Anyone considering conversion to Catholicism

[jmcrae]

But we also need to realize with charity that some of the Bishop’s may not have known enough about pedophilia to take the correct action. Only recently has it become known about the pathology of this depraved sickness.

Also, the Bishop is basically the priest’s employer.

I have never heard of someone’s employer being held responsible for their crimes, before - even if they took place on company property.

I don’t know why the Bishops of these priests are somehow considered responsible for their actions - after all, there is nothing in Catholic teaching that would require a priest to act in this way, and nor do I believe even for half a second that any Bishop would have said, “Yes, go ahead and do that; that sounds like a wonderful way to do Christian evangelism.” (I don’t think they even knew that it was going on.)

 

[rr1213]

But we really don’t know do we? Here is what I know: In my state, there are five clergy in the state pen for a sex crime against a minor. Not one of them is a Catholic Priest.

I don’t want to minimize this scandal. The perpetrators committed evil that “cries to Heaven” and the Bishops who didn’t properly deal with it are do be proportionately admonished and if they did so with intent even punished. But we also need to realize with charity that some of the Bishop’s may not have known enough about pedophilia to take the correct action. Only recently has it become known about the pathology of this depraved sickness.

I honestly don’t understand what you would have needed to know about pedophilia if you were a Bishop presented with the problem. Certainly, any such Bishop should have known enough not to reassign pedophiles to other parishes. He also should have known enough to take disciplinary action in the nature of Church discipline and, also, to immediately call the local prosecutor or police department so that legal action could be taken against the perpetrator. We are not talking about mere “indiscretions” but, instead, very serious crimes against innocents. A good argument can be made that to not contact the authorities makes the Bishop an accessory after the fact to the crime, especially if he helps to hide the crime. This action would not be acceptable in Corporate America, let alone the Body of Christ!

Ok, enough ranting on my part. I know this is a “raw nerve” topic for faithful Catholics who see the Church they love come under attack for the sins of others. Again, it just seems to me that these faithful Catholics or those who are thinking of converting to the Catholic faith are the ones who (other than the victims) are most hurt by these crimes.

 

[wanner47]

• Rejection of my family who are all Protestants.
• The Marian doctrine
• The linkage of my Protestant upbringing

Erm… why do you need to “reject your family” just because they’re Protestants? As a former Protestant myself, I don’t understand why you think this is necessary. My family knows I am Catholic, and that I believe Catholic teachings. They also know the points of Protestant doctrine with which I vehemently disagree, and I have endeavored to share my faith with them. But just because I am a Catholic and they are Protestant does not mean I must “reject” them.

Also, I’m not quite sure what you mean by “The linkage of my Protestant upbringing.” Can you clarify?

My biggest isssue is the Church’s stand on artificial birth control when the world population is way out of hand already and getting worse. But I suppose I can give it lip service, being non-sexual myself

Actually, in many countries - Germany, Australia, and Iran, to name a few - the leaders are actually encouraging couples to have more children because the birth rate is too low. The United States is also fast approaching that point!

Overpopulation is not a problem in this world. The problem is that resources are not distributed evenly - i.e., to each according to his means. A minority of the population consumes a majority of the resources. We have more than enough resources for all the world’s people if we’d all just learn to share better, putting it simply.

More comments on this thread to come…

 

[Saint_Michael]

I honestly don’t understand what you would have needed to know about pedophilia if you were a Bishop presented with the problem. Certainly, any such Bishop should have known enough not to reassign pedophiles to other parishes. He also should have known enough to take disciplinary action in the nature of Church discipline and, also, to immediately call the local prosecutor or police department so that legal action could be taken against the perpetrator. We are not talking about mere “indiscretions” but, instead, very serious crimes against innocents. A good argument can be made that to not contact the authorities makes the Bishop an accessory after the fact to the crime, especially if he helps to hide the crime. This action would not be acceptable in Corporate America, let alone the Body of Christ!

Ok, enough ranting on my part. I know this is a “raw nerve” topic for faithful Catholics who see the Church they love come under attack for the sins of others. Again, it just seems to me that these faithful Catholics or those who are thinking of converting to the Catholic faith are the ones who (other than the victims) are most hurt by these crimes.

