Church child protection chief caught with 4,000 child porn pictures

[Cormacnl]

Yes, that and his own proclivities to sin and the way children are protrayed as sex objects everywhere in Western society. Mere babies are dressed up like hookers to sell products. Children’s clothing, especially girl’s clothing, is all geared towards sexiness. As soon as a girl turns 18 she is expected to bare her body to the world. I blame the whole sexual revolution for this kind of thing–that and the “do whatever feels good” mentality that also started in the 60’s, plus a lot of so-called psychological training is skewed to the liberal left that glories in sexual perversion. I’m not at all surprised at this sort of thing. Disgusted and angry, yes, but considering how our society has slipped deeper and deeper into the muck and mire, not at all surprised.

How can we blame a sexual revolution in the 1960s for sexual abuse of children by religious and non-religious people, priests and lay people, in the 1950s, 1940s, 1930s etc?

 

[Cormacnl]

I find it rather sad that many sincere Christians try to paint the sickening problem of clerical sex abuse as one that can be dismissed as a crime carried out by gay people or people who are pro-homosexual.

I sat through dozens of court cases involving Irish priests and religious who abused children. I don’t recall it ever being suggested by the prosecution, the defence or any of anyone else that a perpetrator was gay or involved in a sexual relationship with another adult. No claim was ever made that the defendant was a supporter or lobbyer for homosexuality.

It was always about children. Most of the time it was boys but in some cases girls were victims too.

Trying to dismiss the problem as a homosexual issue will simply result in it never going away.

 

[Della]

How can we blame a sexual revolution in the 1960s for sexual abuse of children by religious and non-religious people, priests and lay people, in the 1950s, 1940s, 1930s etc?

The 60’s were the eruption point for this kind of thing. It had been brewing and boiling for a long time before because it wasn’t dealt with or even taken into consideration in the formation process of priests and religious. People repressed their sexuality instead of embracing it as a natural part of human existence. This was a hold over from the Jansenism of the 18th century that had a strangle hold on a good deal of Europe, especially France and Ireland (because the Irish were educated by the French clergy). The only good thing that came out of the so-called “sexual revolution” was returning to a more healthy understanding of sexuality within the Church. Of course, as happens when human beings repress sex, there was an overreaction of sexual promiscuity. That too is damaging our children’s lives and in far greater numbers than priestly/religious abuse, not to excuse such abuse. Abuse will always exist because human beings sin in every way possible, but it is being dealt with in the Church, and the Church has paid a heavy price, not to mention those of its faithful directly affected.

 

[Wolseley]

I am in no way defending what this man did, but some of the responses here got me to thinking, “What would Christ say about him?”

What did He say about the Roman soldiers driving nails into His hands and feet? Did He excoriate them as evil, blasphemous fools? Was He angry with them? Did He abandon them to the devil?

Or did He pray to His Father to forgive them?

Just a thought.

 

[kmaaj]

I am in no way defending what this man did, but some of the responses here got me to thinking, “What would Christ say about him?”

What did He say about the Roman soldiers driving nails into His hands and feet? Did He excoriate them as evil, blasphemous fools? Was He angry with them? Did He abandon them to the devil?

Or did He pray to His Father to forgive them?

Just a thought.

This is the hardest thing for the world outside of the Church to understand: that we are commanded to minister to the offender who repents. Most of that world just cannot understand why the Church does not have an express “string em’ up and throw em’ away” policy. The irony is that it is that same world that gave the offender his mindset in the first place.

 

[cmforte]

Keep in mind that many experts don’t believe pedophilia can be cured. This was the problem with pedophile priests. They may have been really remorseful and truly repentant for their crimes/sins and got the proper treatment, but since they weren’t cured, they went on to giving in to their perverse, compulsive desires. See here: summitdaily.com/article/20030508/NEWS/305080103 So forgiving this guy is fine, and our obligation as christians, but he still needs to be separated from society. Which is exactly what should have happened to the priests.

