Another question for Roman Catholics...

[themuzicman]

I see another bishop has resigned in disgrace.

Apparantly, Bishop Thomas O'Brien of Phoenix recently struck a deal with prosecutors to avoid being prosecuted for sheltering child molesters, but that wasn't enough to get him removed. Oh, no. The Church's vaunted image is far too important to rid themselves of someone who aids and abets child molestation.

The bishop had to actually go out and KILL someone, and then leave the scene of an accident, before it became bad enough that he resigned.

O'Brien was obviously feeling very bad, and released this statement:


"We are so sorry for their pain and loss," the statement said. "This is a horrible tragedy for everyone — the Reed family, our family, the bishop and the entire Catholic community."

Of couse, there is no sense of remorse or acceptance of responsibility for this latest heinous act. Hopefully the prosecutors aren't as lienent this time as they were last time.


Story here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-06-18-bishop_x.htm

So, here's the question for you Catholics:

Is this God's representative to the world? A man who protects child molesters, who are themselves God's representatives, a man who sleazes his way out of obstruction charges related to his protection of child molesters? And a church that cares more for its image than the well being of it's parishoner's children? And a church that won't remove a bishop who fisrt puts children in harm's way, and then won't remove a bishop who kills a man and runs away like a coward, and even then, in a public statement, talks like this was just some random tragedy for whom there is no one to blame?

Are these the ones you say can forgive or not forgive sins? The ones that supposedly dispense Christ's body? Would you want this organization representing YOU?

Michael

[Solly]

Non RCC comment:

An organisation that can produce Therese of Lisieux, Jean Vianney, Thomas Merton, Blaise Pascal, and a host of other hard working priests and religious - some of them martyrs in the third world - can't be all bad.

They can just as easily point to Televangelist corruption, atheist clergy, ministers who condone the peccadillos of Bill Clinton et al.
Ever read Tom Skinner's life, "Black and Free". See what he says about the Black Baptist churches in Harlem in the 60s, including the ministers - his father was one of them - immorality and corruption run rife, on a systemic scale.

We should not miss the pain, sorrow and shame RCC's themselves feel about this state of affairs; after all it is RC parents and children who suffer, and then have to make the allegations in the first place. But that doesn't mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[themuzicman]

Solly -

The difference is that the protestant community rejects and removes people who engage in these things Jim Baker wasn't shielded and protected by the people of his denomination. Jimmy Swaggart was thrown out of his. Corruption exists, yes.

The question is about the church's response to such heinous acts. Protestants have a penchant for removing these people quickly, and turning them over to the police. The Catholic church, on the other hand, seems to have a penchant for not only keeping them, but protecting them, and putting them in other places where they can do more harm.

And I think there is a theological issue here, too, related to their claim that the Catholic church is THE church where you find full communtion with Christ, and that the papacy IS God's representative in the earth, etc. Is this really God's representative?

Michael

[HerodionRomulus]

FYI. The bishop has resigned, something he should've done after his first crime.

The RCC heirarchy is increasingly corrupt and disconnected from the reality of the people they allegedly are leading and providing an example for. Rome has become increasingly arrogant and disdainful of anything but their own opinion.
This is not the first time, it was hubris which led to Luther, it will lead to further problems.
An old Greek proverb says that "a fish rots from the head."
I smell something rotten.

No, I'm not RCC, though one of my most admired people was Pope John XXIII. (and Paul VI)

[wienerdog]

We cannot blame Catholicism for the crimes of these priests. Period.

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 01:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126281#post126281)
themuzicman:

The difference is that the protestant community rejects and removes people who engage in these things Jim Baker wasn't shielded and protected by the people of his denomination. Jimmy Swaggart was thrown out of his. Corruption exists, yes.

--I also pointed out the systemic corruption that Tom Skinner reported. This went on for years. Why do you think people so often say, Christians are all hypocrites?

And I think there is a theological issue here, too, related to their claim that the Catholic church is THE church where you find full communtion with Christ, and that the papacy IS God's representative in the earth, etc. Is this really God's representative?

--The Catholic Church, as with any Christian body, is a community of sinners.
In an organisation like the RCC, (where, from my Reformed Protestant point of view, there is likely to be a predominance of unregenerate men and women), these things will happen. That is partly why the Reformation took place - to Reform the doctrine and manners of the church; and why there were further reformations within the RCC. The counter-reformation, the monastic orders, the Jansenists, the Old Catholic Church, etc. It is also why groups like the Baptists hold to a definite regenerate church membership.
It is indeed a theological issue, but it applies to millions of people who, thinking themselves to be Christians because of a sprinkling of water, or a signature on a decision card, are living their lives as if Christ did not really matter - be they RCC, Orthodox, Anglican, or Protestant; and just look at the nominalism in America; Britain is now postNominal.
Nobody really believes that the Pope is infallible in all he says and does, he is so only in "ex cathedra" statements. That is why the Papacy has been asked to apologise for this and that. If people do think he is above suspicion because of a false understanding of the doctrine of infallibility, then they are wrong, even by the tenets of the RCC.
But I would certainly say that the RCC could do with a lot more accountability, transparency and humility.

And for the record, I believe the RCC is an organisation which retains aspects of Christianity, and within which people may well hear the gospel and come to a saving relationship with Christ, by the grace of God; but "in spite of" not "because of". I would not list the RCC with groups like the JW's LDS, CD, etc. After all, I can go into my local Christian bookshop and pick up Augustine, Thomas a Kempis, Therese of Lisieux; but where are the books of the sects that have moved the spirit of the Christian world?

[themuzicman]

Today @ 05:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127549#post127549)
wienerdog:

We cannot blame Catholicism for the crimes of these priests. Period.

No. But we can blame Catholicism for shielding these priests from justice, and for placing known pedophiles in positions where they would abuse children again. That's the problem, here.

