“Pope implicated in cover-up of child abuse at school for deaf” surely?

#1 I don’t think anyone could possibly read it the other way – otherwise it would be on the front page of every newspaper with wall-to-wall coverage on every news channel.

Let’s hope the Pope agrees to come quietly and doesn’t hole up in the Vatican, trading gunfire with the police. It could go all Waco if we’re not careful – I can see the headlines now…

“You’ll Never Take Me Alive, Coppers!” Vows Machine-Gun Toting Pontiff.

At least all this has fudged up the crucial emerging questions about the drawbacks in creation by intelligent design.

I just heard (PM Radio 4) the Archbish of Wisconsin at the time saying that such things weren’t reported because Rome took so long dealing with them, that nothing was done once it became clear there was something going on because the civil authorities weren’t doing anything (church closing ranks?) and that they reduced Rev. Murphy’s ministries and required him to take full responsibility for his actions (apart from going to the cops, of course).

So thats alright then.

With headlines this Friday morning about the Vatican denouncing criticism of the Pope in the meeja, surely we are fast approaching the time for excommunicating all critics of the church.

Are there any Catholic writers here interested in writing a guest post for Same Difference on whether the Pope should resign over this issue? email samedifferenceone@hotmail.co.uk thanks.

Sarah:

I’m not entirely sure that the Pope can resign, unless its by way of a mahogany casket, but if any Catholics are game for tackling that question then I’d love to see the results.

I’m all for having the Pope stay on over this as continuing grist for the international meeja mill.

The downstream consequences will be to further discredit the church and properly so for the blatant hypocrisy of the cover-up in so many countries. But then I’m protestant agnostic, if that’s not too much of an oxymoron.

Btw where does all this leave Blair and other late converts to Catholicism?

More fundamental errors of personal judgement?

Personally, I found David Hume’s Dialogues of Natural Religion covincing:
http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm

That and Voltaire’s Candide and Tom Paine’s The Age of Reason:

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/voltaire/candide.html
http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/reason/reason1.htm

Unity: That is exactly why I’m looking for a Catholic to write the post.

Well I’m a Catholic – and one who’s a bit fed up with these constant attacks on the Pope and the Church.

Unity is quite wrong to talk about ‘cover up’ in the Murphy context. This priest’s abuse was very widely known. He was twice reported to the Police and investigated….. years before the Vatican became involved.

The facts are that the Church took the initiative to seek justice for this man’s victims because the police and the local DA decided not to prosecute. (In one instance, it was lack of evidence; in another the statute of limitations had run out.) The local Bishop – far from seeking to cover anything up – actually put out a public appeal for victims to come forward.

The Church – together with victims – wanted some sign of justice to be done, so they sought to try this priest under Canon Law. They wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) asking for the go ahead to try Murphy in a church court. Ratzinger’s deputy replied with the go ahead. The due process for a Canon Law trial began.

However, some months into the process, Murphy had a stroke. The trial was put on hold. While he was recovering, Murphy wrote a personal appeal to Ratzinger asking for the trial to be abandonned on grounds of ill health. In May 1998, Ratzinger’s deputy – Bertone – advised that the proceedings be stopped. 3 months later Murphy died.

So, the Catholic Church and the current Pope were absolutely NOT trying to cover-up wrong doing or stop the police getting involved. Nor were they ignoring the victims in a callous fashion. Quite the opposite.

All the Pope (or his office) did in this case was to stop a church trial of a sick and elderly paedophile who was shortly to die anyway.

Certainly no resigning matter in my view.

Yes . . but Fr Murphy was among hundreds of cases of abuse in Ireland and America . .

Ian- would you please send me your views in an email to samedifferenceone@hotmail.co.uk so that I can post them at Same Difference? Thanks.

@11 Ian “Well I’m a Catholic – and one who’s a bit fed up with these constant attacks on the Pope and the Church.”

Yes Ian, it’s so unfair, isn’t it?

