Richard Dawkins and “Mild Pedophilia”

Tuesday, September 10, AD 2013

48 Responses to Richard Dawkins and “Mild Pedophilia”

  • It’s called molestation. Not “mild touching” and it does have lasting affects….Dawkins should get his head checked. Apparently his ability to be logical was damaged.

  • Perhaps the fact that Dawkins was sexually abused as a child and even today seems to be repressing the fact ought to move us to pity rather than scorn.

    Sexual abuse victims deal with their trauma in a lot of different ways. Maybe he’s let slip more than he realizes.

  • I’m reminded of Whoopi Goldberg’s fascinating insight into the Roman Polanski
    case: the man drugged a 13-year-old girl, then raped and sodomized her.
    Whoopi’s take on it all? “It wasn’t rape rape”.

    I think that once the pedophilia scandals that rocked the Church a decade ago
    fade into history and lose their value as a stick with which to beat the Church,
    the Whoopis and the Dawkins and all the other “Brights” will forget about their
    faux outrage over child sexual abuse. Mark my words, they’ll come out in favor
    of reducing the age of consent, and push to brand our condemnation of sexual
    abuse of minors as some sort of bigotry.

  • I feel pity for him but i call condoning evil idiotic like i see it. That gets my scorn. He’s advocating abuse and that i will not tolerate. Dont care if its because he was abused or not. Abused people dont talk that way. They know its wrong and any bad habits or thoughts that result arent aired out to the public as being good either like drug abuse.

  • Waaaaaait a minute.

    If “abused people don’t talk that way,”

    and he’s talking that way,

    was it not abuse?

    This doesn’t make logical sense.

    One not-uncommon reaction to abuse is to pretend that what happened wasn’t really abuse.

  • Again he’s not simply in denial he is advocating abuse. Dont you think that is wrong?

  • Of course I do, but it’s illogical to say both “what he experienced was abuse” and “abused people don’t talk the way he is talking.”

    Having pity on someone doesn’t mean I have to think he’s correct. Please distinguish between scorning a person and scorning a statement.

  • I have no scorn for Dawkins. Sure he was abused. But to go on record and condone it isnt normal. Abused people know evil just like non abused persons. He may deny his own abuse was abusive to him but hes denying a form of abuse.

  • * condoning a form of abuse. Not denying abuse. Denying is different than condoning.

  • “Mark my words, they’ll come out in favor
    of reducing the age of consent, and push to brand our condemnation of sexual
    abuse of minors as some sort of bigotry”
    Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has written a book advocating informed sexual consent for fourteen year old girls as a form of sexual liberation.
    The insult to injury in “mild pedophilia” is that the person is taking liberties with another, albeit minor child’s, human body without the proper consent which remains with the child’s parents. The monster takes possession of the victim, body and soul and OWNs him as a piece of property, irregardless of civil rights and sacred trust.
    It appears Dawkins has chosen to deny his immortal soul and the humiliation heaped on his soul by the monster. No, it is not OK. There must be God because there must be JUSTICE, even for “mild pedophilia.”
    Adam’s sin was that Adam disobeyed God. The monster’s sin is that he disobeyed God, violated the Sixth Commandment, violated the sovereign personhood of a minor child and finally violated his own immortal soul by committing suicide.
    Dawkins will not let “God save the Queen”. Dawkins is going to save the Queen by bashing the Pope, the Catholic Church and our infinite God.

  • lets get this right,right now….it is not just the Catholic Church that has these pedophiles…it is every faith…the only reason you don’t hear much of these other faiths is because the Catholic Church has been around for so long and is the One True Faith…people have been trying to kill the Catholic Church forever and they will think of everything possible to break it up…sure there were some stupid priests who hurt the church’s people but that is all they did was hurt the church…they didn’t kill it….that is because the Catholic Church is strong and her people are strong in their Catholic Faith….I am sorry to say this but pedophilia has been around for ages and did not start with the Catholic Church…so go on Dawkins….keep making an ass of yourself…you can try just as hard as all the other morons who want to kill the Holy Catholic Church….you will never win..God will triumph and so will HIS people and HIS CHURCH….

