I’ve previously written of the Catholic Church’s downward spiral into depravity but the link between child abuse and Catholicism clergy just won’t go away (as opposed to the link between Catholic Priest’s abuse of children and homosexuality, which never existed in the first place). Â The latest is a real double-header and astounded even me.
The quotes are taken from a Guardian article that quotes Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s permanent observer to the UN.
The first thing that Archbishop Tomasi addresses is pedophillia, or rather that he believes that the majority of clergy members involved in child abuse would better be classified as ephebophiles. Â An ephebophile is someone who has sexual preference for pubescent males.
“Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17.”
This is PR drivel of the highest order. Â Developed society considers those who have a sexual preference for those below the age of consent as pedophiles. Â The 11-17 age range also seems somewhat broad and open to interpretation. Â The breach of trust that is so often a defining factor in clergy abuse cases tends to apply more to the lower end of that age range.
The objective of the Church here is to disassociate itself from the negative connotations of pedophillia, and reclassify the crime as something else. Â Something that doesn’t immediately cause common society to gasp in horror. Â I’ve called this PR drivel, but let’s be honest, this is a rebranding exercise. Â The Catholic Church is trying to rebrand their pedophiles.
The other nugget of information Archbishop Tomasi slipped out was that only 1.5% to 5% of Catholic Clergy were involved in Child abuse. Â Two things should astonish you about this. Â Firstly, the numbers involved. Â According to numerous sources ( e.g. here) the number of Catholic Clergy is currently around 400,000 and growing. Â That means there are approximately 6,000 to 20,000 pedophiles in their organisation. Â And not only that, but we have to remember, these are the ones the Church knows of. Â Given the track record of this particular organisation, one would be justified in assuming that the actual number is significantly higher.
At this point I should point out that this article was written a number of weeks ago and left languishing in my drafts folder. Â I decided to finish it, and release it to the world after reading about Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens winning a debate on whether the Catholic Church was a force for good. Â They argued, successfully, that it was not, citing amongst other things:
“institutionalisation of the rape and torture and maltreatment of children”
As an aside, if you enjoy reading news articles that were clearly written through gritted teeth, I’d recommend reading the linked story from The Catholic Herald.
Some might argue that it would be difficult to prove the Catholic Church is a force for good even without the systemic child abuse, but with it, it’s somewhat of a laughing stock.
As awful as raping children is, sheltering the rapists, as the Catholic Church has done, is almost as bad. It would have been in the best interests of the church, to say nothing of the kids, to not shelter the guilty priests. For the sake of its own PR, the church could have apprehended these priests and nipped the problem in the bud, saying, “We found the abuse and we crushed it.”
That would have helped the kids, too.
There’s not much worse in the world than raping children, pubescent or not.
Sarah, I totally agree that raping children is about as bad as you can get. Something that is not known much is that most of the cases surfacing now are at least 30 years from during the turbulent 60’s, and many of the perpetrators are now dead. Our understanding of psychology has greatly improved since then: eg the permanent damage done to the victim, the pathological psychology of the perpetrator (ie just shifting the person to an office post will not resolve their perversion etc…). It is too late for many, but the church is doing what it can now, to apprehend and stamp it out…. and going bankrupt in many places for it!
Please also read my response to the blog article, below, as well.
Before responding to the post, I will affirm unconditionally that there can never be any defence of child-abuse, or indeed any abuse, but particularly against the most vulnerable, and especially by those in special positions of trust, such as clergy, teachers, doctors, the police force and parents.
That said, any individual and institution should be given a fair hearing. Regarding this particular post, the Archbishops’s remarks are a specific response of the Holy See to a specific accusation led by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), who wish to include specific mention of the Catholic Church in a UN document on child abuse. All of the Archbishop’s points should therefore be understood in that context. His points are:
1. The Catholic Church should not be singled out unfairly by the UN. (The point of the quote from the Christian Monitor was to affirm that this is not just a “Catholic” problem).
2. In any case the numbers quoted are too high. Of the estimated 1.5%-5% abusers in the clergy, by no means are these all child-abusers. This is not meant to excuse anyone from what remains a perversion. Note also, that the text of the Archbishop does not include the word “only”… that was rather thoughtfully added by the writer of the Guardian article. (A conscientious blogger might have checked that out first!) Another point, Atheist, is that these figures are not Church figures. As your other articles on this topic have often pointed out (I have only just seen them, and will be sure to take the bait when I next find a moment) they come from third parties, though often commissioned by the Church to come to better knowledge of the extent of the problem.
3. The Catholic Church has indeed put in place some strong measures to try to counter the problem, and it has procedures in place to bring abusers to justice ie to civil authority, and some recompense to the abused. All of this has occured under strong media scrutiny. Yet 85% of child abuse comes from within the family or from those very close to the family (babysitters, neighbours, etc…) and about one in six child molesters are other children. Why is all this not as important to the UN as Catholic abuse? (or more precisely, to the International Humanist and Ethics Organisation who is behind the push to target the Catholic Church).
Or again, why are not schools singled out, since that is the locus of the highest abuse?
Conclusion: child abuse (which, incidentally, includes the millions of abortions performed each year with UN sanction) is a problem facing the world as a whole and is not just a “Catholic” problem. Not that any abuse is good, but in fact Catholic percentages are lower than in the population as a whole, and indeed the Church is facing up to the challenge of facing the problem and addressing it, unlike many other institutions. I am not proud of those who have let down the Church (and me) by their actions, but it is not right, despite the indubitable debating ability of Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens, that the Church’s legacy is the “institutinalisation of the rape and torture and maltreatment of children”, but in fact, she is the strongest ally of children despite the wickedness and hypocrisy of some small proportion of its members. Recognising the value of the child (and just as importantly, of the family) is actually a development from within Christian culture. Thus institutionalised rape, slavery and parental abuse of children is still a feature of many Asiatic and African cultures, for example. How often have you heard about that on TV? And how devastated is the IHEU about that? Actually, to be fair, quite a bit in the latter case! But you didn’t hear about that in the Guardian report or on this blog did you?
