Posted on 02/07/2006 1:13:07 PM PST by NYer
No, I did NOT "drink the kool-aid"!
I was referring to the attempts to unravel who was telling the truth in the story at hand.
I'm as fed up as you with the situation you described, and also feel it should be dealt with directly.
I believe the new Pope is trying to do that.
The problem is implementing that through a "loyal and faithful chain of command".
Nah. I'm just a high school student who happens to take calculus. ;p
"You can be as snide as you like"
That's not snide. That's pointed, but gently humorous.
"I'm tired of Catholics who assume"
There's just no way to get you off that "assume" wagon, is there?
You know, some people actually know some things, without having to "assume" anything at all. You can't rebut a position by falsely calling it an assumption, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.
"What has happened to the idea of seeing some evidence of wrongdoing"
What has happened to the idea of only needing to do that once, instead of setting the clock back to zero and doing it all again, whenever somebody who missed it the last time wanders in?
I'm so shocked.
NOT.
In many, many cases the parents were INTIMIDATED into not pursuing charges.
There's nothing at all humorous about slandering, libeling, or committing calumny against priests and Bishops based on hearsay, someone's 'feelings' about a priest who seems to prissy for them, or accusations by someone who might just have an ax to grind. Too many Catholics take the media's stories and repeat them so often that they start believing they are the truth, even if there is little truth in the stories to begin with.
There were horrible crimes committed against too many young people, mostly young men, by too many priests, even ONE is too many. But I'm tired of people trying to drag the entire Church down because of the actions of a few. Too many Catholics have jumped on that bandwagon as well, for agendas of their own, and that isn't any better than an enemy from outside doing it.
As for Mary Jo White, I may have been wrong about her, again, it was just from what I read in the newspapers. I guess I shouldn't have assumed anything from those stories, either.
True, but I just cannot fathom being bullied into not having justice done on behalf of one of my children. Maybe it's just my own attitudes toward the priesthood. I wasn't raised to think in terms of the priest being always right. He was always just a man, and his decisions could be right or wrong. Maybe that's a regional difference. I grew up in the South, and there were very few Catholics, so we tended to not take our faith for granted. I was also used to people taking any opportunity to denigrate Catholics, even if the accusation was not true, so that is probably what's grating on me about all this. It's bad enough when someone outside the Church does it. It's even worse when it comes from within.
"There's nothing at all humorous about slandering, libeling, or committing calumny against priests and Bishops based on hearsay, someone's 'feelings' about a priest who seems to prissy for them, or accusations by someone who might just have an ax to grind."
My goodness, you found all that in my notes?? Must be that magical invisible e-ink.
Personal knowledge of accusations is still hearsay--he says that he heard personally the accusations made by others. He does not claim first-hand knowledge of the alleged actions. And he clearly has an axe to grind, which right away should raise a caution flag in the mind of anyone assessing his accusations. Detraction, calumny, libel are still on the books as serious sins.
Yes, we should wait for evidence and withhold judgment. But that's exactly what most of the postings on this thread were not doing. And that's wrong.
"...Michael Mendola, of Dignity New York, the local chapter, says gay priests have kept their mouths shut about bishops' sex lives because they 'don't want to jeopardize their relationships with the dioceses.' But he knows plenty of good, caring gay priests who, in his words, 'are tired of all the nonsense going on in the church with homosexuality these days.'"
There it is again, yet more denouncement of the faith by people who are homosexuals. Later, they calculate in what (other) affiliation they may have and in this case, it's the Catholic Church.
However, for many how are first homosexuals by their own self defined identity, they minimize and even ridicule Christian concern about the Priesthood (referring to that as "this nonsense" that they are "tired of" while being "good, caring...Catholics").
These are the people, the sinners, that Pope Benedict cautions the rest of us about.
I do define them as sinners, not as Catholics given that their sin is persistent, unrepentant and intentional, combined with pride about it, and as such, sinners is the only term I have for people like that. It is monstrous when they insist on membership in the Priesthood, however. They should be identified clearly and removed from the Priesthood. One way or another.
Typo, previous...should be: "for many WHO are first homosexual and then..."
Correct, and in fact, to accuse someone of mortal sin is slanderous if false, and can well be detraction even if it's true. Unless someone is a public, out, and admitted homosexual, we do not have any moral right to refer to him as such, and if we do so out of malice we could well be guilty of mortal sin ourselves.
