Church Militant: The SSPX is sympathetic to perverts

[Sempronius]

Nothing new in this story.  Was all known about 4 years ago.

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/scandals-when-to-make-public/

CM are not breaking any new ground here, just going over old cases.

So this was a known secret? Good that it finally broke through to the public

[clau clau]

Nothing new in this story.  Was all known about 4 years ago.

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/scandals-when-to-make-public/

CM are not breaking any new ground here, just going over old cases.

I didn't know about this; but then I did not know what coprophagia meant either.   .   

https://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=72393

[Greg]

It wasn't a secret.  It was featured on Swedish TV.  Hence the written article.

For 4 years this priest's name has been known.

CMTV is doing the same as the tabloids trying to make "News" by republishing old stories.

Are there any new cases of abuse?

[Sempronius]

It wasn't a secret.  It was featured on Swedish TV.  Hence the written article.

For 4 years this priest's name has been known.

CMTV is doing the same as the tabloids trying to make "News" by republishing old stories.

Are there any new cases of abuse?

So you knew that Vincent Lambert was abused? I dont know about new abuses but the circumstances around the older abuses werent known before

[Gardener]

Nothing new in this story.  Was all known about 4 years ago.

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/scandals-when-to-make-public/

CM are not breaking any new ground here, just going over old cases.

I didn't know about this; but then I did not know what coprophagia meant either.   .   

https://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=72393

Subculture vocabulary has an interesting way of broadcasting the circles in which one runs, eh?

[clau clau]

Nothing new in this story.  Was all known about 4 years ago.

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/scandals-when-to-make-public/

CM are not breaking any new ground here, just going over old cases.

I didn't know about this; but then I did not know what coprophagia meant either.   .   

https://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=72393

Subculture vocabulary has an interesting way of broadcasting the circles in which one runs, eh?

Yes it seems to be a case of ...

"Wat je zegt ben jezelf, met je kop door de helft"

[Arvinger]

This thread is a great example of epistemological inconsistency of Traditional Catholicism. When Vetus Ordo argues that mandatory priestly celibacy should be abolished (setting aside whether he is correct or not), people argue that he rejects Church's teaching, even though priestly celibacy belongs to Church discipline which is subject to change. On the other hand, when Vetus Ordo argues that teachings of Vatican II must be obeyed as part of the Magisterium, people immediately argue that "Vatican II was not binding" and thus we are at liberty to reject it.

So, which one is it? "It is not infallible, but it belongs to Church's teaching and Tradition and must be followed" or "it is not infallible, therefore we don't have to follow it"? Epistemologically speaking, Traditional Catholicism wants to have it both ways.

[lauermar]

Sspx kind of hung themselves with the background emails they sent by accident. It's not just about the allegations,.it's about the cover up too.  I mean is there nowhere safe

The tragicomedy of this whole situation is precisely that the sexual abuse of kids, and its cover-up, has been a beating stick of traditional Catholics against the "Conciliar Church." But, lo and behold, God smacks our heads against the wall yet again. This problem runs deep in every corner of the Church. And Vatican II had nothing to do with it.

Unless celibacy stops being a compulsory discipline and priests can start having wives as they should, this epidemic will likely never end. The amount of weirdos and sexually unbalanced men that are attracted to the priesthood is enormous, trad and non-trad alike. If you couple that with a discipline that restrains what are essentially unrestrainable sexual impulses, and if you value the business image over the sheer justice that should be dished out to these perpetrators for fear of public scandal or diminishment of an already low clerical workforce, then you end up with this tragic state of affairs that will continue to wreak havoc to the lives and the faith of many.

I can't imagine what I would do to a priest that raped my kid or to a bishop who covered it up.

If you think that marriage or access to a sex partner is a deterrent for pederasty or pedophilia, you are sadly mistaken. Some if the worst perverts are married or cohabiting. Take a look at the sex offender registry for your city. Or look at your public schools. Not one of those offenders are celibate priests.

[lauermar]

This thread is a great example of epistemological inconsistency of Traditional Catholicism. When Vetus Ordo argues that mandatory priestly celibacy should be abolished (setting aside whether he is correct or not), people argue that he rejects Church's teaching, even though priestly celibacy belongs to Church discipline which is subject to change. On the other hand, when Vetus Ordo argues that teachings of Vatican II must be obeyed as part of the Magisterium, people immediately argue that "Vatican II was not binding" and thus we are at liberty to reject it.

So, which one is it? "It is not infallible, but it belongs to Church's teaching and Tradition and must be followed" or "it is not infallible, therefore we don't have to follow it"? Epistemologically speaking, Traditional Catholicism wants to have it both ways.

This will answer your question.   

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2020/01/13/benedict-xvi-and-cardinal-sarah-coauthor-book-celibacy-opposing-ordination-married

[lauermar]

. . . To me the fact that Sister Lucia kissed up to JP2 was a huge red flag and got me thinking.

I cannot see God, if he is on the side of Tradition, allowing Sister Lucia to be unaware of modernism and JP2's heretical beliefs. And to fawn over him like a rock star while he was distributing communion was really appalling.

https://sisterlucyimposter.org/the-evidence/

Is it a rabbit hole no one in their right mind wants to go down.

Absolutely.

But I have an art background. My husband is an artist with a fine art degree. We agree. There is no possible way that those two different women are the same woman.

Of course our opinion and about $5 will buy you a cup of coffee, so take it or leave it.

But it would answer your very good observation.

One doesn't have to be an artist to see it's not the same woman. I was a dental assistant from 1982 to 1991 and I used to take oral x-rays. The woman on the left looks like she has normal Class I occlusion with a slight overjet. The woman on the right has Class III occlusion or a prognathic jaw.

