T
tweetymom
Guest
No shame on you
- Status
R
rfulks
Guest
I think, pretty clearly, that the Church’s insistence on a celibate priesthood is the cause of the rampant homosexuality and the pederasty that has plagued our clergy. I do NOT think celibacy causes men to become homosexuals or pederasts, but rather I think that the celibacy requirement discourages men with normal sexual inclinations from considering the priesthood. The result is that seminaries fill up with a very disproportionate number of young men who are sexually confused and emotionally immature, and some of these men later become abusers.
P
Paul1961
Guest
Every time I read this psychiatrist excuse, it makes me furious. It is total B.S.!!!
I lived through this time period. We weren’t naive. We had the race riots, Vietnam, Watergate. Only a total imbecile would be turned an accused molester loose among the sheep without constant supervision and review. The second time there was ever a hint of impropriety that priest should have never had contact with minors again.
Unfortunately, the bishops were not imbeciles. They were co-conspirators and accessories to these crimes. People like Bernard Law should not be in the Vatican. They should be defrocked and serving time in a prison.
O
Ockham
Guest
Put yourself in the bishop’s shoes for a minute. You get a report of child molestation by a priest. The pyschologist you have on retainer tells you the cause is stress caused from a variety of factors, celibacy being one. You are celebate too and wonder, if it could happen to him then maybe to me too. When the shrink tells you it can be cured by time off and councelling wouldn’t you think seem like a good idea?
As sad and frustrating a situation as this is and in no way to diminish it, let’s remember that it isn’t only the Catholic Church where this problem exists. In fact, prevelancy rates are no higher in the Catholic Church than any other.
The highest prevelancy rates outside the home are in the public school system. There is much documentation pointing out that offending teachers get time off and then free to reapply to another school board. This is happening today.
Also, if a pedophile is tried and convicted he usually gets a few years in jail and then probation. Isn’t this the same thing as time off and reassigned?
Pedophila is a horrible crime and sin that has existed for as long as we have. The Catholic Church being the most visible and stern adherent to moral values is a favorite target of the media and entertainment industries. That is why we hear about these cases to a disproportionate degree.
As sad and frustrating a situation as this is and in no way to diminish it, let’s remember that it isn’t only the Catholic Church where this problem exists. In fact, prevelancy rates are no higher in the Catholic Church than any other.
The highest prevelancy rates outside the home are in the public school system. There is much documentation pointing out that offending teachers get time off and then free to reapply to another school board. This is happening today.
Also, if a pedophile is tried and convicted he usually gets a few years in jail and then probation. Isn’t this the same thing as time off and reassigned?
Pedophila is a horrible crime and sin that has existed for as long as we have. The Catholic Church being the most visible and stern adherent to moral values is a favorite target of the media and entertainment industries. That is why we hear about these cases to a disproportionate degree.
T
tweetymom
Guest
You are so right on this.
C
csuliman
Guest
I almost feel ashamed to reply to this post, since its inhumanity and lack of compassion is so evident.
If you could stop and think for a second you would see the need for the Church to confess to its crimes and repent. Instead, the devil has so clouded your judgement with partisan fervor and self-righteousness that you are not able to see what is before your eyes.
An act of molestation or rape is evil no matter who does it. The act is an inherent evil and the fact that other persons in society have committed rape does not take away from the horrendous nature of what the priests and bishops did. I did not talk about genocide in my post, or beheading, or a myriad of other heinous acts. Does that mean that I cannot condemn the rape of children by priests because I have not in the same post condemned every one else’s evil acts?
- Rape and molestation are two different acts, use a dictionary. 2) I do not know about you, but the thought of my 12 year old cousin being raped/molested is no less emotional than my 8 year old cousin. The fact that you feel that this distinction is a reason to dismiss my argument shows how closeminded you have become in your defense of the crimes of these priests and bishops. You said so yourself that this small distinction does not make the crime any less horrible, so why push the point?
It is not he fact that they sought medical attention that is disturbing. In fact, I hope that the Church pays for psychological evaluation and counseling for all the priest/bishop rapists. **However, what they also did was cover up the crime from the community, not tell the police, pressure the victims to remain silent and then reassign these rapists to work in other parishes and often with children. ** It is this callous disregard for the safety of the children (and adolescence) that makes what the administration did a crime.
If you could stop and think for a second you would see the need for the Church to confess to its crimes and repent. Instead, the devil has so clouded your judgement with partisan fervor and self-righteousness that you are not able to see what is before your eyes.
A
adrift
Guest
This is ad hominem attack.
I agree with you.
Nothing in my post suggest that you cannot condemn the molestation of anyone. This accusation is unfounded.
I did use a dictionary.
.
You are the one who is close minded. The distinction is that rape is an act of force. I have not seen a charge of rape but of molestation. You are adding to what happened. The distinction is not one of what horror it had on the victim. That doesn’t change with age. You use the word child in order to make it more emotionally charged as you have admitted by your statement. I haven’t tried to dismiss your argument but to put balance into it.
It is not a small distinction. The haters want to make this pedophile when in truth it is homosexual in nature. By denying the underlying cause it diminishes what the victim encountered.
This is a sorry attempt to deflect from facts. Saddam’s rationalization is not similar in the least. It is just another ad hominem attack.
But it was what you criticized.
