Cardinal O'Brien admits to below-standard sexual behavior
#21
O'Brien should be defrocked and kicked out on his ear.  Yet he's going to take a comfortable retirement on the lay person's buck, that's given at every Sunday offering.  I can think of much better use for our Sunday offerings.

This is wrong.  Any one of these homosexuals should be gone for good.  That's the only way to cut this gang green out of the Church.

And what's with this Papal Nuncio?  If it's Vatican policy to hush up any homosexuals and molesters then it should be changed immediately because it is heresy to protect and coddle these deviants.

None of this is defendable.

Yeah and go after the enablers and those that elevated them like StCeciliasGirl suggested.  That is exactly what we need in the Church right now, a witch hunt to get rid of the rot.
Reply
#22
(03-04-2013, 05:43 PM)mikemac Wrote: O'Brien should be defrocked and kicked out on his ear.  Yet he's going to take a comfortable retirement on the lay person's buck, that's given at every Sunday offering.  I can think of much better use for our Sunday offerings.

This is wrong.  Any one of these homosexuals should be gone for good.  That's the only way to cut this gang green out of the Church.

And what's with this Papal Nuncio?  If it's Vatican policy to hush up any homosexuals and molesters then it should be changed immediately because it is heresy to protect and coddle these deviants.

None of this is defendable.

Yeah and go after the enablers and those that elevated them like StCeciliasGirl suggested.  That is exactly what we need in the Church right now, a witch hunt to get rid of the rot.
Ever heard or read about the Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete?
Reply
#23
(03-04-2013, 05:48 PM)Cooler King Wrote:
(03-04-2013, 05:43 PM)mikemac Wrote: O'Brien should be defrocked and kicked out on his ear.  Yet he's going to take a comfortable retirement on the lay person's buck, that's given at every Sunday offering.  I can think of much better use for our Sunday offerings.

This is wrong.  Any one of these homosexuals should be gone for good.  That's the only way to cut this gang green out of the Church.

And what's with this Papal Nuncio?  If it's Vatican policy to hush up any homosexuals and molesters then it should be changed immediately because it is heresy to protect and coddle these deviants.

None of this is defendable.

Yeah and go after the enablers and those that elevated them like StCeciliasGirl suggested.  That is exactly what we need in the Church right now, a witch hunt to get rid of the rot.

Ever heard or read about the Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete?

Well I have now.  It was started in 1947.  But the problem is that I do not think this very large number of homosexual priests, bishops and even cardinals have been just tempted and gone wrong.  I believe this very large number is a deliberate infiltration of the Church meant for the purpose of subverting and slandering the Church.  They will never do it but their purpose is to destroy the Church.  I stand to what I said, the only way to deal with it is to cut it out like gang green.

In 2008 Pope Benedict changed the policy for seminarians, to not allow anyone that has even had any tendency towards the same sex.  Why should it be different for priests, bishops and cardinals, even those that are running the administration of the Church?
Reply
#24
(03-04-2013, 06:00 PM)mikemac Wrote:
(03-04-2013, 05:48 PM)Cooler King Wrote:
(03-04-2013, 05:43 PM)mikemac Wrote: O'Brien should be defrocked and kicked out on his ear.  Yet he's going to take a comfortable retirement on the lay person's buck, that's given at every Sunday offering.  I can think of much better use for our Sunday offerings.

This is wrong.  Any one of these homosexuals should be gone for good.  That's the only way to cut this gang green out of the Church.

And what's with this Papal Nuncio?  If it's Vatican policy to hush up any homosexuals and molesters then it should be changed immediately because it is heresy to protect and coddle these deviants.

None of this is defendable.

Yeah and go after the enablers and those that elevated them like StCeciliasGirl suggested.  That is exactly what we need in the Church right now, a witch hunt to get rid of the rot.

Ever heard or read about the Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete?

Well I have now.  It was started in 1947.  But the problem is that I do not think this very large number of homosexual priests, bishops and even cardinals have been just tempted and gone wrong.  I believe this very large number is a deliberate infiltration of the Church meant for the purpose of subverting and slandering the Church.  They will never do it but their purpose is to destroy the Church.  I stand to what I said, the only way to deal with it is to cut it out like gang green.
It's very interesting that this "epidemic" started before VII.
Reply
#25
(03-04-2013, 06:06 PM)Cooler King Wrote:
(03-04-2013, 06:00 PM)mikemac Wrote:
(03-04-2013, 05:48 PM)Cooler King Wrote:
(03-04-2013, 05:43 PM)mikemac Wrote: O'Brien should be defrocked and kicked out on his ear.  Yet he's going to take a comfortable retirement on the lay person's buck, that's given at every Sunday offering.  I can think of much better use for our Sunday offerings.

