PDA

View Full Version : Vatican Hit by Sex Scandal



MidtownGuy
March 7th, 2010, 06:04 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/05/vatican-hit-by-gay-sex-sc_n_486218.html




The Vatican has been thrown into chaos by reports that one of the Pope's ceremonial ushers, as well as a member of the elite Vatican choir, were involved in a homosexual prostitution ring.
The allegations came to light after Italian newspapers published transcripts of phone calls recorded by police, who had been conducting an unrelated corruption investigation.
The tapes appear to record Angelo Balducci, a Gentleman of His Holiness, negotiating with Thomas Chinedu Ehiem, a 29-year-old Nigerian Vatican chorister, about men he wanted brought to him for sexual purposes. Balducci was allegedly paying 2,000 euros ($2,714) for each man he met, according to the Irish Times.
Balducci is recorded describing precise physical details of the men he wanted. The transcripts record that during five months in 2008, Ehiem procured for Balducci at least 10 contacts with, among others, "two black Cuban lads," a former male model from Naples, and a rugby player from Rome.
A report by the Italian Carabinieri on the case said: "In order to organize casual encounters of a sexual nature, he availed himself of the intercession of two individuals who, it is maintained, may form part of an organized network, especially active in [Rome], of exploiters or at least facilitators of male prostitution."
The police probe into corruption resulted in Balducci and 4 others being arrested. Allegations of prostitution were only revealed later, and have resulted in Ehiem's dismissal from the Vatican choir.
Balducci held a high position within the Vatican and carried the coffin of Pope John Paul at his 2005 funeral. He has now lost his position as a Gentleman of the Holiness. His trial for corruption is still pending.
The Catholic Church has weathered a storm of controversy in recent years over allegations of sexual abuse by its members. Whilst homosexuality is not outright condemned within the Church, it is taught that homosexual acts are "are intrinsically disordered."

Alonzo-ny
March 7th, 2010, 06:18 PM
Is anyone surprised?

OmegaNYC
March 7th, 2010, 06:24 PM
^^^ oh, you silly nutter. :cool:

Fabrizio
March 7th, 2010, 06:29 PM
Balducci was allegedly paying 2,000 euros ($2,714) for each man he met.

Know btw, at those prices these were not guys off the street nor what you might think of as "prostitutes": we are talking mostly about the world of soccor, bodyguards, cops, models from Milan and probably the Vatican's Swiss Guards as well.

2,000 Euro... comes in handy.

MidtownGuy
March 7th, 2010, 06:39 PM
Bunch of pansy a**holes in dresses, talking smack about homosexuality...advocating against equal rights for gays, then going home at night to munch some trade.
No, we're not surprised. I bet more than half the priesthood is on the DL.

Fabrizio
March 7th, 2010, 07:41 PM
I'd say a good 80%.

Ninjahedge
March 8th, 2010, 08:18 AM
Bunch of pansy a**holes in dresses, talking smack about homosexuality...advocating against equal rights for gays, then going home at night to munch some trade.
No, we're not surprised. I bet more than half the priesthood is on the DL.

That is what happens when your religion not only denotes Homosexuality as evil, and does not allow the priesthood to have a woman in their life.

Double whammie, without any "wham".

These men, who are undoubtedly religious, have no problem saying "no wife", and feel guilty about their true feelings and feel they need to atone for their own sins, so......

Is this all of them? Hell no. But it is an undiniably ironic result of a religions positions.

Fabrizio
March 8th, 2010, 08:42 AM
The Catholic church does not denote homosexuality as "evil". It's stand on homosexuality is on par with most Christian religions as well as Judaism. Though not as severe as Islam and Hindu.

lofter1
March 8th, 2010, 09:30 AM
On par with other Christian religions? Not necesarily ...

How easy & expedient it must be for those in charge of the Catholic Church -- by its essential & self-professed make-up an organization full of single men without spouses or partners -- to deny health benefits (http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/03/01/to-avoid-funding-gay-marrieds-catholic-charities-denies-benefits-to-all-spouses/) to partners / spouses / husbands / wives of those in their employ:


Today, Catholic Charities President and CEO Edward Orzechowski sent out a memo to staffers informing them of the change to the health care coverage, which will go into effect tomorrow.

