Is it Time for Vatican III?

[Abu]

Tigg
Let’s continue to let our seminaries produce the good men who are coming forth, now - those who solidly hold fast to their faith and are spiritual, rather than political.

Thank you for your great post and for your fidelity in writing to the bishop about the dissenting priest. Many half-educated Catholics don’t know better, and that’s why we need all those faithful, who are presented with opportunities, to offer them the truth.

The crisis didn’t start today and in a nutshell this is the outline:
The crisis in Christ’s Church is due to the modernist errors abroad before Vatican II, whose promoters tried to take over the Council, and are referred to in *Christ Denied *TAN, 1982, by Fr Paul Wickens).

Before Vatican II, by May of 1964, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) had approved the sex education program put forward by 2 Swedish delegates, and the whole sordid conglomerate is exposed in Claire Chambers The SIECUS Circle, 1977. The power structure exerts pressure on local schools and the gullible public for its school sex education program. The network promotes population control, legalised abortion, homosexuality, pornography, sensitivity training and drugs. (p xv). We surely know how dissenters have spread these into the People of God.

The '60’s saw the rise of anarchy in the USA, flower power etc., with much that was good in society decried and destroyed with nothing worthy to replace it. The new religion of the so-called Enlightenment was welcomed by selfists.

The degradation of sacred order, at the invitation of nuns, occurred from 1967 in the USA through humanistic psychologists especially Carl Rogers, and I have heard one of his lieutenants, Dr J W Coulson in person, apologising for the grave harm caused. [See *The Emperor’s New Clothes by William Kirk Kilpatrick, 1985, p 149-150]. The destruction of whole Catholic school systems and religious orders occurred.

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. “In *Goodbye, Good Men *Michael Rose says that men who entered the priesthood before the 1970’s, and the newest priests today generally accept celibacy as crucial to their service and are devoted to the orthodox teachings, sacraments and traditions of the church. But that in-between generation, now ensconced in the church’s leadership (except for some few who courageously resisted the corruption) are determined to ‘change the structure and mission of the Catholic Church’; their goal is a secularized and desacralized institution led perhaps by priestesses, or perhaps by a priestless, organized laity giving the sacraments." [From a book review (Peggy Whitcomb, 2002) of *Goodbye, Good Men (How Liberals Brought Corruption Into The Catholic Church) by Michael S. Rose].

James Hitchcock, author, The Pope and the Jesuits, writes: “Liberals who blame celibacy for the Catholic Church’s pedophilia scandals are missing the real cause: seminaries that actively encourage homosexuality, moral laxity, and theological dissent all in the name of post-Vatican II ‘renewal.’ In Goodbye, Good Men, Michael S. Rose demonstrates that such seminaries are by no means rare. All over the country, gay priests and liberal nuns energetically recruit for the priesthood gay men and others of questionable moral character - while turning away heterosexual orthodox men.”
.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Wonder why you don’t see THAT in the headlines.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

I have been thinking for quite some time now about the indefectibility of the Church and how this all flies in the face of what we are experiencing now - the tremendous loss of faith, outright heresy, liturgical abuse, sex scandals, the lack of catechesis and ensuing indifferentism, the Father Pfleger’s of this world who have abandoned basic virtues like obedience to their superiors (and done much worse), dissenting feminist nuns escorting clients into abortion mills, … the list is endless. How can this all be happening to the Church Christ promised would not fail?

But you are correct. Although the progressive movement in the Church has defiled so much, the faith still stands. That is amazing. The Spirit WHO guides and sanctifies gives conviction of the truth within the hearts of faithful and obedient Catholics despite all the crazy things we are seeing today. Just as the very essence of the Trinity will remain the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow, truth as contained within HIS Church cannot change. What comfort that should give us.

A personal story to illustrate this would be a recent retreat day I attended which was given by a priest who holds a rather prestigious office in our diocese. He has totally bought into the progressive agenda of the green movement, global warming and the environmental falsities surrounding it. He was dangerously close to speaking heresy and committing idolatry as he touted the “Sacred Earth” community and his philosophy of an over-populated planet. I looked around the room and saw smiling faces eagerly taking notes, unaware of the contradictions to Church teaching that were coming from his mouth. When the break came for lunch, an entire table of 6 people got up and walked out of the room and did not return for the afternoon session. I later found out they were appalled by what they had heard and two wrote letters to our bishop (as did I.)

Vatican III ?? No, I don’t think so, at least at this time. Let’s continue to let our seminaries produce the good men who are coming forth, now - those who solidly hold fast to their faith and are spiritual, rather than political.

Did you or anyone else get anything back from the Bishops?

 

[portarica]

…The crisis didn’t start today and in a nutshell this is the outline:
The crisis in Christ’s Church is due to the modernist errors abroad before Vatican II, whose promoters tried to take over the Council, and are referred to in *Christ Denied *TAN, 1982, by Fr Paul Wickens).

