This subject is a dangerous one, and not one to be taken lightly. Nevertheless, we Anglicans do need to be aware of this source of a new wave of anti-clericalism and militant atheism. There have always been sinners in the Church, and there always will be!
O tempora o mores – other times other customs. I lived in a generation when we had corporal punishment at school, typically six of the best. For most schoolmasters, it was one method among many to instil into children a sense of right and wrong through reward and punishment. The Pavlov theory applies as much to normally constituted humans as to certain species of animals like dogs and horses. We were just as liable to be punished by a smack-bottom from parents for matters like insolence, stealing or telling lies as at school. That is how things were in those days. Nowadays, a schoolmaster or parent seen smacking a child or using even a moderate instrument like a paddle or a leather-soled slipper may be liable for being sued, heavily fined or being sent to prison for child abuse.
I think it is not a bad thing for corporal punishment to pass into history, and not only because it was sometimes used for perverted sexual satisfaction by the person meting it out. Excessive use of corporal punishment causes bitterness and rebellion rather than positive behaviour modification and a desire for virtue and good. Captain Bligh allegedly found, to his cost, that his barbaric methods of enforcing naval discipline led to mutiny. Times have changed and children need to understand why they are asked to conform to certain patterns of behaviour and moral virtue. Parents and teachers need to take time to teach and educate, and encourage, using unpleasantness only when all reason has broken down.
The Holy Father’s brother came close to being accused of some kind of collaboration in the unreasonable use of punishment in the choir school he directed. The evidence puts Monsignor Ratzinger above any suspicion.
The sexual abuse of children under 18 is one thing, but even more serious is the abuse of children under puberty. Most of us have little idea about the totally selfish adult abusing a child in a kind of master and slave fantasy scenario. As a child in the 1960’s, I was often warned by my father to be careful of strangers, not to get into the car of someone I didn’t know. By and large, we had little idea of what could happen, except when we read a grisly story in the newspapers about a child having been found dead in a river or in a wood.
I have read a little about this horrible and diabolical phenomenon of paedophiles, rapists and sadists in books and on the internet. Here is an article in several parts on a site dealing with the study of criminology. Years ago, those men were considered curable or at least responsive to punishment. Things were covered up or simply kept discreet to give a man his chance. It is only relatively recently that it has been known that paedophiles, rapists and sadists are men born with a kind of personality, like that of sociopaths and psychopaths, which is intrinsically evil, fixed and unreformable. This notion is terrible to admit, as Christianity has always believed in the possibility of the most hardened sinner repenting, confessing his sins and finding redemption and forgiveness.
Facts point to a different reality for those with intrinsically perverse personalities. They have no conscience or empathy for others. The dog that has tasted the blood of sheep cannot be trained to stop attacking sheep, but invariably has to be put down. Scientific findings in this field have found that these men will always relapse if given half a chance. The only choice for legislation is whether capital punishment should be applied or whether it would be appropriate to reopen the old penal colonies, and send them there for life. This is the stark reality as known by modern psychiatry.
Of course there are degrees of malice between the sadistic rapist, a thoroughly evil personality, and someone who has sinned through weakness. I am glad not to be the one who has to make such decisions, but I fully understand diocesan bishops who have to deal with a crisis involving one of their priests. Twenty years ago, a bishop did what he could both for the sinner’s welfare and rehabilitation – and for the child and family who had suffered from such a heinous crime. Now, such a matter must be immediately reported to the police, and this is understandable.
Outrage for such crimes committed by clergymen is perfectly understandable. A priest is a figure of authority, and using this position and prestige for personal satisfaction and domination is unforgivable, even more so than any other sociopath who abuses the innocent.
All that being said, the present psychosis over this subject has become frightening, media-influenced society attacking the whole of the Catholic Church. That is the power of the press, and we can only hope that Catholic bloggers like Damian Thompson will help to restore balance and perspective. The actual proportion of perverted priests is very small in proportion with the total number of priests, most of whom are living upright moral lives and doing their priestly duties.
As usual, we have to be careful about what we believe in the papers. Most journalists are appallingly ignorant and many are malicious for ideological reasons. One Times journalist was reported as having said that the Pope is untouchable because he is not elected! Everyone knows that the Pope is elected by Conclave. That reporter was influenced by the notion that the Vatican is not democratic, but a kind of absolute monarchy. Ideology preceded simple fact!
