 |
|
|
|
|
March 31st, 2011
11:09 AM ET
2 more retired Philadelphia priests placed on leave in abuse probeTwo more priests have been placed on administrative leave by the Philadelphia Archdiocese as part of an ongoing investigation into the sexual abuse of children by clergy. Cardinal Justin Rigali, the archbishop of Philadelphia, announced that the two unnamed priests, who are currently retired, have been placed on administrative leave, effective immediately, pending a more thorough independent investigation. That investigation is being conducted by Gina Maisto Smith, a former child abuse prosecutor in Philadelphia, and a team of experts. "These steps are interim measures and are not in any way final determinations or judgments," Rigali said in a written statement. Earlier this month, 21 other priests were also placed on administrative leave following a review of sexual abuse allegations in the Catholic Church in Philadelphia. Read the full story here about the Philadelphia priests put on leave.
Next entry »Nun robbed in Ohio church
« Previous entryKentucky's Libyan community prays for homeland
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
Just because John the Baptist and Jesus had the Holy Spirit while still in thier mothers wombs, does not set a precedent that all do. Remember that Jesus and John the Baptisit had a calling in life.
It makes no sense that babies need the Holy Spirit in them by a sacrament of the CC, such as baptism. If what your saying would be the case for ALL people, then the Holy Spirit was already there when the baby was in the mothers body. Therefore, no man made action would be required anyway. Because when the baby was born it already had the Holy Spirit, right?
What would be the purpose then, of a man made baptism? Plus, if what your saying is true, then the baby being filled with the Holy Spirit, and saved (since it happens according to the posters here) , what would have been the point in Jesus dying on the cross, to save mankind?
Is it possible the Catholic church is trying to make things "fit" to back up thier beliefs? Using parts of scripture for instance, as in Jesus and John were indwelt with the HS before they were born?
Juanita,
For added thought, here is what Professor JD Crossan has to say about atonement theology: (from his book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)
"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."
"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."
"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."
"The Catholic Church, where no child's behind is left." – Christopher Hitchens.
I think we all know that if the law wasn't pressing the Catholic church they would still be sweeping this unforgivable crime of
pedofile priests under the rug in the name of the church – some religion! Poster children of hiprocrosy.
Catholics are so misguided, hopefully they find Jesus.
Amen..
Gerald, I did a post that moderated. I will have to search tru it, and repost it later today. Thank you though, for your comments!
LovesGod
gerald
HEavensent, do you believe the lie of once saved always saved that denies perseverance? "he who persevere till the end will be saved" and makes a mockery of God's call to holiness. Hmmmm.... Who is going to hell?
Gerald...Not so.
HeavenScent wrote:
HeavenSent
LovesGod, you are writing to the coward who stole my handle. But, I will answer your question ... Once saved, always saved is a lie told to sinners who refuse to give up their sinful ways so that satan can take as many of God's children to the eternal flames. Their is a lot of wolves in sheep's clothing pretending to teach Jesus' truth.
Amen.
MY Comment:
HeavenScent,
I copied and pasted the first sentences to let you know I was not writing to you, but quoting from a prior post that was written by Gerald to you.
Since I was making issue of what Gerald wrote to you, I used that portion of the post to respond back to him.
That being said, I am sorry someone has chose to use your handle to attempt to demean you, that is wrong.
I saw it wasn't you under another thread, when someone using your name typed a similar Catholics are going to hell post.
I guess some just like spreading lies, they are certainly following the path of the devil.
Again, sorry you had to suffer thru this crap. Mayby it will stop now. I hope everyone who see's ypur style of writing in these posts, ignores the thief that stole your handle.
Thanks for responding though, to my post.
I dsiagree that onec saved always saved is not true.
If we are saved by the grace of God, and stay in him and him in us, and perservere to the end, I do not believe we can undo Jesus's blood atonement on the cross for us. It was by his grace that we are saved, and not of ourselves less any man should boast.
We are told by Gods word, that once we are saved, we are sealed with the Holy Spirit. Then we are Baptised, and created a new creature in Christ. The Holy Spirit dwells in us, and teaches and guides us. If we stay in the Lord, and him and us, nothing can seprate us from him.
If WE fall away from him, depsite having all his wonderful gifts bestowed upon us, and WILLFULLY turn away from his gift, then and only then have WE seperated from him. Then yes, you will lose your salvation, but not by HIS hand, but by OUR OWN choice of having done that.
That would be falling from grace. God does not take back anything he has given us. Only man thru sin can do that.
When God saved us, he did not say, I will save you till you sin again, then I will kcik you to the curb, He knew we would continue to sin, because we are sinners. But, his grace and his mercy, covered even those sins, till the end. That does not give anybody a choice to keep sinning and being forgiven, in other words WILLFUL sin.
He knew, like Peter, we would have weak moments were having a sin nature, this would happen. But, as we continue in his grace, and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, who continues to guide us in showing the fruits thereof, we are made perfect as Jesus was. Perservering till the end.
I believe that is what the cutting off of branches from the vine demonstrates. If we STAY IN HIM, and HEI IN US, we produce lush fruits.
When we, BY CHOICE, walk away, He CUTS US FROM HIMSELF.
On JUdgement Day, the wheat and tares are seperated. The unbelievers have already been judged, and are sentenced to Hell.
The believers WORKS will pass thru fire, and if they are as stuble, wood and such, they are what burns in fire, but the believer is saved.
The works that survive the fire, such as precious stones and so on, survive the fire, then that is what the rewards are given to us for.
This is the account we will give.
Jesus saved us from Hell when he saved us. All we have to do, is abide in him. I do not see how anyone who has his truth, which is INFALLIBLE, can deny it.
@CatholicMom
Greetings CatholicMom!
