Translate

Thursday, June 13, 2019

IS LIBERAL CATHOLICISM THE CAUSE OF THE SCANDAL AMONG BISHOPS AND THEIR 1970’S LEADERSHIP?


Let’s face it, sexual abuse of minors and infidelity to one’s promises to chastity be we married or celibate have always been a part of the sinful condition of mankind. It happened in the pre-Vatican II Church and it happens in heterodox and orthodox Catholic parishes/priests/laity.

But something insidious, arrogant and mind boggling happened with progressive/heterodox Catholicism beginning in the 1960’s. Vatican II’s spirit set into motion this ideology that we could make heaven on earth by unbridled mercy detached from penance and/or severe sentences.

Thus by the 1970’s bishops all around the world viewed sexual abuse and sexual misconduct simply as a sin that could be forgiven. This mercy was seen as the in-breaking of God’s kingdom. If scandal arose, that had to be hidden as scandal isn’t a part of the kingdom.  So priests were moved about in the diocese from diocese to diocese and around the world.

The focus always seemed to be on the perpetrator not the victim or potential victims, much like prison ministry and opposition to life sentences and even the death penalty justly used. The perpetrator deserves no ultimate justice nor do the victims. The victims suffer!

Bishops thought psychiatry and spiritual counseling could save a priest and he needed to be given chance after chance to be saved, like an alcoholic in recovery who falls again and again.

Pope Francis exhibits this mentality in terms of his ideology of mercy. That is why he cuts such slack to bishops he has appointed who are miscreants He blames others for pointing out their faults uniting this defense can no longer hold water.

The same is true with ways being made to allow active adulterers to receive Holy Communion or any type of serial sin—mercy and accompaniment seem to rein not common sense and Christ-like teaching which calls for conversion and a firm purpose of amendment.

Earth and the world aren’t heaven. We are on a pilgrimage to heaven and the Second Coming. Until then may common sense and orthodox Catholicism find a new place in our broken-down Church!

39 comments:

Friend of William said...

"Ideology" of mercy? Wow.


The quality of mercy is not strained;
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'T is mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown:
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthronèd in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea;
Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant there.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Here's something I wonder about...

How is it that the secular world knows clergy sex abuse is wrong?

God bless.
Bee

Anonymous said...

Children get hurt, that's how.

TJM said...

I don't know about the "liberalism" part, but if the Bishops had simply treated these errant priests like they did the laity, the problem would have been dealt with properly

Mark Thomas said...

We have a liberal Pope who has flooded the hierarchy with unworthy and stupid men.

I do not think that any little work on our part is going to bring good to the Church. We should, I believe, face the facts.

Vatican II was a dangerous Council that was started for no sufficient reason.

If I did not believe God, I would be convinced that the Catholic Church was about to end.

From surface appearance it would seem that the Lord Christ is abandoning His Church.

======================================================================================

All of the above was uttered in 1962 A.D. by the great theologian, Monsignor Joseph C. Fenton.

-- "Since the death of [Pope] St. Pius X the Church has been directed by weak and liberal popes, who have flooded the hierarchy with unworthy and stupid men."

-- "I do not think that any little work on our part is going to bring good to the Church. We should, I believe, face the facts."

-- "I had always thought that this council was dangerous. It was started for no sufficient reason."

-- "If I did not believe God, I would be convinced that the Catholic Church was about to end."

-- "From surface appearance it would seem that the Lord Christ is abandoning His Church."

=========================================================================================

If Monsignor Fenton is to be believed, from 1914 A.D., to 1962 A.D., Benedict XV, Pius XI, Venerable Pius XII, and Saint John XXIII were "weak and liberal" Popes who had "flooded the hierarchy with unworthy and stupid men."

Father McDonald, long before the 1970s, liberal Catholicism was alive and well in Rome and throughout the Church, according to Monsignor Fenton.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Dan said...

Mark, I want to believe Monsignor Fenton. Where is he saying that "long before the 70's" these popes were liberal and the cause of the flood?

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

To my question "How is it that the secular world knows clergy sex abuse is wrong?"
Anonymous at June 13, 2019 at 5:02 PM said...

"Children get hurt, that's how."

So is that the criteria for judging something wrong, someone (a child or another person, I guess) gets hurt? Any other criteria for the secular world to know something is wrong?

God bless.
Bee

Anonymous said...

There may be others, but is some other metric needed?

Someone steals, someone is hurt.

Someone is unfaithful, someone is hurt.

Someone cheats in an athletic competition, someone is hurt.

Evil, in any case - stealing, being unfaithful, cheating, sexual abuse - is a deprivation of some moral good. Not only are children hurt, but even the "secular world" sees that the members of the churches whose clergy have abused have been hurt by the actions.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

So, Anonymous, how does the secular world define "hurt?" Is it something that causes emotional, physical, or psychological pain, or something more, since you mention "members of the churches whose clergy have abused have been hurt by the actions."


God bless.
Bee

JDJ said...

Well, Bee, here’s the thing: If your life has been spent reducing the supernatural to the natural (as I’m guessing Anonymous here has spent his life), then there is no other definition for sin than the natural consequences produced. Does sin produce natural consequences? Of course! But is that how to define sin? If so, where is God in that construct?

Anonymous said...

Bee and JDJ - Hold on a second. Bee asked, "How is it that the secular world knows clergy sex abuse is wrong?"

Bee asked about the SECULAR world. The SECULAR world doesn't look for supernatural causes or explanations. The SECULAR world has already reduced the supernatural to the natural. In the SECULAR world, God is not a part of the construct.

So I think the answer to Bee's question is as I stated.

The SECULAR world certainly understands "hurt" to include, "...emotional, physical, or psychological pain." Why wouldn't it? These forms of suffering do not require a belief or acknowledgement of God.

rcg said...

Two words in this thread stand out to me, ‘know’ and ‘hurt’. These indicate that something is certain and in the modern understanding, measurable. When I search for certainty in this issue I find people moving to obscure rather than clarify. This is most obvious, somewhat ironically, in the rapid objectification and dehumanizing of the people the priests have used to pleasure themselves. There is an obsession with finding the right word or right category so that then we will know exactly what to do about it. In the world of science, perfect knowledge of a natural phenomenon is of no use except to history. Action during the event requires faith, if not in Providence then in your body of knowledge. Discussions about molestations use sanitized descriptions of the child partially out of decorum but also to avoid generating emotion. Or to disturb. Or incite. Since we now eschew Latin we can gloss over words such those that indicate cause to movement and action. Everything is rigged to defeat movement, to stifle action. And if it fails to put the quietus to our own action it ensures resistance from those around us.

Mark Thomas said...

Dan said..."Where is he saying that "long before the 70's" these popes were liberal and the cause of the flood?"

He had recorded his comments in his diary.

His diary (diaries, actually) have been scanned and are available online.

1948 A.D., to 1966 A.D.

https://cuislandora.wrlc.org/islandora/object/achc-fenton%3A1

During the early 1960s, he insisted that the Church had been run into the ground by Popes Benedict XV, Pius XI, Venerable Pius XII, and Saint John XXIII.

Again, in 1962 A.D., he insisted that Rome, from 1914 A.D. to 1962 A.D., had promoted liberals through the ranks of the Church.

I am not certain about Popes Benedict XV and Pius XI, but in regard to Pope Venerable Pius XII, he most certainly initiated radical reforms.

I believe, however, that at least in regard to the Roman Liturgy, Pope Saint John XXIII was more "traditional" than Pope Venerable Pius XII.

One example in that regard concerns Monsignor Bugnini.

In 1948 A.D., Pope Venerable Pius XII tapped Monsignor Bugnini (as well as additional so-called "modernists") to concoct radical liturgical reforms. Pope Saint John XXIII fired, if you will, Monsignor Bugnini.

Anyway, Monsignor Fenton insisted that from 1914 A.D. through 1962 A.D., the Church had been run into the ground by a series of "weak and liberal Popes."

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Well, Anonymous, it seems to me "hurt" cannot be the criteria for determining if something is wrong, morally or otherwise, because there are instances when someone is hurt but the person hurting them has done no wrong, moral or otherwise.

An example may be a surgeon who must perform an operation. There is no doubt the person experiences pain (hurt) after the surgery, but no one would think the surgeon has done a wrong to the person (especially if the surgery is a success and the person recovers their health.)

A second example may be a man who finds he must close his business, and all his employees lose their jobs. No one would argue the employees are not hurt by the loss of a job, (emotionally probably, but also perhaps the employees families who depend on the employees for their food, shelter and clothing are hurt materially) but no one would think the business owner was doing a wrong.

So pain cannot be the criteria to determine whether someone has done something wrong. It must be something else. What would it be?

God bless.
Bee

Dan said...

Thanks M.

Mark Thomas said...

Dan, I hope that you enjoy reading Monsignor Fenton's diaries.

Pax.

Mark Thomas





Anonymous said...

Hurt can be, and is, a criterion for determining if some act is wrong. I never said it was the only one.

Yes, there are pre-moral evils that befall people. People trip and break hips, floods destroy property, lightening kills giraffes.

The doctor did not intend the post-operative pain and the business owner did not intend to harm her employees.

Secular-minded people can differentiate between moral (intended) and pre-moral evil without reference to God.

rcg said...

Anon, the three example of pre-moral evil (is that a thing?) are not caused by people (assuming I didn’t trip the person). Alternatively, if a person is capable of moral judgment is he not then required to exercise it? Then responsibility for unintended results has a moral dimension. If I am responsible for the plight of slaves and their descendants to what degree can I accept that responsibility without adding the moral sin of hubris? (Or maybe simply being absurd).

Anonymous said...

Evil is the absence of some "good."

Moral evils result from the choice of a human. Someone chooses to rob a bank, steal a Maybach, or abuse a child - all of which deprive someone of a good to which he/she is entitled.

Pre-moral evils are not the result of human choice. A flood deprives a family of the good of their house, a broken hip deprives the person of the good of mobility, a lightening strike on a giraffe deprives the animal of the good of life.

A person MAY be required to exercise judgment and MAY be required to act on that judgment. I see a person caught in a burning building. I judge that she will die without assistance. I am already distraught because my giraffe was killed by a lightening strike, I am recovering from a broken hip I suffered in a fall on the stairs, and my house was lost in a flood. So I do not act on that judgment since I cannot, in my estimation, save the person from the flames.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Anonymous at June 16, 2019 at 6:17 PM said:
"Secular-minded people can differentiate between moral (intended) and pre-moral evil without reference to God."

But just the criteria of "hurt" is not sufficient to determine the morality of an act. You now add what determines morality is an intention to deprive someone of a good they are entitled to.

But how does one know or determine "intentionality?" Certainly the clergy sexual abuser does not intend to hurt the child or deprive them of a good. Most likely the abuser does not consider what they were doing was harmful or hurtful. More likely they would think they just wanted to show love and affection and to give the child pleasure. So their intention was for the good of the child.

Regardless, "intentionality" does not seem sufficient either. There are times when an intention is to do good for the person, but the person perceives it as harmful. An example may be a mother who forbids her teenage son to go to a certain party, the intention being to protect him from the people she suspects will offer him drugs there, but the son's experience is that she is harming him and hurting his chances to socialize and have fun. Has the mother wronged her son?

How can an observer determine the intention to judge whether the act is wrong or not?

I still don't see how secular people can know that some act is wrong by these criteria.

God bless.
Bee

John Nolan said...

Anonymous (above) referred to the 'secular' world. In fact he mentioned it thrice, capitalizing the word 'secular' each time.

Given his limited knowledge of both English and Latin, it would not have occurred to him that he was guilty of tautology. We all live 'in hoc saeculo'. In other words, we live in this world until we are called into the next. 'Secular' is not the antonym of 'religious' and was not used as such from Popes Gelasius I in the fifth century to Pope Leo XIII at the end of the nineteenth. We are all secular until we die.

Catholic doctrine supports neither totalitarianism, which would give the State authority over the Church, nor theocracy which would imply that the Church usurps the God-given right of the State to exercise authority in the temporal (secular) sphere. Both are 'societates perfectae' although in spiritual matters the State must defer to the Church.

Even atheists are not simply utilitarian. Ethics did not begin with the Church.

Anonymous said...

It is telling, John Nolan, that you chose not to mention that Bee (see above) was the first to use the term "secular." (June 13, 2019 at 1:50 PM)

She was also the second to use it in this conversation, "Any other criteria for the secular world to know something is wrong?" (June 14, 2019 at 3:08 PM) But, John, you chose not to mention that.

Despite your claim, one of the accepted definitions of "secular" is "not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred)."

Given your well-documented (by you) knowledge of both English and Latin, I would have thought you would know this...






Anonymous said...

Bee, a drunk driver does not intend to kill people when he gets behind the steering wheel, but that is no excuse for the harm that occurs. That an abuser may not intend to harm a child is also no excuse. A person who sets fire to a house not knowing that there are people inside cannot claim that it was not her intention to kill the inhabitants.

Also, the teenager's perception of the parent's prohibition does not alter the "good" of the parent's rules.

We judge intentions all the time. Otherwise we could not have as doctrine that the intention of a person who may be guilty of mortal sin must be considered in making a judgment regarding that person's moral culpability.

If a secular person sees a mugger beat an elderly person and take her purse, that secular person does not need a belief in God to know the act is wrong.

John Nolan said...

Anonymous, why should I have to mention one person's use of the word 'secular' when I have your thrice repeated, capitalized and narrow definition of the word?

Were you contradicting the pevious poster on her use of language?

You have a habit of using only one definition of a word (usually the most widespread and erroneous one) and sticking to it limpet-like.

I don't 'claim' anything. I expect intelligent people to engage in intelligent argument. You have consistently made it clear that you lack the capability to do so. It's not my job to tutor you; in fact it would take a more resolute man than than I to pierce the carapace of your ignorance and stupidity.

Melius est a sapiente corripi, quam stultorum adulatione decipi; quia sicut sonitus spinarum ardentium sub olla, sic risus stulti.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Anonymous at June 18, 2019 at 11:12 AM said:
"If a secular person sees a mugger beat an elderly person and take her purse, that secular person does not need a belief in God to know the act is wrong."

Maybe, but my question remains: what standards or values do they use to determine this act is wrong. Where do those standards and values come from? The criteria can't be that someone is hurt, because there are examples of people hurt but no wrong was done. It can't be the intention of the perpetrator because someone can be hurt even though the intentions was not to hurt them. So, what is it?

How do the non-religious know something is wrong?

God bless.
Bee
P.S. Yes, I did use the word "secular" first to describe a person who does not accept religion or religious values as a moral guide. I apologize if my word is imprecise. I'm not a scholar, but was trying to get across the distinction between someone judges situations by values derived from religion, and those who claim they do not hold religious values, whom I labeled "secular."

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous, why should I have to mention one person's use of the word 'secular' when I have your thrice repeated, capitalized and narrow definition of the word?"

I used the word a Bee used the word, yet you took me to task for the usage and not her. I was not contradicting her, I was using it in the same way she did. Why the choice, John?

I use whatever definition of a word suits my purpose, as you do. Next time you feel UP to it, look UP "UP" in an UP to date dictionary.

Bee, your word usage is not incorrect.

My answer to your question "...what standards or values do they (secular people)use to determine this act is wrong?" remains the same.

A secular person sees harm to an individual. A secular person recognizes that the culprit intended harm. Any person, without reference to a divine being, can recognize that such an act is wrong.

Your intention was clear pretty much from the beginning. A non-religious person can easily recognize wrong actions, as easily as any person who professes to believe in God. The secular person may not see an "objective" morality in the make-up of the universe, whereas a religious person, such as Catholics, do.

If a Catholic don't harm another person because they love God, that is laudable and moral. If a non-believer does not harm another person because they love the other person, that, too is laudable and moral.

You might try this essay: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/ethics-without-gods/






John Nolan said...

Bee

Don't worry. You have more scholarship in your little finger than Anonymous has in his whole miserable carcass.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Well, Anonymous, I guess you can't answer my question. To simply say, essentially, "they just can" is insufficient.

God bless.
Bee

John Nolan said...

'I use whatever definition of a word suits my purpose'. Yes, we've noticed. Perhaps you might consider posting under Humpty Dumpty rather than Anonymous.

Anonymous said...

Bee - I did answer your question. I didn't say "they just can."

You don't agree with the answer - that's fine. But don't play the, "Well, I guess you can't answer" game. Read the essay I linked if you want more insight into how non-theists judge right and wrong.

John's not going to tell us why he made me and not Bee his target. We all know why.

And, Bee, no one has to tell John he knows more than the rest of us. He already knows.

Anonymous said...

"'I use whatever definition of a word suits my purpose'".

So do you, John. The difference 'tween me and thee in this matter is that I recognize that words can and do have multiple definitions.

Secular does not have only one meaning, much to your dismay.

I use whatever definition suits my purpose, as do you.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Anonymous at June 18, 2019 at 7:17 PM said,

Bee - I did answer your question. I didn't say "they just can."

Well, no, you didn't literally answer "they just can." But you are sticking with and keep repeating the two criteria that I demonstrated are insufficient by examples of why they are insufficient.

And that's all you got. That's all they got. Yet they know, as do you, it really fails fast when they are pressed as to how they know something is wrong.

Maybe one day NAMBLA will win everyone over, and then all these clergy sex abusers will be heroes and martyrs.


God bless.
Bee

John Nolan said...

Anonymous

You think that 'sex' is coterminous with 'gender' since some use the terms interchangeably.
You think that 'doctor' only means a medical practitioner since it does have that connotation in most people's minds.
You think that 'secular' only means 'without religion' since that is a common use (misuse?) of the word.

Fr McDonald is a 'secular priest'. Does this mean he is irreligious?

I am not in the least dismayed that words have more than one definition. But what I try to point out to ignoramuses like yourself is that linguistic precision is not only advantageous in itself - it helps focus the mind and leads to greater clarity of thought, a concept of which you appear to be blissfully unaware.

Yes, I make you a target although it takes little skill to hit it. It is simply because I hold you in the utmost contempt.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

John Nolan: I once worked with a woman whose precision in language was natural, unaffected, and brilliant. I admired her greatly. I soon realized the precision of her word choice reflected the clarity of her thought. I thought she would have made a great writer. I have always wished I had that same ability, but alas, my brain doesn't seem to have that capacity (that's probably not the best word choice. See what I mean?) But I can salute it from afar. :-)

God bless.
Bee

Anonymous said...

"You think that 'sex' is coterminous with 'gender' since some use the terms interchangeably.
You think that 'doctor' only means a medical practitioner since it does have that connotation in most people's minds.
You think that 'secular' only means 'without religion' since that is a common use (misuse?) of the word."

Sex and gender can be coterminous depending on the context in which they are used. You want it to be otherwise, but, as the wise philosopher said, "You don't always get what you want." As another great philosopher said, "Wanting ain't Getting."

As I stated, "The difference 'tween me and thee in this matter is that I recognize that words can and do have multiple definitions."

See that? "Words can and do have multiple definitions."

The meaning of a word comes, in many cases, from the context in which it is used. Were I to call you a "Cool Cat" I would not be referring to either your body temperature or the species to which you belong. Were I to call you a "Jackass" I would not be suggesting that you are a donkey.

If I say "I visited a doctor for treatment for diabetes" the meaning of "doctor" is determined by the context. I'm not visiting a person with a PhD in medieval French literature, I am consulting a medical practitioner. Context, John, determines the meaning.

Fr. McDonald is a secular priest. IN THAT CONTEXT, as you are well aware, secular does not mean he is irreligious. In the context Bee and I were using, secular does mean irreligious.

John Nolan said...

Anonymous, context is important but linguistic accuracy trumps it.

June 18th is the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. You've met yours, and not for the first time. Your bluff and bluster convince no-one; they are a cover for your inability to engage with an argument.

Do you really believe that you are the only one to have discovered that words can have more than one meaning?

Do you really believe that you can take me on and win? No-one else here does. I suggest you quit while you are still behind.

Anonymous said...

Linguistic accuracy is meaningless without context.

I have not "discovered" that words have more than one meaning, Cool Cat.

You argued above that Bee and I had misunderstood the meaning of "secular." We did not.

You said, "'Secular' is not the antonym of 'religious' and was not used as such from Popes Gelasius I in the fifth century to Pope Leo XIII at the end of the nineteenth."

That's all well and good if we were using the term as Gelasius used it. We weren't.

One meaning of secular is as you describe it. Another meaning is "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis." That's how Bee and I used and - and you know that. If you don't care for that definition, take it up with language.

Fortify your pedestal, John. Keep building ramparts, keep that drawbridge raised and that portcullis lowered, get your cauldrons of oil boiling. Language doesn't depend on you. Knowing that, I have won.

John Nolan said...

Anonymous, in your dreams.

George said...

When a person, whether of religious persuasion or not, is deprived of a good, something he or she possesses or is entitled to, then that person has been wronged. This is something universally understood and it cuts across all races, religious beliefs, and geographic boundaries. Ask someone who is without belief in God or creed if it would be OK for you to take their car into your possession without their permission. Whether that person resides in Minneapolis, Manchester, Moscow, Mumbai, or Melbourne, they would let you know that it most certainly wrong. Of course we can extend this to asking (if the person is married) if it would be OK to take their spouse as our own. Again, if the person had a child that was killed by someone driving while intoxicated, do you think that they would not consider that to be wrong? And that they and their family were wronged and deeply hurt inside? Would they not consider it to be a great wrong if a member of their family was intentionally murdered by someone? Again, I speak here of those both with and without any religious affiliation or spiritual belief. Of course, knowing this, one wonders why any person would then do wrong to another? People of no or little or loss of faith may have ways of defending their wrongful actions, but we of faith know that evil and its allure and self-justification goes back to the beginning of man and it is only because there exists a Source of good that is unconquerable that there is any in the world at all.
That it is universally understood that there are acts which are wrong has resulted in the evolution and development of systems of laws and punishment to protect the rights and property of the individual.
What we as Catholics believe in (as do other Christian denominations) is that in addition to the incurred wrong against another person, there is also sin, or offense to God, which is that God has been wronged as well and that by our wrongful actions our spiritual, covenantal relationship to him has been adversely affected.