As to be expected, the news media (Reuters, etc.) did not EXACTLY get it right. Here is an unofficial English translation of the Latin document leaked today. The official document is scheduled to be released on the 29th of November:
II. Homosexuality and ordained ministry
From Vatican II until today, several documents of the Magisterium—and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church— have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism differentiates between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.
Regarding acts, it teaches that, in Sacred Scripture, these are presented as grave sins. Tradition has constantly considered them to be intrinsically immoral and contrary to natural law. These, consequently, may not be approved in any case.
Concerning profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, that one discovers in a certain number of men and women, these are also objectively disordered and often constitute a trial, even for these men and women. These people must be received with respect and delicacy; one will avoid every mark of unjust discrimination with respect to them. These are called to realize the will of God in their lives and to unite to the Sacrifice of the Lord the difficulties that they may encounter.
In light of this teaching, this department, in agreement with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, holds it necessary clearly to affirm that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, may not admit to the seminary and Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, show profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.
The above persons find themselves, in fact, in a situation that gravely obstructs a right way of relating with men and women. The negative consequences that may derive from the Ordination of persons with profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies are by no means to by ignored.
If, however, one is dealing with homosexual tendencies that may be simply the expression of a transitory problem, such as for example an adolescence not yet complete, such tendencies must be overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.
(BTW, a person is ordained to the diaconate for at least one year before being ordained into the presbyteriate).
One other thing, though. This is not new guidance. The following is guidance that was issued back in 1961:
Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.
... or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers
Hhmmmm, interesting that the ecclesiastical authorities publically focus on and outright condemn the homosexuality with such dedication, and yet when it comes to dealing with child molesters, where they were often shuttled over to another church, and a lid of loyal silence was strongly applied, ... until the public stink about that became so strong, that then they 'came down heavy' against child molesters among the priests.
And even then, when Pope John Paul II was dead and buried, who was among the cardinals giving their sermons at his funeral? None other than the same guy who did the sizeable amount of shuttling the molesting priests himself; Bernard Law. And he's still a cardinal!
Now why are there no Official Documents of Doctrine ruling against (and being enforced) these activities? Or, what if Law was a practicing homosexual? Would he still be a cardinal then?
I thought they took vows of celibacy and celibacy means NO sexual activity whatsoever irregardles of men, women, children, animals, inanimate objects, etc.
I do hope the Catholic Church, in any effort to actually become more "universal" in their movement, in extending their merciful God's hand of friendship and good will toward truly encompassing all the peoples of the earth, will get beyond the literal stumbling-block of their own ancient propaganda (as well as other denominations), particularly having to do with material (e.g., Rom.1:20f) which initially had less to do with homosexuality but served more as a caricature for certain groups of eunuchs the Catholic movement had serious political concerns and reasons for attacking. It was a "great eunuch war" (and heated debates among churches over what defined them - because eunuchs enjoyed great power in the palaces of rulers) - the eunuchs of one church in struggle with the eunuchs of another church, for the top title in the "Great Church Race" of the first three centuries of Christianity.
One bloody, eunuch "slap-a-thon". Imagine that.
The debate between "the circumcision in flesh" and the 'circumcision in Spirit" must have taken on an additional, frightfully whole new meaning for all of sides of that war during Christianity's formative years.
:)
The heated debate over what consitituted a true 'eunuch" during those times - literal vs. figurative - appears as controversial then as today's 'baptism" debates.
very interesting danny (like all the stuff you write)
ha ha sudo !
i'm wondering what's going to happen with one of my sibling's parish priest. he's openly gay and has been a priest for years, but i guess maybe he's been celibate, at least for 3 years anyway
hey garth, they really disgust me
the monsignor (big man around here) was supposed to appear at my brother's hearing regarding the "father" prick priest who sexually assaulted as a child, but the coward never showed, and i believe it's because he knew and shuffled him off just like the diocese in brooklyn who sent him to us
I thought they took vows of celibacy and celibacy means NO sexual activity whatsoever irregardles of men, women, children, animals, inanimate objects, etc.
