H
Holly3278
Guest
I don’t think we should blame anything but the malevolents for the sex abuse scandal.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
N
Nohome
Guest
Really? How did the “liberals” get in a position of authority? Where were the “conservatives”? Why did they just sit back and let the “liberals” cast this misdeed upon us? The 60s were the result of the 50s. Let’s face it, the train jumped the track long before Vatican II.I agree. The liberals created an artificial scarcity of priests during the 60s by filtering out the ‘straight’ priests and hiring the homos and the unorthodox ones. The horror effect of their misdeed are upon us.
If “liberals” destroyed the priesthood, “conservatives” let them.
Nohome
C
Chancellare
Guest
Let me ask you this:Really? How did the “liberals” get in a position of authority? Where were the “conservatives”? Why did they just sit back and let the “liberals” cast this misdeed upon us? The 60s were the result of the 50s. Let’s face it, the train jumped the track long before Vatican II.
If “liberals” destroyed the priesthood, “conservatives” let them.
Nohome
Your husband decides that you are a bad wife and you agreed, among other things to split the 4 children 50/50. Then he abused your children in his custody.
How would you answer the accusation that you let your husband abuse your children?
Are you just going to blame the 50s for the 60s?
N
Nohome
Guest
If I stood back and said nothing, did nothing about this abuse, I surely would be guilty. Worse yet, if I knew of the abuse and then let this man have visitation rights with the other two, further allowing him to abuse, I would be guilty. Your analogy plays right in to what the Bishops did. Their silence was most incriminating.Let me ask you this:
Your husband decides that you are a bad wife and you agreed, among other things to split the 4 children 50/50. Then he abused your children in his custody.
How would you answer the accusation that you let your husband abuse your children?
Are you just going to blame the 50s for the 60s?
We are all influenced my the decades in which we live, but I don’t blame the 50s and 60s. I blame men who thought it better to keep abuse quiet than cause scandal in the Church. These Bishops were both liberal (as you say) and orthodox. Neither are without blame.
Nohome
C
Chancellare
Guest
The ones who stood back were the ones who filtered the ‘straight’ orthodox seminarians. They were the ‘effetes and the liberals’. So the ones who should have fought for orthodoxy were not there to begin with. You cannot blame the ones who were not there.If I stood back and said nothing, did nothing about this abuse, I surely would be guilty. Worse yet, if I knew of the abuse and then let this man have visitation rights with the other two, further allowing him to abuse, I would be guilty. Your analogy plays right in to what the Bishops did. Their silence was most incriminating.
We are all influenced my the decades in which we live, but I don’t blame the 50s and 60s. I blame men who thought it better to keep abuse quiet than cause scandal in the Church. These Bishops were both liberal (as you say) and orthodox. Neither are without blame.
Nohome
N
Nohome
Guest
Please explain. You are saying the church was filled with good orthodox priests, then suddenly filled with liberals in the 60s? How does a liberal get in a position of authority to filter out the straight orthodox seminarians? Did the orthodox leaders of the church just evaporate? Have you any proof, other than the weakly referenced “Good bye good men” to back up your claim?The ones who stood back were the ones who filtered the ‘straight’ orthodox seminarians. They were the ‘effetes and the liberals’. So the ones who should have fought for orthodoxy were not there to begin with. You cannot blame the ones who were not there.
Nohome
C
Chancellare
Guest
You got your syllogism mixed up already. And I’m not here to teach you.Please explain. You are saying the church was filled with good orthodox priests, then suddenly filled with liberals in the 60s? How does a liberal get in a position of authority to filter out the straight orthodox seminarians? Did the orthodox leaders of the church just evaporate? Have you any proof, other than the weakly referenced “Good bye good men” to back up your claim?
Nohome
Goodbeye goodmen has its own set of proofs and you can refute them yourself, (which nary did we see.)
What about you, do you have proof to blame anybody?
C
Chancellare
Guest
For those who have trouble understanding why the scandal was caused by the liberal elements of the US Catholic hierarchy, here’s an excerpt from Senator Santorum’s statement corrobating:
"The most obvious change must occur within American seminaries, many of which demonstrate the same brand of cultural liberalism plaguing our secular universities. My hope was rekindled last week as our American Cardinals proposed from Rome an “apostolic visitation” of seminaries emphasizing “the need for fidelity to the Church’s teaching, especially in the area of morality.” It is an arduous task. However, the Pope made it clear last week that he expects the strong appeal of the Cardinals to be followed by decisive Episcopal action.
It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning “private” moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."
End of quote.
(published 7/12/2002, Fishers of Men, Catholic Online)catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30
"The most obvious change must occur within American seminaries, many of which demonstrate the same brand of cultural liberalism plaguing our secular universities. My hope was rekindled last week as our American Cardinals proposed from Rome an “apostolic visitation” of seminaries emphasizing “the need for fidelity to the Church’s teaching, especially in the area of morality.” It is an arduous task. However, the Pope made it clear last week that he expects the strong appeal of the Cardinals to be followed by decisive Episcopal action.
