US Bishops Want to Study Causes & Context

[otm]

Kevin Walker:

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.

No, I am not equating embezzelment with sexual abuse.

And I disagree that embezzelment can be tolerated. Most of the cases I have heard of where the priest is the alleged perpetrator, the case is a criminal case. Sadly, so too should be the sexual abuse cases, but not enough are.

I agree with your comment that zero tolerance of sexual abuse must be persued - to which I would add, with all vigor.

 

[Brad]

otm:

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.

Discounting one of several sources does not make the facts untrue. In general, Rose’s contention that we lost many a good potential priest because good, orthodox, seminarians were persecuted or kept out - is true. There are multiple sources that back this up, including personal witnesses. If you do not think there is coverup and that your average priest knows some things but is not interested in telling and risk having his reputation ruined, then you can continue to live in with a skewed perception. I would rather face reality and seek the reform in the Church that many are calling for.

Dissenters were working for their platform prior to Vatican II. Vatican II did not produce what they wanted. So they utilized the seminaries and their positions of power later (full bloom of dissent - late 70s to today) to give us a re-interpretation of the Vatican II documents to make it something other than what it really was. This created an atomosphere that allowed moral depravity to flourish, both in teaching and acting out, whether the teachers themselves were homosexuals or not.

If you do not think that blackmail is a tool that homosexuals and homosexual sympathizers in the Church use, again you are incorrect. You may not want to believe it but it is true. And, I would further suggest that those that promote homosexual depravity in the Church and use blackmail to maintain and increase their position are, at minimum, dissenters and often their moral teachings reflect this or they completely ignore the moral teaching by focusing solely on social justice.

Just another example, from Feb, 2005 issue of “New Oxford Review”:

**The American hierarchy is surely grateful for this turning of the blind eye. For there is much evidence that it has for years been corrupted by homosexual prelates, either actively or formerly so. Certain bishops at a minimum believe that the Church should abandon her opposition to homosexual conduct. In Amchurch Comes Out(2002), The Wanderer’s Paul Likoudis reported that a 1998 conference of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries held in Rochester, NY, showed that homosexual activists within the Church have the support of at least 58 bishops. Some have since been forced out by the glare of publicity.

Roman incompetence has played an important role in the scandal. The homosexual bishop of Palm Beach FL was driven from office and replaced by another homosexual, who was exposed in turn. At that point the Papal Nuncio in Washington DC should have been recalled. But the Papal Nuncio, who has been in office for six years, continues to give cocktail parties on Embassy Row.

Some bishops have fallen, thanks to the greed or vengefulness of their former partners. Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee and Bishop Thomas Dupre of Springfield, MA come to mind. Bishops Patrick Ziemann of Santa Rosa, CA and Daniel Ryan of Springfield, IL both resigned in 1999, the former trapped by a wired local priest whom the bishop had pressed for sex; the latter by consorting openly and recklessly with male prostitutes.

Those who must lie about their past to attain higher office, must live a lie thereafter. They are permanently susceptible to blackmail, and plainly there are much more bishops still sitting in their chanceries, nervously awaiting the phone call or the letter that could expose their hypocrisy and spell an end to their comfortable lives and their pretense of moral authority.**

 

[fix]

Brad:

Discounting one of several sources does not make the facts untrue. In general, Rose’s contention that we lost many a good potential priest because good, orthodox, seminarians were persecuted or kept out - is true. There are multiple sources that back this up, including personal witnesses. If you do not think there is coverup and that your average priest knows some things but is not interested in telling and risk having his reputation ruined, then you can continue to live in with a skewed perception. I would rather face reality and seek the reform in the Church that many are calling for.

Dissenters were working for their platform prior to Vatican II. Vatican II did not produce what they wanted. So they utilized the seminaries and their positions of power later (full bloom of dissent - late 70s to today) to give us a re-interpretation of the Vatican II documents to make it something other than what it really was. This created an atomosphere that allowed moral depravity to flourish, both in teaching and acting out, whether the teachers themselves were homosexuals or not.