Before Vatican II, by May of 1964, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) had approved the sex education program put forward by 2 Swedish delegates, and the whole sordid conglomerate is exposed in Claire Chambers The SIECUS Circle, 1977. The power structure exerts pressure on local schools and the gullible public for its school sex education program. The network promotes population control, legalised abortion, homosexuality, pornography, sensitivity training and drugs. (p xv). We surely know how dissenters have spread these into the People of God…
…The degradation of sacred order, at the invitation of nuns, occurred from 1967 in the USA through humanistic psychologists especially Carl Rogers, and I have heard one of his lieutenants, Dr J W Coulson in person, apologising for the grave harm caused. [See *The Emperor’s New Clothes

by William Kirk Kilpatrick, 1985, p 149-150]. The destruction of whole Catholic school systems and religious orders occurred.

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. “In *Goodbye, Good Men *Michael Rose says that men who entered the priesthood before the 1970’s, and the newest priests today generally accept celibacy as crucial to their service and are devoted to the orthodox teachings, sacraments and traditions of the church. But that in-between generation, now ensconced in the church’s leadership (except for some few who courageously resisted the corruption) are determined to ‘change the structure and mission of the Catholic Church’; their goal is a secularized and desacralized institution led perhaps by priestesses, or perhaps by a priestless, organized laity giving the sacraments." [From a book review (Peggy Whitcomb, 2002) of *Goodbye, Good Men (How Liberals Brought Corruption Into The Catholic Church) by Michael S. Rose].

James Hitchcock, author, The Pope and the Jesuits, writes: “Liberals who blame celibacy for the Catholic Church’s pedophilia scandals are missing the real cause: seminaries that actively encourage homosexuality, moral laxity, and theological dissent all in the name of post-Vatican II ‘renewal.’ In Goodbye, Good Men, Michael S. Rose demonstrates that such seminaries are by no means rare. All over the country, gay priests and liberal nuns energetically recruit for the priesthood gay men and others of questionable moral character - while turning away heterosexual orthodox men.”
.

It is simplistic to blame an issue with the worldwide scope of clerical abuse on either celibacy or homosexuality.

There certainly are priests who abused and found refuge in an institution that emphasizes celibacy , but didn’t require it. There are certainly gays who found refuge in an institution that hates the sin of homosexuality, but loves the sinner.

But neither celibacy nor homosexuality explain why abuse was condoned and subterfuge engaged in on the part of the most orthodox (at least in theory) members of the curia.

The issues of celibacy and homosexuality probably have a greater import on a discussion of why there are fewer vocations coming from the developed world than in the past. But as an explanation for why the instances of abuse were not minimized by the church, there is little nexus, unless there are bishops, cardinals and popes who were protecting fellow homosexuals and orthodox clerics from either civil or church prosecution.

The problems within the Legionaries , one of the most orthodox of groups seems to point away from abuse as being an issue of unorthodoxy. The continued presence of Cardinal Law in the process of selecting bishops also suggests that whatever he was protecting with his deceit, was neither homosexuality nor liberalism or else he certainly would not be holding the position he holds now.

One thing that seems to never come up is that abuse and the cover up of abuse is so far from Jesus’ teachings. It really isn’t a church issue per se, it is an issue about why abuse was condoned and tolerated and why deceit about the issue seems to be SOP.

Trying to put the issue into terms of liberalism or orthodoxy is really off the mark , if the purpose is to actually solve the problem of abuse and the cover up.

I can’t think of any liberals or ultra-orthodox that believe that abuse is OK or that subterfuge about abuse is OK.

Its not about church doctrine , its about shepherding the flock. There is probably no solution to the problem , because the only real solution is to have all those in power that abused and condoned abuse resign. But who would fill those shoes? The next group in waiting has engaged in the same subterfuge and they would not be open to a church leadership that had to be abuse and subterfuge free.

So basically all the moms who are suffering because of abuse will just have to die off and we can only hope and pray that eventually the church cleans itself up by attracting a healthier type of person to the service of Jesus’ flock.

Peace

 

[Tigg]

Did you or anyone else get anything back from the Bishops?

Nothing yet, and this happened during the middle of Lent. As of four months ago we were assigned a new bishop. I was advised by someone who used to work at the diocese that the retiring bishop never saw his correspondence from the faithful until it went through the proper channels to see if it was deemed “worthy” of his time and attention. He surrounded himself with liberal lay staffers so the general attitude used to be “don’t even bother!” No one knows if this same system is still in place or not. We are heartened, though, and waiting to see what and if reforms will be forthcoming from our new shepherd. The encouraging sign is that he is adamantly pro-life and uses all manner of occassions to tell us so. We’ll see!

 

[Abu]

portarica
It is simplistic to blame an issue with the worldwide scope of clerical abuse on either celibacy or homosexuality.

