Ahead of summit, Cupich discusses sex abuse, homosexuality, priestly formation
While it is important to recognize the fact that a high percentage of sex abuse involves “male on male sex abuse,” Cupich said, “homosexuality itself is not a cause.”
Archbishop Charles J. Scicluna of Malta and Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago, members of the organizing committee for the Feb. 21-24, Vatican meeting on the protection of minors in the church, attend a press conference to preview the meeting at the Vatican Feb. 18, 2019. Also pictured is Alessandro Gisotti, interim Vatican spokesman. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)
Vatican City, Feb 18, 2019 / 10:15 am (CNA).- Cardinal Blase Cupich said Monday that this week’s Vatican sex abuse summit needs to be focused on the protection of minors, underscoring that homosexuality is not a cause of sexual abuse.
While it is important to recognize the fact that a high percentage of sex abuse involves “male on male sex abuse,” Cupich said, “homosexuality itself is not a cause.” It is a matter of “opportunity and also a matter of poor training on the part of people.”
“The pope is asking us to make sure that we focus on the the task at hand, if in fact we begin to inflate expectations by including other topics, then we are not going to achieve the goals,” Cardinal Cupich, the archbishop of Chicago, said at a Vatican press conference Feb. 18.
The Vatican’s sex abuse summit, to be held Feb. 21 – 24, will focus on the themes of responsibility, accountability, and transparency. Cupich was appointed by Pope Francis as a member of the organizing committee for the conference on the worldwide protection of minors in the Church.
Speaking at a press conference Feb. 18, Cupich took questions from the media along with other members of the organizing committee, including Father Hans Zollner, SJ, and Archbishop Charles Scicluna of Malta.
Scicluna, who oversaw the investigation into the sexual abuse crisis in Chile last year, also serves as Adjunct Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The global meeting of 190 global Catholic leaders on sex abuse measures highlights the “synodality” and “collegiality” in the Church in tackling these issues, Cupich explained.
“The Holy Father does want episcopal conferences to take responsibility, that was never a question, but we have to do it in such a way that we work together with each other — that is part of synodality — that is part of collegiality that this conference wanted to highlight,” he said.
In November, the Vatican intervened in the meeting of U.S. bishops to vote on a plan to address instances of episcopal sexual misconduct, which included the creation of a code of conduct for bishops, a whistleblower hotline, and the establishment of an independent lay-led team of experts charged with investigating allegations made against bishops.
“With regard to the November meeting in Baltimore among the bishops, it was clear that — talking with the bishops beforehand even before we knew about this — that the proposal submitted by the bishops was problematic for many. I believe that it would not have received the 2/3rds vote anyway,” Cupich said.
“I think that in many ways that Holy See did us a great favor in pointing out some areas that already were problematic for a number of bishops,” he continued.
“Now this meeting with allow a pathway forward so that what we do in the United States will be in line with the expectations with the rest of the world, so I think it was an important moment to step in,” he added.
The American cardinal emphasized the success of screening efforts in U.S. seminaries in preventing sexual abuse of minors.
“When you put in proper screening processes for seminaries as we have in the United States, you see that the instances of abuse drop dramatically. And so it is incumbent on our part to be responsible and accountable at that level of admitting candidates into the seminaries,” Cupich said.
“The screening is important, not in terms of homosexuality, but in terms of … if someone has an attitude with regarding sexuality that is not in keeping with the Church or that the protection of children is important or that there are other factors as well that made them high risk because of their own psyche,” he continued.
Father Hans Zollner, president of the Center for the Protection of Minors at the Pontifical Gregorian University as well as member of the summit organizing committee, clarified that “a psychological test or interview can never determine whether someone is homosexual or a higher risk” to commit sexual abuse with 100 percent certainty.
Zollner emphasized that this week’s meeting for the protection of minors will focus on the responsibility of the Church to address this issue at a global level, but in a way which can be applicable in a diversity of cultural contexts.
He explained that the Vatican had administered a survey seeking to identify how Church leaders perceive the topic of abuse very differently in their countries, and would use the results to “help achieve a synodal Church.”
The survey results will be released at a later date, Zollner said.
On day two of the summit, Cardinal Cupich will give a presentation on accountability. Cupich has titled his talk, “Synodality: Jointly Responsible.”
Transparency will be one of the most important topics in the upcoming abuse conference, said Scicluna.
