Vatican hit by gay sex scandal

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic20064
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, a senior German prelate and the Vatican’s chief ecumenical official, said in an interview in La Repubblica that priestly sexual abuse must be punished and the church must take responsibility.

“Enough! We need serious housecleaning in our church,” he said, adding that “the pope is certainly not standing idly by.”

He called the sexual abuse of minors on the part of clergy “a criminal, shameful act and an inexcusable mortal sin.”

Cardinal Kasper said “the Holy Father is right in seeking clarity and demanding zero tolerance toward whoever is stained by such grave sins.”

The leadership of the German bishops’ conference will be meeting with Pope Benedict March 12 at the Vatican. The visit was scheduled previously, but the rapidly developing sex abuse scandal was sure to be discussed.

The pope met in February with Irish bishops to discuss the problem of widespread sexual abuse of minors in Catholic schools after a scathing independent report accused the Irish church of maintaining a culture of secrecy for many years.

The pope was to write a pastoral letter to Irish Catholics regarding what he called the “heinous crime” of priestly sexual abuse.

Cardinal Kasper said that while the question of the pastoral letter was up to the pope, he felt that because “such a difficult problem has emerged not only in Ireland, but in Holland, Germany and the United States, perhaps it deserves a more general analysis that applies to the universal church and not just a single nation.”

The 2004 John Jay Report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States.
The report determined that, between 1950 and 2002, 10,667 people had made allegations of child sexual abuse. Of these, 3300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died. After investigating the remaining 7700 allegations, the dioceses were able to substantiate 6,700 accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA.

In reply to another post
The moral authority and teaching of the Church is impugned and diminish within the world especially when the Church takes a moral stand on abortion. The world says clean up your own house before coming to us and saying that abortion is immoral.
Your screen name and religion calibrates you nicely.

So no one is permitted to say that a thing is immoral unless he or they meet YOUR personal standards of ‘sanctity?’ I’m glad you said that, because now the greenies do not have a leg to stand on.
 
Maybe allowing priests to marry would solve the problem as stated by Father Hans Kung in an article in the Timesonline.?

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7054181.ece

A leading Roman Catholic theologian has linked clerical sex abuse with priestly celibacy, blaming the Church’s “uptight” views on sex for child abuse scandals in Germany, Ireland and the US.

Father Hans Kung, President of the Global Ethic Foundation and professor emeritus at the University of Tübingen in Germany, said that the Church’s attitude was also revealed in its opposition to birth control. He said that it was the case that abuse was found also in families, schools and other churches. But he asked: “Why is it so prevalent in the Catholic Church under celibate leadership?” He said that celibacy was not the only cause of the misconduct but described it as “the most important and structurally the most decisive” expression of the Church’s uptight attitude to sex.

Citing the New Testament, he says that Jesus and St Paul practised celibacy but “allowed full freedom in this matter to each individual”. St Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians wrote: “Because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” Peter and the apostles were married and their ministries did not suffer, he said, pointing out that thousands of priests protested when the new law was introduced as late as the 11th century.

Father Kung said: “Compulsory celibacy is the principal reason for today’s catastrophic shortage of priests, for the fatal neglect of eucharistic celebration, and for the tragic breakdown of personal pastoral ministry in many places.”

He argues that there are two simple solutions to the shortage of priests: “Abolition of the celibacy rule, the root of all these evils, and the admission of women to ordination. The bishops know this, but they do not have the courage to say it in public.”
 
IF this is true----consider the fact that the enemy has been seeding the Church with such people for decades.

We are at war. They will use any means to win. And I am standing by Holy Mother Church.
I am right next to you Sails.
 
Maybe allowing priests to marry would solve the problem as stated by Father Hans Kung in an article in the Timesonline.?

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7054181.ece

A leading Roman Catholic theologian has linked clerical sex abuse with priestly celibacy, blaming the Church’s “uptight” views on sex for child abuse scandals in Germany, Ireland and the US.

Father Hans Kung, President of the Global Ethic Foundation and professor emeritus at the University of Tübingen in Germany, said that the Church’s attitude was also revealed in its opposition to birth control. He said that it was the case that abuse was found also in families, schools and other churches. But he asked: “Why is it so prevalent in the Catholic Church under celibate leadership?” He said that celibacy was not the only cause of the misconduct but described it as “the most important and structurally the most decisive” expression of the Church’s uptight attitude to sex.

