Rorate Caeli

The abuse crisis is just a small part of the Vatican II crisis


It has become fashionable to claim that the sex abuse scandal currently afflicting the Catholic Church is “its biggest crisis since the Reformation”. Oh, really? Tell me about it. The abuse issue is just a small part of the much larger crisis that has engulfed the Church since the Second Vatican Catastrophe and which is more serious than the Reformation.

Abolish clerical celibacy? The last thing a priest abusing altar boys needs or wants is a wife. There is no compulsory celibacy in the Church of England, but that has not prevented vicars and boy scouts furnishing gratifying amounts of copy to the tabloid Sunday papers for the past century. Celibacy goes against the grain of today’s “unrepressed”, “non-judgemental”, let-it-all-hang-out attitude to sex; its continued existence is a reproach to the hedonist Western world; so Rome must be persuaded to abolish it – likewise its condemnation of divorce, abortion, contraception, homosexuality and all the other fetishes of liberal society. Dream on, secularists.

“Irish abuse victims disappointed by Pope’s letter.” Of course they are. They were disappointed by it before they had read it, before it was even written. Any other response would diminish the power they find themselves wielding against the Church. Have they a legitimate grievance? In most cases, yes. They have a ferocious grievance against the “filth” (Benedict XVI’s term, long before he came under public pressure) who defiled them and treated them like animals.

How could clergy transgress so gravely against the doctrines of the Church? What doctrines? These offences took place in the wake of Vatican II, when doctrines were being thrown out like so much lumber. These offenders were the children of Paul VI and “aggiornamento”. Once you have debauched the Mystical Body of Christ, defiling altar boys comes easily.

The “neglected” sacraments and devotional practices that the Pope says could have prevented this did not just wither on the vine: they were actively discouraged by bishops and priests. In the period when this abuse was rampant, there was just one mortal sin in the Catholic Church: daring to celebrate or attend the Latin Tridentine Mass. A priest raping altar boys would be moved to another parish; as for a priest who had the temerity to celebrate the Old Mass – his feet would not touch the ground.
There was a determined resolve among the bishops to deny any meaningful catechesis to the young. That is the generation, wholly ignorant of the faith, that in Ireland achieved material prosperity in the “Celtic Tiger” economy. Initially it still attended Mass (or what passed for Mass) out of social conformity. Then the sex abuse scandal gave Irish post-Vatican II agnostics the perfect pretext for apostasy: tens of thousands who had never been abused, nor met anybody who had, found an excuse to stay in bed on Sunday mornings.

The abusive priests are not the only hypocrites. “I am so shocked by the abuse scandal I am leaving the Church.” Right. So, the fact that some degenerates who should never have been ordained violated young people – in itself a deplorable sin – means that the Son of God did not come down to earth, redeem mankind on the cross and found the Church? This appalling scandal no more compromises the truths of the Faith than the career of Alexander VI or any other corrupt Renaissance Pope.

Should bishops be forced to resign? Oh yes – approximately 95 per cent of them worldwide. These clowns in their pseudo-ethnic mitres and polyester vestments with faux-naïve Christian symbols, spouting their ecumaniac episcobabble, have presided over more than sexual abuse: they have all but extinguished the Catholic faith with their modernist fatuities. They should be retired to monasteries to spend their remaining years considering how to account to their Maker for a failed stewardship that has lost countless millions of souls.

Benedict XVI should take advantage of a popular wave of revulsion against the failed episcopate to sack every 1960s flared-trousered hippy who is obstructing Summorum Pontificum. It is a unique opportunity to cull the hireling shepherds and clear away the dead wood of the Second Vatican Catastrophe. It is time to stop the apologies and reinstate apologetics; to rebuild all that has been destroyed in the past 40 years; to square up to liberals and secularists as so many generations of Catholics did in the past; to proclaim again the immutable truths of the One True Church that, in the glory of the Resurrection, can have no legitimate posture other than triumphalism.

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

A little too strong worded for me, but that's kind of what my opinion is too.

Anonymous said...

How could clergy transgress so gravely against the doctrines of the Church? What doctrines? These offenses took place in the wake of Vatican II, when doctrines were being thrown out like so much lumber. These offenders were the children of Paul VI and “aggiornamento”. Once you have debauched the Mystical Body of Christ, defiling altar boys comes easily.

Vatican II is not responsible for the sexual abuse. Sexual abuse was occurring before and after the Council. Read the 2002 John Jay Report, it makes it clear. I am sorry, but this article is rather naïve.

Christoph Rebner said...

Pius X. warned before Vatican II both of which are treasured Faith.

Sean said...

REPRINT FROM PREVIOUS POST (WITH PERMISSION)

I am amazed that the traditional world is not picking up on developments that threaten the papacy of Benedict XVI.

