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.
I have soon widow and orphans to throw into the street but I'll be back in a bit.