US Bishops Want to Study Causes & Context

[Brad]

Kevin Walker:

That’s a cop out. Spill your guts. You’re not a whistle blower, things need to be brought out in the open and investigated in the Catholic Church.

If it was just me that would be fine but I’m not going to affect the lives of other people that have already sufferred enough. Not a chance. Sorry.

I already have put myself out on the line to oppose dissent and it’s damage and will continue to do so.

 

[otm]

fix:

More liberal stuff from our bishops. Why can’t they see the connection between dissent and violations of the moral law?

Probably for the reason that violations of the moral law have been around longer than dissent.

The dissent of which most people speak really started post-World War 2, and was in full bloom with the release of Humae Vitae.

Moral violations have been around since Adam and Eve. And I don’t recall any studies anywhere that link dissent with homosexual urges. Perhaps you have some?

 

[fix]

otm:

Probably for the reason that violations of the moral law have been around longer than dissent.

The dissent of which most people speak really started post-World War 2, and was in full bloom with the release of Humae Vitae.

Moral violations have been around since Adam and Eve. And I don’t recall any studies anywhere that link dissent with homosexual urges. Perhaps you have some?

See post #4.

Have there been many studies on dissent? Do we need such studies to know it is bad?

Perhaps we need studies to show us homosexual priests abusing teenage boys may be a bad idea?

 

[TPJCatholic]

"fix, when did you stop beating your wife?"

What sort of comment is that? If it is slander, then it should be apolgized for…we do not need to lower these boards into the abyss. We are not enemies.

 

[fix]

"fix, when did you stop beating your wife?"

What sort of comment is that? If it is slander, then it should be apolgized for…we do not need to lower these boards into the abyss. We are not enemies.

I take no offense. K2 gives it as well as she takes it. I have a grudging respect for her.

 

[TPJCatholic]

fix,

That’s fine, but garbage like that does not belong here. It is supposed to be a place of conversation–not a place to attack each other.

 

[katherine2]

fix:

I take no offense. K2 gives it as well as she takes it. I have a grudging respect for her.

I love you too fix.

But can you understand that changing my statement of “[priests who in] their public actions were perfectly orthodox” into “orthodox men of faith” is not really fair. I do take some care in chosing my words, and I deliberately made the point of outward orthodoxy and did not call such people “men of faith”.

Anyway, in a few hours I will be starting my Lenten fast from post (Oh, all the way in Philadelphia I can hear the cheers from a certain element ). My best for a good Lent to all.

 

[fix]

katherine2:

I love you too fix.

But can you understand that changing my statement of “[priests who in] their public actions were perfectly orthodox” into “orthodox men of faith” is notr really fair. I do take some care in chosing my words, and I deliberately made the point of outward orthodoxy and did not call such people “men of faith”.

Anyway, in a few hours I will be starting my Lenten fast from post (Oh, all the way in Philadelphia I can hear the cheers from a certain element ). My best for a good Lent to all.

Of course, I saw what you did. I did exactly what you have done to me in turning words around. Goose…good…gander…get it? You are not the only one who thinks they are smarter than the average bear.

 

[otm]

fix:

This priest says it better than I ever could:

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

All of which does nothing to address the thrust of this thread, which is the question of whether or not we can get an honest, balanced, fair and truthful review of cause and contect of the sexual abuse crisis.

Trigilio may have many good things to say, but much of what he remarks about had nothing whatsoever to do with the sexual abuse that was occuring pre-Vatican 2. “Parishioners and seminarians being exposed to orthodox liturgy” has nothing to do with sexual abuse except in the most tenuous connection.

 

[otm]

Brad:

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.

Rose is hardly the one I would go to for documentation - see, e.g., the review of this book in the National Catholic Register, his response, and the reviewer’s response.

Furthermore, The issue of sexual molestation was in full bloom prior to Vatican 2, long before the dissenters found their platform.

 

[otm]

StJeanneDArc:

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?

I have no qualms about promoting orthodoxy either. Homosexual behavior is not caused by nor linked to unorthodox methods of Scriptural analysis or liturgical
experimentation. It is related to psychological problems rooted in early childhood.

Hiding the abuser and moving them repeately isn’t an issue of orthodoxy/unorthodoxy, it is related to 1) fear of scandal, 2) failure to understand the damage done to the victim, 3) reliance on psychologists who believed they could cure the abuser, and 4) a pervasive secrecy in the workings of the hierarchy.

Much of the abuse occured prior to and during Vatcian 2 era as opposed to 10, 15 or 20 or more years after Vatican 2, at which time dissention had become pervasive.

Shanley was one of the most “active” abusers; many of the priests seem to have had 1 to 5 victims. Shanley was obviously way over the top. Most of the abusers were quiet, as opposed to his constant promotion of homosexuality.

All of which has little or nothing to do with the origin of this thread. Go back and read the first post; it isn’t about the Church and dissent; it is about the secular world and it’s view of the genesis and causes of homosexuality.

