Thursday, November 3, 2011

Lucia Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church

We had a big spike in readers yesterday with a couple of links to Andrei's post. As is normal with these sorts of spikes, very few of the readers leave comments, so unless you're looking at the stats, you'll have hardly noticed anything different around here.

Over at the Dim Post, a number of commenters keep bringing up the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church. How dare we comment on the likelihood of any other group committing sexual abuse of children when so many in the Catholic Church were abusers and had their abuse covered up by some in the hierarchy. Or so it goes.

Well, the thing is when you've spent a bit of time really looking at the crisis here in the Church, you'll notice a few things and a very big glaring thing. That very big glaring thing is the sheer number of pederast cases, where post-pubescent boys were abused by homosexual men, something like 80% of cases.  The media has been very clever in hiding that fact from the public, trying to make it more a widespread paedophile problem, which it is not.

And then when you bring that horrendous statistic into focus, you then notice that normal heterosexual men were actively prevented from joining the priesthood in some areas for many decades creating "lavender seminaries" in a number of countries.  I don't know how many homosexual priests we have right now, but it seems there are quite a few.

A couple of books are worth reading in order to get your head around this concept that those men who have abnormal sexual desires are not good men to have around children. While not every man who has homosexual desires is going to abuse teenage boys, statistically they are more likely to, and because of this and other problems with such men, the Vatican has ordered all seminaries not to admit them for training for the priesthood.

The first book is Goodbye! Good Men: How Catholic Seminaries Turned Away Two Generations of Vocations From the Priesthood by Michael Rose.

In this explosive new book, investigative reporter Michael S. Rose reveals how deliberate discrimination against traditional, or "orthodox," men has been effected by well placed ideologues who want to change the Catholic Church in America to suit their personal tastes and politics.

Also find out:
  • How seminary "gay subculture" and its "heterophobia" drive away healthy heterosexual men
  • How traditional expressions of the faith and acceptance of the Church's teachings often disqualifies a candidate
  • How psychological counseling is unethically used to expel healthy men from their seminary
The other book is The Faithful Departed by Phil Lawler.

The Faithful Departed traces the rise and fall of the Catholic Church as a cultural dynamo in Boston, showing how the Massachusetts experience set a pattern that has echoed throughout the United States as religious institutions have lost social influence in the face of rising secularization.

The collapse of Catholicism in Boston became painfully apparent in 2002, with the full explosion of the sex-abuse crisis. But Lawler brings an insider’s knowledge and a journalist’s sense of drama to show that the sex-abuse scandal was neither the cause nor the beginning of Catholicism’s decline in Boston. In fact, the scandal was itself a symptom of corruption that was already well advanced.

Full of colorful anecdote and gripping social history, The Faithful Departed will be of interest not only to Catholics and to those acquainted with Boston’s rich political tradition, but to anyone concerned about the interplay between religious faith and public policy. The demise of Catholic influence in Massachusetts is an especially vivid example of a secularizing trend that is visible throughout the United States.

CONCLUSION


Given everything we know about sexual abuse of minors, you'd think those people who condemn us for our sexual abuse problems would also be very interested in preventing such problems from occurring anywhere else. But no, this does not seem to be the case. There is no interest in preventing abuse, there is only a desire to make us stay silent. No lie is too big in order to make this happen. Even saying the current Pope was actively involved in covering up child abuse causes them no shame for maligning an innocent man who has done everything in his power to clean up the Church, removing the "filth", as he called those who would abuse children and young people.

With this is the whole bigger problem that people have, the abuse of children and young people is so horrendous, they cannot believe anyone but a religious person (that other type of weirdo they don't understand) could ever be capable of it. Certainly not people like them or their friends no matter what their other sexual proclivities. And this attitude means that they will turn the other way when obvious signs present themselves. They will presume the best explanation of an unsuitable couple's motives if they want to change the laws of the land to enable them to adopt children, rather than erring on the side of caution. And thus will enable very vulnerable young children to be placed with couples who should never be given children in the first place. Some of those children will be just fine, some won't - we won't know for decades as to how large the problems will be, but in the future I certainly hope those that have been pushing for gay adoption now will be suitably excoriated for not knowing better.

POSTSCRIPT

As an aside, the longing of men to have children comes from a good place. Rather than remaking society into their own image, this longing for children could be God's way of reminding them that they are men, not animals, and that their sexual desires do not have to define them. That through the forgiveness and grace of God, they may be able to have children and a life in the proper way, not in a distorted way, if they just ask Him to help them. That help and forgiveness is always there waiting for them, God will never abandon them.  It's always the other way around, we abandon God to follow our own desires, no matter how destructive they are.  But there is always a way back for every single one of us.

