Bishops, cardinals continue to fudge On Questions at Vatican Conference

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnR77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They could really make some basic changes in the following way which would create better bounderies:
by making basic changes across the board in the physical structures of offices versus Rectories (from 23 years ordained):
  1. Offices must be in a separate building from the rectory (living quarters) of the priests and have a desk or table between the client and priest or religious.
  2. All office doors must have a large see though window
  3. Allow no minors in priest living quarters
    4… Use the confessional for confessions- one side no screen; one side screen; no same room
  4. Clergy and religious will not spend and overnight retreats sleeping in the same room with minors
  5. Process guilty (religious, priests. Cardinals, and bishops to the fullest extent of the law in both the criminal and canonical sense
  6. Pay victims for medical, legal and psychological expenses related to the abuse for life by use of a health insurance, not multi-million dollar lump sums which bankrupt dioceses, and force them to sell of Church buildings for profane use (Chicago, New York, Boston et cetera) as this is only punishes the faithful who have paid for all these buildings.
  7. Process false accusations to the fullest extent of the law (both criminal and civil) by financially supporting the accused.
    In this way, everybody is protected. One old priest in DC told his young associate “I refuse to live in a fortress”.
  8. After the associate who was in a t shirt and shorts had parishioners just enter the kitchen in the morning while he was eating breakfast, the associate responded “I cannot live in a barn.” The rectory is a house for the priests, not the people!!! (Yah, the assiciate was me!!!)
 
We recently had some abuse problems in my diocese. We do have a great bishop. However I was absolutely shocked at the level of incompetency from the diocese. Their lack of legal knowledge or just basic steps to take was concerning. As was the lack of knowledge over what funds are used for with abusers. Its because of this that I can never ever justify tithing to my parish. I fund individual projects but I will never just put 20 dollars to something I dont know where it goes. So a step they can take is outside auditing of the diocese. Where you find monitary discrepancies you will find the abuse and coverup.
 
Last edited:
This New York Times article is spot on in it’s reporting on the dynamic between the two factions in the Church. It’s much better than the skewed account from LifeSiteNews.

www.nytimes.com

The Most Talked About Non-Topic at the Vatican? Homosexuality (Published 2019)

As Pope Francis gathered church leaders to discuss the abuse of children, the topic most buzzing at meeting margins was not even on the agenda.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

The article made me realize that many conservative Bishops either don’t understand how social research works, or simply find it more convenient to point the finger at “a gay culture” rather than admit that it’s really their own culture-of-clericalism that is to blame for the sexual abuse scandal.
 
I like Father Z’s take on it: Sodo-clericalism.

When one considers that the vast majority of priests who are under scrutiny for abuse did so in parishes in which much of the functions of the parish, from the Mass and its planning to the programs chosen for catechesis, parish groups, parish finances, representatives, etc. were performed by laity, and that again the priests were of the “call me Bob”, “we are church” type in which the entire role of the priest was totally downplayed while parishioners were given titles of ‘minister of this’ and ‘minister of that’, the entire church would sing the doxology together, ‘gather round the altar’ together, talk about the ‘priesthood of all believers’, etc., _where the heck is the so-called ‘clericism’? _

To me, it seems that yet again we’re being fed a strawman. Call the problem "clericalism’, slap a few more ‘mission statements’ and ‘policies’ and ‘guidelines’ together, throw a few people under the bus, and accuse themselves of something that is really not the actual problem and then show ‘statistics’ etc to ‘prove’ that the faux problem is being dealt with. . .but ignore the root (homosexual actions, abuse of men and women along with children). If the ‘problem’ is ‘clericalism’, then the homosexual actions can just keep on going, because you see, homosexual actions aren’t the problem! It’s that pesky old clericalism. Throw out that priest who wants to celebrate ad orientam, because he’s trying to ‘impose on the people’, and with that kind of rigid attitude, he’s probably an abuser underneath!!! So we’ve stopped another abuser and kept him from hurting God’s people by ‘turning his back on them’. Yay us!
 
Yes. It’s primarily a problem of homosexuals who are unable and/or unwilling to live lives of celibate chastity. These men and their network must be rooted out of the Church. “Clericalism” is a smokescreen.
 
Last edited:
prayerrider said:
Yes. It’s primarily a problem of homosexuals who are unable and/or unwilling to live lives of celibate chastity. “Clericalism” is a smokescreen.
Click to expand...
How then do you explain the fact that gay men outside the church pose no particular risk to children? Is it because they are not being forced to be celibate?

If that were the case, then only evil can come from insisting that gay lay Catholics remain celibate. If celibacy has a real potential to foster predatory behavior in gay men, the Church needs to change it’s teaching immediately or be blamed for putting children everywhere at risk.
 
