Posted on 11/16/2006 9:54:57 AM PST by presidio9
The US Roman Catholic Church has asked a criminology school to delve into the darkest pages of its history by probing the causes of a priest sex abuse scandal.
At a meeting due to end Thursday in the eastern city of Baltimore, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops voted to disburse 335,000 dollars to fund the first three phases of a study by New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
"It will be a groundbreaking study, never done before in the US, nor in the world," Bishop Gregory Aymond, who chairs the Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People, told AFP.
"We don't know what would come out of it, but we are going to tell the truth," said Aymond, of Austin, Texas.
In 2002, the John Jay College of Criminal Justice had made a list of complaints and pedophilia cases in the US Catholic Church since 1985, when one of the first scandals came to light with the case of a Louisiana priest.
The university will now look into the "social and historical context" of sex abuse to see if such cases are more frequent in the Church than in the rest of society, notably in schools and youth clubs, Aymond said.
The Church wants to "look at what is unique" in the priest sex abuse crisis, he said.
The first part of the study would be completed in 2008 and made public, although the names of suspected priests would be omitted.
In the second part, the university will evaluate the Church leadership's response to sex abuse cases.
"We want to see where we failed and made some mistakes, and learn from those who handled it well," Aymond said.
The study will also paint a psychological profile of pedophiliac priests by reviewing cases in treatment centers.
The review will aim to show "to what extent is a priest sexual abuser profile the same as the psychological profile of the non-priests who are sex offenders," Aymond said.
The university will also interview abuse victims and examine education at seminaries over the decades.
The majority of priests accused of sex abuse were trained in the 1960s and 1970s in seminaries where psychological tests and sexuality education have since been introduced.
A final phase of the study will make proposals on how to prevent sex abuse and help victims.
"Our goal is to ascertain the causes of the clergy sexual abuse crisis and if we need to change any method we have now," said Teresa Kettlekamp, the executive director of the bishops conference's Office of Child and Youth Protection, which was created in 2002, in the wake of the sex abuse scandal.
But the study would also be useful to schools and youth groups, Church officials said.
"The pathology of abusing children isn't unique; it's a societal problem," Kettlekamp said.
"We are hoping it will be a big, big help to the society in general," she said.
No- I ask him to his face if he is homosexual.
How is that more shameful than a man violating his vows and pretending to be what he is not-a legitimately consecrated priest?
And what is wrong with shaming THEM??
Certainly they have brought untold shame upon the priesthood and the Church.
"The cause...in a word....CELIBACY!"
I think my response to your post is: Yes and no.
I believe that the demands of a totally celibate priesthood is a contributing factor, though not a direct cause.
I think that the uni-sexual, totally celibate peer-environment can contribute to conditions that fail in the challenges of celibacy; challenges and failures that are not just of the "homosexual" variety.
I think the Catholic Church must search for some prime conditions that contribute to the "sexual failures" in the priesthood in general, and when it does it will learn some lessons that apply to all such failures and not just the "homosexual" variety.
I find it interesting that, in a completely opposite fashion from the historically-late celibacy restriction in Catholicism, many Jewish conventions require that one who wihses to become a Rabbi and who studies to become a Rabbi must first be married before they are allowed to practice as a Rabbi. Single persons cannot be Rabbis in traditional Jewish conventions.
My alzheimers-riddled memory also seems to recall some reference (somewhere, unconfirmed) that many or most of Yeshua's 12 diciples as well as the apostles known to Paul were married, not celibate.
It is also my recollection that the prime-cause behind the rule that required celibacy was that prior to that rule many priests and bishops were passing-on their positions (and control of the related property) to their male heirs, at the expense of real merit of those most qualified.
In my musings I wonder if, possibly, the celibacy rule was one of those proverbial "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" decisions, in which the attempt to correct an organizational corruption helped create an environment that contributed to a moral corruption.
Obfuscation is a prime tactic in the culture war. They want to think the homosexual priests prefer little boys to teenagers though the evidence shows otherwise. So like a good defence attorney they try to deflect the jury's attention from the facts.
The problem was that when after Vatican II there was an emptying of the seminaries and an abandonment of the priesthood by many already ordained,
the bishops lowered their standards and took in men who earlier would have been rejected.
