Bishop meeting to avoid gay issue

[Lisa_N]

miguel:

In the case of religious persons, I think you’re right. The thought that a priest could do something like this was almost sacrilegious. But child molester’s, in general, have been regarded as incurable for at least as long as I can remember. And that would include the 70’s when these abuse cases were peaking. At least that was my perception. So it’s hard for me to understand how any Bishop could move an abuser from parish to parish on the advice of experts, when that advice ran counter to the prevailing wisdom.

I guess you have to step into their shoes. They would likely be compelled to believe the experts because their knowledge of psychology would be minimal in most cases. Also one of the major problems was that it was kept confidential. As the article noted, this was an epidemic but because Diocese X didn’t inform Diocese Y what was happening, the bishops didn’t realize their particular case was anything but a very rare occurrance.

I wasn’t Catholic in the 1970s but quite honestly the thing I remembered was the potential scandal of a priest having an affair with a woman. There used to be the joke if a priest is in trouble it’s either Punch or Judy (alcohol or women). I think the Church could deal with those issues but the homosexual thing was such an unknown at the time that it’s unlikely the bishops felt they could oppose the advice of a psychiatrist.

JMO.

Lisa N

 

[KathleenElsie]

miguel:

I wasn’t saying I had any knowledge of the clergy abuse at that time. The only reason I brought up the 70’s was to point out that my perception of child molestation as “incurable” goes back a ways. And for whatever reason, maybe I’m totally alone here, I thought this was common knowledge. Consequently, in hindsight, I’m wondering why some of these Bishops didn’t also know it when they were moving abusers from parish to parish. Yeah, I know the excuse is that they were acting on the advice of “experts.” But I’m having a hard time with that one.

Something that we tend to forget is that teachers at the time were moved to other schools when caught molesting children. There were many teachers (yes I know of this from a family situation) that were asked to resign and given glowing refs so another district would hire them. Some of these people are now in admin positions some are still teaching with the highest salary due to years teaching.
So this is not just something in the Catholic Church or any other church. It seems that the nature of the job attracts a small percentage of persons with this problem.
The 60’s “do your own thing” “free love” “man can do no wrong” has come home to roost. We and our children are paying the price.

This is just my humble opinion.

 

[fix]

HagiaSophia:

This occurs in every generation prior to current times - we were much more sheltered in every way, through media, radio discussions etc. I mean no one even realized this stuff existed much less was going on. One child murder anywhere in the country made national headlines for umpteen weeks.It was a time of “innocence” – remember when Desi and Luci were “expecting” they couldn’t use the word “pregnant” on tv and had to hire a representative from Protestant, Catholic and Jewish ministry to help them oversee the scripts so they didn’t “offend” in their family show.

When the Moon is Blue came out, there was such an uproar, my aunt tells me that priests addressed from the parish pulpit at every Mass. I mean talk about “sheltered”…

During Queen Mary’s reign in England, one clergyman reports he could not get help for the prostitutes he was helping get off the street, because Mary refused to believe that such a thing even existed - in her mind, he was exaggerating. She simply could not accept it.

What is new is the great acceptance of homosexual acts as normal by so many in this culture.

 

[puzzleannie]

the bishops’ blindness in ducking the issue of gays in the priesthood hierarchy is an outgrowth of their larger more disastrous failure to adequately address the issue of homosexuality as pastors to all their flock. There are two equally damaging attitudes among clergy today: demonizing homosexuals rather than their disorder and the sins that may arise from it and sending the message that they have no home in the Catholic church. And the opposite pole, denying the intrinsic disorder in homosexuality and denying the sinful condition of those who act on in. Either way, the homosexual Catholic, would-be Catholic, and priest are denied authentic Christian pastoral care and guidance.

 

[Brad]

puzzleannie:

the bishops’ blindness in ducking the issue of gays in the priesthood hierarchy is an outgrowth of their larger more disastrous failure to adequately address the issue of homosexuality as pastors to all their flock. There are two equally damaging attitudes among clergy today: demonizing homosexuals rather than their disorder and the sins that may arise from it and sending the message that they have no home in the Catholic church. And the opposite pole, denying the intrinsic disorder in homosexuality and denying the sinful condition of those who act on in. Either way, the homosexual Catholic, would-be Catholic, and priest are denied authentic Christian pastoral care and guidance.

I have never ever ever ever ever ever heard a priest demonize someone with homosexual leanings verbally or in writing. Where have you heard this? What have you heard or seen that tells you they are unwelcome in the Church? I have heard nothing. In fact, I have seen many events that welcome them to such an extent, it appears that they are sanctioning the sin. The problem is on pole 2, not pole 1.

