The clergy sex abuse scandal has, without question, been devastating to the life of the Church, especially for all the victims and their families. In all the years I have followed the analysis of the clergy scandal and the justifiable outrage over the cover-ups, several questions never seem to come up. How many of the priests who abused were themselves abused when they were young? And, by whom and under what circumstances? This type of abuse occurs most often in the home and is generational by nature. Is there any way to explain why this problem was so pervasive in the Church during the mid to late twentieth century other than the reasons typically given?
What I wish to explore in this essay is where we might look to grasp the larger context of the clergy abuse scandal during its height. What I am putting forward here is a thesis in need of much more study, so my following reflections are meant to be tentative and exploratory. I would recommend situating the clerical abuse crisis within the following historical context—namely, the generational effects of the two world wars on men during what might be described as the collapse of the “modern” age.
Let me begin by stating that sexual impropriety among clergy is not a recent issue. It dates back far beyond the past 75–100 years. St. Catherine of Siena openly addresses it in her Dialogues (no. 124). More recent in the Church, perhaps, is the sexual abuse of minors. The victims were mostly teenage boys, and the abusers, by and large, were homosexual men.1 Some have pointed out the disproportionately high number of homosexual men within the priesthood and episcopacy at this time compared to the general population. However, this fact does not adequately explain the crisis. Most homosexual men do not abuse minors. Others have thus tried to downplay this reality by focusing rather upon the predation of minors. I would agree that we need to explore this reality more deeply. Yet describing the clergy abuse crisis as the predation of minors isn’t all that helpful either, since it offers merely a description of the problem and not an explanation for it. We need context for clarity.
The predation of minors is an important factor, however, because this type of abuse was not only a clergy problem. At the height of the clergy abuse scandal, every institution was experiencing a similar crisis of the sexual abuse of minors and its cover-up, although this is not often discussed.2 I sometimes wonder if people mistakenly believe that the predation of minors by men in authority is only a Catholic problem. Those who blame the problem on a celibate clergy seem to hold this view, even though there’s no evidence for such a correlation. While it is especially scandalous that the Church was affected by this type of abuse, it’s naïve to think that the Church was immune from what every other institution was experiencing at the time.
So, what was happening more broadly?
Modern Western civilization was recovering from the decimation of World War I and II. Yet this fact remains unexplored as an explanation of the societal problem of child abuse more generally at that time. War can initiate a crisis of masculinity and fatherhood, eroding the male psyche and leaving long-term scars on family life. War can psychologically devastate men, families, and the very masculine fabric of a nation. Some soldiers might turn to illicit sex, substance abuse, and physical abuse as ways to cope with war trauma. Society must also recover from the loss of so many of its young men.
Furthermore, war kills men in disproportionate numbers, leaving women and children vulnerable to predation. For their part, combat veterans who return to families are burdened by the trauma of their experience. Unless they find healthy ways to cope with post-traumatic stress disorder (a condition only recently recognized and treated), the destructive impact persists for generations. To the point, the two world wars might provide some necessary context for better understanding why the clergy sexual abuse crisis occurred during the mid-to-late twentieth century. One of the costs of the Great Wars might well have been an increase in domestic abuse, which in turn would have had a noticeable effect on church life.
