Why Catholic now? Abuse reports getting worse, lost interest in Inquiry

  • Thread starter Thread starter lufty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lufty said:
What keeps your regular Catholic going these day? Or how about those in RCIA or Inquiry as I am?

I find it disheartening that so little outrage from within the Catholic Community is present, nor are discussions regarding the Vatican’s lack of action to resolve this, and punish those Clergy that are guilty. Reading these forums, mostly I see allot of finger-pointing to the secular media for “attacking” the CC, yet many, if not most of these allegations on sexual abuse are a reality.

I for one have found it difficult to even consider attending Mass, or continuing with the Inquiry stage at this point, with so little (name removed by moderator)ut by the Catholic community present.
Click to expand...
Of Christs 12 apostles one betrayed him , one denied him 3 time and 9 ran off when he was seized. There are over 400,000 Priests in the world of which less than 5,000 have been accused of wrongdoing. No one, i mean no one is going to seperate me from Christs Church.
 
estesbob said:
Of Christs 12 apostles one betrayed him , one denied him 3 time and 9 ran off when he was seized. There are over 400,000 Priests in the world of which less than 5,000 have been accused of wrongdoing. No one, i mean no one is going to seperate me from Christs Church.
Click to expand...
But how do you know Christ hasn’t moved His Church to someplace else so the gates of hell do not prevail?
 
Are you trying to argue that I need an ‘infallible’ (I believe though you actually mean more an ‘inerrant’) source to disprove media claims?

I mean, Jimmy is ‘in’ the media (as a blogger). Right? So I have some religious writer in the MSM posting various ‘thoughts’, and I have Jimmy (and others such as Father Z, or even other MSM people such as John Allen) who are pointing out that terms such as ‘defrocking’ are not correct usage, and that the MSM writer is attempting to argue that then Cardinal Ratzinger ‘refused to defrock a priest’ and that the use of ‘defrock’ is meant to imply that it is a punishment. But according to the actual laws of the Church (Canon law), laicization is not a punishment. It is a request (and it is made by the PRIEST and it is not imposed by the VATICAN) to be released from one’s clerical duties. IOW, it is the PRIEST who wants to be ‘released’ in order to be ‘free’ (usually to marry). It is not the VATICAN wanting to ‘take away his priestlidom’ (hey, if they can make up words so can I.)

The ‘slant’ of the article made it appear that the Vatican was not going to ‘punish’ the priest and that because they were concerned only about ‘the church’ they left this guy on to abuse.

The article does not point out the truth that it is not the ‘Vatican’ which is responsible but rather the bishops for their priests. It is only when there are criminal charges out (and the charges were dropped in the case in 1982, the later criminal charges came about after the priest had indeed been ‘laicized’ when the time had passed, and so came about when the Church had done exactly what this report is claiming it hadn’t done!) that things move to "the Vatican’.

Now, I’m not just going by “Jimmy Akin”, you know, any more than I am sure that you (generic you) are going simply by what is reported out in the secular press, right? I’m sure that when you see these accusations, you look up to see what the Church actually says about things like “defrocking” and what exactly the policy is, and you look up and see if criminal charges were brought, and all. See, that’s what Jimmy did. And he gives sources like the relevant Canon Law (which is out there on line so we can look it up) so that we can know that hey, you know, the reporter talking about ‘defrocking’ was mistaken.

It was probably an honest mistake. A LOT of people know all sorts of ‘gospel true’ stuff about the Catholic Church --but what they ‘know’ isn’t actually really true. And brother, can they get mad if somebody questions what they are sure they remember learning, or being taught. How often have we seen on these forums people tell us that they were DISCOURAGED FROM READING THE BIBLE as members of the Catholic Church, for example.

Doubtless some people were given incorrect teaching (for whatever reason. Lord knows since we had abusive priests back then and dissident nuns now that they probably existed ‘then’ and just worked a little differently.)

But doubtless some people misunderstood. And in later years, when they were told by friends and loved ones that the "Catholic Church’ had always ‘discouraged Bible reading’, they ret-conned themselves into believing that it happened to them.

And doubtless some people deliberately are lying about their experiences. People do strange things.

Because there are a lot of us who were NOT discouraged, who grew up reading the Bible regularly, at home AND at our Catholic schools. We were, of course, told that the Bible was a complex and wonderful text and that if as we read we could not understand something, that we should check out the catechism and the Church’s teachings in order to understand the Bible. We knew that this did not mean that we could not read the Bible ‘on our own’. It meant that we had expert ‘help’ available which would enable us to get the most out of the Bible. I mean, would you rather read your Bible ‘alone’ or would you rather read it with several experts available to help give you information that helps you understand it better? I’d sure rather have the experts. Why would I risk going it alone and maybe getting it all wrong, when God Himself gave us a Church to help make sure we’d get it RIGHT?
 
