Catholic sex abuse -- how did it happen?

[WRJames]

I was just listening to the news story about the huge settlement in Los Angeles, and it reminded me how dumbfounded I am by the whole situation (okay, I'm not Catholic, maybe that's one reason). How is it possible that so much sex abuse could have gone on for so long, with so little public knowledge? I feel like what we're hearing can't possibly be the full story, because it just does not make sense (at least to me). Aparently there were over five hundred victims, just in LA. Why didn't some of them speak out, or, if they did, why weren't they heard? Any insights?

 

[Pure]

many victims, at times past, made reports to parents, to the bishop, or to the police. if there was any reaction, i.e the incidents were highly embarrassing, the priest would be removed to another parish, and in some cases asked to have (catholic) couselling.

in a recent tv documentary, i heard of a priest who did finally go to jail, a couple years back (where he died), but that was after 40 years of abuse. priests hardly ever have been charged, and even more rarely brought to trial.

IOW, abuse had no consequences.

Here are some accounts of some recent criminal proceedings. Note how late they are in relation to the offences; several priests had retired. Note the lightness of the sentences, sometimes explainable because the man has only a few years to live. It's also worth thinking about why most of them were NOT defrocked.

-
Pichette, aged 80
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/01/10/qc-danielpichette.html

Geoghan, later killed in prison,
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/23/geoghan/index.html

McCormack
http://www.nbc5.com/news/13606969/detail.html
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/452305,priest070207.article

De Luca
http://blog.syracuse.com/news/2007/06/retired_priest_pleads_guilty_i.html

Sylvestre, retired, dies in jail.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/01/23/sylvestre.html

Le Brun
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2005_07_12/2005_11_17_Walsh_PriestConvicted.htm

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Guest]

I remember Robin Williams discussing this.

"Remember folks, it's not just a sin, it's a felony."

 

[3113]

Why didn't some of them speak out, or, if they did, why weren't they heard? Any insights?

As Pure rightly mentioned, a lot of them DID speak out. And if the family complained, the priest was removed and the parents thought, "Okay, the Church took care of that!" never knowing that the priest was just moved to another parish, not defrocked or jailed.

Some kids, of course, were not believed. It was their word against that of a priest and in a staunchly Catholic family or community the priest might have been believed over the kid. You have to remember that even now, people will deny such claimed by children rather than admit the truth--which would destroy their faith in someone who is important to them. Wives will turn a blind eye and refuse to believe daughters who tell of their father molesting them.

I knew a woman whose son molested his step daughters and she insisted that the girls had made it all up--vicious lies against their step dad. Denial to keep things seemingly stable--your family, your community, your faith and church--is a powerful thing.

And even if the kid is believed, it's a family going up against the Catholic church. In some places the church has a lot of political clout as well as money and influence. They can hush things off, pay off the family and have them sign a non-disclosure contract. Part of why it's all coming out now--and this over many years let's remember--is because there are lawyers willing to get all these victims together and fight for them. But one poor family trying to go up against something that old and rich and influential...where and how do they do it? They do what they did. They complain to the church and have faith that it will compensate them and give them justice (refer back to that first paragraph)--because they can't afford to do anything else.

And then, of course, there were kids who didn't say anything: kids ashamed and afraid that he/she wouldn't be believed, or would be branded. The priest, afterall, is an adult who knows how to keep kids quiet; he's had years of practice manipulating children: "It's our secret, don't tell anyone, they wouldn't understand," or "You made me do it, this sin is all your fault..." or "If this gets out, it'll destroy your family."

In the end, it's not that it didn't get out. People knew. It's just that it was very had to do anything about it--to make what was suspected or told to parents by children validated as fact and so gain justice. It was, in short, dirt everyone knew about, and everyone swept under the rug.

 

[WRJames]

In the end, it's not that it didn't get out. People knew. It's just that it was very had to do anything about it--to make what was suspected or told to parents by children validated as fact and so gain justice. It was, in short, dirt everyone knew about, and everyone swept under the rug.

