Bishop: in the 1970s and 1980's many seminaries became places of dissent from orthodox Catholic teaching, a cause of the evil of sexual abuse by pries

[mdgspencer]

From the Bishop Thomas Olmsted, Bishop of Phoenix, Arizona:

"Weak Seminaries and Theological Confusion

We see clearly now that Church leaders failed to adequately screen applicants for the priesthood during the confusion caused by the Sexual Revolution. In our seminaries, where young men are to be formed as true servants of Jesus and His Church, it was often assumed that the human and the spiritual qualities of the man were present and sufficient. This was a poor assumption, and it led to too little consideration of a man’s human virtues and of his relationship with Jesus Christ. As a result, some candidates unfit for ministry were accepted.

In the 1970s and ‘80s especially, many seminaries were places of dissent from orthodox teaching about Scripture, theology and especially sexual ethics. For example, the masculine spousal dimension in which a priest is called to love as Christ loved His Bride the Church (Cf. Eph 5) was not taught much at all. As a result, the priesthood was too frequently seen, not as a life of masculine love, but merely pertaining to certain ministerial functions. It was erroneously thought among some that the nature of the priesthood itself would change. Sadly, some seminaries became places with not only men who lacked a true calling from Jesus to the priesthood but even where a homosexual subculture sprang up. It is difficult to deny this problem considering the high percentage of abuse cases that occurred between men and post-pubescent boys."

This is a part of this bishop’s report. “What Went Wrong in Priestly Formation,” which is at What went wrong in priestly formation? - The Catholic Sun

 

[Glennon_P]

Covered previously here.

 

[fide]

Covered previously here.

If you are echoing BenYosef’s argument, he was wrong. Most abuse was not of children, but of post-pubescent boys:

German Cardinal Walter Brandmuller said the fundamental problem is homosexuality in the priesthood. He stressed that 80% of the abuse cases over the decades involved gay priests abusing post-pubescent boys, i.e., young teen boys, ages 11 to 17. This is a “statistically proven” fact, he added.

 

[Glennon_P]

If you are echoing BenYosef’s argument, he was wrong. Most abuse was not of children, but of post-pubescent boys:

No…just pointing out that this topic, using the same article by Bishop Olmsted, was already discussed in another thread started by the same person back in February. Duplicate thread.

 

[fide]

oh - I’m sorry - I did not catch that…

Thank you.

 

[prayerrider]

Young teen boys, but still victims, yes? And those responsible must be defrocked, not shuffled about, right?

 

[fide]

of course. Why would you need to have me affirm such a thing? What did I say to make you wonder about such an obvious need?

 

[prayerrider]

Good deal!
Sometime I wonder if some (not you) try to mitigate the wickedness by pointing out that the victims were teens. Or even young adult (but powerless) seminarians.

 

[fide]

You are right, that some do to try to defend clergy “at any cost” - but that is not true to Truth. There are, as there were in the days of Jesus on earth, wolves in sheep’s clothing. The Church - a supernatural reality, a divine creation - is holy and remains holy. Sinful men may hide in the institution, clinging to their sins in the externals of “church”, but the holiness - in the interior hidden to many thought it may be - of divine creation, remains holy.

 

[CTBcin]

I certainly think that the poor seminary formation seem in the 70s and 80s has contributed to the abuse crisis, but it is only one of the contributing factors. Remember that many, many priests ordained from the 40s-60s also abused. The problem certainly didn’t begin in the late 60s- early 70s like some would think.