Cardinal Bertone: Blame The Gays
Vatican's Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said that priestly celibacy has nothing to do with it. Gay priests are doing the abusing.
Of course pedophilia is the wrong term because most of the cases are post-pubescent boys, but aside from that the Cardinal is entirely correct. My question is then, so what? This debate is not over what the Church is doing to prevent such a abuse from ever occurring again, the media couldn't care less at this point. The point of this barrage is to somehow discredit the Pope, and by extension the Church, by linking him with old cases.On a visit to Chile, Bertone, dubbed the Deputy Pope, also said Pope Benedict would soon take more surprising initiatives regarding the sex abuse scandal but did not elaborate.
"Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and pedophilia but many others have shown, I have recently been told, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia," he told a news conference in Santiago.
"This pathology is one that touches all categories of people, and priests to a lesser degree in percentage terms," he said. "The behavior of the priests in this case, the negative behavior, is very serious, is scandalous."
Don't get me wrong, I think that in order to truly address the root of the issue the Church has to take seriously the homosexual nature of the problem. But the truth has nothing to do with it at this point. This is a PR battle orchestrated by the enemies of the Church and the Church is losing. True or not, I don't think the Cardinal's remarks are particularly helpful in the matter of the day.
The Church has made tremendous strides in reducing the number of abuse cases in the last few years, but the media does not care.
Old cases are where it is at.If you want to truly fix the problem, listen to Cardinal Bertone. For the rest, the New York Times.
27 comments:
I disagree. This thing will not end until the truth comes out: It is a homosexuality problem. This is not to say that some gays may make good priests, of they are celibate. But when a critical mass was formed, somehow a lavender mafia was created, and they began covering for each other. When one abused a child, the other one covered it up,perhaps fearing they would be exposed.
"The point of this barrage is to somehow discredit the Pope, and by extension the Church, by linking him with old cases." And I suspect the reason is because of the Church's opposition to Obamacare with the tax funded abortions. To discredit the authority, credibility and impact of the Church, the propaganda arm of this godless government goes after the top with baseless or invalid allegations. It is a matter of perception. They know the Pope is blameless, but if they can tarnish his image then they can weaken his influence including those of the bishops. If these charges are without merit, then the Church need to file countersuits for harassment, libel, whatever the crime against her. That is the only language understood by these animals and their puppets.
I like the shape of that curve (at least, the sharp negative slope part -- although not the "greater than zero"-ness). But when I like something like this too much I wonder if I should ask more questions. Here's one: what is the length of the average delay in reporting of incidents? If it has been decades, then we, sadly, might expect the graph for the current decade to look considerably less reassuring when plotted in twenty or thirty years. I, of course, want someone to tell me "no, that's crazy, the average reporting lag is less than a year".
Okay, I just realized that this is a talking point (duh). But I would still like whatever information anyone has.
We need to be more careful with our terminology. The problem is not "homosexuality", as that term is ordinarily understood.
The Catechism defines "homosexuality" as "relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex." (2357) Note the emphasis on "relations" -- that is, on conduct, and not on the sexual attraction alone. In the popular understanding of the word "homosexuality", it also means that the person has accepted these feelings and actions as "normal" for them, and has organized their affectional and sexual life around them.
The real problem in the sex abuse crisis is a bit more complicated. The root of it is in the feelings of same-sex attraction that are experienced by men who are not well-formed in their psychological and sexual development. Then you have the inability or unwillingness of some of these men to conform their conduct to the virtue of chastity.
Merely saying "it's a homosexual problem" doesn't get at the real solution -- helping men who are preparing for the priesthood and who are already ordained to achieve a normal sexual and psychological development, helping them to reject any feelings of same-sex attraction for the distortions and lies that they are, and training them spiritually to live lives of chastity and continence.
The best document on homosexuality and same-sex attraction is "Homosexuality and Hope" by the Catholic Medical Association: http://www.narth.com/docs/hope.html.
The usual straw argument is that not all homosexual males have an interest in young boys, therefore homosexual behavior is not the problem. God forbid we should offend anyone just to solve a major problem in the Church and society. It doesn't change the fact that when a male performs a sexual act on another male, that is a homosexual act -- to put it another way, homosexual behavior.
I don't know. Homosexual priests are not very well integrated into Fatherhood, at least in my experience. Those I have come in contact with, either admitted homosexual or not, have had some pieces missing in the Fatherhood department. Most of the time they don't even want to be called Father. Just Tom, Dick and Harry.
