Saturday, March 13, 2010

Cdl Schoenborn Said What?

The Daily Mail seems to think that Cdl Schoenborn wants to end priestly celibacy.

Cardinal Schoenborn said: 'The causes of sex abuse by priests? These need to be found in priest training, as well as the question of what happened in the so-called sexual revolution of 1968.

'It also includes the issue of priest celibacy and the issue of personality development.

'It requires a great deal of honesty, both on the part of the Church and of society as a whole, a change of vision.'

Perhaps the original (German) was more clear.

In any case, dumping celibacy is NOT a 'cure'; homosexuals--the vast majority of abusers--are not inclined to marry women, and there are plenty of married clergy in other denominations who have abused women.

Sorry, Cdl. You're wrong on this, if the Daily Mail's take on your statement is accurate.


Anonymous said...

Face it, DaddyZero, the "celibacy" rule is what draws gay men to the priesthood. It provides the perfect cover for homosexual activity. Yes, you can find gay men in other religions, but this rule is the "draw" for these folks to Catholicism. Even the Pope is being drawn into this morass...

Posted on Sat, Mar. 13, 2010

Sex scandal touches pope?
He headed German diocese that protected perv priest

Associated Press

VATICAN CITY - Germany's sex-abuse scandal has now reached Pope Benedict XVI: His former archdiocese acknowledged that it transferred a suspected pedophile priest while Benedict was in charge, and criticism is mounting over a 2001 Vatican directive he penned instructing bishops to keep abuse cases secret.
The revelations have put the spotlight on Benedict's handling of abuse claims both when he was archbishop of Munich from 1977-1982 and then the prefect of the Vatican office that deals with such crimes - a position he held until his 2005 election as pope.

Benedict got a firsthand readout of the scope of the scandal yesterday in his native land from the head of the German Bishop's Conference, Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, who reported that the pontiff had expressed "great dismay and deep shock" over the scandal, but encouraged bishops to continue searching for the truth.

Hours later, the Munich archdiocese admitted that it had allowed a priest suspected of having abused a child to return to pastoral work in the 1980s, while Benedict was archbishop. It stressed that the pope - the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - hadn't known about the transfer and that it had been decided by a lower-ranking official.

The archdiocese said that there were no accusations against the chaplain, identified only as H., during his 1980-1982 spell in Munich, where he underwent therapy for suspected "sexual relations with boys." But he then moved to nearby Grafing, where he was suspended in early 1985 following new accusations of sexual abuse. The following year, he was convicted of sexually abusing minors.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, issued a statement late yesterday noting that the Munich vicar-general who approved the priest's transfer had taken "full responsibility" for the decision, seeking to remove any question about the pontiff's potential responsibility as archbishop at the time.

Victims advocates weren't persuaded.

"We find it extraordinarily hard to believe that Ratzinger didn't reassign the predator or know about the reassignment," said Barbara Blaine, president and founder of SNAP, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

The pope, meanwhile, continues to be under fire for a 2001 Vatican letter he sent to all bishops advising them that all cases of sexual abuse of minors must be forwarded to his then-office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and that the cases were to be subject to pontifical secret.

Germany's justice minister, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, has cited the document as evidence that the Vatican created a "wall of silence" around abuse cases that prevented prosecution. Irish bishops have said that the document had been "widely misunderstood" by the bishops themselves to mean that they shouldn't go to police. And lawyers for abuse victims in the United States have cited the document in arguing that the Catholic Church tried to obstruct justice.

But canon lawyers insisted yesterday that there was nothing in the document that would preclude bishops from fulfilling their moral and civic duties of going to police when confronted with a case of child abuse.

Anonymous said...

Luther's apostates have demonstrated for 500 yrs the fallacy of priesthood celibacy. This seems to have been lost on generations of Old Skool altar boys like D29.

Dad29 said...

Ah, the nuanced and civil tone of LeftOWackies! The carefully-reasoned, empirically-validated propositions!

Amy said...

Really, Anon 10:47? Then prove to me that no Protestants, or non-Catholics, have engaged in sexual abuse. Women can be teachers and teachers can marry - yet you're 100x more likely to have your child assaulted by a public school teacher than a priest. In fact, if that happens, the media will celebrate your "love story" with glowing articles in People Magazine (see: Mary Kay Latourneau).

As for the Pope, it's the left that's always telling us to give criminals a pass, to "rehabilitate" them and set them free. Now the Pope does it, and suddenly they're concerned about recidivism.

This issue boils down to one thing and one thing only: our culture has such messed up attitudes toward sex (condoms for 12-year-olds, bestiality in sex-ed programs, tassel shirts for toddlers) that the outrage manufactured toward the Catholic Church is merely the attempts of a depraved culture to find some scapegoat to blame their promiscuity on.

