Child Abuse is not a moral issue

[Rock_Happy]

The new study, at a cost of $1.8 million declares the molestation of children by priests to be a result of the sexual revolution of the 1960’s and the lack of training of priests. How silly are these conclusions, and why did they bother to study the problem if there agenda was to deny culpability for moral failings? Can someone please explain to me the consistent failure of the Church to accept responsibility for its moral failings? And please don’t try the tired old argument of hypocrisy… "Priests can do whatever they want, and so can bishops and the pope… it has no reflection on the Church (paraphrasing). Do the people who commissioned the study get a $1.8 M refund now?

 

[Corki]

Link? Are you quoting a particular study or just ranting?

I think it is just common sense that the climate of the “sexual revolution” led to a wide-spread losening of the view of sex in terms of moral absolutes. This doens’t mean that sexual sin was, or is, not a moral issue. It just means that the climate affirmed people in their sins and that the Church was not a strong enough counter-influence.

Nothing you have posted points to a view that the acts were any less sinful or that they were not immora.

 

[nickybr38]

Perhaps you can provide us a link to this finding of yours.

I have a few comments.

I’d also like all Protestant ministers to accept full responsibility for the families they have destroyed through infidelity and children they have molested. These cases are FAR more covered up then the ones in the Catholic Church… clearly, as the media doesn’t cover them AT ALL.

Then let’s talk about school teachers. How many have abused children? Do we know? No, because very little has been done to really, truly stop it. Just twenty years ago family members of mine were molested by teachers and very recently I know many young women who have had teachers who have ‘come on to them’.

Moral failings? Perhaps the Church has made a few missteps, but I’m not convinced they are as unacceptable as you think they are. NO ORGANIZATION on this planet knew how to properly deal with the sexual molestation of children in the 60s and 70s. It just was such a new thing they didn’t know WHAT to do, and the Church was NOT exempt.

It’s still a new thing, we still don’t know what causes men to do these things. Some people might still believe these men can be cured, others might think they never can be… the science isn’t exact and so people do the best they can.

The Church is not perfect, it never has been! Our King has left us a Prime Minister and he’s only human after all. BUT the Church is THE organization Christ set in place for us and despite more then two thousand years of assorted errors the Church still stands and will always stand no matter what we do to destroy it.

 

[Rascalking]

Link? Are you quoting a particular study or just ranting?

Nothing you have posted points to a view that the acts were any less sinful or that they were not immora.

I think they are just ranting, but he is on to something.

So many people say “Man up!” “Take accountability!” or something along those lines.

Well, the church should do that. Pope Benedict has. Let’s have everyone else as well.

 

[exoflare]

And please don’t try the tired old argument of hypocrisy… "Priests can do whatever they want, and so can bishops and the pope… it has no reflection on the Church (paraphrasing).

LOL I’ve never heard one person make that argument! By “paraphrasing” do you mean, completely making it up?

 

[nickybr38]

I think they are just ranting, but he is on to something.

So many people say “Man up!” “Take accountability!” or something along those lines.

Well, the church should do that. Pope Benedict has. Let’s have everyone else as well.

Pope Benedict is just what we needed. But man has he got his hands full.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I think it is just common sense that the climate of the “sexual revolution” led to a wide-spread losening of the view of sex in terms of moral absolutes.

I don’t think the sexual revolution ever lead to the notion that child abuse was “less serious”.

 

[Corki]

I don’t think the sexual revolution ever lead to the notion that child abuse was “less serious”.

Well, before the “sexual revolution” the idea of such things as NAMBLA would have been unthinkable. The “sexual revolution” led to a very fuzzy way of thinking about sex as in the old “if it feels good, do it”. Since so much of the preistly abuse was homosexual post-pubescent encounters, this fits right in with the “free love” mentality.

lifesitenews.com/news/expert-homosexuality-clearly-a-factor-in-new-priest-abuse-data?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LifesitenewscomLatestHeadlines+%28LifeSiteNews.com+Latest+Headlines%29

It’s not that child abuse was thought to be less serious. It’s that sexual contact with a minor was less a black and white issue in the minds of many who bought into the movement.