I do not dare to attempt any analysis of paedophila and celibacy, because those who do know about these things are not in agreement. We are usually faced with the idea of a sex-starved priest who suffers from not having a wife with whom he can have sexual relations, and because he is too desperate in his celibacy, he will turn to perversion. If there are men whose sexual desires are uncontrollable to that extent, they should not be priests and women should be protected from them. A marriage is not going to last long if sex for the husband is sadism, domination and force. A civilised human being respects the other person in a relationship. The argument of those who say “end celibacy and paedophilia will stop” is obviously a fallacy and a red herring.
What is happening today is an uncontrolled psychosis fuelled by the media to cause harm to the Church. Those of us who have any critical faculties in our thought will not be deceived by such gross calumny against the Holy Father and Monsignor Ratzinger. The Pope needs our prayers to work his way through this crisis and find a way to convince the media and society that the majority of the Church is not guilty for the sins and crimes of the few.
A few other reflections
This harrowing phenomenon of clerical sexual child abuse seems to defy most rational explanations, namely compulsory celibacy and the ‘clerical’ culture of the Catholic Church. Were these cogent explanations of paedophilia, there would be a higher proportion of these crimes in the Church than in society at large, in other Churches and denominations and among married men. Evidence shows as many cases in Christian communities with married clergy as well as among non-religious people.
I wonder if this problem has not been present at all times of the Church’s history, and the majority of offenders were simply not caught. Perhaps more effective ‘policing’ is needed to root out the rot, and, as always, the principle of precaution applies. One road accident happens and the speed limit is reduced by half for all. A northern English yob releases his vicious pit bull terrier into a children’s playground and all dog owners have to muzzle their poodles and golden retrievers. An evil priest is caught messing about with children and the whole diocesan clergy is suspect. The problem with present-day society is collective stupidity, the very same kind of dumbness that worshipped Hitler in the 1930’s. There are ways to deal with evil, and the all-or-nothing mentality or falsum in uno falsum in omnibus are not among them.
Do away with the Church, or make her go the liberal way like the American Episcopal Church, and paedophilia will remain. Why? – because it is a sickness of human nature and not a problem of the Church.
It is horribly shocking to know that some of those evil hypocrites were protected. The notorious Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legionaries of Christ was accused by ex-members of that very cult-like order of priests, but he could not be brought to justice by the then Cardinal Ratzinger because Maciel was a close friend of Pope John Paul II. Of course, Maciel is dead now, and Christ would have said that it would be better that he were not born.
A point can be made according to which the Church hierarchy has shown laxness in regard to this crime as they did to heretical professors and priests, gays, feminist nuns, wacko masses, church wreckovations, and much more. On the other hand, there have been cases of traditionalist priests committing child abuse. One was an American priest of the Institute of Christ the King, and there were also some members of a priestly society in the Diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania. Therefore, paedophilia is nothing to do with theological liberalism or one's position about the liturgy and the Sacraments.
Anger has built up to such an extent against the soul killers, that many call for them to be condemned to death. I have very mixed feelings about capital punishment. If it has to be done, then it should be done in public and by guillotine (a quick death for the victim but a gruesome and bloody sight for the spectators), so that those who accuse and condemn a man of a crime should be really sure of themselves! Otherwise, I could conceive of the possibility of re-opening French Guyana and Devil’s Island, and that the unreformable criminal should be kept there for life.
Priests should be exemplary in their spiritual lives, but piety does not guarantee a particular man from being a potential or actual paedophile. The evil is within, and often extremely well hidden. Those men are manipulators, and often able to handle their bishops and seminary rectors with great dexterity. Why does such a man become a priest? I am at a loss to understand – but of course my conception of the priesthood is one of liturgical beauty and pastoral service, and not control and power over other people.
In my humble opinion, Bishops would do well to study the links between paedophilia and psychopathy, and to seek for the typical traits of a man who has no conscience, is a glib manipulator and gets what he wants without difficulty. Those are the men who should be sent for screening, because background checking isn't enough to root out the sociopath. Glibness, superficial charm and smooth talk are signs of danger. They are probably capable of manipulating the Bishop who is caught unaware. The most characteristic thing is they have no moral conscience, remorse of guilt and no empathy for other people. Their emotions are contrived. They refuse responsibility for their own wrongdoings. I don't know if all paedophiles are psychopaths, but I suspect that most are. If in doubt, have the candidate screened and diagnosed by a psychiatrist.