Well -- maybe -- but how would the news not spread kid to kid? There was not a whole lot of sex going on when I was growing up, but rumors about what sex there was spread very quickly. Is it possible that none of these hundreds of children ever talked to their friends about what was happening to them? You would think there would have been whispers, at least.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well -- maybe -- but how would the news not spread kid to kid? There was not a whole lot of sex going on when I was growing up, but rumors about what sex there was spread very quickly. Is it possible that none of these hundreds of children ever talked to their friends about what was happening to them? You would think there would have been whispers, at least.

Whispers about the guy who heard your confession? What could you do about it, anyway-- you can't tell your priest that you won't follow his directives, not unless you're willing to risk hell.

Actually, I am sure there were plenty whispers-- but you never heard them, nor did I, not being Catholics.

 

[Pure]

regarding the fellow, sylvestre, i seem to recall that at one school the kids called him 'sylvestre the molester,' and tried to avoid him. but kids at a catholic school are in a tight spot.

the fact is that the usual molestations committed by priests, up until the 60s, went unremarked, or perhaps appeared in secret notes at the bishop's office; the office that would transfer, but not punish him (or take him away from dealing with kids).

to a degree the same time pattern holds in other professions, e.g., psychiatry. hardly any shrinks have ever been jailed for molestation/nonconsensual intercourse, and few have been punished with permanent suspension of medical privileges.
(just as priests were generally NOT defrocked for abuse).

abuse is a feature of situations of power, non tranparency and non accountability-- not to say public ignorance.

 

[BlackShanglan]

The difficulty any child is placed in when attempting to report a molester - feelings of guilt and shame, fear for him/herself and the victim's family, fear of not being believed, fear of peers learning of the abuse, worry that s/he somehow invited it - is immense in any circumstances, and must be crushing when the abuser is a person in a position of power, authority, and assumed moral superiority over nearly everyone in the community. Even to complain of the behavior is to admit that it occurred, and that admission some will take as compliance - and more so in the past than they do now. It's only been in the last generation that we've seen a real and growing sea-change in how rape is viewed by the majority of the population; it's easy to forget, I think, how recently both rape and child molestation were viewed very differently.

Personally, speaking as a Catholic, I am deeply disgusted with the leadership of my church on this topic. In many ways I think that the bishops who knowingly covered for and shuffled around abusive priests have as much or more to answer for than even the abusers themselves. I have known, amongst other people in my life, a man later convicted of child molestation, and without going too deeply into the details of his actions, there were to my eye convincing signs that he was not capable of controlling himself despite detesting his own actions. I don't think that that makes his actions without moral weight; I only observe that it is one thing to do what one cannot prevent oneself from doing, and another to cooly expose more children to danger because it happenes to be convenient to one's administrative hierarchy.

 

[Boxlicker101]

As for how it can happen, how about like this: A man is a pedophile and a Catholic. He lusts after all these cute altar boys, and decides he want some of that. Knowing how priests are regarded, he announces that he wants to serve God as a priet, goes to whatever school it takes, and becomes a priest. This puts him into a position where he can do pretty much whatever he wants.

Possibly the most repulsive person of all was Bernard Law of Boston. He was, or is actully a member of NAMBLA, the organization that promotes pedophilia, and was probably as active as anybody. besides helping all the many priests who worked under him. I believe he was an archbishop then but was rewarded for his successful covering up by being promoted to cardinal, and is now in Rome.

As for how they got away with it for so long, others have explained that better than I can.

One really disgusting event: When Geoghan was murdered by his cellmate in prison (probably a victim, but I don't know for sure), his former bishop whined about what a trgedy it was that such an outstanding and devout man of God had met such an untinely end. This was a man who, instead of protecting those in his flock, had been rapng children for forty years or more. That kinda shows whose side the bishop was on.

 

[English Lady]

The difficulty any child is placed in when attempting to report a molester - feelings of guilt and shame, fear for him/herself and the victim's family, fear of not being believed, fear of peers learning of the abuse, worry that s/he somehow invited it - is immense in any circumstances, and must be crushing when the abuser is a person in a position of power, authority, and assumed moral superiority over nearly everyone in the community. Even to complain of the behavior is to admit that it occurred, and that admission some will take as compliance - and more so in the past than they do now. It's only been in the last generation that we've seen a real and growing sea-change in how rape is viewed by the majority of the population; it's easy to forget, I think, how recently both rape and child molestation were viewed very differently.

