M
MerryCatholic
Guest
a bishop living in immorality advising the Holy Father?
- Status
S
Soutane
Guest
What was the tune played by the British as they marched to their ships following the successful American Revolution? World Turned Upside Down??How appropos in this case.
S
Soutane
Guest
Slight correction-a layman,living in immorality who THINKS he’s a Bishop thanks to the hubris of King Henry VIII.a bishop living in immorality advising the Holy Father?
M
manualman
Guest
A very convenient argument. But what’s the point? In the end, you still come off as blaming the whole thing on homosexuality. That’s the very definition of scapegoating.
Using similar logic to yours, but with an analogy closer to home, try this. Those who murder abortionists all identify themselves as pro-life. (You and I likely agree that this is a misnomer for someone who kills, mind you) At the very least the murderer can be fairly described as “anti-abortion.” Thus Planned Parenthood calls a press conference and says “We have a very serious problem with violence committed by anit-abortion activists. We think the time has come to recognize how serious a threat anti-abortion groups are to the safety of our communities.”
Outraged yet? This is how homosexual people feel when guys like you say that the priest abuse is a “gay problem.” It simply dumps the whole problem in their lap and declares it to be their fault. Nonsense. The sins of an abuser priest are HIS fault and the fault of his bishop if he knew of it and allowed it to continue. Some random gay guy on the street bears NO responsibility and you know it.
Yes, the majority of priest abuse was by men with a very particularly sick form of homosexuality. That has no more bearing on the gay population in general than the abortionist murderers have on the pro-life movement in general.
(And don’t take the analogy too far. The pro-life principle, properly understood is a wholly virtuous thing and I am NOT claiming that homosexual activity has any redeeming moral value. But neither does it follow to imply that it leads to child abuse.)
Soutane, Obviously I wasn’t agreeing with you. Reread the thread and you’ll find that other people actually post here too.
S
Soutane
Guest
Where did you get the misconception that I thought you were agreeing with me?.Reread my post and you’ll see that I am not scapegoating all homosexuals.Your final comment is beneath contempt and requires no rebuttal from me.
A
angelic06
Guest
No one is blaming ALL persons with individuals with homosexual tendencies with the priests’ raping and otherwise assaulting the children, just as not all heterosexual men are responsible for rape.
That being said, I will post this again (as I have done in at least two other threads on CAF), that there is sufficient evidence to suggest, according to theologian George Weigel, that it is dissident nuns and feminists who “taught” (what of any good? I don’t know—see “Courage to be Catholic”) in the seminaries back in the immediate post VII days who influenced the seminarians into homosexual behavior. Does that mean that the teachers are responsible? No, they are only responsible for teaching their muck, which itself will be liable to judgement on the last day. The clerics who came out of this are solely responsible for the abuse. But the feminist tendencies to dissidence to authentic Catholicism influenced these clerics in training. While any abuse of a minor is wretched, one would expect that those who are training so as to act “in persona Christi” would act much better.
So, homosexuality per se would not be the distal cause. It is Catholic dissidence, which influences the seminarians who were supposed to be abstaining from any sex (as unmarried individuals in the case of Latin seminarians) and most certainly from sexual contact considered immoral (and yes, this means homosexual ACTS, not tendencies) under any context, which is the distal cause.
The immediate cause? Always, the perpetrator himself, whatever be the outside
influence(s). Bring him to justice to the fullest extent of the law. And do the best possible to aid the victims, whether it be with providing them with counseling or even legal aid. And the ordinary and the pastors need to make it clear that there is no room in the Church for those who will abuse the young, be they homo-, hetero-, or bi-. Finally, while it is clear that these men’s ministries cannot be saved, it must be added that they still have the opportunity to be saved as Christians. To the extent that penitentiary policies will permit, they should be provided with spiritual counseling and opportunities for growth so that at the last they may be admitted to the blessedness of everlasting life.
At the same time, the Church needs to deal with the culture of dissent. How much of it is prevalent today compared to yesterday (an era, not a calendar day, in which I was not alive), I don’t know since as noted above I was not alive yesterday. A recommendation from me (if the Church asks for my opinion), echoing George Weigel ? Apostolic visitations. To be effective I recommend sting operations so that the seminaries don’t have time to prepare their seminarians to invent a response. Of course sting operations won’t be feasible due to various reasons, I know, but I think it would be best.
Rig up the Church tribunals for those encouraging dissent on undoubted, settled matters of faith (I know that there are many contestable ideas floating around) which have the authority to impose interdicts on even whole communities which promote a culture of dissidence and which do not amend their ways after adequate warning.
Remove the weeds if it can be done without removing the wheat (to use the analogy used by both Weigel and Jesus); otherwise we may be stuck with them until the Parousia.
His Grace + Gene Robinson may comment on whatever he wants. However, the facts of the matter remain that a huge percentage of this is due to homsexual activity. This is what we have to deal with. And as for those who struggle with homosexual tendencies but do not abuse, they should take advantage of spiritual opportunities to grow in chastity, as should those heterosexuals who likewise struggle with chastity.
