Liberal groups urge media boycot of Catholic League’s Bill Donohue

No joke here…. from the Catholic League.

ATTEMPTS TO CENSOR DONOHUE FAIL

April 1, 2010

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on recent attempts to censor him:

TV producers have been telling me for years that my critics have implored them never to invite me back on any program. But they always do. While the media are overwhelmingly liberal, they have an obligation to offer different points of view. Hence, their non-stop invitations asking me to speak.

The latest attempt to silence me comes from GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), Call to Action and the Interfaith Alliance. The three left-wing organizations have joined hands demanding that the media "ignore Bill Donohue." Their complaint? My telling the truth about the role homosexual priests have played in the abuse scandal.

The data collected by John Jay College of Criminal Justice show that between 1950 and 2002, 81 percent of the victims were male and 75 percent of them were post-pubescent. In other words, three out of every four victims have been abused by homosexuals. By the way, puberty, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, begins at age 10 for boys.

No problem can be remedied without an accurate diagnosis. And any accurate diagnosis that does not finger the role that homosexuals have played in molesting minors is intellectually dishonest. The cover-up must end. And so must attempts to muzzle my voice. Everything I am saying is what most people already know, but are afraid to say it. It’s time for some straight talk.

Technorati Tags: ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Throwing a Nutty and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to Liberal groups urge media boycot of Catholic League’s Bill Donohue

  1. DisturbedMary says:

    It was so confusing to listen to the John Jay report given at last year’s UCCB conference and to realize that the bishops prefer using the word pedophile to homosexual! Embarrassing and pathetic.

  2. mwmn says:

    I recommend this approach to dealing with the media’s reporting on sex abuse:

    Bishop William Lori of Connecticut:

    [When government fails to manage the risk of sexual abuse, the New York Times and other media too often give government a pass. If we really care about protecting children, then the fourth estate needs to focus its spotlight on those institutions with the greatest problems. In January of this year, the U. S. Department of Justice reported that one out of ten young people incarcerated in government-run detention facilities were sexually victimized by their guards during the single year of 2008. This represents 2,370 victims. Where was the Times report? And the number of sexual abuse victims in public schools dwarfs the problem in juvenile detention facilities.]

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmNmZWY1NTE2MDRlZWNkMDQyMjg1YzMxMmUxOGIwNTk=

  3. PeterK says:

    The John Jay study is interesting in that the results were just released last November. The researchers claim no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse.
    here is a story about the report
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10040104.html

    http://www.thecatholicthing.org/content/view/3086/2/

  4. DisturbedMary says:

    PeterK – I just found the Lifesitenews link myself — my head is spinning. I don’t understand. Is this denial? shame? fear? Oy.

  5. lucy says:

    “….time for straight talk…..” love the pun !

  6. Leaving aside what GLAAD says, I’ve always been annoyed with Donahue.

    Yes, on occasion there is a matter that he does bring media attention to, but more often than not I think he does a lot of harm (at last in the public image of the Church).

    Yes, his statement on pedophilia in clerical sex abuse is technically correct, he did not go about it in a very pastoral or diplomatic way.

  7. New Sister says:

    Donahue’s numbers are low, but still incriminating. From the Lifesite News article,
    “It’s time to let our bishops know that we expect well-documented correct information, not political correctness. We want the “filth” cleaned out of the Church; and we will not tolerate any attempt to sweep it under the carpet.”

    I said as much at “Viritus” training in the Arlington Diocese. I stood up and called the presenter on the hypocrisy: don’t state that the training’s goal is to “get things in the open” and their deliberately cover-up of the homosexual link to the problem. (more than a cover-up actually – outright deception to reinforce a message that homosexuality is NOT a factor) The disheveled & unimpressive presenter refused to take any questions on homosexuality in the open, but said he would discuss “one-on-one” after class.

    I pressed: “…there is an obvious link between abuse & those who look at porn, those who have drug or alcohol addictions, those who were abuse victims themselves…why is homosexuality not in enumerated in this list, when our problem has been [stats above]?”

    Furthermore I asked, “Are you saying the diocese of Arlington is willing to permit an open homosexual to teach religious education?” — he cut me off and would not answer.

    At the coffee break, I found myself *ostracized* by the 80 other Catholic laity at the training – and I’m quite adept in social settings. I tried to talk to a few women & was blatantly snubbed.

    BL: if we begin to speak up and demand this “300 ton elephant” be called for what it is (and we should), we will be lone voices and face attacks by fellow “Catholics” who by and large (in Europe and the US) are indoctrinated by liberalism far more than Catholicism.

