|
Post by regenskuechl on May 29, 2011 12:45:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Los Leandros on May 31, 2011 13:13:09 GMT
Further proof, as if it were needed, that predatory homosexuals ( " the lavender mafia " ) have infiltrated the highest levels of the Church. God bless Pope Benedict in his efforts to weed out this " filth ". I'm sure our atheist friends will support the Holy Father's noble efforts !. Naivety is my middle name !.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 5, 2011 23:30:01 GMT
And Regenskuechl's point is? Coverups are a serious stain on the Church, but individuals' crimes simply show there will always be bad apples. "If they had been of us, they would not have departed from among us".
|
|
|
Post by Guest of Honour on Jun 17, 2011 16:31:37 GMT
And Regenskuechl's point is? Coverups are a serious stain on the Church, but individuals' crimes simply show there will always be bad apples. "If they had been of us, they would not have departed from among us". There will always be bad apples? This is true to an extent, but the Catholic church seems to be rotten to the core. I mean, even the pope himself tried his best to cover up the scandals. This is just ignored by most of my catholic friends. Not only is it ignored, but they see him as a wonderful man! Unbelievable, covering for child raping priests is a horrific crime, so why should I have to keep reminding people of that?
|
|
|
Post by losleandros on Jun 20, 2011 10:50:37 GMT
Guest of honour, ignorance may be bliss, but dont abuse the privilege. The abuse related to the Catholic Church was primarily carried out by predatory homosexuals ( the " filth " as described by Pope Benedict ) who infiltrated the Church. It is not primarily paedophile in nature. The stats. from the US show that the abuse relating to the Catholic Church is much less than that relating to either the Protestant denominations or the secular sector. But you would'nt know this from the media coverage. So please, wake up & smell the coffee.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 22, 2011 20:57:27 GMT
I don't think the priest abusers were all homosexuals (the late Fr Brendan Smyth abused girls as well as boys) and the statistics are irrelevant - one is one too many. Guest of Dishonour should read a bit more about the Pope's actual actions before making such accusations. I suggest he starts with mark Doorley's discussion in the introduction to his new book WHY BE CATHOLIC? It's on sale in Hodges Figgis for anyone who is interested. The Church authorities' response has indeed been disgraceful by and large - like the apostles running away in the Garden of Gethsemane. We just have to trust in God and do our best
|
|
|
Post by Los Leandros on Jun 23, 2011 10:12:43 GMT
I disagree. In my opinion the stats. are very relevant, as they help to identify the major source of the problem. The leading psychiatrist in the U.S. dealing with this area, Prof. Richard Fitzgibbon, has stated from his own experience & from the evidence of the John Jay College investigation, the major source of the problem in the Catholic Church is most definitely predatory homosexual in nature, & not paedophile. This is the elephant in the room conclusion which dare not speak it's name. But if it's not confronted the problem is not going to go away ; it will continue to come back to hurt the Church. I'm being mild, Pope Benedict described it as the " filth " which has entered the very heart of the Church.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 23, 2011 21:59:00 GMT
The problems are as follows: (a) The celibate priesthood always has a tendency to attract people who are homosexual in orientation - whether they can resist temptation will reflect circumstances including the overall health of the church/state of morale/ watchfulness of the authorities etc (b) The problem is as much if not more in the coverup/mishandling than in the crimes of the actual perpetrators (c) Some people - NEW OXFORD REVIEW deserve dishonourable mention have taken the "homosexual not paedophile" line to quite extraordinary lengths - NOR has seriously suggested that men of homosexual orientation are inherently incapable of being ordained just as women are - a view which would retrospectively invalidate quite a lot of sacraments; the late Mgr Ronald Knox for instance has left it on record that he took a private vow of celibacy after experiencing, not succumbing to, an adolescent homosexual temptation - and they have stopped just short of suggesting that such people are predestined to be damned.
|
|
|
Post by Los Leandros on Jun 24, 2011 8:23:39 GMT
Sorry to disagree, but I think New Oxford Reviews analysis is more accurate. We will have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 24, 2011 20:49:32 GMT
It's not just the analysis - they adopt a highly offensive tone which antagonises anyone who doesn't already agree with them (using terms such as "fag", rump rangers", gloating over the prospect that such people go to Hell). That's more about boundary maintenance and base consolidation than about evangelising the uncommitted, or about Christian charity. Furthermore, the claim that those of homosexual orientation CANNOT be validly ordained would retrospectively invalidate sacraments on a startling scale - well into Donatist territory - and is not the sort of view that should be put forward unilaterally by a polemicist.
|
|
|
Post by Los Leandros on Jun 27, 2011 15:58:50 GMT
I dont know. Can I respectfully suggest that you are being a bit precious. I thought the terms used by NOR were quite funny, & dare I say, apposite.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 27, 2011 17:50:34 GMT
In the context in which I saw them they were declaring "We know there are rump rangers in Hell" because of a certain scriptural passage. What's funny about that? Use of those words in the context of serious debate in print is an expression of contempt and dismissiveness - they were engaged in an argument with a repentant Catholic homosexual living a chaste life about the appropriateness of such language, and they went out of their way to insult him. We are supposed to hate the sin and love the sinner, not to sneeer at the sinner to assert our own righteousness.
|
|
|
Post by Los Leandros on Jun 28, 2011 20:19:11 GMT
No offense, but maybe you could chill a little. The NOR has alway's been on the irreverent ( irreverent against the prevailing liberal/feminist zeitgeist - both secualar & religious ) side. It's a bit like Monthy Python, not to everyone's taste. I suppose humour is in the eye of the beholder.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 9, 2011 22:27:21 GMT
I think they take themselves a bit too seriously at times - there is an aboriginal Dutch Calvinist streak in Dale Vree's sensibility which makes them a bit too eager to damn those with whom they disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Los Leandros on Jul 11, 2011 14:16:55 GMT
Yes. I suppose it's a question of getting the balance right. Sometimes ( frequently though not exclusively, the liberal variety ) satire can cross the limit from good humoured send-up to knee-jerk intolerance.
|
|