Quotes of the day

posted at 10:35 pm on April 13, 2010 by Allahpundit

“So the high-flying John Paul let scandals spread beneath his feet, and the uncharismatic Ratzinger was left to clean them up. This pattern extends to other fraught issues that the last pope tended to avoid — the debasement of the Catholic liturgy, or the rise of Islam in once-Christian Europe. And it extends to the caliber of the church’s bishops, where Benedict’s appointments are widely viewed as an improvement over the choices John Paul made. It isn’t a coincidence that some of the most forthright ecclesiastical responses to the abuse scandal have come from friends and protégés of the current pope.

“Has Benedict done enough to clean house and show contrition? Alas, no. Has his Vatican responded to the latest swirl of scandal with retrenchment, resentment, and an un-Christian dose of self-pity? Absolutely. Can this pontiff regain the kind of trust and admiration, for himself and for his office, that John Paul II enjoyed? Not a chance.

“But as unlikely as it seems today, Benedict may yet deserve to be remembered as the better pope.”

***
“Suppose the British secretary of state for schools received, from a local education authority, a reliable report of a teacher tying up his pupils and raping them. Imagine that, instead of turning the matter over to the police, he had simply moved the offender from school to school, where he repeatedly raped other children. That would be bad enough. But now suppose that he justified his decision in terms such as these:

“‘Although I regard the arguments in favour of prosecution, presented by the local education authority, as of grave significance, I nevertheless deem it necessary to consider the good of the government and the party, together with that of the offending teacher. And I am also unable to make light of the detriment that prosecuting the offender can provoke among voters, particularly regarding the young age of the offender.’…

“Why is the church allowed to get away with it, when any government minister who was caught writing such a letter would immediately have to resign in ignominy, and face prosecution himself?”

***
“I am hoping that Pope Benedict, this shy, beleaguered theologian who in fact seems to be a better, rather than a worse priest, bishop and pope than the press will portray, will find a way to go around the press filters, and talk about all of this plainly, to the world. Doing so will, I think, be the most difficult moment of his reign, and I am sure that at his age, shouldering this mess is the last thing he ever wanted to do.

“But then, Jesus did tell Peter that he would be led where he did not wish to go.”

***


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

“But then, Jesus did tell Peter that he would be led where he did not wish to go.”

It’s incredible to compare Peter’s martyrdom to covering a wicked scandal.

But there I go Catholic-bashing again.

Stop making yourselves to be the victims here. Support for the Popes on this is an accessory to crime and more importantly sin.

shick on April 14, 2010 at 9:14 AM

shick on April 14, 2010 at 9:14 AM

“Let he who is without sin caste the first stone.”

PappaMac on April 14, 2010 at 9:28 AM

ddrintn on April 14, 2010 at 7:29 AM

No, I did not avoid the question – I answered it.

The natural does not consider morality. Morality is the process of determining whether a particular action is right and proper, ethical, principled, or not.

When one acts naturally -as in sync with one’s core make-up, no prejudgement takes place. It matter not whether an act is good or bad – for others, so long as it serves one’s own purpose.

To be a moral person is to consider the effect of one’s actions upon another, and make a conscious decision to not harm anyone- without just cause, such as self-defence.

OldEnglish on April 14, 2010 at 9:54 AM

“Let he who is without sin caste the first stone.”

PappaMac on April 14, 2010 at 9:28 AM

If that were to be taken at face value, there would be no human judgement at all.

OldEnglish on April 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM

If that were to be taken at face value, there would be no human judgment at all.

OldEnglish on April 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Exactly. If it literally means that only those who are sinless can assign blame, then our entire justice system falls apart.

Esthier on April 14, 2010 at 10:16 AM

The only reason the liberals and the MSM give a damn about this scandal is because the Catholic Church does not support abortion or gay marriage.

The vast majority of “abuse” cases are decades old and many the “victims” are fabricating stories purely to steal money from the church.

NoDonkey on April 14, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Though what is in question is the judgment of bishops for whom God was not absent in their life. Regardless of one’s belief in the divine, most can agree on a standard that protects children from sexual exploitation and punishes adults who abuse the children in their care.

Hitchens likely won’t get far with his legal effort, but Benedict and the RCC have a lot of work ahead to earn back the trust of parents who worry about the safety of their kids.

dedalus on April 14, 2010 at 9:01 AM

There are lots of Catholic-bashers on this thread who know nothing about the Catholic Church, but Dedalas has hit the nail on the head.

I am Catholic, and all these stories about priests abusing children ARE scandalous and embarrassing to the Church. No man in ANY profession should be allowed to “get away with” sexual abuse of children.

Other than the abusers themselves, the blame should be placed on their BISHOPS, who had the authority to de-frock the abusive priests (excommunicate them, or throw them out of the Church), but failed to do so. Naturally, every man is innocent until proven guilty, and there have been FALSE accusations of abuse by priests, so there should be some form of “judicial” system within the Church whereby an accused priest and his accusers can confront each other before an impartial Church authority, to determine whether the accusations have merit.