Isn't that what "celibate" means?
Good question...is celibacy still a prerequisite for the catholic priesthood? if so aren't they already disqualified if they are active in any sexuality?
They could always convert to episcopalianism--although the way that group is fracturing over the issue there may not be many episcopalians left soon
Good question...is celibacy still a prerequisite for the catholic priesthood? if so aren't they already disqualified if they are active in any sexuality?
They could always convert to episcopalianism--although the way that group is fracturing over the issue there may not be many episcopalians left soon
mstar,
Celibacy is a requirement for the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. It is considered a discipline vice a doctrine. The Eastern Rites (e.g., Maronite, Chaldean, etc.) have always allowed a married man to be ordained into the diaconate and the presbyteriate (but not the episcopate) (in plain english, deacons, priests, but not bishops). However, it must be pointed out that once they are ordained, they may not marry. In addition, there have been a significant number of Episcopal/ Anglican priests who have decided to convert, particularly since many of the Anglican churches started allowing the "ordination" of women in the late '70s. A rather large number of them have been ordained after a period of formation, married or not. I have read in a couple of spots that this privilege may be extended to Lutheran priests who convert, as well (but I don't believe that this is the case, yet).
As to the issue of 3-year absitenance, read the actual content of the document I quoted earlier.
The key sentence is this:
If, however, one is dealing with homosexual tendencies that may be simply the expression of a transitory problem, such as for example an adolescence not yet complete, such tendencies must be overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.
It clearly is NOT saying that a practicing, acknowledged homosexual is eligible for ordination if he can keep it zipped for three years. It is saying that if somebody experimented with it/ flirted with it, etc., they need to have overcome the tendencies (the word tendancy does NOT equate with actually doing the act, it more closely equates with even considering the act) for three years.
Having said that, are the US bishops going to enforce this? That is a completely different question, altogether.
Having said that, are the US bishops going to enforce this? That is a completely different question, altogether.
And therein lies the problem. :ph34r:
Talk is cheap and statements like that aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Show me some actual sweeping changes and then we'll have something to talk about.
the only time one of my brothers had to deal with homosexual tendencies is after Father Butler gave him blowjobs when he was a young altar boy and the poor kid had to deal with (though his entire life up until now) the fact that it felt good
here's one article about what he did when he was a choirmaster. this fellow dionne is about 13-14 years older than my brothers. we inherited him later in our parish. oh there's so much more.... makes me too sick
Little Hope for Change:
Victims Laud Grand Jury Findings, But Criticize Church Response
By Carol Eisenberg and Steve Wick
Long Island (NY) Newsday
February 12, 2003
Brian Dionne said he didn't need a grand jury to tell him the Catholic hierarchy engaged in systematic deception to protect sexual predators. He's known it for 40 years, he said, almost since he was first molested by a priest while serving as a choirboy.
And like many alleged victims, he is appalled at church officials' continued denials of a cover-up.
"If they don't get it now, even after everything that has gone on this past year, they're never going to get it,” Dionne said Tuesday. "The truth is, I don't have too much hope that the church is going to change. The people in power seem to be thoroughly committed to covering this up even now, and it really hurts.”
A day after a Suffolk County grand jury issued a blistering report accusing the Diocese of Rockville Centre of protecting priests and church assets at the expense of children, Dionne and others who say they were molested expressed exultation at the findings but also bitterness that the diocese could still deny their truth.
"The doors have been blown off the chancery,” said a 41-year-old Freeport resident who told a relative of his childhood abuse for the first time three years ago. "There's a part of me that's very glad. But will I ever get any satisfaction in the long run? No. The guy who did this to me will never see a day in jail. And I'll live with what he did to me for the rest of my life.”
