Still other commentators will ask more fundamental questions about the action of the CDF: how can this body respond so swiftly, and so severely, to a priest who writes a theological commentary piece about human sexuality but take so long, if at all, to respond to priests accused of child sexual abuse? The CDF's treatment of Owen O'Sullivan will inevitably have some asking if free thought is a greater crime in the Vatican than child abuse. - Will Crawley
Owen O’Sullivan is an Irish Capuchin priest who is also a prolific and widely published writer. What he commits to paper seems to be well presented and from the perspective within which he writes, reasoned. Last month he captured headlines, although not for the things that usually cause priests to be thrust into the press spotlight. His ‘media moment’ fell upon him courtesy of the Vatican’s censorial wrath having fallen on him. His ‘sin’ was not child rape or cover up of the same. Those things tend to be dealt with much more slowly by the Vatican.
The rapid response from the Vatican’s enforcement agency, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, (CDF) was actuated by a crime of such cardinal significance that Rome alone could deal with it. O’Sullivan’s priestly pen was put to the sword because he had composed an article which appeared in the March edition of the Furrow, titled ‘On Including Gays’. The Furrow, published from St Patrick’s College Maynooth, is an outlet described by Joseph S O’Leary, member of staff at a Japanese university as ‘a forum in which Irish Catholics can openly discuss the problems facing the church.’
But open discussion is the last thing any censor wants. The calling of the book burner is to suppress such openness; it is their reason for being. O’Sullivan’s article was an act of heresy, as far as the church was concerned, because it stated bluntly what is increasingly axiomatic, that ‘same-sex attraction is simply a facet of the human condition’.
Stung by such a mild assertion the Vatican Thought Traffic Control made its move. According to a report in the Irish Times:
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican contacted the Capuchin secretary general in Rome with an instruction Fr O’Sullivan was no longer to write for publication without first having his articles approved by it.
The CDF, previously headed by the current pope, Herr Joseph Ratzinger, is now led by US Cardinal William Levada. Conservative men determined that the public will be kept appropriately misinformed of developments and certainly never informed about dissent within the Church. Which is always the work of the devil and as such needs expunged not explored.
The CDF should have no place in Ireland suppressing Irish writers. It should be as welcome in the country as the IMF. The Association of Catholic Priests described the CDF censorship as counterproductive. Rev Joseph S O’Leary was more forthright.
Instead of repressing open discussion, the Vatican might begin to reflect on the wisdom of its own teaching, invented in 1986, that a vast number of human beings are suffering from an objective disorder – particularly given that the scientific support the Vatican claimed for its view has long since crumbled.
The issue of the relationship between homosexuality and Catholic teaching requires a full airing. The German theologian David Berger told Der Spiegel that much of the malignant homophobia pervading the outlook of the Catholic Church is because:
a large number of Catholic clerics and men studying for priesthood in Europe and the United States are homosexually-inclined … The worst homophobia in the Catholic Church comes from homophile priests, who are desperately fighting their sexuality.
What a waste of energy, used up in reconciling itself with prejudice. They should be desperately fighting their bishops, cardinals, Pope and the CDF, not their sexuality which they should embrace not disgrace.
Re: 'Vatican Thought Traffic Control' ahaha how true... I find myself drawn like a blowfly to the shitheap to feast/comment on vile vatican antics over & over again (a mild obsession of hate perhaps ahaha) This was very interesting Anthony... The censorship is disgusting but never suprising.. Control... the pseudo robes of righteousness inflicted on the people. O'Sullivan was not as u stated saying anything radical - just stating the truth... The resistance of the vatican to any sane logical processes in addressing sexuality is no surprise.. I have no idea why an intelligent man would stay within the constructs of catholicism. Writing about homosexuality would have upset the old queens in the vatican bigtime muah They dont like the veneer being ripped back.
ReplyDeleteMuch as I admire your articles on Irish Republicanism, Anthony, I have to say that you are out of your depth here.
ReplyDeleteWhilst I understand your frustration and total abhorrence of the actions of a small, but not insignificant, percentage of Catholic priests who have betrayed themselves, their Church, God and their victims, your attacking the Pope, the CDF and the other authorities of our religion will not achieve anything. Reffering to the Holy Father as Herr... is very Paisleyite and unbecoming of a serious writer.
You do not have the necessary theolgical and philosphical background to understand, let alone criticise, the Catholic Church's moral teaching.
Please stick to what you know and desist from attacking my Faith, which you obviously do not share.
John
It's a pity the 'faith' wouldn't stay out of kiddies rear ends.
ReplyDeleteTheological hocus pocus...my but aren't we blinded by science.
John McGirr,
ReplyDelete'...attacking the pope, the CDF and other authorities of OUR (sic) religion'
It is not 'our' religion, you are amongst a deluded minority if you think it is.
There is nothing insignificiant about child rapists and those that shelter and protect them.
John,
ReplyDelete"You do not have the necessary theolgical and philosphical background to understand, let alone criticise, the Catholic Church's moral teaching."
So all of us ordinary people who are not Catholic theologians/philosophers have no right to an opinion then? I was raised a Catholic and I still don't understand why condoms, homosexuality and sex before marriage are wrong. I don't even understand why Jesus had to die! Guess I'm just too thick to understand it all...
Alfie
ReplyDeleteWhat in the name of GOD are you talking about? Sex before marriage, homosexuality and rape ARE ok in the Catholic church. IF YOU'RE A PRIEST, [and don't use a condom] Not only ok, facilitated, covered up, and protected.
You just need to be super highly educated to understand how it works, which is why the church and the civil authorities only permit these activities within the clergy.[its all to complicated for the laity you see]
I think that's what John means.
They were going to permit priests to marry but decided any more sex might actually do them harm.
A few priests only..? yeah right, a few in every parish in every country on every continent. And those not doing it know about it. John, you're in the same mental limbo as michaelhenry and his idols gerry and liam Adams...nomatter how clever YOU think you are, i suspect you're just dangerous...to kids, indirectly of course, with your blind support of the RC church.
John you wouldnt want to hear some of the names I call Benny the bad,although he,s never been accused of being a paedo,he surely is a facilatator,one doesnt need a degree in philosophy or theology to know something is rotten, all religon imo is a fraud but the catholic church is one big paedo ring as well,the only thing ex nazi Benny the bad can boast about is that he got futher than his mates he made it to England, now if you,ll excuse me I,ll go visit the fairies at the bottom of my garden.
ReplyDeleteAlfie, Larry, Marty,
ReplyDeleteAmen.
With all the anti-Catholic bile it seems that Paisley has made real inroads. Why not just burn effigies of the Pope? If you don't like the Catholic Church, that is fine, but what right do you have of telling it how it should operate? As for the paedeophile cases, the vast majoity of them are on post-pubescent males, ie they are actions of predatory homosexuals. Does that mean they are right, of course not, the people who do these things are going AGAINST the teaching of the Catholic Church and should be dealt with in the severest way possible. What is being advocated in Anthony's article however is precisely the very thing that is causing that problem. You will not stop adult homosexual predators by advocating the 'embracing' of homosexuality by a minority of 'objectively disordered' priests.
ReplyDeleteJohn
ReplyDeleteThe way the RC church ran this country and its dictat on family life all down the decades sickens people to the core when it emerged what priests were up to themselves. Not only that, but protected, shuffled around for fresh victims and shielded from civil authorities.
There is no remorse, just the minimum lip service to protect the 'empire' of Rome.
Paisley may have at least had a point with his rabid 'anti-christ' remarks.
On the bright side, the way things are, you'll not have to worry about getting a seat at mass these days.
John,
ReplyDeleteThat's a bit disingenuous. Most of these "post-pubescent" victims you talk about were still underage and thus children by law. Also most victims will tell you that what happened was against their will. What you're doing is equating consensual homosexual relations between adult men and the systematic, covered-up abuse of young teenagers by pederastic priests - that's disgraceful.
John McGirr,
ReplyDeleteIn what way would I be out of my depth? Is this a specialised topic, access to which is restricted to the appointed and anointed?
I make no claim to be frustrated at ‘the actions of a small, but not insignificant, percentage of Catholic priests.’ Like many others I see the complicity of the church from Ratzinger down. I see the cover up by a disgraceful German cleric, the absurdity of hierarchical rationalisations, the institutional dishonesty, the persecution and censorship of decent priests, the demonization of gays and the misogyny that treats women as inferior.
Had I described Ratzinger as honourable rather than as Herr I could perhaps understand your annoyance given that honourable would be a wholly inaccurate way of referring to him. Herr is merely German for Mr. Why should a German male not be addressed as Herr or a woman as Frau or Fraulein? Not being a serious writer is something I am quite comfortable with. People who take themselves too seriously end up hating those who disagree with them or who do not share their religious or political view. As for Paisley, another man of God. Closer to you in that respect than me.
I don’t possess ‘the necessary theological and philosophical background to understand’. Hmm, what exactly would that consist of? Does it come in a secret vial?
Is it protected by a film of holy water which prevents a philistine like myself accessing it? Is it a forbidden fruit? Please tell me more about this mysterious knowledge. It intrigues me? Why do so many that have it rape children? Is this the side effect of such knowledge? I am sure I can overcome any urge religious knowledge might engender in me. If you enlighten me children will be safe. Worry not. Render to the men of god their children. I will settle for the things of Caesar.
Imagine a government minister telling people they don’t have the necessary economic and fiscal background to understand the matters of the economy or the IMF never mind criticise politicians? Would you not laugh at them?
So I must now stick to what I know? Fine. How good a job are you doing with your superior knowledge in testing my lack of knowledge? You are welcome to test my knowledge on the matter including that of censorship. We will discuss Kung, Rahner, Cox, Guttierez, Sobrino, Boff, Romero, Camara, Copleston, Weil, Augustine in the sure knowledge that my reading of them completely disqualifies me from having the necessary theological background. We can leave the philosophers to later. And then you can demonstrate the superior wisdom that allows you to understand what I do not.
Of course I do not share your faith or believe in the god that you and Paisley believe in. That hardly disqualifies me from criticising opinions I do not hold. In fact it is a reason for criticising such opinions. That is how society intellectually proceeds; it criticises the opinions it does not share rather than the ones it does share.
Why should I refrain from criticising your religious opinion? Why is your opinion to be protected? You have as much right to express your opinion as any member of a football club? And I have as much right to criticise your opinion as I have a right to criticise the opinion of a football club supporter. The football supporter can at least show his team exists. In that sense his opinion can arguably claim to have a substance yours lacks.
Now that you have suitably chastened me I shall join Marty with the fairies at the bottom of my garden.
My reference to your being out of your depth, Anthony, was not meant to be derogatory but it is merely to point out that moral theology is not your speciality anymore than the Pope can dictate our politics. John Paul II was out of his depth too when he misunderstood the nature of Irish Republicanism and equated its advocates with murderers. In a similar way Pope Pius XII was out of his depth when he was instructing the world's beekepers on how best to look after bees. When you state that:
ReplyDelete"the Vatican might begin to reflect on the wisdom of its own teaching, invented in 1986, that a vast number of human beings are suffering from an objective disorer"
it is plain that this is the case. That this teaching originated in 1986 is just plainly untrue.
Of course you every right to your opinions, but to be an open antagonist of the Catholic Church and then want to dictate how it should operate and what it should teach is just ridiculous.
Having said that of course you have every right to be angry at what has been done by some of its priests. I wish more people would express the anger at that and am not for a moment suggesting you should not.
However all the evidence goes to show that it is the predatory male homosexual priest who is the problem. I fail to see how he will be reformed by supporting homosexuality in the priesthood.
Of course if you have your way and the priesthood is fully opened to homosexuals, we shall all be joining the fairies!
The likes of Ratzinger are (unbeknownest to them) quite fly by light. You would have to say the long run is pushing towards greater tolerance. At the end of the day who gives a fuck who's fucking who? (long as its consenting)
ReplyDeleteWhat relevance does it have to spiritual guidance? It makes one wonder how it got there in the first place?
Perhaps some dark age perverts got a bit carried away and mixed the doctrinal with the carnal?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAwful to try and brush child rape under the carpe of consensual homosexual activity, 'Post pubescent males',how disgusting.
ReplyDeleteStarting to think you're a bit of a dodgy character John, very dodgy.
The link between homosexuality and paedophilia may be see in the following words of Fr Donald Cozzens, university professor, seminary rector, and counselor to priests and religious.
