US Bishops Want to Study Causes & Context

  • Thread starter Thread starter HagiaSophia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HagiaSophia

Guest
The U.S. bishops are commissioning a study on the causes of sex abuse by clergy. And they are looking at the problem in terms of an epidemic.

At their annual meeting in November in Washington, D.C., the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops approved plans by its National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People to commission a study on the “causes and context” of the crisis.

The board has asked leading universities and private research firms to submit proposals for conducting the study. Nicholas Cafardi, dean of the Duquesne University Law School and chairman of the National Review Board, said Jan. 14 that he and other board members will begin reviewing proposals and interviewing top contenders in February. The study could take several years and cost millions of dollars, he said, and the bishops’ conference is seeking grants to pay for it.
An earlier study, concluded in February 2004 by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, reported that 4,392 clergymen — almost all priests — were accused of sexually abusing 10,667 minors between 1950 and 2002…"

"…But some experts are concerned about who will be chosen to conduct the research and the possibility that ideology might color the findings.

“The basic problem is homosexual behavior between priests and adolescent males,” said Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist and co-author of the Catholic Medical Association’s handbook “Homosexuality and Hope” (Homosexuality - Catholic Medical Association : Catholic Medical Association). “The John Jay report showed that 80% of the abuse by priests occurred with adolescent males, not young children.”

Fitzgibbons, of Philadelphia, said existing research and his own professional experiences tell him a major cause of child sexual abuse is “weak masculine identity combined with profound loneliness” among the ranks of perpetrators. Those same factors, he believes, lead men to choose homosexuality.

“The challenge to getting accurate study results is that most in the mental-health field do not accept homosexuality as having an emotional origin,” Fitzgibbons said. “They see it as genetic. So I hope they can find researchers who would be open to the fact that there are emotional causes of homosexual behavior between adult males and adolescents. There’s also the principle of evil, sin and lust. Researchers who believe homosexuality is a genetic condition are going to minimize some important factors that need to be studied.”

Fitzgibbons said he’d be surprised if the study examines the practice of allowing homosexuals into seminaries as a potential cause of the abuse crisis.

“You’re going to get results that reflect the researchers’ views on homosexuality,” Fitzgibbons said. “The results of the John Jay study, by showing that 80% of the victims were adolescent males, is a source of embarrassment to the homosexual community, and there’s a tremendous effort afoot to distance homosexuality from the sexual-abuse crisis. The challenge will be to find a university or research team that can resist social pressures and pursue the truth…”

ncregister.com/current/0130lead3.htm
 
More liberal stuff from our bishops. Why can’t they see the connection between dissent and violations of the moral law?
 
40.png
fix:
More liberal stuff from our bishops. Why can’t they see the connection between dissent and violations of the moral law?
Are you suggesting that the sex offenders were also dissenters from Church teaching? (other than by sinning)
 
40.png
Richardols:
Are you suggesting that the sex offenders were also dissenters from Church teaching? (other than by sinning)
This priest says it better than I ever could:

The current crisis of sexual abuse and misconduct by the clergy is only one part of the puzzle. It is bad enough that some seminaries and dioceses have given a blind eye to homosexuality and immoral activity, but EQUALLY reprehensible is the deaf ear they give to heterodox teaching, heresy and theological dissent. Additionally, the proliferation of liturgical abuse is not limited to academia but many parishes are subjected to illicit if not invalid sacraments, violations of important rubrics and the coordinated desecration of our sanctuaries. I see all three problems being interrelated: Sexual misconduct, heretical doctrine, liturgical abuse. First, BAD theology, i.e., doctrines which contradict official Magisterial teaching, is so prolific that the Pope had to issue EX CORDE ECCLESIAE to clamp down on dissident theologians in so-called Catholic colleges. Problem is that some Catholic colleges and seminaries are inundated with heterodox professors. HUMANAE VITAE and ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS are openly ridiculed and attacked. BAD theology is supported by BAD liturgy. Illicit and invalid Masses and sacraments are sadly not uncommon in some parts of the country. The current General Instruction on the Roman Missal was not uniformly and universally enforced and now we will have the new one (IGMR) soon in English.

When priests, deacons and bishops abuse the Sacred Liturgy or allow others to do so, it sends a message to the people that disobedience is permissable. Bad liturgy reinforces bad theology. IF someone refutes the dogma of the Real Presence, the best way to promote that heresy is to remove the Tabernacle from the Church. If someone rejects the doctrine that the Mass is a Sacrifice, then they will insist that reverence, ritual and formality be removed from the liturgy and a pedestrian atmosphere replaces the sanctuary of holiness.

