US Bishops Want to Study Causes & Context

[Kevin_Walker]

otm:

That is rather a broad statement, and more than a bit judgemental. A few of them may, but many will be honest about their orientation; furhter, a good psychological assessment can sort out at least a good part of one’s orientation (as well as a thorough background investigation). There is no reason to assume that all homosexuals are going to lie about their orientation; some will and some won’t. Again, an overbroad assumption that all homosexual priests are entering the priesthood with the intent to abuse young boys. Given that only a portion of the homosexual priests have abused boys, the facts do not support your judgemental statement.

Underlying your judgemental call seems to be the assumption that if one is a homosexual, then one is an active homosexual. That is no more valid an assumption than to assume that because one is a heterosexual, one is a sexually active heterosexual. and that is part of the issue that the Church has been struggling with for quite some time. True. Part of the difficulty is that there are a number of incidentals of the priesthood that can make it very attractive to someone who is homosexual, and have absolutely nothing to do with any sinfulness.

And what makes you think such an order would not be attractive to some homosexuals?

On that point, many would agree. In fact, Rome has made such statements, which have obviously been ignored; and there is no evidence that it has been ignored only by America, or America and Europe.

The difficulty is going to be getting the hierarchy to actually do something, and the cause of the difficulty will be the question of how many of the hierarchy, and the various individuals below the level of bishop in the Church bureaucracy, are either homosexual, or know other priests/bishops/Cardinals who are homosexual. The question revolves not around the approval of a homosexual lifestyle, but around the approval of those either not involved in the homosexual lifestyle, or not openly involved. It is tantamount to the comment “physician, heal thyself”.

The depth of this problem is far greater than most people realize, and the solutions are anything but simple.

Hi OTM,

It is my humble opinion that you are arguing under a false premise: The fundamental flaw of either defending or tolerating a homosexual Priest is that homosexuality is a mental health disorder and is an emotionally disturbed behaviour pattern regardless of sexual activity.

Peruse this typical homosexual behaviour pattern:

John Wayne Gacy carpenoctem.tv/killers/gacy.html

And yes, John Wayne Gacy fits the standard homosexual life style: denial, mental conflict, disguise, false pretenses, rationalization, narcisissm, and oftentimes violence.

 

[otm]

fix:

You keep bringing up this distinction between before and after VII. I never mentioned it. Dissent is the etiology. Why dissent became more prevalent may be debated, but it is the root of all these scandals. Homosexual abuse is a symptom, not the cuase. That is my point.

And I flat out disagree with you. Dissent isn’t causing anyone to have sex with someone of their own gender. Lust is, and a lust that has a particular twist (same gender).

I refuse to use the word “dissent” to mean anyone who commits a mortal sin. It sould be said that they “dissent” from the Church’s teaching as to that moral issue, but using the word “dissent” in that fashion makes almost every human being a dissenter. At that point, our conversation has simply gone awry.

Paul Shanley was a multiple abuser who openly supported NAMBLA. Maurice Grammond was a priest who pretty much hewed to the teachings of the Church and appeared very orthodox, except for the fact that he liked to have sex with prepubescent boys. Both were multiple abusers. One was openly espousing a major dissenting position to the Catholic Church’s position. The other didn’t. To say that the dissent in the Church caused this is simply not shown; otherwise, why are there not way more abusing priests (the factor appears to be about 3% of all priests have sexually abused a minor; we can all see that the level of dissent within the priesthood has been well in excess of that).

 

[Kevin_Walker]

otm:

Perhaps you should look at the agenda NARAL and Planned Parenthood. As they have actively promoted the distribution of contraceptives to young teenage girls and the e opposition to Parental Consent and Information, I would say that they actively promote either the lowering of age of consent or simply doing away with the issueMaybe you might look at the issue of celibacy in Africa particularly, and other areas outside of Europe and the US before you make such a bold statement.

