People who do not like traditional Catholicism

[AJV]

Where’s your parish? I’ll be sure to send this guy over:

http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0209j.jpg

That’s an ABUSE, mate, TOTALLY contrary to the spirit if not the letter of the rubrics of both OF and EF, along with other things like liturgical dancing.

I don’t think any of us have either said or thought that abuses don’t matter, but don’t try to lump them in the same boat as legitimate variations in form.

Just curious… what IS that thing on his head?? It looks like a giant piece of swiss cheese! Was this a Mass for a community of church mice?

P.S. Thanks to all who complimented my post.

Haha.

I guess our Catholic culture, all our geniuses, all our “doo-dads,” all our pompous Latin, all our “spooky” reverence is just a bunch of meaningless arrogance, huh?

Seriously. Is Catholicism just a Baptist church service with the Eucharist for you guys? Does the culture of the saints matter at all?

I believe it was ‘debunked’ somewhere when the picture first appeared on Traditio, but am a bit pressed for time to find the link. It was noted that +Dolan only put it on for a moment in the homily - he was not wearing it for the entire Mass or even the entire homily

 

[Conservative]

Wow! Talk about great replies to Saint Gemma’s question. But - as a traditional Catholic myself - I will play “modernist advocate” - (God knows how I mean this) - if just for a moment. It’s a Catholic forum, and I guess the pros and cons are to be discussed.

Back on traditional ground - Traditional Catholics have been traditionally (pardon the pun) the first to be accused of being disobedient to the Pope when requesting return/reinstatement of the Tridentine Mass years back - hence, leaving those who preferred the Mass of the Ages with a guilt complex on a soul-searching expedition. Those of us who have found a Tridentine Mass somewhere have found spiritual peace and once indults or EF was publicly issued by His Holiness - less conscience problems than before.

The only issue I have with many replies is that we speak of the love of the Tridentine Mass, as if it’s sentiment. I understand how you mean it. But when Pope John Paul II issued the indult permitting limited celebration of the Mass, he cited it was for those who had sentimental (word may be incorrect) ties to it. It’s not just the sentiment of loving the Mass we grew up with and were used to…Modernists may be unaware that many of us had immediately switched to the New Mass once formalized in the 70’s - until we began to be educated and research ourselves about the changes and eliminations of terminology so well preserved and honored in the Tridentine Mass.

It was said about the introduction of the NO that people were asking for the vernacular (???) I never once heard that request or discussion amongst people, and it was only once the changes came that the Mass became a more disputed issue among Catholics (versus the theologians). Many Modernist Catholics don’t see a problem with the translations or eliminations in the Mass. (I don’t know why but I wish they did). But I’m supposing that they see us as a thorn in the side, and maybe that’s why they post whatever they do. Look at our world today - at how much we accept as the norm that we wouldn’t dream of as acceptable 30 years ago - Modernists in favor of the new Mass see just the Latin as an obstacle - but don’t go further seeing so many changes accomodating today’s world. They didn’t know it differently. – Deacons practically celebrating the Mass, while a priest is sitting there. Women inside the altar (I’m sorry… I don’t like it.) Communion in the hand - no reason for it. No kneeling for Communion - Do we know who’s IN that Host we receive? And, of course, for those of us who’ve done the research - that translation at the Consecration of the Mass (“pro multis” versus “for all”) sure put Traditionalists in a major tailspin. Modernists don’t know any differently but should extend to Traditional Catholics - the same Christian attitude they want us to project.
Sorry for running on a little off topic but I do get on my soapbox!

 

[ethelzguy]

ahhhhhhhh, the ol’ “cheesehead” photo again…

some new material, please…

 

[Conservative]

ahhhhhhhh, the ol’ “cheesehead” photo again…

some new material, please…

Yah - but I think it was the first time I saw it - new to me.
A-MAZING ! Wouldn’t it be funny if his name is “Monsignor Kraft” ?

 

[ethelzguy]

Yah - but I think it was the first time I saw it - new to me.
A-MAZING ! Wouldn’t it be funny if his name is “Monsignor Kraft” ?

Oh, it’s been around CAF for months now, along with the other “usual” abuse photos and videos.

So, the priest is a Packer fan, get over it.

:extrahappy:

 

[CradleCath]

QUOTE=LilyM;3712504]Undeniable beauty? That’s a bit rich.

