Posted on 07/16/2007 9:50:41 PM PDT by BigJohn44
The Archdiocese of Los Angeles has agreed to pay over $600 million to settle claims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in that diocese. This is the latest in a string of multi-million dollar payouts by Catholic diocese throughout the country.
Perhaps it is time to take another look at the most comprehensive study of Catholic priest sexual abuse ever conducted. In 2002, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned a national study of sexual abuse by Catholic priests.
The study, conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, found that nationwide, approximately 4400 Catholic priests were credibly accused of sexual abuse incidents occurring between 1950 and 2002, and that 81 percent of their victims were male. Some 78 percent of the males allegedly abused were adolescent males between the ages of 11 and 17.
Pertinent excerpts of the executive summary of the John Jay study are quoted below. See http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/exec.pdf
-------------------
The information contained in this report is based upon surveys provided by 195 dioceses, representing 98% all diocesan priests in the United States, and 140 religious communities, representing approximately 60% of religious communities and 80% of all religious priests.
* * *
The mandate for the study was to: 1. Examine the number and nature of allegations of sexual abuse of minors under the age of 18 by Catholic priests between 1950 and 2002.
* * *
The total number of priests with allegations of abuse in our survey is 4,392.
* * *
The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17 . . . . Overall, 81% of victims were male . . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at usccb.org ...
women’s rights period.....even before feminism is what put homosexuals on the road to power and more acceptance....
women are simply more tolerant of homosexuals...consider them funny and fashionable and non threatening
heterosexual men (and least older ones) do not tolerate homosexuals beyond politeness
and as a result the concentration of child molesters in the priesthood, if the 2% number that a Catholic poster above stated is true, is still a hundred times higher than the concentration in the general population.
Pope John XXIII issued an order in 1962 that no one with a known homosexual orientation was to be ordained to the priesthood. If you want to know what kind of Catholics caused this problem: it was the ones (prominently including seminary rectors and bishops) who did not follow the laws and disciples of their own Church: the disobedient ones.
Those of us who track bishop's appointments from the Vatican have great cause for hope now that the Vatican is apparently determined to purge the AmChurch bishops by attrition. It is important to distinguish the various items of political conservatism from the various items of Catholic religious conservatism. Whileissues of social copnservatism having to do with abortion and marriageand opposition to lavender political agendas are common to both, this recent business of raging to close the Mexican border hermetically is not common to both. I have heard the number of 40% to represent the percentage of US Catholics who are Hispanic. In two of the three parishes here in NW Illinois where I attend Mass, I have seen three weekly bulletins each listing eight children baptized and every one was Hispanic surnamed. Whether or not their parents are citizens, I do not know. The third parish does not list baptized children in its buletin and is likely to have a higher percentage of non-Hispanics. Nonetheless, the leaders of the Church can hardly be expected to turn away those who are our most frequent parents.
There are other matters where Catholic leaders will differ from the conservative political leadership. Some are addicted to peace as though it were doctrinal. Some to the welfare state as though it were doctrinal (this is changing slowly but changing). Our recently appointed bishops tend to be much more politically conservative and dedicated to opposing abortion and sexual perversion than their predecessors. The more widespread availability of the old Tridentine Mass is a marker that the Church here will also be moving (however slowly) in the right direction.
We rank and file Catholics are not perfect and do not claim to be. If we can be good and dependable allies of other religious conservatives on religious matters then we have done what we should do politically. We need to purge this Catholic Church in the US of its elderly radicals, diocese by diocese, seminary by seminary, parish by parish, school by school. Pray for our success.
Meanwhile, may God bless you and yours.
That’s fine to point all of that out. It still does not change anything. Frankly attempting to rationalize or be an apologist by using arguments whose basic premises are “That’s just how we’ve always done it” and “Others do it too” or “We were just following order to move them around” just don’t cut it. These were horrendous crimes to do to young people. I know of several teen boys in my own former parish who committed suicide because of their rapings by one of the priests there. These people have destroyed peoples’ lives because of this. I honestly don’t believe you understand the severity of the impact of this, because of the statements you have written.
It is rather sick to suggest these reasons to somehow diminish or rationalize what has been done here. You say this kind of behavior has gone on for centuries, priests breaking their celibacy vows for hundreds of years. Perhaps then the punishment should be even greater, if this despicable (and hypocritical) behavior has gone on for so long. You sound like you’re bothered that they are finally being called to account for permitting this kind of behavior for hundreds of years, and you’re defending it by saying it’s basically unfair to go after them NOW after all this time we let them skate by, like we’re somehow changing the rules on them in mid-stream, and also that other groups do this too and we’re not going after them.
