Liberals still celebrate Anthony Kosnik’s book, once used in seminaries

From The Catholic League about an attack on Pope Francis by the emboldened catholic Left.

Remember, the liberals think they have the big right now.  They are hiding behind support for Francis because they hoped that he would approve their homosexual relationships and their, whatever.  They will turn on the Pope.   They will continue to shove their agenda out there, even at the expense of the Pope, so that they can agitate for their pet issues.

Liberal Catholics Fault the Pope

March 7, 2014
Bill Donohue comments as follows:

On the website of the liberal Catholic outlet, Commonweal, Mollie Wilson O’Reilly accuses Pope Francis of ignoring the problem of priestly sexual abuse. According to her, “he [the pope] has said and done little about the scandal itself,” maintaining that “things haven’t been fixed.” Similarly, Father Thomas P. Doyle says the pope “has done almost nothing” about this issue,” calling one of the pontiff’s efforts “so meaningless it is almost comical.” An editorial in the National Catholic Reporter also expresses its chagrin with the pope on this issue, imploring him “to meet with victims of clergy sex abuse.”

Here are some fast facts. We know from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice that 81 percent of the sexual abuse of minors was the result of male-on-male sex, and that less than 5 percent involved pedophilia. In other words, the Church witnessed a homosexual scandal.

Perhaps these people haven’t noticed but the scandal largely ended over a quarter century ago in the U.S., and has witnessed a marked decline in other nations. The data show that most of the abuse occurred between 1965 and 1985. In the last six years, a grand total of 7.0 credible accusations have been made against 40,000 priests. In short, there is little left for the pope to “fix.”

It is particularly galling for liberal Catholics to admonish the pope on this issue when their hero remains former priest Anthony Kosnik. His book, Human Sexuality, suspended all moral judgment on homosexuality, sodomy, and bestiality, and was taught to seminarians in the 1970s. It was commissioned by liberals at the Catholic Theological Society of America and was given a first-place award by the liberal Catholic Press Association. Subsequently, it was condemned by the bishops, but to this day it is celebrated by the National Catholic Reporter. [What a surprise.]

The call for the pope to meet with victims is a cruel ploy: these liberals have a vested ideological interest in keeping the scandal alive. Why? So they can press for their “reforms.

Phone: 212-371-3191
E-mail: pr@catholicleague.org

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals, Pope Francis, The Drill, The Sin That Cries To Heaven For Vengence and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Liberals still celebrate Anthony Kosnik’s book, once used in seminaries

  1. pattif says:

    The Tablet’s editorial this weekend takes the same line. Coincidence? I wonder.

  2. Magpie says:

    Sick liberal minds.

  3. majuscule says:

    I got to thinking…

    Right now the Fishwrap™ has a glowing article about the Dalai Lama. Complete with glowing comments.

    I just googled “sexual abuse” along with “Tibetan Buddhism” and I found that as far as google goes, this abuse does exist. I didn’t follow the links. I mean, Fishwrappers don’t seem to need more than an allegation to accuse Catholic priests… So I wonder why they aren’t after the Dalai Lama to clean it all up?

    Rhetorical question…of course.

  4. mrshopey says:

    I hope he meets with them, alone. If any need healing and peace, it is them.

    That said, I agree with Mr. D. I think he needs to meet with the other, separately, to connect the dots for them. These things didn’t happen on this scale on their own, books that treat sexuality morality in a lax manor are powerfully corrosive. “Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault”…

  5. pannw says:

    His book, Human Sexuality, suspended all moral judgment on homosexuality, sodomy, and bestiality, and was taught to seminarians in the 1970s.

    Oh, my gosh…

    But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.

    God have mercy on their souls.

  6. jhayes says:

    Here are the 1979 CDF “Observations” on the book:

    The book Human Sexuality has already received substantial criticism on the part of theologians, of numerous American Bishops and of the Doctrinal Commission of the American Episcopal Conference. It would seem clear that the authors of this book, who speak of “encouraging others to join us in the continuing search for more satisfying answers to the mystery of human sexuality” (p. XV), will have to give rigorous reconsideration to the position they have assumed in the light of such criticism. This is all the more important, since the topic of the book — human sexuality — and the attempt to offer “helpful practical guidelines to beleaguered pastors, priests, counselors and teachers,” charge the authors with an enormous responsibility for the erroneous conclusions and the potentially harmful impact these ideas can have on the correct formation of the Christian consciences of so many people.

    This Sacred Congregation, considering the fact that this book and its opinions have been given wide distribution within the United States, throughout the English-speaking world and elsewhere through various translations, considers it a duty to intervene by calling attention to the errors contained in this book and by inviting the authors to correct these errors.

