What’s going on with Pope Francis and the sex abuse scandals?
I certainly don’t know—even though yesterday I visited the Vatican and did the tour thing. Nary a word was said about the current crisis facing the Pope. It was silence in the Sistine Chapel all the way.
One thing about visiting the Vatican, though, is that it underscores the long history of the Church as well as the tremendous riches it possesses, both in money and art. That place is big, and parts of it reminded me of some strange combination of the Roman Empire and royalty. The influence of the Church has been mighty across time, and it’s still quite large although nothing like it was in the past.
On the current Pope, from a piece by Steven Hayward at Powerline:
Among the reasons I decided against becoming a Catholic is my worry that someday we might get a Pope like . . . Pope Francis. I loved John Paul II and Benedict XVI, but feared that what has come to pass would come to pass. It is bad enough that Francis is a left-wing liberation theologue (liberation theology being merely Marxism with salsa), but there is credible testimony that he has covered up for pedophile priests, bishops, and cardinals…
…We know from many previous proven cases that pedophilia among Catholic clerics took place, and that the Church hierarchy covered it up, stonewalled, and in some cases attempted to declare bankruptcy to avoid civil damage judgments (unsuccessfully in most cases). It should also be noted that sex abuse cases have occurred in Protestant denominations. I know that the Mormon Church has quietly settled a number of sex abuse cases, and cases involving the Boy Scouts continue through the courts, but these cases haven’t received any commensurate media coverage because the media hate the Catholic Church (also the Boy Scouts), which makes their troubles a big story.
In fact, some time in the past I remember reading an article (can’t find the exact piece right now, but this one mentions similar statistics) that stated that other clergy abuse children and/or teenagers with about the same frequency as Catholic priests. So what? All clergy have a higher responsibility than the normal run of people, and we have (or used to have) higher expectations for them, and the Church as an institution has a heavy responsibility too. And some recent allegations regarding a ring of child-abusing priests in Pennsylvania (see this) are shocking on a larger scale than usual.
So, what’s going on with Pope Francis? The story is a convoluted one; please read Hayward’s post as well as this one. The summary version is that there is evidence that Pope Francis protected a particular cleric accused of abusing young seminarians in the Catholic Church. Some of this is based on the following (from Hayward’s article):
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò of Ulpiana (a diocese in the Balkans) has released his full testimony about the matter here, in which he declares that “the [sex abuse cover up] corruption has reached the very top of the Church’s hierarchy”—meaning Pope Francis himself.
Vigano’s testimony is quite an extraordinary document; here’s an excerpt:
To restore the beauty of holiness to the face of the Bride of Christ, which is terribly disfigured by so many abominable crimes, and if we truly want to free the Church from the fetid swamp into which she has fallen, we must have the courage to tear down the culture of secrecy and publicly confess the truths we have kept hidden. We must tear down the conspiracy of silence with which bishops and priests have protected themselves at the expense of their faithful, a conspiracy of silence that in the eyes of the world risks making the Church look like a sect, a conspiracy of silence not so dissimilar from the one that prevails in the mafia.
Vigano tries to explain his own silence till now this way
I had always believed and hoped that the hierarchy of the Church could find within itself the spiritual resources and strength to tell the whole truth, to amend and to renew itself. That is why, even though I had repeatedly been asked to do so, I always avoided making statements to the media, even when it would have been my right to do so, in order to defend myself against the calumnies published about me, even by high-ranking prelates of the Roman Curia. But now that the corruption has reached the very top of the Church’s hierarchy, my conscience dictates that I reveal those truths…
It is incendiary stuff.
Vigano’s statement “I had always believed and hoped that the hierarchy of the Church could find within itself the spiritual resources and strength…to amend and to renew itself” strangely parallels the reaction of many in the Church hierarchy towards the offending priests themselves—the idea that spiritual healing and renewal would occur. Many years ago, however, it became clear this wasn’t the way it happens for sex offenders. The overriding motivation of the higher-ups and the coverup seems to have been the desire to protect the Church itself from scandal.
That certainly didn’t work.
And Pope Francis’ response to Vigano? Silence:
The pope refused to address these allegations on Sunday, telling reporters, “I will not say a word about this.” One of his prominent allies in the United States, Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago, questioned the veracity of several of Viganò’s claims in a statement. And the pope’s defenders have characterized the letter as a smear against Francis, in part because of Viganò’s past clashes with the pope.
Vigano is conservative; the Pope is not, and they have a history of conflict. That is part of the background to this sordid mess.
Pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children. These were pederast’s.
@neo:One thing about visiting the Vatican, though, is that it underscores the long history of the Church as well as the tremendous riches it possesses, both in money and art.
The money part is about $15 billion. For comparison, Facebook’s market capitalization is currently valued at $500 billion. Jeff Bezo’s personal net worth is estimated at $150 billion. If you think Internet’s not real value, GM (to pick a manufacturer at random) has a market capitalization valued at $50 billion. The Gates Foundation assets are $36 billion.
No the Vatican is not as vastly wealthy as people think, at least not compared to other organizations. The LDS church (Mormons) is worth about what the Gates Foundation is and collects $8 billion in tithes per year. Harvard University is also about $40 billion.
Granted they could sell some of that priceless art, but priceless art is not a huge source of income unless you are charging lots of people to look at it, and I’m not aware of any organization that actually makes money from priceless art. The Louvre, for example, gets 60% of its funding from the government.
Ray uses the term “pederasts”; I think an even more-precise term is “ephebophiles.”
That is to say:
– we’re not talking about men preying on prepubescent girls
– we’re not talking about men preying on prepubescent boys
– we’re not even talking, by-and-large, about men preying on teenaged girls
Those kinds of issues were extremely rare; far below general levels for secular institutions (e.g. public schools).
No, we’re talking about ephebophilia; i.e., older men grooming younger post-pubescent males into a culture of homosexual activity.
Notice: I say older men grooming younger males: Those are relative terms.
When the older man is, himself, in his twenties or thirties, the younger one will, of logical necessity, be a teenager and thus non-consenting.
When the older man is, himself, a senior churchman with great power and influence, the younger one may very well be an adult (e.g. a college-aged seminarian). But the decadent desire of the older man for a “beautiful” (the term is so common in this homosexual sub-culture as to have become a cliché) younger man is the same in either case. (Notice also that the power dynamic is the same in either case, also.)
It would not be fair — it would be false — to assert that this power/youth dynamic is universal among all gay men. There are, of course, some homosexual men who have never been sexually involved with any male who wasn’t very close to their own age.
But it IS fair to point out that this power/youth dynamic is very commonplace among gay men. The proportion of homosexual men who have either been “groomed” in this way (whether as teens or adults), or who have themselves acted in this way towards significantly-younger males, is certainly in the double-digit percentages. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were a majority. (Naturally it’s difficult to have reliable stats on this.)
I agree with the prior comments.
This is ALL about homosexuality.
But homosexuality has become normalized by the Left. It is a “right” to marry [sic] another of the same gender. It is a right to be a “trans”. LGBTxxx, whatever.
Read the Papal encyclical “Humanae Vitae”, Neo, written in response to oral contraceptives way back in the 1960s. All of this was foreseen by a good Pope, a wise and virtuous man of the cloth.
“Pedophilia” has not (yet) been normalized, despite orgs like Man-Boy Love or whatever it is called.
So the priests are accused of pedophilia by the Church-hating media. Not of homosexuality.
Biologically, it is tough too be a celibate priest. The prostate does not care about devotion; it just manufactures secretions. Discharge of same by masturbation or other means is a sin.
Fact is that Christianity, all Catholic until Martin Luther about 1400 AD, has been the single most civilizing force on earth in the entire history of humanity.
And ALL observant Catholics, including the Pope, must attend confession of their sins. I dislike Pope Francis the Leftist intensely but I remain a devout Catholic. It is about the faith, not the man.
As a Catholic who cares very much about the Church, and as someone who follows Church politics, and as someone who knows a bit about Church history (real Church history and not the ‘common wisdom’ which is so distorted), I don’t know what to make of Pope Francis. It goes back to your “knave” or “fool” questions about Obama. I’m convinced he’s at least one of them, maybe both.
The conclusions I have come to is that he’s clearly out of his depth as Pope, he’s a terrible communicator who prefers to think out loud rather than carefully consider what he’s going to say and then says it once he’s figured out how to be clear and concise (to wit: he’s almost never clear and concise). On one hand, he would emphasize elements of Catholic doctrine unequivocally, and on the other he will say things that can be interpreted in a way that gives lots of leeway to dissenters. He _acts_ as if he knows he needs to tow the doctrinal line, but he wants to wink at all kinds of shenanigans. I’m not saying he does, but this explanation fits. Like I said above, it’s hard to know what he means most of the time.
