There were different problems. The abuse is driven by different issues. All of which goes to how one detects the problems.Sure there is sarcasm, the Church’s problem wasn’t just ephebophilia , but also of straight out pedophilia as well. To be splitting hairs about whether it was 8, 10 or 12 year old or a 16 year old or a seminarian or whatever the age, doesn’t mean there was not a problem.
Your problem is that you cannot distinguish between an honest attempt to make the right decision and miss the mark, and a dishonest attempt to not make the right decision. There is a vast moral difference, one that seems to escape you entirely. It is good to meet you, as it appears we have all met someone who has never made a mistake in judgment honestly and morally; and it is great to hear someone talk about Jesus and not have a clue what that is really all about. Your failure to understand the problem is magnificent, and your opinions dangerous as they fail to distinguish between someone trying to make the right moral decision, someone who does not have enough information on which to act, and someone who tries to hide what is both a crime and a moral evil. The difference between those three is vast, and I know of nowhere that Jesus ever held anyone responsible where they tried to act in an honest and moral way and made an error of judgment.To defend the positions taken by the church because some of the altar boys were young teenagers sounds like a construct devised by attorneys and not a notion rooted in what Jesus taught.
It would appear that you do not know much of anything as to what the Church has said about the issue; repeating it would not appear to have any impact. The Church is removing priests, and they are being removed from the priesthood. Why you seem to be unable to acknowledge that fact is beyond me. The Church has not been hesitant to make that known, so it is not as if this were hidden away in some dark archive, never to be used.To prevent further outbreaks just tell the priests if they abuse they are out of the priesthood and to the bishops tell them if they cover-up or lie about one instance of abuse, they are out of the priesthood. Those solutions are available to the church without interference from the civil authorities.
Adult men do not have sex with teenage boys if they - the grown men - are heterosexual. They have sexual contact with women, and some with teenage girls. Sexual conduct between adult homosexual men and teenage boys is not something new; there is ample evidence of such conduct going back to both Rome and Greece in Ancient History (as in, before Christ).blaming the gays is just another irrational homophobic reaction.
and yet, you wonder why gay people get all “anti-catholic”, maybe because you continue to irrationally blame them.
You seem categorically unable to distinguish between bishops trying to follow the Gospels and not knowing how to deal with the problem (being anointed bishop is not an instantaneous grant of wisdom), those who tried to deal with the problem as they understood it, and those who did not try and are guilty of moral wrong.Wasn’t it you who posted that I was smearing the bishops by accusing them of not following the gospels?
So my accusation is false, I’ll stipulate to that point. Therefore, the bishops were following the gospels.OK .
I agreed with your logic and now that I do, my comment is not worthy of a response?
Peace
Perhaps you do not grasp the subtlety to which I refer: bishops have a special grace not available to you or I-- the ministry of discernment, which gives them a grace that allows for a fuller intellectual connection with the holy spirit when a bishop prays.You seem categorically unable to distinguish between bishops trying to follow the Gospels and not knowing how to deal with the problem (being anointed bishop is not an instantaneous grant of wisdom), those who tried to deal with the problem as they understood it, and those who did not try and are guilty of moral wrong.
It is obvious that you have never tried to make the right decision, tried to be morally correct, and yet made a mistake.
Rape - a word you use - is an interesting one. The law, unlike you, is capable of distinguishing between forceable rape, the violent kind, and what is called statuatory rape, which does not involve physical violence but is between someone considered above the age of consent and someone who is below the age of consent.
One can say that they are the same; only one who is ignorant, however. There is psychological violence in that latter; physical violence in the former. And it was not until the last couple of decades that the information really came out about the psychological violence. I have tried to explain this to you; obviously either you do not understand the difference, or refuse to believe there is any difference.
That is your issue, not mine. A bishop who did not understand the damage that statuatory rape causes (and why would they, when experts in the field of psychology didn’t) cannot be held to the standard of one who does understand. They treated it as a morally wrong act - a mortal sin - and something to be confessed; they lacked understanding of the long term damage to victims. The point may be too subtle to grasp; perhaps that is the problem.
