Media Matters
The Pope, the Scandal, and the Crib Notes for Journalism 101
You’d think Richard Nixon was the target.
Here we are among the calla lilies, many of us meditating on the eternal resonance of events in and around old Jerusalem, yet spring chores still need doing, and the crabgrass of ignorance is even more stubborn than the weeds that threaten suburban lawns.
Could anyone familiar with the people involved think the Old Gray Lady of American journalism would pass up a chance to encumber a target who rejects conventional wisdom about abortion, gay marriage, and the ordination of women?
Nothing else perfumes the air of a newsroom like a whiff of self-righteousness, or intoxicates certain reporters faster than evidence of mismanagement and hypocrisy at the Vatican.
When it comes to brand management at the New York Times, the snark of Maureen Dowd, the delusion of David Brooks, the bitterness of Paul Krugman, and the name-dropping of Thomas Friedman are well known, but recent developments mark perhaps the first time that that quartet of vices has purchased vacation property: Snark, delusion, bitterness, and shallowness — the Four Horsemen of the Obamalypse — now gallop freely between different sections of the publication.
Senior religion correspondent Laurie Goodstein unwittingly exposed this pattern in her March 24 story about the case of a priest in Wisconsin who sexually abused as many as 200 deaf boys. Together with a clutch of similar stories about the abhorrent behavior of some priests in Ireland and Germany, the Goodstein report on Fr. Lawrence C. Murphy was meant to shed light on a culture of buck-passing that allegedly infected even Pope Benedict XVI.
Ms. Goodstein has written that she strives to give views other than her own a fair shake. I believe her. Beyond that, I appreciate reporters who are game enough to spar verbally with comedian Stephen Colbert, as Goodstein did when divisions within the Anglican Communion were making news. But in trying to undercut the moral witness of the pope by suggesting that as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger he was too forgiving of the monstrous Fr. Murphy, Goodstein committed errors of fact, interpretation, context, and journalistic procedure that together make nonsense of any claim to objectivity on the part of the New York Times.
Here (for the benefit of Maureen Dowd and others who have forgotten Journalism 101) are some of the ways that Goodstein and her editors botched the “Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys” story. Anyone following the hyperlinks will see that I’ve paraphrased published comments from priests, laypeople, and journalists not working for the New York Times.
Issue One: Chronology. If you want to charge a man with trying to cover up a scandal, the questions that demand answers are “What did he know and when did he know it?” But Fr. Murphy disgraced his priesthood long before Pope Benedict was in any position to notice, as even the New York Daily News observed. When Fr. Murphy’s conduct eventually came to the attention of the Vatican, then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s office approved a request for trial, and waived the statute of limitations that would otherwise have precluded trying a priest for crimes he had committed more than twenty years before.
Issue Two: Sourcing. Would you write an investigative report that relied on documents provided by a morally compromised bishop whom you had already written sympathetically about, and lawyers with a financial interest in squeezing reparations out of the institution you’re looking at? Would you also miss a chance to interview the judge who presided over the trial relevant to your story? If you answered “no” to both questions, you’re a step ahead of the New York Times.
Issue Three: Interpretation. Here’s a pop quiz: 1. Metaphorically speaking, is it more appropriate to think of the church as a hospital for sinners or a hotel for saints? 2. Has Pope Benedict, with an eye on sexual abuse cases worldwide, warned bluntly and repeatedly against “filth” in the church? 3. Do Cardinals supervise the daily activities of most priests?
The questions are not hard. Reporters like John Allen, and comedians like Stephen Colbert, would answer them correctly without even stopping to think. But neither Allen nor Colbert works for the New York Times, and one could be forgiven for supposing that the people who do cash checks from the Times seem to think that Easter is mainly an excuse to wear pastels and eat chocolate bunnies.
Issue Four: Context. You wouldn’t know from reading the Times that Pope Benedict has influential enemies within the church, or that he has been out front in fighting the scourge of predatory priests. For context there, it’s hard to beat the observations of Lutheran theologian John Stephenson, who writes (among other perceptive things) that “Neither apostates within Holy Christendom nor naked unbelievers outside her borders will ever forgive Ratzinger for the grave breach of secularist, pluralist etiquette involved in the first volume of his Jesus of Nazareth. It goes without saying (and around the Holy Week of each year the several forms of mainstream media say it loudly, often, and emphatically) that Jesus was an ordinary man, a wacko apocalyptist, or a failed political revolutionary. Stones must fly and clubs be brandished against a learned man fully familiar with all the ‘Jesus of history’ literature from Reimarus to the present, who winsomely draws on believing scholarship of all confessions to offer a calm and cogent argument that the real, actual Jesus is the one who meets us in the Gospel record.”
Dr. Stephenson does not mean to suggest that papal handling of moral issues has been above reproach, and I would not say that, either. But neither will I pretend to objectivity that I do not have: Pope Benedict writes accessibly. He brought back the red shoes, unshackled the Latin Mass, and annoys professional dissidents just by getting up in the morning. He doesn’t think “children” and “church” are opposing terms. What’s not to like? Beyond that, I once dabbled in journalism, and learned from my mistakes. Taking occasional shots at big media goes with the territory. In this case, the New York Times deserves a few licks. It’s a matter of “Here I stand; I can do no other.” And if Laurie Goodstein has to Google the origins of that phrase, religion reporting at the paper of record has fallen on hard times indeed.
About the Author
Patrick O’Hannigan is a writer in North Carolina.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (434) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Patrick O'Hannigan
More Articles From Media Matters
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/05/the-pope-the-scandal-and-the-c
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
maverick muse| 4.5.10 @ 7:14AM
Thank you, Mr. O'Hannigan.
There's nothing more disgusting than a pack of mercenary bloodthirsty socialists propagandizing self righteous condemnation of the Pope.
Alan Brooks| 4.5.10 @ 12:30PM
I realized to what degree anti-Catholic propaganda exists when so many white trash eschatologists consistently said: "the Pope is Satan." Or the Antichrist; Beast (666), etc, and so forth. To this day you'll hear it in bad neighborhoods.
And now this absolute hypocrisy: most of the victims of Church molesting are teenagers, NOT children, and our culture is saturated with teenage lust. You think when 15 year old Miley Cyrus (whose face looks rather parafin-like to my eyes) was shaking her posterior on-stage it ws about 'Art'? Notice her agents waited until Miley was 15-- not 14-- to maneuver her mediocre musical wares to megabucks; to make it look good, 14 is too young to promote a cash calf. But 15 is just barely "legal"-- you can get away with having sex with a 15 year old in some states; in fact it might even be legal in one or two. And don't tell me about those states, I don't want to know.
I don't think sex is sinful-- it's just talked to death, and now it is boring, tasteless (not vulgar-- vulgar like the word "taboo" has lost its meaning). Hear the 'F' word too many times and it loses its meaning, it is merely an exclamatory device; whereas used once in awhile, as in a Tom Wolfe book, it is shocking. So get this: sex is no longer shocking, titillating, mildly threatening; it is empty, tasteless & commercialized. That is progress...
Aint progress grand?
Alan Brooks| 4.5.10 @ 7:13PM
Now that "morality', situational ethics, is being eroded in conventional (you have to qualify ethical terminology in this post-post-postmodern age) terms, molesting 13- 17 year olds is as common as any vice; that doesn't mean it wont be prosecuted, or that His Holiness wont exert as much influence as he can to stop molester priests. But why does the world celebrate teenage sexuality in every venue: books (Lolita); film (you name it) paintings, music TV (it goes without saying), etc, but get all injured innocence about teenage molestation in Church? I know countless families who have molested their kids at one time (as far back as the '60s); sex is over-glorified everywhere as if it is the ultimate thing. It isn't.
Alan Brooks| 4.5.10 @ 7:16PM
PS,
Teenage sex is ESPECIALLY over-glorified.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 2:43PM
There is nothing wrong with teenage sex, or even teenage pregnancy. The real problem is UNMARRIED teenage sex and teenage pregnancy.
a survivor| 4.13.10 @ 3:46PM
I really appreciate this article. Thanks for it. Very clear and concise. Meet you in prayer!
Kenny| 4.5.10 @ 7:17AM
It would be nice to think that Ratzinger has actually been out front in fighting the scourge of predatory priests, but the facts say different.
After all, prior to becoming pope, he was the #2 man in the Vatican for, what, two decades.
Under him and JPII, the homosexual cancer in the clergy grew and spread while those two firmly stuck their heads in the sand. Oh yes they did.
And even today after all that has transpired, has there been a general purge of the filth in the clergy? No, the only perverts gone are those who were actuually caught by the media and/or the authorities.
And far, far too few of the enablers of these sickos priests have been forced out. look at Cardnal Law living in his cushy position in Rome. How can that be explained to any normal person?
Of course the NY Times is exaggerating things and making hay at the church's expense. But that doesn't change the reality that the blame for this mess belongs to church leaders like Ratinzger and others in leadership position.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 8:56AM
Kenny's problem is he confuses the Pope with God. Just how is this man supposed to oversee the selection and formation of priests around the world? Just how is he supposed to know who is and is not a homosexual? If anything, the problem is the Pope tries to do too much from his seat in the Vatican, and does not give sufficient authority to the local bishops to manage their own houses. The current scandal, for instance, involves delays between the detection of clerical abuse and the laicization of the perpetrators. But that problem exists because the Holy See has subsumed the authority of local bishops to return errant clerics to the lay state.
Most of the cases in question took place in the 1970s and 80s. Through the appointment of new, more orthodox bishops, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been attempting to create a foundation that would indeed purge the seminaries and chanceries of unsuitable men--including both pedophiles and active homosexuals. But the process takes time, and, moreover, is not infallible. Popes seldom know personally the men to whom they give the Pallium--they rely on the recommendations of others, and if those others are corrupt, then bad seeds will get in.
It is also necessary to take a broader historical perspective. What is happening today has happened since the beginning of the Church, because the Church is composed of men drawn from a wider society, and they will reflect the sins and weaknesses of the society whence they came. Those who point to the mote in the Pope's eye must needs address the beam in their own.
Read Chaucer, read Boccaccio, and you realize that the clergy have contained both saints and sinners, the holy and the venal, the chaste and the corrupt. It is no different than with any other institution, religious or secular.
Alan Brooks| 4.5.10 @ 12:35PM
Kenny wouldn't bother to mention a Protestant molester.
Oh and by the by, wasn't it that proto Nazi, Martin Luther, who said wine and womenizing were to be encouraged? Even if he was promoting being fruitful and multiplying, it was not the most RESPONSIBLE statement ever made.
Kenny| 4.5.10 @ 6:36PM
And to the misguided Alan Brooks, I am a cradle Catholic who is old enough to know what decent church leadership should look like and what it doesn't.
And why should I mention any Protestant pervs (or Jewish ones, or Moslem ones, or a secular ones) when the entire focus of the blog I was responding to was centered on Rome?
Alan Brooks| 4.5.10 @ 7:19PM
"why should I mention any Protestant pervs (or Jewish ones, or Moslem ones, or a secular ones) when the entire focus of the blog I was responding to was centered on Rome?"
Well it shouldn't be centered on Rome-- that is MY whole point. And if I am misguided, that makes two of us.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 2:45PM
Kenny,
Most of the abuse took place between 1950 and 1980, and involved priests who were ordained prior to the Second Vatican Council.
Just saying.
Kenny| 4.5.10 @ 6:32PM
No, Kenny isn't confusing the pope with God, although some of the pope's apologist might be.
As to " Just how is this man [the pope] supposed to oversee the selection and formation of priests around the world? Just how is he supposed to know who is and is not a homosexual? "
Uh, by their actions and behaviors?
So I'm to assume that you think Benedict and JPII were on the ball while the homosexual cancer spread throughout the church's clergy while they sat at the top.
Those two seem to enjoy the perks of their high positions but not the responsibilities.
Alan Brooks| 4.5.10 @ 7:23PM
"Those two seem to enjoy the perks of their high positions but not the responsibilities."
JPII has been gone for several years, "enjoy" is in the past tense for him. And you concern yourself with your own responsibilities, not the Pope's. He is a far better man than you or I, Kenny.
Kenny| 4.6.10 @ 12:58PM
"He is a far better man than you or I, Kenny. "
Maybe ... and maybe not. Who are YOU to judge men's souls. As for JPII, the so-called Great, remember that the lord said you judge a tree by its fruit and what has been the fruit of JPII reign but decay of the Catholic Church and the allowance of filth to grow within in.
The Lord also said, "Those to whom much has been given, much is expected." JPII was given tremendous power as pope, not I. And what has he done with it but squander it.
John Monroe| 4.5.10 @ 9:20AM
Susan Brownmiller claims that rape is primarily a sociopathic act of dominance, rather than a sexual act as such. And I believe if we really think hard about the sexual abuse of these boys, we can agree that child abuse is not really about sex; it's about control.
I am convinced that control is a huge factor in child sexual abuse. The sex alone cannot explain it all. What is so horrifying, however, is that there is so much of it. It seems to be rampant!
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 9:36AM
In some cases, mainly those involving very young children, we can speak of rape. In most, though, involving boys between 11-17, while we are still in the realm of statutory rape, we are really dealing with homosexual seduction--the priests in question wheedled the boys into complying with their desires. It may be for dominance, but I think many of the abusive priests (with the exception of the true pedophiles) are deeply insecure, socially dysfunctional men who fled into the priesthood in order to cover their lack of mature emotional relationships. That this put them in a "target rich environment" of young, naive and impressionable boys was icing on the cake.
By all accounts, only about 4% of all priests in the 1950-1995 time frame abused minors; some 10% of those committed 25% of all crimes, and most of those were the true pedophiles, racking up dozens or hundreds of victims, of both sexes, usually under age 10. But by most accounts, some 25% of the Latin priesthood are homosexual men. Obviously a significant portion, perhaps most, of those are continent, and most of the rest fulfill their sexual needs with other consenting adults--which makes what they do a sin, but not a crime (in most states).
Patrick| 4.5.10 @ 10:14AM
You are on to something. It was later found that 80% of all the Church abuse cases were from homosexual priests.
It is no wonder that Pope Benedict demanded that those who suffered from homosexual inclinations not be ordained.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 11:18AM
Which, of course, is far worse than covering up sexual abuse. Indeed, I am quite sure that the Church's opposition to both gay marriage and abortion are the real drivers of the current virulence.
MikeBee| 4.5.10 @ 4:44PM
Patrick,
Right! Another "lie" promoted by the "common" media: that these sexual abuses were pedophilia, the sexual abuse of children. But, for the most part, as you mention, these abuses were ephebophilia, the sexual abuse of 11 - 17 year-old boys by homosexual men. At the very least, if the correct terminology is used, then a weakness of homosexual men is exposed for what it is. Also, the active recruitment and ordination of homosexual men as the root cause of this problem of ephebophilia is exposed, also. This is something that the present pope shut down almost immediately after he was made pope.
But the media simply want to hurt the Christian Church today. Doing so during Holy Week simply exposes the real war going on today, that between the forces of Evil and the forces of Good, those who stand with God. This war is always most active during Holy Week, and the media, ignorant of such matters, simply fall prey to the forces of Evil at this time. This story was not surprising to those of us who expect that this bigger war is occurring.
Patrick| 4.5.10 @ 11:38PM
Correct on all counts.
Also, the NY Times isn't doing too well in circulation these days...
t.y.| 4.5.10 @ 10:40AM
Here is a shameful memory from my boyhood. When I was 13 years old I was over at my baseball coach's house, and he was reading Playboy. He showed me a photo of a naked model, and said, "How do you like this? Wanna see more?"
While showing me more photos, he proceeded to unzip his pants and masturbate, and I did the same. He did not touch me, but I felt "dirty" afterwards.
My point: Did he sexually molest me? Or was he doing what "real macho men" do without any homosexual intent? As an adult, I look back on this bizarre incident and label it as a form of sexual molestation. What my coach did was cross the line. Although there was no contact whatsoever, he, in fact, molested my mind.
He's still living, and I see him occasionally in town, and we speak, but there is one thing for sure: we will never speak about that crazy, disgusting episode.
Sex is so very murky. The secret shames that most of us hide inside us--shames that go back to our childhoods.
Mazel Tov| 4.5.10 @ 11:45AM
"Sex is so very murky."
Man, you got that right. We've all got shameful stories to tell. I know I do.
We experiment, do crazy things, and look back and think, "Good God! What was that all about?"
Sex can reall mess with your mind. And it can be very dangerous, both physically and psychologically, for those young people who are introduced to it by an adult.
Yes, sex is very mysterious and, in some respects, disturbing.
John| 4.5.10 @ 8:03PM
t.y., Is he still a coach? Might he have "progressed" to other more direct abuse? If there is any chance that the answer to either question is yes, perhaps you should speak to someone, somewhere. Abusers don't stop - they are stopped.
t.y.| 4.5.10 @ 10:42PM
John, he is now in his late seventies and in frail health.
I don't know exactly how to explain what he did. After all these years, it's still a mystery. He was a rough, vulgar kind of man--in his twenties at the time--the kind of man who used profanity and told dirty jokes. He had no modesty, and he was, according to my father "a real hell-raiser." Of course, out of shame, I never told anyone, and certainly not my father.
What he did was revolting, but I am inclined to believe this was a one-time occurance. I remember thinking, "Maybe he was trying to make a man out of me." This was the fifties when manliness was everything.
Anyway, enough about this. I posted this story to illustrate the lingering effect an adult's sexual act can have on a person. And . . . like I said, many of us have sickening tales of a sexual nature locked within us.
Therese Z| 4.7.10 @ 1:37PM
Some of the accusations against priests were for actions exactly like your coach's. So who's responsible for not dragging the frail old man out now and naming everybody between the knowledge of his actions and him? Shall we sue the mayor? You? his wife? your parents?
I too got mishandled in my teen years, by an optician,of all things. I never told anybody. I am not scarred by the experience any more than by all the negatives in my life - they're in my head and I won't forget them. By the standards being demanded by the NYT and others, I should be calling out the American Optometrists Assoc to hand over everything they own to me. Everybody in that eye doctor's office should be brought up on charges NOW. The whole vision industry should be suspect by everyone, forever.
Crazy-making.
Alan Brooks| 4.5.10 @ 12:43PM
"What is so horrifying"
It's mostly boring: horror isn't boring, is it? but sex today is tedious, empty, over-discussed. And look at the commercialized pigslop-sex on tee vee.
Some of the actors and actresses in the sex "farces" (they aren't even humorous) are unattractive too. Porn is about revenge, the reason it is so unerotic. Geo. F. Will was too kind, porn isn't comparable to Gray's Anatomy, as he wrote; porn is more like autopsy photos.
Susan Bradford| 4.5.10 @ 4:01PM
Alan Brooks, you say that porn is about "revenge."
I would say it is about MISOGYNY. Porn is misogynistic in the extreme. Women are disrespected and used as objects. It's all about domination and humiliation of women.
Read the Tiger Woods texting to his porn star mistress, and you will see exactly what I mean: Woods says he wants to choke her, slap her around, and urinate on her. This lovely practice of urinating on women is called "golden shower" in the parlance of the porn lovers.
Susan Bradford| 4.5.10 @ 4:38PM
I forgot to add that PORN is one of the causes of the widespread sexual abuse of children.
Thrill-seeking porn addicts get jaded and want thrills that are more extreme-- taboo, so some of them--a small minority-- seek out child porn. Many of you will disagree with me, but I think I'm right on this issue.
Porn? The most disgusting porn imaginable? It's only a mouse click away (and many children are clicking the mouse).
Alan Brooks| 4.5.10 @ 7:26PM
Bradford, your '70s feminism is a turn-off too.
Sex is just boring. I don't care what you say.
Alan Brooks| 4.5.10 @ 7:34PM
Sex is no big deal anymore, merely trivial, silly.
And Bradford, take your militant feminism to some other blog than AS--
it is out-of-place here. It's like having Black Panther rhetoric at National Review.
John Monroe| 4.5.10 @ 9:43PM
Alan, you say that sex is just boring? Well, maybe to you it is. By the tone of your comments, you seem to be quite an old codger. Right?
Let me assure you that sex is anything but boring to young people. And sexual appetites can be very dangerous.
Bradford's comments about pornography are insightful, but you dismiss her as a 70s feminist. This reveals a lot about your character.
Like Bradford, I, too, believe that porno is one of the causes of increased sexual abuse of children. And I think Tiger Woods sexual requests to his porno star hooker reveal a debased mind poisoned by porno.
Republibot 3.0 | 4.8.10 @ 1:34PM
I agree with Kenny on this one: The man was unquestionably knew what was going on around him during his long climb up to the papacy. There's simply no way he could not, and the problem isn't new - this has been going on since catholic clergy was forced to go celibate, probably before then even.
The real question, I guess, is if he turned in people he found doing this sort of thing *before* he came to prominence. I mean, if he discovered someone was raping children in the mid-50s - and clearly, he must have known such things were going on - then did he turn them in, or did he just hush it up?
Given how prevalent and long-standing the problem is, I find it hard to have faith in a man who never blew the whistle on people *until* it was trendy to do so.
Melvin| 4.5.10 @ 7:53AM
I dunno? It seems that a large section of society want to have it both ways.
Homosexuality as of late has been the in your face type with the attitude of, We're here we're queer get over it."
Many laws have been passed that single out homosexuality as a protected class.
Kevin Jennings the openly gay Obama safe schools czar wants to educate the Queering Elementary Education.
Mainstream media with the NY Times leading the charge has been at the forefront of this culture war with religion.
The sub-groups of the homosexual agenda of trans-genders, members of NAMBLA, (North American Man/Boy Love Association) have pushed mainstream homosexuality to force society and the government to accept and protect them.
I kind of have went a long way to get to this point, but on Easter the holiest day of the year and all of a damn sudden the NY Times and the rest of mainstream media are absolutely aghast with shock and awe about homosexual Catholic Priests. Talking about calling the kettle black isn't it?
The media promotes the homosexual agenda and then when the, "homosexual" has, "Priest" or any other religious denomination in front of it, it is immediately morally vulgar and socially wrong, and should be taken to the stake and burned in heresy.
Isn't this rather hypocritical? Of course hypocrisy is a daily occurrence with Liberals, but it just disgusts me how they take upon themselves to be our moral jurists and judges when it suits them.
Society and the homosexual agenda, "can't have they're cake and eat it too." Homosexuality including all the sub-groups is either socially wrong for all or socially right for all. Society cannot have it both ways, and this includes Liberals and the NY Times.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 9:00AM
Melvin makes some very good points. For liberals, it is always about what you say and believe, not what you actually do. So, yes, they do want it both ways, and if the Church would only endorse gay marriage, ordain women, and get on board with the abortion issue, this whole sexual abuse thing would go away--or at least be relegated to Section C, Page 22, below the fold. Look, for instance, at the many abuse scandals in the Episcopal church and other mainline denominations, which are of equal magnitude to those in the Catholic Church. What, you didn't see any stories about those? QED. Only conservative Christians are supposed to be without sin--if only because "progressive" Christians have gotten beyond that whole sin and holiness thing.
John Monroe| 4.5.10 @ 9:59AM
The important point we should consider in trying to understand sexual molestation is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.
It is unfair to label all these priests homosexual. Their sexuality is far more complicated than that.
And . . . the vast majority of homosexual men are not attracted to children.
Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.
In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat to children.
According to data, heterosexuals are more inclined to commit sexual acts against children than homosexuals.
Patrick| 4.5.10 @ 10:17AM
Ah, but that data intentionally excluded cases of molestation of post-pubescent children. A fifteen year old boy is excluded from that data set, though it is no less illegal, immoral, or unethical.
Melvin| 4.5.10 @ 11:17AM
Homosexuality is categorized as a typical sexuality characterized by manifestation of sexual desire toward a member of one's own sex
In being that a heterosexual male has sexual relations with another heterosexual, that is considered a homosexual act whether or not the person(s) involved are gay or heterosexual.
This is not stereotyping but as defined. There is no gray area.
There are fringe groups within the homosexual agenda that think it is perfectly OK for men to have sexual relations with underage males.
This goes back to my original point. Homosexuality as defined should not be cherry picked to what is socially acceptable or morally repugnant.
In other words, "This part is OK, but this part isn't." It doesn't make sense.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 11:20AM
"And . . . the vast majority of homosexual men are not attracted to children."
But they are attracted to adolescents and young men. And most of the cases involved boys (hardly ever girls!) in their mid-to-late teens.
Sandra| 4.5.10 @ 10:44AM
Several "Laitized" priests (once ordained you are "always" a priest, laitized is that you are forbidden to perform the rites and sacraments of the priesthood) are VERY active in NAMBLA. It is a serious scandal, and one that a blanket bann on those with a homosexual orientation might reduce. At the price of denying the priesthood to some that may well be called to it.
What is NOT reported in the MSM are the numbers of FALSE accusations that are levied, that to me is as great a crime as those that abuse another person under their authority.
Even worse, stories about child abuse that occurs in the schools, and institutions (including some medical facilities), and within the various "child protective services" ARE NEVER REPORTED, and the predators are never caught and held for trial. Their victims are are silenced even more effectively.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 11:23AM
"Several "Laitized" priests (once ordained you are "always" a priest, laitized is that you are forbidden to perform the rites and sacraments of the priesthood) "
I made this point elsewhere, and pointed to the difference between Catholic and Orthodox practice. What Catholics call laicization amounts to little more than a denial of faculties (i.e., the authority to celebrate the liturgy and administer the sacraments). It does not return the presbyter to the lay state.
When the Orthodox return a man "to the lay state", he is stripped of his standing in the order of presbyters. He is NOT a priest forever, and when buried, he receives the service for a layman, not the much more elaborate service for a priest.
CopyKatnj| 4.5.10 @ 4:37PM
Melvin laid out exactly what I was thinking. I would also include the current case against the Boy Scouts of America. A damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
Pingback| 4.5.10 @ 7:57AM
Must Know Headlines 4.5.2010 — ExposeTheMedia.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
PCC| 4.5.10 @ 8:02AM
It is now an established fact that probably no other organization in the history of the world has been responsible for more sexual abuse of children than the Catholic Church. Certainly not in our lifetime and in living memory.
Is it so far-fetched for a reasonable person to conclude that the Church consciously and intentionally supports and protects within its midst an international ring or rings of sexual predators of the worst kind?
That the Vatican's recent pronouncements to these horrible revelations blame the media and equate parishoners' and the general public's concerns about the priests' disgusting criminal behaviour and the Church's response to that behaviour to "anti-Semitism" and "petty gossip" is absurd, outrageous and insulting.
Furthermore, can there be any doubt that before this story is over, more abusers will be found in the priesthood in Asia, Africa and Latin America?
Until these questions are satisfactorily answered, concrete steps are made to clear out all of the abusers and, at the very least, ensure they are never allowed near a young person ever again, and the Church makes it own confession of these terrible sins, then the criticism and the scandal will continue, and rightly so.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 8:46AM
Born Jewish but now Catholic (Greek variety, thanks), I have to say I agree with the comparison of current anti-Catholic propaganda and the anti-semitism campaigns of the past. In both cases, a caricature of an entire faith has been erected, based on the actions of a few exaggerated to encompass the whole. In both cases also, a double standard is imposed, whereby the behavior of the targeted group is held up to minute scrutiny, while equivalent or worse behavior on the part of others--including those making the accusations--is overlooked.
The real purpose of media coverage of the abuse scandal--other than to use salacious details to sell papers and boost ratings--has always been to discredit the Catholic Church and Catholic doctrine, which is incompatible with the worldview of the largely secularist journalists covering the story.
Thus, there are few stories that put clerical abuse within the context of abuse in society as a whole. By all accounts, sexual abuse of minors by teachers is far more common, both in absolute and relative terms (ranging as high as 10%); abuse of children by relatives or live-in partners is much higher still. But you won't hear many stories demanding that teachers unions make it easier to fire abusive teachers, or endorsing traditional marriage over cohabitation. Why?
By the same token, the media continues to categorize the sexual abuse problem in the Catholic Church as "pedophilia", a clinical term with a specific definition, involving sexual abuse of very young children of both sexes, when in reality the majority of cases have involved homosexual abuse of pubescent and adolescent boys by homosexual priests.
