FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: The Pope's "Free Pass" From Trads Regarding Sodomite/Pædophile Priests
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
The Pope's "Free Pass" From Trads Regarding Sodomite/Pædophile Priests

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

Durendal Blog

http://rencesvals.blogspot.com/2010/06/p...rding.html

"So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.

Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigor than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.


-St. Pius V's Constitution Horrendum illud scelus

It seems that many Traditionalists have given Pope Benedict XVI a "free pass" regarding the sodomite/pædophile scandal in the news recently. Some of the most respected leaders of Tradition have suggested that the "surprisingly violent and particularly well-orchestrated blows" are a reaction to a "new [tradition-friendly] wave" inaugurated by the Pope, rather than because there might be some truth to the allegations. Some even claim that the pædophilia never actually happened, or it's blown out of proportion.

I'm not so blindly behind the pope on this one as some are. I think it's true that far too little has been done to bring sodomite/pædophile priests to justice during His Holiness' watch as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Further, and perhaps more importantly, the post-Vatican II softening towards sodomy (see Atila Atila Sinke Guimarães' excellent Vatican II, Homosexuality and Pedophilia -- a book as timely as ever right now) which Pope Benedict XVI wholly supports is at the root of much of this. It is His Holiness' very support for Vatican II that makes him culpably responsible, at least in part, for the plague of pædophilia in the Church.

I started this article with the quote from Pope St. Pius V's constitution Horrendum illud scelus to highlight the Church's softening towards sodomy in recent decades by way of juxtaposition. No one would ever dream of a modern Church prelate writing or speaking such strong words today. This shows just how far the the churchmen of today have drifted from a true sensus Catholicus regarding this "execrable crime". Those, including the Holy Father, who now chafe under the media's (albeit extremely hypocritical) attacks, are authors of their own misfortune -- and more importantly, that of the poor children. It has gone so far that one priest, at least, has recently come out calling the Church "a closet of gays" (see http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopi...anner.html). As this priest rightly points out:

... in the last 30 years, the Church has favored priests with effeminate characteristics, who are sweet, obedient, submissive, uncritical in accepting the authority of the Bishop and the other superiors.

It cannot be said that the Pope has no power over this trend. These tendencies have been mandated from Rome, I submit. At best, they have not been opposed. Even now, when a cardinal comes out with an extremely mild comment about the link between sodomy and pædophilia, he gets thrown under the bus and the Holy Father himself still refuses to make even that connexion (let alone the connexion to Vatican II).

Perhaps an analogy would help me make my point. Suppose that a young, highly intelligent and charismatic politician is an advisor to the ruling government of a nation in the 1960s. He assists in sweeping reforms to that nation's Criminal Code, which includes, among other things, the de-criminalisation of some heinous crime. Then, later, as Minister of Justice, he assists in bringing the legislation to fruition and putting it into force. Later still, he's elected president and when a crime wave that's been simmering throughout his tenure as Minister of Justice explodes, tries to claim he had nothing to do with said crime wave. In such circumstances no one would accept that - they would be outraged. I submit that this is an appropriate analogy and thus traditionalist Catholics should not be giving Pope Benedict XVI a "free pass" and making excuses for him.

Posted on the Feast of St. Basil the Great, Bishop, Confessor & Doctor

P.S. A quote from the saint who's feast day it is, concerning sodomite priests:
The cleric or monk who molests youth or boys, or is caught kissing or committing some depravity with them, let him be whipped in public, deprived of his crown (tonsure) and, after having his head shaved, let his face be covered with spittle and let him be bound in iron chains, condemned to six months in prison, reduced to eating rye bread once a day in the evening three times per week. After these six months of living in a separate cell under the custody of a wise elder advanced in the spiritual life, let him make prayers, vigils, and manual work, always under the watch of two spiritual brothers, without being allowed to have any relationship...with young people"
(my emphasis -- see p. 23 of Guimarães' Vatican II, Homosexuality and Pedophilia, for full citation)"
(06-15-2010, 01:03 AM)SaintRafael Wrote: [ -> ] The cleric or monk who molests youth or boys, or is caught kissing or committing some depravity with them, let him be whipped in public, deprived of his crown (tonsure) and, after having his head shaved, let his face be covered with spittle and let him be bound in iron chains, condemned to six months in prison, reduced to eating rye bread once a day in the evening three times per week. After these six months of living in a separate cell under the custody of a wise elder advanced in the spiritual life, let him make prayers, vigils, and manual work, always under the watch of two spiritual brothers, without being allowed to have any relationship...with young people"

