The Scandal Driving the Church Sex Scandal

American Thinker ^ | April 01, 2010 | Selwyn Duke

[neverdem]

We've all heard the story. Hundreds of young sexual abuse victims long afraid to come forward for fear of embarrassment and scorn, abusers escaping prosecution and quietly moving to different jurisdictions, authorities covering up the crimes to avoid scandal and litigation. It's a saga of grave, grave sin.

Of course, you would assume that I'm talking about the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal.

And you would be wrong.

I'm describing the situation in America's schools -- something that, although mirroring the problems dogging the Church, is strangely ignored.

Let's examine the similarities using statistics from the United States. According to the John Jay Report, 10,667 people made allegations of child sexual abuse (not all were substantiated) committed by priests between 1950 and 2002; according to an AP investigation, at least 1,801 educators committed sexual misconduct involving minors between 2001 and 2005. So the per annum tally is:

Number of people making allegations against priests - 205

Criminal educators - 360

Now, since it's logical to assume that numerous individuals made accusations against the same priests, the number of clerical transgressors is no doubt less than 205. Yet even if we use the 205 figure, the number of offenders appears to be approximately 76 percent greater among educators. But that doesn't even begin to tell the whole story.

While it's obvious that a certain percentage of cases must have gone unreported in both education and the Church, the latter has been subjected to intense media scrutiny while the former has remained off the radar screen. Thus, it's reasonable to assume that the percentage is higher in education. As to this, the AP tells us about a Congress-mandated study placing the number of students sexually abused by an education worker at some point between kindergarten and 12^th grade at 4.5 million. Furthermore, the AP found that most of this sexual abuse is never reported and that even when it does come to light, often no action is taken.

Of course, the other side of the coin is that the number of teachers nationwide is greater than that of priests, so a raw-numbers analysis may be deceptive. So let's examine the rate. Wapedia reports the following: "A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse by Dr. Thomas Plante of Stanford University and Santa Clara University states that 'available research suggests that approximately 2 to 5% of priests have had a sexual experience with a minor' which ‘is lower than the general adult male population that is best estimated to be closer to 8%.'"

Now let's look within the numbers, at the nature of the abuse and abusers. While we hear a lot of media reports about sultry female teachers seducing young teenage boys, the reality is that almost nine out of ten school offenders are male.It's also true that in the cases of both the Church and the schools, the abuse is, by definition, not pedophilia, as the abused were mainly adolescents, not children.

Here critics may point out that there is a difference: The abuse among priests is mainly homosexual in nature. This is true, but I can't imagine that it would bother the secular left very much. After all, this is the set that for years has maintained that there is a moral equivalence between heterosexual and homosexual behavior and that saying otherwise is bigotry. Unless they're now changing their tune...

Another similarity is the cover-up by school officials, who, as stated earlier, were motivated by the same priorities as the most remiss bishop: a desire to avoid embarrassment, scandal, and punitive court judgments. As an example, the AP presents the story of Gary Lindsey, an Iowa teacher who was fired from his first job for sexual misconduct but then allowed to work elsewhere for about thirty more years. During these decades, Lindsey transgressed against other students, dodging the hangman every time with the complicity of school administration. And his is no isolated case. In fact, the practice of transferring sexual predators is so common that it has become known as "passing the trash," and the abusers have been dubbed "mobile molesters."

Despite this, we currently have trash being passed daily -- it's called media reportage. Why don't we hear stories about people who believe that the schools should be defunded, or that parents should stop sending their children to them (similar things are said about the Church)? Why has the Vatican been placed in the unenviable position of having to defend itself with the "Look, others have the same problems" argument? Why does Rome have to take up the cudgels for itself and point out that its woes just reflect the wider society? It's because the media aren't doing their job.

...That is, at least, what their job should be. What some within the mainstream media see it as being -- to attack traditionalist institutions -- they're doing very well. 

The Church receives such disproportionate scrutiny for the same reason why the media will happily smear Pope Pius XII as a Nazi sympathizer when he was possibly WWII's greatest hero and why they paint the Crusades as imperialistic wars when they were but a defense against Muslim aggression: The media views the Church as an enemy. They despise its teachings on abortion, the all-male priesthood, and, in particular, sexuality. You see, if the schools taught such things, then they too would surely be in the crosshairs. But their embrace of all the left's favorite isms grants them great immunity.   

Now, this might be where I'm supposed to issue the obligatory statement about how we're all appalled by the sex crimes in question.

But it's not really true.

And what comes to mind is late Massachusetts congressman Gerry Studds. In 1983, it was revealed that he had had sexual relations with a 17-year-old male page, which, as ephebophilia (attraction to older adolescents), is precisely that of which many transgressing priests are guilty. And what was his punishment?

The liberals in his district reelected him six more times until his retirement in 1996.

