Praying for the Pope...um, just why, exactly?

Lola wrote:

The consistency of which you speak is born of acquiescence to authority. And I think that's a danger. We must learn to think for ourselves.

Lola dear, are you seriously suggesting that the practicioners of political correctitude and doctrinaire liberalism really think for themselves????

My observation on these threads is that this tribe rather slavishly quotes their liberal 'scholars' and the secular theologians who direct "right thinking" for them in far greater specificity and with much greater doctrinal force than anything I have ever encountered in 'that constituency'.

Rarely do I encounter a counter argument from any members of your tribe based on facts and their own argument. Instead one gets only these predigested conclusions and quotes from members of their secular liberal clergy -- all, of course, accompanied by expressions of horror, indignation and disapproval of the heretical propositions with which free thinking conservatives and libertarians torture them.

Lola wrote:

The consistency of which you speak is born of acquiescence to authority. And I think that's a danger. We must learn to think for ourselves.

Lola dear, are you seriously suggesting that the practicioners of political correctitude and doctrinaire liberalism really think for themselves????

My observation on these threads is that this tribe rather slavishly quotes their liberal 'scholars' and the secular theologians who direct "right thinking" for them in far greater specificity and with much greater doctrinal force than anything I have ever encountered in 'that constituency'.

Rarely do I encounter a counter argument from any members of your tribe based on facts and their own argument. Instead one gets only these predigested conclusions and quotes from members of their secular liberal clergy -- all, of course, accompanied by expressions of horror, indignation and disapproval of the heretical propositions with which free thinking conservatives and libertarians torture them.

Cardinal Law resigned as as archbishop of Boston Archdiocese - you can't resign as cardinal.

Yes you can.

The Church in Both Europe and North America faces the issue of widespread secularism and disaffection among the professional and managerial classes of these countries. This is the central challenge it faces in these regions, In North America, the Unted Srates in particular, the Church has had the additional problem of a generation of fairly widespread homoxexuality among priests, this, in my view a result of relaxed standards in the seminaries that trained and selected them. I believe the root cause is being addressed, but the consequences have been rather devastating both to the confidence of Catholics and the financial health of the church.
Rates of homosexuality amongst North American priests are higher than amongst Europen clergy? Sexual abuse of children is a consequence of homosexual hanging about? Your prejudice might be slipping out from under cover here, george.

I don't know about any wrongful 'protection of assets' issues, though there may be some. It is a moral issue, rather than legal, yes? Filing for bankrupcies, shifting assets so that the abused kids can't get access to them. Any person or legal entity has the rright to protect what assets it can from lawsuits. Certainly the financial impact of the judgements and settlements on the Church has been enormous. It will be a long time before the Church is able to restore the schools and social serrvices that have been closed partly as a result. Well, tough luck.

Cardinal Law is no longer running the show in his Diocese, moreover his tenure has been rather thoroughly discredited both in Boston and among the other clergy. He is, as Walter noted, still a Cardinal. Some may believe he has not been sufficiently punished for his many lapses. Hard to know for sure. Establishing appropriate punishment is never very easy, but there's good reason to argue he ought to be in jail. For the church, this matter has the consequence of giving further appearance that the church cares rather more about protecting its own than about justice. And there is enough truth in that perception to make it bite.

My observation on these threads is that this tribe rather slavishly quotes their liberal 'scholars' and the secular theologians who direct "right thinking" for them in far greater specificity and with much greater doctrinal force than anything I have ever encountered in 'that constituency'.

Fans at a Scottish Cup soccer game jeered during a minute's silence for Pope John
Paul II on Sunday, forcing the tribute to be cut short.
...
The tribute also was disrupted during Saturday's semifinal, when
Dundee United beat Hibernian 2-1.

Most of the wrongful actions for which wayward priests have been justly imprisioned and the Church sued, involved post pubescent boys - teenagers. Homosexual seduction is a more accurate term for these acts than the euphamistic "sexual abuse of childres", and it more accurately describes the behavioral compulsions of the perpetrators. The media have gone to great lengths to avoid facing, or correctly describing, this fact. No prejudices at all on my part - just a fidelity to the facts of the matter.

The Church doesn't imprision anyone. Cardinal Law was subject to the laws of his state and those of the federal government. If either of them found cause to prosecute him nothing would have stopped them.

Thoughts?

Then how about substituting "sexual priests" for "homosexual priests"? Or do you consider that the problem isn't human sexuality, but rather the perverse mental/moral states of men who sexuality directs them to the same gender partners?

blatham wrote:

Then how about substituting "sexual priests" for "homosexual priests"? Or do you consider that the problem isn't human sexuality, but rather the perverse mental/moral states of men who sexuality directs them to the same gender partners?

In an abstract sense, I wouldn't object to that. However, with respect to the incidents that occurred during the decades since 1970, and which have been the subject of so much attention, it would be misleading. The fact is the overwhelming majority of cases involved homosexual predation of post puberty boys by homosexual priests. Cases involving nuns or priests and girls, occurred, but not in significant numbers.

It is generally better to avoid euphemisms or other like artifices of speech that hide the real meaning of facts, established beyond reasonable doubt. I recognize that the doctrines of political correctitude call for a different approach. However they are mostly farcical nonsense.

Do you believe then that these facts demonstrate that homosexuals are more likely to be sexual predators than are heterosexuals?

blatham wrote:

Do you believe then that these facts demonstrate that homosexuals are more likely to be sexual predators than are heterosexuals?

I believe that conclusion would be an excessive leap, based on this data. Indeed, I have no opinion on the matter - I just don't know.

The facts certainly do strongly suggest that the root of the problem in the Catholic clergy in America has been the actions of homosexual priests. The actions have been euphamistically labelled as paedophilia. While there is an undeniable element of that indicated, the facts alone point to predation of sexually mature boys by homosexual priests as the main phenomenon.