Posted on 05/03/2002 6:38:30 PM PDT by history_matters
My apologies.
He da man!!!
This a$$hole, pardon my french, needs to be defrocked and excommunicated. I personally don't give rat's spit for what McBrien has to say. He's been a heretic on the scale of Arius ever since I've known of him. He's a disgrace to the roman collar and a near occassion of sin to unsuspecting Catholics. I pray for his repentance and his removal and for forgiveness for the anger his name invokes in me.
He is one of the few cardinals we have whose fidelity to the Magisterium is well known.
So, you don't believe priests molest girls, or you're ok with that?
About "all the rest of it is a dodge" - so, we shouldn't be proactive? Our only problem is the priests we know are molesters? That is just plain one dimentional thinking. First off, all known molesters names are now in the hands of the law. They will decide the fate of those molesters, not the Catholic Church. Second, what about the possiblility of molesters coming up from the seminaries and their effect on the future of children? Shouldn't we address that problem and go to the root cause?
Now, due to the GREATLY OVERWHELMING number of young male victims, due to the number of priests dying of AIDS (much higher than the general population) what does that lead you to believe? That is evidence that, guess what? Most of the abusing, evil priests are HOMOSEXUALS.
Where are all the abused girls? Not that it doesn't happen, but where are all the abused girls???
Time for you to read "Goodbye! Good Men" - but I bet you won't.
I have written letters asking that they talk about "agape",which is what Jesus Christ had for us and what the Father had for us and what we are to have for one another. I believe the Bible used love to mean that transcendent love of humanity as well as brotherly love.The Greeks had several words for it,when the scriptures speak of love they are not talking about "eros",but in our feel good saturated society,every homily about love usually just affirms for the "sinner" a scriptural affirmation of the goodness of "eros" and their own little loving relationship,cause few in our dumbed down,government educated populace know the difference.
I am not dismissive of "eros",it has a place in many of our lives,but it should never be primary.
YET!
Ironic, isn't it? However, I do think that the pyschology practiced by Fr. Groeschel is a bit different than say the psychology practiced by Hans Kung.
And you forgot to mention a graduate of St. John's Seminary in Brighton, Massachusetts (1962) - among the alumni are Geoghan and Shanley.
I understand Francis Cardinal George is in charge of the largest seminary in the United States, located northwest of Chicago in the town of Mundelein.
Among local residents this multi-diocesan seminary has the reputation of having a quite large and conspicuously gay seminarian population. Do you or any other Freepers have any information on the seminary at Mundelein?
That said,I think we need to demand statistics that are accurate. Then as in any reasonable organization its time for risk assessment. If it turns out that 98% are man-boy abuses,then an analysis needs to be made.There are statistics of significance or deviation from the norm,that can be applied. If the abusers are found to be homosexual {and they will be found to be IMHO)then it means that the Church needs to determine objective criteria,act to remove them from the priesthood and take great pains to not admit them to the seminaries.
Great care will need to be taken to assure that a priest who inappropriately touched someone over their clothing is not lumped in with a sodomizer when doing risk assessments.For instance, Cardinal Mahoney's well orchestrated accuser should not be used to swell the statistics of man-woman abuse. Does anyone know how Cardinal Mahoney is?
Frankly, is there anything in Catholic doctrine, which would suggest that a Priest who does not really understand the most basic forces that drive his flock, would be competent to serve as a Priest? Most of my Catholic friends are quite down to earth, family oriented people, to whom the traditional mating quest is a fundamental part of what they see for their own children. Even apart from the compelling moral issue, how could a Priest with deviant orientation be expected to represent the Church's role in guiding those children's spiritual development?
Am I, a non-Catholic, missing something; or is the Cardinal being assailed by people who have some sort of sick axe to grind?
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
CHILD abusers.
all known molesters names are now in the hands of the law
Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
You heard the Cardinals: serial and notorious, i.e. more than one victim and the public has to know about it, and doing a female while drunk just ain't that big a deal, goshdarnit. No, I don't believe "all known" abusers names have been turned over because they waved a shiny object in front of certain people and it suddenly became a need to "purge all the homosexuals!"
And yes, I am concerned about the future and the priests coming out of the seminaries: where's my assurance that their victims aren't going to be paid off while they get shuffled from parish to parish? WHERE THE HELL IS THAT ASSURANCE? I'm not Catholic; I don't give a rat's ass who gets ordained and who gets defrocked -- WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO DEAL WITH THE CRIMINALS?
Where are all the abused girls?
Paid-off and/or hiding in seminaries for being evil sluts and misleading those poor defenseless priests.
I'm sure I don't need to tell you that a teenage girl who enters into what she thinks is a consensual relationship with a man is going to have a lot easier time with her future sexuality than a teenage boy who does the same.
I don't know where they are -- they exist and I want to know that they won't in the future.
Now, if you Catholics want to get rid of homosexuals AFTER ASSURING ME THAT FUTURE CHILD MOLESTATIONS WON'T BE HIDDEN AND PAID OFF, then fine. Have at 'em. Ban those dog-named-Spot owners too, for all I care.
DEAL WITH THE CRIMINALS NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.
GOOD for Cardinal Bevilacqua! Those theologians and policy makers are part of the reason for the problems we're having right now. For the last forty years they've blurred the lines around the teachings of the Church so much that you can hardly get the same answer from two or three different priests these days when you ask a question about a particular teaching. Of course, some priests don't even THINK about looking it up in the Catechism, or suggesting that any Catholic can do that for themselves!
I would like to think so, but I don't. I believe some people, both lay and clergy, would be satisfied with whatever decrease in abuse they get from banning known homosexuals from the priesthood.
"95%" "98%" were teenage boys -- ban homosexuals! I'm not hearing anything about the 2-5% that aren't teenage boys -- a stat I'm not quite believing anyway simply because of the number of pre-teen boys we're hearing about.
I'm not hearing anything about future molestors, and they will exist even if all the known homosexuals are gone. "Serial and notorious" -- what the heck does that mean? 5? 6? More than one per parish? The victim doesn't accept the pay-off and goes to the press?
No more paying off victims, no more hiding the accused, and law-enforcement investigates accusations, not the Church.
Give me that and you can go ahead and discuss and set whatever internal policies you want.
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.