This is what needs to happen today a harsh tough punishment for light in the loafer clerics. As to the rest of the article I think the Pope hasnt done all that he could there has been a smear job no doubt but all the Pope does is apologize its time to put an Amen to the apologies and get to some action.
"It is His Holiness' very support for Vatican II that makes him culpably responsible, at least in part, for the plague of pædophilia in the Church."

What the hell does Vatican II say about sodomy?  Or pedophilia?
(06-15-2010, 05:35 AM)Bonifacius Wrote: [ -> ]"It is His Holiness' very support for Vatican II that makes him culpably responsible, at least in part, for the plague of pædophilia in the Church."

What the hell does Vatican II say about sodomy?  Or pedophilia?

Especially as some of these reports are from Pro-V2 days.
Not unless St. Pius V and St. Peter Damien came after Vatican II. This wasn't written without reason.  It has become the same as "W did it".
tim
What steps you did you do against the law enforcement and other civil governments, who having the power did not prevented the pedophiles, not only the priests but millions others to abuse children?

If nothing, do you bring up this theme to attack the Church, or you truly be;live that only the pedophile priest are criminals, the rest may have the free pass?

(06-15-2010, 01:03 AM)SaintRafael Wrote: [ -> ]The Pope's "Free Pass" From Trads Regarding Sodomite/Pædophile Priests

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

Durendal Blog

http://rencesvals.blogspot.com/2010/06/p...rding.html
A little more on Laszlo's point. When "W" ordered a study of sex abuse by teachers in "No child left behind" legislation, the union blocked it's publication.That study is ignored and has not received much attention  in the press since. According to BadBadTeacher.com 4-5 million American kids are at risk every year for sexual abuse from teachers and employees in schools. According to USA Today only one-fourth of them have been prosecuted in court. Then the question becomes how many more by professional category are there ? At the root are the Liberal Unions, Liberal Press, and Liberal Political Activists who fight to keep their guilty friends hidden, and save their social engineering to destroy western society and the Church.

tim
(06-15-2010, 02:29 AM)Baskerville Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-15-2010, 01:03 AM)SaintRafael Wrote: [ -> ] The cleric or monk who molests youth or boys, or is caught kissing or committing some depravity with them, let him be whipped in public, deprived of his crown (tonsure) and, after having his head shaved, let his face be covered with spittle and let him be bound in iron chains, condemned to six months in prison, reduced to eating rye bread once a day in the evening three times per week. After these six months of living in a separate cell under the custody of a wise elder advanced in the spiritual life, let him make prayers, vigils, and manual work, always under the watch of two spiritual brothers, without being allowed to have any relationship...with young people"

This is what needs to happen today a harsh tough punishment for light in the loafer clerics. As to the rest of the article I think the Pope hasnt done all that he could there has been a smear job no doubt but all the Pope does is apologize its time to put an Amen to the apologies and get to some action.

can you imagine how the media would react if the Church began punishing priests or religious as suggested in that paragraph?  even if they were proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt, which is rarely the case in such cases, there would be outrage at the "cruel and unusual" punishment!

i agree that harsher punishments are needed for clerics who molest children but it bothers me that the media constantly talks about "pedophile priests" when more than 80% of the allegations against priests have involved boys past puberty, many of them 15, 16, 17 and older.  i know of at least one case in which an archdiocese made a financial settlement to a man who alleged that he was seduced by a priest when he was 21!  A twenty-one year-old is certainly an adult.

