Should There Be an Inquisition for the Pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bubba_Switzler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think we really do need to examine what went wrong. Introspection holds no fears for a Catholic who is sure of his/her faith. As a child, I once heard a priest say that the Church has endured bad congregations, bad clergy… and has endured despite it all. That made a deep and lasting impression on me. Unflattering articles about our Church in the secular media are just like so many buzzing flies to be brushed away or ignored.

We should not be afraid to ignore the extraneous and focus on examining what happened and why so that it is never repeated. Blaming the press or speculating about secret societies or whatever is quite unnecessary. All that matters is that we are founded on Christ and no storm can wash this house away - now all that remains is to keep it clean…
Not just the Church needs to ask what happened, but the whole world. How is it possible that we have human trafficking of kids today? How is it that between 1950 and 1990 (give or take) not only priests, but many people were abusing children? Where were the rest of us? What were we thinking? Why didn’t we notice or pay attention? Those who were parents at that time must also ask themselves how did they not notice that something was wrong?

I would like to see a worldwide investigation or study of this and I would like to see the Church be part of that. It is unacceptable that we had priests and religious involved in this horrible wave of abuse against children. But I would like to see the inquiries to be much broader or more inclusive. I’m not sure if I’m saying it correctly.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Not just the Church needs to ask what happened, but the whole world. How is it possible that we have human trafficking of kids today? How is it that between 1950 and 1990 (give or take) not only priests, but many people were abusing children? Where were the rest of us? What were we thinking? Why didn’t we notice or pay attention? Those who were parents at that time must also ask themselves how did they not notice that something was wrong?

I would like to see a worldwide investigation or study of this and I would like to see the Church be part of that. It is unacceptable that we had priests and religious involved in this horrible wave of abuse against children. But I would like to see the inquiries to be much broader or more inclusive. I’m not sure if I’m saying it correctly.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
I get what you’re saying: we should look at the issue of child sexual abuse on a whole. My impression (and I may be totally wrong) is not that there was a wave of these events at the time in question, but that it is victims from this period who first started to speak up when the veil of secrecy covering ‘all things sexual’ started to be drawn away in the past three or four decades.

Seems to me we just don’t know what obtained beforehand rather than it being a question of things starting around the 50’s. Maybe the people who could tell us are either dead or too old to want to dig up buried skeletons.

My reason for saying this is no empiric evidence but simply my personal experience; put 5 women in a room (say at a family gathering for example), get them talking openly and more likely than not at least one has experienced sexual abuse as a child. Many times mothers forced the kids to remain secret so as not to shame the family and justice was never served. I have seen this among my own relatives, where that veil of secrecy was passed on across two generations. I have heard of teachers repeatedly moved around their entire careers for abusing their students; today they would be thrown where they belong: in jail.

I am one of those who have a pretty poor opinion of some aspects of life in the 40’s and 50’s (which some see as the golden age) because of social injustices that were tolerated back then (child abuse, spousal abuse, racial abuse - you name it) and covered up to leave gleaming images of wholesomeness that I often hear people yearn for. Maybe I’m being unfair in my assessment of those generations but I don’t see how they were any better at anything (than today’s generation) other than at hiding the really bad things going on in society.
 
It is my understanding that writers of opinion /editorials cannot be held liable for defamation or libel if they are giving their fair opinion and not making *provably *false statements. They can’t just “make stuff up.”

Anyone can sue for anything, but it’s very debatable how far they would get in this instance.
Thanking you and Stjudeprayforus for your replies.

I guess I’ll just have to find recourse through what can be employed by us over here. Our TV Licence gives us a “voice” and I have just submitted a formal complaint to the BBC by deliberately misrepresenting a report by way of its headline. If they do not retract, I can perhaps approach a responsible journalist, or someone who is critical of the BBC, who can highlight errors of irresponsible journalists.
Archbishop says contraception ‘attractive’

Archbishop Nichols understands the “attractiveness” of contraception
The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster has said he understands why contraception is seen as “attractive” in tackling Third World poverty.
But Archbishop Vincent Nichols told BBC WM it was not the Church’s role to add to calls for condom distribution…
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8594770.stm
 
Another idea comes to mind. I can also write to the Press Complaints Commission if print media comes up with another misleading headline.
 
