(no subject)

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

http://articles.philly.com/2011-02-11/news/28350535_1_abuse-allegations-grand-jury-report-archdiocesan-priests

Archdiocesan leaders in Philadelphia have been raked over the coals by a new report out stating that very little has changed in the way the Church deals with priests suspected of molesting kids.

The review board designated to hear abuse allegations routinely ignored evidence substantiating those claims, the grand jurors contended. And at least 41 priests were left in active posts around the region after being accused of inappropriate behavior or abuse of minors.

"The evidence presented before us indicates that the Archdiocese continues to engage in practices that mislead victims, that violate their trust, that hinders prosecution of their abusers, and that leave large numbers of credibly accused priests in ministry," the report stated.


I'm not really surprised by this, but it's still kinda incredible that the Church just doesn't seem to be learning ANYTHING from recent years. Every time something like this happens it ruins any credibility the Church has built in a community, especially one where this has been a problem before. Moving pedo priests around is akin to trying to deal with cancer by giving it a good scolding.

The only real good coming out of all this is that people seem to be keeping a close eye on the Church and taking them to task for their failings. I'm guessing it's going to take a lot more painful lessons before the church gets that they're really going to have to start doing things a new way.

Letting priests marry would help a lot. It's one of the main things keeping men out of the priesthood. Which tends to leave the alter boy lovers filling in more of the ranks. But I'm not Catholic so I suppose that's easy for me to say.

Comments

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I have absolutely no data for this so I could be wrong on this point, but I *think* the instances of pedophiles in the Catholic ranks aren't really higher than your average town. i.e. no need to change letting them marry.

The issue is how the church is dealing with the problem. Protecting it and acting as a shelter for pedophelia definitely encourages it and is just downright unjust and a wicked thing to do.

[kgbman.livejournal.com]

You're pretty much correct. A child is just as likely, if not more so, to be sexually molested by a public school teacher than a Catholic priest. The real problem, as you said, is how the bishops handled the abuse cases.

I would just tweak one point: strictly speaking, it's not "pedophiles" the Church has been dealing with. 81% of the abuse victims were post-pubescent boys. A few years ago the Church repeated its traditional teaching that homosexuals are to be barred from ordination, but that was largely ignored by seminary faculty and roundly condemned by the secular press.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Ok, that is a good point. I don't know off the top of my head the concise term for people who abuse their position of authority to sexually molest those younger than them though. Lesters I guess.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"A few years ago the Church repeated its traditional teaching that homosexuals are to be barred from ordination..."

Did it? Isn't the traditional teaching that homosexuality is a species of act rather than a species of person, and that the priestly call to celibacy excludes heterosexual acts alongside homosexual acts? Conversely, the language of recent church publications has leaned uncharacteristically towards a conception of homosexuality as a species of person, and have suggested the theological innovation that a celibate priest can nonetheless be engaged in a sin of sexual behaviour because they're the wrong kind of person. Such a suggestion would surely earn the opposition of seminary faculty who ought rightly to be wary of such an innovative and modernizing theology of sexuality. (The concern of the secular press is probably a different one, as they tend to accept this theory of sexuality in principle.)

Perhaps more to the point-- in what sense is this a relevant direction to take the conversation? Is the problem here homosexuality? It seems not to be. A Catholic priest engaging in sex with a girl or woman (which happens with a non-trivial frequency) is surely just as much a violation of the priestly vow as if the sex were with a boy or man. And a Catholic priest engaging in sex with a minor is equally an offense against secular morality regardless of the minor's sex (which, again, is female in a non-trivial proportion of cases).

Moreover, as you and others have rightly noted, "the real problem [..] is how the bishops handled the abuse cases." So how would any relevant problem be solved by barring homosexuals from ordination, even setting aside the troubled questions of the theology of sexuality raised by such an injunction?

[kgbman.livejournal.com]

The relevant document can be found here: (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html)

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture"

Homosexual acts have always and everywhere been taught by the Church to be gravely sinful. The orientation is described by the current Catechism as "objectively disordered."

So how would any relevant problem be solved by barring homosexuals from ordination

Heterosexual men are, other things being equal, much less likely to sexually molest teenage boys than homosexual men.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"Homosexual acts have..."