If I may interject a post I made to you on a prior blog with you, regarding baby baptism?
HereWeGoAgain said:
As far as baby baptism..I still hold firm that it does not by faith of
the parents, save the child. The child when he is able to realise he is a sinner, and again, understand, must make that personal decision ON HIS OWN.
I could understand that parents would want to commit thier child, as being raised in the Lords word and ways. But, no, Baptism follows salvation, not the other way around.
When are we Sealed with the Holy Spirit.
Countless passages of Scripture clearly teach that salvation comes when one believes in the gospel, at which time he or she is sealed “in Christ with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Ephesians 1:13).
A baby cannot "believe" what a baby does not have the abilty to understand. See the word "believes".
Not only that, but Limbo, a place where Catholics believed a baby went, just outside of Hell, if it died as a baby, has been stricken from the Catholic beief system.
The doctrine of Limbo was introduced by the eminent Catholic philosopher Augustine (354-430). He concluded that infants who died without baptism were consigned to hell. Consequently, in 385 Pope Siricius wrote to Bishop Himerius that he felt bound in conscience—for the sake of his own salvation—to warn Himerius that he should insist on the baptism of infants as well as adults in his diocese. However, not all parishioners sought Catholic baptism for their children.
More than 800 years later, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), an Italian Dominican monk, theologian and philosopher came up with Limbo as a state of natural happiness for unbaptized children, as well as for others lacking the use of reason; but taught that a reward of supernatural happiness for them was inappropriate because of their original sin.
Limbo, from Latin limbus meaning edge or boundary (of hell by implication), was thereafter taught to be a state after death in Roman Catholic theology. It was compartmentalized into two categories, one for children called limbus infantium and the second for the Fathers called limbus patrum, a temporary state of the souls of anciently righteous people.
!
The decision of the present Pope marks a gradual softening of the Catholic view towards those who die without being baptized. Pope Benedict XVI, prior to his election to the Papacy, was already on record for his personal disbelief in Limbo. Since, from a biblical perspective, the doctrine of purgatory stands in the same category as Limbo, will it be next for review by Catholic religious scholars? For that we will have to wait to see.
http://www.ucg.org/commentary/abandons.htm
That kind of tells me that this backs up my belief that a baby is innocent at birth. Even ifit has original sin, it is the STAIN of and NOT WILLFUL sin committed by the baby. This can be taken away when the baby grows to the age of understanding and becomes saved, by the grace of God.
HereWeGoAgain,
Adam and Eve are myths making original sin (and limbo) mythological and Baptism symbolic.(Also taught in graduate theology classes at many major Catholic universities, e.g. Catholic U, Notre Dame. )
"When we, BY CHOICE, walk away, He CUTS US FROM HIMSELF."
Then you are not an extremist OSAS type and we are not that far apart. I don't believe that every sin cuts us off from him either.
Herewego –
First of all Peter tells us "Baptism NOW saves you" so salvation happens AT baptism. Mark says "he who believes and is baptized will be saved". Again it's not before or after but Belief + Baptism = salvation, i.e. put in to a state of grace where they walk with God as sons. Now the problem you have is that you have two ways of salvation. One for babies who you say cannot believe and one for adults. Jesus tells us there is only one way. By the way what saves is not our belief but the Holy Spirit coming in to us. That is clear from Acts 2:38. "# [38] And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ". Now I can prove in two verses that babies can receive the Holy Spirit.
HereWeGo – Limbo was never stated in any council or by any pope in an infallible way as dogma of the Church. It was a theological speculation and there were those throughout time who had different views on the matter. Aquinas was not a Pope and so while he did very good work, we are not held to every detail of what he said.
Now the proof that babies can receive the Holy Spirit and thus be "saved" as well, the same way we are, by baptism as Peter says "baptism now saves you"
Luke.1
1. [15] for he will be great before the Lord,
and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink,
and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit,
even from his mother's womb.
John the Baptist received the Holy Spirit as a baby. Acts 2:38 shows that baptism confers the Holy Spirit. Babies don't need to express belief and can't wheras adults do to submit their will to God. Babies can recieve baptism and the Holy Spirit.
B16 did not delete limbo. Had he done so, he would have deleted original sin, that archaic, Augustine-guilt trip put upon us by two mythical parents living in some mythical, magical garden.
Had B16 done so, he would have also vitiated the immaculate conception and the need for baptism and started the needed ball moving for removing 2000 years of mumbo jumbo. This B16 was not willing to do since the his "divine" authority would also come into question.
The actual wording leaving limbo still in limbo and B16 still in power:
"Our conclusion (the Vatican commission) is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision.
We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us.[22] We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy.[23]
What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.
Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.
Pope Benedict XVI authorized publication of this doc-ument, which is not an official expression of the Church's teaching,[24] but only one of the opinions that the Catholic Church does not condemn, allowing them to be held by its members. Media reports that by the doc-ument "the Pope closed Limbo"[25] are thus without foundation. In fact, the doc-ument explicitly states that "the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin.
This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council.
IT REMAINs therefore a possible theological hypothesis" (second preliminary paragraph); and in paragraph 41 it repeats that the theory of Limbo "remains a possible theological opinion".
UnReality,
Don't try to be any kind of a theologian. You don't come close to making any kind of a valid point. Original sin does not need limbo. The grace of God is plenty sufficient to remove the original sin of children if God chooses to do so upon their death. The Church has the feast of the Holy Inocents in November. This feast has been around for a long time. The Church does not have feast days for those it does not believe in heaven. Limbo is a theological speculation. There are no difinitive statements in regard to it. YOu simply don't know Catholicism or anything that you are talking about. Actually you cut and past 3/4 of what you post anyway.
