Clerical Sexual Abuse Reports

                                         

The recent findings of a Pittsburgh grand jury investigation into sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy in a number of Pennsylvania churches have shocked the nation as well as the Catholic faithful. The grand jury investigated claims of sexual abuse of minors over the past 70 years. Headlines indicated that around 300 priests had abused around 1000 children. Even more shocking were the lurid details in the more than 800-page report.

Here are some facts about the report. During the past seventy years a total of 5000 priests served in the six dioceses under investigation. The 300 accused clergy were not all priests. Some were religious brothers, deacons, or seminarians.  But let’s say that they all were  clergy in one form or another. The 300 accused made up about 6% of the 5000 who served during those years. *

I use the word “accused” because so far none of the accusations of sexual abuse that took place over 30 years ago have been verified by either the grand jury or the dioceses involved. The district attorney is seeking to change the statute of limitations law so that prosecutions can be launched.

Nevertheless, based on other studies it is likely that half of the 300 accused were indeed guilty. That leaves about 150 guilty parties. That figure conforms with earlier studies that have indicated that the abusers made up about two to three percent of the clergy. That is, for every 100 clergymen, three were probably guilty as accused. 

The Pennsylvania report also confirmed earlier studies that demonstrated that the great majority of the victims were teen-age boys. To put it another way, of the small percentage of clergy who violated their vow of chastity and became sexual predators, the great majority were homosexual men. They were not pedophiles because by definition, pedophiles prey on pre-pubescent boys and girls. 

Experience as a practicing Catholic for over 70 years makes me suspect that homosexuals made up a larger percentage of the clergy than 2%. I also believe that majority of them were true to their vows. Most homosexual men do not prey upon teen age boys. But the facts remain. Most of the men who were creditably charged were homosexual men who abused multiple young men.

Although the Pennsylvania grand jury study got a great deal of attention, it was basically old news. Most of the cases occurred in the last century at the time of the outset of the sexual revolution in the sixties and seventies. Most of the clergy named in the report are either dead or long deprived of their clerical positions. What was new and surprising was the accusations of homosexual activity in Catholic seminaries.

This news tied in with the news that charges of sexual abuse of young men by Cardinal Theodore Mc Carrack, the former head of the prestigious diocese of Washington D.C., had been found creditable. McCarrack has been accused of not only molesting teen-age boys but also seminarians over a long period of time. The charges were so creditable that Pope Francis asked Mc Carrack, already retired as Bishop of Washington, to resign as a member of the College of Cardinals.

Mc Carrack’s case seems to have been just the tip of the iceberg. Many reports are surfacing that seminaries in the latter part of the last century had been infiltrated by homosexual priests who preyed upon young candidates for the priesthood. Some even suggest that to get along, you had to go along, and that seminarians who resisted either wound up in poor assignments, or just left the seminary. 

The good, the bad, and the ordinary can be found in any organization. Some of the priests and religious I have encountered in my lifetime as a Catholic have approached sainthood, but the great majority have been ordinary with the same faults and failings of anyone else. 

But the bad, although few, can be like the proverbial worm in the apple and make everyone look bad. Experience and common sense make me believe that a small percentage of heterosexual clergy were not true to their vows. Indeed, I think that many of the men who leave the priesthood have a lady in waiting. 

Nevertheless, the great majority of sexual molesters were homosexual men whose influence in the past seems to have far exceeded their numbers. Mc Carrack’s case is a sign that homosexual influence went from the seminaries to the highest ranks of the Church. Commentators have suggested that the problem in the seminaries has largely been eliminated but that problems still exist in the highest ranks of the Church.

A recent letter sent to Pope Francis by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, an Italian prelate who had served as Papal nuncio or ambassador to the United States for years, claimed that he had told Pope Francis about Mc Carrack’s record five years ago but that the Pope had declined to take action.  Moreover, Vigano claimed that some other high ranking prelates in Rome were part of a powerful homosexual lobby. Vigano has even called upon Pope Francis to resign. So far, the Pope has remained silent but has convened a bishop’s conference early next year to address the issue. The media in America has also been largely silent on the Vigano accusations perhaps because they deal with homosexual predators.

