Posted on 12/17/2009 12:14:02 PM PST by markomalley
They still are.
I don't know. Popes ordinarily deal with bishops privately.
You miss the main point that we can't trust the hierarchy anymore in regard to this issue. The thousands of Catholic children who were brutalized together with all of the lies that the hierarchy foisted upon us have broken forever any trust that existed between the flock and the shepherds. We MUST presume that we are being lied to. Do you agree with that? That is, do you agree that the presumption has now shifted to the hierarchy to prove up on their good actions?
If so, then the fact that whatever was done was done in private has no effect. We must be told very explicitly what was done, and this must be documented, else we must presume we are being lied to.
But it may have something to do with the size of the problem and the size of the Church. There are roughly 5,000 bishops in the world and the problem in the United States was very large.
I think that one other factor is that JPII really didn't like America. He had a sort of supercilious disdain for our bourgeois ways that is very common among European intellectuals like him. He was a real highbrow, no doubt about that. We were also rich and I think he had a sort of instinctive distrust of that. Anyway, I think that it wasn't just that the Church is so big, it's rather that he preferred to ignore our problems.
Another point to remember is that it may well have been even as mitigation of the problem proceeded apace, quite likely many of the bishops lied to the pope about what had gone on before. . . .
Again, we must presume them guilty until proven innocent.
A “large majority”?? I don't think so. The highest estimate I've ever heard is about 40%, which is 40% too many, but quite a ways from a “large majority.” Your arguments, such as they are, would be strengthened if you cut out the hyperbole and exaggeration.
It's no exaggeration. Would that it were. The 40% figure is obviously very low, I would suspect only those priests who are actually "out" as gays. The figure is much higher, as I think anybody who has sustained contact with priests knows full well. And I'm not only including gays, but also priests who have some other serious type of personality disorder. From my experience, American Catholic priests are, as a group, and with many very notable exceptions, emotionally very underdeveloped. They tend to be emotionally dependent and very needy people. Just my experience, and maybe I've had a string of very bad luck with priests, but my experience is quite extensive and there it is.
For some time, now, at least since the late 1980s and the early 1990s, the Vatican has been making efforts to clean up the seminaries. In many dioceses, Rome has been strong-armed, and initial efforts didn't go very far. But many folks agree that by the late 1990s, the efforts began to get traction and to take hold in many dioceses. THESE EFFORTS WERE ACTUALLY AT THE EXPLICIT DIRECTION OF POPE JOHN PAUL II. So much for doing “nothing about it.”
Oh, c'mon now. Let us not speak falsely. We have here a situation where the seminaries in the United States were nearly 100% pink, many of them openly carrying on in a truly revolting manner, and you see some sort of discernible effect evident a mere TWENTY YEARS into JPII's pontificate as evidence of his good intentions???
That's an INDICTMENT, sitetest, not a justification. Taking 20 years to do something about the major problem in the Church in America is proof enough of criminal negligence at best, conscious complicity at worst.
Oh give me a break. You think that there aren't plenty of MARRIED weirdos? You just haven't been paying attention.
Of course there are married weirdos. The point being, however, that all gays are weirdos by definition. Requiring priests to marry would be no panacea, but it would be an enormous improvement. You ignore what our problem is - an overwhelmingly gay clergy. Anything that can address that problem, such as requiring priests to marry, should at least be seriously considered.
Your views are so far overboard that they demean the charism of celibacy, itself, a charism found in Jesus Christ, Himself.
Nonsense. I say with St. Thomas Aquinas that "marriage is good, celibacy is better." But celibacy is a vocation only for a few, and those few should, at least in our current circumstances, be in monasteries. In all events, and given the appalling failure of the celibate American clergy post Vatican II on every level to shepherd the flock, they certainly shouldn't be advising married couples and their families, things about which they know nothing.
And besides, I say again that you're ignoring the fact that the problem is overwhelmingly one of a GAY CLERGY. The celibacy requirement is a magnet of homosexuals. It gives them a cover of respectablilty while they pursue their own lifestyles on the down low. They get to stay in Neverland and never have to grow up and deal with the responsiblities of family life. From my experience, Catholic priests in this country are really a defective lot. Sorry, but there it is. I urge my fellow Catholics to stop ignoring this very obvious fact.
Are you actually a Catholic, or just pretending?
I'm actually a Catholic. Not a very good one, to be sure. But I'm a Catholic to the marrow of my bones.
