I
irishpatrick
Guest
While there are many reasons for the horrors behind the abuse crisis, I do wonder: how can anyone doubt that the culture had a huge impact?
- Status
D
djeter
Guest
Excellent comment. Congratulations LazyDaisy, you are a breath of fresh air – a small travelling pocket of Truth in a hurricane of analysts and spinmeisters.
dj
I
irishpatrick
Guest
If a person wakes in the middle of the night because drips of water are dropping on their head due to a rain storm outside, is it wise for them to just focus on being wet, or should they try to find out why the rain water is coming into their home? Woudln’t addressing both situations be the most wise (i.e., get dried off, then find out the cause for the dripping water and fix whatever is wrong)?
D
djeter
Guest
You can’t really but it takes the eye off the ball that LazyDaisy stated so succinctly and the Politics of Truth that Dr. Satinover exposed a few years back. Score one for the Homosexualists Among Us, but never forget:
Thus, in deeds and in words, the Lord revealed His mercy from the very beginnings of the people which He chose for Himself; and, in the course of its history, this people continually entrusted itself, both when stricken with misfortune and when it became aware of its sin, to the God of mercies. All the subtleties of love become manifest in the Lord’s mercy towards those who are His own: He is their Father, for Israel is His firstborn son; the Lord is also the bridegroom of her whose new name the prophet proclaims: Ruhamah, “Beloved” or “she has obtained pity.”
Dives In Misericordia
John Paul II
T
Tytus_de_Zoo
Guest
Fact of the matter is the term pedophile and pedophilia tend to cover the less often used Hebephilia (11-14) or Ephebophilia (15-17). Thus this study is attempting to befuddle and confuse the psychological pattern of a pedophile, due to the very stringent nature of terminology. Thus, for this very reason alone and the fact that it claims no pattern exists, the study is somewhat questionable.
D
djeter
Guest
Sounds simple but is obviated by the tendency (as in this case) for those seeking causes to degenerate into parties of blame seekers representing various constituencies and advocacies. KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) is the message of Ms. LazyDaisy and it works for me.
dj
J
JHow
Guest
Pardon me if this is posted somewhere else, but I have been perusing the “Causes and Contexts” Report and couldn’t help but notice the geographical splits on page 29. My question is: **Where is “Region M”? **
usccb.org/mr/causes-and-context-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors-by-catholic-priests-in-the-united-states-1950-2010.pdf
The report writers declined to identify the 14 episopal regions by name in the report. They mention that all regions show the same pattern overall of rising and falling abuse cases. They also menion that:
As it stands, one region is dramatically different from all the others in terms of the numbers of cases reported (Region M). It might not be important if that one region had twice and many priests and catholics as the others do (possible, but not demonstrated).
Really, in the spirit of transparency, they should not shirk from showing us both the regions in question; and they should demonstrate their claim that the variation is proportional across regions.
usccb.org/mr/causes-and-context-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors-by-catholic-priests-in-the-united-states-1950-2010.pdf
The report writers declined to identify the 14 episopal regions by name in the report. They mention that all regions show the same pattern overall of rising and falling abuse cases. They also menion that:
…but they don’t provide the data that show the distribution of priests by region so we can see if the above claim is true or not.
As it stands, one region is dramatically different from all the others in terms of the numbers of cases reported (Region M). It might not be important if that one region had twice and many priests and catholics as the others do (possible, but not demonstrated).
Really, in the spirit of transparency, they should not shirk from showing us both the regions in question; and they should demonstrate their claim that the variation is proportional across regions.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
I do not think it is possible to take our eyes off the ball if we are truly seeking the truth.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
Yes, but if we listened to your view we would not dig into the full truth of any matter.
There is no one single reason for the abuses…there are many…and we MUST be prepared to find out what led to such horrors.
D
djeter
Guest
“Those who argue that homosexual inclinations are “natural” utilize a problematic understanding of nature that needs to be challenged. This understanding of nature refers to that which is innate and unchosen within a person. “I did not choose to be the way I am.” “I discovered my homosexuality within me.” Moreover, a certain normative quality is attributed to this nature such that it can and should dictate my actions. Nature is regarded neutral with respect to ethics, so the modern mentality holds that whatever I am naturally disposed to do I should do as long as it does not involve violating the rights of others.
