C
- Status
C
Catherine_S
Guest
Letter to the Catholic Bishops
***The following letter was sent to the Catholic Bishop’s meeting in Dallas in June, 2002 to discuss the Church’s sexual abuse crisis. It was also published in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review in November, 2002. The authors are Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons and Peter Rudegeair, MS. ***
The authors offer suggestions for improved methods of screening and training candidates for religious life, including those candidates who are homosexually oriented.
Your Excellencies: *
As a Catholic psychiatrist and psychologist who has treated a significant number of priests from various dioceses and religious communities over the past 25 years for same-sex attraction (SSA or homosexuality) and for pedophilia and ephebophilia* (homosexual behavior with adolescents),we believe that our particular expertise and those of our colleagues in the Catholic Medical Association may be of help to the American bishops as they seek to create effective long term strategies to prevent the recurrence of the problems in which the Catholic Church in the United States now finds itself enmeshed.**
Many have pointed out that solving the problem of sexual abuse by clergy will necessarily involve addressing the problem of SSA among priests. Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, admitted at a press conference in Rome on April 23 the existence of an ongoing struggle to ensure that the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men. *
As the revelations of abuse have become public it has become increasingly clear that almost all the victims are adolescent males, not prepubescent boys. The problem of priests with same-sex attractions (SSA) molesting adolescents or children must be addressed if future scandals are to be avoided. *
In treating priests who have engaged in pedophilia and ephebophilia we have observed that these men almost without exception suffered from a denial of sin in their lives. They were unwilling to admit* and address the profound emotional pain they experienced in childhood of loneliness, often in the father relationship, peer rejection, lack of male confidence, poor body image, sadness, and anger. This anger, which originated most often from disappointments and hurts with their peers and/or fathers, was often directed toward the Church, the Holy Father, and the religious authorities. Rejecting the Church’s teachings on sexual morality, these men for the most part adopted the utilitarian sexual ethic which the Holy Father so brilliantly critiqued in his book, Love and Responsibility. **They came to see their own pleasure as the highest end and used others – including adolescents and children – as sexual objects. They consistently refused to examine their consciences, to accept the Church’s teachings on moral issues as a guide for their personal actions, or regularly avail themselves of the sacrament of reconciliation. ***
These priests either refused to seek spiritual direction or chose a spiritual director or confessor who openly rebelled against Church teachings on sexuality. Tragically, these mistakes allowed these men to justify their behaviors. narth.com/docs/catholic.html
C
Catherine_S
Guest
Commentary: The Pope and His Pharisaical Attackers
Commentary by George NeumayrNote: This article republished with permission from The Catholic World Report (CWR). George Neumayr is editor of CWR.
March 30, 2010 (CatholicWorldReport) - The very secularists and libertine Catholics who wanted the aberrant sexual revolution to enter the Church in the 1960s and 1970s now hold Pope Benedict XVI responsible for its lingering effects.
This takes considerable gall, but that has never stopped them before.
Moreover, what moral authority and “credibility”** do they bring to the issue of protecting children, exactly? These are the same people who favor the abortion of unborn children. They favor the high-brow child abuse of turning children over to homosexual couples at gay adoption agencies. They think it enlightened to bring Planned Parenthood representatives into elementary schools. They celebrate on Main Street gay-pride parades that include the North American Man/Boy Love Association.
The moral authority of these Church-hating ideologues is nil. We are witnessing the repulsively absurd spectacle of a culture drenched in depravity lecturing the Vicar of Christ on moral responsibility. One doesn’t even have to agree with every action or inaction of Benedict’s ecclesiastical career to see that these attacks on him have been appallingly stupid, glib, and Pharisaical.
Liberal pundits call for the resignation of the Pope with about as much consideration as they order a latte. The press interprets the Pope’s recent comment that faith leads one “toward the courage of not allowing oneself to be intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion” as a response to these calls. It probably wasn’t, but if it was, he is right. This is just the petty punditry of petty people who preside over a culture increasingly defined by the corruption of children.
Pope Benedict has taken serious steps to address the abuse scandal in the Church. What steps have a degenerate liberal elite taken to protect children in society at large? The feverish drive to silence and smear the Pope — from the New York Times to pundits like Andrew Sullivan and Maureen Dowd to editorialists at the National Catholic Reporter — is not about the protection of children but the imposition of liberal ideology** on the Church.** Period.**
Their real objection to Benedict is not that he has done too little to reform the priesthood but that he has done too much. It was the New York Times and the National Catholic Reporter that pounced on him for issuing, in his first year as pope, a ban on the ordination of homosexuals. It was the National Catholic Reporter that ran pieces casting the“zero-tolerance” policy as heartless and draconian to wayward priests.
These are not reformers of a permissive priesthood but proponents of one.
C
csuliman
Guest
A satisfactory answer is not one that I approve of in the sense of it is an answer that is in my self-interest. My comment was made in the context of the fact that God had endowed me with a rational mind. Thus in this context a satisfactory answer is one which accords with reason.
What I have maintained is two-fold:
- that women can perform the job of the priesthood as well as men if they were allowed
- There is no reason based on logic or the fundamentals of our faith that prohibit women from serving in the priesthood.
When an Imam tells his followers that black dogs are evil and that if you are praying and a black dog crosses you, you must wash yourself (a common belief in Islam)- I would hope that these followers ask their leader why this is so and request some rational argument. I think we should impose the same duties on ourselves and our leaders.
