Ted Haggard scandal

[Kendy]

Hang on there. He was removed from his leadership position for admitting to using drugs and having some sort of sexual relationship outside of his marriage.

I applaud the church for removing him. He is in NO position to be leading others when he clearly needs help. I would hardly call it out of sight, out of mind though.

Mr. Haggard has asked for forgiveness - how do you know he didn’t receive it?

I believe the Catholic Church could learn from THIS example of what to do when someone in authority (Priest or Pastor) is caught in such serious wrongdoing. PLEASE don’t even suggest that the Catholic Church handled it’s sex scandal in a better way.

In an nytimes article, a member of his church committe said, that now, it’s time for him to be healed and be pastored. I am very impressed by how his church has balanced discipline with love and mercy.

Kendy

 

[dapper]

In an nytimes article, a member of his church committe said, that now, it’s time for him to be healed and be pastored. I am very impressed by how his church has balanced discipline with love and mercy.

Kendy

Well put Kendy. The key word here being “balanced.” Forgiveness, absolutely. Swift removal and reprimand of a man not fit to be leading a church, absolutely.

As a previous posted said, the Catholic Church could learn a lot from how this whole mess was handled. This being small potatoes compared to priests molesting and soliciting sex from parishioners- the immediate removal, forgiveness and help to an unfit pastor is a great example of how things could have been (and hopefully are) handled.

 

[Steadfast]

Cestus,

Your whole tone throughout this thread from your opening salvo “it should be interesting” to your charge that he was only accountable because he was caught to your hystrionic charge that people are “screaming pedophile when they see a collar” speak volumes about your heart and how you feel about the whole issue.

You’re clearly glad to see a high profile case where a Protestant leader is caught in the same kind of thing your church’s priests were caught in.

The irony is that if ever there was a case where accountability only came after being caught, nay, after public outcry, it is in your church’s recent crisis.

As for the word “gloating” I wasn’t the first to use it, the poster nicked “Saint_Michael” used it first. I borrowed it because I think it fits.

You’re bitter and you’re pleased as can be that Ted Haggard and that church are caught up in this mess.

I call that gloating.

I find it disgusting that the best most Catholics can do when the issue of priestly sexual abuse is raised is counter with “Well, Protestants do it too” and now, to paraphrase your remarks in this thread, “See, I told you so, hee hee!”.

Do you know what I tell my children when they use the “But they’re doing it too” defense?

I tell them that I don’t care what Billy or Christina are doing, they’re not my children.

 

[Steadfast]

I’ve been pretty reasoned here as have the vast majority, I do wonder how you can fault Cestusdei, while espousing the vitriol that you do here? Look at this post of yours, you’re blatantly throwing stones which appear to be what you’re mad at Cestusdei for. Compound this with calling Saint Vianney retarded in another thread, and seriously you’re in no position to be calling out others. Most here have been FAR more charitable to Pastor Ted Haggard than any Christian boards have ever been to Catholics, yourself included, you bring the scandal up in most of your posts, including two or three times in this topic alone. Do you do anything other than make noise here? Sorry if if this is uncharitable but hopefully it gets you thinking.

The reference to the Cure D’Ars was in the context of a retort to the oh so tired charge that Luther was insane; a charge every bit as offensive to Protestant sensibilities and one for which I have received no apologies.

Since you brought it up though, let me spell it out for you. In both cases, that of the Cure and of Luther there are opinions extant from reputable historians and scholars supporting both conclusions. I didn’t make it up and my interlocutor didn’t make up the charge that Luther was crazy.

I will also draw your attention to the fact that my overriding point was that God uses men often in spite of their weaknesses and went on to describe Vianney as a man whose tenderness of heart and pastoral gifts far outshone any weakness of intellect he may or may not have had. But this part of my point in that thread has been completely forgotten in the outrage that I should repeat the opinion of a biographer that he may not have been the sharpest knife in the drawer.

And yet, no encomia are forthcoming for Luther. No dilation on why a person might agree with Obermann or Marius or any of the other historians who thought Luther may have suffered some form of mental illness.

