Comments for The John Jay Report at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 22 out of 20 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Sun, 19 May 2013 18:31:06 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-john-jay-report.html#comment-6958 I just got a hold of this article and am baffled, by the emphasis of both the article and the comments on two fronts. 1. The concern about whether the offenders are gay or not. Who Cares? Why do you care? Whether they are gay or not is irrelevant, They abused Children. That is the main issue. The priest's own sexual identity issues are another whole issue. This twisted attempt to tie the two together seems to obfusate the effect on the victims and concentrate on the ancillary issue of the perpetrator's sexual identity. I think that if you want to write an article about the problem of homosexuality in the priesthood then write one, but to criticize a report on sexual abuse of children because it doesn't talk enough about the homosexual priest problem, this is just non-sensical and almost totally irrational thought. 2. What is this talk about cover-ups, secret agenda's, white-washing, etc.? What Planet are you on folks? The Catholic Church has done more to prevent the sexual abuse of children throughout the last seventy years than almost any other public organization that works with children (probably longer). Most of the cases that were brought forward for prosecution are a result of Church's own records for crying out loud! I hate to be so blunt and harsh, but the ignorance, or maliciousness of such assertions are just astounding. Mistakes were made, no doubt, but we know of them because there are records. The records are not "swept under the rug", hidden., etc. To somehow imply that this report is not an attempt to better understand what the situation was, is just beyond absurd. I don't think that people understand that this report highlights a fact that has been little reported. There never was, or definitely is there any "Church Sexual abuse crisis". Even at it worst (the '60's and '70's) the abuse of children were still at levels lower than the society at a whole. Of course, at present, the Catholic Church can report that it is one of the safest places to have your children, by far. The "crisis", if you want to call it that, was purely internal. The Church had a significant spike of abuse during the 1960-1985 period relatively speaking. However, an all "A" Student getting a few "C"'s is not a public crisis. I am not trying to down play the effect that this has had on the victims, in fact, just the opposite. All this focus on the failings of one of the best institution that works with Children takes away attention from institutions that have similar to worse problems like public schools, boy scouts, other Churches, etc. None of which have the protection measures that the Church has taken. I think that problem of child sex abuse will be better served if we quit worrying about the leaky kitchen faucet, while the whole rest of the house is burning. - Scott H. Wed, 01 Jun 2011 04:51:58 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-john-jay-report.html#comment-6939 Blake, while I am sure you are well intentioned, your errors are so immense I can't address them at the moment. Your talk of reality is insane. You have mistaken permanent things for temporary things and mistaken empirical evidence for truth. Most commenters here are here because they have long since passed through and beyond the limits of "academia"- your analysis is perverted, permissive and utterly of this world, not to mention sophomorically simple. I doubt it will sell here, though I guess it was worth a try. No amount of clever talk, parsimony, or dearth of words has the power to change reality and I would wager that most of us here will let Christ be the arbiter of that reality, not academia. - Achilles Sat, 28 May 2011 07:45:24 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-john-jay-report.html#comment-6937 I have only the time to peruse the comments, but it appears that y'all are being misled by the overly academic wording in the report. They are writing this with the assumption that it will be primary discussed in academic settings where people have a grasp on the complexities of sexual identity. Gay identity is complex. I can be gay and celibate. I can be gay and have sex with women. Just as you can be straight & celebrate or (believe it or not) straight and have sex with men. It stems not just from the actions, but from open identification too. People who are in denial (or in gay parlance, "in the closet") are difficult to classify and easily offended if asked, which complicates things. But a large part of being gay is identifying as gay. This is why in research you'll often see MSM (men who have sex with men) rather than "gay men". In the religious context, however, we've been taught that it is precisely the actions that identify. You can see the disconnect between academia and religion. Academia takes a very nuanced view and religion takes a very black-and-white view on gay identity. The researchers are closer to reality (you might be surprised at the number of straight men who have taken a "Steven Tyler"). Researchers understand these subtleties(that at any moment all of the men having sex with men are not necessarily gay), hence the obscuring. While I think things are better when discussed frankly (if they may be momentarily painful), the researchers at J.J. were clearly trying to protect the gay community from a backlash. To say there is no connection with closeted gay men and the abuse handed out to teenage parishioners is being disingenuous. But remember there is very little that is similar between a priest who abuses his office to have sexual situations with young parishioners and a gay man you might meet somewhere in life. There is nothing about being gay that encourages, promotes, or means you want to have sex with children. As to the teenage victims, well... Fewer people than should be are aware that sex with teenage girls is not considered abnormal or wrong throughout much of American society. I really thought I was going to have to kill myself if I heard another friend say the Olsen Twins were hot when they were 15! (I really did get angry at a lot of people.) I guess people prefer to believe that propagandistic TV stories, with girls falling