My own bishop has tried to address the new revelations by calling for the faithful to pray and attend masses of reparation. I fail to see why the faithful have to offer reparation. More and more it seems to me that the laity make up the real strength of the Church and that the hierarchy has much to account for.

###

*Details of the report have come from an article by William A. Donovan, the President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, that appeared in the Sept. 2018 issue of Catalyst, the League’s periodical. Donovan is a partisan but he is a trained sociologist who has read the whole report, and written about the clerical abuse scandal for years.

Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings

                                          

The Senate hearings for the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court made it clear that the opposition was more than about the obvious issues. The idea that Kavanaugh’s appointment will somehow protect President Trump from impeachment is absurd. A President is charged or impeached in the House of Representatives and then tried in the Senate, not the Supreme Court.

Democrat politicians do fear that Kavanaugh would tip the balance of the court on abortion and lead to the overturn of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Roe v. Wade is not a law but a Supreme Court ruling that overturned state laws restricting or banning abortion. If the Supreme Court were to overturn that ruling, it would be up to the individual states to pass new laws banning or restricting abortion in their jurisdictions. Otherwise, women would still be free to choose abortion.

No matter what you think about abortion or Roe v. Wade, it should be clear to any fair minded person that a very large percentage of the abortions performed since the original ruling have involved black women. White women have accounted for about half of the approximately 50 Million abortions performed since 1973 but black women who make up a much smaller share of the total population have accounted for about 20 Million abortions or 40% of the total. It is clear that Roe v. Wade has played a significant role in limiting the increase of the black population in this country.

Some sociologists think that this phenomenon is a good thing and that abortion has worked to keep down the crime rate and poverty rate in the country, especially among the “lower classes.” That was certainly the objective of Margaret Sanger, the famed birth-control pioneer on the 1920s. 

Back then Sanger would not have been called a racist. She was a “eugenicist” a word derived from the so-called science of eugenics that claimed that some races and ethnic groups were inherently inferior to others. She argued that immigration from some poor countries like Italy where poverty, ignorance, superstition, immorality, and crime prevailed should be restricted. She also believed that blacks were inherently inferior, and that they should be discouraged from “breeding,” or reproducing themselves.

Eugenics provided a kind of scientific basis for laws in the South prohibiting “miscegenation”, or marriage between members of different races. They said it led to “mongrelization.” In the 1930s the Nazis in Germany became the greatest advocates of eugenics. It provided a scientific basis for policies to eliminate not only the Jews, but also any inferior racial or ethnic types. Their idea of a master race was a creation of eugenics. Of course, eugenics went out of favor after World War II and the Holocaust.

Many years ago I went to a conference where a female, black doctor predicted that abortion would eventually lead to the disappearance of the black race in America. I don’t think her prediction will come true but it is clear that abortion has kept down the population of blacks in this country.

I think the real objection to Judge Kavenaugh is that he is a white male who is also intelligent and successful. Moreover, he is also a Catholic who seems to take his faith seriously unlike many Catholics in high places today. His record as a judge is so outstanding that Democrats had to largely ignore it and ask for millions of documents in order to try to dig up some dirt. At the hearings it was obvious that critical questioners sought to demonstrate that the judge would make decisions harmful to women, blacks, and other minorities.

But why would a white racist be opposed to abortion when it is clear that it has been so successful in keeping down the black and Hispanic population in this country? You would think that racists would be all in favor of abortion. Or would it be better to say that, despite their words and intentions, the supporters of abortion today are the real racists.

During the Vice-Presidential debate before the last election, Republican candidate Mike Pence, another conservative white male, made an unabashedly Pro-Life statement, and argued that the State has an inherent interest in supporting the right to life of the most vulnerable of its citizens. He noted that as Governor he had worked hard to make Indiana a pro-adoption state. 