Yes, it is false to claim that celibacy is the reason; it is a fact that the abuse in the USA is overwhelmingly through homosexuality, and that occurred very largely in the late 60’s, and the ‘70’s.

From the book review (Peggy Whitcomb, 2002) of *Goodbye, Good Men *(How Liberals Brought Corruption Into The Catholic Church) by Michael S. Rose.
“While America began to contend with this on-going public assault, a truly monstrous, secretive attack was launched into the heart of the Roman Catholic Church – the seminaries where priests-to-be develop their vocation and are trained in preparation for service to God. The media witchhunt of ‘political correctness’ scaring the leadership into submission, and disbelief on the part of the laity that the church’s hierarchy would allow its destruction, were the rocks that hid the growing corruption. What was hidden is now being exposed to the light of day, but too late for many good men who were turned away from the seminaries (creating priest shortages); too late for the many, many young men and boys, children of Catholic families in the pews, who were sexually exploited by immoral homosexuals who had been welcomed into the seminaries, ordained and promoted into positions of leadership.

These two articles are helpful.
Homosexuality: 1. The Disorder Question
By Dr. Jeff Mirus | April 15,catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=633
“In Catholic parlance, what determines whether something is naturally disordered is whether or not it is operating according to its proper end, whether it is properly ordered to its natural purpose. If it is not, we call it ‘disordered’.”

Homosexuality: 2. The Truth Question
By Dr. Jeff Mirus | April 15
catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=634

 

[portarica]

Yes, it is false to claim that celibacy is the reason; it is a fact that the abuse in the USA is overwhelmingly through homosexuality, and that occurred very largely in the late 60’s, and the ‘70’s.

From the book review (Peggy Whitcomb, 2002) of *Goodbye, Good Men *(How Liberals Brought Corruption Into The Catholic Church) by Michael S. Rose.
“While America began to contend with this on-going public assault, a truly monstrous, secretive attack was launched into the heart of the Roman Catholic Church – the seminaries where priests-to-be develop their vocation and are trained in preparation for service to God. The media witchhunt of ‘political correctness’ scaring the leadership into submission, and disbelief on the part of the laity that the church’s hierarchy would allow its destruction, were the rocks that hid the growing corruption. What was hidden is now being exposed to the light of day, but too late for many good men who were turned away from the seminaries (creating priest shortages); too late for the many, many young men and boys, children of Catholic families in the pews, who were sexually exploited by immoral homosexuals who had been welcomed into the seminaries, ordained and promoted into positions of leadership.

These two articles are helpful.
Homosexuality: 1. The Disorder Question
By Dr. Jeff Mirus | April 15,catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=633
“In Catholic parlance, what determines whether something is naturally disordered is whether or not it is operating according to its proper end, whether it is properly ordered to its natural purpose. If it is not, we call it ‘disordered’.”

Homosexuality: 2. The Truth Question
By Dr. Jeff Mirus | April 15
catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=634

Are you suggesting that Maciel and Law were liberals? That is quite strange.

And the popes and cardinals weren’t scared into hiding the problem by an overzealous media, the hiding was exposed by the media.

And you bring up political correctness, that is a strawman. The abuse issue is a crisis because abuse and the cover up of abuse are totally anti Christlike and that is why the leaders of our church are being called out, they engaged in unChristlike behavior.

Homosexuality might be a problem because it stands to reason that if a significant percentage of priests are homosexual then the curia likely has a high percentage of gays as well. Maybe the cover up is a case of the like protecting the like.

Peace

 

[Abu]

portarica
You appear to get your impressions from journalists who seem to have a phobia about “the popes and cardinals”.
If you have a concern about the word “liberal” so do I when it comes to the Church. I never use it, it is a political term, and I don’t have to agree with every word used in a quotation. While it is true that philosophical liberalism may be meant, it is best to avoid the term unless the particular error is revealed. “Dissenter” covers everything we need, as dissent is defined by the CDF, and covers any and every public opposition to the Magisterium; and since it is a question of chastity and obedience that is appropriate.

Bringing in the “curia” is a red herring of confusion as the Vatican has been resolutely tackling the abuses for a long time, led by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. That is why we now have many renewed seminaries and more faithful priests. The abuses nearly all occurred decades ago. The wild insinuation of a “cover up” in the Vatican mirrors the gutter “journalism” we have been experiencing. It is people like
Michael Rose who really analysed the problem and exposed dissenting priests and bishops. Faithful Catholics don’t have any time for hearsay and suppositions.
As I’ve stressed the laxity has come mainly from lax bishops, here and there cardinals and archbishops have been lax also. Dr Jeff Mirus put things into perspective as to the origin of the malaise:
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=232
Power and Authority
by Dr. Jeff Mirus, February 1, 2008
"Whether we are talking about the false spirit of Vatican II, the chaos in many religious orders, the secularization of seminaries and Catholic universities, or the decline of parish life, what we have found again and again at the center is bishops and priests (usually men of rank and influence) who themselves had lost their understanding of spiritual authority. This created an identity crisis which rendered them incapable of exercising their power effectively.