That being said, I will post this again (as I have done in at least two other threads on CAF), that there is sufficient evidence to suggest, according to theologian George Weigel, that it is dissident nuns and feminists who “taught” (what of any good? I don’t know—see “Courage to be Catholic”) in the seminaries back in the immediate post VII days who influenced the seminarians into homosexual behavior. Does that mean that the teachers are responsible? No, they are only responsible for teaching their muck, which itself will be liable to judgement on the last day. The clerics who came out of this are solely responsible for the abuse. But the feminist tendencies to dissidence to authentic Catholicism influenced these clerics in training. While any abuse of a minor is wretched, one would expect that those who are training so as to act “in persona Christi” would act much better.
So, homosexuality per se would not be the distal cause. It is Catholic dissidence, which influences the seminarians who were supposed to be abstaining from any sex (as unmarried individuals in the case of Latin seminarians) and most certainly from sexual contact considered immoral (and yes, this means homosexual ACTS, not tendencies) under any context, which is the distal cause.
The immediate cause? Always, the perpetrator himself, whatever be the outside
influence(s). Bring him to justice to the fullest extent of the law. And do the best possible to aid the victims, whether it be with providing them with counseling or even legal aid. And the ordinary and the pastors need to make it clear that there is no room in the Church for those who will abuse the young, be they homo-, hetero-, or bi-. Finally, while it is clear that these men’s ministries cannot be saved, it must be added that they still have the opportunity to be saved as Christians. To the extent that penitentiary policies will permit, they should be provided with spiritual counseling and opportunities for growth so that at the last they may be admitted to the blessedness of everlasting life.
At the same time, the Church needs to deal with the culture of dissent. How much of it is prevalent today compared to yesterday (an era, not a calendar day, in which I was not alive), I don’t know since as noted above I was not alive yesterday. A recommendation from me (if the Church asks for my opinion), echoing George Weigel ? Apostolic visitations. To be effective I recommend sting operations so that the seminaries don’t have time to prepare their seminarians to invent a response. Of course sting operations won’t be feasible due to various reasons, I know, but I think it would be best.
Rig up the Church tribunals for those encouraging dissent on undoubted, settled matters of faith (I know that there are many contestable ideas floating around) which have the authority to impose interdicts on even whole communities which promote a culture of dissidence and which do not amend their ways after adequate warning.
Remove the weeds if it can be done without removing the wheat (to use the analogy used by both Weigel and Jesus); otherwise we may be stuck with them until the Parousia.
His Grace + Gene Robinson may comment on whatever he wants. However, the facts of the matter remain that a huge percentage of this is due to homsexual activity. This is what we have to deal with. And as for those who struggle with homosexual tendencies but do not abuse, they should take advantage of spiritual opportunities to grow in chastity, as should those heterosexuals who likewise struggle with chastity.
S
Soutane
Guest
bravo
G
Guyonthestreet
Guest
I understand he is validily ordained according to the rite of his church.
Does the requirement to not disrespect catholic clergy not extend to religious of other rites?
F
Fabrizet
Guest
I have no idea why an Anglican bishop is trying to ‘help’ our Father ‘reform’ the Church. He should worry more about tending his own area’s problems rather than the entire world’s problems.
S
Soutane
Guest
His “ministership” or lack of it is not in question.His active homosexual lifestyle,condemned in Holy Scripture, that he touts as normal and honourable for a “cleric”,is.My “snide” comment underscored that and that he possesses NO APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY to lecture a Metermaid,let alone the Holy Father.Why do you think the Anglicans are leaving in droves for the Catholic Church in spite of "our living in interesting times"or associating with African Anglicans-Eugene Robinson who persists in addressing the Pope as Ratzinger,that’s who,plus the ordination and elevation of women to the Bishophric.Please do not presume to lecture me.Christ was outspoken and called a spade a spade.
E
estesbob
Guest
Abolutely-it is tiresome to have to explain again and again that the abuse was almost exclusively homosexual rape of post-pubsecent boys. There was almost very little pediophilia involved.
S
Soutane
Guest
As far as extending the admonition not to disrespect Catholic clergy to other non-Catholic clergy would that also extend to the late Anton Lavey,Salem Burke or Peter Burke all Satanist High Priests?Let’s not get ridiculous here.
G
Guyonthestreet
Guest
I forgot about that Fair comment and points well made.
G
Guyonthestreet
Guest
S
Soutane
Guest
yawn
J
jay29
Guest
Yeah like undoing what Henry VIII did.
T
Timothy17
Guest
Because that’s gone so well!
A
angelic06
Guest
Well, we should use the title to address them which members of that communion use to refer to their clergy—that’s just polite society. We would also call Jewish rabbi “Rabbi”—though I as a Gentile am not and have never been a part of the Jewish community.
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
No one is allowed to disrespect another poster, a person who is not present to defend himsel or a member of the clergy, Catholic or other. Disrespect is not necessary. People can disagree without attacking each other or being unkind to each other.
Thomas Casey
Moderator
S
Soutane
Guest
So i guess it does apply to Satanist clergy as well Jharek,We stand corrected.
- Status