Before replying to your post, let me just mention that anyone confusing birth control (including abortion) and child abuse loses all intellectual credibility. You might want to use a dictionary or an encyclopedia before making such blatantly erroneous statements.
“That said, any individual and institution should be given a fair hearing.” Absolutely, and that is why the Catholic church, as a powerful religious institution (and the theocratic state behind it) must be held accountable for persistent and codified protection/concealement of sex offenders, repression of the victims, as well as sustaining an environment favourable to such criminals (repressive and unnatural celibacy rules, spiritual/psychological/physical supremacy over young children, etc.).
1. Addressing the Catholic church’s criminal behaviour of obstruction of justice and protection of sex offenders is not unfair treatment.
2. You shoot yourself in the foot here: if the Church has to ask third parties to research the problem and provide figures, it must be because “church figures” are untrustworthy.
3. The UN and IHEU are surely proportionaly concerned with all forms of child abuse. The difference between the individual perpetrators and the Catholic church is that the latter conceals/diminishes the crimes of its members, using its powerful status to obstruct justice and, at least passively, allow abuse to continue over decades. Schools do not attempt to hide/protect offending members, quite the contrary (except, perhaps, in the case of religious structures who have a moral image to defend at all costs). ÃŽn addition, unlike the Catholic church, “schools” are not an organised institution, and thus cannot be “singled out”. Your comparison is like saying married couples should be “singled out” in the fight against domestic violence, because that is where it occurs the most.
your conclusion: child abuse is absolutely not “just a Catholic problem”, but they are one of the only worldwide organisations passively enabling it.
“in fact Catholic percentages are lower than in the population as a whole, and indeed the Church is facing up to the challenge of facing the problem and addressing it, unlike many other institutions.” This sounds like something you made up as you went; cite your sources please, and name names as far as the elusive “many other institutions”.
The Church is far from being the child’s ally, nor that of the family (especially in its misogynistic and homophobic stances). The indocrination of children with illusions, discrimination, and a lack of critical thought, religious teachings are terribly detrimental to children’s mental/spiritual/sexual well-being. The Church’s anti-birth control stance and patriarcal views are devastating for families. As for Africa and Asia, those elements of “institutionalised rape, slavery and parental abuse of children” are more often than not the result of religious beliefs, coupled with tribal mentalities. Have you heard of the christian witch hunts, resulting in the brutal murders of men, woman and children? Just because this blog does not mention everything, it does not mean there is a lack of awareness, but simply imply a certain coherence on the part of the blogger (and the journalist of the Guardian article).
Pedro.
I never introduced the topic of birth control. Even the dictionary is aware that abortion is different:
“Abortion: Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus.”
“Birth control: Planned interference with conception in order to control the number of offspring born.”
There is a huge moral difference between interfering with conceiving and killing a life already begun.
We are in total agreement that anyone who has been involved in sex offences (whether Catholic or not) and anyone trying to conceal it should be brought to justice. I will answer your other assertion in your unnumbered section below.
To take your numbers, then.
1. There is nothing preventing anyone from bringing a civil case against a priest, and it happens from time to time. Most diocesan guideline encourage this.
2. External research is necessary for a number of reasons. I am surprised to have to defend that! Besides objectivity, external investigations can bring useful information to light that is not simply out there. Expertise from sociologists, psychologists, etc… Do I need to go on?
3. In a secular court of law, the “powerful status” of the Church has no control. I respectfully disagree that the UN and IHEU are not targeting the Catholic Church unfairly. I agree that “schools” are not a single institution. However, it is still possible to show that the highest incidence of abuse happens there. My point was simply, that if the IHEU’s main concern is to eradicate child abuse and not the Catholic Church, it would be adressing this issue as well.
Schools actually work much the same way as the Church does. All schools have certain governmental guidelines and approvals they need, and all parishes have certain church guidelines and approvals to operate. Unless you are arguing that the Catholic Church has an institutional desire for child abuse and is trying to get more priests involved in it, all the statistics and facts come from an accumulation of parishes, just as they do for schools.
In your analogy, I would certainly argue that if one were to seek to address the problem of domestic violence, one should definitely analyse the situation of married couples and what leads to this situation. But as I have pointed out before, the statistics involving the Catholic Church (ie individual priests who are Catholic) and society at large are not significantly dissimilar. (I am using the reports that you were scornful of in point number 2 – check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases for a superficial understanding of the case. Also note that abuse allegations are actually in decline: “The number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s”.
I stand by what I said: that the Catholic Church is being unfairly singled out, as statistics do not show any significant difference within as without. If anything, the numbers are slightly lower. Nor do I think it unfair to compare, say the police force and the “priest force” in terms of such numbers. Both certainly come into contact with children in the course of their work. Because we live in a sick society, we will find sickness in both from time to time. The solution is not to pick on the priests because the Church is a single institution or something, but to recognise that this is a problem far more pressing than any individual or group.
If the IHEU really wants to seek the causes and the heart of the problem of child abuse I am all for it!
[PS I have ignored your last paragraph which is purely personal and unsubstantiated opinion, with which I disagree totally]
Jonathan Baker,
Firstly, I stand corrected for having included abortion in birth control; abortion is not, however, child abuse (cf definitions for both), but the termination of an organism (the embryo, sometimes the feotus) that has yet to become a human being. I will not get into the debate of “where life begins”, since this is not the subject.
1. This is questionable. Not only the psychological pressure of a whole religion backs the sex offending priest in the face of his victim (which is not the case with an uncle or step-father, for example), but the Catholic church is known to have displaced known pedophile priests to other dioceses without warning the members of the latter, enabling them to continue with their crimes. The policy of secrecy and internal judgment (cf. Crimen sollicitationis) trades off the moral and legal obligation of turning the alleged offender over to justice in exchange for better PR; the Church puts its image above children’s wellbeing, and you still claim its their ally? Hundreds of children would not have suffered sexual abuse if the Catholic church had put the law (and I don’t mean their internal “bad man, your excommunicated” brand of “justice”) above its fear of criticism and bad publicity.
