s worse for a priest to perpetrate such acts because he’s perceived as a “paragon of virtue” is not only shortsighted but extremely marginalizing to victims whose - by your logic - own nightmare wasn’t as bad because their perpetrator simply happened to be a no-name, drunken New York brawler with a bunch of priors.

That is true today, but when the abuse occurred priests and pastors were looked upon as men of virtue especially in many of the ethnic (ie Polish, Italian, German and Irish) parishes which were the norm in the church for most of its history in America. You should see the excellent film Spotlight about the abuse in Boston that sheds some light on how priests , pastors and bishops were held in high esteem by their parishioners; and for a priest to do such a thing was unthinkable.

[Lennys Tap]

That said, to a pre-pubescent child, any adult - especially one that is recognized and respected by others - immediately commands trust.  An adult who exploits that trust for their own despicable means deserves no trust, respect, deference or otherwise.  But to say that it’s worse for a priest to perpetrate such acts because he’s perceived as a “paragon of virtue” is not only shortsighted but extremely marginalizing to victims whose - by your logic - own nightmare wasn’t as bad because their perpetrator simply happened to be a no-name, drunken New York brawler with a bunch of priors.

Agree 100%

[Lennys Tap]

If moral character is a central tenant of the occupation there should be extra outrage for this heinous type of moral failing. Whether a priest or a scout leader they should be held to higher account. And who really should be held to higher account is the leadership of those types of organizations. The leadership failing of the dioceses has nothing to do with whether the predators were made or born and everything to do with failed moral character which is central to their charter.

Disagree.

[GooooMarquette]

It seems crazy that anyone would consider a priest "God's messenger." They're people. People who choose a vocation like any of us--it's just that their choice is commit wholly to their faith (or at least that's the presumptive purpose). That choice does not endow them with some unique ability for divine insight.

Who said anything about a unique ability for divine insight?

Look up the definition of "messenger" in most dictionaries and you'd find things such as the following:

a person who carries a message or is employed to carry messages.
synonyms:courier, runner, envoy, emissary, agent, go-between, message-bearer;

Nothing about divine inspiration....

[GGGG]

That all may be well and good, Benny, but these priests literally are held up as paragons of virtue. They literally are held up as men of God.

The pedophile baker or mailman or firefighter or journalist or politician is sickening enough, but none of them are being passed off as God's messenger. (Although lots of politicians pass themselves off as God's messengers, it's not the same thing.)

Even the pedophile teacher usually has to earn his prey's trust. Priests are automatically trusted simply because they are men of God.

So while I understand what you're saying, the incidents-per-capita stats you cite mean little IMHO.

I think by far the most distressing part though isn't that priests are assaulting children.  Unfortunately that's going to happen all across society.  It's happened since the dawn of time and will happen well into the future.

The most distressing aspect of this is how the hierarchy of the Church not only systematically ignored it, but actively worked to keep those priests active by shuffling them around and covering it all up.  Not to mention rarely (if ever) contacting the legal authorities.

[GGGG]

A solution? Has to be a total reformation of the Church. Ordaining women and getting rid of celibacy would change the dynamics of what type of people were going into priesthood.

As evidence, there is A LOT less of these actions in Christian denominations where the clergy is allowed to marry and includes women. 

[dgies9156]

The difficulty with dealing with the pedophilia problem in the Roman Catholic Church is the feudal governance system used by the church to concentrate authority.

Like the middle ages, there are  no checks and balances on bishops. Priests have but one reporting line -- to the local bishop -- and in most cases, dioceses are too large to closely manage pastors. In recent years, the Catholic Church has tried to create these checks and balances through parish pastoral councils but the problems is the pastor is still capable of overruling anything a PPC does.

The feudal lord, in this case the bishop, has absolute authority over his kingdom. And, in many places, the bishop or archbishop had an "understood power" among local elected officials that effectively meant that the local mayors and councilmen toed the line the Bishop wanted.

Into this feudal environment came the child abuse scandals. Children would go home and report goings-on in classrooms or in church activities that were irregular to their parents. The parents, indoctrinated to believe that the Bishop, Pastor and Assistant Pastors had dedicated their lives to God and were men of goodwill, were appalled that their children would speak ill of a man of God. And, if they believed their children, where were they to go? If you were in a Catholic Community, nobody would believe you, much less act. If you were in a Protestant community and went to civil authorities, you were anti-Catholic.

That, in no small measure, is why we have a problem. And, to be candid, why our Protestant brothers and sisters have problems as well. The largest Protestant congregation in the Midwest, Willow Creek Church in Barrington, IL is now facing the same problems related to sexual abuse by an elder of a young man. And, of course, many of us remember the sex scandals of the televangalists of the 1980s and 1990s.