Obviously, gerald does not agree with B16 and the Vatican's views and therefore is not Catholic.
gerald, gerald, gerald,
The Story of the Holy Innocents appears only in Matthew (2:16) and appears to be an attempt by Matthew to fullfill the "prophecy of Jeremiah". And as we all know, there is no such thing as prophets since Future is one of our many gifts from god/Mom Nature i.e. even god/Mom Nature do not know the Future of the world. Conclusion: The story is a single attestation and therefore historically unreliable.
And from Professor Gerd Ludemann (in his book Jesus, After 2000 Years, p. 128), the historical yield for Matt 2 is nil.
CatholicMom, just know that a coward stole my handle and uses it to create chaos because he/she hates me for telling them Jesus' truth and I didn't coddle their sinful nature for which they refuse to give up.
Amen.
HeavenSent,
I can tell the difference! Everyone can now...so don't worry...I know you are not working for satan! let's pray for those on the wrong path...
No HeavenSent #2, you stole my handle and I don't appreciate it. Why you would do this is beyond me?
Amen..
No, I am the real HeavenSent! All those other HeavenSents stole my handle, and ooooooooooooh it makes me so angry that I will threaten them with hell for having stolen my handle because God is my personal hit man and will forever torture anyone who has stolen my VERY IMPORTANT handle because I am his favorite and you are evil heathens like the ones who got my order wrong at Burger King this morning, God will punish them with hell too, though the 17 breakfast burritos did fill me up, which is hard to do, though it was even more difficult to squeeze out of the car door than usual, don't you just hate it that airplane seats and car doors were not made big enough for some of us holy southerners, god will barbeque them designers in hell too, because thats what God does for me.
Amen..
Above should read **Jesus blood shed for you
gerald
HEavensent, do you believe the lie of once saved always saved that denies perseverance? "he who persevere till the end will be saved" and makes a mockery of God's call to holiness. Hmmmm.... Who is going to hell?
Gerald...Not so.
Romans 8:38-39 say, "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Nothing can separate a child of God from their Father.
Romans 10:13. Let us also be secure in knowing that "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved"
John 10:28, "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."
Is salvation by grace, the free gift of God through faith, or is it a matter of earning or working for salvation? It is a matter of one or the other and there is no middle ground. One is either by faith accepting God's free offer of salvation by grace and pleading the shed blood of Jesus Christ for his salvation, or he is offering God his filthy rags of his works to atone for sin. It is either one or the other, it is not both, or part one or the other. It is all of Christ or nothing!
1 Peter 1:3-5 which says a believer is not kept by our good works, but by the power of God Himself:
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."
So, Gerald, are you saying Jeus blood she for you was not forever? Or are you saying that he didn't do it right? Once saved always saved, is correct. Less, you totally walk away from him. But that is YOU turning away. God does not make atonement that can be "lost' or undone.
"he who persevere till the end will be saved"..thats right. He who says in Christ, does perservere and is saved. Once saved, always saved.
LovesGod, looking for the word sinn in Rom 8:38-39. Looking.... Looking....Loooking...It's not there. Sin separates from God and God does not take the Christians freedom to chose sin away. Paul tells us later in Gal 5
1. [4] You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
You cannot be severed from Christ and still be among the saved and you can't be severed from Christ unless you were attached to him, i.e. a member of his body. Same thing with falling from Grace. No one would say, if you were lying under a tree, oh my you fell from that tree unless you were in it and there was some injury. You can't fall from what you weren't in. But the passage says you clearly can be separated from Christ. Lot's more verses I could site against the heresy of OSAS.
Amen, everyone who calls upon the name of the lord will be saved. So you just have to call upon his name once and then it doesn't matter what you do? No. You continue to call on him. The one who perseveres to the end will be saved and that person calls on him to the end.
Another passage of interest:
[1]
"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser.
[2] Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.
Hmmm – vines that were attached being cut off and THROWN IN TO THE FIRE. Those who fall from grace don't do so for a lack of grace or some imperfection of the grace but because they choose to fall away. God NEVER takes away our free will to reject grace. Your rationalization of what you think the Bible says and how salvation works does not make it true. OSAS was not taught until John Calvin. Sorry. It is not historic Christianity and is easy believism.
Grace isn't just God being nice and overlooking our sins. It is his power at work in us to sanctify over time. But again he never tells us we can't turn away from him. "let everyone who thinks he stands watch out lest he fall".
LovesGod,
Romans 8:38-39 and John10:28 does not address the person who is Baptized and then becomes an atheist or totally walks away. I have read many posters on these blogs who have done such a thing….this is what freewill allows, so salvation can be lost…once saved always saved may not be the case for all….
Salvation is a free gift of God through Faith and once Baptized it is Christ working through us; we can do nothing that is counted good but through Christ we can… and must! It is all Christ’s doing.
Rom2:5-8…But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath, against the day of wrath, and revelation of the just judgment of God. WHO WILL RENDER TO EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS. To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. Yes, we are kept by the power of God who looks at our works and judges.
Taking Romans 10:13. Let us also be secure in knowing that "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved"… without studying the surrounding verses gives a false sense of ‘everyone’ who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved…but we know by Mt 7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
So you see…believing without doing the will of the Father does not equal ‘once saved always saved’. Even satan believes but he does not do the will of the Father….
Jesus died on the cross so that we might have life ever-lasting….He opened the gates to Heaven which were closed by the Fall of Adam and Eve. He inst!tuted Baptism ….1Pet3:21 Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you…’ and John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. And Mk 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved:…’; Baptism was inst!tuted for all people including babies. The faith of the parents makes this possible….just as Jesus, by the faith of the Centurian, healed the Centurian’s servant. Mt 8:5 .
Just as Gerald stated...there are many more verses and chapters about salvation but none say anything about 'once saved always saved'...that is a protestant phrase.
