home
RSS
January 5th, 2012
02:13 PM ET

Bishop admits having children, resigns

By the CNN Wire Staff

(CNN) - A Los Angeles Catholic bishop has resigned from the church after admitting he is the father of two teenage children, leaders said.

Bishop Gabino Zavala told Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez in early December about the children, and the pope accepted his resignation Wednesday.

The mother and the two children live outside of California, Gomez said in a letter in which he described the situation as "sad and difficult."

Zavala had not been in the ministry since he shared his secret, and will be living privately, Gomez said.

The Los Angeles Archdiocese has reached out to the mother to provide spiritual care and funding to help with the children's college costs, the letter said.

Zavala is a native of Guerrero, Mexico, and grew up in Los Angeles, according to the archdiocese website. He became a priest in 1977 and worked in East Los Angeles. Since 1994, he had been the auxiliary bishop for the San Gabriel Region.

He was also president of Pax Christi USA, a Catholic organization that advocates for peace, for the past nine years.

"Bishop Zavala consistently brought the power of the gospel to bear on issues like immigration, worker rights, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and nuclear disarmament," Pax Christi USA said in a statement on its website.

"During this time of personal hardship, we offer our prayers for Bishop Zavala, his family, and all those affected by this news," the statement added.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: California • Catholic Church

soundoff (426 Responses)
  1. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things
    The wonder of God
    Is revealed in the discourse of prayer
    Prayer is the life blood
    of the repentant sinner
    Prayer really changes things

    January 5, 2012 at 8:25 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      Is Atheism good for those big stick bugs?

      January 5, 2012 at 8:46 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      I know that “Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things“ never replies to anyone (rude) but none the less, I am compelled from boredom to ask a few questions. If it suits you praybie, please reply. First, are you pulling our legs? I think you are just a troll. But IF you are not then answer these questions regarding your rather unorthodox handle and posts (if you don’t reply, I will assume you are in fact just a troll):

      1. When you say that Atheism in not healthy for children AND other living things, does that mean that children must be present for Atheism to be unhealthy? If there are no children, is Atheism healthy for other living things? Also, is this a mental or physical health issue you are concerned about, and where did you find this information? I assume then that all creatures on all worlds, if they exist, are also adversely affected by Atheism, correct? Even if per chance they worship some other God besides the one you may or may not be referring to. You never actually state that religion is healthy, just prayer. Therefore, can you kindly explain what God is requiring this prayer so that we can all direct our prayers to the correct God?

      2. Prayer changes things

      Ok. The obvious question is what things does it change. Does it change things for the better or for the worse? Are you leading us down a blind alley here? Knowing what things it changes would be useful for those of us not familiar with the inherent value of prayer.

      3. The wonder of God is revealed in the discourse of prayer.

      Ok. By discourse are you claiming that we should all being have a conversation with God? Does God talk to you? If it is so easy, why doesn’t he just have town hall meetings and tell us what he wants, or ask us what we want. Or give us his email address. I prefer texting and email. When you say the “wonder” of god, do you mean you can see him, or feel him or what? I don’t get it. Did he touch you inappropriately? Tell the police, don’t let it go.

      4. Prayer is the life blood of the repentant sinner

      Are you a vampire? I knew there was some dark lord s.h.i.t going on here. Isn’t blood the life blood? How does one convert prayer to blood and then how does that circulate in our bodies exactly? Or do the prayers actual live in our circulatory systems? Now that would be weird. Please let us all know. What if we are not sinners? If I am a sinner and repent, why do I have to keep praying? What is the point of repenting and then having to keep doing the whole friggin’ thing all over again day in and day out?

      5. Prayer really changes things

      When you add “really” to the sentence, does that mean that you weren’t as sure earlier but now you feel more confident in prayer? Did it not “really” change things in your first line? Are you just teasing us? Prayer might just change things…..ok just kidding, it REALLY changes things, just playing around a little, my bad.

      Can’t wait to hear what you have to say on this.

      Oh one last thing, when you say to pray ceaselessly in 2012 umm….are you serious about that? When I am sleeping? When I am fuk'n, when am working… I mean I have to constantly pray? How can I keep my job? Please clarify, this just seems dam unreasonable to me.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:48 pm |
    • Steve

      I'll have what he's having.

      January 5, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
    • Freethinker

      I bet you have only read selected sections in the Bible but never the whole thing before. If you have read the whole thing, all you need is having at least an average IQ, you will become an atheist. Have you read it cover to cover? Please think carefully before answering for violating "thou shall not lie" might get you a ticket straight to Heck.

