Earlier today I posted the following:
21 September 2017 “Pope candidly admits Church ‘arrived late’ in confronting abuse” & related article
I said I would comment. The article and what I have read elsewhere on the Holy Father’s comments annoyed me, so, here goes. A few quick thoughts (with quites fromt he articles in itlaics)…
- “Consciousness”
Pope Francis …said on Thursday the Catholic Church had “arrived late” in dealing with the problem.
“There is the reality that the Church arrived at the consciousness of these crimes a bit late,” he said.
“When consciousness arrives late, the means to resolve the problems also arrive late. I am aware of this difficulty but it is reality and I say it plainly: We arrived late.”
In this instance I suggest that the Holy Father can speak for himself an d those of his fellow bishops and Cardinals who have covered up for and tolerated predatory clergy.
It is not “the Church” which has arrived late at this “consciousness. ” There have been laws in the Church against clerical sexual abuse throughout the ages and, withness the following, it has been recognized for the perversion, sin and abomination that it is.
Yes, of course, as with laws everywhere, they will to enforce is required, but there has always been a recognition of the ‘problem’ and accompanying laws to penalize these clerical predators.
I can add that in more recent times, we can go back to 1952 when a Father Gerald Fitzgerald was strongly arguing that clergy who are “tampering with the virtue of the young” should be laicized (defrocked)
2. Falling asleep
“The old practice of moving people around and not confronting the problem made consciences fall asleep,” he said.
What is he talking about? What pray tell is the Holy Father talking about?
“Made consciousness fall asleep”? Whose consciousness fell asleep? And, in light of Church teaching, the Bible and the utterances of the great Saints and likes of Father Fitzgerald throughout the years, how did they manage to fall asleep?
3. The commission
Francis acknowledged that the commission, which was founded in 2014, had to “swim against the tide,” a reference to high level defections from its ranks.
The founding of the commission was another case of re-inventing the wheel. What more needs to be known about priests who are wolves in sheep’s clothing? What more needs to be said about the damage done by the rape of a child’s soul?
4. A “Sickness”
Francis said that everyone had to realize that sexual abuse is “a sickness” with a high probability of relapse.
“That person may repent today … but may commit it again after two years. We have to put it into our heads that this is a sickness,” he said.
Most of us know that, when it comes to clerical molesters, there is indeed a high probability of relapse, but, to then try to rationalize this abhorrent SIN as a sickness goes beyond the pall.
I suppose perhaps we could say it is a spiritual sickness? I will have to think that through a little, because I do believe that those who are truly spiritually healthy would never lay a wayward hand on a child. Never.
But, a “sickness”? As in, by the sound of it, a physical or mental sickness?
Heaven help us ! Now we’re into the “poor father, he has no control over what he says or does. Poor Father – it’s the sickness, you see. There’s nothing he can do about it.”
This is secular think. Totally secular. “Poor poor Father. He can’t help it.”
What about sin? S.I.N.
Is there anything in the Bible which declares clerical sexual abuse to be a sickness? I think not. There is, of course, the warning about the millstones. Right? Better that he who scandalizes one of these little ones be thrown into the depths of the sea with a millstone round his neck?
There’s nary a word there about sickness, is there?
Furthermore, is there anywhere in the 2000 year history of official Church teaching wherein clerical sexual abuse is declared to be a sickness? I think not. There, are however, the wise and prudent words regarding scanad by St. Alphonsus De Legouri and the many great saints whom he quotes. Nary an excuse there, is there? The sinner carries the burden. No shuffling it off on things like sickness, is there?
Please please please, let’s start calling a spade a spade. No more excuses. No more rationalizing. No more tap dancing. Just, please get then out of the priesthood.
Enough for now,
Sylvia
Your link to the Tapsell paper doesn’t appear to mention the smoking gun which is the Baars study presented to the Synod of Bishops in 1971. The Holy See itself had sponsored it. Dr. Conrad Baars was a devout Catholic psychiatrist. His study (The Role of the Church in the Causation, Treatment and Prevention of the Crisis in the Priesthood) of 1500 members of the clergy found that less than 15% of priests in Europe and North America were emotionally fully developed and of the remaining 85%, 20–25% had “serious psychiatric difficulties” that they expressed through alcohol abuse, while 60–70% had less severe degrees of emotional immaturity. Baars recommendations were absolutely totally ignored and his study found it’s way on the highest shelve in the Vatican Archives.
