Rorate Caeli

Salesian priest served on board of pro-pedophilia group up to 2010
Superior says man-child "relationships" are not necessarily damaging

We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.
Pope John XXIII
Opening Address of the Second Vatican Council
October 11, 1962
______________________
As the shameful American Bishops would have us believe, blame "Woodstock"; or the "culture". As we know, in the pre-aggiornamento years, it was very common for priests to serve in boards of pro-pedophilia groups. 


The Dutch Catholic Church and the Salesian order are investigating revelations that a Salesian priest served on the board of a group that promotes pedophilia with the full knowledge of his boss.

The order's top official in the Netherlands, Delegate Herman Spronck, confirmed in a statement that the priest _ identified by RTL Nieuws as 73-year-old "Father Van B." _ served on the board of "Martijn," a group that campaigns to end the Dutch ban on adult-child sex.

The group is widely reviled but not outlawed.

"Of course we reject this and distance ourselves from this personal initiative" on the part of the priest, Spronck said in a statement. "Membership in such organizations does not fit with the ethos of the Salesian order."

However, Spronck's own superior in Belgium said he will investigate both Spronck and Van B., after both men were quoted by RTL Nieuws as saying such relationships aren't always harmful.
...

"Society thinks these relationships are harmful. I disagree," RTL quoted Van B. as saying. He served on Martijn's board from 2008 until 2010, when its founder was arrested for alleged possession of child pornography, a case that is ongoing.
...
In a second interview, RTL quoted Spronck as saying he was aware of Van B.'s pedophilia and membership in Martijn, and even of two instances where the priest had been fined by police for exposing himself in public. But he said he didn't think that was sufficient reason to ban him from the order.

"Removing someone from the order is something you would only do in the case of grave moral transgression, such as rape. There was never any question of that," Spronck was quoted as saying.

Spronck added that adult-child sexual relations do not necessarily have to be damaging, including with children as young as 12.
In a previous Radio Netherlands 2010 report on another case (the abuse of children in the Don Rua Salesian convent and school in 1964 and afterwards), Spronck had also been quoted: "Father Herman Spronck, currently the most senior Salesian in the Netherlands, denies all knowledge of abuse in ’s-Heerenberg and refers all inquiries to his predecessors. He is not opposed to an investigation and is keen to emphasise that sexual abuse goes against the vow taken by the Fathers of Don Bosco. 'At Don Bosco, the inviolable sanctity of youth is key to our system of education.'." 

Right...

39 comments:

PreVat2 said...

Remind me again why Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated, and why the majority of Catholic bishops hate the SSPX? I seem to have forgotten.

Cruise the Groove. said...

PreVat2

Because Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX remind them of personal sin and they abhor that thought.

Malta said...

"There was the woman who, along with other women, had to clean Vaseline off the altar in her parish in the mornings after the priest there (who is now in jail after a child molestation conviction -- I checked this out) had been doing God knows what the night before."

http://orthodoxpathway.blogspot.com/2010/12/orthodoxy-and-me.html

Poor Rod, chased out of the One Church, outside of which no one can be saved, because of pederastic modernists.

Pascendi said...

More and more, much of what the late Fr. John O'Connor said on this particular issues is being proven correct.

Anonymous said...

When Father Paul Shanley spoke approvingly at a foundational meeting of the North American Man Boy Love Association, the Archdiocese of Boston was informed and reacted mildly. Shanley was in no way disciplined. Father John Keane, was suspended from the Roman Catholic priesthood, a very severe punishment, only a step away from excommunication at the same time. Father Thomas Daily, soon to be a Bishop and then Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Boston explained that Father Keane had to begin saying the New Mass or he would be suspended. Father Keane insisted on saying the Traditional Latin or Tridentine Mass that had been celebrated for centuries in Catholic Churches, and for that reason alone, Father Keane could no longer be tolerated as a Catholic priest. Father Keane was suspended from the priesthood and considered all but outside the Church. For his part, Father, now Bishop, Thomas Daily, regretted years later having appointed, after the NAMBLA speech, Father Paul Shanley acting pastor of Saint John Parish in Newton.