[MU82]

Re-read: incidents per capita within religious organizations.  Unless there’s some sort of Baker, Mailman and Journalist religion that sprang up overnight, you’re building straw men from hay in different barns.   

Benny, somehow I missed the "within religious organizations" clause. My apologies.

I don't know, Mike. Do you really think it matters to a child who's been sexually abused if his predator was a Catholic priest or an atheist Boy Scout leader? Or gymnast or football coach? I'm the first one to fault the church for what amounted to a massive cover up, but I don't agree that extra outrage should be assigned to priests, rabbis and ministers. They're sick, but no sicker than other pedophiles.

I think you're twisting my point a little, Lenny.

I'm not saying it matters more after the fact to the victim. I'm saying that one is more likely to be victimized if one completely trusts the potential perpetrator.

Yes, the scout leader or coach also are trusted adults. But I do think there is something about a "man of God" that elevates it to, well, a godlike status. Yes, even above the godlike status of, say, Nick Saban!

Just my opinion. Obviously, I have no evidence that I'm right.

And I agree with you, sultan and others that the real outrage has to be directed at the Catholic church hierarchy.

The church wants an early commitment from kids to be priests. Boys who like girls aren't the ones choosing to become priests, but rather the kids who don't fit in, whether because of their sexual orientation or social awkwardness. He was actually surprised that more priests weren't child molesters.

A solution? Has to be a total reformation of the Church. Ordaining women and getting rid of celibacy would change the dynamics of what type of people were going into priesthood. Telling priests to stop molesting children might be another priority.

Will it happen? Not a chance. The criminal creeps at the top of the church hierarchy have shown their overwhelming priority is to protect child rapists and line their coffers. And, of course, above all, pontificate about their own holiness while they attack adults who were raped as children by their employees.

This is an extremely interesting take and, to me, a logical one.

Ordaining women and ending the celibacy requirement would at least be good starts to see where it takes the church on this issue. I'm pretty sure such basic changes couldn't make things worse and, as you suggest, might go a long way toward the reform that's desperately needed.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

This isn't going to be sources or 100% accurate, as I don't have time right now, but here goes anyway.

A lot of the priests that are doing the abuse/molestation were ordained in the 1950s and 60s.  As expected, many come from large Catholic families.  It was a source of pride to have a son become a priest. 

The oldest son probably isn't going to be pushed into the priesthood by the parents, he has to take over the family farm/business.  The son with the aptitude for medicine or other higher learning gets to pursue that vocation.

It's the "weird" son (remember, this is the 50's and 60's) is the one that is given to God to be a priest.  This solves several problems.  The family get to say they have a priest in the family.  He'll get to baptize and marry the nieces and nephews.  The family isn't scandalized by having a sexually deviant (50s-60s again) son that embarrasses the family.

Next, who are the priests that are teaching in the seminary?  Mainly younger priests, from what I have seen (not sourced).  The seminarians are drawn into a circle of trust with the teacher priests, who turns out they have more in common than the Gospel of St Mark, if ya know what I'm saying.

Plus, the feudal nature of the church as mentioned above and you have this mess we are in now.  People talk about the blue line when it comes to cops not ratting on fellow cops.  Same goes here, human nature makes you protect your friends, irrational as that thought might be.

[Benny B]

That is true today, but when the abuse occurred priests and pastors were looked upon as men of virtue especially in many of the ethnic (ie Polish, Italian, German and Irish) parishes which were the norm in the church for most of its history in America. You should see the excellent film Spotlight about the abuse in Boston that sheds some light on how priests , pastors and bishops were held in high esteem by their parishioners; and for a priest to do such a thing was unthinkable.

I'm certainly not discounting the fact that priests are oft held in high esteem, especially in ethnic groups.  But I can personally attest to there being parishes where the parishioners were/are widely disappointed in their assigned pastor and/or highly skeptical of the pastor's motivations/vision.  My parish in the mid-1980's was one of them.... had any accusations been made by one of our young parishioners at the time - even before accusations were popping up elsewhere - there would have been pitchforks and torches outside our church within an hour.

My point here is that while family members, other parishioners, and lay leaders of the church may have been complicit in some cases - whether for reasons of holding clergy in higher esteem or not - one must not use such a wide brush to apply the same to the majority.  I think we can agree that primary guilt rests with the priests committing the acts and that this cancer was enabled and allowed to fester by the bishops who did the shuttling and silencing. 

But is there something more that the parishioners could have done?  Perhaps in a handful of the cases, but for every parishioner who may have played a small role in aiding and abetting the perpetration of abuse by either denying, ignoring, or disbelieving - whether through action or inaction - in deference to clergy, there were hundreds - if not thousands - of parishioners who were honestly and completely in the dark.

