LATEST REPORT ON CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE BY ROMAN CATHOLIC CLERGY

For some days I've intended to write about the report by the researchers at John Jay College on child abuse by Roman Catholic clergy, but I'm blocked. One stumbling block is the consistent use in the report of "incidents of child abuse", rather than "reported incidents of child abuse". We know, or we should know, that incidents of child abuse are grossly under-reported everywhere. The authors of the report state as much themselves. Therefore, it seems to me that the modifier should be used consistently. I don't know. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but when "reported" is left out, I stop in my tracks and think it should be there. What we know, especially about earlier times, may just be the tip of the iceberg, and there is much that we will never know. Even now, reports of cover-up still surface as is demonstrated by the recent story of the removal from active ministry of 21 Roman Catholic priests in Philadelphia.

And I surely do not buy the blame-it-on-Woodstock excuse. As Ken Briggs says in the National Catholic Reporter:

The Sixties did it.

The John Jay College report on child sexual abuse by priests nails it. Don't put the chief blame on the church -- nothing wrong with its teachings on sexuality or celibacy.

It's the demon Sixties with its ravenous demand for freedom. Blacks, women, college students, war protesters cut loose against the old restraints. Vatican II chimed in, wittingly or not, or borrowed from it, espousing such things as letting fresh breezes blow through the church and encouraging a participatory, more democratic Catholicism.

To many church authorities, the "revolution" that mattered most was about sex. Cramped minds imagined orgies and impulsive free love that assaulted church teachings.

I've finished reading the summary, and I'm on page 20 of the 152 page report, but I can't promise to read it all. The report is here in pdf format and is titled The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2011.

There's so much that I would like to address in the report that I don't know where to begin. As a result, I may never begin. The contributors at The Lead have done a terrific job of following the commentary on the report here, here, and here. Pardon me, if missed a link or two.