[Boston Archdiocese] Bombshell details of sexual abuse revealed in documents

Boston Herald ^ | 04/08/2002 | Tom Mashberg

[heyheyhey]

O.K.
I just like to be a 100 :-)

[heyheyhey]

Too late!

[heyheyhey]

I never saw that. Maybe you could find it and post a link.

I remember reading a statement by a Vatican official explaining that the scale of the nun rape problem in hugely exaggerated, in the meanwhile they said they would investigate it.
I don't have the time and zeal to look for a link. I am sure I read it. I could say; if it was real to the degree presented by the NCR and confirmed by the Vatican commission then NCR would surely make a sequel.

[saradippity]

Please read post #55.Many of us followed the Cawcutt affair,praying and hoping that the Ratzinger prohibition on ordaining and retaining homosexual priests was finally going to be released. Cawcutt got to the Vatican and his appointment with Cardinal Ratzinger was cancelled.

It seems from what I have read that "they" have a couple of highly placed protectors in the Vatican,who have been able through deceit and contrivance waylay any actions that threaten this group of evil men.

I liked your post because it was to the point and accurately reflected a merited disdain. Please print it and send it to the bishop of the diocese in which you live. If he is a good bishop,he will be happy to know there are people out there who are aware of the problem and it won't hurt his feelings. If he is a bad bishop it will tick him off.I figure if we,Catholics and non-Catholics alike,flood the chanceries with mail expressing our digust and anger at the "wolves in sheeps clothing",we can only embolden the good and irritate the bad.

[B.O. Plenty]

The Truth hurts....don't it?

[Campion]

This is off topic, but I'd love a response. I have heard similar comments before - about so many different Protestant denominations and such a lack of cohesion among them, each teaching different things, etc, and I have always wondered...how can that comparison be valid when there exists within the RCC the same situation?

Your premise is wrong. No such situation exists.

Although there is only one "church" and one head of that church, there are thousands and thousands of different levels of catholicism

I have no idea what you mean by "levels of catholicism". This isn't the Masons we're talking about.

so many different diocese that teach different things.

Maybe you'd like to give me some examples of "dioceses that teach different things". It's pretty clear what dioceses are supposed to teach, it's in a big book you can get at any bookstore, called "The Catechism of the Catholic Church". There are areas where there can be legitimate variations of opinion. Outside of those areas, if they are teaching contrary to orthodox doctrine, they are not teaching what they should be teaching. If you want to complain that they should be disciplined, be my guest.

Protestantism doesn't even have the mechanism to discipline errant teachers: look at John Shelby Spong, for example. The usual Protestant solution is simply another schism. Errant teachers last a lifetime, unless they're disciplined, but schisms last for centuries and are expressly contrary to Our Lord's prayer for his church in John 17.

How is a variety of parishes any different than a variety of denominations? There is still a lack of cohesion.

"Cohesion" and "unity" aren't the same thing.

You have pro-choice catholics,

No, you have apostates who call themselves "pro-choice catholics". They are clearly contradicting the teaching of the Church, they know (unless they're stupid), that they're contradicting the teachings of the Church, and if they actually act on their "pro-choice" convictions, they incur automatic excommunication.

parishes where huge emphasis is placed on Mary, liberal priests, conservative priests, churches with a greater emphasis on icons

Again, "unity" is not "lockstep uniformity.

Many people are officially Roman Catholic, but continue to dabble in voodoo and witchcraft. But are they somehow ok because they fall under the umbrella of the RCC?

No, that sort of thing is a sin against the First Commandment, and the Church is actually quite clear that it's a sin. Guess what: some people don't listen.

[Campion]

We can assume the "mortal sin" penalty in "striking" a priest or any Catholic cleric was self-serving with good reason.

It never applied in situations of self-defense.

[agrace]

I'm getting the impression that you are a bit defensive in your response - didn't mean to make you feel that way, was genuinely seeking an honest answer.

And I figured your answer would be as it was. But you failed to address all of the catholics I have known that were taught different things. What about them? Surely you can admit that there are variations of doctrinal details from parish to parish. It is a fact that some put a greater emphasis on Mary, that some never teach the gospel plainly enough, that some study the bible while others don't teach their parishoners that it is necessary.

With regard to Spong, he of course has NOTHING to do with Christianity, I have posted on FR that he should just quit Christianity and start his own church because he surely isn't a Christian. But using him as an example is still a poor one, because the Episcopalian heirarchy is who should discipline him. Why they don't is beyond me. I'm sure there are plenty of situations within the RCC that have never been properly addressed and subsequently disciplined, like this homosexual/pedophilia issue - there have been coverups and excuses, that is obvious.

