Dr Guy Dr Guy

The Sins of the Father

▼

The Sins of the Father

http://kupe.joeuser.com/articleComments.asp?AID=157866
from JoeUser Forums

One of our esteemed members decided to post an article concerning a religion where he stated:

I should comment that I am pretty much against the Catholic Church

Some of the reasons he stated are historical, if somewhat prejudicial, and are ones that the Church in the modern era has had to deal with in their quest to return to its roots - that of being a faith based, and not a political based organization. And some are an attempt to bestow upon an fallible organization a measure of perfection that does not exist in this world.  And still others are a gross mis-interpretation of a teaching that many do not understand, yet continue to decry and denounce in their ignorance.

Let us look at these three different aspects of these accusations.

The first is easy enough to identify.  They deal with Historical facts.  The inquisition, the heresy of Galileo, and the Crusades.  All of these are historical facts, that are undeniable.  And to deny them would be akin to denying the holocaust.  But they are historical.  The implication in the linked article is that since these were done in the name of the Church, then all descendants must bear the shame of those forefathers.  That those descendants must renounce their faith, because the Church (not the faith) is imperfect and has done evil.  They are guilty, because their ancestors are guilty.  And not even necessarily their ancestors, but the acquaintances of some of their ancestors.

It matters not that the descendants have apologized for those deeds. It matters not that the descendants have repudiated the deeds.  It matters only that those deeds were committed by the fathers, and thus the sins must be visited upon the children.

Now we come to the point where this faith based organization must know not only all that has been, but all that will be.  In 1933, the Church signed a concordat with a sovereign nation stating they would get out of Politics.  Something they had been in since Constantine back during the Roman Empire.  Something they were never meant to be.  And something they should never have been.  And yet, into the 20th century, they were still involved with the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire.  So they got out.  By signing an agreement with the government of Germany.  At the time, a democratically elected government whose primary concerns were not with ruling the world (that would come later), but in getting the country out of the worst depression they had ever seen.

While this was a mistake, at the time, no one knew the evil that was to occur under the new leadership of Germany.  But we are to believe, again, that this is a heinous crime.  And the crime was in not being omniscient.  They should have known that the evil was to come, and never signed the agreement, and that they did sign it before the evil was perpetrated upon the world, is irrelevant.  For they must be omniscient.  Because people say they are.

And because they signed this agreement, then all the works of the Catholics throughout Europe,  those who sacrificed their lives for the persecuted, was just a dog and pony show.  Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.  hey!  They must have been pretending.

Finally we come to modern day deeds.  Yes, what WE do today WE are responsible for.  At least in most circles.  But what did the Church do in the current day?  There are 2 charges.

One: The participation in the genocide in Rwanda by priests and nuns,

Two: Hundreds of years (no kidding or exaggeration) of tacitly permitting the sexual abuse of parishioners, specifically including children, by priests

That is right.  The church and all 1.1 billion members participated in the genocide in Rwanda.  And not another soul in the world did so.  Nope, none of the other 5 billion people participated, just the 1 billion Catholics.  And how did they participate?  How many people were killed by Catholics?  Well, that gets kind of murky, since even the author does not indicate that a single Catholic raised up arms against the Hutus and Tutsis.  NO, the only allegation is that they did nothing.  But the other 5 billion people sure did a lot, right?  They sure stopped the massacre from happening!  I remember well, the brigades of Americans (non-catholic of course), Israelis, English, French, and Germans marching in there to stop this slaughter.  I remember it very well.  Maybe you do as well?

But not the Catholics.  Not a single Catholic sacrificed their lives for that massacre.

And the pedophilia?  Yep!  A crime that did not exist prior to it being discovered in the church, and what is even better, would not exist were it not for the church.  And its 1 billion members!  That is right!  You heard it here first!  The Church, and its 1 billion members are all pedophiles, or so we are to believe.  Because only Catholics are pedophiles, and they must all be because we have found some priests that are.

Forget those men behind the curtain: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286153,00.html

Forget the hundreds of instances where headlines have blared that "This teacher and that teacher" is convicted of it (they must all be Catholics too). Forget all the felons rotting in jail (they are all Catholics too).  Just concentrate on the 13,000 charges (not all proven yet - except the fact they are Catholics) in the last 50 odd years against those evil Catholics.  Do away with those Catholics, and problem solved!  You do not need to worry about any one else!

