Is it Time for Vatican III?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Via_Dolorosa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tigg said:
WOW again! I hope you aren’t saying what I think you may be saying. Sorry, but the patriarchal, hierarchical Church is the manner in which Christ Himself instituted. You know, the keys of the Kingdom given to Peter and all of that…
Click to expand...
What do you think I am saying?

I’ll clear it up for you. If those that condoned abuse and engaged in subterfuge resigned their positions, the church would be a better place and more closely in concert with what Jesus taught.

The church would still prevail or do you think that the principles of the church are so weak that if those that condoned abuse and engaged in subterfuge resigned, the church would fail?

Peace
 
It’s a fact that the Catholic Church built Western civilization through Her faith and reason given to Her by Christ and put into practice by Her faithful members clerical, religious and lay – the number of saints attest to that. She has always been beset by storms and always will.
Yes, Sailor Kenshin, the no hopers and prejudiced can’t see the wood for the trees. Yet it is the relativism and decay in faith and morals that have pulled society to the depths of degradation. Post #86 details that disastrous path.
Faithful Catholics don’t leave Christ’s Church. Those who leave have already become unfaithful. When they see dissent in word and action they counter it, by offering truth, prayer, fasting, and good works.
 
After reading most of this, the problem seems to be that some of us are drinking the mass media kool-aide without taking a critical look at the whole story. I have read almost every news story that tries to link The Holy Father to sex scandal cover up and I have seen the fallacy in those stories. I have seen the lack of proof, I have seen the huge jumps in assumption, and I have seen the agendas. I have also sought the truth, and have found the other side of the story. I have seen where Pope Benedict has done everything according to the book, and then took things a step further trying to make the book more strict agaisnt these abuses. Take a break from the Kool-aide and look at the other side. Yes, a few bishops have tried to hide their (like) friends and allowed abuses to go on. Others did what was common practice of the time (everywhere, not just the church)and sent the priests to get counseling and help. After they were released from counseling and declared cured, they were put back into circulation. That is hardly a cover up. Now that it is evident that sex offenders rarely ever change, this practice is now stopped.
 
JohnCS said:
After reading most of this, the problem seems to be that some of us are drinking the mass media kool-aide without taking a critical look at the whole story. I have read almost every news story that tries to link The Holy Father to sex scandal cover up and I have seen the fallacy in those stories. I have seen the lack of proof, I have seen the huge jumps in assumption, and I have seen the agendas. I have also sought the truth, and have found the other side of the story. I have seen where Pope Benedict has done everything according to the book, and then took things a step further trying to make the book more strict agaisnt these abuses. Take a break from the Kool-aide and look at the other side. Yes, a few bishops have tried to hide their (like) friends and allowed abuses to go on. Others did what was common practice of the time (everywhere, not just the church)and sent the priests to get counseling and help. After they were released from counseling and declared cured, they were put back into circulation. That is hardly a cover up. Now that it is evident that sex offenders rarely ever change, this practice is now stopped.
Click to expand...
You make a lot of conclusions without providing any data.

You mention a “few” bishops hid their friends, actually it was a scant few that didn’t hide abuse.

The common practice of “curing” priests was proven false decades ago and bishops and cardinals continued to transfer priests after the “curing” was proven to not work. And bishops transferred priests when the treatment people actually told the bishops that specific instances of treatment failed.

But you are right B16 did everything by the book, -the one he wrote about keeping the records secret that reiterated the secrecy norms from the 60’s.

It is the church’s Kool Aid that is toxic regarding abuse. It is all so contrary to what Jesus taught, that it is astounding that it is taken as gospel by some.

But we have such low expectations for the behavior of our leadership that , I guess it is expected that they don’t conform to what Jesus taught. Sort of like the congress of the US not being held to follow the laws it makes.

