Shocking and Vile

[JVD]

That’s a mighty bold statement.

Do you have a reference to back up your statistic?
Are you associating same-sex attraction with pedophilia? Do you have references showing homosexual men are more likely than heterosexual men to engage in pedophilia?

Since when is a celibate priest with same sex attraction considered to be unworthy of the priesthood?

No I am not and you are attempting to take us down a ferret-hole by creating a strawman.

In scandals involving the Catholic church, the victims of sexual abuse were often adolescent boys rather than small children. Similarly, the 2006 congressional page scandal involved males who were at least 16 years old. This is the domain of the problem - it was not generally pedophilia. Sorry - nice diversion attempt,

The church scandals were mostly man-boy attraction and sex - not pedophilia. This is a common category of attraction often seen on pro-homosexual sites as a popular “hook up category” that is very correlated to a category of homosexuals.

But no matter how you want to categorize the disorders - homosexual, bisexual, pedophilia etc., the bottom line is that these are all serious disorders that present considerable risks of scandal and liability to The Church that have proven to be too great to me mitigated by mere oath of celibacy anymore. And in those cases where there was pedophilia - there is no known cases of any cure for this disorder and these sick individuals need to be kept completely away from children forever (prison is best in my opinion).

You ask, “since when is a celibate priest with same sex attraction considered to be unworthy of the priesthood?”

Ever since the Catholic church lost many $100’s of millions of dollars from the settlement costs in settling the court damages from these criminals; starting around 2002.

Have you not been keeping current? The Catholic Church now has all but a zero tolerance for admitting homosexual men into the priesthood. Candidates are required to take tests and answer questions about their sexuality to help them discern if they have any homosexual tendencies or ambiguous sexual preferences. None of these are called into the priesthood. Those who are already ordained and known to have homosexual tendencies are not being permitted to be around children and reassigned.

Here is a snippet of what the Vatican says.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

*Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter[8].

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture*"[10].

**Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies. **

Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.

I am not going to get off topic any further. This will be my final comment on this sub-topic.

James

 

[discomike2000]

Wow!!!

Within 24 hours of the release of Reform CCHD Now’s report on the CCHD’s Stations of the Cross (reformcchdnow.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18&Itemid=18), it has been scrubbed from the website without explanation.

Check it out! Here’s a cached version of the CCHD website, showing the links to the CCHD Stations of the Cross:

74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=cchd+way+of+the+cross&fr=yfp-t-701&u=www.usccb.org/cchd/index.shtml&w=cchd+way+ways+cross&d=KnBr6e_EUYuz&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=M9gXmChCOtSsHi54CxEufw–

And here’s what the website looks like now: www.usccb.org/cchd

Just look under the section titled “Lent”, and you’ll see the discrepancy.

 

[momor]

Wow!!!

Within 24 hours of the release of Reform CCHD Now’s report on the CCHD’s Stations of the Cross (reformcchdnow.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18&Itemid=18), it has been scrubbed from the website without explanation.

Check it out! Here’s a cached version of the CCHD website, showing the links to the CCHD Stations of the Cross:

74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=cchd+way+of+the+cross&fr=yfp-t-701&u=www.usccb.org/cchd/index.shtml&w=cchd+way+ways+cross&d=KnBr6e_EUYuz&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=M9gXmChCOtSsHi54CxEufw–

And here’s what the website looks like now: www.usccb.org/cchd

Just look under the section titled “Lent”, and you’ll see the discrepancy.

Oh boy. Do you suppose the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing over there?

 

[JVD]

Wow!!!

Within 24 hours of the release of Reform CCHD Now’s report on the CCHD’s Stations of the Cross (reformcchdnow.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18&Itemid=18), it has been scrubbed from the website without explanation.

Check it out! Here’s a cached version of the CCHD website, showing the links to the CCHD Stations of the Cross:

74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=cchd+way+of+the+cross&fr=yfp-t-701&u=www.usccb.org/cchd/index.shtml&w=cchd+way+ways+cross&d=KnBr6e_EUYuz&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=M9gXmChCOtSsHi54CxEufw–

And here’s what the website looks like now: www.usccb.org/cchd

Just look under the section titled “Lent”, and you’ll see the discrepancy.

Unbelievable. I am still shocked that the USCCB would put up such a blatantly political and blasphemous secular version of The Stations of the Cross.

Someone should be defrocked and removed from their apostolic seat over this. I am not kidding - it was a mockery of Christianity. I really think someone needs to call the Vatican cannon lawyers in on this mess and start an investigation. These people are trying to start a new denomination of Catholicism in the USA and are aiding and abetting anti-Catholic agendas.

