Posted on 01/08/2007 5:34:25 PM PST by dcnd9
Deliver Us From Evil Movie Synopsis: AND Movie Trailor: http://mcwindows.arcostream.com/media/arco/lionsgate/streams/windowsmedia/deliver_us_from_evil/dufe_Absolute_V18_Trlr_1B_300.wmv
"Deliver Us From Evil" is the story of Father Oliver O'Grady, the most notorious pedophile in the history of the modern Catholic Church. Completely lacking in moral fiber and devoid of any sense of shame or guilt, O'Grady used his charm and authority to violate dozens of faithful Catholic families across Northern California for more than two decades. His victims ranged from a nine month-old infant to the middle-aged mother of another adolescent victim.
Despite early warning signs and complaints from several parishes, the Church, in an elaborate shell game designed to avoid liability and deflect criticism, lied to parishioners and local law enforcement, while continuing to move O'Grady from parish to parish.
Over the years, O'Grady successfully exploited mothers and fathers in order to get to their children. His penchant for sexual mayhem was as essential to him as breathing, and internal Church documents prove that since 1973, he raped and sodomized with the full knowledge of his Catholic superiors.
Remarkably, "Deliver Us From Evil" filmmaker Amy Berg tracked down Father O'Grady and persuaded him to participate in the making of her film. O'Grady's account of his years in various Northern California parishes is chilling and he tells his story without remorse or self-reflection. Also included in the film is never-before-seen footage of the deposition of Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony and his former second-in-command, Monsignor Cain. She also interviews canon lawyer and medieval historian Fr. Thomas Doyle, former priests, lawyers and the abuse survivors themselves.
Director: Amy Berg Writer(s): Amy Berg Cast: Father Oliver O'Grady Release Date: October 13 2006 Official Site: Not Available Distributor: Lionsgate Genre: Documentary
I don't know how to answer your question. I don't say that to try to evade it.
I think that it is not a question that is easily answered following the Great Schism and the Reformation. Separation is now a fact, and doesn't seem amenable to much real progress. Heading for the old battle lines will not work.
I think that in those communions where the Creed (Apostles and Nicene) are taught and believed, the members of the Body of Christ dwell. The sacraments are important but if people have an innocent misunderstanding of them, God will not punish them for that. He may even count the will for the deed, for all I know.
Jesus' call for unity was a call for unity in truth.
While I truly don't know what judgement will fall upon me, I have a sense of assurance or more accurately I'm not troubled by my lack of knowledge concerning my judgement. God is just and he is merciful. As Hermann Sasse noted, we forget what a terrible thing it is to fall into the Hands of the Living God. And yet, I have confidence in the Living God, supreme confidence, even if I battle from time to time with bouts of doubt and unbelief. I can't imagine I'm the only one who does.
This has been a tremendous year for me in so many ways. And I'm thankful for it. And thankful to God for granting me the Grace to know just how much I don't know.
I love the German philosphers that I have read. Sasse knows Jesus and knows how to convey Him to others. May Sasse rest in peace with the Lord. Barth (may he rest in peace with the Lord as well) said the following, and this is the best way I know how to answer your question, A.
“Strange as it may seem, it is still true, that those who fail to understand other churches than their own are not the people who care intensely about theology, but the theological dilettantes, eclectics, and historians of all sorts; while those very men who have found themselves forced to confront a clear, thoroughgoing, logical sic et non find themselves allied to each other inspite of all contradictions, by an underlying fellowship and understanding, even in the cause which they handle so differently and approach from such painfully different angles. But the cause, it may be, is nothing less than Jesus Christ and the unity of the Church.” —Karl Barth
I want to own my faith, not just rent it, and that's going to take me some time and cost me effort. And what's wrong with that? I have to be free to follow where my mind and heart lead me. And I don't think for one minute, that I'm a heretic. It may be that I'm in error, I boast no pretensions to my own infalliblity, but error is not sin, it is just error. I am no enemy of the Living God, and those who would imply that I am, I just want to stay away from.
This is the second time I am writing re: a post you once wrote in which you claimed you “were not anti-Catholic”.
I replied to that post by saying that you could have fooled me.
By their posts you shall know them.
Again, in reading on this thread, I will say: you could have fooled me when you wrote that you weren’t anti-Catholic.
If you are not, your posts do not present that convincingly.
Either you are, are you aren’t anti-Catholic.
-A8
I appreciate your honest answer. It seems to me that there are two conceptions of ideal Christian unity. One is that all Christians should agree on essentials, and cooperate in social causes. The other is that all Christians should also belong to one visible body, unified not only in doctrine, but receiving the same sacraments and under the same authority. For a long time, I held to the former conception of ideal Christian unity. The more I meditated on John 17, however, the more I came to the belief that the unity Christ desired all Christians to have was more than mere agreement on essentials and collaboration in social endeavours. It was supposed to be a unity like that of the Trinity.
That's when my question (Which Church is the one true Church, the Church Christ founded?) started coming to the surface. Did the Church Christ founded disappear? If so, then the gates of hell would have indeed prevailed against it. But if the gates of hell didn't prevail against it, I thought, then one of the existing Churches must be the one true Church into which all Christians should be incorporated.
So I asked myself, which of the existing Churches can make such a claim, to be the Church that Christ founded. (I'm not talking about any local church, e.g. "the church at Jerusalem"; I'm talking about the *institution* constituted of local churches.) The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, for example, was founded in 1936. The Presbyterian Church in American (of which I was a member for a number of years) was founded in 1973. No such denomination was even a candidate. The only real candidates that could claim to be the Church Christ founded were the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church. Reading the fathers, especially what they said about the nature of the authority given to Peter with the "keys", and reading Soloviev, helped me come to the conclusion that it was the Catholic Church.
I knew that the kind of unity that Christ was praying (in John 17) for all His followers to have could only be present where the authority was unified. If the authority was a plurality or disunified, the Church structure could not 'hold' the kind of unity Christ desired. Moreover, I saw in John 17 that the unity of Christ and the Father is *hierarchical*. Christ obeys the Father, even though Christ is equal to the Father. The unity we see in the Trinity is a *hierarchical* unity. Therefore, since that is the kind of unity that Christ is praying that we [His followers] would have, and since there is no greater unity than the unity of God, therefore, the kind of unity Christ's Church must have is one in which there is a hierarchy with a unified head.
That is a complete contrast to the individualistic form of Christianity in which the believer submits only to his own interpretation of Scripture. That form of Christianity can never achieve the unity that Christ prays (in John 17) for His followers to have. That individualistic form of Christianity will continue to fragment into as many 'churches' as there individuals, as each person follows his own interpretation, and does what is "right in his own eyes".
That's a brief overview of what I've learned in this process of answering the question I asked you. I don't know if it could be helpful to you or not. I know you have some (almost self-described) 'baggage' from your Catholic past. I didn't have any of that, and so it was much easier for me, I think, to come into the Catholic Church. I pray that God continues to bless you and guide you as you work out all these things.
-A8
Your doctor may be able to keep you from his office but he can't keep you from all medical help or treatment. The Pope is able to keep you, as a Catholic, from all of the Sacraments if he so chooses.
And that leads to the idea that the Pope has perfect control over every one of his 1-billion strong flock ... how, exactly?
Has perfect control? It doesn't.
But it does lead to the idea that the Pope ought to have control over those Bishops underneath him. He has that authority and if he chooses not to exercise it then he is to blame for what follows from his negligence.
Hardly. Not that I mentioned it along with my comment on Hermann Sasse, but I think Sasse understands and presents the Incarnation and Jesus wonderfully. And my comment comes from a piece called Ubi Christus, Ibi Ecclesia which is a wonderful piece that shows how much he understands just what God (far from an angry God by the way) did for the world. The whole world!
I never could quite get into Jonathan Edwards. Maybe it was his writing style. From the small exposure I have to Edwards I prefer Sasse by a lot.
I certainly do know why, it’s central to the whole one book of the bible. If you and other Catholic believers like being unknowledgeable in the scriptures, that is certainly your choice, however, the revelation from God is not difficult to understand, but you yourself must study it. You take the position that So and So will study it for me and then tell me what it says. If all your teachers can’t figure it out, then they certainly have no gifts from the HS.
Really enjoying your posts. :-)
FWIW, American Triumphalism is is a result of Protestant Triumphalism.
Apparently the Ethiopian eunuch didn't think so. When Philip asked him, "Do you understand what you are reading?", the eunuch replied, "Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?"
If you were right, Philip shouldn't even have asked the question. And in reply to the eunuch's question, Philip should have rebuked the eunuch for failing [ironically!] to understand the perspicuity of Scripture. "You ignorant man of little faith. How can you possibly not understand what you are reading? By your ignorance and self-doubt you are setting an example that will lead future readers to think that they need someone to guide them as they interpret Scripture. Don't you know that you have the Holy Spirit to guide you? Even the fact that I must now rebuke you will be used by future believers to support your heretical notion of needing a guide. Carry on and (as I shouldn't have to tell you) say nothing of your lapse in faith in the Holy Spirit's guidance."
-A8
Thanks (though I'm not a Protestant--or a Baptist!).
It’s not just priests but many pastors/ministers have abused children and adults. As far as I know, most of the protestant pastors have resigned and are not allowed to have another church. Maybe not all, but most. It’s sad that the Catholic church ignored this abuse for decades. I hope they’ve learned from this.
John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
It really is not as complicated as we make it out to be.
So which denomination has it right?
-A8
How do you define this?
I didn't think you were. I enjoy it when there is an attempt to present history objectively.
I appreciate your belief and perspective, and you are right when you say I carry some baggage with me, but I really don't think that is what made me question and ultimately have to distance myself from a faith that tells me I must believe in the doctrines of the immaculate conception, purgatory and papal infallibility in order to even begin to embark upon the narrow, salvific road. I cannot imagine St. Paul and St. Peter preaching these doctrines to their congregations at parity with preaching Christ crucified. I think it is error to bind the faithful's conscience to these doctrines. I do agree with Luther, it is not wise to go against conscience, and I'm not going to do that.
I made my confirmation when I was 13 years old. I was confirmed by a bishop who had never laid eyes on me or a single one of my classmates. He could have easily made a few trips to all of the schools in his diocese to get to know the kids whose job it was to shepherd. The episcopacy of the apostles was a teaching office. My bishop taught us nothing. If the episcopacy has devolved into mainly an administrative position, it is not equal to the episcopacy of the apostles, as far as I can see. If my confirmation would have taken place when I was 18 or so, I would have refused it, because I never would have taken a vow to defend what I perceived and perceive as inchoate doctrine.
These doctrines are not of apostolic origin in my view. In fact, it's likely by present day RC doctrine that the apostles could run the danger of excommunication. The church needs to repent just like those individuals in her midst who have erred and who have a problem with pride when they are called to do so. I don't say this to denigrate the church, as St. Augustine said, she is a whore, but she is my mother. The one problem I have with that teaching of Augustine's -and which can easily tie into the donatist problem you mention- is that if your mother is a whore it is likely she's a lousy mother who can even put you in danger and jeopordize your life by the men she brings home.
A, if the RCC's position on doctrines mentioned was such that, allowing that I did not undermine them in public or in private (think Hannity), that I remained teachable concerning them and that I didn't have to subscribe to them, I would still be RC.
I've heard all the arguments arrayed against me, first among them being that I am luciferian in that my disposition as outlined here, is one of truculence and ultimately equal to Lucifer's non-serviam. The others being, when they are reduced, to me being not smart enough to understand what said doctrines really mean and as such consigning my case to the ash heap of invincible ignorance. Let he who will, judge me as he pleases or sees fit, I am not moved by that in one direction or another.
I realize the RCC church doesn't accept my views and does not want me or my kind in its midst. With that in mind, I do not knock on its door nor agitate it nor trouble it. I've taken this lonely path without regret, and I've gained much from it. I'm a pilgrim searching for a good and loving pastor and a pilgrim who seeks to know God through His Son. I don't believe that's a crime against God or His church. I know that we are not in agreement with what I've written here, but I do wish you the peace of the Lord, and I do hope you wish me the same.
Even given the problems in the Catholic Church, to whom else will you turn? Where else will you find the true Body and Blood of Christ?
As Fr. Kimel says:
"It doesn’t matter how vigorously you protest your belief in the eucharistic real presence: if you are not willing and eager to prostrate yourself before the Holy Gifts and adore, worship, and pray to the glorified Lord Jesus Christ, present under the forms of bread and wine, you really do not believe in the real presence."
I know how casually many poorly catechized Catholics treat Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist. But I have never seen a presbyterian bow down and worship the Eucharistic gifts.
That's actually a good thing, however, because as St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107 AD) said, "Let that Eucharist be held legitimate which is offered by the bishop or by one to whom the bishop has committed this charge." Since presbyterians do not have valid orders, their pastors cannot consecrate bread and wine, and so worshipping the Eucharistic elements consecrated by someone without valid orders would be idolatry.
-A8
A8: So which denomination has it right?
Hmmm, your silence is telling. If it "really is not as complicated as we make it out to be", then surely at least one denomination has it right. But if not even a single denomination has it right, then apparently it must be more complicated than we make it out to be.
-A8
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.