2. You miss my point entirely. I was mocking your criticism of Atheist for citing numbers that you dismiss as being “third party”, in comparison to what you suggest would be more reliable “church figures”.
3. In an ideal world, the Church’s status would have no weight. This is sadly not the case; through belief, the Church holds a certain amount of power over the community, who will readily trust it over the accusations of a young victim. Imagine the powerful effect of collective cognitive dissonance on the part of the parish’s members… not to mention that the victim is not up against a man, but a man of GOD (with a multimillionaire church/state backing him up)! As mentioned above, this cannot be compared to what a victim faces when reporting a teacher, uncle or social worker.
Unlike schools, the Church is a single organization representing divine power. Moreover, school “guidelines” don’t allow for secret trials and the like.
I have to disagree with you when you say that the situation of the Church and society are similar: society almost always turns its predators in to the law (as fast as they possibly can), instead of covering it up as much as possible. Even the Church’s report on the problem accounts for the pressure put on victims to stay silent, and the displacement of sex offenders to unknowing parishes. http://www.sarabite.info/johnjayreport.pdf
Finally, it is a pity that you ignore my last paragraph, which proposes a contradictory argument to your claim that the church is the strongest ally of children and family (a claim which I, too, could have put off as “purely personal and unsubstantiated opinion”). Having lived five years in Africa (2 in Kenya, 3 in Cameroon), what you call my “unsubstantial opinion” is not only based on the news (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children-denounce_n_324943.html), but also on personal observation/experience.
Furthermore, any belief system that teaches hate, discrimination, and claims to hold the only unquestionable Truth, is every child’s – and humanity’s – worst enemy.
Pedro, let us agree to differ on the seriousness of abortion. I think a being within a being having a different set of 46 chromosomes, with a complete duplicate set of organs, with a different blood type, ability to hear, see, think, suck it, own set of 10 fingers, 10 toes etc… is another human. You think that it only becomes so if it is lucky enough to make it outside… (unless you agree with Prof. Singer who thinks that such a creature is not a human person until about 2 years old, and is tempted to increase that figure). OK, clearly we have far different criteria…. fine, let’s leave that for another day.
1. Civil cases are brought against priests all the time. That is not questionable: try googling it and take your pick.
Secondly, in fact, abuse statistics within the family are notoriously difficult, because the abused are normally very reluctant to reveal the abuse. There are many psychological factors in play that are gradually becoming better understood. eg very often a good uncle will be accused over the bad one… eg the ability of the mind to repress these memories, and so on… eg the lack of credence given by other family members (abusers can often be the ones everyone thinks would be the least likely).
Third, yes, it is the sad truth that some pedophile priests have been transferred by bishops. This was the case 40 years ago. Some bishops dealt with the case in a similar way as they would have with a consensual sexual encounter with another adult (of either sex) not understanding well either the psychopathic nature of pedophilia (and likelihood of reoffending) or the damage done the victim. (Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia ). It seems that the precise origin and cure are still far away. In fact, the unimpressive attempts at the latter have caused some psychologists (including the powerful APA: American Psychological Association) to argue that “child sexual abuse could be harmless and beneficial.” (Check out http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=2777 if you really want to be alarmed!)
The Catholic Church at least remains very clear that it is gravely immoral.
I wondered if you were referring to crimen sollicitationis before. This refers, of course, to a document concerning Church law regarding abuse cases. Read http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2005/04/observe_this.html for a typical article at the time, with critique. There is also a link to the actual document on the Vatican website.
Still, I admit that some bishops were extremely culpable in their duties, you are right.
2. I think you misunderstood me too, then! Atheist and I were citing the same numbers. I did not “dismiss” them, but wanted to clarify that they referred to ALL abuse of any kind and not specifically to child abuse. Nothing more, nothing less.
3. In an ideal world, everyone would be morally upright, but in the real world we will always have differing opinions about what that even means. If you are pro democracy, and pro debating the issues in the public square, as I assume you are, you should not be so quick to try to muzzle the Church.
Actually the education board does have the exact equivalent to what you call a “secret trial.” As well as a civil law case being brought against a teacher, he can additionally be stripped of his licence to teach. That is an exact equivalent. Indeed the Church is not so monolithic as you think. Apart from some doctrinal and practical issues which all Catholics are supposed to accept, individual bishops have a wide jurisdiction over their own diocese. So parish:diocese:pope is very analogous to school:state education board:secretary of education (or whatever your US equivalents are).
When drawing a similarity between Church and society I was referring to numbers and extent. Thanks for linking to the John Jay Report. I strongly recommend everyone to read it.
4. I agree that the matters in which we differ in your final paragraph remain unsubstantiated by both of us. Feel free to substantiate, and I will respond.
I too have lived in Africa (15 years actually). The article you linked to is particularly tragic, but I don’t see the relevance. The “Mount Zion Lighthouse” church (and many evangelical churches in general) suffers precisely because it has nothing of the intellectual and structural rigour of the Catholic Church, so individual pastors can pretty much read the Bible and social setting whichever way they want. I could add that witch doctors are a scurge in Africa… my father (a medical doctor) has an x-ray of a nail through a brain thanks to a witch doctor thinking it the best way to resolve a head-ache… actually it worked in an unexpected way!
The Catholic Church does not teach hate, discrimination, or even claim to hold unquestionable Truth, and is the best hope for humanity and family in these sad times of confusion and moral disorder despite the wickedness of those within who betray her by their grave offences.
Jonathan Baker, thank you for your consistent responses in this debate. Yes, we must agree to disagree on the abortion issue, although I would have you know that I am against induced abortion during the foetal stages unless the mother’s health/life is endangered by a continued pregnancy. My personal opinion is that an individual begins to exist when sensory input can be stored/recuperated by its brain. (NB, there would be hundreds of thousands less abortions if sexual education and contraception were not so ferociously resisted by Christians and other religious orders).
1. In all cases of sexual abuse there is a percentage of them that are never brought to justice for fear of the perpetrator, as well as feelings of shame, betrayal and guilt. My point is that those concerning men of the cloth (no matter which religion, although the Catholic Church seems to be in pole position) are more common for the reasons stated in my previous post.