ReplyDelete"When vicars of priests met to learn from one another how we might minister to the victims of clergy sexual misconduct, we discovered a fact that put priest offenders at variance with the general population of child abusers. As a group, abusers tend to be married men who prey on girls, although many paedophiles abuse both girls and boys. Our respective diocesan experience revealed that roughly 90% of priest abusers target teenage boys as their victims. Most priest abusers, we concluded were not paedophiles in the strict sense of the term. They tend to be ephebophiles, adults whose sexual interest focused on post-pubescent teenagers. ... Relatively little attention has been paid to this phenomenon by Church authorities. Perhaps it is feared that it will call attention to the disproportionate number of gay priests." (Changing Face of the Priesthood, quoted in Vatican II, Homosexuality & Paedophilia).
Yes, there is a close link between homosexual priests and their abuse of teenage boys. The denial of this, although comforting to some, will not erradicate the problem.
The problem in the Catholic Church stems from its relaxation of previous statues against homosexuals that were in force up until the Second Vatican Council. Homosexuality in the clergy is the root of paedophilia. This will not be cured by being more homosexually tolerant. Such a policy would be like throwing oil onto a raging fire.
John McGirr I thank God for atheists u know... they have done much to highlight corruption and bullshit. I think it is you who are out of your depth as you got serves of reality/truth back at you did u not? I would also like to inform you that abuse by not just priests but nuns also occurred. Sexual, psychological, violence and denigration... CONSCIOUS, EXACTING AND SADISTIC abuse by so called men and women of God onto young vulnerables As an EX catholic i can assure you we will not shut up NOR dumb down the history of Catholic systemic abuse of kids into the 21st century. Not just in Ireland but world wide. They shipped the f..kers out to Australia and NZ when they were outed. So they abused more kids...
ReplyDeleteHell we have only started! We will not cower and bow down to Vatican lies, coverups and dictates. We will never buy into the dumbing down of THE FACTS and NEVER wear the misplaced shaming...
One of my greatest joys is having lived long enough to see it all exposed to the world and have the Vatican held to account... U can keep on with the catholic ways - your perogative... But you are way outta line in equating same sex intimacy with pedophilia and abuse of minors. No-one should be persecuted for their sexual orientation/consenual intimacy. Its none of the Vatican's business who is doing who and how they do the do.
You are truly decieved if you think you are defending a holy and pure construct - the Catholic church. You are deluded to equate being Irish with Catholicism... What our parents or whoever suffered for being Irish and Catholic is tragic. More tragic than that they suffered for such a f..king awful abomination of a corrupt church and doctrine. What all Irish suffered for religion proddy catholic or whatever is tragic...
Cop on - What us as kids who were abused by nuns, priests, brothers etc is always before us, it is always on us one way or another... always. Get it. ALWAYS. We who do not top ourselves nor self destruct are damaged Scarred and often triggered by memories words etc. I personally cannot bear the sight of a catholic church priest nun or even a crucifix. Who could inflict some misery on wee kids.. Only completely f..ked up human beings.
I find ppl like Anthony, Marty and Fionuaala here snapped in and compassionate and real. I find atheists like Christopher Hitchens men of honor unlike you. They speak out and demand justice. To conclude I speak not just for myself but those deceased whose voices never got heard. Whose stories were never told. Whose lives were a living hell from the womb to the tomb. Who do you speak for John McGirr What is your agenda? Propping up a corrupt system? Paisley btw was another hideous abberation and has blood on his hands We all know that. Sin-e i best go before i say F you and God loves you and can forgive. Dichotomous stuff ain't it.
Shoot the messenger by all means
ReplyDeletebut that does not mean that the
message is wrong
if a priest, nun or pope commit a
crime or cover that crime they should be held to account- in this world or the next
the sex crime clergy don't fear god
nor do they believe in god
its easy for some to say that it is the devil's work but this saying
kind of lets those who abuse of the hook.
John
ReplyDelete“Much as I admire your articles on Irish Republicanism, Anthony, I have to say that you are out of your depth here.”
As an RC myself and one who the few who posts here I can understand the direction you are coming from. I take no offence to what I see as the deserving lambasting the church unleashed on itself with the abuse scandals and the corruption in covering up said scandals.
I am not a chef or a food critic but I do know what is palatable without having a formal education of the subject.
If I may if your child was raped by a priest would you afford him the luxury of excuse based on the grounds that you are not a judge or a lawyer?
If I am reading your words correctly it appears that the Vatican should be granted immunity based upon the grounds that I t is a religious institution and there for not subject to the laws that govern society.
Asking a person to censor their views on the subject is a little suspicious after the fact it is not the said lambastes who engaged in the inhuman brutal acts but members of the clergy so those with the mouth god give them rightly display their outrage and disgust at the church at all levels.
“However all the evidence goes to show that it is the predatory male homosexual priest who is the problem?”
This I have more of a contention with as you are blaming homosexuals instead of the more psychopathic pedophile predators who walk in all shades of life though a horrific number seemed to have found a safe haven behind the cloistered doors of the church.
Behavioral and clinical psychologists might dispute your male homosexual theory, as I don’t think the scandal would have raised many eyebrows if it were just a bunch of priests buggering one and other.
Homosexuals would be highly unlikely to rape young girls or young boy’s pedophiles do.
This brings great shame upon the church a greater shame would be to continue with a polite denial and excuse reforming the church does nothing to help the many victims whose lives have been violated and destroyed.
Larry
ReplyDeleteAfter my last comment to John I expect a jibe from you about my couch I was trying to write and kept laughing at your quip cursed you to hell as I lost my thought a few times between laughing and writing.
Slan
Ah go on Marty secretly you like the pope I hear you have his picture alongside JFK’s on your wall.
ReplyDeleteThat was a cracker about Benny reaching England.
Tain Bo. The following link contains some information on the link between homosexuality and paedophilia:
ReplyDeletehttp://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/07/catholic_churchs_issue_is_homosexuality_not_pedophilia.html
Note where it mentions Kinsey's finding that 37% of homosexuals had had sex with children under 17.
I am not suggesting that nobody be held to account for these heinous crimes, quite the contrary. But I am suggesting that further relaxing the acceptance given to homosexuals within the clergy is not the way to prevent this in the future.
The link didn't work. This is a part of it.
ReplyDelete"Catholic Church's issue is homosexuality, not pedophilia
By: Bill Donohue
... The conventional wisdom maintains there is a pedophilia crisis in the Catholic Church; I maintain it has been a homosexual crisis all along. The evidence is all on my side, though there is a reluctance to let the data drive the conclusion. But that is a function of politics, not scholarship.
Alfred Kinsey was the first to identify a correlation between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of minors. In 1948, he found that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old. More recently, in organs such as the Archives of Sexual Behavior, the Journal of Sex Research, the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy and Pediatrics, it has been established that homosexuals are disproportionately represented among child molesters.
Correlation is not causation; it is an association. So to say that there is a correlation between homosexual orientation and the sexual abuse of minors is not to say that being a homosexual makes one a molester. Indeed, as I have said many times, most gay priests are not molesters, but most of the molesters have been gay. In other words, although sexual orientation does not cause sexual abuse, the fact that there is a relationship between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of minors cannot be ignored in dealing with this problem.
Furthermore, the National Review Board explicitly said that "we must call attention to the homosexual behavior that characterized the vast majority of the cases of abuse observed in recent decades." So what's stopping others from drawing this conclusion?"
John McGirr,
ReplyDeleteYou can’t be serious ...
Did you copy/paste the wrong link?
We’re talking about Gene Robinson, right?
Did you actually read the article you cite?
He makes a case explicitly opposed to your homophobia.
In fact, he himself is openly gay.
Try reading the whole thing.
From your link:
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/
onfaith/guestvoices
Homosexuality in Leviticus
What does the Bible really say about homosexuality? Reading "texts of terror"
As for your Kinsey citation:
My understanding is that Kinsey found 37% men to have had some form of post-adolescent homosexual experience.
Period.
Full Stop.
Please provide a clear, primary citation for your claim that this figure refers exclusively to men with boys.
John,
ReplyDeleteThis all sound like a bit of a cop out. 'Lets deny the church has actually been infiltrated by paedophiles, lets blame it on the homos as we can never reconcile ourselves to them anyway'.
I am not trying to be flippant here, because I too feel angry when priests who I know to be very decent people are lumped together with the abusers.
However, that research stands in direct contraction to anything I have read and heard directly from victims.
The findings of that study point more to easy accessibility than homosexuality. Firstly, the church always has had a serious aversion to women playing any active role, therefore their prey was more likely to be altar boys than girls.
Secondly, they required children of a certain age to carry out the tasks on the altar, a five year year old child could hardly transport one of those huge lighted candles on the altar.
The whole issue of homosexuality gives the entire issue of abuse a new dimension. Because when we think of homosexuality we think of consent and consenting adults and this very much detracts from the notion of paedophiles raping and buggering children.
Not true John, I don't believe that research would hold up to any serious academic scrutiny.
Herr Mc Girr
ReplyDeleteI read with great interest your quote
"You do not have the necessary theological and philosophical background to understand, let alone criticise, the Catholic Church's moral teaching.
Now this I find very amusing because most people I know in the catholic population wouldn’t have the necessary background either , so what does that make them “ gobeens and gobshites . Its sounds very like you have studied the very ethics of Catholism you are familiar with its very seedy world of child rape, accepts cover up and everything to accommodate the good priests. I would have taken you more seriously if only for your inferior knowledge of the word Herr , Herr Mc Girr “ you do not have the necessary theological and philosophical background to understand the GERMAN language
Herr Interested
ReplyDeleteI don't normally bother to adress people who find pleasure in needlessly insulting people, however I will make an exception.
Yes I do know what 'Herr' means, I also know it is not a fitting title with which to adress the Pope.
'The CDF, previously headed by the current pope, Herr Joseph Ratzinger, is now led by US Cardinal William Levada.'
If Cardinal William Levada had been called 'Mr William Levada', it would seem a little odd. To refer to the Pope as 'Herr' is a sign of evident contempt and suggestive of racist undertones. To give the benefit of the doubt, lets just say it is plain rude.
Fionnuala, There are many studies available that put forward the same link between homosexuality and paedophile priests. Two that I would reccomend are Randy engel's 'The Rite of Sodomy' and Atila Sinke Guimaraes' 'Vatican II, Homosexuality & Paedophilia.'
ReplyDeleteNeither of these attempts to whitewhash or excuse anything but merely to try to understand why it has happened and how it can be eradicated.
The Rite of Sodomy is an extensive study and contains 4,523 endnotes, and a bibliography of over 350 books.
Both of the books have many hundreds of case studies which show that the entire scandal has resulted from an influx of homosexuals into the priesthood.
They do not hold their punches either and put the blame where it belongs, right at the top of the hierarchy.
But it would be entirely innapropriate to think that if homosexuals 'embrace their sexuality' in the priesthood it will cure acts of paedophilia. On the contrary there has been too much of that already and it has given rise to the situation we are now in.
John, there are also countless studies which show that children are actually more likely to be abused by hetrosexuals than homosexuals.
ReplyDeleteA few years back I done a child protection course, because I worked with vulnerable children.
While I cannot remember all the quoted studies, I do remember that one of the over all facts that emerged from the wealth of data combined for these courses was, children were more at risk in their own home than anywhere else and that there were more likley to be abused by hetrosexuals.
I think the paedophile theory is far and away the most credible.
Children and easy accessibility was the order of the day, not an attraction to same sex younger people.
John
ReplyDeleteThe queer nation conspiracy theory is amusing all these sodomy worshipers decided to infiltrate the RC church and what bring it to its knees pun intended.
Let’s say you are correct and the homos did plot this then why did the Church provide shelter and cover up for the bugger-hood of man facilitating and providing their enemy with position that enabled them to pick and choose their victims.
I am not a bright person by any means but I would see that either way you look at it the church is at great fault essentially the church committed self treason for giving those clergy a modern day Sodom and supplying them with all the deprived comforts.
I thought the argument was anti homosexual but it seems like the church may secretly approve of that it condemns better a perverted priest than none at all.
Respectfully I will drop out of the subject as I have nothing against the sodomites apart from that horrendous disco music but after years of counseling I got over that issue.
I respect your views John but my sympathy is with the victims and not the perpetrators the media and others may have wronged the church in your opinion but that pales in comparison to what the church is ultimately responsible for.
