Traditional Catholicism...

kelly1

Hello all,

Lately I've found myself more and more drawn to traditional Catholicism, in short, drawn to truth.

It began with my dismay over the clerical abuse scandals breaking out in the US and elsewhere. I then read a shocker of a book called Goodbye Good Men by Michael Rose. After that I started reading more about Fatima and other apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary. These apparitions warn us about the dire situation in the world in general and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Our Lady of Salette for example said Rome would become the seat of the anti-christ.

Then there was the bombshell letter from archbishop Vigano which implicated Pope Francis in the McCarrick cover-up. I've never been a fan of Francis but the Vigano testimony was the final straw!

Just wondering if anyone else here has similar feelings about the Church? Do you find yourself drawn to traditional devotions and the latin Mass? Are you devoted to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?

God bless,
Noel.

smacl

That seems to make an assumption that abuse is new to the church and you're going back to a tradition that predates this. In my opinion, it seems as likely that the abuse has always been there and has just become more visible of late to the extent the church have to acknowledge it. If the latter is true, and the church is facing up to its past abuses (albeit grudgingly), it marks moral improvement in modern times rather than decline.

Defunkd

Celebrate Mass with your heart, in whatever language suits you.

kelly1

Smacl, I'm not so sure your assessment is correct. I definitely think there has been a serious decline since the early 60s.

At the risk of being ridiculed, I'll show my cards by saying that I believe the Church has been infiltrated by Freemasons and Communists. Freemasonry and communism have been strongly condemned by various popes and their concern is borne out by the likes of the testimony of Bella Dodd and the discovery of the Alta Vendita . I think this malign influence goes a long way to explain the obvious swing in the Church towards liberalism.

It think it's also pertinent that Our Lady asked for the 3rd secret of Fatima to be revealed in 1960, just before the start of the 2nd Vatican Council. IMO, Vatican II was a disaster for the Church.

smacl

Without commenting on your theories you could ask yourself are there many documented abuses within the church prior to the 1960s? There have no doubt been more reported cases since then, but I'd be of the opinion that this is down to reporting such incidents becoming gradually easier and more socially acceptable over time. We're certainly finding out more about earlier abuses but this has essentially become a forensic activity. There's a rather good article from the NY Times article covering the rise and reporting of abuse here. With respect to latin Mass, I note the following from the article

The survey also shows how pervasive the abuse has been. Using information from court records, news reports, church documents and interviews, the survey found accusations of abuses in all but 16 of the 177 Latin Rite dioceses in the United States.

It is also worth pointing out that this article dates from 2003 and talks about an abuse crisis then, which was little more than the tip of the iceberg for what we know today. Also it relates to America and does not necessarily reflect what was happening locally.

Either way, I'd be very much of the opinion that suggesting things were better in the good old days is looking at the past through rose tinted glasses.

Peregrinus

Nitpick: The "Latin Rite Dioceses" are not dioceses which celebrate the mass in the Latin language; they're dioceses which celebrate the mass in the Latin rite which, since the 1960s, is normally in the vernacular (but can be in Latin). The Latin Rite is distinct from the Eastern Rites - Byzantine, Armenian, Chaldean, Maronite, etc. Although they have historical routes in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, several of these traditions are also found in the US, due to migration.

But, yeah, I share your doubts about whether the good old days were necessarily better as far as sexual abuse went. In the US investigators have documented cases back into the 1940s, well before anyone thought of Vatican II, and I suspect the main reason why we don't know of cases from earlier is not that there were no cases, but that no information about them has survived. Where not only the perpetrator but also the victim and all of the victim's relatives are dead, how is the memory of an incident to be preserved? Even if the incident was the subject of a complaint to the diocese and was documented in one way or another in diocesan paperwork, not all paperwork is kept forever and, even if there is some reference in Latin to a 19th-century complaint still lurking in some dusty archive, finding it (without having some reason to suspect it was there) would be a miracle.

The Code of Canon Law of 1918 contains provisions dealing with sexual abuse by clerics, and prescribing punishments. And those provisions weren't new; they were a compilation of previous decrees on the subject. So obviously this was recognised as a problem in need of attention. And it defies common sense to suggest that (a) sexual abuse by clerics was a problem; but (b) it never happened. It was a problem because it did happen.

Of course, at this point it's very hard to get a handle on the scale at which it happened. We have the problems of the extinction of living memory and of poor records, as already pointed out. We also have the problem that, in the past, the sexual abuse of children was regarded (by society at large) as a much less serious matter than it is today, so there may have been fewer complaints or they may have been dealt with fairly summarily, not so much out of a desire to protect the church from a dreadful scandal as out of the fact that nobody thought it was a terribly big deal.

It's also possible that the incidence of sexual abuse was in fact lower than it became during the period from the 1960s to the 1990s. It's hard to believe that the sexual revolution had no impact on attitude of priests to the institution of celibacy, and on the structures and conventions which supported it, so a crisis of confidence in the whole idea of the celibate life may well have been a factor that influenced the phenomenon of clerical sexual abuse. But, even if so, this wouldn't be because of Vatican II or the vernacular mass. Rather, the two things would have happened at the same time as a manifestation of or response or reaction to wider cultural and social changes.

Nick Park

I had always assumed that 'Traditional Catholicism' simply meant Catholics who held firmly to Catholic dogma, rather than the a la carte variety.

But the references to freemasonry and communism in this thread (surely more bugbears and bogeymen from a generation ago than today) make me wonder if 'Traditional Catholicism' is coded language for something else - something that's heading in a conspiracy theory direction?

Peregrinus

Nick Park wrote: »

I had always assumed that 'Traditional Catholicism' simply meant Catholics who held firmly to Catholic dogma, rather than the a la carte variety.

