Dark Night of the Soul

Former Review Board member reflects on his experience

Twenty years as a canon and civil lawyer for Catholic institutions did not prepare Nicholas Cafardi for what he encountered as a member and chairman of the National Review Board charged with overseeing the U.S. bishops' response to accusations of sexual abuse by priests.

"It's been a dark night of the soul," said Cafardi, 56, dean emeritus of the Duquesne University School of Law. He has just completed a three-year term on the board, including a final stint as chairman. Now he is on an academic sabbatical in Rome, where he will do a doctoral thesis on the early but ineffective attempts by U.S. bishops to respond to accusations of child sexual abuse.

Comments

[cs]

In a sense, all of are indirect victims of the "Situation". Those of us who were hung up on by chancery rats, those who were abused by rectory rats for speaking out, and those who stood by in shock and disbelief.

[Cornelius AMDG]

Important point from Cafardi's experience:

But he draws a distinction between bishops who made a good-faith effort to rehabilitate offenders, efforts that often proved ineffective, and bishops who transferred known predators without seriously trying to stop the behavior.

The latter category of bishops deserve thorough condemnation and removal, but I doubt that is a huge number of our current bishops.

[Paul Pfaffenberger]

I hope Cafardi researches the work of Doyle, Mouton and Peterson. They developed a "Manual" in 1985 that included the following:

"Some extremely serious issues have arisen which issues presently place the Church in the posture of facing extremely serious financial consequences as well as significant injury to its image. As a result of sexual molestation of children by Clerics … there has been continuous confidential communication amongst some expert consultants and Clergy, all of whom possess hands on experience with the more serious cases of sexual molestation.

The Criminal Considerations, Civil Considerations, Canonical Considerations, and Clinical Considerations are of such magnitude, not to mention the other substantial considerations such as Insurance and Public Relations, that it was decided that the presentation of these extraordinary issues necessitated an extraordinary response, a response which would affirmatively and aggressively attack the problems. It is submitted that time is of the essence.

Though each case of felonious sexual misconduct is bound to be different with regard to circumstances, notoriety, possible liability, there is also a set of common threads which weave through all such cases. The very fact that these cases involve clerics of the Roman Catholic Church who have committed acts which are considered by society to be despicable and heinous and which have received a very high decree of publicity in the media of late (not necessarily those cases involving priests but child molestation in general) makes it imperative that there be comprehensive planning and specialized strategy for handling all such occurrences among the clergy. There is simply too much at stake for the Church... its leaders, its clergy and its faithful.. .not to attempt to provide the best possible response to the overall crisis."

Their recommendations included ...
pastoral outreach to victims
immediate suspension of clerics against whom credible allegations are made
immediate notification to civil authorities of any crimes committed
use of provisions in canon law to remove offending clerics from active ministry
a coordinated legal effort among different diocese to address civil litigation

they warned that the financial liability would exceed 1 billion dollars and that the church would suffer irreparable harm to its reputation.

The manual was delivered to each diocese in 1985, shortly after the bishop's conference decided it was not interested in such a document. No diocese responded or acted on the recommendations of the manual.

[Rod Dreher]

Precisely, Paul. That's what I thought when I read this Cafardi quote:

"I don't think any diocese knew how bad it was in the next diocese. I don't think there was a national picture when this was happening. We now have a means of reporting, so they will never be in the dark again. That doesn't excuse anything, but it does explain why more group action wasn't taken earlier."

[thomas tucker]

And now we reap the harvest of that act (sin?) of omission.
It's a terrible tragedy that none of the bishops paid attention to those recommendations. Let it be a lesson for us all, as well as for them.

[ajb]

Maybe as a trial lawyer I'm just too sensitive to this, but it's a bit contradictory to in one breath acknowledge that at least two dozen current bishops oppose the very idea of anyone actually looking over their shoulder to see what's going on in the diocese, and in the next breath taking cheap shots at the lawyers who risked a whole lot to take on these mafiosi and "have the nerve" to want to be compensated for their efforts.