As I understand it Murphy’s request, which was granted, was for the trial to be abandoned so that he could be allowed to die in “the dignity of the priesthood.” The trial was, in fact, abandoned, three months before his death. This would suggest the following:

a. Ratzinger used his direct line to the big man upstairs to confirm that Murphy had such a short time to live that a trial would be pointless. He must have used this method of confirmation because he wouldn’t have got anything so precise from a doctor.

b. It was felt that someone who had sexually abused 200 disabled children still deserved to retain his status as a priest and to die quietly and that the church’s duty in this respect outweighed it’s dutu to the 200 (or so) victims.

So Ian, I have to ask, are you taking the piss?

Well I’m a Catholic – and one who’s a bit fed up with these constant attacks on the Pope and the Church.

Oh dear, what a shame.

Never mind.

@RWF

it’s so unfair, isn’t it?

Yes, it is unfair… and inaccurate. The impression given by the media is that molesting children is markedly more common among Catholic priests than among other professions… and sometimes that most of the abuse that goes on is down to Catholic priests.

This is bollocks.

Catholic priests, as various studies have shown, are less likely to molest children than, say, male teachers, social workers and clergy of various other denominations and religions. Why is the focus not put on some of these other groups?

In the UK, the proportion of Catholic priests accused of molesting minors is 0.4%. Not all of them were guilty.

The proportion of kids molested is estimated between 15% and an unbelievable 25%. Whatever, that’s a heck of a lot of kids being molested by people who are not Catholic priests.

still deserved to retain his status as a priest and to die quietly

No-one said ‘deserved’. Only that he was old, sick and dying as well as retired and no longer a threat. Many trials are stopped if the defendant (who enjoys the presumption of innocence) is too infirm to be able to defend himself adequately. It’s just due process. And a recognition that there’s no point flogging a (nearly) dead horse. Would you try someone who’d recently had a stroke?

Even if its true that Catholic priests are less likely to molest children than other professionals, the aggravating factor is the active denial and cover-up by Catholic authorities that allowed priests to carry on attacking children. Whether or not it happened in this case, its happened often enough elsewhere that people are sceptical of any claims made by church authorities on these matters.

@16. I’m not going to respond to the numbers (I’m not going to dignify them with the title statistics) you present, other than to say that phrases like:

“The proportion of kids molested is estimated between 15% and an unbelievable 25%”

“In the UK, the proportion of Catholic priests accused of molesting minors is 0.4%. Not all of them were guilty.”

“Catholic priests, as various studies have shown, are less likely to molest children than, say, male teachers, social workers and clergy of various other denominations and religions.”

are self – evidently complete and utter bollocks. If you wish to challenge this view, then please feel free to do so and I will be happy to explain why I consider your approach to statistical analysis to be flawed.

Now as for

“Yes, it is unfair… and inaccurate. The impression given by the media is that molesting children is markedly more common among Catholic priests than among other professions… and sometimes that most of the abuse that goes on is down to Catholic priests.”

Well, maybe that’s the impression you’ve taken away from the coverage but my main impression is that when priests have sexually abused children (or anyone else, for that matter) the church has made a systematic, and largely sucessful until recently, attempt to cover it up and/or to vilify victims. Excellent examples of current senior priests being involved in cover ups include:

a. Cardinal Brady’s presence at a meeting where two teenage victims were pressured into signing documents promising silence about their abuse at the hands of Fr Brendan Smyth. That was in 1975. Smyth continued to be allowed to sexually abuse children, being moved by the church from parish to parish, until his conviction and imprisonment in 1997. 22 years of abuse suffered by dozens (hundreds?) of victims which could have been avoided.

b. Fr Peter Hullerman, a priest identified by the church as a paedophile, moved around parishes in South Germany where he continued to abuse children. In January 1980 a meeting was held to approve Hullerman’s move to the Munich diocese. The meeting was attended by a Cardinal Ratzinger. Perhaps you recognise the name.

Oh, and finally:

“Would you try someone who’d recently had a stroke?”

Well, if they’d sexually abused at least 200 hundred disabled children then I do believe I would.

Ian

ref 11 – do you have any URls that provide the timeline you mention?

Ditto, any URLs for the studies you mention in 16:
> Catholic priests, as various studies have show, are less likely to molest children than, say, male teachers, social workers and clergy of various other denominations and religions.

