CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[breakingcontact]

I more often hear rejection of organized religion due to folks unwillingness to submit to biblical authority.

This is one of the issues with organized religion. Any time there is a power structure, there will be those who forget the mission and focus on the power. Maybe with good intentions, maybe just because human nature. The bigger the hierarchy, the more money, the more secular authority, the greater the temptation. I don't blame those who are turned away by it, and I know some here scoff at the notion of "unorganized religion", but if you were outside looking in could you not at least understand that perspective?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Breaking now... The Pope declines to confirm or deny ex-ambassador's claim that he knew of McCarrick abuse in 2013.

A Papal nuncio has just dropped a massive bombshell in the McCarrick scandal, revealing that Pope Francis knew about his behavior for years and not only covered it up but restored his privileges

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...ling-to-act-on-mccarricks-abuse-reports-81797

The Catholic hierarchy is rotten, and I feel bad for Catholics that have to deal with it.

From Ross Douthat:

this document is quite possibly a truly historic bombshell in the life of the Roman Catholic Church.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/do...ONYXCMVX-XENGLISH-CORRECTED-FINAL-VERSION.pdf

Written by the former papal nuncio to the U.S., it does exactly what many have called for, and offers testimony concerning who in the hierarchy knew what, and when, about the crimes of Cardinal McCarrick. The testimony implicates a host of high-ranking churchmen. And the pope.

In fact, both popes. But Benedict appears as a figure (weakly, insufficiently) attempting to act on testimony concerning McCarrick's crimes, while Francis is portrayed as intent on restoring the pederast cardinal to activity and influence *despite* his awareness of those crimes.

This is either an extraordinary and vicious slander or an act of revelation that should be the undoing of just about every figure mentioned in its pages. It has an apocalyptic feel either way.

 

[lovemachine]

And if the church believes that saying a hail mary is a prayer, then why does a priest make it a punishment (penance)? It seems to me forcing someone to chant a prayer minimizes it's meaning and purpose.

I don't get it.

Why not just allow the Holy Spirit to convict you of you wrong doing and have a heartfelt talk with God; who says you are forgiven if you ask "Him".

The Catholic Church teaches that we must obtain a certain number of sacraments in order to reach Heaven. Confession is one of them. When you go thru confession, it’s believed that the priest doesn’t forgive you. It’s actually GOD that forgives you. And penance isn’t quite a punishment. It’s just a way to “get back on the path” to GOD. When you commit a sin, you have stepped off the path.

I wouldn’t also say that priest are “above the cross” either. A priest is just a preacher, that has more “strict” guidelines on how to live in the church. For instance, not being married. But they also have the ability to turn wine into HIS blood, and bread into HIS flesh. But this ability is allowing GOD to do that work thru the priest.

To make things even more complicated for you, it’s also taught that when we die, we must go thru Purgatory in order to be cleansed before we enter the gates of heaven. Which is something I’m looking forward to

 

[historian]

From Ross Douthat:

Pope Frank just lost any credibility on the one issue he was supposed to be any good at. Now he will probably lose the left wing support he has (he lost the right a couple of years ago). This is going to be interesting.

 

[Ziggidy]

The Catholic Church teaches that we must obtain a certain number of sacraments in order to reach Heaven.

That's not what the bible teaches.

 

[lovemachine]

That's not what the bible teaches.

Where is Purgatory in the Bible? - About Catholics

 

[CampingJosh]

All of what is going on here really belongs in the Christianity thread rather than the general religion thread.

 

[Dead Duck]

Careful....

 

[ArcadiaGP]

From journalist Rod Dreher:

https://twitter.com/roddreher/status/1033921319925178368

US Catholic priest e-mails re: Pope Francis: "He's dead to me. A total fraud now. All these years he has been hammering priests and bishops and now he is shown to be a hypocrite. ... I'm hearing from Rome that Vigano's letter is absolutely credible. No doubts."

Edit: Former nunciature official: 'Vigano said the truth'


(carrying quoted posts ahead so as not to be buried, and Monday's usual crowd is able to review.)

Breaking now... The Pope declines to confirm or deny ex-ambassador's claim that he knew of McCarrick abuse in 2013.

A Papal nuncio has just dropped a massive bombshell in the McCarrick scandal, revealing that Pope Francis knew about his behavior for years and not only covered it up but restored his privileges

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...ling-to-act-on-mccarricks-abuse-reports-81797

The Catholic hierarchy is rotten, and I feel bad for Catholics that have to deal with it.

From Ross Douthat:

this document is quite possibly a truly historic bombshell in the life of the Roman Catholic Church.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/do...ONYXCMVX-XENGLISH-CORRECTED-FINAL-VERSION.pdf

Written by the former papal nuncio to the U.S., it does exactly what many have called for, and offers testimony concerning who in the hierarchy knew what, and when, about the crimes of Cardinal McCarrick. The testimony implicates a host of high-ranking churchmen. And the pope.

In fact, both popes. But Benedict appears as a figure (weakly, insufficiently) attempting to act on testimony concerning McCarrick's crimes, while Francis is portrayed as intent on restoring the pederast cardinal to activity and influence *despite* his awareness of those crimes.

