Posted on 03/23/2010 6:37:37 AM PDT by marshmallow
If you were familiar with the Holy Word of G-d,
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
you would know that Rabbi means teacher not priest.
“Unfortunately, all these men and women (Protestant reference there) are only human and DO fall into sin.”
Man will sin, but when the people who are in the business of preaching against sin cover it up and deny its existence by
‘understanding’ it institutionally they promote sin instead of rebuking it.
There is forgiveness for sin if one truly repents and SINS NO MORE. Clergy that reviles sin publicly and enables it privately is corrupt, evil and worthless IMO.
Totally human- and totally illegitimate.
I am surprised no one on this thread has mentioned the book “Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption Into the Catholic Church” by Michael Rose. Significant result was that many seminaries were overrun by homosexuals. Problem continues, but has drawn attention and reaction by conservative forces within the Church.
The best I can give you is that they seem to be working on it but I don’t know of any specific cases where a priest was defrocked for abuse. Based on what the Pope addressed to Ireland, it seems they are going to work w/local authorities to weed this out but, again, I don’t know of any specific cases.
Below is a link to the address as well as a quote from it:
“Besides fully implementing the norms of canon law in addressing cases of child abuse, continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence. Clearly, religious superiors should do likewise. They too have taken part in recent discussions here in Rome with a view to establishing a clear and consistent approach to these matters. It is imperative that the child safety norms of the Church in Ireland be continually revised and updated and that they be applied fully and impartially in conformity with canon law.”
No, my love for the Church is deep and lasting, and you have no grounds whatsoever for your insult. Why visit my bio page? No ad hominem attacks are necessary here. They are the refuge of cowards, or perhaps those consumed with the sin of pride and solipsism. Nor are your assumptions correct. I happen to be a practicing Catholic, and you know nothing about my beliefs, which, frankly, are quite orthodox. I simply don’t like seeing people blamed falsely . . . whether it’s liberals saying falsely that conservatives are opposed to health care reform or the Nazis blaming the Jews or the medieval Church(es) burning people as witches. You seem to need a scapegoat. There are plenty of good and decent homosexual people in the world who live otherwise normal lives and are far less sinful than some heterosexual people on the planet. You have every right to disagree with their beliefs about themselves, and to consider them sinful, but you have no right to condemn them collectively as a group for ills which have far different sources. The Jews know all about such “simple” assumptions. Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. God’s love knows no bounds.
I didn’t insult you.
Anyone can visit a members page. Isn’t that why you created one, so people can know more about you? Why so defensive?
I thank you for your explanation otherwise.
For our own reasons, we are lightyears apart re. homosexuality in general, and homosexuals in the clergy in particular. Lets leave it at that.
I mainly have a problem being called ‘simplistic’ derogatorily by someone who says they value simplicity.
I value simplicity as in enjoying the simple things of life. I do not value simplistic arguments that condemn groups of people falsely. That is the only place where we are far apart. Have a good day.
Solution: Get rid of your TV, the internet and don’t go to movies. It has worked well for many families.
That's even less useful than Fr. Longenecker's suggestion.
Philo,
We here from Chicago should be the most upset. At least since the 50s (and probably earlier) the Chicago Archdiocese taught Catholic school students and those preparing for various sacraments that if you aren’t attracted to a person of the opposite sex that is probably God speaking to you to enter a religous order.
When I first arrived in Chicago’s Catholic neigbhorhood in ‘64 I heard all types of stories. Some stories were about the abuse of children, some about the religous with consenting adults. The reaction of many lay Catholics to the activity with consenting adults was “At least they’re not doing it with the kids”.
There were 2 famous seminary preps: Niles and Quigley. Niles was known at least from the early 60s to be a hotbed of homo activity by priests and lay staff on students. Niles sold itself as modern, progressive.
Quigley sold itself as traditional, safe.
HS Graduates went on to Mundelein Seminary which in my memory has always been known as a homo school. Loyola and DePaul students always referred to it as such.
What is amazing is that all of this was common knowledge in the streets and classrooms. Yet it never became an issue or hit the media until the size of the out-of-court settlements started to bankrupt the Archdiocese. Concern about the civil suits has driven the issue, not concern about the crime or criminal activity.
Those items do more to shape public thought than any force in society. Times have changed and if you don’t think those trash dispensers are in every home in the country .........
Depends.
If he's committing sins against the Sixth Commandment with a parishioner, he'll be quickly removed from authority in that parish. (Pretty obvious why: same situation as if an officer in the military is sleeping with an enlisted woman under his command.)
If he commits a sin against the Sixth with some other woman, and it's a one-time, secret thing, he'll probably just confess it.
If he's shacking up with someone on an ongoing basis, that's a public scandal and he'll also be removed from ministry.
Keep in mind that temptations against chastity with a woman are more-or-less expected. I think some bishops couldn't wrap their minds around the idea that they had priests in their charge who were committing sins against chastity with boys.
One more thing: it most certainly does.
A note on current canon law on the subject
Canon 1395 reads:
Canon 1395 §1 Apart from the case mentioned in Canon 1394, a cleric living in concubinage, and a cleric who continues in some other external sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue which causes scandal, is to be punished with suspension. To this, other penalties can progressively be added if after a warning he persists in the offence, until eventually he can be dismissed from the clerical state.
§2 A cleric who has offended in other ways against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the crime was committed by force, or by threats, or in public, or with a minor under the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants.
[A note on canon law: it generally is imprecise about penalties, leaving them up to the competent authority to determine. However, in this case it clearly envisions that "defrocking" (= "dismissal from the clerical state") is on the table.]
I think some bishops couldn’t wrap their minds around the idea that they had priests in their charge who were committing sins against chastity with boys.
I think too many of those bishops were/are guilty of the same and ignoring the incidents was self-preservation.
If many of these priests went into the priesthood in the 50’s
they would be in their 70’s+ now and have moved up in the hierarchy. They certainly don’t want to risk their hides after 40 years of subterfuge. THAT- IMO- is the main reason for the coverups and denial.
I don’t agree that it’s the main reason, but I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it was operative in a few cases.
All you're doing now, is offering a different version of "if everybody would just...."
The problem is that much of the Catholic Church is out of step with what the Catechism says. Look at the recent health care debate.
I don’t disagree. The main problem rests in the noncanonical body called the USCCB. It gives cover to the weaker bishops and actively supports leftist causes.
Thanks for the ping!
If these priests thought for once "what would Jesus think of this?" maybe, just maybe they would have stayed out of trouble, but instead, they listened to the Devil. They think they can hide their dirty deeds from God....nope!
No wonder it is said in the Bible that before the Judgment seat the Lord is going to tell many, "I never knew you."
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.