Pa. bishops hid sex abuse of hundreds of children, grand jury finds

[pristine2]

This is an unproven myth, except the part about any cover up. The only reason there is no cover up elsewhere is because no cover up is needed, as preachers can simply leave and apply elsewhere. Some have the goal of protecting children, but some will lie and mislead, as the real goal is destroying the Catholic Church.

I’m sorry, but this is utterly slanderous. The lay Catholics who struggled for years to rid the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese of sexually corrupted priests did so to SAVE the church, not to destroy it, and they did not ask for a dime.

If you’re talking about blatant pedophilia/pederasty, in which priests abuse very young helpless children by manipulating their faith and betraying the trust of their parents, it is fair to say that that sort of blatant abuse was almost brought under control by the 2000s. But the diocesan inclination to cover up rather than confront such crimes lingers:

nytimes.com/2014/09/27/us/priest-in-sexual-abuse-case-was-reported-to-diocese-5-years-ago-records-show.html?_r=0

What also continues is the toleration of homosexuality in the clergy, and a widespread belief in clerical circles that a “homosexual orientation” is no bar to ministration of the sacraments. Many of these priests are aroused in the presence of teenage boys, and have learned to justify a range of sexual expression and release in defiance of their vows of celibacy.

This is qualitatively different than a priest who breaks his vows and runs off with a pretty Methodist divorcee and her two kids. These gay men remain in the priesthood. Most of the abuse stories disclosed in the AG report involved priests having an intense, secret sexual relationship with an older adolescent boy. How do we know that the stories are true? Because we live here, we know the people involved, and because one very devout and very determined lay Catholic in particular interviewed many priests over 15 years who admitted their “homosexual orientation”.

In other words, the corruption with most of them is not that they are pedophiles … it is that they are gay.

Of course being gay isn’t and should not be a crime. But it is utterly incompatible with the priesthood. Toleration of homosexuality in the priesthood is the root cause of the abuse crisis.

The total number of sexual abuse cases involving priests and young girls is no higher than the child abuse rate generally. It happens, but no more than anywhere else. The overwhelming majority of abuse cases in the Catholic context involve boys, especially older teenage boys. It speaks to a particularly Catholic corruption that we must confront and eliminate.

 

[Modern_Revert]

After careful consideration, I must reluctantly agree. Most of the abuse was male on male. The homosexual element is the elephant in the room.

 

[Padres1969]

After careful consideration, I must reluctantly agree. Most of the abuse was male on male. The homosexual element is the elephant in the room.

Well do consider that one of the big reasons for it being more male on male might have had something to do with simple opportunity. Until the 90’s there were no female altar servers (and in many places there still aren’t). And young boys as part of the church’s structure were always more involved than girls, and thus more readily available targets for these predators. And even given that ease of opportunity the abuse was not limited to boys. Plenty of girls were often the targets as well. And for a small minority the targets weren’t even always limited to children. One of the three priests removed for abuse from my childhood Catholic parish was caught having sexually assaulted an adult female congregant at a prior parish, not a child. Sadly many of the same strategies the child predators used to keep their victims quiet were used on the adult victim as well and she kept quiet for many years for largely the same reasons.

 

[mdef303]

Romans 1:26-28 ESV / 1,329 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

Leviticus 20:13 ESV / 1,282 helpful votes

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

1 Timothy 1:10 ESV / 839 helpful votes

The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

Mark 10:6-9 ESV / 786 helpful votes

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

I guess they forgot these verses.

Thats why I say they totally abondend the ways of Christ, and played ignorance, and not strength. There is no Strength but through Christ.

Cheers.

 

[unafraid]

At this point in time, after all of the evidence, after so much trauma, pain, and heartache, anyone who still rejects that the core source of the clerical sex abuse crisis was the practice of admitting homosexuals into the Catholic priesthood, can not be considered rational, or in any way objective.

Just because homosexuality has been elevated to cult status in the secular world, there is no reason for we Catholics to dance around the fact that homosexuals in the priesthood have been literal instruments of evil within the church.

If this is not clear to the hierarchy of the Church by now, then we, the faithful, are being betrayed. We have the new “zero tolerance” rule regarding abuse within the church; we also need a “zero tolerance” rule when it regards homosexual priests.

 

[mdef303]

It has been instruments of evil in the church. These immoral men committed homosexual acts, period. What don’t you understand? Just because it became a social norm and a secular cult in today’s society does not mean we have to accept it and tolerate it. In society, and in the Holy Church especially. As Christians, yes, we give them respect as all other individuals, but we are told to spread the gospel of the Lord.

 

[Padres1969]

At this point in time, after all of the evidence, after so much trauma, pain, and heartache, anyone who still rejects that the core source of the clerical sex abuse crisis was the practice of admitting homosexuals into the Catholic priesthood, can not be considered rational, or in any way objective.

