Posted on 12/29/2010 10:28:03 AM PST by marshmallow
A Belgian Catholic priest and would-be Nobel Peace Prize holder has admitted that he sexually abused an eight-year-old boy 40 years ago.
The case only came forward when his cousin, the sister of his victim, came forward in reaction to a campaign to nominate Francois Houtart for the accolade.
She told the Belgian church authority that looks into child abuse, the Adriaenssens commission, that the abuse on her brother happened in 1970 while he stayed at their house.
Houtart, 85, was a prominent third world activist and chairman of a development agency that he founded in 1976, Center Tricontinental, until he resigned from the board in November in light of the allegations.
He is currently in Ecuador and was not responding to phone calls or emails but told Belgian newspaper, Le Soir, that he twice touched ‘the intimate parts’ of a boy he described as his cousin and said the incident was ‘inconsiderate and irresponsible’.
The priest said he spoke to the victim’s parents to see if they wanted him to quit as a priest but they told him to speak to a professor in Brussels.
They advised him to stay in the priesthood and concentrate on his academic work in religious sociology.
Houtart also told the newspaper that he had asked supporters to suspend the campaign for his nomination for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize.
Once dubbed as the ‘Pope of anti-globalisation’ he was professor of sociology at the Catholic University of Brussels from 1958 until 1990.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
A Marxist and a darling of the "liberation theology" crowd.
This is one in the eye for the leftists and dissenters who blame the sex scandals on the hierarchical structure of the Church and who are campaigning for a more "open, accountable and democratic" Church where women may be ordained, etc, etc.
I haven't checked The New York Times yet, but I'm thinking that this news, if it's there at all, will probably be buried on p20 and not splashed across the front page like the Fr. Murphy affair.
I have to wonder how many Saints worshiped today, with their relics in museums, were also pedophiles?
Not being accusative, but stories like this did not come out in earlier centuries. So the question is why do we hear this now? Because the “saints” live longer? Because the victims are braver or more credible? Because of Hugh Hefner and his like?
Just asking.
Sounds like a perfect candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize amongst the other rapists, murderers, and frauds.
Forty years.
>> I have to wonder how many Saints worshiped today, with their relics in museums, were also pedophiles? <<
I’m quite confident that the answer is none. “The Devil’s Advocate” sees to that. The scrutiny for canonization has been unbelievably intense, although you present a good concern for those who are pushing for liberalizing it considerable, as we’re seeing in recent cases such as Mother Therese and Pope John Paul II. (In both cases, I believe they probably are Saints.
I’m sure among the legendary Catholics — Charlemagne, Juan I of Austria*, Jan Sobieski*, Christopher Columbus — you’ll find sins aplenty. Even popes. But Catholicism doesn’t make Saints of legendary promoters, warriors and popes, unless by strange circumstance they also HAPPEN to be saintly. Hundreds of popes have passed in succession without a Saint among them. Great kings have unified empires, saved civilization from the Muslim horde, and led their people into being “officially” Catholic, but few have been recognized as Saints.
Like in all things, the Left looks at sainthood wrong, and would probably love to cannonize JFK, this nobel candidate, and thousands of others who have distinguished themselves among the worldly. But the Catholic Church looks for the otherworldly for Saints. And that’s also why it looks for miraculous confirmation as part of the canonization process.
(*Because U.S. History classes consist entirely of a British-American perspective - except for indoctrination into political correction - you might not be familiar with these men. Sobiesky united Poland into the largest empire Europe had seen since the fall of Rome, formed a United League with the other Catholic Empires and kingdoms, and repelled the Turks who had swept clear across Central Europe to Vienna by the time of Martin Luther; Juan I repelled a Muslim Armada from the coast of Italy, despite 10:1 miliatary disadvantage, creating the legend of the Spanish Armada.)
This man’s prominence isn’t due to his Catholicism, but due to his leftism. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, he’s just another (soon to be ex) priest. Not only did they not make him a saint, they didn’t even make him a bishop.
In fact, looking at his background, I’m not sure they ever made him a pastor! He had been a secular expert at Vatican II on sociology, before drifting so far to the left, so it’s not like he never had a significant Church position, but he taught sociology, not theology. (One big, fat guess why: theology must be taught in accord with church teachings, that’s why so many universities offer “Religious Studies” instead of theology.) The expertise he offered was on interfaith relations with Buddhists.
You had a wet dream after finding this article, didn’t you!
Correct, I was not familiar with them.
More importantly, the conclusion I'm reaching is that sainthood is possible if there is no sin during the person's "accepting of Christ" period; but sin previous to this period is OK. These sins may possibly include pedophilia?
Wasn't Francis of Assisi bad before he became good?
The only positive thing I can see is that, unlike most sports figures and politicians, he’s not trying to grab the brass ring despite these revelations. Now, if he’ll face the consequences of his action in the legal system, I’ll believe he really admits that what he did was inexcusable and a betrayal of trust.
Colonel, USAFR
And these men call themselves *another Christ*?????? What an affront to God and the name of Jesus.
Satan gets his best mileage out of people like that. Those who claim to represent Christ and behave in such an abominable manner.
They advised him to stay in the priesthood and concentrate on his academic work in religious sociology.
They're complicit. Instead of properly dealing with a child molester, they just rearrange things a little bit and cover it up and nobody is the wiser, until the victim has the courage to speak up.
For being such advocates of babies on the abortion issue, they sure bail on the kids once they're born.
Matthew 18:1-6 1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 2And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them 3and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, 6but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
>> More importantly, the conclusion I’m reaching is that sainthood is possible if there is no sin during the person’s “accepting of Christ” period; but sin previous to this period is OK. These sins may possibly include pedophilia? <<
Highly unlikely. Sainthood is possible even after an “accepting of Christ” period; conversion is seen as a continual process. Conversely, pedophilia is such a grave, unnatural, and scandalizing crime, it’s rather hard to see how it could be a mere incident in someone’s past life without the sort of outstanding repentance away from it that would certainly be highly remarkable in the Devil’s Advocate’s research. IOW: we’d know about it. So I think the only way it could be in a saint’s background would be if there were some saint I’m wholly unfamiliar with who bears such sins in their hagiography (saintly biography); I’d certainly think any such Saint would become a patron Saint of either sexual abuse, or whatever horror led to them becoming a sexual abuser (patron saint of incest survivors, etc.)
Further, any Saint is held up as a moral exemplar; I’d question whether the Church would hold up a former sexual predator, no matter how holy they’d become, for fear it would make other sexual predators think they could repent later and still become a saint.
Lastly, the notion that such sexual abuse has only come to light recently is historically false. Most of those killed for sexual crimes by the Spanish or Papal Inquisitions, for instance were pedophile priests. (Keep in mind, that there were only 2,000 to 5,000 people killed by such Inquisitions over 400 years.) My guess is that Luther was set off by sexual abuse, too. (He writes of “unspeakable ... sexual sins” being committed in the seminary.) The very first ecumenical Council (Nicene, 326 AD) directly addresses “sexual scandal” which prevents children from coming to Christ. Unfortunately, bishops within the Church ignored the law set forth from NIcene, that such priests be defrocked.
>> Wasn’t Francis of Assisi bad before he became good? <<
Worldly, yes. Pedophile, no. I’m pretty sure that his “bad” life was more holy than most modern preacher’s “saved” life. Which is not to say that some saints hadn’t been guilty of serious sin before being saved.
>> And these men call themselves *another Christ*????? <<
They do? Are you confusing the mean of “altar Cristi?”
Pure, unadulterated speculation.
Catholics just can't bring themselves to believe that any of their heroes are human like the rest of us, can they?
2 Corinthians 10:7-12 Look at what is before your eyes. If anyone is confident that he is Christ’s, let him remind himself that just as he is Christ’s, so also are we. For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I will not be ashamed. I do not want to appear to be frightening you with my letters. For they say, "His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account." Let such a person understand that what we say by letter when absent, we do when present. Not that we dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those who are commending themselves. But when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding.
“I have to wonder how many Saints worshiped today...”
Saints aren’t worshipped.
Freegards
OK, allow me to word more carefully:
The sins to which St. Francis confessed, or which may have been uncovered during the investigations into his life, are of a nature that most modern, prominent preachers would not even recognize as sinful: venial sins such as attachment to worldly goods, digressions from pious practices, vain recreation, etc.
I agree with you. Also he should be castrated then thrown in Jail! I know people who were abused as a kid. Just terrible!
***As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, he’s just another (soon to be ex) priest.***
Since when is that official policy?
I thought the latest is they kind of hide them away at some kind of retirement home for wayward priests.
That is an improvement over shuffling them from one unsuspecting diocese to another; pity it took the MSM lifting that rock and looking at what was slithering around underneath instead of a process of self enforcement.
What do you call a child molesting priest? Father.
What do you call a child molesting Proddy minister? An Inmate.
Now, that’s a load of bunk. The Protestants have gotten away cleaner with the issue of child-molesting ministers simply because there is no bishop to re-assign them and therefore bring the lawyers higher up the food chain.
Until last year, do you know what Baptists did when a minister was accused of sex abuse? They simply fired him. They didn’t revoke his credentials. They didn’t investigate. They didn’t turn him into the authorities. They did nothing to warn any other congregations of why he was fired. If they did anything like that, the minister would possibly sue them for defamation, forcing them to prove the allegations, so it was SAFER to simply dismiss him, and allow him to set up shop in another parish.
So why didn’t this cause the hysteria of the Catholic sex scandals? Because LEGALLY, he wasn’t the responsibility of the SBC. But how is the SBC’s actions any less egregious than the WORST of the Catholic diocese’s were, even prior to 1990? So what policies does the PCA have to make sure everyone knows when an allegation has been made against one of its ministers?
Reality:
What do you call a Catholic pedophile? Famous.
What do you call a Protestant pedophile? Who knows? We don’t know who they are.
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.