Theology

[wizards8507]

When you try to staff Catholic schools with men or women looking to earn a full salary + benefits, tuition goes WAY up. Lots of Catholics can't afford that, and many more don't know why they'd pay for something like that if the Catholicism they serve up is lukewarm.

Somehow it's the worst of both words. The Catholic preschool program we looked at for my daughter was $3,100 for three half-days per week. The non-religious private preschool we went with was $2,900 for the same schedule and it's orders of magnitude superior. The Catholic program was one grouchy old lady, apparently without a single nurturing bone in her body over a class of 20. The private school is three part-time women (two in the classroom at all times), each with a graduate degree in early childhood education and the most amazing demeanor you could ever want in someone who would be helping shape the character of your four-year-old.

If Catholic schools need to jack up tuition to compete on quality, fine. Charge what it costs and then subsidize lower income folks out of the collection baskets. But from what I see locally, they're already charging private school prices for an inferior product.

I don't think this was a conspiracy, I think they were literally following the mass of Catholics out to the suburbs. Without nuns or priests, Catholic schools can't afford to exist in the poor hoods.

Answering the inevitable counter-point to my statement above, the implication here is that the urban parishes don't have the money to subsidize tuition. Fine then, use diocesan money.

 

[Irish YJ]

The issue isn't the Vatican "waking up." It woke up 50 years ago and only made the problem much worse. Plus, the people running aren't looking to fix it. They are like 3rd generation heirs to a huge fortune. They aren't really concerned about how the money got there, or what they'd have to to to pass on. They have their pet projects and live off the wealth. And that's good enough for them.

And Catholic schools can't even begin to compete with public schools on their own terms. When education was simpler and cheaper, and highly-educated nuns and priests were plentiful, Catholic schools were excellent. When you try to staff Catholic schools with men or women looking to earn a full salary + benefits, tuition goes WAY up. Lots of Catholics can't afford that, and many more don't know why they'd pay for something like that if the Catholicism they serve up is lukewarm.

I disagree. The Vatican needs to wake up and either 1) go "Young Pope", or 2) move into the future and make some very tough fundamental changes. Playing in the middle, protecting peds, and waffling on issues as Popes come and go, is eroding all sides. Their growth strategy of concentrating on the downtrodden of Africa and Asia isn't going to get them where they need to be in 100 years. And with Islam growing 3 to 4 times faster than Catholicism, they simply can't afford to lose any of their base.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Somehow it's the worst of both words. The Catholic preschool program we looked at for my daughter was $3,100 for three half-days per week. The non-religious private preschool we went with was $2,900 for the same schedule and it's orders of magnitude superior. The Catholic program was one grouchy old lady, apparently without a single nurturing bone in her body over a class of 20. The private school is three part-time women (two in the classroom at all times), each with a graduate degree in early childhood education and the most amazing demeanor you could ever want in someone who would be helping shape the character of your four-year-old.

If Catholic schools need to jack up tuition to compete on quality, fine. Charge what it costs and then subsidize lower income folks out of the collection baskets. But from what I see locally, they're already charging private school prices for an inferior product.


Answering the inevitable counter-point to my statement above, the implication here is that the urban parishes don't have the money to subsidize tuition. Fine then, use diocesan money.

I agree with most of what you say, but private schools are generally more expensive than similar Catholic schools--which are better academically vary from school to school.

However, I was not talking about pre-school. That is a different story altogether.

The big problem for Catholic schools is that they are not sufficiently Catholic to judge them on anything other that academics and fit, like you are doing.

 

[Irish YJ]

I don't think this was a conspiracy, I think they were literally following the mass of Catholics out to the suburbs. Without nuns or priests, Catholic schools can't afford to exist in the poor hoods.

The Church would have been better served trying to convert new parishioners as some moved to the burbs. There was pretty much zero effort to do so. Now some of the same family names have moved back to the old Italian neighborhood, and it took a private, non-archdiocese effort to open a new school which is functioning just fine.

Related to another thread where someone posted an article on today's segregation.... When folks moved out of the inner city neighborhoods, they called it "white-flight". Now that they are moving back in, they call it gentrification.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I disagree. The Vatican needs to wake up and either 1) go "Young Pope", or 2) move into the future and make some very tough fundamental changes. Playing in the middle, protecting peds, and waffling on issues as Popes come and go, is eroding all sides. Their growth strategy of concentrating on the downtrodden of Africa and Asia isn't going to get them where they need to be in 100 years. And with Islam growing 3 to 4 times faster than Catholicism, they simply can't afford to lose any of their base.

I hear you. My point is more along the lines of there is no growth strategy. They aren't "concentrating on the downtrodden of Africa and Asia," those are just the places where the Church is growing on its own. Probably, in part, because people aren't comfortable enough to take their faith casually or discard t altogether. A lot of the hierarchy doesn't even like that growth.

I don't know what go Young Pope means, so I can't respond to that. But if it means intentionally but disingenuously go traditional, that's highly unlikely. Catholicism kinds of undercuts itself as a reactionary movement. And it's not easy to get thousands of sincere volunteers for celibacy and $22,000 salaries. Plus there is not an appetite for it among the insincere. Reactionary, maybe, but not with all the rules.

In the end, they are "playing in the middle, protecting peds, and waffling on issues as Popes come and go" because that just is the state of things. They have an ancient message that is embarrassing to the modern, secular world and they don't really know what to do with it any more.

 

[Domina Nostra]

The Church would have been better served trying to convert new parishioners as some moved to the burbs. There was pretty much zero effort to do so. Now some of the same family names have moved back to the old Italian neighborhood, and it took a private, non-archdiocese effort to open a new school which is functioning just fine.

Related to another thread where someone posted an article on today's segregation.... When folks moved out of the inner city neighborhoods, they called it "white-flight". Now that they are moving back in, they call it gentrification.

Yup. But evangelism is out. It seems really judgmental. We refer to it as proselytism now.
If it's all about social justice, trying to convert those people, rather than just providing them with free services, is seen as pretty icky and insincere. Better to just leave then go through that whole mess.