By the way, some may point out that Studds' behavior was legal, as the age of consent in Washington, D.C. was 16. Of these people, I would ask: Are you equally charitable with priests who had "legal" relationships with teenage boys?

Then there is serial sex criminal Alfred Kinsey, the bug researcher-cum-human sexuality "expert" who ran a pedophile ring disguised as a research team. If you read the piece I wrote about him (and trust me, this one is worth the time), you'll find that his research included things such as encouraging pedophiles to continue committing crimes so that he could collect more "data." Yet there has never been a hue and cry for a pound of flesh from the Kinsey Institute; the University of Indiana in Bloomington, where the deviant plied his trade; or Paul Gebhard, a still-living Kinsey co-author and partner in crime. On the contrary, the left not only defends Kinsey, but it even lauded him in a whitewashed 2004 film.                   

So do the Church's critics really care about sexual abuse? Some do, for sure. But there's no doubt that many of those using the issue to attack the Church do not. And "using" is the key word. If they truly cared about sexual abuse of youth, they would take pains to emphasize that it isn't limited to the priesthood. Oh, I'm not saying that they would necessarily do this to defend the Church; they would do it to truly expose the problem. Instead, they're simply interested in exposing the Church to ridicule, and to this end, they use these abuse victims as a convenient vehicle through which to attack a hated adversary. This is typical of the left, which makes a practice of using people as human shields, props, and political hammers.

Of course, crimes against innocence are abhorrent, and those committing them should be rooted out wherever and whoever they may be. Likewise, those who knowingly and negligently facilitate their abuse must be punished harshly, and the incompetent should lose their positions. But this just states the obvious. If we really want to move toward a more sexually sane society -- get at the root causes, as it were -- then we must delve more deeply. 

We can argue about facts and figures. We can debate whether sexual trespass is worse in schools or in churches, and many will, no doubt, try to make the case that the secular world is a safer place. But of this there is no doubt: The social phenomena making us a more libertine and morally unmoored civilization are the handiwork of the left.

It was not the Church that sexualized society with Kinseyesque sex miseducation and prurient messages everywhere -- in movies, shows, music and on the Internet. That was leftist academia, Hollywood, and their brothers in porn. It was not the Church that expanded the First Amendment to include protection of obscene imagery. That was leftist judges. It was not the Church that spread moral relativism and its corollary, "If it feels good, do it," an idea that can find pedophilia no worse than peanut butter. That was leftist philosophers and the millions who wanted freedom to sin. It was not the Church that, reducing man to mere beast, found a basis for his behavior in the animal kingdom. That was leftist anthropologists and their acolytes. And it was not the Church that first subordinated punishment to "rehabilitation" and subscribed to slap-on-the-wrist pseudo-justice. That was leftist psychology. Of course, insofar as the Church has allowed itself to become infected with the spirit of the age, it is culpable. But know that it is the infected, not the infection.

As for the cure, the Church has done much in recent times to root out sexual abuse -- far more than the schools. Even closer to the point, its teachings provide necessary guide rails for man's sexuality. Yet critics call this age-old wisdom "antiquated." The left obviously prefers to take its lead from the Kinsey Distorts, Hugh Hefner, and Hollywood. But if the pleasure principle is going to be our master, then we shouldn't wonder why we're taking our children on a field trip through Caligula's court.

Contact Selwyn Duke

[count-your-change]

“Motive does in fact subvert authority — as when a public official acts within his offices, but with ulterior, corrupt agenda.”

Hmmm...a new theory of the exercise of authority? That would make a great defence for the predator priests, the news paper article about their crimes was written by someone with an agenda, the cops who arrested them had an agenda, the prosecutors had an agenda, the judge, the jury, on and on.

I wonder what the agenda is of a seven year old rape victim?

[D-fendr]

What is the agenda of the NYT in their current attack on the Pope on the Milwaukee case?

Is it part of your agenda to defend them on it?

[wagglebee]

As I mentioned to a few Catholics the other day it astonishes me that there are FReepers who have never trusted the NYT about anything, but are fully prepared to accept anything negative the NYT (and the rest of the MSM) says about the Catholic Church.

The left desires to destroy ALL of orthodox Christianity, because of its size they realize that they MUST destroy the Catholic Church and that is what they are working toward. Our Lord promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church, but He never said it would be easy.

[Columbia]

What abuse?

The abuse committed by teachers everyday across the USA?

Open your eyes fool.

[count-your-change]

Write the NYT and don’t be silly!

[D-fendr]

Then what is the point of your posts on the topic of this thread?

[count-your-change]

It’s a deep dark secret known only to those who are initiated into........”THE AGENDA”.

[little jeremiah]

I read that men wanting to enter seminaries had to (I suppose they still do but hopefully the tests have changed) take psychological tests. So the homosexuals made sure that only homosexual-friendly or just regular homosexuals were deemed good priest material.

Of course it wasn’t like that 100% but enough to cause horrible problems for many, for a good long while.

