It wasn’t just the US in which priests abused children. It was also (at least) Canada and Ireland.

Jimbo3 on November 8, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Your point? [One of the abused people who spoke to us during the homily at Mass a couple of years back was abused in Ireland, so, in my small area, we are aware that the problem is world-wide, and the solution must be world-wide as well. That, of course is a big issue for the Church, because not every accusation is true, and, in certain countries, such an accusation given to the civil authorities would be a death sentence, regardless of truth or falsity.]

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 5:32 PM

–My point was don’t just look at US studies about US priests.

I will give credit to Luther for something — the entire NAZI era, which was fully in accord with Luther’s teachings, except that the Germans failed to burn down the synagogues (as was Luther’s charge) on the Kristallnicht. And they only got Six Million — Luther wanted them all!

unclesmrgol on November 9, 2009 at 10:12 AM

–Uncle, Luther was clearly anti-Semetic in his later life, but as it related to their religion, not their race. I haven’t seen anything where Luther explicitly called for the killing of most Jews (apart from rabbis who wouldn’t stop preaching), although he did want to burn down temples. And it doesn’t appear that many Germans relied on Luther’s statements during the 1700s and 1800s.

But it’s not just Luther who had anti-Semetic issues:

Pope Clement VIII (1536-1605). “All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very poor. Then, as now, Jews have to be reminded intermittently that they were enjoying rights in any country since they left Palestine and the Arabian desert, and subsequently their ethical and moral doctrines as well as their deeds rightly deserve to be exposed to criticism in whatever country they happen to live.”

What I stated is that Luther brought the book to the masses (notice I said “and others”). To the German’s in their own language. Few (except for Catholic “scholars”) recognize Luther as the father of the reformation, the movement that brought not only the Word to the masses, but also education to the masses. The reformation was the beginning of the end of what the dad did, the son did.

Can you name the German Bible which Luther had published?

Whose university system was present in the region long before Luther came onto the scene?

Again, you put the cart before the horse. “Education of the masses” could not universally occur until the invention of the movable type printing press, which made the creation of cheap books possible. That happened thirty years before Luther was born. I can see that small words didn’t work. Sad.

I will give credit to Luther for something — the entire NAZI era, which was fully in accord with Luther’s teachings, except that the Germans failed to burn down the synagogues (as was Luther’s charge) on the Kristallnicht. And they only got Six Million — Luther wanted them all!

Don’t make a deal with the devil…. he’s a liar.

right2bright on November 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM

If a Hindu were to enter your service and partake of the Lord’s Supper while not believing (having an improper memory of Jesus), your minister would be violating the “do this in memory of Me” portion of Jesus’ charge if he or she knew that the Hindu was present and did nothing. If an atheist were to ask to be bathed by your minister, what kinds of questions would your minister ask before doing it?

If the minister asks any question before baptising the avowed atheist, he or she is “guilty” of the same “crime” of which you accuse my Church (that the recipient be aware of the full nature of the sacrament that they are about to receive).

Since I pay little attention to Billy Graham, other than the fact that he often visited the White House, I’m not aware of the incident to which you refer. As for Billy Graham, did he believe in transsubstantiation? If not, and he came forward for the Holy Eucharist, then the priest was obligated to refuse him — not to mention that Billy himself would be a rather churlish person were he to press the priest. The priest would not refuse an Orthodox person, because the Catholic Church views the Orthodox Churches to be “in Communion” — theologically similar enough to the Church to understand the nature of the Eucharist.

You can always “sneak in” if you feel so strongly about this. You are absolutely right about one thing — there’s no glowing neon on top of a person’s head to say “not ok to serve to this one”. Maybe for you there is — I can imagine how much you would gripe were you to enter a Catholic church.

Jesus did not keep it simple. Ever seen the size of the Bible? Is any word in the Old Testament nullified by Jesus? No, and, in fact, Jesus places further charges upon his followers, not fewer. You can take a few lines out of Scripture and craft anything you want. Not even Luther with “scriptura sola” went so far as you are reaching. It’s harder to comprehend and understand the Bible as a whole. The Church it self comprehends the entire Bible, and, from age to age, gathers a people to Him.

With your attitude, aren’t you glad you aren’t one of them?