Informed inside Vatican sources sympathetic to the FSSPX (yes, a very few exist) warned at the time of the election of Pope Benedict that the liberal cabal which ran the Church under John Paul II had not expected it and that they were temporarily in disarray. They further cautioned that Benedict had but a short time to organize his papacy before they would reorganize to undermine his reign. This information, by the way, came through the intelligence network of certain Greek Orthodox bishops.

The European left: politicians, press and members of the Catholic hierarchy have united to orchestrate a campaign which will either demoralize the Pope or -- and they believe this -- can actually force him to resign. They have stepped up their efforts since (1) the attempt to appoint an anti-progressive relatively unknown priest as a bishop in Austria and (2) the policy of an attempted rapprochement with the FSSPX has been instituted by Benedict. They desperately want him out or neutralized before any agreement can be reached. The FSSPX is very much aware of this, and it's one reason for Fr. Schmidbeger's defense of the Holy Father.

Evidence? There's been a lot. But the drumbeat has been accelerated with the European press' obsession with the German and Irish clerical so-called pedophilia scandals, and the smearing of both Benedict and his brother.

On Friday, the Feast of St. Joseph, Tony Hendra (a leftist author with marginally Catholic credentials) on a Foxnews program revealed that a story yet to break over here has been circulating in the European press: that the pope's brother may be implicated in the sex scandals. He stated openly that the recent developments (his alleged collusion in transferring a pedophile priest to another assignment while he was Archbishop of Munich) and other "rumors" circulating may force the Holy Father to abdicate.

This is very serious. The aim: the election of an outright liberal to the papacy after the abdication of a “conservative” pope (don't think Cardinal Schoenbrunn's recent public comments concerning the connection between celibacy and the clerical sex scandals are anything but an opening gambit for his election).

I am very surprised that this accelerating orchestration by this alliance of the left is generally falling under the radar in the traditional internet media.

Pray.

Anonymous said...

Amen, Amen!

Anonymous said...

Brilliant article. Every word of it true. Certainly before Vatican II there were scandals. But the current widespread institutionalised homosexuality is one of the rotten fruits of Aggiornamento. Well done Mr Warner. The trouble is that Vatican II Church is like an alcoholic, and there's no way of helping an alcoholic until he has admitted that his drinking is a problem

wheat4paradise said...

While there are certainly elements of truth in the article, I think that to use the Pope's letter as a springboard for a fire-breathing rant against Vatican II is to entirely miss the point of the letter.

More prayer, less polemics.

Mickey said...

Agree with "Anon #2"...many of the abusers were trained before Vatican II; and the others were trained by priests who were trained before the Council.

Did the social upheaval of the 1960's and 1970's coupled with a rupture with the aforementioned liturgical practices and pieties contribute? You bet.

But the cause was good old fashioned human sin...and a hierarchy unwilling to exercise the leadership necessecary to "cull the herd" of the bad sheep.

More kneeling would certainly have helped...but less kneeling was a symptom, not a cause.

Anonymous said...

I agree with 'anonymous' at 12.24. This has been going on for centuries. An interesting study would be to see if these cases are as common in the Orthodox or Eastern Rite churches where priests can marry. Does anyone know if that's been done?

Anonymous said...

Statistically, the majority of abuse occured since 1966. The numbers bear that out

Jean said...

No, the article is spot on. The difference is that before Vatican Catastrophe II the liberals in the church did not hold sway with a political program, and during and after it, they did, and continue to do so. So the tendency to pederasty which has been an inside joke in the Church of England for centuries became a tool of sexual liberation for the "modern" movement of priests, used for a variety of purposes. The Second Vatican Council was indeed an atomic explosion set off in the inner workings of the Church, a radically new operating system containing a purpose built virus designed to continue to infect even as it is purged. It is a profoundly un-Catholic and anti-Roman continuing event, and the only answer to it is its utter rejection and extinguishment. I say this as someone who currently earns a livlihood from the novus ordo, but who can see beyond the end of my nose. It is never the church's mission to reflect the age in which it lives in its liturgy; it is in fact its mission to represent that which is always antithetical to the spirit of the age, and the antidote to its ills. At present, the church does that only minimally, and too many politlcal interests are piggy-backing on the mission. Pederasty and the politics of self-destruction among them.

Anonymous said...

Whether you blame Vatican-II for an increase in abuse or not, I believe that at the end of the Council, bishops the world over rescinded the dogma that Hell exists, and that the souls of unrepentant sinners go there. And I believe that this is a major reason that the Church and the world find themselves in the boat they are in.

Crux Fidelis said...

Warner is talking through a hole in his hat when he tries to lay the blame for abuse at the door of the Second Vatican Council. It was happening long before that.