I have never said, do not say and never will say the bishops made the right choices. What I have said is that many bishops did the best they could with what little knowledge they had - knowledge of the impact of the act, knowledge or lack of it as to the extent of the problem, and responsibilities not only to victims and their families but also to their dioceses.
You want to condemn all the bishops. I refuse to condemn the ones who did the best they could with what they had to work with. That does not mean they made the best decision; it simply means that those who honestly tried made the best decision they could under the circumstances. There is a vast difference; I am sorry that it is so subtle that it escapes you.
As noted before, you are so emotionally wrapped up in this issue that you cannot distinguish facts from fancy.Perhaps you do not grasp the subtlety to which I refer: bishops have a special grace not available to you or I-- the ministry of discernment, which gives them a grace that allows for a fuller intellectual connection with the holy spirit when a bishop prays.
Now here are a couple of big assumptions on my part, 1) the doctrine regarding the ministry of discernment is true. 2) The bishops prayed to God for guidance on the issue .
What I wonder about is whether the bishops listened to the inspiration they received from the holy spirit enough to counter all the earthly advice from cannon lawyers, civil lawyers and others with special interests.
So in reference to your comment about working with what they had available at the time, how do you think they prioritized what they received as inspiration from the holy spirit, what they knew about Jesus’ wisdom taught by word and deed and what the bishops could glean from lawyers and men?
It appears that we come down again to the real issue we have been discussing, did the abuse issue grow to its ungainly proportion because the leaders of our church took their cues from what Jesus taught or because they took their cues from what their lawyers told them?
And that is the subject of the apology that the leaders of our church need to make to the victims and their mothers. The point of the apology is not just to help those directly impacted to get over the abuse, but to let them know that our church really is the church that listens to Christ. Not the church that valued legacies and the advice of lawyers over the word of God.
Perhaps you don’t understand the gravity of the suffering of mothers whose kids were abused. The damage wasn’t only to the kids but to the relationship between those kids and those that led their kids to the church . The pain of the moms who believe that they were responsible because they trusted a church that continues to hide its culpability is what is so shameful.
And what makes it so shameful is that it is only pride that stands between these mothers dying a shameful death and release.
Peace
So when it concerns the spiritual aspect of the issue and Jesus’ teachings it is fancy and when it is advice from lawyers it is fact. Did I make the proper distinction?As noted before, you are so emotionally wrapped up in this issue that you cannot distinguish facts from fancy.
If your premise were true concerning the Holy Spirit, no bishop would ever need any advice by anyone. You need to read a bit of theology, and avoid some of the pious pablum you have been reading.
No, as usual.So when it concerns the spiritual aspect of the issue and Jesus’ teachings it is fancy and when it is advice from lawyers it is fact. Did I make the proper distinction?
since you do not seem to be able to read my replies accurately, I see no reason to make any recommendations.As to theology could you point me in the direction of the theological principles that you think lend support to the way the issue has been handled? Thanks.
Peace
Well for starters, I am assuming the Holy Spirit would give some indication that abuse was bad and that deceit and subterfuge was bad. And maybe an update or two on the protection of children from Jesus’ teachings. From there the Bishops could make some informed decisions about protecting the flock that would have resulted in an outcome much better than the one we ended up getting.No, as usual.
since you do not seem to be able to read my replies accurately, I see no reason to make any recommendations.
However, I would be seriously interested in what theological treatise you read which indicated that by being ordained bishop and by praying to the Holy Spirit, the bishops would be enlightened on matters that professionals in the field did not know. I would be truly fascinated by such a profound exposition of the workings of the Holy Spirit.
You never know what is going to turn up. I never realized that the church was really an expert on abuse as far back as the 4th century. And in the centuries after that ,the supposed response was to defrock the priests and bishops and turn them over to civil authorities.No, as usual.
since you do not seem to be able to read my replies accurately, I see no reason to make any recommendations.
