Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church: CODE OF SILENCE

Sexual Abuse of Children in the Catholic Church.

In dearly February 2019 I listened to one of my favorite priests delivery a homily.  He encouraged us to love others, and to hold the dignity of other high because, as St. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13 , "Love bears all things." Father said, "Our dignity runs deeper than our failures," and, "Love hopes all things."

But the theme he reiterated several times (a quote attributed to Pope Benedict 16) has haunted me since that homily. I wondered, as the bishops convene in Rome to talk about what and how the church should respond to this massive scandal, now of many, many years, this Benedict 16 theme hasn't been the worldview of our bishops and Pope Francis:

Love covers with a cloak of silence what is displeasing in others. 

Each time our priest repeated the phrase and put it on the wall for us to consider, I felt as if I was being hit in the chest. Is that what the Catholic Church does systematically to hide its problems with sexual immorality?    Do they call it love?  Love for whom?   So, they are hiding behind a cloak of love a great evil...the displeasing evil behavior of priests? Sorry Father, what you may allude to is not love, it's evil. 

We may be living through one of the great scandals of the Christian Church, 

and yet it will stand...hopefully reformed.

Tonight I watched a great documentary. I'm a filmmaker. I've produced many documentaries, but everything I've done is sterile compared to this masterpiece. I urge all to watch it. Not only is it objective, it is obviously written and produced by those who love the church and long to see it heal. It is also a masterpiece of documentary journalism. The lengths they go to are amazing. Hats off to whoever funded this, and the talent (Martin Boudot) behind it. Crisscrossing the globe they find and talk to people the police have yet to apprehend. And they even reach Pope Francis in the final minutes. Simply amazing.

It's free, I think on Amazon...although I have PRIME, so maybe it's not. But it's worth some loose change.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B0718SMTRY/ref=atv_wtlp_wtl_10

I also offer this link of local investigation here in Michigan from The Daniel Coalition
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/c761da_459d804532c944a28c619a08bdb9d71a.pdf

Ford Motor Company and LGBT Promoters are the Intolerant Bigots

The unfortunate thing about dictionaries is that they define words based on their usage, and if the usage is ambiguous or equivocal, the dictionary is, by function, destined to promulgate such confusion.  This contributes to social unrest and misunderstanding when words lose their ability to discriminate from one another, and individuals and social groups argue past each other by using the same terms but not the same underlying definitions.

Terms that have fallen prey to such catastrophic use are  "intolerance," "discriminate" and "bigot."

In the social conversations about the acceptance or rejection of LGBT values, individuals and groups that are against LGBT values are often derogatorily called "intolerant," "bigots," and their disagreement with LGBT values "discriminatory."  Where those supporting LGBT values are called "fair-minded," and "loving." But

Sweet Cakes Tolerance vs. Tyranny. Who's the Bully? Brad Avakian?

Regarding: Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Oregon will have to pay $60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer, and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer so rules Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian.

Let's define tolerance and intolerance, discrimination and prejudice, shall we?

"Discrimination" is not necessarily a bad thing. The laws of the land discriminate between what politicians determine is right and wrong. Religions discriminate between what theologians determine is right and wrong. Personally, we discriminate between whom we make friends with and who we don't. It's good to discriminate against criminals and bad influences.

The same can be said of the term "prejudice." The law is prejudice in favor of those that obey the law and is prejudice against those that disobey the law. God is prejudice against sinners, and prejudice in favor of the righteous....by his rules of discrimination, by the way.

For a bakery to discriminate against a homosexual couple and refuse to bake a cake for their commitment ceremony, and letting the couple buy a cake somewhere else is tolerant.

Throwing homosexuals off roof-tops to kill them is

Protestantism's Moral Relativism the Cause of Supreme's Ruling on Marriage

Protestantism has been protesting moral truth for almost 500 years. Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants have been protesting each other. Each sees truth in their own eyes and have rejected the infallible truth that God gave the Church. That's why there are tens of thousands of interpretations of the Bible resulting in as many denominations, each refusing the other. So, such Christians, even Catholics who dissent from Church teaching, have no station to complain of the Supreme's ruling on marriage. Like Protestants, the Supremes interpret things as they want. There is no standard. Welcome to Protestant America...and The Scandal of Christianity. 

Gravity, Once Considered a Good Idea, Now Ruled Illegal

Gravity, perhaps, is Natural Law's most obvious witness. This essay suggests that the traditional concept of Marriage is a close second.

Traditional Marriage is best defined by Natural Law—the rules of the universe that describe unalterable reality. It is the ubiquitous presence of natural law's order found in the physical, psychological, and moral realms that defines some of the most astonishing attributes of God—the heavens declare the glory of God. That is, God is revealed in the quantifiable, visible, mathematical, supreme order of the universe and that such order is immutable.