We don't know what the pope did precisely to mitigate this catastrophe.
Right, and since we don't know, and since we know we've been lied to routinely, we MUST presume the worst until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.
We know that he started making serious efforts to clean up the seminaries in the 1980s, but by then, the actual abuse problem was already declining dramatically.
We know no such thing. You're speculating. Again, the burden of proof is on anybody, like you, arguing for JPII's good intentions, not on me.
There is no evidence that Pope John Paul II did nothing, as you initially alleged, to stop the abuse catastrophe, and thus your argument fails.
The burden of proof has shifted. You admit you don't know what happened and you therefore have not carried your burden of proof and your argument fails.
Why would you be displeased?
What is displeasing about a miracle?
“You miss the main point...”
No, I addressed the point with which I strongly disagreed, that Pope John Paul II did “nothing about” the child abuse problem.
If you care to retract this statement for lack of evidence (and in the face of contrary evidence), then my main (but not only) point will be addressed.
“’And I gotta tell ya, by the early 1980s, the episcopacy and the senior hierarchy of the Catholic Church in America were riddled with homos and fellow travelers.’
“They still are.”
From the folks I know getting ordained and consecrated to the episcopacy, it's clear that this problem is waning.
“We MUST presume that we are being lied to. Do you agree with that? That is, do you agree that the presumption has now shifted to the hierarchy to prove up on their good actions?”
No, I don't.
“I think that one other factor is that JPII really didn't like America.”
The evidence is much to the contrary.
“The 40% figure is obviously very low, I would suspect only those priests who are actually ‘out’ as gays.”
Maybe it is in your very small and isolated corner of the world, but not generally. The 40% number comes from PRO-HOMO folks trying to tell us how great homos in the priesthood are! Of course, I see you wrote this:
“The figure is much higher, as I think anybody who has sustained contact with priests knows full well. And I'm not only including gays, but also priests who have some other serious type of personality disorder.”
Now you're throwing in folks with “other serious type of personality disorder” to justify your ridiculous percentages. So then you're backing off your assertion that the “vast majority” of priests are homosexuals? It's homosexuals and/or serious personality disorders? LOL. Pathetic.
By the way, I've worked with, played with, spent time with, relaxed with, traveled with priests since my teens. As an active Knight of Columbus, I work with priests regularly. I've been actively engaged with the priests in my own parish for years, and priests throughout the Archdioceses of Washington and Baltimore, and find your comments to be false and outrageous.
“Oh, c’mon now. Let us not speak falsely. We have here a situation where the seminaries in the United States were nearly 100% pink, many of them openly carrying on in a truly revolting manner, and you see some sort of discernible effect evident a mere TWENTY YEARS into JPII’s pontificate as evidence of his good intentions???”
That's not what I said. I said his efforts to reform the seminaries BEGAN in the 1980s (before his 10th anniversary as pope) but didn't begin to have serious effects for some time later. Why? For the very reason you point out - many seminaries were controlled by homosexuals. Does it surprise you that it took ten years and multiple, separate efforts to begin to have some effect? Do you think that popes are omnipotent? I assure you, they're not. That doesn't make them bad popes.
“Of course there are married weirdos. The point being, however, that all gays are weirdos by definition.”
Interestingly, only 4% of priests were sexual abusers of children. I've read that as many as 8% of married men are sexual abusers of children. If only those married men weren't celibate. Oh wait...
“’Your views are so far overboard that they demean the charism of celibacy, itself, a charism found in Jesus Christ, Himself.’
“Nonsense. I say with St. Thomas Aquinas that “marriage is good, celibacy is better.” But celibacy is a vocation only for a few, and those few should, at least in our current circumstances, be in monasteries.”
Not nonsense in the least. Your comments demean Jesus Christ. Because, you didn't say, “Let's make celibacy optional [not a good idea in my view, but at least almost defensible].” Rather, you said that those who are to be ordained should be REQUIRED to be married. This is what you actually said:
"Requiring that all new ordinations be married - which I would heartily support..."
Meaning - no celibacy at all.
Meaning - not SOME celibates and SOME married.
Meaning - ALL folks to be ordained MUST be married.
You make your view pretty clear.
Except now you back off it pretty far. LOL.
Now you backtrack (why am I not suprised?) and say, well, we should limit celibacy to those who are in the monastery. Well, in the United States, nearly 40% of our priests are religious priests, priests in orders. That's quite a backtrack!
