Media Myths Fuel The Clergy Abuse Scandal; Scandal In The Church:Part One

National Catholic Register ^ | April 7-13 edition | John Burger,Kathryn Jean Lopez

[Lady In Blue]

 

Media Myths Fuel the Clergy Abuse Scandal

National Catholic Register
April 7-13 2002

Scandal in the Church: Part One
by JOHN BURGER
and KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ

BOSTON - The way some of the media report it, one would believe the Church is overrun with pedophile priests, and bishops are protecting the abusers rather than the victims. No priest is to be trusted alone with children. It's not safe for a kid to go to confession or to become an altar boy.

Several assumptions need to be called into question here. Is the clergy full of pedophiles? Has the Church covered up heinous acts and not done enough to root out the problem? And are celibacy and an all-male priesthood holdovers from the Dark Ages that fan the flames of lust?

To begin with, it took a non-Catholic to point out that the term "pedophile priest" is largely a misnomer when applied to all cases of sexual impropriety. Philip Jenkins, professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University, wrote Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis in 1996. Yes, some priests have engaged in pedophilia -- exploitation of children below the age of puberty - but their number is very small. By and large, the scandals have involved sexual relations between priests and adolescents - mostly boys - which suggests that homosexuality is involved in most cases.

After a sex scandal in the early 1990s, the Archdiocese of Chicago opened records of the 2,252 priests who had served there over a period of 40 years. Less than 2% had been accused of sexual misconduct with a minor, and only one was alleged to be a pedophile.
Jenkins said there is no evidence that the rate of pedophilia among Catholic priests is higher than it is among clergy of religions that do not have a rule of celibacy - or in other professions. Fred Berlin, a psychiatrist who founded the Sexual Disorders Clinic at Johns Hopkins University and has been called on for advice by many denominations dealing with the subject, agrees.

Berlin, a member of Cardinal Bernard Law's Commission for the Protection of Children, pointed out that the problem of pedophilia and child sexual abuse has also plagued the Boy Scouts and Big Brothers organizations. In most abuse cases, the culprit is a close family member or acquaintance, he said.

This suggests that the typical media approach, which starts out describing the abuse of an individual (in this case, ex-priest John Geoghan) and then broadens that to a diocesan and national trend, is either ignorant of the difference between pedophiles and homosexuals, or is deliberately distorting the characterization of the abuse, for ideological reasons.

Secular media with an agenda to discredit the Church tar it by pretending that the abuse is pedophilia rather than homosexuality, which they have less difficulty with. Many Catholic leaders and institutions are still in denial that homosexual seminarians and priests are the problem, so they collude in fudging the issue.

The Register spoke with Philip Jenkins, whose research sheds important light on the scandals.

What do you mean when you say there is no "pedophile priest" crisis in the Catholic Church today? The headlines seem to suggest otherwise.

I think there is indeed a crisis in the sense of the upsurge of attacks on the Church and its clergy, and the enormous pressure to change Church practice, not to mention the loss of confidence among ordinary believers. The Church also faces enormous financial risks.
But what is it about?

It certainly is not about pedophiles, who represent only a tiny minority of priests, perhaps one out of every 2- or 3000. While there are serious problems with abuse and sexual misconduct, they have nothing to do with pedophilia.

I sometimes say that "pedophile priests are neither." What I mean is that many clergy who offend with minors are not priests - i.e. not Catholic priests - and most offending priests are not pedophiles. I don't want to understate the crisis, the loss of faith caused by the abuse of trust. But let's not use words that are simply inaccurate. But put another way, 97 or 98% of priests are not involved with minors, which makes the issue sound rather different. The glass is 97% full.

What is ephebophilia and why is it the more accurate term?

I tend not to use this word any more, though it has some value. It arises from the idea that most misconduct cases with minors involve young people of 14-18. There is a technical term here, ephebophilia, meaning sexual interest in those around the age of puberty, or older.

It seems silly to me, since in most societies, this is a normal age for marriage, so why can we call it a psychiatric disturbance?

Also, if the word carries no meaning for most people, best not to use it. But the word does carry the important message that most "pedophile" cases involve no such behavior - they involve young people of 16, not 6. The proper word for a man who has sex with a boy of 16 or 17 is homosexuality.

You have written that the numbers of Catholic priests accused are no higher, proportionally, than other denominations and other services professionals. Does that still ring true, even with the latest revelations out of Boston and so many other places?