Peace
 
JohnCS said:
After reading most of this, the problem seems to be that some of us are drinking the mass media kool-aide without taking a critical look at the whole story. I have read almost every news story that tries to link The Holy Father to sex scandal cover up and I have seen the fallacy in those stories. I have seen the lack of proof, I have seen the huge jumps in assumption, and I have seen the agendas. I have also sought the truth, and have found the other side of the story. I have seen where Pope Benedict has done everything according to the book, and then took things a step further trying to make the book more strict agaisnt these abuses. Take a break from the Kool-aide and look at the other side. Yes, a few bishops have tried to hide their (like) friends and allowed abuses to go on. Others did what was common practice of the time (everywhere, not just the church)and sent the priests to get counseling and help. After they were released from counseling and declared cured, they were put back into circulation. That is hardly a cover up. Now that it is evident that sex offenders rarely ever change, this practice is now stopped.
Click to expand...
Another thing you posts points out, is that we are not looking at the scandal from a Catholic perspective.

And by catholic perspective, I mean one who follows Jesus’ teachings, you know, the basis for our faith.

It doesn’t take a canon lawyer to know that if a mother of kid who was abused, writes a letter to a pastor, a bishop, a cardinal or a pope, the teachings of Jesus would compel those entrusted with His flock to act in the best interests of the flock.

We know they didn’t do that. All one pope had to say upon receiving such a letter was this: any priest who abuses a kid or anybody who condones abuse or engages in subterfuge about abuse is out.

It isn’t rocket science that abuse is bad and unChristlike. There is no reasonable person who can say that what Jesus taught in anyway says abuse or condoning abuse is OK.

But our leaders somehow struggled with whether abuse was OK and abuse should be not dealt with in a manner that protects the flock?

Come on, its so foolish to even think for a second that putting their legacies and positions ahead of the flock is somehow justified.

This isn’t about breaking the laws of men. Even though the raping of kids breaks those laws too, this is about the abject failure of grown men to understand the simplest concepts of Jesus.

Its a joke that these guys think they should be running the church when they can’t even see the difference between good and evil when it is in black and white right in front of their eyes.

Peace
 
Facing Reality – Strengthening the Faith. We each have a part to play

**Vatican spokesman not surprised by record Fatima Mass turnout **

Fatima, Portugal, May 14 (CNA/EWTN News) .- Fr. Federico Lombardi, the spokesman for the Vatican, said it was not a surprise that hundreds of thousands of people were in Fatima for Pope Benedict’s Mass at Fatima yesterday. He recognized a “vitality” in the response and commented on the Holy Father’s observation that the prophetic mission of Fatima is not complete.

Estimates put the number of pilgrims in Fatima for Wednesday morning’s Mass at around half a million between those who filled the enormous esplanade that sprawls before the Church of the Most Holy Trinity and the tens of thousands of others who joined in from the adjacent streets.

“The crowd of about 500,000 faithful that have participated this morning in the Mass celebrated by the Pope on the esplanade of the Shrine of Fatima is not a surprise,” said Fr. Lombardi in an Avvenire newspaper report. He added, “for the Christian people, Papal trips are always occasion for a great mobilization.”

Fr. Lombardi noted that there were more people there than in the times of John Paul II, who also was joined by thousands of pilgrims on May 13, 2000 when he celebrated the beatification Mass for Jacinta and Francisco and on two other occasions.

The Vatican spokesman pointed out that the recently surfaced sex abuse scandal could have led to the perception that the vitality of the Church and people’s attention to the Pope had be been “obscured.”

“But this did not happen,” he said, “this vitality is not in crisis because of the discussions of months past, and the fact that the force of the faith manifests itself in such an evident way is very encouraging.”

Included in the Pope’s homily during Mass was the observation that the prophetic mission of Fatima is not complete because Mary’s call to the faithful to offer themselves to God for the reparation of sins and conversion of sinners continues to be relevant.

Fr. Lombardi reflected on the application of Mary’s words to today, saying that in maintaining the prophecy of Fatima as current, the Pope sees it as a way of interpreting the contemporary world and events “in the light of the faith.”
 