Personally, speaking as a Catholic, I am deeply disgusted with the leadership of my church on this topic. In many ways I think that the bishops who knowingly covered for and shuffled around abusive priests have as much or more to answer for than even the abusers themselves. I have known, amongst other people in my life, a man later convicted of child molestation, and without going too deeply into the details of his actions, there were to my eye convincing signs that he was not capable of controlling himself despite detesting his own actions. I don't think that that makes his actions without moral weight; I only observe that it is one thing to do what one cannot prevent oneself from doing, and another to cooly expose more children to danger because it happenes to be convenient to one's administrative hierarchy.

We've been round this topic before and I knw not enough to really make comment, but you should ead Shanglan's post twice, it deserves it.

As incompetent as it has been, the church was tring to do something, yes it was naive of them to send them on to a new parish with the same duties but one of the major tenants of our faith is to forgive, personally I think you can forgive one and still snd them to a prion/institute if it is wherethey need to be fortheir own good.

No one is without sin and we all get tempted, yes I'm sure many of you will say "but this is far worse than anything I've ever done." but there was no sliding scale given by God as to who we should forgive the easiest. I feel sorry for the priests involved, yes I do. They were sinning and sinning and not knowing what to do, they needed some outside help that they never got (yes, I'm talking about some kind of imprisonment here,) and those who tried to deal with it were misplaced in doing what they did but do you go abroad and publically announce when you do something wrong? Yeah, it IS the same thing but on a bigger scale, there were many more scared, worried and frightened individuals making panicked decisons instead of listening to the small still voice of God.

All I call for is a little attempt to understand than just to condemn but I have to say, I've been in nough threads like this to realise I'm probably shouting into the wind with this one.

 

[English Lady]

One really disgusting event: When Geoghan was murdered by his cellmate in prison (probably a victim, but I don't know for sure), his former bishop whined about what a trgedy it was that such an outstanding and devout man of God had met such an untinely end. This was a man who, instead of protecting those in his flock, had been rapng children for forty years or more. That kinda shows whose side the bishop was on.

A devout man of God will not be without sin, he'll fuck up as much as you or I. Yes, this is some major sinning but if you dismissed everything said by anyone who had done some kind of wrong, some kind of long term wrong even, then you'd not even listen to yourself.

I am sure the bishop was saddened and I understand that, the Bishop should have been on his side, longing for rehabilitation. But the guy will have gone to meet his maker and his maker will have known what was in his heart, it's not for me to judge.

 

[3113]

Well -- maybe -- but how would the news not spread kid to kid? There was not a whole lot of sex going on when I was growing up, but rumors about what sex there was spread very quickly. Is it possible that none of these hundreds of children ever talked to their friends about what was happening to them? You would think there would have been whispers, at least.

Answer to that is threefold:

1) In some cases, I'm sure it did spread. And possibly, as Pure pointed out, other kids tried to avoid the priest and did or didn't.

2) It spread, and kids avoided those kids who'd been involved, giggling about them, saying "That girl's a slut, she slept with the priest!"--if the priest slept with you after that, would YOU say anything? And it's much worse if you're a boy. Do YOU want to be known as the boy who was sodomized by the priest? Who's a fag?

Kids are terrible to each other, and though things are better now (perhaps) for years kids were the worst critics of other kids. A kid may boast about sleeping with his sexy, older Spanish teacher...but admit to being raped by a priest in the confessional? That's a stigma that's going to stick to you, a scarlet letter that's going to have every other kid staring and whispering about you. Better not to mention it.

3) Among many of the stories told by adults about these priests are tales of how "cool" they were. This is typical of pedophiles. They really are the man offering the kid "candy" as they lure them away. These priests weren't all old slouches. They rode motorcycles, took the kids camping, gave them treats, bought them things, made them feel that what they were doing was special, was secret.

