NYTimes: Fahr and Benedict.

[IHeartBenedict]

I think people know though there have been great failures, reforms have been taken, such scandals can never happen, and that’s why the news media is trying to drag it out. They’re trying to get every last drop.

Of course.

It is truly sad when you think of all the good works that missionaries do around the world, the hospices, food banks, charities, all of that… …but this is all the media can report on.

There are times when I almost envy Muslims. Boy, you say something bad about them and they are all over you like white on rice. I wish we could rise up, all of us, and march on these news organizations. Of course, I do not advocate strapping on a bomb, but wouldn’t it be neat to see 10,000 Catholics yelling outside of CNN headquarters? LOL

 

[IHeartBenedict]

The reporting has been fantastic. They’ve brought cases of past priestly abuse into the light of day where it belongs.

And you just buy every detail of what they say without question? I always find it fascinating how people are wary of the news usually, but when the news is aimed at the Catholic Church, all of a sudden reporters are pure as the driven snow.

 

[lemonbeam]

The reporting has been fantastic. They’ve brought cases of past priestly abuse into the light of day where it belongs.

I’m not against abuse being reported in the media. I’m against suspicion being used as fact, misquoting, misinformation and wrong statistics. The New York times has made mistakes in reporting the abuse:

NY Archdiocese Demands Retraction from NYTimes (Statement on Cardinal Egan):

archny.org/news-events/news-press-releases/index.cfm?i=15964

Then there was the New York times trying to portray that Pope Benedict was complicit in a cover up of the Wisconsin Priest.

Riccardo Cascioli, the Italian journalist said, ‘‘In reality, in fact, the whole documentation published by The New York Times on its site, contradicts this tendentious reading of facts regarding Father Lawrence Murphy, between 1950 and 1974, chaplain in a school for the deaf of the Diocese of Milwaukee’’

zenit.org/article-28769?l=english

On the Priest from Essen, this following blog puts it better than I can:

His bishop asked then Archbishop Ratzinger if there was a place for this priest to stay when he received treatment. The archbishop turned the matter over to one of his officials, with the instruction that the priest should have no public ministry, especially with children. The official acknowledges that he then gave the priest an assignment at a parish in Munich were he was later convicted of child abuse. It is alleged that the archbishop should have prevented this. I am not sure how large the Archdiocese of Munich is, but I guess it is large with a lot of personnel. The archbishop gave the responsibility for the matter to one of his officials, with proper instruction, and that official has admitted that he did not follow the instructions.

Now there is the horrific case of the priest who abused up towards 200 deaf children. The diocese of Milwaukee learned of his crimes in 1974 (I believe). They could have turned the matter over to the police (and it looks like they did, but the police/DA filed no charges). He was re-assigned, but probably not supervised by the diocese as he should have been (in fact he was sent to another diocese to basically live with his mother). There is evidence that the diocese of Milwaukee and its former archbishop (Weakland) covered up the matter for years. For some reason, 20 years later they refer the case to Rome, to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which was then headed by Cardinal Ratzinger. It took the CDF 8 months to give its initial response. Sounds like a long time, but not when you look at even criminal and civil cases here in the US to get to trial.

The CDF directed the diocese of Milwaukee to remove the priest from public ministry and start official proceedings. There were problems, procedurally, namely the statues of limitations (even Canon or Church law has those) had expired. The priest, himself, however, wrote Cardinal Ratzinger asking for mercy. He took responsibility for his crimes, asked forgiveness, pointed out that he was very sick and likely to die soon (which he did, a few months later). Cardinal Ratzinger probably looked a Crucifix, the sign of God’s great mercy towards all of us, and considering the procedural problems, told the diocese to stop the canonical proceedings. He did not try to shield the priest from criminal and/or civil liability. He directed that the priest NOT be allowed to engage in public ministry, and that he not work with minors in any way. Basically that he be allowed to die with the very little dignity that he had (which really was not much, if any). He was a terribly broken clay vessel, that had been given a great treasure/grace, and had instead sinned greatly. Hopefully he asked God for mercy before he died.