      January 6, 2012 at 12:28 am |
    • Entil'za

      @Freethinker- arrogant enough?

      January 6, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • ....

      "@Freethinker- arrogant enough?"

      How many handles do you have Lycidas?

      January 6, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      A few fun one's...why? How many do you have?

      January 6, 2012 at 6:38 pm |
  2. The Phist

    So he's got kids. It's the end of the world. Oh no. Not children. He shall burn in hellfire for such a transgression. I shall ponder this article more thoroughly in my head movie while sitting on the toilet in about 5 minutes.

    January 5, 2012 at 8:15 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      Don't forget to take a Bible with you. They are not just for reading anymore!

      January 5, 2012 at 8:47 pm |
  3. Come Out, Come Out, Wherever You Are!

    You know, if Catholic priests and bishops actually believed in God, they wouldn't act the way they do. That is true of most religious people, really: if they really believed, they would not oppress and bully and cheat and hurt and lie – they would be way too afraid to do those things. But they do. They do it all the time.

    Based on their behavior, religious people must be closet atheists.

    January 5, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      That is by far the dumbest thing I have read today.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:23 pm |
    • Timmy never really read the Bible

      No I disagree CS. It IS true. Also Catholics say they have the "body, blood, soul and divinity" of their god, in their tabernacles, (their "Blessed Sacrament". Yet they have processions and statues, and all sorts of images. If they REALLY did believe they had god in their tabernacles, they would be flat on their faces in front of their tabernacles, 24/7. Obviously, deep down, they know it's BS.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      Timmy, you are not reading and taking in the whole post. I am not going to do your work for you. It is incredibly stupid.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:32 pm |
    • Larry B.

      It's really no worse than religious people saying atheists are mad at God, or that they are angry. And I think the post is facetious as well.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
    • Timmy never really read the Bible

      Don't even try. I do my own work. Obviously you can't even think for yourself.

      January 5, 2012 at 7:06 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      Timmy
      I already told you I am not going to do your work for you, so why would you tell me to not even try? Again, you need to work on your reading and comprehension skills.

      January 5, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
    • Timmy never really read the Bible

      Oh, OK CS. Whatever you say. Now get back to work. Your self appointed term as Central Great Lord HighGrand Poobah is almost over, and you're gonna have to get a real job.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:15 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      Snappy comeback Timmy! Don't think I can sleep tonight!

      January 5, 2012 at 10:05 pm |
  4. Locode

    godisimaginary.com

    January 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      godismylittlebuddy.com

      January 5, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
    • Bible Bob, Knight of Infallabillibabbity

      Here is the truthiest truth of all:

      Godisaflatulentaardvark.com

      January 5, 2012 at 6:47 pm |
  5. Giselle

    Catholic priests should be allowed to marry. Problem solved.

    January 5, 2012 at 4:51 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      No way! Then you would have to add child molesting Gay fornicators to their list of sins! Besides, they are married to the church! (don't touch anything in the bathroom)

      January 5, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      And by "Gay" naturally I mean "happy". I am taking Gay back.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
  6. The Central Scutinizer

    This fornicator deserves the WORST. The RCC should make him enjoy Christmas with his family and enjoy watching his children grow up. And THEN make him stop telling lies and wearing dresses. That will show him. Good riddance mister! Hope your happiness in the future is FUN. So there.

    January 5, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
  7. Claude Gothic

    The good thing about young boys is that they can't become pregnant.

    January 5, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
  8. Thornbill

    So if I understand this correctly, the punishment for clergy who abuse children is a transfer to another parish, but the punishment for a priest who has relations with a consulting adult woman is forced resignation?

    January 5, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
    • Thornbill

      *consenting

      January 5, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      Thornbill
      The Pope does not want the priest’s family inheriting his wealth so by letting priests not get married this is solved.
      Errr………no, I mean the priest is married to the Church, and should be at her disposal at all times.
      The RCC is not about money, what was I thinking?

      January 5, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
    • Timmy never really read the Bible

      CS, do you even know what priests and bishops are paid ? What a stupid post. For the most part they make a very small stipend. The reason for celibacy has NOTHING to do with the inheritance of (imaginary) "wealth". And besides, priests and bishops who are not in religious orders do not take vows of poverty, and a few are wealthy, form family monrey, and they pass it on to whomever they choose.

      January 5, 2012 at 7:22 pm |
    • Timmy never really read the Bible

      oops..."from family money"...also books and teaching, and patents etc etc,..just like every one else.