His assertion that 95% of bishops are not fit for office is just as ludicrous.

However, I have to agree with his remarks on abuse vs the Tridentine Mass. How the latter 'offence' was treated with more severity than the former is beyond me.

Joe B said...

Dear Mr Anonymous,

Vatican II was more than words on paper. It was a historical event complete with consequences which can be traced to its leaders, philosophy, and documents. When we speak of Vatican II, we see the changes in the church which either immediately and profoundly happened or which grew from a few cases to an ugly monster. It was a historical event similar to the French Revolution, a gateway for the large scale entry of the smoke of Satan into the power structures of the church. No, we do not say Satan has overcome the church, of course, but clearly the smoke of Satan is now thick in the power structures of the church, and we still have not seen an appropriate level of response to that threat.

Vatican II is inseperable from the prelates that took power as a result of and during that council, and from their corrupt philosophy which formed the documents of that council. Again, we do not say those documents are heretical, as the Holy Spirit appears to have chosen the minimal assured input to the documents - the minimal prevention of a clear error. But the documents are open to heretical interpretation in their obvious sense, and many souls will do so, and deliberately so.

The prelates turned out to be heavily inclusive of sexual deviates, although there's no telling how numerous they were since the church never seriously investigated it, but there were at least many hundreds of legal cases against those prelates and their handpicked sons, so 'heavily inclusive' is at least appropriate. And we all know of the protection afforded those predators in the absense of serious penalties, which have still not even been mentioned by the Vatican. So Vatican II is inseperable from the sexual abuses that occurred with the generation of prelates that formed it.

More than the documents, Vatican II was a historical event complete with all the evils that those corrupt leaders intended when they set out to remake the church in their own image, and which we still see playing out today.

Paul Haley said...

One cannot blame Vatican II for sin itself. But, one can certainly question why Vatican II periti felt it necessary to weaken, through ambiguity and obfuscation the Faith of millions, by pushing for documents that seemed to be in stark contrast with documents and canons of previous councils and popes. The words "counter-syllabus" and “aggiornamento” come to mind.

Even today, we are faced with "doctrinal discussions" trying to set straight what should have been straight all along. And, we have this unbelievable intransigence in maintaining that certain holy priests of the Traditonalist kind are without "canonical status and faculties". It boggles the mind.

On top of all that, if that were not enough, we have Catholic politicians voting for a bill that would allow the use of federal funds under certain plans for "elective abortions" which, call it what it is, is the killing of babies both within and without the womb - a denial of their God-given right to life.

Boggles the mind? It's more than that. It's the failure of the Hierarchy at the highest levels to crack the whip and discipline those responsible for this diabolical disorientation. Remember what I've said: "Shake hands with the devil and you'll be pulled into Hell!"

Anonymous said...

Vatican II itself was just the outgrowth and expression of the "spirit of Vatican II" which began to evidence itself many years before the Council. The Oath against Modernism kept it at bay for many years, but with Vatican II came the jettisoning of the Oath and the opening of the doors of the Vatican to the Smoke of Satan (Paul VI's words, not mine). Satan will always strike first at innocence and at the priesthood. The abuse scandal struck at both, while fluorishing in a climate of anything goes, of liturgical destruction and deconstruction, of thowing off societal "inhibitions" and of forcing every priest to become like everyone else. And if you resisted the modernist trends, you were told you were not living the spirit of Vatican II, you were clinging to the past, you were a dangerous throwback. Thank God for the SSPX and especially for Marcel Lefebvre, fo keeping Tradition alive in the Church while so many others abandoned it. It is only in returning to this Tradition that the Church and the world will be saved. The Church is sick and child abuse is one of the opportunistic infections that have attacked the body. Tradition and Virtuous living are the cures we need.

English Pastor said...

There were cases of abuse before Vatican II, but the trust of this article, even if it is rather strongly worded, is correct: if we can play around with the Body of Christ in ecumenical ‘pastoral sharing’ with those ‘who do not discern the Body of Christ’ (1 Cor,11v29) either as celebrants or communicants, if we can celebrate the sacred Liturgy in jocular and casual manner as though it were a community act celebrating itself rather than the Action of Christ redeeming the participants from slavery to self, then all else if fair game. If there is no respect for the substantial Presence of Christ in the Sanctissimum, there will never be respect for His Mystical presence in the human person. That is why there is a great need to the recover the sense of the sacred in worship: it is core to our respect for one another as members of the Mystical Body.

Paul Haley said...

Follow-up to previous post.

According to Richard Doerflinger of the USCCB, Stupak’s deal will be useless in defending life.

“The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order or regulation… Only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation."

Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser announced that the organization had been planning to honor Rep. Stupak at its third annual Campaign for Life Gala on Wednesday for “his efforts to keep abortion-funding out of health care reform.”