Many of the problems of sexual abuse by priests can be traced back to “political correctness” during the 1960′s and 1970′s, when some Church groups mis-interpreted the Second Vatican Council to condone aberrations such as homosexual priests. Catholic tradition requires priests to be unmarried men, who study for the priesthood in an all-male environment in seminaries. A man without homosexual attractions (who might be attracted to women) who chooses to become a priest voluntarily sacrifices his sexuality for God, and the all-male environment of the seminary helps him to put sexuality out of his mind. However, for a homosexual man, an all-male seminary is full of sexual temptations, which he may justify indulging by saying that they are not with women, and such men are more likely to become abusers as priests, usually of boys.

The number of cases of sexual abuse by priests has decreased sharply over the past 20 years. I’m not trying to justify them, because EVERY case of sexual abuse is a tragedy for the victim, but the Church HAS tried to crack down on abusing priests, and Benedict XVI has been stricter on this issue than John Paul II. Before he became Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, promulgated stricter regulations to prevent homosexual men from being admitted to seminaries, attacking the root of the problem. However, there still are priests who were trained in the “gay 60′s and 70′s” in seminaries, some of whom may be tempted to abuse boys, and the Church needs to weed them out.

The New York Times article that launched this debate focused on one priest, who abused deaf boys between 1957 and 1972, whose bishop has also been accused of sexual abuse. Both of them should have been excommunicated, but the abusive priest is now dead since 2002, and Cardinal Ratzinger had no authority to do anything about abusive priests (outside his diocese) until 1981. The Times is using this to bash Pope Benedict, who has been working for decades to promulgate Church rules against abusive priests, but what is Benedict expected to do to punish a dead man, while he had no authority to punish him when the abuses were committed?

Yes, we need to punish sexual abusive priests, most of whom are gay. But will the Times then turn around and deplore the plight of gay men that are refused admission to seminaries because mean grumpy old backward Benedict wants to enforce “old-fashioned intolerant” rules? Back in the 1960′s and 1970′s, too many seminaries were far too permissive about admitting gay men “in the spirit” of the Second Vatican Council, and priestly abuse of boys is the logical consequence of that.

Pope Benedict has seen the problem, and attacked it at both its root and its consequences. Let’s prosecute the abusers, and punish those who enabled them, but leave Benedict alone, who wants to bring the Church back to its true mission.

Steve Z on April 14, 2010 at 10:23 AM

Exactly. If it literally means that only those who are sinless can assign blame, then our entire justice system falls apart.

No it doesn’t. It doesn’t say anything at all about judging, it’s says don’t throw stones. Finish the quote.

“Is there anyone here who condemns you? Then neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

So obviously she had sinned, He knew it, better she knew it. There’s judgement, but your sentence instead of being killed by stoning, is to go forth and live differently. That’s mercy.

You see, there is a difference between judging, sentencing, and mercy.

And all that misses the larger point of what Jesus was saying. Bringing the women before Him, was not about justice, it wasn’t even about the women, it was about scoring political points. Why should she suffer the wrath of hypocrites so they could score some points.

Much the same as bashing the Pope. Read the Anchoress to find some facts, some context. The entire story, the entire context is missing from all of the above.

odannyboy on April 14, 2010 at 10:29 AM

The liberal press loves to rub RCC’s nose in this scandal, while at the same time castigating the Boy Scouts for weeding out homosexuals.

Orwell called it “doublethink.”

Akzed on April 14, 2010 at 10:30 AM

“Let he who is without sin caste the first stone.”

PappaMac on April 14, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Another verse taken out of context. I hear this from ANYONE who wishes to defend ANYTHING. Are you really suggesting that no one can judge another if they sin? What about appointed judges? I hope you are not suggesting lawlessness.

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. “Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.

But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.

Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either Go From now on sin no more.” – John 8:3-11
Notice that they the Pharisees were appealing to the law. The law is correct that she should be stoned.

I’m guilty of my sin. I deserve God’s wrath in Hell just like this Pope and you.

But Christ knows the law. The law requires a witness. They provided none.

The emphasis of the text is not on prejudging but on the deity of Christ who alone can absolve man of his sins.

shick on April 14, 2010 at 10:53 AM

The liberal press loves to rub RCC’s nose in this scandal, while at the same time castigating the Boy Scouts for weeding out homosexuals.

Orwell called it “doublethink.”

Akzed on April 14, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Despite a ban on homosexuals, the Boy Scouts are currently in court over their own child sex abuse lawsuit. Are a higher percentage of the child molesters open homosexuals or publicly straight? Wasn’t a society that encouraged people to stay in the closet ultimately more harmful to the children it was ostensibly protecting?

dedalus on April 14, 2010 at 11:03 AM

It’s incredible to compare Peter’s martyrdom to covering a wicked scandal.

