News

Pope in Ireland vows to end cover-up of clergy sex abuse

Pope Francis meets with Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, right, as he arrives at Dublin Castle, Ireland, Saturday, Aug. 25, 2018. Pope Francis is on a two-day visit to Ireland. (AP Photo/Matt Dunham)

DUBLIN (AP) — Pope Francis declared as he arrived in Ireland that he shares the outrage of rank-and-file Catholics over the cover-up of the “repugnant crimes” of priests who raped and molested children, and vowed that he was committed to ending the “scourge.”

Seeking to respond to a global outcry over sex abuse by priests, Francis cited measures taken by his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, to respond to the crisis. But Benedict never acknowledged the Vatican’s role in fueling a culture of cover-up, and Francis provided no new details of any measures he would take to sanction bishops who fail to protect their flocks from predator priests.

“The failure of ecclesial authorities — bishops, religious superiors, priests and others — to adequately address these repugnant crimes has rightly given rise to outrage, and remains a source of pain and shame for the Catholic community. I myself share these sentiments,” the pope said Saturday (Aug. 25), in a speech to government officials and civil authorities at Dublin Castle.

Francis said he was committed to ridding the church of this “scourge” no matter the moral cost or amount of suffering.
Francis’ trip to Ireland, the first by a pope in 39 years, has been overshadowed by renewed outrage over the Catholic Church’s systemic failures to protect children, following revelations of sexual misconduct and cover-up in the U.S. church hierarchy, a growing crisis in Chile and the prosecutions of top clerics in Australia and France.

Francis was expected to meet with abuse victims during his 36-hour visit to Ireland. But neither his words at the start of his visit nor a new meeting with victims is likely to assuage demands for heads to roll over the sex abuse scandal.

“Disappointing, nothing new,” was the reaction from Irish abuse survivor Marie Collins, a former member of Francis’ sex abuse advisory panel who quit last year in frustration.

Perhaps in an indication of similar sentiments, the reception Francis received in Dublin contrasted sharply with the raucous, rock star welcome that greeted St. John Paul II in 1979. No one from the public was at the airport or the roads nearby, though by late afternoon crowds had started to grow outside Dublin’s cathedral, basking in gloriously sunny weekend weather.

Deeply Catholic Ireland has had one of the world’s worst records of clergy sex abuse, crimes that were revealed to its 4.8 million people over the past decade by a series of government-mandated inquiries. The reviews concluded that thousands of children were raped and molested by priests or physically abused in church-run schools and bishops worked for years to hide those crimes.

After the Irish church atoned for its past and enacted tough new norms to fight abuse, it had been looking to the first visit by a pope in 40 years to show a different, more caring church that understands the problems of ordinary Catholic families.

More than 37,000 people — most of them young Catholics — signed up to attend a Vatican-sponsored World Meeting of Families that ends Sunday in Dublin, more than twice the number as a previous family rally in Philadelphia three years ago.

And many faithful did remain hopeful that Francis’ appearance would bring healing.

“I see a lot of new life amongst young people who have a deep committed faith, Catholic faith,” said Sean Ascogh, a churchgoer in Blessington southwest of Dublin. “Obviously, they are very disappointed by what has been happening in the church in the last few years, particularly the whole abuse scandals, but I think people can see beyond that.”

Francis urged the Irish to do just that, to recognize that for all its failings, the Catholic Church has educated and cared for generations of Irish children in times of famine and great poverty, when no one else would.

“The church in Ireland, past and present, has played a role in the welfare of children that cannot be obscured,” the pope said. “It is my hope that the gravity of the abuse scandals, which have cast light on the failings of so many, will serve to emphasize the importance of the protection of minors and vulnerable adults on the part of society as a whole.”

Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar concurred, saying the church stepped in to care for Irish children when the state did not. But in his speech to the pope at Dublin Castle, he said both church and state had a history of “sorrow and shame,” and he urged the pope to ensure that victims of sex abuse find “justice and truth and healing.”

Varadkar cited the recent Pennsylvania grand jury report, which found 300 priests had abused more than 1,000 children over 70 years in six dioceses, in urging Francis “ensure that from words flow actions.”

“In recent weeks, we have all listened to heart-breaking stories from Pennsylvania of brutal crimes perpetrated by people within the Catholic Church, and then obscured to protect the institution at the expense of innocent victims,” Varadkar said. “It’s a story all too tragically familiar here in Ireland.”

Indeed, Ireland’s tortured history of abuse has left its mark.

In a country where Catholic bishops held such sway that they advised the drafters of the republic’s constitution in the 1930s, voters in recent years have turned their backs on core Catholic teachings. They have overturned a constitutional ban on abortion and legalized divorce, contraception, previously banned homosexual acts and same-sex marriage.

Irish abuse victims and their supporters were to hold a solidarity rally Sunday in Dublin at the same time Francis is celebrating his final Mass to close out the rally.

Separately, survivors of Ireland’s wretched “mother and baby homes” — where children were exiled for the shame of having been born to unwed mothers — are holding their own demonstration Sunday. The location is Tuam, site of a mass grave of hundreds of babies who died over the years at a church-run home.

Francis will be nearby, visiting the Marian shrine at Knock, but has no plans to visit the grave site.

