Posted on 05/06/2013 11:00:57 AM PDT by BlueDragon
Kampala - A popular Ugandan priest has been ostracized from the Catholic Church after exposing what he calls an 'open secret'-- the rampant sexual abuse of children by clergy members.
Earlier this year, Ghanian cardinal and papal candidate Peter Turkson raised eyebrows when he told CNN that the international clergy sex abuse scandal couldn't happen in Africa because "African traditional systems kind of protect... its population against this tendency" and "in Africa homosexuality... [is] not countenanced in our society."
But one African priest strongly disagrees. Anthony Musaala, a gospel music star known as the "Dancing Priest," has been publicizing sex abuse among clergy in his native Uganda. In doing so, he's forcing the country's Catholic Church to confront an ugly epidemic that it says doesn't exist.
The Los Angeles Times reports that Musaala is paying a heavy price for his crusade against abusive clergy. In March, he was suspended indefinitely by Cyprian Lwanga, the Archbishop of Kampala, to whom he'd written about priests who not only sexually abused children but who also fathered children and kept secret wives. Musaala also called for a debate on whether priests should be allowed to marry.
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/349596#ixzz2SX51QUpK
Sin is sin.
Not much to judge when God has already judged rape and homosexuality as sin.
Too bad the Catholic church won’t acknowledge the same when their priests engage in it.
I guess church discipline if for everyone but the clergy.
The gates of hell have prevailed against the Catholic church.
You shall not bear false witness.
Except, as you have so often reminded us, not if the priests are among the elect, have spoken the magic words and been born again. Those sins were forgiven before the beginning if time, right?
Well, it’s all very sad, all the way from the sexual abuse through Fr. Musaala’s letter and the tendentious reporting to the careless disregard for reason of the usual antagonists.
At least I’m garnering more support for my theory that most of the most feral anti-Catholics embrace the error of Donatus.
He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Threads such as these do not seek to inform, the seek to revel in calumny. Rather than having a little fun at the expense of Catholics they belittle the martyrdom of the Ugandans, Catholics and Anglicans who suffered bringing Jesus to a primitive people under incredibly harsh circumstances. The really sad thing is that so many hearts have no charity or shame.
What is the second reflex? Since blanket denials won't work at this time, then a Nixonian "limited hangout", while more slime and accusation is hurled at any who dare mention the double-standards?
I have little reason to have much doubt that the LA Times was badly misquoting this priest. There is only small doubt remaining as to the veracity of the information he claims is true. He could be wrong...at least in part. But to have this made up out of whole cloth --- for it to be purely fabrication? Uh-uh. I'm not buying that. Not for one second, though I'll confess you didn't actually come out and say that.
So...you are engaging in calumny against my person for bringing it here? Seems so, for blended in with the sly mind reading, and attribution of motive, including mention of "no charity or shame", the other issues you raise are nothing but distraction away from the information presented.
I gotta' hand it to ya', you are a real pro.
He wasn't slimed for talking about child abuse. He was suspended for publicly advocating heresy and trying to stir up a public campaign to support his views. That's why I posted what he actually said and what his archbishop actually said.
Had he merely brought out to light clerical sexual abuse or the like...and his bishop reacted in the way he did, the archbishop would have been wrong. However, that's not what happened, was it?
And that's where the LA Times distorted things.
I was very careful to differentiate between the consequences of the initial post and the motives. The consequences of initiating a thread based upon an anti-Catholic hit piece from a liberal news paper are indisputable.
I will give you to explain your motives since you brought them up, but attempting to make this about me is not permitted by forum rules.
Peace be with you.
Then why don’t they do something about it?
They’re going after the wrong guy; the one who is EXPOSING it.
That makes them complicit in the sin and it’s been going on for centuries.
Seems that the only crime that priests can be called on is making the Catholic church look bad by exposing the sin within the ranks.
Too bad there’s no such thing as church discipline.
Why not try going after the truth and read posts #15 & #16. Its really very liberating
"And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." - John 8:32
I doubt there are many priests who are truly born again. By their fruits you shall know them.
The sin that they live in shows that they are wolves in sheep's clothing, some of Satan's best agents working in the name of God.
Too bad the Roman church can't see that and won't act on doing something about it.
The gates have hell have prevailed against the Catholic church and it's clearly evidenced by the number of Satan's minions who have infiltrated the Catholic clergy and are busy destroying the lives of those unsuspecting and trusting parishioners and clearly evidenced by the number of his minions who oversee said priests and don't do anything about them.
Catholics rule number 1: The Catholic church can do no wrong.
Catholic rule number 2: See rule number 1.
I am free in Christ, free from the bondage of works and legalism that the Catholic church imposes on its followers.
Free to point out sin and point out hypocrisy without fear of being threatened with ex-communication and losing my salvation by a small minded, petty, Catholic hierarchy who will brook no dissent nor challenge to its entrenched authority.
All about the guy doing the exposing and not a word about disciplining the offending molesting and raping priests.
I guess that means that making the church look bad is a greater offense to Catholic clergy than the sin that the priests participated in.
Pathetic.
"He was suspended for publicly advocating heresy..." For broaching the subject of the possibility of priests being once again (as it was in the primitive and even centuries later, early church, similar to how it is among some Orthodox) not prohibited from marrying? That you say is heresy? It's more like, "we don't want to hear it" coupled with some resentment the issue was raised in this otherwise ugly context.
There is a video too, where it is claimed he didn't openly publish the letter, that it was someone else in the hierarchy who leaked it, though granted that could be a little bit difficult to believe given the title.
However, that's not what happened, was it?
Typical. All else gets swept under the rug, for a guilty party has been found and named. The thing is, advocating marriage for priests is not itself heresy, for a celibate priesthood is more technically a regulation, compared to male-only priesthood being a dogma, leaving the possibility the RCC could change it's mind, if it wished. Which leaves him being punished as much for blending in the reports of sexual abuse of minors, and sexual allegations (that non-celibacy is as much the norm rather than the exception, among Ugandan priests) and such things becoming public knowledge, regardless of WHAT ELSE is said in lawyerly fashion.
If all he had done was speak openly that the Latin church should reconsider marriage for priests, I seriously doubt he would be banished for "heresy".
Married priest were once as much the norm, rather than the exception. Many popes were themselves married.
In the scripture, bishops were advised to "be the husband of one wife", were they not? (Shall I bring the citation?) Nor were these bishops then and there required to forego all conjugal relations.
I Corinthians 7: 5-8
Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. This I say by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
Though Paul advocated being single and celibate such as he was, was desirous, it was not mandated until many centuries later, and with the Orthodox not at all strictly required(?) save for bishops themselves to be "continent". That such ideas towards that word developed the way they did, is another story..and needless to say, compared to the scriptures themselves, the demand for sexual purity to be extended to no lawful conjugal relations whatsoever, didn't pick up steam until around the fourth century, much as many other Romanisms arising around then, that can be found controversial or otherwise problematic...
It is hardly heresy to now talk about it. Unless causing embarrassment is itself "heresy".
Get the charges correct. It's becoming obvious the Ugandan bishop did not.
He could re-word his own complaint to focus upon bring ill-repute? Aah, but that would bring the spotlight back upon the allegations themselves, wouldn't it? It's so much easier to just call the troublesome priest a heretic and be done with it.
If you'll actually read Abp. Lwanga's letter posted above, you'll see that they ARE "doing something about it".
Your entire objection is based on a false premise.
Protestant Rule Number 2: See rule number 1.
"Above all, the Church takes seriously the allegations in this article. On behalf of my fellow Catholic Bishops in Uganda I wish to assure the public that as leaders of the Catholic Church in Uganda; we are committed to the protection of the minors and rights of everyone. Investigations about these allegations are to begin immediately with of course cases that are proved."
Again, your objections are based on a false premise.
Your entire line of argument is ridiculous.
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.