But there I go Catholic-bashing again.

Stop making yourselves to be the victims here. Support for the Popes on this is an accessory to crime and more importantly sin.

shick on April 14, 2010 at 9:14 AM

I just wonder when you’ll get around to the real question:

Why do homosexuals join the priesthood?

David2.0 on April 14, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Barbara, is that you? /s This is what I’m talking about. Catholics are not taught hatred, but other denominations are. Sad.

Connie on April 14, 2010 at 12:29 AM

Maybe if the RCC didn’t shield/protect an immoral loser like Cardinal Law the way it is, a lot of non-RCs might not be as anti-RCC as they are…

btw, in response to the silly statement of yours I highlighted, which of the following is unlike the others?: 1) Methodists believe that if you reject their denomination’s teachings, you definitely cannot be a genuine Christian 2) Baptists believe that if you reject their denomination’s teachings, you definitely cannot be a genuine Christian 3) Anglicans believe that if you reject their denomination’s teachings, you definitely cannot be a genuine Christian 4) Roman Catholics believe that if you reject their denomination’s teachings, you definitely cannot be a genuine Christian

The truth is, Roman Catholicism is an exclusionary denomination, unlike mainstream Protestant ones. Think about that the next time you ponder why so many Protestants seem to you to have a problem with divisive, conceited Roman Catholicism.

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Think about that the next time you ponder why so many Protestants seem to you to have a problem with what they see as divisive, conceited Roman Catholicism.

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2010 at 11:08 AM

FIFM

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2010 at 11:14 AM

Why should the Pope be above the law? Make him testify!

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on April 14, 2010 at 11:37 AM

There are lots of Catholic-bashers on this thread who know nothing about the Catholic Church,

The Catholic-bashers know nothing about the Catholic Church? You can keep repeating that to yourself if it makes you feel good. I was born and raised in a conservative and respectable American Catholic family until I was 23. I have studied Christian History for the last 10 years. So please stop using this worn out pseudo-martyr argument.

..so there should be some form of “judicial” system within the Church whereby an accused priest and his accusers can confront each other before an impartial Church authority, to determine whether the accusations have merit.

And why hasn’t there been one? My local christian church already has this system in place. God-breathed scripture has been in use by the catholic (not-roman) church for two millenia.

Many of the problems of sexual abuse by priests can be traced back to “political correctness” during the 1960’s and 1970’s, when some Church groups mis-interpreted the Second Vatican Council to condone aberrations such as homosexual priests.

Some within the church misinterpreted Second Vatican? And Roman Catholics say that scripture alone causes disunity.

Pope Benedict has seen the problem, and attacked it at both its root and its consequences. Let’s prosecute the abusers, and punish those who enabled them, but leave Benedict alone, who wants to bring the Church back to its true mission.

Steve Z on April 14, 2010 at 10:23 AM

And covering up the scandal is a means to that mission?

shick on April 14, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Methodists, Baptists and Anglicans definitely do not believe that their denomination is the genuine one. Where did you get such an idea?

I’m a baptist. Please show me where in my church’s confession of faith where it suggests such a thing?

shick on April 14, 2010 at 12:02 PM

shick on April 14, 2010 at 12:02 PM

I gather you missed where I said, “which of the following is unlike the others?“?

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2010 at 12:05 PM

The folks who are saying the RCC has done nothing to stop child abuse in the church have never had to jump through all the hurdles that adult youth leaders (lay and religious), parents, and even children are expected to go through now.

Background checks, “how not to molest children” mandatory classes, class for children on how to report misdeeds, multiple adults with children at all times – it is to the point of burdensome, but we do it to protect our children and our priests and adult leaders.

The media never reports on these efforts because they don’t fit the narrative.

darcee on April 14, 2010 at 12:13 PM

darcee on April 14, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Do you believe the RCC was serving God when it removed the immoral Cardinal Law from the US to make him an Archpriest in Rome?

I certainly don’t, and until they punish him more properly I, like many others, won’t accept that the RCC takes the molestation issue nearly as seriously as it should.

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2010 at 12:27 PM

… And covering up the scandal is a means to that mission?

shick on April 14, 2010 at 11:54 AM

.

Relentlessly and ignorantly scapegoating the very cleric who volunteered to assume the responsibility to address the problem and then effective did so is certainly not “a means to that mission”. Dawkins doesn’t know what he is talking about (no surprise there). What is shameful and telling is the obvious and willful determination of many of Pope Benedict’s critics to avoid informing themselves and addressing these matters with even minimal fairness and competence.

These are resources that can help:
You can start here:
Get Religion: The Press doesn’t get religion It does excellent reporting on awful job MSM is doing.
.
Hugh Hewitt has done excellent reporting here:
Pope Benedict and the Milwaukee Molester
.
Here is another link rich resource:
Defending Benedict Against Theatricals
.
If one is in want of a comparative example of what passes under Dawkins – et al’s radar see here: Fistgate: Barack Obama’s Safe Schools Czar’s 2000 Conference promoting fisting for 14 year olds

I’ll try to post a few more resources shortly. We should be able to see how many of Benedict’s critics in this tread avail themselves of those resources.

