uno dei motivi perche non sono cattolica

Catholic sex abuse cases From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Catholicism portal The term Catholic sex abuse cases refers to a series of scandals in various countries arising from allegations made in the first decade of the 21st century about abuse of minors under the age of 18 by certain Catholic parish priests. The allegations covered events alleged to have occurred over a period ranging from the middle to late 20th century. Allegations have been made against parish priests under diocesan control and members of Roman Catholic religious orders. Contents[hide] 1 Progressive discovery of the problem 2 Awareness of the problem 3 Response of the Church 3.1 Diocesan responses to the problem 3.2 Initial response of the Vatican 3.3 Relations between the Vatican and American Catholics 3.4 Response of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops 3.5 John Jay study 3.6 Prevalence of the problem 3.7 Global extent 3.7.1 Number of allegations 3.7.2 Profile of the victims 3.7.3 Profile of the abusers 3.8 2003 Vatican Conference on Sexual Abuse 3.9 Diocesan awareness of the problem 3.10 Diocesan response to allegations of sexual abuse 4 Media coverage and public opinion 4.1 Response of the Vatican 4.1.1 New rules regarding ordination 5 Crimen Sollicitationis controversy 6 Sex abuse cases by country 6.1 Argentina 6.2 Australia 6.2.1 Pope Benedict's apology 6.3 Austria 6.4 Canada 6.5 Ireland 6.5.1 Ferns Report 6.5.2 Irish Child Abuse Commission 2009 6.6 United States 6.6.1 Guido's study 6.6.2 John Jay Report 6.6.3 Legal cases and effects 6.6.3.1 Immunity requests 6.6.3.2 Compensation payments, bankruptcies and closures 6.6.3.3 Resignations, retirements and defrockings 6.6.3.4 Prevention efforts 6.6.3.5 Response of Pope Benedict 7 Catholic sex abuse cases by orders 8 Debate over the causes of the sexual abuse 8.1 Seminary training 8.2 Declining standards explanation 8.3 Supply and demand explanation 8.4 Celibacy explanation 8.4.1 Advocacy for mandatory celibacy 9 Abuse in literature and films 9.1 Publications 9.2 Films 10 See also 11 Notes 12 References 13 Additional reading 14 External links 14.1 General 14.2 Ireland 14.3 United States // [edit] Progressive discovery of the problem The issue of sexual abuse by Catholic priests rose to national attention in 1985 when Gilbert Gauthe plead guilty to 11 counts of molestation of boys. In the 1990s, the issue was again brought to the national attention when a number of books on the topic were published.[1] However, it was not until early 2002 that the Boston Globe coverage of a series of criminal prosecutions of five Roman Catholic priests thrust the issue of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests into the national limelight on an ongoing basis.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] The coverage of these cases encouraged other victims to come forward with their allegations of abuse resulting in more lawsuits and criminal cases.[10] Ultimately, it became clear that, over several decades in the 20th century, some priests and lay members of religious orders in the Catholic Church had sexually abused minors (those under 18) on a scale such that the accusations eventually reached into the thousands. Although the majority of cases were reported to have occurred in the United States, victims have come forward in other nations such as Ireland, Canada and Australia. A major aggravating factor was the actions of Catholic bishops in responding to allegations of clerical abuse. It was revealed that some bishops had facilitated compensation payments to alleged victims on condition that the allegations remained secret. In addition, rather than being dismissed, the accused were often instructed to undergo psychological counseling and, on completion of counseling, reassigned to other parishes where, in some cases, they continued to abuse minors. In response to these allegations, both ecclesiastical and civil authorities have implemented procedures to prevent sexual abuse of minors by clergy and to report and punish it if and when it occurs. [edit] Awareness of the problem Some date the current sexual abuse scandal to an article published in the National Catholic Reporter in 1985.[11] After that, the scandal remained at the fringes of public attention but did not become a focus of national attention until the mid-1990s when a number of books were published on the topic. [1] The topic became a the focus of intense scrutiny and debate after the Boston Globe published a series of articles covering cases of sexual abuse. [edit] Response of the Church The Catholic Church responded to the scandal at three levels: the diocesan level, the episcopal conference level and the Vatican. Responses to the scandal proceeded at all three levels in parallel with the higher levels becoming progressively more involved as the gravity of the problem became more apparent. Before the Boston Globe coverage of the sexual abuse scandal in the Boston archdiocese, handling of sexual abuse allegations was largely left up to the discretion of individual bishops. After the number of allegations exploded following the Globe's series of articles, U.S. bishops felt compelled to formulate a coordinated response at the episcopal conference level. Although the Vatican did not respond immediately to the series of articles published by the Boston Globe in 2002, it has been reported that Vatican officials were, in fact, monitoring the situation in the U.S. closely.