I don't know if there will ever be a significant number of them but the Catholic Church does have a number of married Priest who transfer over from Catholic lite churches because of other doctrines.
We're talking about child rape here. I won't be satisfied until those who committed the crimes are in prison and until the church itself does what I assume YOU would do if you realized a work colleague was molesting children. That the church wants to handle all of this internally without calling the police, without ever reporting crimes that victims tell them have occurred is horrifying. This is not something that happened a couple decades ago, it is still going on. Yes we now "have our eyes on them" but the problem is the abusers are protected by a huge and powerful organization. I'm sick to death of catholics getting defensive about this matter. Yes I'm sure many would like the taint that their church now has to go away, for everyone to nod along to the nice hand wringing words the well meaning write about change. And yet still stories of deception, destroyed evidence, obfuscation, priests being moved, and crimes still not being reported to the police continue.
star wolf, your response to child abusing priests boils down to 'oh stop whining, it's all in the past and now you must be quiet'? oh, i'm sorry cardinal star wolf.
The very purpose of the new policies is to ensure that the reporting of cases is immediate and independant and such cases are then placed in the hands of the police and other concerned authorities. The moving on or covering up will become an impossibility in a completely transparent process. I'm not trying to be eloquent, simply trying to convey the changing attitudes present on the ground in Church communities. The patience of good Catholics, lay and clergy alike, has reached its absolute limit in these matters. Believe me, these words are becoming a reality as we speak. If they weren't, I would have packed up and left by now.
I sincerely hope so, and I say that as someone who knows a number of clergy who are too good and kind to be tarred by that terrible brush.
This might be interesting for some: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21802684 My view is that Bergoglio was in a position to criticize the regime and the Dirty War but preferred to criticize liberation theology. I think that says all you need to know about what kind of man he is. I already think of him as Pope Sucio.
So, after just 4 days of Pope Francis and a couple of, to my mind, very fair and open minded posts from me, you feel you know all about us both. Your eagerness to accept one view in this argument, with seemingly no willingness to listen to a balancing view, is unfortunate and, ultimately, very short sighted. For the record, I have been reading many articles about the incidents in Argentina in an attempt to understand all that is being said on this matter so, rather than not wanting to know, I'm interested in understanding the full picture. Anyone interested in truth should be open to all views, not just the one that backs up their preconceptions.
If anyone's interested, this is an article on Pope Francis and the Dirty War by a prominent church historian.
Interesting piece, and not surprising when you consider where the early Church Fathers lived and wrote their works, and that this was probably also before the Coptic Church split off.
Thank you for that. As the article says, even with the facts laid out in front of us, there will be some who say that not enough was done, while others will see what was done in a more understanding light. What happened in Argentina has happened in many places, not least here in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. Clergy in each community were deeply involved, both publicly and behind the scenes in ways yet to be fully revealed, to ensure protection for others and ultimately to work for peace, that may have led them into murky waters that some would find unacceptable.
You don't know what I've read, either in favor of or against, nor do you know what my preconceptions are. All you have is malicious rhetoric. I suppose that's appropriate to the cause you're defending. Might I suggest that the real problem is your preconceptions about liberation theology that are driving your conclusions? Pope Sucio's extraordinary belief that liberations theology was the main problem is uncontested in the entire range of commentary.