James

 

[Insight]

The USCCB has a link to a rebuttal to these allegations:

Bishop Morin calls claims against CCHD’s work ‘outrageous’
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0905104.htm

I followed the entire video pausing and checking online. Everything was accurate, and when searching further found even more.

The article you cited by CatholicNews.com (placing its trust in Bishop William F. Murphy) is outrageous! I’m from the Diocese of Rockville Centre. Bishop Murphy is a lightning rod. He was eyebrow deep in the pedophile Priest scandal and ejected from Boston to our Diocese. In turn, he ejected the nuns from their building and dumped 5 million into it, making his own private villa, complete with $10,000 oriental rugs. He is a poster Bishop on Bishop-Accountability.org. The Diocese of Rockville Centre has been fighting to get him to resign.

In a message received by Sister Agnes Katsuko Sasagawa on October 13, 1973 (the year of Roe vs. Wade):

“If men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never have seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by my Son. Each day, recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and the priests. The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, and bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their Confreres. The Church and altars will be vandalized. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.”

olrl.org/prophecy/akita.shtml

In 1984, just before retiring at a venerable age, the diocesan Bishop of Niigata, Bishop John Shojiro Ito, in consultation with the Holy See, wrote a pastoral letter in which he recognized as being authentically of the Mother of God, the extraordinary series of events that had taken place from 1973 to 1981 in a little lay convent within his diocese, at Akita, Japan. Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, in June 1988, approved the Akita events as “reliable and worthy of belief”. In fact the Philippine ambassador to the Vatican, in 1998 spoke to Cardinal Ratzinger about Akita and the Cardinal: “personally confirmed to me that these two messages of Fatima and Akita are essentially the same”.

Follow the video. Conduct searches via Google and Yahoo. These groups are fighting for abortion and gay marriage. It will make your blood boil!

 

[lizaanne]

Wow!!!

Within 24 hours of the release of Reform CCHD Now’s report on the CCHD’s Stations of the Cross (reformcchdnow.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18&Itemid=18), it has been scrubbed from the website without explanation.

Check it out! Here’s a cached version of the CCHD website, showing the links to the CCHD Stations of the Cross:

74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=cchd+way+of+the+cross&fr=yfp-t-701&u=www.usccb.org/cchd/index.shtml&w=cchd+way+ways+cross&d=KnBr6e_EUYuz&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=M9gXmChCOtSsHi54CxEufw–

And here’s what the website looks like now: www.usccb.org/cchd

Just look under the section titled “Lent”, and you’ll see the discrepancy.

Here is a follow up video on this development:

youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV#p/u/3/LvXcz7OcD6w

~Liza

 

[JVD]

I followed the entire video pausing and checking online. Everything was accurate, and when searching further found even more.

The article you cited by CatholicNews.com (placing its trust in Bishop William F. Murphy) is outrageous! I’m from the Diocese of Rockville Centre. Bishop Murphy is a lightning rod. He was eyebrow deep in the pedophile Priest scandal and ejected from Boston to our Diocese. In
…
Follow the video. Conduct searches via Google and Yahoo. These groups are fighting for abortion and gay marriage. It will make your blood boil!

Well this is saddening. Someone is either outright lieing or else admitting to gross incompetence. In either case it sounds to me like we need a leadership change at CCHD.

If Bishop Morin is sincere in the following quote then he would immediately put in place a complaint hot-line and web page alerting form entry that any Catholic can call and (name removed by moderator)ut too to bring allegations of improper group affiliations and campaigns. The funds spent at CCHD should be completely transparent with a detailed list of every dollar donated (by date) to every organization that receives a single penny from CCHD. How long does it take to put up a proforma statement of exactly who gets paid and how much? Why the mystery and intrigue? Catholic have a right to know where their donations are being sent.

Bishop Morin said CCHD does “not ever grant funds to any group that is specifically involved in any activity contrary to church teaching” and furthermore, it has “zero tolerance” for groups that receive funds and then become involved in “any activity contrary to the church’s social or moral teaching.”

The Bishop contradicts himself in just two short sentences. In the first sentence he used wide open language that talks about “specifically involved” (which is classic weasel language). He then uses aggressive and impressive sounding “zero tolerance” language for those same groups that were not specifically involved in dubious activities but who later get involved in “any way”.

This is not credible since the Bishop does not have the resources nor the apparent wherewithal (given what Catholic Invest. Agency has uncovered) to track the hundreds of groups that CCHD supports to examine all their own internal budgets nor their individual corporate campaigns and all their affiliated down-line spin off cells. This is exactly how Muslim Extremist groups tap into charities of their enemies to fund their activities against them. Catholics should be using all their own programs or only using groups that have orthodox Catholics seated on the board of directors who have access to inside information over these groups and know first hand what they are planning to do.

The language “specifically involved” is the standard fare of evasive language politicians and lawyers use to infer that they are not responsible for down-line users of the funding and those subgroups that link or affiliate with the parent group. It’s an old & disingenuous ploy to use ambiguous language to distance oneself from culpability without outright lieing. But the language opens up and even invites Indirection so that these groups can all independently channel funds to affiliated groups to get around the covenants that the grantor of initial funds insists on. Its placating language and most of these directors all know how to play the game to cover each other. The way the game goes is that as soon as somone criticizes a group that is “in the inner circle” as inappropriate that group quickly admits its error and fires a token employee(s) (with paid resignations) then sends an apology letter saying “we fixed that problem”. But it then spins off a new “not for profit corporation” (costs about $300 and 1 day of filing to do) as a “Friend” or “affiliated company” and rehires the fired individuals(s) and sets up shop in that new child organization to hide it. Funds are then cut to the top level company who then redistributes the funds through to its affiliates using a budget line item like “consulting services” or “misc. charity”. This makes the parent company a “pass through” who simply cuts new checks to obscure the money flow to disarm the critics from the fund sponsor. The Bishop knows too well how this game works to play naive here. And if he is that genuinely naive then he is incompetent for this role and has no business speaking for CCHD or managing the money. Nor should he be involved in any way and should resign his position to more competent and more credible people. The laity are probably in a position to oversee this group more so than the clergy are since these men seem to be completely divorced from the realities of dealing with the crooks and liars that permeate the not for profit scams that have tapped into the Catholic Church.

Catholic laity want and deserve more transparency.

James

 

[KellBrigan]

Not so shocking. Not quite vile, but needs to be fixed.

Does the USCCB need to do a better job vetting their grant applications (especially since grant aps have a veracity percentage somewhere between that of computer dating profiles and job applications)?

Heck, yeah. I personally found three different organizations that were supporting same-sex “marriage” and/or abortion, and that was in under five minutes. (Knowing yer Boolean helps.)

Does “Real Catholic TV” go too far? IMO, yeah. Here are the spiritual works of mercy:

» Admonish sinners
» Instruct the ignorant
» Counsel the doubtful
» Comfort the sorrowful
» Bear wrongs patiently
» Forgive injuries
» Pray for the living and the dead

They focus on the first two, and give only insincere lip service to the rest. I had been a supporter of them up until recently, but after one too many inconsistencies on their part (Long stories…), I finally have parted company (and stopped watching their stuff). Their quality control function is totally disabled for any story or claim that they agree with, but the fine-tooth comb comes out for anything in opposition. They criticize logic or falty analyses, and then make exactly those same errors when citing stuff in favor of their opinions. Personally, I’m looking for fair play, not partisanship. If you do watch them, make a point to question everything, give more than fair time to to other side(s) in their own words, and don’t be led by your emotions.

 

[Morningkill]

Hi there, Kell,

Sorry for responding to you and derailing the thread but . . .

. . . before you get to slam our organization, how about I offer to post the email exchange you and I had? Where you call Carrie Prejean “a soulless whore” and where you describe Jim Todd of Pewsitter as having “a sickening love of violence” because he happened to include a link to a study which suggests that corporal punishment SOMETIMES has an appropriate place?

Your objections to us is not a “long story” - it is very short. You wrote to me complaining about the pro-marriage lobby using Ms. Prejean as a role model and said this was ridiculous as she was a “soulless whore”. Despite the fact we had NEVER used Ms. Prejean as such a role-model, I called you on this, saying it was uncharitable.

Later on, you decided to write to us again - saying Jim Todd of Pewsitter.com had a “sickening love of violence” because he happened to link to a study which said limited and judiciously applied corporal punishment was NOT harmful and may even be beneficial. I called you on that, too - and also called you on your mischaracterization of Catholic teaching when you said the corporal punishment was “against the teaching of the Church”. I pointed out it was - and you admitted as much, but did not retract the slander against Mr Todd. You maintained Mr Todd “disapproved” of the lenient sentence given to man who hit his child cruely because he happened to place the link to that news article on his page . . . .

With respect, Kell, and in all charity … if you have a problem with what we say, then make a case. Otherwise, you are just coming here and saying “Don’t trust them!”

If we said something WRONG or factually inaccurate, go ahead and point it out. But your point is not that - it was that we associated with Pewsitter who you say has a “sickening love of violence”. That is demonstrably untrue, and you know it.

Sorry to have derailed the discussion - but I wanted to make this clear. Kell Brigan’s views on RealCatholicTV.com are based on the above incidents; incidents which are unfairly characterized by her. For the record, neither RealCatholicTV.com nor anyone we partner with has a “sickening love of violence” and all of us consider that children should NEVER be abused. Kell has accused us of this and worse.

Signed;

Simon Rafe
~senior platform administrator, RealCatholicTV.com

 

[KellBrigan]

Actually, what I said about PreJean is that she was allowing herself to be treated as a “souless” object.

My objections to Pewsitter.com were 1) one link to an article about a man who hit a three-year-old with a belt and was prosecuted for felony battery. (Because of two other articles cited by Pewsitter as describing undesireable events, I can only conclude he did not approve of this sentence.) The second article was about the “study” and “spanking” bans. The third was to an opinion piece where the author argued in favor of caning in schools.

There are dozens of posts on this site disagreeing about hitting kids; I don’t think it’s fair to claim that “real Catholics” are by definition in favor of “spanking” or hitting with belts.

And, what I think I’ve said is take RCTV with a grain of salt. I stand by this.

 

[napoli426]

I believe this is all a result of our denying the real presence in the Eucharist. The sins against our Lord have been aplenty in this age…and this is the result. I don’t think blaming the Bishops is going to get us very far.

Look at the liturgy. Look where we are? I’m sure all of you go to Church on Sunday. What do you see? Is the Liturgy what it is supposed to be? Is it Heaven on Earth? Is it the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? Or…is it a dumbed down, abuse ridden, protestantized, lukewarm, cultural catholic ridden …service?

We need to all spend a Holy Hour in front of our Lord. Then we need to find a good Orthodox parish… This is a lot more difficult than it sounds. In my diocese, there are over 200 parishes…and maybe 2 or 3 are Orthodox.

As bad as these Bishops seem there main problem is cowardice. The old joke of a Bishop having his spine removed before ordination seems to be true.

Lastly, lets pray for our Holy Father. He is truly a god send. He has done more in the last few years than I could have dreamed. He will steer us in a direction pleasing to God.

God Bless…Pax.

 

[KellBrigan]

The USCCB has a link to a rebuttal to these allegations:

Bishop Morin calls claims against CCHD’s work ‘outrageous’
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0905104.htm

This is from Biship Morin’s response:
[CCHD does] “not ever grant funds to any group that is specifically involved in any activity contrary to church teaching” and furthermore, it has “zero tolerance” for groups that receive funds and then become involved in “any activity contrary to the church’s social or moral teaching.”

Maybe part of the issue is a differing understanding of the word “activity”? In other words, the CCHD is not considering endorsing a candidate or a position on legislation, etc., enough of an act to be a deal-breaker as far as funding is concerned? I’d argue it is, because endorsements or articles in newsletters, etc., have real (i.e. monetary) value. On the other hand, there are a few instances where there may not be anyone else around doing the same sort of work. For instance, the Rebecca Project is one of only a few groups working specifically with women in prison and their children. If Group A is spending 99.999% of their time doing great work, and once or twice before an election endorses a politician or position contrary to the Chruch is that enough to pull their funding? The only thing I’m sure of is that this question needs to be clearly answered. And, maybe all the evaluation criteria shared with the public?

 

[Morningkill]

There are dozens of posts on this site disagreeing about hitting kids; I don’t think it’s fair to claim that “real Catholics” are by definition in favor of “spanking” or hitting with belts.

I don’t think it’s fair to claim that either - which makes it excellent we never claimed that, and disingenous of you to suggest we do.

And, what I think I’ve said is take RCTV with a grain of salt. I stand by this.

You said we gave “lip service” to prayer. That is grossly unfair.

I have no desire to derail this thread any more than you already have. I will let the ludicrous statement that, because Pewsitter link to an article discussing the sentence given to a child abuser, Pewsitter (and us) have a “sickening love of violence” speak for itself. It is patently absurd to say such a thing.

And you did use the word “whore” to refer to Prejean - I remember this distinctly because I spent time explaining to you it was unfair to use that word as there was NO evidence she had ever had sex for money.