The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Another Perspective

Philadelphia’s Long Lent Gets Longer

By on 3.16.11 @ 6:07AM

Fallen priests, ashes, and the Resurrection.

Ash Wednesday started out as a pretty good day, notwithstanding the grayness of the sky and the forecast of rain and flooding. My train arrived on time in Philadelphia, the meeting went well, and the hotel was very nice and conveniently located adjacent to the Independence Historical Park.

Given my early departure from Washington, and the press of business in the City of Brotherly Love, I had not been able to attend Mass and receive ashes to mark the beginning of Lent. Providentially and due to the kindness of the hotel concierge, I found a church, just a few blocks away, which had 7:30 p.m. services.

It was a dark and cold night… Well, it was. I set out on foot from the hotel lobby through the Society Hill section of town. The streets were deserted with barely adequate lighting for a visitor to find his way.

I came to Willings Alley and made a left turn, as directed by the concierge. My destination was Old St. Joseph’s Church, a Jesuit parish that dates its founding to 1733, making it the oldest Catholic church in the city.

While more of a teaching and academic order, you will find the Society of Jesus running a parish, here and there, in older neighborhoods in the cities of the Northeast and Midwest where it has a university, college, or prep school.

The Alley was wet reflecting the glow of street lights from its cobblestones. It was, I confess, a bit foreboding for one not given to meandering down alleys in the dark of night in a city not my own. On the left was a brick wall of considerable size, part of a fairly substantial building which appeared to run the length of the Alley. But where was the church?

A few yards down the Alley, an entrance through an arch opened up in the brick wall, leading into yet another dark space — a courtyard surrounded by buildings several stories tall. Straight ahead, though, were several, tall stained glass windows, illuminated from within, indicating that this was, indeed, Old St. Joseph’s, welcoming the nocturnal worshipers to come in out of the cold, literally and figuratively.

The interior of the church struck me as a pleasant blend of neo-classical colonial style and Jesuit Baroque. The church was built in 1838—39. Its altar is framed by doubled Ionic columns crowned by a curved pediment. A massive painting, I am guessing 12 to 15 feet tall, of Christ crucified, hangs over the altar.

The congregation was reasonably large for that hour, young (I understand half of the urban parishioners are single) and devout. The choir was excellent and its musical selections were to my taste.

The Prayers of the Faithful were sung, beautifully, by the music director. Among the various petitions was one asking either for healing or protection (memory fails me) of the children of the city of Philadelphia.

This had to be a poignant moment for the congregation. It was for this visitor. The headline in the morning paper had told the sad story: “More priests placed on leave. The Phila. [sic] Archdiocese removed 21 from their duties pending a probe of abuse allegations.” The entire list of these men was published the next day in various media outlets.

Cardinal Justin Rigali had taken this action pursuant to a grand jury report indicating that the priests were still serving in the ministry despite reports of “questionable behavior.”

The late Father Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things, once described the tragedy of clerical sexual misdeeds as the “Long Lent” for the Church in America and now Ireland, Belgium, and elsewhere. Sitting there, awaiting the distribution of ashes, it seemed that the Long Lent was getting longer here in Philadelphia. I was overwhelmed by the enormity of the evil, the sin that afflicts so many, the guilty and the innocent. I offered my prayers and Communion for the victims of these crimes as well as the many holy men of the cloth who will suffer for the deeds of their brothers.

After the ashes came the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ, once again, suffering on Calvary. In forty days comes the Resurrection and triumph over sin and death, which only the Son of God himself can overcome through the immeasurable gift of Himself.

Walking home, through the cold, dark night, I hold tight to the Sacrament of forgiveness and look forward to the renewal that comes on Easter morning.

About the Author

G. Tracy Mehan, III served at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the administrations of both Presidents Bush. He is a consultant in Arlington, Virginia, and an adjunct professor at George Mason University School of Law.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (150) |

Appleby| 3.16.11 @ 6:52AM

Follow up stories indicate that the vast majority of these accusations are nebulous and likely without foundation. Meanwhile, the growing problem of sexual abuse in public schools (union-protected) goes largely unreported and ignored. Do you know that the union refers to the typical behaviour of moving abusers to another school as *passing the trash*?

Christ warned us (see Matthew 24) that the day would come when the world would turn on us and no one should be surprised that it is here.

Lucky for us we also know how the story ends.

Derek Leaberry| 3.16.11 @ 8:38AM

It is hard to determine what was the bigger cancer to wreck havoc on the Roman Catholic church, Vatican Two or homosexual priests. A return to the church of Pope Pius X is in order.

canuckistani| 3.16.11 @ 10:14AM

How soon we forget what precipitated V2 in the first place - renewal after world wars, the rise of communism and the dismantling of the colonial /monarchal world order that existed for nearly a millenium, and administrative completion of the work started at V1.

The true horrors perpetrated by priests have always existed - sometimes with state support of residential schools world-wide. Although not Pius X's fault, his rigid adherence to an old doctrine gave license to clerics to impose their views ruthlessly and even violently for generations.

It is the courage of victims years later, and the evolution of criminal laws to finally protect the victims of these dastardly crimes.

My home parish is Pius X, and his teachings had zero to do with rooting about abusers within the church and more to do with control of adherents on even civil matters. His mandating of adherents to fall in line with vatican views propagated the myth that catholics could not be relied upon to work for the state in times of need, if the situation was perceived to be in conflict with rigid church doctrine - ala criticism of JFK, remember?

I, for one,am in favor of priests marrying. An old msgr priest who was friends with my parents often lamented that issue openly - usually after a few scotches. He was very open with his hatred for abusing priests - and more disdain for the systematic practice of bishops "looking the other way" when it became obvious a priest was an embarrassment. This started happening when the priest was put into a position of power nearly 2000 years ago and not a sad consequence of V2 or any other synod.

I prefer daylight on these issues, it makes the church stronger, not weaker as inferred from your post.

W| 3.16.11 @ 11:48AM

Whether a priest may be allowed to marry or not is not relevant to the issue of pedophilia. A man does not have sex with a young boy because he cannot marry a woman. I do not know of any evidence to support your inference that not marrying causes pedophilia. Having sex with a minor is a crime and should be treated as such, and not be explained as caused by a prohibition on marrying.

canuckistani| 3.16.11 @ 12:11PM

The priesthood has become a bastion for misfits, perhaps denying their perversions and attempting to bury their yens in celibacy and the cloth.
My father had dozens of seminarian friends, learned, pious men, who would have contributed immensely to the church, that all left with the need to follow another vocation. Some left the church in disgust, others have reinvigorated the deaconate that was ravaged by successive popes in the last century. I have observed priests using their undue influence on young boys, and thankfully having a strong father figure of my own kept me out of harms way. Not true for my close friend, who, with an absent father and alcoholic mother, a Fr. Morrisey found a way to insinuate himself into my friend's life. At the mature age of 11 he was abused. The priest "moved" to another parish. At 18, my friend complained to the bishop. No response, then he went to the cops and the media. Priest fired, bishop retired, and new definitions of appropriate contact between priest and "sheep".
My friend still has major issues after 25 years, but is still a member of the church - knowing it is much bigger than the men who wear the dresses.

I have spoken to many priests up and down the heirarchy and to a man, all believe the desperation with which seminaries are looking for candidates has left the door wide open to perverts that would otherwise be rejected if the candidate list was longer with the inclusion of pious married men and even someday, women.

The priesthood as a practical body, must abandon their man-made manifestations of piety and return their focus to the souls of the believers.

All American American| 3.16.11 @ 12:32PM

My Church has a very dynamic priest and when I joined I was surprised to learn we also had a Deacon. In the 2+ years since there is a thriving deaconate movement among some of the men in my Church, with 5 working to become ordained Deacons as we speak.

Derek Leaberry| 3.16.11 @ 12:53PM

St. Athanasius in Vienna, VA has an outstanding orthodox priest named Father Ronald Ringrose. The Mass is the timeless Latin Mass. The parish is filled with large families of people trying to live faithfully and honorably in a world of moral squalor.

Evanston2| 3.16.11 @ 1:07PM

canuckistani, you're absolutely right. But man-made manifestations of piety are precisely what attracts people to Roman Catholicism. The (lie of a) celibate priesthood will continue. Mr. Meehan offers his prayers for the "holy men of the cloth" who will suffer from the mis-deeds of others, but it is their very arrogance which created and maintains this un-Biblical system. Other than the kids, all here are guilty of collusion in a system of sin.

Ted| 3.16.11 @ 1:27PM

Nonsense.

canuckistani| 3.16.11 @ 2:12PM

Ted, Evanston might be a little overreaching in his indictment, but when children are involved, I prefer to err on the side of truth rather than the protection of an industry that has chosen to cloister themselves whilst neatly wrapping their predicament as laboring for the good graces of JC.

Smacks too much like Newtie's convenient rationalizations, in my view.