    Read More

  7. frjim4321 says:

    Clever. Donohue (the phony expert) quotes the John Jay Report then offers a conclusion which the Report ruled out but implies that the Report agreed with his conclusion. Maybe “clever” is too generous. Let’s just call it what it is, a malicious deception.

    Oh, by the way, in which paragraph of the Report does the phrase “less than 5 percent involved pedophilia.” Nowhere? Oh, another reckless misinterpretation of data by a fake authority.

    What is feigned moral outrage going for these days? Something north of $125K per year if I recall correctly. Nice work if you can get it.

  8. tbakker says:

    frjim4321


    Oh, by the way, in which paragraph of the Report does the phrase “less than 5 percent involved pedophilia.” Nowhere? Oh, another reckless misinterpretation of data by a fake authority.

    Page 54 third full paragraph.

    “An analysis of data on accused priests and victims of sexual abuse from the Nature and Scope study revealed that, if pedophilic behav- ior was defined as the exclusive presence of two or more victims under the age of eleven, then ninety-six priests, or 3.8 percent of those who were reported to have had two or more victims, could be classified as pedophiles. If these psychologically defined groups are considered in relation to the overall count of accused priests from the Nature and Scope study, then the pedophile group repre- sents 2 percent and the ephebophile group 10.8 percent of the 4,392 priest-abusers described in the Nature and Scope study. “

  9. frjim4321 says:

    ” … exclusive presence … “

  10. jhayes says:

    tbakker, the conclusion of the John Jay study as authorized for publication by the USCCB is:

    There has been widespread speculation that homosexual identity is linked to the sexual abuse of minors by priests, largely because of the high number of male victims identified in the Nature and Scope study. However, the clinical data do not support this finding. Treatment data show that priests who identified as homosexual, as well as those who participated in same-sex sexual behavior prior to ordination (regardless of sexual identity), were not significantly more likely to abuse minors than priests who identified as heterosexual….

    Taken together, the data from the clinical files, the Identity and Behavior surveys and interviews, the Nature and Scope data, and the Loyola psychological study confirm about priest-abusers what is known about non-priest abusers: there is no single identifiable “cause” of sexually abusive behavior towards minors, and there are few individual characteristics that would make abusers identifiable prior to the commission of their abusive acts.

    At the beginning of the Report:

    This report by the John Jay College is authorized for publication by the undersigned.
    Msgr. David J. Malloy, STD General Secretary, USCCB

    USCCB (See page 74)

  11. benedetta says:

    Sounds like kind of a hit piece on the part of the commonweal mag. Donohue’s point is well taken, namely, to what extent is their house in order? The American Church is littered with the wreckage of destruction of all sorts of human abuses conducted and justified in the name of the libertine value which is not consistent with compassion, goodness, or charity. We would do well to start at the grassroots level and acknowledge the scope and extent of harm and loss that occurred in the all consuming process of justifying the sexual choices of a powerful relative few not consonant with the Gospel or the needs of the laity.

  12. jflare says:

    “Oh, another reckless misinterpretation of data by a fake authority.

    Excuse me, frjim??

    “…if pedophilic behavior was defined as the exclusive presence of two or more victims under the age of eleven, then ninety-six priests, or 3.8 percent of those who were reported to have had two or more victims, could be classified as pedophiles.”

    So, in other words, when the report’s authors bother to impose a rather useful definition of “pedophile” to the data they’ve compiled, they learn that around 95% of the accused can’t be properly described as pedophiles. Mr. Donohue would appear to me to have directly quoted the report in a manner that falls well within the bounds of legitimate criticism. If we would consider something like 35% of a population to be a significant figure, I’d had to contend that 95%..comes as close to definitive as we’ll find in statistics.
    I think that’s a VERY poor case for Mr. Donohue having become a fake authority. He didn’t develop the numbers, THEY did.

  13. jhayes says:

    jtflare, the problem with the figures used by Mr. Donahue is that they omit most of the priests accused of child abuse.

    The report’s point is that most priest abusers didn’t meet the definitions of “pedophiles” nor “ephebophiles”. The majority (72.3%) of priest abusers were what the report calls “generalists”, who abused children of various ages and genders. In addition, another 5% abused girls aged 13 to 17.

    The full set of figures is given in Table 3.1 on Page 55 of the report I linked above.

  14. tcreek says:

    An unexplored problem – How many existing priests and bishops have had (are having) sexual encounters with men over 18 years of age? One would think this number would exceed those who have had sexual encounters with those under 18. This is an unreported problem only because it is not illegal. Twelve years ago a pastor in my diocese was removed because he “came out” and admitted he went on retreats with other homosexual priests.

