Milwaukee WI Archbishop defends Pope Benedict

Milwaukee JS ^ | 3/31/2010 | A Johnson

[ADSUM]

Milwaukee Archbishop Jerome Listecki on Tuesday defended Pope Benedict XVI's handling of the clergy sex abuse scandal. And he absolved him of any blame in decisions involving Father Lawrence Murphy.(42)

[Antoninus]

And I want them to admit finally that living a celibate life is for the great majority of people, and while recognizing celibacy as a real vocation for a few, unnatural and the source of much spiritual disease. After all of this we the laity have a right to demand married parish priests and and absolute end to these perverts in Roman collars.

Right, because people who marry are never perverts. [rolls eyes]

Are you playing: "Let's see how many non sequiturs I can squeeze into one sentence"?

The number of pervs among the celibate is relatively tiny compared to the number of pervs among the married. You are a victim of a media frenzy, my friend.

[Running On Empty]

So—let me see. All priests should be scarlet-lettered as gay, or alcoholic, or painfully neurotic (your point of view).

If that paradigm works, then can it be factually correct to assume that all lay Catholics —who call themselves Catholic—would post such defamatory and vitriolic posts as you have here, and therefore would be representative of all Catholics at large?

God forbid.

[ADSUM]

Jesus is the TRUTH and knows all.

Some pretend to know the truth but appear to have hatred in their heart.

Jesus commanded us to Love God and to love our neighbor as ourselve.

God forgives the worst sins and crimes.

So why is there so much hatred that can internally destroy an individual about something that they can not control?

I understand that Erskine had relatives that were abused, but that is in the past and a healing needs to take place so that we can Love God and our neighbor.

[Erskine Childers]

would post such defamatory and vitriolic posts as you have here, and therefore would be representative of all Catholics at large?

Well, yes. At least I believe it should be far more representative of the American laity. I believe that most of us lay people in America are in terrible denial as to the depth and breadth of the problem. We need our hero figures and we'll excuse one outrage after the next (usually after some fig leaf of anemic clerical repentance) so as to avoid seeing the painful truth: that our clergy is shot through with perversion.

Men like Law, Mahoney and Weakland - men who were complicit in one way or another with child molesters - are still allowed to wrap themselves in the mantle of the Church. A few words of sorrow for the victims, and that's it. All is forgiven these twisted men.

Cheap repentance won't do the trick. If we want healing for victims and renewal in the Church, there has to be a real accounting with real consequences. Law, Mahoney & Weakland, if they were decent men (which they're obviously not) should kneel before the victims, beg their forgiveness, and then accept laicization. They should have to go through the process that JPII designed especially for bishops who abused their power. "Give me back the Gospel" is from that rite.

Exactly. I say to Law, Mahoney and Weakland "give me back the Gospel." They have sullied it. They can only bring it into disrepute. Their soiled hands must be pried from it, if necessary.

[ArrogantBustard]

We need our hero figures and we'll excuse one outrage after the next

"We"????

There you go again ...

[ArrogantBustard]

Wait, WHAT???

Did you just opine that DEFAMATORY and VITRIOLIC commentary should be typical of American lay Catholic attitudes?

DEFAMATORY???

Really?

Wow!

[MarkBsnr]

I’ll believe the Church has changed when they require that only married men can serve as parish priests.

It certainly will have changed to non Christian.

Just speaking from experience here.

You must have some experience.

[Erskine Childers]

Vitriolic, yes certainly that is deserved. Defamatory? Since it’s true I’d have to say no.

[Erskine Childers]

It certainly will have changed to non Christian.

Please explain why requiring that parish priest be married would render the Catholic Church "non-Christian."

[Erskine Childers]

There you go again ...

I wasn't addressing you.

[ArrogantBustard]

It’s a public forum.

Get over yourself.

[ArrogantBustard]

Your suggestion that the entire priesthood (or even most of it) is composed of perverts is false and therefore defamatory.

[MarkBsnr]

Please explain why requiring that parish priest be married would render the Catholic Church "non-Christian."

Because that departs significantly from all practice going right back to the Apostles. It goes against the advice of St. Paul. Christians must follow Christianity. They cannot make it all up as they go along.