Ö÷²¥´óÐã

One statement that should give us all a moment of pause was reiterated on Sunday's show. The allegation that Priestly Celibacy is directly connected to paedophilia has become a piece of conventional wisdom. But it could also be considered a dangerous and prejudicial statement that has no evidential support. Paedophilia has not been connected with sexual repression. There is usually comorbidity with other mental problems, and a celibate priest is no more likely to be a paedophile than any other randomly selected male adult (0.3% if memory serves). Yet Philip Jenkins could find numerous media reprts in the early 1990s that suggested that perhaps 6 percent of Catholic clergy were "pedophiles," some six thousand priests in the U.S. alone.
A protestant historian at Penn State, Jenkins has published work on crime and the media, and especially moral panics. (He has some very interesting work on serial killers if anyone is into that sort of thing.) He has identified the 1990's media storm over Clerical abuse as a kind of "moral panic" stirred up by Catholic liberals who wanted clerical reform and traditionalists who believed that the clergy had been subverted by a "homosexualist movement".
But Jenkin's studies of Churches in the US found that Priests were no more likely to be engaged in abuse than their secular counterparts (teachers, coaches, youth workers etc.) and that school boards also engaged in coverups. It would seem that there is nothing intrinsic to Roman Catholicism that entails higher rates of sexual abuse.
At the same time, people should expect tye Body of Christ to produce less criminality than it's secular counterparts. So there are warranted theological and moral critiques that the Roman Catholic church has to answer. It is also natural for individuals to question their faith in their Church when they find that they were no safer in the Churches care than in the world.
Therein lies the problem for the media. They have a responsibility to cover the story. But how do you cover the story without creating a "moral panic"? How can you aim for balance without sounding like an apologist for abusers? Doesn't the public have a right to express it's outrage?

I think it would be unfair to ask Will at the minute, as he's on the outskirts of the storm, even if it is as an observing journalist. (But at a much later date it would be nice to have his thoughts on this). So John... where are you? Where are your thoughts?

GV

"At the same time, people should expect tye Body of Christ to produce less criminality than it's secular counterparts."

What vomit-worthy, self-glorifying moral arrogance. A believer saying "We are better because.......we are we, believers." A wonderfully circular way to define yourself into moral superiority. Barf. Fortunately you point out yourself that in reality it simply doesn't work out that way. If you do see that Graham, then why post things like that?

Guys I have put a link on the other thread, 'Should the Catholic Church pay more', (post #34) which might be informative to this discussion.

Hi RJB,

I read the story you linked on the other thread. It sounds as awful as the things you posted about your own experiences. Which makes me wonder about something. I understand why the actions of abusive priests wouldn't necessarily make you lose faith, as those are two different things. But on another thread you also said to mccamley that you were upset about not having a church anymore. Why would you still want to have one? On another forum (now a mostly dead one) I debated some christians who were not attached to any church at all. No less serious believers for it, they just didn't have anything for a church. I think petermorrow recently even said he wouldn't mind seeing the churches go, if I remember correctly (please ignore if I didn't, too late/lazy to look up the post). Why do you still want to be part of one? Is it the sense of a community to be part of? That is possible in organizations other than churches. Why not turn to those, given the associations that churches have to you, that I presume will never disappear?

Other organizations may not offer all aspects of a community that churches offer, but at least they also lack one thing that I think is important in the bad things that happen: the position of natural respect and authority that clergy enjoy among at least part of their congregation. I can't imagine perpetrators getting away with it as much as in a church. Grahams opening post in this thread more or less suggested that what happened with abuse scandals in churches was no different from e.g. schools. I don't buy that. If the ministry of education here, in Ireland or in the US had orchestrated an extensive cover-up, relocating numerous known repeat-offending teachers, the minister of education would be out the same day the story broke and the rest of the government would follow before the week was out. And I'm fine with that. As you would know, I think skepticism is a mentally healthy thing, so no automatic respect, and outspoken criticism (if properly channeled) can also be a very good thing. So for me, holy ideas and automatically respected persons would always be non-starters. But even if you're not inclined to think that way, why would you still want to go near what I think you might agree helps enable terrible things to happen? Why not go somewhere else where that is absent?

greets,
Peter

Hi Peter and thanks for thought provoking post. I'll respond as honestly as I can.

