Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider ask for prayer and fasting

  • Thread starter Thread starter annem
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maximus1 said:
" Celibacy advances the priesthood’s culture of Compromised truths." Fr. Peter Daly, Nat Cath Reporter. 2019
Let me add another name. Richard Sipe.
Former priest and psychologist who," Devoted much of his life to the psychological treatment of priests. The main subject? Celibacy.
About 50% of priests, monks and bishops are ACTUALLY CELIBATE.
This creates a culture of secrets.
When you read the article, and the 1990 Sipe publication: “A Secret World : Sexuality and the Search for Celibacy.” we can talk facts.
He provides his own correlation between Celibacy and child abuse.
The most interesting quote ," Celibacy makes us liars."
I am not interested in adding " facts" as those alone make the point
Click to expand...
National Catholic Reporter . . . enough said! 😁

You have not provided a single fact. Sending people to read entire articles with the promise that there’ll find ‘facts’ that you can’t readily quote and cite is arguing in bad faith. I’m not debating these priests who are broadcasting their unfaithfulness to the world, I’m debating YOU and the presumptuous claims you’ve made here with nothing but your own speculation and, ‘a priest said so’. That’s not evidence. That’s propaganda. For your claims, you need to point to actual stats.

"Celibacy makes us liars" What a ridiculous idea. Translation: “I’m unapologetically unfaithful to my committments, therefore everyone else who makes the same committments is unfaithful and the committments are lies.” What a bunch of self-involved presumption. Let’s abolish marriage next, because some people commit adultery. Yawn! :roll_eyes:
 
I am not sure of what your response was.
The publication is not suitable.
The psychologist / expert is unsuitable. We live in an age where that is argument I guess.
I don’t want to burst bubbles.
You say," what a rediculous idea to a man who has spent a great deal of his life in this specific area. I am not impressed with slandering people out of hand.
 
I really think that celibacy is some people’s path to salvation. It is a good, holy, blessed and beautiful tradition that I’d hate to have taken away as a realistic option.

The better question is should celibacy be mandatory in the Amazon or places in similar situations. This is a much different question. I really don’t believe the right approach is to condemn celibacy. While I see what the National Catholic Reporter is attempting to say, I read the article and it feels like they are blasting the tradition of celibacy rather than having a well thought out discussion of celibacy, the needs of specific regions, and the possibility of exceptions to celibacy.
 
Maximus1 said:
You say," what a rediculous idea to a man who has spent a great deal of his life in this specific area. I am not impressed with slandering people out of hand.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous ideas are ridiculous regardless of who says them. You have not provided evidence but sent me on a wild goose chase for facts you clearly can’t cite. You have zero bases for making the claims you have about ancient institutions except an anecdote from your childhood and hearsay from unfaithful priests.
 
Last edited:
jack63 said:
The better question is should celibacy be mandatory in the Amazon or places in similar situations. This is a much different question. I really don’t believe the right approach is to condemn celibacy. While I see what the National Catholic Reporter is attempting to say, I read the article and it feels like they are blasting the tradition of celibacy rather than having a well thought out discussion of celibacy, the needs of specific regions, and the possibility of exceptions to celibacy.
Click to expand...
Yep! Whenever I see that place cited as someone’s primary source, neon flags rise and I’m never proven wrong. It’s one thing to discuss whether there should be change and in what direction. It’s quite another to make war with the church because you are so sure you know better. I’m simply not interested in what a bunch of morality rebels have to say: show me actual stats.
 
Last edited:
I cited a guy qualified by US COURTS 57 TIMES as an expert. They understand qualifications better than you and certainly the rules of evidence.
It wasn’t a primary source. It was the first pop up on Google which I cited in response to a rediculous claim of no data.
The virtue I see from my vantage, is a body of work over a long period of time. Not the narrow interests of an imminent synod.
 
Last edited:
Show you?
First, if you read the article, the cited author is famous.
Qualified by judges an expert in 57 US cases, cited in multiple publications, an author.
THE DATA IS NOT YOUR SPIDER SENSE when you see " that publication.
And the point of my citation was a response to your accusation only a priest and I were alone on the topic.
 
Last edited:
I cannot help it if you chose to remain uninformed. Many Catholics did. And I can understand it.
Don’t assume others are uninformed and the evidence is not there. I am not getting into this issue and the background furthur. At this point in my life I don’t want to address it again.
 