In his inaugural speech, Francis referred euphemistically to the plight of Irish women who were forced for generations to work in laundries or other workhouses because they got pregnant outside of marriage. But he said only that they and their children, who were sent to orphanages, “endured particularly difficult situations.”

When John Paul visited Ireland in 1979, in the first-ever papal visit, some 1.25 million people turned out for his inaugural Mass in Phoenix Park, a third of the country’s population and the largest gathering in Irish history at the time. About half as many are expected Sunday for Francis.
___
(Nicole Winfield and Maria Grazia Murru write for The  Associated Press. AP video journalist Luigi Navarra contributed.)

About the author

The Associated Press

110 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • “Disappointing. Nothing new,” according to Marie Collins. And yes, she’s right. But what can be done?

    Well, let’s hear from a very honest & thoughtful guy, a Catholic author with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies”, (to use the Vatican’s phrase.) He offers some valuable, down-to-earth insights on this clergy sex-abuse tragedy. His name is Daniel Mattson.

    “What unites all of these scandals is homosexuality in our seminaries and the priesthood: the result of the Church ignoring its own clear directives. If it is serious about ending the sex scandals, the Church needs to admit it has a homosexual priest problem, and stop ordaining men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies. The first ‘Uncle Ted’ scandal was ‘Uncle Ted’ becoming a priest.”

    — from Mattson, “Why Men Like Me Should Not Be Priests”, First Things, 08-17-2018. Check out the article:
    https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/08/why-men-like-me-should-not-be-priests

  • The core of the argument from the article:

    Chastity, I’m convinced (and the evidence bears this out), is much harder for men with a homosexual inclination than for others. Fr. James Lloyd, C.S.P., a priest with a PhD in psychology from NYU, has worked with homosexual men (including priests) for more than 30 years as a clinical psychologist. On the subject of chastity and homosexual priests, he says, “It is clear enough from clinical evidence that the psychic energy needed to contain homosexual drives is far greater than that needed by the straying heterosexual.”

    Evidence? What evidence? From one priest with a PhD in psychology from NYU? Please! Provide some real evidence from reputable sources and then we’ll talk. At least the self-loathing homosexual who wrote that inane article had enough decency to admit that there are good gay priests out there who remain true to their vow of celibacy and do not abuse children. That’s more than can be said of Bishops Morlino, Burke, et al.

  • From the article: “Indeed, Ireland’s tortured history of abuse has left its mark.”
    Followed immediately by: “In a country where Catholic bishops held such sway that they advised the drafters of the republic’s constitution in the 1930s, voters in recent years have turned their backs on core Catholic teachings. They have overturned a constitutional ban on abortion and legalized divorce, contraception, previously banned homosexual acts and same-sex marriage.”

    It would be a mistake to assume that those “core Catholic teachings” that have recently been changed by voters were overturned entirely because of the disgust over the Church’s handling of sex abuse. Each of the issues mentioned has its own reason to exist as an issue in this age. A change in social thinking has occurred, due to new science, a vastly better educated laity, better communication, the sense of empowerment that has come to people living in democracies, women’s new voice and power in society. Much has changed in how much we know, how we live and how we relate to the world and to each other.

    Unfortunately, the Catholic church still wants to act out of a vision of a world of uneducated and powerless serfs lead by those who rule by “divine right”. There is a stubborn insistence on holding onto doctrines developed under cultures of long ago and with much less scientific understanding. It would be helpful to the world if the Church joined in helping guide the process of change we are going through. But they just say “NO” to most everything.

    Here is a place to start. Allow married priests, male and female, and build lay co-equal management structures in each parish, diocese, and in the Vatican. Get off it about contraceptives and develop a faith filled philosophy that recognizes sex as a normal human expression of love, trust, commitment.

    Break open the doors of the Church and let light in and Jesus out.

  • We should take a survey of all the poor souls on this site who hide in the closet of orthodoxy to shield themselves from their own sexual dysfunction. I count five or six, but some of them may be pseudonyms for the same 2 or 3 guys.

  • Even when you are absolutely right, you are absolutely dead wrong.

    Like you, Mattson is exactly right, and absolutelydead wrong at the same time. He simply confirms what I have said repeatedly, over and over, again and again.

    Homo hating homos should not be priests. He admits there are good gay priests, but obviously, they are neither of the child molesting variety or the homo hating homo variety,

  • If THAT is the best this “Monica” person can offer in terms of doing homework and expressing considered opinions in a Religion forum, far be it from me to suggest she could do better.

    As for me, I do what I do, and I do my homework.

  • Umm, that’s “one priest with a PhD in psychology from NYU, plus 30 years of clinical experience.” I think that kind of extensive clinical and academic background would lead a rational person to at least think about what he said.

    But there is a second major issue to consider, and Mattson poignantly illustrated it with a personal note:

    “Soon after reentering the Church in 2009, I sinned by having an anonymous sexual encounter with a man. Filled with remorse, I went to confession the next day, and shockingly, the priest (a stranger to me) told me that having sex with a man wasn’t sinful. Instead, he urged me to go find a boyfriend, saying, ‘the Church will change.’ Later, when I discussed this priest with those who knew him, I was told it was widely acknowledged that this priest was homosexual himself.”

    That’s an open door to raw tragedy, folks.