 

[Irish YJ]

Somehow it's the worst of both words. The Catholic preschool program we looked at for my daughter was $3,100 for three half-days per week. The non-religious private preschool we went with was $2,900 for the same schedule and it's orders of magnitude superior. The Catholic program was one grouchy old lady, apparently without a single nurturing bone in her body over a class of 20. The private school is three part-time women (two in the classroom at all times), each with a graduate degree in early childhood education and the most amazing demeanor you could ever want in someone who would be helping shape the character of your four-year-old.

If Catholic schools need to jack up tuition to compete on quality, fine. Charge what it costs and then subsidize lower income folks out of the collection baskets. But from what I see locally, they're already charging private school prices for an inferior product.


Answering the inevitable counter-point to my statement above, the implication here is that the urban parishes don't have the money to subsidize tuition. Fine then, use diocesan money.

The lack of subsidies for the urban parishes was very frustrating. We sat back and watched glorious churches and schools built 10-20 miles away with the same amount of students, while we barely had an "art" budget. It made it all the more glorious when us inner city bad boy Catholic kids demolished the burb football teams.

The other issues is that the Church can't attract Priests, Brothers, and Nuns anymore to teach and work the schools.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Somehow it's the worst of both words. The Catholic preschool program we looked at for my daughter was $3,100 for three half-days per week. The non-religious private preschool we went with was $2,900 for the same schedule and it's orders of magnitude superior. The Catholic program was one grouchy old lady, apparently without a single nurturing bone in her body over a class of 20. The private school is three part-time women (two in the classroom at all times), each with a graduate degree in early childhood education and the most amazing demeanor you could ever want in someone who would be helping shape the character of your four-year-old.

If Catholic schools need to jack up tuition to compete on quality, fine. Charge what it costs and then subsidize lower income folks out of the collection baskets. But from what I see locally, they're already charging private school prices for an inferior product.


Answering the inevitable counter-point to my statement above, the implication here is that the urban parishes don't have the money to subsidize tuition. Fine then, use diocesan money.

The lack of subsidies for the urban parishes was very frustrating. We sat back and watched glorious churches and schools built 10-20 miles away with the same amount of students, while we barely had an "art" budget. It made it all the more glorious when us inner city bad boy Catholic kids demolished the burb football teams.

The other issues is that the Church can't attract Priests, Brothers, and Nuns anymore to teach and work the schools.

It's all the same issue. The Church doesn't teach its exclusive role in salvation anymore, because its embarrassing to educated people. Without that teaching, its really hard to get men and women to give their lives to its service in a radical manner. Without those selfless people, its almost impossible to achieve the acts of charity that were achieved in the past.

These days, it just becomes a matter of fundraising and distribution. And you can't expect half-interested Catholics (including bishops and priests) to repeatedly make financially sacrificial decisions for other half-interested Catholics in other parts of town.

Catholics act a lot more like everyone else these days. We are just devolving back to the cultural norm. That's the price for watering down the faith.

 

[Irish YJ]

I hear you. My point is more along the lines of there is no growth strategy. They aren't "concentrating on the downtrodden of Africa and Asia," those are just the places where the Church is growing on its own. Probably, in part, because people aren't comfortable enough to take their faith casually or discard t altogether. A lot of the hierarchy doesn't even like that growth.

I don't know what go Young Pope means, so I can't respond to that. But if it means intentionally but disingenuously go traditional, that's highly unlikely. Catholicism kinds of undercuts itself as a reactionary movement. And it's not easy to get thousands of sincere volunteers for celibacy and $22,000 salaries. Plus there is not an appetite for it among the insincere. Reactionary, maybe, but not with all the rules.

In the end, they are "playing in the middle, protecting peds, and waffling on issues as Popes come and go" because that just is the state of things. They have an ancient message that is embarrassing to the modern, secular world and they don't really know what to do with it any more.

Young Pope is a show on HBO. Check it out, good stuff. It's about a Young Pope (the first American Pope) who many believe will be a young, new school figurehead/puppet. Instead, he goes old school and mysterious on them. That's an oversimplification, but kind of the theme. It's a great watch. It started off as being a limited series, but did so well they are doing another season called "The New Pope", adding Malkovich.

 

[Irish YJ]

It's all the same issue. The Church doesn't teach its exclusive role in salvation anymore, because its embarrassing to educated people. Without that teaching, its really hard to get people to give their lives to it. Without those people, its just a matter of fundraising and distribution. And you can't expect half-interested Catholics (including bishops and priests) to make financially sacrificial decisions for other half-interested Catholics, regardless of whether or not they should. Everyone devolves back to the cultural norm.

Nah, at least not from me. I fell away from being an active Catholic for a lot of reasons. Many of the issues I have with the Church can be solved. I don't need to believe its exclusive role in salvation (which I find BS to begin with). I need to see that the Church isn't protecting obvious evil with one hand, while using the other hand to point at and condemn others. Like I said, either go old school and don't apologize for it, or move to a more accepting and new age model. I could support either over the status quo.

Not buying the "can't convert" narrative. Perhaps they can't under the status quo, but Islam growing 3.6ish times the rate of Catholics, and don't have a problem with embarrassment. And it's far more "conservative" than Christianity.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Nah, at least not from me. I fell away from being an active Catholic for a lot of reasons.

Right. This is the huge trend in the West over the past 100 years, with some important interruptions here and there.

Many of the issues I have with the Church can be solved. . . . I need to see that the Church isn't protecting obvious evil with one hand, while using the other hand to point at and condemn others.

I certainly hear you, and I feel similarly a lot of the time. But if you are a Christian, you can pretty clearly see that the whole Old Testament prepared us for this.

The chosen people bitched and moaned after being saved from Egypt and were kept from the Promised Land. Israel basically had 3-4 righteous Kings out of about 40. One of the good ones had one of his best soldiers killed so he could have his wife. Another of the good ones had a HUGE harem. They were greedy, worldly, and worshiped pagan Gods, some even persecuted believers and killed prophets. The whole nation was exiled and the Temple was destroyed because God removed his protection. But they were still Israel.

The Bible does not in any way imply that members of the true religion will act accordingly.

As far as the hypocrisy of it, Norm McDonald says it best: https://youtu.be/ljaP2etvDc4

If everyone had to wait until they were doing the right thing, to say what the right thing is, we could never open our mouths.

