You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
Dempsey1919
Guest
This is true to an extent. However, we must remember that Vatican II was a valid Council of the Church. The Church cannot teach error; and there is no error in Vatican II. The problems came as a result of faulty interpretation. Is Vatican II to blame for the crisis? Yes, to a certain extent. I think it would be better for the Church if we stopped stressing the importance of Vatican II and remembered the other great Councils such as Trent. Vatican II is not as great as some think; it is merely one Council of many.How could clergy transgress so gravely against the doctrines of the Church? What doctrines? These offences took place in the wake of Vatican II, when doctrines were being thrown out like so much lumber. These offenders were the children of Paul VI and âaggiornamentoâ. Once you have debauched the Mystical Body of Christ, defiling altar boys comes easily.
I couldnât have said it better myself.Benedict XVI should take advantage of a popular wave of revulsion against the failed episcopate to sack every 1960s flared-trousered hippy who is obstructing Summorum Pontificum. It is a unique opportunity to cull the hireling shepherds and clear away the dead wood of the Second Vatican Catastrophe. It is time to stop the apologies and reinstate apologetics; to rebuild all that has been destroyed in the past 40 years; to square up to liberals and secularists as so many generations of Catholics did in the past; to proclaim again the immutable truths of the One True Church that, in the glory of the Resurrection, can have no legitimate posture other than triumphalism.
B
blaiselfd5
Guest
âBenedict XVI should take advantage of a popular wave of revulsion against the failed episcopate to sack every 1960s flared-trousered hippy who is obstructing Summorum Pontificum.â
Could this be interpreted in anyway as schismatic?
Could this be interpreted in anyway as schismatic?
D
Dempsey1919
Guest
No. How does this promote or cause division? Heâs allowed to have his own opinion, and he thinks it would be a good thing to get rid of dissenting Bishops. You might not agree with him, but there is nothing schismatic about that statement.Could this be interpreted in anyway as schismatic?
B
blaiselfd5
Guest
I understand. Its just obvious that the author feels the Vatican II council has hurt our church. I feel like the article is promoting a negative vibe on some of the decisions our church has made.No. How does this promote or cause division? Heâs allowed to have his own opinion, and he thinks it would be a good thing to get rid of dissenting Bishops. You might not agree with him, but there is nothing schismatic about that statement.
B
bkovacs
Guest
Father Zuhlsdorf take on this article. This is just not Mr. Warners opinion, but allot of others. Including me!. We never got to learn about our traditions. Now is the time for change once again.
wdtprs.com/blog/2010/03/gerald-warners-thunder-about-the-abuse-scandal-and-what-caused-it/
wdtprs.com/blog/2010/03/gerald-warners-thunder-about-the-abuse-scandal-and-what-caused-it/
O
otjm
Guest
I thought about taking the article apart piece by piece, but I am not sure that it is worth the effort.
He is extremely opinionated, and one needs to remember that an opinion and $1.65 is likely to get you somewhere on the Metro.
And maybe not that far.
1st paragraph: It may be that there are other issues which are larger than the sex abuse issue, but none of them are going to cost more in terms of dollars. And that alone could take up a whole post.
2nd pp: I am not sure who is proposing actually doing away with celibacy (a red herring in the issue at hand); certainly not Cardinal Schonborn (misquoted, likely on purpose). The issue of married clergy and celibacy is not the issue underneath the sexual abuse crisis, and in that he is right, but he presumes that those proposing the issue are secularists; a bit broad of a sweep.
3rd pp: Power? Yes, some want power over the Church. Some want some form of justice, and if you are in the pew having the pleasure of opening your wallet to provide about the only form of justice the civil courts know, you might be inclined to presume the word âjusticeâ and âpowerâ are synonymous. They are not, and if you have not walked a mile in the moccasins, be careful of standing in judgement. Further, the truth of the matter is that it was not until people started suing the Church for significant sums that the issue got addressed. Power? At least in some sense, properly applied. Otherwise, it simply would have stayed where it was, swept under the rug and everyone hoping no one would lift the rug to show what lay underneath.