“Instead, they saw power as an unwarranted inequality, and they rushed to define their powers out of existence, flattening all spiritual relationships. They put themselves at the mercy of a revolution of their own making. And just as the resulting upheaval was caused primarily by a crisis of confidence among the clergy, so too will it be resolved only when the clergy once again understand who they are, and who the laity are, and the spiritual relationship between them. In this they will rediscover their authority. The proper exercise of priestly power will follow as surely as running water follows a thaw. Moreover, it is not just the priests who will become happier. So will the laity. Authority derives from relationships. Authority benefits both sides.”

 

[portarica]

portarica
You appear to get your impressions from journalists who seem to have a phobia about “the popes and cardinals”.
If you have a concern about the word “liberal” so do I when it comes to the Church. I never use it, it is a political term, and I don’t have to agree with every word used in a quotation. While it is true that philosophical liberalism may be meant, it is best to avoid the term unless the particular error is revealed. “Dissenter” covers everything we need, as dissent is defined by the CDF, and covers any and every public opposition to the Magisterium; and since it is a question of chastity and obedience that is appropriate.

Bringing in the “curia” is a red herring of confusion as the Vatican has been resolutely tackling the abuses for a long time, led by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. That is why we now have many renewed seminaries and more faithful priests. The abuses nearly all occurred decades ago. The wild insinuation of a “cover up” in the Vatican mirrors the gutter “journalism” we have been experiencing. It is people like
Michael Rose who really analysed the problem and exposed dissenting priests and bishops. Faithful Catholics don’t have any time for hearsay and suppositions.
As I’ve stressed the laxity has come mainly from lax bishops, here and there cardinals and archbishops have been lax also. Dr Jeff Mirus put things into perspective as to the origin of the malaise:
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=232
Power and Authority
by Dr. Jeff Mirus, February 1, 2008
"Whether we are talking about the false spirit of Vatican II, the chaos in many religious orders, the secularization of seminaries and Catholic universities, or the decline of parish life, what we have found again and again at the center is bishops and priests (usually men of rank and influence) who themselves had lost their understanding of spiritual authority. This created an identity crisis which rendered them incapable of exercising their power effectively.

“Instead, they saw power as an unwarranted inequality, and they rushed to define their powers out of existence, flattening all spiritual relationships. They put themselves at the mercy of a revolution of their own making. And just as the resulting upheaval was caused primarily by a crisis of confidence among the clergy, so too will it be resolved only when the clergy once again understand who they are, and who the laity are, and the spiritual relationship between them. In this they will rediscover their authority. The proper exercise of priestly power will follow as surely as running water follows a thaw. Moreover, it is not just the priests who will become happier. So will the laity. Authority derives from relationships. Authority benefits both sides.”

First there is no false spirit in V2. V2 didn’t say abuse people. The condoning of abuse was what told the perverted clerics to abuse more.

It is as simple as that.

Stop the cover up and excuses and the abuse drops.

Lie and cover up abuse and more kids, adults, girls housekeepers, nuns etc.etc. get abused.

The catholic church didn’t have a lot more actual abusers , but the cover up was pretty much universal from pastors to vicars to bishops to cardinals to popes.

The facts speak for them selves.

One letter from one mother to one pope could have stopped the abuse issue dead in its tracks.

One pope had to only say " anybody who abuses or covers up abuse is out of the church".

But apparently no pope had the courage to say that so we are in the fine mess we find ourselves today. One with faithful catholics who believe what Jesus taught, walking away from the church. That makes a smaller church, but one less pure.

Peace

 

[portarica]

portarica
You appear to get your impressions from journalists who seem to have a phobia about “the popes and cardinals”.
If you have a concern about the word “liberal” so do I when it comes to the Church. I never use it, it is a political term, and I don’t have to agree with every word used in a quotation. While it is true that philosophical liberalism may be meant, it is best to avoid the term unless the particular error is revealed. “Dissenter” covers everything we need, as dissent is defined by the CDF, and covers any and every public opposition to the Magisterium; and since it is a question of chastity and obedience that is appropriate.

Bringing in the “curia” is a red herring of confusion as the Vatican has been resolutely tackling the abuses for a long time, led by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. That is why we now have many renewed seminaries and more faithful priests. The abuses nearly all occurred decades ago. The wild insinuation of a “cover up” in the Vatican mirrors the gutter “journalism” we have been experiencing. It is people like
Michael Rose who really analysed the problem and exposed dissenting priests and bishops. Faithful Catholics don’t have any time for hearsay and suppositions.
As I’ve stressed the laxity has come mainly from lax bishops, here and there cardinals and archbishops have been lax also. Dr Jeff Mirus put things into perspective as to the origin of the malaise:
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=232
Power and Authority
by Dr. Jeff Mirus, February 1, 2008
"Whether we are talking about the false spirit of Vatican II, the chaos in many religious orders, the secularization of seminaries and Catholic universities, or the decline of parish life, what we have found again and again at the center is bishops and priests (usually men of rank and influence) who themselves had lost their understanding of spiritual authority. This created an identity crisis which rendered them incapable of exercising their power effectively.

