|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Oct 6, 2021 14:02:39 GMT
On this topic, I want to make myself abundantly clear. We need catholic inquisition. " were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones." The death penalty would be to good for these evil Men and may the only way they would truly repent. It asks the question do we remain Catholic when we mortally sin? Can a catholic ever fully remove themselves once received the sacraments? I imagine the vast majority of these Homosexuals and paedophiles care very little if anything about the Catholic Faith. Well I personally disagree with the death penalty, but while certainly a Catholic Inquisition with either the death penalty or a public casting out might convince the world the Church is serious about cleaning out the mountains of excrement from its Augean stables, we all know this isn't going to happen. Instead the usual shuffling and empty rhetoric will continue. As for modernity etc being responsible for crimes within the church, sorry but I'm not convinced. I think this is just evasion. I referenced Peter Damian referring to widespread sexual abuse in 1056 - an era that can by no stretch be considered modern. Nor am I persuaded by the "anyone who did these things isn't really Catholic" line. By Catholic standards, having received the sacraments they were and still are Catholic unless they've been formally excommunicated. Where do you draw your lines at "if you do this, you aren't really Catholic"? It's a slippery slope that quickly disqualifies just about anyone. Not to mention the fact that a paedophile could regularly confesses to a priest and be granted absolution, so in answer to a question above, yes, you can be Catholic and a paedophile. Can you sin mortally and still be a Catholic? Of course. I'd say the line I would draw is someone who clearly doesn't even profess Catholicism anymore. For instance, I don't think it's accurate to call Adolf Hitler a Catholic, even if he was a baptised Catholic. He obviously did not consider himself a Christian. But I think anybody who professes Catholicism should be considered a Catholic, no matter how much their lives are in contradiction with that. As you say, there's a slippery slope whereby only saints would be considered Catholic at all. |
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Oct 6, 2021 15:19:41 GMT
On this topic, I want to make myself abundantly clear. We need catholic inquisition. " were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones." The death penalty would be to good for these evil Men and may the only way they would truly repent. It asks the question do we remain Catholic when we mortally sin? Can a catholic ever fully remove themselves once received the sacraments? I imagine the vast majority of these Homosexuals and paedophiles care very little if anything about the Catholic Faith. Well I personally disagree with the death penalty, but while certainly a Catholic Inquisition with either the death penalty or a public casting out might convince the world the Church is serious about cleaning out the mountains of excrement from its Augean stables, we all know this isn't going to happen. Instead the usual shuffling and empty rhetoric will continue. As for modernity etc being responsible for crimes within the church, sorry but I'm not convinced. I think this is just evasion. I referenced Peter Damian referring to widespread sexual abuse in 1056 - an era that can by no stretch be considered modern. Nor am I persuaded by the "anyone who did these things isn't really Catholic" line. By Catholic standards, having received the sacraments they were and still are Catholic unless they've been formally excommunicated. Where do you draw your lines at "if you do this, you aren't really Catholic"? It's a slippery slope that quickly disqualifies just about anyone. Not to mention the fact that a paedophile could regularly confesses to a priest and be granted absolution, so in answer to a question above, yes, you can be Catholic and a paedophile. The point I'm making is not that a person is still technically or sacramentally a Catholic, but that he has ceased to be a Catholic morally and in practice if he has intentionally or deliberately joined the Church to get access to the young, and has been planning to abuse the young and wishes to do so again in the future. Indeed he may have received sacraments under false pretences to allow him such a lifestyle. As mentioned by some other posters, for such a sinner 'it would be better if a millstone was hung around his neck and he was thrown into the sea'. This rebuke by Christ would have been so evident to the abuser that he knows that what he is doing is outrageously beyond the pale, and even more so if he persists in doing so. My point is that he is a paedophile and long since disavowed Catholicism. |
|
|
|
Post by kj on Oct 6, 2021 15:37:16 GMT
The point I'm making is not that a person is still technically or sacramentally a Catholic, but that he has ceased to be a Catholic morally and in practice if he has intentionally or deliberately joined the Church to get access to the young, and has been planning to abuse the young and wishes to do so again in the future. Indeed he may have received sacraments under false pretences to allow him such a lifestyle. As mentioned by some other posters, for such a sinner 'it would be better if a millstone was hung around his neck and he was thrown into the sea'. This rebuke by Christ would have been so evident to the abuser that he knows that what he is doing is outrageously beyond the pale, and even more so if he persists in doing so. My point is that he is a paedophile and long since disavowed Catholicism. I think that's too simplistic a view. People can sin and still consider themselves fully Catholic knowing full well they'll probably commit the same sin again. Or maybe they honestly thought they would stop doing it and nevertheless continued. Nor can anyone know how many of these people joined the church for express purposes of access to young children, or whether they simply found the opportunities irresistible once they were in. Moreover, the sacramental essence of Catholicism complicates things in regard to saying these people were/are not "real Catholics". If a recurrent paedophile bishop or priest bestows sacraments for years, does their recurring sin remove the efficacy of all those sacraments? Of course it also brings into question the nature of the sacrament of confession and the whole idea of "wiping the slate clean" so to speak. Anyway, I very much doubt any significant number of these people ever confessed anything to anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Oct 6, 2021 15:47:51 GMT
