what is the sound of one jaw hitting the floor?

I'd get outraged, but I have some sexual deviancy to go perform. 'Scuse me.

I'm so glad the redistricting after 2000 took me out of Sensenbrenner's district. Granted, Tom Petri's still a Republican and all, but... well, he sure isn't Jim Sensenbrenner.

It's so funny that JS had him in class and didn't like him.

Well, there's one time JS's instincts were right... one in a row...

Eh, I think this was more than his usual "Grr-how-dare-you-be-a-non-historian" crotchetiness.

I wonder if Sensenbrenner looked like Jabba the Hutt when he was in high school, or if that's a recent development.

Santorum is off-base on his comments here, but it WAS the liberal, unorthodox American seminaries of the 1960s an '70s that paved the way for the sexual abuse scandals in the U.S. Men who were clearly NOT fit to be priests due to sexual deviancy were given the nod for ordination, and in many of the more liberal seminiaries the psychological exams were cursory or nonexistant, the standard of celibacy was considered little more than a joke, and the careful and prayerful mentoring of seminarians by their superiors was not monitored or encouraged as it should have been. These men weren't caught early enough to stop them from making their vows and being put in positions to harm children and young adults, and God knows who else in the process. In orthodox, conservative (I don't mean politically, I just mean...I don't know...traditional? not an adequate term, but anyway) seminaries, the priests that came out of them had solid formations and a clear understanding of what it means to be a priest in the church of Christ. A priest with this understanding could not, would not molest anyone. But the priestly identity has suffered so much in America, it is almost a lost cause for too many priests ordained in the 1960s-early 1980s, and it really IS due to rampant liberalism and heterodoxy in the seminaries.

I knew you'd have some really crucial information here. I know little enough about the history of the American Catholic Church that I see what you're getting at.

But the Senator didn't say it was Boston seminaries that did it, he just indicted the whole city -- "a seat of academic, political, and cultural liberalism in America." How much of it was Boston-based seminaries or seminarians' fault, I haven't the slightest idea, but don't you think it's a little unfair to pin the entire city for the crimes committed? Sure, there could have been some sort of trickle-down effect going on from the outer culture, but then it's the seminarians' job to remain firm -- because the culture around it isn't going to clean up its act (even if we want it to).

I just think it's an unfair and broad criticism to make.

He's targeting the proper sentiment in this case - liberalism (and again I don't mean political...he probably does, but I've spoken with Santorum about Catholicism and he's a true believer, and he knows the Church is much, much bigger than any one party or political belief), but in the completely wrong place - Boston, as opposed to seminiaries and priestly formation. I agree, he's on the wrong track. Just plain wrong.

then it's the seminarians' job to remain firm

It's the seminary's job to make sure the seminarians have the tools, the foundation, and the beliefs to do so. And understand, this is a REALLY DIFFICULT thing to do, when the Church is trying to exist in this world, in our culture, in American society (which does glorify everything except for virtue). People expect the Church to fit itself into the box, to be a perfect match, but as a priest friend of mine has put it, our ass groove just doesn't quite fit in with the rest of society.

I know it's a really difficult thing to do, and only getting harder, and it's something all religions and religious people will have to keep fighting. And I have a lot of respect for that. But why would Santorum script a problem within the Catholic Church as a liberal-vs.-conservative political issue? What good is that doing for abuse victims? What good is that doing for the Republican party, casting its adversaries as pro-abuse and pro-I don't even know what?

He may have meant liberal morally, not [just] politically. Which amounts to the same thing, to a lot of people.

I don't have a lot of time to look into this right this minute, (work? what work?) but if I recall correctly, a significant number of the priests with a long history of abuse were ordained BEFORE Vatican II. (granted, ones ordained earlier had more time to build up that long history of abuse.) So even the earlier seminaries weren't able to unfallibly weed out the unsuitable.

the priests that came out of them had solid formations and a clear understanding of what it means to be a priest in the church of Christ. A priest with this understanding could not, would not molest anyone.

Might it not be more accurate to say that any priest capable of molesting anyone would not be able to gain those solid formations and understanding of what it means to be a priest?

Honestly, I think what the seminaries can be blamed for is not making or unmaking child molestors, but for failing to find and remove all of them... which a stricter adherence to required tests and standards would certainly have helped with.

First of all, I've got no beef with Vatican II. I think it's divine. :) So by "liberal seminaries," I didn't mean "post-Vat.II seminaries."

But it's a fact that the 1960s-early 1980s were a time of greater permissiveness in American Catholicism. (I don't know if it was like this worldwide - I doubt it was quite as bad.) Vat.II was/is a great thing for the Church and I will gladly defend it to anyone. But it's true that priestly formation took a serious hit when many priests lost the sense of their identities - their role as icons of the eternal priesthood of Christ - and this happened in part because there were so many proponents of Vat.II in this country who wanted there to be NO discernible difference between the role of the laity and the role of priests. Again, a priest who has a proper understanding of his vocation - who went through a solid formation, who has trusted, orthodox spiritual advisors, whose bishop knows him and oversees his work, who has a confessor he visits regularly, who fully comprehends his unique service to the Body of Christ - a priest like this would almost certainly be caught or catch himself before he harmed others.

a significant number of the priests with a long history of abuse were ordained BEFORE Vatican II

Vat.II was announed in 1959, with documents published till 1963, I believe. Priests ordained before then would be very old right now. Some pre-Vat.II priests were responsible for sexual abuse, but the vast majority of the priests indicted were seminarians during the '60s and '70s. But again, to make Vat.II one of the scapegoats here is not really productive. Many seminaries embraced the reforms of Vatican II and still managed to preserve the integrity of their priestly formation.

FYI: if you want to read Santorum's whole article in context, it's right < href="http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30">here</a>.

Thanks for finding this.

Sure. It's good to read things in context. This article is, like, 3 years old, too. I'm not sure why Kennedy seized upon those two sentences, but whatever.

Well, I still don't agree with him seizing upon Boston, but at least he was generally more leaning toward the seminary issue.

I hope you don't think I'm trying to attack you or your faith by doing this.

No no no. I know you would never try to attack me! As for Catholicism, obviously there will be things you disagree with, or, you know, you'd be Catholic.

The focus of his comments was not Boston at all. I think those sentences should have been left out...but you know, otherwise, I think it's an article most orthodox Catholics in the know would agree with.