Special Report
The End of History and the Last Pope
The Times’ smear campaign against Benedict was telegraphed by editor Bill Keller’s column in 2002.
Post-Enlightenment liberalism has long regarded the Catholic Church as the last obstacle to its final triumph. The Enlightenment-era French dilettante Denis Diderot spoke of strangling the last priest with the “guts of the last king.”
The ceaseless attacks on Pope Benedict XVI over the last few weeks form the most recent scene in this historical drama. Unlike Napoleon, today’s forces of secularization can’t imprison a pope. Well, at least not yet; Christopher Hitchens is working on this, calling for the European Union to seize Benedict’s traveling papers. But they can strangle him politically and culturally. That his popularity poll numbers have apparently dipped below those of the most inane and rancid celebrities testifies to this perverse power.
The children of Diderot at the New York Times understand the secularist Enlightenment project very well. Its executive editor, Bill Keller, telegraphed this in a 2002 column.
Since he wrote the column before he was promoted to editor, he didn’t bother to hide his anti-Catholic bigotry with circumspect throat-clearing. He described himself as a “collapsed Catholic” — “well beyond lapsed.” He affected a false modesty about this, saying that for this reason he claims “no voice in whom the church ordains or how it prays or what it chooses to call a sin.” But of course he does claim that voice — and thinks all should obey it.
He made it clear that he was rooting for “reforms” that would reduce Catholicism to a captive of modern liberalism: “…the struggle within the church is interesting as part of a larger struggle within the human race, between the forces of tolerance and absolutism.”
In that one sentence lies the whole subtext to the paper’s campaign against Pope Benedict in the last few weeks. The Holy Father represents for Keller and Dowd and Goodstein the hated “forces of absolutism” that the tolerant and enlightened think themselves called by history to stop.
For an elite drunk on its own enlightenment, the ends will always justify the means against religion. So what, Keller figured, if my reporters could only come up with straining, half-baked pieces that cast fragments of information about Benedict in the worst possible light? Let’s run them anyways, so that the forces of tolerance can triumph over the forces of absolutism!
And if it turns out that the forces of tolerance are largely responsible for mishandling these abuse cases (the ousted homosexual Archbishop Rembert Weakland, the subject of flattering profiles over the years in the New Yorker and New York Times, is the person most responsible for dereliction in the Milwaukee case the Times claims to find so outrageous), well, let’s blame it on Benedict anyways. He could have done more!
In that 2002 column, Keller oozed contempt for the Church, speaking of the hierarchy as “aging celibates” (imagine Keller ever writing an equivalent sentence about imams) who refused to embrace the “equality of women, abortion on demand, and gay rights.”
Keller had little use for Pope John Paul II, whom he likened to an authoritarian Communist:
One paradox of the Polish pope is that while he is rightly revered for helping bring down the godless Communists, he has replicated something very like the old Communist Party in his church. Karol Wojtyla has shaped a hierarchy that is intolerant of dissent, unaccountable to its members, secretive in the extreme and willfully clueless about how people live. The Communists mouthed pieties about ”social justice” and the rule of the working class while creating a corrupt dictatorship of bureaucrats….
…like the Communists, John Paul has carefully constructed a Kremlin that will be inhospitable to a reformer. He has strengthened the Vatican equivalent of the party Central Committee, called the Curia, and populated it with reactionaries. He has put a stamp of papal infallibility on the issue of ordaining women, making it more difficult for a successor to come to terms with the issue. He has trained bishops that the path of advancement is obsequious obedience to himself. Alarmed by priests who showed too much populist sympathy for their parishioners, the pope, according to the Notre Dame historian R. Scott Appleby, has turned seminaries into factories of conformity, begetting a generation of inflexible young priests who have no idea how to talk to real-life Catholics.
Of course, if John Paul II had been a real Communist like Alger Hiss or Van Jones, Keller wouldn’t have talked about him so scathingly. But any stick would do at the time and the Communist analogy appealed to his imagination at the moment. Notice that these days the opportunistic complaint from the Keller-led Times is not that the Church is too authoritarian but that it is too lax. Apparently, it is not autocratic after all. The paper can’t decide if Benedict is a Rottweiler or lap dog.
Upon his election, the Times called him “hard line” and “divisive.” Now he is soft and clubby. But imagine if Benedict did govern the Church like the autocrat of Keller’s imagination, sweeping down to sack every derelict bishop and corrupt priest across the globe, the Times would be the first to engage in ACLU-style whining about the lack of due process, etc., etc. In fact, when he issued his renewal of the Church’s ban on the ordination of homosexuals in the first year of his pontificate — a ban which the “forces of tolerance” within the Church had suspended for decades, a factor contributing greatly to the abuse scandal — the Times was the first to object.
“How many divisions does the Pope have?” secularists, inspired by Stalin, used to scoff. The Pope, as they know, enjoys no such power, yet in recent weeks they have acted as if he had a military and police at his disposal which he simply refused to use against abusers.
It is the “forces of tolerance” which command the divisions, and they will continue to march through history, displaying all the tolerance of French Revolutionaries as they look forward to that final moment when the last priest can be strangled with the guts of the last pope.
About the Author
George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (364) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by George Neumayr
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/08/the-end-of-history-and-the-las
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
K962| 4.8.10 @ 6:55AM
Vitriol that is spewed by the Times can rightfully called "hate speech". The public square has three entities - The State, Religion and the citizen.
Progressives want to eliminate the religion leaving only the State and the citizen. The State will de facto become the "religion" . All hail the "state"
Alan Brooks| 4.8.10 @ 10:21PM
Why is the 'Antichrist' usually supposed to be in some other country? "The Antichrist is the Pope in Rome";
or "the Beast is someone in Jerusalem."
Alan Brooks| 4.8.10 @ 10:23PM
... Perhaps the Beast (666) is a celebrity in Hollywood?
Patrick| 4.8.10 @ 11:36PM
The Antichrist, as opposed to _an_ antichrist, is capable of performing preternatural acts and is accompanied by a false prophet.
Sorry, but what's more humiliating, taking a beating from Satan's chosen, or the devil's rejects?
I'd hate to see the frenzy the real Antichrist could whip up right now.
davelnaf| 4.8.10 @ 8:15AM
Leftist have never understood that the causes that stir them to a frenzy say a lot more about them than what they want people to know and at the same time takes away whatever capacity they have to see themselves for what they are.
Gene Carr| 4.8.10 @ 8:32AM
The late Professor Carton Hayes has a name for the intolerant liberalism of the NYT. He called it sectarian liberalism.
Teflon93 | 4.8.10 @ 8:45AM
The Catholic Church is merely the target of the Left's latest Two Minute Hate in order to distract from Obama's failing presidency and the whipping Pelosi and Reid are about to take in Congress.
It wasn't their fault, you see, but the Pope's....
mark| 4.8.10 @ 8:49AM
The Catholic Church will exist long after the NYT is just another bad memory.
Bill| 4.8.10 @ 9:56AM
It was a bad memory a few years ago and I stopped reading their dribble. A lesson taught a wayward boy is to cancel their subscription and for advertisers to pass them by.
JMJ2in1| 4.10.10 @ 2:56AM
Kudos! The NY what? Not EVEN a memory!
Howard| 4.8.10 @ 8:53AM
Being Jewish, I always thought that there were two sets of rules; one for Jews and one for everyone else. Now however, I see that analogy applies to Catholics as well. A shill like Keller doesn't have the stones to criticize radical Muslims; he doesn't want his neck to get to close to a sword. But, Catholics, oh boy have a party. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning any abomination that have happened. A pox on anyone covering up or allowing this garbage. But, the liberal, secular bunch, led by the epicenter New York Times wants to see the Church fail as much as Stalin or Castro does. Cancel your subscriptions, do not buy any products or services owned by The New York Times.
cl| 4.8.10 @ 11:05AM
you are correct that they are afraid of radical muslim terrorists. their next target after the pope and catholic church is israel and bibi.
Don| 4.8.10 @ 3:16PM
Or, as it occurs to me now, that by objecting to and vilifying any indecent behavior, by extension one is doing so to any other group.
By demanding, for example equal rights for women, we are stating our objection t gender apartheid in the middle east.
Sandra| 4.8.10 @ 9:04AM
We are watching the Catholic Church be targeted for destruction, what's next? History people, read it and learn from it.
What's coming will make the "Holocaust" appear to be a local pogrom.
It will start with the Catholics, but it will quickly be everyone in opposition to the Regime.
Bill| 4.8.10 @ 10:00AM
Sandra,
God will always have a his people around. No matter how much God haters rebel God will always rule and have the final verdict. The last chapter has already been written. We win !!!
rose Burkhart| 4.8.10 @ 11:19AM
You are correct, Bill. At the end, God and we who believe in independence with which God endowed humans, win! Meanwhile, however, 'Enlightenment Marxists' will extract as much blood as possible from believers in freedom. The present US Regime has no intention to relinquish its power over the people. Destroying Freedom of Christian/Judea religion is paramount to maintaining a Marxist-based government.
Majito| 4.8.10 @ 11:57AM
Yeah but God has chosen the Church (and I mean here the members not the buildings/admin structures) to control what happens on earth on a daily basis...Jesus directed his followers to be the salt plus to be wise as serpents and meek as doves...what it requires here is that the Catholics in the US quit complaining about these characters and actually do something like block Manhattan in a weekday, march on the times and demand this clown to be thrown out or nobody will enter/leave the building...if you have 500k Catholics in there screaming for either his hide or total boycott of the paper and their sponsors (and actually carry it out) will stop this nonsense...Christians in general are an easy prey because they just moan, complain and do nothing thinking...well God will take care of things...let us not forget that Paul found his lighting when he was actually on the road not waiting around Jerusalem complaining about these folks from The Way...and lastly, would the conservative media outlets quit citing the NYT and whatever they do? who gives a rat's tail what these declining yellow rags do? by their numbers few do but the conservative news outlets make it sound as if they're vox populi or the oracles that masses follow...in a country of 300+ million, a few hundred thousands (if that much) does not a majority make.
PJ| 4.8.10 @ 9:07AM
As 1 popular radio commentary put it: " Liberalism is a mental disorder."
Ex-Catholics like Keller & others of his sort have some sort of spoiled-brat, vendetta against the Catholic Church. They constantly tell us that the Church has no power within this world. Yet, they write articles to try to tear it down when any opportunity arises, as if it is the most powerful organization in the universe. You can't have it both ways.
Personally, if I hated an organization as much as they do & it does not threaten my or my family's lifestyle or survival, I ignore whatever useless verbiage it publishes like I do w/the NYT.
Not anathema| 4.8.10 @ 9:28AM
I am far less concerned about the good name of the current pope, or of any pope, than I am about the centuries-old vilification of Bible-believing Christians by the Catholic Church. Or have the Canons on Justification by the 16th-century Council of Trent been repudiated? If so, wonderful.
Canon 9, to give just one example, claims that anyone who believes the Bible's claim that believers are justified by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8, Romans 5:1, Romans 3:28, etc.) is anathema -- cursed by God.
Fortunately, God is still sovereign. I'll stick with His promises.
Christian| 4.8.10 @ 10:28AM
Interesting, I would have thought that, as a Christian, it would be your duty to make sure the truth was proclaimed. Even if that truth involved saying that the media was falsely accusing a man whom you see as leading a false Church.
The ends do not justify the means. As an extreme example, no matter how much you disagreed with the Catholic Church, murdering people would not be an acceptable way of rectifying the situation. Likewise, allowing lies to be told is also not acceptable. Remember, Satan is the father of lies.
Not Anathema| 4.8.10 @ 12:28PM
By all means, let's find out the truth about these disgusting allegations. I'm all for a full-scale investigation. Are child sexual abuse, beatings and other forms of abuse and neglect rare, or widespread? No one wants people to be falsely accused of anything, so let's find out!
As to the Catholic Church being "a false church," I'll just say that I don't need a priest, pope or Mary to be my intermediary, intercessor or mediator; I confess my sins directly to God, and He forgives me (I John 1:9). Jesus alone is my mediator (I Timothy 2:5). All authority in heaven on earth, including the forgiveness of my sins, is His (Matthew 28:18). He completely finished the work of sacrificial atonement on the cross (John 19:30), so there is nothing I need to do in order to gain, maintain or regain my salvation. I need add nothing at all to Jesus' finished work, which is why the Bible insists that I am justified by God's grace through faith in Jesus alone (Romans 5:1), apart from any of my good works (Romans 3:28). I do good works to show my gratitude to Him, not to curry favor with Him.
For centuries, Catholics were discouraged (and often prohibited) from owning Bibles and reading God's Word for themselves. For centuries, the laity were not allowed to have the Bible in their own everyday language. Those days are long gone, thank God! Jesus Himself and the Bible are God's Word -- not the magisterium and tradition. It is the Bible's own words that prove that Catholicism is teaching a "different Gospel" (II Corinthians 11:4).
Christina| 4.8.10 @ 1:52PM
Well, as a Catholic I confess my sins to God through the ministry of the priests, which was started when Christ gave that authority to the apostles (John 20:19–23).
I believe that when the priest confects the Eucharist that we are made present at the foot of the cross, and when we eat his flesh and drink his blood we are given life within us (John 6).
I believe that I must work out my salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12) because faith without works is dead (James 2:20) and that we are saved by faith, but not faith alone as Luther added to Romans.
I believe that he gave the holy spirit to the church to guide it in all truth (John 16:12–13), and I believe that this was made manifest when the Church compiled the bible hundreds of years after the death of Christ. I believe that the Bible shouldn't be added to or subtracted from (Rev), so thus I approve of the Church's decision to reject incorrect translations of her book, like the KJV which removed several books of the old testament.
For centuries the Catholic Church protected the Bible from destruction, carefully copying it by hand from one generation to the next. These expensive bibles were chained to the church so that everyone would have access to them (much in the way a phonebook is chained to a phone booth). When the native language changed to Latin the Church took on the daunting task of translating the Bible into the vernacular so that a greater portion of the population could read it.
The Catholic Church has consistently taught the Jesus that was preached by the apostles, for if you look back at the earliest Christians you will find the concepts of the Eucharistic sacrifice, apostolic succession, reverence for Mary, and many more Catholic teachings that other churches have stopped preaching.
JP| 4.8.10 @ 2:05PM
"Those days are long gone, thank God! Jesus Himself and the Bible are God's Word -- not the magisterium and tradition."
Funny how the Bible is not mentioned even once in the NT. And believe it or not, the Bible wasn't even printed until the 15th Century, and even then there were mistranslations, etc...
And the Church never discouraged people from reading the Bible; heck, if one attends Mass daily, he will have read every single verse in a period of 3 years. What the Church warns against. is mistinterpetation. Today there are over 30,000 Protestant Sects in North America alone. Each one demanding that they are the true interpeters of Christ. You all can't be right.
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 6:23PM
Not anathema,
I have had numerous conversations with Bible believing Christians such as yourself who thought they knew what they were talking about regarding the Catholic Church. I see from your post that you, just like those folks, do not in fact know what the Catholic Church teaches. Now, I will be happy to debate the matter with you (as will several other people who post regularly to this site). However, you need to educate yourself about what the Catholic Church teaches and why.
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 6:24PM
Not anathema,
Please understand my previous post was made in Christian charity.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 12:02PM
Well, we can see the anti-Catholic bigotry of the founding fathers of the Reformation remains faithfully preserved in their children, who still mistake their disobedience for God's promise.
You might want to learn the history of the 1,500 years between the Holy Spirit descending upon the apostles at the founding of the Catholic Church on Pentecost Sunday and Luther shacking up with a nun he "liberated" from cloister in the abbey his princely masters stole for him before opining.
GB| 4.8.10 @ 12:46PM
"Faith alone" is a lie. The only place the Bible mentions "faith alone" is in James 2, where it says "we are justified by works and NOT by faith alone".
Tim| 4.8.10 @ 9:46AM
Matthew 16:18
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Tim*| 4.8.10 @ 9:46AM
We are in A Media War and the financially dying New York Times Liberal Rag is desperate .
They think that attacking and slandering The Catholic Church again will bail them out .
Tea Party Rallies Tax Day April 15th , Across America.
Red Yankee| 4.8.10 @ 9:53AM
Sadly this has been going on for decades and will continue to do so. The NYT along with the new age Jacobin secularists are trying to capitalize on this new "opportunity" to take down the Church and the Pope.
BTW... I'm no end-timer or prophecy believer, but our current pope has been reputed to be the last. God forbid this isn't the case.
Lil Sis| 4.9.10 @ 5:54PM
"our current pope has been reputed to be the last."
Never heard that, ever. But it must be a case of 'saving the BEST for last'.
JP| 4.8.10 @ 9:58AM
Not Anethema,
Why bring up old wounds? Catholics could just as easily find things that Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists have said about the RCC (Whore of Babylon for starters). If you are really interested in theological history, or what the RCC says now read the Encyclicals.
Tim*| 4.8.10 @ 10:05AM
The New York Times Agendists want the conversation off " It's The Economy Stupid " and Obama's Failure to Make The Sale on His Health Scam ,so they attack The Catholic Church again.
The Tea Party Express is in Minneapolis and heading to Duluth.
It rolls into D.C. on Tax Day April 15th !
Northern Rebel| 4.8.10 @ 10:10AM
I am a protestant, yet the Popes of my lifetime, have been great conservative leaders, and I respect the Catholic church for not backing down in it's beliefs.
Like any large organization, there are corrupt people that give the organization a bad name.
Presidents are far more fallable, and outright immoral (Clinton and Nixon) or evil (Obama, and Wilson), or incompetent.(Jimma, and Ford)
I've yet to see any reason for Teddy Roosevelt's likeness to be on Mount Rushmore, as he represents everything that is UnAmerican.
Pope John Paul II would have made a great American President, and Pope Benedict XVI is a fine conservative.
Christina| 4.8.10 @ 10:23AM
"Notice that these days the opportunistic complaint from the Keller-led Times is not that the Church is too authoritarian but that it is too lax."
This reminds me of Chesterton in his book Orthodoxy, "...Christianity must be a most extraordinary thing. For not only as I understood had Christianity the most flaming vices but it had apparently a mystical talent for combining vices which seemed inconsistent with each other. It was attacked on all sides and for all contradictory reasons. No sooner had one rationalist demonstrated that it was too far to the east than another demonstrated with equal clearness that it was much too far to the west. No sooner had my indignation died down at its angular and aggressive squareness than I was called up again to notice and condemn its enervating and sensual roundness..."
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 10:36AM
We may despise the New York Times (and I do), but that DOES NOT erase the serious dilemma facing the Catholic Church over the issue of the sexual molestation of children by Catholic priests, the subsequent cover-up(s), the lies, the obfuscations, and the deceitful behavior by the hierachy of the Catholic Church in the USA and abroad over this issue.
Catholic apologists (and there are MANY on this page) dutifully spit forth the talking points..."How any kids are molested in public schools??"..."Benedict had nothing to do with this! He tried to stop it!"..."The Church is NOT centralized, so the Vatican is not responsible!"..."ALL faiths have pervert clergy!"..."What about the creeps in Congress who molest paiges??"...etc, etc, in the pathetic hope of deflecting both blame and responsibility to try an push the issue off of the front pages.
Well, this time it's not going to work. Europe, which is far more secular than the USA, and far LESS inclined to be lenient, is moving forward with a full-scale investigation, which may include the prosecution of Bishops, Cardinals, and even the Pope himself.
In response, the Vatican has (once again) gone into full CYA mode. The number 2 man in Rome has dutifully fallen on the sword for "Il Papa", and the official position on the investigation is that since the Pope is a "Head of State" (what a bunch of crap!), he has diplomatic immunity, and therefore CAN'T be prosecuted. So...More obfuscation, more lies, more delays, more cover-ups...Same ole same ole.
The idea that Benedict is NOT responsible is boulderdash. Regardless of whether or not he was personally offended by these perverts, regardless of whether he objected to the cover-ups and (supposedly) wanted to investigate them...He really didn't. And, as the metaphorical Captain of the Vatican ship, he's ultimately responsible.
The Catholic Church, which for eons has meddled in regional and international politics, persecuted "heretics" (ie, people with different ideas, or who didn't tow the Vatican line), amassed a trillion-dollar global empire (so much for poverty, huh?), and saddled-up to Dictators on the right AND the left is so far removed from anything Christ preached about that it's barely even "Christian", despite their bogus claim of lineage to Christ through Peter (who was NEVER a "Pope").
But, of course, from all across the fruited plane, the Church's mighty defenders will arise, more concerned about the Church's reputation than about the corruption of innocent children.
This will be interesting...
MikeBee| 4.8.10 @ 2:03PM
Uhhhhh, Doctor Right,
Let's at least start this cry for the real Truth by, at least, looking clearly at the real truth. There was NOT a pedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church with Catholic priests as the sexual oppressors. No, Catholic priests were not molesting children. For once, let's get this right.
For about 30 years, many seminaries were actively recruiting homosexual men to be Catholic priests. Why did this occur? Because homosexual priests made it into positions of Vocation Director in seminaries. Vocation Director is the recruiter-in-charge at a seminary; it's his job to bring in recruits and future priests. These gay men (priests) were more interested in finding future partners than they were in finding and keeping good candidates for the priesthood. Once in the seminaries, these gay candidates were encouraged to "express their sexuality," as these were now modern times. Candidates for priesthood were developed who were 1) homosexual, 2) encouraged to be open in their sexual expression, and 3) liberal in their beliefs. After 30 years of this, it is no surprise to those of us who knew this was going on, that 11 - 17 year-old boys were sexually assaulted by these homosexual men. This was not pedophilia, it was ephebophilia.
However, the media, who wish to exalt and protect homosexuals, did not cover this story with the facts. They continue to call this pedophilia, when it was (and is) not. This was always a homosexual sin, practiced by homosexual priests who were led to sin by the priests who trained them in the seminaries.
Every time JP II sent people over to investigate the seminaries, which he did quite often, the seminaries would put on a show, giving the investigators what they wanted to see, rather than showing them what really was going on. JP II remained ignorant of the problem, which began showing its ugly face during his tenure as Pope.
One of Benedict's first actions as Pope was to declare seminaries off limits to anyone of homosexual persuasion. The liberal press took him to task for doing this, as mentioned in George's article above.
I'll be one of the first persons to admit that sin exists in the Catholic Church. But, if you wish to find the truth, start by calling a spade a spade. This sin was not pedophilia; it was largely ephebophilia, a homosexual sin done by homosexual priests. In the U.S., after all the investigations, there was only one case of true pedophilia found, with a priest sexually abusing a neice of his. All the rest of the cases were ephebophilia.
I agree that investigating the Catholic Church should occur, and that this should not be seen as persecution. However, there are those in the liberal world who wish for persecution of Catholics, and who gleefully pursue this lie of pedophilia in efforts to scar the Catholic Church and its effectiveness in the world today. Let's investigate; but let's not let investigation morph into persecution.
Berl Goetz| 4.8.10 @ 5:57PM
Yes, it seems largely to be a problem with homosexual priests seducing teen-aged boys, but don't we consider 11-17 year-olds to be children? That makes the crimes homosexual pedophilia.
MikeBee| 4.8.10 @ 6:26PM
Berl,
Good question. Actually, the correct term for the homosexual sexual abuse of boys 11 - 17 years of age is ephebophilia. Notice that the media keep trying to convince us that priests have been abusing little children, and that this was hetero-.
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 6:34PM
Mr. Goetz,
Not exactly. Under the law, a person under 18 is typically treated as a minor. In some respects, like a child, if you will. However, pedophilia as defined in medical terms refers to the sexual attraction for a pre-pubescent child (younger than 12-13 years old depending upon the onset of puberty).
So really we are talking about ephebophilia (an adult attracted to a post pubescent) or pedophilia (see above). They are not one and the same.
The vast majority of cases that came to light over the last few years involved homosexual priests preying on post-pubescent males. There were some case of pedophila, but most were cases of ephebophilia.
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 10:39AM
And please...Let's not confuse an investigation of the Catholic Church with the "persecution of Christianity".
Hundreds of millions of people who consider themselves Christian are not Catholic...And we are NOT affected by this investigation.
"Catholic" is not synonymous with "Christianity", nor does the idea of "Catholic" represent all Christains.
Christina| 4.8.10 @ 11:16AM
RE: "We are not affected by this investigation."
I'm afraid you are. The liberal media doesn't care about what is true, they only care about destroying their strongest opponent. As this article points out, they'll use any manipulation and lies to do it. The Church has not folded to the powers of secularism, so they attack with anything at hand, "crucify them!"
What do you think is next on their to-do list after the Catholic Church is eliminated? Simple, they'll move on to the other religions that threaten their empire. Next up are any Christians who dare to live out their Christian faiths. If the Catholic Church can be threatened by focusing on the sinners within the church, how much more so can some other denomination be destroyed? There are sinners in every denomination, it won't take long to find something to hang any other church on.
Your only other option is to abandon the gospel and pretend to be a Christian while truly worshiping at the altar of secularism. But don't loose hope, Jesus has won and the Catholic Church will never be destroyed. Although sadly many will continue to think her evil due to the smear campaign.
Remember Satan is the father of lies. Even if you think the Catholic Church is evil, using lies to bring them down would not be condoned by Jesus.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 12:04PM
What you consider yourself to be is irrelevant.
What Christ considers us to be is.
Read Matthew 25 sometime, Doctor---or at least crack that dusty Bible!
Don L| 4.8.10 @ 10:41AM
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 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.
Christina| 4.8.10 @ 10:56AM
Here is an interesting post on this topic: http://www.conversiondiary.com.....acles.html
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 11:01AM
Oh, OK...I get it.
Molesting children and covering-it up somehow only applies to "secularism and liberalisms code of morality", right...It doesn't offend God??
That's not only intellectually vapid, it's sick.
And here comes the old, over-quoted and utterly misinterpreted "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" nonsense.
If we followed the logic of most of the people on this board who continue to misinterpret this quote, then since we're ALL sinners, no one could or should ever be prosecuted for a crime?!?!?
Again, that's intellectually vapid, and just plain sick.
Jesus DID die for our sins. But implicit in that death, burial, and resurrection was the promise that we would be forgiven for our sins if we repent, embrace Jesus as our savior, and are baptized for the forgiveness of sins.
There is NO repentance in those who continues to lie, obfuscate, and cover-up for their sins. By their actions, they have rejected Christ...And by their actions and their hearts, they will be judged by God.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 12:05PM
"And here comes the old, over-quoted and utterly misinterpreted "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" nonsense. "
And thus does Doctor Right, anti-Catholic bigotry, waive off the teaching of Christ out of hand!
You are no Christian, sir.
QuoVadisAnima| 4.9.10 @ 3:03AM
Actually, you are condemning people based on hearsay given by those with a proven agenda against the Catholic Church. The whole point is not a denial that something terribly & tragically sinful happened, nor that some acted as accessories to that evil. The point is that an accusation is being made based on nothing more than wishful conjecture and a few slivers of *possible* evidence. It speaks much about you that you would judge & condemn so readily with so few actual facts of the situation available to you.
It is a popular stereotype of Catholicism that the pope rules the Church like an iron-fisted dictator, but the fact is that it functions more as a collegiate and the pope's control over the cardinals & bishops of other dioceses is relatively limited.
Like the NYT's writers, you apparently see an opportunity here to attack an institution that you would rather despise than attempt to understand. Granted that's not as sinful as the homosexual attraction to pubescent boys, but it's still wrong enough...
maryann| 4.8.10 @ 10:51AM
There have always been and always will be people who try to destroy the Church. That was a promise given to us. Another promise was that it will never happen. The size of the Church (which incidentally is growing in the more traditional and conservative branches), the popularity of the Pope or any other worldly indicator, makes no difference in regards to that promise. The Church will not be detroyed for the same reason Jesus Christ rose from the dead. He is God, and He gave us His promise.
MJ| 4.8.10 @ 10:57AM
Sulzberger family has always hated Catholics. Ask any of the Truck Drivers or Print Carft unions at the Times.
Joy| 4.8.10 @ 10:57AM
Of course, this is nothing new. Jesus said "If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also."
Whenever I read such vitriol against the church, I think of Paul:
I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as also the high priest and all the Council can testify. I even obtained letters from them to their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.
About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, 'Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?'
'Who are you, Lord?' I asked.
'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,' he replied. My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. . . My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me. (From Acts 22)
Now THAT is true Enlightenment.
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 11:05AM
Jesus is NOT being persecuted.
Christianity is NOT on trial.
The Catholic Church, in various parts of the world, is being justifiably investigated.
If you think that's synonymous with Jesus being persecuted, you're insulting Jesus.
QuoVadisAnima| 4.9.10 @ 3:11AM
This is about the NYT's smear campain in an effort to help bring down one of the largest & most effective Christian obstacles to their agenda in the political sphere - not a legitimate investigation.
When Saul was persecuting the first Christians, Jesus said "Saul, why do you persecute ME?"
"Whatsoever you do to the least of your brethren...", so yes, anytime someone is being persecuted, Jesus is being persecuted - He said that He would count it so.
Joy| 4.8.10 @ 11:07AM
Note: I agree with what Dr. Right said above. What I mean by persecution of the church is persecution, from whatever corner - and sometimes that means from institutional, religious establishment (Paul was a very religious man) - against the true Church, those who are ' in Him', the body of Christ in the world.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 3:09PM
Ahh, the ascriptural claim of an "invisible Church"---the old talking points return!
Can't be squared with Matthew, though:
15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
One cannot go to nor hear from an invisible Church.
Tim*| 4.8.10 @ 11:00AM
Uh Oh !
Doctor Reich ,The Fixated Anti-Catholic Strikes Again.
You " ain't synonymous with Christianity " Whack Job .
Tax Day Tea Party Rallies ,April 15th ,Across America.
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 11:03AM
Tim*...You're devoid of substance, as usual. In other words, you're a good Catholic!
Tim*| 4.8.10 @ 11:11AM
Yeah Right Doctor Reich ,you're a World Class Intellectual Vacuum Yourself.
Tea Party Tax Day Rallies Across America ,April 15th !
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 11:48AM
Tim*, you're the gift that keeps on giving!
Now genuflect, cross your self thrice, and keep reciting the talking points.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 2:55PM
We cross ourselves in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Trinitarian formula confirmed in the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., some 1,600 years before you lot invented the altar call and Sinner's Prayer.
Now run along--you have a LOT of reading to do!
Tim| 4.8.10 @ 11:01AM
Mark: You hit the nail on the head about the NY Times being a distant memory.
But I see the attack on the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church as an attack on all of Christianity.
What the left has always prayed for is that the Christians would remain divided and fighting each other.
This outdated plan has badly back fired because as we all know Christians of all Stripes...Evangelicals, Mormans and Roman Catholics to name a few have all been the target of serious media and Left leaning bias.
The greatest fear of the Left is that Christians will unite and once they do the Left will surely fall into the pit.
nova9047| 4.8.10 @ 11:05AM
While attending a faculty dinner recently, my teacher spouse observed the (visably intoxicated)pastor tickling the (male) principal under the table, much to the latter's embarassment. This is what the Church that has survived 2000 years has devolved into?
QuoVadisAnima| 4.9.10 @ 3:17AM
Most of the Catholic popes have been good & even saintly men, but there have been a few immoral ones. The Lord still protected the Church.
There have always been some bad & sinful shepherds -- even from the beginning. Jesus had Judas - and warned us that there would be goats mixed in with the sheep. Sadly, there will always be those who are willing to betray their Master rather than miss out on some temporary earthly pleasure.
Lil Sis| 4.9.10 @ 6:13PM
Nice of you to share that tidbit with us so nova9047; now it is time for you and your spouse to approach the pastor and, yes, the object of his desire and let them know how inappropriate it was. Then encourage them to report their behavior to the Bishop so that can be forgiven and given the grace to SIN NO MORE.
Lizziebee| 4.8.10 @ 11:14AM
I suspect that some who are so angrily anti-Catholic will be wondering what hit them when they are next to be targeted.
They ought to be quite glad that the world tends to go after the Catholics, for Jesus assured us that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. If hell prevailed, they would be coming for the other Christians next.
Signed, a very proud Catholic convert
Rosalee| 4.8.10 @ 11:37AM
You must be kidding. Criticism for what they have done for years has nothing to do with being anti Catholic, it has to do with human DECENCY.
Get over your proud to be a Catholic
As a cradle Catholic I am disgusted. They not only violated the children but the trust of every Catholic.
Finally, pulling out the Jesus card does not work here because it is not an unfounded smear, it is violation of an innocent child, hardly a godly thing to do.
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 11:50AM
The Catholic Church is not Jesus' Church...
And maybe you haven't noticed, but "Hell" has already infiltrated the Catholic Church...
Or would you refer to pervert priests and those who cover for them as "Saints"..?
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 12:10PM
Doctor Right, who refuses to attest to the faith community to which he belongs, persists in his claims without evidence.
There was one Church at Pentecost, Doctor Right, and here's a little hint for you: it wasn't those communities founded at least 1,500 years later.
There are two churches alone which can claim the mantle of Pentecost---the Orthodox and the Catholic. None of the others can trace apostolic succession.
And if apostolic succession were broken at any point in the history of the Church, guess what? The Gates of Hell have triumphed over her and Christ's promise was invalid.
Christ having founded his Church on rock and not upon the shifting sands of Doctor Right's petulance, we may dismiss the good Doctor's recitation of the typical bigot talking points out of hand.
As usual.
When will you display the fruits of the Christian we were told to look for, Doctor?
Is there light in you at all?
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 12:58PM
Sorry, Mr. Slippery, but the Catholic Church was NOT present at Pentecost.
If you think it was, please provide scriptural examples.
And quotes like "the Church" or "His Church" don't count. If you think they validate your claim, you probably believe in the Easter Bunny.
"Apostolic succession", ay? I suppose this means you operate under the false impression that Peter was a "Pope". Hate to break it to you - he wasn't. There's not one scintilla of evidence in scripture supporting the idea of Peter as a "Pope", or the College of Cardinals, or any of the mumbo-jumbo that emanates from Rome.
When Christ told Peter that he was the "rock" upon which Christ will build is Church, he wasn't anointing Peter as a "Pope". He was actually making a play on words with Peter's name, which in Greek translates to "Petros", meaning stone. In short, he was saying "Peter...You're a 'stone', but you're also steady like a rock, and it is this kind of steadfast devotion I need to build my church".
BTW, you must be blissfully unaware of some of the Popes from the middle ages...The Borgias and the Medicis...The ones who owed their positions to family wealth, intrigue, and even murder...Did THEY represent a proper "Apostolic succession"? Or are they evidence of how that succession was broken, allowing hell to triumph? 'Cuz you can't have it both ways. Either these evil people were righteous and godly, or they represent the downfall of Apostolic succession.
And what about the Pope Benoit IX? He was 12 years old when he became Pope in 1032. Was he a righteous servant of God? Or was he a tool of powerful outside interests trying to control the Vatican? If the latter, then he would definitely represent a break in Apostolic succession, would he, sport???
You're entire faith is built on a house of cards. You can't even grasp that an organization that hides, enables, and covers-up for pedophiles has already fallen sway to evil.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 2:53PM
My faith has endured the two millennia since Pentecost; yours was dreamt up by a southern Prohibitionist at the turn of the last century.
Read Acts of the Apostles.
Then, fill in the considerable gaps in your knowledge by reading the Early Church Fathers, beginning with Justin Martyr.
Richard A| 4.10.10 @ 8:50PM
Peter's name wasn't 'Peter', it was 'Simon bar Jona'. As you would know if you read the New Testament and took it at least semi-literally. Jesus gave him the name 'Peter' (actually 'Kefas' in Aramaic, 'Peter' is a Greek translation of that), either as a word-play on a nickname he had acquired later (according to whatever process bestows nicknames on people that are unrelated at all to their given names) or else bestowed by Christ for the specific purpose of making that point. Let me guess - you already know by that mysterious process accessible only to lapsed-Catholic fundamentalists that Simon bar Jona had already been given that nickname before Jesus came into his life, even though there is no Scriptural evidence for that. But we can't be believing that Christ actually gave him a new name (read 'new identity') on the spot to make a spiritual point, can we? Even though the Scriptural evidence for that is pretty strong.
No, the occasional wicked or worldly or underage popes do NOT represent a break in the apostolic succession. Because the integrity of the apostolic succession does NOT rely on the integrity of man but on the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, Who commanded an action (the apostles' choosing successors to themselves) and promised a result (that He would be with his apostles until the end of time and that His Church would overcome the powers of Hell).
Tim* | 4.8.10 @ 11:22AM
The Elephant In The Middle Of The Room !
Public School Sex Abuse Dwarfs past Catholic 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.
To support her contention, Shakeshaft compared the priest abuse data with data collected in a national survey for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000. 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 (11,000 ) of abusive priests. "
Joy| 4.8.10 @ 11:39AM
Sorry Tim, but, as awful as abuse in the general public is (I was molested by a neighbor when I was eight, so I know of what I speak), using that fact to say the abuse of 11,000 by priests is not bad by comparison is very, very, bad form.
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 11:46AM
100% dead-on accurate, Joy.
The apologists on this board are EXEMPLARY of why the Catholic Church is in this predicament in the 1st place.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 12:13PM
The point, Joy, is that The New York Times et al are concerned not at all about sexual abuse of children in areas where the incidence rates dwarf those of the Catholic Church by an order of magnitude or more.
We are talking here about abuse happening TODAY---not 40 years ago---in schools and in governmental institutions.
I'll tell you another thing---I joined the Church AFTER these scandals and I'll trust my two infant children with our priests before I'd ever entrust them to people like Doctor Right.
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 6:39PM
Joy,
Citing other examples of abuse gives context. It does not, nor should it, erase the culpability of those priests who violated a sacred trust.
QuoVadisAnima| 4.9.10 @ 3:22AM
Joy, the point is not that we should quantify the wrongness of one situation vs the other - the point is where is the NYT's at least comparable outrage over a RADICALLY larger problem in the public school system?
Richard A| 4.10.10 @ 9:21PM
1) Tim didn't say the abuse by priests was "not bad by comparison".
2) By all means, let us avoid "bad form"; in NYT circles, bad manners (by others) is even worse than sodomy.
3) The point is, when (rarely) a public school teacher is publicly exposed as a child molester, when he is protected by his superiors and shuffled off to another school system, when local prosecutors decline to prosecute, it seems not to be evidence that "the entire public-school edifice is rotten". If there is an investigation, it is not presented as though "the entire public school system is being investigated".
Even though you have the same wicked behavior, similar semi-secret support systems for predatory adults, same CYA, don't_let_the_ instituion_look_bad_because_of_a_"few"_bad_apples (although there are way fewer in the Catholic Church than there are in the public schools system) mentality. Even people who are hostile to the public school system don't declare that the entire enterprise is complicit in this behavior and irredeemably compromised. Which is exactly how the New York Times and other major news organs in this country routinely promote the "predatory priest" angle.
If homosexually active and aggressive priests and complicit bishops are proof that the Catholic Church itself is corrupt, then homosexually active and aggressive teachers and complicit superintendants are proof that the public school system is corrupt to the same extent. If that's the story for the Catholic Church, then that's the story for the NEA and the AFT.
Which of course plays to the other hypocrisy. I think - and my Church teaches - that sodomy is wrong, whether engaged in by a priest or by a teacher. The New York Times is repelled by behavior they don't even think is wrong.
Rev. Ray Dubuque | 4.8.10 @ 11:57AM
There were 60 in my class when I started on the road to the priesthood. 13 years later, only 9 remained to be ordained. Priests are supposed to be the moral "creme de la creme", not a barrel with as many or more rotten apples as any other.
The proper comparison would be with other professions that KNEW they had pedophiles and let them go on to molest HUNDREDS of victims.
In OTHER professions, all it takes is ONE STRIKE and pedophiles are OUT!!!!
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 12:14PM
Not if they are NYC public school teachers---the union puts them in a time out room.
Rosalee| 4.8.10 @ 11:32AM
The Vatican needs to suck it up
The criticism is well deserved. Let them live with the consequences of cover up.
I am not only disgusted as a human being, but as a Catholic.
Shame on them for the years of cover up and introducing agony to innocent children.
While pedophilia exists in all parts of society, the fact that NONE of it was taken to the authorities for investigation and the perps were passed along to other parishes is the part that I find unconscionable.
The cases should ALL have been taken to the police and if the charges true, the priest should have been defrocked and imprisoned. PERIOD
Finally, those who smear all of Christianity with this brush are morons.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 12:25PM
As are those who smear ALL of the Church with the actions of a handful of evil men augmented by the cowardice especially of liberal prelates in Boston, LA, and Milwaukee.
Read "The Faithful Departed".
Rev. Ray Dubuque | 4.8.10 @ 11:48AM
Sorry, all you poor conservative dears, butre: Georgie's complaint that "the opportunistic complaint from the Keller-led Times is not that the Church is too authoritarian but that it is too lax. Apparently, it is not autocratic after all. The paper can't decide if Benedict is a Rottweiler or lap dog, "
I'm afraid that the concept of the pope being MORE tolerant of differences of opinion from his own, as opposed to being LESS tolerant of inept bishops and pedophile priests, is too complex for you to grasp!
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 12:27PM
The Pope met with the families of victims during his U.S. visit to apologize and grieve with them.
What have YOU done?
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 12:43PM
I've done far more than the Pope:
I've agitated for the catholic Church to come clean, confess to these crimes, confess to the cover-up, and allow those responsible to be prosecuted by the relevant civil authorities.
Maybe it wold be nice if the Vatican would open their huge, fat purse-strings and financially compensate the victims and their families, too?
Talk is cheap. But "Il papa" has lots to say, doesn't he?
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 2:51PM
The Church has made numerous settlements.
Were you smart enough to Google, you'd find them.
Money can hardly right the wrong here---which is why the Pope took the unprecedented step of meeting personally with the victims rather than just write a check, as a well-heeled Fundamentalist pastor might.
But Judas was obsessed with money too, Doctor Wrong. Beware.
Tim*| 4.8.10 @ 6:57PM
Gee Ray Baby ,Why Hide This From The AS Readers ?
" Before leaving the R. C. church, however, Ray used every opportunity to preach this powerful sermon, challenging the Roman Catholic hierarchy, on behalf of the voiceless people in the pews, and then sent a copy of it to the pope's U.S. representative and to all 200 or so Catholic bishops in America. When not a single representative of the church responded, Ray saw this as proof of the indifference of those in authority to those whom they were charged to serve.
Ray then married Jane, one of the most genuine Christian women imaginable, who like Ray had outgrown the R C church. "
Another Half-Truther With An Ax to Grind !
Lil Sis| 4.9.10 @ 6:25PM
Excuse me, Rev., I just googled your name and just wanted to point out to readers that you have a few rather uncomplimentary articles written about you. And, because Catholic priests also use the title "Rev." I just wanted the readers to know that you are a Methodist minister (who has been compared to the Rev. Jim Jones [the original kool-aid server]). I'm just sayin'...
Tim*| 4.8.10 @ 11:48AM
Sorry Joy , but ignoring and minimizing the ongoing and rampant sex abuse in American Public Schools is even worse form.
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 11:57AM
The abuse of children at public schools, sexual or otherwise, has NOTHING to do with the sexual abuse of children by pervert Catholic priests, yet you and your apologist buddies keep bringing it up as if it does!!
PLEASE explain your position. Are you trying to assert that one negates the other? Or because one is bad, the other is somehow "less" bad??
How is he abuse of children at public schools "worse"??
Peopel are forced to send their kids to public schools, where they spend most of their day with absolute strangers. As parents, we can only hope these strangers are good and decent people.
But abuse emanating from man "of the cloth", a man who pretends to speak for the word of God, and represent God's will on earth, who many parents trust implicitly precisely because of who they claim to be and what they claim to represent is FAR, FAR worse.
If you're don't understand that, you're not only an apologist for inexcusable behavior, you're a deluded fool.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 12:16PM
Which denomination do you belong to, Doctor Right?
Fess up.
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 12:40PM
I already told you: I DON'T belong to ANY denomination.
I'm a Christian...Period.
That may be hard for your catechism addled-brain to grasp, but there it is.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 12:47PM
You are a bigot---that's your religion.
Where do you attend worship services on Sunday?
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 1:02PM
At the Church building.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 2:57PM
What, you got out of the tent?
Well done!
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 6:45PM
Doctor Right,
You confess yourself to be a Christian. Yet your postings lend little credence to the claim. You are correct that this general forum and the general articles upon which we have been commenting are about pedophiles in the priesthood abusing innocent children. However, you are using that as a cover to avoid a general discussion of pertinent points others have raised. You are using it as an excuse to continue to grind your axe over whatever grievances you have with the Catholic Church.
Don L| 4.8.10 @ 11:56AM
"That's not only intellectually vapid, it's sick. "
Tsk, tsk.
To use the left's anti-Catholic default deflection - isn't that a bit judgemental?
The reality is that most of those in full scale attack against the Roman Church, were the sandal to be on the other foot, would be screaming - "It's just sex." How many of the Church's detractors are silent about man boy love within their own special interest groups? How many are in God's face with sexual abberation of all types, how many, who claim to be brothers in Christ just see an opportunity to circle the Church like sharks, and devour it - because of what it is.
No one is excusing what happened -just recognizing hypocrisy in the over-pious attackers.
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 12:00PM
"Hypocrisy"..???
It would be "hypocrisy" if the people leveling the charges, doing the investigations, and making the arrests were pedophiles.
Those who are angry at the Catholic Church for these continued abuses are not "hypocrites"...They're justifiably upset.
The hypocrisy is in those who pretend to speak for Christ, and either perpetuate, cover-up, or minimize crimes against children.
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 6:49PM
Don L,
True statements. We must never under any circumstances excuse any priest who does these things. They should be, and will be, held accountable. If not in this life, then certainly in the next.
However, we can not tarnish the whole Church nor all who believe in the Catholic faith with the same broad brush. There are far more dangerous places for children to be than a Catholic Church.
As for the continued abuses, the most recent media coverage does not concern continued abuses, but cases from the past that were dealt with. Recent cases are relatively rare (depending of course on what you define as recent); God willing we will get to a day when there are none.
Mike| 4.8.10 @ 12:03PM
Not a word in the article about the victims of sexual predation or the cover up.
But isn't the whole point of this article to divert everyone's attention from the real problem?
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 12:38PM
Absolutely 100% dead-on accurate, Mike!
Just like patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, screaming "persecution!" is the last refuge of pervert priests, their enablers, and their sycophant apologists.
Audrey| 4.8.10 @ 10:51PM
"But isn't the whole point of this article to divert everyone's attention from the real problem? "
Well said Mike.
Forgive me if I am repeating some one else’s comment as I have not read them all.
The real problem as I see it, is not the Church (the people), rather the Church hierarchy.
History teaches us that the Catholic Church hierarchy has been up to all sorts of sexual hypocrisy over the centuries – orgies and more etc.etc.etc. Nothing surprising really and by hook or by crook the hierarchy survives - so does the Church.
These latest (disgusting) revelations regarding the abuse of children seem to be the straw that broke the camel’s back. The above article made no mention of the victims of abuse; no sympathy whatsoever, the author only attacked those who attached the Church hierarchy (not the Church) for its complicity in evil.
Nothing will destroy the Catholic Church (the people, the faith) but let's hope the Church deals with the hierarchy in the manner they deserve - excommunication and/or prison where required.
Sadly these days when one sees a Catholic priest it makes one wonder if he is one of them.
Best get rid of (jail) the sick and twisted perverts ASAP and stop making excuses for an administration that cares little about the teachings of Christ or abused children and more about protecting their own depraved desires.
If the money changers encouraged Jesus to violence then God help the Catholic hierarchy if Jesus was ever to drop by the Vatican.
QuoVadisAnima| 4.9.10 @ 3:27AM
Audrey: "History teaches us that the Catholic Church hierarchy has been up to all sorts of sexual hypocrisy over the centuries – orgies and more etc.etc.etc. "
Um, no, history teaches us no such thing. History teaches us that there have been sinners in various positions in the Church who have done such things, but certainly not on anything resembling the kind of scale that statement implies. You need to select your history texts with a little more due diligence...
Audrey| 4.9.10 @ 3:58AM
Sadly QuoVadisAnima history does teach us such, you even acknowledge same yourself.
What you appear to challenge is the degree of sexual hypocricy; something not stated nor actually inferred in my comment.
Having said that I'm sure if you do your homework you will find sexual hypocricy (and other nasty stuff) in the Catholic hierarchy has always been a problem to some degree or another.
I care not to provide the links - you are no doubt old enough and ugly enough to do your own research should you desire to seek the truth. If not that's OK too.
Hopefully now that the poo has hit the fan the Church, that is the ordinary people of the Catholic faith will unite and say: Never Again!
Remenber the church is the people, not men in dresses mocking the teaching of Christ - which in anybodies language is pretty damn good message - don't you think?
Teflon93| 4.9.10 @ 3:05PM
My goodness, Audrey, what do you make of:
1. John Calvin seeing to it that Michael Servetus was burned at the stake for heresy, even to the point of obtaining a front row seat at his execution himself?
2. Martin Luther
a.) inciting the peasants to revolt against the German princes then abandoning them and penning a vile screed against them, only to celebrate his wedding on the very day 100,000 of them were buried?
b) attempting to convert the Jews and when they spurred his advances penning another vile screed which became the major inspiration for anti-Semitism in Germany from his day to Hitler's?
c) Busting a nun out of a convent whom he then set up in his former abbey (which his princely patrons stole from the Church) shortly to become his wife?
d) supporting polygamy among the German princes on the grounds that he found no biblical injunction against the practice?
I don't know how you read the Pauline epistles, but to my ear they merely confirm that the Church is a hospital for sinners and not a hotel for saints.
Indeed, given that the great apostle was also the persecutor of the first Christian martyr---St Stephen---how could it be otherwise?
We are all Corinthians, you know. We merely aspire to all be Romans.
Tim*| 4.8.10 @ 12:10PM
Apologists ignore The Public School Sex Abuse Cover-Up:
" But the author of the congressional study said sexual abuse in public schools is "100 times the abuse by priests," and few are paying much of a price.
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."
Why The New York Times And Fellow TravelerAgendists' Double Standard ? Hmmmmm ?
Kris Lepine| 4.8.10 @ 12:11PM
The hypocrisy is in the left believing MEDIA, GOVERNMENT, POLITICIANS, ETC can be benign entities knowing what's best for ALL and wanting them to manage all aspects of our lives. The Roman Catholic church is not a perfect faith or belief system. THERE IS NO SUCH THING. But unlike those of little or no faith, they are trying to do what God intends. And along the way imperfect, human people of faith do more good in this world than the humanists can ever conceive of doing.
I heard a few days ago that Michelle Obama had a $300,000+ salary when she worked at a Chicago hospital. Anyone willing to check to see how much of that she gave to the poor or needy? Instead she fostered a scheme to dump non-payers at her hospital into other health care providers. Typical and yes, hypocritical.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 12:23PM
And just in case non-Catholics were unaware, sexual abuse hits EVER major religious denomination.
A partial but lengthy list of news articles confirming this is here:
http://www.reformation.com
Look up your community if you think you're immune and then ask whether the proper preventive protocols are in place. They are in the Catholic Church---which you can check on the web pages of most dioceses.
What protocols does The New York Times Company have?
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 12:34PM
SEE everybody!
It's NO big deal! EVERYBODY does it!!
What a PATHETIC attempt at deflection.
(And BTW, Mr. Slippery...If these "protocols" are truly in place...Then it's apparent to anyone with common sense that they're NOT working)
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 12:36PM
What's your denomination, coward?
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 1:00PM
Christian.
What's yours?
(You're becoming desperate. It's so obvious)
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 1:19PM
Given I've cleaned your clock in every thread, given your inability to muster any facts or evidence much less cohere them into a logical argument, and given everyone reading your posts can recognized an off-their-rocker bigot when they hear one, desperate I ain't.
What I have done, and what I sought to do, is to expose your cowardice, hypocrisy, and dishonesty.
I am a Catholic, a member of the Church founded by Christ. I serve on my Parish Council. I know my priest and deacon personally, as I did their predecessors, and I have them over to my house periodically for dinner.
And let me tell you something, Doctor Bigot, I'd entrust my children with them long before I'd let you get within 10 feet of them.
In fact, our deacon is my daughter's godfather.
I am a Catholic.
You are a bigot and a coward.
What else needs to be said?
Now go change your moniker to Doctor Left---Bill Keller's waiting for lunch at Caroline's.
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 1:41PM
"...Given I've cleaned your clock in every thread..."
The siren song of the deluded.
BTW...You probably DON'T have to worry about leaving a Priest with your daughter...Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but Priests don't generally "roll" that way...
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 2:49PM
Really? Evidence, please.
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 6:53PM
Doctor Right,
You are incorrect in your conclusion. It is a big deal. And Teflon93 understands that fact. He is simply providing facts for context so that everyone understands that this is a problem in every church and every profession.
As for the protocols not working, that is incorrect. The number of credible cases (I believe this is for 2009) was 6. Now, ask any parent or survivor and that is 6 too many. I agree. But it is an inication that the child protection protocols are having an affect.
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.8.10 @ 12:31PM
The Roman Church struggles with the same issues (choices), that any "power structure" or "hierarchy" struggles with:
Retaining power
or
Retaining faith and mission.
Throw in celibacy to skew the recruitment pool.
I pray for the Roman Church, as I pray for the "Christian community of faith" across the world.
Uncommitted, BUTT OUT!
MikeBee| 4.8.10 @ 2:27PM
Thanks for your prayers, Ken.
Christians need to stand together on this issue, and on many others. The Catholic Church needs to remove all those priests practicing ephebophilia from ministry, clean house, and encourage right-wing candidates for priesthood who will be celibate. But now, more than ever, Christians need to stand together against Evil in the world (including against Communism and Socialism), and not to fight each other. There is plenty of sin in every Christian denomination to go around, including pedophilia and ephebophilia in other denominations. Let's just drive sin out of the churches, and enlighten the world with Christ's presence.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 12:34PM
I'd hazard that none of the anti-Catholic bigots bothered to read the Pope's letter to Irish Catholics.
Key excerpts are here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8577793.stm
To the abusers:
"You betrayed the trust that was placed in you by innocent young people and their parents, and you must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals."
To the bishops:
"It cannot be denied that some of you and your predecessors failed, at times grievously, to apply the long-established norms of canon law to the crime of child abuse. Serious mistakes were made in responding to allegations.
"I recognize how difficult it was to grasp the extent and complexity of the problem, to obtain reliable information and to make the right decisions in the light of conflicting expert advice.
"Nevertheless, it must be admitted that grave errors of judgement were made and failures of leadership occurred. All this has seriously undermined your credibility and effectiveness."
Funny, but that's a lot more serious, accountable, and Christian than anything I've seen come off the keyboards of the bigots in this thread.
I've never heard Bill Keller issue such statements when compromising national security, employing frauds, or caught lying for his Democrat masters either.
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 12:36PM
Talk is cheap.
And why was it "difficult it was to grasp the extent and complexity of the problem"..??? This wasn't a surprise.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 12:37PM
What's your denomination?
Or are you still too frightened to have the spotlight shown on your own community?
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 12:59PM
Christian.
Perhaps you've heard of it?
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 1:01PM
You are a coward, sir.
But bigots always are.
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 1:03PM
Well at least I don't run interference for pedophiles.
You must be so proud.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 1:05PM
Following your hateful, bigoted, and slimy comments, Doctor Right, it would not surprise me to find out YOU were a pedophile.
You must be proud of your cowardice. So bold as to not even be able to name the community to which you belong for fear of discovering sexual abuse is prevalent within it as well.
But you don't give a damn about the victims anyway, do you?
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 1:15PM
Oooh, now we're getting testy!
Okey-Dokey. Once more, with feeling, just for you:
I DO NOT belong to any denomination. I am a Christian. I'm a member of Christ's Church.
I understand why this is hard for you to grasp. It's hard enough for you to accept that there are Christians who aren't Catholics, but there are. MOT of them exist in organizations that you like to refer to as "denominations".
The vast majority of these denominations have extra-scriptural creeds, doctrines, customs, practices, and traditions that are at best unnecessary, and in many cases downright contradictory with scripture. Additionally, many "denominations" elevate these practices, traditions, creeds, etc to a level that is EQUAL with scripture (sound familiar?).
As Christians, we reject that as nonsense. The Bible is very clear on adding or subtracting from God's word.
So we use the Bible, and ONLY the Bible as our guide. If it ain't in there, it ain't diddly. Our tradition is the Bible.
Yours is...Not.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 1:25PM
No, the Bible is the product of the Church and a portion of her written tradition.
As Martin Luther said:
"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."
But then he was echoing St Augustine:
"For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."
Church came first in 33 A.D., New Testament came later (over the next generation), Bible came about over the next century with final canonization occuring for most of Christianity in the late 4th century (until Luther arbitrarily changed it in the early 1500s).
All of which is simply evidence that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Now, where do you attend services on Sunday?
Name, please, no geographic descriptors please.
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 1:38PM
The Bible is the inspired word of God.
If you think it was written by the Catholic Church, you've been brainwashed.
When Augustine (not "Saint" Augustine) and Luther made these statements, the Catholic Church DID claim to represent Christendom in Europe because they'd made sure that opposing voices were snuffed-out, as well as opposing opinions (how VERY Christian of them, don't you think?). However, that doesn't make them right.
So using famous Catholics to affirm Catholicism is really kind of stupid. What did you expect them to say?
This Sunday, I will atend Church where I always attend Church...In the Church building. That's where members of Christ's Church generally congregate.
We won't, however, be wesring funny robes and hats, or calling people "Father". The Bible is very explicit that no one should be called "Father" except our Father in heaven...But I guess you missed that day in CCD?
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 1:41PM
Ahh, so you're a Fundamentalist. Thanks for the tell with the nonsense about the "made sure that opposing voices were snuffed-out".
I suppose your catechism is "The Trail of Blood", huh?
Too bad that pamphlet wasn't in the Bible---perhaps those Catholics suppressed it!
Doctror Right| 4.8.10 @ 1:48PM
So, you're denying that the Catholic Church in the middle ages persecuted heretics? Sometimes to the point of torture and death?
You're denying that?
Or is it simply no big deal, because lots of school teachers in medieval Europe were molesting kids, too..??
You're kind of pathetic.
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 1:45PM
Your "faith" musty be pretty weak to be so bothered by criticism.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 1:46PM
Your faith must be weak indeed to be afraid to speak it!
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 1:49PM
You're kind of dense, too.
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 1:50PM
Mr. Slippery,
Which part of the Bible don't you believe??
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 2:04PM
I believe all of it.
I believe this:
30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
I believe this:
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
I believe this:
53Then Jesus said unto them, 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.
54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
I believe this:
27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
The question is, "Do you?"
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 2:07PM
So you're a "Fundamentalist"..?
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 2:22PM
Nope---"The Fundamentals" were written way too late in history (20th century) for me to pay them much heed.
I seek that which Christ founded, not what somebody dreamed up a couple of millennia too late for Pentecost, thank you.
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 6:57PM
Doctor Right and Teflon93,
I am sure it has occurred to both of you that you both profess to be Christian, each as you understand the term.
You are both displaying a rather unfortunate degree of un-Christian charity, each for the other.
I will continue to pray for you both. Certainly not because I am any better than either of you. But I will try to do my part.
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 6:55PM
Doctor Right,
Talk is cheap only if it is not backed up by action. The Pontiff has taken action, both when he was at CDF and as Pope.
Tim*| 4.8.10 @ 12:40PM
Right under Pinch Sulzberger 's New York Times ' Nose .
" In Brooklyn, New York, home of the largest Orthodox Jewish community outside Israel, a recently founded team of prosecutors, counsellors and religious leaders is working to combat sexual abuse, and there are 25 cases currently being investigated by the District Attorney – up from virtually zero."
Tim*| 4.8.10 @ 12:47PM
Yeah ! While Doctor Reich , The Anti-Catholic Head Case doesn't want The Spotlight on the ongoing and rampant Sex Abuse in American Taxpayers' Paid For Public School System .
Tax Day TEA Party Rallies Across America April 15th !
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 1:06PM
He doesn't give a fig about sexual abuse, Tim---he only cares about bashing the Church.
He is a bigot. That is his religion.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 12:55PM
Here are the protocols adopted by the USCCB:
http://www.usccb.org/ocyp/charter.shtml
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 12:56PM
Here is the independent study commissioned by the USCCB of the nature and scope of sexual abuse within the Church:
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/
Note well this graph showing the steep decline in allegations of sexual abuse since 1982 (that's 28 years ago):
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/prev3.pdf
For anyone interested in FACTS, that is.
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 7:00PM
Teflon93,
Perhaps you can confirm this. I recall reading an article that stated that most seminaries and religious orders in the US gave pychologogical tests (among others) to candidates and that this generally stopped in the 1960s. It further stated that there was a correlation between the time the testing generally stopped and the beginnings of upward swings in the graph you cited. Can you shed light on that?
Viljams| 4.9.10 @ 12:10AM
Ted,
I was given the MMPI in1973 when I was applying to Seminary (Villanova). So the Augustinians were still using it in the early 70's.
Teflon93| 4.9.10 @ 1:21PM
Ted, I've heard that with the post Vatican II vocations crisis there was a general lessening of discernment in the seminaries including screening candidates, but nothing specific on the psychological screening.
During this period the therapeutic model was in vogue---not just in the Church but across America---that any problems seminarians or priests displayed could be addressed through recourse to the appropriate therapeutic regime.
It was not until the 80s that it became clear how high the recidivism rate was for child molestors and how resistant their pathological tendencies were to therapy of any sort.
Others are more conversant no doubt with the literature on the subject than I am and will hopefully weigh in.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 1:08PM
Here is the study Tim and I have been citing on sexual abuse in society as whole:
http://www.catholicleague.org/.....ontext.htm
Again, only those serious about addressing these horrendous crimes and bringing perpetrators to justice need bother reading it.
Those living in a bigoted fantasy land who wish to pretend that one is safe from sexual abuse so long as one is not Catholic go about your ranting.
Rose Grower| 4.8.10 @ 1:09PM
I find it interesting that the relevant part of Benedict's involvement in the sex abuse scandal was that he ultimately defied church authority and was a whistleblower. The initial complaint was that he "didn't do enough" in the situation (apparently, administering a beat down on the pedophile would have been preferred by those critical of Benedict.) This is just another piece of evidence that the NYT is biased against anything that supports Western civilization.
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 7:03PM
Rose Grower,
I wouldn't agree that Pope Benedict defied Church authority per se. Like many, I think he was genuinely lacking in knowledge about the scope of the problem and the effects. Once Pope John Paul gave him authority over all abuse cases and he read the evidence, I think it opened his eyes. I am not saying this in a derogatory manner (although at first glance it might seem that way). Once he realized what was going on, he used his lawful authority and influence to attack the problem head on. I do agree with the general gist of your post.
Pingback| 4.8.10 @ 1:25PM
Cardinal Angelo Sodano on the Culture War against Benedict XVI « The Anglo-Catholic links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Christina| 4.8.10 @ 1:28PM
I wonder what would appease the ones so angry with the Church.
For these horrid crimes the church has apologized and put into measures to prevent them from happening again. Since most of the crimes in question occurred more than 30 years ago (and past the statute of limitations), there is little the police can do at this time. In the cases in which the police could prosecute they have. The problem with extending the statute of limitations is that there is little evidence. Even at the time they happened often the police did nothing even when they knew (the priest who molested deaf kids had a lawsuit brought against him in the 70s).
Yet despite this the Catholic church has taken measures against those who committed these sins; removing them from ministry, removing their ability to celebrate the sacraments and in some cases defrocking them. There are some priests who have been removed from ministry for whom the evidence was almost non-existent, the original case would have never passed a court of law.
The Church has put into place measures to make sure that the abuse of children is stopped immediately and, if abuse does occur, to make sure it is not covered up as was common in the past in all institutions.
What other institution has gone to such lengths to not only correct the problem but implement procedures to prevent it from reoccurring? The public school system STILL commits these crimes, yet no complaint is brought. This isn't a "we're ok cause they did it," but a "what gives?" Do you actually care about children like you say? If so you would be seeking to protect those who are CURRENTLY in harms way, not attacking an institution that has struggled to correct past errors. An institution built on the concept of following Christ's teachings and thus whose members are horrified at this.
The thing is, every Catholic I know is horrified at what happened and is actively seeking to prevent it from happening again. Many have actively participated in activities to prevent further, and many more have given money to provide for those injured. What more can the Church do? At what point will you be satisfied?
JP| 4.8.10 @ 1:54PM
Christina,
This flap is just a dry run for the EU (or some other organization) to prosecute the Pope. Call it a trial balloon.
This entire episode is purely manufactured, as the most of the info has been out there for years. The Left would like nothing more than to revoke the status of the Vatican and its leadership. Stay tuned.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 1:44PM
Sexual abuse among Fundamentalists:
http://open.salon.com/blog/ako.....hild_abuse
http://www.stopbaptistpredator.....abuse.html
Tim*| 4.8.10 @ 1:46PM
Bill Donohue And The Catholic League recognized early on that ,while good people were trying to deal with The Catholic Church Sex Abuse Scandal , all kinds of Agendists jumped into The Scandal to tear down The Catholic Church .
The Leftist run from The Homosexual 80 Percent of The Sex Abuse because it impeded Their Gay Agenda.
The Anti-Catholic Agendists like Pinch Sultzberger ,Bill Keller and Doctor Reich here , just want to Blow Up The Catholic Church and Slander It into Oblivion.
Tea Party Rallies , Tax Day Across America ,April 15th !
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 1:55PM
So why is it important to be aware of sexual abuse incidence rates in various demographies?
1. Because sexual abuse is a byproduct of our culture at this point in history. It is much more rare outside of this culture and this point in time.
2. Because sexual abuse cuts across ALL demographies---there is no large organization which has not had allegations and incidents of sexual abuse.
3. Because to pretend otherwise lets perpetrators act more freely.
Rod Dreher is a conservative pundit who used to be Catholic. His coverage of the sexual abuse scandal in the Church led him to become Orthodox. When asked if he intended to investigate the scandal in the Orthodox Church he demurred, noting if he knew about it he'd have no spiritual refuge left.
Dreher's like a lot of lapsed Catholics.
Doctor Wrong and the rest of them do not inquire into their own communities for evidence of sexual abuse and coverups---they don't want to know.
They don't want to think that their children are more vulnerable during the 6-8 hours a day they spend at public school than during the 1-2 hours a week they spend at church.
They don't want to know, because to know is to face the supreme fear of our society---that someone would sexually abuse our children.
This is a normal human reaction. We all want to live in a world where such things simply don't happen and certainly don't happen to kids.
The hatred and bigotry toward the Church is not normal. Especially when one considers that the one institution which has most actively resisted the hypersexualization of our culture and the corresponding loss of human dignity has been the Church.
I know why The New York Times seeks to destroy the Catholic Church.
I also know why those who evince to hate our sex-saturated, perverse society do so.
It is because the Church, being not of this world, is hated and despised by it. Christ promised this would be the case.
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 2:00PM
You may not be aware of this (in fact, I know you're not), but the sum total of your argument is:
1. Sexual abuse of children is, like, kinda' normal in society...
2. "Hatred and bigotry" towards the Catholic Church is NOT normal.
You're a very sick man.
Call Rome. They have a job for you.
(BTW...If the Catholic Church is NOT "of this world", then why is it so thoroughly infected by "worldly" attitudes, like pedophelia?)
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 7:06PM
Doctor Right,
He is not saying that child sexual abuse is "kinda' normal in society." He is saying that this abomination is much more comman than the vast majority of us realize.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 2:17PM
Since Doctor Wrong is utterly ignorant of logic and incapable of forming a coherent argument, I'll type more slowly for his benefit:
1. The Catholic Church is not the only institution with sexual abuse incidents.
2. If sexual abuse never occurred in the Catholic Church it would have a negligible impact on the number of American kids suffering sexual abuse.
3. The Catholic Church has responded effectively to this situation, reducing the incidence of sexual abuse over 90% since its 1982 peak, an effectiveness rate seen in no other large institution in America.
4. Those who care---really care---about protecting kids from sexual abuse need to demand other institutions---like the public school system and non-Catholic communities including Doctor Wrong's Fundamentalist community---adopt equally stringent protocols regarding conduct, reporting, and resolution of allegations.
5. The Church is the largest and most influential institution fighting the secularists' attempts to further sexualize American society and decriminalize sexual abuse of minors, particularly boys, which is a major desire of the homosexual lobby.
There---simple enough even for Doctor Wrong to understand.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 2:19PM
Doctor Wrong's evidently unfamiliar with the epistles.
Or perhaps he thinks St Paul wasn't a "real Christian".
Why, he must have suppressed all knowledge of the "true" Church!
Tim*| 4.8.10 @ 2:20PM
But Doctor Reich ,
1. Apparently ,Sexual Abuse in The Public School System is Normal
2. Hatred Of The Catholic Church Is Normal for Doctor Reich, Bill Keller ,Pinch Sulzberger ,Adolph Hitler ,Joey Stalin,Chairman Mao and Their Fellow Travelers.
You're A Zany Anti-Catholic Nut Bag .
Call Pinch Sulzberger at The New York Times .They Need A Man To Scrape Pigeon Poop off their building.
Speakin' Of Not of This World, Doctor Reich here ,is A Bus Callin' A Banana "Yellow " .
Get The Net !
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 2:23PM
He does strain charity, doesn't he?
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 7:07PM
Ah Teflon93,
God has given you a gift. God has given you Doctor Right in order to increase your capacities in patience and Christian charity.
I know it may sound like a stretch, but God really does write straight with crooked lines.
Teflon93| 4.9.10 @ 1:25PM
Point well taken, Ted---the call to charity is one I personally struggle with; it is alien to my prior Christian experience and most difficult to reliably put into practice.
Since lack of charity is much easier for my brothers and sisters to detect than for me, I am reliant upon your reminders, for which I thank you, brother.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 2:25PM
More from the Pope's letter to the Irish:
"Certainly, among the contributing factors we can include: inadequate procedures for determining the suitability of candidates for the priesthood and the religious life; insufficient human, moral, intellectual and spiritual formation in seminaries and novitiates; a tendency in society to favour the clergy and other authority figures; and a misplaced concern for the reputation of the Church and the avoidance of scandal, resulting in failure to apply existing canonical penalties and to safeguard the dignity of every person.
"Urgent action is needed to address these factors, which have had such tragic consequences in the lives of victims and their families, and have obscured the light of the Gospel to a degree that not even centuries of persecution succeeded in doing."
Funny, but I fail to see the lack of accountability here.
But I would expect no less from the man who had to spend every Friday for some years reviewing every sexual abuse allegation in the Church.
Tim*| 4.8.10 @ 2:31PM
Since priests upset him ,we could call Mullah Bob to go over to his house with two rugs , so they can pray together
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 2:48PM
Now, for the notion that evil men are not found in the Church from time to time, let's not forget what Christ had to say on the subject in John:
70Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
That there are some modern-day Judases among the faithful should surprise no one.
Since Christ making Judas an apostle in no way diminishes Christ's judgment or credibility, bad men among the clergy do not threaten my faith in his Church.
We are all bad men, after all, we poor banished children of Eve, the degree being the only difference.
Judas' end ought to be sufficient warning if the prospect of Christ's judgment doesn't do the trick:
40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 3:00PM
Since Doctor Wrong is learning logic and argument at our feet, let's follow up with a study question:
How would one interpret the Medici and Borgias in light of Judas' betrayal and its role in God's plan for our salvation?
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 3:05PM
Catholics who have not had direct awareness of the strain of anti-Catholic bigotry which infects Fundamentalists to a sad extent will want to become familiar with the source of much of their calumny:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trail_of_Blood
It didn't appear until 1931 and was an attempt to overcome the inconvenient fact that this sect appeared way too late in history to claim to be the Church founded by Christ.
It's a hoot!
MattZ| 4.8.10 @ 3:10PM
Really? Really?
This is the actual stand you're going to take: sticking up for the organization that contributed to child abuse on a massive scale and then used its institutional power to hide or downplay the crimes committed by its members?
Really? You blame the Times for pointing out that this is taking place?
Really?
MZ
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 3:16PM
"The Fundamentals"...What's that? A 90's boy-band?
You've contradicted yourself.
You said: "I believe all of it."
THAT makes you a fundamentalist.
But then you said: " 'The Fundamentals' were written way too late in history (20th century) for me to pay them much heed."
Once again, you're trying to have it both ways. You want your wafer, and you want to eat it, too.
So if you deny the philosophy of Biblical fundamentalism, I ask again:
Which part of the Bible do you not believe?
Careful...
Nick| 4.8.10 @ 3:23PM
Doctor Wrong,
"But then you said: '"The Fundamentals" were written way too late in history (20th century) for me to pay them much heed.'"
Who the heck are you quoting here?
I think you have been BLINDED by rage!
Still have those mommy and daddy issues, huh?
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 3:28PM
Wow, Doctor Wrong, you hate the Church Christ founded so much you haven't so much as inquired as to where your own theology comes from!
Look it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals
My goodness, no wonder you don't care about sexual abuse in your own community---you're afraid to even ask the basic questions about it!
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 3:35PM
You don't listen (or read) very well; as I said before, I think you have a brain injury.
Like many sheltered Catholics, you operate under the false assumption that anything Christian but NOT Catholic must therefore be Protestant and denominational.
This is not the case.
I do not belong to a denomination. I am not a "Protestant".
I am a Christian.
I've never heard of "The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth edited by A. C. Dixon"...We don't teach that, and it has nothing to do with our beliefs.
We put no faith in man-made creeds, deeds, etc. That's your baileywick...And it's why you once again find yourself embroiled in a pervert-priest scandal...Because your "Church" is rotten at it's core.
We teach The Bible.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 3:37PM
You teach bigotry not to be found in the Bible.
Talk about pervert---go back and reread your gleeful "diddling" posts, you twisted little monkey!
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 3:19PM
MattZ:
Don't waste your time. These "Altar Boys" are too busy doing damage control for the Catholic Church to worry about actual child abuse.
They actually equate criticism of the Catholic Church with the persecution of Christianity.
They're drones.
MattZ| 4.8.10 @ 7:02PM
Just to be clear, I'd be pretty ardently anti-Catholic (and anti-church, in general) even if the Vatican didn't view molestation as more of a PR nightmare than a serious evil to be confronted with urgency and vigour.
MZ
Nick| 4.8.10 @ 7:48PM
That is because you are an anti-Catholic bigot, MattZ.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 3:29PM
Nope, I blame The New York Times for pretending sexual abuse DOESN'T occur anywhere else.
Don't non-Catholic kids count?
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 3:51PM
You are so bereft of logic that if you are a former serviceman, we should all be glad it's "former", 'cuz you should NOT be trusted with dangerous weapons.
You're like a child.
NYT reporter: "We're doing a report on the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests."
You: "But what about the sexual abuse of kids in public schools?"
NYT Reporter: "Umm...Well, I agree, that's bad, but that's not what this particular story is about. This story is about the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests."
You: "You know, it's worse in NY public schools!"
NYT Reporter: "Well, that may be...But that's not what this story is about. This story is about the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests."
You: "Will it discuss the sexual abuse of children at NY public schools?"
NYT Reporter (growing nervous as you're obviously deranged): "Nooooo...Not really. Sir, are you ok? I've said 3 times that this story is about the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests. I'm not saying we're against doing a story about the sexual abuse of children in NY public schools. In fact, we have. It's just NOT what this story is about. Do you understand?"
You: "Yes."
NYT Reporter: "Are you sure?"
You: "Yes".
NYT Reporter: "OK. Great."
You: "I just have one question."
NYT Reporter: "Sure. What is it?"
You: "Why aren't you writing about the sexual abuse of children in NY public schools?!?!"
NYT Reporter: "I think we're done here."
...And on and on and on...
It's boring. And so are you.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 3:56PM
Go ahead and search the Times website for those stories of sexual abuse in public schools---I recommended earlier looking for multipart stories since those are Pulitzer bait.
Where are they? The scandal in the New York City public schools impacts a lot more of the Times' readership than that of the Catholic Church, particularly since the epicenters of these cases were Boston, LA, and Milwaukee.
But it's such hard work backing what you say with fact, Doctor Bigot.
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 7:11PM
MattZ,
The organization did not contribute, individuals within that organization did. I do not blame the Times in the least for pointing out a genuine news story. However, they are using it (and not fully reporting salient facts on the matter) for their own purposes. They are not just shedding sunshine and fresh air on the issue. To pretend otherwise would be just as disingenious and dishonest as pretending that the abuse did not occur or was anything less than spiritual and emotional homicide perpetrated against innocent children.
Nick| 4.8.10 @ 3:16PM
Doctor Wrong,
You didn't respond to my reply the other day. Not a shock.
So, to answer you again: 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.
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?
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?
And, if you are such a Bible scholar, being a "Bible Christian" and attending a "Bible Church", why are you disobeying Christ's command to "eat My Flesh and drink My Blood?"
Also, don't you believe that Saint Paul was a Christian? If you do, why aren't you obeying his command to "Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the [TRADITIONS], which you have learned, whether [BY WORD] or by our epistle." (2 Thes. 2:15)
Saint Paul did not teach Sola Scriptura, why do you? That means " by Scipture alone", by the way. I'm sure, like biblical theology, Latin is not your strong point.
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 3:28PM
You've obviously never been in a position of leadership because you don't understand leadership.
First rule of leadership: EVERYTHING is your fault.
Did Richard Nixon personally tell William Calley to kill civilians at My Lai? Did Richard Nixon pull the trigger? NO on both counts.
However, as Commander-in-Chief, he most certainly must bear the responsibility, if not some of the blame. And if you think the press didn't hold him to account, you're deluded.
You're also trying to deflect the issue. NO ONE says that individual Catholics are all responsible for these crimes against children; most of them (the ones with brains, at least) are as outraged as I am. However, the LEADERSHIP of the Catholic Church - the Bishops, some of the Cardinals, and yes, even the Pope most certainly bear some of the responsibility EX POST FACTO. The cover-up of these crimes is as bad as the crimes themselves because in many cases, the transferred perverts did it again in their new Parish.
How did you ever get the impression that I don't partake of the Lord's supper? I do it every week at Church; as Christians, we are commanded to do so (BTW...It's supposed to be unleaven bread...not some bizarre wafer...But like most things Catholic, when the scripture conflicts with your man-made traditions, you ALWAYS defer to the traditions).
Of course, Paul was a Christian. (And it's not "St. Paul"; ALL Christians are Saints, the Bible is very clear on this issue as well. There's no scriptural justification for beatification - it's simply not there).
Additionally, nothing you learned in CCD or partake of as a Catholic "tradition" was mentioned or referred to by Paul - ZERO.
Paul didn't teach "Sola Scriptura" because he was LIVING IT! His experiences comprise the scriptures...Or didn't you get the memo?
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 3:33PM
I'll put my leadership credentials up against yours any day, Doctor Wrong.
I am a service academy graduate, former military officer, and have spent the years since active duty in a variety of leadership positions in Fortune 100 companies and in the Church.
St Paul didn't teach "sola scriptura"---nor does the Bible. The NT references to Scripture are to the OT, the NT not having been written yet.
And, had you ever paid attention in the pews, Doctor Wrong, you'd realize the epistles are read at every single Mass.
Oh, by the way, last year was the Pauline Year in the Church.
Do you believe the bread and wine to be the body and blood of Christ?
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 3:42PM
First...No, I don't believe in the unscriptural doctrine of transubstantiation. It's absurd.
The bread and the wine REPRESENT the body and blood of Christ. They DO NOT become his flesh and blood in your mouth. If they do, spit it out, and send it to LabCorp for testing. Or what? Do they magically revert back to bread and wine if they fall out of your mouth? And back to flesh and blood if you pick it up again and put it back in your mouth? That's paganistic nonsense.
A service academy grad, eh? And a titan of big business, too? And I should believe this because...Why? 'Cuz you say so? Since you've been wrong about pretty much everything else, you haven't exactly established a credible record.
I said Paul did not teach "Sola Scriptura"...Again, that brain injury thing is hampering you. IED?
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 3:47PM
My bona fides have been well-established on this site. Frankly, I don't care what you believe, twisted thing that you are.
I take Christ's word over yours.
John 6:
25And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
26Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
30They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48I am that bread of life.
49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53Then Jesus said unto them, 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.
54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
70Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
Note unlike with the parables, Christ not only doesn't introduce the bread of life discourse with his customary nod to this being metaphor, but speaks directly to the assembly. Moreover, when they are horrified and seek to leave, he doesn't say, "Wait! It's a METAPHOR!" but lets them go.
Of course, the fact that the Church has practiced the Eucharist from the very beginning---see 1 Cor 11 among others; see Justin Martyr's account as well as that of the other ECFs---eludes you, ignorant of history as you are.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 3:49PM
BTW, since Doctor Wrong foolishly admits sola scriptura isn't biblical, yet he holds to the doctrine, one is left wondering where it came from?
Extra-Scriptural tradition of course.
In fact, sola scriptura doesn't appear until the Reformation, some 1,500 years too late for Pentecost.
But hey, claim the Bible's what you teach, no manmade tradition, etc.
Sure, we all believe you.
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 3:58PM
"Sola scriptura" is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible and inerrant authority for Christian faith.
If you think that idea didn't appear until the Reformation, you're living in a dreamworld.
But I don't blame you. These are the bizarre things that Catholics are taught. Questioning authority is simply not in your intellectual DNA.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 4:00PM
Should be easy enough for you to provide a reference which predates 1517 then, right?
Where is it?
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 4:07PM
It's not a reference, genius. It's a concept.
If you mean to say that the Reformation and the Restoration re-established the primacy of the concept of "sola scriptura", then that would be more accurate. But to say they invented it is simply stupid.
There's more to life than Wikipedia...
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 4:11PM
And BTW...I'm not "Ms. Teflon93"...I don't jump when you bark.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 4:22PM
Reference, please---use any you like.
Must predate 1517 though.
I mean, do you ever look something up to see if it's TRUE, or just mouth whatever suits your bigotry?
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 4:28PM
Like I said, only "Ms. Teflon93" puts out on demand...
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 4:33PM
That's right, folks, once again Doctor Bigot cannot back up his claims with facts or evidence.
Surprise!
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 7:16PM
Doctor Right,
I am in a position of leadership and have been for many years now. Your first rule of leadership is incorrect. Not everything is your fault as a leader. The first rule of leadership (which Infantry officer training and Ranger School will drill into you from day 1) is that you, as a leader, are responsible for everything your unit does and everything it fails to do. It doesn't mean it necessarily is your fault (you can't control everything after all). But what it does mean is that you better quickly figure out a way to get the job done even when you can't control everything.
Larry Miller| 4.8.10 @ 3:31PM
I don't understand why you would print an article by Naumayer. His insistence that this issue is not about the cover up of child abuse but is rather about a political agenda is meant to divert our attention.
Naumayer is a religious bigot who believes that his beloved church is "the only true church". Just ask him. He seriously believes that "there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church." Just ask him. Given that, are we to take his opinions on this matter seriously?
The Catholic church has a serious problem with credibility brought about, in part, because of an oath that cardinals take “never to divulge what may bring harm or dishonor to Holy Church.” Compounding this is the idea that the Holy Father is not to be questioned. Answers to questions that have been raised about documents that contradict what has been said thus far about the issue are mercurial at best.
In addition, he is the head of a sovereign nation and not subject to our law.
Short of the Vatican indicting him, I can’t think of a graceful way for him to defend himself without him sounding like an accused criminal.
So instead of these sophomoric “So’s your old man” rants and rather than attacking each other’s purity of faith and allegiance to your church, why not sit back and ignore the paid pundits who have a financial stake in advancing their cause?
Like Sgt. Friday said, “Just the facts, mame.”
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 3:33PM
Okay, Joe Friday, let's see that oath.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 3:36PM
Meanwhile, here's what Pope Benedict XVI said in his letter to the Irish:
"Certainly, among the contributing factors we can include: inadequate procedures for determining the suitability of candidates for the priesthood and the religious life; insufficient human, moral, intellectual and spiritual formation in seminaries and novitiates; a tendency in society to favour the clergy and other authority figures; and a misplaced concern for the reputation of the Church and the avoidance of scandal, resulting in failure to apply existing canonical penalties and to safeguard the dignity of every person.
"Urgent action is needed to address these factors, which have had such tragic consequences in the lives of victims and their families, and have obscured the light of the Gospel to a degree that not even centuries of persecution succeeded in doing."
Note that he is chastising those clergy who out of misplaced concern for the reputation of the Church failed to apply canon law to do justice toward her members.
But The New York Times has no financial or other stake in their jihad against the Church, do they?
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 7:20PM
Mr. Miller,
The your understanding of Catholic teaching is deficient. As for the issues, it is about child sexual abuse, and it is about people/newspapers using the issue not only as a genuine news story but also using it for their ulterior motives.
The Times article omitted salient facts about the Wisconsin cases in order to continue to grind its axe against the Catholic Church in general and the Pope in particular.
Don| 4.8.10 @ 3:47PM
For us Catholics, this is a TEST...
We must reaffirm our faith and practice our religion.
Where the abuse charges are real, we must demand strong action.
It is a blight on our faith and religion.
It must be dealt with and ended once and for all.
As for attacks by a Government that wants Judeo/Christian faith, specifically, The Catholic church torn asunder, we must stand strong and face that test as well.
This is a TEST of our Faith.
Much like the early Catholics faced mortal and faith based tests, we must as well...defeat the many faces of Evil, starting with the Kellers of the world and those elected officials who would do away with organized religion.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 3:52PM
Indeed:
1 Peter 1
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
6Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
7That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
8Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
9Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 7:20PM
Don,
Excellent post!
Tim*| 4.8.10 @ 3:51PM
Public School Sex Abuse Free Pass :
" As the National Catholic Register’s reporter Wayne Laugesen points out, the federal report said 422,000 California public-school students would be victims before graduation — a number that dwarfs the state’s entire Catholic-school enrollment of 143,000.
Yet, during the first half of 2002, the 61 largest newspapers in California ran nearly 2,000 stories about sexual abuse in Catholic institutions, mostly concerning past allegations. During the same period, those newspapers ran four stories about the federal government’s discovery of the much larger — and ongoing — abuse scandal in public schools. "
Joy| 4.8.10 @ 3:57PM
Doctor Right,
Fascinating (and revealing) conversation. I get the distinct impression that if this had happened at a much earlier time, you would have been burned at the stake by now. . . you heretic you.
I'm even worse off than you are, I don't even go to a church building, our church meets house-to-house.
Telfon93| 4.8.10 @ 4:00PM
You mean like John Calvin burned Michael Servetus?
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 4:04PM
No, she means how apostate, fat-cat Catholic Bishops and Popes had people murdered because they wanted freedom of religion.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 4:09PM
Ahh, so it's OKAY when the founder of Calvinism has somebody burned alive for "heresy" and insists on having it done before his very eyes, then?
Joy| 4.8.10 @ 4:11PM
Can't pin Calvin on me, either. I'm not Calvinist, I'm Christ's One.
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 4:13PM
Did I say it was OK..???
I have no more regard fr John Calvin than I do for any Pope.
Murder is murder. If John Calvin had people unjustly put-to-death, he's paying for it in hell.
You really are dense.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 4:19PM
You'll notice that I merely provided a non-Catholic example of the treatment of heretics which you falsely tried to lay on the Church.
It is important to be ACCURATE.
But kindly provide me the list of your theologians and I'll happily provide historical examples from your own tradition.
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 4:27PM
What I noticed is that you like to bring rhetorical straw-men into the discussion on a regular basis.
ACCURACY has nothing to do with it.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 4:30PM
The word does not mean what I think you think it means.
But look back at this thread---who's provided links, Scripture references, and evidence for their arguments and who has turned down every request for the same?
It's obvious to anyone reading.
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 4:03PM
A house church?!?!
Joy, you heathen!!!
Don't you understand that when Christ said "the Church", he didn't mean that body of believing Christians, he meant a big, fancy-shmancy building with lots of gold and stained glass windows, built by the labor of serfs and indentured servants!!
Actually, we do the "house-church" thing, too, from time to time. We don't have to, we have a building, but some folks like it that way.
(Hey, Joy...Do ya' think we should tell Teflon93 that the early Christians ALL met for worship in houses? Or would that blow his mind?)
Joy| 4.8.10 @ 4:06PM
"Or would that blow his mind?" Too late, already happened early on in this thread.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 4:11PM
Not at all---since those of us who know early Church history---including architecture---realize that after the Catacombs, the first places where the Church convened in Rome were in the great homes of the faithful.
To this day, Catholic Churches resemble these 1st century Roman villas as a result.
You people really ought to get out more.
Doctor Right| 4.8.10 @ 4:14PM
That's funny. The Catholic Church in my neighborhood represents really BAD 60's architecture on acid...
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 4:17PM
Yes, sadly, there is one truth you've spoken---the Spirit of Vatican II unfortunately led to hiring some awful architects in the States.
There are still many classic Catholic Church structures to be found, though, and a burgeoning movement to return to the original architecture, serving as it does functional, aesthetic, and traditional purposes.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 4:14PM
Here's a great corrective to the "Trail of Blood" nonsense:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
This also has the advantage of being free---I had to buy the 38 volumes on my shelf.
Tim*| 4.8.10 @ 4:10PM
Gee Whiz Anti-Catholic Joy , In An Earlier Time :
" For five years, Konzentrationslager Dachau, a short bicycle ride across the sodden moors northwest of Munich, was the site of the largest religious community in the world. Because many records were hurriedly burned as the American tanks approached in April 1945, the best estimate, based on clandestine lists kept by priest-prisoners in the work offices, is that 2,771 clergymen were interned at KZ Dachau — of whom at least 1,034 died in the camp. The 2,579 Catholic priests, lay brothers and seminarians came from 38 nations, from 134 dioceses and 29 religious orders and congregations. Their community included 109 Protestant, 30 Orthodox and two Moslem clergymen.
That figure, surprising as it might be, does not include the clergy or nuns shot or beheaded or tortured to death in squares and alleys and jails all over Europe. In the first 16 months of the war, 700 Polish priests died at the hands of the Nazis and 3,000 more were sent to concentration camps; more than half did not return. In Dachau, 868 Polish priests perished — 300 of them in medical experiments or by torture in the prison showers. In France, too, by February 1944, the Gestapo had arrested 162 priests, of whom 123 were shot or decapitated before ever reaching any camp. According to the International Tribunal at Nuremburg, 780 priests died of exhaustion at Mauthausen and 300 at Sachsenhausen, and there were hundreds of other camps and satellites in the network. Nor does the total figure of 2,771 take into consideration that one-quarter to one-third of those shipped to any camp often arrived dead. "
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 4:35PM
Sorry Tim---Doctor Bigot and Joy don't care about facts and certainly don't care about history.
Other folks following appreciate the effort, though.
Joy| 4.8.10 @ 4:52PM
Oh, now I've gone and done it. Now I'm Anti-Catholic. Good grief. Be that as it may, I'm not sure I understand what the brutality of the Nazi's has to do with whether or not the Catholic Church should take responsibility for criminal acts committed in their midst. I'm sure there were many fine, sincere, even Christian people in that number murdered by the Nazi's.
I'm not anti-Catholic in terms of the people. I'm anti-Catholic in terms of how religion can be one of the most grievous institutions on earth when it distorts the gospel of Christ. Like Paul, I want to shout, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. " He was talking about the slavery of religious ritual piled on top of the gospel of Grace.
You guys are making this way too complicated. The Catholic Church makes the gospel of Grace way too complicated.
"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."
Period.
"I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law [religious institution/ritual], Christ died for nothing!" [brackets mine]
I believe there are Christians within the Catholic Church, I believe there are even Christians within the Mormon religion, which is decidedly not Christian in their history and doctrine, (I know - that's another can of worms.) I believe there are Christians who (gasp) don't belong to any formalized church at all.
However, I believe that the institutional system of the Catholic Church is precisely the kind of thing Paul was begging--begging--the believers in Galatia to leave behind.
I am not anti-Catholic so much as I am pro-Life.
Jesus said to him, I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except by Me.
That's all. Be happy. Be Free. Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me, I once was lost, but now am found, was blind by now I see.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 5:10PM
Link, please---credibility counts.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 5:11PM
Odd---that reply went in the wrong place.
But thus spaketh Pope Joy I, Vicar of Christ At Home.
Joy| 4.8.10 @ 5:18PM
That's clever, really. But no, it is Joy of Surprised by Joy, because like C.S. Lewis, I have experienced the supreme joy of being Surprised by Joy. Based on the tone of your posts, you could use a surprise like that too. :)
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 6:26PM
I have all the joy in the world, for I have the sacraments Christ instituted to light the way to the eternal joy to come.
Do you believe Mr. Lewis' contemporary G.K. Chesterton lacked joy?
Nick| 4.8.10 @ 5:56PM
Joy,
"He was talking about the slavery of religious ritual piled on top of the gospel of Grace."
According to who? You? When did you become the arbiter of what Scripture means?
The Apostles TAUGHT the Good News of Jesus Christ to the first Christians. Christ founded His church to teach this Good News (Gospel.) And He told the Apostles that "[...] the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
The Word of God must be TAUGHT. It is not self-explanatory. You can't figure it out on your own. The Holy Spirit must show you "the Way." Ask Him to show you the Truth.
Also, Saint Paul went to Saint Peter to get permission to set up churches, like in Galatia, didn't he?
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 7:24PM
Joy,
Institutions and all the people in them are not held culpable for the acts committed by some persons in the institution. Just as if another military officer engaged in war crimes, I would not be held culpable (unless I participated, aided & abetted, or engaged in a cover up).
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 4:38PM
More from the Pope:
"The task you now face is to address the problem of abuse that has occurred within the Irish Catholic community, and to do so with courage and determination.
"No one imagines that this painful situation will be resolved swiftly. Real progress has been made, yet much more remains to be done.
"In order to recover from this grievous wound, the Church in Ireland must first acknowledge before the Lord and before others the serious sins committed against defenceless children."
The pastoral guidance is clear here and the exact opposite of a coverup.
We'll see as the investigation proceeds and those who have committed these terrible crimes in Ireland are brought to justice.
Rest assured though---that will not be sufficient for the bigots.
John2| 4.8.10 @ 5:25PM
Gee, Teflon, you are having an easy time. These bigots provide no serious opposition at all.
Sola scriptura, ha, ha!
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 6:31PM
It's made easier, John, by how shallow their knowledge of history is---but it has to be lest anyone think too deeply about where their tradition comes from.
But then, that was the case for me as well---I grew up Episcopalian and was Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, and nondenominational with Southern Baptist theology---that would be Rick Warren's Saddleback Church---before doing my homework and crossing the Tiber.
There was no shortage of good, Christian people in any of those communities, but all had forgotten where they came from and lost much of their birthright in the process.
What saddens me is those fortunate enough to be born in the Church but left her. I can understand their reluctance to know anything about her now---lest they know what they've left behind.
Nick| 4.8.10 @ 6:37PM
Teflon93,
I hope you didn't get too wet while "crossing the Tiber."
Welcome home, and God Bless!
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 6:56PM
Thank you kindly, Nick---glad to be home at last!
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 7:26PM
Teflon93,
Converts such as you typically know much more about the Catholic Church than do those born in Her. Part of this has to do with terrible catechesis.
The homework you have done shows in your posts. Keep up the good fight. Charitably, of course! :)
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 9:14PM
Thanks, Ted and please feel free to call out where my charity slips.
For example, I should have put a smiley after "you twisted little monkey!" above but I was having too much fun using my Stimpy voice to observe form.
Tim*| 4.8.10 @ 4:48PM
This is what happens when The Liberal Media has been allowed to get away with Their Agendist Rewriting Of History.
That's Why Today , We Are in A Media War !
davefromoregon| 4.9.10 @ 6:58PM
Tim,
If your son or daughter were among those abused, would you still feel this is a media war? If so, would you view it differently?
larry Miller| 4.8.10 @ 4:52PM
As if Teflon 93 actually cared, here is the complete oath cardinals take:
“I (name and surname), Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, promise and swear to be faithful henceforth and forever, while I live, to Christ and his Gospel, being constantly obedient to the Holy Roman Apostolic Church, to Blessed Peter in the person of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, and of his canonically elected Successors; to maintain communion with the Catholic Church always, in word and deed: NOT TO REVEAL TO ANY ONE WHAT IS CONFIDED TO ME IN SECRET, NOR TO DIVULGE WHAT MAY BRING HARM OR DISHONOR TO HOLY CHURCH; to carry out with great diligence and faithfulness those tasks to which I am called by my service to the Church, in accord with the norms of the law. So help me Almighty God.”
Now you and Doctor Right can proceed with your discussion on who is the biggest moron. Get a room.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 5:11PM
Link, please---credibility counts.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 5:17PM
Here it is from Our Sunday Visitor:
I [name and surname], Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, promise and swear to be faithful henceforth and forever, while I live, to Christ and his Gospel, being constantly obedient to the Holy Roman Apostolic Church, to Blessed Peter in the person of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, and of his canonically elected Successors; to maintain communion with the Catholic Church always, in word and deed; not to reveal to any one what is confided to me in secret, nor to divulge what may bring harm or dishonor to Holy Church; to carry out with great diligence and faithfulness those tasks to which I am called by my service to the Church, in accord with the norms of the law.
So help me Almighty God.
I take it the CAPS were yours, Larry?
Nick| 4.8.10 @ 5:40PM
Mr. Miller,
Ever heard of the Sacrament of Penance?
Also known as Confession?
Larry Miller| 4.8.10 @ 8:14PM
These vows have nothing to do with the sacrament of Penance. That was already covered in their priestly vows (Holy Orders).
Once again:NOR TO DIVULGE WHAT MAY BRING HARM OR DISHONOR TO HOLY CHURCH.
All another cleric has to say is something like this, "I tell you this in secret because it may harm or dishonor the church..."
The point is this..you can't trust someone who cannot tell you anything that may cause harm or dishonor to the church. Don't you see the difficult position these men are placed in? Talk about conflicts of interest, much less conscience.
Nick| 4.8.10 @ 8:54PM
Mr. Miller,
And exactly when were you ordained?
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 9:12PM
You do realize that cardinals retain confessor faculties, correct?
You may want to refresh yourself by looking up Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for comparitive purposes.
It has the same objective.
The oath I took as an officer was similar and certainly included under lawful orders the requirement to maintain confidential information---as in, national security secrets.
You've seen the Pope's clear instruction to the bishops in Ireland that the truth must out. You'll have to provide evidence for how the cardinals' oath prohibits Irish bishops from obeying the Pontiff's direction.
All in good conscience, too!
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 9:24PM
Here's that oath for Army officers:
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
And for enlisted men:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
You can read these oaths as uncharitably as you like to claim they support military coverups, etc. but you'd be mistaken.
Tim*| 4.8.10 @ 4:54PM
Indeed Teflon93 !
Keep The Faith And Carry On !
Tim*| 4.8.10 @ 5:06PM
Well Joy Sweetie Pie ,You Played Your Victim Of Catholics Card !
By The Way, My Catholic Dad .A Recon & Ranger Task Force Major,at The Time had his Men Liberated one of those Camps. Almost 6 Million of those Nazi Camp Victims were Christians.
Nobody Badmouthed Him and the many of his Catholic Troopers when they liberated that Nazi Camp .
That's The Point !
Got It Girlie !
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 5:13PM
No, she's not anti-Catholic at all---heaven forfend!
But those evil Catholics might come to Doctor Bigots house with the Spanish Inquisition!
(Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!)
Joy| 4.8.10 @ 5:25PM
*Sigh* I give up.
Grace and peace to you all just the same.
"Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.
(Jude 24-25)
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 7:29PM
Joy,
Grace and Peace to you as well. It can be a bit rough and tumble here, now and again. Don't take it personally. It's God's gift to teach you patience and charity.
Pingback| 4.8.10 @ 5:29PM
Enemy Within: Progressives Corrupting The Church » Real Catholic Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Nick| 4.8.10 @ 5:36PM
Doctor Wrong,
I wasn't deflecting at all.
You claim the Roman Catholic Church is "rotten to the core" because of this scandal. So, the U.S. Army must also have been rotten to the core, because of My Lai, no? I think Viet Nam vets would disagree.
I am outraged at these crimes. I have been following this story since the mid '90s. How long have you?
I find it strange that someone who claims to be a conservative is defending the New York Slimes. No one is asserting the Slimes, Post, or others shouldn't cover the story. But, they are not simply covering a story. They, like you Doctor Wrong, are using it as cudgel to beat Catholics into submission. Or, they also would be reporting the public school scandal.
Do you think there is a liberal media bias, or not?
"How did you ever get the impression that I don't partake of the Lord's supper?"
Because you don't, according to what you have written.
Christ said, "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."
You, Doctor Wrong, are one the disciples that walked away from Jesus, because this teaching was "too hard." And you don't understand the doctrine of transubstantiation, either.
And, riddle me this Batman: What were the TRADITIONS that SAINT Paul taught BY MOUTH? Were they lost forever?
Because they certainly were not all written down in letters. Nor, were Christ's teachings.
"But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written."
-The Gospel of SAINT John, 21:25
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 6:33PM
Sexual abuse has occurred in the armed forces as well---and sadly even coverups of the same.
We rightly don't let that color the service of the overwhelming majority of the fine men and women who serve.
Nor should we for the overwhelming majority of priests who have never been accused of such a thing, much less done such a thing.
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.8.10 @ 5:52PM
These comments sorta' got lost above, when Dr. Right and Teflon got into it. I thought it might be edifying to paste them again, here.
Folks, it ain't the "Catholic Church"...it is the ROMAN CHURCH Dr. Right is properly questioning. Many ROMAN Church members are Christians. Many are not. "Re-baptizers" have been around since the resurection of Jesus Christ. We are not "protestants" like Luther, but rather a world wide community of sinners saved by the Grace of Jesus Christ.
We believe quite simply in two differences with the ROMAN Church. We believe in "adult baptism" as an individual choice to follow Jesus. We believe in the doctrine of "the priesthood of each believer" and that there is one mediator between mankind and God...Jesus Christ.
We walk a fine line. On the one hand, we accept scripture as the ultimate guide. On the other hand, we accept only Jesus Christ as the "Word Of God".
Uh...we also believe that the HOLY SPIRIT (uh, that third equal member of the trinity), is emanent in our world today . (and I did not misspell emanent).
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.8.10 @ 12:31PM
The Roman Church struggles with the same issues (choices), that any "power structure" or "hierarchy" struggles with:
Retaining power
or
Retaining faith and mission.
Throw in celibacy to skew the recruitment pool.
I pray for the Roman Church, as I pray for the "Christian community of faith" across the world.
Uncommitted, BUTT OUT!
Reply to this
MikeBee| 4.8.10 @ 2:27PM
Thanks for your prayers, Ken.
Christians need to stand together on this issue, and on many others. The Catholic Church needs to remove all those priests practicing ephebophilia from ministry, clean house, and encourage right-wing candidates for priesthood who will be celibate. But now, more than ever, Christians need to stand together against Evil in the world (including against Communism and Socialism), and not to fight each other. There is plenty of sin in every Christian denomination to go around, including pedophilia and ephebophilia in other denominations. Let's just drive sin out of the churches, and enlighten the world with Christ's presence.
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.8.10 @ 6:11PM
Mike Bee, AMEN!
Another thought if I may. Too many folks forget the "OFFICE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT". You know, the third fellow of the Trinity that Christ spoke of, the "comforter" to take His place on earth.
(Saint John, chapter 16 verses 7 through 15)
We "re-baptizers" always have to guard against spinning off into whacky cul-de-sacs of goofiness.
Conversely,
ROMAN Church members must guard against "delegating" their Chritianity to some priest.
God bless, Mike
MikeBee| 4.12.10 @ 12:43PM
Ken,
Without the Holy Spirit, any church is toast. Full disclosure: I'm Roman Catholic, and "rebaptized" as an adult, using your terminology. Still very much a practicing Roman Catholic.
I very strongly believe that all Christian churches need to set their differences aside today, and join together. Using their various charisms, each Christian church as part of a united whole can confront Evil in the world today more effectively together than by going it alone. There is a lot of Evil which also needs to be purged from the Christian churches, as evidenced in the ephebophilia problem in the RC, and the embracement of far-left liberal ideologies in many of the protestant Christian denominations.
Man, a lot of prayer is needed.....
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 6:37PM
Ken, what precisely do you have against Rome?
As for the teachings of the Church regarding the third person of the Trinity---which, oh by the way, you wouldn't know was one in being with the Father from Scripture---this is what it is:
ARTICLE 8
"I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT"
687 "No one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."7 Now God's Spirit, who reveals God, makes known to us Christ, his Word, his living Utterance, but the Spirit does not speak of himself. The Spirit who "has spoken through the prophets" makes us hear the Father's Word, but we do not hear the Spirit himself. We know him only in the movement by which he reveals the Word to us and disposes us to welcome him in faith. The Spirit of truth who "unveils" Christ to us "will not speak on his own."8 Such properly divine self-effacement explains why "the world cannot receive [him], because it neither sees him nor knows him," while those who believe in Christ know the Spirit because he dwells with them.9
688 The Church, a communion living in the faith of the apostles which she transmits, is the place where we know the Holy Spirit:
- in the Scriptures he inspired;
- in the Tradition, to which the Church Fathers are always timely witnesses;
- in the Church's Magisterium, which he assists;
- in the sacramental liturgy, through its words and symbols, in which the Holy Spirit puts us into communion with Christ;
- in prayer, wherein he intercedes for us;
- in the charisms and ministries by which the Church is built up;
- in the signs of apostolic and missionary life;
- in the witness of saints through whom he manifests his holiness and continues the work of salvation.
I. THE JOINT MISSION OF THE SON AND THE SPIRIT
689 The One whom the Father has sent into our hearts, the Spirit of his Son, is truly God.10 Consubstantial with the Father and the Son, the Spirit is inseparable from them, in both the inner life of the Trinity and his gift of love for the world. In adoring the Holy Trinity, life-giving, consubstantial, and indivisible, the Church's faith also professes the distinction of persons. When the Father sends his Word, he always sends his Breath. In their joint mission, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct but inseparable. To be sure, it is Christ who is seen, the visible image of the invisible God, but it is the Spirit who reveals him.
690 Jesus is Christ, "anointed," because the Spirit is his anointing, and everything that occurs from the Incarnation on derives from this fullness.11 When Christ is finally glorified,12 he can in turn send the Spirit from his place with the Father to those who believe in him: he communicates to them his glory,13 that is, the Holy Spirit who glorifies him.14 From that time on, this joint mission will be manifested in the children adopted by the Father in the Body of his Son: the mission of the Spirit of adoption is to unite them to Christ and make them live in him:
The notion of anointing suggests . . . that there is no distance between the Son and the Spirit. Indeed, just as between the surface of the body and the anointing with oil neither reason nor sensation recognizes any intermediary, so the contact of the Son with the Spirit is immediate, so that anyone who would make contact with the Son by faith must first encounter the oil by contact. In fact there is no part that is not covered by the Holy Spirit. That is why the confession of the Son's Lordship is made in the Holy Spirit by those who receive him, the Spirit coming from all sides to those who approach the Son in faith.15
II. THE NAME, TITLES, AND SYMBOLS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
The proper name of the Holy Spirit
691 "Holy Spirit" is the proper name of the one whom we adore and glorify with the Father and the Son. The Church has received this name from the Lord and professes it in the Baptism of her new children.16
The term "Spirit" translates the Hebrew word ruah, which, in its primary sense, means breath, air, wind. Jesus indeed uses the sensory image of the wind to suggest to Nicodemus the transcendent newness of him who is personally God's breath, the divine Spirit.17 On the other hand, "Spirit" and "Holy" are divine attributes common to the three divine persons. By joining the two terms, Scripture, liturgy, and theological language designate the inexpressible person of the Holy Spirit, without any possible equivocation with other uses of the terms "spirit" and "holy."
Titles of the Holy Spirit
692 When he proclaims and promises the coming of the Holy Spirit, Jesus calls him the "Paraclete," literally, "he who is called to one's side," ad-vocatus.18 "Paraclete" is commonly translated by "consoler," and Jesus is the first consoler.19 The Lord also called the Holy Spirit "the Spirit of truth."20
693 Besides the proper name of "Holy Spirit," which is most frequently used in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles, we also find in St. Paul the titles: the Spirit of the promise,21 the Spirit of adoption,22 the Spirit of Christ,23 the Spirit of the Lord,24 and the Spirit of God25 - and, in St. Peter, the Spirit of glory.26
Symbols of the Holy Spirit
694 Water. The symbolism of water signifies the Holy Spirit's action in Baptism, since after the invocation of the Holy Spirit it becomes the efficacious sacramental sign of new birth: just as the gestation of our first birth took place in water, so the water of Baptism truly signifies that our birth into the divine life is given to us in the Holy Spirit. As "by one Spirit we were all baptized," so we are also "made to drink of one Spirit."27 Thus the Spirit is also personally the living water welling up from Christ crucified28 as its source and welling up in us to eternal life.29
695 Anointing. The symbolism of anointing with oil also signifies the Holy Spirit,30 to the point of becoming a synonym for the Holy Spirit. In Christian initiation, anointing is the sacramental sign of Confirmation, called "chrismation" in the Churches of the East. Its full force can be grasped only in relation to the primary anointing accomplished by the Holy Spirit, that of Jesus. Christ (in Hebrew "messiah") means the one "anointed" by God's Spirit. There were several anointed ones of the Lord in the Old Covenant, pre-eminently King David.31 But Jesus is God's Anointed in a unique way: the humanity the Son assumed was entirely anointed by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit established him as "Christ."32 The Virgin Mary conceived Christ by the Holy Spirit who, through the angel, proclaimed him the Christ at his birth, and prompted Simeon to come to the temple to see the Christ of the Lord.33 The Spirit filled Christ and the power of the Spirit went out from him in his acts of healing and of saving.34 Finally, it was the Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead.35 Now, fully established as "Christ" in his humanity victorious over death, Jesus pours out the Holy Spirit abundantly until "the saints" constitute - in their union with the humanity of the Son of God - that perfect man "to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ":36 "the whole Christ," in St. Augustine's expression.
696 Fire. While water signifies birth and the fruitfulness of life given in the Holy Spirit, fire symbolizes the transforming energy of the Holy Spirit's actions. The prayer of the prophet Elijah, who "arose like fire" and whose "word burned like a torch," brought down fire from heaven on the sacrifice on Mount Carmel.37 This event was a "figure" of the fire of the Holy Spirit, who transforms what he touches. John the Baptist, who goes "before [the Lord] in the spirit and power of Elijah," proclaims Christ as the one who "will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."38 Jesus will say of the Spirit: "I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled!"39 In the form of tongues "as of fire," the Holy Spirit rests on the disciples on the morning of Pentecost and fills them with himself40 The spiritual tradition has retained this symbolism of fire as one of the most expressive images of the Holy Spirit's actions.41 "Do not quench the Spirit."42
697 Cloud and light. These two images occur together in the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. In the theophanies of the Old Testament, the cloud, now obscure, now luminous, reveals the living and saving God, while veiling the transcendence of his glory - with Moses on Mount Sinai,43 at the tent of meeting,44 and during the wandering in the desert,45 and with Solomon at the dedication of the Temple.46 In the Holy Spirit, Christ fulfills these figures. The Spirit comes upon the Virgin Mary and "overshadows" her, so that she might conceive and give birth to Jesus.47 On the mountain of Transfiguration, the Spirit in the "cloud came and overshadowed" Jesus, Moses and Elijah, Peter, James and John, and "a voice came out of the cloud, saying, 'This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!'"48 Finally, the cloud took Jesus out of the sight of the disciples on the day of his ascension and will reveal him as Son of man in glory on the day of his final coming.49
698 The seal is a symbol close to that of anointing. "The Father has set his seal" on Christ and also seals us in him.50 Because this seal indicates the indelible effect of the anointing with the Holy Spirit in the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, the image of the seal (sphragis) has been used in some theological traditions to express the indelible "character" imprinted by these three unrepeatable sacraments.
699 The hand. Jesus heals the sick and blesses little children by laying hands on them.51 In his name the apostles will do the same.52 Even more pointedly, it is by the Apostles' imposition of hands that the Holy Spirit is given.53 The Letter to the Hebrews lists the imposition of hands among the "fundamental elements" of its teaching.54 The Church has kept this sign of the all-powerful outpouring of the Holy Spirit in its sacramental epicleses.
700 The finger. "It is by the finger of God that [Jesus] cast out demons."55 If God's law was written on tablets of stone "by the finger of God," then the "letter from Christ" entrusted to the care of the apostles, is written "with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of human hearts."56 The hymn Veni Creator Spiritus invokes the Holy Spirit as the "finger of the Father's right hand."57
701 The dove. At the end of the flood, whose symbolism refers to Baptism, a dove released by Noah returns with a fresh olive-tree branch in its beak as a sign that the earth was again habitable.58 When Christ comes up from the water of his baptism, the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, comes down upon him and remains with him.59 The Spirit comes down and remains in the purified hearts of the baptized. In certain churches, the Eucharist is reserved in a metal receptacle in the form of a dove (columbarium) suspended above the altar. Christian iconography traditionally uses a dove to suggest the Spirit.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 6:38PM
And:
III. GOD'S SPIRIT AND WORD IN THE TIME OF THE PROMISES
702 From the beginning until "the fullness of time,"60 the joint mission of the Father's Word and Spirit remains hidden, but it is at work. God's Spirit prepares for the time of the Messiah. Neither is fully revealed but both are already promised, to be watched for and welcomed at their manifestation. So, for this reason, when the Church reads the Old Testament, she searches there for what the Spirit, "who has spoken through the prophets," wants to tell us about Christ.61
By "prophets" the faith of the Church here understands all whom the Holy Spirit inspired in living proclamation and the composition of the sacred books, both of the Old and the New Testaments. Jewish tradition distinguishes first the Law (the five first books or Pentateuch), then the Prophets (our historical and prophetic books) and finally the Writings (especially the wisdom literature, in particular the Psalms).62
In creation
703 The Word of God and his Breath are at the origin of the being and life of every creature:63
It belongs to the Holy Spirit to rule, sanctify, and animate creation, for he is God, consubstantial with the Father and the Son. . . . Power over life pertains to the Spirit, for being God he preserves creation in the Father through the Son.64
704 "God fashioned man with his own hands [that is, the Son and the Holy Spirit] and impressed his own form on the flesh he had fashioned, in such a way that even what was visible might bear the divine form."65
The Spirit of the promise
705 Disfigured by sin and death, man remains "in the image of God," in the image of the Son, but is deprived "of the glory of God,"66 of his "likeness." The promise made to Abraham inaugurates the economy of salvation, at the culmination of which the Son himself will assume that "image"67 and restore it in the Father's "likeness" by giving it again its Glory, the Spirit who is "the giver of life."
706 Against all human hope, God promises descendants to Abraham, as the fruit of faith and of the power of the Holy Spirit.68 In Abraham's progeny all the nations of the earth will be blessed. This progeny will be Christ himself,69 in whom the outpouring of the Holy Spirit will "gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad."70 God commits himself by his own solemn oath to giving his beloved Son and "the promised Holy Spirit . . . [who is] the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it."71
In Theophanies and the Law
707 Theophanies (manifestations of God) light up the way of the promise, from the patriarchs to Moses and from Joshua to the visions that inaugurated the missions of the great prophets. Christian tradition has always recognized that God's Word allowed himself to be seen and heard in these theophanies, in which the cloud of the Holy Spirit both revealed him and concealed him in its shadow.
708 This divine pedagogy appears especially in the gift of the Law.72 God gave the Law as a "pedagogue" to lead his people towards Christ.73 But the Law's powerlessness to save man deprived of the divine "likeness," along with the growing awareness of sin that it imparts,74 enkindles a desire for the Holy Spirit. The lamentations of the Psalms bear witness to this.
In the Kingdom and the Exile
709 The Law, the sign of God's promise and covenant, ought to have governed the hearts and institutions of that people to whom Abraham's faith gave birth. "If you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, . . . you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."75 But after David, Israel gave in to the temptation of becoming a kingdom like other nations. The Kingdom, however, the object of the promise made to David,76 would be the work of the Holy Spirit; it would belong to the poor according to the Spirit.
710 The forgetting of the Law and the infidelity to the covenant end in death: it is the Exile, apparently the failure of the promises, which is in fact the mysterious fidelity of the Savior God and the beginning of a promised restoration, but according to the Spirit. The People of God had to suffer this purification.77 In God's plan, the Exile already stands in the shadow of the Cross, and the Remnant of the poor that returns from the Exile is one of the most transparent prefigurations of the Church.
Expectation of the Messiah and his Spirit
711 "Behold, I am doing a new thing."78 Two prophetic lines were to develop, one leading to the expectation of the Messiah, the other pointing to the announcement of a new Spirit. They converge in the small Remnant, the people of the poor, who await in hope the "consolation of Israel" and "the redemption of Jerusalem."79
We have seen earlier how Jesus fulfills the prophecies concerning himself. We limit ourselves here to those in which the relationship of the Messiah and his Spirit appears more clearly.
712 The characteristics of the awaited Messiah begin to appear in the "Book of Emmanuel" ("Isaiah said this when he saw his glory,"80 speaking of Christ), especially in the first two verses of Isaiah 11:
There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
and a branch shall grow out of his roots.
And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him,
the spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the spirit of counsel and might,
the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.81
713 The Messiah's characteristics are revealed above all in the "Servant songs."82 These songs proclaim the meaning of Jesus' Passion and show how he will pour out the Holy Spirit to give life to the many: not as an outsider, but by embracing our "form as slave."83 Taking our death upon himself, he can communicate to us his own Spirit of life.
714 This is why Christ inaugurates the proclamation of the Good News by making his own the following passage from Isaiah:84
The Spirit of the LORD God is upon me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to bring good tidings to the afflicted;
he has sent me to bind up the broken hearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor.
715 The prophetic texts that directly concern the sending of the Holy Spirit are oracles by which God speaks to the heart of his people in the language of the promise, with the accents of "love and fidelity."85 St. Peter will proclaim their fulfillment on the morning of Pentecost.86 According to these promises, at the "end time" the Lord's Spirit will renew the hearts of men, engraving a new law in them. He will gather and reconcile the scattered and divided peoples; he will transform the first creation, and God will dwell there with men in peace.
716 The People of the "poor"87 - those who, humble and meek, rely solely on their God's mysterious plans, who await the justice, not of men but of the Messiah - are in the end the great achievement of the Holy Spirit's hidden mission during the time of the promises that prepare for Christ's coming. It is this quality of heart, purified and enlightened by the Spirit, which is expressed in the Psalms. In these poor, the Spirit is making ready "a people prepared for the Lord."88
IV. THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST IN THE FULLNESS OF TIME
John, precursor, prophet, and baptist
717 "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John."89 John was "filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb"90 by Christ himself, whom the Virgin Mary had just conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary's visitation to Elizabeth thus became a visit from God to his people.91
718 John is "Elijah [who] must come."92 The fire of the Spirit dwells in him and makes him the forerunner of the coming Lord. In John, the precursor, the Holy Spirit completes the work of "[making] ready a people prepared for the Lord."93
719 John the Baptist is "more than a prophet."94 In him, the Holy Spirit concludes his speaking through the prophets. John completes the cycle of prophets begun by Elijah.95 He proclaims the imminence of the consolation of Israel; he is the "voice" of the Consoler who is coming.96 As the Spirit of truth will also do, John "came to bear witness to the light."97 In John's sight, the Spirit thus brings to completion the careful search of the prophets and fulfills the longing of the angels.98 "He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God. . . . Behold, the Lamb of God."99
720 Finally, with John the Baptist, the Holy Spirit begins the restoration to man of "the divine likeness," prefiguring what he would achieve with and in Christ. John's baptism was for repentance; baptism in water and the Spirit will be a new birth.100
"Rejoice, you who are full of grace"
721 Mary, the all-holy ever-virgin Mother of God, is the masterwork of the mission of the Son and the Spirit in the fullness of time. For the first time in the plan of salvation and because his Spirit had prepared her, the Father found the dwelling place where his Son and his Spirit could dwell among men. In this sense the Church's Tradition has often read the most beautiful texts on wisdom in relation to Mary.101 Mary is acclaimed and represented in the liturgy as the "Seat of Wisdom."
In her, the "wonders of God" that the Spirit was to fulfill in Christ and the Church began to be manifested:
722 The Holy Spirit prepared Mary by his grace. It was fitting that the mother of him in whom "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily"102 should herself be "full of grace." She was, by sheer grace, conceived without sin as the most humble of creatures, the most capable of welcoming the inexpressible gift of the Almighty. It was quite correct for the angel Gabriel to greet her as the "Daughter of Zion": "Rejoice."103 It is the thanksgiving of the whole People of God, and thus of the Church, which Mary in her canticle104 lifts up to the Father in the Holy Spirit while carrying within her the eternal Son.
723 In Mary, the Holy Spirit fulfills the plan of the Father's loving goodness. Through the Holy Spirit, the Virgin conceives and gives birth to the Son of God. By the Holy Spirit's power and her faith, her virginity became uniquely fruitful.105
724 In Mary, the Holy Spirit manifests the Son of the Father, now become the Son of the Virgin. She is the burning bush of the definitive theophany. Filled with the Holy Spirit she makes the Word visible in the humility of his flesh. It is to the poor and the first representatives of the gentiles that she makes him known.106
725 Finally, through Mary, the Holy Spirit begins to bring men, the objects of God's merciful love,107 into communion with Christ. And the humble are always the first to accept him: shepherds, magi, Simeon and Anna, the bride and groom at Cana, and the first disciples.
726 At the end of this mission of the Spirit, Mary became the Woman, the new Eve ("mother of the living"), the mother of the "whole Christ."108 As such, she was present with the Twelve, who "with one accord devoted themselves to prayer,"109 at the dawn of the "end time" which the Spirit was to inaugurate on the morning of Pentecost with the manifestation of the Church.
Christ Jesus
727 The entire mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit, in the fullness of time, is contained in this: that the Son is the one anointed by the Father's Spirit since his Incarnation - Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah.
Everything in the second chapter of the Creed is to be read in this light. Christ's whole work is in fact a joint mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Here, we shall mention only what has to do with Jesus' promise of the Holy Spirit and the gift of him by the glorified Lord.
728 Jesus does not reveal the Holy Spirit fully, until he himself has been glorified through his Death and Resurrection. Nevertheless, little by little he alludes to him even in his teaching of the multitudes, as when he reveals that his own flesh will be food for the life of the world.110 He also alludes to the Spirit in speaking to Nicodemus,111 to the Samaritan woman,112 and to those who take part in the feast of Tabernacles.113 To his disciples he speaks openly of the Spirit in connection with prayer114 and with the witness they will have to bear.115
729 Only when the hour has arrived for his glorification does Jesus promise the coming of the Holy Spirit, since his Death and Resurrection will fulfill the promise made to the fathers.116 The Spirit of truth, the other Paraclete, will be given by the Father in answer to Jesus' prayer; he will be sent by the Father in Jesus' name; and Jesus will send him from the Father's side, since he comes from the Father. The Holy Spirit will come and we shall know him; he will be with us for ever; he will remain with us. The Spirit will teach us everything, remind us of all that Christ said to us and bear witness to him. The Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth and will glorify Christ. He will prove the world wrong about sin, righteousness, and judgment.
730 At last Jesus' hour arrives:117 he commends his spirit into the Father's hands118 at the very moment when by his death he conquers death, so that, "raised from the dead by the glory of the Father,"119 he might immediately give the Holy Spirit by "breathing" on his disciples.120 From this hour onward, the mission of Christ and the Spirit becomes the mission of the Church: "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."121
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 6:39PM
And:
V. THE SPIRIT AND THE CHURCH IN THE LAST DAYS
Pentecost
731 On the day of Pentecost when the seven weeks of Easter had come to an end, Christ's Passover is fulfilled in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, manifested, given, and communicated as a divine person: of his fullness, Christ, the Lord, pours out the Spirit in abundance.122
732 On that day, the Holy Trinity is fully revealed. Since that day, the Kingdom announced by Christ has been open to those who believe in him: in the humility of the flesh and in faith, they already share in the communion of the Holy Trinity. By his coming, which never ceases, the Holy Spirit causes the world to enter into the "last days," the time of the Church, the Kingdom already inherited though not yet consummated.
We have seen the true Light, we have received the heavenly Spirit, we have found the true faith: we adore the indivisible Trinity, who has saved us.123
The Holy Spirit - God's gift
733 "God is Love"124 and love is his first gift, containing all others. "God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us."125
734 Because we are dead or at least wounded through sin, the first effect of the gift of love is the forgiveness of our sins. The communion of the Holy Spirit126 in the Church restores to the baptized the divine likeness lost through sin.
735 He, then, gives us the "pledge" or "first fruits" of our inheritance: the very life of the Holy Trinity, which is to love as "God [has] loved us."127 This love (the "charity" of 1 Cor 13) is the source of the new life in Christ, made possible because we have received "power" from the Holy Spirit.128
736 By this power of the Spirit, God's children can bear much fruit. He who has grafted us onto the true vine will make us bear "the fruit of the Spirit: . . . love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control."129 "We live by the Spirit"; the more we renounce ourselves, the more we "walk by the Spirit."130
Through the Holy Spirit we are restored to paradise, led back to the Kingdom of heaven, and adopted as children, given confidence to call God "Father" and to share in Christ's grace, called children of light and given a share in eternal glory.131
The Holy Spirit and the Church
737 The mission of Christ and the Holy Spirit is brought to completion in the Church, which is the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit. This joint mission henceforth brings Christ's faithful to share in his communion with the Father in the Holy Spirit. The Spirit prepares men and goes out to them with his grace, in order to draw them to Christ. The Spirit manifests the risen Lord to them, recalls his word to them and opens their minds to the understanding of his Death and Resurrection. He makes present the mystery of Christ, supremely in the Eucharist, in order to reconcile them, to bring them into communion with God, that they may "bear much fruit."132
738 Thus the Church's mission is not an addition to that of Christ and the Holy Spirit, but is its sacrament: in her whole being and in all her members, the Church is sent to announce, bear witness, make present, and spread the mystery of the communion of the Holy Trinity (the topic of the next article):
All of us who have received one and the same Spirit, that is, the Holy Spirit, are in a sense blended together with one another and with God. For if Christ, together with the Father's and his own Spirit, comes to dwell in each of us, though we are many, still the Spirit is one and undivided. He binds together the spirits of each and every one of us, . . . and makes all appear as one in him. For just as the power of Christ's sacred flesh unites those in whom it dwells into one body, I think that in the same way the one and undivided Spirit of God, who dwells in all, leads all into spiritual unity.133
739 Because the Holy Spirit is the anointing of Christ, it is Christ who, as the head of the Body, pours out the Spirit among his members to nourish, heal, and organize them in their mutual functions, to give them life, send them to bear witness, and associate them to his self-offering to the Father and to his intercession for the whole world. Through the Church's sacraments, Christ communicates his Holy and sanctifying Spirit to the members of his Body. (This will be the topic of Part Two of the Catechism.)
740 These "mighty works of God," offered to believers in the sacraments of the Church, bear their fruit in the new life in Christ, according to the Spirit. (This will be the topic of Part Three.)
741 "The Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes with sighs too deep for words."134 The Holy Spirit, the artisan of God's works, is the master of prayer. (This will be the topic of Part Four.)
I'm sure once you digest this you'll find less to quarrel with.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 6:43PM
And whenever I see someone like Ken harping on "ROMAN" I get the giggles, since invoking that kind of xenophobia is pretty silly given Christianity wasn't born in Dubuque or Texarkana.
Indeed, Fundamentalism was born in the U.S., but its roots lay in Europe during the Reformation, especially with the Anabaptists. Shall we call them DUTCH or SWISS or FRENCH?
Tim*| 4.8.10 @ 7:07PM
Apparently , Kenny Got Problems With " ROMANS ".
What's Next Kenny " Dueling Bibles " ?
Nevertheless , Catholics Will Be Attending The Tax Day Tea Party Rallies In Numbers.
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.8.10 @ 7:18PM
Teflon, in answer to your question:
""Ken, what precisely do you have against Rome?""
The only thing I have "against" The Roman Church, is the absolute arrogance of some of its members.
See, I consider it arrogant for you to paste your catechism here for my "education". I am much better educated in Christianity than those midieval "priests" who compiled it....pre-digested it... and fed it to you..... as baby food.
I would rather just take the words of Jesus Christ Himself, (in red print in my Bible) Saint John 16: 7 through 15, then rely on THE HOLY SPIRIT to guide me at least as well as He guided those monks.
Second, Ole' Peter himself was a fallible human being too, as recorded faithfully in each of the Gospels. Heh, he screwed up on the proper "menue" for dinner, and he failed in humility.
Third, Romans were no earlier than say...the Greek Church. Worse, Latin is not nearly so exact a language as AD Greek.
Fourth, Romans killed a LOT of my forebears over 1,600 years
Any other questions?
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 7:32PM
Ken,
"The only thing I have "against" The Roman Church, is the absolute arrogance of some of its members."
Well, you just described every Christian denomination out there...
Ted| 4.8.10 @ 7:33PM
Ken,
I was referring to every denomination having some arrogant members.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 9:05PM
Far from "baby food", Ken---before converting I studied the history of the Church, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, the Catechism, and read more sacred Scripture than I'd ever been exposed to in the various Protestant communities in which I'd sojourned.
To your points:
1. You ignore much of what Christ says---case in point, John 6. That's because your forebears were, ahem, "misinformed".
2. I'm glad you feel humble enough to judge St Peter, who, after all, died a martyr. What have YOU done for Christ?
Indeed, the very fact that St Peter's failings as well as triumphs are faithfully recorded is an indication the Church did its best to present ALL of the evidence in the New Testament.
Beyond that, you'll need to explain to me why St Peter is listed first among the Apostles in every list of them in the New Testament; why Christ singled out him for the foundation of the Church; why St Paul after his conversion sought out St Peter, hazarding a long journey in order to do so, etc. Good luck!
3. Christ spoke Aramaic so the Greek is a translation as well, and not always a perfect one as the issue with "brethren" amply demonstrates. Good thing the ECFs spoke Latin and Greek, huh?
4. You'll need to provide the evidence for this. Where is it?
Many more, but answer these to start with and I'll be happy to replenish.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 9:07PM
Okay, just two more:
1. What precisely in the Catechism's teaching on the Holy Spirit do you take issue with?
2. What evidence do you offer that the Church has it wrong and you have it right?
Your turn.
Tim*| 4.8.10 @ 7:30PM
Yeah ! We Killed Lot's O' Bears Kenny !
Remember when Pope Pius XII yelled " Bring Us Back Some B'ar Meat Davey " !
Nick| 4.8.10 @ 8:11PM
Doctor Wrong? Hello? Doctor Wrong?
Where did you go?
God| 4.12.10 @ 1:00AM
To hell where the pagan bastard belongs!
jd| 4.8.10 @ 9:10PM
Teflon93,
As a lifelong practicing Catholic let me just say that your defense of the faith against ignorant Catholic-bashers is truly inspirational. Good job.
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 9:19PM
JD-
You're much too kind.
I hope our Eastern Catholic friend Stuart weighs in; he's got a much better grasp of the history of the Early Church than I've managed to date and that combined with his knowledge of the Orthodox Church is very helpful as many of the anti-Catholic talking points happen to strike at points where Catholic and Orthodox firmly agree, the major exception of course being papal authority.
I hope folks get a chance to check out the links---lots of information in there to correct the falsehoods blithely tossed out by people who have been taught them by those they trust.
lilly| 4.9.10 @ 1:51PM
Teflon93,
I too am a lifelong Catholic and I am both impressed and humbled at your defense of the faith! You have been truly given a gift. I was starting to think that no one ACTUALLY read the Bible anymore. It is also amazing that so many Christians don't know and/or don't want to know of their Jewish roots so that they could fully understand the Book which they all say they read. As too the NYT article, I'm not surprised, nor will I ever be surprised.
James| 4.8.10 @ 9:22PM
I would rather just take the words of Jesus Christ Himself, (in red print in my Bible) Saint John 16: 7 through 15, then rely on THE HOLY SPIRIT to guide me at least as well as He guided those monks. reebok easytone shoes reebok easytone shoes
Teflon93| 4.8.10 @ 9:25PM
How'd you miss the bread of life discourse in John 6?
Lotta red ink there!
SR| 4.8.10 @ 10:23PM
Teflon93, I am impressed by comments and responses to those anti-catholic bigots. You are well schooled in catholic Teachings. I am a Catholic and I wish we had more Catholics as yourself. Thanks!
Teflon93| 4.9.10 @ 1:28PM
Thank you, SR---you're too kind.
And my apologies for the slips in charity---Ted has been kind enough to point them out; that's an area where Catholics longer steeped in the sacraments outdo me every time, I'm afraid!
Angel| 4.12.10 @ 1:06AM
Teflon; God bless you, sweet sir--you are a blessed credit to your Faith.
Thank you for your stalwart defense of the Catholic Church.
Audrey| 4.8.10 @ 11:22PM
“Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices.”
J Krishnamurti
Joy| 4.9.10 @ 12:27AM
Audrey (that is such a beautiful name),
The paragraph you quoted by J Krisnamurti sounds beautiful and lofty, but what it essentially says is that there are absolutely no absolutes, which, of course, is a contradictory statement. You can always suspect a faulty worldview when it is internally inconsistent like that.
When you build your life upon a certain worldview, you want it to be solid. There is nothing solid one can stand on here, it is vacuous, without form and substance. We tend to like things that way -- leaves us lots of wiggle room for whatever we want to do. Things like right and wrong become relative to what we feel like at any given moment. But when life's storms come, and they will, such a wishy-washy foundation will fail us, every time.
There is someone who said, "For this reason I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." Do you know who?
C.S. Lewis said, "An 'impersonal God' - well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads - better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap - best of all. But God Himself, alive, pulling at the other end of the cord, perhaps approaching at an infinite speed, the hunter, king, husband - that is quite another matter."
Same author, from "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe":
"Aslan is a lion – the Lion, the great Lion.”
“Ooh!” said Susan, “I’d thought he was a man. Is he – quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.”
“That you will, dearie, and no mistake,” said Mrs. Beaver; “if there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else just silly.”
“Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy.
“Safe?” said Mr. Beaver; “don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King I tell you.”
You seem like you are a reader. I highly recommend " The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe". If you've already read it, read it again. You will come to love the truth, not the concept, the person - called by another name in 'our world', knowing Aslan will set you free and set your feet on solid ground.
Audrey| 4.9.10 @ 4:48AM
Thanks Joy for your kind reply – I hope this message finds you and loved ones well and in good spirits.
When I was young I read quite a bit about religion - as many religions as I could find. My favourites so far are Taoism and Dreamtime (an Australian indigenous spirituality).
In my earlier days I stumbled upon Krishnamurti but could only understand him from an intellectual point of view; it wasn’t till many years later his words clicked psychologically – to understand Krishnamurti one has to understand one’s self – something that can be difficult – but that is the point of the exercise.
You stated that: “When you build your life upon a certain worldview, you want it to be solid. There is nothing solid one can stand on here, it is vacuous, without form and substance.”
Some of us need form and substance to make sense of a complex and incomprehensible universe, while some like C.S. Lewis prefer: “A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap - best of all.”
The Taoist would agree with Lewis for the Tao is just that: Loosely translated as “the way” the Tao is the ever-present life force that permeates everyone and everything (God?) - without form; without shape; the mystery of mysteries; the enigma of enigmas. It is not an intellectual thing; its intuitive – it’s all about relationship, but at the end of the day the Tao is unknowable and indescribable – something our logical and ordered western intellects find challenging.
The Australian aborigine also had/has a beautiful belief system. Dreamtime, a complex matrix of relationships existing between fauna and flora woven into a beautiful tapestry called The Dreaming. It was not just a belief system; it was also a survival guide that served them well for over 50,000 years. Beautiful stuff.
To be honest Joy, I care not what a person believes, rather how they behave. I have found that no matter what religion we ordinary folk chose we generally want (and need) the same things – security for our children and a peaceful community to raise them in etc.
Religious values foster caring and sharing. Religious dogma creates anxiety and conflict.
Joy| 4.9.10 @ 12:53PM
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Audrey. I completely agree with the statement about religious dogma. In fact, that is what this whole, sometimes tiresome thread has turned into(speaking of anxiety and conflict!)
I'd like to respond to more of your post but don't have time now. I'll be back later (unless they shut the comments here because they've gotten too long, which I suppose is a possibility).
Later
Audrey| 4.9.10 @ 9:16PM
Thanks Joy.
Yes this thread does appear to have its fair share of anxiety and conflict – religion and politics, topics to avoid, as they say.
Like many I’ve been going a long time now and would like to think I have learnt some stuff – yet all I’ve learnt is that the simple values religions taught me in my youth hold true – always; if one wants a life without conflict and open to joy (a glorious name) then the intrinsic values that are common to all religions are something to be embraced, cherished.
And those values, those common threads of humanity we find interwoven into our tapestry of life?
Honesty and trust, the seed crystal of intimacy and love; only then can we enjoy relationship in all its glory, in all its joy. All of us have known this since childhood yet we learn (by experience) that honesty and trust are not only wonderful values, but can lead to our own destruction if surrendered to cynics and liars. Prudence is the name of the game in an unforgiving world.
Reality is about relationship; me, you, us. Relationship is all we have, no one lives in isolation, and we all long for good relationships, do we not?
And what is a good relationship?
I suppose a good relationship could be defined as one where the individual needs and wants of both partners are satisfied; these relationships work well, although quite often by a process of mutual exploitation.
A beautiful relationship is far better; for it is in a beautiful relationship where the individual needs and wants of both partners become blurred, then refocus as mutual joy, or sorrow, as the case may be.
Having said that, one is tempted to ask:
Has the Pope been honest and trustworthy?
Has Barrack Obama been honest and trustworthy?
Religion and politics – now I’m being naughty.
Nick| 4.10.10 @ 1:24AM
Audrey and Joy,
If you would like to read something truly beautiful and inspiring, try reading the 6th Chapter of the Gospel of Saint John.
It epitomizes the theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity.
SoCon| 4.12.10 @ 1:10AM
You are a lovely man, Nick--God bless you.
Nick| 4.12.10 @ 12:43PM
SoCon,
Thank you so much!
You, too, are a great voice for the cause.
God Bless!
John| 4.8.10 @ 11:25PM
And people continue to condemn the Boy Scouts for the position on openly gay scout leaders. Let's see now, force BSA to cave and the in 20 years become indignant over young men being sexually abused by some scout leaser.
The Catholic Church nailed the issue in this country and will have to put the muscle on the European bishops. Good Lord, didn't we see this coming??
Ken (Old Texican)| 4.8.10 @ 11:48PM
Teflon,
I would never bash the ROMAN church except for your arrogance......and your pedophile priests being protected from prosecution.
Is it going to piss you off when Baptists and Presbeterians and Eastern orthodox members show up on the streets of heaven?
...heh, how would you know if in fact you are a ROMAN cult member...instead of a committed follower of Christ? You won't be there.
Check signals, dufuss. You are either a "little Christ", or a Roman cult follower.
Are you a Christian first...or a Roman cultist first?
If you are a Christian first, the Bible says you are forgiven.
Roman first? That is between you and God.
Best of luck...die happy. If I see you in heaven...please forgive me if IROTFLMAO at your arrogance.
Do you think I am stupid enough to argue with your pastes here?
The only reason I engaged you at all in this conversation is that there are a whole world full of Christians.....that realize that you are drinking baby-food for a living. I thought they might enjoy someone who is an "adult" in the faith, with splendid training/teaching to shove your arrogance where it belongs.
Out of all of the teachings of Jesus Christ...where do you find "arrogance" a virtue?...dumbass?
John2| 4.9.10 @ 10:39AM
Ken,
I hope things are well in Texico and I thank you for two prizes:
1. You mention Teflon93’s “arrogance” four times.
Get a mirror. Look for arrogance.
You have Christian belief, so you see the need to fix yourself now. Change this attitude before you are judged on it. This is more important than winning an argument.
2. “Do you think I am stupid enough to argue with your pastes here?”
No, I think you are smart enough to foresee and avoid the one-sided drubbing you will receive in any such confrontation. You won’t be so arrogant after the experience.
Best to you and yours (sincerely, I do wish you the best).
Teflon93| 4.9.10 @ 1:36PM
Well, Ken, kindly show me where I claim some sort of glory for myself----I am a late convert to the Church; I ate a lot of "baby food" of the "once saved, always saved" sort before doing my homework and realizing which Church it was Christ founded.
A smarter man would have discovered it far earlier in life.
A better man would have gravitated toward her more quickly than I.
A wiser man would have allowed nothing to stand between him and the Bride of Christ.
To defend the Bride of Christ against bigotry and lies is the easiest thing in the world. To promulgate such calumnies as you do is to fail invariably when asked for evidence in support of your claims---you have the far more difficult job, which is why you haven't even attempted to do it.
You have my sympathies---your task is impossible.
I have no idea whether you or I will make it to the eternal reward---that will depend on how well we fulfill Christ's commandments and to what extent the charism of invincible ignorance protects you upon being exposed to the truth of the Church's teaching. Christ being infinitely merciful and infinitely just, I certainly hope it does if you elect to persist in your bigotry.
To be a Christian is to hope mercy trumps justice at our judgment, after all.
Yosemeti Sam| 4.9.10 @ 3:09AM
A question - why dwell on anything the nyt offers
via their echelons on news fit to propagandize upon?
Even my birds sensibly refuse to have that paper in their cage to shit upon - pardon their short hand sentiments.
Charles Jackson | 4.9.10 @ 5:52AM
Benedict is a mediocre Barvarian German bureaucrat and the Vatican is a cluelees institution which oughta be expunged from the earth.
JP| 4.9.10 @ 9:24AM
That's it? That's all you have to offer to this thread? A Klu Klux Klan member in the 1920s had more eloquence.
Teflon93| 4.9.10 @ 1:38PM
Thus spaketh Pope Charles Jackson I, Supreme Pontiff of Charles Jackson.
People have been trying to expunge the Church from the earth since the beginning, Charles.
That she still stands is one of the signs as to whom it is which protects her.
Teflon93| 4.9.10 @ 1:50PM
At least this thread answers the eternal question, "What would it take to get conservatives to desperately defend The New York Times?"
Doctor Right| 4.9.10 @ 4:08PM
What would it take for you to actually be more concerned about the sexual abuse of children by pervert priests than about your Church's reputation?
What would it take for you to admit that your beloved Benedict is culpable?
Maybe...THIS!
http://www.breitbart.com/artic....._article=1
Truth hurts. Especially if you're a shameless apologists for pedophiles.
Teflon93| 4.9.10 @ 5:08PM
Doctor Bigot posted a LINK!
Teflon93| 4.9.10 @ 5:39PM
As usual, the letter isn't quite what the anti-Catholic bigots insinuate it to be.
First, it is in response to a 1985 request. 1985---well before the scandal hit and indeed before the therapeutic approach toward child molestors---psychiatric therapy---was proven to be disastrously ineffective. Certainly well before the magnitude of the problem in the American church was known.
The article also doesn't make the distinction clear between active ministry---that is, working as a diocesan priest with access to minor parishioners---and laicizing a priest, which is essentially the full removal of a priest from Holy Orders and is undertaken quite rarely in the Church due to its sacramental understanding of these orders. The Church doesn't "unbaptize" either, and requires a full investigation for annulment of a marriage.
The bishop has the power to remove a priest from active ministry. To laicize a priest requires Vatican approval and as the article indicates involves a lengthier process.
Also not clear is who authorized Kiesle to volunteer at St Joseph Church, what supervision he was under at this time, whether there were any further instances of sexual abuse on his part at this time, etc.
The full correspondence is not presented and this surely was not the only letter nor conversation about the matter.
Insofar as Doctor Bigot is concerned, it doesn't matter that Kiesle remained at large long after being laicized in 1987 until in 2004----17 YEARS later, he was finally arrested and incarcerated for six years for a 1995 child molestation (8 years after being laicized).
All of which to Doctor Bigot's mind is Pope Benedict XVI's fault.
For those inclined to sober-minded consideration of the facts, many questions remain:
1. What was the nature of the accusations against Kiesle which led to the petition to laicize him? The article mentions a 1978 incident---was that the only one Bishop Cummins was aware of?
2. What was the full extent of the correspondence regarding Kiesle's laicization? Since he was laicized in 1987, two years after Cardinal Ratzinger's letter, clearly there was more to it than the one exchange.
3. Who was responsible for Kiesle continuing to volunteer at St Joseph's? Were they aware of the allegations against him at the time? Was Rome aware that he was volunteering as a youth minister?
4. How on Earth did Kiesle get 3 years' PROBATION for molesting two boys in 1978?
5. Did Kiesle violate his probation between 1978 and 1981? If so, what legal action was taken?
6. When were the allegations made leading to his 2002 arrest? The incidents occurred in the 1970s; when were they reported to authorities? Why did it take so long to arrest him?
7. Were any of these allegations related to his time as associate pastor at St Joseph from 1972 to 1975? If so, who knew about these allegations at the time?
It seems to me these questions are pertinent to getting to the bottom of things.
Doctor Bigot prefers to go straight to the hanging, but the rest of us would like to see some evidence first.
John II| 4.9.10 @ 5:48PM
Er . . . I just read your link, Doc. I don't get it. What "truth" are you alluding to? According to the AP piece, a priest was eventually defrocked and later jailed for molesting children and still later showed no remorse in an interview. That's all I can find of substance in the whole piece. The rest is vague innuendo. How is the Pope "culpable"?
Nick| 4.9.10 @ 7:04PM
Doctor Wrong,
Try answering my questions from yesterday, would you?
You are the one who likes to deflect.
Jeremy Stevens| 4.9.10 @ 3:15PM
To the well-documented anti-Catholicism of Free Republic we can now add the vitriol of the GANG of anti-Catholics who make up what appears to be a very active wing of The American Spectator.
One less "conservative" website to visit.
Adios!
Pingback| 4.9.10 @ 3:32PM
The NY Times wish for the “last pope” « The ChurchWatch Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.9.10 @ 4:21PM
The Anchoress | A First Things Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
davefromoregon| 4.9.10 @ 6:51PM
This matter 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 behaviour were also criminals. The rest of this is subterfuge.
I don't care who is frocked or defrocked. The issue is who should be in prison.
I don't care if it is a priest, teacher, butcher, baker candlestick maker in question. There are laws here that were violated and it should always have been pursued from that perspective.
Teflon93| 4.9.10 @ 6:57PM
And what prevented the people making the allegations from going to the authorities?
After all, Kiesle pleaded no contest to abusing two small boys in San Francisco in 1978.
You're presuming a lot about what the bishops knew and what the victims could and could not do.
As for the law, how on Earth did Kiesle get 3 years PROBATION for tying up and molesting two young boys?
How did he continue free for the 15 years between his being kicked out of the priesthood until his 2002 arrest?
Doesn't seem as if "the authorities" did too well in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and even to the present day dealing with these kind of criminals.
Considering they keep letting them plea to very little (if any) jail time at all, and then frequently parole them out.
davefromoregon| 4.9.10 @ 7:03PM
First, do you really want to get into blaming the victims here?
Second, we really don't know if the authorities would have been more effective or not since this information was withheld from them.
Third, transferring known offenders from one parish to another is pretty clear evidence of complicity in at least the coverup.
Teflon93| 4.9.10 @ 7:07PM
How is it blaming the victims to note that they could go to the authorities themselves?
Many did; obviously that's how Kiesle got busted in 1978.
Secondly, you don't know what if anything was "withheld from authorities"---the authorities expunged his record!
Thirdly, the article doesn't say he was transferred, does it? We don't know what Bishop Cummins did with him or how he wound up volunteering at St Joseph.
But don't let the facts get in the way....
Nick| 4.9.10 @ 7:16PM
Davefromoregon,
I'll let Teflon93 speak for himself. He does quite well at it.
But your statement about transfering offenders from one parish to another being a cover-up is quite true.
And the cover-up continues in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Cardinal Mahoney has been blocking investigations there for almost 10 years.
Where is the New York Slimes or WaPost to report on this?
Oh, that's right, Cardinal Mahoney is a good liberal cleric.
Don't be distracted by the Slimes attacks on the Holy Father. The true culprits of the cover-ups are still getting away with it.
Teflon93| 4.9.10 @ 7:44PM
What's interesting is how the AP article makes Cummins into some kind of hero but doesn't address his personal responsibility in the matter of Kiesle's volunteering as a youth minister 3 years AFTER he was placed on active leave, Cummins' history of coddling other priests accused of sexual abuse, or his and his predecessors' practice of ignoring allegations of abuse.
Look at the kid gloves he got in the AP article:
"Cummins, the now-retired bishop, told the AP during an interview at his Oakland home that he "didn't really care for" Kiesle, but he didn't recall writing to Ratzinger concerning the case.
"I wish I did write to Cardinal Ratzinger. I don't think I was that smart," Cummins, now 82, told AP. "
Perhaps they were deferring to him because of his age---although Pope Benedict XVI is close to that age himself.
Very odd.
Nick| 4.9.10 @ 8:00PM
Teflon93,
Yes, I thought the same thing when I read that.
To me, it is just more evidence that this is nothing more than a effort to get the Holy Father.
As unbelieving neo-pagans, liberals think the Catholic Church is just another political organization. They think they can get Pope Benedict to resign from office, as if he were Nixon or some cabinet officer.
Boy, are they going to be disappointed.
Teflon93| 4.9.10 @ 8:06PM
And now I know why the Holy Father referred to his time reviewing sexual abuse allegations for the Church his Friday penance---and why he made it a point to meet with the victims when he visited the States.
It's too bad he isn't the autocrat the anti-Catholics erroneously believe him to be---there would be a much faster purge of bishops who ignore their duties.
As it is, with the turnover in priests and bishops occurring now, the cleansing of the seminaries and the orders, and the retirement of so many "Spirit of Vatican II" types, it's no wonder things are dramatically improving.
Nick| 4.9.10 @ 8:52PM
Teflon93,
Amen, Brother!
Teflon93| 4.9.10 @ 7:04PM
Here's another useful article on the Kiesle case:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....eline.html
Note this:
- August 1978: Kiesle is arrested and pleads no contest to lewd conduct, a misdemeanor, for tying up and molesting two boys. Sentenced to three years probation, record is later expunged
"record is later expunged".
Gee, think maybe the person who made THAT decision might have a little culpability?
This was indicative of the "therapeutic regime" which existed in the 70s and 80s regarding sex offenders.
Here's the following line from the timeline:
- 1978-1981: Takes extended leave of absence, attends counseling and reports regularly to probation officer.
Note the "counseling"---it was the typical thing for the courts to order counseling and the expunging of his record undoubtedly followed his completion of the counseling.
This was expert opinion as to how these situations ought to be handled at the time. Not from the Church, but from the criminal justice system.
As anyone who watched "Donahue" knows.
Teflon93| 4.9.10 @ 7:12PM
According to this:
http://www.bishopaccountabilit.....tephen.htm
Kiesle was on active leave since 1981. He volunteered at St Joseph in Pinole as a youth minister from 1985-8; this implies that it was Bishop Cummins who authorized his volunteer activity as it was he who removed him.
Teflon93| 4.9.10 @ 7:15PM
The expunging of Kiesle's record by the authorities apparently had severe consequences:
http://articles.sfgate.com/200.....hen-kiesle
Amber's mother, Kim Swartz, on Wednesday nervously awaited word of the search in the Sierra and said she was dismayed to learn from authorities that Kiesle's 1978 conviction had been legally expunged from court records before her daughter disappeared. Because of that, she said, his name never came up when police queried every child molester on file in the area after Amber was snatched from the family driveway.
"They could have sent dogs there back then, in 1988, to determine if her scent was in his home," Swartz said. "This could have given them a lot of direction back then."
Former Pinole police Sgt. Douglas MacArthur, who led the investigation in 1988, agreed.
"I know for a fact that if we had known at the time that he had been let go from a church because of molestation, it would have been very different," MacArthur said.
Teflon93| 4.9.10 @ 7:21PM
And this article on the corruption of the Diocese of Oakland casts Bishop Cummins and his predecessor in a much harsher light than that AP story does:
http://www.rickross.com/refere.....gy828.html
Teflon93| 4.9.10 @ 7:29PM
For those without the time to read the article, it was apparently the practice of Bishop Cummins and his predecessor Bishop Begin to allow priests accused of sexual abuse to be transferred into their diocese. Cummins also boasted of a "helpful" relationship with the district attorney's office.
In the case of this diocese, Kiesle, and the other priests found guilty of child molestation, corruption and coverup were indeed the order of the day.
Their malfeasance has kept Bishop Vigneron busy:
http://www.bishop-accountabili.....riests.htm
It makes me quite suspicious of the AP article which makes it sound like Bishop Cummins was on the side of the angels in requesting Kiesle's laicization. If so, why did he let him volunteer as youth minister of St Joseph 4 years after he'd left active service?
Suzanne Ferreira| 4.9.10 @ 10:14PM
The Catholic Church and the pope are responsible for their own irrelevancy. What is most pathetic, is they are willing to sacrifice children in order to cling to their fading relevance. It is more important for the institution to survive than the
community it presumably services. How easy to blame the commentators for bringing this ghastly spectacle to light. The pope and his minions belong in jail, but sadly their followers will paint them as victim martyrs and the real victims will be vilified.
John II| 4.9.10 @ 10:43PM
You're quite right, Suzanne, and I'm glad someone finally stepped forward from this nauseatingly pro-Catholic thread and presented the facts as they are. Not only do the pope and his minions belong in jail, the pope's minions and the pope belong in jail.
In fact, I would go so far as to insist that the jail belongs in the minions of the pope.
The clarity of thought and the depth of historical knowledge and the colossally challenging moral witness of Suzanne Ferreira, former Catholic awake to the nuances, put these disgusting papists to the shame they so richly deserve.
Indeed, as Groucho Marx once pointedly observed, it's not so much the facts that are disturbing as the in-your-window. And I thank you, Suzanne, for finally supplying the necessary in-your-window. I pass on.
Dumb Dumber Dumbest| 4.12.10 @ 1:17AM
Suzy Stupid strikes again!
Pingback| 4.10.10 @ 12:03AM
In Defense of the Holy Father : A Voice In The Wilderness links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Torquemada| 4.10.10 @ 4:16AM
Speaking of Groucho Marx, did you ever hear about the time a Catholic priest came up to him and gushed: "Mr. Marx, I would like to thank you for all the joy that you've brought into the world?" "And I," Groucho replied, "would like to thank you for all the joy you've taken OUT of the world!"
John II| 4.10.10 @ 9:09AM
Yes--that's a good one, and the humor suggests that Groucho was a closet Catholic, as many secular Jews seem to be.
But I've a better one that Groucho himself would appreciate. When he was in one of his intermittent snits about the Church, Napoleon remarked to a French archbishop that he could destroy the Catholic Church if he so chose.
To which the archbishop replied, "No, your Highness, you cannot destroy the Catholic Church. The Church's clergy have been trying to do so for 1800 years without success."
Theodore Evans| 4.10.10 @ 8:54AM
Well, well, well ...
Welcome to The American SpeKKKtator!
Gentlemen, your white hoods are ready at the laundry!
We ride at midnight to burn every Catholic church in the land!
No Popery here!
And this is a "conservative" website?
More like a redneck cracker swamp, it seems to me!
John II| 4.10.10 @ 9:20AM
Phooey. The great bulk of responses--i.e., Teflon93's--are resonant to a feature article which itself is passionately pro-Catholic.
So--yes, it's a conservative website. And I am a Roman Catholic Christian in full assent to the Church's teaching magisterium.
Which is to say, I'll start to worry if the day ever comes in this preposterous vale of tears when the Church is NOT under attack.
And now back to my collection of Marx Brothers movies.
Teflon93| 4.10.10 @ 2:15PM
Theodore-
The AmSpec contributors have been very evenhanded in their treatment of sexual abuse within the Church.
The fact that there are some anti-Catholic bigots who read the American Spectator doesn't reflect poorly on the publication but only upon the irrational bigotry of these commenters.
There are also anti-Semitic commenters here---some of whom are anti-Catholic as well---and the Spectator certainly isn't anti-Semitic in any way, shape or form.
Just as we don't reject the Church because evil men have wormed their way into her niches, we shouldn't reject the Spectator nor the conservative moment, the vast majority of whom are not bigots.
The same goes for our brethren in the Fundamentalist/Evangelical ranks which have a disproportionate number of anti-Catholics. The overwhelming majority of these are good people, good Christians, and while generally ill-informed about the Church thanks to the lingering biases of their theological forebears, are open to truth, reason, and experience.
For example, many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals are a bit surprised to find that the pro-life movement is largely driven by Catholics. They do not abandon the movement based on age-old bigotry but stand shoulder-to-shoulder with their Catholic brothers and sisters to put an end to abortion and euthanasia.
Anti-Catholic bigotry shouldn't lead to Catholics responding in kind, in other words. There is much to admire in the Fundamentalist and Evangelical communities and the goodness found therein comes from the exact same source as the goodness found within the Church or anywhere else in this world---the light of Christ.
Darragh| 4.10.10 @ 11:08AM
The last line in this piece reminds me of Myles Connolly's book, Mr. Blue, available through Loyola Classics. It's a book I found rather cloying, but Blue's vision of the last priest, Fr. White, living under a totalitarian world government, is prescient--as is his climactic Eucharistic celebration, which calls forth Christ's return.
Tim| 4.10.10 @ 11:54AM
Doctor Right:
This purging of the "perverts" is a very good thing
and is long over due and in the end will make the Roman Catholic Church stronger then ever.
However, Doctor Right you and other Church haters should be careful what you wish for in that once the Roman Catholic Church has fully rid itself of this pervert cancer they will be in a solid position to rid the entire society of all other "perverts" and that means San Fransisco as well if you get my meaning.
Diane| 4.10.10 @ 8:05PM
Tim - "They will be in a solid position to 'rid' society of perverts?"
What do you mean by this?
Jakester| 5.13.10 @ 8:15PM
First they need to get rid of the sadists, fascists and other self righteous knuckledraggers like you. Besides, having celibate male clergy will always insures a steady flow of perverts and other lifeless pedantic geeks in the priesthood
Teflon93| 4.10.10 @ 2:03PM
When may we look forward to The New York Times' in-depth coverage of the 36+ USA Swimming coaches who've molested their charges?
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/.....d=10322469
When will the anti-Catholics start agitating for the removal and imprisonment of the leadership of USA Swimming?
After all, it doesn't matter what they knew or what they did with the knowledge they had, right?
The severity of the allegations should be sufficient to send these people to jail without timewasters like investigations and trials.
Teflon93| 4.10.10 @ 2:05PM
Oh, and any of you people involved in USA Swimming programs who don't pull your children out immediately are clearly giving aid and comfort to child molesters, if the anti-Catholic standard is to be applied.
This is a clear sign from God that people shouldn't swim.
Repent!
Teflon93| 4.10.10 @ 2:30PM
An excerpt from the above article:
The executive director of USA Swimming, Chuck Wielgus, acknowledged the problem, but said "It's "It's not nearly as serious in USA Swimming as it might be in the rest of society."
"I don't want to be the one to sit here and say 36 is not too many, one is too many, but this is not just a problem that's isolated to one sport," said Wielgus.
In some cases, the swimming coaches found to have been sexual predators were able to move from town to town, one step ahead of police and angry victims and their parents.
"We have a system that does not encourage the reporting," said Bob Allard, a San Jose, CA lawyer representing sex abuse victims suing USA Swimming.
Note that the 36 coaches ABC News discusses are those banned for life over the past 10 years alone---we're not talking 70s and 80s here.
More:
"He said the 36 coaches banned by the organization over the last ten years were only a tiny fraction of the organization's 12,000 coaches in that time period.
"Thirty six does seem like a whole lot. A hundred is even more. Five hundred is even more," he told correspondent Brian Ross. "
The incidence rate does matter; while even one incident is too many, these 36 evil men should not be allowed to smear by association the addtional 12,000 coaches who are good people.
More:
"Asked if he had apologized to any of the young teen victims, Wielgus responded, "You feel I need to apologize to them?"
He added, "I think it's unfair for you to ask me whether individually or me as the representative of an organization to apologize for something when all we are trying to do is everything we possibly can to create a safe and healthy environment for kids who are participating in our particular activity." "
Here's where Wielgus needs to reconsider. It is important for leaders to take responsibility and to apologize on behalf of the organizations they lead. The Pope has done this; the bishops have done this.
This is not triggered by the personal complicity of the leader---indeed, there are very few cases where the leader has any personal complicity; the nature of the crime is one of secrecy.
It is an obligation of the position and of our shared humanity.
Sexual abuse infects every large institution in our society. It is a byproduct of the sexualization of it. The proper things for leaders to do is to continue to expose it where it occurs, to put in place protocols which prevent occurrence and encourage swift reporting, investigation, and resolution, and to make amends personally in a timely manner.
The bigots and the haters are beyond reason, but most Americans are not. Wielgus shouldn't worry about the former and concentrate on the victims, their families, and public opinion at large.
Once the truth outs, USA Swimming may well have to take more effective action. They no doubt will find there are more offenders than the 36 they've already banned.
One hopes that the Left Wing Media will be kinder to their organization than they have been to the Church, since they do not tend to see athletic organizations as their enemy. If not, we should be careful consumers of information provided by the Left Wing Media in subsequent reportage.
Tim| 4.10.10 @ 10:24PM
Diane:
A pervert is a pervert period.
Some Priests alone have not cornered the market on this. And while its absolutely shameful for anyone of the cloth to engage in this filth and when caught they should be purged and put away for life it also is important that we rid society of filth in all corners and not just in Church back rooms.
One example is the Man Boy epidemic where adult male homosexuals prey on young innocent boys in order to get their jollies and as a recruiting tool.
All I am saying is that perverts are perverts period and while church perverts deserve a hotter hell the others deserve a huge purging as well.
Teflon93| 4.11.10 @ 3:26PM
Indeed, the same New York Times which has relentlessly attacked perversion and sexual abuse in the Church seeks to extend tolerance of it everywhere else in society under the rubric of feminism, homosexual rights, free speech, and other euphemistic battle cries.
It is the Church which constantly teaches the need for respect of human dignity and for sexual modesty, not The Times, which views the sleazy heyday of the New York square bearing its name in the 70s to be the signal accomplishment of American civilization.
Bill Keller and his intrepid band of secularists knows who their enemy is.
It's a shame more conservatives---especially those who vehemently oppose the Left's social agenda of enshrined perversion---were similarly perceptive.
Angel| 4.12.10 @ 1:31AM
Teflon, you've shown yourself to be a loyal friend and servant to your faith; you can rest now, okay?
God knows your heart.
Don't cast your pearls before swine, sir.
Teflon93| 4.12.10 @ 9:51AM
Angel, you're too kind.
It is no burden to defend the Bride of Christ against slander, calumny, and bigotry, and having been a late convert myself, I don't see the anti-Catholics as swine but as terribly misinformed. After all, as the great man Fulton Sheen noted, they do not hate the Church but rather their misconception of her.
G.K. Chesterton nailed it: "The bigot is not he who knows he is right; every sane man knows he is right. The bigot is he whose emotions and imagination are too cold and weak to feel how it is that other men go wrong."
Teflon93| 4.11.10 @ 3:27PM
Lost my grammar there---last piece should be "aren't similarly perceptive."
LeonG| 4.11.10 @ 10:00PM
The high summit of the left's hypocrisy is contained in their tyrannical campaign to convert the school classroom into a medium for turning children into fornicating, sodomising & transgendered perverts using teachers to do their dirty work. With sexual predation & intimidation of children increasing rapidly in the state education system it is about time more media attention was paid to this more dangerous source of politico-social subversion. While The Church has its own problems they are minor compared with that of socialist-liberalist state-sponsored hedonism & moral corruption from childhood onwards.
Teflon93| 4.12.10 @ 1:10PM
The Vatican has posted a number of documents speaking to the current topic of interest for The New York Times.
This article in particular is on point:
http://www.vatican.va/resource.....10_en.html
An excerpt:
"Let me tell you what I think a fair reading of the Milwaukee case would seem to indicate. The reasons why church and civil authorities took no action in the 1960’s and 70’s is apparently not contained in these “newly emerged files.” Nor does the Times seem interested in finding out why. But what does emerge is this: after almost 20 years as Archbishop, Weakland wrote to the Congregation asking for help in dealing with this terrible case of serial abuse. The Congregation approved his decision to undertake a canonical trial, since the case involved solicitation in confession – one of the graviora delicta (most grave crimes) for which the Congregation had responsibility to investigate and take appropriate action.
Only when it learned that Murphy was dying did the Congregation suggest to Weakland that the canonical trial be suspended, since it would involve a lengthy process of taking testimony from a number of deaf victims from prior decades, as well as from the accused priest. Instead it proposed measures to ensure that appropriate restrictions on his ministry be taken. Goodstein infers that this action implies “leniency” toward a priest guilty of heinous crimes. My interpretation would be that the Congregation realized that the complex canonical process would be useless if the priest were dying. Indeed, I have recently received an unsolicited letter from the judicial vicar who was presiding judge in the canonical trial telling me that he never received any communication about suspending the trial, and would not have agreed to it. But Fr. Murphy had died in the meantime. As a believer, I have no doubt that Murphy will face the One who judges both the living and the dead.
Goodstein also refers to what she calls “other accusations” about the reassignment of a priest who had previously abused a child/children in another diocese by the Archdiocese of Munich. But the Archdiocese has repeatedly explained that the responsible Vicar General, Mons. Gruber, admitted his mistake in making that assignment. It is anachronistic for Goodstein and the Times to imply that the knowledge about sexual abuse that we have in 2010 should have somehow been intuited by those in authority in 1980. It is not difficult for me to think that Professor Ratzinger, appointed as Archbishop of Munich in 1977, would have done as most new bishops do: allow those already in place in an administration of 400 or 500 people to do the jobs assigned to them. "
Warren Bonesteel| 4.12.10 @ 3:17PM
Wait a minute. Lemme get this straight.
The socially conservative right is now defending pedophile church leaders and – ahem – fundraisers at strip clubs which are sponsored by political leaders? Paid for by your donations to the political party and to the church?
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Debt is prosperity.
Depravity is chastity.
“I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; I let them become defiled…”
So much fer that whole Bible/moral superiority thingy…
Teflon93| 4.12.10 @ 3:57PM
Were your analysis true to any degree, you as a secularist Leftist advocate for pornography, homosexuality, and dissolute amorality would have no quarrel with it and thus say nothing of it---would you?
F Krautner| 4.15.10 @ 11:51AM
What makes you think that the Catholic Church follows the Bible. For centuries they suppressed all knowledge of the Scriptures. The Vatican had people killed for promoting Bible reading. They forbade translating the Bible into the common languages.
There is nothing in their history to suggest that they have the slightest connection with the Almighty God Jehovah.
The plain truth is that the Catholic Church and most other so-called Christian religions do not follow the Bible.
Teflon93| 4.26.10 @ 11:59AM
From whence did you get the Bible, sir?
toni| 4.12.10 @ 7:28PM
It is about more than the Pope. The intolerant Left hates all religions (well, 'cept Islam). Notice the timing of all this was in the most holy week of the Catholic calendar? I believe that the left thinks if they destroy the pope, the church will collapse. Then the imams can rush in and do whatever they want to Catholics, other Christians, and our bretheren the Jews. They believe the imams will spare them as having helped foster the revolution. (Let's be honest, they believed it of the Communists before the USSR fell, they just transplanted the beliefs and the hate.)
Sounds all kooky/conspiracy-like, but hey... who knows.
Jakester| 5.13.10 @ 7:58PM
yeah right, another right wing Catholic crackpot off of his meds.
"Sounds all kooky/conspiracy-like, but hey... who knows. " -- certainly not you.
F Krautner| 4.15.10 @ 11:44AM
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| 5.3.10 @ 10:17AM
You'll need to explain why Israeli PM Golda Meier praised the Pope and the Church for saving Jews during the Holocaust:
"On the day of Pius XII's death in 1958, Golda Meir, Israel's Foreign Minister, cabled the following message of condolence to the Vatican: "We share in the grief of humanity…When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the Pope was raised for the victims. The life of our times was enriched by a voice speaking out on the great moral truths above the tumult of daily conflict. We mourn a great servant of peace." Before beginning a concert of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, conductor Leonard Bernstein called for a minute of silence "for the passing of a very great man, Pope Pius XII." "
http://www.catholicleague.org/pius/dalinframe.htm
Read the whole thing.
Jakester| 5.13.10 @ 7:56PM
The Church blessed Franco and his Nationalist in the Spanish Civil war yet remained neutral in WW ll, more worried about the Reds than the Nazis. While they were not complicit in the Holocaust, this idea that they were some white fifth column against Nazi or victims of the Nazis is pure self serving fiction. The Church could have at least alerted the world to the Holocaust but failed, that made them an accessory after the the fact. The Nazi occupied Rome for 9 months yet left the Vatican untouched. Golda Meir was being polite and diplomatic. I could care less how a bigot like William Donahue and his Uncle Hymie lackeys in the CADL spin the Church & the Holocaust. He also claims that Mel Gibson was framed by the Jews, sorry, Hollywood Liberals.
asteroid| 4.16.10 @ 7:02AM
The Polish Pope did not replicate the Stalinist system. It is Staline, the ex-seminarist that replicated in Russia the Church system, and when the struggle between the Soviet Church/communist faith and the Christian Churches/faith ended, the only victor was yet another church and faith. Besides, as a son of a policeman member of the Nazi party and himself a member of the Hitler Jugend, the German Pope was the best candidate to take over the Opus Dei, the institutional heir of the Holy Inquisition and to fight dogmatic delinquents such as Dom Helder Camara who spearheaded the theology of revolution in Recife to help the poor (charity) and to seek the cause of poverty (heresy) to eradicate them. Trained to absolute obedience to the Fuhrer in a conservative family sympathetic to the Nazi Reich, he would not have lost his time fighting sexual delinquency. Scorn was for the Atheists, and forgiveness for the pedophile priest. As the present head of Catholicism, he needs no foe to fall.
Jakealope| 5.13.10 @ 7:49PM
Cry me a river. Our founding fathers were rightfully skeptical if not downright hostile to that Imperial, monarchist voodoo anti-democratic relic of Rome. I shed crocodile tears for the mental and moral midgets who want to sweep all the rightful indignation about these horrid child abuse scandals and some little ex-Hitler Youth's involvement in the cover up under the table to protect their corrupt, degenerate out of date institution, who in it's prime sanctioned such things as killing of heretics, Protestants, expulsion and racism against Jews, slavery etc. If they had some private conduit into God's will, why wasn't all we take for granted today like abolition of slavery and woman's rights there from the start? Garbage like this apologia to a fascist reactionary organization like the Roman Catholic Church will certainly turn away all but the most brutal , and simple minded.
Santa Claus | 11.28.10 @ 12:24AM
Pope Benedict XVI, according to the Roman Catholic Catechism, has committed the mortal sin of pride: Will he burn in Hell?
http://www.prweb.com/releases/.....583464.htm