Anyway, I assume we'll continue to disagree. Have a good day. :)

[proud to be breathing]

St. Brigitta, in the early part of the 14th century referered to the Vatican and Rome as " a field full of pride, avarice, self-indulgence and corruption. Petrach in the 1340's wrote of Rome, " I am living in the Babylon of the West," and wrote of the Bishops "licentious banquets". Pope Clement VI had the walls of his bedroom painted with a scene of nude bathers that were either very young women or boys, depending on your artistic inclinations. In the 12th , 13th 14th centuries many of the priests and higher ups could not speak Latin, as simony was the order of the day. Every pardon, indulgence and even office in the church heirarchy was for sale. Archbishops as young as 18 were appointed by Popes, young men with no clerical training but from wealthy aristocratic families, who handsomely rewarded the Pope. Todays church seems almost rather well ordered, in contrast to the church of the past, except of course for this despicable handling of pederasty by the higher ups.

[Longshanks]

The only difference between then and now is that anyone complaining then would be killed or put in prison for heresy.....

Actually, it was mainly deviants like these homo-abusers that were burnt at the stake. The Inquisition was a great success and should be revived post haste.

[Longshanks]

many have not aired their gut visceral response in public. But it is there, and its growing violently, and it is going to be tapped into to make this, finally, the awakening of the sleeping giant that is the orthodox rank and file Catholic laity.

It should have happened a long time ago. The indifference of orthodox laymen is greatly to blame for the present situation. We expected preists to do the work but the non-deviant, orthodox clergy is weak and disorganized. The enemy is so deeply entrenched in the Church human organization, that the strength of the orthodox laity is required to drive it out. We must choose leaders, and dedicate ourselves to bringing about a truly orthodox Church Reform as Queen Isabella did in Spain 500 years ago.

[proud to be breathing]

I assume you were joking. Which Inquisiton were you referring to as a great success? The Spanish Inquisition, started by Pope Sixtus IV in 1542, whose principal target was Jews? Or perhaps Pope Paul III's Inquisition of 1542 that was directed against protestants? In 1215 the Church forced Jews to start wearing badges on their clothes to identify the fact that they were Jews. Maybe your favorite Inquisition monent was Pope Paul IV's Index of Forbidden Books, and the trial of Galileo? Please enlighten me on the positive effect of the Inquisition?

[Longshanks]

By definition, the Inquisition was directed at baptised Catholics only to prevent the teaching and spread of heresy within the Church. It began in 13th century southern France, headed by St. Dominic, to suppress the Catharist heresy that promoted homosexuality (particularly relevant in these days of homo/modernist Church infiltration). The Dominican inquisitors combined efforts with brave and selfless Catholic knights to succeed in stamping out Catharism.

On the positive side, Dominicans became energetic preachers and scolars of theology. St. Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican. Preistly vows of poverty were taken more seriously and the ascetic lifestyle was promoted. Yes, abuses did occur. Europe at this time was still semi-barbaric by modern standards of Western Civilization. However, our refined modern sensibilities, so different from Muslim or historically pagan societies, come from a culture built on foundations laid by men like Sts. Dominic and Aquinas.

[BlessedBeGod]

There is a desperate need for a large group of very determined, very angry, and not-to-be-denied men from outside the United States (preferably, from the Vatican) to come to America and begin a wholesale housecleaning, beginning with the bishops who hid this filth under their carpets.

I think they're called the Swiss Guard. ;-)

I would welcome them, too.

[proud to be breathing]

If you want to discourse on the history of medieval europe and the Inquisition I would suggest you read some history, and not just disgorge whatever your catholic encylopedia tells you. The Inquisitions were started by Pope Gregory IX in 1231. By the middle of the 13th century torture was the standard method of interrogation and death by burning at the stake the method of execution. The original thrust of the Inquisitions was against the Catheri and Waldeses, but by the next century Jews became a principle target. The heresies that the Catheri's were guilty of were that they were adamantly against the materialism of the Church, and anti-materialistic in general.They believed in what we would call a Manichean dualism. They forbid sexual intercourse, and were by lot a very abstentious lot. They were not homosexual, and even if some of them were, ( as are some republican's, like Chaney's daughter), I doubt that burning at the stake, and in the case of the Catheri's, the wholesale massacre of them, women and children included, was what Jesus would have had in mind. The Waldenses, the other focus of the first Inqusition, were followers of Peter Waldo, who preached a life of apostolic poverty, a very threatening message to the lavish lifestyles of Rome.