Where do you get this?AGC said:
The catholic response is seemingly that law enforcement is not part of the equation, whatever else the answer may be. I'm not sure this ends well.
Father Steve is unable to divulge what is said during the Sacrament of Reconciliation however he can and should make absolution contingent upon Father Jim going to authorities.AstroAg17 said:
How does confession work with this stuff?
Let's say Father Jim confesses to Father Steve that he's been doing some molesting. Father Steve is unable to take action of any kind based on this info, right?
Here, from the grand jury report:Dad-O-Lot said:Where do you get this?AGC said:
The catholic response is seemingly that law enforcement is not part of the equation, whatever else the answer may be. I'm not sure this ends well.
Quote:
The Pennsylvania report accuses church leaders in the state of discouraging victims from reporting the abuse, which allegedly spanned more than 60 years.
"Several diocesan administrators, including the bishops, often dissuaded victims from reporting abuse to police, pressured law enforcement to terminate or avoid an investigation or conducted their own deficient, biased investigation without reporting crimes against children to the proper authorities," the report says.
I see. From the report -- what had happened. I thought you were referencing something indicating what they Church was saying needed to be done going forward.UTExan said:Here, from the grand jury report:Dad-O-Lot said:Where do you get this?AGC said:
The catholic response is seemingly that law enforcement is not part of the equation, whatever else the answer may be. I'm not sure this ends well.Quote:
The Pennsylvania report accuses church leaders in the state of discouraging victims from reporting the abuse, which allegedly spanned more than 60 years.
"Several diocesan administrators, including the bishops, often dissuaded victims from reporting abuse to police, pressured law enforcement to terminate or avoid an investigation or conducted their own deficient, biased investigation without reporting crimes against children to the proper authorities," the report says.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/08/14/grand-jury-report-pennsylvania-details-abuse-catholic-priests/980687002/
Dad-O-Lot said:I see. From the report -- what had happened. I thought you were referencing something indicating what they Church was saying needed to be done going forward.UTExan said:Here, from the grand jury report:Dad-O-Lot said:Where do you get this?AGC said:
The catholic response is seemingly that law enforcement is not part of the equation, whatever else the answer may be. I'm not sure this ends well.Quote:
The Pennsylvania report accuses church leaders in the state of discouraging victims from reporting the abuse, which allegedly spanned more than 60 years.
"Several diocesan administrators, including the bishops, often dissuaded victims from reporting abuse to police, pressured law enforcement to terminate or avoid an investigation or conducted their own deficient, biased investigation without reporting crimes against children to the proper authorities," the report says.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/08/14/grand-jury-report-pennsylvania-details-abuse-catholic-priests/980687002/
That raises another question about who is attracted to the Catholic priesthood and the screening process for candidates. The proliferation and widespread abuse of children reported in recent years, and the church's tolerance for such abuse makes me think that people in stable marriage relationships would not necessarily be welcomed in Catholic clergy ranks by their peers.k2aggie07 said:
Howsabout they just revert to the ancient practice of married clergy? The original line of thinking for the celibate clergy was to prevent worldly abuses of property. I don't think this is a major potential issue any longer, and the obvious consequences of the celibacy requirement would outweigh it anyway.
It isn't as if there is some theological or doctrinal issue at stake. They do it now - married clergy from other churches such as Anglicans are a thing.
I disagree completely.ramblin_ag02 said:
I think the Catholic Church should restrict vows of celibacy to the monastery. I think a lot of religious young men with pedophilic desires go into the priesthood due to guilt over those desires. The guilt leads to a desire for holiness and denial of their urges, and priesthood seems to offer both. However, they are then in positions of power around vulnerable people, and it's a simple matter to give in to temptation. Especially when that path is well-worn and there are plenty of willing co-conspirators.
I think the Church could still be a great solution for someone with pedophilic tendencies, but cloister them. At least that way they are in less of a direct path of tempation, and anything that does happen doesn't involve the general public laity. Leave the direct supervision of congregations to married priests, but still be vigilant. There's plenty of Protestant examples to prove that marriage doesn't stop many people from acting badly anway.
Isn't it already? Not all Catholic priests or even a majority for sure, but it would be interesting to see the ratio of sexual orientations of men willing to take a lifelong vow of celibacy for religious reasons.Quote:
Catholic Priesthood should not be a jobs program for pedophiles and guilt-laden homosexuals.
Dad-O-Lot said:
As more information comes out about a pervasive homosexual sub-culture in some Catholic Dioceses, will there be an additional backlash against the Catholic Church when Bishops try to eliminate that sub-culture from their midst?
I don't know what the right or best answer is to eliminate the pedophile and actively homosexual priests without also hurting falsely accused priests.
They should not lose their rights and presumption of innocence until proven guilty; but I don't see how this will be possible.
There are more calls now to involve more of the laity in investigations and oversight.AGC said:Dad-O-Lot said:
As more information comes out about a pervasive homosexual sub-culture in some Catholic Dioceses, will there be an additional backlash against the Catholic Church when Bishops try to eliminate that sub-culture from their midst?