Do me a favor and list the groups that are doing it to the degree the Roman church has, and have gotten away with it for hundreds of years, and I will take this list and pass it along to the FBI and my local police and get the ball rolling. I am not against going after any group who does this kind of stuff and institutionally sanctions and covers it up.
Further, how you can imply that this is how the Roman church has done things for hundreds of years and have gotten away with it by covering it up, up until recently, first the church has never approved of sodomy calling it sin, and rape sin, and the secular world up until recently also had laws against sodomy (and still do with rape), and you somehow because they’ve escaped detection and punishment that regular citizens would and have gone to jail for, that we’re somehow picking on them? That is how your statements come across.
All my prior statements about this still stand. The Roman church has very little ground to adopt a defensive attitude about this as you are stating, now is the time to be sincerely sorry about it and repent and get all the homosexual priests purged from this denomination.
To be honest, you are splitting hairs by using psycholical definitions rather than common sense definitions.
People who have sex with another person of the same sex are homosexuals. Attraction to the same sex is the definition of homosexuality, always has been. Trying to say it is not homosexual because of an arbitrary age threshold doesn’t change the fact same-sex relations are homosexual by their very nature.
People who have sex with children are pedophiles.
If a guy has sex with a male child, he is a homosexual pedophile.
It may not actually be the case that the Catholic Church knowingly allowed homosexuals to become priests. It is possible that these men were able to hide their homosexual desires from the church, and were later found out. It is true, as the Church has admitted, that they covered up the activities of these homosexual priest for many many years. It would also be possible that some in the Catholic Church knew about these sexual predators, but that the heads of the Church were kept in the dark. Whatever the truth, the Catholic Church is bearing the brunt of the blame for a homosexual problem. I guess "what goes around comes around" may be apropos here.
Frankly you have read intent in to my post that was not there. My intention was to simply explain simple human behavior. The Church moved Offending Priest around because they could.
They did not change their behavior because they were not forced to.
In my post I never said that what they did was correct or moral. I never said that the Church was being picked on. What I did say was that this behavior occurs in other Churches at the same frequency but because the Church is a bigger target that it is publicized more frequently. If that sounds like saying the Church is picked on, well any organization that stands up for moral values is picked on today, especially when it is caught acting immorally.
My intention was to point out that any large old entrenched organization (especially one that is self policing which the Catholic Church was for centuries) will not change its ways of doing thing unless forced to do so by some outside entity.
Explaining behavior is not the same has defending it. I find the Churches behavior appalling in the case of protecting pedophiles. What is particularly appalling is that they have sent these pedophiles away to monasteries for treatment declared them cured and then sent off to new parishes and not warned the Priest at the new parish of their past. This permitted the pederast free reign to offend again.
No the Church deserves to be reprimanded for this behavior. But also you must be aware that this behavior was not limited to the Catholic Church it happened in many other organizations that had an interest in preserving their professions reputation for respectability (I pointed out teachers).
I hope you do not believe that this sudden rash of teachers being accused of molesting children is some new epidemic.
The whole teacher molestation issue never occurred at the levels it is now. It is epidemic. I have never seen the number of cases that have been occurring as they are now. Teachers were not having babies with their kids and then marrying them and being turned into celebrities (Mary Kay LeTerneau). You cannot believe that to be true. Certainly not the number of women who are doing it now. They are putting away record numbers of male and female teachers. The focus is full and bright on this profession right now, and it’s not hard to find them.
The sexual revolution of the 1960s and beyond (which made everyone losers) along with an atheistic/evolutionary hardening in the schools have these teachers (grown up and through such a system) not having any moral problems with going after kids. The difference is that teachers have no protection of the place they work for (like the church). They don’t shuffle teachers around from place to place. If the parents file a complaint, it’s to the police, not the school. The police and courts get involved against the individual teacher. The schools will distance themselves so fast from that teacher it’ll make your head spin.
So you are comparing apples and oranges.
I also reject your claim it occurs at the same rates in other churches. I would like to see proof for that statement. Other denominations are not structured centrally like the Roman church, and have the power to appoint and remove their pastors and do not need permission to remove an offending pastor. Any pastor who does that will not have an easy time getting another church in his denomination. First he will be removed, and if he is guilty, will go to jail. He will no longer be a pastor and there is no way he would ever be in charge of a church again.
There is no system in place in other denominations to hide and shuffle a pastor around like the Roman church.