As I noted below, homosexuals are disproportionately represented in the ranks of the Catholic priesthood (and more so in some religious orders), but you will not hear the media calling for the removal of homosexuals from the priesthood. Instead, renewed Catholic policy barring homosexuals from ministry is routinely denounced in the media as "homophobia" and blatant bigotry. If the story was really about "the children", wouldn't it be best to be honest about who is abusing whom, and address that cause, instead of sensationalizing and obsfuscating?
That said, there is need for real organizational reform in the Catholic Church, and in particular, a devolution of authority back to the local bishops so that, when confronted with an abusive priest, he can indeed "return him to the lay state" without having to refer the case to Rome. The principle of subsidiarity should apply even in ecclesiology.
Tim| 4.5.10 @ 8:47AM
"It is now an established fact that probably no other organization in the history of the world has been responsible for more sexual abuse of children than the Catholic Church"
No, it is not.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 9:06AM
On any given day, there are guerrilla armies in Africa that systematically abuse more children than are abused by all Catholic priests in a year. On any given day in places in Asia and Latin America, more young children are sold into prostitution than have ever been abused by Catholic priests in the past two millennia.
Closer to home, far more children are abused by teachers and staff in public schools than are abused by Catholic priests.
When Roman Polanski and Woody Allen are treated like the child molesters they are, instead of being lionized in the New York and LA Times, get back to me.
Sandra| 4.5.10 @ 10:50AM
Sorry no, that is not true. Last year there were 6 reported cases of abuse of minor by someone in an official capacity of the Roman Catholic Church in the USA. This includes those adults that are "lay-teachers" and volunteers, lay employees, religious (men & woman) and ordained clergy. (Source: Archbishop Dolan of NYC during a radio interview)
In a local public high school, walking distance of my house there were 20 allegations (of sexual abuse by either employees, teachers or administrators), and at least 10 were substantiated and on their way to trials. But the Baltimore Sun can't be bothered to report on it.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 11:24AM
We commonly get 1-2 cases of child abuse a month in the Washington Metro Area--and those are just the ones that manage to get into the papers.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 11:25AM
I meant, abuse by teachers or school officials.
Mark Groves| 4.5.10 @ 9:46AM
During my elementary school days in the late 60's early 70's I was an altar boy in a Cathedral with access to nearly a dozen priests. In all that time there was never the slightest hint that any Church person (neither priest, staff, nor other altar boys) desired some kind of physical encounter with me. The notion that every parish and every priest have sins of abuse to answer for is a useful distortion for enemies of the Faith. How fitting that "PCC" comes forward to condemn and judge from anonymity. I have no doubt that several deceitful abusers wormed their way into the priesthood and many of their supervisors were corrupted with a culture of denial. There are people who say the entire institution remains a safe harbor for abusers and that every man with a Roman collar is to be held in suspicious contempt. One has to ask, what are the motives behind these distortions?
Ted| 4.5.10 @ 10:52AM
PCC,
You show a remarkable lack of historical knowledge.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 8:34AM
This new kerfuffle does, however, shed light on a very real problem with the Catholic Church--an excessive degree of centralization that impedes the authority of the diocesan bishop as hierarch of his local Church.
The Catholic Church endorses the principle of subsidiarity; i.e., that problems are best addressed by those closest to them--except when it comes to its own administration. Then, even the most trivial of decisions must be forwarded to Rome for endorsement or ratification, or is taken away from the bishop altogether.
This is true in the case of laicization of a priest. The ancient canons are replete with causes for which a priest can be "returned to the lay state", and the authority to do so is explicitly vested in the local bishop. The priest in question may appeal the decision, first to the metropolitian province, then to patriarch (in the case of patriarchal Churches, and finally to the Pope of Rome himself (Council of Sardica, 342), but the decision rests with the bishop. The Holy See has subsumed this power to itself, and as a result, it takes years for a case to wend its way through the sclerotic process. Meanwhile, justice goes unserved.
There is a second problem here as well, in the Latin Church's theology of Holy Orders, which seems to view ordination as an irrevocable sacramental seal ("Thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek"), so that "laicization" does not remove a man from the order of the presbyterate, but merely releases him from its duties and obligations; he still retains the status, privileges and protections of a cleric.
Things are rather different in the Orthodox Churches, where the power to return a priest to the lay state remains vested with the local bishop, and where return to the lay state means precisely that: the priest ceases to be a priest, and is a layman in every sense of the word. This does not mean that there are no sex scandals in the Orthodox Church, or that there are bishops who fail to do their duty. But when the system works, it works quickly. And when it fails, it is plain where the responsibility lies--with the local bishop. For which reason St. John Chrysostom wrote, "I fear that few bishops will be saved".
Will returning more authority to the local bishops prevent future abuse or allow the Church to be more forceful in ridding itself of abusive priests? I have my doubts. The main problem in the Catholic Church has not been true pedophilia; only a few of the many abusers have targeted prepubescent children of either sex (though these have, in the manner of true pedophiles, each hurt dozens, sometimes hundreds of children); most cases have involved homosexual encounters with pubescent and adolescent boys. It is homosexuality, not pedophilia, that is the major problem. Recent estimates indicate that somewhere around 25% of Catholic priests are homosexuals; in some religious orders, the proportion is 75%--vs. 2.5% for the general population.
The bishops seem unable to address this pernicious problem which is spread from the seminaries through the rectories to the chanceries themselves. Too many bishops are themselves compromised, either by their own behavior, or because they turned a blind eye to that behavior in others. Cleaning house is going to require a prolonged period of repentance and reform, and above all, better selection of bishops capable of exercising their ministry of oversight--because that is what the "episkopos" is--the overseer or steward of his Church.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 8:58AM
Are you claiming the Orthodox have had no issue with sexual abuse?
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 9:01AM
If so, prepare to be hoisted.
2 seconds of Google searching yielded:
The National Herald also carried (April 27-28, 2002, front-page headline) another article titled, "Greek Priest Arrested on Charges of Sexual Assault." Authorities had arrested Pangratios Vrionis, Orthodox bishop of Ss. Fanourios and Gerasimos in Woodside, New York. The accused was an independent bishop who had in recent years established his own church and was no longer part of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. On March 26, 2002, the New York Post ran a story ("Greek Bishop in Queens Admitted Kid Sex in '70" by John Lehmann and Dan Morgan) on a previous child molestation case involving the same priest in the late 1960's in Pennsylvania, where he served at the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in Harrisburg. According to the article, "Vrionis pleaded guilty to sodomizing and corrupting the morals of two fourteen-year-old boys and was sentenced to twenty-three months probation. In 1970, immediately following his sentencing, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Archdiocese of North and South America defrocked Vrionis."
I suppose the excessive decentralization of the Orthodox led to this, right?
And that's why some are calling for the Orthodox to establish a reporting system for sexual abuse claims:
http://www.helleniccomserve.com/sexabuse.html
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 9:11AM
Did I say that? Look here:
"This does not mean that there are no sex scandals in the Orthodox Church, or that there are bishops who fail to do their duty."
Moreover, your article disproves your point:
"The accused was an independent bishop who had in recent years established his own church and was no longer part of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. "
In other words, this particular pervert was not a priest of the Orthodox Church because:
"In 1970, immediately following his sentencing, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Archdiocese of North and South America defrocked Vrionis."
But thanks for making my point about the speed with which priests can be "defrocked" (inaccurate and incorrect term borrowed from Anglican canonical processes), or rather, "returned to the lay state".
That he chose to set himself up in business as an "independent" Orthodox church is not the fault of the canonical Orthodox Churches. It's a free country, and even you can start a church, call yourself a bishop, and buy fancy vestments from a mail order house.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 9:16AM
You apparently didn't read the whole thing:
On March 26, 2002, the New York Post ran a story ("Greek Bishop in Queens Admitted Kid Sex in '70" by John Lehmann and Dan Morgan) on a previous child molestation case involving the same priest in the late 1960's in Pennsylvania, where he served at the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in Harrisburg. According to the article, "Vrionis pleaded guilty to sodomizing and corrupting the morals of two fourteen-year-old boys and was sentenced to twenty-three months probation. In 1970, immediately following his sentencing, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Archdiocese of North and South America defrocked Vrionis."
He had been molesting boys since the 60s and wasn't defrocked until 1970.
Point proven.
But there is no shortage of material---the Orthodox have had the same issues with sexual abuse of minors other Christian communities have had at the same time.
Which doesn't fit your Catholic-bashing narrative, does it?
Chuck| 4.5.10 @ 10:05AM
The Catholic Church and specifically this Pope matches an end time scenario...showing a form Godliness (clergy) but denying the power thereof (salvation through Jesus Christ). Letting this issue of pedophilia metastasize for decades has consumed the Church and the flock are leaving in droves. The message of denying the power thereof applies to liberal Protestant Churches as well.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:16AM
How about the conservative Protestants like some of those in this list, Chuck?:
http://www.reformation.com
There are 147 Baptist ministers listed who've been accused of sexual abuse as well as 251 "Bible Church" ministers.
Are they all liberals?
As for salvation through Jesus Christ, you're clearly woefully misinformed as to the Church's stance:
169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation." Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.
1741 Liberation and salvation. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. "For freedom Christ has set us free." In him we have communion with the "truth that makes us free." The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." Already we glory in the "liberty of the children of God."
620 Our salvation flows from God's initiative of love for us, because "he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (1 Jn 4:10). "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19).
183 Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk 16:16).
All of this and more can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Retraction, please.
Chuck| 4.5.10 @ 10:37AM
You didn't address the flock leaving in droves hence the LARGE number of Catholic Churches and schools closing and liberal Protestant Churches failing as well. A cleansing has begun...when judgment begins it begins in the House of the Lord. You are seeing that spiritual house cleaning right now. What happened to Liberation Theology?
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 3:01PM
"The Catholic Church and specifically this Pope matches an end time scenario...showing a form Godliness (clergy) but denying the power thereof (salvation through Jesus Christ). "
How about admitting you were catastrophically wrong about the Church's teaching on salvation through Christ, Chuck?
You don't want to bear false witness, do you?
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 11:28AM
How to explain that the problem peaked in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and has since been declining rapidly? How does your view take into account historical periods where clerical sexual misconduct was far more common and overt? How to explain that the Catholic Church is in fact growing quite rapidly, not only in the U.S., but throughout Asia and Africa? How to explain all the clerical abuse by Evangelical Protestant ministers?
Does it, perhaps, have something to do with Adam, Eve, the Serpent and that Tree?
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 9:12AM
More here:
http://www.pokrov.org/mission.asp
And here:
http://www.tkmlawfirm.com/Prac.....-Abuse.asp
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 9:13AM
The Greeks have paid out more than 10 million dollars settling claims according to this article:
http://www.tkmlawfirm.com/Prac.....-Abuse.asp
Another settlement here:
http://articles.sfgate.com/200.....arishioner
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 9:13AM
A Syrian Orthodox priest was arrested for allegedly molesting a 15 yr old girl:
http://articles.sfgate.com/200.....arishioner
A Serbian Orthodox bishop was tried for molesting minors:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-110381319.html
And so on, and so on, and so on.
Before you claim superiority over the Catholic Church in handling sexual abusers among the clergy, you might want to demonstrate your church has stamped it out within its own.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 9:26AM
And your point is? That priests are men, and men are sinful, and in any given group of men there will be those who abuse their authority and take advantage of the weak?
Do you expect priests to be angels? Expect to be disappointed.
In any case, the issue was whether the centralization of authority to laicize priests, first in the Rota, than in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, impedes dealing with abusive priests in a timely manner. Clearly it does, since handling a case at two or three removes from the source, moving evidence and witnesses across the oceans to testify, dealing with the language issue, etc. will take longer than having the local bishop deal with it himself.
Does the Orthodox system prevent all clerical abuse? Of course not--that's something beyond the ability of any human organization. School systems can't prevent teachers from abusing children. Major corporations can't keep their employees from abusing children. Parents can't keep other members of their family from abusing children. It has something to do with Adam's fall, and human free will, you see.
The only issue is whether the institutions in question can deal with their bad apples in a timely and just manner.
By the way, I AM a Catholic. Your reading comprehension skills are sadly lacking, as I said so in my first post:
"Born Jewish but now Catholic (Greek variety, thanks)"
If you have never heard of the Greek Catholic Churches, time for you to do your homework. Or did you not know that the Catholic Church is a communion of 22 "Ecclesiae sui juris"--autonomous particular Churches--of which the Roman or Latin Church is merely one, albeit the largest. The Greek Catholic Churches follow the Byzantine rite, and share the same liturgy, spirituality, theology, doctrine and disciplines as the Orthodox Church. Including the tradition of ordaining married men to the presbyterate.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 9:50AM
My reading comprehension is just fine, but perhaps you don't say what you mean:
"This new kerfuffle does, however, shed light on a very real problem with the Catholic Church--an excessive degree of centralization that impedes the authority of the diocesan bishop as hierarch of his local Church. "
and
"Things are rather different in the Orthodox Churches, where the power to return a priest to the lay state remains vested with the local bishop, and where return to the lay state means precisely that: the priest ceases to be a priest, and is a layman in every sense of the word. This does not mean that there are no sex scandals in the Orthodox Church, or that there are bishops who fail to do their duty. But when the system works, it works quickly. And when it fails, it is plain where the responsibility lies--with the local bishop. For which reason St. John Chrysostom wrote, "I fear that few bishops will be saved". "
which is rather painfully refuted by experience. Sexual abuse is a serious problem in the Orthodox Church and in the Protestant communities, which rather puts paid to the alleged benefits of "decentralization", no?
And yes, I am aware of our Greek brethren and their practice of the Eastern rite. Old habits may prove hard to break among them not least is reflexive criticism of the Latin parishes of the Catholic Church. "Excessive centralization" is a key tell.
Much of the problem with pedophile priests has in fact been The Vatican's reluctance to hold bishops accountable and intervene where necessary. The Pope himself is well aware of this, having had to spend his Friday penance for many years reviewing every case of sexual abuse in the Church at the request of his predecessor. He is in a unique position as a result to appreciate the scope of the problem and seek solutions to it.
I rather doubt "decentralization" is the order of the day for this. Calling bishops to their duty may well be.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 11:43AM
Sexual abuse is a problem in all Churches, at all times and in all places--which is Vincent of Lerins definition of what is truly "catholic". The Orthodox have a problem which I never denied. The Catholics have a problem, too.
The present Catholic problem is not so much dealing with new abuse (which is, thankfully, greatly reduced from what it was), but in the manner the Church has handled problems when they come to the forefront.
In the present case, local bishops wanted a priest removed from ministry, but the case went to Rome, where the under-employed Monsignori of the Rota and CDC proceeded at a leisurely pace (so leisurely that one of the priests involved died before the case could be adjudicated). The reason for that is the Holy See insisting that it, and it alone, has the authority to laicize a priest.
Why should that power be centralized in Rome, when it has always been the prerogative of the local bishop to ordain and to remove clerics under his authority? Does the power to bind and loose confine itself to the Bishop of Rome, or was it given to all the bishops together?
Now, it is fully within the authority of an Orthodox bishop to remove an offending priest. And by remove, I mean strip him entirely of his membership in the order of presbyters, not merely remove his faculties or release him from the obligations of his office.
Of course, some bishops respond more effectively than others--as is the case in the Catholic Church--but when an Orthodox bishop wants to act, he has the tools to do so, and is not averse to using them.
"I rather doubt "decentralization" is the order of the day for this. Calling bishops to their duty may well be."
Well, when you give someone a title and responsibility, and then strip him of the authority he needs to exercise that responsibility, it is logical to find that he might tend to act in an irresponsible manner. For decades, indeed, for more than a century, the bishops have been acting like rank adolescents, because lacking the authority to maintain order in their dioceses, they know they can always kick the can to Rome, and Rome will save their chestnuts from the fire.
Every episcopal transgression has been met by taking more and more responsibility away from the bishops, so that, in effect, the bishops are reduced to being middle managers of a multi-national conglomerate (watch the USCCB Conference on EWTN some time, but not if you are prone to depression or have suicidal thoughts). The Vatican has, until recently, appointed bishops who can best be described as "tames"--quiet, compliant, able to balance the books and averse to conflict. Or, as a friend of mine noted, "They don't pick 'em for their big ones". As long as that is the case, you'll get careerist mediocrities in charge, who are perfectly happy to let Rome make the hard choices.
The best thing Rome could do right now is tell all the local Churches that they have to clean their own nests, and don't come looking to us for help.
But Rome won't do it. Like the "helicopter parent" who drops in on his college-age children whenever they get in trouble, the Pope won't let the bishops grow up.
Look on the bright side--good decisions are the product of experience, and experience is usually gained by making bad decisions.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 3:04PM
This simply isn't true, Stuart.
Did you read what the Pope had to say to the U.S. bishops during the last visit?
The bishop remains the bishop. That they must be accountable to the Church is no different from the way the Church has been since Christ founded it.
Indeed, one can hardly maintain that this crisis would have been better had the archbishop of Boston or Milwaukee had MORE autonomy, right?
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 4:08PM
And the Queen of England theoretically has the power to ignore Parliamentary elections and name her own prime minister. But it doesn't happen, because it is well understood what will happen if she tries.
I would take all of this far more seriously if the Latin Church had followed through on Vatican II's intention to create regional episcopal conferences that were in fact true synods with the authority to regulate the internal affairs of the dioceses within their territory. Every other Church has a geographically defined territory, but the Church of Rome for some reason considers the whole globe to be its oyster? This is, in short, part of the problem.
As for the matter of Cardinal Law and Archbishop Weakland, if in fact the USCCB was a true synod, there would have been avenues of redress that would have responded more quickly than the lethargic Rota and the distracted CDC. If the buck actually stopped with the diocesan bishops and the synod, then out of self-preservation if nothing else, both Law and Weakland would have been toast. A synod can not only appoint, it can also depose bishops. An episcopal conference cannot. It's like calling an ox a bull--he's thankful for the compliment but would rather have what is rightfully his. As it is, the conferences are about as useful as those Latin titular patriarchs (which, by the way, my boss Patriarch Gregorios, finds both insulting and demeaning to true patriarchs).
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 9:51PM
Except the problem in a number of cases rested at the archdiocese---particularly Boston and Los Angeles. We can hardly blame The Vatican for that, right?
And the problem first and foremost was with priests---which the bishops have authority to defrock.
No, the issue is one of the accountability of bishops no matter how sliced. We fault Rome for not acting swifter and sooner to call bishops to their duty, not for bishops to act unimpeded by the Pontiff.
Whose authority is not limited to the Roman See per Christ's command.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 7:02AM
"And the problem first and foremost was with priests---which the bishops have authority to defrock."
As I noted, "defrock" is an inaccurate term borrowed from Anglican ecclesiology. In the Catholic Church, the proper term is laicize. The power to laicize a priest rests entirely with the Holy See. Bishops may request it, but the case must be reviewed and the action approved beforehand. The most a local bishop can do is deprive a priest of his faculties to celebrate the liturgy and administer the sacraments. The man remains bound by the obligations of his office, and can still wear clerical garb. Even when laicized, technically the man remains a member of the order of presbyters, but is released from the duties and obligations of his ministry. In the Catholic Church, a priest is never loses his standing as a member of the presbyteral order, because he is a priest forever.
Therein lies the rub.
Teflon93| 4.6.10 @ 8:33AM
A priest removed of his faculties is also removed of his ability to molest under the rubric of the Church.
It is no slight thing to be removed from faculties and is something those accused sought to resist.
You are clearly hung up on the "priest forever" business which of course goes back to Melchizedek. God instituted it; the Church doesn't change it.
But bishops can and do step in to prevent priests who have gone astray from exercising their authority lest the faithful be led away.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 9:26AM
"A priest removed of his faculties is also removed of his ability to molest under the rubric of the Church."
That's not entirely true. It only means he can't celebrate liturgy or administer the sacraments "licitly". But he can still be in the rectory, or hanging about the church, or even working with children, unless his bishop directs him to do otherwise.
Personally, I don't know why there isn't a monastery somewhere--Our Lady of the Penguins in McMurdo Sound?--where these men (and their bishops, too!) cannot be sent to contemplate their sins and pray for forgiveness.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 9:31AM
"You are clearly hung up on the "priest forever" business which of course goes back to Melchizedek. God instituted it; the Church doesn't change it."
Actually, it's found only in the Latin Church, and appears to be a recent development. Certainly the canons of the first seven Ecumenical Councils, which were accepted by the Church of Rome, enumerate many causes for which a priest can be "returned to the lay state"--i.e., stripped of his holy orders entirely. And this was done, even in the Western Church, in the first millennium. I suspect that the change in interpretation arose in parallel with the increasing clericalization of the Western Church, and the tendency to see the clergy not as part of the Laos tou Theou, but a society apart, an attitude well illustrated by the old saying that somebody "joined the Church" when he was ordained ("So, Ed is a deacon, now? When did he join the Church?"), as though the laity were somehow not "in" the Church.
Doctor Right| 4.6.10 @ 12:50PM
The Catholic Church was NOT founded by Christ.
The roots of the Catholic Church lay in Constantine's conversion, and the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire...And it's all downhill from there.
The pagan Priests of the Roman Empire weren't about to go gently into that good night and watch their power disappear. They quickly adopted to their new "faith", and brought many of their organizational customs and quirks with them, such as idol worship (all those statues you guys LOVE to pray to), Goddess worship (the elevation of Mary to the status of a deity), practices in direct conflict with scripture, the immersion in politics, and of course, let's not forget...
The homosexuality in the priesthood!
Catholics have been successful for far too long in promulgating the idea that their "church" is the church Christ refers to in scripture.
It isn't.
And it's all about to change.
And this may help Christians turn away from the drivel, and back towards the Bible and the Bible alone as their guidebook.
THAT would make Christ happy.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 3:22PM
Um, no.
The term "Ekklesia Katholika" is first used by St. Ignatios of Antioch around the year AD 100. It referred to those Christian assemblies whose bishops had been ordained in a direct line of succession from one of the Twelve Apostles, and which celebrated the Eucharist in accordance with the Tradition received from the Apostles. All those who did so were within the Catholic Church, as opposed to those who belonged to heretical sects (which, to give a modern example, would include. . . YOU!).
By the time of Constantine, the Catholic Church was well established. Dioceses stretched from Britannia in the northwest to Edessa in the southeast; it encompassed the whole "oikumene"--the civilized Greco-Roman world.
Constantine did not create it, he merely recognized what already existed. Constantine did not even make Christianity (Catholic Christianity!) the state religion of the Empire--he merely legitimized it, placing it on an even footing with Judaism and paganism as a "religio licita", thus ending official persecution.
Over time, certain Churches within the Catholic Church attained a degree of prominence due to their location, wealth and theological importance. At the time of Constantine, the three leading Churches were Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, which just happened to be the three greatest cities of the Empire. Because of their wealth, they were able to support missions to smaller cities, whose Churches in turn looked to one of these three Great Churches for pastoral guidance. All three also had close Apostolic connection, Antioch in particular being associated with Saint Peter, Alexandria with Peter's associate John Mark, and Rome with the two greatest of the Apostles, Peter and Paul, who were martyred there. Thus, in a hierarchy of honor (which meant something in the honor-based society of the Roman world), the Church of Rome was, in the worlds of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, "the Church with priority, which presides in love". Second was Alexandria, and third Antioch ("Where the were first called Christians").
Alexandria and Antioch were theological powerhouses, each of which had its own unique "school" of biblical exegesis and theological development. Rome was more conservative, and came to develop a reputation for purity of doctrine. Whenever a theological controversy arose, the opinion of the Church of Rome was solicited, and without its approval, new doctrines would seldom be received by the Church as a whole.
The Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon recognized changing realities on the ground, and elevated two additional Churches to the first rank. The Church of Constantinople was accorded precedence second only to Old Rome, because it was New Rome, the capital of the Empire. Jerusalem was last in precedence but was still accorded high honor because it was the First Church, the Mother of All Churches. As each of the five Great Churches acted as a father to a host of suffragan provinces and dioceses, the Archbishop in charge of each was accorded the rank of Patriarch.
In the seventh century, the Muslims overran Egypt and the Near East, greatly reducing the independence of the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, which created a bi-polar world divided between Rome in the West and Constantinople in the East. A gradual estrangement grew between them, caused by the breakdown of communications in the Mediterranean world, by linguistic differences as the world lost its bilingual fluency in Greek and Latin, and by the loss of the other three Patriarchates (reduced to suffragans of Constantinople), which removed a mediating influence between the two largest Churches.
As this division grew more pronounced, the Christians of the West continued to call themselves Catholic, while those in the East preferred to call themselves Orthodox, but both were in fact continuations of the One, Holy Apostolic and Catholic faith; to be Catholic was to be orthodox, to be Orthodox was to be catholic.
By the 12th century or so, the division between the Catholic West and the Orthodox East became more fixed; the Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople hardened attitudes and created a massive cultural and political obstacle to unity. But for all that, they continued to recognize each other as Sister Churches at least down to the 15th century--communion never totally broke down, even then, in remote areas like Eastern Europe or the Middle East.
So, your description of Christian origins is fatally flawed because, well, you pulled it out of your ass. Apparently some types of Protestant need myths of this type to maintain their spiritual and intellectual equillibrium, because history simply does not support the conceit that this sort of radical Protestantism represents the "authentic" faith of the early Church. Rather the opposite--wherever you look, the organization, worship and faith of the early Church is most fully realized within the ancient Apostolic Churches--the Latin Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Church of the East. In the first and second centuries, they were already doing things they do now; their organization looked very much as it does now; their faith was essentially the same then as it is now.
But proto-Baptists, Evangelicals, or non-denominational Christians are nowhere to be found. So, history must be ignored.
In its place they erect what I call the "1500-Year Wedgie"--the Church went off the rails about the time the Apostle John died, and the Holy Spirit departed from the Church until Martin Luther miraculously sprang forth from the ground, his Ninety Five Theses in hand, and rediscovered the true Church and the Reformation at the same time.
No wonder John Henry Newman said "To know history is the end of Protestantism".
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 3:23PM
By the way, you've started shrieking like you have a very serious wedgie yourself. Maybe you should read what you write before pressing "Submit"?
Patrick| 4.5.10 @ 10:23AM
I'll have to disagree here. In Milwaukee, we have a perfect example of the bishop doing everything in his power to protect the perverts within his diocese.
Of course, we then found out some reasons why later on....
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 9:52PM
Sadly I have to agree with you. A stronger, less accountable bishop would only have worsened the situation in Milwaukee.
It's taken some time to weed out the bad American bishops. I have no idea whether Ireland needs a similar housecleaning.
Patrick| 4.5.10 @ 11:43PM
From what I understand, they make the English "magic circle" envious.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 3:25PM
I actually met Archbishop Rembert at a conference. He struck me as cast in the same mold as the present Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. The man was, undeniably, a brilliant scholar, but he should never have been placed in any position of pastoral authority. He did not have it in him to be a bishop, and probably should never have been ordained to the presbyterate. But as a scholar-monk he could have made a valuable contribution to the Church.
Richard A| 4.7.10 @ 8:56AM
Stuart, almost all of what you've posted above is very helpful, and duly respectful of the legitimate authority of the Church, her bishops and the Vatican. And you are right, in part, about the principle of subsidiarity and how it could better be implemented. It appears from this story, however, that much of the problem arises from the fact that the local ordinary, the archbishops of Milwaukee, covered up for years and did not take what actions they could, even if it was only to bring the matter to light and "kick it up to Rome". The New York Times and other useful idiots really seem to believe the the entire Catholic world takes every breath in response to direct command from the Vatican.
What even most of those sympathetic to Pope Benedict's position fail to realize, or at least to point out, is that as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, investigation of significant moral failings could not be referred to him in 1996. His involvement began because of Fr. Murphy's suborning the sacrament of Confession, which does fall under the CDF. And it was as a result of this case, and a few others like it, that Cardinal Ratzinger moved to make the CDF the hearer of accusations of molestation, and to speed up the process.
Stuart Koehl| 4.7.10 @ 2:52PM
Your point is taken, and I would respond that within the Latin Church there are only two levels of primacy: local (the diocesan bishop) and universal (the Pope). We in the East have an intermediate level of regional primacy in the form of the Patriarch and his synod. In the West, you have episcopal conferences, which were supposed (according to Vatican II) to operate as synods, but which in fact are merely chat factories--they have no authority and no responsibility.