Dionne, 51, said he implored a top official of the diocese last spring to bring his childhood molester to justice. Dionne confided one other thing to the priest: He had AIDS, and feared he didn't have much time left.
The official promised to look into his complaint that the Rev. John Butler had molested Dionne and more than a dozen other boys in the choir at St. Joseph's in Kings Park where Butler had been a choirmaster 40 years ago.
"I said, ‘I've heard that from officials before,'” Dionne recalled replying. "And I'm quite sick. Do you promise to get back to me?' And he said, ‘Of course, of course, I will.'”
But the Brooklyn man said he never heard anything back, even after leaving subsequent messages. "Here it is 10 months later, and still not a peep,” he said Tuesday.
Despite complaints about Butler that spanned 35 years, during which Butler was transferred several times, Butler continued to work as a priest until last April, when Dionne made repeated calls to his superiors in Metuchen, N.J., who finally put him on leave. Newsday has been unable to reach Butler for comment, and Rockville Centre officials did not respond to calls Tuesday.
Another alleged victim, Donna Nichols, expressed contempt at the diocese's complaint that it did not get to read the report before its public release.
Talk is cheap and statements like that aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Show me some actual sweeping changes and then we'll have something to talk about.
Belle, you hit the nail on the head.
One note, though, as I mentioned in another thread, the Vatican is doing an official "visitation" on all seminaries in the US. Part of the review is to ensure that they are teaching the seminarians orthodox doctrine, another part is to check on compliance with this document (and its 1961 predecessor). Already one seminary rector has resigned in the wake of this visitation. In my book, that is a very positive sign.
Another note is that the number of priests being laicized or otherwise interdicted has gone up since 2002, when the policies were changed. See this pagefor a list of 234 that have died, been laicized, suspended, or otherwise interdicted.
But those are incremental things: trying to prevent the problem with future generations of clerics and trying to actually get rid of the ones who are caught is good...but is slow.
That's where the "will the bishops enforce this?" comes into place.
The problem is a problem of ephebophilia/ pederasty in the priesthood. If you look at the statistics compiled in 2003 on the subject, you will find that 81% of the victims were male and 86% of the victims were 10 or over at the first instance of their abuse (41% -- almost half -- were between the ages of 12 and 14). So the re-emphasis of a long-standing policy through this new document will help matters...if it is enforced.
Here's the problem with enforcement: as I said recently in another thread, for several decades after the close of WWII, there was a radicalization within the Catholic Church...a definite wish to move it far to the left. Remember how far left the social norms of the country went during the 60s and the 70s? There were elements within the Church that were affected by those changes, as well.
The Papal Nuncio during a particularly critical time (1973-1980) was a person by the name of Archbishop Jean Jadot (the Nuncio is the Pope's "ambassador" to a particular country). I know this may seem a little bit "inside baseball," but it is pretty important. The Papal Nuncio for a country has the responsibility to recommend candidates for elevation to bishop. Jadot had a definite agenda in mind...the "liberization" of the church so that it would be more inclusive and more socially responsive. He took this agenda and used it as a guide when recommending priests for ordination to bishop. You might recognize a few of the names that he was responsible for: Bernard Law, Roger Mahoney, Roberto Sanchez, Theodore McCarrick, Patrick Flores, Rembert Weakland, and Walter Sullivan. I know you're familiar with Law and with Mahoney, but if you Google'd any of these, you'd be able to see the problems in any of the dioceses they've been responsible for.
The good news about this is that they all are either at or very near retirement age. They must submit their resignations at age 75. I pray that their replacements are improvements and that they will deal swiftly and decisively with those who have substantiated claims against them.
I don't pretend to defend the pederasts. I don't pretend to defend those who allowed them to get through the seminary, nor do I defend those who repeatedly put them in the position to prey on young boys (and, occasionally, young girls). Nor do I pretend to defend those who, in the aftermath, refused to deal with the problem they were handed (even if the incidence during their tenure dramatically dropped). Had they honestly dealt with those who were hurt, even if the hurt was long, long ago, rather than keeping it quiet, the problem could have been dealt with internally, rather than it falling into the hands of the media and the lawyers.