  8. Dave N. says:

    How about we just call it rape or sexual assault.

  9. catholicmidwest says:

    Dave N.

    The great majority of this abuse is statutory rape–the act of sex with a minor too young to give proper consent–but NOT a child.

    There are very clear laws against statutory rape, and very clear penalties for it, as every straight high school boy knows.

    About 8 years ago, we had a diocesan “informational” meeting where I myself witnessed our past bishop, ordinarily a good man, referring repeatedly to this abuse as pedophilia in a speech. When he asked us to comment, we got in line and straightened him out.

    The idea that this is pedophilia is inexcusable and it’s false. Pedophilia is very rare; it concerns very small children; it’s caused by fixated personalities and it’s a true mental illnes. People with pedophilia need to be under full-time psychiatric care. A very few cases of priestly abuse have been true pedophilia, but again they’re incredibly rare. Most of the priestly abuse cases of the last 40 years have been statutory homosexual rapes.

  10. catholicmidwest says:

    This is why celibacy can’t be a remedy for the abuse crisis. The problem isn’t merely desire. It’s disordered criminal sexual activity. The few statutory homosexual rapists that we still have are criminals, and that’s what’s the matter with them. They need to be jailed, not married!

    Make a big note of this: No statutory homosexual rapist is going to want a woman; no woman is going to want a statutory homosexual rapist. It’s an insult to women to treat us like so many heifers or whores for a supposed cause. Like it would work anyway.

  11. Sandra_in_Severn says:

    Specifically, the majority of the acts fall under the heading of pederasty, a form of homosexual behavior involving a mature man, and an immature but post pubescent boy. The group NAMBLA is a lobby for the legalization AND normalization of such activities.

    Celibate abstinent, or chase, homosexuals ARE NOT the problem.

    There are usually two crimes involved here, the actual abuse(which is bad enough) and the cover-up which is I feel worse.

    We need to remember that while an accusation is a newspaper headline, accusations that are proven false (such as those made for fraud) are seldom reported. And nearly impossible to verify (one way or another) are those accusations made against long deceased priests.

    I fear less some priest, than many a public school teacher.

  12. Bornacatholic says:

    If we know a man is a homosexual then he should not be accepted as a Seminarian.

    That action alone would go a long way to setting right what is wrong.

  13. mpm says:

    “…he did not go about it in a very pastoral or diplomatic way.”

    Well, what do you expect? He is not a pastor, a minister or a diplomat. He’s a watchdog, and he barks! Isn’t that what one looks for in a watchdog?

  14. mpm says:

    As far as the Church is concerned, what matters with respect to “child abuse” is that it be external mortal sins (defined as canonical “crimes”) against the sixth commandment with minors (now defined as minors below the age of 18). The cases reserved to the Tribunal of the CDF are said crimes involving ordained clergy. That is the definition as contained in De delictibus gravioribus (May, 2001).

    I think the attempt to discern whether the culprits were this-or-that kind of pervert is of lesser importance to the Catholic Church, since that analysis is highly sensitive to the sorts of categories used, and changed from time-to-time, by professional associations of psychologists. If the latter happen to change one of these definitions, it will not change the canonical crime as defined in Canon Law.

    Of course, those who are qualified professionals can freely argue as to the diagnosis of individual cases.

  15. frjim4321 says:

    My two cents is that the elephant in the living room is imposed celibacy on diocesean priests. The beautiful charism of celibacy within relgious orders is a wonderful tradition in the church. Yet the sexual abuse crisis should at minimum call us to look more closely upon the discipline and diocesan priesthood.

    Donohue’s blatherings accusing homosexual persons of being more prone to commit sexual abuse than heterosexual persons has no basis in the literature, and is in effect hate speech. Donohue does a grave disservice to Catholicism by making it appear grotesque in the public forum. Fr. Jim

  16. catholicmidwest says:

    “If we know a man is a homosexual then he should not be accepted as a Seminarian.” I agree with you, Bornacatholic. The problem is that the people who do the accepting are either dissidents out to prove something nefarious by their choices OR homosexual/lesbian themselves.

    A lot of dioceses still have a dissident gatekeeper in place who screens candidates for rigidity (code word for orthodox and straight). We only got rid of ours a few years ago, and we were lucky.

  17. Dr. Eric says:

    frjim4321,

    Had those priests kept to their VOW of celibacy we wouldn’t be having this problem now would we? They knew what they were getting into, there is at least 5 years of Seminary to go through before being ordained as a Deacon and in many places it is more like 7 years. Don’t pull that card. Especially since step-dads and mom’s boyfriends, and teachers all molest pre and post pubescent kids at much much higher rates.