Abu said:
Keeping abreast of developments

40 Professors: ‘Attacks’ on Pope ‘Unjust’
by The Editors, National Catholic Register, Friday, May 07, 2010
ncregister.com/blog/40_professors_attacks_on_pope_unjust/
Click to expand...
The article proposes to excuse the behavior of those that condoned abuse and engaged in subterfuge because the rate of abuse among clerics is about the same as in general society and because some people have said that celibacy is exclusively the reason for the abuse.

As to celibacy, I haven’t seen any accounts that blame the condoning of abuse and the subterfuge of church leaders on celibacy. And I haven’t seen any reports that exclusively (as noted in the NCR article) blame celibacy for clerical abuse. And obviously those that abuse are not celibate anyway.

So the article just advances a couple of straw men arguments and doesn’t address the real issue, why weren’t the best interests of members of the congregation , in the the form of catholic kids and their mothers , protected by the leaders of our church?

V3 is needed because the real crux of the matter is that this crisis involves a failure to implement Jesus’ teachings, not whether or not the legal constructs of our church as a corporation protect it from civil prosecution.

Peace
 
**40 Professors: ‘Attacks’ on Pope ‘Unjust’ **
by The Editors, National Catholic register, Friday, May 07, 2010
ncregister.com/blog/40_professors_attacks_on_pope_unjust/
Excerpt:
4) We recognize that mistakes have been made in the past by Church authorities in dealing with the sexual abuse of minors, and we applaud measures to correct these mistakes by conferences of bishops throughout the world. We likewise support more rigorous screening of candidates for the priesthood, especially in the areas of chastity and adherence to Catholic moral teachings.
5) We express our gratitude to Pope Benedict XVI for his leadership and courage in dealing with the problem of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, and we condemn the unjust attacks made against him by certain elements of the secular media.
6) We condemn as unfair and inaccurate all efforts to link the sexual abuse of minors to the Latin rite Catholic discipline of priestly celibacy. We likewise affirm consecrated celibacy as a gift to the Catholic Church which, “in many ways, is in harmony with the priesthood” (Vatican II, Presbyterorum ordinis, 16).
7) We recognize the sexual abuse of minors as a grave problem that affects many segments of society. We reject, as inaccurate and unjust, all attempts to portray the sexual abuse of minors as a problem particular to the Catholic Church. We support all efforts of the criminal justice system to deal swiftly and effectively with those who sexually abuse minors in public or private settings.

The confusion that “obviously those that abuse are not celibate anyway” (portarica), shows the abysmal failure to understand that the perennial charge is that a celibate priesthood results in a strong tendency to sexual abuse or breaking of vows. That this is not even known by that poster (“I haven’t seen any accounts that blame the condoning of abuse and the subterfuge of church leaders on celibacy.”) explains that fantasy world of innuendo and supposition.

So, the facts:
nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Celibacy%20not%20cause%20of%20child%20abuse%20/-/440808/899248/-/apicgx/-/index.html
Prof Ian Buruma’s piece “Let the Catholic priests marry,” (Nation April 12), written in the context of child abuse in the Church, calls for critique….For Prof Buruma, celibacy is the culprit for child abuse in the Church. He concludes that it has become “an unworkable anachronism”.

sltrib.com/opinion/ci_14913988
04/19/2010, in The Salt Lake Tribune Maureen Dowd’s column regarding, among other things, what she perceives to be the cause of Catholic clergy sexual abuse of minors…The terrible tragedy of the sexual abuse of children and young people by the clergy cannot be pinned on the discipline of celibacy as Dowd would have it.

cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=20619
April 15, 2010
One thing you don’t see on the list of factors is celibacy. Because celibacy does not cause pedophilia. But that hasn’t stopped otherwise thoughtful pundits and commentators, and among them even some Catholics, from opining on celibacy as a cause of the crisis.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10041916.html
By Hilary White, April 20, 2010
A report issued this week by Human Life International’s Research Director, Brian Clowes:
Clowes also noted that the Catholic Church has been subjected to an “opportunistic siege by prominent individuals” who want to advance goals such as the ordination of women and the abolition of the discipline of priestly celibacy.

“…since the publication of the John Jay Report, commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2002, which found over 80 per cent of the clerical abuse victims had been adolescent males, other independent research has continued to point to homosexuality in the priesthood as the root cause of the crisis."
 