  • Francis may be well-intentioned. But after five years it is clear that he firmly believes that talk and for-show-only commissions are a more than adequate substitute for actually doing something that has real consequences for the past victims and the future Church. Whether he means to or not, he is ensuring that the much, much “smaller, holier Church” will arrive sooner rather than later.

  • I was wondering how long it would take you to bring up the standard “homo hating homo” phrase.

    (You just hate it when homosexual guys suddenly go Off-Script, hmm?).

  • What you do is try to make yourself feel less worthless by hurting others so you can go to your room and whip your skippy all by your lonesome. You’re not fooling anyone here, Norman Bates.

  • Oh yes, such a “raw tragedy” that a child may grow up not hating himself or killing himself for being gay because some priest told him in a confessional that he was going to hell.

    I know you think you know what the mind of God will be on the day of judgment when saints will be sorted from sinners, but you don’t know any more than any other living human being – you just take it all on faith – your own particular brand of faith and then high-mindedly regurgitate it out onto everyone else. That’s all you’ve got, and it’s nothing.

  • Monica, dear, I’d quite forgotten the depths of your sardonic sense of humor. It’s so good to have you back 🙂

  • Not at all. He is right on script for one of his type.

    If Mattson has a problem keeping his hands of adolescent boys and other men, then he is right. He clearly hasnt grown up yet. Most of us, gay and straight, stop beong interested in adolescents when we stop being adolescents. Most of us dpnt force themselves on other unwilling prople. Most of us honor our promises.

    I dont have those problems. Do you?

  • What you do is try to make orthodox Christians look mean with pseudo-Catholic frippery and snot, e.g.:

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/religionnews/pope_in_ireland_vows_to_end_cover_up_of_clergy_sex_abuse/#comment-4059770829

    “We should take a survey of all the poor souls on this site who hide in
    the closet of orthodoxy to shield themselves from their own sexual
    dysfunction. I count five or six, but some of them may be pseudonyms for
    the same 2 or 3 guys.”

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/firstthingsmag/the_house_of_god_will_not_be_closed_benedict_kiely_first_things/#comment-4055556120

    “When one has to resort to language about ‘knavish imbecility,’ one has nothing to say, but is determined to say it as childishly as possible in order to make a big boom. The notion that two priests we’ve never heard of are somehow a model to renew the church in time of crisis is childish in the extreme.”

    Since it flew so well for you at Nat’l Cath. Reptr. I am sure you’re surprised to find out that a large of Christians don’t see it your way.

  • “Norman Bates”??

    Admittedly I’ve always thought Alfred Hitchcock was a cinematic genius, but if you are seeking to refute what I’ve specifically posted on this Catholic Scandal, would you mind cutting out the sideshow and rationally getting started already? (Smh alert!)

  • The interesting thing here is that the Pope has absolute command of all clergy in the Church. If he gives them an order, they all must obey. Because of this, imposing accountability on them is rather easy. He can do this by issuing three commands: 

    1. Order all clergy to immediately report any suspected abuse to their local authorities, including complete accounts of how, when, and why they know about the abuse, and providing any and all evidence they have available. 

    2. Order that any clergy who have abused anyone immediately turn themselves in to their local authorities, confess to the abuse, plead guilty (or the equivalent in their jurisdiction), and accept the punishment meted out in local courts. 

    3. Order that any superiors or hierarchs who knew about abuse, but never disclosed it and/or worked to hush it up, likewise turn themselves in to local authorities, handing over all available evidence of the abuse; and if appropriate, confess to obstruction of justice (or equivalent in their jurisdiction) and accept punishment for that crime. 

    All three of these commands should be carried out, without regard to statutes of limitations in the clerics’ local jurisdictions. If local prosecutors/courts choose to take no action, that’s their prerogative, but complete disclosure and confession on the record would still be required of the clergy. 

    These three commands — assuming they’re all followed as dictated by the Pope and as required by the clerics’ sacred vows of obedience — would provide universal accountability. Of course, that’s not to say all Catholic clergy would obey these commands … I’m sure a lot of them would ignore them, if it’s convenient. But the first one should provide information that could be used to root out shirkers who won’t confess as required by the Pope’s commands. 

    And at the very least, these three commands would show the world the Pope is serious about imposing accountability on his Church. 

  • Oh, not me. And not you.
    But then again, Cardinal McCarrick reportedly never had that problem either, during his famous 50-year run.

    They say he liked that fresh Adult Seminarian meat with BBQ sauce, (they say.) No telling how many young adult priests he messed up. No telling how many of his victims are passing along the virus right now.

    We know the 2004 & 2011 John Jay numbers. We know the post-pub boys were heavily targeted by gay priests. But McCarrick reminds us that the homosexual damage list is a LOT bigger than just the boys.

  • They say he liked that fresh Adult Seminarian meat with BBQ sauce.

    Why do I get the feeling that you experience titilation every time you write something like that?

  • Have you said that repeatedly, over and over, again and again?

    I mean, repeatedly, over and over, again and again?

    So, tell us all you know about:

    – the priesthood

    – the Catholic Church

  • Right, because the United Kingdom, of which Ireland is a part, has never been a world power. Uh huh.

  • Sex abuse connected to churches will diminish in the future for one reason. It is no longer something people consider unlikely, unheard of, unbelievable, impossible, etc. The radar is now installed and switched on——permanently. The first people to notice this are undoubtedly the potential abusers of present who have not done a violation yet, but might have at some time in the future if the old norms of less attention were remaining in place. The fact of the matter is that churches are becoming a bit more like banks with a new vault, new guards, new surveillance systems——harder to crack Scout leaders, sports coaches, clergy and others around kids all are subject to a new scrutiny from parents and other adults. Sociologists might want to study over the next 10 years whether we see a shift in the types of people entering these occupations. Will we notice the reduction in would-be pedophiles by other hints in the personalities of those who show up new to these fields?

  • The United Kingdom has been and is no longer a world power.

    Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.

    Éire is not part of the United Kingdom.

  • And here is the other problem, but I didn’t have a chance to write it, as I was on my phone waiting in line.

    You hold Mattson up as some sort of exemplar for homosexual men, without realizing that you constantly undermine your own arguments, because frankly, your hate blinds you. Nothing new there.

    You have repeatedly said that all any homosexual needs to do is find Dr. Jesus, and Dr. Jesus will take the case, and cure them poor, poor damned homos. Oh, you don’t even believe this yourself, of course; it’s just one more weapon in your arsenal. Mattson is a Christian. He has found Jesus. I’m sure he has prayed and preyed earnestly. And yet, he is still a big ol’ mo. Maybe he could do some exgay therapy, which you claim has turned thousands of mo’s like him into throbbing heterosexuals. Except that I am sure that he has done exactly that, and he is just as homosexual as he ever was. Becuase all of that is as much a lie as Jesus changing people from homosexual to heterosexual.

    (Note that I keep using the word homosexual. I could equally use the words same-sex-attracted. But what I won’t use is the word gay, because obviously, He is not gay, nor even remotely happy. Just full of self hatred, and a perfect person for you to latch on to).

    Here is the thing about Mattson. He hates himself. He has always hated himself. I feel a great deal of compassion towards him, because he didn’t choose to hate himself. He was taught that long before he even knew what was happening, much like my now deceased gay brother, dead of murder or suicide or both in a Mexican desert because he just could not help, or stop himself from, hating himself.

    At the same time, I have a lot of contempt towards him. He “sinned” nine years ago, and has never forgiven himself-x we’ll nine years ago that he admits to. I doubt that. I have long been convinced, and see nothing to change my mind in the current travails of the Roman Church, that the bulk of the religious animus towards gay people is sourced in the self hatred of the closet cases deep within all churches— or not so closeted, but still self hating— haggardly, paulkily, mainwaringly working harm on people like myself who don’t share their self hatred, and don’t need to work on their own demons while paying for it in the easy coin of other people’s lives. He could choose not to be a homosexual hating homosexual, of course. But self hatred, coupled with self righteousness, and the fear inculcated by conservative religion, is a rather addictive drug, and he has been mainlining— or should I say, mainwaring it— it for a long time.

    Much like my brother.

    He has said the church should not have men like him, and he is so, so, so very very right. But not because he wants to lift up the church, any more than you do. The church already has too many men like him. But he admits there are plenty of gay priests, serving their church faithfully. Everyone knows that there are plenty of gay priests, serving their church faithfully. What he wants, and wants desperately, is to bring the rest of us, especially those faithful priests, down to his so very sordid level.

    No thank you.

  • Oh, yes, let’s do talk about McCarrick, and all of those priests he had sex with. And let’s throw in the apparent orgies going on in seminaries, going on for years, decades. Let’s talk about how apparently everyone knew about it, and yet at the same time, no one talked about it, almost as if no one knew about it at all!

    And let’s make it a giventhat he managed to do all of this, and all of the other predatory priests managed to do it, without anybody coming forward, and when they did, no one paid them any attention. Grown men had lots and lots of hot sweaty mansex with lots of other grown men. Sure, I’ll give you that, but what does it say about the predatory culture of abuse that has apparently thrived for decades and centuries?

    What I won’t give you is that McCarrick forced himself on anyone, that he a put a gun to anyone’s head, that the sheer force of his personality made otherwise heterosexual men give in to his sexual desires, and made them keep silent about it afterwards. Nor will I give to you the ideas tall of the rest of 5hose orgiastic seminarians we’re forced into it, coerced into it, and just alll happened to find themselves in the same place, doing it.

    What you can’t and won’t answer, and what all of the other sex abuse defenders can’t answer, and won’t answer is this:

    WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT ATTRACTS SO MANY PREDATORS, SO MANY CHILD MOLESTERS, SO MANY CLOSETED HOMOSEXUALS, SO MANY SEXUALLY CONFUSED AND DISORDERED MEN?

    WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT SAYS THESE MEN ARE CALLED TO THE PRIESTHOOD BY GOD, AND THEY CLAIM THEY CAN VERIFY IT? AND YET STILL, ATTRACTS SO MANY PREDATORS, CHILD MOLESTERS. CLOSETED HOMOSEXUALS, SEXUALLY CONFUSED AND DISORDERED MEN, AND YET STILL THEY VEROFY THAT THESE MEN ARE CALLED BY GOD ?

    AND WHAT IS IT THAT ATTRACTS SO MANY ENABLERS TO THE HIERARCHY, SO MANY MEN DEVOID OF EMPATHY, SYMPATHY, OR COMMON DECENCY, THAT THEY WOULD RATHER SEE A CHILD MOLESTED THAN BRING SCANDAL ON TO THE CHURCH?

    AND WHAT IS IT THAT ATTRACTS SO MANY ENABLERS TO THE HIERARCHY, SO MANY MEN DEVOID OF EMPATHY, SYMPATHY, OR COMMON DECENCY, THAT THEY WOULD RATHER DO WHAT YOU AND YOUR FELLOW TRAVELERS DO— BLAME THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE IN THE MATTER, IN ORDER TO DEFLECT ATTENTION FROM ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS?

    Quoting you: hmmmmmmmm?

  • Well o Mouth of bob, it has been 78 of your nasty comments directed at me since the last time I directed one towards you.

    And still you have absolutely nothing to say, nothing of substance, nothing except for your usual invective, off the point but ad hominem never the less. No, I don’t hate him, not at all. I’ll leave the hate to you and Floyd and tommywhinyass.

    I do want to note here—not for your benefit Of course, because you already know it— that I discovered another one of your identities at another site, which I pointed out to you. You responded as you usually do, but with even less charm.

    Good for you.

    Now, back to deleting every notification that you generate, and ignoring you.

  • Hmmmm… sounds like you should go visit the local universalist church. You’d probably be really happy discussing your man-centric view of the world; with Jesus as a 30 minute break out session.

    We don’t need the world to to tell the church what to be; the catechism is already established. We need to world to get back to following the teachings of the church.

    Go grind your liberal axe elsewhere.

  • Newsflash….confessionals barely exist anymore; Catholics barely go to confession anymore…. so your example is off.

  • And still you have absolutely nothing to say, nothing of substance, nothing except for your usual invective, off the point but ad hominem never the less.

    Oh, and attacks on your enemy the Catholic Church.

    Well, back to pointing out the numerous errors, fallacies, and outright falsifications in your posts.

  • Because you have a dirty mind?

    A man goes to a psychiatrist, who suggests they start with a Rorschach Test. He holds up the first picture and asks the man what he sees.

    “A man and a woman making love in a park,” the man replies.

    The psychiatrist holds up the second picture and asks the man what he sees.

    “A man and a woman making love in a boat.”

    He holds up the third picture.

    “A man and a woman making love at the beach.”

    This goes on for the rest of the set of pictures; the man says he sees a man and a woman making love in every one of the pictures.

    The test ends, the psychiatrist looks over his notes and says, “It looks like you have a preoccupation with sex.”

    The man replies, “Me? You’re the one with the dirty pictures!”

  • In the real world, once it is knocked down, the rebuild part may be more hope than reality.

    Although the Church’s generational shrinkage in the US, Europe, and other parts of the world is inevitable, there will probably always be just enough people who need a “pray, pay, and obey” religion to keep the Church and its hierarchy afloat.

  • It’s laughable that you want to put forward a man’s writing who is so damaged with his own internalized homophobia and self-hatred as to be questionable by anyone who looks for truth statements that are at least vetted by some form of professional review.

  • And yet this deeply wounded, self-hating individual plainly states that he went to confession. So it was somewhere appropriate to that rite.

  • Adult seminarians most likely understood their own sexual orientation long before entering seminary.

    What may be the abuse here is pressuring them into a relationship that they haven’t chosen for themselves. Power over abuse is the same, whether in homosexual or heterosexual situations. McCarrick was in violation of his position over these seminarians because of pressuring them into sexual situations over which they had no choice or control. Not to mention that he was violating the promises that he made when he was first ordained as a priest, to remain both celibate and chaste.

    If McCarrick himself isn’t infected with HIV, then neither are any of his victims, at least not by him.

  • It might not be apparent to you, or is that wishful thinking on your part so you can continue to use him as some sort of expert, but his self-hatred and internalized homophobia is apparent to me and plenty of other folks. It screams from just the title of the book!

  • The Republic of Ireland succeeded from the UK many decades ago. Only Northern Ireland, the result of the succession, is part of the UK.

  • Just a quickie note for tonite: Daniel Mattson (whom thou hateth, by thine own admission) did NOT say that “there are plenty of gay priests, serving their church faithfully.”

    Indeed, he shows how deeply a gay priest failed him in his time of great spiritual need, and then showed how there are plenty more gay priests like THAT one who failed him. Gay Priests who oppose his Church”s clear teachings and boost the disaster.

    Yet he says he knows “SOME” gay priests who are living and talking faithfully in agreement with the church teachin. Guys that you would angrily denounce as “homos hating homos.”

  • Yes, that IS an interesting book title, isn’t it?

    “Why I Don’t Call Myself Gay: How I Reclaimed My Sexual Reality and Found Peace.”

    Really doesn’t sound like self-hatred at all. Nor does it sound like “internalized homophobia”, or any other fake jive diagnosis.

  • Nazis from around the world will come together this week and invite the families of the survivors of the Death Camps to a joyous celebration called :

    ” Aushwitz – World Meeting of Families and Survivors “

    The week long meeting will focus on the blaming of the “ hype “ for the “ so-called “ death camps as highly overblown, and as a result of the “ spurious “ memory of those who were allegedly first hand eye-witnesses.

    Of course any ” right-thinking ” person would know that the camps’ negative reputations were exacerbated by the malicious rumors emanating from Atheistic and Communist news outlets and other venom-filled organizations and individuals.

    The purpose of the gathering, hosted by the Nazis, is to ameliorate the “ petty slights “ the survivor claim their families and relatives were
    allegedly “ inconvenienced “ by, in the past, which any “ right-thinking “ person would know were “ trivial “.

    Children and youth are enthusiastically encouraged to attend and participate.

    The joyous event will be filled with “ right thinking “ musicians, dancers, singers and entertainers who will thrill the survivors and families, and do everything possible to encourage them to _ let the past be the past – and look forward to the future, which will keep all of the
    memories from recurring, as the Nazis look forward to “ shepherding “ every person on earth to a “ right-thinking “ frame of mind.

    Among the highly entertaining and “ right-thinking “ speakers will be the grandsons and granddaughters of the esteemed humanitarians – Adolph Eichman, Josef Mengele, Ilse Koch and Paul Blobel to name a few.

    The event will culminate Sunday with a highly anticipated address by The Honorable David Duke, Chief Apologist Emeritus of the worldwide Nazi Party.

    The event will close by The Honorable David Duke leading a sing-along of ” Tomorrow Belongs to Me “, followed by a torchlight parade.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN7r0Rr1Qyc

  • https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfworthycom.htm

    “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

    The areas in which one would be bound by something the Holy Father says are rather narrow indeed.

  • I wasn’t the one who wrote those words, was I? So your elaborate exercise in comparison was all for naught.

  • Well done satire. Right up to the edge of over-the-top, but not over. It is rare to see the “Nazi comparison” theme used this well.

  • The Vigano letter just came out. Can a Church hierarchy that is looking more and more like an evil version of the Keystone Kops really solve anything?

  • Given the Vigano letter, there will never be a Pope Francis II.

    Fine.

    Our Lady is cleaning up the house for the Lord.

    All of these flaming cardinals can go. Martin too.

    The pope was quiet on the plane ride to Ireland, hmmmm. No joy?

  • Obviously you’ve posted a lot in this one thread, and it’s really very rare for you to shift into ALL CAPS mode like you did here. Unfortunately, I didn’t have time to write a more thorough answer to your questions (not that I’m in position to write mile-long replies anyway!).

    Even now, all I’m really doing is just acknowledging that I did read your post, and also your below comments about your late brother. As you already know, I don’t read posts without at least taking some moments to sincerely reflect on them, no matter who the poster is. Just wanted to say that.

    That’s it for now. Obviously, neither me nor you are done posting in this thread.
    (And already there’s yet another new RNS article this morning about the Catholic Scandal, so I don’t see either one of us stopping our overall efforts any time soon anyway.)

  • Much better for the world to follow the teachings of Jesus – love God and love your neighbor, care for the sick, the old, those in prison, feed the hungry. Jesus said nothing about contraceptives or gay people.

    I am not much different from tens of millions of Catholics who think the Church simply has it wrong on birth control, sex, sexuality, and particularly on the issue of infallibility and the value of “tradition.” They also have an outmoded organizational structure that is no longer suitable to the times in which we live.

    What was formulated over the thousands of years of Christianity as the person of Jesus and the meaning of what God wants of us, was at every point in time limited by knowledge, culture, and the particular lived experience of the person seeking to discern and explain God. We always need to be rediscovering God.

  • ” Jesus said nothing about contraceptives or gay people.”

    Or about fornication, bestiality, embezzlement, slavery, or ponzi schemes.

    There is a message in that.

  • I’m glad you noticed.

    Yes, and that article is just one more brick in the wall of proof about this being a CATHOLIC PROBLEM, and not a problem with Big Bad Gay Goliath.

  • Benedict did not enforce what he had required of McCarrick. He let it go – as ineffective as ever. Worse, I do not believe that the first the Vatican heard of McCarrick was under the Benedict papacy. McCarrick was around and the rumors were going on under JPII. As usual, JPII did nothing about sexual abuse but pretend it didn’t exist.

    McCarrick has a long history of climbing the ladder – including under Paul VI, JPII, and BXVI. He also was very active in the USCCB – having many leadership roles in that organization. In all that time – no one knew anything? I don’t believe it. I suspect quite a few knew. But everyone was so afraid of information becoming public and creating scandal, that all the secrecy meant no one could act effectively.

    No. Rumors flew and they were ignored. If Francis is guilty of anything, then so is at least JPII – who is notorious for not caring about sex abuse. So is BXVI, who is notorious for being ineffective in dealing with holding priests accountable and recognizing the dysfunction at the Vatican and clericalism fed into the boiling pot of secrets that finally blew the top off the pot. And so are the U.S. bishops who also heard rumors or suspected and did nothing but keep giving McCarrick very public roles.

    We need to know who knew what and when. Vigano carefully loaded his letter to conceal that bigger picture and to protect some people. Remember too that Vigano has his own axe to grind. And notice who is rabble rousing and who is pointing at Francis and Wuerl. Is that really where fingers need to point?