And, given the timeline, it’s pretty obvious Luther had absolutely nothing to do with making the Bible available to the masses — that task was well underway over thirty years before he was born, and all that was needed was the scholarship necessary for a correct translation of the Bible into the vernacular. The intensity of that type of scholarship is obvious in the Douey-Rheims timeline — 28 years to finalize the correct translation of the Old Testament.

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 5:28 PM

Is that what they teach you about history, to revise it?
What I stated is that Luther brought the book to the masses (notice I said “and others”). To the German’s in their own language. Few (except for Catholic “scholars”) recognize Luther as the father of the reformation, the movement that brought not only the Word to the masses, but also education to the masses. The reformation was the beginning of the end of what the dad did, the son did.
The bane of Catholics is the reformation, yet the reformation strengthened the Catholic Church as it begin to adopt many of the 95 thesis, and reject the old ways of the brutal Catholic doctrine.
Please, don’t insult anyone from thinking that Catholics did not want control. The Pope’s in that time were ruthless, surely you know that.
And funny how you skipped over the 95 thesis, had a hard time finding something you disagreed with?
Yes, sorry but paying for Indulgences, and paying to have your sin removed is not in the bible. Sorry to inform you, but only Jesus has the
For a few bucks, you could have all your sins removed…sweet.
The point Luther made, that irritated the Church, is that he stated it was God’s Grace, and not working for the Church that made you a “good” Christian. In other words, you didn’t have to be a Catholic to commune with God, it was a personal relationship.

By the way, anyone is welcome to come into a Mass and participate in everything but Communion (and, as I have mentioned, even partially participate by coming forward to be blessed).

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 12:26 PM

And only the priest and Catholics know who is a Christian? Imagine, you refused communion with Billy Graham because you think that he is not a Christina in your standings?
Yet your Cardinals considered him the most effective Christian leader in the world…strange ways you Catholics, praise a man for leading millions to Christ, but refuse to commune with him…ponder that for awhile, before a knee jerking “We are Catholics” response….maybe you are a Christian first, and bible defines you, not doctrine.
BTW, you are welcome, all are welcome, to come to the church I attend and commune with us…all are welcome at the Lord’s table, He doesn’t need reservations, and you don’t need a membership card…Jesus kept it simple, “Believe in Me”, I don’t remember him saying you must be a Catholic…

–It wasn’t just the US in which priests abused children. It was also (at least) Canada and Ireland.

Jimbo3 on November 8, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Your point? [One of the abused people who spoke to us during the homily at Mass a couple of years back was abused in Ireland, so, in my small area, we are aware that the problem is world-wide, and the solution must be world-wide as well. That, of course is a big issue for the Church, because not every accusation is true, and, in certain countries, such an accusation given to the civil authorities would be a death sentence, regardless of truth or falsity.]

My, my, aren’t we the arrogant ones…I didn’t compare Luther to Peter, what a ridiculous argument. Luther was never in favor of slavery. And guess what, he was a man and fallible…kind of like who created your church. Of his 95 thesis what do you not agree with…you think the Pope should charge people to be saved? Like this:

Jesus created my church. You are saying he is fallible?

With respect to indulgences, almsgiving was just one way in which an indulgence can be procured, and indulgences are, by their very nature, voluntary.

The Ninety-Five Theses not only denounced such transactions as worldly but denied the Pope’s right to grant pardons on God’s behalf in the first place: the only thing indulgences guaranteed, Luther said, was an increase in profit and greed, because the pardon of the Church was in God’s power alone.

Luther’s position goes straight to the issue of the pardoning power of the Church, and denies Jesus’ words in John 20:21-23. In addition to the Catholic Church, the various Orthodox churches also recognize this pardoning power — in their case, even after death.

To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.

This is a repeat of Luther’s denunciation of John 20:21-23. His other point — the abuse of the selling of indulgences, was valid, but certainly should not have been a schismatic crisis, had not the German princes chosen to make it so. The practice, which was not sanctioned by the Pope, was addressed in the Council of Trent in 1562, in which punishments for the sale of false indulgences was addressed.

A man who brought the bible to the masses,out of the Catholic Church hands would be repulsive to you.