This, however, is not enough for the New York Times and the rest of the liberal media elite. They want the Pope to be disgraced. They want the Church discredited. Mercy seems to enrage them. The fact that while at the CDF then Cardinal Ratzinger did so much to expedite these cases so to rid the Church of these abusers; more than just about anyone, goes unmentioned by the Times. Pope Benedict is not perfect. I am sure he looks back on his life and sees times when he would do things differently. That is human. But he seems to have lived most of his life trying his best to follow Christ Jesus, to be an instrument of truth and mercy.

frjcmaximilian.stblogs.com/2010/03/26/the-hypocrisy-of-the-new-york-times/

 

[Zatzat]

And you just buy every detail of what they say without question? I always find it fascinating how people are wary of the news usually, but when the news is aimed at the Catholic Church, all of a sudden reporters are pure as the driven snow.

I find it fascinating the lengths that some Catholics will go in defending mother Church.

Instead of condemning the Church cover-ups and lack of action, you seem to be condemning the reporter who exposed the scandal!

 

[lemonbeam]

I find it fascinating the lengths that some Catholics will go in defending mother Church.

Instead of condemning the Church cover-ups and lack of action, you seem to be condemning the reporter who exposed the scandal!

If Catholics weren’t condemning and criticizing the Church’s actions in the past towards abuse this forum would be empty of stories relating to the sex abuses. Every Catholic would be quiet about it. We’re having open discussion.

You address the lies that the New York times reported, and that Catholics, Catholic bloggers, writers, the Vatican Spokesman, the Pope himself, the Archbishop of Westminster etc. etc. etc. had to correct, then we can further this discussion.

 

[Fitz]

Is one more acceptable than the other? I think I know what you’re saying. Both are sinful and the media accepts homosexuality as just fine. The church though…needs to do be open about these things. The attempt to keep things quiet in order to avoid scandal has brought about the biggest scandal.

No, I don’t think that priests that are homosexual abusing teenage boys is acceptable. It is really just the inaccuracy with which the MSM reports on Catholic priests that I can’t accept. They will stop at nothing now to bring Pope Benedict down. The reporting will not be even close to the truth.

 

[whatevergirl]

And you just buy every detail of what they say without question? I always find it fascinating how people are wary of the news usually, but when the news is aimed at the Catholic Church, all of a sudden reporters are pure as the driven snow.

True, but I don’t think if there was no truth to these scandals, that Bishops of today, would be coming out publically apologizing, and Dioceses closing down because they are going bankrupt from paying claims to the victims. It happened. The Church needs our prayers. But, I’m not going to act like because this came out in mainstream media, that it’s not true. I don’t believe every detail, I’m sure they have an ax to grind…but, I think the core facts are true, sadly.

 

[anode]

*The thing I find troubling, it occured to me this morning, is how many generations of people will never know the Truth and beauty of the Church, because of what happened to their dads, and moms? That is a number to think about. How many people turned away from the faith way back when because of their pain and suffering and seeing nothing was being done, and how many did their pain affect as a result?

I don’t mean to throw salt into a wound, but we have to be real here. The people who were abused weren’t the only ones affected…they were hurt the worst…but how about their children, whom might never have been taught the faith, because those who were abused left the Church in protest and in pain? But, that’s a sobering thought, and as Catholics I have to face that, this was like a stone dropped in a pond…the ripples are still happening from the abuses. *

You are correct. That is the problem with evil–it’s so destructive. Most of the victims’ lives were ruined.

People dismiss this as just another sin–everyone sins, after all–not like this, they don’t!
And forgiveness is all very good, but the destruction remains–why go over it again, I am sure many of them say–their lives are in ruins.

