Achbp O"Brien On Ordinations

[Dr.Bombay]

There’s obviously larger problems here than the Church’s “official” position on homosexuals being admitted to the seminary and priesthood. According to the Register, In 1961, the Vatican issued an instruction to superiors of religious communities which included the following statement:

*“Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.”

*Barring these men from the priesthood has always been policy. It’s getting bishops, vocation directors and other chancery office bureaucrats to carry out these directives that seems to be the problem.

When I graduated high school, I met with the vocation director of my diocese to discuss a possible vocation. At the time my diocese was dominated by liberals. Within the first 10 minutes of our conversation, he asked if I had any sexual attraction to men. I don’t know if I had pursued my vocation if more questions would have been forthcoming, but at least the initial question was being asked. I don’t know what the policy was in other dioceses and religious communities, but that would seem to be where the root of the problem lies.

Men with SSA should not pursue the priesthood. Period. Tough questions need to be asked of Church leaders as to why so many have been ordained in the past several decades. The policy is already in place. Why hasn’t it been enforced?

 

[otm]

HagiaSophia:

I believe if you read the entire article you may find some of the ways that the teams will be pursuing finding out what is going on. For instance:

"Archbishop O’Brien said that in the new visitations, interviews will be conducted on an anonymous basis in order that truth can be told without fear of retribution.

“The seminarians themselves will be key players to this whole thing,” Archbishop O’Brien said. “They’ll be questioned individually, and if we get 50 out of 60 saying this was the case when I came in and this is the way it is now, there’s reason for credibility there.,”

While seminarians are in formation they are intensively counseled, spiritually guided and examined all along the way for their continued progression not just scholastically, but spiritually and psychologically. By the time “graduation” approaches, their classmates and their spiritual direectors know them pretty well. The candidate knows himself pretty well at that point also. A good formation will not only produce good and well trained priests but will help the discernment process for those who tried it, but decided the life is not suitable for them.

I do believe however that a complete overhaul of the Vocation Directors positions and how they ae being performed is long overdue for an intensive review, as well as the seminary formation masters.

Isn’t that what this is all about - good formation, as opposed to formation that reecks to the high heavens? I would think that the good bishop is out to ferret out what is failing in so many ways. and Vocation directors are only a part of the problem; how effective they are as gate keepers is open to question.

 

[otm]

mgy100:

Like any bureaucray this study will result in no change. It will have recomendations and conclusions that will be left up to another study that will be conducted at a later date. No one will pay attention to the findings, nothing will be done, and a committee will be formed to discuss what can be done, as to which another subcommittee will be formed to discuss what the main committee discovered they can discuss. In the end, nothing will change. And there will probably be another committee formed to inform that another study will take place in 5 years.

A tad bit cynical.

However, possibly too close to the truth.

If bishops are chosen from the ranks of the clergy, and if there is a disporportionate number of homosexuals within the ranks of the clergy (and the guesstimates have ranged from 20% to 80%), then is it not reasonable to assume that a disporportionate number of bishops might also be homosexual?

And if the ranks of the bishops are the source of almost all of the Cardinals, is it not also reasonable to assume that a disproportionate number of Cardinals may be, also, homosexual? And since the large part of the bureaucracy of the Vatican is drawn from the ranks of the clergy, and the bishops, and the Cardinals, is it also possible that we have a disproportionate number of homosexuals in the bureaucracy of Rome?

If so (and I have yet to find anyone to disabuse me of the notion), who is going to stand forth and do the house cleaning? Given that there is an underground of some sort within the homosexual community, and there appear to be reliable reports of bishops and clergy belonging to either that underground or a subset of it, which in turn would mean that a whole lot of people know a whole lot about others, how much pressure - blackmail might be a more appropriate characterization - may be applied to at least some of the investigators, and to those in positions of decision making?

Who wants to be “outed” if they start to enforce the rules on the books, or make new rules? Does the Church (and by that I mean the hierarchy, not just the Pope) have the will to do the housecleaning that might be necessary?

Do pigs fly?

Sorry, folks, but the phrase that keeps running through my head is “Physician, heal thyself”.

 

[Confiteor]

Bella3502:

What about the nuns??