Yain Bo
ReplyDeletethat result gives me the most satisfaction. Thanks for that.
Fionnuala, Tain Bo, et al,
ReplyDeleteHere is a presentation of my views in less than 5 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApcfDGFSpus&feature=related
It doesn't give the whole picture because it is part of a series adressing the child abuse scandal.
John,
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the modern academic consensus is that homosexuals are no more likely to have sex with minors than heterosexuals. One review of the evidence concludes that "the man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (McConaghy, 1998). So homosexuals and pedophiles/pederasts are, for the most part, separate groups. That is not to say there are no cases of homosexuals having sex with minors; however, based on all the available evidence, there is no reason to believe that homosexuals are more dangerous to children and teenagers than heterosexuals. I mean, if homosexual men as a group were more predisposed to abuse teenagers than heterosexual men, wouldn't you think there would be a lot more instances of non-clerical men who lead homosexual lifestyles also being charged with sexual abuse? As far as I know, there aren't many.
Furthermore, you claim that more relaxed post-Vatican II attitudes to homosexuals within the clergy were a cause of the abuse scandal within the Catholic Church. Where is the evidence? On the contrary, child abuse by clergy has been documented from at least the beginning of the 20th century; indeed, in the Irish church-run system of industrial schools and orphanages, abuse is known to have taken place from the 1930s onwards, long before the alleged sexual liberalism of Vatican II.
You're echoing a damage-limitation strategy that has been propounded by no less than the pope himself - namely, blame it all on queers and liberalism.
Alfie. While not wishing to dismiss out of hand the 'modern academic consensus,' in which I might begin to feel myself 'out of my depth' I do believe that the Catholic Church has gathered over the centuries a vast knowledge of the psychology of the human person. This is often of more practical use than the modern psychological theories which invariably presuppose a materialistic outlook and all that that entails and generally are only fashionable for a time.
ReplyDeleteThere have also been a number of modern studies, two of which I mentioned earlier, 'The Rite of Sodomy' by Randy Engels and 'Vatican II, Homosexuality & Pedophilia' by Atilla Sinke Guimaraes.
These document the exponential rise in child abuse within the Church in the years following the II Vatican Council. Yes, Child abuse existed before that, but no where near on the modern scale. The modern epidemic has arisen with the relaxed view of the homosexual condition of the post-Vatican II era.
In the 11th century Saint Peter Damian wrote the Book of Gomorrah (Liber Gornorrhianus), containing the most extensive treatment and condemnation by any Church Father of clerical pederasty and homosexual practices. As then, so now. He linked them and spearheaded a campaign, which proved very succesful,to eradicate them.
Now we have a similar situation, which needs to be dealt with in a similar, ruthless manner.
As Saint Peter Damien says:
“Who can expect the flock to prosper when its shepherd has sunk so deep into the bowels of the devil ... Who will make a mistress of a cleric, or a woman of a man? ... Who, by his lust, will consign a son whom he spiritually begotten for God to slavery under the iron law of Satanic tyranny,?”
"I don't normally bother to adress people who find pleasure in needlessly insulting people, however I will make an exception"
ReplyDeleteSo its ok for you to insult others but how dare anyone correct you.
We are the stupid Irish what would we know, how could we work out who are the good catholic priests and whom are the paodeo's .The Pope is the head of the catholic church the buck stops there
Interested. Please show me where I have insulted anyone! In fact, in spite of numerous insults directed at me and at what I, and many others take as sacred, I have never once insulted anyone.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you have not corrected me. I stand by 100% with what I have written, that to refer to the Pope as Herr, is rude, indeed the stuff of the gutter press!
I have no interest in petty sqaubbles with you, so over to you, have another go, insult me again, while ignoring totally the substance of what I am saying.
Moron! Oh look you provoked me, I have stooped, (almost) to your level.
PS This post doesn't count as an example of my insulting anyone! This is my example to you of just how childish it is when people stoop to your level!! :P)
John,
ReplyDeleteI would be a little dubious about a book titled "The Rite of Sodomy". Could you tell me which studies/documents it and the other book you mention cite to demonstrate that, after Vatican II, there was an exponential rise in the number of children being abused by clergy in the Catholic Church and also that there was a new policy of admitting homosexuals and covering up any abuse they might commit?
From the evidence I've seen, such as the Ryan report, sexual abuse by priests and brothers was a big problem in the 1930s and 1940s, though, for the most part, it wasn't reported until much later. For example, there were seven abusers working in the industrial school in Artane at one stage in the 1940s. The Ryan report demonstrates that the Church concealed abuse then as it did later - the same attitude before and after Vatican II.
Nevertheless, it is true that there was a large increase in reported incidents of clerical sex abuse from the late 1960s to the 1990s, but this trend also occurred in the reporting of child sex abuse and neglect in Western societies in general. For example, I think the general trend in the US was that reporting of child abuse began to increase from the 60s, peaked in the 80s and 90s, and declined thereafter. To my mind, the increase in the number of reported cases of clerical sex abuse and sex abuse in general was more plausibly due to an increase in reporting itself, which stemmed from a more open societal attitude to sexual matters and a less deferential attitude towards priests. I really don't think priests and laymen suddenly began a spate of sexual abuse after Vatican II.
Ireland is more liberal and gay-friendly now than ever. There are gay teachers, doctors and social workers throughout the country. If your theory was correct, wouldn't there currently be an epidemic of sexual abuse of minors by gay men in these jobs?
Alfie.
ReplyDelete‘The Rite of Sodomy’, (in spite of its name), is a very serious and substantial study of the question from the perspective of a faithful Catholic. You can see the author’s website here:
http://www.riteofsodomy.com/
In ‘Vatican II, Homosexuality & Paedophilia’, Atila Sinke Guimaraes after reviewing many dozens of abusers states;
“The torrent of homosexuality and paedophilia that inundates the Catholic clergy and hierarchy is without a doubt the consequence of the moral leniency that was established in the Church after Vatican Council II.
Under the pretext of aggiornamento – adaption to the modern world - a new morals established itself in the Church. The concepts of principles valid for everyone and applied at all times and places, as existed before the Council, was condemned as old-fashioned and behind the times. It was replaced by a new morals that would be continuously changing and adapting itself to the different concrete situations.
He goes on to explain that with the adoption of modern psychological theories, such as those of Freud, there was a meltdown of previous Catholic morality. With virginity and chastity fast being seen as obsolete, licence and liberty were introduced. With the setting aside of discipline and the ascetic life sexual ‘emancipation’ became the order of the day. As the new morality emerged, a culture of homosexuality grew throughout the clergy, and it soon gave rise to the scandals which were practically unheard of before the 60’s.
Every single case of abuse, inside or outside of the Catholic Church is evil and 'cries to Heaven for vengeance.'
ReplyDeleteIt does not serve justice, however, to exaggerate the role of Catholic priests, who are no more likely to abuse than others.
A secular appraisal of the abuse scandal may be found in an article, (dated March 2010), by Andrew Brown of the Guardian, hardly a bastion of Catholic triumphalism.
“From this (John Jay Institute Report) it emerges that the frequency of child abuse among Catholic priests is not remarkable but its pattern is….between about 4% of priests and deacons serving in the US between 1950 and 2002 had been accused of sexual abuse of someone under 18. In this country (UK) , the figure was a 10th of that: 0.4% But whereas the victims in the general population are overwhelmingly female, the pattern among American Catholic priests was quite different. Four out of five of their victims were male. Most were adolescents: two out of five were 14 or over; 15% were under 10. …The concentration on boys makes the Catholic pattern of abuse stand out…But this isn't all that different from the pattern in the wider world, either, where the vast majority of abuse comes from within families. The other point that makes the Catholic abuse is that it is nowadays very widely reported. It may be the best reported crime in the world: that, too tends to skew perceptions. “
He concludes that a child is less likely to be abused by a Catholic priest in the west today than by the members of almost any other profession.
Or we could use the Catholic League Report, (February 2004) which concluded
"The issue of child sexual molestation is deserving of serious scholarship. Too often, assumptions have been made that this problem is worse in the Catholic clergy than in other sectors of society. This report does not support this conclusion. Indeed, it shows that family members are the most likely to sexually molest a child. It also shows that the incidence of the sexual abuse of a minor is slightly higher among the Protestant clergy than among the Catholic clergy, and that it is significantly higher among public school teachers than among ministers and priests."
Larry,
ReplyDeleteJust out of interest, wondering what your missus makes of the shenanigans of the Irish clergy?
As you'd well know the Filipinos are deeply religious. Religion of all persuasions has long since past me by but have to admit witnessing the devotion they hold for the Black Nazarene or Santo Niño is impressive. Belief the same is true for Latin Americans with Our Lady of Guadalupe.
An Irish catholic upbringing has put me off it for life though!
There's been a few high profile cases here in the past year of clerical abuse, not surprisingly by Irish priests or those from Irish orders. It seems that in at least one case he was punted over here after his crimes in Ireland had become known to the church
John McGirr,
ReplyDeletethree comments came through from you which were automatically sent to spam. Even the filter knows how bonkers you are!!! Seriously though, I put one of them up because I think they were the same just posted three times. How they ende dup in the spam folder I don't know. If however, there was something in them that you added and I have deleted it by mistake please resend.
"three comments came through from you which were automatically sent to spam. Even the filter knows how bonkers you are!!! "
ReplyDeleteHaha, Anthony! :)
"Seriously though, I put one of them up because I think they were the same just posted three times. How they ende dup in the spam folder I don't know."
I was trying to send a long message, and it wouldn't send. Eventually I cut it in two and deleted some of it. I think the gist of what I was sending has got through.
John
ReplyDeleteIf you break longer posts into two parts or so that should solve the problem.
"John
ReplyDeleteIf you break longer posts into two parts or so that should solve the problem."
Thanks, Tain Bo.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteI don't accept that, after Vatican II, the Church or its clergy adopted radical "new morals". Certainly, the lay community were unaware of this, for contraceptives, premarital sex, divorce, women priests and indeed homosexuality itself remained off-limits and priests continued to be a conservative force in society. If there were such a dramatic shift, why weren't there sermons saying, "Look, lads, from now on, anything goes."? I am unaware of any evidence that the Vatican II concept of aggiornamento (ie. being open to the possibility of reform) meant that the Church actually accepted liberal values on sexual matters, or that a sexually liberal culture took hold among the clergy. Nor do I believe that there is anything to suggest that abuser priests and those who concealed them tended to be advocates of reform and liberalism. But, in any case, what makes you think that having liberal values on sex or other matters means one would condone raping adolescent boys?
Furthermore, I think that the reason most clerical sex abuse is perpetrated on adolescent boys is that pederasts were attracted to the male-dominated institution of the Catholic Church, with its easy access to adolescent males who served on altars or were pupils in Catholic schools. Also, it is important to point out that pederasty occurs in society in general as well as within religious institutions, though as you say, it is not as common as the abuse of female children/adolescents. However, the occurrence of pederasty is no more an aspersion on homosexual men than the occurrence of sexual abuse of females is on heterosexual men.
I would accept that, in general, priests are no more likely to abuse children or adolescents than any other group of men; however, the abuse that did occur was systematically concealed by the Church, and so, like any other institution that did this, it must be held to account.
martydownunder
ReplyDeletemy wife isn't a Catholic, believe it or not I went to the Philippines and found myself a good Protestant.
She was doubtful that abuse would be going on in the Philippines, sex is readily available if anyone wants it. However she was shocked and saddened to see recently that it has been going on there too.
It seems to have more to do with the twisted abuse of authority and 'power' than any need for sex.
Alfie,
ReplyDeleteI think I agree with/appreciate most of your remarks above, but can you tell me the basis for the second-half of the following:
“It is important to point out that pederasty occurs in society in general as well as within religious institutions, though as you say, it is not as common as the abuse of female children/adolescents.”
Just asking ...
I like Larry’s comment about the ‘authority and power’ thing ... any way to prove that ?