Michael

[Undomiel]

Today @ 01:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127602#post127602)
themuzicman:



No. But we can blame Catholicism for shielding these priests from justice, and for placing known pedophiles in positions where they would abuse children again. That's the problem, here.

Michael

I'm going to venture a guess here and say that I think the RCC has historically attracted homosexual males because it is one of the few places a homosexual man could go and be treated with respect, rather than disdain, be amongst other men that they love and revere (monk to monk, brother to brother, father to father, priest to priest). I think this has been true since its inception, when it was originally the product of a homosexual pedophiliac culture (Rome and Greece - which were more homosexual and pedophiliac than heterosexual for centuries). It would, therefore, be hard for one homosexual pedophiliac to find fault with another. This is not to say they are deliberately protecting each other, but that they have been historically and probably secretly in some cases, homosexuals and pedophiles since the days of ancient Rome. Many were probably heterosexual, but the church started as a state-instituted religion in which the state itself was primarily MALE GAY PEDOPHILES. Bisexuality was rampant and commonplace. They married women, but such a marriage was usually only for the purpose of perpetuation of the species, social status and the dowry (as a man you took on a wife and relieved her parents of her care and lading). Wives were frequently lonely and would gather together for solace and companionship and the occassional lesbian affair. The ancient romans and grecians had a totally different outlook on sex than the jews of their day.

[spl_cadet]

The problem really isn't a corrup Church heirarchy or any such. It's that the big name bishops and such that you are seeing are remnants of the sixties and seventies when a lot of Modernists (there's a reason it was called the Americanism heresy :smile:) entered the Church. They'll be gone within a decade or two at the most. The orthodox bishops are the successful ones.

I would really like to see an Inquisition though :solly:

And for those who have read Harry Turtledove, think of the Church as the Race in terms of how we look at things time wise :teeth:

[themuzicman]

Bishops and Cardinals aren't heirarchy?

Michael

[spl_cadet]

They are, but they are not symptomatic of the entire heirarchy, but rather that of the American Church.

[Solly]

And the British; we have the same problems. The RC Archbishop of Westminster is in the same hot water. Oh, and they have the problem in Eire too. And the Aussie's just got rid of a former bishop of Sydney or something - but he was Anglican. It's the thrid world that are keeping organisations like the RCC and CofE within bounds; until the schisms come.

[Belteshazzar]

[i] So, here's the question for you Catholics:

Is this God's representative to the world? A man who protects child molesters, who are themselves God's representatives, a man who sleazes his way out of obstruction charges related to his protection of child molesters? And a church that cares more for its image than the well being of it's parishoner's children? And a church that won't remove a bishop who fisrt puts children in harm's way, and then won't remove a bishop who kills a man and runs away like a coward, and even then, in a public statement, talks like this was just some random tragedy for whom there is no one to blame?

Are these the ones you say can forgive or not forgive sins? The ones that supposedly dispense Christ's body? Would you want this organization representing YOU?

Michael

I personally wish the Church would bring back public flogging for these individuals and publicly demonstrate its extreme abhorance to any of your aforementioned examples.

That said, I believe in the Holy Catholic/catholic Church and believe Christ's words that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. They are pounding at the walls and lobbing flaming projectiles, but the gates of hell SHALL NOT PREVAIL.

All people are sinners and have come short of the glory of God. Your questions, when drawn to their logical conclusion, would forbid anyone from accepting any Church (and therefore Biblical) teachings because of the sinfulness of the men inhabiting the Church.

Christ gave his church the keys of the gates of heaven and hell, and the power to forgive sins. This power is from Christ, not humans.

Jerry

[themuzicman]

Apparantly he gave them the power to condone pedophilia, too, right?

Your bluster fails to address the question beyond saying that somehow a corrupt church would mean the hell prevailed. You fail to consider that your view of that verse might be incorrect.

The fact is that, if your view is accurate, hell doesn't need to prevail. The church has accomplished the work of hell from within its own walls.

But the question remains: IF the Catholic church is really God's representative in the earth, is this how God should be represented?

Michael

[Belteshazzar]

Apparantly he gave them the power to condone pedophilia, too, right?

No.

Your bluster fails to address the question beyond saying that somehow a corrupt church would mean the hell prevailed. You fail to consider that your view of that verse might be incorrect.

Bluster? I expressed belief in the Holy Catholic Church. Where is the bluster in that? Augustine and all of the early Church fathers expressed the same belief.

The fact is that, if your view is accurate, hell doesn't need to prevail. The church has accomplished the work of hell from within its own walls.

Hell's work is being done and accomplished throughout the whole of humanity.

But the question remains: IF the Catholic church is really God's representative in the earth, is this how God should be represented?

The actions of some representatives of God's Church have been despicable, this we are in agreement upon.

However, corruption of individiual members does not equate to corruption of the whole. Your logic is faulty.

Using your logic David Koresh, Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, etc... would all equate to corruption of the whole of Protestantism.

Are the Branch Davidians an organization you want to be associated with?

Jerry

[themuzicman]

Today @ 07:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129726#post129726)
Belteshazzar:


The actions of some representatives of God's Church have been despicable, this we are in agreement upon.

However, corruption of individiual members does not equate to corruption of the whole. Your logic is faulty.

Using your logic David Koresh, Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, etc... would all equate to corruption of the whole of Protestantism.
Jerry

The purpose of this thread isn't the heinous actions themselves, but the corruption that runs up the chain of command of the papcy to at least the Cardinal level that would first cover up the crimes, and then move the priests into another position where they could abuse children again.

Protestantism hasn't covered up Koresh, Jones, Heaven's Gate, Bakker or Swaggart. In the case of Bakker and Swaggart, who were associated with mainline denominations, they were exposed and removed from their positions. SOmething the Catholic church seems unwilling to do.

That's the difference.

