Posted on 02/07/2006 6:58:40 PM PST by Coleus
I am a cradle catholic that has recently begun attending a non-denominational Christian Church. I did so for various reasons, not the least of which was just what you stated. I do not have an issue with Rome per se, my issue is with the American Catholic Church. More and more they are turning from the direction of the Vatican. I just needed to get back to my Bible and simplify my relationship with Christ. As I said to my mother, if I could attend church in Rome every week, I would, but you play the hand that is dealt you.
The problem was Pope John Paul II's background prior to being elected Pope. There were many priests of solid orthodoxy in communist lands. Because of these priests' unwavering loyalty to Catholic orthodoxy, the communist civil authorities didn't want these men consecrated bishops.
So the communists would spread rumors that these faithful priests were homosexuals. The tactic worked and many a good priest was denied episcopal consecration.
Have you tried an Eastern Catholic church? Or one where they say the Mass in Latin?
You need to look around more carefully for a good Catholic Church. They are out there. I am fortunate to live in a diocese that's had a decent track-record with bishops, but even if we got an awful one, it wouldn't cause me to abandon the Faith of my fathers. "This too shall pass."
Like I said, this is just one of the issues that I have. I have many doctrinal issues as well. I'm not going to attempt to explain these to you, because I have gone down this road with other posters and they get far too emotional and downright rude. I believe that we are Christians above any denomination and doctrine can be debated in Heaven...
Opinion appreciated. Not accurate, but appreciated. It would be impossible for me to have the same issues since the issues that I have are with some of the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Page 385.
"Jesus made Judas a Bishop"
Bornacatholic, Did you, perchance, happen to have spent time recently in Catholic school, being taught by manish nuns in pantsuits and hairy moles?
Anyway, you are wrong. Jesus did not make Judas a bishop. Read your catechism. Or your bible.
I'm not going to assert any given Bishop of Cardinal is heterosexual these days. And McCarrick is not especially known for Orthodoxy. But a columnist in an apostate newspaper heavily promoting a homosexual clergy reprints an e-mail from a former priest who claims he heard someone tell him that the Cardinal came onto him?
If I'm an editor, I tell him, "If you think you've got something there, go ahead and pursue it, but come back when you have a story."
I'll be open-minded to this last guy, but "Fr." Hoatson is a pathetic joke. The fact that he mentions the homosexuality in court papers is no basis for credibility, given the fact that the lawyer who presented it is so deep up to his neck in liable. "Fr." Hoatson alleges the entire Catholic hierarchy is predominantly gay, and therefore should be promoting buggery, rather than condemning it.
You mean like Cardinal Law and Archbishop Levada? Two full tilt enablers appointed to recent positions in Rome and both known quantities, if you know what I mean...
Do you have a source or quote for that assertion or is that just an allegation on your part?
And what do you know about these men, really?
The most plausible charge is that some bishops are gay, enough to be a problem. A larger problem is that the majority are advocates of the social gospel . They still cannot get it through their heads that they have no influence in the Democratic Party in which they grew up, and so the Conference still puts out these manifestos that echo the DNC's talking points.
And now they are both in Rome, Levada in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- perhaps the third most powerful position in the Church. Law brought to Rome into a plumb spot and protected when he should have been run out of the Church.
Law has a sinecure. His problem in Boston was that he tried to straddle the middle. He didn't cause the mess in Boston, but he failed to clean up the mess he found, which included a clergy and clerisy (the puffed up bureaucracy) and the educated laity in defiance or rebellion, monarchial authority doesn't work. Why were these gay priests allowed to get away with this stuff? In large part because they had the support of half the laity.
I went to public school. Harry Moles was the bus driver for route 7
You make a valid point. V's wife.
The vast majority of the laity was left in total darkness about pervert priests raping children. Cardinal Law and many bishops knew exactly what was going on, yet they either ignored it, to cover potential embarrassment for themselves, or moved these priests from parish to parish to hide the crimes being committed.
Don't tell us that a majority of the laity KNEW about these crimes or were complicit, and the bishops were somehow innocent. The TRUTH only came out in the last few years because of the courage of victims and their families and a (very) few brave priests, and certain newspapers such as the Boston Globe who brought specifics to the public. Law was DIRECTLY implicated in these crimes, and I would suggest that what he did was a WORSE SIN than that which was perpetrated by evil homosexual priests. He, after all, was the primary shepherd with a higher responsibility for protecting the innocent, yet he took part in the cover ups and protected the wolves. Read this article and become informed:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.