Posted on 01/31/2016 10:01:53 PM PST by detective
It’s all disgusting and deserves to be reviled and punished. All of it.
What does it matter if he abstains from sex according to the Catholic code of conduct? (yeah-right)
“Little attention has been paid to the efforts of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict in attempting to combat the homosexual network that had infiltrated the church in the 1970’s.”
To my understanding the change for the seminary discernment process ruling out homosexual oriented men only happened after the scandals hit the media, which was post 2000, 20 years after the drastic decline in abuse instances actually occurred according to the John Jay study.
The best I can come up with as to why the instances of abuse actually declined is because older gay priests died and weren’t replaced by younger gay priests. You would think that if some sort of discipline accomplished it they would readily explain what it was. As it stands now I suspect it was simply a matter of gay men becoming priests at mush lower rates, and this affected the % of priests who abuse because the majority was homosexual abuse.
Freegards
Stop lying about what I said.
I said the examples of homosexual priests pursuing young men in their late teens were dishonestly labeled as pedophilia which is sexual abuse of young prepubescent children. I explained that to you but continue to mischaracterize what I said.
I did not defend homosexual priests. Quite the opposite I was critical of them.
My point is that it is child abuse no matter the age of the victim. And no matter the gender, or the profession, of the perpetrator. It’s just as bad if it is a female school teacher, nurse, doctor, or creep on the street as if it is a priest, minister, or rabbi. Whether it happens to a 6 month old, or a 16 year old.
No, he’s a person playing make believe as homosexuality is often a childish behavior; the lisp, the baby talk, the dress, the outlandish behavior for attention, etc.
From the biography of Cardinal Ratzinger:
“Prior to 2001, the primary responsibility for investigating allegations of sexual abuse and disciplining perpetrators rested with the individual dioceses. In 2001, Ratzinger convinced John Paul II to put the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in charge of all investigations and policies surrounding sexual abuse in order to combat such abuse more efficiently.[145][146] According to John L. Allen, Jr., Ratzinger in the following years “acquired a familiarity with the contours of the problem that virtually no other figure in the Catholic Church can claim” and “driven by that encounter with what he would later refer to as ‘filth’ in the Church, Ratzinger seems to have undergone something of a ‘conversion experience’ throughout 2003 and 2004. From that point forward, he and his staff seemed driven by a convert’s zeal to clean up the mess”.[147] In his role as Head of the CDF, he “led important changes made in Church law: the inclusion in canon law of internet offences against children, the extension of child abuse offences to include the sexual abuse of all under 18, the case by case waiving of the statute of limitation and the establishment of a fast-track dismissal from the clerical state for offenders.”[148] As the Head of the CDF, Ratzinger developed a reputation for handling these cases. According to Charles J. Scicluna, a former prosecutor handling sexual abuse cases, “Cardinal Ratzinger displayed great wisdom and firmness in handling those cases, also demonstrating great courage in facing some of the most difficult and thorny cases, sine acceptione personarum (without exceptions)”.”
Prior to that it was mostly lay Catholics who tried to rid the church of homosexual priests. In many cases they were opposed by local priests and bishops.
Something is seriously wrong with a man who is a catholic priest and must stand and announce he is gay. Part of his vows was a vow of celibacy. If he has violated that vow to commit a sin with a man, he is a sinner, not gay. Gay is a choice. To announce that he is gay involves other things going on in his head. It signifies an arrogance toward authority. That is a marker of something that all the goofballs who must announce that they are gay seem to have.
A man can look at his body and know what nature had planned for him. The fact that he does not want to comply is what is wrong. That is his choice, but it is a choice. To stand and make a proclamation as a catholic priest is just nasty. He is much more evil than someone who commits a sin, is sorry, and tells it in confession. I would hate to be in his shoes on the judgement day.
I agree with you.
But my point was there was no pedophilia problem with priests abusing young children. The problem was homosexual priests.
But the homosexual priests, like the one in the article, have refused to take responsibility.
Well, the drastic decline in abuse started in the late 70s. By the time the media got a hold of the scandal, both for the actual abuse and the cover up, it was 2002 and the instances of actual abuse were at the 40s and 50s level of reported abuse, before the sexual revolution.
