Replies

"But it is an oversimplification to say that Shanley,Goeghan, and Birmingham were "caused" by Vatican II, when they clearly were not."

I think it is fair to say that those perverts were probably unleashed by Vatican II. Are there indications that they sexually preyed on boys prior to 1965?

I happened to go to a church meeting last night for parents of kids being prepared to receive the sacrament of reconciliation. The Director of Religious Education told us that in the dark old days there was a "legalistic" effort to define sin and to build lists of sins. But happily since Vatican II the Church has realized that a sin can not be so "legalistically" determined. A sin is now based on the concept of relationships. A sin is an act distructive one's relationship with God or with the community.

It not hard to imagine how, with such a Clintoneque defintion, predatory perverts like Shanely can justify their actions by saying, Hey, I'm not hurting any relationship, this is an uplifting spiritual experience bring me closer to God...

People need black and white rules: it is a sin to touch another boys weiner, etc.

The Director of Religious Education told us that in the dark old days there was a "legalistic" effort to define sin and to build lists of sins. But happily since Vatican II the Church has realized that a sin can not be so "legalistically" determined. A sin is now based on the concept of relationships. A sin is an act distructive one's relationship with God or with the community.

Good grief, you are kidding, yes?

Note:

One monk who attended a Bella Dodd lecture in the early 1950s recalled:

"I listened to that woman for four hours and she had my hair standing on end. Everything she said has been fulfilled to the letter. You would think she was the world's greatest prophet, but she was no prophet. She was merely exposing the step-by-step battle plan of Communist subversion of the Catholic Church. She explained that of all the world's religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent. The whole idea was to destroy, not the institution of the Church, but rather the Faith of the people, and even use the institution of the Church, if possible, to destroy the Faith through the promotion of a pseudo-religion: something that resembled Catholicism but was not the real thing. Once the Faith was destroyed, she explained that there would be a guilt complex introduced into the Church…. to label the 'Church of the past' as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries. This would be necessary in order to shame Church leaders into an 'openness to the world,' and to a more flexible attitude toward all religions and philosophies. The Communists would then exploit this openness in order to undermine the Church."

From http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/804825/posts?page=1