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or objecting to me. I introduced a distinction between homosexuality as a species of act and homosexuality as a species of person, I alleged that the church has historically tended to articulate a theology of sexuality which emphasized the former position, and on this ground I objected to what seemed to be an emphasis on the latter position in your remark and the sources you referred to.

"Heterosexual men are, other things being equal, much less likely to sexually molest teenage boys than homosexual men."

Setting aside the questions here about the theology/theory of sexuality, the priestly vow isn't violated when teenage boys are sexually molested per se, but rather when sexual acts occur regardless of the sex of those involved. It's a mistake to make the problem with celibacy into a problem with homosexuality.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Heterosexual men are, other things being equal, much less likely to sexually molest teenage boys than homosexual men.

You're going to need a citation for that one bro.

In 82% of cases (222/269), the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child. Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community.


So there you go. Homosexuals are as likely to abuse as heterosexuals. Given that there are far more heterosexuals than homosexuals, most children are abused by straight men.


Going to treat the rest of your "statistics" with the same amount of credence. (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/1/41)

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

He didn't say homosexuals are more likely to molest. He said that most of the molestation have been homosexual in nature.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

or support the so-called "gay culture"

Wow. So, even if your nice to that part of the community, you're fucked.

Screw that noise. Haters.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Letting priests marry would help a lot.

No, it wouldn't help at all.


It's one of the main things keeping men out of the priesthood. Which tends to leave the alter boy lovers filling in more of the ranks.

So what's the excuse for teachers?
Facts, do you know them? (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201003/six-important-points-you-dont-hear-about-regarding-clergy-sexual-abus)

But I'm not Catholic so I suppose that's easy for me to say.

I suppose so.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

They have a few small problems with their list:

5. Almost all of clergy sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church that we hear about in the news are from decades ago (usually the 1960's and 70's).

This part is true; however:

Some argue that more recent victims (i.e., since the mid 1980's) just haven't come forward yet. Perhaps that is true but thus far no published data supports this theory.

No published data contradicts it either, so they should not be implying the assertion they are implying.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

In the end, the clergy will be allowed to marry to stop the church dying due to a lack of clergy, not anything to do with abuse. Depends on how long they can keep importing priests from the third world.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I disagree. It will never happen. It's contrary to fundamental doctrine.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

It's not actually. There are in fact Catholic priests who are married. The celibacy of the clergy is an aspect of the Latin Rite rather than fundamental doctrine.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/897139.html?thread=68206963#t68206963

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

Yes, and you're mistaken, there are in fact Catholic priests who are married. The celibacy of the clergy is, etc.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

As far as I'm aware, the only RCC priests who are married are ones who were ordained as Orthodox and then crossed over later and are allowed to remain married.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

While there are special dispensations for some Latin rite priests, a Catholic priest of any other rite is free to marry, as the celibacy of the clergy is an aspect of the Latin rite rather than fundamental doctrine.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Just out of curiosity, do you ever get worked up about anything else but religion, philosophy and the church?

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

I never get worked up about anything, it's all the yoga and chamomile.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

isn't this enough ?

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

I was trying to be nice.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Oh , you *were* nice - I should have used a smiley.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

You do realize that doctrine =/=dogma, right? I'm sorry I used the term fundamental, maybe that's what's confusing you, but it is a primary piece of doctrine for the RCC.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

I'm not confused, you are just mistaken. The celibacy of the priests is an element of the Latin rite nor of Catholic doctrine, and Catholic priests of other rites can marry.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I said that already.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

You said that Catholic priests can marry? I must have missed that. Oh well, I'm glad we have a consensus on the issue and agree that Catholic priests can marry.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/897139.html?thread=68327027#t68327027

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

Under that link you say "[clergy being allowed to marry] will never happen for the RCC." This is surely the exact opposite of what you just finished claiming you've said. Or does RCC stand for something other than the Catholic church?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

RCC is the Roman Catholic Church, which is the Latin Rite, which we just agreed does not allow for married priests, with the exception of those "transferring in". I believe that situation will not ever change.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"RCC is the Roman Catholic Church..."

Right. So you see how we are saying different things, right?

Me: RCC ordains married priests.
You: RCC doesn't ordain married priests.

"...which is the Latin Rite..."