  • The humanist Left worships at the altar of Man as Supreme Being. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

  • I’m interested in hearing his thoughts on “mild murder.”

  • Do you think it possible Dawkins is just an exhibitionist?

  • Only a “mild” exhibitionist.

  • Dawkin’s has zero credibility. His arguments for atheism are as empty as his belief that molesting children has no lasting effect. I think he has been sprinkling a little Alzheimer’s on his breakfast cereal.

  • “latae sententiae -self excommunication” Every person who consents to commit a mortal sin, excommunicates himself. Every priest who consented to commit abuse excommunicated himself. No much of a spiritual father is an excomunicated individual. So, too is Dawkins, a traitor in not calling down Divine Providence on the Queen in “God save the Queen.” Treason, in the United States of America, against the people prohibited from invoking Divine Providence on our blessed land. NO speech, no freedom. “or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” Three quarters of the states must ratifiy any change in our Constitutional First Amendment, but they have not. May God bless and keep America.

  • Well, this is rich!

  • Off of Life Site news in March or April of last year came a story from Germany.
    According to the author; No longer will Germany call pedophiles Pedophiles. They shall be known as “minor attracted people.” The stigma associated with the term pedophiles is demeaning to this type of lifestyle choice.

    The article continued on with a drive to lower consent laws to EIGHT years of age. 8!

    God help us.

  • It seems like the trend is to nothingness. Shock value is shrinking.
    Dawkins is too cool to have been bothered by a teachers hand in his pants — “that’s all right, I’m cool, no big deal…
    Marriage? — that’s nothing- anybody can do it or not do it-doesn’t matter.
    What do I care about LIFE what’s the big deal- somebody wants to end their own life–have at it!
    Or an abortion- no harm no foul- I don’t see any “victims” do you? Nothing going on here.
    I witness a violent crime — no skin off of my nose… those two thugs are going to fight it out anyway!

    We are not too bothered pedophilia, millions of abortions, broken homes, neglected children— all nothing. — God created “ex nihilo” didn’t He?
    The trend seems to go back there.
    We are getting rid of God; we are getting rid of us.

  • Anzlyne: I have wanted to say: “God created “ex nihilo” didn’t He?
    The trend seems to go back there.
    We are getting rid of God; we are getting rid of us.” but you have said it better. God bless.

  • B4UACT, a group of psychiatrists, is trying to legalize pedophilia in Baltimore, Maryland. Without the infinite God, unalienable civil rights cannot exist. Without The Supreme Sovereign Being, who is existence, mankind, body and soul, has lost his place in this world.
    The trouble with Dawkins is that he will become a death bed convert after he has seduced the young and uninformed. This is precisely why freedom of religion must remain an unalienable civil right. So that when the atheist seeks God, the atheist will find God through the freedom of religon. It is choice, the exercise of free will, an intrinsic part of the human soul.

  • In Europe, the trend of legislation, over the past century, has been the other way. Before 1929, Scots law followed Roman law in allowing a girl to marry at twelve years of age and a boy at fourteen, without any requirement for parental consent. The Age of Marriage Act 1929 made void any marriage between persons either of whom was under the age of sixteen. Sixteen remains the lower age-limit today, contained in the current legislation, the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977. Scots law still has no requirement for parental consent.

    The change met with some opposition. One clergyman wrote to the press, “What, then, has the legislature to do here? It is to follow Nature. Whenever man becomes fit for the reproduction of a being similar to himself, he is then fit for marriage.” Such an argument would be unthinkable today.

    In France, the age of marriage has been recently raised from 15 to 18 (the age of majority) for both sexes, largely owing to concerns over « crainte révérencielle » – the dutiful child’s fear of offending parents by a refusal.

  • MPS, while I agree that European nations seem to have been slowly raising the
    age at which one may contract a legal marriage, I wonder if many pedophiles
    are looking for that sort of permanence in their ‘relationships’.

    As it is, many European nations have legal ages of sexual consent that seem
    shockingly low to this American. As you point out, MPS, in France the age one
    could contract a legal marriage has been slowly raised over the last 200 years.
    However, the age of consent for homosexual acts was lowered in 1974
    from 21 to 18, and in 1982 it was lowered again from 18 to 15. Other EU
    countries have even lower ages of consent, and if I recall, there have been
    drives to lower them even further… Cui bono?