  15. Magash says:

    The John Jay study took great pains NOT to explain the problem as a homosexual problem, at variance to the data. It is my opinion that this was a political decision, not one based on data. It is evident that if an adult male engages in sexual relations with a male past the age of puberty that he is engaging in homosexual behavior. What kind of authority does one need to be to interpret self-evident data? If someone engages in sexual relations with a youth between the time puberty is completed and legal adulthood one is described properly as an ephebophile. However, ephebophilic behavior is a large part of the homosexual lifestyle and has been since the time of ancient Greece.
    As for the dodge of “self’-identified homosexuals”, how many men accused of abusing teenage boys are going to self-identify as homosexual? For that matter up until the last decade “coming out of the closet” by self-identifying generally was something that most active homosexuals didn’t do for a variety of reasons.
    As for the authors of the John Jay report they made the political decision not to point to the cause as being homosexual behavior. They couldn’t hide the data though, or at least they couldn’t hide the data and claim to be giving an honest report. The data belies their conclusion on this matter. One need only actually read the report and look at the data to confirm this.

  16. Mike says:

    Why the calumny, frjim4321? Why the contemptuous dismissal of a quest for truth, and for healing?

    Was it not suppression of the truth that originally exposed (and, metamorphosed and updated to current standards of political correctness, continues to expose) untold numbers of vulnerable Christians to damage — and, God help us, even to destruction?

    Do we actually want to crawl back into the metaphorical and literal hell of denial?

    May God have mercy on us all.

  17. wmeyer says:

    frjim said: Clever. Donohue (the phony expert) quotes the John Jay Report then offers a conclusion which the Report ruled out but implies that the Report agreed with his conclusion. Maybe “clever” is too generous. Let’s just call it what it is, a malicious deception.

    Wow. Christian charity in action? When did cynicism become a Christian virtue?

    First, you make assertions, but offer no quotes from the study in support of your assertions. That may be effective with people who have not read the survey (not unlike brandishing Vatican II when speaking to those who have not read any of the documents), but less so with many of us here. tbakker has effectively refuted one of your claims. And the study did make plain that there was a very large percentage of cases which I think I may fairly describe as predatory homosexuals taking advantage of their positions of power.

    There are a few things which are overwhelmingly clear from the study, and well documented in data, as well as in summary observations reported there:
    – the majority of victims were male
    – the majority of the victims were above the age where pedophilia would be the correct term
    – in the post Vatican II period, the figures swing even more heavily to male victims

    To read the study and find any conclusion other than that there had been an increase in homosexual activity in the priesthood which hit a peak a few years after the “lavender seminaries” were reined in would require a great deal of creativity.

    Finally, I am inclined to believe that the formal conclusions drawn refrained from any hard conclusions largely because to have announced any such conclusions would have inflamed an already irrational media coverage.

    I believe, frjim, you owe Mr. Donohue an apology. I shall pray for you.

  18. jflare says:

    jhayes,
    Whether the USCCB-approved report admit to it or not, I would suggest that magash asserts more closely to the truth. MOST coverage and interest in priestly sex abuse has focused on pedophile priests, conjuring images of innocent little boys being preyed upon by dirty, perverted, old men. These numbers even you present don’t support that idea very well. If almost 3/4 of accused did their deeds with just-pre-teen or teen persons, and 95% of victims were not girls, that means the heavy majority of abuse happened with male-to-male adult-to-teen behavior. That’s not indicative of by-definition pedophilia or dealing with consenting adults. That suggests homosexual behavior.

    As for priests self-identifying as practicing homosexuals or gays, consider a crude analogy:
    If a police officer catches me driving at 75 mph in a 60 mph zone, he’ll issue me a speeding ticket even if I don’t self-ID as a speed demon. Thus if priests have been statistically MORE abusive with teen boys than with others, we must admit to ourselves that we might have a problem with same-sex behavior, even if the priests involved don’t admit to being same-sex attracted.

    Now, it’s possible that circumstances could’ve made teen boys more readily available than others, ie. altar servers, but if that’s the case, I would think that the report would’ve emphasized that and you or someone else would’ve more vigorously highlighted that finding.

    Nobody has made such assertions that I know about

    However one may try to talk around the numbers and the official verbiage of the report, I think it fair to say that we don’t have as much problem with heterosexual abuses as much as people want to proclaim.

  19. Cantor says:

    Forgive my bluntness, but Mr. Donahue’s continued diatribe denying pedophilia makes me want to vomit. True, the APA defines pedophilia as affecting children 10 and under. But do we say “Thank God. Timmy’s eleven now. And here we thought Father was a pedophile.” ????????

    At my fortieth high school reunion a few years ago, a number of us finally got to talking seriously about our experiences. Seven of us (out of 150) acknowledged that we were molested by the same teacher, a religious brother. It all occurred in our freshman and sophomore years, at which point we were replaced with younger incoming students. Nobody had ever spoken of it nor collected rich fees from the diocese or brothers’ order. Are we to believe that we were abused? Or do we accept Mr. Donohue’s thesis that we willingly engaged in homosexual trysts?

    We all got on with our lives, and Brother went on to be ordained a priest. But he was eventually suspended by his bishop when his actions became known during the psychological evaluation of a man being sentenced for a serious crime — a man who, as a boy, had been three years my junior.

    And for the record, the full title of the John Jay report that Mr. Donohue waves, saying that less than 5% were pedophiles, is The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950-2002. Perhaps only 5% of the 4000+ priests were clinically pedophiles, but 100% were child abusers.

  20. Dave N. says:

    What’s “left to fix” are the bishops who covered up the scandal and who are still functioning as bishops (case in point, Cdl. Mahony). The Pope could remedy this by asking for their resignations.

    I’m not sure what I would do if my kids were scheduled to be confirmed by Cdl. Mahony.

  21. Gerard Plourde says:

    I reviewed my Archdiocese’s (Philadelphia) website for priests identified with credible reports of abuse of minors. The website has 65 names. Of the 64 whose records of service were available 33 were ordained before 1967. If ordination before 1970 is used as the cutoff the number is 36. If the sample is taken for ordination before 1962 (the year Vatican II began) the number is 19. Ten of the priests were ordained in the decade 1950 -1959. Six were ordained in the decade 1940- 1949. One was ordained in 1934. Of the 19 priests on the list who were ordained in the decade 1960-1969, fourteen were ordained before the Council closed in December 1965 and most likely the bulk of their formation took place before the Vatican II reforms were part of the seminary curriculum. Twenty two of the priests were ordained in the decade 1970 – 1979. No Priest ordained in the decade 1980 – 1989 appears on the list. Of the four listings for the decade 1990 – 1999, three are priests and one it a permanent deacon.

  22. cpttom says:

    Cantor,

    Blunt for bunt. Donahue in this article, (and elsewhere as far as I know) never denies pedophilia, and never said any of the acts were willingly done by the young people involved. Rather His point is that, by and large, the problem was pederasty which is sexual predatory ADULTS preying on young boys, so the problem was more so homosexuality. No where does he say that it wasn’t a problem or abuse, he just identifies the problem as being mostly pederasty, (sex with minor boys by men) with some pedophilia (which could also be between opposite sexes). Still evil and still bad.

    It is an upsetting topic, and there are much angry (rightly in some regards) but lets keep the facts straight.

  23. jhayes says:

    Jflare wrote Now, it’s possible that circumstances could’ve made teen boys more readily available than others, ie. altar servers, but if that’s the case, I would think that the report would’ve emphasized that and you or someone else would’ve more vigorously highlighted that finding.

    Starting at the bottom of page 119

    •Access to victims played a critical role in victim choice. Few significant differences were found between the locations and situations in which boys and girls were abused, but priests had more access to boys until recently (primarily because parishes permitted girls as altar servers only after 1983).
    • Priests who abused minors exhibited behavior consistent with non-priest abusers regarding grooming behaviors (onset), techniques of neutralization (persistence), and internal and external desistance mechanisms.
    • Priests who abused minors at the peak of the crisis exhibited characteristics consistent with “situational” child abusers.

    Beyond altar servers, priests and brothers taught more boys in school, athletic teams, boy scout troops, and had more plausible reasons to take them on trips, etc

    That summarizes a much more detailed discussion starting with the second column on Page 100.

  24. jflare says:

    Um, jhayes, I think you have a wee bit of a problem:
    I don’t think the report denies the possibility of homosexual influence playing a factor in anything like the way you seem to imply.
    I downloaded the blasted report and reviewed particular portions of it, especially the “initial findings” right around page 11 AND the final conclusions right around page 120.

    They do, indeed, declare that access to victims played a significant role. They do NOT declare that homosexual relationships couldn’t have been involved. In fact, they actually say a few things that imply–to me, anyway–that same sex behavior DID have a significant role. ..And quite possibly a major one.
    On page 11 or so, I find paragraphs that explain that most abuse didn’t happen to kids or teens, but to adults. Now, if that’s true, who did they abuse? Well, I haven’t heard anything–or read anything–about incidence of rape, STDs, or pregnancy amongst victims, so women most likely were not a key target group. That only leaves..men.

    Now, how can you have a sex abuse problem in which priests–being a man is required–wind up inflicting sex abuse on adults and the evidence doesn’t indicate women very much?
    Your only real answer remaining is..homosexual behavior.

    ..And again, I’m forced to agree with another poster from earlier: Even if the report never says it directly, the numbers and statements the report DOES offer..lead generally to a particular conclusion.
    ..Which, unfortunately, does tend to confirm the suggestions of pink or purple palaces, even if the report’s authors won’t willingly say so out loud.

  25. jhayes says:

    Jflare, please see my comment of. 8 March at 12:27 am

  26. Pingback: Whats the Point of Mortification & Offering It Up? - BigPulpit.com