It’s pitiful the way that the defenders, and I have to say the Vatican itself, is grasping at straws to defend itself on this-- on the (regrettable) error in the New York Times, it’s only tens of thousands (in Ireland) afterall, not hundreds of thousands (doubtless hundreds of thousands world wide, but how will be ever know?) And passing the buck re the hierarchy/bureaucracy in Milwaukee and Munich–what it boils down to is dereliction of duty. The Buck Stops on the Archbishop/Cardinal’s Desk. He should take ownership.

 

[lemonbeam]

You are correct. That is the problem with evil–it’s so destructive. Most of the victims’ lives were ruined.

People dismiss this as just another sin–everyone sins, after all–not like this, they don’t!
And forgiveness is all very good, but the destruction remains–why go over it again, I am sure many of them say–their lives are in ruins.

It’s pitiful the way that the defenders, and I have to say the Vatican itself, is grasping at straws to defend itself on this-- on the (regrettable) error in the New York Times, it’s only tens of thousands (in Ireland) afterall, not hundreds of thousands (doubtless hundreds of thousands world wide, but how will be ever know?) And passing the buck re the hierarchy/bureaucracy in Milwaukee and Munich–what it boils down to is dereliction of duty. The Buck Stops on the Archbishop/Cardinal’s Desk. He should take ownership.

Why shouldn’t the Vatican defend itself against lies? Is it okay to let them go by. That’s ridiculous. No one said it doesn’t matter it’s only tens of thousands in Ireland, not hundreds of thousands. But accuracy matters! And every one-less, is another victim less. The buck does stop with the Archbishop at the time, if the media is going after anyone it should be him, not the Pope.

 

[ayazdiya]

The leadership of the Catholic church is full of corruption, cover-up, and lies. I left the Catholic church over 20 years ago and cannot imagine ever going back. Once God opens your eyes to the truth, you never want to go back to the false teaching of the Catholic church. I just wish my family wasn’t still stuck in it…hopefully they will see the hypocrisy and get out before it’s too late!

 

[whatevergirl]

You are correct. That is the problem with evil–it’s so destructive. Most of the victims’ lives were ruined.

People dismiss this as just another sin–everyone sins, after all–not like this, they don’t!
And forgiveness is all very good, but the destruction remains–why go over it again, I am sure many of them say–their lives are in ruins.

It’s pitiful the way that the defenders, and I have to say the Vatican itself, is grasping at straws to defend itself on this-- on the (regrettable) error in the New York Times, it’s only tens of thousands (in Ireland) afterall, not hundreds of thousands (doubtless hundreds of thousands world wide, but how will be ever know?) And passing the buck re the hierarchy/bureaucracy in Milwaukee and Munich–what it boils down to is dereliction of duty. The Buck Stops on the Archbishop/Cardinal’s Desk. He should take ownership.

*I hear you.

May I ask…are/were you Catholic? *

 

[Alex_Luciano]

The leadership of the Catholic church is full of corruption, cover-up, and lies. I left the Catholic church over 20 years ago and cannot imagine ever going back. Once God opens your eyes to the truth, you never want to go back to the false teaching of the Catholic church. I just wish my family wasn’t still stuck in it…hopefully they will see the hypocrisy and get out before it’s too late!

How nice of you to come by the largest online Catholic forum and say such lovely words about our faith. May your family deepen their faith in Christ and follow his Church with hearts kindled by the Holy Spirit! Here is just a small part of a study on sexual abuse conducted a few years ago which gives us a better understanding of the situation. I cut a lot so I could post just one posting but the link is to the full text. It is very unfortunate that some priests and bishops have behaved in such deplorable behavior which is not characteristic of the beautiful ministry they are trusted with.

It is obvious that children are much more likely to be sexually abused by family members and friends than by anyone else. This suggests that if preventative measures are to work, they must begin in the home, and not someplace else.