If you do not think that blackmail is a tool that homosexuals and homosexual sympathizers in the Church use, again you are incorrect. You may not want to believe it but it is true. And, I would further suggest that those that promote homosexual depravity in the Church and use blackmail to maintain and increase their position are, at minimum, dissenters and often their moral teachings reflect this or they completely ignore the moral teaching by focusing solely on social justice.

Just another example, from Feb, 2005 issue of “New Oxford Review”:

**The American hierarchy is surely grateful for this turning of the blind eye. For there is much evidence that it has for years been corrupted by homosexual prelates, either actively or formerly so. Certain bishops at a minimum believe that the Church should abandon her opposition to homosexual conduct. In Amchurch Comes Out(2002), The Wanderer’s Paul Likoudis reported that a 1998 conference of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries held in Rochester, NY, showed that homosexual activists within the Church have the support of at least 58 bishops. Some have since been forced out by the glare of publicity.

Roman incompetence has played an important role in the scandal. The homosexual bishop of Palm Beach FL was driven from office and replaced by another homosexual, who was exposed in turn. At that point the Papal Nuncio in Washington DC should have been recalled. But the Papal Nuncio, who has been in office for six years, continues to give cocktail parties on Embassy Row.

Some bishops have fallen, thanks to the greed or vengefulness of their former partners. Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee and Bishop Thomas Dupre of Springfield, MA come to mind. Bishops Patrick Ziemann of Santa Rosa, CA and Daniel Ryan of Springfield, IL both resigned in 1999, the former trapped by a wired local priest whom the bishop had pressed for sex; the latter by consorting openly and recklessly with male prostitutes.

Those who must lie about their past to attain higher office, must live a lie thereafter. They are permanently susceptible to blackmail, and plainly there are much more bishops still sitting in their chanceries, nervously awaiting the phone call or the letter that could expose their hypocrisy and spell an end to their comfortable lives and their pretense of moral authority.**

Exactly why more “studies” are not needed. Rome deciding to clean house would be a good start, IMO. I am not in chrage, but most any Catholic can take a look at what has been going on for the past several decades and conclude that there is a greater problem in the Church than some homosexual priests abusing young males. Again, the abuse crisis is one symptom of a greater problem.

 

[Brad]

fix:

Exactly why more “studies” are not needed. Rome deciding to clean house would be a good start, IMO. I am not in chrage, but most any Catholic can take a look at what has been going on for the past several decades and conclude that there is a greater problem in the Church than some homosexual priests abusing young males. Again, the abuse crisis is one symptom of a greater problem.

On the positive end of things, the article also states that, despite the terrible problems a lack of willingness to discipline has caused, the episcopal appointments of new Bishops have been very good of late and that the US is not left to its own to come up with candidates - there is greater scrutiny from Rome. It looks like they are implementing half of the strategy.

 

[puzzleannie]

otm:

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.

well if they want to shed light on the issue they better begin now with a policy of transparency about these cases, and not wait for another study, or the justice system in Dallas, Cincinnati, Los Angeles and other jurisdictions with simmering scandals that are just beginning to break are ready to pop. Boston was the tip of the iceberg. You ain’t seen nothing yet. Why Americans, of all people, have not learned the lesson of their history, that the cover-up does more damage than the crime, is beyond me. I am as orthodox and traditional as any Catholic you will find outside a Tridentine Mass, but I am also charged with the duty to teach and protect children. For my money, a bishop who covered up the actions of abusive priests, allowed and encouraged them to continue their ministry and stay in contact with children and youth, is an accessory before and after the fact and deserves the full weight of legal consequences in the criminal justice system.

 

[otm]

Brad:

Discounting one of several sources does not make the facts untrue.

I may have ben short with my comment. I would refer you to the critique in the National Catholic Register, Rose’s response, and the Register’s response to his response. Rose could have been so much more effective had he done more careful research, documented his issues more clearly, and removed the polemical commentary. I.E., compare his style to George Weigel’s. I consider Weigel more devastating because he does not give the impression of axe grinding. I think Rose damages his own case by his tone and method. And even more so does mr. Likoudis.