Hi OTM,

I believe you have confused correlation for cause and have grossly rationalized by making the false comparison between N.A.M.B.L.A. and N.A.R.A.L. since the former explicitly wants to promote sex between homosexual men and boys, while the latter exlicitly wants to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies. That is sheer rationalization and you might want to take a refresher course in basic logic and rhetoric before making such wild conjecture.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

otm:

Perhaps you should look at the agenda NARAL and Planned Parenthood. As they have actively promoted the distribution of contraceptives to young teenage girls and the e opposition to Parental Consent and Information, I would say that they actively promote either the lowering of age of consent or simply doing away with the issueMaybe you might look at the issue of celibacy in Africa particularly, and other areas outside of Europe and the US before you make such a bold statement.

Hi OTM,

I believe you have confused correlation for cause and have grossly rationalized by making the false comparison between N.A.M.B.L.A. and N.A.R.A.L. since the former explicitly wants to promote sex between homosexual men and boys, while the latter explicitly wants to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies. It is sheer rationalization to compare N.A.R.A.L. with N.A.M.B.L.A. and suggest they might have a common goal. You might want to take a refresher course in basic logic and rhetoric before making such conjecture.

 

[otm]

fix:

I agree that the credentialed misfits who push homosexual conduct as non pathological are a large part of the problem. My argument is that bishops and others in authority listened to these people as if they were infallible. Also, bishops have not been faithful in discharging their duties and Shepherding.

Why do we need more studies from them that may very well be illigetimate from the start? The answer is what the priest from “First Things” has said many times…Fidelity, fidelity, fidelity.

I don’t know how old you are, but you might want to take a brief historical survey of psychology. It was a rapidly expanding sciens in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, and while it is easy to armchair the last 30 to 40 years of mistakes, boneheadedness and flat-out stupidity, I wouldn’t say that the bishops listened as if they psychologists were infallible. Many, if not most of the bishops were trying to get some sort of a handle on the issue. What they did after that, we certainly agree on; they not only dropped the ball, they kicked it behind the couch and pretended it didn’t exist.

We need legitimate studies because so many people ( and not a few bishops in particular) are still in denial of how deep and pervasive the problem is. It is easy to say “be faithful”; abut there are too many who question what that means and how it is accomplished. A legitimate study will narrow that issue down and remove the wiggle room some are seeking.

It is hard to solve the problem when some of the problem solvers are a significant part of that problem. The term “boot-strapping” comes to mind.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

otm:

I don’t know how old you are, but you might want to take a brief historical survey of psychology. It was a rapidly expanding sciens in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, and while it is easy to armchair the last 30 to 40 years of mistakes, boneheadedness and flat-out stupidity, I wouldn’t say that the bishops listened as if they psychologists were infallible. Many, if not most of the bishops were trying to get some sort of a handle on the issue. What they did after that, we certainly agree on; they not only dropped the ball, they kicked it behind the couch and pretended it didn’t exist.

We need legitimate studies because so many people ( and not a few bishops in particular) are still in denial of how deep and pervasive the problem is. It is easy to say “be faithful”; abut there are too many who question what that means and how it is accomplished. A legitimate study will narrow that issue down and remove the wiggle room some are seeking.

It is hard to solve the problem when some of the problem solvers are a significant part of that problem. The term “boot-strapping” comes to mind.

If you are interested in legitimate studies on the problem of homosexuality in the Church, contact the St. Luke Institute in Silversprings Maryland, the American Catholic Church’s private psychiatric unit which treats, among other things, homosexuality.

 

[otm]

puzzleannie:

well like, duh. gee, bishop, what do you think the cause of the crisis is? is it that we have structured our priestly formation system to attract deviates and discourage normal guys, or is it that we have adopted the cover-up as normal means of doing business and to h— with pastoral concerns, or is that we have been disobeying canon law and church teaching for so long it has become a habit? Well, I don’t know, bishop, it is probably just that we are victims of media bias. why don’t we do another study and find out.

as long as you keep doing studies you have an excuse to avoid solutions to the problem, good work, guys.