[12] Over time, it became more apparent that the problem warranted greater Vatican involvement. [edit] Diocesan responses to the problem Section: #Resignations, retirements and defrockings For the most part, responding to allegations of sexual abuse in a diocese was left to the jurisdiction of the bishop or archbishop. Many of the accused priests were forced to resign or were defrocked. In addition, several bishops who had participated in the cover-up were also forced to resign or retire.[13] The dioceses in which abuse was committed or in which abuse allegations were settled out of court found it necessary to make financial settlements with the victims totaling over $1.5 billion as of March 2006.[14] The number and size of these settlements made it necessary for the dioceses to reduce their ordinary operating expenses by closing churches and schools. In many instances, dioceses were forced to declare bankruptcy as a result of the settlements. [edit] Initial response of the Vatican On April 30, 2001, John Paul II, issued a letter stating that "a sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue by a cleric with a minor under 18 years of age is to be considered a grave sin, or 'delictum gravius.'"[15] John F. Allen Jr., Vatican correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, has commented that many American Catholics saw the Vatican’s initial silence on the Boston Globe stories as showing a lack of concern or awareness about the issue. However, Allen said that, he doesn't know anyone in the Roman Curia, who was not, in the least, horrified "by the revelations that came out of the Globe and elsewhere" or "would defend Cardinal Law’s handling of the cases in Boston" or "would defend the rather shocking lack of oversight that revealed itself" though "they might have different analyses of what should have happened to him".[12] Allen described the Vatican's perspective as being somewhat skeptical of the media handling of the scandal. In addition, he asserted that the Vatican viewed American cultural attitudes toward sexuality as being somewhat hysterical as well as exhibiting a lack of understanding of the Catholic Church. No one [in the Vatican] thinks the sexual abuse of kids is unique to the States, but they do think that the reporting on it is uniquely American, fueled by anti-Catholicism and shyster lawyers hustling to tap the deep pockets of the church. And that thinking is tied to the larger perception about American culture, which is that there is a hysteria when it comes to anything sexual, and an incomprehension of the Catholic Church. What that means is that Vatican officials are slower to make the kinds of public statements that most American Catholics want, and when they do make them they are tentative and halfhearted. It's not that they don't feel bad for the victims, but they think the clamor for them to apologize is fed by other factors that they don't want to capitulate to.[12] [edit] Relations between the Vatican and American Catholics According to John Allen Jr., Vatican correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, cultural differences between the Vatican and American Catholics complicated the process of formulating a comprehensive response to the sexual abuse scandal. Allen asserted that the sexual abuse crisis illustrated that "there is a lot about the American culture and the American Church that puzzles people in the Vatican, and there is much about the Vatican that puzzles Americans and English speakers generally."[12] [edit] Response of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops As the breadth and depth of the scandals became apparent in dioceses across the United States, it became apparent to the American bishops that a joint response was warranted at the episcopal conference level. John F. Allen Jr. characterized the reaction of the USCCB as calling for “swift, sure and final punishment for priests who are guilty of this kind of misconduct.” In contrast to this, Allen characterized the Vatican's primary concern as wanting to make sure “that everyone’s rights are respected, including the rights of accused clergy" and wanting to affirm that it is not acceptable to "remedy the injustice of sexual abuse with the injustice of railroading priests who may or may not be guilty.”[12] In June 2002, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) unanimously approved a Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People that pledged the Catholic Church in the U.S. to providing a "safe environment" for all children in Church-sponsored activities The thrust of the charter was the adoption of a "zero tolerance" policy for sexual abuse.[16][17] The USCCB instituted reforms to prevent future abuse by requiring background checks for Church employees.[18] They now require dioceses faced with an allegation to alert the authorities, conduct an investigation and remove the accused from duty.[18][19] A study conducted by CARA in 2007 found that, although many Catholics are unaware of the specific steps that the church as taken, when informed of them, large majorities approve these actions. 78 percent strongly approved of reporting allegations of sexual abuse by clergy to civil authorities and cooperating in civil investigations. 76 percent strongly approved of removing from ministry people credibly accused of sexual abuse of a minor.[citation needed] While the Church in the United States claims to have addressed the issue, some disagree. In 2005, Dr. Kathleen McChesney of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said that the crisis was not yet over because hundreds of victims across the country were still reporting past episodes of abuse. She said: "In 2004, at least 1,092 allegations of sexual abuse were made against at least 756 Catholic priests and deacons in the United States. Most of the alleged incidents occurred between 1965 and 1974. What is over is the denial that this problem exists, and what is over is the reluctance of the Church to deal openly with the public about the nature and extent of the problem."