“And besides, I say again that you're ignoring the fact that the problem is overwhelmingly one of a GAY CLERGY.”
Get back to me when you have some actual evidence of your calumny.
I've actually read on the subject over the years, and even the most pro-homo advocates and the harshest (non-idiot) critics of homosexuality in the priesthood (both groups, ironically, tend to give the highest estimates of homosexuality in the priesthood) top out at 40%. And that was 15 years ago. A lot of queens have died or retired since then, and in many dioceses, the quality of ordinands has markedly improved, thank God.
“Right, and since we don't know, and since we know we've been lied to routinely, we MUST presume the worst until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.”
“Lied to routinely.”
By a few. Not by all.
There is no basis for assuming that Pope John Paul II did nothing. No evidence at all.
But you continue to ignore the evidence that things improved markedly during his pontificate. And considerable evidence that it is unlikely that the movement to make things came from within the hierarcy in the United States.
That's not a reasonable conclusion.
“’We know that he started making serious efforts to clean up the seminaries in the 1980s, but by then, the actual abuse problem was already declining dramatically.’
“We know no such thing. You're speculating. Again, the burden of proof is on anybody, like you, arguing for JPII’s good intentions, not on me.”
You should pay more attention to current events. I'm not speculating. I'm reciting history that I lived through. I remember reading contemporaneously about the Vatican's efforts, the apostolic visitations, the resistance on the part of American seminaries, etc. These are historical events. You might want to do a little homework.
“You admit you don't know what happened and you therefore have not carried your burden of proof and your argument fails.”
Your false premise is that somehow the pope, or his supporters, have the "burden of proof" of proving whatever you demand of them. I utterly reject your false, calumnious and evil premises.
sitetest
In 2000 this book appeared:
http://www.amazon.com/Changing-Face-Priesthood-Reflection-Priests/dp/0814625045/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261108661&sr=8-1
Written by the director of a major seminary, Cozzens estimated the percentage of homosexuals among American clergy at 50%. Judging by my very considerable experience, even that figure is low, and I would guess represents only those who are more or less open about their orientation.
And as I made clear above, beyond that figure are men who may not be homosexual but who have some other sort of personality disorder.
Your experience with the American Catholic clergy must be radically different from my own. My experience with American priests is that they are overwhelmingly homosexual, and/or emotionally underdeveloped to a dangerous degree, and/or suffer from alcoholism (very common, it would seem) or drug addiction. They are, again based on my own experience, as a group wholly unfit to lead the local bridge club much less to shepherd the souls of the faithful to Heaven.
As to celibacy, you understood me correctly, I think. I am indeed for removing all priests with homosexual orientation from the priesthood immediately, regardless of any misbehavior on their part. They might be the most saintly men in the world, but if they're gay that have no business playing "Father" to Catholic families. I am for recruiting a whole new generation of Catholic married men who understand the basics of theology. Our problem right now isn't lack of knowledge it's rather so many sick and untrustworthy men in positions of extreme trust. So yes, I'd say that we should purge the ranks of the clergy of all gays immediately, jettison priestly celibacy for parish priests and replace them with married men as soon as possible.
Question: do you agree that we need to defrock all priests with homosexual orientations immediately. If not, why not?
“It's not calumny if it's the truth.”
Well, since it's not the truth, it's calumny. Repent.
“And the fact that JPII, not to mention Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, allowed men like Mahoney and Law to continue on for a couple of decades covering up for evil and sick men who destroyed thousands of lives - among the victims family and friends - proves criminal negligence at best and active complicity at worst. Which do you choose - criminal negligence or active complicity?”
Neither. It's focusing on bringing the problems of nearly 200 dioceses in the US under control (and God knows what else around the world) while dealing with the more general problems of another 3000 dioceses around the world. It's not knowing until it's a little late in the game that you've been lied to and deceived.
And in the case of Cardinal Law, it's trying to figure out how to deal both mercifully and justly with a man who inherited the problem from predecessors and struggled to address it properly.
“Written by the director of a major seminary, Cozzens estimated the percentage of homosexuals among American clergy at 50%.”
Fr. Cozzens has given a few different estimates over the years. The previous high estimate I'd seen of his was 40%. 50% is at the high end. He is also sympathetic to homosexual priests, and from what I can tell, exaggerates the problem.
“And as I made clear above, beyond that figure are men who may not be homosexual but who have some other sort of personality disorder.”
