Tag Archives: Scandal

AP Mobile: Church blasts gay priests leading 'double life'

A story from AP Mobile:

Church blasts gay priests leading ‘double life’

As some may already expect I stand with the Church on this. However, I would like to see a further crackdown on all misbehaving priests and religious. A part of me feels that it would good to know that practicing homosexuals are not the sole target of investigation. Yet I understand that this will likely not occur for various reasons, namely the secular media’s disinterest in news that may not make wide headlines without scandal to the Church and next the fact that it is prudent for the Church, at least her members, to remain neutral of scandals – especially those that would be reported from one side which is usually not the Church’s.

The other thing to consider in this story is that Rome is doing her job to root out those worthy of the priesthood without trying to scandalize offenders but it is the offenders that are bringing scandal to themselves and the Church by flaunting their sinful acts in front of the cameras. Double fail for those men.

‘Saint with pure semen’ imprisoned

Nissim Aharon, a former Defense Ministry employee convicted of severe sexual offenses, was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment by the Petah Tikva District Court as part of a plea bargain.

Aharon was convicted of rape, sodomy, indecent acts, aggravated fraudulent acquisition, making threats, forgery, using a forged document, and attempted disruption of legal proceedings.

Aharon, a resident of Rishon Lezion, was arrested last August. The indictment issued against him said that for many years he presented himself as a righteous holy man with healing properties in order to prey on women and perform sexual acts on them. In addition, the women gave him large sums of money under false pretenses.

The indictment also revealed that Aharon, in his 60s, targeted a religious audience or those seeking to become religious. He lied to them, saying he is a holy, pure rabbi whom other rabbis consult. He would say that he is a hidden righteous man, one of the 36 righteous men in Judaism and fixes broken souls and controls angels.

To this end, he would tell women that his semen is a holy liquid, and whoever comes in physical contact with him will be healed in body and soul. He even went as far as to say that it is a religious commandment to touch the body of “Rabbi Nissim Aharon.” He claimed that his holiness is transferred to others via physical contact and that it purifies them.

I wonder if this story will get any of the attention and “in depth quality journalism” of the similar scandals in the Church? Probably not. But then again pointing out the beam in the Church’s eye while not seeing the boulder in their own has never -once- gone out of style.

'Saint with pure semen' imprisoned

Nissim Aharon, a former Defense Ministry employee convicted of severe sexual offenses, was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment by the Petah Tikva District Court as part of a plea bargain.

Aharon was convicted of rape, sodomy, indecent acts, aggravated fraudulent acquisition, making threats, forgery, using a forged document, and attempted disruption of legal proceedings.

Aharon, a resident of Rishon Lezion, was arrested last August. The indictment issued against him said that for many years he presented himself as a righteous holy man with healing properties in order to prey on women and perform sexual acts on them. In addition, the women gave him large sums of money under false pretenses.

The indictment also revealed that Aharon, in his 60s, targeted a religious audience or those seeking to become religious. He lied to them, saying he is a holy, pure rabbi whom other rabbis consult. He would say that he is a hidden righteous man, one of the 36 righteous men in Judaism and fixes broken souls and controls angels.

To this end, he would tell women that his semen is a holy liquid, and whoever comes in physical contact with him will be healed in body and soul. He even went as far as to say that it is a religious commandment to touch the body of “Rabbi Nissim Aharon.” He claimed that his holiness is transferred to others via physical contact and that it purifies them.

I wonder if this story will get any of the attention and “in depth quality journalism” of the similar scandals in the Church? Probably not. But then again pointing out the beam in the Church’s eye while not seeing the boulder in their own has never -once- gone out of style.

Catholic League Calls Out the Times

The Catholic League has weighed in with a full page ad in the New York Times (aka Hell’s Bible).

The text:

GOING FOR THE VATICAN JUGULAR

Media_httpwwwwdtprsco_gjeaa

Recent accusations against the Vatican deserve a response.