This “famous” guy knows what about the pre-scandal era, again? You’re now making wild claims. You made speculations about a time you and your so-called experts know nothing about: unless they have time machines. You cite zero stats, just short decontextualized quips that do not prove what you’ve claimed. Zero facts and zero evidence besides, "I saw mean pple as an Irish boy" and “some priests say some things I think”. I’ll be happy to pick this up again when you have some evidence because your opinions and the opinions of ideologues sans FACTS don’t count for much.
 
Last edited:
Is that your issue?
Your position is this happened on a day certain in the 60s?
Am I to assume you base your position on when lawsuits began?
In adopting your position, what other factors go into when lawsuits and investigations begin? Please don’t tell me lawsuits beginning is the only fact you have for your immaculate beginning.
Next
I am not sure of what you know about the real facts.
To hide the cover-up, they created a quasi judicial investigation procedure.
For parents that publish their claim to the public, once started meant excommunication.
They know the peadophile identities( most).
How long were the ones in the 1960s priests? Do you know? Did you find out?
Do you think they waited until Beatles and promiscuity to begin being peadophile?
You haven’t given me a real claim about when an institution wide practice began. You just mentioned lawsuits
 
My issue is that you are claiming there was an abuse epidemic without evidence. It’s quite simple. Moreover, you’re doing so in an attempt to buttress a ridiculous idea that celibacy causes abuse. Also, without evidence.
 
Again. Celibacy was a material factor in abuse. I will have to keep correcting you I see.
THERE WAS AN ABUSE EPIDEMIC.
AND
COVERUP was a strategy that leads to presumptions, but not presumption of innocence.
 
The only evidence in this dialog, I provided.
You provided scoff.
 
Last edited:
SERVANTS OF THE PARCELATE began in 1947 I think.
For the Church to take steps to address the problem, it would be illogical to think that very same problem sprung from non existence to problem needing to be addressed, at the same moment. ( Although perhaps perfectly logical to you.
The Church had several institutional devices to conceal.
Confession could not be revealed.
Non disclosure agreements were used.
Sending pedophiles to places like New Mexico when caught.
Later they threatened excommunication
And other systematic concealing policies.
So it is disingenuous to ask what evidence. Might as well ask when they slipped up.
Legally, when evidence is concealed, and this is shown, burdens and presumptions shift.
 
This will be my last comment on this subject. For many Catholics, this subject is a raw open wound. I wasn’t planning on revisiting it when you took a position that was the equivalent of," when did the Church’s systematic concealment begin to fail."
This is a depressing and faith shattering subject. It wasn’t until today I recalled my own younger brothers experience. ( Of which I am not sure if I know the truth still). I only first learned about it 4-5 years ago. My brother got a job in our Church rectory in the 70s while in grade school. Then left. Never knew why.
My mom, still flies back to that old Parish for their " BALL" and other events. As if this didn’t happen to her own son. Such is the unique mentality of the devout Catholic. Back then, in the 70s, something as profound as a manifested attack might cause your mom to retire you from employment, and not another thing HAPPENS OUT OF ROUTINE… My brother lapsed. Not sure why exactly. Until 4 years ago, wouldn’t have even known to factor this incident ( or however many incidents). I still have little confidence I know what happened. " The culprit priest got shipped out. Surprise!
You are young and if lucky, inexperienced. I have no desire to shake your faith ( as has happened to so many) So I will stop here. I have no good advice.
Defending makes one feel dirty. Prosecuting makes one feel empty. I have experienced both all I care to. When your path crosses with other Catholics, be mindful that this celibacy overlaps a still gaping wound. These are often good people and good Catholics.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
For many Catholics, this subject is a raw open wound. I wasn’t planning on revisiting it when you took a position that was the equivalent of," when did the Church’s systematic concealment begin to fail."
Click to expand...
Now you’re misrepresenting me: Maybe the hope is no one will notice that you still have nothing but beliefs and speculations to ride on? 🙃 For the sake of those interested in the actual discussion we’ve had, the actual position I’ve taken is: we’ll go with facts.
Maximus1 said:
So it is disingenuous to ask what evidence. Might as well ask when they slipped up.
Click to expand...
I see: we should just assume stuff we don’t know, instead–that’s far more honest? 🤨

I’m not discussing good vs bad catholics but good vs bad ideas and facts vs speculation. I’m not gonna just let you get away with claiming there was an epidemic without any proof and then claim celibacy caused it without proof. You shouldn’t make wild claims without proof.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top