Posted on 08/08/2018 9:18:35 AM PDT by sitetest
Archbishop McCarrick’s predatory career would not have been possible without the culpable silence or active complicity of men at the highest levels of the Church. Revelations of his abuse have therefore gravely damaged the credibility of the whole Catholic hierarchy. Here a group of young Catholics speaks with one voice about the need for a cleansing fire. Their statement is non-partisan, assuming nothing but the eternal validity of the Church’s teaching.
They call for an independent investigation of who knew what and when, a new intolerance of clerical abuse and sexual sin, and public acts of penance by Catholic bishops. They promise to work and suffer for the Church, and to strive for holiness in their own lives. As children of the Church, they ask for fathers who honor the Father above. They are confident that their pleas are heard by God. They hope that they will likewise be heard by the priests and bishops who fear him.
+++++++ [The text of the letter:] +++++++
Dear Fathers in Christ,
In preparation for the upcoming Synod on Young People, the Vatican asked for reports from young Catholics around the world concerning their faith and the role the Church plays in their lives. Some of us are younger than others, but we were all children in the decades leading up to the sexual abuse crisis of 2002. In light of that experience and the recent revelations about Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, we answer the Church’s invitation to speak. Our experiences have given us cause for gratitude, but also for anger.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstthings.com ...
There are two fundamental, non-negotiable requirements:
1. The proper topic is homosexuality in the clergy, active or inactive, and the total elimination thereof.
2. Those investigating must be lay only - no clergy involved.
Ping.
Thank-you and God Bless.
I like the contents letter, and I’m familiar with the writings of the folks who signed it. They’re earnest young Catholics whose hearts are in the right place. With that said, they’re spitting in the wind here. The diabolical powers that be within the hierarchy (in the U.S. and in Rome) couldn’t care less about the opinions of a bunch of 20/30-something Catholic nerds out of Notre Dame and the Ivy League.
I agree with both the article and your post #1.
Sorry faithful young Catholics. Pope Who Am I to Judge wants the synod turned into praising all the gifts of LGBTQXYT and to make you understand he’s serious you get to hear his handpicked, opening the synod, keynote speaker, the notorious sodomite heretic “Father” James Martin, who will educate all if you on the wonders of anal sex and fisting. Enjoy the synod.
The key to this issue is and always has been the seminaries. Until the Church quits ordaining homosexuals, this problem will fester. The Dallas Charter and "zero tolerance" are simply after-the-fact window dressing and tinkering. It's already too late when "zero tolerance" is invoked.
Homosexuals must be excluded from the priesthood. The Church has said on more than one occasion that they are not to be ordained but this has been totally ignored. Until each diocese hangs out a sign that says homosexuals are not to present themselves for ordination and anyone who does will be turned away, this circus will go on.
It will go as long as Bergoglio remains in charge. B16 resigned two days after he received an exhaustive report on homosexuality in the church. He was already dealing with predator priests. The Lavender Mafia stepped in and forced his stepping down. They orchestrated his ouster and orchestrated Bergoglio’s takeover. Pope Who Am I T Judge is controlled hook, line and sinker by the mostly Jesuit sodomites who’ve taken over the church. Nothing will change as long as Bergoglio remains in charge. The upcoming synod of the Family and Synod of the Youth will both be turned into the Synod of LGBTQWXYZ. It’s all part of the Communist takeover of the Catholic Church,
The likelihood that the Church will stop ordaining homosexuals in overwhelming numbers is nil until after the current ordained clergy, and especially the episcopacy is wiped clean of this evil, festering, putrid, unnatural scourge.
What do you think the homosexual seminarian induction rate is now compared to 1960? The same, more, less? I think the homo-induction rate in decades past almost had to be way more than now. How else do you explain that graph from the John Jay report? It’s not like they used discipline to get the reported abuse to go down.
FReegards
Having been forced to study a lot of statistics in college and graduate school (twice), the John Jay report has always left me with a nagging question:
Was the decline in the latter part of the report chronologically due to recruiting a better quality of seminarians, or was the effect a result of the possible fact that the crop of abuse cases from the later years hadn’t “ripened” (for lack of a better term) yet? I’d love to see an extensive follow-up that adds newly-discovered cases to those that had previously been exposed as occurring during the later years of the period of the report.
As well, looking at the evidence coming out in light of the mccarrick demonacy, I wonder whether the homosexuals just focused more intently on screwing folks over 18, as the demon mccarrick seems to have done. Observation can change behavior, if not always underlying causes.
Thus, in 1969, mccarrick was screwing little boys. In 1999, he was screwing over-18 seminarians. One is statutory rape. The other may be dressed up as consensual sex.
I think that gays quite joining up because the broader culture was accepting them more and more. I think the steep downward trend after the late 70s/early 80s is because the gays stopped hiding in the priesthood because they didn’t have to do that anymore, they could be open in many jobs and have actual communities in the open.
I think the older gay priests weren’t replaced when they died, thus the decline. I don’t think homosexuals have enough discipline to stick to adults, at least in general.
FReegards
I’m not persuaded of the decline. Without extensive follow-up, it could be just a reporting time lag. If the numbers of child victims has, indeed fallen, I think it’s because the sodomites have become careful to restrict their activities to 18+ year-old victims, and to each other.
In any event, I don’t think the number of homosexual priests has declined a lot. I used to think that the homosexuals were being screened out. But as I think of young priests I know, in light of the demon mccarrick, it seems that lots of sodomites are still getting through. We now see that even in the very conservative diocese of Lincoln, sodomites were favored right up through the episcopacy of conservative hero Bruskewitz.
