Posted on 12/08/2009 10:33:33 AM PST by noozguy1
Look, in the case of the abuses by some in the Catholic church against children...it is inexcusable and they should be prosecuted and punished. The Church officials that shield or hide them should also be prosecuted.
As bad as those incidents are they are aberrations and not the common practice of the Church, no matter what Miz O'Connor thinks.
The common practice in the Islamic world of treating women like chattel and keeping them ignorant is a true ONGOING horror that idiots like O'Connor will never speak out against.
By what right does this brain-addled nincompoop broad claim to speak “on behalf of all Irish artists”?
On that I will agree with you.
Chriistianity (and Catholicism) in particular are acceptable targets. Islam is not.
“What is this Irish Horror she’s talking about?”
*As bad as those incidents are they are aberrations and not the common practice of the Church, no matter what Miz O’Connor thinks.
The common practice in the Islamic world of treating women like chattel and keeping them ignorant is a true ONGOING horror that idiots like O’Connor will never speak out against.
*
So one should ignore an evil in their own land because there is a slightly worse evil 8000 miles away. That makes sense.
I/R/T O’connor: it’s an absolute shame that she never made a decent follow-up to “The Lion & the Cobra”...what talent she used to have.
Not only did church people start going strong on "understanding" and weak on internal discipline, but there were many others --- police, prosecutors, judges, educators, counselors, therapists, journalists, ordinary citizens --- who knew about these criminal offenses and did not stop them.
That's a big reason why pedophiles were (and are) drawn to professions like teacher, camp counselor, youth director, coach, clergy, etc: they know they will have lots of contact with the young, and they know that the "caring people" around them are likely to take a point of view that will look the other way and minimize their moral trespasses.
Plus, there are sevral reasons why the Catholic Church was singled out when many other deeply implicated institutions (public schools, etc.) escaped scrutiny altogether:
Poor Sinead, she’s a very disgruntled person who goes through life looking for something to argue about, although in this case she might have a solid issue. The Church has addressed it, but seemingly not to her satisfaction. I do like her name though.
http://inogolo.com/pronunciation/Sin%E9ad
Gary Wills engages in very interesting discussion of this subject in Papal Sin. Those tormented by pedophelia or homosexuality may become so self loathing that they gravitate toward a denial of all sexuality. A life under an oath of celibacy there they do no harm becomes a most worthy goal. This is certainly far from the celibacy described by St. Paul - "I wish that all men were as I am." The ill motivated fall into temptation, and then, once the harm is done, are protected by a culture that claims infallibility at its pinnacle, and is therefore moribound. Furthermore, the church has always protected its own. One need look only tension between discipline for the clergy by temporal versus ecclesiastical authority. The Purgation of Criminous Clerks in the reign of Henry II comes to mind.
Two objections to your response.
First: slightly worse? Really?
Second, the evil in her own land is AN ABERRATION, not common practice. That little distinction seems to be lost on you.
This is not a guy I would go with confidence to tutor me about sexual morality.
Nor would I trust his re-casting of history. Wills is the guy who portrays King Henry VIII of England as a “loyal son of the Church” whose hand was forced by Pope Clement VII, who stupidly refused to condone the dumping of loyal Queen Catherine for her vivacious and fecund lady-in-waiting, Anne Boleyn.
So lets set Wills aside for the nonce, shall we?
To our subject: it is understandable that some men of good will who are deeply conflicted by their sexuality would seek to live honorably under vows of celibacy; however, they should never have been accepted as ordinands, and would not have been if seminary rectors had been obedient to Pope John XXIII's ruling in 1962 that nobody with a significant homosexual tendency should be admitted to the priesthood.
Yes, it was a matter of disobedience. The problem is not that the conduct of the clerical state was so Catholic, but that it was not Catholic enough.
Pretty clear in hindsight, isn't it?
Sinead has issues. I hope she can work them out.
Pardon me, but did I identify myself as an acolyte of Wills or did I say he wrote an "interesting discussion"?
