10 Myths about Priestly Pedophilia

[dennisrwood]

www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0011.html

[Avatar]

Interesting, and despite a clear bias there, (to be expected), nothing much that doesn't make perfect sense. Bit of equivocation in terms of definition, but they don't use it to hide anything, so thats good too.

Only one I really have any problem with is number 6, partly because of my own disposition to be suspicious of anything that claims any group of people is more likely to do something than any other group of people, and partly because I'd like to see more independent verification of the figures, as well as know things like where the sample was taken, etc.

--Avatar

[Fist and Faith]

I've always loved #3: Married clergy would make pedophilia and other forms of sexual misconduct go away. I was a virgin until I was 22. NOT because it was a moral choice or fear of disease. I desperately wanted sex!! I can't stress that enough. Unfortunately, I was clueless about women. And then there's my marriage, which I won't get into too much, but sex was definitely a problem.

My point, and I do have one, is that, despite living most of my 41 years without getting ANYWHERE NEAR as much sex as I wanted, I NEVER, EVER, NOT EVEN ONCE considered pedophilia. Nor do I look at any of the female clients at my job (I work with developmentally disabled adults, usually mental retardation is at least part of the problem.), and consider doing anything with them. As disgusting as it is, some people actually do!

But people don't do any of these things because they're not getting enough sex. They do it because they're sick and disgusting.

[Iryssa]

I've always loved #3: Married clergy would make pedophilia and other forms of sexual misconduct go away. ...But people don't do any of these things because they're not getting enough sex. They do it because they're sick and disgusting.

SO true, Fist...
All in all I thought this was a pretty good article. I don't have much to add, really (you guys have effectively covered most of my thoughts on it *grin*). I think most clearheaded people are outraged about the cases of sexual abuse among the clergy, not ONLY because it's SICK, but because these men are supposed to be people of moral uprightness (according to Biblical standards), and because of how they could have used their influence in order to commit such heinous acts.

*sigh* It's all very saddening to think about.

[duchess of malfi]

Yep, I agree with Fist as well. Celibacy certainly doesn't lead someone to molest a child. Mental/emotional/moral illness does.

[Plissken]

# The Catholic hierarchy has done nothing to address pedophilia.

While we can all agree that the hierarchy hasn't done enough, this claim is nevertheless false. When the Church's Code of Canon Law was revised in 1983, an important passage was added: "The cleric who commits any other offense against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, if the offense was committed with violence or threats, or publicly or with a minor who is under 16 years [now extended to 18 years], must be punished with just punishments, not excluding expulsion from the clerical state" (CIC 1395:2).

But that certainly isn't the only thing the Church has done. The bishops, beginning with Pope Paul VI in 1967, issued a warning to the Catholic faithful concerning the negative consequences of the sexual revolution. The pope's encyclical letter, "On the Celibacy of the Priests," addressed the question of a celibate priesthood in the face of a culture crying out for greater sexual "freedom." The pope affirmed celibacy even as he called on bishops to take responsibility for "fellow priests troubled by difficulties which greatly endanger the divine gift they have." He advised the bishops to seek appropriate help for these priests, or, in grave cases, to seek a dispensation for priests who could not be helped. In addition, he urged them to be more prudent in judging the fitness of candidates for the priesthood.

In 1975, the Church issued another document called "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" (written by Joseph Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) that explicitly addressed, among other issues, the problem of homosexuality among priests. Both the 1967 and 1975 documents addressed kinds of sexual deviancy, including pedophilia and ephebophilia, that are is especially prevalent among homosexuals.

In 1994, the Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse issued guidelines to the nation's then 191 dioceses to help them develop policies to deal with the problem of sexual abuse of minors. Almost all dioceses responded and developed their own policies (USCCB document: Guidelines for dealing with Child Sexual Abuse, 1993-1994). By this time, pedophilia was recognized as a disorder that could not be cured, and a problem that was becoming more prevalent due to the increase of pornography. Before 1994, bishops took their cue from experts in the psychiatric profession who believed pedophilia could be successfully treated. Priests guilty of sexual abuse were sent to one of several treatment facilities across the United States. Bishops often relied upon the judgments of experts in determining whether priests were fit for ministry. This doesn't mitigate the negligence on the part of some in the hierarchy, but it does offer some insight.

In response to the recent scandals, some dioceses are setting up special commissions on child abuse, as well as victims' advocacy groups; and they are officially acknowledging that any legitimate allegation of abuse must be dealt with immediately.

So, to review, it is a myth that the Church hasn't done enough about priests who have sex with children because:

-There was a revision of canon law in 1987, whereby the worst a priest could expect was to lose his priesthood if he's a pedophile,

-A pope who mentioned the dangers of the sexual reveloution in 1967,

-A cardinal somewhere wrote a paper on homosexuality, and linked homosexuality to pedophilia in 1975,

-And finally, in 1994, some guidelines were issued about How to Deal with Child Abuse in Your Diocise. Each diocise allowed to form it's own plan regarding the problem.

I wonder how many of these diocises decided that the offending priest would be handed over to the authorities for trial?

Nope they haven't done nothing- Why, since 1967, they've done four things!

[Iryssa]

Well, that'll teach people to exaggerate

I do agree that they could do more...I think that part of the problem is that it's such a taboo in the church, so not one really wants to touch it...it's like no one know HOW to deal with it. Must be tricky....not that that's an excuse, really...

[Plissken]

Well, it kind of burns me up. I actually thought that the Church had done more than this over the years, so to find out that they've essentially written some term papers and a memo is more than a tad disappointing.

I mean, how tough is it to say, "If you have sex with a child, you'll be turned over to the law for prosecution?"