Keeping in mind that hardly any one acted on clergy abuse in any meaningful way until the various dioceses started to bleed $$$ from all the lawsuits, no one is going to care about lesbian nuns until they appear to be doing the same. Besides, given the demographics of sisters, most of them are too old to be preying on anybody…and their numbers in total are shrinking even more than the priesthood.

 

[Bella3502]

HagiaSophia:

What about them?

Nuns/sisters like order priests do not report to the bishop of a diocese –

Sisters I believe, come under the purview of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life in Rome, who would be dealing with Mother Generals of the Order and through her to the various regional respresentatives of their respective orders.

Since this visitation concerns primarily diocesan seminary formation which is overseen by the bishop of the diocese, observations, recommendations and good and bad findings will be sent to or discussed with him. The general sense of things will also be conveyed back to the Vatican and may or may not result in some changes depending on what it contains.

So lesbian nuns can stay, but gay priests have to go. Sounds like a double standard to me.

 

[Fortiterinre]

More O’Brien quotes from the Sun-Times:

“There are some priests, I don’t think there are many, some ordained people with same-sex attractions and they’ve done very well [remaining celibate]. But, generally speaking, in my experience, the pressures are strong in an all-male atmosphere. And if there have been past failings, the church really must stay on the safe side…The same-sex attractions have gotten us into some legal problems.”

I don’t think it’s a “nuns stay, priests go” situation, and “gay” and “lesbian” are political words that have nothing to do with what the Church teaches. My read of the point O’Brien is making is that those who have been sexually active, even if later repentant, are still too high a risk to be admitted to formation. This is certainly a very high standard, but hardly an unfair one.

 

[La_Chiara]

This issue finally hit the NYTimes today (Sept. 15th)–front page of course. The Times says:

The issue of gay seminarians and priests has been in the spotlight because a study commissioned by the church found last year that about 80 percent of the young people victimized by priests were boys. Experts in human sexuality have cautioned that homosexuality and attractions to children are different, and that a disproportionate percentage of boys many have been abused because priests were more likely to have access to male targets–like altar boys or junior seminarians–than to girls.

The Times also reports:

It is unknown how many Catholic priests are gay. Estimates range widely, from 10 percent to 60 percent.

I suspected that the Times would disapprove of the Church’s attempts to rid seminaries and the priesthood of gays. So, the Times blames the “priest abuse” problem on pedophiles but NOT homosexuals. Unfortunately, this is about what one would expect of the NYTimes and its unabashedly liberal, pro-gay agenda. And finally, an estimate of 60 percent is an outrageous exaggeration. (Of course, the Times provides no citations for those estimates.)

 

[otm]

La Chiara:

This issue finally hit the NYTimes today (Sept. 15th)–front page of course. The Times says:

The issue of gay seminarians and priests has been in the spotlight because a study commissioned by the church found last year that about 80 percent of the young people victimized by priests were boys. Experts in human sexuality have cautioned that homosexuality and attractions to children are different, and that a disproportionate percentage of boys many have been abused because priests were more likely to have access to male targets–like altar boys or junior seminarians–than to girls.

The Times also reports:

It is unknown how many Catholic priests are gay. Estimates range widely, from 10 percent to 60 percent.

I suspected that the Times would disapprove of the Church’s attempts to rid seminaries and the priesthood of gays. So, the Times blames the “priest abuse” problem on pedophiles but NOT homosexuals. Unfortunately, this is about what one would expect of the NYTimes and its unabashedly liberal, pro-gay agenda. And finally, an estimate of 60 percent is an outrageous exaggeration. (Of course, the Times provides no citations for those estimates.)

I don’t think there is anyone with a broad enough experience base to be able to say nation-wide what the statistics are. If one was, however, to read Mr. Rose or Mr. Loukidis inconjunction with one priest involved in seminary training (his name escapes me at the moment), who said in national print that he thought the number to be 80%, one might feel that 60% might not be that foroff the mark.

I don’t know that we will ever have enough evidence to make a determination.

Meanwhile, I would like to see who the experts are that the NY times is using to come up with the “finding” that the reason that the priests picked on boys was that they were not homosexuals, but pedophiles with limited access.

Considering that the majority of incidents were not pedophilia but rather focused on post-pubescent boys, one with a lick of common sense would begin to wonder.

But then, perhaps the problem really is that common sense is not all that common, particualrly among the writers and editors of a publication that stands with such solidarity with homosexuals.