Anonymous said...

It just occurred to me that with all this garbage being foisted upon us in these days that the following message might be of some solace to our readers with the approval of the board moderators, of course:

Interested in 7x24 access to Tradition? This short youtube video gives an example of what transpired at this Chapel during Holy Week: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7yOdQc_cNA and it is available to anyone who has an internet connection. Why am I publicizing this site? The answer is twofold: First, I was asked to by one of the priests there and second, I have had the opportunity to worship there for over 20 years. As I said in an earlier post, I'm not trying to start WWIII in the traditional ranks - merely offering to those who are interested what I have had the benefit of partaking for the last 22 years. One click of the mouse button and I am transported to a site where I can make a virtual visit to the Blessed Sacrament and experience the peace that only Christ can give in the midst of this topsy-turvy world. God bless you all.

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

Anonymous said...

Blaming the 1960s for the recent problems with priestly morality, to the extent that that decade had a role, is irrelevant. It's like the fisherman complaining to the fishmonger that his catch is bad because he's had to troll in dirtier waters. The fishmonger does not have to take polluted fish, regardless of how they got that way, and the bishops did not have to take "immature" candidates for the priesthood.

By the way, little happened to popular culture in the 1960s that Fulton Sheen wasn't warning about in the 1940s and 1950s, and even earlier. Vatican II may not have prepared the Church properly for that storm, but it didn't create it.

Tom

wheat4paradise said...

Cruise,

That's not why the Archbishop was excommunicated.

There might be other reasons as well for people disliking -- or at least disagreeing with -- the FSSPX.

Just because someone disagrees with the FSSPX doesn't necessarily mean that they're looking at the Church through rose colored glasses. Can we agree on that?

God bless,
David

wheat4paradise said...

The quote from Bl. John XXIII is editorially clever, but is it fair? As if he wouldn't be disturbed by such developments as this. Please.

New Catholic said...

It is worse than "not prepared", Tom: at the very least, "The Council" opened wide the gates at the worst possible moment in history, and it was also a significant "cultural" ingredient in that explosive mix.

What would the 60s have been like if Vatican II had never happened?... Unfortunately, and tragically, we will never know.

Anonymous said...

Benedict XVI has contributed to this situation with his seminary document, devised by Cardinal Grocholewski, a member of the last Pope's Polish mafia in the curia, and the Secretary, Archbishop Miller, now ordinary in Vancouver. There should be zero tolerance in the priesthood for candidates who have any homerastic tendencies whatsoever, be they 'deep-seated' or 'shallow-seated'. There can be no valid distinction of degree here: if such tendencies are present, the candidate should be deemed to be ineligile to enter the seminary or to proceed to ordination.

It is unfair to people having such tendencies to put them in an all-male environment, where they will be constantly subjected to the near occasion of sin. Their salvation should be important to the Church. So they must be barred for their own good.

It is much more unfair to risk training such people when they will proceed to positions of trust around children, esp. given the fact that homerasts tend to target children and young adolescents.

Lie detector testing, however imperfect, should be used to screen candidates, and there should be a a database so that those who are rejected at one seminary cannot re-apply to another. The priesthood is not a right. At one time, men having withered hands could not apply.

The last document also said that, in the case of those caught in the act in seminary, if they managed to keep clean for three consecutive years thereafter, they could proceed to ordination. What a farce. The problem continues because our present Pope and prelates still don't get it. It is said that the Jesuit order is little more than a 'gay culture club'. Time to clean out the stables; time for a purge. Better to have an understaffed Church of sound men than a larger number of priests who are fruits.

P.K.T.P.

wheat4paradise said...

...it opened wide the gates ...

What is "it"? The documents of Vatican II? The "spirit" of Vatican II? The Holy Father believes that the documents themselves, properly interpreted, can be used to close the gates, or at least manage the flood, and direct the Church ever forward toward her goal at the end of history, which is Jesus Christ. It's a shame that so few good Catholics want to work with him. They either want to ride the wild horse that is the "spirit" of Vatican II, or they just want to kick the Council and spit on it. Of course, we all know better than the Pope, don't we?