      January 5, 2012 at 7:23 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      Timmy,
      The more astute reader would have realized I went "old school" on the post and was not being at all serious, but if you knew your history you would know this:

      In the first century AD Priests were allowed to get married, until the bishop of Rome as he was called then decided he did not want the priests family inheriting his wealth so by not allowing Priests to get married it was no longer a problem for his Holy Greediness.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:04 pm |
    • Snow

      The Popes over time have mellowed down quite a bit.. but since the 4th-5th century until as late as 16th century, the bishop of Rome was the most vilest greediest power hungry warmonger (and in many occasions down right per-verted). They loved to gain monies from people and churches by any means.

      One such guy figured out if he does not let his priests marry, his family possessions can be confiscated upon his death.. but many clergy had their wives/children who did not let it go that easily. So he outright banned the priests from marrying..

      That, folks is the glorious history of the RCC pope-dom.. colorful, ainit.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:02 pm |
    • Timmy never really read the Bible

      No, CS. YOU said "the pope doesn't want THIS priest", bla bla bla. There is absolutely NOTHING in that post to indicate you were talking about the early church. And anyway, there is no evidence for celibacy until the 4th century.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:21 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      Timmy
      You win. You are so intelligent I just can't keep up. Hope you get pass the GED.

      January 5, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
    • Timmy never really read the Bible

      CS,
      It's "past", ...."past the GED". Or "hope you pass the GED". Now please write us another stupid poem. Please ? And BTW, those of us who don't live in East LA actually go to school, and wouldn't even know how to go about getting a GED. Some people actually go to school.

      January 5, 2012 at 11:29 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      Timmy

      YAWN..............

      January 5, 2012 at 11:50 pm |
  9. Brother Maynard

    "A Los Angeles Catholic bishop has resigned from the church after admitting he is the father of two teenage children"
    that must have been one he.ll of a birth canal

    January 5, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
  10. Reality

    Hammer it, hammer the Truth,
    Nail it down, nail it now ,

    As another nail is added to the coffin lid of the RCC!!!

    January 5, 2012 at 3:30 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      If you think that then you are quite delusional.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
    • The Central Scrutinizer

      Reality,
      While it would indeed be a dream come true to be rid of the RCC, much more must be done to seal their demise.

      1. We must organize and take out those goofy gaurds they have.
      2. We must steal all of their pretty dresses and burn them in an inferno the likes of which only Satan himself has seen.
      3. We must hide the children.
      4. We must take the naked pope, riding on horseback, on a demoralizing tour of tearful contriteness all around the world, or at least Mexico.
      5. We must find the lost books of the Bible. Well that is not important but it would be cool.
      6. Finally, Vatican City should be converted into affordable housing after all of it’s riches have been sold to solve the world debt crisis.

      January 5, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      And Central will ushured in the death of freedom.

      January 5, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      oops..got my tenses goofed up..eh, you know what I mean

      January 5, 2012 at 6:06 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      Uncouth
      I will ushered in the death of one of the cruelest, heartless, bloodthirstist, money-mongering organizations in history. Much freedom will follow.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      So you would sacrifice the freedom of religion to bring about what you think is correct? Kind of despotic don't you think?

      January 5, 2012 at 6:14 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      You call me despotic but defend the RCC? Hilarious. There is nothing "free" about the church. And I never said they couldn't worship. Read my post!

      January 5, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      "You call me despotic but defend the RCC? Hilarious."

      I am certain many things tickle you funny and if you have read what I wrote..I never defended the RCC.

      When ppl do wrong...they should be punished. Not the entirety of ppl that just so happens to be connected to them by group affiliation. If there is a problem within the group....it too should be fixed.

      To destroy the RCC would be destroying one's ability to worship..at least for certain Catholics.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      Uncouth
      If there is a Pope, and that Pope can't navigate the ship, then the ship will sink. If it doesn't sink fast enough then go back to my original post. I have no sympathy for Catholics.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:53 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Seems like you have more of a problem with the checks and balances within the organization than with the organization itself.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:56 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      Uncouth
      The "Accounting" within any organization is what makes that organization what it is and creates the culture therein. Whether it be financial or behavioral. I would agree with you IF I felt there were any checks and balances. This business is run more like the Cosa Nostra than a church.

      January 5, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Well...in an organization that consists of a billion followers and probably well over a million "managers" of sorts....corruption happens. I do not excuse it when it happens, I just don't like to see all suffer for it.
      Martin Luther didn't like the corruption either of his time period and shook the very foundations. Seemed to help a bit back then. I just wonder if the Catholic Church has a modern version of Martin Luther that could shake things up again.