  • There is no need to rediscover God. He is as he always was and will be.
    You are ignorant of the purpose of sexuality and how is ties to marriage and the family.
    You wish the church to change for your purposes based on your personal belief system.

  • The hot potato blew up in Francis’s face and hands, with his messy handprints all over this.

    How are young going to enforce a cardinal not celebrating the Mass as he galivants, around the world?

    Read the real details in Vigano’s letter. Incredible.

    We will never have a Pope Francis II.

    Check this.

    https://www.dioceseoftyler.org/news/2018/08/bishop-stricklands-public-statement-to-the-diocese/

    This pontificate is over, certainly his progressive movements are done.

  • “We always need to be rediscovering God”

    Excellent point. In some ways this is the most fundamental dividing line between how people access the divine. For some, it is a constant, evolving discovery. For others, it is received institutional knowledge, frequently medieval knowledge.

  • No one will ever accuse you of receiving institutional knowledge, perpetuallyflummoxed. Or accuse you of receiving any knowledge at all, for that matter.

  • Francis UNDID the penalties against McCarrick that Benedict put in.

    That’s the point…one of many…in Vigano’s letter.

    Done.

  • So glad the Vigano letter put the WMOF and Jimmy Martin’s speech well deep in the rear view mirror.

  • Are these some viruses that you have made up in your head? Viruses you claim that the gay male community is spreading which none but you know about? Very little gets past the view of an electron microscope.

  • Sorry, my mistake, I confused the title of the article that you referred to as being a book.
    Why Men Like Me Should Not Be Priests

  • Homosexuality, and deeply entrenched homosexual networks, are indeed a Catholic problem. (And a Methodist problem, and an Episco problem, and an Everybody-Else-In-Church problem.)

    Most people — secular or religious, Atheist or Catholic — are now seeing the real deal. There is NO way a “God Made You Gay” pope like Mr. Francis, is gonna clean house on America’s, Ireland’s, Chile’s, or anybody’s homosexual clergy networks. Which means there will be NO deep-cleaning on this gigantic Sex-Abuse issue. Merely a ton of “Nothing New” apologies and speeches.

  • Sincere young adult seminarians signed up with McCarrick (and others), wanting to live lives of spiritual purity and public service for God. And instead, they wound up infected with a Virus. One that will never show up under the most expensive electron microscope, yet to this day the Virus rules their minds and hearts, and creates reinforcement networks with other infected clergy.

    And in some cases, it’s been passed along to the NEXT generations (and McCarrick is definitely the poster boy for messing up multiple generations). The actual size and scope of this thing, nobody can even speculate anymore, but the Pennsylvania, Chile, and Ireland situations, are GIGANTIC.

  • Absolutely the case. very little of it being the case has anything to do with your particular obsession and fairy tales, but absolutely, neverthelesss the case.

    As I keep trying to inform you, to no avail…

    The issue isn’t homosexuality, but the tremendous psychological stress it causes those people who seem to devote their lives trying to make gay people miserable, unhappy, or dead.

    You might want to look at that…

    Nah. who am I kidding!

  • No, thomas. Benedict UNDID the penalties by not enforcing them. For all we know, Benedict rescinded the penalties.

    I don’t like what is shown by McCarrick’s use of power to abuse seminarians. But, this is not something that didn’t exist before Francis came to his position. It has existed for decades, and maybe centuries. I suspect Paul VI knew, surely JPII knew, and so did BXVI. I suspect a good many insiders in the Vatican knew – and didn’t care.

    Think about it this way. The Catholic Church has existed for centuries with straight and gay priests and hierarchs who didn’t keep the celibacy requirements. It wasn’t such a big issue until we got to this modern times where people are far more educated, not under the thumb of a divine right ruler, have broad and instant means of communication, and – most important – women have voices that are being heard. Men abusing their power for sexual favors is not just a problem for women. It is also a problem for men with lesser power than the abuser.

    This is a problem of an exclusive all male “club” of those who have no one in their group to hold them accountable to how they treat others outside the group or those with lesser power in the group. this is little boys playing boy games without mommas and daddys in sight.

  • Benedict may have been unaware, or they may conditions only he knew.

    He was on the brink of stepping down due to old age and frailty.

    Just thought I’d throw a few comments into your usual litany of assumptions and hunches.

  • The focus is the pope and his supposed zero tolerance.

    It’s on his watch…and using his own too frequently mouthed criteria that he’s being properly judged against.

    He needs to go.

  • No. He needs to make changes, structural changes that make it possible for bishops to be held accountable. And, he needs to make changes in the culture of the Church and in the all male, clerical, hierarchical structure that has show it is unable to provide sufficient leadership and oversight in modern times. JPII and BXVI centralized power too much, silenced too many. The Church needs the voices of lay people and the voices especially of women inside the circles of power where decisions are made.

    The ol’ boys club need their mommas looking at what those juveniles get up to when they think no one can see them.

  • No…you need to be consistent.

    As you have disparaged JPII or Benedict for not fixing the hierarchy…after 5 years it’s Pope Francis’s mess.

    He wanted to make a mess…he now has one.

    He has priestly messes…and religious sisters messes as well.

  • He simply needs to show the data.

    It’ll be good for all of us to get into the data..how many priests abused, who did they abuse, what was their age.

    No reason to not look at the data right?

