The De-homosexualization Of The Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter contemplative
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Me neither, and I’m not gonna pay nine bucks to read the rest of it.
 
i’m sure that’s why the church is ‘riddled with homosexuals’. because JP II refused to believe it.

because we all know that if JPII had BELIEVED that these people were homosexuals, then the church would be COMPLETELY different.

the entire concept is simplistic and silly.

and, i think, a fundamental (pun intended) misunderstanding of homosexuality, the papacy, and the catholic church.

other than that, i loved it. 😉
 
It’s silly because these men didn’t BECOME homosexuals when they were being considered as a bishop or cardinal. If the pipeline didn’t have homosexuals in it, they wouldn’t be in the running for a red hat.

I do think that John Paul II may well have been reluctant to consider hearsay testimony about a priest’s sexual orientation, whether it was due to the communist association with that accusation or whether he like many of his generation simply did not conceive it was such a problem. Imagine if someone told you YOUR priest was a homosexual. I wouldn’t believe it.

Interesting article but as stated, quite simplistic and ignoring how all those homosexuals got there in the first place
Lisa N
 
In last week’s Newsweek cover story on Pope Benedict XVI, they ran some quotes from a variety of people speaking about the Pope, ranging from very supportive to very negative. One was from a homosexual activist - I don’t remember if it’s the same one mentioned in this article, or someone else. But his comment was one of just total vitriol, along the lines of “we couldn’t imagine anyone worse, and after this Pope the Catholic Church will have even more to apologize for”. I thought the anger and hostility was very telling.
 
Irregardless of the theory, we cannot deny that homosexual clerics, religous and sympathizers prospered under John Paul II. I hope their days of prosperity are over.
 
They didn’t prosper under JP II. They came in after Vatican II with the more moderate bishops that Paul VI appointed. The seminary system in the U.S. was the ultimate in secrecy, like a Masonic temple. They never announced to either Paul VI or JP II what was going on… there were rumors of illicit affairs, but when JP II did an examination of the seminary system back in the early 1980’s, the heterdox seminaries did a show pony approach to orthodoxy. The seminaries did a great job of hiding what was going on.

The sex abuse crisis first appeared about 15 years ago (there were jokes about priests molesting altar boys from when I was young kid. 2002 was the just the year when the lid completely blew off and everything spilled out) and ever since the seminaries have been getting progressively more and more orthodox. We will see the fruits of that orthodoxy soon enough.
 
40.png
BillyT92679:
They didn’t prosper under JP II. They came in after Vatican II with the more moderate bishops that Paul VI appointed. The seminary system in the U.S. was the ultimate in secrecy, like a Masonic temple. They never announced to either Paul VI or JP II what was going on… there were rumors of illicit affairs, but when JP II did an examination of the seminary system back in the early 1980’s, the heterdox seminaries did a show pony approach to orthodoxy. The seminaries did a great job of hiding what was going on.

The sex abuse crisis first appeared about 15 years ago (there were jokes about priests molesting altar boys from when I was young kid. 2002 was the just the year when the lid completely blew off and everything spilled out) and ever since the seminaries have been getting progressively more and more orthodox. We will see the fruits of that orthodoxy soon enough.
Click to expand...
I agree that we are seeing fruits and will see more fruits. However, you cannot say that they didn’t prosper if they were able to hide what was going on. It WAS going on and it had and still has serious spiritually damaging consequences.
 
Yeah and if you are not a skirt chaser you must be “queer” in the minds of the tabloid reader type.
 
Yes, I saw this posted on another (secular) board by an anti-catholic. In a follow-up ppost he stated, “Great damage has been done in the molestation cases that were world-wide. I was sorely disappointed in PJP for his actions or lack thereof in the midst of the storm and inside reports of coverups to protect image instead of fixing a problem. The Bible is clear on this issue and how a leader in the church must be blameless. I wonder if this is the beginning of healing for the victims of molestation.”
I’m researching a response. Any help?
A follow-up poster provided this link on the “Lavender Mafia”:

nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-dreher042202.asp

LisaN: I don’t understand your point. Please elaborate.
It’s silly because these men didn’t BECOME homosexuals when they were being considered as a bishop or cardinal. If the pipeline didn’t have homosexuals in it, they wouldn’t be in the running for a red hat.

Interesting article but as stated, quite simplistic and ignoring how all those homosexuals got there in the first place

As far as “prospering,” I think that lifestyle did. I think it and the consequences are more of a reflection of society in general, however. It is unrealistic, IMO, to expect the Vatican to recognize the situation rapidly. Given the background of JPII and other circumstances, it is unfair to blame him. Things (like solid evidence, not hearsay) take time. Maybe now that time is coming. Gotta be careful, though. See this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=44150

Jim

Jim
 
40.png
LtTony:
A follow-up poster provided this link on the “Lavender Mafia”:

nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-dreher042202.asp
Click to expand...
Wow I hadn’t seen this article before although I do usually keep track of National Review. It’s very interesting. I would suggest anyone who hasn’t take the time and read it.
40.png
LtTony:
LisaN: I don’t understand your point. Please elaborate.
It’s silly because these men didn’t BECOME homosexuals when they were being considered as a bishop or cardinal. If the pipeline didn’t have homosexuals in it, they wouldn’t be in the running for a red hat.