Perhaps this may turn out to be one of the best things to happen to the Catholic Church since the Council of Trent. The Aegean Stables need to be cleaned out, and many of us believe this is exactly why Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope and Archbishop Levada from San Francisco was nominated to the CDF. The ultimate issue will be a complete reform of the Episcopate, and many bishops involved in cover-up intrigues have been made to resign. To what extent is the Pope responsible for a paedophile priest having been given a ministry in the Archdiocese of Munich? He might have not been informed, but the captain of a ship is always and at all times responsible for his vessel and its crew. I don’t know. If he is in some way responsible, he might find it better to come clean rather than be ‘found out’. I am sure his present intention to clean up the clergy would largely atone for any past failing on his conscience, and that his authority and goodness would be enhanced.
Would it be a good idea to reiterate the Council of Trent and light the fires of the Inquisition? Without the support of the secular arm of the countries of Europe, such compulsion and coercion is impossible. However, guilty priests can be stripped of any protection and handed over to the police. They have offended against the penal law of their countries, and should be tried and punished accordingly.
Warts and all, we believe this to be the Church of Christ that has survived the corruption of countless Popes and bishops. She is probably going to undergo a period of purification and penance as in the late sixteenth century. Life will become hard for priests, and the priesthood may have to become increasingly elitist and rare. Most of the faithful will have to get used to living their religion without priests and Sacraments unless they are prepared to relocate to major cities or drive long distances to monasteries or the few parish churches still open. Our Anglican Ordinariates will have to be exemplary if we want the patrimony of married priests and the curial family to be recognised and respected. Perhaps we are merely being given a pastoral welcome. Perhaps we are a tiny part of the solution. Our age is that of the blog and instant communication. Availability of information such as we ourselves publish erodes the possibility of the mainstream journalist to deceive and lie. They still do it, but such journalistic spin is increasingly dangerous for the men who write it. The Church is still the Mystical Body of Christ on earth, and is still holy in spite of the sin that disfigures and afflicts her. As there are many Saints, most of us are sinners through weakness and sometimes through malice and wickedness.
I have read a number of books by the Russian philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev in which he looks with hope beyond the communist revolution in his country. Perhaps the book that most touched me is The End of our Time (not referring to the end of the world, but a transition between one historical era and another), published in English translation in 1933, the very year the iniquitous slime of Nazism was elected into office in Germany. He traces our history through the end of the Renaissance and humanism to a new Middle Age. These new middle ages would be a period of darkness and penance, a long and hard Lent for the Church in which to find purification.
The veils of falsehood are torn away and we can see both good and evil in their plain nakedness. Night is not less wonderful than day, it is equally the work of God; it is lit by the splendour of the stars and it reveals to us things that the day does not know.
And at the end of the chapter:
The night is coming and we must take up spiritual weapons for the fight against evil, we must make more sensitive our power for its discernment, we must build up a new knighthood.
The flood waxes and bears us on to a dark immensity… there where we sail, all around us the flaming abyss.
The term "Paedophile Priests" was adopted by the media as a bias statement. The great majority of sexual abusers within the Roman priesthood are homosexual men, who (like their lay brothers) prey on adolescent boys.
How about a little rewording here:
"The great majority of sexual abusers within the Roman priesthood are homosexual men, a small percentage of whom (like their lay brothers) prey on adolescent boys."
The vast majority of adults, including Catholic priests and homosexual males — and schoolteachers and athletic coaches and Boy Scout troop leaders for that matter — are not child molesters who prey on adolescent boys or girls. Moreover, not all adults accused of such heinous crimes are guilty.
If I seem a bit sensitive on this point, it is only because I see a lot of accusations (e.g., "Paedophine Priests!" and "Schoolteacher Seductress!") bandied about that paint entire groups with an overly broad brush. As you point out, Father Bill, even the word "paedophile" is almost invariably misused by the media to create bias.
Some media coverage has been in error, however, I do welcome that now, at long last, the handling of such cases is being scrutinised in the public domain.
Those who did nothing wrong have nothing to fear and history will show up the actions of those who distort the facts to satisfy their anti-Catholic campaign at the expense of the victims suffering and the good name of the innocent.
However, those with a case to answer should be held to account for their (in)actions.
Here below are wise words pressing the need to be constantly vigilant against evilness.