His list of promotions since taking office have ranged from questionable to terrible. I’ve read stories about how he himself was strongly recommended to not be promoted back when he was rising through the ranks of the Jesuits. Then, there’s the issue of the Jesuits themselves, which have become a hive of dissent and heterodoxy in recent decades.
The whole situation is very upsetting, but as a Catholic, I know that God is ultimately in charge and that corruption in the Church can’t change that. I’m Catholic despite the Pope and the Bishops, not because of them.
St. Athanasius has been quoted as saying, “The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.” and this was almost 1700 years ago. Many saints have expressed similar sentiments over the centuries. This is nothing new and the Church will survive it, perhaps resulting in a much smaller, but purer Church as Pope Benedict has predicted (gee, why would he think that?). This is a guy who, if any of the many, many rumors are true, resigned because he felt powerless to deal with the innumerable political and moral messes that went to the highest levels in the Church.
The big difference between now and a few years ago is that now everyone is talking about corruption and cover-ups in the Vatican hierarchy. A few years ago, very few people were, but the evidence and the concerns were no less serious than they are now. There have been supernatural visions, approved by the Church as being worthy of belief, over the last century that have warned repeatedly about what we are seeing today. That approval doesn’t mean they are declared to definitely be true, but that they are found to be consistent with Catholic teaching, and the preponderance of evidence is that they are legitimate. In other words, it appears as if Jesus and the saints themselves are trying to warn us about really bad things. It was not without merit that Pope Paul VI warned that the smoke of Satan had infiltrated the Vatican, and this was almost 50 years ago.
There is no question that the Church was massively infiltrated by Communists in the period roughly from the 1930s to the 1950s, and we are still feeling the effects of this. Modernism is rampant in the Church hierarchy and needs to be weeded out forcefully, but hasn’t yet.
As to whether Pope Francis was personally complicit in cover-ups, I will refrain from guessing, but given the quality of many of the people he has promoted to cardinal, I definitely can’t rule it out. If nothing else, he’s been incredibly careless.
@R.C. I think an even more-precise term is “ephebophiles.”
I disagree with this. It’s a medicalization of the problem. And how do we apply that to our great-grandparent’s generation, who frequently married in their teens?
These evil men were attracted to young men and women, which is literally natural if everyone involved is biologically mature. Since people are not animals, “biologically mature” is not the applicable standard morally, and morally is where these men fell short, not medically.
As an aside,
I found myself confused by one part of the quote from Steven Hayward at Powerline: “Among the reasons I decided against becoming a Catholic is my worry that someday we might get a Pope like . . . Pope Francis.”
How does that make sense?
The only good reason to become a Catholic is because one becomes convinced that Catholicism is true.
(What other reason is possible? Cultural affinity? But one can easily express affection for the artwork of the Italian Renaissance without joining the Church.)
But “Catholicism” includes the belief that “the gates of hell/hades will not prevail against the Church,” which (in part) means that, no matter how bad the pope may be, he will be prevented by divine providence from exercising his Petrine authority to promulgate, to the universal Church, any error on any matter of faith or morals.
And indeed the history of the Church includes popes who are, without a doubt, even worse than Francis. (Admittedly, very few of them seem to have gone to such great lengths to sidestep any circumstance in which his remarks might be circumscribed by that “divine guardrail.” Honorius, maybe.)
So how does Hayward’s reason for not being a Catholic make sense? If Hayward believes Catholicism, he believes that no matter how bad the pope is, he won’t succeed in altering the teaching of the Church. If Hayward doesn’t believe Catholicism, why consider joining?
I suppose the reality is more likely a kind of middle-case: Hayward isn’t sure. He thinks it’s possible that the Church is what she claims, but isn’t willing to sign up for …well, frankly, for the kind of crap that Catholics are currently enduring, unless he’s absolutely sure.
After all, what IF the current pontiff were to come out tomorrow and say, “I dogmatically define and declare, in virtue of my Petrine office, that capital punishment has always been intrinsically evil; that homosexual acts between consenting adults do not have the character of sin, and that the second person of the Trinity is not one-in-substance with the Father.”
To become a Catholic is to bet one’s immortal soul that THAT will never happen, and even a 2,000-year excellent track-record thus far isn’t enough to remove all nervousness, during a pontificate like this one. Catholicism is, perhaps uniquely, an objectively-falsifiable religion.
So my guess is Hayward doesn’t want to join, only to find himself looking like an ass if Pope Francis manages to falsify the whole d*** faith six months later.
It’s not an intellectually-consistent fear to have, but it’s understandable.
I’ve been following this story for years. If you want a pretty good break-down of events check out Rod Dreher’s blog. It seems that things are coming to a head……which is a good thing. Hopefully, a true reform is coming.
I’ve been following this story for years. If you want a pretty good break-down of events check out Rod Dreher’s blog.
Uh, no. Dreher’s been making a dog’s breakfast of this story for 16 years. His responses to it are emotions-driven and self-centered. He’s about the last person you should read among those who know anything about it.
This is about evil. The reality is there is nothing new under the sun. From a discourse on the subject:
Saint Basil of Caesarea, the fourth century Church Father who wrote the principal rule of the monks of the East, establishes this: “The cleric or monk who molests youths or boys or is caught kissing or committing some turpitude, let him be whipped in public, deprived of his crown [tonsure] and, after having his head shaved, let his face be covered with spittle; and [let him be] bound in iron chains, condemned to six months in prison, reduced to eating rye bread once a day in the evening three times per week. After these six months living in a separate cell under the custody of a wise elder with great spiritual experience, let him be subjected to prayers, vigils and manual work, always under the guard of two spiritual brothers, without being allowed to have any relationship . . . with young people.”
With regard to the above:
“The quote is from St. Peter Damian’s Letter 31, written in about 1050. He (wrongly) attributes the passage to St. Basil.
The footnote in my edition say this of the passage:
‘This quotation, which Damian’s source (probably Burchard’s Libri Decretorum, lib. 17, cap. 35; PL 140, 925D) attributes to St. Basil, is in reality a slightly truncated form of a penalty prescribed for monks by St. Fructuosus of Braga (d. 665) (Regula Monachorum, cap. 16; PL 87, 1107A–B). A section of it also appears in the decrees of Ecgbert, bishop of York (d. 766) (PL 89, 387D), who correctly attributes it to Fructuosus, but in the later Collectio Canonum Quadripartia, (a manual used and referenced widely during the latter part of the early middle ages in France, England, and Italy), it contains no attribution. By the tenth century, collections of canon law such as Burchard’s were incorrectly attributing it to Basil.'”
Either way, this is a long, long time ago. As a devout Catholic residing in the Los Angeles Archdiocese, I feel the same way about the current issues that I did back when we were dealing with the fall-out of the sex-abuse scandal. The Church will have to enunciate the historical understanding, premised on scripture regarding sexual activity. Anything outside of marriage is verboten. Homosexual activity is singled-out as especially verboten. Those facts are VERY UNPOPULAR positions in our western culture, but not new issues, obviously. The current McCarrick situation again brings to light that the preponderant number of cases involve male/male abuse. When the Church does recover its voice on these issues, it will have a winnowing effect. Telling a currently embraced sector of our society that based on ancient writings/teachings, homosexual individuals can’t engage in sexual intimacy, and that sex outside of marriage is morally wrong will be a bridge too far for many that want to follow the faith. But that is the truth. I’m prepared for the unpopularity.
@Frederick:
I disagree with [characterizing the problem as “ephebophilia” rather than pedophilia”]. It’s a medicalization of the problem.
Hmm. I certainly don’t intend to “medicalize” the problem…if by “medicalize” you mean, “treat the evil behavior as the result of a medical problem which the perpetrator is helpless to control.”
I hold that it is wickedly evil for a 25-year-old man to seduce a 15-year-old boy, or a 5-year-old boy. The former, because it involves a post-pubescent child, is typically called “ephebophilia” not “pedophilia”; the latter, because it involves a pre-pubescent child, is called “pedophilia” not “ephebophilia.” So far as I know, the physical maturity of the minor is the only distinction between the two terms. I don’t think either term is more “medicalized” than the other.
You also add, “And how do we apply that to our great-grandparent’s generation, who frequently married in their teens?”
…but this comment confuses me. Why should the two be considered in any way comparable?
I was describing relations wherein an older person, who through age or position holds power over the younger, seduces the younger into intrinsically immoral activity (which is likely to become habitual, lifelong, and self-destructive).
By contrast, two persons who married in “our great-grandparent’s generation” were…
(a.) not entering into immoral activity, but rather into a deeply moral and holy vocation;
(b.) not usually much disparate in age or power, unless the male were significantly older and wealthier, which certainly happened on occasion but was not the norm.
So while both cases involve persons under eighteen years’ age, that’s the only thing they have in common.