Abu said:
**40 Professors: ‘Attacks’ on Pope ‘Unjust’ **
by The Editors, National Catholic register, Friday, May 07, 2010
ncregister.com/blog/40_professors_attacks_on_pope_unjust/
Excerpt:
4) We recognize that mistakes have been made in the past by Church authorities in dealing with the sexual abuse of minors, and we applaud measures to correct these mistakes by conferences of bishops throughout the world. We likewise support more rigorous screening of candidates for the priesthood, especially in the areas of chastity and adherence to Catholic moral teachings.
5) We express our gratitude to Pope Benedict XVI for his leadership and courage in dealing with the problem of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, and we condemn the unjust attacks made against him by certain elements of the secular media.
6) We condemn as unfair and inaccurate all efforts to link the sexual abuse of minors to the Latin rite Catholic discipline of priestly celibacy. We likewise affirm consecrated celibacy as a gift to the Catholic Church which, “in many ways, is in harmony with the priesthood” (Vatican II, Presbyterorum ordinis, 16).
7) We recognize the sexual abuse of minors as a grave problem that affects many segments of society. We reject, as inaccurate and unjust, all attempts to portray the sexual abuse of minors as a problem particular to the Catholic Church. We support all efforts of the criminal justice system to deal swiftly and effectively with those who sexually abuse minors in public or private settings.

The confusion that “obviously those that abuse are not celibate anyway” (portarica), shows the abysmal failure to understand that the perennial charge is that a celibate priesthood results in a strong tendency to sexual abuse or breaking of vows. That this is not even known by that poster (“I haven’t seen any accounts that blame the condoning of abuse and the subterfuge of church leaders on celibacy.”) explains that fantasy world of innuendo and supposition.

So, the facts:
nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Celibacy%20not%20cause%20of%20child%20abuse%20/-/440808/899248/-/apicgx/-/index.html
Prof Ian Buruma’s piece “Let the Catholic priests marry,” (Nation April 12), written in the context of child abuse in the Church, calls for critique….For Prof Buruma, celibacy is the culprit for child abuse in the Church. He concludes that it has become “an unworkable anachronism”.

sltrib.com/opinion/ci_14913988
04/19/2010, in The Salt Lake Tribune Maureen Dowd’s column regarding, among other things, what she perceives to be the cause of Catholic clergy sexual abuse of minors…The terrible tragedy of the sexual abuse of children and young people by the clergy cannot be pinned on the discipline of celibacy as Dowd would have it.

cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=20619
April 15, 2010
One thing you don’t see on the list of factors is celibacy. Because celibacy does not cause pedophilia. But that hasn’t stopped otherwise thoughtful pundits and commentators, and among them even some Catholics, from opining on celibacy as a cause of the crisis.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10041916.html
By Hilary White, April 20, 2010
A report issued this week by Human Life International’s Research Director, Brian Clowes:
Clowes also noted that the Catholic Church has been subjected to an “opportunistic siege by prominent individuals” who want to advance goals such as the ordination of women and the abolition of the discipline of priestly celibacy.

“…since the publication of the John Jay Report, commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2002, which found over 80 per cent of the clerical abuse victims had been adolescent males, other independent research has continued to point to homosexuality in the priesthood as the root cause of the crisis."
Click to expand...
First none of the articles you cite say celibacy is exclusively to blame as you posted earlier.

The comment about raping adolescents instead of young kids, certainly excuses the leadership of our church from any action.

But as I have posted in the past, the greatest perversion of Jesus’ teachings has been by the leadership of our church. Condoning abuse and engaging in subterfuge are not Jesus’ teachings, but the actions of selfish people more concerned with legacies and offices than with the well being of the congregation.

If you want to argue whether raping an 8 year old or a 10 year old or a 13 year old excuses the actions of our church leaders , go ahead. That says much more about the understanding of Jesus’ teachings than I ever could.

