Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pope to Church: Risky Seminarians Must Go
National Catholic Register ^ | Sept. 15-21, 2002 | ELLEN ROSSINI

Posted on 09/12/2002 12:04:09 PM PDT by Polycarp

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: Catholicguy
Doublespeak: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Doublespeak is language deliberately constructed to disguise its actual meaning, usually from governmental, military, or corporate institutions.

The word doublespeak was coined in the early 1950s. It is often incorrectly attributed to George Orwell and his dystopian novel 1984. The word actually never appears in that novel; Orwell did, however, coin Newspeak, Oldspeak and doublethink, and his novel made fashionable composite nouns with speak as the second element, which were previously unknown in English. It was therefore just a matter of time before someone came up with doublespeak.

Doublespeak may be considered, in Orwell's lexicography, as the B vocabulary of Newspeak, words "deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not only had in every case a political implication, but were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them."

Successfully introduced doublespeak, over time, becomes part of the general language, shaping the context in which it is used.

21 posted on 09/12/2002 12:54:27 PM PDT by Orual
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Orual
<>Tell us how the Pope is engaged in doublespeak here<>
22 posted on 09/12/2002 12:56:35 PM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Orual
He could have said homosexuality, but that isn’t the only deviation that we need to keep out of the seminary these days.
Please, patent, don't play games. You know very well that homosexuality in seminaries is the major, number one, all-encompassing problem that they must deal with. And not to forget - tossing out every homosexual priest that got through those seminaries without being challenged is also of prime importance.
I’m not trying to play games here. Yes, numerically homosexuality is number one, but pedophilia is also a problem, and pedophilia is not exclusively homosexual (unlike pederasty, which is). The real world is more complex than just one issue. If we are going to combat this thing at its root source, we can’t narrow the focus to far. The modernist idea of sexual license must be combated in all its forms to permeate the priesthood with a true culture of chastity and celibacy. One of the reasons the homosexual culture was able to permeate certain of our fallen seminaries was because it was first preceeded by sexual license in general, paving the way for worse things to follow.

patent  +AMDG

23 posted on 09/12/2002 12:58:17 PM PDT by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
<>Tell us how the Pope is engaged in doublespeak here<>

I'm sure you can figure that out for yourself and you don't need me to explain that by using euphemisms and politically-correct language, the Pope skirted the issue. The word is homosexuals. That's what we need purged from the seminaries and the priesthood.

His use of "deviations in their affections" is ambiguous. It could mean deviating from their love of God to love of sexual relations with women, or obsessions with non-religious activities, or sex with goats.

24 posted on 09/12/2002 1:04:19 PM PDT by Orual
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: patent
One of the reasons the homosexual culture was able to permeate certain of our fallen seminaries was because it was first preceeded by sexual license in general, paving the way for worse things to follow.

I would argue it was the acceptance of contraception, which tore sex apart from procreation, marriage and the family. Once sex is not a mysterious, sacramental union that always opens the possibility you are creating an immortal soul but just another cool thing to do on a boring Saturday night it's tough to argue it should be restricted to married couples. (In fact, contraception came before sexual license, as even an atheist, immoral female didn't view sex as a real, consequence-free option.)

25 posted on 09/12/2002 1:08:34 PM PDT by justanotherfreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Whereas 73% of priests between ages 56 and 65 supported the statement, "Celibacy should be a matter of personal choice for diocesan priests," only 33% of those between ages 25 and 35 agreed.

Umm -- admittedly, this is progress, but it still means one third of our priests thinks celibacy is optional. Am I the only person who thinks this is a tad high?

26 posted on 09/12/2002 1:10:10 PM PDT by justanotherfreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patent
I’m not trying to play games here. Yes, numerically homosexuality is number one, but pedophilia is also a problem, and pedophilia is not exclusively homosexual (unlike pederasty, which is). The real world is more complex than just one issue. If we are going to combat this thing at its root source, we can’t narrow the focus to far. The modernist idea of sexual license must be combated in all its forms to permeate the priesthood with a true culture of chastity and celibacy. One of the reasons the homosexual culture was able to permeate certain of our fallen seminaries was because it was first preceeded by sexual license in general, paving the way for worse things to follow.

