Catholic bishop resigns, admits he has 2 kids

[BB2]

On the extreme edges, there are no Christian equivalents of the evil perpetrated by the avowedly non-Christian (and pretty well rabidly atheist) Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot.

Neither, I would venture to say, is there really any atheist philanthropy equivalent to the totally self-donating charity done by a Mother Teresa or her like amongst Christian and non-Christian religious. Not to say that there aren’t people like Bill Gates who give a lot, but from what I’ve seen they certainly don’t deny themselves even the slightest luxury while going about it.

This is just pure arrogance - plain and simple. I’m astonished that even on this thread where religious misconduct has been pointed out, you are still making the claim that your cohorts are on a moral pedestal. You go out of your way to point out the immorality of people of other beliefs, but simultaneously overlook the immorality going on in your own church.

Whilst Stalin and Pol Pot were atheist, Hitler was a Catholic. Whether you think he was a good Catholic or a bad Catholic, the fact remains that he was Catholic. He even hated atheists, and I can provide the necessary links if you want to research further. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

And Bill Gates’ foundation has done an enormous amount for those in the Third world. Malaria could soon be eliminated because of his charity. Now compare this to Mother Theresa’s encouragement of suffering, where it has been noted by observers that she would sometimes refuse to give children medicine so they could “align their suffering with Jesus”. Picture yourself as an orphan in India - would you rather someone comes and rescues you from your physical ailment, or listen to a woman harping on about a paradise in the afterlife she herself has not seen?

Ultimately, and perhaps the more interesting question is: What have you done for charity precisely that qualifies you to look down on the efforts of Bill Gates and his wife? Atheists can never win. If they’re good, you just rubbish their efforts. If they’re bad, you exclaim “A ha!”.

 

[Whadyamean]

The common denominator seems to be ‘‘people’’!

There are good and bad everywhere.

And that includes all faiths and beliefs and those with none.

I have puzzled over the fact that someone, when given the gift of faith, and belonging to what they believe to be the only faith that has the fullness of all truth, this fact doesnt seem to stop them from doing terrible wrongs to their brothers and sisters - but then again, the death penalty doesnt seem to stop certain kinds of criminals either, and theyre pretty certain they’ll be caught and they know for sure they’ll be executed when they are.

As Megarry noted in Miscellany at Law … ‘‘there’s nowt so queer as folk’’ !

Sarah x

Amen to that. “All’s queer but me an thee, Martha, an sometimes I wonder abut thee!” S why I keep harping abut epistemology, General Semantics, phenomenology, and self inquiry. People spend more time learning how to work a toy than looking at themselves to discover how they themselves work.

 

[BB2]

But the bit I always find interesting, is, in a thread defending a particular religion (in this case Catholicism, but it could be an faith), the core of which being the negative actions of one or two or a few people of that faith do NOT in any way reflect badly on the religion itself, but on the individuals concerned, the same ol same ol trotting out of Stalin, PolPot and Hitler as examples of atheists is considered perfectly legit, as if it was their atheism that made them do what they did and not their delusions of being demi-gods, their mental illnesses and their tyranical megalomaniacal totalistarianism

An interesting thing to note is how some “religious” people use Stalin and Pol Pot as an example for their own agenda. It’s morally heinous that they would use the deaths of other people to score theological points. That’s their outlook on the dignity of human life; and they then hypocritically turn around and inform us about their concern for the unborn lol .

 

[LiveCatholic]

This is just pure arrogance - plain and simple. I’m astonished that even on this thread where religious misconduct has been pointed out, you are still making the claim that your cohorts are on a moral pedestal.

This was a little unnecessary, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[LiveCatholic]

An interesting thing to note is how some “religious” people use Stalin and Pol Pot as an example to score theological points. It’s morally heinous that they would use the deaths of other people to score theological points. That’s their outlook on the dignity of human life, and then hypocritically turn around and inform us about their concern for the unborn.

… or to highlight what they genuinely feel is an intellectual disease, which has enabled the worst atrocities in human history.

