Posted on 09/01/2012 6:24:10 AM PDT by marshmallow
The original John Jay statistics state that the sex abuse crisis was the overwhelming work of a very small number of clergy, targeting young males as their victims … the one reform not addressed: screening out clergy candidates with same-sex attractions.
In 2002, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned a 1.8 million dollar study, popularly known as the “John Jay study,” to uncover the patterns and causes of the sex abuse crisis since 1950. The National Review Board—the entity designated to implement the study—gave the first John Jay report in 2004. In this report, which describes the “Nature and Scope” of clergy sexual abuse, the board pointed out that more than 80 percent of the victims were teenage boys and young men.
This conclusion, in itself, should have been a solid roadmap for truly correcting the sex abuse problem.
Indeed, the bishops quickly responded. They issued guidelines for tough diocesan policies, such as the immediate reporting of abuse to civil authorities, and better oversight of children’s safety.
However, despite those good reforms, clergy with sexual abuse histories were still active in public Church ministry. In early 2011, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia revealed it was involved in yet another major “roundup” of sex abuse cases, a majority of them (82%) involving the original category of identified victims—male teens and young men.
Also in 2011, the Vatican called on bishops and local dioceses to develop comprehensive plans to stop sex abuse. It urged “an even greater importance in assuring a proper discernment of vocations.” Clearly, the Vatican still sees a need to encourage more thoroughness when screening priesthood candidates.
These developments—still surfacing seven years after the original John Jay findings—suggest that reforms have not been wholly adequate. Why? I would suggest that, from the start, reforms concentrated on defensive measures—protecting young....
(Excerpt) Read more at hprweb.com ...
This statistic paints a vivid picture: the sex abuse crisis was the overwhelming work of a very small number of clergy targeting young males as their victims. This fact suggests one reform that has yet to be addressed: the Church must screen out clergy candidates with same-sex attractions.
Exactly.
There has been a huge amount of hypocrisy surrounding this issue, with those screaming the loudest about the scandal (i.e The New York Times) also being the most vocal against any attempts to rid the clergy of homosexuals. In all respects, the Times is on board with the homosexual activist agenda, yet it feigns outrage when perverts assault young men.
And thus the question of what to do with active priests who are homosexuals is adroitly avoided.
These well entrenched homosexuals will advance and protect each other for a very long time to come
How does that differ from the 1922's "crimen solicitationis"?
Did you mean to write 1962s Crimen Sollicitationis?
If you did the difference is quite simply one takes place after the act of solicitation and one takes place prior to the act of solicitation.
If you did the difference is quite simply one takes place after the act of solicitation and one takes place prior to the act of solicitation.
The 1922 date was not a mistake, but I stand corrected on the spelling. I believe they are the same document, wherein the 1922 version was issued in Latin, and the 1962 document was an official (is that the right word?) translation of it. See this post for my understanding of the relationship between the two.
It’s a different question. A man can be rejected for ordination for most any reason — nobody has a right to Holy Orders — but, once ordained, he has certain rights guaranteed by canon law. A man who is
an active homosexual can be removed from active ministry, of course, but he can’t be removed just because someone suspects that he suffers from same-sex attraction.
A different question, yes, but who would want an alcoholic to serve as their bartender?
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.