CMatt25 said:
But how do you know Christ hasn’t moved His Church to someplace else so the gates of hell do not prevail?
Click to expand...
If He HAD, wouldn’t we KNOW?

Where exactly do you think Christ ‘moved’ His Church? What exactly was the ‘point’ that made Him remove it from the Catholic Church?
 
CMatt25 said:
Well if you don’t believe His Church is the community of all believers and instead rests in one institution, He built it so why couldn’t He?
Click to expand...
And where exactly did you get this 'community of ‘all’ believers? Not in Scripture. St. Paul does not say that those who got ‘wrong information’ were to be allowed to keep on as ‘believers’ and to believe that wrong information, did he? No, if they were believers they were to hold fast to the truths that were taught both by letter and word of mouth, and they were to REJECT that which was not truthful.

As for the ‘one institution’, where do you get the idea that there was no ‘one’ institution at the beginning? Why would Christ not build ONE Church (He seemed to be pretty much insistent on the idea of ‘unity’ all in Scripture if you read it)? Where were the ‘other institutions’ in the history of the early Church (and don’t give me "Alexandria etc.’ None of those churches thought of themselves as being ‘separate’ and that the people of Alexandria say had different ‘rules’ from the ones in Rome.)

Why don’t you accept the Catholic teachings and traditions in regard to the institution of the Catholic Church, and who She is?

I mean (and this is not a personal attack, please understand) if you identify yourself as Catholic, why don’t you seem to agree with or accept a heck of a lot of Catholic teachings? It’s not as though Catholicism taught, “In the beginning there was a church–or maybe not; and they were in union–or maybe not; and Christ built a Church–or maybe not; and so the Church is all members of that One Church, or maybe it’s just all who say they believe, we really can’t be sure.”

If you want to believe the above, and you aren’t ‘sure’, I’m not going to argue with you about your beliefs, you are free to believe as you will. I won’t argue with your ‘identity’ either. But I will point out (and this is in charity) that usually if one identifies as a member of some group, one is pretty much expected to adhere to the **BELIEFS **of that group --otherwise, why claim to be a member?

If I identify myself as a Republican but consistently vote for only Democratic candidates, and consistently promote only those causes which Democrats uphold, but insist that I’m a ‘registered Republican’ I might indeed be ‘registered’ but I’d be a very poor EXAMPLE of a Republican. . .just my opinion.
 
Canon doesn’t allow laicization unless the priest requests it and is not a penalty?

Can. 290 Sacred ordination once validly received never becomes invalid. A cleric, however, loses the clerical state:

1° by a judgement of a court or an administrative decree, declaring the ordination invalid;

2° **by the penalty **of dismissal lawfully imposed;

3° **by a rescript **of the Apostolic See; this rescript, however, is granted to deacons only for grave reasons and to priests only for the gravest of reasons.

The bishop was in yrs of correspondence with Cardinal Ratzinger. Perhaps Cardinal Ratzinger did not perceive it the gravest of reasons though.
 
Hi Tatum, however the Holy Spirit guides you to “know”. I won’t get into detail about me personally though so as not to be off topic. Peace.
 
CMatt25 said:
Canon doesn’t allow laicization unless the priest requests it and is not a penalty?

Can. 290 Sacred ordination once validly received never becomes invalid. A cleric, however, loses the clerical state:

1° by a judgement of a court or an administrative decree, declaring the ordination invalid;

2° **by the penalty **of dismissal lawfully imposed;

3° **by a rescript **of the Apostolic See; this rescript, however, is granted to deacons only for grave reasons and to priests only for the gravest of reasons.

The bishop was in yrs of correspondence with Cardinal Ratzinger. Perhaps Cardinal Ratzinger did not perceive it the gravest of reasons though.
Click to expand...
No, you misunderstand. The laicization request by this priest was made not because he was found guilty, but because he wanted to be released. Having made a vow, and with many other priests likewise making requests in the 1970s and 1980s, and with the priest being ‘young’, the normal COURSE was to check to make sure that the priest was not just ‘thinking with the hormones.’

And he WAS laicized, in time, as he turned 40 and was adamant. And it wasn’t a PENALTY.

HOWEVER, in totally DIFFERENT CASES (that is why it is listed as #2, meaning a ‘difference’ from #1), the priest, having already been found guilty of a CRIMINAL OFFENSE, may be laicized and this is because unlike the normal laicization which is done for the ‘benefit’ of the priest (allowing him to marry), this is done because the priest has in essence ‘penalized’ himself. It is not a benefit but a penalty but it is one brought on by the priest himself.

Furthermore, the article tried to make it look as though Cardinal Ratzinger dithered around and while he did the guy abused children. This is NOT true.

And it also attempted to make it look as though if the Cardinal had laicized him right away that it would have ‘stopped abuse.’ Since the man already was not abusing and had been removed from duties by his bishop–as was POLICY–the laicization timing has NOTHING to do with the question of abuse. And again, if he HAD been laicized ‘early’, it would not have done ANYTHING in regard to the abuse. In fact, if he had been laicized without the USUAL WAIT, it would have been a disservice to the priest (who does still deserve human rights, yes?) and to the Church. Would you have Cardinal Ratzinger, who is supposed to uphold rules, BREAK THEM?
 
CMatt25 said:
But how do you know Christ hasn’t moved His Church to someplace else so the gates of hell do not prevail?
Click to expand...
When God changed the Covenant from Noah’s Covenant to Abraham’s Covenant, and then from Abraham’s Covenant to Moses’ Covenant, there were signs and miracles that accompanied the changes - barren women gave birth, angels were seen walking upon the earth, etc.

When God changed the Covenant from Moses’ Covenant to Christ’s Covenant, there were again signs and miracles that accompanied it - again, barren women gave birth, angels walked upon the earth, and men were raised to life from the dead.

There was a clear line of succession from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Moses, and from Moses to Jesus.

There have been no signs or miracles accompanying the foundation of any Christian non-Catholic organization, at any time. No outside religion has claimed both miracles and succession from Christianity, at the same time. (Separately, yes, but never together.)

Therefore, the Covenant of Jesus Christ is still in effect, and still remains with the Catholic Church.
 
CMatt25 said:
Hi Tatum, however the Holy Spirit guides you to “know”. I won’t get into detail about me personally though so as not to be off topic. Peace.
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit doesn’t teach against Himself, Matt.

I could ‘feel’ that the Holy Spirit was telling me that the Church was wrong on, say, abortion. I could be absolutely SURE that the Holy Spirit was right there guiding me.

And of course I’d be 100% WRONG because the Holy Spirit does not teach against Himself.

If the Church teaches it, it is correct, and no matter what the “spirit” murmured to me, if it murmured contrary to the Church I’d know it was no ‘holy’ spirit.

For Scripture tells us the devil can disguise himself as an angel of light.

He can, he has, he does. . .and he goes after the ‘best and brightest’ because it’s more evil to break a ‘good’ soul than an indifferent one. . .
 
CMatt25 said:
Well if you don’t believe His Church is the community of all believers and instead rests in one institution, He built it so why couldn’t He?
Click to expand...
Careful, you are close to denying Christ’s Church.
 
lufty said:
What keeps your regular Catholic going these day? Or how about those in RCIA or Inquiry as I am?

I find it disheartening that so little outrage from within the Catholic Community is present, nor are discussions regarding the Vatican’s lack of action to resolve this, and punish those Clergy that are guilty. Reading these forums, mostly I see allot of finger-pointing to the secular media for “attacking” the CC, yet many, if not most of these allegations on sexual abuse are a reality.

I for one have found it difficult to even consider attending Mass, or continuing with the Inquiry stage at this point, with so little (name removed by moderator)ut by the Catholic community present.
Click to expand...
Lufty, it’s true that Pope Benedict is not guilty… as for the priests, the percentage of priests involved in the abuse is as much, if not less, than in other areas of society - other churches, public schools, etc.

It is true that the abuse is horrible though, and can the Church do more? sure! you might be interested in reading this article about how Pope Benedict met with abuse victims recently: news4jax.com/news/23186425/detail.html

dont let this discourage you from joining Christ’s Church. Join it for Him, not for the Bishops or the priests. Also, for every bad priest, there are at least 10 great ones… I’ve met some really holy priests. And maybe this scandal will be an occasion for the Church to be purified.

God bless
 
Monica4316 said:
Lufty, it’s true that Pope Benedict is not guilty… as for the priests, the percentage of priests involved in the abuse is as much, if not less, than in other areas of society - other churches, public schools, etc.

It is true that the abuse is horrible though, and can the Church do more? sure! you might be interested in reading this article about how Pope Benedict met with abuse victims recently: news4jax.com/news/23186425/detail.html

dont let this discourage you from joining Christ’s Church. Join it for Him, not for the Bishops or the priests. Also, for every bad priest, there are at least 10 great ones… I’ve met some really holy priests. And maybe this scandal will be an occasion for the Church to be purified.

God bless
Click to expand...
Right! And don’t forget too that in pointing out that the incidence of abuse by priests is ‘less’ than in other areas, we aren’t trying to say that the abuse is ‘acceptable’ or to down play it in any way. We’re not trying to say, "others abuse so it’s okay’. All we are trying to do is erase a false impression that many have that the abuse by priests is something that ONLY happens in the Catholic Church, or that the abuse is somehow ‘greater’ than abuse of a child by a parent, or by a ‘minister’, or by a teacher.

The point is not about the guilt of the given abuser. All who abuse children are guilty of grave sin.

The point is, or should be, that child abuse crosses all ‘lines’ and should be fought whether the abuser is a Catholic priest, or NOT a Catholic priest.

So remember, the person who doesn’t seem to be screaming “crucify him” along with the rest of the slavering hordes isn’t necessarily CONDONING the abuse, but rather, trying to “broaden” the mistakenly narrow focus of the MSM who seem to be preaching that "priests abuse children because they’re forced into celibacy, and the Church is ‘covering it up’ out of vanity and pride alone’. . .into a more truthful picture.

Which would be “People abuse children not because they are enforced celibates, but because they choose to abuse. In fact, the majority of abusers are MARRIED MEN, not enforced celibates.”

and "Abuse was ‘covered up’ not only by the Church, but by virtually all segments of society, because it was felt at the time to be better for the victim’s sake. If that is wrong, well, so was the MEDICAL PROFESSION in claiming that abuse could be cured and that a second chance without ‘foreknowledge’ was both medically APPROPRIATE AND LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE. . .and again, not just in the Catholic Church.

Any abuse coverups after that (and there are some sadly) show not that the CHURCH is wrong (for the Church always has taught that abuse is wrong) but that some in the Church, even when given correct knowledge and specific instructions, have chosen to defy them. And should be dealt with.

But because the Church is an institution which preaches not only justice but MERCY (which few people will want to extend to penitent pedophiles but ORDER us to give to UNREPENTENT abortionists, to the extent that they will not even deem abortion a CRIME). . .the Church does not act as ‘swiftly’ or as ‘vindictively’ as those who deem themselves mere secular instruments of JUSTICE. Provided that secular laws are met (if they are just laws) one should not demand that the Church act ‘more swiftly.’ If a man has already been sentenced to prison then the Church will consider further punishments as necessary but it is hardly ‘just’ to insist say that the minute a man is found guilty of abuse that he be (at the same INSTANT!) excommunicated, laicized, and in essence treated as though he could NEVER be forgiven. The media doesn’t seem to demand this treatment of any one else, nor does it even demand it in the case of those priests found guility of crimes like forgery or theft.

And --how strange!–it does not demand that the minister or rabbi found guilty be treated by their ‘denominations’ with the same sort of ‘anathemas’ and the same 'speed. Why is that I wonder?
 
jmcrae said:
When God changed the Covenant from Noah’s Covenant to Abraham’s Covenant, and then from Abraham’s Covenant to Moses’ Covenant, there were signs and miracles that accompanied the changes - barren women gave birth, angels were seen walking upon the earth, etc.

When God changed the Covenant from Moses’ Covenant to Christ’s Covenant, there were again signs and miracles that accompanied it - again, barren women gave birth, angels walked upon the earth, and men were raised to life from the dead.

There was a clear line of succession from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Moses, and from Moses to Jesus.

There have been no signs or miracles accompanying the foundation of any Christian non-Catholic organization, at any time. No outside religion has claimed both miracles and succession from Christianity, at the same time. (Separately, yes, but never together.)

Therefore, the Covenant of Jesus Christ is still in effect, and still remains with the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I believe as well the covenant of Christ is in effect. The gates of hell shall not prevail. I suppose the signs this time could be these sins of the apostolic successors for us to know them by their fruits? Preaching to us in sheep’s clothing about the sanctity of life but abusing children and covering it up in wolves clothing? I don’t know. Just putting it out there as a possibility though.
 
Monica4316 said:
you from joining Christ’s Church.
Click to expand...
Join it for Him, not for the Bishops or the priests. Also, for every bad priest, there are at least 10 great ones… I’ve met some really holy priests. And maybe this scandal will be an occasion for the Church to be purified.

God bless

The problem is many people thought their priests and bishops were holy too as these men lived 2 lives. One their holy lives in public and their dark, secret lives about which only God, themselves, and those they perpetrated their acts against knew of.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
the MSM who seem to be preaching that "priests abuse children because they’re forced into celibacy, and the Church is ‘covering it up’ out of vanity and pride alone’. . .into a more truthful picture.
Click to expand...
:confused: Tantum, in one post you were exclaiming the virtues of wait time. And here you’re saying Cardinal Ratzinger did not drag his feet for yrs out of vanity and pride alone. But you do not simply ignore the Church files and letter sited in the article where Cardinal Ratzinger expressed concern about how removing the priest would provoke a detriment within the Church, correct? Seems to me the wait time has caused more of a detriment to the Church. But oh well. Anyway God bless and peace.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
I won’t argue with your ‘identity’ either.
Click to expand...
Thank you Tantum. I appreciate that. I don’t see how you could though and still follow all the teachings of the Church since that’s how the Church id’s me too. I think ppl who say someone is not a Catholic when the Church says they are have more of a problem it seems it to me with the Church’s definition than with the person. But again God bless you and peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top