So, how did the news "not" spread. Easy. If you're one of the priest's specially chosen kids, and the rule is that you stay special only if you don't tell...you don't tell.

 

[3113]

Here's an article on the topic. The Bold is mine. You'll notice that it answers everyone of your questions (Didn't any of the kids tell? Didn't any parents find out? Why would any kid keep it secret? etc.) All your answers are in this one story:

Ten years ago, Anthony Almeida sat on his bed, loaded a single bullet into a Glock .45 and put the barrel in his mouth — exhausted by the storm of anger, distrust and isolation his life had become....He was jealous of his wife, combative at work, distant with his children. Watching his daughter and son turn the age he was when Father Clinton Hagenbach began to molest him in the rectory of St. Teresa of Avila in Silver Lake dredged up a chaos of emotions he had tamped down for more than 20 years.

Almeida put the gun down that day. But he careened through the following years, divorcing his second wife, locking himself in his room, sometimes drinking 18 beers a day....Almeida, 44, was gearing up with mixed emotions to testify in the first civil trial against the Los Angeles Archdiocese on allegations that it allowed 30 years of sexual abuse by members of the clergy. He wanted to tell his story in detail, to show the horrific reality that sometimes gets buried behind the word "abuse." But he was scared. When the archdiocese took his deposition in May, his blood pressure shot up to 190 over 135, and he had to go on leave from work. He is a bit relieved that the archdiocese settled, avoiding a trial

[One of seven children]...Almeida's mother was a devout Catholic and pushed him to become an altar boy. He went through the motions until 1974, when Hagenbach arrived as an associate pastor. "Hagenbach came along and all of the sudden everything was fun," he said. "The parishioners loved him, my mom loved him."

Hagenbach started taking the altar boys out every weekend to get ice cream, to ride go-carts, to camp in the mountains. He bought Almeida, 12 at the time, a brand new ten-speed — something his parents never could have afforded. "I guess you could say he became my dad," Almeida said.

In the rectory, Hagenbach started touching him. It was confusing. Almeida had no idea what to do. The priest persisted. He taught Almeida to drive and would fondle him while doing so. Hagenbach began to give the altar boys pornography and alcohol. Almeida said the pastor in the church was often drunk and seemed to overlook what was happening.

Almeida kept going back to see Hagenbach. He was confused and repulsed by the fondling, but the priest showered him with attention and gifts that he never had before. When Almeida was 13, Hagenbach bought him a brand new Yamaha mono-shock motorcycle. With the attention came increasing abuse, including oral copulation on a trip to Lake Arrowhead. Then, Hagenbach pinned Almeida down on Hagenbach's bed in the rectory and raped the boy as he cried and bled.

The years after that are blurred in Almeida's mind. He remembers having a crush on a girl, and when she saw him in church, he flushed with embarrassment. He didn't know why. This was not a subject anyone talked about, and Almeida wasn't about to tell anyone. He tried not to think about it.

Eventually he attended another church and tried to forget what had happened. He went to college and then joined the Los Angeles Fire Department. Hagenbach died in 1987. Almeida's life was always turbulent, but only when his second marriage was ending in the late 1990s did he wonder if the abuse was part of the cause.

"I always thought my wives and girlfriends were cheating on me. I'd always accuse them until it just drove them nuts and they'd just leave me." And he could never get close to his four children. "I love my kids, but I've never been there for them," Almeida said. "I don't know why. I guess for one thing I don't want people thinking I'm a pedophile. Since my divorce, they've never spent the night at my house."

At work, Almeida got into arguments and spats. He has been in therapy for years. As part of that, he once approached the pastor at St. Teresa and told him what had happened. The priest's response: "I always thought something was going on."

Almeida blames high-level archdiocese officials for allowing the abuse to go on for years. Hagenbach was transferred six times over 25 years, a sure sign that there were complaints about him, Almeida said.

"I blame them," he said. "This could have all been stopped."

 

[Guest]

We've been round this topic before and I knw not enough to really make comment, but you should ead Shanglan's post twice, it deserves it.

As incompetent as it has been, the church was tring to do something, yes it was naive of them to send them on to a new parish with the same duties but one of the major tenants of our faith is to forgive, personally I think you can forgive one and still snd them to a prion/institute if it is wherethey need to be fortheir own good.

I question their motives of sending them to a new parish, however. I don't believe it was in forgiveness, and for God, but rather was an attempt to cover their butts. It was political or for money or power or position.

They KNEW the priests would abuse again.

And I think that is unforgiveable.

No one is without sin and we all get tempted, yes I'm sure many of you will say "but this is far worse than anything I've ever done." but there was no sliding scale given by God as to who we should forgive the easiest. I feel sorry for the priests involved, yes I do. They were sinning and sinning and not knowing what to do, they needed some outside help that they never got (yes, I'm talking about some kind of imprisonment here,) and those who tried to deal with it were misplaced in doing what they did but do you go abroad and publically announce when you do something wrong? Yeah, it IS the same thing but on a bigger scale, there were many more scared, worried and frightened individuals making panicked decisons instead of listening to the small still voice of God.

All I call for is a little attempt to understand than just to condemn but I have to say, I've been in nough threads like this to realise I'm probably shouting into the wind with this one.

I condemn child abusers as criminals, priests or no. There is nothing to understand.

You are a decent person, and you would be able to find it in your heart to forgive the abusers even if it were your own children or relatives who had been molested, I'm certain.

But I don't believe I could.

 

[English Lady]

I question their motives of sending them to a new parish, however. I don't believe it was in forgiveness, and for God, but rather was an attempt to cover their butts. It was political or for money or power or position.

They KNEW the priests would abuse again.

And I think that is unforgiveable.



I condemn child abusers as criminals, priests or no. There is nothing to understand.

You are a decent person, and you would be able to find it in your heart to forgive the abusers even if it were your own children or relatives who had been molested, I'm certain.

But I don't believe I could.

I wonder if they didn't know what to do. It was, and probably is, something that isn't addressed s how does a bishop deal with it when it happens? Send the problem elsewhere.

Also, did they know the priest would do it again? they may have suspected it but they may have thought that moving them on would give them a second chance -okay, when you get up to the third, fourth and more times this one wears a bit thin but without talking to the people involved I can't say what they definitely knew/didn't know.

I agree, anyone who abuses a child is a criminal, simple as that. I think that priests should be treated like any other person in such instances -as a human whic every priest, vicar and cleric is. I can understand why people "covered it up" -I'm not saying its right, I'm not saying they handled it well but I am saying I understand, partly why it might have happened. I think all child abusers need help, they need seperating from society and they all need help.

I'm nothing special, I can't tell you for certain how i'd react in certain circumstances but I do try to forgive as much as is possible because i feel its best all round - anger, bitterness and recentment just give me a headache.

 

[BlackShanglan]

EL's comments bring to mind to me something I heard from a woman on a news talk show in the UK. She'd been manning a hotline people could call if they had been abused as children or suspected child abuse. An adult man called and stated that he had felt the urge to commit acts of pedophilia and was worried that he would act on them. He wanted to know what help was available for people in his situation. No one knew of anything to tell him.

The same was true of my past acquaintance. He knew that he would re-offend. He asked the police to imprison him before he did. He was told that he could not legally be imprisoned until he had committed the crime that he was pleading with them to prevent.

 

[Pure]

there is no cure for molestation urges, and i know of no program that really works to reduce the acting out, long term.

interesting point, though, a mennonite group here has taken the cause of befriending sex offenders who are releassed from prison (and keeping close contact). the idea is that ordinarily the ex offender is without friend (non perv) or support. perhaps offering help will help him, and serve community interests as well.

it think most people, and many churchgoers, do not see the logic of this-(English Lady perhaps being an exception). they shun the ex con.

 

[English Lady]

there is no cure for molestation urges, and i know of no program that really works to reduce the acting out, long term.

interesting point, though, a mennonite group here has taken the cause of befriending sex offenders who are releassed from prison (and keeping close contact). the idea is that ordinarily the ex offender is without friend (non perv) or support. perhaps offering help will help him, and serve community interests as well.

it think most people, and many churchgoers, do not see the logic of this-(English Lady perhaps being an exception). they shun the ex con.

That seems like a good idea to me, obviously it is no guarantee, but if the ex-offender has someone there to confide in it may just help them and as you say, the community, too.

Sadly Pure, I see too many Christians who will quite happily give a bit of money to this cause or that but when asked to actually volunteer time, effort and energy they run the other way. It's difficult enough to get people to volunteer for fluffy, happy kind of tasks, I'd guess it would be nigh on impossible to find volunteers to befriend an ex-sex offender.

 

[Recidiva]

It's all about trust and shame. Particularly in a religion where the image of Christ as a martyr is revered, turning the other cheek, suffering, are all promoted as things that will be rewarded by God. And if you've suffered for a priest, isn't that close to God?

 

[WRJames]

Thank you all for your responses. Although I am not Catholic, I did have quite a few Catholic friends growing up, and they had friends who attended the Catholic schools -- enough that I would have been plugged into the rumor mill, if there was one (I certainly heard a few things about the sexuality or lack thereof of Catholic schoolgirls).

Now -- here is a theory -- and it is based only on wild speculation, I apoligize in advance to those who are deeply offended because I am dead wrong -- but, to me, it seems that what we have heard of so far does not make sense on its own. Is it like the proverbial tip of the iceberg? What if the priests were part of a more general pattern of abuse, a culture of abuse? What if the families were not just unwitting bystanders? What if this gets passed on from generation to generation?

 

[English Lady]

It's all about trust and shame. Particularly in a religion where the image of Christ as a martyr is revered, turning the other cheek, suffering, are all promoted as things that will be rewarded by God. And if you've suffered for a priest, isn't that close to God?

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' "

Matthew 25:34-40

A priest is no closer to God than any other person.

I think people may be intimdated by a priest because they're seen by many as authority figures. Also, a priest is seen as above suspision by many and a young person is unlikely to challenge an adult authority figure of any kind over something such as this because they think they won't be believed.

 

[Recidiva]

Thank you all for your responses. Although I am not Catholic, I did have quite a few Catholic friends growing up, and they had friends who attended the Catholic schools -- enough that I would have been plugged into the rumor mill, if there was one (I certainly heard a few things about the sexuality or lack thereof of Catholic schoolgirls).

Now -- here is a theory -- and it is based only on wild speculation, I apoligize in advance to those who are deeply offended because I am dead wrong -- but, to me, it seems that what we have heard of so far does not make sense on its own. Is it like the proverbial tip of the iceberg? What if the priests were part of a more general pattern of abuse, a culture of abuse? What if the families were not just unwitting bystanders? What if this gets passed on from generation to generation?

It's acutely specific to the priest and the child. I can't really betray the confidence of people I know that were abused and give specifics. But I do believe it is a culture, it is not "unheard of" and that there is a specific attempt to lie and evade about the truth in order to protect the Church.

Members of the church may see this as a reasonable thing, I do not. I don't believe in God enough to believe that the Church should be protected over the wellbeing of children.

 

[Recidiva]

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' "

Matthew 25:34-40

A priest is no closer to God than any other person.

I think people may be intimdated by a priest because they're seen by many as authority figures. Also, a priest is seen as above suspision by many and a young person is unlikely to challenge an adult authority figure of any kind over something such as this because they think they won't be believed.

I'm fairly sure that the priest presents himself to the child as being closer to God than they are. They're granted the rights of confession and power over people in the parish. There's no way a child doesn't see that as God's favor.

 

[English Lady]

I'm fairly sure that the priest presents himself to the child as being closer to God than they are. They're granted the rights of confession and power over people in the parish. There's no way a child doesn't see that as God's favor.

I'm not a Catholic, so I don't know, I've not been abused by a priest, so I don't know but I don't think every child will be the same. I never saw the vicars I came into contact as being any more special in Gods eyes than myself, I certainly didn't see them as being particularly favoured by God. However, that is me, but I don't think we can say one way or another exactly what all children think about priests.