This is wrong.  Any one of these homosexuals should be gone for good.  That's the only way to cut this gang green out of the Church.

And what's with this Papal Nuncio?  If it's Vatican policy to hush up any homosexuals and molesters then it should be changed immediately because it is heresy to protect and coddle these deviants.

None of this is defendable.

Yeah and go after the enablers and those that elevated them like StCeciliasGirl suggested.  That is exactly what we need in the Church right now, a witch hunt to get rid of the rot.

Ever heard or read about the Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete?

Well I have now.  It was started in 1947.  But the problem is that I do not think this very large number of homosexual priests, bishops and even cardinals have been just tempted and gone wrong.  I believe this very large number is a deliberate infiltration of the Church meant for the purpose of subverting and slandering the Church.  They will never do it but their purpose is to destroy the Church.  I stand to what I said, the only way to deal with it is to cut it out like gang green.

It's very interesting that this "epidemic" started before VII.

Modernism was warned about before V II too, yet V II is a product of Modernism.  Could we say Modernism and the homosexual infiltration of the Church went hand in hand?  That's a question, I don't know.  But I think it's worth a look.
Reply
#26
(03-04-2013, 06:06 PM)Cooler King Wrote:
(03-04-2013, 06:00 PM)mikemac Wrote:
(03-04-2013, 05:48 PM)Cooler King Wrote:
(03-04-2013, 05:43 PM)mikemac Wrote: O'Brien should be defrocked and kicked out on his ear.  Yet he's going to take a comfortable retirement on the lay person's buck, that's given at every Sunday offering.  I can think of much better use for our Sunday offerings.

This is wrong.  Any one of these homosexuals should be gone for good.  That's the only way to cut this gang green out of the Church.

And what's with this Papal Nuncio?  If it's Vatican policy to hush up any homosexuals and molesters then it should be changed immediately because it is heresy to protect and coddle these deviants.

None of this is defendable.

Yeah and go after the enablers and those that elevated them like StCeciliasGirl suggested.  That is exactly what we need in the Church right now, a witch hunt to get rid of the rot.

Ever heard or read about the Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete?

Well I have now.  It was started in 1947.  But the problem is that I do not think this very large number of homosexual priests, bishops and even cardinals have been just tempted and gone wrong.  I believe this very large number is a deliberate infiltration of the Church meant for the purpose of subverting and slandering the Church.  They will never do it but their purpose is to destroy the Church.  I stand to what I said, the only way to deal with it is to cut it out like gang green.
It's very interesting that this "epidemic" started before VII.

Started, yes.  But reached its full proportions?  No.

WW2 saw a loosening of morals across the board - war often causes that.  For years, homosexuals were probably attracted to the clergy in numbers greater than their occurrence in the general population, because it was a socially acceptable way to live single, and many probably preferred to live in celibacy than engage in homosexual behavior.   Under the pre Vatican 2 discipline, acting out their desires was difficult.  Not impossible, but difficult.  Then, in the mid 60s, those disciplines were abrogated.  That's when the problem took off.  Then, it became an "open secret" that the clergy was a good hunting ground for homosexuals.  We're still dealing with that.  

Reply
#27
(03-04-2013, 03:12 PM)City Smurf Wrote:
(03-04-2013, 12:23 PM)StCeciliasGirl Wrote: Maybe you're not catechized enough to understand the enormity of what he's done, but he attacked not only the seminarians with insight and free will, but also the Church herself.

:doh:

Do yourself an almighty favour and stop and breathe.  Your anger is not holy.  Your anger is diabolical because it is leading you to condemn a man to hell.

I didn't condemn a man to Hell, but I can surely discern a man who has condemned himself to Hell by blaspheming the Holy Spirit from the highest echelons of the Church all these decades; by being a willing and knowing cancer in the Church, and loving the vestments more than God. And given his role in the Church, I question if he can be Absolved by anyone but the Pope himself. He hasn't done anything suggestive of Penance, like pointing out his "network" of homos who will continue doing as he's done, &c. Instead, we've gotten two statements within a week of each other, suggesting (1) he's innocent and retiring for HOLY reasons (here: http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/201...keith.html) [discern for yourself], and (2) yesterday's weak admission (linked in OP) that merely suggests he may have fallen beneath the standards of sexual conduct.

