Malfeasance, abuse, victimhood - and the rocky relations between Rome and the SSPX

[universalindult]

A lot of the abuse occurred pre VC2…so I am not sure the church was in better shape before it was instituted…why weren’t these issues dealt with then?

I don’t feel that VC2 was a major factor in the abuse cases nor the cover ups

The abuse cases reached their zenith in the 1970s. Prior to VII, the Church actively weeded out homosexual candidates from the seminaries. Starting in the 1950’s, and accelerating thereafter, this prudent practice was dropped, though the Vatican published a guideline in 1961 that it must still be the norm.

As this cohort of homosexual priests moved through the ranks of the priesthood, the abuse cases naturally skyrocketed. And lest anyone forget, 85 to 90% of all the cases were homosexual in nature (male abusers, teenage/post pubescent boys as victims.)

 

[universalindult]

This is not true. Pope Benedict made it quite clear that the Summorum Pontificum was NOT intended to reconcile any out of communion groups, it was an attempt to allow the faithful who had an attachment to the classic Mass to continue to celebrate it. Hence, the requirement that a “stable group” request it.

The SSPX was mentioned, by name (either in Summorum Pontificum or its accompanying letter or possibly both, can’t recall at present), so I think it is quite clear that Summorum Pontificum was intended, at least in part, to assist in the rapproachment of the SSPX.

 

[universalindult]

it was an attempt to allow the faithful who had an attachment to the classic Mass to continue to celebrate it. Hence, the requirement that a “stable group” request it.

This subject has since been clarified by Cardinal Hoyos, who has stated that no “stable group” need request it, that priests can offer it without any requests, and that the Holy father specifically desires it be offered so that youth and others who have never been exposed to it (let alone be attached to it) may grow in appreciation of it.

 

[Timothysis]

The SSPX was mentioned, by name (either in Summorum Pontificum or its accompanying letter or possibly both, can’t recall at present), so I think it is quite clear that Summorum Pontificum was intended, at least in part, to assist in the rapproachment of the SSPX.

From the Holy Father himself:

“We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level.”

“Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration.”

 

[Timothysis]

This subject has since been clarified by Cardinal Hoyos, who has stated that no “stable group” need request it, that priests can offer it without any requests, and that the Holy father specifically desires it be offered so that youth and others who have never been exposed to it (let alone be attached to it) may grow in appreciation of it.

True enough, but to say that Summorum Pontificum was a bone to the sspx is not correct.

 

[ethelzguy]

“Fear not what harms the body. Rather fear what does harm to the soul…” (or something - I paraphrase.)

The last 40 years have seen a palpable falling away from the Faith on a grand scale, particularly among the ranks of the hierarchy.
One of the more unpleasant fruits of this has been the various sex-scandals.
Though, all in all, I regard the vast loss of souls due to Vatican II to be far worse. There’s nothing sick about that.

Blaming the sex scandals on, or linking them to Vatican II is preposterous.

The truth is, that sexual impropriety by the clergy had been ongoing throughout Church history. Communication technology and media is what finally brought it out into the open for all to see.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Let’s put it into perspective. I can’t quote the documents to you , but a very knowlegeable deacon friend of mine says that the figures suggest less than 2% of priests are implicated here (he also added that the figures said the Mormons had a higher rate of frequency than we do - almost double…this would suggest that it’s not a Catholic - specific thing).

We need to be careful not to inadvertently play into the hands of those who would intentionally smear the priesthood; perhaps even discouraging those who might be discerning a call to a vocation in this domain which is so crucial to our faith.

 

[Timothysis]

Let’s put it into perspective. I can’t quote the documents to you , but a very knowlegeable deacon friend of mine says that the figures suggest less than 2% of priests are implicated here (he also added that the figures said the Mormons had a higher rate of frequency than we do - almost double…this would suggest that it’s not a Catholic - specific thing).

We need to be careful not to inadvertently play into the hands of those who would intentionally smear the priesthood; perhaps even discouraging those who might be discerning a call to a vocation in this domain which is so crucial to our faith.

Very good point. I remember reading an article during the scandal that sex scandals among protestant churches and even Jewish groups was either as high or often higher.

 

[ethelzguy]

Very good point. I remember reading an article during the scandal that sex scandals among protestant churches and even Jewish groups was either as high or often higher.

Well, I’d rather not get into bean-counting between various faiths/religions. But I think it’s pretty clear that the parallel drawn between the sex scandals and the SSPX issues with the Church is pretty much a cheap shot.

 

[Timothysis]

Well, I’d rather not get into bean-counting between various faiths/religions. But I think it’s pretty clear that the parallel drawn between the sex scandals and the SSPX issues with the Church is pretty much a cheap shot.

I certainly didn’t mean to insinuate a “parallel drawn between the sex scandals and the SSPX issues with the Church.” I think I must have missed a post or two.