4th pp: Doctrines? Does he have a clue of the differences between doctrins and morals? It would appear not. Which reduces his commentary much closer to vitriol.
5th pp: Neglected sacraments and devotional practices: I donât know what the Pope may have said. However, the abuse goes back before Vatican 2; so it beomes a moot point. When they were in full force, it did not stop the abuse.
6th pp: Maybe tens of thousands stayed in bed in Ireland. Research in America shows it didnât do much of even a ripple effect. And we have been deling with it far longer than the Irish, johnny come lately; in fact, since the 80âs.
7th pp: people hae been leaving the Church since its foundation, probably with much the same comment.
8th pp: Yep. He got something right.
9th pp: That is just silly. Many of the bishops on duty whent the abuses occured are dead or retired; in some circumstances we may be two or more bishops removed from the abuse. His ignorance of the issue, and his ignorance of who was and/or is responsible is appalling. Great bombast, minimal content.
10th pp: He appears to have not read anything John Pauf 2 or Benedict 16 has written about Vatican 2, nor seems able to distinguish between the documents and that which has nothing to do with the documents. And it is not hippies who need to be dealt with, but some of those who are âlight in their loafersâ and others who put perceived âscandal avoidedâ over justice and truth. And again, many of theose responsible are dead or otherwise gone. Some good bishops made appalingly bad decisions, often based on what experts told them could be done. When you donât know what to do and you seek out the best help available, it is hard to say you did not try to stop the problem. It may have been a gross error, but one made on the best information possible at the time. Not all bishops who dealt with the issue were guilty of malfeasance.
It is so easy to be bombastic and gain a following. It is actually much harder to deal with the issue in terms of real justice.
He is extremely opinionated, and one needs to remember that an opinion and $1.65 is likely to get you somewhere on the Metro.
And maybe not that far.
1st paragraph: It may be that there are other issues which are larger than the sex abuse issue, but none of them are going to cost more in terms of dollars. And that alone could take up a whole post.
2nd pp: I am not sure who is proposing actually doing away with celibacy (a red herring in the issue at hand); certainly not Cardinal Schonborn (misquoted, likely on purpose). The issue of married clergy and celibacy is not the issue underneath the sexual abuse crisis, and in that he is right, but he presumes that those proposing the issue are secularists; a bit broad of a sweep.
3rd pp: Power? Yes, some want power over the Church. Some want some form of justice, and if you are in the pew having the pleasure of opening your wallet to provide about the only form of justice the civil courts know, you might be inclined to presume the word âjusticeâ and âpowerâ are synonymous. They are not, and if you have not walked a mile in the moccasins, be careful of standing in judgement. Further, the truth of the matter is that it was not until people started suing the Church for significant sums that the issue got addressed. Power? At least in some sense, properly applied. Otherwise, it simply would have stayed where it was, swept under the rug and everyone hoping no one would lift the rug to show what lay underneath.
4th pp: Doctrines? Does he have a clue of the differences between doctrins and morals? It would appear not. Which reduces his commentary much closer to vitriol.
5th pp: Neglected sacraments and devotional practices: I donât know what the Pope may have said. However, the abuse goes back before Vatican 2; so it beomes a moot point. When they were in full force, it did not stop the abuse.
6th pp: Maybe tens of thousands stayed in bed in Ireland. Research in America shows it didnât do much of even a ripple effect. And we have been deling with it far longer than the Irish, johnny come lately; in fact, since the 80âs.
7th pp: people hae been leaving the Church since its foundation, probably with much the same comment.
8th pp: Yep. He got something right.
9th pp: That is just silly. Many of the bishops on duty whent the abuses occured are dead or retired; in some circumstances we may be two or more bishops removed from the abuse. His ignorance of the issue, and his ignorance of who was and/or is responsible is appalling. Great bombast, minimal content.