Yet, other factors may have contributed to the conditions for the clergy abuse scandal as well. The first of these is the Sexual Revolution. Following the devastating impact of the wars, it’s not surprising that the middle part of the twentieth century saw a noticeable normalization of sexual impropriety. Many prominent voices called for acceptance of all kinds of sexual behavior, with some even advocating for the normalization of pedophilia.3 The wars created conditions where sexual promiscuity, infidelity, and domestic abuse could become far more prevalent realities that eventually came out of the closet—so to speak. Abuse would likely have affected the children raised in the post-war period and their psycho-sexual development. The generational abuse resulting from the wars might thus explain the acceptance and normalization of the new sexual ethic emerging from the Sexual Revolution among the baby boomer generation. We see this reflected in the analysis of the John Jay Report, which found that “men ordained in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s did not generally abuse before the 1960s or 1970s. Men ordained in the 1960s and the early 1970s engaged in abusive behavior much more quickly after their entrance into ministry.”4
A further consideration beyond the wars and the Sexual Revolution is the excessively formal and legalistic ethos of the modern period, which collapsed in the 1960s. Domestic abuse was likely suppressed quite aggressively beneath the veil of social propriety. In the decade of the 1960s, this social contradiction was finally exposed. As I explain throughout my book, Wounded Witness: Reclaiming the Church’s Unity in a Time of Crisis, I do not believe the 1960s were merely an adolescent rebellion against Christian morality. It was a revolution against the hypocrisy of a deeply moralistic society that covered up both institutional and domestic abuse, and a variety of hypocrisies resulting from a decadent form of Christianity. I would suggest that the liberal explosion of the Freudian and feminist revolutions cannot be adequately explained otherwise. Unfortunately, the Sexual Revolution took a profoundly misguided direction, creating new problems and ultimately failing to address the problems it purportedly meant to solve.
As is evident today, the Sexual Revolution has not eradicated the tragedy of abuse or what some reference by the pejorative term, toxic masculinity. Instead, it has normalized sexual deviation and, in doing so, further perpetuated the problem. Just think of the explosive rise in pornography, sex work, and trafficking, for example. Nevertheless, we must bear in mind that any variant of critical theory is particularly appealing to those who have suffered abuse, especially by influential male figures, such as fathers—which is why I also suspect that domestic abuse is one of the hidden gremlins behind our current identity politics and the woke agenda. The present disdain for masculinity is deeply troubling and perhaps indicative of the wider historical problem I’m sketching here, insofar as hatred for masculinity is often traceable back to the male abuse of minors and women, whether it’s physical, sexual, or emotional.
To return to my original thesis, then, when we take the longer view of history and recognize that generations of war can deeply wound masculine identity and combine this with modern ethical formalism, which created ideal conditions for the cover-up of abuse, we may find the most relevant context for understanding the clergy sex abuse crisis. Tragically, the West’s legacy of war has come at a tremendous cost for the Church. While we might be tempted to assume that the problems arising from the Sexual Revolution ultimately created the clergy sex abuse scandal, it is more likely that these problems are only symptomatic of the hidden crisis that preceded it.5
While in my opinion the combined social reality of world wars, ethical formalism, and the Sexual Revolution constitute the most contributing social factors to the clergy sex abuse crisis, I need to mention a couple of others that help to round out the genealogy of the clergy crisis. First, the culture of vocation during the pre-conciliar years, especially within the conditions of early twentieth-century Catholicism, did not encourage mature freedom or an adult response to the call to priesthood and religious life. I also address this issue in my book, Wounded Witness.
At this time, some parents applied great pressure to their children, particularly boys, to consider a priestly or religious vocation at a young age. Families took great pride in sending a son to a seminary, especially if they saw him having a suitable disposition for the priesthood. But could it be that a disproportionate number of these boys at this time suffered from deep psychological wounds due to troubled family life or domestic abuse during the period of the wars? And what better place for these wounds to fester than within the closed environment of a seminary, especially at a time when proper human formation was not part of seminary life. This leads to a final potential contributing context for the clergy sex abuse scandal—the minor seminary system.
The practice of sending boys to minor seminaries created an environment potentially conducive for grooming and the sexual predation of minors. Puberty is a vulnerable age, and separating boys from their families of origin and appropriate socialization with girls potentially increases this vulnerability. Predators often target those they see as vulnerable, and the Church environment at this time, with its institutional legitimacy, provided safe cover for this abuse to take place over multiple generations. The same dynamics can be found in orphanages, boarding schools, and other institutional settings for children. It could be that some clergy abusers were themselves abused for the first time while in minor seminary. I am not suggesting that the minor seminary system was a cause of the overall sex abuse crisis. The John Jay Report does not support this.6 Yet it was a suitable environment where more vulnerable youth might have been subject to abuse and its cover-up.