“Denial … is a primitive mechanism that we need to move away from, and so whether it is criminal or malicious complicity in a code of silence or whether it is denial, which is trauma in its very primitive state, we need to go away from that and that’s why the third day of this important meeting is going to be on transparency.”
“We have to face the facts, because only the truth of the matter … and confronting the facts will make us free,” Scicluna said.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
A defining theme of Pope Francis’ papacy has been his urging of humanity to better care for the natural environment, which he has done most prominently in his landmark 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’ and numerous subsequent writings and speeches.
The pope’s emphasis on this topic — especially his foray into climate science via his recent encyclical Laudate Deum — has variously drawn both praise and consternation from Catholics in the United States, about half of whom do not share Pope Francis’ views on climate change, according to surveys.
In Laudate Deum, which was released in October as a continuation to Laudato Si’, Francis wrote that the effects of climate change “are here and increasingly evident,” warning of “immensely grave consequences for everyone” if drastic efforts are not made to reduce emissions. In the face of this, the Holy Father criticized those who “have chosen to deride [the] facts” about climate science, stating bluntly that it is “no longer possible to doubt the human — ‘anthropic’ — origin of climate change.”
The pope in the encyclical laid out his belief that there must be a “necessary transition towards clean energy sources, such as wind and solar energy, and the abandonment of fossil fuels.” This follows a call from Pope Francis in 2021 to the global community calling for the world to “achieve net zero carbon emissions as soon as possible.”
He further lamented what he called “certain dismissive and scarcely reasonable opinions [on climate change] that I encounter, even within the Catholic Church.”
In light of the new encyclical — which extensively cites the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — Pope Francis was invited to speak at this week’s United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP28. Though the 86-year-old pope was forced to cancel his trip due to health issues, the Vatican has indicated that he aims to participate in COP28 this weekend in some fashion. It announced today that Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin will represent the pope at the conference.
While various Catholic groups have welcomed the pope’s latest encyclical, some Catholics have reacted with persistent doubts, questioning whether the pope’s policy prescriptions would actually produce the desired effects.
How do Americans feel about climate change?
According to a major survey conducted by Yale University, 72% of Americans believed in 2021 — the latest available data year — that “global warming is happening,” and 57% believe that global warming is caused by human activity.
More recent polling from the Pew Research Center, conducted in June, similarly suggests that two-thirds of U.S. adults overall say the country should prioritize developing renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, over the expansion of the production of oil, coal, and natural gas. That same survey found that just 3 in 10 adults (31%) say the U.S. should completely phase out oil, coal, and natural gas. The Yale study found that 77% of U.S. adults support at least the funding of research into renewable energy sources.
Broken down by party affiliation, Pew found that a large majority of Democratic and Democratic-leaning independents — 90% — favor alternative energy sources, while just under half, 42%, of Republicans and Republican-leaning adults think the same. Within the Republican cohort, however, 67% of Republicans under age 30 prioritize the development of alternative energy sources, compared with the 75% of Republicans ages 65 and older who prioritize the expansion of oil, coal, and natural gas.
In terms of the expansion of alternative energy sources, two-thirds of Americans think the federal government should encourage domestic production of wind and solar power, Pew reported. Just 7% say the government should discourage this, while 26% think it should neither encourage nor discourage it.
How do America’s Catholics feel about climate change?
Surveys suggest that Catholics in the United States are slightly more likely than the U.S. population as a whole to be skeptical of climate change, despite the pope’s emphatic words in 2015 and since.
A separate Pew study suggests that 44% of U.S. Catholics say the Earth is warming mostly due to human activity, a view in line with Pope Francis’ stance. About 3 in 10 (29%) said the Earth is warming mostly due to natural patterns, while 13% said they believe there is no solid evidence the planet is getting warmer.
According to the same study, 71% of Hispanic Catholics see climate change as an extremely or very serious problem, compared with 49% of white, non-Hispanic Catholics. (There were not enough Black or Asian Catholics in the 2022 survey to analyze separately, Pew said.)
One 2015 study from Yale did suggest that soon after Laudato Si’ was released, U.S. Catholics were overall more likely to believe in climate change than before. That same study found no change, however, in the number of Americans overall who believe human activity is causing global warming.
Pope Francis’ climate priorities
Beyond his groundbreaking writings, Pope Francis has taken many actions during his pontificate to make his own — admittedly small — country, Vatican City, more sustainable, including the recent announcement of a large order of electric vehicles, construction of its own network of charging stations, a reforestation program, and the continued importation of energy coming exclusively from renewable sources.