The points you make really dig deep into my psyche. They are questions I've been asked and had to ask myself. For example, after I got away from all the abuse, I was internally raging at the church and promised myself I would never go near it again. I went off to work as any young guy would, but six years later I applied for senior seminary (diocesan as opposed to order.) Was it like the battered woman who continually chooses the violent man? My sexual and emotional maturation had been halted abruptly in my teenage years, was I running from what "normal" young men take in their stride? Intimacy, relationships? (I certainly was terrified, I remember that distinctly.) Was I running away? Was I returning to what I knew?

Was I returning to "sort out" the institution?

I was certainly pretty wild when I got out of junior seminary. The seminary doors closed behind me and the pub door opened. I see now that I used alcohol like an anaesthetic, a pain killer. I didnt see that at the time though. A psychologist friend reckoned that having been in such an oppressive regime in my teenage years where every second of the day was timetabled, I couldnt cope with the freedom I was now living in entering into adulthood. So I returned to where I perceived I wouldnt have to make decisions, take responsibility. (There's a lot more to it than that, but that'll give you an indication of some of the questioning.)

The good thing was, the senior seminary I went to was unlike any other I know or have heard of since. No bell for lecture, you've got a watch - be there. No cassocks, no Father this or Father that. First name terms for everyone. No 'seniores priores.' Every traditional unquestioned 'catholic' belief ripped apart critically and an encouragement to form your conscience from the start again. The church believes this, but what do YOU believe?

90% for an essay where I argued against catholic teaching on contraception. Liberation theology, spirituality which was connected to my life, not a sign of rosary beads anywhere. The edict of Milan was the beginning of the decline of christianity. Discuss.

This place set me on fire within, I loved it. I began to embrace Christianity for the first time. I began to make sense of so many things. I also began to realise just how screwed up the junior seminary had been.

I also believe that, had I not gone there, I would be dead now.

I learned about the gospel for the first time. Forgiveness was something we actually did to each other, each day. It was the most incredible place. Forward looking men. Courageous, thinking men. Leaders being formed, not lap dogs. Jesus was real.

I took all of this into the priesthood. I tried to show my people the jewel I had found. I tried to create a parish where everyone was welcome. Where what was important was how we treated each other, not how many times we attended church or the 'Sunday best' clothes people wore. My parishes flourished and were packed, alive, active.

Then one Sunday, I was preaching on "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" and I stopped mid sermon. I told the people that I had been witholding a terrible truth and I couldnt do it any more. So I told them.

There then began what I've described on another thread. I told the police and my life has never been the same since. (My parishioners backed me to the hilt, but it wasnt enough to sustain me through the can of worms I had opened.)

So why do I say they (the abusers, the 'fellow' clergymen who slaughtered me, the right wingers etc.. etc..) stole my church from me? Why does it bother me? Why dont I just go off and forget about it and work in an office and live out what I believe on my own?

Because I'm not a hermit. Because I neeed "two or three gathered in my name." Because, living in those communities, learning and, hopefully, teaching, was the most precious thing I ever found in my life and I miss it and grieve for it.

That's about as simply as I can put it, Peter. Listening to guys describe what they believe on here, what they do, how they live, the communities they belong to, whether believing or not, but trying to be just and fair and good in their own way, that's what I miss.

This is pathetic, I know but, at this moment in time, I'm a cyber-christian. You are my community at the moment and, no offence but, that's pretty sad.

Love the off-roading reference. If any of you would like to trek the Rubicon in my Jeep, let me know.

PK
I was referring to the Roman Catholic conception of the Church, which I do not share, and the resulting crisis of faith for many Roman Catholics. Some find this quite agonising, and if they lose their faith in the Church they belived was Christ's body, suffer some distress. Some don't - but that does not mean that I will not have sympathy for those who do.
Obviously I would not expect an organisation of this size to be statistically less likely to have paedophiles within it's professonal class. A Roman Catholic, who sees that
Before accusing others of "vomit inducing" whatever, you may actually try to understand what they are saying, learn a little manners, and read with some generosity.