No way is it possible that perhaps those inclined to pedophilia are attracted to occupations that put them in contact with children.  No, all those teachers are Catholics, all those Felons are Catholics, and all those Protestant ministers, Jewish Rabbis and Muslim Imams are really Catholics in disguise.  Problem solved.  The final solution is to kill all the Catholics.

Then we have this statement: When Ratzinger was a Cardinal, he helped conceal the severity of the problem. And this is the man that has the audacity to say that you are "wounded" in your beliefs if you do not acknowledge him?

Yes, the author now is an expert on theology, and knows more about interfaith dialog than any one else.  So he can now state the intent and reason for the claim of "wounded" irregardless of its context: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288976,00.html

Let just pretend again that the Pope (who is all Catholics after all), is again saying that, now not only all Muslims are evil (Exact quote from Manuel Il Paleologus, a Byzantine Emperor, not a pope):

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached

Since he quotes a historical text to a CLASS on theology, he must have originated the quote, and firmly believes in it.  Just like the statement he re-released recently that the experts in the media took to be a slam on protestant churches, instead of what it was.  A re-statement of a working paper for the reconciliation of all Christian faiths. "The wound" that is talked about is reflected in the Popes belief that his faith is the right one.  But as we can guess from these wanna-bee Theological experts in the mainstream media and elsewhere, ONLY Catholics believe that.  All other people of faith must then believe that their faith is not the right one, and they are just waiting on a street corner for a bus to come along with a better one.

I guess we have 5 billion people that just cant wait to find a better creed and faith.

And finally we get to the last item.  One corrected so many times, it truly boggles the mind that people would continue to perpetrate it.  I guess some just love to revel in their ignorance instead of trying to discern the truth, or even seeking it.  Even worse, when presented with the truth, they chose to ignore it, because ignorance is so much more fun.  But for the record:

Pope ... ....always correct and infallible...

Is incorrect.  The pope is only infallible when he goes Ex-cathedra, which means speaking for the faithful, and that has occurred only twice in the last 500 years.  All the other times, he is speaking as the leader of the faithful - much like Bush speaks for all Americans (ha ha).  He is the head teacher, as the role of priest has its roots in the Jewish faith, and that of the Rabbi - which means teacher, his words carry more weight than the other teachers and the students.  But last I checked, no teacher is right all the time, and no man is either.  And the Pope, outside of his role as head teacher, is just that.  A man.

So please, slam those 1 billion plus Catholics for all these sins.  We can even make a special place for them, since they are all evil and do only evil.  But at least get your facts right when you are marching them to the gallows.

religion
15,461 views 111 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
Who have I called for to be annhilated?


I made my statement quite generic, and not pointing fingers at anyone for a reason. I beleive you are not calling for that, but your rhetoric says otherwise, and based upon the totality of your writing on this subject, I dont think that is your intention.

It is a matter of semantics, and I thought the analogy would point that out. Yes, call for the condemnation and the conviction of the guilty. But do not call for the condemnation and conviction of the "Church". The Church contains those who should be condemned and convicted - as well as a billion other people that are not at fault and who have been working to root out the problem as well. When you use the over encompassing term of "the Church", you are including all, not just the guilty. I do not even have a problem with condemning "the Leadership of the Church" since it is their inaction - or in some cases action - that has allowed this situation to continue and reach the stage it is at today. But it is the laity (and some of the leadership) that has rooted it out and is calling for the heads of the guilty and they are as much a part of the Church as are the leaders and the guilty.
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
"But do not call for the condemnation and conviction of the "Church". The Church contains those who should be condemned and convicted - as well as a billion other people that are not at fault and who have been working to root out the problem as well."

I agree there have been people working against allowing this to continue to happen in the future, however after a pattern of acceptance and a strategy to deal with the problem while keeping the abusers in the organization is inexcusable.

It is not just those guilty of the crime of abuse, it's the enablers of that abuse who have been protected by the church and who have done exactly that, enable abuse.

No organization should be given a pass just because there are good people in it. The Nazi's should have been eliminated even though there were people like Oscar Shindler in the organization that disagreed with the treatment of Jews. I'm not suggesting a elimination of the church. Only a purging of those members who abused people and for those there is evidence they enabled it. This Cardinal Law, along with dozens if not hundreds of Bishops and Cardinals were "enablers". They stand just as guilty of criminal acts as accessories do to crimes? Am I wrong about that?