“We will no longer be doing so. By accepting this deal from the most pro-abortion President in American history, Stupak has not only failed to stand strong for unborn children, but also for his constituents and pro-life voters across the country,” Dannenfelser charged. “Courts could and have a history of trumping executive orders.”

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said that “by offering an executive order as a so-called solution, President Obama is finally admitting there is a problem with a bill that will force taxpayers to pay for elective abortions for the first time in over three decades. However, there is no way that an executive order will protect the unborn or prevent the greatest expansion of elective abortion since Roe v. Wade.”

"President Obama and the Democratic leadership know that such a plan, due to legal precedent, will be worth little in the long run. Court rulings in cases such as Commerce of U.S. v Reich and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld make it very clear that such an executive order likely wouldn't survive," Perkins added.

(Submitted just in case any reader thinks the executive order is the solution.)

mike said...

Even in this article, there is confusion. Abuse and sexual abuse are 2 different animals. Abuse includes stern discipline by some teaching orders, FSCH comes to mind. They would beat education into you. This was very well known throughout the Irish Catholic world. Yet the parents sent their boys to be schooled by them. The Irish situation has been taken by a liberal press who confused the issues to undermine the Church. It has become an excuse to become an Irish apostate.
That there was sexual abuse cannot be denied. As a result of VII, many psych tests were ignored. The North American provincial of the aforementioned order, took ALL the testing regarding novices and literally tossed them in the garbage. You didn't have to be a genius to see these disordered people in class or on campus. There was more than 1 Brother Mary Alice.
Again sexual abuse is morphing into physical abuse. In the case of Rev. Georg Ratzinger, he boxed the ears of a choir boy. Abuse? Hardly. I can't count the number of times Dr. Chas Courboin boxed my ears when I consistently sang the wrong note in St. Patrick's Cathedral.
I guess that makes me a victim. Abused by Courboin and disciplined by FSCH for acting like an eejit. Get me a lawyer so that I can legalize my victimhood, like these mopes in Ireland. I want $$, which is the root of all evil and has something to do with the majority of these claims.
Referring to the Irish situation. Note how these claims burst upon the scene during the run of the Celtic Tiger. It is true that the Catholic Church wielded vast power with regard to public and private morality. The new found wealth caused the young to rebel against authority

Anonymous said...

I love it, the article is spot on - this has to be said more and more. This post Vatican II period may well come to be known as the "apostasy of the Bishops".

John M.

becket said...

I can't agree more!. Says it all!. Bring back the faith!.

Dr. Durand said...

The article is a simplistic and frontal attack against a valid Ecumenical Council of the Church and is misleading about the causes of the problem of sexual abuses, thgat existed lonf before the Vatican II (remember Fr. Maciel, for instance).

Then it is in contradiction with what Pope Benedict iself has declared in 2005: "Forty years after the Council, we can show that the positive is far greater and livelier than it appeared to be in the turbulent years around 1968. Today, we see that although the good seed developed slowly, it is nonetheless growing; and our deep gratitude for the work done by the Council is likewise growing".

Beware of an anti-Vatican II fanatism

PiusLad said...

Amen.

Anonymous said...

In his 1988 address to the bishops of Chile, Cardinal Ratzinger (His Holiness) declared that following Vatican II, many priests had "despoiled" parishes — priests wrecked the Faith for millions of Catholics.

But other than Archbishop Lefebvre and a relative few Churchmen who had taken a dramatic Saint-John-The-Baptist-like stand in opposing said destruction, the majority of Churchmen did little to oppose destructive priests and others who shipwrecked the Faith.

But the buck stops at Rome, at the Papal Throne.

Pope Benedict XVI must return to Holy Tradition in dramatic fashion, beginning with His Holiness offering the TLM regularly, should he wish truly to awaken the Church from Her post-Vatican nightmare.

The painfully slooooooooooow, brickkkkkkkk-by-brickkkkkkkk approach — the Reform of the Reform — is not the way to proceed.

Unfortunately, the Pope's MC has informed us not to expect dramatic changes, beginning with the Liturgy, from this Pontificate.

Therefore, expect the Vatican II Era crisis of Faith to remain with us for a long time.

Anonymous said...

VAC II MADE ABUSE EASIER FOR THESE WOLFS IN SHEEP CLOTHLING. I WORK IN A HIGH SCHOOL IN 1970S (public) AND AT SPORTING EVENTS WITH OUR LOCAL CATHOLIC HIGH I SAW THINGS THAT WHERE NEVER SEEN IN PUBLIC WITH THESE MEN AND HOW THEY ACTED WITH THESE TEEN BOYS. IT WOUULD NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE THE VAC II .

Anonymous said...