Mike OMalley on April 14, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Mike OMalley on April 14, 2010 at 12:37 PM

http://newsbusters.org/ is pretty good on this, too. But they cover leftist media bias in all things, so you’ll have to sort through a lot.

zmdavid on April 14, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Darcee, notice the non sequitor your worthy post received as a response!

Perhaps Bizarro No. 1 can now find time to turn his critical eye to Pres. Obama and his School Safety Czar.

Background checks, “how not to molest children” mandatory classes, class for children on how to report misdeeds, multiple adults with children at all times – it is to the point of burdensome, but we do it to protect our children and our priests and adult leaders.

The media never reports on these efforts because they don’t fit the narrative.

darcee on April 14, 2010 at 12:13 PM

.
Yes I’ve been through the program, background checks and all. It is very good. So good that credible charges for only six contemporaneous victims were made in 2009. This is certainly far below the norm for other religious groups in America and magnitudes below the sex abuse frequency in America’s public school systems.

Benedict and many of the American bishops are doing their job of protecting American children quite competently.

Mike OMalley on April 14, 2010 at 12:56 PM

I gather you missed where I said, “which of the following is unlike the others?“?

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2010 at 12:05 PM

I did. My apologies. I read the definitely parts over and over again to make sure I understood what I was reading. I’m lazy sometimes. I need to read all of it in its context. Context is important.

shick on April 14, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Thanks zmdavid
.
Check these to stories out from 2004. They based upon a substantial peer reviewed report conducted as required by “No Child Left Behind”.

Sex Abuse by Teachers Said Worse Than Catholic Church and
Fed study indicates sexual misconduct far worse than priest scandal
.
You see the problem of sex abuse of children is much much worse in the American public school systems than it was in the Catholic Church back before 2004. Now the American Church has come close to doing the impossible, eliminating clerical sex abuse of children in the American RCC. However over a half a decade has passed since the Dr. Carol Shakeshaft’s report. Ask yourself how much news coverage has MSM devoted to this greater problem? Where is the outspoken critique of Pres. Obama, Kevin Jennings, the NEA, the AFT and the APA?

Mike OMalley on April 14, 2010 at 1:09 PM

I’ll try to post a few more resources shortly. We should be able to see how many of Benedict’s critics in this tread avail themselves of those resources.

Mike OMalley on April 14, 2010 at 12:37 PM

I’ll check them out.

shick on April 14, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Darcee, notice the non sequitor your worthy post received as a response!

Perhaps Bizarro No. 1 can now find time to turn his critical eye to Pres. Obama and his School Safety Czar.

Yes I’ve been through the program, background checks and all. It is very good. So good that credible charges for only six contemporaneous victims were made in 2009. This is certainly far below the norm for other religious groups in America and magnitudes below the sex abuse frequency in America’s public school systems.

Benedict and many of the American bishops are doing their job of protecting American children quite competently.

Mike OMalley on April 14, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Talk about non sequitors! Nice attempt at deflection; too bad it failed.

Look, your beloved Church harbors Cardinal Law instead of reprimanding him and stripping him of any authority. Until your pope does so, he shows he cares more about his personal beliefs than he does the children that Cardinal Law allowed to be molested. That, my friend, is not Christian behavior.

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2010 at 1:29 PM

I did. My apologies. I read the definitely parts over and over again to make sure I understood what I was reading. I’m lazy sometimes. I need to read all of it in its context. Context is important.

shick on April 14, 2010 at 1:01 PM

No apology is needed! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2010 at 1:34 PM

The media also likes to leave out the findings of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice which found that the vast majority of the clergy “abuse” scandals were between a gay priest and a late adolescent boy close to the age of majority.
I can understand why a gay man would resent the church’s stand on homosexual acts when that is what he is drawn to and why they would go after the church much later in their lives to exact retribution.

Haunches on April 14, 2010 at 1:51 PM

The media never reports on these efforts because they don’t fit the narrative.

darcee on April 14, 2010 at 12:13 PM

They also don’t report on all the banks that don’t get robbed on a given day.

Benedict deserves credit (along with the publicized blame) for the work he’s done since early last decade, especially creating a centralized office for handling all cases. However, the problems before then were amplified by senior church officials who suppressed evidence and reassigned molesters. The idea that the Church as an institution was too important for it’s leaders to pursue justice had a pernicious effect–both for the Church and the victims.

dedalus on April 14, 2010 at 1:56 PM

I’ll check them out.

shick on April 14, 2010 at 1:27 PM

.
Thank you.
.
The John Jay College of Criminal Justice report is a unique resource. I’ve read it on several occasions.