Francis has often lamented what he sees as a tepid response from developed countries in implementing measures to curb climate change. In Laudate Deum, he urged that new multinational agreements on climate change — speaking in this case specifically about the COP28 conference — be “drastic, intense, and count on the commitment of all,” stating that “a broad change in the irresponsible lifestyle connected with the Western model would have a significant long-term impact.”
The pope lamented what he sees as the fact that when new projects related to green energy are proposed, the potential for economic growth, employment, and human promotion are thought of first rather than moral considerations such as the effects on the world’s poorest.
“It is often heard also that efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing the use of fossil fuels and developing cleaner energy sources will lead to a reduction in the number of jobs,” the pope noted.
“What is happening is that millions of people are losing their jobs due to different effects of climate change: rising sea levels, droughts, and other phenomena affecting the planet have left many people adrift. Conversely, the transition to renewable forms of energy, properly managed, as well as efforts to adapt to the damage caused by climate change, are capable of generating countless jobs in different sectors.”
‘Leave God’s creation better than we found it’
Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation think tank, told CNA that he has noticed a theme of frustration and confusion among many Catholics regarding the Holy Father’s emphasis on climate change.
A self-described outdoorsman and former president of Wyoming Catholic College, Roberts spoke highly to CNA of certain aspects of Laudato Si’, particularly the pope’s insights into what he called “human ecology,” which refers to the acceptance of each person’s human body as a vital part of “accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home.”
Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation. Courtesy of Heritage Foundation.
“I like to think [Pope Francis] personally wrote that, because I could see him saying that,” Roberts said of the passage, which appears in paragraph 155 of the encyclical. Roberts said he even makes a point to meditate on that “beautiful and moving” passage during a retreat that he does annually.
That portion of Laudato Si’ notwithstanding, Roberts said he strongly believes that it detracts from other important issues, such as direct ministry to the poor, when Pope Francis elevates care for God’s natural creation as “seemingly more important than other issues to us as Catholics.” He also said he disagrees with Pope Francis’ policy prescriptions, such as a complete phasing out of fossil fuels, contained in Laudate Deum.
“We of course want to pray for him. We’re open to the teaching that he is providing. But we also have to remember as Catholics that sometimes popes are wrong. And on this issue, it is a prudential matter. It is not a matter of morality, particularly when he’s getting into the scientific policy recommendations,” Roberts said.
Roberts said the Heritage Foundation’s research and advocacy has focused not on high-level, multinational agreements and conferences to tackle the issues posed by climate change but rather on smaller-scale, more community-based efforts. He said this policy position is, in part, due to the historical deference such multinational conglomerates of nations have given to China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases overall.
He said agreements within the U.S. itself, with businesses and all levels of government working together, have produced the best results so far when it comes to improving the environment. He also pointed to examples of constructive action that don’t involve billions of dollars, such as families making the choice to spend more time outdoors or engaging in local activities that contribute to environmental conservation and community life, such as anti-litter campaigns and community gardening. The overarching goal, he said, should be to “leave God’s creation better than we found it.”
Roberts — who said he personally believes humans likely have “very little effect” on the climate — said he was discouraged to read other portions of Laudato Si’, as well as Laudate Deum, that to him read as though they had come “straight out of the U.N.” Despite his criticisms, Roberts urged his fellow Catholics to continue to pray for the Holy Father and to listen to the pope’s moral insights.
“I just think that the proposed solutions are actually more anti-human and worse than the purported effects of climate change,” he added.
‘A far more complex issue’
Greg Sindelar, a Catholic who serves as CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a conservative think tank that studies the energy industry, similarly expressed concerns to CNA about the potential impact of certain climate change mitigation policies on human flourishing.
Like Roberts, Sindelar spoke highly of certain aspects of the pope’s message while expressing reservations about some of the U.N.-esque solutions proposed in Laudate Deum.
“I think the pope is right about our duty as Catholics to be stewards and to care for the environment. But I think what we have to understand — what we have to balance this with — is that it cannot come at the expense of depriving people of affordable and reliable energy,” Sindelar said in an interview with CNA.
“There’s ways to be environmentally friendly without sacrificing the access that we all need to reliable and affordable energy.”
