Skip to comments.St. Louis priest in court on abuse allegations
Posted on 06/03/2014 8:24:27 AM PDT by Dr. Thorne
ST. LOUIS (AP) - A Catholic priest from St. Louis is facing a court hearing on charges that he had sexual contact with a 14-year-old boy.
The Rev. Joseph Jiang faces two counts of statutory sodomy. Jiang worked at the Cathedral Basilica and is accused of sexually abusing a student at St. Louis Cathedral School. His lawyer has said Jiang denies the allegations.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
Letting admitted homosexuals into the priesthood caused this issue.
Healthy heterosexual males do not become homosexual pedophiles because of celibacy.
Just remove the celibacy part and almost all of these problems disappear.
It would be a mistake to conclude that celibacy causes homosexuality or pedophilia.
It would not be a mistake to conclude that the policy of celibacy helped create an environment within the Church very attractive to homosexuasl and pedophiles.
Pope Francis is correct to point out that the policy is more of a discipline, not a dogma etched into stone and subject to change.
Jenkins said there has been no formal study comparing denominations for rates of child abuse. However, insurers have been assessing the risks since they began offering riders on liability policies in the 1980s. Two of the largest insurers report no higher risks in covering Catholic churches than Protestant denominations (Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests).
The idea that there's some nutty "doctrine" among priests that results in sexual abuse, has been debunked time and time again.
It may, however, explain some people's motivation in tirelessly trumpeting every allegation, proven or unproven, made about Catholic clergy, while maintaining a tight-lipped silence about every other category of clergy offender.
**Just remove the celibacy part and almost all of these problems disappear.**
Why is the abuse among teachers higher than any among any kind of minister/priest?
IPeter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin with us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
Remember Aaron's two sons, God killed them for playing with strange fire.
The idea that the Catholic Church has paid out mass fortunes for the acts of their employees, calls into question the 'charity' front used in the 'social justice' agenda. Things are not adding up.
I am a Christian and the WORD, is a twoedged sword it cuts both ways from the extreme left all the way around to the extreme right. Abuse is not a math calculation, it is playing 'god' with God's own children. Not something that will escape His attention.
Nice try. More than half of your links are so old they expired.
I take that as evidence that there's no longer an abuse problem in Protestant denominations!
Never did I say that God's judgment uses percentages.
Dr. Thorne asserted that Catholic clergy are prone to be sexually abusive because of false docrtine. I pointed out that Catholic clergy are not particularly prone to be abusive: they offend at rates similar to other (Christian) clergy, and also similar to all married men taken as a statistical class. This furnishes evidence that Catholic "doctrines" are not at the root of these horrible sins of abuse.
Such disgusting sins are found across all demographic categories. This does not minimize the evil of these sins: far from it.
It does show that serious repentance is needed across the board, for God's judgment is strict and certain.
I am amazed that people feel that being celibate causes heterosexual males to become homosexual pedophiles.
Actually the figure is closer to 4%.
“The 2004 John Jay Report was based on a study of 10,667 allegations against 4,392 priests accused of engaging in sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002.”
“around 81% of these victims were male”
“The 4,392 priests who were accused amount to approximately 4% of the 109,694 priests in active ministry during that time.”
Source: Wikipedia.com Subject: pedophile priests.
I would agree with you that these days children in our public schools have a much greater chance of being molested by teacher as the Church has already driven out most of the predator priests and instituted tight safeguards to screen potential candidates to the seminaries. According to our pastor, only one in ten candidates for the seminary actually get through the screening process.
That all said, no amount of spin can sugar coat the sheer enormity of the size and scope of the pedophile priest scandal which has succeeded in bringing many of our dioceses to or on the brink of bankruptcy.
Gee, I wonder why. People didn’t want the truth exposed about them? Go figure.
In any case, this particular sin is gaining ground and children are more and more sexualized in this society--- and you can bet the ramifications will go on and on and on. May God protect His people from those who hate Him, and may these wretches come to repentance.
All demographic categories do not dress up in 'heavenly' pious robes and call themselves 'holy father'. This sin is done in the name of God. That elevates the sin into a whole different realm. God held and continues to hold, those that came/come in His name to a higher standard. By Catholic doctrine protestants are NOT really Christian so they cannot be held to the same standard. So it is deceptive to conjure up a percentage calculation that 'holy fathers' are no different than the common sinner.
