Skip to comments.First abused then castrated- article and video about Dutch Catholic scandal
Posted on 05/11/2012 1:40:26 PM PDT by Gillibrand
Hardly anyone knew Henk Heithuis when he was killed in a car accident on 28 October 1958 when only 23 years old. Today, fifty years after his untimely death, the sad fate of the Dutchman is extensively covered in the international press from the "Spiegel" to the FAZ to the "Telegraph".
The media interest has a reason: The name of the young man at the centre of a scandal brings shame on the Roman Catholic Church in the Netherlands and also reaction in politics. This is because Heithuis, who spent nearly his entire life in Catholic homes and boarding schools, was there not only sexually abused but the church prompted his castration, supposedly to cure his homosexuality.
From the confessional to the surgeon
Worse still, the unfortunate Heithuis was perhaps just one of several victims who were castrated.
(Excerpt) Read more at cathcon.blogspot.co.uk ...
Anyone check out when Joe Kennedy (JFK"s dad) gave his daughter Mary a frontal lobotomy? I think it was in that same period of quack surgery to cure things people didn't like.
1. Just because people have decided half a century later that Euthanasia is ok, somehow excuses the behaviour of the Catholic Church?
2. In essence you are saying that the Church is vulnerable to secular trends like any other organization?
Castration is against Church teaching. This is bad - but it does not reflect on what the Church teaches.
Even in the US there were places where eugenics was being experimented with in those days.
Bet he sang like a bird.
There were a lot of medical and quasi-medical folks around in the 40s and 50s who thought it to be the sina qua non of ethical medical practice to sterilize American Indian women ~ that way you'd have fewer babies growing up to be alcoholics.
Then there were the folks who thought all stray Indian babies ought to be adopted out to loving white folks.
That worked ~ frequently the family would discover their daughter had some health problems and inherited differences that just didn't fit a pattern they could deal with.
Let me tell you, a castrated gay guy in the Netherlands is the least of the stories out of that place. Failure to properly evaluate the German physicians they let into the country post WWII is probably the source of more horror than you can imagine.
Not to protect the Catholics, but stuff happens ~ and nobody could have done anything about it because, frankly, they were in a pond with alligators up to their eyeballs at the time.
BTW, the Dutch medical community had already decided that euthanasia was OK decades before ~ it just took time for them to figure out how to weasle-worm their way into making it all legal.
That's called hypocrisy. Teaching but not doing.
One thing you can always count on on FR is the Catholic bashing that I’ve seen on here over and over again.
On that subject they join ranks with the liberals who would want to destroy a religion based on the acts of a very few.
Yeah they did involuntary sterilizations in the 20’s and 30’s sometimes if you have family members who were “delinquent” in their terms they would sterilize you and any other family member based on the ruling of a “family hygiene court”
That’s a good point; the Nazi’s didn’t spontaneously generate. There were many things in Europe particularly that contributed to left wing fascism.
It may still be happening. In 1980, I worked in a group home in Washington State. One of the young women who lived there told me that one of the young male residents made regular visits to her room at night. She said that she “got a baby” from his visits, but it wouldn’t happen again, because she had an operation on her belly button.
Well, I would imagine you could take it further and say that the Bishops and the Pope are also influenced by secular thought, to some extent. And so would the Catholic Church.
Well, you could say that the Dutch as a whole did not consider euthanasia to be acceptable until very recently.
Catholics and liberal is not two different things, the majority of Catholics are part of the liberal coalition.
That's happened before of course.
So, there you have a readily understood exposition of how Catholic religious thought can intersect with Secular thought.
If you were Hindu, or Southern Buddhist, you would not, as a matter of religion, consider roast beef sandwiches acceptable ~ more like some really bad luck for the cow!
Nor would you think of them as tasty.
There's an example of religious thought dominating everything conceivable given a simple roast beef sandwich.
You could do pretty much the same way with any particular brand of Protestant thought ~ or Moslem thought for that matter.
Change it to pig, though, and all those others drop out of the concensus!
Are priests, bishops and the Pope motivated in any respect by an exclusively secular point of view regarding roast beef sandwiches? Or is it, "they are a blessing" all the way down from the top.
come on now...keep with the plan...
They used them as choir singers but the practice has always been condemned and those found doing the procedure were often excommunicated.
The Catholic Church is infallible in the teaching of faith and morals. The Pope does not make mistakes when he speaks “ex-Cathedra”, or from the chair (which is rare - most Pope’s do not issue infallible decrees). But administrative mistakes may be made - continuing to allow castrated singers may have been one. Remember though, those castrated boys claimed it was a tragic “accident” that led to the castration. This was usually a lie and done so they could get to sing at the church.
Even if one were to accept this premise (I don't) it is still a matter of saying but not doing.
