A Nope for Pope [NYT: Dowd]

[Cinette]

Well, then does it look like the Muslims are more uncompromising against ABC than Catholics are? At least if you take a look at the size of their families in our neighborhood.

No, their motives have more to do with demographics!! You better believe it.

Cinette

 

[Leo1]

Just read the “comments” to these articles. They are frightening. If any one doubts that the Church is under attack, just read them. I am very concerned about the level of the rage out there. Sure, most of it is just anti-Catholicism. I am seriously concerned about how damaged the Church might be after this. Needless to say, I am finding it darn near impossible to discuss the merits of the the Church with reasonable people. We need a real miracle right now. I have never been this rattled in my faith.

Here’s what I think we need to do and quickly. It is being done in some other places.

(1) What exactly are the facts about the two specific cases:Fr. Murphy in Wisconsin and the other priest in Munich. I think this is out there now. Is it posted clearly on Cat Answers or EWTN. It needs to be.

(2) What are the facts about pedophilia? Who is the typical pedophile? I realize social scientific research on sex is always controversial; however, I have noticed few pedophilia experts - and there are some - on the media or referenced by the likes of Dowd. Why? I don’t think the research supports the contention that pedophilia and celibacy is linked as Dowd et al think it is. If it were, you can bet these experts would be on the nightly news casts every night. Lets get the scientific facts straight. I believe this research is out there.

(3) I don’t want to drag others into this but, what are the facts on child sex-abuse in the general population? We need to know. What about cases against public school teachers, other religious denominations, etc.? I have a feeling that if priests were more likely to abuse than others in the general population, we’d be getting an earful of such stats from Dowd and her ilk. Why don’t we hear it? It’s not there. If priests aren’t different from the general public in this regard, this would put it all in context and show that articles like Dowd’s are irresponsible anti-Catholic bigotry. Surely, someone has this???

I think we need to get our heads together and get the facts and the data. Can’t Cat Answers give some room to this and post it? Maybe they have and I just haven’t seen it? If so, someone show me the way?

I’d really rather fight than fret, but I’m asking for some ammo!!!

 

[JReducation]

To answer to last queston, 2% of abusers are Catholic priests and religious. The other 98% is from many different backgrounds. What is frightening is that child sexual abouse seems to have exploded during the second half of the 20th century. It raises the question, why didn’t society notice? Better yet, what happened to cause this?

As to the Fr. Murphy case, there was a interesting article by the judge in that case. I’ll give you the link.

catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601

For those who want to point the finger at the Church for being human and having sinful people, let’s look at this other article.

kval.com/internal?st=print&id=88554962&path=/news/local

This is an epidemic. Childen should not be subjected to this. The Church should be part of a worldwide search for answers, not the only institution put on trial.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[sidbrown]

What is frightening is that child sexual abouse seems to have exploded during the second half of the 20th century. It raises the question, why didn’t society notice? Better yet, what happened to cause this?

The Traditional Catholics have already given their answer many times.

 

[sidbrown]

To answer to last queston, 2% of abusers are Catholic priests and religious. The other 98% is from many different backgrounds. What is frightening is that child sexual abouse seems to have exploded during the second half of the 20th century. It raises the question, why didn’t society notice? Better yet, what happened to cause this?

As to the Fr. Murphy case, there was a interesting article by the judge in that case. I’ll give you the link.

catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601

For those who want to point the finger at the Church for being human and having sinful people, let’s look at this other article.

kval.com/internal?st=print&id=88554962&path=/news/local

This is an epidemic. Childen should not be subjected to this. The Church should be part of a worldwide search for answers, not the only institution put on trial.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

1. For the first link, an article in the Times comments on this article by Father Brundage. . nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01chrono.html
2. For the second link, I don’t see where the position of a Boy scout leader is comparable with that of a Catholic priest.

 

[Cinette]

1. For the first link, an article in the Times comments on this article by Father Brundage. . nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01chrono.html
2. For the second link, I don’t see where the position of a Boy scout leader is comparable with that of a Catholic priest.

