Posted on 04/22/2002 2:43:14 AM PDT by kattracks
Ha, ha, ha. I'm post Vatican II so I had to go to Google to look it up.
'It' did not 'happen', 'Sin' was 'committed'. If the sins were not committed they would not have been covered up. The coverup was also a sin. Forgiveness of sin is up to a higher authority than you.
There is only one thing he neglects to say. The percentage of priests that have committed sexual abuse, which he states as 3%, may be accurate as far as pedophilia and ephebophilia are concerned. But to be more accurate in assessing this problem, one needs to equate things to the overall homosexual population in the priesthood, which is estimated to be anywhere from 20 to 40% of total priests. The Msgr. blamed "American society for being "very protective" of homosexuality." This in turn has given "closet space" to homosexuals in seminaries and in diocese and orders.
He said, "Homosexuality became in the American exchange of views a protected area," ... "And unfortunately ... homosexual students were allowed to pass through seminaries. Grave mistake. Not because homosexuals in anyway tend to criminality, but because it is a disorder." IMO, it is more than a grave mistake. Because so many homosexual priests are active; we now have very influential clergy in chanceries and orders and seminaries protecting, or in the least remaining silent about, ALL of the homosexuals including, unfortunately, those who would abuse children.
The program ostensibly is about sacramental preparation. It is about subversion. One of the groups promoted on page nine of the seventh grade schoolchildren's text is "Always Our Children". Get a load of some of the dirt I dug up on them:
"Speakers mostly Church employees at last years NACDLGM conference in Rochester, New York, betrayed in the most obvious ways their dissent from and distaste for Catholic teaching on sexual morality. They spoke of their efforts to promote homosexuality in parishes, schools, diocesan offices, and in state legislatures. They ridiculed Catholic Church teaching on sexual morality, and boasted how they have achieved power in many important dioceses (such as Los Angeles, St. Paul-Minneapolis, Rochester and Richmond, Va.).
They explained their methodologies: how they intimidate and mislead opponents (especially parents of children in Catholic schools), how they recruit fellow homosexual activists for Church positions, and how they incorporate homosexual propaganda in liturgies.
NACDLGM (National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries) speakers and listeners alike tossed out hundreds of ideas and techniques for promoting homosexuality in Church structures, from how to win approval from reluctant bishops for promoting Always Our Children, to sensitizing parishioners to the "gay ideology" during Sunday homilies, to brainwashing "right-wing fundamentalist" Catholics who believe that homosexual activity is condemned in the Bible.
Some speakers, such as Bill Kummer, an employee of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, detailed how to homosexualize the Catholic schools, to promote "the kind of climate that can be affirming, inclusive, and so forth regardless of anybodys sexual orientation or sexual identity."
Kummer explained how he presented his archdiocese with a plan to implement the gay education agenda in the Catholic high schools. His agenda, he said, had three objectives:
1. To "present the accurate and full teaching of the Catholic Church because many people reduce that to three paragraphs in the Catechism and we all know theres much more than that."
2. To "provide a respectful and faithful position that unites the archdiocese through the archbishop, the Catholic Education and Formation in Ministry office, and community groups," i.e., homosexual activist groups.
3. To develop a "strategy to respond to express needs, i.e., kids presenting themselves [as gay and lesbian]."
Kummer explained that the best way to accomplish these three objectives is through faculty in-service programs designed to sensitize teachers to homosexual issues and then developing and implementing an "inclusive curriculum"taking "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered experience and finding ways to write that into the curriculum" in every subject..
There is so much more...We have to fight this stuff from the pews to the chanceries, and into the Vatican if need be. V's wife.
Excellent!!! Wonderful! Praise God...now the Church needs to get this message out to every pulpit in the country and Priests who don't want to say it can leave and those in the pews who don't want to hear it can leave! Good Riddance to them. Thanks be to God for sending a Priest brave enough to speak this very unpopular truth from the most influential pulpit in the Catholic Church in America.
Jesus could have meant Heaven. Or he could have meant the place where Moses, Elijah and all the other saints were prior to Jesus' opening the gates of Heaven.
Regardless, baptism is normative as can be seen from the Acts of the Apostles:
Acts 191While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[1] you believed?" They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." 3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism," they replied. 4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into[2] the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[3] and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.
Romans 61What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,[1] that we should no longer be slaves to sin-- 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
He's a priest...talking about liberals in the Church. There has been a constant attack against celibacy and the all male Priesthood ever since Vatican II.
I hate to destroy your little SSPX tirade with some cold, hard historical facts, but here they are. The perverts you've been hearing about in the news for the most part ... were ordained to celebrate the Tridentine Mass.
Yes, it's true. Geoghan was ordained before Vatican II even convened. I believe Shanley was about the same time as well. You can blame the post-conciliar church for tolerating these creeps, but the pre-conciliar church has to answer for ordaining them.
Q: In Luke 23:43, Jesus tells the good thief: "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise." Does this mean he went to heaven on Good Friday?A: No. There are a couple of ways of taking this verse. How it is taken depends on whether the temporal clause "today" (Greek, semeron) modifies what comes before it or what comes after it in the sentence. There is no punctuation in the original Greek--all of that is added by the translators--and the sentence can be punctuated one of two basic ways with regard to the word "today," depending on which part of the sentence "today" is supposed to modify. The two basic ways of punctuating it are:
1. Truly, I say to you, "Today you will be with me in paradise."
2. Truly, I say to you today, "You will be with me in paradise."
I have added quotation marks to the promise Jesus is making in order to make the distinction of meaning clearer, but the important thing is the position of the comma. If the comma comes before "today" then Jesus is promising the thief he will be in paradise that day. If the comma comes after today then Jesus is emphatically calling attention to when the promise is made ("today"), but what he is promising is that the thief will end up in paradise and not saying anything about when the thief will end up there. Either one of these is possible given the Greek grammar.
If the first is taken then we must conclude that paradise was where Jesus went when he died. Since he did not go to heaven when he died, but rather he descended to the dead (1 Peter 4:6), paradise at that time would have been in the place of the righteous dead, which at that time was not in heaven but was a place Jesus' described as "Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22). The righteous dead only began going to heaven itself after Jesus opened the gate of heaven to them with his resurrection (CCC 632-635, 1026). For the same reason, we can infer paradise was in "Abraham's bosom" rather than heaven at the time since the good thief would not have gone toheaven as Jesus had not yet opened heaven to the righteous dead.
This speculation is unnecessary, however, if the second interpretation of the sentence is taken and Jesus is simply using the word "today" to emphatically call attention to the promise rather than as a part of the promise.
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.