Citing the New Testament, he says that Jesus and St Paul practised celibacy but “allowed full freedom in this matter to each individual”. St Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians wrote: “Because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” Peter and the apostles were married and their ministries did not suffer, he said, pointing out that thousands of priests protested when the new law was introduced as late as the 11th century.

Father Kung said: “Compulsory celibacy is the principal reason for today’s catastrophic shortage of priests, for the fatal neglect of eucharistic celebration, and for the tragic breakdown of personal pastoral ministry in many places.”

He argues that there are two simple solutions to the shortage of priests: “Abolition of the celibacy rule, the root of all these evils, and the admission of women to ordination. The bishops know this, but they do not have the courage to say it in public.”
Father Kung is entitled to his opinion. Unfortunately, the Holy See disagrees. If it comes to a choice between Father’s opinion and the authority of the Holy See, a Catholic has not choice but to go with the Holy See for several reasons. The most important one being is that the Holy See determines the discipline, which is was mandatory celibacy is. The (name removed by moderator)ut of theologians is always welcome; but soomeone has to make the final decision. This has been made by the Holy See.

On a similar note, there is not proof that marriage is a cure of deviant behavior, because many child monlestors are married. The child molestor is not seeking all of the dimensions that marrigae invovles. He or she is seeking to satisfy an immature and disordered sexual hunger. If it were the case that those who molest children are seeking what marriage has to offer, there would not be sexual molestors among those who are “happily” married.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Maybe allowing priests to marry would solve the problem as stated by Father Hans Kung in an article in the Timesonline.?

It would not ‘solve’ anything. This and similar old arguments have been bandied about for some time. Why is it that disobedience is always seen as a good thing by certain elements, and obedience is not? :signofcross:
 
It would not ‘solve’ anything. This and similar old arguments have been bandied about for some time. Why is it that disobedience is always seen as a good thing by certain elements, and obedience is not? :signofcross:
I don’t think that Father Kung is promoting disobedience. He is giving his opinion. The Church has always welcomed his opinions, even though they have not always been accepted as being consistent with Church teaching. But opinions such as his give the Church an opportunity to clarify her position on different questions. In fact, he was Father Ratzinger’s boss at one time. They have a friendly relationship and mutual respect. We must understand that respect for the man’s intellectual curiosity and his excellent ability to debate a point, does not mean that we agree with his conclusions. Skill is one thing and conclusions are another. The Holy Father and other theologians have a lot of respect for Father Kung’s skills, but his conclusions are another story.

In fairness to Fr. Kung he has been obedient to the Church. When his license to teach Catholic theology was suspended indefinitely, he accepted that decision and stopped teaching Catholic theology. His assent to authority, even though he disagreed, was what allowed him to remain in good standing with the Church. Father has never been suspended or accused of disobedience.

If the article is telling the whole story, Fr. Kung is stating his opinion, not attempting to represent Catholicism. It is sad that such a bright mind is on the opposite side of this issue and sadder that others would agree with him. It only creates more division.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Wow. It’s just unbelievable…

I’m one of those Lutherans who spends a lot of time trying to heal perceptions between us and Roman Catholics, and this kind of stuff just makes it harder and harder.

I’m really glad I don’t have to live in Rome… but like Luther before me, I’ll pray for the Pope, who sadly does.

Wow.
Oh please, as if there are not plenty of Lutheran sex scandals–read for yourself from a Lutheran source: suite101.com/article.cfm/lutheranism/104744
 
Maybe allowing priests to marry would solve the problem as stated by Father Hans Kung in an article in the Timesonline.?

He argues that there are two simple solutions to the shortage of priests: “Abolition of the celibacy rule, the root of all these evils, and the admission of women to ordination. The bishops know this, but they do not have the courage to say it in public.”
He is a disobedient priest. He can have his own opinion on celibacy, but when he brings up women’s ordination again, he is going contrary to the direction of the Holy Father who has spoken dogmatically on the subject.

The celibacy argument here has always been rooted in anticatholic prejudice and never reality.
 