But the references to freemasonry and communism in this thread (surely more bugbears and bogeymen from a generation ago than today) make me wonder if 'Traditional Catholicism' is coded language for something else - something that's heading in a conspiracy theory direction?

Somewhere in between the two, I think.

Those who identify as "traditional Catholics" will tell you that, yes, they are simply those who hold firmly to Catholic dogma and to traditional modes of worship and practice.

But the truth is that they are somewhat selective as regards the emphasis which they place on different Catholic teachings, and even sometimes on what they accept as Catholic teaching. And they are - no offence, Nick - almost Protestant in the emphasis they place on a particular expression of faith as constituting Catholicism, and the relative disregard of communion with other Catholics as a necessity.

And it's a mindset which tends to be linked with (and possibly to emanate from) a generally conservative outlook on the world, restrictive political and social views, a tendency to embrace conspiracy theories and, to a surprising extent, scepticism of climate change.

Of course, not all traditional Catholics will check all these boxes. There's a spectrum, ranging from those who simply have an aesthetic preference for the traditional Latin liturgy and associated practices right through to a fringe group who believe that the pope is a fraud or an imposter, and Vatican II was the work of a Masonic conspiracy.

kelly1

Nick Park wrote: »

I had always assumed that 'Traditional Catholicism' simply meant Catholics who held firmly to Catholic dogma, rather than the a la carte variety.

But the references to freemasonry and communism in this thread (surely more bugbears and bogeymen from a generation ago than today) make me wonder if 'Traditional Catholicism' is coded language for something else - something that's heading in a conspiracy theory direction?

As Peregrinus said, there is a spectrum of traditional catholicism. But I see it as a reaction against the rise of modernist tendencies in the Church. For the example the notion that divine truth is subjective and can change with place and time, is something that would be strongly resisted by traditionalists.

There is indeed an element of conspiracy theory among traditionalists and I think it would be unwise to dismiss these claims to easily.

Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Christ for the salvation of souls. On the other hand, Satan is the arch-enemy of the Church, doing all he can to steal souls from the Church and God. It would make sense that Satan would want to corrupt the Church from within because in doing so, the faithful would be scandalized, lose faith in the Church and abandon her. And this has happened.

The apparitions of Our Lady are particularly relevant to what is happening in the Church today:

Our Lady of Quito:
“Satan will reign almost completely by means of the Masonic sects”
"The Sacred Sacrament of Holy Orders will be ridiculed, oppressed and despised. ...The demon will try to persecute the Ministers of the Lord in every possible way and he will labor with cruel and subtle astuteness to deviate them from the spirit of their vocation, corrupting many of them. These corrupted priests, who will scandalize the Christian people, will incite the hatred of the bad Christians and the enemies of the Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church to fall upon all priests"

La Salette, France:
"The priests, ministers of my Son, the priests, by their wicked lives, by their irreverence and their impiety in the celebration of the holy mysteries, by their love of money, their love of honors and pleasures, and the priests have become cesspools of impurity"
"All the civil governments will have one and the same plan, which will be to abolish and do away with every religious principal to make way for materialism, atheism, spiritualism and vice of all kinds"
"Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist"

Akita, Japan:
"The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and priests. The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops."

Fatima, Portugal:
"You [the seers] have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world"

There is an understanding among Traditionalists that Church leaders have departed from the ways set out by God and that there's a need to restore proper worship.

Nick Park

kelly1 wrote: »

As Peregrinus said, there is a spectrum of traditional catholicism. But I see it as a reaction against the rise of modernist tendencies in the Church. For the example the notion that divine truth is subjective and can change with place and time, is something that would be strongly resisted by traditionalists.

There is indeed an element of conspiracy theory among traditionalists and I think it would be unwise to dismiss these claims to easily.

Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Christ for the salvation of souls. On the other hand, Satan is the arch-enemy of the Church, doing all he can to steal souls from the Church and God. It would make sense that Satan would want to corrupt the Church from within because in doing so, the faithful would be scandalized, lose faith in the Church and abandon her. And this has happened.

The apparitions of Our Lady are particularly relevant to what is happening in the Church today:

Our Lady of Quito:
“Satan will reign almost completely by means of the Masonic sects”
"The Sacred Sacrament of Holy Orders will be ridiculed, oppressed and despised. ...The demon will try to persecute the Ministers of the Lord in every possible way and he will labor with cruel and subtle astuteness to deviate them from the spirit of their vocation, corrupting many of them. These corrupted priests, who will scandalize the Christian people, will incite the hatred of the bad Christians and the enemies of the Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church to fall upon all priests"

La Salette, France:
"The priests, ministers of my Son, the priests, by their wicked lives, by their irreverence and their impiety in the celebration of the holy mysteries, by their love of money, their love of honors and pleasures, and the priests have become cesspools of impurity"
"All the civil governments will have one and the same plan, which will be to abolish and do away with every religious principal to make way for materialism, atheism, spiritualism and vice of all kinds"
"Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist"

Akita, Japan:
"The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and priests. The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops."

Fatima, Portugal:
"You [the seers] have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world"

There is an understanding among Traditionalists that Church leaders have departed from the ways set out by God and that there's a need to restore proper worship.

So, 'Traditional Catholicism' would seem to have a tendency to distrust Popes, Cardinals and Bishops as authority figures and to lean more towards the words that people would have claimed to have received in apparitions?

I am understanding that correctly?

kelly1

Nick Park wrote: »

So, 'Traditional Catholicism' would seem to have a tendency to distrust Popes, Cardinals and Bishops as authority figures and to lean more towards the words that people would have claimed to have received in apparitions?

I am understanding that correctly?

I would say Traditionalists have a tendency to distrust clergy who have modernist leanings.

Nick, you might not be aware of this but the apparition messages that I quoted from are approved by the Church as being "worthy of belief".

Nick Park

kelly1 wrote: »

Nick, you might not be aware of this but the apparition messages that I quoted from are approved by the Church as being "worthy of belief".