LovesGod, I am sure you do your best to love God, so don't take my comments as meaning I doubt that. I have to ask there, are you absolutely sure that you are saved? Wouldn't one have to be able to infallibly interpret scripture to be 100 percent certain they were saved? If you believe you are interpreting a passage that you think says you are 100 percent certain of going to heaven and you are only 95% certain your interpretation is correct, are you 100% certain you are saved? No. Sorry. You have to be infallible to have such an assurance. This is just applying simple rules of logic. Again I can give you many more passages that disprove with an honest reading, that OSAS is a dangerous doctrine that denies a need to walk in to.
LovesGod, you are writing to the coward who stole my handle. But, I will answer your question ... Once saved, always saved is a lie told to sinners who refuse to give up their sinful ways so that satan can take as many of God's children to the eternal flames. Their is a lot of wolves in sheep's clothing pretending to teach Jesus' truth.
Amen.
gerald, since you know His truth, be prepared for non-believers to steal your handle too.
God Bless.
Amen..
About this entire curch scandal thing... HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON FOR AGAIN? Look, I know that it isn't fair to judge a whole group based on the actions of idiots, but at this point the cover ups and lack of any accountability have me seriously questioning the entire church on the grounds that it would seem that unless the majority cooperated in halting evidence and covering up, somebody would be in jail by now. In the meantime, I suggest a separation from the existing church to form a new, more appropriately structured and disciplined church. Otherwise, try not to be affiliated witht them.
The last time there was a major separation from the existing church, started (unintentionally) by Martin Luther, ther result was over 300 years of almost constant war as the two sides tried to prove who was holier by slaughtering each other.
I suggest separating from all churches and religions. Join the demographic group with the lowest levels of violent crime and divorce, the least support for war and torture, and the highest tendancy to peacefully co-exist with other ethnicities. Free you mind of the dark false prisons of religious doctrine and conformism. Throw away the confusion of ancient supersti-tions and phony non-existent deities. Find who you really are, instead of conforming to weird intolerant ideologies.
Jerry,
Those who bring scandal to the Church are learning what ‘woe to the one who brings it’ means.
The Church was founded for the benefit of all sinners not just a few. To leave the Church that Jesus Christ founded, to form a new church, is not the way to ‘clean house’. We will stay but not accept evil if we find it.
We have history to see that ‘leaving’ Jesus Christ’s Church is not the answer. Satan would love to see everyone separate themselves from the Church…it is what he is striving for…it has caused many to leave the One Church to go off on their own or to find another community that ‘thinks the way they do’…but they are not happy…they keep splitting even further to the point of now saying they do not need a Church. They say they just need themselves and their spirituality and their Bible which they can interpret themselves [by becoming their own pope]…they do not need the family of God…yet they want to be members of His Body but want nothing to do with other members.
How does a body function if it does not communicate with other body members? Can the hand know what to do without the head? Does the foot not care what happens to the knee? It is most foolish to abandon the Body and leave the family of God. A better move would be to see the infection in the knee and cut out the gangrene but not cut off the leg at the hip….what about the other members!? The Church recognizes the infection and is taking care of it in the proper way. The rest of the Body may suffer [due to scandal] while the ‘surgery’ takes place but there will be healing.
CatholicMom, you are going to hell unless you change your ways. Catholics do the work of the devil.
Amen
Bitter, disrespectful old hags go to hell too HeavenSent.
This is probably the troll imitation Heavent Sent. The real one is obnoxious and insane in a different wy.
To the troll, what purpose does that serve? It must be you don't have the brains to deal with the real one which means you are highly insecure and immature.
HEavensent, do you believe the lie of once saved always saved that denies perseverance? "he who persevere till the end will be saved" and makes a mockery of God's call to holiness. Hmmmm.... Who is going to hell?
HeavenSent, you are a strange troll. Are you on medication of some sort? I've noticed your posts are lacking in thoughtfulness.
And there is no such thing as hell, unless it is having to live with people like you. Hell makes no sense at all, and neither does heaven. It's all bullshlt.
But have fun with the trolling thing. Many of the results are interesting. And if you are using HeavenSent's name, you need to work on your humor, because it's pretty lame.
If there IS a hell, I'm sure HeavenSent is going there. HeavenSent and Frederica are the only two hell bound contributors to this forum by my reckoning.
Nah they won't go to helll. They will however become worm food like the rest of us though
Sum someone is copying my name and I dont appreciate it. I am confused why you think I was trying to be funny? I am being serious.
Amen..
@HeavenSent – That is a funny reply, but also kind of lame. You aren't making any points here. Why not try something else?
To the coward that hides behind my handle. You condemn yourself to the eternal flames. By what I read what you cowardly write hiding behind my handle. You're doing a good job not to continue going through eternity.
Amen.
Well Robert (LOL) if that's your real handle, you can't send anyone to the eternal flames. Besides, I didn't write the post that you are writing to.
To the phony heavensent, you are beyond shame. I suppose you don't have a special someone or every had a special someone that wants to be in your life. That you lie, cheat, con and manipulate everyone, just as you are doing to me. You keep proving my point about how out-of-control non-believers have no breaks.
Amen.
This is a human condition but Jesus Christ has provided grace to help us overcome this condition and strive to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect.
Perfect Father in Heaven, thats funny becasue he states he is a jealous God, that doesnt sound perfect to me. i know human beings that have overcome that sin..lol
Dmoney,
Our perfect Father has ZEAL for our soul…He is VIGILANT in guarding what is His! [This is what jealous means in the Bible.]
CatholicMom,
"He is VIGILANT in guarding what is His!"
Yeah, just like that guy in Ohio this week, who killed his soon-to-be-ex-wife and threw her into a septic tank, because she was HIS, and their children are HIS.
jealousy is not always a sin. What should a wife be when she sees her husband having an affair with another woman? Happy? Acting out in jealousy can be sinful but it is a matter of prudence and the good nature God has given to be jealous. It is a mechanism that protects us and it is a matter of justice.
At least you hope there is no hell dude.
by the way I know of people who don't think Calculus and Physics make sense so I guess they don't exist for those people? Ya right.
Catholics are going to hell unless they repent and rid themselves of their idols.
Amen..
HeavenSent,
The only idols I can think of that people worship are things of the world,… money, pride, glory of self in accomplishments and attainment of things or positions and so on; but those idols don’t just affect just Catholics but all people of the world. How is it that you can point your finger specifically at Catholics and their need for repenting of idol worship and not mention the rest of the world? The world is full of idol worshippers except those self-righteous ones……!
Jesus on the cross is an idol especially since his appearance was altered to be more pleasing to the masses.
Sonja,
It is hard to tell if you are a Christian or not with that comment…if you must go that route…saying that a crucifix is an idol then you might want to include an empty cross as well. Christians the world over use the cross as a symbol of their faith as well as many other symbols. These are not idols. They represent and bring to mind our faith; the crucifix brings to mind what Jesus did for us…He died on the cross so that we might have life everlasting. The empty cross does not tell of His suffering that our sin caused Him. If we are not reminded of what sin has done we may not look at how evil it is. Further, it is not the empty cross that saved us, it is Jesus Crucified. Further, Jesus is the One and only One we worship.
What idols might those be. The Bible nowhere says you can't have statutes, in fact it commanded that they be made in places. For example in Ex 25 angels were commanded to be placed over the mercy seat. In Numbers 16 a bronze serpant was commanded to be made and it was even to be looked upon and the people would be healed. Now this passage is very instructional. Because the people began to give the statue itself credit rather than God and God destroyed the statue. Catholics also are forbidden to give statues credit for anything. So if this is what you are talking about you need to study your bible a little closer rather than just taking the protestant stand.
Catholic Mom, I didn't write the post that you responded to. You haven't been on line that often, the non-believers stole my handle and write this nonsense. If you pay attention, you'll see my seriousness about Jesus in any of my post. This fool hiding behind his/her keyboard is just that. A pathetic fool. I told you non-believers have no breaks, along with no shame.
Peace to your heart and soul.
The real HeavenSent.
Amen..
HeavenSent,
I should have realized it wasn’t you who made that comment before I posted but it wasn’t until I read further that I realized it wasn’t you.
Those foolish and evil people who try to tear down someone with lies are only hurting themselves…trying to destroy someone’s reputation is a grave sin. Let’s pray for them that satan will not have their soul. There is only one thing we must fight against and that is evil….not each other, because that would be the path satan would have us take.
I truly am sorry you had to suffer due to another person’s misguided actions, HeavenSent.
I guess god hates children or likes to watch. Catholics keep supporting this. No surprise.
Jesús Malverde,
Catholics strive to do things that we would be okay with being watch by God or mankind…in daylight or dark. How about you?
CatholicMom, why do so many Catholics use "Jesus" as a name for their children? Isn't that sacrilegious or something?
Sum Dude,
I have not heard that using the name ‘Jesus’ to name a child is sacrilegious. Naming someone Angel doesn’t seem to be either. I wonder if it helps people to think twice before doing something foolish that Jesus or an Angel would never do!
Naming one's child after a Saint is a common practice.
This "vomit-inducing" ped-ophilia and coverup will simply hasten the elimination of all religions as we know them. It is time to replace all religions with a few rules like "Do No Harm" and convert all houses of "worthless worship" to recreation facilities and parks.
Lots of these places have some pretty nice acoustics. Dance party!
I truly hope that all Catholics reading these repeated abuses from all over the World will have their eyes opened to other things the Catholic Church instructs them to blindly accept on mere Papal or Biblical authority. This includes discrimination against gays and the unsupported belief in the most nonsensical of 2,000 year old Middle Eastern myths, such as an all-knowing, all-powerful sky god that reads minds and records human lives for the purposes of reward or punishment in an afterlife.
If anything good comes out of all this, it will be a deep questioning by Catholics of some of the fundamental supernatural elements of their faith. In an ideal World, their eyes will be opened, their skepticism will be invoked, and they will no longer accept "because [the Bible/the Pope/the church] says so" as a satisfactory answer.
The door is open to an end to dogmatism. I hope many choose to walk through it
They just ignore it. Don't get your hopes up.
Colin,
Your understanding of faith in God is flawed and not the way of the Christian. You have faith in no faith but that is not the way of most human beings, not just Catholics. Our belief is in a God that our human minds cannot fully comprehend; this is not alarming in the least….there is much our minds cannot comprehend…but it does not make us lose all faith in what we do believe though it may be an incomplete knowledge. We accept that God will bring us into fullness of Truth as we can bear it.
For myself, my belief in God fits perfectly, and I do mean ‘perfect’ly with what the Bible teaches as well as the Catholic Church. It is so perfect in my eyes as to thwart anything that deviates from those Truths. There is nothing that causes me distress in the Church except the sin of its members and this is still not something that should be unexpected of people because people sin…we sin though we do not want to!; I do what I do not want to do just as the Bible says I will do! We are not to be trusted! This is a human condition but Jesus Christ has provided grace to help us overcome this condition and strive to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect.
The Church and what She stands for is a gift to us from Jesus Christ…it is through Her that we can reconcile our sinful selves to Jesus Christ so that we remain in Him and Him in us. We are told to abide in Him which means that we can also ‘not abide’ in Him by our own doing for if we are commanded to remain and abide in Him, we can also choose not to do so.