Metamoralia,
ReplyDeleteJohn made the claim (or quoted it approvingly) that most victims of child sexual abuse are female. I googled the relevant terms and on Wikipedia, I found links to these studies of the problem (in the US and UK):
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/natl_incid/index.html
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/VS75.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7N-45Y0WD7-8K&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1985&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=245468b4cae8ff3c6096c005c441bc07&searchtype=a
I know Wikipedia is not always a reliable resource, but the studies do seem to be bona fide. With regard to Ireland, these are the stats from One In Four:
http://www.oneinfour.org/about/irishstatistics/
Definitely, these studies and statistics show that if you're a female child, you're more likely to suffer sexual abuse than if you're a male child. I haven't read the studies very carefully, so I'm not sure if they show that, in absolute numerical terms, there are more female child sex abuse victims than male ones; however, given that the ratio of men to women in each of these countries is roughly 50:50, that is what you'd expect. So, all in all, I think John's claim stands up - well, at least to a certain extent. From the evidence I've seen, I would not go so far as to say that victims of child sex abuse are "overwhelmingly" female.
Alfie
ReplyDeleteThe new morality' was devised by such people as Fr Bernard Haring and popularised later by e.g. the 1977 book 'Human Sexuality, published under the auspices of the Catholic Theological Society of America. 'Human Sexuality' is a kind of Kinsey Report for Catholics; its aim is the overturning of traditional Catholic morality. The authors of the Report reduce all human experience to sexual experience, which is seen as the highest goal of human existence. There is not a single item of traditional Catholic morality that this book did not seek to overturn. One of its guiding principles was that no physical expression of sexuality is in itself “morally wrong or perverse” (H.S., p. 110)
I don’t remember the last time I was preached to in regard to any of the major items of morality in your first paragraph. It would take a courageous priest to preach on those things in this day. As for the confessional, the priest would just say, “follow your conscience,” and the penitent would go out into the world confirmed in his sinful ways, on many occasions.
I cite as one example of an abuser/reformer, among hundreds, Archbishop Rembert Weakland. He was one of the foremost advocates of the homosexual cause in the USA and was brought down when his gay lover blackmailed him for having sexually assaulted whilst he was under age.
The link between ‘liberal values on sex’ and ‘raping adolescent boys’ may be because if a priest were to engage in an act that he had previously thought of as ‘crying to Heaven for vengeance’, i.e. sodomy, he would feel that there are no longer any limits of depravity and that anything goes. Maybe there are other factors, but I don’t think this one can be dismissed.
I fully agree with your remarks about holding those responsible to account. Anyone shown to have acted in this way, or to have protected them and covered up their actions should be treated with the utmost severity.
John McGirr,
ReplyDeleteI think even where it tells you that your comment is too large, if you post it anyway it still carries. That is what happens with some of my own. Just copy it before hand so you will not lose anything.
sex is like air, it's only important when you're not getting any.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't those priests all go to Amsterdam for a week, they'll need less theology after that.
"I think even where it tells you that your comment is too large, if you post it anyway it still carries. That is what happens with some of my own. Just copy it before hand so you will not lose anything."
ReplyDeleteThanks Anthony.
John,
ReplyDeleteI think it important to distinguish between the thinking of some Catholic theologians and official Church teaching. It is true that Bernard Haring played an important role in formulating Vatican II and that, by the 1960s, he had a liberal enough attitude towards sex, but I don't think there is any evidence that he and other like-minded theologians totally reversed the thinking of Church leaders and ordinary priests on sexual matters, or even that Haring's ideas on sexual morality pervaded Vatican II. Indeed, he could accurately be called a dissident from official Church teaching at least from the late 60s onwards, and his public opposition to the Church's encyclical on contraception was probably what led to his investigation (or harassment, as a colleague put it) by Church officials a few years later. So, he was by no means indicative of the attitudes of most priests, who continued to advocate traditional values. I mean, why would they limit their "new morality" to whispers in the confessional but then decry it in public, especially during a time when society was beginning to embrace these values too? And it must be said that there is no reason to believe that Haring's liberal sexual values embraced pederasty or its concealment.
Also, the study "Human Sexuality" was indeed commissioned by the Catholic Theological Sociey of America, but the society found the study's conclusions too radical and published it without endorsement. It was widely criticised by bishops, priests and Catholic organisations - one author observed that the hostile reaction of the Catholic hierarchy "bordered on hysteria". In fact, one of the authors, Anthony Kosnik, was pressured into leaving his seminary post as a result. Now, I've read only small bits of the study on Google Books together with an article about it in Time Magazine, but, from what I can tell, the study itself was not an endorsement of wanton debauchery; it advocated "self-liberating" yet "socially responsible", "wholesome" sexual relationships that are "faithful", "life-serving" and express "a generous interest and concern with the well-being of the other". This doesn't sound at all like a study that reduces all human experience to mere sexual acts or even one that was consigning every single item of traditional church teaching to the dustbin. Furthermore, the context of the study was adult sexuality; here is the full sentence containing the phrase you quoted:
"No physical expression of sexuality, including oral sex, provided it be mutually sensitive and acceptable, should be prejudged as morally wrong or perverse."
It seems that what the authors are referring to here are certain sexual acts (between consenting adults) that had been deemed immoral by the church - it wasn't a call to pederasty. So, while it is true that "Human Sexuality" advised radical reform, it can hardly be considered reflective of most priests' beliefs or those in positions of power; even if it were, there would be a big conceptual and moral leap in going from endorsing life-giving, consentual, mutually respectful sexual relationships regardless of gender to perpetrating or concealing the rape of minors.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete[Part 3]
ReplyDeleteWith regard to Rembert Weakland, the person he is alleged to have abused was not a minor, but a 30-year-old graduate student. I don't want to defend Weakland - because I feel he acted improperly in other matters - but it does seem a little dubious that his accuser, Paul Marcoux, would begin an intimate affair with Weakland after having been sexually assaulted by him. Indeed, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which has criticised Weakland's handling of child sex abuse cases, raised doubts about Marcoux's credibility. But that brings me to the more important matter: Weakland's concealing of the sexual abuse by priests in his diocese. I think Weakland has admitted that he shunted abusive priests to new parishes and that he did not inform civil authorities about allegations of child sexual abuse. That is disgraceful. However, concealing abuse was not the preserve of liberal bishops. As the conservative Catholic commentator David Quinn notes, "we know from international experience that, whatever kind of bishop was in charge of a diocese, allegations of abuse were handled badly." (However, in the same article, he does argue that the cause of the problem was a more therapeutic, compassionate approach to abusers from the 1960s onwards.) Also abuse was not limited to progressive priests. For example, Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the arch-conservative Legion of Christ, was a notorious abuser of adolescent males; he was honoured by John Paul II despite canon law charges against him.
So to finish up, let me say that I do think that Vatican II allowed for more reformist opinions within the church; however, these reformers were not reflective of the thinking of the Catholic hierarchy and there is no reason to believe ordinary priests shared their views either. I think you're using the old 'slippery slope' argument to estabish a connection between having liberal values and abusing minors, ie. if a man is liberal, then he believes certain things are OK that the church thinks are wrong; so he might also believe there is no right or wrong at all or that nothing is off-limits; so he might abuse or condone the abuse of a minor. As I said before, if this were true, you would expect a pattern of liberals abusing or covering it up in the church or in other walks of life. To my knowledge, this is not the case. So, all in all, I don't think the liberal-homos-are-to-blame theory is credible.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete[Part 5]
ReplyDeletePS. David Ouinn's idea that the cause of the abuse problem was a more therapeutic, compassionate approach to abusers from the 1960s onwards is, on the surface, a little more plausible. He cites the Commission of Investigation into Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin, which observes that canon law fell out of favour in the mid-20th century. While I would accept the commission's conclusion that there was less recourse in general to canon law from that time on, I don't know if there is any evidence that canon law in relation to child sex abuse was actually enforced more often before the 1960s, and that it was more likely then that priests deemed guilty would be defrocked and handed over to civil authorities. To me, it would seem more plausible that the church had always concealed the sexual misbehaviour of their priests and that this damage-limitation strategy worked in the past because victims didn't make public their ordeals. Also, I don't think that the many conservative bishops who concealed abuse would have a therapeutic, compassionate approach to anything. They were fire-and-brimstone men and had a punative mindset - except where the conduct of priests were concerned. And anyway, most of us who believe in compassion towards criminals and in helping them reform also believe that they should be prosecuted for their crimes and that, first and foremost, society must be protected. So while Quinn's thesis is more credible than your own, it is not one that I accept.
PPS. I've had a great deal of 12-year-old Jameson before I divided up these posts (due to their size), so please excuse any errors/repetitions... It was my birthday a couple of days ago and I opened my 12-year-old present. Cheers to the Quill - I'm drunk as a lord!!!!
Sorry for all the repetitions; I've removed them. I should have waited till the morning to divide up my comment, which was written earlier in the day but was too large to post all together - I tried submitting it but it wouldn't go through. Anyway, take my advice: never mix the internet and fine whiskey!
ReplyDeletesorry i missed all that, bet ye thunk ye wuz a jaykneeus last nite eh?
ReplyDeleteYeah, Larry, I definitely got a bit too big for my boots last night. But today's hangover has brought me back down to earth and I am well and truly chastened - a jaykneeus no more.
ReplyDeleteSaint?MaryHedgehog
ReplyDelete‘But you are way outta line in equating same sex intimacy with paedophilia and abuse of minors. No-one should be persecuted for their sexual orientation/ consensual intimacy. It’s none of the Vatican's business who is doing who and how they do the do.’
Totally agree. You are so passionate about it. Moreover, the notion that the Vatican should be allowed to censor an opinion is anathema. Had O Sullivan been arguing as John McGirr has done here and the Vatican censored him for it, I still think it would be every bit as bad. No point in defending O Sullivan because we agree with him. It is equally important to support his right to express a view even when he does not agree with us. Censorship was the subject the article looked at.
Alfie
ReplyDeletenormal proceedure, i usually check sent emails the next day after a session and realise GCHQ wouldn't decipher the shite i wrote. It's a blessing.
Never worry, horse the whiskey well into ye, happy birthday!!
Alfie,
ReplyDeleteAn indication of the new morality which pervades the Catholic Church now may be seen in the disgraceful words of Benedict XVI, discussing the morality of condom use between homosexual prostitutes, (later clarified by his press secretary as equally applicable to females and ‘transgendered!’). Of course the press misinterpreted these words to signal that the Church had changed its view and that condom use could be justified. I think it is likely, however, that the Pope intended the words to be taken the way they were as he has not seen fit to correct the almost universal reports. The very fact that a Pope could even be discussing such things speaks volumes of the rot that has set in within the Catholic Church. There is also the question of the accusations of homosexuality against Pope Paul VI, raised initially by Roger Peyreffite and confirmed later by Franco Bellegrandi.
Official Church teaching has certainly not abandoned traditional morality but it has not maintained it as forcefully as it should have. When a Catholic Archbishop (Fisichella), whilst presiding over the Pontifical Academy for Life, publically defends abortion, there is something wrong.
It is my contention that it is the more tolerant attitude shown by Rome, to homosexuals, which has given rise to a situation where the scandals of recent years could happen. This more tolerant attitude is seen in the three main documents issued from 1975 onwards. Supporters of homosexual rights, may not deem them tolerant, but they are a significant break with traditional Catholic morality which did not seek to excuse what was always considered an unnatural vice and not something to be excused, legislated around and ‘understood.’
Saint Peter Damian’s words reflect traditional Catholic teaching on this vice:
“It infects everything, stains everything, pollutes everything; leaving nothing pure, nothing but filth, nothing clean.”
To a Catholic who regards this vice as an abomination, it is easy to see how someone addicted to it could be so corrupted that they would abuse children.
John, the more I read this stuff, the more I understand why ordinary decent people would not want to touch the church any church with a barge pole.
ReplyDeleteThey were at it big time and all the moral wrangling and reems and reems of endless and pointless research is not going to justify it or wish it away.
John,
ReplyDeleteThe majority of those priests that abused childrens were paedophiles, forget the homosexual angle it does not wash.
Larry made a vaild point, in relation to power and sexual abuse. No doubts some of those children were abused because of the power relationship and the vulnerability factor.
Nuns brought girls to Brendan Smyth, where was the homosexual link there?
They were monsters and the church provided them with a safe haven over and over again.
John,
ReplyDeleteI never thought I would find myself defending Benny The Bad and one of his archbishops, but here it goes. Firstly, the pope was in no way advocating premarital sex, prostitution, homosexuality or any other "abomination". His position on the use of condoms is analogous to that of people who advocate the provision of needles to heroin addicts: they believe that the original behaviour is wrong, of course; but they also believe that, even in immorality, there is a right way and a wrong way. (I'm paraphrasing an author that Anthony quoted, whose name escapes me.) You might think that homosexual sex or prostitution is anathema, but surely you would accept that to protect oneself and one's partner while enaging in either activity is better than being utterly reckless.