The clergy sex abuse crisis is undoubtedly the product of many social factors. What I am suggesting as the context for this crisis is perhaps just a perfect storm: the crisis of a wounded masculinity from two world wars, the collapsing ethical formalism of the modern age through a sexual revolution that attempted to liberate wounded youth from the tragedy of domestic abuse in post-war period, as well as a seminary system populated by a disproportionate number of abused and abusing boys and men. Together, these factors might help explain the increased predation of minors among Catholic clergy in the mid-to-late twentieth century.
To circle back to my original question, then, what we need now is to know how many of the clergy abusers were themselves abused as children before they all pass on. The John Jay Report found that many clergy abusers were, in fact, molested themselves as children, and states “that men who were sexually abused themselves when they were minors were significantly more likely to commit acts of abuse than those who were not abused.”7 But if my thesis provides any explanatory power, we also need to know who their abusers were and the circumstances of their abuse. Can we find any correlation between abuse and the great wars of the twentieth century? Did the Sexual Revelation expose a society-wide crisis of abuse that followed the wars and overthrow an ethical environment rife with hypocrisy and conducive to cover-ups? Since the John Jay Report found that “more abusers were educated in seminaries in the 1940s and 1950s than at any other time period,”8 it’s plausible.
We ought to know these things. It’s never enough to be outraged by the scandals now that they’ve been drawn out of the shadows and into the light. We need to know why they occurred so that we can truly heal. Now that all the details of the abuses have been exposed, we need to approach the clergy sex abuse scandals with a deeper curiosity about its broader context. We need a clear understanding of how to break the generational cycle of abuse.
As we look to a future beyond the clergy sex abuse scandal, we must strengthen and heal masculinity in our culture and the priesthood. We have the exemplar of manhood in the person of Jesus Christ, who himself is the image of a tender Father who both protects and cares for his bride and his beloved children. Yet we will not be able to heal unless we bring the mercy of Jesus to bear on the entire reality of the scandal. If abuse is generational—and there is evidence to suggest it is9—the abusers in every generation need God’s mercy also. And let us be more resolved than ever to echo with Pope St. John Paul II—that war is a total loss for humanity! Perhaps the clergy sex abuse crisis is just one more reason why this declaration is so prophetic.
(Editor’s note: This essay was published originally on the “What We Need Now” site in slightly different form and is republished here with kind permission.)
Endnotes:
1 The John Jay Report found that 81% of the victims were male. See John Jay College Research Team, “The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010”, p 9, (hereafter John Jay Report).
2 The John Jay study estimated that 4% of Catholic clerics were credibly accused (see “The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950–2002,” p 27, and while estimates of educator abuse vary, some studies suggest 5% of teachers have committed sexual abuse (see Shakeshaft’s “Sexual abuse of students by school personnel,” p 3). Though comparable data isn’t available for organizations like Boy Scouts of America, or decentralized institutions like nurseries and day care centers, many credible accusations have been lodged against them as well. Such data is meant to provide context, but it in no way minimizes the evil of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, which is particularly heinous given the added spiritual component.
3 For instance, John Money and Alfred Kinsey (see, respectively, Sister Prudence Allen’s chapter in The Complementarity of Women and Menand Benjamin Wiker’s 10 Books that Screwed Up the World).
4 John Jay Report, p 3.
5 Though estimates vary, scholars generally agree that the rise in pre-marital sex began decades before the Sexual Revolution. See, for instance, “Premarital Sex in 20th-Century America” or Lawrence L. Wu et al “Reexamining trends in premarital sex in the United States,” Demographic Research, February 2018, 38(1):727–736.
6 John Jay Report, p 4.
7 John Jay Report, p 66 and p 74.
8John Jay Report, p 118.