For a Catholic priest to commit such abuse is E N O R M O U S!!! Just think he then celebrates Mass and consecrates the bread and wine! Although his powers are not diminished in this regard - he is guilty of “partaking of the Lord’s Supper unworthly” 1 Cor 11:29 “…For all who eat and drink without discerning the body eat and drink judgment against themselves.” Now a priest does discern the body but in this case is not in a state of grace AND he has abused God’s “little children” something which is painfull to God.

How a priest can live with himself, present homilies, teach the people of God and live a lie is beyond me. All this is painful to us Catholics - very painful. The priest should know that he is living in MORTAL SIN. And for this to go on for years … repeatedly… surely he must have sold his soul to the devil. It is the only way. But how he can live with himself is really beyond understanding.

God bless all our beautiful holy priests - we love and appreciate them. As for those who have betrayed God, themselves and the faithful, may they repent but they must also take responsibility and be punished. It is not enough for us to repent of our sins we must also make retribution for our sins - we have to pay for our sins. This is something Protestants do not understand - they think that all one needs to do is repent. Yes Jesus died for our sins - what he did earned us Eternal Life but we have to repent, accept responsibility and pay.

For instance if a murderer is found guilty - he is then sentenced, he has to serve time. Likewise we are enabled by Jesus to gain access to Eternal Life but we must repent and serve our time!! We must make reparation - we need to show that we are truly sorry by avoiding sin. We are told to be Holy as our Heavenly Father is Holy (Lev 19:2)

God love you all
Cinette

 

[tomarin]

Unfortunately, the church is just now finding that when you wrestle with pigs, you get muddy. It may be the right thing to do. But don’t expect the secular press to simply say “mea culpa”. The church is in the public sphere. This is a dialog in the public sphere. The side with the best argument will win, at least will win my support.

As long as they keep reporting allegations that have been disproven, I have every right to wait for their retraction and apology. That’s the way serious journalism is supposed to work.

I’m not sure what you mean about the Church “wrestling with pigs.” Are you implying someone has used underhanded tactics to defend the Church against attacks from the secular media?

To address your main point here, no, public discourse is not “anything goes,” and the Church does not have to take anything the media throws at it lying down. There are objective standards of truth and fairness that should apply to all religions, not just Catholicism. In asserting that public discourse is a no-holds barred fight in which victory should go to the most vicious fighter I think you’re sinking into the morass of post-Enlightenment relativism.

If you or Maureen Dowd don’t want to be Catholic, that’s fine by me. If you want to criticize the Church, that is also your right, but please let it be for something the Church (or in this case Pope Benedict) has actually done.

 

[csuliman]

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19940727en.html

Quite recently some women, even among Catholics, have asserted a claim to the ministerial priesthood. This demand is based on an untenable assumption. The priestly ministry is not a function one approaches on the basis of sociological criteria or legal procedures, but only in obedience to the will of Christ. Now, Jesus has entrusted the task of the ministerial priesthood only to males. Although he invited some women to follow him and even sought their cooperation, he did not call or allow any of them to be part of the group he entrusted with the ministerial priesthood in his Church. His will is seen in his behavior as a whole, as well as in significant actions which Christian tradition has constantly interpreted as directions to be followed.

This explanation is completely inadequate. If Jesus only chose males among his apostles, he did not explicitly prohibit women from being priests and in fact had many women as disciples. I would also note that although the mentality of the times did not affect Jesus’ decision, the Gospels were written decades after the death and ascension of Christ and do reflect the mentality of its writers.

The argument above is unpersuasive. It remains that there is no logical reason for the separation and division.

 

[csuliman]

Who are you? What are you? Declare yourself!

What qualifies you to make such statements?

Cinette

I am just a regular Catholic. However, I have been endowed by God with reason and do not intend to ignore it. I have also been forced to look with a skeptical mind to the dogma of religion after seeing my country (Iraq) being torn apart by those who felt that they were doing God’s work, having my priest and relatives murdered and seeing an entire village blown up by a mad suicide bomber who had been driven to do so by his religion.

However, I love the Church and have not said it is run by a group of sexist males (as another poster accused me of believing). But I will question when dogma does not make sense and will try to obtain a satisfactory answer. Blinded obedience to an institution run by humans is sinful, as we should never ignore the internal moral compass provided to us by God.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

In today’s editions, Fr. Brundage, who had initially been prosecuted Fr. Murphy, admitted that the New York Times did not misquote him. Everything said by a church authority has to be questioned in this case. They are not necessarily lying, but shading and nuances have to be taken account of. Fr. Brundage was never quoted or misquoted by the New York Times until today’s edition.

As to your last paragraph, I long for a Church founded by Christ where the fullness of his teaching is embodied. Does such a church exist? I hope so. But for me, at this time, all roads do not lead to Rome.

To address your main point here, no, public discourse is not “anything goes,” and the Church does not have to take anything the media throws at it lying down. There are objective standards of truth and fairness that should apply to all religions, not just Catholicism. In asserting that public discourse is a no-holds barred fight in which victory should go to the most vicious fighter I think you’re sinking into the morass of post-Enlightenment relativism.

If you or Maureen Dowd don’t want to be Catholic, that’s fine by me. If you want to criticize the Church, that is also your right, but please let it be for something the Church (or in this case Pope Benedict) has actually done.

 

[He_Man]

This explanation is completely inadequate. If Jesus only chose males among his apostles, he did not explicitly prohibit women from being priests and in fact had many women as disciples. I would also note that although the mentality of the times did not affect Jesus’ decision, the Gospels were written decades after the death and ascension of Christ and do reflect the mentality of its writers.

The argument above is unpersuasive. It remains that there is no logical reason for the separation and division.

By your logic, animals could be priests too. Jesus didn’t explicitly prohibit dolphins from being Priests either.

The argument about discipline versus doctrine and dogma is apparently lost on you. You’ve made up your mind to be a dissenter, and no answer is going to change your mind.

Do us all a favor and stop asking; there are plenty of heretical websites that will tell you what you want to hear.

 

[sidbrown]

For a Catholic priest to commit such abuse is E N O R M O U S!!!

Yes.

 

[tomarin]

In today’s editions, Fr. Brundage, who had initially been prosecuted Fr. Murphy, admitted that the New York Times did not misquote him. Everything said by a church authority has to be questioned in this case. They are not necessarily lying, but shading and nuances have to be taken account of. Fr. Brundage was never quoted or misquoted by the New York Times until today’s edition.

My understanding is that he had a problem with the article because they didn’t bother to interview him and he wasn’t sure that quotes attributed to him in the article were really his. I read the article when it first appeared but don’t remember how he was quoted. I’ve also seen it alleged that the sources for the article were former Bishop Weakland (whom the reporter has reported on positively in the past and may have a cosy relationship with) and some attorney involved in a lawsuit (against the Archdiocese of Wisconsin, presumably) so there are some conflict of issues involved. In any event, I believe that even the facts presented in the article argue against the allegations implied in the article, so it’s really hard to understand why the Times editors ran the story unless it was out of pure maliciousness.

As to your last paragraph, I long for a Church founded by Christ where the fullness of his teaching is embodied. Does such a church exist? I hope so. But for me, at this time, all roads do not lead to Rome.

I wish you all the best in your journey.

 

[rlg94086]

This explanation is completely inadequate. If Jesus only chose males among his apostles, he did not explicitly prohibit women from being priests and in fact had many women as disciples. I would also note that although the mentality of the times did not affect Jesus’ decision, the Gospels were written decades after the death and ascension of Christ and do reflect the mentality of its writers.

The argument above is unpersuasive. It remains that there is no logical reason for the separation and division.

Somehow, I knew you would react to His Holiness’ reasoned explanation in such a manner.

Anyway, it remains a fact that women can’t be ordained, and the Church can’t change something instituted by Christ. You can complain, protest, etc., but it won’t change dogma.

 

[rlg94086]

However, I love the Church and have not said it is run by a group of sexist males (as another poster accused me of believing).** But I will question when dogma does not make sense and will try to obtain a satisfactory answer**. Blinded obedience to an institution run by humans is sinful, as we should never ignore the internal moral compass provided to us by God.

I applaud you for questioning and trying to make sense of dogma that you don’t understand. All Catholics should do this. However, it isn’t “blind obedience” to accept the answers once received - that would be humility. When you demand a “satisfactory answer” (i.e. one that you approve of), that would be pride.

 

[tomarin]

In today’s editions, Fr. Brundage, who had initially been prosecuted Fr. Murphy, admitted that the New York Times did not misquote him.

He confused the source of some quotes attributed to him which he didn’t initially recognize as his own; it was an AP article that was briefly posted to the New York Times website. I don’t see that as evidence of dishonest behavior, just an honest mistake. Since I never saw the AP article I don’t know what the quotes were or what bearing they have on the larger issues we’re discussing.

Everything said by a church authority has to be questioned in this case. They are not necessarily lying, but shading and nuances have to be taken account of. Fr. Brundage was never quoted or misquoted by the New York Times until today’s edition.

Well, okay, as long as they get a chance to defend themselves. So far their version of events is more plausible and consistent with the facts than Laurie Goodstein’s and Maureen Dowd’s. Even when I first read that Goldstein article – before it became crystal clear that everything said by a secular journalist has to be questioned in this case – I knew there was something fishy on the basis of the basic facts laid out in the story.

 

[Cinette]

I am just a regular Catholic. However, I have been endowed by God with reason and do not intend to ignore it. I have also been forced to look with a skeptical mind to the dogma of religion after seeing my country (Iraq) being torn apart by those who felt that they were doing God’s work, having my priest and relatives murdered and seeing an entire village blown up by a mad suicide bomber who had been driven to do so by his religion.

However, I love the Church and have not said it is run by a group of sexist males (as another poster accused me of believing). But I will question when dogma does not make sense and will try to obtain a satisfactory answer. Blinded obedience to an institution run by humans is sinful, as we should never ignore the internal moral compass provided to us by God.

What do you love when you say you love the Church?

Jesus said He would not leave us orphans. He said that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth. Life is a battle between good and evil. The Church has fought off many adversaries and purged itself. The enemy strikes from within to those who are closest to God.

You have known suffering and my heart goes out to you. Here - I have a little gift for you:

Read it s l o w l y…
“What do I love when I love my God?

Not material beauty, or beauty of a temporal order,
Not the brilliance of earthly light, so welcome to our eyes;
Not the sweet melody of harmony and song;
Not the fragrance of perfumes or spices;
Not manna or honey, not limbs such as the body delights to embrace.

It is not these I love when I love God.
And yet it is true, when I love him I love light of a certain kind;
A voice, a perfume, a food, an embrace.
But they are of the kind I love in my inner self,

When my soul is bathed in light that is not bound by space,
When it breathes a fragrance that is not borne away on the wind;
When it tastes food that is never consumed by eating;
When it clings to an embrace from which it is not severed by
the fulfillment of desire.

That is what I love when I love my God.” (St Augustine – Confessions X, 6)

Don’t be cynical. You must learn to trust. Trust God and trust those who He has appointed to take care of us. Yes we have failed Him many times but we get back on track. We are all hurting right now with the abuse scandal but we must support our good and holy priests - we must support the Church. We will always have the enemy to deal with. This means we must stand firm and pray for one another and support one another.

God bless you
Cinette

 

[ALLGIRLS]

I have to protest your uncharitable slander.
Best wishes for a Happy Easter.

It’s not slander. You brazenly and proudly keep stating your dissenting opinion that women should be able to be ordained priests, which the Church has plainly and definitively said CANNOT EVER happen (not the same thing AT ALL as changing a discipline like celibacy and eating meat on Fridays, etc. Doctrine and Dogmas cannot be changed, that’s what this is). That makes you a dissident. The only difference between you and the Catholics who dissent on the issue of artificial contraception is that your dissension is just vocal, as you’re not likely going to try to ordain women to the priesthood, whereas the former do in fact practice their dissension (using birth control).
And I wasn’t trying to be uncharitable, just plainly stating a fact. Sorry if you took it that way.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[csuliman]

By your logic, animals could be priests too. Jesus didn’t explicitly prohibit dolphins from being Priests either.

The argument about discipline versus doctrine and dogma is apparently lost on you. You’ve made up your mind to be a dissenter, and no answer is going to change your mind.

Do us all a favor and stop asking; there are plenty of heretical websites that will tell you what you want to hear.

I had wanted to end this topic but felt I had to reply because of the abject absurdity of your argument. “By your logic, animals could be priests too. Jesus didn’t explicitly prohibit dolphins from being Priests either.”

This would absolutely not be a credible conclusion from my logic since, and I am embarrassed to have to point this out, there are many other points that would disqualify animals from joining the priesthood. At the very least they would have a problem understanding the texts of the Bible, no?

But then again maybe we should postulate a rational, thinking animal which can profess its faith in God and become in teacher. We would in that case be talking about an intelligent species and since we do not have other than man here it would have to be an extraterrestrial species. That brings an interesting question: would the Church allow an alien to become a priest if they had adopted the Catholic faith? This argument is in jest but you have made me stop and think.

 

[po18guy]

Last estimate I heard was that 80%+ of such abuse was homosexual activity. In America, the seminaries were largely to blame, for allowing those with same sex attraction to enter. Some seminaries openly permitted such persons, and even tolerated sexual activity between the seminarians. Of course, this is a recipe for disaster. As the evil of the 1960s world crept into the Church, vocations began their decline and the need for priests and consecrated sisters and brothers increased. The response to this was to relax standards, both of qualification as well as retention. Thus, active homosexual men and women entered religious life. They became the teachers, counselors and associates of the children. What other result could possibly have been expected?

In both Miami and Los Angeles, the police departments relaxed their entry standards in the 1980s and 1990s, so as to become more “diverse”. Those with criminal records were hired. What followed was completely predictable: corruption, theft, robberies and even murder by these new police officers. Should an alcoholic become a bartender? A compulsive gambler a casino manager? An embezzler a bank manager?

This is exactly what has happened to the Church.

This is exactly how the evil one attacks - from both outside and inside. He is an opportunist, using perfect timing to suggesting a relaxing of standards in response to a very real shortage of vocations. And, the human response is to permit this, as we are focused only on the current crisis, and not on the future problems that might occur. This was demonstrated by Moses, who permitted divorce in response to a purely human outcry. Our Lord was forced, almost 1,500 years later, to correct Moses’ mistake (Matthew 19:7, Mark 10:4), and so we are just now correcting the mistake made in the seminaries and perpetuated by spineless superiors.

First we must know God and His will. Second, we must know the very nature of the evil one and his destructive will. Both God and evil are constantly present to us and exert influence upon us. Both invite us but one, being the Father of the living, uses self-denial in His invitation. The other, being the father of lies (John 8:44), uses deception to emulate the good. He teaches the indulgence of self. Both desire you to remain with them throughout eTheir intent could not be more different.

It is my contention that the post WWII generation lost its fear of sin. The generations that have followed have lost even the concept of sin. Such a decline in morality is a rejection of God. Combine this rejection with the ever present influence of the father of lies, we are bound to have one crisis after another until, in the style of the Ninievites (Book of Jonah), we might repent en masse. We saw a partial sign of this in America after the attacks of 9/11, but soon all returned to ‘normal’. The Lord is patient, but we have more and worse disasters coming.