Which was a shift on your part in the middle of the conversation, to back up your false assertion that the “vast majority” of priests are homosexual. You changed to essentially, the “vast majority” of priests are either homosexual and/or have other personality disorders, to cover up the fact that you couldn't support your false assertion.
“Your experience with the American Catholic clergy must be radically different from my own.”
Indeed. My experience is limited to two major archdioceses, surrounding suffragan dioceses, and the priests who come from all over the United States to go to the Catholic University of America. My contact is regular and routine. I have a working relationship with some priests that isn't quite daily, but often more than weekly.
In my youth, I considered a vocation to the priesthood very seriously, and was actively recruited by several orders as well as the Archdiocese of Washington. This was during the worst years of the sex abuse crisis.
I often traveled ALONE with individual priests, on short trips and interstate trips. I often spent time with them in their private rooms. Heck, I went to an all-boys Catholic school run by an order of priests. We had their monastery on campus and I was in and out of the monastery all the time. I knew these priests were out to get me. I knew they were after me. But not to abuse or to molest me! But to become a priest!
And the personal devotion, even holiness of these men almost persuaded me to become a priest.
Eventually, I chose not to go into the priesthood. But not because these priests were anything less than good men, devout priests of God.
But in case you haven't noticed, I love our priests. I'm not enamored of every individual priest I've ever met - some of them were dorks and jerks. Some of them have been bad people. But most are good and wonderful men, flawed to be sure (I haven't met many perfect people). I love my pastor. I loved my last pastor. I loved my pastor before that. I loved the priest who performed my wedding. I loved the priest who spent a good part of my adolescence trying to keep me on the path of righteousness (and trying to get me to become a diocesan priest). I love many of the priests who taught me in school. I love the priest who was only a lowly brother when he taught me 10th grade English and is now the head guy for his entire order in the United States.
I love all the priests that I met through the Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church. I love all the priests that I met in Steuvenville, Ohio when I was a teen.
I love all the priests with whom I'm privileged to associate as a member and Past Grand Knight of the Knights of Columbus.
Every one of these men is a sinner. But few might be homosexuals, and few beyond those suffer from any serious personality disorders.
What's really sad is how all of the events of the last years have changed what we consider acceptable behavior. I spent a lot of private time with a lot of priests. Never got the slightest inclination whatsoever that any of them wanted more than to offer me spiritual direction and talk me into entering the seminary. If they'd have made the slightest untoward hint or move, I'd have fled immediately.
But today, a priest who behaved thusly would be suspected of evil things. And heck, it's throughout our society. As an employer, I never meet behind closed doors with anyone unless there is a trusted third party present. Even for personnel matters, which years ago, I didn't hesitate to do behind closed doors, one-on-one. Is this because I'm a potential rapist? Of course not. But because a there are a few bad folks, we've all learned to be more cautious. That doesn't mean that I have to prove my innocence anymore than the popes have to prove theirs.
Yes, my experiences are radically different from yours. I readily admit that there are dioceses where the problems have been much worse than my own. I'm sympathetic to folks who have suffered under bad diocesan rule, in dioceses rife with homosexuals, with abusers, with clown priests and clown Masses, with heretical catechesis.
But this stuff isn't unversal by a stretch.
Consider that perhaps dioceses differ one from the other, and sometimes dramatically so. In looking at the internal numbers of the John Jay study, one can see the differences statistically. The overall percentage of abuser priests was about 4%. But some dioceses had rates close to 0%. and some dioceses had rates over 10%. Consider that your limited experiences may not be quite universal. Consider that looking from the bottom up, you see in the wider church only what you see at your own level, but that may not universally apply.
And consider how it looks from the top down. You become pope. It comes to your attention that there is this terrible hidden problem across many dioceses in the United States. Keeping in mind that you, as pope, are NOT the CEO of a corporation, keeping in mind that individual bishops have prerogatives and rights within their sees, you take steps to start to fix the problem.
Time goes on. Not everyone cooperates with you, even after repeated attempts. But things get radically better in many places. Things DID get radically better in many places. And the overall incidence of abuse DID fall 90%.
As pope, you might not have made all the right choices, you might not have made the best decision at every turn, but who does? As pope, though, you implemented decisions that radically reduced the incidence of abuse by priests of children in the United States.
And that was the right goal to begin with.
“So yes, I'd say that we should purge the ranks of the clergy of all gays immediately, jettison priestly celibacy for parish priests and replace them with married men as soon as possible.”