9 See, for instance, Alan J. Drury, Michael J. Elbert, and Matt DeLisi, “Childhood sexual abuse is significantly associated with subsequent sexual offending: New evidence among federal correctional clients,” Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 95, 2019.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
About context, emeritus Pope Benedict already pointed to the contextual Sexual Revolution of the late 1960s: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2019/04/10/benedict-xvi-addresses-sex-abuse-scandal/
And, to give greater focus, all of the contextual factors in the world (back to the Marquis de Sade and the fabricated Kinsey Report!), coincide with the explicit trashing of Humanae Vitae (1968) and, simply and directly, to the failure screen seminary applicants and then in the seminaries the likely failure to clearly teach moral theology. Instead, the truncated social gospel as the redefinition of morality.
Contextualism and social science are not enough, now given the silent treatment awarded the natural law and moral absolutes, as still found in the sidelined Catechism (1992…) and Veritatis Splendor (1993). But why bother with truth and moral fiber, when Vatican letterhead and town hall synodality lend themselves to the blessing of irregular couples as “couples”!…. Just declare victory and move on! The difference between moral leadership and steadfast clarity versus prolixity in a red hat or polyester pants, or whatever.
But, yes (with Michel Therrien), “As we look to a future beyond the clergy sex abuse scandal, we must strengthen and heal masculinity in our culture and the priesthood.” One has to be a man before he can be a holy man.
It’s not my intent to dismiss Therrien’s hypothesis that actively homosexual priests might have been abused by fathers suffering from, say, wartime PTSD.
Rather, I would broaden his argument to ask how many homosexuals overall are the victims of abusive fathers or absentee fathers, or early sexual abuse, or sexual experimentation within a porn culture, or possibly even fetal exposure to endocrine disruptive chemicals (EDCs, a research question with some preliminary literature).
Of course, to unpack what social scientists would call the missing “longitudinal research” would be to debunk the private revelation from on high that “God made you that way”…Another squandered teachable-moment probably enabling and adding to the victimized homosexual subculture. But who am I to judge?
You are literally making excuses for sex abusers. You are SICK.
No one is making excuses, which you would understand if you actually read the article carefully. Just another one of your unhinged rants.
It would be helpful for you to read what someone has taken time to think about and thrn to reflect dispassionately upon it. The writer has seemingly written about a delicate topic in good faith.
Putting aside a causal relationship between the sexual abuse by clerics and men’s engagement in war, we need to recognize that two major world wars were fought by men and accompanied by their witnessing the significant loss of life. I would venture to say that no man returned without being significantly affected. The sons (and daughters) of these men were necessarily affected by their fathers’ experiences in war in ways that most did not even realize. I’m not a student of the effects of 20th c. wars on its participants but if no one has written about it, someone certainly should.
Dear Nicole C. – reading between the lines of Michel Therrien’s proposition, I’d have to agree with you: it tends to play-down the sacrilegious horror of clergy sexual molestations and the deceptive (legally so expensive) institutional denials.
Past & present: No progress until the real Catholic Bishops – true Episcopes for Christ – organize experienced & tested state & national scrutiny teams, whose work is to systematically interview all existing Catechists, RE Teachers, RCIA leaders, Alpha leaders, Youth leaders, Children’s ministers, & any others who are charged with the guidance of tender new Catholic souls & seekers.
It seems that Michel Therrien would call this moralizing . . ?
Our bishops are in deep sin where they authorize, untested, whatever floats-in, to do this most precious ministry for the lambs of our LORD Jesus Christ.
Episcopal Scrutiny Teams (EST) need to be spiritually discerning & skilled in weeding out candidates with allegiance to materialism, freemasonry, witchcraft, Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age, and anything else that is incompatible with Catholicism.
Bishops should appoint only loving women & men in whom they discern The Word of Christ dwelling abundantly & who have a good knowledge of & a firm allegiance to the magisterial Catechism of the Catholic Church. That was not so & still is not so!
