More big problems for Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter KevinK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It might be worthwhile to relax the celibacy rule and allow for married priests.
 
AlNg said:
It might be worthwhile to relax the celibacy rule and allow for married priests.
Click to expand...
Because we all know marriage makes men such shining examples of sexual holiness and chastity. 😐
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
You mean like St. Peter who was married and who Our Divine Lord chose to be the first Pope?
Click to expand...
And Paul was single. One example does not prove a point about the holiness of the many.

Mind you, I don’t oppose married priests. But it won’t suddenly make priests sexually holy. In our perverse culture, married men are hardly more chaste than single men.
 
When you use the terms “before the fact” and “after the fact” can I assume the reference point your using is when the priest abuse scandal had hit the public consciousness? No matter, I don’t think there was a major shift in morality at that point or even in the 1970s, another point in time you referenced. If you don’t think people were concerned about the safety of children at that time you clearly have never seen an episode of Qunicy 😉

But to be serious your rationalization for keeping children and teens from being assaulted and molested decades ago withers under the mildest of scrutiny. The Golden Rule, while certainly not exclusive to Christianity, surely is one of its strongest tenets. Applying the Golden Rule to the acts that the Church took in not only hiding the threat of certain priests and placing them where they could be alone with other youths, it should be more than clear that if I wouldn’t like it if someone knew that a predator was being allowed to prey on others after already having been identified then I should make every effort to stop if I have the power to do so. It’s glaringly simple and no fiction about “shielding the innocent” (an Orwellian term if I’ve ever heard one) will rationalize such actions.
 
I am not rationalizing, I am reporting. I know it isn’t pretty (I’m sure that the people who were young when the Emancipation Proclamation came out spent the next couple of decades trying to come to grips with the fact that they, their parents, ancestors, friends, "good people’, had been guilty of crimes against humanity. I’m sure the Germans after WW2 were incredibly upset as the realization fully hit of what they had done to the Jewish people in the Holocaust. ) Likewise, as we mature in thinking, we cringe at the selves that literally thought nothing of ‘segregated areas’ for blacks, AND the idea that ‘sweeping under the rug’ or sending the ‘cured priest’ back was a good idea.

You are aware, I’m sure, that the AMA used to believe pedophiles could be cured? And that, when cured, they needed to be sent ‘back out’ to do their work. (Same theory went for alcoholics). But gee, people might not give somebody a fair shake (much as we still do today with people who have been released from prison) if they knew the back story, so don’t tell them (remember back before Jerry Springer, people didn’t think they had to know everything. It just goes to show that even bad TV has a purpose in life).

The bishops weren’t just acting from 'fear of looking bad." They were acting on the advice of MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS.

Which again just shows that sometimes, pace Barnum, “All of the people can be wrong at the same time”.

I’m not rationalizing. Like you, I think having ‘all the facts out there’ is a good thing. ALL the facts, even the ones that are inconvenient, or messy, or show that there could be, as I believe you put it on another thread, two different people (or groups) using the same facts to come to different conclusions. . .
 
stpurl said:
You are aware, I’m sure, that the AMA used to believe pedophiles could be cured? And that, when cured, they needed to be sent ‘back out’ to do their work.
Click to expand...
Again, this has nothing to do with McCarrick. McCarrick was corrupting and seducing individuals who were not children. This is not a matter of mental illness; it is a matter of reckless degeneracy. It’s not his mind that was sick; it was his soul. And there is no indication whatsoever that an intervention was made to help him stop (if he ever even wanted to stop).
 
I know, I was addressing another poster regarding prior problems. OK?
 
stpurl said:
The bishops weren’t just acting from 'fear of looking bad." They were acting on the advice of MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS.
Click to expand...
And legal ones. And as our knowledge and understanding of the psychological condition surrounding such behavior changed and developed over time, it became more legal and less medical.

Because by the late 1970s to the early 1980s we knew what the real problems were psychologically, and that it couldn’t be cured, and that the offender would not stop until stopped.

Prior to that time, I’ll buy that line of thinking. Afterword I think it was so ingrained in habit and in the culture that it just continued to happen, and as has been discussed ad nauseam in books because the Church is big and powerful no one questioned it for years.

I don’t blame the Church. I blame the system.
 
Last edited:
wkj_123 said:
That’s very scary, yet not surprising.
Click to expand...
Why?

The Catholic Church herself didn’t do it. The men under her did. Just like other men (and women, for that matter) who have committed equally heinous crimes.
 
Pup7 said:
Why?

The Catholic Church herself didn’t do it. The men under her did. Just like other men (and women, for that matter) who have committed equally heinous crimes.
Click to expand...
Oh no trust me I get your argument. It’s very convenient. Theoretically every single member of the church could be complicant in some terrible act, and you could still say, “the church didn’t do it, it was every single member of the church that did it, the church is innocent”. There is one thing that sets the Church apart from all the other institutions in the world. The Church claims to have the fullness of God’s truth. The church claims that it’s Bishops are the direct successors to the apostles. Let me ask you this, if it was found that some of the twelve apostles we’re mollesting people, and Jesus and the other apostles we’re covering it up/protecting them, do you think Christianity would have taken off, and be taken seriously? No.
 
Dear st.purl,

The Catholic Church is targeted because satan hates the Church and the whole Truth that she stands for.

The message you wrote is so true.

We all need to keep praying and speaking the truth in love.
 
Dorothy said:
Dear st.purl,

The Catholic Church is targeted because satan hates the Church and the whole Truth that she stands for.

The message you wrote is so true.

We all need to keep praying and speaking the truth in love
Click to expand...
Nope. The Church gets targeted on this because it was complicit in harboring child molestors.
 
Last edited:
If they are going to sleep with male seminarians, being married likely won’t stop them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top