With regard to Archbishop Fisichella, he doesn't advocate abortion, which he says is "always bad". He just didn't think that the mother of a raped, pregnant, nine-year-old girl should be excommunicated for procuring an abortion for her daughter. Nor do I, particularly given that the child was pregnant with twins and her doctors believed her life was at risk. Also the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith came out in support of the bishop who ordered the excommunications of the mother and the doctors who performed the abortion, and 27 members of Pontifical Academy for Life wrote to Fisichella asking him to retract his comments. There was also an outcry from Catholic pro-life groups and calls for Fisichella's resignation. This is hardly the behaviour of a church about to embrace abortion.
So while it may be true that the church has slightly moderated its stance on some matters, in that, for example, it is more compassionate to the plight of homosexuals (but not homosexuality itself), this is hardly evidence of it embracing sexual liberalism. But really, John, would it be so bad if it did? Does it really matter who's fucking who as long as no-one gets hurt?
Fionnuala,
ReplyDelete“John, the more I read this stuff, the more I understand why ordinary decent people would not want to touch the church any church with a barge pole.”
That is a natural reaction, but I believe we have to find a way through this.
“They were at it big time and all the moral wrangling and reems and reems of endless and pointless research is not going to justify it or wish it away.”
I think the research is needed to find out how it could have happened.
“The majority of those priests that abused childrens were paedophiles, forget the homosexual angle it does not wash.”
I intend to research this more. I have stated my views on the matter but will continue to look into it and am open to re-evaluating my response if the evidence leads me to.
“Larry made a vaild point, in relation to power and sexual abuse. No doubts some of those children were abused because of the power relationship and the vulnerability factor.”
Yes, I believe there is validity in that point, but I would say it doesn’t fully explain the facts.
“Nuns brought girls to Brendan Smyth, where was the homosexual link there? “
I am not aware of this, but if it is true it is unthinkable.
“They were monsters and the church provided them with a safe haven over and over again.”
I agree they were monsters. I do not agree the Church has let us down, but some in the Church have shown that they are ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing.'
Whilst engaged in this discussion lately, I have had the chance of reading a lot more articles on this site. It has led me to make this observation. There is oviously a lot more to this site than I had realised. I guess I only used to read the ones about the Sinn Féin sell-out (my interpretation) as I happened to agree with them. When I berated Anthony for writing about the Catholic Church, I didn't realise that he had written on it before and on a vast range of other subjects. I still disagree with him on this, but wish to apologise for badly articualting my opposition that in retrospect sounds a little arrogant. That was not the way it was intended. I fully respect Anthony, and others, to adress these issues. I thank you for allowing me to express my views.
ReplyDeleteJohn McGirr,
ReplyDeleteno more needs to be said. If you think you jumped the gun, ok. We have all done it. You are as welcome here as anybody else. And whether you are right or wrong you have sought to make your case on the basis of evidence and prompted a good discussion. There are lots I hope to get to discuss at some point about your arguments but have had so little time.
Alfie,
ReplyDeleteThere is undoubtedly an orthodox interpretation of the Pope’s words. My fear is that he chose a form of words open to mean exactly what the reader would want them to mean, (in similar fashion to the GFA). Besides, it is unheard of for Popes to be discussing condoms and male prostitution in this manner, especially in the light of recent scandals. An important principle was held back by the Pope and hardly likely to be understood by a sensationalist press in regard to this, and that is that is never morally permissible to do evil, even to attain a good.
That same principle is important in evaluating the words of Archbishop Fisichella. Of course the circumstances are horrendous in this case, but it is not made better by another evil, that of killing the twins. The girl’s Bishop is adamant that there was no risk to the girl’s life, unless she were to have a natural birth, which would not have been allowed for someone so young. It’s my understanding that no one was excommunicated by the Bishop, as the excommunication is automatic to all those seeking the procuring of an abortion. Given the publicity surrounding it, the Bishop merely stated that those who procured the abortions were ipso facto excommunicated.
“But really, John, would it be so bad if it did? Does it really matter who's fucking who as long as no-one gets hurt?”
Yes, and I give as evidence Sodom and Gomorrah.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete“no more needs to be said. If you think you jumped the gun, ok. We have all done it. You are as welcome here as anybody else. And whether you are right or wrong you have sought to make your case on the basis of evidence and prompted a good discussion. There are lots I hope to get to discuss at some point about your arguments but have had so little time.”
Thank you, Anthony. I stand by the substance of everything I have said, but would rather I had not worded things the way I did in my first post.
John,
ReplyDeleteI'm against the death penalty, which I consider to be morally wrong. Nevertheless, I believe executing someone by a less painful method, like lethal injection, is better than hanging or beating or burning someone to death. So lethal injection, though wrong in an overall sense, is perhaps a step in the right direction; it is certainly more moral than inflicting an incredibly painful death on someone. I think the pope was trying to express a similar idea in relation to condom usage. I don't know why you think it was inappropriate for him to comment on sexual matters or why you think he was being deliberately ambiguous.
"[It] is never morally permissible to do evil, even to attain a good."
I think that proposition seems true at first, but when you think about it, there are plenty of real-life and hypothetical scenarios where one must choose the lesser of two evils. The case of the nine-year-old girl made pregnant by her stepfather might not be the best example of such a scenario, but I believe the girl's mother and the doctors involved were in an invidious position: they could abort the twins or they could allow an already traumatised child to endure the further traumas of pregnancy and motherhood. Neither is a good outcome. Furthermore, though I'm not a doctor, I imagine there have to be risks in letting a nine-year-old gestate twins, even if she would not be having a natural birth. Apparently the girl weighed only 80 pounds and her doctors genuinely believed her to be at risk of death or at the very least infertility. I'm not an advocate of abortion; I believe if it is to be carried out at all, it must be done very early in the pregnancy before it is possible for the foetus to feel any pain. Nevertheless, I don't think a foetus, particularly when it's just a ball of cells, has the same rights as a human being. So, all in all, I would say that if the girl was at risk of death or serious injury, then aborting the twins may well have been the lesser of two evils. (I'd be interested to read other people's opinions on this.)
"Yes, and I give as evidence Sodom and Gomorrah."
But isn't that just a bible story? I mean, I've never met a homosexual who tried to rape me or an angel.
Alfie,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you entirely in your example of a more humane death penalty being better than a less humane one. But, if your advocating it was inevitably going to be interpreted as your having accepted that the death penalty was ‘justified’, it would be more prudent to remain silent. This is indeed the case here. If you ‘Google’ the words ‘pope condoms’ you will find thousands of hits. I would say that not even 1% of these correctly report the case.
I think that the Pope had a moment of weakness in that he deliberately chose a form of words that would allow such misrepresentation and that it would get the liberal Pope bashers, the likes of Richard Dawkins, Stephen Fry, Peter Tatchell, Christopher Hitchens et alia ‘off his back’. I think he has made a grave mistake that will take a long time to correct. The Catholic Church only teaches that the Pope is infallible in strict circumstances, none of which apply in this instance.
Catholic moral teaching does not permit that one may choose the lesser of two evils or indeed any evil. There is a principle in Moral Theology (the principle of double effect) which, under certain clearly defined conditions, permits us to perform an act that has both a good and an evil effect, but there is no allowance whatsoever in the Catholic system for directly choosing an evil.
In the case of the Brazilian girl the best indications are that not only was there no medical evidence that her life was in danger but that she suffered an abortion based solely on speculations over possible future health complications.
Whilst you might consider the foetus, in the early stages a ‘ball of cells’, I would not expect the President of the Pontifical Academy for Life to think likewise. That he seems to have done so is a scandal and an example of how some in the Church are not maintaining a strict morality.
It is in hard cases like this where a level head is needed, and the right thing must be done, no matter how this is disapproved of by others. To quote Archbishop Cardoso Sobrinho “the moral law is perfectly clear: it is never licit to eliminate the life of an innocent human being to save that of another.”
Alfie,
ReplyDeletefine whiskey was never a complaint on this blog!
John McGirr,
ReplyDeleteWhen you state that:
"the Vatican might begin to reflect on the wisdom of its own teaching,
invented in 1986, that a vast number of human beings are suffering from
an objective disorder"
It was Joseph S O’Leary who made this statement not myself.
‘Of course you every right to your opinions, but to be an open
antagonist of the Catholic Church and then want to dictate how it
should operate and what it should teach is just ridiculous.’
One of the reasons that people at open antagonists of whatever is because they object to what they preach or practice. For example to be an open antagonist of regimes that use torture and then refrain from trying to dictate that they cease seems ridiculous. So thee is nothing ridiculous or wrong about opposing the Catholic Church on grounds that it its anti gay and censorious. Why wouldn’t a free speech or human rights perspective not speak out against the Church when it engages in or advocates human rights abuses?
‘Of course if you have your way and the priesthood is fully opened to
homosexuals, we shall all be joining the fairies!’
We are not PC here and enjoy the humour!
‘However all the evidence goes to show that it is the predatory male
homosexual priest who is the problem. I fail to see how he will be
reformed by supporting homosexuality in the priesthood.’
I believe the predator is the problem not the homosexual. Most women who are raped are attacked I presume by heterosexual men. It does not follow that heterosexuality is the problem. Priest should have the same right as the rest of us to embrace our sexuality whatever it may be. Consensual sex between adults is their own business.
‘Homosexuality in the clergy is the root of paedophilia. This will not be cured by being more homosexually tolerant. Such a policy would be like throwing oil onto a raging fire.’
This why I reject this statement - it is like saying heterosexuality is the cause of rape. I think a greater factor permitting paedophilia in the Church is the fact that it was always easy to do it and then get away with it. Children were easier to manipulate than adults and then more vulnerable to bullying and intimidation by Church authorities.
The priests’ world being a male one would produce same sex abuse not because the abusers were homosexual but because they were abusers adapting to the environment they found themselves in or chose because of the opportunities for abuse that it offered.
Larry,
ReplyDelete‘I suspect you're just dangerous...to kids, indirectly of course, with your blind support of the RC church.’
I feel, whatever we may think, John has tried to shed light on this. Your comment is a discussion strangler!
John McGirr
‘Why not just burn effigies of the Pope?’
Why not spare the effigies and just burn the pope?!!
‘If you don't like the Catholic Church, that is fine, but what right do you have of telling it how it should operate?’
The same right as telling the Pinochet government in its day how it should operate. More right than the Church has to tell homosexuals that they are sinful and should be discriminated against.
‘You will not stop adult homosexual predators by advocating the 'embracing' of homosexuality by a minority of 'objectively disordered' priests.’
My argument here is that the objectively disordered priests are those from the pope down who thought protecting the Church was more important than protecting the child. You seriously don't suggest that Pat Buckley is objectively disordered and Cardinal Brady is not?
I think homosexuality no more leads to abuse than heterosexuality. I think repressed heterosexuality or homosexuality is likely to lead to abuse.
I think Alfie has made a worthy point that you are ‘equating consensual homosexual relations between adult men and the systematic, covered-up abuse of young teenagers by pederastic priests .’
John McGirr,
ReplyDeleteThe more I go through your posts the more I am drawn to the conclusion that firstly there is an anti-gay perspective which shapes the view you express. The problem of clerical rape of children would be eased or obliterated if only the gays could be got rid of. A much easier answer would be that there would be no clerical rape of children if the clerics were got rid of. But that would just move the problem on. It would solve the problem of clerics raping children but not the problem of raping children. Likewise if we remove every homosexual from the clergy do you really believe that child rape by clerics would cease? The most effective way of excising clerical rape of children would be to afford those who do it absolutely no cover. And boot out from the top down while publicly exposing those who seek to cover it up. That would not curb the tendency to rape children but it would seriously curtail the opportunities.
Bill Donohue is the conservative US President of the Catholic League which has done precisely what over the decades to expose clerical rape of children? He also tells us ‘we know there is a correlation between being Irish and being an alcoholic.’ A defender of Mel Gibson bigoted cinematic outpourings is hardly someone well placed to be attacking gays who in many cases have done nothing other than been gay in order to draw his bile.