But, as I tried to point out a little earlier, the people accused, if you examine the statistics, it becomes abundantly clear that the problem was, rather than what would clinically be called pedophilia (young children), it was ephebophilia (older children/ adolescants). There is a difference. And a big part of this difference is that the majority of the ephebophiles were homosexual. Like it or not, politically correct or not, 81% of the victims were boys, and 86% of the victims were 10 or over, and most of those were over 12. The majority of really senior bishops in this country and the vast majority of the really "liberal" bishops were recommended by Archbishop Jacot, the Papal Nuncio from '73 through '80. And there is a political agenda with these bishops to 'liberalize' the Church. Fortunately, they didn't get their choice in for Pope in 1978 and they, again, didn't get their choice in for Pope in 2005. So they will have somewhat of a check on them until afer they're gone. So, yes, I have a little hope in this matter.
But I'm sure the really big question that bothers a lot of people here is this: how can a relatively smart, fairly nice guy like Mark be so friggin blind as to be a Catholic? Especially with this horrible scandal! Isn't he just replacing cult-like adoration for TWI with cult-like adoration for the harlot of Babylon? (The only person who's actually had the guts to ask me that, to date, has been Sudo)
To be honest, the reason why is this: purely doctrine. When I shook off the heterodoxy taught by TWI and started to look at 'mainstream' Christianity, I had to re-evaluate what I believed on two main doctrines: the trinity and 'are the dead alive now.' Once I was able to clear away objections to those doctrines, I started looking at it all. And I could not find a reason NOT to do Catholicism. With each and every Protestant denomination's theology, I could.
And I'll let you in on a little secret: if I didn't see concrete proof that the problem was correcting itself and that the pendulum was swinging back in the correct direction, I would consider converting to some branch of Eastern Orthodoxy. Why? Because, with the exception of the 'filoque,' the doctrine is fundamentally the same.
Sorry the response took so long, but I wanted to give you a good answer. Sorry if it's upsetting to anyone.
Dear whoever...I witnessed physical emotional and sexual abuse at the hands of the RC church so great in fact that when I went to talk about the abuse that had occured in our school and church, my school friend (the other side of the story, alot of money and 20 yrs later)said he would make my and my kids life hell if we returned and I told my story. I'm guessing this response has to do with his denial of events that he witnesed but IMO it shows a side of cowardness I saw from the very beginning.
My suggestions are do not buy land from Scrabo Real Estate nor buy melons from any melon grower in half moon bay who got his land from his grandma, imo this land is contaminated and will be for many generations. My opinion is to *%^#* aka unrinate on thier ground.
A few years ago I took it upon myself to contact the Archbishop of San Francisco (repeatably) to ask about what sort of therapy they could offer to folks suffering from the emotional physical and sexual abuse that had occurured at the hands of the holy nuns of Nativity School in Menlo Park California, I have to this date recieved NO reply.
I do NOT believe a word they say in regards to this matter nor do I expect any sort of response other than what is needed for *crisis managment*
now that makes me feel much better, i think i could go back to the catholic church
Excathedra,
I didn't write that last post or that comment for your benefit. If you'll re-read it, you'll note it was addressed to Belle.
I realize that, if you had your way, the next time you'd be in a Catholic church would be feet first in a coffin (and then only if your still Catholic relatives get control of your dead body and disregard your will). I'm very sorry for your brothers. I am glad that the person who did that to your brothers has been laicized, but I'm sorry that it took as long as it did. And I realize that there is nothing that would make you happier than if literally every Catholic deacon, priest, and bishop were taken out behind their churches and shot and if literally every Catholic place of worship was levelled and the ground salted so nothing would grow on them for eternity.
I also realize that this position is one taken by a rather high percentage of posters on gsc.