This is/was not an isolated occurance, but a pattern of behavior that lasted decades.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
This Cardinal Law, along with dozens if not hundreds of Bishops and Cardinals were "enablers". They stand just as guilty of criminal acts as accessories do to crimes? Am I wrong about that?


By now this abominable scandal has been blown wide open. The arm of the civil law has been/still is in the thick of it. Attorneys have sued everyone who is within the law as far as crimes committed and those who are accessories to those...all that process is working itself through even as I write this.

The Church has a Code of Canon law that already contains a judicial process for the dismissal of those religious guilty of enabling priests guilty of sexually abusing minors.

I might remind you that the vast majority of priests and bishops are honest, trustworthy, faithful servants of Christ and are terrific ministers to His people.



Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
I've never known of this, not to say it doesn't happen just never been exposed to it.


It happens in almost every sector of employment, Dan. When I worked in the group homes, a manager who had embezzled thousands from the residents went to a competing agency and management shrugged her off. It was no longer THEIR problem.

I can also tell you of a school district where a female teacher took male students to live with her over the years (she was married, as well), and reports of her *ahem!* actions filtered back to the schools. The students who were victims of her actions were called liars and threatened with expulsion for spreading the rumours, leading to at least one suicide. After several years, her actions were proven and the teacher was finally charged. In the intervening years, the school never even investigated.

And have you honestly never heard tales of the "butch" female gym teacher? While some of these stories may be apocryphal, are you aware that our casual dismissal of them as such is EXACTLY what we have roundly and rightly criticized the Catholic church for doing regarding their priests?

As was said before, part of the behaviour pattern of pedophiles is to put themselves in positions where they have access to children.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
it's the enablers of that abuse who have been protected by the church and who have done exactly that, enable abuse.


I beleive I addressed that issue with the following statement:

I do not even have a problem with condemning "the Leadership of the Church" since it is their inaction - or in some cases action - that has allowed this situation to continue and reach the stage it is at today


Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
I might remind you that the vast majority of priests and bishops are honest, trustworthy, faithful servants of Christ and are terrific ministers to His people.


Which is my point in writing this to begin with, and none have yet charged that my point was false or invalid.
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
As was said before, part of the behaviour pattern of pedophiles is to put themselves in positions where they have access to children.


Another point I tried to make, that until now, everyone has ignored. Thank you for restating it.
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
First, I didn't say I haven't heard about "butch" female gym teacher(s). Big deal, 10-20% of the population is homosexual, get over it. My question to you is, Why bring it up? Where is the relevance? What the bulk of homosexuals and heterosexuals are not, are pedophiles. A persons SEXUAL ORIENTATION, is not the issue when it comes to priests, educators, or gym teachers.

Secondly stop putting words into my mouth or on the screen, implying that I meant that. For the record what I did say was this...

"I've never known of this, not to say it doesn't happen just never been exposed to it. Also, never been in a school district where it appeared to happen or be happening."

Again I'm speaking from my experience you are obviously speaking of yours when you write.

"After several years, her actions were proven and the teacher was finally charged. In the intervening years, the school never even investigated."

"The students who were victims of her actions were called liars and threatened with expulsion for spreading the rumours, leading to at least one suicide."

It is regrettable they didn't get it right before someone decided to commit suicide. That was their choice however and though is it unfortunate, nobody forced them to commit suicide. Teenagers and young adults lead the demographic on suicide. Obviously they did investigate it to some extent if they determined that the children were lying rather then being truthful.

Not every situation like this goes to a 12 person jury trial right? In this case it sounds like an isolated individual and any employment agency has an ethical responsibility to continue to employ someone as they are assumed innocent of any crime until evidence exists to prove the contrary. I am not sorry to say that that evidence has to be more then hearsay.

I'm not here to advocate our judicial system always works which is why organizations need to be proactive against abusers. Considering just how much more often children as students are in contact with educators versus priests and children, I'm sure a public institution is infinitely more cautious in this day and age then the church was forced to be because of their adopted policy to rotate "the trash".

Getting back to your comment about "the butch" gym teacher. Homosexuals are a productive and important part of society just like heterosexuals. Their SEXUAL ORIENTATION is of no concern to students, and nor should it be unless they make it an issue. Pedophiles are a different story but just because someone is a homosexual, does not make them a pedophile. Just because someone is a man, does not make them an abuser.