A Christian anthropology, however, comes to very different conclusions about “nature”. Human nature, in a Christian sense, does also have a normative content to it. As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says, “There can be no true promotion of man’s dignity unless the essential order of his nature is respected” (CDF, 1975, no. 3).
In creating the world, God inscribed a certain order in it. Thus, the true nature of things and their fulfillment can be understood only in light of God’s design. This is especially salient when we are speaking of desires that arise within the human heart for Christian revelation recognizes the reality of original sin.
At the start of human history, our first parents rebelled against God’s plan and by their action, brought disorder into the world: “Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state” (CCC, no. 404).
Every evil in the world is traceable back to this fundamental disruption at the beginning of time. Indeed, another crucial aspect of Christian anthropology is that human nature involves a unity of body and soul such that the human person is not wholly identifiable with either taken separately but exists as a composite of the two. In other words, the body and the soul are intrinsically united.
The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature
(CCC, no. 365).
Therefore, when we say that original sin has wounded human nature, this includes both physical and spiritual effects. In this way, the doctrine of original sin can account for every sort of genetic or biological defect, disease, or disorder as well as all kinds of human suffering and inclinations to do evil. With this understanding of fallen human nature, a Christian anthropology would have no difficulty accommodating research (past or future) implicating a substantial inherited component to homosexuality.
Clearly, this understanding of original sin is essential when we are speaking of the moral quality of human inclinations. Because of original sin, a certain disorder resides in the human heart such that one often desires that which is contrary to the moral law. **Therefore, even if homosexual inclinations are entirely inherited, this does not mean that they necessarily correspond with human nature in the original sense, as God intended it. **Moreover, as Christ made clear in his preaching, it is the original, created order that has normative weight to it, not this transitory fallen state:
Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate”
(Matthew 19.3-6).
Thus, the inclinations that arise in the human heart must be tested according to objective moral norms because the human nature we encounter in this age of history, though wounded by sin, is still called to the same norms of behavior intended by God “from the beginning.” Why? Because God created us “out of love for love” (John Paul II, 1981, no. 11); His wise, loving plan permeates all of created reality. Therefore, to follow the norms given to us by our Creator and Redeemer is in no way an imposition or alienation but a call to happiness.
The moral law given to us by God is a blueprint by which human beings can achieve their fulfillment. This implies another fundamental truth of Christian anthropology: **human nature is wounded, but it is not totally corrupted. **Man still has freedom. Though weakened by sin and prone to misuse, the human person still possesses the ability to make free moral choices and, by cooperating with God’s grace, grow in holiness and maturity.
Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when direct toward God, our beatitude (CCC, no. 1731).
The proper, beatifying use of freedom requires God’s grace. Only with His help can we properly see the truth and act in accord with it. Thankfully, God desires all men to be saved and abundantly supplies the means for it to happen.
Andrew J. Sodergren, John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family
dj
A Christian anthropology, however, comes to very different conclusions about “nature”. Human nature, in a Christian sense, does also have a normative content to it. As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says, “There can be no true promotion of man’s dignity unless the essential order of his nature is respected” (CDF, 1975, no. 3).
In creating the world, God inscribed a certain order in it. Thus, the true nature of things and their fulfillment can be understood only in light of God’s design. This is especially salient when we are speaking of desires that arise within the human heart for Christian revelation recognizes the reality of original sin.
At the start of human history, our first parents rebelled against God’s plan and by their action, brought disorder into the world: “Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state” (CCC, no. 404).
Every evil in the world is traceable back to this fundamental disruption at the beginning of time. Indeed, another crucial aspect of Christian anthropology is that human nature involves a unity of body and soul such that the human person is not wholly identifiable with either taken separately but exists as a composite of the two. In other words, the body and the soul are intrinsically united.
The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature
(CCC, no. 365).
Therefore, when we say that original sin has wounded human nature, this includes both physical and spiritual effects. In this way, the doctrine of original sin can account for every sort of genetic or biological defect, disease, or disorder as well as all kinds of human suffering and inclinations to do evil. With this understanding of fallen human nature, a Christian anthropology would have no difficulty accommodating research (past or future) implicating a substantial inherited component to homosexuality.