So, please, if you ever read anything positive I say about Catholicism or anything positive I say about the Catholic Church (or even anything negative I say about the Catholic Church), please don't assume for a second that I am trying to recruit you or anybody else on gsc. I full well know that nobody on gsc would EVER consider converting or returning to the Catholic Church -- and I don't believe wasting my time. My SOLE purpose in this is to provide some sort of a counterbalance. Period. End of Story.
BTW, I am familiar with the site bishop-accountability.org; it's got some good details in it. You may wish to check out this site: http://bbs.survivorsfirst.org/main/index.php -- a forum for survivors of abuse. Not that high a volume, but good information nonetheless.
Oh, and, Happy Thanksgiving to you. I hope you have a wonderful day with your family!!!
it isn't about oral sex, it is about a child's innocence taken away. It is also about suppression. In the 60's, a priest was considered a holy man. There weren't places that a victim could go to tell someone about such a violation.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
5
9
14
Popular Days
Nov 27
19
Nov 23
14
Nov 25
9
Nov 24
7
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 11 posts
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net 5 posts
GarthP2000 9 posts
markomalley 14 posts
Popular Days
Nov 27 2005
19 posts
Nov 23 2005
14 posts
Nov 25 2005
9 posts
Nov 24 2005
7 posts
Sudo
Exie,
Yeah, they sure did. Three years. Why do you think that is?? You grow out of it in three years, 'ya think?? :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
As to be expected, the news media (Reuters, etc.) did not EXACTLY get it right. Here is an unofficial English translation of the Latin document leaked today. The official document is scheduled to be released on the 29th of November:
(BTW, a person is ordained to the diaconate for at least one year before being ordained into the presbyteriate).
One other thing, though. This is not new guidance. The following is guidance that was issued back in 1961:
From: Careful Selection And Training of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders, Canon Law Digest V, 1961.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
gee i have been likeing woman for most of my 57 years
i don't think i can change that in 3! don't want too either! ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Hhmmmm, interesting that the ecclesiastical authorities publically focus on and outright condemn the homosexuality with such dedication, and yet when it comes to dealing with child molesters, where they were often shuttled over to another church, and a lid of loyal silence was strongly applied, ... until the public stink about that became so strong, that then they 'came down heavy' against child molesters among the priests.
And even then, when Pope John Paul II was dead and buried, who was among the cardinals giving their sermons at his funeral? None other than the same guy who did the sizeable amount of shuttling the molesting priests himself; Bernard Law. And he's still a cardinal!
Now why are there no Official Documents of Doctrine ruling against (and being enforced) these activities? Or, what if Law was a practicing homosexual? Would he still be a cardinal then?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
I don't understand.
I thought they took vows of celibacy and celibacy means NO sexual activity whatsoever irregardles of men, women, children, animals, inanimate objects, etc.
Isn't that what "celibate" means?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
I do hope the Catholic Church, in any effort to actually become more "universal" in their movement, in extending their merciful God's hand of friendship and good will toward truly encompassing all the peoples of the earth, will get beyond the literal stumbling-block of their own ancient propaganda (as well as other denominations), particularly having to do with material (e.g., Rom.1:20f) which initially had less to do with homosexuality but served more as a caricature for certain groups of eunuchs the Catholic movement had serious political concerns and reasons for attacking. It was a "great eunuch war" (and heated debates among churches over what defined them - because eunuchs enjoyed great power in the palaces of rulers) - the eunuchs of one church in struggle with the eunuchs of another church, for the top title in the "Great Church Race" of the first three centuries of Christianity.
One bloody, eunuch "slap-a-thon". Imagine that.
The debate between "the circumcision in flesh" and the 'circumcision in Spirit" must have taken on an additional, frightfully whole new meaning for all of sides of that war during Christianity's formative years.