On a similar note, there is not proof that marriage is a cure of deviant behavior, because many child monlestors are married. The child molestor is not seeking all of the dimensions that marrigae invovles. He or she is seeking to satisfy an immature and disordered sexual hunger. If it were the case that those who molest children are seeking what marriage has to offer, there would not be sexual molestors among those who are “happily” married.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
It’s a shame that so many people have placed such a high priority on sex and have become sexually bored to the point that they feel the need to do something taboo for excitement. Pop culture media’s constant barrage of scantilly-clad hotties has effectively reduced too many of us into simpletons who prefer to follow our basic instincts to push our pleasure buttons. With the new portable media, it’s only going to worsen unless we take proactive steps to counter it. It’s amazinjg there are any young priests at all with shows like “Baywatch” on TV. It seems it would be easier to have a son become a priest if he grew up in the mountain fastnesses without so much exposure to pop culture.

Pop culture’s values are the common elements that are reducing humanity into shallow self-pleasure-mongering simpletons via sex, drugs, gambling, other excesses. I’m sure they enjoy their new found control over the sheeple. We need to take steps to reduce our exposure to it.

Natural Family Planning is practical because it rations sex, builds appreciation, decreases boredom, and re-emphasizes and re-focuses the couple on the priority of inner love. 👍
 
This was in the news today

Sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church are proof that that “the Devil is at work inside the Vatican”, according to the Holy See’s chief exorcist.

Father Gabriele Amorth, 85, who has been the Vatican’s chief exorcist for 25 years and says he has dealt with 70,000 cases of demonic possession, said that the consequences of satanic infiltration included power struggles at the Vatican as well as “cardinals who do not believe in Jesus, and bishops who are linked to the Demon”.

He added: “When one speaks of ‘the smoke of Satan’ [a phrase coined by Pope Paul VI in 1972] in the holy rooms, it is all true – including these latest stories of violence and paedophilia.”

Malachi Martin, eminent theologian, former professor at the Vatican’s Pontifical Biblical Institute who is now deceased, basically said the same thing in one of his books.

I wonder if this is the cause of many of these issues within the Church?
 
In what ‘news’ was this? Please provide sources and links. Thanks.
 
He is a disobedient priest. He can have his own opinion on celibacy, but when he brings up women’s ordination again, he is going contrary to the direction of the Holy Father who has spoken dogmatically on the subject.

The celibacy argument here has always been rooted in anticatholic prejudice and never reality.
You are making an interesting point. But there is a canonical catch here that is in his favor. Fr. Kung is a secular priest. Secular priests make a promise of obedience to their bishop, but they do not make a vow of obedience. To silence a secular priest, you must order him not to speak on a specific subject. To the best of my knowledge, Fr. Kung has never been ordered not to speak on any of these topics. He has been ordered not to teach Catholic theology and he has complied with that order.

My take is that the Holy Father does not want to issue such a command to Fr. Kung. Shortly after Pope Benedict was elected he invited Fr. Kung to visit with him for an afternoon. They spoke about many things. No one knows all the details, because most of them were not shared with the public. But there were two things that I found striking:
  1. The Holy Father encouraged Fr. Kung to continue in with his ecumenical work in his home diocese.
  2. The Holy Father disagreed with Fr. Kung on different things, but apparently did not demand that Fr. Kung put distance between him and his beliefs.
When the Vatican Press Office made the meeting public, what was said was that they disagreed, but had also expressed mutual admiration and had parted good friends and have always been very good friends. My take on it is that Pope Benedict does not want to order Fr. Kung to be silent. He is satisfied with not having him teach at Catholic theological schools. The reasons why the Holy Father has not demanded that Fr. Kung put distance between him and his opinions, as he demanded of Bishop Williamson, is known only to the Holy Father.

Anyway, in the case of a secular priest, the promise of obedience does not bind them to agreeing or to keep silent when they disagree. There has to be an order by either the bishop or the Vatican to be silent. Otherwise, it’s considered imprudent, inappropriate, unfortunate, but not disobedient, because he’s just stating his opinion, which I believe is wrong. But I doubt that Fr. Kung cares what I believe. This level of obedience, without a direct command, only applies to those who have made a vow of obedience. For example, I cannot express any opinion contrary to something that the Church teaches or that the Holy Father says. My vow of obedience demands assent even when I disagree and silence to go with the assent.

I don’t know if this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
You are making an interesting point. But there is a canonical catch here that is in his favor. Fr. Kung is a secular priest. Secular priests make a promise of obedience to their bishop, but they do not make a vow of obedience. To silence a secular priest, you must order him not to speak on a specific subject. To the best of my knowledge, Fr. Kung has never been ordered not to speak on any of these topics. He has been ordered not to teach Catholic theology and he has complied with that order.
From Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

Then instead of disobedient, I should have used unfaithful, to be in keeping with the language of this document. I am trying to avoid the “h” word. I guess the point still holds as to why this man’s judgement would be considered of value when he is mistaken in something already defined - an “error in the beginning”, so to speak.
 