GV

I meant to add that Roman catholics who view their Church as Christ's body, with the authority and power to dispense the sacraments, will have a deeper crisis of faith than a Protestant who has a very different view of the church.

That was why I referenced Christs body.

GV

While I understand why you might think that the people who ascribe to the model of the Church as Christ's Body undergoing a deeper crisis of faith than others, I've also witnessed the opposite.

Some of them see this mess as Christ's Body broken (highly poignant eucharistically) or Christ's Body crucified. Believe it or not, some see this crisis as a way to identify with the suffering of Christ.

In that light, their belief has actually helped them through this, although some might say that, that attitude has merely helped them spiritualise and therefore avoid facing a grim reality.

romejellybean: Would it be possible to talk privately about your experience? You can email your contact details, in confidence, to: william.crawley@bbc.co.uk

Hi RJB,

Thanks for the extensive reply. Let me say a few things about wanting to be part of a community. I hear what you're saying about having been part of one and that it must be very hard to have lost that. No offence taken whatsoever about the cyber-community being an insufficient substitute. Maybe I should elaborate a bit here. I'm part of a cyber-community of non-believers (a Yahoo group of the 'disciples of the Flying Spaghetti Monster', formerly also a very active poster on the church of the FSM website, until pre-moderation killed the interactivity there, and I'm on one other religous forum). When I still lived in Belfast I was a member of Humani and got to know some of the posters on the blog here as real-life friends. Still, the Humani meetings were once a month. I had dinner with some of the people on the blog here a couple of times a year. My community of non-believers isn't my only community. If it were, I would be mostly an internet atheist and it would make for a rather limited social life. So I understand about saying that being a cyber-christian is not 100% satisfying.

How about the people who supported you when you were priest in a vibrant church? Do you still live close to them (geograhically as well as socially)? Or did that disappear too when the can of worms was opened?

Finally, if you can stand a mostly godless crowd (peterjhenderson would hopefully be there too) then please join up the next time the W&T regulars are having another get-together.:)

RJB
A helpful insight. Thankyou.

The post I was defending was referring to the media response to these scandals. I hope that I didn't sound as if I was offering some sort of apologetic for the Churches' behavior in your case.

GV

PK
I was in the parish for ten years when all this came out so I have friends who will be friends for the rest of my life from that area. But I'm kinda barred from the church there. I often get asked to speak at funerals there but an Opus Dei guy moved in after me and says that it would be "inappropriate" for me to speak at funerals.

Me turning up at anything would just cause an atmosphere with him and I dont wish to do that. However, when I go there and walk through the town, a journey which would normally take five minutes takes an hour and a half. Everybody - Catholic, Protestant, athiest etc.. stop to talk and speak very warmly to me and tell me that the town just isnt the same now. At a personal level that makes me feel good but at the level of Church, I feel terrible about it. I cant help but reproach myself and think that I should have had broader shoulders and that I've abandoned them.

I'd like to think that I helped the people 'think' and become critically aware. For them to be landed with a guy who is only young but leading them down the Tridentine route, well, they are suffering. Many have just walked away.

GV

I know I let rip a bit on other threads but none of that was directed at you or most of the regular contributors on here. I've read your stuff and know that you are a very decent guy and that when you express yourself it is genuine, honest and thoughtful (and often insightful.)

So dont worry and dont think you need to tread on egg shells with me on this subject. I have learned alot from you guys and appreciated all the discussions. I am no intellectual and, for example, the Horus thread has me in awe at the brain power of some of you guys. I love the questions of the athiests on here, the clever comments, the discussions from people living in NI about NI, the insights into Presbyterianism, Evangelicalism etc..

Just for info, one of my best mates was the first guy studying for the Catholic priesthood to study at New College on the Mound. Both staffs thought it would be a great idea and would really put ecumenism into practice.