However, I would be seriously interested in what theological treatise you read which indicated that by being ordained bishop and by praying to the Holy Spirit, the bishops would be enlightened on matters that professionals in the field did not know. I would be truly fascinated by such a profound exposition of the workings of the Holy Spirit.
As I have noted, you don’t seem to read very well. I have said, at least once if not more often, the bishops knew it was bad in terms of a mortal sin. Neither they nor anyone else knew of the psychological damage it could cause, which puts it into the 70’s; and in the 70’s and early 80’s the psychologists were saying the could cure the priest. What part of this don’t you get? When are you going to stop Monday morning quarterbacking the issue with knowledge we now have, but did not have then?Well for starters, I am assuming the Holy Spirit would give some indication that abuse was bad
As a matter of fact, they did not know that keeping a lid on the issue was bad; they saw it as avoiding scandal over the mortal sins of their priests. They did not perceive further harm to the individual as they did not perceive the harm already caused. You want them to have had 20-20 hindsight, and no one has that.and that deceit and subterfuge was bad.
They perceived that when the priest confessed his sins and promised not to do it again,l that moving the priest would solve the problem. They did not know that the priest was not “curable”; to begin with they did not perceive that there was something to cure. Even the psychologists were wrong. and they had no idea of the depth of the problem because the large majority of abused victims had not even reported the abuse.And maybe an update or two on the protection of children from Jesus’ teachings.
From where? They did not have the information you seem to think they had. They thought they were protecting the flock. You seem to think there was a veritable flood of information the bishops were receiving. The fact is, they were not receiving it. and incident might be reported; the bishop would call in the priest; if the victim was actually deemed credible, the bishop would chastise the priest, the priest would promise not to do it again, and be moved, and it might be 2, 3, 5 or more years before anyone heard of another problem. At which time, the bishop had possibly two credible events, years apart, and a priest vowing not to do it again. There were bishops who credibly thought they were protecting the flock, and had no idea whatsoever the extent of the problem.From there the Bishops could make some informed decisions about protecting the flock that would have resulted in an outcome much better than the one we ended up getting.
The vast majority were not pedophiles, as has already been pointed out to you. You do not listen to anything anyone says to you. You can’t even get the correct term after it has been pointed out; yet you insist you know more about this than others. There is no point in having any further conversation with you, as this is not a conversation; it is simply your monologue. Have a good day.As for professional advice, it wasn’t advice from the secular world that said that pedophiles were OK to return to society and be with kids
It is interesting that your continually try to bring up the distinction between pedophilia and pederasty , the church never made that distinction before and when the Paracletes and the like were releasing abusers back into society they didn’t make the distinction either.As I have noted, you don’t seem to read very well. I have said, at least once if not more often, the bishops knew it was bad in terms of a mortal sin. Neither they nor anyone else knew of the psychological damage it could cause, which puts it into the 70’s; and in the 70’s and early 80’s the psychologists were saying the could cure the priest. What part of this don’t you get? When are you going to stop Monday morning quarterbacking the issue with knowledge we now have, but did not have then? As a matter of fact, they did not know that keeping a lid on the issue was bad; they saw it as avoiding scandal over the mortal sins of their priests. They did not perceive further harm to the individual as they did not perceive the harm already caused. You want them to have had 20-20 hindsight, and no one has that.They perceived that when the priest confessed his sins and promised not to do it again,l that moving the priest would solve the problem. They did not know that the priest was not “curable”; to begin with they did not perceive that there was something to cure. Even the psychologists were wrong. and they had no idea of the depth of the problem because the large majority of abused victims had not even reported the abuse. From where? They did not have the information you seem to think they had. They thought they were protecting the flock. You seem to think there was a veritable flood of information the bishops were receiving. The fact is, they were not receiving it. and incident might be reported; the bishop would call in the priest; if the victim was actually deemed credible, the bishop would chastise the priest, the priest would promise not to do it again, and be moved, and it might be 2, 3, 5 or more years before anyone heard of another problem. At which time, the bishop had possibly two credible events, years apart, and a priest vowing not to do it again. There were bishops who credibly thought they were protecting the flock, and had no idea whatsoever the extent of the problem.
