The fithy reason: The death of outrage, Owing to lack of supernatural faith, and to the other factors that I have already described, outrage over these crimes of abuse came to a halt. For example, under St. Pius V in Rome, the penalty for sodomy was burning at the stake. In the American War between the states, the penalty for the same crime in the Union army was hanging, since they considered the firing squad to be too dignified. Lincoln hardly ever gave a reprieve. In the French army in Ww-1, the penalty was death by firing squad. If they were merciful to you, they would put you at the head of a suicide mission from which you would not return. The world shaped by Catholicism had a horror for the crime, and even Protestants retained a respect for the natural law in this regard. If you open a traditional catechism, you will find the the Catholic Church considers this sin to be one of those sins "which cry to heaven for vengeanc." This severe condemnation is based on God's special hatred for it, found in Genisin, and in the epistles of St. Paul. For this reason, prelates in the past dealt with such problems with great severity. Immediate expulshion and defrocking were the normal penalties. There was no sending you to the psychiatrist, and then reassigning you. With the resurgence of paganism in the 20th century, however, and with it the return of shameless abandon in the realm of sexual mores, shock and outrage about this vice has disappeared. The ancient pagan world was not in any way repulsed by the thought of unnatural vice. The Roman army encouraged it. Plato held it in esteem, and the 300 Greek soldiers who defended Western civilization at Thermopylae Pass were also addicted to the vice. It was only the Jews who objected to it, blessed as they were by divine revelation. St. Paul repeatedly warms the new converts from paganism that they had to abandon this vice. Complacency with the vice, however, it returning. The sixth reason: no objective morality. Anyone familiar with the Novos Ordo knows that for them all morality is subjective. This may not be what is taught in their catechisms, but it is certainly the sirit and attitude of the Novos Ordo religion. There is a tremendous gap between official reaching and what, in fact, is held. Although artificial birth control is officially condemned, for example, the vast majority of Novus Ordites believe in it and practice it and receive communion on Sunday. If they should bring it up to a Novus Ordo "priest", they are told to use their consciences. That means "go ahead." The abandonment of objective morality, however, leaves the door wide open for the practice of unnatural vice. Who is to say that it is wrong? So what if it is against nature? What is nature? Isn't it natural to feel good? Is it any wonder, then, that these same "priests" that are blessing the unnatural vice of contraception in marriage should also be practicing a form of it temselves? The seventh reason: "no more anathemas." These awful words were pronounced by Paul vi in the 1960's. It would be the equivalent of a police chief in a great city declaring "no more arrests." The anathema is the Church's way of keeping her dogmatic and moral house in order. It is a statement to those of her fold who go astray that they are no longer in her fold. But John xxiii and Paul vi, entirely in the spirit of Modernism, did away with it, and decided tht the best way to deal with dogmatic recalcitrants was to be kind to them. They would solve the problem of their heresy by merely reaffirming the truth, as they put it, butnot by condemning the error, or the erring. 35 years of this dogmatic and moral anarchy, therefore, has produced its bitter fruit: heretics, misfits, perverts and sickoes representing, at least in the public eye, the Roman Catholic clergy. The Catholic Church is in an awful state. When will it end? When will the Novus Ordo hierarchy recognize that Vatican ii was a disaster? When will they pack it in? When will they give it up? How many more scandals need to happen? How many more minors need to be abused? How many more seminaries and convents need to be sold off for no vocations? Are the traditional priests sinless? No, of course not, They have to say their Confiteor at the foot of the altar, too. But the traditional standard is high. A priest is supposed never to commit a mortal sin. If he does, he is not to say Mass, but must confess as soon as possible, and be restored to the state of grace. He is supoosed to strive against all venial sin, and even imperfections with the help of grace and mortification. Is it possible for the traditional priest to fall as the Novus Ordites have? Of course it is, and some have. But the traditional priest to fall as the Novus Ordites have? Of course it is, and some have. But the traditonal priest has many, many barriers against such a fall: supernatural faith in the sacredness of his own priesthood; belief in objective morality; horror at the very thought of such a sin; the sense of mortal sin and hell; the traditional asceticism leading him to the mortification of evil passions; a sense of moral responsibility for his actions; ostracism by his fellow priests and by the lay people. If a traditional priest should fall, he must crash through all of these barriers. The Novus Ordo clergyman has non of these. Something is deeply wrong. If Satan himself wrote a plan for the destruction of the Catholic Church, it would not be more efficacious than what Vatican ii has don. This wretched Coucil has destroyed everything dear to us, and has brought Catholics and the world at large into the darkness of ignorance and into a putrid state of morality. Will the sting of this widespead loathsome behaviour of clergy wake anyone up? Will anyone take notice that the honor of the Catholic priest hs been turned into shame. As horrific as these news stories are, it is my hope that some greater good will come out of them. Certainly some will conclude that Vatican ii has given us evil fruit. I hope and pray that some will finally see that the Vatican ii religiosn has been the ruin of Catholicism, the 9/11 of the Catholic faith for millions of people, and that the only hope is to return to the unaltered Faith of all time.

