Posted on 05/02/2002 8:28:09 AM PDT by Remole
It reminds me of when a little kid is caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and he defends his actions by saying that his brothers and sisters did it too.
Most studies indicate that approximately two percent of Catholic clergy have been found guilty of sexual misconduct with minors, a percentage nearly identical to that found in the general population.
If Bishop Tobin is comforted by this fact, then the Catholic Church is in deeper trouble than I feared. By his logic, the ranks of Catholic Priests should include the same number of rapists, murderers, junkies, etc. as the general population... Aren't priest called to a higher moral standard? Shouldn't they be held to a higher moral standard than the "general population"? I pray we do.
Notice that Bishop Tobin DOESN'T defend Catholic sexual abusers by pointing out that others do it, too. He is only pointing out that the media are IGNORING the clergy and personnel of other churches. He is not excusing or defending anyone. He is accusing the media of bias.
Some critics have blamed current programs of seminary formation for the flawed priests we hear about today. It’s argued that because of the shortage of priests, bishops are willing to ordain defective candidates.
He also lists a couple of examples of false accusations and listed the late Cardinal Bernadin among the falsely accused. I'm not sure what to think of Cardinal Bernadin, but given the rumors, I don't think I'd use him in an article defending these scandals.
Everything is referred to as "sexual abuse of children" but, as you say, the "elephant in the living room" (previously known as "the elephant in the closet"), is not mentioned.
I don't care what the press has been reporting or not reporting, had the press not reported on this issue, it probably would not have come to light for years - resulting in the damage of more young children.
Didn't Cardinal Eagan try to get around this by saying that a priest is a "free-lance employee" or something like that?
They should be, of course, and if you read Goodbye! Good Men, you will see that too many of our bishops have been woefully derelict.
But I think comparisons to the general population can be misleading -- it's not an even distribution: those who want to prey on the young are drawn to areas where the young are -- clergy, social workers, teachers, youth workers. Even the Boy Scouts, in spite of their strict policies, occasionally have molestation suits filed against them. I would be willing to wager that the incidence of pedophilia and ephebophilia is small to the point of vanishing among, say, bond traders -- not that they are more virtuous overall than the "general population," just that the field will attract those more interested in money than in molestation.
You are right, I am wrong. I just re-read the article, and reading it again with different eyes has put the whole thing in context regarding the press. I am, in a sad and depressed way, happy that the press "outed" this problem. But the Peter Jennings episode does indicate that *some* reporters are not balanced in what they produce.
In Catholicism, as you know, we are all under one great big tent, we hold ourselves to be a "moral beacon" and therefore are much more open to criticism in all that we do.
Perhaps the increase in "opportunity" afforded priests to molest is offset by the "moral standing" not to molest, making the overall percent of molestors about the same to the general population? </thinking out loud>
If that's the case, it's more important than ever for the Bishops and seminaries to identify and remove these scumbags.
Willing to ordain defective candidates? In the Archdiocese of San Antonio where I reside, Archbishop Flores told the Director of Admissions of Assumption Seminary to ignore the negative info from the Bishop of Oaxaca, MX regarding a Seminarian he wanted admitted. He did ignore the warnings, and the Seminarian, Xavier Ortiz-Dietz, who had been kicked out of the Seminary in Oaxaca for Pedophilia came to the US. The letter Archbishop Flores wrote the Seminarian telling him to get here asap is an indictment in itself. If that wasn't bad enough, he was ordained a Priest, molested something like 40 boys, and the Archbishop tried to buy their families' silence with big fat checks.
Sounds more like recruitment, than just ignoring these perverts.
And while I'm on my soapbox, I watched Fr. Mitch Pacwa, and Fr. Angelus Shaughnessy on Mother Angelica Live talking about this..I was not only disappointed, I was angered. When are Priests who aren't pedophiles, going to speak out forcefully about these criminal Priests, and the criminal Bishops who covered up their crimes? Thank God my Priest tells it like it is, and always has.
Absolutely! They should at least be as careful as the Boy Scouts. Also, I don't think the big problem here is the incidence of abuse -- or rather the incidence of abusers (since, overall, they seem to be rather busy little bees). It's the refusal of the bishops to remove them.
I did go to the Boston Globe website to see the documents released in the Geoghan case. They made me wonder whether any of Geoghan's superiors -- in their concern to send him for "treatment", blah, blah, blah -- ever thought to mention to him that what he was doing was wrong. Now, Geoghan was clearly soft as a grape, and I can understand diminished responsibility because of mental illness, but unless you're so bad you think you're a cabbage, you have some responsibility.
In Geoghan's case, there's no evidence I know of that anyone ever told him he was doing evil things -- until he stood before a Massachusetts judge -- we're in a sad state when Massachusetts judges look better than the hierarchy.
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.