Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Catholic Church seeks to find root of priest sex abuse
AFP ^ | 11/16/06

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: catholic; cult; homosexualagenda; predidiot9; presidiot9
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-369 next last
To: DCPatriot

No- I ask him to his face if he is homosexual.
How is that more shameful than a man violating his vows and pretending to be what he is not-a legitimately consecrated priest?
And what is wrong with shaming THEM??
Certainly they have brought untold shame upon the priesthood and the Church.


301 posted on 11/16/2006 7:11:12 PM PST by ClearBlueSky (Whenever someone says it's not about Islam-it's about Islam. Jesus loves you, Allah wants you dead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot

"The cause...in a word....CELIBACY!"

I think my response to your post is: Yes and no.

I believe that the demands of a totally celibate priesthood is a contributing factor, though not a direct cause.
I think that the uni-sexual, totally celibate peer-environment can contribute to conditions that fail in the challenges of celibacy; challenges and failures that are not just of the "homosexual" variety.

I think the Catholic Church must search for some prime conditions that contribute to the "sexual failures" in the priesthood in general, and when it does it will learn some lessons that apply to all such failures and not just the "homosexual" variety.

I find it interesting that, in a completely opposite fashion from the historically-late celibacy restriction in Catholicism, many Jewish conventions require that one who wihses to become a Rabbi and who studies to become a Rabbi must first be married before they are allowed to practice as a Rabbi. Single persons cannot be Rabbis in traditional Jewish conventions.

My alzheimers-riddled memory also seems to recall some reference (somewhere, unconfirmed) that many or most of Yeshua's 12 diciples as well as the apostles known to Paul were married, not celibate.

It is also my recollection that the prime-cause behind the rule that required celibacy was that prior to that rule many priests and bishops were passing-on their positions (and control of the related property) to their male heirs, at the expense of real merit of those most qualified.

In my musings I wonder if, possibly, the celibacy rule was one of those proverbial "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" decisions, in which the attempt to correct an organizational corruption helped create an environment that contributed to a moral corruption.


302 posted on 11/16/2006 7:27:32 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Eclectica

Obfuscation is a prime tactic in the culture war. They want to think the homosexual priests prefer little boys to teenagers though the evidence shows otherwise. So like a good defence attorney they try to deflect the jury's attention from the facts.


303 posted on 11/16/2006 7:59:58 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot

The problem was that when after Vatican II there was an emptying of the seminaries and an abandonment of the priesthood by many already ordained,
the bishops lowered their standards and took in men who earlier would have been rejected.


304 posted on 11/16/2006 8:03:54 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: ClearBlueSky

You have a point. I feel pedophiles are attracted to the church - it's not that spiritual men are compromised - it's that sociopathic individules see the church and it's members as easy marks. Here's my list:

Pedophiles are attracted to the Church because they will have:

1. easy access to children
2. authority over children
3. authority over gullible parents
4. a free place to live
5. maid service, free travel, free rent
6. easy job
7. When caught, the Church will protect and "forgive"
8. People of faith are easy to play for fools.
9. The ability to preach that "tolerance of evil" is good.

Pedophiles are also attracted to being camp counselors for the following reasons. They have:

1. easy access to children
2. authority over children
3. some authority over gullible parents
4. lower educational requirement than becoming a priest
5. salary and benefits

Pedophiles are also attracted to being Ministers and Teachers for the following reasons. They have:

1. easy access to children
2. authority over children
3. some authority over gullible parents
4. lower educational requirement than becoming a priest
5. salary and benefits

The Catholic Church needs to get it's head out of the sand and fire people who condone evil. Or preach for acceptance of evil.


305 posted on 11/16/2006 8:15:02 PM PST by GOPJ (The MSM 's so busy kissing democrat butt they can't see straight - come up for air guys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

You are correct on all points-BUT-

If there was never another child/teen accosted by a homosexual priest, would that end it? Would homosexual priests be ok?
Would homosexual priests having sex with other adult men, and other priests be ok?
Victimizing minors is the ultimate sickness- no argument- but I don't want Catholic priests fornicating with lay men or each other.
The VOW of celibacy was taken and should be lived up to. It means NO SEX. With anyone- or anything. Period. Not just 'no sex with minors'- no sex!
Whether or not the requirement of celibacy is right, or should stand, is up for argument here.
THAT it is a vow that was willingly taken is not. And any priest that took it, KNOWING he never had any intention of fulfilling it, is not a valid priest IMO.
As long as celibacy( no sex with anyone) is a requirement, you obey it or you get out.
If it changes- homosexuals as priests would still be an abomination.


306 posted on 11/16/2006 9:55:21 PM PST by ClearBlueSky (Whenever someone says it's not about Islam-it's about Islam. Jesus loves you, Allah wants you dead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
I heard today on talk radio that the decision to require celibacy was purely economics.

'They' didn't want responsibility for wife and children, to feed and house them.

Can't recall if that was the host or a caller. That's my short-term memory at 60.

307 posted on 11/16/2006 10:42:51 PM PST by DCPatriot ("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: ClearBlueSky
What's wrong with a homosexual man becoming a priest?

Once the vow of celibacy is taken they should be no less trustworthy than a heterosexual man.

You and your ilk creep me out.

I'm sure a homosexual is capable of loving God and doing his work just as well as a heterosexual.

It's the vice of choosing to impose power over children we're talking about.

My point simply was that by requiring celibacy the pool shrinks.

308 posted on 11/16/2006 11:45:13 PM PST by DCPatriot ("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Dogrobber

I have been told this also....i don't have proof but it does not suprise me.


309 posted on 11/16/2006 11:53:54 PM PST by teldon30 (disgruntled 2nd class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot
What's wrong with a homosexual man becoming a priest?

Google velvet mafia.

310 posted on 11/17/2006 1:47:27 AM PST by Eclectica (Ask your MD about Evolution. Please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Mainline Protestantism is declining.

Especially those outfits that allow SIN to exist in their ranks and all they do is TALK about it!

311 posted on 11/17/2006 4:11:14 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Do you know anyone who is a eunuch?

Well....

I feel that I am kinda unique!

312 posted on 11/17/2006 4:12:32 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
Only your assumption which is not backed by scripture or Tradition.

Unfortunately; this is how many get their ideas about 'religion'.

313 posted on 11/17/2006 4:13:46 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

Can't argue with THAT bottom line!


314 posted on 11/17/2006 4:16:39 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
You wouldn't believe all of the people in my office who spout nonsense about the Catholic Church and her teachings that supposedly went to Catholic School.

Likewise...

You wouldn't believe all of the people in my church who were born and raised in it, went to Sunday School all their lives and still seemingly don't have the basics of the Faith in their lives!

315 posted on 11/17/2006 4:19:06 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier

Paul was a "young man" when they stoned St. Stephen. There is no indication anywhere in scripture or oral tradition that he had a wife.

It would seem this way, but I wonder....

Our present 'bible' seems to indicate this, but remember, the chapters and verses are a late addition to the Book.
 

 
-- King James
Acts 8:1  And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
 
-- American Standard
Acts 8:1  And Saul was consenting unto his death. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church which was in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
 
-- New International
Acts 8:1  And Saul was there, giving approval to his death.   On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.
 
 
 
It's the AND that makes me wonder.
 
 
It looks THIS way now...
 
NIV Acts 7:55-60
 55.  But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
 56.  "Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."
 57.  At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him,
 58.  dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.
 59.  While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
 60.  Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep.
 
NIV Acts 8:1-3
 1.  And Saul was there, giving approval to his death.   On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem,
      and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.
 2.  Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him.
 3.  But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.
 
But looks THIS way when the POINTERS are taken away:
 
 


  But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.  "Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."  At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.   While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."  Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep.   And Saul was there, giving approval to his death.   On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.   Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him.  But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.
 

Could there have been TWO Sauls???

 

I mean, a 'young Saul' was mentioned just a line or two before the phrase 'and Saul was there' - why the need to restate what was just said?

Perhaps the 'young man' adjective was to differenciate between the two?


316 posted on 11/17/2006 4:43:52 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: siunevada
But then, I can't remember the subject ever coming up in conversation.

GROAN!

317 posted on 11/17/2006 4:44:50 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
John Paul II had a problem with folks accusing ....

But, were there 2-3 witnesses as REQUIRED by Scripture?

318 posted on 11/17/2006 4:47:00 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
"What they were celibate from didn't matter."

I think you have hit the nail on the head, and I would like to go a bit further. It seems to me that once there are a few homosexuals in an organization, they seem to attract and select more homosexuals to join. A well-known example of this is the New York Times editorial and reporting ranks.

I have also been struck by the increasing numbers of gays serving as aides in Congress.

Another example is the Episopal Church, which is not only increasingly filled with gay clergy but has even elevated a practicing homosexual to a high position.

What I do not know is whether this is simply an instinctive discrimination in favor of gays by those who prefer to be with people who think as they do, or whether it is an actual plot by the gays and the left, weird as that seems. The increased pressure for recognizing same-sex marriages and such in the mainline Protestant denominations certainly makes me wonder.

At any rate, I am interested in this investigation, and think it money well spent. If the investigation can identify seminaries that are screening out straight men, groups of homosexuals who are working from within the Church for their own ends, or poor practices in reviewing seminary applicants, it will be a good thing.

319 posted on 11/17/2006 4:47:24 AM PST by Miss Marple (Lord, thank you for Mozart Lover's son's safe return, and look after Jemian's son, please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: trisham
Post an article which addresses a Catholic issue and out come the Protestants to criticize and object to all things Catholic. :)

So, like Rush has pointed out, if we've never had (whatever the problem is) we are not allowed to talk about it?

320 posted on 11/17/2006 4:49:10 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
Palms must be greased after all for God's sake.

I know we're having fun with these double entenders (sp?) but, realistically, just what is the Churchs stand on masturbation?

321 posted on 11/17/2006 4:51:11 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot
... I have doubts about my belief system.

I love it!! ;^)

322 posted on 11/17/2006 4:54:31 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: ClearBlueSky

Well- I ASK him before going into the confessional, or even attending their mass!
 
 
There you go!
 
 
After all, the Book says EACH OTHER!
 
 
James 5
 13.  Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise.
 14.  Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.
 15.  And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.
 16.  Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
 17.  Elijah was a man just like us. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years.
 18.  Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops.
 19.  My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back,
 20.  remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.
 
 
 

323 posted on 11/17/2006 4:57:06 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
 To better fight the temptation of the flesh, this early Church father castrated himself.
 
Matthew 5
 29.  If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.   It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
 30.  And if your right hand causes you to sin,  cut it off and throw it away.   It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

324 posted on 11/17/2006 4:59:45 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: ElPatriota
THEY, on the other hand come at you ready to finish you.

Groan!!

325 posted on 11/17/2006 5:00:46 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
...he chose males as his priests/bishops, so priests must be male. Scripture or... Tradition?

Both.

The Apostles Jesus selected were all men, and all held "bishopricks."

Acts 1

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.

The 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.")

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.

Women, Ordination and Angels


326 posted on 11/17/2006 5:04:54 AM PST by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
You wouldn't believe all of the people in my church who were born and raised in it, went to Sunday School all their lives and still seemingly don't have the basics of the Faith in their lives!

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 3:15-16

I 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.


327 posted on 11/17/2006 5:14:55 AM PST by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: TChris
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;

I'll second that.

328 posted on 11/17/2006 5:18:10 AM PST by DungeonMaster (Man defiles a rock when he chips it with a tool. Ex 20:25)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
just what is the Churchs stand on masturbation?

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.

329 posted on 11/17/2006 5:19:11 AM PST by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

They call it [masturbation] self-abuse.


330 posted on 11/17/2006 5:31:59 AM PST by DCPatriot ("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
...all held "bishopricks."

Oh no!!!!

331 posted on 11/17/2006 5:37:48 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

Thanks for the explanation.


332 posted on 11/17/2006 5:38:05 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

Yes, it was a serious question.

But, is it Scripture or Tradition?


Leviticus seems to not mention it.


333 posted on 11/17/2006 5:41:15 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

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.


334 posted on 11/17/2006 6:06:44 AM PST by NoDRodee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
So, like Rush has pointed out, if we've never had (whatever the problem is) we are not allowed to talk about it?

************

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.

335 posted on 11/17/2006 6:08:17 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: NoDRodee
I wonder why this is being handled in Rome!, Local chuches should select men according to 1 Tim 3, Titus.

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.

336 posted on 11/17/2006 6:23:32 AM PST by DungeonMaster (Man defiles a rock when he chips it with a tool. Ex 20:25)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot
"....many men of sound moral character forego the priesthood"

I don't believe that is true as all other denominations are suffering from lack of vocations, married or not.
If you can't be celibate for the love of God, you don't belong there.

In the past due to errant sinful priest in the seminaries, those with "issues" were admitted. This is no longer the case.
337 posted on 11/17/2006 6:26:58 AM PST by dcnd9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
Yes it's being completely controlled in Rome and all the rules and definitions are made there.

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.

338 posted on 11/17/2006 6:34:58 AM PST by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
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.

339 posted on 11/17/2006 7:10:54 AM PST by DungeonMaster (Man defiles a rock when he chips it with a tool. Ex 20:25)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

*****
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.


340 posted on 11/17/2006 7:25:11 AM PST by NoDRodee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
But, is it Scripture or Tradition?

Onan seems to be the most obvious scriptural example. And as far as I know, the Church has always been considered it to be a grave sin.

Masturbation also contradicts the natural law. The purpose of the reproductive organs is... < drum roll please> reproduction. The pleasurable nature of intercourse is ordered toward reproduction. The deliberate frustration of the natural end of intercourse for the purpose of self-gratification is analogous to binging and purging. It's selfish and disordered.

341 posted on 11/17/2006 7:32:43 AM PST by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot

Well- THEIR 'ilk' creeps me out, so we're even.
What's the problem with homosexuals in the priesthood?
Look what they've done to it! The public perception of Roman Catholic priests includes perversion and child abuse now.
Isn't that enough of a problem?