Michael

[Belteshazzar]

Protestantism hasn't covered up Koresh, Jones, Heaven's Gate, Bakker or Swaggart. In the case of Bakker and Swaggart, who were associated with mainline denominations, they were exposed and removed from their positions. SOmething the Catholic church seems unwilling to do.

That's the difference.

Nope, you are accusing the entirity of the Catholic Church of crimes from the actions of some individuals within the Church For example molestation was a despicable crime, just as was the covering up of the molestation by anyone. Both are wrong, but neither are condoned by Church teachings.

I'm sure there have been instances of Protestants committing crimes to have them covered up by leading members of their congregation (Perhaps even in your congregation). However, this doesn't mean Protestantism, as a whole is corrupt. It means the Protestant transgressors were sinners and fell far short of the glory of God.

However since Protestantism, in general, lacks the organizational structure to commit the crime of a coverup, its not a good comparison. A better comparison would be to see if Protestants condemn the beliefs that lead to such things as the Heaven's Gate/Hale-Bopp mass suicide. Last I checked, there were a myriad of Protestant leaders preaching of an imminent rapture.

Kool-Aid anyone?
Jerry

[spl_cadet]

There's also the fact that the offending bishops and cardinals also appear to be infected with the Modernist heresy.

[Undomiel]

Today @ 03:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129852#post129852)
Belteshazzar:



Nope, you are accusing the entirity of the Catholic Church of crimes from the actions of some individuals within the Church For example molestation was a despicable crime, just as was the covering up of the molestation by anyone. Both are wrong, but neither are condoned by Church teachings.

The problem no one is addressing is the historical perspective. The Catholic Church started as a government-enforced religion in an empire filled to the brim with people who had no sexual boundaries to speak of. They didn't even have a word for homosexuality back then. The men frequently engaged in pederasty (look it up if you don't already know) and homosexual and bisexual relationships were the norm, not the exception. These people were suddenly, and almost without warning of any kind, thrust into the Emperor's [Constantine] new, modified christianity. The men's positions in the church developed along the same lines as the paganized version and the women, likewise. The homosexuality did not go away, it was perpetuated, ad infinitum. Priests in the temple of Jupiter, Apollo, etc, became Priests and Bishops in the Emperor's new church.

Homosexuals found it a safe haven and a place where they could be respected and enjoy the company of other men. The pederasty and homosexuality never stopped and probably hasn't for the last 2000 years. It just went underground.

As I said before - I believe there are plenty of heterosexuals in the catholic priesthood as well, but the catholic church has been, historically, a place where men could go who believed in God but were secretly gay.

I don't think bashing them is going to do a bit of good. Many of them want to serve God but there's certain to be a good percentage that were in the priesthood because it allowed them to avoid the social stigma of perpetual bachlerhood and social pressure of heterosexual marriage in a time when such things were almost mandatory. In the pre-Constantine empire, heterosexual marriage was mostly for political and financial reasons and because of the absence of sexual taboos, whether they were gay or not, didn't figure into the picture. The Emperors knew, if the people didn't continue to procreate, they would lose the strength of their Roman citizenry so heterosexual marriage was encouraged for this reason and this reason only. If the man was not gay, fine. If he was gay, also fine.

Also, Constantine was a shrewd politician. He recognized the almost Ghandi-like power of the early christian believers. With peaceful protest, they went to their deaths. It was beginning to wear on the power base of the Empire as more and more people began to question the continued persecution of these people = the more they killed, the more people enlisted. In a brilliant strategic move, Constantine decided he would kill two birds with one stone. He made christianity the new state religion and incorporated paganism into it. He was then free to dictate, how the religion would be worshipped and when and where and by whom. The christians could no longer say they were being persecuted by the Emperor when he had provided them an imperial church. If they didn't agree with the new imperial church, they were back to square one - enemies of the Empire.

[Undomiel]

see above

[Belteshazzar]

Yesterday @ 11:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129884#post129884)
Undomiel:

The problem no one is addressing is the historical perspective. The Catholic Church started as a government-enforced religion in an empire filled to the brim with people who had no sexual boundaries to speak of.

Two points: 1) The Catholic Church existed for 300 years before Constantine. 2) The inhabitants of the Roman empire after Augustus were probably just about as virtuous in regards to sexual boundaries as the inhabitants of the USA, perhaps more-so. Emporer Augustus outlawed adultery in the "Lex Julia de Adulteriis" so there were clearly defined sexual boundaries with the threat of state punishment for transgressors against the law.

The men's positions in the church developed along the same lines as the paganized version and the women, likewise. The homosexuality did not go away, it was perpetuated, ad infinitum. Priests in the temple of Jupiter, Apollo, etc, became Priests and Bishops in the Emperor's new church.

Homosexuals found it a safe haven and a place where they could be respected and enjoy the company of other men. The pederasty and homosexuality never stopped and probably hasn't for the last 2000 years. It just went underground.

The problem with this assertion is that celibacy in the Church clergy wasn't enforced until 800 years after Constantine. There were no restrictions on married clergy at the time of Constantine. Almost 100 years after Constantine, celibacy was encouraged, but it wasn't until 1139 that it was actually enforced.


As I said before - I believe there are plenty of heterosexuals in the catholic priesthood as well, but the catholic church has been, historically, a place where men could go who believed in God but were secretly gay.

Historically, I would argue this is not accurate. However, in modern times in the USA, you may be correct.

And I'll agree that bashing homosexual priests isn't going to do any good, nor do I think excluding them from the clergy would be effective.


In a brilliant strategic move, Constantine decided he would kill two birds with one stone. He made christianity the new state religion and incorporated paganism into it. He was then free to dictate, how the religion would be worshipped and when and where and by whom.

That is one interpration of events, a good skeptical interpretation. However, if we are to take Constantine at his word, we would find a completely different interpretation of his conversion experience. Constantine says he had a vision of the Chi-Rho in the sky emblazened with 'In Hoc Signo Vinces.' Perhaps he really had this vision, who's to say? Nobody knows, for certain.