-Chris

 

[OpieJohansen]

I am in no way defending what this man did, but some of the responses here got me to thinking, “What would Christ say about him?”

What did He say about the Roman soldiers driving nails into His hands and feet? Did He excoriate them as evil, blasphemous fools? Was He angry with them? Did He abandon them to the devil?

Or did He pray to His Father to forgive them?

Just a thought.

What would Christ say today: “It would have been better for a mill stone to have been tied around his neck and he be drowned in the sea than for this dirtbag to have ever so totally screwed up and destroyed the lives of all those little munchkins. Throw him in boys!”

Since Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, all we need to do is reference what He already said on the matter.

 

[Della]

What would Christ say today: “It would have been better for a mill stone to have been tied around his neck and he be drowned in the sea than for this dirtbag to have ever so totally screwed up and destroyed the lives of all those little munchkins. Throw him in boys!”

Since Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, all we need to do is reference what He already said on the matter.

Well, Jesus didn’t call them “dirtbags”. He understood perfectly well how wicked the human heart can be, which is why he had such hard words for those who would violate a child. Even so, he also told us to forgive one another, seventy times seven. We have to balance Christ’s teachings to include everything he said, not pick and choose verses that please our own sensibilities. St. Paul had very solid advice for dealing with those who had gravely sinned and had repented. He said that while they were to receive forgiveness, for God can forgive any sin, they were not to be put into a position in which they could sin again. That is where our bishops failed. They reput these men back with children because they were told they were “cured” and were no longer a threat. They put their trust in psychology instead of St. Paul and we know the results. This will no longer happen, thank God. But, the damage has been done and those responsible ought to pay in justice for it, but they still need to be forgiven and brought back into the fold–but no longer given any position in which they could harm another young person.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I wonder how he was caught. Perhaps he was already under suspicion, or someone dropped a dime, or the website was already under investigation.

 

[kmaaj]

Keep in mind that many experts don’t believe pedophilia can be cured.

And a big part of the psyche of the pedophelia is that they do not believe they are in sin. I believe and agree with the Church’s oft response of isolating those who have been credibly accused but not convicted in the civil realm, many of them given a choice between total seclusion accompanied with prayer and repentance, and outright laicization and ex-communication.

 

[Big_Ro]

someone dropped a dime.

I know it’s off topic, but I used this phrase a while back in the presence of my 12 yo daughter. She immediately asked what I meant by that. Had a heck of a time explaining it. I took some time to explain that once upon a time pay phones were every where. It was a funny as it was frustrating.

 

[formerlysure]

That is where our bishops failed. They reput these men back with children because they were told they were “cured” and were no longer a threat. They put their trust in psychology instead of St. Paul and we know the results.

I agree that this was the primary failure - moving these men around. But I think we need to hold our church leadership more accountable than this. Let’s be brutally honest with ourselves and our leadership, as the victims deserve us to be. Perhaps in 1950 priests thought moving the men to another parish would stop the behavior, but by 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 - they knew darned well they were protecting their own, and protecting the church from lawsuits. They were paying off families to not speak. Child abuse became an institutionalized and unfortunately was made an accepted practice in a great many diocese. Perhaps the policy was “no abuse” but that’s like a company who has a policy not to pollute but then pays employees to dump toxins in the river in the dark of night. It’s terribly ingenuous to stand behind the written policy in such a situation when the unwritten policy upon which they ACTED was, “we dump toxins directly in the river”, or in parallel, “when a priest is a known abuser, we pay off the family if we must and move the priest to a new parish where his past is unknown. The priority is protecting the priest and the Church from prosecution and lawsuits and if more children are victimized, that’s the cost of doing business.” Harsh? Yes. It’s also the truth of the thing.

Whether bishops acted from fear, embarassment or were themselves involved in abuse, protecting their friends, protecting the priesthood, protecting the bottom line - they were not, for decades, honestly or appropriately dealing with the problem and we must hold them accountable for the willfulness and knowledge behind these actions. We must, no matter how unpalatable or shameful it feels to us as Catholics, take a very hard line on this. It is our doctrine to forgive, but not to lie about or sugar coat the brutal truth of what happened. We are taught in this faith that there is a need for a full disclosure and admittance of our culpability for our sins in order for our confession to be genuine. Bishops and cardinals do not get a free pass on this.