Greg Sindelar is CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a think tank in America’s leading energy-producing state. Courtesy of Texas Public Policy Foundation
Sindelar said TPPF primarily promotes cheap, reliable access to energy as a means of promoting human flourishing. The free-market-focused group is skeptical of top-down governmental intervention, both in the form of regulation and incentives or disincentives in certain areas of the energy sector.
When asked what he thinks his fellow Catholics largely think about the issue, Sindelar said many of the Catholics he hears from express the view that government policies and interventions rarely produce effective solutions and could potentially hinder access to energy for those in need.
“I think it’s a far more complex issue than just saying we need to cut emissions, and we need to transfer away from fossil fuels, and all these other things. What we need to do is figure out and ensure ways that we are providing affordable and reliable electricity to all citizens of the world,” he reiterated.
“When the pope speaks, when the Vatican speaks, it carries a lot of weight with Catholics around the world, [and] not just with Catholics … and I totally agree with him that we need to be thinking about the most marginalized and the poorest amongst us,” Sindelar continued.
“[But] by going down these policy prescription paths that he’s recommending, we’re actually going to reduce their ability to have access to that,” he asserted.
Sindelar, while disagreeing with Pope Francis’ call for an “abandonment of fossil fuels,” said he appreciates the fact that Pope Francis has spoken out about the issue of care for creation and has initiated so much public discussion.
“I think there is room for differing views and opinions on the right ways to do that,” he said.
Effective mitigation efforts
Susan Varlamoff, a retired biologist and parishioner at St. John Neumann Catholic Church in the Atlanta area, is among those Catholics who are committed to Pope Francis’ call to care for creation and to mitigate the effects of climate change. To that end, Varlamoff in 2016 created a peer-reviewed action plan for the Archdiocese of Atlanta to help Catholics put the principles contained in Laudato Si’ into action, mainly through smaller, more personal actions that people can take to reduce their energy usage.
Retired biologist Susan Varlamoff. Photo courtesy of Susan Varlamoff
The Atlanta Archdiocese’s efforts have since garnered recognition and praise, Varlamoff said, with at least 35 archdioceses now involved in an inter-diocesan network formed to exchange sustainability ideas based on the latest version of the plan from Atlanta.
“It’s fascinating to see what everybody is doing, and it’s basically based on their talents and imaginations,” Varlamoff said, noting that a large number of young people have gotten involved with their efforts.
As a scientist, Varlamoff told CNA it is clear to her that Pope Francis knows what he’s talking about when he lays out the dangers posed by inaction in the face of climate change.
“He understands the science, and he’s deeply concerned … he’s got remarkable influence as a moral leader,” she said.
“Part of what our religion asks us to do is to care for one another. We have to care for creation if we’re going to care for one another, because the earth is our natural resource system, our life support, and we cannot care for one another if we don’t have that life support.”
Responding to criticisms about the financial costs associated with certain green initiatives, Varlamoff noted that small-scale sustainable actions can actually save money. She offered the example of parishes in the Atlanta area that have drastically reduced their electric bills by installing solar panels.
“[But,] it’s not just about saving money. It’s also about reducing fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions, and protecting the natural resources for future generations,” she said.
Moreover, Varlamoff said, the moral imperative to improve the natural environment for future generations is worth the investment. “When [Catholics] give money, for example, for a social justice issue like Walking with Moms in Need or special needs, the payback is improving lives. We’re improving the environment here,” she emphasized.
Pope Francis meets members of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors at the Vatican, April 29, 2022. / Vatican Media.
Vatican City, Apr 29, 2022 / 07:30 am (CNA).
Pope Francis has asked the Pontifical Commission for the Protecti… […]
23 Comments
Cupich still says homosexuality is not the problem. Which tells us it IS the problem and that he is a loyal nephew of Uncle Ted. There will be no end to the scandals until all Cupich types are gone.
About 10 years ago, I personally met Cardinal Cupich and was not at all impressed. I believe he might be part of the problem. Also, I believe a homosexual priest is just a pedefile in waiting. Time to send them all to be with Uncle Ted!
Cardinal Cupich announces that “homosexuality itself is not a cause” that it’s is a matter of “opportunity and also a matter of poor training on the part of people.” We also here the buzz words collegiality, synodality, responsibility, accountability, and transparency.
