|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
|
Posted on 01/16/2003 2:37:51 PM PST by attagirl
CATHOLIC CHURCH ADVISED TO SUE 'SEX-EXPERTS' WHO COUNSELLED PEDOPHILE PRIESTS
NEW YORK, January 14, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Dr. Judith Reisman, Ph. D., the researcher who uncovered the fraud underpinning the field of sexology created by Dr. Alfred Kinsey, has advised the Catholic Church to sue the so-called sex "experts" who advised the Bishops and allegedly "treated" sex abuser priests. An article by the Catholic Citizens of Illinois and The Wanderer Press points out that Reisman believes that the 'treatments' given to predator priests in Kinsey-inspired therapy sessions were so grossly ineffective, that the Catholic Church and the victims of clerical sexual abuse have a legal claim against these sex clinics for medical malpractice.
As LifeSite has previously reported, Reisman's research revealed that Kinsey used pedophiles to come up with data on sex experiences of children aged two and under. Moreover, Kinsey used data from prostitutes and prisoners and extrapolated the results to the general populace. His research, relatively recently debunked by Reisman, was the spur to the devastating Sexual Revolution of the Sixties.
Dr. Reisman noted that, "the members of the Catholic Church have a unique opportunity during this catastrophic challenge to help the entire nation to pull itself out of the very tragic place it has fallen into." In addition to a catastrophic loss of faith within the Church hierarchy, the hidden source of the current child sexual abuse scandal "is the constant stream of immorality in the media and popular culture that has polluted the nation and the Church. The main source of the sexual scandal today is Dr. Kinsey's sexual revolution."
Dr. Reisman is currently consulting with several attorneys regarding class action suits whereby the Catholic laity can seek damages from such sex therapists. Moreover she has developed a proposal mapping out the legal strategy for suing the "treatment centers" that accepted predatory priests fraudulently promising to rehabilitate them, which has been submitted to Pope John Paul II.
Reisman noted that legal precedence for culpability of therapists for fraudulent malpractice has already established by a $5.7 million award in 1984 against one such center, which had established a record for treating and releasing sexual predators who continued to prey on children after they had been allegedly "cured."
Finally, Dr. Reisman warns that the influence of Kinsey's fraudulent research pervade society and even the Church. She notes that Catholic school sex-education classes and seminary training on sexual matters are often products of Kinsey's followers. Regrettably, even some of the advisors which were appointed to the oversight board regarding the recent sexual abuse scandal are adherents of Kinsey.
See the full coverage at: http://www.catholiccitizens.org/press/pressview.asp?c=3540
|
|
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
|
Dr. Reisman is right on, and she is a hero for saying what our Church's leaders cannot find even an ounce of moral courage to say. The Church leaders, the molestors and the psycho-psychologists should all have a heavy price to bear for the unGodly and disgusting things they caused and caused to happen. Our Church leaders are like timid mice skittering around aften someone lifted the roof off of the mousehole.
Maybe all that stuff in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 has no application today. Or -- wait, I got it -- if Paul had any idea about the magnitude of the financial woes of the Church in 2003, he would make an exception. Yeah, I'm sure that's it.
Otherwise, if the Bishops did seek and follow the advice of worldly unbelievers, they got what was coming to them.
As for the 1Cor6 passage: I take it you have no problem when the defendant is the Church itself. So why not the plaintiff? Protestant denominations seek no redress in court for bad services rendered?
The Church is human as well as divine, and decision-makers got snookered. Or maybe they consciously did this.
As a matter of fact they did use worldly "experts". They turned to Freudians and other such charlatans.
Otherwise, if the Bishops did seek and follow the advice of worldly unbelievers, they got what was coming to them.
They sure did.
At the same time they went to these people to seek medical advice and were given what they wanted to hear (that these filth could be reformed) when in fact they cannot be.
A psychiatrist who sends a patient out into the world knowing full well that theya re a danger to children deserves to be punished.
As does a bishop.
Whoa, don't get your panties in a bunch. ;-) Perhaps my point was lost on you. I thought it would be obvious from the last sentence of my post: "if the Bishops did seek and follow the advice of worldly unbelievers, [that changes everything. In that case, they were (a) incredibly stupid, (b) criminally (in the eternal sense) reckless or negligent in tending the flock, or (c) intended to do harm. In any event,] they got what was coming to them." Believers shouldn't turn to the world for advice on spiritual matters (such as pedophiliacs in the leadership).
As for the 1Cor6 passage: I take it you have no problem when the defendant is the Church itself. So why not the plaintiff? Protestant denominations seek no redress in court for bad services rendered?
Well, since 1Cor6 appears to specifically apply to believers hauling each other into court, ... I can assure you I would under NO circumstances EVER sue my church, and I have no doubt the reverse is also true.
