Proper attitude for a Catholic towards the pedophilia scandal?
#11
Are you asking, in effect, whether the Church should consider relaxing the rule on priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite?

Quite the obverse.  Apparently the teachings of Chastity and Celibacy need to be enlarged, deepened and made Holy.

There are just too many rationalizations.

If a priest is going to be a priest, he's got to be at least a DECENT human being.  Pedophilia is not decent.


EEWC
Reply
#12
(04-09-2010, 11:22 PM)verenaerin Wrote:
(04-09-2010, 11:07 PM)WilfredLeblanc Wrote:
(04-09-2010, 10:55 PM)verenaerin Wrote:I have no issue with the reporting of accurate information on the pedophillia scandal. But many do not stop there. They continue to attack the Church. When I say church I am not talking about the people in it or in the Vatican, I am talking about particular articles of faith.

What would you cite as an example of that in the media--attacking articles of faith as opposed to Church personnel or policies? I could be a selective reader, but I feel like the reporting has been pretty squarely focused on priests' sexual abuse of minors and the Church's misguided efforts to cover that up.

If it doesn't go without saying, I'm just talking about major news outlets, not screeds in offbeat publications.

I cannot answer your question right now. But I will work on it tomorrow. I just wanted you to know so that you didn't think I was bailing on you.

No worries! Thanks for sharing.

As you can see, this whole thing is starting to get to me a little bit.
Reply
#13
(04-09-2010, 11:28 PM)No3456 Wrote: If a priest is going to be a priest, he's got to be at least a DECENT human being. 

Well, yes, you would think so.

And it's all fine and well to say that we should separate the singer from the song, but we're talking about a situation that's a little more complicated than that. Priests and the rest of the Church hierarchy do not merely sing a received song. Part of the "song" is a rationale for their own authority, and that rationale enjoins the faithful to depend on them for interpretations of the rest of the song. So, yes, if the singer is not even a decent human being, it has a way of calling the veracity of the song into question. 
Reply
#14
(04-09-2010, 10:37 PM)WilfredLeblanc Wrote:
(04-09-2010, 10:14 PM)GeorgeT Wrote:  Angry people who have been looking for a reason to malign the church have now got it. They will try and harrass and shame those who remain in the church. They will try to confuse the arguement of an infallible church citing fallible men. Who cares? Their war is with God not with us.

I don't think blaming the critics works here. The Church's own behavior in this matter is malignant, is it not? Is the Church itself at war with God?

As for missing the distinction between an infallible Church and fallible men, it strikes me that the Church hierarchy itself is a bit confused on that issue. You would think that if the hierarchy really accepted the fallibility of the men of which the priesthood is comprised, they would have handled all this a bit differently.

I'm with you bro.

The Church should not have encourage homos into the priesthood in the first place and any religious found guilty of abuse should have been harshly punished.  The death sentence in some cases would be warranted in my opinion.

The Church swallowed the EVIL liberal bait, hook line and sinker.  All men are basically good, apart from the ones who want to have sex with children, and a few others.  No actually, all men are basically bad and prone to sin.

One only has to be honest with oneself and one understands what the state of man is.  Fatima warned them and they IGNORED it.

The post V2 clerics live with their heads up their own backsides as far as being in touch with reality goes.  Don't shoot, let them burn.
Reply
#15
(04-10-2010, 01:45 AM)ggreg Wrote: I'm with you bro.

The Church should not have encourage homos into the priesthood in the first place and any religious found guilty of abuse should have been harshly punished.  The death sentence in some cases would be warranted in my opinion.

The Church swallowed the EVIL liberal bait, hook line and sinker.  All men are basically good, apart from the ones who want to have sex with children, and a few others.  No actually, all men are basically bad and prone to sin.

One only has to be honest with oneself and one understands what the state of man is.  Fatima warned them and they IGNORED it.

The post V2 clerics live with their heads up their own backsides as far as being in touch with reality goes.  Don't shoot, let them burn.

Thanks, ggreg.

Again, I think homosexuality and pedophilia are separate proclivities, and to my thinking, the main problem with encouraging homosexuals to become priests is that it results in a situation whereby the Church is fundamentally talking out of both sides of its mouth. If the Church characterizes homosexuality as "intrinsically disordered" (Isn't that the wording of the Catechism?), what does it say by ordaining homosexuals? That it doesn't take its own teachings seriously? At a minimum, it creates a generalized atmosphere of permissiveness and insincerity in the priesthood, an atmosphere in which men who are sexually attracted to minors are apt to receive far less scrutiny than they deserve because those who would scrutinize them are already turning a blind eye to other behaviors the Church would appear to characterize as perverted. To me, that's the connection between homosexuals and pedophiles in the clergy. You've got a lot of priests and bishops who are themselves living double lives--not criminal lives, mind you, but lives sufficiently compromised to prevent them from being at all confident or resolute in driving out the sickest among them.