And again, that doesn’t make it any less sinful, any less immoral or the perpetrators any less culpable.

 

[Rascalking]

Pope Benedict is just what we needed. But man has he got his hands full.

Yes and yes!

 

[JimG]

Of course there were moral failings. The report does not excuse moral failings or moral culpability. There was sin. Those things are obvious.

The report was rather an attempt to discern why these particular moral failing occurred at this time. (And if you look at the data and the charts, it is apparent that these moral failings didn’t occur uniformly throughout every decade or uniformly among every ordination class.

Yes, the report could have been a lot shorter if it had simply said “People sinned. Priests and bishops were morally culpable.”

Such a conclusion would not have been received any better than the current conclusions.

Yes, people sinned. Why at those particular times more than others? Personally, I think that the sexual revolution had the net effect of lowering moral standards among all of us. There are things that we will read and view and consider now, that we would not have, had it not been for the effects of the sexual revolution. Even the older generation can look at our general morals and perceptions before the sexual revolution, and afterwards, and note the difference. Evil isn’t isolated; it spreads.

 

[pat_helensburgh]

first of all - anyone who covers up child abuse is just as guilty if not more so than the one committed the devious crime, the cover up or moving the guilty party to another location simply allows their evil deeds to fester at another location.

second - sexual revolution or not, i mean really have a shag in the street oh so liberating…anyway society has become hypersexed & the continuing influence this has on men in general is only started to be realised,
child abuse is not a Catholic only problem it is a world wide problem in all walks of life & faith,i agree the reporting is not always balanced in the problems in other organisations, schools, sports groups, other faiths etc but society expects more of us & the outrage when these things occur is justified.

 

[Bluegoat]

This report wasn’t to say people were not culpable. It was to identify systematic issues that led to the problem being so widespread, and to suggest how the totally inadequate response occurred.

The idea being, I would guess, so they can prevent similar problems in the future. If they have no idea what went wrong, they can’t do anything to fix it.

 

[sipuf]

I think it is just common sense that the climate of the “sexual revolution” led to a wide-spread losening of the view of sex in terms of moral absolutes.

Perhaps you can provide us a link to this finding of yours.
Moral failings? Perhaps the Church has made a few missteps, but I’m not convinced they are as unacceptable as you think they are.

“Loosening of the view of sex…” “a few missteps.” Are these really the terms you use to describe molestation?

 

[nickybr38]

“Loosening of the view of sex…” “a few missteps.” Are these really the terms you use to describe molestation?

It is the term i use to describe how the Church HANDLED the molestation, not the molestation itself.

 

[Corki]

“Loosening of the view of sex…” “a few missteps.” Are these really the terms you use to describe molestation?

First of all, welcome to CAF. If you are going to stay here, you should read the whole post before you respond.

I did not refer to molestation as a loosening of the view of sex. I referred to the “sexual revolution” as a loosening view of sex.

Context is everything.

 

[Rock_Happy]

Sorry. Dropped the ball on this one. School was out and I had an opportunity to get up into the Swiss Alps for a bit. I love the way I was accused of making stuff up. The last time that happened here I was quoting proceedings of the Secret Society of Jesus, and their research on papal declarations which were anti-Semitic. No, I don’t make things up which I post, if I represent what I say as factual.

 

[Corki]

Sorry. Dropped the ball on this one. School was out and I had an opportunity to get up into the Swiss Alps for a bit. I love the way I was accused of making stuff up. The last time that happened here I was quoting proceedings of the Secret Society of Jesus, and their research on papal declarations which were anti-Semitic. No, I don’t make things up which I post, if I represent what I say as factual.

What is the Secret Society of Jesus?