This is either an extraordinary and vicious slander or an act of revelation that should be the undoing of just about every figure mentioned in its pages. It has an apocalyptic feel either way.

 

[T.Lex]

There's been rumors about McCarrick for a long time, growing in the last few months. Looks like it is worse than the rumors.

This will totally sound like rationalization, but that situation is different than the local priest thing - McCarrick had managed to work his way into a power position where some of the important individuals were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, probably for 'political' and personal reasons.

Yes, it sucks.

 

[historian]

McCarrick had managed to work his way into a power position where some of the important individuals were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, probably for 'political' and personal reasons.

Yes, it sucks.

What is more frightening is WHO gave him the benefit of the doubt. When Francis is implicated, that is pretty damning.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

If Pope Benedict is of sound mind, I'd be curious to hear what he has to say about the allegation.

 

[T.Lex]

What is more frightening is WHO gave him the benefit of the doubt. When Francis is implicated, that is pretty damning.

Indeed. The beloved John Paul II is implicated.

Also, this gives some good context to the longer narrative around McCarrick.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/acco...rontation-time-cardinal-mccarrick-and-me-2002

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I attended a family function yesterday where the in-laws there are catholic. Interestingly, the dad mentioned his priest brought this subject up during their service. I didn't catch all of what was said as it caught my attention after he'd begun talking about it. Their priest strongly recommended that each member send a hand written note to the arch-bishop. He recommended they insist things a lay-person review of any records, disciplinary actions, etc. of all the priests in the diocese. There were others but they slip my mind at this time. This is a good thing, I believe.

 

[T.Lex]

I attended a family function yesterday where the in-laws there are catholic. Interestingly, the dad mentioned his priest brought this subject up during their service. I didn't catch all of what was said as it caught my attention after he'd begun talking about it. Their priest strongly recommended that each member send a hand written note to the arch-bishop. He recommended they insist things a lay-person review of any records, disciplinary actions, etc. of all the priests in the diocese. There were others but they slip my mind at this time. This is a good thing, I believe.

Agreed.

The "lead" priest in our parish has spent a great deal of time answering questions and making sure he is available for parishioners who want more information. At least locally, I think there is a very pro-active approach.

 

[historian]

Indeed. The beloved John Paul II is implicated.

From what I can tell, JPII was ignorant and didn't know what to do (he was also fairly old when the crisis hit). Benny found out about the depth of the crisis (and I think that may be a reason he retired) and was ineffective about attacking it head on. From what is now coming out, Francis also knew how deep it went but chose to ignore it as his allies were in the thick of it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I guess he's afraid of getting the Clinton treatment...

Report: Archbishop Said He Was Going Into Hiding Because Of His Accusations Against The Pope

https://www.dailywire.com/news/3509...m_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

 

[historian]

Well...Slate is defending Francis, so...yeah...it looks bad for him.

 

[BluedSteel]

There's been rumors about McCarrick for a long time, growing in the last few months. Looks like it is worse than the rumors.

This will totally sound like rationalization, but that situation is different than the local priest thing -

Please, if you would; humor my genuine curiousity and explain how this is "different" than "the local priest thing". I honestly don't understand.

In one case, you have an ordained member of the clergy preying on the subordinate members of his congregation, most of whom are lay persons.

In the other case you have an ordained member of the clergy preying on the subordinate members of the clergy [who technically are members of his congregation] with or without also preying on lay people.

In both examples the offender is a member of the priestly caste and is preying on weaker subordinates they are sworn to shepherd and protect. How is one offense any different than the other? We now know that it is an established bureaucratic procedure at all levels from the local Bishop on up to the college of Cardinals to ignore despicable acts and to move, shelter and protect the guilty. What is it in this process that distinguishes different levels of transgression between the local priest and the church heirarchy?

 

[T.Lex]

Please, if you would; humor my genuine curiousity and explain how this is "different" than "the local priest thing". I honestly don't understand.

In one case, you have an ordained member of the clergy preying on the subordinate members of his congregation, most of whom are lay persons.

In the other case you have an ordained member of the clergy preying on the subordinate members of the clergy [who technically are members of his congregation] with or without also preying on lay people.

In both examples the offender is a member of the priestly caste and is preying on weaker subordinates they are sworn to shepherd and protect. How is one offense any different than the other? We now know that it is an established bureaucratic procedure at all levels from the local Bishop on up to the college of Cardinals to ignore despicable acts and to move, shelter and protect the guilty. What is it in this process that distinguishes different levels of transgression between the local priest and the church heirarchy?

Fair questions.

Primarily, IMHO, the difference is in how much power McCarrick had. There were people in the hierarchy who actually worked against him based on the allegations and tried to have him punished. But, because he had achieved a certain level, and had powerful friends, he was able to block those attempts (mostly).

The local priests didn't have (as I understand it) that same kind of notoriety or people working to punish them.

To be clear, I'm not saying the crimes were worse/not as bad as between the 2 situations. I'm only addressing how they were different from a perspective of within the church.

Maybe the better way to say it is that the 2 situations reveal 2 different sets of problems, at the same freaking time.

ETA:
BluedSteel - have you read this link? It may help. It may not, though too.

Also, this gives some good context to the longer narrative around McCarrick.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/acco...rontation-time-cardinal-mccarrick-and-me-2002