[dennisrwood]

actually the Pope did tell them to stop muddling about and confront it head on. as a Catholic may I offer a simple solution?

If a priest is found to have committed any sexual offense, at any time, call the police.

and make Law retire. don't invite him to Mass. make him retire. now, right now.

[Plissken]

And yet the Pope gave Law a promotion, knowing that it would require him to give a special, highly public Mass as a part of the funeral rites.

There are some serious holes here.

[Metal-Demon]

Are they serious?? I mean ... do they actually believe that??

[Avatar]

Actually believe what M-D?

And to be fair there Plissken, the paragraph is headed "..done nothing.." and the author does say that it can be agreed that enough hasn't been done. Semantically, and by the rules of logic, that section can't be faulted.

As the author himself says though, not enough has been done, which I'm sure we all agree with.

--A

[Plissken]

Actually believe what M-D?

And to be fair there Plissken, the paragraph is headed "..done nothing.." and the author does say that it can be agreed that enough hasn't been done. Semantically, and by the rules of logic, that section can't be faulted.

As the author himself says though, not enough has been done, which I'm sure we all agree with.

--A

Yes, buts it's all just a clever propaganda piece anyway - it answers a bunch of "myths" that, even if they were believed by the reader, are beside the point. Then in the middle of this "mythbusting" the apologista drops this long winded version of what the Church has done to stop priests from having sex with kids. The answer, if you look hard enough, is that priests have been told not to have sex, priests have been told not to have sex again, priests have been told not to have homosexual sex, and a memo was sent to each diocise, instructing them to do whatever they wanted to keep their priests from having sex with kids.

This information, coming for me as it does on the tail end of a huge investigation, which was blocked at every turn by the Church, is a little maddening.

They never once tried to deal with the problem head on. Instead the had to have dealing with it forced upon them by a rabid media blitz, and a determined prosecutor's office.

The Church is the only organisation I know of where the victims of pedophiles have to march around in public holding signs that say, "I'm the victim of a pedophile!" before justice is done to the pedophile.

[Sheriff Lytton]

And the strange thing is, the defence is always the same see here

Perish the thought he could have phoned the police or done anything with an ounce of moral integrity

[Plissken]

How, more broadly, can the Church’s teaching on questions such as birth control, divorce and homosexuality be taken seriously when its hierarchy has refused to take seriously the sexual assault of children? The Roman Catholic Church has an important and ongoing role as a moral leader in our society and a profound responsibility to the faithful, many of whom have an understandable sense of betrayal. The Cardinal has a responsibility to account fully for his actions and those of dioceses around the entire country. The Church is not supposed to be run by a self-serving bureaucracy, but by priests whose sacred duty is to serve those who believe.

That about covers it.

[Sheriff Lytton]

That about covers it.

It certainly does. I thought that passage hit the nail right on the head.

The whole thing's disgusting, but it's been going on for an awfully long time now. Before anyone gets carried away here, a sense of perspective is important. As has been stated in the article Dennis posted the link to at the top of this thread, the incidence of paedophilia among priests is comparable to that of married men.

However, that is not the real cause of concern. When a senior cleric is aware one of his priests is sexually abusing children, and does not report it to the police then he's aiding and abetting him. When he posts him to another position where he has the opportunity to carry on sexually abusing children then that senior cleric is encouraging paedophilia.

Since when did any adult need ****ing guidelines to know they should call the police when they know of an adult sexually abusing children?

That's the worst excuse I've ever heard. And that's what frightens people so much - that someone in such a position of power as Cormack Murphy O'Connor can preside over such an abomination - not just for the actions of one priest but quite a lot of them.

Many people were appalled that he kept his job, but making him a Cardinal ? Here was a man who had used the power structure of the church to protect the interests of paedophiles, and here was that same system publicly rewarding him. It turned a lot of people's stomachs and lost the church a lot of respect.

It's not the number of priests that commit acts of child abuse that's the real sickener. It's the fact that the church (in whom so many place their unquestioning faith and trust) sees fit to ensure these men are not held accountable for their actions and are placed in situations that make it easy for them to re-offend.

That's commonly known as a paedophile ring. It's really no wonder Britain's become such a non-religious nation.

[Fist and Faith]

I haven't ever heard about what the parents of the abused did. I think there's a decent chance that, if my child was sexually abused by anybody, I'd make it physically impossible for that person to ever abuse anyone again.

If I didn't take that route, I'd certainly take every legal action I could. The priest's/teacher's/etc superiors would hear about it from the police, because I wouldn't go to them first, saying, "Hey! What are you gonna do about that molester!" Duh.

I wonder how much money some parents took to ignore the whole thing. The thought that the child would get whatever counseling the parents asked for, and a free education at any college in the world, would possibly seem like the best way to deal with it. If, that is, it didn't mean the priest was free to go do it again and again. Parents who took money and let that happen are also disgusting. If my kid was abused, and I found out another parent had done that, things would get ugly.

[Avatar]

Great posts, Plissken, Sheriff and Fist. And as Fist mentions, and as has been said in related threads, the parents themselves seem to be enabling this. Whether through greed, fear of sahme or whatever, I don't know.

But certainly the church should be finding this out after it's been reported to the police. And Child Protection. And Social Services. And everybody else too. It can't be covered up then. And there'll be far more pressure on them to take meaningful action.

--A

[Plissken]

Ordinarily, I wouldn't cut the parents that much slack - but when it's the person you've entrusted the care of your soul to, and his boss, and his boss, and you've been raised believing that these men are Christ' representation on earth, and they're the ones telling you that it's okay, and the problem's been taken care of...

Let's just say I'm willing to cut the parents a little slack this time.

[Avatar]

Hmm, good point in this case. I guess that as "unbelievers" it's not something we took into account.

--Avatar