Losing their religion? Catholicism in turmoil

reply to post by ModernAcademia

You are IDF? You fought in the intifada? If you haven't fought in the intifada you haven't been in a war.

British Army AND IDF ...... I know war........

Yeshua melted this hard heart to care... I needed it melted.... To go with that, to love without condition goes for your enemies too... Even when they hurt you....
Folks in general love others if they dont hurt them, dont steal from them, treat them good etc... We are to love DISPITE those things... And there is freedom in that..

To love without reward or expectations of rewards....

There has been controversy in the Catholic Church ever since its inception some 2,000 years ago. This is just another controversy it has to deal with. Father Malachi Martin, notable Vatican insider and renowned exorcist, spoke of the corruption in the Catholic Church, but was largely marginalized by followers of the faith and the higher-ups in the Church. Here is Father Martin and Art Bell on "Coast to Coast AM," discussing the intrigues among the Catholic hiearchy taking place in the dark corners of the Vatican.



He was talking about corruption, long before this bombshell came to fruition. Still, many scoffed at his insight into the affairs of the Catholic Church, and made him out like a loon or nut job. He was never excommunicated for what he said or defrocked. So, maybe much of what he said had truth behind it? Back to the topic, I am very sure what is being made public is only the tip of the iceberg about the intrigues being made by the Catholic Church.

The old religious institution survived the onslaught of the Roman Empire, the turmoil of the Dark Ages, Martin Luther and his 95 Thesus, two World Wars, and most recently the controversy of Vatican II. So, this is just another obstacle to contend with, and who ever is in charge of policing the Catholic Church needs to smoke out the ones who hide behind the cloth to rob and destroy a child's innocence. If it comes down to Pope Benedict assisting and covering up those who are guilty of one of the world's most heinous crimes, then he ought to step down. Is he guilty of covering up these heinous crimes, the jury is still out? However, if it turns out to be true, he must step down because he is unfit to lead. The Catholics ought to demand his resignation, and the Cardinals hold another conclave.

I do find it odd that the MSM is covering these indiscretions of the Catholic Church with such zeal and vigor, when other religions are guilty of the same crimes and others. One of the most recent examples would be the hypocrisy of evangelical super preacher Ted Haggard and his double life as a member of a group he spewed so much hate and indignation about.



Then, there was the incident were a Rabbi, David Kaye, and a leader of a youth group was exposed by NBC reporter, Chris Hanson on the the show "To Catch a Predator."



I show these other examples of how widespread the evil is among all religions and not one particular religious group. Instead of singling out one, why not single out the problem across the board? That is all I am trying to say with the two video examples and there others among all denominations. As there is corruption in every man made institution, there is certainly corruption in man made religion as well. Corruption and evil does not discriminate, but present in every strata of society. Hopefully, the Catholic Church is prepared to do some major house cleaning and fight to regain the trust among its faithful. Regardless of what some say, they do some good as well. Such as their assistance to the poor, drug addicts, people suffering from a natural disaster, and other acts of compassion to areas of society largely forgotten by the status quo.

Could you possibly trivialize child rape a little more? Accessory after the fact, I'd say

In case I didn't make myself crystal clear, child abuse - whether it is rape, incest, or physical abuse - is appalling.

Nevertheless, that doesn't entitle people to make false accusations, nor to make sweeping generalizations about an entire religious denomination.

The media does attack other religions, and here is a wonderful site that keeps track of all the nastiness regarding religion in the news.

If you've been watching the national news (CNN, Fox, etc.) the last couple of weeks, you would certainly disagree with this statement. The media has clearly singled out the Catholic Church as a point of attack. Even the Pope is being viciously attacked.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
The media has clearly singled out the Catholic Church as a point of attack. Even the Pope is being viciously attacked.

Singling out Catholicism is wrong, however singling out the pope is absolutely not!

There is zero accountability in the vatican, of course that needs to be addressed like there's no tomorrow.

I can understand people who will loose their trust in the catholic churge. But would they really loose their faith over it ? Does this not mean their faith isn't faith at all ?

I think the world would be a better place without the Vatican pulling strings in it. And I believe religion is by far the tool to control faith and the people who follow it.

I believe faith to be a beauthiful thing but believers that ( because of their faith ) deny intelligence are undesired.

Pope Benedict has done more to address this issue than any other preceding Pope in Catholic Church history. He should be commended.

You have to remember, the Catholic Church is one of the largest religions in the world. It's a massive organization. For every bad priest abusing children, there are hundreds that do not. The media makes it seem like every priest is a criminal preying on children, when this is a patently false characterization of the priesthood.

Priests visit the sick, conduct Mass, pray the Divine Office daily (the book of Psalms), lead funerals and weddings, hear Confession, and generally help their congregation to become more Christ-like - humble, charitable, forgiving, and kind. That is the daily life for 99.999% of Catholic priests.

These stories that are circulating in the press that decades ago Pope Benedict had knowledge of a priest (now deceased) abusing children, and moved the priest to another parish, are unproven allegations. The journalist claims to have "insider" documentation on these matters, records and such.

First, if this is, in fact true, why would the Vatican release information to a journalist regarding a specific priest? This is highly confidential information, and there is no Freedom of Information Act in the Vatican as far as I know. What is the authenticity of the documentation?

Why would the Vatican release personnel records on a deceased priest? No one releases personnel files in any organization - They are confidential files.

Is the journalist so desperate for a sensationalized news story that he has to find a child abuse case from decades ago where the priest is no longer even alive to defend himself?

The agenda is clear: Destroy the Catholic Church's credibility as a moral authority using scandalous gossip and sensationalized allegations of child abuse.

reply to post by Yissachar1


I recently learned that the old testament is only one of three holy Jewish scripture. And now I see you telling that you hate the Talmud. Is it really that different from the Tanakh ? If so could you explain the difference ?
The third would be the Torah but that could also be The Talmud and Tanakh combined. I'm not sure.

Or make a thread about it or something ?

As I was raised Christian, the old testament was for my a reason to second guess Christianity. That's why I asked.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


It is not so much because it's about priests IMO.

It's more because people place their trust in them and because of their faith which also is in the priest himself for the being the face of everything they believe to be good and holy. When this trust gets corrupted by a teacher it's bad enough. But that teacher is only human. If it is corrupted by a priest their trust is strengthened by faith.

That's why this is such a big issue IMO.

From the Philly Inquirer, "Vatican Defends Decision", 3/26/10:

"A Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, issued a statement noting that the Murphy case had reached the Vatican only in 1996, some 20 years after the diocese learned of the allegations...

Police investigated the allegations at the time and never proceeded with a case, Lombardi noted."

So the police investigated the allegations, and never proceeded with a case. And the Vatican didn't even learn about the allegations until some 20 years later, when the local bishops' made a determined effort to bring a canonical trial against the accused priest to appease the deaf community.

Sinter:

Torah: First 5 Books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers.

Tanach: The entire Old Testament, including the first 5 books of the Bible.

Talmud: 72 volumes of commentary on the Old Testament by various Jewish rabbis and sages.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


The Tanakh is what you would call the old testament that is split into 3;

The Law/Instruction...... Moses' writings

The Prophets..... Well.... The prophets

The writings.... Thats psalms, songs of Solomon etc.........

The link I have posted will give you more information...

The Talmud is as cookiemonster kindly stated a commentary, however it hold much power in the Jewish world and Jewish courts to end disputes etc.. It is like a Jewish rulebook that has some nasty stuff in it that has nothing to do with God but plenty to do with men wanting power over other men.... In many ways it has superseded the Torah in some circles!!

I hate it.... The Talmud that is...

reply to post by Yissachar1


Wikipedia considers the talmud part of mainstream judaism, would you agree with that?

And how much is the Talmud taught in Israel?

Also how much is the Talmud thought in Israel vs. the Old Testament?

also, do you consider the OT to have elements of paganism, such as passover day and throwing the blood of lambs on your front door.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I answered most of that in my above post...

All except the bit about elements of paganism... I will get back with that... Its a very long reply..

corner.nationalreview.com...

Originally posted by Equinox99
Finally, the churches will follow the bible rather than the words of the Vatican. I have always know that the Vatican has harbored evil.

Yup, even more confusing when you realize your god created evil to begin with, what a creative nut job that yawhwejesus character is eh ?

reply to post by CookieMonster09

For every bad priest abusing children, there are hundreds that do not.

And how exactly do you know this to be true ?

As many would have said ten years ago - "Time will tell"

reply to post by CookieMonster09

The agenda is clear: Destroy the Catholic Church's credibility as a moral authority using scandalous gossip and sensationalized allegations of child abuse.

And what "moral authority" has this bunch of child raping men in skirts ever held ?

Oh that's right the authority of a child killing invisible man in the sky, yup makes sense, why don't we just mind our own businesses and let them go back to the good old days of burning people alive.

And how exactly do you know this to be true ?

Go here: www.psychwww.com...

According to Dr. Thomas Plante of Stanford and Santa Clara University, in his study, "A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse":

"First, the available research (which is quite good now) suggests that approximately 4% of priests during the past half century (and mostly in the 1960s and 1970s) have had a sexual experience with a minor (i.e., anyone under the age of 18).

.....However, although good data is hard to acquire, it appears that this 4% figure is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population that is best estimated to be closer to 8%. Therefore, the odds that any random Catholic priest would sexually abuse a minor are not likely to be significantly higher than other males in or out of the clergy.

....Second, 80% of all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent boys not prepubescent children.

.....Third, the vast majority of priests who sexually abuse minors commit their first offense about a year after ordination.

.....Fourth, allowing priests to marry will not eliminate this problem. As mentioned earlier, male clergy from other religious traditions also have this problem as well as people who are not clergy at all. Many people who sexually abuse minors are married.

......Almost all the cases coming to light today are cases from 30 and 40 years ago. We did not know much about pedophilia and sexual abuse in general back then. In fact, the vast majority of the research on sexual abuse of minors didn't emerge until the early 1980's. So, it appeared reasonable at the time to treat these men and then return them to their priestly duties. In hindsight, this was a tragic mistake. It has been estimated that 40 years ago about 23% of male psychotherapists have been sexually involved with their clients. Of course this is no longer true today. Forty years ago we thought that autism was caused by cold and withholding mothers referred to as the "ice box mother." We can't take what we know in 2010 and apply it to problems and decisions made in the 1960's and 1970's.

.....Furthermore, 30 years ago, most priests entered seminary during high school, did not participate in a comprehensive psychological evaluation prior to admission, and had no training in sexuality, maintaining professional boundaries, and impulse control. Advice regarding dealing with sexual impulses included cold showers and prayer. Today, most applicants to the priesthood are much older (generally in their late 20's or 30's). They often have had satisfying and appropriate intimate relationships before entering the seminary. They have completed a psychological evaluation that specifically examines risk factors for sexual problems. They now get good training in sexuality and issues related to managing sexual impulses. It is not surprising that the majority of the sex-offending priests that we hear about in the press are older. In fact, our research indicates that the average age of these men are 53."

And what "moral authority" has this bunch of child raping men in skirts ever held ?

Again, you are slandering the priesthood, when, in fact, only a very small percentage of Catholic priests have ever abused children.

Read the facts noted above. This is a problem that is not limited to the Catholic Church - It is a problem among all clergy regardless of their denomination. Celibacy has nothing to do with this abuse - Most abuse is at the hands of married men, not celibate priests.

It is also a problem from decades ago. Modern priests undergo much closer scrutiny and screening for these issues than they did 50 years ago.

Before you slander the priesthood by calling them a "bunch of child-raping men in skirts", you should think twice. First, the few priests that have been accused of this crime don't rape children as the article states. Most of the victims were teenagers, not children.

Secondly, you do a disservice to the thousands of good priests who have never laid a hand on a child. Priests who have devoted their entire lives to working with the poor, the homeless, the aged, the sick.

As far as moral authority, I would simply refer you to the New Testament.



[edit on 30-3-2010 by CookieMonster09]

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by Faiol

 

I am a Christian who thinks as an individualist.

I hope most of those followers do the same.

I too, am a "renegade" Christian. Was never part of the Catholic Church but have stepped away from organized Christianity. Tired of seeing ministers/pastors clad in fancy jewelry, nice suits and driving brand new cadillacs... I couldn't be a part of something that was not a part of the solution, because that meant it was also a part of the problem. Even though they do have programs where they help people, I feel that a large part of the reason is so they have a "license" to feel justified. "If we feed and clothe this many poor people, we can pocket this much money and get away with it."

Another thing I noticed is rampant in Christian Church culture, and I think this is one of if not THE biggest problem, is the judgemental attitudes towards others. Especially, but not limited to, those who do not go to church. They look at those people as, "Oh, I remember I was where you are once. I was so lost, but now I am with God. But you are not, because you don't go to Church. And even if you do, you don't go to MY church."

And it used to be really annoying when these people would try desperately to save your soul either by trying to convert you or just be extra nice to show you how unselfish the Christian way of life is meant to be. But now this judgemental attitude has reached new, and grand, heights... The new attitude when it comes to anyone who believes different than you, or anyone who is obviously having problems with sin/vice is, "You don't cast pearls before swine." The way they interpret this variation of a quote from Jesus is, "Our gift from God is too precious to waste on those who do not deserve it. They have made their bed, and now let them lie in it. We shouldn't even try to help them, because it would only tarnish our cleanliness." And in a way, this disgusts me even more. Judging others in the first place is not something a Christian concerns themselves with. But then observing that someone may possibly be helped by you (There are MANY possible ways for a Christian to help another person without having to "convert" them first, or ever), and then saying you are not going to waste your talents to help them because you have judged them to be "beyond help" and "swine", is downright evil! Kindness towards strangers and helping others is... it's just non-negotiable for a Christian, at least for me. It's also strange to me because spreading Christianity is supposed to be a top priority for all believers... While I don't believe in all of that "in your face" stuff to get people to believe, I propagate my religion simply through acts of kindness. And if they decide to believe in what I believe(which they will not find out unless they ask about my life or begin a discussion of such matters where it would be appropriate, I do not peddle Christianity as if it were a magazine subscription or, perhaps more fitting, life insurance lol! However, I will bring it up when something tells me it is needed.), or decide to believe something else that also spreads peace ("True Christianity does spread peace, it's this fake religion that causes wars. They just put a Christian label on it to make it look pretty. We are used to all kinds of people using us for propaganda purposes.) and love, even if it's atheism, or even if they just become inspired to go and do something good out of love and understanding, then that's good enough for me.

You are right, it's NOT the religions. It's the people. It's always been the people. People can take a fair sounding system like "communism", where everybody shares everything, and they mess it all up and now communism = evil. A system called "democracy" where everybody gets to vote, fubarred by the people. A system of money where every dollar is backed by an equally valuable amount of gold- people messed up. A great banking and loaning system where people with a solid credit/employment history can put down a few thousand dollars of hard earned, saved up over the years cash and buy himself a half a million dollar home and pay it off over the next 35 years- we skroowd da pooch there! ...well, SOME jerk did it, but I bet we all would like a 20 million dollar bonus too! It just goes to show you that there are some good people and some, not so good people. But you cannot label an entire group based on the actions of part of the group, even a majority. Especially when that majority has deviated from the original plan quite a bit. And then Christianity, look how many different times it has branched off to different things. And we can't forget that Christianity itself came from Judaism, which itself has different sections too. There are so many kinds of Christianity... It's harder than going to the car lot to pick out your first car. Who in there right mind can walk into some church and say "Yep, this is the right one! It just has that "right one" feel to it! O.K. kids, this is what we're going to believe in now, aren't you excited?! Oh by the way we don't celebrate Halloween anymore. Ya, we believe that's evil now. Pretty Cool Huh? Good news is the wife can give me oral now! Yep, this is DEFINITELY the right one! We are gonna be ONE HAPPY FAMILY!!"...?

As a thinking man, I would have to say that there are so many different churches and religions (not just christian) for a reason. Knowing that the Bible says that there will be many in the end time who claim to follow God who are actually doing things AGAINST his teachings, it makes sense to me. And I think there is a reason for all of this. God wanted smart, open-minded believers to realize what was going on and that Satan was infiltrating organized religion so that, in these times, we would be forced to think for ourselves rather than follow something that we know in our heart is wrong. So all of the true believers who are doing what they are supposed to be doing (in the eyes of God), will be the people who are looking into themselves for the answer instead of looking to a leader (priest, politician) for the answers. I believe that we all know what's right and wrong. It's time we realized we don't need someone to tell us what to do. That's why so many people are out there waking up others more and more...