“pedophile priest scandal “
To be clear, and based on your stats, it is more correctly and accurately stated as “HOMOSEXUAL pedophile priest scandal”
Precisely, I agree, should have added that to be more accurate.
The Church’s policy of mandatory clerical celibacy created a perfect environment for this scandal to occur: An all male environment. A good ole boy network to cover up incidents and shuffle priests around from one place to the next. An atmosphere of secrecy. No shortage of young boys to prey upon among altar servers, Catholic school children, and among the parishioners. No shortage of youth to prey upon (instead of pray over).
Also keep in mind, back in the day, long before homosexuality was accepted and glamorized and glorified as it is today, the Church was seen by many as a natural refuge for men who did not want to get married. Also, back in those days, few would dare question the veracity and integrity of a Catholic priest so it was a perfect cover for many.
I believe the scandal erupted when homosexual priests were admitted. That policy led to the scandal.
I don’t think the Church consciously or deliberately admitted homosexual priests.
No doubt that at one time they seemed to have some sort of don’t ask, don’t tell policy in place.
I’ll have to check. Seems I recall a change where the Church said homosexuals can serve because they would be priests and therefore would not engage in homosexual activity, and therefore not commit the sin of homosexuality.
Seems I recall something like that.
The teaching of the Church (the Catechism) basically teaches that a person (could be anyone-—priest or otherwise) who might have an orientation or inclination in a certain direction in and of itself is not a sin. It’s when you ACT or ENGAGE in such behavior that it becomes a sin. If one assumes that only homosexuals were interested in serving as priests, then the policy of mandatory clerical celibacy makes perfect sense. In fact, given the deadly nature of STDs associated with homosexual acts, ALL individuals with such an orientation should practice celibacy IMHO.
"By Catholic doctrine protestants are NOT really Christian so they cannot be held to the same standard."
Where in the world do you get this nonsense? I'm serious: do you just make stuff up as you go along? Or should I conclude you must be getting misinformation from somebody who retails stupid falsehoods in print or online?
It is absolutely untrue that Catholic doctrine says that Protestants are not really Christian --- and you should have fact-checked this with the Catholic Catechism before you destroyed your own credibility by repeating this rubbish.
From the Catechism, writing about "separated brethren," i.e. non-Catholic Christians:
"The Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.
"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to Catholic unity."
Look it up yourself (LINK), and the more context you take in, the better.
The rest of your argument is similarly wrong-headed, deriving from similar false assumptions. You assume that Catholics consider themselves defect-free, or nearly so, because we use adjectives like 'holy' ('Holy Father, 'Holy Catholic Church.) This is not so. the Catholic Church consists entirely of sinners, and we know it: every one of us acknowledges ourselves as sinners at every Mass, and every Catholic is urged to avail himself of the Sacrament of Confession, including the Pope. No practicing Catholic could maintain the illusion that we are without sin.
I will appreciate your attention to these points in future postings. It's good to chat with you. I learn new stuff every day.
Do not play games with me. I have live with Catholic in-laws for nearly 40 years and I am NOT saved because I am NOT Catholic. I don't do the rituals nor the dance thus I am relegated out in Luther's domain for my falling short. Oh I am not Luthern, however, in the world of Catholics I have survived I might as well have been. Whitewashing reality of Catholic doctrine will NOT undue what I have lived!!!!!
And you've lived with these ignoramuses for 40 years? That would explain a lot.
You can ignore the history of the Catholic Church protecting child rapists by transferring them to other churches instead of having them arrested, but I can’t.
The real numbers are something we cannot know, because the overwhelming majority went unreported. They get reported far more often in other circles.
Admittedly, the problem may have gotten better now, because of so many cases having been brought to the public’s attention.
None of this has anything to do with a vow of celibacy, which is not based on anything religious, but rather on protecting the money and holdings of the Church.
It is unnatural to deny biology and force people to abstain from sex. Some will be able to handle it. Some won’t, and those who can’t control it will continue to be an ongoing concern to society.
Nobody is forced to be a priest.
It is my understanding that it wasn’t actual “admittance” but a less stringent vetting of future priests (which of course is really....admittance).
If you find anything, please post.
But I agree with you 100%. This isn’t about celibacy; this is about perversion and the modernists of the post Vatican II Church is completely at fault.
Neither of these states, celibate or monogamous, is necessarily perceived as "natural" for a man. I think most men can be aroused by a large number of women, and if aroused, could have intercourse almost any time: that is, if he were to do what seems to come "naturally."
