Posted on 04/24/2008 7:25:40 AM PDT by NYer
Your thoughts?
Very interesting discussion. What I would have liked to see the Pope do (in a dream world ...) is stand up in front of the press and say, in a talking-to-rather-slow-preschoolers tone, “You do understand that all but a few of these cases involved homosexual men and teenage boys, don’t you? Oh, but you think there’s nothing wrong about adult men’s having sex with teenage boys? Well, you’re compost-eating hypocrites, then, aren’t you?”
Just sayin’ ... reason number #7857 why they’ll never make me Pope ...
I read Johansen’s letter about bishops. Yes, he has a point that you can’t look at the Pope as if he were the top CEO and bishops as if they were middle level executives. This is where the laity needs to step in. If solid evidence comes forth that a priest or priests were involved in sexual misconduct with minors and the bishop is lax in action-—the laity needs to force his hand. There is no better way to say F-U to a bishop than by holding back $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
It’s an interesting idea that JPII had an “Eastern” view of the Papacy, although if this means being simply a hands-off figurehead, I’m not sure this is a totally accurate assessment of the Eastern view. However, I think BXVI’s view of the papacy is different from that of JPII, although obviously it is tempered by it because it would be very hard for him to do anything abrupt after so many years of JPII’s style.
JPII had one of the longest papacies ever, and I think that’s something we often neglect to consider: many things that Popes will have to deal with for some time to come were shaped by him, particularly since he had this long reign right after VatII, when things were in flux anyway. The rise of the national bishops’ conferences and their power, for example, is something that earlier popes didn’t have to contend with, so there were even structural changes left behind by JPII. (The bishops’ conferences came out of a suggestion made at VatII, but they were fairly new when JPII took over, and he could have restricted their competence, but actually seems to have expanded it.) Also, JPII let so many things drift along that there are many - well, I’ll say it - evil people installed in various cathedra across the country and the world. And they’ve been there for a long time.
That said, I think he probably will do something, but it’s not going to be as dramatic as I’d like! Some bishops may get coadjutors; some bishops may be retired for “health reasons.” This Pope seems to give people plenty of warning, but he does act eventually. So we shall see...
This was how I felt on why nothing outspoken had come from the Vatican on the issue. But the Pope still can use the bully pulpit. Of course the hard part of using the bully pulpit is being charitable at the same time.
Rewarding those Bishops that did do something right would be great as well. I’m still miffed that Arch. Bishop Burke was over looked for the Red Hat. Not that I would want him to receive the hat for political statement purposes, but at least it could be a statement on how a Prince of Church should look like.
Another good reason for lack of thunder is due to small list of replacements. I think it has been pointed out that there are many bishop sees empty and deciding on who to take the chair can take years at times.
The deeper question, for anyone who wants to ponder it, is why God does not send better bishops and priests who defend the faith and the Church. We are not able to see the correspondence that has been sent to Rome from priests and laymen complaining about this for the last 30 years. But weak bishops or popes is nothing to lose your faith over. During the Reformation people were killing each other over doctrinal disagreements. There were perverts pretending to be clergymen long before some of these American celebrity converts converted. It's disgusting but you can't spend the rest of your life stuck on this.
Scene I’d liked to have seen: Mahoney comes up to receive Holy Communion from Benedict at a televised event. Benedict slaps Mahoney’s face, administers a blessing and sends him back to the pew.
Actually, did you notice the one brief mention he made of just this issue? I think it was in one of the DC addresses, but I’m not sure which one. He said something about the pedophile crimes, and then he mentioned homosexuality and said “but this is a separate matter that we will get to later.”
The number of genuine pedophiles among the clergy was probably even lower than that in the rest of the world, because priests rarely have much opportunity to get near small children of either sex. And the crimes that would genuinely constitute pedophilia are a relatively small percentage of those in the lawsuits, etc.
It was in the vast majority, homosexual adult men preying upon teenage boys. These men were active homosexuals and were engaged with other adult men as well. And it went all the way up the line. Recently stuff has come out about Cdl McCarrick (now retired), and of course, we even have a serving bishop here in Florida, Bp Lynch of Tampa St. Pete’s, who had to settle a sexual harrassment suit brought against him by a male employee only a few years ago. And yet he was not removed from his post or even mildly scolded.
Also, I think BXVI made a major mistake in picking Levada, since Levada is notoriously gay-friendly and probably has completely misadvised BXVI about the US bishops. But I think BXVI may be aware of this, and I suspect that he will take up the issue of homosexuality in the clergy and probably even among the bishops and higher. This probably wasn’t the moment for it, but I suspect it will happen.
You have an eye for the perfect moment!
Implausible:
Priests/bishops/cardinals self-communicate when they are vested.
I readily concede that.
If anyone knows what the right moment is, it would have to be Pope Benedict :-).
The Popes and some Bishops have produced excellent statements about homosexual attraction (a psychological disorder) and homosexual behavior (always a sin, No Matter What). Unfortunately, resistance to this message is pervasive in the Church as well as in general society.
It's more likely that a naive understanding of sexuality is to blame. By the time the media were making noise about it, JP2 had Parkinson's. Not exactly in a robust state to offer stern lectures.
But whoever is advising the Vatican about the Church in America needs to replaced. And they ought to have lay heterosexuals who were born Catholic and grew up in the Church in leadership positions on some of the committees. It's astonishing some of the people that manage to rise to positions of promimence on Catholic matters. Someone who converted in the '90s or the '80s is not going to know enough about what was going on with these issues. And, really, as outsiders, they should consult with people who do.
Color me skeptical, but something about that doesn't seem quite right.
There, that looks better :-)
Actually, there's some discussion that he may modify Canon law to extend the statute of limitation for filing claims. There are victims who have submitted claims against priests, dating back to the 50's; most of those priests are now deceased.
Last year or this?
Yes, that's interesting. Perhaps the man was an employee of the church, which would make it a workplace sexual-harassment situation? We also don't know how many of the molestation claims are false. "Oh, I just remembered when I saw the seven-figure dollar amounts on the news that a priest groped me thirty years ago!" One case in Tulsa, involving a former pastor of our parish there, was determined by the DA to be a complete fabrication; I'm sure that wasn't a unique case.
What really bothers me, though, is that our society, our school systems, and often other government entities positively encourage homosexual behavior by teenagers. They want to force the Boy Scouts to put active homosexual men in authority over teenage (and younger) boys. One might imagine that some of these forces are actually thrilled that homosexual priests were (totally predictably) prospecting, seducing, and in some cases forceably raping teenage boys. (LIKE, DUH. That's what they do!) They don't care about "the children." They're just Satan's tools who want to destroy the Church, by any means.
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.