I am not saying all incidents were as such. I have said there were bishops who knew or should have known they had a significant problem on their hands. Others simply didn’t. Others did the best they could with what they had. That seems to be something you cannot put your mind and emotions around.
The vast majority were not pedophiles, as has already been pointed out to you. You do not listen to anything anyone says to you. You can’t even get the correct term after it has been pointed out; yet you insist you know more about this than others. There is no point in having any further conversation with you, as this is not a conversation; it is simply your monologue. Have a good day.
[/QUOTE]It is interesting that your continually try to bring up the distinction between pedophilia and pederasty , the church never made that distinction before and when the Paracletes and the like were releasing abusers back into society they didn’t make the distinction either.
no, it is rather your inability to read what I have written in the previous posts. I have not moved away from anything.so of course that makes you right in not using the distinction. I see.
Are you really that dense?And they "moved " the priests and as you noted didn’t hear from them until they abused later on and it was made public. So they didn’t say to stay away from kids
What was there to warn about, if it was believed to be an isolated incident - which they believed it to be? Oh, I get it; they could read the future. Crystal ball, perhaps?or warn anybody
Again, you dont read what I write. Of course they made conditions, and the priests promised to follow them. And when there was silence for several years, the bishop had no reason to presume the promise was not being kept., which are conditions they could have made with the priests,
Some did, some didn’t. But then, you have been categorically unable to disntinguish between the two.nope, they just transferred them and in many cases transferred them again and again.
Truth never makes a situation worse; you simply don’t like truth. And truth is not an excuse; it is a fact - something you are incapable of dealing with.Every time you bring up a new excuse as an answer to why the abuse festered , you make it worse.
Peace
Self mutilation is forbidden to a Christian. And castration does not simply ‘remove unused parts’. Do you think that once ‘castrated’ there are no physiologic, much like psychologic, sequelae? That just because these men choose to be priests they can ‘destroy’ what God gave them, because you think they just can’t ‘master their passions’ otherwise?Surely the simplest solution is for all priests to voluntarily become eunuchs for the greater glory of God. Their vow of chastity should mean they will never partake in sexual activity so being a eunuch would doubly safeguard this. It would literally remove ‘their temptation’.
Origen is probably the most famous eunuch of the Early Church Fathers and of course the Vatican choirs were famous for their castrati. These ‘men’ were held in the highest renown and held positions of great power.
Were this to be a condition then only really sincere men would elect to become priests Why do they need to hang on to these things since they will never ever use them?
portarica;7273809:
It is interesting that your continually try to bring up the distinction between pedophilia and pederasty , the church never made that distinction before and when the Paracletes and the like were releasing abusers back into society they didn’t make the distinction either.
Actually I deal with truth everyday in many arenas and for you to keep making ad hominem attacks on my ability to reason about abuse because I may be closer to the issue than you, frankly baffles me.so of course that makes you right in not using the distinction. I see.
Maybe we should have priests not go to seminary so they don’t get too close to what is required knowledge, maybe I should cancel my doctors appointment next week because he has too much medical experience. Is that the type of reasoning you are suggesting I use ? You know, ignore first hand experience and go with the after the fact third hand descriptions of what happened.
One of the interesting parts about the litany of excuses you present for the way the abuse issue was handled is that there is no discussion of the consideration of other alternatives. How come the pastors and bishops of the second and third assignments didn’t air their concerns in public? Why weren’t those experts that questioned the effectiveness of the “treatment process” allowed to impact the transfer process? How could there be no clamor among any bishops or vicars or Vatican bankers about the millions of dollars paid out in secret? (well before Dallas ,hence not the billions of today)
One thing is now clear, on your urging , when I step back and look at the problem as a whole it doesn’t get better. The more rocks that are turned over, the more church documents that are examined the clearer it becomes that this was a problem the church was better prepared to handle than any other institution, it had historical background in the subject , it had effective methods of communication with the whole of the church, it had access to experts and it was the fountain of the wisdom of Christ.