I struggled with the same issues myself, however in looking at everything in context it became clear that it wasn’t pedophilia, it was ephebophilia. The typical case was ~13-16 year old boy being fondled by a homosexual priest. This happened over and over, so I had to accept the fact that homosexual men are already sexually disordered and inviting them into the priesthood was a serious error.

As for not contacting authorities, keep in mind that the parents rarely if ever contacted the authorities either. There was a stigma that people did not want associated with their child, especially if the boy was a 15 year old sophmore in High School.

Several of the Orthodox Jewish communities around Brooklyn, specifically Burrough Park are going through similar problems. Yet the molestations are very underreported because of stigma it would attach to the young men. Times are changing, hopefully for the better.

newyorkmetro.com/news/features/17010/index1.html

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503E0D91639F931A35752C1A963958260

villagevoice.com/news/0630,lombardi,73955,2.html

 

[wanner47]

The primary reason is the doctrine of Infallibility, in the forms of both Ecclesiastical Infallibility and Papal Infallibility. This contradicts humanity’s historically-demonstrated capacity for error, and ultimately depends upon the unproven assumption that God ‘would not allow the Catholic Church to remain in error’. I cannot disprove this claim, but I see no reason to believe it.

Jesus promised that the Church would not remain in error.

Matt 16:18 - “And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

If God’s one true Church consistantly taught error and remained in error, I would consider that to be “the gates of Hades” prevailing against the Church.

Nor does the structure of the Catholic Church permit Popes to make infallible pronouncements on silly things, like the choice of breakfast cereal. Before the Pope speaks “ex cathedra” (from the Chair of Peter), he spends years, sometimes even decades, and in some cases (and from Pope to Pope to Pope) even CENTURIES discussing, debating, and researching the doctrines in question. Popes cannot declare infallible teachings on a whim.

That was one of my misunderstandings when I was Protestant. I literally thought that the Pope could say, “All Catholics must eat Cheerios for breakfast or be excommunicated” if he wanted to. Boy, did I feel sheepish when I learned the truth!

But as always, Catholic Answers says it best:

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

…]

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it “inspire” him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.

…]

Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

Under this, there are other issues, which include the Infallibility of the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the absolute ban on contraception, the refusal to ordain women, the belief in the perpetual torment of the unsaved, etc. While I am ready to accept that some of these, e.g., the Marian doctrines, might be true, I cannot claim to believe something which lacks sufficient historical support: one text written a hundred years after the event is not proof.

I don’t think I understand… are you a Christian, or an atheist/agnostic exploring the Christian faith? From your comments, I’d assume the latter, but I don’t want to assume.

If documents (and we’re not talking bout just ONE text, but HUNDREDS) written in relatively close proximity to the time of Christ aren’t proof enough for you, and the writings of the early Church fathers and apostles aren’t enough proof for you, then WHAT is?

I’m not trying to be snarky here, I am honestly bewildered as to what constitutes “proof” - because your definition of acceptable “proof” seems to exclude the Bible. If the only “proof” you’ll accept is Jesus Himself coming down to you and showing you His wounds, a la Doubting Thomas, you will be disappointed.

As Jesus said to the Thomas, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” (John 20:29)

 

[wanner47]

Others I find peculiar and unnecessary, e.g., refusing to ordain women for no better reason than ecclesiological habit.

Erm, no. It is anything BUT “ecclesiological habit.” Women simply cannot be priests. You can dress up a parrot to look like a dog, claim it’s a dog, tell everyone you own a dog, and even train your parrot to bark like a dog, but it’ll still be just a parrot.

Women cannot be priests. It’s not that the Church won’t let them, it’s that we literally CAN NOT be priests. Protestants don’t get this; I admit I didn’t at first, either. But the more I read, and the more I reseaarched, the more I began to understand.

The Catholic Church does NOT say: “Women can’t be priests because we think men will do a better job.” The Catholic Church does NOT say: “Women can’t be priests because they’re inferior.”

This is what the Catholic Church DOES say.

Still others I would describe as ‘wrong’, including the ban on contraception, a ban which directly contributes to suffering, as millions of children are orphaned by a disease whose spread is retarded by the use of condoms (if anyone wants to disagree with this last clause, please first read the medical studies used by the CDC and by UNAIDS).

