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

[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.

 

[pnewton]

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.

Perhaps it would be good here to insert the definition of heresy, which is often used carelessly.

"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

I note you quote Levitical law more than the Catechism. For the claim to heresy to have merit outside of your own opinion, it is necessary to show where the Catholic Church has defined as dogma the homosexuality is more sinful. Both the sins I described are classified as objectively mortal sin.

I doubt any parent of a daughter who was molested would take comfort in the fact that the molestation was heterosexual, though God alone judges the person.

Maybe he uses different size millstones?

One either needs to be able to quote the Church, or recognize that he is defining “heresy” only by his own opinion, a very dangerous position indeed. You may note even the Biblical references do not compare the two sins (Genesis does not even mention homosexuality as the reason for destruction). Proof-text away, but it remains your opinion.

It is always easier to be harsher with sins we are not tempted by. Even convicts have their own rankings of who is the bad convicts, and sex offenders of who is the worse sex offenders, child molesters of who is the worst child molester. In light of the Gospel this weekend, what would Jesus write in the sand if we were there with our stones?

 

[mdef303]

Perhaps it would be good here to insert the definition of heresy, which is often used carelessly.

I note you quote Levitical law more than the Catechism. For the claim to heresy to have merit outside of your own opinion, it is necessary to show where the Catholic Church has defined as dogma the homosexuality is more sinful. Both the sins I described are classified as objectively mortal sin.

I doubt any parent of a daughter who was molested would take comfort in the fact that the molestation was heterosexual, though God alone judges the person.

Maybe he uses different size millstones?

One either needs to be able to quote the Church, or recognize that he is defining “heresy” only by his own opinion, a very dangerous position indeed. You may note even the Biblical references do not compare the two sins (Genesis does not even mention homosexuality as the reason for destruction). Proof-text away, but it remains your opinion.

It is always easier to be harsher with sins we are not tempted by. Even convicts have their own rankings of who is the bad convicts, and sex offenders of who is the worse sex offenders, child molesters of who is the worst child molester. In light of the Gospel this weekend, what would Jesus write in the sand if we were there with our stones?

What don’t you understand.

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 offends more moral imperatives than one. What don’t you understand. This is pretty simple logic. It’s more offensive than heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage. What are you trying to protect? I never threw a stone, and Iam too a sinner that walkes away from the woman. But this is sadly the truth, weather you accept it or not. Facts. Not opinions. Offends more than one moral imperative.

 

[pnewton]

Whatever you wanna believe.

Yes, as can you. As Catholics we are allowed to disagree on things not defined as doctrine. My observation about why some people categorize sins a certain way, is just my opinion.

 

[mdef303]

Yes, as can you. As Catholics we are allowed to disagree on things not defined as doctrine. My observation about why some people categorize sins a certain way, is just my opinion.

It offends more immoral imperatives than one. Not only they are committing unnatural sexual relations outside of marriage, but they are engaging in sexual affairs out of marriage. Two rather than one. Of course it’s worse.

 

[Micosil]

Yes, as can you. As Catholics we are allowed to disagree on things not defined as doctrine. My observation about why some people categorize sins a certain way, is just my opinion.

And this is something I wish people would recognize and understand. My experience is that for some people, the idea of married priests is akin to Satan himself, despite there being married Eastern Catholic priests and some in the Latin rite who come from a Protestant tradition.

 

[mdef303]

Believe me. The Pope and the clergy are cleaning Up the Holy Church.

FAST FACTS

1
IT’S NOT ABOUT CATHOLIC PRIESTS
FACT: Catholic priests abuse at a rate far lower than that of other males in the general population.
Read more
2
THE GRAND CONSPIRACY THAT WASN’T
FACT: You would never know it from the media’s lurid and obsessive coverage, but the vast bulk of reported cases of abuse stem only from a historical anomaly, as most allegations occurred during only a small sliver of time during the Sexual Revolution from the 1960s to the early 1980s. And despite media suggestions of dark conspiracies and cover-ups, the Church – like every other institution at the time – simply followed the then-prevailing view of experts in the field that offenders could be successfully rehabilitated and sent accused priests off for treatment, rather than reporting them to police, which resulted in a temporary spike in recidivism.
Read more
3
THE REAL NEWS: CURRENT ACCUSATIONS AGAINST CATHOLIC PRIESTS ARE EXTREMELY RARE
FACT: Almost all accusations against Catholic priests date from many decades ago, and indeed nearly half of all abuse accusations concern priests who are already long dead. In a body of 77 million people, contemporaneous accusations of abuse against Catholic clergy in the United States are very rare, recently averaging only 8 allegations deemed “credible” by review boards each year.
Read more
4
THE STORY THE MEDIA WON’T REPORT: THE EPIDEMIC OF ABUSE AND COVER-UPS GOING ON TODAY IN OUR OWN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
FACT: The incidence of sexual abuse by teachers in public schools today has been estimated to be “more than 100 times” that by Catholic priests, and there is alarming evidence of school officials covering up abuse and failing to report suspected cases to authorities. Yet the mainstream media has largely ignored this shocking story while still rehashing decades-old allegations of abuse by Catholic priests.
Read more
5
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TODAY: A MODEL FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
FACT: The Catholic Church is likely the safest environment for children today.

