The Abuse Plague Is Universal
December 5, 2012
George Weigel
A startling sexual abuse scandal recently broke out in Great Britain. The villain was the late Sir Jimmy Savile, a celebrated (if talent-free) BBC disc jockey and children’s TV-show host who, it turns out, serially abused young women for four decades—perhaps as many as a thousand girls, according to investigators from Scotland Yard, one of the fourteen police jurisdictions digging into his crimes. Yet Savile’s demonic behavior, according to Mark Steyn, made a chilling kind of sense, given our cultural moment:
For an ice-cold loner of limited social skills, Savile networked very efficiently. If celebrity is being famous for being famous, he took it to the next reductio: He was celebrated for being celebrated, a friend of policemen and politicians. . . . There’s a particularly cringe-worthy photo from the Highland Games of the Prince of Wales beaming with delight as he spots his pal approaching. His Royal Highness is wearing a kilt, Sir Jimmy a tartan version of his trademark tracksuit. What 12-year-old staggering from the dressing room would want to take on a confidant of palace and police?
Wherever he is now, I doubt the yodeling grotesque cares about his exposure. It seems to me he was a man who lived principally for sex—prodigious amounts of anonymous, aberrant sex—and he concluded very rationally that contemporary celebrity in an infantilized culture was the perfect cover.
As police investigations into this predatory goon intensified, another controversy emerged: What did the BBC know about Sir Jimmy Savile, sexual abuser, and when did it know it? The current Director General of the BBC, testifying before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, had this to say about one of his network’s former stars and his crimes:
So far as I have been able to tell, Mr. Savile prosecuted his disgusting activities in a manner that was very successfully and skillfully concealed. Experts in pedophile behavior have pointed out that this is often the case. . . . People build long-range plans to put them in contact with their targets. These things are institutionally, it seems, very difficult to deal with.
Now imagine what the New York Times (and indeed every other newspaper in America) would have written in 2002, or since, if an American bishop had said that about a serial sex abuser in his presbyterate.
While the Savile case was breaking, reports of large-scale sexual abuse in Boy Scout troops were being released by court order. Those crimes, plus the extensive (if largely ignored) research on sexual abuse in U.S. public schools, plus heart-rending accounts of children sold into sex slavery around the world, make clear that sexual assault on the young is a universal plague, not a disorder peculiar to any profession or institution.
That hard fact does not in any way excuse clerical sexual predation; nor do the facts about this plague absolve bishops who were malfeasant in their responsibilities as shepherds, or who trusted to psychology more than moral theology in making their decisions. But the facts—and the selective way they are dealt with in too much of the mainstream media—do suggest that the story line declaring the Catholic Church a uniquely perverse institution is a lie; those who perpetrate it are either ignorant bigots, or people with agendas other than the protection of young people, or both.
The Church, however, must always hold itself to a stricter standard. That is why the failure to make a full public accounting of the depredations of Father Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, is a grave mistake on the part of both the Legion and the Holy See—as is the failure of both the Legion and the Vatican to ask a very hard question: Is the community Maciel founded, and manipulated to facilitate his crimes, a work of God? No one can or should doubt that individual Legionary vocations to the priesthood are gifts of God; the fruits of those vocations testify to their authenticity. But the Legion itself? Surely a religious community, and the Holy See, should be more self-critical and transparent than the BBC.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
12.5.2012 | 3:14am
Heather says:
"The Abuse Plague Is Universal"
Why?
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
That's our main problem regarding the "universality" of child abuse. Nothing that can't be changed however.
Why?
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
That's our main problem regarding the "universality" of child abuse. Nothing that can't be changed however.
12.5.2012 | 5:20am
bill bannon says:
Oddly and wonderfully the prophet Ezekiel, speaking for God in God's words... talks of Sodom as to the roots of sexual sin and he mentions the sexual sin only generally while detailing specifically the roots: over eating, insufficient care for the needy, pride. Will we listen as to the roots God gives or rather blame the 1960's and Woodstock etc.
Ezekiel 16:49-50
"Now look at the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in prosperity. They did not give any help to the poor and needy. Instead, they became arrogant and committed abominations before me; then, as you have seen, I removed them."
Ezekiel 16:49-50
"Now look at the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in prosperity. They did not give any help to the poor and needy. Instead, they became arrogant and committed abominations before me; then, as you have seen, I removed them."
12.5.2012 | 7:26am
Rachel says:
From the universal to the particular? That last paragraph comes as a surprise. Would that Weigel had developed his thought a bit more. Is he implying that the Legion is a nest of pedophiles? A work of the devil? How can those "authentic fruits of vocations" deal personally with this kind of accusation? Particularly since resolving the problems of the Legion is under the direct stewardship of a delegate from the Holy See? If Weigel thinks that the delegate isn't doing his job, he should say so forthrightly, and with elements of a real critique with some meat to it.
12.5.2012 | 8:10am
Molly_D says:
Bishops who trusted to psychology??? If only!
It would be useful to set as high a bar for psychology as Mr Weigel undoubtedly does for moral theology.
Bishops trusted to BAD psychology. The system that appointed them would have done well to tap into some GOOD psychology to find better candidates.
Maciel was clinically psychotic; overcoming the casual anti-psychology prejudices displayed by Mr Weigel would be useful to preventing psychosis in the Church.
It would be useful to set as high a bar for psychology as Mr Weigel undoubtedly does for moral theology.
Bishops trusted to BAD psychology. The system that appointed them would have done well to tap into some GOOD psychology to find better candidates.
Maciel was clinically psychotic; overcoming the casual anti-psychology prejudices displayed by Mr Weigel would be useful to preventing psychosis in the Church.
12.5.2012 | 10:07am
Gail Finke says:
Molly_D: The bishops did not trust in bad psychology. They trusted in what was considered mainstream, state-of-the-art psychology at the time. Psychology, sadly, is still a young discipline and a LOT of what is considered true and non-controversial at one point is considered outdated and naive just a few years later. Psychologists and psychological associations fight about what conditions are real, what symptoms mean, what is reversible/curable, what is healthy, what is considered a cure... pretty much everything. It is very hard for anyone who relies on psychology for anything vital to know what to do, if the experts don't even know. Right now, pedophilia is considered to be pretty much incurable, and is popularly considered to be something that victims can never get over as long as they live. In the '70s it was considered both curable and pretty minor for both pedophile and victim. I would guess that the truth is somewhere in the middle. There just isn't enough know about the condition or attempts to cure it, although there is a lot more empirical evidence now than there was 40 years ago.