The Church’s clear stance on the immorality of abuse and its hypocritical actions concerning it (e.g. the subject of Atheist’s article above) only makes it worse.
The article you linked to, with a highly emotional and somewhat misleading critique, does show the media’s ability to manipulate information (and an individual’s ability to manipulate that for his own purposes).
It fails, however, to absolve the Church of its evasive and secretive attitude concerning its inner criminality; not only a random text in Latin on the Vatican’s website is not what I would call “publicly available” but, most importantly, a young victim who is told that he is held by an oath of silence towards the Church can hardly understand that that does not concern the rest of his universe, considering the all-encompassing authority of the Church for those who grow up within it. The cognitive dissonance and resulting guilt and shame is all the more devastating because the abuse comes from a moral authority representing everything the victim believes, above and beyond the individual of the abuser.
We may not know exactly what causes paedophilia, but what we do know is that all abusers have a history of abuse themselves. Considering the Church’s long history of abuse (mental, physical and sexual, often under the guise of “discipline”), as well as its misogyny and unnatural stance towards sexuality (as a sin, homophobia, vow of celibacy; resulting in repressed impulses and frustration), it is no wonder that the UN and the IHEU wish to address the problem within the Catholic Church directly. The case of Ireland demonstrates not only how the power of the Catholic Church permeates the state, but also that the abusers were protected both by displacement and legal action, to the detriment of the thousands of victims. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/20/irish-catholic-schools-child-abuse-claims) Moreover, the claim that such abuse is a matter of « 40 years ago » does not hold: the above mentioned institutions only closed in the 90’s, and cases of abuse continue to arise to this day (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_by_country for a non-exhaustive list).
I agree with you on one thing though: that some would consider sex acts with minors (in particular pre-pubescent minors) as « harmless and beneficial » is an abhorrent idea that should be eradicated ipso facto. I do not know the APA, but they sound terribly incompetent if they can come up with such a conclusion despite the crushing evidence of the negative results of child sexual abuse.
2. My apologies for the misunderstanding then. However, the majority of those 1.5-5% are sexual acts with minors, as the reports demonstrate.
3. I am pro-democracy up to a certain point: when an institution of power has modelled the masses’ mentality over centuries, to a point where many individuals short-circuit their critical thought in favour of that with which they where indoctrinated their whole life, then democracy has a problem (especially when said individuals hold positions of legal importance). I do not believe that the majority is always right, either, but I digress.
Your analogy ignores one important difference between the Church’s secret trials and those of schools (if such exist; here in Switzerland, any case of alleged child abuse is immediately referred to the Department of Justice and Police). That difference being, the Church’s judgement takes place before any legal action, and aims at preventing it, while sanctioning the perpetrator (if sanction there is) with inconsequent punishment such as excommunication, and pressuring all those involved into silence (via the oath). The UN and IHEU are by no means trying to muzzle the Church, which is perfectly capable of doing so itself when it comes to concealing the names of its sexual predators.
4. The evangelical response to alleged witch doctors is that of one set of beliefs fighting its local rival, reminding me of the Catholic Church’s repression of dissidents and rival religions in its youth. You might understand by now that I am against all institutionalised belief; just because Christianity is a little older than Islam, for example, does not make the former “betterâ€.
The relevance of the article is that any dogmatic system of beliefs will inevitably enable, motivate and justify atrocities in the name of its self-proclaimed moral superiority. This brings me to the statement by which I stand: the Catholic Church (and all religions, for that matter) is not the ally of children, the family, or humanity in general. Not only does it teach hate/discrimination (or, worse yet, a self-righteous sense of superiority and pity) vis-à -vis homosexuals and those who belong to a different system of beliefs (or none); it also breeds misogyny, by example as well as by combating sex education and contraception/abortion rights, primordial to female emancipation and gender equality. The Church’s stance on sexuality (as mentioned above) and guilt-based dogma have disastrous results on its members’ psychological development, not to mention the negative effects on a country’s legislation (abstinence only sex-ed, opposition to equal rights for homosexuals, etc.).
Any system of beliefs that teaches/relies upon the authority of an omnipotent, all-benevolent and unquestionably just power (be it God, Allah or the idealised Communist Party), is harmful to humanity, because highly manipulative, especially when the authority is hypothetical, as are all deities. Moreover, by claiming its authority/doctrine comes from said divine authority, these institutionalised systems of belief do lay claim to possessing the Truth, albeit perhaps more implicitly as of late.
Pedro, thank you for your comments, sincerity and fair-mindedness. I always prefer these sorts of debates where truth is the object and not simply the desire to ‘win’.
Lol, despite agreeing to drop the abortion issue we each seem to want to add just one extra point! So briefly to respond: I think it somewhat arbitrary that you choose the moment of sensory storage as the moment of individual existence (but certainly prefer it over breathing with the lungs). I think that the statistics show that there is a strong connection between contraception and abortion, but not as you think. Because contraception is unreliable (on two counts: inconsistent use and device failure) abortion is increasingly thought of as a form of birth control. Secondly, I am totally in support of sexual education, but think it should come from within the family or at least under family control. It is not good in a class setting because adolescents mature at different stages and in any case find it (rightly) uncomfortable to talk about in that environment. Also, sexual education is not simply ‘facts about intercourse’ but includes relationships issues in general, and esepcially between men and women and should therefore begin from the earliest ages and by the example set by the parents. Ooops… so much for being brief sorry.
1. The whole point I am trying to make is that sexual abuse from clergymen is not shown to be more common than in society in general. I would also be surprised if there were fewer Catholic priests brought to justice than non clergymen, because of the media frenzy (the basic reason Catholics are in ‘pole position’). However I don’t know of any statistics on this.
“The Church’s clear stance on the immorality of abuse” and the “hypocritical actions” of some of it’s bishops are certainly worrying. Since the John Jay report and national guidelines have been established, however, Bishops have been very concerned to implement it. (Again, you can choose almost any diocesan website to see the measures in place).