Nah, that can’t be… it would require too much common sense to think that…

 

[Guar_Fan]

Fortiterinre:

My read of the point O’Brien is making is that those who have been sexually active, even if later repentant, are still too high a risk to be admitted to formation. This is certainly a very high standard, but hardly an unfair one.

I am sensing some scapegoating… as if restricting homosexual priests will solve the American clergy sex abuse scandal, at least for show purposes.

 

[Fortiterinre]

Guar Fan:

I am sensing some scapegoating… as if restricting homosexual priests will solve the American clergy sex abuse scandal, at least for show purposes.

I agree that you certainly have a point. People seem to be ignoring the fact that the biggest category of abused minors was age 10-13, technically post-pubescent but barely, and NOT the older teens that would be more “logical” for homosexuals to seek. I don’t know if scapegoating is the right word, but this issue of so many very young middle schoolers being victimized is mostly unaddressed by the general sexual orientation concern.

 

[Fortiterinre]

BTW, when I said “too high a risk,” I meant for any kind of unchaste sexual activity, not child molestation per se.

 

[fix]

Fortiterinre:

I agree that you certainly have a point. People seem to be ignoring the fact that the biggest category of abused minors was age 10-13, technically post-pubescent but barely, and NOT the older teens that would be more “logical” for homosexuals to seek. I don’t know if scapegoating is the right word, but this issue of so many very young middle schoolers being victimized is mostly unaddressed by the general sexual orientation concern.

The abuse was almost exclusively male on male. Homosexuality is a central issue in this scandal.

 

[fix]

Submission to the Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

**by Germain Grisez, Ph.D., Professor of Christian Ethics
**

…In my judgment, therefore, the bishops of the United States ought to recognize and state publicly that a large and important part of the clerical sexual offenses to be dealt with are seductions by homosexual clerics of adolescent boys and young men.

Being candid about this matter promises three benefits. First, facing this and other relevant facts will help bishops deliberate soundly about how to deal with clerical sexual offenses. Second, specifically condemning criminal homosexual seduction of adolescents and young men would be an appropriate first step for dealing with the homosexual subculture in the Catholic Church in the United States. Third, since most of the secular media of communication are sympathetic to so-called gays and reluctant to publicize criminal homosexual activity, speaking clearly about criminal homosexual seduction will dampen the media’s enthusiasm for the story of “child sex abuse by Catholic priests.”…

Can men with a homosexual orientation become good candidates for ordination? There are reasons to doubt it. Sexuality profoundly shapes the lives of human persons, and a homosexual orientation, albeit less bizarre than the commonly recognized paraphilias, is a grave disorder. Homosexual men no doubt can be perfectly continent, but the charism of celibacy involves more: peaceful chastity and the sublimation of sexual energy into priestly service for the kingdom’s sake.

Therefore, if a man with a homosexual orientation can become a good candidate, he will not only be perfectly continent but peacefully chaste rather than aflame with passion—that is, he will deal fairly easily with sexual temptations and will seldom be seriously anxious about them or distracted by them. He will not be effeminate and will have the masculine psychology and the virtues of a good father. Understanding and accepting the truth taught by the Church, he will know not only that all homosexual activity is gravely wrong but that the orientation itself is a disorder. He will feel neither proud nor ashamed of his affliction. He will not suppose that his sexual orientation is an asset for priestly ministry and will realize that it would be a serious liability if it became known to people entrusted to his pastoral care; many of them, and not least the parents of boys, would not easily trust or comfortably relate to a priest whom they knew to be homosexual. So, to avoid impeding people’s access to Jesus through his ministry, such a candidate will not make a point of his homosexuality, any more than a candidate with some other problem that many people find distasteful would do. As a result, most people will never learn about his affliction. The few who do will have been told in strict confidence for some good reason.
zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=20750

 

[Guar_Fan]

Fortiterinre:

BTW, when I said “too high a risk,” I meant for any kind of unchaste sexual activity, not child molestation per se.

Yes, and I apologize if my wording blurred what you clearly said. I did not intend to suggest that you said anything different.

 

[Fortiterinre]

fix:

The abuse was almost exclusively male on male. Homosexuality is a central issue in this scandal.