[Cornelius AMDG]

I wish more bishops had followed the Doyle report/manual, but it wasn't as clear about the ineffectiveness of treatment as people here have suggested. Consider this section:

Can the Priest Ever Return to Ministry in the Diocese

Individual factors, the extent of the sexual abuse, the extent of the notoriety involved and the extent of knowedge of the problem are but some of the factors that go into this question.

The treatment center chosen should be one that works on a "family model" approach. This means that members of the religious family involved with the priest prior to treatment should be involved in the treatment and in the post treatment plans. There should be close communication and coordination with the diocese or religious community so that when this question arises during in-patient treatment, it can be answered directly and specifically and the treatment program moved in such a way as to assist the priest in looking at his fitness for ministry or finding new ministries or occupations.

It is inadequate to treat a sex offender in the diocese on a private psycho therapy model. It should be emphasized that in-patient treatment, preferably with peers, is the most preferable mode and the one which will have the best results.

[Dad29]

Well, SJB, one of the "resisters" was Bp. Bruskewitz, and as Cafardi noted, he would NEVER "shuffle" a criminal priest.

Bruskewitz objected on clear and defined Canon Law grounds. I don't know about the others...

Amy: thanks for the post. Very interesting read. I wonder if the Committee will drill down and let us know some other interesting answers: like if the 4% who are offenders had a commonality in Seminary admissions directors, etc., etc.

We already know Boston had a VERY bad admits director, e.g.--but who else? We have our suspicions here in Milwaukee, too...

[thomas tucker]

Good point, Cornelius.

[Dennis]

AJP,

In what way did the attorneys in most of these cases "risk a whole lot"? Given the media coverage involved and once the Church agreed to waive the statutes of limitations, everyone knew there was going to be settlement. The only question was how much. Very little real litigating or negotiation was involved. A family member of mine was part of the Louisville case, and I can tell you from what I know of that case, that the primary attorneys involved could not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination be said to have "risked" anything. They were lucky the Church didn't fight the SOL, as over half of the claimants would have been barred on that basis alone. Aside from signing the claimants up in the class action and interviewing them, the attorneys did little but argue a few motions and negotiate the final settlement amount. In the end the Curch settled for a little over $25 million, of which only $15 million went to the 245 claimants. The main attorney behind the Louisville suit, however, has now parleyed his windfall and name-recognition into an ongoing quest to sue the Vatican itself (thereby displaying both his hubris and lack of understanding of international law).

As with almost all class action lawsuits, the only people who got anything out of it were the attorneys, who prattled on about being Catholics themselves who were only interested in getting "closure" and "justice" for the victims, all while nearly bankrupting the archdiocese and leaving most of the actual victims a relative pittance. Yet another reason this country needs major tort reform - especially in class action suits (in such cases - especially if they're settled well before trial, as the Louisville case was - the attorneys' percentage should be capped at 20-25%).

[Barbara]

Dennis, that's $15 million more than the diocese was willing to give without being sued. Payback is always a b*tch as the saying goes, and whining that it was unfair doesn't make an entity that refused for so long to do the right thing look any better. The attorneys are not responsible for nearly bankrupting the diocese. The diocese is responsible for engaging in such a reckless pattern of non-response that it risked the well-being of the entire diocese. Not saying the attorneys risked much or always wear a white hat, but they played by the usual rules.

Schools, daycare centers, the boy scouts and numerous churches began dealing with the possibility of child sexual abuse more than 25 years ago and the Catholic Church resisted and resisted in adopting measures that the others decided were simply common sense. Even now, I have my doubts. Sure, there is a will to punish, but there I don't know that there is a will to do what it takes to prevent (not the long view, as in who is ordained, but the short view, as in, who gets to spend time alone with youth). Sorry, I was asked to be a volunteer coordinator for implementing the CSA policy in my parish, as I had done for my husband's much smaller church, and my response is and was -- this is too big of a job for a volunteer.

[Scotus]

Well, it's not necessary that either side be all bright and shiney. Starting with the holy grail of litigation, I'm not one bit impressed by tobacco companies, but that doesn't mean that the lawyers making millions by suing them are anything other than base opportunists.