 

[cestusdei]

steadfast, so you could not find an example of me gloating. However, you are delighted when a priest falls into scandal and you use it against us. Yet you shy away from confronting your own scandals. If you really want to see some issues on your side of the fence I suggest a visit to www.stopbaptistpredators.org. You will discover that cover ups are not exclusive to Catholicism.

I think steadfast is an example of the type of fundamentalist I encounter who rejoice in our problems. Par for the course. Nice to see him “take the high moral ground.”

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Wow, just wow. I’m nearly at a loss for words.

Some man’s life is destroyed by sin, and you think it’s noteworthy because now other christians won’t be able to make fun of you on the basis that some small number of priests have been caught raping children.

Now I see how you really view all those victims of “Islamic aggression”: They’re just points you use to “beat muslims with that stick.” The depth of the personal tragedy involved is just a byline.

Pro managed to once again draw the topic away from the discussion to defend his poor, persuceted Islamic friends when no one was talking about them. Good troll. Oh, and what religion now tells you that homosexuality is a “sin”?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I don’t know of anyone (except maybe some silly fundamentalists) who has said anything like this.

But two points are in order here:

1. If the accusation is true, then Mr. Haggard is guilty of serious sexual immorality but *not *of violating and abusing innocent young people, which for most people is the real horror of the “priest scandals.”
2. His congregation is acting quickly to discipline him, because he is accountable to his congregation. There is no hierarchy with the power to cover things up and transfer him to another congregation. And that, for most people, is the second thing that horrifies them about the Catholic scandals. We know that clergy from all churches (all churches of significant size and duration, that is) have committed horrible sins at some point. But the lack of accountability between clergy and laity in the Catholic Church exacerbated the abuses many times over. Protestant churches tend to behave the same way. It’s not that we are more righteous than you. It’s that we have accountability structures that make it *relatively *harder to shuffle abusive clergy around.

Edwin

Edwin, I’m sorry to be blunt – but that’s a laod of bull. Haggard wouldn’t have come clean about any of this (he finally has) if it wasn’t for the news media, which is what it took for the American Catholic Church to clean up its act. Haggard was his own leader in this case and it wouldn’t have come out into the open if it wasn’t for this male prostitute going to the media. The sex scandals in our churches is a wake up call to us as Christians and for those of us with children, parents. Parents should be more vigilent with their children and should NEVER leave them out of their sight (but when they do, they should at least make sure that the child knows he/she shouldn’t be going alone with one adult) and should explain this to their children at a younger age (with age appropriate language) and let them know the child can always come to them about ANYTHING. The key to preventing this is about being open with your kids.

 

[WenckebachCath]

Incidentally, it’s a documented fact that homosexuality and homosexual exploitation of minors is rampant in the Muslim world. Some of this is by Muslim clergy. Just thought I’d mention that. This type of sin knows no borders.

 

[Steadfast]

steadfast, so you could not find an example of me gloating. However, you are delighted when a priest falls into scandal and you use it against us. Yet you shy away from confronting your own scandals. If you really want to see some issues on your side of the fence I suggest a visit to www.stopbaptistpredators.org. You will discover that cover ups are not exclusive to Catholicism.

I think steadfast is an example of the type of fundamentalist I encounter who rejoice in our problems. Par for the course. Nice to see him “take the high moral ground.”

I think you’ll look far and wide to find an example of me saying anything about priestly sexual abuse other than that I think it has more to do with certain dioceses recruiting emotionally immature homosexuals than anything else; an opinion shared by many concerned and conservative Catholics, by the way.

You’re welcome to look for an example of my gloating about it, of course.

But you won’t find one.

I’m pleased to say that I’ve been remarkably consistent on this.

And if you think I’m a “fundamentalist” you have no idea what the word means, and deserve the rejoinder that you are, in fact the fundamentalist, trapped in a siege mentality common to many priests and lay Catholics and encouraged by the ePolomania of sites like this one.

Common to all fundamentalists is the unwillingness to admit nuance in the positions of the “other” and your inability to recognize the difference between an evangelical and a fundamentalist Protestant screams exactly this.


Come now then, father, I’ve given my reasons for accusing you of gloating.

Turn about is fair play: show me where I have been “delighted” over the priestly abuse scandal in anything like the terms or tone you have so shamefully displayed here.