Like I said, either go old school and don't apologize for it, or move to a more accepting and new age model. I could support either over the status quo.

Many are trying both of your ways. Neither are working very well.

Not buying the "can't convert" narrative. Perhaps they can't under the status quo, but Islam growing 3.6ish times the rate of Catholics, and don't have a problem with embarrassment. And it's far more "conservative" than Christianity.

I'm not saying you can't convert people. What I'm saying is that they aren't trying because its embarrassing--precisely because they lack faith. The fact that certain Muslims aren't embarrassed is no doubt one of the reasons that it is growing in some places.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Many are trying both of your ways. Neither are working very well.

Why do you think traditionalism isn't working? Many traditionalist seminaries are literally having to turn men away due to lack of space. In France, for instance, if current vocational trends hold, it will be far harder to find a Novus Ordo mass than a TLM 50 years from now.

We certainly shouldn't be complacent about it, because regardless of whether the next generation of priests leans traditional or not, the priest shortage is going to be real and very painful. But I don't see any reason to say that traditionalism has been "tried and found wanting" post-VII.

 

[Irish YJ]

Right. This is the huge trend in the West over the past 100 years, with some important interruptions here and there.

I certainly hear you, and I feel similarly a lot of the time. But if you are a Christian, you can pretty clearly see that the whole Old Testament prepared us for this.

The chosen people bitched and moaned after being saved from Egypt and were kept from the Promised Land. Israel basically had 3-4 righteous Kings out of about 40. One of the good ones had one of his best soldiers killed so he could have his wife. Another of the good ones had a HUGE harem. They were greedy, worldly, and worshiped pagan Gods, some even persecuted believers and killed prophets. The whole nation was exiled and the Temple was destroyed because God removed his protection. But they were still Israel.

The Bible does not in any way imply that members of the true religion will act accordingly.

As far as the hypocrisy of it, Norm McDonald says it best: https://youtu.be/ljaP2etvDc4

If everyone had to wait until they were doing the right thing, to say what the right thing is, we could never open our mouths.

Many are trying both of your ways. Neither are working very well.

I'm not saying you can't convert people. What I'm saying is that they aren't trying because its embarrassing--precisely because they lack faith. The fact that certain Muslims aren't embarrassed is no doubt one of the reasons that it is growing in some places.

On hypocrisy, if you are charged with the caring for the flock, you care for the flock. Don't expect the flock to follow you if you don't care for them.

On trying both ways. I don't see them seriously trying either. If they are trying both, they are doing nothing more than dabbling and causing further confusion. They need to pick a path, walk it, stay on it, and don't apologize for it. The Church can't expect others to have faith in the institution, if the institution has no identity.

My biggest issues with the Church are 1) the ped situation... I simply can't respect an institution or Pope that doesn't take a hard and transparent line against it. And 2) the hypocrisy surrounding LGBTs. They condemn them externally, yet do zero about a large population of active gays internally within the institution. For the record, I'm pro-LGBT, but their hypocrisy makes me ill. If you are going to condemn it externally, purge yourself internally. If you are going to look the other way internally, accept it externally. Whatever you do, just be F'ing consistent. There's plenty of other issues to rant about, but those are the two that are most irritating.

I'm for going "St Peter", and allowing priest to marry. IMO, that would solve a lot of issues within the church, at least far more than it would create.

 

[wizards8507]

On hypocrisy, if you are charged with the caring for the flock, you care for the flock. Don't expect the flock to follow you if you don't care for them.

On trying both ways. I don't see them seriously trying either. If they are trying both, they are doing nothing more than dabbling and causing further confusion. They need to pick a path, walk it, stay on it, and don't apologize for it. The Church can't expect others to have faith in the institution, if the institution has no identity.

My biggest issues with the Church are 1) the ped situation... I simply can't respect an institution or Pope that doesn't take a hard and transparent line against it. And 2) the hypocrisy surrounding LGBTs. They condemn them externally, yet do zero about a large population of active gays internally within the institution. For the record, I'm pro-LGBT, but their hypocrisy makes me ill. If you are going to condemn it externally, purge yourself internally. If you are going to look the other way internally, accept it externally. Whatever you do, just be F'ing consistent. There's plenty of other issues to rant about, but those are the two that are most irritating.

I'm for going "St Peter", and allowing priest to marry. IMO, that would solve a lot of issues within the church, at least far more than it would create.

When have you ever seen the Church treat a gay person unfairly?

 

[Irish YJ]

Why do you think traditionalism isn't working? Many traditionalist seminaries are literally having to turn men away due to lack of space. In France, for instance, if current vocational trends hold, it will be far harder to find a Novus Ordo mass than a TLM 50 years from now.

We certainly shouldn't be complacent about it, because regardless of whether the next generation of priests leans traditional or not, the priest shortage is going to be real and very painful. But I don't see any reason to say that traditionalism has been "tried and found wanting" post-VII.

Isn't the shortage already real and painful? We leveled off in the 70s, and started to seriously decline since the late 80s, right? Thought I read somewhere that by 2030, we'll have less than half the priests we had in the 60s. A 50% reduction in 70 years, or something like that.

 

[Irish YJ]

When have you ever seen the Church treat a gay person unfairly?

A few months ago, when they kicked out a Guidance Councillor, who was known for years (by the admin) to be both gay, and have a wife. And at the same time, turn a blind eye / deaf ear, to the same at a HS not 20 miles away.

Love the sinner, hate the sin, but fire the sinner. And pay no attention to the sinners at other schools in the area because they have a bigger voice.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Isn't the shortage already real and painful? We leveled off in the 70s, and started to seriously decline since the late 80s, right? Thought I read somewhere that by 2030, we'll have less than half the priests we had in the 60s. A 50% reduction in 70 years, or something like that.

Depends on where you are. My diocese is blessed to be fine and the only nice thing I can say about the Aggies, is that they've sent many young men to seminaries, abbeys etc and women into the religious life. Many other dioceses are not so fortunate.

Our immediate future will be one of contraction, barring another Great Awakening. But that does not mean that all is lost. If you want to revive Catholicism, start living lives of holiness. This begins by living a joyful beautiful life, one where community is fostered in Christian friendship. Pray, fast, feast, but do all out of love for God and for His great glory.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

My biggest issues with the Church are 1) the ped situation... I simply can't respect an institution or Pope that doesn't take a hard and transparent line against it. And 2) the hypocrisy surrounding LGBTs. They condemn them externally, yet do zero about a large population of active gays internally within the institution. For the record, I'm pro-LGBT, but their hypocrisy makes me ill. If you are going to condemn it externally, purge yourself internally. If you are going to look the other way internally, accept it externally. Whatever you do, just be F'ing consistent. There's plenty of other issues to rant about, but those are the two that are most irritating.

I'm for going "St Peter", and allowing priest to marry. IMO, that would solve a lot of issues within the church, at least far more than it would create.

The "ped situation" is a scourge of our whole society right now. We've discussed this before, so I assume you're already familiar with the John Jay Report released in 2004. The prevalence of child abuse is at least as high among Protestant churches, and is much higher in our public schools. And since the Dallas Charter, your kids are far safer in a Catholic parish than they are just about anywhere else. The Church makes headlines for it because: (1) she's virtually the last institution holding the line on Christian sexual ethics, so the hypocrisy is greater; (2) she has a global hierarchy that keeps meticulous records, so they're much more vulnerable to discovery requests than other organizations; and (3) she has many enemies.

The Church has dealt with this sort of thing successfully before. The clergy was infamous for sexual vice in the late 10th and early 11th centuries prior to the reforms brought about by St. Peter Damian. Prayers for his intercession are a great idea right now.

The married priest argument is a total non-sequitur. Protestant ministers, public school teachers, Hollywood producers, etc. are all free to marry, and yet sexual predation is still rampant in all of those organizations. The Church does ordain married man, as deacons, but she's long insisted on a celibate priesthood in order to more perfectly imitate Jesus himself. Even the married Apostles practiced celibacy after beginning their ministries. It's discipline, not dogma, so it could be changed in the future; but none of the arguments in favor of married priests carry water. And Pope Francis just recently affirmed its importance within the Latin Rite, so I wouldn't count on this changing any time soon.

As for the LGBT stuff, the Church agrees with you that everyone, regardless of their inclinations, is to be treated with dignity and respect. But you can't open the door for sodomy without completely destabilizing the entire edifice of Christianity. Sex is how humanity propagates itself; so the sorts of sexual acts you deem licit will invariably affect your anthropology--of what you believe a human being is. So I can understand the desire to give John and Steve a pass on buggery as long as they're decent neighbors, but you can't do that without implicitly endorsing the view that sex has nothing to do with procreation. And once you've granted that, contraception, abortion, no-fault divorce, SSM, polyamory, pedophilia and all sorts of other perversions are guaranteed to follow.

Being "pro-LGBT" is a sort of soft bigotry. It accepts the (baseless) assertion that sexual inclinations are inborn, uncontrollable, and a fundamental part of one's identity; and therefore concludes that it would be cruel to hold them to same standards that prevailed throughout most of human history. Conversely, the Church insists that they're called to the same glory as every other human being--sainthood--and seeks to accompany them toward that end instead. Anything less would be doing them a grave disservice.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Why do you think traditionalism isn't working? Many traditionalist seminaries are literally having to turn men away due to lack of space. In France, for instance, if current vocational trends hold, it will be far harder to find a Novus Ordo mass than a TLM 50 years from now.

We certainly shouldn't be complacent about it, because regardless of whether the next generation of priests leans traditional or not, the priest shortage is going to be real and very painful. But I don't see any reason to say that traditionalism has been "tried and found wanting" post-VII.

I really didn't think Irish YJ was proposing traditional Catholicism. I read it as more of just kind of unapologetically moving forward in a kind of reactionary way.

Based on what I was hearing, I was thinking of something more like what Putin is trying in Russia with the Orthodox Church.

I agree that traditionalism has not been tried and found wanting. Very few are trying it.

It was certainly rejected by many Catholics in the early 20th century, including many leading teachers and leaders. But I personally think a lot of the pastoral decisions made recently in the Church are based on the faulty proposition that either the world rejected Christianity because of sin, or because of scandal, rather than because of sin. If only we had been more awesome, the world would have liked the Church better. But Jesus and Judas disprove that theory from day 1.

I think the truth is that our role is more humble: we are called to be faithful and charitable, and God takes care of the rest. I think "Traditional" Catholicism is the best in that it is a humble attempt to hand on and live the Christianity that was passed down from each generation to the next. In that sense, its the secret sauce.

 

[Domina Nostra]

As for the LGBT stuff, the Church agrees with you that everyone, regardless of their inclinations, is to be treated with dignity and respect. But you can't open the door for sodomy without completely destabilizing the entire edifice of Christianity. Sex is how humanity propagates itself; so the sorts of sexual acts you deem licit will invariably affect your anthropology--of what you believe a human being is. So I can understand the desire to give John and Steve a pass on buggery as long as they're decent neighbors, but you can't do that without implicitly endorsing the view that sex has nothing to do with procreation. And once you've granted that, contraception, abortion, no-fault divorce, SSM, polyamory, pedophilia and all sorts of other perversions are guaranteed to follow.

Being "pro-LGBT" is a sort of soft bigotry. It accepts the (baseless) assertion that sexual inclinations are inborn, uncontrollable, and a fundamental part of one's identity; and therefore concludes that it would be cruel to hold them to same standards that prevailed throughout most of human history. Conversely, the Church insists that they're called to the same glory as every other human being--sainthood--and seeks to accompany them toward that end instead. Anything less would be doing them a grave disservice.

From the Catholic view, it's also just plain disregarding the clear revelation on the matter. If the Christian faith is true, Christians don't have the right to say "You're fine, disregard what God said." The whole point of the exercise is resetting your clock to God's time. It's GREAT to understand why God thinks something is good or not good. But its goodness or badness is not affected by your current level of understanding.

And not all sins are the same. They are all different--all bad in different ways. Heterosexuals, including married heterosexuals, ignore God's teaching regarding sex in lots of ways. They risk their souls for it, just the same as homosexuals risk their souls. Mafiosos risk their souls in other ways. The dishonest in other ways. Loan sharks in other ways. Homosexuals risk their souls in a unique way, at least according to Church teaching. They don't risk it by existing, or by being attracted to the same sex. They risk it by acting on their urges against God's will and against nature.

And beyond soft-bigotry, there is a certain selfishness indifference (analogous to hate) that says, "my reputation for being open-minded and loving, is so important, I'd rather let my brother put his soul at risk than look like a dumb a-s in front of my peers." But an oncologist is loving his patient by failing to tell him he needs chemo. OBVIOUSLY this is not the case if you disagree with the Catholic teaching, but that argument doesn't touch the principle.

 

[Irish YJ]

The "ped situation" is a scourge of our whole society right now. We've discussed this before, so I assume you're already familiar with the John Jay Report released in 2004. The prevalence of child abuse is at least as high among Protestant churches, and is much higher in our public schools. The Church makes headlines for it because: (1) she's virtually the last institution holding the line on Christian sexual ethics, so the hypocrisy is greater; (2) she has a global hierarchy that keeps meticulous records, so they're much more vulnerable to discovery requests than other organizations; and (3) she has many enemies.

The Church has dealt with this sort of thing successfully before. The clergy was infamous for sexual vice in the late 10th and early 11th centuries prior to the reforms brought about by St. Peter Damian. Prayers for his intercession are a great idea right now.

The married priest argument is a total non-sequitur. Protestant ministers, public school teachers, Hollywood producers, etc. are all free to marry, and yet sexual predation is still rampant in all of those organizations. The Church does ordain married man, as deacons, but she's long insisted on a celibate priesthood in order to more perfectly imitate Jesus himself. Even the married Apostles practiced celibacy after beginning their ministries. It's discipline, not dogma, so it could be changed in the future; but none of the arguments in favor of married priests carry water. And Pope Francis just recently affirmed its importance within the Latin Rite, so I wouldn't count on this changing any time soon.

As for the LGBT stuff, the Church agrees with you that everyone, regardless of their inclinations, is to be treated with dignity and respect. But you can't open the door for sodomy without completely destabilizing the entire edifice of Christianity. Sex is how humanity propagates itself; so the sorts of sexual acts you deem licit will invariably affect your anthropology--of what you believe a human being is. So I can understand the desire to give John and Steve a pass on buggery as long as they're decent neighbors, but you can't do that without implicitly endorsing the view that sex has nothing to do with procreation. And once you've granted that, contraception, abortion, no-fault divorce, SSM, polyamory, pedophilia and all sorts of other perversions are guaranteed to follow.

Being "pro-LGBT" is a sort of soft bigotry. It accepts the (baseless) assertion that sexual inclinations are inborn, uncontrollable, and a fundamental part of one's identity; and therefore concludes that it would be cruel to hold them to same standards that prevailed throughout most of human history. Conversely, the Church insists that they're called to the same glory as every other human being--sainthood--and seeks to accompany them toward that end instead. Anything less would be doing them a grave disservice.

On married priests.... The Church has had married priests and married popes. Our Prince of the Apostles and Rock of our Faith was married. If it were OK for our Rock, it's hard for me to think it's a non-starter. Things can change again. Not buying for a minute that letting priest get married, would not reduce the pedophilia within the Church.

On pedophilia. I don't care what happens in other religions. What bothers me more than anything is the systemic cover up that we've seen through history by the Church. IMO, that's worse than the pedophilia itself.

on LGBT in general. Your comment about destabilizing via sodomy is just what the Church has done by knowingly turning a blind eye to homosexuality within the priesthood. It's the worst kept secret...

On "pro LGBT" being soft bigotry... My cousin is gay. To say we were close as infants and children is an understatement. In short, we grew up together and are the same age. I knew she was gay since a very very early age. Nothing "changed" her. You can say that assertion is baseless, but it's as baseless as any counter assertion you might make. Science actually favors a biological explanation at this juncture. What's more interesting, is that her GF is a twin. Her GF's sister is perfectly straight (not a hint of gay or bisexual). Call me crazy, but apply Occam's razor to that.

And regarding human history standards, you've got to be pretty selective to be blind to cultures where homosexuality was accepted. Ancient Greece. Asia since recorded history. Even pre-colonial Native Americans. Those are just a few that come to mind.

In terms of the 10th and 11th century reform, it sure didn't work long. There were 10-15 Popes from 1200 to 1500 that were known to have either hetero or homosexual relationships. If it was happening at the top, it was certainly happening below.

And a few other items you mentioned.... You do realize divorce was acceptable in the Old Testament. And, lastly, I'll take contraception over abortion any day. And when population growth or disease threatens the well being of society, contraception is logical. I can't be intellectually honest and think Christ prefers harm, to contraception. The "Be Fruitful and Multiply" passage does nothing IMO to say contraception is bad. Onan being killed doesn't do if for me either and is a poor foundation to rely on.

 

[Irish YJ]

I really didn't think Irish YJ was proposing traditional Catholicism. I read it as more of just kind of unapologetically moving forward in a kind of reactionary way.

Based on what I was hearing, I was thinking of something more like what Putin is trying in Russia with the Orthodox Church.

I agree that traditionalism has not been tried and found wanting. Very few are trying it.

It was certainly rejected by many Catholics in the early 20th century, including many leading teachers and leaders. But I personally think a lot of the pastoral decisions made recently in the Church are based on the faulty proposition that either the world rejected Christianity because of sin, or because of scandal, rather than because of sin. If only we had been more awesome, the world would have liked the Church better. But Jesus and Judas disprove that theory from day 1.

I think the truth is that our role is more humble: we are called to be faithful and charitable, and God takes care of the rest. I think "Traditional" Catholicism is the best in that it is a humble attempt to hand on and live the Christianity that was passed down from each generation to the next. In that sense, its the secret sauce.

