How can a person still believe that this is God's true church

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Jesus Christ said "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." Mark 9:42. This was apparently important enough that it was recorded in Matthew and Luke as well.

I would think that sexual abuse is the highest form of offense against Jesus' "little ones". Clearly when the Cardinals of the church in America issue a statement indicating that they will seek to dismiss any "notorious" priest found guilty of "serial, predatory, sexual abuse of minors." Without endorsing a "zero-tolerance policy" -- in which no instance of molestation would be tolerated, they have clearly not read the Bible lately. According to the Saviors own words, this type of action is unacceptable, period, end of story.

What constitutes "serial, predatory, sexual abuse of minors." In order to be serial it has to be more than one, so apparently abusing one kid is okay? What about 2 or 3 or 4 or 5? Is that serial? My guess is that these guys will only be defrocked when the knowledge of their abuse is picked up on by the media.

These men cannot be getting this kind of direction from the almighty God. They are clearly making this decision out of self interest and self preservation. That's not how God works. These actions are incompatible with being a disciple of Christ. This cannot be God's true church.

If the Cardinals made this decision with the Pope's support, then he's equally in error

-- Joel Hinckley (hinckley.js@mellon.com), April 26, 2002

Answers

When you say that this cannot be God's true church, you've reached in invalid conclusion because you have are assuming that the Church refers only to a hierarchical structure of particular people. Thankfully it doesn't; the heart of the Church is a body of particular teachings that never change.

What you are pretty much concluding is that if bad people in the Church do enough bad things, the teachings of the Church will sudden change from truth to falsity.

Throw out the offenders, yeah, but what's this? Throw out 2000 years of doctrine and tradition? Forget about it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 26, 2002.


At the time of the Arian heresey, something like 2/3 of the Bishops had abandoned the true faith for heresy. But the Church held on, and has weathered the storm. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church.

-- Christina (introibo2000@yahoo.com), April 26, 2002.

What is with these morons? Can't they for ONCE let the Church leaders solve these problems by their methods? You people like Joe;l and others cannot seem to understand the Church and her way of life at all. Are you fools advocating that WE take over Christ and tell him how to run HIS CHURCH. It sure is a real fast road to hell for you all. LEAVE IT ALONE. I am tired of you all. We came here to learn and all you want to do is tear up OUR Church. This is the behavior of sickos. GOD HELP US ALL.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 26, 2002.

Dear Joel:
You're quoting from Mark's gospel; and you're right to bring that up. Jesus said that those who were actually guilty of bringing this scandal would be better off being cast into the sea, with a millstone tied to their necks.

But He didn't say, ''Forget about my Church. That's going to be her finish. I'll toss her, and I'll start a new one for John Hinckley's sake. One where he'll feel peachy-keen about the bishops.''
Where is your FAITH???

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 26, 2002.


Good point Eugene.

-- Kathy (nomail@sorry.com), April 26, 2002.


Joel raises a good point - one that troubles many Catholics. As Joan - and others - have patiently pointed out, Catholic doctrine is an evolving body that reflects cultural and social mores. How could it be otherwise? We are all imperfect men and women struggling to sustain the Church that Jesus left us. The Cardinals and Bishops have repeatedly stated, throughout this crisis, that lay opinion matters. Lay advisory boards are being set up in some parishes, meetings are being held for the faithful to express their concerns, their thoughts and their suggestions. Were it as simple as leaving it to a handful of ordained men, the problem would have been solved. Or, it may never have happened. But, in fact, we are in a moment of crisis. And our leaders, understanding that the Church is not just those who lead, but those who are led, turn to us for our prayers, our thoughts, and our faith. Thank you, Joel, for sharing your thoughts. I, too, share your concerns, and am grateful to pray and worship in communities that desire to move forward, with Christ's help, to a stronger Church. Stay focused! Sean

-- Sean (rougan@rcn.com), April 26, 2002.

Hi all:

Sean, you said:

"Catholic doctrine is an evolving body that reflects cultural and social mores. How could it be otherwise?"

I think that statement is absolutely incorrect. I think practices can change but 'doctrine' has not changed since the beginning of the Church! That's one of it's beauties. It has been perfected, or flowered, but it does not 'change.' Maybe someone with more knowledge could define the difference between doctrine and practice.

It is my understanding from the Cardinals statement that from hence forth the policy is zero tolerance, but that sins or crimes committed in the distant past would be subject to some discretion on the bishops part -- to be ironed out in the bishops meeting in June. (That really is not unreasonable)

I know emotions are running high! Mine too!

We want justice for the victims, but not at the expense of innocent people. We want 'scorched earth' policies, but it is probably best to proceed with 'surgical precision' -- which requires patience, a steady hand, and clear vision!

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 26, 2002.


Sean writes:

"As Joan - and others - have patiently pointed out, Catholic doctrine is an evolving body that reflects cultural and social mores. How could it be otherwise?

I would hardly categorize heterodoxy advocates like Joan as "patient." She slings insults at Catholic bishops and anyone who supports basic Catholic doctrine. She uses cut-and-paste tactics, and she is not interested in dialog if it involves her listening to a contrary point of view.

You, Sean, have made a ridiculous statement. Because of the sins of a few people during a "crisis", you conclude that doctrine will just "change" with society. Over 2000 years, doctrine has been elaborated on; but it has never been flipped upside-down. Truth is not a function of time or place. Joan would have us believe:

1) The miracles of Jesus were hyperbole.

2) Abortion is a virtue.

3) Jesus was sexist.

4) Jesus' teachings regarding sexuality are false.

5) Jesus was divine, no more than we are all divine.

6) Humanity had no original sin needing redemption by a savior.

Joan is part of a dying breed of moral relativists. This group in her generation hold indefensible opinions that couldn't pass the test of time. They certainly are unable to transmit their theology to the youth.

"Those who stand for nothing, will fall for anything."

Who would want to belong to a church whose fundamental truths changed based on polling believers? The Church may change way in which it presents Truth; but it cannot and does not change its doctrines to fit the times. How could it be otherwise?

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 26, 2002.