Anonymous said...

"What would the 60s have been like if Vatican II had never happened?... Unfortunately, and tragically, we will never know."

I will tell you my recollection of it. Everything exploded in 1965 at the same time. In my mind, when I think back to that year, everything is dark (especially the weather that year). If I remember correctly, one of the "Top 40 Hits" of the year was a song called "Eve of Destruction".

Quite apropos.

No human being could have orchestrated the sixties if they tried. It took a supernatural force to do that. You had to have lived through it.

Delphina

Jordanes551 said...

Benedict XVI has contributed to this situation with his seminary document, devised by Cardinal Grocholewski, a member of the last Pope's Polish mafia in the curia, and the Secretary, Archbishop Miller, now ordinary in Vancouver. There should be zero tolerance in the priesthood for candidates who have any homerastic tendencies whatsoever, be they 'deep-seated' or 'shallow-seated'.

Prescinding from the question of whether the points you make about the seminary document are right or wrong, it is anachronistic to blame a document issued just a few years ago for the ordination of homosexuals to the priesthood well before the document was issued.

Cruise the Groove. said...

"that Vatican II interpreted and applied, as it should be, can be a blessing."

Anon,

Have you really read all the documents of the pastoral Council VII?
I mean really read, "touched tasted and felt" all the real life ambiguous novelties that "could" or "should" or "may" be introduced.

I have.

I am of the belief that much of the documents themselves have been implemted in the Church.

New Catholic said...

Wheat4paradise,

I have removed my previous answer to you: this blog is also a way to give me and others consolation, so that we can see that we are not alone in these unbelievably hard days for the Church, a self-destruction started 50 years ago and which has no end in sight. I do not wish to go on with this, please do not respond.

NC

Johannes said...

". . .It is unfair to people having such tendencies to put them in an all-male environment, where they will be constantly subjected to the near occasion of sin. Their salvation should be important to the Church. So they must be barred for their own good..."

I disagree. The homosexual is, in bare biological terms, the same sexual drive as the heterosexual. Heterosexual priests have many possible occasions of sin; especially in these days when women wear so little, or at the very least much make up and hair products, deliberately trying to make themselves attractive (to whom - can they even say?) even when attending Masses or going to confession. Arguably as there are less homosexuals than there are heterosexual women, heterosexual priests have a greater opportunity for falling into a consensual and illicit and/or adulterous engagement.

It turns upon the faith, fidelity, prayer and commitment of the candidate to the priesthood - not orientation (distorted or otherwise - which must be conquered and suppressed either way). Marking well these four things in seminaries is the more secure route; not indiscriminately excluding some perhaps very fervent, serious, committed candidates purely because of a distorted orientation - which when they are committed tends to make them abhor the sheer possibility even more and avoid it more aggressively when they are, in fact, religious. As well - the desire of a priest to lay with another man's wife or even an unmarried women - absit - is, more than less, as distorted as the inherent inclination to lay with men; definitely more distorted when that inclination, to lay with men, is strictly inherent or latent and not active.

Moreover not every homosexual is a pederast. The probability that a homosexual priest will abuse a boy must be about equal to the probability that a heterosexual priest would abuse a little girl. Orientation is irrelevant. Will - will is why men sin. To make it as though being a homosexual ineluctably leads to pederasty is more in line with the pagan worldview as everything ultimately being of psychological or genetic provenance, making sins corollaries and not deliberate transgressions of the commandments of God.

New Catholic said...

"Moreover not every homosexual is a pederast. The probability that a homosexual priest will abuse a boy must be about equal to the probability that a heterosexual priest would abuse a little girl."

Must be? That is quite a statement.
When will we ever get a scientific, statistical and trustworthy analysis of this in our age, when these studies are marked by politically correct premises, such as yours?

