Catholics Should Sue for Fraud and Harms Perpetrated by Bogus Sexperts
California-based lecturer and author Dr. Judith Reisman, who has served as an expert witness in lawsuits involving sex abuse, explains why Catholic clergy and laity have every right to sue for Medical malpractice, all those involved in the promotional use of sex therapy centers to cure the clerics who were accused of sex abuse.
These “sexperts” held themselves out as authorities; bishops and vocations directors listened and commonly followed their directives. Yet, almost all of these “sexperts” built their therapies on the fraudulent research of Kinsey and his disciples.
Susan Brinkman gives the details in her book, The Kinsey Corruption (Ascension Press). Certain Catholic Church administrators hired sexuality educators who taught Kinseyan values. This employment pattern held as well for some selected psychologists who screened aspiring seminarians, many of whom were rejected because they were said to be too sexually “orthodox,” not “tolerant” of homosexuality. Bishops sent pedophile priests for treatment to therapists who accepted pedophilia as an “orientation.”
It’s time for those who contributed to the sex scandal, also share the culpability and responsibility. Unfortunately, they are not likely to admit in their failures, nor are they a popular target of focus by the media or those with an anti-catholic agenda.
Disclaimer: I nor this blog take responsibility for anyone offended by the fact that we included a post regarding sex abuse in the Catholic Church that does not vilify priests or the Church . This is NOT to say that all credible accusations made against priests or anyone else for that matter should be assumed to be false, nor should every accusation assumed to be true until a prudent investigation has been completed. I acknowledge the fact that there are real victims who were victimized by Catholic priests and this did damage to those abused, the families, and to the Catholic Church. All of the victims should be treated with compassion and respect. I also acknowledge the fact that some Catholic clergy in positions of authority acted irresponsibly in the sex abuse scandal. I support financial settlements for assistance with psychiatric care/interventions for all victims of sex abuse, not retirement funds and lottery equivalents for alleged victims and their attorneys . I also believe those in the psychiatric industry bear part of the responsibility in the damage done in returning priests who sexually abused children back into the ministry and should publicly issue an apology to the victims of sex abuse as well as apologize to the Catholic Church for their malpractice. I also believe that there are those who exploit the Church and innocent priests for their own selfish desires and agendas and do not take into consideration any damage done to innocent men who are wrongfully accused and that they justify their actions as a legitimate means of weakening the Church and it’s global authority on issues of faith and morality.
.jpg)
If any experts put their opinion into writing, or something otherwise definitive, I’m sure the legal counsel of some dioceses would have explored this already. You assume that bishops and diocesan PR folks were actually being straight with us when they used this excuse.
Comment by Todd — August 20, 2007 @ 9:13 am
Todd,
I am disappointed in this comment. Your skepticism with regard to the reliability of apparently, all “bishops and diocesan PR folks” seems to be painting with a pretty broad brush. This is an admonition that you sometime rightly catch me with, I would hope that you are not as jaundiced toward the hierarchy as this comment makes you sound.
It is clear that this was not the case in many cases, but in talking to priests who were involved in consulting with bishops since many dioceses in the mid-80s set up boards of priests to advise bishops on reinstating priests upon doctor’s recommendations, this was clearly a major source of the problem. The biggest problem is that most priests were treated at Catholic facilities like St.Luke’s Institute in MD, which has an especially sordid history (see this article for example), that in many cases we would be suing ourselves.
Comment by David — August 20, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
Jaundiced? No, but pessimistic about institutions, perhaps. Bishops blaming experts strikes me as a lame excuse. Did they use “expert” opinion to justify what they wanted to do: give their brother priests the benefit of the doubt? Thomas Doyle pretty much nailed the abuse problem in the 80’s, but they felt free to dismiss him because they didn’t like his answers.
Talk of suing people strikes me as giving in to the culture of victimhood. The bishops need to own up to their responsibility.
Comment by Todd — August 20, 2007 @ 10:50 pm
this is a very important article..thankyou…& God bless
Comment by Mrs Jackie Parkes — August 21, 2007 @ 3:35 am
Todd,
Some bishops have explained their reasoning in this regard but not many. A general over reliance on “expert opinion” as a major cause is a finding of the National Review Board, a board that was led by those who are no friends to the hierarchy.
There were many other causes as well for which some bishops are to blame. These range from disobedience to Church teaching to a motivation to protect their image and/or the Church’s image. But the Review Board findings and the John Jay study both showed that these happened over a short period of time in a relatively small number of dioceses. Thus, I would say your “pessimism” is unwarranted.
I think that Chesterton’s insights are germane here. Loosely paraphrasing him, he says that pessimism and optimism belong to non-believers. Christians, on the other hand, possess healthy realism because they understand the consequences of the fall, but they also have Christian hope knowing what the grace of God can do and they know that in the end, God wins.
Comment by David — August 21, 2007 @ 8:01 am
David, thanks for the reply. I appreciate your fervor in honing in on small aspects of my posts. You are a worthy debate adversary.
I doubt that bishops were at fault in disobedience. They certainly didn’t see themselves in that light. By the time one rises to the office of bishop, where is the locus of their day-to-day obedience? Certainly not Rome; the pope and curia will offer consequences to a disobedient bishop on the rarest of occasions.
Mismanagement of predators can strike anywhere. Santa Rosa’s bishop had a lapse of just a few days and because of that, a predator fled the country. Cardinal George, a darling of the Right, also blundered badly in the most recent Chicago case.
I think their fault lies more along the lines of weak administrative ability, delegating too much (personal relationships with all the clergy) and sometimes not enough.
I think I would dispute the interpretation that clergy sex abuse happened over a short period of time. The Jay Study shows an increase over the 50’s through the following decades most probably because some victims and perpetrators have died since then. Any short-term snapshot–which is what the Jay Study was–will show a bell curve of reports and accusations. Fewer after the early 70’s because psychological screening was finally in place to strain out those unfit for ministry.
I don’t know of what Chesterton was speaking when he described optimism or pessimism. I probably am more of a realist: I don’t expect bishops to escape the faults of bureaucracy and more than any other human beings. The post-Charter statements of most bishops I’ve read lead me to conclude they don’t see the problem of their loss of credibility. They assume we’re all ticked off about sex predators. There’s that, but most laity I’ve read and heard understand that some bad (if not rotten) eggs are always in the bunch. We want bishops who can step up, admit their errors and take their medicine like men (so to speak) and not ruffle around blaming others. Or having others do the blaming for them.
Given the numbers of dioceses facing suits and the sizes of settlements, I’m sure that if diocesan legal counsel saw any way to include “experts” in legal settlements, it would have been done. The fact that is wasn’t leads me to a realistic conclusion: either the experts covered their butts better than the bishops or that the ir role was dramatically less than Reisman suspects.
Comment by Todd — August 21, 2007 @ 9:49 am
“Bishops sent pedophile priests for treatment to therapists who accepted pedophilia as an “orientation.”
Does Ms. Brinkman mention the fact that at the two main treatment centers, the alleged ‘experts’ were almost exclusively ordained priests and religious? Ask Fr. Groeschel.
Comment by Doug Sirman — August 24, 2007 @ 4:48 am