:)
The heated debate over what consitituted a true 'eunuch" during those times - literal vs. figurative - appears as controversial then as today's 'baptism" debates.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
very interesting danny (like all the stuff you write)
ha ha sudo !
i'm wondering what's going to happen with one of my sibling's parish priest. he's openly gay and has been a priest for years, but i guess maybe he's been celibate, at least for 3 years anyway
hey garth, they really disgust me
the monsignor (big man around here) was supposed to appear at my brother's hearing regarding the "father" prick priest who sexually assaulted as a child, but the coward never showed, and i believe it's because he knew and shuffled him off just like the diocese in brooklyn who sent him to us
whata buncha phonies
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Excie,
this is no mere Eunuch-corn fantasy.
I think there might actually be something to it.
But as usual, you're being much too kind.
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
They could always convert to episcopalianism--although the way that group is fracturing over the issue there may not be many episcopalians left soon
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
mstar,
Celibacy is a requirement for the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. It is considered a discipline vice a doctrine. The Eastern Rites (e.g., Maronite, Chaldean, etc.) have always allowed a married man to be ordained into the diaconate and the presbyteriate (but not the episcopate) (in plain english, deacons, priests, but not bishops). However, it must be pointed out that once they are ordained, they may not marry. In addition, there have been a significant number of Episcopal/ Anglican priests who have decided to convert, particularly since many of the Anglican churches started allowing the "ordination" of women in the late '70s. A rather large number of them have been ordained after a period of formation, married or not. I have read in a couple of spots that this privilege may be extended to Lutheran priests who convert, as well (but I don't believe that this is the case, yet).
As to the issue of 3-year absitenance, read the actual content of the document I quoted earlier.
The key sentence is this:
It clearly is NOT saying that a practicing, acknowledged homosexual is eligible for ordination if he can keep it zipped for three years. It is saying that if somebody experimented with it/ flirted with it, etc., they need to have overcome the tendencies (the word tendancy does NOT equate with actually doing the act, it more closely equates with even considering the act) for three years.
Having said that, are the US bishops going to enforce this? That is a completely different question, altogether.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
And therein lies the problem. :ph34r:
Talk is cheap and statements like that aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Show me some actual sweeping changes and then we'll have something to talk about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
the only time one of my brothers had to deal with homosexual tendencies is after Father Butler gave him blowjobs when he was a young altar boy and the poor kid had to deal with (though his entire life up until now) the fact that it felt good
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
here's one article about what he did when he was a choirmaster. this fellow dionne is about 13-14 years older than my brothers. we inherited him later in our parish. oh there's so much more.... makes me too sick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Hi excie..regarding your siblings parish priest being celibate for the last three years..just ask him !!
And I'm convinced there are differn't demons that inhabit the differn't churches.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
oh shut up allan
**
i got that, dear dannyLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Belle, you hit the nail on the head.
One note, though, as I mentioned in another thread, the Vatican is doing an official "visitation" on all seminaries in the US. Part of the review is to ensure that they are teaching the seminarians orthodox doctrine, another part is to check on compliance with this document (and its 1961 predecessor). Already one seminary rector has resigned in the wake of this visitation. In my book, that is a very positive sign.
Another note is that the number of priests being laicized or otherwise interdicted has gone up since 2002, when the policies were changed. See this pagefor a list of 234 that have died, been laicized, suspended, or otherwise interdicted.
But those are incremental things: trying to prevent the problem with future generations of clerics and trying to actually get rid of the ones who are caught is good...but is slow.
That's where the "will the bishops enforce this?" comes into place.
The problem is a problem of ephebophilia/ pederasty in the priesthood. If you look at the statistics compiled in 2003 on the subject, you will find that 81% of the victims were male and 86% of the victims were 10 or over at the first instance of their abuse (41% -- almost half -- were between the ages of 12 and 14). So the re-emphasis of a long-standing policy through this new document will help matters...if it is enforced.
Here's the problem with enforcement: as I said recently in another thread, for several decades after the close of WWII, there was a radicalization within the Catholic Church...a definite wish to move it far to the left. Remember how far left the social norms of the country went during the 60s and the 70s? There were elements within the Church that were affected by those changes, as well.
The Papal Nuncio during a particularly critical time (1973-1980) was a person by the name of Archbishop Jean Jadot (the Nuncio is the Pope's "ambassador" to a particular country). I know this may seem a little bit "inside baseball," but it is pretty important. The Papal Nuncio for a country has the responsibility to recommend candidates for elevation to bishop. Jadot had a definite agenda in mind...the "liberization" of the church so that it would be more inclusive and more socially responsive. He took this agenda and used it as a guide when recommending priests for ordination to bishop. You might recognize a few of the names that he was responsible for: Bernard Law, Roger Mahoney, Roberto Sanchez, Theodore McCarrick, Patrick Flores, Rembert Weakland, and Walter Sullivan. I know you're familiar with Law and with Mahoney, but if you Google'd any of these, you'd be able to see the problems in any of the dioceses they've been responsible for.
The good news about this is that they all are either at or very near retirement age. They must submit their resignations at age 75. I pray that their replacements are improvements and that they will deal swiftly and decisively with those who have substantiated claims against them.
I don't pretend to defend the pederasts. I don't pretend to defend those who allowed them to get through the seminary, nor do I defend those who repeatedly put them in the position to prey on young boys (and, occasionally, young girls). Nor do I pretend to defend those who, in the aftermath, refused to deal with the problem they were handed (even if the incidence during their tenure dramatically dropped). Had they honestly dealt with those who were hurt, even if the hurt was long, long ago, rather than keeping it quiet, the problem could have been dealt with internally, rather than it falling into the hands of the media and the lawyers.
But, as I tried to point out a little earlier, the people accused, if you examine the statistics, it becomes abundantly clear that the problem was, rather than what would clinically be called pedophilia (young children), it was ephebophilia (older children/ adolescants). There is a difference. And a big part of this difference is that the majority of the ephebophiles were homosexual. Like it or not, politically correct or not, 81% of the victims were boys, and 86% of the victims were 10 or over, and most of those were over 12. The majority of really senior bishops in this country and the vast majority of the really "liberal" bishops were recommended by Archbishop Jacot, the Papal Nuncio from '73 through '80. And there is a political agenda with these bishops to 'liberalize' the Church. Fortunately, they didn't get their choice in for Pope in 1978 and they, again, didn't get their choice in for Pope in 2005. So they will have somewhat of a check on them until afer they're gone. So, yes, I have a little hope in this matter.
But I'm sure the really big question that bothers a lot of people here is this: how can a relatively smart, fairly nice guy like Mark be so friggin blind as to be a Catholic? Especially with this horrible scandal! Isn't he just replacing cult-like adoration for TWI with cult-like adoration for the harlot of Babylon? (The only person who's actually had the guts to ask me that, to date, has been Sudo)
To be honest, the reason why is this: purely doctrine. When I shook off the heterodoxy taught by TWI and started to look at 'mainstream' Christianity, I had to re-evaluate what I believed on two main doctrines: the trinity and 'are the dead alive now.' Once I was able to clear away objections to those doctrines, I started looking at it all. And I could not find a reason NOT to do Catholicism. With each and every Protestant denomination's theology, I could.
And I'll let you in on a little secret: if I didn't see concrete proof that the problem was correcting itself and that the pendulum was swinging back in the correct direction, I would consider converting to some branch of Eastern Orthodoxy. Why? Because, with the exception of the 'filoque,' the doctrine is fundamentally the same.
Sorry the response took so long, but I wanted to give you a good answer. Sorry if it's upsetting to anyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wonton Soup
Dear whoever...I witnessed physical emotional and sexual abuse at the hands of the RC church so great in fact that when I went to talk about the abuse that had occured in our school and church, my school friend (the other side of the story, alot of money and 20 yrs later)said he would make my and my kids life hell if we returned and I told my story. I'm guessing this response has to do with his denial of events that he witnesed but IMO it shows a side of cowardness I saw from the very beginning.
