Why the RC Organization failed the children, and the RC Faithful

There is evidence of a substantial and widespread level of sexual abuse of boys under the responsibility of those in te Roman Catholic church, that extended over a range of time.
Cases of sexual abuse were managed with to minimise the risk of public disclosure and consequent damage to the RC institution and its congregation.
When a priest was reported or found to be abusing, it was dealt with internally and was not reported to authorities, nor the famalies of those abused. The desire to protect the reputation of the institution in the eyes of the congregation and was paramount.
There was a reluctance to confront or to put the responsibility on priests who offended.
This policy resulted in the protection of the perpetrator.
The immediate danger and long term damage to the children and families affected and to others were disregarded.
It is asserted that knowledge of sexual abuse was not available in society at the time, and that it was seen as a minor personal failing on the part of the priest. This assertion, however, ignores the fact that sexual abuse of children was and is a criminal offence.
The recidivist nature of this sexual abuse was known to many religious authorities. Contrary to the Congregations' claims that the recidivist nature of sexual offending was not understood, it is clear that they were aware of the propensity for abusers to re-abuse.
Documents and victim statements reveal that sexual abusers were often long-term offenders who repeatedly abused children wherever they were working.
The risk was seen in terms of the potential for scandal and bad publicity should the abuse be disclosed. The danger to children was not taken into account.
When confronted with evidence or allegations of sexual abuse, the response of the RC religious authorities was to transfer the offender to another location with no notice to the families, congregations or local church authorities where, in many instances, they were free to abuse again. The safety of children in general was not a consideration.
Permitting an offender to obtain dispensation from vows often enabled offending priests access to children through other roles. The safety of children in general was not a consideration.
Priests who were discovered to be sexual abusers were allowed to take dispensation rather than dismissal from the Order. . The safety of children in general was not a consideration.
Sexual abuse was known to senor religious authorities to be a persistent problem in male religious organisations through a prolonged period. But, each instance of sexual abuse was treated in isolation and in secrecy by the authorities and there was little visable attempt to address the underlying systemic nature of the problem.
There were few, if any protocols or guidelines put in place to protected children from predatory priest behaviour.
RC authorities did not listen to or believe children when they complained of the activities of some of the men who had responsibility for their care. At best, the abusers were moved, but nothing was done about the harm done to the child. At worst, the child was blamed and seen as jointly responsible for the sexual activity. Benefit of the doubt was provided to the priest, time and time again.
Authoritarian RC systems prevented disclosures by other priests and bishops and served to perpetuate abuse.
Even when extensive evidence emerged, the RC authorities did not listen to or believe people who complained of sexual abuse that occurred in the past. Victims were blamed for the results of large settlements on local parishes.
There were few attmpts to reach out to vistims nor families, nor to offer thropy nor healing. Victims were victimized again by this treatment.
Some congregations remained defensive and disbelieving of much of the evidence heard by courts on sexual abuse in institutions, even in cases where men had been convicted and admitted to such behaviour at the hearings. In fact, neither the bishops, the Vatican, nor local congregations were to accept their responsibility for the sexual abuse that their priests and RC structure perpetrated.
Congregational loyalty to the RC church and structure enjoyed priority over other considerations including safety and protection of children.
Sexual abuse by members of religious Orders was seldom brought to the attention of civil authorities by religious authorities because of a culture of silence about the issue. When religious staff abused, the matter tended to be dealt with using internal disciplinary procedures and Canon Law.
When cases were reported to civil authorities these reports were delayed resulting in no charges, because of the statute of limitations.
Rc authorities dealt inadequately with complaints about sexual abuse. These complaints were generally dismissed or ignored. A full investigation of the extent of the abuse should have been carried out in all cases.
Rather than a formal recognition of the abuse that occurred and the suffering of the victims attempts were made to trivilize the crimes, by stating it the RC sexual abuse is no worse than in society, in other organizations, or the victims were not children.
It took many years for the RC church to make a sincere and long overdue apology to the victims of childhood abuse for our collective RC organizations failure to intervene, to detect their pain, to come to their rescue.
The RC church has not been open on what senior RC personnel were involved in the failure to intervene early and protect children.
There is no evidence of any steps to independantly analysis and understand how these failures came about so that steps can be taken to reduce the risk of repeating them.
The RC church needs to examine how their ideals became debased by systemic abuse. They must ask how they came to tolerate breaches of their own christian rules and mores, and when sexual and physical abuse was discovered, how they responded to it, and to those who perpetrated it. They must examine their attitude to neglect and emotional abuse and, more generally, how the interests of the institutions and the Congregations came to be placed ahead those of the children who were in their care.
Public trust will not be restored until the RC church publically acknowledges that the organization failed the children, not just that children were abused because of individual priest actions.