Clearly, this understanding of original sin is essential when we are speaking of the moral quality of human inclinations. Because of original sin, a certain disorder resides in the human heart such that one often desires that which is contrary to the moral law. **Therefore, even if homosexual inclinations are entirely inherited, this does not mean that they necessarily correspond with human nature in the original sense, as God intended it. **Moreover, as Christ made clear in his preaching, it is the original, created order that has normative weight to it, not this transitory fallen state:
Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate”
(Matthew 19.3-6).
Thus, the inclinations that arise in the human heart must be tested according to objective moral norms because the human nature we encounter in this age of history, though wounded by sin, is still called to the same norms of behavior intended by God “from the beginning.” Why? Because God created us “out of love for love” (John Paul II, 1981, no. 11); His wise, loving plan permeates all of created reality. Therefore, to follow the norms given to us by our Creator and Redeemer is in no way an imposition or alienation but a call to happiness.
The moral law given to us by God is a blueprint by which human beings can achieve their fulfillment. This implies another fundamental truth of Christian anthropology: **human nature is wounded, but it is not totally corrupted. **Man still has freedom. Though weakened by sin and prone to misuse, the human person still possesses the ability to make free moral choices and, by cooperating with God’s grace, grow in holiness and maturity.
Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when direct toward God, our beatitude (CCC, no. 1731).
The proper, beatifying use of freedom requires God’s grace. Only with His help can we properly see the truth and act in accord with it. Thankfully, God desires all men to be saved and abundantly supplies the means for it to happen.
Andrew J. Sodergren, John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family
dj
D
djeter
Guest
And your obfuscations between “Truth” and “Full Truth” and the the complexity of “many reasons” lead you to inaction and confusion – just what the Homosexualists desire. Best of luck on your path to enlightenment.Yes, but if we listened to your view we would not dig into the full truth of any matter.
There is no one single reason for the abuses…there are many…and we MUST be prepared to find out what led to such horrors.
dj
I
irishpatrick
Guest
The west “in general” took similar social paths–though obviously not in all things and in all ways. It amazes how “generalizations” have been lost on this modernistic culture. 
I
irishpatrick
Guest
It leads us to a proper and mature response, and not just a knee jerk response based on bias and agendas.
Please, go back and read your own post #68. We MUST discover why the culture perverted their God given freedom’s, or else we are doomed to repeat the sins and horrors of the last 30 years or so.
C
colmywaykurtz
Guest
Getting back on topic here, I think this study has questionable worth. It tries to diffuse and evade accountability through the use of a virtual forest of psychological and sociological terminology—at least this is what I gather from all the comments I’ve read.
And I disagree with its contentions that pedophiles (and pedophilia) were not to blame, and the contention that pedophiles and homosexuals are mutually exclusive groups.
And I think the people doing the screening of priestly candidates in the seminaries have a big share of the blame, inasmuch as they seem to have consciously favored and covered up for gay/pedophile people coming in and creating a tolerant, morally lax culture among seminarians. This was happening in the sixties and seventies, yes, when the culture of the country was headed in the wrong direction, but it wasn’t the culture that did this. It was the people running the seminaries.
And I disagree with its contentions that pedophiles (and pedophilia) were not to blame, and the contention that pedophiles and homosexuals are mutually exclusive groups.
And I think the people doing the screening of priestly candidates in the seminaries have a big share of the blame, inasmuch as they seem to have consciously favored and covered up for gay/pedophile people coming in and creating a tolerant, morally lax culture among seminarians. This was happening in the sixties and seventies, yes, when the culture of the country was headed in the wrong direction, but it wasn’t the culture that did this. It was the people running the seminaries.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
All generalizations are false? Really? Okay–I disagree.
No point in continuing.
No point in continuing.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
You did not say that my generalization of western culture was wrong or that you simply disagreed, you said ALL generalizations are false. I cannot have a conversation under such limited rules of engagement. But, I do thank you for the chat.
A
Abyssinia
Guest
A $2 million study commissioned by the U.S. bishops is not likely to put to rest questions about the causes of the sexual abuse crisis in the priesthood.
Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a top psychiatrist and authority on treating sexually abusive priests, told CNA that he is “very critical” of the findings because they avoid discussing important causal factors in clerical sex abuse cases, namely homosexuality.
Despite the report showing that nearly 80 percent of victims were post-pubescent and adolescent males, the study concludes that clinical data “do not support the hypothesis that priests with a homosexual identity … are significantly more likely to sexually abuse.”