Regarding cause and effect, lacking from the above red-hat, cover-story vocabulary are the more elementary RED-FACE TEST and FUNCTIONAL LITERACY…
The 2004 John Jay Report into clerical sex abuse in the U.S. found that four out of five (80 PERCENT) of the offenses involved young teenagers and young men. OBVIOUSLY the heart of the problem is actively homosexual priests and bishops, not the 2004 cover-story of the day: “pedophilia.”
BUT others, like the well-placed Cardinal Cupich, dismiss this picture, probably by pointing to the later 2011 Jay College Report (“The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors, 1950-2010”) to say that homosexual priests are no more likely than others to abuse minors.
HOWEVER, too many readers (including bishops) scan only abbreviated executive summaries. A reading of the more detailed findings in Chapter 2 of the 2011 report includes this revealing distinction regarding seminarians engaged in pre-seminary and/or in-seminary same-sex behavior:
“After analyzing pre-seminary and in-seminary same-sex sexual behavior separately, only in-seminary [not pre-seminary] same-sex sexual behavior was significantly related to post-ordination sexual behavior. Priests with in-seminary same-sex sexual behavior were more likely to have sexual experiences with adults than minors, and they WERE NOT [caps added] significantly more likely to sexually abuse minors than priests with no-same sex sexual behavior in-seminary.”
But then there’s this OMISSION from the executive summary:
“However, after considering pre-seminary and in-seminary sexual behavior separately, ONLY IN-SEMINARY [not pre-seminary] SAME-SEX SEXUAL BEHAVIOR WAS SIGNIFICANTLY RELATED TO THE INCREASED LIKELIHOOD OF A MALE CHILD VICTIM” [caps added].
From these two findings together, the ELUSIVE BIG PICTURE IS THIS: Straight incoming seminarians have been groomed and victimized in the seminaries, and these late victims of homosexual aggression (by fellow seminarians) then have gone on to victimize a younger round of (for them, more opportune) male children. Only in the sense of a half-truth (again!) is it a matter of “opportunity” or “poor training” (about so-called boundaries???)–the originating homosexual connection is PROVED by the full 2011 report, rather than disproved.
WHO from the USCCB might have groomed the Jay College Research Team to truncate the 2011 quick-read executive summary?
At most, nothing but stale, recycled air will come of this.
Cupich slams the door on any discussion of the root cause – homosexuality, before the summit even convenes.
These people in power will continue to stonewall until the Catholic Church has split in two. We already know who the arbiters of power are in one side of the chasm. Let them go and do what they will.
We pray to God that He strengthen, guide, protect and infuse with much grace, the remaining good and holy priest who will shepherd Christ’s remnant through this tribulation.
Apparently, Only Catholic clerics must be trained not to abuse minors.
The rest of Christianity already knows this from life, parents, teachers, etc, etc, etc.
“WAFWOT” , as we used to say in the Corps.
Cardinal Blase J. Cupich is underqualified to serve on the organizing committee for the Feb. 21-24 Vatican meeting on the protection of minors in the Church. However, he is much more politically reliable than the much more qualified Cardinal Sean O’Malley. As a member of the Lavendar Mafia, his designated role at the summit in Rome is to prevent the H word from coming up or make its way into the written record apart from denials of responsibility. His proposal to the USCCB that bishops within the same province investigate each other when there are allegations of sexual abuse is sheer lunacy from a psychological standpoint but absolute genius from a Machiavellian standpoint.
Cardinal Cupich’s statement that the Synod “Needs to be focused on the protection of minors underscoring that homosexuality is not a cause of sexual abuse” sets the tone [the entire statement drafted by Courtney Grogan CNA emphasises the Cardinal’s absurd logic that although most abuse occurs between adult males opportunity and poor training are at fault for abuse of children]. Abuse of children has already been effectively addressed by the Church, Cardinal Cupich giving the impression that male on male sex is somehow irrelevant. Sandro Magister has noted that view is apparently prevalent at the Vatican The Synod is clearly designed to avoid that major abuse issue. Adult clerical homosexual behavior and predation by senior clergy, prelates of vulnerable priests and seminarians. Cardinal O’Malley’s request that canonical vulnerability be expanded was ignored and he ‘summarily’ excluded from the planning committee. Justice requires the Pontiff take direct control of any such investigation involving prelates the apparent core of the more outstanding abuse issue, simply because only he is authorized to sanction where warranted. However that seems so far distanced from the Feb Synod that the credible allegations made involving McCarrick, Cardinal Kevin Farrell, and others as to render Justice impossible. Again I mention Robert Royal who intends to attend the Synod though not as he said with hope anything substantial will occur. Except he hoped the attending Bishops will consequently respond to the crisis. Independent action requested by Cardinal DiNardo had prev been thwarted by Pope Francis and it doesn’t appear that the Pontiff will approve that now. As said before in consideration of the immensity of the crisis affecting clergy and growing disillusionment of laity many leaving the Church an independent concerted effort by Bishops to address and amend the crisis is, at least to this writer justifiable.