19 comment(s):

leftrightout said...

Am I confused, or are you?

Are you saying that paedohilia by a Priest is wrong, but pederasty is OK? because I think they're both wrong; it is wrong for any person to take advantage of another, especially when the wrong doer is in a position of power, authority or prestige.

How can you defend this depicable behaviour?

Lucia Maria said...

You know that's not what I'm saying, LRO. You're just getting it out there to try and get readers to think that's what I'm saying.

leftrightout said...

These are your words:

Well, the thing is when you've spent a bit of time really looking at the crisis here in the Church, you'll notice a few things and a very big glaring thing. That very big glaring thing is the sheer number of pederast cases, where post-pubescent boys were abused by homosexual men, something like 80% of cases. The media has been very clever in hiding that fact from the public, trying to make it more a widespread paedophile problem, which it is not.

So, what ARE you saying? To me it reads paedophile bad, pederast good, or at least not so bad.

Lucia Maria said...

LRO, pederasty is not paedophilia. Paedophilia more rare as can be seen from the stats. It doesn't mean that pederasty is worse - it's just more prevalent than people realise. In other words, the Catholic Church has had a massive problem with abusive homosexual priests, not paedophile priests as has been reported.

This is important, because most media reports stress homosexuals as being persecuted or bullied or just living normal lives. Every attempt is made to not use the words gay or homosexual when it comes to homosexual predators, of which there were many in the Catholic Church, preying on young and teenage boys.

I.M Fletcher said...

LRO, she is trying to point out that the problem is more involving of abuse of a homosexual nature than of a heterosexual or even generic nature.

By using the word "paedophile" (attraction to children), the media is sidestepping the homosexual issue. In more cases the priest was guilty of being a "pederast" (love of boys).

Homosexuality, however, is the politically correct media's sacred cow. They dare not go there to mention that. That would be intolerance, and they know that it's only OK to be intolerant against Christians.

I.M Fletcher said...

Oops, Lucia beat me to it...

ZenTiger said...

To further accentuate that difference LRO look at a current court case of a Police Office (no less) known for taking home "young men" of 15/16 and getting them drunk and then allegedly having sex with them, hoping alcohol (illegal to provide) creates meaningful "consent" (which cant be given by the young, drunk or not)

For priests, this is described as "pedophilia" in the headlines. For others (like the case above) they instead put in the headlines "17 year old" because that is the age the person is more than a year later when they finally get to court - an insinuation that this particular homosexual just had a thing for "younger men", not "boys", and 17 is so close to 18...

It's hypocritical to be so inconsistent in the approach to reporting. Call it what it is, and prosecute accordingly.

To save myself breath, these statements above should not be interpreted as blanket statements against all homosexuals (or police for that matter), that's why we have specific words for things with specific meanings.

ZenTiger said...

How dare we comment on the likelihood of any other group committing sexual abuse of children

Yeah, this logic is used a lot but pretty stupid.

1. I do not condone the abuse in the church nor the cover-ups.

2. I want the culprits brought to justice. Due to the age of the cases, sometimes this will be very difficult.

3. I didn't commit these crimes.

4. Some men are rapists, I'm a man, but I'll comment against men rapists.

5. Some criminals live in NZ, I live in NZ, but I'll comment against NZ criminals.

6. Other organisations shouldn't be given a free pass from the same criticism - indeed, some (the NZ government for example) still have a lot to learn about handling abuse cases committed by the government.

7. Some of the historic abuse cases were not covered up - they went to trial by the courts. The fact that pedophiles were let off by secular authorities with a bit of counseling, or a light sentence is ignored by the modern media. Their attitude at that time in history puts in context some of the actions by the Church - people really thought a few promises to stop doing it and a session with the shrink would sort it.

We know better now, but we still need to understand the differences back then.

Lucia Maria said...

Fletch,

thanks for your explanation. It's good to know that it's obvious to more than just myself as to what I actually said!

Richard said...

I think the Catholic Church's main problem was not so much the problem of child raping priests but that it has been so lacking in basic morality and humanity that it consistently covered up the abuse for no other reason than to protect itself, all the while claiming to be an infallible source of moral authority. And you wonder why you get mocked for for making outrageous and baseless statements.

Lucia Maria said...

Richard,

I mostly agree with you. The individuals within the Church who covered up the abuse failed in every way. With their understanding of sin and human nature, they should have known that the sins they tried to hide would come out. But, unfortunately, human beings are fallible and don't always act in the best way, despite what they are supposed to represent.