Detraction is the unjust damaging of another's good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer.I'm no moral theologian, but considering the definition above regarding the station of the accused and the criminality of the accusation (which ranks up there among the most heinous sins that can be committed), it seems very likely to me that it would be a mortal sin to publicly accuse a bishop of sodomy in order to damage his reputation, even if he is in fact guilty.An important difference between detraction and calumny is at once apparent. The calumniator says what he knows to be false, whilst the detractor narrates what he at least honestly thinks is true. Detraction in a general sense is a mortal sin, as being a violation of the virtue not only of charity but also of justice. It is obvious, however, that the subject-matter of the accusation may be so inconspicuous or, everything considered, so little capable of doing serious hurt that the guilt is not assumed to be more than venial. The same judgment is to be given when, as not unfrequently happens, there has been little or no advertence to the harm that is being done.
The determination of the degree of sinfulness of detraction is in general to be gathered from the consideration of the amount of harm the defamatory utterance is calculated to work. In order to adequately measure the seriousness of the damage wrought, due regard must be had not only to the imputation itself but also to the character of the person by whom and against whom the charge is made. That is, we must take into account not only the greater or lesser criminality of the thing alleged but also the more or less distinguished reputation of the detractor for trustworthiness, as well as the more or less notable dignity or estimation of the person whose good name has been assailed. Thus it is conceivable that a relatively small defect alleged against a person of eminent station, such as a bishop, might seriously tarnish his good name and be a mortal sin, whilst an offence of considerable magnitude attributed to an individual of a class in which such things frequently happen might constitute only a venial sin, such as, for instance, to say that a common sailor had been drunk. It is worthy of note that the manifestation of even inculpable defects may be a real defamation, such as to charge a person with gross ignorance, etc. When this is done in such circumstances as to bring upon the person so disparaged a more than ordinary measure of disgrace, or perhaps seriously prejudice him, the sin may even be a grievous one.
And that goes for all of us here, myself first and foremost.
*snort* Just commenting on many of the posts on this thread, and threads I've seen in the past dealing with the issue. Lotta heat, not much light.
And look how he turned out. This is why I'd like my kids to work their way through school, at least partially.
Personally, I find working in the yard or doing chores to be therapeutic, besides being humbling.
Try to think about this in a real-world kind of way:
If you were a non-homosexual priest and you saw all of this perversion and targeting of boys, wouldn't you speak up? Wouldn't you risk everything in this cause? Who would you fear, with God on your side?
Instead, we have a situation paralleling the "moderate Muslims." People who don't speak up.
Why? Because they too are compromised with girlfriends? Many are, like the pastor of St. Patrick's Cathedral! Because they dip into church funds? Some do that too.
Look at this guy in this story, pulled from his post because of financial irregularities, compared to the Manhattan pastor who ripped off an infirm old lady for over $500,000 and continued in his post for another couple of years despite press coverage.
Do you trust that your parish priest is honest and not a molester? Consider then, that just about every one of the "bad" priests denied their guilt to priests, parents, cops, prosecutors, etc.
Who do you trust, then? Who do we turn to? Voice of the Faithful, which was already subversive before the scandal broke? Pagan prosecutors, as one poster put it?
I don't know but as a dedicated follower of past performances, I've become far more likely to believe the accusers.
I know I've treated some of you like Pollyannas (gee, why) but it appears we're all Catholics who are gravely upset with what has happened. Remember, the Globe didn't pervert the kids. Let's focus on who is guilty of what.
And who oh why would any right thinking person reward Law with such prestige after all the harm he brought on the Roman Catholic church and innocent children?
I could imagine you remaining silent. You have defended Bernard Law on this thread, as if the man was a paragon of virtue and the whole world knows he is wicked.
You have sandbagged for these pedophiles while trying to insist that you are not.
So, if you would defend people like Law, who's to say you wouldn't be willing to look the other way in other instances?
Another thing you need to consider, before you blme the parents is the fact that 30 years ago there was a tremendous amount of shame involved in this act, for the victim.
Also, many parents told of law enforcement telling the parents they couldn't do anything about it.
If you are looking to place blame somewhere, place it on the sodomites, not their victims.
That's actually not very prestigious. He's basically a glorified parish priest.
A corporate analogy would be: the Executive V.P. flubs up badly, so you make him effectively a Senior Software Engineer again (basically where he started), but give him a nice office.
NB: I don't agree with putting Law there, either, I just differ with your description of his situation as "prestige". "Prestige" for someone like Law would have been to be put in charge of an important Vatican dicastery (like, e.g., Cdl. Ratzinger was). He's not even in charge of a minor one.
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.