You know, all the Catholic Church needs to do to take care of its child molestation problem is get married priests and women priests, like the Anglicans. And liberalize its theology, like the Anglicans. Oh, wait...
Meanwhile, the financial scandal at the national HQ of the Orthodox Church in America, my own church, continues to be dragged out (read all about it here). It's all depressing and demoralizing and dispiriting, but as a church friend advises, "Keep your chin up. At least they are not buggering kids."
Ah, yes, one takes one's silver linings where one finds them...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Susan, when you use your God-given ability to reason and debate honestly, you are an enjoyable challange. However, when you give in to your seeming neuroses and do things like support and falsely expand upon Larry's despicable and grotesk charge that I am "acting like ephebophilia is somehow more moral and holy than pedophilia", your accusations are not worthy of a response. Your Oct 23, 3:12 PM comment is an example.
In your Oct 23, 12:34 comment, you support Jim's accusation of me where he said "To throw Vatican II into this issue and make it the scapegoat is dishonest and only suggests continued obfuscation and unwillingness to look clearly at what our Church and culture has wrought."
Susan, by supporting Jim, your neuroses and Church bashing agenda appear to be showing again. I did not scapegoat Vatican II and never would--it was an event guided by the Holy Spirit. You are exhibiting your ignorance of the Crurch. Whether you like it or not, the Church herself is guided by the Holy Spirit, so she can not have "wrought" homosexual predation. Your homosexual priest-friends did.
---------------------------------------------------------
Jim, before your nasty quote, you asked me to "Please explain why you believe this "homozexual network'in the priesthood was formed after Vatican II, when it is clearly documented that many of the abusers were in seminaries and even much of the abuse took place prior to Vatican II."
Vatican II, did not go the way homosexuals wanted it to. They hoped for a pastoral a statement that
Sorry I did not intend to send the above before completing and spell checking it. I'll try again.
Susan, when you use your God-given ability to reason and debate honestly, you are an enjoyable challenge. However, when you give in to your seeming neuroses and do things like support and falsely expand upon Larry's despicable and grotesque charge that I am "acting like ephebophilia is somehow more moral and holy than pedophilia", your accusations are not worthy of a response. Your Oct 23, 3:12 PM comment is an example.
In your Oct 23, 12:34 comment, you support Jim's accusation of me where he said "To throw Vatican II into this issue and make it the scapegoat is dishonest and only suggests continued obfuscation and unwillingness to look clearly at what our Church and culture has wrought."
Susan, by supporting Jim, your neuroses and Church bashing agenda appear to be showing again. I did not scapegoat Vatican II and never would--it was an event guided by the Holy Spirit. You are exhibiting your ignorance of the Church. Whether you like it or not, the Church herself is guided by the Holy Spirit, so she can not have "wrought" homosexual predation. Your homosexual priest-friends did.
---------------------------------------------------------
Jim, before your nasty quote, you asked me to "Please explain why you believe this "homosexual network 'in the priesthood was formed after Vatican II, when it is clearly documented that many of the abusers were in seminaries and even much of the abuse took place prior to Vatican II." Here goes, in brief:
Vatican II, did not go the way homosexuals, socialists and assorted progressives wanted it to. They hoped for a statement that Western culture had failed to end war, poverty, intolerance, etc., and that a better way was needed. They failed to get it so they and their media allies said that behind the antiquated words in the council documents was a "spirit" of cultural revolution; the true spirit of Vatican II. Within 20 years the battle cry (with which you are familiar, Jim) became "everyone must let his conscience dictate how he lives." The result was an affirmation of materialism and almost total skepticism/relativism, drugs and sex.
Now, Jim, this was a made-to-order climate for theologically corrupt homosexuals already in the Church. A relatively small number of homosexual bishops, seminary directors and their homosexual shrinks, wallowing in the false spirit of V II, had a field day. They were overseen by an even smaller number of the type of pompous-ass archbishops and Cardinals that sicken Susan (and me) and who turned a blind eye. Worse, they lied to Pope John Paul II when news of the pink palaces trickled out, and promised to clean house. They of course did not.
You are correct that homosexualism in seminaries did not begin after V II, but it was more or less under cover until the false spirit of V II, including political correctness, swept over schools, liturgy, music, architecture, pulpits, seminaries and orders of nuns. It wasn't long after V II that seminarians who didn't go along with the depravity could be sent to homosexual shrinks, found "too rigid", and kicked out.
"American Catholics have been left reeling by recent clergy sex scandals, and have wondered how things could have gotten so bad. Goodbye Good Men [by Michael S. Rose] has the shocking answers...."
Rod Dreher, National Review
So, Jim, I never blamed the problem on V II. I do blame it on the false "Spirit" of V II. Read the above mentioned book.
I think we need to stop going around the mulberry bush on this one. Nothing new in any post here.
These discussions are not good for the mental health of the participants, especially if they steer into accusation, personal insult, and conspiracy theory.
My takes on the whole thing:
1. Child molestation is more common today than it was 50 years ago.
2. Man-boy sex between homosexuals and bisexuals will not be prevented by any laws regarding age of consent, period.
3. The acceptance of homosexual behavior will definitely put pressure on to accept some pederesty (man-boy sex) even though most male homosexuals do not have homosexual sex with teens.
4. There is a tendency to politicalize these issues today such that we are slowly but surely moving toward a society with 2 groups of people for which different sets of behaviour are expected. The Michael Jacksons, some public employees of a liberal bent and others who are declared foot-loose-and-fancy-free can behave one way; but others such as priests, ministers, rabbis, and other authority figures will be bound by more traditional expectations with harsher penalties one way or another.
5. The statistical rate of, and absolute amount of sexual abuse by all priests (Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox) and Protestant ministers is considerably less today than it was 30 years ago.
Susan,
Strictly speaking "celibacy" means the unmarried state. It does not mean that a cleric who has taken up a celibate life will necessarily not fall off the wagon any more than a married person will remain true to his/her vows to forsake all others, sexually speaking.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.