If this is just about equivalent temptations, then why the enormous discrepancy between teenage girls being molested, and teenage boys?
al | 02.29.04 - 6:40 pm | #

Al, check out the interesting graph at Bettinelli's blog.
michigancatholic | 02.29.04 - 11:39 pm | #

Saw Bishops Burke, Dolan, D'Arcy in a post-report panel discussion with Ray Arroyo on EWTN. All said the right things. Will fully expect them to implement the reports in their own sees. What about El Lay? The seething hotbed in Chi-Town? Albany and Rochester? In those places, the local lawyers/prosecutors/judges/media types will be kept extra busy. Sooner or later, easy or hard, the housecleaning will continue.
Gerard E. | 03.01.04 - 8:43 am | #

Did anyone catch Bob Bennet and C. McCarrick with Tim Russert Sunday? The two seemed to differ a bit on the celibacy question. The cardinal stressed that celibacy had to be concentrated on in the teachings of the seminary. That each man, before ordination, had to understand what he was embracing fully and totally to be a part of his very self. One can only believe that, in the past, when there was actual witnessing of real flaunting of the homosexual orientation within the years of the seminary themselves, that there was some great ignorance and fear of the whole sexual person and a certain innocence of what the repercussions of such an openness of expression would mean for the future. Bob Bennet said one bishop told him that in the seminary, whenever sex was mentioned it was spoken of in Latin! It appears then that there was that puritannical taboo that, to be in denial and ignorance was somehow a virtue in that particular and mysterious realm of human reality. Bob Bennet spoke of an examination of celibacy within all those adult relationships, both homo and hetero, that were also discovered to be out there that seemed to be due to human weakness, loneliness, alcoholism, etc. As I've always felt, we're in this God forsaken culture, by choice, together, and God help us!
Chris K | 03.01.04 - 10:10 am | #

Celibacy is not a cure for homosexuality. Chastity, properly understood, is.
al | 03.01.04 - 10:18 am | #

I can believe that there was a reluctance to discuss celibacy/chastity in the Catholic seminaries but I'm kind of a dumb uneducated Catholic and I *got* it when I was a kid (as do most laypeople) and so did the vast majority of priests who went through seminary through the ages...

I found it interesting that on "World Over Live" (excellent show w/ review board members, some bishops and Neuhaus and Weigel) two bishops seem to support excluding those with a homosexual orientation from seminaries (Burke & D'Arcy) while one (Dolan) seemed less convinced of that idea. All articulated their positions very well and gave a lot of food for thought. I still can't figure out where Bishop Gregory stands on the issue. Tough to tell for all his stuttering and stammering when asked the point blank question. All I could get out of him is that we need another panel to study the issue (groan).
Colleen | 03.01.04 - 10:43 am | #

"As to the rest, my first recommendation is simply that bishops such as Howard Hubbard hold themselves to the same standard they require of their priests and that, failing that, their brother bishops loudly rebuke them for their rank hypocrisy. I'd also say that the faithful have every right to make life extremely uncomfortable for men like Hubbard should they choose to ignore the policies they themselves have instituted for others. And most of all, may God bless Caesar as he does his God-given job."

Aren't we presuming Hubbard's guilt? I don't think that has been established.

Though, I do think you have a point in the sense that it is unfair that priests must be removed from their posts for a "credible allegation" (whatever that means) but bishops are not so removed. There inevitably must be some unfairness because the sacramental and jurisdictional relationship between a bishop and his flock is different that of a priest. A priest is a representative of the bishop. A bishop, however, isn't a representative of anyone other than God Himself. The Bishop is the sovereign of the diocese in similar way that Queen Elizabeth is the sovereign of England. This "unfairness" can never be totally rectified in accordance with American egalitarian standards.

On the other hand, just as a king can be forced to give up his rule, yet still reign, the bishops should have come up with an Episcopal Visitor structure where, if a bishop were "credibly accused" (those magic words again) of sexually abusing minors, in which another bishop could temporarily administer the diocese while the issue of the bishops' guilt or innocence is sorted out. In the meantime, the bishop remains the ordinary of the diocese, and does not need to resign. Why the bishops did not do that, I don't know.