This is from the TimesOnline. They must have a pipeline into the Vatican?

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7058065.ece

A cardinal seen as a future candidate for the papacy has broken a Vatican taboo by raising the possibility that priestly celibacy is among the causes of the sex abuse scandal sweeping the Roman Catholic Church.

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna and a protégé of Pope Benedict XVI, wrote in his archdiocese’s magazine this week that the Church must make an “unflinching examination” of the causes of the scandal.

He said that these included “the issue of priests’ training, as well as the question of what happened in the so-called sexual revolution of the generation of 1968”.

He added: “It also includes the question of priest celibacy and the question of personality development. It requires a great deal of honesty, both on the part of the Church and of society as a whole.” …

The cardinal’s spokesman, Erich Leitenberger, later issued a “clarification” claiming that the cardinal was not “in any way seeking to question the Catholic Church’s celibacy rule” after headlines in the German and Italian press such as “Schönborn says priestly abuse is the fault of celibacy” and “Celibacy must be reconsidered, Schönborn says”.

The cardinal’s office said that he had been misinterpreted. Some observers said that he had been obliged to issue his “clarification” under pressure from the Vatican.

It may be raised, however, at a conference today and tomorrow at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome marking the “Year of the Priest”.

The Lateran conference is being organized by Cardinal Claudio Hummes, the Brazilian head of the Congregation for the Clergy, who once observed that celibacy was “not dogma”.

Isn’t theologian Father Han Kung right when he said "The bishops know this, but they do not have the courage to say it in public.” ?

It does appear to be so as Cardinal Schönborn seemed to be under some pressure to recant his previous statement.

Doesn’t this celibacy issue cause confusion among Catholics especially when married Protestant ministers who become married are allowed to be ordained and function in parishes. Some Catholics stated this to be true. Doesn’t this send a mix message and is this not more or less a double standard if not hypocritical position concerning celibacy?

Why allow the ordination of Protestant ministers or priests into the Catholic Church if this position is so dogmatic? 🤷
 
From Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

Then instead of disobedient, I should have used unfaithful, to be in keeping with the language of this document. I am trying to avoid the “h” word. I guess the point still holds as to why this man’s judgement would be considered of value when he is mistaken in something already defined - an “error in the beginning”, so to speak.
I would stick with the language that the Holy See used when they suspended his license. The declaration included such terms as unorthodox theology, theology that was unfaithful to the Magisterium, and theology that was in conflict with the teachings of the Church. It was both Fr. Kung and Fr. Curran who got the same letter from Cardinal Ratzinger. I think he was already a Cardinal. :confused:

However, the Vatican always protected Fr. Kung from being labeled a heretic. Pope Benedict continues the same policy. In fact, Pope Benedict encouraged his work in ecumenism. Fr. Kung has been doing his work as a Catholic priest. Also the Holy See has never suspended him, only his teaching license.

It is true that Pope John Paul II said that “this judgment was to be held by all the faithful” and Fr. Kung does not hold this judgment. On this point, Fr. Kung is unfaithful. As long as he does not participate in the ordination of women, such as those priests who concelebrate in those goofy rites, he is safe. By safe I mean that he will not be suspended or excommunicated.

You also asked why he is so respected. I have never met the man or read many of his works, unless you consider two works, many. But I can say this from reading his work. He is very knowledgeable. We may not connect the dots the same way I do, but he has an uncanny ability for seeing dots that others don’t see. During his younger days, when he was sharper, he raised interesting questions. For those of us who were studying in Rome during Fr. Kung’s better years, he was awesome to have around, because he provided material for our professors to work with in the classroom. One of the challenges that we had to face was answer some of Fr. Kung’s questions on tests. Fr. Kung did not make up the test. Professors used his questions to test our knowledge and language skills to respond. Our professors believed that Fr. Kung’s questions were not only his, but that they were shared by many people and they deserved a response that was respectful of the inquirer and faithful to the Church.

