I thought I would write about the takeaways that apply to any group that is facing a sex scandal or a potential one.
- Do not be mislead by localizations (specific details that make the scandal appear unique).
- Do not believe any expert that offers you a cure.
- Don’t think statistics matter (I’ll explain this in depth).
- Do not let institutional factors (the institution’s desire to protect its reputation or the value of the perpetrator to the institution) create short term mistakes.
Localizations are never relevant.
Some on the Catholic Church believed the problem was a result of specifics that were unique to the American Church.
It is no surprise that this caused them to make mistakes in responding to the problems.
Something similar happened to the Boy Scouts. Much of the litigation goes “ The Perp was obviously gay, therefore the Perp was obviously dangerous…”
Focusing on excluding gays did nothing to avoid abuse and completely sidetracked the institutional response.
Don’t believe experts
The Catholic Church believed experts that told them that the abusing Priests could be cured and rehabilitated. Often an institution will be tempted to believe that forgiveness and repentance will solve the problem, at least in an individual instance.
The truth is that no offender who is unwilling to fully disclose to the civil authorities and thereafter observe a strict quarantine that avoids past and potential victims is an offender who will do anything other than manipulate the system to offend again.
Statistics are irrelevant
The Catholic Church realized that there is a statistical number of perpetrators per thousand and that the number of priests offending was less.
No one cared. For contrast, in the normal world probably half of all marriages have infidelity (especially if you include what happens during a divorce).
If only 25% of the quorum of the 12 were committing adultery, no one would care that they were doing 50% better than the statistical average. We expect much more.
Especially when there are ways to reduce offenses.
Institutional factors can destroy an institution.
Attempting to cover things up to protect the reputation of an institution only hurts the institution’s reputation in the long run.
A good example is a matter where an ecclesiastical leader (not Catholic) threatened canon law sanctions if someone cooperated with the police.
Mandatory reporter. Obstruction of Justice. Accessory after the Fact. On the institutional letterhead and using his/her name.
The other factor is what happens when the perpetrator is protected in response to their value to the institution. Long service. Etc.
Kind of like what used to happen in federal court. Threaten one grandmother with a knife for money—get twenty years.
Belong to the country club and defraud a hundred grandmothers—get twenty months probation—because the perpetrator was “one of us.”
What that does is establish that the institution is “one with perpetrators.” Nothing harms an institution more.
For contrast think of what would happen if a bishop were killing and eating homeless people.
Those takeaways are important every time there is a scandal.
Wheat & Tares 
We recently had a Royal Commision into child sexual abuse in institutions https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-report
We have also had the highest ranked Catholic Archbishop George Pell, convicted of historic child sexual abuse. He is in prison but appealing.
There is a loss of respect for religion in the general community. Particularly religion has lost moral authority to tell others what to think about issues like abortion, gay marriage, equality for women etc. A number of right wing commentators (shock jocks) and right wing politicians came out in support of pell.
Having observed the unquestioning support for Pres Nelsons BYU devotional, I think these people would find an excuse if a couple of Apostles were convicted of abuse, as some catholics did.
Stephen, I’m wondering whose “guideline” you quoted and when it was written.
The guideline is from a lawyer but not official.
>
#4 (Protecting the institution rather than the victim) has been the most disappointing part of the MTC abuse scandal. Here we are 30 years after the fact, with a taped confession, and the Church STILL defends the perp rather than the victim. One factor, I think, it that they outsourced the response to a law firm and a PR firm, both of which which naturally react in “corporate defense mode” rather than a more Christlike concern for the victim. The Church has put out three official responses, and all of them have been awful. They really bungled the response on this one.
Interesting read and clearly it is timely considering it is a topic the church needs to come to grips with. I have a couple of points where I either disagree with you or don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
1. You say “localizations are never relevant.” Maybe, but I see where the church has practices and policies that are local to our community that are very relevant. How Bishops interview without it being mandatory for another adult present and change the nature of the questions for the youth seems quite relevant to me.
2.You say “Don’t believe experts.” I think this is poor advice. I am not convinced that experts told the Catholic Church their priests could be cured. Maybe a minority did but generally speaking, experts offer good advice and in the case of the brethren in Salt Lake, I think they would be much better served listening to outside experts not in the Church rather than act like they are listening to God in regards to this issue.
I agree that institutional factors can destroy an institution.
As to trusting “experts”: it is good policy to be LEERY of experts; it is also foolish to dismiss all people with expertise, out of hand. The problem is, how does one conclude who is a “true” expert? I’ve had encounters over the years with good and bad auto mechanics; the one I finally found and stayed with, was worth his weight in gold, and he had the humility to tell me once that he had no idea what was causing my car to sporadically seize up, and he suggested I go to an auto dealership, even though that was much more expensive, and the dealership couldn’t solve the problem, anyway. A true expert will ALWAYS be up front about his or her own limitations.
So-called experts in child abuse are much more problematic, because the issue is so much broader and sometimes more subjective. As former SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart famously said about pornography: I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it. I think the same applies to child abuse. Much child abuse is open and shut: I once home taught a family in which the father got mad at his 12-year-old son, and broke his bones. No doubts about that one! But some cases of abuse are not always so clear-cut.
As to institutional factors: it is an unfortunate fact of life that any institution set up to accomplish good, will gradually conflate its original goals with the goal of protecting said institution. Not necessarily exclusively so, but the two things get intertwined. Religious organizations sadly not exempt. That was why the Pharisees and the Sadducees got so mad at Jesus: they could not understand Christs’s criticisms of them, because in their own minds, they were the good guys trying to good; they could not see their shortcomings.
Localizations are not an excuse might be a better statement.
“Be leery of experts who promise you what you want” might be better.
Taiwan Missionary—excellent comment.
Stephen R. Marsh:
Point well taken. I’ve learned in my life to be skeptical of people (experts) who make authoritative comments. I much prefer to deal with people (experts) who quietly know what they know, and say up front what they don’t know.
On a Church level, although the analogy is somewhat dated, I like to describe myself as a Talmadge and Widtsoe Mormon, as opposed to being a McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith Mormon. Talmadge and Widtsoe were scientists who followed the data and then drew conclusions.