The Sacraments are means of sanctification which we all need. Now those, who do not believe this, can stay in their unbelief. It is totally for each to choose. Having faith is a choice, having no faith is a choice….but there is faith in each belief system!
In case you do not understand the Church’s stance on gays….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0sILSapUUc
@CatholicMum. Thank you for your thoughtful response. You obviously feel deeply about your opinions and I appreciate your efforts in drawing them to my attention.
I would like to address your point that ä theists have faith too. To the extent this is meant to equate the atheist view with that of the believer, I must disagree. The whole idea of accepting a god in the absence of evidence and based on the leap of faith is totally unsatisfying to me.
When someone is said to have faith in something, this generally means they have confidence that it is true. That is the general atheist view. This to me is very different to the traditional religious idea of faith that you appear to subscribe to – accepting something as true out of religious conviction and, to the extent you see flaws in the religion, simply accepting that your mind is too small to comprehend it. That is not faith or confidence in a belief, it is a poor surrogate for faith. In fact, it is often an absence of real confidence in the belief that causes the initial "leap of faith" and acceptance of your supposed "small mind" in the first place.
Indeed, if one says they made a leap of faith to their belief, can they really be said to believe in their chosen god(s) at all? The mere fact that they had to leap to believe in the means they, at some level acknowledge the absence of evidence. Their “belief” is really more in the nature of a hope or wish, than a true belief. They more “hope” for a god or “wish” for a god than they do truly believe in a god.
Bridging the gap between where the evidence stops and their chosen end belief (God, Allah, Krishna, reincarnation etc.) by wistfully leaping over the credibility gap that lay in between may be satisfying to some. However, if you think it through, once you accept that making a leap of faith is a valid foundation for arriving any particular belief, you are effectively declaring yourself an agnostic.
This is because you have to accept that any other religious view arrived at by a similar leap from the precipice of where the evidence stops is as valid as yours. One cannot seriously argue, to the effect, “well, I was justified in unhinging myself from the evidence and going off in this theological direction, but your going over there toward that deity is flawed.” In a dark room without features, any groping guess by a blind man at the direction of the door is as valid as the next.
Actually, a cynic might quip that, if you accept the proposition that any religious view arrived at by the leap of faith is valid, this would presumably include those (many) faiths that reject your own chosen god. You have effectively committed theological suicide and leapt to your own atheism!
More seriously, this simple reflection highlights the fundamental inanity of accepting the leap of faith as a valid basis for any belief, be it religious, financial, scientific or otherwise.
Catholicmom,
I think the most telling thing about all of that nonsense is that you, and your church, have to have a stance at all. This isn't politics or a chat about your favorite baseball team. You are segregating out a group of humans placing judgment on them based on their genetics. How cute of you.
Colin,
Thank you for responding however, since you do not have faith in God you may not realize, that, at least for me, it is not a 'leap', as you put it. Also I am not an agnostic who may at times believe and other times may not or might just be waiting for ‘more proof’..... No, I fully believe with all my heart and so it is with me. You and I do not have to come to some sort of conclusion that would be satisfactory to both of us as to how this happened to me and not you, but so it is.
As Christians we are to have faith, hope, and love, while on this journey, and love is the greatest of these! We have hope in ‘attaining our goal’, Heaven, by the faith we have and keep, and once in Heaven there will no longer be need of faith or hope. Our hope is not a hope as in ‘hoping there is a God’…but a hope of attaining our goal.
Luke,
How is being especially honored by God because of carrying a particular cross being judgmental?
People sinning proves there is no God? Really? Odd logic.
Because you are making an as.sumption that a group of people want what you think. There is no reason for you to have any stance on gays, just like there is no reason for you to have a stance on people with brown hair or those that are under 6 feet in height.
@Gerald. People's behavior is independent of the issue as to whther there is a god, and there certainly is not one. My point was, if soemone lies to you about topic A, perhaps you should question more closely what they say about topic B. Not a stretch.
Luke,
And your basis for saying the Church shouldn't have an opinion on gays is what? That it's genetic? That is far from proven. It's your opinion. Sure seems unnatural to me since men and men and women and women cant reproduce, a major function of evolution/nature. For those who believe in evolution.
Gerlad,.That is completely false. Go read a book. Hom.ose.xuality occurs in the animal kingdom, particularly in higher order primates. You are wrong.
Luke,
There are gay Catholics and there are ‘straight’ Catholics; there are healthy Catholics and there are ill Catholics…and so on and so forth; and the Church ministers to all. All may not accept Her Teachings but that does not hinder the Church from speaking the Truth. Those who have ears to hear…will, and those who don’t…won’t. You shouldn’t get upset with those who do just because you don’t!
Luke, I am not going to get in to a pisn match with you about whether or not cancer is genetic. Just that it's not proven. Cancer is genetic sometimes. Does that make it natural? Now tell me even if cancer is genetic do we not try cure it? So even if it in some cases genetic that does not prove it should be condoned. There is convincing evidence that some homsx is enviromentally or developmentally caused. i.e. dominant mothers, stress during wars on the mother, absent father. Sorry Homsx is wrong. It's an abomination If you dont' like me saying it don't read my posts.
Colin, g-ays as with any sinner are blinded by the sins of PRIDE and LUST. What part of these 2 sins do you not comprehend? To make excuses to continuing sinning because of these wayward priest is not acceptable to Jesus. His wrath of will come on judgment day for all those who strayed and purposely rejected His truth. Personally, I wouldn't want to be standing in those sinner's line.
Amen..
CatholicMom
What does the statisical membership have to do with taking a stance on gays and only gays? that doesn't even make sense. What is your position on your brown haired membership? And of your club footed bretheren? Do explain.
gerald
Honestly, that's the dumbest thing I've ever read. I don't even know where to begin? why don't we have a cure for cancer? What? Where do you come up with this nonsense? Your statements do not even warrant an intelligent reply.
