August 8, 2015 Sexual predators are more prevalent among rabbis, pastors and yogis than among Catholic priests But they are not as widely reported by the secular especially the international media

Catholic Psychology and Sexual Abuse by Clergy (Part 2) - Interview with Gerard van den Aardweg

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/catholic-psychology-and-sexual-abuse-by-clergy-part-2

By Genevieve Pollock, Haarlem, Netherlands, April 28, 2010

If we want to address the problem of sexual abuse by clergy, we need to go back to the teachings of "Humanae Vitae," says a Dutch Catholic psychotherapist.

Gerard van den Aardweg has worked as a therapist for almost 50 years, specializing in cases of homosexuality and marital problems. He has taught worldwide and written extensively on homosexuality and pedophilia, as well as the relation of these issues to other topics: same-sex attraction in the priesthood, "Humane Vitae," and the effects of gay parenting.

The psychologist's published books include: "Battle for Normality: Self-Therapy of Homosexuality" and "On the Origins and Treatment of Homosexuality."

In this interview with ZENIT, Van den Aardweg speaks about the role of psychology in cases of sexual abuse by clergy, and the origin and resolution of these problems.

ZENIT: Going back to the problems in the clergy, would you say that the abuse arose more because men with pre-existing tendencies were admitted to the priesthood, or were there factors that contributed to this type of behavior over time?

Van den Aardweg: A young man who is psychologically and emotionally mature when he is admitted to the seminary will never become homosexually or pedo-sexually interested. If he feels sexually aroused and gives way to his feelings, he will seek a woman.

The "orientation" toward boys or adolescents in priests who have molested youngsters has never originated during their seminary or priesthood years. 

In some cases it may initially have been more or less latent, weak; but then, there was always this obvious gap in his feelings, the absence of normal heterosexual feelings. 

In certain circumstances, confronted with some youth, or during a period of disillusionment or loneliness, the slumbering homosexual longing may be inflamed.

Another priest may always have been aware of his attraction to males, but managed to live with it without acting out. However, when he increasingly feels unable to cope with the demands or disillusionments of his profession, in a bad moment he may start either looking into pornographic magazines -- in our day, into a porn site on the Internet -- or start drinking, to comfort himself; and indulging in sexual fantasies, he goes from bad to worse.

Homosexuality is more than a sexual problem. 

It is part of a rather specific variant of personality immaturity, and among its most frequent symptoms are a lack of character strength, inner loneliness, difficulties in forming mature bonds of friendship, anxiety and depression. Thus stress, in all its forms, can weaken the man's resistance to surrendering to his desires.

Other important factors that lower the threshold of resistance are the absence of much needed personal support and regular spiritual guidance; laxity in interior, spiritual life; neglect of regular confession; the bad example of other priests in the environment who lead a double life; and being exposed to permissive moral theories on sexuality in general and on the normality of homosexuality.

In this regard, the critical attitude of many theologians and prominent priests toward celibacy and above all toward "Humanae Vitae" has been an efficient factor in undermining the resistance of many priests to sexual acting out, assuredly in the case of many with homosexual desires.

As Pope Paul VI himself expected in this encyclical, dissociating sexuality from propagation in the relationship between man and woman would entail the approval of other sterile forms of sex such as homosexuality. 

Many sex scandals that finally ignited the publicity wave in the United States, which is presently being continued in Europe, and which provides such abundant material for anti-Catholic propaganda, are a logical consequence of decades of openly rejecting and tacitly ignoring "Humanae Vitae" and the Christian view of sexuality behind it by prominent priests, moral theologians and bishops.

You cannot expect that many priests and religious with weaknesses such as homosexual -- and occasional pedophile -- desires will persevere in their inner battle for chastity when they constantly hear and notice that almost everything is OK in heterosexual life, married or not: "Why should I be the only one who is not allowed to only occasionally give in to an innocent sexual pleasure if I don't hurt anyone?"

ZENIT: The media seldom focus on the role of psychology in these sexual abuse cases, but haven't therapists generally been involved in either the treatment of offending priests or in the advising of Church authorities on how to deal with these problems? What would you say about the role of psychology in these cases?

Van den Aardweg: In spite of all present criticism, there is no evidence that the majority of the cases of sexual misbehavior by priests in the more remote past, and even many during 1960-1980 were handled badly and irresponsibly. 

Often a prudent compromise was sought between the need to protect minors, the "resocialization" of the offender, and damage control for the parish, diocese, institute and order or congregation.

Therapy -- or, at any rate, a series of conversations with professionals -- was one of the standard measures. This approach was not different from the one used in similar cases in secular institutes, save that punishment was ecclesiastical, and more sporadic.

Looking back, this handling may have been adequate in many cases, but often it was not. One of the reasons of the inadequacy of such procedures was the naïveté of Church authorities with respect to sexual deviations. 

