Answer: they start out as college journalists.
Check out this contribution by Chuck Fain, the opinion editor of Texas Weslayan University's student newspaper, The Rambler:
There are terrorists among us.It's Jack Chick by way of Dan Brown.
Not terrorists like those who attacked us on Sept. 11, but ones just as dangerous.
Terrorists who destroy lives, skirt the law and prey on the innocent. These terrorists aren’t just among us here in America either. They are a multi-national force that has been around for thousands of years.
These terrorists are the Catholic Church – and they need to be stopped.
We’re all familiar with the scandal; so much so, in fact, that all one has to do is mention “Catholic priest,” and people instantly know to what scandal you refer.
But with newspaper editorials, like this student effort, which are more interested in "framing" the story than in getting to the actual facts, it is not surprising that Catholics priests have been slandered as a group.
Recently, the Associated Press reported that a letter surfaced from 2001 in which the current pope, Pope Benedict XVI, praised a French bishop for his cover up of a pedophile priest in his parish.For example, this is hogwash. If Mr. Fain had evidence of such a letter the New York Times would be beating down his door because, of course, the letter was not by Cardinal Ratzinger.
So why does the Pope, and vicariously the Catholic Church, condone such horrid behavior?Ah, yes, the "posturing and unnecessary rituals" argument.
Some cite economical and time restraints, saying it takes a lot of time and money to train a Catholic priest.
That’s fine, I’ll accept that it takes a lot to become a priest. Catholics have lots of posturing, unnecessary rituals that I’m sure a priest must learn.
Jenkins also points out how a lot of traditional - i.e., 19th Century - Anti-Catholicism tends to make its way - perhaps, unintentionally - in these stories.
Also, I understand that demand for careers in the clergy is on the decline. Would you want a job boasting low pay, forbids you from having sex and has a one of the worst reputations imaginable?Ditto.
What I can’t accept is the Catholic Church using its power to hide and protect these child molesters. If the priest in question had a drinking problem or got caught stealing money or maybe got caught with a woman over 18, then I have no problem with the church covering it up and moving the priest somewhere else.
Having a drunk, unruly, womanizing priest would be a lot more entertaining than the regular old Sunday service. It would give the congregation something to talk about for ages, and it would probably make a pretty good sitcom.
Spoken like a college student.
But to cover up child molesting? Child molesting? And not even cover it up like, “We’re going to send you somewhere out of the way for a while so you can deal with this,” or, “We’re going to get you into a program and get some help.”
Actually, again, according to Jenkins, that was exactly what happened when these claims arose in the 60s and 70s - the offender would be sent into a program on the assumption that ephobophilia was something that could be treated, and, perhaps, that assumption was well-founded. It appears that making such an assumption about real pedophilia was wrong, but that wasn't something that was understood at the time.
No, instead the Catholic Church moves these sick individuals to another church where they have new victims on which to prey.
Mr. Fain concludes:
The constant lies and cover-ups, and the sheer volume of this most horrible offense, has led me to my previous conclusion: the Catholic Church is a multinational terrorist organization that must be stopped. It’s had its run, and now it’s time for the pope to turn in his funny hat.
You know that a person has reached a retorical meltdown when they make the classic reference to the "funny hat."
There needs to be an outcry from those involved in the faith. There needs to be an investigation as to why this is such a phenomenon, and there needs to be punishment for those involved – even those who covered their colleagues’ tracks.
It’s your choice Catholics: You can either try to fix it (good luck), drop out, or you can advocate child molestation – your call.
The only real question is how this kind of thing gets printed on the student dime and doesn't engender a question, but a private e-mail at Harvard Law School turns into an auto de fe, complete with recantation of heresy.
Because it is all about the "frame."
Posts
10 comments:
Not to add to the sense of scandal...but someone is leaving out priests who pray on teenage and younger girls...as well as on adult women. Please- this is not just a male problem. You do not know how many women and girls have been approached by priests in their lifetime, Thank you.
I say this just to add some breadth to this issue in the hopes that what women deal with will not be ignored. It is a real and serious problem, or it was, before the current clean up began.
For priests to come along and have sex with virgins before they ever have a chance to meet a boy and marry is another sickness that has crept onto the scene. Women do not talk about this enough. They hide this out of shame.
That should have been prey...but pray/prey it is. They use their authority to fulfill their own wishes..or they were before this clean up began. I know people personally who were not only approached but who acceded to this abuse because they were "in love" once he got them to read Graham Greene.
Sad that I know about this, and those who were involved don't even know that I know.