[20] [edit] John Jay study In June 2002 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops met in Dallas and approved the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. The Charter created a National Review Board, which was assigned responsibility to commission a descriptive study, with the full cooperation of the dioceses/eparchies, of the nature and scope of the problem of sexual abuse of minors by clergy. The National Review Board engaged the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York to conduct a study analyzing allegations of sexual abuse in Catholic dioceses in United States. The time period covered by the John Jay study began in 1950 and ended in 2002. The product of the study was a report to the National Review Board titled "The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States" and commonly referred to as the "John Jay Report". [edit] Prevalence of the problem The John Jay report indicated that some 11,000 allegations had been made against 4,392 priests in the USA. This number constituted approximately 4% of the 110,000 priests who had served during the period covered by the survey (1950-2002).[21] The report found that, over the 52-year period covered by the study, "the problem was indeed widespread and affected more than 95 percent of the dioceses and approximately 60 percent of religious communities."[22] In 2008, the Church asserted that the scandal was a very serious problem but, at the same time, estimated that it was "probably caused by 'no more than 1 per cent' (or 5,000) of the over 500,000 Roman Catholic priests worldwide.[citation needed] [edit] Global extent Approximately 80% of the priests involved in sexual abuse of minors were located in the United States.(4,392 priests, as Church's estimate that no more than 5000 priests worldwide)[note 1] Although allegations of clergy sexual abuse have surfaced in several countries around the world, there have been no comprehensive studies which compare the relative incidence of sexual abuse in different areas. However, there is a general perception that the issue has been most prominent in the United States, and then in Australia, Canada and Ireland.[23] [edit] Number of allegations The number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s.[14] Of the 11,000 allegations reported by bishops in the John Jay study, 3300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died. 6700 allegations were substantiated, leaving 1000 which could not be substantiated. According to the John Jay report, one-third of the accusations were made in the years 2002-3. Another third of the allegations were reported between 1993 and 2001.[14] [edit] Profile of the victims An overwhelming majority of the victims, 81 percent, were males. A majority of the victims were post-pubescent adolescents with a small percentage of the priests accused of abusing children who had not reached puberty.[22] The John Jay Report determined that just under 6% of victims were 7 years of age or younger. 16% of the victims were between age 8 and age 10.[14] Some sources have asserted that most of the victims were between the ages of 16 and 17, making the sexual abuse instances of hebephilia rather than pedophilia. These sources argue that, by failing to make this distinction, the media has fostered a misconception of the problem. The vast majority of the victims (78%) were between age 11 and age 17. Only 15 percent of the victims were 16 to 17 years of age; 51 percent were between the ages of 11 and 14.[14] [edit] Profile of the abusers Half the priests were 35 years of age or younger at the time of the first instance of alleged abuse. Fewer than 7 percent of the priests were reported to have experienced physical, sexual or emotional abuse as children. Although 19 percent of the accused priests had alcohol or substance abuse problems, only 9 percent used drugs or alcohol during the alleged instances of abuse. Almost 70 percent of the abusive priests were ordained before 1970, after attending pre-Vatican II seminaries or seminaries that had had little time to adapt to the reforms of Vatican II.[14] Of the priests who were accused of sexual abuse, 59% were accused of a single allegation. 41% of the priests were the subject of more than one allegation. Just under 3% of the priests were the subject of ten or more allegations. The 149 priests who had more than 10 allegations against them accounted for 2,960 of the total number of allegations.[14] [edit] 2003 Vatican Conference on Sexual Abuse In April 2003, the Pontifical Academy for Life organized a three-day conference, entitled "Abuse of Children and Young People by Catholic Priests and Religious", where eight non-Catholic psychiatric experts were invited to speak to near all Vatican dicasteries' representatives. The panel of experts identified the following factors contributing to the sexual abuse problem: [24] Failure by the hierarchy to grasp the seriousness of the problem. Overemphasis on the need to avoid a scandal. Use of unqualified treatment centers. Misguided willingness to forgive. Insufficient accountability. [edit] Diocesan awareness of the problem In response to criticism that the Catholic hierarchy should have acted more quickly and decisively to remove priests accused of sexual misconduct, contemporary bishops have responded that the hierarchy was unaware until recent years of the danger in shuffling priests from one parish to another and in concealing the priests' problems from those they served. For example, Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, said: "We have said repeatedly that ... our understanding of this problem and the way it's dealt with today evolved, and that in those years ago, decades ago, people didn't realize how serious this was, and so, rather than pulling people out of ministry directly and fully, they were moved."