I think we all know the difference between homosexuals, pedophiles and pederasts. That's not the point here. You agree that homosexuality is the number one problem, so how is it narrowing the focus to proceed with all haste to purge these horrid men from the seminaries and the priesthood? It is the focus.

I am in disagreement with the reasons you state for the incidence of homosexuality in seminaries, but that's another topic for another thread on another day.

27 posted on 09/12/2002 1:13:02 PM PDT by Orual
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Orual
I think we should let the proctologists make the decisions on this one.
28 posted on 09/12/2002 1:16:27 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Orual
I think we all know the difference between homosexuals, pedophiles and pederasts. That's not the point here. You agree that homosexuality is the number one problem, so how is it narrowing the focus to proceed with all haste to purge these horrid men from the seminaries and the priesthood? It is the focus.
You don’t kill a noxious weed by chopping off the biggest and most visible shoot. You dig it out of the ground, or send poison to its roots, and kill the whole dang thing. Otherwise it grows right back up again.

patent  +AMDG

29 posted on 09/12/2002 1:16:34 PM PDT by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: patent
You don’t kill a noxious weed by chopping off the biggest and most visible shoot. You dig it out of the ground, or send poison to its roots, and kill the whole dang thing. Otherwise it grows right back up again.

This is exactly what I'm saying - dig them out, weed them out, destroy them by any means necessary. Remember that feckless Bishops' Conference where it was decided that there would be no second chances? What a farce that was. The majority of them left denouncing the zero tolerance decision and announced they would run their own dioceses as they saw fit. Or unfit.

30 posted on 09/12/2002 1:21:41 PM PDT by Orual
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Ten reasons why homosexuals should not be ordained:

1) They will be inordinately tempted to sexual sin in seminaries and in the priesthood, where they live in close quarters with other men. It's like having heterosexual men living in close quarters with women - showering with them - dressing with them, rooming with them, etc. etc.;

2) They will be sexually tempted (as we have sadly seen) by sexually mature teenage boys - leading in a not insignificant number of cases to extreme sin, and horrific abuse of those boys; 3) They will not be able to impart correct ideas of Catholic sexual morality to children and adults, having a disordered set of feelings and attractions themselves;

4) They will be tempted by the lies and promises of the gay activist agenda (you should express yourself sexually, you are normal, you will be a hero if you fight to normalize homosexuality within the Church, etc. etc.);

5) A great, great many parents will not trust priests around their sons until homosexuals are removed from the priesthood. And if they can't trust their priests with their sons, they will not trust their priests on other far less important things;

6) Most homosexual priests in the Catholic Church are active homosexuals. As such, they undermine the laity's confidence that the priests follow scripture and the Church's teachings in general;

7) Active homosexual priests break their vows. They make a mockery of their promises to God and the church. A priest who willingly and unrepentently breaks his vows inpires no confidence in parishioners;

8) They provide poor role models for young men whose sexuality is just developing;

9) Opportunities for blackmail within the Church will be significantly diminished; 10) We will not have priests dying of AIDs.

31 posted on 09/12/2002 1:41:48 PM PDT by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Orual
>>>>The majority of them left denouncing the zero tolerance decision and announced they would run their own dioceses as they saw fit.

Where does this statement come from? I recall a couple complaining, but nothing resembling a majority of hundreds of Bishops. If that were true the policy never would have passed. As for whether its a good policy? Frankly in my view it presumes a guilty until proven innocent posture that I think violates all notions of traditional Catholicism, in which priests actually have rights under Canon Law. IMHO, the Bishops, too weak to do their jobs and actually clean up their seminaries, passed the buck by going to this policy. They tried to give themselves an easy out at the expense of their priests.

patent

32 posted on 09/12/2002 1:45:42 PM PDT by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: patent
You don’t kill a noxious weed by chopping off the biggest and most visible shoot. You dig it out of the ground, or send poison to its roots, and kill the whole dang thing. Otherwise it grows right back up again.

