THE CHURCH COMPROMISED, PART I: Media Obfuscation of the Scandal

B. C. A. D. aka JT8D | May 21, 2003 | JT8D

[jt8d]

This installment begins an eight-part series of a dissertation presented last summer, during the height of the ongoing sex scandel within the Roman Catholic Church.

[Aloysius]

This is excellent. Thank you for posting it. I hope we get read the rest of the series.

[pegleg]

Outstanding! I'm curious, where was this dissertation presented?

[jt8d]

I gave this dissertation informally before sveral Catholic groups: some local traditional orthodox, and on one occasion to members of TFP (America Needs Fatima, The American Society for Tradition, Family and Property)

[jt8d]

I gave this dissertation informally before sveral Catholic groups: some local traditional orthodox, and on one occasion to members of TFP (America Needs Fatima, The American Society for Tradition, Family and Property)

[sinkspur]

During this period a man has every opportunity to contemplate his personal sacrifice, which is integral to the sacrament of Holy Orders. The assertion that a man renders his consent to these sacred vows without having a complete understanding of their consequence is absurd.

Maybe that's the case now, but it was not prior to the 1970s and 80s.

I attended a Roman Catholic seminary--THE MOST CONSERVATIVE seminary in the United States---from 1969 to 1976, and there was never a sermon, talk, discussion, retreat subject, meditation, or private spiritual direction about the subject of celibacy. None. Nada. Never.

The assumption was made that, if you were in the seminary, you knew how to handle celibacy.

Most of the men who stand accused of pederasty and ephibophilia are men of that time, and prior, when neither celibacy nor, indeed, sex itself, was discussed, except to condemn all exercise of it.

Thankfully, celibacy is now clearly explained with its implications and obligations. And, thankfully, most men ordained today are in their 30s and out of the testosterone-ridden 20s when men made decisions about a life of celibacy when they were clearly not mature enough to make them.

It is also clear that, as St. Paul said, not many are called to live as he did.

[sinkspur]

The anti-clerical liberal establishment foists the notion that celibacy is an unnatural state for any man to maintain. They do not accept that a consecrated priest is something more profound than a man.

While it is not unnatural, celibacy is not the calling of many men or women. Jesus Himself says as much when he declares:

Let him accept it who can.

A consecrated priest is not "more profound" than a man who is called to another vocation. That is contrary to Catholic teaching, especially the recent pronouncements of John Paul II.

In fact, Holy Orders does not require celibacy, as the Eastern Rite, the Permanent Diaconate, and the Anglican dispensation clearly proves.

[jt8d]

"I attended a Roman Catholic seminary--THE MOST CONSERVATIVE seminary in the United States---from 1969 to 1976, and there was never a sermon, talk, discussion, retreat subject, meditation, or private spiritual direction about the subject of celibacy. None. Nada. Never."

Now, go back and read what I said, specifically: During this period A MAN has every opportunity to CONTEMPLATE HIS personal sacrifice.

How do you extract "communal discussion" from what I have clearly stated here to be ONE MAN'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR SOBER REFLECTION? There can be no contention of this point, for the consideration is a black and white issue.

"The assumption was made that, if you were in the seminary, you knew how to handle celibacy."

PERSONAL MEDITATION is appropriate to the gravity of the consequence that comes with this most PERSONAL CHOICE. One man taking responsibility for his own actions and decisions is not a difficult concept, or at least that used to be the norm. Sinkspur, do you mean to imply that a man, who has made the profound decision to enter the priesthood, requires "counseling" to make this decision about celibacy? If this is your view of being accountable for one's own actions, then there is no wonder that the Church finds herself in such dire circumstance. A man makes his decisions and then he must live with them--period. There is no "wiggle room" here.

"Thankfully, celibacy is now clearly explained with its implications and obligations."

Just what part of "NO" do they not understand?

"And, thankfully, most men ordained today are in their 30s and out of the testosterone-ridden 20s when men made decisions about a life of celibacy when they were clearly not mature enough to make them."

Then such men were also not mature enough to enter the seminary; and moreover: had the procter been doing his job by the traditional standards of evaluation, such men would not be allowed to finish seminary training. Immaturity on this level would reveal itself at others--the flaw would be obvious--To wit obvious for those who cared to take notice; but then, that IS the problem we are dealing with now: A corrupt seminary system? After all, you did comment that the period of your attendance was 1969-76.

"It is also clear that, as St. Paul said, not many are called to live as he did."

I rest my case.

[sinkspur]

Then such men were also not mature enough to enter the seminary; and moreover: had the procter been doing his job by the traditional standards of evaluation, such men would not be allowed to finish seminary training.

Nobody, at age 18, is "mature enough" to embrace celibacy. If a man remains in that protective seminary environment for eight years, with no direction in dealing with sexuality, he will be just as socially immature as he was at 18.

Have you been alive long enough to remember minor seminaries, when we took teenage boys out of circulation? The Church actually thought TEENAGE BOYS could discern a vocation to the priesthood!

I was in a seminary that styled itself on a pre-Vatican model.

A model which was the butt of a well-known joke: The Roman Catholic seminary is the only institution in the world that can take in a man and turn out a boy.

Is it any wonder that 20,000 men left the priesthood to marry when given the option of laicization?

They never should have been ordained in the first place, just like these pederasts who are abusing young men.

A corrupt seminary system? You bet. It's been in place for over a hundred years.

[jt8d]

"A consecrated priest is not "more profound" than a man who is called to another vocation. That is contrary to Catholic teaching, especially the recent pronouncements of John Paul II."