 

[Stephen_C]

So why is this a thread? What is the purpose of this thread? The only purpose I see is that Man falls short. That Man’s salvation is a gift from God. None of us deserves salvation. None of us can gain savation on our own. That fact alone is very humbling. We all fall short. Also keep in mind that this is not a pedophile case. What he did was between two consenting adults. I will let God judge Ted. And I will keep him in my prayers.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

I see several things about this whole story:

1 – The “tolerance” crowd is having a field day. They love to see a member of the religious fall. The irony is amazing.

2 – This man has deep tragedy. I don’t know what it’s like to be homosexual and then have to struggle with that in the context of a faith that teaches that it is morally wrong. Clearly, he wasn’t able to control his own demons. In his case, it seems that he didn’t involve children at the least. Still, he has just had a massive fall from grace and needs our prayers and compassion.

3 – I find it interesting that in all of these instances, the media focuses on the religion or the party, but never seems to want to have a discussion on homosexuality itself.

4 – I agree that the Congregation in questions has dealt with this issue in a forthright manner and I congratulate them on it.

5 – Please go easy on CestusDei. He’s on the front lines, and he’s probably gotten more abuse than he should have. Most of us haven’t walked in his shoes.

So, let’s all try to be forgiving here. There are major issues at hand, and while the faithful understand that one scandal does not deny the truth of Jesus, the secular/atheist world uses it as further confirmation and proof of their world-view.

 

[bella5110]

So why is this a thread? What is the purpose of this thread? The only purpose I see is that Man falls short. That Man’s salvation is a gift from God. None of us deserves salvation. None of us can gain savation on our own. That fact alone is very humbling. We all fall short. Also keep in mind that this is not a pedophile case. What he did was between two consenting adults. I will let God judge Ted. And I will keep him in my prayers.

The purpose of this thread is to show other non-Catholic faiths that it happens in EVERY religion. Except Haggard was involved with Crystal Methamphetamine and homosexuality. In the Catholic Church “scandal of priests”, of course it was absolutely wrong, it was predicted that Satan would enter our church and cause destruction. A lot of innocent priests were also accused. This all happened in the year 2001 now every one will say they hate The Catholic Church because of this. To me it is an excuse NOT to attend church and not to accept the doctrines we have. The priest scandal has NOTHING to do with the faith of Jesus Christ. What happened 2,000 years before this? We are still here. It never stopped me from ceasing to be a Catholic, it made me stronger, because I know Catholic Prophesies, and this was predicted.

 

[Kendy]

The purpose of this thread is to show other non-Catholic faiths that it happens in EVERY religion. /QUOTE]

I certainly hope that that is not the point of this thread. Surely, it goes without saying and saying it seems a bit immature, like going “haha” during someone else’s tragic experience.

It’s on the news; he’s famous; he’s politically influential so we’re talking about it. However, I also hope we are learning from it. It really highlights for me how little discipline there is within our church; I know of theology students who are involved in church ministry who are openly living with their boyfriend, and there seems to be complete silence about this in our church.

Kendy

 

[Sam88]

British media are used to Anglicans, who are generally regarded as Protestants yet routinely refer to their clergy as priests. Hence, the British media, being ignorant of Christianity on the whole (particularly of the varieties of low-church Protestantism), regularly call all Christian clergy “priests.” A particularly ludicrous example was an article in the *Times *on the Plymouth Brethren that referred to a PB “priest”–this even though the PB’s don’t have any ordained clergy at all! I can see why you would think this was a slur against Catholicism, but it is more likely to be simply the result of the BBC’s ignorance and the prominence of Anglicanism.

Edwin

Thank you for pointing this out, it sounds plausible now that you explain it, although as I am sure that you know it certainly sounds very strange to an American, where the term priest is normally understood to refer to Catholic clergy exclusively. In fact, many other groups would not even accept use of the term clergy to refer to their leaders.

Still, this seems to be a substantial failing on the part of the BBC, which seems to have a good reputation as a news source among some circles in the U.S., at least as a alternative point of view to the U.S. networks.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, I think the terms are interchangable - they just aren’t clearly defined for all.

