News Story Today about the Pope

[Greenbrier]

I wasn’t mocking the eucharist. I was pointing out that a people who would so utterly misunderstand Aristotle as to assume that accidens and substans can ever be phenomenologically separated are likely to invent all manner of sophistry to explain away or divert attention from an epidemic of homosexual predation among their clergy.

 

[Palaeologos]

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

Quot homines, tot sententiae.

 

[Greenbrier]

Quot homines, tot sententiae.

True, so the testimony of the church is certainly important, but this is another discussion.

 

[schaick]

The pope’s Infallibility comes from the Church, not vice versa. Infallible statements are a rare occurance, usually to addressteachings that someone is trying to change. For example, in the 1960’s, the pope was under intense pressure from inside the Church to change the Church’s teaching regarding contraception to a more post 1930 Protestant viewpoint. He refused, then reaffirmed the 1900-plus year teaching that contraception is immoral.

If you are asking if a pope could infallibly “ok” homosexuality, the answer is no because this would contradict previous dogma.

I don’t know.
I don’t understand the question, could you clarify?

Again, could you clarify?

LOL!! Sorry that was confusing!

The Church gives the Pope the authority but what I am trying to figure out is why the Church would give authority to a Pope who is immoral.

Ok another example - in the past we know Popes and Bishops have had concubines and mistresses. I am a descendant of a Catholic Bishop!!]

Can an immoral Pope make an infallible statement saying that Priests have to be celebate? Or that use of contraception is immoral?

Actions speak louder then words, Jesus lead by example.

Luke 9
46An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. 47Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. 48Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you all—he is the greatest.”

Jesus washes the disciples feet:

John 13
12When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13"You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.

Faith is dead without works-isn’t the immoral Popes faith dead?

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

though I dont agree with the office of the Pope, I feel for the man in this position and for my Catholic brothers and sisters who look to him for leadership. this is a painful topic for so many people and I prefer to just offer a prayer for all those who are touched by this and otherwise refrain from commenting.

 

[Vile_Servant]

The Church gives the Pope the authority but what I am trying to figure out is why the Church would give authority to a Pope who is immoral.

The Pope is human after all, and a sinner like everyone else. There were some bad/immoral Popes in the past, and many good/saintly ones as well. Catholics believe in Christ’s promise that He will be with us until the end of time, therefore His Church will be protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error at all times, despite the moral failings of some Popes. After all, even Peter, the Rock upon which Christ built His Church, was a sinful man, having denied Our Lord three times. Yet Jesus gave authority to a man who was a sinner.

 

[mark_a]

The Church gives the Pope the authority but what I am trying to figure out is why the Church would give authority to a Pope who is immoral.

Every pope is sinful in some way(s).

Ok another example - in the past we know Popes and Bishops have had concubines and mistresses. I am a descendant of a Catholic Bishop!!

Catholics have been told that the road to hell is paved with bishops’ skulls. Every person in the Catholic Church will fail in some way(s).

Can an immoral Pope make an infallible statement saying that Priests have to be celebate?

No, that would contradict previous teaching. Celebacy in the Roman Church is a discipline, not doctrine. The Eastern Catholic Churches (who are in communion with the Roman Church) ordain married priests (but priests can’t get married). The Roman Church has a provision that allows married Protestant Clergy to be ordained priests.

Or that use of contraception is immoral?

Yes. We know that the Church and Judaism have taught this, and it can’t be changed. Even Muslims believe this. The reformers and their flocks believed this until the last century. touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

Actions speak louder then words, Jesus lead by example.

Absolutely. But Catholics don’t confuse the pope w/ Jesus.
**

Faith is dead without works-isn’t the immoral Popes faith dead?

**Besides God, who knows?

Infallibility protects the flock, not the shepard.

 

[schaick]

Thank you for your answers.

I guess I feel more comfortable knowing it was the statement of truth that Peter uttered and not the man himself that Jesus built His church on.

The only infallible authority in the world - GOD’s Word.

Here is another thought. I know not all Catholics believe this but, I know at least a couple that do!!

The Holy Spirit will direct an immoral Pope but not a moral non- catholic Christian?

Thank you again.

 

[Pilgrimage]

Ok, yes must be sitting in Peter’s Chair.

Pilgrimage mentioed a sacrifice- I can think of a good one-castration. Check this out:

Firstly can I say that being a homosexual does not make someone a sexual offender unless s/he acts upon it. God offers a celibacy, supernaturally reinforced, if someone wants to be in the Christian family.

Secondly I was speaking of the sacrifice that victims must make, not the offenders. For example; to give up any compensation claims against ‘the church’, so that they can heal. None Christians and those making false claims are then exposed. The church then stops getting attacks because the compensation culture is self-feeding, especially where there is no defence, and the church can heal.

God bless

 

[Mickey]

Celebacy in the Roman Church is a discipline, not doctrine. The Eastern Catholic Churches (who are in communion with the Roman Church) ordain married priests (but priests can’t get married). The Roman Church has a provision that allows married Protestant Clergy to be ordained priests.

I think it is time to do away with the discipline of mandatory celibacy in the Latin Church.

 

[Lee]

Thank you for the nice comments and God bless you too.

Wow, that is awesome!!! Part of me is jealous of the path you are considering. My God Bless you and may you be a blessing to his Church.

 

[Pilgrimage]

The reason the Church is attacked is because everyone has an ax to grind. Everyone wants to be the big dog.

If we are professing ‘Christians’, then any attack on the body of Christ is the business of us all. Love is a powerful force and it is for the love of Christ I am concerned.

God bless

 

[Pilgrimage]

Catholics believe in Christ’s promise that He will be with us until the end of time, therefore His Church will be protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error at all times, despite the moral failings of some Popes.

Bestowing authority on someone does not make them inerrant. Jesus did not say to Peter that he would be without error. What He said was that Peter was a ‘rock’ on which the church would be built, and this is true. This at the reflection of the nature of the man who takes up such a position, a solid foundation. Jesus’ Holy Spirit was with Peter, but Peter was still Peter because Peter was NOT Christ.

I think even Peter would be alarmed at the claim that he was without error. He went through many things with Jesus, especially leading up to Jesus’ death where he was shown just how far removed from being Jesus he actually was. There was a great purpose behind this, so that the future generations couldn’t claim to be God themselves, or claim other people to be.

God bless

 

[Lapell]

I’m not catholic so it doesn’t effect (or is that affect) me at all. However, it does prove the point some of us here try to make: NO one is above sin and NO one deserves to be place is such high authority. Therefore, the ONLY thing we can trust is the Bible and we can pray that we are in right relationship with the Holy Spirit so we can understand and obey what we need to obey and follow our Lord Jesus Christ (hand in hand with other true believers no matter what church or denomination they belong to).

Therefore, following your logic, Jesus must not have had a right whatsoever to give Peter the keys to the Kingdom of God (Mt 16) and thus give him authority over the Church He established on earth, and He had no right to give the Apostles the power to tie and to untie.

 

[choy]

I’m not catholic so it doesn’t effect (or is that affect) me at all. However, it does prove the point some of us here try to make: NO one is above sin and NO one deserves to be place is such high authority. Therefore, the ONLY thing we can trust is the Bible and we can pray that we are in right relationship with the Holy Spirit so we can understand and obey what we need to obey and follow our Lord Jesus Christ (hand in hand with other true believers no matter what church or denomination they belong to).

no one ever claimed the Pope nor any of the clergy to be above sin

if you believe that, you are gravely mistaken. Catholics don’t believe that nor are taught that

 

[Lapell]

I am not CC either, but I recognise that institutions are perfect places for Pedophiles to hide themselves. So often it is educated people who conceal themselves in positions of power and trust, they don’t care about Jesus or the church. Neither children or parents have the tools to fight because they come up against disbelief. When there is no disbelief there is often the issue of what the authority does about it and how they act upon it. By its very nature a position of power will attract accusations too, sometimes prolifically.

For example, St John of the Cross was accused of fathering a child that he couldn’t possibly have because he was elsewhere. If those in charge were to believe every accusation slung at priests, there simply wouldn’t be any priests. So church leaders are led to make wrong judgments all the time, but have to live with it and learn from it. They are effectively judging men who have wheedled their way into the church in the first place on lies and a desire to fulfill their lust. Others will have learned to lie because they have given into temptation and realise that their veil can be lifted.

Common sense is telling me, that while there were obviously some cases of abuse, there are many who have jumped on the financial band wagon. It’s illogical to suppose that the church didn’t have women around who would have seen and spoken out against any suspected abuse, or even men who had witnessed it too and brought an end to it. Even teachers, other members of society or other children. The very nature of Christ’s Word causes people to speak out against injustice and oppression, even within churches. People hear it and they act, because they are compelled to.

A refocusing on Christ’s Word and less on the laws of men governing the church is a good starting point. Because it would be the sickest of all churches if there wasn’t a soul who had no voice for these children and any children to come. (this is what evil doers would have people believe) The church has to be seen to do something great that will safe guard all future generations if it is to be healed. That does not come in the form of money either, it comes through change.

God bless

What would you say when Protestant pastors are accused of pedophily? It has happened to them too, even though they didn’t make the news as much…

 

[Lapell]

Sorry to post this about #3 and #5, I think, when so many comments have been written since, but I used to start at the beginning, and those struck me first!

 

[Palaeologos]

What would you say when Protestant pastors are accused of pedophily? It has happened to them too, even though they didn’t make the news as much…

Although it’s true that non-Catholic clergy have also been involved in these kinds of activities, the big difference is that there is not an institutional effort to cover up the charges and to shield the perpetrators from the consequences of their crimes. The Church isn’t responsible for the pedophilia (though I can’t help but think that the celibacy requirement attracts a certain contingent that are running away from some sexual problem or another); it is fully responsible for obstructing justice in the matter of sex offenders.

 

[Lapell]

Although it’s true that non-Catholic clergy have also been involved in these kinds of activities, the big difference is that there is not an institutional effort to cover up the charges and to shield the perpetrators from the consequences of their crimes. The Church isn’t responsible for the pedophilia (though I can’t help but think that the celibacy requirement attracts a certain contingent that are running away from some sexual problem or another); it is fully responsible for obstructing justice in the matter of sex offenders.

“Cover up the charges”…“shield the perpetrators from the consequences of their crimes”… on recommendations by psychologists and psychiaters, in a number of cases. So the whole of society is involved in this, not just the Church… You don’t want to condemn somebody too quickly! And there are people who falsely accuse a priest of being a sex offender for some things he didn’t like from him!

 

[Lapell]

Many people simply don’t want to examine the various aspects of the matter. It’s not as simple as it may seem sometimes. It’s quite easy to “simplistify” the whole thing, that is, to make it sound simple when in doing so we’re being quite simplistic.