Hi Gail: Celibacy itself is a case in point. It is now an established tenet of Catholic doctrine, enshrined in our Catechism. But priests were not always required to be celibate - this doctrine emerged in response to property laws and hereditary rights. In furter support of my position - and in reference to the doctrinal rigidity we sometimes see in this e-community - I note our Holy Father's comment that the Catholic Catechism is meant to "encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which take into account various situations and cultures." Thus, we are a diverse Church with room for many views. How could it be otherwise? As Jesus told us two millenia ago: "In my father's house there are many rooms." Stay focused! Sean

-- Sean (rougan@rcn.com), April 26, 2002.

Hi Mateo: I suppose it's a matter of opinion whether someone is patient or not. I leave you to your view on that matter. I have not stated that I agree with Joan as to everything that she says, only that she has pointed out many times that Catholic doctrine has evolved and reflects current trends and ideals. For example, in the "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation," published under our Holy Father's imprimature, we are reminded that "the discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo made Christians aware that Genesis I is not a sacred lesson in science but a poem on Creation . . . an allegory, teaching us the lesson that sin is the root of all evil." It states further, "the past is dead . . . *We* do not expect Christ's second coming as happening tonight." Thus, are we a changed community from that of Christ's day, and that which followed him for much of the first millenium.

Now, do I expect the church will change in response to polls? No, I do not and I think this is a good thing. My point - and it was a fairly simply one, I thought - was that there is a place for lay opinion and that our Pastoral Fathers are rightfully encouraging such sharing. My hope is simply that, in the future, the priests who have abused their office and traumatized children, will be punished, according to the Pope's dictate that they are sinners, and that we will not see their like fouling our altars again.

Stay focused! Sean

-- Sean (rougan@rcn.com), April 26, 2002.



Dear Friends,
Sean has repeated a number of mistakes from other ''teachers''. He should re-examine these. But he does say this much which I find good:

. . In fact, we are in a moment of crisis. And our leaders, understanding that the Church is not just those who lead, but those who are led, turn to us for our prayers, our thoughts, and our faith.''

This is brilliant. Why haven't Joel, or Joan or others said this? Because it's obvious? Then why are they so busy denying it?

We are not ''led'' by the leaders of Christ's Church, Sean. We FOLLOW the bishops and the Pope. They are Pastors of the Christian flock. Nonetheless, you've hit on a key understanding. Let us follow, with faith. With prayer and acts of humility and self-sacrifice. If we truly PRAY for God's help, our leaders will be saved from committing sin. That evil which was seen before, of pederasty and pollution. And the sin, the evil-- of indifference and shameful neglect which certain shepherds aided and abetted by their cowardice and laxity.

We will pray they have become wiser now; when the flames are licking around their feet. Wiser and holier. Because the Church requires HOLY MEN. Not careers. Not time-servers in beautiful robes.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 26, 2002.


Hi Eugene: the "teachers" I quote are either Pope John Paul II or Pope Paul VI. Be careful of suggesting that their lessons for us are incorrect, lest Joan die laughing!

It would seem that followers require leaders, no? Thus, our Holy Father leads and we follow. That's easy.

Finally, you are right on when you state that we need holy men, not careerists. This is precisely why so many of us were discouraged and saddened by revelations that Cardinal Law had a) allowed pederasts (a tiny tiny minority of the hard-working priests in our diocese) to continue in service at risk to children and b) that he lied to us about his actions. Those are not the actions of a man whose life is devoted to Christ. Because he is no longer fit to lead - a matter both of public opinion and Vatican acknowledgement - he has been removed from our diocese. I pray that we our new leader - or holy man we follow, if you like - shall truly walk in Christ's footsteps.

Pax, Sean

-- Sean (rougan@rcn.com), April 26, 2002.


You are all so misguided.

Jesus did not make decisions by popular consent. Had he done so he would not have been crucified.

When Peter was told by the Lord in a vision to take the Gospel to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, he didn't put it to a vote.

Decisions in God's true church are revealed to leaders through some sort of spiritual interaction with God.

What I am saying is that the decision they have made to only dismiss serial predators, can in no way have come from "spiritual interaction with God." Rather, it must clearly have been derived from a sense of self-preservation and utter corruption.

Jesus did say "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." And anything short of a zero-tolerance policy amounts to implicit consent to the crime and protection of the criminal.

-- Joel Hinckley (hinckley.js@mellon.com), April 26, 2002.


Joel writes:

"And anything short of a zero-tolerance policy amounts to implicit consent to the crime and protection of the criminal."

Look Joel, it doesn't matter what the Church policy is. If a priest is accused of something criminal, he has the same rights as anyone else--he is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law (not the media). A priest deserves no more and no less protection than any other citizen. The priest deserves a fair trial that protects the rights of him and the accuser(s).

I personally don't care about the media's game in analyzing the proposed Church policy. Let's make sure that our criminal justice laws are properly enforced.

The Catholic Church, despite the media accusations, has no exception that brings it above the law. Abetting a crime is no more or less criminal for the Church than anyone else. There are professional privileges that are exempt of course. These include civil professions such as lawyers and psychiatrists--their "hiding" facts is not considered criminal. Ask OJ's lawyers!

My advise--pray for the victims of all child/sexual abuse. Pray for the guilty. Pray for the falsely accused, including the entire priesthood which has been stereotyped into universal "guilt" by association.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 26, 2002.


Joel and Sean

You both have totally blown yourselves out of the water along with Joan. TOO bad. You both have gottenn and continue to give bad advice. Thank GOD I can see the difference.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 26, 2002.



Fred says:

"You both have totally blown yourselves out of the water along with Joan. TOO bad."

Yes, but the water was polluted. :-)

-- Joan (godessss@mindspring.com), April 26, 2002.


You know, at first I was shocked at the non-zero-tolerance thing, but it only lasted a minute or so. Having to deal with the general public myself, I can tell you there are true nuts out there, and I'd hate to have someone lose their vocation because of one false accusation. Even the U.S. Constitution says someone can't be convicted of Treason but on the testimony of two witnesses.

If what the Cardinals were trying to say was that they would carefully consider each case unless there was overwhelming evidence which didn't require said consideration, they IMO are doing the right thing.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 26, 2002.