"Most of these solutions involved moving around small green pieces of paper, which was odd, because it was in general not the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy."
--The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[Kevin Miller]

Once again:

Sexual abuse of kids is a CRIME - as JPII reminded the American cardinals when they came to Rome after the s--t hit the fan in Boston.

The point shouldn't be whether treatment was or wasn't considered likely to work. The point should be that the first thing you do when a crime is committed is push for a criminal investigation, etc.

When you've got a child rapist locked up in jail for a couple of decades, THEN you can start thinking about whether treatment will reduce the risk of further offenses when he finishes his sentence.

Bishops who sincerely trusted in treatment (and, for that matter, those who trusted bishops to deal with this themselves, even if the bishops in question were honest and sincere) ignored this point as much as anyone else did.

[Rod Dreher]

I think blaming the lawyers is just displacing anger that ought to be dumped on the head of the bishops. If not for lawyers, and to a lesser extent journalists, the bishops and their pervy clergy would still be getting away with it. I don't understand why lawyers or journalists have to have pure motives in order to have done, on balance, a good thing.

[Kevin Miller]

ON THE OTHER HAND, regarding this spate of civil litigation: Suing a the bishop and people of a diocese now for something that happened a couple of decades and one or more bishops ago is generally NOT just (with the POSSIBLE exception of when damages for actual material losses are being sought - e.g., to pay for needed counseling). And yes, I know - if it weren't for the lawsuits, maybe some of the story wouldn't have come out. The problem is: The end doesn't justify the means.

[Samuel J. Howard]

"I don't understand why lawyers or journalists have to have pure motives in order to have done, on balance, a good thing."

Because in Catholic theology, the morality of acts is not determined by a balancing test of the results. Even when actions have on balance good results, the actions themselves are still bad if the means are immoral.

Compare for instance the outcome in the Diocese of Manchester (New Hampshire) achieved through the settlement of criminal litigation, with the outcome in some of the dioceses that have been bankrupted by civil litigation.

Furthermore, the effects of jackpot civil litigation must be taken not in its isolated impact on the Church, but in its broader social context that includes the widespread tort law abuse in this country.

[jayker]

Before canonizing all lawyers please remember who it was that counseled all those Bishops to evade, spin, bob and weave, stall, misrepresent, cajole, and misinform the public and the accusers, in order to legalistically on mere technical grounds evade the justice do the abused and their families. Sure the buck ultimately stops at the Bishops desk but the legal counsel to the Bishops and Diocesan staffs was nearly universally shoddy and amorally legalistic.

[Jonathan Carpenter]

Mr. Dreher said
I don't understand why lawyers or journalists have to have pure motives in order to have done, on balance, a good thing.

I do not know because the end never justifies the means. Also, we criticize people in the Liberal MSM such as you because unless the abuse is happening in a Catholic Church you will not cover it. For instance, how many papers did stories on how Planned Parenthood in Indiana is covering up instances of abuse on kids who they give Abortions too? None except some people in Indiana. Also, how many ever did stories about how convicted sexual predators live in some cases next door to our kids schools. You wont hear that talked about by the Liberal MSM because they just want it appear to be only a Catholic problem when it is more widespread than just in the church. So, if you want the simplistic solutions and places to blame listen to Mr. Dreher. However, if you want to deal with it everywhere than you have to look past your media made stereotypes and deal with abuse where ever it is.

[catholic]

"Maybe as a trial lawyer I'm just too sensitive to this"

Yes, I think you are too sensitive. The only real risk to the lawyers in these cases was billable hours. Having paid lawyers several hundred dollars per hour, I can understand that this financial "risk" would seem sizable to any lawyer involved. I find it hard to be overly sympathetic when the "risk" is loss of opportunity to make outrageous profits and the balancing "reward" is obscenely outrageous profits.