When we see heads rolling (figuratively) in England of possibly invalid priests, Bishops, &c, then I shall gladly adjust my discernment of who his "father" is. But no, until that day, "going into retirement" is not a proper penance; and if he's made a Conession and that was his penance, than he is NOT properly absolved. And that's a problem. If I were him, I'd skedaddle to a proper Bishop like Cardinal Arinze and do exactly as Arinze told me to do; I would not trust anyone in Britain who was in any way associated with O'Brien's "career".

This is why the Church needs a proper Inquisition into the O'Brien matter. What you yourself and Scotus have suggested is that there's a HUGE homo problem in Britain (which I certainly have no problem believing; we have one here in North America, as well). Which O'Brien would surely know about, since he was the head Cardinal there and part of the homo problem. (Doesn't it bother you in the least that O'Brien merely retired without pointing fingers and naming names?!) Honestly it seems to me that if you were so concerned for O'Brien's soul, for Britain, you would be the one screaming for a full Inquisition, to remove priests and Bishops whose Absolution might not mean a thing to God.

Again, O'Brien is the one most likely to know where the problems are, but he "went into seclusion" instead of standing up and pointing fingers. He's not protecting the Church by hiding out; he's protecting others LIKE HIM.

Sorta thought we were all on the same page re: this. I've had a priest absolve me, but I didn't believe it was valid because I didn't trust him because he said he didn't believe in The Resurrection, but believed there was a man "like a Jesus figure" who probably taught some of what we read in the NT, but surely didn't raise himself from the dead. I saw that as a problem and left. I went to my home priest later and RE-CONFESSED, asking for true Absolution. All of which I confessed to my priest, and my priest took my Confession and Absolved me. But I was told to write a letter (which I believe our Bishop actually wrote, and I signed) attesting to these things (which I was very uncomfortable doing). But while I wasn't thrilled with the idea, the Bishop (and my priest and my husband) helped me through it. And I'm a nobody.

As for "what my place is", I think I know my place. According to Vatican II "pastoral documents", the laity is to help our Bishops. But laying down and ignoring the ugly truth in your face and praying for a "poor soul" who knowingly hurt the Church for decades, instead of standing up for Mother Church at the risk of your [membership?] and demanding an Inquisition, is not helping your shamed Cardinal and our shamed Church.

Indeed, even blasphemy against the Holy Spirit might (MIGHT) be absolved through the Church, but we're talking about the lead Cardinal of a powerful country in Europe, who knows all the ins and outs of the homos there who are attacking the Church. Again, fingers need to be pointed; Penance isn't saying a few Hail Marys in this case, and I'd like to think you know that.
Reply
#28
(03-04-2013, 07:23 PM)StCeciliasGirl Wrote: I didn't condemn a man to Hell, but I can surely discern a man who has condemned himself to Hell by blaspheming the Holy Spirit from the highest echelons of the Church all these decades; by being a willing and knowing cancer in the Church, and loving the vestments more than God. And given his role in the Church, I question if he can be Absolved by anyone but the Pope himself.

Then you are wrong to question.  From the little facts that we know then the Cardinal's sins do not fall under those that are reserved to the Bishop of Rome to absolve.  I'm quite sure any priest can absolve him.

What don't you understand about this?  He has sinned, he has admitted that he has sinned and I would like to hope that he has already sought the grace of God in the confessional and if he hasn't then we should be praying that he does so.  His offenses are not so great that he is beyond redemption yet you continue to speak as if he can no longer be saved.  If a man is truly sorry for his sins then he can repent and be absolved of them and this is the constant teaching of the Church through the ages.

It is not to you to decide whether a man has shown appropriate contrition for his sins.  It is not for you to determine whether a man has been forgiven his sins or not.  Cease speculating upon the state of the man's soul.  Especially in light of the fact that he has publicly acknowledged that he has failed and apologised for it.  With all due respect he has absolutely no obligation to satisfy your standards of true contrition.  That is between him, his confessor and God.  And you have no right whatsoever to insinuate yourself into that process with your wild and hysterical speculation.

Quote:He hasn't done anything suggestive of Penance, like pointing out his "network" of homos who will continue doing as he's done, &c. Instead, we've gotten two statements within a week of each other, suggesting (1) he's innocent and retiring for HOLY reasons (here: http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/201...keith.html) [discern for yourself], and (2) yesterday's weak admission (linked in OP) that merely suggests he may have fallen beneath the standards of sexual conduct.