The situation was dire and still is dire. Will the TRUE Episcopes please stand up & do their proper work!
As so many have commented: pseudo-Catholicism lacks all power & authority to save anyone’s soul. It could be sued for flagrant misrepresentation! Yet, our bishops have the authority to establish the True Faith whenever they chose to.
Is there anything more eternally basic in our Catholic Faith than: “If you love Me, obey My commands.” Yet, how can God’s life-saving prescriptions be obeyed if they have not been properly taught & memorized?
Even though part of The Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ, our LORD obeyed rules:
John 8:28 “I do nothing of Myself; what The Father has taught Me is what I preach.”
John 8:54 “If I were to seek My own glory that would be no glory at all; My glory is conferred by The Father.” Then there’s those famous 7 words of Matthew 26:39: “Your will be done Father, not Mine.”
‘Tis easy to forget that Jesus rules ALL, a work that is always & only for the sake of Father God’s glory: John 16:14-15 “The Holy Spirit will glorify Me, since all He tells you will be taken from what is Mine. Everything The Father has is Mine; that is why I said: ‘All He tells you will be taken from what is Mine.’”
*Catholicism IS nothing but Life in Christ Jesus* – thus, always about obedience to the commandments, of Him who constantly stands ready to shepherd us with encouragement or with restraint! His “No!” is no; and His “Yes!” is yes.
Colossians 3:17 “Never say or do anything except in the Name of the LORD Jesus.”
We are NOT doing it ‘in Jesus’ Name’ if we haven’t asked Him first!
As you’d know, it’s a fatal flaw to think we’re OK to decide to do what we feel motivated to do, and only then say: “In Jesus’ Name”; as if His Holy Name is some sort of universal charm! “Why do you call Me: ‘Lord, Lord’ and not do what I say?”
He only calls us: “Friends.” when we have understood all He has commanded us to do.
Ideally, Catholics must come into the Presence of Jesus and be able to prayerfully converse with the LORD at any time. Cleaving to the Christ of The New Testament, hearing God’s Still Small Voice, and learning to be obedient at all times, puts us under God’s blessing; puts The Church ‘on track’.
Psalm 80:17 – “O that my people would heed Me, that they would walk in My Ways . . .”
The end product of this is divine approval and a virtuous Church: “Well done you good & faithful servant! Now enter the joy of your Master!”
In the 1940s, I was catechized by wonderful Marist sisters, who emphasized the human need for the 10 Commandments. Later, as an adult evangelizing in Africa, the USA, & Australia, I found it effective to link the 10 Commandments to our 5 plus 5 fingers. This is a fun way to help Catholics MEMORIZE God’s awesome prescription for our eternal happiness. For example:
HAND ONE
Thumb: “With all my heart, mind, body and soul I will worship the one God revealed by Jesus Christ: Father, Son & Holy Spirit.”
Index Finger: “I will serve no other god nor any idol.”
Middle Finger: “I will not use God’s name profanely; I will not swear oaths, for my ‘yes’ is yes and my ‘no’ is no.”
Ring Finger: “I will keep the Sabbath Day holy in the way Jesus taught us.”
Little Finger: “I will honour my mum and dad.”
HAND TWO
Thumb: “I will love every person as Jeus loves me; I’ll not hurt or kill anyone, nor think evil of them, nor hate or take revenge.”
Index Finger: “I will maintain sexual purity & faithfulness in my thoughts, words & deeds.”
Middle Finger: “I will not steal; I will not rob others of their reputation.”
Ring Finger: “I will not tell lies, deceive, nor cheat.”
Little finger: “I will not covet for God in Christ is providing all I need”.
Notes
In Exodus 20:1-17 and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21 the Semitic Ten Commandments reflected Jewish cultural belief in the cleanness of the right hand (the first five commands) and the uncleanness of the left hand (the second five commands).
Remaining true to Moses’ original, today’s Catholics can expand the Commandments with a positive, personal, ecumenical, & egalitarian hermeneutics, faithful to Jesus’ New Testament teachings & made easy to remember for today’s visually oriented young people.