emotionally in love with grown men, are real. If we, as a society, want to discourage men from having sex with teenagers (boys and girls) than we need to stop sexualizing teenagers in our culture. But good luck with that. Sex sells and we live in a commercial culture. As long as money is the center of our lives money is going to determine cultural currency. Sex sells. So corporations want our children sexualized as soon as possible. Hence BRATZ, teenage love-stories on MTV and the like, not to mention the cultural staying power of Paris Hilton. - Blake Fri, 27 May 2011 11:19:48 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-john-jay-report.html#comment-6912 Bravo Ben, Brava Suzanne. Go to The Catholic League website and see Bill Donohue's 24 page review of the 2011 JJ report. He hi-lites how Ms. Terry and Ms. Smith are painted into the corner of the 2004 abuse data, how every plausible explanation falls away except homosexual statutory rape of male tweens and teens, but they refuse to admit even the description. They make a mockery of their own work by characterizing the abuse as "male abusers" of "male victims." Here's an apt re-titling of the name for the 2011 Jay Report, using the very own psycho-babble of Ms. Terry et al: "The Report on the Crisis of Confused Sexual Identity of Male Abusers of Male Tweens and Teens Inside the U.S. Catholic Church - which is not Homosexual Abuse because the Abusers didn't say they are Homosexual." John Jay 2011 is "double-speek." If the Bishops do not reject this report, then I must conclude that the USCCB is formally engaged in the coverup, and that the USCCB is, as an entity, an enemy of The Church. - Chris in Maryland Wed, 25 May 2011 04:50:43 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-john-jay-report.html#comment-6907 A 'friend of the family' of ours, a homosexual man, was arrested within the past year for some sort of sexual contact with a teenage boy. This man did not see his actions as having any moral significance whatsoever. Neither did any of his homosexual friends, several of whom also have been arrested for similar activities (according to him). The whole incident for him has been nothing more than a legal hassle. Fewer people than should be are aware that sex with teenage boys is not considered abnormal or wrong throughout much of the gay community, though of course their publicists will not admit it (the gay community publicity-wise has come a long way from the time when their biggest issue was the 'right' to be sent out in the woods with a bunch of boy scouts). People prefer to believe that propagandistic TV stories, with gay guys falling emotionally in love with other grown men, are real. Its amazing that an otherwise apparently decent report should, on one point, assume that no one in the world can count or has any experience with human behavior. Evidently its not important to understand sexual abuse if to do so would interfere with our most cherished prejudices. Living a life steeped in sin is death for the soul. May Jesus have mercy on poor sinners. - Ben H Tue, 24 May 2011 18:27:07 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-john-jay-report.html#comment-6905 +JMJ I have been very confused, by what I see as a lot of ambuguity, as to what the purpose of the John Jay Commission was in the first place. I thought it was to study and evaluate the reported 'sexual abuse by priests' in the USA. If the largest number of reported cases involved boys between the ages of 14 and 17 years, why did the John Jay Study address the younger, and smaller percentage, of victims? Do the boys who were teenagers when sexually abused by priests not deserve the same attention and arbitrated resolution as to what happened to them? Sex with a minor, under the age of 18,regardless of gender, is a felony; is it not? - Suzanne Malavasic Tue, 24 May 2011 08:32:30 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-john-jay-report.html#comment-6904 I am surrounded by those intoxicated on the spirits of this age, though I am a bad Catholic, it is a certain peaceful joy to commune with those faithful to the Body of Christ. Billy Bean and Chris, I always find your insights edifying and my most fervent prayers are that we are given the grace to remain faithful to the Way the Truth and the Life. No saint would rape a teenager, a homosexual would use every advantage to act on perversion. Such plain language evokes death threats, but isn’t death always threatening?” The wages of sin are death.” I would still be a dead man were it not for Christ. All of you are in my prayers, please pray for me. Achilles - Achilles Tue, 24 May 2011 06:42:57 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-john-jay-report.html#comment-6898 Amen to Billy and Achilles. What is USCCB's gift to the Church? Progressive "Voters Guides;" the "Nabbish" (New American) Bible (hat-tip to Tony Esolen in the Jun/Jul issue of First Things); and now the landmark 2011 John Jay "Report on The Crisis of Confused Homosexual Predators in The Church." Dismantle the USCCB. - Chris in Maryland Mon, 23 May 2011 17:50:36 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-john-jay-report.html#comment-6897 @Achilles & Chris in Maryland: I believe we are in substantial agreement. - Billy Bean Mon, 23 May 2011 15:01:07 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-john-jay-report.html#comment-6896 With any report beholden to political correctness, or for that matter conducted within the confines of the American university, the findings are sterile. The contraceptive university, aborting all ideas that dare to threaten a perverted notion of individual freedom (read the right to self esteem) is the spokesperson for the culture of death, which is the satanic manifesto. He was a liar and a murderer from the very beginning. Determinism, the lens of the university, is not the lens through which we must examine this crisis. Christ tells us to be “as wise as serpents and gentle as doves.” We as Catholics must recognize this as the moral problem it is, not as one social worker called it “an historical problem.” When the Catholic Church lines up its assessment with social workers, university professors, or the dsm vii, I hope we can all admit that this constitutes a very unhealthy attachment to the temporal and ever changing world. The USCCB News Release is pathetic. - Achilles Mon, 23 May 2011 