  18. catholicmidwest says:

    Fr. Jim,

    Celibacy does not cause statutory homosexual rape. Immorality and immaturity cause statutory homosexual rape. Rapists are criminals.

    About marriage: No grown woman wants a creepy little man who wants to feel up little boys. No creepy little criminal who feels up little boys has the first idea what to do with a grown woman with PARTS and a PERSONALITY. Get a clue. It doesn’t work. AND IT’S INSULTING TO WOMEN. WE ARE NOT CHATTEL OR WHORES YOU CAN SELL OFF TO TRY TO SOLVE YOUR PROBLEMS. And anyone who suggests it needs a good lop upside the head with a teflon coated frypan to help them come to their senses.

    PS, WRONG. Heterosexual (married!!!) men are the most likely to harm a child sexually: uncles, fathers, grandfathers, cousins, brothers, teachers, doctors (especially psychologists), boy scout leaders…etc etc. It’s just that most rape by heterosexual married men IS targeted at *GIRLS.*
    On the other hand, Catholic clergy seem to target *BOYS.* The explanation is OBVIOUS.

    RE men who are in seminary without their minds made up about their priestly mission re women (or men!) and sex. LEAVE. RIGHT NOW. WE DON’T NEED YOU. We will never be that hard up for personnel. AND you could cost us a fortune we don’t have anymore thanks to your kind. Go spend your own money and solve your own problems–you have more problems than we do. And you can’t give what you haven’t got.

  19. mpm says:

    Fr. Jim,

    Are the members of “Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation” not practicing homosexuals? Is it not their agenda to get others to hold up their behavior, not just their “propensities”?

    From a moral standpoint I see no real distinction between a man who is heterosexual AND living chastely, and a man who is homosexual AND living chastely.

    Every one of us, married and single; priest, religious and laity, is called to live chastely.

    To be celibate entails being chaste; if that gift of the Holy Spirit is given to religious, why can He not give it to diocesan clergy? Why is the acceptance by secular clergy of celibacy “not free”, while the acceptance by the regular clergy of chastity is “free”?

    And by the way, were none of the child-abusing priests members of religious orders? That’s not what I have read.

  20. robtbrown says:

    My two cents is that the elephant in the living room is imposed celibacy on diocesean priests. The beautiful charism of celibacy within religious orders is a wonderful tradition in the church. Yet the sexual abuse crisis should at minimum call us to look more closely upon the discipline and diocesan priesthood.

    IMHO, two things are obvious:

    1) Seminary training has not been preparing men for celibacy. Celibacy demands a certain emotional independence, but too many leave seminary as emotional dependents. Certain emotional forces that trigger molestation, e.g., loneliness, must be dealt with in seminary.

    Anyone who was in formation in a US seminary or religious order in the 70′s or 80′s has seen the persecution of those who were against the ordination of women (or in favor of Latin), with preference given to others who were homosexual but spouted the liberal line.

    2) In the present state of the priesthood many of the protections of celibacy have disappeared.

    Donohue’s blatherings accusing homosexual persons of being more prone to commit sexual abuse than heterosexual persons has no basis in the literature, and is in effect hate speech. Donohue does a grave disservice to Catholicism by making it appear grotesque in the public forum. Fr. Jim
    Comment by frjim4321

    Hate speech? Acc to the traditions of the Church, homosexuality is a sin crying to heaven for vengeance. Do you consider that to be hate speech?

    When there is a adult male molesting an young adolescent male, that is called homosexual activity. If an adult male molests a young adolescent female, that is called heterosexual activity.

    However grotesque Donohue might seem, he is minor league compared to the scandals and the flimsy excuses offered for them.

  21. catholicmidwest says:

    There is an elephant in the living room, all right. That elephant is that, for some reason, Catholics are often willing to accept the unacceptable (outrageous!) when it comes to the behavior and aspirations of some clergy & religious.

    No, priests can’t get married! What the hell? What do you think this is, the Mormon church? The Presbyterians? What?

    No, priests shouldn’t feel free to violate mass rubrics! (This includes the foot-washing fiasco). What do you think this is? Walt Disney World? A priest who can’t say mass according to the rubrics sent by Rome is incompetent–as incompetent as a math teacher who can’t count. Let’s be honest for once.

    That’s the elephant in the living room.

  22. catholicmidwest says:

    “However grotesque Donohue might seem, he is minor league compared to the scandals and the flimsy excuses offered for them.”

    I agree 100%. I’m no Donohue fan, but it’s time somebody told some semblance of the truth.