Where the 5 plus 5 commandments are engrained, abuses will be minimized.
A common resolve among our Church leaders at all levels to see every Catholic parish, every Diocese, and all the Roman Curia back to honoring & obeying these 10 divine treasures, graciously given us by God for our good, would also surely transform our worldly society.
Instead, Therrien shows, the world spirit has badly polluted The Church. His article is a recent history of the disasters ensuing from a flouting of God’s commands.
Is there anything more eternally basic in our Catholic Faith than:
“If you love Me; obey My commands.”
Shouldn’t this be inscribed over the door of every Catholic church & cathedral? Yet, how can GOD’s Commands be obeyed if they have not been taught & memorized?
Too difficult? No way! Jesus’ yoke is easy & His burden lite.
The Father desires to give us more of The Holy Spirit: our Counsellor, Helper, Advocate, & Comforter. How many Catholic hierarchs actually desire that for us?
For goodness’ sake – how can they have been throwing in the towel? The really hard part of OBEDIENCE was pioneered by The Lamb of God on Calvary.
Ever seeking to hear & follow King Jesus Christ; love & blessings from marty
REPLY
Is the author making the case for therapeutic salvation?
I don’t buy the argument that Mr. Therrien makes about the two world wars creating a uniquely traumatic situation. All wars are traumatic and wars, terrible ones, have been present in most if not every century throughout history. Among the effects of the US civil war was the loss of religious faith of some otherwise noble men because of what they saw on the battlefield. Think of the horror of the Battle of the Wilderness where shells set the woods on fire and through the night both sides had to listen to the shrieks of the wounded caught in between and being burnt alive. The future Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes lost his faith on the battlefield with probably enduring effects upon us all from his totally secularized view of the law. The hero of Little Round Top, Joshua Chamberlain, later to be President of Bowdoin College, went into the war a man of deep faith and came out of it an agnostic.
My point is, all wars are deeply traumatic to both the participants and to the those who live through them, and all wars have lingering effects upon the societies that follow. We are still living, for instance, with the effects of the compromises which came out of the wars of religion in Europe. But I don’t see any reason to source the sexual perversion and abuse with the clergy as fall-out from the wars of the 20th century. Did previous wars have such an effect?
Mr. Therrien is a thoughtful man who is making a good faith attempt to understand what we have witnessed in the Church and society recently. But I think he has gone down a misleading path here and is trying to explain a phenomenon with facts which simply do not explain it and, I would say, cannot explain it.
Well said.
I notice so many times that articles fail to point out the many priests falsely accused especially because of the large amounts of money the Church threw out there to make it go away. The Church didn’t try to help the innocent priests but rather took away everything from them, even council. How many vocations were lost because of this. How many priest lives were destroyed because of this, but yet we have “priests” like Mr. McCarrick was who were protected from credible abuse charges. Who will champion people like Fr Gordon MacRae, serving many years in jail , innocent, because no one would listen to the proof.? Anyone out there?
The point of the article is meant to be “tentative and exploratory” which comes FAR to close to excusing abuse and criminality. The question “How many of the priests who abused were themselves abused when they were young?” attempts to place the criminal priests as victims themselves.
While it’s true that many abusers were themselves abused, there are MILLIONS who were abused but aren’t abusers. I find this article to be a whitewash of deeply immoral and criminal behavior unworthy of this publication.
It’s not about making excuses; it’s about trying to understand exactly what happened here. Understanding something and excusing something are not the same thing.
“Yet, other factors may have contributed to the conditions for the clergy abuse scandal as well.”