There’s a flaw in your logic here. A ban on contraception does NOT contribute to suffering - man’s tendency to SIN contributes to suffering. If people would practice celibacy, chastity, and monogamy, as the Church teaches (celibacy until marriage, then monogamy afterwards), AIDS would not spread at the rate that it is. (Bear in mind that contracting AIDS via a blood transfusion is a TOTALLY different kettle of fish, and I’m not talking about that circumstance here.)

Contraception wouldn’t necessarily help this problem, either; it might temporarily reduce the number of AIDS cases, but in the long run people would still behave promiscuously. To use an analogy, we have to cure the disease, not just treat the symptoms.

I recommend “Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West for a more thorough understanding about the Catholic stance on birth control, and why it is morally wrong in all instances.

The critical issue with such doctrines, however, is not that they exist, but that the Roman Catholic Church believes that it can declare them infallible, thus removing them from any possibility of debate or reconsideration, merely because it has persisted in these beliefs for a given length of time, and with no other consideration for the justice of such beliefs.

I cannot accept such a thing.

There have been 2 infallible doctrines in 2000 years. The Pope isn’t making doctrines infallible every day. Also, the doctrines are only declared infallible after there has been controversy about them, and after MUCH debate, scholarship, and discussion.

But, I will admit, you need faith. And if you are lacking in the faith that the Holy Spirit guides the Pope and the Church, it’s best to continue your journey of exploration.

Finally, there is the fact that, thus far, the Roman Catholic Church does not seem to be moving towards inclusive unity, but only demanding the submission of other churches to its own creed: they only want unity on their own terms, which is a guaranteed deal-breaker in any such negotiation. Frankly, I prefer cooperative unity to domination.

“Cooperative unity” - what does that mean? That the Church should compromise its beliefs for the sake of being nice?

That is not what Jesus taught.

I don’t see any other of the 20,000+ Protestant churches seeking unity either. There are more spin-offs every day. I read of a Protestant group in my state that formed their own church due to a controversy about WHAT COLOR HYMNALS TO ORDER. I kid you not. They formed their own church so they could have the blue hymnals instead of the green ones.

If you’re looking for unity, my friend, you will NOT find it in any Protestant denomination.

The Church, above all, values the Truth, so of course she is firm in her beliefs, and of course she will not compromise if that compromise involves sacrificing the Truth on the altar of “cooperative unity.”

 

[rr1213]

I struggled with the same issues myself, however in looking at everything in context it became clear that it wasn’t pedophilia, it was ephebophilia. The typical case was ~13-16 year old boy being fondled by a homosexual priest. This happened over and over, so I had to accept the fact that homosexual men are already sexually disordered and inviting them into the priesthood was a serious error.

As for not contacting authorities, keep in mind that the parents rarely if ever contacted the authorities either. There was a stigma that people did not want associated with their child, especially if the boy was a 15 year old sophmore in High School.

Several of the Orthodox Jewish communities around Brooklyn, specifically Burrough Park are going through similar problems. Yet the molestations are very underreported because of stigma it would attach to the young men. Times are changing, hopefully for the better.

newyorkmetro.com/news/features/17010/index1.html

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503E0D91639F931A35752C1A963958260

villagevoice.com/news/0630,lombardi,73955,2.html

Interesting. I had to look up “ephebophilia”, not being familiar with the term. I don’t think it makes a difference though, really, if the molestation was of children or adolescents. Both are under the age of consent (not that if they were of the age of consent that it would be ok for the priest to have relations with them…it just might not be illegal, as opposed to sinful).

Good point about not contacting authorities but, ultimately, it still should have been done. Today, in many states, if a social worker or priest sees evidence that parents are physically abusing their children they are supposed to report that abuse to the proper authorities (not sure what happens if the evidence comes to the priest during confession). In most instances, sexual abuse of minors by priests of the Church is a far worse crime than that. To be candid, in my opinion inaction by those in ecclessial authority is just as bad as the original abuse because (i) it often allowed the abuse to continue, (ii) the abuser often remained unpunished, and (iii) its an abdication of God-given responsibility.