Joel said

[/B]"And anything short of a zero-tolerance policy amounts to implicit consent to the crime and protection of the criminal."[B]

And what about preying, that was once illegal, wasn't it ? No, there is no differents, only yours of being a slavery tour the law and assumption that all laws are perfect and right. If you there were a zero-tolerance, I can promise you this, there will be no priest left, otherwise, who are you going to believe, the priest or the child ?

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), April 26, 2002.


_

Holy cow !!!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 26, 2002.


Eugene,

You might be interested to know that "Tony" spelled backwards is "ynoT". Why not? Hmmm...

Also, if we look at your name:

Eugene

Spelled backwards...

Enegue

We all know that u is the greek letter "myu" ('M'). This renders your name:

Enegme

Play with the vowels a bit, and we've got...

Enigma

Eugene, you are an enigma! I wonder if Tony is following all of this...

Thank you,

Mateo

PS--David Hasselhoff is the AntiChrist.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 27, 2002.


It's nice to see how much sympothy you have tour people who can't spell, but anyways, here's my point.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,182152,00.html

Backlash at young pupils for inventing sex claims

Teacher goes from villain to hero as harassment tale proves false

Martin Kettle in Washington Tuesday March 21, 2000 The Guardian

A new issue is catching fire in American schools - a fear of pre- teenage girls who make false accusations of sexual harassment against teachers. The case which has made this the latest panic issue in the US is that of a sports teacher, Ronald Heller, 54, who nearly lost his job and his reputation when six children aged 11 and 12 accused him of touching them.

Five weeks ago, Mr Heller, described by colleagues as a disciplinarian of the old school who has taught sports and physical education for 32 years, was called to the principal's office in his school at Germantown in Maryland. He was told that the six girls and one boy, all aged 11 and 12, had named him in written accusations of sexual molestation.

The allegations said that Mr Heller had been seen several times in the girls' changing rooms, that he had hugged one girl in her underwear, had slapped another on her behind and had addressed another as a "hot sexy momma".

"I did not do this," Mr Heller told authorities at Roberto Clemente middle school. "This is a lie." But he was suspended immediately on full pay and given 15 minutes to leave the premises. No one from the school was allowed to talk to him, and he had to get police permission whenever he wanted to leave his home.

For nearly a month, Mr Heller lived under virtual house arrest, while his child accusers stuck to their stories in interviews with investigators. Finally, two weeks ago, the boy confessed that all the tales had been invented. The six girl accusers then recanted one by one.

This was the point at which Mr Heller's experience went from being just another sad local ordeal to become an American national phenomenon.

Last Tuesday, Mr Heller was fully exonerated and was reinstated in his job. He returned to an avalanche of flowers, cards, e-mails, letters and greetings from colleagues.

That was just the start. Within a couple of days, Mr Heller had become a national celebrity victim. Newspapers and TV stations from around the US began to cover the case - and Mr Heller got the ultimate accolade: being interviewed on NBC's Today breakfast programme by the most popular TV host in the US, Katie Couric.

At the same time Mr Heller has found himself at the centre of an outcry from teachers who fear that any physical contact, like a comforting arm around the shoulders, may become a career-threatening mistake. The Maryland state teachers' union says that not a day goes by without a false sexual accusation being made against one of its members.

The outpouring of sympathy for Mr Heller is matched by the public vindictiveness directed at his young accusers. Last week, the six girls were arrested by police and charged with making false statements. All the girls and the boy have been suspended from school.

Radio call-in shows in Maryland and elsewhere have taken dozens of calls from people calling for revenge against Mr Heller's accusers. The Germantown school's e-mail system has been flooded with attacks on the children involved.

"We're not going to put them in jail," said Douglas Gansler of the state prosecutor's office. "But we're going to seek some form of community service, perhaps having them work with sexual assault victims so they understand what it is they've accused this teacher of."

Asked what lessons he draws, Mr Heller's answer yesterday was sober. "Never be alone with a student. Always keep the door open if you're in an office. And try to have another student there with you, or an adult."

Witch, witch, where ? Here !!!



-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), April 27, 2002.


Personally, I am sick of the overly excited frenzy of the media to 'get another scandal in the public eye.' But I fear not, as our faith has endured 2000 years, and has the promise that nothing will destroy our Church.

I only say, in response to the faithful, where Sean, Joan, Joel and others are concerned:

Sanctus Maria, ore pro nobis.

-- Melissa (holy_rhodes@earthlink.net), April 27, 2002.


Dear Sean,
You say: ''Catholic doctrine is an evolving body that reflects cultural and social mores. How could it be otherwise? We are all imperfect men and women struggling to sustain the Church that Jesus left us. The Cardinals and Bishops have repeatedly stated, throughout this crisis, that lay opinion matters.''

AND--
''Thus, we are a diverse Church with room for many views. How could it be otherwise? As Jesus told us two millenia ago: "In my father's house there are many rooms." Stay focused!''

You can't support these statements with fact. -- Yes, they have taken pains to assure us that the laity has to be consulted. But OPINION is just that, opinion. It may or may not be worthless.

Our Holy Father is not bound to any opinions coming from the laity.

Secondly, Our Lord made absolutely no reference to any ''diversity'' within the Catholic faith regarding morals or doctrinal equivalences. Only His teaching coming down to us from the Holy Apostles is to be accepted as final.

His words in reference to the ''many mansions'' of His Father's house were strictly applicable only ONLY-- to a state of existence in heaven. It means we all are not given the same reward in our lives after death. I may be granted a humble mansion compared to yours in Glory.

The saints will dwell in closer proximity to Jesus, as their works and their faith in life deserve. Just as we learned in Revelations; every soul after this life will ''reap as he has sown''-- according to his works in life. That's what ''mansions'' tells us. Not a present option for our Catholic tenets and orthodox faith. --I tell you all this not of my authority. It's the teaching of the Catholic Church since the very beginning.

As for: ''Catholic doctrine is an evolving body that reflects cultural and social mores. How could it be otherwise?'' --Doctrine isn't a body. It isn't evolved from any human surce. God gave us our holy doctrine; we accept it on FAITH. How could it be otherwise ??? Don't fall for that gobbledy-gook. It is pure sophistry without logic, much less reality.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 27, 2002.