The rejection of sexual morality grounded in Divine Law and thus Divine Love and the subsequent denial of the inherent Dignity of every beloved son and daughter, has led to a Great Apostasy, resulting in a counterfeit church, with a counterfeit magisterium, and the invalid election of a man to the Papacy who has neither the ability or the desire to accept The Office Of The MUNUS and thus The Ministerial Office, because he defected from The Catholic Church, prior to his election , denying Christ’s teaching regarding Divine Law grounded in Divine Love that serves out of respect for the inherent equal dignity of all human persons from the moment of conception, to natural death, and thus affirms Divine Law grounded in Divine Love in regards to sexual morality and the inherent Dignity of every human person, who is Created in The Image and Likeness of God, equal in Dignity, while being complementary as a beloved son or daughter, with an Intellect and a Will so that all persons can come to Know, Love, And Serve The True God, The Ordered Communion Of Perfect Complementary Eternal Divine Love, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), in this world, and hopefully, in dying, be restored in Christ, so that we can be with God and our beloved, forever, in Heaven.
The question is, why is this counterfeit church, with it’s counterfeit magisterium, and it’s counterfeit pope being permitted to eclipse Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, denying The Unity of The Holy Ghost, and thus The Divinity Of The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, And Holy Ghost?
“Penance, Penance, Penance.”
“It is not possible to have Sacramental Communion, without Ecclesiastical Communion.”
Only by the use of The Charitable Anathema, can Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church , which is being “ eclipsed”, by the counterfeit church, with it’s counterfeit magisterium, shine in the darkness.
Prayers for the conversion of Jorge Bergoglio, the affirmation of The Filioque, the restoration of the Papacy, and the end of The Great Apostasy; you can only have a Great Apostasy from The True Church Of Christ.
You have rejected the lawful pope and placed yourself outside the Church without which no man can be saved. Prayers for your conversion.
Any mitigating circumstances there?
“Is there any way to explain why this problem was so pervasive in the Church during the mid to late twentieth century other than the reasons typically given?”
How do we know that the problem was any less pervasive prior to the mid-20th century? It seems to me that one big difference in the last 60 years or so is far more willingness of victims to go public with their accusations and a much greater chance that trial lawyers and the news media (Boston Globe, for example) will take up their causes and publicly challenge church authorities (not just the Catholic Church). And there’s much less likelihood that the local bishop can call the local (Catholic?) prosecutor or district judge and assure him that the “problem” priest will be taken care of quietly; no need for a public trial.
As far as I know, the John Jay report was not able to survey the priesthood and dioceses — or victims — of the first half of the 20th century, or the 19th, or 18th or any century you care to name prior to the 20th. I don’t know that the problem was just as bad in those centuries, but I don’t know of any evidence that it wasn’t. Have the chancelleries opened their archives from those years to the scrutiny of non-church historians?
There just seems to be an assumption among many that the scandal of the last few decades was unique in church history. Maybe we aren’t that special.
I think that’s a good point EB. And not just the erring Catholic clergy but predation on minors in general goes back in history and was not reported as it is today.
People just did not come forward in the past and often for fear of being shamed. Or for reprisal.
I don’t think human nature or sin has changed much over the centuries. But our attitude has.
Maybe the big problem is that Vatican II, in retaining celibacy for the priesthood in a world where sexual freedom became the new norm and old fashioned things like family, marriage, gender differences and commitment were abandoned, failed to give the clergy the sexual freedoms some expected. Added to that, Vatican II failed to alter any fundamental moral teachings yet spawned a worldwide movement wherein its people chose to put their own interpretations on what Vatican II intended without ever having read the Vat II documents or being educated in its findings and intentions. And then for 30 years, the Church abandoned its educational obligations to its people by failing to inform them of the true implications of the Council by not addressing the issues from the pulpit, not producing a catechism or daily missal for two Post-Vat II generations of adults and children alike and by its priesthood and religious practitioners denying their special place in God’s plan and becoming too like ordinary men and women. The multiple misinterpretations of the “Spirit of Vatican II” driven by the personal theologically uninformed opinion of vast numbers of the laity and unfaithful clergy and religious has much to answer for. Catholics of the Roman persuasion, unlike the affiliated Orthodox/Eastern branches of the Catholic Church, have largely abandoned any devotional life (witness Lent, the Easter and Chritmas practices, weekly benediction of yesteryear) and any morality which denies them what others have – particularly freedom of sexual autonomy and self satisfaction.