Where you see beauty others (and I’m not talking of my own experience here, although I don’t prefer the EF to a decently done OF) can and will see extravagance, pride, pomposity, needless and empty ornamentation, repetitious and verbose obscurity of language, and deathly dullness … none of which is beautiful.

More importantly, they will see nothing they can relate to, nothing which moves them or draws them in in any way, nothing that reveals God to them. In short nothing they can even begin grasp or understand, just a ritual that seems purpose-built to baffle, mystify and totally exclude.

Again, I’m not expressing my own opinions here, it’s what some Catholics I know who have plenty of experience of both the EF and the OF - as well as some non-Catholics who’ve experienced it - have had to say about it to me.

Not to mention it’s a form of the Mass which has actually driven people AWAY from the Church - the reformers of the 16th century among them - and INTO that secularism that you seem to think the TLM prevents./

I have been holding my thoughts & feelings back in order to be kind & gentle & give this forum a good impression of Traditional Catholics. However, when I read posts like the above…I realize that to do so is pointless. BTW., I’m not directing this post, except for the part about “driving people away” directly at you. . The “you” in this message is basically generic.

I’ve been a Catholic since birth…that’s 66 yrs… I’ve attended both Masses for years & it truly seems downright ignorant for those who have never attended a TLM. (or attended one, two or three) to even have the nerve to comment on it’s “beauty or ugliness”.

During this 66 yrs., I’ve NEVER seen any deffection from Catholicism that even comes close to the mass exodus during the 70’s. Priests left the clergy in DROVES. I just love the excuse given by liberals…they left to marry. No, they left because the priesthood they joined was no longer, then they got married as non-clergy often does. And the NUNS?? Oh my gosh…two of my friends defected completely. They not only left the Convent, but the Church itself. One of them corrected me by saying “I didn’t leave the ________ order, it left me”.

The small percentage of Catholics who attended college during the 60’s & 70’s & remained in the Church is mind-boggling. The Newman centers on campuses were hotbeds of Liturgical dance, guitar Masses & a new “acceptance of diversity” (translation…homosexuals need love, too. And to our Church of the 70’s “love” translated into co-habiting before marriage & gay sex.)

And the priesthood? The blending of the laity & the clergy was very evident & still is today. After all, we don’t need priests…we can just hold Communion Services &" who is Father John Doe to think that he has a right to touch the Eucharist & I don’t", I’m gonna’ get myself up into that Sancturary …whoops I mean
“worship space” & DO something, even if that something is completely unnecessary. After all, I’m just as “good” as the priest
who bowls with us on Thursday night & mutters swear words under his breath when he throws a bad one. That “fine line” that must always exist between management & labor, priests & laity just disappeared to the detriment of the Ordained Priesthood.

As for “extravagant”, , billions of dollars were spent taking everything that resembled the Catholicism of centuries out of our Churches…Confessionals, Communion rails, statues, the votive candle stand, etc., ETC. And more Billions were spent paying off victims of abuse by gay priests, who were priests only because of American Bishops infidelity to the Vicar of Christ.

I’d say that people who are “worried” about what the Traditional Mass will do to “their” Church, had better start worrying about the fruits of Vatican II & the abuses that resulted in the deliberately ambiguous documents.

 

[ethelzguy]

Billions were spent paying off victims of abuse by gay priests, who were priests only because of American Bishops infidelity to the Vicar of Christ.

.

Easy there, CradleCath, being gay doesn’t make you a pedophile, any more than being a pedophile makes you gay.

And, no, I’m no gay rights advocate, but I do understand the Church teaching on homosexuality.

 

[HashemEchad]

He’s a fan of the Greenbay Packers, so he thought it would be hilarious to don one of their novelty cheese hats during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

And some wonder why many Catholics (and others, wink, wink), like the TLM?

 

[japhy]

The only issue I have with many replies is that we speak of the love of the Tridentine Mass, as if it’s sentiment. I understand how you mean it. But when Pope John Paul II issued the indult permitting limited celebration of the Mass, he cited it was for those who had sentimental (word may be incorrect) ties to it. It’s not just the sentiment of loving the Mass we grew up with and were used to.

Right, and this goes along with what I said a few posts earlier:

if a Catholic says that the EF and the OF are not better or worse than one another, why doesn’t that Catholic attend both forms? Why are they showing (exclusive) preference to one form over another? I would surmise it comes down to a subjective quality (personal feeling) over an objective quality (intrinsic character), and if the two forms of Mass are really equal, then that person is simply not being fair.