Jack of Kent makes his feelings on these matters clear: http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/03/catholic-church-and-criminal-law.html

RWF & Just Visiting

self – evidently complete and utter bollocks. If you wish to challenge this view, then please feel free to do so and I will be happy to explain why I consider your approach to statistical analysis to be flawed.

OK – please do.

1. “The proportion of kids molested is estimated between 15% and an unbelievable 25%”

27% of the females and 16% of the males disclosed a history of childhood sexual abuse
(Source: Finkelhor et al., “Sexual Abuse in a National Survey of Adult Men and Women: Prevalence, Characteristics, and
Risk Factors.” Child Abuse & Neglect 14 (1990): 20-21. )

“Child sexual abuse occurs frequently in Western society.The rate of prevalence can be difficult to determine. In the UK it is estimated at about 8% for boys and 12% for girls. The estimates for the United States vary widely. A literature review of 23 studies … produced an average of 17% for boys and 28% for girls..”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#Demographics

21% of girls and 11% of boys have experienced child sexual abuse
(Source: Cawson, Wattam, Brooker and Kelly, 2000 (NSPCC))

2. “In the UK, the proportion of Catholic priests accused of molesting minors is 0.4%. Not all of them were guilty.”
(Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7076344.ece)

…contd.

3. “Catholic priests, as various studies have shown, are less likely to molest children than, say, male teachers, social workers and clergy of various other denominations and religions.”

The leading academic authority on child sexual abuse by teachers in the US is Charol Shakescraft. She did a study (1995) of sexual abuse in New York Schools and is the author of two documents for the US Department of Education: In loco parentis: Sexual abuse of students in schools and Educator Sexual Misconduct:
A Synthesis of Existing Literature (available as a PDF online at http://www.sesamenet.org/index.html). She’s on record as having said the following:
“the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”
5% of teachers sexually abuse children
15% children are sexually assaulted in school
(“The best estimate is that 15% of students will be sexually abused by a member of the school staff during their school career.” (Shakeshaft, Ph.D., Hofstra University: Testimony, NYS Senate Commitee On Children & Families, 2/12/98)

Other studies back this up, e.g.
13.5% of those surveyed said they had engaged in sexual intercourse with a teacher.” (Wishnietsky, “Reported and UnreportedTeacher-Student Sexual Harassment”, Journal of Ed Research, Vol. 3, 1991, pp.164-69)

“Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html

In Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis (Oxford University Press, 2001) the author examined prevalence of child molesting among clergy of various denominations. He is on record as saying:
My research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination — or indeed, than nonclergy.
http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/comm/20020303edjenk03p6.asp

contd.

3. “Catholic priests, as various studies have shown, are less likely to molest children than, say, male teachers, social workers and clergy of various other denominations and religions.”

The leading academic authority on child sexual abuse by teachers in the US is Charol Shakescraft. She did a study (1995) of sexual abuse in New York Schools and is the author of two documents for the US Department of Education: In loco parentis: Sexual abuse of students in schools and Educator Sexual Misconduct:
A Synthesis of Existing Literature (available as a PDF online at http://www.sesamenet.org/index.html). She’s on record as having said the following:
“the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”
5% of teachers sexually abuse children
15% children are sexually assaulted in school
(“The best estimate is that 15% of students will be sexually abused by a member of the school staff during their school career.” (Shakeshaft, Ph.D., Hofstra University: Testimony, NYS Senate Commitee On Children & Families, 2/12/98)

Other studies back this up, e.g.

13.5% of those surveyed said they had engaged in sexual intercourse with a teacher.” (Wishnietsky, “Reported and UnreportedTeacher-Student Sexual Harassment”, Journal of Ed Research, Vol. 3, 1991, pp.164-69)

“Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html

Philip Jenkins in Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis (Oxford University Press, 2001) the author examined prevalence of child molesting among clergy of various denominations. He is on record as saying:

My research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination — or indeed, than nonclergy.

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/comm/20020303edjenk03p6.asp

Touche’

@22 Ian

Shakeshaft defined sexual abuse thus:
“Any behaviour that’s sexual in nature directed toward a student, no matter the age of the student. So, it might be anything from touching a student on the breast, from talking about sexual activities that are specifically personal activities, not the kind of thing you do in a class, showing pornographic pictures, telling pornographic jokes or telling jokes that are sexual in nature to intercourse, kissing, any other kind of sexual touching.” Which is a pretty broad definition, though hard to disagree with.