As far as Maciel goes, I don't know enough about him or the case to comment, but if you are correct that he was psychotic then that really has nothing to do with pedophilia.
As far as Maciel goes, I don't know enough about him or the case to comment, but if you are correct that he was psychotic then that really has nothing to do with pedophilia.
12.5.2012 | 11:35am
Yes, people other than Roman Catholic clergy commit sexual abuse with minors. But, apart from the higher than average moral standards one reasonably expects of clergy (a point Weigel himself notes, but still a point worth underscoring), there is the additional matter of whether Roman Catholic clergy commit abuse at rates that are substantially higher than is the case among the general population, or within other sorts of particular professional and cultural milieus - including the entertainment industry.
I remember reading recently somewhere that abuse rates among Catholic clergy are indeed much higher than average (though I don't recall where). Certainly, this would not be at all surprising given the mountains of cases involving Catholic clergy that have emerged all over the globe in recent years.
If Catholic clergy are indeed singularly prolific in this regard - in relative, statistical terms - then this constitutes a valid reason for the press to accord them singularly intensive coverage.
I remember reading recently somewhere that abuse rates among Catholic clergy are indeed much higher than average (though I don't recall where). Certainly, this would not be at all surprising given the mountains of cases involving Catholic clergy that have emerged all over the globe in recent years.
If Catholic clergy are indeed singularly prolific in this regard - in relative, statistical terms - then this constitutes a valid reason for the press to accord them singularly intensive coverage.
12.5.2012 | 11:49am
Richard A says:
Steyn's article, to which Mr. Weigel refers, also discusses in detail the loathing that Anthony Burgess harbored for Sir James, precisely because of that loathsome behavior. If Mr. Burgess knew that about him while he was still alive, why could no action have been taken against him years earlier? Good men doing nothing indeed!
12.5.2012 | 11:50am
Adam Baum says:
"Will we listen as to the roots God gives or rather blame the 1960's and Woodstock etc."
The nascent sexual libertinism of the 1960's wasn't at issue here, but since you have brought it up, yes, I will blame it.
What rational person would defend Woodstock? I was just a tot then, but seeing the home movies of these people, covered in filth, (literally and from the accounts of participants, figuratively as well), chanting, gyrating and convulsing like primative votaries about a pagan funeral pyre, many, if not most separated from reason with chemical agents.
Each succeeding decade has been further descent into depravity, with a commensurate increase in brazenness. It's not like there hasn't always been concupiscience, but the 1960's was the first time degeneracy became commonplace and respectable. Even when they finally had to grow up, the Woodstock generation continued to worship disorder, making divorce routine and adopting charming practices like "key parties". They also embraced the ultimate child abuse, abortion. The Woodstock generation didn't invent hedonistic moral disorder, but it sure did normalize it.
Now, Huxley's dystopic "Brave New World", is upon us. Sex removed from procreation and sexualized children taught to despise the nuclear family, most effectively by a lack of personal experience.
On the other hand, there is no lack of financial charity in the United States, at least. Vast empires in government and the tax-exempt sectors (and yes, they are empires) have been built around helping alleviate poverty, sickness and ignorance-and people give without the slightest concern for results or the presence of duplicate government efforts.
To suggest that the present lack of chastity is a result of a lack of charity defies logic and evidence.
The nascent sexual libertinism of the 1960's wasn't at issue here, but since you have brought it up, yes, I will blame it.
What rational person would defend Woodstock? I was just a tot then, but seeing the home movies of these people, covered in filth, (literally and from the accounts of participants, figuratively as well), chanting, gyrating and convulsing like primative votaries about a pagan funeral pyre, many, if not most separated from reason with chemical agents.
Each succeeding decade has been further descent into depravity, with a commensurate increase in brazenness. It's not like there hasn't always been concupiscience, but the 1960's was the first time degeneracy became commonplace and respectable. Even when they finally had to grow up, the Woodstock generation continued to worship disorder, making divorce routine and adopting charming practices like "key parties". They also embraced the ultimate child abuse, abortion. The Woodstock generation didn't invent hedonistic moral disorder, but it sure did normalize it.
Now, Huxley's dystopic "Brave New World", is upon us. Sex removed from procreation and sexualized children taught to despise the nuclear family, most effectively by a lack of personal experience.
On the other hand, there is no lack of financial charity in the United States, at least. Vast empires in government and the tax-exempt sectors (and yes, they are empires) have been built around helping alleviate poverty, sickness and ignorance-and people give without the slightest concern for results or the presence of duplicate government efforts.
To suggest that the present lack of chastity is a result of a lack of charity defies logic and evidence.
12.5.2012 | 12:03pm
Deacon John M. Bresnahan says:
It isn't just media lack of coverage of abuse cases in institutions outside the Catholic Church. The biggest and greatest scandal of all is how Hollywood lionizes and celebrates and gives awards to abusers--such as Woody Allen or that other guy that fled the country. And rarely is the story repeated in the media of how Planned Parenthood provides cover to statutory rape
12.5.2012 | 1:53pm
Guest says:
What about that guy from SF, I forgot his name, but he's very prominent in the city, what ever happened to that case? He was alleged to have harmed children, some very young.
Anyway, the culture is rotten in many places. This is probably only the the beginning. Although wait for the official push to come to de-stigmatize alot of these things. It's coming, believe it or not.
Anyway, the culture is rotten in many places. This is probably only the the beginning. Although wait for the official push to come to de-stigmatize alot of these things. It's coming, believe it or not.