This point has been addressed over and over in other threads. Let me explain using small words:
a) Prior to the invention of the movable type printing press by Gutenberg, Bibles were written by hand.
b) Each Bible required thousands of hours of work to hand-write.
c) Each Bible had to be reviewed by the Church for correctness prior to its use, to assure that nothing was left out, rearranged, or added over what the Church deemed as Scripture.
d) (b) and (c) together meant that the Bible was so costly that only the Church and various kings could afford their own copies.

So, it wasn’t the Church denying the people their own Bibles, it was the technology of the day. That said, the Church did its best to assure that every church and university had at least one Bible.

e) Johannes Gutenberg’s first movable type Bible was published in 1454, almost thirty years before Luther was born. Even his Bible was quite expensive:

The Bible sold for 30 florins each, which was roughly three years’ wages for an average clerk. Nonetheless, it was significantly cheaper than a handwritten Bible that could take a single scribe over a year to prepare. After printing the text portions, each book was hand illustrated in the same elegant way as manuscript Bibles from the same period written by scribes.

f) All of the above were Latin editions — not “modern” vulgate editions.

h) The first true moveable type vulgate bible — the Douey-Rheims, enjoyed its first printing in 1610; its New Testament enjoyed its first printing in 1582, with translation of the Old and New Testaments begun in 1568.

i) The most commonly accepted ‘correct’ Protestant vulgate Bible did not appear until 1611; it is the King James Bible, promulgated by James due to the errant scholarship present in previous vernacular Bibles.

So Catholic scholarship in producing Bibles was at least equal, if not superior, to that of the Protestants against which they competed. And, given the timeline, it’s pretty obvious Luther had absolutely nothing to do with making the Bible available to the masses — that task was well underway over thirty years before he was born, and all that was needed was the scholarship necessary for a correct translation of the Bible into the vernacular. The intensity of that type of scholarship is obvious in the Douey-Rheims timeline — 28 years to finalize the correct translation of the Old Testament.

Ok, for extra credit, do I think you are a bigot? Your next response will either prove or disprove the thought rolling through my head right now.

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Oh, the “bigot” card, because I think the molestation of children, which were thousands, were not just a “few”.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – More than 10,600 children said they were molested by priests since 1950 in an epidemic of child sexual abuse involving at least 4 percent of U.S. Roman Catholic priests, two studies reported on Friday.

The two studies, which were commissioned by U.S. Catholic bishops in 2002, said the abuse peaked with the ordination class of 1970, from which one in 10 priests was eventually accused of abuse.

The abuse of children was a national health problem, said Robert Bennett of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops National Review Board.

“It’s always bad when a child gets abused but when the abuser wears a collar, it’s worse,” said Bennett, who described the scandals involving the Catholic church as a crisis of trust and faith.

The report revealed that 10,667 children were allegedly victimized by 4,392 priests from 1950 to 2002, but said the figures depend on self-reporting by American bishops and were probably an undercount.
Ok, for extra credit, do I think you are a bigot pedophile? Your next response will either prove or disprove the thought rolling through my head right now.

See how that works?

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 11:12 AM

–It wasn’t just the US in which priests abused children. It was also (at least) Canada and Ireland.

Get off your high horse, and admit that Protestants left the Catholic Church, probably less than 500 years after Christ founded His One, True, Holy and Catholic Church, and then we can talk. Until then, keep your crap about Catholics not being Christian to your bigoted self.

7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.

Apparently you should reread the 95 Thesis yourself.

Christ did not bring about the Protestant Reformation. Men did.

How arrogant to say “you can commune with Christ, only if you are a Catholic”, that is why He came, to remove that arrogance and elitism.
One of the most obvious of all acts by Christ…humiliating the “church” leaders who demanded that they are the gatekeepers…you and the Catholic Church are not the gatekeepers…to bad you are too arrogant to recognize that.

It is because I lack the arrogance to renounce the heritage of the Church Fathers that I obeyed them. And because I found grace in the Church I remain Catholic. I think it a greater arrogance to say “yeah well maybe the persecuted Church had a two-year catechumenate, WE don’t need that”.