Oh, I'm sure they are.

But, who is 'the Church' that approved them? Did that approval not come through Bishops, Cardinals and Popes? So how does that approval carry any more weight than the pronouncements of Bishops, Cardinals and Popes when it comes to Vatican II?

I'm just puzzled as to why such people's authority is to be accepted in some cases but rejected in others. I could understand it from someone who believes in each individual having the freedom to interpret Scripture for themselves. But it seems strange if you want to hold on to the notion that the Church holds the authority to interpret Scripture for us.

kelly1

Nick Park wrote: »

Oh, I'm sure they are.

But, who is 'the Church' that approved them? Did that approval not come through Bishops, Cardinals and Popes? So how does that approval carry any more weight than the pronouncements of Bishops, Cardinals and Popes when it comes to Vatican II?

I'm just puzzled as to why such people's authority is to be accepted in some cases but rejected in others. I could understand it from someone who believes in each individual having the freedom to interpret Scripture for themselves. But it seems strange if you want to hold on to the notion that the Church holds the authority to interpret Scripture for us.

Afaik, Nick, apparitions are approved by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. However, belief in these apparitions is not binding on the faithful, in the way that acceptance of scripture is.

As for Vatican II, it wasn't a dogmatic council so existing teaching weren't changed and new ones weren't added. What did change dramatically was the Liturgy.

See this link for more info on the approval process.

Cabaal

kelly1 wrote: »

Smacl, I'm not so sure your assessment is correct. I definitely think there has been a serious decline since the early 60s.

At the risk of being ridiculed, I'll show my cards by saying that I believe the Church has been infiltrated by Freemasons and Communists. Freemasonry and communism have been strongly condemned by various popes and their concern is borne out by the likes of the testimony of Bella Dodd and the discovery of the Alta Vendita . I think this malign influence goes a long way to explain the obvious swing in the Church towards liberalism.

Oh dear,
So rather then own up and admit the church itself committed and covered up the crimes you want to blame the big bad bogey men.
and yet some like to say people have learned from the mistakes of the church in the past...apparently not. :rolleyes:

If the church and its followers can't face the reality and the actual failings of the church then very little has changed and its deeply worrying.

Cabaal

kelly1 wrote: »

Afaik, Nick, apparitions are approved by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. However, belief in these apparitions is not binding on the faithful, in the way that acceptance of scripture is.

As for Vatican II, it wasn't a dogmatic council so existing teaching weren't changed and new ones weren't added. What did change dramatically was the Liturgy.

See this link for more info on the approval process.

So Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith does good things when it confirms apparitions that you have referenced...but its the "dirty" communists when the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith wrote the rules to cover up child abuse.

Ok so.


I think you might want to take your tinfoil hat off and instead face the reality of the church and stop trying to excuse it.

kelly1

Cabaal wrote: »

So Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith does good things when it confirms apparitions that you have referenced...but its the "dirty" communists when the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith wrote the rules to cover up child abuse.

Ok so.


I think you might want to take your tinfoil hat off and instead face the reality of the church and stop trying to excuse it.

I'm not condoning the abuses that have happened and continue to happen. I want to be clear about that. What I'm saying is that the Church has enemies and the have inflicted damage by using the weakness of others.

Cabaal

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm not condoning the abuses that have happened and continue to happen. I want to be clear about that. What I'm saying is that the Church has enemies and the have inflicted damage by using the weakness of others.

What you said was

I believe the Church has been infiltrated by Freemasons and Communists. Freemasonry and communism have been strongly condemned by various popes and their concern is borne out by the likes of the testimony of Bella Dodd and the discovery of the Alta Vendita .

What relevance does such a comment have?
So are you trying to suggest these big bad bogey men carried out the abuse?

Or given you are not saying they inflicted damage are you suggesting the claims are made up to hurt the church?

kelly1

Cabaal wrote: »

What you said was
What relevance does such a comment have?

It's an attempt to explain the extent of the corruption that has plagued the hierarchy of the Church. What I'm saying is that the enemies of the Church planned to destroy the Church from within starting with the seminaries. Instead of challenging the new ideas and practices brought in by these men, the genuine seminarians because corrupt through lack of faith and prayer. So for example, where previously active homosexuals were barred from seminaries, they became welcome and even favoured as time went on. It is relevant to point out that according to the John Jay report, 80% of the victims of abusers were male and among these males, 76% were aged between 10 and 17.

Cabaal wrote:

Or given you are not saying they inflicted damage are you suggesting the claims are made up to hurt the church?

I don't understand this question. I *am* claiming the infiltrators did damage. And which claims are you referring to?

Cabaal

kelly1 wrote: »

So for example, where previously active homosexuals were barred from seminaries, they became welcome and even favoured as time went on.

Expect they didn't,

It is relevant to point out that according to the John Jay report, 80% of the victims of abusers were male and among these males, 76% were aged between 10 and 17.

Actually its not relevant at all,
So you seriously want to take the line that gay people were allowed into the church (even though the church hates them) and that these gay people then f**ked children?

Really? Are you really going to blame gay and lesbian's for this?

I don't understand this question. I *am* claiming the infiltrators did damage. And which claims are you referring to?

Nope,
All you are doing is using your tinfoil hat conspiracy theory to make excuses for the crimes carried out by the church actual.

Instead of trying to lay the blame at gay people, freemasons and communists (:rolleyes:) you need to accept that the church itself allowed these crimes to happen and then knowingly covered them up.

No big bad bogey men infiltrated the church to cause this, the church was more then capable of doing it on their own and they did exactly that.

All you are doing is making excuses instead of realising the church itself is corrupt. It's really rather pathetic.

kelly1

I suggest you take deep breaths, Cabaal, and chill out.