[little jeremiah]

I agree entirely. The leftists/secularists/homosexual agenda pushers want to destroy the Catholic Church because it refuses to change its position on moral absolutes. And they will start attacking any other religious denominations that don’t embrace immorality; so far they’ve been destroying many Protestant denominations from within.

[little jeremiah]

The Catholic Church and any other churches who refuse to bow to immorality make the immoral feel very guilty; they see such Churches as dire enemies to destroy.

[D-fendr]

Remind me to make jokes when your Church leader is viciously and falsely slandered.

[SkyPilot]

They are perfectly capable, left to their own devices, of solving the problem.

I am not sure I understand you. Are you saying the church has properly dealt with the number of homosexual priests in its ranks (including the seminaries - - some of which are referred to as "pink palaces?")

[count-your-change]

Here’s your punch line: “You’ve bought into the media agenda on this.”

[LadyDoc]

the abuse did happen...but it's old news and being hyped to destroy the present Pope, because he won't bow to their agenda of allowing abortion and promoting gay sex as normal.

excuse my cynicism, but not one story has highlighted the psychiatrists and psychologists who claimed these priests were cured and told the bishops to release them back into the community.

Back in the 1960’s we were told in medical school that Freud said most of these accusations were due to imagination...then in the 1970’s we were told that if all teens had sex without guilt (preferably with an older adult) it would prevent most mental illnesses. In the 1980’s, California decided that all sexual predators in jail could be treated as out patients, and that men guilty of incest should be treated as out patients because jailing them would be traumatic (i.e. the other prisoners would abuse them).

[D-fendr]

“You’ve bought into the media agenda on this.”

I've changed my opinion on that. You didn't even inform yourself on the issue. You're just ignorant on the topic.

[lentulusgracchus]

I mean that the Church knows how to be a damn sight tougher than anyone wants to look at, in getting to the bottom of things and shaking the bad elements out.

[SkyPilot]

I mean that the Church knows how to be a damn sight tougher than anyone wants to look at, in getting to the bottom of things and shaking the bad elements out.

I am sorry, but that would be laughable if the wreckage of human beings that we are dealing with here were not so tragic.

The Catholic church has done virtually nothing to deal with the incredible number of homosexual priests in its ranks. It has obfuscated and covered up this scandal for decades, and the only thing it did was make financial payments to victims - - and that was only because they lost many, many, many court cases and were ordered by judges and juries to do so. To the tune of about $2.5 Billion dollars.

I know Father Tom Doyle - he is a heck of a guy. He was the one bright shining candle that stood up for the sexual abuse victims in all of this. The Catholic church hated him for it. Did you know that the church finally "got" him a few years ago? He wrote a statement (as a canon lawyer) about the supposed "requirement" for daily mass.

Catholic Priest Who Aids Church Sexual Abuse Victims Loses Job

So, there is the church for you, "getting to the bottom of things and shaking the bad elements out." Only in this case, they fired the one guy who was assisting the victims who were raped by dozens and dozens of Catholic priests.

Did you read that article in full from my previous link? Do you see how evil has permeated the priesthood in the form of homosexuality?

You can stick you head in the sand if you want to. It's still (sort of) a free country.

[lentulusgracchus]

[You, quoting me] “Motive does in fact subvert authority — as when a public official acts within his offices, but with ulterior, corrupt agenda.”

Hmmm...a new theory of the exercise of authority?

No, an old one ..... that is used in courtrooms every single day to impeach motivated witnesses, and to convict public officers who've sold their offices. It's called "good faith".

You employed an "appeal to authority" above, when you commented to the other poster, neverdem,

But in making comparisons of cases of abuse definitions of what constitutes abuse matter greatly. Here from one of the studies referred to in the article are some pertinent comments on what is called abuse in the study:

and then, happening to have handy -- oh, look what I found! -- a source document, you drew out and threw down on the other poster what looks very much like ideal HRC seminar-poster material for a slapdown of ignorant, backward, resource-poor conservative posters, and proceeded to cut-and-paste quote it in extenso.

Too bad some of us have seen that dog-and-pony act before.

That would make a great defence for the predator priests....

Oh, but you don't have a problem with the "predator priests", do you? They were just expressing their essential and irreducible, existentially privileged inner natures when they "reached out" to express tender feelings of boy-love, weren't they?

The people you have a problem with are the doctrinal guardians who won't change their doctrine, and who won't tell us the God of Abraham was "just kidding" when he fixed the epithet of Abomination on the men of Sodom. That's the real problem, isn't it?

I wonder what the agenda is of a seven year old rape victim?

Crocodile tears. When was the last time you skinned yourself some chicken dinner?

[count-your-change]

Feel better?

[lentulusgracchus]

Feel better?>

You're still here, aren't you?

Who suggested you drop by FR to Mau-Mau the knuckledraggers, sport?

Or was it just a prompt from the Hive Mind?