No, it's not. Latin Rite Christianity is neither limited to nor exhausted by Catholicism. There are both non-Latin Rite Catholics and Latin Rite non-Catholics.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Me: RCC ordains married priests.
You: RCC doesn't ordain married priests.

And you are wrong on this point.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MARPRIE.htm
Finally, concerning married Episcopalian clergy becoming Catholic priests, "the Holy See has specified that this exception to the rule of celibacy is granted in favor of these individual persons, and should not be understood as implying any change in the Church's conviction of the value of priestly celibacy, which will remain the rule for future candidates for the priesthood from this group."

And whether there is Latin Rite groups outside of the RCC isn't relevant to the point, as I'm only talking about the RCC.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"And you are wrong on this point."

Well one of us probably us. My guess is that it's the one who hasn't bothered looking into this, doesn't know what they're talking about, and doesn't regularly work with married Catholic clergy. But hey, I'm always one for surprise endings.

"http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MARPRIE.htm"

Why are you linking me about Latin rite priests?

"And whether there is Latin Rite groups outside of the RCC isn't relevant to the point, as I'm only talking about the RCC."

Yes, it is relevant to the point, since you falsely declared that Latin rite and Catholicism are the same thing. This is the basis of your error: knowing that Latin rite priests cannot marry without special dispensation, and falsely believing that Catholicism and Latin rite are the same thing, you've falsely concluded that Catholic priests cannot marry without special dispensation.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Yes, it is relevant to the point, since you falsely declared that Latin rite and Catholicism are the same thing.

No, I didn't. Your entire comment here seems to betray a reading comprehension problem on your side.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

Oh, so you agree that Catholic priests can be married without special dispensation. It sure doesn't seem like it, but hey maybe I have a reading comprehension problem. In any case, I am glad we have come to a consensus and all agree that Catholic priests can marry.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

so you agree that Catholic priests can be married without special dispensation.

Yes, however, Roman Catholic priests cannot become priests if they are married without a special dispensation. If they are already priests before they become Roman Catholic, then they don't need the dispensation. The link I gave you explained it pretty clearly.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

Althougn, for shits and giggles:

gunslnger: "RCC is the Roman Catholic Church, which is the Latin Rite."
anosognosia: "you falsely declared that Latin rite and Catholicism are the same thing"
gunslnger: "No, I didn't. Your entire comment here seems to betray a reading comprehension problem on your side."

Ok ok, my bad. You didn't say "Latin rite and Catholicism are the same thing." What you said is that the former "is" the latter. And of course what does "is" mean?

DURRR.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

There's an errant "the" in there before "Latin Rite", sorry.

As for what "is" means, "A is B" does not imply "B is A".

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

and the C of E ones too...
Oh, wow. If I was a preist and was celibate, but then a bunch of anglican clerics came in b/coz they didn't like women being ordained, and managed to become catholic preists and keep their wives too - i guess I would be miffed to say the least. Stiill, sexixt priests and a corrupt Church , they deserve each other and I hope that the influx of anglicans will do niether side any good. A plague on both their houses, I say.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

To be more specific, it will never happen for the RCC. The Orthodox Church allows it, so maybe we'll see a return to Orthodox Catholicism over time.

[dukexmachismo.livejournal.com]

If God didn't want altar boys to be molested, He wouldn't have made the Pope infallible.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

But it's a Church. You criticize a Church and you're a damned bomb-throwing radical who doesn't appreciate the true benefits that Christianity brings and that it's the religion of civilization.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

1. Celibacy isn't really part of the problem, but it always gets major airtime from a mainstream media that routinely grossly misunderstands Catholic doctrine, discipline, and practice; I seem to remember seeing a statistic that stated married heterosexual men were by far the demographic producing the most child abusers. Back in 1990, a study revealed that of 190 criminal cases involving clergy who molested children in 1988-89, 58% were Protestant ministers. (source (http://ffrf.org/news/timely-topics/epidstudy/)). But just going from mainstream news stories, you'd think that all the abusers were closet-gay Catholic priests.

2. Now, obviously (if y'all have read my comments :P) I don't jive with the Church's ongoing epic gay panic, but that's an issue for another day and might not fit in here, I think.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

The study I found confirms your beliefs. See above.