Catholic Church Sex Abuse Scandal Is Demonic, Likely to Get Worse: Leading U.S. Exorcist

[setarcos]

Question is what is it that they are influencing? What causes one person to succumb and another to successfully resist unless all things aren’t equal in having free will. If all things aren’t equal in having free will then how is it all people can be judged under the same standards and if all people aren’t judged under the same standards then how is this just?

 

[setarcos]

Why shouldn’t those who are in a position to effect the most influential change and future prevention of these things be held accountable? Why shouldn’t the one who sees another being raped but walks on be judged as morally depraved as the one doing the rape? The actions or inactions of the Magisterium is itself a method of teaching as well as simply regurgitating scripture with their own divine interpretation of it. If a teacher fails at being a good teacher or teaches improperly why should they remain looked at as a teacher worthy of being taught from?

 

[fullmetalcatholic]

definitely not what Fr. Thomas Rosica is trumpeting.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think perhaps you and I have a miscommunication. I’m no Church scholar, but what I understand as the “Magisterium” of the Church is its teaching authority in matters of faith and morals. You are using the term to refer to the various clerical persons in governing authority within the Church.

I don’t think you and I are actually disagreeing. We’re just not using the terminology in the same way.

 

[pnewton]

Nowhere have I expressed disagreement with any tenent of Christianity.

From the Catechism:

The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature- to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but “we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him.”

The existence of the battle between good and evil is not just a reality. It is the greatest reality, as this world will one day pass away. But yes, rape can be demonic, as can all sin. Have you ever seen an RCIA ceremony. There are two that are called “exorcisms” specifically because the Church knows that demons are real and they tempt us to sin. And what is one of the promises at baptism? “Do you reject Satan and all his evil show.”

Listen, no one i suggesting that this justifies anything that happens, or is an excuse for inaction. The point being made is that in addition to doing all that reason compels us to protect children, we should also put on the full armor of God and do battle on our knees.

 

[pnewton]

If all things aren’t equal in having free will then how is it all people can be judged under the same standards and if all people aren’t judged under the same standards then how is this just?

That is a great question. First, Catholic teaching on culpability tells us that this is so. That part is kind of a done deal. So how do we judge? We judge the actions through the legal system and punish without concern to the issue of culpability. We leave the judgement of the soul to God, who alone knows culpability.

 

[setarcos]

Yes, I am aware of the Roman Church’s definition of who/what the Magisterium is and does. I’m merely asking why, if the Magisterium has failed so miserably in their moral action which is itself a method of teaching, should one consider the Magisterium an authority qualified to teach matters of faith and morals? Maybe the members of the Magisterium are merely puppets regurgitating revelation for their own nefarious purposes as Satan can and does or the institution is fundamentally flawed and some are not qualified to teach. I’m not proposing a false dichotomy here I’m simply proposing two possibilities which show the potential dangers in such institutions in order to stimulate some reasonable thought on the matter as to how the laity can be assured they are being led in truth and necessity.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I really do think we’re talking past each other, and think we are likely to continue to do so. Let me just say that I do not disagree with your assertion that individual authorities in the Church have acted badly in many instances, though certainly not in all. But none of that has anything to do with Church teaching.

Human beings act badly. That’s Original Sin. One expects better of the clergy and one expects very good vetting of people admitted to the clergy. There have been serious failures in all of that. Some are, indeed, not teaching properly. But that doesn’t have anything to do with the teachings themselves. It has to do with individuals.

 

[adgloriam]

I wonder if calling the abuse scandal “demonic” suggests

Gossiping, sowing discord and mistrust - THAT IS WHAT YOUR STATEMENT CONSISTS IN !!!

The pride of playing smart while failing to address your own claims.

Gary Thomas is really nice and sober, he’s currently the US exorcist both of greatest fame and in best public standing having assumed his ministry publicly.

 

[11101]

I think Francis has exhausted his benefit of the doubt several times over.

What that statement expressed is a greater emotional affect for the “spirit of accusation,” than that affect which he felt (at the moment of his saying it) for the victims.

He even said that Satan “roams the earth looking for someone to accuse.” It is only the most naive reading which does not indicate that this is, at least in part, him condemning those who assign him culpability of “looking for someone to accuse.”