The tendency was to underestimate the seriousness of offenses, and to believe that a well-intentioned offender who, moreover, had gone to confession and promised to correct himself, deserved charity and confidence more than anything else, and had to be given a second chance.

On top of that, Church authorities -- no less than secular judicial authorities -- shared an over-optimistic trust in the upcoming psychological and psychiatric sciences. Relegating a case of sexual abuse to a psychiatrist or psychologist was seen as a rather solid guarantee against recidivism.

Which it decidedly was not, and still is not. The long-term effect of psychotherapy or medication in many cases of sexual offenders is minimal, also because the motivation of a person to fight the hard battle with himself can be rather artificial and dependent on the pressure of the circumstances.

On the other hand it seems that, roughly since the end of the '60s, the response to these offenses became in many sections of the Church -- not in all -- ever more inadequate, weak, negligent. 

The secular psychological trend was to emphasize the mental sickness aspect of delinquents in general -- their being patients, victims of upbringing etc. -- rather than their responsibility for immoral behavior. 

The element of discipline and punishment -- in the case of priests and religious: penance -- was not popular, and this went along with an often glaring lack of consideration of the sufferings and needs of the victims of crimes.

Psychology bears much responsibility for this distorted, in fact, ideological view, and it has no doubt deeply affected the way Church authorities reacted to sexual abuses or accusations that came to their attention, their conduct in regard to sex offenders in the clergy, and the attitude of many prominent Church people and theologians toward homosexuals in general and homosexual priests in particular.

A powerful factor in this was also fear of the media, of public opinion; not demonstrating "liberal" views on this issue and being "intolerant" could prompt hostile reactions within the media and within sections of the Church itself. 

Anyhow, not seldomly, authorities looked away when "pedophile" or other homosexual behaviors of priests were brought to their attention, and if measures were taken, it was often too much with "the cloak of charity:" no punishment, perhaps placement in a center for therapy, and then without checking the effect.

ZENIT: Some criticize the Church because in the past sexually abusing priests were allowed to return to ministry while undergoing psychotherapy. Do you think the therapists believed that this priest could effectively be cured, therefore once again be trusted with children or youngsters?

Van den Aardweg: This criticism is justified. The responsible authorities in such cases are to blame that they did not have the prudence to wait a couple of years, check the results of treatment, and that they did not personally and critically follow up the case. Their too weak reaction was sometimes the easiest way out.

It is also true that in general, psychotherapists had -- still have -- too much confidence in their insights and methods. 

Indeed, psychotherapy can help a minority of people with aberrant sexual penchants such as homosexuality to change radically and a higher percentage to improve, in so far that their feelings lose most of their intensity and obsessive nature, and their overall emotional stability has sizably increased. But that often takes years, and the best results are with those who enter therapy out of their own initiative and not forced by the external situation.

Also, a therapy client may fare better during therapy for a period of time, and that may occasion a therapist to prematurely consider him fit for returning into his former situation; however, under renewed inner and outer stress the chances are not slim that he will slide back in his old pattern. 

We see this not only with persons with sexual problems, but with a variety of other neurotics and delinquents as well. Therefore, prudence prescribes never to place someone with these former behaviors back in the old situation for many years at least, as he remains vulnerable.

ZENIT: What is the current relationship between Church authorities and psychologists in working with pedophile/homosexual priests? Has this changed over time?

Van den Aardweg: It depends on the individual authority, but also on the availability of qualified Catholic psychologists. The European reality is that only few psychologists work therapeutically with same-sex attractions, for this branch of therapy is almost outlawed in the European Union that has officially embraced the gay ideology. 

Therapy of sexual deviations is short of being treated as a violation of human rights; universities do not transmit knowledge on homosexuality other than the politically correct ideological slogans, let alone would or could they give therapy courses for professionals. Only a few Christian therapists specialize in this subject.

As for the Church, the interest in cooperating with these Christian/Catholic psychologists and psychiatrists is growing on the part of especially those bishops, prominent staff members of seminaries, individual priests and theologians who endorse the sexual morality of the Church. 

Others, who are insecure in their opinion on this issue, or afraid of confrontations with the media, liberal priests and faithful, or with their own theologians, prefer to keep psychiatrists and psychologists who treat homosexuality as a disorder at arm's length. But I think something is changing for the better in this area, however slowly.

On the one hand, more younger psychologists and psychiatrists are interested in what we may call "Christian, or Catholic psychotherapy," that is, methods based on the Christian view of man, marriage and sexuality, and sexual disorientations, and which recognize the therapeutic value of "the religious factor," conversion, the importance of an interior spiritual life, and of the exercise of the virtues and fight of the vices, for mental health and character stability.