      January 5, 2012 at 7:06 pm |
    • Timmy never really read the Bible

      It's "usher in", or "will have ushered in". "I will ushered in" is BOTH past tense, AND future tense. Make up your mind.

      January 5, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      You do need to do your homework Timmy....you will note I did admit I made that error. Read slower next time.

      January 5, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      Uncouth, agree with your last post.

      Timmy for crying out loud, learn to read or go away.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
    • Cuervo Jones

      like a millionaire repub candidate maybe, but they will be the last ones standing. you think a billion people are just going to lay down? nah

      January 8, 2012 at 8:29 pm |
  11. Pope John Paul the Turd

    Come into the confessional my son and drop your drawers that I might suck on your Holy Spetre until your Holy Juices might be unleasehed and flood unimpeded into my waiting mouth. Amen.

    January 5, 2012 at 3:26 pm |
  12. You Sir, Are A Tard

    The ignorance, self righteousness, hypocricy, hatred, etc on these boards are appauling. I'd think it was a joke if it wasn't so truly sad.

    January 5, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
    • Yowie Zowie

      Nice display of self-righteous hatred, Mr. Tard! I guess that would be hypocrisy, of which you ignorant.

      Congratulations! Yoou are right where you belong!

      January 5, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
  13. Troll Central

    Ahh yes I see my little friends are out today like always. Come here oh ignorant ones, let your idiot comments begin.

    January 5, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Little friends is correct. Not a mature one in the bunch.

      Amen.

      January 5, 2012 at 5:44 pm |
    • ....

      "Little friends is correct. Not a mature one in the bunch."

      Too funny thought you weren't going to comment on these or did you lie again.

      January 5, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, did HS promise to shut its trap? How long did it hold out before its EGO took over?

      January 5, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
  14. Pope John Paul the Turd

    Im spreading my buttCheeks so that each and every one of you might kiss the Holy BrownEye.

    January 5, 2012 at 3:10 pm |
    • Skynet

      Holy s h * t indeed, sir!

      January 5, 2012 at 11:46 pm |
  15. I'm The Best!

    I don't understand how if these people truly believe in he.ll, what are they doing breaking the church's laws? It makes me think that everyone is really an atheist, I.e. they don't actually believe in this stuff. They're just going along with it because it makes them feel better to have a father figure always looking after them.

    January 5, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • hippypoet

      BINGO! NAIL ON THE HEAD!
      NOW LETS SEE WHAT YOU'VE WON... ITS A NEW CAR!

      January 5, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      That's what happens when folks refuse to focus on Jesus, satan scoops in to grab men's souls by enticing them with the ways of the world.

      Amen.

      January 5, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
    • Kent

      "satan scoops in to grab men's souls by enticing them with the ways of the world."

      LMAO your satan isn't real and you have no proof of it's existence.

      January 5, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
  16. David Johnson

    From what I've been reading, lots of Priests are "having" children. Why should a Bishop have to resign?

    How can anyone be a Catholic after all the abuse of children, that has come to light? To continue attending Catholic church and giving money... is dishonoring every child that was ever violated.

    The church tried to hide it!!!

    Would you let Father Tom take your little Billy on a camping trip? Watch the stars and talk about Jesus?

    Religion is a fraud. It is like a Trojan Horse. It allows the scoundrels to get into your wallet and gives access to your children.

    The fact there are Catholics and Evangelicals, is great evidence that the Christian god either does not care, or does not exist.

    Cheers!

    January 5, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      "How can anyone be a Catholic after all the abuse of children, that has come to light?"

      Probably because the actions of a few does not mean the other 1 billion members of the group are responsible or guilty of anything.

      Shalom!

      January 5, 2012 at 3:32 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      Probably because the actions of 1 billion members of the group does not mean the other few are responsible or guilty of anything.

      Gesundheit!

      January 5, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      God does care, as well as exist. Life is a test from God and obviously, these men failed.

      Amen.

      January 5, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
    • Kent

      "God does care, as well as exist. "

      Prove your god exists.

      January 5, 2012 at 5:53 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      "Prove your god exists."

      Why?

      January 5, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @The Central Scutinizer- I expect a better counter from you than that.

      January 5, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
    • Kent

      "Why?"

      Because you can't.

