Replies

It’s a touchy matter to be sure. It’s not possible in every single case to determine whether the crimes reported took place; and sometimes in other cases crimes are not reported for years if ever. But it happens in all parts of Christendom.

Holding a Mass is one of the Roman Catholic ways of asking Christ to come and heal a situation that was marred by sin. To do that, of course, Christ can’t just be left at the altar; He needs to be embraced by all parties, both the offenders and the offended, to walk with them wherever they go.

The pope said the scandal of abuse caused him “deep pain and suffering. So much time hidden, camouflaged with a complicity that cannot be explained.”

Oh, there are most certainly explanations out there:

[Faithful Departed author Philip] Lawler points out that while less than five percent of American priests have been accused of sexual abuse, some two-thirds of our bishops were apparently complicit in cover-ups. The real scandal isn't the sick excesses of a few dozen pedophiles, or even the hundreds of priests who had affairs with teenage boys -- the bulk of abuse cases. No, according to Lawler, it is the malfeasance of wealthy, powerful, and evidently worldly men who fill the thrones -- but not the shoes -- of the apostles. In case after case, we read in their correspondence, in the records of their soulless, bureaucratic responses to victims of psychic torture and spiritual betrayal, these bishops' prime concern was to save the infrastructure, the bricks and mortar and mortgages. Ironically, their lack of a supernatural concern for souls is precisely what cost them so much money in the end.
-- Excerpt from the thread Kneeling Before the World
"....One aspect of the John Jay report she found particularly helpful was the language it used to describe different ways bishops have responded to reports of abuse in their dioceses -- either as "innovators" or "laggards." The report describes innovators as those who "understood the harmfulness of the (abuse) acts and moved to implement policies to reduce abuse and remove abusers early on." It conversely notes that the response of other bishops "lagged behind, thus creating an image that the church generally was not responsive to victims." The report said the media "often focused on these 'laggards,' further perpetuating the image that the bishops as a group were not responding to the problem of sexual abuse of minors."
-----------
The actual report names five categories of bishops: innovators, early adopters, early majority, later majority, and laggards. Very odd that no category is given for bishops like Milwaukee's Rembert Weakland, a category that might be called something like "perpetrators" .
-- Excerpt from, and personal comments made on the thread John Jay report not just about mistakes in 1960s, says sex abuse expert

Until I see the words "rigorous screening of those entering the seminary", or similar words conveying that meaning, these allocutions are just so much chin music. The key to truly getting to grips with this problem is not "zero tolerance", "holding bishops accountable" or any other draconian after-the-fact measure, necessary though these may be in certain circumstances.

The key to this issue is to screen out homosexuals before they are ordained but that will not happen because it's too politically incorrect and would cause a furore amongst the liberal elites for which the Church currently has no stomach. The Church, in its Catechism calls homosexuality "a disorder" and it is for this reason that a little over 50 years ago, a decree was issued that homosexuals should not be ordained.

The document entitled “Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders” was promulgated by the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for Religious on February 2, 1961 and said.....

“Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers”.

The consequences of ignoring this decree have been disastrous.

Sure, some homosexuals will slip through the cracks but there has to be a hierarchy of measures in place and first among these is the reform of the seminaries. For those who make it through to ordination, it's incumbent on the bishops to act like true pastors if and when these men committ abuse. However, the Church must be proactive and state clearly that sexual disorders, including but not limited to homosexuality, are a deal breaker for ordination to the priesthood.

"Who am I to judge" is a recipe for disaster when it comes to screening applicants for the seminary. It's essential that a judgment is made on the suitability of candidates for ordination. If those with a fondness for Latin and traditional liturgies can be shown the door, then so can those with same sex attraction disorder.

**He called sex abuse a “crime and grave sin,” that was made even worse when carried out by clergy.

“This is what causes me distress and pain at the fact that some priests and bishops, by sexually abusing minors” violated the innocence of children and their own vocation to God, he said.**

He didn’t pull any punches, but told it as it is/was.