Again, "if the Bishops did seek and follow the advice of worldly unbelievers [and, you seem to be assuming they did], they got what was coming to them." In other words, when believers take their church problems to the sons of Satan in search of his advice, the believers shouldn't be surprised when that advice turns out to be faulty.
We must accept the fact that the world does not -- will not, cannot -- have the best interests of the church at heart, even when it appears otherwise. Seeking redress in the courts of the unjust is just another in a series of ridiculous but serious gaffes.
Thank you, wideawake, for your willingness to see my post in the light it was intended, and for taking the time to mention it.
Another way of putting it is that the Catholic Church does not use the same hermeneutical tools that you do when you read Scripture. As far as you're concerned, your interpretation of Scripture, and what you take away from Scripture, is the only Scriptural advice that exists or has value.
This sounds like a cheapshot but it is not intended to be.
Then you shouldn't be offended when I say that it seems to a Catholic that fundamental Protestants interpret Scripture in a choppy, limited way.
It is based on Marianism
The emphasis on Mary as the signal witness to the humanity of the Risen Lord is based on the Catholic interpretation of what the Bible says about sin and grace and human nature.
Since the Catholic position on sin is different from the Lutheran/Calvinist concept of total depravity there is one disconnect.
Since the Catholic position of the effect of original sin on the will differs from the Lutheran/Calvinist position on human nature, there is a second disconnect.
Since the Catholic position on Christ's free grace is different from the Calvinist position on irresistible grace, there is a third disconnect.
and priest celebacy
There are two things to remember about celibacy in the Catholic Church.
(1) It is a matter of discipline, not of doctrine. As a discipline it applies only to priests of the Latin Rite. There are many Catholic priests in good standing of Byzantine, Melkite and other rites who are not celibate.
(2) St. Paul is quite clear about the value and desirability of this particular discipline for Christ's Church. It has a firm Scriptural basis.
and the weakness of the Lord Jesus Christ in their salvation plan
I'm not sure what this is in reference to. Is it to the Protestant view that the Church Christ created and of which He is the Head is some kind of impediment or hindrance standing between the believer and the Lord?
Or is it a reference to the fact that the Church does not necessarily condemn nonbelievers to Hell?
If it's the latter the Church's belief is simple. If anyone is ever saved, it is through the free gift of Christ. Christ may choose, in His sovereign power to show mercy to unbelievers. The Church does not believe that Christ's power is limited in any way - so the Church affirms Christ's strength and rejects any attribution of weakness to Him.
When a Protestant denomination is infiltrated by leftists who denigrate traditional doctrine and introduce New Age heresies, the impulse of the traditional Protestant is to (a) challenge the innovators and (b) if the innovators do not change their ways they are willing to split their congregation and conduct their affairs separately from the innovators.
This has happened to the Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists and other denominations in this country.
The Catholic impulse is that excommunication on a scale amounting to schism is an absolute last resort. As a result, the Catholic Church in America is riddled with heretics, innovators and to a lesser extent even moral degenerates. At this point, the largest portion of bishops in America are weak men who will go along with current fashions and the second largest percentage are evil men who are pushing heresy and degeneracy on the Church.
There is a small core of bishops, priests and laity who are fighting a rearguard action and who are greatly outnumbered and outgunned in worldly terms. But we hope in the Lord and we will continue fighting.
This is not really another way to put it. It suggests that we are discussing doctrines that the bible defines as being "difficult" or not clear. Some doctrines fall into this category and some surely do not. If it weren't so than there could be no heretic.
Then you shouldn't be offended when I say that it seems to a Catholic that fundamental Protestants interpret Scripture in a choppy, limited way.
No not at all. But that has been said by many very liberal bible interpreters too. They want to set the bible aside and start looking for loopholes and things left out.
The emphasis on Mary as the signal witness to the humanity of the Risen Lord is based on the Catholic interpretation of what the Bible says about sin and grace and human nature.
I disagree. And even if the intention can be painted as positive, you can't change the truth or the meaning of the scriptures to make it more marketable.
There are two things to remember about celibacy in the Catholic Church.
(1) It is a matter of discipline, not of doctrine. As a discipline it applies only to priests of the Latin Rite. There are many Catholic priests in good standing of Byzantine, Melkite and other rites who are not celibate.
I'm sorry but this is just a bit of mumbo jumbo. Most RC "Priests" are celebate and can't be priests otherwise. The exceptions are few and are recently coming under focus.
(2) St. Paul is quite clear about the value and desirability of this particular discipline for Christ's Church. It has a firm Scriptural basis.
He is also quite clear about it's value for elders. Elders MUST BE THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE. RC misuse of the word and title of priest blurs this though.
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.