When I was a seminarian, the main purpose of psychological testing seemed to be to weed out traditionalists, who would always be branded as "narrow and unpastoral". Candidates who were known to be homosexual didn't have any problem getting through the process at all.

John L said...

Here is a quotation from the Murphy report on clerical sexual abuse in Ireland:

“The commission is satisfied that Church law demanded serious penalties for clerics who abused children. In Dublin, from the 1970s onwards, this was ignored.”

The serious penalty that was demanded by the 1917 code, in force up to 1983, was at least deprivation of office and/or benifice. The greater penalty was deprivation from the clerical state, but the lesser penalty was demanded by the law. It was not prior to the Council that this law was ignored, according to the report, but after it.

Here is the simple case for Vatican II being crucial to the sexual abuse scandal:

- If canon law had been applied, these scandals would not have happened.

- The main reason for canon law not being applied was the 'event' of Vatican II described by Warner.

- So, Vatican II is principally reponsible for this scandal.

What holes can be identified in this argument?

Anonymous said...

Amen and back to the solid foundations of Trent.

Trisha said...

This is totally off the subject, but don't know where else to ask this. Today I was on the phone with a lady in another state, discussing business but then ended up chatting on a more personal level.

Turns out she is Novus Ordo, has a brother who is Mormon and thinks that is just fine. But then she referred to "Vatican 3" - when I said there was only V1 and V2, she "assured" me that V1 was in the 1800s and V2 was in the 1900s and V3 has just been held "recently". She said she didn't know anything else about it, but that the "paperwork" on it would be out "shortly".

Does anyone have any idea at all what she might be talking about? If not, I'll just chalk it up to confusion on her part. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

"When I was a seminarian, the main purpose of psychological testing seemed to be to weed out traditionalists, who would always be branded as "narrow and unpastoral". Candidates who were known to be homosexual didn't have any problem getting through the process at all."

This is what is being currently done worldwide in big multinationals private companies, schools, etc...to hire employees and to internally promote employees.

Antonio

JM said...

Lord, look at the state of the Church.

"His assertion that 95% of bishops are not fit for office is just as ludicrous."

No, it is gracious.


look at the state of the Church.
look at the state of the Church.
look at the state of the Church.
look at the state of the Church.
look at the state of the Church.
look at the state of the Church.
look at the state of the Church.
look at the state of the Church.
look at the state of the Church.
look at the state of the Church.


By their fruits....

Sean said...

Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, during an interview about 10 years ago was asked:

"There are those critics of the ancient Latin Mass who point out that the crisis in the Church developed at a time when the Mass was offered throughout the world. Why should we then think its revival is intrinsic to the solution?"

Her response:

"The devil hates the ancient Mass. He hates it because it is the most perfect reformulation of all the teachings of the Church. It was my husband who gave me this insight about the Mass. The problem that ushered in the present crisis was not the traditional Mass. The problem was that priests who offered it had already lost the sense of the supernatural and the transcendent. They rushed through the prayers, they mumbled and didn’t enunciate them. That is a sign that they had brought to the Mass their growing secularism. The ancient Mass does not abide irreverence, and that was why so many priests were just as happy to see it go."

Yes, the moral problem within the priesthood began before the Council, but unbridled chaos ensued when emphasis on the offering of sacrifice for sin was exchanged for the role of presiding at liturgical assemblies.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Durand:

Where can I join these anti-Vatican II fanatics? Seems the Church needs a few legions of them to drive the Sodomites and the wolves out of our sanctuaries, seminaries, and cathedrals.

ATW

Anonymous said...

Let's face the fact that the Vatican II Era program of "updating" the Church is a colossal failure.

Let's face the fact that Rome implemented aggiornamento.

Let's face the fact that the state of Latin Church Liturgy collapsed as the result of Rome's radical liturgical "reform."

Let's face the fact that when the Roman Liturgy collapsed, the Latin Church collapsed.

Let's face the fact that buck stops at the Papal Throne.

Let's face the fact that only the Pope's return to Holy Tradition, namely the TLM, will end the Latin Church's Vatican II Era crisis of Faith.

Let's face the fact that Pope Benedict XVI and the bishops (S.S.P.X. bishops and Bishop Rifan aside) are determined to promote the Novus Ordo to the hilt.

Let's face the fact that in the face of the above, the crisis of Faith will continue unabated.

Why, Holy Father, will you not return to the TLM, the very Mass that you were ordained to offer?

What a shame.

"...in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel."

— Pope Benedict XVI, 2009.

Irenaeus of New York said...

Just as David prepared the way for Solomon in building the temple. Our generation should realize we are merely preparing the way for a threshold we ourselves won't be able to cross... no matter how anxious and impatient we get... to be rash will only bring ruin.

LeonG said...

"Vatican II crisis"

Yes - CRISIS and it is a massive one.

The "continuity" with the pre-conciliar church does not exist, neither is there any hope while we adhere to this false notion of a church open to the evil world & "dialoguing" with erroneous religions.
Liberal modernism is asphyxiating The Church and poisoning us all with its disorientated psychology of personalised faith & self-realisation, convenient ambiguities & destabilising equivocation.

VII facilitated the sex abuse by its ambiguous liberally expressed sentiments(read the wording of the documents carefully) & the equivocation of the hierarchy, ever since. These are continually at loggerheads over meanings and significations of The Faith. Their obsequious compromises with the secular world & obvious divisions further debilitate The Church.

Moreover, the pope who led the church through this disastrous process, Pope Paul VI (RIP) is the one who decided against the scheme proposed to isolate paedophile priests from the community & keep them strictly away from the parishes & children. This was the decision of a liberal mind.

Yes, VII has to shoulder most of the blame because that is where it lies. Until we wake up to this reality & restore the true Roman Catholic liturgy & an authentic Roman Catholic pastoral approach to the life of faith, then the church will continue to spiral downwards. The Church Militant has become a weak, pacifist relic of what it used to be. If we are really honest with ourselves, we have to admit it has almost nothing in common with the great, robust Roman Catholic Church of the 1950s, commented favourably upon by Pope John XXIII before he naively opened the Pandora's Box of chaos upon the Catholic world.

Anonymous said...

If teachers have a higher rate of sexual abuse of minors it should be no shock that priests and brothers who are teachers abused the most. In any event are'nt priests a form of teacher anyway?

Anonymous said...

"When I was a seminarian, the main purpose of psychological testing seemed to be to weed out traditionalists, who would always be branded as "narrow and unpastoral". Candidates who were known to be homosexual didn't have any problem getting through the process at all."

This disaster was standard practice in many seminaries and religious Orders, particularly in the USA. Ireland, G. Britian, Germany, Austria, and Australia....hmmmm, just the counries having the massive sex scandals regarding priests now!!

Traditionalist candidates, or the few traditionalist seminarians who got into the seminary her persecuted. Those traditionalist seminarians who chose to wear the cassock daily were often labeled and greeted mockingly every morning with "Good Morning, Sister".
The cabal of "jock" seminarians who NEVER wore the cassock, slummed around in open necked clergy-shirts, slacks, or even layclothes turned out to be...suprisingly...the ones who were actually homosexuals and who 30 years later would be found guilty of horrendous sex crimes regarding young boys and teenagers.
Yet, these people are now those who control most diosecean chancellories, and diosecean and religious seminaries.
Granted, they are aging (late 50's, 60's and even 70's), and they have no young people to take up the revolution. But they will milk the corrupting reforms of Vatican II for all they are worth before they are done.

They hate Benedict XVI, because he has questioned much of Vatican II. He has brough back the old Tridentine Mass, and these past few weeks, in general audiences has stated very strongly that Vatican II DID NOT create a "New Church".....ONE OF THE CROWN JEWELS OF BELIEF FOR THESE LIBERALS.

They see their world being destroyed, and want to strike back. They are dying out, just like the Episcopal Church of which they are so fond. And they know it.

Benedict XVI's one mistake is that he should rid the Church quickly of such people as Cardinals Bertone, Re, Kasper, Sandri, Tauran, Archbishops Fischiella and Bruno Forte, Cardinals Lehmann, Vinght-Trois, Mahony, O'Malley, etc. etc.

Until Vatican II itself, as well as the polcies and quirks of John Paul II era are repudiated, the Church will not be able to completely heal.


As for Cardinal Schonborn, he's a loser with a big mouth, and very little real support. He's a dinosaur....among the last of his kind.

R. J. Stove said...

I should like to offer here a plea - which I know will be ignored if not howled down, and which in any event could well be intercepted before it can appear on screen - for Rorate Caeli to do what it should have done ages ago. Namely, to ban all anonymous comments. By "all" I mean "all". As in "without exception".

If you don't have the courage to put your name to what you write, your duty is clear: to shut up. (A similar duty applies to the numerous Rorate Caeli readers who repeatedly cannot spell, cannot use English grammar, etc., despite - or because of - their Anglophone upbringing; but that is by the way.)

Solzhenitsyn, facing as he did the entire might of the Soviet terror state, nevertheless scorned to sign his utterances "Anonymous". What excuse do cosseted blog-addicts in the West have for using that label about themselves?

There are words to describe those who make accusations in public fora without daring to reveal their identities. Most of these words are unusable in polite society. Among those which aren't, but which are entirely accurate, are "blackguards", "poltroons", and "sleaze merchants".

Ben Vallejo said...

They are putting so much brand equity on "Reformation" !