Jerry

[Undomiel]

However, if we are to take Constantine at his word,

I'd rather take your word for something than Constantine's. That guy was a living terror. The Catholic Church did not exist 300 years before Constantine. The Catholic Church didn't exist at all, until Constantine. Christianity existed before Constantine, but not the Catholic Church. Catholicism is modified christianity, a mish mash of paganism and christianity.

[Belteshazzar]

The Catholic Church didn't exist at all, until Constantine. Christianity existed before Constantine, but not the Catholic Church. Catholicism is modified christianity, a mish mash of paganism and christianity.

If you were to debate me on this topic, you better get ready for a good old fashioned butt kicking. :wink:

Jerry

[Undomiel]

I happen to have catholic friends and some family members and wouldn't want to insult them any further, so no, I'll pass.

[Belteshazzar]

I happen to have catholic friends and some family members and wouldn't want to insult them any further, so no, I'll pass.


In a series of drive-by-postings you declare Constantine to have undertaken a dark imperial corruption of Catholicism without offering any evidence to support your claims. Then, when challenged to support your claims, you state you don't want to insult your Catholic friends, well, insult them any further that is. My, my, isn't that convenient?

Jerry

[Undomiel]

Aye, I'm willing to take the beating now, rather than insult them by digging out piles and piles of anti-catholic materials.

[Socrates]

06-20-2003 @ 06:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128510#post128510)
Solly:

And the British; we have the same problems. The RC Archbishop of Westminster is in the same hot water. Oh, and they have the problem in Eire too. And the Aussie's just got rid of a former bishop of Sydney or something - but he was Anglican.

What precisely do you mean? The nearest thing I can think of was not quite like that. Anyway, denominational hierarchies are not biblical, and there are problems when people high up are corrupt. Solly is probably familiar with the excellent and astute political satire TV series Yes Prime Minister, in particular the episode "The Bishop's Gambit".

Also, the theological cemeteries, I mean seminaries :huh:, are often the first to decay. That's where modernism or liberalism starts, and SPL is right that this is behind a lot of immorality. The fish rotting from the head down, as George put it. But to repair the damage, it must be from the ground up.

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129852#post129852)
Belteshazzar:

A better comparison would be to see if Protestants condemn the beliefs that lead to such things as the Heaven's Gate/Hale-Bopp mass suicide.

Of course. These people were not Trinitarians, so have nothing to do with orthodox Protestantism. In fact, this cult believed in evolution. So perhaps the denominations that have compromised with this need to take a good hard look at themselves. This includes Roman Catholicism and most Protestant denominations. Not sure about Eastern Orthodoxy, but the late Fr. Seraphim Rose has extensively documented how the Church Fathers believed in YEC (Genesis, Creation and Early Man).

Last I checked, there were a myriad of Protestant leaders preaching of an imminent rapture.

This would be a supernatural one not an alien one. :whack:

[John Reece]

When I finished reading the starting post on this thread, I had many things to say in response.

But by the time I finished reading the subsequent responses, all I had to say had been said.

Well and good : Let my younger, stronger brothers do the heavy lifting :smile: .

[spl_cadet]

And this thread has now spawned a debate challenge. (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=130194#post130194)

[themuzicman]

06-21-2003 @ 10:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129852#post129852)
Belteshazzar:Nope, you are accusing the entirity of the Catholic Church of crimes from the actions of some individuals within the Church For example molestation was a despicable crime, just as was the covering up of the molestation by anyone. Both are wrong, but neither are condoned by Church teachings.

I'm sure there have been instances of Protestants committing crimes to have them covered up by leading members of their congregation (Perhaps even in your congregation). However, this doesn't mean Protestantism, as a whole is corrupt. It means the Protestant transgressors were sinners and fell far short of the glory of God.

However since Protestantism, in general, lacks the organizational structure to commit the crime of a coverup, its not a good comparison. A better comparison would be to see if Protestants condemn the beliefs that lead to such things as the Heaven's Gate/Hale-Bopp mass suicide. Last I checked, there were a myriad of Protestant leaders preaching of an imminent rapture.

Kool-Aid anyone?
Jerry

More accurately, protestants don't make their denominational bureaucracy out to be God's represenatative to the earth. Which was the point of the original post and the poll. I think the doctrine of the role of the RCC's papcy has been tattered beyond repairs with these recent scandals, and the failure of the RCC's papcy around the world to condemn it and clean house properly.

It's time the RCC abandoned this claim. It's been shown to be unbiblical both in orthodoxy and orthopraxy, now.

Michael

[Belteshazzar]

themuzicman:

It's time the RCC abandoned this claim. It's been shown to be unbiblical both in orthodoxy and orthopraxy, now.

I'm sure that would make you happy, wouldn't it?

Yet, you've not supplied a single piece of evidence to back your claim that "its been shown to be unbiblical," nor could you. I'm certain such claims would be viewed with disdain by the Apostles, Augustine, Aquinas, and any number of church fathers. Are you purporting knowledge not held by any of these Saints?

You've shown the actions of individuals to be abhorrent , and I fully agree with you. I'm just wondering if you apply the same scathing judgement to the institution of Protestantism.

Jerry

[themuzicman]

Protestantism doesn't hold out the claim that Catholocism does about it's bureaucracy. If Catholocism were to hold itself to its own standards, then it would have to represent Christ appropriately at all times. Clearly this is not the case, and the corruption has been pervasive throughout at least the US, and apparantly the UK.

If this weren't such a huge doctrinal crisis, I doubt the Cardinals and US Bishops would be so reluctant to admit and deal with the pervasiveness of the problem. Even today, all they've done is put a bandaid over a cancerous sore that has appeared on the skin of the church.

However, to deal with your base question: Any protestant church who covers up pedophilia by a pastor in their church, and moves him to a place where he could molest and abuse children again would incur my ire in the same way.