I'd be careful about using that chart. If I were the other side, I could see myself saying, "yes, the number of cases would go down if they are being covered up"
This is/has been such a no-brainer. Yes, homosexual "priests" have been the ones doing the abusing in 99.9% of the cases. Wow. Big shock there. Water sure is wet, isn't it?
But we cannot simply scapegoat all homosexuals for the damage these priests have done. WE (and I mean us as Catholics) are ALSO to blame. The vast majority of US as Catholics accepted all the changes in "the spirit of Vatican II" which drove countless thousands of GOOD priests out of the seminaries and created an atmosphere of "well, let's just make do with what we have left". WE did not protest en masse to our bishops when the seminaries became bath-houses and the "fall-back" career choice for any homosexual who couldn't make it on Broadway.
In short, anyone here who has never written voiced their outrage to their bishop is also to blame. Stop being sheep and demand OUR church back!
Ed, You are on the right track but are mislead by the fact that the APA took Homosexuality Out of the list of disorders in the 70's. It is a little known fact, however, that this was a completely political move and that many psychological professionals still feel it is a MENTAL DISORDER, along with Pedophilia, and Gender Identity Disorder.
These are people who should have treatment for a Mental Disorder. They are experiencing UNNATURAL(as Saint Paul rightly calls it in Romans Chapter 1) desires.
Therefore we conclude that, we should not have men in the priesthood who are Mentally ILL!
I don't think it is in any way useful to talk about it as a problem of homosexuality. When our culture says "homosexual" they don't mean it as a simple adjective that describes sex between people who have the same gender. They are talking about an identity, a culture, and entire social construct.
And even if we use homosexual as a simple adjective, it is not useful to talk about this primarily as a homosexual problem. The main elements of the problem were that priests were sexually abusing and that there was a culture in the Church that tolerated sexual license among the clergy and facilitated it by ignoring it and even covering it up. And to talk about it as a homosexual problem ignores the girls who suffered from these primary problems.
It just does not help our conversation with the world to frame this as a homosexual problem when we and the world don't even agree what homosexuality is.
Yes, it is useful for us to recognize that most of the abuse was same-sex. Through discovering how the problem took the form that it did, we can better get to how the primary problems of abuse and cover-up developed and how to prevent it from happening again.
But ephebophilia may not be pedophilia, adolescents are still children and abuse is still abuse.
... and homosexuality is still homosexuality. Here, look it up:
1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.
(Psychology) sexual attraction to or sexual relations with members of the same sex.
This entire conversation has presumed the distinction between the orientation itself (objectively disordered) and acting upon that orientation (objectively immoral).
Next?
Wine - if that was directed towards me, I specifically meant practicing homosexuals or those who identify with that particular lifestyle. As far as I'm concerned, ALL priests should be ASEXUAL when they enter the priesthood. Any tendency to act upon a sexual act would be a hinderance to celibacy and the commitment to one's own vocation.
I am just as incensed at heterosexual priests who lobby for married priesthood and carry on sexual relationships with women. The priesthood should not be used for such purposes.
Early Riser:
Just a distinction worth raising. None of us are objectively asexual beings, and ordination does not change that. It is the genital expression of that sexuality that is relinquished for a higher purpose. In fact, to be a priest is to carry on a nuptial relationship with the Church "in persona Christi." That is a distinct advantage of priestly celibacy, and also why those with objectively disordered sexuality have difficulty being priests -- even if they are male, even if they are ordained.
David - let me turn the mirror on your using your own tactics:
asexual - free from or unaffected by sexuality: an asexual friendship
source = dictionary.com
I don't know what you mean by "objectively", but if you are saying that no one can ever accomplish this objective, as per the dictionary definition of being asexual, many people accomplish this. Male sexuality is comprised of two components at the basest level: 1) desire 2) physical action. There are many who have accomplished deterring or even eliminating one and/or both of these components, effectively becoming asexual. In fact, up until very recently in church history (Vatican II to be specific...surprise!) most seminaries and religious orders had specific exercises and practices incorporating sleep deprivation, fasting, timely prayer, labor etc which were among other things instrumental in making members asexual. If you are married, think of the effects of even a 14-hour day at work has on your sexuality.
It really is not surprising that when these rules and practices were modified or even eliminated we got the rampant abuse we are now aware of. There is a distinct cause and effect here.
"David - let me turn the mirror on your using your own tactics."