  23. Nathan says:

    I think it would help Mr. Donohue’s case (and all of ours as well) if we took special care not to fall into the conceptual trap surrounding the terms used. The terms “homosexual” and “gay” and “straight” are ambiguous in the extreme, especially as used in academia and in the mainstream media. One, appearently, can be homosexual and completely chaste; or gay while having exclusive relations with the opposite sex; or, for that matter, straight and fully participate in gay pornograpic films. If the term means anything the user wants it to, it plays right into the argument of homosexuality as an issue of “being” rather than one of behavior.

    It would be much more useful to use terms that clearly denote the behavior. Traditionally, the Church has used the term sodomy to refer to sexual activity between members of the same sex. It’s a lot clearer to say “In other words, three out of every four victims have been abused by those priests who engaged in sodomy” because it points to the behavior rather than this nebulous concept of “gay-ness.”

    It is also true that the gay lobby has branded the term sodomy “hate speech” because of the strongly negative connotations it carries. Yes, it is a sin crying to heaven for vengeance, but we have to think about how we use the term in the public debate. It might be more effective, when engaging the mainstream media, to use terminology such as “same-sex activity” or something similar to clearly express the behavior, not the identity politics, of what we’re discussing.

    To sucessfully bring the argument to the table and to clearly express the link between the child abuse and sodomy, I would submit we have to be crystal-clear in what we are talking about and deliberately avoid the loaded terminology prevalent in the public debate.

    In Christ,

  24. catholicmidwest says:

    Nathan,

    Actively homosexual, if you’re a man, means sticking it to another guy, or maybe a little boy. Is that clear enough for you? Let’s not be cute here.

    You a graduate of the Clinton school of “It depends on what the meaning of the words ‘is’ is.” or what?

    Next you’re going to tell me, “”It depends on how you define alone…” Right. Clinton said that too.

  25. Henry says:

    catholicmidwest @ 8:28 am,

    Wow! You’ve sure made the point that some topics immature priests ought to stay away from. Similarly, I once heard a talk on “theology of the body” by a priest who demonstrated only that he really had no basis for discussing this aspect of married life.

  26. catholicmidwest says:

    I believe you, Henry.

    The best thing Catholics could have done was be scrupulously honest about these things from the get-go. Once you start excusing things and telling little white lies to avoid trouble, you have to keep going and the lies have to keep getting bigger and bigger. And here we are. Enough already.

  27. catholicmidwest says:

    PS, the reason homosexuals engage in so much out-of-wedlock chicanery is kind of obvious if you have a working brain. They can’t/don’t want to marry the targets of their desire who are the same gender as they are. Interestingly enough, changing the laws to allow homosexual marriage doesn’t change the effect much either.

    There’s a whole genre of it targeted towards young partners too, because of the fear of disease. Professionals (including clergy) don’t want to get caught with a fatal sexually-contracted disease. Nobody wants to talk about this either, but it’s true.

  28. Henry says:

    Nathan,

    Really good and precisely stated advice (as usual) on how to clarify a topic so often obfuscated (sometimes intentionally) by fuzzy syntax.

  29. Nathan says:

    Catholicmidwest,

    Like you, I wish we could just speak plainly on the issue. Unfortunately, I’ve found that there are a number of culturally influential sources who have used semantics and ambiguity to further their agenda. My point is, if those of us who want to defend the Church’s teaching want to win hearts and demonstrate the reasonablity of Catholic teaching on sexual morality, we would be best served by using terms that haven’t been bent and redefined to play into the pro-sodomy cause.

    Henry, thank you very much. That was quite a compliment.

    May Our Suffering Lord pour out a torrent of graces on both of you for Good Friday and Easter.

    In Christ,

  30. catholicmidwest says:

    The “winning of hearts” as you put it is part of the last paradigm, the one of the 60s and the “Spirit of Vatican II.” It’s not really about captivating the emotions of crowds so we can hoodwink them into something they couldn’t come into with their whole brain and soul. Really it never was. But that was the 60s for you.

    These battles we fight now are different. If you give the gay crowd and inch, they take a mile. It’s all incremental and no one is convincing any one of any thing on a large basis. Those days ended with Reader’s Digest and the tube radio.

    We are in a time when young people don’t see their lives as situated in a context. They think they can do anything they want and just walk away from it when they’re done like so many dogs. To change this and win souls, we have got to talk about scripture and SHOW them that their lives matter and their lives have a consistent fabric which they should nurture.

    No amount of defining is going to work. That’s a 20th century didactic and it’s lost on postmoderns–a waste of time, precious time.