Brad:

In general, Rose’s contention that we lost many a good potential priest because good, orthodox, seminarians were persecuted or kept out - is true. There are multiple sources that back this up, including personal witnesses. If you do not think there is coverup and that your average priest knows some things but is not interested in telling and risk having his reputation ruined, then you can continue to live in with a skewed perception.

I don’t know where you get that impression. I have relatives who are priests; I feel that I know as well as, if not better than you, about the cover-up. As a friend of mine said recently, "You’ve been talking about this since the 80’s.

Brad:

If you do not think that blackmail is a tool that homosexuals and homosexual sympathizers in the Church use, again you are incorrect. You may not want to believe it but it is true.

1. I don’t recall saying anything about blackmail. 2)I practiced law for 12 years. I am not a fool. 3) I am still waiting for a shoe to drop on Law. I have a hard time believing he was that stupid. And if he wasn’t stupid, then I can’t figure out what drove him to do what he did, unless he was so thoroughly insulated that he truly did not know.

Brad:

And, I would further suggest that those that promote homosexual depravity in the Church and use blackmail to maintain and increase their position are, at minimum, dissenters and often their moral teachings reflect this or they completely ignore the moral teaching by focusing solely on social justice.

I don’t call them dissenters. I call them criminals.

fix, above, insists that the cause of this is dissent. I say the cause of this is homosexuality. Some of the abusers are also dissenters, in that they dissent from other, core teachings of the church. Some of the abusers are not dissenters, just sinners. I am not willing to go down a road that comes mighty close with identifying dissenters as being homosexual.

I am really pushing this point. I can put up with hand-holding during the Our Father, and half-baked Scriptual analysis, and goofy eschatalogical thought a whole lot more than I can with sexual abuse of teenagers and pre-teens. Notice, I didn’t say “accept”. If we are going to clean up a problem, we need to be really clear-headed about what has caused the problem. The problem of sexual abuse of boys by priests wasn’t caused by a bunch of lonely, confused sort-of heterosexual priests. Calling them dissenters just muddies the waters with issues that don’t apply as a cause; they may occur together, and one may make the other easier to occur. The cause of dissent was not homosexuality - do you see Curran’s, or Kung’s, or O’Brien (Mc Brien? - the so-called theologian teaching at Notre Dame)'s name as an abuser? Likewise, the cause of homosexual abuse was not dissent. For crying out loud, we have cases going back to about 1930!

 

[Brad]

otm:

I may have ben short with my comment. I would refer you to the critique in the National Catholic Register, Rose’s response, and the Register’s response to his response. Rose could have been so much more effective had he done more careful research, documented his issues more clearly, and removed the polemical commentary. I.E., compare his style to George Weigel’s. I consider Weigel more devastating because he does not give the impression of axe grinding. I think Rose damages his own case by his tone and method. And even more so does mr. Likoudis.I don’t know where you get that impression. I have relatives who are priests; I feel that I know as well as, if not better than you, about the cover-up. As a friend of mine said recently, "You’ve been talking about this since the 80’s.

1. I don’t recall saying anything about blackmail. 2)I practiced law for 12 years. I am not a fool. 3) I am still waiting for a shoe to drop on Law. I have a hard time believing he was that stupid. And if he wasn’t stupid, then I can’t figure out what drove him to do what he did, unless he was so thoroughly insulated that he truly did not know.I don’t call them dissenters. I call them criminals.

fix, above, insists that the cause of this is dissent. I say the cause of this is homosexuality. Some of the abusers are also dissenters, in that they dissent from other, core teachings of the church. Some of the abusers are not dissenters, just sinners. I am not willing to go down a road that comes mighty close with identifying dissenters as being homosexual.