  • In short, he needs to do what you want: change the Catholic Church into the Church of England.

    Fat chance.

  • Well, I could certainly hope that more would have been accomplished. But, he has people like Burke, Vigano, Bertone, lots of bishops (including lots of U.S. bishops), you and many like you – who are already having apoplexy over the little he has done.

    I think part of the problem is there is a big hole in Canon Law that let bishops get away with the cover-up and now Francis has no grounds in Canon Law to make a legal (Canon Law) case against them for their failures. He could and should change Canon Law now, but can he apply new laws retroactively? I don’t think so.

    With all that has been found about sex abuse in Ireland, Australia, the U.S., Canada plus bits dribbling out from other countries, I think it is safe to say bishops aren’t held accountable. Not under JPII, not under BXVI, and only a few under Francis. But more have been held accountable under Francis than under the previous two. Francis needs to do more – much more. What he is left with doing is not just what came up on his watch, but the failures of JPII and BXVI, too. So, maybe we need to throw a few blast at JPII and BXVI for the mess they left Francis to clean up.

    One shout out, though, for Benedict. He at least got the motu proprio on child sex abuse issued. He didn’t do a blessed think about holding bishops accountable either, but he did get the ball rolling before he quit.

  • I agree…and guess who put that hole in there? McCarrick.

    It’s a strange thing. Where before the corrective conversations and measures took place discreetly, quietly, and perhaps too quietly, giving cover to pervs like McCarrick….the noisy, in the open way of Francis has now come home to roost.

    In years past…not wanting to exacerbate matters…bishops got their points across in quiet upwardly moving conversations as Vigano’s statement shows (e.g., Francis asking Vigano “what do you think of McCarrick, etc…”). It was all done privately.

    Francis broke the mold…wanted a mess….called out this person or that group out in public all the time, in some cases rather rudely.

    But it may have taken a few years for the Bishops to loosen up…but have they ever loosened up!! Open calls for his resignation!!

    Francis lead by example…and now we have a near civil war on our hands.

    It’s his to fix or let unravel.

    Take a look at the responses to the Pope’s twitter feed. Ouch. Cupich’s is as bad.

  • There is no ” big hole in Canon Law that let bishops get away with the cover-up” and you’ve been corrected on tht several times, at least five times by me.

    “Not under JPII, not under BXVI”

    These are just the ones I noted in my quick file:

    Bishop John Russell stated he would testify against Cardinal Bernardin in court, but he died before he had an opportunity to do so.

    Archbishop Rembert Weakland (Milwaukee, Wisconsin). Accused of molesting Paul Marcoux; forced to resign.

    Bishop Daniel L. Ryan (Springfield, Illinois). Accused of homosexual misconduct with male prostitutes and clergy; forced to resign.

    Bishop Patrick Ziemann (Santa Rosa, California). Forced to tesign after admitting a two-year sexual affair with a priest he brought into the country from Costa Rica.

    Bishop Anthony O’Connell (Miami Beach, Florida). Accused of molesting Christopher Dixon and paying Dixon to keep quiet about the abuse; fprced to resigned.

    Bishop J. Kendrick Williams (Lexington, Kentucky). Accused by three plaintiffs of sex abuse; forced to resign June 11, 2002)

    Bishop J. Keith Symons (Palm Beach, Florida); forced to resign after admitting he sexually abused altar boys while a priest.

    One of these days you’re going to actually have a fact.

  • No, I have not been corrected. I have rebutted you by continuing to make the comments. Suggest you do some reading outside of the places you go that have twisted your mind. Read the transcripts from the Australian Royal Commission. Read what others have said, trained in Canon Law. Read what was coming out of the Vatican under some of the cardinals in praising bishops who refused to cooperate with civil authorities.

    What you need to look at and what is important is that it happened uniformly. The coverup was and is worldwide and it remains a problem in many countries in Africa, Asia, South/Central America. It is still aproblem here because it is still being “discovered” as new trials force bishops to reveal predator priests. What we need to think about are the characteristics of the organization that consistently handled child sex abuse cases by hiding them, ignoring the victims, ignoring the legal system. We need to look at the idea that the bishops all thought that they had no responsibility to the community in which they operated – the entire community of not just Catholics but of all those who lived in the neighborhoods and towns/cities, under legal systems and not just under the dicta of the Catholic Church or the bishop.

    This is a culture inside the Church and it is fed and supported by Canon Law. It is a both the clerical culture that Pope Francis acknowledges is a problem and it is a systemic set of practices and rules (canons) that express and support that culture.

  • “I have rebutted you by continuing to make the comments.”

    A rebuttal involves facts so assembled as to establish the contra position.

    What you have in fact done is to continue to make erroneous comments.

    I “Suggest you do some reading outside of the places you go that have twisted your mind.”

    “Read the transcripts from the Australian Royal Commission.”

    Aka the Kangaroo Court.

    “Read what others have said, trained in Canon Law.”

    I have. You apparently have not.

    “Read what was coming out of the Vatican under some of the cardinals in praising bishops who refused to cooperate with civil authorities.”

    Who refused to open up internal church proceedings to become surrogate policemen and stoolies.

    You apparently ceased being a Catholic a half century ago or more, and have labored on it since.

ADVERTISEMENTs