“Denial … is a primitive mechanism that we need to move away from, and so whether it is criminal or malicious complicity in a code of silence or whether it is denial, which is trauma in its very primitive state, we need to go away from that and that’s why the third day of this important meeting is going to be on transparency.” (Scicluna)
Where “transparency” equals “obstinacy.”
The synod “needs to be focused on the protection of minors.”
It is indeed difficult to “focus” on a statistically probable homosexual majority.
So let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and say that clericalism is the cause.
If clericalism is an evil and is the cause of all the abuse, how about we dissect this?
Reports show that majority of the offenders are homosexuals. This therefore shows that homosexuals have a very great propensity for clericalism much more than sexually normal priests.
If we want to eradicate clericalism, then we should eradicate from the priesthood those most prone to it – the homosexuals.
Let’s reason through Cardinal Cupich’s assertion. Homosexuality not being connected to abuse of minors comes from the psychiatric community, the same people who change their definition of what is and isn’t a pathology every 5 years as social whims change, the same people who for decades insisted priests who abused minors could be reformed and restored to their ministries.
The bold obstinacy of the sodomite segment of the clergy is frightening. It is attempting to suffocate true Catholic morality and must delight their fellow travelers.
Cardinal Cupich is speaking truth, but not all of it. The cause of the sexual abuse of minors is the sin of lust. Lust is the unordered use of sexual faculty. This is learned immediately in St John Paul II’s Theology of the Body and is the very center of the sermon on divorce. The atrocity of child sexual abuse has life-altering consequences for the abused. If the conference does not speak about the vice of lust and the virtue of chastity, it will be a travesty.
A man so incredibly daft and out of touch with reality like Cupich would never had made it as far as he did without the powerful patronage of his friend McCarrick.
So is the goal “synodality” or the protection of children and the vulnerable? So what would so many U.S. bishops have opposed in the American plan – a clear code for future action, a safe system for bringing internal scandals to the fore, lay people with investigative experience on the job? The “universal” synod appears more as a source of protection for the offenders. It’s times like this that I wish I was a reporter, because after Cupcih’s response that the “cause” is not homosexuality, I would have asked him then if he thought that it was in any way a “contributing factor” and if so how?
To put this in pastoral terms: We know the abuse is 80% of wolves in sheep clothing on sheep. Wolves are not the problem. Experts have said the problem is one of opportunity for wolves in sheep’s clothing and training of the wolves in sheep’s clothing…synods are the solution as it makes for less wolves to invite to the feast of the “in our private field hospitals for the wounded” “Collegiality” enables the wolves in sheep’s clothing to hunt in packs. We want the wolves in sheep’s clothing to get “the smell of the sheep” or as in the child’s fairytale of the wolf when questioned says: “Why, the better to fool you with, my dear.” We expect the sheep to lay down their lives for the wolves in sheep and Shephard’s clothing.
May the Good Shephard Jesus Christ our Lord who is willing to lay down his life for his sheep, be our true leader, protect us, and defend us, and allow us to be “wise as serpents, even as we are as loving as doves.”
Cupich still says homosexuality is not the problem. Which tells us it IS the problem and that he is a loyal nephew of Uncle Ted. There will be no end to the scandals until all Cupich types are gone.
The “nephews of uncle Ted” are still in control…………
Cupich is the problem. Along with his kind.
About 10 years ago, I personally met Cardinal Cupich and was not at all impressed. I believe he might be part of the problem. Also, I believe a homosexual priest is just a pedefile in waiting. Time to send them all to be with Uncle Ted!
Cardinal Cupich announces that “homosexuality itself is not a cause” that it’s is a matter of “opportunity and also a matter of poor training on the part of people.” We also here the buzz words collegiality, synodality, responsibility, accountability, and transparency.
