What else to say? Coming from Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, this really hurts. Wrong wrong wrong.
April 17, 2010
April 17, 2010 at 11:49 pm
First let me say I am not intending to defend the letter of Cardinal Hoyos. However from a historical point of view Cardinal Hoyos has a point in his defense. In fact it was St. Thomas Beckett who resisted attempts by King Henry II to have priests accused of serious crimes tried and punished in civil courts as he viewed it a violation of Church and State perogatives. This disagreement was one of the ultimate causes of St. Thomas's murder. Knowing the murderous bloodletting of priests and religious occasioned by the French revolution and the continuing animosity between Church and State there is it not remotely possible to understand his reluctance in having a priest turned over to them? BTW whatever did happen with the priest? Again let me be clear that in no way does this sanction the moving of guilty and accused priests from place to place.
While everyone is condemning everyone else for this grave scandal I suggest we look at our own lives first. There is a direct correlation between the lack of holiness in our lives and that of the priests and vice versa and if we want holy priests we better start leading more holy lives ourselves. But to this point are we?
We know that less than half of Catholics in this country don't go to Mass on Sunday. We know that approximately 80% of Catholics believe in or use artificial contraception. At least 50% of Catholic marriages end in divorce and a significant number of those persons remarry or live in sin with another. How many Catholics engage in sex outside or before marriage? Again not an insignificant number. How many Catholics see nothing wrong with homosexual marriage or "loving relationships" involving the sin of sodomy? How many men look at pornography? Yet when was the last time the New York Times wrote anything critical of pornography? In fact they have criticized those opposed to pornography because it might violate "First Amendment rights" We know for a fact of the huge impact on sexual abuse that pornography contributes. A Massachusetts priest who shared his Playboy mags with the altar boys and then abused him is the lowest scum but the NYT won't condemn pornography because the 1st Amendment is of greater importance? So who is the greater hypocrite and has the victim's interest at heart? How many Catholics prioritize their Sunday Mass around sports events for their children? How many send their children to the "right schools" at the cost of their Faith so they can get the "right career." I work with a number of Catholics but noticed how none of them observed the fasts and abstinences prescribed for Lent.
I could go on but the simple fact remains that if these priest abusers remain(ed) unrepentant for their crimes they will go to Hell. And if a reading of the lives of most Catholics today (and the short lines for Confession) are any indication, they might have a lot of company.
One further comment. It is said that Pope John Paul II dismissed many of the abuse criticisms because of the methods of discrediting the Church he experienced by the Communists in Poland. Whatever fault he have had in ignoring what was obviously not mere propoganda especially when it concerned priests like Fr. Maciel their is plenty of evidence that there was an effort to infiltrate men into the priesthood for the sole reason of discrediting it, and the Church. I do not doubt the warnings of Pope Leo XIII when he saw in a vision the great battle between Satan unleashed for the last time and the Church is what we are experiencing today.
April 19, 2010 at 3:20 pm
What gives? Your nasty and vulgar language strikes me as "protesting too much", shall we say? I think the Cardinal's remarks were very wrong-headed too, but I have to wonder about your viscious tone. Got issues?
April 19, 2010 at 3:55 pm
I'm willing to hear arguments that the Church should have the privilege to police its own ranks in lieu of the State. I'm not saying I'm automatically convinced, but I have an open mind on the subject.
But with that right comes a duty to do so. The reason so many of the faithful are ready to outsource the job to the State is that the "Princes of the Church" have been derelict in their duty, and are even now covering up for their own like the nobility in Europe did for centuries. The corrosive hatred of the French Revolution for all the Estates can be put at the feet of the idea that, whatever the injustice, the end result would always be that the nobility would close ranks against the peasants, defending the privileges of rank while refusing its duties. Clericalism is just another manifestation of the same problem: the bishops appear to regard their "family" as limited to the ranks of the ordained.
What we need from the bishops, attitude-wise, is less prince and more church.
April 19, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Anonymous, Look at the comments preceding Doug's response. Some people here are so brainwashed that to merely criticise or comment on the sins of ANY cleric, specifically at the level of bishop, and you are branded a Protestant, anti-clergy, prideful etc. I got the same treatment.
Being Catholic does NOT mean you need to scrape your knuckles in front of everyone wearing purple. We respect their office, we acknowledge these people bring us the sacraments, and we ALSO realize they are human, capable of a great amount of sin (often times omission) given the responsibilities they are given.
I would kindly request that if anyone finds it easier to simply check their brain at the door rather than dealing with facts, they should seriously consider exploring the Mormon "church". It will make their lives a lot easier.
April 19, 2010 at 9:43 pm
You have the same tendency as Doug and others to use outrageous language. Those who don't condemn the Cardinal in a manner to your liking are supposedly "scraping their knuckles in front of everyone wearing purple" (or red, in this case). And of course, not being as enlightened and insightful as yourself, we have probably just "checked our brains" at the door.
The Cardinal was, it seems to me, quite wrong to say what he said. I am sure he is grateful that he will only have to deal with God in the final judgement and not you and Doug. Now, I need to go get some medical attention for my bleeding knuckles and get in line with those other injured, brainless people.
April 20, 2010 at 1:14 am
Doug, your comments are totally awesome. It is just refreshing to have someone put on some pants around here.
I vote for Doug for the most Christ-like comments on the board, lest we not forget that Christ overturned the moneychangers tables, called people "whited sepulchers" and informed crowds that it would be better if certain people who hurt little ones were never born.
The only thing that would cure a clericalist, I suppose, is going through the living hell of having one of your own children raped by a priest and having the Church you loved as a mother hang you out to dry.
April 21, 2010 at 8:17 pm
There is alot of evidence that the enemies of Christ are within the church and even the Vatican and one can only imagine how they are undermining the Pope and the Catholic Church. I do know that unless the Pope consecrates "Russia" with all the bishops and not the world like Our Lady of Fatima requested, it will get much worse for everyone.
Join the Fatima challenge at http://www.fatimachallenge.com
April 21, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Apparently there were issues of the confessional involved in why the Bishop could not turn in the abusive priest. The Bishop was dragged to court for it and received a suspended sentence. I read about this on Fr. Z's blog.
Cardinal Hoyos should have thanked him for this more specifically.
I think there is an attitude in which bishops think of themselves first as the bishop of their priests and only second as the bishops of their people, and this needs to be rethought. We are all his flock.
On the other hand, when the scandal came down, some bishops threw out of the priesthood priests who had offended once many years ago and who had been successful priests without reoffending for many years since. I am not referring to pedophiles but to incidents with older teens. On priest had kissed a girl, one had had some homosexual involvement with a 17 year old boy 30 years previously. I think a bishop should have defended such priests after their long record of functioning well as priests and not repeating the offenses of their youth. The bishop, after all, had been aware all along of these things. It was only when the big fuss in the papers came along that they had to go. With respect to this kind of thing, the Cardinal might have a point.
I think it is a shame that the Cardinal can't celebrate this mass because of a letter he wrote some time ago which expressed his opinion. People might disagree with the opinion, but that is not a reason to threaten to disrupt a religious service. This is more of the newspapers dredging up whatever old stuff they can as part of their concerted attack on the church.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
© 2021 Creative Minority Report — Powered by WordPress
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