Posted on 08/14/2018 1:24:14 PM PDT by Enlightened1
PITTSBURGH (KDKA) — The long-awaited state grand jury report into sexual abuse in six Pennsylvania dioceses, including Pittsburgh and Greensburg, has finally been released.
The 884-page document, two years in the making, shines a light into the dark corners of these dioceses going back seven decades, exposing the predators and the efforts of their bishops to protect them.
“Today, the most comprehensive report on child sexual abuse within the church ever produced in our country was released,” Attorney General Josh Shapiro said. “Pennsylvanians can finally learn the extent of sexual abuse in these dioceses. For the first time, we can all begin to understand the systematic cover up by church leaders that followed. The abuse scarred every diocese. The cover up was sophisticated. The church protected the institution at all costs.”
The report begins with the following statement:
“We, the members of this grand jury, need you to hear this. We know some of you have head some of it before. There have been other reports about child sex abuse within the Catholic Church. But never on this scale. For many of us, those earlier stories happened someplace else, someplace away. Now we know the truth: it happened everywhere.”
The report cites 301 priests, clergy and lay teachers with credible allegations against them. There are 99 in the Diocese of Pittsburgh alone.
Of those 99, a group of four groomed and violently sexually assaulted young boys, said Shapiro.
“One boy was forced to stand on a bed in a rectory, strip naked and pose as Christ on the cross for the priests. They took photos of their victim, adding them to a collection of child pornography which they produced and shared on church grounds,” Shapiro said.
Shapiro said the priests would mark their victims by giving them gifts.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburgh.cbslocal.com ...
Because a lion’s share of biblical practice may be found within the Roman Catholic Church, powers and principalities unseen (not of flesh and blood) go overboard (by way of flesh and blood) to distort and pervert matters in that church body as we know it.
Ask yourself where the most demonically inclined souls attack. In my experience it has been in RC churches. BTW, I am not RC. Nor am I AC/DC.
Yes, & you can bet that the “straight” celibate priests knew about the perverts & did nothing. That, in my mind, is just as bad as the perverted acts.
There are 50k-60k priests in the US. If there are 300 KNOWN pervert priests in PA, then are probably 15k nationwide. That’s 1 in 4. Of the other 3, most probably knew what was going on.
What the hell kind of Christian church is that? David Koresh would be impressed.
And yet many folks have pointed out on this thread (and others) that the Catholic Church not only refuses to ordain married men, but it also stands out as the last remaining mainline Christian denomination that doesn't ordain lesbians and other assorted LGBT freaks.
When 300 people can be indicted for criminal charges you’d think criminal conspiracy or other type of charges would be levied.
... And after two years, released by a Democrat just before mid-term elections in a key swing state ... hmmm ....
From other threads we’ve seen on FR this is not a novel or a recent problem for Roman Catholicism. It’s goes back a long, long, long time.
WOW. He would have had to have been in the vector of Patient Zero.
And (not Or) AttyGen Shapiro noting the electoral calendar...
Thomas More was not clergy, he was an attorney. Wolsey did have a mistress (common law wife) with whom he had two children before being elevated to bishop.
Alberta’s Child makes an important point in #56
Salient point. So he shoots a round that wins like 8 of the last 10 PGA's and all the hot takes were "Tiger failed", "Koepka flexed"; and Tigger to this day, I guarantee, doesn't get that the MSM, just like the Deep State, will discard you after your usefulness is extinguished...
Thanks! It’s #55, not #56. :-)
There were a bunch of patchwork rules but not until Trent was it made "official".
The Council of Trent considered the matter and at its twenty-fourth session decreed that marriage after ordination was invalid: "If any one saith, that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or Regulars, who have solemnly professed chastity, are able to contract marriage, and that being contracted it is valid, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law, or vow; and that the contrary is no thing else than to condemn marriage; and, that all who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even though they have made a vow thereof, may contract marriage; let him be anathema: seeing that God refuses not that gift to those who ask for it rightly, neither does He suffer us to be tempted above that which we are able" (canon 9).