  31. catholicmidwest says:

    And like much that went around in the 60s, it can verge on dishonesty so quickly–a word there, a word here; an intonation there, an intonation here; a glance here, a glance there.

    People now optimize everything by twisting and shaping it. This is no different.

    The gospels and the faith itself are not like that. It’s not something shapeless and formless like so much silly putty you can make whatever you fancy out of. It is what it is. And unless a person accepts that, honestly, they walk away whether they admit it or not.

    How does a person who sort of, kind of, by some marginal definition, think they might have thought something they shouldn’t have, but they’re not sure and they don’t want to admit it so they won’t–approach the confessional? Hopefully, they sit down and think and pray until they make good Christian sense of it that very minute, and then they go into those doors. Catholics have to be able to do that. They can’t just float along and deny or avoid confession and the truth. You know that.

  32. catholicmidwest says:

    As an example, think about abortion. For all of our arguments and posturing and noise and trying to “win people over,” do you think it did any good? No, the federal government now pays for abortions–it’s new and that’s that. They incrementalized & redefined it out of us.

    What caused that? People know all the arguments but they don’t take them seriously. And why should they? We, as Catholics, act like it doesn’t matter. The statistics for abortions among Catholics are almost exactly the same as for the general population (just like they are for divorce, birth control and a whole raft of other issues we’re always defining and trying to “win people over” about.)

    The answer: Make it count. If something is wrong–it’s wrong. Call it out in the pulpit. Call it out in our families. Call it out in public. We are the people of life–we don’t just say we are. Make it true. And then at least Catholics will take it seriously and stop the slaughter.

  33. catholicmidwest says:

    New Sister,
    Thank you for your courage. It’s much appreciated. And yes, it is a 300 ton elephant, and we have to banish it, the sooner the better.

  34. TJerome says:

    Frjim4321, You sound like you’ve been brainwashed by the “mainstream” media which adores gays, loves homosexual acts, and HATES the Church in which you are a priest because the Church condemns those acts (but not the orientation itself). I don’t get it. Perhaps if you looked at Fox News you might not be so brainwashed. These lying, obfuscating, prevaricating, sacks of s— in the media are spinning this clerical sexual scandal story to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people that it is pedophilia when the overwhelming number of cases is about old, common, gay sex. Why do they do this? Because they have an agenda to confuse the facts and thereby mitigate the fall-out on their beloved gays (their second favorite class of “victim” after “African-Americans”).

  35. AnAmericanMother says:

    Never thought I’d hear a priest saying that celibacy ought to be done away with.

    catholicmidwest is absolutely right — these ‘chickenhawks’, be they priests, teachers, or youth leaders, are not interested in women or marriage. And women are absolutely NOT interested in them. They are sick. The homosexual predators sneaked into the priesthood because that’s where the boys are, just like Willie Sutton robbed banks because that’s where the money is.

    I happened to meet two of the priests in this diocese who were later prosecuted for statutory homosexual rape — this was long before I was a Catholic. One of them was the ‘creepy little criminal’ type – the other was what is usually described as a flaming queen. In other words obvious homosexuals. Perhaps the authorities believed they wouldn’t “act out” – but they did.

    I don’t see how one can ignore the obvious connection between the homosexual culture that worships youth and physical attractiveness, and glorifies the older ‘experienced’ homosexual ‘adopting’ and ‘mentoring’ the sweet young thing, and the predation on available young teen boys. It seems obvious to me, but then again my mom is a professional dancer so I grew up observing that culture at close range (and didn’t like what I saw).

  36. AnAmericanMother says:

    Wasn’t VOTF involved in the legislation awhile back that was introduced to try to turn the Church in Rhode Island into a lay-run public corporation? Sounds pretty extreme to me.

  37. catholicmidwest says:

    VOTF is a joke. It’s CTA with their “other” hats on. Same people, same meetings, same donuts. Old trick.

  38. frjim4321 says:

    Dear Posters:

    The John Jay report findings don’t support the theory that the sexual abuse crisis is related to sexual orientation, in fact the report specifically rules out sexual orientation as a cause of sexual abuse.

    What I don’t see in the report, and what I think would be most interesting, is a correlation of perpetration with year of entry in the seminary. I have not seen this in the discussion at all, but does perpetration increase for those who entered the seminary in earlier years? Do perpetrators tend to be attendees of HS seminaries?

    I don’t think that has been studied yet.

    I wonder if perpetration is correlated with immaturity more than it is with sexual orientation. This would be a fascinting study.

