Study: Homosexuality, celibacy didn't cause abuse

[JimG]

Its an educated guess based on the available data. It was certainly the case in Ireland but I’m not certain whether or not most vs many of the crimes here in the US were committed in gender segregated environments. Many were but I haven’t researched the figures enough to say most with absolute certainty.

Were hebephiles with no gender preference the only perpetrators? Probably not and that isn’t what I’m saying. The point is that the problem of clerical sex abuse is far more complex than simply scapegoating gays or implying a global conspiracy on the part of same-sex attracted hebephiles provides an honest or adequate explaination for.

I went back and skimmed through the original John Jay study. They have summarized some useful information in various tables. I do not find any data which correlates abuse cases with particular seminaries. Yet, when I looked at the appendixes, the Cleric Survey did include a question about which seminaries any particular abuser attended. So I presume the data was available; but I don’t see it summarized. Too bad. That would have been very useful information. Not every seminary actively discouraged men who were considered too orthodox in their views and actively encouraged those who were considered flexible. Not every seminary had a gay subculture, but some did. Actually, the more I read this study, the less impressed I am with their methods.

To disregard the conditions in the seminaries seems to me a flaw in the study, and to disregard any impact of homosexual orientation among ordinands is another flaw.

 

[Insight]

Sounds like the study is shifting blame from one thing to another. First it was homosexuality, now it’s social upheaval of the 1960s and poor seminary training.

Maybe not shifting blame, but shifting focus.

If anything, I think it must be understood why good priests did nothing to say about these scandals.

Because there was a mandate forbidding them to do so? Apparently search warrants turned up a Top Secret 1962 Vatican document in a US Parish authored by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (which was sent to every Bishop in the world) mandating the excommunication of child pedophile victims if they went outside the Church to the authorities. It also mandated the moving around of pedophile priests from one parish to another, most likely to protect them from the authorities. At first the Church denied the document, then claimed in was an inaccurate translation. Eventually the Church was obligated to post the Ottaviani mandate on the Vatican website as stipulated by one of the many multi-million dollar court settlements. “The highest degree of secrecy, the Secret of the Holy Office, was imposed on everyone involved in the process from the time it started. Violation meant immediate excommunication.” Hence, should the pedophile victim contact the authorities, it would result in automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church for life.

cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/06/eveningnews/main566978.shtml

vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html

bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/CrimenEnglish.pdf

bishop-accountability.org/news2010/03_04/2010_03_12_Doyle_VeryImportant.htm

There is a very detailed write-up on this on: ArguingWithAtheists.com

This is the same Cardinal who drew up the condemnation of Sister (now Saint) Maria Faustina Kowalska’s Divine Mercy and presented it to Pope Pius XII, who refused to sign it. Ottaviani refused to yield, he put the condemnations aside. When the next Pope, John XXIII was elected, he presented the Divine Mercy condemnation (as well as several others that he could not persuade Pope Pius XII to sign) to Him as He took Office, which He signed at Ottaviani’s request. It would be difficult to imagine that Ottaviani revealed that Pope Pius XII refused to sign the condemnations.

“After a failed attempt to persuade Pope Pius XII to sign a condemnation, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani at the Holy Office included her works on a list he submitted to the newly elected Pope John XXIII in 1959. The Pope signed the decree that placed her work on the Index of Forbidden Books and they remained on the Index until it was abolished on 14 June 1966 by Pope Paul VI.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Faustina_Kowalska

God Bless

 

[The_Rock]

Maybe not shifting blame, but shifting focus…

It also mandated the moving around of pedophile priests from one parish to another, most likely to protect them from the authorities.

I am not a canon lawyer but in my reading of the actual document I see no mandate to move pedophile priests, only the possibility of transfer. This document refers to all acts of solicitation by Priests, not just pedophile priests. So the document merely states the possibility (not a mandate) of transferring priests accused of solicitation (not nessesarily pedophiles). In all honesty I would want a priest transferred away from a parish if he made advances towards an adult single female, along with counseling and other penalties. It would be wrong to leave him in the same parish. I don’t think a single repented act of solicitation (especially if it was less grave…such as kissing a woman) should subject said priest to a reduction to the lay state or excomunication. Transfering him away from the woman he is attracted to seems to me to be a prudent action, along with others.

From the Vatican document you linked to:

They will also be able to transfer him to another place, unless the local Ordinary has forbidden it inasmuch as a complaint has already been received and an investigation begun.

If I have missed the pertinent wording in the document that in your words “mandated the moving around of pedophile priests from one parish to another” please correct me.

 

[The_Rock]

The above mentioned document seams to be referring to those cases of solicitation which occur in conjunction with confession. In such a case, the need for extreme secrecy mandated in this document could be understood, because of the seal of the confessional.