“administrative mistakes”? That's another class of sin that I haven't heard of yet. Omission, commission? Yes, even ‘mistakes were made’ but “administrative mistakes”?
That sounds like “I don't steal but I'm willing to use stolen money”.
Yes, administrative mistakes versus teaching mistakes.
The Catholic Church is full of sinners and hypocrites. But the Church does not err when it makes a declaration ex-Cathedra or when the Pope says something in conjunction with the Bishops (e.g. a global Council of the Bishops).
Point out that there are sinners in the Church is sort of like saying that the sky is dark at night.
i think some of these guys think church folk are supposed to be perfect
I hate to say this, but these were the days when Rosemary Kennedy had a lobotomy for her sexual acting out and temper tantrums.
And last time I looked, although the mental hospitals were “RUN” by the church (usally set up to treat people and staffed with nuns because it is hard to find folks to work in such places) it is psychiatrists and doctors who thought castration was the cure for various mental disorders.
Catholics, like any group or religion, is made up of people of all political ideas. The percentages of liberals and conservatives in the Catholic religion are the same as they are in society. But bigots like you who love to attack people of the Catholic faith just can’t help themselves. You hate Catholics and you must lie to heap more on them.
Name calling, bigotry, and a personal attack, all because someone knows how the majority of Catholics vote.
If you are conservative, then try to see things from a conservatives point of view.
No. It’s your OPINION on how you believe they vote. For every web page you post that shows your point I can find an equal number showing you’re wrong.
It’s always amazing to me the amount of Catholic bashing that FR allows.
If you don’t want to be called a bigot on this subject then stop displaying your bigoted opinions on the subject.
I am a conservative. I am also a Catholic. I know hundreds of Catholics and some are more conservative than you.
I doubt you KNOW how the majority of Catholics vote unless you are there with them when they vote.
Just another anti-Catholic bigot is all you are.
You think that the Catholic vote, or all the other major categories is something that American politics from news to parties doesn’t keep up with?
Obama got 54% of the Catholic vote.
You freaking out because of your bigotry and getting vicious on a person doesn’t change something as ordinary and everyday as how major groups vote.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
54% is a “majority”?
You’re delusional. I’ve read through a bunch of your recent posts and it looks like you’re not just anti-Catholic, it looks like you’re anti-religion or maybe just anti-Christian.
I’m not freaking out FRiend. I’m just trying to show you that you are wrong and if you believe that 54% is a majority then you are beyond learning anything.
Just keep hating on Catholics or Christians. But don’t say things that are not true. Just because you believe that something is so doesn’t make it so.
You haven’t been reading my posts if you found anti-Christian posting.
But if you don’t see 54% as a majority vote, then who knows.
Catholic bashing? FR is flooded with lengthy Catholic posts that I consider spam. I doubt any other group would be cut so much slack.
Anything over 50% is a majority.
For example - Al Gore got the majority of the popular vote in 2000 - slightly more than 50%.
According to our Constitution a bill is passed by the legislature with a majority vote - and again - a majority is anything over 50%.
A regular Sandusky for charity work - that one.
Some blog has this anti Catholic story and suddenly its true. Liberals have an uncanny ability to rewrite history, and destroy those that get in their way.
Im not saying it didn’t happen, just that the story is omits facts like the it is known that castration was used in the 50’s in Europe to treat homosexuality. The Dutch government officials had authorized this procedure. The man was 20 years old at the time this happened. Monks in that case were convicted. Chemical Castration was used in the US in the 60’s to treat deviant sexual behavior as well. There are hundreds of horrible acts of sexual abuse that take place, outside of christian institutions every single day, but I guess since they are committed in public schools they are not as news worthy as this case from the 1950’s.
As has been seen from the breakdown of data from the most recent catastro - uh,... election - Catholics are about where the country is, as a group, neither particularly liberal nor particularly conservative. 51% of the country voted for the anti-Christ, about 48% for Gov. Romney. 50% of Catholics voted for the anti-Christ, about 48% for Gov. Romney.
However, like the rest of the country, the real story is when you break things out by race and by religious practice. As you well know, non-Hispanic white Catholics voted fairly solidly for Gov. Romney. As well, weekly-Mass-going Catholics also voted solidly for Gov. Romney.
Just as with minority Protestants, minority Catholics voted very strongly for the anti-Christ.
If you want to gauge the Catholic vote, it's more valuable to look at ethnicity and religious practice first than to look at bare religious identification. Just like the rest of America.
As pointed out by others, Catholic voters aren't a monolithic voting bloc anymore, or anything even approaching.
The Catholic denomination supports the democrat party.
America’s second largest denomination, the Southern Baptists are about an 80% republican vote.