I'm sorry if that sounds too cliche. Not all lawyers are reprobates. Not all lawyers are avaricious. There is a lot of commendable pro bono work done by the legal community. However, those lawyers who work for 33% to 50% commissions on settlements (and still charge extra for court fees, expert fees, administrative fees, clerical fees, etc.) are compensated to extents which create real ocassions for conflicts of interest and, indeed, sin.

peace

[Donald R. McClarey]

"If not for lawyers, and to a lesser extent journalists, the bishops and their pervy clergy would still be getting away with it."

Was an element contributing to a cover-up of predator priests fear of huge law suits? This certainly does not justify cover-ups, but America is a country where many actions of institutions are driven by fear of law suits. Would many of the bishops have been more forthright in addressing the problem if we didn't have a legal culture where any admission of blame is blood in the water that draws swarms of legal sharks?

[Nancy]

Well, Donald, I have a hard time buying the notion that...what? That the bishops were so terrified of legal actions that they....transferred pedophiles from parish to parish without notice, so they could do harm on a wholesale basis?

What kind of sense is that supposed to make?

My own opinion is that this kind of thing has been going on for a very long time, and that it was only when lawyers, jurists and journalists decided to stop venerating these men that the truth came out. You can bet the farm that the bishops were neither going to stop this nefarious activity nor tell anyone the truth voluntarily.

[ajb]

catholic:
I seriously doubt any of the lawyers who've taken on these cases, especially the early cases, took then on an hourly-fee basis. These cases were most likely handled on a contingent fee basis, meaning the attorneys fronted the out of pocket expenses involved in discovery on the hope of a recovery later.

And to the earlier poster, I'm sure the various diocese would've waived the statutes of limitations if the victims weren't represented by counsel. Come on.

Those of you with a persecution mentality will think the lawyers were just chomping at the bit to go after the Church, but given the significant legal issues involved, these were not at all easy cases to take from a business perspective.

[Nancy]

Some of this conversation is circling around some very old territory, as ajb notes.

- it's the lawyers' fault. They're all a bunch of sharks anyhow. They made millions. And diocesan counsel are no better. Lawyers want to be paid for their time. Imagine the nerve!

- it's all the plaintiffs' fault. They probably made up some of these stories anyhow, and it all happened so long ago, why can't everyone forget it.

- it's all the journalists' fault. Especially the jackals at the Globe, a band of sensation seekers. They should go after Planned Parenthood instead.

- it's all the fault of a legal system which seeks to make wrongdoers pay for the damage they do. We need tort reform, so that won't happen any more.

xxx

Everyone but the real criminals: the pedophiles, and the bishops who covered up for them.

[Susan F. Peterson]

One would think that the situation the Catholic bishops find themselves in would serve as a cautionary tale for leaders of other religious groups, so that no one would ever try to stall, obfuscate and cover up such matters again. But apparently not. There was an abusive priest in the local Episcopal church back in the 1970's. When accusations began to surface, the current priest met with the victims, listened to them, acknowledged what they said, told the people of the parish about the situation at a Sunday service, reported to the bishop and suggested that the bishop meet with them, pay for counseling..and also that he take some action with respect to the abuser, now retired but still a priest in good standing. The bishop took no action with respect to the abuser. He told the current priest to stop meeting with victims...in fact suggestions were made that victims were not credible; one was referred to as a "transient" because he had only lived in the town for a short time. He was told to make no statements which could be construed as admissions, and to refer any new victims to a "Diocesan response team" which included lawyers and a public relations firm. When the current priest wrote to the bishop suggesting that he ought to learn from what had happened to the Catholic bishops and urged him again to do something about the abuser, the bishop went on the offensive, hired a firm to do a forensic audit (at the cost of something like $45,000...for a parish which has about 100 people at the most attending each Sunday ) which found minor and explainable discrepancies....despite the fact that the vestry (like a parish council but with more power) stated they were aware of everything financial that had been done, the priest was removed from various positions of honor and responsibility in the diocese and has been forbidden to enter his own church or celebrate the sacraments. Besides these truly minor financial matters (the main one being the use of a bequest which was given to be used at the rector's discression-according to the plain English meaning of that word-as the lawyer who drew up the will attests- which was used, with full knowledge of the vestry, for some items which don't fall under the definition of a discresionary fund in Episcopal canon law) the only other offense cited was "failure to cooperate with the Diocesan Response Team."