What we can say - and others may add much more here - is that, since the earliest recordings of this "orientation", including many documents from Antiquity, a desire for youth, for young men and boys, and a very high degree of promiscuity, have been significantly linked with this orientation. That historical connection is undeniable - you may even say that it is logically related to the usual marginalization of this orientation throughout the ages, but it does exist.

This whole subject is so disgusting I wish to add nothing else - I hope knowledgeable readers will add more information and links.

shane said...

"Of course, we all know better than the Pope, don't we?"

And why must we always agree with what the Pope says? Sure popes may well be right on some matters but they aren't necessarily so. There's a long and sorry history of popes getting it wrong. This 'creeping infallibility' which attributes authority to *beliefs* or attitudes of the reigning Roman Pontiff has done enormous damage to the Church, is totally ahistorical and only gives ammunition to Protestant controversialists.

Jordanes551 said...

The homosexual is, in bare biological terms, the same sexual drive as the heterosexual.

No, it is not. Homosexual urges or orientation are inherently disordered. Heterosexual urges or orientation are not.

Arguably as there are less homosexuals than there are heterosexual women, heterosexual priests have a greater opportunity for falling into a consensual and illicit and/or adulterous engagement.

And yet of all the incidents of priests violating the sixth commandment during the past few decades, the vast majority of those incidents were homosexual in nature.

It turns upon the faith, fidelity, prayer and commitment of the candidate to the priesthood - not orientation (distorted or otherwise - which must be conquered and suppressed either way).

However, there is an essential difference between seeking to bring a properly ordered sexuality under the yoke of Christ, and seeking to bring a perverted sexuality under that yoke. In the latter case, it is the renunciation of something intrinsically good, in the former, it is attempting to heal a grievous spiritual malady.

As well - the desire of a priest to lay with another man's wife or even an unmarried women - absit - is, more than less, as distorted as the inherent inclination to lay with men; definitely more distorted when that inclination, to lay with men, is strictly inherent or latent and not active.

Wrong again. A man desiring to fornicate with a woman is not as disordered as desiring to engage in acts that are a complete mockery of the created order. Although heterosexual fornication is a sin against the human body, it is still involves something that is good, and that could be good under other circumstances (that is, if the man and woman were married) -- whereas homosexual acts are sins against the human body that are inherently evil and involve acts that can never be good under any circumstances.

Moreover not every homosexual is a pederast.

Irrelevant. Most incidents of priestly sexual abuse were not pederasty -- the victims in the overwhelming majority of cases were teenage boys, not prepubescent.

The probability that a homosexual priest will abuse a boy must be about equal to the probability that a heterosexual priest would abuse a little girl.

How do you know that, Iovhannis? And anyway, it's not pederasts that we want to keep out of the priesthood, but any and all sexual perverts and deviants, no matter who they are inclined to victimise.

Jeremiah Methuselah said...

This is awful.

Bit by bit, little by little, the true homosexual agenda is revealed.

Poor Dear Don Bosco, possibly one of the greatest of Saints, even he, in Heaven, must be near to tears for the danger to his beloved boys, never mind what has happened to his priests. St Dominic Savio, orate pro nobis !

The only consolation is that these types probably left the priesthood long ago, one way or the other.

May Help of Christians, Pray for us.

JM, privileged to have been educated by Christain SDBs.

scotju said...

New Catholic, www.rite of sodomy.com has all the information anyone will need about the whys and hows of the priest sex scandal.

Anonymous said...

Why is this subject being discussed on this board? Earlier today, I submitted a post that gave the opportunity to visit a website and perform a virtual visit to the Blessed Sacrament on a 7x24 basis and relieve oneself of this "man-child" talk. That post never saw the light of day; I wonder why? All I was trying to do was to provide an alternative to focusing on this subject which I find extremely distasteful. Is there no one else that feels as I do? By the way, if you do want to make the virtual visit to the Blessed Sacrament on a 7x24 basis you can go to www.servi.org and see it there.

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

Katie said...