If you’d like to be so uncharitable as to assume the worst, most mercenary intentions on the part of people you disagree with, don’t be surprised if you have difficulty engaging in dialogue with them. Your post above assumes that you know why people think this way…

 

[Whadyamean]

This is a very two-dimensional picture of religious-ethical sociology you offer here. There should be a third dimension: the extent to which one adheres to his faith.

Therefore, it is not simply a question of ‘which’ faith one adheres to, but the degree to which they adhere to it. So, a person who was baptized but isn’t living their baptismal vows (or the vows vouchsafed by one’s God parents) cannot be taken as fully representative of the product of Catholic ethics.

I’m sorry, but my reference to Saints of all folks might clue you in that my considerations do include that dimension. And I did not specify the Catholic Faith, if you will go back and read with some greater thoroughness.

“I think religon has a wonderful purpose, but seems not to address certain epidemiological questions and is therefore lacking an a vital aspect. Any religion, not just ours.”

What religions have you come in contact with thus far, pray tell?

I worked for many years for a ma who was known for resolving theological impasses. Guests included everyone form Mother Teresa and Jesuit scholars to many Christian denominations, Zen masters, Swamis, Sufis, Buddhists, Shamans, Brujas, and many others;. They were all fascinating folks, but I’m sure that i have not met someone from each and every religion. :

Isn’t there, though? Come now, this is blind generalization in the extreme.

Huh?

For instance, there have been ‘faiths’ where cannibalism is encouraged, where virgins are sacrificed, &c. Aren’t these–and ESPECIALLY the people who ADHERE to them in the fullest sense–conducive to wickedness or at least more wickedness? However, one can imagine ‘good’ people in these faiths, who retain their cannibal traditions only in some secular or emaciated form.

Further, there are modern day religions (ex: Islam) that if adhered to in its fullest sense would result in one behaving like its ‘hero,’ the ‘Prophet’ Muhammad who behaved SUPERLATIVELY according to the standards of 6th-7th century Arabia. Unfortunately values have changed since then…

Today, ‘good’ Muslims are ‘good’ insofar as they are secular or willing to part with their religious values.

I guess that you are trying to make me look silly. Yes, there are other definitions of “good” in terms of cultural adherence.

 

[LiveCatholic]

I’m sorry, but my reference to Saints of all folks might clue you in that my considerations do include that dimension. And I did not specify the Catholic Faith, if you will go back and read with some greater thoroughness.

Understood, but then you ignore that the ‘righteous’ of some faiths are downright wicked.

 

[BB2]

… or to highlight what they genuinely feel is an intellectual disease, which has enabled the worst atrocities in human history.

If you’d like to be so uncharitable as to assume the worst, most mercenary intentions on the part of people you disagree with, don’t be surprised if you have difficulty engaging in dialogue with them. Your post above assumes that you know why people think this way…

I’m not being uncharitable. Simply pointing out the facts.

But I’m assuming you believe the Catholic Church has always been the bastion of virtue. That the Catholic Church could only ever do good.

And the Inquisition, the Albigensian Crusade, the persecution by Bloody Mary, the Child abduction scandal of the 60’s, and other historical events, are simply figments of a historian’s imagination - they never really happened. No, not at all. The Catholic Church can only ever do good. And when a person in Holy Orders has committed wrongdoing, it’s either the mainstream media “persecuting” Catholics again , Satan running his mischievous schemes again or simply a case of “let us pray for those in ministry” whilst at the same time vociferously insulting non-believers with unsubstantiated, infantile claims so as to shift attention away from the issue at hand.

Nonetheless, thank you for sharing your “enlightened” views with us. It would be funny if it wasn’t so inimical to the marketplace of ideas.

 

[CMatt25]

Of course he’d still be Catholic. Even an excommunicated Catholic is still Catholic.

Thank you. I thought that was the correct Catholic answer.

 

[LiveCatholic]

I’m not being uncharitable. Simply pointing out the facts.

There’s a certain way to talk to people, and I’m pretty certain you wouldn’t speak to them in that fashion in person, if you had an ounce of respect for them.

 

[LiveCatholic]

I’m not being uncharitable. Simply pointing out the facts.

