Posted on 03/20/2012 3:57:30 AM PDT by Bon mots
At least 10 teenage boys or young men under the age of 21 were surgically castrated "to get rid of homosexuality" while in the care of the Dutch Roman Catholic Church in the 1950s.
Evidence of the castrations has emerged amid controversy that it was not included in the findings of an official investigation into sexual abuse within the church last year.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
10 boys????? What’s so shocking about that?
Here in the U.S. most of congress has been castrated.
Very interesting.
My brother-in-law is a (highly) significant leader in the Holy Cross order. Ordained at Notre Dame in 1987. Has many Chicago connections and spent about 5 years there as a fundraiser/headmaster for Holy Cross Catholic schools. While he's not a child molester, nor is he gay, he neverthelss has made the promotion of "diversity" a significant issue.
When I asked how he reconciles his support for democrats and the Catholic opposition to abortion, he gave the response, almost word-for-word "consider the totality of a candidate’s charity"
“At the head of the USCCB, he authorized the publication of the New American Bible, the first edition of which falsely claimed that the ancient church believed in a flat earth, denied the historicity of miracles in the New and Old testament, and included heresy after heresy in the footnotes. (If you anyone owns a New American Bible, and is objecting, hang with me a bit more...)”
Good summary. The only thing you skipped was the sudden death of JPI, who had publicly announced that he intended to correct the errors of Vatican II and even reverse some of the changes. He lasted about 30 days as Pope before they got him.
As for JPII, he started off much stronger but after the assassination attempt, it seemed to me that he backed away and unfortunately took a rather hands-off approach to Church governance. He had many bad people in the Curia, not to mention among the bishops worldwide. There was much open teaching of heresy during his reign, until towards the end when Cardinal Ratzinger had gotten enough power to begin silencing some of the more prominent of these people.
However, the bad bishops continued in power, and only now, with the more recent appointments made by Ratzinger, are we seeing any change in direction.
I think schism is going to happen anyway, at least in the US. The bishops in the US have failed to assert their authority and have allowed everybody from wacky nuns to dissident college presidents to Nancy Pelosi to present themselves as legitimate voices and authorities of the Catholic Church. Obama is going to force the issue in some way that will mean that the orthodox bishops will have to take a stand...at which point the “American Patriotic Church” people such as Nancy Pelosi and the gang will receive the overt support of a few bishops, probably including Wuerl, which will enable them to proclaim themselves to be the “true” Church. The orthodox bishops will be portrayed as interlopers loyal to a foreign power, and will be removed from any control over the assets and general population of the Church.
Avoiding schism by not correcting heresy only allowed it to grow stronger and make its ultimate occurence more likely.
In fairness:
1. The priests who committed the sexual abuse actually were reported to the police, arrested and convicted.
2. As a result of the abuse, it’s entirely plausible that the victims began to experience homosexuality themselves, and quite possibly discerned a danger of becoming sexual predators themselves.
3. Even today, castration is considered a reasonable way to help someone inclined to be a sexual predator from acting in such a way. It has declined only because it has been demonstrated to be ineffective.
The notion that the castration was “punishment” for reporting the priests is understandable, but simply baseless.
>> The only thing you skipped was the sudden death of JPI, who had publicly announced that he intended to correct the errors of Vatican II and even reverse some of the changes. He lasted about 30 days as Pope before they got him. <<
You don’t have to be paranoid to suspect he was “gotten,” but I’m trying to stick to what’s reasonably well established, not merely what seems uncanny. There were certainly some unusual actions of the Vatican which could be taken as trying to conceal something, but while it’s tempting to speculate what that was, I know of no evidence suggesting that it was a Satanic plot.
I will note this, however, Pope John Paul I also initiated the removal of organized crime from Vatican banking. Fiction, such as the Godfather Part III, has popularized the notion that the mafia assassinated him. In actuality, the organized crime was not the traditional mafia, but Propaganda Due, a MASONIC LODGE! Shockingly, Italian President Silvio Berlusconi was part of that lodge!
I also think your assessment, “However, the bad bishops continued in power, “ is a bit harsh, although not false.
John Paul II did not oust Mahony from office, for instance, and he was terribly heretical. His strategy seemed to be simply to inspire more faithful priests to eventually displace the heretics, and this seemed extremely successful, although painfully slow.
And while he didn’t remove heretics, he countered them brilliantly. When he took office, faithful American catholics expected that the church would soon reverse itself on matters like birth control, premarital sex, abortion, the ordination of women. By the time he left, everyone knew these were unthinkable.
Understanding Alinkyite tactics, I don’t believe removing heretics from office could possibly have been successful. If he went after only the worst offenders, their supporters would still have been the vast majority of American bishops, and he would’ve been seen as reactionary, divisive, and irrelevant. If he went after all heretics, there would scarcely be a bishop left in America, and no priests to appoint in their place. Even if he were successful beyond any reasonable expectation, the best he would accomplish would be like ripping dandelion’s heads off. But my estimation is that he simply would have been on the losing end of a schism.
