Posted on 04/18/2008 6:38:50 PM PDT by kellynla
I can understand why nearly three-quarters of U.S. Catholics say they approve of their new Pope, Benedict XVI. He is a deep thinking Pontiff who, like John Paul II before him, holds fast to refreshingly strong moral convictions. When he said he was ashamed of the existence of pedophile priests and their subsequent abuse of young boys, unlike the scoffers, I believe him.
It’s true that many Catholic leaders, to their disgrace, ignored early reports and initiated a cover-up. If financial retribution can ever repay such betrayal, many archdioceses have been bankrupted by the scandal. The church, however slow, has made attempts to purge themselves of this sexual deviance with one notable—and perhaps fatal—flaw.
“We will rid the church of pedophile priests,” said Pope Benedict on his flight to America. That’s good news except for one thing: the root problem among the priests was homosexuality, not pedophilia. Pedophilia is the attraction by adults to children, both boys and girls and the priest scandals have been, with few exceptions, man to boy.
Man/Boy “Love” has been a staple in homosexual practice since the time of the ancient Greeks, famous for taking young boys as students and bonding with them sexually. Modern gay magazines have regularly advertised for “Chickens,” defined by Bruce Rogers in “Gay-Talk: A Dictionary of Gay Slang” as “any boy under the age of consent … heterosexual … fair of face and unfamiliar with homosexuality.”
Until recently, the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) marched in gay pride parades nationally. But once homosexual activists realized the obstacle this posed to advancing their acceptance, NAMBLA was forced to take a low profile—at least for now.
In his book “Good-bye, Good Men,” author Michael Rose reports that many Catholic seminaries have gradually become conclaves for homosexual men, often leading to the exclusion of the “faithful,” who take seriously the teachings of Scripture on sexual behavior.
It is a disservice to shift the focus of the Catholic Church disgrace to pedophilia in order to soft pedal the larger danger of homosexual behavior to an ever-increasingly, gay-sympathetic public. Denying the correlation of homosexuality and priest-abusers of young boys further enforces the persuasive myth of activists that it is “just another lifestyle.” It will be difficult to oppose the cultural shift AND the homosexual clergy with the truth, but I believe Pope Benedict has the moral fortitude to do it.
The moral law established by our Creator brings clarity. Human sexuality, arguably the most beautiful gift of God to mankind, has been made ugly and perverse by all of us who think we can ignore those standards and practice any kind of sex outside of marriage without restraint.
Sexual perversion destroys lives, undermines civilization and ultimately wounds us all. The problem that unfolded in the Roman Catholic Church has its roots in homosexuality, not pedophilia. It is an important distinction. If Pope Benedict XVI can’t bring moral clarity on this issue to a world rapidly descending into homosexual acceptance, then who can?
“remove the wicked man from among yourselves”
So are you leaving or do you need to be removed?
In.ane (In an’), adj. 1. lacking sense or ideas; silly: inane questions.
big’ol-freeper = inane.
My understanding is that Jadot changed the interview/admission process from one where senior priests would interview candidates, to one where they were first screened by psychiatrists, who were not necessarily Catholic, and if they were too “judgmental” or saw things in black and white, they would be discouraged from continuing.
hilarious, you
thats why the whole world attends the funeral of a pope and its broadcast around the globe live and the whole world awaits the election of the new pope
whatever
i bet you wonder what it is like to know that the whole world, by its actions, knows that your pastor it the real deal
thats what catholics experience
Nope. Both my Pastor and I try to avoid worldliness. You appear to enjoy wallowing in it and worshiping idols.
The world loves the pope because the world thirsts for the gospel that the pope constantly speaks wherever he goes with great clarity.
The popes represent the last bulwark against the dictatorship of relativism and the tyranny of secularism.
Why you would pretend its not true speaks volumes about you.
If you are baptised, then the pope is the chief shepherd God has given to you. Yet you resist because you would rather elect your Pastor as your pope. To each his own, but how sad for you.
And 500 years of mass murder and torture. A real great bunch of guys.
I was highly suspicious of Abp. Gregory because of his prior position . . . but it may just be the USCCB that was toxic, not he. And what is only half-jokingly called the "Irish Mafia" in this archdiocese takes no prisoners on matters of orthodoxy and particularly on the question of homosexual priests. The three predatory homosexual offenders in the 70s (who were unmasked in the 80s) got the ecclesiastical equivalent of a short rope and a long drop here. I think the archbishop figured that out pretty quickly.
Lay off the Foxe. It rots your brain.
You'll think differently when you learn to read.
Well, then one is left to wonder why it took the hierarchy 30-40 years to determine this.
How selectively you condemn.
How carelessly you exaggerate.
Both of which are further evidence of your bigotry.
LOL! Too bad the "Irish Mafia" in Boston didn't do the same thing! I think the abusers were too connected to the Democrat party, and as such, were treated with kids gloves by the police and DAs, who were also overwhelmingly Democrat.
Good to hear that Arbp. Gregory is working out well. He was a disappointment at the USCCB, but it could have been the entrenched old boys network, and the liberal staff members, with which he had to work, that made the job worse.
Correct-over 92% of the abuse was of post pubescent boys. The abuse was almost all homosexual rape.
Perhaps the pope will find time to address that problem in his next U.S. visit.
