June 25 - Supposed "Emergency" Meeting of the Roman Curia
#71
(06-27-2013, 04:59 PM)demoslider Wrote: I see that Rorate-Caeli posted, then soon after deleted the Voris video on the gay prostitution ring.

Its great to have scoops, to be a leading outlet on trad Catholic things, but one must not let it go to their head.
Reply
#72
The Church has dealt with Crisis before, and will continue to do so (sometimes it doesn't deal with it very well). The Church has always has sinners, some very serious which cause grave scandal. How ought we to deal with it? Hopefully, Pope Francis will deal effectively with it. I'm not advocating that we all just be quiet and pray, but there comes a time when complaining isn't that effective, or rather, it has it's limits (though I'm one of the biggest complainers here, I know). But this issue has the potential to be very serious, so I thought about a post on a blog that I really like, which quotes something from a fellow named Bernanos, who I still don't know much about, but I like what he has to say:

One can only refrom the Church by suffering for her; one can only reform the visible Church by suffering for the invisible Church. One cannot reform the Church's vices except by pouring out the example of the most heroic virtue. It's possible that St. Francis of Assis was no less digusted than Martin Luther by the debauchery and simony of prelates. It is very certain that they made him suffer more cruely than Luther because he was a very different man than the German monk. But he did not defy iniquity or try to confront it; he threw himself into poverty, plunged himself into it as much as he could, as if it were a fountain of healing and purity. Instead of trying to rip from the hands of the Church its ill gotten goods, he filled her with invisible treasures, and under the guidance of this beggar, the heaps of gold and riches began to flower like a hedge in April...."

http://thesensiblebond.blogspot.com/2012...ks-to.html
Reply
#73
(06-27-2013, 05:06 PM)Meg Wrote: The Church has dealt with Crisis before, and will continue to do so (sometimes it doesn't deal with it very well). The Church has always has sinners, some very serious which cause grave scandal. How ought we to deal with it? Hopefully, Pope Francis will deal effectively with it. I'm not advocating that we all just be quiet and pray, but there comes a time when complaining isn't that effective, or rather, it has it's limits (though I'm one of the biggest complainers here, I know). But this issue has the potential to be very serious, so I thought about a post on a blog that I really like, which quotes something from a fellow named Bernanos, who I still don't know much about, but I like what he has to say:

One can only refrom the Church by suffering for her; one can only reform the visible Church by suffering for the invisible Church. One cannot reform the Church's vices except by pouring out the example of the most heroic virtue. It's possible that St. Francis of Assis was no less digusted than Martin Luther by the debauchery and simony of prelates. It is very certain that they made him suffer more cruely than Luther because he was a very different man than the German monk. But he did not defy iniquity or try to confront it; he threw himself into poverty, plunged himself into it as much as he could, as if it were a fountain of healing and purity. Instead of trying to rip from the hands of the Church its ill gotten goods, he filled her with invisible treasures, and under the guidance of this beggar, the heaps of gold and riches began to flower like a hedge in April...."

http://thesensiblebond.blogspot.com/2012...ks-to.html

At the same time you had Francis, you also had Dominic and his sons going around and preaching the truth boldly to all who would listen.  Frankly, without Dominic, I don't think Francis would have been as successful.  There is a reason in my view that they were both raised up at the same time with the missions that they had. 
Reply
#74
(06-27-2013, 05:27 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(06-27-2013, 05:06 PM)Meg Wrote: The Church has dealt with Crisis before, and will continue to do so (sometimes it doesn't deal with it very well). The Church has always has sinners, some very serious which cause grave scandal. How ought we to deal with it? Hopefully, Pope Francis will deal effectively with it. I'm not advocating that we all just be quiet and pray, but there comes a time when complaining isn't that effective, or rather, it has it's limits (though I'm one of the biggest complainers here, I know). But this issue has the potential to be very serious, so I thought about a post on a blog that I really like, which quotes something from a fellow named Bernanos, who I still don't know much about, but I like what he has to say:

One can only refrom the Church by suffering for her; one can only reform the visible Church by suffering for the invisible Church. One cannot reform the Church's vices except by pouring out the example of the most heroic virtue. It's possible that St. Francis of Assis was no less digusted than Martin Luther by the debauchery and simony of prelates. It is very certain that they made him suffer more cruely than Luther because he was a very different man than the German monk. But he did not defy iniquity or try to confront it; he threw himself into poverty, plunged himself into it as much as he could, as if it were a fountain of healing and purity. Instead of trying to rip from the hands of the Church its ill gotten goods, he filled her with invisible treasures, and under the guidance of this beggar, the heaps of gold and riches began to flower like a hedge in April...."

http://thesensiblebond.blogspot.com/2012...ks-to.html

At the same time you had Francis, you also had Dominic and his sons going around and preaching the truth boldly to all who would listen.  Frankly, without Dominic, I don't think Francis would have been as successful.  There is a reason in my view that they were both raised up at the same time with the missions that they had. 