In a Patriarchal Church, e.g., the Melkite Greek Catholic Church to which I belong, a problem priest would first have to answer to his bishop. If his bishop refused to do anything, or was himself the source of the problem (e.g., Rembert Weakland), then the Synod would deal with it. It has the authority to remove priests and bishops for canonical violations, to say nothing of doctrinal errors. If the perpetrators choose, they can appeal to Rome, but in the meanwhile, the synodal decision would stand.
If the episcopal conferences of the Latin Church were true synods, then someone could have done something about Cardinal Law or Archbishop Weakland before the cancer metastasized.
Richard A| 4.7.10 @ 8:33PM
Of course, the thing that might be a regional synod among us Latins here in the good ole US of A is the USCCB, which of course I would not wish on my worst enemy. I think Weakland would have gotten a pass.
Perhaps, if the USCCB were a real synod with real authority, maybe they wouldn't devolve so much of the day to day to the (overtly heterodox) hired help.
Nah.
Tim| 4.5.10 @ 8:44AM
The New York Times is the Vatican of Liberalism and as such it feels it has a duty to dominate or destroy all rivals.
However "the Gates of Hell" of shall not stand against the Church and neither shall the times.
Patrick| 4.5.10 @ 10:24AM
I've heard it called the "Hell's Bible".
Doctor Right| 4.6.10 @ 12:53PM
"The Gates of Hell shall not stand against the Church."
Very true. But what does this have to do with the Catholic Church.
Seems as if evil has already infiltrated the Catholic Church...And they themselves have already brought Hell to thousands of children who've been sexually abused by pervert priests.
Teflon93| 4.7.10 @ 1:26PM
Slowly for Doctor Right:
If the Church, which Christ founded in 33 A.D and which demonstrates apostolic succession back to Peter, "went off the rails" at some undetermined point---funny how the anti-Catholics can never agree on the date at which this allegedly happened much less provide evidence for it---one has to explain the gap between this time and 1520 when Luther founded his church.
If it were Constantine and the 4th century, as you seem to lately believe, Doctor, you have a problem: a thousand-year-long problem between Constantine's reign and Luther's excommunication.
During that time, the Gates of Hell in your formulation cannot but have succeeded, dooming all those benighted souls to have lived during it in the process.
It's rather like when Protestants rather dimly embrace the Orthodox view of history while not understanding that that would imply one ought to become Orthodox.
To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant, as Cardinal Newman noted.
Don L| 4.5.10 @ 8:45AM
This entire matter is primarily Catholic-bashing (though it was somewhat invited - but how did that came about; (un-Catholic liberal infiltration) is what the finger-wagging accusers don't wish to discuss?)
They are now clamoring to put The Pope on trial.
The way I see that going:
The Pope on Trial.
Prosecutor: Mr. Pope, sir, Were you ever made aware that your priests were doing this evil?
Pope: Why yes, I was always aware that some priests and others in the Church have succumbed to secularism and liberalism’s code of morality, instead of following God’s commandments against doing such behavior, just as some prosecutors, such as you, have done. By the way, is that a stone you just picked up?
Prosecutor: (quietly dropping the stone) Mr. Pope, sir, isn't your church embarrassed to have evil people inside it?
Pope: Well, my Boss says that's precisely why he came down here and made it in the first place - for sinners, and he proved it by hand-picking that Judas fellow. We don't deny sinners exist; we merely try to convert them –as in that “go and sin no more” thing.
Prosecutor: You are aware, are you not, that the world is extremely angry at your Church, Holy Father?
Pope: Certainly, but it comes as no surprise, because, as the Person who created those angry people once warned us; the world will always hate us because of what we are called to believe, - they are really angry because they refuse that simple message and hate any and all who accept it, or preach it. They crucified Him with the same anger and for the same reason, remember?
Prosecutor: No more questions.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 8:57AM
What rubbish!
Why don't you take a tour of just a few of the pedophile and sexual abuser ministers of the Protestant communities:
http://www.reformation.com/
Note the dates on these accounts as well.
Now back up your charge with the list of Catholic priests found to have done such things.
While you're at it, why don't you Google sexual abuse in public schools? Those numbers absolutely dwarf those of Catholic malefactors.
Then kindly explain to us why sexual abuse in the Catholic Church matters but that in the Protestant communities and public schools does not.
About that time we can talk about the United Nations' problems with sexual abusers in the ranks and puncture another one of your misconceptions.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 9:04AM
This in response to "Peter"---now "PCC"---who claims above that "It is now an established fact that probably no other organization in the history of the world has been responsible for more sexual abuse of children than the Catholic Church. Certainly not in our lifetime and in living memory."
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 9:19AM
This is an excellent comparitive resource:
http://www.catholicleague.org/.....ontext.htm
The bottom line is that sexual abuse is not a Catholic problem but a catholic one, especially in the hypersexualized nations of the West today.
jd| 4.5.10 @ 9:04AM
It's obvious that the agenda of the NYT, as well as liberalism in general, is to discredit Catholicism and what it stands for. What I find absurd is the fact that none of these liberals is attacking the act of homosexuality itself. THAT is what has caused the abuse of poor kids. If you read Michael Rose's book you will understand how the laity and parish/diocesan level of the Church actually recruited and sought out men for the priesthood who actually had homosexual tendencies. They flatout rejected candidates for priesthood who believed in the Magisterium's teachings on morality and sexuality. Is it any wonder that we had abuses in the Church? I wish the Vatican would have long ago enforced orthodoxy on the lower and mid levels of the Church. Then we could have avoided such abuses. However, I fully support the Pope on this issue. Trying to blame him is a flatout attack on Catholicism. Anger needs to be directed on homosexual deviants themselves, and those that put them in their roles of leadership within the church on the parish level.
Tim| 4.5.10 @ 9:17AM
While they've been busy slandering The Pope and serially attacking The Catholic Church , The Anti-Catholic Agendists of The New York Times have deliberately and chronically ignored and minimized the rampant and ongoing sex abuse in The American Public School System that dwarfs that of The Catholic Church.
" According to Charol Shakeshaft, the researcher of a little-remembered 2004 study prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."
After effectively disappearing from the radar, Shakeshaft’s study is now being revisited by commentators seeking to restore a sense of proportion to the mainstream coverage of the Church scandal.
According to the 2004 study “the most accurate data available at this time” indicates that “nearly 9.6 percent of students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career.”
Pinch Shulzberger and religion correspondent Laurie Goodstein are about to get their agenda caught in the wringer .
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 9:29AM
If the NEA or the AFT were opposed to gay marriage and abortion, be sure that the Times would be all over the teacher abuse problem like white on rice.
But since teachers unions are all right thinking, and since liberals know what you say and what you believe is more important than what you do, just sit back and listen to the crickets chirping.
Sandra| 4.5.10 @ 11:42AM
I have to agree in full on that.
Tim | 4.5.10 @ 9:35AM
Right under Pinch Shulzberger and Laurie Goodstein's noses ,
" Four ultra-Orthodox rabbis in Brooklyn have been sued or arrested for abusing boys in the past three years. That's a tiny fraction of the actual abuse, says Hella Winston, author of Unchosen: The Hidden Lives of Hasidic Rebels. She says that in researching her book, she encountered dozens of alleged victims who told her sexual abuse is an open secret in the Hasidic community. But the community is so insulated and the rabbis are so powerful that few dare to come forward.
Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes says he has 10 active sexual abuse cases involving Orthodox Jews — including a school principal who was recently arrested on a lead from Hikind. And Hynes says there could be many more. Yeshivas are private schools, which means they don't have to report accusations of sexual abuse to civil authorities. "
The New York Times has an ongoing agenda ,ignoring and minimizing the ongoing sex abuse of groups , other than their target , The Catholic Church and It's Pope.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 9:45AM
Below, should have been here:
"Yeshivas are private schools, which means they don't have to report accusations of sexual abuse to civil authorities. "
Actually, that is not true. As a condition of receiving and maintaining a license to operate a school, the administrators of private institutions must comply with all child abuse reporting laws.
Darragh| 4.5.10 @ 9:37AM
Thank you. I decided to stop reading the NYT...I honestly think Dowd is mentally unbalanced and I can no longer stand to read the constant anti-Catholicism. The comments I've read everywhere are also sickening.
The abuse scandal was a horrific sin, but frankly I think we mistake ourselves when we don't see the equal capacity we all have for evil as well as good. I don't see a whole lot of moral courage out there, period.
Unfortunately, the Church is almost invariably portrayed as evil in the media today. The irony is that the "dogma" others decry is just as evident in the critique of it.
The only gift is that the oppression turns one's mind to higher things.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 9:39AM
"Yeshivas are private schools, which means they don't have to report accusations of sexual abuse to civil authorities. "
Actually, that is not true. As a condition of receiving and maintaining a license to operate a school, the administrators of private institutions must comply with all child abuse reporting laws.
Tim*| 4.5.10 @ 9:49AM
Stuart , you could take it up with NPR's Barbara Bradley Haggerty,who wrote the article .
http://www.npr.org/templates/s.....d=99913807
" Hynes says the Jewish leaders — like Catholic bishops — try to handle these affairs internally, through a rabbinical court. It's a practice that infuriates him.
"You have no business taking these cases to religious tribunals," Hynes says. "They are either civil or criminal in nature. Or both. Your obligation is to bring these allegations to us and let us conduct the investigation."
Hynes says he's trying to work out a memorandum of understanding with the rabbis, in which they promise to bring the prosecutor every allegation of abuse. "
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 9:53AM
When will every school district insist upon taking every allegation of sexual abuse to the grand jury rather than handling as an internal personnel issue through union-based mechanisms like the infamous "time out" rooms of New York?
Their outrage is very selective and out of all proportion to the numbers of incidents and timing of them.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 10:01AM
It will undoubtedly infuriate Teflon93, but this was the focus of the dispute between Thomas Beckett and King Henry II of England. Henry, outraged that clerics guilty of theft, rape and even murder, were being tried by ecclesiastical courts and let off with a mild penance, wanted to subject all Englishmen to English civil law. Beckett, with the zeal of the born-again, insisted in maintaining the perquisites of the Church to try its own.
Today, though Beckett is a saint (Popes love "turbulent priests" if they get brained defending Church privilege, not so much if they decry Church corruption), even the Church hierarchy itself now agrees that clerics must be subject to civil and criminal law. Beckett won the battle (and a crown of martyrdom); Henry won the war.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:06AM
This will undoubtedly infuriate Stuart Koehl, but the mild penance of "benefit of clergy" included such things as branding on the thumb (leaving a scar that forever marked one as, say, a thief) and was a check on the princes' more barbaric practices of torture and capital punishment.
And it will also infuriate him that St Teresa of Avila is one of the Doctors of the Church and most outspoken papal critic of the saints who memorably hectored the Pontiff until the return of the papacy to Rome was achieved. The Church does not have the power to create saints but merely to recognize those God has made.
Perhaps more catechesis is in order.
More to the point, why the objection over the Church investigating first versus say the teacher's union doing so?
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 10:52AM
Unfortunately, even branding on the thumb would be an exceptionally severe punishment back in Beckett's day (unless, of course, some miscreant friar were so bold as to poach his bishop's carp pond).
As for Saint Teresa, and her protege St. John of the Cross, both of them underwent prolonged interrogation by the Inquisition before being adjudged orthodox.
St. Francis of Assisi had to fight long and hard against the entrenched interests of the Church before his mendicant order based on poverty and simplicity was recognized. There are quite a few others who railed against the worldliness of the Church who were not so fortunate, but came to very sticky ends. I know my Church history inside and out, and can cite examples.
As for recognizing saints, let's also recognize that the process in place, aside from being an innovation (as an Eastern Catholic, I consider anything that came after the 10th century an innovation), is quite prone to political manipulation--or else how to explain the canonization of someone like Joan of Arc (did she know that the English were all incipient Protestants?) or Louis IX (who actually killed more of his own soldiers than the Muslims)? And yet, I can point to countless martyrs and confessors in my own Church who go uncommemorated, though their holiness and the blood they shed is beyond dispute.
I much prefer the older process (absent the unseemly forensics, thanks), in which the cult of a saint arose locally, spread through pilgrimages and word of mouth, was adopted regionally, and finally recognized, by the organic process of reception, by all the Churches by inclusion in the liturgical calendar.
Regarding who should investigate, in point of fact, public schools are required to report all allegations of child abuse to the local Family Services agency immediately. Failure to do so is a criminal offense.
It is what comes afterwards that is disturbing: the teacher in question is not fired, but usually put on paid administrative leave. He may even be allowed to remain in his school (though sometimes restricted from teaching). His union will provide advocacy and competent legal counsel. From then on, a two-fold track is followed, with the school system doing an internal administrative investigation, and the police pursuing a criminal investigation. The union, at every step, will oppose any administrative sanction against the teacher, and will even insist on paid administrative leave after a teacher is convicted, pending exhaustion of all appeals. Indeed, even after guilty plea unions have been known to oppose termination, calling for "rehabilitation" or disability discharge instead.
So, the Church can investigate to its heart's content, but it is required in the United States, at least (the Dallas Charter) to report all credible allegations of abuse immediately. And, unlike a teacher accused of abuse, the Church will not pay for the accused priest's legal defense, either.
Personally, I think the Dallas Charter was, at best, an ass-covering exercise to insulate the dioceses from civil litigation, because background checks and signing pledges not to diddle the altar boys is no substitute for firm episcopal oversight.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 11:58AM
Branding more severe than hanging? They must have been fools to seek "benefit of clergy" then!
Saints get tried---always. Contra your claims of political influence, reading the lives of the saints ought to disabuse one of the notion that it is a political position. The Church famously appoints a "devil's advocate" in each case in order to debunk the required miracles associated with the saint and the like. Local cults are far more prone to false enshrinement than an investigative team selected for unfamiliarity with the beatification candidate.
As for innovation since the 10th century, I'm afraid the Orthodox have their share to answer for given their revisionist history of the early Church and the various nationalist and ethnic tendencies magnified throughout. Inability to convene a council is not the same as adherence to ancient wisdom, you know.
You are incredibly uncharitable in your Dallas Charter commentary. Playing to the crowd, are we?
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 1:30PM
"Branding more severe than hanging? They must have been fools to seek "benefit of clergy" then!"
The point was, ecclesiastical courts weren't even imposing branding on offenders, but letting them off with small fines and/or minor penances. Henry wanted to hang them. The Church, however, claimed responsibility for its own, but refused to live up to that responsibility.
Surely, you would agree there can and should be just one law in the land for all people, regardless of ecclesiastical status?
On the process of canonization, it's a lot like making sausage and legislation--you don't want to see it in action.
On Orthodox revisionism--the most important historians of the early Church in the 20th century were either Roman Catholics (Fr. Francis Dvornik, OP) or Anglicans (Owen Chadwick). Catholic scholars routinely refer to Orthodox historians such as Fr. John Meyendorff and Fr. Alexander Schmemann. One of the most influential theologians in Catholic circles these days is Metropolitan John (Zizoulis) of Pergamon, and one of the most influential over Vatican II was Nicholas Afanasiev.
In both historical and theological circles, there is now a broad general consensus between Catholic and Orthodox scholars. You might find a few zealots among the Orthodox, such as the late Fr. John Romanides, but they are now few and far between. On most of the salient issues, Catholics have generally accepted the Orthodox position. As I mentioned, the papacy and its prerogatives remain the one substantive sticking point.
On the Dallas Charter, I am in pretty close agreement with the late Father Richard John Neuhaus, who argued on the one hand it did not go far enough to ensure that abuse would emerge as a problem in the future, while not doing enough to protect priests from false accusations, or rehabilitating the reputations of priests cleared in legal proceedings (several of whom have been lingering in ecclesiastical limbo, even though acquitted of all charges).
I personally also found the requirement for a background investigation and a signed "pledge" to be both ineffective and insulting. As a defense analyst, I've been through real background investigations, including polygraph. But background investigations have caught absolutely ZERO spies; what makes anyone think the kind of cursory background investigation conducted by the local yokels of the police force will be better at catching pedophiles (who a sneaky, devious group fully capable of covering their tracks and beating a poly)?
As for the "pledge" not to diddle little kids, for seven years I had been teaching Eastern Christian Formation to the kids in my parish, and I had been entrusting my kids to other parents doing the same. I had no need for a signed statement from them to live in accordance with Christian morality, and I sure as hell was not going to sign one myself, so I quit. We refer to each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. We are family. Family doesn't require waivers of liability from each other. And that's what the pledge was--a waiver of liability to get the bishops' asses out of the sling--"See, they signed the pledge, it's not our fault!"
I was also nonplussed to see that there was a clause in the "pledge" that said, should I be accused of molesting a child, the Eparchy (what we call a diocese) would recommend that I get legal assistance and would provide me with a list of lawyers--but other than that, I was on my own.
Loyalty runs in two directions, and I was not about to risk self-immolation to keep my bishop from getting sued.
Like Neuhaus, I believe that the real answer to the problem is the bishops doing their job, not the formulation of meaningless "zero-tolerance" policies, which are always the last refuge of the morally bankrupt and the brain dead.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 3:12PM
No, I don't agree there can be just one law, nor do you, subject as you are simultaneously to local, state, federal, international, and ecclesiastical law.
Now how shall bishops "be held accountable" if they are fully autonomous?
As for Orthodox revisionism, it is just that. Your claim that Catholic historians have adopted the Orthodox POV is unsubstantiated and I'd say silly on its face given that the Orthodox view as propounded in the last century was a radical decentralization rendering the epistles' call to unity ridiculous. Moreover, this view is simply inconsistent with Orthodox history given it is unreconcilable with the changing role of the Patriarch of Constantinople---sometimes more tyrant than Pope, sometimes less, sometimes more embraced by the churches of the East, sometimes less.
John Julius Norwich very evenhandedly covers this in his 3-volume history of the Byzantine Empire.
By the way, branding on the thumb and hanging were gentle caresses compared to what the Patriarch of Constantinople used to countenance.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 6:44PM
If you are trying to say that Orthodox ecclesiology post-Byzantium is a non-canonical mess, you are correct. Most Orthodox recognize this as well, which is one of the things that provides hope for a restoration of communion: the understanding that Orthodoxy needs a focus of unity, and that the Bishop of Rome is the only logical nexus for it. Such has been said by Zizoulis, who undoubtedly was responsible for much of what appeared in the Ravenna Document.
On Catholic historians accepting most of the Orthodox position, I suggest you look at recent statements on concilarity, reception, and the Filioque issue (the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity issued an excellent clarification on the procession of the Holy Spirit in 1996).
Ironically, it was the Catholic historian Dvornik who began the reappraisal of the causes of the schism in 1948 with his book "The Photian Schism", and his subsequent "Byzantium and the Roman Primacy". Orthodox historians followed his lead, in particular Meyendorff in his book "Imperial Unity" and Papadakis (with Meyendorff} in "The Eastern Church and Rise of the Papacy", both of which are models of balanced scholarship. Also contributing are secular scholars such as J.M. Hussey, John Haldon, Warren Tredgold, Michael Angold and Judith Herrin.
Norwich is a very good historian in his own right, but his 3-volume "Byzantium" is intended mainly for popular audiences (a vital task which he performs brilliantly), and in it he relies heavily on the historians I noted above.
Regarding the Byzantine penchant for nose and tongue slitting, it is important to understand the context in which these were done. These were penalties for major crimes such as treason, and were actually considered merciful, in that the offender actually deserved execution. Given the Church's belief in the sanctity of life, this was considered a more "Christian" penalty than execution, which the Byzantine Church strove to minimize (by exhorting emperors to extend mercy). Sounds paradoxical to our ears, but this was the solution that they reached, and in comparison to hanging, drawing and quartering, they might have had a point.
As in the West, the Church itself stood aloof from actually shedding blood itself (indeed, the Eastern Church took the injunction about clerics wielding the sword much more seriously than their Western contemporaries--no battling bishops like Odo of Bayeux (seen on the Tapestry wielding a club), and the Byzantines were deeply scandalized when the Crusaders showed up with monks and priests in their ranks fully armed and in full panoply of armor (see Anna Comnena, "The Alexiad").
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:04PM
I'm with you up until the nose and tongue slitting, which by the way were inflicted particularly on the Byzantine royal family as facial mutilation made one ineligible to ascend the Byzantine throne. Castration was also used for obvious reasons.
My point is merely I simply don't see how one can condone these practices while getting the vapors over thumb-branding. And the Patriarch of Constantinople very often condoned these practices.
One must also remember that in the West after the fall of Rome the necessity of arms was rather more pronounced than in the Eastern Empire, where after all money could buy mercenaries. The lines between clergy and state were blurry at times. Not surprising since sons raised to warfare were often sent to the Church once it was clear their elders would survive to adulthood.
There isn't a shortage of special pleaders for the Orthodox even among Catholic historians in the past century. This says more about them and the decline of history as a profession than anything else.
It is a shame that the history of Constantinople isn't more widely known but that again is more a sign these days of historical ignorance as a whole in the West rather than specific bias.
Insofar as I'm concerned, one seeking the Church founded by Christ must choose either Rome or one of the Churches of the East, none other claiming apostolic succession to Pentecost. One cannot read the Early Church Fathers and come to any other conclusion.
But then I followed John Henry Newman's path so no surprise I'd agree with him regarding the implications of being deep in history.
I do however find much of the modern Orthodox denial of Roman primacy in the early Church to be revisionist and well beyond what was claimed even in Gregorian times.
Attention must be paid as well to the remarkable survival of the ancient churches of the East despite the onslaught of history. Other claimants can make their case once they have 2,000 years of history to show.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 7:10AM
"I do however find much of the modern Orthodox denial of Roman primacy in the early Church to be revisionist and well beyond what was claimed even in Gregorian times."
That perspective is a little out of date. Orthodox theologians like John of Pergamon or Olivier Clement fully recognize the existence of a first millennium primacy. They do not believe, however, that this primacy was defined or exercised in the manner it came to be seen in the West in the Second Millennium.
And indeed, in its ecumenical discussions with the Orthodox, the Catholic Church takes the situation in the first millennium to be normative. No less a personage than Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote (Introduction to Catholic Theology, 1985):
"With regard to [the primacy], Rome can demand no more of the Orthodox than was recognized and lived by the Church of the first millennium, before the division".
Ratzinger then continues by saying, "For their part, the Orthodox must recognize the legitimacy of Latin theological developments in the second millennium".
Therein lies a modus vivendi: The Petrine Ministry would be exercised in a pastoral manner based on love, rather than jurisdiction; and the Orthodox would recognize that the Latin Church has a right to its own unique mode of theological expression. Each would respect the integrity of the other.
Teflon93| 4.6.10 @ 8:34AM
And therein lies the path out of schism. Agreed.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 9:32AM
No, therein lies our path to unity.
Ted| 4.5.10 @ 11:02AM
Teflon93, you may want to try considering Stuart Koehl's comments before replying. He does his homework and generally appears to consider his statements thoughtfully before typing them.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 11:51AM
I read them in full and respond in kind, Ted.
See "namecalling" above for evidence.
Richard A| 4.7.10 @ 9:04AM
Teflon93,
Don't know why you and Stuart are bickering at each other, since seem to be 95% or more in agreement on issues Catholic, but anyway...
It was St Catherine of Sienna who hectored the pope into returning to Rome from Avignon. We're badgering the NYT about fact-checking, so we'd better get our own right.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 9:50AM
I didn't read the NYT articles/editorials that have the Vatican's undies in a twist - I NEVER read the NYT as a point of honor - but I must confess (no pun intended) that Catholic cries of "Foul Play!" are not resonating with me.
WHY is anyone shocked that Catholic Priests in Europe have been molesting children, particularly young boys?
IF we'd never had a similar scandal in the USA several years ago (which has NEVER truly been resolved), then maybe claims of a similar scandal in Europe would be a revelation.
Additionally, claims that the Pope is being "slandered" are also preposterous. Let me say, FOR THE RECORD, that I don't believe that Benedict has molested children himself, or PERSONALLY participated in a cover-up.
HOWEVER, to deny that anyone in the upper-upper echelons of the leadership of the Catholic Church is completely ignorant of these allegations is patently absurd. As the elected Leader of the Catholic Church (whose position owes as much to internal Church politics as to spirituality), there is no way that any Pope could be unaware of this situation. And in that sense, Benedict IS responsible, much like the Captain of a ship is ultimately responsible for whatever happens on his boat.
And frankly, why is anyone truly surprised that these allegations continue to surface? The Priesthood of the Catholic Church in an unnatural environment devoid of feminine influences. It is also contrary to scripture (the word "Bishop" is derived from the Greek "presbyter", or "elder", and among the specific qualifications of a Church Elder are requirements that HE be married, with believing children).
If the Catholic Church's unofficial position is to white-wash these allegations (again) and not examine how this dysfunction is symptomatic of a larger metaphorical disease, then they deserve whatever backlash they receive from an angry and disillusioned public that is tired of lies, obfuscations, and cover-ups.
A Catholic talk-show host on a Sunday-morning radio program in New York recently ranted how upset he was by these "...alleged allegations".
"Alleged allegations"..? Redundant grammar aside, this is an amazingly stupid and insensitive thing to say. Sure, each individual case is an "allegation" that merits investigation, but to deny that a HUGE problem exists with talking-points issued by the Archdiocese of NYC is an insult.
And before anyone even tries, I was raised as Catholic, and worshiped as such for over 30 years, so don't tell me I'm not qualified to judge.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 9:56AM
You're not qualified to judge.
Where is your evidence that:
a) the specific allegations from Ireland had been communicated by Irish bishops to the Holy See;
b) Pope Benedict XVI was personally aware of these allegations;
c) Pope Benedict XVI upon hearing of these either ignored, neglected, or improperly responded to them?
Meanwhile, what do you know of sexual abuse allegations in New York public schools?
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 10:09AM
Your response is devoid of both reason and rationality.
You're living in a dreamworld.
Turn off the "Catholic Channel", and step into reality.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 10:17AM
I'm trying to get you to call me names, just like Mr. Non-Stick. My ability to infuriate people on both sides of an issue is one of my greatest talents, but really, it only comes from following the facts.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:26AM
I missed it. Please quote the names I've called you below.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 10:36AM
What, accusations of Catholic-bashing don't count as name calling?
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:46AM
Actually, no.
"Catholic-bashing" is a behavior.
If I had called you an "anti-Catholic", a "bigot", or somesuch that would be namecalling.
I did not and do not.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 10:54AM
So, first you insinuated that I wasn't Catholic, then you said I was bashing the Church, but that's not name calling. OK.
So, are you by any chance from the Pay, Pray and Obey wing of the Church, or do you allow that there can be legitimate criticism of the Church, its hierarchy and its practices, when these fall short of the mark?
Or does the Church, in your estimation, NEVER fall short of the mark.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 11:40AM
I follow Christ, who said the gates of Hell shall not prevail against his Church.
No, the Church never falls short of the mark.
We men within her often do, as the apostles warned in the epistles.
Christ being who he is and his promise being what it was, I worry not at all about the Church failing. She can't.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 11:53AM
I believe that the Church is a sacrament, nothing less than the Kingdom of God made manifest in this world until Christ should come again in glory. But, to function in this world, the Church, like all sacraments, requires a material presence, in this case, the institution with its patriarchs, bishops, presbyters, deacons, monastics and all the faithful. One should not mistake criticism of the "matter" of the Church with a denial of its true nature.
Nor, for that matter, should one overlook that, throughout its history, the institutional Church has frequently diverged from the true path on the way to the Parousia. Do not read "the gates of hell shall not prevail" as meaning the Church never makes mistakes or false turns, for there is too much history showing that it does. Rather, it means that the divine will cannot be gainsaid by the minions of the Adversary. If the Church has strayed, always it has found its way back to the true path. If its members sin, whether lowest member of the laity or most exalted member of the hierarchy, those sins are redeemed every day through the Divine Mysteries and the presence of the Holy Spirit in all its members. Christ came to heal that which is broken, to save those who were lost. If we were perfect, there would be no need for the incarnation, for the crucifixion, or for the glorious and divine Resurrection, which we celebrated yesterday by singing, again and again,
Christ is risen from the dead,
Trampling down death by death,
And to those in the tomb
Bestowing life.