While some people may have a sentimental attachment to one form of the Mass over the other, there are others for whom sentiment is not a factor: they have an objective reason for attending the Extraordinary Form (and some, I’m sure, have an objective reason for attending the Ordinary Form). However, there are some who argue that there cannot (or should not) be an objective comparison made, and that reduces the situation to the subjective and sentimental level, and who are we to argue over anyone else’s feelings?

Look at our world today - at how much we accept as the norm that we wouldn’t dream of as acceptable 30 years ago - Modernists in favor of the new Mass see just the Latin as an obstacle - but don’t go further seeing so many changes accomodating today’s world.

Something that hadn’t caught my eye until yesterday was this:
In order that liturgical services may manifest a noble simplicity more attuned to the spirit of the times:

1. the celebrant and ministers shall bow to the choir only at the beginning and end of a service;
2. incensation of the clergy, apart from those who are bishops, shall take place toward each side of the choir, with three swings of the censer;
3. incensation shall be limited to the one altar where the liturgical rite is being celebrated;
4. kissing of the hand and of objects presented or received shall be omitted.
   That’s an excerpt from Inter Oecumenici (n. 36), from September 26, 1964, not even a year after the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. As the reason for those four changes, the Consilium cites a desire to be “more attuned to the spirit of the times”. And what are these changes? Not knowing much about incensation, I can at least tell that #1 and #4 are decreases in reverence, both to and by the clergy.

 

[AJV]

That’s an excerpt from Inter Oecumenici (n. 36), from September 26, 1964, not even a year after the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. As the reason for those four changes, the Consilium cites a desire to be “more attuned to the spirit of the times”. And what are these changes? Not knowing much about incensation, I can at least tell that #1 and #4 are decreases in reverence, both to and by the clergy.

To be honest, japhy, I can in a way see the reason for at least #1 and even #4. #1 refers to a practice which is very high etiquette - though liturgical choirs not being very commonplace in the USA, I doubt it would have been seen a lot. But it is based more on a civil form of salutation than a liturgical reason. I would contrast it in that respect with a reverence to a bishop which has a liturgical reason. This is more like good manners. I have noticed it particularly at Traditional Masses when they are many acolytes or seminarians - they perform the bows to each other when processing and recessing.

Whenever the sacred ministers entered the choir, they would bow to both sides. This was also followed in certain cases before they ascended/descended the altar (for example, if they went to sit down while the choir was singing at the Gloria or Creed) Likewise, the choir was bowed to by the subdeacon after reading the Epistle, by the deacon, subdeacon and acolytes before the Gospel and (by some) after.

I do admit that I’m more in favour of regulation #1 which simplifies this courtly ceremonial. Actually, I’m a bit surprised they didn’t do away with the salutations at the beginning and the end.

I’m biased though in favour of kissing the hand- but again I can see the reason for #4 in that people at not used to it. Especially, the kissing of the objects may see a bit fussy and OTT to many. Personally, I’d have kept the oscula for the hand, but not for th objects (or made it optional). Although the oscula is not meant in a liturgical manner (it is the salutation of a subordinate not the reverencing of a priest), it can be easily interpreted as such

 

[ethelzguy]

And some wonder why many Catholics (and others, wink, wink), like the TLM?

Bears Fans

 

[Saint_Gemma]

Undeniable beauty? That’s a bit rich.

Where you see beauty others (and I’m not talking of my own experience here, although I don’t prefer the EF to a decently done OF) can and will see extravagance, pride, pomposity, needless and empty ornamentation, repetitious and verbose obscurity of language, and deathly dullness … none of which is beautiful.

More importantly, they will see nothing they can relate to, nothing which moves them or draws them in in any way, nothing that reveals God to them. In short nothing they can even begin grasp or understand, just a ritual that seems purpose-built to baffle, mystify and totally exclude.

Again, I’m not expressing my own opinions here, it’s what some Catholics I know who have plenty of experience of both the EF and the OF - as well as some non-Catholics who’ve experienced it - have had to say about it to me.

Not to mention it’s a form of the Mass which has actually driven people AWAY from the Church - the reformers of the 16th century among them - and INTO that secularism that you seem to think the TLM prevents.

If you really feel that what was the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite for hundreds of years is extravagant, pompous, prideful, and deathly dull, has needless and has empty ornamentation, and repetitious and verbose obscurity of language, and that it caused the Protestant reformation, please write a letter to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI requesting that the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite be abolished altogether, instead of being allowed.

I doubt that His Holiness will appreciate being told 261 of his predecessors celebrated a deficient Mass, but at least he will get a good laugh. (Just to let you know, I am almost as peeved by people who claim that four Popes celebrated an inherently deficient Mass.)

 

[AJV]

So naming Mary, Peter, Paul, John the Baptist, and Michael the Archangel is “needless repetition”, but the numerous invented repetitions (psalm settings that make the response repeat, Mass settings that change the “amen” into an “amen, amen, amen, alleluia, amen, amen, forever amen”, etc.) are needed?

I’m glad they didn’t pull Mary out of the Confiteor. I’d guess Michael is in there because he’s the captain of the heavenly host; Peter and Paul because they were the great Apostles of the Roman Church, having been martyred in Rome; and John the Baptist because he is Jesus’ kin and the messenger of the Lord. But hey, if they were removed, why not Mary?

I meant to note this in an earlier post, japhy, but I forgot- if you have access to the the liturgical journal “Worship” look at issues in 1954. The February issue has a very interesting article by Jungmann on the rite of the missal. What was proposed at that time by him was a short Confiteor for the priest, or pentitential verses (like Psalm 50) and a communal confession (as was common in certain places in Germany) after the Sermon. According to him

…simplification is desired inasmuch as it would increase the formula’s religious gravity and strength. It seems namely that the vision of God’s majesty is to a certain extent distracted by the enumeration of the saints; and the symmetrical repetition in the second half though it may have literary merit is scarcely any real enrichment of the formula

Jungmann proposed a deletion of the saints from the second half, and the removal the names- like the Domincan but without the enumeration. Eventually of course, it was the second half that was retained as making clearer the theological point about the intercession. The name of the BVM was retained both for theological and historical reasons.

Interestingly, in that article, Jungmann also touches on what turned out to be, in a certain sense, the basis for the other two options of the penitential rite (B and C)

…the tendency to reduce the accent on penance and to stress the joy of the sons of God (plebs sancta, eucharistia) is understandable enough in the case of the elite Christians and enthusiastic youth who up to the present have been the protagonists of the liturgical movement…

 

[japhy]

“…simplification is desired inasmuch as it would increase the formula’s religious gravity and strength. It seems namely that the vision of God’s majesty is to a certain extent distracted by the enumeration of the saints; and the symmetrical repetition in the second half though it may have literary merit is scarcely any real enrichment of the formula”

I can see that the repetition of the names in the second half is unnecessary. I like the symmetry of the prayer as a whole: “I confess to God, and to you… so I ask you to pray for me to the Lord our God.”

Interestingly, in that article, Jungmann also touches on what turned out to be, in a certain sense, the basis for the other two options of the penitential rite (B and C) “…the tendency to reduce the accent on penance and to stress the joy of the sons of God (plebs sancta, eucharistia) is understandable enough in the case of the elite Christians and enthusiastic youth who up to the present have been the protagonists of the liturgical movement…”

Was he saying that favorably or not? It sounds like not, since he mentions the “elite Christians”.

 

[GemmaRose]

…In the Roman Rite, for around 1400 years or so, the tradition was a single Eucharistic Prayer, known as the Roman Canon. But 40 years ago, a model for the Eucharistic Prayer said by a Bishop at his ordination (the Hippolytan canon) was wrenched out of antiquity and updated and plugged into the Roman Rite. It had not been used in our Church for over a millenium, if indeed it had been used at all. It pales in comparison to the Roman Canon. On top of that, two other Eucharistic Prayers were invented. And then three for children. And then two for reconciliation. And then four in Switzerland. All 13 Eucharistic Prayers are in the 3rd typical edition of the Roman Missal. We went from one prayer to thirteen in less than a decade, and not in an organic fashion.
I think that going from 1 to 13 in so short a time was a tad… well… much, but the thought also comes to mind that the Magisterium would not have approved so many changes if they felt it were wrong. Maybe they felt that after over a millenium, that many changes were needed. Isn’t it a “traditionalist” ( ) belief that we should "pray, pay and obey" ? I don’t know… the thought just came to me.

…

So then, my point: if a Catholic says that the EF and the OF are not better or worse than one another, why doesn’t that Catholic attend both forms? Why are they showing (exclusive) preference to one form over another? I would surmise it comes down to a subjective quality (personal feeling) over an objective quality (intrinsic character), and if the two forms of Mass are really equal, then that person is simply not being fair.
Your assumption is not correct. I may not be able to prove it on paper or in a court of law, but it’s not a “personal feeling” that my spiritual life is aided by the NO and not TLM. There’s a big difference between this and someone who might say, "Oh, I just like the NO better."

…Where you see beauty others (and I’m not talking of my own experience here, although I don’t prefer the EF to a decently done OF) can and will see extravagance, pride, pomposity, needless and empty ornamentation, repetitious and verbose obscurity of language, and deathly dullness … none of which is beautiful.
The feelings underlined pretty much sum up how TLM makes me feel. I’m not faulting TLM, I’m just saying that’s how I feel…I think the feeling of dullness comes from lack of participation as opposed to the NO - it makes me feel like I’m not praying or being expected to.

More importantly, they will see nothing they can relate to, nothing which moves them or draws them in in any way, nothing that reveals God to them. In short nothing they can even begin grasp or understand, just a ritual that seems purpose-built to baffle, mystify and totally exclude.
That’s it in a nutshell - I can’t relate to it. Again, I’m not faulting TLM, I’m just saying this is my reaction to it. HashemEchad posted earlier that: “From what I know of traditional Jewish liturgy and Temple worship, I recognized the Tridentine Mass as being the closest among the Christian liturgies to the ancient Jewish Temple worship.” And maybe that’s it. I don’t find Jesus in TLM (yes, I know He’s in the Eucharist), but I can find Him in the NO. In the NO, I’m not a bystander, as an ancient Israelite was while waiting for the High Priest to re-emerge from the Holy of Holies. Jesus’ death tore the curtain in two, and now we all can worship in Spirit and in truth. This is what I find in the NO (sans puppets of course!).

…

Not to mention it’s a form of the Mass which has actually driven people AWAY from the Church - the reformers of the 16th century among them - and INTO that secularism that you seem to think the TLM prevents.
**I don’t think it was TLM per se that drove people away. I think in ALL these TLM v, NO discussions, everyone seems to forget and/or discount society in the 60’s (and especially younger posters who were not even born yet). Our collective security was so robbed from us when President Kennedy was assasinated (and let’s not forget the assasinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King) and our culture so affected, that it spiraled out of control into a decade or more of free love, drug use to escape anything that smacked of reality, questioning of all authority, etc. Combine the outside force of society’s upheaval at the time with the natural questioning of authority that youth of all ages has gone through, and I think you come a little bit closer to the real reasons that so many people left the Church. Toss in the fact that during this time, who had a respect for Latin? I had 12 years of Catholic schooling - with Sisters and only a handful of lay teachers - and not once was taught Latin! More attention was paid to having us practice genuflecting as one than in explaining the Mass. And I specifically remember, in preparation for First Holy Communion, the stress put on teaching us not to “chew on Baby Jesus,” rather than on what an incredible gift and miracle the Eucharist is.
Is it any wonder why I and so many others can’t relate to TLM? And let me not forget the sermon after countless sermon of how we should give money to support the Church… maybe if Jesus had been occasionally mentioned, it would have been more a much better impression on me and many others.

It left an indelible “bad taste” in my mouth from which I frankly have no desire to recover. I’m happy with my NO where I can find Jesus, but more importantly, He can find me and my heart worshipping Him.**

…However, I do think comparison of the NO and TLM forms of the Mass are very unnecessary. People, go to the Mass which gives you personally the feeling of a greater connectedness to our Saviour. Attend the form of the Mass in which you are comfortable and which you feel the presence of the Holy Spirit. But do not place one form of the Mass one above the other. This could result in inordinate pride.
AMEN !!

…During this 66 yrs., I’ve NEVER seen any deffection from Catholicism that even comes close to the mass exodus during the 70’s. Priests left the clergy in DROVES. I just love the excuse given by liberals…they left to marry. No, they left because the priesthood they joined was no longer, then they got married as non-clergy often does. And the NUNS?? Oh my gosh…two of my friends defected completely. They not only left the Convent, but the Church itself. One of them corrected me by saying “I didn’t leave the ________ order, it left me”. …
You know, I’ve heard that excuse before and quite frankly it doesn’t cut it with me. If a priest left because he felt that “the priesthood they joined was no longer,” they could have applied to transfer to an Order if they were diocesan, or to a different Order if their own was becoming too liberal for their taste. Likewise with a Nun. There are hundreds of Congregations to choose from. If theirs was going in the direction of Zen and New Age or whatever, maybe it would have been a good time to prayerfully consider joining another Congregation.

…Women inside the altar (I’m sorry… I don’t like it.)
Oh yes… Good Lord forbid that a woman, MADE BY GOD IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD, would go anywhere near an altar! We might be “unclean” or something. PUH-LEEEEZE! Disgusting! (Your opinion I mean.)

 

[japhy]

I think that going from 1 to 13 in so short a time was a tad… well… much, but the thought also comes to mind that the Magisterium would not have approved so many changes if they felt it were wrong. Maybe they felt that after over a millenium, that many changes were needed. Isn’t it a “traditionalist” belief that we should “pray, pay and obey” ? I don’t know… the thought just came to me.

(It would be easier to respond to your comments if you did not mingle them with the quotes.)

Perhaps the Magisterium didn’t “feel” the changes were wrong, when in reality the changes were harmful. It’s quite possible (at least, I pray) that, within my lifetime, some of the liturgical reforms approved after Vatican II will be phased out, reforms that are not rooted in the tradition of the Roman Rite nor in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. It wouldn’t be the end of the world…

Also, changes have been made to the so-called Tridentine Rite over the many centuries during which it has been the Roman Rite. There is no basis to the idea that ideas for changes were “bottled up” over the course of a millennium and that the Church decided, in the 1960’s, to “uncork the bottle”. Several of the liturgical reforms (especially some that are still not officially authorized by the Church but are accepted as the “norm” now) were specifically condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1943, and before him in 1790 (due to the heretical “Synod of Pistoia” which sought to reform the liturgy to reflect Jansenist theology).

And what does my obedience to the Church have to do with questioning the sensibility of some of the liturgical reforms?

 

[Saint_Gemma]

Easy there, CradleCath, being gay doesn’t make you a pedophile, any more than being a pedophile makes you gay.

And, no, I’m no gay rights advocate, but I do understand the Church teaching on homosexuality.

A majority of the victims of sexual abuse by priests were teenage boys. Technically, that means that most of the priests who abused children sexually were ebophiles (ebophiles are attracted to pubescent or post-pubescent but underage children, while pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children.)

 

[PrayforMallory]

GemmaRose:
If you really don’t get a lot out of the TLM, that’s fine. The Novus Ordo is not going anywhere.

A lot of people do, though, and that number is growing, despite the attempts of folks to minimize the whole deal.

Everyone who supported a TLM once in a while who was not particularly attached to it would be doing a work of mercy for those of us who have opposite feelings.

 

[LilyM]

During this 66 yrs., I’ve NEVER seen any deffection from Catholicism that even comes close to the mass exodus during the 70’s. Priests left the clergy in DROVES. I just love the excuse given by liberals…they left to marry. No, they left because the priesthood they joined was no longer, then they got married as non-clergy often does. And the NUNS?? Oh my gosh…two of my friends defected completely. They not only left the Convent, but the Church itself. One of them corrected me by saying “I didn’t leave the ________ order, it left me”.

What about the Reformation? Didn’t the clergy of England and Northern Europe en masse - almost TO A MAN - leave the Church then? Simply because a King wanted a divorce, a monk didn’t like the sale of Indulgences, and they (albeit wrongly) wanted to be free of the rules and regulations of Rome? Sounds like pretty flimsy excuses to me.

'Taint nothing new under the sun. The Good Book was the first to say so, so it must be true. :yup: :getholy: And your 66 years of experience is a mere blink of an eye in terms of Church time. Don’t be so shortsighted as to think because you’d never seen it before in your lifetime that it’s never happened before.

 

[ethelzguy]

A majority of the victims of sexual abuse by priests were teenage boys. Technically, that means that most of the priests who abused children sexually were ebophiles (ebophiles are attracted to pubescent or post-pubescent but underage children, while pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children.)

My point was, that a priest who is gay isn’t necessarily a pedophile, and vice-versa.

In the course of my lifetime, I’ve unfortunately been acquainted with 4 different people who wound up convicted pedophiles. NONE of them were gay. (not even close)

I’ve also been acquainted with numerous gays, men and women alike. And, none of them have been accused or convicted of pedophila or any other sexual misconduct (in the secular sense) that I’m aware of.