Always remember that there are a lot of Catholic clergy compared to those of other denominations, and if we are counting cases that go back to the 1960s, any numbers we use have to take account of everyone who was a priest or religious in the United States in the last 40 years or so - what is that, perhaps 200,000 individuals?

If we assume that 2 or 2.5% of clergy are involved with minors - which seems likely - that suggests an offending population around 4- or 5000. That number is well in keeping with all the cases that have come to light in the last 20 years or so.

Don't forget, many of the cases arising now involve acts from the 1970s and before. Also, don't assume that every charge against a priest is automatically justified. Even when the Church settles a case, that does not necessarily involve an admission of guilt. In civil cases, it is often cleverer to cut your losses and settle out of court.

Is the Catholic Church getting an unfair rap in the media because the media fundamentally misunderstand all this?

I think so, both in the exclusive focus on the Catholic side of things, and the exaggeration of what they are supposed to have done ("pedophiles"). I am also shocked by the disingenuous neglect of the legal factors involved in all these cases, and the suggestion that the lawyers representing the victims are always crusaders for truth and justice. A lot are sharks, pure and simple, who shamelessly exploit the media to promote anti-clerical stereotypes.

They are also misusing it to make the issue celibacy, aren't they? This isn't about men who are frustrated because they've taken a vow of chastity, is it?

I would point to the many cases of offending clergy in denominations that allow marriage. If someone produces statistics suggesting a higher offense rate among celibate clergy, I will be happy to accept those figures, to admit defeat, and to change my argument. But I'm still waiting for a worthwhile study on those lines

Why is it then that there are so many homosexuals, it seems, in the priesthood and seminaries?

I do believe that the rate of gay clergy is far higher than in the population at large. Partly, this is because gay subcultures developed during the 1970s, partly because the exodus of other clergy in this time meant that bishops had to accept the situation or be left with no priests. Of course, a man with homosexual tendencies might make a magnificent priest - as I understand it, Catholic teaching asserts that the tendency itself is not sinful.

Do you see this all getting worse before better?

The main danger presently is financial - litigation in the next few years could be disastrously expensive, and it will be hard to find impartial juries in New England especially. Perhaps the only change could come if a flagrantly false accusation was made. This is after all what defused the panic in 1993, when [Chicago] Cardinal [Joseph] Bernardin was wrongly accused.

What would you suggest in terms of solutions for the Catholic bishops in the United States?

Think much harder about presenting the case for the Church and its priests; don't accept media definitions of the crisis; don't be afraid to counterattack. Make it clear that mistakes have been made, victims have been hurt, and huge reparation is owed to them; also that wrongdoers will be purged - but that having said all this, the American Church is not going out of business on this matter.

I would also ask liberal critics of the Church to think very, very seriously about what they are doing - do they really, really want to turn this whole affair into an attack on homosexual men who have sex with teen-agers? What would that idea do to other issues in which gay activism is deeply involved, e.g. concerning gay adoptions, gays in the Scout movement etc? Many gays may dislike the Church hierarchy, but do they really want to see an anti-gay panic stemming from this affair?

How did you come to study sexual issues in the context of religion?

The topic brought together two of my major interests. I have published on the history of sexual abuse and molestation, in books like Moral Panic (1998); and I am interested in bigotry and racist movements in American history [Hoods and Shirts, 1997]. This topic brought the themes together perfectly, since I was able to recognize the power of the visceral anti-Catholic imagery that was pervading coverage of the clergy-abuse issue when it surfaced in the late 1980s.

In your next book you write about global Christianity. In the context of the whole "Catholic world," how big of a role does the United States and this mess play?

Americans and Europeans often forget what a small proportion of the Catholic world they represent - and that share is declining steadily. Consequently, they ignore the fact that the Vatican has to take account of global matters, and won't jump to the voices coming out of Boston or Chicago. Of course the Vatican is so conservative on social and sexual matters - they have seen the population projections, and they can count! This current crisis might actually reduce U.S. influence in the Catholic world, especially if vocations fall any further. Personally, I note that the American Church was missionary territory until 1908 - I wonder if it might regain that status by 2008 or so?

Kathryn Jean Lopez is executive editor of National Review Online and an associate editor of National Review.

---

Subscribe Now... Letters to the Editor...About the Register...Send Us News to Cover...Back to Homepage

Copyright © 2000-2001 Circle Media, Inc.    All rights reserved.
Last modified: Thursday September 20, 2001 .

 

[Lady In Blue]

FYI and discussion.

[nickcarraway]

You can tell the media has an axe to grind against the Curch because they take a different attitude towards pedophilia and homosexuality eslewhere: i.e. the Boy Scouts, the new pro-pedohilia ``scientific study'' in a new book from the Univ. of Minnesota, etc.

[Hank Kerchief]

The way some of the media report it, one would believe the Church is overrun with pedophile priests.

The only reason this is so hard to believe is because the media is finally getting something right.

Anyone who leaves their child alone with a priest ought to be charged with child abuse. The only thing possibly worse is leaving a child alone with a public school teacher.

Hank

[Dumb_Ox]

Anyone who leaves their child alone with a priest ought to be charged with child abuse. The only thing possibly worse is leaving a child alone with a public school teacher.

And people claim that I live in a world where nearly everybody is a criminal.

[Commander8]

Homosexuality, ephobophilia, pederastry, pedophilia, whats the difference? It's all Sodomotic abomination to me.

[Lady In Blue]

Are you Hugh?

If not,excuse me.Now,to get on to business.I've known and met many wonderful priests in my life.They have been holy and taught what the Church teaches and I would trust them with children ANYTIME because I know what kind of priests they are.There have many married people who I would not trust my cat with.If you really read the entire article you would have seen that there are far fewer pedophile priests than there are among married men.You ought to be ashamed to blame all priests for the sins of a few.I do not blame all protestant ministers, for sins against the flesh,of a few.Lastly,I remember that we are all sinners,in one way or another.I think that we should all pray for each other.

[Lady In Blue]

You're right.About an hour ago,I was surfing through the cable channels and you probably won't believe this,but all of the channels except C-Span was covering either the scandals in the church or if the Church will have trouble raising money.The young woman who,you could just see it in her eyes,looked as if she was hoping that with these scandals the Church will have less money! I believe she was on "America Now." I don't recall her name.I hope at some point she remembers that the Lord will take care of his Church because he promised that "The gates of hell will not prevail against it."

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Hank's an atheist. Insulting Christians, Catholics in particular, is sport to him.

[steve50]

If the Catholic Church doesn't stop protecting these animals it should cease to exist. Any organization whose leaders would allow this to continue has absolutely no connection to God.

[DoorGunner]

Lady:

This piece present us with an opportunity to study extremely artful

propaganda, which, by crudely appealing to its apparent audience,

actually makes the case for an entirely different constituency.

 

Consider the following rather obvious propaganda techniques:

First, there are two blatantly straw-man questions, which, taken

together, draw attention away from the real issue:

 

1. Is the clergy full of pedophiles?

2. Has the Church covered up heinous acts and not done enough to root

out the problem?

3. And are celibacy and an all-male priesthood holdovers from the Dark

Ages that fan the flames of lust?

 

The first question is not only obviously false, such obvious falseness

requires a reasonable reader to accept the opposite premise.

The third question, although less obviously false, is not even a

legitimate question, but rather an inflammatory statement, masquerading

as a question, which leads a reasonable reader to accept its

apparent opposite.

 

The second question is a legitimate question, and is perhaps the

most important question which needs to be answered about this

terrible situation. Unfortunately, since it contains the propaganda

phrases "heinous acts," and root out;" and since it is sandwiched

between the other improper questions, lead serious people to

ignore it.

 

the term "pedophile priest" is largely a misnomer when applied to all

cases of sexual impropriety.

 

This phrase sets up the name "pedophile priest" as the major

issue, when it is not any serious issue, at all. This is the classic

"straw man" propaganda technique.

 

Yes, some priests have engaged in pedophilia -- exploitation of children

below the age of puberty - but their number is very small. By and large, the

scandals have involved sexual relations between priests and adolescents -

mostly boys - which suggests that homosexuality is involved in most cases.

 

Again, "pedophilia" (see further definitions below) is used to minimize

the problem. Then, the unsupported claim that "...the number is very small." 

This idea leads the reader to feel that "sexual relations between priests

and adolescents..." is not nearly as serious. (Note also, the implicit

idea that "homosexuality is involved," seems to be relatively benign.

 

 

After a sex scandal in the early 1990s, the Archdiocese of Chicago opened

records of the 2,252 priests who had served there over a period of 40 years.

Less than 2% had been accused of sexual misconduct with a minor, and only

one was alleged to be a pedophile.

The factoid that "Less than 2% had been accused of sexual misconduct

with a minor,"  is essentially meaningless: Some will have been

accused falsely, some will have committed the crime, but have not

been accused, and some will have committed the same offense, but

with someone 18 or over. The idea that "only one...a pedophile."

rests on the strict definition, below.