 

[fix]

Brad:

I have never ever ever ever ever ever heard a priest demonize someone with homosexual leanings verbally or in writing. Where have you heard this? What have you heard or seen that tells you they are unwelcome in the Church? I have heard nothing. In fact, I have seen many events that welcome them to such an extent, it appears that they are sanctioning the sin. The problem is on pole 2, not pole 1.

Amen, amen!

It would be like saying adulterers are not given pastoral care in the Church. The times are such that open, radical homosexual conduct is being foisted on all of us. One who has the inclination can easily seek help and compassion from those in the Church. The problem arises with the radical “gay” folks who demand acceptance of grave sin.

 

[Brad]

fix:

Amen, amen!

It would be like saying adulterers are not given pastoral care in the Church. The times are such that open, radical homosexual conduct is being foisted on all of us. One who has the inclination can easily seek help and compassion from those in the Church. The problem arises with the radical “gay” folks who demand acceptance of grave sin.

Exactly. It seems a week cannot go buy where we have to hear about the homosexual activists forcing their perversion into the public schools or big corporations sponsoring the “Gay games”, with pictures and graphic literature that literally make my stomach turn. And then we have to see the same people celebrated in our Catholic colleges and some churches. You look further and you find out that many of the abusive priests were completely wrapped up in the same perversion and you wonder how many still are or at least long for it.

 

[fix]

Brad:

Exactly. It seems a week cannot go buy where we have to hear about the homosexual activists forcing their perversion into the public schools or big corporations sponsoring the “Gay games”, with pictures and graphic literature that literally make my stomach turn. And then we have to see the same people celebrated in our Catholic colleges and some churches. You look further and you find out that many of the abusive priests were completely wrapped up in the same perversion and you wonder how many still are or at least long for it.

What strikes me is that if I am vocal, or people like me, the charge is hurled that homosexual individuals “feel” like they are marginalized in the church. How have we come to the point that up is down and down is up? Do murderers “feel” unwelcome in the Church? Do child pornographers “feel” unwelcome in the church? It is not about excluding, but it is about promoting error and scandal. Any talk about sin is seen as unwelcoming.

It is coming to the point where anyone in manifest, unrepentent sin is “welcomed”, but those who want protection for their children and family will “feel” unwelcome by the Church.

 

[Judeluke]

There is treatment still offered today for pedophilia. If you go to Psychology Today’s Website conditions page on pedophilia there are several paragraphs dedicated to the treatment of this condition. Granted this publication is hardly the rock bed of psychological science it does reflect a current approach to this problem. I hesitate to list the link as it has graphic language and not suitable for this forum. This goes against the conventional wisdom of the day that it is incurable and untreatable. I personally do not agree with the psychological community. We should error on the side of safety and keep all offenders away from temptation. I think it is the only Christian thing to do.

 

[Brad]

fix:

What strikes me is that if I am vocal, or people like me, the charge is hurled that homosexual individuals “feel” like they are marginalized in the church. How have we come to the point that up is down and down is up? Do murderers “feel” unwelcome in the Church? Do child pornographers “feel” unwelcome in the church? It is not about excluding, but it is about promoting error and scandal. Any talk about sin is seen as unwelcoming.

It is coming to the point where anyone in manifest, unrepentent sin is “welcomed”, but those who want protection for their children and family will “feel” unwelcome by the Church.

Many despise the cross yet the road to eternal joy is narrow and can be navigated only by it.

 

[Brad]

Judeluke:

There is treatment still offered today for pedophilia. If you go to Psychology Today’s Website conditions page on pedophilia there are several paragraphs dedicated to the treatment of this condition. Granted this publication is hardly the rock bed of psychological science it does reflect a current approach to this problem. I hesitate to list the link as it has graphic language and not suitable for this forum. This goes against the conventional wisdom of the day that it is incurable and untreatable. I personally do not agree with the psychological community. We should error on the side of safety and keep all offenders away from temptation. I think it is the only Christian thing to do.

I think there is treatment for pedophila and homosexuality. The reason many say there is not is because they pretend God does not exist. The treatment is repentence, prayer, and fasting.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Brad:

I think there is treatment for pedophila and homosexuality. The reason many say there is not is because they pretend God does not exist. The treatment is repentence, prayer, and fasting.

I think that GOD also tell us to stay away from the temptation of the sins that we ask repentance for. The people who say once saved always saved use the same thinking. Yes GOD can forgive but we must do the turning away of the sin and this is the part that is forgotten. If they are truly repentant, then the act of staying away from situations where there are children and other temptations should be part of the treatment. But, in our society it is not and will not be. So for now removal from the priesthood (if a priest) and jail without parole is the only way to protect the children and others

Can someone give a better solution? I am willing to hear it if you can.