Moreover, the sacramental essence of Catholicism complicates things in regard to saying these people were/are not "real Catholics". If a recurrent paedophile bishop or priest bestows sacraments for years, does their recurring sin remove the efficacy of all those sacraments? This was a central question of the Donatist controversy, and the Church's answer was "no". |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Oct 6, 2021 19:15:07 GMT
Sorry, but "one moment in its history" strikes me as an enormous cop-out. This has been going on for decades that we know of, and there's hardly any reason to think it somehow began in the 20th century. St Peter Damian denounced it in the Book of Gomorrah in 1056. Its denounced in the Irish Penitentials the rather colourful confession guide for clergy during the Irish Golden age and earlier in some Apostolic age writers who denounced the prevailing Greek custom of intimate sexual and social relations between adult men and beardless boys. |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Oct 6, 2021 19:26:52 GMT
Based on the teaching of the sacramental seal I wonder did some paedophile clergy buy the silence of their superiors and colleagues by directly confessing to them ? It might partially explain the caught in the head lamps reaction of senior clergy when confronted with this clear moral evil when quizzed by the media and police.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Oct 6, 2021 19:34:29 GMT
The point I'm making is not that a person is still technically or sacramentally a Catholic, but that he has ceased to be a Catholic morally and in practice if he has intentionally or deliberately joined the Church to get access to the young, and has been planning to abuse the young and wishes to do so again in the future. Indeed he may have received sacraments under false pretences to allow him such a lifestyle.
As mentioned by some other posters, for such a sinner 'it would be better if a millstone was hung around his neck and he was thrown into the sea'. This rebuke by Christ would have been so evident to the abuser that he knows that what he is doing is outrageously beyond the pale, and even more so if he persists in doing so. My point is that he is a paedophile and long since disavowed Catholicism.
[/quote]
This also applies to the many prominent lay catholics in " good standing" who publicly deny the faith and defend abortion and those clergy who give them communion, not to mention those bishops and clergy who have in recent years h remained silent on so many occasions when they should have proclaimed the truth from the roof tops.
|
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Oct 6, 2021 22:06:25 GMT
The point I'm making is not that a person is still technically or sacramentally a Catholic, but that he has ceased to be a Catholic morally and in practice if he has intentionally or deliberately joined the Church to get access to the young, and has been planning to abuse the young and wishes to do so again in the future. Indeed he may have received sacraments under false pretences to allow him such a lifestyle. As mentioned by some other posters, for such a sinner 'it would be better if a millstone was hung around his neck and he was thrown into the sea'. This rebuke by Christ would have been so evident to the abuser that he knows that what he is doing is outrageously beyond the pale, and even more so if he persists in doing so. My point is that he is a paedophile and long since disavowed Catholicism. This also applies to the many prominent lay catholics in " good standing" who publicly deny the faith and defend abortion and those clergy who give them communion, not to mention those bishops and clergy who have in recent years h remained silent on so many occasions when they should have proclaimed the truth from the roof tops.[/quote] Yes, without a doubt. Biden, Pelosi, Cuomo (who celebrated late term abortion laws by lighting up buildings in New York) and our own Mary McAleese and many other Irish politicians, North and South. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Oct 7, 2021 7:41:40 GMT
On this topic, I want to make myself abundantly clear. We need catholic inquisition. " were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones." The death penalty would be to good for these evil Men and may the only way they would truly repent. It asks the question do we remain Catholic when we mortally sin? Can a catholic ever fully remove themselves once received the sacraments? I imagine the vast majority of these Homosexuals and paedophiles care very little if anything about the Catholic Faith. Well I personally disagree with the death penalty, but while certainly a Catholic Inquisition with either the death penalty or a public casting out might convince the world the Church is serious about cleaning out the mountains of excrement from its Augean stables, we all know this isn't going to happen. Instead the usual shuffling and empty rhetoric will continue. As for modernity etc being responsible for crimes within the church, sorry but I'm not convinced. I think this is just evasion. I referenced Peter Damian referring to widespread sexual abuse in 1056 - an era that can by no stretch be considered modern. Nor am I persuaded by the "anyone who did these things isn't really Catholic" line. By Catholic standards, having received the sacraments they were and still are Catholic unless they've been formally excommunicated. Where do you draw your lines at "if you do this, you aren't really