“Instead, they saw power as an unwarranted inequality, and they rushed to define their powers out of existence, flattening all spiritual relationships. They put themselves at the mercy of a revolution of their own making. And just as the resulting upheaval was caused primarily by a crisis of confidence among the clergy, so too will it be resolved only when the clergy once again understand who they are, and who the laity are, and the spiritual relationship between them. In this they will rediscover their authority. The proper exercise of priestly power will follow as surely as running water follows a thaw. Moreover, it is not just the priests who will become happier. So will the laity. Authority derives from relationships. Authority benefits both sides.”

Why do you make a personal attack on me?

I don’t mimic the voices of the liberal media, I don’t mimic the voices of any media. At this time in place they all seem to have an ax to grind and very few act in a truly unsurpassed fashion.

The “gutter journalism” term is find interesting especially in context of the cover up that has taken place. You post as if all the documents that only came out because of court proceedings, where in fact there because of the oneness of the church.

To say some curia were involved is a huge understatement, just mention the names of th3e curia that has come out and apologized about their actions, how many are there?

Even B16 has covered up abuse by his request for info to be kept secret and his actions in Germany point out that the transferring of abusive priests was not a concern of his as bishop. (and that is putting it in the most favorable terms to him).

The curia had thousands of opportunities to act, but they didn’t.

The main reason was that when they received letters from the mothers of abuse victims, they didn’t think they had to stop the abuse from affecting other mothers.They had to prevent scandal, not damage to kids and their families.

And that is the most sick and perverted part of the abuse issue. Pastors, vicars, bishops cardinals and popes ignored the pleadings of catholic mothers.

Say what you want about the church following all the criminal laws etc. etc. they ignored the mothers and that is sick and so unChristlike,

Peace

 

[Abu]

Face Facts
Repeating the falsehoods against Pope Benedict XVI, with no basis whatsoever, is disgraceful. That displays at its worst attempts to discredit the Pope . This thread (ostensibly on the need for Vatican III) is now being used as a whipping boy against Christ’s Church.

Michael Rose showed in *Goodbye! Good Men *(Regnery, 2002), there’s an active homosexual sub-culture within the Church. This is due to several factors. The confusion in the wake of the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, the tumult following the Second Vatican Council, and the greater approval of homosexual behavior in the culture at large created an environment in which active homosexual men were admitted to, and tolerated in, the priesthood. The Church also came to rely more on the psychiatric profession for screening candidates and for treating those priests identified as having problems. In 1973, the American Psychological Association changed its characterization of homosexuality as an objectively disordered orientation and removed it from the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual IV (Nicolosi, J., 1991, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, 1991; Diamond, E., et. al., Homosexuality and Hope, unpublished CMA document). The treatment of deviant sexual behaviors followed suit. It’s that sort of “professional” lunacy that needs to be exposed, and counteracted.

The bishops, beginning with Pope Paul VI in 1967, issued a warning to the Catholic faithful concerning the negative consequences of the sexual revolution. The pope’s encyclical letter, On the Celibacy of the Priests, addressed the question of a celibate priesthood in the face of a culture crying out for greater sexual “freedom.” The pope affirmed celibacy even as he called on bishops to take responsibility for “fellow priests troubled by difficulties which greatly endanger the divine gift they have.” He advised the bishops to seek appropriate help for these priests, or, in grave cases, to seek a dispensation for priests who could not be helped. In addition, he urged them to be more prudent in judging the fitness of candidates for the priesthood.

In 1975, the Church issued another document called *Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics *(written by Joseph Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) that explicitly addressed, among other issues, the problem of homosexuality among priests. Both the 1967 and 1975 documents addressed kinds of sexual deviancy, including pedophilia and ephebophilia, that are is especially prevalent among homosexuals.

This is from the May-June issue of the Buckeye Bulletin, 2008., Cleveland , Ohio, by Sam Miller, prominent Cleveland businessman - Jewish, not Catholic – who is fighting mad about the seemingly concentrated effort by the media to disparage the Catholic Church in the United States.
“12% of the 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual intercourse with a parishioner; 38% acknowledged other inappropriate sexual contact in a study by the United Methodist Church, 41.8 % of clergywomen reported unwanted sexual behaviour; 17% of laywomen have been sexually harassed. Meanwhile, 1.7% of the Catholic clergy has been found guilty of paedophilia. 10% of the Protestant ministers have been found guilty of paedophilia. This is not a Catholic Problem. [It is a world-gone-mad problem of homomania. Abu].
“Why would newspapers carry on a vendetta on one of the most important institutions that we have today in the United States, namely the Catholic Church?”