Interesting article but as stated, quite simplistic and ignoring how all those homosexuals got there in the first place
Click to expand...
Sorry if this didn’t make sense. The article seemed to say the late John Paul II ignored information regarding homosexuals in the running for bishop or cardinal–based according to the article–on his personal experience with the tactic being used by communists.

However my point is that IF these men weren’t homosexuals as seminarians or priests, they wouldn’t be homosexuals as bishops. IOW it’s not JP II’s fault that the seminaries allowed these men to be ordained and that they could move up the ladder as homosexuals LONG before JP II had the chance to consider them. It wasn’t his fault that he had homosexuals to consider for bishop or cardinal because that’s what he was presented with.
40.png
LtTony:
As far as “prospering,” I think that lifestyle did. I think it and the consequences are more of a reflection of society in general, however. It is unrealistic, IMO, to expect the Vatican to recognize the situation rapidly. Given the background of JPII and other circumstances, it is unfair to blame him. Things (like solid evidence, not hearsay) take time. Maybe now that time is coming. Gotta be careful, though. See this thread:
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=44150

Jim

Jim

I think you are right and as that very good article stated, being a homosexual put one at great risk of blackmail. So if a homosexual bishop didn’t deal with a predatory homosexual priest for fear of being found out himself, well that certainly makes a lot of sense–even though it’s inexcusable.

However this gets back to my original point. We have to stop this problem at the source, at the seminaries and at the parish level. As the article stated, the homosexual activism seems quite tied to heterodoxy and if the seminaries and the dioceses were orthodox, it would certainly be a good step in the right direction.

Lisa N
 
40.png
BillyT92679:
They didn’t prosper under JP II. They came in after Vatican II with the more moderate bishops that Paul VI appointed.
Click to expand...
Hello, JPII appointed hundreds of the bishops. Look only at the cardinal bishops he appointed in his reign.
The seminary system in the U.S. was the ultimate in secrecy, like a Masonic temple. They never announced to either Paul VI or JP II what was going on… there were rumors of illicit affairs, but when JP II did an examination of the seminary system back in the early 1980’s, the heterdox seminaries did a show pony approach to orthodoxy. The seminaries did a great job of hiding what was going on.
Click to expand...
This seriously underestimates the intelligence flowing into Rome and the fact that Bishops that had been appointed by JPII were moving offending priests around The best example is Cardinal Bernard Law.
The sex abuse crisis first appeared about 15 years ago (there were jokes about priests molesting altar boys from when I was young kid. 2002 was the just the year when the lid completely blew off and everything spilled out) and ever since the seminaries have been getting progressively more and more orthodox. We will see the fruits of that orthodoxy soon enough.
Click to expand...
Why? Don’t sell homosexuals short on brains. If they dissembled in the past, do you think they will stop now? A homosexual priest can be just as “orthodox” on the surface as a heterosexual priest. I am worried that this problem is not so easily resolved. But I hope I am wrong.
 
40.png
OriginalJS:
A homosexual priest can be just as “orthodox” on the surface as a heterosexual priest.
Click to expand...
And a homosexual priest can be just as orthodox as a heterosexual priest internally, too. Being homosexual doesn’t automatically mean that one engages in homosexual activity.

And both hetero- and homosexual priests can be heterodox, too.
 
40.png
Richardols:
And a homosexual priest can be just as orthodox as a heterosexual priest internally, too. Being homosexual doesn’t automatically mean that one engages in homosexual activity.

And both hetero- and homosexual priests can be heterodox, too.
Click to expand...
My experience has been that the “gay-rights sympathizer” priests are much more heterodox than those that say homosexuals should not be married nor commit sexual sins.
 
40.png
Richardols:
And a homosexual priest can be just as orthodox as a heterosexual priest internally, too. Being homosexual doesn’t automatically mean that one engages in homosexual activity.

And both hetero- and homosexual priests can be heterodox, too.
Click to expand...
You are basing this on???

Lisa N
 
If there is any truth in the article, and it seems likely, that JPII would approve appointments despite being told of the homosexual orientation of the person in question, my hope that Pope Benedict VI will act differently and dismiss forthwith any such person, and furthermore move to dismiss those already appointed.

We need to clean up our house.
 
“We need to clean up our house.”

BIG Time. This disgrace is the No. 1 problem facing the church. I pray daily that the Pope will move on it. I have little trust, in general, of the USCCB.:crying:

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top