Hi Eugene,

You wrote:

" The saints will dwell in closer proximity to Jesus"

Though I know exactly what you are getting at here, I think I would re-word this if I could think of the appropriate words. I think you are refering to canonized saints here. In another definition of saint, "A person who has died and gone to heaven" (www.dictionary.com), we see that all those who die and arrive in heaven are saints by definition.

Please pray that I can be one of those! :-)

You're in my prayers,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 27, 2002.


To tell the truth, Mateo; my meaning of that term is: Ones better than I.

Naturally, the canonized saints are most deserving. I should have said ''Those that lived as saints on earth.'' We all hope to reach salvation, but we will not all merit a greater reward. I'll take what I can get, --Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 27, 2002.


[As for: ''Catholic doctrine is an evolving body that reflects cultural and social mores. How could it be otherwise?'' --Doctrine isn't a body. It isn't evolved from any human surce. God gave us our holy doctrine; we accept it on FAITH. How could it be otherwise ??? Don't fall for that gobbledy-gook. It is pure sophistry without logic, much less reality.]

God *did*give us our holy doctrine, but it is contained solely in the Bible. Catholic doctrine is definitely an evolving body. This doctrine doesn't just become "elaborated" upon, but changes the whole nature of belief. Many popes have added teachings that are contrary to Scripture. The "sinlessness" of Mary? Where is it in the Bible? How about her "assumption" or that she hears our prayers? "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5)

The current pope wants to make Mary Co-Redeemer, which is complete blasphemy! "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

The RCC possesses God's Word, but has polluted it into an evolutionary process by the "infallibility" of its leader. He even takes glory away from God by calling himself "Holy Father." Jesus said, "And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." (Matthew 23:9)

Yes, don't fall for the Romanist "gobbledy-gook." Find the real truth in the unchanging holy doctrine of the Bible!

-- Perry Conrad (perryconrad@yahoo.com), April 27, 2002.


I really dispise people like you Joel Hinckley .

you just...words cant describe...

-- Dominic (domngel@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002.


I see the pedophile apologists are out in full force again. How surprising...

-- Dennis Molson (dennismolson@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002.

Peter Conrad

You like many others keep forgetting the fact that the BIBLE you hold so dearly has been saved by the sacrifices of many Catholic Monasteries and others. It is Catholic Traditions and dedication that kept the BIBLE from disappearing altogether during some of the worst periods of human history.

Joan

You were blown out of the water for it was not polluted with filth but filled with the real truth of the Catholic Church and the support of the truth as give by the Holy Spirit. Your heretical sources did not blend in the water and was totally rejected as lies and pure baloney. The true GOD always has the truth in him. Thanks to the Holy Spirit.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 27, 2002.


Conrad:

Just so's you know, you can't have sophistry without logic. Sophistry has to do with plugging in false or bad premises into a proper syllogism.

Logic is the easy part; getting the right premises to plug into the syllogism is where most the work is involved.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 27, 2002.


Mr. Conrad:
It's not hard to see what your agenda is. You seek to establish parity for your sect with the Church of the Apostles. You haven't been able for 500 years. All you came to was self-ordinations by opportunists like Jim Bakker and Jim Swaggert and Oral Roberts--the list is endless. You claim you're ''saving'' souls-- as if men could save anybody. You claim all doctrine is biblical, and you misconstrue the scriptures every single day; believeing in stupidity.

The last thing you'll believe in is the written words of Jesus Christ. Only in protestantism, and particularly fundamentalist protestism, is Our Lord made a liar of by those he would redeem. They can't stand His Holy Church, so they erect a rival church. Perry; I exhort you just this once:
Return to the Church of your own blessed ancestors. The Holy Catholic Church!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 27, 2002.


Hello Perry,

God *did*give us our holy doctrine, but it is contained solely in the Bible. Catholic doctrine is definitely an evolving body. This doctrine doesn't just become "elaborated" upon, but changes the whole nature of belief. Many popes have added teachings that are contrary to Scripture.

Would be so kind as to quote a few from their encyclicals?

The "sinlessness" of Mary? Where is it in the Bible?

"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!" (Luke 1;28) "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God." (Luke 1;35)

Now, if Jesus (God) were to be born into this world, does it not make sense that the "vessel" through which he was born would have to be sinless, otherwise, He would be born into sin. If that were the case He would have no right saving us from OUR sins. Also, read about your founding fathers, Martin Luther and John Calvin, this was one of the things they actually believed to be true about Mary.

How about her "assumption"

How about it? She was the first person Christ chose to have assumed as the first "Christian." Also, what about Enoch and Elijah. "By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. (Hebrews 11:5) "...And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. And Elisha saw it and cried, "My father, my father! the chariots of Israel and its horsemen!" And he saw him no more." (2 Kings 11-12)

or that she hears our prayers? "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5)

Go a little bit before to 1 Timothy 2:1, "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men...

Ok, let's examine Paul's words one by one with a little help from dictionary.com

supplication- To ask for humbly or earnestly, as by praying. prayer- A reverent petition made to God intercession- Entreaty in favor of another, especially a prayer or petition to God in behalf of another. thanksgiving- An act of giving thanks; an expression of gratitude, especially to God

Ok, so we make reverent petitions, humbly in prayer to God in behalf of another, thereafter giving thanks.

This seems to be what Paul is asking, right? Now, if this is the case, and, as you see, intercession is included, then anyone could pray for us on our behalf. I ask for your prayers, you ask for mine, aren't we intercessing to God on the other's behalf? Now, someone dies who makes it heaven, we call them saints, do they fail to hear our prayers after they leave this life, are they cut out, as it were from the Mystical Body of Christ, when they pass from this life to the next?

The current pope wants to make Mary Co-Redeemer, which is complete blasphemy!

Blasphemy? What about if you? What is your role in the salvation of other souls? Are you not "working with Christ" for their salvation? Mary, rightly so, has the most resposibility, but that is also due to the fact that Christ came into the world through her.

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

The RCC possesses God's Word, but has polluted it into an evolutionary process by the "infallibility" of its leader.

I don't understand what you are trying to imply here.

He even takes glory away from God by calling himself "Holy Father." Jesus said, "And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." (Matthew 23:9)

This argument has been dealt with ad nauseum, type it in a search engine, and I am sure you will come up with more replies than you will know what to do with.

