Replies

OK, I'm going to call Godwin's Law on you. You have officially lost the argument. BTW, simple refusal to believe is not an argument.

You're not hearing what I'm saying anyway. Hope you never have a position of administrative responsibility where you rely on your subordinates for an accurate report of what's going on, because you just made yourself responsible for everything they do, even if some of them are deliberately hiding stuff from you.

Dear AnAmericanMother,

What's worse is that those who wish to blame the scandal on Pope John Paul then fail to credit him for any of the substantial decrease in the problem in recent years.

Although I think it was wrong to cover up what was going on, it still appears to me that the Church was doing SOMETHING to address the problem during the pontificate of John Paul II. As I've stated previously on this thread, the number of abuse cases peaked in the 1980s, at more than 900 in a single year. By the mid 1990s, the number of cases had fallen to some dozens per year.

If John Paul is to blame for the problem, and at least in part for the cover-up, why is he not also to be credited with the solution, most of which was in place by the time the scandal of the cover-up was exposed?

sitetest

Did you realize that if you are correct in crediing this report in the article, then JPII made matters very much worse than helping to correct the situation? That is what I meant about despair. So, is that what you believe. Yes it does matter to me what you believe. Because I suspect your motive for crediting the report is that you want to be generous to JPII. That is not an evil motive. My point is that if that were true, that he relied on lying subordinates for 24 years, and did not make the requred inquiry, it is a very bad picture indeed. Is that what you also believe?

No I am not a bureaucrat, and never will be. But I can judge someone's results over 24 years and distinguish between a figleaf and a real explanation.

The key question is: Did JPII keep homosexuals out of the roster of bishops and cardinals that he appointed over 24 years--or not?

My family (and many others I know, all with many girls in their families) refuses to attend Masses where altar girls flit around the sanctuary, ESPECIALLY when they reach puberty and beyond. It is a distraction, and one that is being made especially to adolescent males.

Anyway, this is the official document on "allowing" female altar servers.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWCOMM.HTM

1) Canon 230 #2 has a permissive and not a preceptive character: "Laici . . . possunt." Hence the permission given in this regard by some Bishops can in no way be considered as binding on other Bishops. In fact, it is the competence of each Bishop, in his diocese, after hearing the opinion of the Episcopal Conference, to make a prudential judgment on what to do, with a view to the ordered development of liturgical life in his own diocese.

2) The Holy See respects the decision adopted by certain Bishops for specific local reasons on the basis of the provisions of Canon 230 2. AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, THE HOLY SEE WISHES TO RECALL THAT IT WILL ALWAYS BE VERY APPROPRIATE TO FOLLOW THE NOBLE TRADITION OF HAVING BOYS SERVE AT THE ALTAR. AS IS WELL KNOWN, THIS HAS LED TO A REASSURING DEVELOPMENT OF PRIESTLY VOCATIONS. Thus the obligation to support such groups of altar boys will always continue.