I don't know what the right or best answer is to eliminate the pedophile and actively homosexual priests without also hurting falsely accused priests.
They should not lose their rights and presumption of innocence until proven guilty; but I don't see how this will be possible.
I'm not jealous of your position at all. However, it has become quite clear that the RCC is not capable of addressing the crisis on its own. Colleges should not investigate sexual assault and neither should the RCC. Neither is equipped to handle it.
I certainly don't relish this downfall as it doesn't benefit Protestants either. But we must learn and do better. Given the passage of time and nature of the crimes it may behoove it to purge all to start over, as leaving the priesthood is not a jail sentence. At least that way justice can start its course via law enforcement or they can begin anew elsewhere if they're innocent.
Trusting the bishops to purge the subculture when some of them participated and allowed it to flourish is a typically catholic answer. Defer to the clergy / hierarchy. The simple fact that they are elevated high enough in the church means they'll do the right thing. Unfortunately we've seen that isn't true and it's depressing to see the same answer over and over again. This is happening in multiple countries and those responsible for promoting those bishops and cardinals are now in Rome. Perhaps it's too high to be dealt with?
Whatever church Catholics think Jesus left them with, this isn't it.
Dad-O-Lot said:There are more calls now to involve more of the laity in investigations and oversight.AGC said:Dad-O-Lot said:
As more information comes out about a pervasive homosexual sub-culture in some Catholic Dioceses, will there be an additional backlash against the Catholic Church when Bishops try to eliminate that sub-culture from their midst?
I don't know what the right or best answer is to eliminate the pedophile and actively homosexual priests without also hurting falsely accused priests.
They should not lose their rights and presumption of innocence until proven guilty; but I don't see how this will be possible.
I'm not jealous of your position at all. However, it has become quite clear that the RCC is not capable of addressing the crisis on its own. Colleges should not investigate sexual assault and neither should the RCC. Neither is equipped to handle it.
I certainly don't relish this downfall as it doesn't benefit Protestants either. But we must learn and do better. Given the passage of time and nature of the crimes it may behoove it to purge all to start over, as leaving the priesthood is not a jail sentence. At least that way justice can start its course via law enforcement or they can begin anew elsewhere if they're innocent.
Trusting the bishops to purge the subculture when some of them participated and allowed it to flourish is a typically catholic answer. Defer to the clergy / hierarchy. The simple fact that they are elevated high enough in the church means they'll do the right thing. Unfortunately we've seen that isn't true and it's depressing to see the same answer over and over again. This is happening in multiple countries and those responsible for promoting those bishops and cardinals are now in Rome. Perhaps it's too high to be dealt with?
Whatever church Catholics think Jesus left them with, this isn't it.
I still think it's a matter of "a few bad apples"; but if the Bishop of the Diocese is one of those bad apples, there needs to be a better way of dealing with it.
I was just about to post this same article.RAB91 said:
A long read.... but an interesting view related to this discussion.
'WHY MEN LIKE ME SHOULD NOT BE PRIESTS'
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/08/why-men-like-me-should-not-be-priests
Had this been followed, many of the problems we see in the church would not have happened.Quote:
The 2005 Vatican instruction on the question of homosexuality and the priesthood states this clearly: "The Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture.'" This teaching wasn't new. In 1961, the Vatican declared that men with homosexual inclinations couldn't be ordained. Seminarians who "sinned gravely against the sixth commandment with a person of the same or opposite sex" were to be "dismissed immediately."
k2aggie07 said:
Just one minor point - in both Roman and Orthodox theology "the church" is both the laity and the clergy and neither can exist apart from the other. When we say "the church" has to fix this I agree, but I think many folks have a much different idea of what that sentence means than I do. They think "the church" is the clergy and the hierarchy. I think even some of the clergy think this. This needs to be addressed by the people with the clergy, and I think that the failure to look at it this way so far is part of the problem.
Quote:
Chastity, I'm convinced (and the evidence bears this out), is much harder for men with a homosexual inclination than for others.
These are the reasons given in the article. I want to roll my eyes at the first one. Sex drive varies people, but I've never seen anything concrete that shows homosexual men having a higher sex drive than heterosexual men.Quote:
Thus, a grave problem with homosexual priests is the high number of them who don't agree with the Church's teaching on sexual morality and covertly (or overtly) undermine this teaching, both in the pulpit and in the confessional.
read the article.AstroAg17 said:
What's the basis for not letting celibate gays be priests?
k2aggie07 said:
Just one minor point - in both Roman and Orthodox theology "the church" is both the laity and the clergy and neither can exist apart from the other. When we say "the church" has to fix this I agree, but I think many folks have a much different idea of what that sentence means than I do. They think "the church" is the clergy and the hierarchy. I think even some of the clergy think this. This needs to be addressed by the people with the clergy, and I think that the failure to look at it this way so far is part of the problem.
