21 Phily Priests Suspended

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Why is it wrong?[/quote]

It’s not, it’s a discipline. It’s how we do things. If we change there has to be a good reason for it. Not, someone else does it.

Catholics are supposed to be the light on the hill, not the bottom of the barrel. We’re supposed to separate ourselves from the ‘world.’

[quote]
But maybe there HAD been a seminary crisis because they were not selective enough, and potential seminarians didn’t want to go to seminary with a bunch of moral slackers, so I could see how raising the standards could get more good candidates.[/quote]

It’s true, look at from Pope John Paul II, when he first became Pope 60k seminarians. Today, there is 115k, it’s just under double of what it was in America. In other places, seminaries have exploded. I know in Africa, Eastern Europe, &c. that the amount of priests is ridiculous, they are just over flowing into America and other places. There is so many that it’s competitive just to get in. Like they are having to tell qualified applicants to either go to another seminary or that they need to reapply next year because they don’t have the space.

162

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
For me, it’s not that horrible acts were done to kids - and I’m not trying to minimize that. It’s the way the priests used their supposed divine authority to have their way. I’ve read reports where priests threatened kids with hell and damnation if they told anyone. They also made it seem like it was their fault this happened. Add psychological abuse to the mix of physical and sexual abuse. Second, and perhaps more important in my mind, was the way the situation was handled. There was a massive coverd up, plain and simple. This conspiracy extended to many levels of the church. This makes the entire church a corrupt organization under the RICO statute - the same statute that is used to prosecute the Mob. Too bad a federal prosecutor doesn’t have the guts to file a criminal action against the church. If I were a prosecutor I’d like to try.[/quote]

I knew there was a reason I un-ignored you. You’re one funny guy.

Rico charges? Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act - Wikipedia

I think so. Obviously there is federal prosecutors with the guts to charge.

They don’t have any proof that this goes past the diocese bishops. So, at most they’d be able to take down a bishop. And, from what they have tried, they haven’t been found of racketeering.

163

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
For me, it’s not that horrible acts were done to kids - and I’m not trying to minimize that. It’s the way the priests used their supposed divine authority to have their way. I’ve read reports where priests threatened kids with hell and damnation if they told anyone. They also made it seem like it was their fault this happened. Add psychological abuse to the mix of physical and sexual abuse. Second, and perhaps more important in my mind, was the way the situation was handled. There was a massive coverd up, plain and simple. This conspiracy extended to many levels of the church. This makes the entire church a corrupt organization under the RICO statute - the same statute that is used to prosecute the Mob. Too bad a federal prosecutor doesn’t have the guts to file a criminal action against the church. If I were a prosecutor I’d like to try.[/quote]

I knew there was a reason I un-ignored you. You’re one funny guy.

Rico charges? Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act - Wikipedia

I think so. Obviously there is federal prosecutors with the guts to charge.

They don’t have any proof that this goes past the diocese bishops. So, at most they’d be able to take down a bishop. And, from what they have tried, they haven’t been found of racketeering.[/quote]

I AM a funny guy. Other than the fact that I think ALL religions are made up, superstitious nonsense, we would get along very well. I get along well with most people. Thanks for the link.

164

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
I have a question, off topic, I’m sorry.

Why has the doesn’t the Roman Catholic Church serve the services of Vespers, Matins, Compine, Hours, all of the services that were done daily for centuries. Are they still done in Cathedrals?[/quote]

They are not services, they are just prayers. And all clergy are required to pray them daily and not many do I know who don’t.

And, my guess? If the laity don’t go to them. So the priest just does them in private or by themselves. Most priests I know do their daily prayers in the sanctuary still in case the laity want to join in (and most say there is a small group that does). But, some do them in their office, rec., or wherever they are because no one shows up to do them with the priest.

At my Parish they do them everyday, ever one of them, but we’re college kids so we demand it.

[quote]
Why has the Roman Catholic church abondoned the fasting guidelines of the Ecumenical councils, even those blessed and attended by Popes of Rome? My friend says that his grandmother in Italy still will not have any meat, eggs or dairy products during lent. Why has that all been apparently abandoned? And monks were prescribed to never eat meat.

Why aren’t those things important anymore?[/quote]

Actually this is a myth, the Catholic Church hasn’t abandoned fasting. People have abandoned fasting, it was never required that fasting on Friday was from meat, it was just the norm that Bishops designated meat to be fasted on Friday. Which Bishops could require of those in their diocese.

However, Catholics are required to fast something (meat is the norm, I’ve seen some people give up carbs, glutton, &c.) on Fridays as it is the day of our Lord’s death. And, during Lent we are not required to give up meat, eggs or dairy. However, it is still required to fast from something on Lent (girls give up chocolate, men give up booze, &c.).

I personally recommend complete fasting on Fridays (except liquids) until after vespers.

165

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
I have known great single Roman Catholic priests, and great married Orthodox Christian priests, but far more antisocials among the single priests of both denomonations.
[/quote]

It’s common sense. If I told you about a guy who was late 20s/early 30s, single, never been married, never really dated and currently doesn’t date, what would be your immediate impression of this man? Gay? Anti-social? Just a bit “odd?” I think even the most tolerant among us would think that this guy was somehow “odd.”[/quote]

Well, you’d be surprised how many priests have dated before they become priests, pretty much all of them. And, no I wouldn’t consider him odd. I know 20 guys that I went to high school or k8 with that are now in the seminaries. Just normal to me.

Nope. About 50% of priests I know were engaged before going into the seminary. You’re generalizing people you don’t know.

166

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
I have known great single Roman Catholic priests, and great married Orthodox Christian priests, but far more antisocials among the single priests of both denomonations.
[/quote]

It’s common sense. If I told you about a guy who was late 20s/early 30s, single, never been married, never really dated and currently doesn’t date, what would be your immediate impression of this man? Gay? Anti-social? Just a bit “odd?” I think even the most tolerant among us would think that this guy was somehow “odd.”

Same guy, but now he wears a collar and is called “priest.” That’s okay. He is a man of God - he followed a calling. Anyone else see a double standard? The priesthood provides a haven, a refuge if you will, for men who would otherwise be considered “odd” if they remained in society.
[/quote]

Except that this is not anything like the social profile of the typical seminarian.

Research it a bit. I think you will be pretty surprised at what you find.

167

Cortes and BC: Fair enough. Now that I think about it, I recall reading that many seminarians are older and experienced, and have led “regular” lives before deciding to join.

168

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Cortes and BC: Fair enough. Now that I think about it, I recall reading that many seminarians are older and experienced, and have led “regular” lives before deciding to join.[/quote]

Yes, average age of a newly ordained priest is 36.

Here is some stats on it: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=959

169

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:<<<Whether someone is claiming Christ is absolutely central to this issue.[/quote]Actually it’s not, it’s the fact that even though Catholic clergy represent such a small percentage of the problem they exclusively get air time. Compared to say the large busts in the public school systems.[/quote]Actually it really is. Who would be surprised by the members of NAMBLA molesting boys? That’s what they’re about. A humongous global organization claiming exclusive rights to the authority of the one true God and His Christ participating in the same thing as nambla IS news. You see this. I KNOW you do. To attempt to characterize this as a general issue of human perversion in which Rome participates no more than others is obnoxious and spiritually idiotic.

The world has this outrageous notion that those claiming the name of the Son of the Lord of hosts be held to a higher standard than themselves who make no such claim. God agrees with them and so do I. My life is a living epistle read by all men (2nd Cor. 3:2, yes I understand the immediate context). What I do as an ambassador of Christ in this world reflects directly on Him and His enemies, which cover the earth, cannot wait for an opportunity to impugn His reputation and work. This surprises you? Really? They try n tie Jesus to every nominal lunatic that surfaces whether he claims anything even vaguely orthodox or not. What do you think they’re gonna to the “one true most holy and apostolic church”. (Which part of my quote do you disagree with btw?)

170

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

I said public school system, not NAMBLA.

They are not participating in the same thing as NAMBLA, you sound like BearTheMike over here with your RICO charges.

No, please tell me what I see.

Then I’m a fucking idiot.