[lauermar]

One thing is certain: if we continue doing things exactly as we've done thus far, the problem will continue. Good luck with that.

Michael Wilson identified the direction for seeking a solution.  It lies in promoting personal holiness of priests by such means as good seminary formation and frequent Confession.

This already happens in traditional orders.

The result? Eppur fanno abuso. The same abuses and the same cover ups as in the mainstream orders and parishes. It seems something else is required.

The real solution is to bring back St. Peter Damian style of punishment for offenders.

[lauermar]

For those who think celibacy is the problem, I ask:

What's your personal threshold for no sexual activity before you start wanting to molest kids?

——

The fact of the matter is celibacy has nothing to do with abuse rates. It's been shown over and over, despite the claim being repeated.

Forced deprivation of female sexual contact in a population increases the incidence of homosexual and other deviant acts (prison populations evidence that), and these tend to lead those who practise them deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole of perversion (this is pretty basic Pauline theology).

So if science says this a fact, then St.Padre Pio, St. Pius X, St.Augustine, Archbishop Sheen, and all holy men were automatically secret perverts because they committed themselves to a life of celibacy.  Rubbish. Tabloid trash.

[abc123]

For those who think celibacy is the problem, I ask:

What's your personal threshold for no sexual activity before you start wanting to molest kids?

——

The fact of the matter is celibacy has nothing to do with abuse rates. It's been shown over and over, despite the claim being repeated.

Forced deprivation of female sexual contact in a population increases the incidence of homosexual and other deviant acts (prison populations evidence that), and these tend to lead those who practise them deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole of perversion (this is pretty basic Pauline theology).

So if science says this a fact, then St.Padre Pio, St. Pius X, St.Augustine, Archbishop Sheen, and all holy men were automatically secret perverts because they committed themselves to a life of celibacy.  Rubbish. Tabloid trash.

He said INCREASES INCIDENCE. You then take that and make it sound as if he stated that all celibate holy men are secret perverts.

Our LORD stated that there are some who are called to celibacy and others who are not. Instead of completely twisting what was said perhaps you could address the issue as stated.

[trentcath]

This thread is a great example of epistemological inconsistency of Traditional Catholicism. When Vetus Ordo argues that mandatory priestly celibacy should be abolished (setting aside whether he is correct or not), people argue that he rejects Church's teaching, even though priestly celibacy belongs to Church discipline which is subject to change. On the other hand, when Vetus Ordo argues that teachings of Vatican II must be obeyed as part of the Magisterium, people immediately argue that "Vatican II was not binding" and thus we are at liberty to reject it.

So, which one is it? "It is not infallible, but it belongs to Church's teaching and Tradition and must be followed" or "it is not infallible, therefore we don't have to follow it"? Epistemologically speaking, Traditional Catholicism wants to have it both ways.

Even if we are generous, and assume that V2 and clerical celibacy are fair comparisons, one being in contradiction to everything that came before and the other not, this argument still fails as whilst there is significant evidence of the complete collapse of the faith that V2 caused there is little evidence that celibacy, clerical or otherwise, causes perversion.

[Gardener]

Sspx kind of hung themselves with the background emails they sent by accident. It's not just about the allegations,.it's about the cover up too.  I mean is there nowhere safe

The tragicomedy of this whole situation is precisely that the sexual abuse of kids, and its cover-up, has been a beating stick of traditional Catholics against the "Conciliar Church." But, lo and behold, God smacks our heads against the wall yet again. This problem runs deep in every corner of the Church. And Vatican II had nothing to do with it.

Unless celibacy stops being a compulsory discipline and priests can start having wives as they should, this epidemic will likely never end. The amount of weirdos and sexually unbalanced men that are attracted to the priesthood is enormous, trad and non-trad alike. If you couple that with a discipline that restrains what are essentially unrestrainable sexual impulses, and if you value the business image over the sheer justice that should be dished out to these perpetrators for fear of public scandal or diminishment of an already low clerical workforce, then you end up with this tragic state of affairs that will continue to wreak havoc to the lives and the faith of many.

I can't imagine what I would do to a priest that raped my kid or to a bishop who covered it up.

If you think that marriage or access to a sex partner is a deterrent for pederasty or pedophilia, you are sadly mistaken. Some if the worst perverts are married or cohabiting. Take a look at the sex offender registry for your city. Or look at your public schools. Not one of those offenders are celibate priests.

Indeed. Such a trope is ridiculous when one just looks at everything outside the Church as to this issue. Moreover, studies show that actual abuse rates by Catholic clergy are on par with, or even below, secular rates.

The Boy Scouts don't require celibate Scout leaders, yet they had a massive abuse scandal going back decades.

Teachers aren't required to be celibate, but every day it seems, another one is busted for molesting or having sex with students -- oddly, often very attractive female teachers who would have no problem fornicating with practically any man they wanted.

Protestants don't have celibate pastors, but even Franklin Graham admits there is a really big issue with sexual predators in their ranks.

The idea of men being celibate is largely anathema in Islam, yet pedophilia and ephebophilia, particularly homosexual variants, are rampant in Islamic countries.

Why? It's not the celibacy, since none of those milieus have celibacy.

It's because:

1) positions of power and authority attract the good and the bad; good for service, and bad for the ability to abuse.
2) people who are attracted to kids will seek out positions which place them around kids.

Celibacy has nothing to do with it, and never did.

Celibacy is just a convenient (though incorrect) stick to bludgeon traditional practice with.

Again, I ask ANYONE who uses that line, "How long do you have to go without sex before you start abusing kids?"