Link

This guy is from the same diocese as Father Altman.




Mean Trad tweets are the Church’s biggest problem. Did V2 teach Grindr was gtg?

How do you plan to get others to join your side in pushing for the beauty, resplendence, and continuation of the Latin Mass when you constantly degrade V2 and its decision to move ahead with the NO?

Your making the Pope's point for him when you fall into the trap of coming off like a resentful, semi-schismatic, and militant Traditionalist. Is that really what your goal is here?

I don't think it is. I think you're a good and devout Catholic who has a deep and appreciative love for what is a very sacred and holy mass. Maybe you should push that angle more.

Being schismatic is like being pregnant or like being Catholic. You either are or are not.

Militant?  I am a member of the Church Militant.

I didn't denigrate V2, but no one has answered my question about what it is in V2 that trads are rebelling against. I don't think V2 made the USCCB's secretary general seek out casual homosex like a dog in heat.

I'm not resentful. I just enjoy irony. I especially enjoy the irony that all trads are bad because mean tweets or some alleged rejection  of doctrine, but ongoing news like this, well, that's different and definitely not anyone else's fault but the sinner's.  Father Martin SJ, who Francis promoted to be part of a dicastery is tweeting about how wrong it is to spy on priests.  Other SJ's are defending this guy because he's not a pedo and the sex was consensual.  

I guess we'll see how Bishop Callahan handles this.

ETA - you're probably right that I shouldn't be so angry. It's just that I keep having so many opportunities to be angry these days.

C'mon VG! I know you like being the Devil's Advocate. But, this needs to be contrasted against what is happening. Vatican II was hijacked and is now falling apart. He does push that angle. It is not schismatic to disregard VII. There are many reasons for this, but I do not wish to get into that match right now. As, a Lifetime NOM goer who has found the TLM in the last 3 yrs. I am now militant towards that as well. Which requires constant contrasting with what occurred in 1970's. Especially with late 50yo-70yo.

As, Christians, we are called to be warriors.

To me he is comparing and contrasting. It is disgusting that we have seen this increasingly over the years. Though, it probably occurred even pre-Vat. II.

Anyone who thinks Trads are inherently "evil, militant, or schismatic" is being foolish. Their love for the TLM and their devout nature COULD cause some to go that route, but is that really any worse than luke-warm NO's who abandon the Church through their lack of education?

In other words, both Trads and strict NO Catholics can fall victim to letting their preference lead them astray.

I DO NOT believe this is the case for you. I think you love the Church so much that you are more angered by the actions of the Pope than some of us, who also dislike his actions, but are more willing to wait and see how this unfolds. I can't judge you for that, as I obviously have characteristics that can be interpreted as highly flawed.

Not at all. I am very sincere in my line of questioning.

Perhaps I am not as invested, or educated, or whatever it may be that makes you and others see VII as being so heretical or repugnant. Perhaps I may one day agree with you all to the same extent.

However, while I do find SOME things about VII and the NO to be imperfect, I cannot make the leap to arrive at the conclusion that it is blasphemous, heretical, or invalid. I'm not saying you do, but you're definitely leaning more to that side.

There is no devil's advocate being played here. I firmly believe that the Pope and/or the Mass are NOT the entirety of the Church, but merely aspects of it. Our mandate, as given by God, is to follow the Church in which He bestowed absolute authority with fealty and a reverence that is proportional to its place. So long as it is led by Christ, it will be safeguarded.

If I believed it was wrested from the hands of God (which I do not believe it can be), I too would draw a line in the sand.

This just isn't the issue I would draw that line on, but I understand that for others it has some very profound and devout undertones and implications that make this a just and reasonable line to draw. I respect that, but I am not in that camp as of now.

There is no playing "devil's advocate" on this end. I take this very seriously.

I have never said such a thing. I have called out where the NOM does not align with SC.  I have also posted the graphic showing the differences in Catholic practices between TLM and NOM attendees to ask which group *ETA - at a population level* - actually follows the teachings from that council.

And I have not accused you of such in the least. In fact, I have made great efforts to qualify my statements on this.

Read my posts, and you will find I have not questioned your faith or love for the Church, but rather recognized and applauded it.

Some have not been happy with me when I have mentioned that the Church has a homosexual problem, even in its highest ranks.  I take no joy in saying that.  We just cannot excise the cancer if we do not identify it.

I believe Vatican 2 grants an indult for grinder in Traditionis Malefactores.

