In Maureen Dowd's recent column, "The Church's Judas Moment," Dowd asked her brother, Kevin, "conservative and devout," for his thoughts on the news of the Roman Catholic Church's attempts to cover up rape and sexual assault charges against priests. Kevin voiced several ideas that should seem bizarre to me. However, I grew up Catholic, went to Catholic grade schools and high school, served as an altar boy, and have spent more time than I now care to admit around these conservative and devout Catholics. The ideas are all too common.
Why, in all the discussion of rape and sexual assault scandals in the Church, are we always talking about that perpetrated by pedophile priests against boys? Why do we hear nothing about cases perpetrated by priests against girls? Either it never happens, or it is still being covered up. Which is it?
Dowd's brother asserts that the Vatican II reforms, which "made me wince", were responsible for "a takeover of seminaries by homosexuals." This echoes the assertion, frequently made (here's an example that "Almost all the priests who abuse children are homosexuals." Roseanne Barr made the point recently that assaults of girls have been overlooked, getting some headlines of the "look-who's-stirring-the-pot" variety.
It's not a silly question, though. Most research on the subject (see Berliner for an example), indicate that girls are more likely to be victims of sexual assault than boys. RandySF's diary entry of today makes clear that there are such cases under investigation, and always have been.
As I said, I grew up Catholic. I stopped practicing Catholicism in my twenties, for philosophical reasons. Of course, one never stops being Catholic, or identifying with the Church, which is why I've always applied to myself the term "recovering Catholic." Every now and then, someone who knows this about me will ask what I think about the scandals. Some, knowing that I was an altar boy for three years, will ask whether I know of any examples. I neither experienced any nor witnessed any. (However, I also don't doubt that it has happened.) If you had asked me which was more likely, though -- assault of boys or assault of girls -- I would have unhesitatingly said abuse of girls. If for no other reason, the contempt with which girls were usually treated by the Church and school hierarchy made their concerns less visible, and them more vulnerable. (Not that I could have articulated this at the time.)
Rape is rape, assault is assault, regardless of the gender or orientation of the perp or the victim. Where is the outrage over victimization of girls in the Roman Catholic Church?
For that matter, where is the outrage among Catholics over the condition of the Church in general? I grew up during a period when the Church was attempting to implement the Vatican II reforms, as originated by Pope John XXIII (whose sobriquet, given the last 30 years of Church history, probably should be "John the Sane") and carried through by Pope Paul VI. We grew up during a period when it appeared that the Church was going to be relevant in the world again.
When Karol Wojtyla took the name John Paul II, it was thought he would carry on in this progressive (for the Church) tradition. That didn't happen, and over the past three decades the Church has sunk deeper into isolation and medievalism. Earlier this year, I attended a funeral, during which the celebration of the Eucharist was conducted, in part, in Latin -- something that was, for my generation, like seeing a President with a beard, or a mechanic riding in an Indy 500 race car. What gives? While young and middle-aged Catholics in the U.S. desert the Church in droves, is this descent into the Dark Ages really going to reverse the trend?
Kevin Dowd should forget about letting priests marry, or the ordination of women, or any of the other pipe dreams. If the Church is going to continue to allow the cover-ups to continue, and is going to backslide into the Dark Ages without a sound from its flock, none of those other reforms are going to happen either.
Updated: per suggestion in Comments, to change my previous use of the term "abuse" to what it is: rape and sexual assault. Also, changed sentence referring to "homosexual priests" to "pedophile prests"; as noted in Comments, "mislabeling pedophiles as homosexuals plays right into the hands of the right wing Catholics (and others) who call all sexual abuse by male pedophiles on male children "homosexuality" when it is not, and use that to make their case against GLBT rights." Thanks to everyone for taking the time to offer your corrections. Words matter.