  • It seems to me the trend is still to “nothing” concerning social strictures about marriage and family. The beautiful heart of France has a lhistory of protection for the weak underpriveged. The concern in that great and good culture is for the child, as we have seen in the marriage debate over there. But the downhill snowball is still rolling down. Historically Christian countries seem to be doing a collective shrug of the shoulders about personal behavior and responsibility in society.

  • Clinton

    The lowering of the age of consent for homosexual acts in 1974 was a consequence of the lowering of the age of majority generally from 21 to 18. The lowering of the age of consent to 15 in 1982 brought it into line with the age of consent for heterosexuals.

    Moreover, Art 227-27 of the Code Pénal punishes sexual acts committed without violence, constraint, threat or surprise on a minor aged over fifteen and not emancipated by marriage are punished by two years’ imprisonment and a fine of €30,000:
    1° where they are committed by a legitimate, natural or adoptive ascendant or by any other person having authority over the victim;
    2° where they are committed by a person abusing the authority conferred by his functions.

    2° is widely construed

  • Anzlene

    Mme Ludovine de la Rochère of « Manif pour tous » the grass-roots organization that opposed SSM, declared that they would continue to fight against the “progress” of which the supporters of SSM speak – “that of merchandising the human body, of wombs for rent” [« celui de la marchandisation du corps, celui des ventres à louer »]

    In 1991, the Court of Cassation in plenary session regarded as a perversion of the institution of adoption the plenary adoption of a child when this is only “the final phase of an overall process designed to enable a couple to take into their home a child conceived under contract and requiring that child’s abandonment at birth by his or her mother.” In doing so, it relied on Art 1128 of the Code Civil, which provides that “only things in trade can be the subject of an agreement.” The full court never reverses itself, leaving any change in the law to the legislature.

    French law erects further barriers to the commercialisation of the reproductive process. There can be no ownership of human gametes or embryos; this is excluded by Art 16-1 of the Code Civil, which provides that “The human body, its elements and its products may not form the subject of a patrimonial right.” Nor can they be bought or sold, for Art 16-5 reinforces the general prohibition of Art 1128, by providing that “Agreements that have the effect of bestowing a patrimonial value to the human body, its elements or products are void.”

    There is well-nigh universal support for the proposition that a child should not be made the subject or source of a transaction.

  • One way to handle “mild pedophilia” is for the victim, when he or she grows up to always look down or give a knowing smirk to the perpetrator when he or she meets him. This will always work, and the perpetrator to his dying shame will carry it to his grave.

  • Dawkins claims to be an atheist. Yet, Dawkins and The Great Liar, the devil himself, using Dawkins, insinuates that the Anglican priests who chose to become Catholic had no free will and right to choose and to consent to become Catholic, and that Pope Benedict XVI had no authority to accept their free will choice and receive these Anglican priests into the Catholic Church, whereas, the word Catholic means for all people, for all time. Dawkins refuses to accept Pope Benedict XVI and the Pope’s acknowledgment of the Anglican priests’ free will.
    This is the result of mild pedophilia. This is what comes from having a person’s free will and informed consent denied by another individual who tries to own somebody, anybody.

  • Pingback: Robert Hugh Benson (1871-1914) - BigPulpit.com
  • Mr. Dawkins believes there can be “mild pedophilia”—apparently coming from someone with mild intelligence. I certainly wouldn’t want any of my children around him. So I guess there can be “mild wars, mild atrocities, and mild genocides?” He is an example of what GK Chesterton described as “an educated man—educated badly.”
    Among a litany of ill-informed and demagogic statements he says that the Church is an enemy of women because it won’t allow women to become priests. May I inform him that the priest stands “en persona,” in the person, of Christ. And since Christ was a man, a woman could no more be a priest than a man could be a Mother Superior, or a Poor Claire Nun, or play the Blessed Mother in the Christmas pageant.
    In a stultifying diatribe about the “vile obscenity” of the Church teachings on Original Sin, he says, “Adam who the Church herself now admits was a man who never existed”. Anyone who knows an iota about the Church knows this is not true and anyone who wants to lecture about the Church should do a little research.
    Mr. Dawkins goes on to say that “there is absolutely no correlation between Hitler and Stalin’s’ godless atheism and their monstrous atrocities and deeds.” No?—well maybe not to one with “mild” intelligence and reason.
    Mr. Dawkins then states that Pope Benedict, who was a university professor for nearly two decades, was an “enemy of education because he teaches young children that because of Original Sin they are born wicked and evil and therefore must be baptized to receive the salvation that only Christ can give, and about the horrors of Hell.” St. John Vianney comes to mind who could have been speaking to the future Richard Dawkins when he said, “Christ wept over Jerusalem…and I weep over you….Hell exists. It is not my invention. God has told us. And you pay no heed.”

  • JB.
    Thanks.
    I like your insights.

  • Jamey Brown writes, “or play the Blessed Mother in the Christmas pageant…”

    Is that really true? Great female roles, like Clytemnestra and Phaedra in the plays of Aeschylus and Euripides were played by male actors. No woman was admitted to the Dionysia. Again in In Shakespeare’s time, with the recovery of the classical learning, all the female rôles, Juliet, Lady Macbeth and Portia among them would have been played by boys.

    The ancient Greeks, like our Elizabethan ancestors, recognized the drama as the place of ἀπορία [aporia] = impasse; lack of resources, puzzlement; doubt; confusion. Even today in that most traditional and popular form of the drama, our Christmas pantomimes, the “principle boy” and the “dame” are always played by men. We would be astonished by a male Aladdin or Widow Twankey. No wonder; children love indeterminacy, ambiguity, irony, paradox. So did the Greeks, in that fresh morning of the world and it was their great gift to us in the Renaissance.

    [I agree, by the by, with your general point]

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour said “children love indeterminacy, ambiguity, irony, paradox.”

    I think while this is true, they like even more, assurance, sureness and certainty. If I were to see a bearded Mary in the Nativity Play I would not stick around knowing it was a sham, and I’m sure the children would be howling in laughter screaming that word that they love to use, “Fake.”

    You know a lot about the history of the theatre and I applaud that; but we’re talking here about something eternal, the sacred priesthood and the Sacrament of Holy Orders and our very salvation. I don’t think our good Jesus was a male chauvinist when he chose men to be his twelve Apostles out of his many disciples, some of them women. It is my opinion that it would not be wise to send women alone to be missionaries out into the wiles of foreign lands for obvious reasons: they could be raped or forced into becoming wives. Also I think most women had children to tend to—at least in those days.

    I am eternally grateful for women’s extraordinary gifts to the Church. If it wasn’t for a woman, Mother Angelica, I wouldn’t be Catholic today. It was her network EWTN that converted me six years ago. Her and the Poor Claire Nuns and a plethora of women hosts and scholars—Frances Hogan, Johnnette Benkovic, Daphne McLeod, Sr. Joan Marie, and Elizabeth Lev, art historian in Rome, are just a few of the many women, and men, that broke through my “hardness of heart” and continue to convert me every day.

  • Wouldn’t it be great to get to just have coffee or tea with all of you some fine morning!

  • Jamey Brown

    I do not believe the choice of an all-male priesthood, either under the Old Law or the Christian Dispensation rests on the sort of practical reasons you suggest.

    Priestesses were very common in the ancient world. The most revered sanctuary in Greece was the shrine of Phœbus Apollo at Delphi, where the oracle was uttered by the Pythian priestess. Readers of Plato will know that the temple of Zeus at Dordona was also served by priestesses. Both Apollo and Zeus, it should be noted, were male deities. The play “Iphigegnia in Taurus” contains no suggestion that there is anything unusual in a woman being a priestess.

    In Latin, the word “sacerdos” is common gender. Roman law forbids women to offer sacrifice by night, except when celebrating the rites of the Good Goddess. Why, if they were not permitted to offer sacrifice at all? That the Vestals were priestesses is affirmed by Gaius, a very careful jurist and the Sybil at Cumæ was a priestess, according to Vergil.