• Fr. Lawrence Murphy apparently began his predatory behavior inWisconsin in the 1950s, yet the victims’ families never contacted the police until the mid-1970s. After an investigation, the case was dropped.

• The Vatican did not learn of the case until 1996.

• Cardinal Ratzinger, now the pope, was the head of the office that was contacted. There is no evidence that he knew of it. But even if he did, he would have had to allow for an investigation. While the inquiry was proceeding, Murphy died.

• The Times questions why Murphy was never defrocked. But only the Vatican can do that, and since it never learned of the case until he was dying, it was never a realistic option.

• The Times says the Vatican’s canonical inquiry was done in secret. Correct. The proceedings of internal investigations—even in organizations like the Times—are never shown on C-SPAN.

• The Times says repeatedly that Church officials did not report accusations of abuse to the police. The common response of all organizations, secular as well as religious, was to access therapy and reinstate the patient (I prefer the term offender). Today it is obvious that a more hard-line approach is necessary, though therapy is still popular in many quarters.

• The Times continues to editorialize about the “pedophilia crisis,” when all along it’s been a homosexual crisis. Eighty percent of the victims of priestly sexual abuse are male and most of them are post-pubescent. While homosexuality does not cause predatory behavior, and most gay priests are not molesters, most of the molesters have been gay.

Here’s what’s really going on. The Times has teamed up with Jeffrey Anderson, a radical lawyer who has made millions suing the Church (and greasing professional victims’ groups like SNAP), so they can weaken its moral authority. Why? Because of issues like abortion, gay marriage and women’s ordination. That’s what’s really driving them mad, and that’s why they are on the hunt. Those who doubt this to be true need to ask why the debt-ridden Times does not spend the same resources looking for dirt in other institutions that occurred a half-century ago.

Bill Donohue
President

CATHOLIC LEAGUE for Religious and Civil Rights
450 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York 10123
(212) 371-3191 Fax: (212) 371-3394
www.catholicleague.org

UPDATE: I like the Curt Jester’s observation via Twitter: The NYT rejected Archbishop Dolan’s response but accepted a paid ad from Catholic League: at the NYT you have to pay for balance.  Kudos to the Jester.

Thanks to Fr. Z for posting this and the Catholic League for its defense.

Catholic League Calls Out the Times

The Catholic League has weighed in with a full page ad in the New York Times (aka Hell’s Bible).

The text:

GOING FOR THE VATICAN JUGULAR

Recent accusations against the Vatican deserve a response.

• Fr. Lawrence Murphy apparently began his predatory behavior inWisconsin in the 1950s, yet the victims’ families never contacted the police until the mid-1970s. After an investigation, the case was dropped.

• The Vatican did not learn of the case until 1996.

• Cardinal Ratzinger, now the pope, was the head of the office that was contacted. There is no evidence that he knew of it. But even if he did, he would have had to allow for an investigation. While the inquiry was proceeding, Murphy died.

• The Times questions why Murphy was never defrocked. But only the Vatican can do that, and since it never learned of the case until he was dying, it was never a realistic option.

• The Times says the Vatican’s canonical inquiry was done in secret. Correct. The proceedings of internal investigations—even in organizations like the Times—are never shown on C-SPAN.

• The Times says repeatedly that Church officials did not report accusations of abuse to the police. The common response of all organizations, secular as well as religious, was to access therapy and reinstate the patient (I prefer the term offender). Today it is obvious that a more hard-line approach is necessary, though therapy is still popular in many quarters.

• The Times continues to editorialize about the “pedophilia crisis,” when all along it’s been a homosexual crisis. Eighty percent of the victims of priestly sexual abuse are male and most of them are post-pubescent. While homosexuality does not cause predatory behavior, and most gay priests are not molesters, most of the molesters have been gay.

Here’s what’s really going on. The Times has teamed up with Jeffrey Anderson, a radical lawyer who has made millions suing the Church (and greasing professional victims’ groups like SNAP), so they can weaken its moral authority. Why? Because of issues like abortion, gay marriage and women’s ordination. That’s what’s really driving them mad, and that’s why they are on the hunt. Those who doubt this to be true need to ask why the debt-ridden Times does not spend the same resources looking for dirt in other institutions that occurred a half-century ago.