I think you are assuming that the source of the study is the group of bishops who, for whatever reason, don’t want to deal with this. I think it could be argued just as easily that it sourced from bishops who want more light on the issue; so much light that the cockroaches have no place to hide.

And while we are at it, it goes beyone just seminaries filtering out heterosexual candidates. It also goes to the fact that not a few incidentals of the priesthood are going to be appealing to many homosexuals regardless of whether or not they are sexually active.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

About 1970 I went to hang-out down at my corner with the usual group of about 35 early teenage guys & gals. There appeared a Jesuit ‘Street’ Priest named Father David C. Murphy, who hung out with us for about three years.

In a short time gossip, then rumors began circulating amongst the kids, then there were the eyewitnesses; Father Murphy was making passes at the guys, and he actually bedded two of them.

In 2002 Father David C. Murphy was arrested in the sex abuse scandal with over sixty molestation complaints against him from my neighborhood.

Father Murphy’s photograph is sixth down from the below list of offending Priests:

boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/extras/removed_list.htm

 

[Kevin_Walker]

otm:

TPJ and you are on the same page. He said nothing of tolerating abuse. He simply remarked that no matter what steps are taken, there is no way to guarantee zero abuse. There is no way to make it zero. We can all agree that the Church needs a major change of direction.
Let me state TPJ’s statement another way. The Church has zero tollerance for embezzelment. But occasionally, even with all the accounting checks and balances on parish finances, occasionally a priest embezzels. Zero tollerance is never going to equate with zero abuse; it seeks zero abuse but the reality is that abuse will occur.
We can all agree that a priest who violates someone under the age of 18 should never be given that opportunity again. However, defrocking may not always be the best answer, for any number of reasons. However, all of this strays from the original question of the thread.

Hi OTM,

You seem to equate embezzlement with molestation? Embezzlement can be tolerated but sexual abuse cannot be tolerated. So therefore it is incongruous for anyone to adopt a fatalistic attitude toward child molestation by Priests in the Catholic Church. Realistically, zero tolerance towards sexual abuse must be pursued within the Catholic Church.

 

[otm]

fix:

When did the majority of abuse occur? In the 1940s-50s or 60-80s?

The truth of the matter is that we will never know. It is only recently that people have come forward. The assumption is made that those who were abused will speak up. The fact of the matter is that many who are abused never speak up. Many of the cases that I have seen have been filed against priests who are in their 70s and 80s, or already dead, and are from 40 or 50 years or more.

fix:

What years did the cover ups occur during?

The lawsuits seem to have started in the 80’s. The cover up that has been discovered started decades before that, and from the fact that homosexuality has been around from Old Testament times, I see no reason not to assume that it has been occuring throughout the history of the Church. To say otherwise is naievity.

 

[otm]

TPJCatholic:

otm,

I feel you are forgetting a couple major elements.

First, the culture began its sharp decay into moral relativism at roughly the same time of Vatican II (roughly).

I respectfully disagree.
The culture had been on a serious downhill slope prior to 1930; we had the "gay 90’s with a loosening to a certain extent of the process of dating; World War 1 and the Raoaring 20’s, and then finally 1930, when the Lambeth Conference of the Anglicn"Episcopalen Church passed a resolution permitting the use of contraceptives within marriage. Things rapidly deteriorated from there; we had World War 2, with another massive relocation of men out of the extended family structure, and the introduction of women significantly into the workforce in higher paying jobs than a secretary, the GI Bill which caused a massive growth in the college level attendance (and thus much greater exposure to ideas previously held to the more privileged), and we finally get to Humanae Vitae, at which point, only the Catholic Church, of all mainline churches, did not aloow birth controll of any type (prior to 1930, none of then did). The pill was invented, if I remember correctly, in the late 50’s and was starting to get widespread acceptance well prior to Humanae Vitae, and many priests and theologians felt that since it worked differnetly that a barrier method that it did not violate natural law. So much of the downhill slope had already been negotiated; we wnt over the edge into free fall about then.