    I believe the all-male priesthood expresses something far deeper

  • In response to Michael Patterson-Seymour

    I quote Fr. William Saunders of EWTN.com who quotes Archbishop Fulton Sheen who said that our dear Lord in regards to ordaining women didn’t even ordain his Blessed Mother who was sinless to administer sacrament. Fr. Saunders goes on to say:

    “The Mass is not just a ritual meal or pious
    remembrance of the Last Supper; the Mass participates in and makes present
    now the everlasting, eternal sacrifice of our Lord on the cross and His
    resurrection.

    In the same way, through holy orders a priest is called to represent
    Christ Himself, to be an alterChristus. For instance, at Mass, the priest
    acts — “the priest enacts the image of Christ, in
    whose person and by whose power he pronounces the words of consecration.”
    (St. Thomas Aquinas, , III, 83 1, 3) In this sense, an
    intrinsic part of the sacramental sign of holy orders is the manhood of
    Christ.”
    And I would add that you wouldn’t want a man portraying Mother Theresa or Margaret Thatcher in a movie. And before you go too far in extolling the glories of ancient Greece you take note that before they made up their first fertility god Herm they were worshipping piles of rocks. And certainly their philosophers were brilliant but they never had a single university, nor did the Romans. The Catholic Church established the first universities–along with the first hospitals, orphanages, and shelters for the poor. And of course the first bingo halls.

  • “Priestesses were very common in the ancient world.” So were women goddesses. “In persona Christi”, Christ, the revelation of God. Any person called to the priesthood must have a vocation. If Jesus did not call women before, Jesus will not call women now.

  • Anzlyne: Will have coffee with you every morning, except when we have tea.

  • Jamey Brown

    I was merely suggesting that the exclusion of women from the Jewish and Christian priesthood cannot have a merely cultural explanation, given that priestesses were very common in the ancient world. Their exclusion must have rested on theological grounds, not cultural or social ones.

    Mary de Voe appears to agree, but there is still the question of why women were excluded from the Aaronic priesthood, which may have some light to shed on the topic.

  • Mary de Voe wrote, “’Priestesses were very common in the ancient world.’ So were women goddesses.”

    True enough, but Delphi was a shrine of Apollo and Dordona a temple of Zeus, both male divinities. Iphigenia became a priestess of Posidon, another male deity. It is not as if male deities had priests and goddesses had priestesses.

  • The atheist denies to God the free will to create man. Made in the image of God in free will, man has the free will and freedom to choose between God and wickedness. The tendency and temptation to wickedness is called concupiscence by the Catholic Church and not as the atheist claims that the Church proclaims man to be wicked, but that man has a tendency to wickedness. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. The Catholic Church points the way toward holiness and the avoidance of evil, the same evil which Dawkins has embraced. Dawkins denies the existence of his rational, immortal soul and God and complains that God and His Holy Church are to blame for all the evil in the world. Makes sense doesn’t it?

  • Jesus is the revelation of God. If God wants women priests, God will give women a vocation to the priesthood. If I were to become a priest, I would have been born a man.

  • “Priestesses were very common in the ancient world.” So were women goddesses” ()Mary DeVoe

    Yes – beware Greeks bearing gifts! 🙂 (ref. MPS mention greek gift to renaissance)

    do you suppose that eldest daughters were not made Aaronic priestesses because they didn’t want to do it? that was some pretty heavy lifting,not to say bloody mess over and over again- yeich!

  • This is the first time I have actually witnessed RD spewing his sickness, hatred, anguished ,twisted soul in person. watching the crowd cheer him on was amazing,
    It was like seeing Dante’s Inferno in a modern adaptation.

  • Comment on Anzlyne:
    As GK Chesterton said, “In a world without God there will be no room for man.”
    Comment to Judith Crowley:
    It was the first time I had heard Dawkins too, and it was disappointing that he was so shallow. As they say he’s a mile wide and an inch deep. At least Hitchens was articulate; he had some clever turns of phrase, although completely wrong. But as you say, Dawkins just said the old false clichés about the Church structured to inflame the crowd—probably on a weekday because none of them had jobs.
    One of the myths that he perpetuates is that the birth of children in poor countries—here we go with that horrible “life stuff” that the Church loves—is the cause of poverty.