12.5.2012 | 1:57pm
Mike Jarman says:
Frank Lombard, Heather? Are you perchance referring to the REAL white-on-black rape that occurred in Durham, N.C. some years back that was NOT covered in any way shape or form by the New York Times, the same newspaper that hired Mr. Savile's former boss to run it? The same newspaper that spent hundreds of column inches trying to prop up the FALSE white-on-black rape charge against three former Duke Lacrosse players? The same newspaper that endlessly promotes targeted legislation to suspend the sex abuse statute of limitations against private institutions while endorsing statutes of limitations to protect public schools? That New York times? And why so silent on the Lombard case? Could it be because Lombard was a "gay man in a committed relationship" abusing his adopted African American son (and pimping him out for further abuse on the internet)? Could it be that the New York times is incapable of reporting any news that goes against its preferred cultural narrative? Of holding itself to the same standards it seeks to impose on others?
12.5.2012 | 2:02pm
Terry says:
Church Of the East member:
Bill Donohue, head of The Catholic League, has data that shows the rate of child abuse in the Catholic Church is statistically lower than in other organizations, especially in recent times. In fact, he claims that on the whole, the Catholic Church is the safest of organizations for children.
Peace.
Bill Donohue, head of The Catholic League, has data that shows the rate of child abuse in the Catholic Church is statistically lower than in other organizations, especially in recent times. In fact, he claims that on the whole, the Catholic Church is the safest of organizations for children.
Peace.
12.5.2012 | 2:09pm
Molly_D says:
Gail Finke: I see your point. It's so sad when Church leaders go with the mainstream and not with the prophetic. And not even with wisdom, common sense and reason, essential elements to sorting out the good and the bad in any -ology, even if one is not an "expert". An emotionally healthy illiterate person can know what an emotionally blind expert psychologist did not: that it was ridiculous to consider pedophilia as something minor.
Furthermore, accepting something as "mainstream" is often a convenient veil put up by the docile many to avoid confronting the not-so-many bullies. How sad that there were (are...) bishops who were (are...) nothing more than sheep. (I say this as the sheepist of all.)
Honestly, I still think that Mr Weigel meant to discredit psychology, when he might have more honestly said that there were bishops who hid their slovenliness and cowardice behind the convenient scientistic cover of what could not have possibly been more than hit and miss psychology. With a better turn of phrase, of course.
Furthermore, accepting something as "mainstream" is often a convenient veil put up by the docile many to avoid confronting the not-so-many bullies. How sad that there were (are...) bishops who were (are...) nothing more than sheep. (I say this as the sheepist of all.)
Honestly, I still think that Mr Weigel meant to discredit psychology, when he might have more honestly said that there were bishops who hid their slovenliness and cowardice behind the convenient scientistic cover of what could not have possibly been more than hit and miss psychology. With a better turn of phrase, of course.
12.5.2012 | 2:27pm
Roman Friend says:
Many legionaries of Christ are grappling with the hard question whether the Legion is a work of God or not. So far, it's a work approved by the Church. God has been at work in the Legion since it has remained inside the Church. I've stopped asking the hard question, maybe out of lack of faith, or maybe because it's hard to tell when you look at the wheat and the chaff, and you don't know exactly whether it's mostly a field of grain or of weeds. Anyway, I have been asking myself a softer question much closer to home and it's whether those in command of the Legion are acting as men of God. That would surely make it a work of God.
12.5.2012 | 3:34pm
Mary says:
Actually Catholic clergy commit at rates equal to those of other clergy, and far below those of the general population.
You want a proper target of hysteria? About one in ten children are molested while in public school. Or as the study author put it, a child is 100 times more likely to be molested by a teacher than a priest.
You want a proper target of hysteria? About one in ten children are molested while in public school. Or as the study author put it, a child is 100 times more likely to be molested by a teacher than a priest.
12.5.2012 | 4:00pm
breidenc says:
Church of the East member:
I can tell you from my training ("Finding Words;" - a psychologically grounded approach for interviewing children) and my experience as a police officer in regards to sexual abuse of children, that such abuse is statistically more rampant among fathers, step-fathers, boyfriends, and "babies' daddies" long before we start talking about institutional clergy members.
DO NOT assert something that you do not have the source for, or do not have training and experience in, or you present yourself in one of two lights; one, invincibly ignorant which damages you, or two vincibly ignorant with the intention of setting up straw men to mar those whom you find reprehensible. Both are potential grounds for scandal. You must not be careless with your posts.
I can tell you from my training ("Finding Words;" - a psychologically grounded approach for interviewing children) and my experience as a police officer in regards to sexual abuse of children, that such abuse is statistically more rampant among fathers, step-fathers, boyfriends, and "babies' daddies" long before we start talking about institutional clergy members.
DO NOT assert something that you do not have the source for, or do not have training and experience in, or you present yourself in one of two lights; one, invincibly ignorant which damages you, or two vincibly ignorant with the intention of setting up straw men to mar those whom you find reprehensible. Both are potential grounds for scandal. You must not be careless with your posts.
12.5.2012 | 4:17pm
ThomasL says:
The scandal here, as the scandal in the Church, is not the abuse but the cover up of the abuse. Abuse is one man doing evil. The cover up shows an entire organization cooperating with evil.
The outrage to Catholics and the world at large is that the Church hierarchy seemed more concerned with handling things quietly than handling them effectively. As the name of this journal should well know, by putting "second things" like reputation ahead of "first things" like justice and courage, you end up with neither. There were other reasons too, like mercy, but that mercy took the form of rolling dice with children's lives without even their knowledge or consent, which no man, in or outside of the Church, has the right to do.
"Other people are just as bad," is not a defence. (Try that one out in confession...)
The outrage to Catholics and the world at large is that the Church hierarchy seemed more concerned with handling things quietly than handling them effectively. As the name of this journal should well know, by putting "second things" like reputation ahead of "first things" like justice and courage, you end up with neither. There were other reasons too, like mercy, but that mercy took the form of rolling dice with children's lives without even their knowledge or consent, which no man, in or outside of the Church, has the right to do.
"Other people are just as bad," is not a defence. (Try that one out in confession...)
12.5.2012 | 4:32pm
Don Roberto says:
The "culture" is truly one of death. It's everywhere. In America where we will abort several thousand babies—today—for the perceived convenience of the parents. In Britain where an innocent preacher can be beaten and then prosecuted for bringing on the wrath of the mob. In Africa and the Middle East, where children are routinely used for everything imaginable. In Latin America where thousands are enslaved by narcotraffickers. And let's not forget "Elmo."