Regarding cause and effect, lacking from the above red-hat, cover-story vocabulary are the more elementary RED-FACE TEST and FUNCTIONAL LITERACY…
The 2004 John Jay Report into clerical sex abuse in the U.S. found that four out of five (80 PERCENT) of the offenses involved young teenagers and young men. OBVIOUSLY the heart of the problem is actively homosexual priests and bishops, not the 2004 cover-story of the day: “pedophilia.”
BUT others, like the well-placed Cardinal Cupich, dismiss this picture, probably by pointing to the later 2011 Jay College Report (“The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors, 1950-2010”) to say that homosexual priests are no more likely than others to abuse minors.
HOWEVER, too many readers (including bishops) scan only abbreviated executive summaries. A reading of the more detailed findings in Chapter 2 of the 2011 report includes this revealing distinction regarding seminarians engaged in pre-seminary and/or in-seminary same-sex behavior:
“After analyzing pre-seminary and in-seminary same-sex sexual behavior separately, only in-seminary [not pre-seminary] same-sex sexual behavior was significantly related to post-ordination sexual behavior. Priests with in-seminary same-sex sexual behavior were more likely to have sexual experiences with adults than minors, and they WERE NOT [caps added] significantly more likely to sexually abuse minors than priests with no-same sex sexual behavior in-seminary.”
But then there’s this OMISSION from the executive summary:
“However, after considering pre-seminary and in-seminary sexual behavior separately, ONLY IN-SEMINARY [not pre-seminary] SAME-SEX SEXUAL BEHAVIOR WAS SIGNIFICANTLY RELATED TO THE INCREASED LIKELIHOOD OF A MALE CHILD VICTIM” [caps added].
From these two findings together, the ELUSIVE BIG PICTURE IS THIS: Straight incoming seminarians have been groomed and victimized in the seminaries, and these late victims of homosexual aggression (by fellow seminarians) then have gone on to victimize a younger round of (for them, more opportune) male children. Only in the sense of a half-truth (again!) is it a matter of “opportunity” or “poor training” (about so-called boundaries???)–the originating homosexual connection is PROVED by the full 2011 report, rather than disproved.
WHO from the USCCB might have groomed the Jay College Research Team to truncate the 2011 quick-read executive summary?
At most, nothing but stale, recycled air will come of this.
Cupich slams the door on any discussion of the root cause – homosexuality, before the summit even convenes.
These people in power will continue to stonewall until the Catholic Church has split in two. We already know who the arbiters of power are in one side of the chasm. Let them go and do what they will.
We pray to God that He strengthen, guide, protect and infuse with much grace, the remaining good and holy priest who will shepherd Christ’s remnant through this tribulation.
“Poor training”? People have to be trained not to abuse minors?
.
Is he serious?
Apparently, Only Catholic clerics must be trained not to abuse minors.
The rest of Christianity already knows this from life, parents, teachers, etc, etc, etc.
“WAFWOT” , as we used to say in the Corps.
Cardinal Blase J. Cupich is underqualified to serve on the organizing committee for the Feb. 21-24 Vatican meeting on the protection of minors in the Church. However, he is much more politically reliable than the much more qualified Cardinal Sean O’Malley. As a member of the Lavendar Mafia, his designated role at the summit in Rome is to prevent the H word from coming up or make its way into the written record apart from denials of responsibility. His proposal to the USCCB that bishops within the same province investigate each other when there are allegations of sexual abuse is sheer lunacy from a psychological standpoint but absolute genius from a Machiavellian standpoint.
Cardinal Cupich’s statement that the Synod “Needs to be focused on the protection of minors underscoring that homosexuality is not a cause of sexual abuse” sets the tone [the entire statement drafted by Courtney Grogan CNA emphasises the Cardinal’s absurd logic that although most abuse occurs between adult males opportunity and poor training are at fault for abuse of children]. Abuse of children has already been effectively addressed by the Church, Cardinal Cupich giving the impression that male on male sex is somehow irrelevant. Sandro Magister has noted that view is apparently prevalent at the Vatican The Synod is clearly designed to avoid that major abuse issue. Adult clerical homosexual behavior and predation by senior clergy, prelates of vulnerable priests and seminarians. Cardinal O’Malley’s request that canonical vulnerability be expanded was ignored and he ‘summarily’ excluded from the planning committee. Justice requires the Pontiff take direct control of any such investigation involving prelates the apparent core of the more outstanding abuse issue, simply because only he is authorized to sanction where warranted. However that seems so far distanced from the Feb Synod that the credible allegations made involving McCarrick, Cardinal Kevin Farrell, and others as to render Justice impossible. Again I mention Robert Royal who intends to attend the Synod though not as he said with hope anything substantial will occur. Except he hoped the attending Bishops will consequently respond to the crisis. Independent action requested by Cardinal DiNardo had prev been thwarted by Pope Francis and it doesn’t appear that the Pontiff will approve that now. As said before in consideration of the immensity of the crisis affecting clergy and growing disillusionment of laity many leaving the Church an independent concerted effort by Bishops to address and amend the crisis is, at least to this writer justifiable.