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

It's an attempt to explain the extent of the corruption that has plagued the hierarchy of the Church. What I'm saying is that the enemies of the Church planned to destroy the Church from within starting with the seminaries. Instead of challenging the new ideas and practices brought in by these men, the genuine seminarians because corrupt through lack of faith and prayer. So for example, where previously active homosexuals were barred from seminaries, they became welcome and even favoured as time went on. It is relevant to point out that according to the John Jay report, 80% of the victims of abusers were male and among these males, 76% were aged between 10 and 17.

Not sure you've got that right. Looking at Wikipedia on the John Jay Report it would seem that the majority of the priests carrying out abuse were ordained prior to Vatican II,

Half the priests were 35 years of age or younger at the time of the first instance of alleged abuse. Fewer than 7% of the priests were reported to have experienced physical, sexual or emotional abuse as children. Although 19% of the accused priests had alcohol or substance abuse problems, only 9% used drugs or alcohol during the alleged instances of abuse. Almost 70% of the abusive priests were ordained before 1970, after attending pre-Vatican II seminaries or seminaries that had had little time to adapt to the reforms of Vatican II

I also think your line of reasoning that connects sexual orientation to abuse would be considered highly offensive by most people in this day and age and needs clarification. It would seem far more likely that the fact that more boys than girls were abused was that male priests had more access to boys in seminaries and all boys schools. You also have to ask yourself whether a vocation that is made of entirely of one gender is going to be more attractive to gay people of that gender? I suspect your assertion that the pre-Vatican II church was any less corrupt than what followed is specious.

Defunkd

smacl wrote: »

I also think your line of reasoning that connects sexual orientation to abuse would be considered highly offensive by most people in this day and age and needs clarification. It would seem far more likely that the fact that more boys than girls were abused was that male priests had more access to boys in seminaries and all boys schools. You also have to ask yourself whether a vocation that is made of entirely of one gender is going to be more attractive to gay people of that gender?.

But does being celibate, by choice or by circumstances, lead to pedophilia, ephebephila, hebephilia or same-sex attraction?

It is a pertinent question and deserves to be looked into. In a society like America, why was the majority of sexual abuse directed towards teenage boys when there are multiple outlets for sexual gratification available? Prostitutes, escorts, rent boys, lonely housewives, divorcees, pornography, etc. Your view of 'proximity' or 'ease of access' doesn't cut it in explaining why a straight man will develop an attraction towards teenage boys. But a suggestion that men with an innate attraction to young men or pubescent boys joined the priesthood - for whatever reason - is "...highly offensive..."?

mdebets

Defunkd wrote: »

But does being celibate, by choice or by circumstances, lead to pedophilia, ephebephila, hebephilia or same-sex attraction?

It is a pertinent question and deserves to be looked into. In a society like America, why was the majority of sexual abuse directed towards teenage boys when there are multiple outlets for sexual gratification available? Prostitutes, escorts, rent boys, lonely housewives, divorcees, pornography, etc. Your view of 'proximity' or 'ease of access' doesn't cut it in explaining why a straight man will develop an attraction towards teenage boys. But a suggestion that men with an innate attraction to young men or pubescent boys joined the priesthood - for whatever reason - is "...highly offensive..."?

But that would require there to be a link between Homosexuality and child abuse, which clearly doesn't exist (have a read here for some easy to read introduction).
But even if there were a link between Homosexuality and child abuse, that would still not explain the other (in my opinion even bigger) problem of the Catholic Church abuse scandal, the cover-up by the hierarchy, which seems to have been happening in a large number (probably the majority) of Dioceses of the Catholic Church. You can't explain this by whatever popular conspiracy theory of infiltration of the Church by evil people, because this would mean the whole hierarchy would be evil.

Peregrinus

This ^^^.

I think there's two dimensions to the Catholic Church sexual abuse crisis. One is the phenomenon of abuse by clerics and religious, which is appalling in itself but may not be radically different from or more prevalent than the same phenomenon in other groups, e.g. teachers, sports coaches, the non-celibate clergy of other churches, etc. Or even in families. The second is the institutional response to the phenomenon, which I think has been just . . . catastrophically bad and thoroughly evil, and which I think finds fewer parallels elsewhere. And this has hugely magnified the scale and wickedness of the problem.

I think this points to a fundamental cultural problem within the church, to do with any or all of (a) understanding of sexuality, (b) attitudes to authority and (c) identification with the institution. I don't think you can blame this on the gays, to be honest. And, while there may be a link to celibacy, it's not a straightforward causal link, i.e. celibacy lead to these problems. Rather, both may be the outcome of some underlying factor or factors.

smacl

Defunkd wrote: »

But does being celibate, by choice or by circumstances, lead to pedophilia, ephebephila, hebephilia or same-sex attraction?

It is a pertinent question and deserves to be looked into. In a society like America, why was the majority of sexual abuse directed towards teenage boys when there are multiple outlets for sexual gratification available? Prostitutes, escorts, rent boys, lonely housewives, divorcees, pornography, etc. Your view of 'proximity' or 'ease of access' doesn't cut it in explaining why a straight man will develop an attraction towards teenage boys. But a suggestion that men with an innate attraction to young men or pubescent boys joined the priesthood - for whatever reason - is "...highly offensive..."?

As per the previously linked article, abusers and potential abusers will be attracted by a vocation where they've unsupervised access to victims. My point remains, and is also supported by that article, that sexual orientation has nothing to do with this, it is all about access and associated minimal risk of repercussion. A hierarchy that covers up rather than exposing abuse makes for an environment that allows abusive behaviour to flourish.

As for the idea that gay men might be more heavily represented in the priesthood than the male population from which they are drawn, this is illustrated by the recent Grindr debacle in Maynooth. While conservative Catholics might find this offensive, there is no reason to assume it is related in any way to clerical abuse unless you can show evidence to the contrary. Without this evidence such allegations are no more than simple homophobia.