True, but lopping off that shoot would be a great first step.

33 posted on 09/12/2002 1:46:14 PM PDT by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Gerish
I am so glad... however, there will be the usual dissenting Bishops who will ignore him

Maybe not.
Once the Pope's views on the issue become more public, the dissenting Bishops will be under the pressure of peoples' opinion :-)

34 posted on 09/12/2002 2:01:38 PM PDT by heyheyhey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: patent
Yes, I realized after posting that I shouldn't have said "majority" of the Bishops, otherwise it would have been voted down. Had I been more careful I would have said the majority of Bishops after leaving the conference had no intention of carrying out the policy.

Homosexual priests have been afforded the shelter of their Bishops and the coffers of the dioceses for many years so I'm not at all worried about innocent priests being unjustly charged without being given an opportunity to defend themselves.

They must start in the seminaries, and they must start now. We know that there are a number of homosexual priests who graduated from those seminaries and are presently loosed on an unsuspecting congregration. In almost every case that has been made public, the guilty priest was a trusted and loved pastor. He was invited to homes, made to feel as if he was a member of the family, and all the while he was taking advantage of the kids in that family. At least now parents will have their guards up and hopefully will not even think about letting a priest sleep over or allow their child to be alone in the rectory or permit them to take trips alone with the priest.

35 posted on 09/12/2002 2:07:14 PM PDT by Orual
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam; patent
From Patent

"You don’t kill a noxious weed by chopping off the biggest and most visible shoot. You dig it out of the ground, or send poison to its roots, and kill the whole dang thing. Otherwise it grows right back up again."

From YB:

"True, but lopping off that shoot would be a great first step."

You're both right - depending on the weed. Some spread faster if you try to pull them up without getting the whole root. To get the whole root takes digging, and a lot of it (much easier about two hours after a good rain). And when using poison on a well-established plant, trust me, it takes multiple applications, even when using Round-up.

The first thing you have to do, though, is remove any blooms, lest they spread seeds which will germinate wherever they land. Sometimes, this means lopping off the largest shoot, as that is where the blooms will be, sadly usually old growth.

Conversely, and this is where the church has failed, IMO, more than weeding, the garden needs nourishment. "Weeds" choke off desired plants, yes, but many good plants die because they are neglected (see the fuscia on my front porch). (How many Catholics out there are disenfranchised due to neglect?)

This pope has tended the pretty plants and made them grow and it has been a long monumental effort. He's stepping it up a notch. It seems that he's had it with the pussy-footing and wants action. Time to add some Miracle-Grow.

36 posted on 09/12/2002 2:07:28 PM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: yendu bwam; patent
Of course, it would be very bad to add Miracle-Grow to weeds.
37 posted on 09/12/2002 2:10:45 PM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
Of course, it would be very bad to add Miracle-Grow to weeds.

Good one!

38 posted on 09/12/2002 2:44:33 PM PDT by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
This pope has tended the pretty plants and made them grow and it has been a long monumental effort. He's stepping it up a notch. It seems that he's had it with the pussy-footing and wants action. Time to add some Miracle-Grow.

I understand now what you're saying. I'm with you.

39 posted on 09/12/2002 2:45:42 PM PDT by yendu bwam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
"The first thing you have to do, though, is remove any blooms, lest they spread seeds which will germinate wherever they land."

Interpreted allegorically I think you have hit on the right solution - CASTRATION!!

"Sometimes, this means lopping off the largest shoot, as that is where the blooms will be, sadly usually old growth."

Yes and lop off that bit as well - celibates don't need it anyway! If a man's serious about the priesthood, would sitting down to urinate be a credible objection? After all it has been foretold by a prophet:

Is 56:3 "...And let not the eunuch say: Behold I am a dry tree.
4 For thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs, They that shall keep my sabbaths, and shall choose the things that please me, and shall hold fast my covenant:
5 I will give to them in my house, and within my walls, a place, and a name better than sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name which shall never perish."

Now lets see if I can find some fundamentalists to run this past!!
40 posted on 09/12/2002 4:55:16 PM PDT by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson