Nifonging the Catholic Church

me ^ | April 18, 2010 | vanity

[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 These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.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!

[Judith Anne]

Well I think “Reichbishop” was humorous, but apparently some do not.

It all depends on your point of view, I guess.

Some of your comments I do see as an attempt at humor. I actually enjoy reading your posts. Of COURSE you do not need to justify your interest in mine, or explain yourself. I just asked the question, that’s all, relax. (I’m smiling, okay? Not an attack. Just a slight witticism, nothing earth-shaking. Okay?)

[sabe@q.com]

So I guess 2 Tim 3:16 means nothing?

[Judith Anne]

Actually, there is a fairly large number of protestant FReepers whom I like, and enjoy thread conversations with, and who are quite a bit of fun.

It’s entirely possible you might be one of them, in some far far distant future time when all is peace and light....

KIDDING, okay?

[markomalley]

Adding 1 Cor 13 back into the mix will, unfortunately once again lower the percentage of the Bible read at mass during the lectionary cycle.

Actually, 1 Cor 13 was read as the second reading for the fourth Sunday after Epiphany this past January 31st.

As Judith Anne pointed out, between the two-year daily Mass Lectionary cycle and the three-year Sunday Mass Lectionary cycle, Catholics read about 72% of the NT and about 13% of the OT just as a matter of keeping up with the Mass readings. If you add the Liturgy of the Hours into the mix, the percentage goes significantly higher (though I haven't seen anybody who has done a statistical analysis like they did for the Lectionary for Mass, like I linked to earlier). You can get a pretty good idea of the volume of Scripture involved by looking at the Universalis website (although, as a caution, it is not an officially sanctioned source, due to copyright restrictions with the officially approved versions of the readings).

Hope that helps quantify her statements.

[big'ol_freeper]

I’ve been observing since 1999 and have become more convinced with every satan-inspired post I have seen.

[Running On Empty]

wow

[will of the people]

It takes longer for some- keep at it.

will Wallace

[big'ol_freeper]

We’ve been at it since Christ rose from the dead, not just the last several hundred years.

[Natural Law]

I won't go so far as to sat Paul was looney, but those who misinterpret and misrepresent his words are. Taken in the context of a completely new, revised or reformed Word they can be pretty bizarre. Taken only in the context of spreading the Gospel they are often both incomplete and wordy, superfluous and redundant.

[Natural Law]

"I, as well as a lot of Catholics I know, make a habit of reading the daily mass scriptures (posted right here on FR by Salvation) and that RAISES the percentage of the Bible read by Catholics throughout the year."

Don't forget the saying of the rosary. Each verse of each prayer is a verse from the bible and is said in the context of Gospel. This hearkens to a time before literacy was common, and daily prayer widespread.

[Religion Moderator]

The first time the term was used was at post 274 by Natural Law and it explicitly referred to Dr. Eckleburg.

It was name-calling, another form of "making it personal."

That post was removed by the Lead Moderator, but Natural Law persisted in using the term again and again.

Ignoring a moderator is worse than "making it personal." So, Natural Law, stop using that term or leave the thread.

[Alex Murphy]

BTW, have you ever posted a thread about protestant clergy child sexual abuse? Please provide a link, if you have.

Why, it was just yesterday that I provided you with 24 links of posts/threads of mine from 2006 and 2007 alone, when you asked a similar question. To borrow your own words from that post, I "gave the lie to your statement".

The purpose of the removed posts indicting the presbyterian ministers' child sexual abuse was to let you and all lurkers know that contrary to protestant propaganda, adolescent/child sexual abuse is not a Catholic problem, it is a problem of all institutions. In fact, one of the worst abusers in the presbyterian church, who moved around from school to school, was a teacher at a school for deaf children. Public schools also have a very high rate of sex abusers of children, probably the highest. The propaganda, and the anti-Catholic bigots' agenda here, is to pretend that the Catholic Church has the only, the worst, and the highest rate of child abuse.

Certainly not the only organization - and I would challenge you to provide me and the lurkers with at least two dozen links to FR statements by Protestants (and at least one of those links must be a statement from yours truly), statements that must say categorically that no abuse has ever occurred in Protestant churches.

But as to non-Catholic charges of the abuse within the Catholic Church being "the worst, and the highest rate"? Those aren't statements of opinionated bias - those are statements that someone can actually prove (or disprove) with math. And yes, those are statements that I have made at times. You're completely free to do the math and disprove me on anything I've ever stated on Free Republic - but there's an old political adage that says "you can't beat something with nothing". I'll even help you out on this one, by providing you with a couple of my choice statements on the matter. I await your well-reasoned, mathmatically-supported responses to the following:

"As you have said (and I would agree), "There have been discussions, letters, articles, programs, announcement of programs, diocesan background checks, and so on." None of which rise to the level of a categorical, public, "no tolerance" condemnation of the practice. All true. But none rise to the level of a public anathema against sexual predators within the Catholic Church. We Reformers got one, so why not the pedophiles and other sexual deviants?"
-- Alex Murphy, April 2, 2008

The John Jay Study (see threads here, here, and outside coverage here) - commissioned by the U.S. Catholic Bishops' National Review Board itself - found that the number of accused Catholic priest abusers equaled four percent of the entire Catholic priest population. The John Jay study's findings are more than conclusive - they're exhaustive of the entire US population of Catholic priests. Surely you're not suggesting that the New York Times would be as more reliable source of information than the John Jay Study?

As I've said elsewhere, every study I've been shown of "Protestant" abuse (which include many of the websites your Google search links to) included volunteers and laypersons. The John Jay Study did not address these groups when they looked at Catholic parishes. If we exclude volunteers and laypersons from the "Protestant" studies (thereby creating a "pastor vs priest" apple-to-apple comparison), we arrive at a roughly 1% abuse rate for all "Protestant" pastors, or (in other words) at least a four times greater likelihood that any given Catholic priest will be a sexual predator, as compared to any given "Protestant" pastor. And that's according to the numbers and studies that Catholics keep telling me about.

Let me throw in one caveat to those comparisons. I found something interesting when I broke down the "Protestant" abuse cases by denomination / affiliation / theological leanings. The more free will / Arminian / synergistic the theology is, and the more independent the association is (as opposed to denominational affiliation), the higher the abuse statistic goes - and conversely, if you just look at the Reformed Protestant denominations, the number of "Protestant" abuse cases statistically drops off the chart by comparison. It's only the average of all "Protestant" pastors that is around 1%. Some independent churches have statistics that are far, far higher than the Catholic average of 4%.
-- Alex Murphy, April 2, 2008

"(S)hould denominational ratios be skewed by independent ratios?"....AFAIK, no one has ever attempted to quantify abuse statistics to show where abuse runs high (or low) among Protestant, Evangelical, and Independent church leadership. My attempts appear to be the first. And I would agree with you that we should compare apples to apples by keeping it ratios to ratios, and not raw numbers to raw numbers. See especially the thread Teachers Vs. Priests - Unequal Treatment In the Media? in which I say

While 25,000 hypothesized "accusations" is roughly six times the number of Catholic "accusations", 25,000 cases out of 1,600,000 teachers gives us a 1.3 to 1.56% ratio of sexually abusive teachers out of the entire public school system over a fifty year period - more than twice the volume of Protestant pastoral abuse, and less than half the volume of Catholic priest abuse.

If we're after equal treatment in the media, I would expect there to be at least double the number of Catholic news stories as Public School stories, and four times as many Catholic news stories as Protestant news stories based on the percentage of perverts that exist with their respective organizations. IMO the disproportionate amount of coverage is the result of increased interest, when those organizations are caught protecting the abusers at the expense of the victims.

-- Alex Murphy, April 2, 2008

It is not sexual misconduct, rather it is sexual assault, that Catholic priests were accused of in the John Jay Study. The topic isn't "who's accused of sexual misconduct", it's "who's accused of committing a felony against a minor"....Should I consider the intentional conflation of "statutory rape" with "sexual misconduct" to be deflecting attention? Damn straight I do, skippy....Of the 38% of all Protestant clergy being accused of some level of inappropriate sexual contact, only 4.6% have engaged in actual sexual intercourse outside of marriage. And none of them of rape.

If the Catholic apologist were really comparing apples to apples, the real statistics would speak of Protestant clergy accused of criminal sexual contact with minors, or would adjust the John Jay study's four percent upwards to include inappropriate but otherwise legal sexual relations. But the Catholic apologist does no such thing. They start with John Jay's 4%, move on to Protestantism's 38%, and leave the reader thinking that 4% "statutory rape" is comparable to 38% "inappropriate relations". Sometimes you have to keep score, to tell when the other side is moving the goalposts on you.
-- Alex Murphy, September 29, 2009

"...the scandal was never really about the 4% abusers in their ranks. The real scandal was that 66% of bishops covered for the 4%, negatively affecting 95% of the dioceses in the United States - actions which cost the Catholic Church over three billion dollars paid in settlements and awards to the victims."
-- Alex Murphy, September 29, 2009

[Alex Murphy]

So I guess 2 Tim 3:16 means nothing?

I hear that in the Latin Vulgate it's translated as saying

27.5% of scripture is given by inspiration of God, but none is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness without the prior written approval of the Magisterium....

[Natural Law]

Please scroll through the thread and observe that I stopped using the term when advised to. Most of the dialog keeping the word alive has been done by others.

Is it prohibited when used as a general characterization, referring to rabid anti-Catholics in the same genre as papists, RC (pronounced arse), pedophile priests, pederast priests, hanky waivers, Romanists, finger frothers, Vatican reps, Marian heretics, Faithful Hobbits, trinket religionists, idolaters, etc?

[will of the people]

“papists, RC (pronounced arse), pedophile priests, pederast priests, hanky waivers, Romanists, finger frothers, Vatican reps, Marian heretics, Faithful Hobbits, trinket religionists, idolaters, etc”

Slow down I can’t copy and paste that fast! :)

Will Wallace

[Religion Moderator]

It doesn't matter. When a term has been disallowed on a thread, comply.

Generally, on "open" Religion Forum threads it is not "making it personal" to use biting terms such as "Romanists" "Snake-Handlers" "Morons" to describe a group.

For instance, it is not making it personal to say "That group is a cult." It is making it personal to say "You are a cultist."

[RegulatorCountry]

Is it prohibited when used as a general characterization, referring to rabid anti-Catholics in the same genre as papists, RC (pronounced arse), pedophile priests, pederast priests, hanky waivers, Romanists, finger frothers, Vatican reps, Marian heretics, Faithful Hobbits, trinket religionists, idolaters, etc?

You forgot bone-rattlers. That one's almost as funny as referring to southern evangelicals as snake-shakin' bobble toters.

And, have people been calling me an ugly name when referring to me as RC? I just thought it was shorthand.

Duh.

[will of the people]

“And, have people been calling me an ugly name when referring to me as RC? I just thought it was shorthand.”

Me too.

But what really concerns me is all those RC Colas and Moon Pies I had when I lived in the South. That whole combination is starting to make eerie conspiratorial sense now.

Will Wallace

[Religion Moderator]

LOL

[Alex Murphy]

...what really concerns me is all those RC Colas and Moon Pies I had when I lived in the South. That whole combination is starting to make eerie conspiratorial sense now.

I have this strange feeling that I'm offending somebody when I bring up the Pittsburgh Penguins, but no one will tell me why.

[RegulatorCountry]

And pouring peanuts into the ... ewww.

[Natural Law]

"Slow down I can’t copy and paste that fast! :)"

LOL - I just scrolled back through a couple of recent threads and copied a few of the more inflammatory terms........

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I have this strange feeling that I'm offending somebody when I bring up the Pittsburgh Penguins, but no one will tell me why.

lol. THIS might have something to do with it...

GERMAN CATHOLIC WOMEN DISCOVER THE PENGUIN IN THEMSELVES.

Munster. "Do it like the penguin: you don't give a damn when your wings do not let you fly." Even from a distance on Monday afternoon (14.09.2009), the "penguin song" was heard in Münster zoo. Mechthild Schlichtmann, director of the choir project "Malembe" of the Catholic Women in Germany (KFD) in the Diocese of Münster had written lyrics for this song specially for the KFD-action and set it to music in the zoo.

About 200 women from Münster and the Münsterland took up the offer which a preparatory team had worked out with the assistance of the KFD-town women: an introduction to "Animals in the Bible," a talk by zoo director Joerg Adler about the importance of frogs to the ecosystem and people, public singing with the KFD Project choir and liturgical dance as praise to creation. The event was held under the motto - "Discover the penguin in you..."

[Dr. Eckleburg]

freaky Pauline epistles. St. Paul got a few things right, but he was likely just as loony as his protegee, Calvin.

I almost can't believe a Christian wrote that line. Astounding.

And I'm pinging MarySecretary one last time, for old times sake.

This last one, Mary, is a doozie.

But Calvin is no doubt honored to be referenced as a "protegee of Paul."

We should all be so blessed. Paul knew whom he believed.

[1000 silverlings]

So now Paul is “loony”. I suppose all who read Romans and converted on the spot are all loony as well.

[Quix]

GOODNESS!

Paul did scribe Scripture! Quite a percentage of the New Testament!

Or was that satire that I’m not ‘getting,’ somehow?

[Quix]

I don’t know HOW warranted your rant is.

Certainly there is a foul element in human nature to dog-pile on a victim or weak person or even merely an accused person.

And, it IS deplorable to judge, jury, sentence and execute someone (as though we were GOD ALMIGHTY) mentally, spiritually, verbally when very little, if any, solid evidence is in, much less considered fairly.

I don’t know of even the most rabid clique Roman Catholics, Prottys et al hereon who would cheer or condone the outrageously destructive assaultive actions of far too long a list of priests, ministers, teachers, troop leaders, and the like.

Horrifically sinful is dispicable to all of us who truly seek God and His ways.

And, too often, arrogance, self-righteousness, haughtiness, smugness, over-confidence, confidence in the flesh . . . all conspire to convince us unwarrantedly that WE would NEVER stoop to such exceedingly black and trashy sins. OUR sins are minor chalk scribblings on the side-walk, by comparison—we are prone to self-congratulate ourselves on.

I don’t think that’s God’s perspective.

Scripture teaches and certainly Holy Spirit is skillful to teach that with regard to virtually ANY SIN—given sufficiently ATTACHMENT DISORDERED childhood plus sufficiently contributive circumstances and pressures, virtually any of us could be guilty of virtually anything.

THAT is part of the lesson of the parable of the publican . . .

Luke 18:13
And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

NONE of us live flawlessly as we ought.

ONLY the Blood of Jesus covers any of us sufficiently to face God for the briefest moment—much less for eternity.

Some of us deplore many of the excesses, heresies, outrages, traditions of Roman Catholocism et al, Pentecostalism etc, Calvinism etc. more or less to the max of our emotional perspectives.

There is a very great spiritual hazard, however, in looking down our long noses and long pointy fingers at the OUT-GROUP over THERE, and the worst examples in it.

God almost began this human scene with ONE OUT-GROUP—MANKIND.

ONLY THE BLOOD OF JESUS AFFORDS ANY OF US THE REMOTEST CHANCE TO BE IN HIS IN-GROUP.

And our propensities to judge, be bitter, resentful and unforgiving toward/of THOSE OUT-GROUP IDIOTS over THERE is very hazardous to our spiritual health, if not our eternal destination.

Some in our respective camps seem to gleefully, eagerly look for chances to black wash the folks in and perspectives of the other camp(s).

THAT’s NOT heeding the truths and wisdom of Luke 18:13. That’s not obeying the Lord in HIS PRAYER to, “Father, forgive us OUR SINS, AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO SIN AGAINST US.”

Certainly there are legitimate reasons for us to be outraged at what we perceive to be horrific heresies, blasphemies, perverse assaultive sins.

SOMETIMES, at least, there are MORE reasons for us to be cirucmspect, sobered, reflective . . . and to cry, LORD, BE MERCIFUL TO ME, A SINNER.

There are spiritual principles involved.

1. We reap what we sow, more or less inexorably—certainly apart from God’s Grace, Mercy, and forgiveness . . . and usually, to some degree even with such ministrations of His Love.

2. And, it doesn’t matter how lily white and necessary WE THINK OUR rants, perspectives, saintliness, preaching, etc. is. God looks on the heart.

3. And Judging has a particularly devastating boomerang effect in the spiritual realm and in the tangible realm. Unfitting, carnal, fleshy, critical, self-righteous judgment ALWAYS returns to bite us in our sitter or other embarrassing parts—such as our noses in the air, our long fingers or our out-thrust jaws.

4. God has a way of pulling the feathers out of the nest and the blinders off our self-delusion off to the point that we become actively in our flesh that which we have so haughtily and so self-righteously judged others for. AND NO ONE IS IMMUNE.

These principles, truths, spiritual laws ARE OPERANT whether we want to admit it, realize it and live accordingly, or not.

We can learn so earlier and easier or the opposite.

We WILL LEARN SO—now or at the point of our graduation from this life.

.
######################################################
.

I don’t think I have a solution to the seemingly interminable hashing and rehashing of the sins of omissions, comissions, emissions the Pope, priests, ministers, youth pastors, teachers et al.

I have a caution.

Unwarranted, unfitting, unnecessarily prolonged—haughty, self=righteous, pointy-fingered outrage

is EXTREMELY SPIRITUALLY HAZARDOUS to the authors and to those who read such and cheer unfittingly in their hearts and minds.

There is in the nature of human psychology and IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP DYNAMICS to gleefully, eagerly

run screaming to DADDY . . .

SEE, DADDY, HE KICKED OVER MY SANDCASTLE, HE’S BEEN BURNING ANTS AGAIN! SLAP HIM DADDY, SLAP HIM!

Yeah, Daddy probably needs called on some things and earlier than later. And, proper discipline needs to be applied.

YEAH, ALL SYSTEMS and ALL institutions have horrific tendencies to wrap themselfs in robes of self-righteousness and protect the institution at all costs, as though the institution were GOD ALMIGHTY ITSELF. And !!!!TRADITION!!!! bound institutions that have been at it a long time are the worst about that.

Nevertheless we are wise to use our mirrors exhaustively—and to ask Holy Spirit for HIS SEARCH LIGHT ON OUR deceitfully wicked hearts before playing Don Quixote with the windmills.

SOME Roman Catholics et al will defend their INSTITUTION as though they were defending GOD HIMESLF because they seem incapable of construing a great deal of difference between them. What else is new.

SOME Calvinists will defend that perspective fiercely at the drop of a hat because they construe that to be GOD BREATHED TRUTH indivisible from The Gospel. What else is new.

SOME Pentecostals will defend speaking in tongues fiercely in a flash because they construe that to be a GOD-GIVEN DIALOGUE-WITH-GOD-GIFT, inheritance for the church age. What else is new.

Some of us hereon love energetic, emotional, intense exchanges. It’s our personalities, our background, our training, our fascination, our exercise, our fun—perhaps for some—an obsession. What else is new.

And, I realize there’s ever new crops of lurkers that HAVE A RIGHT TO/ MUST BE ‘indoctrinated with the ‘TRULY TRUEST TRUTH OF OUR UNIQUE PERSPECTIVES.’ What else is new.

Nevertheless, the shrill attacks and shrill counter attacks surrounding the perverse sexual hideousness is more than a LOT wearisome.

Is there any hope that we could soon get to the point where we could lay it aside as a horse soundly beat to smithereens—to powder and blown to the four winds?

I deplore spiritual and behavioral hideousness within and without as much as the next Christian.

And, I’ll probably be redundant again again about this or that pet topic more than a few times before I graduate from this life.

However, there really ARE CHRISTIANS WHO LOVE JESUS on all sides of these issues. We COULD spend a BIT MORE TIME acting and sounding like it.

[Quix]

And, there are some . . . hereon . . .

for whom the Roman Catholic et al INSTITUTION can essentially do NO WRONG

long enough or horribly enough or hypocritically enough

TO WARRANT, FOR THEM,

serious, thorough examination and candor.

That’s outrageous, too, Dear Heart.

[mitch5501]

Great post Quix! Wise words."...AND NO ONE IS IMMUNE."

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9

[Quix]

THANKS FOR YOUR KIND REPLY.

God bless you and those you love this week and weekend and forever more.

[Judith Anne]

And I'm pinging MarySecretary one last time, for old times sake.

This last one, Mary, is a doozie.

But, now, wait now, you've posted a bunch of times that Mary is dead. Who do you mean, here? Because the Blessed Mary Ever Virgin is NOT DEAD.

[Judith Anne]

I almost cannot believe the indignation here about my comments on Paul. I have noticed whenever a Catholic will quote the Gospel of Jesus Christ, say, John 6 or something, some nutburger or Professionally Perfect Persecuting Presbyterian will counter Christ’s plain, beautiful words with some confused tortured verse out of the Pauline epistles. Well, as Paul said in one of his saner moments, “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I’ve committed unto Him, against that day.”

Face it, Paul was a goofball. He’s the clearest proof anyone should need that God Almighty and His Risen Son can take any pieces of human garbage — murderers, Pharisees, etc. and make them eat their words and praise His Most Holy Name. He does not and did not make Paul perfect, however. Which is clear from Paul’s epistles, which the Presbyterians (and other anti-Catholic bigots) worship.

[Judith Anne]

So, of course, the next post will be that if there was hope for Paul, there is hope for Judith Anne!

LOL!

[markomalley]

You know, Judith Anne, I, also, was initially taken aback by your comment in post #435 that said, St. Paul got a few things right, but he was likely just as loony as his protegee, Calvin.

But with post #483, you make it a bit clearer.

I hope I can assume you were referring to Pauline comments, such as,

I Cor 1:18 For the word of the cross, to them indeed that perish, is foolishness: but to them that are saved, that is, to us, it is the power of God. 19 For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise: and the prudence of the prudent I will reject. 20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For, seeing that in the wisdom of God, the world, by wisdom, knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of our preaching, to save them that believe. 22 For both the Jews require signs: and the Greeks seek after wisdom. 23 But we preach Christ crucified: unto the Jews indeed a stumbling block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: 24 But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men: and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For see your vocation, brethren, that there are not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble. 27 But the foolish things of the world has God chosen, that he may confound the wise: and the weak things of the world has God chosen, that he may confound the strong. 28 And the base things of the world and the things that are contemptible, has God chosen: and things that are not, that he might bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his sight. 30 But of him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom and justice and sanctification and redemption: 31 That, as it is written: He that glories may glory in the Lord. 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not in loftiness of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of Christ. 2 For I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ: and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching was not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in showing of the Spirit and power: 5 That your faith might not stand on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

Or perhaps,

2 Cor 12:9b Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 10 For which cause I please myself in my infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ. For when I am weak, then am I powerful. 11 I have become foolish....

But I'm still not sure why one would compare St. Paul the Apostle with a heretic like John Calvin. Yes, St. Paul was a Pharisee before his encounter with Christ,

Phil 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more: 5 Being circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews. According to the law, a Pharisee: 6 According to zeal, persecuting the church of God: According to the justice that is in the law, conversing without blame. 7 But the things that were gain to me, the same I have counted loss for Christ. 8 Furthermore, I count all things to be but loss for the excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ, my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them but as dung, that I may gain Christ

but, afterward, he applied the same zeal to spreading the Gospel that he applied beforehand to the persecution of Christians. As you say, He’s the clearest proof anyone should need that God Almighty and His Risen Son can take any pieces of human garbage — murderers, Pharisees, etc. and make them eat their words and praise His Most Holy Name.

Look, on the other hand, at Calvin. How many millions of souls have been shipwrecked after following his devilish doctrine of double predestination? (After all, if a person preaching Calvinism convinces you that God has destined you to be a reprobate, then you may as well abandon all hope because you have none at all)(btw, understanding that particular heresy should make the attitudes of our Calvinist friends far more comprehensible...after all, they are simply reacting in accordance with the heresy that they've likely been brainwashed with from their childhoods)

I can't understand how any Christian could even say the two names in the same breath...

[Iscool]

I also find it difficult to believe that any presbyterians read the gospels. They sure do concentrate on those freaky Pauline epistles. St. Paul got a few things right, but he was likely just as loony as his protegee, Calvin.

Peter called Paul's epistles Scripture...

And here's a newsflash for you...Paul got 'everything' right, not just a few things...

But to you, Paul's epistles are foolishness, eh??? Here's some more of Paul's foolishness for you...

1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[Gamecock]

***St. Paul got a few things right, but he was likely just as loony....***

Is that official Roman Catholic teaching or just your opinion?

[Alex Murphy]

I'll even help you out on this one, by providing you with a couple of my choice statements on the matter. I await your well-reasoned, mathmatically-supported responses...

Here's two more. I almost feel bad for missing these yesterday. They fit in neatly between that April '08 conversation concerning public anathemas against sexual predators and the September '09 discussion about Jerome Lawler's '66% of the bishops were complicit' charge:

I would have expected a religious order to recognize that raping a child is fundamentally a sinful behavior, before they would believe it to be aberrational behavior. It should be a warning sign to everyone that if a religious order looks to "the Psychs" for expert advice on dealing with known sinful behavior, instead of looking in their Bibles for solutions, they prove themselves to be scripturally deficient if not illiterate. "Religious" order, indeed!

We should not expect "psychological treatment" will end sinful behavior. That's what many bishops have believed, however, and look at what fruit it has yielded - $3,000,000,000 awarded in damages and settlements by Catholic dioceses within the United States alone.

The only thing that ends sinful behavior is repentance. Check your Bible if you don't believe me.
-- Alex Murphy, May 20, 2009

"IMO the church has not made (or at least restated strongly enough) any statement that "such things are an abomination" that Catholics and non-Catholics can equally point to, that categorically applies the condemnation to guilty Catholic priests, bishops, etc. The Catholic Church needs to publicly excommunicate and make examples of the guilty, as a witness to any priest who's even considering preying on his parishioners. And it should go up as high as needed (Roger Mahony, anyone?) until every sympathiser and enabler is rooted out, and purity restored to the priesthood. IOW "put the fear of God in them!"...

... I wasn't aware of any "zero tolerance" policy in the Catholic Church today. I'm a strong advocate of the Old Testament case law (Deut. 19:15) that states "One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established." Yes, there ought to be some sort of "due process" but IMO due process has been (is being?) abused within the American Catholic Church, within certain archdioceses certainly, towards protecting the guilty....

....Sin, confession, and church displine of the same is (or should be) an area inside of [the American bishops'] competence. What's telling isn't that the bishops' received bad advice on how to act. What's telling is what authority the bishops recognized and sought out, when looking for advice...Moreso, I would accuse that the bishops have rejected scriptural authority in favor of (to modify your term) modern pshrinkology. They didn't define the issue (and it's treatment) as a sin problem to be repented of. They treated it as behavior modification....

....IMO letters, papers, and procedures aren't enough, but yes the Catholic Church has taken numerous actions to root this out (although the coloring books are IMO a really bad and tasteless idea). This more-or-less speaks to the first point that I responded to at the top of this post. I'll readily admit one thing, however - the dispute over "proper response" is more of a cultural difference between how Catholics and Protestants address sin than anything else. We like our religious leaders to make public confessions and positional statements re good and evil. I'd daresay that Protestants (at least the pro-creedal kind) place higher value on such public statements than on any actual behaviors towards those same ends. It's hard to judge true repentence when you don't have a matching statement of confession, showing a change of mind to go with the change of action, IMO."
-- Alex Murphy April 2, 2008

[count-your-change]

Peter said some of the things Paul taught were not easy to understand but he didn't call them “freaky”. (2 Peter 3:14-17)

No doubt Paul's comments, based as they were upon being taught by Christ, do seem looney to those who put themselves up as a higher authority.

[wmfights]

JA: freaky Pauline epistles. St. Paul got a few things right, but he was likely just as loony as his protegee, Calvin.

It's such a unique attitude in Christianity to see one group so convinced that defending their church is the same as defending their faith. Here is a great example of what happens when the hatred for all things not Roman Catholic clouds the mind, denigrate the Apostle sent by Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and his letters which were inspired by God.

2Peter 3:15-16 ...Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Peter recognized the source and complexity of Paul's writings.

[count-your-change]

Too much material for me to comment on it all but I did want to comment on:
“The only thing that ends sinful behavior is repentance. Check your Bible if you don't believe me.
— Alex Murphy, May 20, 2009”

Repentance involves both a change inward, the attitude of mind and heart, and the outward, a change of behavior.
So the Bible writers used very emphatic terms such as “do your utmost to found clean and unblemished...” and “abhor wickedness....”

[wmfights]

I hope I can assume you were referring to Pauline comments, such as,...

It is a kind thing to try and help someone in need.

Look, on the other hand, at Calvin. How many millions of souls have been shipwrecked after following his devilish doctrine of double predestination?

There is strong Scriptural support for this belief. If it is wrong it still doesn't affect an individuals justification for being saved.

Can the same be said for the worship of Mary? In this case millions of souls are being lost to perdition because the individual was taught to seek Mary not Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

[count-your-change]

Peter had a clearer view of Paul than you do.

“And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.” (2 Peter 3:15-17)

Paul's epistles, inspired by God, were only a problem to the unlearned and unsteady.

[Quix]

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

[Quix]

It’s a footnote from the magicsterical.

The rabid cliques hereon probably think of themselves as at least senior clerks of the magicsterical . . . guiding the folks in funny hats to the TRULY TRUEST TRUE TRUEST TRUTH.

[Quix]

No doubt Paul’s comments, based as they were upon being taught by Christ, do seem looney to those who put themselves up as a higher authority.

@@@

INDEED.

Shocking that ANY FREEPER would join JIMMY CARTER in construing THEIR wisdom as greater than Paul’s.

[markomalley]

The rabid cliques hereon...

Interesting expression....particularly in the plural. Could be applied almost anywhere. You mind if I lift that from you?

[Quix]

Feel free to help yourself.

Routinely.

[Quix]

As I’ve noted before . . .

I don’t even have a mental picture of the different cliques under any denominational label.

Their associations and therefore ‘memberships’ seem to shift now and then depending on issues, moods, attitudes, whatever.

[FourtySeven]

“Your Honor, Since everything I’ve been accused of is in the past, you must be biased or you wouldn’t keep bringing it up, particularly since I’m in this 12 step program. So unless you can prove to me you lack bias you shouldn’t comment on my actions and to continue doing so is intellectually dishonest of you”.

No that's not what I'm saying. Let me use a hypothetical that should be quite illustrative.

The continued criticism of the Church for the scandal, to the exclusion of other abuse elsewhere, is akin to a judge constantly handing guilty verdicts to accused molesters who are Catholic, to the exclusion of other people of other failths/systems. IOW, it's like giving a guilty verdict to an accused preist when an equally guilty public school teacher gets a pass.

Both are guilty and should be convicted (in this hypothetical), but only one gets convicted. If any judge was found to have a record of such bias, he would be asked to recuse himself from such cases. As he should.

As far as comparing the rate of abuse in the Church with the general population, I think this is perfectly valid for two reasons. One, while priests are called to a different vocation than most, simply having a different vocation does not imply, nor is it intended to imply, that they are somehow more "holy" than the laity. They are human beings like the rest of us and thus are equally as fallable.

Second, given that the rate is the same if not lower (I tend to believe it's lower, but I have no desire to get mired in a debate about that, especially since that isn't relevant here), then the reason to single the Church out for abuse becomes even more indefensable. That is, if the rate if abuse is equal to the population as a whole, which it is, then it is inaccurate to call this a "Catholic problem". It should be called a societal problem, or a human problem.

That is, again, if one is intellectually honest.