Tweet
With the release of the “perversion files” compiled by the Boy Scouts of America, one of the talking points of the Catholic hierarchy and their defenders has gained more support. “See, child sexual abuse isn’t just a Catholic problem.” As Archbishop Timothy Dolan correctly noted last year, abusers are found in the ranks of not only priests but also teachers, coaches, family members, and yes, boy scout troop leaders. But the release of the Boy Scout files also undercuts those same talking points, too. As Archbishop Dolan incorrectly noted, the attention — and the lawsuits — aren’t restricted to the Catholic church.
Both organizations were clearly worried about institutional reputation, and the records in both the church and the scouts show how they worked to cover up, hide, and otherwise keep things out of the media and the courtroom. Both groups need to be, and increasingly are being, held accountable for this failure. But one difference between the two groups leaped out at me.
The executives who run the Boy Scouts created a centralized system, so that a leader who left one troop under a cloud or in disgrace could not go somewhere else and repeat his actions there. They may have tried to handle things outside the legal system and outside of the view of the media, but the system was designed to get the problem person out of the leadership of the Boy Scouts. The Roman Catholic church, on the other hand, deliberately kept information decentralized, so as to be able to move priests who created problems in one parish out of that place and into another. It allowed them to move priests out of their diocese and into another — saying in essence “now he’s someone else’s problem.”
Daniel Fisher, writing in Forbes, points to the positive role that these civil suits have had:
Nobody likes seeing an institution like the Boy Scouts dragged into litigation. Especially over something as disturbing as child sexual abuse. But the very public data dump of “perversion files” that an Oregon judge authorized yesterday does represent one positive attribute of the U.S. legal system: It forces large institutions to rethink how they deal with problems that can affect thousands of individual victims.
“The value of these lawsuits is really not directed to any particular jury verdict or outcome,” said Timothy Lytton, a professor at Albany Law School who has written extensively about how litigation forced the Catholic Church to assume responsibility for its errant priests. “These lawsuits tend to frame the issue as an institutional problem, and not a personal problem involving a couple of bad apples.”
These lawsuits also, however, point to another institutional problem: the lack of criminal charges. If lawsuits force institutions to think about their financial health, criminal cases force individuals to think about their personal responsibility.
See Finn, Robert, Bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph.
(Since Bishop Finn’s conviction on charges of failing to report abuse, the news section of the diocesan website has been strangely silent on the matter. Granted, they only post a few news items each month, but you’d think that the criminal conviction of the chief shepherd of the diocese for failing to report suspicions of child abuse would be considered newsworthy. You’d think that, but you’d be wrong. But I digress . . .)
Right now, media outlets all over the nation are combing through the Boy Scout files looking for the local angles. The story that takes the prize thus far comes from Sparta NJ:
The only Sussex County individual on the list [of Boy Scout "ineligible volunteers"] is the Rev. William N. Cramer, who, according to the entry, was “Catholic priest who admits to fondling two boys in the bedroom of their home (ages 11 and 14).”
At the time, Cramer was an associate pastor with Our Lady of the Lake Church in Sparta, where he was first assigned in 1977.
The entry notes there is a Boy Scout case file and refers to Troop 343, but it does not say where the troop is or its sponsors.
And thus the two stories meet: a Catholic priest/Boy Scout volunteer who abused children. According to the story, Cramer was moved to two other parishes after his admission, then was placed on leave for several years, and from 1991 to 2002 served as a hospital chaplain until he was finally removed from that position under the new child abuse policies adopted by the USCCB.
Like the Catholic church, the Boy Scouts may have failed spectacularly in terms of reporting to law enforcement people they believed to have either committed crimes or were dangerously close to doing so. Unlike the Catholic church, they didn’t pass their “ineligible volunteers” off to other troops.
See Cramer, William.
_____
photo h/t to dmott9. Too bad the scouting executives put loyalty to the institution’s good name and the abusive leaders ahead of loyalty to the young scouts those leaders abused. Maybe they’ll be braver in the future and do the right thing.
17 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
It’s too bad that an organization like the Scouts had this problem but they should have reported the incidents. They may have removed the abusers but that left them free to abuse other children. My son started in Scouts and really disliked it so I allowed him to quit.
All the pedophile enablers should be in jail /harrumph harrumph
Indeed.
The lack of criminal charges is something I hope will be remedied by this document dump. I fear, however, that the statute of limitations has passed for holding any of the executives accountable.
Agree./ harrumph.
To:
“The Roman Catholic church, on the other hand, deliberately kept information decentralized, so as to be able to move priests who created problems in one parish out of that place and into another.”
Could be added:
“Where they would do it again.”
Agree x 2. Grrrrrrrrrrr!
Thanks so much for delving into this in more depth, Peterr. I also noticed the term ‘obedient’ and it saddened and angered me that its misuse might have been part of this criminal, reprehensible conduct.
What makes a pedophile?
Are they born that way, is it learned?
It appears to be a chronic permanent state for these men, one they can’t outgrow or get past. And the worst of the worst structure their whole lives around it – look at the efforts Jerry Sandusky went to so he could maintain a constant supply of boys to exploit.
Your two questions are at the center of a lot of professional debate in academic and counseling circles.
Regardless of the answer, it is clear that some have learned how to avoid detection and when caught, avoid any consequences better than others.
We had a youth pastor at our church, he came in as an assistant, got the teens involved in putting on alternate services, took the teachings of Christ outside the structure of the formal church. He really enlivened the kids, establishing a real community – for as long as it lasted.
Turns out he was one of those bad apples. Back then, the church just passed him on again to the next unsuspecting congregation. He did do good things and I think his efforts were sincere. I never understood how he could violate the trust, though, completely ruined all his good works.
Pedophiles delude themselves into thinking they are doing nothing harmful to their victims. Remember Sandusky’s interview with Costas when he said he loved kids and would never harm one.
This story is just another example of equality before the law being a joke in this country.
For the pedophile, the ‘love’ expressed to younger people or children isn’t a contravention of their good works. It doesn’t stand in apposition to their social contributions; it is, for them, an extension of their goodness. Their world view allows them to see what is clearly abuse, and abuse of power, as good. They are sharing their love.
That’s why you have people like Mrs Sandusky writing incredible letters to the judge in her husband’s case: he didn’t do it, and if he did he meant well. An unbelievable argument, but one necessary to maintaining her sanity.
From what I heard on NPR this past week, this statement isn’t entirely correct. The Boy Scouts failed to report abusers, and the result is that volunteers did pop up at other troops.
Between this spectacular failure and the fact that the Scouts exclude boys because of religion and/or sexual orientation, I can no longer support the organization.
The NPR story said that there was at least one case where a person on the list got connected with another troop and engaged in more abuse. That’s a far cry from the Boy Scouts transferring a known abuser to a new troop, as more than one bishop is known to have done with priests and parishes.
And for the same reasons you cite, I’m no longer a supporter of the Scouts either.
I regret not being able to support the Scouts anymore.
Others may not have connected with other troops to do what they were doing, but they were allowed by the Scouts to walk away free and so turn more boys into victims.
The Scouts only cared about their own organization and failed to protect children. Caring about the image of their own organizations and not about the well-being of children was the problem of both the Catholic Church and the Scouts.