Posted on 05/19/2011 8:17:28 AM PDT by GonzoII
I have had this discussion with a number of people from a number of denominations. This is not just a catholic issue. There are just as many documented instances of abuse from protestant parishes are there are from catholic parishes. The problem is not homosexuality, or pedophilia, or any other damn label you can put on a person. The problem can be explained in two words...... Evil Exists....
This article gets the report wrong, “Despite the report showing that nearly 80 percent of victims were post-pubescent and adolescent males....”
The report stated that 73% of victims were under the age of 15. 51% of victims were between 11 and 14. I wouldn’t consider 11-12 year old boys to be post-pubescent, so where did they get the 80% claim?
GonzoII,
What’s the executive summary on the big report?
My impression, garnered largely from talking to priests in their 60’s and 70’s is that toward the end of the pre-VatII period there were a LOT of seminaries that took kids of high-school age and raised them in a hot-house environment.
I know a priest in his 80’s (late vocation, great guy) who said when he was in seminary, they gave him a kind of paddle with which to tuck his shirt into his pants to minimized the chance (horror!) that he might touch his genitals.
IMHO that’s not Catholicism, it’s perverted M<anicheeanism or turbo-Jansenism or something.
In any event, Such an environment would not, I think, conduce to healthy personal development, sexual insight and control or anything.
Then these poor guys are turned out into an environment in which suddenly, post VATII they are not living in virtually cloistered rectories and where, suddenly, it is perfectly legitimate to give you priest a hug.
They selected immature and frightened people, preserved and grew their immaturity and fear, and turned them loose.
Serious, destructive stupidity. IF this is an accurate account....
I have to add that when I was in Episcopal seminary in the early’70s this was NEVER discussed and the need for a strong spiritual life and what I think of as “upstream support” was not stressed.
I think the alleged “sexual revolution” was partly a result of decades of steadfastly looking in the other direction. In part it’s hard to blame our forbears and predecessors. They didn’t see this coming.
Are these the same "professionals" who desisted homosexuality from the DSM in the early 70'S? Are these the same "professionals" who believed treatment and rehabilitation was possible for offenders? Modern psychology is even more politicized than climate "science".
How does the question I posed, or any other portion of my post, lead to your inference that I adopted the premise of your question?
One, anyone who has that compulsion is unfit for the priesthood.
And of course, the hypothetical man that feels such a compulsion and is attracted to a vow of celebacy as a result will freely admit it, or, if he does not, his concealed compulsion will be completely apparent to all who train him. Right?
You appear to know very little about compulsion and denial.
Apparently, only what's on the talking points that are currently popular in your circle of friends.
When priests weren't required to be celibate those who wanted to attack His Church were saying that the priest couldn't have his own wife and family to look after and be a good shepherd. Those blathering about how bad it was for priests to have wives also referred to what one of the Apostles had to say on the subject, but I guess that's not on the little checklist of verses to quote on this topic.
You would know, certainly.
Obviously someone who isn't familiar with the history of a topic they chose to comment on doesn't include those toward whom the comment is directed, fellow Christians in this case, to be among those they seek a firth relationship with. Which makes quoting Scripture all the more interesting given that fact that those toward whom the comment was directed are children of Christ, proclaim fellow Christians as their family, and declare that Christ is Lord.
Answer the questions.
I think you have prerty much said all you have to contribute to the discussion, which is nothing.
But I take his point. It begs the question of the nature of homosexuality. So many things arouse a man, but at bottom is the way the twig is bent and what opportunities are available.
Is anyone else as puzzled by the message shared by the MSM and the anti-Catholics that it isn’t homosexuality that is wrong, it is Catholicism?
No.
You appear to know very little about compulsion and denial.
wow
True, akin to the maxim "you can't manage what you can't measure".
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.