I am really pushing this point. I can put up with hand-holding during the Our Father, and half-baked Scriptual analysis, and goofy eschatalogical thought a whole lot more than I can with sexual abuse of teenagers and pre-teens. Notice, I didn’t say “accept”. If we are going to clean up a problem, we need to be really clear-headed about what has caused the problem. The problem of sexual abuse of boys by priests wasn’t caused by a bunch of lonely, confused sort-of heterosexual priests. Calling them dissenters just muddies the waters with issues that don’t apply as a cause; they may occur together, and one may make the other easier to occur. The cause of dissent was not homosexuality - do you see Curran’s, or Kung’s, or O’Brien (Mc Brien? - the so-called theologian teaching at Notre Dame)'s name as an abuser? Likewise, the cause of homosexual abuse was not dissent. For crying out loud, we have cases going back to about 1930!

I’m not saying you are a fool. I’m disagreeing with you. That does not make you nor I a fool.

Dissent has been going on well before 1930.

Just because all the abusers were not public dissenters does not mean that dissenters did not create an enviroment that allowed homosexuality to prosper in the seminaries.

This is clearly documented in Weigel’s (credible you say) source as well as Rose (uncredible not on facts you say but because his tone was not very nice) as well as Groeschel (you didn’t render judgement but I’d say he’s as credible as they come) as well as personal witnesses and my personal understanding of how things work. The Flynn commentary I quoted above is yet more evidence.

Because you don’t want to believe some resources because you don’t like their tone and because you don’t want to believe someone’s personal witnesses just because you have your own personal witnesses that haven’t confirmed the same type of experience and because you don’t know of some other resources are not good enough reasons to discount the assertion.

On top of all this, it is logical to deduce that dissenters (who promote change in the moral teachings of the Church) would be more open to homosexuality (active or otherwise) in priests than those that hold to the orthodox moral teaching of the Church as to what the purpose of sex and family is.

Finally, dissent is extraordinarily serious. You may not care if you get half-baked scripture. But I care when someone teachers that parts of scripture are a myth, St. Augstine and St. Paul are wrong, it is ok to question the Real Presence, Mary was no big deal, confession and prayers aren’t all that important, there is no hell and on and on and on. The people that buy into these “teachings” and live their lives around them run great risk of ending up in that place that the dissenter denies. This has been well documented by numerous saints in the Church.

 

[Brad]

So, you are right. Homosexuality and abuse have always been in the Church. Dissent has always been in the Church. One, at least indirectly, promotes and lifts up the other. They are both great works of Satan himself. And this makes sense. He strikes at the most key areas - those areas that mock the co-creation of life with God (debauchery) and those ares that minimize or eliminate relationships with Jesus Christ (dissent). I’m not saying all this propped up only in the 20th centurty. It’s happened throughout history. It’s wrong. It needs to be out of the Church.

 

[otm]

puzzleannie:

well if they want to shed light on the issue they better begin now with a policy of transparency about these cases, and not wait for another study, or the justice system in Dallas, Cincinnati, Los Angeles and other jurisdictions with simmering scandals that are just beginning to break are ready to pop. Boston was the tip of the iceberg. You ain’t seen nothing yet. Why Americans, of all people, have not learned the lesson of their history, that the cover-up does more damage than the crime, is beyond me. I am as orthodox and traditional as any Catholic you will find outside a Tridentine Mass, but I am also charged with the duty to teach and protect children. For my money, a bishop who covered up the actions of abusive priests, allowed and encouraged them to continue their ministry and stay in contact with children and youth, is an accessory before and after the fact and deserves the full weight of legal consequences in the criminal justice system.

AMEN!

As perverted as the sense of justice is inside the prisons, there is a clear sense as to child abusers; they are on the lowest rung of the social ladder. All of which may have had a lot to do with the murder of the priest, I think from Boston, who was killed by another inmate.God help the priest or bishop who is convicted, because no one else will.

I am all for a study, as long as it is done without the prejudices of that part of the secular scientific community which wants to champion homosexuality. I want a study that makes the issue so crystal clear that there is no where for the bishops to hide, no where to obfuscate, no where to run. Although I have much respect for many of the bishops, we still have a hierarchical structure that has been anything but transparent; that has lied to us and to the world directly both verbally and by act, which has shown something - either arrogance or downright stupidity, or both - to the point that they have lost respect and trust. It is almost the same as the violation of trust and respect that is caused by adultery.