 

[Saint_Michael]

Interesting. I had to look up “ephebophilia”, not being familiar with the term. I don’t think it makes a difference though, really, if the molestation was of children or adolescents. Both are under the age of consent (not that if they were of the age of consent that it would be ok for the priest to have relations with them…it just might not be illegal, as opposed to sinful)…

Don’t confuse what I’m saying about the scandal, I’m not excusing the priests or saying ephebophilia isn’t criminal. What I’m saying is it changes the scope of the problem. It changes it from true pedophilia which is very rare, to ephebophilia which is much more common, especially amongnst homosexual men. If 2% of priests were pedophiles (sexual attraction of pre-pubescent children) that would be insanely high. But when you take into account the problem is not actually pedophilia but a much more common deviancy of ephebophilia, you can see that priests are no higher than other clergy, teachers, or any other profession that has close dealings with children. I honestly believe after looking at everything, that this was more of a repressed homosexual problem. Repressed already sexually disordered men who criminally used teenage boys to live out their deviant sexuality.

No doubt people did wrong, and they will answer to God for it, but Catholic’s aren’t the only ones with this terrible crime against children on their hands. It has scandalized the Church and Catholics horribly, and if this leads souls astray I would not want to be a facilitator of this crisis on judgment day.

 

[wanner47]

Unlike many other Protestants here, I am not having difficulty with Marian doctrine or purgatory or the Church’s position on ABC… actually, one of the draws of the Catholic Church is that it actually takes a firm stance on the moral issues. My father is a Lutheran minister and refuses to be covered under the ELCA’s insurance policy. Guess why: it covers abortion!!! What does that say about the the Lutheran church? Frankly, I’m ashamed. At any rate, the remainder of Christian denominations essentially leave it up to the laity to determine what’s right or what to do with many issues.

I don’t know that this is “keeping me from converting” per se, but it is something I struggle with. I guess it falls under infallability. The Church has been wrong in the past but has refused to admit it until it has been absolutely forced to. There are two main instances that come to mind. The first is the selling of indulgences, which of course, was one of the chief reasons for the Reformation in the 16th century. The Church was clearly wrong in this practice but refused to change until well after the damage had been done. The second is more recent: the priest abuses/scandals. For YEARS, bishops were aware of these sexual abuses and instead of removing the abusive priests, they shuffled priests around and concealed the truth about the evil that was being done. It took years of pressure and countless cases being brought to the forefront for the Church to FINALLY do something. It’s so very troubling that the abuses took place. But what’s even MORE troubling is that the Catholic Church, Christ’s Church, knowlingly covered up these actions to prevent exposure of their priests.

Regarding the scandal - I agree with you that it’s a difficult situation to deal with. Reading this document helped, but the fact is - despite the fact that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, it is still comprised of human beings. And as we all know, human beings sin. Priests are not perfect people, bishops and cardinals aren’t perfect people, popes aren’t perfect people (I’m talking about the Pope as a PERSON here, not as a leader speaking ex cathedra - papal infallibility ONLY applies in that instance). They make mistakes - HUGE mistakes sometimes.

And there were certainly HUGE mistakes made in the past in regard to sexual abuse of minors. I chalk some of it up to the priestly brotherhood - priests are brothers. They’re a close-knit group, a family. If your family is in trouble, you help out in any way you can. And sometimes, it is really, really hard to admit when a family member has committed a crime. It’s even harder to turn your family member over to the proper authorities, if that’s what needs to happen.

So, heads were turned. Eyes were closed. Was it wrong? Yes. Emphatically yes. Family or not, if someone has committed a heinous crime, it’s anyone’s moral duty to speak out.

But bear in mind that we rarely hear the FULL story of many of these allegations. In some cases, perhaps the bishop wasn’t told the full extent of the accusations (e.g., “Father Bob mistreated Johnny” was all he was ever told). Perhaps the bishop DIDN’T know what was going on because no one spoke up. Perhaps the priest in question was really good at making up alibis or convincing explanations for “what really happened” and the bishop was fooled. Maybe the priest in question confessed only in the sancitity of the confessional, and the bishop (or other priest) COULD NOT breach that.