There is no real reasonable excuse for why abuse hit our kids so hard, or why mothers were left twisting in anguish , the reason abuse festered was to avoid scandal and to preserve legacies. Unfortunately for the church, preserving those legacies has cost billions of dollars, millions of lost Catholics, thousands of lost vocations, hundreds of closed parishes and tens of suicides. For some, a small price to pay.
Peace
otjm;7273947:
There has not been one excuse in my posts; it is just that truth doesn’t fit your version of the events.portarica;7273809:
It is interesting that your continually try to bring up the distinction between pedophilia and pederasty , the church never made that distinction before and when the Paracletes and the like were releasing abusers back into society they didn’t make the distinction either.
Actually I deal with truth everyday in many arenas and for you to keep making ad hominem attacks on my ability to reason about abuse because I may be closer to the issue than you, frankly baffles me.
Maybe we should have priests not go to seminary so they don’t get too close to what is required knowledge, maybe I should cancel my doctors appointment next week because he has too much medical experience. Is that the type of reasoning you are suggesting I use ? You know, ignore first hand experience and go with the after the fact third hand descriptions of what happened.
One of the interesting parts about the litany of excuses you present for the way the abuse issue was handled is that there is no discussion of the consideration of other alternatives. How come the pastors and bishops of the second and third assignments didn’t air their concerns in public? Why weren’t those experts that questioned the effectiveness of the “treatment process” allowed to impact the transfer process? How could there be no clamor among any bishops or vicars or Vatican bankers about the millions of dollars paid out in secret? (well before Dallas ,hence not the billions of today)
One thing is now clear, on your urging , when I step back and look at the problem as a whole it doesn’t get better. The more rocks that are turned over, the more church documents that are examined the clearer it becomes that this was a problem the church was better prepared to handle than any other institution, it had historical background in the subject , it had effective methods of communication with the whole of the church, it had access to experts and it was the fountain of the wisdom of Christ.
There is no real reasonable excuse for why abuse hit our kids so hard, or why mothers were left twisting in anguish , the reason abuse festered was to avoid scandal and to preserve legacies. Unfortunately for the church, preserving those legacies has cost billions of dollars, millions of lost Catholics, thousands of lost vocations, hundreds of closed parishes and tens of suicides. For some, a small price to pay.
Peace
You have conveniently forgotten Jesus’ explicit teaching:Self mutilation is forbidden to a Christian. That just because these men choose to be priests they can ‘destroy’ what God gave them, because you think they just can’t ‘master their passions’ otherwise?
I don’t know. I have never heard the verses to be understood that way. The idioms only mean about the seriousness of sins and that they have to be avoided at all cost; but I have not heard that they should be applied literally. One reason why they don’t is simply because sins originate from the heart. The actions of the limbs and the eyes are merely extensions of what commanded by the heart. Thus it should be the heart that need to be plucked out – and to do that means to change the heart through radical repentance. We should never mutilate ourselves as our body should be the temple of the Holy Spirit.You have conveniently forgotten Jesus’ explicit teaching:
*And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Mt. 18.9 · Mk. 9.47
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. *
I’m sure this refers to other offending members…
portarica;7274502:
Excuse, noun : A reason or explanation put forward to defend or justify a fault or offense.otjm;7273947:
There has not been one excuse in my posts; it is just that truth doesn’t fit your version of the events.
We all seem to agree that the abuse crisis has been faulty and for that matter offensive. And you came up with reasons or explanations to defend and justify it, so did you make excuses or did you actually show that what happened was not faulty or offensive?
Either you are OK with what happened and continues to happen from a standpoint of the church acting as Jesus taught, or you are not.
As to your ending comment, please point out where my version of events strays from the truth. Please name just one event that I cited that didn’t happen.
Thanks
Peace