Finally, you add, “These evil men were attracted to young men and women, which is literally natural if everyone involved is biologically mature.” Well, my earlier point was that it was very rarely young women. I believe the lowest percentage I’ve seen for the proportion of victims who were post-pubescent male is 81%. And obviously the percentage of seminarian and fellow clergy victims/participants who are post-pubescent males is 100%.
Secondly, “literally natural if everyone involved is biologically mature” can only be correct for certain (modern) values of the word “natural.” If “natural” is construed according to the Catholic understanding of Natural Law Ethics, then “literally natural” would only apply to the attractions of men towards young women. Because the telos of sexual gratification is dynastic expansion (i.e., not just baby-making but baby-rearing and even the attendant grand-baby-spoiling some forty years hence) only relations between sexually-mature males and females can be labeled “natural” in Catholic ethics.
Thirdly, I was making the distinction between pedophilia and ephebophilia, and asserting that the priestly-unchastity/abuse problem is almost entirely of the latter variety. But that is in no way an excuse!
Morally, a priest who masturbates is guilty of sacrilege (because he is a priest) and of unchastity. If he engages in sexual gratification with a woman-not-his-wife, he is guilty of sacrilege, unchastity, and fornication (because he is not married to her). If he engages in sexual gratification with another man his same age, he is guilty of all those same things, PLUS the perversion of his sexual faculties away from their correct telos. If he engages in seducing a teenaged boy (where there is an unequal power dynamic) he is guilty of all those same things plus coercion (rape) and probably moral corruption of a minor. And so on….
It seems as if you think that I, by pointing out that the vast majority of incidents involved clergy abusing or being unchaste with post-pubescent males, that I was saying they were not “sinful” but merely “medical problems.”
I assure you, I was not saying that at all.
Hopefully my response clarifies that.
@RC:I assure you, I was not saying that at all.
You were saying it, though I acknowledge you did not intend to.
The “-philia” suffix is how clinical sexual problems are described (“paraphilia”)–pedophilia, coprophilia, necrophilia, etc.
“Most clinicians and researchers believe that paraphilic sexual interests cannot be altered, although evidence is needed to support this. Instead, the goal of therapy is normally to reduce the person’s discomfort with their paraphilia and limit any criminal behavior.”
There is no “-philia” for homosexual attraction–not any more–because it’s been normalized by the medical community and is no longer considered a sexual disorder. The powers that be have decreed it. You may have a good idea of which powers these are.
I think I understand your position very well–but I caution you against using the rhetorical tools of those you oppose. It’s not really true that language limits how we think, but some terms are designed to import premises into an argument, e. g. “gender assignment”.
“Uh, no. Dreher’s been making a dog’s breakfast of this story for 16 years. His responses to it are emotions-driven and self-centered. He’s about the last person you should read among those who know anything about it.”
Funny about how he gets emotional about child rape and sexual abuse of young men.
He has been on this story since the early 90’s and it has certainly taken its toll on him. I’m not a Dreher apologist but I can’t think of anyone else that has been deeply invested in this story for so long. I don’t think that he lies about it. He can be a bit emotional. He doesn’t defend abusive priests like the mainstream liberal media seems to be doing. They want the church liberalized…….but who am I to judge?
CNN or NYTimes are better?
Brian–I highly recommend Bishop Robert Barron as a voice regarding these issues. He’s written articles and has done an interview. All excellent.
This site offers interesting insights into the problem as it has developed. Unfortunately, it doesn’t supply the remedies – which are applied morality. Morality established both individually and throughout the clergy.
By infiltrating the Church, it seems to me that the Communists have been way more successful than any direct attack would have been – but that’s true of our USA principles as well. They’ve been working on it a very long time, and we’ve done nothing to counter their efforts. In fact, their efforts have been so insidious, I’m not even sure how their efforts can be countered.
http://www.traditionalcatholicmass.com/home-m135.html
Re: Rome and the Vatican. Did you visit the Castel Sant’Angelo? It’s pretty cool.
https://www.rome.net/castel-sant-angelo
I can’t believe I said “tow the line” instead of “toe the line”. It’s a pet peeve of mine. Oh, well.
Funny about how he gets emotional about child rape and sexual abuse of young men. He has been on this story since the early 90’s and it has certainly taken its toll on him.
1. No, he hasn’t ‘been on this story’ ‘since the early 90s’. In 1993, he was a nominal Methodist employed as a film and restaurant critic. He’s written fitfully about this subject since about 2001. BTW, he’s an opinion journalist, not a reporter. He’s never done original reporting at any time in his career.
2. No, one does not assess a situation properly by (a) being driven by one’s own embarrassment in front of one’s secular peers and (b) being unable and unwilling to sort through evidence and understand the mechanics of decision-making when you have deficient evidence. None of that ever mattered to Dreher. What mattered to Rod was Rod’s feelings.
3. You have nothing of value to contribute to this discussion.
Read Windswept House for what was going on inside the Vatican.
Also, all those here that called me anti Catholic for writing and speaking the truth about the Church of Rome, better get those digs in early while you can before you get face slapped again.
Also all you people that wanted to write it but did not dare, just do it. Before it is too late ; )
“My history of the Jesuits is not eloquently written, but it is supported by unquestionable authorities, [and] is very particular and very horrible. Their [the Jesuit Order’s] restoration [in 1814 by Pope Pius VII] is indeed a step toward darkness, cruelty, despotism, [and] death. … I do not like the appearance of the Jesuits. If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth and in hell, it is this Society of [Ignatius de] Loyola.”
John Adams (1735-1826; 2nd President of the United States)
“Between 1555 and 1931 the Society of Jesus [i.e., the Jesuit Order] was expelled from at least 83 countries, city states and cities, for engaging in political intrigue and subversion plots against the welfare of the State, according to the records of a Jesuit priest of repute [Thomas J. Campbell]. …Practically every instance of expulsion was for political intrigue, political infiltration, political subversion, and inciting to political insurrection.” (1987)
J.E.C. Shepherd (Canadian historian)
Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln
This [American Civil] war [of 1861-1865] would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits. We owe it to popery that we now see our land reddened with the blood of her noblest sons. Though there were great differences of opinion between the South and the North on the question of slavery, neither Jeff Davis [President of the Confederacy] nor anyone of the leading men of the Confederacy would have dared to attack the North, had they not relied on the promises of the Jesuits, that under the mask of Democracy, the money and arms of the Roman Catholic, even the arms of France, were at their disposal if they would attack us. I pity the priests, the bishops and monks of Rome in the United States, when the people realize that they are, in great part, responsible for the tears and the blood shed in this war. I conceal what I know on that subject from the knowledge of the nation, for if the people knew the whole truth, this war would turn into a religious war, and it would at once take a tenfold more savage and bloody character. It would become merciless as all religious wars are. It would become a war of extermination on both sides.”
— Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865; 16th President of the United States)
“The Jesuits…are a secret society – a sort of Masonic order – with superadded features of revolting odiousness, and a thousand times more dangerous.”
— Samuel Morse (1791-1872; American inventor of the telegraph; author of the book Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States)
“The Jesuits are a MILITARY organization, not a religious order. Their chief is a general of an army, not the mere father abbot of a monastery. And the aim of this organization is power – power in its most despotic exercise – absolute power, universal power, power to control the world by the volition of a single man [i.e., the Black Pope, the Superior General of the Jesuits]. Jesuitism is the most absolute of despotisms [sic] – and at the same time the greatest and most enormous of abuses.”–Napoleon Bonaparte; 1769-1821
The Jesuits…are simply the Romish army for the earthly sovereignty of the world in the future, with the Pontiff of Rome for emperor…that’s their ideal. …It is simple lust of power, of filthy earthly gain, of domination – something like a universal serfdom with them [i.e., the Jesuits] as masters – that’s all they stand for. They don’t even believe in God perhaps.”
—Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881; Russian novelist)
The organization of the [Roman Catholic] Hierarchy is a complete military despotism, of which the Pope is the ostensible [i.e., apparent; seeming] head; but of which, the Black Pope [Ed. Note: The Superior General of the Jesuits], is the real head. The Black Pope is the head of the order of the Jesuits, and is called a General [i.e., the Superior General]. He not only has command of his own order, but [also] directs and controls the general policy of the [Roman Catholic] Church. He [the Black Pope] is the power behind the throne, and is the real potential head of the Hierarchy. The whole machine is under the strictest rules of military discipline. The whole thought and will of this machine, to plan, propose and execute, is found in its head. There is no independence of thought, or of action, in its subordinate parts. Implicit and unquestioning obedience to the orders of superiors in authority, is the sworn duty of the priesthood of every grade…”
— Brigadier General Thomas M. Harris He wrote the book, “Rome’s responsibility for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln” – which exposes the work of the Jesuits
“The presence of the Jesuits in any country, Romanist [i.e., Catholic] or Protestant, is likely to breed social disturbance.”–Lord Palmerston, a British statesman who served twice as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the mid-19th century.