You are absolutely right, quoting from memory I think over 80% male. But my point is that an adult male homosexual logically and empirically should be attracted to a fully developed older teen rather than a ten year-old. The concept of “ephebophilia” (attraction to adolescents just beginning sexual development) seems operative for the scandal, although this unfortunate phenomenon is thankfully not common enough to have been verified clinically.

 

[otm]

Fortiterinre:

You are absolutely right, quoting from memory I think over 80% male. But my point is that an adult male homosexual logically and empirically should be attracted to a fully developed older teen rather than a ten year-old. The concept of “ephebophilia” (attraction to adolescents just beginning sexual development) seems operative for the scandal, although this unfortunate phenomenon is thankfully not common enough to have been verified clinically.

Sexual drive is not logical and empirical. It is emotional.

About 25 or 30 years ago there was some darling of the high end sleaze market, a European photographer (or perhaps not European, however his models were Scandanavian) who published several books of photography of post pubescent young femals in various states of undress. It, of course, was all for the “art” of a young nude or semi nude. It raised a lot of eyebrows and was oh, so avant garde.

To presume that a homosexual would not be attracted to a young, post pubescent male is to fall into a trap that should be perectly obvious. They are as likely to be attracted to a young victim as a heterosexual with predatory leanings is to a young female. Let’s not play the card of how infrequent it is that there is sexual contact between homosexual men and young, post pubescent boys. Their largest source is runaways, kids who have slpit from home, have no way of surviving on the street short of prostituting themselves.

there may not be a lot of empirical studies doen on it, but pay attentiton to what NAMBLA says publicly, and talk to the people who work ith runaway youth. It is far, far more widespread than you seem to believe.

The homosexual community even has a slang name for the young boys. They are called chickens.

 

[Fortiterinre]

otm:

Sexual drive is not logical and empirical. It is emotional.

About 25 or 30 years ago there was some darling of the high end sleaze market, a European photographer (or perhaps not European, however his models were Scandanavian) who published several books of photography of post pubescent young femals in various states of undress. It, of course, was all for the “art” of a young nude or semi nude. It raised a lot of eyebrows and was oh, so avant garde.

To presume that a homosexual would not be attracted to a young, post pubescent male is to fall into a trap that should be perectly obvious. They are as likely to be attracted to a young victim as a heterosexual with predatory leanings is to a young female. Let’s not play the card of how infrequent it is that there is sexual contact between homosexual men and young, post pubescent boys. Their largest source is runaways, kids who have slpit from home, have no way of surviving on the street short of prostituting themselves.

there may not be a lot of empirical studies doen on it, but pay attentiton to what NAMBLA says publicly, and talk to the people who work ith runaway youth. It is far, far more widespread than you seem to believe.

The homosexual community even has a slang name for the young boys. They are called chickens.

There is still a misunderstanding. “Empirical” means based on repeated observations, with logical deductions from the observations. I would expect a normal man to notice a 16 or 17 year-old high school cheerleader in a short uniform. I would expect a male homosexual to notice a 16 or 17 year-old high-school football player in uniform. I would not expect a normal man to notice a skinny 6th grade cheerleader. She may be post-pubescent, but she would not have nearly enough secondary sexual characteristics to catch the notice of an average man unless she were far advanced beyond normal development. Likewise the typical male homosexual would not be expected to notice a gawky 6th grade cub scout. He may be post-pubescent–he has BEGUN adolescence–but if he is normal for his age he does not have many secondary sexual characteristics. Young children entering adolescence in middle school age simply have not developed enough for most adults to have even purient interest in them. Those that do are not TYPICAL, whether homosexual or not. The pathology of pedophilia is a sexual attraction to someone who is not yet sexually developed. The disturbing gray zone is this alarming attraction to those ENTERING sexual development; this is empirically speaking a statistical anomaly. God knows kids are growing up faster and faster, but adolescence still takes years.

 

[fix]

Fortiterinre:

He may be post-pubescent–he has BEGUN adolescence–but if he is normal for his age he does not have many secondary sexual characteristics. Young children entering adolescence in middle school age simply have not developed enough for most adults to have even purient interest in them. Those that do are not TYPICAL, whether homosexual or not. The pathology of pedophilia is a sexual attraction to someone who is not yet sexually developed. The disturbing gray zone is this alarming attraction to those ENTERING sexual development; this is empirically speaking a statistical anomaly. God knows kids are growing up faster and faster, but adolescence still takes years.