You say, suspiciously from an Eastern/Orthodox branch of Christianity, that “…Catholics of the Roman persuasion,…have largely abandoned any devotional life (witness Lent, the Easter and Chritmas practices, weekly benediction of yesteryear) and any morality which denies them…”
NB: The word is “Christmas”, deriving as it does, from CHRIST.
Your words are nothing more than pride-filled slurs and prejudice, likely stemming from a lack of esteem or doubtful belief in the power and glory of one’s own denominal faith. Where is the substantial evidence to support your spouts? Your words appear to be spewing from a sadly open head.
Another NB: A ‘generation’ is typically at least some 20 years—30 in the Biblical sense.
You claim the church did not produce a catechism for two generations. By such ‘reasoning’ the Baltimore Catechism, originally published in 1891, never out of print, and never declared null or void or anathema, which has been and is still used by many Catholics to this very day, must not be a catechism. Or 1891 to 2025 qualifies as less than two generations. Which is it?
Finally, one could argue that those who espoused VCII’s ‘Spirit’ were better informed and purposeful than many of your ilk would ever discern.
When you wish to poise a strike against the Roman Catholic Church, you ought to first pray much lest you hoist your petard against yourself.
The deliberate effort to legitimize and normalize deviance is continuing apace. I believe decisions for this were made early in the 20th Century and late in the 19th. Abortion and Sexual Revolution took more obvious paths while homosexualism was promoted more subtly. In the latter half of the 20th Century you had organized venture capital funding for homosexualist enterprise, for example; but more importantly there was a sustained push to impress a message of acceptance and social wholesomeness being fostered ever more widely. Church leaders unfortunately fell for it and it is now proving difficult to un-stage and depose an entrenched mentality burgeoning from there. Therrien describes the various societal factors that would have played into this with lessons for the present irrespective of the context of active world war.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/marriott-s-ceo-spoke-out-about-dei-the-next-day-he-had-40000-emails-from-his-associates/ar-AA1DbDle?ocid=BingNewsSerp
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/money/formula-1-is-reportedly-seeking-150-million-180-million-a-year-for-a-us-tv-rights-deal/vi-AA1CQbpu?ocid=BingNewsSerp&t=16
My post isn’t meant to advocate for getting married priests nor for “at least temporarily putting men who are married as priests because they are normal and would fill a perceived gap”. If anything my post would tend to signify that many is not most men otherwise considered normal are failing to intervene as they should and must at the lay level to impact on the many problems showing up in my post and in Therrien’s essay. All the while the homosexualists have played it through very quietly for a long time facilitating the worst outcomes along with outcomes to suit themselves and taking protection from certain normal men.
Reflect again on my post, one can notionalize or conceptualize what is coalescing in the given progressing circumstances. Like a war, in military terms, Sexual Revolution and Abortion would be represented in troops and big armour of all types, Homosexualism would be represented by the intelligence community, intel footmen and NCO’s and intel startegist and cyphers and decrypters, Normal men would be special ops carrying out any type of action advanced, behind the lines, rear-guard, etc., there would be a nexus of Homosexualists and Normal who are cheaters (double-agents) and then double-cheaters too -all the while the Central Command of the Big Brass would be looking for new angles of intervention and deflection and modes of coding and dissembling and unifying.
Could it be it has gotten as bad as that.
Priestly celibacy does not directly cause child molestation but it does shrink the pool of young men wanting to be priests. Ordination of married me will not solve the problem, but it will bring into the priesthood a large number of “normal” men.
How define a “normal” man? Are celibate men not normal?
Most men are not celibate. A celibate man can be normal, but he is in a minority. Are celibate men morally superior to married men in normal relationships? In a word, no.