I couldn’t open the sesamenet link.

The point remains that the Catholic authorities have systematically covered up abuses when they have been discovered. No matter the proportion carried out by priests compared with teachers and others, it is the consistent pattern of abusive priests being protected by the church that is so damning and that you have failed to deal with.

In case you missed these reports in the meeja, there’s a straight forward explanation for all this – and an equally straight forward remedy:

“Sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church are proof that that ‘the Devil is at work inside the Vatican’, according to the Holy See’s chief exorcist.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7056689.ece

As for the remedy, appropriate counter measures have already commenced:

“A Vatican-backed college is launching a new course for exorcists – Roman Catholic priests who cast out evil spirits from the possessed. Lessons at the prestigious Athenaeum Pontificium Regina Apostolorum will include the history of Satanism and its context in the Bible.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4272689.stm

Laughable!

What’s next? “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition”?

On the other hand, Ratzinger seems to be doing a good job of discrediting the church with all this nonsense…

Yurrzemi @ 24

The point remains that the Catholic authorities have systematically covered up abuses when they have been discovered. No matter the proportion carried out by priests compared with teachers and others, it is the consistent pattern of abusive priests being protected by the church that is so damning and that you have failed to deal with.

I agree this was the case in many places 20 or 30 years ago. It was wrong.

But new rules were brought in when all this came to light and the Church now informs the police and social services as a matter of course. There is also a fast trck system for sacking offenders. It was Pope Benedict – then Cardinal Ratzinger – who brought in the new regulations.

It was not only the Catholic Church that tended to cover-up in the bad old days….. Shakeshaft’s 1995 study showed that only 1% of admitted child sex abusers in the NY school system were exposed or prosecuted. Many simply were moved to a new school district – a practice commonly known among the city’s educational establishment as “passing on the garbage”.

My point is not that the Catholic Church haven’t been wrong about this in the past. My point is that the media focus unduly on the Catholic Church (which has mended its ways) and totally ignore other secular institutions where the problem has been, and in all likelihood continues to be, worse.

Ian – much of what you say is true and much is also untrue. What scares me most about your comments is your belief that this is a thing of the past. IT ISN’T! An European example is Peter Hullerman who wasn’t removed from pastoral duties involving children until this month and that followed a lot of media coverage and had nothing to do with so-called ‘fast track’ procedures.

…It does seem that Darth Benedict gets away with things that would get most ordinary men arrested.

As far as the idea that this is a lessening problem goes… remember, one of the recent analyses put the number of children in Catholic schools in Ireland that hadn’t been molested in the minority. The bloody majority had been molested, according to at least one educated estimation.

It’s not a thing of the past– it’s a fundamental problem with Catholic institutional repression and frustration. It’s something that needs to be properly addressed. Dancing around the problem and making excuses for the church won’t solve anything.

Joel @ 31

remember, one of the recent analyses put the number of children in Catholic schools in Ireland that hadn’t been molested in the minority. The bloody majority had been molested, according to at least one educated estimation.

Complete and utter bollocks.

For a start, the Irish government commission of investigation was not looking at Catholic schools in general but at a network of what we would call care homes and young offender institutions.

Most of the abuse found was not sexual – rather it related to the excessive use of corporal punishment years ago. I’d guess Eton and Harrow wouldn’t do too well by that yardstick either.

When it did come to sexual abuse this is what the commission said:

Sexual abuse was reported by approximately half of all the Confidential Committee witnesses

Priests were therefore one of many groups cited in the commission’s report. But the media focus has been ENTIRELY on this group to the exclusion of all others.

Joel @ 31

remember, one of the recent analyses put the number of children in Catholic schools in Ireland that hadn’t been molested in the minority. The bloody majority had been molested, according to at least one educated estimation.

Complete and utter bollocks.

For a start, the Irish government commission of investigation was not looking at Catholic schools in general but at a network of what we would call care homes and young offender institutions.

Most of the abuse found was not sexual – rather it related to the excessive use of corporal punishment years ago. I’d guess Eton and Harrow wouldn’t do too well by that yardstick either.