I have not read the books you refer to by Engel or Sinke. It is hard to find a decent review of Engel – seems it was too long for many of them to even try. I don’t buy into the global conspiracy to infiltrate the church and rape children. I agree with Tain Bo on this when he talks about the ‘queer nation.’ Unlike him I don’t respect your views, just your right to hold them; which is all you probably seek anyway.
What I don’t understand about this is why gay people would be more inclined to rape kids than straight people are. As I explained or contended earlier the disordered people here are those who cover it up. On this I would be more interested than defending children than defending gay people or straight people. So if a reason as to why this might be so can be presented other than bible based prejudice I will listen. I think there are some aspects of liberalism which we have adopted over the years to the detriment of children. So it is important not to dismiss critiques on the basis of our own dispositions or prejudices.
Women are more likely to be victims of sexual violence than men and girls are more likely to be victims than boys. Don't try to tell me it's just the homosexuals committing these acts!!
ReplyDeleteI know there is a greater acknowledgement these days about the abuse of boys and men by other men and women as well and the stigma attached to the victim is rightly diminishing and the Catholic Church has lost a lot of support due to their handling of the sex abuse cases under their knowledge but give me a break: Trying to blame homosexuality is a nonsense!! Enforced celibacy is a bigger factor than anything else. Add power, position within a community and a blind eye by the church, police and the government authorities and you have a recipe for inhumane crimes.
I had a good friend who was a priest. One of the good ones. I respect people who honestly follow a religious vocation, their determination, their genuine wish to help others and deeply held beliefs. I was also taught by a few really sound Christian Brothers who couldn't have been nicer. But the Catholic Church is corrupt and will remain corrupt.
My patience for organised religion when already corroded by corruption is further eaten away when I see supporters of that corruption. Like the blind leading the blind.
Paisleyism? Wise up!
Simon,
ReplyDeleteYou state
"My patience for organised religion when already corroded by corruption is further eaten away when I see supporters of that corruption."
Please can you tell me where I have supported corruption? (Unless of course I have misread your post and that is not what you meant to accuse me of.)
If that is what you meant and you cannot show me where I have 'supported corruption' then I shall put my time to a better use than attempt to engage with you.
John-
ReplyDeleteThe homophobia of the Church is corrupt per se, even more so when coupled with their active neglect over the years towards children. Blaming the problems on homosexuals is the way of the Church and from reading your posts blaming homosexuals is something you agree with.
I meant that you seem to share the same blinkered demonisation of homosexuals and the same practice of ignoring the real problem. Which is a different type of corruption than homophobia. To refrain from noticing or dealing with the real problem creates ennui and doesn't solve anything.
Anthony
ReplyDelete“It was Joseph S O’Leary who made this statement not myself.”
Yes, sorry, I had copied and pasted and mistakenly attributed it to you. It is however not true and Joseph S O’Leary should have know this.
“So thee is nothing ridiculous or wrong about opposing the Catholic Church on grounds that it its anti gay and censorious.”
I suppose my main point in that post was that you were saying the CDF should have no say in Ireland. The Catholic Church is surely best qualified to decide what way it should be organised.
“ wouldn’t a free speech or human rights perspective not speak out against the Church when it engages in or advocates human rights abuses?”
I am not aware that this has happened, unless you are referring to the cases of child abuse, then of course you have every right to speak out. But my original response was about the right of the CDF to silence someone they deem as having written something that contradicted Catholic moral teaching.
“We are not PC here and enjoy the humour!”
That is probably one of the reasons that I have been reading your blog on and off over the last while.
“I believe the predator is the problem not the homosexual. Most women who are raped are attacked I presume by heterosexual men. It does not follow that heterosexuality is the problem.”
I accept that, but I cannot get away from the fact that the great majority of cases involved male homosexual abuse of adolescents, which suggests that if there were fewer homosexuals in the priesthood there would be fewer cases of clerical sexual abuse.
“Priest should have the same right as the rest of us to embrace our sexuality whatever it may be. Consensual sex between adults is their own business.”
Priests freely give this up when they make commitments not to engage in legitimate sexual activity, let alone illegitimate.
In an essay called Homosexuality and the Church Crisis, Brian W. Clowes concludes:
“Ephebophilia, or the sexual desire for adolescent boys, has always been a hallmark of homosexuality, as shown by numerous scientific studies, and as admitted by "gay" leaders themselves on many occasions.”
Surely the real crime would be, if Catholic leaders thought this were the case and did not seek to stop the influx of homosexuals into the priesthood. Which, of course, is not to condemn these people as individuals, but merely to recognize that their lifestyle, if engaged in, is objectively disordered. After all, this used to be the commonly accepted view in all societies and it may just turn out to be the right one.
Nuala,
ReplyDelete‘I think the paedophile theory is far and away the most credible.
Children and easy accessibility was the order of the day, not an
attraction to same sex younger people.’
This makes eminent sense to me
Alfie,
‘based on all the available evidence, there is no reason to
believe that homosexuals are more dangerous to children and teenagers
than heterosexuals.’
If it was otherwise can anybody tell us why?
‘child abuse by clergy has been documented from at least the beginning of the
20th century; indeed, in the Irish church-run system of industrial
schools and orphanages, abuse is known to have taken place from the
1930s onwards, long before the alleged sexual liberalism of Vatican II.’
Longer than that Alfie.
From Terry Eagleton: ‘The first child sex scandal in the Catholic Church took place in AD153, long before there was a "gay culture" or Jewish journalists for bishops to blame it on. By the 1960s, the problem had become so dire that a cleric responsible for the care of "erring" priests wrote to the Vatican suggesting that it acquire a Caribbean island to put them on.’
Simon,
ReplyDelete“The homophobia of the Church is corrupt per se, …”
“Blaming the problems on homosexuals is the way of the Church…”
Some in the Church are beginning to see it as more of the problem. However it was dropping The Church’s guard to this vice which gave rise to the problem.
…”from reading your posts blaming homosexuals is something you agree with.”
I am going where the evidence is. I would call it a scientific approach, rather than ‘homophobia’.
“I meant that you seem to share the same blinkered demonisation of homosexuals and the same practice of ignoring the real problem. Which is a different type of corruption than homophobia. To refrain from noticing or dealing with the real problem creates ennui and doesn't solve anything.”
What then is the ‘real problem?’
As a Catholic I am devastated at what has happened. I am trying to find out what the real problem is, but if one view of it, which is backed by all the evidence I am aware of, is closed because it offends gender political correctness, then it is worse than ‘ennui.’ To refuse to deal with the real problem would be criminal. As I have previously stated, if the evidence leads elsewhere, I will go with it.
John McGirr,
ReplyDelete‘I do believe that the Catholic Church has gathered over the centuries a
vast knowledge of the psychology of the human person.’
Any more than any other institution. Psychiatry or psychology for example?
You can see how this is self serving. A more plausible case can be made that the Catholic Church is socially dysfunctional, fails totally to understand the human condition and reduces it to a dimension which has it as merely instrumental to Church ends. How else can be explained the abdication of moral responsibility to children?
‘The modern epidemic has arisen with the relaxed view of the homosexual condition of the post-Vatican II era.’
Or did the relaxation of the iron grip allow more abuse victims to come forward? As Alfie says ‘From the evidence I've seen, such as the Ryan report, sexual abuse by priests and brothers was a big problem in the 1930s and 1940s, though, for the most part, it wasn't reported until much later.’ And even when it ws reported who stood in the way of such reporting?
‘In the 11th century Saint Peter Damian wrote the Book of Gomorrah
(Liber Gornorrhianus), containing the most extensive treatment and
condemnation by any Church Father of clerical pederasty and homosexual
practices. As then, so now. He linked them and spearheaded a campaign,
which proved very successful, to eradicate them.’
Did he succeed in stopping it or driving it underground?
I am of a view that child ape has long been a feature of the clergy. I think Tariq Ali made the point that the mullahs too liked their boys. No Vatican 2 there.
John McGirr,
ReplyDelete‘in spite of numerous insults directed at me and at what I, and many others take as sacred, I have never once insulted anyone.’
You have been civil in discussion but ‘sacred’ is just someone trying to elevate their opinion to a lofty and unassailable height. We saw it with the cartoons and political Islam.
‘to refer to the Pope as Herr, is rude, indeed the stuff of the gutter press!’
Irreverent rather than rude. I could claim the gutter press allegation as offensive but then I would be exalting my position as sacred and denying you your right to be profane about it.
How it is racist to call Ratzinger Herr defies logic. Millions of Germans are addressed as Herr. What is so specials about him? Is the term applied to gays ‘abomination’ not arguably more racist in that it tries to create a sub group of humans, an Untermenschen
‘It does not serve justice, however, to exaggerate the role of Catholic priests, who are no more likely to abuse than others.’
But as an institution can you cite any other that has been so involved in the institutional cover up to the extent that it became an accomplice?
Andrew Brown ‘concludes that a child is less likely to be abused by a Catholic priest in the west today than by the members of almost any other
profession.’
If true I imagine it is because of societal scrutiny rather than anything the Church has done. How many parents today would allow an unsupervised priest near their child? Clerical rape of children is reduced in my view not because there are fewer homosexuals in the church but because society has closed down the rape space for the Church paedophiles.
John,
ReplyDeleteI believe your "scientific" approach to homophobia is analogous to the "scientific" approach to racism or the "scientific" approach of genocide. All the above "scientific" approaches are irreparably flawed to their core. I haven't read a lot of scientific journals but I know there is no evidence for the fact that homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles.
Girls are more likely to be abused by men than boys are. Are these men confused homosexuals?
Even if, and that's a big 'if', your science is correct and paedophiles are more likely to be homosexuals it doesn't necessarily follow that homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles. It's like the fact that paedophiles are more likely than non-offenders to have been abused as children themselves. It doesn't follow that people who are abused as children are more likely to be paedophiles. The two subject groups differ so much in size that any comparison is useless.
I think Fionnuala was right when she said something like the vulnerability of children and the easy accessibility to them were the problem.
Add the criminal lack of action by the church and enforced celibacy and you have the recipe for disaster. The Church still haven't done enough. The problems remain. Homosexuality is not part of the mix.
Simon,
ReplyDelete“I haven't read a lot of scientific journals but I know there is no evidence for the fact that homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles.”
I haven’t read a lot of scientific journals either, but everything I have read on the subject leads me to conclude that among the abuse cases involving Catholic priests there is a clear link between their being homosexual and their abusing. Put simply, most clerical abusers are homosexuals. I don’t see a need to reverse that, but I cannot deny that evidence.
“Girls are more likely to be abused by men than boys are...”
Yes, indeed they are, generally and that is why the abuse among Catholic priests is so unusual. It tends to be aimed at post pubescent males rather than females.
“Even if, and that's a big 'if', your science is correct and paedophiles are more likely to be homosexuals it doesn't necessarily follow that homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles.”
It doesn’t logically follow that they are, but the evidence is before us. It also fits in with the way homosexuality was practiced in ancient Greece. It was generally an older man exploiting a post pubescent boy then, and it fits the same pattern now.
“I think Fionnuala was right when she said something like the vulnerability of children and the easy accessibility to them were the problem.”
I am sure that these are factors, but they are only the circumstances around which these acts have taken place. These factors do not seem to account for why the victims are mostly adolescent boys. Someone suggested about altar servers being boys, but I am not aware that abuse tends to happen before or after Mass. I am sure a priest would equally be able to find female victims, unless his homosexuality precluded him from doing so.
“Add the criminal lack of action by the church and enforced celibacy and you have the recipe for disaster. The Church still haven't done enough. The problems remain. Homosexuality is not part of the mix.”
I agree absolutely on the criminal lack of action. As for enforced celibacy, firstly it is a free consent, much like a man or woman makes in a marriage. Secondly, just why would anyone think that marriage would stop predatory male homosexuals from abusing adolescent boys?
You deny a link between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of male adolescents, which can be established historically, and is confirmed by the evidence and yet you attempt to construct a link between celibacy and abuse, which flies in the face of all available evidence. Just to give you one example, Philip Jenkins asserts that his "research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination—or indeed, than non-clergy. However determined news media may be to see this affair as a crisis of celibacy, the charge is just unsupported." Cf. Jenkins, Philip (2002-03-03). "Forum: The myth of the 'pedophile priest'". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/comm/20020303edjenk03p6.asp.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteI haven't gone away you know. I do mean to respond to your posts but I don't always have as much time as I might like, so it might take a day or two.
