Jul 23, 2007

This letter should make liberals scream

A letter to the editor in last Friday's L.A. Times (sorry, I do not have the link) should make liberals scream.

In it, Mr. William S. Hulsy of Santa Ana writes:

"The lesson to take away from the sexual abuse scandals is a return to discipline exemplified in the Latin Mass....It has been said that the Latin Mass reflects 'a church of visible discipline and hierarchical structure, the ancient discipline of the priesthood, the moral authority of bishops and the pope, a way of looking at the human relationship to God'....we need to return to the better ways of the past."

In a sentence not quoted here, Mr. Hulsy thinks there were no sex abuse scandals in the past. As we know, there were some -- but not anything close to the situation of recent decades.

Say what you will, but the Church was better off when we had the Latin Mass , and the liturgy and the sensibilities of the faithful were not the playthings of liberal clergy.

Maybe, in the wake of the Pope's directive, more priests will celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass more reverently and according to the rubrics, in the New Rite as well as the Tridentine.

7 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Q,
As Cardinal Mahony pointed out in his interview with Chris Weinkopf in another thread, the vast majority of priests accused in the 508 claims just settled were products of the pre-Vatican II, pre-Roman Missal of Pope Paul VI day. Just as it would be silly for me to assert that the Mass of Pope St. Pius V, O.P., somehow contributed to these priests' sexual aberrations, so too is it silly for you and your letter-to-The-Times-writer to assert that the lack of the Mass of Pope St. Pius V, O.P., somehow accomplished it.

11:32 PM  
Blogger Quintero said...

Dear Anonymous 11:32 p.m.,

Depends on how you count 'em and how you assign 'em to which era.

No one can deny that in L.A. there was a spike of molesters in the 70s, 80s and 90s, and many of those priests "studied" at St. John's Seminary in the liberal, heady "throw the old stuff out, here's the new stuff," Vatican II, Age of Aquarius, Esalen days of the 60s and on into the early 70s.

Yes, chronologically some of that was before the end of Vatican II in 1965, and some was before the New Mass liturgy free-for-all.

But if you encountered those priests, you knew that as seminarians they were just the opposite of "pre-Vatican II."

I do not know who the accused priests were in the 508 claims. But many priests prominent in scandals were 60s seminarians.

Furthermore, we all know that all kinds of priests who were in the seminary in the 50s were liturgy "reform" enthusiasts who jumped on the Vatican II bandwagon.

They were not pro-Tridentine, and their mentality was not "pre-Vatican II"; and to say otherwise is to fudge the facts.

12:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Q,
We're in basic agreement. The majority of the accused priests were from the Cantwell and McIntyre years, at least when they were formed. These were the days of "all Latin, all the time" and yet they still managed to get ordained and go on to abuse. Thank God they were few in number but the damage they did is incalcuable. The form of the Roman Missal in use when they were formed and when they abused has nothing to do with the issue. My point was that it's really a non-sequitur.

1:25 PM  
Blogger Quintero said...

Dear Anonymous,

A main point in Mr. Hulsy's letter was discipline -- the discipline of the Catholic priesthood and the discipline inherent in the Tridentine Mass.

There is no non sequitur in saying that a more disciplined Mass and a more disciplined priesthood and seminary system leave less room for people who have aberrant attitudes and behaviors.

I understand that discipline at St. John's Seminary was relaxed somewhat at some point in the mid/late 60s. Looks as if it should not have been.

"Throw out the old stuff, here's the new stuff."

If anyone knows anything about that, they should tell us.

10:10 PM  
Blogger Dad29 said...

Quintero, it is a decided "perhaps" that 'sex scandals are worse today than in the past.'

The problem? We do not KNOW 'what they were in the past,' because most of them were covered up or not reported--whether hetero- or homo-sex driven.

There are plenty of allusions to non-reported and/or 'covered' stories from the 1950's/'40s, etc., ...

But no hard-number verifications.

10:51 AM  
Blogger Quintero said...

Dear Dad29,

Yes, we can't know about the number of crimes in the past.

And it is true that some priests who took quite orthodox stances turned out to be molesters.

Various saints in past ages had to combat priests and brothers who were addicted to sodomy.

Padre Pio is said to have been persecuted by such a bishop.

So such scandals did occur in the past. Nevertheless, I think we can reasonably conclude that the sexual license and moral relativism that exploded in the 1960s and wrecked so many lives and souls had their effect on a lot of seminarians and priests who then went on to molest victims.

9:33 PM  
Blogger frjim said...

what gives here?
you seem to be like the very bishops you all are scorning.....

"not on my watch" is the catchword.......

so we want to ascribe a time/place/relaxation of rules, etc.....

when we reviewed the cases in our diocese.........
no matter when they occured.....
peoples lives were affected, their souls were stained, they need the affection of the Lord Jesus who comes in Latin,English, indeed in whatever language that is the language of healing, sorrow, tears, love.

12:11 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Site Meter