The fact is there are plenty of priests who were not pedophiles but who were aware of allegations of abuse at the hands of other priests, who had to fill in new communities because of these circumstances, there sure as hell are plenty of bishops and cardinals, the hierarchy of the church, who went along with this rotating of abusers, as is evidenced by the multi million dollar law suits falling the way of the abused weekly in this country.

As for all sectors of employment, most preform background checks on the status of their employees. Does the catholic church? I don't know I'm not an employee of them.
Any sector where adults are going to be working with children have an ethical responsibility protect them.

It is a crime to abuse someone, but it is also a crime to allow it to continue when you are in a position of power to stop it. It's a crime of ethics to allow those people who did not act in their power to stop this behavior to continue to be a part of your organization.

The reason the catholic church doesn't expel these people is because they have a man power shortage that is worse than the Army. For that reason I do condemn the Catholic church. So hate me if you want, damn me to hell, my ethical conscience is clear. Many men and women in the church cannot say the same and are depending on their faith in God to get them a pass in heaven. I hope for their sake God is as forgiving as they make him out to be.

Background checks are key and a smart solution to the problem of pedophiles. Treatment and lock up for offenders also.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
Srong defense, doc. Congratulations. Btw, did the "esteemed member" mention that there were thousands of Catholics at Hiroshima in '45?
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top

Srong defense, doc. Congratulations.

Thank you.  No mention was made of Hiroshima (or Nagasaki).  I have no problem in pointing out the sins of members of the Catholic Church - indeed I have on occassion as well.  It is not something to be proud of, but not something to hide either.  But when they attack "The Church" instead of the guilty, and then state "I hate THE Church" for the sins of the few and blaming the whole church for those sins, then yes I do have a problem.  And to assign blame for incidents solely on the Church that are best assigned where they belong - the indifference of mankind in some cases, and the complicity of mankind (all, not just a part) in others, is problematic of how we can label a whole race, creed or religion with stereotypes and make it easier for some meglomaniac to swoop in and start a program of erradication.

Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
Obviously they did investigate it to some extent if they determined that the children were lying rather then being truthful.


They did it based on the accused's word and reputation, and the fact she was a prominent member of the biggest church in town, Dan. They never launched an investigation!
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top

Regardless, as James Joyce would say if you have to be religious do it right through Catholicism.

 

Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm not trying to ruffle your feathers Gid, I just read different things then you write I guess. Certainly I have no idea how anyone can find out information, without already knowing, without an investigation. Either you know it, or you do not and in order to find it out you investigate.

You said...

"After several years, her actions were proven and the teacher was finally charged."

Then you said...

"In the intervening years, the school never even investigated."

I took the first sentence to mean that as the result of an investigation which would have been the effect of allegations, the "charge" would have been the effect of a person "being proved guilty of a crime" through an investigation.

It doesn't matter. I don't know about your case, I also do not care. As you have stated there are people in all walks of life who are criminal. That's not absurd but linking them to homosexuals is. Being homosexual, or a homosexual gym teacher or priest is both nobody's business and not a sure fire way to prove someone's guilt of molestation.

Can we let this drop into history please?
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dan Greene Posts:
Being homosexual, or a homosexual gym teacher or priest is both nobody's business and not a sure fire way to prove someone's guilt of molestation.


I agree with the first part of your statement. I call it the "live and let live" attitude.

We know that all homosexual persons aren't child molesters. However, in the case of the clerical scandal, an extrememly high percentage of the molesters were/are homosexual.

It's definitely our business to recognize that fact. The same goes with the proportionality of homosexuality in the other sectors of the society.
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top
How about we just say what it really is - it's a lust problem in the Catholic church. Stamp out the lust and you stamp out everything, pedofilia, homosexuality, and even heterosexuality, which isn't allowed for a priest either.
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
"We know that all homosexual persons aren't child molesters. However, in the case of the clerical scandal, an extrememly high percentage of the molesters were/are homosexual."

Of course they aren't. Show some stats.

"It's definitely our business to recognize that fact."

Show some stats!

"The same goes with the proportionality of homosexuality in the other sectors of the society."

Show some FUCKING STATS!

Before you go making the case for a correlation or coincidence, show that A=B=C. You have done nothing to demonstrate your point except speak of it.

I can tell some things too and make it look like a correlation. Here we go...
A. Mexicans like Oranges
B. Because we grow Oranges in Flordia
C, Lots of Illegals are here because they like Oranges.

But that doesn't mean shit without some stats.

Show some stats!