This stuff is just so sick. I don't know what to do. How am I supposed to fight accusations that the Church supports pedophilia when the Church seems to support pedophilia?!

rodrigo said...

St Peter Damian's Liber Gomorrhianus remains instructive.

Anonymous said...

Thanks very much. I now see both of my posts on the board. Let us all be thankful this incredible attack (man-child "relationships") by Satan and his minions stays far away from us.

LtCol Paul E. Haley, USAF(Ret)

Gideon Ertner said...

"...since the earliest recordings of this "orientation", including many documents from Antiquity, a desire for youth, for young men and boys, and a very high degree of promiscuity, have been significantly linked with this orientation."

What 'orientation'? The concept of a 'homosexual orientation' is a purely modern one. It would have made no sense at all to the ancients.

Paederasty, i.e. sexual relations between older men and youths, was the norm in various ancient cultures, notably the Greek and Persian ones. It is still the case in places such as Upper Egypt and Yemen. But all these cultures know nothing of 'homosexuality'. In fact, the idea of two adult men having sexual relations with each other is rather grotesque to them. And sexual relations with women are an integrated part of paederast culture, if not for anything else then for purposes of childbirth.

Of course there have always been men who have exhibited some degree of sexual attraction to people of their own sex, to varying degrees according to cultural and psychological circumstances, and possibly in some cases influenced by a genetic component. But 'homosexuality' as a fixed and well-defined psychosexual state of exclusive attraction towards adults of one's own sex (as well as its antithesis, heterosexuality) is a modern anthropological construct which, if it does exist, would seem to be quite rare.

Gideon Ertner said...

"There should be zero tolerance in the priesthood for candidates who have any homerastic tendencies whatsoever, be they 'deep-seated' or 'shallow-seated'."

You are talking such b******s. Why on Earth should a few idle thoughts during the period of psychological instability that is the teenage years have any bearing whatsoever on the ability of a candidate for the priesthood to live a chaste and holy life - or on his propensity to abuse youngsters?

There are many tendencies I would consider vastly more problematic in a candidate, such as a habitual attraction to pornography or a history of fornication (even of the 'heterosexual' variety). Why not have a go at these instead?

All these attractions can disappear completely, though, especially through the healing power of Christ. On a not completely unrelated side note: we don't exclude people who at one time were staunch heretics, or pagans who once worshipped trees and idols, from the priesthood either.

rodrigo said...

From Pierre Payer's translation of the Liber Gomorrhianus...

THOSE WHO DESIRE TO HAVE SACRED ORDERS AFTER THIS VICE HAVE FALLEN INTO A DEPRAVED SENSE

For who would turn a deaf ear; yes, who would not tremble to the core when he hears the Apostle, as a thundering trumpet, say of such men, "God delivered them up in the desires of their heart to unclean practices; they engaged in the mutual degradation of their bodies?" And a little further on:

God therefore delivered them up to disgraceful passions. For their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in like manner the men gave up natural intercourse with women and burned with lust for one another. Men did shameful things with men, and thus received in their own persons the fitting recompense for their perversity. They did not see fit to acknowledge God, so God delivered them up to their own depraved sense to do what is unseemly.

Now why do they so fervently seek the sublime height of ecclesiastical orders after such a grave fall? What is one to think; what is one to believe but that God has delivered them over to a depraved sense? And because of their sins he does not permit them to see what is necessary for them. Because the sun sets on them, that is, the sun which rises above the heavens, after having lost their interior eyes they are completely unable to consider the gravity of the evils which they commit through impurity. Nor are they able to consider the evil of what they inordinately desire against the will of God. It is the usual result of the rule of divine justice that those who defile themselves with the most ruinous filth are struck by a judgment of deserved punishment and incur the shades of blindness. As we read of the ancient authors of this foulness:

With that, they pressed hard against Lot, moving in closer to break down the door. But (says Scripture) the men put out their hands, pulled Lot inside with them, and closed the doo; at the same time they struck the men at the entrance, from the least to the greatest, with such a blindness that they were unable to find the doorway.