Enough excuses

 

[setarcos]

That is a great question. First, Catholic teaching on culpability tells us that this is so. That part is kind of a done deal. So how do we judge? We judge the actions through the legal system and punish without concern to the issue of culpability. We leave the judgement of the soul to God, who alone knows culpability.

Im not sure what your referring to when you say that “…Catholic teaching on culpability tells us that this is so.” What about culpability is so? What is a done deal?
How do we judge? I’d say imperfectly given our finite access to finite knowledge. Is it justice to judge someone imperfectly? Ergo we have imperfect justice in our attempt to approximate perfect judgment. Ideally our justice system makes an attempt at perfect justice using imperfect judgment with a definite regard to culpability; the justice system takes into account the culpability of the subject to varying degrees when exercising its ruling on the punishment, not guilty by reason of insanity, self defense, etc. . Again because we are finite creatures our ability to judge culpability is imperfect but a necessity for civilization to sustain itself for any length of time. Inaction is worse than imperfect action. So to rephrase the question, what is the difference between having no actual free will and have a free will that is unwillingly hindered in its action? In the first instance God giving only the semblance of free will to his creatures determines a persons ultimate destiny by his will alone, in the second instance God in sustaining the hindrance of a person to exercise his/her free will in judging the souls culpability of its actions in light of this hindrance again determines the ultimate fate of the soul according to his will. So where in lies the difference in having only the semblance of a free will and having a free will which cannot be exercised due to some hindrance?

 

[adgloriam]

@DaveBj Fr.Gary Thomas is in good standing and has resisted the limelight like no one else after publicly assuming the ministry of exorcist - it should be said that particular position comes with unequaled pressure and public scrutiny, there’s a plethora of risks and pressures associated with it. Listen to his speeches, they are of a lucid sound mind.

You can hear bishop Barron or the popes themselves assuming that very angle, not to mention the Gospels.

 

[graciew]

Ask all the Bishops who have been close to their sheep and kind and toiling what it is like to have a fan turned on to give them " the benefit of the doubt". The world is huge…

 

[setarcos]

Perhaps we are. I understand your perspective as much as one with a different perspective can I think.
Let me try a different approach with a simple question.
What is the point of needing a teacher to teach a subject if the student can see an error where the teacher cannot? If the student knows some things the teacher doesn’t and the teacher knows some things the student doesn’t who is actually the teacher and who the student? Aren’t we all periodically students and teachers with none having ultimate authority over the other? What is the point of having a Magisterium if even in their error their authority cannot be questioned? Sounds cult like to me.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You’re assuming the student is actually seeing an error.

Let’s look at your metaphor another way. Let’s say the teacher is teaching history and the text is absolutely without error. But let’s say the teacher tells the student something that’s just historically wrong and that the text would demonstrate is wrong.

Is that a problem with the text or with the teacher? I say it’s a problem with the teacher. The text is still correct.

But let’s go further. let’s assume the teacher is corrupt and deliberately tells the student something that’s not correct, so the student fails a test. The text is still correct. It’s the corruption of the teacher, not the text, that caused the student to fail the test.

Catholics believe the Church is incapable of holding doctrines that are incorrect. Protestants dispute that. Some assert that only their church has the correct “text”. Some assert that all kinds of competing texts are “correct”. Some assert that only the text each individual wrote for himself is truly “correct”, and all others are erroneous.

The Catholic Church’s position on that is biblical. The protestant counter, or “protest” (thus “protestant”) is not biblical. Nowhere does Jesus say “whatever you get out of the scriptures yet to be written is correct if it’s correct in your mind.”

 

[11101]

I am sorry. Because of grammatical issues, I cannot understand your writing.

 

[setarcos]

You’re assuming the student is actually seeing an error.

I assume nothing. Its a matter of historical and current fact that lay persons or even non Catholic persons have noted the errors in judgment and action or inaction of the Magisterium previous to any of them admitting it. The teachers admitted the errors. Some students knew they were in error before the teachers admitted it.

Let’s say the teacher is teaching history and the text is absolutely without error. But let’s say the teacher tells the student something that’s just historically wrong and that the text would demonstrate is wrong.