On the other hand, as more bishops, theologians, and priests turn to the wholehearted propagation, explanation, implementation, and defense of the full Catholic doctrine on sexuality and marriage -- or to put it simply, making "Humanae Vitae" a substantial part of their re-evangelization activities -- they naturally seek more of the advice and assistance of Christian/Catholic psychologists, and this is already here and there leading to a lively and mutually fruitful cooperation.

Journalists abandon standards to attack the Pope

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?ID=632

By Phil Lawler, April 10, 2010 Catholicculture.com

We're off and running once again, with another completely phony story that purports to implicate Pope Benedict XVI in the protection of abusive priests.
The "exclusive" story released by AP yesterday, which has been dutifully passed along now by scores of major media outlets, would never have seen the light of day if normal journalistic standards had been in place. Careful editors should have asked a series of probing questions, and in every case the answer to those questions would have shown that the story had no "legs."
First to repeat the bare-bones version of the story: in November 1985, then-Cardinal Ratzinger signed a letter deferring a decision on the laicization of Father Stephen Kiesle, a California priest who had been accused of molesting boys.
Now the key questions:
- Was Cardinal Ratzinger responding to the complaints of priestly pedophilia? No. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which the future Pontiff headed, did not have jurisdiction for pedophile priests until 2001. The cardinal was weighing a request for laicization of Kiesle.
- Had Oakland's Bishop John Cummins sought to laicize Kiesle as punishment for his misconduct? No. Kiesle himself asked to be released from the priesthood. The bishop supported the wayward priest's application.
- Was the request for laicization denied? No. Eventually, in 1987, the Vatican approved Kiesle's dismissal from the priesthood.
- Did Kiesle abuse children again before he was laicized? To the best of our knowledge, No. The next complaints against him arose in 2002: 15 years after he was dismissed from the priesthood.
- Did Cardinal Ratzinger's reluctance to make a quick decision mean that Kiesle remained in active ministry? No. Bishop Cummins had the authority to suspend the predator-priest, and in fact he had placed him on an extended leave of absence long before the application for laicization was entered.
- Would quicker laicization have protected children in California? No. Cardinal Ratzinger did not have the power to put Kiesle behind bars. If Kiesle had been defrocked in 1985 instead of 1987, he would have remained at large, thanks to a light sentence from the California courts. As things stood, he remained at large. He was not engaged in parish ministry and had no special access to children.
- Did the Vatican cover up evidence of Kiesle's predatory behavior? No. The civil courts of California destroyed that evidence after the priest completed a sentence of probation-- before the case ever reached Rome.
So to review: This was not a case in which a bishop wanted to discipline his priest and the Vatican official demurred. This was not a case in which a priest remained active in ministry, and the Vatican did nothing to protect the children under his pastoral care. This was not a case in which the Vatican covered up evidence of a priest's misconduct. This was a case in which a priest asked to be released from his vows, and the Vatican-- which had been flooded by such requests throughout the 1970s -- wanted to consider all such cases carefully. In short, if you're looking for evidence of a sex-abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, this case is irrelevant.
We Americans know what a sex-abuse crisis looks like. The scandal erupts when evidence emerges that bishops have protected abusive priests, kept them active in parish assignments, covered up evidence of the charges against them, and lied to their people. There is no such evidence in this or any other case involving Pope Benedict XVI.
Competent reporters, when dealing with a story that involves special expertise, seek information from experts in that field. Capable journalists following this story should have sought out canon lawyers to explain the 1985 document-- not merely relied on the highly biased testimony of civil lawyers who have lodged multiple suits against the Church. If they had understood the case, objective reporters would have recognized that they had no story. But in this case, reporters for the major media outlets are far from objective.
The New York Times-- which touched off this feeding frenzy with two error-riddled front-page reports-- seized on the latest "scoop" by AP to say that the 1985 document exemplified:
…the sort of delay that is fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal in the church that has focused on whether the future pope moved quickly enough to remove known pedophiles from the priesthood, despite pleas from American bishops.
Here we have a complete rewriting of history. Earlier in this decade, American newspapers exposed the sad truth that many American bishops had kept pedophile priests in active ministry. Now the Times, which played an active role in exposing that scandal, would have us believe that the American bishops were striving to rid the priesthood of the predators, and the Vatican resisted!
No, what is "fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal" is a media frenzy. There is a scandal here, indeed, but it's not the scandal you're reading about in the mass media. The scandal is the complete collapse of journalistic standards in the handling of this story.

See Sexual abuse is society's problem, too, Phil Lawler, March 25, 2010
Practicing Catholics unfazed by abuse scandals; Pope's popularity increasing!

https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=6229

May 05, 2010

A new poll conducted by CBS NEWS AND THE NEW YORK TIMES has found that 77% of Catholics who attend Mass weekly say that "the Vatican's handling of recent child sex abuse reports" has had no effect on how they "feel about the Catholic Church." An additional 12% of practicing Catholics say that they have a more positive feeling about the Church as a result of the Vatican's handling of the scandals.
The survey of 1,079 adults was conducted between April 28 and May 2. Results were released on May 4.
88% of Catholics – practicing and non-practicing -- report that the scandal has had no effect on their dealings with priests. 82% say it will not affect their Mass attendance, 79% say it will have no effect on donations, and 87% say that it will have no effect on their children's involvement in Church activities.
52% of the general population says that the Vatican's handling of the scandal has had no effect on their feelings towards the Church, while 36% have more negative feelings.
The survey also found that Pope Benedict’s popularity among Catholics has increased since March. 43% of Catholics have a favorable view of him (vs. 27% in March), while 17% have an unfavorable view (vs. 11% in March). 38% are unsure or "haven't heard enough" to make a judgment. Among the general population, 16% have a favorable view of the Pope, 24% have an unfavorable view, and 59% are unsure or "haven't heard enough."
62% of practicing Catholics-- vs. 13% of the general population-- have a favorable view of the Church's leadership, while 13% of practicing Catholics (and 38% of Americans overall) have an unfavorable view.
Among the survey's other findings:
45% of practicing Catholics, but only 13% of Americans overall, believe that the Vatican has done a good job handling the scandal
75% of practicing Catholics, and 50% of the overall population, believe that the Vatican is trying to prevent child sexual abuse

only 17% of practicing Catholics, and 33% of Americans overall, believe that the Vatican is currently engaging in a cover-up

91% of practicing Catholics, and 54% of Americans overall, have "some" or "a lot of" confidence in the Vatican's ability to prevent future abuse by priests
28% of practicing Catholics, and 40% of all Catholics, say that the abuse scandals have caused them to "doubt [the] Vatican's authority"
the majority of [practicing and non-practicing] Catholics (54%) believe that the Vatican is "out of touch" with Catholics, while 60% believe that local priests are "in touch"

a large majority of practicing Catholics (89%) and AMERICANT OVERALL (72%) BELIEVE THAT CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE IS JUST AS COMMON OUTSIDE THE CHURCH AS WITHIN IT.

58% of practicing Catholics, and 30% of Americans overall, believe the scandal has been blown out of proportion by the news media
44% of practicing Catholics, and 73% of the total population, believe that child sexual abuse by priests is still a problem today
only 30% of Catholics believe that homosexuality contributes to child sexual abuse by priests; 31% believe the celibacy discipline is a contributing factor, while 17% believe the Church's teaching on women's ordination is a factor"
Proof that the Catholic Church is perfect

http://www.sophiainstitute.com/client/ZENIT_ads/ZENIT_nwsltr_proof.html

By John L. Barger, Publisher Sophia Institute Press 1-800-888-9344 Box 5284, Manchester, NH 03108 USA, undated

Not long ago, one of my adult children spent hours pummeling me and the Church. The waves of her anger struck repeatedly, tossing me like a small boat in a storm.

With the bitterness of a woman betrayed, she recited the sins of bad priests we knew, and catalogued the failings of Catholic laymen and bishops we trusted.

"I believed," she cried.

"I believed, while those bastards lied and sneaked about, doing the very things they preached against!"

What could I say?

I won't defend the indefensible. So, like Peter in that boat tossed by an earlier storm, I kept myself focused on Jesus.

"They betrayed us," I agreed. "But they betrayed Jesus more.

"He condemned these sins centuries ago. If you thought He was wrong to do so, you wouldn't be upset today. Your anger shows that even when priests violate them, you think Christ's teachings --- the Church's teachings --- are right."

That just made her angrier, and since then I've had simply to avoid the topic.

* * *

You know, when I entered the Church as an adult, I had a profound admiration for priests, and naively believed that Catholics -- and particularly priests -- would always be found more virtuous than others.

My faith was so great that I founded Sophia Institute Press to bring back into print the fine Catholic books that had won me to the Faith, and that -- I was sure -- would convert others, too.

Now, at last count, six of the priests I've admired for their orthodoxy have been implicated in the sex scandals, and one is deep in a Midwest jail.

That fact didn't make it easy for me to answer my daughter's charges.

Like Peter, I was left only with Jesus.

Jesus gave sinful Peter the power to walk on water. Jesus keeps us from drowning when the world attacks us and assails our wounded Church.

And Jesus guarantees that, despite the sins of Her members, the Church Herself is perfect.


Yes, perfect!

But not at all in the way that I imagined when I converted to Catholicism.

Fr. Ronald Knox explains it well in a remarkable little book, The Church on Earth, which I published a couple of years ago.

There he notes that, unlike the Protestant churches, the Catholic Church is not a system that men, after prayer and deliberation, devised as the best scheme they could think of for perpetuating the work of their Master, Jesus.