It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning “private” moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."
End of quote.
(published 7/12/2002, Fishers of Men, Catholic Online)catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30
N
Nohome
Guest
I didn’t use a syllogism.You got your syllogism mixed up already.
Apparently, I’m here to teach you. So here is a syllogism:And I’m not here to teach you.
All abusive priests are liberal.
All seminaries produce liberal priests.
Therefore, all seminaries produce abusive priests.
Is that not what you are saying?
Translation: didn’t read it so I can’t defend itGoodbeye goodmen has its own set of proofs and you can refute them yourself, (which nary did we see.)
The proof is in the question, “how did liberals get in a position of authority to filter out straight orthodox seminarians”? This didn’t happen in a vaccum, there are no clean hands in the crime.What about you, do you have proof to blame anybody?
Nohome
C
Chancellare
Guest
Yes, you did:I didn’t use a syllogism. [Nohome
Conservatives “just sit back and let the liberals cast misdeeds on us”
The 60s were the result of the 50s
Therefore if the “liberals” destroyed the priesthood, “conservatives” let them.
You don’t even know what’s wrong with this argument.
No. I didn’t say those fallacies. You did.Apparently, I’m here to teach you. So here is a syllogism:
All abusive priests are liberal.
All seminaries produce liberal priests.
Therefore, all seminaries produce abusive priests.
Is that not what you are saying?
[Nohome
Yes I did.Translation: didn’t read it so I can’t defend it
[Nohome
[/quote]The proof is in the question, “how did liberals get in a position of authority to filter out straight orthodox seminarians”? This didn’t happen in a vaccum, there are no clean hands in the crime.
Nohome
[/quote]
These are not proofs.
[/quote]
N
Nohome
Guest
O.K., what is wrong with this argument?You don’t even know what’s wrong with this argument.
Nohome
N
Nohome
Guest
You will want to read up on the logical elements of a syllogism.Conservatives “just sit back and let the liberals cast misdeeds on us”
The 60s were the result of the 50s
Therefore if the “liberals” destroyed the priesthood, “conservatives” let them.
Nohome
P
Petite
Guest
Blaming the sex-abuse scandal on the '60’s misses the point, I believe. Is it possible, that sexual abuse of minor children is something that is as old as man kind? (And No, I do not think that the existence of it makes it right!) How many children in the past were abused and never said anything about it because they would have been punished for ‘talking dirty’ and/or not believed? (We will never know this!)
I would suggest that perhaps what happened in the 80’s and 90’s when people DID come forward to talk about it, that there was a freedom for victims to talk about it without being ridiculed or worse called a liar. (Without being too autobiographical, I have some experience in this area.)
If you consider how some things simply were not discussed in the past–sexual abuse, out of wedlock pregnancy, drug abuse, spouse abuse, mental health issues, cancer even–it’s almost as if flood gates were opened and everything came out at once starting in the mid to late 1960’s and beyond.
I have known people who were abused by priests who are now elderly, and their abusers have long since left this world. It makes me wonder how many other silent victims were there?
That the church hierarchy didn’t respond better to the charges/allegations is profoundly sad and inexcusable. That they were sometimes more concerned with maintaining the status quo than with protecting vulnerable children is a tragedy.
There was quite a learning curve that we as a society have had to learn in regard to pedophiles. (Think back --40 years ago plus–to how victims of rape were regarded–the woman was often accused of ‘causing’ the rape to happen. as one example of how our thinking about issues has changed.)
If the 60’s have any ‘culpability’ in all of this, I would have to say that lies in the gradual acceptance of society talking about what we simply alluded to hushed tones with a great deal of embarrassment ,using all kinds of euphemisms.
I would suggest that perhaps what happened in the 80’s and 90’s when people DID come forward to talk about it, that there was a freedom for victims to talk about it without being ridiculed or worse called a liar. (Without being too autobiographical, I have some experience in this area.)
If you consider how some things simply were not discussed in the past–sexual abuse, out of wedlock pregnancy, drug abuse, spouse abuse, mental health issues, cancer even–it’s almost as if flood gates were opened and everything came out at once starting in the mid to late 1960’s and beyond.
I have known people who were abused by priests who are now elderly, and their abusers have long since left this world. It makes me wonder how many other silent victims were there?
That the church hierarchy didn’t respond better to the charges/allegations is profoundly sad and inexcusable. That they were sometimes more concerned with maintaining the status quo than with protecting vulnerable children is a tragedy.
There was quite a learning curve that we as a society have had to learn in regard to pedophiles. (Think back --40 years ago plus–to how victims of rape were regarded–the woman was often accused of ‘causing’ the rape to happen. as one example of how our thinking about issues has changed.)