Yes, don't fall for the Romanist "gobbledy-gook." Find the real truth in the unchanging holy doctrine of the Bible!

God Bless, and may the Holy Spirit enlighten you to the true Church of Christ

-- Brian (sacerdos@hotpop.com), April 27, 2002.


Hi All, and Perry:

Perry, last year (as a protestant) I bought a bible with the Apocrypha in it, as I had always wanted to read it. I found it to be MOST beautiful and rich in teachings on holiness. I wanted to know why Protestants did not have it in their bibles. I found, much to my surprise (and by the way this fact was acknowledged by none other than Hank Hanengraf and Paul Meyer on the Bible Answer Man), that the Apocrypha and New Testament were canonized TOGETHER -- for the first time -- in the late 300's and early 400's by the councils of Hippo and Carthage. These councils were all CATHOLIC. They believed in purgatory, veneration of saints, the stainlessness of Mary, etc. etc. etc. Martin Luther had the Apocrypha TAKEN OUT during the reformation. He also wanted the books of Hebrews, Revelations, 2nd Peter and James. These books contain scriptures that infer that a Christian is required to produce ‘good works’ and he saw no need for THAT!

Tell me, where do you think the doctrine of the trinity comes from? Yes, I know, scripture -- but do you realize that Protestants rely on the expertise of Augustine, St. Jerome and many other CATHOLICS in formulating the doctrine of the trinity? The creeds – where do you think they come from? Same place – Catholic councils!!

As to Mary, haven't you read in the BIBLE where Mary was called, 'the Most Blessed of Women'? Haven't you read in your Bible how she PERFECTLY submitted herself to God's will. She was the perfect representative of a Christian disciple. NO OTHER SAINT in the whole Bible was called THE MOST BLESSED! No other saint in the Bible COMPLETELY submitted their will entirely to God from the get-go! How was she able to do this? According to the catechism SOLELY by the GRACE of God. She was created by God, for God, and kept holy by God, for the purpose of BEARING THE CHRIST-CHILD -- the GOD OF THE UNIVERSE.

According to the catechism she was NOT SINLESS by her own merits, BUT KEPT from sin for the sole and exclusive purpose of bearing God in her womb. So you see, you have misstated Catholic doctrine as most Protestants do, primarily, I'm sure because you have never even picked up a catechism and read it for yourself. You have believed what people have told you! The doctrine on Mary is all about CHRIST!

Jesus is the ONLY MEDIATOR with regard to our salvation -- that is ABSOLUTELY true! He and only He, shed His innocent blood for our sins. However, saints on earth as well as saints in heaven (the church) PRAY TOGETHER (mediate) with their brother, the Lord Jesus, before God Almighty. Because of the church's involvement with building the kingdom, and because Mary represents perfect Christian discipleship, she represents the church, and she (and the church) co-laborer with Christ in building his kingdom.

You, see the doctrine of Mary springs from, in part, the doctrine on the Communion of Saints, i.e., that the saints that go before us are active and living, ruling and reigning with Christ NOW, not at some later, spurious date, but NOW!

In 1 Cor 6, vs. 3, Paul says the saints will judge the angels. By the way, the word ‘judge’ in the Greek means to ‘rule.’ Matthew Chap 25, vs. 14-30, the Parable of the Talents, states that the reward for good stewardship is ‘rulership.’

Rev 3:21 states “He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with the My Father on His throne.”

Rev. 8: 1-4 states that the angels assist in offering up our prayers. “And another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a golden censer; and much incense was given to him, that he might add it to the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, went up before God out of the angel’s hand.”

Rev 5: 8 states that the saints offer up our prayers. “And when He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, having each one a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.”

Hebrews Chap 12, Vs. 1, “Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us . . .” You see, ‘surrounded,’ according to Strong’s is to ‘cumber about,’ literally to ‘enclose, encircle, hamper, to be hung or bound with,’

Hebrews Chap 12 vs. 22-23 “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, . . .”

You see, when we pray, it is not just God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit who hears us, but as the SCRIPTURE states, angels are present, the SPIRITS OF RIGHTEOUS MEN made perfect, the FIRST-BORN ENROLLED IN HEAVEN.”

Haven’t you ever asked a friend to pray for you? Why do you do that? Why don’t you just ask Jesus? Isn’t it because you know that the more people pray for you the better? Do you think the saints are just floating around up there in heaven plucking a harp? NO! They pray WITH US and FOR US, establishing HIS KINGDOM?

This doctrine of Communion of Saints has been hijacked by the devil in Protestant theology, which has lead to much MISUNDERSTANDING between Catholics and Protestants!

Love to All,

Gail

P.S. By the way, check out http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/contents.htm for quotes on all kinds of subjects by the church fathers.

And also check out http://www.ccel.org/fathers2 where you can LITERALLY find VOLUMES AND VOLUMES of letters and writings by such people as Augustine, Jerome, Ignatius, Tertullian and MUCH MUCH MORE!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), April 27, 2002.


There seems to be a lack of logic with some of the arguments against the Church. I have read opinions that, condensed, come down to, 'There are active sinners in the Catholic Church, therefore the Church is bad and should be abolished.' Why doesn't anyone use this same argument with Protestant churches, non-Christian churches, public schools, private schools, federal government, state government, local government, and so on?

My personal opinion is that anyone who abuses a child or young person should be taken out & horsewhipped, but that does not necessarily invalidate the institution.

A recent newspaper article about on-line porn said that 2 Catholic priests & 6 ministers had been arrested. They took a lot of flack for not saying which churchs the 6 were affilitated with. They were very likely Protestant, but I have not heard any outcry against Protestant churches. Recently there have been several public school teachers accused of viewing porn in the classroom and/or abusing students. No one has said the public schools should be abolished.

Of course, one could take all this as a compliment of sorts. Catholics are expected to act morally; Protestants and teachers are not.

-- Bonnie (stichart@plix.com), April 27, 2002.


Catholics make bigger claims about their faith, such as the claim of papal infallibility and that the Catholic Church is guarenteed to last until the second coming of Christ etc.. Remember, a greater gift, when it is betrayed, results in a greater fall. So if the Catholic claims are true, then sin is more destructive to society when it happens to a Catholic. But if the Catholic claims about their faith are not true, then they are arrogant liars or severely deceived.

So it is right to scrutinize the Catholic leaders more.

Peace

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 27, 2002.


Bonnie makes a good point about why Protestants are not taken to task the same why. I think they are, it's just that since the Protestant church is so divided there could not possibly be a 'scandal' of quite this magnitude as the Catholic church, simply due to its size. Remember when Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Baker got caught in their respective unholy positions -- the press went wild!

Plus, I think that what is so scandalous in the Catholic church is the 'cover-up'. It's not that it has happened (which is is aweful enough) that's really no surprise -- it's the institutional cover-up by a few men in the hierarchy. That is what is so outrageous.

Should it ever be revealed that, say, the Southern Baptists, (who, like Catholics, are also known for their piety) should ever be found to have covered up something like this, I GUARANTY the press would be after them TOO!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), April 27, 2002.


Bonnie,

Where is it written that Protestants and teachers are not expected to act morally?

BTW, I, as a protestant was brought up with moral values taught to me by the Church and at home. My two Protestant children are being brought up with morals taught to them by their Church as well as at home.

Bonnie, just as Catholics don't like it when people categorize "some" bad catholics with "all", niether do we Protestants.

One more thing I'd like to mention; At last sunday's Service, my Pastor talked about the current crisis going on with the Catholic Church, he talked about it with great sympathy for the victims and the "good priests". He discussed how unfortunate it is that the "whole" Church is being bashed because of the crisis that "some" priests" brought upon it. He (the Pastor) lead us into prayer, for the healing of the Catholic Church, it's parishoner's, the many good priest, the victims and their families.

He (the Pastor) ended the service reminding all of us, to keep our Catholic friends in our minds and heart when we pray.

This is not the first time we have gathered together as a congregation for the Catholic Church. We the Congregational Church also work with the Catholic Church at Christmas time for the unfortunate.

God Bless,

-- Kathy (nomail@sorry.com), April 27, 2002.


What I should have said was "This is not the first time we have gathered together as a congregation with/for the Catholic Church."

Hope there is no confusion.

-- Kathy (nomail@sorry.com), April 27, 2002.


Kathy -

If you'll look at what I wrote, I didn't say what you said I said. In my opinion and judging the reaction of the press, it LOOKS AS IF people expect more from Catholics than from anyone else. EVERYONE should act in a moral manner. Like I said, there's a lack of logic here.

-- Bonnie (stichart@plix.com), April 27, 2002.


Kathy,

You wrote:

"Where is it written that Protestants and teachers are not expected to act morally?"

Bonnie wrote this above:

"A recent newspaper article about on-line porn said that 2 Catholic priests & 6 ministers had been arrested."

Kathy, I don't think she meant to say that Protestants don't demand a high moral standard of themselves. I don't doubt your integrety, and I don't think Bonnie does either.

My understanding of her point is this: the Catholic priests were singled out by the author of the article. The glossing over of the other 6 accused pastors is an implicit proof of their being held to a lower level of accountability. Their guilt or innocence doesn't seem to concern the author as much as the two priests. Does that make more sense?

I'm glad to know that your Church's members are praying for the Church. Every sincere prayer is valuable to me. You and your fellow parishioners are in my prayers, too.

Thank you Kathy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 27, 2002.


Gail,

I think you are right on the money with your last post.

God Bless,

-- Kathy (nomail@sorry.com), April 27, 2002.


Bonnie,

Maybe I was reacting a little defensive. But, it sounds like you are saying that only Catholics are moral people, therefore are expected to act as such, whereas Protestants are not, and therefore are not expected to act as such.

Mike,

I agree with you also in your last post.

-- Kathy (nomail@sorry.com), April 27, 2002.


Hi Mateo,

I do understand what Bonnie is saying, But would it make that much of a difference had the article said "2 Priests and 6 ministers, thereby excluding catholic? Wouldn't the 2 priests be assumed to be catholic as the 6 ministers are assumed to be protestant by the readers?

Mateo, as always, thanks for taking the time to reexplain some of these things. I hope I don't appear to be a few short upstairs!! Like all of you I am so tired of this whole "scandal" thing. It consumes the news and the media, and it is just about thrown in our faces every where we look. I've had enough. I'd like to see something positive consume the front pages for once!

God Bless,

-- Kathy (nomail@sorry.com), April 27, 2002.


I just had one more observation to make about all this. Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed that grew up out of the ground into a large tree so that the birds of the air come and nestle in its branches.

Well, the Catholic church is like the trunk of the tree, and the Protestant churches are like the branches. See, you have the Catholic church for 1,500 years, then the Reformation which resulted in 'the branches.' Now, if Satan is going to strike, don't you think he would go for the trunk? Well, yes, but he might also want to chip away at some of those long branches as well so he can see his way clear to get to the trunk!

Now, we see that Satan has been chipping away at the branches for quite some time, dividing Christians into thousands of denominations, watering down doctrines so that some Protestant churches don't even believe in the virgin birth anymore, or that Christ really rose from the dead. Conversely, he has infiltrated the Catholic church with unbelievers and perverse people masquerading as angels of light!

What a diabolical plan! There's only one problem -- it won't work!! The gates of hell shall not prevail against her!

I think it's time that we Christians, all of us who love Jesus, need to quit squabbling amongst ourselves and lock our hands and hearts together and do away with this fellow called the devil! What say ye brothers and sisters in the Lord?

Love you all

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 27, 2002.


Gail,

You wrote:

"it's the institutional cover-up by a few men in the hierarchy. That is what is so outrageous."

Despite the torches and pitch-forks that the media carry, shouldn't we remember that people are innocent until proven guilty in the US? Anyone who abets a crime can be criminally liable. The lawyers aren't looking for criminal prosecution, they are going after money.

I don't think that we should jump to any conclusions regarding the extent to which the church acted criminally. We don't know the intent of those church officials accused--they themselves have repeated that they followed the recommendations of psychologists who believed that sexual abusers could be "cured." Our opinion today that cure is nearly impossible was simply not what pschologists in the eighties believed.

If there are a few men in the hierarchy who were willfully covering up sexual abusers, what would their motives be? Would they want to keep an abusive priest to keep up the priest population? Why would they do that if they "knew" that the priest would abuse more children? This defies logic.

My diocese, like many others, has had a strict policy for dealing with sexual abuse. This includes:

1) It is proactive in recruiting priests and lay who are a minimal threat to children (there are no guarantees). The seminarians are subject to pschological tests. Anyone who wishes to work with children (CCD teachers, for example) must take a special class that outlines the dioceses policies regarding sexual abuse.

2) It is proactive in dealing with accusations of abuse.

3) It is punative in dealing with convicted abusers. The priests can be defrocked. This should be in addition to (not in place of) the civil authority's responsibility for criminal punishment to those guilty of breaking the law. People should stop imagining that priests and other church officials have some secret status that nullifies criminal justice--they don't.

Pray for all the victims of abuse, and pray for those men and women who are falsely accused of abuse.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 27, 2002.


Hi Kathy,

You wrote:

"But would it make that much of a difference had the article said "2 Priests and 6 ministers, thereby excluding catholic? Wouldn't the 2 priests be assumed to be catholic as the 6 ministers are assumed to be protestant by the readers?"

I see what your point is. It's easier for me to speak in generalities--newspapers and their writers often arrange ideas in a way to attempt to insure their readers arrive at the same conclusion as they have. My belief is that this should be left to the op/ed section of the paper, though I don't have any fantasy that "perfect" objectivity will every be achieved by any author--there are simply degrees of subjectivity.

My own points are subjective; but I like to include the main points that refute my position so that the reader knows that I have at least considered both sides.

The best way to expose oneself to subjective reporting is to delve into a contested topic in which one doesn't hold any loyalty. I have brought up foreign media as a particularly interesting way to identify subjective reporting.

Maybe it's just my personality to enjoy playing the devil's advocate for both sides of any argument. I do it in challenging my Christian faith, so I feel no guilt when I challenge my detractors.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 27, 2002.


Hi Mateo:

Yes, I do understand your point that a person is innocent until proven guilty, but I do think that at least the case in Boston really defies an explanation. Cardinal law knew without a doubt that Shaney was a proponent of man/boy love, beastiality, etc. He also had to have known that Shaney was making threats to the Cardinal before him. It was literally 'decades' of abuse by Shaney and Geoghan that spanned the jurisdiction of Law and his predecessor. Law even sent these two to other unsuspecting dioceses, without warning them! How mad do you think they are?

Okay, so at the worst Law is guilty of covering up, actually aiding and abetting Shaney and Geoghan. At best, he was giving the benefit of the doubt out of an abundance of ignorance. Either way, he was derelict in his duty to shepherd the flock and protect it from wolves!

As you well know, I'm sure, there are other bishops in the church that seem to have consciences that have been 'seared with a hot iron'. When you have a bishop of the Church that thinks it's possibly excusable if "the priest was drunk and had sex with, say, a 16 or 17 year old girl," there's a problem with the conscience!

But, look, Jesus himself said there would be false teachers and false prophets among us, so it shouldn't come as a surprise, right? He also said we would know them by their fruit. Well, look at the fruit! He also said that if a branch doesn't bear fruit, it would be cut off and cast into the fire!

The bishops that are now meeting with the Vatican HAVE GOT to start pruning these branches themselves OR the Lord WILL do it, I'm afraid, through our ever-so-hateful media.

Love to All,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 27, 2002.


Hi Mateo:

You asked 'What could the motive be?' Actually, I have thought about that alot and blackmail seems to be the one explanation, especially since there are hints of that in documents just released. Either that, or the guy just didn't give a rat's reareand about the children being harmed by these guys. Either is DEPLORABLE!

I appreciate your playing devil's advocate (what a horrible pun), and I like to do that to, but you know 'When it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, chances are -- It's a duck.'

Sorry if I offended anyone, that's just the way I see it. I still love the Church, I still love Jesus, I still believe the gates of hell will not prevail!

Love to All,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 27, 2002.


Gail,

I pray that justice prevails. If there is conspiracy to abet a criminal, if there is blackmail, and if a priest or church employee commits a crime of sexual abuse, I hope that criminal justice gets these twisted people.

I also pray that God spares us from the proverbial ambulance-chasing lawyers who have successfully sued the medical profession (among others), for the financial benefit of themselves (certainly more than the victims).

I have personal experience with attempting to sue others in civil court. Though my lawyer is an honest man, I found out quickly who the primary financial beneficiary of lawsuits typically is--it's not the plaintiff.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 27, 2002.


Hi Mateo:

I agree, and I join you in your prayers -- Amen! So be it!

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 27, 2002.


Mateo,

You mean, you're lawyer fees, were over 50 percent, of any monies awarded, and than collected?

These cases are usually done on a percentage. That means no money collected, than no fees owed. I would think, that, most of these people could not afford a lawyer, if they had to pay cash out of their pocket!

David

PS; Ask Fred or Orin. They both do some reading!

-- David (David@excite.com), April 27, 2002.


The lawyers are looking at this scandal with $$ signs in their eyes!!!

Mateo.....you make a good advocate.

I agree with you and Gail, I join both of you in your prayers.

God Bless,

-- Kathy (nomail@sorry.com), April 27, 2002.


Hi David!

You write:

"You mean, you're lawyer fees, were over 50 percent, of any monies awarded, and than collected?"

Yes, lawyers have been known to collect more than 50 percent. Even if it were less, let's look at a more reasonable situation. A lawyer takes a class action suit of ten people against a group. The lawyer either gets a settlement or a judgement and wins $10,000,000. The lawyer might take $3,000,000 and let the plaintiffs split the money evenly. In this situation, the lawyer gets more than 4 times the amount that any claimant gets. These are all imaginary numbers, but I think the point is easy enough to see.

David writes:

"These cases are usually done on a percentage. That means no money collected, than no fees owed. I would think, that, most of these people could not afford a lawyer, if they had to pay cash out of their pocket!"

In my case, the lawyers required payment before hand. Lawyers don't usually sue without a financial benefit. If the lawyers are not paid up-front on some kind of retainer (for court costs and legal fees for their time), they will demand a portion of the award. The size of the portion increases based on the perceived odds of winning. They are "betting" on both the validity of the claim and the ability of the defendent to pay if and when the ruling is made.

Based on the last point, I am quite sure that some lawyers smell money and want to squeeze it out of the Church if possible.

Thinking about this right now, I guess this is why I believe that criminal law is so important. Criminal prosecution does not rely on the financial resources of the plaintiff/victim. It is a responsibility of the appropriate government to investigate and prosecute people because of their criminal behavior. I guess that may be the reason why I am such an advocate of pursuing justice through criminal law enforcement, not civil action.

On a bit of a tangent, ny personal experiences lead me to believe that the field of law includes a number of honest, intelligent people. That said, there is something fundamentally wrong with the justice system. I think the "wheels of justice" need a bit of calibration to make our system work better. Sadly, I don't have the faintest idea of how we should "fix" our damaged justice system.

In Christ,

Mateo.

PS--Thanks Kathy for the kind words!

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 27, 2002.


David -- that's enough. You have been warned.

-- Enough (thatsit@enough.com), April 27, 2002.

Hello, Mateo.

"Criminal prosecution does not rely on the finacial resources of the plantiff/victim."

You're correct,about the prosecution part(sometimes). But, the verdict, could rely on a dollar bill(sometimes)in the criminal trial! Like, for instance, Mateo, who would you rather have for your criminal attorney, F lee Bailey, like, OJ,(one of his million dollar, dream team) or would you feel more comfortable with a free(no money) public defender?[I used that example because Fred, used them before].

You're incorrect in the civil part, Mateo, in my opinion, because, in the civil case, the person with less money, still could get a great lawyer, if they had a legitamate worthwile case!

A good lawyer is NOT going to waste their time on a case, that will not bear any good fruit! So, by the lawyer taking the case they are sacrificing all their time, with no money, unless they win, and can collect.

I think that SOME civil lawyers are decent people! They take some cases with no money down, and they pay for all expenses. But the first priority, is, how will the judgement be paid, if we get one! That is all done before trial with interogotories(spelling).

What I am trying to say, Mateo, is that someone has a better chance in civil court, without any money!(The reason you liked criminal court better), but do you think you get get Johnie Cochran on a promise, if he wins?

If you have a 200,000 case, with no money, a lawyer is not going to let you walk out of their office, because you don't have a two or three thousand dollar retainer fee! But, if you have a check for 200,000 dollars, you can have a dream team lawyer, no matter how guilty you are!

-- David (David@excite.com), April 27, 2002.


"....., just as Catholics don't like it when people caterorgize" some" bad Catholics with "all", neither, do we Protestants".

a few posts later, " The Lawyers are looking at this scandal with $$ in their eyes"!!!!

You should tell you're Mom's husband about forum! :-) Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

-- David (David@excite.com), April 27, 2002.


Yes David, you are right.

I'll rephrase that; Some lawyers........

They both know about this forum, but, both work and are too busy.

-- Kathy (nomail@sorry.com), April 27, 2002.


Mateo -

Thanks for making my point clearer to the ones who didn't get it. That seems to be a problem with these on-line forums; even if you make your point in words of one syllable, some one is bound to misunderstand!

-- Bonnie (stichart@plix.com), April 27, 2002.


Hi, folks.

Someone (Kathy?) referred to an article that spoke of "2 Catholic priests and 6 ministers ...," and this caused an objection from someone else because of the use of the word "Catholic."
Then the first person wrote: "But would it make that much of a difference had the article said '2 Priests and 6 ministers,' thereby excluding catholic? Wouldn't the 2 priests be assumed to be catholic as the 6 ministers are assumed to be protestant by the readers?"

Exactly right -- which is why a news source that is unbiased and not sensationalistic would have used restraint, referring simply to "eight members of the clergy." Then they would not be picking on priests, ministers, imams, or rabbis -- or any of their religions/denominations.

I would like to join with the person who advised against our using the word "cover-up" in reference to certain bishops. This term implies an extremely dishonest tactic by which someone tries falsely to deny an actual crime, without there being any punishment and without there being any help and compensation offered to the victim. Clearly, the term "cover-up" does not then apply here, because the prelates involved did not falsely deny the crimes, but rather did try to help the victims with counseling and cash settlements. They may also have privately and severely punished the guilty parties, and I hope that they did. (Reassignment does not preclude punishment having been inflicted.)

I am ready to give the benefit of the doubt to the bishops unless and until uncontrovertible facts prove my position to be improper.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 28, 2002.


Hi David,

You wrote:

"What I am trying to say, Mateo, is that someone has a better chance in civil court, without any money!"

I don't believe this to be true in a majority of cases. It's a terrible fact that, as you agreed, justice is only acted upon if the lawyers think that there's enough money to be made out of the suit. Here we have justice playing second fiddle to capitalism and a profit motive. This subjugation is what I find problematic.

In criminal law, the justice sees the unlawful action as an offense against the whole society, not just the victim. In my eyes, this is an important principle. I don't say all of this to infer that there is no place for civil suits. I just believe that, in principle, crimes against individuals are offenses against society and should, therefore, be prosecuted by the government that is charged with maintaining justice for its citizens.

In Christ,

Mateo

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


Mateo,

I hear what you are saying, and you are entitled to your opinion! I hope you have many, many years, of a blessed and holy marriage. God bless you Mateo.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), April 28, 2002.


Hi John,

You have a good point; "eight members of the clergy".

-- Kathy (nomail@sorry.com), April 28, 2002.


Hi David,

Thanks! My fiancee and I are really looking forward to being married!

God bless you,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 29, 2002.


I believe that any priest who is stupid enough to believe that he can sexually harass someone, is seriously wrong. If you truely believe in God and the truth he brings, you would not have to have the problem of being tempted by an awful like the devil

-- roy dave rogers (rroger@inwave.com/booger), March 11, 2004.

Did Jesus believe in God and the truth He brings? Jesus Himself was repeatedly tempted by the devil. Should we expect less?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 12, 2004.

-removing ignorance from the equation, is there a middle ground between faith and lack of faith -I think not...

faith is action and word as well as thought...

-being tempted and giving in to temptation are two different things...

faithful believers can and will be tempted...

however, regarding the faith issue -IF one truly believes in God, Hell etc. they are either disobedient and hell bent AND faithful or they are really unfaithful disbelievers...

-my opinion...

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 12, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