Just because homosexuality has been elevated to cult status in the secular world, there is no reason for we Catholics to dance around the fact that homosexuals in the priesthood have been literal instruments of evil within the church.

If this is not clear to the hierarchy of the Church by now, then we, the faithful, are being betrayed. We have the new “zero tolerance” rule regarding abuse within the church; we also need a “zero tolerance” rule when it regards homosexual priests.

It’s easy to paint it as that simple… it’s not.

jezebel.com/5518672/the-forgotten-victims-of-priest-sexual-abuse-girls

newsweek.com/sex-abuse-church-girls-also-victimized-70741

 

[mdef303]

Of course it wasn’t that simple. These priests had all the intention of messing up the holy church. No followers of Christ.

 

[pnewton]

I’m sorry, but this is utterly slanderous.

You think so? Then it should be no problem for you to re-read my post (or read it, if you didn’t the first time) and tell me who I slandered.

What also continues is the toleration of homosexuality in the clergy, and a widespread belief in clerical circles that a “homosexual orientation” is no bar to ministration of the sacraments.

The perhaps why you are at it, you can also show any where the Church has taught that a homosexual orientation invalidates the Sacrament of Holy Orders. I believe you are mistaken and you criticism of this “widespread belief” is actually criticism of something that is true.

However, to say that there has been no response to the problem of homosexual clergy is untrue. At this time, a same-sex attraction is a barrier to formation to the priesthood, seminary and ordination, out of prudence, not because it is invalid.

 

[pnewton]

It has been instruments of evil in the church. These immoral men committed homosexual acts, period. What don’t you understand?

I do not know to whom this question is addressed, but I am totally confident everyone understands this, except of course for that minority that abused girls, not boys. Likewise, I am sure no one here would suggest that those who did abuse girls weren’t quite as bad as those who abused boys.

 

[Catholic_Press]

Three prosecutors in Pennsylvania were warned about widespread sexual abuse in the Altoona diocese as far back as 2002, but did not take action, a local news outlet has learned.The …

More…

 

[CWN_News]

Three prosecutors in Pennsylvania were warned about widespread sexual abuse in the Altoona diocese as far back as 2002, but did not take action, a local news outlet has learned.The …

More…

 

[Thorolfr]

The overwhelming majority of abuse cases in the Catholic context involve boys, especially older teenage boys. It speaks to a particularly Catholic corruption that we must confront and eliminate.

I’m not sure what you consider to be “older teenage boys”, but according to the Jay Report, “22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years.” So almost three quarters of the victims were 14 or younger. Even a 14 year old boy is barely into puberty.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

 

[pnewton]

I’m not sure what you consider to be “older teenage boys”, but according to the Jay Report, “22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years.” So almost three quarters of the victims were 14 or younger. Even a 14 year old boy is barely into puberty.

Tell that to a parent of a twelve year old.

 

[Padres1969]

I’m not sure what you consider to be “older teenage boys”, but according to the Jay Report, “22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years.” So almost three quarters of the victims were 14 or younger. Even a 14 year old boy is barely into puberty.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

And indeed at least 20% of the victims were girls as well. So as a total, the vast majority were clearly NOT older teenage boys.

 

[pnewton]

And indeed at least 20% of the victims were girls as well. So as a total, the vast majority were clearly NOT older teenage boys.

I guess this is my concern about the approach we take. For us to ignore the homosexual issue is inviting trouble. Part of the problem of institutionalization can just as easily remain if we do not address that homosexuality played a large part in the child abuse, though I believe this has been addressed.

Equally dangerous would be assuming that addressing homosexuality is sufficient. With girls not serving the altar, the opportunity for heterosexual priests to take advantage of underage girls needs to be recognized as a danger. Likewise, the big elephant is that a lot of these abusers are straight up pedophiles and indiscriminate in their victims. While I am all for training, it can only do so much then becomes a rote exercise. A solid set of diocesan and parish guidelines can accomplish much, much more.

 

[pristine2]

You think so? Then it should be no problem for you to re-read my post (or read it, if you didn’t the first time) and tell me who I slandered.

I suppose I could have misread it, but here is what you wrote:

“Some have the goal of protecting children, but some will lie and mislead, as the real goal is destroying the Catholic Church.”

Maybe you meant to write THEIR (referring only to those you allege lie and mislead) “real goal is destroying the Catholic Church,” As written, though, it read like slander to me.

“The perhaps why you are at it, you can also show any where the Church has taught that a homosexual orientation invalidates the Sacrament of Holy Orders.”

You mean recently? Nowhere, I’m afraid, despite its continued recognition that homosexuality is a “disorder” and that homosexuality itself is “a strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil.” If someone is wrestling with a strong inherent compulsion “toward an intrinsic moral evil,” do they sound qualified for the priesthood to you? The bar against discrimination is intended to apply to secular life and the access to the sacraments by the laity – not the priesthood.

