Posted on 03/08/2005 5:08:12 PM PST by dangus
Fr. Greeley (even though you don't address him as such, I believe he is a priest) knew about all this since at least 1984? He should be thrown in prison for his part in the coverup for the rest of his natural lifed. It is sickening that he has been abetting criminals likr this for years.
Greeley warned the bishops in 1984, NCR warned the bishops in 1984, and The Wanderer warned the bishops in 1985.
If the bishops ignored three warnings, whadda are you gonna do?
I can only go by the info in my neck of the woods, but my answer to "Who would believe a kid over a priest?" would be plenty of people --- like parents, cops, lawyers, judges and other priests. So many cases were legally settled, many were brought to the attention of the chanceries and quietly squelched, lots of cops looked the other way. If no one believed the kid over the priests there'd be no sense in moving the priests around. Least that's what happened in most of the cases here in Boston.
When you have knowledge of criminal activity it's nowhere near enough. The bishops are not part of law enforcement. Fr. Greeley would not be shielded from criminal charges no matter what he told the bishops.
I don't think the Good Lord ever 'demanded' it, yesterday or today. He did make a good case for it though, same argument holds true for the guy in 150 AD or 2005 AD. Can you give up all for the sake of the kingdom? Some can, some can't.
Take it to the Boston Globe! ;-) (who gave years of free adoring press to Fr. Paul Shanley) ---> some stuff you just can't make up!
The Good Lord never demanded celibacy. He just asked those who can accept it to accept it.
Those who can give it up for the sake of the Kingdom are not giving it up, or they're hedging their bets.
They're young, colleen, not a senior citizen like me, who would not hesitate to accept a call, as long as my wife could come along.
"It is my contention that homosexual priests preying on young, trusting, never-tell-a-soul adolescents have been a problem throughout the Church's existence.
But other than your fevered imagination, on what concrete facts do you base this baseless contention?"
Unfortunately there is good evidence that pederasty has been a long-standing problem. If it wasn't, why would the Fathers of the Council of Elvira (300 A.D.) have felt the need to address it?:
"Canon 71: To defilers of boys communion is not to be given even at death."
Their solution wasn't to weaken the discipline of celibacy, however. On the contrary they strengthened it.
"If you were a very Catholic young man who was attracted to males (and not to females, at all)...in the 1920s (or 1930s, or 1940s, or, for that matter, the 1840s"
There's a LOT more of that now, because there are a LOT more predators with easier access to pre-adult males. That means that SSAD is being transmitted with greater frequency now than in earlier decades.
Even Camile Paglia admits that you'd have to be blind not to see that there are a LOT more SSAD sufferers today than before.
Welcome back from the .......*cough*........."vacation"......:-)
However, I'd like to point two things out. First, there may not be more gays in the priesthood today than 50 years ago, but certainly the percentage of gays in the priesthood is near the all time high - mostly because the numbers of healthy, heterosexual males anwering the call has gone down so drastically. Also, there does seem to be an effort to recruit homosexuals into the seminary. It can be seen on many vocations websites of the more liberal dioceses - specific mention is made that it is ok to be homosexual and a priest. If recruitment of gays is up, so then logically would be their numbers. It wouldn't surprise me if the percentage of homosexuals in the priesthood were now over 50%. I do think, in Philadelphia, anyway, that we've started to get virile men back into the seminary. I don't know if this is indicative of a national trend, or just Bevilacqua's no gay policy.
If the percentage of homosexuals in the priesthood is up, in my mind it follows that the percentage of priests preying on children would also be up. But then I accept the notion that if you're sexually disordered in one area that disorder will eventually spread to other areas, i.e. children.
"But then I accept the notion that if you're sexually disordered in one area that disorder will eventually spread to other areas, i.e. children."
Attraction to teen-agers is a classic symptom of same-sex attraction disorder, and always has been.
You are correct, though, that a disorder like that cannot be compartmentalized. It casts a shadow on everything the sufferer does and is, even if he claims to be celibate (not that a man who suffers from SSAD is capable of maintaining celibacy).
"The helping professions have always attracted homosexuals. Thus it has been, and thus it will always be."
Thats a scary thought.
Why the title? Is there something in the USCCB / John Jay report about something John Paul II did? Or is this 'it happened after he became Pope, so he must have ...' thinking? (a la 'it happened after VII, so VII ...')
I think the drop in abuse cases is most likely caused by the aging of the clergy.
>> I know, from personal experience in two dioceses that abuse victims approached bishops in the 70s and 80s and were bought off or told that, if they went public with their accusations, they would end up in court for defamation. <<
How does that refute anything? Even long after V2, they still are too afraid to come forward? That would mean V2 didn't work in that respect.
>> The results yielded that 30-40% of seminarians admitted to being homosexual.<<
The fact that many are homosexual is not evidence that the field is *inherently* homosexual, only that it presently is.
The title was a question. Something very drastic happened shortly after the Pope was installed. I have no idea what it was, or whether the Pope had anything to do with it. Just noting that during his papacy the crisis was 95% solved before the media picked up on it.
I never said the priesthood is "inherently" homosexual. As a celibate male-only profession, however, it does attract a disproportionate number of homosexuals.
>> I never said the priesthood is "inherently" homosexual. As a celibate male-only profession, however, it does attract a disproportionate number of homosexuals. <<
If by "as" you did not mean to imply causation, you are usig weasel words. If you did mean to imply causation, you are saying it is inherently.
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.