10th pp: He appears to have not read anything John Pauf 2 or Benedict 16 has written about Vatican 2, nor seems able to distinguish between the documents and that which has nothing to do with the documents. And it is not hippies who need to be dealt with, but some of those who are âlight in their loafersâ and others who put perceived âscandal avoidedâ over justice and truth. And again, many of theose responsible are dead or otherwise gone. Some good bishops made appalingly bad decisions, often based on what experts told them could be done. When you donât know what to do and you seek out the best help available, it is hard to say you did not try to stop the problem. It may have been a gross error, but one made on the best information possible at the time. Not all bishops who dealt with the issue were guilty of malfeasance.
It is so easy to be bombastic and gain a following. It is actually much harder to deal with the issue in terms of real justice.
S
Shin
Guest
Why would Pope Benedict XVI sack the bishops he and Pope John Paul II âthe Greatâ personally appointed?
These are their picked men. Their shining lights. Their best examples. Their collegiates. The shepherds they thought were worthy of leading the faithful into this new millennium and springtime of their beloved Council.
The men chosen to oversee the seminaries, preach the Faith above all others, discipline and guide the priests and laity, oversee the liturgy, protect the children, maintain the churches, be the foremost witnesses of Christ.
These are the Popesâ men. If the Popes wanted to pick other men, they were and are available.
These are their picked men. Their shining lights. Their best examples. Their collegiates. The shepherds they thought were worthy of leading the faithful into this new millennium and springtime of their beloved Council.
The men chosen to oversee the seminaries, preach the Faith above all others, discipline and guide the priests and laity, oversee the liturgy, protect the children, maintain the churches, be the foremost witnesses of Christ.
These are the Popesâ men. If the Popes wanted to pick other men, they were and are available.
D
Dempsey1919
Guest
It is not always as simple as that. Politics also plays a part in this. The pope does not personally know every single bishop in the world and is not directly responsible for their appointment. The final decision is his, but the Cardinals also have a say.These are the Popesâ men. If the Popes wanted to pick other men, they were and are available.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
to quote Harry Truman: THE BUCK STOPS HERE. Basic management theory holds that one may seek advice and counsel, one may delegate power, but one cannot delegate responsibility.It is not always as simple as that. Politics also plays a part in this. The pope does not personally know every single bishop in the world and is not directly responsible for their appointment. The final decision is his, but the Cardinals also have a say.
S
SunnaB16
Guest
Your tongue must have been making a huge bulge in one cheek!!!Why would Pope Benedict XVI sack the bishops he and Pope John Paul II âthe Greatâ personally appointed?
These are the Popesâ men. If the Popes wanted to pick other men, they were and are available.
Judas was one of our Lord`s men!
The Papal Nuncios have a lot to answer for. The current one in Britain even moaned, in an interview with The Tablet(!), that Rome takes more notice of the internet than it does of him.
No wonder!
To refer to âthe Second Vatican Catastropheâ is a pity. He spoilt his otherwise great article by saying that.
i
m old enough (just) to remember the pre-Vatican II Church; and it wasnt all moonlight and roses. The Church needed to have a bomb put under it to clear out a lot of cobwebs and other assorted debris. The faith of a lot of Catholics was cold and bloodlessâŚmore like the grudging servile âfaithâ of the prodigal son`s elder brother. To embrace the subsequent abuses shows that the faith of many was already skewed.There
s a growing conviction between my ears that Pope Benedict has started to deliver the TRUE fruits of Vatican II: a renewal of reverence; a new love of the TLM; etc. The lukewarm cultural "Catholics" will drop out. The Vine is being pruned. This might be what Pope John intended. Maybe its God`s way of separating the geep from the shoats.Link to an interview with Alice von Hildebrand
www.catholictradition.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_catholictradition_archive.html
This website`s too far to the Right. But this particular interview is worth reading.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.