      January 5, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      You mean that I cannot prove it to you. I agree...you are clearly too biased and too stubborn to even consider you could be wrong in your opinion.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
    • Kent

      "you are clearly too biased and too stubborn to even consider you could be wrong in your opinion."

      Practice what you're trying to preach there arrogant one. Nice judgment too.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • Kent

      "You mean that I cannot prove it to you. I agree...you are clearly too biased and too stubborn to even consider you could be wrong in your opinion."

      Yes, christians are good at making up excuses but when asked for real proof of their god they can't. Present your evidence, or shut up.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @Kent- "Practice what you're trying to preach there arrogant one. Nice judgment too."

      ~I have yet to "preach" anything. You should pay better attention.

      "Yes, christians are good at making up excuses but when asked for real proof of their god they can't. Present your evidence, or shut up."

      ~Um...I don't have to "shut up" as you so eloquently put it. Isn't our liberal nation wonderful?
      Also..I have yet to mention anything about my faith. Do you guess this much all the time? I am sorry I stunned you with such a simple question earlier. Shame on me.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
    • Kent

      “ I am sorry I stunned you with such a simple question earlier. Shame on me.”

      Oh poor baby you need to play games so you can feel better about yourself, your poor low self esteem needs a boost. Which is I was not stunned only wanted to prove how pathetic you are.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      "Oh poor baby you need to play games so you can feel better about yourself, your poor low self esteem needs a boost. Which is I was not stunned only wanted to prove how pathetic you are."

      Oy..more rookie comments..instead of rising to the occasion you try and fail to knock me down. I am sorry that I didn't follow your pre-packaged debate plan. When you can figure out what you really think and quit being an atheist sheep...plz write some more.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:36 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      Uncouth " I expect a better counter from you than that."

      It is a good thing I could care less what you expect.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:36 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @The Central Scutinizer- and yet you care enough to write back 😉

      January 5, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • Kent

      "Oy..more rookie comments..instead of rising to the occasion you try and fail to knock me down. I am sorry that I didn't follow your pre-packaged debate plan. When you can figure out what you really think and quit being an atheist sheep...plz write some more."

      More excuses and no proof, typical christian.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Great...gotta play the game.

      Again..never said what my faith was now did I? Plz quit with the childish guessing,

      Answer me this; What evidence would prove to you that God exists?

      Answer this also if you do not mind or fear questions; Do you think that the concept of God (we'll go with Judaism) was created by an ancient man thousands of years ago?

      January 5, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
    • The Central Scutinizer

      Uncouth
      I expect a better counter from you than that. LOL it's a draw.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
    • Kent

      "Again..never said what my faith was now did I? Plz quit with the childish guessing,

      Answer me this; What evidence would prove to you that God exists?"

      Hey look who's playing the childish games. Give proof of your god or shut up. Typical christians they can't deal with reality.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @The Central Scutinizer- Lol..deal.
      Now that's the kind of fun I like having on here. Too many ppl get's too serious like Kent, Heavensent or Reality. This is a CNN comment board for crying out loud and we are discussing topics that can't be answered with a few comments.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
    • Kent

      "Too many ppl get's too serious like Kent, Heavensent or Reality. This is a CNN comment board for crying out loud and we are discussing topics that can't be answered with a few comments."

      So you are a childish moron.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:59 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @Kent- "Hey look who's playing the childish games. Give proof of your god or shut up. Typical christians they can't deal with reality."

      How is it childish to know the requirements of evidence? I have yet to declare a faith or lack thereof.

      Plz answer the questions:
      What evidence would prove to you that God exists?

      Do you think that the concept of God (we'll go with Judaism) was created by an ancient man thousands of years ago?

      They are very relevant to this discussion yes?

      January 5, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Watch those Ad hominem fallacies Kent. 😉

      January 5, 2012 at 7:02 pm |
    • Kent

      "How is it childish to know the requirements of evidence? I have yet to declare a faith or lack thereof.

      Plz answer the questions:
      What evidence would prove to you that God exists?

      Do you think that the concept of God (we'll go with Judaism) was created by an ancient man thousands of years ago?

      They are very relevant to this discussion yes?"

      More crap, no proof. Show your proof or shut up.

      January 5, 2012 at 7:04 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      I have yet to make a statement that requires me to prove it.

      Do you refuse to answer my questions I have given you?
      I mean, if you do not understand them I could explain them to you perhaps. If you fear answering them, then perhaps you are not that comfortable with what you think is true or factual.

      January 5, 2012 at 7:09 pm |
    • Kent

      Do you refuse to answer my questions I have given you?
      I mean, if you do not understand them I could explain them to you perhaps. If you fear answering them, then perhaps you are not that comfortable with what you think is true or factual."