The Nature and Scope of the Problem
of Sexual Abuse of Minors
by Catholic Priests and Deacons
in the United States

.
It doesn’t address effective work done by Benedict and the American bishops after the study was conducted of course.
.
This history of the problem from what I can tell is the best I’ve come across, though it is not perfect: Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption Into the Catholic Church
.
…and again thank you for investing the necessary time to get this one right.
.
.
Mike

Mike OMalley on April 14, 2010 at 1:59 PM

I can understand why a gay man would resent the church’s stand on homosexual acts when that is what he is drawn to and why they would go after the church much later in their lives to exact retribution.

Haunches on April 14, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Why did the bishops move the offenders around? Were they gay too?

The majority of the male victims were under 14. There was something other than homosexuality involved.

dedalus on April 14, 2010 at 2:06 PM

However, the problems before then were amplified by senior church officials who suppressed evidence and reassigned molesters. The idea that the Church as an institution was too important for it’s leaders to pursue justice had a pernicious effect–both for the Church and the victims.

dedalus on April 14, 2010 at 1:56 PM

.
I agree with you dedalis, though not with your addition of Benedict/Joseph Ratzinger to the list of the guilty.
.
It should be understood that this problem was compounded by several active homosexual bishops. Two active homosexual bishops of Palm Beach Diocese were either deposed or forced to resign. They weren’t acting in administrative frustration. They were active parts of the problem. See here: Catholic Bishop in Florida Quits, Admitting Sex Abuse in the 70′s
.
One has to wonder to what degree Cardinal Weakland was secretly compromised.
.
This one is interesting as he was connected to the corrupt homosexual and former Democratic governor of New Jersey, James McGreevey.
.

Fr Michael Cashman
.
Beloved as ‘Father Mike’ by the people of his parish in Metuchen, New Jersey, he was a spiritual advisor to New Jersey governor James McGreevey, baptised one of his two children and offered the benediction at his inaugural. But in 2002 he was accused of having molested a mother and her two teenage children, a daughter and son, over a period of several years. The church paid $145,000 to the victims along with another woman, who accused him of improper conduct. A church court in 2009 found him guilty of abusing a child in the 1980s and he was removed from the ministry.

Fr Michael Cashman

There was at least one other of these clerical predators the Woodbridge New Jersey area where McGreevey had been mayor.

Mike OMalley on April 14, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Why did the bishops move the offenders around? Were they gay too?

The majority of the male victims were under 14. There was something other than homosexuality involved.

dedalus on April 14, 2010 at 2:06 PM

.
No, the majority of the male victims were pubescent. Typically the predators had homosexual sex with a range of teens, pubescent preteens and young men.
.
The bishops move them around initially because the psychological professionals assured the bishops that these predators did not do lasting damage to their victims and because these same psychological professionals assured the bishops that the preps could be and were cured by therapy. In time it became apparent that the preps were not being “cured” some bishops moved them around out sheer frustration, much the way public school administrators move around NEA protected preps.
.
BTW: One of the primary mental health treatment facilities used by the bishops (on the Eastern Shore of Maryland) to “cure” the preps turned out to be run by secret but active homosexual priests who were psychologists. They repeated reassured the bishops that the preps had been “cured”.

Mike OMalley on April 14, 2010 at 2:39 PM

No, the majority of the male victims were pubescent. Typically the predators had homosexual sex with a range of teens, pubescent preteens and young men.

Mike OMalley on April 14, 2010 at 2:39 PM

51% were between 11 and 14, probably a mix of pre and early puberty. Regardless, that excuse isn’t going to fly with a cop, judge or child’s parents. 15% of the victims were over 16, where the relationship might be considered quasi-adult by some.

dedalus on April 14, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Why did the bishops move the offenders around? Were they gay too?

The majority of the male victims were under 14. There was something other than homosexuality involved.

dedalus on April 14, 2010 at 2:06 PM

.
No, the majority of the male victims were pubescent. Typically the predators had homosexual sex with a range of teenage boys, pubescent preteen boys and young men.
.
The bishops moved the preps around initially because the psychological professionals assured the bishops that these predators would not do lasting damage to their victims; and because these same psychological professionals assured the bishops that the preps could be cured and were indeed cured and safe to return to ministries with access to children. In time it became apparent that the preps were not being “cured”. Some bishops moved them around out sheer frustration, much the way public school administrators move around NEA protected preps.
.
BTW: One of the primary mental health treatment facilities used by the bishops (on the Eastern Shore of Maryland) to “cure” the preps turned out to be run by secret but active homosexual priests who were therapists. They repeated reassured the bishops that the preps had been “cured”.

Mike OMalley on April 14, 2010 at 2:49 PM

The bishops move them around initially because the psychological professionals assured the bishops that these predators did not do lasting damage to their victims and because these same psychological professionals assured the bishops that the preps could be and were cured by therapy.

Mike OMalley on April 14, 2010 at 2:39 PM

I recall back in the 1970′s that molesting children was a crime and one that resulted in convictions and further punishment by inmates. I don’t recall adult sex with minors ever not being a crime.