 

[The_Rock]

By Catholic Culture:

catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=24023

CBS news story distorts 1962 Vatican document (Analysis)

A CBS network news report, claiming that the Holy See orchestrated a cover-up of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, is based on a gross misinterpretation of a 1962 Vatican document.

In a sensationalist report aired on August 6, CBS Evening News claimed to have discovered a secret document proving that the Vatican had approved-- and even demanded-- a longstanding policy of covering up clerics’ sexual misdeeds.

The document cited by CBS does nothing of the sort.

In fact the network’s story misrepresented the Vatican document so thoroughly that it is difficult to attribute the inaccuracy to honest error.
The CBS story is based on a secret Instruction issued to bishops in March 1962 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, then the prefect of the Holy Office (now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). That document sets forth the canonical procedures to be followed when a priest is charged with the ecclesiastical crime of “solicitation”-- that is, using the confessional to tempt penitents to engage in sexual activity.

[The Vatican document, in an awkward English translation, can be downloaded from the CBS News site. CBS also offers the Latin original.]

The Vatican document deals exclusively with solicitation: an offense which, by definition, occurs within the context of the Sacrament of Penance. And since that sacrament is protected by a shroud of absolute secrecy, the procedures for dealing with this ecclesiastical crime also invoke secrecy.

In short, by demanding secrecy in the treatment of these crimes, the Vatican was protecting the secrecy of the confessional. The policy outlined in that 1962 document is clearly not intended to protect predatory priests; on the contrary, the Vatican makes it clear that guilty priests should be severely punished and promptly removed from ministry

 

[Insight]

The above mentioned document seams to be referring to those cases of solicitation which occur in conjunction with confession. In such a case, the need for extreme secrecy mandated in this document could be understood, because of the seal of the confessional.

"As soon as CBS News uncovered the 1962 Cardinal Ottaviani directive, damage control went into full swing, endeavoring to minimize the document’s role and significance. Understandably, these refutes cleverly omit the actual document for reader analysis and discourage further investigation. The basic facts outlined in the document null any attempt to diminish its grievous impact on child victims. It would be prudent to examine the actual Ottaviani directive very carefully to avoid being deceived by the recent explanatory articles written with the cunning ability of Michael Jackson’s defense team attorneys. The actual directive itself would make any Christian’s blood boil, regarding both the author and those attempting to conceal its true nature. Defenders of this Ottaviani doctrine claim the secrecy is only to maintain the sanctity of the Confessional, notwithstanding that the document clearly broadens the range and scope to before and after Confession on the very first page, which could entail years. Furthermore, articles attempting to diminish the significance of this Ottaviani directive claim that it does not bar the child victims from making separate charges about the priest’s sexual misconduct. On the contrary, in the event the injured party declined absolute secrecy (sought protection and/or justice from the authorities), the directive clearly mandates the molester victims be excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church for life. The Ottaviani directive makes this unmistakably crystal clear throughout the document.

It’s immediately obvious that the document was specifically designed to silence the child victims. Any attempt of the victim to communicate the abuse to authorities results in excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church for life.

Preliminaries – 11 (restrained by perpetual silence)

Preliminaries – 13 (accuser must be silenced)

Title 1 – 18 (excommunication)

Title 1 – 21 (secrecy till death)

Title 1 – The First Knowledge of the Crime – Paragraph 23 (threaten the victim)

1. The pedophile priest is treated in a protective and opposite manner.
   
   The Process – Chapter 3 – 48 “The judge should paternally and gently exhort the accused”
   
   The Process – Chapter 3 – 52 “In every way the judge is to remember that it is never right for him to bind the accused by an oath to tell the truth.” But notice that it’s mandatory to bind the victim.
   
   Title 3 – Penalties – 63 (The greatest penalty possible to the pedophile priest found guilty by the outlined tribunal is being reduced to “lay-brother”, and only done when it is considered that there is absolutely no hope of recovery. - Hence the perpetual transfers of pedophile priests and multimillion dollar pay outs)
   
   Title 4 – 67 – (If the pedophile priest is found guilty by the tribunal, he must be transferred)"

AdvancedChristianity.com/Pages/CBS/CBS.htm

God Bless

 

[Insight]

By Catholic Culture:

catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=24023

“The victimized children needed only to make one confession in their lifetime to be subject to the adroit legal phrasing. Defensive articles attempting to diminish the significance of this Ottaviani directive claim that it does not bar the child victims from making separate charges about the priest’s sexual misconduct. On the contrary, atheists pointed out that in the event the injured party declined absolute secrecy (sought protection and/or justice from the authorities), the directive clearly mandates the molester victims be excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church for life.”