It also decreed, concerning the relative dignity of marriage and celibacy: "If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema."[73]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy#First_century
The celibacy requirement is just more made up rules of Roman Catholicism.
It should be noted there is nothing in the New Testament prohibiting God's man to be married if he wants to be.
Through my tiny window of perspective, I see this:
First, I was raised in a blue-collar industrial city that was at least 2/3 Catholic (Erie, PA) and "culturally", so to speak, everybody was Catholic, even the Jews. For instance, if you wanted to know what neighborhood a person lived in, you'd say "What parish? Up there by Holy Family?"
We assumed our clergy were holy, and most of them were. In grade school the peak of human development was to be either a Marine or Maryknoller (world missionaries.)
I'm sure that if I ever heard a rumor that a priest was getting indecent with boys, at the outset I wouldn't have any idea what it meant, and then if I knew what it meant, I wouldn't have believed it.
Second, by the 70's the Catholic Church was developing "beyond" a God-fearing ethic into a highly "therapeutic" culture. Whereas before, any kind of wayward behavior would have been exclusively described as a "sin," by the 70's deviancies were coming to be understood as "sicknesses."
So if Fr. Kevin was a little too handy with the boys, the assumption was that he was under stress, he got that way when he was drinking, he needed to take a medical leave down to St. Luke's and learn how to manage alcoholism and burnout and his particular psychological kinks. After some counseling he could be brought back and be "mostly OK" and a better man.
So the two categories we thought about were "sin" and "sickness." People weren't thinking "CRIME."
In fact I remember an idealistic young nun (she was a RN and the daughter of a RN) telling me that these cases should NOT be prosecuted because it would just re-traumatize young victims by requiring them to participate in the courtroom and testify, maybe multiple times.
Best all around to just quietly help the priest make a second start. People maintained a relentlessly optimistic assumption that if you didn't blow things up needlessly in public, with patience the priest would right himself.
People generally thought this way. Victims didn't press charges, police wouldn't arrest, it wasn't even thought of that the whole thing could or should end up with jury trial, conviction, and jail. Judges didn't want to hear about it. Compassionate progressive Christian people knew to take a "healing" approach.
That's as much as I can venture to say.
Oddly, in a way it's not a matter of Catholic Erie being too Catholic. It's being not Catholic enough. Really traditional Catholicism would have been far more severe, far more realistic about the reality of evil, judgment, and hell for those who were not confronted and pressed hard to repent.
Secular justice might have provided just the "spiritual" impetus to make a man repent: swift, severe and certain.
`
#94 may be of interest.
Which in itself goes against the Roman Catholic claim of following "tradition".
Priests were originally not allowed to pass from city to city per the First Council of Nicea (325).
On account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the Canon, must wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon shall pass from city to city. And if any one, after this decree of the holy and great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or continue in any such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the Church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter.
http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/nicaea_canons.htm
https://www.christian-history.org/council-of-nicea-canons.html#15
However, there is nothing in the NT prohibiting this.
Nonsense.
There are many non-Catholic denominations which won't ordain ministers and will defrock them for any moral failure.
But you did a somewhat dishonest portrayal there. You specified MAINLINE denominations, as if that were representative of ALL non-Catholic denominations. And they certainly aren't.
You need to specify what YOU mean by MAINLINE, and then not broad brush all non-Catholic denominations with that brush.
On the contrary, those in leadership positions in the church, are expected and commanded to be married.
1 Timothy 3:1-13 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
Titus 1:5-9 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
Scripture also addresses what is to be done when there is a person in the church sinning in immorality.
And there, the Catholic church has completely dropped the ball. They don't even follow the Bible that they claim they wrote.
1 Corinthians 5:1-13 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
Interesting thinking back to my Catholic days.
In the rather large parish I was in, it was rare to see the same priest more than two or three times.
There were a few who stuck around for a few months, but otherwise, there was a LOT of turnover.
I always wondered why that happened.
Now I'm REALLY wondering why.
You might want to review that statement for accuracy.
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.