| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Per poster’s request |
Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne
I seriously wonder about some FReepers, sometimes. Any other person accused of a crime would be defended by every FReeper as being innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I've seen whole threads written by men who have been accused of child abuse by ex-wives out to deny them their visitation rights or to wrest more money out of them. These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.
Yet where are those FReepers when a PRIEST is accused? Where is the presumption of innocence? Suddenly, every accusation becomes a verdict, and not only the accused but his entire organization and all its adherents are held responsible.
I can only wonder what some of these so-called conservatives (who so faithfully defend the Constitution) would do, if THEY were the ones accused! It is a nightmare for any man -- all of you know how even the accusation stains the man forever, even if it is proven false!
Not only that, many here assert that the problems of 30, 40 and even 50 years ago must be tried in the media TODAY!
Remember the Duke rape case? There are more similarities than differences here. The priests are accused, nifonged, and instead of being defended, they are vilified!
What other man of you could stand under the weight of such an accusation trumpeted by the press, and come out whole? None! And such accusations made, LONG after the statute of limitations has passed, sometimes even after the accused is dead and buried for YEARS -- are YOU one of those who automatically, reflexively, spitefully, and gleefully act as judge, jury, and executioner?
Women! What if it were YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR BROTHER, YOUR FATHER, YOUR UNCLE, YOUR SON who was accused? Wouldn't you want the best defense possible? Wouldn't YOU believe in their innocence? Wouldn't YOU help protect your loved ones as much as possible? And yet, YOU JUDGE THE CHURCH FOR DOING WHAT YOU WOULD DO?
Shame! Vast shame! On all who have sinned against the innocent!
I don’t know about that, Alex. I mean, there’s like one benediction that Paul wrote that uses “Father Son and Holy Spirit,” and that’s all I’ve ever read in his letters. If you have something else, I’d love to read it. I’m not joking, or being snarky at all. I just don’t see where St. Paul believed in the Trinity, or any explanation or discussion by him about it.
When Ferdinand of Spain said jump, Pope Sixtus IV jumped. I’m able to recognize a tacit chain of authority there that you apparently do not. The sins of the church hierarchy committed as the church hierarchy are sins, whether in concert with or at the behest of a government led by adherents to the same religion, exercising authority on the basis of supposed divine right derived from that religion, or done purely at the behest of Rome itself.
I’ll also not be expecting you to recognize that Luther’s belief and behavior regarding Jews was not particularly remarkable among church leaders, either before or after his break with Catholicism. As you note, he did not desire that break. So, your continual conflation of one belief and behavior of Luther’s that was held in common with your own church with having held some significance for that break, does not logically comport with your condemnation of the man for that behavior, as if it were somehow unusual, not condoned at times and even actively encouraged at times at the highest levels of your church.
You’re playing selective history, in an attempt to put your religious affiliation in a better light. That is an all too human motivation and one that I understand as well, and so pardon me if I don’t permit you to do it unchallenged, since there is so much to challenge, both in sins of commission and of omission.
It’s not a game you’re going to win around anyone with any inkling of history, church or even secular.
It most definitely is not a game. Luther's documented antisemitism in his three books ( ) and his letters and sermons completely impeach him as a source for divine revelation or even inspired discourse. Those who see otherwise are guilty of self deceit.
On the other hand Jesus gave specific instructions to the disciples NOT to take titles. (Matt. 23:10)
New thread up about public school child sex abuse scandal.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2499781/posts
Oh, for goodness sakes. It’s like you’re having a protracted Lady MacBeth moment or something.
I guess you’re right, there was no such thing as anti-Semitism until Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. Jews and Catholics were holding hands and had always coexisted peacefully, side by side until he showed up. /s
This narrative isn’t beneficial at all to you or your church, but that just doesn’t seem to register. It’s the obverse of the “everybody does it” argument that you’ve used to deflect the sexual abuse scandal, but you don’t recognize yourself in the mirror.
The issue isn't the European antisemitism or even the fact that martin Luther was an avowed antisemite. This is about those who exercise such poor judgment in choosing him as leader and moral authority. Your position is exactly the same as saying "except for that Jewish thing, Hitler actually did a lot of good". Give it a rest, you are only digging yourself into a deeper moral hole.
There are numerous popes about which a similar set of statements could be made, Natural Law. Regarding the subject of this thread, sexual abuse by priests, another similar set of statements could be made. I won't go so far as to imply that it reaches all the way to the current pope, as many do, but the analogy is there.
And you're just blind to it. You're not alone, either. This doesn't hold much promise for you to climb out of the moral hole your church has dug for itself, let alone that you'll stop digging.
Ephesians 2:15
"You who were far off now in Christ Jesus have been brought near in the blood of Christ...through him we both have access in the Spirit to the Father."
The attempt to exercise the doctrine of relative corruption makes you sound like a Clinton supporter. I do not deny that various Popes were sinners or antisemites. Many have been denounced and even declared anti-popes.
I just don't compare the relative roles of a caretaker pope to that of the founder and champion of a whole new movement, founded on the revision and perversion of the Gospel, upon which so many base their faith and salvation. If you are a follower of Luther you have been duped.
This is the scriptural equivalent of cloud reading. If you completely empty your mind and don't focus on the contextual meanings you can find just about anything within single lines of scripture.
The begats will do anyone in.
But, oddly, it doesn't.
You're digging right into the meat of the problem, as far as the "everybody does it" argument that has been put forth by many erstwhile defenders of your church, as far as the priestly sexual abuse scandal, by the way. Revisit your statements. They're nearly identical to criticisms directed at your church.
Repetition of what amounts to a mantra by another name does that, too.
Why not? I have seen more absurd rationalizations attempted by Protestants based upon single lines of scripture. I have even seen Mein Kampf and the wholesale condemnation of the Catholic Church supported by Reichbishop Ludwig Mueller by citing single lines from the Pauline texts.
Romans 8, I Corinthians 12, and Galatians 5.
The continual denial of Roman Catholic Church history and the constant victim mentality about it are what causes people to continue to not trust the RC church.
It’s a symptom of the same malady that infects the church in regards to the sex abuse scandal, the thinking that causes Catholics to deny the problems of Roman Catholic Church history.
Until the Roman Church actually owns up to its bad behavior both in the past and in the present, nobody is going to trust it. Making excuses for church history seems no different than passing abusive priests around from parish to parish. Both involve denial of the problem and reticence to deal with the wrong.
Who says we chose him as a leader and moral authority? We never elevated Luther or Calvin to the level of a papacy.
Good grief, you Catholics just can't get past your papist mentality that people have to follow a human leader.
Luther was right about his issues with the Roman Catholic church. Catholic church history is filled with immorality and corruption. Catholics are hardly in a position to condemn other churches leaders in that arena.
What revision and perversion of the Gospel?
Chapter and verse and where the Protestants are wrong, please.
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.