Sharon W on August 28, 2018 at 2:43 pm at 2:43 pm said:
Brian–I highly recommend Bishop Robert Barron as a voice regarding these issues. He’s written articles and has done an interview. All excellent.
I watched his interview on Rubin report for 2017 recently. Barron claimed that these minor child abuse cases had been dealt with by the Vatican… who is lying here?
The Penn Grand Jury report directly contradicts that. This wasn’t dealt with, this was systematic protection of child rapists.
By infiltrating the Church, it seems to me that the Communists have been way more successful than any direct attack would have been – but that’s true of our USA principles as well. They’ve been working on it a very long time, and we’ve done nothing to counter their efforts. In fact, their efforts have been so insidious, I’m not even sure how their efforts can be countered.
That theory falls apart because when Bella Dodd told the Vatican priests about the homosexual Leftist infiltrators in seminary, what did the Vatican do about it? Nothing much. The Leftist alliance and the Jesuit order have always been closely tied. One often suspects that one created the other even.
One of the best uses of revolutionary fervor was to enforce the Counter Reformation by weakening and destroying Protestant regimes that were classified by Rome as rebels, heretics, and excommunicated targets of opportunity for rape and pillage.
I do further declare that the doctrine of the churches of England and Scotland, of the Calvinists, Huguenots and others of the name Protestants or Liberals to be damnable and they themselves damned who will not forsake the same.
I do further declare, that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of his Holiness’ agents in any place wherever I shall be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, England, Ireland or America, or in any other Kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my uttermost to extirpate the heretical Protestants or Liberals’ doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, regal or otherwise.
I do further promise and declare, that notwithstanding I am dispensed with, to assume my religion heretical, for the propaganda of the Mother Church’s interest, to keep secret and private all her agents’ counsels from time to time, as they may entrust me and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing or circumstance whatever; but to execute all that shall be proposed, given in charge or discovered unto me, by you, my ghostly father, or any of this sacred covenant.
I do further promise and declare, that I will have no opinion or will of my own, or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac cadaver), but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the Militia of the Pope and of Jesus Christ.
That I may go to any part of the world withersoever I may be sent, to the frozen regions of the North, the burning sands of the desert of Africa, or the jungles of India, to the centers of civilization of Europe, or to the wild haunts of the barbarous savages of America, without murmuring or repining, and will be submissive in all things whatsoever communicated to me.
I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants’ heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus.
The Jesuits are far older than the Leftist alliance. The Dominican torturers may be older. The Inquisition interrogation of the old Knights Templar that fled to Britain, required around 3 Dominican friars and priests to handle the torture because not even the English crown had enough psychopathic talent to handle the “mercy” given to the captured Knights Templars. The Knights Templars were given autonomous command structure and writ of authority directly under the P of Rome.
That is how much loyalty counts for in the Church of Rome. Children? What about them. They were even weaker than the Templars after all.
The Church of Rome and by extension its head the Vatican is a human organization. They are about as “Holy” as a golf club.
My understanding is that there’s a hidden schism in the Church clergy, where a good portion of them (especially higher up in the ranks, it seems) are PRACTICING homosexuals.
This is not a “pedophile” scandal, it is a homosexual scandal. Almost none of the victims are ever girls.
There seems to be a policy of mutually assured destruction between the two factions, so each keeps quiet. Francis is much more tolerant of this than the conservative clergy, and possibly even personally implicated. His first inclination is to purge the Church of the conservatives.
The Catholic Church is undergoing the same social rot that progressivism has inflicted everywhere else, although its weaknesses are…particular.
Regarding Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò of Ulpiana (a diocese in the Balkans) veracity, “Former nunciature official: ‘Vigano said the truth'”
I don’t see how Francis can escape his resigning in disgrace.
I don’t think he’ll resign. Pope Francis the Ambiguous will dodge, weave and duck. I follow Fr Z’s blog, who aggregates much of what is being written, adding his own analysis. Here’s some of the latest: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2018/08/the-pope-responds-about-the-vigano-testimony-what-he-said-and-what-he-maybe-really-said/
Some commenters there are categorizing the response of the Pope’s allies as pure Alinskyite. The Catholic media/blogosphere has been ablaze the last several days.
While I can’t say for sure that the Pope knew and was complicit in playing politics with ecclesial appointments, it seems to me that attacking the character of the one making accusations shows guilt. Refute the accusations, don’t denigrate the man.
My faith is not shaken, for “Put not your trust in princes”. I’m ticked off by all of this. I believe Vigano, who said he wanted to clear his conscience before God as he is getting very old. He swore to the truth of it.
He’s being accused of not telling the truth on certain points, and has released (today I think) a statement refuting the claims. That’s how honest people act, not by throwing mud.
Faith2014,
After making the comment above, I too read that Francis is currently saying he won’t resign. That may or may not hold but if it does, it will be a stake in the heart of Catholicism.
“Pope Benedict confirms he disciplined McCarrick, sources claim”
Since Francis restored McCarrick, it makes Francis complicit in the abuse. Which makes Francis’ recent utterances in Ireland appallingly hypocritical. If Francis has been in effect facilitating the abuse, his public statements about abuse are extremely offensive.
More evidence is going to emerge and the blowback will be intense. Criminal charges may well follow.
Then there’s this: “In a television interview with NBC News, Cardinal Cupich commented on a recent 11-page statement by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former papal nuncio to the United States, that alleges a series of misdeeds by high-ranking Catholic prelates, including Pope Francis himself.
“The pope has a bigger agenda. He’s gotta get on with other things, of talking about the environment and protecting migrants and carrying on the work of the Church,” Cardinal Cupich said.”
Vigano has already responded to Cupich’s disputing Vigano’s accusations.
Though it begs the question; upon what basis would Cupich have for disputing Vigano’s claim to having informed Francis in 2013 of McCarrick’s serial predations?
This kind of tone deafness is deadly. If the veracity of Vigano’s charges are proven beyond a reasonable doubt and Francis stays, the Church is going to see massive loses in its parishioners because staying will make them complicit in the abuse.
Cardinal Cupich also said: “Quite frankly, they also don’t like him because he’s a Latino.”
Quite simply, a vile statement.
To get the real picture, I think it is valuable to read Malachi Martin’s novels, which are roman a clef.
Windswept House is one I haven’t read and will do so.
I can think of a good explanation as to why Francis is not addressing sexual abuse by the clergy. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Since Francis restored McCarrick, it makes Francis complicit in the abuse. Which makes Francis’ recent utterances in Ireland appallingly hypocritical. If Francis has been in effect facilitating the abuse, his public statements about abuse are extremely offensive. More evidence is going to emerge and the blowback will be intense. Criminal charges may well follow.
The accusation contra McCarrick is that he hit on seminarians. Laws against consensual sodomy haven’t been enforced in most jurisdictions for some time, so there isn’t a basis for criminal charge unless he drugged people or made use of coercion. There might be a tort if he extorted their co-operation. The thing is, McCarrick is 87 years old. It’s a reasonable wager that any activity was some time ago and charges and suits are time-barred.
Benedict put McCarrick under an interdict as a disciplinary measure. Francis lifted the interdict because he doesn’t care about misconduct unless it can be used as a tool to humiliate an institutional adversary. (And McCarrick is an ally and counselor).
As a Christian…I’m deeply sickened by the widening swirls of the Roman church around the toilet they have fashioned for themselves. If someone was trying to destroy the Roman church what would they do differently?
Bergoglio has to go. Vigano’s allegations are exactly the nuke they are reported as being. The College of Cardinals may have to be swept clean and every complicit bishop should be de-frocked…perhaps jailed. But who is trustworthy enough to do any of that?
There is no credibility in their witness or their “reforms” any longer. How does any faithful Roman Catholic kneel before their priest with the questions hanging like Damocles’ Sword, “Is he one of the guilty? What secrets is he keeping?”
I’m not part of their religious empire, but damn them for making it harder for the rest of us to share the gospel of Christ with the world when the headlines & hearts around us scream “Do not trust these buggers!” and we are all tarred with the same brush.
John Guilfoyle,
I share your sentiments. Evil finds goodness irresistible and there is and evidently has for many decades been a cancer growing within the Catholic Church.
Like all virulent cancers, it must be rooted out or it will overcome the host. Though the Catholic hierarchy is not the “body of Christ” on earth, which is made up of those who truly believe in his message, mission and example.
Sensus Fidelium:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQsK8cSxS60
…aaaand, Fr. Lankeit in Phoenix:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOXPRpfjbtM
…aaaand, here’s Taylor Marshall with what seems to me to be a very plausible in-depth look at the current goings-on, set in the context of the Vatican banking scandal and the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q2HSJ6cbMY
…aaaand, not to be outdone, Michael Voris gives us the most authentically Catholic take on why Pope Francis should resign:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yScaroYHlVw
So, that’s all very interesting.