My suggestions are do not buy land from Scrabo Real Estate nor buy melons from any melon grower in half moon bay who got his land from his grandma, imo this land is contaminated and will be for many generations. My opinion is to *%^#* aka unrinate on thier ground.
A few years ago I took it upon myself to contact the Archbishop of San Francisco (repeatably) to ask about what sort of therapy they could offer to folks suffering from the emotional physical and sexual abuse that had occurured at the hands of the holy nuns of Nativity School in Menlo Park California, I have to this date recieved NO reply.
I do NOT believe a word they say in regards to this matter nor do I expect any sort of response other than what is needed for *crisis managment*
MJG
Edited by Wonton SoupLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ny-ro...sed_priests.htm
****
now that makes me feel much better, i think i could go back to the catholic church
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Excathedra,
I didn't write that last post or that comment for your benefit. If you'll re-read it, you'll note it was addressed to Belle.
I realize that, if you had your way, the next time you'd be in a Catholic church would be feet first in a coffin (and then only if your still Catholic relatives get control of your dead body and disregard your will). I'm very sorry for your brothers. I am glad that the person who did that to your brothers has been laicized, but I'm sorry that it took as long as it did. And I realize that there is nothing that would make you happier than if literally every Catholic deacon, priest, and bishop were taken out behind their churches and shot and if literally every Catholic place of worship was levelled and the ground salted so nothing would grow on them for eternity.
I also realize that this position is one taken by a rather high percentage of posters on gsc.
So, please, if you ever read anything positive I say about Catholicism or anything positive I say about the Catholic Church (or even anything negative I say about the Catholic Church), please don't assume for a second that I am trying to recruit you or anybody else on gsc. I full well know that nobody on gsc would EVER consider converting or returning to the Catholic Church -- and I don't believe wasting my time. My SOLE purpose in this is to provide some sort of a counterbalance. Period. End of Story.
BTW, I am familiar with the site bishop-accountability.org; it's got some good details in it. You may wish to check out this site: http://bbs.survivorsfirst.org/main/index.php -- a forum for survivors of abuse. Not that high a volume, but good information nonetheless.
Oh, and, Happy Thanksgiving to you. I hope you have a wonderful day with your family!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
ok
i think i am going to *%^#* a few people off
but here goes
ok a priest give a kid a blow job
that *#(@ a kid up the kid the rest of his life?
come on get over it! there are in it for the money!
did you ever think a rabbi or a minister of any denomination never played with boys peepees??
or god forbid any rev from the way give a blow job where it shouldn't have been done
why does everyone seem to pick on the catholic church? money thats why
why does a 50 year old man suddenly remember the priest blew him 40 years ago? money.
come on if you got a bj from someone sooo looong ago
get over it!
Edited by ModaustinLink to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
Looks like the Eagle is flying VERYVERY low these days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Get Over it
The Eagles
(From the album Hell Freezes Over (1994)
(excerpts........)
I turn on the tube and what do I see
A whole lotta people cryin' 'Don't blame me'
They point their crooked little fingers ar everybody else
Spend all their time feelin' sorry for themselves
Victim of this, victim of that
Your momma's too thin; your daddy's too fat
-------------------------------------------------------------
You say you haven't been the same since you had your little crash
But you might feel better if I gave you some cash
The more I think about it, Old Billy was right
Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight
You don't want to work, you want to live like a king
But the big, bad world doesn't owe you a thing
Get over it
Get over it
If you don't want to play, then you might as well split
Get over it, Get over it
Haven't thought of that song in years!! B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
LOLOL David, that wasn't the Eagle (s) I was referring to, but ok.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
coolchef,
it isn't about oral sex, it is about a child's innocence taken away. It is also about suppression. In the 60's, a priest was considered a holy man. There weren't places that a victim could go to tell someone about such a violation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.