I notice some of the churches you consider more open and loving, teach with authority that Christ has reserved redemption for a miniscule Elect. The Catholic Church teaches with authority that those who pray for grace and forgiveness will be forgiven. “Truly, this day you will be with me in Paradise.” If I had to vote for a more “friendly” approach…

For a conservative, you seem not too adverse to laws before the fact.

Laws are, at their best, a response to the acts of the unsavory. The worst laws are those enacted for no reason whatsoever.

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 12:28 PM

I think a law imposing sanctions on pedophile would not have to come after the fact…don’t be so coy…
The U.S. is a rule of laws…to become a nation a list of laws were enacted…laws are best enacted before, then after.
After becomes emotional, reactionary.

Luther is a relative newcomer in comparison to Peter — an anti-Semitic minor priest and monk whose Theses and suspect theology were used by a bunch of German princes to establish national churches. I equate Luther to Henry VIII — a schismatic on the wrong side of the schism.

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 12:05 PM

My, my, aren’t we the arrogant ones…I didn’t compare Luther to Peter, what a ridiculous argument. Luther was never in favor of slavery. And guess what, he was a man and fallible…kind of like who created your church. Of his 95 thesis what do you not agree with…you think the Pope should charge people to be saved? Like this:

47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.

Removing that power from the Priests would be troubling to a powerful church…but not a Christian Church.
Or this, where the Church was offended that Christ was place in a more dominant role.

79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.

You think that working for the church will save you? Better re-read those 95 Thesis and realize that most of what he proposed, the Catholics have finally come to realize and instituted.
A man who brought the bible to the masses,out of the Catholic Church hands would be repulsive to you.
Christians have their foundation in Christ himself…not some doctrine.
I challenge you to read those 95, and then say that he was a fool…a brave man to go against a church that normally killed those opposed.
As far as you liberal views on immigration, Abraham Lincoln never faced what we are facing…how about rolling everything back..no taxes, no income tax, etc.
A red herring of an argument…we have laws to enforce our borders, and too keep out illegal immigration and allow a controlled access to the U.S.
What did Lincoln think about airline security, or terrorists?

Says it all, the NEW RULES, after the fact.

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 12:20 PM

For a conservative, you seem not too adverse to laws before the fact.

Laws are, at their best, a response to the acts of the unsavory. The worst laws are those enacted for no reason whatsoever.

why do the Catholics exclude Christians…when being a Christian should be the overriding theme.

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Catholics do not exclude Christians — they exclude Christians who are not Catholic, as well as Catholics in a state of sin, from one Sacrament — that of Communion. Only Catholics may receive Holy Orders — and every denomination has that kind of exclusion (that only those who are knowledgeable about the Lord should minister). Only marriages in which at least one person is Catholic are ministered by the Church — and, when only one of the parties is Catholic, they must take classes to understand the religion of their prospective spouse. They don’t have to convert, but they do have to understand.

Confirmation is the adult rite of full initiation into the Catholic Church — and I can’t imagine you wanting to do that, so it’s moot.

No exclusion for Baptism or Anointing of the Sick, unlike some churches who will not baptise children. While the Church prefers that a priest perform these activities, any Catholic may perform them in an emergency.

The principle is probably far beyond your small mind to understand, but to a Catholic the Lord’s Supper is done with transsubstantiated bread and wine — that when Jesus said “This is my Body, and this is my Blood…Do this in memory of me”, that it is really his Body and his Blood which we are consuming. Furthermore, what about the “in memory of me” part? If we allow people with a wrong memory of Jesus to partake (demonstrably those who are not Catholic, or are Catholics in a state of sin), are we violating Jesus’ command? The answer for the Church is “yes”. I agree with that answer. If, after examining my conscience, I find that I am in a state of sin, and have not yet asked forgiveness and been given a penance to perform, I will not take Communion — I go up, stand before the Eucharistic Minister with my hands folded across my chest, and I receive the Blessing of the Lord.

By the way, anyone is welcome to come into a Mass and participate in everything but Communion (and, as I have mentioned, even partially participate by coming forward to be blessed).

The new rules
unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Says it all, the NEW RULES, after the fact.

I think this qualifies as “pap”… that our Church was founded in sin by men, but your alterations were done by Christ…serially…overriding each other.

