Modern Psychology and Priest Sex Abuse


Sexual abuse of minors is a societal problem. The fact that it occurs less frequently among priests than among other segments of society does not lessen its damaging effects to the Church, especially given our culture’s animus against the Roman Catholic Church and their eagerness to use any scandal as a way of weakening the Church’s influence in society.

If repression is portrayed as psychologically unhealthy, it can be argued that Kennedy’s Psychological Investigations and its flawed psychology gave support and justification to beliefs that resulted in the sex abuse of minors. Erickson’s insistence that sexual intimacy was essential to successfully traverse developmental stage six, justified sexual acting out in general, but it also justified sexual activity with predominantly male minors, who because of their proximity were the targets of abusive priests.

Prior to Vatican II the Catholic community adhered to a rigid sexual morality. Sexual activity outside of marriage was strictly forbidden. Forces in secular society relying on the questionable research of Freud and Alfred Kinsey were promoting more liberal policies and even sexual liberation. Some theologians emphasizing “love over law” suggested that individual conscience could arbitrarily pick and choose any sexual behavior. The dissent against Humanae Vitae, unchallenged by the bishops, only encouraged and promoted the acceptance of Kennedy’s premise.

When Psychological Investigations was published in 1972, it relied on Erickson’s and Freud’s materialist psychology, which posited unrestrained sexual behavior as inevitable and healthy. Seminary formation programs as well as individual priests accepted Kennedy uncritically and in an effort to move beyond Stage Six and become normal through sexual intimacy began acting out sexually. Since priests, many of whom were homosexually inclined, had ready access to adolescent males, this vulnerable group of victims was disproportionately targeted. While some abusers were implicated in serial rapes many involved only isolated cases. Nonetheless most involved coercion and all were breaches of both the sixth and ninth commandments as well as the vow of chastity. The scandal, now involving hundreds of cases, has resulted in significant damage to efforts at evangelization in the United States, to say nothing of the staggering financial losses.

Read more

Archbishop Chaput speaks of JFK – and Baptists more friendly than Catholics

Fifty years ago this fall, in September 1960, Sen. John F. Kennedy, the Democratic candidate for president, spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association.

He had one purpose.  He needed to convince 300 uneasy Protestant ministers, and the country at large, that a Catholic like himself could serve loyally as our nation’s chief executive.

Kennedy convinced the country, if not the ministers, and went on to be elected.  And his speech left a lasting mark on American politics.  It was sincere, compelling, articulate – and wrong.

Not wrong about the patriotism of Catholics, but wrong about American history and very wrong about the role of religious faith in our nation’s life.  And he wasn’t merely “wrong.”  His Houston remarks profoundly undermined the place not just of Catholics, but of all religious believers, in America’s public life and political conversation.  Today, half a century later, we’re paying for the damage.

Read more

The racial component of abortion

Atlanta, GA (LifeNews.com) — Atlanta drivers will soon see billboards all over the city that educate them about the racist component of abortions — that pro-life advocates point out target black Americans. In a city with a large African-American population, the billboards are already sparking controversy and they’ve not been put up yet.

The Radiance Foundation is sponsoring a campaign of 65 billboards across town and they should be visible starting on February 15.

“We’re aiming for a lot more, but that’s where we’re at,” Ryan Bomberger, co-founder of the group, recently told the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

“This is not a campaign that targets black women,” Bomberger said. “It’s a campaign that exposes an industry that we believe targets African-Americans.”

Learn more. Visit the site.

“If it weren’t for Catholics, abortion might very well be against the law.”

ama

Read the article

Letter from Kennedy that Obama hand-delivered to the Pope skirted abortion issue

Excerpts of Kennedy letter to pope and response

By The Associated Press (AP) – 16 hours ago

Excerpts of the letter from Sen. Edward M. Kennedy that President Barack Obama delivered to Pope Benedict XVI earlier this year and an account of the pope’s response, as read by Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, archbishop emeritus of Washington:

“Most Holy Father I asked President Obama to personally hand deliver this letter to you. As a man of deep faith himself, he understands how important my Roman Catholic faith is to me, and I am so deeply grateful to him. I hope this letter finds you in good health. I pray that you have all of God’s blessings as you lead our church and inspire our world during these challenging times. I am writing with deep humility to ask that you pray for me as my own health declines.

Read it

Editor’s note: Forgiveness of sins within the Sacrament of Reconciliation requires contrition, along with (at least) a firm purpose and real possibility of amendment, with the hope of genuine and permanent repentance, acccording to God’s grace, for the sins that we freely commit. We don’t know what the Senator may have confessed just prior to his death, but if his letter is any indication, this man who claimed his Catholic faith was so imporant to him obviously never learned the critical importance of a good confession. May God have mercy on the soul of this heretical Catholic who brought great scandal on the church, and who facilitated the unjust and gruesome destruction of tens of millions of unborn babies. 

More on this at Tom Roeser’s Blog

Quote: “Bush More Catholic Than Kennedy”

White House photo by Chris Greenberg

Here’s an article that definitely mixes politics and religion, and offers a number of very interesting possibilities.

Is President Bush thinking about following Tony Blair’s lead, and becoming Catholic?

He wouldn’t be the first member of the family to do so. Jeb Bush became Catholic some time ago.