ALLELUIA!!! The BBC headline has just been changed. It now reads:
Condoms can help on poverty - Catholic leader

Archbishop Nichols understands the “attractiveness” of contraception
The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster has said he understands why contraception is seen as “attractive” in tackling Third World poverty…
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8594770.stm
 
gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2010/03/pedophile-priests.html

Monday, March 22, 2010
The Myth of Pedophile Priests

As more pedophile priest scandals blow up across Europe we should be ashamed of the offenders and those who sheltered them and oppressed the victims. The guilty should be weeded out, removed from office and handed over to the civil authorities where they are guilty of crimes. Systems to avoid abuse must be established and rigorously maintained, and victims should be justly compensated for their suffering.

However, Penn State professor Philip Jenkins (who is not a Catholic) has written the most objective book on the subject, and he summarizes his arguments in this excellent article. In light of his work, we should remember some basic facts and principles:

Priestly celibacy is not the issue - married men are more likely to abuse children than unmarried

Most child abuse takes place within the home.

All religious groups have pedophile scandals, and the Catholics (while the largest religious group) are at the bottom of the list statistically.

Child abuse is prevalent in all areas of society: schools, youth organizations, sports, etc.
Statistically, of all the professions, Christian clergy are least likely to offend. Doctors, Farmers and Teachers are the professions most likely to abuse children–not clergy.
Among clergy offenders Catholic priests are least likely to offend.

Catholic cases of pedophilia make more headlines because of anti Catholic prejudice and because the Catholic Church is bigger and more lucractive to sue.

Pedophilia and Euphebophilia are different problems. The former is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. The latter is attraction to teenagers. Most cases branded ‘pedophila’ are actually ‘euphebophila.’
Most of the cases of euphebophilia are homosexual in nature, however the politically correct do not want this problem to be associated with homosexuality.

The number of Catholic priests guilty of pedophilia is very small.

What we now call ‘cover up’ was often done in a different cultural context, when the problem was not fully understood and when all establishment organizations hushed scandals. They did so for what seemed good reasons at the time: protection of the victims and their families, opportunity for rehabilitation of the offender, the avoidance of scandal to others. It is unfair to judge events thirty years ago by today’s standards.

When lawsuits are looming people smell money. We must be wary of false accusations.
The accused must be entitled to a fair hearing. The church should insist on hard proof of the abuse, and for the sake of justice, ensure that the innocent are not prosecuted.
When guilt is established the offender must be punished, not sheltered.
Distinctions must be made between types of abuse. Some offenses are worse than others. Verbal abuse or corporal punishment during a time when that was acceptable, while lamentable, is not the same as sexual abuse or extreme physical abuse.
Sexual abuse of an adult, or a sexually experienced older teenager is wrong, and damaging, and should be punished, but it is not the same as the sexual abuse of a younger, innocent child.
Number of offenses must be considered. One lapse is not of the same seriousness as repeated, persistent and premeditated offenses.

I am in no way wishing to be soft of pedophiles and those who covered for them, however justice and truth demand an objective analysis of the facts.

Posted by Fr Longenecker at Monday, March 22, 2010
 
gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2010/03/pedophile-priests.html

Monday, March 22, 2010
The Myth of Pedophile Priests

As more pedophile priest scandals blow up across Europe we should be ashamed of the offenders and those who sheltered them and oppressed the victims. The guilty should be weeded out, removed from office and handed over to the civil authorities where they are guilty of crimes. Systems to avoid abuse must be established and rigorously maintained, and victims should be justly compensated for their suffering.

However, Penn State professor Philip Jenkins (who is not a Catholic) has written the most objective book on the subject, and he summarizes his arguments in this excellent article. In light of his work, we should remember some basic facts and principles:

Priestly celibacy is not the issue - married men are more likely to abuse children than unmarried

Most child abuse takes place within the home.

All religious groups have pedophile scandals, and the Catholics (while the largest religious group) are at the bottom of the list statistically.

Child abuse is prevalent in all areas of society: schools, youth organizations, sports, etc.
Statistically, of all the professions, Christian clergy are least likely to offend. Doctors, Farmers and Teachers are the professions most likely to abuse children–not clergy.
Among clergy offenders Catholic priests are least likely to offend.

Catholic cases of pedophilia make more headlines because of anti Catholic prejudice and because the Catholic Church is bigger and more lucractive to sue.