TPJCatholic:

Second, while your point that the Priests were likely ordained before Vatican II is quite accurate, you are not recognizing that at that time seminaries were not looking at the orientation of candidates coming into the system–that only began in the early 90s, which is why the abuse cases dropped so dramatically in the 90s and even to this day.

The numbers tell the story of cultural decay, along with the decay of our clergy in the exact same timeframe…that is no accident. Also, the numbers show us that once the Church started looking at orientation (late eighties to early nineties) the numbers of abuses dropped like a rock.

Again, I disagree. The lawsuites started in the 80’s, and out of that came rules of conduct as to who was alone with whom under what circumstances. I think that had more to do with the reduction in abuse than the issue of orientation in the seminaries. And if Michael Rose is to be believed, it would appear that any number of seminaries were not changing their admissions and conduct policies even through the 90’s. In addition, there is an underlying presumption that priests were abusing boys shortly after their ordination; the case is not well made that the change in the 90s as to seminary entrance had much, if anything to do with the drop at the same time.

 

[otm]

Exporter:

The Original Question was :“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.”

The U.S. Bishops will “look into” the cause of sex abuce by the clergy". They want to hire a neutral research group to tell them why some clergy are guilty of sex abuses. This may take six months to find such a research group. Then the study will take over a year, maybe two, to get the results. Then the results will be delivered to the Bishops. They will take another year to decide what the results mean. Maybe after four years pass the U.S. Bishops will make a statement. Then it will take another yesr to do a thing about it.

If Walmart had the same problem amoung their supervisors and managers…how long do you thik it would take for Walmart to TAKE ACTION? Walmart has more “employees” than the Church in the U.S. I would think Walmart would take action within three months.

The Church has a moral responsibility to its members as well as a responsiblity to the world (it is called evangelization). The Church has never moved quickly in making or changing policies that have long term and deep moral implications, and is not apt to go off willy nilly this time either. At the root of this question are several issues, one of which is whether or not homosexuals should be ordained, and what that means in real world, brass tacks application. Whjere does the Church draw the line, in terms of homosexuality? Where on the scale of effiminate traits does one determine that an individual is straight or not, for example. What about the issue of priests who at least appear to be living a chaste life, but are homosexual in their identity? What about those who are living a chaste life? Walmart is only responsible for a very small segment of society - their shareholders; and then on mostly economic matters which may have a moral overlay, but not nearly as clear as the moral issues the Church faces. Walmart, if the stockholders agree, can simply dissolve and cease to exist. What the Church does could have implcations for decades, if not centuries.

Both Walmart and the Church can bring managers to task; both are bound to some extent by law; civil or Canon law. But the overall issues are radically different.

 

[otm]

Kevin Walker:

Hi OTM,

It is my humble opinion that you are arguing under a false premise: The fundamental flaw of either defending or tolerating a homosexual Priest is that homosexuality is a mental health disorder and is an emotionally disturbed behaviour pattern regardless of sexual activity.

Peruse this typical homosexual behaviour pattern:

John Wayne Gacy carpenoctem.tv/killers/gacy.html

And yes, John Wayne Gacy fits the standard homosexual life style: denial, mental conflict, disguise, false pretenses, rationalization, narcisissm, and oftentimes violence.

I don’t recall that I have stated my premise. I agree that it is disordered.

There are multiple questions before the Church, and they are anything but simple. What do we do with a chaste homosexual priest who is true to the Magisterium? Folks, they are out there. In fact, given the pomp and circumstance, the glory and the grandure, the solemnity and the historicity of the TLM, I would be more than exceedingly surprised if we did not find some chaste but homosexual priests who gravitate to that. With all of the art - visual, auditory, etc. - the exquisite garments (have you ever seen the lace on some expensive albs?) which allow one to dress in at leat an androgenous fashion, if not effeminate; the liturgical flow and theatrical stylings of the Mass; the ability to disguise one’s gender inclinations and still receive respect and adulation is highly attractive to one who is homosexual. In addition, the issue of celibacy relieves all questions about marriage, both internally and externally. And none of this is meant to imply that they are not individuals seeking holiness.