 

[Dale_M]

Yes, it is false to claim that celibacy is the reason; it is a fact that the abuse in the USA is overwhelmingly through homosexuality, and that occurred very largely in the late 60’s, and the ‘70’s.

I think we need to be careful about concluding it didn’t exist before Vatican II. From what I have seen and read, it did. However, it was a long time ago, and victims or their abusers die. Elderly victims often don’t see the point of coming forward about something from the distant past. Plus many still feel shame and are reluctant to criticize the Church - remember, it was a very different culture.

Also worth remembering, is that the priests doing the abusing in the late 60s and 70s, were products of the pre-Vatican II era, when priests held an almost sancrosanct aura of holiness. Some of them felt, justifiably it turns out, that they were safe in committing abuse.

 

[Abu]

Dale_M
Also worth remembering, is that the priests doing the abusing in the late 60s and 70s, were products of the pre-Vatican II era, when priests held an almost sancrosanct aura of holiness. Some of them felt, justifiably it turns out, that they were safe in committing abuse.

No one is claiming that sexual abuse by anyone was unknown before Vatican II.

Some of the “products of the pre-Vatican II era”, who became abusers, fell prey to the dissent (Curran, Rahner, McBrien et al), psychological abuse, and “spirit of Vatican II” rubbish which invaded the seminaries and the anarchy, from the society at large, infected some bishops, and due to their laxity also, fuelled the flames. The anarchical homomania which became rampant has been shown to be a major culprit.

 

[Dale_M]

No one is claiming that sexual abuse by anyone was unknown before Vatican II.

Some of the “products of the pre-Vatican II era”, who became abusers, fell prey to the dissent (Curran, Rahner, McBrien et al), psychological abuse, and “spirit of Vatican II” rubbish which invaded the seminaries and the anarchy, from the society at large, infected some bishops, and due to their laxity also, fuelled the flames. The anarchical homomania which became rampant has been shown to be a major culprit.

I think you are reaching for conclusions which be proven because so little is known about the context of priestly sex abuse before Vatican II. The culprits are largely dead, as are many of the victims. And those who are still alive, by and large, aren’t talking.

 

[portarica]

Face Facts
Repeating the falsehoods against Pope Benedict XVI, with no basis whatsoever, is disgraceful. That displays at its worst attempts to discredit the Pope . This thread (ostensibly on the need for Vatican III) is now being used as a whipping boy against Christ’s Church.

Michael Rose showed in *Goodbye! Good Men *(Regnery, 2002), there’s an active homosexual sub-culture within the Church. This is due to several factors. The confusion in the wake of the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, the tumult following the Second Vatican Council, and the greater approval of homosexual behavior in the culture at large created an environment in which active homosexual men were admitted to, and tolerated in, the priesthood. The Church also came to rely more on the psychiatric profession for screening candidates and for treating those priests identified as having problems. In 1973, the American Psychological Association changed its characterization of homosexuality as an objectively disordered orientation and removed it from the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual IV (Nicolosi, J., 1991, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, 1991; Diamond, E., et. al., Homosexuality and Hope, unpublished CMA document). The treatment of deviant sexual behaviors followed suit. It’s that sort of “professional” lunacy that needs to be exposed, and counteracted.

The bishops, beginning with Pope Paul VI in 1967, issued a warning to the Catholic faithful concerning the negative consequences of the sexual revolution. The pope’s encyclical letter, On the Celibacy of the Priests, addressed the question of a celibate priesthood in the face of a culture crying out for greater sexual “freedom.” The pope affirmed celibacy even as he called on bishops to take responsibility for “fellow priests troubled by difficulties which greatly endanger the divine gift they have.” He advised the bishops to seek appropriate help for these priests, or, in grave cases, to seek a dispensation for priests who could not be helped. In addition, he urged them to be more prudent in judging the fitness of candidates for the priesthood.

In 1975, the Church issued another document called *Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics *(written by Joseph Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) that explicitly addressed, among other issues, the problem of homosexuality among priests. Both the 1967 and 1975 documents addressed kinds of sexual deviancy, including pedophilia and ephebophilia, that are is especially prevalent among homosexuals.

This is from the May-June issue of the Buckeye Bulletin, 2008., Cleveland , Ohio, by Sam Miller, prominent Cleveland businessman - Jewish, not Catholic – who is fighting mad about the seemingly concentrated effort by the media to disparage the Catholic Church in the United States.
“12% of the 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual intercourse with a parishioner; 38% acknowledged other inappropriate sexual contact in a study by the United Methodist Church, 41.8 % of clergywomen reported unwanted sexual behaviour; 17% of laywomen have been sexually harassed. Meanwhile, 1.7% of the Catholic clergy has been found guilty of paedophilia. 10% of the Protestant ministers have been found guilty of paedophilia. This is not a Catholic Problem. [It is a world-gone-mad problem of homomania. Abu].
“Why would newspapers carry on a vendetta on one of the most important institutions that we have today in the United States, namely the Catholic Church?”