Again, with respect to the opening premise of this thread that abuse is a recent phenomenon, and that those following more traditional Catholicism can hence distance themselves from it, 70% of the abusing priests identified in the John Jay Report were ordained prior to Vatican II, Measures to attempt to prevent, identify and deal with abuse are relatively new to the church and mark and improvement over traditional "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" approach. It thus seems specious to say that the traditionalists have the moral high ground where the evidence indicates the contrary.

Defunkd

@smacl: which "as per linked article" are you speaking of?

smacl

Defunkd wrote: »

@smacl: which "as per linked article" are you speaking of?

This one, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-kort-phd/homosexuality-and-pedophi_b_1932622.html, included in mdebets' previous response to you two posts back.

kelly1

Guys, I don't have the time right now to reply to all your points. But the evidence is there that ~80% of the victims of clergy are boys, most of whom are pubescent/post-pubescent. I think the obvious conclusion to draw from this is that 80% of abusers are gay. Would anyone dispute this?

I would also claim that main reason that the cover-up is/was happening is that those responsible for investigating allegations are themselves guilty to some degree.

tonybodhran

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello all,

Lately I've found myself more and more drawn to traditional Catholicism, in short, drawn to truth.

It began with my dismay over the clerical abuse scandals breaking out in the US and elsewhere. I then read a shocker of a book called Goodbye Good Men by Michael Rose. After that I started reading more about Fatima and other apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary. These apparitions warn us about the dire situation in the world in general and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Our Lady of Salette for example said Rome would become the seat of the anti-christ.

Then there was the bombshell letter from archbishop Vigano which implicated Pope Francis in the McCarrick cover-up. I've never been a fan of Francis but the Vigano testimony was the final straw!

Just wondering if anyone else here has similar feelings about the Church? Do you find yourself drawn to traditional devotions and the latin Mass? Are you devoted to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?

God bless,
Noel.

No.

eviltwin

kelly1 wrote: »

Guys, I don't have the time right now to reply to all your points. But the evidence is there that ~80% of the victims of clergy are boys, most of whom are pubescent/post-pubescent. I think the obvious conclusion to draw from this is that 80% of abusers are gay. Would anyone dispute this?

I would also claim that main reason that the cover-up is/was happening is that those responsible for investigating allegations are themselves guilty to some degree.

No, child abuse isn't always about having sexual relationships with people you find sexually attractive, it's about availability a lot of the time. Who were priests around the most in recent years? Boys. So makes sense they would be the primary victims.

It's like saying rapists who attack elderly women are attracted to women of that age, they arent. It's power and control, they attack those who are vulnerable.

Peregrinus

kelly1 wrote: »

Guys, I don't have the time right now to reply to all your points. But the evidence is there that ~80% of the victims of clergy are boys, most of whom are pubescent/post-pubescent. I think the obvious conclusion to draw from this is that 80% of abusers are gay. Would anyone dispute this?

Yes. The people who study this stuff for a living would. There's no firm correlation between (a) the orientation of an child abuser's abuse, and (b) the orientation of the same abuser's adult relationships. Lots of male abusers, for example, have successful functional adult relationships which are exclusively heterosexual , but abuse boys. Others have no functional adult relationships, heterosexual or homosexual. Neither of these groups can be categorised as "gay".

The orientation of abusive clergy is "masked" by their commitment to celibacy; they either don't have adult relationships, or we tend not to know about them. But, given what we know about non-clerical abusers, there's no basis for assuming that they are gay.

kelly1 wrote: »

I would also claim that main reason that the cover-up is/was happening is that those responsible for investigating allegations are themselves guilty to some degree.

Given the pervasiveness of the cover-up, if that were so it would imply that the episcopacy is predominantly homosexual, and has been for decades.

There's a more obvious and less baroque account for the cover-up; the church leadership class is steeped in a deeply-engrained culture of prioritising the institutional church, its public face and its assets over either the church's mission or the health and welfare of its members.

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

Guys, I don't have the time right now to reply to all your points. But the evidence is there that ~80% of the victims of clergy are boys, most of whom are pubescent/post-pubescent. I think the obvious conclusion to draw from this is that 80% of abusers are gay. Would anyone dispute this?

Yes. From the linked article with respect to child molestors as distinct from pedophiles;

child molesters often exert power and control over children in an effort to dominate them. They do experience sexual desire for adults but molest children episodically, for reasons apart from sexual desire, much as rapists enjoy power, violence, and controlling their humiliated victims. Indeed, research strongly suggests that a child molester isn’t any more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual.

with respect to pedophiles

some research shows that for pedophiles, the gender of the child is immaterial. Accessibility is more the factor in whom a pedophile abuses. This may explain the high incidence of children molested in church communities and fraternal organizations, where the pedophile may more easily have access to children.

This suggests to me that your assertion that the abuses were principally carried out by gay priests lacks foundation. If you allow that the proportion of gay men in the priesthood is also higher than that of the male population from which they're drawn, you would also need to factor this in when considering the number of gay priests abusing children. If you accept the accessibility argument, the priests are more likely to have had access to boy than girls, thus boys were more likely to become their victims.

I would also claim that main reason that the cover-up is/was happening is that those responsible for investigating allegations are themselves guilty to some degree.

While it is possible, until you provide evidence that this is the case, it is no more than speculation.

Defunkd

smacl wrote: »

This one, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-kort-phd/homosexuality-and-pedophi_b_1932622.html, included in mdebets' previous response to you two posts back.

It could be tonight before i get to reply.

deezell

Save your breath all of you. We now know the real reason for paedo priests. It's SATAN!, and REIKI! Bishop Cullinane sez so in today's Indo; https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/bishop-to-set-up-exorcism-ministry-as-he-warns-of-the-evils-of-reiki-37403224.html

"He said he "absolutely" agreed with Pope Francis's view that child abuse is caused by Satan."