Not all homosexuals are artists or inclined to art, but a disproportionate number of those in the arts are homosexual. So what do you do with this guy? And what do you do with the priesthood, if anything (and I don’t make any proposals) to reduce the attractiveness of the priesthood to homosexuals? Or make it more attractive to heterosexuals?

My premise, to anyone who knows me, is that we have a really major problem that has been around for a long time, and it will not be solved quickly. It is also my premise that this has been devastating to at least parts of the Church (many in the pew were, and to a large extent still are, oblivious to what’s right in front of them - it is alwasy someone else somewhere else). I’ve been talking about this problem since the 80s, when the priest I knew was brought to task in our archdiocese. I think not a few bishops and Cardinals have had, or are going to have, some really tough questions to answer when they come to judgement.

I also think that too many people do not see the complexity of the problem and tend to make simplistic conclusions.

If you disagree with my statements, I am open to challenge and discussion. I just don’t like sweeping statements, particularly those that try to lump a whole lot of issues together, as if that answered it all.

 

[kmktexas]

Not all homosexuals are artists or inclined to art, but a disproportionate number of those in the arts are homosexual. So what do you do with this guy? And what do you do with the priesthood, if anything (and I don’t make any proposals) to reduce the attractiveness of the priesthood to homosexuals? Or make it more attractive to heterosexuals?

Now THAT is the question that deserves a research grant!!!

As someone said in another thread that I can’t find now, the Church needs manly leaders, especially manly priests.

 

[fix]

otm:

And I flat out disagree with you. Dissent isn’t causing anyone to have sex with someone of their own gender. Lust is, and a lust that has a particular twist (same gender).

I refuse to use the word “dissent” to mean anyone who commits a mortal sin. It sould be said that they “dissent” from the Church’s teaching as to that moral issue, but using the word “dissent” in that fashion makes almost every human being a dissenter. At that point, our conversation has simply gone awry.

Paul Shanley was a multiple abuser who openly supported NAMBLA. Maurice Grammond was a priest who pretty much hewed to the teachings of the Church and appeared very orthodox, except for the fact that he liked to have sex with prepubescent boys. Both were multiple abusers. One was openly espousing a major dissenting position to the Catholic Church’s position. The other didn’t. To say that the dissent in the Church caused this is simply not shown; otherwise, why are there not way more abusing priests (the factor appears to be about 3% of all priests have sexually abused a minor; we can all see that the level of dissent within the priesthood has been well in excess of that).

And I flat out think you are wrong. I am not calling mortal sin dissent. I am saying those who committed mortal sin were dissenters because of their rejection of the authority of Rome and their heterodox beliefs and practices. The goofy theology, poor formation and general attitude of a rebellious teenager are all reasons “gay” sex was allowed to go on and the “lavender” mafia had a strong hold. You dismiss the central issue in all this. Homosexual abuse is the symptom, not the etiology.

 

[fix]

otm:

The truth of the matter is that we will never know. It is only recently that people have come forward. The assumption is made that those who were abused will speak up. The fact of the matter is that many who are abused never speak up. Many of the cases that I have seen have been filed against priests who are in their 70s and 80s, or already dead, and are from 40 or 50 years or more.

The link someone posted here to the USCCB shows that most cases were in the 60s-70s to early 80s. That is no coincidence.

The lawsuits seem to have started in the 80’s. The cover up that has been discovered started decades before that, and from the fact that homosexuality has been around from Old Testament times, I see no reason not to assume that it has been occuring throughout the history of the Church. To say otherwise is naievity.

No one is saying homosexual sex is new. What is new is the openness, the in your face dissent and attempt to usurp the Church by heterodox dissenters. Couple with this the sexual revelution and embrace of contraception by large numbers of folks in the west and you have a recipe for relativism that took hold of the culture and many in the Church.