Some men-- acting at a level above their instincts and appetites -- have a capacity for life-long celibacy, as Jesus and Paul both said, and all the rest for life-long monogamy. The Western Church chooses priests from the ranks of the celibate.
Nobody is "forcing" anything. USCCB guidelines require approximately 8 years of education, training and discernment to become a priest: four years of undergraduate study of philosophy and four years of graduate study in theology (for men coming directly from high school). During those whole 8 years they are getting a very good idea of whether they're cut out for lifelong celibacy, or not. You'd maybe agree that if a man could be more or less serenely celibate between the ages of 18 and 26, he probably has a vocation to celibacy.
Lots of young men leave seminary without being ordained, because they experience a strong desire for marriage and family. The percentage of seminarians who drop out without being ordained varies (different places, different years) but I've read that on a rough overall average about 50% of seminarians do not go on to become priests.
So men who are celibate are given every possible opportunity over a number of years to discern whether they have a vocation to lifelong celibacy.
If married men feel they have a call to Holy Orders, they can become deacons, which is an ordained clerical vocation just like the priesthood is.
There's no force or coercion here at all. If anything, the lengthy years of preparation --- during which they can leave at any time --- tend to thin the ranks down to the ones who really have a celibate vocation.
“The real numbers are something we cannot know, because the overwhelming majority went unreported”
I think it would be better stated if you said: “The real numbers are something we cannot know.”
The part where you say “the overwhelming majority went unreported” is unprovable.
Is it possible there were more abuses than we know of?
However, it is speculation not fact to say “the overwhelming majority went unreported” because. . .well. . .it is unreported and we have no facts to say how many were unreported.
You can say you think such a thing but you can’t argue that as a fact.
So, nobody is forced to be a priest. What does this have to do with the unnaturalness of celibacy?
So, by extension nobody is forced to be celibate, unless you think there is some sort of "right" to the priesthood? Which would lead me to ask if there some sort of "right" to marriage or parenthood or all these things in life what we would understand as callings?
Following that, if someone does not have a calling to marital or parental life are they, by definition, unnatural?
You can train people for 50 years and it won’t change the fact that human beings are programmed biologically to want to have sex. This is indisputable.
There is nothing religious about celibacy.
For its first 300 years priests married and had children. Popes begat Popes.
God made man and woman to desire sex. When you create a situation where you cannot have it, you will have problems.
Until the Catholic Church reverses this rule, the numbers of Catholic priests will continue to shrink at its current alarming rate.
You are correct. I cannot state it as a fact.
Didn't seem to hamper homosexuals who are attracted to teenage boys.
Worldwide, the total number of priests in 1970 was 419,728. In 2013, there were a total of 412,236 priests. True, that's a loss: the number of priests has been slowly shrinking in the USA since late 60's, BUT does that short time-span foretell the future? Interestingly, we just turned a corner on that this year, when we have the highest number of young men in seminary since 1970.
And the number of married deacons (15,000) exceeds the number of priests in religious orders, like the Jesuits and the Fransciscans (14,000) in the USA alone. So there are still many men who are called to Holy Orders, and will be. Myself, I have very much welcomed the growing diaconate, so I appreciate both the celibate and the married clergy.
To say there is "nothing religious abut celibacy" is as silly as to say there is "nothing religious about marriage." Jesus recommended celibacy, and St. Paul as well, while at the same time honoring marriage.
Think of the fact that when Jesus said that there should be no divorce: anyone who divorces and remarries, is committing adultery. When he said this, the disciples were shocked. They said to Him, "If that is the case, it would be better never to marry." In other words, both faithful lifelong marriage and faithful lifelong celibacy go beyond what is purely appetite-driven and natural. In Christian life, they are both Sacraments and both based on supernatural virtue.
Marriage certainly doesn't do much to restrain vice, if vice is what a man wants. The PSU pervert coach Sandusky, the pervert sexologist Kinsey, the pervert playwright Oscar Wilde, and the pervert Episcopalian bishop Vicky Gene Robinson all were married (to women) and had children. That has been the most common mode of homosexuality, pedophilia and pederasty through history: married men engaging in vice with other men.
Well, spoken like a pure Catholic, I have been exposed to for nearly 40 years!!!
that's what Catholics have been saying since about 1600 when Martin and the boys showed up...
nonsense...the child abuse incidents are FAR more prevelant in the protestant denominations, public schools, scouting etc...