Meanwhile,I enclose two links to an article by Randy Engel which I believe to be relevant.
www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/damian1.htm
www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/damian2.htm
John,
ReplyDeleteI can hardly complain about you not responding. I get so little time myself and only now that I am off work and house bound by snow am I able to get around to posting. But cabin fever is kicking in and the kids are going mad so I may abandon ship and write nothing!!
John-
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, starting with an extract from my post:
'“Girls are more likely to be abused by men than boys are...”
Yes, indeed they are, generally and that is why the abuse among Catholic priests is so unusual. It tends to be aimed at post pubescent males rather than females.'
You are admitting that it isn't homosexuality that is the problem but a combination of homosexuality and being a member of the priesthood that causes more "post pubescent males rather than females" to be targeted than girls. If your facts are correct it is not homosexuality but social factors that are the problem with some priests abusing children. Otherwise why would priests be different than the general population?
In the general population girls are more likely to be abused than boys and both groups are more likely to be abused by men. Therefore if priests go against this trend it is for a different reason than homosexuality.
Your link between homosexuality and paedophilia is broken.
Simon,
ReplyDeleteThe comparison is between paedophiles who tend to abuse pre-pubescent girls and sometimes boys, and homosexual priests who tend to abuse post-pubescent boys.
Strictly speaking the abuse within the Church is not that of paedophilia, but one of homosexual ephebophilia. The term paedophilia is often used but can cause confusion as it isn’t really accurate.
My point is not that there is a link between homosexuality and paedophilia, per se, but rather that the abuse in the Church is not paedophilia but rather one of predatory homosexuality which manifests itself in the abuse of post-pubescent males.
Are you aware that there is an overwhelming link between homosexuality and pederasty in ancient Greece? (If not sure, Google it and see.) Why do you think that it should be different today? Human nature remains the same today as it was then.
Of course, there are undoubtedly many other factors which play a part, but I believe that this is the predominant factor as that is where the evidence points.
John, you said "the abuse in the Church is not paedophilia but rather one of predatory homosexuality which manifests itself in the abuse of post-pubescent males." I think you will find it is paedophilia. Predatory homosexuality doesn't necessarily mean a crime but paedophilia does.
ReplyDeleteSimon
ReplyDelete'John, you said "the abuse in the Church is not paedophilia but rather one of predatory homosexuality which manifests itself in the abuse of post-pubescent males." I think you will find it is paedophilia. Predatory homosexuality doesn't necessarily mean a crime but paedophilia does.'
As the majority of the victims were aged between 12 and 17 it would constitute a crime in most jurisdictions. Homosexuality is, of course, always a crime against God and against nature and is made more heinous by its making victims of youth. I did also mention the word 'abuse' which you have quoted too, underlining this fact.
I don't particularly object to using the term 'paedophilia' providing it is understood that it is being used in a broader way than it is customary to use it.
Alfie,
ReplyDelete‘I think that the reason most clerical sex abuse is perpetrated on adolescent boys is that pederasts were attracted to the male-dominated institution of the Catholic Church, with its easy access to adolescent males who served on altars or were pupils in Catholic schools.’
I imagine the paedophile is a particular type of being who is primarily sexually attracted to children not to the specific gender of the child. Had the church been populated with young girls the abuser priests would have been raping them as quickly. The Church seemed to have been caused more anxiety by Bishop Casey behaving naturally – he bonked a woman – than it ever was by child rape.
‘I would accept that, in general, priests are no more likely to abuse
children or adolescents than any other group of men; however, the abuse that did occur was systematically concealed by the Church, and so, like any other institution that did this, it must be held to account.’
Do we know of any other institution, outside of the Argentine military of the 70s and 80s that covered up rape to the extent that the Church has?
John,
The new morality' was devised by such people as Fr Bernard Haring …
One of its guiding principles was that no physical expression of sexuality is in itself “morally wrong or perverse” (H.S., p. 110)
If this is true then it is clearly rubbish and Haring should stand condemned for it. But I imagine this is not what he said at all. Because to say such would be to licence paedophilia. If by it he meant homosexuality, how could he be wrong? What is wrong with homosexuality that is not wrong with heterosexuality? If the Church does not like homosexual sex then those in it can refrain from engaging in it if they so choose. It cannot tell the rest of society to refrain. Or if it can it should carry all the authority of a soccer club in making its pronouncements.
Alfie,
ReplyDelete‘Cheers to the Quill - I'm drunk as a lord!!!!’
Drink the whiskey more often. There is some great stuff here.
So Haring received the treatment Kung got? The totalitarian hierarchy certainly does not appreciate its dissidents. All totalitarians bodies are the same.
‘the study "Human Sexuality" was indeed commissioned by the Catholic Theological Society of America, but the society found the study's conclusions too radical and published it without endorsement.’
This coupled with your lengthy exploration of the matter certainly puts a new perspective in place and one which is radically different from John’s.
"No physical expression of sexuality, including oral sex, provided it be mutually sensitive and acceptable, should be prejudged as morally wrong or perverse."
If this does not involve children what possibly could be wrong with it?
John,
What sort of mind is it that can find something wrong with a man sticking a rubber on his tool as a plausible device to stop the spread of AIDS? If more priests had put rubbers rather than altar boys on their tools the Church would not be in the position it is in today. It really amazes me that people are being condemned to death by Vatican edict.
‘Saint Peter Damian’s words reflect traditional Catholic teaching on this vice:
“It infects everything, stains everything, pollutes everything; leaving nothing pure, nothing but filth, nothing clean.”
But this statement would apply more to the Church than the gay community.
‘To a Catholic who regards this vice as an abomination, it is easy to see how someone addicted to it could be so corrupted that they would abuse children.’
This suggests the real corruption lies in being gay rather than in the abuse of children.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to address the issue of you referring to the Pope as ‘Herr.’ This is by no means of critical importance, hence the reason that although I picked you up in my original post about it, I didn’t respond to your first reply where you justified this use. My lack of response caused someone else to take this as my lack of understanding and tried to use it as an example of my ignorance and how they needed to correct me.
Here is my take on your use of the word ‘Herr.’ Firstly it is NOT a title that would be given to the Pope, other than by means of an insult. Fair enough, you call it ‘irreverence,’ I’ll go along with that. The problem is that when I see you call him ‘Herr’ and elsewhere the Holy Fuerher’ and refer to his ‘Hitler Youth’ past, there is a suspicion that somehow the fact that he is German is something to be held against him. This is compounded with your accusations elsewhere of ‘the church’s disgusting stance during the war.’
Your referring to the Pope as ‘Herr’ reminds me of the words or Dawkins with his;
“Mr Ratzinger, as head of the world’s second most evil religion you are not welcome. ……. Go home to your tinpot Mussolini-concocted principality, and don’t come back."
Yes, ‘Mr’ is a term of address in England, but the use in cases like this go beyond the irreverent and verge on the xenophobic.
I do not accuse you personally of racism, but I cannot help but see that there are possible racist undertones, which, if I were to see such usages in, e.g. the Sun or another British rag, I would be less likely to give them the benefit of the doubt, with their simmering anti-German sentiments (and in Dawkins’ case anti-Italian). Isn’t it curious how they always go back to ‘the War’ when rallying their jingoistic rabble?
As I say, not the most important of issues, especially as I accept that your use is one of irreverence, but I do think there are dangers with terms like this. Just as not everyone would take your ‘kick the Pope’ musings as entirely unobjectionable, when we know where such sentiments can lead.
I don't intend to answer everything you have written, as my wife wiill divorce me if I do. I do hope to get back to one or two points in the near future, and then get down to proving the existence of God, which I believe you cast doubt on in your initial response to me.
Meanwhile, have a very happy Christmas and New Year!
John,
ReplyDeleteall that aside I did find the Herr McGirr issue very witty!
'there is a suspicion that somehow the fact that he is German is something to be held against him.'
That would not be so. I think what it does do is not address him as he sits atop his lofty perch and strips him of any authority. He is a herr or a mister like the rest of us.
'This is compounded with your accusations elsewhere of ‘the church’s disgusting stance during the war.’
Which it did have. That Pius X11 managed to get on the sainthood track leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many.
Dawkins, I don't always agree with but in saying 'Mussolini-concocted principality' he is right if my reading of history is correct.
'Yes, ‘Mr’ is a term of address in England, but the use in cases like this go beyond the irreverent and verge on the xenophobic.'
Inferring too much from too little. What would there be in anything I have written to suggest an anti-German outlook?
'Isn’t it curious how they always go back to ‘the War’ when rallying their jingoistic rabble?'
Nothing curious about it - they like to be jingoistic. In terms of the Vatican the resentment is towards its claim to be a moral leader when its wartime activity amongst other great immoralities strips it of the authority to moralise.
'I do hope to get back to one or two points in the near future, and then get down to proving the existence of God'
we will wait on that. You will be the first.
Don't worry your wife will not We divorcing you. She will get one of those rigged annulments!!
I suppose you know by now we are a pretty profane lot here with little in the way of the sacred prevailing.
Happy Christmas to you and thanks for generating an interesting and vibrant discussion.
Nuala,
ReplyDelete‘They were monsters and the church provided them with a safe haven over
and over again.’
There is simply no getting away from it.
The monstrous men of god as they were once described.
Alfie,
‘I'm against the death penalty, which I consider to be morally wrong. Nevertheless, I believe executing someone by a less painful method,
like lethal injection, is better than hanging or beating or burning
someone to death. So lethal injection, though wrong in an overall
sense, is perhaps a step in the right direction; it is certainly more
moral than inflicting an incredibly painful death on someone’
This is the reformist’s ethical dilemma. I think if, in the course of your opposition to capital punishment, you manage to lessen its worst effects it is a move that keeps you on the right side of the fence so to speak. But if you are part of the administration of capital punishment and you introduce lethal injection as a more humane form then that throws a different light on your position.
"[It] is never morally permissible to do evil, even to attain a good."
It probably depends on what is intrinsically evil and what is described as evil. Also depends on circumstance to some extent.
Eating the dead is viewed as evil by many but when the rugby team survivors did it in the Andes how can we condemn them?
I don’t think a woman who ha an abortion is evil. I think those Christians who kill abortion doctors are evil. While opposing capital punishment I had little sympathy for that cretin Paul Hill who got the lethal injection in the US for killing a health professional.
‘So, all in all, I would say that if the girl was at risk of death or serious injury, then aborting the twins may well have been the lesser of two evils.’
Not an evil at all. A terrible moral dilemma but not an evil choice. The evil choice would be to wave the bible and then make some pronouncement on the basis of that.
Does anybody think Sodom and Gomorrah ever happened? Arguably it was a fiction used by the anti gay lobby of the day to persecute people they did not like.
‘But isn't that just a bible story?’
Just like the talking snake?
John,
ReplyDelete"Are you aware that there is an overwhelming link between homosexuality and pederasty in ancient Greece? (If not sure, Google it and see.) Why do you think that it should be different today? Human nature remains the same today as it was then."
You neglect to mention that marriage in ancient Greece was typically between men in their thirties and girls in their teens, usually about 14 or 15 years old. The fact that it is no longer socially acceptable (in Western societies anyway) for either heterosexuals or homosexuals to have sexual relationships with young teenagers shows that society can change for the better.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete"Do we know of any other institution, outside of the Argentine military of the 70s and 80s that covered up rape to the extent that the Church has?"
I haven't really investigated the matter, but I do not know of any. Certainly if homosexuality was the cause of the abuse and liberalism the cause of its cover-up, we should have seen similar abuse scandals (ie. widespread abuse of adolescent boys and its subsequent cover-up) in other institutions throughout Europe and parts of America.
"It probably depends on what is intrinsically evil and what is described as evil. Also depends on circumstance to some extent."
Yes, I would agree. Notions of right and wrong must consider the context of an action.
"I don’t think a woman who has an abortion is evil. I think those Christians who kill abortion doctors are evil."
Again, I would agree for the most part. I don't have an objection to abortion in the first 20-26 weeks of the pregnancy because the foetus probably cannot feel pain before then; after that though, I'm not sure if abortion is ethical - at the very least, the foetus ought to be anaesthetised. I must say that if rape is not involved, I fail to see why abortion is so common, given the relative ease with which one can access contraception these days.
