Priests who abuse their position

Originally posted by twhitehead
And are you going to let us in on the secret ?

The Second Vatican Council is hardly a secret. 🙂

Another thing I've often seen crop up when looking at the detailed cases of the bishops who moved abusing priests around parishes -- many of them were not motivated by malice or fear of bad PR for the Church. Rather, there seemed to be a strange naivete there when it came to looking sin squarely in the eye. A number of the abusers were sent to counselling/psychotherapy by their bishops.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The Second Vatican Council is hardly a secret. 🙂

But I am not Catholic and know nothing about the Second Vatican Council so if you say that there was a significant event but do not say what it is then you are effectively keeping it a secret.
So what happened in the Second Vatican Council that caused so many priests who entered seminary during that period to become child molesters (or possibly for child molesters to become priests)?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So what happened in the Second Vatican Council that caused so many priests who entered seminary during that period to become child molesters (or possibly for child molesters to become priests)?

Btw, I don't think Vatican II was the definitive factor; like most social phenomena, the causes could be quite complex. As you pointed out earlier, WWII itself could've indirectly (via the ensuing social changes) had an impact.

My opinion -- it's not so much Vatican II as the "Spirit of Vatican II". Many people (including many of the implicated priests and bishops) felt that Vatican II represented a decisive break from the Church of the past. One area this "hermenuetic of discontinuity" manifested itself was in the view of sin. On many matters ideas of absolute right and wrong were abandoned; some sins were no longer wrong at all; some sins were viewed more as psychological diseases than matters of choice. Being sorry for one's sins was de-emphasised; guilt was "bad".

(Note that not all of these things necessarily originated with Vatican II; nor am I saying that all of them are necessarily wrong.)

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As you pointed out earlier, WWII itself could've indirectly (via the ensuing social changes) had an impact.

And did those views on sin change back after the 70s?

My guess of WWII was because a large number of people would have come out of the war traumatized by the war etc and with problems getting a job etc and being faced with life outside the army. I would expect a lot of them to turn to religion at that point and guessed that it was possible that a number who felt most threatened by life outside the army would turn to the priesthood and as a result you could get a lot of candidates who are in the priesthood for the wrong reasons. But that was all really just a guess.
The other possibility given the dates you mention is that higher incidences of child molestation took place during the war and that these are the people who were young children during the war. I read somewhere that child molesters usually have a history of molestation themselves. During the war many children were sent to stay with relatives etc and obviously many lost their father figures.
It would be interesting to know whether or not being molested as a child increases you likelihood of being deeply religious or seeking to enter the priesthood.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And did those views on sin change back after the 70s?

My guess of WWII was because a large number of people would have come out of the war traumatized by the war etc and with problems getting a job etc and being faced with life outside the army. I would expect a lot of them to turn to religion at that point and guessed that it was possible that a numbe ...[text shortened]... s a child increases you likelihood of being deeply religious or seeking to enter the priesthood.

Over time, they have changed. Seminarians of the 80s and 90s are much more orthodox then their predecessors.

If you look at the age group, the actual generation that fought in the War (aka the "Golden Generation" ) were too old for normal seminary entry in the 60s and 70s. The generation we're talking about are their kids -- the "Baby Boomers". The GG were certainly religious, but no more than their parents (who fought the First World War). Their experiences of war (and not just the fighting -- those who stayed behind also underwent hardship, rationing, Blitz etc.) meant they placed a high premium on material comforts and safety for their kids.

Personally, I don't believe the Baby Boomers were more likely to be child-molesters than any other generation. While there is something to what you say about lack of father figures etc. I think the problem was more with their formation (in Catholic lingo, theological and spiritual training a person undergoes at seminary) and their superiors.