* * * * * * * * * *
Incidentally, Neo, I’m curious:
How is it you came to be surrounded by so many of us Catholics, and relatively Catholic-friendly persons, all of a sudden?
It seems you have an awful lot of Catholics commenting here. And even the non-Catholics seem more-than-usually aware of Catholic things (setting aside ymarsakar, of course!).
Other than your current trip to Rome, Neo, I couldn’t really think of any obvious reason this would be.
(You’re not in the middle of discerning a call to consecrated religious life or anything, are you?)
Trans-social, today. Tomorrow… normalization.
Not only that: secular people who work with children have similar statistics to Catholic (or non-Catholic) priests that work with children. And indeed, last years a priest that works with children is far less likely to abuse than a secular working with children. To be honest, that’s probably due to the abuse campaign, but nobody talks about this… not even the Church.
I disagree. It’s not about hate (considering hate the ultimate cause that explains everything seems to be the vice of our time), but about weakness. Pope Francis has chosen not to defend the Church. And people smell weakness. That’s one of the few constants in life: show fear, show weakness, and the wolves will fall on you.
Besides that, it’s also wrong. He’s not a Latino, he’s Argentinian.
Argentinians use to migrate to Europe, instead of US. And in Europe they’re not considered Latinos. They’re considered simply Argentinians.
@ R.C.: I don’t mean to speak for her, but Neo is on a family reunion which so happens to be in Italy.
@ John: “How does any faithful Roman Catholic kneel before their priest with the questions hanging like Damocles’ Sword, “Is he one of the guilty? What secrets is he keeping?”
Because we aren’t paranoid like some Christians. Our brains don’t function in a way that when we see our parish priest we think “possible sex abuser” like when liberals see a cop and think “possible racist cop.”
GRA…I’m not sure I even understand your answer.
But I don’t think most Christians are “paranoid”…I just know that the varied scandals emanating from the Roman church & the multiple levels of complicity that keep getting peeled back ought to give the most faithful at least some pause. If you are personally not fazed & can trust your particular priest, good on ya. I pray that you never have reason to change that opinion.
I look at cops & see “law enforcement.” But I look at the morass of the Roman church’s sex stuff…and I wonder even about the great Irish priest I have lunch with once a month. I used to study in the library of the Pontifical College Josephinium in Columbus, OH and got to know a bunch of the young soon-to-be-priests. Some of those guys…well…I’m glad they are where they are and I’m not there. Just sayin’.
@ConceptJunkie: Thank you for writing the post that most perfectly expresses my thoughts on this mess and this Pope. It helped to clarify my thinking.
@Cicero: Agree. All acts of abuse must be punished but it is estimated that 75-80% of the cases are considered homosexual acts. I have a gay friend who left a seminary in the ’70s because of all the homosexual activity. He didn’t approve. He also left the Church.
@Yann: Yes, secular people who work with kids have similar statistics. Neo has posted some of these findings in the past. This in NO WAY absolves the Church of its guilt in these matters. But it is ironic that today, in 2018, your child is probably safer from abuse in a Catholic setting than in a public school.
I have worked/volunteered in one of the largest Roman Catholic archdioceses in the US since 2006. I am involved in the religious education of our parish children between the ages of Pre-K to 8th grade. A criminal background check and a child abuse clearance is required from the state for all involved including parents who just wish to sit in their child’s classroom. An FBI fingerprint report is necessary if you have not lived in the state over the past 10 consecutive years. Besides that, there is training involved specific for all Catholic institutions across the country. Also, everyone involved – including hall monitors – is a Mandated Reporter. That means they must report any disclosure of abuse made by a child or any observed abuse to the state authorities. Failure to do so is a misdemeanor. This is not a parish school – it’s the Catholic equivalent of Sunday school. We meet for an hour and a half on Sunday mornings. Every bishop, priest, deacon and seminarian in the archdiocese has to provide the same documentation.
My neighbor in this major metropolitan area is a public high school teacher and has been a Boy Scout troop leader for about 25 years. He has come to ME in the past 5 years to get advice on what he should be doing in terms of Safe Environment clearances. He has told me that he wasn’t hearing much from either the administration in his school or from the Boy Scouts. I am not saying these institutions don’t have policies in place but I don’t know how well they are being communicated. That should disturb parents.
Again, I am in NO WAY absolving the Church or those who are guilty of sins of both commission AND commission. They need to be removed and punished for their crimes and their sins. Yes, the Church needs a cleansing now as it has many times in the past. Human beings sin and for that they need to repent and make reparation as best they can.
Many good men – many more than those who committed these crimes – will be tarred with the same brush. We know that. Many of us laity will also be accused of being accomplices if we remain in the Church. We know that too. But we don’t worship an institution or any man. We worship Jesus Christ who founded this Church. As St. Peter said in last Sunday’s gospel when Jesus asked him and the apostles if they were going to leave Him too, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”
Of course. And the Church needs to be tough on them, no excuses. But they need to defend themselves too to let people know what the real data are, and to call out misleading information in the media. Letting people believe misleading information about you is not virtuous. It’s nuts.
It seems that letting other people take you down is considered the most important virtue of our time. The whole Western World has entered that suicidal dynamic, and it seems that the Church finally joined. And it’s deeply uncomfortable when something so unhealthy and insane becomes suddenly a mainstream signal of virtue.
Yann,
Yes I certainly agree with that. (and I meant sins of commission and Omission)
The unjustly accused need to be able to defend themselves and we need to hear from the guilty about what went down. I am afraid that the situation that you describe today – the kangaroo court of Twitter and other social media – will prevent us from finding out what the real data is or identifying what is true from what is false. I hope not.
@Yann and @Ann – Actually, his parents were born in Italy, so technically an Argentinian, but probably a mix of both cultures.
~~
Blaise Cardinal Cupich’s ‘racism’ angle is sickening. However, that is of no surprise. A couple of years ago, during another big to-do, the Germans cardinals insulted all of the African cardinals.
@John Guilfoyle – oh we have LOTS of faithful, fearless, orthodox bishops and cardinals. Sarah of Guinea, Arinze of Nigeria, (another bishop of Nigeria has been pretty vocal as of late), Paprocki of Springfield, IL (who performed an exorcism at the Capitol after the same sex marriage debacle), Burke… I could go on and on and on. Unless you are an observant Catholic, you wouldn’t know the names. But we have many who are good shepherds.
The sinfulness of a priest does nothing to change the fact that the Eucharist is present as the Body and Blood of Christ at Mass. I couldn’t leave Peter because of Judas!
@Yann – weakness, yes, but hate – definitely. Jesus told us that this would happen. Sin hates the light, and the Catholic Church still stands by the eternal truths that are so incredibly unpopular (sin is bad), despite some blatherings of priests/bishops / cardinals who place and teach their opinions over the opinions of the Church.
Faith2014:
I’m not sure it’s racism. Maybe it’s culture and philosophical framework that is being talked about in terms of the Latin American clergy.
Several years ago I heard that priests from Latin American cultures have a different attitude towards priestly celibacy, and were more “flexible” about it. I have no idea whether this is true (my sample was one), but I have read articles that assert it is true.
I’m not a Christian so I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I do have a couple of observations.
My father was born on the eve of WWI and grew up in Poland, which is very Catholic. I remember him commenting during the previous pedophile scandal that he was’t surprised, it was no different than the Catholic Church in Poland which was immensely corrupt. This connects with the general observation that large unelected, unaccountable bureaucracies tend to become mendacious and corrupt, cf., FBI, DOJ today, and D.C. in general.
Regarding the size of the Vatican, it was deliberately designed to be gigantic. If you noticed, there are marks on the floor showing the size of the other large Christian churches of the day. The largest of them is Saint Sophia in Constantinople/Istanbul built in 500 AD. The Vatican was explicitly designed to be bigger, 1000 years later! If you get a chance, go to Istanbul and see S. Sophia, it’s extremely impressive. It must have been dazzling before it was sacked and stripped of its treasures and decorations.
Frederick on Aug 28 wrote:
“There is no “-philia” for homosexual attraction–not any more–because it’s been normalized by the medical community and is no longer considered a sexual disorder. The powers that be have decreed it.”
He blames the language of medicine! “-phyllia” is merely a descriptor of Latin root, nothing more.
The Medical community did not normalize homosexuality. The general public, particularly its Democratic politicians, plus SCOTUS, did. Those are the “powers that be.” Psychiatrists with their DSM concurred, but psychiatrists are not in my MD view true physicians, they blow with the wind, and they are notoriously Leftist aka Democrats.
Faith2014:
By the way, Argentina is not exactly a melting pot. The different groups there retain their European origins to a greater extent than here. Italians ethnics are the largest group in Argentina; at least that’s my impression (I’ve spent some time there). Lots of Germans, too (and not just old Nazis).