[25] [edit] Diocesan response to allegations of sexual abuse Some bishops have been heavily criticized for moving offending priests from parish to parish, where they still had personal contact with children, rather than seeking to have them permanently removed from the priesthood by defrocking. The Church was widely criticized when it was discovered that some bishops knew about some of the alleged crimes committed, but reassigned the accused instead of seeking to have them permanently removed from the priesthood.[10][26] For example, John Geoghan was shifted from one parish to another although Cardinal Bernard Law had been informed of Geoghan's sexual misconduct on a number of occasions. In defense of this practice, some have pointed out that public school administrators engaged in a similar manner when dealing with accused teachers[27], as did the Boy Scouts of America.[28] Instead of reporting the incidents to police, many dioceses directed the offending priests to seek psychological treatment and assessment. According to the John Jay report, nearly 40 percent of priests alleged to have committed sexual abuse participated in treatment programs. The more allegations a priest had, the more likely he was to participate in treatment.[14] From a legal perspective, the most serious criticism aside from the incidents of child sexual abuse themselves was by the bishops, who failed to report accusations to the police. In response to the failure to report abuse to the police, lawmakers have changed the law to make reporting of abuse to police compulsory. In 2002, Massachusetts passed a law requiring religious officials to report the abuse of children.[29] In response to these allegations, defenders of the Church's actions have suggested that in re-assigning priests after treatment, bishops were acting on the best medical advice then available, a policy also followed by the US public school system when dealing with accused teachers. Some bishops and psychiatrists have asserted that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling.[26][30] Many of the abusive priests had received counseling before being reassigned.[31][32] Critics have questioned whether bishops are necessarily able to form accurate judgments on a priest's recovery.[citation needed] The priests were allowed to resume their previous duties with children only when the bishop was advised by the treating psychologists or psychiatrists that it was safe for them to resume their duties.[citation needed] According to the John Jay study, 3 percent of all priests against whom allegations were made were convicted and about 2 percent received prison sentences."[22] [edit] Media coverage and public opinion Differing perspectives and misconceptions contributed to negative public opinion in the U.S. towards the what was perceived as the failure of the Catholic hierarchy to respond adequately to allegations of sexual abuse and the seemingly sluggish response of the Vatican to the unfolding scandal. Some sources argue that the negative public opinion was fueled in part by statements made to the media by various parties with differing agendas including lawyers for those suing the Church for damages resulting the alleged sexual abuse. As the public furor over the scandal grew, some members of the Catholic Church began to see an anti-Catholic agenda behind some of these pronouncements. Criticism of media coverage by Catholics and others centred on an excessive focus being placed on Catholic incidences of abuse. Such voices argue that equal or greater levels of child sexual abuse in other religious groups or in secular contexts such as the US public school system have been either ignored or given minimal coverage by mainstream media.[33][34] Commentator Tom Hoopes wrote: during the first half of 2002, the 61 largest newspapers in California ran nearly 2,000 stories about sexual abuse in Catholic institutions, mostly concerning past allegations. During the same period, those newspapers ran four stories about the federal government’s discovery of the much larger — and ongoing — abuse scandal in public schools.[35] Anglican writer Philip Jenkins supported many of these arguments stating that media coverage of the abuse story had become "..a gross efflorescence of anti-catholic rhetoric."[36] [edit] Response of the Vatican Sections: #Pope Benedict's apology, #Response of Pope Benedict In 2003, Pope John Paul II stated that "there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young".[37] In addition, Pope Benedict XVI has apologized for the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy and pledged that pedophiles would not be allowed to become priests in the Catholic Church. [edit] New rules regarding ordination Because a significant majority of victims were teenage boys, the Vatican instituted reforms to prevent future United States abuse by requiring background checks for Church employees[18] and issued new rules disallowing ordination of men with "deep–seated homosexual tendencies".[30][38] They now require dioceses faced with an allegation to alert the authorities, conduct an investigation and remove the accused from duty.