Brute force never succeeded since the days of the reformation. The counter-reformation was accomplished by preaching, praying, and fasting.
You didn’t have to be in a fraternity or sorority to binge drink or get high until you puke.
It was a general college experience.
Well, I’m not going to argue with THAT. But that wasn’t the thrust of anything I wrote.
I should be more careful in my wording.
Mahony was smart enough to avoid formal heresy. He trapped Mother Angelica good, when she noted that his explanation of the Eucharist had nothing to do with transubstantiation: he didn’t actually deny it, and, despite her apologies for her poor choice of words and lack of charity in interpreting Mahony’s remarks, Mahony was pretty much able to ruin her.
What I mean to say is that Mahony allowed all manner of outrage and faithless teaching in his diocese, while sicking his dogs on those who taught the truth. Mahony didn’t merely fail to present the whole picture: his comments about the eucharist which Mother Angelica picked up on were not actually FALSE, but so lacking in any important truth as to constitute grave falsehood. If someone were to describe their marriage as “yeah, I bang her most Saturdays for something to do,” would you not be outraged? Yes, marriage includes sexuality, which is enjoyable, so the statement isn’t wrong, but is horrifyingly disrespectful.
I should be more careful in my wording.
Mahony was smart enough to avoid formal heresy. He trapped Mother Angelica good, when she noted that his explanation of the Eucharist had nothing to do with transubstantiation: he didn’t actually deny it, and, despite her apologies for her poor choice of words and lack of charity in interpreting Mahony’s remarks, Mahony was pretty much able to ruin her.
What I mean to say is that Mahony allowed all manner of outrage and faithless teaching in his diocese, while sicking his dogs on those who taught the truth. Mahony didn’t merely fail to present the whole picture: his comments about the eucharist which Mother Angelica picked up on were not actually FALSE, but so lacking in any important truth as to constitute grave falsehood. If someone were to describe their marriage as “yeah, I bang her most Saturdays for something to do,” would you not be outraged? Yes, marriage includes sexuality, which is enjoyable, so the statement isn’t wrong, but is horrifyingly disrespectful.
Just your fraternity, mate. mine didn’t.
Nor mine.
“If he went after all heretics, there would scarcely be a bishop left in America, and no priests to appoint in their place.” - D
What is the value in preserving such an entity?
Would it not be better to start over, based on the proper teachings of Christ?
>> What is the value in preserving such an entity?<<
The reform of the institution is being remarkably successful. Get back to me when you’ve succeeded at driving the heresy out of any of the Protestant churches, and we’ll discuss unity.
>> Would it not be better to start over, based on the proper teachings of Christ? <<
Yeah, it’s called “establishing orthodoxy.” It’s exactly what John Paul II and Benedict XVI are doing. Or wait, you weren’t suggesting that we pile on all kinds of *new* radical innovations, were you?
Not interested in the Protestant church.
As long as the likes of cardinal law sit in Rome in a place of honor - the church has done too little to cleanse itself from evil.
Cardinal Law is a museum curator.
People don’t understand what happened with him:
Each Cardinal is given an historical church to be the nominal pastor of, since the electors of the Pope were historically the pastors of Rome. Since they too busy being archbishop, normally a “parochial vicar” is named to manage the day-to-day functions of the Roman church led by a Cardinal. When Law was removed from his post as Archbishop, he went back to being pastor of his Roman parish... which is now more of a museum than a functional parish; mostly only tourists go to mass there, and they’re responsible to their pastors back home.
If Law simply had resigned as archbishop, people would presume he had been granted retirement, since he was getting rather elderly. The fact that he now works at another assignment signifies to the world, “No, he’s not retired; he is simply regarded as not competent to fulfill his duties as archbishop.”
To say I am shocked by this story is an understatement; these actions are inexcusable. Not having grown up in Holland, I can't imagine how anyone could have justified these actions. There is a history, in the field of music, of young boys being castrated. During puberty a boy's vocal chords enlarge enormously, caused by an increased production of anderogen hormones. Castration prevented the necessary flow of hormones and arrested growth. Afterwards the castrato would have the high voice of a boy soprano, but the lung power of a full-grown man. Composers wrote music for this particular voice. However, the last performance of an operatic castrato in an opera was in London in 1825.
The Dutch culture is quite different from what we know in the US. They legalized prostitution decades ago. They legalized assisted suicide in 1994. It's a complex culture. Insofar as the Catholic Church in the Netherlands, I think you may find more detailed information here.
The problem I have with this is that the Dutch government or culture is NOT the Catholic Church; and, therefore, there is no excuse. Just more fodder for the Catholic bashers, I’m afraid.
The story talks about minors having the castration done on them. What does that have to do with homosexuals becoming priests?
What exactly does that mean?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.