Pope Francis backs him up;


"Since day one, Pope Francis has been talking about the action of Satan. I have got several requests from people, one lady for example who is involved in counselling, I don't know if she's Catholic or what, but she's coming across things in people which she cannot deal with, and she knows that it's beyond psychological."

So now you know. Those priests were blameless, and are still considered so. Hence they are not treated as criminals. The real guilty parties were the lefties humming and rocking and lighting candles and practicing REIKI! ffs.

*Any similarity between Reiki and holy men praying is entirely coincidental and no implications can be drawn from the above statements to this effect. Amen

kelly1

eviltwin wrote: »

No, child abuse isn't always about having sexual relationships with people you find sexually attractive, it's about availability a lot of the time. Who were priests around the most in recent years? Boys. So makes sense they would be the primary victims

I'm not so sure priests had more access to boys. What are you basing that on?

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm not so sure priests had more access to boys. What are you basing that on?

If you look at the
Sexual abuse scandal in the Congregation of Christian Brothers you'll note that much of the abuse happened in boys schools run by the church.

smacl

The wikipedia entry on Catholic Church sexual abuse cases also makes for interesting reading on gay priests.

According to the John-Jay-Report, 80.9% of the abuse victims in the United States were male;[142] and a study by Dr. Thomas Plante found the number may be as high as 90%.[309] A number of books, such as "The Rite of Sodomy: Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church", have argued that homosexual priests view sex with minors as a "rite of passage" for altar boys and other pre-adult males.[310] William Donohue of the Catholic League argued that the Church's pedophile problem was really a "homosexual crisis",[311] which some have dismissed as unwarranted by arguing that there's a lack of correlation between a man identifying as homosexual and any particular likelihood he will abuse children.[224] In the United States Father Cozzens quoted figures from 23 percent to 58 percent of homosexual priests, with a higher percentage among younger priests.[312] On the other hand, research on pedophilia in general shows a majority of abusers identify themselves as heterosexual,[313][314][self-published source] and the Causes and Context Study of the John Jay Institute found no statistical support for linking homosexual identity and sexual abuse of minors.[305] Additionally The New York Times reported "the abuse decreased as more gay priests began serving the church."[315]

It would seem your assertion that gay priests are the problem here is bogus as is the notion that the church was morally superior in the past to the present time.

Thinkingaboutit

smacl wrote: »

The wikipedia entry on Catholic Church sexual abuse cases also makes for interesting reading on gay priests.



It would seem your assertion that gay priests are the problem here is bogus as is the notion that the church was morally superior in the past to the present time.

Maybe you are cleverly supporting the undeniable link between homosexuality and the abuse of seminarians and teenage boys (consider Fr Grassi a pederast for whom the then Archbishop Bergoglio commissioned a book to attack his accusers or Fr Karadima, another Modernist deviant whose close friend was given a diocese and a belligerent by the now Pope Francis, consider also how most of the Sankt Gallen Mafia who installed him are accused of covering up or actually abuse) by citing a doubly dubious link. Wikipedia articles can at times be somewhat reliable, but more often than an article has to be treated with the greatest caution. That article is not accurately representing a report which was re-drafted to give conclusions which ran contrary to the evidence, for good political reasons that the American bishops who commissioned it are very often themselves homosexuals. Most of these deformed men who abuse came from seminaries when homosexual sexual harassment is protected, orthodox, sexually normal men driven out - we have in Ireland Maynooth as an exemplar. The report still refutes any notion that there is no link, and the study itself supports the link, and the article is a prime example why wiki is so often junk.

smacl

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Maybe you are cleverly supporting the undeniable link between homosexuality and the abuse of seminarians and teenage boys (consider Fr Grassi a pederast for whom the then Archbishop Bergoglio commissioned a book to attack his accusers or Fr Karadima, another Modernist deviant whose close friend was given a diocese and a belligerent by the now Pope Francis, consider also how most of the Sankt Gallen Mafia who installed him are accused of covering up or actually abuse) by citing a doubly dubious link. Wikipedia articles can at times be somewhat reliable, but more often than an article has to be treated with the greatest caution. That article is not accurately representing a report which was re-drafted to give conclusions which ran contrary to the evidence, for good political reasons that the American bishops who commissioned it are very often themselves homosexuals. Most of these deformed men who abuse came from seminaries when homosexual sexual harassment is protected, orthodox, sexually normal men driven out - we have in Ireland Maynooth as an exemplar. The report still refutes any notion that there is no link, and the study itself supports the link, and the article is a prime example why wiki is so often junk.

While I fully accept wikipedia can often be inaccurate, you do realise you're disputing the accuracy based on anecdotal evidence? Perhaps you could cite a stronger academic reference which links homesexualilty to abuse, because all I've seen so far from those on this thread pushing that line of argument is unsupported opinion from bias.

Cabaal

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Most of these deformed men who abuse came from seminaries when homosexual sexual harassment is protected, orthodox, sexually normal men driven out -.

Sexually normal?
the level of ignorance and the wish to blame the church's crimes and abuses on gay people is outstanding beyond belief dispite the fact you have nothing to backup this mistaken, insulting and frankly hateful view towards gay people you clearly have.

First off being gay is normal within the human species, in fact its normal within hundreds of different species on this planet.

Secondly, I find it funny that you are actually referring to non gay priests as "Sexually normal", when they are anything but.

How is it normal for an adult human to deny themselves one of the most basic drives of being a human?. to deny themselves a relationship with another of our species. Denying one self these things is anything but normal. So to call such a person normal is misleading.

If a gay man in a seminary has a sexual relationship with another man then that's upto them, they are after all consenting adults. The same goes for a lesbian nun having a sexual relationship with another woman or nun, again they are adults.