His opponent Tim Kaine did note that he was Catholic and proud of his Catholic heritage and education. But he argued that despite his personal opposition to abortion, he had done nothing to oppose it as Governor of Virginia, and would certainly support Hillary Clinton’s intention, if elected President, to provide federal funding for abortion.

The Democrat strategy is very cunning. They can appear to be the champions of women, especially the poor and underprivileged, but at the same time, they support measures that have kept the population of Blacks and Hispanics down. Despite contemporary left-wing rhetoric on behalf of the under-privileged, it is still outcomes or results that count. 

The young Progressives of today have been brought up viewing popular TV shows like Law and Order where the great majority of criminals are successful white males. Only rarely are the villains women, black, Hispanic or members of the LGBTQ minority. Nevertheless, the liberal creators and producers of these shows, like Harvey Weinstein of the famed Miramax studio, or Leslie Moonves of ultra-politically correct CBS, are now the ones being charged with sexual abuse of women. Despite professed good intentions, could the media support for abortion be regarded as racist? 

### 

Public Funerals

  

I’m working on posts concerning the Kavenaugh Supreme Court nomination, as well as the current sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic church, but in the meantime would just like to post a little comment on the recent public funerals of Senator John McCain, and singer Aretha Franklin, the “Queen of Soul.” 

I don’t like public funerals no matter how talented or great the deceased person was. In the first place, public figures get enormous recognition in their lifetime but death is the great leveler, and when death comes, we are all equal. Moreover, just being a leading politician or talented performer does not mean that you were any better than anyone else as a person. 

Secondly, I do not like it when speakers at these events, which often seem to be events rather than funerals by the way they are staged, often use them as a means to make political or cultural points that ultimately distract from the person they are supposed to be remembering. The comments often seem self-serving, petty, and bogus.

I would like to just contrast such eulogies with the words uttered by Phil Rizzuto, the legendary New York Yankee ballplayer and announcer, when he heard of the tragic death of Thurman Munson, the great NY Yankee catcher, in an airplane crash at the height of his career. On August 2, 1979, Munson died while piloting his private plane on an off-day during the baseball season. 

On the next day, Rizzuto spoke the following words during a pre-game show. In characteristic fashion Rizzuto messed up some of the words of the traditional Catholic prayer to a guardian angel but spoke simply and from the heart.

There’s a little prayer I always say

Whenever I think of my family or when I’m flying,

When I’m afraid, and I am afraid of flying.

It’s just a little one. You can say it no matter what,

Whether you’re Catholic or Jewish or Protestant or whatever.

And I’ve probably said it a thousand times

Since I heard the news on Thurman Munson.

It’s not trying to be maudlin or anything.

His Eminence, Cardinal Cooke, is going to come out

And say a little prayer for Thurman Munson.

But this is just a little one I say time and time again,

It’s just: Angel of God, Thurman’s guardian dear,

To whom his love commits him here there or everywhere,

Ever this night and day be at his side,

To light and guard, to rule and guide. 

For some reason it makes me feel like I’m talking to Thurman,

Or whoever’s name you put in there,

Whether it be my wife or any of my children, my parents or anything.

It’s just something to keep you from going really bananas.

Because if you let this,

If you keep thinking about what happened, and you can’t understand it,

That’s what really drives you to despair.

Faith. You gotta have faith.

You know, they say time heals all wounds,

And I don’t quite agree with that a hundred percent.

It gets you to cope with wounds,

You carry them the rest of your life.

A few days later, Rizzuto returned to the subject while broadcasting ad lib during the midst of a game in progress.

The Yankees have had a traumatic four days,

Actually five days,

That terrible crash with Thurman Munson.

To go through all that agony,

And then today,

You and I along with the rest of the team

Flew to Canton for the services,

And the family…Very upset.

You know, it might,

It might sound a little corny,

But we have the most beautiful full moon tonight

And the crowd,

Enjoying whatever is going on right now.