That is the true Gospel, that is the Good News. Current travails do not impress me, nor do they worry me, for that Truth will overwhelm all.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 12:06PM
This is why I point you toward proper catechesis, Stuart.
One presumes that in communion you recognize the dogma of the Church---the whole Church---including the charism of infallibility.
If you do not, and indeed, if you declare yourself arbiter of heresy ("innovations since the 10th century"---but why the 10th? Why not the 1st?), you endanger your access to the sacraments.
"In communion with the Bishop of Rome" does mean something, you know.
Here's the Catechism again:
2051 The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.
891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.
II. THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
770 The Church is in history, but at the same time she transcends it. It is only "with the eyes of faith"183 that one can see her in her visible reality and at the same time in her spiritual reality as bearer of divine life.
The Church - both visible and spiritual
771 "The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy Church, the community of faith, hope, and charity, as a visible organization through which he communicates truth and grace to all men."184 The Church is at the same time:
- a "society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ;
- the visible society and the spiritual community;
- the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches."185
These dimensions together constitute "one complex reality which comes together from a human and a divine element":186
The Church is essentially both human and divine, visible but endowed with invisible realities, zealous in action and dedicated to contemplation, present in the world, but as a pilgrim, so constituted that in her the human is directed toward and subordinated to the divine, the visible to the invisible, action to contemplation, and this present world to that city yet to come, the object of our quest.187
O humility! O sublimity! Both tabernacle of cedar and sanctuary of God; earthly dwelling and celestial palace; house of clay and royal hall; body of death and temple of light; and at last both object of scorn to the proud and bride of Christ! She is black but beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem, for even if the labor and pain of her long exile may have discolored her, yet heaven's beauty has adorned her.188
The Church, that mystical Body of Christ, does no wrong. Individual clergy may, but such wrongs do not extend to compromising the truth of the deposit of faith, protected as it is by the Holy Spirit.
It is not mere semantics, Stuart. It is the teaching of the Church.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 1:38PM
It may surprise you, but Eastern Catholics have their own catechism. The CCC is a fundamentally Latin document that expounds Latin theology and spirituality, and hardly notices our Tradition at all.
For myself, I stand with my Patriarch, Gregorios III of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and All the East, who said, "I am an Orthodox Christian, with a plus: I am in communion with the Church of Rome". Patriarch Lybumir of Kyiv-Halich expressed similar sentiments when he said (on EWTN, no less), "Between the Orthodox and the Greek Catholics there are no theological differences.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 3:14PM
It surprises me not at all given the Orthodox pedigree.
What surprises me is that you as an Eastern Catholic seem to feel obliged to ignore dogma while claiming communion with Rome.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 6:45PM
We don't ignore dogma so much as interpret it in light of our own Tradition. We do question whether a number of things that have been called "dogmas" truly are, in light of the history of the Church and the time and place in which those doctrines were formulated.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:08PM
Given the only modern dogma definitively defined ex cathedra have been the Assumption of Mary and papal infallibility, the list is not very long beyond that established by the first seven ecumenical councils.
Ott's book is still a good reference in that regard.
I don't quite know how one squares infallibility with fallibility, but given the limited scope of infallibility perhaps it comes down merely to the definition of faith, morals, and ex cathedra.
Non-Catholics of course tend to misinterpret the charism as "never being wrong" rather than as "being prevented by the Holy Spirit from corrupting the font of Truth".
Doctor Right| 4.6.10 @ 12:56PM
So in other words, a Church that allows their pervert priests to molest thousands of children, and systematically covers up these crimes, :Never falls short of the mark"..???
You're a Catholic-Drone.
That's sick.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 3:28PM
It is not surprising that someone who denies the reality of the sacraments would not understand the difference between the Church as sacrament and the Church as institution. The former is indefectible, the latter all too fallible. But the fallibility of the latter does not affect indefectibility of the latter.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:18AM
So I take it your answer to the above is:
a) None.
b) None.
c) None.
And yet I'm the one devoid of reason and rationality?
Time to turn off MSNBC and step into reality, my friend.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 10:28AM
My position on Benedict's culpability as the titular Captain of the Catholic ship has already been clearly explained.
By definition, this would also include John Paul II, who served for almost 25 years during some of the worst scandals.
BTW, asking someone to disprove a negative is a frequent trick of debaters who know they really have nothing further of value to add to the conversation.
It's like saying "Prove that Ronald Reagan was NOT a space alien!"
You're obviously a "true believer" in all things Catholic-ey, so nothing I would say to you would have any impact on your shallow opinions.
But, to play your game:
a) The Irish Bishops knew, and even if they covered it up, their superiors are still responsible. But...They knew, too.
b) Benedict knew.
c) Benedict has been playing for time, working all the angles behind-the-scenes trying to do as much damage control as possible.
The answers to a, b, and c are provided by simple, common sense...
...Maybe you can get some..?
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:32AM
Dodging questions you can't answer is your trick, Dr Right.
Notice I requested evidence of the above assertions. Unless you claim to have acquired this information from The Holy Spirit, the commandment against false witness requires you to provide some.
Where is it?
Doctor Right| 4.6.10 @ 12:59PM
Your infantile, altar-boy sycophancy is disturbing.
You remind me of that albino monk in "The Da Vinci Code" who killed to protect the Church.
(And no, I don't believe "The Da Vinci Code"...)
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 10:30AM
BTW...I on't watch MSNBC. Never have.
Criticism of the Catholic Church doesn't always come from the Left.
Sometimes it comes, justifiably, from the Right, too.
Catholicism DOES NOT EQUAL Conservatism.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:34AM
Well, you'll have to show me where I ever claimed Catholicism equals conservatism, then.
While you're at it, you can show me where the Fox News Channel has editiorialized against the Catholic Church.
MSNBC and The New York Times share an anti-Catholic worldview which leads to their blindspots on this issue.
How shall we explain yours?
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 10:08AM
As a member of a Catholic Church that does in fact ordain married men to the presbyterate, I need to tell you that having married priests does not, in and of itself, prevent sexual abuse. As Teflon so kindly posted, there are numerous examples of sexual misconduct by Orthodox priests, both married and unmarried (though Teflon apparently has only a very vague idea of the difference between Eastern Orthodox and Syrian Orthodox, or Greek Catholic for that matter). Married priests have abused children, must as married laymen have abused children. More of our sex scandals, however, tend to involve adultery rather than child abuse. Fortunately, they are relatively rare.
We (and the Orthodox) also have celibate priests, but these are genuine monastics, living in a monastic community under a rule of prayer and asceticism. The Eastern Churches generally are suspicious of celibates "in the world" because celibacy is an heroic vocation difficult to live without the support of other celibates. We also tend to think of celibacy not as the "absence" of something (i.e., marriage), but the presence of something else (a deeper relationship with God and a vocation to pray for the whole world).
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 10:14AM
If you're trying to imply that the purposeful cloistering together of young, healthy males (many of whom are already predisposed to homosexual urges) at the height of their sexual impulses in closed, confined quarters does NOT engender playing footsie with each other, then you're not being realistic.
There's a reason that the St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore is referred to as "The Pink Palace"...
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 10:30AM
Actually, I am not inclined towards mandatory clerical celibacy. It's not part of the Tradition of my Church, and in my opinion, it has not worked for the 1000 years or so that the Latin Church has seriously tried to impose it. As my Sicilian great-great-grandfather (who loved the Church and hated priests) liked to say (in Italian, of course), "A priest is a man whom everyone calls Father, except for his children, who must call him Uncle".
On the other hand, true monasticism is quite different. In the first place, monasticism is an individual vocation or calling; it is intensely personal and a gift of the Holy Spirit. A true monastic is not a eunuch; he is a sexual being like every other man. But he sublimates and rechannels his gift in other directions. His love is not for a woman (or a man, for that matter--male and female monasticism are the same thing in the Christian East), but for the whole world. The monk is the spiritual exemplar for all mankind, and each of us, even if married, is called to a life of chastity (a word that means "wholeness", and not just sexual purity), prayer and asceticism, that we may grow in holiness and become partakers of the divine nature.
I have known many monks. As a Greek Catholic, following the Orthodox Tradition in communion with the Church of Rome, I have had monks as my spiritual fathers. None of them was effeminate; none were effete, and most had a very good appreciation of female charms--but they were true celibates, living out the gift that God gave them.
As regards seminaries, I really don't like them. They arose in response to the specific needs of the counter-reformation, and I think they have outlived their usefulness. Thankfully, "junior seminaries" are a thing of the past, so we no longer have the phenomenon of men raised in a cloistered, hothouse community from the age of ten until their mid twenties, but I still think far too many men are being ordained at too early an age, before they have actually lived in the world.
The ancient canons set the minimum age for ordination to the presbyterate at 30, which, in the context of late antiquity, would be the equivalent of the mid-40s today--life expectancy being on the order of 55 years or so. Thus, men were being ordained who were fully mature and had seen something of the world. I would like to see the seminary system dismantled, and for mature men to be recruited out of their communities, as was the case originally, possibly as a second career. Everything they need to know about theology, doctrine, liturgy, and so forth, can be learned either by apprenticeship in the minor orders under the tutelage of a senior priest, or through local or distance learning.
Most of the best priests I know came to the ministry later in their lives, sometimes after a prolonged period as a deacon. Of course, most of them are married. I also know a lot of priests who are the sons of priests and the grandsons of priests. There is a lot to be said for growing your own.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:43AM
Easter rite communities of the Catholic Church are excepted from the priestly celibacy requirement, are they not?
Celibacy is not a dogma but a practice---even in the Latin rite communities, priests have been required to be celibate and allowed to marry from time to time through the 2,000 year history of the Church.
In this as in all things the Church mirrors the experience of the Apostles.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 11:05AM
"Eastern rite communities of the Catholic Church are excepted from the priestly celibacy requirement, are they not?"
The proper term is "Eastern Catholic CHURCHES", thank you. And it is not a question of "exemption", but rather living in accordance with the ancient and honored traditions of our Churches, as is said in Vatican II Decree on the Oriental Churches, the Code of Canons for the Oriental Churches (CCEO), and the Instruction for Implementation of the Liturgical Provisions of the CCEO.
There have been attempts on the part of some Latin Church theologians to "prove" the apostolic origins of clerical celibacy, but, built on a base of sand, these have generally been discredited. Clerical celibacy is indeed a discipline particular to the Latin Church, but only for the past 1000 years. Even then, is seems to have been followed more in the breech than the observance. In most parts of Europe right down to the 20th century, concubinage was common and accepted by the people. Continual papal injunctions against priests either marrying or living conjugally with women (euphemistically called "housekeepers") provides evidence of the persistence of the practice.
At the same time, the Church has always had a problem with pederasts in its ranks, as the satirists exploited often. Even in the Diocese of Rome itself, periodic crackdowns could not end the abuse. Pope Pius IV, a moral rigorist, burned dozens of priests and their male lovers at the stake, but hardly put a dent in the problem.
Whether the Latin Church continues or abandons its insistence on celibacy, or modifies it by allowing broad exceptions for converts from the Anglican or Lutheran churches (there are in fact more married Latin priests in the U.S. today--100+-- than there are married Eastern Catholic priests) concerns me not at all. Each Church must be free to follow its own Tradition independent of interference from Churches that follow different Traditions. Orientalium Ecclesiarum says that all the Churches of the Catholic communion are equal in grace and dignity, and that means there should be mutual respect, as among equals.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 11:38AM
There is one Church but many communities within it, Stuart---the Body of Christ is not divisible as you undoubtedly know.
There are several rites within the Church and practices within each rite. The Latin rite is the most common; this is why people are generally unaware that there are married Catholic priests today as this is not a practice of the Latin rite.
It is not a question of equality---that is obvious.
You might consider the lingering impact of the Orthodox bias against Rome, however. I have no issue whatsoever with Eastern rite Catholics and indeed wish there were more of you. I have no quarrel with Anglican rite Catholics now entering the Church either. Hopefully the confluence of two beautiful liturgical traditions will at last banish the guitar from Mass altogether.
I merely asked a question which I knew the answer to in deference to your experience. It is erroneous for people to blandly assert that priestly celibacy is a requirement of the Church when we have rites and millions within those rites for whom that is not the case.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 12:15PM
Need to brush up your ecclesiology. Just as the Eucharist is one, because Christ is One and indivisible, yet present in many places, so the Church is both one and many. The Church is a Eucharistic society centered on the bishop, assisted by his presbyters and deacons, surrounded by the faithful, celebrating the Holy Eucharist together. The Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church, and where the Eucharist is, there also is the Church. The word "catholic" in regard to the Church is commonly used to denote "universal", but the Greek kata+holon, as used by St. Ignatios of Antioch in the first century, denoted "wholeness": in the local Church, the fullness of the entire Church is present. The universality of the Church is manifested through the communion of its bishops with each other. Communion implies mutuality, a sharing of something in common.
In the first millennium, there were many local Churches, some more prominent than others, but there was no concept of the Church as a pyramidal, hierarchical, universal structure with bishops subordinate to other bishops, since all were equal in grace and dignity.
This may have been lost in the Western Church in the second millennium, but most definitely has been restored through the Second Vatican Council, which is premised on an "ecclesiology of communion". The "Catholic Church" can not be anything other than a communion of Churches, among which the Church of Rome "presides in love".
It is indeed a scandal that there are divisions within the Body of Christ, but I would posit those divisions cut in both directions: if the Orthodox Churches are diminished by the absence of communion with the Church of Rome and the other Catholic Churches, so the Church of Rome and the other Catholic Churches are diminished by their lack of communion with the Orthodox Churches (and the Oriental Church, and the Church of the East), for Christ desired all to be one, as He and the Father are one.
What does that mean? That the Church is modeled on the Trinity, which has hierarchy, but without subordination. The Father, the Son and the Spirit are all truly God, of one essence; yet the Son and the Spirit are not subordinate to the Father, because they exist in perfect communion. Each knows the other as he knows himself, and each defers to the other according to his nature.
Thus, in its discussions with the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church insists that unity does not mean subordination of one Church to another, or the assimilation of the many into the one, but rather, true communion in the Holy Spirit.
I know many Orthodox. Like most Greek Catholics, I have much more in common with them, from a spiritual perspective than I do with Latin Catholics. We share the same DNA, so to speak--the same Liturgy, the same theology, spirituality and disciplines. We have the same language. In the best Greek Catholic parishes, you would have to listen very closely to know you were not in an Orthodox parish. They are flesh of our flesh, bone of our bone (though I am a convert, I know of many families that are divided between Orthodox and Greek Catholic; I know two brothers, one of whom is an Orthodox priest, the other a Greek Catholic deacon, to say nothing of a pair of cousins, one of whom is an Orthodox priest, the other a Catholic bishop).
When you speak of Orthodox bias against Rome, I confess I have run into it from time to time--but usually from Protestant converts to Orthodoxy, or from those who have had little contact with Catholics in general.
Every year, I help organize and run the Orientale Lumen Conferences, which for sixteen years have been bringing together Catholic and Orthodox laymen, theologians and clergy to discuss subjects of mutual interest, to generate greater understanding, and above all to pray together for the unity of all. I seldom encounter bias, but there is a healthy suspicion engendered by centuries of mutual antipathy, of which the very existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches is evidence. That modern Orthodox can sit in fellowship with me is evidence of the great progress being made. And, interestingly, the Greek Catholics and the Orthodox are more or less in full agreement on what needs to be done to restore unity. There are, of course, those on both sides who are comfortable with the present scandalous divisions, and who keep moving the goalposts, but the one great stumbling block is not theological, but ecclesiological: what is the nature of the Petrine Ministry, and how should it be exercised? And because it is the last obstacle to unity, it is the one most difficult to address.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 12:51PM
I don't doubt that great progress is being made, Stuart--not least of which because the last two Popes have made it a priority.
One must first recognize that the Church is One---as the Catechism states---in order for the ecumenical project to have any chance of success.
The Orthodox emphasis on autonomy---except not so much when it came to the Patriarch of Constantinople from time to time---is merely the Catholic notion of subsidiarity warped to ethnic biases which emerged with nationalism long after the schism.
The very fact that the Church has multiple rites all in perfect communion with the Bishop of Rome is evidence of this. That we have had generational councils throughout our history is another, although of course the Orthodox argue that their refusal to participate in many made them invalid.
Sitting in fellowship is merely the first step. For union, we must bind ourselves together in understanding the relationship between God, Church, and Man including recognizing the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, where St Peter established his chair and the only ancient see to boast dual apostolic foundation and the protection from error of the Holy Spirit from the beginning.
And I say that as an American with no special pleading for Italy or Italians.
But I preach to the choir in many respects, certainly. I hope our Orthodox brethren continue to cross the Tiber en masse.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 1:09PM
Which reminds me of my favorite Orthodox anecdote.
Various Protestant communities have been active of late proselytizing Eastern Europe. One of these offered a Sunday service politely attended by a number of local Orthodox villagers. They held an altar call, inviting those who had not accepted Christ as their savior to come down to the altar to be saved.
When no one moved, one of the elders settled the matter by calling out, "Let those who knew Christ before you came know Christ still."
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 2:12PM
A similar one, from the Soviet era:
Soon after the Revolution, a kommisar came to a village and ordered the priest to assemble all the people in the church. Once there, the kommisar announced that he was there to explain why there was no God, and why communism would take the place of Christianity. He spoke for close to an hour, using the "immutable logic of the dialectic" to present Bolshevik dogma with all the fervor of a true believer.
And when he was done, he turned to the priest and said, "If you would like to say anything to refute my argument, I will give you five minutes".
And the priest's eyes twinkled, and he said, "I do not need five minutes, just five seconds", and turning to the people, he shouted in a loud voice, "Christos voskrese!" (Christ is risen!), and in unison all the people responded, "Voistinu voskrese!" (Indeed, He is risen!).
At that, the komissar stiffened, turned around, and stomped out of the church.
Ted| 4.5.10 @ 5:29PM
How sweet... It looks like Stuart and Teflon93 finally kissed and made up... I am glad... You guys are both bright and know a lot... But you're making my head hurt....
So, which one of you is Felix and which one of you is Oscar?
Ted| 4.5.10 @ 5:30PM
And yes, I was trying to be cheeky, so if anyone is offended, please accept my apologies in advance.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:11PM
Given the sad state of my office and that I'm enjoying a cigar at the moment, I'll have to cop to Oscar.
Doctor Right| 4.6.10 @ 1:03PM
Yikes! This should be called "Clash of the Dogmas"...
The Kommisar was obviously too dumb to understand that rote recitation of a chant does NOT refute the dialectis.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 3:29PM
You are wrong: the Truth of the Evangelion crushes all false doctrines before it.
Christ is risen! Indeed, He is risen.
Richard A| 4.7.10 @ 9:19AM
In the version of the story that came to me (which has the advantage of conforming to orthodox Bolshevik practice), the priest gave his reply staring down the muzzles of several Soviet rifles, and the people's response drowned out the sounds of the rifle shots. Because the kommisar thought the occasional execution would prove the truth of the dialectic. When actually, the occasional martyrdom tends to prove the truth of the Gospel.
Stuart Koehl| 4.7.10 @ 3:29PM
Well, there are hundreds of thousands of martyrs who are having the last laugh now.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 10:14AM
"Alleged allegations"
The allegations in question concern Benedict XVI's "cover-up" of abuse reports. That is what they are--allegations.
But, as regarding claims of past sexual abuse, the McMartin pre-school case ought to teach us to beware of unsubstantiated claims, and to recognize that not all reports of abuse are credible.
In particular, I am leery of reports generated decades after the fact, where the alleged abuser is either dead or has lived without any other shadow of abuse, and there is no corroborating witness or evidence. Reports based on "recovered memory" especially should not be given credence, as this phenomenon and the methods used to elicit "recovered memories" have been utterly discredited by the psychological establishment.
I would also feel much more inclined to believe such claims if they were not accompanied by demands for six and seven figure checks for restitution.
"And before anyone even tries, I was raised as Catholic, and worshiped as such for over 30 years, so don't tell me I'm not qualified to judge."
I gotta go with the Frictionless One--you aren't qualified to judge.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 10:19AM
Bringing-up the McMartin Pre-School case in this article is a pathetic straw-man.
That was ONE case. In the law of statistics, it's called "n=1". This means you can't deduce a pattern.
However, when it comes to sexual abuse by Catholic Priests, we can deduce a clear and definitive pattern from the thousands of cases in the USA alone, and the purposeful cover-ups by US Bishops in archdioceses across the country.
Nice try, though...
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:25AM
1. The McMartin case was only the most famous, not least of which because it involved so many being accused and was so thoroughly refuted. You can Google and find any number of people who've been falsely accused of sexual abuse later exonerated. Not all accused are guilty.
2. You can indeed deduce from "n=1" if the n represents a Black Swan event. Google it. For example, one of the obvious deductions is one can't claim something is impossible if it happens. The Resurrection is an "n=1" event; most of Christianity is deduced from it.
Now, let's see how much evidence you have for this coverup. What besides the Boston archdiocese and the Milwaukee archdiocese can you point to?
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 10:33AM
The Catholic Church is a singular organization, with a singular head.
The McMartin Pre-School was NOT in any way, shape, or form affiliated with other pre-schools in other states accused of child abuse.
SO basically, you have a string of "n=1", all unrelated, all unable to show a pattern
In the Catholic Church, you have a clear pattern of obfuscation, lyingm, and covering-up charges of sexual abuse of children.
Go ahead...Deny that.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:36AM
It is denied by employing your own logic, such as it is.
1. The Catholic Church is a singular organization with a singular head.
2. The Pope is the singular head of the Catholic Church.
3. There is no evidence that this Pope or any other obfuscated, lied, or covered up the sexual abuse of children.
4. Therefore, the Catholic Church did not obfuscate, lie, or cover up the sexual abuse of children.
Each priest and each bishop, you see, is an unconnected n=1 just like each teacher is...
Right, Doctor?
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 10:54AM
No. Wrong again.
Your grasp of statistical analysis is as bad as your grasp of history and theology.
Each individual point in any data-set by itself is worthless for a conclusion to be deduced. However, when these points are examined collectively on how and why they're similar, if a pattern emerges, and if it can be repeated, a conclusion can be drawn.
There's lots of juicy conclusions to be drawn from this situation.
In summation, a pattern of abuse, obfuscation, lies, and cover-ups has been CLEARLY deduced in the Catholic Church.
You'll choose to ignore it. The Vatican will continue to obfuscate. More kids will be abused.
How proud you must be...
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:59AM
I do statistics for a living, my friend.
You insist upon a definition of population for the Catholic Church which is quite different from that you employ for government employees. Thus, to your biased mind, McMartin preschool wasn't part of a trend because you've defined population far more narrowly than you have for the Church.
The Church is big---over 1 billion people big. It is ludicrous to presume that the Pope knows everything going on within it.
A school is much smaller---a few dozen to a couple thousand. The principle ought to know quite a bit, right?
Not according ro your formulation.
Which means your model has no skill.
Doctor Right| 4.6.10 @ 1:05PM
"I do statistics for a living, my friend. "
No, you don't.
If you did, you'd understand the statistical fallacy in your argument.
Now you're lying...Like a good, Catholic drone.
Maybe you can get a job at the Vatican..? They might have uses for a guy like you.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 12:24PM
"The Catholic Church is a singular organization, with a singular head."
An ex-Catholic should know better than that. The Church is a huge organization and hardly monolithic. The Pope often cannot get the various dicasteries in the Curia to coordinate their activities and agree with each other, but he is supposed to know what goes on in the vestries of every parish around the globe? Please!
It is commonly believed (usually by non-Catholics taking Catholic claims at face value) that the Pope is an absolute monarch whose will is law. In reality, he's much more of a constitutional monarch, hedged all about by constraints on his freedom of action. His power to coerce is limited, and he must, in general, rule through the bishops, who cannot be shoved about. They are like the permanent civil service--if they want, they can obstruct any initiatives the Pope wants to pursue through myriad bureaucratic measures. So, to get anything done, the Pope must build a consensus among the bishops, which often takes time. It also means that a lot goes on about which the Pope knows nothing until it blows up in his face.
Ted| 4.5.10 @ 5:33PM
Stuart, you hit that nail on the head. It remind me of this quote from Mark Yudof, the President of Cal-Berkeley: "...Being president of the University of California is like being manager of a cemetery: There are many people under you, but no one is listening."
I sent this to a friend who is an Abbot. He replied that it applies to Abbots as well. And it applies to Popes.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 6:50PM
I was present at one curial hissy fit that occurred at an ecumenical conference I was running. We had Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy, then Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity as a principal speaker on the Catholic side. Just before the conference began, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the document Dominius Iesus, without any consultation with Cassidy, who was absolutely livid. since the language of that document not only cut the legs out from under a number of initiatives the Secretariat was pursuing, but also left him in the lurch of explaining to his Orthodox counterparts the meaning of a document on which he had not been briefed.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 10:34AM
Non-Stick is correct. The late 1980s featured a host of mass child abuse cases, most involving day care workers. In one notorious case in Oregon, an overzealous sheriff and a naive social worker concocted out of thin air a massive child abuse ring that involved most of the adult population of the town in which they lived. Lives were ruined, families destroyed, people bankrupted, for allegations that could not withstand even cursory scrutiny. But, "children never lie" about abuse (of course, they can be led or coerced into making accusations that aren't true), and one can always count on public hysteria to feed the flames. Think the Salem Witch Trials couldn't happen today? Think again.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:41AM
The Oregon case was indeed a large one.
There are also many smaller instances, the exoneration in some cases coming from DNA evidence without which the falsely accused might still be in jail.
Not all who accuse do so justly.
This is why there must be an investigation.
The Church is well-poised to conduct the initial investigation because ecclesial authority counts for much when the accused is clergy.
Why we are so comfortable with the government investigating itself despite obvious and palpable corruption is beyond me. I don't see why the Church shouldn't investigate the initial allegation and turn over relevant evidence for prosecution if borne out. That is the current policy in America I believe.
Richard A| 4.7.10 @ 9:28AM
But, all the large cases, and all the smaller instances, are discrete n=1 events, unrelated to each other, per the good Doctor, right? Whereas all the priest molestation cases are obviously related, right? Or, that's what we're supposed to think?
Charles Jackson | 4.5.10 @ 10:05AM
Benedict is little more than a mediocre Barvarian German bureaucrat and the Vatican a cesspool of denial and cover-up.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:07AM
Congratulations on a fact-free post!
Tim*| 4.5.10 @ 10:09AM
Yeah Doctor Who,tells us all about your outrage and what you've read about the rampant ongoing sex abuse in The American Public School System.
Then ya can tell us all about the sex abuse now in Brooklyn Yeshivas.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 10:15AM
You seem to be implying that I'm NOT bothered by sex-abuse at Public Schools or Yeshivas...
...That's a pretty stupid assumption.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:21AM
I was raised right down the street from a public school and spent 13 years being educated in public schools, so don't tell me I'm not qualified to judge.
Fact is, Dr. Right, you've got an axe to grind against the Church which you put away when it comes to the ongoing sexual abuse scandal in public schools.
Where, by the way, boys are confined at the height of puberty.
See your double standard now?
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 10:44AM
Once again, you're making ZERO sense. Debating is NOT your strong suit.
I never said you're not "qualified to judge". You said that to me.
I went to public school, too. So what? First, we're not talking about abuse at public schools here. Second, your assumption that I'm not bothered by that is, at best, idiotic.
I have no particular axe to grind against the Catholic Church, or against Catholics. I do, however, have an axe to grind against people who sexually abuse children, those who willingly cover-up the systematic sexual abuse of children, and the lemmings who blindly support both the latter and the former out of some obscene devotion that blinds them to reality (sound familiar?).
Finally, in reference to Baltimore's infamous "Pink Palace", I'm not referring to boys in puberty. I'm referring to horny young men in their late teens and early twenties who enter seminary, surrounded by guys just like them...A recipe for disaster, as we have seen.
No double standard, Mr. Slippery.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:52AM
I was quoting you, Dr Right:
"And before anyone even tries, I was raised as Catholic, and worshiped as such for over 30 years, so don't tell me I'm not qualified to judge."