They can do whatever, last time I check I got a sack and if I need to take my medicine, I promise I won’t have a hissy fit and say ‘this ain’t fair’ like your beloved heretics Calvin and Luther.

Because that’s not the name of the Church. That’s like me calling you George, it’s looks similar to your name. But it’s not. So knock it off. The proper name is ‘One, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.’ It is the four marks of the Church: One, one faith - one body - one G-d - one Savior; holy, because the Church is the holy body of Christ; catholic, because the Church is universal it touches the four corners of the world and all of time; apostolic, because our Church and faith come from the apostles. So ‘one true’ is not the correct adjective, ‘most holy’ is repetitive as G-d is only holy and since the Church is the body of Christ then most is not needed. You forgot catholic.

171

Come on Chris, you got unnecessarily exercised over this last post. I used nambla in contrast to the “One, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” in principle. What happens in the world has nothing to do with happens in the church. Are you gonna tell me that what happens in the public school system or nambla brings reproach and dishonor on the name of Jesus? Or do the actions of professing Christians bring reproach and dishonor on His name? The point is having a history of perversion no worse than the world makes you no different.

It’s not the self professed haters of Christ that bother me. They’re just being what they’re supposed to be. I want to make sure that nothing I do gives occasion for blasphemy. It’s those claiming to be His that we are told everywhere in scripture will be accountable for how He is perceived. You are not an idiot no matter what you say. You have to see this.

As for the name of the church? Fair enough. Yours works just as well as mine for my purposes anyway. I was not intentionally corrupting a known proper name for your church. I was simply stringing her claims for herself together into a name.

172

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Come on Chris, you got unnecessarily exercised over this last post. I used nambla in contrast to the “One, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” in principle. What happens in the world has nothing to do with happens in the church. Are you gonna tell me that what happens in the public school system or nambla brings reproach and dishonor on the name of Jesus? Or do the actions of professing Christians bring reproach and dishonor on His name? The point is having a history of perversion no worse than the world makes you no different.[/quote]

You’re not getting my point. I’m not talking about the Church, I am talking about the media. The media is the subject of my discussion. You keep talking about the object of the discussion. I already said what those priests have done is unacceptable and the people that hid them should be punished. If you want to hash out the Holiness of the body of Christ, make another thread. I don’t care to discuss it here.

[quote]
It’s not the self professed haters of Christ that bother me. They’re just being what they’re supposed to be. I want to make sure that nothing I do gives occasion for blasphemy. It’s those claiming to be His that we are told everywhere in scripture will be accountable for how He is perceived. You are not an idiot no matter what you say. You have to see this.[/quote]

No, explain it Tirib. You speak too fancy for me. I’m not as brilliant as you think. I have offered you chance after chance to prove the doctrine of the Church wrong, and I said that I would leave if one doctrine was proven wrong. You haven’t. You just commit ad hominem. You judge the medicine by those who don’t take it. You dismiss St. Peter because of Judas. You dismiss Jesus because St. Peter denied Jesus three times.

The matter which I am pointing out is that America, as “fair and even” as she is, hates Catholics, for not very good reasons (because usually their reasons are just straw man arguments). Example, pedophile priests…this is a blatant misuse of an adjective for any priest who has been accused of relations with a minor (usually 17 or under). So, why would a ‘journalist’ use the adjective ‘pedophile’ priest to describe someone caught with anyone between the ages of 11-17, when pedophile is not the correct term? Are they ignorant, or do they have an ulterior motive?

Another example, why is an accused priest considered guilty by the journalist before he’s even been charged? Is this not America where we’re innocent until proven guilty? Why does an allegation get first cover with the profile of the priest in a big colored picture, but when the allegation is found to be false it’s in section 6c, written by some cub-reporter who just writes down court rulings?

Why does someone that, in the last 50 years, has been connected to 2% of the victims, and has the lowest percentage of abusers in their ranks get 99% of the news coverage.

Why have the media mistranslated Vatican documents in order to make it seem like high ranking officials in the Catholic Church are responsible? I read a story the other day that tells about how a paper (Times, big surprise) had “proof” of Cardinal Ratzinger’s involvement with that one priest everyone huffs about, it was a document in Italian. Except it was mistranslated and posted as an official document (compared to a translated document). Then when someone in their OWN company showed them the document was mistranslated…was there an apology, was there a retraction? No. Not even in section 6c. There was silence. The only reason I knew about it is because journalist over in Europe pointed out that the Times journalist (who claimed to be Italian) complete botched the translation.

How come ‘journalist’ don’t get their facts down about the Church, or are they just purposefully twisting the truth. Cardinal Ratzinger when he was the prefect (and that guy in Germany was still abusing kids), he didn’t have the power or the responsibility to deal with these cases. And, the only time he was even informed about them is if there was a sacramental abuse (like a priest in a confessional soliciting sex). How come that is? Is it because people are just that dumb?

What about these journalist who report that priests who have had allegations pressed against them are still in public ministry…and some of them had been dead for a few years and some had been defrocked of public ministry and already had a trial by the Bishop and removed permanently? Interesting, are they just that dumb and lazy to pick up the phone to find out the current status of these priests (the time when a well know priest was dead, and it came out that he still was allowed to perform public ministry was the best, gave me a little chuckle inside), or is it just an ulterior motive?

Maybe you can understand my indignation over people bashing the Catholic Church, completely unnecessarily.

Forget the fact that we get most of the attention, when we aren’t even close to making a dent in the statistics compared to fathers, family members, school faculty, and strangers. I can deal with that, report the truth. Whatever, I don’t care…whatever gets you the most greenbacks in your wallet. Good for you.

However, when people lie, cheat, mistranslates, twist, just to make gossip…that upsets me.

173

You’re gonna have to wait for a more complete answer Chris. It’s late. Try this. When someone says. “I AM A CHRISTIAN”. They are saying “I AM LIKE CHRIST”. Then perversion and coverup and the media says. “EITHER YOU ARE LYING OR CHRIST MOLESTS CHILDREN” (in essence). Non professing Christians do not say “I AM LIKE CHRIST” so the media doesn’t care as much what they do because they do not hate their own like they hate Jesus. They will always be looking (not all) for a reason to discredit His name. The solution? Don’t have perversion in your church and if it IS found? Whatever on earth you do NEVER EVER get caught covering it up.

Professing Christians, especially those who are politically and socially conservative = under attack from the world. He Himself said we would be.

Non professing Christians = Not under the same attack.

When you give them ammo they WILL fire. Don’t blame the media. They are doing exactly what should be expected of them. It’s alleged Christian priests (some protestants too) who are not.

What about this is eluding you?

174

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You’re gonna have to wait for a more complete answer Chris. It’s late. Try this. When someone says. “I AM A CHRISTIAN”. They are saying “I AM LIKE CHRIST”. Then perversion and coverup and the media says. “EITHER YOU ARE LYING OR CHRIST MOLESTS CHILDREN” (in essence). Non professing Christians do not say “I AM LIKE CHRIST” so the media doesn’t care as much what they do because they do not hate their own like they hate Jesus. They will always be looking (not all) for a reason to discredit His name. The solution? Don’t have perversion in your church and if it IS found? Whatever on earth you do NEVER EVER get caught covering it up.

Professing Christians, especially those who are politically and socially conservative = under attack from the world. He Himself said we would be.

Non professing Christians = Not under the same attack.

When you give them ammo they WILL fire. Don’t blame the media. They are doing exactly what should be expected of them. It’s alleged Christian priests (some protestants too) who are not.

What about this is eluding you?[/quote]

Nothing, but you’re telling me I am incorrect and that I don’t see it. I do see it, they are deliberately misrepresenting the Church. Like I said, I don’t care if they report on it.

And, then people are getting pissed at me because I’m supposed to act like this yellow journalism is the truth just because it fits their bigotry. I don’t and I’m not going to let accusations against my Mother go undefended. Don’t expect me to just let it happen either, wouldn’t be a very good Catholic to let someone insult my Mother and the body of my Savior with false claims, I don’t let my anyone insult my Father or my Saviour without defense, same goes for the body of my Savior.

And anyone has a problem with that…do something.