Our bishops need to learn from Elijah (who personally saved his people from the priests of Ba'al—permanently). Turning the other cheek is only laudable when there is no responsibility for the cheeks of the innocent that are involved. I can never in good faith "turn the other cheek" on behalf of an innocent child. The bishops should have excommunicated right and left, and for those who claimed to want forgiveness they should have imposed penances that would have made going off to the Crusades sound like a cakewalk.
As for Maciel, God often turns evil deeds to good ends (to the dismay of the Enemy). The greed of the Conquistadores led to the conversion of a Continent and the end of some of the more sinister kingdoms on Earth. And we all know how Adam's fall could in a real sense be considered a work of God—"O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer! Most blessed of all nights, chosen by God to see Christ rising from the dead!" So it may not be "either or," but rather a "both and" scenario.
Our bishops need to learn from Elijah (who personally saved his people from the priests of Ba'al—permanently). Turning the other cheek is only laudable when there is no responsibility for the cheeks of the innocent that are involved. I can never in good faith "turn the other cheek" on behalf of an innocent child. The bishops should have excommunicated right and left, and for those who claimed to want forgiveness they should have imposed penances that would have made going off to the Crusades sound like a cakewalk.
As for Maciel, God often turns evil deeds to good ends (to the dismay of the Enemy). The greed of the Conquistadores led to the conversion of a Continent and the end of some of the more sinister kingdoms on Earth. And we all know how Adam's fall could in a real sense be considered a work of God—"O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer! Most blessed of all nights, chosen by God to see Christ rising from the dead!" So it may not be "either or," but rather a "both and" scenario.
12.5.2012 | 5:54pm
Dilbert says:
I believe that Cardinal DePaolis is doing his job BUT his scope of work is limited to a superficial legalistic updating of the constitutions and norms of the Legion and Regnum Christi plus a search for that elusive charism. In spite of following Catholic theology, the Legionary priests and the dedicated (but not really consecrated ) 3gf ladies are virtually enslaved through deception plus typical mind control techniques including manipulation of their behavior, information, thoughts and emotions and they have had their critical thinking systematically damaged. Typical of any cult group, the women had no human rights, totally inadequate health insurance coverage, no protection against being tossed overnight, penniless and institutionalized. The true original purpose for their existence was not spiritual (the founder was found by the Vatican to be unscrupulous and without genuine religious sentiment) but to obtain power money and sex for the top dog. I can't say for sure that the primary intention remains to obtain power and money for the elite leadership members but Grupo Integer reportedly has a worth of $30 billion. If this is all so, then tweaking the rule book will not suffice.
12.5.2012 | 6:16pm
john says:
".....story line declaring the Catholic Church a uniquely perverse institution is a lie"
I cannot understand how the Catholic Church with its resources, its brilliance - its God-given gifts - has allowed this lie to become so universally accepted and damaging. Damaging to the Church and the to real mission of protecting the innocent.
The rebuttels to this lie instead of being flooded through every communication medium available instead appear to be confined to a small number of sites with relatively specialized and low readership.
I cannot understand how the Catholic Church with its resources, its brilliance - its God-given gifts - has allowed this lie to become so universally accepted and damaging. Damaging to the Church and the to real mission of protecting the innocent.
The rebuttels to this lie instead of being flooded through every communication medium available instead appear to be confined to a small number of sites with relatively specialized and low readership.
12.5.2012 | 8:30pm
Mike Melendez says:
@ThomasL
I read no one who claimed that others were just as bad as a defense. Indeed, Weigel's whole piece is about "an entire organization cooperating with evil" and not just one. He cuts the Church no slack. If we cover for others by pointing fingers at those we don't like, we are part of the coverup. If you find someone who claims the Church is the heart of the problem, you find an enabler for those not part of the Church. As the former policeman noted and it has long been known, the bulk of the abusers (and coverers) are family members of the victims. I have no doubt that has nothing to do with family and everything to do with opportunity.
I read no one who claimed that others were just as bad as a defense. Indeed, Weigel's whole piece is about "an entire organization cooperating with evil" and not just one. He cuts the Church no slack. If we cover for others by pointing fingers at those we don't like, we are part of the coverup. If you find someone who claims the Church is the heart of the problem, you find an enabler for those not part of the Church. As the former policeman noted and it has long been known, the bulk of the abusers (and coverers) are family members of the victims. I have no doubt that has nothing to do with family and everything to do with opportunity.
12.5.2012 | 8:40pm
P Siena says:
Good can indeed, in the providence of God, be drawn from evil, but a work of God that makes for an institute of holiness is presumed to have God as its source and author, instruments included- not scandal and persversion. I'd rather think the good here is not the Lord giving into the twisted intentions of false prophet, but honest dissolution and reshaping the atmosphere of persons and vocations into a myriad of new and honest beginnings. I suppose one could just give up on the matter of divine sourcing- just work with the human beings running things now on top of an unreconciled past. Yet that would just give us a seminary here, a school there, all with names and persons who run them. Some good, some bad. We would never ever have religious order though, no matter how many approvals they obtained. In the end they will know the void as the decades pass, and all the Church will know it. The Lord of Truth will not build on lies no matter how much good one tries to pile on top of it.
12.6.2012 | 1:36am
Heather says:
@Mike Jarman
That was truly an excellent summary of the key points regarding the profound lack of ethics that the NYT displays regarding its editorial line for abuse issues and other related sexuality dysfunctions.
It's all about maintaining THE narrative, isn't it? The lie must be repeated until it becomes truth. In "democratic" societies like ours, it's interesting that private media institutions can have more of a role maintaining lies in the minds of the public than any comparable "Ministry of Truth" agency, although sometimes the competition is tough.
That was truly an excellent summary of the key points regarding the profound lack of ethics that the NYT displays regarding its editorial line for abuse issues and other related sexuality dysfunctions.
It's all about maintaining THE narrative, isn't it? The lie must be repeated until it becomes truth. In "democratic" societies like ours, it's interesting that private media institutions can have more of a role maintaining lies in the minds of the public than any comparable "Ministry of Truth" agency, although sometimes the competition is tough.
