Posted on 11/11/2007 7:19:28 AM PST by shrinkermd
In 2004, Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, proclaimed that after two years of relentless investigations into priests who sexually abused children and the bishops who protected them, "the scandal is history."
For reporters weary of the scandal's emotionally draining subject matter, Gregory's sound bite invited a retreat. The bishops pointed to the "youth protection charter" they had developed, laying out guidelines for removing predator priests and for treating victims responsibly. They released data showing that they had identified about 4,400 abusive U.S. priests. They had a reform agenda, it seemed, and promised new vigilance in protecting children rather than clerics. In the months that followed, the sexual abuse crisis receded as national news, though civil litigation and criminal prosecutions continued to make occasional headlines.
But did the church really learn its lesson? Cardinal Francis George, the archbishop of Chicago, is currently preparing to assume the presidency of the Conference of Catholic Bishops, whose annual meeting begins Monday in Baltimore. His new position would make George highly visible when Pope Benedict XVI arrives on his first trip to the U.S. next spring, which is fitting because George was a valuable ally of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger when the cardinals' conclave chose him to be pope in 2005.
The problem is that George shows little indication of having internalized the lessons of the scandal. He displays a stunning insensitivity to the church's failures. And twice since the 2002 conference in Dallas that adopted the youth protection charter, George has flouted the church's supposed zero-tolerance attitude in his handling of abusive priests
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
/agree
I do believe, from my own professional experience, it is imperative that the Church begin a rigorous examination of proposed clergy who have decided on their life’s work before the age of puberty. It always seemed to me that the sexuality of those declaring before puberty ended up being very immature and peculiar from a common sense view. Many times the sexual acts and inclinations were analogous to adolescent sexual experimentation. This tendency to suppress sexuality on a spiritual basis may make sense as a voluntary, adult decision maker; however, even Protestant married clergy who have made their life choice before puberty often have similar problems.
bump
I had posted the exact same article about 30 minutes ago, not realizing you had posted it earlier!
Protestant ministers on the other hand tend to be normal, regular guys. They typically have lovely wives who make positive contributions to their ministry.
That's going to leave a mark. And if you compare the John Jay study to similar Protestant studies, it tends to ring true.
Hardly, it’s simply another sweeping generalization made by an ignorant individual, which is why you are trumpeting it.
You're the only one I've heard allege that 40% of cases involved girls. The figures I've seen indicate that 80-90% involve teenage boys; pre-teen children, both boys and girls, are included in the rest.
He’d probably have to be able to spell “celibacy” too! ;-)
What, haven't you heard? Some Catholics think I post all this because I'm close to converting!
I've never seen any statistics showing that 40% of the abuse involved girls.
Honey, you need to get out more! Sure there are some priests who are not your regular jock type of guy, but most of the jock types aren't interested in a life of service anyway. I've known MANY priests over my 54 years of life, and I could count on one hand the number who display ANY of the wierdo characteristics you seem to have noticed.
Bishops don't 'prosecute'; the legal system does that. Unfortunately, some folks were cowed by their Bishops into NOT pressing charges all those years ago. If more had done so, the problem would not have gotten as bad as it did.
see post 12.
I was simply repeating what was stated in post 12 so I cant be the only one
Absolutely true. Babyboomers, especially the ex-hippies, surely cannot be unaware that gays hit on boys as often as they can. I guess that in their mind the only sin is hypocrisy. I guess if you pay the little squezes, it is not hypocrisy.
The 60s and 70s were the high point of abuse, at least in Boston. The AG’s report lumped the 40s and 50s together (I think it was 19 reported cases for the 20 years) to make it look like an older problem than it was. Reported cases, according to the same report, started to drop off rapidly in the 80s.
That is in 52 years.
The 60% figure he gave was vastly understated — I have no idea where he got it. And it only mentioned pubescent and post-pubescent males anyway. The few true pedophiles went for pre-pubescent boys and girls.
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.