Sorry I overloaded your brain Luke.
Luke, can you even read? Where did I ask "why don't we have a cure for cancer?". Read it slowly. I was making an analogy. Just because some things are genetic does not make them right or good is the point. Cancer can be genetic and that does not mean we should not try to cure a person who has a genetic form of cancer if I need to state my point more plainly for you.
@gerald
Hi -gerald... It's been awhile, I hope that you are well...
Pardon me for jumping in here in this discussion between you and -Luke.
You Said: "@Luke, I am not going to get in to a pisn match with you about whether or not cancer is genetic. Just that it's not proven. Cancer is genetic sometimes. Does that make it natural? Now tell me even if cancer is genetic do we not try cure it? So even if it in some cases genetic that does not prove it should be condoned. There is convincing evidence that some homsx is enviromentally or developmentally caused. i.e. dominant mothers, stress during wars on the mother, absent father. Sorry Homsx is wrong. It's an abomination If you dont' like me saying it don't read my posts."
And... You Said: "@Luke, can you even read? Where did I ask "why don't we have a cure for cancer?". Read it slowly. I was making an an-alogy. Just because some things are genetic does not make them right or good is the point. Cancer can be genetic and that does not mean we should not try to cure a person who has a genetic form of cancer if I need to state my point more plainly for you."
--------
So, -gerald, I'm sincerely curious here... I understand your attempt at an an-alogy. I also understand that if we take something like the attempt to 'cure' cancer and the attempt to 'cure' g-ays, etc... I get what you are trying to say here as some kind of a co-mparison.
O.K... so... Let's see... 'Cancer' is almost always an... awful, terrible, horrible, debilitating, ra-venous physical ailment that quite often left unchecked and depending on which kind of cancer and what type... will cause a person to live a very, very shortened life-span, often having to put terrible chemicals in their bodies that often do even more harm than good to try and 'cure' their cancer as you say, and quite often leads to a tremendously pain-filled life...until they die, yes...?
I know that... as I have many a family member that has horribly suffered and died from 'Cancer.'
There are doctor's and pha-rma-ce-utical companies racing to find cures for this horrible and terrible disease that does 'direct' and 'undeniable' harm to the person that has it.
Now... being 'g-ay'... whether it is genetic or a co-mbination of genetics/environment... or... just a 'choice' as some would say, I would suggest has 'none' of the co-mponents listed above that part of having 'cancer' ent-ails.
I think we 'all' can pretty much agree 'cancer' is almost always a terrible disease that causes 'direct' and undeniable harm to the person afflicted. Being 'g-ay' causes, as far as I can tell...what...? In almost all cases... 'no' direct harm to the person that has...'the gay' and... no harm to society in general, as well. In other words... you, -gerald aren't going to 'catch the g-ay.' I know a number of 'g-ay' people, and they live happy, healthy, productive lives.
No one is trying to 'cure' them, as they don't want to be cured. Well, I guess there are some 'fundamentalists' that are attempting to 'pray the g-ay away' seminars, or somesuch. And, yes, I suppose that there are a few that do choose to try to 'get the g-ay out of themselves.' You know, -gerald, not 'everyone' wants to be a 'bre-eder.' And, even so, with today's technology, some g-ays are choosing to donate s-perm and have a female carry their child to term.
You 'may' be right... it may be 'nature' doing something different, but attempting to compare the 'curing' of a horrible and terrible disease as 'Caner' to being 'G-ay'... seems to be an 'an-alogy,' at least for me -gerald that doesn't 'hold water.'
Your argument, as far as I can tell in your back and forth with @Luke is... It's just 'wrong.' The AMA, the APA, and many other medical and psychothera-peutical groups have come out and said... being g-ay is 'not' a disease or something that 'needs to be cured.'
While in fact, most of our society is trying to stomp out cancer... quite the contrary is going on in our society about being 'g-ay'... most states, are putting or attempting to put regulations on the books that ...being gay is o.k.
So, -gerald, while you obviously have the right to your 'opinion' (that you 'believe' that being gay...is 'wrong') that seems to be a 'moral' judgement, yes...?
So... what am I missing in your as-sertion here, -gerald...?
I think you have seen enough of my postings to know that I am not out to 'criticize' you or anyone(most of the time),... I truly am sincerely curious as to where the 'heck' you are coming from on this...? I truly do not understand where you are co-ming from, here...?
Respectfully,
Peace...
We will get this ‘House Cleaning’ done! We will not rest until all criminals are prosecuted and all the innocent vindicated.
We all hope so.
It is nice to see local, secular law enforcement being brought into the loop this time around.
And criminal charges against those that tried to cover it up too!
Putting the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the backseat is the right thing to do for the victims.
The Vatican can punish these people as they see fit once the judicial system has meted out its judgement.
What about the Bishops and people at the Vatican who committed criminal conspiracy and obstructed justice on a massive scale protecting these pedophile priests? Those are major felonies also. Are you now calling for all those criminals to be prosecuted as well? Including the Pope, who himself was involved in the obstruction and cover up?
I agree, CatholicMom. ALL the criminals must be prosecuted. I am glad to see you have changed your position, because you used to say that the victims were actually conspirators plotting to destroy the church.
Hi CatholicMom! I notice that these priests are only being placed on "administrative leave" instead of being prosecuted. Hopefully they will be spending time in prison, but your church is not too keen on giving their internal records to the police.
Thanks for not whitewashing your church this time. If I can't get rid of the RCC, then a housecleaning would at least ease my mind somewhat. There are too many different ways for criminals to use religion to hide behind. Peace to you and yours.
Sam Dude,
Unfortunately most of these cases will not get prosecuted because of the statute of limitations which varies from state to state but in general is stated as the child's 18th birthday + 2 to 8 years. Admin leave is the most the Church can do to these priests. Hopefully any evidence they can pass along to law enforcement will be. Wish they all would be prosecuted.
Gerald, the Catholic Church does not have a statue of limitations. They can fire them anytime they like, but they don't. Administrative leave is just another slap on the wrist, and it is probably a paid leave. Wow, what a punishment.
Then again, the Church's obstruction of justice is exactly why the statue of limitations expired in the first place.
Mr. Sniffles,
I never said …. ‘the victims were actually conspirators plotting to destroy the church..’
I have said that the evil ones could be those who work from within the Church as we know there are some hiding in the Church doing evil to try to bring the Church down by scandalous acts…as well as those who work from outside the Church for the same purpose….but I have never said victims were plotting anything as you say.
Not only did you say it before, you just said it again! "we know there are some hiding in the Church doing evil to try to bring the Church down by scandalous acts" – That is a conspiracy theory! The pedophile priests were not out to destroy the church from in; they were pedophiles out to get their jollies. Those that hid them were not out to destroy the church from within – the WERE and ARE the church, and none of them intended to bring down the church. That's a conspiracy theory, and it's nuts.
People outside the church trying to bring it down? Just who were you referring to if you are not referring to the victims? The only people directly involved are the Church and the victims. The ones outside are the victims, and once again you have them as conspirators out to get you.
Why is it so impossible for you and all too many people like you to accept that one priest in 20 is a pedophile (a number the Vatican admits), and that the Church chose to respond to it with an extensive system of hiding priests from the law, all too often placing them right back into direct contact with children, then to stonewall and insult victims when they spoke up.
You are again blaming the victims, and shame on you. Did it ever occur to CatholicMom that all the victims were CatholicKids, and easily could have been YOURS!
The victims are all Catholics, the perpetrators are all Catholics. There is no conspiracy by Catholics to destroy Catholicism – that's crazy – there is only bad behavior made much worse by the bad judgement of those in charge.
Mr. Snuffles. CM is blaming the victims? really? That's not what she is saying at all. Talk about nutz. Those who are gtting their jollies, using the Church for it, are in fact evil and working against the Church, whether from within or without. You can't say "well cm you may think that those in the Church who do evil are trying to destroy it but their not so I say that what you really meant is the victims" but that's just plain silly. It is the writer that knows what they intended. I see no reason to doudt and twist CMs statements as you are.
I am not impressed with your reading comprehension skills, Gerald. People "who are gtting their jollies, using the Church for it" do not fit into the category of trying to destroy it. Not even close. CatholicMom specifically referred to people outside the Church using this scandal to destroy the church. The only group who can fit that warped perspective is the victims. She is blaming the victims.
I dare you and Catholic Mom to tell the full truth. I dare you to say that your church, the Catholic Church, has acted abominably and criminally in its handling of the pedophilia problem, right up to the highest levels of the Vatican. And I further dare you to start lobbying your own leaders to stop stonewalling and whitewashing, and do far more to rectify the problem than the minimal amount that it has.
Mr. Sniffles, those priests are in the same category as you. NON-Believers of Jesus' truth.
I wouldn't brag on this site about being a non-believer because they joined your ranks.
Amen.
Most likely gerald is that troll priest who defends the ped priests and the people in the church that harbor them..... they twist the truth into a lie... basically co-conspiritors to the peds in a best case scenario
sniffy,
No, she is talking about all the atheists and anti-catholics. People like chiefy and Reality and Davey Johnson, etc.. Who aren't really concerned about child abuse but about their hatred for the Church.
Most likely chief continues to lie about me and prove himself the liar he accuses me of being. Sad.
House cleaning? If they truly did this there would be no Priests. Change your ways Catholics or go to hell.
Amen..
There's some good thinking Gerald. The scandal, where the priests molested children and bishops (and higher) engaged in a huge cover-up, is actually the fault of "atheists and church-haters."
How did those "atheists and Church-haters" manage to get all those priest to molest all those children around the world? How did those "atheists and Church-haters" get the church heirarchy to shuffle the pedophile priests to other parishes, where they could continue to molest while they were hidden from the law? How did "atheists and Church-haters" get the church heirarchy to stonewall and dismiss and insult the victims for decades (and they still are doing it), instead of doing the right thing and making real amends to the victims while turning the pedophiles over to the law? These are some pretty amazing atheists and Church-haters, putting together a worldwide conspiracy like that, one able to control priests and the church's heirarchy right up to the Pope, able to get them to make all the worst decisions.
Or maybe you just cannot accept that the Church is responsible for it's actions, and you have to scapegoat "atheists and church-haters" instead.
Why did today's pope, prelates, preachers and rabbis, so focused on society's se-xual sins, lose sight of clerical se-xual sins?
"
FEAR, SHAME and GUILT and COVER IT ALL UP!!!
Obviously ordination in any religion is not assurance of good behavior !!!!!
Neither is coronation!!! e.g. Henry VIII, King David.
Neither is marriage as 50% of those men convicted of pedophilia are married.
Neither is being elected president of the USA!! e.g. Billy "I did not have se-x with that girl" Clinton, John "Marilyn Monroe" Kennedy"
Neither is possessing super athletic skill!!! e.g. Tiger "I am so sorry for getting caught" Woods
Neither is being an atheist or pagan since pedophilia is present in all walks of life
If someone is guilty of a crime in this litany of "neithers" they should or should have been penalized as the law dictates to include jail terms for pedophiliacs (priests, rabbis, evangelicals, boy scout leaders, married men/women), divorce for adultery (Clinton, Kennedy, Woods), jail terms for obstruction of justice (Clinton, Cardinal Law) and the death penalty or life in prison for murder ("Kings David and Henry VIII).