PRIESTS

According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades, less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse.[iv] According to a survey by the New York Times, 1.8 percent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 have been accused of child sexual abuse.[v] Thomas Kane, author of Priests are People Too, estimates that between 1 and 1.5 percent of priests have had charges made against them.[vi] Of contemporary priests, the Associated Press found that approximately two-thirds of 1 percent of priests have charges pending against them.[vii]

MINISTERS

…there are some comparative data available on the subject of child sexual molestation, and what has been reported is quite revealing.

In a 1984 survey, 38.6 percent of ministers reported sexual contact with a church member, and 76 percent knew of another minister who had had sexual intercourse with a parishioner.[xiii] In the same year, a Fuller Seminary survey of 1,200 ministers found that 20 percent of theologically “conservative” pastors admitted to some sexual contact outside of marriage with a church member. The figure jumped to over 40 percent for “moderates”; 50 percent of “liberal” pastors confessed to similar behavior.[xiv]

In 1990, in a study by the Park Ridge Center for the Study of Health, Faith and Ethics in Chicago, it was learned that 10 percent of ministers said they had had an affair with a parishioner and about 25 percent admitted some sexual contact with a parishioner.[xv] Two years later, a survey by Leadership magazine found that 37 percent of ministers confessed to having been involved in “inappropriate sexual behavior” with a parishioner.[xvi]

In a 1993 survey by the Journal of Pastoral Care, 14 percent of Southern Baptist ministers said they had engaged in “inappropriate sexual behavior,” and 70 percent said they knew a minister who had had such contact with a parishioner.[xvii] Joe E. Trull is co-author of the 1993 book, Ministerial Ethics, and he found that “from 30 to 35 percent of ministers of all denominations admit to having sexual relationships—from inappropriate touching to sexual intercourse—outside of marriage.”[xviii]

According to a 2000 report to the Baptist General Convention in Texas, “The incidence of sexual abuse by clergy has reached ‘horrific proportions.’” It noted that in studies done in the 1980s, 12 percent of ministers had “engaged in sexual intercourse with members” and nearly 40 percent had “acknowledged sexually inappropriate behavior.” The report concluded that “The disturbing aspect of all research is that the rate of incidence for clergy exceeds the client-professional rate for physicians and psychologists.”[xix] Regarding pornography and sexual addiction, a national survey disclosed that about 20 percent of all ministers are involved in the behavior.[xx]

In the spring of 2002, when the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church was receiving unprecedented attention, the Christian Science Monitor reported on the results of national surveys by Christian Ministry Resources. The conclusion: “Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff, but church volunteers.”[xxi]

**Finally, in the authoritative work by Penn State professor Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests, it was determined that between .2 and 1.7 percent of priests are pedophiles. The figure among the Protestant clergy ranges between 2 and 3 percent.[xxii] **

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1072105/posts

 

[chosen_people]

When the New York Times does a full-court press assault on the state of Israel’s ongoing neo-apartheid policies exerted on the long suffering, bedraggled Palestinians, then I will view anything which spews from its biased propaganda as being worthy of review. For example, if they were to ask Ben Netanyahu, " What is your idea for a “final solution” to the Palestinian question?" Then, to aggressively follow up, “Is it to gleefully watch them pushed into the sea and be drowned”. Then the question would be, “So, Mr. Netanyahu, what differentiates your nation from apartheid South Africa?” Or, dare we speak it …“Nazi Germany?” And before the accusations of Anti-semitism come flying in, are not the poor, hapless Palestinians Semitic? The New York Times is no Friend of Christ, let alone Christianity. Propagada has of its intent a bias…beware the New York Times.

What is unclear is whether you are claiming that the reports of sexual abuse and their cover-up within the Catholic Church is an untrue allegation put forward by the Jews for the purpose of attacking and discrediting the Church or whether you believe that the allegations are true but are the result of the detrimental influence of Jews and Judaism on the Catholic Church?