I've been really reminded of last Sunday's OT reading with regards to the sex abuse scandal:

Reading 1, Mal 1:14b-2:2b, 8-10

14 Cursed be the rogue who has a male in his flock but pays his vow by sacrificing a blemished animal to me! For I am a great king, says Yahweh Sabaoth, and among the nations my name inspires awe.'

1 'And now, priests, this commandment is for you.

2 If you will not listen, if you will not sincerely resolve to glorify my name, says Yahweh Sabaoth, I shall certainly lay a curse on you and I shall curse your blessing. Indeed I will lay a curse, for none of you makes this resolve.

8 But you yourselves have turned aside from the way; you have caused many to lapse by your teaching. Since you have destroyed the covenant of Levi, says Yahweh Sabaoth,

9 so I in my turn have made you contemptible and vile to the whole people, for not having kept my ways and for being partial in applying the law.

10 'Is there not one Father of us all? Did not one God create us? Why, then, do we break faith with one another, profaning the covenant of our ancestors?

Richard said...

Actually LM you seem to disagree with me entirely. The sexual abuse of children was not just a function of the individuals in the Catholic Church that committed the crimes, covered them up and turned a blind eye, but a function of a sick organisation that has been committing evil for millennia whether it's been selling indulgences, carrying out inquisitions or covering up rape. All the while the church has claimed to be an infallible moral authority when demonstrably it is not.

Lucia Maria said...

Richard,

Yes I totally reject that the abuse was institutional. There is nothing in the Magisterium of the Church that supports your assertion, and in fact abuse of this nature is considered a heinous crime that will lead the perpetrator into eternal damnation. All sexual sins are deadly in this way.

Richard said...

My assertion is that the Catholic Church has been guilty of many abhorrent crimes over the millennia and does not seem to be able to prevent more crimes from happening. One only has to look at how the church has hidden behind canonical law as an excuse for covering up abuse and hiding the perpetrators from justice.

And as for eternal damnation is it not true that if the rapists repent they will be saved and if a victim is loses their faith due to the abuse the victim will be eternally damned?

Lucia Maria said...

Richard,

First of all, yes to the question you ask at the end.

The Catholic Church over the millennia was and is spiritually home to many millions of souls, all of whom were and are sinners. The only sinless people that were ever born were Jesus and His Mother.

So, we are talking a heck of a lot of people here. Is your assertion that all these people in the Church, including myself, are encouraged to commit abhorrent crimes, and that these crimes are covered up by the Church using canon law?

Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? In fact, I've heard this sort of allegation before from one Geoffrey Robertson. Don't tell me you've read his book and believe everything he's written.

Richard said...

I realise exactly how ridiculous that sounds, but that is because it is ridiculous to pretend that criticism of the Catholic Church's cover up of child abuse is a direct critisism of every Catholic. It is ridiculous that you ask if I'm asserting that you encourage child abuse as you know I am not.

To be clearer so that you cannot again attempt to twist my words is that the clerical bureaucracy of the Catholic Church which made up and enforces canonical law, magisterium and claims to be a ultimate moral authority, has throughout the millenia committed many abhorrent crimes and failed to show humanity and morality.

I've no idea who Robertson is. Do you believe the Pope is infalliable? That would be really silly as there's 2000 years of evidence to suggest that's false.

I.M Fletcher said...

Do you believe the Pope is infalliable? That would be really silly as there's 2000 years of evidence to suggest that's false.

I don't know how many times I've had to explain this, but here goes...
When Catholics say the Pope is infallible, it means on Faith and Morals. It doesn't mean that the Pope as a person is infallible. It means that as head of the Church, he is so guided so as to never teach anything on Faith and Morals that is in error.

If an issue arises (ie, contraception) then all the Bishops will get together and discuss it, but the Pope always has the final say on the matter.

There is '200 years of evidence" to suggest this is true. If the Church had taught falsehood )ie, anything not in line with the Will of God) it would have fallen long ago, but as Jesus said, the "Gates of Hell" would not prevail against the Church as long as it was built on Peter, the Rock (who has the gift of God's Grace and Divine guidance).

I.M Fletcher said...

opps, make that 2000 :)

100wordblog said...

Those arguments demonstrably illogical. If the Pope was unable to teach anything in error then why have successive Popes taught different things. Unless you are suggesting that the God informing the Pope of what's tight and wrong kept changing his mind.

Also why would a religious organisation fall for teaching things that are wrong? If Catholicism were correct then every other religion would be teaching in error. I don't see problems with the longevity of Islam, Judaism or Hinduism (jury's still out on the Prince Philip movement of Vanuatu admittedly).

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.