Posted on 07/14/2003 11:56:28 AM PDT by presidio9
It is almost impossible to know what really goes on behind the scenes at a place as secretive as the Vatican. Running the worldwide Catholic Church, with its more than 1 billion members, is obviously an enormous undertaking, and the important decisions are made by a few powerful clerics, headed, of course, by Pope John Paul. But the pontiff is 83 years old and not in good health. For Americans concerned about the declining image of the church in this country, the question of the Pope's competency is crucial. With that in mind, I recently traveled to Vatican City and sat in the third row at John Paul's weekly audience. I watched him closely for 90 minutes and can tell you that although he can no longer walk, he was mentally alert. His eyes were clear, and his voice retained some power. But it was apparent that the Pope's endurance is limited.
Few get to question the Pope, and I have just one query for him: Why have you not acted more aggressively in combating the priest-sexual abuse scandal in America, a country that provides about half your financing? Although the Pope is beyond my reach, I was able to put that question to a number of Vatican insiders and have come up with what I believe is a cogent answer.
Pope John Paul was furious when told that the scandals in the Boston Archdiocese had reached a flash point. According to someone in the room with him when he received the news that Bernard Cardinal Law was to be deposed, he slammed his hand on his desk and yelled at his assistants: "You told me this situation would be taken care of the right way!" The Pope was visibly angry and shortly afterward retreated into prayer.
And that is what the Pope mostly does these days: pray. He delegates almost all other duties to a variety of underlings, none of whom has the power or insight to deal with a scandal as withering as this priest-sex abuse thing.
According to four sources who often deal with the Vatican, the bureaucracy at St. Peter's is so thick and entrenched that quick action on anything is impossible. With the person in charge, John Paul, spending most of his time on spiritual reflection, there is simply no one in the Vatican hierarchy in place to help the tottering American church.
This is tragic, because for two centuries the Catholic Church in the U.S. has been a powerful moral voice. It champions the poor, promotes respect for life and generally acts as counterweight to the secular philosophy that challenges judgments about personal behavior.
In America today, there is an increasing tolerance for all kinds of actions that the country once deemed immoral. For example, some people now consider heroin dealing to be a nonviolent crime. Partial-birth abortion is embraced by a variety of groups. Drug legalizers have hired lobbyists in Washington, as have homosexuals who want gay marriage sanctioned.
Nearly anything goes in a secular society, and a quick trip to Europe will prove that. In Amsterdam, you can see neighborhoods devoted to legalized prostitution and drug buying. You can watch drug addicts shoot up in the train station. Great for the kids, right?
The Catholic Church at one time could authoritatively speak out against that kind of degeneracy. The church believes that your body is to be respected, along with the bodies and souls of your neighbors. Anything that diminishes the human (or fetal) condition is questioned and sometimes condemned.
But that moral authority is now diminished. Thanks to a few corrupt Catholic clergy and a paralyzed leadership in Rome, a reasonable, collective voice that promotes humanistic conduct has been put on the defensive and, in certain quarters, is even dismissed as irrelevant.
I believe Pope John Paul is a good man - a person of dignity and compassion. But he has lost control of a situation that is causing societal damage far beyond the confines of the Catholic Church. We should all dearly hope that the Pope's prayers are answered. For the American Catholic Church right now, the only solution on the horizon is divine intervention.
If the Catholic-bashing idiots of FR knew even half the details of Karol Wojtyla's biography, they'd know they're not fit to even open their mouths to criticize him. They've been sitting around fat, dumb and happy in the US all their lives - I'd love to see what their reaction would be if real tyranny and persecution came to these shores.
They'd be the first to renounce Christ in order to save their smarmy hides.
I guess that depends on your point of view.
Would it be "uncharitable" of you to say Joseph Smith's, Mary Baker Eddy's and/or Charles Taze Russell's prayers "may have been almost useless"?
Whether or not he did, would it have been "uncharitable" for the 16th Century pope to have said Martin Luther's prayers "may be almost useless"?
It sure would have. No Christian's prayers are useless.
As far as Joseph Smith, MB Eddy and CT Russell's prayers, it depends on to whom they directed them. Joseph Smith directed them to a different "God" than the God of Christianity. Russell, I believe didn't pray to Christ since he believed him to be just a creature. I'm not sure that MB Eddy was even aware of a divinity separate from herself.
But both the Pope and Martin Luther pray to a crucified and risen Jesus who is true God and true man and who answers prayers.
There's no comparison between Smith and Eddy on the one hand and JPII and (say) RC Sproul on the other.
Bingo. Thus, we are in agreement that it is not uncharitable to say such a person's prayers may be almost useless.
Again, it's a matter of perspective.
I disagree. If someone believes that the Jesus Christ of the Gospels is their Lord and Savior, then their prayer can't be useless.
If they believe that the Jesus Christ of the Gospels was just a nice guy, or a manifestation of a shared consciousness or life-force, or a special but non-divine creature then we have an entirely different phenomenon.
This is not a matter of perspective - either you believe Christ is Lord or you don't.
He is the matter of perspective. Some deny one's faith in His finished work on the cross is alone entirely efficacious for salvation. In doing so, they redefine Him. They redefine God.
Some certainly do. But that's not the Catholic position.
The only salvation is Christ crucified.
Really? So, a Roman Catholic need only profess faith in Him, and that's it, eternity in Heaven is assured, no matter what?
If so, I've been misled regarding certain stuff like your "mortal sins" and "last rites" and praying people's souls out of "purgatory" (to name a few).
You've jumped from A to C.
Catholics and Reformed Christians both agree that Christ's blood is the only ransom for sin and Christ's merit is the only source of grace.
We disagree over whether the Scriptures teach that mere verbal profession is the means of availing ourselves of Christ's grace.
We believe that Christ meant what he said: "not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of Heaven" but that he who does the will of the Father will be saved. We believe that a mere verbal profession can sometimes be empty and meaningless - "This people worships me with their lips but their hearts are far from me."
In other words, for the Catholic faith is not just a synonym for "belief" - having faith means being faithful.
I mean, quite honestly, what does it mean to you when Christ tells the Apostles that He will judge us on the Last Day by how we have served him?
I've never gotten a direct answer from a Reformed Christian about how we are to take such passages from the Gospels.
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.