Pedophilia and Euphebophilia are different problems. The former is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. The latter is attraction to teenagers. Most cases branded ‘pedophila’ are actually ‘euphebophila.’
Most of the cases of euphebophilia are homosexual in nature, however the politically correct do not want this problem to be associated with homosexuality.

The number of Catholic priests guilty of pedophilia is very small.

What we now call ‘cover up’ was often done in a different cultural context, when the problem was not fully understood and when all establishment organizations hushed scandals. They did so for what seemed good reasons at the time: protection of the victims and their families, opportunity for rehabilitation of the offender, the avoidance of scandal to others. It is unfair to judge events thirty years ago by today’s standards.

When lawsuits are looming people smell money. We must be wary of false accusations.
The accused must be entitled to a fair hearing. The church should insist on hard proof of the abuse, and for the sake of justice, ensure that the innocent are not prosecuted.
When guilt is established the offender must be punished, not sheltered.
Distinctions must be made between types of abuse. Some offenses are worse than others. Verbal abuse or corporal punishment during a time when that was acceptable, while lamentable, is not the same as sexual abuse or extreme physical abuse.
Sexual abuse of an adult, or a sexually experienced older teenager is wrong, and damaging, and should be punished, but it is not the same as the sexual abuse of a younger, innocent child.
Number of offenses must be considered. One lapse is not of the same seriousness as repeated, persistent and premeditated offenses.

I am in no way wishing to be soft of pedophiles and those who covered for them, however justice and truth demand an objective analysis of the facts.

Posted by Fr Longenecker at Monday, March 22, 2010
Where is the data to back up the claim that most of the abused were teenagers? A poster on another thread used the cutoff age of 10 (I don’t consider an 11 year old a teenager). Prepubescent also begs for a definition: 9 or 10 is the age puberty is ***started ***in boys, not completed. If one were to use the same argument in girls (who may start puberty as early as 6) it would mean we wouldn’t consider sexual abuse pedophilia if the victim is older than 5.

Sorry, I would need more objective evidence to accept this theory. The main problem for me; other than the definitions mentioned above is: opportunity. Before we can use age or sex by themselves to analyze the problem we have to look at whether all ages and sexes were all equally likely to be in situations conducive to abuse. How many five year old girl altar servers were there in the periods under study, for example?

Statistics can pretty much tell us anything depending on how we analyze them and I haven’t seen a single convincing statistical analysis that shows this is a problem of homosexuality. Not one. And my opinion has nothing to do with being politically correct; but to be credible on this issue we have to be correct, period.
 
The Priest got his info from a Penn State professor… its on the blog I linked.
 
The Priest got his info from a Penn State professor… its on the blog I linked.
Don’t see figures and definitions of the sort I could sink my teeth into, there either.

Can’t for the life of me understand how this article makes people feel better: boys or not they were still children (underaged, under authority of the abusers, unable to legally consent, sometimes disabled…).

Does this somehow make the crimes less serious or the cover-up less wrong? If the victims were adult women, would we feel better? Ridiculous is what I say.
 
One always knows when it’s Lent, especially Holy Week, when outrageous claims are made against the Church! I’ve noticed this every year as Easter nears, there is some kind of attack against Our Lord and His Church. It is a spiritual battle. Let’s continue to lift our Holy Father up in prayer.
 
Don’t see figures and definitions of the sort I could sink my teeth into, there either.

Can’t for the life of me understand how this article makes people feel better: boys or not they were still children (underaged, under authority of the abusers, unable to legally consent, sometimes disabled…).

Does this somehow make the crimes less serious or the cover-up less wrong? If the victims were adult women, would we feel better? Ridiculous is what I say.
wasnt trying to make people feel better
 
Does this somehow make the crimes less serious or the cover-up less wrong? If the victims were adult women, would we feel better? Ridiculous is what I say.
The point I took from the article was that if the Church were to seriously attack the problem it would prohibit homosexuals from having contact with minors, not end celibacy.

Anyone think that would mollify the critics at the NYT? Anyone?
 
The point I took from the article was that if the Church were to seriously attack the problem it would prohibit homosexuals from having contact with minors, not end celibacy.

Anyone think that would mollify the critics at the NYT? Anyone?
Well I visited the blog the OP indicated. Not only did I find no convincing evidence that this is a homosexual problem (not saying it is or it isn’t) but I saw comments indicating this explanation provided some relief to the faithful looking for answers.

