Posted on 06/14/2005 5:53:57 AM PDT by ninenot
The US bishops’ conference is meeting in Chicago this week for their biannual meeting. This is supposed to be the retreat version of their two meetings this year, but some business will be done. (They’re meeting in the Fairmont, a ritzy hotel. There wasn’t a large retreat center or monastery somewhere in the country they could gather at? What kind of message does that send to the average Catholic?)
Among the business this week should be discussion of the Scandal. Now that they’ve had the studies that quantify the damage done, they want to look at the causes. If they wanted to identify the causes, there are plenty of bloggers over the past four years and other journalists in the years before that who could tell you. But then that’s an answer they don’t want.
Instead, they (or to be more accurate, the National Review Board) are requesting grant proposals for the “study on the ‘causes and context’ of the problem of sexual abuse of minors by members of the Catholic clergy in the United States, 1950-2002."
The results of this study may enable the Church to affirm its current procedures for the prevention of abuse and to realize additional methods that would promote safety for children in all types of environments.
Notice the interesting phrasing in that it assumes that the results of the study will affirm what they’re already doing. They’re pre-supposing that the current USCCB policies are fine. The current USCCB policies do not hold any bishops accountable for enabling predators to continue their predations on the young.
The study will also seek to learn:
*the epidemic aspect of the sexual abuse of incidents shown in the surge of incidents in the 1970s and the subsequent decline of reports of sexual abuse in the 1980 [They declined in the 1980s? They were just ramping up in the 80s. Paul Shanley, John Geoghan, and others were still running rampant in the 80s.]
*the prominence of young adolescent males among the victims [You know, that one’s got me stumped. Why should that be? We’ll need a multimillion dollar study just for that one.]
*the content and influence of seminary admission policies and priest formation programs before and after the 1980s [Or they could just read Michael Rose’s book “Goodbye! Good Men."]
*the ecclesiastical environment and the ways in which the Church responded to reports of sexual abuse [ “Church” means bishops in this context, but they won’t say it. Better to leave the implication that Great Aunt Mary was responsible in some way, too.]
*the behavioral and psychological problems of abusers circumstances which enhanced the vulnerability of the victims
*cultural, social and psychological factors in American Society and the Catholic Church which contribute to sexual abuse of children, particularly during the surge of incident sin the 1970s [Also known as the “we thought different about it back then” defense.]
*the response of law enforcement to reports of sexual abuse committed by clergy in the 197s [sic] as compared with current response protocols [They responded by calling the chancery who sent monsignor down to pick up the wayward priest and ask that everything be shuffled under the rug to which they obliged.]
*the common psychiatric treatment models of the 1970s as compared with current treatment model [More of the “we didn’t know then what we know” approach? Unfortunately what we know now is the immoral satiation therapy, now in use at various pedophile priest treatment centers. Things are not getting better.]
They’re going to spend at least tens of thousands of dollars, probably hundreds of thousands or more, on a study that will tell us what we already know to be the cause of the Scandal. No, I take it back. It won’t tell us what we know, because they’ll find any reason whatsoever to avoid placing the blame on the “pink elephant in the sacristy”: A toleration of homosexuality and homosexual activity among priests.
As usual, Dom provides the best RC news and analysis.
Good article. What is this "Unfortunately what we know now is the immoral satiation therapy, now in use at various pedophile priest treatment centers."? It sounds pretty disgusting.
ping
In the 1960s, the bishops abandoned traditional methods of discernment in favor of psychiatric analyses.
The psychiatrists they hired told them that it was more important to have "flexible, welcoming" seminarians than "rigid, dogmatic ones."
Of course "flexible" people have flexible morals and flexible appetites as well.
So the bishops, with the advice of psychiatrists, welcomed timebombs into the seminaries.
Then, when they started committing abominations, the psychiatrists told these stupid bishops that the abominable behavior was "curable with therapy" so instead of casting out these filth, they sent them to psychiatrists for therapy. And then, of course, they reoffended.
These bishops, having screwed up twice, tried to cover their asses in any way they could. And now they try to blame the Pope for their screwups even though they did their level best to conceal the problem from him.
No weak bishops, no problem.
good post
I can't really think of one important spiritual thing that's come out of the USCCB - or am I being too cynical?
Studies will be in progress, statistics will be generated, reports produced and analyses conducted by the score. All of which will keep an army of diocesan bureaucrats in business for years to come.
See? We're doing something.
It will become an industry and a self-perpetuating enterprise. People will be earning a handsome living off of finding creative ways to describe the naked Emperor's New Clothes.
Imagine St. Francis preaching to the crowds about where to find the very best Bordeaux or discussing the perfect recipe for braising quail with truffle oil.
Aw c'mon, tell us what you really think! =D
Actually the word "Crap", also came to my mind too.
I don't know exactly, but I recall reading in the Boston Herald, when the scandal first broke, of a psychologist who, upon seeing the "learning materials" used in the therapy then in vogue, "This is like a handbook for molesters!"
You might google Carl Rogers and Bill Coulson for hints. I'd do it, but I don't do much in this humidity! :(
No, you're just forgetting that "spiritual" doesn't mean "good." Sin is as much a spiritual entity as virtue. (Surely you've ditzes vapor on about how "spiritual" they are!)
I would note that Dom has little concern about what message the heavy-handed approach to parish/school closings send to the average Catholic, but that would be nasty, so I won't. ;-)
It is like Coke sponsoring a cola contest. Any doubt who will win?
Gee, that's a toughie! Wonder if Frank Keating would know?
You know, that's a really good question: Name ONE spiritual benefit directly attributable to USCC.
The prize: a week at the Fairmont/Chicago.
The Orthodox bishops deal directly with the Vatican - they don't look to this self-indulgent dog and pony show for their agenda or priorities.
The USCCB has rendered itself almost completely invisible to Catholics in the pew.
And it makes sense - if I'm looking for doctrinal instruction, I only need to go to the Vatican website for catechetics and official statements instantaneously translated into English. I don't need to read "Always Our Children" when I can go straight to the CDF for "Instructions on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons."
If I'm looking for resources in terms of canon law, social services, etc. I can turn to any number of grassroots, orthodox organizations that are uncompromisingly loyal to the Holy See.
The bishops and their bureaucracy think that they are supposed to be cutting-edge theologians, social workers, experimental liturgists, etc.
No one cares.
Unless you are a strong, orthodox, involved pastor a bishop is useless for any purpose except confirmations.
If I were a bishop I would visit a different parish every week to instruct and exhort the faithful, I would bring a bluetoothed laptop with me so I could handle the red tape while I was on the road, and I would continually be at the forefront of challenging civil society and its politicians and bureaucrats to acknowledge the kingship of the risen Christ.
As far as I'm concerned, these guys are passing up enormous opportunities every day.
Bishops are not supposed to answer to the USCCB, they answer to Rome. Some doctrinal authority has always belonged to the Bishops, who assign it to the USCCB.
Where money can be saved it should when dealing with the USCCB, but, they often act like a national Church more than a regional association.
>>>> I can't really think of one important spiritual thing that's come out of the USCCB - or am I being too cynical?
If you spent more than five seconds thinking about it, you aren't cynical enough. I think we can just assume these meetings are a waste of perfectly good hot air.
patent
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.