[18][39] [edit] Crimen Sollicitationis controversy In 2003, a 1962 document was discovered in the Vatican's archives,[40] titled "Crimen sollicitationis" (Instruction on the Manner of Proceeding in Cases of Solicitation) written by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, the Secretary of the Holy Office, issued an instruction regarding the disciplinary procedures for dealing with solicitation of by priests during the Sacrament of Penance.[41] The document dealt with any priest who "tempts a penitent... in the act of sacramental confession... towards impure or obscene matters." It directed that investigation of allegations of solicitation in the confessional and the trials of accused priests be conducted in secrecy. Some parties interpreted the document to be a directive from the Vatican to keep all allegations of sexual abuse secret, leading to widespread media coverage of its contents.[42][43][44] Lawyers for some of those making abuse allegations claimed that the document demonstrated a systematic conspiracy to conceal such crimes.[45][46] The Vatican responded that the document was not only widely misinterpreted, but moreover had been superseded by more recent guidelines in the 1960s and 1970s, and especially the 1983 Code of Canon Law.[47][48] Similar documents are described by Henry Charles Lea in his "Historical Sketch of Sacerdotal Celibacy", (c) 1867. The above "... evils commenced to attract attention almost as soon as enforced celibacy coexisted with auricular confession. As early as 398..." problems existed. Lea states, "...as usual, the church sought palliatives for the evil to which she dared not apply a radical cure." He further states "In 1661, therefore, the provincial synod of Cambrai, and in 1663 ... no confessor should have power to grant absolution ... to his paramour, ... . This seems to have aroused considerable opposition...". Similar documents were issued in 1665, in 1689, in 1698, in 1707, in 1742, and in 1768 as summarized on pp 535-7. [edit] Sex abuse cases by country Main article: Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country [edit] Argentina Julio Grassi was found guilty (by a three-judge panel of the Criminal Court Oral 1 Morón) of one count of sexual abuse and one count of corrupting a minor in the “Happy Children’s Foundation”[49] and sentenced to 15 years in prison as the third member of the Roman Catholic Church in Argentina to be convicted of sexually abusing minors.[50]. Prosecutors said they were considering an appeal on behalf of the two plaintiffs whose sexual abuse accusations were dropped. Father Grassi maintained his plea of innocence of the charge and promised to appeal. [51] [edit] Australia Main: Catholic sexual abuse in Australia and Sexual abuse in archdiocese of Melbourne [edit] Pope Benedict's apology On July 19, 2008, Pope Benedict XVI made a historic full apology for child sex abuse by priests and clergymen in Australia. Before a 3,400 congregation assembled in Sydney's St. Mary's Cathedral, In Sydney's St. Mary's Cathedral, Pope Benedict called for compensation and demanded punishment for those guilty of the "evil": "Here I would like to pause to acknowledge the shame which we have all felt as a result of the sexual abuse of minors by some clergy and religious in this country. I am deeply sorry for the pain and suffering the victims have endured and I assure them that, as their pastor, I too share in their suffering. ... Victims should receive compassion and care, and those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice. These misdeeds, which constitute so grave a betrayal of trust, deserve unequivocal condemnation. I ask all of you to support and assist your bishops, and to work together with them in combating this evil. It is an urgent priority to promote a safer and more wholesome environment, especially for young people." On July 21, he met with two male and two female victims of sex abuse by priests, listened to their stories and celebrated Mass with them.[52] The Premier of New South Wales Morris Iemma said "Hopefully it will be a sign of righting the wrongs of the past and of a better future and better treatment by the church of the victims and their families."[53][54] The victims' rights advocacy group Broken Rites welcomed the Pope's apology, but expressed disappointment that the Pope had not made his apology directly to sexual abuse victims[55] and criticized the selection of the victims as having been hand-picked to be cooperative. "I'm afraid that what they've done is selected victims who have agreed with what the Church's policies are. The Pope should have met with Anthony Foster, the father of two girls abused by a priest, who cut short a holiday in Britain to return to Australia in the hope of meeting the pontiff." [56][57][58] [edit] Austria Cardinal Hans Hermann Groër resigned from his post as Archbishop of Vienna over allegations of sexual abuse in 1995. [edit] Canada Main article: Catholic sexual abuse scandals In 1988, there were allegations of widespread abuse of children at Mount Cashel, a Catholic orphanage in Newfoundland. The religious order that ran the orphanage filed for bankruptcy in the face of numerous lawsuits. Since the Mount Cashel scandal erupted, a number of priests across the country have been accused of sexual abuse. In 1992, the Canadian Catholic bishops unveiled tough guidelines - calling for "responding fairly and openly" to all allegations, stressing the need to "respect" the jurisdiction of outside authorities, and recommending counselling and compassion for the victims. In February 2009, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador ruled that the Roman Catholic Church in St. John’s was responsible ("vicariously liable") for the sexual abuse of eight former altar boys by disgraced priest, Reverend James Hickey.