Did you answer the poll that opens this thread?

Michael

[Belteshazzar]

themuzicman:

Protestantism doesn't hold out the claim that Catholocism does about it's bureaucracy. If Catholocism were to hold itself to its own standards, then it would have to represent Christ appropriately at all times. Clearly this is not the case, and the corruption has been pervasive throughout at least the US, and apparantly the UK.

I challenge you to present any Church teachings which say what you've claimed we believe. You can't...

Catholicism makes no claim that all members of its bureaucracy will automatically represent Christ appropriately at all times. Nor is it necessary for our beliefs. We know we're sinners, as is everyone in the Church hierarchy. We pray in every mass for God's guidance for our clergy, yet they continue to fall short of the glory of God, as we all do. We get back up and try to follow Christ, but we don't lose our faith. I think we need to put a lot more effort in trying to make sure we have the best Christians we can possibly have in the clergy.

St. Peter, who holds the keys to the gates of heaven, failed miserably in his denial of Christ three times at the hour of his greatest need. He certainly didn't represent Christ appropriately then and on other occasions, yet we believe Christ founded his Church upon Peter, Petros, The Rock and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


However, to deal with your base question: Any protestant church who covers up pedophilia by a pastor in their church, and moves him to a place where he could molest and abuse children again would incur my ire in the same way.

I hope so, but would you also question the instituion of that particular church congregation? Or the entire denomination? Or Protestanism in general? Or Christianity on the whole? Or the entirity of humanity for that matter? Where would you stop?

Did you answer the poll that opens this thread?

I answered no. I was also shocked at the Bishop's actions.

So let me ask a question. Can you name any individual that appropriately represented Christ?

Jerry

[themuzicman]

So, the Catholic church no long holds the view that it IS the catholic church, and that anyone who does not take the sacrements from a priest is not fully in touch with Christ?

Confession to a "father" isn't necessary for the forgiveness of sins?

The Pope doesn't speak infalliby from time to time?

The church papcy isn't the holder of infallibe tradition and the infallible interpretation of scriptures?


I didn't realize all this had changed.

Michael

[Belteshazzar]

themuzicman:

So, the Catholic church no long holds the view that it IS the catholic church, and that anyone who does not take the sacrements from a priest is not fully in touch with Christ?

Oh I see... Not only did you ignore my question to you, but now you're trying to restate what you said we Catholics believe. Sheeeesh... Are you just throwing rocks hoping one hits somewhere? Does that tell you anything about your belief system? AND do you realize you are so erroneous on your assumptions about Catholic beliefs that it makes me wonder how you thought you knew enough about Catholicism to even start this thread.

Anyway, I'll gladly answer your repositioning of what you allege are Catholic beliefs once you answer my question. Namely:

Can you name any individual that appropriately represented Christ?

Jerry

[hospitaller]

Themuzicman, as a non-practising RC I have one reason for being a non-practising RC, the Council of Trent. I don't believe that the mass is a propitiatary sacrifice therefore I am automatically anathemised.
All the other issues you point out are to me inconsequential. If the Council of Trent was revoked they might be of concern to me, but as it stands they aren't.
I ask as a "protestant" in the original sense of the word, why do these things concern you?

[themuzicman]

When churches hold such core doctrine in error, and people are being deceived in such a manner, it is important to point these things out, so that people are educated, and doctrines reformed.

Michael

[Spoken4]

I think there may be a different issue at work here. It's not to say that this sort of thing only happens in the Catholic church, it's just easier to see. The way I understand the hierarchy system, it's a world-wide community. A scandal in any of the heigher levels would be everyone's concern, which is why it ends up on the national news. Any other denomination, and it would have only made the local news without drawing the whole world's attention.

It's like putting the blame on the U.S. government as a whole for something a few members of Congress did to help cover up the actions of the governer of South Dakota.

[themuzicman]

"A few members of congress"? We're talking about Cardinals, and the US organization of bishops, here, who have failed to substantively deal with the problem.

It would be more like a Senator who is known to have abused children, that had several other Senators and White House people cover up for him, so he could keep on doing it.

Remember that the papacy above the US level hasn't exactly been vigilent in making sure real reforms happen. Defending the doctrine of the papacy seems to have taken a front seat over the welfare of parish children.

Michael

[spl_cadet]

Remember that the papacy above the US level hasn't exactly been vigilent in making sure real reforms happen.

Excuse me, but just what are you talking about? Did you fail to see the fact that the pope called the bishops to the Vatican for a personal admonition from him, a rather unprecedented thing? The Vatican also helped devise the new guidelines.

Simply because the pope does not have enough time to micromanage America does not mean you have license to attack him.

[Belteshazzar]

themuzicman:

Defending the doctrine of the papacy seems to have taken a front seat over the welfare of parish children.

Michael: You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

The doctrine of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome has nothing to do with this whatsoever, does it? But then again you've been unable to answer my two questions directly to you in this thread here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130797#post130797) and here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131448#post131448) so I doubt you have any ability to express your points logically on this issue.

Here's a very clear and concise starting point for you in order to understand what the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is all about so we can rationally discuss it.
CCC - 100

The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the POPE and to the bishops in communion with him.

This says nothing of the number of sinners, hit and run-ists, smokers, murderers, or masturbators within the Church hierarchy, nor does it claim that the average number of sinners per capita in the clergy is lower than any particular general population. Now, the Church would definitely be a better witness for Christ and his Church, if we had the VERY BEST people in the clergy, and I pray to God that someone very high up in the hierarchy is now planning a thorough purging of the American clergy to achieve this.

But, there is no way you can put together a logical argument against the primacy of the Bishop of Rome using emotional pulling of heart strings involving the 'welfare of parish children' coupled together in the same sentence as a purjoritive term for the Pope. It may work on some of the lesser educated people you know, but I trust the majority of the people reading this thread will see it for what it is. And remember, you reap what you sow.