The Church never sank with the Borgia popes nor with Martin Luther.

The Gates of Hades will not prevail over it!

Kathleen said...

Outstanding article.

Quibbling over identification of VII as the cause really does disservice to the cause of cleaning up this mess.

The article was spot on in that regard.

As far as the identification of the root cause one may quibble -- but that doesn't undermine the identification of the culprits.

The culprits are correctly identified and were and are poisoned by the heresy of Modernism -- whether they were ordained pre or post VII.

The vile Modernist heresy had been gnawing away in earnest at the Church for a good century to century and a half before VII.

And pointing a finger squarely at VII as contributing factor, if not source, is absolutely appropriate and necessary as well.

It may be that at some future point the Church strictly and explicitly defines precisely what VII says in completely unambiguous terms that are in full and complete compliance with tradition.

But until and if that happens VII is absoluately central to the problems.

Anonymous said...

+JMJ+

Some use the "Anonymous" flag, due to the potential hacking rampant on the internet. Just to be fair. It's why I use it, anyways...

Modernism existed before V2. Below is an excerpt from the book "Pius XII before History".

"Suppose, dear friend, that Communism is the most visible among the organs of subversion against the Church and the tradition of Divine Revelation. Thus, we will witness the invasion of everything that is spiritual: philosophy, science, law, teaching, the arts, the media, literature, theater, and religion.

I am concerned about the confidences of the Virgin to the little Lucia of Fatima. The persistence of the Good Lady in face of the danger that threatens the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that the modification of the Faith, liturgy, theology, and soul of the Church would represent.

I hear around me partisans of novelties who want to demolish the Holy Sanctuary, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her adornments, and make her remorseful for her historical past. Well, my dear friend, I am convinced that the Church of Peter must affirm her past, or else she will dig her own tomb.

I will fight this battle with the greatest energy both inside and outside the Church, even if the forces of evil may one day take advantage of my person, actions, or writings, as they try today to deform the History of the Church."

We need to continue fighting this battle. All of us.

iHs
James

Anonymous said...

I think St. Peter Damian would disagree with this article. Just a cursory reading of St. Peter Damian's "Liber Gomorrhianus" will demonstrate that homosexuality in the Church is really nothing new. I know of an elderly man who was propositioned by a gay priest in the 1930's when the Latin Mass, naively seen as an all-encompassing solution to the Church's woes, was the ordinary rite in the Western Church. Assertions to the effect that "Modernism," "Vatican II", "aggiornamento", or the "Novus Ordo" caused priestly sex-abuse are so naive (as well as being objectively, historically false), that they effectively undermine the whole "traditionalist" thesis.

Anonymous said...

"Oh, and by the way, when it comes to praying, Dogmas come first, not liturgies." Fr. Leonard Feeney

LeonG said...

"I know of an elderly man who was propositioned by a gay priest in the 1930's when the Latin Mass..."

Anecdotal evidence that cannot objectively be generalised as characteristic of priestly behaviour in the 1930s in The Church. We know there were cases of this at that time & before.

However, if you really know anything about this problem, it is in the 1950s & 1960s there is a significant awareness in the emergence of it as a problem. VII and its liberalising pastoral & liturgical aftermath facilitated its unfortunate growth & development in tandem with slackness & disorientation in novel methods of seminary selection & training, among other factors.

Therefore, when one reads such items as downwardly revisionist as the following.....

"....Quibbling over identification of VII as the cause really does disservice to the cause of cleaning up this mess."

It is clear that little has been understood about the role of facilitator VII has played in the post-conciliar devastation of the church in its norms of behaviour & its traditional values & mores.

SSPX is not "quibbling" in Rome at present with The Vatican over several of the documents that transpired from the councils. The observable effects of the councils can be demonstrated in various objective ways also, for example, by comparative analysis of leading pre- and post-conciliar indicators. The contrasts are very sharp indeed.

On the contrary, the environment of the councils, their signal events and the outcomes provide us with evidence that can be helpful in turning the king tide of destruction wrought by their aftermath.

Sean said...

Anonymous 24 March, 2010 01:04 said:

“Just a cursory reading of St. Peter Damian's ‘Liber Gomorrhianus’ will demonstrate that homosexuality in the Church is really nothing new.”

No one said that it was. There are indications, however, that the problem is now of epidemic proportions.

He goes on to say:

“I know of an elderly man who was propositioned by a gay priest in the 1930's when the Latin Mass, naively seen as an all-encompassing solution to the Church's woes, was the ordinary rite in the Western Church.”

The point I made above was that because secularist ideas and concomitant spiritual laxity had already infected the clergy, the eradication of the traditional Latin Mass was eagerly embraced by many priests. It’s also the reason that many priests who have made the decision to offer the traditional Mass exclusively insist that it is not merely a “liturgical preference.” It orients them toward the sacrificial priesthood in a way that is impossible in the post-Conciliar rite. Why not speak with a few of them and see it from their perspective?