ArguingWithAtheists.com

“73. Equated with the crimen pessimum, with regard to penal effects, is any external obscene act, gravely sinful, perpetrated or attempted by a cleric in any way with pre-adolescent children [impuberes] of either sex or with brute animals (bestialitas).”

When was the last time you saw a giraffe or a rhinoceros in a confessional?

vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html

God Bless

 

[Insight]

Just an example of the results of this mandate in action:

"Another example that atheists had a field day with is when Bishop Raymond Boland responded to a newspaper article that stated: “The death rate of priests from AIDS is at least four times that of the general population”. Boland stated that these AIDS deaths show that priests are only human. “A large part of the answer is implicit in the remarkable response to the situation tendered by Bishop Boland. To aver that a priest shows he is human by dying of AIDS is to say that it is somehow natural to our human state to engage in acts of passive consensual sodomy, from which the resultant infection takes its predictable course” (13). Boland was later implicated in purportedly lying to his enraged congregation to protect a pedophile priest working with their children, in which documents implicated that he was allegedly aware the priest was a pedophile all along (14, 15). “And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea” (Mark 9:42). The necessary lesson of Judas is a powerful warning in the Gospel, if a disciple taught directly by Jesus can gravely falter, any other Church figure under the Pope can also gravely falter. Our prayers certainly address all the mortified Priests who are in God’s service for all the right reasons, this scandal must have taken a tremendous toll (16). Priests are holy people who dedicate their lives to God. Although it is wise to be cautious, insects have not chosen to completely abandon all flowers because of the diminutive risk of landing on one containing a praying mantis mimicking a petal. It is amazing how much damage can be done by a tiny fraction. It takes entrepreneurship, time, planning, architects, builders, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc. to build a house. It only takes one evil person with one match to destroy it. Unfortunately, those bent on destruction have this innate unfair leverage, namely; “It is much easier to destroy than to create”.

 We are deeply grieved and apologize for these unpleasantries, but it is necessary to be prepared for the most likely criticisms, as not to be caught off-guard.  As Catholics, we question how we could have ever got to this point, this is where some Private Revelations can help explain these Institutional breakdowns.  Through a message given on October 13th (the anniversary day of the last Apparition of the Virgin Mary to the three children of Fatima and coinciding with the year of the Roe vs. Wade decision that became responsible for the deaths of over 55 million innocent unborn babies in the US alone), by Our most Holy Mother to Sister Agnes Katsuko Sasagawa in Akita, Japan  (declared worthy of belief by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, as well as the Local Bishop Ito) we are told: "The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see Cardinals opposing Cardinals, Bishops against other Bishops. The Priests who venerate Me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres (other Priests). Churches and altars will be sacked. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises, and the demon will press many Priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord" (17, 18, 19)."

catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=20565

bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/databases/DallasMorningNewsBishops.htm#boland

bishop-accountability.org/news3/2002_04_19_Stearns_SuitSays_John_Tulipana_2.htm

ArguingWithAtheists.com

God Bless

 

[The_Rock]

Insight;

I will be the first to admit the scandalous and egregious handling of the molestations by many Bishops. However the response by CBS news that you posted does not prove that the document mandated moving molesters around. Frankly I would not trust CBS to understand the need for secrecy when dealing with confessions. I will post the actual words in the document here:

1. The crime of solicitation occurs whenever a priest – whether in the act itself of sacramental confession, or before or immediately after confession, on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, or even apart from confession [but] in a confessional or another place assigned or chosen for the hearing of confessions and with the semblance of hearing confessions there – has attempted to solicit or provoke a penitent, whosoever he or she may be, to immoral or indecent acts, whether by words, signs, nods, touch or a written message, to be read either at that time or afterwards, or he has impudently dared to have improper and indecent conversations or interactions with that person (Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, §1).

It seems clear to me that the document is referring to solicitations during, just proceeding or just after a confession. Also it seems that the Church’s definition of solicitation seems to be somewhat different than the mainstream secular definition. This Vatican document is concerning itself with solicitation which according to the Catholic encyclopedia is as follows:

Solicitation

(Latin sollicitare)

Technically in canon law the crime of making use of the Sacrament of Penance, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of drawing others into sins of lust.

I understand that there are some who disagree with this Cardinal’s opinion on other matters, but I think reading this document as some kind of blueprint for protecting molesters doesn’t ring true to the actual document which clearly and severely condemns such behavior.

 

[Insight]

“whether in the act itself of sacramental confession, or before or immediately after confession, on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, or even apart from confession”

Which basically confirms: “The victimized children needed only to make one confession in their lifetime to be subject to the adroit legal phrasing”.