Click here to read the story, courtesy of the Washington Post

 

The “Last Lion” of Abortion

 

The “Last Lion” of Abortion

Sen. John McCain responded to the news of Sen. Edward Kennedy’s brain tumor saying that Ted Kennedy was the “last lion of the Senate.” Nice words, but hollow. Clearly Kennedy has been a forty-year force to reckon with in the US Senate, but lionizing him for his headstrong political partisanship over four decades is a little like saying that sticking around for a long time and being opinionated qualifies as a “legacy.” That very record of anti-life advocacy is the measure by which his soul will be judged.While I pray for Sen. Kennedy’s recovery from a brain tumor, I pray more for his recovery from the cancerous metastasis of abortion ideology in his soul. Ironically, in the same years in which abortion has become less and less acceptable to the American public, it has become more and more of an obsession for Sen. Kennedy.
                    
Prior to Roe v. Wade, Sen. Kennedy had actually held a pro-life view of the sanctity of life. In a letter to a constituent he said,
“While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized – the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.”
         
                        
However, post-Roe, Kennedy’s record of recognizing the “value which our civilization places on life” has been, shall we say, less than stellar. In fact, he has a 0% record of voting in favor of life, and there is not one life-related issue in which his vote reflects a concern for the weakest members of our society, let alone the concern that his supposed Catholic faith places on them. Senator Kennedy is rated 100% by NARAL for his pro-choice voting record.
  • Voted NO on banning human cloning.
  • Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions.
  • Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
  • Voted NO on criminal penalties for harming an unborn child during the commission of another crime.
  • Voted NO on maintaining the ban on military base abortions.
  • Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.
  • Voted YES on $100 million to “reduce teen pregnancy” by hedonistic sex education programs and contraceptives.
  • Is a sponsor of pending radical legislation in the Senate to promote special protections for homosexuals in the workplace.
  • (See http://www.ontheissues.org/
    Social/Ted_Kennedy_Abortion.htm
    )
In other words, Kennedy has spent the better part of his long political career promoting the forces that kill and maim and destroy all the things that we hold sacred. What a shocking example of public service for a man who purports to call himself Catholic.
                    
A month to the day after illicitly receiving Communion at the Mass of the Vicar of Christ in our nation’s capital, Sen. Kennedy seems to have been given a real wake up call. When all moral voices go unheeded, the prospect of death tends to focus the mind on the truth. Let us all pray for his conversion from a career of abortion advocacy, for his enlightenment and for a peaceful death, something denied to all aborted babies in this country.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

   
Sincerely Yours in Christ,Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer,
President, Human Life International

Obama: A Harsh Ideologue Hidden by a Feel-Good Image

Obama: A Harsh Ideologue

Hidden by a Feel-Good Image

 

By Rick Santorum
Posted: Thursday, February 28, 2008

ARTICLE
Philadelphia Inquirer  
Publication Date: February 28, 2008
American voters will choose between two candidates this election year. One inspires hope for a brighter, better tomorrow. His rhetoric makes us feel we are, indeed, one nation indivisible – indivisible by ideology or religion, indivisible by race or creed. It is rhetoric of hope and change and possibility. It’s inspiring. This candidate can make you just plain feel good to be American. The other candidate, by contrast, is one of the Senate’s fiercest partisans. This senator reflexively sides with the party’s extreme wing. There’s no record of working with the other side of the aisle. None. It’s basically been my way or the highway, combined with a sanctimoniousness that breeds contempt among those on the other side of any issue. Which of these two candidates should be our next president? The choice is clear, right? Wrong, because they’re both the same man – Barack Obama.

Granted, the first-term Illinois senator’s lofty rhetoric of bipartisanship, unity, hope and change makes everyone feel good. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that his grand campaign rhetoric does not match his partisan, ideological record. The nonpartisan National Journal, for example, recently rated Obama the Senate’s most liberal member. That’s besting some tough competition from orthodox liberals such as Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer.

John McCain’s campaign and conservative pundits have listed the numerous times in Obama’s short Senate career where he sided with the extremes in his party against broadly supported compromises on issues such as immigration, ethics reform, terrorist surveillance and war funding. Fighting on the fringe with a handful of liberals is one thing, but consider his position on an issue that passed both houses of Congress unanimously in 2002.

That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. During the partial-birth abortion debate, Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to die or being “terminated” outside the womb. With the baby now completely separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate medical treatment.

The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing “shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right” of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn’t intruding on Roe v. Wade.

Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn’t kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee’s chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let’s be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide – I wonder if he’ll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: “Yes, we can.”

How could someone possibly justify such a vote? In March 2001, Obama was the sole speaker in opposition to the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. He said: “We’re saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month child delivered to term. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal-protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child.” So according to Obama, “they,” babies who survive abortions or any other preterm newborns, should be permitted to be killed because giving legal protection to preterm newborns would have the effect of banning all abortions.

Justifying the killing of newborn babies is deeply troubling, but just as striking is his rigid adherence to doctrinaire liberalism. Apparently, the “audacity of hope” is limited only to those babies born at full term and beyond. Worse, given his support for late-term partial-birth abortions that supporters argued were necessary to end the life of genetically imperfect children, it may be more accurate to say the audacity of hope applies only to those babies born healthy at full term.

Obama’s supporters say his rhetoric makes them believe again.

Is this the kind of change and leader you believe in?

Submitted by Nancy W.