Blessed be God in Heaven that the Cardinal, if he has any knowledge whatsoever of such networks, has not taken to the mass media as a vehicle for dealing with it!  You do not know what he has said or who he has been saying it to.  And we should count it a blessing that he isn't throwing names out into the press.  This matter should not be tried in the courts of the Telegraph, Guardian or New York Times.

And once again I note that you have no right to determine what is and what is not an adequate penance in this situation.  You are not a priest nevermind the man's confessor.  Do not usurp a priest's rights given him by God and the Church to determine a man's penance.  If the Cardinal has confessed and been given a penance, even if that penance is one Hail Mary, if he says that Hail Mary devoutly and attentively as an act of penance then it will suffice and he will gain much by it for he is acting in obedience to his confessor.

Cardinal O'Brien's conduct of himself from the moment of his sin even up until his admission has been an example of a weak, sinful, broken and cowardly man.  He actions arouse disgust.  But he still a man and he is still my brother in Christ no matter his failings and I earnestly hope with all of my heart and soul that he is getting right with God for his own sake.  Thinking about it all my anger is dissipating.  Now I see a wretched and broken old man for whom I can only have pity.  He reacted like most men would when confronted with their sins in the public arena.  He wilted and denied.  As I said most men would.

But he has rectified that by acknowledging wrong doing.

And once again I must stress most vehemently that his salvation and redemption is not beyond possibility.

Quote:When we see heads rolling (figuratively) in England of possibly invalid priests, Bishops, &c, then I shall gladly adjust my discernment of who his "father" is. But no, until that day, "going into retirement" is not a proper penance; and if he's made a Conession and that was his penance, than he is NOT properly absolved. And that's a problem. If I were him, I'd skedaddle to a proper Bishop like Cardinal Arinze and do exactly as Arinze told me to do; I would not trust anyone in Britain who was in any way associated with O'Brien's "career".

What is with this talk of invalid Holy Orders?  And once again who on earth do you think you are to usurp a confessor's right to determine what is and what is not the penance to be carried out by the penitent?  Even going so far as to say that has not been properly absolved if his penance is to retire from the world?  You might not like it.  But it is none of your concern.

Quote:This is why the Church needs a proper Inquisition into the O'Brien matter. What you yourself and Scotus have suggested is that there's a HUGE homo problem in Britain (which I certainly have no problem believing; we have one here in North America, as well). Which O'Brien would surely know about, since he was the head Cardinal there and part of the homo problem. (Doesn't it bother you in the least that O'Brien merely retired without pointing fingers and naming names?!) Honestly it seems to me that if you were so concerned for O'Brien's soul, for Britain, you would be the one screaming for a full Inquisition, to remove priests and Bishops whose Absolution might not mean a thing to God.

The difference is that as I noted above I do not want this tried in the world's tabloids.  And I have no cause to doubt whether a sinful priest can validly absolve me.

Quote:Again, O'Brien is the one most likely to know where the problems are, but he "went into seclusion" instead of standing up and pointing fingers. He's not protecting the Church by hiding out; he's protecting others LIKE HIM.

I'm sorry but nothing is going to happen overnight.  And once again you and insinuating yourself into matters that you have no idea about nor do you have any place in them.  It is to be hoped that the Cardinal will address these issues with his superiors in Rome.  But that will be dealt with in good time.  I don't want to find out about this from the Guardian.  I would much rather an official report be given in Rome.  Wait until we've got a Pope for the love of God!

Quote:Sorta thought we were all on the same page re: this. I've had a priest absolve me, but I didn't believe it was valid because I didn't trust him because he said he didn't believe in The Resurrection, but believed there was a man "like a Jesus figure" who probably taught some of what we read in the NT, but surely didn't raise himself from the dead. I saw that as a problem and left. I went to my home priest later and RE-CONFESSED, asking for true Absolution. All of which I confessed to my priest, and my priest took my Confession and Absolved me. But I was told to write a letter (which I believe our Bishop actually wrote, and I signed) attesting to these things (which I was very uncomfortable doing). But while I wasn't thrilled with the idea, the Bishop (and my priest and my husband) helped me through it. And I'm a nobody.

The Sacraments are not dependent upon the holiness nor the orthodoxy of the ministering priest.

Quote:As for "what my place is", I think I know my place. According to Vatican II "pastoral documents", the laity is to help our Bishops. But laying down and ignoring the ugly truth in your face and praying for a "poor soul" who knowingly hurt the Church for decades, instead of standing up for Mother Church at the risk of your [membership?] and demanding an Inquisition, is not helping your shamed Cardinal and our shamed Church.