And the issue is celibacy. That's the rule they understood upon joining the priesthood, that's the vow they took upon ordination. It's KEPT or you're not a priest- get'em outta there, period.
It's NOT just about the 'power over children', because the
men using that power are homosexual. It's men and little BOYS! The base perversion is the problem in the Church. If it were not we'd see equal numbers of priests abusing little girls. Are we???
Now-imagine the celibacy requirement is dropped.
Straight priests can then marry and have wives and children.
Homosexual priests are now free to have sex with each other.
Pedophilia is evil always, by anyone.
If you equate heterosexual with homosexuality, and the idea of a priest having sex with a woman with the idea of priests having sex with each other, then you creep ME out.
Is hetero sex equal to ANY form of sex? Would beastiality be just as ok for a priest as hetero marriage? Father and his wife = Father and his boytoy, or his German Shepherd?

Heterosexuality is biologically normal.
Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered.
I would rather have 12 priests left on the planet than all of the homosexual priests there are.
If these gay priests had obeyed their vow of celibacy, the words 'pedophilia' and 'priest' would not be associated, now would they?
Are you saying that homosexual priests having sex with other men or each other is ok with you?
If you are- that ends our conversation.


342 posted on 11/17/2006 8:11:01 AM PST by ClearBlueSky (Whenever someone says it's not about Islam-it's about Islam. Jesus loves you, Allah wants you dead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: NoDRodee
They were always told to go back the Jesus' and the Apostle's authority.

Which is not maintained in any person or institution.

343 posted on 11/17/2006 8:17:18 AM PST by DungeonMaster (Man defiles a rock when he chips it with a tool. Ex 20:25)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Gee, I'd be willing to tell these bishops what the problem is for a lot less than $335,000 -- The Catholic church let sexual deviants whose sexual perversion is sinful behind the pulpits.


344 posted on 11/17/2006 8:29:38 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
*Which is not maintained in any person or institution.*

Agree, Not to say we can't help one another, or the Church is not needed. I just don't see where we should have to go half way around the world to look for a solution for problems like this blog is discussing. I think the solution is clearly defined in 1 Cor.5.
345 posted on 11/17/2006 9:00:51 AM PST by NoDRodee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
(Man defiles a rock when he chips it with a tool. Ex 20:25)

Only when making an altar.

346 posted on 11/17/2006 9:32:28 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
The purpose of the reproductive organs is... < drum roll please> reproduction.

Therefore the Natural function of eating is for fuel.  Hold them spices!!


Onan seems to be the most obvious scriptural example.

Onan is the ONLY, not the most obvious.

And in that example, a larger law is being disobeyed.

 

Genesis 38
 
 1.  At that time, Judah left his brothers and went down to stay with a man of Adullam named Hirah.
 2.  There Judah met the daughter of a Canaanite man named Shua. He married her and lay with her;
 3.  she became pregnant and gave birth to a son, who was named Er.
 4.  She conceived again and gave birth to a son and named him Onan.
 5.  She gave birth to still another son and named him Shelah. It was at Kezib that she gave birth to him.
 6.  Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.
 7.  But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the LORD's sight; so the LORD put him to death.
 8.  Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother."
 9.  But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.
 10.  What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.
 
So, does the Church kill semen spillers?
 
Does the Church say it's ok to lie with your widowed sister-in-law?
 
If we're to follow ONE part of the LAW, it seems we should follow it all.

347 posted on 11/17/2006 9:40:23 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
The purpose of the reproductive organs is... < drum roll please> reproduction.

Therefore the Natural function of eating is for fuel.

True.

Hold them spices!!

Doesn't contradict the premise.

If you know another purpose for the reproductive system, let me know. Right now, you're rationalizing.

Onan is the ONLY, not the most obvious.

So it's not valid? Your premise is invalid.

Is embezzling wrong? It's not mentioned at all in the Bible.

And in that example, a larger law is being disobeyed.

This is a novel interpretation that has only come around in the last 70 years, since the Church of England became the first Christian sect to permit artificial means of sterilization.

348 posted on 11/17/2006 10:21:13 AM PST by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
If we're to follow ONE part of the LAW, it seems we should follow it all.

Should we disregard the ten commandments? The reason why we don't is because they accord with the natural law, which is written on the human heart (see Deuteronomy), and is knowable by all people. For this reason, the ten commandments were binding even before they were formally promulgated by God, and for this reason, they are still binding today.

The same holds true for Levitical laws that accord with the natural law, such as proscriptions against masturbation and induced sterility. These proscriptions are still valid today because they conform with the natural law, of which God is the author. Other Levitical proscriptions could be described as transient pastoral laws promulgated by God for a particular people and time.

349 posted on 11/17/2006 10:27:06 AM PST by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

:)


350 posted on 11/17/2006 1:24:09 PM PST by GOPJ (The MSM 's so busy kissing democrat butt they can't see straight - come up for air guys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-369 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson