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.

UNHAPPY RC PRIESTS TOLD TO STUFF IT

From the The West Australian:

Perth Archbishop Barry Hickey has dismissed a survey of Australian Catholic priests, which reveals many are deeply unhappy with the Church, suggesting they need to "get over it" and accept the Church as it is.

The survey of 542 priests from across Australia by NSW academics Chris McGillion and John O'Carroll found many priests felt bishops were inadequate managers and they held serious concerns for the Church's future.

The survey, plus in-depth interviews with 50 Australian priests, has been compiled into a book, Our Fathers, which claims the priesthood is a "world rich in commitment but also in complaint, disillusionment and dissent".

Our Fathers reveals a deep distrust of Australian priests towards the Vatican, with 65 per cent of those surveyed saying they do not believe Rome understands the challenges they face.

One WA priest said he had "no time" for the Catholic Church except as a means to an end.

Archbishop Hickey said he had not come across the attitudes reflected in the survey in his diocese, but he was aware many priests throughout Australia felt "unhappy and disaffected".

Archbishop Hickey is very likely not the first person to pop into the mind of an unhappy priest as a confidant, but, even so, if he didn't know about the attitudes, then he was quite seriously out of touch. He wasn't really though, becuase he knew that priests were "unhappy and disaffected". Did he ever wonder what made them unhappy? Of course, and he has the answer. The problem was their unrealistic expectations. The problem cannot ever be with the church, therefore it's the fault of the unhappy priests.

More than 70 per cent of priests surveyed thought clerical celibacy should be optional and several revealed they were in long-term relationships with women.

And nothing at all about the reality of priests who may be relationships with men.

Emphases mine.

Thanks to Ann V. for the link.