Bad theology is reinforced and perpetuated by bad liturgy and these two lead ultimately to bad morality. Abortion, contraception, fornication, homosexuality, adultery, pornography, gluttony, sloth, avarice, greed, anger, etc. These SINS are violations of the MORAL LAW. People, be they priests or bishops, parents or single adults, will be more likely to break the moral law if they have been indoctrinated in theological and liturgical disobedience as well. If it is OK to reject dogmas and to violate liturgical laws, then the next logical step is to break the moral law. Faith and Morals are connected to each other.

Good, orthodox theology, on the other hand, as we have in the Summa Theologica of Aquinas and in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, teaches us the TRUTH about God. Good, reverent Liturgy helps us give fitting worship to that same God and reaffirms the doctrines about Him so that LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI (what we pray, we believe). When parishioners and seminarians are exposed to orthodox theology and reverent, proper liturgies, then it is much easier to understand and to fulfill the moral law of God. The Commandments make SENSE when we BELIEVE and WORSHIP properly.

Therefore, if we want to purge the Church in America of sexual misconduct, besides being more vigilant on candidates as they enter the formation program, it is VITAL, URGENT and NECESSARY that college professors, seminary faculty and diocesan officials all uphold, defend and promote the PROFESSION OF FAITH. An oath to orthodoxy and consequences for violations of it needs to be aggressively implemented and not just done for the formality of it. Accountability in the realm of sound doctrine, liturgical compliance and reverence, and finally but most importantly, moral accountability as well is what the People of God deserve and need, and NOTHING LESS.

Rather than spending time and effort on ‘renovating’ parishes by removing altars, tabernacles, communion rails and statues; rather than stopping the faithful from kneeling and genuflecting; rather than replacing reverence with banality; what we need is STRONG leadership. We need MANLY priests who espouse the virtues of TRUTH, OBEDIENCE, REVERENCE and CHASTITY. Cleaning house in parishes, seminaries, and chancery offices will take time but that is a greater priority than altering holy days of obligation, changing liturgical postures and issuing documents on global warming.

We are in a CRISIS and the good, orthodox and pious clergy (bishops, priests, deacons) need to stand up and be counted and remove the cancers that infect the Body of Christ, namely, heterodoxy, irreverence and immorality. If we only focus on the sex culprits, the problems will not go away. All three objectives: bad theology, bad liturgy and bad behavior are the enemy and as President Bush said, ‘you are either with us or against us.’

Fr. John Trigilio on 04-10-2002
 
40.png
Richardols:
Are you suggesting that the sex offenders were also dissenters from Church teaching? (other than by sinning)
Actually, of the far too great a number of child abusing priests, only a handful were known as people who publicly challenged the teachings of the Church. Most in their public actions were perfectly orthodox and quite a number were even rather rigid and conservative in their public acts.
 
40.png
katherine2:
Actually, of the far too great a number of child abusing priests, only a handful were known as people who publicly challenged the teachings of the Church. Most in their public actions were perfectly orthodox and quite a number were even rather rigid and conservative in their public acts.
What proof do you have?
 
40.png
fix:
More liberal stuff from our bishops. Why can’t they see the connection between dissent and violations of the moral law?
The causes and context have been cleary documented by George Weigel, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, and others.

All they have to do is pick up a book. But, then, that may mean they have to do something difficult, like reprimanding a dissenting pastor that is sending souls to hell with his dissenting/new age propaganda.

The sooner we reach the “remnant”, the better.
 
40.png
Brad:
The causes and context have been cleary documented by George Weigel, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, and others.

All they have to do is pick up a book. But, then, that may mean they have to do something difficult, like reprimanding a dissenting pastor that is sending souls to hell with his dissenting/new age propaganda.

The sooner we reach the “remnant”, the better.
So, you disagree with K2 that most of the homosexual abusers were faithful, upright, orthodox men?
 
40.png
fix:
What proof do you have?
Match a list of the names of those connected with sex abuse with a list of priests known for their dissent from Catholic teaching.

Being an orthodox priest is no guarantee of being able to resist sexual sins.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Are you suggesting that the sex offenders were also dissenters from Church teaching? (other than by sinning)
Dissenters have systematically created an atmosphere whereby sex abuse and other immoralities can thrive.

It is well documented (another book: “Goodbye Good Men” - M. Rose) that potentially good priests were kept out of the seminary by dissenting seminary directors and many potentially good priest left the seminary because of the sexual scandal and homosexual promotion going on under their nose.
 