    There’s plenty of food for the world. It’s the greed of the rulers, in collusion with big business—the groups that he really represents, not the toothless goons cheering for him–that keeps the food and medicines, etc. from freely flowing. And no, I am absolutely not advocating socialism. Look at the atrocities of famine in the atheist socialist “Utopias” of the former Soviet Union, China, and North Korea.

    I think that Holy Mother Church with her cardinal virtue of charity, the Church that is the biggest charity in the world, that started the first hospitals, orphanages, and shelters for the poor is the answer, and has always been, not the cause of poverty.

    I could say more about that pathetic Dawkins but I’ve done enough penance for today. All I can say is that he better get a lot of sunscreen cause it’s sure gonna be hot where he’s going if he doesn’t see the Light. But in Dante’s Inferno Satan is frozen in the ice. Well Dawkins could end up right next to him—an atheist gelato. But there’s always hope. In truth I was as bad an atheist as Dawkins until—by God’s grace– I stopped drinking 27 years ago. If the Lord can deliver me, he can deliver anyone.

  • Richard Dawkins demonstrates his ability to spout nonsense almost as well did Adolf Hitler.

The Disgrace of Cardinal Danneels and the Belgian Catholic Church

Sunday, June 27, AD 2010

This past week, Belgian police raided the headquarters of the Catholic Church in Belgian, as well as the home and office of recently retired Archbishop Godfried Danneels, during an investigation into the sexual abuse of children.

Rorate Caeli provides the full text of Pope Benedict’s letter to Abp. André Joseph Léonard, Archbishop of Mechlin-Brussels and President of the Belgian Episcopal Conference, responding to the unfortunate series of events:

I wish to express to you, dear Brother in the Episcopate, as well as to all Bishops of Belgium, my closeness and my solidarity in this moment of sadness, in which, with certain surprising and deplorable methods, searches were carried out in Mechlin Cathedral and in places where the Belgian Episcopate were assembled in plenary session. During that meeting, aspects related to the abuse of minors by members of the clergy were to have been treated, among other things. I have myself repeated numerous times that these grave facts should be treated by the civil order and by the canonical order in reciprocal respect for the specificity and autonomy of each one. In this sense, I wish that justice will follow its course, ensuring the rights of persons and institutions, in respect for victims, with the recognition, without prejudices, of those who wish to collaborate with it and with the refusal of everything that could darken the noble duties that are ascribed to it.

As Rorate Caeli notes, there is a “one-sideness” and “tone-deafness” to the papal remarks. The impression is exacerbated by Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone,

Continue reading...

21 Responses to The Disgrace of Cardinal Danneels and the Belgian Catholic Church

  • And there are still many people that “pooh-pooh” pointing out the wrongs of our bishops.

    Well I’m glad I never listen to their crocodile crying.

  • “Those expressing frustration over the impertinence of the Belgian police’s raid…” include the pope!! This is truly horrifying to me.

  • This is the particularly disturbing in light of Danneels having been considered papabile in some circles. We certainly have the Holy Spirit to thank that we don’t have someone so obviously tainted at the healm at this time.

    On the Vatican response — their press office is pretty notoriously amateur. I wonder if they responded to the accounts in the populat press on the first day without actually having looked into the details first.

  • So these sorts of statements released with the pope’s “signature” are routinely not written by the pope himself?

  • I reread the entire article over at The Brussels Journal.

    Cardinal Danneels disgusts me almost as much as Weakland did.

    Cardinal Danneels should be handcuffed and taken into custody until a trial date is set for his cover-up of the sickness inside the Belgian Catholic Church.

  • This looks like an absolutely horrible mess, far worse than the scandala in Ireland and the US. I can understand how a kid who went through this grows up with an implacable hatred of the Catholic Church. It appears that Cdl Danneels and his band of brothers were allowed to get away with it for so long precisely because they were part of the liberal establishment. All too often these prelates, instead exercising close pastoral care and supervision of the spiritual life of Catholics, spend their time holding forth on matters of peripheral concern such as Israel and immigration. I suppose this is the preferred way to ease their conscience. Cdl Danneels is famous for allowing Muslims free rein on Catholic property.

  • Cardinal Danneels used his standing as the prelate of Belgium to push for his most extreme liberal causes at the expense of the souls he was suppose to shepherd.