Yet, some courts and lawmakers think they can mess with Nature. Yes, they can make any choice they want, but they have no choice over the consequences. Only Natural Law will determine the outcome. One such example of the Supreme Court's mistakes in this regard was 1857 Dred Scott Decision that concluded African Salves were property, not U.S. Citizens. Natural Law disagreed... and the consequence was the Civil War, ...which then led to the 14th Amendment.

But is "marriage," as the Catholic Church defines it, really capable of being defined and defended by Natural Law?

UNITIVE AND PROCREATIVE

An often-ignored principle of Catholicism is that its practice and purpose is to succinctly define Natural Law in its doctrines and practical teachings so the faithful can follow nature more easily and thus live more happily.

Thus, it's not surprising that what the Church says about marriage is vastly supported by medical and social science. But it takes some careful reading to see it. And, it would help society if our Bishops were more publicly vocal and assertive. The Church is called to be salt and light. But it is often lost its saltiness and its batteries seem dead when the dark invades. So, let me try to make a candle and light it...I've got some bees wax here somewhere.

Paragraph 2366 of the Catechism states:

The inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

In this sentence, the Church claims that marriage is defined uniquely by these two terms alone: (1) unitive and (2) procreative. Pundits might want to add that marriage is "between one man and one woman" or that marriage is a "permanent" relationship. But as we will come to understand, the terms unitive and procreative make such clarification redundant (although for the common communication the esoteric is often not enough and more wordy formulations are necessary.)

So, is there evidence from science and Natural Law that the concepts of a unitive relationship combined with a procreative relationship are possible for homosexual relationships, or are they reserved for heterosexual relationships?

ONE FLESH

A Unitive Relationship implies that the relationship creates "one flesh" through the congeal act. On the surface, this has one (1) meaning—the temporary physical union of the persons. While this is possible on the surface with male-on-male homosexual relationships, it is not possible with a lesbian relationship. Yet, with male-female unions it is always possible.

If we add the Procreative component, the unitive relationship of a male-female union has a second (2) and more significant meaning. For, only then can the "two "flesh" produce the "one flesh" of a baby. This is not the typical interpretation of the Mark 10 passage, below, but it is true.

For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. (Mark 10:6–8)
But there is yet another way that only a male and female can become one.

WHEN UNPROTECTED SEX IS GOOD SEX

Getting deeper into science, there is a third (3) meaning to unitive, which we discover goes far deeper than physical copulation, and is more subtle than having a baby...and it is only possible in heterosexual relationships.

Science has discovered that male semen plasma, apart from conveying nourishing sperm on their way to the female's eggs, contains a host of vitamins and nutrients that benefit the female by providing to the female's blood stream (a) antidepressants, (b) several mood-elevating compounds, (c) antigens that can help prevent breast cancer, and (d) agents that lower blood pressure helping to prevent preeclampsia conditions.

These discoveries came out of research that studied heterosexual vs. lesbian couples. Women who were in lesbian relationships, or women who used condoms, had a higher probability of depression and thoughts of suicide, higher blood pressure and a higher affinity for breast cancer.

Thus, unprotected sex, which allows semen plasma to be absorbed into the woman's blood stream becomes yet another layer of meaning to the concept of unitive as chemicals (not just sperm) from male are passed into the female.

Further, this passing of chemicals reinforces the procreative component of the definition of marriage by making the woman physically healthier, apart from producing a baby. Benefits that are absent in all homosexual unions.

There is more to consider in my next essay on the natural law and science surrounding monogamy. But, with only the information presented above, the legal attempts to redefine the natural law of marriage suggests that someday a hauteur will ask the courts to upend gravity. I can see the headline now: GRAVITY, ONCE CONSIDERED A GOOD IDEA, RULED ILLEGAL.

And, that's why I'm Catholic.

Stanley D. Williams, Ph.D.

Next Time: What Does Natural Law Say About Monogamy?

(SOURCES: Aside from the citations referenced in the text, this essay made liberal use of cited medical journal references found in Wikipedia's articles on marriage, semen and polygamy.)

Are You a Catholic Hypocrite?

 The Challenge of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship

Healing The Blind Man by Edy Legrand.