There are many “what ifs,” and I’m not trying to excuse anyone’s behavior. But nor should we assume, as the secular media would like us too, that each and every bishop had full knowledge of all sexual abuse that was going on, and every single one (including the Pope!) turned a blind eye to it. That’s frankly ridiculous.

Many bishops were told by medical doctors in the secular community that they could send the priests to a psychiatric facility for a few months, and the priest would be “cured.” Many bishops were told that the priests were “cured” after these stays, and so they were sent back to parishes. Of couse, they weren’t “cured.” Like alcoholism is never really “cured,” nor is a disorder like pedophelia. You wouldn’t make a recovering alcoholic work in a liquor store, so a “recovering” pedophile shouldn’t work around kids.

I’m just rambling now, but at any rate I recognize that people sin sometimes trying to protect those they love. It’s not right, but it’s somewhat understandable, and so we should work harder to make sure that NO priest ever commits such a sin against little children ever again. I believe the Church is working hard to do so.

 

[wanner47]

Unlike many other Protestants here, I am not having difficulty with Marian doctrine or purgatory or the Church’s position on ABC… actually, one of the draws of the Catholic Church is that it actually takes a firm stance on the moral issues. My father is a Lutheran minister and refuses to be covered under the ELCA’s insurance policy. Guess why: it covers abortion!!! What does that say about the the Lutheran church? Frankly, I’m ashamed. At any rate, the remainder of Christian denominations essentially leave it up to the laity to determine what’s right or what to do with many issues.

You’ve just summed up why I left the ELCA. Finding out about the insurance policy covering abortion was the first crack in the ice. Learning more information about Sacred Tradition and the fallacies of sola scriptura was another.

Regarding indulgences: have you read CA’s Primer on Indulgences and Myths about Indulgences yet?

 

[ByzantineCatho]

Don’t forget John XXIII, who is also a Blessed now

Pope Pius IX is also a Blessed.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Well, I’m in RCIA, and I intend to join the Catholic Church this coming Easter. I do admit, though, that every now and then, I struggle with a few issues. During my investigation process, I looked seriously into Eastern Orthodoxy, and even now I still lean that way from time to time. I have no problem accepting the doctrines which the Catholics and Orthodox share, which, in itself, is pretty significant for someone who grew up Protestant (or so I think ).

The difficulties start for me when the differences arise. I am often concerned that the more recent doctrinal developments by the Catholic Church are more the result of theological speculation than they are truly part of the original deposit of faith handed down to us from the Apostles themselves. I know the Catholic Church says these doctrines existed in some form even in the very beginning, and if we lived in a strictly Catholic or Protestant world, I could accept that easily. The problem is the world is not that simple. The Orthodox Church, which is a recipient of the same deposit of faith, does not appear to have these doctrines, not even in “seed form,” so, the question is, if these newer developments are part of the original deposit of faith, when did the Orthodox lose them? Until I can answer this question, I think some confusion will remain.

Still, I am more inclined to become Catholic. There is just too much testimony to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome for me to ignore. And, I am troubled by the Orthodox acceptance of contraception and their fairly permissive attitude when it comes to divorce and remarriage. Anyway, I’m still a little confused, as you can see. Your prayers will be much appreciated!

God bless!

 

[dch1983]

Regarding the scandal - I agree with you that it’s a difficult situation to deal with. Reading this document helped, but the fact is - despite the fact that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, it is still comprised of human beings. And as we all know, human beings sin. Priests are not perfect people, bishops and cardinals aren’t perfect people, popes aren’t perfect people (I’m talking about the Pope as a PERSON here, not as a leader speaking ex cathedra - papal infallibility ONLY applies in that instance). They make mistakes - HUGE mistakes sometimes.

And there were certainly HUGE mistakes made in the past in regard to sexual abuse of minors. I chalk some of it up to the priestly brotherhood - priests are brothers. They’re a close-knit group, a family. If your family is in trouble, you help out in any way you can. And sometimes, it is really, really hard to admit when a family member has committed a crime. It’s even harder to turn your family member over to the proper authorities, if that’s what needs to happen.

So, heads were turned. Eyes were closed. Was it wrong? Yes. Emphatically yes. Family or not, if someone has committed a heinous crime, it’s anyone’s moral duty to speak out.