Bill Donohue
President

CATHOLIC LEAGUE for Religious and Civil Rights
450 Seventh Avenue, New York, New York 10123
(212) 371-3191 Fax: (212) 371-3394
www.catholicleague.org

UPDATE: I like the Curt Jester’s observation via Twitter: The NYT rejected Archbishop Dolan’s response but accepted a paid ad from Catholic League: at the NYT you have to pay for balance.  Kudos to the Jester.

Thanks to Fr. Z for posting this and the Catholic League for its defense.

Aggie Catholics: Newsweek Does It Again

Lisa Miller from Newsweek is at it again. Her favorite advesary, the Catholic Church, sells a lot of books and magazines when you throw it under the bus. So, why stop? She sure got this one wrong again, just as she did when talking about heaven recently.

Here is one snip that should get us going, as she talks about women in the Church:

The problem—bluntly put—is that the bishops and cardinals who manage the institutional church live behind guarded walls in a pre-Enlightenment world. Within their enclave, they remain largely untouched by the democratic revolutions in France and America. On questions of morality, they hold the group—in this case, the church—above the individual and regard modernity as a threat. We in the democratic West who criticize the hierarchy for its shocking inaction take the supremacy of the individual for granted. They in the Vatican who blast the media for bias against the pope value ecclesiastical cohesion over all. The gap is real. We don’t get them. And they don’t get us.

She got two things correct:
1 – she doesn’t “get” the Catholic Church.
2 – she is part of modern culture.

Outside of these facts, she makes a mess of the rest of the article. She, as most in the media do, casts the Catholic Church as nothing more than a political or business reality and cannot think outside of these models and structures. In this kind of understanding of the Church, the hierarchy is sexist, they don’t understand modernity and progress, the Church needs to open up the doors to the sexual revolution and an enlightened understanding of humanity.

This kind of understanding hasn’t worked so well were implemented, so why does Miller think it will work in the Church? Because she sees things such as abortion, contraception, no-fault divorce, gaining power over human life, etc. as good things.

Our modern culture calls evil a good thing and asks the Catholic Church to do so as well. I won’t hold my breath.

Even her sources are suspect. To talk about the inner workings of the Catholic Church she quotes a United Church of Christ female minister:

“You can make a good argument that part of the problem is the hierarchy, in terms of it being a boys’ club, an institution that is so ingrown and conservative and out of touch with people.”

So, the Catholic Church – which is growing leaps and bounds – should listen to a women who is part of a dying denomination about how to be “in touch”? No thanks.

It is one thing to be critical – and we should be critical of leaders who don’t stand up to evil or allow bad things to happen. But, it is quite another to merely throw random (and silly) accusations around and hope one sticks in order to lead to “change” as you think it should happen.

The Church of Lisa Miller isn’t gaining many members…Sr. Mary Ann Walsh agrees and starts with facts about the article:

Observations get tossed about without scrutiny. For example, she states, wrongly, that “few women retain high-profile management jobs, such as chancellor, within dioceses.” Fact-checking proves that wrong. If you take the requirement for ordination off the table, data shows that the number of women in leadership positions in Catholic dioceses is comparable to that of the women in the U.S. workforce as a whole. One quarter of diocesan positions at the highest level, such as chancellor or chief financial officer, are held by women. You don’t find similar numbers among U.S. corporations.

Influence in the church does not depend upon ordination, though there is no doubt that it helps. The greatest impact of the Catholic Church in the United States arguably has been through its education and hospital systems, where women have taken the lead from the start. Church women also have had an impact beyond the church. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, for example, touched hearts everywhere and educated us to the extent of abject global poverty. Historically, some women even have overshadowed popes. Most educated people have heard of Teresa of Avila and Catherine of Siena. Does anyone, even the highly educated, know who the popes were when these women lived?