I still think it was simply a decrease in gay men becoming priests for broader cultural reasons, apart from an discipline from Church authorities.
Freegards
If you’re not going to follow the rules, don’t be Catholic.
Don’t expect the whole world to change for you, pervert.
I am not disagreeing with you but do you have a source to support your statement.
John Paul II became Pope in 1979. That might have started the change in direction.
Also, the liberals took over the U.S. Catholic church in the 1970’s. Lay Catholics became more aware of the problem in the 1980’s and that may have helped to cause the change in direction.
The John jay report, specifically the graph at the beginning of this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3115960/posts
Pope JPII and Ratzinger being his right hand might have had something to do with it, or even a lot, but I have never seen anything that they might have done in the late 70s early 80s to actually support it being so.
You would think that if there was some sort of policy it would be fairly well known. Everyone incorrectly knocks them for all the abuse that happened on their watch, but they actually presided over a DRASTIC decrease in instances of abuse. But what exactly did they do to make it go down that much? No one can ever give me an answer.
Freegards
Pope John Paul II opposed the policies of liberal homosexual bishops and priests in the U.S. He appointed faithful Catholics as bishops. He also responded to complaints by lay Catholics. It had to be behind the scenes and not in public but he did try to oppose the worst policies. And he did provide an avenue for lay Catholics to be heard.
Archbishop Weakland in Milwaukee embezzled church funds and gave them to his homosexual partner. When church employees and parishioners complained about homosexual priests approaching teenaged boys he threatened them with firing and law suits.
Archbishop Weakland complained continually about Pope JPII.
Dude, I’m not necessarily doubting that they did all of that. What I doubt is those actions could have had such an effect on the instances of abuse that quickly and sharply, especially considering the crop of bishops that were there. And not all the bishops JPII appointed were conservative. That decrease looks like a cultural/demographic thing to me.
“He also responded to complaints by lay Catholics. It had to be behind the scenes and not in public but he did try to oppose the worst policies.”
Why did it have to be behind the scenes and not in public?
Freegards
From your link:
"Do you notice anything interesting? Do you see how that red line (number of cases) and that blue line (number of priests committing abuse) both begin a REALLY rapid descent? Well, if you look closely at the year when that rapid fall begins, that year would be 1981 - two years after John Paul II is elected Pope and the same year Ratzinger is picked to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
“Even though the CDF won't streamline the process and gain sole jurisdiction over abuse cases until 2001, the chart shows that the minute Ratzinger became the head of CDF, someone, somewhere started shutting these abusive priests down. By 1995, most of the rat holes had been closed.
The press didn't pick up on what was going on until AFTER Ratzinger or one of his confreres had already finished most of the work.”
Based on the chart, the big increases came right after Vatican II. It continued to increase until 1981 when it peaked.
Thanks for the link.
“...the chart shows that the minute Ratzinger became the head of CDF, someone, somewhere started shutting these abusive priests down.”
Like I said, someone somewhere allegedly doing something doesn’t prove it to me. Of course that doesn’t mean they didn’t really have a lot to do with it. I seem to recall JPII regretting not doing more, even though the instances of abuse went drastically down during his span as Pope. I’ve never seen anything specific that they implemented in in 79-83 or so that would make me think it was mostly or all Church authority action that caused the drop.
You don’t think gay men being accepted in the broader culture and so less likely to join as priests right around that time makes a lot of sense? I mean after VII and the sexual revolution everyone thought they were going to lift the bc ban, the civil remarriage ban, the celibate priest discipline. When that didn’t happen, I think a lot of liberals and gay men quit joining or quit acting as priests.
Freegards
It is very possible for a homosexual to follow the teachings of Christ and be a Christian.
Nope. Can't be done.
A person with homosexual tendencies who lives a holy and chaste life can be a Christian.
Exactly correct.
Note that homosexuality is NOT a characteristic. It is a behavior. The phrasing of your first statement reflects a person identifying themselves as their sin. A sin that God hates and calls abomination. By choosing to be a homosexual they are choosing to reject God. They disqualify themselves as a Christian by choosing to blatantly and publicly scorn Christ.
Your second statement describes a person who struggles with same sex attraction but chooses to choose God rather than the sin. The second person is NOT a homosexual and can indeed be a Christian
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.