If the 60’s have any ‘culpability’ in all of this, I would have to say that lies in the gradual acceptance of society talking about what we simply alluded to hushed tones with a great deal of embarrassment ,using all kinds of euphemisms.
O
otjm
Guest
The issues that surround the decisions of the bishops have been, for the large part, simplified and when publicly states, ignored.McCarrick is trying to duck his own responsibility. It isn’t the 60s or liberalism that let these predators rum loose, it’s the bishops, our shepherds. They put “the good of the Church”, avoiding publicity, ahead of actually helping the victims and putting away the molesters. Why the bishops who moved these men from one parish to another aren’t in prison as accomplices is beyond me.
To begin with, how was a bishop to deal with a sex abuse in the 50’s when it didn’t become public to anyone until the 90’s or 2000+? Were they supposed to be polishing a crystal ball and gazing deeply?
Furthermore, rightrly or wrongly, it was not until the developement in the 60’s and 70’s that an understanding was achieved that sexual abuse - particularly of teenagers - harmed them. It was seen as a sin, but not as something that would have psychological repercussions in the victim well into and through adulthood. Sexual abuse has been around probably about as long as families have (since the great majority of abuse seems to be within family structures) - one only needs to know amodicum of Greek and Roman history - but the understanding of the harm done is of extremely recent origin.
Further, there is the issue of time. A priest gets reported - once. The Bishop hausl him into the Chancery, the priest confesses his sin and promises to amend his ways, and he is put in another parish. The bishop at this point has no information (in the 50’s and 60’s and even into the 70’s) that this has been a repeated and constant offense, as only one victim has come forward. The priest offends again in the new parish - and it isn’t reported for 2, 3 5, or more years; now there has been a gap of how many years between the first known ofense adn the second - and this presumes that the second was reported too.
At this point the bishop has information, often not well developed, that the priest over a period of what - 5 or 10 years - has done a naughty. Still no clue of how harmful it has been, no clue as to other unreported events. Stilol it is seen as a moral lapse, and not seen as causing permanent harm.
Further, this is at a time where most people still don’t talk openly about sexual behavior. It would create scandal among the faithful (and on that issue, the bishops were not wrong; we just got all the scandal all at once and non-stop for about the last 10 years) and the bishop has to do something. Keeping it bottled up - on the advice of the attorneys advising the bishop as to legal consequences, and on others as to the scandal consequences - is seen as the best advice. The Church had a clericalism mindset among both clergy and layity prior to Vatican 2, and that also weighed into the equation.
Now fast-forward to the 70’s, and psycholgists are assuring the bishops that they can cure these priests. So priests get sent off to a clincal setting, and eventually returned to the bishop as “cured”. It took and other 10 to 20 years before psychologists began to understand that these issues - particularly pedophilia, as opposed to ephebophila, or sex with teenage boys - was not cureable. And so, on the advice of experts, further damamge was done.
We look back with 20-20 hindsight and ask how the bishops could not have ssen this. The didn’t because often they did not have the experience, the knowledge, and even the basic information of what was going on.
Some did’nt; I am not trying to paint all as innocent. But an outright condemnation of all who suffered through this is not warranted either. I still think Law should have been prosecuted for criminal negligence at the least. However, while he may be the most egregious example of failure to act, not all bishops were in the position he was in.
And the issue of Ireland is not that different from the US (or anywhere else that this is coming to the surface) except for perhaps an even greater clericalism.
C
Chancellare
Guest
We cannot escape the realities that happened in the 60s and divert the culpability primarily to the hushing of voices concerning what happened to the victims. We cannot address the problem without looking into the root of the problem.Blaming the sex-abuse scandal on the '60’s misses the point, I believe. Is it possible, that sexual abuse of minor children is something that is as old as man kind? (And No, I do not think that the existence of it makes it right!) How many children in the past were abused and never said anything about it because they would have been punished for ‘talking dirty’ and/or not believed? (We will never know this!)
I would suggest that perhaps what happened in the 80’s and 90’s when people DID come forward to talk about it, that there was a freedom for victims to talk about it without being ridiculed or worse called a liar. (Without being too autobiographical, I have some experience in this area.)
If the 60’s have any ‘culpability’ in all of this, I would have to say that lies in the gradual acceptance of society talking about what we simply alluded to hushed tones with a great deal of embarrassment ,using all kinds of euphemisms.
Cristina Hoff Sommers once wrote: (Are we living in a Moral Stone Age?):
In the late 1960s, a group of hippies living in the Haight-Ashbury District of San Francisco decided that hygiene was a middle class hang-up that they could best do without. So, they decided to live without it. For example, baths and showers, while not actually banned, were frowned upon. The essayist and novelist Tom Wolfe was intrigued by these hippies who, he said, “sought nothing less than to sweep aside all codes and restraints of the past and start out from zero.”