"It is better that scandals arise than the truth be suppressed." ~ Pope St. Gregory the Great
"When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects." ~ St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II, II, q. 33, a. 4
"When circumstances make it necessary, it is not prelates alone who have to watch over the integrity of the faith." ~ Pope Leo XIII
"The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts." ~ St. John Chrysostom (347-407),
Quotes sourced from:
http://romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2007/03/is_it_a_sin_to_.html
Jakian Thomist wrote in part:
"…“When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects.” ~ St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II, II, q. 33, a. 4…"
This was an interesting apparent misquote of Summa. The text reads as follows:
"…Article 4. Whether a man is bound to correct his prelate?
Objection 1. It would seem that no man is bound to correct his prelate. For it is written (Exodus 19:12): "The beast that shall touch the mount shall be stoned," [Vulgate: 'Everyone that shall touch the mount, dying he shall die.'] and (2 Samuel 6:7) it is related that the Lord struck Oza for touching the ark. Now the mount and the ark signify our prelates. Therefore prelates should not be corrected by their subjects.
Objection 2. Further, a gloss on Galatians 2:11, "I withstood him to the face," adds: "as an equal." Therefore, since a subject is not equal to his prelate, he ought not to correct him.
Objection 3. Further, Gregory says (Moral. xxiii,
that "one ought not to presume to reprove the conduct of holy men, unless one thinks better of oneself." But one ought not to think better of oneself than of one's prelate. Therefore one ought not to correct one's prelate.
On the contrary, Augustine says in his Rule: "Show mercy not only to yourselves, but also to him who, being in the higher position among you, is therefore in greater danger." But fraternal correction is a work of mercy. Therefore even prelates ought to be corrected.
I answer that, A subject is not competent to administer to his prelate the correction which is an act of justice through the coercive nature of punishment: but the fraternal correction which is an act of charity is within the competency of everyone in respect of any person towards whom he is bound by charity, provided there be something in that person which requires correction.
Now an act which proceeds from a habit or power extends to whatever is contained under the object of that power or habit: thus vision extends to all things comprised in the object of sight. Since, however, a virtuous act needs to be moderated by due circumstances, it follows that when a subject corrects his prelate, he ought to do so in a becoming manner, not with impudence and harshness, but with gentleness and respect. Hence the Apostle says (1 Timothy 5:1): "An ancient man rebuke not, but entreat him as a father." Wherefore Dionysius finds fault with the monk Demophilus (Ep. viii), for rebuking a priest with insolence, by striking and turning him out of the church.
Reply to Objection 1. It would seem that a subject touches his prelate inordinately when he upbraids him with insolence, as also when he speaks ill of him: and this is signified by God's condemnation of those who touched the mount and the ark.
Reply to Objection 2. To withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then, unless he were in some way his equal as regards the defense of the faith. But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectfully. Hence the Apostle in writing to the Colossians (4:17) tells them to admonish their prelate: "Say to Archippus: Fulfil thy ministry [Vulgate: 'Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.' Cf. 2 Timothy 4:5." It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, "Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects."
Reply to Objection 3. To presume oneself to be simply better than one's prelate, would seem to savor of presumptuous pride; but there is no presumption in thinking oneself better in some respect, because, in this life, no man is without some fault. We must also remember that when a man reproves his prelate charitably, it does not follow that he thinks himself any better, but merely that he offers his help to one who, "being in the higher position among you, is therefore in greater danger," as Augustine observes in his Rule quoted above…."
SWR
Pingback: The St. Angilbert Press » Paedophile Priests and the Anglican Right
Very timely article especially in view of today's AOL News posting (again) of the situation surrounding the Legion of Christ founder Fr. Maciel Dellogado, and his horrific sexual escapades. This fellow was apparently AC/DC when it came to gender of prey preferences, guess he wanted to cover the whole field. Extremely sad . . . This must be faced, and our Roman Brethren must get this right, and soon! It's one thing to say the church has been around for centuries, and can (sometimes smugly) afford to take its time addressing issues that arise. Not in this business it can't!!
I trust that all of us are praying for the Holy Father as all this public furor is going on in the various media.
Instead of seeing it through the media lens, however, I see all this vitriol and consternation and attempts to tarnish our dear Pope Benedict as a sign of the tremendous good this man is doing for the Kingdom in Christ's service. Ditto on the negativity and false info all over the place about the Ordinariates and the AC.
This is a sobering and troubling situation found in the Catholic church predominatly. The question is why?