My preference is for the church to continue weeding out perverts and gut the chanceries of useless bishops. The people never left the church, the men who run it chose power over sacrifice in this instance.

Frisbee| 3.16.11 @ 10:19PM

Evanston2 wrote "The (lie of a) celibate priesthood will continue."

Are you saying Jesus lied?

Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 9:40AM

No, Jesus NEVER lied.

He also NEVER told his followers to be celibate, or for the Elders of a church to be celibate, either.

Now who's lying?

Evanston2| 3.17.11 @ 11:20AM

Doctor Right, exactly right. Canuckistani, thank you as well for maintaining a clear focus. You use the word "industry" and so it is. These profane incidents are not aberrations. Nor are they isolated to this one category of sin -- these are just the most egregious examples and most difficult to cover up. Yet these men in robes own and run "the church." Trusted for guidance in matters large (sanctification by ceremony) and small (what to name your kids). Instead of the Bible. Exactly when, if ever, are the laymen who participate in this system going to take responsibility for their support of it? We all know the answer: not in this lifetime. We are to judge a tree by its fruit, but there is no bad fruit for those who trust in salvation by denomination.

Frisbee| 3.17.11 @ 8:53PM

I guess you guys don't have Matthew 19 in your Bibles?

Evanston2| 3.18.11 @ 12:34PM

Frisbee, perhaps you might point to a particular section or verse? This may seem clever to you, but some find it appropriate to actually quote the Bible when claiming that it supports your position.

Evanston2| 3.18.11 @ 1:22PM

Frisbee, OK, looking at your next comment there's enough info to see you're pointing to Matt 19:12. So instead of cutting out a snippet that appeals to your foregone conclusion, how about actually reading the Scripture with respect and see what it says? Matt 19:12 is a direct response to a statement in 19:10 -- "The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” And what was 'the case' that the Disciples were referring to? In 19:9, Jesus says "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
So let's review: Christ limits divorce to cases of adultery; the Disciples' reaction is to say marriage then is not worth doing; Christ says that only those "to whom it is given" (v.11) can receive this saying.

You are appealing to this passage to say that Christ supported a celibate clergy. Is that true? Well, let's ask the apostles, so to speak: "Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" Paul asks this question in 1 Cor 9:5. Clearly the apostles, the brothers of Jesus (such as James) and Peter himself were/are married.

It seems they're not qualified to be priests in the Roman Catholic church. And Paul also has a bad attitude about the whole situation and really needs a counseling from you about it.

Or possibly, just possibly, you have taken an exception (Matt 19:12 "...let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”) and made it the rule. Look at 1 Cor 7:1-7. Paul clearly says that marriage (and sex within it) is necessary (v.2) "because of the temptation to sexual immorality." Yet many commenters here, and you perhaps, have argued that being married or not has nothing to do with seeking sexual satisfaction outside of marriage. This position directly contradicts The Word. Read on to verses 6 & 7: "Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, bone of one kind and one of another." Paul at the time is unmarried. He does not command celibacy, but commends it.

Does Paul commend it, or more appropriately, require it of the clergy? Look at the qualifications for church office he sets forth in 1 Tim 3:2-5 about being a good husband and household manager. If Paul believed that when Christ talks (hearkening back to your citation of Matt 19:11-12) about being eunuchs "to whom it is given...for the sake of the kingdom..." that Jesus was talking about clergy, then Paul was contradicting Christ by not disqualifying married men...right?

If The Word required celibacy for clergy, or even intimated it, I'd gladly accept and obey His direction. It doesn't, though, and in this "the church" is reaping what it sows. Your cooperation with this sin, of imposing traditions of men above the commands of God, is indicative of a greater sin: citing verses out of context and ignoring verses that you should clearly obey. It is no surprise that "cleverly devised myths" 2 Pet 1:16 have supplanted the glory of Christ with Mary, saints, relics, pilgrimages, lighting candles, crossing yourself, holy water, special blessings, and apparently countless religious protocols instead of worshiping God in spirit and in truth.

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 9:39PM

as I recall, it was Matthew 19, verses 10 thru 12

W| 3.16.11 @ 4:15PM

Again, you did not answer the points i made, you rely on anecdotal evidence, which if true, are disgusting, but do not support your points about marriage of priests. and your overheated language about "perverts" and a "bastion of misfits" is a clear indication of your prejudices and ant-catholicism.
if you really had spoken with all the priests then you would not be making these absurd conclusions. these opinion are consistent with the lefty political anti american opinions you posted in the past.

canuckistani| 3.17.11 @ 12:36PM

Not on this point, I am a devout RC - in the vein of JP2. Anti-abortion, anti-gun, anti-death penalty. I am also fully aware that the men of the cloth are indeed men and need to be told, yes told to shape up or get out.
All of my posts are rooted around calling out hypocrisy, and an unwillingness to examine our own state issues smacks of relativism as well - a trap both JP2 and B16 identified as the slippery slope.
Agree?

Doctor Right| 3.16.11 @ 3:23PM

No, it isn't irrelevant at all.

The chastity clause (utterly unsupported by scripture) chases away a lot of men who might like to be priests, but don't want to be unmarried and celibate.

In addition, the Seminary takes young, healthy men with sexual urges, many of whom may be inclined towards homosexuality or simply sexually immature, and crams them together for lengthy periods of time.

It's not that surprising.

W| 3.16.11 @ 4:37PM

what is you point, that homosexuals should not be priests?

Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 7:44AM

No. My point is that the structure of theCatholic seminary system attracts homosexuals.

W| 3.17.11 @ 8:08AM

what do you mean by "structure" and how does this "structure" attract homosexuals? what is your factual evidence, as opposed to your opinions and prejudices?

Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 9:26AM

Factual evidence?

I would have thought that would be painfully obvious. I guess you haven't heard of the continuing, ongoing scandal of gay and pedophilic Catholic priests that's been going on for...well, since antiquity...The one that's been covered-up by the Church hierarchy AT ALL levels??

Don't play dumb, please, or try to deflect the issue. You know what the facts are, and you know exactly what I'm talking about.

And let's not resort to the infantile game of calling those who are critical of the way that the Cathoilc Church has attempted to cover-up this scandal "bigots". If so, I'll have to refer to you as an "Apologist for pedophilia".

W| 3.17.11 @ 12:19PM

If someone sexually abuses a minor, whether it is a priest, minister, scout leader, teacher, congressman, etc, then the person should be punished criminally, and anyone who covered it up is also guilty.
But when a priest is accused, the first reaction as evidenced by most of the posts here is to blamce the Catholic Church because of its "structure" or its theology. or belief in celibacy. This is simply using the crime to attack the Church, That is clear from the overheated, unfounded accusations in most of these posts.
When i ask for factual evidence of the connection between celibacy and pedophila, or how the Church's "structure" causes this connection, the response is more accusations, but no evidence. This means you have no evidence. if you do not understand the phrase factual evidence, it means that you have to have facts to support your accusation. It is not enough to simply state an accusation.
Maybe you can also explain what is it about the "structure" of the schools that results in the teachers sexually abusing minors, or of scout leaders, or of anyone in a position of authority using that position (such as a president, congressman, etc.).
We expect more from priests, therefore when there is an accusation, we react accordingly. But we do not condemn the public schools, other religions, or other organizations where there is a higher percentage of abuse of minors.
When you make these overheated, unfounded accusations you sound like the lefty trolls, instead of a "doctor right"

Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 3:49PM

Sure, I can explain why the Boy Scouts, teaching, and the Catholic priest-hood attract pedophiles.

Are you ready? Good. Here it comes:

Easy access to minors.

Duh.

And I hate to break it to you, but not all critics of the Catholic Church are left-wingers. Some of us are die-hard Conservatives, as my history of posts will attest to.

But go ahead, keep burying your head in the sand. And don't forget to ask father O'Flaherty what to think, either.

W| 3.17.11 @ 8:50PM

a true conservative analyzes on facts, not prejudices. you may have "right wing" views, but you are not a conservative. by your analysis, the little league coaches, soccer coaches, hockey coaches, and all similar have access to minors. do they attract pedophiles? saying "duh" is not reasoning, but evidently that is the best you can do, and the only other reasoning you can do is to to refer to irish priests.
you give conservatives a bad name.

Doctor Right| 3.18.11 @ 7:56AM

Then you're obviously not a true Conservative, because the facts are staring you right in the face, but you prefer ideology

I'd say you should talk to Father Finnerty about this, but since yesterday was St. Paddy's day, he's probably sleeping it off.

W| 3.18.11 @ 7:19PM

You have more in common with the muslims than christians with your closed mind, assuming you have one, and mocking every religion except whatever you believe in. and you sure are one tough guy making fun of the irish. you should start talking to John the muslim who posts here, you guys have lots in common.

David T| 3.16.11 @ 5:12PM

Celibacy is a discipline of the Church, not a biblical doctrine, but both Jesus and St. Paul spoke favorably of those who made themselves "eunuchs for the Kingdom of God." The long process of priestly formation is indeed intended to chase away those who do not want to remain unmarried for the sake of serving God. Celibacy, in and of itself, does not lead to pedophilia or homosexuality or any other sexual disorder, even if a bunch of healthy young (celibate) males are crammed together for long periods of time.

Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 9:59AM

"Discipline" or not, it's unscriptural basis is obviously causing a problem.

That seems obvious, n'est ce pas?

Frisbee| 3.16.11 @ 10:23PM

Doctor Right wrote: "The chastity clause (utterly unsupported by scripture).."

Do you mean scriptures like "Eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom"? And "Let those accept it who can."?

Do your scriptures not have Matthew 19 in them? Maybe you need Catholic bibles? Just trying to help.

Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 7:42AM

As usual, like a good Catholic, you're misreading or misquoting scripture.

Eunuchs (supposedly) served without distraction because they'd had their testicles removed. Without the interference of testosterone, their focus would be on their jobs, not their passions.

The passage you cite says to serve " like Eunuchs"; in other words, singularly focused and dedicated. It does NOT say "be a Eunuch".

In fact, perhaps if some of these pervert priests WERE actual Eunuchs, they'd lose the urge to molest young boys.

Either way, you proved my point, so thanks.

Put down the catechism and the rosary, stop listening to Father Flanagan's slip-shod homilies, and stick to the Bible. You might learn something.

W| 3.17.11 @ 2:26PM

And this is not anti-catholic bigotry, dr right? change your name to dr anti-catholic bigot

Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 3:52PM

Nope. Not bigotry at all. Cold, hard truth.

I don't hate Catholics. Many of my own family members are Catholic.

But I do hate deception. And the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has been willfully deceptive in covering up the most heinous crime of all - assaults on innocent children.

The only reason they cooperate now is because, as the CIA used to say, the tooth-paste is out of the tube. If they could have kept covering it all up, they would have.

Frisbee| 3.17.11 @ 9:04PM

Wow, Doctor Right. I can only conclude that you're serious.

"The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Matthew 19:10

"Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given." Matthew 19:11

"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Matthew 19:12

So when Jesus discusses "eunuchs", I can agree with you that he is not talking about actual physical castration. But he is clearly talking about not marrying (ie celibacy).

Doctor Right| 3.18.11 @ 9:28AM

Like a good Catholic, you've COMPLETELY misquoted the scriptures. That's OK...I know that Catholics aren't taught to scrutinize scripture lest they understand that much of what they're taught is false.

But I digress...

So let's look at Matthew 19:

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to DIVORCE your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who DIVORCES his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife (ADULTERY VIA DIVORCE) , it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Jesus was merely saying that if you marry and divorce under these circumstances, then there are consequences. Those consequences are celibacy, lest one commit adultery.

In other words, this entire passage is about the Christian view of DIVORCE and ADULTERY. It has NOTHING to do with maintaining a celibate life to serve in the priesthood.

Did you get that? NOTHING. ZERO. ZILCH.

Now take your nose out of the catechism, put away your play-beads, and read the Bible.

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 9:46PM

What? I did not misquote scripture. Actually, I think it was a protestant bible (NIV). You're the one inserting words into verse 10.

By your own quotation, "there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom" your misinterpretation is exposed. He didn't say "to avoid adultery", but "choose... for the sake of the kingdom".

Frisbee| 3.24.11 @ 10:17PM

And besides, the disciples said "It is better not to marry" (and St Paul would agree later), they did not say "It is better not to re-marry".

Anton Fleegl| 3.16.11 @ 4:46PM

W is right. The pro-marriage peoples' scenario as I understand it is this:
A heterosexual male enters the priesthood without knowing that Catholic priests are required to be celibate. On finding out that celibacy is required he is shocked, shocked, so much that he turns to homosexual behavior with the young boys with whom he is in a position of trust.
Just to state this scenario is to see how absurd it is.
For my wife and me, there are other enormous scandals, such as the continued presence of Cardinal Law in the Pope's church in Rome, after having, as I understand it, just beaten the state troopers out of Massachussets.
An even bigger scandal is the failure to excommunicate public-public- sinners like the Kennedys and Cuomos and all the other "Catholic" politicians whose only devotion is to getting elected.

Frisbee| 3.16.11 @ 10:27PM

Anton Fleegl wrote: "An even bigger scandal is the failure to excommunicate ..."

Anton, I must second your sentiment. But don't condemn the bishops too harshly, or you may find yourself condemning Jesus for not promptly excommunicating Judas.

Evanston2| 3.17.11 @ 11:50AM

Frisbee, using Judas as an example is perverse in every sense of the word. Per John 6:64, Jesus knew who would betray Him "from the beginning." His mission in His first coming was to die: therefore Judas' presence was necessary in the Divine plan (as Jesus refers in John 13:18 back to Psalm 41:9 as prophecy). We are not to purposely retain Judas' once they are known. Perhaps you meant to refer to our inability to separate "wheat from chaff" or in particular Luke 22:23 where the Disciples asked amongst themselves who would be the traitor? Or Acts 1, where Peter explains Judas' role. A more pertinent example for the issue at-hand is also in Acts 1, when Judas is replaced. Look at the qualifications in vs. 21-22. Is celibacy listed? Or mentioned anywhere in Acts for that matter? I've already discussed the qualifications for church leadership as set forth by the Apostle Paul (who asserts that he could marry just like Peter did, or that the ideal leader is a married man who manages his household well) but you and Nick blithely ignored it. You set your traditions of men above those of God and are surprised at the horrific results. And now you use Judas as an excuse for the cover-ups. Such "due process" as occurred in the Los Angeles area so the statute of limitations expired before criminal proceedings could occur. You're right, I don't condemn the bishops. I blame those in the pews.

Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 3:53PM

NICELY DONE!

Frisbee| 3.17.11 @ 9:17PM

Evanston2 wrote: "Per John 6:64, Jesus knew who would betray Him "from the beginning.""
I reply: Jesus had foreknowledge, yes, and still he retained Judas. This is a point in my argument, not in yours.

Evanston2 wrote: "We are not to purposely retain Judas' once they are known."
I reply: Hmmm. If Judas had repented, would Jesus have retained him? What about Peter?

Evanston2 wrote: "Acts 1, when Judas is replaced. Look at the qualifications in vs. 21-22. Is celibacy listed?"
No. Are you saying that's a complete list for all time, nothing ever added nor taken away? No distinction between normative and absolute, without exception?

Evanston2| 3.18.11 @ 1:47PM

Frisbee, you seriously need to take a step back and consider what you're saying. Correct: Jesus had foreknowledge of his betrayal. Incorrect: Judas would repent (unless you are saying that Jesus could be wrong, in which case He was/is not God).
It bears repeating, Jesus' mission in His first coming was to live a perfect life and be executed for our sins. It was necessary for Him to be convicted by an evil world (both devout Jews and scientific/pragmatic Romans) to torture/execution, though He had done no wrong whatsoever. Anyone who cooperated in this is by definition a betrayer of good. As such it was NECESSARY that he be betrayed.

WHAT, are you arguing that it is necessary to have pedophiles in "the church" -- perhaps 1 out of 12 -- to ensure Biblical conformity with Christ? That is why your argument is nonsensical and, in fact, a direct perversion of truth.

Regarding my citing of Acts, I was following up on YOUR Judas meme. I deal extensively elsewhere here on this web page with Bible citations that deal with marriage, temptation and the clergy. A search for the text "1 Cor 7" would probably be most efficient if you care to delve with the issue of what is (using your word) "normative" in depth.

Most assuredly, if you're Rome then you're free to add or take away from Scripture to attain your man-made version of "absolute" perfection. How's that working out? Feel free to honor your traditions over that of The Word, just honestly own up to what you're doing.

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 9:51PM

E2 asks: "WHAT, are you arguing that it is necessary to have pedophiles in "the church" -- perhaps 1 out of 12 -- to ensure Biblical conformity with Christ?"

No E2. Not necessary, but inevitable, as Jesus said "scandal will come". He did not afford himself a perfect set of disciples, so we shouldn't be inordinately scandalized when we see the same happen to us. Having foreknowledge he could have avoided Judas, but did not, I think because it was to be our lot as well (for now).

The real problem between you and me, E2, is that you let the presence of evil men keep you away from Jesus' church.

Ted| 3.16.11 @ 1:29PM

Vatican II, properly understood and properly implemented, is not the problem. A return to the "time before Vatican II" isn't a panacea either.

Homosexual priests, on the other hand, are a different matter. This is why they are being screened out of the seminaries.

Vern Crisler | 3.16.11 @ 9:56AM

Maybe that's where the problem really started for the Roman catholic church. The communion meal is eaten not to resacrifice but to remember Christ.

Clint| 3.16.11 @ 10:36AM

In the authoritative work by Penn State professor Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests, it was determined that between .2 and 1.7 percent of priests are pedophiles. The figure among the Protestant clergy ranges between 2 and 3 percent.

canuckistani| 3.16.11 @ 12:14PM

Power corrupts absolutely.
Coaches, teachers etc are all attractive professions for these types.

Ted| 3.16.11 @ 1:31PM

Unfortunately there are pedophiles in many places.... Doctors, nurses, coaches, and teachers (as canuckistani noted).

canuckistani| 3.16.11 @ 2:21PM

....and all should have the disinfecting effect of daylight shed on them. If unions, as others here haved condemned, defend perps beyond a defense of due process, then they are complicit as well and deserve our scorn.

Frisbee| 3.16.11 @ 10:28PM

canuckistani wrote: "....and all should have the disinfecting effect of daylight shed on them"

Yes, and this is one of the signs of God's love for the Catholic Church, that the world which hates it is actually doing it a service.

Evanston2| 3.17.11 @ 12:08PM

If you want to be a Supreme Court justice or take Nancy Pelosi's old seat or be President, it's no problem being a "Catholic." Frisbee, the world loves you. Just try being an evangelical Christian. There are none in the Supreme Court and look at how Palin's been treated. "The church" has been comfortable in the halls of power since it compromised itself by allowing Constantine to guide its affairs. It claims diplomatic immunity, etc. as a worldly power and is honored as such. Stop pretending. With the exception of abortion, compromise with the World is the rule. Just go to NRO online, for example. From Buckley to today, a Catholic site yet when Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed there was either silence or outright support. But you're right, men cannot serve 2 masters (Matt 6:22-23).

Frisbee| 3.17.11 @ 9:35PM

Your jealousy at the presence of Catholics in the American government is a little surprising. There's only been one Catholic president (JFK). I wish the halls of government were filled with good Evangelicals and Catholics. Unfortunately there are too many bad Catholics and bad Protestants in there. Fortunately most of the Catholics on the Supreme Court right now are pretty "good". I am thinking of Alito, Scalia, and Roberts. Are there any others, or do all the other Catholics stink? By the way, maybe evangelicals don't go into law school much.

Neither Constantine nor his successors ever guided the affairs of the Western Church much. Though they did persecute it heavily, and threw several Popes in prison.

Evanston2| 3.18.11 @ 2:09PM

Frisbee, you gloss over the worldly participation of "the church" as if it was nothing. For an interesting article on NRO (on the seeming end, and then bump-back of Rome's status as a governmental entity) see:
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....rge-weigel
Also of interest, in the UK two pentacostals (admittedly not my favorite group) have been banned from adoption due to their beliefs that homosexuality is a sin. No such ruling for members of "the church" -- to the contrary, the EU just today allowed for display of crucifixes (not just crosses) in classrooms.
My point was a direct response to your claim that supposed hostility of the world proves that "the church" is doing good. My counter is that "the church" has insinuated itself in the World and is even superficially approved in godless Europe. And if persecution is your test of fidelity, then you're being out-performed.
But personally, I believe "persecution" is a difficult metric. Mormons can claim to be persecuted "for Christ" yet they deny a Biblical understanding of who He is and how we are saved, and they tend to add un-Biblical practices (sound familiar?) and for this are politically unpopular. The same can be said of Jehovah's Witnesses, Bahai's, etc.
Regarding Constantine and his successors, the church's goal was to control them. Eventually, who controlled whom? And to what end? The Jews (including the Disciples) expected Christ to become king and wanted to make Him such. That was even the charge against Him: "King of the Jews." He was clear that He was not so in the normal, political sense but ironically was/is so spiritually. So when running even a small, worldly kingdom (again, I commend the NRO article) are you really doing The Lord's work?

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 9:57PM

The church is an enormous mustard tree, home to angels in its branches, as well as to "weeds" as Jesus calls them. Jesus didn't found the Mormons or the JW's or the Bahai.

You state: "No such ruling for members of "the church"."
The Catholic church can no longer provide adoption services in Massachusetts. Are you happy now?

W| 3.16.11 @ 6:23PM

and what is the percentage for teachers, boy scout leaders, and all others in a positions of trust? if we apply the same logic that we apply to priests, that celibacy is the cause of pedophilia, then what is the cause for the teachers having sex with students, and boy scout leaders abusing children, and congressmen having sex with pages, and presidents having sex with interns? i assume none of these professions demand one to be celibate.

Evanston2| 3.17.11 @ 12:18PM

W, you ask "if we apply the same logic." OK, let's accept your premise for a second. You believe "the church" cannot do any better than the World. And you're right, it's not.
Second, the World at least promptly prosecutes such offenders. And "the church" -- what does it do? Transfers them and keeps them as "holy men of the cloth."
Finally, none of us is omniscient so your question (an example of moral equivalence) is moot. We do know that institutions of the World do not hide behind "church law" and "forgiveness" and worst of all, their supposed devotion to Christ to maintain a system that actively defies the Bible. Per Romans 13 and 1 Pet 2:13 (if the inspired word of Peter means anything to you) you are to be subject to the emperor.
Your defense of this corrupt system makes you complicit in its deeds.

W| 3.17.11 @ 3:19PM

Evanston, you are not an christian, evangelical or otherwise. you and your pals here showing your anti-catholic bias and bigotry seem more like the muslims when criticizing infidels. the only clear language in your posts is you anti-catholic bigotry, the rest is incomprehensibe babble.

Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 3:55PM

So when faced with a logical argument that your catechism can't refute, your response is to call someone a bigot??

You're an infant.

W| 3.17.11 @ 8:54PM

what logical argument? calling names is your idea of an argument? when you have a logical argument based on a premise, facts, reasoning, then post it, until then keep talking to yourself and your anti-catholic pals on this and other sites

Doctor Right| 3.18.11 @ 7:50AM

You're purposefully obfuscating. Myself, Evanston2, and VernCrisler have each presented you with facts and answered your questions. You simply refuse to read them.

You're a good Catholic: you swallow age-old propaganda, and recite the talking points. Also, and like a good Catholic, your ability to critically discuss scripture is at the level of a 4th grader.

Your smug belief in the righteousness of your position is amusing, to say the least.

Now say 3 Hail Marys while "venerating" the "immaculate conception".

W| 3.18.11 @ 7:31PM

4th grade is probably something you and your pals here can only aspire to. what religion do you and your pals here practice? what church? or do you just read bible sections you like and do you interpretation of the bible to suit your needs, and mock the catholic religion because you at too stupid and weak to belong? 'you and your pals do not present facts, you quote bible sections and that seems to exhaust your mental ablilit. i have the same feeling about you and your pals that i have about the lefties and John the muslim, you have a closed mind with no ability to reason. you read the bible the way muslims read the koran, you know everything. since you cannot reason with logic, you try to be clever with irish jokes, priest jokes, etc. i guess you are busy trying to make more jokes.
you definetely are not a christian, and anyone reading your garbage will have a lower opinion of christianity. tell us the "christian denomination or church" you belong to or practice, curious.

Evanston2| 3.18.11 @ 2:16PM

W, It's a lousy practice to just read one post from someone here. Since you're being lazy, here's a portion of what I've said elsewhere here:
...in Gal 5:12 Paul says "I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!" Is this holding up imposed celibacy as a virtue, or as a punishment? Yes, Paul commends celibacy in 1 Cor 7:1 but he deals with the issue of temptation (in the next verse, no less) by commending marriage. Yet the outright denial of this Biblical wisdom here in many, many comments on this very web page. It should be amazing...but isn't. This is inevitable for those who put their faith in their denomination, in its ceremonies (baptism, confessional/penance, "Eucharist" and Last Rites, relics, pilgrimages, coins, special "blessings" of homes, etc.). Not in loving the Lord as we know Him from Scripture and in trembling gratitude for His saving mercy toward us.
In Gal 5 Paul continues to speak about regular, marital sex as a preventative against "temptation." And in 1 Cor 9:5 he asserts the right to marry "...as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" Yet this is all defied by "the church" in its imposition of the traditions of men above the Word of God. And it reaps as it sows. Those who teach this will "be judged with greater strictness" per James 3:1. And those who cheer on this system? Their judgement will be less, but they will not be exempt. Sub-contracting out knowledge of God's Word to so-called "holy men" is a sure way to perdition.

W| 3.18.11 @ 7:33PM

what religion, church do you belong to or practice

David T| 3.16.11 @ 2:19PM

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the Mass is not a re-sacrifice of Christ, but a pulling of the one sacrifice into the present to be experienced sacramentally, thus making the atoning sacrifice of Christ ever present.

Tim the Enchanter| 3.16.11 @ 2:47PM

You mean the Catechism of the Novus Ordo Church. Since its teachings deviate from the Catechism written by St Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, that book cannot be said to be truly Catholic.

David T| 3.16.11 @ 3:18PM

There are different cathechisms for different audiences for different purposes. But the teachings are the same in essence. It cannot be otherwise, unless Christ's command about the Gates of Hades no longer stands.

Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 3:56PM

That's funny...there's only 1 Bible.

Why do we need different catechisms? Or any, for that matter?

Doctor Right| 3.16.11 @ 3:03PM

Jesus does NOT suffer repeatedly with each Catholic Mass; that is a fallacy taught by the Catholic Church that has no basis in scripture.

Hebrews 10:10
"
New International Version (©1984)
And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

"...ONCE for ALL..." Not over and over , as the author claims.

David T| 3.16.11 @ 3:13PM

It is not the teaching of the Church that Christ suffers over and over again in the Mass. In the Mass, the ONE sacrifice is brought forward to the present. Like the Real Presence, it is a mystery.

Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 3:58PM

You just confirmed what you also denied in the same sentence.

You have no idea how contradictory your own beliefs are, do you?

Vern Crisler | 3.16.11 @ 7:23PM

David, you need to reread your sources. The Catholic Encyc. says the mass "can only be the one self-same sacrifice of the Cross, whose fruits, by an unbloody offering, are daily made available for believers and unbelievers and sacrificially applied to them. "

One self-same sacrifice of the Cross. Is there something about "one self-same sacrifice" that you do not understand David?

In addition, the Tridentine formula condemns anyone for not regarding the mass as a "true and proper sacrifice" -- i.e., for not believing in a Medieval superstition.

True and proper sacrifice, David.
True and proper.
True and proper.
The two terms conjoined modify sacrifice.

One problem that all "real" presence folk don't seem to understand is that if Christ were "really" present in the mass, there wouldn't be any need to "remember" him. And yet, that is precisely what we are enjoined to do by the New Testament.

But I believe the march of folly began long ago for the Roman church, and a lot of it stems from refusal on the part of the RC church to do away with Medieval superstition. Rational minds within the church could not abide this anymore so in many cases they moved toward liberalism or Barthianism in the church. This modernism attracts many homosexuals into the priesthood.

The real problem in the Roman camp is not pedophilia -- which is just a politically correct diversion. The real problem is creating a gay-friendly environment within the church. And this could not have come about without the influence of modernism in the church, which in turn was a reaction to the inveterate superstition of Roman Catholicism.

David T| 3.16.11 @ 8:05PM

Vern--You need to re-read what I said. The Mass is the one, self-same sacrifice of Jesus Christ sacramentally celebrated in the present. Jesus Christ is really present in the Mass under the appearances of the bread and wine. It's called a miracle. As for any march of folly, look to the mainline Protestant churches for the influence of liberalism and Barthianism, and for a "gay-friendly" environment. The Catholic Church has remained rock solid in its faith and practice for 2000 years. No other church can make that claim.

Vern Crisler | 3.16.11 @ 11:56PM

Catholic Encyc says: “Just as the Church repudiates nothing so much as the suggestion that by the Mass the sacrifice on the Cross is as it were set aside, so she goes a step farther and maintains the essential identity of both sacrifices, holding that the main difference between them is in the different manner of sacrifice -- the one bloody the other unbloody (Trent, Sess. XXII, ii).”

Essential identity of both sacrifices
Essential identity of both sacrifices

I’m always amazed to see otherwise intelligent men promoting Medieval gibberish about the Lord's Supper. It was a simple institution, a simple Jewish meal, with ordinary Jewish bread and Jewish wine -- and yet medievalists insist on turning it into a magical, metaphysical event.

The communion meal is NOT the self-same sacrifice of Christ on the cross, nor a continuing sacrifice, nor a propitiatory sacrifice of any kind. There is nothing in the New Testament that supports such rubbish. To call what happens in the Roman Catholic mass a “miracle” is just to hide the essential irrationality of the doctrine.

I would agree with you that “mainline” Protestant churches are responsible for much of the liberalism and Barthianism in the church today. I’d even go farther and regard them as synagogues of Satan. But The Roman church has adopted the same liberalism and Barthianism, but hides it all behind a façade of medieval superstition and sham unity.

The Roman church has not lasted 2000 years. That is an arrogant claim. There was a Greek church before that, and a Jewish church before even the Greek church.

I think the Roman denomination -- like the Protestant -- is on its last legs. It is a walking corpse right now but doesn’t know it. The real question is how both the Roman and Protestant denominations got that way.

Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 7:47AM

WELL said!

David T| 3.17.11 @ 9:11AM

Vern--The Eucharist may appear to be a simple meal (bread and wine), but the substance is nothing less than the body and blood of Christ. And I said the Catholic Church (not "Roman") has lasted 2000 years, because it is the church that Christ founded upon the Rock of St. Peter at Caesarea Philippi circa 30 A.D. Pax et Bonum

Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 9:32AM

This is more hoakum perpetrated by the Catholic Church.

The communion wafer does NOT become the literal "body" of Christ when it enters your mouth. If so, does it revert back to mere wafer if you spit-it out, or could you take the whole glob and clone a baby Jesus with it??

The Catholic Church (Or "Roman Catholic Church", whatever you want to call it) is NOT the Church that Christ founded, and Peter was NEVER a Pope. Rather, the Church is an artificial construct culled-together from Christian-based philosophies and the remnants of the pagan Roman religion. Many Catholic practices, such as the worship of Mary (often elevated to higher status or at least equal status to Christ - also utterly unsubstantiated by scripture) are lifted DIRECTLY from pagan practices.

But hey...Let's not confuse the issue with little details, right?

Evanston2| 3.17.11 @ 12:23PM

Vern, nice summary. Exception: there is no "Protestant denomination" unless you're referring to mainline denominations in the U.S. and state-sponsored churches in Europe. Those are dead. But the evangelical church is growing worldwide and is generally focused on and faithful to the Bible. To answer your question (how they "got that way") is because they abandoned the Bible in favor of making up their own traditions. Updated versions of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.

Frisbee| 3.23.11 @ 7:48PM

You guys have mentioned the medieval period. Here's a voice from that period:

"All those who saw the Lord Jesus Christ according to humanity and did not see and believe according to the Spirit and the Divinity, that He was the Son of God, were condemned. In like manner, all those who behold the Sacrament of the Body of Christ which is sanctified by the word of the Lord upon the altar by the hands of the priest in the form of bread and wine, and who do not see and believe according to the Spirit and Divinity that It is really the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, are condemned."
~ St Francis of Assisi, Admonitions

Clint| 3.16.11 @ 10:12PM

Other religious groups have greater percentages of Sex Abuse, as does The American Public School System.
Vern's Full Of Anti-Catholic Crap.

Vern Crisler | 3.17.11 @ 12:01AM

It might be better if you would provide statistics rather than the usual "anti-catholic bigotry" crap.

Evanston2| 3.17.11 @ 12:24PM

“Little Billy has an ouchy in his bum bum from Father Flanagan.” But that’s cool with Clint – it’s all in the name of Christ (and Mary, etc.).

W| 3.17.11 @ 3:22PM

You are one sick person, evanston. and definetely not a christian. you seem fixated with anal sex, why?

Evanston2| 3.18.11 @ 2:34PM

W, please tell me where else, other than in this post, that I've described anal sex? Answer: nowhere. Further, I admittedly taunted Clint, but he doesn't read lengthy posts and I tried (and to you, failed) to make a simple point: if doing as badly as The World is good enough for you, then you have a big-time problem.

You say I am "not a christian." Well, if expecting "the church" to be as evil as The World is your measure of a Christian, then you're right.

Per Luke 11:28 (and abundantly elsewhere in the Bible) we are told “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” So let's give it a try, shall we? Below is an excerpt of a response, on this web page, to Frisbee:
...you're pointing to Matt 19:12. So instead of cutting out a snippet that appeals to your foregone conclusion, how about actually reading the Scripture with respect and see what it says? Matt 19:12 is a direct response to a statement in 19:10 -- "The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” And what was 'the case' that the Disciples were referring to? In 19:9, Jesus says "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
So let's review: Christ limits divorce to cases of adultery; the Disciples' reaction is to say marriage then is not worth doing; Christ says that only those "to whom it is given" (v.11) can receive this saying.

You are appealing to this passage to say that Christ supported a celibate clergy. Is that true? Well, let's ask the apostles, so to speak: "Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" Paul asks this question in 1 Cor 9:5. Clearly the apostles, the brothers of Jesus (such as James) and Peter himself were/are married.

It seems they're not qualified to be priests in the Roman Catholic church. And Paul also has a bad attitude about the whole situation and really needs a counseling from you about it.

Or possibly, just possibly, you have taken an exception (Matt 19:12 "...let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”) and made it the rule. Look at 1 Cor 7:1-7. Paul clearly says that marriage (and sex within it) is necessary (v.2) "because of the temptation to sexual immorality." Yet many commenters here, and you perhaps, have argued that being married or not has nothing to do with seeking sexual satisfaction outside of marriage. This position directly contradicts The Word. Read on to verses 6 & 7: "Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, bone of one kind and one of another." Paul at the time is unmarried. He does not command celibacy, but commends it.

Does Paul commend it, or more appropriately, require it of the clergy? Look at the qualifications for church office he sets forth in 1 Tim 3:2-5 about being a good husband and household manager. If Paul believed that when Christ talks (hearkening back to your citation of Matt 19:11-12) about being eunuchs "to whom it is given...for the sake of the kingdom..." that Jesus was talking about clergy, then Paul was contradicting Christ by not disqualifying married men...right?

If The Word required celibacy for clergy, or even intimated it, I'd gladly accept and obey His direction. It doesn't, though, and in this "the church" is reaping what it sows.

W| 3.18.11 @ 7:39PM

can you write plain english without quoting the bible to explain whatever it is you are trying to say? or, i could just summarize it: the catholic church is bad. but i read the bible and know everything.
you think it is funny to say some boy was raped by a priest? what section of the "bible" you read says that is a christian humor?
you and your pals here are nauseating, and i am not wasting any more time with your group. i assume you will now write another page of bible verses.

Evanston2| 3.19.11 @ 9:38AM

W, Thanks. I couldn't more clearly mark the division between Romanists and Christians than you have. You are offended by my citing the Bible, but you (and Clint) defend your church by saying that the % of pedophiles in your clergy is comparable to Worldly institutions. Even hardened criminals find pedophilia to be despicable. But your defense of "the church" is essentially that the frequency is within acceptable norms. To answer your question fully, I am a Christian because I believe in the Christ of the Bible. You are not because you prefer to worship what you make up in your own head (and hence your aversion to "bible verses" which, by the way, I only provided in response to your requests for "logic"). Also, you accused me of mentioning anal sex repeatedly when I did so once. Even your "facts" are wrong. And since you continue to support an institution that systematically produces pedophile clergy (and homosexuals, for that matter) then you yourself are responsible for it. You are the one treating it as a joke.

W| 3.19.11 @ 11:23AM

more babble; you are a joke, not a christian. institutions do not produce criminals. look at your computer program for bible verses and see if you can find one on what produces criminals. you sound like the roundheads in cromwell's army who enjoyed killing the irish catholics. can you find a bible verse to condone that?

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 9:59PM

E2 wrote: "You are offended by my citing the Bible"

No E2, it's your endless insertions into scripture to make it mean the exact opposite of what it says.

Frisbee| 3.16.11 @ 10:33PM

Yes, the one self same sacrifice. Not a new sacrifice. It is the very same Jesus. Do you want him or not?

Vern Crisler | 3.17.11 @ 12:02AM

If you believe Jesus is the self-same sacrifice in the mass, then you do not have Christ. You have medievalism.

Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 10:00AM

Whether one "want" Christ or not, one does NOT need the intercession of a Catholic Priest to receive Him.

Evanston2| 3.17.11 @ 12:25PM

Doctor Right, you hit the the target -- the topic of the Mass (as we said in the Marine Corps) -- "center mass."

Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 4:03PM

Semper Fi, E2!

Frisbee| 3.17.11 @ 9:37PM

Doctor Right wrote: "Whether one "want" Christ or not, one does NOT need the intercession of a Catholic Priest to receive Him."

That's true. You can go to an Orthodox Priest too.

Doctor Right| 3.18.11 @ 1:11PM

And this is why you're lost.

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 10:05PM

Boy, you guys are harsher when I'm agreeing with you than when I'm disagreeing.

God Bless you DR and E2. I hope some day you can bring yourselves to believe the Bible.

Tony in Central PA| 3.16.11 @ 8:39PM

This is a serious charge. Its also a charge that I have never heard backed up in any coherent manner. Whenever I ask for some reasoning to explain this outrageous accusation, the only thing I tend to receive are more accusations. Its like accusing a man of embezzling from his job and before he can defend himself, accusing him of also being an adulterer.
The sad thing is that not only do you, Vern, not understand the Mass or even the Scriptural significance of the Eucharist, but many Catholics don't either. This probably also has something to do with the low state of so many seminary grads from the 60's and 70's. and why the Church in America has been plagued with this awful scandal.

Vern Crisler | 3.17.11 @ 12:12AM

I would say that NO ONE actually understands the Roman Catholic mass. Church bureaucrats during the Middle Ages concocted the whole thing as a way of underwriting superstitious lay piety. The mental gymnastics that Roman theologians go through to explain the Mass would astonish a Talmudic writer.

Frisbee| 3.17.11 @ 9:46PM

Vern wrote: "I would say that NO ONE actually understands the Roman Catholic mass."

Being a profound mystery, you don't have to understand it. You just have to love and eat the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus in it.

Vern wrote: "Church bureaucrats during the Middle Ages concocted the whole thing as a way of underwriting superstitious lay piety."
I reply: did Church bureaucrats write "This is my body" in the Gospels? Or did Jesus say that? Will you forgive us for believing Jesus?

Evanston2| 3.18.11 @ 2:58PM

Frisbee, When Jesus said "this is my body" was he sitting right there? Yes. Did He lop his arm off and have the Disciples eat it? No. Or did He then poor some blood into a cup? No.
It is quite reasonable then to believe that our Lord was using figurative language. He does so elsewhere -- we don't look for His body to contain a handle because He calls Himself "the door" (John 10:9).

Question: if a figurative interpretation is correct, would this reduce in any way the blessing of communion with Him? Why? God can most assuredly bless us in any way He wishes.

But because most Protestants don't subscribe to your literalist formula, "the church" rejects the validity of their rite as compared to the Eucharist. You, Nick and I have dealt with this extensively elsewhere. But I'll repeat it again: "the church" takes an un-Biblical formulation and requires that others believe in it, and invalidates those who do exactly what our Lord commanded. This is a direct contradiction of Scripture...in favor of traditions of men.
Since the Eucharist is a feature of every Mass (is there such a thing as a Mass without it?) and in fact the "highlight" as-it-were, your devotion to ceremony may be seen as the unifying element within Roman worship. Yet look how you use it.

Is this a worthy partaking ? Is your focus where it should be -- on remembering Him ("do this in remembrance of me") as He commands -- or on man-made details and understanding of the ceremony? Only you know this about yourself. Feel free to defend "the church" in this...

Tony in Central PA| 3.20.11 @ 8:46PM

Evanston, it is noteworthy that in your explanation of the Eucharist you omit John 6 and any of the Last Supper accounts from the synoptic Gospels.
Your assessment of the Eucharist being merely symbolic is at odds with these passages ( although there are many others that it contradicts ). Again, if it were merely symbolic, why wouldn't He have taken the trouble to inform the many disciples who deserted Him after he explained what the Eucharist would be. He could have at least told the Apostles He was using symbolism, but he didn't. He said to them, " Do you want to leave me too ? ".
In the Old Testament there was Passover. In the New Testament, there is the Eucharist. It is believed John 6 represents a moment from Jesus' ministry foreshadowing something that would happen the following year on Calvary. Three things were required of faithful Jews at Passover 1) the lamb would be sacrificed 2) the blood of the lamb would be used as a sign for protection and 3) the lamb would be consumed. The typology of this is the pattern of the Eucharist. Reread John 6 after thinking about this.

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 10:11PM

E2 asks "When Jesus said "this is my body" was he sitting right there? Yes. Did He lop his arm off and have the Disciples eat it? No. Or did He then poor some blood into a cup? No."

E2, Jesus didn't rip off his arm and say "This is my body". He did take bread and say "This is my body". He changed, and still changes it, by miracle.

Every Christian took this literally for the first thousand years of Christianity. They argued about many things, including the Divinity of Christ, but they never argued about the literal meaning of "This is my Body".

Tony in Central PA| 3.20.11 @ 8:29PM

Vern, if you want an explanation, probably the best explanation of The Mass I've ever read comes from theologian Scott Hahn in " The Lamb's Supper ". Hahn was a former Protestant pastor who's questions and study led him to Catholicism. He does a better job than any recent cradle Catholic writer of explaining The Mass and its somehwhat unexpected liturgical relationship to the Book of Reveleation.
I challenge to to read it and critique it. Its a short read, by the way.

Petronius| 3.16.11 @ 10:25AM

There's a story which came to us by way of the courthouse where his brother heard cases as a Judge.
Once there was a boy and girl who lived next door to each other and grew very close, only to become separated as the boy's father had to change employment and move his family. These two would not see each other again in this life, but each passed from it at the exact same instant and did lay eyes upon each other before the pearly gates. After admission to their eternal reward, they picked up where they left off even after long happy lives with their own families. So they decided they wanted to get married which was their original plan, and petitioned The Almighty Father. Some eons later, the couple was summoned before the Celestial Throne to be granted their wish, and so they took their vows. Now we all know the human animal operates on expectation, and things just didn't work out for them. They again petitioned The Almighty Father for a divorce, citing excuses and mistakes they made along the way...HE looked them both in the eyes and said, "Look you two. 20 some eons went by and I bent a bunch of rules to get a priest Up Here to marry you, Do you have any idea how long it takes ME to get a judge?"
To think we know the reality of what is to come, is the height and arrogance of presumption. But the old Catholicism is gone, having been supplanted by me too relativism and the desire to make the world a never-never land grounded in childish sentiments. Here's betting The Almighty Father is very wroth.

John II| 3.16.11 @ 11:30AM

I'm a betting man myself, but no need to bet on this one. The term "God's wrath" is Biblical (e.g., Rom. 1:18-32) and refers to the inevitable consequences of man's sin, however long it may take the gruesome consequences to kick in and whatever the precise configuration of the consequences when they do kick in. Anyhow, the reckoning is nigh, sooner or later. It's all very reassuring, in a scary sort of way. We do it to ourselves, and that's "God's wrath." I reckon.

And now back to "Angel on My Shoulder" (1946), in which Paul Muni gets religion, indirectly through the agency of the Devil, played by Claude Rains (after playing a guardian angel five years earlier in "Here Comes Mr. Jordan," perhaps because both flicks have the same scriptwriter, Harry Segall . . . I need to think about the theology of all this a tad more . . .)

Clint| 3.16.11 @ 10:42AM

"According to Charol Shakeshaft, the researcher of a little-remembered 2004 study prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."

The hypocrite agendists of The Mainstream Media are minimizing & ignoring the rampant & ongoing Sex Abuse In America's Public School System.

John II| 3.16.11 @ 11:07AM

On the lighter side, the dimwit secularists just can't help holding the Catholic Church to a much higher standard than the one they apply to their own world.

canuckistani| 3.16.11 @ 12:17PM

The piece is about the priesthood. The Church is far bigger than the men who occupy the altars.
The secular world has laws and the debate is in how to apply them.

Clint| 3.16.11 @ 12:33PM

The American Legal System needs to clean The Sexual Perverts out of The American Public School System, just as forcefully.

John II| 3.16.11 @ 12:53PM

Actually, the piece is only incidentally about the priesthood; mostly it's about, about . . . about faith enduring amid the ruins of a vagrant world--but you got it right in your second sentence, Nuckie

canuckistani| 3.16.11 @ 2:27PM

It is surprising to me that in light of these revelations, my faith is actually stronger. Perhaps it is knowing that eventually, all wrongs are exposed and society does evolve.
There are many evils in this world, and reducing the impact of this one issue is a good start. Too many members of the clergy and the laity have walked the right path only to be knocked down by criminals amongst them. Our role is to help them get back on the feet and moving forward.

Tony in Central PA| 3.16.11 @ 8:42PM

One of the things that keeps me going through this, canuck, is knowing that the abusers and those who looked the other way cannot be allowed to prevail. Nor will they.

Frisbee| 3.16.11 @ 10:36PM

Yes canuckistani, "all wrongs are exposed", that is a good insight.

Some of them will not be known until the next life though.

Let us not be proud of the sins we don't commit.
Let us continue to repent of the sins we do commit.

Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 10:01AM

But some of them have ALREADY been exposed...Haven't they?

Frisbee| 3.17.11 @ 9:50PM

Yes. I'm just saying that justice on this side of the grave is imperfect. Hitler escaped justice on this side of the grave, for example.

All American American| 3.16.11 @ 12:05PM

30+ years ago I was just a wee fella. One day my mother got a phone call from grampa. Seems a great uncle of ours, a priest, was coming to visit. This was a Big Deal.

When he came we all put on our Sunday best and went to see him at Grampa's house. I was scared to see him because to me he appeared older than dirt, and my mother and grandparents had prepped us by basically saying this guy was a living saint and if we so much as farted in his presence we were going to hell.

Anyway all the kids sit down on the couch and the old priest is in a chair and he talks to us. I remember him talking about end times and demons running around on the earth and what not. One other thing he said to us, now that I look back on it, was very very prescient. He said the Catholic Church was not the same as when he became a priest due to all the homosexuals they were allowing to become ordained. He told us kids to be careful. He said this was Satan attempting to infiltrate the Church. This was back in the late 70s.

Seems the old guy knew what the heck he was talking about.

David T| 3.16.11 @ 2:37PM

The Pink Mafia infiltrated the seminaries in the 60s and 70s. Thanks to the efforts of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, the screening and formation of priests today is much more thorough. This bodes well for the future of the Church.

Doctor Right| 3.16.11 @ 2:59PM

When man-made rules and conventions are elevated to equal status with the Word of God, problems inevitably result.

Pedophile Catholic priests are the most obvious example of this problem in religious circles. But even more egregious is the systematic and willful cover-up of the abuse AT ALL LEVELS of the Catholic Church.

The most shocking aspect of all of this is that we're no longer even shocked when we hear it.

David T| 3.16.11 @ 3:33PM

Pedophilia and other forms of sexual abuse occur in Protestant churches and public schools at an equal or greater rate. And they also try to hide their sins. So why do you single out the Catholic Church?

Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 9:34AM

I don't; this article did, and THAT'S what we're discussing.

Tony in Central PA| 3.16.11 @ 8:44PM

The nice thing about being in a Protestant congregation is that when something like this happens, it splits into three parts and nobody remains answerable save the perp. If he's caught.

Frisbee| 3.16.11 @ 10:39PM

Doctore Right wrote: "When man-made rules and conventions are elevated to equal status with the Word of God, problems inevitably result."

The problem you seem to have with true Christianity Doc, is that the Word of God took Flesh and became Man.

Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 7:50AM

I have no problem with that whatsoever; please explain your assertion. Back it up with facts.

Frisbee| 3.17.11 @ 9:53PM

Do you have a problem with the fact that he left a church behind, in the flesh, with feeble men in positions of authority?

Doctor Right| 3.18.11 @ 1:12PM

No. Not at all.

It simply WASN'T the Catholic Church.

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 10:14PM

Which church was it then? And which successors of the Apostles and Timothy and Titus and Philemon passed it on to which men? Do you have names? One of them was Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote the first instance of "Catholic Church" that is still extant.

The Church you attend. Who founded it?

Clint| 3.16.11 @ 3:09PM

Catholic Priests are only the most obvious because The Mainstream Media & Anti-Catholic Agendists ignore & minimize the larger percentage & the ongoing Sexual Abuse in other Religious Groups & The American Public School System.

L. E. Powers| 3.16.11 @ 4:26PM

Thank you, Mr. Mehan, for being willing to publicly share your catholic faith. What a lot of people don't understand about Catholicism is that it is all about the reconciliation of man with his Creator thru Jesus Christ. As the priest visiting our parish last weekend pointed out in his homily, reconciliation is the first part. It removes our sin, but we still have to deal with the effects, "the stain," of sin.

I suppose that those who hid the actions of abusive priests felt that they were acting in charity and focused on the idea of reconciliation, repentance, and the like. But forgetting that we must also deal with the stain of sin allows it to linger and can lead to people falling back into sin--rationalizing that God will still forgive them.

Some might argue that those who fall back did not make a true and full confession; that they therefore were not absolved. I am not a scholar in this area and won't attempt to explain what only God can know for certain. What I do know is that when I go to the confessional I sincerely want to sin no more. That I continue to sin is an element of the stain of sin. Having accountability in one's life can lead to that full amendment and to sin no more in that area, I suppose.

We are all sinners. It was said that John Paul the Great regularly sought the sacrament of reconciliation. If this very holy man felt he was in need of regular confession and absolution, how much more do the rest of us need it?

Getting back to the scandal of abuse, it is important that we route this blight. We cannot think we are loving those priests who sin by not requiring them to address the stain of their sin.

Augusta Wynn| 3.16.11 @ 9:17PM

It is a tragedy that folks do not understand the way that mandatory celibacy has created the clergy sex abuse catastrophe. Men, because of simple anatomy, are not successful celibates. (any honest priest will tell you so). It is understood that celibacy as a life long committment is so rare as to be virtually nonexistent. So, the umbrella of secrecy emerges. If Father Tom is sleeping with Mary, and Father Tim is sleeping with Paul, then when Father Bill is a known child rapist, they are all breaking the vow seldom kept. If Father Tom tells on Father Bill for raping kids, then Father Bill will blow the whistle on Fathers Tom and Tim and all the straight and gay priests having affairs with adults. The continuance of mandatory celibacy guarantees only this: that closeted sexual freaks will continue to masquerade as catholic priests.

AW

David T| 3.17.11 @ 9:22AM

Celibacy was not the cause of the sex-abuse scandals. What is not understood is that fact that some people are called to a life of celibacy and self-sacrifice to God. Men, in and of themselves, are probably not capable of a life of celibacy. But with God, all things are possible.

Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 9:35AM

Catholics love to refer to people being "called" to a life of this, or that, or some other thing.

Whatever. The fact of the matter is that if these pervert priests were "called" to a life of celibacy, they ain't exactly living it, are they?

Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 9:38AM

Excellent point.

The fact that enforced celibacy is unscriptural never seems to cross the minds of most Catholics.

Frisbee| 3.17.11 @ 9:58PM

"Let him accept it who can" Matthew 19:12

Actually, celibacy is not strictly enforced, E2. It is normative. For example, many married Anglican ministers convert and are ordained Catholic priests. The Church has the power to set some things aside (like celibacy) but not others (like a valid marriage).

Clint| 3.16.11 @ 10:16PM

Meanwhile, other Religious Groups have greater Percentages of Sex Abuse, as does The American Public School System.

Shove Off Agenda Clown.

Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 9:37AM

Got any proof of that?

And there's a tremendous difference between a local incident of sexual abuse at a church/school, etc, and a systematic pattern of abuse combined with an institutional, systematic pattern of denial and cover-up.

You're a good apologist.

Evanston2| 3.17.11 @ 12:56PM

wholesale07, indeed, per Gal 5:9 "A little leaven leavens the whole lump." Just as some Galatians were trying to impose circumcision as a NT requirement for Christians, the other extreme of using Biblical freedom "as an opportunity for the flesh" (5:13).
So we see direct parallels in "the church" as it imposes celibacy on priests, and they engage in heinous sin (homosexuality and pedophilia) as the congregation assures them that they are "holy men of the cloth."
And lookee here: in Gal 5:12 Paul says "I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!" Is this holding up imposed celibacy as a virtue, or as a punishment? Yes, Paul commends celibacy in 1 Cor 7:1 but he deals with the issue of temptation (in the next verse, no less) by commending marriage. Yet we outright denial of this Biblical wisdom here in many, many comments on this very web page. It should be amazing...but isn't. This is inevitable for those who put their faith in their denomination, in its ceremonies (baptism, confessional/penance, "Eucharist" and Last Rites, relics, pilgrimages, coins, special "blessings" of homes, etc.). Not in loving the Lord as we know Him from Scripture and in trembling gratitude for His saving mercy toward us.
In Gal 5 Paul continues to speak about regular, marital sex as a preventative against "temptation." And in 1 Cor 9:5 he asserts the right to marry "...as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" Yet this is all defied by "the church" in its imposition of the traditions of men above the Word of God. And it reaps as it sows. Those who teach this will "be judged with greater strictness" per James 3:1. And those who cheer on this system? Their judgement will be less, but they will not be exempt. Sub-contracting out knowledge of God's Word to so-called "holy men" is a sure way to perdition.

John II| 3.17.11 @ 3:42PM

Yeah--right, Evvie. Sola scriptura, and a thousand different interpretations of each passage, and each dude is a denomination unto himself, every dude a lone spiritual island. Just me and the Bible and whatever I make out of it, and the rest of the world be damned, and the Pope sucks. Each of us is a lone cowhand from the Rio Grande. It's just Me and God: mano-a-mano on the road to my own castle in the sky.

Yeah--right.

That reminds me. I haven't watched "Shane" or "Hondo" or "Elmer Gantry" in months.

Evanston2| 3.18.11 @ 3:44PM

John II, your point is well-taken. I'm surprised you didn't mention a 'Catholic' favorite: 2 Pet 1:20 "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation."

So, by aligning yourself with Rome (and letting the Mr. Meehan's "holy men of the cloth" tell you what to think) have you escaped interpretation? Don't you have to interpret the latest papal enyclicals, public statements, positions of your bishops, priests, etc.?

You might rightly point out that these are not on major matters of "the faith." So please re-read my post and tell me, where did I follow a private interpretation on a major matter of "the faith." Or is the faith, as you practice it, Sola Magisterium. In simple terms, do what you're told.

Or is the problem that my interpretation is "private?" In your words, am I being "Hondo" when I say that the Bible instructs us on this matter, as it does in all things, in the most PUBLIC way conceivable? That Jesus shows us how to combat the devil when He is in the wilderness with Satan (how -- by knowing and obeying Scripture). Or in John 14:23-24 when He says “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and ymake our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me."

Are you saying that the word that Jesus was talking about in the Scripture was inadequate? Or that He failed to explain it well enough?
In John 6:68, Simon Peter says "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” I guess these words are insufficient for you.

Or that Paul, in 2 Tim 3:16-17, is wrong. He says "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." Evidently Paul should have said something like this: "After Peter dies, presumably in Rome, a few centuries later some guys will claim that because he died there that they have 'the keys.' You are to trust these men completely." It seems that James, Peter himself, John, the author of Hebrews, and Jesus forgot to mention this CENTRAL fact of your faith.

Or did Paul say instead, regarding the Bereans, that they were more noble because "...they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so."

Further, are you really telling me that there is uniformity of belief with Roman Catholicism with its many religious orders, "cafeteria Catholics" (Nancy Pelosi and the like), religious practices (do you "crucify yourself" like they do in the Philippines, etc)? Or is the uniformity only outward, and sacerdotal: that is, ceremonial and specifically focused on the Eucharist? Who's kidding whom here? I grew up in a nominally Roman Catholic family in a community dominated by such. My great uncle (my father's age) was a priest, my great aunt (still alive) is a nun. Is Roman Catholicism exempt from (using your words) the "lone cowhand" syndrome? No, rather, it has spawned countless ceremonies, blessings, relics, pilgrimages, saints, and most importantly beliefs that at times I wonder if Hinduism has more uniformity.

"The pope sucks?" No, but he's just another guy, but with a bad clothier. A Biblical faith is either in the Person and Works of Christ (Sola Fide) or it isn't. It is not just a sentiment, or a sub-contracting out of belief to others: it has specific content (that's why we are given the oracles of God) and He either knows us or not (as we repent of our very nature and turn to His work for redemption and sanctification). If you look for your righteousness on someone else's say-so (whether it's a man in robes or your "sainted" aunt, etc.), then that's not my problem.

The argument that I made directly above, establishing that celibacy of clergy contradicts Scripture, is distasteful to you. Fine. Rely on your traditions then. The Pharisees provide a perfect example of this.

Enjoy your movies.

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 10:16PM

So you don't approve of robes? What about Jesus' robes?

Frisbee| 3.17.11 @ 10:12PM

The Catholic Church recommends both celibacy and marriage, just like St Paul did. (1 Cor 7)

So yet again, the Catholic Church looks a lot like the NT Church. The Evangelical Church looks NOTHING like the NT Church, because evangelicals reject celibacy. It always amazes me just how Biblical the Catholic church is!!

Doctor Right| 3.18.11 @ 1:18PM

You've misread Paul, as E-2 just demonstrated.

It's either a willful misreading, or ignorance. Either way, you proved his point.

And ad hominem assertions, even those made with boldness, are meaningless if they're not backed-up by facts.

Your assertion isn't; neither are you.

Evanston2| 3.18.11 @ 4:04PM

"Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" 1 Cor 9:5. Evidently not part of Frisbee's NT. The other apostles, the brothers of Jesus (such as James), Peter, all married. "It always amazes me just how Biblical the Catholic church is!!" Amazing, indeed, how blind people can be to their own sin.

I don't pretend for a second I'm exempt from this. I'll gladly and gratefully obey the Lord on anything. Regarding celibacy, the exclusion of married men is not there. Consider that "the church" is in fact run by men who (a) are selected with this requirement to be "celibate" (although compliance seems a bit loose) and (b) share this reliance on tradition (after all, it was the source of their special qualification for the clergy). Is it surprising that we see so many inventions in other areas (purgatory, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, relics, 'veneration' of saints, candles, crossing yourself, holy water, pilgrimages, etc.)? Nope. Connecting these things may seem like a leap to Roman Catholics, but they take great pride in the Magisterium (see John II's comments to me about "Hondo" etc. above) until the bad fruit is impossible to ignore. How can you rely on these same men and this same religious system? Well, it's a "civic religion" and perhaps better than nothing. Apparently I'm "not a christian" (per W) for pointing this out. Well, here's actually the most un-Christian thing I can say: just carry on the way you're going.

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 10:21PM

Paul was asking the question. In the long term, the Church, the Body of Christ has answered the question, "no". You guys just hate the Incarnate Jesus in His Church. It galls you. Who hears them hears Him.

adult toys | 7.4.11 @ 1:16AM

The fact that Trump has come out against the Korea-U.S. trade deal and this week's pulling of a vote on a trade deal in the House by the leadership shows there a very fluid House GOP caucus against the kind of trade deals which benefit only corporate interests and infringe upon U.S. sovereignty

Creative Recreation | 8.11.11 @ 12:21AM

is good

More Articles by G. Tracy Mehan, III

More Articles From Another Perspective

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

June 19, 2013 | Wayne Woodman

Not Super, But Pretty Good

June 18, 2013 | Aaron Goldstein

Sober-Minded

June 10, 2013 | Bill Croke

We Used to Call Him Baghdad Jim

June 7, 2013 | Paul Kengor

Christie and a Little History

June 5, 2013 | Kevin Mooney

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/16/philadelphias-long-lent-gets-l

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|27 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|17 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|20 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|29 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|4 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|11 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|10 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.