That's not at all what you initially said. You initially said that ALL new priests would be REQUIRED to be married. You appear to now be saying that ALL new diocesan priests would be REQUIRED to be married? Is that what you're saying? That's quite a dramatic change, in that you just exempted nearly 40% of priests from your first rule.
Do you now wish to retract your first assertion? That ALL new priests would be REQUIRED to be married?
Then let's deal with your modified rule: You do realize that even in Catholic Churches (the “eastern rites”) no one FORCES parish priests to be married men. Neither do the Orthodox FORCE their parish priests to be married men. This is an absurdity. You're going to FORCE men to marry?
Do you realize that before homosexuality became less of a personal stigma, lots and lots of homosexual men married? You think requiring men to be married is going to keep homosexuals out of the priesthood? Ever heard of Vicki Gene Robinson??
“Question: do you agree that we need to defrock all priests with homosexual orientations immediately. If not, why not?”
What does that have to do with your false assertions and absurd ideas? What does that have to do with the false assertion that the “vast majority of priests” are homosexual? What does that have to with with FORCING men to marry to become priests?
FORCING men to marry to become priests is such an UNCATHOLIC, such a thoroughly UNAPOSTOLIC idea, that I'm forced to re-ask my question - are you really a Catholic, or just pretending? In what way do you consider yourself a Catholic? Because you were baptized Catholic? Do you assist at Mass every Sunday and Holyday (except when legitimately excused)? Observe fasts and penances? Do you accept all the binding teachings of the Church?
These ideas and assertions of yours are what I'd expect to hear from a non-Catholic Christian, someone with limited or no experience or knowledge of Catholic faith and history, or maybe from some pseudo-Catholic from Call to Action or Catholics for Free Choice, or some other pretend-Catholic outfit.
sitetest
“The fact that a large majority of our American Catholic clergy are gay (often openly so) and/or are suffering some other type of basic personality flaw remains unaddressed.”
That is, the vast majority of American Catholic priests are either homosexual (about 50%) or have some other type of basic personality defect, like gross emotional immaturity or alcoholism. That's what I said, and based on my very considerable experience, that's just the way it is. I stand by that.
Your reply deserves more attention than I can pay it now, so more later.
its more like a popularity contest, backed by weird anecdotal ‘evidence’
This nun wrote John Pauls name on a piece of paper and she was healed? Thats just....odd
I will add this for your consideration now. You seem to imply that JPII's hands were tied by the rights of the bishops. Indeed, the bishops do have rights, but those rights to NOT extend to choosing their sees. It would have been a simple matter to order men like Mahoney and Law to take up a diocese that exists on paper only, such as in North Africa. He could have been rid of these (at best) incompetents with the stroke of a pen. That's Canon law. As you think about the legacy of JPII, I ask that you consider that he didn't take the actions that he could have and that those (again, putting the best face on it) incompetent men continued on abetting evil men like Oliver O'Grady for years and years in ruining the lives and damaging the souls of countless children and their families.
I see absolutely no excuse for that.
Sure, maybe JPII's attentions were distracted by the events in his native Poland, at least for the first half of his tenure. But then again, that just really shows you where his priorities were. JPII wasn't terribly concerned with sins that Christ Himself would be punished in a way that would make having a millstone tied around the neck and being flung into the sea look like child's play. And at least raises an issue of moral culpability sufficient to derail this herd-instinct drive to proclaim JPII a saint.
In re-reading more carefully, you're right. You did originally assert the additional clause concerning personality disorders.
My apologies for mis-reading.
Nonetheless, your assertion is still false.
sitetest
============================================
Ephesians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus:
====================
I see a different working definition of the word saint all throughout scripture than the elevated title usage of the Catholics.
I personally don't like most of them and I keep my kids away from all of them, without exception, including the few that I like and respect. One just cannot take chances with one's children.
Good management requires at this point that we purge the ranks of the clergy of all homosexuals, jettison the celibacy requirement, and replace them immediately with married men of character. It's the only way to fix the problem, at least as far as I can see.
I would think that at this point most of the good, healthy young men who might be willing to take on the burdens and joys of celibacy would be deterred by the unavoidable suspicion that just comes with the Roman collar. Let's face it, after all that's happened in America and in Holy Ireland, being a Catholic priest is about the most disreputable thing a man could be these days. We have a terrible public relations problem that can only be addressed by radical measures.