But bear in mind that we rarely hear the FULL story of many of these allegations. In some cases, perhaps the bishop wasn’t told the full extent of the accusations (e.g., “Father Bob mistreated Johnny” was all he was ever told). Perhaps the bishop DIDN’T know what was going on because no one spoke up. Perhaps the priest in question was really good at making up alibis or convincing explanations for “what really happened” and the bishop was fooled. Maybe the priest in question confessed only in the sancitity of the confessional, and the bishop (or other priest) COULD NOT breach that.

There are many “what ifs,” and I’m not trying to excuse anyone’s behavior. But nor should we assume, as the secular media would like us too, that each and every bishop had full knowledge of all sexual abuse that was going on, and every single one (including the Pope!) turned a blind eye to it. That’s frankly ridiculous.

Many bishops were told by medical doctors in the secular community that they could send the priests to a psychiatric facility for a few months, and the priest would be “cured.” Many bishops were told that the priests were “cured” after these stays, and so they were sent back to parishes. Of couse, they weren’t “cured.” Like alcoholism is never really “cured,” nor is a disorder like pedophelia. You wouldn’t make a recovering alcoholic work in a liquor store, so a “recovering” pedophile shouldn’t work around kids.

I’m just rambling now, but at any rate I recognize that people sin sometimes trying to protect those they love. It’s not right, but it’s somewhat understandable, and so we should work harder to make sure that NO priest ever commits such a sin against little children ever again. I believe the Church is working hard to do so.

I appreciate what you are saying. I don’t hold the belief that all Catholics priests and bishops are pedophiles. I don’t believe that Catholic priests are any more inclined to abuse children or adolescents than Protestant ministers or rabbis or anyone else. It comes down to this: That the abuses even happened is horrible. But that multiple members of Christ’s Church - in positions of authority - not only failed to seek punishment for those acts, but even INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED them, is just appalling. This happened all over the place for years. It’s not even that both the priests AND the bishops who deliberately concealed the truth sinned. I think it speaks volumes about the mentality of the institution that is the Catholic Church and the absolute refusal to admit wrong. This isn’t just another institution - this is Christ’s Church. It won’t keep me from the Church in the end, but it’s very hard to swallow.

 

[chris_molter]

I think having this idea of “The Church” as a monolithic entity in which the vast majority of the hierarchy were involved in this vile shadow conspiracy to conceal and protect those who abused children is a bit off. I agree the problem was pretty darned widespread, and I’m sure abuses and coverups are still happening!

Although I think it’s going to take some time before the top-down changes being initiated to prevent such horrible things from happening really infiltrate the Church down to the parish level, worldwide… On a positive note, I found this on the USCCB page
from the Program for Priestly Formation :

“Weaknesses of ethical standards and a moral relativism have a
corrosive effect on American public life as seen, for example, in
marriage and family life, in business, and in politics. This ethical
environment has affected the Church herself, for example, as
seen in the scandalous behavior of some clergy who have abused
minors and engaged in sexual misconduct, causing great suffering
for the victims and damaging the Church’s witness in society.
Both the nation and the Church in the nation are summoned
to renewal and to a greater integrity of life. The Charter for the
Protection of Young People and the Essential Norms adopted by the Catholic bishops in the United States in 2002 (revised in 2005)
provide an example of moving in this direction.”

“41. Without denying the importance of evaluating minimal thresholds in all areas of an applicant’s development, high standards and vigilance are especially necessary in evaluating human thresholds pertaining to sexuality. “Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the attitude for forming bonds of communion with others.”For the seminary applicant, thresholds pertaining to sexuality serve as the foundation for living a lifelong commitment to healthy, chaste celibacy. As we have recently seen so dramatically in the Church, when such foundations are lacking in priests, the consequent suffering and scandals are devastating.”

Also, in the rules regarding applicants to seminary:

"55. Any evidence of criminal sexual activity with a minor or an inclination toward such activity disqualifies the applicant from admission.

1. With regard to the admission of candidates with same-sex experiences and/or inclinations, the guidelines provided by the Holy See must be followed."