Protestants as a whole have only gone democrat 3 times in history, the last time was in 1964, Catholics have only voted republican 5 or 6 times, and only once against a democrat incumbent. The Catholic vote is pretty much where it has always been.
A comparison between the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptists is a little silly, since the Catholic Church is multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-cultural and universal, and the Southern Baptists are a group that was founded by white Protestants out of the divide of the Civil War. Where the southern side took up a defense of slavery.
In recent decades, the Catholic Church votes a lot like America votes. Which isn't surprising since ethnically, racially, politically, geographically, the Catholic Church in the United States LOOKS a lot like America looks. The Southern Baptists look a lot like... the Southern Baptists.
Even so, it's merely anti-Catholic bigotry to refuse to acknowledge that the intragroup differences in the Church are sufficiently large as to render a statement like, "The Catholic vote is this or that" sort of foolish.
And certainly, with 48% of Catholics voting for the Republican candidate this year, this statement is just pure idiocy:
"Catholics and liberal is not two different things,..."
LOL. Not to be taken seriously.
What is silly is this ridiculous fantasy about the Catholic vote in America, not existing, not being real.
A single denomination is just that, and the Catholic denomination is killing conservatives and the pro-life movement in the voting booth.
Southern Baptist voting and Catholic voting is different because of something to do with their teachings in their churches.
We see that with Hispanics, Catholic Hispanics and Protestant Hispanics are two different votes, Catholic Hispanics vote democrat as Catholics always have, and Protestant Hispanics, while approaching closer to a 50/50 vote, at least reflect some of the natural Protestant republican voting that the Protestant vote always has.
Liberal churches produce liberal voters.
“What is silly is this ridiculous fantasy about the Catholic vote in America, not existing, not being real.”
It’s not a fantasy. Catholics no longer vote in anything approaching a monolithic bloc. A group that votes 50% for Party A in one election, 54% for the same party in the previous election, 51% or so for Party B in the election before that, etc., giving smallish majorities to Party A in some years and Party B in others is no longer a single voting bloc.
The last time Catholics gave anywhere near 60% of their votes to one presidential candidate or another was in 1968 when Hubert Humphrey got 59% of the Catholic vote, according to Gallup. That's 44 years ago.
Oh, wait. That's not quite accurate. By Gallup's numbers, Catholics voted 61% for RONALD REAGAN in 1984. Oh, well. We DID sorta vote as a little bit of a bloc in 1984. For the Republican. LOL.
Examples of voting blocs would be blacks (over 80%, often over 90% Dem, consistently) or Hispanics (never below 60% Dem, often quite a bit higher for the Dems) or Jews (in recent decades, nearly never below 70% Dem, as much as nearly 80% Dem).
Whites are not quite a voting bloc. They typically give the Republicans in the high 50s or near to 60%. But that leaves a whole lot of white folks voting Dem.
But since 1972, Catholics increasingly do not vote as a bloc. Their votes have continued to trend away from any particular preference for the Dems to the point now where usually the Catholic vote is within a point or two of the national vote of the entire electorate. In fact, the Catholic vote was apparently a little bit more Republican this year than the rest of the electorate.
Catholics no longer represent anything approaching a single bloc of voters that predominantly votes for a particular party.
But only anti-Catholic bigotry blinds some to trying to fit the square peg into the round hole of trying to re-imagine the modern Catholic vote as a single bloc, when the larger truth is kicking them in the pants: Similar to the rest of the US voting population, different ethnic and racial groups of Catholics do vote as blocs, or nearly so. And those blocs are broadly similar to those that exist in the rest of the population.
BLACK Catholics do. HISPANIC Catholics do. WHITE Catholics do, a little. Just like blacks, generally, Hispanics generally, and whites generally.
But in the Church this year, out of 100 folks, 48 voted for Gov. Romney and about 50 voted for the anti-Christ.
That is at odds with this piece of tripe: “Catholics and liberal is not two different things,...”
That doesn't even take into account the fact that more religious Catholics - those that take more seriously the actual teachings of the Church - are more likely to vote Republican and less religious Catholics - those that often ignore even the most basic teachings and disciplines of the Church - are more likely to vote Democrat. In other words, those who take seriously the teachings of the Catholic Church are, as a population, less liberal.
That kinda makes a hash of this: “Catholics and liberal is not two different things,...”
Of course, it’s apparent that your misinterpretation goes much deeper than merely mis-identifying “Catholics and liberal” as the same.
In comparing a single American denomination to the Universal Church, you don’t evince any realization that the American political categories of “liberal” and “conservative” may fit narrow American denominations, but not the Universal Church.
However, let me address directly your logical fallacy of deciding that because Catholic Hispanics vote more heavily than Protestant Hispanics, it must be because the Catholic Church is liberal. A bare assertion unsupported by any actual argument or citation of facts.
