Replies

Dear PNAMBC,

Certainly I've addressed the point of the article.

It was done as part of the total response of the Catholic Church in the United States to deal with the serious problem of sexual abuse by priests, deacons, and Catholic laity of children (yes, it isn't only priests who have been guilty, and we Catholics are trying to address the ENTIRE problem).

Part of the response has been a draconian policy of background checks, fingerprinting, training, and study, for EVERY SINGLE CATHOLIC involved in ANY CHURCH-RELATED ACTIVITY dealing with children. My executive assistant has kids in the local Catholic school. She is required to monitor recess after lunch twice a month. She was finger-printed, had a background check, and took a mandatory class.

Our Knights of Columbus Council sponsors Basketball Free Throw Contests, Soccer Shoot-Outs, Oratory Contests, and other child-centered events. Any person wishing to assist in putting on these functions must receive a background check, be fingerprinted, and take training. Including the guy who catches the basketballs under the hoop.

Our response, once we realized the extent of the problem, has been to take the most drastic measures to bring it to an end.

Another part of our response to see if our share of this regrettably universal problem is worse than other folks. Why? Because that might mean that all the background checks in the world are insufficient. If there is something endemic to the Catholic Church in the United States that is causing this problem, then we needed to find out. One clue would be if we found that the rates of abuse in the Catholic Church in the US were worse than those of comparable non-Catholic organizations.

As well, the anti-Catholic bigots, here at FR, and in the wider world, were telling us that our problems are a result of the "unbiblical, unnatural" practice of celibacy, a product of our "false teachings", the natural outcome of our "non-Christian" Church.

Well, lo and behold, we find now the shoe is on the other foot! It turns out that we Catholics, overall, have the LOWEST abuse rate of any organization of any size.

So much for celibacy being the problem! So much for our "false teachings", etc., etc.

We aren't saying, "Oh, we're doing pretty good compared to the rest of you."

If we were as wicked as the anti-Catholics, we might impugn Protestants and others by saying, "Oh, what is wrong with your denominations that your rates of abusers are higher than ours? You must be unbiblical, blah, blah, blah."

But that isn't what we wish to say. We wish to say that if our rates are the lowest, than the false, anti-Catholic, bigoted remarks that we have had to live with recently are just that: false, anti-Catholic, and bigoted.

We aren't "comfortable" with anything. Otherwise, our Church would not be going through the upheaval we are experiencing, doing what we're doing to try to eradicate this abomination. It is at great expense, terrible inconvenience, significant disruption to parish life, personal embarrassment (try explaining to a non-Catholic co-worker that you have to go get FINGERPRINTED to watch the playground at recess) that we have implemented these policies. Are these the things "comfortable" folks do??

That we gathered data to assess the problem is not something to be used against us. It is a real sign of someone's moral sickness that they would use this against us, to say, "Oh, you're just trying to get yourselves off the hook."

We are trying to find the truth about these things, so that we may understand how to make things better.

As well, the results here vindicate us against our bigoted enemies, who maligned us when we were down and hurting. Now our enemies are proven false by the data, that their false, hurtful words against the Catholic Church are entirely without merit.

And our enemies now attack us for using the data to defend our Church against calumny.

Sick, just sick.

sitetest

Ping to #76.

We aren't saying, "Oh, we're doing pretty good compared to the rest of you."
Good point.

And our enemies now attack us for using the data to defend our Church against calumny.

Sick, just sick.

There are many adjectives and phrases that would fit in your final point sitetest; kudos to you for using the most charitable ones, and for a fine post! FReegards.

You said it all in #76.