12.6.2012 | 7:12am
patricksarsfield says:
Church of the East member writes:
"
I remember reading recently somewhere that abuse rates among Catholic clergy are indeed much higher than average (though I don't recall where). Certainly, this would not be at all surprising given the mountains of cases involving Catholic clergy that have emerged all over the globe in recent years. "
Unsupported. There are "mountains" of cases of ministers (and/or Orthodox monks) and male and female public school teachers across the globe reported to be abusing children but no one ever totals those agglomerations up. Perhaps the difference is that the Catholic Church is universal while other sects break up on national and lower lines and school districts likewise can claim that what happens in another school district is irrelevant to their case.
"
I remember reading recently somewhere that abuse rates among Catholic clergy are indeed much higher than average (though I don't recall where). Certainly, this would not be at all surprising given the mountains of cases involving Catholic clergy that have emerged all over the globe in recent years. "
Unsupported. There are "mountains" of cases of ministers (and/or Orthodox monks) and male and female public school teachers across the globe reported to be abusing children but no one ever totals those agglomerations up. Perhaps the difference is that the Catholic Church is universal while other sects break up on national and lower lines and school districts likewise can claim that what happens in another school district is irrelevant to their case.
12.6.2012 | 11:38am
ThomasL says:
@MikeM
"I have no doubt that has nothing to do with family and everything to do with opportunity."
Sadly, I doubt this is true. In a family, people sometimes look the other way. They think something is off, but they don't want to think that, they don't want to know for sure, they don't want to hear about it, they just want to pretend like nothing happened and everything is OK.
That blind eye is what provides the opportunity, first in families and unfortunately also in the Church.
"I have no doubt that has nothing to do with family and everything to do with opportunity."
Sadly, I doubt this is true. In a family, people sometimes look the other way. They think something is off, but they don't want to think that, they don't want to know for sure, they don't want to hear about it, they just want to pretend like nothing happened and everything is OK.
That blind eye is what provides the opportunity, first in families and unfortunately also in the Church.
12.6.2012 | 3:04pm
Terry,
The precincts of the Catholic Church are relatively safer for children with respect to sex abuse than any other environment?? With all due respect, I find that difficult to believe. And with all due respect, I also consider Bill O'Donoghue to be a biased commentator on the matter.
The precincts of the Catholic Church are relatively safer for children with respect to sex abuse than any other environment?? With all due respect, I find that difficult to believe. And with all due respect, I also consider Bill O'Donoghue to be a biased commentator on the matter.
12.6.2012 | 3:18pm
briendenc,
I reject your reproach. You yourself also failed to cite hard data of a scientific and statistically valid nature on the matter. Your own personal experience with the issue is greater than mine, to be sure, but it is also merely anecdotal.
One thing I do know is that over the course of the twentieth century there priests and other religious on the order of magnitude of thousands who were involved in the abuse of children on the order of magnitude of tens of thousands. And these estimates may well be conservative.
Without a doubt, though, the numbers are of such a magnitude as to make the following decisively true: If anyone is bringing scandal on the church, it is the offending priests together with the institution that covered up their misdeeds for its own benefit, not I.
I reject your reproach. You yourself also failed to cite hard data of a scientific and statistically valid nature on the matter. Your own personal experience with the issue is greater than mine, to be sure, but it is also merely anecdotal.
One thing I do know is that over the course of the twentieth century there priests and other religious on the order of magnitude of thousands who were involved in the abuse of children on the order of magnitude of tens of thousands. And these estimates may well be conservative.
Without a doubt, though, the numbers are of such a magnitude as to make the following decisively true: If anyone is bringing scandal on the church, it is the offending priests together with the institution that covered up their misdeeds for its own benefit, not I.
12.6.2012 | 3:43pm
Adam Baum says:
"I also consider Bill O'Donoghue to be a biased commentator on the matter. "
He may be biased, but you exhibit an indisputable bias here.
And there was a study, I believe (somewhat ironically) produced by a Penn State professor long before the Sandusky scandal, that found the incidence of abuse by priests lower than other clergy. Google it.
He may be biased, but you exhibit an indisputable bias here.
And there was a study, I believe (somewhat ironically) produced by a Penn State professor long before the Sandusky scandal, that found the incidence of abuse by priests lower than other clergy. Google it.
12.6.2012 | 8:54pm
I am open to the objective truth on the matter; it's just very difficult to get to the bottom of it since every party, including the Catholic Church and its partisans, have major axes to grind that make me mistrustful of their assertions. (And there is an abundance of reasons, moreover, to make that attitude of mistrust fully warranted on the part of the Church and its partisans.)
Might I suggest that FIRST THINGS devote an entire issue to the aim of getting past all the biases on all sides, and getting to the objective truth of the matter? Every empirical study touching upon the relative rates of sexual abuse of minors among Catholic clergy and religious could be taken up for close examination, examined for flaws and biases, and evaluated for positive contributions to a proper determination of the facts. If such a thorough, dispassionate examination arrived at the conclusion that rates of sexual abuse in Catholic settings are indeed lower than in the general population, in the public schools, among other religious settings, etc., I would certainly adjust my own views accordingly.
Might I suggest that FIRST THINGS devote an entire issue to the aim of getting past all the biases on all sides, and getting to the objective truth of the matter? Every empirical study touching upon the relative rates of sexual abuse of minors among Catholic clergy and religious could be taken up for close examination, examined for flaws and biases, and evaluated for positive contributions to a proper determination of the facts. If such a thorough, dispassionate examination arrived at the conclusion that rates of sexual abuse in Catholic settings are indeed lower than in the general population, in the public schools, among other religious settings, etc., I would certainly adjust my own views accordingly.
12.6.2012 | 10:28pm
Tom ATK says:
Dear Church of East
Read the first John Jay report.
You will find that of those that finished seminary in the 1970's, 5 to 10% per graduating year ended abusing children (mostly 13 year old or younger).
I don't know of any other profession with such high numbers.
In the last John Jay report abuse was re-defined as only those that abused children 10 years old or younger on repeated occasions to make numbers look better. Just that is a scandal. This shows that the hierarchy is mainly interested in twisting numbers. To date there is no uniform method of reporting or collecting abuse data in the US church, also a scandal.
Read the first John Jay report.
You will find that of those that finished seminary in the 1970's, 5 to 10% per graduating year ended abusing children (mostly 13 year old or younger).