(some have stated this discussion is not on-topic. However, a central tennant of Ms. Dowd’s article was that a woman pope would solve many of the problems the Church currently has. Thus this discussion seems to me to be completely on topic)
R
rlg94086
Guest
Right. You believe that an explanation only “accords with reason” if your God-endowed, rational mind agrees with the conclusion. God obviously endowed you with a more rational mind than His Holiness, and therefore you reject His Holiness’ reasoned explanation as illogical.
I would call that pride.
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m not comparing the position of a priest and that of a Scout Leader. I’m concerned about the fact that children are being abused all over the place, contrary to how some people try to frame it. If we read the media it almost sounds as if you can solve the abuse problem by tearing down the Church. What I’m saying is that the abuse problem is much bigger than the media is telling us. It’s a worldwide pandemic that has to be addressed. Children should never be made to suffer this way.
Fraternally,
Br. JR
PS. I’ll read the article that you posted and get back to you on that one.
C
Cinette
Guest
Hmmmmm yes…and pride is the basis of all sin…Right. You believe that an explanation only “accords with reason” if your God-endowed, rational mind agrees with the conclusion. God obviously endowed you with a more rational mind than His Holiness, and therefore you reject His Holiness’ reasoned explanation as illogical.
I would call that pride.
Cinette
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually the best reason comes directly from scripture. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Pope John Paul II bound the Church. He explicitly said that he solemnly proclaimed from his apostolic authority that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women.
Once a pope involkes his apostolic authority, the discipline cannot be changed unless there is proof that the reason has ceased to exist. But when you declare that the Church does not have such an authority, it is very difficult to prove that it does.
Since the pope is the law-giver, then reason tells us that he has the authority to bind whatever he wishes to bind in eclesial matters.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
sidbrown
Guest
False and uncharitable.
Show me the quote.
S
sidbrown
Guest
Why woiuld they do this. I thought it was a mortal sin.
S
sidbrown
Guest
So, do you believe it to be a disciplinary question?Actually the best reason comes directly from scripture. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Pope John Paul II bound the Church. He explicitly said that he solemnly proclaimed from his apostolic authority that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women.
Once a pope involkes his apostolic authority, the discipline cannot be changed unless there is proof that the reason has ceased to exist. But when you declare that the Church does not have such an authority, it is very difficult to prove that it does.
Since the pope is the law-giver, then reason tells us that he has the authority to bind whatever he wishes to bind in eclesial matters.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
po18guy
Well-known member
What you seek already exists. It is the Anglican and American Episcopal church. It has just what you ask for - and it is rapidly disintegrating. Your question was answered long ago by Christ. You just disagree with Him.
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually, it is a sacramental question. It falls into the branch of theology called sacramentology. The question becomes, who can be called to the Sacrament of Holy Orders?
The answer is that only some can be called and they must be males, because the Church does not have the authority to call females.
The discipline enters into the picture when a pope uses his apostolic authority to tell the Church, meaning us, that this topic is closed and will never be opened again. A pope does have the authority to bind us in this manner. We can go on raising the question, but he has no moral obligation to entertain the question once it has been ruled that it is not an acceptable question and he gives a reason why it is not acceptable, which John Paul II did give. There is not authority for the Church to call women to Holy Orders.
Since the Church does not have this authority, then the question is answered and need not be raised again. What the pope is saying, using the most powerful weapon that he has, which is to bind the faithful, what he is saying is, “Rome has spoken.”
Now we move into dogma. The dogma concerning the petrine pirivilege is that Peter has the power to govern the faithful and to command their obedience in all things regarding the faith. That is a dogma that has been acknowledge since the time of the Apostles and which comes from the mouth of Christ. That’s why it’s a dogma that the Church has never had to proclaim, because Christ said it. Therefore, we are bound to obey the pope’s disciplinary action on this sacramental matter when he says, “By my Apostolic authority I define and proclaim that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women.”
You have a law based on three pieces fitting together like pieces of a puzzle: sacramental theology, scripture and dogmatic theology. Unless something changes the law cannot be changed. That begs the question, which will change: what we believe about the sacraments, the words of Jesus to Peter, or the dogma on the petrine privilege? I doubt any of these will change. They’re pretty absolute.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
sidbrown
Guest
Our local Catholic priest says that he is strongly in favor of women priests.Actually, it is a sacramental question. It falls into the branch of theology called sacramentology. The question becomes, who can be called to the Sacrament of Holy Orders?
The answer is that only some can be called and they must be males, because the Church does not have the authority to call females.
The discipline enters into the picture when a pope uses his apostolic authority to tell the Church, meaning us, that this topic is closed and will never be opened again. A pope does have the authority to bind us in this manner. We can go on raising the question, but he has no moral obligation to entertain the question once it has been ruled that it is not an acceptable question and he gives a reason why it is not acceptable, which John Paul II did give. There is not authority for the Church to call women to Holy Orders.
Since the Church does not have this authority, then the question is answered and need not be raised again. What the pope is saying, using the most powerful weapon that he has, which is to bind the faithful, what he is saying is, “Rome has spoken.”
Now we move into dogma. The dogma concerning the petrine pirivilege is that Peter has the power to govern the faithful and to command their obedience in all things regarding the faith. That is a dogma that has been acknowledge since the time of the Apostles and which comes from the mouth of Christ. That’s why it’s a dogma that the Church has never had to proclaim, because Christ said it. Therefore, we are bound to obey the pope’s disciplinary action on this sacramental matter when he says, “By my Apostolic authority I define and proclaim that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women.”
You have a law based on three pieces fitting together like pieces of a puzzle: sacramental theology, scripture and dogmatic theology. Unless something changes the law cannot be changed. That begs the question, which will change: what we believe about the sacraments, the words of Jesus to Peter, or the dogma on the petrine privilege? I doubt any of these will change. They’re pretty absolute.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status