Catholic"? It's a slippery slope that quickly disqualifies just about anyone. Not to mention the fact that a paedophile could regularly confesses to a priest and be granted absolution, so in answer to a question above, yes, you can be Catholic and a paedophile. Completely agree, too many of the most influential Hierarchy and its friends were and still are involved in these degenerate activities. I do have hope for under 18s in the future as safeguarding is a major part of all the organization's. St Peter Damian is a great Saint and I'm not denying sexual abuse has happened throughout time. These sins that cry out to heaven have exists since the Fall. What I would say the Homosexual and Podophilic cabal (lavender Mafia) is a relatively new thing and many were also involved in modernism. Many of these men that were labelled pedophile are actually predatory homosexuals that had no place ever getting into seminary with that disorder. Also, Traditionalist that says it's all Vatican 2 are actually rarer in my experience and generally uneducated on the topic. "Nor am I persuaded by the "anyone who did these things isn't really Catholic" line. " I'm not saying this. I was asking a broader question. For example, if a person is part of the body of Christ when they live in Sin for years and publicly announce they are spiritual but not religious. Do they remain or do they excommunicate themselves? "Not to mention the fact that a pedophile could regularly confesses to a priest and be granted absolution" This would most likely not be granted as "pedophile" would have to have a firm resolution not to sins again and would have to be truly sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by kj on Oct 7, 2021 7:47:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Oct 7, 2021 9:13:16 GMT
On a purely utilitarian calculus, you have to ask whether the world would be better with or without the Catholic Church, for all its faults.
Even if I was an atheist, I think I would say: "Better".
As Brendan Behan is reputed to have said: "What else is there?".
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Oct 7, 2021 9:28:42 GMT
On a purely utilitarian calculus, you have to ask whether the world would be better with or without the Catholic Church, for all its faults. Even if I was an atheist, I think I would say: "Better". As Brendan Behan is reputed to have said: "What else is there?". Very important to understand the CHURCH and the institution of the Church. |
|
|
|
Post by cato on Oct 7, 2021 11:11:30 GMT
On a purely utilitarian calculus, you have to ask whether the world would be better with or without the Catholic Church, for all its faults. Even if I was an atheist, I think I would say: "Better". As Brendan Behan is reputed to have said: "What else is there?". I get this line but it boils down ultimately to the question is it true? An organisation could do all the various philanthropy (based on the demands of Christian charity and justice) without the demanding sexual ethics which cause so much conflict with the secular order. Church liberalism seeks to end the conflict by aligning the Church more with the culture. If the church's commands and doctrines arent true its the tyrannical force that its enemies claim. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Oct 7, 2021 11:16:46 GMT
On a purely utilitarian calculus, you have to ask whether the world would be better with or without the Catholic Church, for all its faults. Even if I was an atheist, I think I would say: "Better". As Brendan Behan is reputed to have said: "What else is there?". I get this line but it boils down ultimately to the question is it true? An organisation could do all the various philanthropy (based on the demands of Christian charity and justice) without the demanding sexual ethics which cause so much conflict with the secular order. Church liberalism seeks to end the conflict by aligning the Church more with the culture. If the church's commands and doctrines arent true its the tyrannical force that its enemies claim. I do believe the Church's claims are true and that was the idea behind my earlier reply to kj, although I don't think I expressed it well- when I said it would be like turning against, not only this or that government, but government in general. I believe the Church, in a historically verifiable way, is the Church established by Christ-- so the awfulness of the sex abuse scandals, bad as they are, doesn't affect that. But, if someone doesn't accept this, then I would STILL say that the world is better off with the Catholic Church than without, purely on its influence on the world-- not only humanitarian, but cultural and spiritual. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Oct 7, 2021 11:23:35 GMT
I get this line but it boils down ultimately to the question is it true? An organisation could do all the various philanthropy (based on the demands of Christian charity and justice) without the demanding sexual ethics which cause so much conflict with the secular order. Church liberalism seeks to end the conflict by aligning the Church more with the culture. If the church's commands and doctrines arent true its the tyrannical force that its enemies claim. I do believe the Church's claims are true and that was the idea behind my earlier reply to kj, although I don't think I expressed it well- when I said it would be like turning against, not only this or that government, but government in general. I believe the Church, in a historically verifiable way, is the Church established by Christ-- so the awfulness of the sex abuse scandals, bad as they are, doesn't affect that. But, if someone doesn't accept this, then I would STILL say that the world is better off with the Catholic Church than without, purely on its influence on the world-- not only humanitarian, but cultural and spiritual. That's a great point. The One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church can not be compared to any organization in the World and is the Bride of Christ. Which means the standard that we expect are very high, but history has told us we cant expect that much. |
|