I don't know of any other profession with such high numbers.
In the last John Jay report abuse was re-defined as only those that abused children 10 years old or younger on repeated occasions to make numbers look better. Just that is a scandal. This shows that the hierarchy is mainly interested in twisting numbers. To date there is no uniform method of reporting or collecting abuse data in the US church, also a scandal.
12.8.2012 | 2:49am
Adam Baum says:
"I don't know of any other profession with such high numbers. "
So how many other professions do you have similar reports for? Please tell us.
So how many other professions do you have similar reports for? Please tell us.
12.8.2012 | 2:42pm
To Adam Baum,
I'm sure studies of sexual abuse prevalence rates in other professions, cultural milieus, and the general population are out there.
As I suggested earlier, why doesn't FIRST THINGS devote an entire issue to an intellectually rigorous comparison of data contained in the John Jay report (and other, similar studies about the clerical sex abuse situation in other countries) against studies that examine sexual abuse prevalence rates in other populations?
It would then become clear whether Weigel's implied claim that the Church is no different in this regard from other settings and institutions really is true.
I'm sure studies of sexual abuse prevalence rates in other professions, cultural milieus, and the general population are out there.
As I suggested earlier, why doesn't FIRST THINGS devote an entire issue to an intellectually rigorous comparison of data contained in the John Jay report (and other, similar studies about the clerical sex abuse situation in other countries) against studies that examine sexual abuse prevalence rates in other populations?
It would then become clear whether Weigel's implied claim that the Church is no different in this regard from other settings and institutions really is true.
12.9.2012 | 11:24pm
FW Ken says:
A good summary of relevant statistics:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/07/mean-men.html
Also, for anyone who presumes to pronounce on these matters, Phillip Jenkins' Pedophiles and Priests is required reading. It's dated, having been written between the Dallas scandal of the mid-90s, and the 2002 Boston scandal. It's interesting reading partly because the script plays out almost identically in both cases. In fact, aspects of that script are played out in this comment thread. Only the names and places change.
For those able to avoid ad hominem:
http://www.catholicleague.org/sexual-abuse-in-social-context-clergy-and-other-professionals/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/07/mean-men.html
Also, for anyone who presumes to pronounce on these matters, Phillip Jenkins' Pedophiles and Priests is required reading. It's dated, having been written between the Dallas scandal of the mid-90s, and the 2002 Boston scandal. It's interesting reading partly because the script plays out almost identically in both cases. In fact, aspects of that script are played out in this comment thread. Only the names and places change.
For those able to avoid ad hominem:
http://www.catholicleague.org/sexual-abuse-in-social-context-clergy-and-other-professionals/
12.11.2012 | 9:29pm
Tom ATK says:
The numbers:
1) US priests 1950-2002
Total priests: 109,694 [1]
Priests with documented abuse: 4,392 [1]
Victims: 10,505 [1]
Number of acts: 20,861[1]
Abuse reports, up to 2004: 9723 [2]
Abuse reports, since 2004: 3774 [2]
Overall total abuse reports: 13498 [2]
2) US priests 2004-2009
Total priests: 50,000 (aprox) [2]
Abuse reports: 73 [2]
3) NYC teachers 2009-2010
Total teachers: 75,000 (aprox) [4]
Total abuse cases reported: 151 [5]
4) Incidence of abuse reports, priests VS. teachers:
US priests 1950-2002: (3498/109,694)/52= 23.4/1000 priests/10 years
US priests 2004-2009: (73/50,000)/6= 2.4/1000 priests/10 years
NYC teachers 2009-2010: (151/75,000)/2=10.0/1000 teachers/10 years
5) Comments:
When comparing rates, there are several things to consider. How does one define abuse? Does one look at incidence (rate of new cases over a period of time) or prevalence (rate of total affected cases at a given time)? Does one look case reports? Allegations? Number of victims? Number of abuse events? Etc.. The Catholicleague reference is from February 2004 and sites a NYT article. The Church sponsored John Jay report came out in June 2004, and is much more comprehensive, to the credit of the US Catholic Church. Unfortunately, the follow up 2011 John Jay report is much weaker and confusing (and cost an unbelievable $1million to the Church). Reports of abuse by Catholic priests has dropped in the last decade. That is a good thing. The Church is to be credited for better screening and teaching at seminaries. However, there are other possible reasons that may contribute to this decline: declining overall secular trends and uncertain reporting, as happened with Bishop Finn. This is why it is to the advantage of everyone that reporting be clear, prompt and involve a third party from start (police, child protection, hospital, doctor), if serious allegations are considered. Methods of collecting abuse data should be standardized and transparent. This is not only to protect the child, but also a priest that may be falsely accused. As with any large organization, there will always be crazy people. This is why the Church will always need to be vigilant and have clear procedures when abuse happens or is alleged. This is still not the case, imo. That reported abuse in priests is now 4 times less than in public schools is still not ok. Plus this may be simply due to better reporting with teachers, for example. Like Wiegle says, it is a universal problem, but that does not mean the Church is off the hook.
