BishopAccountability.org
	My Response to Bishop Henry on Sex Abuse Within the Ab Catholic Church By Markham Hislop SECN December 5, 2009 http://www.secalgarynews.com/opinion/hammer-time/my-response-to-bishop-henry-on-sex-abuse-within-the-ab-catholic-church/ CANADA--Dear Bishop Henry. Thank you for your reply to my November 28 column. I appreciate the opportunity to shed some light on this very difficult issue. You could have chosen to ignore my arguments, instead you chose to engage in discussion. Judging by the response from readers to my column, the citizens of Calgary are intensely interested as well, and I know they also appreciate the effort you are making to reach out and provide the Church's perspective on the subject of priests and the sexual abuse of children. Before I address the substance of your remarks, I want to comment on your email's allegation of "prejudicial shoddy journalism" in the preparation of my column. True, I am no expert on the subject of sexual abuse of children within the Church. I read as much as I could, though not the Maclean's article, unfortunately. I'll return to Macleans shortly. My reporting might have been more thorough had your office not refused an interview request after the Bishop Lahey revelations in September. Your secretary informed me you would not be granting interviews about Lahey or any aspect of sexual abuse of children. Nor would she let me speak to you. It seems unfair to deny access to information and then accuse me of shoddy reporting. I would like to apologize if I implied that all, or the majority, of Catholic priests are pedophiles or abusers. I don't believe this to be true. And that is the point of the Macleans story , isn't it? That not all priests are sexual deviants. More accurately, the percentage of priests who are abusers is probably no higher than the general population. The Maclean's story quotes the 2004 John Jay study commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The study concludes that from 1950-2002 allegations of sexual abuse were made against four per cent of American priests. Frankly, I'm surprised you brought Macleans into the debate, because the author writes, "In Canada, we only hear about a case if it lands in court. The public has no idea how many accusations have been covered up with hush money, or how many victims have been scared into silence." This was the point of my column, Bishop Henry. Albertans don't really know how many children have been abused by Catholic priests over the years. Or how many are being abused today, if any. The John Jay study only concerns allegation of abuse. But if we accept that percentage at face value, can we assume that four per cent of the priests who have served in Alberta parishes have had allegations made against them? A rough tally from Alberta Church web sites indicates there are about 300 priests in the province. Does that mean 12 of them are pedophiles or ephebephiles (sexual preference for mid to late-adolescents)? May we further infer that there are dozens of Albertans who have been paid off to keep quiet about their abuse at the hands of a priest? Or, worse yet, that they have been "scared into silence"? And what about abusive priests about whom there have not been allegations? What percentage do they make up of the clergy? So many questions and so few answers. I applaud the Church for making systemic changes that will prevent pedophiles from entering the priesthood. It appears from your letter that Alberta dioceses take the issue of sexual abuse seriously. But to return to the Macleans article once again: "They (priests) were taught that any sexual thought, impulse or feeling was a mortal sin, so they repressed the whole area," says Donald Hands, a Wisconsin psychologist who ran a treatment centre for clergy. "This paralyzed them at an adolescent level of psychosexual development. When they entered midlife, they began to act out delayed sexual urges. Unfortunately, they acted out by assaulting boys of the same age that they had been when they surrendered their sexuality at the seminary gates." And again: "Richard Sipe, a former priest who has written three books about the dark side of chastity, is much more blunt. "The system breeds abusers. I don't know any other way to put it. The Catholic Church, in its management of sexuality, is corrupt. It insists on sexual deprivation without education."" These quotes are not encouraging. The first supports my contention that chastity and the long-term repression of healthy sexual impulses contributes to abuse. The second argues that the Church is incapable of completely reforming itself and eliminating abuse by priests. Perhaps I have made my argument for an Alberta government investigation into the Alberta Catholic Church a little clearer. I hope so. As a citizen of this province, nothing would make me happier than for an independent commission or even a government department to conclude that sexual abuse of children does not occur in the Calgary diocese or in any provincial parish. But I'm skeptical. The numbers argue against it. The Church's history argues against it (remember, my column was prompted by the recent release in Ireland of the Murphy Report, which documented widespread abuse and systematic cover ups by Dublin bishops, stretching back decades). I challenge you, Bishop Henry, to open yourself to an interview on the subject of child sexual abuse by priests within the Calgary diocese. If the Church has nothing to hide, then a frank discussion will serve to reassure both Catholics and non-Catholics. I promise you I will report accurately and dispassionately. The issue of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy isn't going to go away. You might as well confront it head on. SE Calgary News is prepared to give you that opportunity.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.