The only real hope for some sort of reform lies with the next conclave (in God's good time) and my faith in the eventuality of that is fast being tested.
Enemies inside the gate. If there's truth to the observation that culture is downstream from religion, then we must hold the homosexual infiltrators of the Vatican to account for the virulent spread of the toxic LGBTQ confusion currently wrecking the Christian West.
Yes and No in the case of the Catholic Church. 50-60 years ago boys in high school seminaries were preyed upon by gay faculty members who, following ordination, went forth and preyed upon teenage boys in their parishes. This predation came from within the Church and not from the outside culture.
We might be on the same page. I'm theorizing that if not for almost three generations of systemic homosexual predation inside the Church, we might not have had the homosexual curse on the culture. How much time, money, and energy has been sunk on pretending the Catholicism has a generic "pedophile priest" problem as a means of protecting the flaming homosexual McCarricks of the Church? In other words, the Roman Catholic Church is all in on the Rainbow agenda to give cover to its worst, demonic element. I could be wrong, but that's why I air the idea here.
You are spot on. I can’t tell you how many straight seminarians and priests that closeted gay bishops and seminary rectors have gotten rid of because they didn’t want to be outed as homosexuals or reported for homosexual predation. A straight young man would have to be very naive and/or uninformed to want to become a Roman ( not Greek) Catholic priest today.
The mindset, which I have had articulated to me by numerous priests over my 50 years as a Catholic School teacher, is that priests who are NOT members of a religious order are NOT bound by a vow of chastity but rather only by a "promise" of celibacy which,they say, only means not to marry. Therefore, they claim, sexual misconduct OF ANY KIND is just a sin, no worse than any other, absolvable in Confession, and in no way deleterious to their priesthood, anymore than the overeating of a gluttonous priest or temper flares by an angry one, etc. Hence the centuries long history of tolerance and inaction until compelled by scandal to act, and the cover-up strategy is rationalized by the prioritization of scandal as the only real danger since they love to apply Paul's words " we all sin and fall short of God's glory " - BUT ONLY TO THEMSELVES. ( I'd be interested in your thoughts on the prevalence of such rationalization, Gene G.)
Diocesan priests make the "promise of celibacy" while religious order priests take the "vow of celibacy." Historically, neither group have been good at practicing celibacy/chastity. At this very moment, less than half the priests in the world are practicing celibacy/chastity, and only around 2% of priests can say that they never broke the promise/vow after they were ordained. Judaism never endorsed celibacy because it found it went against nature ("And God saw that it was not good for man to be alone."). Jesus did not lead a celibate life like a diocesan priest who often today lives alone. He was always surrounded by his apostles. Hence, he lived more like a religious priest in community where chastity, poverty, and obedience are more practical vows than spiritual vows. Call me if you wish to discuss further (619-203-8911).
Thank you for keeping the light on,
Semper Fortis! ⚓ 🌊📿 📖🕯️🧭 📯
(acta non verba) ❤️🩹 ⛪ Pray on.....
The only real hope for some sort of reform lies with the next conclave (in God's good time) and my faith in the eventuality of that is fast being tested.
Enemies inside the gate. If there's truth to the observation that culture is downstream from religion, then we must hold the homosexual infiltrators of the Vatican to account for the virulent spread of the toxic LGBTQ confusion currently wrecking the Christian West.
Yes and No in the case of the Catholic Church. 50-60 years ago boys in high school seminaries were preyed upon by gay faculty members who, following ordination, went forth and preyed upon teenage boys in their parishes. This predation came from within the Church and not from the outside culture.
We might be on the same page. I'm theorizing that if not for almost three generations of systemic homosexual predation inside the Church, we might not have had the homosexual curse on the culture. How much time, money, and energy has been sunk on pretending the Catholicism has a generic "pedophile priest" problem as a means of protecting the flaming homosexual McCarricks of the Church? In other words, the Roman Catholic Church is all in on the Rainbow agenda to give cover to its worst, demonic element. I could be wrong, but that's why I air the idea here.
You are spot on. I can’t tell you how many straight seminarians and priests that closeted gay bishops and seminary rectors have gotten rid of because they didn’t want to be outed as homosexuals or reported for homosexual predation. A straight young man would have to be very naive and/or uninformed to want to become a Roman ( not Greek) Catholic priest today.
Yeah this issue cost our young man two years of his life and we’re all still recovering. ❤️🩹
The mindset, which I have had articulated to me by numerous priests over my 50 years as a Catholic School teacher, is that priests who are NOT members of a religious order are NOT bound by a vow of chastity but rather only by a "promise" of celibacy which,they say, only means not to marry. Therefore, they claim, sexual misconduct OF ANY KIND is just a sin, no worse than any other, absolvable in Confession, and in no way deleterious to their priesthood, anymore than the overeating of a gluttonous priest or temper flares by an angry one, etc. Hence the centuries long history of tolerance and inaction until compelled by scandal to act, and the cover-up strategy is rationalized by the prioritization of scandal as the only real danger since they love to apply Paul's words " we all sin and fall short of God's glory " - BUT ONLY TO THEMSELVES. ( I'd be interested in your thoughts on the prevalence of such rationalization, Gene G.)
Diocesan priests make the "promise of celibacy" while religious order priests take the "vow of celibacy." Historically, neither group have been good at practicing celibacy/chastity. At this very moment, less than half the priests in the world are practicing celibacy/chastity, and only around 2% of priests can say that they never broke the promise/vow after they were ordained. Judaism never endorsed celibacy because it found it went against nature ("And God saw that it was not good for man to be alone."). Jesus did not lead a celibate life like a diocesan priest who often today lives alone. He was always surrounded by his apostles. Hence, he lived more like a religious priest in community where chastity, poverty, and obedience are more practical vows than spiritual vows. Call me if you wish to discuss further (619-203-8911).
Correction: "religious order priests take the vow of chastity."
Thank you. Seems like a distinction without a difference, but I heard it many times from priests I worked with and for in the '70's and '80's.