      More crap, no proof. Show your proof or shut up.

      January 5, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      What have I said that I need to prove?

      January 5, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      What evidence would prove to you that God exists?

      Do you think that the concept of God (we'll go with Judaism) was created by an ancient man thousands of years ago?

      January 5, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
    • Kent

      "What evidence would prove to you that God exists?

      Do you think that the concept of God (we'll go with Judaism) was created by an ancient man thousands of years ago?"

      More crap no proof, show your proof or shut up. Wow are you slow or what.

      January 5, 2012 at 7:19 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      What evidence would prove to you that God exists?

      Do you think that the concept of God (we'll go with Judaism) was created by an ancient man thousands of years ago?

      Lol...funny that you called me slow when you haven't caught on yet that everytime you refuse to answer these very simple questions....you are the one that it damages. You ask for evidence...therefor you must know what evidence would convince you. If you do not believe in God..you must believe in something to explain the concept existing.

      Catch on up to the conversation child. I'll be back on in an hour or so to see if you actually know what you think or if you are just a sheep. 😉

      January 5, 2012 at 7:22 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      US. what evidence do you have? Any? What is it? Cite it and I'll let you know if it's sufficient. Thus far, you have given no evidence at all.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:17 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Oy..traded a Kent for a Tom and it's the same ol thing.

      Pray tell what stetment or claim have I made that I am needing to provide evidence for?

      Are you familiar with the concepts of law? Does the prosecutor and defense know what const_itutes "evidence" before the discussion takes place? Also..no offence if I do not recognize your expertise on this subject and consider yourself impartial.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:26 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You either have some evidence or you don't, US. Which is it?

      January 5, 2012 at 9:21 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, and if you're gonna use "legal terms", you should learn to spell them. It's "offense", ya moron. Not "offence".

      January 5, 2012 at 9:22 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      If we were to get technical here. Uncouth has the right on this one. There have been no statements made by Uncouth that would require any type of burden of proof. Simply asking a question could imply which side of a person is on, but is in no way enough of an implication to draw any type of meaningful conclusions. Asking for the parameters is not an unreasonable request, but the request should be made more clearly. Such as "If there is some type of scientific information, are there any branches of science or specific hypothesis that would be excluded?"

      Thank you for your time.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:54 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @Tom, Tom the spelling gestapo's son- "You either have some evidence or you don't, US. Which is it?"

      I have evidence of many things...sadly I never made a statement that I am having to provide evidence for. Take a moment and reflect on that before asking for evidence to a topic I never brought up.

      As for spelling....plz grow up some. We have enough grammar and spelling gestapo about. If you have to try and win a discussion by going down to spelling issues...you have some problems.

      January 6, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      HawaiiGuest...finally, someone that is paying attention.

      January 6, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • .....

      I think Kent was fucking with Uncouth Swain and they took it up the ass like a good boy would.

      January 6, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Hi Kent..welcome back

      January 6, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
  17. Pope John Paul the Turd

    Let me state this fathering of children by the good Bishop is an abomination to the Church. Everyone knows we catholick Bishops, Cardinals etc are just a group of closeted gay ButtHumpers and GooberGobblers. Bishop Zavala will certainly burn in hell for this but for now he has been excommunicated.

    January 5, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
  18. HeavenSent

    God Bless you Mr. Zavala for leaving satan's lies.

    Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

    1 Timothy 4:1-3

    Amen.

    January 5, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @HeavenSent

      Golly, girl! I think this is the 2nd time I have agreed with you...I'm starting to worry.

      Cheers!

      January 5, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • Timmy never really read the Bible

      Too bad the Epistle of Timothy has been proven to be a forgery.

      January 5, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @Timmy never really read the Bible- have evidence or just other ppl's opinions?

      January 5, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Timmy never really read the Bible, you wrote "Too bad the Epistle of Timothy has been proven to be a forgery."

      Answer: I find it amazing how many haters of Jesus' truth you allowed to condition your mind.

      1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Sav-iour, and Lord Jesus Christ, [which is] our hope;

      1 Timothy 1:2 Unto Timothy, [my] own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

      1 Timothy 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou might-est charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

      1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].

      1 Timothy 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and [of] a good conscience, and [of] faith unfeigned:

      1 Timothy 1:6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;

      1 Timothy 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

      1 Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully;

      1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for ma-nsl-ay-ers,

      1 Timothy 1:10 For who-r-e-mo-ng-ers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for me-n-ste-al-ers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

      1 Timothy 1:11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

      1 Timothy 1:12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;

      1 Timothy 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief.

      1 Timothy 1:14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

      1 Timothy 1:15 This [is] a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

      1 Timothy 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

      1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, [be] honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

      1 Timothy 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;

      1 Timothy 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:

      1 Timothy 1:20 Of whom is Hy-menaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

      Amen.

      January 5, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • Timmy never really read the Bible

      Uncouth..lots of evidence. Timmy doesn't do your homework for you.

      January 5, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
    • Timmy never really read the Bible

      Hint : The most dubious of the Pauline letters are the so-called "pastorals" – 1 and 2 Timothy and Ti'tus.
      The big clue is that 2 Timothy purports to be written from a prison cell shortly before Paul's death, but Paul says "Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick" (2 Timothy 4.20). Paul's last recorded presence in Miletum (Miletus, near Ephesus) was on the return leg of the 3rd journey (Acts 20.15), not on his voyage to Rome, and Trophimus was NOT left behind. In fact, in Jerusalem, Trophimus plays a crucial if passive role in the eventual fate of Paul.
      "Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place. For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple." – Acts 21.28,29
      Apart from the chronological slip, why did the great healer not heal his own playmate?

      January 5, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      I wrote it before and I'll write it again. Life on earth is a test from God after He destroyed the 1st earth age when Lucifer convinced 1/3 of the angels to rebel against God. God created the world again, allowed us to come to earth, being born of woman, erased our memories of Him, but told us, through faith we follow His truth. Pass or fail (2 choices). Free will. Love and follow Jesus (truth) and your soul lives down on earth as it is in heaven, resides with Him for eternity or, love and follow satan (lies), your soul is spiritually depleted down on earth as it is in heaven ... day of the Lord, still despise Jesus ... blotted out, no remembrance of you.

      Amen.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
    • Kent

      "He destroyed the 1st earth age when Lucifer convinced 1/3 of the angels to rebel against God"

      Your poor god couldn't handle some rebels, what a whimp, so it kills all of humanity including innocent women and children but only kept a few. That's not a god, that is a monster.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @Timmy never really read the Bible- That's what I thought..you have nothing. Unless you would have to believe that ever Acts covers everything in Pauls life. Ppl that do real research will notice that our modern concepts of biographies do not work with ancient texts.

      To be blunt..you have proven no forgery. Yes, you brought up a minor point and that's about it.
      I always find it odd that atheists will demand have God proven befopre them....yet when you claim to have lots of evidence, I don't see the atheists demanding the evidence.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
    • Timmy never really read the Bible

      Uncouth,
      Obviously YOU have never read the Bible in it's original languages. Timothy 1 & 2 have vocabulary totally unique to them alone, and also talk about "jobs" and positions which did not exist in the church in Paul's day. They are universally regarded as NOT being authored by Paul. Sorry to burst the bubble. Also, they were "inspired", why would god allow a mistake, however small, to be made ?

      January 5, 2012 at 6:38 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @Tim-
      "Obviously YOU have never read the Bible in it's original languages."

      ~Forgive me if I doubt you have.

      "Timothy 1 & 2 have vocabulary totally unique to them alone, and also talk about "jobs" and positions which did not exist in the church in Paul's day."

      ~Since you have given no specifics (how surprising) I will use the term "deacon". Shockingly it is found only in I Timothy. Or is it? The term diakoneō does appear in other verses in the NT. You do realize that there isn't a straight translation for an ancient word into english right? Diakoneō means "deacon" but it can also mean "minister" which is found other places.

      "They are universally regarded as NOT being authored by Paul."

      ~You got a mouse in your pocket? Who are they? If I said they are universally regarded as being authored by Paul...would you just nod your head and say ok? I doubt it.

      "Sorry to burst the bubble. Also, they were "inspired", why would god allow a mistake, however small, to be made ?"

      ~I think you are confused as to what being inspired means. If you were inspired to draw a picture of a building...is that drawing the building? No...of course not. It is your view that came from that inspiration. Also a suggestion...using literalist arguments won't get you far if the person you are debating is not a literalist of any kind.

      January 5, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
    • Timmy never really read the Bible

      http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/deutero.stm
      (Most scholars do not assert the Deutero-Pauline letters were written by Saul of Tarsus.) Here are some reasons, there are many more in Bart Ehrman's latest book about forgeries.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:01 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @Timmy-
      "They are universally regarded as NOT being authored by Paul."
      "Most scholars do not assert the Deutero-Pauline letters were written by Saul of Tarsus."

      Which is it? One is an absolute...the other isn't.

      The website you gave had no citation of the "scholars" it mentions.
      You still have not shown them to be forgeries.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:16 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Your website was also wrong in the use of sobriety as only existing in Timothy. The word sōphrosynē also exists in Acts.

      January 5, 2012 at 8:18 pm |
    • Timmy never really read the Bible

      Do you know what the definition of "forgery" is ? If the author said the text was written by "Paul", and it clearly was NOT, then he "forged" Paul's signature, by attribution. The intent was to deceive.

      January 5, 2012 at 9:24 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      @Timmy- I see the problem, you are partially unfamiliar with how things work in the old days.
      1. The author could have been Paul..in that he dictated what to write down and someone wrote it for him. I don't see ppl calling Hilary Clinton's book a forgery since she had a ghost writer doing the work.
      2. It wasn't uncommon for ppl to write in the name of a great teacher or come from their specific school of thought. Look at the book of Isaiah for more.

      January 6, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • OhPlz

      "The author could have been Paul..in that he dictated what to write down and someone wrote it for him. I don't see ppl calling Hilary Clinton's book a forgery since she had a ghost writer doing the work."

      Then it goes to the publisher that takes things out, changes things around, tells them to re-write certain parts so that it will sell, or haven't you ever published a book. In this case the clergy took liberties in the rewrite, the proof is what was left out of the bible.

      January 6, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      "In this case the clergy took liberties in the rewrite, the proof is what was left out of the bible."

      Evidence that they willfully took out information?
      Keep in mind how many languages, dialects and time went from one copy of a text to another.

      January 6, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      This whole string is mind numbingly boring. amen.

      January 6, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Thank you for your factless comment Lucifer's redheaded step-child that adds nothing to the discussion.

      January 6, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • OhPlz

      "Evidence that they willfully took out information?"

      Did I really say that? Try again.

      Everyone knows the story about Jesus and the woman about to be stoned by the mob. This account is only found in John 7:53-8:12. The mob asked Jesus whether they should stone the woman (the punishment required by the Old Testament) or show her mercy. Jesus doesn’t fall for this trap. Jesus allegedly states, let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her. The crowd dissipates out of shame. That story was not originally in the Gospel of John or in any of the Gospels. It was added by later scribes. The story is not found in the oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Nor does its writing style comport with the rest of John. Most serious textual critics state that this story should not be considered part of the Bible.

      After Jesus died, Mary Magdalene and two other women came back to the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus, according to Mark 16:1-2). They were met by a man in a white robe who told them that Jesus had been raised and was no longer there. The women fled and said nothing more to anyone out of fear (16:4-8). Everyone knows the rest of Mark’s Gospel, of course. The problem with the remainder of the story is that none of it was originally in the Gospel of Mark. It was added by a later scribe.

      January 6, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
    • Uncouth Swain

      Then perhaps you would care to add more detail to your accusation of, "In this case the clergy took liberties in the rewrite". Somehow you seem to think they could do this but not willfully to it.

      The topic was the Epistles of Timothy btw.

      As for John and Mark..you could be right. Why only a "could be"? Because we do not have the original to be 100% sure. You cannot say what was in the original since we do not have an original text.
      It's always fun to compare Codices to one another.

      January 6, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
  19. hippypoet

    my god, this is unbelievible.... how could such a man committ such a crime!!?!?!?!????? ohhh the horror!
    well atleast he quit....quitter! watch how he now divorces children and throws them into a foster home ran by the church...later we will get an article about how they were touched while they were there at the foster home! circle of death!

    January 5, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Hey hippy, did you just get back from the store with 10lbs of salt?

      Amen.

      January 5, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
    • hippypoet

      its to protect me from the witches and werewolves around these parts...the vampires have all moved away due to the new comers... i feel safe with my salt!
      Come little children i'll talk thee away to a land of enchantment.

      January 5, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @hippypoet

      OMG I need to watch that movie again haven't seen it in soooo loong!!

      January 5, 2012 at 9:17 pm |
  20. David

    They didn't move anywhere near this quick when the abuse was against children.

    http://sightlikeaconstructionworker.blogspot.com/2012/01/father-was-rolling-stone.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheSight+%28The+Sight%29

    January 5, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • Cuervo Jones

      who moved quick? he did not commit a crime, he resigned.

      January 8, 2012 at 8:54 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.