Because we are supposed to be the Deposit of the faith and the fountain of truth.If we don’t have the courage to be that, its only fair that people attack the church.

Peace

 

[Tigg]

Because we are supposed to be the Deposit of the faith and the fountain of truth.If we don’t have the courage to be that, its only fair that people attack the church.

Peace

I don’t understand what you are saying. Christ founded the Church, and we are required to believe the Magisterium in matters of faith and morals. That is “Truth.” However, there are two elements within this Institution - one human and one divine. The human element of course, subject to temptations and original sin, does fail. Priests can commit mortal sins, however that can NEVER taint the Divine Element which is the Real Presence of Christ upon our altars and the very essence of our Faith. A priest in a state of grave sin does not invalidate the Consecration (although he commits the other serious sin of sacrilege by doing so.) That is why we keep our eyes upon the Tabernacle and pray for those priests and bishops whose judgment, surely, will be a terrible one if they do not uphold their priestly duties in a worthy manner.

 

[portarica]

I don’t understand what you are saying. Christ founded the Church, and we are required to believe the Magisterium in matters of faith and morals. That is “Truth.” However, there are two elements within this Institution - one human and one divine. The human element of course, subject to temptations and original sin, does fail. Priests can commit mortal sins, however that can NEVER taint the Divine Element which is the Real Presence of Christ upon our altars and the very essence of our Faith. A priest in a state of grave sin does not invalidate the Consecration (although he commits the other serious sin of sacrilege by doing so.) That is why we keep our eyes upon the Tabernacle and pray for those priests and bishops whose judgment, surely, will be a terrible one if they do not uphold their priestly duties in a worthy manner.

What I am saying is that the bishops and popes who condoned abuse by sins of commission or omission should resign today.

And because as you say the church is not only human but divine, when these humans who abused or tolerated the abuse of Jesus’ lambs resign, the church will be a tiny bit smaller, but much more pure.

And the next pope just has to say: anybody who abuses or covers it up is out.

It is a simple as that. During ww2 the church in Rome was basically shut off from the rest of the world and existing because of the good graces of Il Deuce, and did the church fail? No.

So there is no spiritual reason for the ones who condoned perversion to remain in power in power and there is no practical reason either.

Peace

 

[peary]

It is simplistic to blame an issue with the worldwide scope of clerical abuse on either celibacy or homosexuality.

There certainly are priests who abused and found refuge in an institution that emphasizes celibacy , but didn’t require it. There are certainly gays who found refuge in an institution that hates the sin of homosexuality, but loves the sinner.

But neither celibacy nor homosexuality explain why abuse was condoned and subterfuge engaged in on the part of the most orthodox (at least in theory) members of the curia.

Ever hear of “the Devil”?

The issues of celibacy and homosexuality probably have a greater import on a discussion of why there are fewer vocations coming from the developed world than in the past. But as an explanation for why the instances of abuse were not minimized by the church, there is little nexus, unless there are bishops, cardinals and popes who were protecting fellow homosexuals and orthodox clerics from either civil or church prosecution.

The problems within the Legionaries , one of the most orthodox of groups seems to point away from abuse as being an issue of unorthodoxy. The continued presence of Cardinal Law in the process of selecting bishops also suggests that whatever he was protecting with his deceit, was neither homosexuality nor liberalism or else he certainly would not be holding the position he holds now.

What position does he hold now? To me, it’s like the bottom rung on the ladder for a cardinal.

One thing that seems to never come up is that abuse and the cover up of abuse is so far from Jesus’ teachings. It really isn’t a church issue per se, it is an issue about why abuse was condoned and tolerated and why deceit about the issue seems to be SOP.

I think the bishops put their total trust in the counseling of the day. They actually believed that the abusers could be ‘cured’. This was the belief during the 70s and 80s. When it wasn’t happening, some of them panicked and tried to keep the lid on.

Trying to put the issue into terms of liberalism or orthodoxy is really off the mark , if the purpose is to actually solve the problem of abuse and the cover up.

I can’t think of any liberals or ultra-orthodox that believe that abuse is OK or that subterfuge about abuse is OK.

Its not about church doctrine , its about shepherding the flock. There is probably no solution to the problem , because the only real solution is to have all those in power that abused and condoned abuse resign. But who would fill those shoes? The next group in waiting has engaged in the same subterfuge and they would not be open to a church leadership that had to be abuse and subterfuge free.

When the “old guard” passes, the “new guard” will begin the actual clean-up.