An offshoot of this whole "worse when held to greater standard" argument implies that the parishioners are to some extent culpable to the abuse that occurred within their church, and that's unfair to Catholics who hadn't the slightest knowledge of any abuse when (or even many years after) it was happening yet have universally & unequivocally condemned these acts since day one.

Blanket condemnation of Catholic or their faith for priest abuse is no different than the blanket condemnation of Muslims or Islam for 9/11.  Unfortunately, some people think one is OK and not the other purely for political reasons.  In other words, I don't believe in this so-called anti-Catholic bias (at least nowhere near the level that some wish to imply) exists, but I do believe Catholics - like Muslims - can make for excellent scapegoats when it's politically convenient to do so.

[MUBurrow]

Blanket condemnation of Catholic or their faith for priest abuse is no different than the blanket condemnation of Muslims or Islam for 9/11.  Unfortunately, some people think one is OK and not the other purely for political reasons.  In other words, I don't believe in this so-called anti-Catholic bias (at least nowhere near the level that some wish to imply) exists, but I do believe Catholics - like Muslims - can make for excellent scapegoats when it's politically convenient to do so.

Does the Islamic faith have a similar hierarchical organizational structure to the Catholic Church? I plead ignorance on how Muslim places of worship are structured, geographically and economically.  If Islam in America is not structured similarly, however, I think this comparison falls apart.

The "capital C" Church's hierarchical structure objectively contributed to the scope of the problem and the cover up here, and a number of now very high ranking Catholic leaders have been discovered to have knowingly moved abusive priests from parish to parish.  Every institution will have bad actors, the question is whether those actors are discrete and isolated individuals or connected through an enabling web of higher ups and geographically disparate places of worship.

[Benny B]

Does the Islamic faith have a similar hierarchical organizational structure to the Catholic Church? I plead ignorance on how Muslim places of worship are structured, geographically and economically.  If Islam in America is not structured similarly, however, I think this comparison falls apart.

The "capital C" Church's hierarchical structure objectively contributed to the scope of the problem and the cover up here, and a number of now very high ranking Catholic leaders have been discovered to have knowingly moved abusive priests from parish to parish.  Every institution will have bad actors, the question is whether those actors are discrete and isolated individuals or connected through an enabling web of higher ups and geographically disparate places of worship.

Structure is irrelevant to my point.... a common Catholic and the Catholic faith is no more an enabler of pedophilia than a common Muslim and Islam is an enabler of terrorism.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Structure is irrelevant to my point.... a common Catholic and the Catholic faith is no more an enabler of pedophilia than a common Muslim and Islam is an enabler of terrorism.

Has anyone made this argument?

[Sir Lawrence]

It would be easy to modify the celibacy policy.  Some priests belong to orders that require the vow of poverty (Franciscans & Jesuits, for example).  Others do not (Diocesan priests do not take the vow of poverty).  You could do the same thing with the vow of celibacy:  if it's an important element to a priest's spirituality, then join an order that requires it.  If not, then become a priest and join an order where you don't have to take the vow of celibacy.  I do believe such a change would open up the recruiting pool in the Church.

Those who have opined that the faithful need to push back at the clergy are spot on.  Instead of spending inordinate time and resources changing the text in the Order of Mass (consubstantial with the Father/good grief!  Or my pet peeve: "I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof," instead of "I am not worthy to receive you"--wow, what a game changer) perhaps we the "faithful" need to insist on accountability and correction. 

[rocket surgeon]

  maybe that "celibacy" thing should be considered by the schools for their teachers as well?

[ZiggysFryBoy]

A lot of this cover up was under JP2's papacy.  Wonder if the Vatican is regretting rushing his sainthood through on the fast track. 

John 23 went in on the same day.  He had longer to wait but was also pope during this period.

[MU82]

  maybe that "celibacy" thing should be considered by the schools for their teachers as well?

Nah ... too busy giving them guns.

[WarriorDad]

Madison Bishop Robert C. Morlino's comments didn't go well with many on this topic this past Saturday.

[rocket surgeon]

Nah ... too busy giving them guns.

celibacy, 'ey?  seems most of those teachers having their way with our children are married,  that celibacy thing didn't seem to tame them enough to risk going to jail over their carnal desires

  my point is, in the book-"goodbye, good men"  the author states that the number of men who truly want to be "priests", is understated because everyone thinks the numbers were down because of the celibacy rule.  rather, it was the systemic corruption of the catholic church starting in the seminaries that drove the numbers of "good men"  from the church.  many local references are made in the book, including rembert weakland, and st francis de sales and sacred heart.  the new, young wanna be's were shunned if they did not accept the new order they wanted to establish within the church.  they were either held back from advancing or had to go in for "attitude adjustments".  even then, it was difficult to get promotions.  they established a very secret hedonistic atmosphere of partying and casual sex that permeated the institutions which went against the grain of many who truly wanted to pursue the life of a priest.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Madison Bishop Robert C. Morlino's comments didn't go well with many on this topic this past Saturday.