Given the arrogance, hypocracy, incompetence, clericalism, paternalism - need I go on? - blind loyalty, authoritarianism, secrecy, abuse of power, crass stupidity, - are you getting the drift? - isolationism and(add your own description here) of a number of bishops, Cardinals, monsignors, bureaucrats in chanceries and dicasteries, I am perhaps less than assured that this issue is going to be resolved thoroughly. I do not agree with certain individuals -Cozzens among them, I believe - that we need a restructuring of the Church. However, it is our brothers and sisters, cousins, neighbors, and older relatives who have been harmed by the Church greviously, and our children who are at risk. I truly do not believe that unless there is something close to an uprising that some of these individuals will do what needs to be done: lead, follow, or get out of the way. I agree with fix that we need a house cleaning. But I feel that it must come from the layity to force this change; and if we are going to force this change, we need specific ammunition, and that, folks, is where the study comes in.

To those of you who think we need no study, how do you think we are going to put their feet to the fire? If Likoudis is to believed (and I am not sure I believe everthing he says), there are a number of bishops who not only don’t get it, but would go and have gone out of their way to slow down, obfuscate, derail, distract etc. any possible change to the status quo. It was not until the civil lawsuits began that any part of the Church seemed to smart up and start to do what they should have done decades ago - remove abusing priests.

Many bishops have failed us massively. I don’t want apologies. I want change. I don’t want a democratic Church; I want the Church of Christ. And until the bishops and Cardinals undergosome significant changes, the status quo will remain just that. I want leadership, but not one that tries to lead me by the nose.

 

[katherine2]

I appreciate your post, otm.

The laity need to do a better job at taking responsibility for fixign this mess. I recall an exchange, that might be overstatement:

A: The Church is not a democracy!

B: Of course not; in a democracy, you can vote out incompetent leaders. Tyrants have to be violently overthrown!

The above might go too far, but the people of Boston were right to run thier archbishop out of town on a rail (and let’s be honest, he didn’t resign, it was the modern equivalent of the peasents getting their pitchforks and storming the castle.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

katherine2:

I appreciate your post, otm.

The laity need to do a better job at taking responsibility for fixign this mess. I recall an exchange, that might be overstatement:

A: The Church is not a democracy!

B: Of course not; in a democracy, you can vote out incompetent leaders. Tyrants have to be violently overthrown!

The above might go too far, but the people of Boston were right to run thier archbishop out of town on a rail (and let’s be honest, he didn’t resign, it was the modern equivalent of the peasents getting their pitchforks and storming the castle.

Thank you!

 

[fix]

katherine2:

I appreciate your post, otm.

The laity need to do a better job at taking responsibility for fixign this mess. I recall an exchange, that might be overstatement:

A: The Church is not a democracy!

B: Of course not; in a democracy, you can vote out incompetent leaders. Tyrants have to be violently overthrown!

The above might go too far, but the people of Boston were right to run thier archbishop out of town on a rail (and let’s be honest, he didn’t resign, it was the modern equivalent of the peasents getting their pitchforks and storming the castle.

A few times I have mentioned I have read that in days of old folks grabbed their torches and pitchforks to run out a bad bishop. I was told, by the libs, that would be disobedient.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

fix:

A few times I have mentioned I have read that in days of old folks grabbed their torches and pitchforks to run out a bad bishop. I was told, by the libs, that would be disobedient.

Off the top of my head, in Spain between 1868 and the time of Franco, the Jesuits were kicked out of the country several times for their political activism. Source: THE GRANDEES by Robert (or ? Again, this is off the top of my head).

Big Ooooops I just verified the author: ‘THE GRANDEES: America’s Sephardic Elite’ by Stephen Birmingham!