My father was born on the eve of WWI and grew up in Poland, which is very Catholic. I remember him commenting during the previous pedophile scandal that he was’t surprised, it was no different than the Catholic Church in Poland which was immensely corrupt.
And how would your father know a blessed thing about the internal operations of Catholic Dioceses in Poland?
Several years ago I heard that priests from Latin American cultures have a different attitude towards priestly celibacy,
No they don’t. The only component of the Church that has a ‘different attitude’ toward celibacy would be the Eastern-rite eparchies, and it isn’t an ‘attitude’, it’s a different disciplinary regime delineated in black letters in their canon law. In Latin American dioceses, they may be more lax about priestly chastity. I would tend to doubt that sexual deviance is regarded more congenially in Latin America than it is in North America or Europe. (In this country, it’s now the fashion to favor draconian penalties contra someone who violates a juvenile while being indifferent to perversion among those who’ve passed some chronological magic number).
The Medical community did not normalize homosexuality.
No, they just sat back and allowed ideologues to take over their professional associations and publications, the American Academy of Pediatrics in particular. Yes, psychiatrists (who are trained in medical schools and university hospitals, just like other physicians, btw) have their history of distinctive and peculiar betrayals of public trust, but the rest of the medical profession is bloody guilty as well.
Listening to non-Christians on Christianity is a bit like listening to Pocahontas Warren on Limbaugh.
As to whether Pope Francis was personally complicit in cover-ups, I will refrain from guessing, but given the quality of many of the people he has promoted to cardinal, I definitely can’t rule it out. If nothing else, he’s been incredibly careless.
The Holy See doesn’t have the manpower to be a personnel bureau for the 3,000 dioceses in this world. It can amend Canon Law, remove bad bishops, issues some legal decisions, and work to improve the quality of episcopal appointments. They’d only be responsible in an odd circumstance wherein a case landed in front of one of the Church’s central tribunals. That’s rare. The problem with Francis is that he lifted an interdict that Benedict had placed on Cdl. McCarrick in 2009. That wasn’t known before last week. Now it is. And we have a pretty good idea of why: McCarrick is one of his favorites.
There was a time, before the Catholic Church became not only identified as, but overtly became in fact a welcoming environmental and lifestyle niche for homosexuals, when even those social commentators unsympathetic to the papacy, and the dogmas, and the plaster saints, recognized THE core of unyielding Christian tradition as existing within the Church. If a comet was about to hit the earth, all eyes would have looked to Rome, not to a tent show revivalist. If an unspeakably abominable heresy confronted the greater Christian community, men, even those who rejected the disciplines and practices of the Church, would have looked to Rome for the definitive and most intellectually precise and orthodox response.
However, the insinuation and mutual promotion of homosexual men within the clergy, has inevitably led to the near collapse of Catholic orthodoxy, as homosexual men are estranged from the most basic dynamic of human society; heterosexual reproduction. What then is one to expect when it falls to the sexually perverted to pronounce on the laws of God and Nature which have been developed to guide this developmental process. They try to develop something else, using what leverage they have.
There are other Christian churches in communion with Rome which do not seem to have precisely this problem. And there are orthodox Christian churches with valid sacraments and almost identical doctrines and dogmas of faith, the Orthodox Church, being one.
But for those in the West, and the Latin church, it looks quite as though the “abomination of desolation”, has nearly arrived.
Yes, well they have diplomas; and in the kind of rhetoric wars seen in the NYT, or on PBS, it becomes a useful thing to wave about in a one-upsmanship contest.
I’m afraid I am no expert in this area. But if you would wish to do some tangential, era relevant reading – which would probably appeal mostly to insiders and those active faithful often maligned as a “peasant Catholic” kind – You might look up Faustina Kowalska … https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/200px-Faustina.jpg/220px-200px-Faustina.jpg
Argentine has always been more related to Italy than to Spain. Indeed, most of Argentinians I’ve met had italian roots.
SueK says,
Sue,
It’s pretty obvious that the various communist block intelligence services co-opted and turned certain Catholic and Orthodox clerics, and even had success with other European clerics, as in Italy and I believe France.
However, despite all the claims made by Bella Dodd and others as to the supposed instructions they received from Moscow, and the efficacy of their implementation of the recruitment activities to which they were assigned, I have yet to see so much as one name named, much less confirmed. Not one US seminarian or prelate has as far as I am aware been identified as resulting from this supposed plan.
Were there known instances of communist European prelates and priests? Yes, obviously.
Are and were there Catholic prelates who were heretics and communists? Yes. Were and have the Catholic seminaries increasingly been filled with sexually disordered males according to a filtering process instituted by heretical homosexual prelates? Yes, clearly.
But unlike the case of Whittaker Chambers naming names, and unlike the case where progressive protestant World Council of Churches members have been revealed as communist subversives, there is no instance so far as I am aware of a documented case of a Soviet recruited seminarian entering, much less sticking the course of the road to the priesthood.
It looks to me that the perverts and potential subversives flocked there on their own, as it looked to be an attractive roost and social cover, and that like eventually attracted like, and worked to filter out the rest.
No, it’s not true. But there’s some truth there.
What’s more ‘flexible’ about celibacy is the Christian Catholic left. That was the same both in Europe and Latin-America.
However, in Europe the left is mostly Atheist or at least secular. The Catholic left is (or was) far more common in Latin-America. So, while statistically correct, it’s a collateral effect.
Art Deco:
I’m not sure what you meant in your comment at 11:50 AM.
My understanding of celibacy is that it involves the voluntary refraining from sexual relations with people of any sex or age. Let us assume for the sake of argument that although homosexuality and/or attraction to children or teenagers may be more common among the Catholic clergy than in general (and I don’t know whether this is so), that still doesn’t mean that a priest would act on these urges. Obviously, however, some have done so.
But (and I didn’t make this clear in my previous comment) what I was referring to when I said that about Latin American priests and their attitude towards celibacy, I was specifically meaning to refer to their attitude towards heterosexual celibacy was more lax. To be even more specific, I had in mind sexual relations between priests and adult women—not marriage and not homosexuality.
And then there is also this sort of thing (written in 2009):
Yann:
Please see my comment above this one.
“…the Catholic Church in Poland which was immensely corrupt.” Paul in Boston
The land of St. Pope John Paul II and St. Maximillian Kolbe? Come on.
Neo says,
Since the institution in question is the Catholic Church, why not get it straight from the horse’s mouth?
DNW:
Then it’s more chastity I’m referring to, in this case heterosexual chastity.
I wonder if the BSA is doing a better job of assimilating their transgender leaders, rather than being overtaken by their influence.
Then it’s more chastity I’m referring to, in this case heterosexual chastity.
neo: All Catholics are called upon to be chaste.
What most non-Catholics don’t understand is that the window for non-sinful sex is exceedingly narrow according to Church teachings. Only married couples who have sex for love while not preventing procreation are doing so properly.
All other voluntary sexual pleasure — whether heterosexual, homosexual, solo, or fantasy — is sinful. Even a married couple who have sex purely for pleasure are acting unchastely.
All priests, monks, and nuns take a vow of celibacy — not to marry. However, monks and nuns also take a vow of chastity, in which case if they sin against chastity they also commit a sacrilege.
Thanks Faith2014…I am blessed by your faith.
Not a single reference to Luke?
17:1-2
Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.
12:48
But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
This ain’t hell, but I can smell the brimstone from here.
My mother converted to Catholicism when I was 12. I attended parochial schools from seventh grade on. I was horrified by how the priests and nuns treated children. By the time I graduated I hated the Church.
Years later I discovered that two of my best schoolfriends had been hit upon by priests.
I wasn’t surprised by that or by the ongoing revelations since. It seemed a natural, if extreme, extension of the general abuse I had seen of children and teens in Catholic schools.
Actually, it fits what I previously said. Jerónimo Podestá was a main figure in the Catholic Left, including its most important school, the Teología de la Liberación. That school of thought was extremely important in Latin-America, but it had almost no influence in Europe.
That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t find it in Europe: one close member of my family was a married priest, for example. And so it was my most beloved teacher (just in case: I’m talking about his influence as a teacher). In Europe you could find this opposition to celibacy in the ‘Worker-Priests’ movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker-Priest), sometimes called ‘Red Priests’ and near circles. By the way, Podestá was part of the ‘worker priest’ movement.
The key element here is that this opposition to celibacy was not about sex but about marriage and the right to marry. In general, Catholic left has traditionally supported family and lifelong marriage (if possible).
But…
That’s a completely different story.
People in Latin-America are far more ‘flexible’ when it comes to rules and laws than European ones, European Catholics included. That includes celibacy, of course.