If you can argue it rationally, and put away your 'debate by defamation' tactic, then I challenge you to a one-on-one on this topic. State your debate resolution, nail it down, quit shifting arguments and ignoring questions and put your money where your mouth is.

Jerry

[themuzicman]

The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the POPE and to the bishops in communion with him.

And where in the Word of God did the bishops in communion with the Pope find that pedophiles should be protected?

If they're going to claim to be THE SOLE authority, they'd better at least be able to live by their own doctrine, right?

Otherwise, how can they make this claim?

Michael

[Belteshazzar]

themuzicman:

If they're going to claim to be THE SOLE authority, they'd better at least be able to live by their own doctrine, right?

Otherwise, how can they make this claim?

Whewww.. How many fallacious arguments can you spew forth in one posting?

THE SOLE authority question is something you would need to answer, but I'm not holding my breath considering you've ignored every other question I've asked you in this thread.

If you believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura, then you are THE SOLE authority to interpret scripture. Yet, if you aren't the perfect representative Christ, you've stated that you can't interpret scripture Do you see the dichotomy? You have a problem here unless you are without sin.

And just to check your reading comprehension abilities: Can you name any individual that appropriately represented Christ?

Jerry

[Bartholomew]

Today @ 02:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133297#post133297)
Belteshazzar:

If you can argue it rationally, and put away your 'debate by defamation' tactic, then I challenge you to a one-on-one on this topic. State your debate resolution, nail it down, quit shifting arguments and ignoring questions and put your money where your mouth is.

Jerry

That would be an interesting debate, even though it has been going on for centuries. Maybe you should challenge him in the Coach's Quarters?

~Matt

[themuzicman]

Yesterday @ 05:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133450#post133450)
Belteshazzar:

If you believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura, then you are THE SOLE authority to interpret scripture. Yet, if you aren't the perfect representative Christ, you've stated that you can't interpret scripture Do you see the dichotomy? You have a problem here unless you are without sin.


Sola Scriptura means that GOD is THE SOLE AUTHORITY to interpret scripture. Not you. Not me. Not the POPE or the papacy. 1 John clearly tells us that we don't NEED anyone to teach us, since we have the Holy Spirit. I think that establishes the SOLE AUTHORITY quite clearly.


And just to check your reading comprehension abilities: Can you name any individual that appropriately represented Christ?

Jerry

Well, you said it. Do you get it?

NO PERSON OR ORGANIZATION CAN APPROPRIATELY REPRESENT CHRIST IN THE WAY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS TO.

Nowhere in the bible is there a mandate for any person or organization to do so.

We are to "go into all the world and MAKE DISCIPLES" not sit in Rome and declare ourselves THE SOLE AUTHORITY on scripture.

Get it?

Michael

[Belteshazzar]

themuzicman:

Sola Scriptura means that GOD is THE SOLE AUTHORITY to interpret scripture. Not you. Not me. Not the POPE or the papacy. 1 John clearly tells us that we don't NEED anyone to teach us, since we have the Holy Spirit. I think that establishes the SOLE AUTHORITY quite clearly.

Ahh, *finally* some depth to this discussion, so I sent you a pearl! But, with that said, I believe your definition of Sola Scriptura is at variance with most of Protestantism. If God has the sole interpretion of scripture, then everyone's interpretation would be the same. How do you account for the bazillion different interpretations within Protestantism? Is there only one true interpretation, and everyone else does not have the gift of the Holy Spirit? How do you decide who has the true interpretation? Do the Mormons have the Holy Spirit to guide them in their interpretation of scripture?

1 John says nothing of the sort which you are claiming, post chapter and verse please...

1 John 4:6 (NAB)

We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.

The author, presumed to be John, is telling us to listen to their teachings. Whose teachings do you suppose he means? The Mormons? Jehovah's Witnesses? They both claim to belong to God and to be Christians, yet many Protestants will say that they have been deceived and we shouldn't listen to them.

themuzicman:

Well, you said it. Do you get it?

How am I to know what you mean if you repeatedly ignore questions?

themuzicman:

NO PERSON OR ORGANIZATION CAN APPROPRIATELY REPRESENT CHRIST IN THE WAY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS TO.

Ahh, but that wasn't the question was it? But, I'll ignore the fallacy in your argument, for now. You've added the addendum, in caps, in the way the Catholic Church claims to. First of all, you've demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what the Catholic Church claims so I'm going to assume that this is the foundation of the problem. Indeed, I wouldn't believe in the Church if it is the organization which you claim, but that is not the case, so I ask again, the original question:

Can any individual approprately represent Christ?

Its really not a difficult question and you'll find it right there in the beginning of 1 John, or any number of other places within the NT.

And secondly, the Catholic Church never claims its representatives will appropriately represent Christ. Which is really my whole point. You seem to think that Catholics claim that the whole of their clergy are instant Saintly representatives of Christ. We do not.

Nowhere in the bible is there a mandate for any person or organization to do so.

Oh? What does this mean then?

Matthew 16:18-19 (NAB)

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

It seems pretty clear to me that Christ's Church, founded upon Peter, is given quite a lot of authority in the NT.

We are to "go into all the world and MAKE DISCIPLES" not sit in Rome and declare ourselves THE SOLE AUTHORITY on scripture.

Get it?

Yes, I get it, you are unable to state your position without using a fallacious argument somewhere in the mix. But you made it all the way to the end before resorting to arguments steeped in fallacy, so I sent you a pearl for improvement. :smile: BTW: How many fallacious arguments can you count in your above statement?

Jerry

[themuzicman]

Today @ 11:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134098#post134098)
Belteshazzar:
Ahh, *finally* some depth to this discussion, so I sent you a pearl! But, with that said, I believe your definition of Sola Scriptura is at variance with most of Protestantism. If God has the sole interpretion of scripture, then everyone's interpretation would be the same. How do you account for the bazillion different interpretations within Protestantism? Is there only one true interpretation, and everyone else does not have the gift of the Holy Spirit? How do you decide who has the true interpretation? Do the Mormons have the Holy Spirit to guide them in their interpretation of scripture?


Actually, they manufactured their own bible, and declared the bible the rest of us use as secondary. So, the answer to your question is 'no'.

In the bigger picture, the errors in doctrine and interpretation are a result of fallen men, not the Holy Spirit. So, yes, there is ONE interpretation, and many men who have failed to understand and articulate it.


1 John says nothing of the sort which you are claiming, post chapter and verse please...


1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.

Sufficient?


The author, presumed to be John, is telling us to listen to their teachings. Whose teachings do you suppose he means? The Mormons? Jehovah's Witnesses? They both claim to belong to God and to be Christians, yet many Protestants will say that they have been deceived and we shouldn't listen to them.


IMHO, we shouldn't blindly follow any denomination. Protestants have a fairly easy case to make against Mormons and JW's, so there is a general agreement about their lack of veracity. However, God will judge them.


Ahh, but that wasn't the question was it? But, I'll ignore the fallacy in your argument, for now. You've added the addendum, in caps, in the way the Catholic Church claims to. First of all, you've demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what the Catholic Church claims so I'm going to assume that this is the foundation of the problem. Indeed, I wouldn't believe in the Church if it is the organization which you claim, but that is not the case, so I ask again, the original question:

Can any individual approprately represent Christ?


With regard to scriptural authority, no.

If you refer to our roles as ambassadors of Christ in the world, then yes, every person is called to this role.


And secondly, the Catholic Church never claims its representatives will appropriately represent Christ. Which is really my whole point. You seem to think that Catholics claim that the whole of their clergy are instant Saintly representatives of Christ. We do not.


So, the Catholic church is just another denomination among many, with no special claim to being THE church of Christ, with the only priests that can serve you the sacrements so you can have the fullness of Christ, right?


Oh? What does this mean then?

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."


That Simon has a new name, and that Christ is the ROCK upon which the church will be built, and to whom Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom, and the church is to exersize authority on heaven and on earth.


It seems pretty clear to me that Christ's Church, founded upon Peter, is given quite a lot of authority in the NT.


Well, if that were true, then Acts would reflect it. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Appears to me that James is the leader of the new church, not Peter.


Acts 21:15-19
After these days we got ready and started on our way up to Jerusalem. 16 Some of the disciples from Caesarea also came with us, taking us to Mnason of Cyprus, a disciple of long standing with whom we were to lodge. 17 After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

Acts 12:16-17
16 But Peter continued knocking; and when they had opened the door, they saw him and were amazed. 17 But motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had led him out of the prison. And he said, "Report these things to James and the brethren." Then he left and went to another place.



And perhaps most clearly:


12 All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, "Brethren, listen to me. 14 "Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. 15 "With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 `AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT, 17 SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,' 18 SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO. 19 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,


In each example, James is listed specifically before the elders, before the brethren, and in this last case, JAMES MAKES THE MOST IMPORTANT JUDGEMENT OF THE EARLY CHURCH, THAT THE GENTILES SHOULDN'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE TORAH.

Where was Peter? Sitting right there, conveying his experiences with Gentiles, just as Paul and Barnabus did. But James made the final judgement.

Peter was even caught in violation of this judgement, and had to be taken to task by Paul.

Clearly, Peter was NOT the leader of the first church.

And, as such, your interpretation of Matthew is incorrect, as well. Maybe you need to understand the significance of capitalization in greek.


Yes, I get it, you are unable to state your position without using a fallacious argument somewhere in the mix. But you made it all the way to the end before resorting to arguments steeped in fallacy, so I sent you a pearl for improvement. :smile: BTW: How many fallacious arguments can you count in your above statement?

Jerry

So, the Catholic church does NOT claim to be the Sole Authority on the interpretation of scripture? Last I heard, Catholic intellects held Catholic tradition as inerrant and authoritative as scripture. Did this change?

Michael

[hospitaller]

Thanks for your reply so long ago Michael! I've been quite busy since. I accept what you say, God forbid the Roman Catholic church be without its critics! And thank God they don't suffer the fate that once awaited them (where I'm from anyway!)

[Rushing Jaws]

I see another bishop has resigned in disgrace.

Apparantly, Bishop Thomas O'Brien of Phoenix recently struck a deal with prosecutors to avoid being prosecuted for sheltering child molesters, but that wasn't enough to get him removed. Oh, no. The Church's vaunted image is far too important to rid themselves of someone who aids and abets child molestation.

The bishop had to actually go out and KILL someone, and then leave the scene of an accident, before it became bad enough that he resigned.

O'Brien was obviously feeling very bad, and released this statement:



Of couse, there is no sense of remorse or acceptance of responsibility for this latest heinous act. Hopefully the prosecutors aren't as lienent this time as they were last time.


Story here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-06-18-bishop_x.htm

So, here's the question for you Catholics:

Is this God's representative to the world? A man who protects child molesters, who are themselves God's representatives, a man who sleazes his way out of obstruction charges related to his protection of child molesters? And a church that cares more for its image than the well being of it's parishoner's children? And a church that won't remove a bishop who fisrt puts children in harm's way, and then won't remove a bishop who kills a man and runs away like a coward, and even then, in a public statement, talks like this was just some random tragedy for whom there is no one to blame?

Are these the ones you say can forgive or not forgive sins? The ones that supposedly dispense Christ's body? Would you want this organization representing YOU?

Michael

## There is a moral problem here.

If this Catholic condemns this Catholic bishop, one is in effect judging someone of whom knows very little.

If one does not condemn, one risks seeming to be morally complacent; or morally insensible; or more concerned about sticking together with other Catholics than about matters of Christian ethics.

So, there is a dilemma.