 

[fix]

Kevin Walker:

Off the top of my head, in Spain between 1868 and the time of Franco, the Jesuits were kicked out of the country several times for their political activism. Source: THE GRANDEES by Robert (or ? Again, this is off the top of my head).

Big Ooooops I just verified the author: ‘THE GRANDEES: America’s Sephardic Elite’ by Stephen Birmingham!

I was implying, to K2, that today we should reconsider some wisdom from the past and run out the bishops who fail to Shepherd, or allow serious error to go uncorrected.

 

[condan]

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.

Absolutely. John Wayne Gacy put himself in close proximity with young boys as did Scout Leaders. The only difference between John Wayne Gacy and a Paul Shanley/John Geoghan is that Gacy murdered his victims and hid them in the crawl space.

The Boy Scouts have recoginized the dangerous atmosphere that a homosexual presents and has therefore barred them from participating as leaders in their organization. The result is that they have been pilloried. Yet, at the same time, the Catholic church has been pilloried for NOT taking this same type of action. It is a classic case of social schizophrenia brought on by our collective fear of being called bigoted, intolerant, closed-minnded, religious right-wing zealots. We all know the cause of the problem. Now we need to address it. Swiftly, decisively and permanently.

 

[Fitz]

I think the church should study what happened, but I wonder something. Perhaps someone in this discussion knows the answer. What is the rate of other adult men in positions of power and authority (Boy Scout leaders, Protestant ministers, male teachers in high schools, etc.) involved in scandals as compared to Catholic priests? I had read at one time in a Sunday Chicago Tribune Magazine that Priests actually make up a small percentage of males that have abused children. I know this person was a psychiatrist and this was written several years ago. I imagine that others might have read similar articles. I am not trying to condone anything for it breaks my heart that this is dividing the church and that children were abused. However, if we studied the bigger picture perhaps it would say something about our whole culture at the time this happened. This is not in the way of providing excuses, but to provide us a framework for which to understand it.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Fitz:

I think the church should study what happened, but I wonder something. Perhaps someone in this discussion knows the answer. What is the rate of other adult men in positions of power and authority (Boy Scout leaders, Protestant ministers, male teachers in high schools, etc.) involved in scandals as compared to Catholic priests? I had read at one time in a Sunday Chicago Tribune Magazine that Priests actually make up a small percentage of males that have abused children. I know this person was a psychiatrist and this was written several years ago. I imagine that others might have read similar articles. I am not trying to condone anything for it breaks my heart that this is dividing the church and that children were abused. However, if we studied the bigger picture perhaps it would say something about our whole culture at the time this happened. This is not in the way of providing excuses, but to provide us a framework for which to understand it.

Hi,

I don’t have statistics or articles on this question, but in Boston there have been scandals on an individual basis with Little League Coaches; Hockey Coaches; Boy’s Club managers; Camp Counselors; Boy Scout & Cub Scout masters; both male & female school gym teachers; and Policemen. But all these were rapidly taken care of with the offender quickly being fired and charges brought, and not with the massive volumes of molestation or cover -up as occuring within the Church.

 

[condan]

Fitz:

I think the church should study what happened, but I wonder something. Perhaps someone in this discussion knows the answer. What is the rate of other adult men in positions of power and authority (Boy Scout leaders, Protestant ministers, male teachers in high schools, etc.) involved in scandals as compared to Catholic priests? I had read at one time in a Sunday Chicago Tribune Magazine that Priests actually make up a small percentage of males that have abused children. I know this person was a psychiatrist and this was written several years ago. I imagine that others might have read similar articles. I am not trying to condone anything for it breaks my heart that this is dividing the church and that children were abused. However, if we studied the bigger picture perhaps it would say something about our whole culture at the time this happened. This is not in the way of providing excuses, but to provide us a framework for which to understand it.

Priests do actually make up a smaller percentage of sexual abusers as compared to other denominations, occupations (esp. teachers), Scout Leaders, etc. I believe the Catholic League has stats on their website.

 

[swampfox]

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.

And your evidence for this claim is what?