Not that I expect our hierarchy to undertake any such action. They seem incapable of reform unless their feet are held to the fire by external forces, especially the civil authorities. Look at what just happened in Ireland with the release of that governmental report. It's only the civil authorities who can overcome the old boy network of the hierarchy and the instinctive circling of the wagons of the Catholic rank and file. History has proved that the hierarchy is capable of meaningful reform only in the face of extreme pressure.
Perhaps the greatest good fruit of the Reformation was the Counter Reformation. But note well that it took a full blown schism to induce Rome to act. It's the same with the priestly pedophile scandal.
In the meantime, the best thing we Catholics can do is to (1) keep our kids away from priests (in the sense of never letting them be alone with priests, not for a second), and (2) report to the police any hint of priestly sexual abuse. Where there's smoke there's fire. We must assume the worst of our clergy at all times, for the safety of our children. Report, report, report.
“You seem to imply that JPII’s hands were tied by the rights of the bishops. Indeed, the bishops do have rights, but those rights to NOT extend to choosing their sees.”
Indeed, and that's been done from time to time.
The difficulty is that something beats nothing every time.
If you appoint Roger Cardinal Mahoney to a titular see, you still have to replace him with someone else.
I actually remember when Cardinal Mahoney was appointed Archbishop of Los Angeles. He was considered a good guy, a “conservative,” orthodox. Eventually, it became clear that he'd either deceived everyone previously or had gone off the rails once he became Archbishop of Los Angeles. Some chalk it up to his having been first made a bishop prior to his 39th birthday.
If you're pope, and you appoint this fellow that seemed to be a good, orthodox bishop, and then he goes south on you, you might be careful of whom you next appoint.
I remember Cardinal Law's reputation prior to the scandals. All agreed that he was a good, orthodox archbishop. It was a devastating shock to learn that he'd so badly handled the sex abuse cases in his archdiocese.
Cardinal Law taught us that a priest can be a good priest, an orthodox priest, but nonetheless be an incompetent and terrible ordinary, even one who may become morally compromised as a result of his complete incompetence.
There are two or three lessons to learn here:
1. Not everyone you think is orthodox is really orthodox.
2. Taking good priests and making them bishops too early may be a big mistake.
3. Not everyone who is orthodox, even personally devout or even holy has any idea of how to manage, how to administer a diocese.
By the time it became clear that Cardinal Mahoney had either become or been all along something less than orthodox, it was the 1990s.
By this point, we're starting to see some of the fruits of the pope's work on priestly formation - increasing numbers of priests are orthodox.
But the folks who are available at this time to be consecrated to the episcopacy are folks ordained in the early to mid-1960s through the early or mid 1970s. Experience has by this point taught the pope - rather vividly in the case of Roger Mahoney - that appointing very young bishops might not be such a great idea.
So, the modest but increasing number of orthodox priest coming out of the seminaries by the early 1990s aren't really candidates for the episcopacy. Not yet, at least.
By 1992 or so, a priest ordained in 1960 will typically be in his early 60s. A priest ordained in 1975, in his mid 40s. That's your cohort of priests that's available to you to make bishop.
This happens to be the cohort most implicated in the sex abuse catastrophe. The Jay study provides a lot of interesting details about who abused and who didn't. If I recall correctly, the peak year by ordination date of abusers was 1968 or 1969 (I'm working from memory here). In other words, the priests of the class of 1968 or 1969 had the highest percentage of abusers among their ranks. And if you look at the graph, you see that by 1960, priests ordained in that year had an increased level of abusers, too, and then you see the decline through the 1970s.
So, in the early 1990s, your primary cohort of potential bishops happens to be your primary cohort of abusers.
Yeah, they'd really make good bishops.
If you're pope, like I said, if you get rid of one bad guy, it'd be nice to know that you're not just sticking another one in there. Maybe the Mahoney you know might not be worse than the devil you don't know.
As well, even I'm willing to admit that a high percentage (although not a large majority, or even a majority) of priests ordained during those years were homosexual. So, if I'M right about the proportion of homosexual priests, you're still looking at a one out three shot that you're appointing a homosexual man to the episcopacy. If YOU'RE right about the proportion of homosexuals in the priesthood, then most of the bishops appointed will be homosexuals, almost as a certainty.