Also, I do not see Caesar as doing his God-given job when Casear allows his prosecutors and his courts dictate who a bishop may ordain and retain in the ministry. It was an abomination when Thomas Cromwell purged the Catholic clergy of pederasts and other undesirables and it is an abomination now.
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 03.01.04 - 10:59 am | #

Also, I do not see Caesar as doing his God-given job when Casear allows his prosecutors and his courts dictate who a bishop may ordain and retain in the ministry. It was an abomination when Thomas Cromwell purged the Catholic clergy of pederasts and other undesirables and it is an abomination now.

Are you saying that priests should be immune under the law from criminal prosecution until they are laicized by the Church? Sorry, but that's not going to happen and it most definitely should not happen. For starters, if it did, parents of the victims might (quite understandably) take things into their own hands and start killing priestly pederasts.

If you meant that the state has no right to force the Church to discipline criminal priests, but is free to prosecute them, then I agree with you.
Publius | 03.01.04 - 11:11 am | #

As one who was propositioned by a gay priest during my high school days in boarding school - I can attest with real authority to the extent of the problem and its proper solution.

(first of all- being propositioned as opposed to actually molested still leaves a terriable scar.
I kept silient - was deeply ashamed- blamed myself - thought I somehow brought it on myself - and questioned my self worth and orientation until my 30's)

Even though the distinction between orientation and behavior is valid & homosexual virgins with proper training can make good priests -Fot the time being (next 30-70 years) we should try to eliminate new seminarians with such orientation.

Also - we should root out those who are actively practicing homosex as well.

The voice of authority has spoken.
Response?

Thanks
God Bless
Fitz
Fitz | 03.01.04 - 11:37 am | #

Publius,

Sorry for the inclarity. I meant the latter. Clergy have never been immune from prosecution in the United States and I don't see why we should start now.

Perhaps Mark was referring to the criminal prosecution of predatory priests. If so, I misinterpreted him badly.
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 03.01.04 - 11:40 am | #

Perhaps Mark was referring to the criminal prosecution of predatory priests. If so, I misinterpreted him badly.

That's what I took him to mean. Giving Caesar the authority to regulate who is and isn't ordained would mean giving Caesar the power to insist the Church ordain women, or insist the Church ordain only those who say "gay is good". I doubt Mark would be foolish enough to want Caesar to have that power.
Publius | 03.01.04 - 11:50 am | #

I think Fitz's post deserves a response form our priest commenters because it is cases like his----unsuccessful hook-ups by gay priests with male students-----that makes the entire Situation bigger than it actually seemed to have been.

And many gay priests are only in ministry because they haven't been snitched on. They are "out", everyone knows they're gay, but no "credible allegation" has been broght forth.

Just how effective can a non-celibate priest be how goes about looking as though he has the Sword of Damacles over his head?
cs | 03.01.04 - 12:16 pm | #

"the statistics show that 80% of the victims were adolescent males who were abused by priests who not only were homosexually orientated, but who acted on that orientation and, in the case of a great many of them, celebrated and even flaunted it. And to pretend otherwise is simply a loud, thumping, brazen LIE."

Perhaps, but when one says "this is a problem of gay priests who can't keep their hands off the youngins" there is a significant dynamic that one misses. Before the report came out, my assumption would have been that the offenses would have been mostly with young men/boys aged 15-17. However, the peak year was 12, with higher levels at 11 and 13 than at 16-17. This surprised me, because, a 11 and 12 year old is just barely pubescent, if at all. Just why these ages were chosen, I don't really know and it doesn't really completely square with the "out of control gay priest" explanation unless one accepts the view (which I don't) that a 12 year old is the ideal sex partner for a homosexual. There is at least one other dynamic at play that is at least as critical as the fact that the overwhelming majority of alleged victims were male.

Also, I had limited sympathy towards victims because, for the most part, I saw them as 15-17 year olds that made certain choices that, in retrospect, wish they hadn't made and therefore cried "I'm a sex abuse victim!" in the same way that some women cry rape after a consensual encounter that they engage in, but later regreat. The same thing cannot really be said of a 11-12 year old. In this sense, the abuse crisis was much worse than I originally thought.