(i keed, i keed )

The catholic church has been corrupt for many years.
Not saying there might not be some righteous priests, but by and large it's more Satan's tool than a church for Christ. A political organization more than anything.

The New Testament church was not meant to be a ritualized hierarchy of man.

Many years?  How about two millenia, starting with Judas?  Yet, it still stands and has done more good for the world than any other organization.  Of course, it's probably not fair to compare it to other organizations since there's nothing that can come close to the Church of Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity.

This thread has amazing potential.

As far as our smutty cardinal, life is difficult. In this case, all you had to do was stay off of smutty gay hookup aps. Literally one job.

Coffee is not meant to exit through my nose, sir

These are the people calling us rigid.

And accusing us of not accepting Church doctrine

Priests should be able to marry and the decision to have them "married" to the Church and their Faith was one of the stupidest decisions ever.

How could they not have realized that such a policy would mean deviants would seek the priesthood? Human beings have needs.

You can't just undo millions of years of human evolution just cuz you want to.

Are you Christian?

Except prior to the mid-60s the RCC actively tried to exclude such men from the priesthood.

does it matter?

are you about to cite to RCC doctrine as to celibacy, then claim anyone who opposes it is not Christian?

No, but he will bring up the fact that celibacy has always been a Scriptural doctrine, advanced by Paul and supported by both Christ and the Early Church.

Your inability to agree with that isn't a reflection of its failing, but rather your failing to believe a 2000 plus year Christian tenet.

You're right. I guess not all things are possible for God or His Grace.

It is certainly the historical standard.  However, I will argue that we should nonetheless be ordaining more married men.  There are married former Episcopal Catholic priests out there who are well respected.  There are married Eastern Catholic (and EO) priests out there.  There are Catholic deacons out there who I would love to see ordained as priests (granted, what I want doesn't matter, but it's more evidence of ordaining married men).  Technically subdeacons and lectors were also ordained/tonsured, and were not allowed to marry after said ordination (but could be married to begin with).  My point is that it's not an innovation to do so.  We need priests badly.  "Relaxing" this standard will not reduce the quality of the average newly ordained priest.  From what I've seen, it might actually enhance it.

Maybe, before discarding a long-practiced discipline of the RCC we should try some other reforms.

-Instituting a required prayer after Mass for vocations, similar to the Leonine prayers. I have an example from my church.

-Critical examination of seminaries for heterodox instruction and bias against orthodox (rigid?) seminarians

-Emphasize the necessary masculine role of the priesthood by restricting the role of acolyte to boys

-Place more emphasis on the role of priests by greatly restricting the use of EMHCs and maybe even lay lectors. Maybe limiting these roles to deacons and seminarians in locations where they are available

This may be the way to approach this, as in looking for how the decision would affect the efficacy of their orders.

Ah, but we can. It is called reason and free-will. Which is why we are called to go against, basic-animal instincts and choose to better..... civilized. This is why we are not animals. Unlike the scienism-ists (I made it up, OK) want us to think.

You have a choice. Either be week and succumb to pleasure of the flesh- in which you will be rewarded with a very hot place at physical death. Or you can strive to deny these things, grow spiritually towards our Creator. Which has an Eternal reward in Heaven.

My point exactly. Well said skid.

I will say, I don't disagree completely. But, The Latin rite requires celibacy either 3 days or 2 prior to the Rite (I can't remember which). How are you going to fulfill your marriage duties and your Church duties? We would lose daily mass, for one. At the very least.

With that said, I know there are married priests that are older with grown children.

But it shows a sacrifice one needs. They wear black to show they have died to this world. Sacrificing sex is a terrific example to show to others of what is required to go to Heaven. Sacrifice.

Yes isn't that interesting and yet Bishop Callahan remains so absolutely silent.
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/pillar-investigates-usccb-gen-sec

Also nothing further has been said about it in the news. It's gone dark. So you have to ask...

And of course, none of the bishops knew.  How could they possibly know?  These faithless shepherds can sense "divisivenss" in the hearts of the orthodox through the internet, but perversion and immorality in someone with whom they work closely?  Nope!

That's why the RCC should abandon the idea of monogamy.  It's not in our sinful, fallen nature.  The culture has changed.

Little jabs, little jabs. You just can't help yourself can you?