    Fr. Jim

  39. catholicmidwest says:

    So Fr Jim,

    Those priests just let those kids have it because…uh… they didn’t want to. Right? Yeah that’s it. NOw I truly have heard everything.

    The next thing I bet you wanna tell me is that those kids were proxies for ladies. Uh no. We’re back to the pink teflon-coated frypan again, aren’t we?

    *Get this straight: I am not a proxy target for the crimes of sex criminals just because I’m of the female gender.*

  40. catholicmidwest says:

    NO woman is.

    Women are the wrong gender to fit the predominant pattern of priestly sexual abuse–which was–MALE ON MALE.

  41. catholicmidwest says:

    And fr jim,

    Honestly, I don’t think your hypothesis is the cause of most of what we saw. I really do think it’s a homosexual problem.

    However, if there are cases of what you’re claiming, then I think that’s every bit as bad because what you’re saying is that some priests are so desperate for a piece of tail that they will stick it to just about anything or anyone that breathes to satisfy their lust. How, by any metric whatsoever, could that be any better???

  42. frjim4321 says:

    CMW, I am sorry, I’m missing your point. If you are down and hurting I can honor that. I was simply reflecting my read of the JJ report which I believe is accurate. No one should ever be abused – of either gender. When I was in grade school and HS seminary a few priests made moves on me, so I’m overly sensitized to this . . . fortunately these attempts never went very far. But it’s made me very intrigued about the problem, what it’s origins were and what might prevent it in the future. I don’t think scapegoating gay priests will solve this horrible problem, in fact I suspect that the current approach will drive them further into the closet. Indeed, some of the “save environment” programs (e.g., “Virtus”) provide prospective perpetrators with the knowledge that will help them hide more effectively. Fr. Jim.

  43. frjim4321 says:

    “save environment” = “safe environment”

  44. catholicmidwest says:

    You are indeed missing my point.

    Gay priests need to be watched, and no more should be ordained. They are a scourge because of their proclivities which rise to the surface with alarming regularity, as the John Jay report and all the other coverage has shown anyone with common sense. Our own Scriptures condemn homosexual acts. How can you expect someone who loves homosexual acts to preach on that scripture? How?

    And what about the use of young people as disease preventatives for homosexuals? No one wants to talk about that. Do you know what happens when a priest dies of AIDS in public?

    I agree with you that the silly “safe environment” programs, most of which were forced on laypeople with astonishing political correctness, do little to solve the problem. Indeed, they were exercises in political correctness, meant to avoid the problem, which is the fact we still have gays in the priesthood.

    The problem will be solved when the church decides to laicize all priestly sexual criminals (of all types) as soon as they are convicted. We need to step up the process of church trials in Rome, and get this done as quickly as possible. Clean the out the barns and let’s get on with life.

  45. catholicmidwest says:

    fr jim,

    I’m not down and hurting. I’m using my brains because that’s what they’re for. This whole fiasco is just stupid and immoral, as are the things it sounds like you’ve been suggesting, re married priests, any & all females as proxies for criminal acts, men so desperate they would abuse children on such a pretext.

    Catholic priests, of the Roman Rite, are celibate because of their ordination vows. That’s not negotiable. A man who realizes he didn’t really mean it about sex may not have meant other things too. Who knows? What would you prescribe for such a man?

  46. Henry Edwards says:

    Fr. Jim: “If you are down and hurting I can honor that.”

    In catholicmidwest’s support, I am unable to discover any hint in her posts that she is “down and hurting”.

    With respect, perhaps you can suggest some way to read the sentence quoted above as something other than condescending and supercilious. At least on the surface, it looks intentionally insulting, maybe even an attempted low blow.

    Is there something that I myself am missing? If not, perhaps an apology that clears the air would encourage more positive consideration of anything further you may have to say.

  47. frjim4321 says:

    Henry,

    Don’t know how your apologizing would be at all helpful; don’t see anything you have said that would demand an apology.

    Fr. Jim

  48. robtbrown says:

    The John Jay report findings don’t support the theory that the sexual abuse crisis is related to sexual orientation, in fact the report specifically rules out sexual orientation as a cause of sexual abuse.

    The report is not infallible. There are people who disagree with the claim that orientation is not relevant, and I’m one of them. The assumption is that the high percentage of boys (80%) is simply because they’re available–with a comparison to prisons. On the contrary, men are only available in men’s prisons. Priests, however, can have contact with girls at schools.

    What I don’t see in the report, and what I think would be most interesting, is a correlation of perpetration with year of entry in the seminary. I have not seen this in the discussion at all, but does perpetration increase for those who entered the seminary in earlier years? Do perpetrators tend to be attendees of HS seminaries?