I can’t wait to hear the arguments and hate towards these facts. Lol. Or saying they are not facts. Lol.

 

[Padres1969]

Why do you say it does “very little good for victims”?

Many victims have been very vocal about the fact that bringing these old cases to light has helped them.

.

Exactly. And holding guilty parties accountable even late, is never bad.

 

[mdef303]

Exactly. And holding guilty parties accountable even late, is never bad.

Love the Catholic hate from you and daddy’s girl. Come join the Catholic movement. You’ll thank me later. Just because you two are not Catholic you decide to nag it in a bit more each time. The church is cleansing. Been and will stand against the gates of hades. People like you like to nag to death because you believe different. Find a new hobby.

 

[pnewton]

.
It’s not hypocrisy, it’s math.

And the only reason 50-year-old cases are getting attention now is because no one came forward 50, 40, 30, or 20 years ago to bring them to light and stop the abuse.

The math, if measured in something more than accusations, do not support the premise that Catholic priests are worse.

Why is it no one came foreword for so long? More to the point, how verifiable is are cases that come after such a long time? Statute of limitations exist precisely because after so much time, especially when only the testimony of one person exists to condemn a man of a crime, it is impossible to know if the abuser is the priest or the one claiming to be the victim. I know children only lie a minority of the time. The same is not true of adults. Additionally, memory is not reliable after decades.

Note the one key factor in the article that keeps getting missed. No criminal charges are being pursued. The attorney general of the state is unable to pursue any charges. The reasons are questionable, coming from this politician with a history of malfeseance. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Kane ). So all we know is the fact of no criminal charge being pursued. If this was any other person or situation, such a non-story would not be in the news. A crooked politician has said something bad happened but can’t prove a word of it. A government agency spent time investigating a non-crime that could not be tried and tried these people in the media as the only way to attack them. This is what we have.

I am all for justice. I do no believe justice is served by witch hunts. The current method of accusing Catholic priests is remarkably similar to that which was used in Salem and during the McCarthy era.

 

[pristine2]

Believe me. The Pope and the clergy are cleaning Up the Holy Church.

I believe the pope and many in the clergy are trying. I also believe you are in denial. Just read the posts on this thread to see how homosexuality in the priesthood is seen in certain circles as just another sin that creates no bar to the priesthood, and no problem with holding the keys the sacraments.

IT’S NOT ABOUT CATHOLIC PRIESTS
FACT: Catholic priests abuse at a rate far lower than that of other males in the general population.

I should certainly hope this is true. It would be reassuring if you could provide the factual basis for the statement. If priests abused at the same rate as the rest of us, then there is a serious problem with the priesthood.

FACT: You would never know it from the media’s lurid and obsessive coverage, but the vast bulk of reported cases of abuse stem only from a historical anomaly, as most allegations occurred during only a small sliver of time during the Sexual Revolution from the 1960s to the early 1980s.

This does not ring true at all, sorry.

And despite media suggestions of dark conspiracies and cover-ups, the Church – like every other institution at the time – simply followed the then-prevailing view of experts in the field that offenders could be successfully rehabilitated and sent accused priests off for treatment, rather than reporting them to police, which resulted in a temporary spike in recidivism.

This does ring true, and it took 20 years longer than it should have to dispense with the perfidious thinking.

FACT: The incidence of sexual abuse by teachers in public schools today has been estimated to be “more than 100 times” that by Catholic priests, and there is alarming evidence of school officials covering up abuse and failing to report suspected cases to authorities. Yet the mainstream media has largely ignored this shocking story while still rehashing decades-old allegations of abuse by Catholic priests.

This is an absurd comparison. Not because the abuse of a public school child is any less abhorrent than that of a Catholic child. But because a priest is invested with a sacred trust, one that mediates a child’s relationship with God.

FACT: The Catholic Church is likely the safest environment for children today.

I guess that depends on whether my priest is gay or not.