Looking outside in as a Reformed guy...the whole mandating celibacy idea seemed right out of the self destructive playbook.
God says ....marriage and sex is great...so is celibacy if that is your personal call.
Church comes along and has a better idea where they mandate one idea over the other.
This from a celibate guy so I do have a little experiance on the topic.

The Church doesn’t mandate celibacy, because they don’t force anyone to become a priest.  Only Latin Rite priests are celibate, Eastern Catholic priests, as well as deacons, can marry.  As someone who is celibate, perhaps you can understand why it’s a good thing for the church to recognize that calling and have a place for people to carry it out?  That said, it isn’t something that is set in stone and can be changed.

The issue here is a gay clergy issue.  The McCarrick-types in the hierarchy have been recruiting gays to the priesthood for some time now.

Paul also said this.




The Apostle you hold as your first Pope and source of authority was also married. Now while I find requiring priests to be celibate  completely unscriptural for the above reasons. Note I didn’t saying choosing to be a celibate priest. I said making it a requirement is unscriptural. If the RCC is going to go all in requiring their priests never take wives then they should go all in as Jesus says and become eunuchs.


12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.





Now the celibacy requirement isn’t the issue here. It didn’t cause this guy to use gay hookup apps. The issue here is, vile affection, unnatural affection, evil concupiscence. Being married wouldn’t have fixed this. He needs to deal with his sin that so easily besets him. I see a lot of advice going around (quoting 1 Cor 7) for younger people suggesting they get married to fix their porn addictions. Marriage won’t fix that. We weren’t made to watch other people have sex while playing with ourselves. It’s unnatural. They need to fix their problem with their vile and unnatural lust before they get married and it ruins a marriage. Just like this particular priest being married wouldn’t have fixed his vile affection. Trying to compare this to 1Cor:7 is a Apple and oranges comparison because it is natural for a man to desire a woman. He said what he said to keep believing men and women from sinning against the Lord. It’s a big leap to apply this passage the way many non Catholics do and say “See them priests need to be married because if they were they wouldn’t be gay or molesting kids.”


Now I’ve found in my own marriage that letting my sexual desire for my wife go uncontrolled wasn’t profitable to my faith and walk with God.  Now I’ll probably get some comments on this but through much prayer I’ve (well the Lord) been able to get my sexual desire in check which helps me to love her like Christ loved the church. I don’t think about sex as much as I used too and when we do come together I enjoy it much more now.




While I disagree with a celibacy requirement I’ll diverge from other non Catholics and say Celibacy didn’t cause this.

Not exactly. Married men can become Eastern Rite priests or Latin Rite deacons, but neither Eastern Rite priests or permanent deacons can marry.  They must be married before becoming those things.

The thing that gets me most is this sleaze was allowed to gracefully step aside with the prayers of those above him, and Father Altman, a priest who has not been accused of any moral transgression other than stating that if your actions do not line up with the Faith you are not Catholic, is shunted to the door.

I guess it is less of a transgression to be a fan of rogering than it is to call "sin" sin.

God purge the Church.

You cannot serve two masters.
The true issue is a combination of the homosexual mafia in the Church started by Bernadine in Chicago and persitant, egregious adulterous acts in violation of their vows of chastity and celibacy.
The CHURCH IS the spouse of the Bishops and priests. They are committing adultery against us. What would you do if your wife was unfaithful to you, got her friends to cover for her and lie to you?

The corrupt priests and prelates have circled the wagon and literally are only choosing those who will support their "sodomy" (one of the sins that cries out for justice) way of life.
We have free will and the church won't MAKE someone not live a life style contrary to the teachings of Christ in deference to free will. They have an obligation to preach the truth though and the Truth as given to us by God cannot be changed. Whose gonna tell God, that He needlessly destroyed Sodom? Whose going to tell God that adultery is not a sin and He needs to rewrite the big ten? The very sin that caused Lucifer to fall was two fold: he was jealous of the Son of God, and he wanted to FORCE man to love and obey God: Telling God that HIS plan wasn't good enough. The hardest sins to overcome are those of the flesh. These appetites are hardwired in us for survival. Sodomy does not ensure survival. Evil exploits those desires the most for that reason and revels in the fallen. We cannot overcome these sins on our own but this is why we are given the Divine Mercy. If you are in continual sin, then and cannot control your urges then resign from the priest hood. It's not just a sin, it spiritually kills the flock because, our minds want to justify the sin any way possible. That is the nature of the destruction of sin. When you deceive yourself you only see through that lens.