I also know that homosexuals still find the priesthood attractive. My sons went to Catholic high school, graduating in 2012 and 2014, respectively. They both had both friends and young teachers who were admitted homosexuals who were thinking of entering the seminary.
Most folks don’t think chaste homosexual priests are a problem. And, if 3% of priests were homosexual, it wouldn’t present the structural and institutional problem it is now.
All the homosexual bishops and priests got together and decided to stick to adults across all of the US at the same time? I don’t buy it. I doubt it was any kind of discipline working from anyone, that seems outlandish to me. I think it was simply gay priests dying and not being replaced with gay men due to the broader culture accepting gays. I think this also coincides with, and probably contributed to, the priest shortage.
I also don’t think the instances of reported abuse rose out of nowhere, I think the victims of pre-50s abuse were either dead or probably much less likely to come forward, so it only looks like the abuse rose up from nothing and peaked in the late 70s. The sexual revolution could have had something to do with it also.
Whatever the cause of the apparent decline, there is no downside to bringing the issue of gay clergy into the light as much as possible.
Freegards
Insipid letter written by self-indulgent whiners. Check out something more interesting: the comment underneath, by “Samton909.”
Did they get together and so conspire? I wouldn’t rule it out completely (<=== tongue firmly planted in cheek).
But for many decades, these sodomites mostly got away with it. You’d occasionally here of one getting caught. And they’d go to St. Luke’s, here in Suitland, and, often as not, they’d get recycled back into active ministry.
St. Luke’s was hailed for years as “the cure” for the sodomites. Little did we know (as came out in the times after the scandal broke wide open) that it was little more than a sodomite vacation for the homosexuals. A little busman’s holiday. No kiddies to pork, but they could pork each other. And they did, with frequency and verve.
But they didn’t need to conspire. After the Long Lent, they saw that now folks were on to their game, and there were consequences. Folks respond to incentives and disincentives. Some folks avoid specific crimes out of fear of punishment.
If you go from a climate of lax, or even no enforcement, to a climate of strict, or even over-enforcement, people get the message, even unholy sodomites.
Even sodomites are moral agents. Most of them are only evil and narcissistic. Fewer are also delusional and stupid.
As to whether homosexuality is declining in the seminaries, now that abuse of seminarians is coming out in the open, we’re hearing that many seminaries, including in “conservative” dioceses, are rife with sodomites, to the extent that many heterosexual men feel forced out due either direct pressure to engage in the “pleasures,” or because the atmosphere is so overwhelmingly homosexual that they just can’t take it.
I agree entirely with Samton909. See my initial comment.
I don’t much blame the children who put this letter together. They are young and stupid, as I was young(er) (than I am now) at the time of the Long Lent, and just as stupid.
But as a response to the sodomite wolves who are in charge of the Church right now, it’s woefully inadequate.
I have been hearing about seminaries for 30+ years. If I had to guess, I am thinking it was way more gay in 1978 than 2018. They probably had a lot more seminarians in 1978. I bet they were generally much more liberal than the seminarians now. If gays want to become clergy they have many options were they wouldn’t have to hide anything.
“If you go from a climate of lax, or even no enforcement, to a climate of strict, or even over-enforcement, people get the message, even unholy sodomites.”
What enforcement changed before the decline in reports of incidents of abuse started in the late 70’s?
Freegards
You continue to discount the possibility of a statistical artifact - that there may have been incidents of abuse not reported for later time periods, because they hadn’t “ripened.” I’d like a new investigatory panel to scrutinize chronologically cases reported after the initial explosion in the early 2000s.
But even in the late 70s, into the 80s, without any help from the scoundrel bishops, secular folks were beginning to wise up about child abuse.
I was in a clinical psychology program in 1981, and I remember the director of our program - a devout Catholic himself - telling us that starting in the late 70s, psychologists and DAs and law enforcement were coming to the conclusion that child sex abuse was worse for the child than had been believed before, and that “making it go away” wasn’t such a good idea, from the child’s perspective.
The prevailing orthodoxy for some decades had been:
1. Abusers are readily rehabilitated;
2. Children aren’t badly, or even always harmed by sexual abuse (we see an undercurrent of this thought even today);
3. There is more harm to the child in exposing the abuse;
4. It is better for the child if the abuse is minimized, as the abuse can be “put away” by the child.
This thinking was changing in the 70s, and by the time I was in graduate school in 1981, had fallen into bad repute. As such, more stringent mandatory reporting laws were being passed, which were controversial in some circles.
As a result, I personally saw a number of cases (though not even the tip of the iceberg) reported in the 1980s. In fact, the pastor of my then-future wife’s parish exposed in the early 80s. Sadly, he wasn’t prosecuted until a decade later.
But even before the explosion in the early 2000s, the secular society’s elite opinion was changing, and the noose around the child-abusing sodomites was beginning to tighten.
People, even sodomite priests, respond to incentives and disincentives.
As to whether seminaries are more homosexual now than 1978, all I can say is that the seminary in Lincoln, a supposedly conservative diocese run by one of the most conservative bishops in the US was still overrun by homosexuals into at least the early 2010s. And, forgive my cynicism, I figure we’ll find out in 2040 that the sins were continuing at least up until the 2020s.
So why would the currently abused, or those abused after the decline, not be partaking of the gigantic civil damages that can be awarded? Like almost all all the homo priests can restrain themselves now? I don’t buy it. Why is there a gap in the civil case payouts between the early 2000’s and now?
“I’d like a new investigatory panel to scrutinize chronologically cases reported after the initial explosion in the early 2000s.”
Me too, with info on when the allegedly abusing priests were ordained. Like the average age of a priest accused of abuse post 2000. I bet the abusers trend older and older.
Freegards
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.