Hopefully this demonstrates that here in the US, the Bishops are taking this problem seriously and are taking steps to avoid continuing this culture of disordered sexuality within the clerical ranks.

 

[dch1983]

I think having this idea of “The Church” as a monolithic entity in which the vast majority of the hierarchy were involved in this vile shadow conspiracy to conceal and protect those who abused children is a bit off.

I didn’t say the vast majority were involved. But we agree that it was also not merely a few isolated instances. I need to find peace in understanding the reasoning behind WHY it happened. It wasn’t just one bishop who sinned and covered up the abuses - it was multiple bishops. They didn’t just fail to punish the abusive priests - they knowingly and willingly covered it up to prevent it from being exposed. My main concern is surrounding the overall mentality that resulted in the decision to conceal the abuses.
-Is it because priests are such holy figures that the thought of them committing such a vile sin is unspeakable?
-Is it because of the shortage of priests, and exposing the wrongdoings of existing ones would not only remove them but also deter others from joining the priesthood?
-Is it because it would be such a blemish on the Church that they believed it would be better to try to conceal it?
Unfortunately for all of the Catholics innocent of these crimes, the institution that is the Catholic Church is responsible as a whole. The faithful worshiper in the pew next to me didn’t commit these attrocities and cover them up, nor did every single bishop and priest. But that does not change the fact that so many did, and intentionally covered it up. Priests are ministers of the Gospel and they represent Chirst on earth, as well as represent the Catholic Church. The same goes for bishops.

That so many members of Christ’s Church acted in a way that seemed to be serving the institution that is the Church INSTEAD OF serving Christ and adhering to clear moral truths, is very troubling to say the least.

To a non-Catholic, this speaks volumes about the institutional nature of the Catholic Church and makes one question whether this is what Christ intended when establishing His Church. This is not my exact mentality, but I can certainly see how one can (and does) question such things.

 

[dch1983]

Hopefully this demonstrates that here in the US, the Bishops are taking this problem seriously and are taking steps to avoid continuing this culture of disordered sexuality within the clerical ranks.

And yes, it does. This is what I would expect them to do and it is encouraging to see that measures are be taken to address this situation and any subsequent sexually disordered clergy. Thank you for pointing out these references.

 

[Image_of_God]

Well, I’m in RCIA, and I intend to join the Catholic Church this coming Easter. I do admit, though, that every now and then, I struggle with a few issues. During my investigation process, I looked seriously into Eastern Orthodoxy, and even now I still lean that way from time to time. I have no problem accepting the doctrines which the Catholics and Orthodox share, which, in itself, is pretty significant for someone who grew up Protestant (or so I think ).

The difficulties start for me when the differences arise. I am often concerned that the more recent doctrinal developments by the Catholic Church are more the result of theological speculation than they are truly part of the original deposit of faith handed down to us from the Apostles themselves. I know the Catholic Church hesays these doctrines existed in some form even in the very beginning, and if we lived in a strictly Catholic or Protestant world, I could accept that easily. The problem is the world is not that simple. The Orthodox Church, which is a recipient of the same deposit of faith, does not appear to have these doctrines, not even in “seed form,” so, the question is, if these newer developments are part of the original deposit of faith, when did the Orthodox lose them? Until I can answer this question, I think some confusion will remain.

Still, I am more inclined to become Catholic. There is just too much testimony to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome for me to ignore. And, I am troubled by the Orthodox acceptance of contraception and their fairly permissive attitude when it comes to divorce and remarriage. Anyway, I’m still a little confused, as you can see. Your prayers will be much appreciated!

God bless!

I will certainly pray for you, on your journey to Catholicism, or even if it would have been Orthodoxy. I am sure that Catholics have the same problem…doubting, but we trust that God leads the Pope in the right direction, and that God by his merciful Providence, will tear down the walls of division.

But I have to agree with you. I remain in the Catholic Church, because of its fullness of the truth. Thus, as you say, there is too much information from the Fathers showing Roman Primacy. And also like you, some times I have a lean towards Orthodoxy. It is such a great faith, it has kept much of the faith. And Protestantism…it surely has great elements, but there are just so many different groups that it is hard to understand, no matter how hard I try.

The division among Christians can especially be bothering. But I know that God will fix this problem.