I was absolutely proposing Traditionalism as one of the options. My whole point is either go Traditionalist, or go New Age (not sure that is the right term). Staying in the middle and waffling is killing the church. While I don't support some traditional views, I would at least respect the Church for holding solid to core principals.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I was absolutely proposing Traditionalism as one of the options. My whole point is either go Traditionalist, or go New Age (not sure that is the right term). Staying in the middle and waffling is killing the church. While I don't support some traditional views, I would at least respect the Church for holding solid to core principals.

Oh, then I agree with you there for sure.

There is nothing less attractive than a total lack of confidence, especially when you are talking about things with so many ramifications.

One of my big points, though, is that those in charge of the Church aren’t organizational men who are just sticking to the wrong corporate plan. The Church is waffling because many of its leaders have lost confidence in its teachings. But, like a progressive trust fund kid who is used to the lifestyle, they’re not brave enough to cut the cord and leave. Instead they are trying to remake the Church in their own confused image. The half-ass results are the result. Meanwhile, others smell an opportunity and have been happy to hop in and spend the money while it’s still there.

 

[Irish YJ]

Oh, then I agree with you there for sure.

There is nothing less attractive than a total lack of confidence, especially when you are talking about things with so many ramifications.

One of my big points, though, is that those in charge of the Church aren’t organizational men who are just sticking to the wrong corporate plan. The Church is waffling because many of its leaders have lost confidence in its teachings. But, like a progressive trust fund kid, they’re not brave enough to cut the cord and leave. Instead they are trying to remake the Church in their own confused image.

I think the characterization may be a little unfair of the "new age" type that may be fighting to remake the church. Let's be honest, the "teachings" of the church have changed over time. While some would like to believe current interpretation has been in stone for 2000 years, that's just not true. Marriage in the clergy was once accepted. The death penalty stance just changed.

And if we're being honest, interpretation is in part a product of the times. The 1000s were different from the 500s, just like the 2000 are different from the 1000s. I've never bought into the belief that our interpreters were divinely inspired 1000 years ago, just like I don't believe they are divinely inspired today. They are just flawed men with different opinions interpreting or re-interpreting things that were written by other flawed men with varying opinions.

I can go either way. I'm just tired of a waffling Pope leading a waffling Vatican. It's as bad as politics. It actually is politics of another form.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

On married priests.... The Church has had married priests and married popes. Our Prince of the Apostles and Rock of our Faith was married. If it were OK for our Rock, it's hard for me to think it's a non-starter. Things can change again. Not buying for a minute that letting priest get married, would not reduce the pedophilia within the Church.

So sexual abuse of minors is demonstrably rampant in other similar organizations, despite the ability of those men to marry, and yet you have no doubts that it'll instantly fix this (statistically insignificant post-Dallas Charter) problem in the Roman Church?

On pedophilia. I don't care what happens in other religions. What bothers me more than anything is the systemic cover up that we've seen through history by the Church. IMO, that's worse than the pedophilia itself.

As it should. What we need are leaders who are committed to rooting this evil out with fire and steel. Bring back the Rite of Degradation, the Papal executioner, line up the millstones, etc. But a man so warped by pornography that he can't restrain himself from defiling children is not going to make a suitable husband either.

On "pro LGBT" being soft bigotry... My cousin is gay. To say we were close as infants and children is an understatement. In short, we grew up together and are the same age. I knew she was gay since a very very early age. Nothing "changed" her. You can say that assertion is baseless, but it's as baseless as any counter assertion you might make. Science actually favors a biological explanation at this juncture. What's more interesting, is that her GF is a twin. Her GF's sister is perfectly straight (not a hint of gay or bisexual). Call me crazy, but apply Occam's razor to that.

It's called Original Sin. Everyone is broken in different ways. One man struggles with Greed, another with Wrath, others with Sloth. But for some reason we moderns have been memed into thinking that "sexual orientation" is a sacrosanct category that is a core part of one's identity, and therefore Lust is no longer really a sin. So it doesn't really matter if LGBT are "born that way" or created via abuse (though the academie's flat refusal to research the seemingly strong correlation there is deplorable).

God is a trinity. His relationship with the Church is best analogized as a marriage. And His trinitarian image is found in every true marriage--the love of husband and wife proceeds from them in the form of children as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the relationship of the Father and the Son. That's the end toward which human sexuality is ordered. Any sexual activity that is not capable of procreation is by definition disordered, and harmful to those who engage in it.

Consider our need to eat. The primary purpose of eating is to intake nutrition for the good of the body. It can also be pleasurable, depending on what and how one eats. But consuming inedible substances is a disordered act which will hurt the person who does so. Similarly, disregarding the primary purpose in favor of the secondary purpose, as many gluttons do, results in obesity and illness. Some gluttons undoubtedly are "born that way" (at least partially) via thyroid issues, compulsive personality traits, etc. But they are not helped by affirming them in their illness and vice. They are only helped by whatever combination of medicine, counseling and motivation is necessary to fix their disordered relationship with food. Those who suffer from disordered sexual inclinations are no different.

And regarding human history standards, you've got to be pretty selective to be blind to cultures where homosexuality was accepted. Ancient Greece. Asia since recorded history. Even pre-colonial Native Americans. Those are just a few that come to mind.

"Accepted" is doing a lot of work there. Pederasty was a common vice of wealthy men in ancient Greece; it was not morally normative. And given the massive amount of pressure that academics currently face to "discover" how every expression of platonic male friendship in the ancient world actually points toward homosexuality, you ought to take most such articles with a big grain of salt. Such research says way more about us than it does about the cultures it purports to study. So I'm very skeptical that there was any successful culture prior to Christendom in which sodomy was normalized/ celebrated, but for the sake of this argument, let's bracket that and instead just focus on the history of Christendom.

In terms of the 10th and 11th century reform, it sure didn't work long. There were 10-15 Popes from 1200 to 1500 that were known to have either hetero or homosexual relationships. If it was happening at the top, it was certainly happening below.

The clergy--Popes and Cardinals all the way down to the lowest parish priest--have always been fallible men that are tempted in all the same ways the laity are. That there have been bad popes, cardinals and priests certainly causes scandal, but it doesn't undermine the trust claims of Catholic doctrine one bit.

Homosexual acts have always been singled out as especially offensive to God. From Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament to Romans 1:27 in the New. You can coherently argue that humans are nothing more than clever animals, and thus it doesn't matter how or with whom one rubs genitals; but you can't square LGBT with Christian doctrine.