The problem is not that the conduct of the clerical state was so Catholic, but that it was not Catholic enough. Pretty clear in hindsight, isn't it?
Not really. Your argument presumes that the seminary rectors have the ability to perceive homosexual tendencies, or, not mentioned in "Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders", tendency toward pedofilia, which are repressed by the candidate seeking ordination. At the same time, with the extradinory demands that the ordained be on a par with Christ and St Paul, the number seeking ordanation plumets, a fact well known to the seminary rectors.
We agree that clerical involvement in predatory pedifilia and homosexuality results from not be Catholic enough, but I disagree that humans, when acting on behalf of the Church and with the best of intentions are less, dare I say "fallible," than any other. Catholics should not presume to be any more discerning than any other group of people.
I am sorry. I think the Papacy has badly misinterpreted St Paul and Matthew 19. The rock upon which the church was built was married, yet now there is little to no room for priests of the same status. If Peter were alive today, his desire for ordination would be spurned. The result is the overepresentation of repressed pedifiles and homosexuals among those seeking ordination.
Second, it is true that seminary rectors cannot always perceive homosexual tendencies. But they ought not to admit as ordinands any man who has deep-seated emotional or psychological problems, including strong tendencies toward homosexuality or pedophilia, depressive disorders, drug or alcohol abuse, or any other such serious problem if that can be discerned beforehand.
Some seminary rectors acted in good faith, not knowing that particular seminarians had these problems. In other cases, there is a record of vocations directors willfully ignoring or defying instructions for the selection and training of worthy candidates.
You can read about it is "Goodbye, Good Men" and it is the sort of thing that poisons the Church and imperils souls.
If a man is not called to celibacy, he ought to marry, because he is not called to monastic or clerical orders in the West.
He could marry and become a deacon. That makes sense, doesn't it? Nobody has to make a vow he can't fulfull; nobody ought to.
Celibacy, like monogamy--- marital fidelity ---entails sacrifices. Celibacy is not easy and instinctual; but frankly, neither is monogamy. Thus everyone is called to live a challenging life of virtue, whether they are called to are celibacy or monogamy.
Of course, our corrupt culture declares that both are impossible, or are an unreasonable imposition on human nature. But a corrupt culture must not set the standards for the Church.
*Second, the evil in her own land is AN ABERRATION, not common practice. That little distinction seems to be lost on you.*
Aberration, my ass. Catholic pederasts are everywhere.
Your insipid attempt to interject the evils of Islam into this discussion was pathetic and it’s obsessive behavior like this which gives the Right the image of kooks. Seriously, not every discussion has to include Muzzies or Obama.
It’s been all over the papers for months - just as it was here. Next come the Pastors? Then maybe the teachers - just maybe...
I don’t read the articles, come on.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and peace to you as well.
According to the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, which conducted the most comprehensive national study of the issue, the about 4 percent of U.S. priests ministering from 1950 to 2002 were accused ---accused...of sex abuse with a minor, with 75 percent of the incidents taking place between 1960 and 1984. The study noted that most of this sexual contact involved adolescent males, meaning that most of the abuse was homosexuality ---not pederasty, which is the sexual abuse of pre-adolescents.
The researchers also found a sharp decline in abuse incidents since 1984 coupled with a rapidly declining percentage of accusations against priests ordained in recent years, which they said "presents a more positive picture" than the overall statistics.
Hofstra University researcher Dr. Charol Shakeshaft estimates, in comparison, that "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."
Have you been drinking?
*According to the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, which conducted the most comprehensive national study of the issue, the about 4 percent of U.S. priests ministering from 1950 to 2002 were accused -—accused...of sex abuse with a minor, with 75 percent of the incidents taking place between 1960 and 1984. The study noted that most of this sexual contact involved adolescent males, meaning that most of the abuse was homosexuality -—not pederasty, which is the sexual abuse of pre-adolescents.*
Haha, fine—Catholic homosexuals who prey on underage males who have been entrusted to them—assured to be safe and under the righteous care of the supposedly holy—are everywhere! I guess that makes it a-okay.
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.