I've posted a number of links already demonstrating the far greater incidence rates of sexual abuse in public schools (where n = many thousands) and you have mustered not one whit of outrage.
You have not accused teachers, principles, administrators, school districts, or unions of cover ups.
You have not accused teachers, principles, administrators, school districts, or unions of lying.
You have not accused teachers, principles, administrators, school districts, or unions of obfuscation.
You have not pointed to high schools as cesspools of sexual repression nor to teaching schools as places where future offenders gather to plot their attacks on their young charges.
You have not had much of anything at all to say about it, despite the fact that n (sexual abuse allegations directed toward public schools) far exceeds n(sexual abuse allegations directed toward Catholic clergy).
Why not?
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 11:03AM
I'm sorry, but at this point, I can only deduce that you suffer from some sort of debilitating brain injury.
First, I've now twice mentioned that the cover-up of sex abuse at public schools is an outrage; can you read???
Secondly, WHY would I spend time on this forum talking about sex abuse at public schools when that's NOT what's being discussed? What we're discussing here is:
Catholic priests who sexually abuse children, those who willingly cover-up the systematic sexual abuse of children by Catholic Priests, and the lemmings who blindly support both the latter and the former out of some obscene devotion that blinds them to reality.
You're not really that hard to figure out.
You're actually more concerned about the Catholic Church's reputation than about the sexual abuse of children by your beloved Priests...
...In fact, you're part of the problem that's being discussed.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 11:45AM
The point of the article is the media's war on the Catholic Church and hypocrisy in its pursuit.
You have made a bland "I am outraged by..." statement of perhaps 20 words after being hectored endlessly to do so. You have spent thousands more words attacking the Church and her clergy. Excuse us for noting the disproportionality.
As for "obscene devoition which blinds to reality" you're quite mistaken. I have two young children (2 and under), am on the parish council for my parish, and am quite active in the Church. We have had our priests over to our house several times and will do so again.
Far from being blind, I make it a point to know these men.
Perhaps the greater "part of the problem that's being discussed" is lapsed Catholics who lash out irrationally at the Church?
How many priests do you know and interact regularly with, sir?
Doctor Right| 4.6.10 @ 1:09PM
I'm not a "lapsed Catholic".
That implies that Catholicism = Christianity. It doesn't.
That would also imply that one day, I'll return to Catholicism. I won't.
I'm a Christian. If you prefer, you can call me a "Recovering Catholic".
Teflon93| 4.7.10 @ 1:29PM
Whatever you are, Doctor, you are completely unable to answer my questions.
Those following the thread can determine what that implies for themselves.
Tim*| 4.5.10 @ 10:35AM
If you're such an " Equal Opportunity Critic Of Sex Abuse " tell us all about your personal outrage and your reading about The Sex Abuse In American Public Schools And Yeshivas in Brooklyn.
You're Up Sport !
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 10:48AM
Gee...Ummm...OK:
"I'm personally outraged by sex abuse in American public schools and Yeshivas in Brooklyn."
Happy? Now let's get back to the discussion at and, namely:
Catholic Priests who sexually abuse children, those who willingly cover-up the systematic sexual abuse of children by Catholic Priests, the lemmings who blindly support both the latter and the former out of some obscene devotion that blinds them to reality, and faux-outrage at people who call-out all three groups.
Richard A| 4.7.10 @ 10:16AM
In that case, get back to the discussion. If necessary, re-read the article.
Sexual abuse of minors is an unfortunate but prevailing aspect of the human condition. (Not part of the discussion, but Christians would recognize this as one of myriad consequences of the Fall.) Major media organs in the United States, however, have determined that the Roman Catholic Church is uniquely responsible for its prevalence, and the current head of the Roman Catholic Church is specifically blameworthy for not taking vigorous action against it. In support of this narrative, major media organs in the United States - and the Western world generally - ignore counter-evidence in support of their discernible point of view and even report and perpetuate known falsehoods.
THAT'S what the article is about. Discuss.
Siegfried X| 4.5.10 @ 10:41AM
It is true, but irrelevant, that some of the accusers hate the Catholic Church. Because what is being asked of the Church is no different from what is required of any organization, including any private business.
The question is how does the organization respond to an allegation of law-breaking, of violence? First of all, the organization should have written rules, and they should be strictly followed. However, the organization will probably "get away" with the lack of procedures if they follow the simple rules: contact the police immediately; follow their instructions.
Any organization, whether a business or the Church, risks destruction if their initial investigation consists of anything more than determining that there are allegations of law breaking. In other words, as soon as the organization is certain that someone is accused of breaking the law, then they need to contact authorities immediately. Failure to do so risks the destruction of their organization and everything which they stand for.
The other responsibility is to do everything possible to avoid additional crimes by the accused which are partially the responsibility of the employer. For example if someone accused of child abuse is allowed to continue working with children, the employer may be accused of being partially responsible for additional crimes. Again, having written procedures which include contacting the authorities immediately go a long way towards protecting against this.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:44AM
The Church has all of these things.
When will the dogs be called off?
Siegfried X| 4.5.10 @ 11:03AM
Well, the Church just needs to prove (document) its case then. For example there have been accusations that in specific cases sometimes years went by before the Church reported abuse accusations to authorities. The Church could say for example "In the case of John Doe, we reported the allegations to the police with 72 hours of the initial complaint. The police assigned this complain number #4623 on May 4, 2005. We also immediately removed the accused from contact with potential victims."
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 11:47AM
How shall they do that in the case of a priest long dead like the one in Milwaukee? We are talking about cases where the abuse allegedly occurred in the 1950s here.
The policy is available online in most parishes---look for yours and see for yourself. If you don't see it at the parish level, click on the diocese.
Siegfried X| 4.5.10 @ 11:55AM
"How shall they do that in the case of a priest long dead like the one in Milwaukee?"
They just tell the truth in each case. For a very old case the truth might be "Everyone in authority in the Church is either dead or can't recall the case. We have no internal documents about that case."
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 12:08PM
Siegfried, you do see the issue with this, right?
The Church is not being attacked for any current malfeasance but for alleged malfeasance two generations past where the alleged malefactor is long dead.
And given that the priest who headed up the investigation published a lengthy article detailing the facts just as you've suggested just this past week, will the dogs be called off now?
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 12:41PM
Which is why comparisons between the current anti-Catholicism (the last respectable prejudice) is akin to past anti-semitism. The old accusations: the Jews killed Christ. The new accusation: The Church molests children. The objective is the same--demonize a group with an egregious charge and put them outside the pale of polite society. The reason is the same, too--both Jews and Catholics represented something abhorrent to the prevailing Zeitgeist.
Siegfried X| 4.5.10 @ 12:48PM
Some of the accusations are very serious, regardless of when they took place. They would need to be answered before the issue rests, since some of those allegedly involved are still alive and in power.
"Under the pope's tenure as archbishop in the early 1980s, the Munich archdiocese ignored warnings to keep a molesting priest away from children, the doctor who issued those warnings said Friday.
Werner Huth, a psychoanalyst, said he specifically demanded the priest never be allowed to interact with children again. Instead, Huth said, the church allowed the priest to return to work and to deal with children.
The priest, the Rev. Peter Hullermann, was convicted of abusing minors in 1986. The current pope left the Munich archdiocese for a new post in 1982."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/.....index.html
"Ireland continues to wrestle with the fallout from years of revelations about abusive priests. It wasn't until this week that Ireland's top Catholic cardinal acknowledged the church's response to the abuse had been "hopelessly inadequate."
"
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 12:53PM
Allegations being easy to make, free to utter, and potentially lucrative, Siegfried, you're saying the dogs will NEVER be called off.
Archbishop Chaput has interesting things to say in this regard:
http://www.catholicnewsagency......_teachers/
Siegfried X| 4.5.10 @ 1:08PM
The above seem to be more than accusations, at least the abuse in Ireland. As I read it, their government did a detailed investigation saying that the abuse really took place and that the Catholic Church was at fault. It appears that "Ireland's top Catholic cardinal " agrees too: "acknowledged the church's response to the abuse had been "hopelessly inadequate.""
If each and every one of the allegations is false, then the Church should say so. But if any crimes really happened, then the Church must stop being defensive and take responsibility.
I am curious what you believe about the above. Do you think the Church was totally innocent, regardless of what the Bishop said?
Do you believe that, in spite of the quotes in the article, that the psychiatrist never issued that warning, and there wasn't additional abuse by the same priest?
Are there ANY cases in which the Church has been falsely accused of abuse, and proven itself innocent?
The "dogs" would be called off when the accusations were all proven false, and the Church showed it had adequate procedures to protect children, and followed them.
Any corporation would be treated the same way. In fact without the legal immunity which the Church partially enjoys, those corporations likely would have long ago been ripped to shreds by attorneys.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 1:13PM
As we have seen, public schools are not being treated in the same fashion.
Nor are other religious communities.
As for corporations being treated the same way, take a look at the case study of Tracy Lords in the porn industry. Indeed, the Left Wing Media takes great pains not to attack the porn companies of California and has not exactly turned over every rock looking for underage performers in the past.
Siegfried X| 4.5.10 @ 2:11PM
Whether or not someone else got away with it is totally irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the Church. Unless the Church is going to argue that the child abuse laws should be ignored, they would only hurt themselves by bringing that up.
Society would never tolerate child abuse from any organization, and it would be absurd to suggest otherwise.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 3:16PM
The Church being the Body of Christ can only be innocent, sir.
You will need to demonstrate to me the legal precedents for holding the Church as a whole culpable but not the individual malefactor.
Or for doing so uniquely while allowing say labor unions a pass.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 7:21AM
"Are there ANY cases in which the Church has been falsely accused of abuse, and proven itself innocent?"
Indeed there are. Several priests have been falsely accused, the charges either being dismissed or the priest found innocent in criminal proceedings. The scandal is none of these men has been restored to good standing in his diocese, but remains in limbo, stripped of faculties, reputation permanently tarnished. Richard John Neuhaus wrote about these cases in First Things and used them as illustrations of shortcomings in the Dallas Charter.
I , myself, had dealings with a seriously disturbed man who claimed he and his brother had been abused in a Catholic orphanage in the 1950s. He insisted that the nuns systematically beat both of them, and in fact killed his brother whose body he saw carried out of the orphanage in the middle of the night. After a bit of investigating, it became clear that the poor man was delusional. His brother had died, but of viral meningitis; his body was taken by the coroner, the autopsy report was available from the Cook County medical examiner, as were reports by the police who investigated the incident, and a number of follow-up reports dating to the 1980s and 1990s based on the man's allegations.
On its face, the man's story was as improbable as the McMartin accusations, but the authorities took them seriously, investigated them, and dismissed them. But one cannot win against such people, because it is obvious that the Church is ALWAYS guilty, so whenever the Church is found innocent, it is simply evidence of the Church orchestrating a coverup. The paranoid style works well in such situations. It's all a diabolical conspiracy, you see.
Tim*| 4.5.10 @ 10:59AM
Oh Really , Doctor Who !
Tell us all about it Hypocrite .
"An Associated Press investigation found more than 2,500 cases over five years in which educators were punished for actions from bizarre to sadistic.
There are 3 million public school teachers nationwide, most devoted to their work. Yet the number of abusive educators _ nearly three for every school day _ speaks to a much larger problem in a system that is stacked against victims.
Most of the abuse never gets reported. Those cases reported often end with no action. Cases investigated sometimes can't be proven, and many abusers have several victims. "
You're Up !
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 11:06AM
Between you and Mr. Slippery, it's hard to figure out who's dumb and who's dumber.
I have addressed this issue...3 times. It's NOT what this forum is currently about.
Like Mr. Slippery, you're more concerned about protecting the reputation of the Catholic Church than about stopping the abuse of children by pervert Catholic Priests.
In short, you'd be a perfect candidate for the Archbishop of any major city.
You're down.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 12:18PM
Says the man who's more concerned about attacking the Catholic Church than stopping sexual abuse wherever it occurs.
Perverse.
Tim*| 4.5.10 @ 11:12AM
Gee Mr.Slimey , I'm an American Taxpayer , who is smart enough to know that American school children are 100 times more likely to get sexually assaulted in American Public Schools than in any American Catholic School .
Down that ,Smart Mouth !
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 11:44AM
I know you think you're being profound, but you're actually being profoundly ignorant.
Regarding the statement "...children are 100 times more likely to get sexually assaulted in American Public Schools than in any American Catholic School", I can only say:
DUH!!! No s***, SHerlock!
That's because children are mandated by law to attend school. The choices are Private school (expensive), Parochial school (quality differs; limited options, limited enrollment), Home-schooling (only for the TRULY-dedicated parent), or...Public school (free!).
MOST people opt to send their kids to public school.
Therefore, MOST kids go to public schools, and MOST teachers work at public schools!!!
So OBVIOUSLY, the chances of being molested at public school are HIGHER.
Again...DUH!
However, I'd like to see your source indicating that the chances are 100% higher. What is it, "Catholic Monthly"? The "Catholic Channel"?
And you're a taxpayer, huh? Big deal. What, you want a cookie?
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 12:53PM
Um, no. The size of the public school system might explain the raw number of abuse cases, but it cannot explain the rate of abuse. It is estimated that roughly 10% of all public school children are abused each year--that's significantly higher than the percentage (not the raw numbers) for private schools, and higher than the incidence of abuse in Catholic institutions. Why is there a lower incidence of abuse in private schools? Because those schools are responsive to the parents who pay tuition, not to the teachers unions that contribute to political candidates. When a teacher is a dud in private school--either as a teacher or as a person--he's gone, just like that. Not so in public schools, as is well documented.
The rate of abuse in Catholic institutions is also much lower, even though, as is now admitted, the Church was slow in responding to allegations. This would indicate that--as is also documented--the number of offending priests was relatively low (about 4% of the total), and most were not serial offenders (about 1% of all priests generated 25% of all abuse cases).
Now, given what the Church is, or ought to be, one case would be too many. But it is silly to dredge up old cases as though this reflects the current situation--unless, of course, your objective is not to redress injustice, but rather to discredit a person or institution for ulterior reasons.
With regard to the charges of anti-semitism habitually thrown at the Church by some liberal Jewish organizations (the less observant the Jew, the more hostile to the Church is my personal observation from within my own family), and the penchant of the Church to continually apologize for every anti-Jewish action or statement, real or imagined, someone once described their attitude as "Never again and never enough!"
That might well describe the attitude of some people towards clerical abuse and the Church's efforts to deal with it.
Tim*| 4.5.10 @ 11:21AM
"Too often, problem ( Public School ) teachers are allowed to leave quietly. That can mean future abuse for another student and another school district.
"They might deal with it internally, suspending the person or having the person move on. So their license is never investigated," says Charol Shakeshaft, a leading expert in teacher sex abuse who heads the educational leadership department at Virginia Commonwealth University.
It's a dynamic so common it has its own nicknames _ "passing the trash" or the "mobile molester."
Laws in several states require that even an allegation of sexual misconduct be reported to the state departments that oversee teacher licenses. But there's no consistent enforcement, so such laws are easy to ignore.
School officials fear public embarrassment as much as the perpetrators do, Shakeshaft says. They want to avoid the fallout from going up against a popular teacher. They also don't want to get sued by teachers or victims, and they don't want to face a challenge from a strong union. "
Siegfried X| 4.5.10 @ 11:41AM
"Laws in several states require that even an allegation of sexual misconduct be reported "
Any organization which fails to report is committing organizational suicide.
"They also don't want to get sued by teachers or victims"
Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Any organization which fails to report immediately takes on all the risk and responsibility on their selves. Individual responsibility of the accused becomes organizational responsibility.
The only solutions are what I mentioned earlier: have written procedures which are followed; contact police immediately and follow their instructions; immediately take whatever actions are necessary to prevent additional crimes under the color & responsibility of the organization.
As soon as the organization knows of accusations of crime, they are holding a "hot potato". The only way they can keep from getting burned is to immediately pass that hot potato to the police and other authorities.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 12:55PM
"Any organization which fails to report is committing organizational suicide."
Not if the organization has political friends in high places, backed up by an aggressive union with deep pockets. For if what you said was true, then every public school system in the country would be blowing out its own metaphorical brains every day.
Melvin| 4.5.10 @ 11:30AM
Many of those who have posted are beating a dead horse in defending the Catholic Religion.
There are those who have posted that their intention has nothing to do with Catholic Priests who have committed homosexual acts against underage males.
The agenda is, "Religion" period. The Catholic Priest angle is just a convenient media vehicle.
This issue could have been affixed to the local Rabbi, Lutheran, Methodist, or even Islam.
This is just another weapon for the secularists, athiests, agnostics, or all around God haters or whatever to demonize religion to the point that Americans say, "To Hell with God."
When Christmas rolls around again, the Catholic Priests will get a reprieve from media scrutiny and the usual, "I hate everybody and everything" crown will single out Santa Clause as an oversexed pagan dressed in red.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 12:59PM
I disagree. The vehemence with which these particular attacks are made indicates that the Catholic Church as a "brand" has a special cachet, a degree of clout and respectability even beyond the Catholic faithful.
First of all, there are more than a billion Catholics worldwide. Second, in the Pope the Church has a specific focus of unity and a voice of moral authority capable of bringing down totalitarian empires; when the Pope speaks, even non-Catholic listen.
Liberal historian Gary Wills, who likes to write books with modest titles like, "What Saint Paul Really Meant" and "What Jesus Really Meant", also wrote a book called "Why I Am Still a Catholic".
And I thought, "Don't be silly, Gary--If you were a Protestant, nobody would give a rat's ass what you thought about Jesus, the Bible, abortion, or anything else. Only dissenting Catholics get any attention".
Tim*| 4.5.10 @ 11:41AM
The Liberal Mainstream Media Attack Agenda Is :
1. The Catholic Church
2. Evangelical Protestants
3. Mormons
The Favorite " Free Pass " Groups for The Liberal Mainstream Media.
1. Atheists
2.Agnostics
3.Jews
4. Islamists
5.Reformed Druids
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 11:49AM
Oh, I'd think Jews have fallen below Reformed Druids in this otherwise-excellent list these days, Tim!
Melvin| 4.5.10 @ 11:58AM
Oh, jeez not the Druids to. Just when we thought it would be safe.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 1:02PM
Jews only get a pass if they don't observe any of the tenets of Judaism. I once described Reformed Judaism as "like Unitarianism, but without the theological rigor". On the other hand, observant Jews, and especially the Orthodox Jews, are regularly reviled in the press, and most often by their Reformed co-religionists, who real religion is liberalism.
You also left out Wiccans, Satanists, and aboriginal Shamanists.
PCC| 4.5.10 @ 12:02PM
I was the object of much derision and disagreement for the following statement:
"It is now an established fact that probably no other organization in the history of the world has been responsible for more sexual abuse of children than the Catholic Church. Certainly not in our lifetime and in living memory."
Fair enough. For my critics, please name another organisation (not a class or group such as 'gym teachers' or 'African rebels') that surpasses what we now know about the Church.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 12:10PM
I'll name several:
Public school teachers
Protestant ministers
Jewish rabbis
Orthodox priests
http://www.catholicleague.org/.....ontext.htm
Since you made the allegation, support it or withdraw it.
Evidence, please.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 12:14PM
U.S. Dept of Education
National Education Association
American Federation of Teachers
Southern Baptist Convention et al (just name the religious denomination; you won't find a major one without sexual abuse allegations0
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 12:14PM
Here's the sad situation in Colorado:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i.....ic-schools
Melvin| 4.5.10 @ 12:42PM
Molestation even is extended to college academia at Duke University.
Frank M. Lombard, (former)Associate Director, Health Inequalities Program at Duke University was arrested and charged with offering his 5-year-old son for sex.
Update: Pedophile, Frank Lombard sentenced to 27 years
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 12:54PM
Is that enough examples for you, PCC?
Tim| 4.5.10 @ 12:41PM
The UN peacekeeping forces in Congo.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 1:04PM
NATO peacekeepers in Bosnia. African Congress peacekeepers in Uganda.
R GIVENS| 4.5.10 @ 12:33PM
Why should anything surprise us about an organization that helped Hitler's regime gain power and paved the way for death camps and for WWII.
Many historians believe that Hitler would have fallen within a week if the Vatican had condemned him early on. Instead they supported him and helped Adolph take over Germany and later to plunge the world into total war.
Why should it surprise anyone that an outfit willing to send millions of Jews to their deaths is willing to conceal sexual perversion in their ranks?
The only thing that kept Ratzinger from being named in a sexual abuse case was a ruling ruling by a U.S. District Judge "that Pope Benedict enjoyed “head-of-state immunity."
Ratzinger's claims of ignorance about perversion among Catholic priests are seriously disputed because the church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly called the Holy Office of the Vatican was headed by Pope Benedict when he was a cardinal and played a central role in the conspiracy to conceal the sexual abuse that occurred, the plaintiffs said.
The Vatican was a good friend to Hitler, so why should their protection of pedophiles surprise anyone?.
See —
http://images.google.com/imgre.....tbs=isch:1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 12:41PM
Didn't take long for the old blood libel to rear its head, huh?
How many divisions had the Pope, surrounded as The Vatican was by Fascist Italy?
You must really hate the French. Hitler admitted any move at all toward Germany would have led to his abandonment of the fortification of the Rhineland.
You must hate the Brits too, since had they stood up to Hitler and refused the Munich Pact Czechoslovakia and her famous Skoda Ironworks wouldn't have been in Hitler's hands.
How about Stalin, who could have confounded Hitler's plans utterly by refusing the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact?
What if the Belgians had allowed the French to extend fortifications through their territory?
What if the Allies had provided the Poles with the equipment and forces needed to defend their homeland?
What if America had entered the war sooner rather than waiting for the Japanese to attack?
So many targets, and yet you choose the one with no army.
Funny, that.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 1:22PM
The Vatican doesn't need an "Army"; they have hundreds of millions of brain-dead drones all around the globe willing to do their bidding for "Holy Mother Church".
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 2:16PM
That's right--we're the Borg Collective. Assimilation is inevitable. Resistance is futile.
R Givens| 4.5.10 @ 8:18PM
And where did I say the Vatican was alone in backing Hitler? The Vatican had a very important role in bringing Hitler to power which brings Roman Catholic morality into question. Those deals with the Brits etc wouldn't have happened if the Vatican had refused to recognize Hitler. Hitler would have never become Reich Chancellor without help from the Vatican.
I thought the topic was the current Pope's morality which seems to be lacking when it comes to stopping pedophiles.
Funny that you lost sight of my target.
Ratzinger knew very well that perverted Priests had abused children and worked to cover it up.
One other thing I WILL DECIDE WHO I HATE! You can begin my list with child abusing Priests and immoral Popes who hide the crime and let the perverts have a go at more children.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 3:36PM
"And where did I say the Vatican was alone in backing Hitler? "
Except that the Vatican did NOT back Hitler, but opposed him almost from the moment he assumed the Chancellorship, which was long before anybody else saw Naziism for what it was. Your history is sadly flawed, and you can see my post below on alleged Catholic antisemitism below for more details.
"Hitler would have never become Reich Chancellor without help from the Vatican."
Or maybe it was the Freemasons? In any case, the Vatican had very little power in Germany after the Bismarckian Kulturkampf. Germany in 1933 was a predominantly Protestant country; only Bavaria had a Catholic majority, and Catholics would not become an important bloc until the Anschluss with Austria in--oops--1938!
"One other thing I WILL DECIDE WHO I HATE! "
Hate is a waste of time and energy, which in the end hurts only those who hate. In any case, we are enjoined in the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great to pray even for those who hate us. Christ tells us to love even our enemies, because it is easy to love our friends. Hate whom you wish, you only harm yourself. For my part, I will pray that you be delivered from your hatred, which in the end will consume you.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 1:05PM
"Many historians believe that Hitler would have fallen within a week if the Vatican had condemned him early on. Instead they supported him and helped Adolph take over Germany and later to plunge the world into total war."
No reputable ones, though. Remember, Germany was a predominantly Protestant country.
Tim| 4.5.10 @ 12:48PM
And all this time I thought it was Nazis responsible for WWII, The Holocaust and the heart break of psoriasis...
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 1:06PM
Pat Buchanan says it was FDR and Churchill. Go figure!
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 1:14PM
It was!
If only FDR and Churchill had laid down, Buchanan would be able to get decent sauerkraut in Georgetown today...
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 1:44PM
Hey! I remember when there were NO good places to eat in Georgetown. Couldn't even get a decent bagel with lox!
Tim*| 4.5.10 @ 12:57PM
Do Your Homework Anti-Catholic Rewriter of History !
http://www.catholicleague.org/pius.php
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 1:19PM
The cowardly refrain emanating from many on tis board (obviously Catholics) seems to be:
"Well so what?!?! They molest kids in public schools, too!!!"
While not denying the sad truth that some children ARE molested in public schools, this pathetic attempt at re-direction and obfuscation is sick.
In fact, it's reminiscent of exactly HOW he Catholic Church white-washes, covers-up, obfuscates, and outright buries incidents of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy.
The abuse cases that manage to make it through the official Church crapola-distribution chain to public knowledge are only the tip of the iceberg. The Vatican knows this, which is why they try to cover it up.
It's really not surprising that the Catholic apologists on this board are more concerned about their Church's reputation than by the actual abuse...
...And that perfectly summarizes the current problem.
Melvin| 4.5.10 @ 2:03PM
Come on...Who are you kidding here? Its all about the hatred of religion.
You mask it with tirade directed at the Catholic Religion thinly veiled behind the media diatribe, "Its the priests, its the priests."
Since those priests who have admitted to commuting a grave sin, then let them be stoned. And I'll hand you a bucket of rocks so that you can cast the first.
Will that make you feel better?
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 3:11PM
Are you Catholic?
If so, I'm not surprised that you've failed to utterly misunderstand the scripture you're obliquely quoting.
When Christ said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", he did NOT mean that we cannot call-out and judge sin when we see it. That's a common misconception. If that interpretation is true, then no one could EVER be punished for sin.
What he was speaking against was unjust vengeance by an unruly mob. He was also urging us to make sure that our own metaphorical house is "clean" before we accuse others of sin. In a similar vein, he urged us to "remove the plank in our own eyes before we call-out the speck (impurity) in our brother's eye".
Again, if you're Catholic, I'm not surprised you've misinterpreted this, as Catholic scriptural interpretation is slip-shod at best. One need only attend a Sunday-morning sermon at St. Anywhere's to see that most Priests avoid Biblical discussions in their messages, preferring instead squishy, feel-good messages about how we're all loved, so it's all OK.
Hatred of religion? Hmmmm...That's interesting. How typical of Catholic to think that criticism of the Catholic Church = criticism of religion. Sorry, but it ain't so. I don't go to Catholic Church anymore, by choice...But I go to Church at least twice week.
Melvin| 4.5.10 @ 3:38PM
No I am not a Catholic, nor do I attend or follow any other organized religion for that matter.
I do believe in God though.
The reason that I am commenting the way I have is that for varied reasons is the utter hypocrisy in the lynching of the Catholic Church.
Many of those who have posted including yourself have branded the Catholic Church as a bunch of lustful ghouls who salivate uncontrollably when a adolescent male comes into view.
Sure there are those priests within the Catholic Church that are guilty of pedophilia but also no less guilty than ant other religious denomination, educator, politician and the list is as varied as any public organization.
To single the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church only is just being hypocritical, if you are going to throw stones that then stones at the Pedophilia problem as a whole, not cherry pick certain parts of this issue that suits your particularity argument.
Look at my posts from the beginning today on this issue, they explain in why I take the position that I do.
Doctor Right| 4.6.10 @ 1:13PM
Covering-up for the lustful ghouls is as bad as being a ghoul...Maybe worse.