Celibacy has little, if anything to do with pedophilia in my opinion. For me to be convinced otherwise, I would have to see a comparison of the incidence of pedophilia among priests versus the incidence among married men. Sexual sin and sexual deviancy seem to have no correlation in my personal opinion to whether a man makes vows of celibacy or matrimony or remains free of vows.

This thing is hurtful, shocking and shameful but if we’re looking for explanations, we need ones that make sense and address all victims. The girls may have been in the minority for whatever reason, but any explanation also has to take them into account.
 
Well I visited the blog the OP indicated. Not only did I find no convincing evidence that this is a homosexual problem (not saying it is or it isn’t) but I saw comments indicating this explanation provided some relief to the faithful looking for answers.

Celibacy has little, if anything to do with pedophilia in my opinion. For me to be convinced otherwise, I would have to see a comparison of the incidence of pedophilia among priests versus the incidence among married men. Sexual sin and sexual deviancy seem to have no correlation in my personal opinion to whether a man makes vows of celibacy or matrimony or remains free of vows.

This thing is hurtful, shocking and shameful but if we’re looking for explanations, we need ones that make sense and address all victims. The girls may have been in the minority for whatever reason, but any explanation also has to take them into account.
I’m not a big fan of celibacy, although there are obvious practical benefits in being unencombered by family. However, whether or not you are convinced by the article, it seems pretty clear from the evidence as a whole that if there is a solution, it will be found in separating homosexual priests from minors.

Whether or not this is something Catholics like, or secularists don’t like, is beside the point. But it does help illuminate the agendas if anti-Catholics are attacking celibacy and celibacy is not the main problem.

Nor does the existence of female victims contradict the above since nobody is claiming that homosexuality accounts for all cases of pedophilia.
 
I’m not a big fan of celibacy, although there are obvious practical benefits in being unencombered by family. However, whether or not you are convinced by the article, it seems pretty clear from the evidence as a whole that if there is a solution, it will be found in separating homosexual priests from minors.

Whether or not this is something Catholics like, or secularists don’t like, is beside the point. But it does help illuminate the agendas if anti-Catholics are attacking celibacy and celibacy is not the main problem.

Nor does the existence of female victims contradict the above since nobody is claiming that homosexuality accounts for all cases of pedophilia.
All I see in the article is an opinion based on numbers whose source I am not aware of.

I see no clear evidence that the preponderance of boys denotes anything other than a difference in opportunity for abuse which is easily explained by considering such factors as the different roles of boys and girls in the Church and the sex of the adults usually in authority over either group. Analysis of the numbers needs to account for confounding factors.

When the important factor of opportunity is adequately dealt with, then I’ll be willing to listen to theories on sexual orientation. Not saying some offenders weren’t homosexual; just that the evidence as it stands does not seem to support sexual orientation as the main problem here.
 
Nope… Freedom of speech.

Plus… the NY times prides itself on defaming anyone Christian or conservative. They are proud of it.
Its no different then the NY Post or Washington Times, who likewise prides itself on defaming anyone who isn’t conservative or Christian.
 
All I see in the article is an opinion based on numbers whose source I am not aware of…When the important factor of opportunity is adequately dealt with, then I’ll be willing to listen to theories on sexual orientation. Not saying some offenders weren’t homosexual; just that the evidence as it stands does not seem to support sexual orientation as the main problem here.
“Sexual orientation”? No wonder you don’t see any evidence. Hint: when men molest boys “sexual orientation” is pretty well established.
 
“Sexual orientation”? No wonder you don’t see any evidence. Hint: when men molest boys “sexual orientation” is pretty well established.
You’re welcome to believe whatever you like. Me I need evidence that more boys were molested for any reason other than availability. Does same sex-activity in prisons mean that they are full of homosexuals or simply that prisoners are segregated by sex?

I think this contrived argument just makes us as a Church look even worse.
 
You’re welcome to believe whatever you like. Me I need evidence that more boys were molested for any reason other than availability. Does same sex-activity in prisons mean that they are full of homosexuals or simply that prisoners are segregated by sex?
So you believe that priests are trapped with young boys 24/7? You are very selective in your credulity. If it makes you feel better to believe that “availability” is the culprit, go ahead. But the evidence points to homosexuality, oops, I mean “sexual orientation”.
I think this contrived argument just makes us as a Church look even worse.
No doubt, the pedophilia experts at the NYT would agree with you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top