Lisa Miller’s article sinks into male-bashing, church-style. She notes that not everyone in the church is bad, and suggests some hope for the church, thanks to women. She scoffs churchmen just as women when alone will dis men as hopeless and helpless, etc. (and no doubt as men similarly dis women when men gather by themselves) This is good for laughs, but not to be taken seriously.

The topic de jour for media now is sexual abuse of minors by clergy. Lisa Miller’s article seems to reduce the problem to one that could be resolved by breaking open the all-male, celibate priesthood. You can’t get a more simplistic analysis than that. Statistics show that 30-40 percent of sexual abuse occurs in the home, and that’s a conservative estimate.

What would Mary do? This is the question Miller asks. I think Sr. Mary Ann has a better answer than Miller ever will.

Thanks to Aggie Catholics for beating me to the punch. I first saw this Newsweek article at a local newsstand. I did not purchase it but was able to read the online version.

Unfortunately, my work has been keeping me pretty busy (despite a couple of posts) and I have yet been unable to dedicate time to comment on the article. But why invent the wheel?

Aggie Catholics has done a great job here and it is worth the read. The article, however, is not. Just more anti-Catholic rhetoric. What I still can’t understand is how many people write about the Church but do not understand that the Catholic Church is the only church established by Jesus Himself. This institution is of divine origins.

Besides, the article does not even address the question on the cover of the magazine, “What Would Mary Do?” But I am going to address it here. Mary would defend the Pope, not wish to be a priest and pray for all of those who abused their power. Just as she is doing right now!

Aggie Catholics: Newsweek Does It Again

Lisa Miller from Newsweek is at it again. Her favorite advesary, the Catholic Church, sells a lot of books and magazines when you throw it under the bus. So, why stop? She sure got this one wrong again, just as she did when talking about heaven recently.

Here is one snip that should get us going, as she talks about women in the Church:

The problem—bluntly put—is that the bishops and cardinals who manage the institutional church live behind guarded walls in a pre-Enlightenment world. Within their enclave, they remain largely untouched by the democratic revolutions in France and America. On questions of morality, they hold the group—in this case, the church—above the individual and regard modernity as a threat. We in the democratic West who criticize the hierarchy for its shocking inaction take the supremacy of the individual for granted. They in the Vatican who blast the media for bias against the pope value ecclesiastical cohesion over all. The gap is real. We don’t get them. And they don’t get us.

She got two things correct:
1 – she doesn’t “get” the Catholic Church.
2 – she is part of modern culture.

Outside of these facts, she makes a mess of the rest of the article. She, as most in the media do, casts the Catholic Church as nothing more than a political or business reality and cannot think outside of these models and structures. In this kind of understanding of the Church, the hierarchy is sexist, they don’t understand modernity and progress, the Church needs to open up the doors to the sexual revolution and an enlightened understanding of humanity.

This kind of understanding hasn’t worked so well were implemented, so why does Miller think it will work in the Church? Because she sees things such as abortion, contraception, no-fault divorce, gaining power over human life, etc. as good things.

Our modern culture calls evil a good thing and asks the Catholic Church to do so as well. I won’t hold my breath.

Even her sources are suspect. To talk about the inner workings of the Catholic Church she quotes a United Church of Christ female minister:

“You can make a good argument that part of the problem is the hierarchy, in terms of it being a boys’ club, an institution that is so ingrown and conservative and out of touch with people.”

So, the Catholic Church – which is growing leaps and bounds – should listen to a women who is part of a dying denomination about how to be “in touch”? No thanks.

It is one thing to be critical – and we should be critical of leaders who don’t stand up to evil or allow bad things to happen. But, it is quite another to merely throw random (and silly) accusations around and hope one sticks in order to lead to “change” as you think it should happen.