 

[Della]

I agree with your assessment, formerlysure. The bishops who did the things you cited definitely did wrong and contributed to the sins committed against the innocent. They deserve just punishment for their actions, no doubt about it. In other posts I have stated as much. It’s a long thread, though, I can see how you may have missed it.

 

[Cormacnl]

Well , at least the usual suspects in the main stream media can’t use the vow of chastity/celibacy as a cause of this behavior .

Yes, protecting the Church for criticism from the mainstream media is all that really matters.

 

[Della]

Yes, protecting the Church for criticism from the mainstream media is all that really matters.

That’s unfair. There’s no need to create a dichotomy where none exists just to make a point. The MSM makes a big deal out of such cases because 1) it’s sensational and sensation sells and 2) the Catholic Church is an easy target because it can’t hit back–they know they won’t be sued, and 3) it feeds into the rampant anti-Catholicism of the left, which most of the MSM wholeheartedly supports. When coaches, teachers, counselors, doctors, etc. commit such acts it doesn’t get the huge play and all the lecturing articles and finger pointing that Catholic clergy receive. And that’s a simple fact.

 

[catharina]

That’s unfair. There’s no need to create a dichotomy where none exists just to make a point. The MSM makes a big deal out of such cases because 1) it’s sensational and sensation sells and 2) the Catholic Church is an easy target because it can’t hit back–they know they won’t be sued, and 3) it feeds into the rampant anti-Catholicism of the left, which most of the MSM wholeheartedly supports. When coaches, teachers, counselors, doctors, etc. commit such acts it doesn’t get the huge play and all the lecturing articles and finger pointing that Catholic clergy receive. And that’s a simple fact.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Hastrman]

Yes, protecting the Church for criticism from the mainstream media is all that really matters.

No, let them criticize the guy and every possible policy failure that led to this fiasco—let them turn their lungs inside out in the process, if they can.

But they can’t use it as an excuse to try and change a doctrine they know nothing about, and that’s none of their damn business anyway.

 

[cmforte]

I agree that this was the primary failure - moving these men around. But I think we need to hold our church leadership more accountable than this. Let’s be brutally honest with ourselves and our leadership, as the victims deserve us to be. Perhaps in 1950 priests thought moving the men to another parish would stop the behavior, but by 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 - they knew darned well they were protecting their own, and protecting the church from lawsuits. They were paying off families to not speak. Child abuse became an institutionalized and unfortunately was made an accepted practice in a great many diocese. Perhaps the policy was “no abuse” but that’s like a company who has a policy not to pollute but then pays employees to dump toxins in the river in the dark of night. It’s terribly ingenuous to stand behind the written policy in such a situation when the unwritten policy upon which they ACTED was, “we dump toxins directly in the river”, or in parallel, “when a priest is a known abuser, we pay off the family if we must and move the priest to a new parish where his past is unknown. The priority is protecting the priest and the Church from prosecution and lawsuits and if more children are victimized, that’s the cost of doing business.” Harsh? Yes. It’s also the truth of the thing.

Whether bishops acted from fear, embarassment or were themselves involved in abuse, protecting their friends, protecting the priesthood, protecting the bottom line - they were not, for decades, honestly or appropriately dealing with the problem and we must hold them accountable for the willfulness and knowledge behind these actions. We must, no matter how unpalatable or shameful it feels to us as Catholics, take a very hard line on this. It is our doctrine to forgive, but not to lie about or sugar coat the brutal truth of what happened. We are taught in this faith that there is a need for a full disclosure and admittance of our culpability for our sins in order for our confession to be genuine. Bishops and cardinals do not get a free pass on this.

My thoughts too, to the letter. Even St. Paul openly criticized our first Pope when he did something wrong.

-Chris