Translate

Sunday, April 14, 2019

WHEREIN A BENEDICTINE MISSES THE MARK AND A LAY REPORTER, JOHN ALLEN HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD CONCERNING POPE BENEDICT’S MISSIVE

John Allen lets us know why heterodox Catholics, especially theologians and bishops, want to discredit Pope Benedict’s bombshell of a letter and here it is:
Under the heading of the law of unintended consequences, however, there’s no reason these (suggested)fast-track procedures have to be restricted to sex abuse cases. They could be employed to prosecute any crime under Church law - including prosecutions of those very dissenting theologians whom progressive-minded reformers in the 1970s and ’80s worked so hard to protect.
That may not seem an especially live prospect under Francis, who’s shown little propensity to engage in theological head-hunting, but he won’t be pope forever. Someday a more conservative, doctrinally-minded pope may once again be in power, and that pope could easily decide to apply the same “no debate, no appeal” process that’s become standard operating procedure on abuse cases elsewhere.
Whether such a crackdown would be bad or good is a debate for another time, but the point is that it could happen, and the reform camp might rue the day it tossed that particular boomerang into the air.
If so, no one ought to profess surprise - after all, Benedict laid it out for us this week.

Read full article:

Heterodox (leftists) are apoplectic about Pope Benedict’s “encyclical” and to discredit the entire letter, they cherry pick a very small segment that is open to some debate because the pope doesn’t take into account other factors. Read this Praytell article HERE to see what I mean.

What is that? Pope Benedict correctly indicates that pre Vatican II trained priests gave into their perverted and normal sexual desires because of the sexual revolution of 1968 (although it really began in the 50’s with Hugh Hefner) and the confusion in the Church as a result of Vatican II, ESPECIALLY AS IT REGARDS THE FRAGILE GIFT OF CELIBACY AND SEXUAL MORALITY. The fact that homosexual cliques developed in seminaries, religious orders and dioceses is indisputable. Heterosexual cliques did not develop except to promote optional celibacy, meaning allowing priests to marry and to return to active ministry those expelled from the priesthood for marrying.

I find it peculiar that the term pedophilia is exclusively used these days, because this is not the major diagnosis in this debacle and it is correct to say it isn’t related to homosexuality. The problem is that priests for the most part but not exclusively, took advantage of teenage boys that were sexually developed. That is homosexual predatory perversion pure and simple and if teenage girls had been abused, which is a minuscule number among the abused, it would be heterosexual predatory crimes.

Church law allowed bishops to act immediately and punitively to remove heterosexual priests who publicly married. They did very little to priest who acted out secretly and they engaged in cover ups to keep it secret, even criminal acting out.

Thus what John Allen writes about Pope Benedict’s letter is on the mark, it is about Church law and
dissenting theologians protecting the accused or the guilty and this was on steroids especially in 1968 and forward! Pope Benedict says canonical procedures must be changed to deal with errant clerics and not just on sexual issues but malpractice as it regards doctrinal and moral teachings:

In Rome, meanwhile, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI stirred controversy this week with a lengthy essay on the clerical sexual abuse scandals published in an obscure Bavarian periodical for clergy. Mostly, what set tongues wagging was the retired pope’s suggestion that “homosexual cliques” in seminaries were part of the picture - which, to some, appeared to lend legitimacy to the prejudice that gays are somehow predisposed to be pedophiles.
Less noticed in Benedict’s essay has been his discussion of canon law vis-à-vis the abuse scandals. Basically, his argument is that by the time the crisis erupted in the early 2000s, such an overweening emphasis had been placed in church law on the rights of the accused that convicting anyone of a crime was effectively off the table. What had to happen, he suggests, was to trim back those due process guarantees in order to make convictions of abuser priests - which typically means defrocking - faster and easier.
Interestingly, Benedict says the reason things got out of whack wasn’t to protect abuser 
priests, but rather dissident theologians after the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).
As a counterweight against the often-inadequate defense options available to accused theologians,” he wrote, “their right to defense by way of guarantorism was extended to such an extent that convictions were hardly possible.”
When the sex abuse crisis exploded, reformers clamored for a firmer response from Rome, demanding swift and sure justice - including fast-track procedures for weeding abusers out of the priesthood. In the main the Vatican has satisfied that request, greenlighting scores of laicizations in a short arc of time and without the possibility of appeal.
Under the heading of the law of unintended consequences, however, there’s no reason these fast-track procedures have to be restricted to sex abuse cases. They could be employed to prosecute any crime under Church law - including prosecutions of those very dissenting theologians whom progressive-minded reformers in the 1970s and ’80s worked so hard to protect.
That may not seem an especially live prospect under Francis, who’s shown little propensity to engage in theological head-hunting, but he won’t be pope forever. Someday a more conservative, doctrinally-minded pope may once again be in power, and that pope could easily decide to apply the same “no debate, no appeal” process that’s become standard operating procedure on abuse cases elsewhere.
Whether such a crackdown would be bad or good is a debate for another time, but the point is that it could happen, and the reform camp might rue the day it tossed that particular boomerang into the air.
If so, no one ought to profess surprise - after all, Benedict laid it out for us this week.

My final comment: Part of the problem, related very much to the 1960's and especially 1968 (remember the dissent from Humanae Vitae issued that year) were liberal, heterodox publications that encouraged priests and nuns to rebel against the authority of the Church and its pre-Vatican II disiciplines, not only in the area of birth control but sex in general.

The dissident publication, The National Catholic Reporter, was the most widely read newspaper by priests and nuns in the 1960's and 70's until the social media take over in recent years.

This publication encouraged sexual immorality not only for those with normal sexual desires but especially for those with perversions and nothing was seen as disorder in the realm of sexuality by dissidents who controlled this publication and those who read it which also included the laity.

To prove my point, read this article posted at the NCR website this weekend about 1970's throwback, Bishop Gumbleton and his cronies:

Heed Francis' example: Bishop Thomas Gumbleton speaks on LGBT issues

1 comment:

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald said..."Pope Benedict correctly indicates that pre Vatican II trained priests gave into their perverted and normal sexual desires because of the sexual revolution of 1968 (although it really began in the 50’s with Hugh Hefner) and the confusion in the Church as a result of Vatican II..."

"Pope Benedict correctly indicates that pre Vatican II trained priests gave into their perverted and normal sexual desires because of the sexual revolution of 1968..."

Father McDonald, the problem with that notion is the following:

As dioceses have released lists of priests accused "credibly" of sexual abuse, we have found that one "pre-Vatican II trained" priest after another had been accused of sexual during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s.

Pax.

Mark Thomas