However, there’s a difference between Podestá, the Teologia de la Liberación or the Catholic left… and this Latin-American-character-flexibility. The first one is a political opposition, it’s about the right to marry. While the second one doesn’t oppose celibacy. It just… evades it. If you ask those priests, they’ll likely say that celibacy is necessary and holy, it’s just that banging some mistress sometimes is not really against celibacy, isn’t it? What matters is that you support and believe in celibacy, even if you bang some mistress in the meanwhile, which probably you will repent the next minute, so it doesn’t really count as banging, does it?
Latin-American cultures are very complicated ones, and the flaws are often far more subtle and lie deeper than it looks.
People in Latin-America are far more ‘flexible’ when it comes to rules and laws than European ones, European Catholics included.
Yann: I can’t speak to Latin American Catholics as a whole, but Mexican Catholics have got a whole ‘nother thing going. I’ve been to celebrations of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which I found moving, and from what I can tell, Mexican Catholicism is deeply syncretic with the old native religion, in which the Virgin of Guadalupe is a disguised version of the Aztec goddess, Tonantzin.
But no one in the Catholic Church wants to look deeply into that mess. I don’t blame them and I don’t want them to either.
IMO whatever happened on that hill to St. Juan Diego, who saw Her, provided a face-saving way for Mexican natives and Catholic Spaniards to live together in relative peace. I only wish such a solution had been available in North America.
But no one in the Catholic Church wants to look deeply into that mess.
Rubbish
If anyone is curious what priests hitting on teens can look like, my friend, D, recounted his experience to me.
In high school D looked like a dark, skinny Tony Curtis. He came from a troubled family on the wrong side of the tracks, but he still had the girls all over him. He attracted the attention of Fr. J, who came from money, and he took D out to the fanciest restaurant in our town several times.
D suspects Fr. J profiled him as a likely target because of his broken family, but D was so attractive I’m not so sure. Later when D was going to community college, he had what he called his “Gay Taxi Service” of guys who would pick him up when he was hitchhiking on the off-chance he might respond to their overtures.
In any event the expensive restaurant meals escalated to Fr. J putting his hand on D’s thigh and making things clear. D had enough experience with gays that he wasn’t bothered by it, but he didn’t want to and that was the end of it.
In spite of his family D was a robust, confident person. However, if he had been less so, the experience might have been shattering. Priests have absolutely no business coming on sexually to teenagers.
huxley:
I would add that priests have absolutely no business coming on sexually to anyone.
The cases I know involve priests and adult women. Still not at all okay. A priest’s position is something like that of a therapist, only add the sacred and the vows to the mix. The power of a priest can be enormous. Therapists have not taken holy vows of celibacy and chastity, but it is still an outrage when they come on sexually to a client because of the power and influence and trust problem. They can do remarkable damage and it is therefore strictly forbidden and violations are punished. The same for priests only more so, in terms of the outrage and damage.
neo: Agreed.
Yann says,
You might be interested in the YouTube video on Peronism … or not.
What you will almost certainly find relevant to your point however, are the comments of South American expats and soon to be emigres, who explain that they are fed up with the culture of corruption which they say is woven into the fabric of the Latin American psyche, and so deep that one cannot really even survive without grave moral compromise and hypocrisy. One fascinating remark by one, was that after moving to Poland, he (to his great surprise) felt for the first time in his life a sense of patriotism, and sympathy for his fellow citizens.
It begins,
A Brazilian then comments,
And the first responds,
Reminds me of what I said after moving to Texas for some years, many years ago. Prior to living among Texans, I would not have cared if you took 90% of my self-dealing, super ideological, collectivist manipulator Yankee acquaintances and fried them in the Devil’s skillet – live.
It’s quite something to then accidentally land among people you can actually like and respect.
A priest’s position is something like that of a therapist, only add the sacred and the vows to the mix. The power of a priest can be enormous.
No. Priests dispense sacraments. They do counsel parishoners, but that’s done within a very particular matrix and with a particular idiom. They don’t get paid to do it and they don’t meet people for scheduled 50-minute hours. See Andrew Greeley’s short stories, for which he uses his years as a curate as fodder.
In recent years the Church’s partial solution to these scandals has been to phase out having nuns, priests and brothers teach K-12. Understandable, though it makes parochial schools much more expensive.
My old high school is now a very pricey prep school, not so much for Catholic children but for affluent families wanting to position their kids for top colleges.
There was a nun who taught me Latin and she loved God and Jesus so much, we knew we could derail her class by asking religious questions. She didn’t mind and she would tell us about God and Jesus for a while, then it was back to Caesar or Cicero. She was special.
A few years ago I googled for her and found her retired at the big convent in New York. I emailed her a few times but never heard back. That wasn’t like her. I was proper and respectful. I was just saying hi and thanks.
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I suspect the word has come down from on high that Catholic nuns, priests and brothers ought not respond to old students, however harmless it might seem.
For Sister Miriam Joseph
We called you MJ behind your back. You were different—a young woman with a quick laugh and a New York accent. You replaced Mrs. Mertz after she retired from teaching Latin. You talked about your life in Japan, that you had parachuted, and that you loved James Joyce’s Ulysses, insisting that it was not dirty and we must read it.
And anytime we wanted a break from The Gallic Wars, we could slide in a question about God or faith or religion, and you would smile, knowing full well that we were playing for time, and you would answer because that’s what you really had to teach.
You were too good for us and _____ High was no Dead Poets Society. We were not galvanized to spirit or thought or action. We laughed about you and ignored you, caught up in pep rallies and hormones and who was popular and who was not.
It took me ten years to finish Ulysses.
It took me thirty years to hear you talk about God.
Well, they preach Christian scripture, and teach what is presumably Catholic morality and doctrine, as well as administering the sacraments.
And although doctrine holds that the validity of the sacrament is not conditional on the state of grace of the particular he who is anointed and ordained to administer them, and further maintains the ontological nature of the priesthood, it is nonetheless a grave scandal when a priest, who stands before the congregation in persona Christi as he recites the words of institution during the clean oblation, is demonstrated a vile hypocrite and reprobate.
And huxley…
I am wondrously blessed by your appreciation of Sister Miriam Joseph.
I’m glad you’re still listening to the best voices.
Thank you.
That has been always been the case. For example, Virgin Mary has traditionally replaced the pagan goddesses of nature, the famous ‘white goddess’ of Robert Graves. Christianism was syncretic from its very beginning. Among my people, christian Virgin Mary replaced the Lady of Anboto, who was a ancient pagan goddess of nature.
Highly interesting.
Thank you for the video, and the channel, which I didn’t know and just subscribed.
@ John: You understood my post correctly.
” I used to study in the library of the Pontifical College Josephinium in Columbus, OH and got to know a bunch of the young soon-to-be-priests. Some of those guys…well…I’m glad they are where they are and I’m not there. Just sayin’.”
Now I don’t fully understand this.
huxley said: “In recent years the Church’s partial solution to these scandals has been to phase out having nuns, priests and brothers teach K-12”
Nothing could be farther from the truth! We don’t have the people to do so anymore. The Dominican Sisters of St Celia are highly sought after. They were at a Catholic High School near me, but got re-assigned. The picture in the link is what they look like – vibrant, orthodox and happy!
Our parishes close due to lack of priests – if we didn’t have Africa, we’d be in shambles. The number of people in (or entering) religious orders is down, and continuing to drop. One exception is the more devout, orthodox orders (like the above Dominicans). They are growing. I donate to a couple of groups that take over student loans for aspirants to the religious life/clergy for the orthodox groups (lower case ‘o’).
Huxley – partially incorrect.
“All other voluntary sexual pleasure — whether heterosexual, homosexual, solo, or fantasy — is sinful. Even a married couple who have sex purely for pleasure are acting unchastely.”
A married couple is only required to allow for life to occur, they can certainly have fun while they do it. See Pope St JP2’s Theology of the Body that was written to clear things up. I have never read it since it’s too wordy and I wasn’t a fan of JP2’s writing style. But it draws upon and expands on the clarifications presented by Humanae Vitae.
Here’s a site that gives a brief discussion: https://www.lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/title/humanae-vitae-1
In brief:
Pope Paul VI in his encyclical “Humanae Vitae” stated, “Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life (No. 11).
The pope referred to two aspects, or meanings, of human sexuality: the unitive and the procreative.
He also warned of the consequences if contraception became widely practiced—consequences that have since come to pass: greater infidelity in marriage, confusion regarding the nature of human sexuality and its role in society, the objectification of women for sexual pleasure, compulsory government birth control policies, and the reduction of the human body to an instrument of human manipulation. The separation of sexuality from its dual purpose has also resulted in artificial reproduction technologies, including cloning, that threaten the dignity of the human person.
~~
If you’ve made it this far reading in my post, you now know more about this teaching than probably 80% of Catholics. I have read the encyclical, and it’s a concise, persuasive document.
~~
@Neo – Cdl. Cupich was the only squawking about racism and hurling unfounded accusations. I think he’s completely wrong and your experiences seem to confirm that.
huxley said: “In recent years the Church’s partial solution to these scandals has been to phase out having nuns, priests and brothers teach K-12”
Nothing could be farther from the truth!