at what age are people of normal intelligence responsible for their own choices to have sex with an older person?  

when you were a boy, could a priest have talked you into any kissing, touching, etc.?

at any age, i mean, could an older man, priest or not, seduced you into any improper activity?  

do you buy the idea that Catholic boys were so respectful of priests that they dared not refuse their advances?  i sure don't.  

back in the Fifties, our parents didn't tell us the facts to life but they gave us warnings about strangers offering us candy or rides or trying to touch us, and we found out why by the time we were pre-teens because it only took one kid's parents or older brother telling the facts of life for the news to spread like wildfire among us.  i can remember the day i was told and i was convinced my parents would never have done such a thing, that God put babies in their mothers' stomachs and they got out through their belly buttons, though i couldn't see how.  and i knew perfectly well how our rabbits and dogs gave birth, don't ask me why the obvious never occurred to me.  we were truly innocent in those days.


That's the thing: if the Church had kicked out all the priests caught in abuse cases right away when they happened in the 70s and 80s, the same people who are screaming for blood now would have called that a purge of homosexuals.  Even now, when we have the numbers to prove it, they won't believe the scandal had anything to do with homosexuality. 

Just imagine if, back then, someone at the New York Times had noticed that practically all the priests who had been defrocked recently happened to be homosexual.  The media never would have believed they were all abusers -- assuming the Church could even say they were, since making an allegation like that public without a court case could be considered slander.

(That's not to say they shouldn't have been kicked out; they should have been.  But that would have created an ugly situation of its own, and the same people would be blasting the Church, just for different reasons.)
(06-15-2010, 12:22 PM)Mhoram Wrote: [ -> ]That's the thing: if the Church had kicked out all the priests caught in abuse cases right away when they happened in the 70s and 80s, the same people who are screaming for blood now would have called that a purge of homosexuals.  Even now, when we have the numbers to prove it, they won't believe the scandal had anything to do with homosexuality. 

Just imagine if, back then, someone at the New York Times had noticed that practically all the priests who had been defrocked recently happened to be homosexual.  The media never would have believed they were all abusers -- assuming the Church could even say they were, since making an allegation like that public without a court case could be considered slander.

(That's not to say they shouldn't have been kicked out; they should have been.  But that would have created an ugly situation of its own, and the same people would be blasting the Church, just for different reasons.)

yes!  that's another point i wanted to make but my post was too lengthy already to add it.

anyone remember that last year an epidemiological study was released that showed that men who lived in "gay" neighborhoods in San Francisco and Boston were far, far more likely to be infected with MRSA than men who lived in other neighborhoods served by the same clinics?

the study only involved examining the Zip codes of the patients with MRSA and the Zip codes of those without MRSA and sorting them by whether the Zip code was of a neighborhood known to be inhabited predominantly by homosexuals, the Castro being one, or of a neighborhood that might have homosexual residents but was not known as a homosexual community, as the Castro is.

the study was reported on the front page of the New York Times and national network news the day it was released, then buried immediately due to pressure from "gay" activists. 

how can "gay" activists seriously be arguing, as they are now, that homosexual men should be allowed to donate blood?  as a group, they have far more parasitic as well as bacterial and viral infections than other groups of men.  the medical and epidemiological community knows this and most homosexuals probably do as well.

since MRSA can be transmitted by casual contact, this is a good reason to stop shaking hands at Mass and everywhere else, to carry hand sanitizer and use it after touching door knobs, shopping cart handles and such, and keep your hands away from your face so you won't transmit bacteria or viruses to your nose or mouth.  previous studies have shown that E.coli is commonly found on shopping cart handles, etc., and everybody has E.coli in their intestines but ingesting someone else's strain of E. coli can make you sick, even kill you. 

don't be paranoid, just aware.



Pages: 1 2