Beyond that the cover-up by many US bishops is inexcusable. They mostly retain their bishoprics. if this had been a corporate scandal they would have been out. Since when is the church held to a lesser standard? The inactivity by Rome in removing these suspect bishops is perhaps the biggest scandal. Where is the shepherd?
Ron Drier (I may have the spelling wrong) is the editor of the Dallas paper. His conversion from evangelical Christianity to Catholicism made waves a while back. Since then his conversion to Orthodoxy has made more waves. The peodphile scandal in the church and the lack of leadership by the bishops is what drove him to Constantinople.
The question remains why the preponderance of these sexual scandals are in the Catholic church. Not Orthodoxy or the Church of Jesus Chritst of Latter Day Saints or the Muslims.
That is a question that troubled Drier right out of the church.
Hi Dave,
I wouldn't agree that this situation is "found in the Catholic church predominantly" as opposed to other faiths and establishments. There are many many victims of child abuse elsewhere also and this should be recognised. I can think of the abuse cases in Iceland, the British/Welsh Industrial School system, the Channel Islands case and now in Ireland again we're discovering more abuse cases in the state (secular) fostering service. And let's not forget about the home, where there is probably some poor child suffering as I type this (Christ have mercy).
Sin should not be a reason for changing faiths and I am disappointed that Mr. Drier chose this reason (according to you) to leave the church. How does the abuse cases make the church's teaching any less true? It is always attempting to separate ourselves from a problem and say to ourselves – 'well, that doesn't affect me'. Unfortunately, we cannot divorce ourselves from our fallen humanity. Our church is called 'Catholic' for a reason, because it encompasses all – the east and the west, the saints and the sinners. Only those who can accept this should join it.
To me it seems that all of this turmoil in the world is arising simultaneously… Another horrific scandal within our beloved RCC, the United States has come to a crucial time in it's history and is being pulled apart from within, the evangelical and Anglican churches are rife with emergent church teaching, also coming from within it's own ranks..I believe that all of this turmoil is coming from the pit of hell…our adversary, the deceiver and the liar, knows that his time is short to cause chaos in the world..the return of our King of Kings and Lord of Lords must be close at hand..otherwise satan would not be bothering…
Dave, could it be that there's a preponderance reporting in the media of Catholic scandals? The Catholic Church is so big, and there are so many who have grudges and axes to grind. Not least of all, the Church teaches a whole lot of inconvenient truth. If they could only get rid of that pesky pope…
Not to argue from the specific to the general, but a few years ago there was a horrible scandal in an Orthodox monastery here in Texas, in which several monks were convicted of child molestation, and the whole place was shut down. I don't think it got much coverage in the national press. Imagine if it had been a Catholic monastery. We'd still be hearing about it.
Fr. Phillips makes a good point about the size of our church. Take Ireland as an example, up to recently well over 90% of the population were Catholic to some degree and caring institutions run by the church were possibly a higher figure again. So statistically, if abuse cases were to occur, then they would most likely be in a Catholic institution.
Interestingly, there have also been complaints made against institutions associated with the Anglican Church of Ireland, although obviously not as many since there were not as many CoI institutions in existence.
Here is a link to a letter in the Irish Times outlining accusations made against the 'Bethany Home' a Magdalen Laundry of sorts
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/0922/1224254990260.html
I am particularly taken by this line:
"My own relatives were members of the Orange Order in Monaghan. The organisation collected for the home both in the Republic and in Northern Ireland. My cousin cried when I told him in the 1990s what had happened to me in the place he helped support through the Order."
This is equivalent to how many Catholics feel here in Ireland right now. So saddened by the effects of evil.
The reason why you don't hear about abuse in other religions and other sectors like sports coaching, the public teaching profession and so on is only negative stories about Catholics get any traction.
Remember Roman Polanski? He raped and sodomized a 12 year old girl after drugging her, admitted doing it but then went on the lam. He recently got caught, but a good portion of the same folks who froth at the mouth about a priest who did something 30 years ago, think Polanski's 30 year old crime deserves to be overlooked because he is such a great artist.
We have other religions that institutionalize the horrendous treatment of women, including forced marriages of child brides. Do you see anyone in the mainstream media touching that politically incorrect third rail? No.
Fr. Anthony is right–times have changed in how society views corporal punishment and the handling of sexually compulsive sins. Until the late 1980s the extent of acquaintance pedophilia, particularly the abuse of boys, was not on the radar screens of most health professionals. Most pedophilia was a family affair, drunken dads or stepdads or uncles or older brothers with the odd female abuser or accomplice or enabler or denialist. It still is.