Faith2014: I enjoy your comments and your faith, however…given that the average age of American nuns is mid to late 70s and the number of Americans nuns has declined from 125,000 when I was in school to 50,000 today, I doubt many nuns are teaching parochial school. Americans priests are a similar story though somewhat younger.
http://www.newser.com/story/200061/median-age-of-us-nuns-mid-to-late-70s.html
Perhaps it’s not a policy decision by Church authorities, but it is working out that few in Holy Orders are teaching parochial school anymore, which does indeed drive up tuition prices.
A married couple is only required to allow for life to occur, they can certainly have fun while they do it.
Faith2014: They certainly can fun. However, my point concerned whether the couple was having intercourse purely for pleasure . In which case they are having sex out of lust.
2351 Lust is a disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P85.HTM
huxley:
But what about sex for married couples long past the age when conception is a possibility? Are they grandfathered in, as it were?
In recent years the Church’s partial solution to these scandals has been to phase out having nuns, priests and brothers teach K-12. Understandable, though it makes parochial schools much more expensive.
No, that’s not a response to the scandals. That’s a response to the demographic implosion of the religious orders. Ordinations to the regular clergy declined by 90% over a 35 year period. A member of the Congregation of St. Joseph told me that prior to the Council, about 30 women a year were entering her order. After 1970, the number averaged one a year. As for the diocesan clergy, the decline in ordinations has been much less severe, but they’re now shutting between multiple parishes and there isn’t the spare manpower to deploy priests to Catholic high schools (much less to the elementary schools).
But what about sex for married couples long past the age when conception is a possibility? Are they grandfathered in, as it were?
neo: Well, to the faithful, conception is always a possibility, viz. Abraham and Sarah having their son Isaac when they were in their nineties.
But more seriously, the sticking point with the Church is whether one intentionally prevents conception, not whether it is unlikely or medically impossible.
One edge case which bothers some people is that the Church forbids condoms to prevent AIDS even if one married partner is HIV+. It’s an ugly thought but consistent with Church teachings.
The Church generally devotes slow, careful thought to its positions. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that currently there are four Catholic Supreme Court Justices: Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor and Gorsuch. Plus Scalia was Catholic, likewise Gorsuch, assuming he will be confirmed.
I find myself weirdly concerned the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) might implode or schism over this.
I wouldn’t put myself under the RCC’s authority ever again. But I’ve known good Catholics like Sr. Miriam Joseph and my friend, D. Furthermore, in my life I’ve noticed many people I’ve hit it off with turned out to be raised Catholic — or Jewish for that matter.
I think both religions teach that the stakes of life are high and significant. Whether one accepts or rejects the specifics of either faith, one is imprinted with that overall message. I never got that vibe from mainstream Protestants or white bread Americans.
Catholicism pushed me straight up against the wall to make an existential choice — not something I wanted at the age of 16. But I did some serious growing up when I rejected the Church. Much of who I am emerged from that choice.
@huxley (and others):
Makes sense; entirely understandable.
For myself, I am a Catholic and will remain so.
I was raised outside Catholicism, in the Protestant-Congregationalist world. In that world, people take “faithfulness to Scripture” seriously because it’s the only doctrinal authority their presuppositions allow them. I think that’s a noble intention, and I have nothing but love and respect for my religious upbringing.
As an adult, I became a Catholic for a thousand intersecting reasons, with one of the more-important ones being that “faithfulness to Scripture” as an authority doesn’t even work unless you have access to some other authority outside Scripture to tell you what books belong in Scripture and what it even means for them to be so designated. (And even then it doesn’t produce unity unless doctrinal disputes are subject to definitive, irreversible judgments per the process in Matthew 18…but that requires a worldwide organizational structure: an objectively-identifiable judicial hierarchy.)
So in the end, much like Peter in John 6, I have nowhere else to go. I am convinced of the historical event of the Resurrection, therefore I am a Christian. And, I am convinced that if God Himself established unifying authority in His kahol, He’d come up with a plan less-stupid than Mohammed did; therefore, I am a Catholic Christian.
I mention all that to give context to the following: I won’t leave the Catholic Church over this scandal.
It’s not because I’m not scandalized. It’s not because I don’t think it’s horrifying. It’s not because I wouldn’t be strongly tempted to beat the ever-living crap out of the perpetrators, should I have the opportunity. (Tempted, I say! It’s a temptation I can resist. If one of these guys shows up pulped in a ditch next week, don’t come knocking on my door, because it won’t have been me.)
No, that’s not why I won’t leave.
I won’t leave because the moral saintliness or the moral nastiness of the current crop of Catholic clergy had nothing to do with why I’m Catholic.
If I’d been a Hebrew during the time of Eli, I wouldn’t have abandoned the People of God and hared off to Persia to start my own kahol over the sexual depredations of Eli’s sons, either. I’d just have steered my daughters away from them and kept on saying baruch atah Adonai, Eloheinu melech haolam, hamotzi lechem min ha-aretz.
(I’d have been tempted to punch said sons in the face, to be sure. Tempted, I say!)
I guess God establishes offices of authority for the sake reuniting the divided family of man with one another and with Himself. Then, inexplicably, He gets humans to occupy those offices.
(Humans! It’s always those double-d***ed humans.)
Sometimes those men are petty bureaucrats; sometimes they’re diabolical bastards, sometimes they’re sainly sages. Sometimes the saintly sages only emerge belatedly as reactions against the diabolical bastards.
Right now, I put most Catholic bishops in the first category, Ted McCarrick in the second category, and Cardinal Sarah tentatively in the third. We’ll see.
In the meantime, I’ll steer my son (!) away from anybody who seems sketchy, and keep on saying, “Blessed are You, Adonai, Eloheinu, king of the universe, who gives us the Bread of Life.”
And that’s my take on it.
(But I respect persons of good will who can’t bring themselves to stomach that approach. The last two weeks’ news have made me pretty queasy too.)
“I find myself weirdly concerned the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) might implode or schism over this.” huxley
Like R.C., I won’t be leaving either. I was raised a nominal Catholic, my parents having left the fold of weekly Mass attendance right after my first Holy Communion. I had a liberal upbringing, but upon having our first child (my husband-also raised a Catholic and required to attend weekly Mass through age 18), I rediscovered my Christian faith and when she was 18 months old, we were married in the Catholic church. By the time we had our 2nd child who was the only one baptized in the Catholic church (and the only of our 3 children who is a devout Catholic), I wanted to move on to a place I thought was more serious about the faith (Foursquare Pentecostal–Pastor Jack Hayford’s church in Van Nuys). My husband eventual made his way with me and we spent about 11 years in that denomination. I homeschooled my children and it was our study of ancient history up to the 1500’s and our trip to France that brought me back to the Catholic faith along with Cardinal John Henry Newman’s book Apologia Pro Vita Sua. At the end of the day, I came to the understanding that my faith in salvation through the saving work of Jesus Christ was founded on the eyewitness testimony of a handful of ancient men with first-hand encounter with God. For me the combination of the Manna from heaven in the OT, the miracles of the feeding of the multitudes,and Jesus’ institution of the Eucharist on the night before he died–something that has gone on since that night without interruption–form the foundation of my faith. I haven’t even touched on my personal encounters of the supernatural–quite frankly, miracles I have experienced first-hand that defy ordinary explanation. Jesus said not to worry. I do my best to obey Him. He is Lord of the Church and has promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. If at this time the RCC implodes, God has a plan and He knows what He is doing. Faith….
A priest from Tampa FL explains a bit more about the Catholic Church’s “homosexual problem”; as with so many other institutions, the “in group” has enough dirt on enough people to keep them silent …
https://tinyurl.com/ycpw9yxs
Titled “Why don’t the (good) priests blow the whistle?”
huxley,
I think our interpretations of HV are in conflict. Sex for pleasure is considered unitive – it brings husband and wife closer, and is an important part of any relationship. Lust would be without love, more or less. Our hook-up culture is an example of this.
Not just me:
In minimally graphic language, the Catholic view is that complete sexual fulfillment (including pleasure, which is not forbidden!) must occur in the act of love with one’s spouse of the opposite sex: that one is committed to for life, and that the couple must be open to life and possible conception. Sexual acts engaged in apart from this circumstance are wrong and sinful. (http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/sex-and-catholics-our-views-briefly-explained)
Or better yet: http://www.catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm #2 (please ignore the misspelling of marital for martial in one paragraph, though it is kinda’ funny)
** Pleasure and unitive goes together in a marital relationship. **
An example of marital non-unitive sex would be in a marriage where perhaps one is using the other as a way of jacking off/ getting off without concern or love for the other.
~~
If I ever disappear and they check my google searches to figure out what my have happened to me….