 

[otm]

StJeanneDArc:

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?

I have no qualms about promoting orthodoxy either. Homosexual behavior is not caused by nor linked to unorthodox methods of Scriptural analysis or liturgical
experimentation. It is related to psychological problems rooted in early childhood.

Hiding the abuser and moving them repeately isn’t an issue of orthodoxy/unorthodoxy, it is related to 1) fear of scandal, 2) failure to understand the damage done to the victim, 3) reliance on psychologists who believed they could cure the abuser, and 4) a pervasive secrecy in the workings of the hierarchy.

Much of the abuse occured prior to and during Vatcian 2 era as opposed to 10, 15 or 20 or more years after Vatican 2, at which time dissention had become pervasive.

Shanley was one of the most “active” abusers; many of the priests seem to have had 1 to 5 victims. Shanley was obviously way over the top. Most of the abusers were quiet, as opposed to his constant promotion of homosexuality.

All of which has little or nothing to do with the origin of this thread. Go back and read the first post; it isn’t about the Church and dissent; it is about the secular world and it’s view of the genesis and causes of homosexuality.

 

[otm]

fix:

See post #4.

Have there been many studies on dissent? Do we need such studies to know it is bad?

Perhaps we need studies to show us homosexual priests abusing teenage boys may be a bad idea?

Go back and read the first post. You are barking up the wrong tree. the question posed was whether or not, given the status of psychology today, and the political correctness that surrounds homosexuality, the Church can get a study doine that actually gets down to the roots of the problem. The roots of the sexual abuse problem lie in the causes of homosexuality and the selection of candidates for the priesthood.

The question posed isn’t about dissent in the Church, as the question posed isn’t even about the Church; it is about the status and beliefs of the researchers.

You and I can agree till we are blue in the face about dissent in the Church, but that doesn’t go to the question. The question goes to the scientific community; can this question even be researched, given the attitutde of much of the medical and psychological community?

 

[TPJCatholic]

otm,

You are correct to say sexual abuse pre-dates Vatican II, yet in your statements you seem to be implying that there was the same level of abuse before the council, as there was after the council…that is simply demonstrably false. According the report given to the USCCB, sexual abuse peaked well “after” the second Vatican council, once dissent was in full bloom. Please carefully review the following links:

http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/prev3.pdf

http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm

 

[TPJCatholic]

otm,

You are correct to say sexual abuse pre-dates Vatican II, yet in your statements you seem to be implying that there was the same level of abuse before the council, as there was after the council…that is simply demonstrably false. According the report given to the USCCB, sexual abuse peaked well “after” the second Vatican council, once dissent was in full bloom. Please carefully review the following links:

usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/prev3.pdf

catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm

 

[condan]

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.

Paul Shanley

 

[Philip_P]

Just to interject for a second here, are those who believe that the cause of the sex abuse scandal is homsexuality implying that had it been heterosexual priests abusing girls, that would have been ok? It seems to me that what’s at issue is that 1) that there are sexual predators in the clergy and 2) that for too long, their presence was tolerated. I fail to see how debating homosexuality advances the pressing need to protect our children and restore confidence in our bishops.

 

[condan]

Kevin Walker:

Thank you for the clarification. Personally I truly believe those horrors would never have occured if homosexuals were denied being ordained as priests.

I agree.

To assert that the abusers were “orthodox” is absurd. First, because there is no way to know what a priests theological leanings are from reading the papers. We do know that Paul Shanley was a founding member of NAMBLA. 'Nuf said.

It goes without saying (at least to those who know their faith) that if you love God with all your heart, with all your soul and all your mind that you would never so offend Him by committing the abomination of homosexual behavior, especially with a child or a youth. However, if you view the Church as a purely human institution with “laws” and “rules” that are negotiable, then it is easy to see how someone can disregard the Church’s teaching and satisfy their lusty and sinful desires at the expense of others.

Its a no-brainer that the environment of dissent has fostered the disaster that is sexual abuse by priests. The only way to fix it is to remove those men who suffer from this temptation.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Philip,

It matters quite a lot. We all want to see zero-percent on sexual abuse…yet that is a nearly impossible goal considering the sin and depravity of humans. It is critical that we do everything we can to lower the numbers of abuse to as close to zero as possible, and yes that means we have to look at every element, including homosexuals in the clergy. Please go to the links I provided…they are very telling.

 

[WhatIf]

katherine2:

I love you too fix.

But can you understand that changing my statement of “[priests who in] their public actions were perfectly orthodox” into “orthodox men of faith” is not really fair. I do take some care in chosing my words, and I deliberately made the point of outward orthodoxy and did not call such people “men of faith”.

Anyway, in a few hours I will be starting my Lenten fast from post (Oh, all the way in Philadelphia I can hear the cheers from a certain element ). My best for a good Lent to all.

I just finished the book by George Weigel called the Courage to be Catholic. Maybe during Lent, you could read it. I think it addresses the sex scandal very well. We have to face what went wrong to even begin to fix it.