Will Fr. Paul Sullins’ analysis be considered at that synod?
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/is-catholic-clergy-sex-abuse-related-to-homosexual-priests
“Denial … is a primitive mechanism that we need to move away from, and so whether it is criminal or malicious complicity in a code of silence or whether it is denial, which is trauma in its very primitive state, we need to go away from that and that’s why the third day of this important meeting is going to be on transparency.” (Scicluna)
Where “transparency” equals “obstinacy.”
The synod “needs to be focused on the protection of minors.”
It is indeed difficult to “focus” on a statistically probable homosexual majority.
“homosexuality itself is not a cause.”
The diminutive Cardinal also has a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Let’s take a good hard look at this.
So let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and say that clericalism is the cause.
If clericalism is an evil and is the cause of all the abuse, how about we dissect this?
Reports show that majority of the offenders are homosexuals. This therefore shows that homosexuals have a very great propensity for clericalism much more than sexually normal priests.
If we want to eradicate clericalism, then we should eradicate from the priesthood those most prone to it – the homosexuals.
Let’s reason through Cardinal Cupich’s assertion. Homosexuality not being connected to abuse of minors comes from the psychiatric community, the same people who change their definition of what is and isn’t a pathology every 5 years as social whims change, the same people who for decades insisted priests who abused minors could be reformed and restored to their ministries.
How do Cupich and the Directors of Seminaries and the Vatican and the Hierarchy of the Church define “celibacy”? That seems to be the real issue here.
The chastisement of the patriarchate of Rome continues.
The bold obstinacy of the sodomite segment of the clergy is frightening. It is attempting to suffocate true Catholic morality and must delight their fellow travelers.
Cardinal Capuch: with all due respect- where is the outrage over this abuse? All I read is justifications and excuses. Thank you.
Cardinal Cupich is speaking truth, but not all of it. The cause of the sexual abuse of minors is the sin of lust. Lust is the unordered use of sexual faculty. This is learned immediately in St John Paul II’s Theology of the Body and is the very center of the sermon on divorce. The atrocity of child sexual abuse has life-altering consequences for the abused. If the conference does not speak about the vice of lust and the virtue of chastity, it will be a travesty.
A man so incredibly daft and out of touch with reality like Cupich would never had made it as far as he did without the powerful patronage of his friend McCarrick.
So is the goal “synodality” or the protection of children and the vulnerable? So what would so many U.S. bishops have opposed in the American plan – a clear code for future action, a safe system for bringing internal scandals to the fore, lay people with investigative experience on the job? The “universal” synod appears more as a source of protection for the offenders. It’s times like this that I wish I was a reporter, because after Cupcih’s response that the “cause” is not homosexuality, I would have asked him then if he thought that it was in any way a “contributing factor” and if so how?
Cupich is post-Christian, just like his Uncle McCarrick.
Cupich is in the battalion of feline post-Christian viceroys of the McCarrick establishment.
To put this in pastoral terms: We know the abuse is 80% of wolves in sheep clothing on sheep. Wolves are not the problem. Experts have said the problem is one of opportunity for wolves in sheep’s clothing and training of the wolves in sheep’s clothing…synods are the solution as it makes for less wolves to invite to the feast of the “in our private field hospitals for the wounded” “Collegiality” enables the wolves in sheep’s clothing to hunt in packs. We want the wolves in sheep’s clothing to get “the smell of the sheep” or as in the child’s fairytale of the wolf when questioned says: “Why, the better to fool you with, my dear.” We expect the sheep to lay down their lives for the wolves in sheep and Shephard’s clothing.
May the Good Shephard Jesus Christ our Lord who is willing to lay down his life for his sheep, be our true leader, protect us, and defend us, and allow us to be “wise as serpents, even as we are as loving as doves.”