You have a point. I feel pedophiles are attracted to the church - it's not that spiritual men are compromised - it's that sociopathic individules see the church and it's members as easy marks. Here's my list:
Pedophiles are attracted to the Church because they will have:
1. easy access to children
2. authority over children
3. authority over gullible parents
4. a free place to live
5. maid service, free travel, free rent
6. easy job
7. When caught, the Church will protect and "forgive"
8. People of faith are easy to play for fools.
9. The ability to preach that "tolerance of evil" is good.
Pedophiles are also attracted to being camp counselors for the following reasons. They have:
1. easy access to children
2. authority over children
3. some authority over gullible parents
4. lower educational requirement than becoming a priest
5. salary and benefits
Pedophiles are also attracted to being Ministers and Teachers for the following reasons. They have:
1. easy access to children
2. authority over children
3. some authority over gullible parents
4. lower educational requirement than becoming a priest
5. salary and benefits
The Catholic Church needs to get it's head out of the sand and fire people who condone evil. Or preach for acceptance of evil.
You are correct on all points-BUT-
If there was never another child/teen accosted by a homosexual priest, would that end it? Would homosexual priests be ok?
Would homosexual priests having sex with other adult men, and other priests be ok?
Victimizing minors is the ultimate sickness- no argument- but I don't want Catholic priests fornicating with lay men or each other.
The VOW of celibacy was taken and should be lived up to. It means NO SEX. With anyone- or anything. Period. Not just 'no sex with minors'- no sex!
Whether or not the requirement of celibacy is right, or should stand, is up for argument here.
THAT it is a vow that was willingly taken is not. And any priest that took it, KNOWING he never had any intention of fulfilling it, is not a valid priest IMO.
As long as celibacy( no sex with anyone) is a requirement, you obey it or you get out.
If it changes- homosexuals as priests would still be an abomination.
'They' didn't want responsibility for wife and children, to feed and house them.
Can't recall if that was the host or a caller. That's my short-term memory at 60.
Once the vow of celibacy is taken they should be no less trustworthy than a heterosexual man.
You and your ilk creep me out.
I'm sure a homosexual is capable of loving God and doing his work just as well as a heterosexual.
It's the vice of choosing to impose power over children we're talking about.
My point simply was that by requiring celibacy the pool shrinks.
I have been told this also....i don't have proof but it does not suprise me.
Google velvet mafia.
Especially those outfits that allow SIN to exist in their ranks and all they do is TALK about it!
Well....
I feel that I am kinda unique!
Unfortunately; this is how many get their ideas about 'religion'.
Can't argue with THAT bottom line!
Likewise...
You wouldn't believe all of the people in my church who were born and raised in it, went to Sunday School all their lives and still seemingly don't have the basics of the Faith in their lives!
Paul was a "young man" when they stoned St. Stephen. There is no indication anywhere in scripture or oral tradition that he had a wife.
It would seem this way, but I wonder....
NIV Acts 7:55-60
55. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
56. "Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."
57. At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him,
58. dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.
59. While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
60. Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep.NIV Acts 8:1-3
1. And Saul was there, giving approval to his death. On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem,and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.
2. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him.
3. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.
But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. "Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep. And Saul was there, giving approval to his death. On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison. |
Could there have been TWO Sauls???
I mean, a 'young Saul' was mentioned just a line or two before the phrase 'and Saul was there' - why the need to restate what was just said?
Perhaps the 'young man' adjective was to differenciate between the two?
GROAN!
But, were there 2-3 witnesses as REQUIRED by Scripture?
I think you have hit the nail on the head, and I would like to go a bit further. It seems to me that once there are a few homosexuals in an organization, they seem to attract and select more homosexuals to join. A well-known example of this is the New York Times editorial and reporting ranks.
I have also been struck by the increasing numbers of gays serving as aides in Congress.
Another example is the Episopal Church, which is not only increasingly filled with gay clergy but has even elevated a practicing homosexual to a high position.
What I do not know is whether this is simply an instinctive discrimination in favor of gays by those who prefer to be with people who think as they do, or whether it is an actual plot by the gays and the left, weird as that seems. The increased pressure for recognizing same-sex marriages and such in the mainline Protestant denominations certainly makes me wonder.
At any rate, I am interested in this investigation, and think it money well spent. If the investigation can identify seminaries that are screening out straight men, groups of homosexuals who are working from within the Church for their own ends, or poor practices in reviewing seminary applicants, it will be a good thing.
So, like Rush has pointed out, if we've never had (whatever the problem is) we are not allowed to talk about it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.