So basically all the moms who are suffering because of abuse will just have to die off and we can only hope and pray that eventually the church cleans itself up by attracting a healthier type of person to the service of Jesus’ flock.

It actually has, when you look at the high calibre of priest coming out of the seminary during the past ten/fifteen years.

Peace

 

[Abu]

Well said, peary.

portarica seems to think that nothing is being done perhaps because she is ignoring the good that has been, and is being done, although that good has been explained.

Evildoers, not Pope, to blame
April 15, 2010
Miranda Devine, Sydney Morning Herald columnist
Excerpt:
"But it also has to be said that if paedophilia seems to be on the increase, it has been enabled by the eroticisation of our culture over decades, and even priests are not immune.

“Why, for instance, should the Dutch be surprised by the launch in 2006 of a paedophile party, the Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party, which wanted to cut the age of consent from 16 to 12. Since dissolved, it was just another step in the continuum of social disorder in which the taboos and social norms protecting children break down. In a similar vein were moves in 2003 by psychiatrists at an American Psychiatric Association conference to stop classifying pedophilia as a mental disorder, thus normalising it as just another sexual preference. It is the Catholic Church which has been most vocal about the breakdown of moral order, from paedophilia to abortion. And this has made it a target of those who object to moralising they regard as an infringement of their freedoms.”

Homomania has been the anarchical drive of some for decades.

 

[portarica]

peary:
riginally Posted by portarica
It is simplistic to blame an issue with the worldwide scope of clerical abuse on either celibacy or homosexuality.

There certainly are priests who abused and found refuge in an institution that emphasizes celibacy , but didn’t require it. There are certainly gays who found refuge in an institution that hates the sin of homosexuality, but loves the sinner.

But neither celibacy nor homosexuality explain why abuse was condoned and subterfuge engaged in on the part of the most orthodox (at least in theory) members of the curia.

Ever hear of “the Devil”?
So those that engaged in condoning abuse and subterfuge are representatives of the devil? Just another reason they should resign.

The issues of celibacy and homosexuality probably have a greater import on a discussion of why there are fewer vocations coming from the developed world than in the past. But as an explanation for why the instances of abuse were not minimized by the church, there is little nexus, unless there are bishops, cardinals and popes who were protecting fellow homosexuals and orthodox clerics from either civil or church prosecution.

The problems within the Legionaries , one of the most orthodox of groups seems to point away from abuse as being an issue of unorthodoxy. The continued presence of Cardinal Law in the process of selecting bishops also suggests that whatever he was protecting with his deceit, was neither homosexuality nor liberalism or else he certainly would not be holding the position he holds now.

What position does he hold now? To me, it’s like the bottom rung on the ladder for a cardinal.
Well it appears that your bottom rung also helps choose bishops and is head of what many consider one of the top churchs in Romeapal Basilica of Saint Mary Major .

One thing that seems to never come up is that abuse and the cover up of abuse is so far from Jesus’ teachings. It really isn’t a church issue per se, it is an issue about why abuse was condoned and tolerated and why deceit about the issue seems to be SOP.

I think the bishops put their total trust in the counseling of the day. They actually believed that the abusers could be ‘cured’. This was the belief during the 70s and 80s. When it wasn’t happening, some of them panicked and tried to keep the lid on.
Actually it wasn’t the belief of most psychs and even the institutions such as the Paraclyte in Arizona would advise when they thought priests were dangers, yet these priests were still transferred.

Trying to put the issue into terms of liberalism or orthodoxy is really off the mark , if the purpose is to actually solve the problem of abuse and the cover up.

I can’t think of any liberals or ultra-orthodox that believe that abuse is OK or that subterfuge about abuse is OK.

Its not about church doctrine , its about shepherding the flock. There is probably no solution to the problem , because the only real solution is to have all those in power that abused and condoned abuse resign. But who would fill those shoes? The next group in waiting has engaged in the same subterfuge and they would not be open to a church leadership that had to be abuse and subterfuge free.

When the “old guard” passes, the “new guard” will begin the actual clean-up.
Actually it is the same guard that is participating in the present cover up. The recently appointed bishops still stone walling the abuse issue are from the school of JP2 and B16 as are the group of young bishop wannabees that have done their study in Rome during this time.

So basically all the moms who are suffering because of abuse will just have to die off and we can only hope and pray that eventually the church cleans itself up by attracting a healthier type of person to the service of Jesus’ flock.

It actually has, when you look at the high calibre of priest coming out of the seminary during the past ten/fifteen years.
Again the crop of US priests is a scant percentage of what it was and like I noted before, the calibre of priests is basically that of those that give unbending obedience to B16 and as pointed out by a cardinal last week, part of the problem is that the clerics in many instances have more alligence to their fellow priests and clerics than they do to the flock.

So we are just getting less of the same, not more better priests.

Peace

Peace