ArguingWithAtheists.com

God Bless

 

[The_Rock]

Insight,

My mind is open about this, truly. If you can point to the wording in the document which you asserted “mandated the moving around of pedophile priests from one parish to another” I would be willing to consider it. Tonight is the first I have read the document and I read it with an open mind and was unaware of the criticisms of the CBS story presented by Catholic Culture and others. To me it did not assert the mandate you claimed.

 

[Insight]

Insight,

My mind is open about this, truly. If you can point to the wording in the document which you asserted “mandated the moving around of pedophile priests from one parish to another” I would be willing to consider it. Tonight is the first I have read the document and I read it with an open mind and was unaware of the criticisms of the CBS story presented by Catholic Culture and others. To me it did not assert the mandate you claimed.

Title 4 – 67 – (If the pedophile priest is found guilty by the tribunal, he must be transferred)"

AdvancedChristianity.com/Pages/CBS/CBS.htm

The common result: “Boland was later implicated in purportedly lying to his enraged congregation to protect a pedophile priest working with their children, in which documents implicated that he was allegedly aware the priest was a pedophile all along”

ArguingWithAtheists.com

God Bless

 

[The_Rock]

whether in the act itself of sacramental confession, or before or immediately after confession, on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, or even apart from confession

"

Why did you cut off the rest of this sentence? Perhaps because it weekens your arguement? I am truely seeking the truth about this matter. Perhaps the Cardinal’s handeling of the M. V. book is clouding your judgement?

 

[The_Rock]

Your quote:
Title 4 – 67 – (If the pedophile priest is found guilty by the tribunal, he must be transferred)"

Here is title 4, 67 in the link to the document:

1. Any Ordinary who has instituted a process against any soliciting priest should not fail to inform the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, and, if the matter concerns a religious, the priest’s General Superior as well, regarding the outcome of the cause.

Am I reading it incorectly?

 

[Insight]

"

Why did you cut off the rest of this sentence? Perhaps because it weekens your arguement? I am truely seeking the truth about this matter. Perhaps the Cardinal’s handeling of the M. V. book is clouding your judgement?

“apart from confession” are the key words that broaden the scope, so that if the victim made one confession in his or her entire life, the document applies.

God Bless

 

[The_Rock]

The rest of the sentence does not support your assertion, it rather just clarifies that if a priest makes an advance in a confessional (rather during the actual confession) he is still guilty of solicitation…

1. The crime of solicitation occurs whenever a priest – whether in the act itself of sacramental confession, or before or immediately after confession, on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, or even apart from confession [but] in a confessional or another place assigned or chosen for the hearing of confessions and with the semblance of hearing confessions there – has attempted to solicit or provoke a penitent, whosoever he or she may be, to immoral or indecent acts, whether by words, signs, nods, touch or a written message, to be read either at that time or afterwards, or he has impudently dared to have improper and indecent conversations or interactions with that person (Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, §1).

 

[The_Rock]

Also as to your claim that the document mandated the moving of molesters as I previously posted:
Your quote:

Title 4 – 67 – (If the pedophile priest is found guilty by the tribunal, he must be transferred)"

Here is title 4, #67 in the link to the actual document:

vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html

1. Any Ordinary who has instituted a process against any soliciting priest should not fail to inform the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, and, if the matter concerns a religious, the priest’s General Superior as well, regarding the outcome of the cause.

Am I reading it incorectly?

 

[Insight]

Your quote:
Title 4 – 67 – (If the pedophile priest is found guilty by the tribunal, he must be transferred)"

Here is title 4, 67 in the link to the document:

Am I reading it incorectly?

Yes, Bishop Accountability posted a scan of the original actual seized document. Later the Vatican was obligated to post it on the Vatican website as stipulated by one the settlements. The translations were done by different people, the later may be a little attenuated.

bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/CrimenEnglish.pdf

God Bless

 

[Insight]

The rest of the sentence does not support your assertion, it rather just clarifies that if a priest makes an advance in a confessional (rather during the actual confession) he is still guilty of solicitation…

Doesn’t matter, the document prevents them from contacting the police. If he’s guilty, so what? The worsed that can happen is being moved to another Parish. The example is the priest that was moved to Boland’s Parish when he molested children in his previous Parish. Boland simply put him in charge of a new batch of kids.

God Bless

 

[Insight]

Also as to your claim that the document mandated the moving of molesters as I previously posted:
Your quote:

Here is title 4, #67 in the link to the actual document:

vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html

Am I reading it incorectly?

Hi The Rock, was reading it over, Advanced Christianity must have made a typo, it’s title 4, #68.

God Bless