What the priests did, while wrong and certainly worthy of punishment, is really no different than what you will find in a lot of coming-out stories in the homosexual community. Kevin Jennings, Obama's own "safe-schools czar", looked the other way when an adult man was having a relationship with an under-aged teenage boy. Or what you find when Planned Parenthood helps underage girls lie to procure abortions to protect the adult men who engage in statutory rape. Or when a creep like Gary Becker gets three years after basically crawling across hot-coals to meet a teenaged girl at Brookfield Square (and that only after he was discovered buying panties...he would have gotten PROBATION otherwise).

So Cdl Schoenborn can bloviate all he wants about "rethinking" the celibacy rules and married priesthood...and you can agree with him. But that just makes you all look really stupid and - dare I say it? - hypocritical.

John Foust said...

Really, Amy? You have stats on that? One hundred times? Are priests able to molest more than one kid? Do public school principals tend to cover up the molestations of their teachers? Do public schools have a long track record of covering up abuse that happened for decades?

Dave said...

The stats are out there (not that you'd believe them if you saw them). And yes, there have been cover-ups. Makes you wonder why states like Colorado are so anxious to make the public schools immune to prosecution for the same things that, for the Catholic Church, they want to remove the statute of limitations (more than likely illegal, since that it violates the whole ex post facto thing).

Amy said...

Here's the story on the 100 times statistic. Not that you'll buy it, but whatever. Your faulty reading comprehension is not my problem.

Teachers - including those who are accused of sexual abuse - get to spend their days in cozy rooms, pursuing hobbies. That's akin to a cover-up. And on the taxpayer's dime.

As for the cover-up...the media will celebrate your abusiveness so long as you go the Luke-and-Laura route.

Until I see the left get as outraged - genuinely outraged - about condoms for 12-year-olds and Kevin Jennings "fisting" kits, and Planned Parenthood facilitating statutory rape by - ahem - disposing of the "evidence", all your whining about the Church is pointless because it's hypocritical.

Anonymous said...

Gosh, Amy, I didn't realize that my Missouri Synod Lutheran Church was going bankrupt because of all the ministers assaulting young boys.

Are they hiding this important information from us? Are they selling off Church property without telling us? Are synods going bankrupt? Tell me more.

Glad to know, also, that all of your "head-in-the-sand" attitudes toward sex really protects children so well. Take the Palin family, for example. Thank God for all that abstinence education, right?

Dad29 said...

Sexual abuse is hardly limited to abusing teen boys, Anony.

Personally, I'm not interested in getting into 'laundry lists' of abusers by religion, but I'm willing to bet that a few MoLuth pastors have grabbed a few young girls and/or boys over the years. Fortunately, the MoLuth folks know what to do: shun the SOBs, run them out of town, defrock 'em, and/or put them in jail. THAT is the difference.

And I'm also certain that a few MoLuth girls got knocked up despite the crystal-clear teaching they received from their parents.

Or are you claiming otherwise?

IIRC, even Luther admitted that sin exists. And by the way, wasn't he last spotted bopping a nun??

John Foust said...

Oh, Amy, you're such a sweetheart, insulting me before supplying a working link. WWJD? Are you claiming that Shakeshaft's research compared equivalent situations of priest abuse and school abuse? That the 100-times figure is specific to one end of the spectrum of possible abuse to the other, from in appropriate comments all the way to rape?

Anonymous said...

You're getting warm, DaddyZero:

"Fortunately, the MoLuth folks know what to do: shun the SOBs, run them out of town, defrock 'em, and/or put them in jail. THAT is the difference."

Why the difference in treatment? Because in the Protestant churches, the gay minister is the exception; in the Catholic Church, the gay priest is the rule! This is what "celibacy" produces -- it is more attractive to the gay men!

Dad29 said...

Your guess is wrong.

"Gay priests" are NOT "the rule" in the Church. The vast majority are not homosexuals.

What you fail to take into account are two things: 1) sin, which even MoLutherans do, and 2) the Bishop(s) and seminary rector(s) who fail--sometimes deliberately--to weed out men unable to control their zippers.

Anonymous said...

You miss the point yet again. Why do the churches differ in how each handles the offender? Because in one church the activity is closer to the norm! This is what you get when you advertise for people who don't want to have sex with a woman. Face it, DaddyZero, this isn't "normal" human behavior, is it?

Dad29 said...

Because in one church the activity is closer to the norm

That is, at best, an uninformed remark. At worst, it's calumny.

when you advertise for people who don't want to have sex with a woman

Wrong. The Church wants heterosexuals who can control themselves.

And "controlling oneself" may not be YOUR norm, but it's norm for 95% of married people.

Badger Catholic said...

Cdl Schoenborn is surprisingly liberal. Austria is almost at the breaking point because of so many, we will call them liberals, have infiltrated diocese bureaucracies. Pope Ben XVI met with all Austrian bishop recently for a slap on the hand... What happens next could be BIG. Christ promised the Church would survive until the end of time, but that doesn't mean that the Church in certain countries(including our own) are protected be completely supplanted.