 

[pristine2]

The current method of accusing Catholic priests is remarkably similar to that which was used in Salem and during the McCarthy era.

This is deeply offensive and entirely false. There is not the slightest bit of evidence for it. There is not even the most meager commonality between the efforts of sexual abuse survivors & their advocates to bring predators to justice, and the capricious actions of the Massachusetts puritans or charlatans like McCarthy. And allegations are not made or handled in a remotely similar way, neither in the church nor in secular law enforcement.

You should retract that statement. I really do want to approach your posts with even-tempered patience. But insidious remarks like that make it very difficult. Frankly, almost every post you have made on this issue seems intent on:

a) Minimizing and/or triviliazing the extent and severity of the abuse that has taken place, and aligning yourself with the prevaricators who tell us it is all in the past and any remaining problem is negligible. We heard precisely the same thing in 1996 and 2004. It was false then and it is false now. Much remains to be done. There still exists an environment in which priests like Joseph Maurizio can continue to have access to children for years after exposure. (He was accused with damning evidence in 2009, and the Church did not remove him until the feds arrested him in 2014. Witch hunt? Please.)

b) Disparaging and even obstructing the efforts of lay Catholics to expose and eradicate the abuse (eg, incidentally describing these efforts as a "witch hunt). All the progress that has been made was obtained through the enormous struggle by those seeking justice and a future for the Catholic Church. Please stop maligning them. They are church militants, on the right side of the issue.

c) Denying the evident reality that the vast majority of the abuse arises directly from the decision to tolerate homosexuals (yes, homosexual people, not just their sexual activities) in the priesthood. The priesthood has probably always attracted a higher percentage of gay men than other vocations because the celibacy provided excellent social cover. But once the church softened its stance on “deep-seated proclivities”, the priesthood was flooded with gay men who saw their sexual expression as a venial and pleasurable sin, nothing more.

A gay culture, a gay power structure and a gay narrative has infected the priesthood. Antiseptic is required. That doesn’t mean the Catholic church should oppress or abuse Gay people. They should have complete access to the sacraments except one: Holy Orders.

Let me put it more simply: If you are gay, you should not, must not and cannot be a priest. Just as the church excludes women from the priesthood, it must exclude gay men. Gay “concupiscence” is not remotely the same thing as heterosexual desire. There is no parity. Gay men are ill-suited for the priesthood.

The only reason they were not explicitly excluded before is because until the 1960s, the very notion of allowing it seemed so absurd.

 

[Micosil]

I guess that depends on whether my priest is gay or not.

Erm, are you serious? Do you somehow think men with same-sex attraction are more likely to abuse children?

 

[Thorolfr]

The only reason they were not explicitly excluded before is because until the 1960s, the very notion of allowing it seemed so absurd.

So do you really think that there were not just as many homosexual men who were priests before the 1960s? There were probably just as many closeted homosexual men in the priesthood 100 years ago as what there are today.

 

[pnewton]

This is deeply offensive and entirely false. There is not the slightest bit of evidence for it.

Citizens are asked to report without proof.
Those that do not report are also targeted.
Those that are reported suffer loss of job and are stigmatized without trial.
All reports are considered true in tallying statistics unless proven false (an impossibility)

This is evidence. The word “false” does not apply to opinions and analogies. Your offense at the opinions of others is itself offensive and intolerant. Not everyone has to agree with you.

I did no malign anyone trying to help the Church. If you pull you head out of this sidebar and get back to the topic, this was a* civil political process* under discussion, not the Church taking action to stop abuse. That is what I was comparing to a witch hunt and the McCarthy era approach used more often than not.

How many innocent priests have been accused? Legally, almost all of them, as in every other area of law one is innocent until proven guilty. The McCarthy hearings did not take this approach. Not one of the researches into this scandal have taken into account* legal* innocence.

How many priests have been accused who have never touched a child inappropriately or done anything for which they have been accused? We do not know. That is the reality. It could be half of the figures. It could be more. It could be less. This is something we can have an opinion about, but no knowledge, and thus no informed opinion.

If you are offended by facts as well as opinions, this is not a good place to be. Nothing I have said is meant to stop all efforts to protect children. It is laudable to understand to the greatest possible extent what has happened and take actions to stop all the abuse humanly possible to stop. I see this report as zero value in the actual protection of children.

I do not want to trivialize the problem. Just the opposite. It is so important that we need a sharp focus on solving the problem, not fixing blame.

 

[pnewton]

Erm, are you serious? Do you somehow think men with same-sex attraction are more likely to abuse children?