And a few other items you mentioned.... You do realize divorce was acceptable in the Old Testament.

Yes. Matthew 19:8:

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

(Figured I'd add in that bit at the end about the superiority of celibacy to the married state as well, for obvious reasons). Can't get much more clear than that.

And, lastly, I'll take contraception over abortion any day. And when population growth or disease threatens the well being of society, contraception is logical. I can't be intellectually honest and think Christ prefers harm, to contraception. The "Be Fruitful and Multiply" passage does nothing IMO to say contraception is bad. Onan being killed doesn't do if for me either and is a poor foundation to rely on.

You'll have neither or both. Those are your only options. Onan is obviously relevant to this topic in the OT, but it's hardly the only source. The Tradition has always and everywhere prohibited contraception. Every Protestant ecclesial community condemned it as well until the Anglicans endorsed it at the Lambeth Conference of 1930.

 

[wizards8507]

It's called Original Sin. Everyone is broken in different ways. One man struggles with Greed, another with Wrath, others with Sloth. But for some reason we moderns have been memed into thinking that "sexual orientation" is a sacrosanct category that is a core part of one's identity, and therefore Lust is no longer really a sin. So it doesn't really matter if LGBT are "born that way" or created via abuse (though the academie's flat refusal to research the seemingly strong correlation there is deplorable).

I really hope people click this link, it blew my mind the first time I read it.

 

[ickythump1225]

When have you ever seen the Church treat a gay person unfairly?

If anything, it's the opposite. After all they let James Martin barnstorm the country and write books while explicitly rejecting traditional Church teaching on morality, the necessity of the Church for salvation, etc.

 

[ickythump1225]

I'm just going to say this, I've left the faith over the pedophile issue and while I understand the inclination at the end of the day it's just an excuse. Either the Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ with St. Peter as the Rock and first Vicar of Christ or he didn't. Christ didn't promise us a rose garden. Remember, shortly after he made Simon into the Rock he was betrayed by one of his bishops, arrested unjustly, denied by his first pope, abandoned by all of his friends (except his mother, Mary Magdalene, and St. John), tortured, and executed. Not a real good start.

Is the Church in a bad state right now? A pitiful one. Are some of our shepherds really wolves? Yes. Have we been betrayed? Do some among our leadership deserve a great punishment? Yes, yes, and yes. Does that mean that the gates of hell have prevailed? If you believe they have then either Christ is a liar or the Catholic Church was never what it claimed to be. The Church is under attack, the smoke of Satan has entered into the sanctuary. I firmly believe that some among the princes of the Church dabble in the dark arts of Satanism and some may be connected to elite pedophile rings that touch the uppermost reaches of our political, civic, and business institutions.

That doesn't mean that Church has ceased to be the Ark of Salvation, the Baroque of Peter. It means that weak willed, wicked, and effete men have led us poorly and the princes of the Church have loved mammon more than they love Christ. I hope those men are stripped of their vestments, laicized, and handed over to the authorities for a severe and just punishment. I pray for this. The death penalty in fact is due for some of them. I also hope that they repent before departing this world. What I wouldn't give to have a Leo XIII or Pius X leading the Church right now. We don't, it is our cross to carry.

Remember, no matter what, until the final trumpet sounds and Our Lord comes again in glory we will always be under attack. Sometimes it will look like the enemy is winning. We are called to repentance. What have we done to deserve a Leo XIII or Pius X? Have we not made a great mess of things in the civilian world? Look at the clowns running our governments. We voted for this. We have been unfaithful and wicked ourselves. We have allowed sodomites to run free, liars and thieves to run our affairs, and society to become so debased that transgenders are given license to do as they please and parents are deforming their "transgender" children. None of this speaks to abortion, an evil that we in the West have allowed en masse and it grows stronger. WE have left the Church, WE practice birth control, WE have abandoned Christ as a civilization. Now WE have the audacity to blame God for giving us the leaders we deserve and not the ones we need.

I leave you with this:

6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:

7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.

8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.

10 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.

11 To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

-1 Peter 5

 

[Irish YJ]

So sexual abuse of minors is demonstrably rampant in other similar organizations, despite the ability of those men to marry, and yet you have no doubts that it'll instantly fix this (statistically insignificant post-Dallas Charter) problem in the Roman Church?

I said reduce, not instantly fix. It would also assist with combating the priest shortage. I'm no expert on stats, but I have to believe the great majority of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church is homosexual in nature. Would heterosexual married men just shift the stats toward heterosexual child abuse? IDK, but logically I think we'd see a significant overall reduction.

As it should. What we need are leaders who are committed to rooting this evil out with fire and steel. Bring back the Rite of Degradation, the Papal executioner, line up the millstones, etc. But a man so warped by pornography that he can't restrain himself from defiling children is not going to make a suitable husband either.

Not sure where the pornography angle came in? That's a whole separate issue to unpack. I have to believe married men with healthy relationships are less likely to turn to porn in the first place, compared to single men.

It's called Original Sin. Everyone is broken in different ways. One man struggles with Greed, another with Wrath, others with Sloth. But for some reason we moderns have been memed into thinking that "sexual orientation" is a sacrosanct category that is a core part of one's identity, and therefore Lust is no longer really a sin. So it doesn't really matter if LGBT are "born that way" or created via abuse (though the academie's flat refusal to research the seemingly strong correlation there is deplorable).

Couple things to unpack here. The concept of Original Sin has a long and interesting history. The original formal writings were less severe than later. Who's correct? Irenaeus, Augustine, Ezra, Saint Anselm, Haag? There's as much disagreement within Catholicism, as there is between Christian faiths.

Second, the Bible is full of contradictions, and also includes things they simply got wrong (it's attitudes on slavery being the lowest hanging fruit). Just like I've never bought into the infallibility of the Pope, I've never looked at the Bible as infallible either. How can it be when it contradicts itself, or gets things obviously wrong. The mental gymnastics it takes to solve for those things are intellectually dishonest. That said, I love the Bible, but I gravitate more towards what I see as the truest elements. That being the actual word of Jesus. Even that, was told, and retold by flawed men impacted by the times in which they lived over 100s of years.