1) http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf
2) http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf
3) http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/default.htm
4) http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/wnyc-news-blog/2011/mar/31/head-new-york-archdiocese-says-rate-sexual-abuse-among-city-public-school-teachers-higher-preists/
1) US priests 1950-2002
Total priests: 109,694 [1]
Priests with documented abuse: 4,392 [1]
Victims: 10,505 [1]
Number of acts: 20,861[1]
Abuse reports, up to 2004: 9723 [2]
Abuse reports, since 2004: 3774 [2]
Overall total abuse reports: 13498 [2]
2) US priests 2004-2009
Total priests: 50,000 (aprox) [2]
Abuse reports: 73 [2]
3) NYC teachers 2009-2010
Total teachers: 75,000 (aprox) [4]
Total abuse cases reported: 151 [5]
4) Incidence of abuse reports, priests VS. teachers:
US priests 1950-2002: (3498/109,694)/52= 23.4/1000 priests/10 years
US priests 2004-2009: (73/50,000)/6= 2.4/1000 priests/10 years
NYC teachers 2009-2010: (151/75,000)/2=10.0/1000 teachers/10 years
5) Comments:
When comparing rates, there are several things to consider. How does one define abuse? Does one look at incidence (rate of new cases over a period of time) or prevalence (rate of total affected cases at a given time)? Does one look case reports? Allegations? Number of victims? Number of abuse events? Etc.. The Catholicleague reference is from February 2004 and sites a NYT article. The Church sponsored John Jay report came out in June 2004, and is much more comprehensive, to the credit of the US Catholic Church. Unfortunately, the follow up 2011 John Jay report is much weaker and confusing (and cost an unbelievable $1million to the Church). Reports of abuse by Catholic priests has dropped in the last decade. That is a good thing. The Church is to be credited for better screening and teaching at seminaries. However, there are other possible reasons that may contribute to this decline: declining overall secular trends and uncertain reporting, as happened with Bishop Finn. This is why it is to the advantage of everyone that reporting be clear, prompt and involve a third party from start (police, child protection, hospital, doctor), if serious allegations are considered. Methods of collecting abuse data should be standardized and transparent. This is not only to protect the child, but also a priest that may be falsely accused. As with any large organization, there will always be crazy people. This is why the Church will always need to be vigilant and have clear procedures when abuse happens or is alleged. This is still not the case, imo. That reported abuse in priests is now 4 times less than in public schools is still not ok. Plus this may be simply due to better reporting with teachers, for example. Like Wiegle says, it is a universal problem, but that does not mean the Church is off the hook.
1) http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf
2) http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf
3) http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/default.htm
4) http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/wnyc-news-blog/2011/mar/31/head-new-york-archdiocese-says-rate-sexual-abuse-among-city-public-school-teachers-higher-preists/
12.12.2012 | 8:50am
Tom ATK says:
sorry, typo, should read:
"US priests 1950-2002: (13,498/109,694)/52= 23.4/1000 priests/10 years"
Reference for general population decreasing trends:
Finkelhor, D., Turner, H.A., Ormrod, R.K., & Hamby, S.L. Trends in childhood violence and abuse exposure: Evidence from two national surveys. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 164(3): 238-242.
"US priests 1950-2002: (13,498/109,694)/52= 23.4/1000 priests/10 years"
Reference for general population decreasing trends:
Finkelhor, D., Turner, H.A., Ormrod, R.K., & Hamby, S.L. Trends in childhood violence and abuse exposure: Evidence from two national surveys. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 164(3): 238-242.
12.12.2012 | 10:10am
Geoff says:
A thought for us to consider: why is there so much highly-charged emotion surrounding abuse by catholic priests? My hypothesis: What fuels much of the feeding frenzy in the secular media is the explicit vow to celibacy that priests in the Roman rite make. That commitment has always been an example of contra mundi, an unspoken slap in the face of our sex-saturated society, which may be able to countenance someone giving up marriage, but simply can't imagine anyone (especially any male) giving up sex itself. There's just the faintest smugness in the tone of so many commentators, saying, "See? We told you no one can live without sex! And if you deny yourself long enough it will come out in unhealthy ways."
I think for some, this issue provides a morsel of philosophical justification for their own behavior. By their outrage, their "I am shocked. Shocked!" response, they are able to make peace to some degree with that irritating element of our humanity called conscience that simply won't completely die out as Mark Twain wanted.
As has been stated already in many of these posts, this does not excuse anything; priests are indeed called to a higher standard. But in truth, so are we all. An ounce of humility should lead those who point the finger to consider their own views on the place of sex within our culture. Sadly, I think such self-examination unlikely, especially from the more strident voices in the media. Nevertheless, let me recommend we consider well both of the old adages: "There but for the grace of God go I" and "Physician, heal thyself."
By the way, First Things has already addressed some of the aspects of this issue in Mary Eberstadt's excellent article from December 2009 on "How Pedophilia Lost Its Chic." If you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend it.
I think for some, this issue provides a morsel of philosophical justification for their own behavior. By their outrage, their "I am shocked. Shocked!" response, they are able to make peace to some degree with that irritating element of our humanity called conscience that simply won't completely die out as Mark Twain wanted.
As has been stated already in many of these posts, this does not excuse anything; priests are indeed called to a higher standard. But in truth, so are we all. An ounce of humility should lead those who point the finger to consider their own views on the place of sex within our culture. Sadly, I think such self-examination unlikely, especially from the more strident voices in the media. Nevertheless, let me recommend we consider well both of the old adages: "There but for the grace of God go I" and "Physician, heal thyself."
By the way, First Things has already addressed some of the aspects of this issue in Mary Eberstadt's excellent article from December 2009 on "How Pedophilia Lost Its Chic." If you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend it.
12.12.2012 | 2:03pm
Tom ATK says:
"priests are indeed called to a higher standard. But in truth, so are we all"
We are talking about criminal abuse of children, not a "higher standard". We are talking of creepy leaders that hid perverted criminals, to better protect money making criminal perverts like Maciels. That is not a "higher standard". Don't put "all of us" in that bag. You are using a favorite LC argument. "Oh well, Fr Maciel was a sinner, but we all are sinners, and look at all the "good fruits" of the LCRC” BS. The hierarchy put a family man to prison that had the courage to try to expose the truth, including the Maciel con, but not a single Bishop was ever censored for being complicit in the criminal treatment of children. The Papal delegate has not even met the victims of Maciel. How on earth can the Church hierarchy speak with any credibility about things like abortion, when they condoned with their silence, the abortion of souls of young people abused by priests? There is only one word for this: nausea. Thank God for the rank and file majority of honest priests, that have to put up with all this. Happy Feast Day, lots of prayers.
We are talking about criminal abuse of children, not a "higher standard". We are talking of creepy leaders that hid perverted criminals, to better protect money making criminal perverts like Maciels. That is not a "higher standard". Don't put "all of us" in that bag. You are using a favorite LC argument. "Oh well, Fr Maciel was a sinner, but we all are sinners, and look at all the "good fruits" of the LCRC” BS. The hierarchy put a family man to prison that had the courage to try to expose the truth, including the Maciel con, but not a single Bishop was ever censored for being complicit in the criminal treatment of children. The Papal delegate has not even met the victims of Maciel. How on earth can the Church hierarchy speak with any credibility about things like abortion, when they condoned with their silence, the abortion of souls of young people abused by priests? There is only one word for this: nausea. Thank God for the rank and file majority of honest priests, that have to put up with all this. Happy Feast Day, lots of prayers.