[59] The Christian Brothers have paid out approximately $35 million (Canadian) in compensation.[60] [edit] Ireland Main article: Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Ireland One of the best known cases of sex abuse in Ireland involved Brendan Smyth, who, between 1945 and 1989, sexually abused and indecently assaulted twenty children in parishes in Belfast, Dublin and the United States.[61] The investigation of the Smyth case was allegedly obstructed by the Norbertine Order. [edit] Ferns Report Main article: Ferns Report The Ferns Inquiry (2005) was an official Irish government inquiry into the allegations of clerical sexual abuse in the Irish Roman Catholic Diocese of Ferns. The Inquiry recorded its revulsion at the extent, severity and duration of the child sexual abuse allegedly perpetrated on children by priests acting under the aegis of the Diocese of Ferns.[62] The investigation was established in the wake of the broadcast of a BBC Television documentary "Suing the Pope", which highlighted the case of Seán Fortune, one of the most notorious clerical sexual offenders. [63] O'Gorman, through One in Four, the organization he founded to support women and men who have experienced sexual violence, successfully campaigned for the Ferns Inquiry. [edit] Irish Child Abuse Commission 2009 Main article: Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse A lengthy report detailing cases of emotional, physical and sexual abuse of hundreds of children over 70 years was published on 20 May 2009. Ireland's national police force announced that they would study the report to see if it provided any new evidence for prosecuting clerics for assault, rape or other criminal offenses. The report, however, did not identify any of the alleged abusers by name because of a right-to-privacy lawsuit by the Christian Brothers order. Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin slammed Irish Catholic orders for concealing their culpability in decades of child abuse and asserted that much more money would be needed to compensate victims.[64]. "Ashamed by the extent, length, and cruelty" of child abuse, Ireland's Prime Minister Brian Cowen apologized to victims for the government's failure to intervene in endemic sexual abuse and severe beatings in schools for much of the 20th century. He also promised to reform the Ireland's social services for children in line with the recommendations of the the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse report. [65] Further motions to start criminal investigation against members of Roman Catholic religious orders in Ireland were made by Irish President Mary McAleese and Prime Minister Cowen. [66] [edit] United States Main article: Catholic sex abuse scandal in the United States For details on sexual abuse scandals in specific dioceses, see: Boston, Chicago, Honolulu, Los Angeles, Orange, Palm Beach, Philadelphia, and Portland Public discourse on sexual abuse in the United States had been muted until the 1990s when a series of books on the topic was published.[1] Even then, it was not until early 2002 that the Boston Globe coverage of a series of criminal prosecutions of five Roman Catholic priests thrust the issue of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests into the national limelight.[2][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75] The coverage of these cases encouraged other victims to come forward with their allegations of abuse resulting in more lawsuits and criminal cases.[10] As it became clear that there was truth to many of the allegations and that there was a pattern of sexual abuse and alleged cover-up in a number of large dioceses across the USA, what had originally appeared to be a few isolated cases of abuse grew into a nationwide scandal, resulting in a crisis for the Catholic Church in the United States. The publicity may have encouraged victims in other nations to come forward with their allegations of abuse, thus appearing to spread the crisis. Ultimately, it became clear that, over several decades in the 20th century, that some priests and lay members of religious orders in the Catholic Church had sexually abused minors (those under 18) on a scale such that the accusations reached into the thousands. Although the majority of cases were reported to have occurred in the United States, victims have come forward in other nations such as Ireland, Canada and Australia. A major aggravating factor was the actions of Catholic bishops to keep these allegations secret and to reassign the accused to other parishes in positions where they often had continued unsupervised contact with youth, allowing them opportunities to continue abusing minors. Many of the accused priests and several bishops who had participated in the alleged cover-up were forced to resign or were defrocked. [13] Several dioceses made financial settlements with the victims totaling over 1 billion dollars, which had a significant impact on their finances, resulting closure of schools and parishes for many of them to raise the funds to make payments.[10] [edit] Guido's study Rev. Joseph J. Guido, a psychology professor at Providence College, surveyed superiors of a Catholic religious order and found that 83 percent of the North American superiors reported being aware of an accusation of sexual abuse against one or more of their priests. In contrast, 43 percent of superior America and the Caribbean reported being aware of such an accusation. Only one-third of the superiors in Africa, Asia, Europe, and South America. In America magazine, a Jesuit weekly, Guido wrote that research suggests ... that the sexual abuse of children is a problem for the church everywhere." However, he wrote that, outside North America, the religious order superiors were more likely to be aware of sexual misconduct by priests with adults, rather than with minors.