The Church of Lisa Miller isn’t gaining many members…Sr. Mary Ann Walsh agrees and starts with facts about the article:

Observations get tossed about without scrutiny. For example, she states, wrongly, that “few women retain high-profile management jobs, such as chancellor, within dioceses.” Fact-checking proves that wrong. If you take the requirement for ordination off the table, data shows that the number of women in leadership positions in Catholic dioceses is comparable to that of the women in the U.S. workforce as a whole. One quarter of diocesan positions at the highest level, such as chancellor or chief financial officer, are held by women. You don’t find similar numbers among U.S. corporations.

Influence in the church does not depend upon ordination, though there is no doubt that it helps. The greatest impact of the Catholic Church in the United States arguably has been through its education and hospital systems, where women have taken the lead from the start. Church women also have had an impact beyond the church. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, for example, touched hearts everywhere and educated us to the extent of abject global poverty. Historically, some women even have overshadowed popes. Most educated people have heard of Teresa of Avila and Catherine of Siena. Does anyone, even the highly educated, know who the popes were when these women lived?

Lisa Miller’s article sinks into male-bashing, church-style. She notes that not everyone in the church is bad, and suggests some hope for the church, thanks to women. She scoffs churchmen just as women when alone will dis men as hopeless and helpless, etc. (and no doubt as men similarly dis women when men gather by themselves) This is good for laughs, but not to be taken seriously.

The topic de jour for media now is sexual abuse of minors by clergy. Lisa Miller’s article seems to reduce the problem to one that could be resolved by breaking open the all-male, celibate priesthood. You can’t get a more simplistic analysis than that. Statistics show that 30-40 percent of sexual abuse occurs in the home, and that’s a conservative estimate.

What would Mary do? This is the question Miller asks. I think Sr. Mary Ann has a better answer than Miller ever will.

Thanks to Aggie Catholics for beating me to the punch. I first saw this Newsweek article at a local newsstand. I did not purchase it but was able to read the online version.

Unfortunately, my work has been keeping me pretty busy (despite a couple of posts) and I have yet been unable to dedicate time to comment on the article. But why invent the wheel?

Aggie Catholics has done a great job here and it is worth the read. The article, however, is not. Just more anti-Catholic rhetoric. What I still can’t understand is how many people write about the Church but do not understand that the Catholic Church is the only church established by Jesus Himself. This institution is of divine origins.

Besides, the article does not even address the question on the cover of the magazine, “What Would Mary Do?” But I am going to address it here. Mary would defend the Pope, not wish to be a priest and pray for all of those who abused their power. Just as she is doing right now!

Studies find patterns of Catholic clergy sex abuse

This story from comes from the AP through Fox News but leaves plenty of the details of the studies out. I did find it interesting enough to digest and comment on though:

Studies find patterns of Catholic clergy sex abuse  AP

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2002 commissioned a series of surveys and studies on the roots of the clergy sex abuse crisis from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University.

Researchers’ findings so far have helped explain some patterns of abuse in America’s Roman Catholic church and challenge some misconceptions about the underlying causes:

OLD CLAIMS: Nearly all of the people coming forward now with abuse claims are adults who say they were molested as children long ago. Only a tiny fraction of the new claims involve alleged victims who are still children. [Not sure what to make of this except that it seems the problem of these abusive priests could be reflective of a time in society when figures of authority, who elicited more respect, seemed above reproach. Consider how many issues back in the first half of the 20th century were either not understood or to disruptive to consider. Also, some of the accusers could indeed be making claims for motives other that justice.]

THE PRIESTHOOD: Because victims often wait decades before speaking out, most of the clergy who are being accused now are dead or have left the priesthood. About 4 percent of all clergy who served in the U.S. since 1950 have been accused of molesting children. [Again, the first sentence reflects on the society of that day. The second point could be factual or skewed due to a lack of accusers. That said, being that since the first bombshell several years back and the dollars paid out, I am of the opinion that the 4 percent is probably on point. The most vocal minority is almost always the most scandalous – “one bad apple ruins the bunch.”]