12.13.2012 | 8:46am
To Geoff,
I concur with what Tom ATK said, and would add that there is no theological reason why the Roman Church could not drop the celibacy requirement for its secular priests. Why not reserve celibacy for monastics, as the Eastern Churches have done throughout their entire history?
I concur with what Tom ATK said, and would add that there is no theological reason why the Roman Church could not drop the celibacy requirement for its secular priests. Why not reserve celibacy for monastics, as the Eastern Churches have done throughout their entire history?
12.29.2012 | 9:24pm
Nanette says:
George Weigel,
In an article you wrote named "Church must always hold itself to
stricter standard" in the Catholic times and repeated here under a new title, I am offended by your surprise attack in the last
paragraph at the Vatican and Legion. Have you ever asked Cardinal Velasio De Paolis
your questions or do you just want to air hatred and spread
it? If you are not in the Legion or Regnum Christi, why are you pushing
for anything? Does being a theologian /intellectual give you a pastoral
heart to decide what is best for these gifts of vocations that have
abundant fruits which shine with authenticity? The Legion is made of
God's abundant gifts. How can you separate the two? Are you confusing
your role on an Ethics board as being able to say, "I know better than
Rome?" Is it true you feel Pope Benedict doesn't know what he's doing?
I have no sons in the Legion or daughters involved in Regnum
Christi. I am a member of RC. In my parish, I have observed several
movements grow including mine. All have been criticized in many ways
hurting those involved on a local level. I choose the movement that is
helping me grow closer to Christ. It is hard work changing my bad
habits, just ask my Legionary Spiritual Director. I have chosen to
support all movements that help others in the Church in their spiritual
journey to God . I don't join in throwing stones at them. Want to join
me?
In an article you wrote named "Church must always hold itself to
stricter standard" in the Catholic times and repeated here under a new title, I am offended by your surprise attack in the last
paragraph at the Vatican and Legion. Have you ever asked Cardinal Velasio De Paolis
your questions or do you just want to air hatred and spread
it? If you are not in the Legion or Regnum Christi, why are you pushing
for anything? Does being a theologian /intellectual give you a pastoral
heart to decide what is best for these gifts of vocations that have
abundant fruits which shine with authenticity? The Legion is made of
God's abundant gifts. How can you separate the two? Are you confusing
your role on an Ethics board as being able to say, "I know better than
Rome?" Is it true you feel Pope Benedict doesn't know what he's doing?
I have no sons in the Legion or daughters involved in Regnum
Christi. I am a member of RC. In my parish, I have observed several
movements grow including mine. All have been criticized in many ways
hurting those involved on a local level. I choose the movement that is
helping me grow closer to Christ. It is hard work changing my bad
habits, just ask my Legionary Spiritual Director. I have chosen to
support all movements that help others in the Church in their spiritual
journey to God . I don't join in throwing stones at them. Want to join
me?
1.2.2013 | 3:59pm
Tom ATK says:
Dear Nanette
“All have been criticized in many ways..”
What other movement is put in the same category as the Legion? Can you be more specific? What other movement had an unrepentent criminal as a founder?
What do you mean by “abundant fruits which shine with authenticity"? Do you mean plagiarism, financial fraud, abuse of minors etc? This is not just your Catholic church, it is also ours, and many of us are deeply troubled by the on going scandal of the Legion, and how things are just being buried. Almost 4 years since the scandal broke nothing has been done to address those abused by MM. What are you doing to clarify things, get to the truth?
Did you know that MM writings are still considered legitimate sources for teaching in LC? How can the writing of an unrepentant criminal be used for teaching in any Catholic institution?
Are you allowed to ask these questions and get real answers in “spiritual direction’? If yes, please help get to the bottom of this mess.
“All have been criticized in many ways..”
What other movement is put in the same category as the Legion? Can you be more specific? What other movement had an unrepentent criminal as a founder?
What do you mean by “abundant fruits which shine with authenticity"? Do you mean plagiarism, financial fraud, abuse of minors etc? This is not just your Catholic church, it is also ours, and many of us are deeply troubled by the on going scandal of the Legion, and how things are just being buried. Almost 4 years since the scandal broke nothing has been done to address those abused by MM. What are you doing to clarify things, get to the truth?
Did you know that MM writings are still considered legitimate sources for teaching in LC? How can the writing of an unrepentant criminal be used for teaching in any Catholic institution?
Are you allowed to ask these questions and get real answers in “spiritual direction’? If yes, please help get to the bottom of this mess.
quote:"So far as I have been able to tell, Mr. Savile prosecuted his disgusting activities in a manner that was very successfully and skillfully concealed. Experts in pedophile behavior have pointed out that this is often the case. . . . People build long-range plans to put them in contact with their targets. These things are institutionally, it seems, very difficult to deal with."
Now imagine what the New York Times (and indeed every other newspaper in America) would have written in 2002, or since, if an American bishop had said that about a serial sex abuser in his presbyterate.
===========
Indeed. Or about the Sandusky Penn State scandal. Or about the Frank Lombard case (oops - the media doesn't even cover that case, so intent are they in colluding in silence and limiting public exposure to the case). There are so many cases we could cite.
What is clear in every of these cases is that people around such abusive individuals either outright collude with them (and lie about it later, covering their behinds - especially from legal liability) or they refuse to ask questions and launch investigative actions once anyone notices any red flags.
Why is this? Because we live in a culture where highly noxious attitudes such as "sexuality is none of anyone's business" is quite dominant and being "sexually liberated - libertine - devoid of ethics and wholesomeness" is considered by many as legitimate and it even has status.
"So far as I have been able to tell, Mr. Savile prosecuted his disgusting activities in a manner that was very successfully and skillfully concealed."
Sorry but no. Anyone who would have engaged with Savile would have discovered he had a host of perverse and perverted attitudes and beliefs about sexuality. Exactly how far it went, one may not have been able to know readily. But don't people in Savile's environment, including the BBC, welcome and empower people with perverse and harmful attitudes and behaviors about sex and sexuality all around? And then they are surprised to find it extends to doing harm to children?
Oh, what a surprise. Really?