I was also surprised that the majority of offenders only had one offense. This, too, was counter to the conventional wisdom. (They, of course, could be extremely repetitive offenders that haven't been caught, but the data hasn't established that fact.) Perhaps, many of these priests allowed themselves to get into a situation that they should not have and made the fatal decision that they did -perhaps one that they did not ever believe that they would do - because they had placed themselves in that "occasion of sin." I think one of the few priests in Washington who was removed by Cardinal McCarrick was in just this situation - an affair with a teenage girl 20 years ago. The high prevalence of priests who only had one victim gives me much greater questions about the justice of "zero tolerance" policies than I have before. Unfortunately, zero tolerance may have to stay, given the demands of public opinion and the dire exposure to legal liability if a bishop ever kept an abuser on.

In short, these reports did in fact change the way that I viewed the crisis in ways that I would not have expected.
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 03.01.04 - 12:21 pm | #

"Before the report came out, my assumption would have been"

Make that "my assumption was." That's what I get when I edit things improprely.
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 03.01.04 - 12:28 pm | #

improperly. Gad!
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 03.01.04 - 12:29 pm | #

Patrick,
I would dispute that anyone can properly "consent" to sodomy, but can you really say that 15 to 17 year old males can actually "consent" to such a relationship with an authority figure? Again were talking about someone being "inducted" into a "lifestyle" here, not merely "choosing" to lose their virginity.
al | 03.01.04 - 12:34 pm | #

I think a sub-set of this whole thing is the homosexual (and maybe sometimes heterosexual activities, I just haven't seen much of this documented) sinful behaviour of some priests.. for instance, Christopher Reardon was a youth group leader in a Catholic parish in Massachusetts. Eventually he was charged and found guilty of the abuse of boys in his charge... read somewhere that there are probably over 200 molested by him... anyhow, most of this abuse went on in the parish and the parish priest looked the other way because he was banging guys in his room. Used condoms found by the housekeeper...

It's pretty deep.
Colleen | 03.01.04 - 12:49 pm | #

al,

I would agree that the fact that the person is an authority figure makes it less likely that there would be complete consent. On the other hand, I certainly believe that a 15-17 year old certainly could consent to a sexual relationship with an "authority figure." Here's a story where such a thing did happen. When I was in the scouts, there was a successful scout troop (not mine) in which the scoutmaster was having a sexual relationship with one of his senior scouts who was 16-17. Many of us scouts thought that their relationship was quite suspicious, though we couldn't prove anything. He received incredible preferential treatment and was showered with gifts. He seems to enjoy the goodies and the attention, and didn't mind hiding it. Only after their friendship went kaput, did he complain that he was molested, which we learned from the rumor mill. The prevailing attitude at the time, including mine, was that he was quite willing to trade money and goodies for sex. He only complained when the goodies stopped flowing in. What the Scoutmaster did was outrageous, but it did not follow from the outrageousness of the act that the scout was some sort of "innocent victim." He wasn't.
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 03.01.04 - 12:53 pm | #

Patrick,
Frankly I don't believe any adolescent is capable of consenting to such a thing, because they are unaware of the ultimate effects
al | 03.01.04 - 1:19 pm | #

Al,

I really don't understand your argument that a precondition for consent to an act is knowledge of the "ultimate effects" of the act.

At least to me, that seems to rob consent of virtually any possible meaning for anyone. Moreover, adolescents may be rash or impulsive, but as moral agents, they aren't exactly potted plants either.
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 03.01.04 - 2:04 pm | #

Patrick,
1) Adolescents, in virtue of chronological immaturity, have an attenuated moral culpability anyway.