    I wonder if perpetration is correlated with immaturity more than it is with sexual orientation. This would be a fascinting study.
    Fr. Jim

    Among psychologists embracing stage theories of personality, lack of maturity (regression) is definitely a cause of impeded sexual development, including orientation.

    It is interesting that most of the offenses were committed by diocesan priests. This is probably because: a) religious who man parishes have more of a sense of the community within the rectory than do diocesan priests, which now, unfortunately, are too much formed to define themselves in light of the congregation and not enough in light of their relationship with Christ. I think vernacular, versus populum liturgy have contributed to this problem.

    And b) religious priests, despite the deficiencies of the past 30 years, have a more intense, less activist spiritual formation that confronts the problems of loneliness before ordination.

  49. frjim4321 says:

    Robert,

    The factors you mentioned with regard to religious priests notwithstanding, the Denver Charter did not apply to religious priests and religious communities provide safer harbor for abusers than do dioceses. Religious communities are able to shuttle perpetrators across state lines, and also across international borders. For example in one diocese I know a Marist was shipped to Ireland and a CPPS was shipped to South America, also a diocesean priest entered a religous community in a nearby state. The factors you mention may indeed be of interest, but it is way to early to say that “most offenses were committed by diocesean priests.”

    Fr. Jim

  50. catholicmidwest says:

    Fr Jim,
    I’m not down and hurting as you so crudely put it. And I don’t care whether you honor anything concerning me or not. I sure the hell hope you aren’t around where I am anywhere. Luckily the odds are against it since the internet is a wide place. Good day.

  51. poohbear says:

    “Henry,
    Don’t know how your apologizing would be at all helpful; don’t see anything you have said that would demand an apology.
    Fr. Jim”

    Uh, Jim, I think Henry was suggesting that YOU apologize.

  52. robtbrown says:

    I don’t think scapegoating gay priests will solve this horrible problem, in fact I suspect that the current approach will drive them further into the closet. Indeed, some of the “save environment” programs (e.g., “Virtus”) provide prospective perpetrators with the knowledge that will help them hide more effectively. Fr. Jim.
    Comment by frjim4321

    It’s not a matter of scapegoating homosexual priests.

    I think we need to distinguish between those who had homosexual tendencies before they entered seminary and those for whom it happened later. From what I’ve seen, the first group often came to seminary-religious life, stayed a few years, then left before ordination.

    IMHO, the second group is most relevant to this situation and more complex. Some were recruited at seminary by older students. For others it was a case of struggling with celibacy in an all male environment.

    It must be noted that celibacy is unique because it is a virtue demanding complete denial of the appetite. A married man might be attracted to a woman at work, but he still can satisfy the sexual appetite at home with his wife. For the celibate, however, there is no emotional or physical outlet.

    Anyone who has ever fasted for a medical procedure (e.g., colonoscopy) can understand the situation. During the fast, foods which previously were disgusting suddenly seem very attractive.

  53. robtbrown says:

    The factors you mentioned with regard to religious priests notwithstanding, the Denver Charter did not apply to religious priests and religious communities provide safer harbor for abusers than do dioceses. Religious communities are able to shuttle perpetrators across state lines, and also across international borders. For example in one diocese I know a Marist was shipped to Ireland and a CPPS was shipped to South America, also a diocesean priest entered a religous community in a nearby state. The factors you mention may indeed be of interest, but it is way to early to say that “most offenses were committed by diocesean priests.”
    Fr. Jim
    Comment by frjim4321

    You were the one who cited the Jay Jay report, which is the source of the diocesan/religious imbalance (69% vs 22%). See report: 3.3.5.

  54. robtbrown says:

    Should be: John Jay report.

  55. irishgirl says:

    New Sister-you go girl! Good for you in going after that ‘facilitator’, or whatever they call ‘em nowadays!

    mpm-hey, you stole my line [7:25 am post]! But good for you, too!

    catholicmidwest-amen to all your posts!

  56. catholicmidwest says:

    Robert Brown,

    If there are cases of what you’re claiming–heterosexual men raping little boys just because they happen to be available–what you’re saying is that some priests are so desperate for a piece of tail that they will stick it to just about anything or anyone that breathes to satisfy their lust.

    HOW, BY ANY METRIC WHATSOEVER, COULD THAT BE ANY BETTER???

    No one has answered that question.

  57. catholicmidwest says:

    RE my last post: This isn’t something that you sacrifice a woman to. This is a horrible moral fault on the part of the man if he does this raping of anything that breathes to satisfy his lust.