After two years studying there, someone put his name forward to be the president of the student body. What? A catholic president of the seat of Scottish Protestantism in Scotland.

When the election day came all the candidates gave their manifesto speeches to the staff and students alike. They were saying things like, "If you vote for me, I'll get the canteen painted, get cheaper bus passes..." etc..

My mate stood up and pointed to the statue of John Knox out of the window and stated, "If you vote for me, I'll get rid of that monstrosity out there and replace it with a thirty foot high statue of the Virgin Mary with twinkly lights above her head. It will be free rosary beads all round!"

The whole place fell about laughing.... then voted him in!! What a historic day and what a credit to the staff and students of New College.

It was a magnificent, magnificent day and augered so well for the future of Christianity in this country.

"Grahams opening post in this thread more or less suggested that what happened with abuse scandals in churches was no different from e.g. schools. I don't buy that. "

I didn't *suggest* anything. What I referred to were empirical findings about Churches in America published in the 1990's. Perhaps I could have been more specific and referred to the I'm not aware that anyone has challenged Jenkin's findings. There's nothing to "buy".
In the early 1990s, the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago undertook a self-study. The survey examined every priest who had served in the archdiocese over the previous 40 years, some 2,200 individuals, and reopened every internal complaint ever made against these men. The standard of evidence applied was not a strict as legal proof that would stand up in a court of law. All that was required was a consensus that a particular charge was probably justified.
By this standard, the survey found that about 40 priests, about 1.8 percent of the whole, were probably guilty of misconduct with minors at some point in their careers. No evidence existed against about 98 percent of parish clergy. No other organizations dealing with children in the Chicago district have undertaken such comprehensive studies.
The Chicago study also found that of the 2,200 priests, just one was a pedophile. "Pedophilia" is a psychiatric term meaning sexual interest in children below the age of puberty. Sexual interest in adolescents is more common than true pedophilia. In the Chicago study, a priest was no more likely to be a pedophile or an abuse of adolescents (hebephilia), than a randomly selected male adult.

Carol Shakeshaft also produced the "Report on Educator Sexual Misconduct in Schools" for the US Department of Education and Congress, which needs to be read carefully by anyone interested in this debate. Shakeshaft has pointed out that the available evidence does not lead a researcher to conclude that children are less likely to be abused in public schools than in Catholic schools in the USA.
As for cover-ups, again I would want a little more evidence than what a person can "buy".
In 1994, Charol Shakeshaft and Audrey Cohan did a study of 225 cases of educator sexual abuse in New York City. All of the accused admitted sexual abuse of a student, but none of the abusers was reported to police or prosecutors, and only 1 percent lost their license to teach. Often an investigation was cancelled when the teacher denied the allegation, or sadi that their behavior had been misunderstood (unless the allegation was against a *female* teacher). Educators intimidated accusers. Quite often the investigating Superintendent was a friend of the accused.
Only 35 percent of abusers suffered negative consequences of any kind, and 39 percent chose to leave their school district, most with positive recommendations. Some were even given an early retirement package. Both studies are online. (It is very difficult to find similar surveys for the UK).
This is a serious debate, and we need to move beyond Dawkinsian intuitions, or Christian apologetics, to get a real handle on the level of risk that youngsters face.

GV

RJB
Funnily enough (and not to sound all arty-farty) but my favorite painting is Giovanni Bellini's "Madonna of the Meadow".

You've obviously got quite a lot of intelligence crammed into your cranium, and I've learned a lot from your posts. I'm certainly rethinking a lot of issues about Church membership and conduct.

GV

Rome Jelly Bean

I have been following these threads relating to the Ryan Report closely and have said little for a number of reasons. First of all I don't really know what to say in response to your particular circumstances even though I know of some in a similar situation to your own (I will simply say that Protestants churches have included those who abused children too) I've also been hesitant because I am not a Catholic and in some way feel I shouldn't comment, I'm not sure though that I can give a coherent explanation for this feeling. What I think I can say is that I find (and always have done) your comments thought provoking, sensitive and staggeringly honest, I mean honest not only in the sense of being 'open', but also in the sense of being genuine and authentic. What I will also say is that these comments which you have made about your experiences will, I am sure, bring help to others, indeed I can think of some who probably need to read them.