 

[miguel]

Lisa N:

I guess you have to step into their shoes. They would likely be compelled to believe the experts because their knowledge of psychology would be minimal in most cases. Also one of the major problems was that it was kept confidential. As the article noted, this was an epidemic but because Diocese X didn’t inform Diocese Y what was happening, the bishops didn’t realize their particular case was anything but a very rare occurrance.

I wasn’t Catholic in the 1970s but quite honestly the thing I remembered was the potential scandal of a priest having an affair with a woman. There used to be the joke if a priest is in trouble it’s either Punch or Judy (alcohol or women). I think the Church could deal with those issues but the homosexual thing was such an unknown at the time that it’s unlikely the bishops felt they could oppose the advice of a psychiatrist.

JMO.

Lisa N

The Bishop is in charge of his diocese. He is not compelled by any “expert” to do anything. It’s his responsibility to make prudent decisions. He can consider the advice of experts. But if he thinks their advice is dangerous, he’s certainly free to ignore it. And in this case, given the potential harm of bad advice, I think it’s a no-brainer what the prudent approach should have been.

 

[Brad]

KathleenElsie:

I think that GOD also tell us to stay away from the temptation of the sins that we ask repentance for. The people who say once saved always saved use the same thinking. Yes GOD can forgive but we must do the turning away of the sin and this is the part that is forgotten. If they are truly repentant, then the act of staying away from situations where there are children and other temptations should be part of the treatment. But, in our society it is not and will not be. So for now removal from the priesthood (if a priest) and jail without parole is the only way to protect the children and others

Can someone give a better solution? I am willing to hear it if you can.

In the OT, the turning away involved all kinds of rules, regulations, and sacrifices. Better to work forever with no joy than to sin continuously.

 

[otm]

miguel:

The Bishop is in charge of his diocese. He is not compelled by any “expert” to do anything. It’s his responsibility to make prudent decisions. He can consider the advice of experts. But if he thinks their advice is dangerous, he’s certainly free to ignore it. And in this case, given the potential harm of bad advice, I think it’s a no-brainer what the prudent approach should have been.

It is hard to understand; but let’s try it from a different perspective; how much have we learned about any subject which is harmful to umans - either from a physical or psychological standpoint, in the last 40 years? The growth of knoledge has been explosive. Psychology is not that old a science, and like medicine, it is part art; unlike medicine, it seems to be more weighted to the art side.

How would the bishop know or have any idea that it was not cureable (and therefore with the potential to harm)? and how would they know that the damage was deep, and almost irreversable? They often were getting an irate parent in their face, or reports form someone in the parish - another priest or lay person - that the activity ws going on. Very few people even had an inkling that sexual abuse was occuring in anything except a reare circumstance. It really wan’t until the 70’s that civil laws started to be passed that made the issue a crime, as serious as it is treated now, and required professionals to report any appearance of an incidient.

 

[miguel]

otm:

It is hard to understand; but let’s try it from a different perspective; how much have we learned about any subject which is harmful to umans - either from a physical or psychological standpoint, in the last 40 years? The growth of knoledge has been explosive. Psychology is not that old a science, and like medicine, it is part art; unlike medicine, it seems to be more weighted to the art side.

How would the bishop know or have any idea that it was not cureable (and therefore with the potential to harm)? and how would they know that the damage was deep, and almost irreversable? They often were getting an irate parent in their face, or reports form someone in the parish - another priest or lay person - that the activity ws going on. Very few people even had an inkling that sexual abuse was occuring in anything except a reare circumstance. It really wan’t until the 70’s that civil laws started to be passed that made the issue a crime, as serious as it is treated now, and required professionals to report any appearance of an incidient.

otm, I understand what you’re saying, particularly your point that psychology is probably more art than science. All I’m saying is that common sense should have played a role. If a Bishop had a priest on his hands, with a credible accusation of molestation, common sense would put that person in a threat category and keep him there, aside from any psychological advice. It’s a criminal act. And an awareness that psychology is more art than science, would lead a common sense person to treat psychological advice with suspicion, especially if that advice was in the direction of hurting more kids. If I suspected my next door neighbor was a child molester, there is no way in hell I’m letting my kids go over there, ever. That’s common sense. And I didn’t just develop this attitude yesterday, after being sensitized to the clergy sex abuse scandal, or after reading up on the latest psychological thinking. A father protects his kids. A Bishop protects his flock.

 

[Lisa_N]

miguel:

otm, I understand what you’re saying, particularly your point that psychology is probably more art than science. All I’m saying is that common sense should have played a role. If a Bishop had a priest on his hands, with a credible accusation of molestation, common sense would put that person in a threat category and keep him there, aside from any psychological advice. It’s a criminal act. And an awareness that psychology is more art than science, would lead a common sense person to treat psychological advice with suspicion, especially if that advice was in the direction of hurting more kids. If I suspected my next door neighbor was a child molester, there is no way in hell I’m letting my kids go over there, ever. That’s common sense. And I didn’t just develop this attitude yesterday, after being sensitized to the clergy sex abuse scandal, or after reading up on the latest psychological thinking. A father protects his kids. A Bishop protects his flock.