"How about we just say what it really is - it's a lust problem in the Catholic church. Stamp out the lust and you stamp out everything, pedofilia, homosexuality, and even heterosexuality, which isn't allowed for a priest either."

"Pedofilia" is not the correct spelling!

How about you learn to spell the word or shut the hell up. Further PEDOPHILIA, is a problem that isn't confined to the Catholic Church.

NOR IS LUST confined to the Catholic Church.

Homosexuality isn't confined to the Catholic Church.

Jythier, why must you feel obligated to type something, when clearly you have no frame of reference, and nothing relevant to say.
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thank you for showing how rudely you can correct people's spelling. Spelling noted until I forget. Hey, I learned to spell a word.

As pedophilia isn't confined to the Catholic Church, lust is not confined to the Catholic Church, and homosexuality isn't confined to the Catholic Church, I guess we shouldn't even talk about the Catholic Church in connection with these things?

What I want to see is the statistic that shows the number of priests who joined the priesthood with the purpose of molestation, out of all those who were caught. See, we know how many were caught, but we don't know when they became pedophiles. Were they pedophiles when they joined, or did they become pedophiles while in the Clergy?

I'm guessing most of them became while they were in the Clergy - not because the Clergy causes it, but because an unaddressed lust problem developed with only one outlet possible.
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dan,
I appreciate the discussion up until you shouted at me with profanity. This is where I draw the line. I'm a gentle-lady and your using vulgarity shows utter lack of respect.

Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula, what's the difference between a gentle-lady and a lady?
Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lula, what's the difference between a gentle-lady and a lady?


The same as the difference between a gentle-man and a man.
Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top
"As pedophilia isn't confined to the Catholic Church, lust is not confined to the Catholic Church, and homosexuality isn't confined to the Catholic Church, I guess we shouldn't even talk about the Catholic Church in connection with these things?"

Certainly none of my posts have been to the exclusion of the Catholic Church on this thread, so as for your assertion 'we shouldn't talk about the Catholic Church' in that framework Go to hell.

I was taught on here what a straw man argument is. I wasn't making that argument but you are. The issue isn't with your spelling, but maybe you should consider getting the one word that represents the main idea in a thread correctly spelled so as to no draw attention to yourself.

The issue is with the stupidity of your arguments. Another example...

"What I want to see is the statistic that shows the number of priests who joined the priesthood with the purpose of molestation"

So what? How would either stat help the world be a better place?

That is a stupid statment. First that type of statistic is not obtainable, second it would not be accurate if it were, third what would you have anyone in any profession do, as a result of that obtained and accurate statistic? Obviously there is a background check of some type before you get admitted, you also have to be an understudy where they watch you extensively, you also have to have morals and faith at one time or another in order to do the work that is a priests'.

"See, we know how many were caught, but we don't know when they became pedophiles. Were they pedophiles when they joined, or did they become pedophiles while in the Clergy?...
...I'm guessing most of them became while they were in the Clergy"

Guessing doesn't make it fact, stats are based on fact. Do you look at all the issues of the world on guesses and without facts or in a way wishing for stats?

"an unaddressed lust problem developed with only one outlet possible."

I guess none of these priests throughout history who have dealt with lust by praying, or getting drunk, or having sex with a WOMAN, or masturbating, ever dealt with "unaddressed lust" in another outlet.

Certainly you are now making the argument the church's is/was they haven't addressed the "unaddressed lust" problem and it is because of this these priests chose to abuse. I assert it is the church's failing that they didn't expel these priests, get them help and make them pay society for their crimes and expel the enablers of the activity and conduct. People have choices, self control, choose to have sex or abstain. Choose to drink to smoke to kill, all of it is self control. When you violate laws because you choose to do so, you ought to be punished. If others find out about it and cover it up, that's obstruction of justice and ought to be punished as well.

Moral issues aside there is no question there is an epidemic of oversexification which increases "temptation" but there is no epidemic of people being unable to control themselves to the point where they repeat crimes inside an organization which essentially endorsed it for too long and refused to rid itself of the enablers of the criminal activity.

Lilpilgrim I apologize for my profanity. In my blue collar world, it doesn't offend. Still I stand by my statement. Don't pour gasoline on the argument without facts or without new ideas or perspective to contribute.

"However, in the case of the clerical scandal, an extrememly high percentage of the molesters were/are homosexual.It's definitely our business to recognize that fact. The same goes with the proportionality of homosexuality in the other sectors of the society."