 

[fix]

otm:

The truth of the matter is that we will never know. It is only recently that people have come forward. The assumption is made that those who were abused will speak up. The fact of the matter is that many who are abused never speak up. Many of the cases that I have seen have been filed against priests who are in their 70s and 80s, or already dead, and are from 40 or 50 years or more.

The link someone posted here to the USCCB shows that most cases were in the 60s-70s to early 80s. That is no coincidence.

The lawsuits seem to have started in the 80’s. The cover up that has been discovered started decades before that, and from the fact that homosexuality has been around from Old Testament times, I see no reason not to assume that it has been occuring throughout the history of the Church. To say otherwise is naievity.

No one is saying homosexual sex is new. What is new is the openness, the in your face dissent and attempt to usurp the Church by heterodox dissenters. Couple with this the sexual revolution and embrace of contraception by large numbers of folks in the west and you have a recipe for relativism that took hold of the culture and many in the Church.

 

[fix]

otm:

I don’t know how old you are, but you might want to take a brief historical survey of psychology. It was a rapidly expanding sciens in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, and while it is easy to armchair the last 30 to 40 years of mistakes, boneheadedness and flat-out stupidity, I wouldn’t say that the bishops listened as if they psychologists were infallible. Many, if not most of the bishops were trying to get some sort of a handle on the issue. What they did after that, we certainly agree on; they not only dropped the ball, they kicked it behind the couch and pretended it didn’t exist.

Psychology has been hijacked by folks who reject truth and embrace relativism. The bishops have said publicly they looked to them for answers. Instead of treating this as both a moral problem and psychiatric problem they sent these guys from parish to parish with a stop at a mental health center that gave them a clean bill of health.

We need legitimate studies because so many people ( and not a few bishops in particular) are still in denial of how deep and pervasive the problem is. It is easy to say “be faithful”; abut there are too many who question what that means and how it is accomplished. A legitimate study will narrow that issue down and remove the wiggle room some are seeking.

No sir, we do not need any study. We need remediation in the faith for the bishops and perhaps replacement of many of them with men who are not afraid to preach the truth.

 

[otm]

Kevin Walker:

Hi OTM,

I believe you have confused correlation for cause and have grossly rationalized by making the false comparison between N.A.M.B.L.A. and N.A.R.A.L. since the former explicitly wants to promote sex between homosexual men and boys, while the latter exlicitly wants to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies. That is sheer rationalization and you might want to take a refresher course in basic logic and rhetoric before making such wild conjecture.

Have you paid any attention to what NARAL and Planned Parenthood have been promoting in the past few years? You might note that I did not speak of explicit promotion, but they have no hidden agenda; it is out there for all to see. Your specific statement was {QUOTE=Kevin Walker]I ask the question again. Is there an equivalent organization in the USA to N.A.M.B.L.A. which is trying to lower the legal age of sexual consent for girls? The answer is NO.
You did not ask if there was a group explicitly stating it. But I would say that from their testimony before various state legisltures and thier lawsuits, they are not exactly working a hidden agenda. I don’t think my logic is shakey at all.

By the way, I have children. They are twin girls. And I have been paying attention to what they (NARAL & PP) have been promoting. Given the fact that they have been promoting the right of a young teenage girl to get an abortion without any knowledge on the part of her parents, maybe you can call it sheer rationalization that they do not promote the abuse of girls. I call it like I see it. Given they promote the distribution of contraception to young teenage girls and abortions for those who don’t use them correctly, what do you call that, if it is not promotion of sexual abuse? Are you saying that young teenage girls are capable of making the decision of whether or not to have sex, that they are mature enough to make that decision, that they are not being coerced into sex by peer pressure and the pressure of their boyfriends? Or are you saying that sex between teenagers is not sexual abuse, and that term only applies if the male is an adult?

 

[otm]

Kevin Walker:

If you are interested in legitimate studies on the problem of homosexuality in the Church, contact the St. Luke Institute in Silversprings Maryland, the American Catholic Church’s private psychiatric unit which treats, among other things, homosexuality.

Do you know if they have a website?