Dr Karen Terry steps up to respond to the “Blame the 60′s” theme. And other criticisms of last month’s JJC Report on Clergy Sexual Abuse.
Most readers have their own assessments, opinions, and such about this. I’m not going to rehash anything more than just one point. Dr Terry:
Though we recognize that sexual abuse has always occurred in the Catholic Church, as well as in other organizations and society generally, we were mandated to study the problem from 1950 onward. It would have been prohibitive to study abuse prior to this time for practical and methodological reasons.
And this is my main point. It’s also why this quote from the May 18th press release has a problem:
The increased frequency of abuse in the 1960s and 1970s was consistent with the patterns of increased deviance of society during that time.
“Increased frequency” implies a comparison with the decade(s) prior. Dr Terry concedes that a thorough historical study of sex abuse was both beyond the mandate to study from 1950 onward. What she fails to mention is how much more unreliable her data set is, the farther back in history one studies. People simply didn’t report abuse in previous generations.
I’d also like to see how one backs up the claim of “increased deviance” in the 1960′s. I’m sure if you ask people who haven’t been lynched, spat upon, employed in American sweatshops at an early age, electroshocked in mental health therapy, or seen their way of life eradicated by European invaders, then sure: for many white adult men it was a rosy era indeed.
Dr Terry seems to have her dander up about not only the expected sound bites, but also genuine criticism and questions about her methodology and her conclusions. That’s fine. But don’t obscure the real debate because 14,000 news outlets picked up on “Blame Woodstock.”
It was a good and necessary report. I’m satisfied enough I can trust the data. But the interpretation of this data is important. Any false step, like suggesting we know there was an increased frequency of abuse at this point in time, will have an effect on any remedial steps we can take.
Maybe it’s not Dr Terry’s or John Jay College’s place to expand their study and focus on the bishops. But that’s where the concern of nearly every Catholic is today. Even Bishop Finn’s defenders accept he did something gravely wrong. They are content to receive and accept an apology. But absent in the messes in Philadelphia and Kansas City are any widespread desire to see the offending priests wrapped in concrete and tossed into the abyss of the sea. Why do you think everybody wants to see their offending bishop in a prison jumpsuit?
The American bishops have their million-dollar study. I don’t think it was money ill-spent. But now they have to look in the mirror and examine their consciences, individually and collectively, and begin the process of healing, making amends, and restoring trust. Here’s a clue: they aren’t going to get any help from the research department on this one.
24 June 2011 at 4:00 pm
The report was incomplete because it was written with a Catholic bias, possibly because they paid for half of the report. Here’s a detail that the report tried to hide:
They said that only 22% of cases were pedophilia. However, the number was over 70%. How did they achieve this?
They changed the definition of the word pedophilia so that it only included children under 10 years old instead of children under 13 years old, which is the value that the American Psychiatric Association uses.
They thought this would stop people from using the phrase “pedophile priests”, so they did what the Catholic church does – they tried to cover up the truth.
The Catholic church has destroyed a great religion.
24 June 2011 at 4:29 pm
They placed the boundary line of child at age 11, not 14 or at the pubescence of the victim. A lot of others wouldn’t agree, but they did explain it. They also didn’t pass it off as some kind of lesser crime.
You and I don’t know they had an ulterior motive in changing the lingo, especially that most of us realize the problem is bishops who enabled and covered up.
The study is what it is, no more, no less.