Pre Vatican II? Yeah, meaning EVERY Bishop, Cardinal and Pope to this day. So it’s still a problem then.
The problem was that established hierarchy in the church wanted to only hush people up. When the victims families started to make a big stink, the Church just threw a couple million bucks at them to shut them up. The church promised the families that the offending priest would no long have contact with children. Of course the church lied and shipped the priest to another unsuspecting parish and allowed the priest to continue his diddling delights unabated.
Any cardinal who was a Bishop in the 70s, 80s, or 90s has knowingly allowed this to travesty to happen by aiding in the coverup. When Cardinal Roger Mahony’s speaks about the history of this subject, only lies come out.
And, unfortunately, no indication or mention of the fact that the majority of cases of abuse by priests were homosexual men committing acts against boys. Which should tie in with the whole “screening process” for priest candidates which he mentions. Officially, the Catholic Church has always banned homosexual priests. But it’s an open secret that there is a substantial minority of priests who are homosexual.
The pre-Vatican II, Latin, cassocks, “good-old-days” comment seems to me a direct slam against Summorum Ponticicum. Obviously none of those things can be attributed to priests molesting boys. What is this obfuscation about “we’re studying it”? Allowing monasteries to become gay enclaves, almost with a San Francisco bathhouse atmosphere (I have this first-hand from a family friend who entered one seminary in the diocese in the ‘80’s), is a much bigger problem than a priest knowing Latin.
Mahony seems deliberately trying to undermine the Pope’s latest efforts, both at seminary reform AND allowing the extraordinary form of Mass. I can’t believe even Mahony is so brazen. How does he get away with this, decade after decade with no diminution in sight of his arrogant apostasy?
Usually I do not believe we should malign a bishop, but this is a case where the faithful must speak out in order to save the faith, and millions of souls in danger.
seems part of the problem was the false secular notion that homosexuality was somehow normal and the sexual abuse inherent in that behavor was abnormal.
It was a classic demonstration of Liberalism trying to conceal their errors on the graves of the victims.
No, the problem is sin. The problem is hypocracy. It is inexcusable that clergy fail to see it as it is and condemn it for what it is. Not a euphemism. Not propound a lie to excuse the inexcusable. It magnifies the churches negligence. Jesus never shyed away from calling it the way it was. Hypocrites,sepulcres full of dead mens bones. Get on your knees and in the closet and get right with God.