Folks,

This is a very important article in the Weekly Standard on the current scandal. It describes the culture of homosexuality in the Roman Catholic Church. If the church had acted against homosexual seminaries and clergy, it wouldn't be facing the current problem.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/344fsdzu.asp

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), June 11, 2002

Answers

Mr Jackson

Since when did you become an expert in human affairs and Catholicity? You are totally ignorant to what transpired in that time when these things were unfolding 35-40 years ago. The Church felt that the inclusion of Gay priests at the time was not a real issue based on the knowledge that they were given by secular sources and the like. AS time evolved they were told that they molestation situation could be controlled by medical treatment only to find out it was never really true as the secular sources were not really fully knowledgeable as they assumed themselves to be.

So I would try to be more knowledgeable to the real truths of why things happened as they did than to read some half drunk editorial by a person who was never there when all of these things happened. It is a pity that your prejudiced attitute and lack of real knowledge is guiding you to your own error of judgement insrtead of the truth that I am Graced with from GOSo if you cannot make a fair judgement then I would suggest that you keep to yourself. God would also appreaciate that too.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 12, 2002.

YYYY was just joan, just like she's john mcdowell and the rest of the anons. Funny, even ol' what's his name has gotten bored with spewing his junk, but joan keeps plugging along with the temerity of a demon.

Moderator

-- moderator ("Catholic_moderator@hotmail.com"), June 12, 2002.

Mr. Bishop,

You claim that the church simply made a mistake my listening to secular psychiatry. However, that is no excuse for allowing the creation of a homosexual subculture in the church.

Second, the defense that the church thought that pedophilic priests could be cured and was therefore acting in good faith isn't tenable in light of everything that has come out. THere are many examples of priests who were pronounced cured, and then continued to offend. They weren't defrocked. Many were shuffled to other parishes or dioceses. How do you explain the lack of sympathy for victims, the attempt to keep settlements secret, and the shuffling of priests to different dioceses, often without telling the new diocoses of the priests' record. Obviously there was an attempt to 'cover up' the wrondoing, even if meant more children would be molested.

Finally, even if pedophelia can be cured, I doubt the church was told that the 'cure rate' was 100%. The bishops knew that some priests would appear cured but continue to molest. So they decided to take a chance rather than protect children.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), June 13, 2002.

Steve

Here you go again making pure assumptions. The bishops were assured that the phychiatric people knew what they were saying and trusted their word on this and they fail to produce the fruit the bishops were assured would happen. The gay priests made a vow of chastity and broke that themselves not the bishops. That is a human condition which is common throughout ALL of secular society including you and I. So stop singling out the Church as if it is the only one at fault. If you have no sin you can throw stones and you are. But you are definitely not sinless anymore than I and the priests who have failed.

We ALL have some faults in our basket and some are worst than others. So my suggestion to you is to stop finding fault and look for cures as we are presently doing with the help of GOD and his flock of bishops. We are currently cleaning house and looking for ways to prevent these things from happening. It is NOT strictly a gay issue but actually a human issue and it is rampant throughout all of society as well. I would advise you to start looking in your own yard for a change. You are pointing fingers and it is improper to do so.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 13, 2002.

Steve:
Thanks for the URL. Your comment:

''If the church had acted against homosexual seminaries and clergy, it wouldn't be facing the current problem.''

--is apropos. At this juncture, you've told us nothing we didn't know already. Was there a good reason for you to tell us old news? There's no ''wound'' in this forum really, for you to rub salt in.

All of us feel very badly about the awful truths coming out. Nevertheless, we keep faith in the Church. You have no faith in her; all you seem to think is, ''Serves them right''. In the words of Jesus Christ: ''Scandals must needs come. But woe unto them by whom scandals will come.''

Do you have a problem with that? Jesus prophesied coming events of great EVIL.

If a prophet uses terms like ''WOE unto them'', it prepares us for the worst. If the Son of God says them to those who were His own followers (He wasn't telling them about Nero or Hitler,) I imagine it would chill us all to the bone.

And the fulfillment of these prophesies is only half-seen. The penalties coming to those ''by whom scandals have come'' will be sorrowful, and for some, eternal. --But magazine articles won't be reporting them.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 13, 2002.

I have to remind forum regulars -- and inform forum newcomers -- that Steve Jackson is from an extremist wing of Lutheranism (wherein many consider the pope to be antichrist and others believe that their "tradition" is infallible).

Worse than that, Steve has been coming here for at least a couple of years, posting perhaps 50 times -- always for only one reason: To make our Catholic Church look bad. He will bring up anything genuinely scandalous and anything that he perceives as scandalous, especially any Catholic effort at cooperation, dialogue, etc., with any entity that Steve considers "liberal." (For example, if the pope receives a Mormon leader at the Vatican, Steve is there to condemn him.)

In my opinion, Steve should be banned from the forum, because he is an "attack dog," not really observing the Moderator's rules for non-Catholic visitor.

I am not going to ignore that genuinely evil things (abuse/ephebophilia) done by Catholic clergy. However, neither am I going to lie (or at least exaggerate) about the situation as Steve did. He wrote: "How do you explain the lack of sympathy for victims, the attempt to keep settlements secret ..."

On the first point: Steve is in no position at all to be aware of how much sympathy (shown privately by bishops, etc.) there has been for victims. When he says that there is a "lack of sympathy," that is pure fiction.
On the second point: Settlements are supposed to be kept secret, by agreement between the parties. In very many cases, those abused have sought out confidential settlements, because they wanted to remain anonymous and sometimes because they did not want to hurt the Church as a whole by going public. It is ludicrous for Steve to thrash the Church for abiding by a legal agreement (maintaining confidentiality).

Steve, I don't understand why you keep coming back here. You can't get away with your evil tactics. By coming back, you show yourself to be some kind of masochist or mental midget.

John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 13, 2002.

John

Thanks very much for saying this statement below. You hit the NAIL directly on it's head. Why is it the people in Boston ignorant to all of this? Stupidity or greed?

On the first point: Steve is in no position at all to be aware of how much sympathy (shown privately by bishops, etc.) there has been for victims. When he says that there is a "lack of sympathy," that is pure fiction. On the second point: Settlements are supposed to be kept secret, by agreement between the parties. In very many cases, those abused have sought out confidential settlements, because they wanted to remain anonymous and sometimes because they did not want to hurt the Church as a whole by going public. It is ludicrous for Steve to thrash the Church for abiding by a legal agreement (maintaining confidentiality).

Blessings

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 13, 2002.

I have been accused of misrepresenting what happened in the scandal.

Please read this statement by the top bishop in the US, Wilton Gregory:

http://www.usccb.org/bishops/presidentialaddress.htm

Note what he says:

"Moreover, our God-given duty as shepherds of the Lord's people holds us responsible and accountable to God and to the Church for the spiritual and moral health of all of God's children, especially those who are weak and most vulnerable. It is we who need to confess; and so we do.

"We are the ones, whether through ignorance or lack of vigilance, or – God forbid – with knowledge, who allowed priest abusers to remain in ministry and reassigned them to communities where they continued to abuse."

"We are the ones who chose not to report the criminal actions of priests to the authorities, because the law did not require this."

"We are the ones who worried more about the possibility of scandal than in bringing about the kind of openness that helps prevent abuse."

"And we are the ones who, at times, responded to victims and their families as adversaries and not as suffering members of the Church."

So, he admits that the bishops did not show concern to victims, that the bishops covered these things up, that they permited abuse to continue.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), June 13, 2002.

I find it hard to believe that all homosexual priests abuse children.

What is going to happen now to homosexual priests, priests who have devoted their lives to the church, are good priests, kind and compassionate and love thier vocation? Are they going to be removed.

For instance, Fr. Mycal Judge, the Firefighter's Chaplain, who died at the WTC was gay. He was the kindest, most loving, giving priest and everyone loved him. There were so many people at his funeral mass, they had to open the doors so people could stand outside the church....There was never a bad word about this man.

He lived to help and serve others - the poor, the hungry, those with AIDS, immigrants, gays, the sick. He lived the way Jesus would if He were here. I don't think Fr. Mycal would hurt anyone, especially not a child. This man was loved by the highest to the lowest.

I understand he did have a problem with the Hierarchy, but I don't know if that had anything to do with his being gay or because he broke the rules many times.

Maybe that is why God took Fr. Mycal home that day. This scandal would have killed him, and to think all gay priests are being blamed would have hurt him more. The Church, and this world was a better place when Fr. Mycal was in it and we need more kind, honest, caring, people like Mycal Judge in our church. He cared. He loved the same way Jesus would. Fr. Mycal sat with the sinners and loved them all. May God rest his soul.

I don't think it is fair to point the finger at all gay priests. After all, married men abuse children, and girls were abused too..so it cannot be just homosexuals who are to blame. Marylu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 13, 2002.

MaryLu,

Who ever said or implied that all homosexuals abuse children?

The point is that homosexuality (both the acts and the orientation) is inherently sinful.

Read Romans 1 if you want to learn about how vile homosexuality is.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), June 13, 2002.

Steve-- The sin is vile, or the activity. But any man can choose to be a holy man. Just like Saint Augustine, who became a doctor of the Church. He started out as a sinner; keeping a concubine with whom he had an illegitimate son.

Yet, by God's garce he repented and turned away from his sin. You should weigh your words more carefully. No one soul is ''vile'' to a Christian. All are called to salvation, and some arrive earlier than others. Just give them a chance.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 13, 2002.

Steve quotes a bishop saying:

"And we are the ones who, at times, responded to victims and their families as adversaries and not as suffering members of the Church."

Steve concludes:

"So, he admits that the bishops did not show concern to victims, that the bishops covered these things up, that they permited abuse to continue."

You are incorrectly speaking in absolutes. The bishops have shown compassion. Unfortunately, at times, they did not show compassion towards victims.

It seems that John G. was correct in identifying your propensity to mislead and distort facts on the forum. You should try not to use deception as a tool.

Steve writes:

"Read Romans 1 if you want to learn about how vile homosexuality is."

Now, John G. says that you are Lutheran. If this is true, what is the Lutheran's stance on homosexual relationships? As I understand, part of Lutheranism may already be accepting of ministers who maintain active homosexual relationships. Is this true for any of the various Lutheran churches?

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 13, 2002.

Steve,

There has been much discussion on tv talk shows recently about the homosexual subculture in the church and how that is the problem.

I know what the Bible says about homosexuality. I don't understand it though. If one is 'born' a homosexual, how can it be a sin to be homosexual if one has no choice in it? The sexual 'behavior' of a homosexual is sinful, just like sex outside of marriage is sinful for a hetrosexual person.

I cannot argue with God's word, but I am wondering about interpretation here.

No matter what one's sexual orientation, 'fidelity' is the issue. If both hetrosexual priests and homosexual priests practiced fidelity, the church would not be dealing with the current scandal.

MaryLu

I guess this is an argument that can go on and on and we can run around in circles never getting anywhere. The old argument are gay people born that way?

I cannot argue with God's Word.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 13, 2002.

Matteo,

I never denied that the church has at times showed commpassion to victims. At times they didn't, as the bishop states.

As far as Lutheranism goes, true Lutheran churches follow the teaching of the Bible and Marting luther -- homosexuality is a sin and cannot be condoned. This is the position of the two largest Confessional Lutheran Churches in the US -- the Missouri Synod and the Wisconisn Synod.

It's true that some allegedly "Lutheran" chuches approve of homosexuality (either de facto or de jure). One such church is the apostate Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. The ELCA is a member of the World Lutheran Federation which consists of largely apostate churches. As you may recall, he Roman Catholic Church signed the "Decree on Justification" with the WLF. I wouldn't give the WLF the time of day because of its apostacy.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), June 14, 2002.

Steve

You are a member of Lutheranism which is well known for their predjudiced behaviors and you are exhibiting that fact quite well. I would suggest that you sit back and look deeper into you own soul and see what we all see here and then, only then you will see GOD.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 14, 2002.

MaryLu,

I am a little confused on your last post. The Church does not condemn a homosexual, only the homosexual act. Steve Jackson may have other beliefs. Secondly, it has never been scientifically proven that homosexuals are born that way. Also, there have been homosexuals that have been treated and become happily practicing heterosexuals.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), June 14, 2002.

Glenn

MaryLu did NOT condemn homosexuals at all. She merely stated it is the acts of homosexuality that is wrong not the person. Chastity is to be practiced as a resort to avoid sin.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 14, 2002.

Fred, Here is her statement that confused me. I know what the Bible says about homosexuality. I don't understand it though. If one is 'born' a homosexual, how can it be a sin to be homosexual if one has no choice in it? It appeared to me that she is thinking that the Church condemns the homosexual. However, her next sentence: The sexual 'behavior' of a homosexual is sinful, just like sex outside of marriage is sinful for a hetrosexual person.
correctly states the Church's position. Due to the contradiction, I was confused.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), June 14, 2002.

Glen, If I'm not mistaken, even the scripture calls an activity the abomination, not the person. In deuteronomy, a few pertinent phrases cover homosexual activity; that is men sleeping with me; or women and women together in sexual congress.

Paul also portrays the sin in an activity; and the sinful homosexual as a reprobate. Knowing that once the acts are perpetrated, God withdraws; repentance becomes harder without His grace. There is nothing like what we call an ''orientation'' at issue in the Bible. We see the condemnation of moral turpitude only, not the temptation.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 14, 2002.

Steve Jackson writes of ...
"... the two largest Confessional Lutheran Churches in the US -- the Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Synod"
and of ...
"some allegedly 'Lutheran' chuches ... [o]ne such [being] ... the apostate Evangelical Lutheran Church of America."

Lacking a pope and Magisterium, no member of any of these three denominations (or any of the other "Lutheran" denominations) has the ability to say who is "apostate" and who is not.
The fact is that they are all separated from the Church that the God-man Jesus founded, due to the heretical doctrines of their human-only founder, the monk-priest, Father Martin Luther.

But, practically speaking, it makes sense for Catholics to refer to ELCA members as "Lutherans." The ELCA is the largest Lutheran denomination in American. Please note, from denominational sites:

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America [ELCA] = 5,100,000+ members

Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod [LCMS] (founded 1847) = 2,600,000+ members

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod [WELS] (founded 1850) = 410,000+ members

[The ELCA was established via a 1988 merger of three Lutheran denominations. One of the three had been founded in 1976 by over 100,000 people who deserted the LCMS! The other two had been formed by two mergers, involving eight Lutheran denominations, in the 1960s -- and those eight had themselves been created from about twenty denominations earlier. You see, in the 1800s, over 50 Lutheran denominations were founded in the U.S. alone! This is the chaos that results from prideful individualism, "sola scriptura," and no Magisterium.]

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 14, 2002.

John,
That's quite an eye-opener. It goes without saying, there are many excellent and upright people who follow the Lutheran communion. Same as the Anglicans and schismatics. One point is rarely if ever addressed, and I'd like to hear some opinions.

The world as we know it is not everlasting, but may yet have many centuries, even millennia to go. Only one Church is founded on Peter, and by Christ. The Catholic Church, already dating back almost 2,000 years. She is certain to survive as long as the world goes on. But the separated, free-lance Christian churches have no such promises from Christ.

It would be presumptuous of us to speculate on the future of Lutheranism; or any other churches in Christendom. I myself have given this a little thought. It would seem to me that all those denominations are limited and going nowhere as the centuries transpire. I hate to use a figure of speech for this; they may ''die out''.

It might just be that they'll re-enter (ALL of them) the fold of Catholicism; and become One again with Jesus' Church. He prayed for the unity Himself. It's interesting to wonder; in what manner this eventual reunion of believers is to occur.

The eventuality of Christ's return to find a scattering of semi-churches which all claim Him for their Saviour, all in opposition to the one Catholic communion, is unthinkable to me.

There won't be autonomous Christian churches by that future time, I think. Either their people will apostacize, God forbid, or they'll come back to the Catholic Church.--

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 14, 2002.

John,

You claim that some of Martin Luther's teachings were heretical. When has the Pope ever said that Luther's teachings were heretical?

Also, you claim that chaos results from Sola Scriptura and therefore people should be faithful to the Magisterium. Of course, the Magisterium and the Pope change the teachings of the Roman Church constantly. For example, do you approve of alter girls and women serving communion now that Rome has okayed these things? Do you approve of the teaching of people like the late Raymond Brown who denied the historicity of large portions of the Bible. He was on the Pontifical Biblical Commission and his books were printed with the imprimater, so his teachings are consistent with Roman Catholic dogma.

We also have the example of the death penalty, which the Pope opposes even though it was until recently approved. I just read that the Vatican had the death penalty until 1966. So was Rome wrong then, or is it wrong now?

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), June 14, 2002.

Gene,

I think that either scenario you mentioned could exist at the time of Jesus's second coming:
(1) "a scattering of semi-churches ... in opposition to the one Catholic communion" or
(2) "people will apostacize ... or they'll come back to the Catholic Church."

I join you in hoping only for part 2 of number 2!

From what I know about the history of the last 500 years, I am not expecting the reunion of Protestant denominations with the Catholic Church. Rather, I am expecting a continuation of the current trend of individual (and sometimes full-congregational) conversions to Catholicism.
The reason I say this is that I am not aware of any merging of a whole Protestant denomination with the Catholic Church in the past five centuries. I am aware of the reunion of major segments of schismatic (Orthodox and Apostolic) churches with the Catholic Church. But, very regrettably, I am not aware of any such thing happening with a Protestant body. [This would be a good time for Steve Jackson's community to humbly bow and place itself under the visible headship of the pope, the Vicar of Christ. They are off to a good start, being pro-life.]

God bless you.
John
PS: One correction of my own previous words. I called M. Luther the "founder" of all the present Lutheran denominations. That was incorrect. I think it's pretty clear that each Lutheran denomination in existence today was "founded" by a man or committee who came along after Luther.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 14, 2002.

Steve, you have been coming here for more than two years. You should have already seen all your current questions answered over and over again. I do not have time to waste on replying to a person who doesn't give a damn what I would have to say.

Steve, if you don't know the answers to your questions, then you have insulted us by not paying attention while reading our answers for two years. Or is it that you have just proved what I said earlier -- that you have never actually read anything here, but have merely come to start new threads that attack us? If that is what you have done, it would indeed have left you as ignorant as you seem to be now.

Steve, I recommend that you "hit the books" -- i.e., read old threads in the archives, if you sincerely desire answers. And please use some common sense ... The approval of altar girls is NOT a matter of "changing a teaching." It is obviously a changeable disciplinary matter.

May God help you on the path of conversion.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 14, 2002.

After a couple of years coming into this forum, I have to conclude at least two-thirds of anti-Catholic, sectarian and agnostic prejudices stem from not knowing BEANS about the Catholic faith, and still presuming to know all about her ''errors''.

Steve's a good example. What little he thought he'd found out about our Church's doctrine came out of anti-Catholic pamphlets. He doesn't know there's a difference between the teachings of the apostles and Sacred Tradition on the one hand, and customs or movements in our cultural life as Catholics on the other. And a vast difference from what the Church's opponents want him to believe, to the real Catholic Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 14, 2002.

Steve Jackson writes:

"For example, do you approve of alter girls and women serving communion now that Rome has okayed these things?"

This is your example of a Magesterium that "constantly changes its teachings"?

This is one of the funniest accusations that Protestants make about Catholicism. "Constantly changing teachings" is funny for two primary reasons:

1) Usually, the examples of "change" are minor. Sometimes, no examples are given...they are simply "assumed" by the accuser.

2) An accuser never gives an example of an institution that is "more consistent" by which to measure the Catholic Church. Here, we have a 2000 year old institution that has taught the same, unchanging truth for 2000 years (aside from whether altar girls are allowed). Compare this to the USA. Our constitution is slightly more than 200 years old. That's one tenth the age of the Church. Yet, in those one hundred years, our country has changed its laws on slavery, abortion, women's vote, alcohol consumption, and a host of others. If we put the US system of government to the same standard as critics of the Catholic Church, we'd surely give up hope in our government.

I guess, by your comments, you judge other Lutherans by their fidelity to your view on Luther. So are they protestants of protestants? :-) I must say I don't envy the Lutherans for the challenges that they face by being divided...I do see the division as a natural by-product of the Lutheran philosophy.

Regarding Raymond Brown, he is not the Magesterium of the Church.

Regarding the death penalty, you should refer to other threads on the forum. You'll find more information than you'll ever want to know about the Catholic Church's teaching on the death penalty.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 15, 2002.