The traditional Latin Mass prays to God in a different tone and with different content than the post-Conciliar Mass (cf. the research of the non-traditionalist scholar Dr. Lauren Pristas). There are crucial differences in the two Masses which affect the priest’s perception of God and himself. These contribute vitally to an incipient false humanism which creates the framework which enables the guilt of sin to be explained away. And since salvation’s narrow thread is no longer the central focus of the post-Conciliar Mass, the post-Conciliar moral theology classroom enabled today’s post-Conciliar priests to embrace the pseudo-psychology underlying such theological “developments” as proportionality and the fundamental option which watered down the horror of sin articulated in the liturgy of the traditional Latin Mass.

Finally, my dear Anonymous, it was Paul VI’s close advisor, Cardinal Benelli who admitted that the traditional Latin Mass did not fit the “new” ecclesiology of the Council. This new ecclesiology has created the climate in which a soft-Catholicism (especially among males) flourishes and debilitates the soul’s understanding of its precarious position vis-à-vis eternal destiny. Without those deeply embedded first principles, vice has found its bed of manure.

Anonymous said...

Sean's rebuttal to Anonymous 1:04 is fitting. I would like to add my experience at the NO this past Sunday....not sure which NO sunday it was...certainly was not lent related in the homily... nothing to do with the suffering of Christ, His Passion, or penance.

The poor and prayer were mentioned with gifts of grain being brought up to the table in the offering to remember the poor that don't have the necessities of life and for justice. The theme was more in line with thanksgiving and to look forward to the spring of Easter...c/w eucharistic prayer 2.

All the children were invited to gather around the table and one bored child folded her arms and placed her head on them resting her upper torso on the table. People commented that this was soooo cute.

Interestingly, the new diocesan guidelines for protecting children against sex abuse were talked about and provided to parisihioners. Seems they aknowledge the problem and are doing something about it.

This was my first experience at the NO in some time (I was there for a funeral and Sunday obligation could not be fulfilled with a TLM).

I am uncomfortable attending the NO...the two forms are alien to one another. The NO form of Catholicism is something I percieve as being deficient and IMHO to be avoided.

Kathleen said...

LeonG -

I'm sorry, the impression I gave you was evidently precisely the opposite of what I intended.

I enthusiastically agree with the author of this piece.

I was reacting to comments prior to mine that made the claim that VII is not "responsible." That's what I see as quibbling.

In response to such claims, I'd be willing to concede that one can trace back further than VII to find "root" cause -- for that matter the entire mess we're living through could be traced all the way back to the fall if we want to get at the ultimate root.

But even granting that, it seems overwhelmingly obvious that VII has be be identified as a central cause of the mess.

Hopefully that's clearer.

Joe B said...

"... homosexuality in the Church is really nothing new"

Neither is any other sin. Is that the criteria for whether Vatican II was a watershed moment for homosexuals (and their heavy component, pedophilia) - it has to be the first such occasion?

Is the school you got your education in still around?

LeonG said...

Kathleen

It is the very concept you quote which is targeted not you. It would have been better to paraphrase the quotation more appropriately.

Anonymous said...

This article is absurd. There are no excuses to moral misconduct. No one needs a code to know what is right or wrong. Evil will always be evil if practiced by everybody; good will always be good even if practiced by no one.

shane said...

Gerald Warner has another article on the abuse scandals in today’s Scotland on Sunday:

http://news.scotsman.com/comment/Gerald-Warner-It39s-the-Pope39s.6186172.jp

Anonymous said...

"secularist ideas and concomitant spiritual laxity had already infected the clergy (...)
There are crucial differences in the two Masses which affect the priest’s perception of God and himself. These contribute vitally to an incipient false humanism which creates the framework which enables the guilt of sin to be explained away".

Can't believe that such utter nonsense is approved and praised on here. What do humanism and secularist ideas have to do with physical abuse and sexual molestation? By such a logic, pedophilia would be legalized by all countries where secular laws are in place - and all Catholic priests who practice the post-VII mass would be prone to abusing and molesting children. Last time I checked, pedophilia was a crime in any country where secular laws are in place. And the Catholic Church is struggling to prove that pedophilia is NOT rampant in the clergy (a clergy that happens to practice the new mass in large numbers). Do you want to undermine the Church's arguments, or what?

Anonymous said...

"By such a logic, pedophilia would be legalized by all countries where secular laws are in place"

It won't happen in a day, but there are serious, officially approved movements, for example in Holland, that are lobbying for legalising paedophilia. Then we will have to wait for a while and other countries will legalise it as well. Just as it was with sodomy.