[clarification needed] [edit] John Jay Report Main article: John Jay Report Section: #Nature of the problem for details In 2004, The John Jay Report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. The Report determined that, during the period from 1950-2002, a total of 10,667 individuals had made allegations of child sexual abuse. Of these, the dioceses had been able to substantiate 6700 accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA, about 4% of all 109,694 priests who served during the time period covered by the study.[76] The number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s.[14] The surveys filtered provided information from diocesan files on each priest accused of sexual abuse and on each of the priest's victims, to the research team so that they did not have access to the names of the accused priests or the dioceses where they worked. The dioceses were encouraged to issue reports of their own based on the surveys that they had completed. Of the 4392 priests who were accused, police were contacted regarding 1021 individuals and of these, 384 were charged resulting in 252 convictions and 100 prison sentences, 3300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died. Thus, 6% of all priests against whom allegations were made were convicted and about 2% received prison sentences to date.[31][77] According to the John Jay report, one-third of the accusations were made in the years 2002-3. Another third of the allegations were reported between 1993 and 2001.[14] [edit] Legal cases and effects [edit] Immunity requests William McMurry, a Louisville, Kentucky lawyer, filed suit against the Vatican[78] in June 2004 on behalf of three men alleging abuse as far back as 1928, accusing Church leaders of organizing a cover-up of cases of sexual abuse of children. In November, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals in Cincinnati denied the Vatican's claim of sovereign immunity and allowed the case to proceed. The Vatican did not appeal the ruling. However, when Pope Benedict was personally accused in a lawsuit of conspiring to cover up the molestation of three boys in Texas, he sought and obtained diplomatic immunity from prosecution.[79] Some have claimed that this immunity was granted after intervention by then US President George W. Bush.[80] The Department of State "recognize[d] and allow[ed] the immunity of Pope Benedict XVI from this suit."[81] [edit] Compensation payments, bankruptcies and closures Main article: Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic sex abuse cases According to Donald Cozzens, "by the end of the mid 1990s, it was estimated that ...more than half a billion dollars had been paid in jury awards, settlements and legal fees." This figure grew to about one billion dollars by 2002.[82] Roman Catholics spent $615 million on sex abuse cases in 2007.[10][83] The multi-million dollar payouts to victims, 1 billion dollar in total, have had a significant impact on the finances of many dioceses. Many of them have had to close schools and parishes in order to raise the funds to make these payments. [10] At least six U.S. dioceses sought bankruptcy protection. In some cases, the dioceses filed bankruptcy just before civil suits against them were about to go to trial. This had the effect of mandating that pending and future lawsuits be settled in bankruptcy court. [edit] Resignations, retirements and defrockings Many of the accused priests were forced to resign or were defrocked. In addition, several bishops who had participated in the cover up were also forced to resign or retire.[13] Bernard Francis Law, Cardinal and Archbishop of Boston, Massachusetts, United States resigned after Church documents were revealed which suggested he had covered up sexual abuse committed by priests in his archdiocese.[104] December 13, 2002 Pope John Paul II accepted Law's resignation as Archbishop and reassigned him to an administrative position in the Roman Curia naming him archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore and he presided at one of the Pope's funeral masses. Law's successor, Bishop Séan P. O'Malley of Capuchin friar found it necessary to sell substantial real estate properties and close a number of churches in order to pay the $120 million in claims against the archdiocese. Two bishops of Palm Beach, Florida, resigned due to child abuse allegations, resigned bishop Joseph Keith Symons was replaced by Anthony O'Connell, who later also resigned in 2002. [edit] Prevention efforts In 2002, the U.S. church claimed to adopt a "zero tolerance" policy for sexual abuse.[105][106] By 2008, the U.S. church had trained 5.8 million children to recognize and report abuse. It had run criminal checks on 1.53 million volunteers and employees, 162,700 educators, 51,000 clerics and 4,955 candidates for ordination. It had trained 1.8 million clergy, employees and volunteers in creating a safe environment for children.[107] [edit] Response of Pope Benedict During a recent visit to the United States Pope Benedict admitted that he is "deeply ashamed" of the clergy sex abuse scandal that has devastated the American church. Benedict pledged that they would not be priests in the Roman Catholic Church.[108] [edit] Catholic sex abuse cases by orders Main article: Abuse by priests in Roman Catholic orders As distinct from abuse by some parish priests, under diocesan control, there have also been sexual abuse cases concerning those in Roman Catholic orders, which often care for the sick or teach school.