There is no evidence that Cardinals Law or Mahony are gay, yet they didn’t seem to comprehend the seriousness of the offenses.

dedalus on April 14, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Stop making yourselves to be the victims here. Support for the Popes on this is an accessory to crime and more importantly sin.

shick on April 14, 2010 at 9:14 AM

Doesn’t “making yourselves to be the victims” describe most of the new testament?

Count to 10 on April 14, 2010 at 3:01 PM

I agree dedalus, but I stand by my characterization. BTW some days ago Newsweek published that just 147 priests were responsible for most of the victimization. Unfortunately the young victims mostly came forward years and years and decades after the assaults.
.
BTW: in the late 1990′s the Justice Department would annually report forcible rape statistics which delineated the race of the accused and the victim. DoJ continued this practice until several commentators observed that Black male rape of “White” female victims was 1,200x more prevalent than White male rape of Black Women. DoJ immediately stopped publishing those sensitive statistics. To my knowledge DoJ does not publish statistic about the sex (male or female) of the sex offender attacking boys and male teens.

Mike OMalley on April 14, 2010 at 3:04 PM

There is no evidence that Cardinals Law or Mahony are gay, yet they didn’t seem to comprehend the seriousness of the offenses.

dedalus on April 14, 2010 at 2:58 PM

.
Hmmmm, not Cardinal Law but there are persistent hints and indications that Mahoney might be similarly compromised.
.
See my posts regarding the early incorrect advice offerred by the mental health professionals that no last damage would accrue to the victims.

Mike OMalley on April 14, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Doesn’t “making yourselves to be the victims” describe most of the new testament?

Count to 10 on April 14, 2010 at 3:01 PM

No. If you think so, please quote where.

shick on April 14, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Doesn’t “making yourselves to be the victims” describe most of the new testament?

Count to 10 on April 14, 2010 at 3:01 PM

No. If you think so, please quote where.

shick on April 14, 2010 at 3:32 PM

.
Good question shick. I’d like to entertain Count to 10′s answer.

.

The New Testament, indeed the Bible is about “scapegoating” and the “Victimage Mechanism”. See Violence and the sacred
and René Girard’s Insights into Christianity

Mike OMalley on April 14, 2010 at 3:44 PM

See my posts regarding the early incorrect advice offerred by the mental health professionals that no last damage would accrue to the victims.Mike OMalley on April 14, 2010 at 3:09 PM

I’m not aware that a child molester has avoided prison in a court of law by a psychiatrist’s testimony that the victim would probably be OK. Even in the 1980′s. An assertion that the RCC had their moral judgment occluded by psychiatry seems incredible–given the RCC’s role as, itself, a moral teacher.

Some number of bishops and cardinals were likely gay. The percentage is impossible to determine. However, either A.) some straight bishops were negligent in moral oversight or B.) the number of gay bishops must be so large that they can globally skew the RCC’s moral judgment. I tend to believe “A”.

dedalus on April 14, 2010 at 3:57 PM

I’ve got to go for now dedalus, but I want to add a bit more.

1)-I agree with your linked source

In any case, most homosexual priests were not involved in the sexual abuse of minors.

2/-the bulk of the assualts took place in the later 1960s and 1970s.

3/

Mike OMalley on April 14, 2010 at 4:02 PM

I’ve got to go for now dedalus, but I want to add a bit more.
.
1)-I agree with your linked source

In any case, most homosexual priests were not involved in the sexual abuse of minors.

.
2/-the bulk of the assaults took place in the later 1960s and 1970s.
.
3/- I wasn’t referring to child molesters avoiding prison. I was writing about the professional advice the professional therapeutic community gave to the bishops. Back then the therapists were advising that divorce would not damage children either because children were “resilient”. Need we discuss how frighteningly wrong they were about that too?
.
4/ I wasn’t speaking “globally” I was addressing the American Catholic sex abuse crisis.
.
5/ the fault of the “heterosexual” American bishops was administrative and pastoral.
.
6/-Nonetheless beginning in the late 1950s and into the 1970s a goodly number of important Catholic seminaries came under the control of active homosexuals. This without doubt had a devastating affect on priestly formation and recruitment. One can not doubt that no few of the men so compromised rose in time to positions of authority, as I have demonstrated.

Mike OMalley on April 14, 2010 at 4:20 PM

No, I did not avoid the question – I answered it.

No, you didn’t explain how “morality” can somehow be separate and apart from the “natural”. Everything’s “natural”.

The natural does not consider morality. Morality is the process of determining whether a particular action is right and proper, ethical, principled, or not.

OldEnglish on April 14, 2010 at 9:54 AM

Circularity. “Morality is the process of determining whether something is moral”.

ddrintn on April 14, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Ok, so we’re going after rape and molestation charges by large organizations prosecuting the heads of these organizations.