Remember, too, that in the first part of his pontificate, Pope John Paul II’s appointments here in the US were heavily influenced by the likes of Cardinal Bernadin and Archbishop Jadot. Many of the episcopal choices that Pope John Paul made in the first years of his reign weren't all that great. They seemed to improve with time, and in the last few years of his pontificate, we saw the appointment of a number of good, orthodox, relatively young (but not too young) men to the episcopacy. But you'll also notice that especially in the latter half of his pontificate, he allowed many bishops who had turned 75 to stay on for a while, and he allowed episcopal vacancies to go on for extended periods. In my own archdiocese, even though he pleaded to retire for reasons of ill health, the pope had our Cardinal Hickey serve in ill health until he was 80.
Cardinal Hickey was far from perfect. He had a mean and vindictive streak a mile long and a mile deep. Also, he was indifferent to the plight of middle class Catholics trying to afford Catholic school for their children.
But Cardinal Hickey was very orthodox, and very methodical and patient. He did a lot of good for this archdiocese in helping to promote orthodoxy over heterodoxy, and in helping to re-Catholicize the Catholic University of America.
One wonders to what degree he was trying to stretch the available numbers of decent episcopal candidates. that's certainly what he was doing with Cardinal Hickey.
Even today, under Pope Benedict, it's still probably a little tight, as the first wave of priests ordained after the efforts to clean up the seminaries got under way are just getting to the right ages to be made bishops. Someone ordained in 1990 at age 30 (remember that the average age at ordination began moving up in the 1980s) is now approaching 50 or so.
We have seen in recent years the appointment of a number of very good, orthodox, COMPETENT ordinaries and auxiliaries. But the younger cohort of priests is for the most part not quite ready for major sees.
Just remember, something beats nothing every time.
sitetest
“Good management requires at this point that we purge the ranks of the clergy of all homosexuals, jettison the celibacy requirement, and replace them immediately with married men of character. It's the only way to fix the problem, at least as far as I can see.”
I don't think so. I have an advanced degree in management and have owned my own businesses for 25 years, and I disagree with your assertion that this is all required by “good management.”
And frankly, permitting married priests generally in the Latin Rite might fly in some quarters, but requiring it ain't gonna fly, and neither will promotion of married men to the episcopate. Ask some of the Orthodox folks around here what they think of that idea.
“I guess all that I can say is that my experience is that American Catholic priests are, as a group, and with many very notable exceptions, perhaps the biggest group of fruits, flakes and nuts I've ever encountered.”
I think that you generalize from your own experience.
So do I. And my experience is dramatically different from yours.
But I think that the statistics support me more than you. The fact is that 96% of priests weren't homosexual perverts abusing kids.
“I personally don't like most of them and I keep my kids away from all of them, without exception, including the few that I like and respect. One just cannot take chances with one’s children.”
The problem here is that you are either maximizing the problems with priests or naively minimizing the general problem.
My sons have never been left alone, one-on-one, with any adult other than my wife or I. Ever.
“I would think that at this point most of the good, healthy young men who might be willing to take on the burdens and joys of celibacy would be deterred by the unavoidable suspicion that just comes with the Roman collar.”
You would be wrong.
Dead wrong.
My own parish never produced a single vocation in modern times up until the last decade. We have two, now. I know one of the young men, and he's not homosexual (in fact, giving up the good of marriage has been a critical issue for him in evaluating his vocation), nor is he disordered. He's a nice young man. And it looks like he will be a priest.
My Knights of Columbus Council has sponsored several local young men as seminarians. They are all great guys. For each, giving up the good of marriage was an important issue to work through, and none are disordered. They are devout and orthodox.
Of course, in some ways they are a little weird... One of them was up until this year one of my son's teachers at school. And this teacher actually would regularly assert that it is vital to be chaste, and to wait for sexual relations until married. What a strange fellow!! A thirty-something virgin!!
And a great guy, a great mentor to my son.
I look at the seminarians and young priests that I know, and I'm impressed by their maturity, their grace, their intelligence, their orthodoxy, and their personal devotion and holiness.
“Let's face it, after all that's happened in America and in Holy Ireland, being a Catholic priest is about the most disreputable thing a man could be these days.”
Yes, and the young men I know take these calumnies and wear them as badges of honor. They are as brave as medieval knights. We need such courageous and holy men, and it appears that in many places, God is granting them to us in larger numbers.
sitetest
it’s kind of silly ‘proof’
it’s like those faith healers on TV
A limps up with a cane, and they say “HEAL” and e dances away....
Would you make such a person a saint?
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.