"Not an evil at all. A terrible moral dilemma but not an evil choice. The evil choice would be to wave the bible and then make some pronouncement on the basis of that."
"Lesser of two evils" was perhaps the wrong choice of words. I don't think it was evil for the mother to procure an abortion for her nine-year-old daughter. I was just trying to explain to John that while neither outcome was ideal, the least worst outcome for the girl was probably the abortion. Certainly going through pregnancy and motherhood would have been a horrendous ordeal for her; moreover, though John disputes that the girl's life was at risk, the doctor who carried out the abortion seems to genuinely believe that it was and, until I see evidence to the contrary, I would accept his judgment. This is what he said:
"If the pregnancy had continued, the damage would have been worse, being a high risk pregnancy. The risk would have been of death or at the very least that she would never have been able to become pregnant again. ... There are two legal justifications for abortion envisioned by the law, which are rape and risk to life. She [the girl] falls within the two and, as a doctor, I could not let a girl of nine years be submitted to this suffering and even pay with her own life."
Alfie,
ReplyDeleteMy point was that it was absolutely socially unacceptable to have homosexual relations with an equal.
"It was certainly shameful when a man with a beard remained the passive partner (pathikos) and it was even worse when a man allowed himself to be penetrated by another grown-up man. The Greeks even had a pejorative expression for these people, whom were called kinaidoi. They were the targets of ridicule by the other citizens, especially comedy writers. For example, Aristophanes (c.445-c.380) shows them dressed like women, with a bra, a wig and a gown, and calls them euryprôktoi, "wide arses"."
http://www.livius.org/ho-hz/homosexuality/homosexuality.html
Homosexuality in Greek society was almost exclusively of the type that many are denying that there is even a connection. Yes, there is a link between pederasty and homosexuality.
Alfie,
ReplyDeleteThe term abomination is one that better fits the clerical rapists than ever it did homosexuals. There is nothing abominable about two consenting adults having sex. There is much abominable about a cleric raping a child and plenty abominable about the hierarchy covering it up and intimidating children into silence.
‘With regard to Archbishop Fisichella, he doesn't advocate abortion,
which he says is "always bad". He just didn't think that the mother of
a raped, pregnant, nine-year-old girl should be excommunicated for
procuring an abortion for her daughter.’
I know what I would do if it were my own daughter. There would be no question about it. I would extend the same latitude to anyone else’s daughter in a similar situation.
‘Also the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith came out in support of the bishop who ordered the excommunications of the mother and the doctors who performed the abortion.’
And cover up for clerical rapists. We can expect little else from that shower. Der Spiegel is on Ratzinger’s case at the minute over allegations of a pass the pervert policy when he was in the German hierarchy.
‘Does it really matter who's fucking who as long as no-one gets hurt?’
The problem with that for the Church is that it deprives the clerics of an awful lot of power to police people’s lives.
John ,
ReplyDelete‘I suppose my main point in that post was that you were saying the CDF
should have no say in Ireland.’
No censor should be allowed to ply their nefarious trade in Ireland. Have we not had enough of them?
‘the right of the CDF to silence someone they deem as having written something that contradicted Catholic moral teaching.’
What is so special about either the CDF or Catholic moral teaching that a critique of either must be censored?
‘The Catholic Church is surely best qualified to decide what way it should be organised.’
Most definitely not. Look at the litany of abuse that approach bequeathed to us. Canon law, as McDowell says, should carry the status of a golf club. When a golf club is organised to the serious detriment of children then its claim to be best placed to decide how to organise itself is rendered null and void.
‘I cannot get away from the fact that the great majority of cases involved male homosexual abuse of adolescents, which suggests that if there were fewer homosexuals in the priesthood there would be fewer cases of clerical sexual abuse.’
Presuming this is true is it homosexuals that engaged in the egregious crime of cover up?
‘Priests freely give this up (right to sex) when they make commitments not to engage in legitimate sexual activity, let alone illegitimate.’
Ignoring the legitimate/illegitimate distinction, if that is the rule of the golf club and I want to join it I guess I have to abide. But the golf club cannot infringe on my human right to embrace my sexuality.
John,
ReplyDelete‘In an essay called Homosexuality and the Church Crisis, Brian W. Clowes’
Not previously being aware of this I called it up and was immediately put off by his anti-women agenda and the claim that it was all opportunistic. Which undermines his own claim to being shut up by the gay community.
That said, I persevered without going into super critical mode and it seems to be a piece worth reading. I will do so when more time permits.
I have serious problems with any view that is suppressed by a loud shout of ‘phobe’ with whatever the current of the day prefixed to it. Islamophobia has often been used to quell free inquiry. Same with chants of racism. We need access to the widest possible range of ideas so that in reaching a conclusion we will have at least considered what we discard. That way the decision reached should be robust, having grown on its own steam rather than having been afforded the dubious protectionism afforded by censorship of alternatives. I have seen how the vilest of practices can be carried out aided and abetted by those who shouted ‘phobe’ against a critique.
A much better case for your view would come if it originated in a secular quarter. My ears tend to prick up when secularists make arguments against abortion for example; if they try to demonstrate why it is good for humanity to oppose abortion. I do not advocate abortion but defer to a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body. I cannot abide by any cleric telling her what to do with it. I am simply not interested in religious prejudice against anything, be it cartoonists, gays, pro-choice groups.
So if an argument against gays is simply dismissed on grounds of the argument not being PC I am instantly suspicious and will make a point of hearing the argument. On that Randy Engel does seem to fit the homophobe billing. Some Catholic bodies have even blocked her addressing their meetings because of unsubstantiated allegations and assertions.
John,
ReplyDelete"My point was that it was absolutely socially unacceptable to have homosexual relations with an equal. ... Homosexuality in Greek society was almost exclusively of the type that many are denying that there is even a connection. Yes, there is a link between pederasty and homosexuality."
I don't think it's as simple as that. To my knowledge, it was not socially acceptable either for women to wait until they were older to marry in ancient Greece; they were expected to do so as soon as puberty occurred in order to guarantee their virginity for their husbands. Also, men typically married in their thirties when they had finished their military service. So my point is that both heterosexual and homosexual norms in ancient Greece had a similar age-structure. (Prostitution was probably the exception - female prostitutes spanned all age-groups, but male prostitutes were usually adolescents. However, teenage prostitutes of both sexes seemed to be favoured and commanded the highest prices.) Moreover, I think the social restrictions on homosexuality in ancient Greece became a self-fulfilling prophecy: because sex between adult men was very much frowned upon, it tended not to be common or at least it was not spoken of. But even if homosexual behaviour was much different than heterosexual behaviour in ancient Greece, there is no evidence that what went on then is indicative of homosexual behaviour today, just as there is no evidence that contemporary heterosexual men prefer young teenage brides.
PS. That article you referred to also makes the following points:
"It is now clear that homosexuality was not restricted to pederasty, and that we have to study our evidence more carefully. ... It also appears that the difference in age did not really matter. Not youth, but beauty was important. ... There are many pictures of boys courting boys, boys playing sexual games, and adult men having intercourse. Yet, the latter was probably unusual or not spoken about, because the passive partner (pathikos) was - as we have already seen - subject to ridicule."
John,
ReplyDeleteBrian W. Clowes’ - “Ephebophilia, or the sexual desire for adolescent boys, has always been a hallmark of homosexuality, as shown by numerous scientific
studies, and as admitted by "gay" leaders themselves on many occasions.”
‘Surely the real crime would be, if Catholic leaders thought this were
the case and did not seek to stop the influx of homosexuals into the
priesthood.’
This is based on the same false assumption that stopping child rape is what drives Catholic leaders. Protecting the reputation of the Church has been prioritised over child protection.
Children need protection from abusers whether they be gay or straight. They also need protection from the Catholic Church that treated them as children of a lesser god. Were the Church primarily concerned about child protection it would have a root and branch cleansing of its own institution not the desperate rearguard action it has been waging for years. Things are so bad that we have an internationally renowned human rights lawyer making the case in a book dedicated to the topic that Ratzinger should be tried for crimes against humanity.
An then this phrase ‘objectively disordered’. I know gay men and women and I would struggle to find one more objectively disordered than any of the clerics who covered clerical rape of children. Surely, it stands to reason who is guilty of the greatest crime.
‘After all, this used to be the commonly accepted view in all societies and it may just turn out to be the right one.’
Just as the earth once was flat.
John,
ReplyDeletethe sheer time taken up in these discussions has left me struggling to meet my other commitments. I think I might be getting divorced by the wife and disowned by the kids! There is a whole host of points being discussed on different threads and I can no longer keep up with the the volume. Even my reading time has gone! I will in time try to answer all your points. But I do intend trying to restrict myself to one comment per day on any subject - if I can manage to resist the pull.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteI know where you are coming from with the volume of posts. There are a few more points I would like to go into, but they will have to wait for a few days.
In reference to familly commitments, you mentioned before:
"Don't worry your wife will not We divorcing you. She will get one of those rigged annulments!!"
There are many evils going on within the Catholic Church and I have to agree that this is one, although of a completely different nature than the heinous abuse of children.
That is why I am a Real/Continuity Catholic, a true dissenter unlike the tired old liberal Hans Kung variety.
John,
ReplyDeleteno problem. I have been a fan of Kung since reading Infallible in 1982. Not that I have followed him deeply. I read his book on evolution, religion and science a while back. It was quite good. I am not a fan of the warlike Weigel but will leave that for another day.
Good night
Alfie,
ReplyDeleteYou have made some interesting points which I need more time to look into. Although I do believe the point that I was making was clearly established. However rather than just answer what I think is the case I intend to look into the points you raised and come back, if necessary, with a more informed reply.
John McGirr
ReplyDelete‘My point is not that there is a link between homosexuality and
Paedophilia’
But not between the priesthood and paedophilia? The priesthood provided a great cover for the rape of children. Where and in what other institution has child rape been so systematically covered up? In the Church child rapists must have thought they had found heaven before they died. It is not the volume of rapes John or how they compare against other institutions but how a culture of rape flourished aided and abetted by the Church hierarchy which allowed rape to continue; not because bishops condoned the act of rape it but because they felt the reputation of the Church should come before the protection of the child. This is what causes the scandal. These malevolent men who would try to tell us how to live ethically. The sheer chutzpah of it. The exact same as happened with Sinn Fein and the rape of the child Aine Tyrell.
This is why I agree with Nuala, a believer, who said:
‘the more I read this stuff, the more I understand why ordinary
decent people would not want to touch the church any church with a
barge pole.’
Your reply was:
‘That is a natural reaction, but I believe we have to find a way through
this.’
But one the way through it is to try in open court those who covered it up. Not more cover ups of the role of Ratzinger and his henchmen. But society will get by without the Church. We don’t need it. For those that do, let them go to it in the same way that they go to their golf clubs. The rules of the club are for the club only and will always be trumped by civil law.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete“It is not the volume of rapes John or how they compare against other institutions but how a culture of rape flourished aided and abetted by the Church hierarchy which allowed rape to continue; not because bishops condoned the act of rape it but because they felt the reputation of the Church should come before the protection of the child. This is what causes the scandal.”
I agree that to put the reputation of the Church before the protection of children was, if proven, short-sighted, and scandalous.
“These malevolent men who would try to tell us how to live ethically. The sheer chutzpah of it. The exact same as happened with Sinn Fein and the rape of the child Aine Tyrell.”
Absolutely. But let us not tar them all with the same brush. Many who told us how to live ethically were not involved in any way with these scandals. Just as not everyone in Sinn Féin had a part in their scandals.
“But one the way through it is to try in open court those who covered it up. Not more cover ups of the role of Ratzinger and his henchmen.”
But there is a serious lack of evidence in trying to implicate the Pope. There are so many people trying to implicate him, but so little in the way of hard evidence. My major problem is that many who call for action are more interested in scalping a Pope than in justice. They would like to pursue the Pope with ‘British Justice’, no jury, no evidence and a swift conviction.
“But society will get by without the Church. We don’t need it.”
I do not believe that this is true. You see this is the heart of the problem. Is the Catholic Church a Divine institution, (albeit it composed of men and women with all their human frailties), or is it man-made? I guess you would go for the latter option. Well, in that case, you should be happy; because there is no way any human institution could get through this and survive. I believe future generations will see this time as yet another proof that it is a Divine institution. How many people and ‘isms’ have written the obituary of the Catholic Church and yet it continues. In my view that is miraculous.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete