Skip to comments.Pope to Church: Risky Seminarians Must Go
Posted on 09/12/2002 12:04:09 PM PDT by Polycarp
Doublespeak is language deliberately constructed to disguise its actual meaning, usually from governmental, military, or corporate institutions.
The word doublespeak was coined in the early 1950s. It is often incorrectly attributed to George Orwell and his dystopian novel 1984. The word actually never appears in that novel; Orwell did, however, coin Newspeak, Oldspeak and doublethink, and his novel made fashionable composite nouns with speak as the second element, which were previously unknown in English. It was therefore just a matter of time before someone came up with doublespeak.
Doublespeak may be considered, in Orwell's lexicography, as the B vocabulary of Newspeak, words "deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not only had in every case a political implication, but were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them."
Successfully introduced doublespeak, over time, becomes part of the general language, shaping the context in which it is used.
Im not trying to play games here. Yes, numerically homosexuality is number one, but pedophilia is also a problem, and pedophilia is not exclusively homosexual (unlike pederasty, which is). The real world is more complex than just one issue. If we are going to combat this thing at its root source, we cant narrow the focus to far. The modernist idea of sexual license must be combated in all its forms to permeate the priesthood with a true culture of chastity and celibacy. One of the reasons the homosexual culture was able to permeate certain of our fallen seminaries was because it was first preceeded by sexual license in general, paving the way for worse things to follow.He could have said homosexuality, but that isnt the only deviation that we need to keep out of the seminary these days.Please, patent, don't play games. You know very well that homosexuality in seminaries is the major, number one, all-encompassing problem that they must deal with. And not to forget - tossing out every homosexual priest that got through those seminaries without being challenged is also of prime importance.
I'm sure you can figure that out for yourself and you don't need me to explain that by using euphemisms and politically-correct language, the Pope skirted the issue. The word is homosexuals. That's what we need purged from the seminaries and the priesthood.
His use of "deviations in their affections" is ambiguous. It could mean deviating from their love of God to love of sexual relations with women, or obsessions with non-religious activities, or sex with goats.
I would argue it was the acceptance of contraception, which tore sex apart from procreation, marriage and the family. Once sex is not a mysterious, sacramental union that always opens the possibility you are creating an immortal soul but just another cool thing to do on a boring Saturday night it's tough to argue it should be restricted to married couples. (In fact, contraception came before sexual license, as even an atheist, immoral female didn't view sex as a real, consequence-free option.)
Umm -- admittedly, this is progress, but it still means one third of our priests thinks celibacy is optional. Am I the only person who thinks this is a tad high?
I think we all know the difference between homosexuals, pedophiles and pederasts. That's not the point here. You agree that homosexuality is the number one problem, so how is it narrowing the focus to proceed with all haste to purge these horrid men from the seminaries and the priesthood? It is the focus.
I am in disagreement with the reasons you state for the incidence of homosexuality in seminaries, but that's another topic for another thread on another day.
I think we all know the difference between homosexuals, pedophiles and pederasts. That's not the point here. You agree that homosexuality is the number one problem, so how is it narrowing the focus to proceed with all haste to purge these horrid men from the seminaries and the priesthood? It is the focus.You dont kill a noxious weed by chopping off the biggest and most visible shoot. You dig it out of the ground, or send poison to its roots, and kill the whole dang thing. Otherwise it grows right back up again.
This is exactly what I'm saying - dig them out, weed them out, destroy them by any means necessary. Remember that feckless Bishops' Conference where it was decided that there would be no second chances? What a farce that was. The majority of them left denouncing the zero tolerance decision and announced they would run their own dioceses as they saw fit. Or unfit.
1) They will be inordinately tempted to sexual sin in seminaries and in the priesthood, where they live in close quarters with other men. It's like having heterosexual men living in close quarters with women - showering with them - dressing with them, rooming with them, etc. etc.;
2) They will be sexually tempted (as we have sadly seen) by sexually mature teenage boys - leading in a not insignificant number of cases to extreme sin, and horrific abuse of those boys; 3) They will not be able to impart correct ideas of Catholic sexual morality to children and adults, having a disordered set of feelings and attractions themselves;
4) They will be tempted by the lies and promises of the gay activist agenda (you should express yourself sexually, you are normal, you will be a hero if you fight to normalize homosexuality within the Church, etc. etc.);
5) A great, great many parents will not trust priests around their sons until homosexuals are removed from the priesthood. And if they can't trust their priests with their sons, they will not trust their priests on other far less important things;
6) Most homosexual priests in the Catholic Church are active homosexuals. As such, they undermine the laity's confidence that the priests follow scripture and the Church's teachings in general;
7) Active homosexual priests break their vows. They make a mockery of their promises to God and the church. A priest who willingly and unrepentently breaks his vows inpires no confidence in parishioners;
8) They provide poor role models for young men whose sexuality is just developing;
9) Opportunities for blackmail within the Church will be significantly diminished; 10) We will not have priests dying of AIDs.
Where does this statement come from? I recall a couple complaining, but nothing resembling a majority of hundreds of Bishops. If that were true the policy never would have passed. As for whether its a good policy? Frankly in my view it presumes a guilty until proven innocent posture that I think violates all notions of traditional Catholicism, in which priests actually have rights under Canon Law. IMHO, the Bishops, too weak to do their jobs and actually clean up their seminaries, passed the buck by going to this policy. They tried to give themselves an easy out at the expense of their priests.
True, but lopping off that shoot would be a great first step.
Once the Pope's views on the issue become more public, the dissenting Bishops will be under the pressure of peoples' opinion :-)
Homosexual priests have been afforded the shelter of their Bishops and the coffers of the dioceses for many years so I'm not at all worried about innocent priests being unjustly charged without being given an opportunity to defend themselves.
They must start in the seminaries, and they must start now. We know that there are a number of homosexual priests who graduated from those seminaries and are presently loosed on an unsuspecting congregration. In almost every case that has been made public, the guilty priest was a trusted and loved pastor. He was invited to homes, made to feel as if he was a member of the family, and all the while he was taking advantage of the kids in that family. At least now parents will have their guards up and hopefully will not even think about letting a priest sleep over or allow their child to be alone in the rectory or permit them to take trips alone with the priest.
I understand now what you're saying. I'm with you.