You're really not helping things in the least.  You're ranting and raving on an internet forum.  With all due respect lassie, get a bloody grip of yourself.  There are appropriate ways for the laity to assist their bishops.  This is not one of them.

Quote:Indeed, even blasphemy against the Holy Spirit might (MIGHT) be absolved through the Church, but we're talking about the lead Cardinal of a powerful country in Europe, who knows all the ins and outs of the homos there who are attacking the Church. Again, fingers need to be pointed; Penance isn't saying a few Hail Marys in this case, and I'd like to think you know that.

Yes fingers must be pointed.  But you don't know if he's doing so.  Just because he has not personally given you a call and listed names does not mean he is being silent.

And I'm sorry but you don't know that.  Because once again you're not his confessor.  You have no right whatsoever to determine his penance.
Reply
#29
You are wrong to not question, City Smurf, especially in light of the current condition of the Church. There is a hierarchy not to keep us silent, but to keep the Church ordered and beautiful; we're supposed to use the hierarchy to voice our concerns, not worship the hierarchy when there is obvious abominations within it. They serve us, remember? (And by that I do not mean "they chase our young male seminarians around and serve them some gay love".) <-- That right there is called an ABOMINATION, and is against the Church, and I highly, HIGHLY doubt that it will be forgiven by the Church or on J Day.

And oh yes, I absolutely do question the validity of practicing gay priests and Bishops; you can call them valid all you want, but my priest vehemently disagrees and says if you know they are in the wrong, you're to use your own judgment, and report it. Such "priests" and "bishops" that try to destroy the Church from within, who rape, who practice their DISORDERED sexual inclinations openly (apparently without consent!), are clearly not of the Church and yet are IN it, and protected by the hierarchy, for reasons that I can't answer. Can you?

Look at the fruits of Cardinal O'Brien. "You shall know them by their fruits." Your Cardinal is in comfortable retirement, leaving behind a further scandalized Church.
Reply
#30
(03-04-2013, 09:40 PM)StCeciliasGirl Wrote: You are wrong to not question, City Smurf, especially in light of the current condition of the Church. There is a hierarchy not to keep us silent, but to keep the Church ordered and beautiful; we're supposed to use the hierarchy to voice our concerns, not worship the hierarchy when there is obvious abominations within it. They serve us, remember? (And by that I do not mean "they chase our young male seminarians around and serve them some gay love".)

I am not asking for silence.  I want the questions that need to be answered, to be answered.  This does not involve speculating upon the state of a man's immortal soul, condemning him as unredeemable, etc.  I don't want this investigation to be carried out through the mainstream media.  I want the appropriate authorities to investigate and compile a report and trust that in their discretion our lawful pastors will make known to us what we need to know.

Quote:<-- That right there is called an ABOMINATION, and is against the Church, and I highly, HIGHLY doubt that it will be forgiven by the Church or on J Day.

Doubt it all you wish.  If a man is truly sorry for his sins and repents before his death then God Willing he will stand shoulder to shoulder with the saints on the Last Day.  It's how it works.  No sin is unpardonable if one repents and seeks God's forgiveness.

Quote:And oh yes, I absolutely do question the validity of practicing gay priests and Bishops; you can call them valid all you want, but my priest vehemently disagrees and says if you know they are in the wrong, you're to use your own judgment, and report it. Such "priests" and "bishops" that try to destroy the Church from within, who rape, who practice their DISORDERED sexual inclinations openly (apparently without consent!), are clearly not of the Church and yet are IN it, and protected by the hierarchy, for reasons that I can't answer. Can you?

Your priest is wrong then.  The effects of ordination to the priesthood and consecration to the order of Bishops creates an inviolable mark on the recipient's soul.  Once a priest, always a priest.  It doesn't matter what sin they commit, they will always be priests and bishops and will be able to confect the Most Holy Eucharist and absolve penitents.  Nor does a priest's sins cause a loss of jurisdiction.  You can make an argument that your priest there that denied the Resurrection has fallen into heresy and has automatically lost jurisdiction—whilst still remaining a priest—but that's inapplicable to a priest that commits sexual sins, etc.

Certainly if you have knowledge of a priest that holds to heresy, or has commit sexual offenses against parishoners, etc., then report him.  But he does not cease to be a priest.

Quote:Look at the fruits of Cardinal O'Brien. "You shall know them by their fruits." Your Cardinal is in comfortable retirement, leaving behind a further scandalized Church.

Once again you are overstepping your place.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)