I think this is a good question and one that might need consideration in this generation. Yes, in the past this has shown to be relevant. But that was back when all altar servers were boys, homosexuality was not accepted and it was not a bar to the priesthood. Someone with attraction to boys and young men might well have seen this as a way to live out their deviance. Now, we have a bar on the priesthood to those with same sex attraction, as well as many more cases of female altar servers. Since heterosexuality is the norm among priests, I think we will see the majority of cases being female. Time will tell.

Likewise, I think the cases of abuse from priests in the 2000’s, 2010’s and 2020’s will show a miraculous decline. The culture has changed. Not only will reports of abuse be more thoroughly researched and prosecuted, the concept of the priesthood as an easy access to children is no more.

There is also two more systemic changes I would like to see, though I think these might arise naturally. First, parents need to be more aware of the signs of abuse, listen to their children, then report sexual abuse when they find out about it, while there is a chance to gather evidence and convict the perpetrator. Second, police need to accept their role in disregarding priests as suspects. Investigations need not be demeaning to be thorough. If an investigator finds himself unable to be thorough because of ties to some priest or bishop, it is time to let another take care of that case.

 

[mdef303]

I think this is a good question and one that might need consideration in this generation. Yes, in the past this has shown to be relevant. But that was back when all altar servers were boys, homosexuality was not accepted and it was not a bar to the priesthood. Someone with attraction to boys and young men might well have seen this as a way to live out their deviance. Now, we have a bar on the priesthood to those with same sex attraction, as well as many more cases of female altar servers. Since heterosexuality is the norm among priests, I think we will see the majority of cases being female. Time will tell.

Likewise, I think the cases of abuse from priests in the 2000’s, 2010’s and 2020’s will show a miraculous decline. The culture has changed. Not only will reports of abuse be more thoroughly researched and prosecuted, the concept of the priesthood as an easy access to children is no more.

There is also two more systemic changes I would like to see, though I think these might arise naturally. First, parents need to be more aware of the signs of abuse, listen to their children, then report sexual abuse when they find out about it, while there is a chance to gather evidence and convict the perpetrator. Second, police need to accept their role in disregarding priests as suspects. Investigations need not be demeaning to be thorough. If an investigator finds himself unable to be thorough because of ties to some priest or bishop, it is time to let another take care of that case.

I agree we are in a new era. I believe the church has changed for the better and settled in the past of the 1960s to 1980s.

 

[Micosil]

I think this is a good question and one that might need consideration in this generation. Yes, in the past this has shown to be relevant. But that was back when all altar servers were boys, homosexuality was not accepted and it was not a bar to the priesthood. Someone with attraction to boys and young men might well have seen this as a way to live out their deviance. Now, we have a bar on the priesthood to those with same sex attraction, as well as many more cases of female altar servers. Since heterosexuality is the norm among priests, I think we will see the majority of cases being female. Time will tell.

Likewise, I think the cases of abuse from priests in the 2000’s, 2010’s and 2020’s will show a miraculous decline. The culture has changed. Not only will reports of abuse be more thoroughly researched and prosecuted, the concept of the priesthood as an easy access to children is no more.

There is also two more systemic changes I would like to see, though I think these might arise naturally. First, parents need to be more aware of the signs of abuse, listen to their children, then report sexual abuse when they find out about it, while there is a chance to gather evidence and convict the perpetrator. Second, police need to accept their role in disregarding priests as suspects. Investigations need not be demeaning to be thorough. If an investigator finds himself unable to be thorough because of ties to some priest or bishop, it is time to let another take care of that case.

Your first paragraph is interesting; so perhaps it isn’t so much that same-sex attracted men are more likely to abuse minors, but that because of the previous dominance of male altar servers, same-sex attracted men who also happened to have these deviant tendencies saw the priesthood as a way to live out their twisted fantasies.

However, I keep hearing that a disproportionately high amount of priests have same-sex attraction, despite the restrictions. I wonder what gives, if it’s true.

 

[mdef303]

Your first paragraph is interesting; so perhaps it isn’t so much that same-sex attracted men are more likely to abuse minors, but that because of the previous dominance of male altar servers, same-sex attracted men who also happened to have these deviant tendencies saw the priesthood as a way to live out their twisted fantasies.

However, I keep hearing that a disproportionately high amount of priests have same-sex attraction, despite the restrictions. I wonder what gives, if it’s true.

I agree I believe most of them saw an easy oppurrunity for easy prey. Pure evil. May god have justice. And the lord protect the just and righteous. Through Christ our Lord our strength. Amen

 

[pristine2]

Erm, are you serious? Do you somehow think men with same-sex attraction are more likely to abuse children?

If they are priests, yes — far more likely.