I assume we’ll be starting with the worst offenders first, right?

When is Secretary-General of the U.N. Ban Ki-moon up for prosecution for the various “piece-keeping” missions around the world raping women and forcing them to perform sex acts for food and the staples of living?

Oh, the U.N. gets a free pass and we’re starting with the Catholic Church instead? Weird, the U.N. has a more checkered history with more people raped and more molestation charges; why start somewhere else?

Unless the rape and molestation isn’t really the problem and we’re going after the Catholic Church for a different reason… but that couldn’t be the case, could it?

gekkobear on April 14, 2010 at 5:34 PM

52.7% were 13 or over.
29.8% were 10 or under

Many of the seminaries were under the control of the gay mafia. The papal nuncio to the US was rumored to be a very gay man who favored certain priests and who therefore rose to the bishoprics. The extreme leftward tilt to today’s USCCB can probably be traced to this one man.

Haunches on April 14, 2010 at 5:34 PM

The truth is, Roman Catholicism is an exclusionary denomination, unlike mainstream Protestant ones. Think about that the next time you ponder why so many Protestants seem to you to have a problem with divisive, conceited Roman Catholicism.

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Maybe because they are protestant? Like, you know, protesting the Catholic Church by nature?

Without the Catholics for protestants to be “not like,” they really have no existence.

tcn on April 14, 2010 at 6:07 PM

Look, your beloved Church harbors Cardinal Law instead of reprimanding him and stripping him of any authority. Until your pope does so, he shows he cares more about his personal beliefs than he does the children that Cardinal Law allowed to be molested. That, my friend, is not Christian behavior.

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2010 at 1:29 PM

What authority does Cardinal Law have now? According to you, I mean? Because Catholics know that moving him where he can be closely watched and kept from influence is NOT the same thing as just letting him go and sin again.

Or would you rather he be publicly castrated? Just what would satisfy your vengeance?

tcn on April 14, 2010 at 6:09 PM

The truth is, Roman Catholicism is an exclusionary denomination, unlike mainstream Protestant ones.

I should tell that to the 87 people that were brought into the Church at my parish alone at the easter vigil especially those 37 who were in my rite of Catholic initiation of adults class. I don’t think they felt exculded while 1000s celebrated their entrance but I will ask them.

Haunches on April 14, 2010 at 6:31 PM

52.7% were 13 or over.
29.8% were 10 or under

Many of the seminaries were under the control of the gay mafia. The papal nuncio to the US was rumored to be a very gay man who favored certain priests and who therefore rose to the bishoprics. The extreme leftward tilt to today’s USCCB can probably be traced to this one man.

Haunches on April 14, 2010 at 5:34 PM

Given that there were a high number of molestations per guilty priest, the victims of each priest likely spanned boys of different ages.

20% of the victims were girls. The RCC did an equally poor job of reporting those abuses.

The US scandal was replicated in Ireland. The problem seems more institutional than one of a papal nuncio making mistakes.

dedalus on April 14, 2010 at 6:38 PM

Mike OMalley on April 14, 2010 at 4:20 PM

Thanks for the response. We’d likely agree that the RCC has faced a recruiting challenge in the US for several decades. Perhaps it is a “gay mafia” problem. If so, we’ll see if they can improve the quantity and quality of seminary graduates going forward. Have a good evening.

dedalus on April 14, 2010 at 6:41 PM

Say gekkobear:

Do you think that any of these vociferous critics of Pope Benedict are up for arresting an actual sex abuser of children; perhaps a prep like 62 year old French Minister of Culture and Communication Frédéric Mitterrand (nephew of France’s former Socialist President Francois Mitterrand) for traveling to Thailand to have sex with Asian children (underage male sex slaves)?

Mike OMalley on April 14, 2010 at 6:45 PM

Or how about a San Francisco politician or two now that rape of child sex slaves has thriving business in San Francisco?

Once limited to infamous locales such as Bombay and Bangkok, sex trafficking is now an $8 billion international business, with San Francisco among its largest commercial centers.

SEX TRAFFICKING / San Francisco Is A Major Center For International Crime Networks That Smuggle And Enslave

Mike OMalley on April 14, 2010 at 6:50 PM

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=632

Is that the recent case you are talking about, unclesmrgol?

pannw on April 14, 2010 at 12:13 AM

Yup.

unclesmrgol on April 14, 2010 at 10:21 PM

Although it’s pretty revolting to have to defend the Catholic Church that way….

JohnW on April 14, 2010 at 9:06 AM

Us Catholics don’t defend it that way. The Church is even more in favor of separation of Church and State, especially given the tendency for tolitarian regimes like China to “embrace and extend” our religion.

As I’ve stated previously, it is an amazing thing for this Pope to subjugate his clergy to the state. While the US can be expected not to abuse that position, I worry about China…

unclesmrgol on April 14, 2010 at 10:25 PM

Given that there were a high number of molestations per guilty priest, the victims of each priest likely spanned boys of different ages.