I agree that Jimmy Akin’s commentary on the news article was emotional. He was justifiably angry with the irresponsible journalism. The document was indeed addressed just to all the bishops of the Church and dealt with their responsibilities in cases of alleged abuse. Still, it was available on the Vatican website, and any journalist who wanted to call it secret and clearly had not read it, should at least have made an attempt to have checked it out. I repeat it has to do with purely church-related penalties. Naturally the Church is incapable of (and has no interest in) taking charge of civil law cases. Thus, for example, the document declared the Church penalty of excommunication for any Catholic who failed for over a month to denounce a priest, which could be absolved only after actually denouncing the priest or at least promising seriously to do so. The church has no further jurisdiction.
The charges of secrecy arose because of a wilful misunderstanding that the dealings within the “Church trial” were to be kept secret regardless of the outcome (innocence or guilty verdict). What was omitted by the media was that it did not in any way impose silence on those who were victims of the priest’s conduct. Thus, the case could be brought up again in a civil trial, and in fact, at least since 2002, when the Vatican signed the UN Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, it requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities.” In any case, many diocesan guidelines have that as their standard procedure…
Turning to the causes, then. Yes, it is often true that abusers were themselves abused, and the Church has much to repent. Still, it remains true that most abuse comes from within the family and is perpetuated that way.
I think you are misinformed if you think the Church is misogynistic or unnatural in regard to sexuality. It is true that some men and women do not have the psychological capacity to live celibate lives and should not be permitted to do so. Once again, I repeat, that abuse within the Catholic priesthood is (if anything) slightly lower than that in society, so on the whole, priests are capable of living their commitment with a certain freedom. A clearer statistical analysis is given in this Canadian study, for example: http://www.child-abuse-effects.com/child-abuse-statistics.html
I have no defence for the Irish catholic schools article you linked to. Still, I wonder what the incidence in non-catholic schools was?
You are right also that the wikipedia article lists closures in the 90’s and law suits in the 2000’s. However, the abuse itself in decades old. Of course, I am not trying to pretend that it is no longer a problem. On the contrary, it is one of the pressing problems of our time. This is the clear conclusion of the Canadian report linked to above. Whatever can be done in society at large will (obviously) reduce incidences in the Church as well. Again my basic argument (in direct response to the original post by Atheist) is that nothing will be gained by just pretending that this is “just a Catholic problem” and pointing the finger at priests (which is grossly unjust, as most of them are faithful and serve their people well).
You would be surprised to hear that the “incompetent” APA (http://www.apa.org/about/ ) is “the largest association of psychologists worldwide.” Once again my point stands. If a priest is accused of abuse he is front page news (even before the trial begins), while the APA can actually tell her members that most of this is not abuse at all, and noone hears about it.
2. No longer an issue.
3. When I think of “an institution of power has modelled the masses’ mentality over centuries, to a point where many individuals short-circuit their critical thought in favour of that with which they where indoctrinated their whole life,” I think TV, media, lawyers, schools, magazines etc… The Catholic Church, in any case, has always stood for a reasoned faith and is an advocate for critical thought eg by inventing universities and schools (so education would not just be the domain of the individually tutored wealthy) and hospitals, and…. (we have a good track record on this!)
I think I have already dealt with the “secret trials” above, so won’t repeat it here with reference to my school analogy, except in summary: The ministry of education (or whoever) will make their decisions as to the suitability of the abuser to continue to have a licence to teach. The Church, in addition, insists that anyone aware of abuse does actually come forward. The civil case is neither prejudiced nor replaced. On the contrary, it is also required. So the analogy does hold, I think…
4. You are not really against “all institutionalised belief”. Our culture mediates many of these: eg it is good to be kind to the elderly; children are also the subject of rights; etc… etc… I’m sure there are also a good number of Swiss customs you are particularly proud of… Anyway we digress. I have argued about this elsewhere on this blog, anyway.
Your point, here, is that “any dogmatic system of beliefs will inevitably enable, motivate and justify atrocities in the name of its self-proclaimed moral superiority.” It sounds to me like you wish to dimantle the legal system, then. We all think that some things are objectively wrong (even those who deny it do when pressed) and, hopefully, can articulate why. At least we can be called to account in this way.
OK here’s why the Catholic Church is the ally of children and the family and humanity: our Western heritage of education, freedom, law, hospitals, esteem for virtues like charity, generosity and justice are very much the fruit of the church’s work. (Compare with Middle Eastern or African attitudes to these things if you don’t agree).
The Church continues to defend the family as the basic unit of society (not the individual) and does what it can to keep families and marriages together, especially for the well-being of children. Statistics are clear that a mother and a father are the best (and obviously natural) way for a child to develop, though the Church recognises that this is sadly not always possible.
The Catholic Church does NOT teach — and I challenge you on this — hatred towards homosexuals or women. Moreover we are insistent that ‘natural law’ (morality) is naturally knowable, and that there is therefore no need to resort to theology to defend our positions on ethical topics. Thus, we enjoy being able to debate our opinions on any of these things in the “public square” and do not rely on “dogma” or “divine authority” to make our points. I am happy to explain any of these, but this particular post is probably not the forum to do it.
Besides the great heritage of the Church that you enjoy, the Church still runs all kinds of institutions world wide that noone else will run (because they make no money and are hard work) such as orphanages, shelters, food banks, AIDs centers, pregnancy care) and so on….
Jonathan Baker, I guess the abortion question just will not die! 🙂
It may seem arbitrary to define the birth of an individual’s existence at the moment of sensory storage, but stop and think about it for a minute: without any sensory input/storage/recuperation, can a conscience exist? When you think, even of abstract concepts (such as faith), your brain automatically refers to previously stored sensory input. Without any, the brain is a blank slate, a ball of nerves no different than that of a dead brain stimulated by electroshocks.