    Men like this should no longer be in the priesthood. Men who would act out as immorally and illegally as this need to be jailed. Immediately. And laicized. Immediately.

  58. catholicmidwest says:

    The great overwhelming majority of priests aren’t like this. The great overwhelming majority of laypeople aren’t either. Yet, we have had to pay the price for people who never should have been ordained in the first place because of their double lives, their duplicity and their criminal tendencies. It’s outrageous.

  59. robtbrown says:

    If there are cases of what you’re claiming—heterosexual men raping little boys just because they happen to be available—what you’re saying is that some priests are so desperate for a piece of tail that they will stick it to just about anything or anyone that breathes to satisfy their lust.

    When did I say heterosexual men were involved? How in the world did you come up with interpretation? Do you just read a few words, then make up the rest?


    HOW, BY ANY METRIC WHATSOEVER, COULD THAT BE ANY BETTER???

    Who said it was?

    No one has answered that question.
    Comment by catholicmidwest

    I will. It’s not better.

  60. robtbrown says:

    RE my last post: This isn’t something that you sacrifice a woman to.

    Huh?

    This is a horrible moral fault on the part of the man if he does this raping of anything that breathes to satisfy his lust.

    Of course, it is. Who said anything else?

    Men like this should no longer be in the priesthood. Men who would act out as immorally and illegally as this need to be jailed. Immediately. And laicized. Immediately.
    Comment by catholicmidwest

    Agree. Why would you assume I think anything else?

  61. robtbrown says:

    Let me add one other point: For centuries the Church has claimed jurisdiction in matters concerning priests (cf. Becket), even in violations of civil code. It is obvious that those in charge (diocesan bishops and seminary rectors) were delinquent in their responsibilities, and they (along with the actual perpetrators) are the guilty ones.

    This heinous events, however, have created the situation where the secular state can usurp the jurisdiction of the Church.

  62. robtbrown says:

    The great overwhelming majority of priests aren’t like this. The great overwhelming majority of laypeople aren’t either. Yet, we have had to pay the price for people who never should have been ordained in the first place because of their double lives, their duplicity and their criminal tendencies. It’s outrageous.
    Comment by catholicmidwest

    I totally agree. But you’re leaving out something important. In seminary and religious formation for about 40 years, good men were pushed out in favor of those the problems. I saw these things first hand over 30 years ago and knew that scandals were coming.

  63. catholicmidwest says:

    robertbrown, in answer to your question:

    It has been said several times in here that the abuse wasn’t homosexual in nature, but rather heterosexual with the absence of females causing the gender crossover effect exhibited finally in the rapes of boys. (This is usually asserted by people whining about celibacy, which from a woman’s point of view is 100% ludicrous.)

    This crossover thing is really way too involved to be the case in any but a few instances, I think, BUT: Even if in the convoluted insane chance that it did happen this way a few times, HOW could this be construed as morally any better? It *can’t.* It’s putrid.

    It’s still an act of homosexual statutory rape….but with an extra shake of pure evil tossed in for kicks or what?

    And if there’s still people out there scraping the bottom of the barrel like this looking for an excuse to believe it wasn’t homosexual, it’s gotten pretty damn bad. How dishonest can Catholics be anyway? I’m serious.

  64. robtbrown says:

    Catholic Midwest,

    You’re right. There have been people here saying this wasn’t homosexual activity, but above I clearly said it was. Surely, you’re capable of reading those few words.

    These are heinous crimes against children, and Christ’s own words apply: Better to have a millstone around the neck and be dropped into sea than to harm the young.

    I don’t know of any comment here that would have caused you to construe that I am whining about celibacy.

    My point is that vow of celibacy is not really like that of marriage. Unlike celibacy, Marriage is a natural institution involving natural appetites. Although some are naturally more inclined to celibacy than others, nevertheless, the celibate life cannot be lived without proper formation and, if I might paraphrase Mother Teresa, without a life that encourages and protects it.

  65. catholicmidwest says:

    That’s not true either. It’s a modernist myth that people must continually and always seek sexual activity to be fulfilled. There are many people who never marry, but who live happy chaste lives. There are many people who have a spouse but do not engage in sexual activity because their spouse, for reasons of health, cannot. Yet they maintain the marriage; they do it for love.

    The idea that sex is pre-eminent among all motivations is one of the most pernicious modernist myths.

  66. catholicmidwest says:

    Love isn’t getting something from somebody; love isn’t even a feeling most of the time. It’s a decision you make for the sake of someone. Mother Theresa knew this.