THE VICTIMS: The overwhelming majority of the victims were adolescents. That means very few guilty priests were pedophiles, a term mental health professionals reserve for those who target pre-pubescent children. The distinction is important in deciding how to prevent potential abuse. [For the sake of headlines and scandal, many news outlets do not emphasize the distinction between adolescents and prepubescent children. This is something that is recognized by the professionals associated with these types of disorders as this section states. Pedophiles truly prey on victims that do not have complete understanding of what is going on; however, adolescents, especially older teens, can be actively involved and in fact initiate some of these relationships. There plenty of examples in our school system. That does not mean you remove teachers from teaching right? In any event, any abuse of authority such as this is a grave sin and error.]

HOMOSEXUALITY: Even though about 80 percent of victims were boys, the John Jay researchers and other experts on sex offenders say it does not mean the perpetrators were gay. Priests had more access to boys, which likely explains the high percentage of male victims, researchers say. [I am particularly pleases with this note. Granted we all know the Church’s teaching on this subject, yet there far too many that claim that a major cause for these abuses is homosexuality. Personally, I have always felt and understood that sexual abuse is not a strong indication of a person’s “orientation” but rather a measure of accessibility and the desire to demonstrate power over another – power being the main cause.]

via foxnews.com

I am certain that this self examination will not impress many who are already opposed to the Church but it is refreshing to me to know that the USCCB took the initiative to study the problem deeply. Any intuition with direct power over its constituents must always ex mine itself. This is some that Our Blessed Founder always had a problem with vis-a-vis the Jewish religious leaders of the 1st century. And I am sure that He continues to have a problem with it today. He makes this clear in Matthew 23:3:

“All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.”

Jesus want against authority and hierarchy, He was opposed to the abusive of those positions no matter the ways the abuse manifested itself (some Scriptural examples).

One last point I want to make is concerning homosexuality. I would like to quote the Catechism chapters 2357-2359 which speaks on Chastity and Homosexuality: 

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

The Church in her wisdom understands that the nature of a person’s temptations (which can lead to sin) is irrelevant inasmuch as mortal sin is mortal sin. As a heterosexual with a deep-seated, yet natural, attraction to women, I still commit grave sin if I lust for a woman and/or God forbid act on such lust/temptation. The only difference with me and a “homosexual” man is the fact that my sin can bring forth new life. I join the ranks of the unnatural sin if I contracept.

What I am saying is that homosexuals acts do not define the person nor their soul and subsequently their state of grace. These acts are another cross that some must bear and a direct affect of Original Sin and its degrading power on the human body and soul. These individuals are not necessarily the root cause or symptom of the abuse.

Let us not hate the person but the sin. For in this we are all equal. What makes a man and a woman worthy of those titles is how they respond to their cross through faith in Jesus by loving Him more than themselves and freely accepting the His Mercy and Grace as given through the Holy Spirit and His Church.

Chime in if you have any opinions yourself!

Studies find patterns of Catholic clergy sex abuse

This story from comes from the AP through Fox News but leaves plenty of the details of the studies out. I did find it interesting enough to digest and comment on though:

Studies find patterns of Catholic clergy sex abuse  AP

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2002 commissioned a series of surveys and studies on the roots of the clergy sex abuse crisis from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University.

Researchers’ findings so far have helped explain some patterns of abuse in America’s Roman Catholic church and challenge some misconceptions about the underlying causes:

OLD CLAIMS: Nearly all of the people coming forward now with abuse claims are adults who say they were molested as children long ago. Only a tiny fraction of the new claims involve alleged victims who are still children. [Not sure what to make of this except that it seems the problem of these abusive priests could be reflective of a time in society when figures of authority, who elicited more respect, seemed above reproach. Consider how many issues back in the first half of the 20th century were either not understood or to disruptive to consider. Also, some of the accusers could indeed be making claims for motives other that justice.]