Before long, the hippies’ aversion to modern hygiene had consequences that were as unpleasant as they were unforeseen. Wolfe describes them: “At the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic there were doctors who were treating diseases no living doctor had ever encountered before, diseases that had disappeared so long ago they had never even picked up Latin names, such as the mange, the grunge, the itch, the twitch, the thrush, the scroff, the rot.” The itching and the manginess eventually began to vex the hippies, leading them to seek help from the local free clinics. Step by step, they had to rediscover for themselves the rudiments of modern hygiene. Wolfe refers to this as the “Great Relearning.”
This is not just an anecdotal story about hygiene. The story on how we embraced wanton immorality as a society during the sex revolution period approaches “Sodom and Gomorrah” proportions. Yet we blame only one group of culprits: the psychologically challenged priests and the system in which they operated. What about the societal decadence of our times? We refuse to accept the painful reality that our moral relativism led us to do what we did as a people. Psychologists have described this malady: inability to face up one’s own inadequacies and instead project these to a sub-group in order to externalize the blame. As a people, we have to face up to this reality.
P
Petite
Guest
Perhaps I did not make myself clear: I believe that pedophila was prevalent before the 60’s–the sexual revolution of the '60’s did not create pedophiles–they were already there–both clerical and non clerical. Victims did not come forth to tell about it. Children were to be seen and not heard. Authority (especially the authority of the Church) was to be respected at all times. We did not question authority–period! In the '60’s, this started to change.We cannot escape the realities that happened in the 60s and divert the culpability primarily to the hushing of voices concerning what happened to the victims. We cannot address the problem without looking into the root of the problem.
We lost a lot when we questioned authority ad nausuem. We lost a lot when we never questioned authority. Finding some kind of happy middle ground seems elusive.
Pedophila and child molestation is more than wanton immorality–it’s criminal behavior. Societal decadence doesn’t provoke child molestation. This website has very thought-provoking insights into child molestation: childmolestationprevention.org/pages/prevention_plan.html?#focus_on_causeThe story on how we embraced wanton immorality as a society during the sex revolution period approaches “Sodom and Gomorrah” proportions. Yet we blame only one group of culprits: the psychologically challenged priests and the system in which they operated. What about the societal decadence of our times? We refuse to accept the painful reality that our moral relativism led us to do what we did as a people. Psychologists have described this malady: inability to face up one’s own inadequacies and instead project these to a sub-group in order to externalize the blame. As a people, we have to face up to this reality.
The sexual permissiveness of the 1960’s is a separate issue from this. Lumping them together can prevent us, as a society, from preventing this abuse to happen to other innocent children because any solutions for combating sexual permissiveness does not address the psychological disorders of people who are sexually aggressive to young children.
C
Chancellare
Guest
Let’s be clear about pedophilia: the incidence is not restricted to Catholic clergy. Survey says it is statistically distributed to other sects and secular institutions. It is only the relativist media that decided it’s the Catholic clergy that should be put on trial here.The sexual permissiveness of the 1960’s is a separate issue from this. Lumping them together can prevent us, as a society, from preventing this abuse to happen to other innocent children because any solutions for combating sexual permissiveness does not address the psychological disorders of people who are sexually aggressive to young children.
Anyway, the practice of Pedophilia is only a miniscule part of the many decadent symptoms of a declining society. That’s for sure. You need to add Abortion clinics, rising divorce rate, euthanasia, same sex marriage, corporate scams, growing porn industry, etc (just to name a few), to have a complete the taste of the brew of “sulphur and brimstone”. Who generated this decadence?
We are arguing on soiled linen when the whole ship is burning.
N
Nohome
Guest
An appostolic constitution addressing the issue of sexual abuse by preists was published by Pope Benedict XIV in 1741. Your point is abundantly clear, but is blind to those who choose not to see.Perhaps I did not make myself clear: I believe that pedophila was prevalent before the 60’s–the sexual revolution of the '60’s did not create pedophiles–they were already there–both clerical and non clerical.
Nohome
N
Nohome
Guest
I think I understand what you are trying to say, but keep in mind that civil laws against sex with children were on the books in the United States long before the 60’s and 70’s. One confirmed case should have sent these men to prison, not the confessional.Furthermore, rightrly or wrongly, it was not until the developement in the 60’s and 70’s that an understanding was achieved that sexual abuse - particularly of teenagers - harmed them. It was seen as a sin, but not as something that would have psychological repercussions in the victim well into and through adulthood.
This factor is/was huge and is rarely considered outside the church when the media reports on abuse. It isn’t an excuse; however, it is a factor few that don’t remember the pre-Vatican II church can appreciate.The Church had a clericalism mindset among both clergy and layity prior to Vatican 2, and that also weighed into the equation.
Nohome
- Status
- Not open for further replies.