I’d say homosexuals in the Church and dissidents in general are being artfully used as tools of Satan. Satan doesn’t need to destroy society writ large. All he needs to worry about is
  1. destroy the family (our of wedlock births, abortion, emasculation of men, homosexual “marriage”)
And
  1. destroy/ delegitimize the Eucharist (devalue the special role of the Priest, destroy the reputation of good, faithful priests by using wayward men not fit to serve as a means to turn the faithful away).
Take down those two, and the rest comes toppling down. Society will ultimately go where the Church leads is, even if it takes a long time.

The entire scandal is demonic at its core, which is why ignoring Satan’a role in wanting to utterly destroy the Church (active homosexuals are easy pawns) is completely missing the boat. I don’t expect secular news to discuss this, but until our own church does, I have to believe they don’t get it or don’t want to admit it.
 
Last edited:
Excuse me? “Gay men outside the church pose no particular risk to children?”

First, we were talking about the abuse of men and women. Not children.
Second, celibacy does not ‘force’ a person to abuse a child.

Third, where is your data to support that 'gay men outside the church post no particular risk to children?"

Seems to me that you just put up a couple of strawmen while ignoring the post I made.
 
I give such inflammatory nonsense all the response it deserves, stpurl.
 
It is true that clericalism is associated with ecclesiolatry, which is the worship of the Church as an institution over and above the worship of our Lord Jesus Christ. However, it is also associated with cronyism and political ambition. As far as I can tell, this second form that is being applied now.

I don’t think it matters to Jesus which rite is celebrated at Mass as long as it remains an expression of love between God and his people. That being said, it sounds like you have a real problem with the vision of the Church in Gaudium et spes. If so, that’s really too bad.
 
stpurl said:
where is your data to support that 'gay men outside the church post no particular risk to children?"
Click to expand...
Unbiased social research. The studies Cardinal Cupich points out is a good example.

In the New York Times article, it says Cardinal Cupich “pointed to landmark studies in the United States and Australia showing that homosexuality in itself is not a cause of child sex abuse, and that access to children is a major factor.”

Here is a great report on the first day of the summit by America Media

https://twitter.com/x/status/1099583445989294080
 
Last edited:
Ad orientam worship has nothing to do with ‘rites’, both the EF and OF can be celebrated in this way, so it itself is not a ‘rite’.

You can think what you choose, but I have no problem with the Church.
 
stpurl said:
Ad orientam worship has nothing to do with ‘rites’, both the EF and OF can be celebrated in this way, so it itself is not a ‘rite’.

You can think what you choose, but I have no problem with the Church.
Click to expand...
Glad to hear that. For s minute there, it seemed as if you were scornful of the “call me Bob” and “we are church” types.
stpurl said:
the root (homosexual actions, abuse of men and women along with children). If the ‘problem’ is ‘clericalism’, then the homosexual actions can just keep on going, because you see, homosexual actions aren’t the problem! It’s that pesky old clericalism.
Click to expand...
Sexual abuse and misconduct is the problem, and clericalism enables it to be covered up. A perpetrator’s sexual orientation is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is whether the victim is male or female.

The reason the gender distribution of the victims is skewed “male” is due to how the church is structured. Predatory priests had far greater access to boys than to girls. However, if you read the testimony of the victims that is being presented to the Bishops meeting in Rome, you can hear the stories of young girls who were also abused by priests. One was forced to get three abortions, because the priest having sex with her refused to use birth control. How sickening is that!

I believe that the way gay men in particular have been treated in society, and in the Church, is a problem that must be addressed. Homophobia is cruel and dehumanizing, which makes it a grave sin. To use the sex abuse crisis as the pretext for a witch hunt against gay priests is a profound injustice.
 
stpurl said:
where is your data to support that 'gay men outside the church post no particular risk to children?"
Click to expand...
Exactly.

If homosexual men outside the church pose no particular risk, how would he explain the sex abuse scandal in places such as the boy scouts.
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
Third, where is your data to support that 'gay men outside the church post no particular risk to children?"
Click to expand...
Luke6_37 said:
The studies Cardinal Cupich points out is a good example.
Click to expand...
With all respect to the cardinal, but if that’s your best example of data to support that gay men outside the church post no particular risk to children, then I remain completely unconvinced!!!
 
Last edited:
Mark121359 said:
40.png
stpurl:
Third, where is your data to support that 'gay men outside the church post no particular risk to children?"
Click to expand...
Luke6_37 said:
The studies Cardinal Cupich points out is a good example.
Click to expand...
With all respect to the cardinal, but if that’s your best example of data to support that gay men outside the church post no particular risk to children, then I remain completely unconvinced!
Click to expand...
So where do you stand? What do you find convincing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top