How to handle the sexual abuse issue when evangelizing?

[fred_conty]

I recently saw a news story about a priest who has been accused of sexually abusing teenagers (many years ago). This ongoing issue seems to give many people an excuse to continue in their misconceptions, continue with their jokes, and not be open to learning about the Church.

I’m curious how others have worked through this issue in their evangelization efforts.

Thanks.

It seems that Catholics are not the only ones with a problem.

[catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Sex(name removed by moderator)rotestantChurches.pdf](http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Sex(name removed by moderator)rotestantChurches.pdf)

CATHOLIC PRIESTS NEW RESEARCH REVEALS
Sue Widemark A Penn State historian, Philip Jenkins, has done in-*‐depth research of
pedophilia and sexual abuse among the clergy and has come up with some rather eye opening facts (Pedophiles and Priests, Anatomy of a Crisis, Oxford University Press, 1996, Paperback edition, 2001).

It seems that while .2 to 1.7 percent of Catholic clergy have been guilty of pedophilia
(or sexual abuse particularly of boys, p. 80-*‐82), a whopping 10 percent of Protestant
ministers have been found guilty of sexual misconduct.

 

[fred_conty]

Why is the Church coming up in evangelism? Are you evangelizing for Christ or for the Church?

When we evangelize, unless somebody asks, we don’t even bring it up and we don’t ever stump for our church or denomination.

I agree with you completely. It is about saving those lost and bringing them back to repentence. But from what you said, I think we disagree on what it means to be “saved” and “repented”. A brief explaination of the Catholic thinking and of some Protestant thinking will help.

Some Protestants think that once saved, or once having repented, that that is all that a person needs. Then we move on to another person to get them to repent and be saved, and then move on to someone else. But this isn’t the thinking of the catholics.

Because Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord,Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the WILL of my Father.” Now if someone is saved, or has repented,
and dosen’t do the will of Jesus’ Father, then they are not going to enter the kindom of heaven. In other words, saving goes on constantly in a person’s life, not just once. For if they turn away from God after being “saved”, then they will need help again to return or repent again to be saved. This constant saving is accomplished by the church which Jesus left on earth to consistantly show us the way and to help us to repent when we throw away being saved. Many of your protestant brothers teach a similar thing.

Noah and others were saved only because they were in the ark. Everyone outside the ark were lost. The church of Jesus is the new ark whereby everyone in this new ark of Jesus is saved, and all else is lost. That is why Jesus made his church ark.

In the letter of Paul, he says pretty much the same thing. That those who belong to Jesus form one body of Jesus on earth. And anyone who leaves the body, tho once a part of that body, are lost. Or again Jesus said that I am the vine, you the branches, and any branch that does not produce fruit will be thrown in the fire.

We both want the same thing, but we disagree on what is necessary.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[PJM]

=novusCatholic;9207689]I recently saw a news story about a priest who has been accused of sexually abusing teenagers (many years ago). This ongoing issue seems to give many people an excuse to continue in their misconceptions, continue with their jokes, and not be open to learning about the Church.

I’m curious how others have worked through this issue in their evangelization efforts.

Thanks.

WHILE IT IS BOTH CONVIENT AND COMMON TO BALME "THE CHURCh it is nevertheless worng and senseless to do so.

Men, humanity sins; but “the Chruch cannot”.

Of ALL created things ONLY man has a mind, intellect and a FREEWILL by which we emmulate our God: {Gen. 1:26-27} which enable us to sin but not “the church.”

Further while we catholics seem to receive “all” of the blame and appear exclusively guilty; the percentage of BAD priest is no-more than any other faith denomination or the public at large. Intellectual honesty is called for here.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[novusCatholic]

Further while we catholics seem to receive “all” of the blame and appear exclusively guilty; the percentage of BAD priest is no-more than any other faith denomination or the public at large. Intellectual honesty is called for here.

Unfortunately, intellectual honesty is rare when prejudices exist. I’d like to have some ready information to be able to present a proper defense.

I’ve heard that the instances of abuse in the Catholic Church are no more (and maybe less) than the percentages in the general public or within public institutions or Protestant denominations. Can anyone point to studies that show this?

Thanks.

 

[robertericleech]

I think we have to honestly acknowledge the presence of grave sin in the Church and pledge ourselves to not tolerating abuse of children or anyone else. People who do that are criminals and should be prosecuted as such to the fullest extent of the law.

That said, the Church is made up of poor sinners. Jesus chose Judas, and he betrayed Him. He chose Peter, and he denied Him. The fact that people are chosen by God and still fail miserably sometimes doesn’t negate the truth of the Gospels or the goodness of God. The whole point of Christianity is that we’re all sinners in need of God’s mercy, not that Christians or Catholics are never going to do bad things.

If I were talking to say, an atheist, and they pointed out the sex abuse scandal, I would say,
‘Well, if you found out that Richard Dawkins was a child molester, you’d certainly be disappointed, but would you stop being an atheist?’

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

What concerns me the most are the reports of covering it up and protecting the accused. This, if it is true, has always weighed heavier on my mind than the actual incident itself. Again, all I have to go by are the news reports that I can remember reading or hearing…but the ‘covering it up’ part, at least to me, brings up many more questions than just a man committing a sick crime.

Welcome!

I don’t think this is in any way unreasonable. I think that this type of cover up mentality is often found among a variety of groups. For example in the family. I’ve heard so many stories about women who knew their children were sexually abused by the father and still chose to keep silent in order to protect the family name and not tear the family apart by speaking out. It is insane and wrong and something I can’t understand. But it happens. I think the bishops who covered up the abuse fall into the same group: they probably wanted to protect the ‘family name’ and swept it under the rug.

 

[fred_conty]

Unfortunately, intellectual honesty is rare when prejudices exist. I’d like to have some ready information to be able to present a proper defense.

I’ve heard that the instances of abuse in the Catholic Church are no more (and maybe less) than the percentages in the general public or within public institutions or Protestant denominations. Can anyone point to studies that show this?

Thanks.

Post #38