When it did come to sexual abuse this is what the commission said:

Sexual abuse was reported by approximately half of all the Confidential Committee witnesses

That’s 50% of those invited to testify on confidential terms, not >50% of the population.

It goes on to say who actually did the abusing (my emphasis):

Witnesses reported being sexually abused by religious and lay staff in the schools and institutions and by co-residents and others, including professionals, both within and external
to the institutions. They also reported being sexually abused by members of the general public, including volunteer workers, visitors, work placement employers, foster parents, and others who
had unsupervised contact with residents in the course of everyday activities. Witnesses reported being sexually abused when they were taken away for excursions, holidays or to work for others.

Priests were therefore one of many groups cited in the commission’s report. But the media focus has been ENTIRELY on this group to the exclusion of all others.

(sorry HTML tags awry in first go above – administrator please delete)

Could it be that lots of abuse victims were pressurised into taking vows of silence?

@21 – 24 etc

Sorry for the delay in replying, I don’t come on here much.

Well, where to begin?

“The leading academic authority on child sexual abuse by teachers in the US is Charol Shakescraft.”

Ah yes, the appeal to authority, in this case “the leading authority.” Appeal to authority is not, generally speaking, a mode of argument which elicits much respect in most academic fields particularly those which are scientific or have pretensions to being scientific. You have provided a pretty good example of why this is the case and your credibility would have been less damaged if:

a. You got the name of the authority to whom you are appealing right (Shakeshaft, not Shakescraft)
b. The documents you quote were actually on the website to which you link – neither of them are.
c. Your claim that she has published two documents for the US Dept of Education were true – she produced one and it’s a review of existing literature, not her own research. The other title (In Loco Parentis) you cite was not published for/by the US Dept of Education but by Bigger Books and is now out of print.
d. Dr Shakeshaft didn’t work at Hofstra University which is such an august seat of learning that it is ranked 172nd in the US by the Washington Monthly and isn’t ranked at all by US News. One would normally expect a “leading authority” in any field to be at a top 20 university (depending on the field, of course) but, of course, this isn’t always the case. I’ve never heard of a leading authority working at an unrated university. Or of a leading authority who publishes no original work in learned, peer reviewed, journals.

So, “leading authority” my arse.

Next point, links to Wikipedia and campaign websites do not count as academic references. Your link to the Sesame Net website doesn’t go to the “studies” to which you make reference. Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source of information, particularly statistical information. When I actually found one of the Shakeshaft papers you quote she doesn’t even present her data or give anything I would recognise as an acceptable account of her statistical methodology.

Now, you posted at length and included links to various sites. I spent a few minutes following only the links relating to Shakeshaft (whose name you got wrong) and found:

a. Rather than being generally accepted as the authority figure you claim she is, she seems to be little known, have nothing published in a peer reviewed journal and to work at a (to say the least) piss – poor university.
b. The links you posted do not, in some cases, go to the sources you quote and the papers to which you refer are not available in the locations you mention.
c. When it is possible to track down the material to which you make reference it lacks data or explanation of statistical methodology.

In view of the above, and of the fact that this isn’t a dispute in an academic journal, I decided not to bother following the rest of your links. Your claims are idiotic in the extreme and your references to a hardly known academic, whose name you even got wrong, at a fourth rate university pretty much put your posts in perspective, don’t they?

And while we’re on the subject, what about the facts (yes FACTS) that Ratzinger and Brady both participated in covering up cases of abuse which allowed paedophile priests to carry on sexually abusing children?

Rather than quoting authority figures who have no authority, linking to papers which prove nothing and quoting dodgy statistics why not comment on that? That’s the actual issue.

There isn’t any, certainly not putting Pope Benedict in the frame anyway. Not that the likes of Hitchens and Hari allow bothersome little things like facts to get in the way of their fulminations.

As to Brady, he took evidence at a canonical trial which swore those giving evidence to secrecy – secrecy being normal in various canonical proceedings – following which he recommended to his then bishop that action be taken against Father Brendan Smyth.

It’s the first time that I’ve heard of a sex-abuse cover-up in which the person accused of the covering up recommends that action be taken against the accused sex-abuser.