Catholic priest Pennsylvania scandal

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicGirl1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JanetF said:
But isn’t the reason that most victims are boys because, at least through the 70’s, only boys were altar boys and that’s when the priests had the most time alone with them? Granted after the 80’s when girls began being altar servers that dynamic changes. I’m only going on the personal memory that I was never alone with my parish priest as a young child (born in '64), but my brother was because he was an altar boy (born in '60).
Click to expand...
You are assuming that the abuse happened because they “just happened” to be alone with the boys. It’s, sadly, more likely that they (some of them) were priests partially because they would have that opportunity to be alone with the boys in particular.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Why would this policy change with an adult? Harassment is not something that merely happens to children.
Click to expand...
An adult should know how to deal with the problem. A child usually blames himself or herself and feels very shamed.

I can’t believe you don’t know the answer to your own question.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
You are assuming that the abuse happened because they “just happened” to be alone with the boys. It’s, sadly, more likely that they (some of them) were priests partially because they would have that opportunity to be alone with the boys in particular.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep leaving out the girls? Girls were molested, too. It was more than 1,000 boys and girls.
 
Last edited:
To be honest any reports I’ve seen it has by and large been boys who were the victims. I think people focus on the boys because it appears within the Church they are more likely to be abused.

That’s not to say this is TRUE. I’m just saying that’s definitely the sense I’ve gotten from the reports I’ve read and seen on this issue (granted, not an issue I focus on very much as I DO find such discussions emotionally taxing).
 
ConstantLearner said:
An adult should know how to deal with the problem. A child usually blames himself or herself and feels very shamed.
Click to expand...
So this changes when someone turns 18? Magically?

Rather, I would say that it’s a very fuzzy line. Clearly, 14 year olds are at more risk and 22 year olds at less risk. But there’s a lot of gray, and there are a lot of individual priests and individual teenagers who are totally trustworthy, and should be able to recognize (the child with the parent’s help) that the other person is totally trustworthy too.

The solution to this problem is not to never trust anyone.
 
Last edited:
Please follow the thread I was responding to, and you will understand that we were particularly talking about why so many more boys were abused than girls. I wasn’t leaving out the girls. That was just not the topic of the thread of conversation.
 
somecanadian said:
My objections to people who are appalled at this is often they seem to blame the entire Church. I don’t believe this is an entire Church problem. I believe we have corruption, yes, but there are still good Bishops, good priests and good men within the Church. Things have been changing and will continue to change.

Yes, this doesn’t erase the atrocities, but we cannot lay this on the ‘Church’, only on those who acted in the wrong.
Click to expand...
I agree only to a certain degree. I think a LOT of people in the church knew bad things were happening, and they just turned a blind eye. That makes them part of the problem. And the Vatican knew and did nothing. They pretended if they stuck their head in the sand like an ostrich it would all go away. It didn’t. Even now, there is a lot of talk, but almost no action. See my reference above to the Regensburg Cathedral choir school–how could Ratzinger NOT know?

The only things I can think of is that they were completely naive about what “abuse” means–I think some commenters might fall in this category–and thought that “abuse” was patting someone on the bum or something and not the horrendous sexual abuse that actually took place. Since they themselves didn’t do these things, they couldn’t conceive of the magnitude of it. Not an excuse by any means, but one attempt to explain the inaction of those in authority.

The other possibility is that they did understand the magnitude of what was going on, but they treated it like a garden variety sin. It could be forgiven, the sinner could agree never to do it again, and the slate would be clean. But it doesn’t work that way with sexual abuse. It’s one thing to forgive a sin, it’s another to enable someone to commit a sin. I wouldn’t hire an alcoholic to work in my distillery.
 
somecanadian said:
To be honest any reports I’ve seen it has by and large been boys who were the victims. I think people focus on the boys because it appears within the Church they are more likely to be abused.
Click to expand...
I do believe boys were the great majority of victims.
 
Yeah, I can understand that viewpoint.

When I think about it, I think of other scandals in the Church. And all the holy saints who lived through it. They experienced what we are experiencing right now. We now know their pain and frustration with a whole new understanding.

I personally think, and I’ve said this before, but I think the Church listened to modern psychiatry (at the time) who believed child abuse was a curable evil and that sexual abusers were often ‘seduced’ and could be rehabilitated.
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
I agree only to a certain degree. I think a LOT of people in the church knew bad things were happening, and they just turned a blind eye. That makes them part of the problem. And the Vatican knew and did nothing. They pretended if they stuck their head in the sand like an ostrich it would all go away. It didn’t. Even now, there is a lot of talk, but almost no action. See my reference above to the Regensburg Cathedral choir school–how could Ratzinger NOT know?
Click to expand...
When you say “the Vatican” knew, do you mean Pope JP II, Pope Benedict, Pope Francis? Maybe you don’t know, but if you do, would you please tell me?

Edit: I see you believe Cardinal Ratzinger knew. What about JP II? Francis? You have read more of it than I have. I’m not trying to be lazy. I will read it tonight.
 
Last edited:
“The Keepers” is not convincing. The evidence is circumstantial at best.
 
There is speculation that Pope Emeritus Ratzinger knew something.

Benedict. Sorry I’m still not great with the proper titles etc.
 
Last edited:
Yes. And not all the abusers were males. Nuns/sisters have been guilty of abuse as well. Not sure if they are on the lists or not in PA. I haven’t read the entire report. I don’t live there so it is hard for me to keep track of it all. Hoping a report from my current dioceses (Jefferson City and Military) and my “home” diocese in KY will be published.
 
pensmama87 said:
I live in Pennsylvania and I read all of the report that pertains to my diocese. I was astonished at how many cases involved teen boys. The details (which are really disturbing) indicate very much that homosexuality was a huge factor. I don’t want to scapegoat gay clergy, but I don’t think we can ignore that factor. People were up in arms about not ordaining men with “deep seated homosexual tendencies,” but I think you’ve got a reason, here. A man who cannot control himself, who will be around a lot of other men and boys, has no place in the priesthood.
Click to expand...
I go back and forth on the ordination issue. One thing I am sure of is that most of these priests – ordained in the 60s and 70s and 80s – had ABSOLUTELY NO support or help for their same-sex attractions. Young men seeking ordination now would have such support available. It’s “just another temptation”, honestly, it’s ho-hum. But if you don’t get a handle on it, it can destroy you (or others). That’s just the nature of sin.
 
Last edited:
But, how does that change the teachings of Christ? How does that make His worlds untrue?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top