In short: If you and your spouse are already enrolled in Catholic Charities health coverage, your spouse will be grandfathered in. Starting tomorrow, however, new employees (or newly married employees, hint hint) will not be allowed to add spouses to the plan. So: Longtime employees will receive the spousal benefits they’ve always had; Catholic Charities will get to keep its pool of covered spouses gay-free; only fresh employees and gays will feel the sting on this one.

Here’s the memo:


I am writing to you to inform you of an important change to our group health care benefit plan that will take effect on March 2, 2010 due to a change in the law of the District of Columbia. It is important to note that the existing health coverage of current employees will not be affected by the change. New employees and current employees requesting revisions in benefit coverage will be affected by this change.

Catholic Charities will continue to honor the health plan coverage that current employees have as of March 1, 2010. As of March 2, a new plan will be in effect that will cover new employees and requests for benefit changes by current employees. The new plan will provide the same level of coverage for employees and their dependents that you now have, with one exception: spouses not in the plan as of March 1, will not be eligible for coverage in the future. If your spouse currently has coverage in our Plan, he/she may continue to be covered by the health benefit plan, even if you later add a dependent or decide to change your option level (e.g., change from low option to high option). Please see the attached formal Plan Amendment.

We sincerely regret that we have to make this change, but it is necessary to allow Catholic Charities to continue to provide essential services to the clients we serve in partnership with the District of Columbia while remaining consistent with the tenets of our religious faith.

A summary of the Plan modification has been mailed to you at your home address. If you have any questions on this matter, please e-mail your Human Resources manager or, if you do not have access to email, call. Please remember, this change does not impact your current coverage in any way.

Thank you for your understanding in this matter, and let me again express my appreciation for your support and patience over these past months as we have worked hard to arrive at a decision that allows us to continue to serve others in a manner that is consistent with our religious beliefs.

Fabrizio
March 8th, 2010, 10:23 AM
I don't know how this might compare to similar situations with most other religions.

In the meantime: the Catholic Church is against gay marriage and always will be. That is not going to change.

What world religions are fine with it?

ZippyTheChimp
March 8th, 2010, 11:45 AM
Reform Judaism

Ninjahedge
March 8th, 2010, 10:25 PM
The Catholic church does not denote homosexuality as "evil". It's stand on homosexuality is on par with most Christian religions as well as Judaism. Though not as severe as Islam and Hindu.

OK, so what do they consider sex out of wedlock?

Also, how long has the Catholic Church approved of Gay Marriage?

I assume all Gay Catholics just hold hands? That ain't much for 2000 Euros... I think he should get his money back!

ZippyTheChimp
March 8th, 2010, 11:06 PM
When I was very young, I wanted a bicycle. Every night I prayed to God that he might grant me one. After months of devout prayer and no bicycle, a revelation came to me. God doesn't operate in this manner.

The next day I stole a bicycle, and that night, prayed to God for forgiveness.

Fabrizio
March 9th, 2010, 03:12 AM
^ actually that kind of sums things up.

Ninja: I don't understand line 2 and 3 of your post up above but if you want to know more about Catholic attitudes on homosexualty, sex or really anything there are plenty of Catholic sources that you can turn to for info. Know that there are thousands and thousands of Catholics who identify themselves as gay and who live their lives as they please. The Catholic Church is not going to condone homosexuality, or sex out of wedlock, or abortion....ever. Not ever. Basically Catholics live with it and pray to God for forgivness for having stolen the bicycle. It's not about you and what you expect the Church to be. When you are long dead and gone the Church is still going to be there... like Coca Cola.

And: for the record, it should be pointed out that the fellow in question in the article that opens the thread is not a priest. These are lay people, not clergy: cerimonial usher and member of the Vatican choir.

Furthermore the article's claim that "the Vatican has been thrown into chaos" by this episode is ridiculous.

--

Ninjahedge
March 9th, 2010, 07:55 AM
Fab, Isn't evil what you do to get you into hell?