As for contraception and abortion, your conception is what the Catholic church wants us all to believe, but that statistics continually disprove. Not only is contraception fairly reliable (just google it), but abortion as contraception is only an issue in countries where sex education is still inadequate (USA, Russia, etc.). On the other hand, birth control and legalised abortion are central to female emancipation
which, in turn, is primordial to the development and well-being of a nation. Religions’ resistance to that (both sex-ed and female emancipation) is the cause for high maternal and infant mortality rates, increase in illegal and dangerous abortions (the demand will always be there as long as mentalities about contraception don’t change!), higher risk of teenage pregnancy and suicide. So as not to go on and on, here are some links to peruse (note how the nordic countries fare so well, with their progressive equal rights stances etc.?):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/14/unsafe-abortions-global-report
http://db.jhuccp.org/ics-wpd/exec/icswppro.dll?BU=http://db.jhuccp.org/ics-wpd/exec/icswppro.dll&QF0=DocNo&QI0=318777&TN=Popline&AC=QBE_QUERY&MR=30%25DL=1&&RL=1&&RF=LongRecordDisplay&DF=LongRecordDisplay
http://www.deathreference.com/Me-Nu/Mortality-Childbirth.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/
http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/best.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_abo_percap-health-abortions-per-capita
http://www.ippf.org/en/Resources/Statements/Abortion+Worldwide+A+Decade+of+Uneven+Progress.htm
Finally, I agree that sex ed should also be a family matter, but all parents are first students, so those who have not received proper education will perpetuate the ignorance, the same way racial/sexual discrimination is perpetuated… The family unit is a shaky concept, contrary to that of the individual. (Also, adolescents are by nature curious about sexuality, and one important aspect of sex ed is decomplexing and demystifying it, so it can be appreciated responsibly in its various forms/orientations without shame/guilt.)
1. If the “media frenzy” has the effect of bringing more criminals to justice, all the better. As for the guidelines that have been
established, all the better as well, although it is rather saddening that it takes a recent report and repeated scandals for a centuries-old instition which is supposedly a beacon for moral “uprightness”, to take action. But that’s just me nitpicking.
As for irresponsible journalism, I will not defend The Guardian, but I will say this: if you don’t know what you’re looking for (which was the case up until the “secret” document was discovered to exist), it’s pretty hard to find anything on the Vatican’s site… especially since Latin is not a common language, nor Google-friendly.
All the “denouncing” you make mention of never concern the legal authorities of the country, but the Church’s authority. I won’t repeat everything I said in my previous post about the powerful pressure the Church has over the victim*, as well as their interest keeping the affair secret.
(*especially with the whole secret internal trial, which still demands that all concerned take an oath of silence until a verdict be reached… without outside psychological support, I doubt many accusations come off to the partial judge/jury as “credible”)
I wish to make it clear that I agree that child abuse is not JUST a Catholic problem. My argument is that the Church creates a situation which facilitates, attracts and perhaps even encourages deviant behaviour (cf. my previous posts about celibacy, secrecy, repression, etc.). As for priests being “faithful and serving their people well”, I disagree, but for basic anti-theist reasons (teaching illusions, inculcating guilt, scapegoating, etc.)
About the APA, I retract my hasty indignation. The article linked is not only ten years old, but also misleading: the point of view was not that of the APA but of one inconclusive (and hardly scientific) study
that was rapidly rebutted. It also made big news at the time so, no, your point does not stand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy
2. Indeed! 🙂
3. Contrary to the Catholic Church, “TV, media, lawyers, schools, magazines etc.” are but media and social institutions. None hold a central doctrine, much less one based on superstitious beliefs. The creation of schools and universities by the Church has nothing to do with advocating critical thought (or at least, none that went against its dogma… remember Galileo?), nor bringing education to the common man (and especially not woman).
Since its beginnings, the Church has held on to its monopoly of knowledge/education because they knew of its inherent power. Early universities only served to create the upper-class of clergy that could then work within governments, giving the Church far reaching power. Later, especially after the Reformation, schools for boys were all about keeping/gaining followers (on both sides, for that matter). As an aside, the first university was in China, having nothing to do with the church.
Yes, I am against “all institutionalised belief”, but especially when it concerns superstitious belief. Moral values, on the other hand, are not “institutionalised beliefs”, but result from our evolution as a
group of social mammals living in a community. They have been codified as “laws” in order to ensure the proper function of society, but can always be questioned. “Thou shalt not kill”, for example, is a dogmatic transcription of the moral value stemming from the fact that a close-knit community of members of a species will fare better against
predators, while being able to focus their energy on progressing instead of fearing each other (that was very, very simplified). Modern law often takes the ambivalent nature of moral values into account, allowing murder if it saves lives or prevents disasters, something which a “dogmatic system of beliefs” will not (e.g. with abortion!).
Moral values came before religion, which then appropriated them for its own purposes.
I disagree entirely with your argument of “why the Catholic Church is the ally of children and the family and humanity”: Education is much more a result of the Rennaissance, and later secularism that was able to develop after the Church’s schism and civil wars (and failure to prevent the plague). The Church continued (and continues to this day) to hinder education and science, because it takes an impoverished mind to adhere to its superstitious beliefs (note how religious fervor/beliefs are most present in poor and undereducated countries, and how the more secular countries fare much better in general).
That you mention freedom is rather laughable. From the Crusades, the Inquisition, the numerous religious wars and endless suppression of its opponents, to colonialist expansionism (under the tasteless name “missionary”) and the suppression of rights (women, homosexuals, atheists, etc), the Church has NOTHING to do with freedom, on the contrary.
Law has nothing to do with the church, except in theocracies… it definitely should not have anything to do with it today.
Since health and belief were intimately related (before science came and stole the show), it is no wonder that the Church was at the origin of hospitals in the past. Medicine has been secularised, thank God (pun intended), and now the Church is more of a problem than an aid (no contraception/abortion, people clinging to their organs because of their beliefs, etc.).
As for “virtues” (a religious construct, btw), the Church’s history is less one of generosity than one of “ripping off the credulous poor”, as is the history of most religions. Charity is often more a PR stunt than anything else, sometimes with disastrous results (http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/), and the Church’s “justice” has nothing to do with what we call Justice with a capital J.
Like I said above, the notion of “family” (as mother, father, kids) is a social construct, and a recent one at that. As for the well-being of the children, it is much less the caretaker constellation (mother-father, single parent, homosexual parents, etc.) that influences their wellbeing as it is other factors: financial stability, education, affection for the child, whether it was desired or not, etc.
Please cite your sources as to the “clear statistics”.
Concerning the “natural” argument, it holds no water: homoparentality and monoparentality are observed in several different species. (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals )
Moreover, trying to keep families together “for the children” has far more negative effects on them (guilt, atmosphere of animosity, etc.) than if their parents divorce.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-
hari-when-divorce-is-the-wiser-option-1719907.html
I will concede that the Church no longer openly promotes hatred and discrimination towards women, homosexuals and non-believers, but perhaps it would be better if they did. Instead, they hypocritically proclaim love and acceptance for all, while condemning homosexuality as a sin (and actively combating their struggle for equal rights), refusing woman equality vis-à-vis men within the Church (how many female bishops/popes?), and condemning the very things contraception,
birth control and abortion) that would allow women to be more in society than wives/mothers.
I guess the bigoted, self-righteous pity some believers extend towards the above-mentioned, when it isn’t outright homophobia/misogyny/general discrimination and hatred, stem from their stunted intellectual and moral growth…
Yes, morality is naturally knowable (you do know that this stance is a very recent one within the Church, compared to the longlasting “we are all born evil” one, right? Not to mention some people still hold the “no religion, no morals” argument).
I appreciate how people like yourself “enjoy being able to debate [y]our opinions on any of these things in the “public square” and do not rely on “dogma” or “divine authority”, and repeat my gratitude for such an interesting and polite debate. This is unfortunately not the case of everyone, especially those who wish for religion to retain a special status vis-à-vis the state, which I am strongly against.
All my criticism of religion (in this case, the Catholic Church in particular) does not exclude one important fact: there are many good individual members within each of these religious communities, as there are without. They would be just as good if religion did not exist. As for your last statement, I have to disagree again entirely. There are tons of secular organisations dealing with the problems you mentioned and many more, and to a much larger and more effective degree than the Church. Just to mention a few: The Red Cross, the UN, MSF (Medecins Sans Frontières), etc.
Good moral behaviour can and does exist without the interference of superstitous and irrelevant beliefs, and I believe that Humanity would be much further advanced (ethically, technologically, etc.) if religion were to have gone the way of myths when science and secular humanism came to replace it.
As you can see, this debate has digressed quite a bit from the original subject. I suggest we end it here, after you have the last word/post, of course. As for myself, I think I’ve said enough.
cheers,
…pedro
Pedro, thanks for the comments. I have been hoping to have some time to look into your links in detail and do a bit more research, but time is elusive, so I’ll just be brief (probably better!)
First, I also belong to the realist philosophical tradition which thinks that we really do know what’s out there and that everything we know (which even includes our idea of God) we have received ultimately from the senses.
Nevertheless it is dangerous to assign personhood to sensual apprehension. For starters wouldn’t that make animals persons (with corresponding rights)? Also, doesn’t it mean that individuals are be “more or less” persons depending on brain capacity. The elderly, Alzheimer’s patients etc… can be disposed of, and unconscious persons (even if this is temporary) become non-persons at that point.
It is interesting that there is a strong link with this mentality and the early push for contraception. eg Margaret Sanger, a US pioneer had clear ideas that it should be used to wipe out lesser morals: such as “… the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development…”
Regarding your next point, I perhaps misled you by saying contraception was unreliable. Of course I am aware that most modern methods are over 97% effective when used correctly. We should look at what this number means, however. It refers to the percentage of women who do not become pregnant in the first year of use (see eg http://bestbirthcontroloptions.com/effectiveness_of_birth_control which is a typical pro-contraception site). Given the large number of couples using contraception, even a 3% failure rate is significant. On top of this, you have to account for user error, which is not only due to ignorance, but because in the real world, a woman may forget to take the pill on a given day, teenagers are unprepared or just ‘dislike’ the feel of condoms, etc… (NB thus “Fully 14 of every 100 women using condoms will end up pregnant within the first year of use.” And that’s only the first year of use!)
My argument is that when sex takes place purely as recreation and no plan is in place for a possible pregnancy, abortion will be seen as the only “escape”, and typically the man will simply leave the woman to “deal with it” alone. The very statistics you gave me illustrate this. Sweden, which gained the top spot in the vexen “best countries award” (using dubious criteria imho) may well be low on teen pregnancies and the population be highly knowledgeable about sex, still it has a considerably higher abortion rate than the US. How can 37,000 abortions annually be something to be proud of?
Alas I don’t have more time to deal with your other important issues so will limit myself to quick points:
a) it is a red herring to say that the family (the medium of culture) is recent. Men and women educating and raising their natural children (perhaps with close family assistance) is the standard pattern in most cultures (I am thinking of ancient Sparta for the rare counter example of state interference).
b) sex ed is difficult and many parents need help, granted. Emphasis needs to be on relational aspects and not just ‘techniques’ for teens who find it hard in any case to fully engage their rationality and moral sense in today’s permissive climate.
On your numbered points, which I am subdividing:
1. a) Agreed about the question of justice. I complain only when the “media frenzy” is itself unjust. Surely a journalist could find a church spokesperson if they wanted to run a story. Actually surely they ought to!
b) The “denouncing” I was referring to is certainly to legal authority. Google “clergy abuse trial” and you can see for yourself. (Note again that it is mostly the Catholic Church you will find despite no significant
statistical difference from anyone else). Which actually also supports the fact (despite your hopes) that there is no statistical connection between celibacy and abuse.
c) Thanks for your research on APA which I found was mainly correct. However, the Rind et al. article was indeed a scientific study, published by the official journal of the APA. Under pressure the APA did distance itself from the article, but also said that it was a scientific study and permitted Rind et al. to repeat their contentions in 2002. My main point got lost in all this, that sexual abuse is still very little understood. Bishops in the 60’s had very little in the way of research to know that it was more than likely to recur, and that victims were permanently damaged by it. Today that seems obvious, but only because we know more.