…

Nonetheless, thank you for sharing your “enlightened” views with us. It would be funny if it wasn’t so inimical to the marketplace of ideas.

Also, I just noticed what this comment was actually in response to… You seemed to miss the point that you ARE uncharitably ASSUMING that theists, as you yourself seem to be, keeping score in some kind of theological pissing match with anti-theists and atheists.

Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of religious people don’t know what Richard Dawkins or Hitch (R.I.P.) is/was saying about them, and they don’t care. They’re going about their lives, and doing their ‘church’ thing and not concerning themselves with engaging you/& Company in bitter, petty arguments. Why do you assume that they’re just trying to score a one-up on you, rather than charitably engaging their ideas as if they’re held genuinely?

 

[joeantony]

Hi

I came to CAF today to check what folks are talking about this news. In fact I first read about it in Times of India and I was shocked. Such news get lots of attention in this part of the world.

We have no idea how difficult it is for the Church here to proclaim good news. We have always been mocked, ridiculed and called names( Pedophiles,sex offenders, porn addicts,foreigners, Vatican spies, traitors, anti national etc for the sake of the faith we accepted. Now with such news we run out of answers.

Yes it is true that we can argue, dialogue and try to convince or even dare to put on a brave face in front of those who laugh at us. But truth is, Catholicism looks like a sinking ship.

I as a catholic can just remember the word of God " 2 Thimothhy1- 7 1] Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. [2] Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, [3] Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, [4] Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: [5] Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid.

[6] For of these sort are they who creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires: [7] Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth."

Mathew 24: 15 “When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.”

Let us pray , not argue nor dispute. We have only one option left, to trust Jesus and his word that he will not let the gates of hell triumph against His church.

May be this is the persecution that we have to endure.

Joe

 

[BB2]

Or maybe I just have more nuanced view of the Church’s history, as opposed to treating the entire history of the Church–especially the so-called ‘dark’ points–like a 2000+ year tabloid rag that I can mine for arguments to scandalize Catholics?

First of all, define ‘the Church.’ You think its simple, but how do you differentiate ‘the Church’ in a society where Society and ‘the Church’ were pretty much a 1:1, mutually inclusive identity.

This amounts to splitting hairs. Here we go again with the classic, absurd claim that the Catholic Church was a not a single entity when these horrors were committed . That there can be “bad men, but not never a bad Church”. Yet you go to Mass and under the same breath exclaim the words “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church”. So is that part of the Nicene Creed false? Please enlighten me as to how you manage to reconcile your contradictory beliefs? Does not Jesus say you will know a tree by its fruits? The Church is only ever dispersed entity when it suits you; but no doubt you will claim that the Catholic Church is the “one, true Church” when evangelizing your Protestant friends. Clearly has to be a prime example of hypocrisy if there ever was one.

Does not Paul say one should not yoke themselves with unbelievers (cf. 2 Corinthians 6:14)? That “righteousness and wickedness [have nothing in common]”? So what is the Church - which you claim to be holy - doing with an evil entity which you regard as “Society”? At least be honest and have the moral integrity to realize that people can be bad whatever their religion (or lack of) - that the Catholic Church does not possess ownership over good people or good actions, and that non-believers are not the spawn of Satan himself. I have grown tired of explaining to some users here that there are indeed bad Catholics. But to many, that’s an impossibility. It just could not happen. No way!

Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of religious people don’t know what Richard Dawkins or Hitch (R.I.P.) is/was saying about them, and they don’t care. They’re going about their lives, and doing their ‘church’ thing and not concerning themselves with engaging you/& Company in bitter, petty arguments. Why do you assume that they’re just trying to score a one-up on you, rather than charitably engaging their ideas as if they’re held genuinely?

Thanks for pointing that out. Now notice I used the key word “some”. I’ve enlarged it so it would be easier for you to observe.

An interesting thing to note is how some “religious” people use Stalin and Pol Pot as an example for their own agenda. It’s morally heinous that they would use the deaths of other people to score theological points. That’s their outlook on the dignity of human life; and they then hypocritically turn around and inform us about their concern for the unborn lol

 

[LiveCatholic]

This amounts to splitting hairs. …

On the contrary, this amounts to solid, sensitive scholarship and not the next-to-impossible task of generalizing/understanding a 2000+ year body of history… while at the same time advancing a controversial narrative.

 

[Sarabande]

God gave me faith. Men did not give me faith.

This does not even shake my belief in God, His teachings, and His Church. Men of the Church may fall in error as we are vessels of clay full of mud, but the Church as a whole is protected by the Holy Spirit.

Although the news is disappointing, it does not shock or surprise me, nor does it shake my faith in God. We are all human, including priests and religious. If I base my faith only on the men and women within the Church who can fall and will sometimes fall pretty heavily, then that is a very unstable foundation in my eyes. As sad as it is, the idea of some priests breaking their vows of celibacy and even fathering children is not a recent phenomenon. I do feel for the children of these relationships, though.

What I think is different today is that it seems the sex abuse scandal and coverup (which is certainly a much more horrible and despicable atrocity, not to mention a crime) has “lessened” the scandal of priests who break their vows of celibacy with women. The reactions I hear from people I know in real life when they do find out about priests currently having or have had a relationship with a woman is often times this audible or an internal sigh of relief that the priest wasn’t an abuser of children and even almost thankful that he is a “normal, hot-blooded male”. The thought is that at least they were having a consensual relationship with an adult who was also a woman and not another male. When they find out it is a priest from their parish, it is even a larger sigh of relief. Perhaps it’s because my diocese was hit particularly hard by the sex abuse scandal that these reactions are fairly common in my area. I would imagine it was much more of a scandal in the past in most situations, especially to the family of the woman involved.

 

[Tridentinum]

Have a look at the comments.

 

[rotlex]

As much as I hate to say this, these types of things really, really make me question the heads of the current Church. Yes, I put my full, 100% faith in God and HIS Church. However, it is getting very difficult to put my trust in the PEOPLE running things when a man is forced to resign for being a father and a husband. (Yes, I know why it’s wrong, and he should resign ultimately). However, the fact that sexual predators within the Church have been hidden and “shuffled” around for years is even more disturbing in this case. It’s just wrong on a lot of sides, and makes me very sad indeed.

No, I’m not trying to sound like the typical Catholic Church basher. I’m not. At all. I love the Church and all it stands for. I just truly wonder how corrupt things have become over the centuries at times. I’ll pray for all parties involved.

 

[Melvin]

Here is the official statement from Archbishop Gomez

la-archdiocese.org/org/media/Press%20Releases/2012-01-04-Zavala.pdf

I think it is important to note that the archdiocese will look after the welfare of the mother and children.

Since Bishop Zavala is 60 years old, perhaps he will simply retire to a life of privacy.

So, uh…the Bishop was not married to the woman…okay…so…why does the Archdiocese feel a responsibility to help support the mother and children? Does this mean that the Bishop will not be marrying her (if not already married) and living with them? Is he, whether married to her or not, not responsible for the welfare of his children?

By “married,” I mean in the more general civil sense…not as a Catholic Sacrament…

Just askin’…

 

[zab]

Another cross for us to bear. But I will bear this cross for love of my God and my Catholic Faith instituted by Christ.

1. 
   *
   

   1. • Faith of our fathers, living still,
        In spite of dungeon, fire, and sword;
        Oh, how our hearts beat high with joy

   1. 
      

      Whene’er we hear that glorious Word!
      

      • Refrain:
        Faith of our fathers, holy faith!
        We will be true to thee till death.

      • Faith of our fathers, we will strive
        To win all nations unto thee;
        And through the truth that comes from God,
        We all shall then be truly free.
      • Faith of our fathers, we will love
        Both friend and foe in all our strife;
        And preach thee, too, as love knows how
        By kindly words and virtuous life.

 

[AlwaysCurious]

When is someone going to write an article about all the bishops, priests and religious who actually keep their vows? Seems like there are lots more of them, and by the world’s sex-saturated standards, that fact should be much more astounding. Breaking vows is what the world is used to. Keeping them ought to be what stands out and makes the news.