Peace
 
Christ’s Church of faithful hierarchical Catholics will continue to teach, sanctify and govern, provide faith, hope and charity, discipline and excommunicate despite some lax bishops and, with the laity, support the Holy Father with 500,000 at the Fatima Mass, and 150,000 on his return to the See of Peter.
We shall continue in our 2010th year always ready with a reason for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15), regardless of the doomsayers, and those always casting stones – secure in the knowledge that Peter’s successor has the keys of the kingdom, that whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven, that he strengthens his brethren and feeds the sheep, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against us.

We invite all to join us.
 
Abu said:
Christ’s Church of faithful hierarchical Catholics will continue to teach, sanctify and govern, provide faith, hope and charity, discipline and excommunicate despite some lax bishops and, with the laity, support the Holy Father with 500,000 at the Fatima Mass, and 150,000 on his return to the See of Peter.
We shall continue in our 2010th year always ready with a reason for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15), regardless of the doomsayers, and those always casting stones – secure in the knowledge that Peter’s successor has the keys of the kingdom, that whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven, that he strengthens his brethren and feeds the sheep, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against us.

We invite all to join us.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that condoning abuse is bound in heaven? Is engaging in subterfuge now a doctrine?

Are you saying that inflicting shame upon Jesus’ church is OK, because they are holding the keys?

Is Jesus so wimpy that He tolerates the behavior of people who harm his lambs and their mothers?

Peace
 
Hmm. “Take the lead”, or take the heat??? Before we have another Vatican Council, the second one needs a lot of clarification. Many clergy and laity threw the baby out with the bath water after Vatican II, but somehow I don’t think this was the Council’s intention.
 
elts1956 said:
Hmm. “Take the lead”, or take the heat??? Before we have another Vatican Council, the second one needs a lot of clarification. Many clergy and laity threw the baby out with the bath water after Vatican II, but somehow I don’t think this was the Council’s intention.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with that statement. Instead of seeing how the church would grow with by the laity having a better understanding of Jesus’ teachings, some saw openness as a threat to the traditions of medieval times.

If the church had accepted with outstretched arms a greater openness , then perhaps the moral crisis the church has endured and covered up for decades could have been mitigated. Then again, perhaps it was the fear of openness itself that precipitated the straw man attacks on V2. And by doing so the entrenched threw the baby of understanding Jesus better, out with the bathwater of fearfulness.

Peace
 
elts1956
Many clergy and laity threw the baby out with the bath water after Vatican II, but somehow I don’t think this was the Council’s intention.
Click to expand...
Of course not as can be seen in post #86 with the rampant dissent following the Council. Then followed the disgraceful public dissent against Humanae Vitae by Karl Rahner and numerous dissenting theologians, Richard McBrien’s Catholicism (full of errors), the revolt of the Catholic universities and the bureaucratic/theological tail wagging the episcopal dog so to speak – coupled with lax or dissenting bishops this resulted in a grave crisis, which is worldwide with relativism, selfism and secularism. The seminaries were filled with dissenting formators.

With the renewal of the Liturgy, replacement of formators and the renewal of seminaries, the restoration is well under way.

In his book, Sources of Renewal Karol Cardinal Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) wrote: “It may be said that every Council in the Church’s history has been a pastoral one, if only because the assembled bishops, under the Pope’s guidance, are pastors of the Church. At the same time every Council is an act of the supreme Magisterium of the Church. Magisterium signifies teaching based on authority, a teaching which is the mission of the Apostles and their successors, it is part of their function and an essential task.” The Cardinal goes on: “All this has been signally confirmed by Vatican II, which, while preserving its pastoral character and mindful of the purpose for which it was called, profoundly developed the doctrine of faith and thus provided a basis for its enrichment.” (Ibid, p 38-39).

So pastorally inclined like all Councils, Vatican II also developed doctrine profoundly.

“It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points…” (The Ratzinger Report, p 28).
 
Would the next Ecumenical Council necessarily be held at the Vatican? Especially if by the grace of God it would deal with the reunion of the Eastern and Western Churches, I could see Constantinople (not Istanbul, obviously) V. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top