We’re dealing with immature men. Immature men like Pope Francis who is not part of the minority who would do the right thing regarding clerical abuse within this failed institution.
Do you have a link to Dr. Baars study BC? I can’t find it and would like to read it. There seems to be a connection between Baars and at least one of the Houses of Affirmation – a treatment centre for ‘errant’ clergy.
Here`s one link from Marquette University; a Catholic, Jesuit university (Milwaukee, Wisconsin)
http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1246&context=lnq
Thanks BC. I’m just reading through it now.
I don’t believe that Dr. Baars work was overlooked BC. Far from it.
For want of time, I will post the following:
Click here for report on Baars and the establishment of the House of Affirmation in Worcester, Mass in 1973. This was the first of a number of such Houses of Affirmation’ set up across the States as a treatment centre for clergy with what were referenced as psychological and psychosexual problems.
The co-founder of this first House of Affirmation was a Father Thomas Kane, a Roman Catholic priest and clinical psychologist (There were questions later regarding his academic qualifications).
From the Boston Herald:
And this, from the Worcester Telegram and Gazette in 2002:
Dr. Baars tried to blow the whistle on Father Kane in 1975 because as it was subsequently confirmed, Father Kane was embezzling House of Affirmation. But Father Kane fired Dr. Baars instead claiming that Dr. Baars was incompetent.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/1992_06_21_Della_5Years.htm
Yes. It’s worth searching to find the coverage. I have a lot of House of Affirmation files but they are difficult to dig out and I really don’t think it’s necessary to do so at this time. My point is that the bishops embraced the whole notion of affirmation with regards to all of this psychosexual immaturity chatter.
I recall attending a Canadian Conference of Bishops plenary in the early 90s – the buzz was all “psychosexual immaturity.” The large majority, if not all, were all in. I personally had never heard the term before but they certainly knew what it was all about and were all on board bemoaning all that they viewed as ailing and hampering the life and happiness of the poor priest. That was over 20 years ago. It is now used to excuse the inexcusable behaviours of predatory clergy. The poor souls are, we are told, are, through no fault of their own, psychosexually immature. I don’t particulalry think that’s what Dr. Baars had in mind in the 70s when he was addressing the issue of priests leaving the church to marry, but, that is the unfortunate fallout.
You are of course correct: Dr. Baars was not specifically researching clerical abuse in the late 1960’s and 1970’s. I referred to his study as a response to your critique of the disease model of clerical abuse now being peddled by the living selfie that is Pope Francis. The black box that is the disease model of clerical abuse is a theory in search of a practice. Addiction to kiddy porn; compulsions to sexually assault aren’t defenses.
Sylvia/BC – thank you BOTH for saying it like it is. I have railed on “ad-nauseum” to some bishops these last few years about this very topic, the psycho-sexually immature male in the Catholic priesthood. I have not received any responses to my concerns regarding this matter. Having a boy in a man’s body for a pastor is acutely concerning.
I am left with the feeling (I hope I’m wrong) that the church has actively recruited this type of individual because of the inherent characteristics of this type of psyche. Most remarkable in this is the desperate desire to be obedient to a senior male figure (ie – the bishop)
Sylvia completely agree with you in that it appears the Pope is trying to deflect the cause/blame of this matter. This matter is NOT a sickness, but a compilation of centuries of accumulated SIN.
This twisted omnipotence is now being bared for all to see. Mike.
I don’t for a moment beleive that “the Church” per se has actively recruited these individuals, but I do firmly believe that in many an instance and for many years predators in the Church have actively recruited males whom they deem to be of like mind .
I couldn’t agree more..
Sylvia – regarding my last post and your response, you are absolutely right. Poor choice of words on my part. I realize that the “church” as an institution does not do what I insinuated.
I remain disappointed in what you have pointed out in the recruitment and screening of seminarians. Where (if any) is the oversight? I just can’t get my head around the Pope saying essentially that they have been “asleep at the wheel” while this madness was occurring. Mike.