Isn't sex out of wedlock considered a sin?

Doesn't sin get you into hell?

If the church does not permit gay marriage, and gay people DO have sex, they are sinning and will (possibly) go to hell for it. (or so the Church's rules seem to indicate).

So, doesn't that make it, in general terms, evil? Or is it a good thing to go to hell?

The church does not need to say things directly to get people to believe in certain things being good or bad. Sometimes a string of contiguous rules can make an act, a belief, or a people "evil" in the eyes of "God".

Fabrizio
March 9th, 2010, 08:07 AM
Yes, I guess you are right about that. Homosexulity is considered a sin and so if sin is evil then...ok... homosexuality is evil.

But of course the Church gets complicated.... sins come in a number of flavours in the Catholic Church. Then you You have Confession, Communion.... forgivness for your sins... and forgivness is a huge factor in the Church.

Personally, I've never heard of homosexual people considered "evil" in the eyes of "God" (as you write above) in the Catholic Church.

Really though, what is your point?

Ninjahedge
March 9th, 2010, 09:35 AM
There has to be a point to a pointless association?

stache
March 9th, 2010, 03:58 PM
The Catholic Church takes it one step further, not approving of the 'gay sensibility', that is, it's not enough to be celibate, one may not also be nelly or a fan of Joan Crawford -

Fabrizio
March 9th, 2010, 04:13 PM
Oh, absolutely. That's what I love about gay Catholic men.... they're so butch.

lofter1
March 10th, 2010, 06:51 PM
Where is Father Damien (http://www.horrorphile.net/images/the-exorcist-poster-image1.jpg) when we need him?

Chief exorcist Father Gabriele Amorth says Devil is in the Vatican

TimesOnLine (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7056689.ece)

Sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church are proof that that "the Devil is at work inside the Vatican", according to the Holy See's chief exorcist.

Father Gabriele Amorth, 85, who has been the Vatican's chief exorcist for 25 years and says he has dealt with 70,000 cases of demonic possession, said that the consequences of satanic infiltration included power struggles at the Vatican as well as "cardinals who do not believe in Jesus, and bishops who are linked to the Demon".

He added: "When one speaks of 'the smoke of Satan' [a phrase coined by Pope Paul VI in 1972] in the holy rooms, it is all true – including these latest stories of violence and paedophilia."

He claimed that another example of satanic behaviour was the Vatican "cover-up" over the deaths in 1998 of Alois Estermann, the then commander of the Swiss Guard, his wife and Corporal Cedric Tornay, a Swiss Guard, who were all found shot dead. "They covered up everything immediately," he said. "Here one sees the rot" ...

Copyright 2010 Times Newspapers Ltd.

ZippyTheChimp
March 10th, 2010, 07:09 PM
Figured at some point, The Devil would get dragged into this.

And what's this "Gentleman of his Holiness" all about? Never heard of it. Has the ring of "Lady of the Evening."

MidtownGuy
March 10th, 2010, 07:17 PM
Demons seem to be running the show in every brand of organized Christianity these days, IMHO. Ditto Islam and most Judaism.



Oh, absolutely. That's what I love about gay Catholic men.... they're so butch. Hardly that! Catholic gay men usually end up the biggest "cha cha queens" around. All that silly repression early in life.

stache
March 10th, 2010, 07:25 PM
-

MidtownGuy
March 10th, 2010, 07:32 PM
Lmao :D

lofter1
March 10th, 2010, 08:49 PM
I'm not saying it's true, but ...

CRUSH OF THE DAY (http://www.bestweekever.tv/2006-12-22/crush-of-the-day-monsignor-georg-ganswein/): Monsignor Georg Ganswein

Fabrizio
March 10th, 2010, 09:35 PM
And then there are his guards...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/08.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/003-2.jpg

scumonkey
March 10th, 2010, 09:38 PM
looks like a still shot from a Bel Ami video ;)

lofter1
March 10th, 2010, 11:21 PM
Just to amuse myself (and hopefully the rest of you) I googled "Vatican Guard" "Gay" & "Porn" fully expecting there'd be a at least one hilariously titled something to link to.