THE PRIESTHOOD: Because victims often wait decades before speaking out, most of the clergy who are being accused now are dead or have left the priesthood. About 4 percent of all clergy who served in the U.S. since 1950 have been accused of molesting children. [Again, the first sentence reflects on the society of that day. The second point could be factual or skewed due to a lack of accusers. That said, being that since the first bombshell several years back and the dollars paid out, I am of the opinion that the 4 percent is probably on point. The most vocal minority is almost always the most scandalous – “one bad apple ruins the bunch.”]

THE VICTIMS: The overwhelming majority of the victims were adolescents. That means very few guilty priests were pedophiles, a term mental health professionals reserve for those who target pre-pubescent children. The distinction is important in deciding how to prevent potential abuse. [For the sake of headlines and scandal, many news outlets do not emphasize the distinction between adolescents and prepubescent children. This is something that is recognized by the professionals associated with these types of disorders as this section states. Pedophiles truly prey on victims that do not have complete understanding of what is going on; however, adolescents, especially older teens, can be actively involved and in fact initiate some of these relationships. There plenty of examples in our school system. That does not mean you remove teachers from teaching right? In any event, any abuse of authority such as this is a grave sin and error.]

HOMOSEXUALITY: Even though about 80 percent of victims were boys, the John Jay researchers and other experts on sex offenders say it does not mean the perpetrators were gay. Priests had more access to boys, which likely explains the high percentage of male victims, researchers say. [I am particularly pleases with this note. Granted we all know the Church’s teaching on this subject, yet there far too many that claim that a major cause for these abuses is homosexuality. Personally, I have always felt and understood that sexual abuse is not a strong indication of a person’s “orientation” but rather a measure of accessibility and the desire to demonstrate power over another – power being the main cause.]

via foxnews.com

I am certain that this self examination will not impress many who are already opposed to the Church but it is refreshing to me to know that the USCCB took the initiative to study the problem deeply. Any intuition with direct power over its constituents must always ex mine itself. This is some that Our Blessed Founder always had a problem with vis-a-vis the Jewish religious leaders of the 1st century. And I am sure that He continues to have a problem with it today. He makes this clear in Matthew 23:3:

“All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.”

Jesus want against authority and hierarchy, He was opposed to the abusive of those positions no matter the ways the abuse manifested itself (some Scriptural examples).

One last point I want to make is concerning homosexuality. I would like to quote the Catechism chapters 2357-2359 which speaks on Chastity and Homosexuality: 

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

The Church in her wisdom understands that the nature of a person’s temptations (which can lead to sin) is irrelevant inasmuch as mortal sin is mortal sin. As a heterosexual with a deep-seated, yet natural, attraction to women, I still commit grave sin if I lust for a woman and/or God forbid act on such lust/temptation. The only difference with me and a “homosexual” man is the fact that my sin can bring forth new life. I join the ranks of the unnatural sin if I contracept.

What I am saying is that homosexuals acts do not define the person nor their soul and subsequently their state of grace. These acts are another cross that some must bear and a direct affect of Original Sin and its degrading power on the human body and soul. These individuals are not necessarily the root cause or symptom of the abuse.

Let us not hate the person but the sin. For in this we are all equal. What makes a man and a woman worthy of those titles is how they respond to their cross through faith in Jesus by loving Him more than themselves and freely accepting the His Mercy and Grace as given through the Holy Spirit and His Church.

Chime in if you have any opinions yourself!

Defending Truth: Fellow Journalists Pounce on Dowd

Well I am glad to see there better qualified people picking apart Ms. Dowd’s column:

Dowd’s Pope Attack ‘Is False’

Media_httpwwwtheatlan_dqaja

Sergey Gabdurakhmanov/Flickr under a CC license Maureen Dowd’s fiery Wednesday column is drawing plenty of attention–not all of it good. Critics say that in denouncing Pope Benedict and calling for his replacement–preferably with a female–Dowd may have gone too far. The New York Daily News editorial board argues that some of her claims were downright false. John McCormack at The Weekly Standard expanded on the Daily News’s response, saying Dowd “libels” the pope.

The post in the Atlantic Wire does a pretty good job of summing things up.