 

The whole effect is to minimize a very serious problem. One must consider

how many priests sinned, but were not accused; how many children did

each offender ruin; and what did the Church do about it?

 

 

Jenkins said there is no evidence that the rate of pedophilia among Catholic

priests is higher than it is among clergy of religions that do not have a rule of

celibacy - or in other professions.

 

This is essentially a meaningless statement-- its opposite could be

stated as legitimately. It only serves to minimize the problem. This is

called spreading the blame.

 

the problem of pedophilia and child sexual abuse has also plagued the

Boy Scouts and Big Brothers organizations.

The word "plagued" is contentless. That there have been incidents

in both Big Brothers and Boy Scouts is true, but irrelevant, unless those

organizations have also covered up the incidents, and merely transferred

the guilty adults, and failed to remove them from positions of trust.

 

In most abuse cases, the culprit is a close family member or acquaintance, he said.

This is a classic "non-sequitur."  

 

The difference between pedophiles and homosexuals,

This is not only not at issue, the statement is ridiculous, in that  "pedophiles"

may be either hetero- or homo- sexual.

 

It certainly is not about pedophiles, who represent only a tiny minority of

priests, perhaps one out of every 2- or 3000. While there are serious problems

with abuse and sexual misconduct, they have nothing to do with pedophilia.

This is not only an unsupported and unsupportable statement, it also 

returns the reader to the straw man argument that the issue is the

name "pedophilia."

 

97 or 98% of priests are not involved with minors, which makes the

issue sound rather different. The glass is 97% full.

Again the false concept that, if most priests are not guilty, then

there is no big problem. " Also, the problem is not that 3% of

priests are "involved with minors," but that they are guilty of

criminal, sinful behavior which causes terrible harm.

 

most misconduct cases with minors involve young people of 14-18.

There is a technical term here, ephebophilia, meaning sexual interest in

those around the age of puberty, or older.

"Misconduct" is a propaganda word, which constitutes an attempt

to make criminal, sinful, and vile behavior seem benign. Presuming

that "ephebophilia" is, in actuality, a legitimate description, its

use constitutes a distinction, without a difference. Using a Greek

word cannot legitimize the act.

 

It seems silly to me, since in most societies, this is a normal age for marriage, so

why can we call it a psychiatric disturbance?

This sentence begins with another non-sequitur,  it is also a "straw man."

Whether the behavior in question is "a psychiatric disturbance," or

not, is not at issue here.

 

the important message that most "pedophile" cases involve no

such behavior - they involve young people of 16, not 6. The proper word for a

man who has sex with a boy of 16 or 17 is homosexuality.

This is very interesting. The false issue of the name pedophilia leads

the reader to feel that evil acts labeled "homosexuality" may not be

so bad, It sets up the "liberal" reader (who has chosen to view

"homosexuality" as a positive "good") to begin to view the whole

horrible subject of priests and children as a good thing, if only the

children involved are over 14.

 

 

have to take account of everyone who was a priest or religious in the

United States in the last 40 years or so - what is that, perhaps

200,000 individuals?

This guess is not only unsupported, it is also irrelevant. Members of

"religious," orders are not at issue, here, only priests.

 

If we assume that 2 or 2.5% of clergy are involved with minors - which seems

likely - that suggests an offending population around 4- or 5000. That number

is well in keeping with all the cases that have come to light in the last 20 years

or so.

IF this figure is accurate (and I personally do not think it is--I certainly

hope not) consider how many thousands of children have been

seriously damaged, perhaps lost their souls, because of it. Again,

we are not discussing "offending." This is not about not bathing

often enough. We are discussing a horrible evil.

 

I would point to the many cases of offending clergy in denominations that

allow marriage.

Of course, we have read of such sin, in other denominations.

There are some differences, though:

1. I have not heard about anywhere near so many.

2. I have not heard that there have been massive cover-ups.

3. In most protestant churches, the  "clergy" does not wield

as much religious power.

4. In most protestant churches, the private "confessional is

 

 

not institutionalized--one would not normally find a child

confessing his/her most intimate sexual emotions, hence,

vulnerability.

 

Make it clear that mistakes have been made, victims have been hurt

 NO, NO, NO! "Mistakes were made" minimizes the crime.

These acts are EVIL.