Of course not every denomination has a problem with homosexuality, so there may be places that might go to bat for a homosexual priest, or even embrace them. However I do not count these denominations as Orthodox on this issue and they are not capable of correcting the problem because they say there is no problem.
The other factor you gloss over is that the character of men available to the Roman church is not the same as in other denominations that allow pastors to be family men. The Roman church has misunderstood Paul’s writings and turned them into a requirement, rather than Paul simply saying that if one has the gift of celibacy to stay celibate - however most do not, and in those cases, it is better to be married than burn in lust (and do what these priests do). the fact they want to have sex with something shows they do not have the gift of celibacy and they should be married. The first “Pope” was married - Peter and his mother-in-law are mentioned in the Bible. You limit the field of potential pastors by forcing them to celibacy (and therefore eliminating “most” candidates). Obviously not all are ommitted because they wind up having sex with nuns, women, other men, or children.
Again, waiting for your list of organizations that have been doing the same thing the Roman church has for hundreds of years and also getting away with it.
It is simple reasoning that many true heterosexuals are excluded from the Priesthood because of the vow of celibacy.
The thought was that a corrupted clergy would dishearten,discourage and disgust lay Catholics and they would leave in droves. One of the types of persons they looked for was homosexuals,whose proclivity was sure to serve that purpose. Homosexuals plus some men committed to Communism/progressivism and men of weak character were recruited and as we can see almost did the Church in.
I am sorry that this fact has not been mentioned to this point because it is well known and pretty explanatory and critical to those nonCatholics and Catholics who don't seem to be aware of the insidious nature of the problem. If I thought that the march to destroy all things of God were over,I might not be so concerned but I am afraid the march continues and people need to be alert to the plan.
I would say that more than half of the scandal was caused and furthered by men who infiltrated the Church in the quest to be rid of it.The men who wished to be gods felt compelled to destroy men who wished to serve God and His Church.
Right now,I believe that things are much improved,Phoenix has a wonderful,intelligent,holy and humble new Bishop,the Pope is brilliant and holy and selfless and the new priests seem to be much more orthodox. But we must be ever vigilant.
With regards to other denominations,many small churches are independent or members of a loose federation of churches and ministers/pastors/preachers can move to different locations and set up a church there.
Whether Episcopalians,Presbyterians,Methodists and other non Catholic churches do the same is not yet known. If their pockets were deeper and their fall likely to egregiously wound those who believe in God they would be in the same boat most likely.
The priesthood allows men to sacrifice a big part of themselves to serve God. When one is married,one doesn't give up a portion of themselves as a gift. If you read the Gospels it seems clear that none of the Apostles were married at the time they were chosen. My husband predeceased me and it is likely that the only Apostle that is pointed to as having been married (Peter) probably outlived his wife and was taking care of his mother in law.
You seems to have an animosity to the Church,I hope you will consider some of what I have said and rethink your position. If you are a Christian,I hope you know we are all under attack and if we don't stand together,we will fall one by one. Why do you think it was so important to Jesus that we be as One,as He and the Father were One?
Check out the link in post 44. You must remember when you talk abut numbers that the Catholic Church is far larger than any of the other denominations a so the raw numbers while larger the rates are much the same.
They don’t shuffle teachers around from place to place. If the parents file a complaint, it’s to the police, not the school.
That may be true today but it was not always true.
Parents didn’t used to go to the police about sex crimes like they do today. They did not want the shame that used to be put on the victim. Times have changed.
My second grade teacher suddenly did not show up for school one day and we had a new teacher from that day on. He had molested one of my playmates. It was not in the paper, my parents never heard about it, I did not know about it for several years until one of my other friends told me.
This guy never when to jail but went on to teach in another state.
And that was not that long ago. That was 1967.(I remember reading articles back in the 80’s exposing that this was happening )
It is apples and apples. It has taken a few lawsuits to change schools attitudes. It is two professions that used to have a privileged place of respect in this society. People used to show teachers and priest deference. People used to very rarely question these people’s opinion in most respects. The gloss is off these people today and they are now targets when they mess up. (As they should be when they molest children)
There is no system in place in other denominations to hide and shuffle a pastor around like the Roman church. .
This is true; most other churches do not have the hierarchical system that the Catholic Church has.
Certainly the Baptist and others were the individual church hires its own minister is not going to be able to shuffle a pedophile around and would not have the incentive.
Is this the communist manifesto or the democrat platform, or is there any difference? (Just a rhetorical question, but perhaps a valid one.)
Trying suing “the homosexual community”! Where the office? What’s the phone number?