Sometimes “sexual abuse” has been used synonymously with “child sexual abuse,” and the latter phrase has been taken to refer to pedophilia. “Pedophilia” refers to a sexual disorder listed among the paraphilias—that is, sexual deviations—in the American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 1994), 522-32. According to the Manual, the pedophile’s deviant focus “involves sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger)” (527).

Stephen J. Rossetti, A Tragic Grace: The Catholic Church and Child Sexual Abuse (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996), explains that most of what he calls “child sexual abuse” is not pedophilia. In arguing that the Church should not regard clerical sexual offenders as incurable, Rossetti says (88):

The statement, “Pedophilia is incurable,” is misleading. First of all, most perpetrators of child sexual abuse are not pedophiles. In a Saint Luke Institute sample of 280 priests who had sexually molested minors, only 20 percent were actually pedophiles. Pedophilia is a clinical term referring to someone whose sexual orientation is towards a prepubescent child. It is true that psychotherapy usually cannot change one’s sexual orientation. The minority of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are actually diagnosable pedophiles. . . .

The majority of perpetrators are involved with postpubescent children. All things being equal, they are more amenable to treatment. One of their goals is to develop satisfying relationships with age-appropriate peers.

Thus, in contrast with pedophiles, Rossetti describes ephebophiles: “There are others who are ephebophiles, i.e., sexually attracted to postpubescent children” (67).

Melvin C. Blanchette, S.S.S., and Gerard D. Coleman, S.S.S., “Priest Pedophiles,” America, 25 April 2002, claim that ephebophilia is one of “five basic sexual orientations.” They define it as follows:

A fixated ephebophile possesses a primary sexual desire toward children between 14 and 17, with the adolescent victim being at least five years younger than the perpetrator. This category becomes especially complicated when the victim is a 14- to 17-year-old boy, and the adult male’s attraction might be one of homosexuality rather than ephebophilia.

In fact, there are two reasons to doubt whether an adult male’s sexual interest in adolescent boys or young men often, if ever, manifests a basic sexual orientation distinct from homosexuality. First, if one looks for “ephebophilia” in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, one does not find it. Second, as Rossetti says (88), pedophiles are not amenable to treatment because “psychotherapy usually cannot change one’s sexual orientation.” But, Rossetti also points out (68): “Many times adults who are sexually aroused by minors may also be aroused by adults as well.” Other things being equal, Rossetti says (88), ephebophiles are “more amenable to treatment,” for they can learn to “develop satisfying relationships with age-appropriate peers.”

In other words, men who have engaged in criminal sexual behavior with adolescent boys and young men can be treated effectively, because no change in sexual orientation is necessary. Such men generally, and perhaps always, simply are homosexuals who have found underage partners attractive and conveniently available, and have been willing to commit crimes. With treatment, they can stop committing crimes and enjoy “satisfying relationships with age-appropriate peers.” “Age-appropriate” is a telling expression. Priests should and usually do enjoy satisfying *nonsexual *relationships with many of their spiritual children, from the cradle to the grave. Only unchaste relationships must be limited to age-appropriate peers—to consenting adults. Rossetti apparently considers that limitation a successful treatment outcome.

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=20750

 

[Fortiterinre]

I do not understand why you are quoting me here. Do you mean that Stephen Rossetti is citing only 20% of abusers were clinical pedophiles? That was from a smaller study as he says. The figures from the John Jay study of all reported abuse victims are:

"Victims’ ages: 5.8 percent under 7; 16 percent ages 8-10; 50.9 percent ages 11-14; 27.3 percent ages 15-17.

Victims’ gender: 81 percent male, 19 percent female."

81% homosexual is an overwhelming majority, but 73% of victims age 14 or younger is too. I am saying there are TWO problems at work here, not JUST homosexuality.

 

[Confiteor]

fix:
RE: Dr. Rosetti:

Isn’t his institution St. Luke’s, one of the places that “treated” priest abusers and released them to go on and perpetrate against other chilldren and adolescents? Also, is he advocating that homosexual priests be retrained only to be actively involved with other adults? I’m sorry I haven’t read the whole article that was posted but I got that impression from the excerpt.