40.png
katherine2:
Actually, of the far too great a number of child abusing priests, only a handful were known as people who publicly challenged the teachings of the Church. Most in their public actions were perfectly orthodox and quite a number were even rather rigid and conservative in their public acts.
Dissenters systematically created an atmosphere that would accept and even encourage immoral behavior, irregardless of how some of the offenders were perceived on the outside.
 
Clinical Pastoral Education is a program that is often required of seminarians. It is highly encouraging and welcoming of active homosexuality.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Match a list of the names of those connected with sex abuse with a list of priests known for their dissent from Catholic teaching.

Being an orthodox priest is no guarantee of being able to resist sexual sins.
How would we know for sure? Dissenters are not always well known outside their parishes for their views. I have read no where that most of the homosexual abusers where known for their orthodoxy and strict obedience to all Church teachings, in fact, I would think the exact opposite.

As to your comment about orthodox priests not being tempted, that is true but the climate that exists where the moral laws are seen as old fashioned or plastic is so common that it gives a green light to indulge in every passion one may have.
 
40.png
fix:
How would we know for sure? Dissenters are not always well known outside their parishes for their views. I have read no where that most of the homosexual abusers where known for their orthodoxy and strict obedience to all Church teachings, in fact, I would think the exact opposite.
So you are saying we have no way of knowing either way and that you simply think the opposite?
 
40.png
katherine2:
So you are saying we have no way of knowing either way and that you simply think the opposite?
Please prove your assertion that most were orthodox.

Where shall we start? Paul Shanely?
 
40.png
katherine2:
So you are saying we have no way of knowing either way and that you simply think the opposite?
Rather than try to win an argument, how about investigating my claim that dissenters are responsible for creating an atmosphere that allowed and promoted immoral behavior among the religous.

I’ve already listed 3 sources. I could give more once you are done with those. Or, is it that you don’t want to believe that this is true?
 
40.png
Brad:
Rather than try to win an argument, how about investigating my claim that dissenters are responsible for creating an atmosphere that allowed and promoted immoral behavior among the religous.
Trite bunk.

Ground Zero for this tragdy is the Archdiocese of Boston. Led by the otuwardly conservative and orthodox Bernard Cardinal Law, celebrated by conservatives as “the enforcer” and half of the so-called New York-Boston sxis of “Law and Order” (Cardinal O’Connor).

Who allowed immoral behavior? Who was in a position to allow it? To allow an act, you first must have knowledge of it. Law and his Chancery went to great lenghts to keep abuse secret, pressursing victims to keep quiet and not disclosing serial abusers and even writing letters of recommendation for them. “Call to Action” wacko group that it is, had no ability to have knowledge of these acts.

Second, to allow an act, you have to have ability to stop it. It was in Law’s ability to remove these priests yet he reassigned them time and time again.

Here we have hard facts. Some vague “atmposhere” is ultimately an unproveable point. it is s silly path to even try to go down.
 
What’s interesting about this exchange is that it’s plain that Katherine prefers to believe that abusers were known as orthodox and upright. Brad and others, including myself, want to believe that a heterodox, dissenting environment led to abuse, and that probably most of the abusers were heterodox dissenters themselves.

Now why do we have these mindsets? I have no qualms about promoting orthodoxy and obedience to the magesterium. Why are others so eager to paint egregious sinners with the orthodox brush? If you are one of those people, don’t you think you should pause and think about what you’re doing? You are implying that, orthodoxy and piety is not only no guarantee against egregious sin (which I agree is true, we’re all capable of falling), but may not even help obtain the graces to prevent a fall. Do you really want to say that? Are you so vested in promoting a “progressive” agenda (begging the question, progressing towards what?) that you will imply that the long-standing wisdom of the Church is no bulwark against sin?
 
40.png
katherine2:
Trite bunk.

Ground Zero for this tragdy is the Archdiocese of Boston. Led by the otuwardly conservative and orthodox Bernard Cardinal Law, celebrated by conservatives as “the enforcer” and half of the so-called New York-Boston sxis of “Law and Order” (Cardinal O’Connor).

Who allowed immoral behavior? Who was in a position to allow it? To allow an act, you first must have knowledge of it. Law and his Chancery went to great lenghts to keep abuse secret, pressursing victims to keep quiet and not disclosing serial abusers and even writing letters of recommendation for them. “Call to Action” wacko group that it is, had no ability to have knowledge of these acts.

Second, to allow an act, you have to have ability to stop it. It was in Law’s ability to remove these priests yet he reassigned them time and time again.

Here we have hard facts. Some vague “atmposhere” is ultimately an unproveable point. it is s silly path to even try to go down.
I’m sorry, who was it that Cardinal Law sexually abused?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top