Posted on 04/07/2011 11:42:06 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan is again defending the Catholic Church's response to the sex abuse scandal.
Appearing on CBS' "60 Minutes," Dolan said he believed the church's reaction to the sex scandal was rigorous and strong.
He said the acts themselves and the decades-long cover-up are hard for him to bear or understand.
"In some ways, I don't want it to be over because this was such a crisis in the Catholic Church that in a way we don't want to get over it to easily. This needs to haunt us," said Dolan. "Those were very powerful moments that you don't forget."
The archbishop says he supports the church's current stances against women priests and same-sex marriage, but he would like to change the perception that the church is "cold."
It’s a shame the archbishop wasn’t on the receiving end of one of his queer priests. I’d love to see if he still would support it.
On the other hand, two-thirds of all bishops in the US were guilty of shuffling abusive priests around from one parish to another, without warning the parishioners. It comes with ill grace for bishops to be deploring the behavior of the priests. They were the only ones who could clean house, yet they covered up the problem.
To add to the irony, there were no cases of abuse from lay volunteers. Yet as a lay volunteer, I have to go through "child safety" training and have a background check. What's wrong with this picture?
niiiiiiiiice
“In some ways, I don’t want it to be over because this was such a crisis in the Catholic Church that in a way we don’t want to get over it to easily. This needs to haunt us,” said Dolan. “Those were very powerful moments that you don’t forget.”
It was an open and obvious fact what was going on for 20+ years and NOBODY did ANYTHING. The bishops did NOTHING until forced to by the media and the victims, and even then just shuffled the abusers around.
Shouldn't it be better?
Yet they try to say it’s only 3% of them are queer. Yeah and 75% or more of the rest support not turning them in to authorities. It’s as if they can’t read what the Bible says about queers.
A modification for my tagline.
Allowing queers into the Catholic Church to serve as priests is akin to injecting yourself with AIDS to prove how tolerant you are.
>> Allowing queers into the Catholic Church to serve as priests is akin to injecting yourself with AIDS to prove how tolerant you are. <<
I agree. Even though statistics suggest that the Catholic Church’s so-called “pedophile” problem was no worse than teachers, or Boy Scouts (and actually from what I can tell light years better than Baptists... and they’re one of my favorite Protestant denominations!), it does seem like from the 1950s through the 1970s, a lot of gay-leaning Catholics figured the priesthood was one place where they could still find a purpose in their life, despite the fact their sexuality made marriage less possible.
I don’t believe chastity causes sexual perversion; I waited quite a while for marriage. But I do believe that the strains of absolute celibacy is a far greater challenge to one’s sexuality than mere chastity. There’s a big difference between “no sex” and “no romantic or intimate relations with women, (unless you count being a confessor as initimate).” And I do agree with the Vatican’s 1962 assessment that the rigors of chastity can exaggerate pre-existing sexual dysfunctions (which is what homosexuality is); priests need to be psychosexually healthy!
The point is that the Church didn’t begin accepting gays once it became ccol to prove how “tolerant” one is to homosexuals. The gays were in the church already by the era of gay “rights.” The homosexuality crisis was in full rot by the 1950s and 1960s, and 95% gone by 1990, long before the media even noticed.
I read a conspiracy tale somewhere that someone arranged for 1600 queers to join the Church back in the ‘50’s and/or ‘60’s in an effort to get people to turn away from Christ.
If it’s true, it sure worked especially in DC and state government offices.
Shouldn't it be better?
Yes, it should. My point wasn't that this was acceptable, but that the bishops did even worse in covering up the abuse, and shuffling the abusers around.
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.