Posted on 05/04/2002 4:16:48 PM PDT by history_matters
I can't believe anyone listens to her anymore she is such a twit.
The problem in the church is Homosexuality run amok and protected by Stupid Old men who can't think straight and should have been put out long ago.
Law ,Egan, Mahoney, McCormack et al. don't have the brains they were born with and must be replaced with vital men with Courage,Backbone and are committed to lead the Church in line with the teachings and example of Jesus Christ.
Now Law's latest caper should put him right up there with the most stupid and arrogant Idiots in the world.
Pardon me for being picky--your response was outstanding and perfectly reasoned--except for this little sentence.
IMHO, the Bishops in USA have a little problem--they cannot simply 'defrock' a priest.
Priesthood and marriage in the eyes of the Church are 'forever.' Thus to 'defrock' a priest is a rather complex Church-judicial affair, similar to 'anulling' a marriage.
The solution was proposed (I think deliberately) by the Vatican's spokesman who referenced a 1961 document stating that homosexuals should not be ordained.
It seems that the Vatican is setting up legal grounds for 'nullity' of Ordination--homosexuality being one of them.
This has the effect of allowing Bishops to 'defrock' a priest with judicially-solid ground while at the same time NOT NECESSARILY 'defrocking' ALL homosexual priests--for example, the ones who maintain their celibacy.
Watch how this plays out.
The "liberal" demoninations are losing membership every year.
Why?
Well, many of these so-called churches have gotten so liberal and tolerant that belief in God is optional.
So, why bother going to Church?
I wish the Catholics would learn from this.
Where the author stumbles is in his attempt (rightly or wrongly) to minimize the situation by haggling over semantics and the difference between boys under 12 and boys between 12-17. Trying to split hairs between pedophilia and garden variety boy-buggering to lessen the offense is not helpful.I can't speak for the author, but I often distinguish between true pedophilia and pederasty. They are very different in origins, treatment, etc. A true pedophile is very, very rare. That said, they have always been a problem. They were with us before this present crisis, and will be with us after it. All denominations have had this problem since its been recorded. The thing about it is, they are truly hard to screen for. I don't know of anyone who claims its easy to screen them out before they abuse a kid and get caught. They don't exactly admit their vice publicly. Also, as evil as it is, and as much as these men need to be expunged, they aren't truly the reason we have so many abusers today. They are a small percentage, though they are the most horrible and newsworthy.
Most of the abusers are pederasts. There is a close relationship between gays and a gay subculture and pederasty. When you allow gay culture to thrive in seminaries, as some Bishops have, you are going to wind up with large numbers of pederasts in your diocese. This is the case in Boston, which had a horrible gay subcultue in its seminary for years, and now is the focal point of the present crisis. Pedophiles like Goeghan would have been there anyway, but if the Bishop hadn't tolerated homosexuality in his seminary, we wouldn't be hearing numbers like 80+ priests being accused of these crimes.
This is why I distinguish between pedophilia and pederasty. Pederasty is easier to screen for. Cut the gay men out of the seminary, get rid of them, and never, ever, allow a gay subculture to florish. If the Bishops truly want to confront this issue, they can at least do this.
patent
I mentioned a Church inquiry because this scandal brings up the age old question, "who has authority over priests?" You know, the old Thomas a Becket/Henry II question. Who has ultimate jurisdiction over an erring priest, when he is acting as a priest? In some of these cases, there are merely accusations, some, many, or most of which may be false. I have no idea how real Church inquiries operate, but I think there needs to be some provision for the Church to determine whether or not they're going to "hand him over" to the authorities, or if they're convinced the priest may in fact be innocent, they can stick up for him.
We're not talking about a teachers union here. The Catholic Church isn't a business, and the priesthood is no mere career choice.
I understand what you are saying. But, I think it would be a stretch to claim that any priest was molesting a child while acting as a priest. True, he had access and trust because he was a priest. But, it seems sacrilegious for anyone to claim that child abuse was in the course of his priestly duties---such conduct is the absolute antithesis of the vows of a priest.
While such an inquiry might make sense from a doctrinal point of view, I think past experience indicates that it is subject to great abuse from bishops whose strong inclination is to keep scandal quiet and who may be subject to blackmail based on their own transgressions.
Better to let the civil authorities deal with the criminal law aspects of such charges while the Bishop can deal with the canon law aspects.
But, I think it would be a stretch to claim that any priest was molesting a child while acting as a priest.Nazi Germany had a great way of dealing with the Church when it interferred with their politics. They frequently arrested priests and charged them with pedophilia. Most of these priests didn't do anything other than act as a priest. The mere fact that a charge has been made does not mean the priest was actually molesting a child, we should not forget that, especially in the histeria that seems to be coming.
You refer to past history indicating abuse by Bishops of their authority to resolve these issues, but past history indicates civil authorities have used these powers illegitimately as well.
patent
That's exactly what I meant, he had access and trust because he was a priest, and didn't just run into the kid in the grocery store while in his street clothes. When I say a priest molests a child while acting as a priest, I mean he most likely first encountered the child, and had continued access to the child, through his vocation, such as the various programs and activities offered by the Church. He was left alone with the child because, after all, if you can't trust a priest alone with your child, who can you trust?
But, it seems sacrilegious for anyone to claim that child abuse was in the course of his priestly duties---such conduct is the absolute antithesis of the vows of a priest.
What's sacrilegious is for a priest to engage in sexual activity with a person entrusted to his care--such conduct is the absolute antithesis of the vows of a priest. It isn't sacrilegious for me to claim it. These priests abused their vocation by abusing the weak and powerless.
If there is any distinction to be made about child molesting, I personally would put a child-molesting priest about on the same level of violation of trust as a child-molesting parent, spiritually, not legally or morally, speaking.
Your explanation of the critical need to separate pedophiles and pederasts due to the differences in "root cause" is information that should be disseminated widely and understood. Soon the bishops will set up procedures for selection of candidates as well as systems addressing the treatment and disposition of abusers. Without careful attention to the differences, the procedures and systems will fail. There are those within and without that would not be displeased with a bad outcome.
If a student tells a teacher that he is being sexually abused by, say, a relative, isn't the teacher required to notify criminal authorities, even though the abuse didn't take place on school grounds? Why would the church be exempt from such laws, when teachers and doctors and such are required to follow them? Has anybody in the various lawsuits against the church accused them of violating these child abuse laws by not notifying law enforcement officials?
In Massachusetts, the Church has not been covered by reporting laws. There is a bill in the legislature to change that. I think doctors, teachers and social workers are specifically required to report suspected abuse. I'm far from expert on the ins and outs, but that is the situation as I understand it.
This is very true, but there is more to the Geoghan. Well, actually I did read that the seminary tried to get rid of Geoghan for "immaturity," but a monsignor uncle pulled strings and got him reinstated. He also left for a while because of a "nervous breakdown."
And it seems there was never a time when there was only a single allegation against him -- he was right out of the box with a charge of molesting seven children from the same family (siblings and cousins). I forget the year, but it was before 1984, when Law came to Boston. Geoghan remained in parish work (piling up complaints) until, I believe, 1993.
Even if pedophilia is hard to predict ahead of time, one would think there had been plenty of "red flags" in Geoghan's case.
Clearly, the people need to be vigilant to any abuses of religious freedom as fallout from this scandal. Hopefully, we now have stronger political institutions than were in place in Germany at that time.
I am hesitant to give any religion the right to avoid laws that apply to the rest of us. I feel the same way about churches that claim the right to use illegal drugs as part of their beliefs. And I would not shield Mosques involved with terrorism merely because of religious freedom.
True, there have been some abuses when reports of child sexual abuse are involved (I believe that our former attorney general Janet Reno has some first hand knowledge of that). But, such abuses don't argue that the reporting laws are broken beyond repair---just that we must be careful not to let hysteria take over.
As reported by Zenit news agency, writing an op-ed piece in the New York Times on March 20 Miss Dowd lumped together in one paragraph "the church subsidizing pedophilia" along with "Taliban obliteration of women; the brotherhood of al-Qaeda and Mohamed Atta´s misogynistic funeral instructions; the implosion of the macho Enron Ponzi scheme."
Having been called "talibornagain" right here on FR I understand that the slander of the church has to do with a society that is so irreligious that they can not seperate a murderous cult and a faith that seeks to glorify God...it is a sign of the times..today it is the Catholics..not long ago it was Evangelical Protestants (remember Swaggart and Baker) and when they are done with you all watch for the Reformed church to get it. The devil (aan old fashioned concept) loves to slander the church..
That is the shining truth of my faith! I believe that the Church will do more to root out this horrorible disease
more so than our secular society is willing or inclined to do. In God We Trust!
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.