Very apt quote. Or, as someone else put it, "the worse, the better. :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Chernyshevsky#Ideas_and_influence

It is certainly in one sense good for me and I'm sure for others, in that it gives some kind of body to the sense that "something ain't right here." That was a big part of the post that was not.

I think, and I may be wrong, that something is going to come of this. I think it will be like Watergate and will get worse and worse until it's better. I hope so.

As I said in the comments for last weeks's SNJ, our priest gave a pretty good homily about the mess yesterday--and got a pretty long ovation--and week before that our pastor addresses it also.

I know people were upset in 2002, but I don't remember there being the vocal anger that I am hearing now.

Yesterday when we sang the Agnus Dei, I began to tear up because it really hit me what it was that we were asking.

AMDG

"I always tell people that my own personal salvation has nothing to do with the Pope or others in Rome, but perhaps that is a bad way to look at it. "

I don't think so. There is a good Dorothy Day quote making the rounds about how she never had high expectations of the hierarchy.

Yes indeed. I'm not sure if this is what you mean but I've always felt that the Church could endure almost any amount of corruption as long as the foundational teachings are preserved. And at the bottom of my hostility toward the theologically progressive party in the Church is the sense that they want to discard or change some of those.

I also feel that the Church can "endure almost any amount of corruption as long as the foundational teachings are preserved". What I mostly meant, though, was that a great many of the laity need instruction in those teachings because of all the confusion brought about by the progressive changes these past 50 years or so.

So, I was lying in bed and I read the last couple of comments and made that comment, thought, "That's probably confusing," and that is the last thing I remember. ;-)

What I meant was that it's His job to make sure the Church endures. Is that what you thought I meant? It is the Church's job, but I just was thinking the gates of Hell and all that. Even now I don't know if I'm saying what I want to say.

I think my main thought is that things look so bad and we have got to quit focusing on the things, and look at Jesus. I always feel like when I say stuff like this, everybody is going to think I'm overly pious, but it's the truth. There are probably a thousand scripture that apply to situations like this like, "Thou does keep him in peace whose mind is stayed on Thee, because he trusts in Thee.," and " Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." And, we can't just keep staring into the pit like that's the final word.

AMDG

All true, but not incompatible with trying to realistically assess the situation and the direction things seem to be headed. Signs of the times and all.

Yes, there are people doing that, and it's definitely not healthy. Have been as long as I've been Catholic, actually. It's a question of balance (to quote the Moody Blues).

These same lay people who are ripping each other apart on Facebook?

AMDG

But seriously, I do think that there are an awful lot of good things going on at the parish level all over the place.

Nice Moody Blues reference, Mac.

Marianne: certainly I agree that lay people should be involved in the investigation into the cover up of McCarrick etc. As Father Barron said, it will take people with forensic skills. I also think some lay oversight (might not be the right word maybe just ‘sight’) of episcopal doings could work. But most of us here are old enough to remember the late 1970s or early 1980s, when conservative and charismatic groups of catholics had lay leafership. Those groups quickly became cult like. In 2011 I walked 11 days into Santiago with a boy who had been working in lay campus ministry (hes a priest now in DC). He said his group was weird and cult like and he ascribed that to lay leadership. If You could guess what group I mean Please remember that I’m talking about 2011 - It may be different now. The early 1980s were my debut years in the RC church and I have to say the thought of lay leadership is horrible to me

Marianne: ten years ago in Aberdeen I was involved in a farce of an abuse scandal involving clergy at all levels. I came away saying there should be some kind of lay governance in the church. But whatever I said that in the UK people would say that ends up with the government running the church. Ie Anglican or Gallican scenario. I didn’t know what to say in Answer so I stopped arguing for it. But it may be That the kind of things suggested in this article could work

I'm not really into lay leadership, I mainly sent the link to that article because of the photo that went with it!

A priest friend of mine who's pretty well-connected in the diocese believes that some of the guilty bishops are trying to keep the focus on the "clerical" side of the scandal in order to steer attention away from the possible involvement of well-placed Catholic laymen -- politicians, bureaucrats, etc. -- as well as from themselves.

I've thought about the similar scandal in England several years back, which started as an expose of pedophilia in the entertainment industry, but was later found to have connections with politicans, churchmen, business leaders, etc. It seems that some deep digging needs to be done, but my friend is afraid that it won't happen, because the "bad" bishops don't want it to.

And there were a few instances in the Pa. report where local politicians/police covered for abusive priests at the behest of the bishop. One such case happened in the next county over from where I live.

I think it has something to do with the rise in pornography. It leads them to seek greater and greater stimulus. Blech.

AMDG

"But a child?!?!?!?!"

It's all in De Sade: the corruption of children as the apotheosis of sexual freedom. I firmly believe that it's where the Sexual Revolution will inevitably lead, liberal/progressive protestations to the contrary. There's just no way that reducing the entire gist of morality to "consent" will result in something capable of resisting it. I don't believe it can do the required moral heavy-lifting, and in any case there will always be ways to get around it.

Not that I don't think the taboo could be removed, but seems like it would take a couple of generations.

Yeah, I see some of that stuff and think "They can't really mean to be suggesting what they are obviously suggesting."

I think you're misreading what Rob said. He didn't mean progressives are ok with child abuse. He said the logic of the sexual revolution leads to that, and progressives are mistaken in thinking it doesn't. Being, in general, proponents of the sexual revolution, will they be able to draw that line thirty or fifty years from now?

I'm not sure I agree with Rob, as I said, but either way I know today's progressives are as repulsed by it as everybody else, apart from the tiny number of people in entertainment etc. who are kind of testing the boundary.

The phenomenon of beauty pageants for very young girls is as creepy as anything going, and it's a very middle-America thing. It's bizarre and creepy. What *are* these mothers thinking?!?

"thinking"? Not sure that enters into the picture in any way.

A large part of the blame I put on reality TV. The other night around 9:30, I was flipping through the channels and came on a young man standing there in full-frontal nudity. This granny almost fell off her rocking chair. Went immediately to my laptop and discovered it's a show called Naked Attraction. And it's on a government-owned and -operated channel.

Anyway, I do believe some people will do absolutely anything to get on TV now.

"He didn't mean progressives are ok with child abuse. He said the logic of the sexual revolution leads to that, and progressives are mistaken in thinking it doesn't. Being, in general, proponents of the sexual revolution, will they be able to draw that line thirty or fifty years from now?"

Exactly.

Exactly. And the latter is already leading to massive harm to children. The things that are being done in the name of trans ideology are mind-boggling and criminal. Rod Dreher, bless his alarmist heart, keeps trying to shake people by the lapels and say "Look at this!". I'll see if I can find an example.

In comparison to that, it would be easy to rationalize some sexual activity with children. The line could be drawn at physical injury rather than age and adult-level consent...now that I think about it, it's all too plausible.

Since it's been taboo for so long in our culture, we tend to think the taboo is universal and sort of intrinsic to human nature. But apparently adult men having "sex" with boys is or has been accepted in a lot of cultures.

If these examples were just onesie-twosies one might be correct in attributing them solely to the fringes. But there are lots. How many do there have to be before people wake up?

By the way, the "you" in the parenthesis about TERF above is meant to be "the reader," not you, Rob. I'm sure you're familiar with the term.