2.:)
3. The point I was making was that the media, the courts, teachers, institutions etc.. are not ideologically ‘neutral’. It is just less obvious. I am afraid that “institutionalised belief” is everywhere and in fact that is one of the main reasons you talk about all religion as “superstitious belief”. In any case, surely your argument requires you not to be able to distinguish between morality as communitarian evolution and “institutionalised belief”? eg belief in God would have evolved too, no? If so, criticing it is like complaining about someone having a nose and two arms.
4. Morality long predates the church, agreed. The Catholic Church is highly philosophical when it comes to this, and not nearly so “dogmatic” as you think. Abortion, for example, is not specifically mentioned in the Bible. That does not mean it is impossible to reason out its immorality just from the very nature of the procedure.
You have added so many little points about education, faith vs science, Galileo (the only case anyone seems to be able to offer and so much more interesting and subtle than you immagine), history, the nature of the Church, freedom, virtue (the word comes from Greek philosophy actually), medicine, Mother Theresa and Christian charity, women’s rights, homosexuality, the contribution of the Catholic Church to society today, and so on, that is is impossible to do justice to them all. I have commented on some of these issues on this site before, and they each need time and care to sift through. As you say, we have digressed from the original subject, and in a sense this is natural. The issue of sexual abuse is closely linked with the sexual permissiveness that has destroyed so many lives since the 60’s and it is natural, therefore, to argue about the wider aspects of sexual experiment that gave rise to it.
You may be surprised to hear that I think this very permissiveness a response to Enlightenment (Kantian deontology) “duty-based” morality, and indeed it was right that the emotions were reinserted into moral discussion. (That will be the topic of my doctoral thesis actually, if approved)
I am grateful that you have generously given me the opportunity to make the final submission. I don’t hold you to it if you have something particular you would like to add, and I really hope you make contributions to other posts on this site – I have really enjoyed our debate. Thank you.
my apologies for the messed up layout, I had to write my reply in Note-book!
Pedro, I went through and fixed some of the formatting issues. I hope you don’t mind. I haven’t changed any of the text nor links.
Thank you!
Sorry, Atheist, I thought my submission failed the first time. Please delete the bottom copy (the 3:09pm one). Thanks.
I’ve deleted your duplicate comment Jonathan. Any comment that contains a link gets caught by the spam filter and has to be manually approved, hence the occasional delay in comments appearing.
I don’t intend to elongate my reply further, but thought that this news from Ireland might be encouraging:
http://www.examiner.ie/home/praise-for-church-over-child-protection-policies-104091.html
I hope that this new John Jay study (due for completion) might help to keep this topic in perspective: http://www.zenit.org/article-27580?l=english. It demonstrates how the Church has tackled this issue, and it also provides an answer to other criticisms that Atheist and Pedro have raised:
1. Since 1985 abuse cases by clergy in the US declined sharply in 1985 and has continued to decline (though it rose in the 60
s and 70’s).
2. Moreover, as I claimed before this is not a “Catholic” problem: “the incidence of abuse cases by clergy matches the rising and falling trend in the number of cases reported outside the Church.” In fact, national trends in deviant sexual behavior in society match the patterns of other societal behavioral problems between 1960 and 1990, such as crime, drug use and divorce. (ie they rose and fell together) – so clearly we need to address whatever societal problem arose in the 60’s that caused this…. hmmmm “free love” movement come to mind anyone?
3. Encouragingly, in the last 50 years (ie as more has become known of the problem ie both psychologically and statistically) there has been “a significant change in the diocesan response to charges of abuse over 50 years, including more administrative leave being given to abusers, and less cases of reinstatement.”
4. The study claims that no other organisation has put as much effort into keeping children safe. In response to a question as to why many cases seem to involve accusations against clegy in particular, one of the researchers responded that: “there is a difference between what the media is reporting and what is actually happening.” This has actually been my main contention throughout this debate here.
5. The study will also seek to “understand more fully the problem of clergy sexual abuse and what needs to be done to keep children safe in the Church’s care”, but hopefully you will be pleased to note that: “While 80% of the cases involved boys, the researchers are evaluating sexual identity separately from sexual behaviour.” So this is not an attempt to “blame it on the gays” but to come to a real understanding of what is actually happening.
6. As might be expected, those seminarians (student priests) who received human formation were less likely to abuse later in life.
7. The information already received from the study has already been used to implement training and improve safety measures, and the Bishops will address the recommendations that the researchers will make when the report is published.
8. The bishops plan to undergo an audit every year to ensure that the Church is compliant with the safe environment program they have instituted.
9. At the meeting of the USSCB (Catholic Bishop’s Conference) the Bishops pledged also to remain close to victims of abuse and to offer what help they can to those who are still resolving problems from the past.
It seems that Bishop Cupish (the chairman of the U.S. bishops’ conference Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People) has got good reason to argue that because “no [other] organisation has undertaken such a comprehensive study on the issue … nor taken such measures to protect minors … there is no safer place today for children than the Catholic Church.“
“… there is no safer place today for children than the Catholic Church.“
Who would believe this?
Recently here in the Pacific NW another lawsuit was filed representing over 500 people.
PETER GORE SEER I am out of my depth here but any abuse should not be tolerated and the law of the land should be used courts and lawyers should decide not the church and not paying large amounts of money no intuition should be a law unto itself but there are conspiracy that make me uneasy.MARRY CHRISTMAS.
PETER GORE SEER I try to avoid contact with children I have seven grandchildren I have close contact with them out side they call me grandad so I feel OK but out side I am afraid to go near children if I see a child in distress i look for a woman to take over.
I am glad to know that atheists aren’t child molesters it would be very difficult for me to except but us Christians well its normal.Atheist would not rape murder rob lie little boys and girls are safe with atheists.With proof facts science this world would be a better place no god no evil we would worship atheist how fantastic.
What’s really required to be done in Ireland is to gather up these purveyors of ridiculous nonsense, along with their smoke and mirror symbols, and send them all packing back to the miserable Vatican.
It’s bad enough to have to be governed by a bunch of Fianna Fail galoots without having to deal with clowns wearing dresses screwing our kids.