They are not interchangeable, and claiming that they are is both inaccurate and unjust. It’s like confusing Catholics as a whole with radical traditionalists.

I have given several fundamentalist websites that specifically say that most people who call themselves evangelicals are “new evangelicals” and thus not fundamentalists–indeed they are apostates from the point of view of fundamentalists.

Please respond to this evidence rather than simply repeating your views without supporting them.

Opinions differ, and it depends on who is using them!

Indeed. But that means that you must be careful to use language in a way that is not misleading.

I repeat–Ted Haggard is not a fundamentalist, and if you bothered to look at the websites to which I linked you would see that fundamentalists reject and condemn his variety of evangelicalism in no uncertain terms.

Karl Keating wrote Catholicism and Fundamentalism, and in it he defines Fundamentalism as being interchangable with Evangelicalism.

I had forgotten that. The fact that Keating does it doesn’t make it right.

I remember that the basis, or one of the basis’ for Keating considering the two terms interchangable was that the Dallas Theological Seminary, from whence come many Evangelical pastors, now considers itself Evangelical, but when founded they considered themselves Fundamentalist. And, then and now, their defining theological beliefs have not changed - only the label of them.

DTS is definitely on the more fundamentalist side of evangelicalism. I’m not sure where Keating gets evidence that their beliefs have not changed. However, it’s certainly true that some evangelicals believe essentially the same things fundamentalists do, but with a less separatist, condemnatory attitude. For Catholics, however, that atttitude is a pretty important matter. Labelling is important, whatever Keating thinks.

DTS was founded in the 20s, and yes, back then it would have been considered “fundamentalist.” In the post-WWII era many former “fundamentalists” began calling themselves evangelicals precisely as a way of distancing themselves from the hardline, separatist attitudes of fundamentalism.

The other thing to bear in mind is that fundamentalism itself has changed. As it has seen many former “fundamentalists” slide away into “new evangelicalism,” it has become more and more intolerant and anti-intellectual. So many people who believe the original “five fundamentals” wouldn’t touch the word “fundamentalist” today.

I agree that the terminology is complicated, and that some people who are evangelicals by one definition are fundamentalists by another (indeed, a case can be made for seeing fundamentalists as a subset of evangelicalism).

However, the point remains–Haggard is not a fundamentalist. He doesn’t think he is, and the fundamentalists sure don’t think he is.

Here’s a short summary:
All fundamentalists are evangelicals (at least by some definitions)
Many evangelicals are fundamentalists (by some definitions).
But many other evangelicals are not fundamentalists by any possible definition.

And I don’t think only certain groups can claim sole title to “Evangelist”. Next week in our diocese, Jesse Romero is coming for a conference. He is a “Catholic Evangelist.”

Evangelist and evangelical are not the same thing.

Edwin

 

[Saint_Michael]

The reference to the Cure D’Ars was in the context of a retort to the oh so tired charge that Luther was insane; a charge every bit as offensive to Protestant sensibilities and one for which I have received no apologies.

Since you brought it up though, let me spell it out for you. In both cases, that of the Cure and of Luther there are opinions extant from reputable historians and scholars supporting both conclusions. I didn’t make it up and my interlocutor didn’t make up the charge that Luther was crazy.

I will also draw your attention to the fact that my overriding point was that God uses men often in spite of their weaknesses and went on to describe Vianney as a man whose tenderness of heart and pastoral gifts far outshone any weakness of intellect he may or may not have had. But this part of my point in that thread has been completely forgotten in the outrage that I should repeat the opinion of a biographer that he may not have been the sharpest knife in the drawer.

And yet, no encomia are forthcoming for Luther. No dilation on why a person might agree with Obermann or Marius or any of the other historians who thought Luther may have suffered some form of mental illness.

Nothing.

But that, like this thread, is par for the course in the Catholic ghetto.

No apology, more pride and stubborness, I find it ironic that you do exactly what you seem to get mad at others for.

Someone calls Luther insanse, you call Saint John Vianney retarded (which the MOD rightly erased and closed down the thread for). Someone brings up Pastor Ted Haggard, leader of American Evangelicals engaging in meth induced gay romps, you bring up priest scandal, THEN you have the audacity to critique Cestusdei for using the “see but you do it too defense”, the hypocrisy is astounding.

It’s pretty obvious you’re here to make noise and little esle, I’ll just ignore you.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

Thank you for pointing this out, it sounds plausible now that you explain it, although as I am sure that you know it certainly sounds very strange to an American, where the term priest is normally understood to refer to Catholic clergy exclusively. In fact, many other groups would not even accept use of the term clergy to refer to their leaders.

Still, this seems to be a substantial failing on the part of the BBC, which seems to have a good reputation as a news source among some circles in the U.S., at least as a alternative point of view to the U.S. networks.

The BBC admitted that they have an anti-American, anti-Christian bias (according to Lou Dobbs). That is certainly reflected in their reporting.

 

[cestusdei]

I spoke too soon…

Kudos to those of you who are able to see this in a balanced and charitable way.

To the others, like CestusDei who can only gloat at the downfall of a brother: you deserve everything you get wrt your church hiding and shuffling homosexuals and child molesters in the priesthood.

Everything.

I see this as an example of gloating steadfast, “I deserve everything I get”. I assume that means being harassed on the street. But you can give no example of me doing that and refuse to apologize. What does that say about you?

My point here was that fundamentalists I have encountered are now discovering the beam in their own eye and it hurts. It is my hope that the pain will open their eyes to how they treat Catholics. Perhaps that hope is in vain.

 

[Contarini]

Thank you for pointing this out, it sounds plausible now that you explain it, although as I am sure that you know it certainly sounds very strange to an American, where the term priest is normally understood to refer to Catholic clergy exclusively.

Episcopalians and Orthodox too–but these are much smaller groups.

In fact, many other groups would not even accept use of the term clergy to refer to their leaders.

Still, this seems to be a substantial failing on the part of the BBC, which seems to have a good reputation as a news source among some circles in the U.S., at least as a alternative point of view to the U.S. networks.

Well, they’re good on some things and not so good on others. I like listening to them (and reading their website) for their coverage of international news, and they are a good alternative to U.S. news sources, which from my perspective appear (at least the major TV sources, even the supposedly “liberal” CNN) to have a rather unthinkingly nationalistic point of view (NPR and some of the more liberal print media are somewhat different). But I would never rely on the BBC (or the New York Times) for coverage of religious matters. NPR is bad enough but at least they try.

Edwin

 

[Steadfast]

I see this as an example of gloating steadfast, “I deserve everything I get”. I assume that means being harassed on the street. But you can give no example of me doing that and refuse to apologize. What does that say about you?

My point here was that fundamentalists I have encountered are now discovering the beam in their own eye and it hurts. It is my hope that the pain will open their eyes to how they treat Catholics. Perhaps that hope is in vain.

You should not be “harrassed in the streets”.

What should I apologize for? For being irritated with your tone in this thread? A tone the only word fairly descriptive of is “gloating”? If it’s not gloating, then what is it?

Why should I apologize for this?

The situation with Haggard is not going to change the way Protestant Fundamentalists treat Catholics. Get over that idea right now, but even if this was your intent, and I doubt that it was (it stretches my credibility to even consider that a man of your education would really think so), you’ve gone about it in exactly the wrong way.

It’s intensely puerile when presented with fault in one’s own profession or allegiances to point the finger at another. This is the kind of thing children do.

The saying is, “Keep your side of the street clean and leave the cleaning of the other side to those who live there.” It is to the American Catholic Church’s credit that it has dealt with the priestly abuse scandal and I am sorry that you are having to bear the brunt of dissatisfaction on the part of idiots who can’t see this. But surely you can see that, to many, the solution came only after the **** had really hit the fan and had been hitting the fan for a generation or more.

This doesn’t make it right for you to be abused, but I would hope that you would have the humility to understand it and to respond charitably.

This is why this thread is such a puzzle to me. Rather than having a unique, professional understanding of the kind of depravity that brings about a situation like Haggard’s and responding with mercy and forebearance, you’ve preferred to initiate discussion by refering to it’s “interest” and by further remarks clearly indicative of a desire to make polemical hay.

It boggles the mind.

And you should be ashamed of yourself.