Philadelphia Catholic Clergy Exposed

[thessalonian]

But what makes me mad about the Catholics, is that they have pushed stuff out there, that is not scripture, like purgatory, and a bunch of other unscriptural stuff. Thereby leading people down the wrong road.

Where is it unscriptural. Do you admit you are a sinner? I would hope so. I am. If you died today do you have some sinful tendancies that would need to be cleansed from you. I do. The scriptures say "nothing unclean shall enter". So something has to give between here and there. God's grace has to purge these tendancies out of us or we cannot enter heaven. This is not hard to understand so how is this harmful to me as a Christian?

Blessings

 

[von]

I really know in my heart that I should not jump in here, but in your defense Lewis, it seems to me that the Catholics are quick to point out the flaws and sins of the Protestants, but when it comes to their own they defend it to the end, making excuses for it, There is no defense or excuse for molestation and unless they confess their sins to Jesus, the High priest, I don't care how long the priest prays them out of purgatory it aint happenin'. In fact they had better hope their purgatory really exists. The Catholics come on here and make like they have the perfect church and instead of saying yes, there is wrong within our churches too, they want to defend this? That's just sick! They better let their priest get with a wife and maybe they won't find themselves in these situations so much.

 

[thessalonian]

I really know in my heart that I should not jump in here, but in your defense Lewis, it seems to me that the Catholics are quick to point out the flaws and sins of the Protestants, but when it comes to their own they defend it to the end, making excuses for it, There is no defense or excuse for molestation and unless they confess their sins to Jesus, the High priest, I don't care how long the priest prays them out of purgatory it aint happenin'. In fact they had better hope their purgatory really exists. The Catholics come on here and make like they have the perfect church and instead of saying yes, there is wrong within our churches too, they want to defend this? That's just sick! They better let their priest get with a wife and maybe they won't find themselves in these situations so much.

We're quick to point out the sins of Protestants. Surely you are joking. Who always starts these thread pointing fingers at the Catholic Church. My only point in posting the sins of Protestants is that I think they need to evaluate their own problems. I never post such things in an offensive manner to make the point as Lewis is trying to do that this all has false teaching behind it. It's a red herring.

I AM NOT DEFENDING ANYTHING AND I RESENT THE INSINUATION THAT I AM. I DON'T KNOW OF ANYONE WHO IS DEFENDING WHAT THE SMALL PERCENTAGE OF PRIESTS HAVE DONE. I WILL OF COURSE DEFEND THE MAJORITY OF GOOD AND HOLY PRIESTS. MY POINT ON THIS THREAD IS IT IS PROTESTANTS WHO ARE QUICK TO POINT FINGERS AT CATHOLICISM WITHOUT LOOKING IN THEIR OWN BACK YARDS. http://www.reformation.com.

Your accusastions about our church are foolish if you have read my posts. Yes our Popes sin. Yes our priests sin. I said it about but you apparently ignored it. The Church is a hospital for sinners rather than a hotel for saints. WHY DO YOU THINK WE HAVE CONFESSION! I find your post and your attitude offensive if I might be direct. Further the Church has done alot already to clean up it's act. Most of the cases being rehashed today are 20 years old.

 

[Gary]

..... (a) Further the Church has done alot already to clean up it's act. (b) Most of the cases being rehashed today are 20 years old.

I think this link, ABUSE TRACKER from the National Catholic Reporter exposes both of these claims. The attempted cover-up and damage control continues. It is all very sad.
http://www.ncrnews.org/abuse/

For archdiocese, one response, two messages
PHILADELPHIA (PA)
Philadelphia Inquirer

By Thomas Fitzgerald
Inquirer Staff Writer

Confronted with the grand jury report finding an "immoral" cover-up of sexual abuse, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia has counterpunched with a classic damage-control strategy familiar in politics: two messages, one conciliatory, one tough.

While Cardinal Justin Rigali spoke of reconciliation and reform, the archdiocese's lawyer attacked the findings as a "vile diatribe" motivated by anti-Catholic bigotry.

In the 48 hours after that initial response Wednesday, the strategy has continued in news interviews with Rigali, full-page newspaper ads, and a pastoral letter from the cardinal in the archdiocesan newspaper.

Among the points: the archdiocese has instituted training to prevent abuse; it reports every accusation to law enforcement and has a "zero-tolerance" policy; the grand jury report unfairly made no mention of reforms; the archdiocese was misled because the grand jury was supposed to focus on other denominations, too.

These later communiques have stopped short of accusing District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham, whose office conducted the investigation, of Catholic-bashing, while stressing what the archdiocese sees as shortcomings in the probe.

Jill Porter | A RIDICULOUS DEFENSE
PHILADELPHIA (PA)
Philadelphia Daily News

IF NOTHING else, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia is consistent - sickeningly so.

It still refuses to own up to its role in subjecting children to the sick whims of perverted priests.

This week, the archdiocese demeaned the pedophiles' victims and wasted its moral authority by denying its complicity in the sex scandal.

Stung by a blistering grand jury report that accused top church leaders of an "immoral" campaign to conceal sexual abuse in its ranks, the church sought refuge in a ridiculous defense: The report was motivated by anti-Catholic bias.

Unbelieveable.

The allegation of prejudice is a groundless and transparent attempt to deflect blame and defuse the most damning account of cold-blooded moral corruption I have ever read.

The grand jury report detailed a calculated policy by church leaders, up to and including former Cardinals Bevilacqua and Krol, to conceal the crimes of predator priests by transferring them from one place to another, sacrificing the safety of children to save the church from scandal.

http://www.ncrnews.org/abuse/

.

 

[Gary]

The Church is a hospital for sinners rather than a hotel for saints.

Oh... is that why they are embarking of a gay-hunt? To bring them INTO the hospital or to BAN them from the RC seminaries?

The pope goes gay hunting
UNITED STATES
Concord Monitor

September 23. 2005 8:00AM

Given the pope's history of backward thinking on questions of human sexuality and open debate, word that the Catholic Church will try to root out gay students and dissident professors in its seminaries comes as no surprise. But that doesn't make the news any less troubling.

As part of a review prompted by the clerical sex abuse scandal, the Vatican will dispatch a team of investigators to search for "evidence of homosexuality" and identify faculty members who question church teachings in its 229 American seminaries, The New York Times recently reported.

As Catholics await a ruling on whether gays should be barred from the priesthood, a Vatican document obtained by the Timesand an interview with the archbishop overseeing the seminary review suggest that the church wants to eliminate gays from the dwindling ranks of priests. Edwin O'Brien, the archbishop for the U.S. military, said that "anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity or has strong homosexual inclinations" should not be admitted to the seminary. That prohibition should even apply to those who have not been sexually active for a decade or better, O'Brien told the National Catholic Register.

The purge is a misguided reaction to a scandal in which it was revealed that priests had abused an alarming number of children, an estimated 80 percent of them boys. Rather than addressing the real problem - a church culture that denied healthy sexuality and then covered up the ugly consequences - the Vatican of Pope Benedict XVI took aim at a familiar target: sexual orientation.

http://ncrnews.org/abuse2005b-archives/2005_09.html

.

 

[SputnikBoy]

I believe that it's only in relatively recent times, correct me if I happen to be wrong, that the discipline of psychology has determined that sexual abuse is so utterly damaging to the victim. Based on this assumption, and also assuming that I'm correct, then it seems quite feasible to me that the church of the past would not have placed as much emphasis on this particular offense as they perhaps might today. This was way before Oprah and Dr. Phil.

I can also see why the church of the past would have been reluctant to hand over 'offenders' to the authorities for prosecution purposes. Seems to me that Jesus speaks out against this practice. I also doubt that the church would have been consciously 'defending' criminal behavior as such. It would probably have been due more to ignorance by the church regarding the 'criminality' of the offense itself. Again, it's only in recent times that the reporting to the police of offenses of a sexual nature by churches and Human Service Organizations has become mandatory. In times past, the church was considered a safe haven for those who were being pursued by the law. HSOs had an oath of integrity that protected those who might seek their help for having perpetrated sexual (and other) offenses ...excluding murder, I think.

One cannot, in all reason, apply present-day psych findings and recent laws on situations that occurred in the past. There is much ignorance and stupidity and too many 'expert' opinions underlying discussions of this kind. Those who respond to threads such as this with anger and borderline hysteria cannot possibly contribute anything other than anger and borderline hysteria. What's the point? What is done is done. We perhaps need to stop with the witch-hunt and start behaving like Christians. Getting back at those who have wronged us sounds more like something Satan would recommend.

 

[Gary]

What is wrong is that the RCC has covered up these abuses. That is wrong. Can something be done? Of course.... those that abuse must be exposed. That is no "recent times" thinking. Read the bible.

What is wrong is that the RCC has NOT used the Bible to determine who church leaders should be. They have used their own man-made dogma and canon law to rule the church. Hence the problems.

What does the Bible say about Christian leaders? I suggest you look up the passages.

Oversees and Deacons: 1 Timothy 3:1-13

Elders: Titus 1:6-9 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blamelessâ€â€not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Still so sure that this is "recent times"?

.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

The Church is a hospital for sinners rather than a hotel for saints.

Oh... is that why they are embarking of a gay-hunt? To bring them INTO the hospital or to BAN them from the RC seminaries?

The pope goes gay hunting
UNITED STATES
Concord Monitor

September 23. 2005 8:00AM

Given the pope's history of backward thinking on questions of human sexuality and open debate, word that the Catholic Church will try to root out gay students and dissident professors in its seminaries comes as no surprise. But that doesn't make the news any less troubling.

As part of a review prompted by the clerical sex abuse scandal, the Vatican will dispatch a team of investigators to search for "evidence of homosexuality" and identify faculty members who question church teachings in its 229 American seminaries, The New York Times recently reported.

As Catholics await a ruling on whether gays should be barred from the priesthood, a Vatican document obtained by the Timesand an interview with the archbishop overseeing the seminary review suggest that the church wants to eliminate gays from the dwindling ranks of priests. Edwin O'Brien, the archbishop for the U.S. military, said that "anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity or has strong homosexual inclinations" should not be admitted to the seminary. That prohibition should even apply to those who have not been sexually active for a decade or better, O'Brien told the National Catholic Register.

The purge is a misguided reaction to a scandal in which it was revealed that priests had abused an alarming number of children, an estimated 80 percent of them boys. Rather than addressing the real problem - a church culture that denied healthy sexuality and then covered up the ugly consequences - the Vatican of Pope Benedict XVI took aim at a familiar target: sexual orientation.

http://ncrnews.org/abuse2005b-archives/2005_09.html

.

Gary here plays both sides of the issue. If the Catholics didn't deal with the ACTIVE homosexuals in their seminaries, he'd be critical. If they do, he'll use that to show that the Catholics are indeed prone to ferreting out immorality.

The Catholic Church is dealing with and acknowledging problems. Full repentance and renewal come when people begin to deal with wrongs that have been covered up. I wonder about any Christian who gets mileage out of pointing out the past wrongs of a brother or brothers.

 

[SputnikBoy]

I wonder about any Christian who gets mileage out of pointing out the past wrongs of a brother or brothers.

Right on. OC.

 

[SputnikBoy]

What is wrong is that the RCC has covered up these abuses. That is wrong. Can something be done? Of course.... those that abuse must be exposed.

Then what ...string 'em up just as they deserve? Right or wrong, I have no special interest in getting caught up in any witch-hunt as I've mentioned several times already. I spent six years of my early life in and out of abusive situations and I hold no animosity toward any of the ones who were responsible for this. They may have been the victims of some previous situation themselves for all I know. Besides the fact that forgiveness is an aspect of my nature ...unlike you, Gary, I really don't see the point in pursuing such things. Maybe we can all learn from our own wrongs and the wrongs of others, however, and try to do better from hereonin.

That is no "recent times" thinking. Read the bible.

What is wrong is that the RCC has NOT used the Bible to determine who church leaders should be. They have used their own man-made dogma and canon law to rule the church. Hence the problems.

And so we delight in the fact that we can repeatedly rub their noses in it?

What does the Bible say about Christian leaders? I suggest you look up the passages.

Oversees and Deacons: 1 Timothy 3:1-13

Elders: Titus 1:6-9 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blamelessâ€â€not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

My. Do such people exist in the real world? Do you fit this profile, Gary? Seems like they've already received their halo. I wonder if you might have a spare one you could throw my way?

Still so sure that this is "recent times"?

I still refer you to my previous post. By the way, why are you and I arguing over this issue? That's okay, you don't need to respond.

 

[Gary]

Of course there must be forgiveness at a personal level. Even the pope forgave his potential assassin. However, the assassin still faced the consequences of his deed. He is in jail for attempted murder. The pope did not ask for him to be released from jail.

So using the same parallel, the victim (in time) may forgive the child molester. However, the child molester must be brought before the courts and face the consequences of his actions. If the RCC knew about the child molester but covered up..... then the RCC also stands accused of helping and abetting the crime.

Or are you suggesting that the RCC allows the perpetrator to continue in his position and to continue to abuse boys? A simple YES or NO will do.

.

 

[Gary]

What does the Bible say about Christian leaders? I suggest you look up the passages.

Oversees and Deacons: 1 Timothy 3:1-13

Elders: Titus 1:6-9 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blamelessâ€â€not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

My. Do such people exist in the real world? Do you fit this profile, Gary? Seems like they've already received their halo. I wonder if you might have a spare one you could throw my way?

Why did Paul then give these instructions to Titus?

Do these people exist in this world you ask? The answer is YES.

Paul said that an elder MUST be:
(1) blameless
(2) the husband of but one wife
(3) a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he MUST be
(4) blamelessâ€â€not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.
(5) hospitable
(6) one who loves what is good
(7) self-controlled
(8) upright
(9) holy and
(10) disciplined

He MUST hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

I have met and worked with elders and teaching elders who live up to these requirements.

Have you never had that privilege?

:-?

 

[thessalonian]

What is wrong is that the RCC has covered up these abuses. That is wrong. Can something be done? Of course.... those that abuse must be exposed. That is no "recent times" thinking. Read the bible.

What is wrong is that the RCC has NOT used the Bible to determine who church leaders should be. They have used their own man-made dogma and canon law to rule the church. Hence the problems.

What does the Bible say about Christian leaders? I suggest you look up the passages.

Oversees and Deacons: 1 Timothy 3:1-13

Elders: Titus 1:6-9 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blamelessâ€â€not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Still so sure that this is "recent times"?

.

Why Gary, are you coming out of the closet as pro-gay. The majority of the cases were not with young children. They were with teenagers and the perpetrators were homosexuals. So I think the measure is quite prudent. Homosexuality is a DISORDER GARY. Now if one struggles and works to overcome the disorder that is one thing, but preists who have this tendancy have been show to be a risk, so, while I do believe one who has these tendancies could be a good preist (we all have our issues that need to be addressed in our lives), I do not find the Pope's actions imprudent in the slightest.

Blessings

 

[Gary]

IF the RCC had followed the Bible and Paul's recommendations (husband with children = a married man with children and a wife) then they would not have landed up with as many homosexuals as priests and they would not have needed the homosexuals-hunt now being proposed.

.

 

[thessalonian]

I have met and worked with elders and teaching elders who live up to these requirements.

Have you never had that privilege?

:-?

The vast majority of Catholic priests have been faithful to their vows. The verse you site is one of qualifications BEFORE ministry. The question is what happens when someone enters ministry and shows themselves not to be of good character or falls in to sin afterwards. You point the finger at those who have sinned and say, "look at the Catholic Church, it doesn't know these verses are in the Bible". Yet http://www.reformation.com shows there are plenty of offenders in protestant sects as well. I can also produce statistics that show that 11-13% of Protestant pastors are having extramarital affairs, many times with women they are supposed to be counseling. I know of one man who's Baptist pastor had molested three young girls and was still there. There are statistics available on the web that say that there are 70 insurance claims PER WEEK for sexual offenses accross Christian denominations. So don't paint this as only a Catholic problem. The Southern Baptist Convention itself recognized that this is not just a Catholic problem. Such finger pointing and gloating among Protestants is juvenile. Stop pointing the finger of the devil at sins of others and clean up your own territory. Our Pope and clergy are working on ours and there have been alot fewer of the heinous acts.

 

[Gary]

The verse you site is one of qualifications BEFORE ministry.

Yes.... and husband and wife and children implies that the elder is married and has a family... unlike what the RCC recommends.

:-?

 

[thessalonian]

IF the RCC had followed the Bible and Paul's recommendations (husband with children = a married man with children and a wife) then they would not have landed up with as many homosexuals as priests and they would not have needed the homosexuals-hunt now being proposed.

.

Paul was not married himself. So if your point is correct and he was requiring men to be married, then he should have been disqualified. Jesus did not disqualify John who was known to be quite young and not married. It seems likely that other Apostles and perhaps all of them were not married as well. Yes, I've been the rounds with Peter. As for Pauls words they fit quite nicely with regard to men who may have been divorced. Jesus said some are to be celibate for the kingdom. I don't see much of that calling in Protestant denominations. There is no discernment of such celibacy except perhaps in Lutheran and Episcopalian denominatiosn. Most others are pressured to be married, regardless of God's call to celibacy.

Blessings

 

[Gary]

As for Pauls words they fit quite nicely with regard to men who may have been divorced.

If you had read the other Bible verses I posted, you would have seen that Paul said: "If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?"

Paul also went on to to explain what was expected of the wives. Read 1 Timothy 3:1-13 again.

 

[thessalonian]

As for Pauls words they fit quite nicely with regard to men who may have been divorced.

If you had read the other Bible verses I posted, you would have seen that Paul said: "If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?"

Paul also went on to to explain what was expected of the wives. Read 1 Timothy 3:1-13 again.

I read them Gary. It's a good question. How can a man who has been divorced and has unruly children manage a parish. The evidence is plain for all if he has divorced his wife or has unruly children. Most single priests I know do a fine job of managing the affairs of their parishes however. I don't see Pauls words as a comand that a minister must be married. It just doesn't fit. It does fit the context of the time when most men the Church had to choose from for service were married.

 

[von]

It was pointed out to me by a friend that my post was offensive. I do not want to bash other religions. I do not post any threads about the RCC, I only join in them sometimes. Anyhow, the Bible says, Let your light so shine among men that they may see your GOOD works. That is how I WANT to live my life. I am human and don't always let my light shine in the proper way. One of those things that I need to work on. Again, I apologize for the hurtful things that I said in this thread. I have been in a church where wrong was done by the pastor and I would have respected him if he would've stepped down for awhile but that was not my call. I did leave that church. However, it is true, the problems in our churches are not always addressed properly either. You all keep me in check and that is great. Hopefully I will learn to be a better, more compassionate Christian through you all. Thanks.