Tactics??? I used a dictionary, for pity's sake!
I also applied a broader definition of "sexuality" itself, whereas everything you write (by your own admission, if implicitly), confines it to the biological, genital expression.
A broader, cosmological view takes into account scriptural and patristic references to the Church as the "bride of Christ." It is also found in the writings of various Saints, C S Lewis's essay "Priestesses in the Church", and more recently, the writings of Pope John Paul II (specifically, "Love and Responsibility" and "Theology of the Body"), and those of Dr Peter Kreeft.
And speaking of Kreeft, please consider the following:
Peter Kreeft Explains It All For You
Kreeft Revisited: “Plumbing Theology 101”
Ephebophilia? (Think those disgusting jokes about "grass on the field" for a basic definition.)
David - When discussing sexuality, I am pretty Kinsean and keep to biological definitions. Of course there's the whole "bride of Christ" concept etc. Gut we were talking about the specific issue of sexuality or asexuality. And you are not scoring points by bringing up JP II, arguably one of the biggest culprits of the current climate.
"Of course there's the whole 'bride of Christ' concept etc ..."
As long as we're scoring points, there are none to be gained, either by dismissing the the aforementioned "concept" which is integral to an understanding of the priesthood, or by casting aspersions of the late Pope, who is entitled to the justice that is rendered to the accused.
(The part about being "Kinsean" probably won't help either.)
This is not about those accusations anyway. Try to remember that this conversation is being moderated.
David - sorry you don't seem to understand the concept of colloquialisms. We're not actually literally scoring points.
And since you are speaking conceptually and I am speaking scientifically, I don't think we are going to get anywhere on this conversation. Finally, last I checked Cardinal Law and Levada are still comfortably in the Vatican. Now who was it who brought them there to avoid prosecution? Was it our beloved Pope Benedict? No. Hmmm. Was it Nancy Reagan? No. Hmmm... Oh, right it was JP II. And say, wasn't he the same one who elevated Cardinal Mahoney? And the rest of the liberal pro-homosexual Bishops in the US? Oh, and wasn't he a big defender and supporter of Maciel Maciel (you know, the legionaries of Christ guy who molested all those children and fathered several out of wedlock when everyone around told him what a monster he really was)?
If you cannot face facts that unfortunately lead straight to the late JP II, then you are just as guilty as any bishop for looking the other way.
Early Riser:
I understand colloquialisms fine. What should you have all the fun with them? What I don't understand, is how an attempt to clarify the meaning of a particular word, for someone with whom I would have otherwise agreed, turned into such a combative exchange. Your inference that I would approve of any malfeasance on the part of John Paul II is completely out of line.
For all his gifts, administrative prowess on the part of JP2 was not one of them, by his own admission. The Vatican has been a hive of corruption for centuries, as anyone with a passing knowledge of Church history would know. JP2's prior experience did not prepare him.
So I'm not letting anyone off the hook, but for the purposes of THIS discussion, at THIS time, I am not prepared to engage on this subject, but on the one discussed in this blog post.
The unnatural sexual tastes of some priests has been a problem with the Church since the earliest days. It is an infestation that is bigger than any one pope. At least this one is trying to deal with it.
And I don't take kindly to being accused of anything just because I don't answer the way you expect. Do that again, and I'll appeal to have your comments moderated.
No, I take that back. I already have.
David - so, let me see if I can paraphrase you: "Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!"
...known troll, or just caught at a bad time?
I commend David for not submitting to the compulsion to get in the last word. Regarding the article, the Church can try as it may to defend itself with the truth or instead focus on better PR seeing as the truth isn't "helpful". It doesn't matter. The Church will always be condemned by the world until the end of time. If it's not about pedophilia or homosexuality, it will just be about something else. You'll know something is severely wrong if the day comes (which it won't) when the Church is accepted by most as an upstanding institution.
"The Church will always be condemned by the world until the end of time. If it's not about pedophilia or homosexuality, it will just be about something else."
The Cardinal has let the Bishops off the hook. Hasn't a big part of the problem (whether pedophilia or ephebophilia, hom or hetero) been bishops who have moved these guys from one parish to another and covered up? If bishops had simply followed canon law and not listened to half-baked "therapists" (though I find it hard to believe that they didn't tell bishops to supervise, follow up on, restrict the access to kids, etc. of these wayward priests)we would not be in this mess. Why are bishops not held accountable?
Post a Comment