But this in no way means they are the cause of children being raped by the church and there is no basis for this belief other then your apparent dislike of gay people.

kelly1

Guys, this thread has been totally derailed by a focus on the sexual abuse scandals. It's supposed to be about Traditional Catholicism. Why is it almost impossible to have a discussion in this forum without it turning into an argument/debate? It's pretty sad really.

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

Guys, this thread has been totally derailed by a focus on the sexual abuse scandals. It's supposed to be about Traditional Catholicism. Why is it almost impossible to have a discussion in this forum without it turning into an argument/debate? It's pretty sad really.

To be fair you started the opening post with reference to abuse as follows;

kelly1 wrote: »

It began with my dismay over the clerical abuse scandals breaking out in the US and elsewhere.

You then followed by declaring an interest in traditional Catholicism as you felt the church has been in moral decline. That's fair enough as an opinion, but I don't see anything to support it. You followed by blaming the decline on homosexual priests, citing the John Jay report. As already discussed, I'm of the opinion that your conclusions are dubious and that blaming people on the basis of their sexual orientation in not morally tenable in this day and age.

Clerical abuse and the sexual orientation of priests are both items that you've brought into this discussion in the context of traditional Catholicism. Remember that it is a discussion and not a sermon. If you're going to voice your opinion on a public forum, and that opinion differs with many if not most other posters, you really need to be prepared to support your arguments from understandable criticism.

Maybe say a bit more about the values that you see as positive in traditional Catholicism over other forms, as all I've seen so far is a desire to distance itself from scandal coupled with a conservative 1950's style homophobic worldview.

Jessie1965

Cabaal wrote: »

Oh dear,
So rather then own up and admit the church itself committed and covered up the crimes you want to blame the big bad bogey men.
and yet some like to say people have learned from the mistakes of the church in the past...apparently not. :rolleyes:

If the church and its followers can't face the reality and the actual failings of the church then very little has changed and its deeply worrying.

Of course devout Catholics have truthful teaching about sexual immorality!! This was part of the conflict between those who wanted their sinful fun and those who wanted to follow and pass on the way to run celibacy and chaste marriage.

As a devout catholic I "delight in the truth". The truth about sexual sins of any kind emerges. Sin comes from a German word meaning to " cast asunder". Or destroy.

The church cannot disinvent sin, its mission is against evil and ito give hope, encouragement about God's love for us.

Sexual abuse destroys, so does promiscuity, adultery, rape, murder, prostitution.

Nuns, priests and religious people don't show outrage by temper tantrumming about it. This shouldn't confuse those who also notice that anyone truly reflecting on human dignity won't act in an undignified manner.

If deluded ",cool" people want everything to be sold yo them like a beautiful scarf, for example. They've walked into the wrong room then lol.

As for whether the work of journalists has made people more aware of issues of justice, it might have.

But helplessness in the face of powerful malice/evil cannot be solver by winding people up about it.

Career journalists love to make their name by causing violence with inflammatory language and now they want to blaspheme God, probably Mohammed too.

One car bomb in France didn't count because the Irish never fought violently ever did they?

Because Everyone's A Good Person Really - says the Idiot.

I know the Irish have a superiority complex, but there are malicious people in Ireland.

deezell

"The pope is infallible, that is, he cannot err". That was drummed into us as kids, woe betide anyone who even joked about the obvious untruth of it the foundations of the c. Church, and any other religion, are built on very old straw. Hanging on to a completely discredited belief system is like really believing in Santa Clause. And Blasphemy is not a crime anymore, no more than being gay is an aberration. But traditionalists hang on to their beliefs, predjudices, lies and hatreds. Theres no room ib their minds or hearts to admit the path is really wrong, really flawed, and not fit for purpose. I suppose a long time ago the elders of certin tribes bemoaned the fact that a newer generation were no longer interested

Thinkingaboutit

deezell wrote: »

"The pope is infallible, that is, he cannot err". That was drummed into us as kids, woe betide anyone who even joked about the obvious untruth of it the foundations of the c. Church, and any other religion, are built on very old straw. Hanging on to a completely discredited belief system is like really believing in Santa Clause. And Blasphemy is not a crime anymore, no more than being gay is an aberration. But traditionalists hang on to their beliefs, predjudices, lies and hatreds. Theres no room ib their minds or hearts to admit the path is really wrong, really flawed, and not fit for purpose. I suppose a long time ago the elders of certin tribes bemoaned the fact that a newer generation were no longer interested

The formulation of infallibility arrived at Vatican I, after a lot of controversy, was that the Pope is infallible when teaching on a matter of faith and morals to the whole Church, he is protected by the Holy Spirit from error. However, as defined by Pastor aeternus of 1870, this authority cannot be used to propose new doctrine. A problem with some of the publicly released writings under Pope Francis (Amoris Laetitia is that the Teaching is treated as the 'ideal' and a new 'pastoral' understanding becomes, in effect, the orthopraxis.

Cabaal

I dislike no one, but some people have to realise there are some things they cannot do properly.

A religious sister, or nun or priest who is not celibate, particularly those who are known to be (homo)sexually active while in some form of public ministry, operate under false pretenses. Either he might be the usual tiresome public rebel elderly priest the Irish Times likes, or someone who conceals. The preaching might be hypocritical or teaching on morality is downplayed. I think the English bishop Kieran Conry, might make a relevant example. One defence was that he never preached about sexual morality. He was certainly never celibate, was noted as continually having girlfriends (which no barrier to becoming a mediocre bishop), which apparently wasn't enough as before he resigned in 2014, he had just destroyed one marriage with children and had an affair with another married woman. Another relevant point was how this was kept very quiet by the English Catholic Church.

People in orders who cannot even try to follow the ancient Latin Rite discipline of celibacy, ought to find something else to do with their time. God forgives those who try and fail, but too many don't, and never did, try.

A predatory homosexual subculture in many seminaries, where priests (like onetime Maynooth President Michéal Ledwith who destroyed the career of the Dean of students who support complainants) and favoured seminarians sexually harass other students is too well known, to be argued over. A collapse in discipline and a failure to provide the correct, clear Thomist formation, from the '60s onwards, are notable reasons.

Speaking of tradition, there are some fine customs this time of year like Martinmas:





Also:

Interesting article on the legal standing of the Old Rite.

Jessie1965

I'm really noticing the deliberate, and shared, darkness here. Well, it's Halloween alright!

No Catholic among possibly hundreds I know, have ever said anything was "drummed" into them by parents..
Anyone who had to have respect for a church leader "drummed into" them was like a mad child screaming in a hospital maybe from the start?

What terrible thing did they insist on doing that their parents had to get controlling about? I'd say the Pope was only a small part of it!

I've only ever heard atheists claiming that Catholics were ever conflicted about their faith. I'm not and neither are my fellow Catholic believers.

There was only one "Humanae Vitae" document that caused havoc for the "free love = sex without responsibility" followers.

That's because Pope Paul VI said in it that contraception, abortion and divorce were against the dignity of the human being, given by God.

I examined the teachings of my Church by both reading books and reflecting on conflicts in my own life and in Irish history, world history. These contain a wealth of experience and knowledge about the conflict within and between individuals. The conflict between good and evil is smothered with childish comforting by psychologists, psychiatrists, neo pagan horse**** about chakras, neo pagan horoscopes. The conflict is still there between God and those who hate him. Smothering those who see it isn't the adult thing for a country to do.

The atheists claim we ,"need comfort" but they're the ones who seem distressed. But they aren't able to see God in their lives or the fact that obeying God's commands is hard work to do. Catholicism isn't the same fun as kids believing in Santa.

Jesus warns us there will be bitterness on judgement day on those that won't be allowed into heaven. Those that made up their own morals or were lazy, selfish and spreading hatred and ignorance, instead of wisdom and light.

I've yet to hear an atheist say anything meaningful. But then they've decided since Climate Change is caused by too many humans, maybe taking away hope from them is the best way to cull the population.

Culling the population is cruel, stupid and won't stop the hurricanes, floods, etc.

Worshipping science then, leads to stupidity and cruelty. The scientists are paid by those commissioning the studies, so No they aren't to be seen as infallible either.

The reality of evil isn't addressed at all by atheists.
Why?

smacl

Worth remembering that the people that legalised contraception, abortion and gay marriage in the country were predominantly Catholic. The number of people that identified as atheist in the last census was a very small percentage of the voting population. Strictly dogmatic Catholics have a tendency to talk about the Catholic majority when it suits them, but in reality they would seem to have very little in common with this majority. The majority of the people in this country are secular, egalitarian Catholics who are in favour of family planning and against any discrimination against gay people, as shown be recent referenda and census results. You might want to redirect your vitriol against atheists towards the Catholic majority.

deezell

Well said Smacl.
If you were schooled in the early 60s, catholic beliefs were taught by rote, like your 5 times tables. There was no discussion, no elaboration. Learn the catechism off by heart, and believe everything in it. Learn all the commandments and deadly sins by heart, and get a box on the ears for innocently asking what 'Lust' was. Or Adultery. Or what Virgin meant. All this hammered into kids heads. Listen to the fantasy speak. "Holy Spirit'. 'Allowed into heaven'. Throw in Angels and Limbo and Purgatory and Transubstantiation for good measure. I'd love to see a legal definition of that lot. Then you take offence at comparisons to Santa?

Thinkingaboutit

Rote learning works, it worked for centuries, a better thing than the SJW Marxist junk about the 'developing world' of more recent years. If you don't like it, deezell, that's your own NPC opinion. If someone wishes to be saved, to try be among the few who are saved, he or she needs to have some knowledge of the Faith. If you want to call that fantasy, your choice. You'll find out the wisdom of that policy.

deezell

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

...... If you want to call that fantasy, your choice. You'll find out the wisdom of that policy.

How do you know? How can you threaten me with an outcome of which you have no experience, only blind belief. You'd need to die to check this out, then return to tell all us sceptics about it. It hasn't happened yet. And it won't. We are programmed to be and behave as we do by evolution, there is not a single physical trait or behaviour that can not be attributed to that fact. The nearest thing to a hereafter is what you leave after, (your genetic contribution) and that in itself is framed within our feeble mental concept of time as linear and progressive, which of course is contradicted entirely by the quantum physics of matter. We shouldn't and don't have to worry and fret about these things, just follow the trail of our genes. Aberrant genetic mutations will imbalance the path and position of any species, directly or by interaction with the mutation. Thus have creatures prospered and perished, we may do so ourselves someday, maybe as a final result of the very evolutionary event which first caused human minds to express religious beliefs , but it is of no consequence as it's just how the universe works. Probabilty tells us its happened before (whatever 'before' actually is), and it will happen 'again' but there is no 'You' at this scale of events to find out the wisdom of anything, much as you desire an afterlife where you can gloat over the folly of the unwise.
The writer Hugh Leonard once got a clerical box on the ear for extrapolating from his religious tutors assertion that we would meet our parents again in the afterlife. He enquired of the man in black as to the likelihood of meeting his 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great gps, 16, 32, 64, 128 and at maybe that point he got his corporal answer. Even infinity has to be finite it seems.

pauldla

A good friend of mine recently relocated from Shenzhen (mainland China) to Hong Kong (very definitely not mainland China thank-you-very-much) with his four year old.

In SZ, the kids at kindergarten line up in the morning and sing songs in English about arms, legs, jumping, go go go, all to a techno beat (for some reason). Now that the boy is in Hong Kong and attending a Catholic kindie, the morning song is 'Jesus loves me'.

Of course this is all anecdotal, but riddle me this: which one is indoctrination?