This is very like the story that this blog linked to a while back, about how Archbishop Levada treated the priest who was a former federal prosecutor when he challenged the Archbishop to respond to an abuse situation. One can hardly believe the degree of vindictiveness involved in this current situation. A very good man is having his life torn apart because he tried to respond to victims in a compassionate and transparent manner. If anyone is so moved, prayers would be appreciated.

Susan Peterson

[Scotus]

My own opinion is that this kind of thing has been going on for a very long time, and that it was only when lawyers, jurists and journalists decided to stop venerating these men that the truth came out. You can bet the farm that the bishops were neither going to stop this nefarious activity nor tell anyone the truth voluntarily.

Interesting question, and I really don't feel like anyone's heard enough to know the answers.

It seems like one of the big questions is how long and how much has this been going on. Most of the solid articles I've read (like this one) refer to most abuse taking place in the 50s-70s and then going away during the 80s. So the first question is, did incidence of abuse increase during the 50s from a previously low level, or were are the people abused in the 30s and 40s just not coming forward. (After all, the perps would be long dead.)

Similarly, was the reduction in the 80s a return to a generally low level, or was it a first time reduction due to modern personel policies (no one alone with children, etc.)

I could see one plausible explanation being that prior to the 50s most bishops would have treated accusations of abuse as a sin, and punished the priest accordingly. But as psychology gained credence and people brought a "scientific" approach to morality, some bishops began to think treat and transfer was a better approach. Then, as people realized that psychology had it's limits, more serious contermeasures were put back in place and incidence of abuse fell off again in the 80s.

That would make a lot of sense to me.

The other story, which you may or may not be supporting, would be that clerics are in general unconcerned about morality and children and really only care about their own grip on power in the Church. By this theory, priests have always abused children at roughly the same rates as in the "trouble period" from the 50s to the 70s, and this would have continued for centuries more except that for the first time in human history brave journalists and lawyers stepped forward to end it all.

It's certainly a story that suggests progress, but it doesn't make intuitive sense to me.

[ajb]

Scotus:
The reason the situation got as far as it did was no doubt multi-factorial. But another factor (which would come into play among the higher-ups, I'm talking above the Diocesan level) is the preservation of the ministerial priesthood at all costs, even the cost of the physical, emotional and psychological health of those whom the ministers are to serve.

[Dennis]

Firstly, I am a lawyer myself, so everyone please spare us all the responses claiming that people are ganging up on attorneys and using them as a scapegoat to shift the blame from the Church. In a normal case, I have no problem with 40% contingency fees. These were not normal cases by any stretch of the imagination. Also, my earlier comments were in the context of the need for overall tort reform, especially as related to class actions, and were not simply part of some generalized lawyer-bashing.

1. AJB responded to my earlier post by saying: "And to the earlier poster, I'm sure the various diocese would've waived the statutes of limitations if the victims weren't represented by counsel. Come on." - Um, having counsel had nothing to do with the Church deciding to waive the statues of limitations. The key word here is "waive", as in voluntarily, freely choosing to do something they were not under any legal (or arguably moral) obligation to do. Having "counsel" on the other side was irrelevant to such a decision. Media attention and shame was surely more of a motivating factor.

Frankly, I think the Church made a poor decision and set a very bad precedent in waiving the SOL in these cases. In the future, claimants with similarly "stale" complaints will see that manufacturing media attention and pressure will be their key to ligigation/settlement success - SOLs and other statutes notwithstanding. This also ties into another key issue which waiving the SOLs and proceeding to a quick settlement prevented from being fully explored - that of the credibility of many of the claims. Take the Louisville case, for example, which had nearly 250 claimant in the class. Based on my personal knowledge of the case and how it was handled, there was almost no attempt by the attorneys involved to verify claims in any real sense. They were interested in sheer numbers, period. People signed up, were interviewed once (in a few cases, maybe twice) to tell their story, and later got a check - minus the attorney's 40%. By waiving the SOLs and agreeing to a quick settlement, genuine "discovery" was precluded, and we really have no way of knowing how true some of the claims were.

The instance with which I am personally familiar, for example, was a single incident of alleged fondling 46 years ago, when the claimant was 7. In the intervening half-century, this person has gone on to have a "normal" life (as normal as anyone's life that is), has never been in therapy for any lingering "trauma" over this alleged incident, has never been treated for depression, or been suicidal, etc., and is still a practicing Catholic. Also, it is important to point out that for all that time, this alleged incident was never mentioned to anyone or brought up as an "issue" that needed to be addressed (Something to think about for those who insist that the Church had adequate knowledge to have acted sooner with regard to such incidents. How could the Church have acted to prevent further such behavior when they weren't aware of in the first place? How could they be deemed negligent, for example with regard to the priest in the alleged incident above, if they weren't made aware of such incidents at the time they occurred?). I have no reason to believe this particular person is lying, but given the money involved, I can't say that I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to most claimants without sufficient proof. Perhaps I have a jaundiced view of human nature, but the fact is that there are a lot of lowlifes out there who would make up stories to earn a quick buck (To take a more recent grotesque example, just look at how many people filed false claims after 9-11 in an effort to scam charities, insurance companies, and the special federal compensation fund).

2. As to Barbara's comments about "payback": Using the word "payback" simply reiterates my point that these suits were often primarily motivated by a desire for financial gain on the part of those involved (both lawyers and claimants), rather than for any high-minded motives centered on "justice" and making sure it doesn't happen again. Also, my earlier point wasn't that the $15 million alloted to victims was necessarily too high, but that the primary attorney involved most assuredly didn't deserve or truly "earn" $10 million. Again, see my point above about the need for class action tort reform.

Just out of curiosity, in the example I described above - a single alleged incident of fondling nearly 50 years ago, that was never mentioned to anyone at the time, with no actual proof, no opportunity to hear from the now dead priest, and no evidence of any psychic trauma or actual physical injury - what amount of money would satisfy people that "justice" had now been done? I don't mean this facetiously, I'm genuinley curious to know what kind of "value" people here would propose as being "just" for such a claim.

[Dad29]

AJB and Scotus:

The principal reason that this mess exists is that Seminary officers and Bishops ordained homosexuals, period.

Had they NOT ordained homosexuals, there would be no Scandal.

All the rest of it is secondary--protection of their pals, incredulity, belief in "a cure," whatever.

[Susan Peterson]

Just a question...Do statutes( statues?) of limitation apply equally to criminal and civil cases? Do some states have one and not the other, or different lengths of time for each?
Susan Peterson

[ajb]

Susan:

The typical statute of limitations in most civil cases is two years, although under what's called the "discovery rule" that time may not start running until the victim "knew or should have known" they were injured and who was to blame (some states have an absolute cut off, called a statute of repose, after which no civil claim can be brought even if the victim didn't have sufficient information).

The defendant in a civil case can waive the statute of limitations, as Dennis points out. Usually they do this to give the plaintiff or their attorney more time to investigate the claim, or while settlement discussions are underway, as a way of avoiding a formal lawsuit which is a public filing.

Here the Church agreed to waive the statute of limitations, not as Dennis suggests out of the goodness of their hearts, but because their absolute moral bankruptcy in this matter finally saw the light of day. And for those like Dennis who don't believe the plaintiffs' lawyers had anything do with that, I'd refer you to the case of Fox v. Henhouse.

Dennis, there have been cases here in the Philadelphia Archdiocese where the victims were put through the most embarrassing, invasive, inappropriate interrogations by counsel for the Church (usually the typical ins. defense attorneys). Often this questioning was done in front of the victim's parents to enhance the shame and embarrassment factor.

So will there be liars who're trying to jump on the bandwagon? Sure. Everytime a Septa (mass transit) bus with 20 people aboard is in an accident here 30 people come forward claiming to have been injured. It happens. It's a risk that someone has to bear. Ultimately, the party that protected the abusers, hid them, and set them loose on new victims after paying hush money to prior victims is the one that ought to bear that risk.

And Dad29, you're right. I forgot about the damn fags. They're the root of all evil aren't they. That Bernie Law is such a namby.

Criminal cases have their own statutes of limitations.

[ajb]

Susan, I got off on a rant there. To finish my point about the statutes of limitations.

There are separate statutes in criminal cases. I believe the only crime without such time limits is murder (but I don't practice that area of law). Obviously the defendant in a criminal case is usually not going to waive the statute and any change by the legislature to allow prosecution of a previously time-barred claim would most likely constitute an ex post facto law.

[Nancy]

My own opinion is that this kind of thing has been going on for a very long time, and that it was only when lawyers, jurists and journalists decided to stop venerating these men that the truth came out. You can bet the farm that the bishops were neither going to stop this nefarious activity nor tell anyone the truth voluntarily.

Interesting question, and I really don't feel like anyone's heard enough to know the answers.

Scotus, well, you're right of course that there's no way to know.

I have heard anecdotal stories from the 20's and 30's of the last century, usually coupled with the statement that "no one would have believed me anyway."

In ancient times, most especially among the Desert Fathers, homosexuality, and in particular pedophilia, were big problems, as many stories attest. I have not heard any story which exhibited any concern for the children involved, but this was not considered proper behavior for a monk (!!). Nevertheless, it apparently happened anyway.

Then we have the notion that the abused often become abusers. Is it so fantastic to wonder how long this chain stretches into the past? (This is to say nothing of the much better documented practice, still current in much of the world, of priests having common-law "wives", "concubines" or just plain girl friends. Again this is commonly considered from the priest's point of view only; the damage done to the women is commonly deemed of little account.)

I at least get the notion that what happens to other people does not worry these men too much, and hasn't worried them for quite a long time.

Lastly, to counter your questions, can anyone think of any reason why the practice of pedophilia in the priesthood should all of a sudden arise in the 1950's after being previously unheard of?

[Unapologetic Catholic]

"By this theory, priests have always abused children at roughly the same rates as in the "trouble period" from the 50s to the 70s, and this would have continued for centuries more"

Read Peter Damien's Liber Gomorrhianus, in which he described, in excruciating detail, the serveral types of widespread homosexual practices rampant among the clergy in 1000 A.D.

It's not a new problem. It is ancient and widespread.

[Scotus]

Nancy:
In ancient times, most especially among the Desert Fathers, homosexuality, and in particular pedophilia, were big problems, as many stories attest. I have not heard any story which exhibited any concern for the children involved, but this was not considered proper behavior for a monk (!!). Nevertheless, it apparently happened anyway.

Unapologetic:
Read Peter Damien's Liber Gomorrhianus, in which he described, in excruciating detail, the serveral types of widespread homosexual practices rampant among the clergy in 1000 A.D.

I suppose I should have been a bit clearer...

First of all, clearly to the extent that the priesthood has always contained humans, the priesthood has always contained sinners. If we make a careful search, we're going to find priests in all times and places who have broken any individual commandment.

However, if we're to talk about a "pedophilia problem" or perhaps more accurately a "clerical sex abuse problem" then it seems to me we're talking not just about the fact that somewhere sometime a priest had sex with someone, but rather that either a disproportionate number of priests are having sex with people, or (even if fewer priests are abusing children and teenagers than other male members of the population) nothing is being done to redress the instances of clerical sex abuse.

Now, it's been a few years since I last read the Desert Fathers, but if memory serves one of the overwhelming impressions I had was of a consciousness of sin verging on overscrupulosity. I didn't get the impression that there was rampant homosexuality, much less pedophilia, going on among the monks out in the desert. Rather, I had the impression that the authors were very, very worried lest there be any. (To draw the contrary conclusion would be like assuming that because the rubrics pre-Vatican II listed out and condemned numberous tiny liturgical mistakes, while post-Vatican II rubrics are much calmer in tone, that there was far more liturgical abuse pre-Vatican II than post.)

Peter Damien, on the other hand, was dealing with a situation in which there were huge numbers of clerics (many of them only in minor orders) who were primarily in the church to make a living, and who did not take their vows of celibacy seriously. He was writing a polemic (with the emphasis on the worst that that usually entails) in order to try to shock the Holy See into doing something about clerical morality. Taking him as a demographic story would be like reading Goodbye Good Men and thence concluding that 80% of priests are actively homosexual.

Short of having time and resources to come up with something more detailed, my provisional theory would be as follows:

Going back 80+ years ago and before, most bishops tended to take a very firm line against any form of sexual misconduct, whether with adults, teenagers, children or anything else simply because they considered it a sin and a violation of clerical vows of celibacy. At the same time, society's taboos against fornication and sodomy were so strong that families who found out that a priest had misbehaved with a family member we likely to treat the offending priest the way Heloise's family treated Abelard. The downside was, the victims (not totally unlike rape victims in modern Islamic societies) tended to get brushed under the rug because they were considered "unclean".

Heading into the modern period, science and psychology were in ascendence, and "repressed" attitudes about sex were being tagged as "medieval". At the same time, the Church hierarchy was becoming less autocratic in the way it dealt with priests, allowing for less severe punishment of offending priests, and more of an urge to "heal" them. However, while the sin taboos which had kept abuse down to fairly low levels in the past were losing their force, a consciousness of the damage done to the victims (and the potential PR damage to the Church) had not yet surfaced as replacement motivations to crack down on offending clergy.

This created perfect storm conditions for an uptick of abuse in the 50s, 60s and 70s -- during the period that the old taboos were dying and the new motivations had not yet sufficiently kicked in.

I wouldn't suggest that there was no abuse at first, but more that it went from 1% ish of priests up to 4% ish and then was slowly beaten back down to 1% ish.

Sorry for the long post...

[Nancy]

Well, Scotus, it's an interesting theory. I doubt there would be much hard evidence either to support it or refute it.

Similarly, even now one hears it said that there are [more] [less] [the same number] of pedophiles in the priesthood as in [the general population] [Little League coaches] [whatever].

All such statements are meaningless because so far as I know we have no hard data on how many pedophiles there are in any of these populations. Certainly data for the general population is non-existent.

If I were a graduate student in sociology or history, though, your thesis might make an interesting paper.

[michigancatholic]

Kevin, I have no problem with following up on those old rapes. The fact that some time has passed doesn't mean they weren't wrong or injurious. The fact that they've gotten away with it in impunity, even arrogance, and the fact that subsequent crimes have been committed in many cases only makes it worse. And fraudulent to boot. These are supposed to be men teaching US morals and the love of God.

[michigancatholic]

And this is NOT ABOUT PEDOPHILES. The subject is HOMOSEXUAL SERIAL RAPISTS of teenaged boys. I'm tired of pointing this out!!!! Get the stats straight please.

[Paul Pfaffenberger]

Michigan Catholic,

The stats:

According to the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, forth edition (DSM-IV, page 571, disorder # 302.2), "The paraphillic focus of Pedophilia involves sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger.)"

According to the John Jay Report, Section 4.3, 60.1% of abuse victims were age 13 or younger at the time of their first abuse.

So, 100 - 60.1 = 39.9% of victims were between 14 and 17.

Also, 19.1% of all victims were female.

Assuming 19.1% of the 14-17 year olds were female, that leaves

39.9 x (1-.191) = 32.2 % of victims were males between the ages of 14 and 17.

32.2% is less than 1/3 of the problem. If that fits your definition of "rape of teenage boys", so be it. If not, please get the facts straight.

[ajb]

Paul, don't let the facts get in the way. It's the fags, the fags, the fags. The poor Bishops? They just got misled by the psychiatrists. And we all know psychiatrists just love those fags.

[ajb]

Oh. And the lawyers too.