 

[Thomas_Casey]

I believe that there is a lot of misunderstanding here of how dioceses work and how diocesan priests governed. It does not surprise me that the media doesn’t understand either. Let’s begin with the first fact. A diocesan priest is not a religious. He remains a secular man. Therefore, since he is not a member of a religious order, he is only accountable to the bishop on matters regarding ministry. Anything outside of ministry is not supervised by any Church authority, because they have no right to do so. Only religious have to answer to their superiors for everything from mass to how they brush their teeth.

There is a second part of this story that has been repeat over and over. The priest was never transferred to Munich. He was sent there for therapy. Therefore, he is not under the jurisdiction of the local bishop, which was Cardinal Ratzinger. Church law does not allow a bishop to interfere with any priest who is not of his diocese or any member of a religious order. He only has authority over his own deacons and priests. The Cardinal did not have a vested interest in this priest. He was a guest in his diocese. It makes perfect sense that he would not have followed his activities or work.

In the request that was made to the Archdiocese of Munich all that was said was that the priest in question was going to therapy for sexual improprieties. That does not say child sexual abuse. In those days, people did not ask for details on these things. It was considered indiscrete. It was also indiscrete for a bishop to reveal to another bishop private information, unless he felt that the other bishop needed to know. There was the mistake of the priest’s bishop. He did not tell the receiving bishop, Cardinal Ratzinger, the details.

It is not uncommon for the Vicar to make assignments and simply write a memo for the files. The bishops may or may not read them. According to Church law the bishop is responsible for assigning pastors. The associates can be assigned by him or his vicar.

There is no record that this priest was ever incardinated into the Archdiocese of Munich. This means that he did not have to go through the Archbishop’s screening to be assigned. If you have a validly ordained priest staying in your diocese for an extended stay, that priest may ask for faculties and for permission to help in the parish. That request is not made to the bishop. It is made to either the Chancellor or the Vicar General. They have the authority to grant such faculties. They simply document it as I said above.

Finally, the bishop does not have the authority to ask a psychiatrist or psychologist for confidential information on a patient, even if it’s one of his deacons or priests. Neither do superiors of religious. All they have to go on is a statement from the psychiatrist who allegedly said that the priest was not a cooperative patient. But the psychiatrist did not reveal anything else at the time, because the law would not allow him to do so. At best, what we have here is a priest who seemed OK on the surface, but was an internal mess. At worse, we have a memo that was given to the Archbishop about an assignment of a priest who is a guest in his diocese and him not paying special attention to it, because he does not have a lot of information on this man. Remember that this man’s issues didn’t come out until things began to happen in Munich. By that time, Cardinal Ratzinger was in Rome.

The argument that the Cardinal only received two memos a day sounds like conjecture to prove a point. Who knows how many memos the Archbishop of a large diocese like Munich receives, how many meetings he goes to, how many complaints he hears, how many budget reports he reads, etc. With all of this going past his desk, it is very possible and believable that he simply handed the paper to someone to file without reading it carefully. As I said, even if he read it, he did not know everything that we know in retrospect. There is no evidence that the priest told him. And there was evidence that the assigning bishop was deliberately vague in his request.

The Times seems to have a few pieces of information and is filling in the blanks. Anyone can do that. It does not make it accurate. Do you see what I mean?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I believe that there is a lot of misunderstanding here of how dioceses work and how diocesan priests governed. It does not surprise me that the media doesn’t understand either. Let’s begin with the first fact. A diocesan priest is not a religious. He remains a secular man. Therefore, since he is not a member of a religious order, he is only accountable to the bishop on matters regarding ministry. Anything outside of ministry is not supervised by any Church authority, because they have no right to do so. Only religious have to answer to their superiors for everything from mass to how they brush their teeth.