Homosexuals are both men and women. Your assertion no doubt, that the same goes, with proportionality of homosexuality in other sectors of society... reasons to say that there is a epidemic of nuns abusing little girls or boys? Really? Where are the stats or the headlines.

The catholic church is almost entirely hit up upon males, who are guilty of crimes against children. Homosexuality may play a part, a coincidence or a correlation. I challenge you to show us some statistics that say it is both a coincidence and correlation or a correlation or a coincidence.

I have shown there to be a dramatic and systemic problem inside the church, both in the criminal activity itself, and in the church's inability to remove those bishops and cardinals who did not report offenders and expel them from the organization. An organization that was created by, whomever you believe, for the purpose of being trustworthy enough to lead people in their daily lives to God. Not to enable sex offenders to offend and enablers to shuffle them under the cloak and dagger of a centuries old conglomerate.
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lilpilgrim I apologize for my profanity.


Dan, your apology is accepted.


Lula posts:

"We know that all homosexual persons aren't child molesters. However, in the case of the clerical scandal, an extrememly high percentage of the molesters were/are homosexual."

Dan Greene posts:

Of course they aren't. Show some stats.


From the getgo back in 2001, militant homosexuals and their overwhelming sympathetic allies in the media not wanting to be labeled "anti-gay" or "homophobic", disenguously framed the clerical scandal as a pedophile issue. But that's not the case. It's roots are in homosexuality--that of predatory homosexual men.

We know from the John Jay Study that the great majority of cases involved male homosexual abuse of adolescent boys.
Check out the studies of Steve Baldwin, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," Regents University Law Review, Vol. 14, 2002, pgs. 267-282. You'll see they indicated a higher incidence of both pedophilia and abuse of teenages among homosexuals.


"What I want to see is the statistic that shows the number of priests who joined the priesthood with the purpose of molestation"

First that type of statistic is not obtainable, second it would not be accurate if it were, third what would you have anyone in any profession do, as a result of that obtained and accurate statistic?

Obviously there is a background check of some type before you get admitted, you also have to be an understudy where they watch you extensively, you also have to have morals and faith at one time or another in order to do the work that is a priests'.


In spite of a document released by the Sacred Congregation for Religious in 1961 which stated, "Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life (men living with other men in the seminaries) and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers", a significant number of homosexuals were allowed to enter the seminaries and subsequently were ordained.

As for the core of the problem, homosexual abusers, anecdotal information suggests that in the years following the Vat.II Council (1962-65), that the most problematic individuals were ordained between 1965 and 75.

Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top
I was taught on here what a straw man argument is.


Still I stand by my statement. Don't pour gasoline on the argument without facts or without new ideas or perspective to contribute.


Dan, there's an old debating axiom that holds that he who frames the question wins the debate. Homosexuality is currently politically protected. The only ones who are pouring gasoline on the argument are the ones bent on perpetuating the disengenuous notion that the clerical sex abuse scandal is rooted in pedophilia. The root problem is that of homosexuality and the sooner that everyone, including the Church, recognizes that, the better.

I think with the recent aposotlic visitation (inspection) of the American seminaries and the publication of diocesan policies of "zero tolerance", and other steps that have come from the Holy See, the Church is doing what is needed to effectively solve the problem.
Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm guessing most of them became while they were in the Clergy - not because the Clergy causes it, but because an unaddressed lust problem developed with only one outlet possible.


I do not condone Dan's langauge, but he has made some salient points. And while I am no authority on pedophelia and homosexuality, I can relate the studies and experts I have heard and read. And basically neither trait is a "learned" one, but rather either a genetic trait or a mental difference.

What that does mean, if true, is that none of them entered the priest hood and then became one or the other. They were one or the other and entered the priest hood looking to exploit the uniqueness of the environment.

This is supported by the fact that both teachers and clergy of non-catholic denominations are suffering from the same issues at an equal or greater rate than the priesthood. And the reason you do not cite it, and most do not cite such statistics is what this is partially about. It is the CONVENIENCE of the Catholic Church and its unique structure that lends itself to being a whipping post for the people too lazy to look at the overall problem, and instead look for a feel good whipping boy to rant and rave about and then go home feeling they have made a difference.
Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lilpilgrim I apologize for my profanity. In my blue collar world, it doesn't offend.


Thanks Dan. I use it too, and have been known to sprinkle it in responses, but out of respect to others, I try to control my use of it on written boards such as this.