Fitzgibbons disputed that conclusion, saying that “analysis of the research demonstrates clearly that the major cause of the crisis was the homosexual abuse of males.”
“One can conclude that these priests have strong same-sex attraction,” he said. “When an adult is involved with homosexual behavior with an adolescent male, he clearly has a major problem in the area of homosexuality.”
catholicnewsagency.com/news/critics-say-new-study-misses-real-reasons-for-priest-abuse-crisis/
Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a top psychiatrist and authority on treating sexually abusive priests, told CNA that he is “very critical” of the findings because they avoid discussing important causal factors in clerical sex abuse cases, namely homosexuality.
Despite the report showing that nearly 80 percent of victims were post-pubescent and adolescent males, the study concludes that clinical data “do not support the hypothesis that priests with a homosexual identity … are significantly more likely to sexually abuse.”
Fitzgibbons disputed that conclusion, saying that “analysis of the research demonstrates clearly that the major cause of the crisis was the homosexual abuse of males.”
“One can conclude that these priests have strong same-sex attraction,” he said. “When an adult is involved with homosexual behavior with an adolescent male, he clearly has a major problem in the area of homosexuality.”
catholicnewsagency.com/news/critics-say-new-study-misses-real-reasons-for-priest-abuse-crisis/
J
JReducation
Guest
Maybe I can help clarify som points.
In the Sacrament of Reconciliation the priest must grant absolution if the penitent expresses remorse and asks for forgiveness. The priest may never require the penitent to turn himself in to the authorities as a condition for absolution. That would excommunicate the priest, because he is using the sacrament for another purpose. The purpose of the sacrament is to absolve from sin, nothing else. The confessor must speak as Christ speaks. Christ does not send people to the gallows when they have asked for forgiveness. As we all know, the Father Confessor, takes the confession to the grave. Even if he knows that someone has not faced legal action, that is not his concern. His concern is to be Christ to the penitent. Christ forgives the contrite without conditions. He cannot be both Christ and a civil authority at the same time.
This is why if the superior is a priest, he may never hear the confessions of his subordinates except on their death bed. He has to make legal decisions that are not allowed in the Sacrament of Penance.
I hope this helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The Church is not saying that it is good thing. However, what the experts are sayiing is that sex with an adolescent is not pedophilia, because of the nature of the minor involved. All that the bishops have done is quoted what is in the report.
This cannot be done for two reasons:
- From Judaism we have that a woman can be married after she is able to conceive. Look at Our Lady.
- There are many countries where women still marry as soon as they reach the age of sexual maturity. If they are Catholic, there is no doctrinal reason to deny them the Sacrament of Marriage. What the Church says is that the priest or deacon witnessing the marriage must follow the age requirements of civil law. In the USA it’s age 18. In some state in the USA, a mand or woman as young as 14 can marry with the consent of his or her parents. In most states it’s 16. There are two or three where it’s still 14.
How do you know that they don’t do so? In fact, the latest directive says that the superior need not suggest it. He must proceed to inform the authorities, ecclesial and civil.
Let’s separate things here. To confess as in telling your superior what you have done is one thing. To confess to your Father Confessor is another. That’s the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
In the Sacrament of Reconciliation the priest must grant absolution if the penitent expresses remorse and asks for forgiveness. The priest may never require the penitent to turn himself in to the authorities as a condition for absolution. That would excommunicate the priest, because he is using the sacrament for another purpose. The purpose of the sacrament is to absolve from sin, nothing else. The confessor must speak as Christ speaks. Christ does not send people to the gallows when they have asked for forgiveness. As we all know, the Father Confessor, takes the confession to the grave. Even if he knows that someone has not faced legal action, that is not his concern. His concern is to be Christ to the penitent. Christ forgives the contrite without conditions. He cannot be both Christ and a civil authority at the same time.
This is why if the superior is a priest, he may never hear the confessions of his subordinates except on their death bed. He has to make legal decisions that are not allowed in the Sacrament of Penance.
I hope this helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I
irishpatrick
Guest
Trust me on this point: I do not think of “Europe” as a country–not even close.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
I do believe you and I do agree that our cultures were quite different. My point is that the depraved practices that seemed to flourish in the USA, also found there way into a great many European nations–including Ireland. I was not attempting to compare the USA and Ireland and that time as being the same…far from that actually.
- Status