This begs the questions: How does the student knows the teacher is wrong according to the text? If the student can use the text to show the teacher in error thus becoming the teacher of the teacher of what use is the original teacher since the student can recognize the error through the use of the text without the teacher?

Is that a problem with the text or with the teacher? I say it’s a problem with the teacher. The text is still correct.

I agree. However if the teacher is the sole source of your understanding of the text how is the student to understand the text is correct if it is taught in error? If the text is available for the student to recognize the error of the teacher then of what use is there of a teacher who taught in error that the student was able to understand correctly?

But let’s go further. let’s assume the teacher is corrupt and deliberately tells the student something that’s not correct, so the student fails a test. The text is still correct. It’s the corruption of the teacher, not the text, that caused the student to fail the test.

If this is the case then the faith the student has in being taught correctly lies solely in the hands of the teacher and not in the true text or in the true texts author. Then do we judge the student for having faith in a false teacher? Do we not let the student into university for failing a necessary entrance exam because he was taught falsely? Is the students fate solely in the hands of the teacher’s intentions of whether or not the student will pass or fail rendering irrelevant how correct the text is?

 

[setarcos]

Catholics believe the Church is incapable of holding doctrines that are incorrect.

And there in lies the caveat. How are we to know this is a true belief? It certainly isn’t an assertion strengthened through witnessing the morality in the teachers actions which all can understand, we must look to what they teach not through action but through words and ideas which cannot be understood except through the teachers because the rest are merely students.
This leaves us with not looking to how the teachers behave according to their understanding of scripture, though the point of scripture is to teach us how to behave, but focusing only on what’s being taught. And if what’s being taught can be understood despite the immoral actions of the teachers based upon their own understanding of what they are teaching then what is the point of the teachers? If the student relies solely on the teachers authority to teach despite their immorality then our faith becomes a faith in the teachers not in God.

 

[joeybaggz]

well yes, its a no brainer, its not going to get worse, Its being addressed.

Its no different to any sexual sin anyone in the Church is committing, be they laity or religious.

Rose, I would agree that (at least in the U.S.) it is not going to get worse, it is being addressed, and has been since 2002. As to the rest of the world, well, I’m holding my breath.

As to it’s not different than any sexual sin, I think I have to disagree in part. A sin of fornication is a sin, serious in nature, but it is not a condition of force by one in power over another; it is generally, consensual. A sin of a sexual nature in the case of an adult and a child, is a whole different animal. As the priest points out in the article, it is an attack on the innocent and the powerless. I think it is far more heinous, and, while I can’t speak for the Big Guy, somehow I think God Himself might come down a lot harder on the abuser.

 

[11101]

I don’t understand this logic.

The accuracy of the teachers’ statements, under certain circumstances, throughout time, on certain subjects, has never been based on the teachers’ personal morality. You have said that their actions and inactions are a form of Magisterium. Well, no, they aren’t. Catholicism does not regard the discrete ethical (or unethical) decisions of individual hierarchs as magisterial, and moreover never has.

if what’s being taught can be understood despite the immoral actions of the teachers based upon their own understanding of what they are teaching then what is the point of the teachers?

Let’s take this apart into IF and THEN.
Broken down into just an IF and THEN, this statement is:

1)IF Teachers’ Statement of “X” can be understood despite teachers’ Y
2)THEN you do not need teachers to teach X.

Actually, if the first premise were true, that would be a pretty strong argument FOR teachers, not against them. We can all see that 2 does not follow from 1.

As for this:

we must look to what they teach not through action but through words and ideas which cannot be understood except through the teachers because the rest are merely students.

The Gospels make an argument that is worth our attention: (Mt 23:2; Jn11:51).

The leadership of the priesthood, which Jesus would transform, even in the Old Covenant, behaved wickedly, yet had teaching authority. Ta dah!

And the above quotation from your post is not logical. Let’s break it down to IF and THEN

1)IF we must look to teachers’ actual teachings to learn from the teacher
2)THEN we must understand those teachings through teachers’ other teachings

Umm, I guess? But at a certain point, the individual, the student, is the one who actually reads and comprehends the teaching. This is not an issue, and is indeed how teaching works with literally everyone of any authority on the earth.