After reading the complaints and some of the  NAC affidavits, and another recent article regarding the Bishops response to this... in predatory fashion, they call sex with seminarians "consensual" or blame the victim, robbing the faithful and those who spurned their advances, of their vocations. Seminarians are considered vulnerable adults and as such can never consent.
Specific to the Msgr Burill, who apparently has been sexually active for years while serving in a  serving in a very powerful position this doesn't happen in vacuum and who is complicit? His Bishop is the same guy who silenced Fr. Altman. Burill faculties have NOT been removed. He is in complete conflict with his vows, and the teaching of the church. You have to ask, Did Bishop Callahan knowingly send Msgr Burrill to DC to hide his sexual exploits?

Quoting Fr. James Martin's Twitter rant... and the "ethical" concern of creating a witch hunt...
"This is a disgrace: spying on bishops and priests to see if they're being chaste and celibate," Father Martin tweeted. "Of course it's aimed at gay priests, and 'gay apps,' which shouldn't surprise anyone. It's part of the ongoing witch hunt against gay priests

I was pleasantly surprised to see NCR actually offer something resembling the truth of Catholic Doctrine in this article. They had to dance around it but ultimately did a good job in defining the difference between a private life and participating in destructive immoral and mortal sin which damages the whole of the body of Christ.  Even a call out of Biden... unexpected bonus there. Thank you for this post.

So it's OK for Priests and Muslims to rape boys, but not OK for them to have sex with grown men?

Register tends towards orthodoxy most of the time.  Reporter, on the other hand, turns towards heterodoxy and heresy.

Satan puts priests under terrible spiritual attack. That is why it is so important to not admit men with intrinsic, grave disorders to the priesthood.

Between 1961 and 2005/2008, enforcement of the prohibition of ordination of homosexuals was left to the discretion of bishops who increasingly disregarded it, opting instead to only enforce equal standards of chastity on all seminarians.   All 4 of the priests who taught at my high school and whom the bishop later removed from ministry for homosexual acts (3 with post-pubescent males, 1 with a pusbescent male) were ordained in the late 60s. Pope Benedict greatly tightened the admittance criteria in 2008.

We need to pray for our priests, but we also need to encourage the hierarchy to not admit men to the priesthood who are more likely to yield to these spiritual attacks.

Satan wins twice when he successfully attacks a priest. He not only defeats that man, but he shames the Church.  Pray for priests, but demand that priests and bishops drain the swamp as well.

This is a thoughtful post.  Obviously, I agree with the second half.  You'd be surprised that even some Catholics hold the strange position you're criticizing.  It never made sense to me.

I disagree with your first point though.  "...I find requiring priests to be celibate  completely unscriptural for the above reasons. Note I didn’t saying choosing to be a celibate priest. I said making it a requirement is unscriptural."

Not unlike the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity, it may not expressly and explicitly in Holy Scripture exactly how some may want to see it, but I don't think we can say that it is completely unscriptural.

If 1 Timothy 4 is your biggest hangup, consider two main things:
    1. Keep in mind the historical context of the gnostics and dualists of St. Paul's day, whose heretical teachings persisted in various forms for centuries, including complete moratoriums on marriage and meat consumption.
    2. Flip the page to 1 Timothy 5, where St. Paul gives a requirement to St. Timothy that discriminates on the basis of marital status (along with age).

Oops, sorry, thought I was in GD.
But the point is valid.
The church hierarchy has a long tradition of protecting kiddie diddlers, and in the Muslim world 'butt boys' can be considered acceptable, whilst 'homosexuals' are thrown off the roofs of buildings.

.

Thank you for your post. I really appreciate it. I don't necessarily agree with the first part, but that is OK.

One of the main things for Catholic Priests is to die to this world. Which is why they wear black. There are instances The Old Testament with celibacy being a requirement. When a High Priest took his turn for sacrifices and offerings in the Temple, he would vow celibacy. It has to do with purity of providing the sacrifice for God. But, yes they were still married.

The Esenes, were a proto-monastic group of Jews that also practiced celibacy.

In the Roman Rite, one must be celibate to perform the Sacrifice of the Mass. It is a ascetic suffering. It can be done & has been done for centuries.

Paul also said this:

“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. . . . I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. . . . he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (1 Cor. 7:8, 32-35, 38).


ETA: also, Jeremiah was told by God to be celibate for his life. Moses was celibate after receiving the tablets, I believe.