They say it might sound corny,

But to me it’s some kind of a…,

Like an omen.

Both the moon and Thurman Munson,

Both ascending up into heaven.

I just can’t get it out of my mind,

I just saw that full moon,

And it just reminded me of Thurman,

And that’s it.

(August 6, 1979 Baltimore at New York, fifth inning, bases empty, no outs.)

Note: These words and many others of Rizzuto’s can be found in a collection, O Holy Cow, edited by Tom Peyer and Hart Seely. The editors claim that Rizzuto’s words were truly poetic and have subtitled their collection, “The Selected Verse of Phil Rizzuto.

###

College Sex Scene

                                    \

Recently, a young woman was convicted of filing a false claim of rape against two football players at a nearby university. She was given a relatively short sentence after admitting that rather than rape, it was a consensual sexual encounter that she later claimed was rape to somehow impress a potential boyfriend. 

After the trial the two young men claimed that their lives had been ruined by the woman’s accusation. They had been kicked off the football team and lost their scholarships. Actually, it would appear that the lives of the three participants in this act of consensual sex had all been damaged in one way or another. It’s also possible that the lives of the families involved had also been badly damaged.

However, the damage could have been even greater. A recent article in the Connecticut Mirror, an online daily news source, indicated that there has been an alarming increase in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in Connecticut and the nation over the past twenty years. The article referred to a study released by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) that showed that Connecticut’s problem was part of a nationwide problem. 

The state’s spike in gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia cases coincides with “steep and sustained” increases seen nationwide from 2013 through 2017, in an analysis released this week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Preliminary data indicates that there were 3913 cases of gonorrhea in Connecticut in 2017, an increase of 37% from 2013. In that same period the national count increased by 67%. Also, syphilis cases were up 76% nationwide and doubled in Connecticut from 56 to 110. Finally, reports of chlamydia, the most common STD were up 22% nationwide but 39% in Connecticut which still had a total of 17750 reported cases.

The CDC attributed more than 70% of syphilis cases to gay, or bisexual men having sex with other men. This would appear to be a new phenomenon. In Connecticut, for example, reported cases of syphilis among men and women in the year 2000 were relatively the same. But since then, the rate among men has “skyrocketed.” 

Chlamydia, the most common STD, is most prevalent in young people under the age of 25. Health officials are devoting most of their attention to education and screening in high school. Still, they admit that their resources are overtaxed by the sheer volume of cases. Complicating matters is the fact that the antibiotics used to treat these diseases are no longer effective as the various bacteria have developed resistance. 

The effects of STDs can be devastating both physically and mentally. They are highly infectious and easily spread by sexual contact. The results of these infections are more than painful. They can often cause infertility, and even when they don’t, a mother can spread the disease to her newborn baby. 

The CT Mirror article quoted a Connecticut medical official on the reasons why infected people are reluctant to come forward and seek treatment.

Some people might feel bad when they have an STD because it is perceived that they did something wrong or they had sex with the wrong person or it is their fault,” she said. “Instead of expecting people to come to us, we need to do a better job of going to where they are, both in-person and online, to provide them the knowledge they need so they have the best information to make informed decisions for themselves.

It is hard to know what to make of this well-meaning statement. I know that there is a new morality today, and that many young people are not very religious. But from a medical or scientific point of view those infected with STDs did do something wrong, they did have sex with the wrong person, and it is their fault.

What sane person would have any kind of sex with a person known to be infected with an STD, or known to have been infected in the past? Who would take such a chance? What kind of person infected with an STD would risk infecting someone else?

Isn’t it clear that the only real way to avoid STDs outside of sexual abstinence is a monogamous sexual relationship? Multiple sex partners dramatically increase the risk of infection no matter what kind of “protection” is employed. Maybe it’s old-fashioned but even if you’re not concerned with your spiritual well-being, your physical well-being might depend on waiting for the right person to come along.

###