Maybe because the wrong questions were asked...
It is no secret that the Catholic religion is inundated with queer priests, bishops and cardinals...The prohibition against marriage certainly would make the priesthood attractive to homos...
Within the Catholic priesthood there is easy access to young boys...Girls, not so much...It is my thinking that married (to women) priests would be far more heterosexual than than the unmarried priests currently in the system...
Therefore, it is far less likely (tho not impossible) that a heterosexual priest would be far less likely to molest and recruit boys into sexual perversion than it is for the queer priests...
I doubt that statement is accurate when comparing apples with apples...Besides, most teachers are liberals who seem to have less moral guidance than conservatives...Comparing priests to teachers is ridiculous...
I don't believe that's the case at all...Altar boys are recruited into the queer lifestyle, by queer priests...One might wonder how many of these recruited boys grow up into the priest hood...Could be the elimination of unmarried priests may significantly reduce the recruitment of altar boys into the lifestyle of the queers and ultimately remove queer priest due to attrition...
I am curious as to the percentage of queer males in the country who have a Catholic background...
You said that the Catholic Church teces non-acceptance of non-Catholic Christians as Christians, and I informed you that we DO accept you That was a friendly correction, and I proved it by citing an authoritative source of Catholic doctrine. So it was friendly and accurate.
You said I was wrong, because you have never been accepted by your Catholic in-laws, whom you have lived with for 40 years. I said that your in-laws are ignoramuses: which is true, because they've somehow conveyed that their non-acceptance of you in Catholic doctrine, which it is not. They are ignorant of the truth.
Speaking, I hope, "like a pure Catholic", I have been conveying friendly (even fraternal) acceptance of YOU, and accuracy about Catholic doctrine.
Have a blessed day. I will pray for your in-laws. You might want to show them the part of the Catechism which says we are brothers and sisters in Christ.
Since the 1980's, when insurance companies started offering insurance for churches in sex abuse cases, the actuarial data has confirmed that there's no difference in the assessment of risk between Catholic Churches, Evangelical Churches, Synagogues, etc.
Charol Shakeshaft estimated that that "... the physical sexual abuse of students in [public] schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by [Catholic] priests."
So your underlying premise is not supported by the facts. You may need to revise your conclusions accordingly.
True, no one is “forced” to be priest. But it’s a little more complicated than that. Back in the day, many older Catholics will recall, candidates for the seminaries and the priesthood were recruited at a much younger age than they are today. Back then it was quite common for many Catholic families to have a large number of children. Often in these families, it was very common for a large Catholic family to actively encourage a young son or daughter to enter vocations. And this practice was also encouraged by the Church as well. Teenagers as young as fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, were recruited for the seminaries. Of course many of those candidates and recruits were far from sexually or emotionally mature and this was a certainly a contributing factor to the homosexual/pedophile priest scandal which nearly destroyed the Church and continues to impact it to this day.
Today, of course, the situation has radically changed. Homosexuality is widely accepted by the public at large and in certain segments of our culture, most notably our mass media and entertainment sector often glamorize and celebrate the homosexual lifestyle. So there is little need now days for homosexuals to enter into the seminaries and the priesthood.
Consequently, as a result of all of these developments, most notably the increasing acceptance among the public of homosexual behavior and the pedophile/homosexual priest scandal, there are much fewer candidates for the seminary. Also on average, most new candidates are much older than was the case before. In most instances most men entering into the seminaries today have had previous careers and have been around the block a few times and are therefore sexually, emotionally, and psychologically mature and know full well what is expected of them. According to our pastor, the average age of man entering in to the seminary is now about thirty five, many of course are much older. The Church, in the wake of the scandal, has also introduced a very elaborate screening process complete with thorough physical and psychological examinations designed to weed out potential sexual offenders. According to our pastor only about one in ten potential candidates these days is actually accepted into the seminary.
I was talking to the Church’s problems.
The number of priests declined in 43 years while the population was doubling. That is an enormous dropoff.
If celibacy is part of religious doctrine, why was marriage and procreation allowed in the Church for hundreds of years?
Saying divorcing and remarrying is equivalent to adultery means that most of the people who post here are adulterers. I disagree.
The bottom line remains, that celibacy has damaged the reputation and membership of the Church. It will continue to do so. Biology will always trump the rules of the Church. God made us desire sexuality, Church rules cannot overcome biological drives.