There is much to be despised in how this was handled. However, I heard today on EWTN “World Over” that often the police knew about it and they to covered it up. It isn’t an excuse. It makes it more deplorable. We need the whole truth not just that which is nothing but hatred of the Catholic Church. We need to see the whole picture not just the one that haters wish to project. We need to hold everyone who was involved accountable. One question that was asked was why did the Bishops follow that advise when others said differently. We need to ask tough questions but not prejudicial ones that are basically ignorant.
It is your eyes that have been clouded by the devils lies. You are not looking at what is being done today. You don’t want to because than you would have to repent and the devil doesn’t want that. You accuse another of self-righteousness now that is pathetic.
Only a small amount of priest were involved in this horrendous act yet you have condemned all priest. If you were consistent you would then condemn all teachers and parents. This is before your eyes as well yet you dismiss it.
S
sidbrown
Guest
I thought that it has been determined by Cardinal Bertone and other experts such as Bill Donohue, that this is a homosexuality problem. This is a determination of experts in the field.
How many homosexuals would really want to marry and spend their life with a woman? Perhaps there will be some, but I suspect that most homosexual males will not want that. So by requiring all priests and bishops to be married, you would filter out a large number of homosexuals and therefore solve the problem which the experts have said is a problem caused by admitting homosexuals to the priesthood.
O
Ockham
Guest
It is this callous disregard for the safety of the children (and adolescence) that makes what the administration did a crime.
Which happens today in the public school and judiciary system. I’m not condoning the mistakes made by bishops, but let’s apply the same level of judgement to everyone shall we? Where is the media outrage for all the other groups culpable?
A
anode
Guest
Broad allegations against the “public school and judiciary system”.
There sure aren’t any cover-ups where I live. Any hint of abuse in the public schools makes the front pages. Ditto any failings at all in the judiciary. The local rag thrives on any hint of scandal–anywhere.
A
anode
Guest
another comment to add to this heated thread:
*
There are none so blind as those who will not see*. Blaming the sex scandal on errant psychologists will not do. These psychologists probably didn’t regard sex acts against minors as* sins*–just aberrant behavior, “acting out”–a popular phrase in the 70’s–or normal variants, probably related to celibacy–which is abnormal, isn’t it
?
But those in charge–the bishops-- should have known better. Those acts were sins and couldn’t have been condoned. I can imagine the bishops, already strapped for priests in their dioceses–once they decided to believe the allegations, in itself not a straightforward process, would have* wanted to believe* the psychologists, and maybe *did *send away some priests, in great hopes that they would be ‘cured’–but those bishops should have learned by the time of the second lapse that it was a no-go. And they --the bishops–should have discussed these problems among themselves, learned that other bishops had made the same mistakes–a ‘treatment’, a transfer and then a repeat offense–and realized that they would have to apply more draconian measures.
I am not arguing regarding the causes, the ‘treatments’ or the prevention. Simply that the bishops, those in direct supervision of the priests in their dioceses, should have realized early on that there were allegations, pursued them, found out that there were abuses, maybe tried various ‘treatments’ and transfers–bishops make mistakes, too–then realized that the priests were involved in recurrent abuses–and acted–definitively–to remove those priests from active ministry, and, presumably, from the diocesan payrolls–not to hospitals or nursing homes, but removed. All of this could have been done in a far shorter time-span. When the scandal broke, those bishops, those retired or still practicing, could have openly ‘confessed’ their initial errors in judgment, but also that they had acted in good faith, and once they perceived that those priests were incurable, had acted to have them removed from ministry in a definitive and timely way. The scandal wasn’t handled this way, particularly in Boston, the test case from which all other dioceses should have learned.
*
There are none so blind as those who will not see*. Blaming the sex scandal on errant psychologists will not do. These psychologists probably didn’t regard sex acts against minors as* sins*–just aberrant behavior, “acting out”–a popular phrase in the 70’s–or normal variants, probably related to celibacy–which is abnormal, isn’t it
?But those in charge–the bishops-- should have known better. Those acts were sins and couldn’t have been condoned. I can imagine the bishops, already strapped for priests in their dioceses–once they decided to believe the allegations, in itself not a straightforward process, would have* wanted to believe* the psychologists, and maybe *did *send away some priests, in great hopes that they would be ‘cured’–but those bishops should have learned by the time of the second lapse that it was a no-go. And they --the bishops–should have discussed these problems among themselves, learned that other bishops had made the same mistakes–a ‘treatment’, a transfer and then a repeat offense–and realized that they would have to apply more draconian measures.
I am not arguing regarding the causes, the ‘treatments’ or the prevention. Simply that the bishops, those in direct supervision of the priests in their dioceses, should have realized early on that there were allegations, pursued them, found out that there were abuses, maybe tried various ‘treatments’ and transfers–bishops make mistakes, too–then realized that the priests were involved in recurrent abuses–and acted–definitively–to remove those priests from active ministry, and, presumably, from the diocesan payrolls–not to hospitals or nursing homes, but removed. All of this could have been done in a far shorter time-span. When the scandal broke, those bishops, those retired or still practicing, could have openly ‘confessed’ their initial errors in judgment, but also that they had acted in good faith, and once they perceived that those priests were incurable, had acted to have them removed from ministry in a definitive and timely way. The scandal wasn’t handled this way, particularly in Boston, the test case from which all other dioceses should have learned.
- Status