20% of the victims were girls. The RCC did an equally poor job of reporting those abuses.

The US scandal was replicated in Ireland. The problem seems more institutional than one of a papal nuncio making mistakes.

dedalus on April 14, 2010 at 6:38 PM

The scandal is indeed institutional. While we might consider our justice system to be fair and equitable (you can ask the McMartins about that), there are many other countries (including China) where that is certainly not the case.

As for the direction of priestly abuse, it was in Ireland where the first wave of abuse charges occurred, and the US was the second wave. This new set of abuse charges is Ireland’s second set.

From Wikipedia, a position buttressing the institutional nature of the problem:

According to the USCCB, Catholic bishops in the 1950s and ’60s viewed sexual abuse by priests as “a spiritual problem, one requiring a spiritual solution, i.e. prayer”.[25] However, starting in the sixties, the bishops came to adopt an emerging view based on the advice of medical personnel who recommended psychiatric and psychological treatment for those who sexually abused minors. This view asserted that, with proper treatment, priests who had molested children could safely be placed back into ministry, although perhaps with certain restrictions such as not being in contact with children.[26] This approach viewed pedophilia as an addiction, such as alcoholism which many feel cannot be cured but which can be treated and restrained.[27] Some of the North American treatment facilities most frequently used for this purpose included the Saint Luke Institute in Maryland; centers operated by the Servants of the Paraclete in Jemez Springs, NM, and St. Louis, MO; John Vianney Center in Downingtown, PA.; the Institute of Living in Hartford, CT; and the Southdown Institute near Toronto, ON .[28]

This approach continued to be practiced by the bishops well into the mid-1980s, a period which the USCCB characterizes as the “tipping point in the understanding of the problem within the church and in society”.[25] The Servants of the Paraclete were ministering to sexually abusive priests at their center in Gloucestershire, England as late as 1998.[29]

unclesmrgol on April 14, 2010 at 10:36 PM

Thank you, Mike O’Malley and others, from the bottom of my heart.

May God bless you and your families abundantly.

May God bless all here always.

May God root out evil and untruth where ever it lurks.

One day all evil deeds and evil intent on all sides of this issue will be revealed for all to see. One day He will lovingly heal the victims, punish the disgusting sinners, shame those who falsely attacked with malicious intent and vindicate those unjustly maligned, like our good and holy Pope who is a blessing to the universal Church.

Matthew 10:
“Therefore do not be afraid of them. Nothing is concealed that will not be revealed, nor secret that will not be known.
What I say to you in the darkness, speak in the light; what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops.”

Elisa on April 14, 2010 at 10:49 PM

Thank you Elisa.
.
Yes Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World are now being revealed and tellingly the World now scapegoats the guardians of the revelation about Scapegoating. What can go wrong?!
.
Also telling is the stubborn insistence in many quarters to assign responsibility for these assaults exclusively to the bishops of the Catholic Church. God forbid one should ask whether homosexuality played a roll!
.
Let’s take look at some of the American institutions which contributed to this problem, one of which was the APA (the American Psychological Association). I’ll quote from the December 2009 issue of First Things:
.

In 1998 the prestigious Psychological Bulletin, published by the American Psychological Association, printed a subsequently notorious study called “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples.” In it, three researchers took issue with “the common belief that child sexual abuse causes intense harm, regardless of gender.” The authors further criticized the use of conventional terms such as victim and perpetrator and recommended that “a willing encounter with positive reactions” be labeled “simply adult–child sex.” For good measure, they also compared consensual adult–child sex to “masturbation, homosexuality, fellatio, cunnilingus, and sexual promiscuity”—behaviors the APA once considered pathological but does no more. The clear implication was that “adult-child” sex would someday become as normalized in therapeutic circles as had these predecessors.

Or Christopher Hitchens’ own former home The Nation. See here in How Pedophilia Lost Its Cool for report about a pro-homosexual pro-pederasty essay about a “charming and cultivated American priest [in Haiti] who educated boys for export” into the homosexual sex slave trade!
.
Or again from the mid-1990s, not long before the New York Times began to pound the Catholic Church with sex abuse story after sex abuse story:

Fourteen years ago, for example, the New Republic published a short piece called “Chickenhawk” (pedophile slang for a young boy) that discussed a short film about the North American Man–Boy Love Association. The piece expressed sympathy for the pederasts and would-be pederasts depicted and echoed them in asking whether the boys weren’t sometimes the predators in man–boy sex. The piece is so damning of itself—so perfectly representative of a time when wondering aloud about “man–boy sex” exacted no penalty from the readers of a major magazine—that one could quote almost any sentence for the desired effect: “It might even be that a budding young stud had the upper hand over the aging, overweight loner,”

Should we not address why the horrendous problem of sex abuse of American children in the public school systems goes unaddressed to this day?

Mike OMalley on April 15, 2010 at 7:25 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4