Moreover, it is clearly not incongruous to see the persons of the Father and the Son signified by those two angels who, we read, came to blessed Lot. This is apparent from what Lot himself says to them, "O no my Lord! Surely your servant has found favour with you and great is the mercy which you have shown me in saving my life." For it is certain that Lot spoke to the two in the singular as if to one since he worshipped one substance in two persons.

So Sodomites try to break in violently on the angels when unclean men attempt to approach God through the offices of sacred orders. But these latter are surely struck with blindness because they fall into such interior darkness through a just judgment of God that they are powerless to find the door. Divided from God by sin, they do not know how to return him from that condition. For it is obvious that those who desire to approach God by the routes of arrogance and pride and not by the route of humility do not recognize where the entrance is, or that the door is Christ, as he himself says, "I am the door." Those who lose Christ because of sins cannot find the door, like those who were unable to enter the dwelling of heavenly citizens. Consequently, they are delivered over to a depraved sense since, as long as they do not weigh the gravity of their guilt in the balance of their own minds, they think the very heavy leaden mass is the lightness of petty punishments. So what is said there, “They struck the men at the entrance with blindness,” the Apostle clearly declares when he says, “God delivered them up to their own depraved sense.” And what is added there, “That they were unable to find the doorway,” he also clearly expresses when he says, “to do what is unseemly.” This is as if it were to have said that they try to enter where they ought not.

...continued

rodrigo said...

...continued:

What else is it for one who is unworthy of an ecclesiastical order to try to break into the office of the sacred altar but to abandon the threshold and to endeavour to enter through the impenetrable barrier of the wall? Because a free passage does not appear for their feet, such men are deceived by their own presumption and are compelled rather to remain in the outer vestibule, while the promise themselves they can reach the sanctuary. Indeed they can strike their foreheads on the rocks of Sacred Scripture, but under no circumstances are they permitted to go in through the entrance granted by divine authority. While they attempt to enter where they are not permitted, they do nothing else but grope vainly at the protected wall. What the prophet says does not unreasonably apply to them, “And at noonday they grope as though it were night.” Those who cannot cross the threshold of the proper entrance are turned about, wandering in a circle in whirling madness. Of these the Psalmist says, “My God make them as a wheel.” And again, “The wicked walk in a circle.” Paul speaks of them a little further on in the passage already cited, “Those who do such things deserve death. And not only those who do them but those who approve them in others.”

Clearly, anyone not awakened by such terrible thundering of apostolic invective is correctly judged to be dead, not to be carelessly sleeping. And since the Apostle amplifies the sentence of strict punishment with such zeal, not just for some of the faithful Jews but for pagans and for those who do not know God, what, I ask, would he say if he saw such a wound festering in the very body of the holy Church? In particular, what sadness, what burning compassion would inflame that pious heart if he were to learn that this destructive plague was even spreading among the sacred orders?

Let the indolent superiors of clerics and of priests hear; let them hear and let them greatly fear being participants in the guilt of others, even though they feel safe as far as they themselves are concerned. I refer to those who close their eyes to the correction of their subordinates’ sins and offer them the freedom of sinning through an ill-advised silence. Let them hear, I say, and prudently understand that they all equally deserve death – namely, “not only those who do them but also those who approve them in others.”

Anonymous said...

Gideon the foul language in your first sentence reveals you. And your sympathy to sodomite filth does not convince. The good Colonel is correct. The priesthood is absolutely incompatible with those who experience sodomite tendencies.

Celibate priesthood has no meaning when applied to a sodomite. He who would never take a wife and sire children sacrifices nothing when he vows to celibacy, an obligation that he is bound to regardless of the priesthood, by virtue of his perverted tendencies.

Jason the celibate

rodrigo said...

Worth also recalling the words of Pope Benedict XVI, transcribed in Light of the World:

Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise, celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation. It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into the priesthood who don't want to get married anyway. For, in the end, their attitude toward man and woman is somehow distorted, off centre, and, in any case, is not within the direction of creation of which we have spoken. The congregation for Education issued a decision a few years ago to the effect that homosexual candidates cannot become priests becuase their sexual orientation estranges them from the proper sense of paternity, from the intrinsic nature of priestly being. The selection of candidates to the priesthood must therefore be very careful. The greatest attention is needed here in order to prevent the intrusion of the kind of ambiguity and to head off a situation where teh celibacy of preists would practically end up being identified with the tendency to homosexuality.

LeonG said...

From such as this we may understand why the Salesians are in disarray and numbers are falling. They disappeared from the diocese of my childhood in the
1980s because they no longer had the manpower to continue with their special school. I vividly recall witnessing unnoticed two of their priests lampooning the traditional church on the one time altar (then become "worship space") of the parish church of my youth in front of some of their young charges. I was highly offended at the time and wondered how long this could continue. The answer has been relatively swift in coming. Which young man in his right spiritual mind would want to be associated with a morally degenerating religious order as this.

How unworthy they are of their association with St John Bosco.

Archangel said...

To those who may wish to know and to those who refuse to admit, before VCII, 80% Catholic went to Holy Mass on Sunday, today only 23% goes on Sunday, VCII -57% Catholic attend Sunday Holy Mass, majority become Catholic by name only, before VCII 90% Catholic believe the True presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist,49 years after VCII only 30% believe, VCII -60%,Before VCII, confession was a normal, 49 years late it's a mystery, to those who still refuse to admit that VCII causes the loss of faith, here is your simple answers -57% in the pew, -60% believe in the Holy Eucharist, if you are playing golf that a good percentage, but not in the one True Church of God, sorry a bad job is a bad job, I pray, Holy Mother of God, help us here below, we really mess up!!!!

Anonymous said...

@ LtCol Paul E. Haley,

"Is there no one else that feels as I do? "

I do. It is bad for all of us to read detailed accounts of this filth and depravity. So our priest says - a holy man who lives and teaches the spirituality of St. Alphonsus.

Barbara

Malta said...

I think it is important to bear in mind that this really is a problem of pederasty . Technically you could call it pedophilia, but clinically-speaking the former term is more precise. Btw, if you follow the link, above, you'll find that the Visigothic king Chindasuinth didn't take kindly at all to the practice!

Malta said...

"Moreover not every homosexual is a pederast. The probability that a homosexual priest will abuse a boy must be about equal to the probability that a heterosexual priest would abuse a little girl."

LOL! Whereja get that nugget of wisdom from, my friend?

"...80 percent of victims were post-pubescent and adolescent males."

Cf LifeSiteNews

LeonG said...

"today only 23% goes on Sunday, VCII...."

If you wear rose-tinted post-conciliar spectacles that is so.

In fact, in many western countries the actual figures are single-digit. In France, regular NO service going means at least once a month! About 5% of avowed French newcatholics (about 50% of the french population) do this. In many churches which are still open that is you will be lucky to see enough newcatholics to fill the first three pews. Again, where churches used to have three or four Masses every Sunday many now have two or even only one each Sunday which they find difficult to fill.
A very strange phenomenon in SE Asia is that percentages often seem very high but when you look closely at the ethnic component of the congregations they may be bloated by the presence of expatriate Philippinos or Sri Lankans.
NO attendances are a disaster - let no one fool you. This is why concessions to the NO by traditional Catholics are inexcusable. It is a liturgical form that is destroying Catholicism and totally self-defeating making any concessions. The fact that the papacy is desperately trying to make it reverent using a few traditional trappings reflects the hopelessness of the NO and its fabricated nature. Another salient fact is that most NO bishops and presbyters disobey any directions given towards offical chnages to the NO: translations are just one example of this.

Anonymous said...

Barbara, I agree. I have read a few books about this problem in the Church but do not read the details of what occurred.

No need for any of us to do that as we already can only too well imagine (if we chose to - which I do not) what went on. It is too disgusting anyway.

Delphina