    This should be a warning to Cardinal George, O’Malley, and the rest of the liberal cabal at the USCCB that they need to heed the spiritual needs of their flock instead of pushing the Democratic Party agenda and warming up to Teddy, Nancy, and John Kerry.

    This disgusts me to no end.

  • This is a pissing contest between the Belgian liberals and the conservatives. Obviously this was part of a sex education program instituted by Daneels to be au currant with other European nations. If yoyu’ve not seen some of the things that is being taught to 13 year olds in ‘secular’ education, it would make you wretch. However I noticed that this article omits the last paragraph from the Journals article which expressed the responses from other Cardinal prelates around the Globe on such a course.

    “I received letters of support from cardinals from all parts of the globe. “I share your concern. It is important that you do not leave the matter uncontested,” wrote Cardinal Meisner of Cologne; “You have good reasons to be concerned,” wrote Cardinal Wamala of Uganda; “I feel strongly enough to write to Cardinal Danneels in the hope that he may enlighten me,” wrote Cardinal Vidal of the Philippines; “If I have the opportunity to discuss with Cardinal Danneels the matter you have drawn to my attention, I will do so,” wrote Cardinal Williams of New Zealand; “I shall try to do something in order to help you,” wrote Cardinal Lopez Rodriguez of Santo Domingo; “I am aware that your concerns have been brought to the attention of Cardinal Laghi, Prefect for the Congregation for Catholic Education,” wrote Cardinal O’Connor of New York.”

    None of this mitigates due process or even begins to construe a legal linkage between the abuse cases and sex education courses. If so, American courts will be extremely busy in the future.

  • Robert C.,

    I read the same article and my question is, did those bishops and cardinals follow up those letters of support by contacting Cardinal Danneels and investigating these allegations.

    Regardless, if this is true, Cardinal Danneels should be scrutinized with a thorough investigation of his memoirs.

  • Danneels is clearly much at fault here, and I would imagine that at the very least he’ll end up like Law.

    At the same time, as I think about it, the search of the crypt remains a pretty over-the-top act. I mean, seriously: outside of a Dan Brown novel who is going to be hiding incriminating documents in the crypt of a dead bishop? If you want to get rid of incriminating documents, the obvious thing would be to get rid of them not bury them in a place which would result in the maximum possible scandal if they were found there. (If the shredder is un-handy, I believe that a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of the leopard” is traditional.)

    While having no interest in cushioning Danneels’ long overdue fall from grace, it seems fairly reasonable of Rome to be upset over the crypt opening — even if it was only drilling a couple holes and peeking around with a camera.

  • Raiding the tombs is absolutely over the top.

    As one Vatican observer said, not even during the communist era did such acts occur.

  • Exactly correct, Darwin.

    I do think people need to support a proper investigation if there are justified reasons for it; on the other hand, I do not think that allows extreme police-state like tactics.

  • “not even during the communist era…”

    Wrong.

    Much worse happened in the communist era, and continues to happen under communism today, but the Vatican ignores it.

    Churches and shrines are routinely bulldozed in communist China and in Vietnam. Tombs mean nothing to them.

    Why does the Vatican ignore the millions of Catholics put to death by communism?

  • Come now, is the entire clergy abuse scandal really the fault of “liberal” bishops? Worldwide? Seems to me there has been plenty of scandal to go around.

    Certainly, the protectors of perps like Fr Marcial Maciel Degollado were not hardly the liberation theology types, including the past Bishop of Rome.

    The problem is an old-boy network of fraternal pandering and protection, not unlike what was often seen in groups like Freemasonry and the Mafia.

  • RSG,

    including the past Bishop of Rome.

    Yes, anti-Catholic bigots are a dime a dozen.

    Thanks for that bit of nawlidge.

  • The paedophile clerics and their friends in the Belgian Church hawe sown the wind, now their reap the storm, their reward. I hope the police will investigate them carefully in minute details and jail them with harsh sentences.
    Their fellows in the US will take their turn soon.
    I am sorry for the Pope and for Card. Bertone.
    The Pope may err in that issue: The pontifical infallibility doesn’t stretch up to protect these criminals, even if our Holy Father haas but a few responsibility in the laissez-faire which was the policy of his predecessors.
    There is an URGENT need to sweep and clean vigorously the Temple of God. The door is wide open to push these evil men out.