Miguel we rarely disagree but in this case I think we are of different minds. I think my point and that of some other posters is that we are looking at a 60s and 70s problem with a 21st century perspective. I know you are very prolife and to draw an analogy, if you look at the rationale that supported Roe, it’s very apparent that the knowledge of fetal development, fetal pain, and consequneces of abortion have greatly expanded. If we knew then what we know now, I think the story would have been different.

I’ve told this story before so bear with me, but I was ‘fondled’ by my dentist numerous times. The first time or two I thought it was accidental. Then it became more obvious. I confided in my sister who had the same experience and we confronted our parents. They simply did not believe us. Having read several books on the subject of the abuse scandal, it was apparent to me that the reports weren’t credible given the context of the time. People simply didn’t believe Father would do such a thing, just as my parents didn’t believe our dentist would molest us. I think a lot of the claims were pooh pooed by parents and officials of the Church. It wasn’t until the scandal broke that the size and severity of the problem was known. Likely each bishop thought his was the only issue of a priest who may seem to be too ‘touchy’ with the kids.

If the same kind of report were made today, I think there would be a far different response.

Lisa N

 

[miguel]

Lisa N:

Miguel we rarely disagree but in this case I think we are of different minds.

That’s OK Lisa. I still think you’re pretty cool.
Lisa N:

I think my point and that of some other posters is that we are looking at a 60s and 70s problem with a 21st century perspective.

I don’t entirely reject that possibility.
Lisa N:

I know you are very prolife and to draw an analogy, if you look at the rationale that supported Roe, it’s very apparent that the knowledge of fetal development, fetal pain, and consequneces of abortion have greatly expanded. If we knew then what we know now, I think the story would have been different.

When Roe was decided, I was in 10th grade biology, learning the well-established fact that life begins at conception. This has always been the bottom line for me. It’s where science and religion meet. And you are absolutely correct that over time, our case has only gotten stronger. But I’m not so sure the case would have been decided differently with better info. They knew about life’s beginnings then. That was all they needed to correctly decide the case. Yet they went to great lengths to pretend they didn’t. Of course, none of this has anything to do with your analogy. I understand what you’re saying about knowledge and awareness being time and context-dependent.
Lisa N:

I’ve told this story before so bear with me, but I was ‘fondled’ by my dentist numerous times. The first time or two I thought it was accidental. Then it became more obvious. I confided in my sister who had the same experience and we confronted our parents. They simply did not believe us. Having read several books on the subject of the abuse scandal, it was apparent to me that the reports weren’t credible given the context of the time. People simply didn’t believe Father would do such a thing, just as my parents didn’t believe our dentist would molest us. I think a lot of the claims were pooh pooed by parents and officials of the Church. It wasn’t until the scandal broke that the size and severity of the problem was known. Likely each bishop thought his was the only issue of a priest who may seem to be too ‘touchy’ with the kids.

If the same kind of report were made today, I think there would be a far different response.

I don’t doubt any of this Lisa. And none of it surprises me. Your own experience of not being believed bears this out. And yes, I agree with you when you say that “people simply didn’t believe Father would do such a thing.” I put myself in that category. But the Bishop is not people. He was in a position to see these accusations coming in. And they were coming in, and going into personnel folders. After all, what are all these civil suits based on? And where certain individuals were building up track records, we know that some of these cases were being settled quietly to avoid scandal. Where I still believe common sense should have played a role was in transferring these rap-sheet types from parish to parish. I don’t know if it happened everywhere. But it did happen. And that’s appalling. I’m not going to let it drive me out of the Church though.

 

[Digitonomy]

HagiaSophia:

B) What if some slip through the system and say a decade from now, we find out we hve ordained them? What do you do with them? What then is the consequences of their administration of the sacraments if their ordinations are declared invalid? How do people go to confession to someone and then find out 10 years later, he was invalidly ordained?

Why would their ordinations be invalid?

 

[HagiaSophia]

Digitonomy:

Why would their ordinations be invalid?

If the conditions for ordination are male, celibate and non-homosexual and one doesn’t meet the requirement - I assume that is “fraud” - and thus a reason for “getting the gate”.

If one goes to Confession, does not have the purpose of contrition and repentance in mind the absolution although valid, doesn’t help the soul of the sinner does it?

If one marries and does it sacramentally and lies about specific things, one can get an annulment –

I don’t just think you can take the sacraments without meeting the requirements – of course I’m sure there are canonists who would argue on either side of the question…