 

[NeedImprovement]

…Looks like everyone is generally agreeing with each other…love when that happens (we see enough of the opposite in some of the threads).
:bowdown:

 

[ethelzguy]

I certainly didn’t mean to insinuate a “parallel drawn between the sex scandals and the SSPX issues with the Church.” I think I must have missed a post or two.

You didn’t. That was the OP

 

[universalindult]

I certainly didn’t mean to insinuate a “parallel drawn between the sex scandals and the SSPX issues with the Church.” I think I must have missed a post or two.

You didn’t. That was the OP

The original post only drew a parallel between one group of victims and how they were silenced, and the faithful attending the SSPX and how they too are victims, and how they were silenced. Anything beyond that – “insinuating a parallel drawn between the sex scandals and the SSPX issues with the Church” – just is not in the original post.

The use of the word “victimhood” is a reasonable observation. Read Victimhood and Resilience in the 2005 New England Journal of Medicine. The trauma described is of a wholly different sort, but the conclusions are still legitimate:

We must be careful to avoid shifting from the language of courage, resilience, and well-earned pride into the language of trauma and victimhood.

 

[latinmasslover]

Non-Catholics are generally scandalized by Catholic things, usually because they are ignorant of what they are seeing. Everyone knows, however, that sexually victimizing the young is a great evil. Since the old Holy Father didn’t do anything wrong in any of his public actions (unless one is bent, all reason and prudence aside, on thinking otherwise of his motives) and since he taught the Catholic faith with fidelity (unless one is bent, all reason and prudence aside, on thinking otherwise in the face of those teachings), yes, you’re quite right: the more serioius problem should be obvious. That it isn’t to some says more about them than it does anything else.

My bad, I forgot that the pope can never do anything wrong. Oops. Silly me.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

My bad, I forgot that the pope can never do anything wrong. Oops. Silly me.

I never said that nor do I believe that. You might read what I wrote again.

 

[estesbob]

My bad, I forgot that the pope can never do anything wrong. Oops. Silly me.

I find it interesting that a knowledgeable Catholic would not know the difference between impeccable and infallible.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I find it interesting that a knowledgeable Catholic would not know the difference between impeccable and infallible.

lol.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Personally, I thought the article made a lot of sense.

There has been a crisis of faith within the Church over the last 40 years and I don’t think anyone would deny it.

We have had open dissent among the laity and clergy on moral issues such as abortion and artificial birth control. Remember what happened when Humane Vitae was promulgated?

There has been widespread liturgical abuse in many areas. Too many priests have taken it upon themselves to decide how they want to celebrate Mass instead of celebrating it like they should. The liturgical abuse has been rampant.

The Tridentine Mass was nearly wiped out. Many Bishops refused point blank to allow the celebration of this Mass within their diocese. They also wrongly claimed that it had been abrogated. It is only thanks to Pope Benedict that he can celebrate it freely.

False ecumenism has been a major issue. Many Catholics have the mistaken idea that it is wrong to evangelise because they believe that a faithful Muslim or Jew can get to heaven without Christ. If this is the case, why bother?

Widespread confusion about what Vatican II actually taught has been the BIGGEST problem to face the Church. I’ve no doubt that this was caused by liberals who took it upon themselves to “interpret” the Council themselves. And in cases when they couldn’t find justification in the concillar documents, they claimed that the innovations where in the so-called “spirit of Vatican II.”

However,

We had a great Pope in John Paul II. This man lead the Church through some very dark times. He protected human life unceasingly and always defended the faith. He stood up to the liberals who wanted to release restrictions on contraception and allow women priests. He helped conquer the evil Communists regimes threatening to topple Europe. He truly was a universal Pope; he made sure to visit the flock throughout the world. Theology of the Body was his greatest gift to the Church. And I thank him for his wonderful Catechism.

New groups such as Opus Dei and the Charismatic Renewal nourished the faith of thousands.

The Church proclaimed many new Saints. These Saints provided the inspiration many faithful needed to face the culture of death and the many struggles that modern society brings.

Catholic Pro-Life groups fought tirelessly to defend the right of all humans to life, including the unborn.

We now have a great Pope who will finally bring stability to the Church. He has given us the Tridentine Mass. He is working to improve the liturgy. He is also a staunch defender of orthodoxy. He values the traditions of the past and is trying to foster more continuity. He has brought many traditionalist groups such as the Transalpine Redemptorists back into the Church. And if there’s any Pope who can bring the SSPX into full communion, it is Benedict XVI. I believe Benedict XVI will continue his “Reform of the Reform” and the Church will benefit greatly from this.

Many people have suffered over the last 40 years but I honestly believe things are getting better. The author of that article was right. The future is bright. It’s time to forget the troubles of the past and look to the future.