Morlino's comments on most things dont go over well.

[tower912]

I met Morlino when he was a priest in our diocese in 1981.   My impression of him as a 15 year old was that he was a creepy jerk.  Nothing he has done has improved that opinion.   Drove my best friend from the Catholic Church due to his actions regarding my friend's mom's funeral. 

[MUBurrow]

Structure is irrelevant to my point.... a common Catholic and the Catholic faith is no more an enabler of pedophilia than a common Muslim and Islam is an enabler of terrorism.

But the structure is relevant to the point of creating a moral imperative for change on the part of the common Catholic.  Locality is everything here. The PA report found 300 predator priests across 6 parishes and 100 in Pittsburgh alone over 70 years.  It is not hyperbole to say that entire organization was rotten at its core.  Any organization in any other context with comparable numbers of leadership, economic resources and abusers would be disbanded. 

Does the common Catholic in Pittsburgh have a heightened responsibility to demand a complete overhaul of the Catholic structure there, before they can lend any type of support? I would say yes and that at some point, the common Catholic that continues supporting that organization without transformative reform is an enabler.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

celibacy, 'ey?  seems most of those teachers having their way with our children are married,  that celibacy thing didn't seem to tame them enough to risk going to jail over their carnal desires

  my point is, in the book-"goodbye, good men"  the author states that the number of men who truly want to be "priests", is understated because everyone thinks the numbers were down because of the celibacy rule.  rather, it was the systemic corruption of the catholic church starting in the seminaries that drove the numbers of "good men"  from the church.  many local references are made in the book, including rembert weakland, and st francis de sales and sacred heart.  the new, young wanna be's were shunned if they did not accept the new order they wanted to establish within the church.  they were either held back from advancing or had to go in for "attitude adjustments".  even then, it was difficult to get promotions.  they established a very secret hedonistic atmosphere of partying and casual sex that permeated the institutions which went against the grain of many who truly wanted to pursue the life of a priest.

I could see internal corruption playing a role once men join seminary. But I don't think that explains why there are less and less men going to seminary every year. It's just one example but I might have considered the priesthood if not for the celibacy requirement. I have always known that I was called to have a family so being a priest was never an option for me even though I used to be very heavily involved with the Catholic Church. I have had conversations with several other men who have said the same thing. This all anecdotal of course.

The oath of celibacy is one I think the church should re-examine. Not because their numbers are down, but because there isn't scripture to support it. There is actually is nothing in the bible about celibate priests. Most leaders of the early church were married. It wasn't until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD that it was declared that priests couldn't marry...after ordination. Men who were already married could become priests. In 385 AD the Pope declared that priests could no longer have sex with their wives. An oath of celibacy wasn't required of priests until Pope Gregory VII in the 11th century and it wasn't until the first Lateran Council in 1123 AD that priests were forbidden from marrying.

[muwarrior69]

I could see internal corruption playing a role once men join seminary. But I don't think that explains why there are less and less men going to seminary every year. It's just one example but I might have considered the priesthood if not for the celibacy requirement. I have always known that I was called to have a family so being a priest was never an option for me even though I used to be very heavily involved with the Catholic Church. I have had conversations with several other men who have said the same thing. This all anecdotal of course.

The oath of celibacy is one I think the church should re-examine. Not because their numbers are down, but because there isn't scripture to support it. There is actually is nothing in the bible about celibate priests. Most leaders of the early church were married. It wasn't until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD that it was declared that priests couldn't marry...after ordination. Men who were already married could become priests. In 385 AD the Pope declared that priests could no longer have sex with their wives. An oath of celibacy wasn't required of priests until Pope Gregory VII in the 11th century and it wasn't until the first Lateran Council in 1123 AD that priests were forbidden from marrying.

One of the reasons for a celibate clergy was to insure that the wealth of the church stayed with the church (hierarchy?) rather than going to powerful European families; but you are correct that there is no biblical basis for celibacy. It is just a matter of time before that requirement will be lifted. Look at how many of the pastoral functions the married deacons have taken on in our parishes. I do think a married clergy in the Catholic church will bring a new set of issues to parish life as the parish or the Diocese will have to provide an adequate stipend for the pastor and associate pastors to support a family and the finances of the parishes and Diocese will have to be a lay/clergy partnership where no one person has complete access to to the monies the church collects.