| 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 These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.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!
Well, I am not a man. And I am not without spirit. And I accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. Some of them I do not like.
Any particular reason, then, why St. Paul circumcised Timothy while at Derbe and Lystra (Acts 16:1-4)?
Any particular reason, then, why St. Paul considered it so important to speak with the chief of the Roman Jews about what had happened to him in Jerusalem? (Acts 28:17) (Of course, I thought there weren't any Jews in Rome...)
Seems to me that if St. Paul was solely concerned with the Gentiles, he wouldn't have bothered to speak with the Chief of the Roman Jews...and he certainly wouldn't have required Timothy to be circumcised (after all, as the "apostle to the gentiles," why would he give a flying care about what the jews thought?).
Nobody likes MY explanation. LOL!
I'd say lets see. If they start reporting these things right away it will clear up a lot of the problem. They're going to be paying a lot of money for a lot of years for what happened in the past and maybe that will help spur a new attitude.
Great point.
Two quick examples:
While Calvinism may be rooted in the Pauline texts it represents a major distortion of them. Too bad it isn't more rooted in Christ.
Thank you for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!
As usual you haven't a clue. The big, bold, blue font is the dead give away. Try supporting your accusations and confabulations with excerpts from the Catechism or the Canon law rather than the blustering reliance on personal credibility that you use to bully undergrads. That dog don't hunt here.
If you are going to say we haven't been "feeding", then before we look at that we have to agree on what "feeding" means, don't we?
Jesus said to make disciples, baptize them, teach them all the things he had commanded. (Matt. 28:19,20)
The shepherds were to protect the flock from wolves. (John, chapter 10)
The food was epignosis, an accurate knowledge of God and the one He sent forth, Christ. (John 17:3)
All that is feeding?
“So, I'm winging it here, but it SEEMS that the deal is the twelve teach, break bread, say prayers. It's pretty much consistent with Catholic thought, I'd venture that that's what we expect of our popes and bishops.”
So why do you have a billion(s) dollar scandal? How is that the avoidance of scandal took precedence over the shepherding, the protection of Christ's flock?
If Bishops, Cardinals, Archbishops, the most powerful and responsible men in the Catholic church can rise to their positions without understanding their own teachings about moral accountability, what does that say of the system that produces them?
I dispute the simplicity or the comprehensiveness of the charge "without understanding." I can't possibly produce numbers but I am told reliably that the bishops consulted shrinks and followed their advice. I think that is appropriate.
I went to an Episcopal seminary in the middle '70's and there was ZERO teaching about child sexual this and that, or adolescent or adult sexual predation by clergy -- or, for that matter, about how some women seem to view a clergy man as a challenge. I was completely unprepared for the (mercifully few) women who hit on me.
AND while I was in seminary one of the profs was hitting on the female students. One of them told the chaplain and the no discipline was given to the prof who was later elected bishop. (I heard about this because I was courting one of the hit-upon women.)
In the Episcopal Church we were all summoned to a rather ridiculous "workshop" in which we learned that - gasp - sex is related to power! Imagine that? But the workshops came after some parishes or dioceses or something lost some lawsuits and were required by the companies that held the liability insurance.
But what does it say about the system that produces these bozos? Well, I've already dissed bishops and the process of their selection. That my diocese refused to consider me for ordination, despite the "pastoral provision" allowing married former Pepsicolian priests to be ordained, hasn't deepened my confidence in the MEN of the Church. But I never had that much confidence in them to start with. Sacraments and teaching is what I seek. With them I grow in the knowledge and love of God. I guess because I've been a clergyman, I don't take clergymen too seriously. Also "the avoidance of scandal" is a phrase with at least a couple of meanings. Sometimes, yeah, They were wussing out. But Ratzinger did not approve the laicisation of the priest in Oakland because JP2 thought too many priests were being dispensed from their vows, which was threatening to trivialize those vows and the act of vowing. That was the "scandal" Ratzinger was writing about.
[all my questions about Paul and the incest at Corinth.]
You're asking me to respond to questions that neither of us know the answer to or can know and to events that haven't happened and have no basis to even hypothesize about. I don't do that.
Then the story is not useful for comparison with the Catholic Church. The point of my questions was to argue that the story is not "competent" to serve as a contrast to the Catholic Church's behavior.
So much of this lengthiness arises (well from my sins, but also) from our bringing very different premises to the conversation. It takes time to recognize and examine them.
Anyway, I hope this is at least responsive.
Look how easily this entire thread has been diverted into a several-hundred post discussion of my opinion of St. Paul, and how wicked I am for it! With all the “children” forgotten immediately.
Anti-Catholic bigotry is about nothing but anti-Catholic bigotry. I am quite certain that some would be happy to go back to the old American colonial days to deprive Catholics of their right to worship according to their own beliefs, with civil and criminal penalties for doing so.
Any comment any Catholic makes on the forum that disagrees with any part of protestant theology is grist for the mill of the anti-Catholic bigots. It’s a scary machine, until you realize that all these bigots are just individual FReepers behind a computer screen, most of whom wouldn’t say boo to a goose in real life.
Excellent Post. Unassailable.
Taken out of context that statement could just as easily refer to Mormons.
Anybody go to Mass today? We heard that the Lord told Ananias that Paul was to preach to gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. (Acts 9:15) Is that relevant?
Asking a failed Catholic will get you nowhere. There is an obvious and direct correlation between not knowing or misunderstanding the Catechism and rejecting it. It would be like relying on those who failed the bar exam for legal advice or having surgery performed by those who failed med school.
I have soon widow and orphans to throw into the street but I'll be back in a bit.
To do away with the entire truth of election, salvation by faith alone, total depravity etc, you have to discount/dismiss Paul's writings. Only then can you wallow in the fetid cesspool of semi-Pelagianism that is Rome.
You see this mindset in mainline (read liberal) Protestant denominations too. They will tell you Paul was a misogynist, the he was just writing through the lens of his era when he told us that homosexuality was a sin, etc.
It ALL goes back to the first sin when Satan posed the question did God really say.....
You are right, a Christian shouldn't be deprived of what Paul preached, but every Christian should reject and denounce the perverted interpretation of his words by the reformationists who sought to shape the scripture to better fit their personal agendas.
IS
THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM.
THAT IS THE TRUTH.
. . . and meat and drink to all who would KNOW AND WALK INTIMATELY OR AT ALL WITH GOD.
Is this even English? It appears that there is something terribly wrong with your computer; like it is skipping words and sentences. It looks like there is something seriously wrong in the connection between the keyboard and your chair.
Yeah, but one of the guys, namely moi, is having a logorrhea attack. I’m procrastinating writing about light and dark in John’s Gospel, maybe I should, y’know, do some work.
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.