Posted on 11/16/2006 9:54:57 AM PST by presidio9
The US Roman Catholic Church has asked a criminology school to delve into the darkest pages of its history by probing the causes of a priest sex abuse scandal.
At a meeting due to end Thursday in the eastern city of Baltimore, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops voted to disburse 335,000 dollars to fund the first three phases of a study by New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
"It will be a groundbreaking study, never done before in the US, nor in the world," Bishop Gregory Aymond, who chairs the Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People, told AFP.
"We don't know what would come out of it, but we are going to tell the truth," said Aymond, of Austin, Texas.
In 2002, the John Jay College of Criminal Justice had made a list of complaints and pedophilia cases in the US Catholic Church since 1985, when one of the first scandals came to light with the case of a Louisiana priest.
The university will now look into the "social and historical context" of sex abuse to see if such cases are more frequent in the Church than in the rest of society, notably in schools and youth clubs, Aymond said.
The Church wants to "look at what is unique" in the priest sex abuse crisis, he said.
The first part of the study would be completed in 2008 and made public, although the names of suspected priests would be omitted.
In the second part, the university will evaluate the Church leadership's response to sex abuse cases.
"We want to see where we failed and made some mistakes, and learn from those who handled it well," Aymond said.
The study will also paint a psychological profile of pedophiliac priests by reviewing cases in treatment centers.
The review will aim to show "to what extent is a priest sexual abuser profile the same as the psychological profile of the non-priests who are sex offenders," Aymond said.
The university will also interview abuse victims and examine education at seminaries over the decades.
The majority of priests accused of sex abuse were trained in the 1960s and 1970s in seminaries where psychological tests and sexuality education have since been introduced.
A final phase of the study will make proposals on how to prevent sex abuse and help victims.
"Our goal is to ascertain the causes of the clergy sexual abuse crisis and if we need to change any method we have now," said Teresa Kettlekamp, the executive director of the bishops conference's Office of Child and Youth Protection, which was created in 2002, in the wake of the sex abuse scandal.
But the study would also be useful to schools and youth groups, Church officials said.
"The pathology of abusing children isn't unique; it's a societal problem," Kettlekamp said.
"We are hoping it will be a big, big help to the society in general," she said.
I know we're having fun with these double entenders (sp?) but, realistically, just what is the Churchs stand on masturbation?
I love it!! ;^)
Groan!!
Both.
The Apostles Jesus selected were all men, and all held "bishopricks."
Acts 1The apostles were the first bishops, and were all men. Christ had the power to select women bishops, but he did not, despite the fact that many contemporary religions had priestesses. (Bishops are also "priests," which is an english transliteration of "presbyter.")13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James...
15And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
16Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
We also know this through Tradition. There is no evidence of female priests anywhere in 2000 years of Church history, as far as I know.
Most important are the theological reasons for the male priesthood. The priest represents Christ, and in dispensing the sacraments, acts in the Person of Christ. Christ's maleness is not an accident of his human nature, nor is maleness in general an accident of human nature. So when a priest acts in the person of Christ, it is fitting that he be a male.
In sum, the Catholic priest is a representative figure selected according to the conditions of embodied, enfleshed persons in concrete human history. The choice was made from all eternity. The selection of males alone as Catholic priests is a sign (a sacrament, bearing grace) of several important revelations about God: about the Trinity, about the Incarnation, about the relation of Christ and His people, and about the importance of gender differentiation. "If men were angels," James Madison once wrote, "no government would be necessary." If men were angels, priests would not need to be (even could not be) males. But under the conditions of human flesh and actual history, it is a more accurate sign of the interior life of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, and of the relation of Christ to His people if the priest is clearly differentiated and selected as a male rather than as a female. Matter is the principle of individuation, and an emphasis on flesh safeguards respect for human individuality, even as it differentiates humans from angels. The priest is male because gender differentiation is significant to the self-revelation of God in history.
I can understand it to some extent, since most young Christians are confused and conflicted, given our secular culture and schools. I can speak from personal experience. On the other hand, it's hard to understand people going through the motions well into adulthood. Reminds me of this verse:
Revelation 3:15-16I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
I'll second that.
Seriously? It's considered a mortal sin, given the subject's sufficient understanding of the gravity of the act. Masturbation is a gravely disordered act.
They call it [masturbation] self-abuse.
Oh no!!!!
Thanks for the explanation.
Yes, it was a serious question.
But, is it Scripture or Tradition?
Leviticus seems to not mention it.
Here's another:
*****
1 Timothy 3
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
*******
Agree!
I wonder why this is being handled in Rome!, Local chuches should select men according to 1 Tim 3, Titus.
I think seeking God's wisdom always works better then a men's. Men trying to solve men's problems is like the blind leaded the blind.
************
Did you make a post criticizing and objecting to all things Catholic? Did you use graphic, explicit language when referring to Mary and her bodily functions? Did you laugh and jeer at our beliefs? Did you make wild, unsubstantiated charges about those who practice Catholicism? Well? Did you, fellow Christian?
All that and more has happened on these Catholic threads in the last year. So feel free to visit these threads. It's an open board.
Remember though, that discussion is one thing and hatred and hostility are another.
Yes it's being completely controlled in Rome and all the rules and definitions are made there. The bible calls for Elders to lead churches but Rome makes up a brand new thing, a Christian Priest, completely foreign to the bible. Everything from that wrong definition is going to be wrong so there is no wonder that they go astray.
Rome has steppd in only because of the American episcopacy's failure to address the problem. Even so most of these problems have been dealt with at the diocesan level. Appeal is made to Rome per canon law when victims (or the accused) feel that the diocese has dropped the ball.
But as for priests, those are in fact trained and accepted at the diocesan level. Even bishops are largely selected by cioceses in the region, with the Pope only formally approving their choices in most cases. With some 4,000+ Catholic dioceses worldwide, it is impossible to do it otherwise.
The bible calls for Elders to lead churches but Rome makes up a brand new thing, a Christian Priest, completely foreign to the bible.
What word are you translating as "elder?" Episcopos?
Everything from that wrong definition is going to be wrong so there is no wonder that they go astray.
The idea of a sacramental priesthood is in evidence almost immediately in the early Church (Apostolic, post-apostolic patristic) writings - if they got it wrong, pretty much every early Christian community did, east and west.
It may be evident is some old writings but it is not evident in the Bible. When the Church starts doing things that are not mentioned in the bible, the Church is stepping away from the bible.
*****
It may be evident is some old writings but it is not evident in the Bible. When the Church starts doing things that are not mentioned in the bible, the Church is stepping away from the bible.
*****
Agree, Also the Bible acknowledges the some of the very 1st church's were in error. 7 churches in Asia, Corinth, 1 John etc.. They were always told to go back the Jesus' and the Apostle's authority.
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.