There is a second part of this story that has been repeat over and over. The priest was never transferred to Munich. He was sent there for therapy. Therefore, he is not under the jurisdiction of the local bishop, which was Cardinal Ratzinger. Church law does not allow a bishop to interfere with any priest who is not of his diocese or any member of a religious order. He only has authority over his own deacons and priests. The Cardinal did not have a vested interest in this priest. He was a guest in his diocese. It makes perfect sense that he would not have followed his activities or work.

In the request that was made to the Archdiocese of Munich all that was said was that the priest in question was going to therapy for sexual improprieties. That does not say child sexual abuse. In those days, people did not ask for details on these things. It was considered indiscrete. It was also indiscrete for a bishop to reveal to another bishop private information, unless he felt that the other bishop needed to know. There was the mistake of the priest’s bishop. He did not tell the receiving bishop, Cardinal Ratzinger, the details.

It is not uncommon for the Vicar to make assignments and simply write a memo for the files. The bishops may or may not read them. According to Church law the bishop is responsible for assigning pastors. The associates can be assigned by him or his vicar.

There is no record that this priest was ever incardinated into the Archdiocese of Munich. This means that he did not have to go through the Archbishop’s screening to be assigned. If you have a validly ordained priest staying in your diocese for an extended stay, that priest may ask for faculties and for permission to help in the parish. That request is not made to the bishop. It is made to either the Chancellor or the Vicar General. They have the authority to grant such faculties. They simply document it as I said above.

Finally, the bishop does not have the authority to ask a psychiatrist or psychologist for confidential information on a patient, even if it’s one of his deacons or priests. Neither do superiors of religious. All they have to go on is a statement from the psychiatrist who allegedly said that the priest was not a cooperative patient. But the psychiatrist did not reveal anything else at the time, because the law would not allow him to do so. At best, what we have here is a priest who seemed OK on the surface, but was an internal mess. At worse, we have a memo that was given to the Archbishop about an assignment of a priest who is a guest in his diocese and him not paying special attention to it, because he does not have a lot of information on this man. Remember that this man’s issues didn’t come out until things began to happen in Munich. By that time, Cardinal Ratzinger was in Rome.

The argument that the Cardinal only received two memos a day sounds like conjecture to prove a point. Who knows how many memos the Archbishop of a large diocese like Munich receives, how many meetings he goes to, how many complaints he hears, how many budget reports he reads, etc. With all of this going past his desk, it is very possible and believable that he simply handed the paper to someone to file without reading it carefully. As I said, even if he read it, he did not know everything that we know in retrospect. There is no evidence that the priest told him. And there was evidence that the assigning bishop was deliberately vague in his request.

The Times seems to have a few pieces of information and is filling in the blanks. Anyone can do that. It does not make it accurate. Do you see what I mean?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lutheranteach]

In my journalism days, I’ve crossed paths with two of the journalists whose work has been the NYT this past week. I can’t say they’re right. But, I’ve never known them to screw up a story. And I can tell you they are both very aware of how important this story is to get right.

 

[JReducation]

In my journalism days, I’ve crossed paths with two of the journalists whose work has been the NYT this past week. I can’t say they’re right. But, I’ve never known them to screw up a story. And I can tell you they are both very aware of how important this story is to get right.

But if you ask the average journalist to explain such things as:

• secular priest vs regular priest
• incardination
• assignment vs appointment
• episcopal authority vs religious authority

They probably would have to go research them. These are not concepts that people normally talk about unless they work in a chancery or are religious superiors. If you don’t know that they exist, how can you even ask the question? The average Catholic doesn’t know the meaning of these terms, why should a journalist who may or may not be Catholic, except for those journalists who always cover the Church and I’ve heard them on TV use terms inaccurately, which then gives the story another spin.