I'm going to make it clear, before I say anything else, that I do NOT excuse any priest who abused a child, or young adult. In my opinion, if a priest is accused, he should be removed from his ministry, and an investigation begun immediately. If it is found that he did abuse anyone, he should be laicized, then tried for his crime. Unfortunately, that's not the way things were done in the 60's to 80's when the majority of the abuse occurred. That being said, why should Cardinal Law have been defrocked? He never molested anyone, and if I remember correctly, the majority of the abuse took place before he ever arrived in Boston. Several of the Auxiliary Bishops knew about it, as likely did his predecessor, Cardinal Medeiros, but I'm not sure at what point they told him. At first, Law would have done what all the Bishops did, and that's send the priest away for 'treatment', because that's the way things WERE done then, in ANY institution, not just the Church. We know now, that treatment doesn't help, but that's what all the counselors, psychiatrists and psychologists at the time thought.
Cardinal Law knew, and admitted, that he was ultimately responsible for the mess that was made, even if he wasn't the one who created it. The Attorney General of MA admitted publicly that the Cardinal had done nothing for which he could be even indicted, much less convicted, but in that same statement, the AG gave his animosity voice by saying he wished he COULD put him in jail. Interestingly, the AG didn't spend any time going after the psychiatrists or other professionals who had given the OK for the abusive priests to be put back in the parishes. Nor did he say anything about the DAs who didn't pursue prosecution of these priests, some of who were well connected in the Democrat party in Boston.
Paul Shanley was a favorite of the Boston liberal elite, and the Boston Globe made a big deal about how well he worked with the 'youth' of Boston. HA! They knew him to be a support of the homosexual activist community, being there at the beginning of the North American Man Boy Love Association. I don't remember hearing near as much negative press about him as I did about Geoghan, and ultimately Shanley avoided even being indicted. Geoghan, on the other hand was convicted, and received the ultimate punishment, by his beating death at the hands of another prisoner.
The media always made it sound like it was the fault of the Church, that these cases were not pursued when the victims were still young. They gave the impression that the Church was the main force holding back charges against the priests. In fact, in many cases, it was the parents of the abused children, in trying to protect them from having to testify against their abusers, who didn't press charges. They believed they were doing the best thing for their kids. In some cases, sadly, their Pastors or whoever the Bishop happened to be, used their power to intimidate the parents into not pressing charges. Either way, by the time the abuse victims began to pursue justice, it was too late, in many cases, to bring indictments against the abusive priests, because the Statute of Limitations had run out.
Cardinal Law left Boston, after the investigation was complete, so that the media would not harm the efforts of the new leader of the Diocese, Cardinal Sean O'Malley, to continue the work the Archdiocese had already begun, due to the efforts of Cardinal Law, to stop the abuse. The media made it seem as though every priest was a suspect, and that the abuse was still going on. In fact, the Archdiocese had begun the work within each Parish to keep the kids safe from any who would harm them, whether that person be ordained, or not.
I found it interesting that the media seemed to ignore other large Dioceses in which this abuse took place, like LA, Dallas, and Chicago, all of which had as many cases, but the Cardinals and Bishops there were more liberal, and friendly to the media. It is no accident that it was the Boston Archdiocese where the media concentrated its efforts against the Church. I believe it was exquisitely timed to coincide with the efforts of those who wanted to push for same sex 'marriage', and knew that Cardinal Law would be a formidable opponent, and they wanted to destroy any credibility the Church might have to fight their efforts. They thought they'd succeeded when they got rid of Law, because they looked at Sean O'Malley, saw his Franciscan robes and sandals, and thought he'd be easy to manipulate, and that they had it home free. They didn't expect him to be as vocal in his opposition as Law would have been. If the issue had ever been allowed to come up for a vote, I still believe it would have been defeated.
As for Cardinal Law, he spent a year at a monastery in Maryland, then went to Rome. He did NOT, as many uncharitably intimated at the time, flee the US to avoid any sort of prosecution. That was just more of the slander heaped on the man at the time. He cooperated fully with the investigation, and made himself available to the Attorney General during that time.
I'll put a disclaimer here. I have known Cardinal Law personally for over 35 years. He was the Chancellor of the Diocese of Jackson MS, and was in charge of College Campus Ministries at the time my husband and I met. He is a friend of my husband's family, having been a couple of years ahead of my b-i-l in the Seminary. I knew him to be an honest, caring man, and I still believe him to be that. He didn't do all I would have wished him to do to the abusive priests in Boston, but as he admitted, he was trying to be a Pastor to them, as was his requirement as a Bishop, but in doing that, he didn't concentrate on the families who were hurting, for which he was sorry.
Foxe was a polemicist, not a historian or a reporter. He was a foot soldier in the long-running English internal conflict that produced - among other things such as the Civil War and the execution of a king - the compromise Anglican church (and we see how well THAT has worked out.) He was the equivalent of James Carville or some other political 'spin doctor' -- his purpose was to defeat the other side in a political conflict, not to tell the truth.
If you're getting your ideas of the Catholic Church from Foxe and his fellow agitators, you are sadly misled.
But you have never seen such tough customers as the old Irish priests around here. Our rector used to be Vicar-General, and he is very much a take-no-prisoners type of guy. I would well and truly fear having him on my case.
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.