The other thing is the perception that the Catholic Church has deep pockets to pay for abuse law suits. Is there some kind of cap on what municipalities, in the case of schools, can pay out, some limit on their liability?
The other thing is the development of vicarious liability so that a body or an institution can be held liable for the actions of an employee even if they were unaware of what that individual was doing and their actions were totally against the mission of the institution.
I'm reminded of some of the discussion we've had on this blog about moralism and right doctrine etc. Perhaps some of the desire to avoid scandal was to prevent that kind of moralism that would at the same time tear away the doctrinal foundations of the priesthood at the same time.
Dave,
According to this:
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members
Let's use this to get an estimate of the number of priests/pastors in each. Say that there's one priest/pastor for every 1000 people on average (assume that there are a lot of cultural christians out there who rarely attend service). That means that there are about 1.116 million Catholic priests and .590 million Protestant pastors (which comprise of several thousand denominations) and .225 million Eastern Orthodoxy priests.
Given 1.116 million Catholic priests, what percentage are involved in sex scandals of any kind? How many Protestant pastors are involved in sex scandals of any kind? How many Eastern Orthodoxy priests are involved in sex scandals of any kind?
I don't know the Eastern Orthodoxy numbers though I suspect that they significantly less. Then again, the Eastern Orthodox predominate in conservative countries whereas Catholics and Protestants have a significant percentage of people in more liberal countries, so the comparison isn't completely fair.
How about comparing Catholics and Protestants? There seem to be significantly more Protestant sex scandals thatn Catholic. While it is true that Protestants predominate more in liberal countries than Catholics, it's also true that more things are sex scandals to Catholics than Protestants (e.g. look at the American Episcopal "Church").
When you look at the percent of Pedophilia in the population and compare it with the population of Catholic Priests, it's nowhere near as bad:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pedophilia#Prevalence
In listening to all the news (some made with sincere concern and some with Schaudenfreud, and others with calculated vengeance) it's easy to lose perspective.
All this being said, any Pedophilia in the Catholic Church is too many and must be exposed wherever it exists. Jesus loved children and even made them our role models, so Pedophilia strikes at the heart of the Catholic faith.
The reality is that employers, schools, and churches have insurance policies.
It's no secret that one of the considerations entertained by judges in fixing liabilty – even for personal injury claims that in no way involve sexual abuse, such as a school boy sky-larking and hurting himself seriously as a result, even though such behavious is contrary to school rules and nothing can be reasonably done to prevent it – is the fact that those who are insured can usually afford to pay.
An interesting comment by a Dominican on Fr Z's blog:
"As an undergraduate at the Johns Hopkins University in 1974, I was told, in a public lecture during for a class in psychology by the professor (full and tenured) that “children who have had sexual relations with adults are not harmed by this; the only negative result comes from people becoming too upset over this and traumatizing the child.” And I was told in the same class by the same professor: “those who sexually abuse children almost always never do so a second time if they receive some therapy.” This is verbatim from my notes from that class."
It seems a bit like nobody saying that smoking was bad for your health in the 1940's. Now, we know that cigarettes cause lung cancer, heart disease and all manner of other causes of death.
Science has advanced, and there is a problem with holding a bishop responsible for imperfect knowledge in the mid 1970's. We know now that paedophiles cannot be cured, but have to be put into a situation in which they cannot re-offend. In those days, they thought psychiatric treatment and / or punishment were enough.
Another pertinent post from the same source:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/03/interview-with-the-cdfs-prosecutor-of-priests-who-commit-graviora-delicta/
It is not that Protestants are not plagued by the same problem but, rather, that the press establishment in our English-speaking countries seems not to be very concerned with hyping the failings of the majority religious community.
If you want to see the evidence go to:
http://www.reformation.com
Remember that the partial but plentiful data you will find there was collected by volunteers for non-profit purposes and not be multi-million dollar law firms out to plunderthe Catholic Church!
Best Regards,
Dennis
The other thing to consider is this. Pedophiles are very effective at targeting and grooming their prey, often picking boys who come from broken homes, who have been in trouble with the law, who have bad reputations.
Thus when its the word of the victim against an often extremely charming priest who has ingratiated himself with everyone—remember sociopaths are often quite effective in homing into what peoples' needs are and mirroring back that they are the answer to them—and some poor troubled kid, it was easier in the past to believe the priest.