Yes and no.  Most (81%) of the sexual abuse cases had victims who were post-pubescent boys.  I don't post this to minimize the sin, but to better define the problem.  The media likes to portray the RCC's abuse crisis as pedophilia because that is still objectionable to most Americans whereas homosex has increasing acceptance. The RCC clergy has a gay celibacy problem not a pedophilia problem. That matters because the preventative steps are different.

It also seems like there are far fewer cases of new abuse.  I think we have Pope Benedict XVI to mostly thank for that as both Cardinal Ratzinger at the CDF and as Pope. He played a large role in getting rid of problem priests, tightening enforcement of existing restrictions on admission to the priesthood, and directing the establishment of new protective measures. For example, A
as a volunteer in a few ministries, I had to take initial and recurring training in how to spot warning signs and prevent sexual abuse.

The percentage of priests who committed such crimes was actually pretty small.  IIRC, it was smaller than the percentage of similar professions like doctor, high school teacher, or clergy from other faiths/denominations.  That is both good and bad news, because the number of cases of abuse is high and there are a couple of reasons for this.  First, the RCC is the single largest denomination in the world. I'm not making an excuse; it's just that there are A LOT of Catholic priests.

Secondly, those priests tended to have a larger number of victims, especially in cases from the 60s through the mid-90s or early 00s.  The hierarchy owns some of that blame because they often left such priests in active ministry roles and shifted them around if scandal was about to break. Here is one example from my high school in PA.  



I think that there were a couple of reasons why bishops allowed or fsiled to prevent this small minority of priests from abusing new victims after an initial report.

First, there was a somewhat naive spirit of optimism and faith in "psychological science" to better peoples lives that came out of the late 50s and early 60s, Age of Aquarius kind of stuff.  Some of these bishops thought that psychological or psychiatric intervention could "cure" these priests and they sent many to counseling centers for treatment (see my point about the importance of accurately diagnosing the problem at hand). These interventions were spectacularly ineffective at a population level. Hence BXVI's moves to laicize these abusers - I think that one of the reasons the media disliked B16 is that he removed homosexual abusers from ministry.

Secondly is the reason that you posted. Bishops moved priests around and protected them because they were afraid of bad publicity, scandal in the Church, lawsuits, etc.  i think that they have all found that failure to protect their flocks first ended up bringing them a lot more of all of that.  This is why I think that it's important to call out scandal in the Church.  It's not for the joy of it; it's because failing to do so only delays the cleanup and leads to more victims.  

I don't have a feel for which of the above are quantitatively larger and there is probably interaction between them as factors.

I have not read the entirety of the PA Grand Jury Report.  It contains some details about bishops' personnel moves, but less than the attorney's site that I linked to regarding Father Barletts.  It is also very long.

Been married 27 years. I don't see how that is possible. I have often said that the only jobs that require more tolerance for human frailty than being a physician (me) is to be a pastor or priest. I cannot imagine how a man, even through the power of God could honor the duties of ordination, office AND marriage with any degree of thoroughness and integrity.

The other argument against a married priesthood is the implication that 'marriage' is is merely a sexual safety valve because the ordained are under an irresistible need for sexual satiety. Nothing in the Bible or Church doctrine would indicate that marriage is a mere sexual contract or that those desires cannot be appropriately suppressed and rechanneled. The conjugal act is a mere outward sign and not the crux of sacramental marriage.

I like your thoughts here.  To expand upon them, chastity is still necssary within marriage.  The requirement that all sexual relations be open to the transmission of life and for the consent of both parties to the act, taught by all major Christian denominations until 1931, requires the type of control you mention above.

perhaps the challenge of celibacy isn't so much the lack of sexual release as the lack of a meaningful intimate relationship.  Humans are wired to seek out someone for a dating relationship.  A married person who commits adultery usually is doing it because of the lack of attention from the spouse and thus the lack of meaningful relationship with the spouse, not the lack of orgasm.

I can see how the celibacy of the priesthood could lead to a powerful sense of loneliness for most people.  Some can live with it, some can't.

I have yet to meet a priest who thinks that it would be practical for him to be married.  Obviously, some priests are married, so it is possible, but it seems like an incredible burden.

Welcome back by the way.



That's why seminarians typically discern their calling for 6-8 years before deciding.  Same with religious brothers and sisters; their postulancy and novitiate can take up to nine years.