  • Fr. Marciel was pathological. He used the Church and his alleged orthodoxy as cover for his pathology but never sought to change the Church into his sad image. Clerics who promoted catechisms like those noted in the links were trying to change the Church to advance their pathologies. Quite a difference.

  • The church will fight the homosexual paederasty that has pushed its liberal agenda for too long under a false interpretation of Vatican II. The liberal mafia must be identified and cast out from wherever it has infested the Church.

    This is battle royal.

    Support the Holy Father.

    The church is fully aware of the persecution and murder of Catholics around the World. See ACT (Action for the Church in Need)

  • The Patriarch of the West, The Pope is infallable on faith & morals but on issues like homosexual pedophila John 23, Paul 6 & John Paul 2 will have a lot to answer for in that horrible day they face G-D. Under their regimes liberal-socialist theology and a cabal of homosexual priests, lesbian nuns, and queer monks were given free reign and grew worldwide. The denigration of the 16oo yr old divine liturgy (Mass) liberation theology perverted seminaries since the ambiguous pastoral council called vatican 2 was the crack in the wall liberal socialists had been looking for, for the last 100 years. They found it in john 23rd aggoriomento. Even the socialist pope Paul 6th finally admitted the stench of satan had entered the church,(with the help of the above hierarchs).It is up to this good and holy Pope Benedict 16th to mop up the mess of these previous Popes.

  • Millions voted by walking out of the Catholic church in the years since Vatican 2 (rightly or wrongly). What was Holy & Sacred prior to this council suddenly became profane & illegal and anyone who dared to attend the ancient liturgy or question a liberal parish priest were ridiculed and shunned as fanatics. When in fact the real fanatics were the socialist, liberals aka “usefull” idiots liberal periti and “theologists” like Kung, hierarchs like weakland, mahoney,Brown,Gumbleton,Daneel, law & suenan not to mention the author of the venacular service called the novus ordo missae the freemason Archbishop annabal bugnini.

  • In a parting thought I will predict, since I’m NO prophet that the so-called Liberal branch (infestation) in the Catholic church will go the way of the Anglican schismatics, the american & Canadian episcopals and the heretical church of Horny Henry 8th, the so-called church of England.

Was Something Different in the 60s and 70s?

Tuesday, April 20, AD 2010

Given some of the discussion on John Henry’s post yesterday about the timeline of the abuse scandal, I wanted to do a bit more digging into what the actual statistics of the scandal are.

At the NY Times website, Ross Douthat had written:

There’s no way to be completely certain about this, and clearly there was abuse in the church, and horrid cover-ups as well, going back decades and centuries and more. But the John Jay data suggest that something significant really did shift, and escalate, in the years around the sexual revolution.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Was Something Different in the 60s and 70s?

  • This is the kind of work that is extremely helpful.

    What would be interesting would be to check the level of supervision in young clergy, and the living associations of older priests. A cleric living in a house of several clergy might have fewer opportunities to engage in addictive behavior. In addition, the community life in a pre-conciliar rectory may have helped some guys steer clear of potential addictions or problems later in life.

    Today among priests I know in many dioceses there is a renewed understanding of the need for support, community, formation, and the spiritual life. This has probably contributed to the better health of clergy over the past few decades and the generally high levels of satisfaction within the priesthood.

    A caution about attributing too much to the alleged moral decay of the 60’s and 70’s. Many outwardly moral people have stumbled on serious immoral trespass in their hidden lives. Addictions can trip up the most moral, the most talented, and the most admired persons. We need look no further than professional sports or musicians or actors to many talented and disciplined people fritter away their lives.

  • In addition, the incidence of abuse of females did not change as dramatically as did the incidence of the abuse of males

    Anyone got an explanation for that one?

  • I remember listening to a tape by Father Benedict Groeschel a number of years ago entitled something like The Real Scanbal in the Church. I didn’t put it in quotes because I am unsure that this was the title. He seemed to date serious problems with a homosexual underground of sorts in the seminaries back in the early fifties.
    Just mentioned as a point of corroboration…