2) That's the criterion for contracting marriage--knowledge of end and effects, so if there's not full knowledge, requisite consent is lacking. Especially in boys who mature more slowly than girls.
al | 03.01.04 - 2:10 pm | #

Couldn't the lower number of 15-17 year olds be accounted for by a lower reporting rate? It is quite possible that a good deal of sexual activity between priests and 15-17 year olds was consensual and therefore never reported as abuse.
Mark Cameron | Homepage | 03.01.04 - 2:10 pm | #

al,

Your argument can't possibly be right, because under canon law, 16 year old men (14 year olds under the 1917 code) could contract marriage. Besides, there is a difference between knowledge of "ends" and "effects" and "ultimate effects." You are confusing apples and oranges, but exactly how its not clear to me. Perhaps you are using the term "ultimate effects" to be some sort of consequentialist reasoning or some other form of specialized philisophical reasoning that no normal person ever does.

On the other hand, I would not deny that adolescents often have lesser degrees of moral culpability than full adults. "Often" however, does not equal "never."

Mark C,

Yours is a good explanation that I thought of. That may very well be the right answer, but I honestly don't know what it is, and I'm not sure who does.
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 03.01.04 - 2:24 pm | #

The ultimate effects of marriage, being natural and laudible need not be understood in their full implications to be consentable.

Since however in a sodomitic/catamitic relationship, the ultimate effects are always bad, and can be bad in unforseen ways (habituation. . . . ) then the diminished moral capacity of such minors would seem to argue against full consent.
al | 03.01.04 - 2:39 pm | #

al,

I'm sorry, but that argument only goes so far as to argue that minors "often" are not capable of full consent. It certainly does not mean that minors are never capable of such consent. Now, if you want to make a charitible presumption that the minor did not give full and deliberate consent, that's fine and dandy. I would do the same for an adult as well. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Howeover, if a minor can make a sufficiently deliberate choice to do a sexual act that is considered to be laudable and good, by everyone, i.e. marriage, then he must also be capable of choosing (or at least not incapable of choosing) a sexual act which is bad. Otherwise, the concept of "consent" is a rather Pickwickian one at best.
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 03.01.04 - 3:00 pm | #

al,

Are you saying that 15 year olds are incapable of the assent required to sin mortally? To accept confirmation?
Ed | 03.01.04 - 3:16 pm | #

Could somebody provise a link to all the graph?

The one have seen seem to boil down the follwing profile or pattern: The typical incident was that of a mid-teen/adolescent male molested in the early 80's by a graduate of the seminary class of 1970. The perp is an gay ephebohile product of the 60's.

Right guys?

Comments.
fenwik | 03.01.04 - 3:23 pm | #

No I'm saying its the adult, because of their greater experience and exposure to ill effects (psychological and physical) who bears the greater moral burden.

Thus it is innacurate to depict it as a consensual act between two consenting equals. The young person has insufficient knowledge and perspective, and the older person has a greater burden here.

I would refer you to the distinctions made in traditional moral doctrine between seduction, fornication. . .
al | 03.01.04 - 3:29 pm | #

Yes...No...
The Priest in question in my case was trying to seduce me into it. Seduction is not purley or even remotely bassed on sex.
His rehtoric was desinged to use shame.. to twist it so as if it was I who was coming onto him.. and yes to use his authority to corner me into allowing molestation.

Wake up people...
Once a young man (inexperienced & insecure in his image of himself as a man...exspecialy efeminate & weak willed) sobmits to sodomy or orall copulation...he is scarred for life.
He will turn the shame onto himself, give into lust..and reveal in the power of his new "female" desirability..

This is how gay men are "made" to a great degree.
any comments?
Fitz | 03.01.04 - 3:53 pm | #

"I would refer you to the distinctions made in traditional moral doctrine between seduction, fornication. . ."

I am not aware that, in the case of seduction, the seductee (for lack of a better word) by definition lacks moral culpability altogether, though I would agree that, normally, the adolescent would have less culpability than the adult, but it does not follow from that because one person has a greater moral burden than the other, that the person with the lesser burden did not consent at all, and therefore morally home-free.
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 03.01.04 - 5:01 pm | #

Patrick,
I am satisfied with the preservation of disparity you suggest.
al | 03.01.04 - 5:17 pm | #

Well, we actually agree on something! Strike it up for a successful dialogue!
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 03.01.04 - 5:25 pm | #

I was also surprised that the majority of offenders only had one offense. This, too, was counter to the conventional wisdom



Let us not forget these reports were from the bishops, not the victims. Their creditability is somewhere between none and nonexistent.
Larry Tierney | 03.01.04 - 5:37 pm | #

This is disturbing....

We have a victim here on the comments thread and everyone else would rather talk about the nuances of moral theology.

Fitz, this is how the Church got into this mess.
cs | 03.01.04 - 6:41 pm | #

I think Fitz is dead on, on all counts.
al | 03.01.04 - 6:58 pm | #

Thank you al.
Its very simple to me.
These are oversexed homosexuals looking for young victims and new recruits to the gay "family"

I was lucky I resisted - and yet the scar remains ( I wear it proudly now)

I think they pray on the weak and vulnerable kids who may give in.

The stats on how many Homosexuals were "initiated" while young is like 30-40%.
How do you ever recover and have the self esteem to win a women?

Lucky my Dad had already told me -they cant reproduce so they must recruit...

Makes sense to me..(thats why somany more gay men then lesbians)

So anyway...
Think about the dynamics
Fitz | 03.01.04 - 7:19 pm | #

This whole thing happened because bishops refuse to deal with priest who broke their promise of celibacy ,, period .
Bishops turned thier heads when they found out priest were having affairs with adult women , so the abuse with children just fell in with that and bishops ignored it . I read somewhere(don't know how true it is) that only ten percent of priest stay celibate throughout thier entire life . the key thing here is chastity it much be taught in our schools ,parishes and of course the seminaries . Though i would add the barr must be raised higher for candidates for the seminary who have a homosexual orientation .
Gary | 03.02.04 - 3:52 pm | #

I do think it is right that bishops release the names of priest and others who had accusations made agianst them to the public . Because some of the former priest may be teachers or youth workers .

Bishops who clearly took part in shuffling predator priest should resign . If they really loved the church they would resign now . But i feel they do not , becuase their presence is only hurting the church . Which young man would want to be a priest in a diocese led by a man who clearly committed such deadly sins .
Gary | 03.02.04 - 3:58 pm | #

fenwick,
If noone gave it to you yet, here's
the link to Bettinelli's blog for the graph you asked for

http://bettnet.dyndns.org/blog/w....php? id=M200402
Luciana | 03.03.04 - 11:03 pm | #

Patrick, it is NOT an abomination when government "purges the Catholic clergy of pederasts and other undesirables." If the church will not do it, then the government must. The abomination is when the Christian behaves worse than the pagan does, even though the pagan has no other motivation than self-interest tempered with prudence.

We have allowed large sectors of the church to become gay brothels by our negligence and we wonder why the secular society is failing to take us serious....

It could get worse. Our corruption could cause us a lot of trouble in the future.....just keep that in mind when you decide how far you think this can fly before it crashes...
michigancatholic | 03.05.04 - 3:48 pm | #

I'm not sure that justice would be served by releasing names of all accused. I used to be a schoolteacher and am aware of what goes on, re accusation.

However, I think it only right that the names of ALL accused, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE, by given to the local police departments to be sifted for statute of limitations requirements. And I think that all accusations that are currently within the statute of limitations should be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Accusations that are outside the statute should be treated precisely like they would be for any other person, ie part of a person's police record. Legally, unfortunately, usually there's not much one can do about accusations outside the statute. Just like with any other pervert--you snooze, you loose.

In the future, ALL ACCUSATIONS should be reported immediately to local law enforcement and prosecuted irrespective of clergy/lay position. A pervert is a pervert.
catholic | 03.05.04 - 3:58 pm | #

Hello All--

I mean no offense toward Fitz, but I have to wonder if all the accusations are, in fact, "credible." Never forget that there's money involved, and I believe that more than one of the accusers is accusing in hopes of getting a few bucks.

That said, those priests who are convicted should be dealt with harshly. Perhaps a special monastery, where they are kept busy every waking moment and haven't the time or energy to commit these heinous acts?
Marie | 03.05.04 - 6:39 pm | #