I’m afraid you know very little about the subject. All-male seminaries as a CAUSE of same-sex attraction? Try the FAMILY OF ORIGIN if you are looking for the dysfunctions and pathologies that foster same-sex attraction. Men go into the seminary far beyond the developmental stage where same-sex attraction becomes established.
The incidence of sexual abuse among Protestant ministers is as great or greater than among Catholic priests. Enough of the smug anti-Catholic digs, okay?
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
I didn’t say they did. I said it’s time to quit with the smug anti-Catholic slurs. That’s not right, either.
I will say that independent churches (single, on their own) may have a harder time at telling other churches about such a pastor, but that would not stop them from removing the pastor and filing charges against them. Those pastors would not have a centralized structure helping them out to place them somewhere else.
You also cite this as something that must happen all the time, yet you have nothing to back up your statement. Not even one example. It is based in feeling and your personal projection of beliefs that “well they all must work this way.” Not true. I know that many independent, fundamentalist characters are portrayed negatively in films as being drunks, rapists, etc. I wonder if this has affected your worldview on the subject. Or just trying to drag every other denomination down to the level the Roman church is at presently.
Jesus is not in favor of Christians joining together when they disagree on the essentials of Christianity. Or in more biblical phrasing, how much error does it take to corrupt truth?
I am not saying any one denomination has a monopoly on the truth, but I am saying that you should not join with those who persist in error, despite Christian attempts to allow them to correct the error. This is no different than the Roman church’s take on it. Although I do know that my denomination never brought in shamans, zoroastrians, and medicine men to my spiritual headquarters and allowed them to pray to their gods. I do recall this occurring with Pope John Paul II at the Vatican. I also have a nice picture of a female Hindi goddess woman (considered a god by her followers) blessing the forehead of Pope John Paul II with a mark during his visit there.
If other churches such as Methodists, Episcopals and such by your own words “are NOT YET KNOWN” then I guess you can’t make your blanket statement that all the other ones do it too. Thank you for refuting yourself.
You are incorrect about Peter’s wife being dead. According to the synoptic gospels (Mat 8:14; Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38) and according Paul (1Co 9:5), Peter continued to be married and to take his wife with him when he traveled. Paul’s authentic letters (certainly including Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians, and Philemon) predated the four gospels and Acts. So he provided us with the earliest written pieces of Christian history. In one of his letters to the Christian community in Corinth, he wrote:
“Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas?” (NAB, 1Co 9:5)
The biblical record in Paul’s writings as well as in the gospels and Acts points to Apostles and other 1st Century Christians traveling with their wives. (Of course, Kephas, more commonly anglicized as “Cephas,” was Peter’s Aramaic name.)
Further when you read the Bible and see the qualifications of deacons, overseers and elders of the church, all are able to be married (the husband of ONE WIFE) and often (in control of his children).
History not only records Peter as married but several other popes as well: St Agatho, Hadrian II, Boniface IX.
Your own church is taking in married Episcopal priests. Yes I know there are restrictions on how far they can rise in the hierarchy, but apparently marriage is not disqualifying them from serving as Roman priests.
I have no animosity to the lay people in the Roman church. I in fact grew up in the Roman church from birth to 25; I am comfortable in my understanding of it. I pray for the people in the Roman church.
Jesus and His Father are One because they are One, and are in complete harmony and agreement with each other. You don’t have true unity if “Christian” group A holds a fundamental doctrine that is the opposite of “Christian” group B. Jesus would not be accepting of the syncretistic Roman Catholicism practiced in Central and South America, which allows for mixing parts of the native paganistic religions into Catholicism. Again, how much error are you willing to allow in?
STILL waiting for your list of groups/organizations that have been doing the same thing the Roman church has been doing for hundreds of years and getting away with it, but have not yet been caught/brought to justice.
I don’t have a problem with you personally, I don’t know you. I have a problem with people making factual statements that they can’t back up, but are based on their own perceptions and feelings. I also have problems with people taking Scripture out of context. It is clear leaders of the church were and can be married. Read 1 Timothy 3:1-12 where it talks about deacons and overseers being married. I don’t disagree that there may be some benefits to being single in leadership positions for some men who can handle it, but it was never a requirement. In fact they drew up qualifications for church leaders specifically mentioning those leaders as being married (to ONE wife). The Bible didn’t say if you took orders, to leave your family. The Bible didn’t say you can’t be a leader unless your wife is dead and you are a widow.
Read what the Bible says about the biblical qualifications of church leaders are, not what the catechism of the church has decided what the qualifications should be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.