--- Roland Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Would I be irrational in asking whether with the > history and record of the Church in recent times > suppressing the widespread news of abuse and > molestation of children and adults under their > care, if there are among the ranks of the saints > such abusers and molesters of which we know nothing > about. > > and > > What better service could the Popes perform than > make the individual a saint and thus remove > whatever controversy that might have been > generated? > > I apologize in advance if I hurt anybody's > sensitivities, but sainthood is a very man-made > concept and therefore susceptible to the > faults of the human condition. > Mario observes: > It is not because of any sensibilities that I take issue with this whole train of thought, and for the thought to have crossed Roland's mind is not irrational, but the notion of casting aspersions WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE on thousands of people down through the ages is uncharitable at best and cynical at worst. I prefer the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", not guilt by innuendo or association. > However, if there is any evidence against any sainted individual I would be at the head of the line seeking a thorough investigation and their dismissal if the preponderance of evidence is against them. This also goes for criteria other than sexual misconduct that may have been falsified for religious-political reasons. > Anyone skeptical of my beliefs in this area will find in the archives my public opposition to the fast-tracking of Pope JP-II by his successors, due to what I perceived as inadequate attention to the VICTIMS of the priestly pedophiles and an inordinate sympathy for the PERPETRATORS, with the most egregious example being that of disgraced Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston, who was not a perpetrator, but a misguided enabler and sympathiser, who was inexplicably and unnecessarily resurrected from disgrace by Pope JP-II, wiping out in my mind all this Pope's other stellar achievements in one fell swoop. > I am fully willing to forgive those of these animals who repent and show remorse, but I don't want them to ever be around children again, nor do I want to see or hear from them again. That was John Law's fate, when Pope JP-II gratuitously decided to make him archpriest at St. Maria Maggiore, a decision that continues to grate in my ears like nails on a chalkboard. > I grew up in central India when priests were our teachers, coaches, mentors and friends without a single incident or even rumor of homosexual activity by a single priest, leave alone a sexual attack. One priest was accused of being far too fond of a female high school secretary, whom the entire student body also "appreciated":-)) > So, my years of personal experience contradicts the "...history and record of the Church in recent times suppressing the widespread news of abuse...". > However, I am also of the opinion that good people, whether priests or not, should not be nominated, beatified or canonized by their peers, successors or friends, due to real or perceived personal biases and conflicts of interests. People decades into the future will probably have far better information about deserving individuals, and little or no personal bias in such a decision. Besides, I personally don't feel the need for yet another saint because they all pale in comparison with Our Lady in my never humble opinion. > While this may not answer the kinds of questions and implied Papal conspiracies that Roland has raised, it is my considered opinion, and I'm sticking to it. Others are free to disagree without any further comment on my part, unless there is an unnecessary misrepresentaion of my crystal clear position or another egregious attack on religion itself. >
_______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