I have also heard that he is an expert in scripture. I’m not sure what his background in theology is. What I read by him had to do with priesthood and with marriage. Meaning, I don’t know what his major was. But he apparently is very good and very respected in exegesis. He can’t be dumb, given the fact that he was Ratzinger’s boss for several years and Pope Benedict still considers him a friend and seems to have some hope of bringing him back to orthodoxy.

I would go with the Pope on this one. It was Cardinal Ratzinger who condemned his work, but avoided condemning him. It was Pope Benedict who encouraged him to continue his work in ecumenism as a Catholic priest. If the Holy Father doesn’t think that he’s a heretic, neither do I. I have no idea what the pope knows that I don’t, but I know that I don’t know Fr. Kung and the pope has known him personally for many decades.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
:confused: That’s a link to someones blog :confused:

There’s no details and specifics of Lutheran scandals and how they were handled.
I avoided links to particular Lutheran scandals and provided a more gentle reminder that Catholics are not alone in having sex scandals. The point was that one should attend to the log in one’s own eye. . .
 
As much as I abhor the thought of child abuse of any kind, sexual and other, I also believe that we have to be very careful to keep our vision broad. I remember that when our Holy Father Francis founded our order in 1209, there was child abuse of all kinds (sexual and other). There were heresies. Kings and popes were strange bedfellows. Diocesan priests were notorious for having mistresses. The laity did not know the faith and was not interested either. There were wars.

What made him so attractive and what reformed the Church was his broad vision. He saw the sin around him and preached conversion. But he never pointed the finger at anyone in particular. His method was to preach and if the shoe fit, wear it. He also taught the people of his time that the Church was bigger than sin, politics, power, money and heresies. He focused on teaching the necessity of Holy Orders, the role of popes, bishops and priests and the love and obedience that the faithful should feel toward the clergy, even if they were the most corrupt and the most sinful human beings that you ever met. His focus was on the Eucharist. No one, but a priest could consecrated. Francis taught the faithful that without the priests, sinful or saints, they would never be able to see Christ incarnate in this world. What happened was that priests gradually began to rethink their role in the life of the faithful and the faithful began to rethink the importance of the Eucharist in their lives.

Francis also confronted heresy in a very creative way. He taught his brothers and sisters to live according to the Gospel. But he did not stop by writing a rule for the friars and another for the nuns. He wrote a rule for secular men and women and gathered them into an order of their own. This was the first time that the Church had ever heard of a Secular Order. The Lateran (there was no Vatican yet), did not know what to do with this new form of life. Finally, in 1223, Pope Honorius declared that the secular man and woman, whether he was ordained or married, could live a life according to a rule, in fraternity, and bring into the secular world the life of prayer, penance, charity and the apostolic works that were previously the realm of the male religious. Gradually, the Secular Franciscan Order grew so large that the number of heretic decreased, the wars decreased, the fidelity to the sacraments, prayer and works of charity increased exponentially. But the change came when the laity realized that they could adopt elements of the religious life and incorporate them into their daily lives, such as: Liturgy of the Hours, daily mass, silence, penance, corporal works of mercy, devotion to the Blessed Mother and to the Eucharist, obedience, chastity and poverty.

All of these things are still possible today. If we are to heal from the injuries of the past 60 years, we must begin to take the broad view of the Church, just as Francis did. We can’t limit our attention and focus to the pedophilia, the sexual scandal, the abuse in the liturgy, the wacko priest or religious who does or says something idiotic. We have to extend ourselves to embrace everything that the Church is and that being a Catholic means.

This does not require that one bury their head in the sand. That’s not what Francis did. He simply avoided the conflicts, because he did not accuse anyone of doing anything wrong. He left that to people in authority. He showed everyone how to do it right and he founded a way of life that still works today, 800 years later. We need to focus on teaching the world how to do it right. It’s the only way that you can change the world for the better, by showing people how to do it. Francis said that the best and easiest way to teach people was through evangelical example, not words. That’s why you find very few preachers in the Franciscan tradition. We conquer sin through our presence, not our preaching. Most of us are lousy preachers, LOL.

I should add that another lesson that he taught the people of his time was to look at their sins too. Francis was aware of how easy it is to get so distracted and upset with the sins of another that we ignore our own sinfulness. The one thing that he recognized was the reality of sin. But he also recognized the presence of God in the world. That’s why he wrote the Canticle of Brother Sun. It’s a theological statement about God’s presence in the world, despite sin. It was a message of hope. He was a man who lived and died trusting the Church, because he trusted Christ.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top