09:41:31 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-john-jay-report.html#comment-6894 I just read this @ CNS: The study showed that "the only significant risk factor related to sexual identity and behavior was a 'confused' sexual identity, and this condition was most commonly found in abusers who were ordained prior to the 1960s." In other words, John Jay says if you are a criminal homosexual predator, it's because you're confused about your "sexual identity." So if you've determined you are a "homosexual" you would never prey on boys in their tweens and teens. Wow, see how college researchers solve all problems? Predatory crimes against boys in their tweens and teens was because the perps were confused - not because they were predators. So to John Jay - their are no real criminals here - everyone is a victim. And to those riding the Trojan Horse inside USCCB, their is no sin, only inadequate access to therapy. This explains the rhetoric of ArchB. Dolan (so disappointing in this case); and the headline over at USCCB (same old same old with them): the perps "had risk factors that made them vulnerable" to abusing boys in their tweens and teens; and "no single cause of the abuse" (i.e., those who cry homosexual predators are anathema!). - Chris in Maryland Mon, 23 May 2011 09:30:49 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-john-jay-report.html#comment-6893 The reason why there were/are homosexual priests is because there were/are homosexual bishops. This study is cover for that fact. - avyanez Mon, 23 May 2011 09:16:55 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-john-jay-report.html#comment-6892 Thank you for this! You tell the truth. I pray the bishops will get their heads out of the sand. In the 1940's, Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald, who founded The Servants of the Paraclete, and the Handmaids of the Precious Blood (to support priests with prayers and Adoration) allegedly saw a problem of men with homosexual inclinations entering the seminaries at that time. I read, but cannot verify, that he went to Rome and tried to get the Vatican to address the problem of homosexuals being ordained at that time. Apparently this problem was evident long before Woodstock! It is evident that priests and bishops need much more prayer and sacrifice from the laity. - Ann Mon, 23 May 2011 08:50:54 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-john-jay-report.html#comment-6891 Thank you for writing this! You eloquently point out the blinding light of the obvious, which evidently wasn't noticed by the "experts" who compiled this report: Of course the abuse scandal was a homosexual problem! By definition, heterosexual males do not go after teen-age boys. - Lorraine Murray Mon, 23 May 2011 08:45:16 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-john-jay-report.html#comment-6890 The so-called "Woodstock" defense is apt. But what the bishops are really saying is that the devil made them do it. Very lame. It's always somebody else's fault, yes? - murtheol Mon, 23 May 2011 08:43:12 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-john-jay-report.html#comment-6889 To Brad Miner: Oh, I agree with that - "Child" in the context I was using it means pre-pubescent or lacking secondary sexual characteristics, so chronological age is an imprecise guide at best. The Report's choice of 10 seems rather early and the alternative suggestion of 13 seems, perhaps, rather late. Again, puberty is an event in females and a process in males For what it's worth, the only age group in which females predominate is the age-range 1 - 7, clearly pre-pubescent. I would hesitate to describe such contact as "heterosexual" in any meaningful sense. - Michael Paterson-Seymour Mon, 23 May 2011 07:52:34 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-john-jay-report.html#comment-6888 The current attempt by John Jay academics, and some forces in the USCCB, to suffocate the conclusions of the 2004 Report on the Crisis (by the Review Board) asks us to reject the conclusions of some of the most prominent Catholic lay men and women in the U.S. Church (Leon Panetta, Robert Bennett, Anne Burleigh et al) in favor of the conclusions of "no name" academics at John Jay. In other words, we are not to take counsel from Robert Bennett, one of the foremost attorneys in the world, when he examines the evidence. This offends the sensibilities of John Jay and the those riding the Trojan Horse inside the USCCB. Shout it from the rooftops - That game is over, and that goes for the "Virtus" propaganda program too. - Chris in Maryland Mon, 23 May 2011 07:02:08 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-john-jay-report.html#comment-6887 To Mr. Paterson-Seymour: A point well-taken. But two things: 1) John Jay's data indicate that the largest amount of the abuse was of teens between 14 and 17, so I'm not sure if that squares with your sense of "child". 2) As I indicated (and I wish there were more solid data), there is a strong probability (and not just anecdotally) that there was a lot of homosexual activity at the time studied between priests and other men. It's important, I think, to take in the whole picture. - Brad Miner Mon, 23 May 2011 03:08:39 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-john-jay-report.html#comment-6886 At the risk of stating the obvious, the distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters do not really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes. In other words, many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals are attracted to children, not to men or women. - Michael Paterson-Seymour Mon, 23 May 2011 02:56:57 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-john-jay-report.html#comment-6884 "The Woodstock Defense," eh? I'm wondering: in what sense can a frank confession that even a single Roman Catholic priest (to say nothing of his bishop) surrendered so abjectly and shamelessly to the spirit of the age be considered a "defense"? In the present reality, with so many priests and bishops implicated (however few comparatively speaking), can this analysis of Church's failure be seen as anything less than an admission of grossly disgrsceful and culpable compromise with evil? I remember the Woodstock generation, and participated in its sins. Believe me, this is no "defense." - Billy Bean Sun, 22 May 2011 14:23:22 +0100