SNAP talks John Jay

A great take on the document released today by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice …

Statement by David Clohessy, Executive Director of SNAP 314 566 9790 SNAPClohessy@aol.com [mailto:SNAPClohessy@aol.com]

Four fallacies in new bishop’s abuse report – SNAP responds

Predictably and conveniently, the bishops have funded a report that tells them precisely what they want to hear: it was all unforeseeable, long ago, wasn’t that bad and wasn’t their fault. It gives bishops even more reasons to do avoid what they desperately want to avoid: questioning celibacy, married priests, secular laws, serious reforms or their own virtually limitless power as kings in a medieval monarchy. Here are four of the most crucial fallacies in the document:

–The crisis is and was unforeseeable, the report claims, because child molesters don’t have forked tongues or devil tails and can’t be easily detected. Fair enough. But the report essentially dodges the crucial question: Why don’t bishops quickly out and oust child molesting clerics the first time they sexually assault a child? (And why then, if predators can’t be spotted in advance, do bishops tout their alleged seminary “screening” processes as panaceas?)

–The crisis was long ago, the report claims, because the bishops say so. Never mind the fact that only a handful of five and ten year olds march down to the police station and promptly report their own victimization, so it’s dreadfully misleading and dangerous to assume clergy sex crimes have gone down in recent years.

–The crisis isn’t all that bad, the report suggests, because many of the kids who are or were violated had experienced puberty. Never mind the fact that child sex crimes, no matter at what age, are always illegal, immoral and hurtful. So the hair-splitting between pedophiles and ephebophiles (a distinction that seems to matter to few besides bishops) is, for the most part, at best irrelevant and at worst distracting.

–Most important, the crisis isn’t the bishops’ fault, the document implies. It was what the New York Times calls the “Blame Woodstock” defense. At best, this is naïve. At worst, it’s deceptive. There are at least three reasons why it may appear to some that abuse ‘peaked’ in the 60s and 70s. The first is that victims during those years are old, strong, smart, healthy and desperate enough to finally be able to report their horrific pain. The second is that bishops are much more willing to disclose clergy sex crimes that are beyond the reach of the criminal and civil justice system than more recent clergy sex crimes that could result in prosecution and litigation and embarrassment. And bishops are more willing to acknowledge child felonies committed under their predecessors than themselves.

Sadly, but unsurprisingly, the bishops’ ‘take-away’ here is: “We don’t have to change a thing.” Thankfully, most people realize that’s nonsense. Most people understand that a feudal system lacking any ‘checks and balances’ is inherently unhealthy and that a culture premised on sexual abstinence and secrecy and self-perpetuation is inherently problematic. Finally, David Gibson writes that the apparent jump in abuse cases in the 1960s and 1970s, the authors found, was essentially due to emotionally ill-equipped priests who were trained in earlier years and lost their way in the social cataclysm of the sexual revolution.” Lost their way? Please!

The writing on the wall seems clear: We fear that bishops are going backwards and laying the groundwork to recycle and restore proven, admitted and credibly accused child molesting clerics to ministry. Because, if those child sex offenders merely “lost their way,” they can clearly be “rehabilitated,” right? Countless times over the past decade, bishops have claimed “We used to be naïve about abuse. Now we understand it better.” But if that’s the case, how can they, or anyone, attribute heinous, repeated sexual assaults on innocent, vulnerable kids as some priests “losing their way.”

(SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, is the world’s oldest and largest support group for clergy abuse victims. SNAP was founded in 1988 and has more than 10,000 members. Despite the word “priest” in our title, we have members who were molested by religious figures of all denominations, including nuns, rabbis, bishops, and Protestant ministers. Our website is SNAPnetwork.org) Contact – David Clohessy (314-566-9790 cell, SNAPclohessy@aol.com), Barbara Blaine (312-399-4747, SNAPblaine@gmail.com), Peter Isely (414-429-7259, peterisely@yahoo.com), Barbara Dorris (314-862-7688 home, 314-503-0003 cell, SNAPdorris@gmail.com [mailto:SNAPdorris@gmail.com]).

About these ads

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

One response to “SNAP talks John Jay

  1. The numbers are all skewed by the bishops and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice! As a general rule psychologists use age 13 as the beginning of puberty — the report says it is 10 years of age. Naturally a LOT of the victims fell in the 10-13 years old category — so using the 10 year the numbers are all showing a lower percentage of pedophile priests.

    Who can trust the bishops to give ACCURATE and HONEST figures? Case in point, Philadelphia! For years we were told there are no priests with accusations against them in active ministry – and then suddenly last February the grand jury discovers thirty-seven!!! Bishops also try to tell us that 4% of priests were abusers — the actual numbers counted at http://www.bishopaccountability.org is closer to 10%!!!

    As for blaming society and “the 60’s!” I was raped in 1970 by a priest who was ordained in the early 1950’s — certainly his moral ethics were well established by the time the 60’s rolled around. His history of abuse runs from the 1950’s until just 2 months before his death in 2006 at the age of 82! After my rape I reported to my deacon supervisor — another priest in the same parish. Remember, this was 1970. Nothing happened because he was diagnosed in 1957 s having a psycho-pathological personality and was STILL playing with mentally ill teen aged girls. He, too, was ordained in the early 1950’s. By the time the 1960’s rolled around these two priests were WELL into their 40’s — and at that time would be considered “old” and not part of the “current age.”

    As for the bishops’ honesty in numbers — when I brought my case back to Boston I was informed that “I was the only one” — that there were no other accusations against my perp. I managed to get hold of the investigation and found THREE letters dating back to the 1990’s accusing him of sexual abuse. If the bishop (cardinal) can nget away with lying to me as a priest — how much easier is it to lie to a lay person?

    The Hierarchy of the church (all the way to Rome) needs to come clean, be honest, transparent etc. LIST THE NAMES of all perpetrators who have been credibly accused. They cannot be taken to court because of the statutes of limitations. They are still just as dangerous and society in general needs to know about them. Our society is is so migrant! A priest who abuses in Boston can also abuse in Minnesota, or Nevada or anywhere. The names need to be public and acessible.

    Fr. Jim Moran

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s