[109] [edit] Debate over the causes of the sexual abuse [edit] Seminary training Clergy themselves have suggested their seminary training offered little to prepare them for a lifetime of celibate sexuality. Rome's Congregation for Catholic Education issued an official document, the Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders (2005). The document has attracted criticism based on an interpretation that the document implies that homosexuality leads to pedophilia.[110] [edit] Declining standards explanation In the book, The Courage To Be Catholic: Crisis, Reform, and the Future of the Church, George Weigel holds that it was the infidelity to orthodox Roman Catholic teaching, the "culture of dissent", which was mainly responsible for this problem. By "culture of dissent" he meant priests, women religious, bishops, theologians, catechists, Church bureaucrats, and activists who "believed that what the Church proposed as true was actually false."[111] Ultra-conservative Roman Catholics have made the charge that the Second Vatican Council itself (1962–1965) fostered a climate that encouraged priests to abuse children.[citation needed] The council essentially directed an opening of the doors to meet the world. However traditional Roman Catholics believe that this led to a conversion of Roman Catholics to secularism rather than vice versa.[citation needed] In the January 27, 2003 edition of Time magazine, actor and ultra-consevative Roman Catholic Mel Gibson charged that "...Vatican II corrupted the institution of the church. Look at the main fruits: dwindling numbers and pedophilia." Others respond that abuse by priests was occurring long before the start of Vatican II and that many of the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases did not, strictly speaking, involve pedophilia. Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, retired Archbishop of Washington, blamed the declining morals of the late 20th century as a cause of the high number of sexually abusive priests. [112] Other assert that the increased reporting of abuse in child-care institutions during this time was concomitant with rising police interest, investigation and prosecution of such crimes. As such it is not certain that a sudden "crisis of abuse" ever existed, instead the dramatic increase in reported abuse cases may simply have heralded the end of a long-term endemic problem found throughout a number of institutions, both secular and religious, prior to the introduction of quality control measures specifically aimed at preventing such abuses from occurring.[citation needed] Philip Jenkins claims that the Roman Catholic Church is being unfairly singled out by a secular media which he claims fails to highlight similar sexual accusations in other religious groups, such as the Anglican Communion, Islam and Judaism, and various Protestant churches, communities. Jenkins later authored the book The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice in 2003, touching on some of the same issues.[113] Similar experiences are described in e.g. scouting sex abuse cases and Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse. [edit] Supply and demand explanation It has been argued that the shortage of priests in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand.[114][115] caused the Roman Catholic hierarchy to act in such a way to preserve the number of clergy and ensure that sufficient numbers were available to serve the congregation despite serious allegations that these priests were unfit for duty.[citation needed] Others disagree and assert that the Church hierarchy's mishandling of the sex abuse cases merely reflected their prevailing attitude at the time towards any illegal or immoral activity by clergy. [edit] Celibacy explanation A 2005 article in the Western People, a conservative Irish newspaper proposed that clerical celibacy contributed to the abuse problem by suggesting that the institution of celibacy has created a "morally superior" status that is easily misapplied by abusive priests. According to this paper, "The Irish Church’s prospect of a recovery is zero for as long as bishops continue blindly to toe the Vatican line of Pope Benedict XVI that a male celibate priesthood is morally superior to other sections of society."[116] Sexual scandals among priests, the defenders say, are a breach of the Church's discipline, not a result of it, especially since only a small percentage of priests have been implicated. Furthermore there is no data supporting a higher rate of child-oriented sexual activity among the unmarried Roman Catholic clergy than that of the married clergy of other denominations[117] and of schoolteachers.[118]. However, for those cases for which data is available, molestation of pre-pubescent children was found to be rare[119]. Consequently opinion remains divided on whether there is any definite link or connection between the Roman Catholic institution of celibacy and incidences of child abuse by Catholic clergy. Studies comparing sexual abuse among married Protestant and Jewish clergy and celibate Catholic clergy show similar rates.[120] [edit] Advocacy for mandatory celibacy Philip Jenkins asserts that his "research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination—or indeed, than non-clergy. However determined news media may be to see this affair as a crisis of celibacy, the charge is just unsupported."[121] Both supporters and many detractors of clerical celibacy state that Roman Catholic priests suffering sexual temptations are not likely to turn immediately to children simply because Church discipline does not permit clergy to marry.