Shanley was given free reign AFTER ordination--after Vatican II. Does anybody think the pre-conciliar Church would have tolerated a priest who openly preached on behalf of NAMBLA? Look, you guys won't even admit there's a problem. There are gay dances of young men cheek to cheek on parish property, seminarians spend weekends cruising gay bars, the 1992 Gay Symposium in Chicago which was attended by priests and bishops and which openly urged gay priests to be sexually active was subsidized by no less than 92 diocesan offices and religious orders. (Atila Sinke Guimaraes.) This is not the Catholicism our parents grew up in. This is profound corruption under the aegis of a new sexual morality that mirrors the world's--all of it promulgated after Vatican II. It is profoundly uncatholic. Not that I think there was no corruption before the Council. But not on this scale, not with so little effort by the episcopacy to stem the floodtide.
Shanley was given free reign AFTER ordination--after Vatican II.
He was well taught in the seminary, and was ordained in 1960. His abuse started nearly immediately. Plus, you are ignoring James Porter, who was mostly pre Vatican II, and was coddled by pre Vatican II Bishops, etc.
Does anybody think the pre-conciliar Church would have tolerated a priest who openly preached on behalf of NAMBLA?
When did the first Bishop who tolerated him get ordained and Consecrated? Where do you think all this stuff came from in the 1960s? Vatican II was written, and poof, the poofters appeared? Before the
Novus Ordo even? The seminary out in Boston was rife with homosexuality long before these events.
Look, you guys won't even admit there's a problem.
There are huge problems, but you aren’t even close to the source.
But not on this scale, not with so little effort by the episcopacy to stem the floodtide.
It was out in Boston.
patent