Maybe it is indeed possible to have same-sex attraction, abstain from acting on that attraction, and otherwise be a good priest. I'm pretty sure there are a fair number of priests in precisely this situation. But I also get the impression there are a fair number of gay priests with at least episodic sex lives (and a few who are straight and have episodic sex lives, for that matter, though my perception is that, in the current, perverse climate, it almost seems more scandalous for a straight priest to act out than it does for a gay one to act out, because we somehow expect it of the gay priest). And I get the impression that having a high percentage of priests who are homosexually oriented is itself an incentive for priests to be lax in living up to their vows. So perhaps purging the priesthood of gay men is necessary, but again, I don't think we can reduce pedophilia to a variety of homosexuality. Exhibit A is that plenty of the abusing priests, like this Kiesle guy who's the subject of today's brouhaha, have also abused underage girls.

Anyway, as far as homosexuality goes, I'm kind of at the point where I don't believe the Church hierarchy actually believes the Church's historic teachings. I think they avoid changing these teachings out of inertia and because they're scared of the backlash. That's not to say the teachings are wrong, but rather that the general teaching authority of the Church is undermined by this discrepancy. And from there, it's hard not to start questioning some of the Church's most basic claims about itself--like its continuity with the Church founded by Christ with Peter as its first bishop. Can apostolic succession have been lost at some point? Like I say, I could more easily accept a neat distinction between the singer and the song if the singers themselves seemed to embrace that distinction and if the singer and the song were not, in fact, so enmeshed.
Reply
#16
(04-09-2010, 11:28 PM)No3456 Wrote: Are you asking, in effect, whether the Church should consider relaxing the rule on priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite?

Quite the obverse.  Apparently the teachings of Chastity and Celibacy need to be enlarged, deepened and made Holy.

i don't think that's necessary.  i don't think there has been a lack of teaching or understanding on the part of priests.  most people who aren't even Catholic can tell you that the Church does not allow priests to marry or have sex of any kind, no exceptions.

the problem is that a few pedophiles (ped•o•phile  n.  An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children)  and a lot of pederasts (ped•er•ast  n. A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy) have gotten into the priesthood.  to do so, they have lied about their sexual proclivities and falsely vowed to be chaste and celibate.

there is evidence that communists infiltrated the priesthood decades ago, with the aim of destroying the Church from within.  the pederasts and pedophiles in the priesthood may, in some or many cases, also be communists, or they may be part of a separate conspiracy to force the Church to allow openly homosexual priests, homosexual marriages, etc.  some may have no political agenda but i suspect that many do. 

only 54 priests have been convicted of pedophile acts in the past 52 years.  that's a fact that the media never mentions.  the media doesn't want people to be aware that the problem is pederasty, not pedophilia.


There are just too many rationalizations.

by whom?  i can't address this statement unless you're more specific.

If a priest is going to be a priest, he's got to be at least a DECENT human being.  Pedophilia is not decent.

agreed, and neither is pederasty decent.  pederasty is the larger problem among priests and the problem the media refuses to name.  the media doesn't like to admit that many homosexuals are pederasts.  they try to avoid showing the seedy side of homosexual life.

EEWC

que?
Reply
#17
(04-09-2010, 09:52 PM)WilfredLeblanc Wrote: Finally, what is a Catholic supposed to make of the pedophilia scandal? Is he just supposed to chalk it up to fallout from Vatican II, somehow, or classify it as the kind of periodic disgrace that might inevitably occur in the history of any institution so huge and long-lived? 

I have to leave and didn't read any of the responses, but remember to keep perspective and facts.

The actual facts are: every other institution has much higher rates of sexual abuse, such as the public schools and any other religious organisation (Buddhist, Hindu, Judaic, etc) and the actual accusations show a tiny amount of such cases.

Reply
#18

if you haven't read it, i posted a thread that explained the sociological basis for the moral panic over "pedophile priests" (most of whom are pederasts, not pedophiles).

the author is a sociologist and makes some good points not made elsewhere.  i had not realized before reading this article that only 54 priests have been convicted of pedophilia over a 52 year span in the US!!!  actually, it could be less than 54 priests; there were 54 convictions.  i'm pretty sure john geoghan (sp.) was convicted on more than one count, probably others were as well.

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...831.0.html
Reply
#19
Seems like the compartmentalization of this discussion in these micro discoursi devolve into an endless abyss of wonder about what caused the problems in the first place.

Most people don't seem to want or be able to make the connection between various facts. 

Focusing on the issue of pederastic homosexuals, mislabeling it, and not taking into account the real underlying cause of the homosexual problem in the Church in the first place, will invariably play into the hands of the people who want to disuade people from seeing that this is indeed a problem of homosexuals in the Catholic Church, by and large  inserted into the priesthood and utilized by forces outside to bankrupt and discredit the Church from outside later on.

Despite the fact that Communist inflitration of Catholic institutions of higher education (themselves doing their part in corrupting youth in the West), is well documented, iit's not something which is discussed by any of the major media.  They will simply not discuss it because they're not honest, indeed, they're part of the problem.

Jeff Anderson, the author of the current New York Times scandal, is a good example of someone taking existing church documents, many confidential in nature, and twisting the facts of those documents to suit a prearrenged agenda which he has been pursuing for more than 30 years on behalf of an agenda which should be apparent to anyone who's followed the tactics of Communist and National Socialist organizations throughout the 20th Century.

Jeff Anderson is a Democratic Party and ACLU member and takes his ill-gotten gains to buy furnishings for his office from the churches he's pirated, but he also takes that money to support the Democratic Party and its own initiatives for the demoralization and destruction of this country and the "national" Catholic Church.

Reply
#20
good post aug
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)