Posted on 04/01/2010 7:55:47 AM PDT by Biggirl
You wrote:
“Actually, there is no way it should have taken decades, DECADES for the Catholic Church to act on this case,”
It didn’t. It took decades for a gay bishop - Rembert Weakland - to do his job. Don’t blame the Church for what a gay bishop (who denied or hid his homosexuality until last year) didn’t do. And that gay bishop is now helping the gay loving lib press which has also apparently duped you in attacking the pope.
“as there was knowledge of the transgressions in the 70’s.”
Knowledge on the part of a gay bishop. There’s no reason to believe anyone in the Vatican knew anything about this until the 1990s.
“The link I posted in post 113 has letters detailing sexual molestation as early as 1974.”
And yet you have failed to show any evidence that ANYONE outside of Milwaukee - led by its gay bishop - knew anything about this case until 1990s.
Beginning to get the point yet?
Yes, He did. Like I said, read Emile Mersch.
“”Actually, it is a pretty good deterrent.””
For one ,jail time is usually limited-just look at the terrorists our government is setting free. For two, there is murder rape etc..that goes on while people are in jail,so it’s not the deterrent you seem to think it is
“””Do you think Jesus abrogated the state, OR replaced it with the church.If so, you don’t know the Bible very well””
Ever hear of scripture typology and the New Covenant? It’s how the Bible has been understood and the reason why the Catholic Church gave you NT canon
The Church replaced Israel and is the” new Israel”- Universal Salvation for all-Gentiles etc...
From “This Rock” article
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9902chap.asp
“the Church is spiritual Israel or, in Catholic parlance, the “new Israel” (cf. CCC 877). This too is indicated in Paul’s writings: In Romans 9:6 he says that “not all who are of Israel are Israel.” This indicates the existence of two Israels. One—”all who are of Israel”—indicates the ethnic people, not all of whom believe in Jesus. The other Israel, the context reveals, does not include those who have rejected the Messiah. This new Israel, founded by Messiah, exists in spiritual continuity with the Old Testament saints and so counts as a “spiritual Israel.” It includes Gentiles who believe in the Messiah and so through baptism are spiritually circumcised (Col. 2:11–12) and are reckoned as spiritual Jews (Rom. 2:26–29).
In his letter to the Ephesians Paul is even more explicit about the Gentiles’ spiritual inclusion when he states that “you Gentiles in the flesh . . . were [once] separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel . . . But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near . . . So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints” (2:11–13, 19).”
“”God protect us from the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church””
The Church is Divine and does not abuse anyone-it’s only people who do NOT follow what the Church teaches that abuse,both inside and outside of Holy Mother Church
“”Thank God for the proper separation of church and state””
Separation of the Church from the State is not from God ,it’s from the devil.The Church will still be standing when the state is finished just like it has throughout history
“”And thank God for the state to protect me from evildoers””
You should thank God,certainly not the state
This conversation is getting tiresome ,dear friend
I wish you a Blessed Evening!
Yes, I am beginning to get the point. The Catholic Church is responsible for everything good in this world, and not responsible for anything bad.
Happy Easter!
Very tiresome. Happy Easter!
Ping!
The point is don’t blame the Church for the failings of a gay bishop who took two decades to do anything about an abusive priest and was himself abusing his position in a sexual way.
AND NONE OF THE FACTS ABOUT HIS OWN SEXUAL ABUSE made it into most of the MSM use of the biased info from Rembert Weakland.
The “Church” IS people.
Any failings of people in the church are failings of the church.
If the church (people) did not fail, why would Jesus have to die for His church, His bride?
There is a completely illogical attempt to separate the “Church” from any responsibility for her actions, not only by you, but by other posters on this thread.
We are not called to worship the “Church,” but only our Creator. It seems to me that some are forgetting that.
And the result is that victims of the “Church” abuse are left to suffer while the perpetrators of that abuse are protected by the “Church.”
You wrote:
“The “Church” IS people.”
No. If that were so then that would include Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and everyone else. St. Paul calls the Church the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ. It is not people, but some people make up its members. Also, as Christ Himself made abundantly clear, there would be real authorities in His Church. It would not be a people’s democracy.
“Any failings of people in the church are failings of the church.”
No. The Church - as scripture states - is a spotless bride. Thus, the sins of individual men remain the sins of individual men and do not become the sins of Christ or His Bride.
“If the church (people) did not fail, why would Jesus have to die for His church, His bride?”
He died for HUMANITY to be redeemed. His death is applicable to the Church in salvific power given it in the sacraments - hence the interpretation of the water and blood from His side. He did not die for the supposed sins of any organization. He died for the sins of men. Individual men.
“There is a completely illogical attempt to separate the “Church” from any responsibility for her actions, not only by you, but by other posters on this thread.”
No. It is only logical to view things as they are. The Bride is spotless. It is only illogical to impute to the body of Christ sins committed by individuals. If that were possible then you would be just as responsible as Fr. Murphy or Archbishop Rembert Weakland. How’s that work for you? I know I am completely blameless in the Wisconsin case because I had absolutely nothing to do with any clerical abuse case ever in any way, shape or form. If the Church is guilty of the sins of its members then all the members must also be guilty. I know I did NOTHING wrong. Protestants routinely say they are in the Church too. Taht would mean that they are too - in some way - guilty as well. None of that makes sense, but that is what you’re putting forward. Are you sure you even thought this through? It doesn’t appear that you did.
“We are not called to worship the “Church,” but only our Creator. It seems to me that some are forgetting that.”
No, no one is forgetting that. I have NEVER seen anyone say we should worship the Church. What we should do is realize what the Church is and not falsely impute to it the sins of some of its members.
“And the result is that victims of the “Church” abuse are left to suffer while the perpetrators of that abuse are protected by the “Church.””
Nope. Any victim can go to the police any time they like. Decades old cases that were poorly handled are still decades old. They are not handled that way anymore and it should never have happened that way in the first place.
I give up. Jesus told some of the churches in Revelation to repent, but apparently that concept is beyond you.
BTW, I didn’t say the church is ALL people, which is apparently the way you understood it.
Nor did Jesus tell each “church” to repent for, or that they were guilty of, the sins of other “churches.”
By the way, the penalty for ignoring Jesus’ admonishment to repent was to cease being a church.
You figure it out.
This has really been an illuminating discussion on the way some Catholics view the “church,” which is quite different from the way the Bible presents, but I guess that is another argument.
Your admission that the Catholic church is handling things differently is an acknowledgment change was needed, and I certainly hope it is positive change.
Your assertion “Any victim can go to the police any time they like.” seems to show a callous disregard for the victim, but I would certainly encourage any minor or adult to go directly to the police as they seem to be more likely to find relief there than through God’s “representatives” who claim immunity.
You wrote:
“I give up. Jesus told some of the churches in Revelation to repent, but apparently that concept is beyond you.”
No, it isn’t. If the then bishop had repented for his 20 years of bad leadership, that would have been great. The pope, however, has nothing to do with it. The pope is not the bishop of Milwaukee and wasn’t pope in 1974 or 1977 or 1998 either. The churches in Revelation were urged to repent for things they did not for things others did.
“BTW, I didn’t say the church is ALL people, which is apparently the way you understood it.”
You said it is people. If you meant something other than all people, it would help if you were more precise.
“Nor did Jesus tell each “church” to repent for, or that they were guilty of, the sins of other “churches.””
Exactly my point.
“By the way, the penalty for ignoring Jesus’ admonishment to repent was to cease being a church.”
Because they had strayed into heresy. That is not an issue here.
“You figure it out.”
Already did - years ago.
“This has really been an illuminating discussion on the way some Catholics view the “church,” which is quite different from the way the Bible presents, but I guess that is another argument.”
It is no argument at all. We view the Church as the Bride of Christ and the Body of Christ - which is the Biblical view.
“Your admission that the Catholic church is handling things differently is an acknowledgment change was needed, and I certainly hope it is positive change.”
The bishops are now more likely to handle things as they did BEFORE the modern era. That’s good. That’s the way it should have been done all along. The Vatican has been right all along. It’s the bishops who were wrong.
“Your assertion “Any victim can go to the police any time they like.” seems to show a callous disregard for the victim,”
Stating that the victims have the right to legal redress is showing callousness? That has to be one of the more bizarre things I’ve ever heard. Does the Bill of Rights come across as callous to you too?
“but I would certainly encourage any minor or adult to go directly to the police as they seem to be more likely to find relief there than through God’s “representatives” who claim immunity.”
Nice dig but that’s a completely silly ridiculous comment. You might not like the fact that the pope has immunity but that doesn’t change the reality of the situation nor does it in any way stop him from offering relief to victims - and he has. Remember, he actually accomplishes things while you merely seem to post on the internet about them.
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.