Come on, what do you expect from the Catholic church except for a huge CYA?
This is a group that killed off competeing sects, ran the church like a mafia (literally in many cases) and threw out whole books from the bible simply because they didn’t fit their version of events (God forbid we empower women, Mary, cough) and demonized the Jews even though they are God’s chosen people.
Don’t get me started.
So, a vow celibacy does not attract one who identifies homosexual urges in himself as ungodly and wishes deny them, so they never result in physical action? And that denial is an effective means of containing a compulsion?
If you want change in the catholic church convict and sentence a few archbishops and cardinals for conspiracy to obstruct justice....just a few will do.....the rest will get the message.
This is a somewhat misleading article.
It is perfectly true that two of the major causes of abuse, which almost all took place several decades ago, were the “sexual permissiveness” of the 60s and poor seminary training—i.e., seminaries that had been infected by the culture of the 1960s.
Both those points are perfectly true.
The third point, that homosexuality was mainly responsible, should have been added. I would imagine that it may have been left out because the bishops are still afraid of offending the liberal establishment and being accused of homophobia.
Donohue make the essential points; that it was almost all in the past, and it was largely homosexual in nature. Why did it suddenly erupt in the 60s and 70s, and not earlier? “That’s because there were fewer gay priests then,” Donohue argued.
In other words, one solution is to keep gay men, even if they promise to be celibate, out of the seminaries, if possible.
I expect we’ll see more of the Catholic haters on this thread, but it might be a good idea to consider rationally where the bishops’ report is sound, and where it goes astray. It is sound in what it says, but it goes astray in not making that third point more openly.
But the Vatican has already said that gay men should not be admitted to the seminaries. The most prominent gay bishops such as Rembert Weakland have already been weeded out. It was not known at the time they were appointed that they were gay, or at least it was all kept in the closet—unlike the Episcopal and other mainline Protestant churches, where gay bishops were deliberately and openly appointed. Still, the Church has to deal with the problem, and in fact has proceeded to do so, to the point where sexual abuse by priests is now extremely rare.
Unlike the public schools, where it is increasingly common, and where gay teachers are said to be a good thing, and where small schoolchildren are being taught to be gay.
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....
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".
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?