In terms of you comments on this thread what I am particularly struck by are your comments on Jesus, gospel, forgiveness and community. In many ways they are like a dagger through my heart, because quite simply, (and I know this will get me in trouble) Jesus, the gospel, forgiveness and community are pretty scarce in most protestant churches too. And yet, when found, even for the briefest of moments, they bring joy, and as you also say, grief, when lost. I guess this is why, although I sit in a pew on Sunday, my heart is with an often unseen church, devoid of the trappings of hierarchy, denominationalism and empty ritual. It is found in unexpected ordinary places, it is found in the streets of our towns and villages, in our simple interactions with one another, in acts of grace and kindness. It will I think last long after our institutions have crumbled for it is I think what the church actually is. It is people rather than steeples or 'orders of service' or robes (be they black Presbyterian or scarlet Catholic) and yes, it happens in cyber-space which I agree is "pathetic", but more acutely pathetic because all too often it does not happen in the places where we Christians meet one another each week. I think too, although a certain conservatism hinders me, that God is often with what we call the world, and not the church. How often have we in the church erected obstacles in the form of religious observance which keep people from God? I am afraid to acknowledge the thought.

Might I thank you for your contributions on this most difficult and most personal of issues, they have helped me, and I can only say that I am glad to be part of this community.

RJB - Brian had me up to 2 am on Thursday morning reading Shelley's Defence of Poetry, now you've set me to read the four Gospels to discover Jesus' third commandment to Peter! At least this one's likely to be an enjoyable and profitable exercise. Have a good weekend y'all...

Hi Peter Klaver, RJB, John Wright

Have left you a few posts here and there...if you click on my username you can track them down!

cheers
OT

Petermorrow

Thank you for your words. I think a measure of you is that you say "I wiil simply say that Protestant Churches have included those who abused children too."

In those words I hear you reaching out. I hear you trying to be a brother. However, the truth I have now come to realise is that there can be no sharing or easing of this burden for the Catholic. Not at least until we face an uncomfortable, horrible, cringeworthy truth - The Catholic Church HAS a problem. WE have a problem. A big one.

We - every Catholic - have contributed financially every week of our lives, but have never asked for accountability. We have rarely questioned the power wielded by our leaders. We have allowed ourselves to be dictated to, (often bullied from our pulpits.) We have taken very little responsibility for the decision making processes in our Church.

I have heard all the arguments over the years, 'It happens in other churches too...' 'It is only a tiny minority of priests...' 'There are other occupations which have a higher abuse rate...' 'The abusers were homosexuals..' 'Its just people attacking the Catholic Church as usual..'

We have to stop this and step into the darkness and pain of shame, humiliation, fear, ridicule, of feeling the utter devastation of the abused. (Look at the powerful story of the man on the link PeterKlaver provided post # 36 on the Catholic Church pay more, thread and remember, the Church and political authorites listened to this man.... then turned their backs on him. Outside war, I find it difficult to think of an equivalent act of inhmanity or psychological barbarism.)

Last week, I went for a pint to watch a football match on tv. A friend of mine who is an Orangeman shouted across the bar as I walked in, "Ha! Did you see what your lot have been up to in Ireland!!" Everyone in the bar turned and looked at me. I made no response, no defence, no excuses. I stood there and actually accepted the awful feeling of shame, the sniggers, the contempt. I made a conscious decision to do that.

Its such a human thing to do, to not want to be associated with this awful matter, to flee from the stark and horrible truth, to shift blame onto others. But until we, the Catholic Church, face ourselves honestly and have the courage and humility to step into that dark place, this wound cant start to heal.

I hope that you, Portwyne, PeterK etc.. continue to post on this subject. The more it is opened up in a thoughtful and honest way, the more that those who were abused will see the genuine support there is out there for them and be given strength from it.