-- RE. Donald J. Sanborn (fsanborn@catholicrestoration.org), June 28, 2002

Answers

The REAL shame is when the most virulent enemies of our Holy Mother Church are her own children, who should know better.

-- Christine L. (christinelehman@hotmail.com), June 28, 2002.

Fr Sanborn is now a member of the Sedavacticanist group. What a shame.

-- Fred Bishop (fcb@heartland.com), June 28, 2002.

"Rev" Sanborn, you might want to contemplate this:

"Whoever is separated from this Catholic Church, by this single sin of being separated from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life, but the wrath of God rests upon him" (St. Augustine)

-- Christine L. (christinelehman@hotmail.com), June 28, 2002.

and

"Where the Bishop is, there is the Church." (St. Ignatius of Antioch)

-- Christine L. (christinelehman@hotmail.com), June 28, 2002.

Christine

That is where the SSPX and sedavaticavists are, on th eoutside and in full denial of the local bishops. If you are in denial of the bishop then you deny the pope and Christ too.how difficult is it. Fr Sanborn gave up his authority by denying his bishop. Therefore hisw words are meaningless and full of air.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (fcb@heartland.com), June 28, 2002.

Father, I love the traditional Latin Mass. I attend the indult Mass in my diocese. But the Latin Mass is no guarantee of holiness, salvation, etc. Most of the priests involved in these horrors, and all of the bishops hiding them, were raised and ordained before Vatican II. Nothing new under the sun...people have been sinners since the beginning of time. There was dry rot in the Church before Vatican II, for things have to have gone so crazy after it. The Syllabus of Errors came out 100 years ago...don't blame Vatican II for all the evils and crazy things going on in the Church today! And above all, stay with Peter!

-- Christina (introibo2000@yahoo.com), June 28, 2002.

Christina, that's an EXCELLENT point! (But of course, anyone with a name like that has to be pretty savvy, right? ;-)

And Martin Luther had the Latin Mass too ... didn't stop the Reformation from happening.

Love, :-)

-- Christine L. (christinelehman@hotmail.com), June 28, 2002.

Fr. Sanborn:

If you want to gain any ground, and have people pay attention, perhaps it's be better to stick around & defend your statements. The cut-copy-paste-and-run tactic doesn't fly with me, nor with most people. The most vile liberals use similar tactics, as I'm sure you're aware. It shows total lack of conviction and ability to think independently / debate intelligently.

Pardon my bluntness, Father, but put up or shut up.

-- jake (jake__@msn.com), June 28, 2002.

If this man is who he claims, he could have saved us all the trouble and simply posted his PDF paper which is here. I only bring this up because he seems to have actually manually copied the PDF--I deduce this from all the mispellings. Also, the PDF document has nice formatting.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 28, 2002.

Isn't it just like me to point out another person's misspellings at the same time that I misspelled the word "misspellings." Well, you get the point... :-)

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 28, 2002.

Mateo,

Of course there are many other interesting possibilities for the misspellings. For example, perhaps we are being permitted with a rare glimpse at the author's first draft, before being Proofed into the PDF file. Or perhaps the author *deliberately* inserted misspellings into his file after the PDF was posted in order to make a previously perfected work look as if it was a spur of the moment composition. I don't know, and unless the RE. comes back, we can't ask him.

Honestly, I don't know how I'll sleep tonight without the answer to this burning question, but there you are.

Frnka

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 28, 2002.