Hispanics usually come from societies that don’t embrace many of the concepts that are central to conservatism, especially that of a preference of smaller government. Hispanics who don’t assimilate well (and unfortunately, large numbers don’t) are unlikely to let go of their ways of thinking about most things, including the proper scope, size and role of government. They are also unlikely to change their religion.
But those Hispanics that better assimilate are more likely to embrace more mainstream American social and political thinking such as the idea of smaller and limited government. Folks who more readily assimilate and change in these ways are also more open to changing their religion.
Yes, Catholics are a democrat voting block, and always have been with the exception of 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 2004, and possibly 1956.
Only one of those votes was against an incumbent democrat, the rest were reelections, and Reagan’s third term.
That is as good as it has ever gotten for us in regards to the Catholic vote, but that little period is over, and Catholics are back where they have always been supporting Obama both times, and we have no guarantee that they will ever vote republican again.
The Catholic denomination has traditionally been a dependable democrat voting block, and with a little burp during the last 40 years to help elect republicans who were already in office, it is returning to it’s home.
Catholic immigration equals to importing democrat voters, which it always has.
Your posts are hallucinatory, no longer correspond to reality, and no longer even use specific words properly.
Going back to 1952, which is 60 years, Catholics have voted for the winner of the popular vote 13 out of 16 presidential elections.
If Catholics are a Democrat voting bloc, then, well,... so is the rest of the country, LOL.
But a deeper problem with your analysis is that you seem to think that a group that gives roughly half its votes each year to each of the two major parties is somehow voting as a “bloc.” From wiki:
A voting bloc is a group of voters that are strongly motivated by a specific common concern or group of concerns to the point that such specific concerns tend to dominate their voting patterns, causing them [to] vote together in elections. For example, Beliefnet identifies 12 main religious blocs in American politics, including e.g. the “Religious Right”, whose concerns are dominated by religious and sociocultural issues and “White Bread Protestants”, who, while also conservative, tend to care more about economic issues. The result is that each of these groups votes en bloc in elections.
By definition, a group that roughly evenly divides its votes between two major parties is not a bloc.
“...but that little period is over, and Catholics are back where they have always been supporting Obama both times, and we have no guarantee that they will ever vote republican again.”
LOL! That's even funnier, as the Catholic vote appears to have UNDERVOTED for Obama in 2012, by a little bit.
Catholics have only voted republican 5 or 6 times in history, it doesn’t really please me that voting for Obama twice, ups their score of being on the winner’s side.
As an historically loyal democrat voting bloc, the Catholic vote has pretty much run it’s course of flirting with the GOP and has returned to it’s dependable place in the democrat column.
It amazes me that such a pro-abortion, liberal voting group is so protected and defended by some people, who are supposed to be conservatives, but we see it on thread after thread.
Get back to me when you have a coherent argument.
And learn the meaning of the word “bloc.”
I made my coherent statement of fact.
“Catholics and liberal is not two different things, the majority of Catholics are part of the liberal coalition.”
Actually, you made two different assertions there.
The first assertion is that “Catholics and liberal is not two different things [sic]...”
You equate Catholics with liberals (Or, perhaps, liberalism. Your syntax is fractured; the precise meaning thus is not quite obvious. But the gist is.). Your statement makes an identity between them. You say that they are not two different things. That assertion is false. Catholics are not so readily labeled. Some Catholics are liberals, some aren't.
“... the majority of Catholics are part of the liberal coalition.”
This is a different statement from the first. The first posits and identity between Catholics and liberal, which, as we've already seen, is false.
The second part doesn't mean the same as, “Catholics and liberal is not two different things...[sic]”
Thus, your statement is incoherent.
If you'd have stuck to those two somewhat incoherently juxtaposed clauses, one could chalk it up to poor writing skills, and just say, “What he meant was that a majority of Catholics are liberal - the first part was just poorly-written hyperbole.”
But then you talk about the “Catholic vote,” meaning that there is a relatively-unified, single bloc of voters. You even say:
“The Catholic denomination has traditionally been a dependable democrat voting block [sic],...”
As demonstrated, Catholics don't vote as a bloc. You don't show any understanding of the word “bloc.”
In the meantime, democrats can keep counting on the members of the catholic church to support their pro-abortion, liberal agenda.
The Catholic vote, it’s a democrat thing.
Your facts and logic are impeccable, but don't expect that to influence the four legs good, two legs bad dialog on this subject from ansel12. The real story is that the largest "bloc" of Catholic voters are those who fail to cast a ballot. That number is consistently more than half of all self-identified Catholics. Of those that do vote it is indeed true that slightly more than half vote consistently Democrat, but it is disingenuous to continue to insist that the voting behavior of the 25% or so of the Catholics that vote vote Democrat is anything other that representative of that minority of Catholics.
Pax et Bonum.