JP| 4.5.10 @ 3:13PM
You need to read a summary of changes wrought by the Second Vatican council in reforming internal church administration. After 1967, the Church went through a decentralization that many believed at the time was sorely over due. For the last 40 years, each Catholic diocese has been administered free of Vatican interference. Each presiding Bishop is charged with managing his priests and religious, and is not required to submit every decision for Vatican approval. The days of a highly centralized, all powerful, Curia have been over, except in the minds of fiction writers and movie producers. Many people would be shocked to see how powerless the Vatican is to discipline its own wayward clerics and lay people. The exception to this rule is the ordination of Bishops and the lascization of the clergy, and excommunications in general. And even the lascization and excommunication processes must begin with the local bishop. If anyone wishes to see how weak the Vatican is, just the President Obama honorary degree scandal at Notre Dame last year. Despite the condemnation of the USCCB, Fathers Jenkin and Hessburgh went through with it without even getting thier hands slapped.
If you wish to find a cover-up, look no further than the US Bishops, who were charged with maintaining discipline, recruiting and leading qualified priests, and acting as sheppards to thier flocks. The Vatican had nothing to do with these crimes.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 3:26PM
Rubbish.
If the Bishops are appointed by the Pope, then they answer to the Pope.
The Catholic Church is highly centralized, has always been highly centralized, and will always be highly centralized.
To say the Vatican is not responsible is merely moral cowardice.
jd| 4.5.10 @ 5:33PM
JP, your comment was so right. As for the Doctor who's been posting, you need some mental health services because you obviously have issues that need to be resolved but your "therapy" of spouting anything critical of the Catholic Church is not helping you at all. May I suggest Confession? I'll pray for you.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 6:57PM
"For the last 40 years, each Catholic diocese has been administered free of Vatican interference. "
On one level this is true, but when it comes to details of administration, in fact bishops have been stripped of most of their initiative. Granted, they had it coming by abusing what freedom they had, but now even the most piddling matters (whether the bishop can receive an award or honorary degree, for instance) must be referred to the Vatican for approval.
Most salient to this issue was stripping the local bishop of the power to laicize priests. That power was given first to the Rota (the Vatican ecclesiastical court) and then to the CDC (which is a power-accruing machine in its own right). That's why it takes forever to drum out an abusive priest, even if the bishop wants him gone and the evidence is overwhelming. Rome's role has gone from court of final appeal to being the principal court in which all such cases are tried.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 3:32PM
Yes, your post encompasses perfectly the problem of anti-Catholic bigots irrationally attacking the Church.
As for myself, being both worried more about current molesters than dead molesters (the Milwaukee priest in question having died before some folks reading this were even born) and more interested in the welfare of children beyond even Catholic children, I find it much harder to look the other way regarding sexual abuse in the public schools than you do.
Or The New York Times does.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 1:24PM
Oh, and while we're at it, let's rewrite history about anti-semitism in the catholic Church, too!
What a joke.
So glad I ditched this bankrupt "faith".
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 1:45PM
"Oh, and while we're at it, let's rewrite history about anti-semitism in the catholic Church, too!"
Do you really want to go there? With me?
Please! It is to laugh. Ha ha!
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 3:02PM
Yeah, I want to "go there" with you.
I want to see you try and deny the historical record of official Catholic anti-semitism that has existed since the Middle Ages.
C'mon. Do it, genius. Let's see you try.
Or are you bluffing?
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 7:51PM
I can refer you to a number of excellent books, including Oskar Skarsaune's "In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity", which makes a case for the persistence of Christian philosemitism right down to the Middle Ages.
To understand the fraught relationship between the Church and the Synogogue, one must know that in the first several centuries AD, Judaism was both an aggressively proselytizing faith (and thus competing with the Church for converts) and also an active persecutor of what began as a Jewish sect. The 18th Benediction in the Talmud specifically calls a curse down upon the Nazarenes, while the Jerusalem Talmud very frankly admits that Jesus of Nazareth was put to death by the Sanhedrin for "leading the people astray".
The final separation of the two occurred in Bar Kochba's Rebellion of 135, when Simeon Bar Kochba declared himself the Messiah and demanded all Jews declare allegiance to him. Naturally, the Christians of Judea, most of whom were Jews, could not do this and were declared outlaws by the erstwhile messiah (whose rebellion failed, and who himself failed to rise from the tomb on the third day).
From that day forth, there was mutual hostility, but the Church recognized itself as the fulfillment of the Covenant, as well as the divine origins of the Jewish Scriptures. It also could not ignore Christian Scripture's affirmation that the Jews would, in the end, be incorporated into God's people.
Thus, the Church, while not going out of its way to treat Judaism as equivalent to Christianity, did prohibit the persecution of Jews--an effort that got mixed results. Anti-Judaism is older than Christianity, witness the numerous riots between pagan Greeks and Jews in Alexandria and various cities in Syria in the first century BC.
Even after the Constantinian settlement, the Church worried a lot about "judaizing"--the tendency of Christians to imitate Jewish practices. None of the various broadsides against it accuses the judaizers of heterodox belief--the concern was with practice, which would indicate that Christians at the grass roots level liked and admired Jews and copied them. This, in the minds of bishops like Chrysostom, could lead to confusion between the Old and New Covenants, yet, as repeated injunctions about keeping Jewish feasts as well as Christian ones indicates, their efforts were notably ineffective.
More often than not, it was the imperial administration that issued restrictive injunctions against the Jews. For this, the Jews themselves were at least partially to blame. They were enthusiastic for Julian the Apostate, who may have promised to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. Later, in the early 7th century, they backed the Persians against the Roman Empire, and when Heraclius I finally defeated the Persians, Jews within the Empire were identified with the enemy.
Yet for the most part, restrictive laws were very spottily enforced, and Jews generally prospered across Europe down to the 11th century.
The Crusades are usually dragged forth as an example of the Church's persecution of Jews. Yet the pogroms that broke out in the wake of the First Crusade were denounced by the Pope and various bishops tried with different degrees of success to protect the Jews in their dioceses from the mob. It was not the Church so much as the nobility that was attacking Jews. As the bankers of Europe, they held loans to most kings and nobles, and killing the Jews and confiscating their property was a quick and easy means of debt eradication.
Restrictions on where Jews could live, what they could wear and what professions they could pursue were not designed so much to oppress them as to protect them from the mob, which otherwise would have their heads. Interestingly, the worst anti-semitic violence took place not in Catholic southern Europe, but in Germany during the Reformation, which is what drove so many Jews eastward into what is now Poland, Ukraine and Belarus.
Even the expulsion of the Jews from Spain was driven not by the Church, but by the Spanish crown: Ferdinand and Isabella were fixated on creating an homogenous, unified Spanish kingdom and had no room for "impure" blood, whether Moorish or Jewish.
Jews were pretty much left alone by the Church down to the 20th century, though you find isolated instances of anti-semitism by our standards (e.g., the occasional forced conversion) which certainly seemed different by the standards of the time.
In the 19th-20th centuries, it was not the Church so much as the state which oppressed Jews. "Scientific" anti-semitism was invented by the Russian Okhrana (which authored the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion), and it spread virulently among nationalists across Europe. Antisemitism was pretty rare in the France of the Ancien Regime; it was endemic in the Third Republic. It also became prominent in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In both cases, the reason was not Jewish separateness but Jewish assimilation: Jews were entering mainstream society (through the Reform movement), and were now competing with ethnic Frenchmen, Austrians, Hungarians, Poles, etc. in politics and the professions. The phenomenon of majority resentment of a successful minority is not limited to Europeans and Jews; Thomas Sowell has documented it in Asia, India and Latin America. When things go wrong, whether politically or economically, the majority look for a scapegoat, and the successful minority group is a good target. Niall Ferguson recounts the rise of antisemitism in 19th and 20th century Europe very well in his "The War of the World". It's the rise of the nation-state, stupid!
The response of the Church to the Third Reich was equal or better than that of any European state. The Holy See was at the forefront in denouncing Nazi racialist policies, not only against the Jews, but also against other minorities as well as the disabled and mentally retarded.
Pius XII is denounced for negotiating a Concordat with the Third Reich while Papal Nuncio to Germany. But such agreements were and are standard, a way of protecting the rights and privileges of the Church against the encroaching power of the state (the first such Concordat was negotiated between the Church and Napoleon I); it did not imply approval of the regime, and without it the Church would not have been able to operate in Germany, making any resistance to the Nazis absolutely impossible.
It was Pius XII, as Nuncio to Pius XI, who authored the critical denunciation of the Nazis "Mit Brenneger Sorge". Some people denounce the encyclical as too tepid, but in comparison to what was coming out of the capitals of Europe, not to mention the United States, it was a thundering condemnation of Hitlerism--Hitler certainly thought so, and plotted the destruction of the Catholic Church--as soon as the war was won and the Final Solution of the Jewish problem achieved. Hitler did not move openly against the Catholic Church because, having absorbed Austria, he had to deal with a large Catholic population in the Greater Reich. But systematic hostility to the Church became Nazi policy, which in turn required Pius XII to act with some circumspection.
Throughout the war, whenever and wherever he could, Pius protected Jews and directed his bishops to do the same. Most did, to the extent they were able. Collaborating bishops are noteworthy only because they are so exceptional. The number of Catholic priests and religious numbered among the Righteous Gentiles at Yad Vashem is quite large. Among them is Pope Pius XII. Jews worldwide recognized Pius as a hero and a savior, and it was only with the publication of a highly fictionalized play, "The Deputy", by the Communist playwright Rolf Hochhuth, in 1964. As later revealed by Communist defectors, including Ion Papeca, former head of the Romanian secret intelligence service, this was a deliberate act of "disinformatia" intended to discredit the Church in post-War Germany.
Numerous popular historians have taken up the Hochhuth theme, but most of them have been absolutely repudiated by recent scholarship, including the work of secular and Jewish historians.
As someone born Jewish, who has relatives who died in the Holocaust, who has Jewish relatives with whom he has very good relations (my Orthodox cousins) and some with whom he does not (my liberal secularist cousins), I would not have joined a Church that was guilty of the crimes against God's Chosen People of which it is accused.
Satisfied? Of course not. As I said, "Never Again and Never Enough".
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:16PM
To add a bit to the German narrative, Martin Luther actually had high hopes German Jews would convert to Lutheranism. When they did not, he produced the screed "Against the Jews and Their Lies" which has been driving progroms ever since, famously used by the Nazis to whip up hatred in a Germany which had been a haven for Jews previously.
William Shirer's classic "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" has an excellent account of it. Shirer takes pains to note he happened to be a Protestant himself.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 7:27AM
Better even than Shirer are two recent books by Richard J. Evans, "The Coming of the Third Reich" and "The Third Reich in Power" (if you can stand it, there is also a third volume, "The Third Reich at War"). Evans has access to documentation that Shirer lacked, and also deals with details of Nazi anti-semitic policies at greater length.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 12:35PM
I called your bluff. Where are you?
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 3:37PM
Dead silence. I expected no more.
JP| 4.5.10 @ 2:10PM
I can still remember the disgust and shame I felt way back in 2000-2001 when the abuse scandals in the US were shown the light of day. I remember also the vitriol aimed at then Cdl Ratzinger when he took control of the situation. He was the one who re-called Cdl Law to the Vatican for a full accounting of the Ameircan Bishop's horrific respones. Many people don't realize this, but the Vatican was in the same position as everyone else about what was occuring in our Chanceries, and how widespread the problem was. While the American Bishops had to subject themselves to a full audit conducted by the laity, Cdl Ratzinger quietly and methodically rewrote much of the Canon Law pertaining to sexual abuse and the clerics. He also dispatched a team of Vatican officials to visit every seminary in the US. As a result, many of the seminaries run by the notorious Lavender Mafia were either forced to reform or were closed down.
The hetrodox within and without the Church had a hissy fit. They even grew more vocal when Cdl Ratzinger mentioned the utter filth that had entered the Church during the 2005 Good Friday Station's of the Cross.
The Church is a microsm of what has gone wrong with our society. Much of the inner rot that has hallowed out the RCC has also been at work within the Old-line Protestant Churches. As one old priest said, "The old discipline is gone". What Christianity in the West has become is an instiution of libertine-perverted social workers. But, quietly things are changing. Orthodox Chrisitans (whether they are Protestant or Catholic) are leading this reform movement one child and one family at a time. Like all true reform movements, the reforms are coming from "below". The Holy Ghost works in strange, but quiet ways. One of the great reformers of the Counter Reformation era was an old Spanish Nun by the name of Teresea; she and another Carmelite, John (later known as Saint John of the Cross) humbly did God's work. The same could be said of the Great Awakening in the early to Mid 19th Century in Protestant America. The Greatest Generation of 19th Century Americans came out of this reformation movement, that even today touches many Americans.
While this is a time for great, shame it is also a time for great hope.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 3:28PM
Well said.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 7:52PM
"Orthodox Chrisitans (whether they are Protestant or Catholic) are leading this reform movement one child and one family at a time. "
May be you could add Orthodox to your list of "orthodox Christians"?
carolinem| 4.5.10 @ 2:38PM
The comments defending the pope and Church bureaucracy sound like little children trying to defend a wayward and criminal parent. They have so much at stake in maintaining their fantasies about an all-knowing parent that they block out the truth that the highest Church echelons conspired to lie about, cover up and protect child rapists. Bishops continue to obstruct investigations and refuse to turn over diocese documents related to their activities on this issue. The Church's defenses: "We didn't know, we didn't know"; "Sorry about that, we'll do better in the future"; and "It's all the fault of the victims and the media" reveal a hierarchy that fears embarrassment and loss of pride more than they fear God.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 3:00PM
Agree 100%.
The "leadership" of the Catholic Church has been in full-scale C.Y.A. over this issue for 20+ years, and that's their ONLY objective. They care more for their Church's reputation and sizable purse-strings than they do for children who've been sexually abused by pervert priests.
Tim| 4.5.10 @ 3:02PM
No. it is a terrible thing and well past due for a house cleaning. These lawsuits in the US were well deserved and I think that the message is clear.
However the New York Times and media people that launched this current "scandal" business aren't interested at all in vicims or the issu of abuse generally. This is just a big Fu-K You aimed at the Church just in time for Easter.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 3:14PM
Well maybe the Catholic Church hierarchy deserves a metaphorical "Eff-You", based on their record of lies, cover-ups, distortions, and obfuscations when it comes to children who've been sexually abused by pervert priests.
Tim| 4.5.10 @ 3:22PM
Oh it most assuredly is deserved, but the animus here is not one of concern for victims. If the Pope had done what Obama's Safe School's Czar had done the media spotlight would have been unsparing.
The agenda here is simply to target the Catholic Church and the Christian community generally.
Melvin| 4.5.10 @ 3:03PM
Ya, I suppose you do have a point, its kinda like Liberal Congressmen and Senators when they get caught with young male pages or running male prostitution rings our of their personal homes.
Or school teachers, college directors, safe school czar's, other religious denominations.
Most often the accusers are the worst offenders.
JP| 4.5.10 @ 3:16PM
Carolinem,
Check out my comments above; if you really wish to know the truth educate yourself in how the Church is governed. Know what you're talking about before making generalized unsubtantiated remarks. BTW, many of the people are screaming the loudest about the Pope, are the same people who adamantly defend infaticide.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 3:22PM
Here's a newsflash:
It IS possible to be against abortion (as I am), very committed to Christianity (as I am), and deeply critical of the Catholic Church (as I am).
American Catholics are often walking contradictions. many of them live lives that are completely contrary to scripture, and in most cases they don't even care, but if you criticize the Catholic Church, they come scurrying out of the woodwork, all full of p*** and vinegar.
Kind of funny, actually...
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 3:42PM
"American Catholics are often walking contradictions. many of them live lives that are completely contrary to scripture..."
Like Jim Bakker?
Jimmy Swaggart?
This guy?
Eddie Thomas, pastor of St. Luke Baptist Church in Ringgold, LA., is arrested and charged with indecent behavior with a juvenile, aggravated incest and pornography involving a juvenile. (the Shreveport Times, July 17, 2003)
Or this guy?
Lake Wales, FL. The pastor at the Church of the Nazarene has been charged with sexually assaulting a male 17-year-old youth leader three times in 2001. The Rev. Gene Francis, 52, of Lake Wales, was arrested Tuesday and charged with unlawful sexual activity with a minor. (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, June 4, 2003)
How about these people?
Lake Wales, FL. The pastor at the Church of the Nazarene has been charged with sexually assaulting a male 17-year-old youth leader three times in 2001. The Rev. Gene Francis, 52, of Lake Wales, was arrested Tuesday and charged with unlawful sexual activity with a minor. (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, June 4, 2003)
Or this guy?
Athens, GA. Ralph Tulk, 63, was arrested Tuesday and charged with five counts of child molestation for allegedly inappropriately touching five children at Holy Trinity Lutheran Church over several years. He was superintendent of the Sunday school program when some of the alleged molestations took place and was treasurer of the church until last month, according to police and the church. Dickerson and many other residents of this Northeast Georgia city -- most of whom were willing to share their thoughts about the case but not be quoted -- said they worry about the church, but aren't yet convinced of the allegations. "This is America, and you are innocent until proven guilty," Dickerson said. (MSNBC.com, Jan. 11, 2003)
This guy, maybe?
Idaho Falls, ID. An area pastor is charged with inappropriately touching a teenage boy. Idaho Falls police charged a long-time religious leader with five counts of lewd conduct with a minor. 46-year-old Steven Michael Sheridan, the former pastor of St. Paul's United Methodist Church has been arrested-- this after police recorded two recent phone conversations between the victim and Sheridan. Sheridan was the pastor of St. Paul's United Methodist Church five years ago when the alleged crimes occurred. Since then, he's been pastor of another church. The victim who was 13 at the time, and is now 18, said Sheridan was like a mentor. They took trips together, and during those trips, Sheridan touched him sexually. One time, the pastor allegedly touched the boys genitals saying he was checking for cancer. (KPVI, Dec. 6, 2002)
How about this one?
MOUNT KISCO, NY. Parishioners at the Presbyterian Church of Mount Kisco yesterday were coming to grips with revelations that their former pastor was charged by the presbytery with sexually abusing eight boys. The eight charges, unveiled at the presbytery's regional meeting at Webb Horton Memorial Presbyterian Church in Middletown, outline abuse of boys under 18. Among the allegations are that Miller invited a child into the shower with him, that he had oral sex with a minor on numerous occasions over two years and that he made inappropriate sexual remarks and propositions. (THE JOURNAL NEWS, December 5, 2002)
Maybe this one?
WORCESTER, MA. A former pastor Andrew J. Bierkan, 54, at the First Congregational Church of Sutton who now heads a church in Ohio has been indicted here on charges of unnatural rape of a child and posing a child in a state of nudity. He is now pastor of St. Paul United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, according to Worcester District Attorney John J. Conte. (Worcester Telegram & Gazette, August 13, 2003)
Like these folks?
Doctor Right| 4.6.10 @ 1:16PM
Yup. Just like those guys.
Hypocrites.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 3:39PM
Thank you, Lord, for not making Doctor Right like other men (like, say, that Publican over there)!
Teflon93| 4.7.10 @ 1:32PM
Good thing he wasn't with Christ when he addressed the adultress, huh?
Stones would have flown!
Ted| 4.5.10 @ 5:56PM
"American Catholics are often walking contradictions."
Any person who confesses themselves a Christian is a walking contradiction. It goes with the territory.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 3:36PM
You are so ridiculously off-base!
For the record, I became Catholic AFTER the scandals broke. And I did so after reading extensively about the matter.
Why don't you pick up "For the Faithful Departed" and see what happened in Boston before you try to paint a global church with the same brush?
You offer no evidence for your allegations because you have none.
Provide the full list, please, and your denomination. I will then educate you as to how prevalent sexual abuse is in your community.
If you give a rat's ass about it.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 7:55PM
Ah, that explains it: two converts butt heads with each other, because we each take it very, very seriously indeed!
And of course, just as there is no man who lives who does not sin, there is no Church or ecclesial community whose membership is itself without sin. There is no Church for perfect people. They don't need one.
Tim*| 4.5.10 @ 3:00PM
Public School Sex Abuse :
" According to a draft report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, in compliance with the 2002 "No Child Left Behind" act signed into law by President Bush, between 6 percent and 10 percent of public school children across the country have been sexually abused or harassed by school employees and teachers.
Extrapolating data from the latter, she estimated roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a school employee from a single decade—1991-2000. That compares with about five decades of cases of abusive priests.
In a report on the nature and scope of the abuse problems, found almost 11,000 cases of abuse by about 4,000 priests and deacons since 1950. "
Tim*| 4.5.10 @ 3:13PM
Gee Anti-Catholic Doctor No !
Then Ya don't wanna Read: 51 Documents : Zionist Collaboration With The Nazis by Lenni Brenner.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 3:18PM
No, I don't want to read the rantings of an American Marxist/Trotskyite author, especially on the subject of Jews and Zionism (Gee...I'll bet he's AGAINST the state of Israel!).
Seriously...Is that all you've got? Is that the sum total of your "rebuttal"?
Now say 10 "Hail Marys" (and while you do so, ignore Jesus' warnings against 'vain repeitition' in the worship service) and go away, please.
JP| 4.5.10 @ 3:24PM
"One need only attend a Sunday-morning sermon at St. Anywhere's to see that most Priests avoid Biblical discussions in their messages, preferring instead squishy, feel-good messages about how we're all loved, so it's all OK. "
You obviously never opened up a copy of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, any Encyclical, or any Catholic theological work. Every page of these works are filled with biblical footnotes and references. You must also remember, the high point of a Catholic Mass isn't the homily but the consecration of the Holy Eucharist and Holy Communion. There are litterally hundreds of thousands of Catholic books covering theology, morals, etc... and every Catholic is obligated not only to know Holy Scriptures, but also Church Doctrine and Holy Tradition. There tens of thousands of lay Catholic study groups through-out this nation that meet every week, as well as lay organizations that form apostolates to perform acts of mercy, perform acts of chairity, pray, etc... You surely haven't gone to many Catholic Churches.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 3:38PM
"...Cathechism of the Catholic Church, any Encyclical, or any Catholic theological work..."
Thanks for making my point.
I'll follow with a question: Why do you need "...Cathechism of the Catholic Church, any Encyclical, or any Catholic theological work..." when you have The Bible?
WHAT insight do these man-made works offer that is NOT found within the pages of the Old and New Testaments???
Additionally, what possible "insight" does "Holy Tradition" offer that's not found in scripture, especially the tradition that CONTRADICTS scripture???
Sorry, but I've been to MANY Catholic Churches; I WAS a Catholic until I was 31 years of age. I've rarely heard a sermon/homily/etc from any Catholic priest that had much weight or substance to it, or was strongly grounded in scripture, REGARDLESS of whether or not that's the central focus of the service.
And I stand by my assertion that Catholic scriptural research is slip-shod. Sorry, but if they REALLY knew the scriptures, they couldn't be members of the Catholic Church.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 3:46PM
Where did you get that Bible from, anyway?
After all, the Gospel accounts referencing Scripture talk only about the Old Testament.
Where did the Bible come from?
Martin Luther knew:
"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) - that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it." (Martin Luther-Commentary on St. John, Ch. 16)
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 3:59PM
Nice try. Catholics LOVE to credit themselves with The Bible, as if they wrote it.
Newsflash: They didn't. It was inspired by God, and it was written mostly by Paul, with help from Luke, Peter, and a few others. And they WEREN'T Catholics.
The fact that Martin Luther, a former Catholic priest, would credit his educational background with informing him on God's word surprises you, huh?
I guess you also support Luther's dissent from the Catholic Church then, too...Right?
Oh, and by the way...Luther was a rabid anti-Semite. Didn't you get the memo?
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 8:02PM
You very funny. For penance, please read Bruce M. Metzger's "he New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content", "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration" and "The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance".
You will find it enlightening. The late Professor Metzger, doyen of biblical scholars and distinguished scholar at Yale, served on the board of the American Bible Society and most definitely was not a Roman Catholic.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:21PM
You note that Luther, no fan of the Catholic Church, was speaking against interest, right?
In court, that adds weight to testimony.
How do you know the New Testament and the epistles were inspired by God, by the way?
And how do you know the Gospel of Thomas was not?
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 3:50PM
And I was a Protestant until 37 years of age and I will gladly wipe the floor with you regarding knowledge of Scripture, sir.
Myself, I like to begin with Matthew 16 through John 6 with a nice little discussion I call "the Bread of Life detour" in-between.
For your benefit, though, I'd recommend rereading the Commandments, especially the bearing false witness part.
You could pick up the Catechism you previously eschewed though and thereby prevent yourself further drubbing. For someone blessed enough to be Catholic for 30 years you certainly seem not to have paid any attention at all.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 4:03PM
Go ahead. "Wipe" away. I've yet to see you say anything regarding scripture that indicates much beyond basic knowledge, so I'm not exactly quaking in my boots. There's a difference between being able to quote chapter and verse and actually understanding the words. Since you're a Catholic convert, I'd rate your comprehension fairly low.
FYI, I walked away from Catholicism because I grew to understand that the faith, as practiced, is irreconcilable with scripture...So you can keep your l'il catechism book.
"Drubbing"..? Not exactly. You're a good, Catholic foot soldier, spouting all the talking-points...Nothing more.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 5:22PM
Says the man afraid to even state his faith community!
Where'd that Bible come from, by the way?
It didn't exist when Christ died---the Gospels and Epistles hadn't been written yet.
Where did it come from? Who compiled it? By what authority?
Ted| 4.5.10 @ 5:59PM
Just because you were Catholic until age 31 doesn't mean you understand/understood your faith. If you have to ask the questions regardin the Catechism or any other Church document, then you did not then nor do you now understand the Catholic faith.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 7:29AM
"One need only attend a Sunday-morning sermon at St. Anywhere's to see that most Priests avoid Biblical discussions in their messages, preferring instead squishy, feel-good messages about how we're all loved, so it's all OK. "
You are cordially invited to my church any Sunday, where you will hear an excellent homily of truly patristic breadth and depth.
Tim*| 4.5.10 @ 3:25PM
I believe he's a former practicing Jew, with an agenda , just like you're a former Catholic with an agenda.
You're two peas in a pod,Sport .
Tim*| 4.5.10 @ 3:29PM
Let's see ya make me,Keyboard Girlie Man.
JP| 4.5.10 @ 3:31PM
"Now say 10 "Hail Marys" (and while you do so, ignore Jesus' warnings against 'vain repeitition' in the worship service) and go away, please."
Perhaps, you should recite one decade of the Rosary and meditate upon the words, as well as realize that the Rosary is an explicit biblical reference of Christ. And it was at the direction of God the Father(through his angel), and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost that the words of the Rosary were made known. And a person cannot go wrong praying these words inspired and directed by God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. It is best to reflect upon Christ's Life, Death, and Ressurection as seen by His Mother when reciting these prayers. It is called Contemplative Prayer, and has been practiced by Christians for over 2000 years.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 3:44PM
Yes, those vain repetitions like the Lord's Prayer.
Hope they don't recite THAT!
Or perhaps like the Sinner's Prayer.
Or like repeating the same verse of the praise song 27 times.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 3:51PM
There's nothing wrong with the Lord's prayer.
What's wrong is repeating it over and over endlessly, in vain repetition, and thinking that it pleases God.
The sinner's prayer is fine, too, as long as we remember that asking Jesus "into our hearts" does NOT lead to salvation.
...I have NO idea what your "Praise song" refers to, but if it's part of the "Praise Team" fad, then please count me out.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 4:16PM
You'll note that Christ's condemnation of "vain repetition" extended neither toward Christian prayer, it having not been practiced yet, nor toward Jewish prayer, Jews not being considered "heathen" by Jesus. You may wish to consult a reference as to pagan practices of the 1st century to understand to what Christ was referring.
If you want to understand, that is.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 3:41PM
"The sinner's prayer is fine, too, as long as we remember that asking Jesus "into our hearts" does NOT lead to salvation."
The classic Evangelical error: we are not called to let Jesus into our hearts or ourselves, but to put our hearts and our selves into Jesus; we are to put on Christ, to become partakers of the divine nature in order that we may be by grace and adoption what Christ is by nature--true sons and daughters of God.
Teflon93| 4.7.10 @ 1:35PM
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. "
"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
"For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
"He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 3:45PM
The Rosary is in the Bible?
Go sell crazy someplace else, please. We're all stocked-up on this forum.
NOWHERE in the New Testament does anyone play with a bunch of black beads while reciting the same prayer over and over and over again.
To equate this with the actual words of the prayer, or with "contemplative prayer" is pure sophistry. You don't need rituals to pray.
I guess you're not familiar with Matthew 6:7
"7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words."
Melvin| 4.5.10 @ 3:58PM
I do not profess to quote scripture by number and verse, like some of you here. But if it inspires those who believe, who is anyone to say the contrary?
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 4:27PM
Melvin, your point is well taken.
The Rosary is not a mandatory practice for Catholics, by the way. It is a custom, one which began in the Middle Ages and has recently become prevalent again. Pope John Paul II was particularly fond of it, introducing the first new set of mysteries to meditate upon in some time.
Protestants of the fundamentalist/evangelical stripe in particular for some reason cannot countenance acknowledging tradition, even their own. Thus they claim that one must have only the Bible as their guide while simultaneously insisting you know "the Fundamentals" and read certain Bible commentaries or Calvin's Institutes. They institute practices like the altar call which simply don't have a Biblical provenance while claiming otherwise. They pray with crosses, which again isn't biblical but rather is a devolution of the crucifix.
All of which is fine---whatever brings you to Christ---but let's not pretend inherent contradictions don't abound in these faith traditions. One cannot abhor "manmade tradition" while reciting the Sinner's Prayer at an altar call.
There are fine Protestant traditions. Raised Episcopalian, I experienced many of them---Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Non-denominational (with Baptist theology)---before becoming Catholic.
It is folly to ignore the Catholic roots---1,500 years at a minimum---of these Protestant communities. You can love the praise band all you want to, but if you think that didn't start with the chanting of the Mass liturgy, well, you're cut off from history.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 3:59PM
For those ignorant of the Catholic faith like Doctor Right, the rosary consists of a series of prayers.
The Hail Mary:
"Hail Mary, full of grace
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners
Now and at the hour of our death.
Amen."
This summarizes Luke 1:48, 2:42 and the intercession references Mary's intercession on behalf of the wedding guests at Luke 18:13.
The Lord's Prayer is obviously biblical; the text is straight from the Gospels.
The Glory Be:
Glory be to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be
World without end.
Amen
This references the Trinity, itself dogmatically defined by the Church only in the 4th century.
Do you deny the Trinity, Doctor Right?
Kindly show me where in the Bible the doctrine of the Trinity is stated.
Then show me where in the Bible the books of the Bible are enumerated.
Then show me where in the Bible altar calls, the Sinner's Prayer, The Fundamentals, and the command is given for sola scriptura applicable to the New Testament.
I'll wait.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 4:07PM
No, I don't deny the Trinity.
But you actually think that Mary is the Mother of God.
Newsflash: She's not. God existed long before Mary ever did.
Do you think she was still a virgin after giving birth to Christ, too?
How about after she gave birth to his brother? Were they also miraculous births?
Again, if you wanna' play a game of Chapter-n-Verse with your online Catechism in front of you, then congrats! You win!
But on the most basic, simple facts, you're severely deficient in knowledge. That's what blind allegiance to Catholic dogma will get ya!
teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 4:13PM
Okay, Doctor-
Biblical references for:
Mary NOT being the mother of Jesus, second person of the Holy Trinity and one in being with the Father;
Christ not being made man;
Mary having sexual relations with any man;
Mary having other children (hint: may want to familiarize yourself with the Aramaic for brother and cousin first).
I'm still waiting for those other references.
Are you having trouble finding them, Doctor?
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 4:30PM
More demands to disprove a negative...This is REALLY boring.
Now I understand your question about the Trinity. It's the tired old cliche'...If Mary isn't the Mother of God, then how can there be a Trinity, right?
Wrong.
Mary is the mother of Jesus. He was God made flesh. She gave birth to the human vessel that contained God's essence. Nothing more. She was not a perpetual virgin. Oh...You're also not supposed to pray to her. (Why would you, anyway?)
BTW...Matthew 12:46-47
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 4:36PM
Biblical references for your argument above, please. Matthew 12:46-7 only states
46While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
You do realize the use of "brethren" doesn't imply flesh-and-blood siblings, right?
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 4:38PM
As for "proving a negative", I've merely asked you where Scripture says Jesus was not man. You're the one who claims what you believe is Scriptural. I'm merely asking you to prove it. If it isn't in the text yet you believe it, your claim is false, isn't it?
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 3:46PM
"You do realize the use of "brethren" doesn't imply flesh-and-blood siblings, right?"
There are two traditions regarding this. The first, captured by the 4th century Church historian Epiphanius using the 1st century writer Papias as his source, relates that at the time of his betrothal to Mary, Joseph was an older man with children. The brethren involved would therefore be the step-siblings of Jesus. This is the Tradition most widely held in the Christian East.
In the West, Jerome writing in the 5th century, postulated that insofar as Aramaic has no distinct word for cousins, and all blood relations of the same generation are called "brother", that the brethren involved were the cousins of Jesus. This is the general response coming from Latin sources.
Of course, Jerome ignored that the Gospels and Epistles were written in Greek, and Greek has a perfectly good word for "cousin"--which may be why the Greek-speaking East did not adopt Jerome's explanation.
Teflon93| 4.7.10 @ 1:37PM
Yes, but let's not forget Christ was speaking Aramaic, not Greek.
In Aramaic, the words confound, rendering the Greek translation difficult unless accomplished by an eyewitness, right?
Stuart Koehl| 4.7.10 @ 4:05PM
I am assuming the Evangelists were eyewitnesses or had access to them. Matthew and John certainly were there, John Mark there at least some of the time, and Luke had access to a number of the Disciples during his tenure as Paul's companion.
I'm an early Gospel date supporter, by the way: Mark and Proto-John in the 50s, Matthew and Luke in the 60s, and the final redaction of John no later than the early 90s.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 4:10PM
Is there a religious community or civic institution today not touched by the grave crime of sexual abuse? No.
Why single out the Catholic Church in light of this?
I'd say there are two reasons.
The first is the unique importance of the Catholic Church which even her enemies admit by their vitriolic reaction to all things Catholic. That which doesn't matter may be safely ignored. The Catholic Church CANNOT be ignored. Thus her foes attack on any ground deemed favorable. The sexual abuse scandal among Catholic clergy is favorable ground indeed, but only because we expect more of the Church than any other institution. You see this above, where I quote repeatedly disgusting abuse in other institutions to deafening silence. The enemies of the Church simply don't care because the sexual abuse problem is merely the latest pretext for attacking their target. If they cared about protecting kids, they would not dismiss out of hand the greater prevalence of attacks on children in public schools, attacks which are not abating to this day and which occur every day.
The second is that one institution and one alone has consistently fought for human dignity and sexual morality since Christ founded it: The Catholic Church. It's no mystery why The New York Times attacks her relentlessly, the Times being The Vatican of secularism and sexual libertinism. The Church matters because the Church---alone---stands for the Christian worldview in our fallen world. She is not without allies in certain areas---say, the evil of procured abortion---but where are her allies when it comes to contraception, which every mainline American religious denomination abhorred until the middle of the past century?
The Church will be attacked relentlessly, unfairly, and mercilessly because as Christ promised she is not of this world and so is despised by it. This has been true in every age and is true in this one.
But she will stand, as Christ promised she would, long after The New York Times is dust.
Siegfried X| 4.5.10 @ 4:21PM
The issue is collective guilt, the guilt of the organization, and that depends on the actions of the organization, not the action of the individual.
For example, it appears that at sometime in the past, if they still doesn't exist, the Catholic Church had procedures which prevented a accused priest from being defrocked and in some cases left him in contact with potential victims for years, while appeals were made all the way to Rome. The Church did not contact the police for long periods, sometimes years, after an accusation of abuse was made, while they did an internal investigation.
Those procedures, which the Catholic Church made of its own free will, and which some other organizations didn't have, opened it up to charges of organizational guilt. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. If children were left in contact with a potentially abusive priest for years waiting for Cardinal Ratzinger to make a decision, then some of the blame for additional abuse by that priest fell on Ratzinger and the Church, for having those procedures and taking that long to decide. In that case the Catholic Church was guilty not because it was treated different that other organizations, but because it behaved differently and improperly.
As I said in other postings, any new corporation quickly receives advice that it must take certain actions to avoid being liable for various forms of abuse in the workplace. Those actions include having written procedures, reporting accusations of crimes immediately to the police, and taking action to prevent any accused employee from coming in contact with the original victim or other victims. If the Catholic Church, schools, or another other organization don't follow those steps, then they become liable for abuse in their organizations. But organizations which do take those steps aren't guilty for the actions of their individual employees. There's nothing unfair about it. It is just punishing and rewarding organizations for the choices they make, for their own actions.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 4:31PM
Name another organization so punished, Siegfried.
I'll give you an immediate counterexample---the Democrat Party, the party which benefitted so much from the enslavement of Africans, today claims as their most loyal adherents the descendants of those they enslaved. Punished? Not much. Such punishment as they had ended 5 years after the Civil War.
Siegfried X| 4.5.10 @ 4:44PM
In the USA there is unlimited damages for most sexual and racial charges, including things like "hostile environment" sexual harassment where the victim is never even touched. There have been cases of CEOs having to resign, because of alleged behavior towards one victim, and tens and hundreds of millions of dollars awarded. Anyone who searches "sexual discrimination" or "sexual harassment" can find them on the web.
Corporations take it very seriously because of the unlimited damages. Frequently corporations require each employee to take an hour or two of anti-abuse training a year, to show that the corporation is trying to prevent abuse.
The corporation has little opportunity to cover-up or change it mind later on to become stricter, because they can quickly end up in front of a jury, being asked "Why didn't you take IMMEDIATE action after the first allegation of abuse?"
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 5:20PM
Well, that won't help you---the Left even now seeks to remove the statute of limitation clauses against sexual abuse allegations but get this---only for the Catholic Church!
That Archbishop Chaput article I quoted you earlier had the details.
Where's the other example?
Siegfried X| 4.5.10 @ 5:43PM
I don't know what you mean by example. It would be hard to find a large or medium US corporation which is NOT impacted by this. Each employee comes to work knowing they could go be accused of hostile environment sexual harassment just for making a spicy remark that offends someone. Some companies immediately terminate or suspend the accused employee, because the risk of keeping him or her during the investigation is not worth it!
So the average US employee is probably held to stricter standards than the priests.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 10:25PM
I was asking for an organization hounded by the media for decades-old sexual abuse crimes to any extent comparable to the Catholic Church.
The average U.S. employee, btw, has more rights than the USCBB's zero tolerance policy allows priests.
The average U.S. employee, for example, can interact with children without witnesses present.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 4:23PM
More B.S. and obfuscation.
We're focusing on the Catholic Church because the scandal INVOLVES the Catholic Church!
There's a HUGE difference between an incident at a single institution, and an INSTITUTIONAL cover-up of institutional, systematic abuse.
My Church is not plagued by an on-going sex-abuse scandal, so to say that all religious and civic organizations are "plagued" by sex abuse is an outright lie.
And it's what we've come to expect from the Catholic Church's staunch apologists.
That's why people are angry at the Catholic Church - because they're lying. And we know it.
But hey, you can always repeat "Hail Mary" 100 times and forget about it, right?
Pathetic.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 4:28PM
Which denomination do you belong to, Doctor?
When will I get those Bible references and the evidence for your claims requested above?
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 4:31PM
Denomination: Christian.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 4:32PM
Sorry, I posted a long list previously of sexual abuse allegations in various Christian communities.
Clearly, Christianity has an issue with sexual abuse.
Blame Christ, do you?
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 4:43PM
Nope.
I blame people who live lives that are not in accord with Christ, and who spread false and misleading doctrines about God and Christ (Hint: That means the Catholic Church).
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 4:46PM
Hint: you've provided not one scintilla of evidence of any such thing, Doctor.
As for "not in accord with Christ", sir, you shall have to define that for us that we may discuss.
Be specific.
And BTW, when will I be getting those Scriptural references?
Bearing false witness isn't in accord with Christ, is it?
Ted| 4.5.10 @ 6:02PM
Christian, yet based on your comments thus far, terribly lacking in charity. As are some others, as well.
JP| 4.5.10 @ 4:41PM
"But hey, you can always repeat "Hail Mary" 100 times and forget about it, right?
Pathetic. "
The Rosary, like any prayers are not some magical incantation. And like many beautiful prayers (many which were written by Martin Luther himself. Yes, I am giving him credit) written long ago express better our own intentions than we can ever do. There are litterally thousands of meditations written about the Rosary, and the pentitent should meditate about some apsect of Christ's Life, Passion, and Ressurection while reciting it. Is this a requirement to being a Christians? Nope. But, it is a gift from Christ to his Church. Yes, an individual can just pray his own thoughts and leave it at that. There's nothing wrong with that at all. However, there are millions of lines of beautiful prayers, litanies, etc that many times do a far better job expressing our praises, intentions, and pleas.
And as far as Mary is concerned, Wordsworth, who was not a Catholic had this to say:
"She is our tainted nature's solitary boast."
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 4:45PM
Wordsworth?
So what? His opinion on the matter, Catholic or not, is no better than the average man-on-the-street, and probably less informed.
JP| 4.5.10 @ 4:57PM
I don't think any human being in History could outdo what Mary did. If you know of any please tell.
I think giving birth to God's Son, the Redeemer of Mankind qualifies for our Nature's solitary boast.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 5:27PM
I'm not "dissing" Mary. However, I'm not willing to march in lock-step with Catholics who believe she's the "Mother of God". That's logically incoherent.
I can't pretend to understand the mind of God, so I won't try. It's easy to say that God obviously thought Mary was special, and that's why he chose her. On the other hand, maybe he chose her PRECISELY because she was ordinary; who better to be the mother of the Redeemer than an ordinary woman? That was GUARANTEED to blow the minds of the Sanhedrin.
I'm also not going to worship Mary, as Catholics do. They like to say they don't worship her, they "venerate" her, but when you pray to someone and ask her to intercede for you, that's worship.
The Mary-worship that Catholics engage in has it's origins in the spread of Christianity to the pagan peoples of Europe after Christianity was officially adopted by the Roman Empire. Many pagans revered a mother-earth type Goddess, often a fertility Goddess, so it was easy to bring pagans into the fold by presenting them with an image and a concept that so neatly matched their own traditions. There is NO scriptural justification for considering Mary to be the "Mother of God" (which is offensive), or to be an intercessor for Prayers.
Mary was the mother of Jesus, God's human essence. There's nothing in scripture to reproach her for. She died over 2,000 years ago, and I'm sure she's in Heaven.
That's about it.
Ted| 4.5.10 @ 6:04PM
Again, as stated before, you do not understand the Catholic faith now nor did you before you left the faith at age 31.
Catholics do not now, nor have they ever, worshiped Mary.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 8:11PM
You seem not to recognize that Mary's status as Theotokos was established by the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus, and is a universally held belief. The Orthodox attachment to Mary is as great, if not greater than that of Roman Catholics:
"More honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, who a virgin, gave birth to God the Word, you, true Theotokos, we magnify".
To deny the special status of Mary is to deny Scripture. To deny that she was the Mother of God is rank heresy, against which even Martin Luther would rebel. If Mary is not the Mother of God, then you are saying Jesus was not God, and if Jesus was not God, then his death could not redeem us from death.
If Jesus was God, but Mary was not his mother, then Jesus did not assume human nature, and "that which is not assumed is not redeemed"--again, we are not ransomed from death by Christ's incarnation, passion and resurrection.
Theology is hard work, not for fly-by-nighters like you.
JP| 4.5.10 @ 4:28PM
"NOWHERE in the New Testament does anyone play with a bunch of black beads while reciting the same prayer over and over and over again.
To equate this with the actual words of the prayer, or with "contemplative prayer" is pure sophistry. You don't need rituals to pray.
I guess you're not familiar with Matthew 6:7 "
And nowhere in the New Testament is the Trinity or the Doctrine of the Trinity laid-out. And yet, billions of people believe in it.
Christ as well as St Paul constantly admonished people against pride, and encouraged people to approach God as young children approach thier parents. When a child is lost or in trouble, he will constantly cry out for his/her parents, even to only comfort themselves. This kind of faith, and repitition in our prayer life is very "biblical". And it works; it has worked for 20 centuries. And that babbling to pagans which you refer to in Matthew is an incorrect translation - the Greek verb is Battologeo- which means to stutter, or issue meaningless syllables. Now refer to the Gospels (Luke 1:28, Luke 1:41-42a, Luke 1:48, Luke 1:42b, Luke 1:43, Luke 2:35, John 2:5). See also, James 5:16b, and Revelations 8:3 and Tobit 12:12. None of these refrences which contain the Rosary and the power of the prayers of the righteous is considered pagan babblings. Also to simply repeat prayers isn't mindless, as Christ himself repeated his prayers in the Garden of Gethsemene (Mt 26:39 42.44).
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 4:33PM
Indeed, the doctrine of the Trinity didn't get formulated in the Creed until the 4th century. A creed which many a Protestant recited yesterday and which emerged from the tradition of the Church rather than from the New Testament.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 4:51PM
Do you not undersand the difference between a "Creed" and the scriptures?
Recognizing the truth of the inherent relationship between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, Catholic leaders developed a Creed to reaffirm this relationship.
So what? That doesn't mean they developed the relationship!
That's like saying that I invented the car because I recognize it's utility in getting me to work.
I love how Catholics try to retrofit wisdom into their own dubious legacy. It's similar to when you ask the pathetically arrogant question "Where did you get your Bible?" Catholics think (because their knowledge bases is very shallow) that they somehow WROTE the Bible simply because they had a meeting to affirm a "Canon" of books. It's not the same thing.
Slip-shod logic. Slip-shod research.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 7:06PM
The slipshod logic and research is all yours, Doctor, ignorant of the first 1,500 years of Church history from Pentecost to Luther as you are.
Christ came to found his Church, not to write the New Testament, as evidenced that aside from writing in the dirt while those who would stone the adultress considered their options we are not told Christ wrote ANYTHING, nor are we left with anything he wrote.
Sola scriptura appears nowhere in Christendom in fact before Martin Luther invented the notion some millennium and a half after Christ arose and instructed the apostles for 40 days after the Holy Spirit descended upon the Church.
As for the authority of the Church, you yield to it whenever you consult the Bible it gave you. Luther knew it; I provided you with the quote.
What even Luther would yield you will not. This says more about you than it does about Luther.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 4:41PM
"And nowhere in the New Testament is the Trinity or the Doctrine of the Trinity laid-out. And yet, billions of people believe in it."
The epitome of nonsense. The word "Trinity" may not appear in scripture, of the explicit description of the concept, but to say that the idea of the Trinity is not clearly defined from numerous passages is sheer idiocy.
To then make a completely illogical leap and apply that to the Rosary is pure ignorance.
Hey, Mr. Slippery! Find me the Bible verse that prove that Jesus wasn't actually a Martian! And while you're at it, please also find me the verses that DON'T say that we're NOT supposed to dance in pink underwear and shout "Hallelujah" when our Priest says "Amen".
C'mon! I'm waiting!!!
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 4:50PM
The doctrine of the Trinity as encapsulated in the Nicene Creed is as follows:
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father.
Scriptural reference for "one in being with the Father", please.
Also for "only Son of God".
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 4:52PM
And thank you for your admission, Doctor, that you are unable to refute Mary being mother of God from Scripture, that Protestants engage in practices not found in Scripture, and that your specific allegations of Catholic unScriptural practices were unfounded.
Lest you would have produced the requested references, Scriptural scholar that you are, no?
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 5:01PM
Nice try. I admitted nothing, and you've proved nothing. I'm simply not going to play your infantile game of disproving a negative.
BTW...I'm NOT a Protestant.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 5:14PM
You're the one making claims of what is Scriptural and what is not, Doctor---I simply ask you to prove them.
Which you haven't been able to do yet.
What you are doesn't matter. I brought to your attention a number of Protestant traditional practices, you admitted they were not Scriptural by your inability to produce a reference for them.
You being afraid to state which theological school you adhere to makes no difference but simply betrays ignorance or fear in some measure or other.
You can use the link I provided earlier to look up "Bible churches" and see which have had sexual abuse allegations.
You are simply kidding yourself if you think your community is immune but perhaps you simply have no community and subsist as Pope Doctor Right of the Doctor Right Church.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 5:30PM
"You being afraid to state which theological school you adhere to makes no difference but simply betrays ignorance or fear in some measure or other."
????????
You asked me what denomination I belong to. I told you I don't belong to ANY denomination.
I'm a Christian. Period. I follow the word of God, as written in the Bible. Period. Just like the first Christians, and entirely UNLIKE all Catholics.
Is that hard to understand?
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 7:08PM
The Word of God is a person, not a book.
The first Christians were Catholic---read Justin Martyr (2nd century) and you'll see a vivid description of the Mass.
You see, Justin, like all early Christians, followed Christ's teaching in John 6. Thus St Paul's warning not to approach the Eucharist unworthily, lest one eat and drink damnation.
Worth keeping in mind for your one-man community, Doctor.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 9:52AM
"I'm a Christian. Period. I follow the word of God, as written in the Bible. Period. Just like the first Christians, and entirely UNLIKE all Catholics."
The first Christians didn't have a Bible--at least not the one you probably own (but don't seem to read). For the early Christians, "Scripture" was what we call the Old Testament. The Gospels had not yet been written. Most of Paul's Epistles had not yet been written. Acts of the Apostles, the universal Epistles, the Apocalypse of St. John--still waiting to be set on papyrus.
What's more, the Old Testament of the Apostles and Evangelists was the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation--90% of all Old Testament references in the New Testament cite the LXX verbatim. The New Testament cites all of the Deuterocanonical Books (what Protestants call the Apocrypha), as well as some extracanonical books that never did get accepted.
The canon of Scripture grew organically over the space of four centuries through a process of reception. No Church council ever sat down and "defined" the canon, and in fact the canon is different for the Latin Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Church of the East. Early on, a number of books were accepted as Scripture, at least in some Churches--the Didache, the First Epistle of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas--which were later rejected.
In short, the Canon of Scripture was not handed down complete. God did not write a book called Table of Contents. The Canon was formed by the Church's judgment of what books were suitable for reading in liturgical services (yes, the primitive Church was liturgical--the Apostles were celebrating liturgy in Jerusalem, as anyone who can read the New Testament in Greek knows (sorry, I forgot that God wrote the Bible in English--or could have, if He had wanted).
These books were selected using two fundamental criteria: were they of Apostolic origin, and were they consistent with the Church's rule of prayer? What was that "rule of prayer"? Nothing less than the liturgical services by which the Church worshiped. Liturgy is the source and touchstone of theology, or as the Latins say, "Lex orandi, lex credendi"--the rule of prayer is the rule of faith.
So the Church made the Bible, not by any diktat from above, but through the way it worshiped God. Bruce Metzger put it well when he said the reason certain books are in the Bible is "nobody could keep them out"--there was near-universal agreement.
John Damascene, writing in 8th century Syria, under Muslim rule, rejected the Muslim classification of Christians as "People of the Book". Instead, he said, "We are not people of the Book, but people of the living God". We do not belong the the Church of the Bible, but the Bible is the Book of the Church.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 4:56PM
John 10:30...Couldn't be more simple than that!
Glad to be of assistance!
JP| 4.5.10 @ 5:03PM
"I and the Father are One."
Yes, but Christ was also fully human, as well as fully divine. To ignore this fact, or say he wasn't fully human comes close to heresey. Christ was the fullest example of human perfection ever. And his humanity came from His Mother. His DNA was hers; His blood was hers.
It is called a Holy Mystery. Accept it.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 5:18PM
Doctor Right is apparently ignorant of the heresies the renunciation of which led to the Nicene Creed.
Some claimed Christ was fully divine and only appeared to be human.
Others claimed he was fully human and divine only in a metaphorical sense.
You'll note, Doctor Right, I requested "one in being with the Father" and "only Son of God". These are two cruxes of the creedal formulation.
Hint: if John 10:30 were sufficient, there would never have been a heresy concerning Christ's human and divine nature in the first place, no?
While you're at it, though, you might want to explain the procession of the Holy Spirit from Scripture. That will at least give the Orthodox a snigger.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 5:33PM
Your logic is...Illogical.
Heresy exists for many reason...Ignorance, avarice, laziness, etc. It has nothing to do with what's written in scripture.
There will always be people who follow false teachers and false teachings...Catholics, for example. Blaming that on God's word seems bizarre, to say the least.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 7:09PM
I'll proceed more slowly given your difficulty comprehending.
1. You claim to believe only those things in Scripture.
2. The doctrine of the Trinity is not in the Scripture.
3. You believe in the Trinity.
4. Therefore, the first statement is untrue.
See?
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 9:57AM
I'm ready to snigger.
But the Doc demonstrates admirably why most "Bible" Christians are either implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) either Arians or modalists. A literal reading of Scripture results in a recapitulation of earlier errors. The Arian heresy resulted from Arius' "plain language" interpretation of Scripture, but the Church knew, instinctively, through its rule of prayer, that Christ was indeed equal to the Father, and not a creature. The Council of Nicaea and the subsequent Council of Constantinople merely put into coherent form what the Church already knew and taught inchoately through the liturgy.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 5:50PM
Do I accept that Mary was a virgin prior to conceiving Christ?
YES
Do I accept (as many Catholics do) that Mary was "intact" after giving birth to Christ?
NO. Nor do I know why that's even important.
Do I accept (as many Catholics do) that Mary remained a virgin her entire life?
NO. That is NOT scriptural, nor do I understand why it's even important.
Do I accept that Mary was the Mother of Christ, God's human "essence"? That she passed onto him her DNA?
YES. Obviously.
Do I accept that Christ was both fully human yet fully divine?
YES. Obviously. But since God existed BEFORE Mary, that doesn't make her his (God's) mother.
Do I accept that Christ was the fullest example of human perfection ever?
YES.
So what's the problem?
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 7:11PM
The trouble is that you have inherited such beliefs as you have from the Catholic Church, since they are not found in the Scripture which you have also inherited from the Catholic Church.
The heresies regarding Mary are the detritus of the Reformation.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 8:16PM
Doctor Right merely proves there is no such thing as an original heresy, and also confirms the ability of some self-professed non-denominational Christians to hold mutually contradictory heresies simultaneously.
He is not to be taken seriously. His knowledge of Catholic doctrine and the Christian Tradition is superficial at best (and I am being charitable), and all of his arguments sound suspiciously like a self-serving apologia for leaving the Church of his birth because he's not entirely comfortable in whatever ecclesial community he now confesses. Such a lack of confidence often results in an insatiable desire to run down the community from which one fled. I call it "converting from" something, as opposed to "converting to" something.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 8:41PM
Well, there's no shortage of that these days, Stuart.
I myself worked through most of Protestantism before becoming Catholic---classic Anything But Catholic prior to that.
I do feel for Catholics who left the Church in the wake of this scandal. Not least of which because the safe havens they sought don't exist in our age outside of the cloister.
Rod Dreher famously left the Church over the scandal and became Orthodox. He refused to look into scandals within his new home because he knew if he did he'd be left with none. It is an excruciating experience to be sure.
I take some comfort in Oscar Wilde's quote regarding the Church being composed of saints and sinners and nothing inbetween.
At least Dreher gets that beautiful liturgy though---I have a recording of Russian Easter liturgy I listen to at this time every year; it is transcendent.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 7:37AM
I'm an historian. I would never make the mistake of judging the Church by the quality of its people--that way lies madness and disappointment. I went in with my eyes fully open, because, knowing the history of the Church, I already knew about its scandals, its corruption, and the sins and crimes of its members, from the Popes down to the least significant layman. None of that could suppress the reality of what the Church truly is.
Napoleon's uncle, Cardinal Fesch, tells this story from the negotiations for the Concordat with France:
At one point, Napoleon made an exorbitant demand of the Church, which Fesch, on behalf of the Pope, rejected. Napoleon flew into a rage, screaming and threatening. He rounded on Fesch and said, "If the Pope does not give in on this, I will destroy the Church!"
Fesch merely smiled and said, mildly, "Sire, we bishops have been trying to do that for 1800 years, and have not yet succeeded".
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 10:00AM
"The heresies regarding Mary are the detritus of the Reformation."
Albeit a very late and degenerate form of Reformation thought. Luther had a very strong Marian devotion, which included her perpetual virginity. The radical reformers, who rejected anything that even smacked of "papism", reflexively did away with something that even the earliest Christians believed.
Teflon93| 4.7.10 @ 1:39PM
You are correct---I should have been clearer as to which Reformation strain produced the eventual spite for Mary.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 3:50PM
"One in being" was both inaccurate and borderline heretical, so ICEL was directed to replace it with "consubstantial", which is close enough to "homoousios" for liturgical work.
In my Church, the Creed uses the expression "of one essence with the Father", which is closer still.
The interesting thing is Arius tried to shoot down the Nicene formula by saying the term "homoousios" was not Scriptural.
JP| 4.5.10 @ 4:43PM
"To then make a completely illogical leap and apply that to the Rosary is pure ignorance."
So, you have a problem with the Gospel of Luke? I imagine you have even a bigger problem with the Gospel of John Chapter 6.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 4:46PM
If you're implying that the Rosary (the beads and the ritual, NOT prayers) are in the Gospel of Luke, you're mistaken.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 4:53PM
The beads are used for keeping count. Must they be dictated as the dimensions of the Ark of the Covenant?
But thank you for admitting at last that the prayers are.
Shall we point out Scriptural references in the Order of the Mass next?
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 4:59PM
Yes, please do.
And while you're at it, please point to the scriptures that say Priests shouldn't marry.
Also, where does it say that you should have a large, centralized Church, based in Rome, worth trillions of dollars, up to it's neck in politics, led by men who don't marry and wear funny hats, with a "College of Cardinals", a "Catechism", and all that other cute mumbo-jumbo that directly contradicts scripture.
Go on...
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 5:10PM
Since I ALWAYS respond to you, Doctor, (and since you can never answer me), here you go:
http://www.wctc.net/~mudndirt/Scripture in mass.htm
Priests not marrying is a custom which has varied from time to time in the Church. While the current Latin rite norm is celibate clergy, Eastern and other rites within the Church allow for married clergy. A small number of Catholic priests who came into the Church married remain so today by exception as well. The Scriptural basis for priestly celibacy is found primarily in St Paul's epistles as he eschewed sexual intercourse for at least a time.
You might wish to note Christ's counsel concerning the woman anointing him. The poor we shall always have with us. You should also note that Pope John Paul II died owning far less than you do.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 5:41PM
Yes, we all know about how Priests not marrying is "a custom" (I get this line from my parents). And we all know how men from other faiths who are already married and convert to Catholicism can stay married.
I guess you overlooked 1 Timothy 3, huh?
1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
Far from being celibate, Priests are SUPPOSED to be married.
Maybe then they wouldn't want to diddle little boys?
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 7:13PM
Boy, you really ARE the Ethiopian, aren't you?
How many wives did Christ have?
How many children?
And precisely how many Christian communities REQUIRE pastors to be married?
"Sorry, buddy, your wife has passed away---see ya!"
Cal Mark| 4.5.10 @ 11:04PM
Until about AD 500, all churchmen were allowed to be married.
Until about AD 1000, all priests could be married.
Eastern Rite Catholic priests are still allowed to be married. The Eastern Rite does not have the kind of scandals the the Latin rite--with mandatory celibacy--has.
A celibate priesthood was not a Divine command. In fact, the Gospels talk about Peter's mother-in-law.
Or will you insist, like my eighth-grade religion teacher (with 8 kids but ranted at us constantly that we should all become virginal religious celibates) that Peter abandoned his wife to follow Jesus?
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 7:46AM
I am an Eastern Catholic (please don't call us Eastern RITE Catholics--one observes a rite, but one lives in a Church). One of the priests at my parish is married. I know many married priests both Orthodox and Catholic.
Having a married priesthood does not ensure the absence of sex scandals, any more than being a married ensures the absence of sexual abuse inside a family.
I know our dirty linen very well. Married clergy is not a panacea, because "there is not a man who lives and does not sin". Married clergy reduce the likelihood of a certain type of abuse, but not of others. One can review the record of various Protestant denominations, in addition to that of the Eastern Churches to find numerous instances of transgression. Those in Protestant denominations often persist longer because of the autonomy of each ministry and congregation, and predatory pastors can pass from congregation to congregation under the radar screen. Also, many communities often devolve into cults of personality, in which a charismatic minister holds absolute sway over his followers (you can think of some examples, I'm sure), which allows abuse to go on for years, practically in plain sight.
The only solution to the problem is eternal vigilence, both on the part of those whose ministry is oversight, as well as the faithful as a whole. As we are tasked to bear each other's burdens, we are obligated to look out for and protect the least among us, and not to be respecters of persons.
The only surefire
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 3:52PM
Stupid blog cut me off.
As I was saying, the only surefire way to prevent abuse is for all the members of the Body of Christ to be vigilent, from the highest bishop to the lowest layman. We are enjoined to support one another and bear each others burdens, as well as to protect those who are the least among us.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 8:19PM
I'm sure you would have even more difficulty with the Jesus Prayer, at the heart of Byzantine spirituality. It consists only of one line, "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner". We Orthodox and Greek Catholics repeat it hundreds of times each day, using prayer knots to keep count. It empties the mind and focuses it on God.
If you want, there is also the shortest prayer in Scripture, uttered by St. Peter, as he fails to walk on water, "Lord, save me!"
To hear the voice of God, one must first still the turbulence within one's own mind.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 8:27PM
Not to mention the devotions to Mary, for which the East is rightly renowned.
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 8:21PM
"led by men who don't marry and wear funny hats"
Hey, our priests are married, and their hats are much funnier than those worn by the Latins. As George on Seinfeld replied when asked why he wanted to become Orthodox, he responded, "It's those great hats!"
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 5:04PM
Since there's such interest in the Rosary:
2678 Medieval piety in the West developed the prayer of the rosary as a popular substitute for the Liturgy of the Hours. In the East, the litany called the Akathistos and the Paraclesis remained closer to the choral office in the Byzantine churches, while the Armenian, Coptic, and Syriac traditions preferred popular hymns and songs to the Mother of God. But in the Ave Maria, the theotokia, the hymns of St. Ephrem or St. Gregory of Narek, the tradition of prayer is basically the same.
2708 Meditation engages thought, imagination, emotion, and desire. This mobilization of faculties is necessary in order to deepen our convictions of faith, prompt the conversion of our heart, and strengthen our will to follow Christ. Christian prayer tries above all to meditate on the mysteries of Christ, as in lectio divina or the rosary. This form of prayerful reflection is of great value, but Christian prayer should go further: to the knowledge of the love of the Lord Jesus, to union with him.
1674 Besides sacramental liturgy and sacramentals, catechesis must take into account the forms of piety and popular devotions among the faithful. The religious sense of the Christian people has always found expression in various forms of piety surrounding the Church's sacramental life, such as the veneration of relics, visits to sanctuaries, pilgrimages, processions, the stations of the cross, religious dances, the rosary, medals, etc.
971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship." The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration." The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.
As for the disdain evinced in some quarters for Mary, we should recall that one definition of Christian is to love that which Christ loved and Christ clearly loved Mary, making provision for her even in his agonies on the Cross (John 19:26-7). Some despise the Church so much they disparage Christ's mother; I'd rather counsel against that.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 7:53AM
The closest parallel to the Rosary in the Eastern Churches would be the Jesus Prayer, sometimes combined with the Eastern form of the Ave Maria:
Theotokos, rejoice! Virgin Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, for thou hast borne the Savior of our souls.
I also know many Orthodox who recite the Rosary as a personal devotion. It is entirely acceptable.
The two Marian services mentioned, Paraclesis (Consolation) and Akathist ("While Standing") are sung liturgical services (all liturgies in the Eastern Churches are sung a capella), quite moving and full of beautiful imagery.
Both are usually celebrated during fast periods. Paraclesis is normally celebrated during the Nativity Fast that begins forty days before Christmas. The Akathist (a service for which Pope John Paul II had a personal fondness) is celebrated during Lent--I attended Akathist at my parish several times during the latest Fast. The service is usually attributed to Saint Romanos the Melodist, who lived in the sixth century and was responsible for the development of an extended sung sermon called the kontakion, remnants of which are still found in all Byzantine liturgical services.
JP| 4.5.10 @ 4:52PM
"If you're implying that the Rosary (the beads and the ritual, NOT prayers) are in the Gospel of Luke, you're mistaken."
Doc,
If the beads (which are used to assist in counting), and a crucifix of Christ offend you, you can just use your fingers. There is no requirement to carrying or use anything. For countless Catholics who were imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain or other countries, they had nothing but thier memory to go on.
Other than that, I'm not sure what you mean by ritual(s). The Rosary, is a very simple but powerful prayer that requires no beads, incense, candles, oils, etc...
Good day.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 10:11AM
I gotta say, every good Greek Catholic or Orthodox home has an icon corner, with icons of Christ, the Theotokos, and the patron saints of the family hanging on the wall. On a small analogion table, one will find a crucifix, a candle or oil lamp (I prefer the latter), a Gospel and a small hand censer (we bring our smells and bells home with us).
We pray the morning and evening prayers before the icons, sanctifying our prayers with light and incense, in accordance with the Pslams: "Let my prayer ascend to Thee like incense, the lifting up of my hands like an evening sacrifice". The ancient Jews worshiped God with light and incense, and we continue to do what they did.
We use icons because these serve as windows into the infinite, and because Christ who was the Divine Logos, took on flesh and became man, thereby sanctifying the material world.
When God commanded the Israelites to eschew idols and graven images (though note, elsewhere He gives them explicit instructions on how the MAKE graven images), it was due both to the weakness of the Israelites, and to the fact that God had not yet manifested Himself in material form. "No man may see my face and live", God tells Moses.
But when Jesus was born of Mary, the invisible became visible, the infinite became circumscribed in the body of a man. Jesus could be seen and touched, therefore He could also be depicted.
During the iconoclast period, John of Damascus and Theodore Studites both made the point that icons were an affirmation of the incarnation, and conversely, that rejection of sacred images was a denial of the incarnation, an assertion that Jesus was somehow NOT truly human--a form of docetism (a heresy to which a lot of Bible-only Christians seem prone). Icons are not worshiped, but rather they are venerated, and the honor given to them passes to the prototype, because, in the ancient world, the radical distinction between symbol and reality with which we are familiar did not exist. The symbol contained the attributes of that which it represented; in a mystical manner, it was what it represented. When I pray to an icon of Christ, I am not praying to wood and paint, but to Christ himself. When I look into the eyes of his icon, He looks back at me.
Tim*| 4.5.10 @ 5:25PM
It seems that Doctor is Not really " Christian " . Apparently , He's a Lapsed Catholic with An Obsessive Hang Up Against Practicing Catholics !
Ted| 4.5.10 @ 6:07PM
Tim*, you hit the nail on the head.
Doctor Right, I am going to pray the Rosary tonight for the you.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 6:19PM
Wow. I'm, like, touched.
Hmmmm..."Touched". Poor choice of words, maybe. You're not a Priest, are you?
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 3:54PM
In the part of Texas from which my wife hails, you certainly would be considered touched (make that "tetched").
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 6:17PM
Not really "Christian", huh?
How did you arrive at this illustrious conclusion? Did you have to consult your Catechism? Or did the image of the Virgin Mary on your bagel speak to you?
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 7:33PM
How did you reach your conclusion, Doctor Right?
Where may we find your catechism?
Be SPECIFIC, please. You have demonstrated neither the command of Scripture, history, nor cardinal virtue to deal in glittering generalities as a play on charity here.
For the part of the Church, you are a Christian if you were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit---whoops, there's that extra-Scriptural Trinitarian formula again!
Unlike the teeming horde of would-be Popes out there in the hinterlands, the Church does not assign arbitrary criteria to the title of Christian but merely recognizes as Christ did the rite of baptism as Christian initiation.
You obviously have different criteria.
What are they?
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 10:13AM
By their fruits shall ye know them. I look at your fruits, and I don't see Christ. Sorry.
Pingback| 4.5.10 @ 5:45PM
Bookworm Room » The attack on the church continues apace; or, so that’s why he became links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tim*| 4.5.10 @ 6:23PM
Read your own Posting Trail Anti-Catholic Keyboard Coward.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 6:35PM
Hey, Mr. Slippery!
Check this out:
http://www.france24.com/en/201.....ase-report
Neat how this French guy gets to fall on his sword for "Il Papa", isn't it?
So the talking points go:
1. The 2nd in Command knew...But the Boss didn't.
Riiiiiiiiiiiight!
So glad I'm not a Catholic anymore. You have to twist logic on a daily basis to survive.
Vollowitz Lives| 4.5.10 @ 7:10PM
I thought you were Jewish.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 7:55AM
I'm Jewish. If the Nazis came back, my conversion would not save me any more than it saved Edith Stein. For his part, the Doc is merely a putz.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 7:25PM
Perhaps you missed where the actual canon judge discussed this in great detail. An investigation was underway but the priest in question died before it culminated.
You obviously are unaware that prior to his becoming Pope Cardinal Ratzinger reviewed The Vatican's information on sexual abuse claims weakly, a task he referred to as his Friday penance because of the painfulness of it.
He also met with sexual abuse victims during his U.S. visit to apologize to them directly.
Your hate is misplaced, but then, all hatred is.
Tim*| 4.5.10 @ 6:57PM
Gee Hate Doctor !
The Public School Bosses Knew :
" Sherryll Kraizer, executive director of the Denver-based Safe Child Program, said it is commonplace for principals and teachers to neglect laws that require them to report sexual abuse of children.
“I see it regularly,” Kraizer said. “There are laws against failing to report, but the law is almost never enforced. Almost never.”
Kraizer sees the documentation first-hand as a professional witness for prosecutors and defense lawyers in cases of childhood sexual abuse allegations. She has personally reviewed dozens of cases in which teachers and administrators neglected to contact authorities regarding knowledge of abuse."
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 7:26PM
Doesn't matter, Tim---Doctor Right only cares about the sexual abuse of children when it can be utilized as a weapon against the Catholic Church.
Otherwise, he doesn't waste his time on it.
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 8:13PM
Typical Catholic drivel.
Hey...Seen Mary in a neco-wafer lately?
And besides...Poking holes in Catholicism and all of it's inherent inconsistencies is SO fun...Easy too!
Stuart Koehl| 4.5.10 @ 8:24PM
You must be getting tired, because the mindless bigotry is coming to the surface. In any case, I'm Catholic, and we don't use "neco-wafers" (can't you even spell correctly when you blaspheme?) in our Eucharist, but good, old-fashioned leavened bread (wheat, water, yeast, salt).
Also, you haven't poked holes in anything except your own credibility.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 8:32PM
You must be in a lot of pain.
I'll add my prayers to Ted's for you and light a candle for you at Mass this week.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 7:56AM
The Paschal Verses sung at the end of Resurrection Orthros enjoin us to pray even for those who hate us, for Christ is risen, and death has lost its hold over us.
Siegfried X| 4.5.10 @ 8:38PM
"There are laws against failing to report"
So it's a cover up. The public will automatically turn against any organization which fails to report.
So if any organization has failed to report, they will be condemned once the news comes out. AND IT IS THEIR OWN FAULT.
That organization and those individuals will also be vulnerable to law suits for endangering the children, as well as possible criminal charges for conspiracy, being accessories after the fact, and if they do their own investigation, tampering with witnessess, tampering with evidence, and impersonating police officers.
Siegfried X| 4.5.10 @ 8:38PM
"There are laws against failing to report"
So it's a cover up. The public will automatically turn against any organization which fails to report.
So if any organization has failed to report, they will be condemned once the news comes out. AND IT IS THEIR OWN FAULT.
That organization and those individuals will also be vulnerable to law suits for endangering the children, as well as possible criminal charges for conspiracy, being accessories after the fact, and if they do their own investigation, tampering with witnessess, tampering with evidence, and impersonating police officers.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 8:47PM
Your faith in prosecutorial discretion is something to behold.
As long as the NEA/AFT etc are major contributors to the Democrat Party, which, by the way, controls most urban areas, and which, by the way, is the religion of most media organizations, what are the odds of a coverup of sexual abuse in public schools NOT succeeding?
One way of testing this would be to look for Pulitzer-seeking multipart series reports on abuse in public schools. Good luck on that---I've only been able to find short wire-service blurbs.
Ferreting out teachers who are repeat offenders and bounce from district to district is something there doesn't seem to be much media appetite for, for reasons established above.
Laws are only as good as they are enforced, right?
Tim*| 4.5.10 @ 7:43PM
Good Call Teflon93 !
You have Doctor Reich's Number !
Doctor Right| 4.5.10 @ 8:13PM
Between the two of you, there may be the makings of another pervy priest.
Teflon93| 4.5.10 @ 8:21PM
Are we to presume Christ delights in your little comments, Doctor?
At least they have the useful purpose of destroying your credibility when you claim to care about the sexual abuse of children.
Doctor Right| 4.6.10 @ 9:37AM
Yup. Absolutely.
Christ called-out hypocrites, posers, liars, deceivers, fakes, frauds, manipulators of God's word, and the like...
...And he said there's a special place reserved in Hell for those who corrupt children.
So on ALL counts, I don't think he'd be too thrilled with the organization that calls itself the Catholic Church.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 10:14AM
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Doctor Right| 4.6.10 @ 12:06PM
You've mis-applied this quote. What a shock!
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 12:30PM
Not at all. Jesus is minding his own business when a bunch of guys come up to him with a woman who was "taken in adultery". They want someone to legitimize what they are about to do, so they go to Jesus, who is drawing figures in the sand, and ask, "We took this woman in adultery. Should we not stone her, according to the Law?" And Jesus continues doodling in the sand, but eventually looks up and says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". And the men begin to look down at their feet, kicking their toes in the dust, and gradually drift away. The woman thanks Jesus profoundly, and He says to her, "Your sins are forgiven. Go forth and sin no more".
Are you without sin, Doc? Is whatever community with which you worship devoid of sinners? Do you know any man who does not sin?
Then who are you to make invidious comparisons and say we should be ashamed of ourselves? Who are you to say that the Catholic Church is more culpable than any other human agency?
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. But not from you, I guess.
Teflon93| 4.7.10 @ 1:41PM
The good Doctor must be alone---and supreme to the apostles---in his ability to work out his salvation WITHOUT fear and trembling, no?
Doctor Right| 4.6.10 @ 12:17PM
I'm sorry, but you're an ass.
The idea that I don't care about the sexual abuse of children because I criticize the Catholic Church's KNOWN lies, cover-ups, and deceit regarding the problem of sexual abuse of children by pervert Catholic priests is not only absurd, it's infantile.
It's about what I've come to expect from zombie-like catholic drones who CANNOT support either their faith or their support of the lie and cover-ups with reason and Bible-based rationale, so they resort to emotion-based arguments and non-sequiters to deflect from the truth.
Your faith is sham built on an house-of-cards that's crumbling as I type.
Jesus said "By their fruits, you shall know them." Well, around the world, we're beginning to see more and more about "the fruits" of the Catholic Church. They can't hide anymore behind all of their "good works". They are sheltering a culture of lies and absolute perversion, and they will pay the price.
In Europe, they're discussing filing legal charges against the Bishops, the Cardinals. and maybe even the Pope for their role in COVERING-UP the scandal. And if you're such a drone that you want to believe the talking points that Benedict is not culpable in this mess, then you're without hope.
There's a special place in hell reserved for those who corrupt children. Those who enable the corruption of children will also be joining them.
But hey, don't worry! Keep fumbling with your Rosary beads, pray to that image of Mary in the potato chip, read your cute l'il Catechism instead of the Bible, and above all, listen to EVERYTHING the Pope says under the false belief that he's the Head of your Church, and everything will be okey-dokey in the amusement park known as "Catholic World".
Nick| 4.6.10 @ 1:26PM
Doctor Right,
I followed your back and forth with Teflon93 and Mr. Koehl, briefly, yesterday.
It is obvious you have a HUGE problem with the Roman Catholic Church. But, it may be because you have mommy and daddy issues.
You can't blame an entire institution for the acts of a few.
Was President Nixon and the entire U.S. Army to blame for the actions of Lt. Calley at My Lai? What about the other, although few, documented war crimes in Viet Nam?
Doctor Right| 4.7.10 @ 9:43AM
Wrong on all counts.
I have no more enmity for the Catholic Church than for any other false faith.
Any your armchair psychoanalysis is amusing, to say the least.
Are you a Catholic priest? Because your lack of logic seems similar to a Catholic homily.
Teflon93| 4.7.10 @ 1:45PM
You mean that 10-minute reflection on a passage of the Gospel read at each Mass, as opposed to the hours-long discourse others engage in, stringing phrases separated by whole books and thousands of years together for novel new theology?
I'll take the homily, thanks. Good enough for St Augustine, good enough for me.
And a hint for you, Doctor---you don't know the first thing about logic. You haven't even been in the same timezone with a logical argument this entire thread, nor have you been able to buttress your bigotry by marshalling evidence for your ludicrous claims.
This is no doubt because logic is still taught in Catholic schools and rarely taught elsewhere (fragments remain in computer science courses, thankfully).
Teflon93| 4.7.10 @ 1:51PM
BTW, Doctor, is Judaism a false faith?
Nick| 4.7.10 @ 2:32PM
Doctor Wrong,
No, I'm not a priest.
I do not have the superior 8-12 years of education that most of them do.
If I have such a "lack of logic", it should be rather easy to refute it, no?
Answer my questions, if you are intellectually honest.
Why is the Catholic Church responsible for the crimes of a small percentage of priests, but the U.S. Army is not responsible for the war crimes of a small percentage of soldiers?
Tim*| 4.5.10 @ 11:18PM
Thou Protests Too Much Doctor Strangelove !
You Sound Like A Bit Of A Closet Sheep Wrangler Yourself.
Yosemeti Sam| 4.6.10 @ 2:15AM
Hmmmm.
So sex to some is deemed - boring and or passé?
No big deal.
That'd be news, to the tens of millions, and counting, of copulation consequences - aborted human beings who were conceived in otherwise boring circumstantial sex.
Strange persistent - viral boredom.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 8:01AM
I have seldom beheld a society more saturated in sex than that of the Netherlands. It's everywhere, and they are very open about it, but they don't seem very happy and they don't seem to enjoy sex, but go about it with a sort of grim determination, as though it was some sort of duty to fornicate.
Reminds me of the story of the Saudi prince's wife, who, at the bath with the wives of the other princes, got into a discussion of whether their husbands thought sex was a pleasure or work. Salome says, "I will ask my husband, Mustafa, when he gets home tonight".
That evening, after dinner, when the children were in bed, Salome turns to Mustafa and asks, "O my husband, light of my universe, please, I must know: Do you consider sex to be pleasure or work?"
Mustafa ponders for a moment, then replies, "My dearest, I think that sex must be pleasure, for if it was work, I would surely hire a contractor to do it for me".
gearjammer| 4.6.10 @ 6:03AM
It goes back to Maslow and his triangle. We were all being urged to " self actualize". This brilliant notion ran into the pleasure principle and the rest is history. Burning the hard earned money of taxpayers and orgasm is how our national leaders, people who are proclaimed " elites" self actualize.
mejamom| 4.6.10 @ 10:01AM
In my rural community a highly regarded high school teacher was accused of something like seduction of a 14 yr. old girl. The schoolboard struck a "behind closed door" deal with the family, gave him early retirement, sent him to counselling and had him sign a statement that he wouldn't teach again. I've wondered, who was his watchdog? Also, how often does that happen everywhere?
This sounds similar to something the church has done in moving predator priests around.
I'm a faithful Catholic who has lived in several states and have never come in contact with anyone (50+ yrs.) who even knew of a predator priest. However, because of the severity of the crimes some of them have commited, they should be charged and brought to trial just like a non clergyman. Not only would that keep the church from having to pay out millions of dollars (which could be used for more charitable purposes) to victims, it would restore faith in people, Catholic and non Catholic, that the Church takes such sins against innocents seriously.
It might also be one less thing for the anti Catholics to use in their attacks.
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 10:43AM
These situations can be difficult in real life as opposed to the abstract. In many cases, the only witness to the offense is the victim, who is likely to be traumatized by the experience. Without the testimony of the victim, there is no criminal case. But often the victim or his family do not want to go through the ordeal of a trial (which involves not only reliving the crime, but also being subjected to cross examination by the defense counsel), and do not wish to testify. In such cases, there is little recourse other than to settle the case privately out of court and hope for the best. Under ideal circumstances, the perpetrator is indeed isolated from children and never repeats his crime, but I suspect this is rare. Only when the situation builds to a critical mass are there enough victims--and victims willing to come forth--to bring the criminal to justice. It is an unfortunate concomitant of our criminal justice system.
PCC| 4.6.10 @ 11:44AM
Well, as far as I can tell, no answer to my earlier post as shown below:
I was the object of much derision and disagreement for the following statement:
"It is now an established fact that probably no other organization in the history of the world has been responsible for more sexual abuse of children than the Catholic Church. Certainly not in our lifetime and in living memory."
Fair enough. For my critics, please name another organisation (not a class or group such as 'gym teachers' or 'African rebels') that surpasses what we now know about the Church.
JP| 4.6.10 @ 3:54PM
So, what numbers do you have PC? The Catholic Church is an organization with over 1 billion members. What other organization is this large?
The actual numbers are 40,000 children were abused by 1200 priests over a 40 year period. Those numbers came from an independent review in 2003. Compare that with the New York City Public Schools (ie much smaller, but with the same number of complaints over the same period). In my own area, 3 public schools have reported (or were allowed to report) that there have been 56 cases of child abuse during the last 15 years (many of the unreported cases are sealed. Nice bargain.). These 3 schools employ 800 people and educate 15000 students. Do the math yourself. In both my local area and in NYC the incidence of childhood sex abuse is much higher than the Church (our local diocese employs 2000 priests, adminsitrators, nuns, brothers, and teachers for some 300,000 Catholics. There was one abusive Priest in the 40 year time frame). Again do the math.
You want more?
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 3:55PM
What unit of measure would you prefer to use, please?
Teflon93| 4.6.10 @ 5:57PM
Quite the contrary---both myself and Melvin posted an extensive list yesterday in response (you didn't respond to my post, btw):
1. NEA/AFT and other teachers' unions
2. Southern Baptist Convention and other denominations shown in the link of sexual abuse occurrences within non-Catholic Christian communities, esp. by clergy
3. United Nations, whose peacekeepers have repeatedly been found to sexually abuse those they ostensibly were there to protect
In all of these cases, the incidence rate of sexual abuse allegations and alleged perpetrators are higher than in the Catholic Church.
Tim*| 4.6.10 @ 2:31PM
Ya Might Try The NEA , Politically Correct Clown Agenda Boy !
" Ms. Shakeshaft estimated that roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a public school employee from 1991 to 2000—a single decade, compared with the roughly five-decade period examined in the study of Catholic priests. "
Stuart Koehl| 4.6.10 @ 3:58PM
I was quite surprise to discover recently that one of my Junior High School teachers were removed from the classroom for molesting a friend of mine in a coat closet. All I remember from that time was he was there one day, and gone the next. The official story in circulation was he had to have an operation for ulcerative collitis--which may have had a germ of truth in it.
But none of us knew what really happened. Such things were not discussed back then, even in public schools.
Pingback| 4.6.10 @ 8:26PM
The Anchoress | A First Things Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
DaveFromOregon| 4.9.10 @ 12:06AM
This should be reduced to a few simple issues:
1) having sex with a minor is a felony
2) having non consensual sex with anyone is a felony
3) conspiring to cover up a felony is a felony
4) aiding and abetting a felon is also a felony
This is purely a criminal matter and should never have been treated otherwise. The priests who abused children should have been turned into the the authorities. The bishops should have turned them into the authorities. The bishops, cardinals, and lay people who covered up that behavior were also criminals. The rest of this is subtrafuge.
georgie-ann| 4.9.10 @ 1:05PM
thank you for a great discussion,...i learned a lot!
Pingback| 4.15.10 @ 1:10PM
The Pope, the Scandal, and the Crib Notes for Journalism 101 « B16 – links links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.12.10 @ 9:10PM
Ed Driscoll » Meet The Evangelical Left links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
fjsdkj| 6.30.10 @ 11:10PM
beijing massage shanghai girl