EVERYONE can be a Catholic and receive the sacraments, but not just by driving another 10 minutes. That may not suit you but YOU CHANGED A TRADITION. So as to why we still do it that way, get a history of the Church in the catacombs.

Chris_Balsz on November 8, 2009 at 12:00 PM

So you think you are the only legitimate Christian Church? If not then you would allow others to commune with you and Christ…the communion isn’t with the Church, it is with Christ and his followers….get it, Christ wants to commune with us, he didn’t ask for a membership card. He came to us specifically to remove that legalistic notion…sorry you can’t commune with the rest of the Christians.
How arrogant to say “you can commune with Christ, only if you are a Catholic”, that is why He came, to remove that arrogance and elitism.
One of the most obvious of all acts by Christ…humiliating the “church” leaders who demanded that they are the gatekeepers…you and the Catholic Church are not the gatekeepers…to bad you are too arrogant to recognize that.

YOU CHANGED A TRADITION.

Traditions are man made…thus possible of being sinful, and certainly not sinless. If you believe Christ, then traditions, doctrines, and church policies are of little import (organizational value, but little spiritual value)…if you believe the Church over Christ, then your Catholic Church is perfect…that is your choice.
Many people in history thought (and think) their “Church” was perfect, that it was blessed by God…

Since when has the catholic church been a voice of morality on anything?

TTheoLogan on November 8, 2009 at 3:43 AM

A million Poles turned out to hear John Paul II say Mass because they liked his hat?

Ok, for extra credit, do I think you are a bigot pedophile? Your next response will either prove or disprove the thought rolling through my head right now.

See how that works?

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Ah, pedophilia by association with priests who weren’t pedophiles. I’m not defending the priests — but I am defending the Church’s original rules, which emphasized forgiveness. These priests took advantage of those rules.

The new rules (immediate removal from ministry upon accusation, requirement by all, from parishioners up to bishops, to report any observed irregularities to both the Church and to the civil authorities, and requirement that no adult ever be alone with a child) certainly go far in fixing the problem (abuse of power by the clergy and by other adults in a position of trust).

This realization of potential abuse of power by any adult now colors our entire society. My sister-in-law is a Baptist and the police screen all their Sunday School teachers in exactly the same way that our CCD teachers are now screened by the police before they can teach at my church. Until you are screened, you are not allowed contact with children.

I note from your latter post that you are citing materials associated with the USCCB. In other words, you are citing materials which indicate the extent to which the bishops are cleaning house. That should tell you something if you have to quote Catholic studies in your attempt to bash Catholics…

Well that partially answers it…you believe in open borders. You do not believe in a sovereign state of the U.S. Yet you believe in a Church that is sovereign.
Having socialist leaders do not bother you, so you fit the new Catholic?

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Where have I said I do not believe in a sovereign state? My position on immigration matches that of Abraham Lincoln, and he certainly believed in the sovereignty of the United States — so much so that he went to war to enforce it. My line in the sand has already been drawn in a previous comment; you are welcome to re-read it to refresh your memory.

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Jesus came partly to establish his Church here on earth. That Church is, in my mind, the Roman Catholic Church, which traces its roots through apostolic succession all the way back to Peter, the one Jesus chose (choice documented in Scripture) to lead his Church.

Luther is a relative newcomer in comparison to Peter — an anti-Semitic minor priest and monk whose Theses and suspect theology were used by a bunch of German princes to establish national churches. I equate Luther to Henry VIII — a schismatic on the wrong side of the schism.

Looks like Nancy stole a march.

Let me ask you one question….if Catholics are Christians, then why don’t they allow other Christians to take the sacraments with them?
Think about that, not some pap from a Catholic website, but truly think…why do the Catholics exclude Christians…when being a Christian should be the overriding theme.
The exclusivity of the Catholic Church is exactly one of the reasons Christ came to us…to knock down those walls, and open his heart to everyone, EVERYONE that comes before Him.

I think this qualifies as “pap”… that our Church was founded in sin by men, but your alterations were done by Christ…serially…overriding each other.

EVERYONE can be a Catholic and receive the sacraments, but not just by driving another 10 minutes. That may not suit you but YOU CHANGED A TRADITION. So as to why we still do it that way, get a history of the Church in the catacombs.