WWJD, do you think ? ##

[Rushing Jaws]

More accurately, protestants don't make their denominational bureaucracy out to be God's represenatative to the earth. Which was the point of the original post and the poll. I think the doctrine of the role of the RCC's papcy has been tattered beyond repairs with these recent scandals, and the failure of the RCC's papcy around the world to condemn it and clean house properly.

It's time the RCC abandoned this claim. It's been shown to be unbiblical both in orthodoxy and orthopraxy, now.

Michael

## Neither do Catholics.

Bishops represent Christ not because they are bureaucrats, but in virtue of their being set over the local churches by the Holy Spirit (compare Acts 20.28).

If they never touched a piece of business - they would still be bishops. Because they are made bishops by their ordination as bishops. And Ordination, like any sacrament, is an act of Christ the High Priest.

The Church represents Christ; His members do so, lay or ordained or religious, not bureaucratically, but sacramentally. Because Christ is the supreme Sacrament of God.

Bureaucracy has nothing to do with the representation of Christ ##

[Sacrificial Ram]

Solly -

The difference is that the protestant community rejects and removes people who engage in these things Jim Baker wasn't shielded and protected by the people of his denomination. Jimmy Swaggart was thrown out of his. Corruption exists, yes.

The question is about the church's response to such heinous acts. Protestants have a penchant for removing these people quickly, and turning them over to the police. The Catholic church, on the other hand, seems to have a penchant for not only keeping them, but protecting them, and putting them in other places where they can do more harm.

And I think there is a theological issue here, too, related to their claim that the Catholic church is THE church where you find full communtion with Christ, and that the papacy IS God's representative in the earth, etc. Is this really God's representative?

Michael


Are you saying that protecting of priests does NOT happen outside the Catholic world? The Texas Lutherans are suffering through their own
scandal about pedaphiles being protected now. The protecting of priests to
minimize scandal is a lot more common than you might imagine. I have a friend who was molested in her Church, and they refused to believe her, but protected him instead.It soured her on religion in general, but has given her a particular distrust of the Southern Baptists because of that.

[scholasticus]

Dear All,

No, of course not. Any child abuse by priests or bishops is one of the most appalling scandals in history. Was it St. Augustine who said "the bad priest is to be ranked with the devil"?

The mystery of evil is the biggest obstacle to faith, and one which only faith has the answer to (that's why we need grace too!).

But aside from that, it's interesting how people react to these admittedly awful crimes... for example, not so many years ago, I personally did some terrible sins - now, should I be allowed into a Church, just because I've repented before God (and a priest!) and kept up at the 10 Commandments (apart from all that Catholic pagan statue-worshipping, of course :sigh: ) for a few years? Or should I be flogged, walk barefoot to Jerusalem, and then publically named, shamed and finally forgiven?

It's an interesting question, to which I'm still finding the answer. Of course, I'm not a priest, but that doesn't make my sins go away, now does it? Only the mercy and grace of God can do that! Kyrie Eleison!!!

Please note what I *didn't* say: that paedophile priests should get a verbal warning and a nice ice-cream and a ticket to a new parish. But OK, let's put things in context.

Peace

Keir

[Joe Gofish]

The purpose of this thread isn't the heinous actions themselves, but the corruption that runs up the chain of command of the papcy to at least the Cardinal level that would first cover up the crimes, and then move the priests into another position where they could abuse children again.

Protestantism hasn't covered up Koresh, Jones, Heaven's Gate, Bakker or Swaggart. In the case of Bakker and Swaggart, who were associated with mainline denominations, they were exposed and removed from their positions. SOmething the Catholic church seems unwilling to do.

That's the difference.

Michael

When was Bakker or Swaggart removed from preaching or having a church,Swaggart is at his old church and is preaching in his ole church as I write and is on TV Now today Aug 20 and Bakker is in Canada today with his own TV station.

[adopted heir]

The purpose of this thread isn't the heinous actions themselves, but the corruption that runs up the chain of command of the papcy to at least the Cardinal level that would first cover up the crimes, and then move the priests into another position where they could abuse children again.

Protestantism hasn't covered up Koresh, Jones, Heaven's Gate, Bakker or Swaggart. In the case of Bakker and Swaggart, who were associated with mainline denominations, they were exposed and removed from their positions. SOmething the Catholic church seems unwilling to do.

That's the difference.

Michael


quick comment on all of this:

re-read the parable of the wheat and the tares.

[aquinas1991]

I see another bishop has resigned in disgrace.

Apparantly, Bishop Thomas O'Brien of Phoenix recently struck a deal with prosecutors to avoid being prosecuted for sheltering child molesters, but that wasn't enough to get him removed. Oh, no. The Church's vaunted image is far too important to rid themselves of someone who aids and abets child molestation.

The bishop had to actually go out and KILL someone, and then leave the scene of an accident, before it became bad enough that he resigned.

O'Brien was obviously feeling very bad, and released this statement:



Of couse, there is no sense of remorse or acceptance of responsibility for this latest heinous act. Hopefully the prosecutors aren't as lienent this time as they were last time.


Story here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-06-18-bishop_x.htm

So, here's the question for you Catholics:

Is this God's representative to the world? A man who protects child molesters, who are themselves God's representatives, a man who sleazes his way out of obstruction charges related to his protection of child molesters? And a church that cares more for its image than the well being of it's parishoner's children? And a church that won't remove a bishop who fisrt puts children in harm's way, and then won't remove a bishop who kills a man and runs away like a coward, and even then, in a public statement, talks like this was just some random tragedy for whom there is no one to blame?

Are these the ones you say can forgive or not forgive sins? The ones that supposedly dispense Christ's body? Would you want this organization representing YOU?

Michael


some protestant clergy do the same and are also protected.
may i point out the level of scandal is rather low, there are very few scandalous priests if we compare the number to the tens of thousands of priest world wide.

see the following link for more info http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/scandalous-sexual-misconduct-committed.html