Some pretty good reads on the subject

catholicleague.org/homosexuality-and-sexual-abuse/

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/homosexuality/what-the-church-teaches-about-homosexual-inclinations/

The reality is that there are now very large numbers of priests who are actively gay – in large disproportion, apparently, to their incidence in the general population. This should have become obvious in the 1990s,

churchmilitant.com/video/episode/half-of-priests-and-bishops-are-gay

Many priests report a nexus of gay priests wielding real power throughout the church. This article in a gay publication spells it out with uncommon clarity:

lgbtqnation.com/2015/10/fired-vatican-insider-over-50-of-priests-are-gay/

 

[pristine2]

And indeed at least 20% of the victims were girls as well. So as a total, the vast majority were clearly NOT older teenage boys.

I was referring to the attorney general’s report on abuse in my diocese (Altoona Johnstown), not the Jay Report. The vast majority of cases here involved teenage boys.

 

[pnewton]

I suppose I could have misread it, but here is what you wrote:

“Some have the goal of protecting children, but some will lie and mislead, as the real goal is destroying the Catholic Church.”

Maybe you meant to write THEIR (referring only to those you allege lie and mislead) “real goal is destroying the Catholic Church,” As written, though, it read like slander to me.

That is precisely what I meant. I think it important to bear in mind when reading the news who is speaking, and to recognize that some speak out for the public good and from a solid moral conscience. Some do not. This is why we have lies, half-truths and blind speculation co-mingled with legitimate news.

Nowhere, I’m afraid, despite its continued recognition that homosexuality is a “disorder” and that homosexuality itself is “a strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil.” If someone is wrestling with a strong inherent compulsion “toward an intrinsic moral evil,” do they sound qualified for the priesthood to you?

Did you notice how many words you have added, including the word “strong”. No, someone who is constantly pulled into, and engaged in, strong moral evils should not be a priest, whether that moral evil is lust (homosexual or heterosexual), greed (to the point of stealing), pride (to the point of worship of power).

Yet we all know that every person has their own weak points of sin. Concupiscence is no barrier to the priesthood. So while I recognize the current prudence of avoiding priests with this type of attraction, I know why the Church does not consider it a barrier to the priesthood to have this sort of temptation, as long as understands and takes steps to avoid feeding it. Celibacy is avoiding all forms of sexual intimacy and is as difficult for the heterosexual as it is the homosexual, and as mortally sinful when outside of marriage.

In case you can’t tell, I never like the elevation of homosexual sin to a special case of “super sin”. It is too much in our nature to make those sins we are never tempted by as worse than any other, so that we can justify more easily those sins we fall prey to. Better for us to focus more on our own sin.

 

[mdef303]

Homosexual is a worse sin than heterosexual intimacy out of marriage.

The claim that homosexual sex outside of marriage is no worse than heterosexual sex outside of marriage.

The Bible condemns fornication (sexual acts outside of marriage) and it also condemns homosexual acts; both are serious sins against God. However, the Bible also distinguishes between these two types of serious sexual sins. In Deuteronomy 22:28-29, an unmarried man who sleept with an unmarried woman sins and was given a punishment, but the punishment was less than death. On the other hand, if any man had sexual relations with another man, the punishment was death, and the act itself is called by Sacred Scripture an abomination, the strongest word of condemnation used in the Bible:

[Leviticus]
{18:22} You shall not commit sexual acts with a male, in place of sexual intercourse with a female, for this is an abomination….
{18:29} Every soul who shall commit any of these abominations shall perish from the midst of his people.

Because of this same kind of sin, God destroyed the entire towns of Sodom and Gomorrah. But the many pagan towns, where fornication was common and widespread, God did not destroy.

[Genesis]
{13:13} But the men of Sodom were very wicked, and they were sinners before the Lord beyond measure….
{19:5} And they called out to Lot, and they said to him: “Where are the men who entered to you in the night? Bring them out here, so that we may know them.”…
{19:24} Therefore, the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire, from the Lord, out of heaven.

The sin of homosexual sex is a more serious sin than that of heterosexual sex outside of marriage, because the former act is both a sexual act outside of marriage and a sexual act between persons of the same gender. The latter act is less offensive because the man and woman who have natural heterosexual sex outside of marriage might marry at some point in time, and then any subsequent acts of the same kind would be moral. But homosexual acts are so thoroughly disordered and unnatural that there is no circumstance in which they can be moral.

Homosexual acts are unnatural, and are not open to life, and are outside of marriage, and are between persons of the same gender. To be moral, sexual relations must be natural and open to life and within a marriage and between a man and a women. Homosexual sex offends against all these moral imperatives which God has placed in the natural law and in Divine Revelation and in the very nature of humanity. Therefore, homosexual acts are much more gravely disordered and much more sinful than heterosexual acts outside of marriage. The greater the disorder, the greater the sin. The more moral principles an acts violates, the more sinful that act is.

It is a heresy against the Catholic Faith to believe that homosexual acts outside of marriage are no more sinful than heterosexual acts outside of marriage.