Really? So you are stating that the priest is just like "one of us ordinary laity," correct? There is no difference between a consecrated priest--a man who is given to absolve sin, to make oblation for sinners, and most importantly--to have the authority to call upon the Lord, to propitiate the offering of bread and wine into the the consecrated body and blood of Jesus Christ... This man is not rendered profound?

"In fact, Holy Orders does not require celibacy, as the Eastern Rite, the Permanent Diaconate, and the Anglican dispensation clearly proves."

We are not discussing the Eastern Rite, we are dicussing the Latin Rite. We are not concerned here with the "Permanent Diaconate," we are concerned with the Priesthood. Don't muddy the waters.

Moreover, by what measure do you introduce the "Anglican dispensation" into this conversation? Do you actually desire to present, as a defense, more of that wonderfully expedient ecumenism of John Paul II, et al, that makes exceptions for all things foreign, but ostricizes the orthodox Catholic faith?

[jt8d]

"A corrupt seminary system? You bet. It's been in place for over a hundred years."

I agree that the seminary system is corrupt; however, I strongly take exception to your later statement of this corruption being in place for 100 years.

[sinkspur]

Do you actually desire to present, as a defense, more of that wonderfully expedient ecumenism of John Paul II, et al, that makes exceptions for all things foreign, but ostricizes the orthodox Catholic faith?

Oh, Jeez. Just what we need around here.

Another integrist.

I've sworn off trads, schismatics, and integrists until after Pentecost.

The priestly vocation is no more sacred than the vocation of a parent. Unless you're positing that God favors some men over other men, and those men over women.

If you want to rank people in order of importance, go right ahead.

[sinkspur]

I agree that the seminary system is corrupt; however, I strongly take exception to your later statement of this corruption being in place for 100 years.

I suppose you also think widespread clerical abuse of young boys by priests is a recent phenomenon as well.

Martin Luther specifically decried it, five hundred years ago.

[jt8d]

"Nobody, at age 18, is "mature enough" to embrace celibacy."

Nonsense. That is a matter that varies between individuals. I have known 18-year-old men who were, in fact of behavior and temperment, more mature than many twice their age.

"If a man remains in that protective seminary environment for eight years, with no direction in dealing with sexuality, he will be just as socially immature as he was at 18."

Yes, especially in our time where evey nuance of life requires psycho analysis and touchy-feely self-esteem. This does not even begin to adress the fact that the seminaries are overrun with homosexual preditors... that these once-holy institutions have been purposefully targeted for infiltration by the homosexual cadre. However, that is a point I shall return to in a later installment of my dissertation.

[sinkspur]

Nonsense. That is a matter that varies between individuals. I have known 18-year-old men who were, in fact of behavior and temperment, more mature than many twice their age.

If they've gone through the military regimen or some other life-changing experience, sure. But the presumption is that 18 year olds are kids because most of them are.

If it were my decision, I wouldn't take a man in a seminary who wasn't at least 22 years old and out of college, preferably with some work and social experience.

But, I also wouldn't witness a marriage between two people who were under 22 either. A couple younger is simply not capable of making that kind of commitment.

[jt8d]

"The priestly vocation is no more sacred than the vocation of a parent."

That is flat-out Bovine Scatology, my friend. If you are a Protestant, then state yourself to be as such. What you are contending is that the priesthood and the laity are equal, and that is Lutherin rubbish.

"Unless you're positing that God favors some men over other men..."

Did the Lord not set the priesthood apart? Did Christ not CHOOSE His twelve disciples? Did Christ not INSTITUTE the papacy through Peter?

"...and those men over women."

What has this discussion to do with women, unless you are defending that women should be ordained? Men have their role to play, and women have their part to accomplish under God's plan. Let's not confuse the arrangement. Oh, BTW, God DID FAVOR ONE WOMAN OVER ALL OTHERS... MARY.

[Desdemona]

But, I also wouldn't witness a marriage between two people who were under 22 either. A couple younger is simply not capable of making that kind of commitment.

You can't make a blanket statement like this. In my family, one of the strongest marriages - and the one that has gone through one hellish situation after another - was one which was shotgun and both were 20 when they got married. That was over two decades ago.

As for being mature at 18, some men are. Not all, but some. Evaluation, of course, would be in order, but raised well, by the right parents, there are 18-year olds perfectly capable of making such decisions.

[sinkspur]

You can't make a blanket statement like this.

Sure I can. Statistically, divorce is much higher among those who marry under the age of 25. That doesn't mean that an occasional teenage marriage doesn't succeed.

Anyway, "shotgun" marriages are specifically forbidden in most dioceses today because they aren't considered free of encumbrances and are ripe for an almost automatic annulment.

[jt8d]

"If they've gone through the military regimen or some other life-changing experience, sure. But the presumption is that 18 year olds are kids because most of them are."

True that today many adolescents are wildly immature, more so than during any previous era; but why is that? I shall tell you: because our society has been throroughly feminized by the liberal culture.

"If it were my decision, I wouldn't take a man in a seminary who wasn't at least 22 years old and out of college, preferably with some work and social experience."

I will accept that argument.

"But, I also wouldn't witness a marriage between two people who were under 22 either. A couple younger is simply not capable of making that kind of commitment."

Wow, we actually agree on something! However, I think that my restriction would be more severe: 28 years of age typically marks the beginning of stability.

[sinkspur]

What you are contending is that the priesthood and the laity are equal, and that is Lutherin rubbish.

They are equal. I'll get the Vatican II references for you.

Did the Lord not set the priesthood apart? Did Christ not CHOOSE His twelve disciples? Did Christ not INSTITUTE the papacy through Peter?

Being "apart" does not mean that they are not "equal."

Tell me. Was Peter more favored in his vocation than Mary was in hers?