 

I would also ask liberal critics of the Church to think very, very seriously about

what they are doing - do they really, really want to turn this whole affair into

an attack on homosexual men who have sex with teen-agers? What would that

idea do to other issues in which gay activism is deeply involved, e.g. concerning

gay adoptions, gays in the Scout movement etc? Many gays may dislike the

Church hierarchy, but do they really want to see an anti-gay panic stemming

from this affair?

 

This is the "hook," I think, for liberals, etc. If they have swallowed

the false premise that the problem is "homosexuality, not pedophilia,"

they may not merely stop "Catholic bashing," they may start

advocating the evil behavior of child molesting priests as

positively beneficial.

 

DG

 

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

1. I have not heard about anywhere near so many.

Read about these examples of Child Sexual Molestation by Protestant Clergy. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Once you're done let me know and I'll give you links to more documented cases

[DoorGunner]

Thank you for the information.

I wish to say, for the record, that is is no less vile, for a "protestant" clergyman to molest a child, than it is for a Catholic priest. DG

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Conservative Catholics (Buckley, Bennett, Buchanan, Weigel, Donohue) Speak Out: Boston Globe

[Hank Kerchief]

I've known and met many wonderful priests in my life.They have been holy and taught what the Church teaches and I would trust them with children ANYTIME because I know what kind of priests they are.

If you know someone personally, and are absolutely certain they are good and decent people, I would agree with you. But, many people felt about those priests who have since been endicted, that they knew them and knew they were holy and taught what the Church teaches. I know I spoke in gerenalities, but, on the other hand, you just cannot be too careful about your children.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

Hank's an atheist. Insulting Christians, Catholics in particular, is sport to him.

If your God, the one that protects Bishops and Cardinals that protect pedophiles were the true God, I would be an athiest. My God and my church is opposed to homosexual predators and pedophiles, and my sympathy is with all the victims of those monsters, not the organization that protected them all these years, or at least the individuals within the organization that did.

I know you didn't mean what you said, and I understand how these things are emotionally charged. Sorry if my approach upset you. I have nothing against Catholics. I even like you.

Hank

[Lady In Blue]

Thanks for the info.I wasn't sure.

[Lady In Blue]

Are you a Catholic or protestant? The Church doesn NOT protect or approve sins of any kind from any source. All of the sins listed in this article are grave or mortal sins.And they are committed by a relative few Catholic clergy.These same sins are committed by protestant clergy.

[Lady In Blue]

The Catholic church as the word of Jesus Christ:"Thou art Peter and upon this rock,I will build my Church and THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT."

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Hank, in our last encounter you told me that you would not believe in God unless I could prove His existence to you. I poured my heart out and you toyed with me and laughed at me. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

I meant what I said and there was no emotional charge to it. You enjoy playing with people's minds and insulting their belief systems. If you think that makes you a Christian it doesn't. I know you don't like Catholics and you don't like me. Your mean-spirited posts tell it all. I'm not buying what you're selling.

[Hank Kerchief]

Hank, in our last encounter you told me that you would not believe in God unless I could prove His existence to you. I poured my heart out and you toyed with me and laughed at me. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

I meant what I said and there was no emotional charge to it. You enjoy playing with people's minds and insulting their belief systems. If you think that makes you a Christian it doesn't. I know you don't like Catholics and you don't like me. Your mean-spirited posts tell it all. I'm not buying what you're selling.

I confess I have no idea what our "previous encounter" was, but from what you said, I suspect it had to do with the confusion between "superstition" and "faith" as the Bible describes, which has nothing to do with accepting something without understanding it.

I also confess that I frequently pose questions, and make statements meant to be provocative, which are sometime annoying or irritating to those who misunderstand my intention. I also admit it does not worry me much, since most people are just dying to find something to be annoyed about, a view I find both sad and amusing.

You do not seem to belong to this group, however. I do not know anything about you other than what you say, but what you say, you say well, and with a great deal of genuine feeling and conviction. I suspect you are a woman of character, and not afraid to speak your mind. Since that is all there is to know, why would I not like you. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, don't you?

Anyway, it's all only words, and you may believe what you like, but, please don't let anything I say, or for that matter, anything anyone says upset you. Rom 14:5 "... Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Stand by your convictions and don't let old reprobates like me bother you.

I'm not at all concerned, by the way, whether you believe me or not. But, please believe this, what other people say is not really important, only what you know, and your own sincere seeking of the truth matter, and if everyone says bad things about you, and you are doing right, too bad for everyone else.

Hank