Sounds reasonable. I'm all for proclaiming truth boldly  :)
Reply
#75
Voris,today, ad (um, I mean report) is probably 98% fake. Odds are some forth coming wing-nut book will soon be advertised.
Reply
#76
(06-27-2013, 03:42 PM)Joshua Wrote: There is absolutely zero evidence for that fashionable assertion.

That is rather offensive to many people.
Reply
#77
(06-27-2013, 03:42 PM)Joshua Wrote:
(06-27-2013, 03:29 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: It's time to end priestly celibacy, in my view (except for bishops and for religious, of course). The homosexual subculture will persist as long as things continue as they are.

There is absolutely zero evidence for that fashionable assertion.

Marriage is not a cure or prevention of homosexual and perverted acts.
Reply
#78
(06-27-2013, 06:44 PM)Ursus Wrote:
(06-27-2013, 03:42 PM)Joshua Wrote:
(06-27-2013, 03:29 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: It's time to end priestly celibacy, in my view (except for bishops and for religious, of course). The homosexual subculture will persist as long as things continue as they are.

There is absolutely zero evidence for that fashionable assertion.

Marriage is not a cure or prevention of homosexual and perverted acts.

The Roman tradition of priestly celibacy shouldn't be dismissed. Though I seriously doubt that there are many young gay guys entering the priesthood these days - what's the point? Western culture embraces homosexuality, it's bending over backwards to accommodate gay marriage, and social stigma associated with homosexuality (as an act and/or lifestyle) is a thing of the past.

There's no reason for closeted gay men to evade society (and attempt solitary lives as priests) because there's no reason to remain in the closet - and ultimately, while I'm sure a lot of gay men in the 50s, 60s, and 70s who entered the Church had lofty ambitions, their inability to control their same sex attraction speaks to a mindset that is hiding from an aggressive society rather than embracing the fullness of their vows, including clerical chastity.

And please let's not act like pedophilia is somehow interchangeable with homosexuality. While there certainly were many cases of homosexual abuse, it doesn't follow that every actively homosexual priest was a pedophile, or indeed that every priest who has/had same sex attraction acted upon those impulses (conquering the flesh - the correct and saintly behaviour for any person with SSA).

Reply
#79
(06-27-2013, 07:11 PM)loggats Wrote: And please let's not act like pedophilia is somehow interchangeable with homosexuality. While there certainly were many cases of homosexual abuse, it doesn't follow that every actively homosexual priest was a pedophile, or indeed that every priest who has/had same sex attraction acted upon those impulses (conquering the flesh - the correct and saintly behaviour for any person with SSA).

FBI statistics complied from the 50s through the 80s proved that homosexuals, who represented ~1% of the population, committed approx 28% of all abuse of minors. So while in sheer numbers homosexuals molested a smaller total than heterosexuals, any given homosexual is 40 to 60 times more likely to molest a minor than their heterosexual counterpart.

These stats were confirmed by a huge federal study of sexual abuse by public school teachers back in 2004 which quoted three major studies. See page 25 and 26 of the PDF.

The stats show that consistently 25 to 30% of abuse of minors is same sex abuse, i.e., by definition, homosexual in nature.
Reply
#80
(06-27-2013, 07:11 PM)loggats Wrote:
(06-27-2013, 06:44 PM)Ursus Wrote:
(06-27-2013, 03:42 PM)Joshua Wrote:
(06-27-2013, 03:29 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: It's time to end priestly celibacy, in my view (except for bishops and for religious, of course). The homosexual subculture will persist as long as things continue as they are.

There is absolutely zero evidence for that fashionable assertion.

Marriage is not a cure or prevention of homosexual and perverted acts.

The Roman tradition of priestly celibacy shouldn't be dismissed. Though I seriously doubt that there are many young gay guys entering the priesthood these days - what's the point? Western culture embraces homosexuality, it's bending over backwards to accommodate gay marriage, and social stigma associated with homosexuality (as an act and/or lifestyle) is a thing of the past.

There's no reason for closeted gay men to evade society (and attempt solitary lives as priests) because there's no reason to remain in the closet - and ultimately, while I'm sure a lot of gay men in the 50s, 60s, and 70s who entered the Church had lofty ambitions, their inability to control their same sex attraction speaks to a mindset that is hiding from an aggressive society rather than embracing the fullness of their vows, including clerical chastity.

And please let's not act like pedophilia is somehow interchangeable with homosexuality. While there certainly were many cases of homosexual abuse, it doesn't follow that every actively homosexual priest was a pedophile, or indeed that every priest who has/had same sex attraction acted upon those impulses (conquering the flesh - the correct and saintly behaviour for any person with SSA).

While I agree we shouldn't label all homosexuals as pedophiles, I do not agree with "what's the point." The point is that exclusively homosexual priests lack that natural ability for fatherhood and place themselves in an environment of increased temptation. It is a service to them that they cannot receive Holy Orders.
I am praying. For Francis. For Benedict. For the Church. This is Paul's smoke of Satan. This is what makes Our Lady weep.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)