Lastly, and partly because of the above, Christ never commented directly or condemned homosexuality. You can argue that it was understood, but Christ talked plenty about sin that was "understood". And I can't chalk it all up to "lust". My cousin is not a lustful person. A matter a fact, she's probably the kindest, least promiscuous, gentle person I've ever known. "Sex" really has little to do with her relationship to be honest.

God is a trinity. His relationship with the Church is best analogized as a marriage. And His trinitarian image is found in every true marriage--the love of husband and wife proceeds from them in the form of children as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the relationship of the Father and the Son. That's the end toward which human sexuality is ordered. Any sexual activity that is not capable of procreation is by definition disordered, and harmful to those who engage in it.

I could dive into this one too, but I'll leave this (Trinity relation to the Church) at "man's interpretation" and point to the above.

Consider our need to eat. The primary purpose of eating is to intake nutrition for the good of the body. It can also be pleasurable, depending on what and how one eats. But consuming inedible substances is a disordered act which will hurt the person who does so. Similarly, disregarding the primary purpose in favor of the secondary purpose, as many gluttons do, results in obesity and illness. Some gluttons undoubtedly are "born that way" (at least partially) via thyroid issues, compulsive personality traits, etc. But they are not helped by affirming them in their illness and vice. They are only helped by whatever combination of medicine, counseling and motivation is necessary to fix their disordered relationship with food. Those who suffer from disordered sexual inclinations are no different.

Sorry, can't connect over eating lack of discipline to loving, not lusting for a same sex partner.

"Accepted" is doing a lot of work there. Pederasty was a common vice of wealthy men in ancient Greece; it was not morally normative. And given the massive amount of pressure that academics currently face to "discover" how every expression of platonic male friendship in the ancient world actually points toward homosexuality, you ought to take most such articles with a big grain of salt. Such research says way more about us than it does about the cultures it purports to study. So I'm very skeptical that there was any successful culture prior to Christendom in which sodomy was normalized/ celebrated, but for the sake of this argument, let's bracket that and instead just focus on the history of Christendom.

Only focusing on Christendom when talking about the homosexual history, is being conveniently selective. If Greece is a bad example, take a look at Asian history, or even "Two Spirit" history of Native Americans.

I've had many debates with my cousin over the years. There's plenty of history you don't need to take a grain of salt with.

The clergy--Popes and Cardinals all the way down to the lowest parish priest--have always been fallible men that are tempted in all the same ways the laity are. That there have been bad popes, cardinals and priests certainly causes scandal, but it doesn't undermine the trust claims of Catholic doctrine one bit.

Sorry, can't buy this one. Similar to Papal infallibility, I'm supposed to buy any doctrine from political and sinful men? PI wasn't even a thing till the 1800s from Pius IX. Going back further to the MA, several theologians said that in general, no one could judge the Pope. Sounds similar to not being able to prosecute the Prez. Trust claims are hard to embrace given the changing nature, contradiction, and some flat out disturbing actions by the Church over the years.

Homosexual acts have always been singled out as especially offensive to God. From Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament to Romans 1:27 in the New. You can coherently argue that humans are nothing more than clever animals, and thus it doesn't matter how or with whom one rubs genitals; but you can't square LGBT with Christian doctrine.

Yet many Christian denominations are now accepting of LGBT.

Yes. Matthew 19:8:

(Figured I'd add in that bit at the end about the superiority of celibacy to the married state as well, for obvious reasons). Can't get much more clear than that.

You'll have neither or both. Those are your only options. Onan is obviously relevant to this topic in the OT, but it's hardly the only source. The Tradition has always and everywhere prohibited contraception. Every Protestant ecclesial community condemned it as well until the Anglicans endorsed it at the Lambeth Conference of 1930.

To the above, neither are specific. Onan can be interpreted in a few different ways.

Presbs, Methodist, and many Lutherans are fine with it. Anglicans and even Mormons have softened. Can you believe Mormons?


Whiskey - I enjoy reading your opinions. And while I don't agree with some things, I respect and appreciate your thoughts nonetheless.

 

[BGIF]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-abuse-texas/catholic-leaders-in-texas-name-around-300-priests-accused-of-abuse-idUSKCN1PQ3LX


U.S.JANUARY 31, 2019 / 11:03 PM / UPDATED 4 HOURS AGO
Catholic leaders in Texas name around 300 priests accused of abuse

(Reuters) - Roman Catholic leaders in Texas on Thursday identified around 300 priests and others accused of sexually abusing children.

It was one of the largest groups of names disclosed by the church as it faces U.S. state and federal investigations into its handling of decades of allegations of sexual misconduct by priests.

The names were posted online by the state’s 15 Catholic dioceses and follow an August grand jury report in Pennsylvania detailing seven decades of abuse of thousands of children by more than 300 priests.

“The Bishops of Texas have decided to release the names of these priests at this time because it is right and just and to offer healing and hope to those who have suffered,” said Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of the Galveston-Houston diocese, who is also president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

In the months after the Pennsylvania report, dozens of other dioceses around the United States have released the names of hundreds of priests and others accused of abuse. Some states have opened their own investigations into the church.

Texas’ Catholic dioceses have been in the spotlight since November when authorities searched the offices of the archdiocese of Galveston-Houston looking for documents related to a priest charged in September with sex crimes.

About 30 percent of Texas’ population, or 8.5 million people, identify as Catholics, one of the highest rates for any U.S. state, according to the USCCB.

Some of the 15 Texas dioceses listed priests accused of abuse going back as far as the 1940s. Others like Laredo only went back to 2000, when it was created, and listed no names.

It was not clear whether the release of names would result in prosecutors bringing charges. The majority of the priests identified in Texas have died, as is the case in most dioceses around the country.

The Bishops of Texas have decided to release the names of these priests at this time because it is right and just ...

Why wasn't it was "right and just" to IDENTIFY and STOP the bastards when they were raping children and the hierarchy was covering it up? Speak up Cardinal, it took 70 years to do something which should have been done immediately ... generations ago. There should be R.I.C.O. charges against The Church for this organized criminal conspiracy.