I'm a Catholic convert. That means I came into the Roman Catholic Church voluntarily as an adult rather than being born in the Church. I came into the Church during the the Easter Vigil, 1998, shortly after receiving my Ph.D. which was a significant component and part of the process of my embracing Catholicism. My doctoral research that led to my dissertation involved the study and formalization of informal logic, or fallacy logic. The dissertation has nothing to do with theology or Christian doctrine. But there were unintended consequences. The 3+ years of research and writing revealed to me the inconsistency of Protestant theology and gave me historical names and theories of reason and faith that surprisingly and suddenly marginalized the rubrics (and some central doctrines) of Protestantism. It's not my intent to go into those here, as I've discussed them other places, most notably in my 26 biographical posts on logic at Trying to Fly With One Wing.

 You Can't Promote Evil Doers and Be Catholic

One of the things I learned is that you can't really call yourself Catholic when you disagree with the teachings and declared positions of the Church. When you disagree with the Church's stance on teachings, doctrine, or public policy you in effect become a "protester" — the root concept behind Protestantism. I once had a pastor-priest (now retired, thankfully) that supported (quietly but clearly) the ordination of women and homosexual marriage, and publicly railed in homilies on the lack of charitable giving by the United States to those in need overseas. He refused to be corrected that the U.S. gave more to humanitarian efforts than the next ten national combined, and that in times of crises U.S. private giving always topped the government's contributions. On the grave moral issues he kept is opinions quiet in the pulpit, but privately he'd make his opinion known. We left that parish. He was a Protestant and he should not have been a Catholic priest. He was a Catholic Hypocrite.

This Election (November 6, 2012)

This election brings to the forefront (to those that want to truthfully engage themselves with the Church) the issue of voting with a well-formed conscience for candidates that support issues with grave moral consequences. My wife and I have met and communicated with both Catholic laypeople and Catholic ordained leaders, who seem to believe they can be authentically Catholic and ignore or even despise what the Church teaches about our responsibilities as Catholic in society. These people, even the ordained, are Catholic Hypocrites.

A downloadable mp3 audio message from the Michigan Catholic Conference on Faithful Citizenship begins this way:

As Catholics we have the responsibility to vote with a well-formed conscience. On Tuesday November 6, Michigan Catholics will vote for politicians and issues that will shape the moral fiber of our state and country. ... Legislators write laws that impact our families and the common good. etc. ...defending human life and religious liberty are critical.

There are numerous efforts by the Church, in print,  in homilies and public forums that clearly inform consciences that there are some issues that are more important than others, just as all sins ARE NOT the same in weight and consequence. Some are gravely morally evil, and others are minor in nature.

Three Grave Moral Evils

Among the three gravely moral evils that the Church tells us must guide our voting are:

a. Protection of life, from conception to natural death. (abortion)
b. The sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman (homosexual "marriage")
c. Repressing religious liberties (regulations that force the Church to sin)

Those three issues are not negotiable or debatable in their intrinsic evil. The current Democrat platform and this administration's support of abortion, gay marriage, and their active infringement on religious liberties by requiring Church institutions to violate their moral conscience with respect to "life" issues are gravely and intrinsically evil. The Republican platform protects life, marriage and religious liberties. What is not considered gravely evil, or even wrong, are the policies of the Republican party to care for the poor through an emphasis on personal responsibility while keeping in place various safety nets for the destitute. Yet, some Catholic leaders and laypersons ignore the grave evils promoted by the Democratic platform and hide behind a pretense that Republicans repress the poor and minorities, as if being rich was the greater evil.

Laissez-faire Capitalism is Good for the Poor

In other posts I've deconstructed this fallacious notion that the rich are bad and hurt the poor. It is the rich that pay for the welfare state through taxes (90% of the tax base is paid by the rich), it is the rich that support benevolent institutions charities and Churches, it is the rich that create jobs.  And it is the rich that see it as their personal responsibility to be generous not the governments.  Indeed, if more of the capable poor were to form their conscious to think like the rich, they'd cease to be poor.  I've written elsewhere on the Rich vs. the Poor. I also recommend the writings of Ayn Rand, particularly Atlas Shrugged to further proof that Laissez-faire capitalism does more for the poor than any government every can.

Do Good and Avoid Evil

In the PDF link at the top of this post, and here (The Challenge of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship) under the heading DOING GOOD AND AVOIDING EVIL you'll find this:

As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a
single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position
on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal
abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify
a candidate from receiving support.

Your Choice: Fight Evil or Be Tolerant of Evil

If you are a Catholic, especially one that has heard this message in sermons, or been exposed to the bulletin insert linked above, and particularly if you are a priest or deacon, if you vote for candidates whose platforms endorse abortion, gay marriage, or the restriction of religious liberties by forcing sinful acts on religious institutions and individuals... you are a hypocrite. There will be consequences in this life and the next for all of our actions that are contrary to Natural Law, Biblical teachings, and particularly if you refuse to form your conscience in according with what is good, true, and beautiful.