I am so sorry I threw another log onto this fire. I did not mean to.
All of That said, It does not justify the "frame" and what the journalists are puporting to "know". They don't know. I apologise for my gasoline can. :(
All of That said, It does not justify the "frame" and what the journalists are puporting to "know". They don't know. I apologise for my gasoline can. :(
Marian,
It is inexcusable and immoral for anyone to misuses authority and trust.
Complaints should be made.
One of the effects of focusing on a particular vice may be that other necessary reforms may get slighted because of the attention being levelled on the crisis du jour.
I think that we Catholics have benefitted from our long Lent in that we now know that the safest place for children is in Catholic institutions. I object, however, to the attempt to depict the issue as uniquely Catholic, and I think that other institutions could benefit from having the same exposure that the Catholic Church has received.
Agreed. Also I hope another effect of focusing on these vices will be that women will gain the courage to speak out. But to my knowledge these women and other women who were targeted in other completely unrelated institutions allowed the perps to get away with it and never once said a word, at any point.
This problem exists across society and people abuse their power in myriad ways. This is not at all uniquely Catholic, in any sense. You are correct and thank you for your reply as well as this posting. I just could not be quiet. ALSO, They should stop making Catholics look like a bunch of gay men.
It is about sexual harrassment across society and people needing to draw boundaries..and then speak..again I understand that these journalists should expose other pockets of abuses, not just in a Catholic setting because they have an individual or collective axe to grind.
I have a personal belief that the truth always comes out, and that the playing field will be leveled.
"...and I think that other institutions could benefit from having the same exposure that the Catholic Church has received."
Exactly. Every reverent Catholic is horrified at pedophiles posing as priests. These pedophiles comprise approximately 4% of Catholic priests. 96% of priests are not molesting children.
Are we seriously to believe that other religious denominations have a similar percentage of such abuses?
Anonymous,
According to Jenkins, that number - generally offered in the media - substantially overstates the extent of the problem. The number of true pedophiles - i.e., with a sexual inclination toward prepubescent children - in the priesthood according to the best studies is around .03%. The number of priests with ephobophilia - i.e., a proclivity for postpubescent youths in their middle and late teens - may be less than 2%. The latter are of course overwhelmingly homosexual which is why the cases that have been reported invariably involve male victims who were between 13 and 17 when they were abused.
The use of the term "pedophile" is calculated to confuse the vastly different populations and create the impression that (a) homosexuality is irrelevant to the problem and (b) the victims are children below the age of reason.
Also, the incidence of "pederasts" and pedophiles in the Catholic priesthood is less than that found in the general population and probably less than that found in other clergy populations. It is hard to say anything about the latter, however, since no clergy group has been studied, unlike the Catholic priest population.
"Are we seriously to believe that other religious denominations DON'T have a similar percentage of such abuses?"
PSB, I actually meant to write this statement as it appears above.
I had heard that 2% was the correct figure and then later read that it was 4%--either percentage indicates clearly that the VAST MAJORITY of priests are not interested in molesting children and/or teenagers.
And I've always used the term pedophile, perhaps incorrectly, because the boys weren't consenting 'adults.' I've often heard these cases being used as an (inappropriate) argument in favor of priests marrying and I've always counter-argued that pedophiles (or homosexuals) are, by definition, attracted to boys and children; therefore, allowing them to 'marry' would be a ludicrous solution.
As you've pointed out, and as we know, the 'bad' priests are simply fodder to attack the Church.
True healing for these victims could well be on it's way if the anti-Catholic masses were more interested in helping the Church offer healing than in keeping the crimes, and the pain of the victims, alive and well.
"Are we seriously to believe that other religious denominations DON'T have a similar percentage of such abuses?"
PSB, I actually meant to write this statement as it appears above.
I had heard that 2% was the correct figure and then later read that it was 4%--either percentage indicates clearly that the VAST MAJORITY of priests are not interested in molesting children and/or teenagers.
And I've always used the term pedophile, perhaps incorrectly, because the boys weren't consenting 'adults.' I've often heard these cases being used as an (inappropriate) argument in favor of priests marrying and I've always counter-argued that pedophiles (or homosexuals) are, by definition, attracted to boys and children; therefore, allowing them to 'marry' would be a ludicrous solution.
As you've pointed out, and as we know, the 'bad' priests are simply fodder to attack the Church.
True healing for these victims could well be on it's way if the anti-Catholic masses were more interested in helping the Church offer healing than in keeping the crimes, and the pain of the victims, alive and well.
Post a Comment