For example, I have heard journalists and even people on these threads say that the bishops failed to supervize the priests. But the priests under a bishop are secular men, therefore the bishop can only supervize their pastoral work and what happens during those hours, not what happens after office hours. Regular priests are not under the jurisdiction of a bishop and they are supervized by a major superior. These priests do get 24/7 supervision. But regular priests are a minority in the Church, only about 40%. So a bishop find out about things after the fact, sometimes long after the fact. Because even the local pastor cannot supervize the associates assigned to his parish. He distributes the work load, but that’s as much control as he is allowed to have over the associates, like in any other organization. If they mess up the job, they get into trouble. If they do the job right, no one pays much attention and you keep moving.

These are details that are very important that most people don’t kno about and it may not occur to ask. People often assume that bishops and parish pastors are overseeing everything that priests do. That is not the case, because it’s not their role. Unless the priest is a regular priest, the pastor and the bishop can only monitor the job, just like your boss. If you mess up on the job, you’re in trouble. If you mess up outside the office, the boss may not even find out. If he is a regular priest, there is always a superior of the local house and everyone reports to him on a daily basis. Even there, if a person is this sick, he can find ways to get around the system. It’s just more challenging for him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[FiberZilla]

I am so troubled as a Catholic right now.

Law. Gruber. And now this:

nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html

Considering the willingness of everyone around him to fall on their swords, and the memos and meetings, what am I supposed to think?

I know that Hullermann wasn’t Benedict’s priest. I know that pedophilia was seen as “curable.” And I know Benedict wasn’t the one to return Hullermann to ministry.

But he knew. And that shakes me.

I am tired of the stone-walling, “insider speak,” denials and double talk. I am tired of the SECRETS.

Law is now an Archpriest in the Roman Curia. Hullermann was only suspended THIS MONTH.

Germany. Ireland. The US. Phillippines.

ALL of this. Buried. Hushed.

How corrupt is my Church? How far will this go? How many more secrets?

I fear what I said to my wife earlier is a sin but I can’t deny what I feel:

The Pontiff is guilty of moral laxity if not outright cowardice. And he is my Pope.

I feel I am at the brink of a personal, spiritual crisis.

God makes some very explicit promises in the bible and tells you exacely how to make it to Heaven. Read your Bible and embrace Jesus Christ as Savior and absolute sovereign Lord of your life and be saved for sure!

“…The jailer woke up, and when he saw the prison doors open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself because he thought the prisoners had escaped. But Paul shouted, “Don’t harm yourself! We are all here!” The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”
(Acts 16:27-31)

“I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 John 5:13)

:bible1:

 

[Zatzat]

The leadership of the Catholic church is full of corruption, cover-up, and lies. I left the Catholic church over 20 years ago and cannot imagine ever going back. Once God opens your eyes to the truth, you never want to go back to the false teaching of the Catholic church. I just wish my family wasn’t still stuck in it…hopefully they will see the hypocrisy and get out before it’s too lat

Interesting that God selected you to have your eyes opened, but hasn’t seemingly bothered with your family…or me or billions of other people.

If you think Protestant denominations are immune from abusive pastors and alleged cover ups…:nope:

 

[anode]

Interesting that God selected you to have your eyes opened, but hasn’t seemingly bothered with your family…or me or billions of other people.

If you think Protestant denominations are immune from abusive pastors and alleged cover ups…:nope:

Of course they’re not. No institution is. but some institutions, because of their rigid hierarchical structure, lack of safeguards, and lack of transparency are much more prone to corruption than others.

I understand that the Catholic church has instituted many safeguards in recent years. But the problem with crimes, sins and errors is that not only are they very destructive, the distrust and hatred they engender lasts a long time. THIS will last a long time. The Catholic church will ‘never’ live it down–not in the lifetime of anyone writing about it. It’s sort of like the Inquisition, which happened centuries ago, but people are still talking about it. We have all done stupid things in school, and realized much later that our reputations are still haunting us, long after we’ve corrected the behavior.

What is happening now is sort of like this, but much, much worse.

I can’t get the YouTube clip from testimony before the Ryan Commission out of my mind:

wikio.co.uk/video/qanda-may-25th—response-report-1179231