But NOTHING.

Whatever happened to creativity?

Ninjahedge
March 11th, 2010, 07:44 AM
Father Gabriele Amorth, 85, who has been the Vatican's chief exorcist for 25 years and says he has dealt with 70,000 cases of demonic possession

Is this like Wilt?

70,000/(25x365) = 7-8 cases a day, EVERY DAY.

If he only worked weekdays that jumps to 10-11. So we are probably looking at 1 demonic posession for every 2 waking hours throughout his "career".


Major BS. I hate when these guys make up numbers.

stache
March 11th, 2010, 07:53 AM
He's off Sundays - :p

NYatKNIGHT
March 11th, 2010, 09:23 AM
Maybe he can exorcise a whole roomful of demonically possessed subjects with one blanket blessing ritual - that could get you to 70,000. So it must be true.

Ninjahedge
March 11th, 2010, 10:18 AM
Kinda like that Chinese dude's wedding ceremony?

MidtownGuy
March 24th, 2010, 10:49 PM
Warned About Abuse, Vatican Failed to Defrock Priest

Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/benedict_xvi/index.html?inline=nyt-per) — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.

The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.
The documents emerge as Pope Benedict is facing other accusations that he and direct subordinates often did not alert civilian authorities or discipline priests involved in sexual abuse when he served as an archbishop in Germany and as the Vatican (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/roman_catholic_church/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’s chief doctrinal enforcer.
The Wisconsin case involved an American priest, the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, who worked at a renowned school for deaf children from 1950 to 1974. But it is only one of thousands of cases forwarded over decades by bishops to the Vatican office called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led from 1981 to 2005 by Cardinal Ratzinger. It is still the office that decides whether accused priests should be given full canonical trials and defrocked.
In 1996, Cardinal Ratzinger failed to respond to two letters about the case from Rembert G. Weakland (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15weakland.html?), Milwaukee’s archbishop at the time. After eight months, the second in command at the doctrinal office, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, now the Vatican’s secretary of state, instructed the Wisconsin bishops to begin a secret canonical trial that could lead to Father Murphy’s dismissal.
But Cardinal Bertone halted the process after Father Murphy personally wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger protesting that he should not be put on trial because he had already repented and was in poor health and that the case was beyond the church’s own statute of limitations.
“I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood,” Father Murphy wrote near the end of his life to Cardinal Ratzinger. “I ask your kind assistance in this matter.” The files contain no response from Cardinal Ratzinger.
The New York Times obtained the documents, which the church fought to keep secret, from Jeff Anderson and Mike Finnegan, the lawyers for five men who have brought four lawsuits against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. The documents include letters between bishops and the Vatican, victims’ affidavits, the handwritten notes of an expert on sexual disorders who interviewed Father Murphy and minutes of a final meeting on the case at the Vatican.
Father Murphy not only was never tried or disciplined by the church’s own justice system, but also got a pass from the police and prosecutors who ignored reports from his victims, according to the documents and interviews with victims. Three successive archbishops in Wisconsin were told that Father Murphy was sexually abusing children, the documents show, but never reported it to criminal or civil authorities.
Instead of being disciplined, Father Murphy was quietly moved by Archbishop William E. Cousins (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/16/obituaries/rev-william-edward-cousins-86-retired-archbishop-of-milwaukee.html?) of Milwaukee to the Diocese of Superior in northern Wisconsin in 1974, where he spent his last 24 years working freely with children in parishes, schools and, as one lawsuit charges, a juvenile detention center. He died in 1998, still a priest.
Even as the pope himself in a recent letter to Irish Catholics has emphasized the need to cooperate with civil justice in abuse cases, the correspondence seems to indicate that the Vatican’s insistence on secrecy has often impeded such cooperation. At the same time, the officials’ reluctance to defrock a sex abuser shows that on a doctrinal level, the Vatican has tended to view the matter in terms of sin and repentance more than crime and punishment.
The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, was shown the documents and was asked to respond to questions about the case. He provided a statement saying that Father Murphy had certainly violated “particularly vulnerable” children and the law, and that it was a “tragic case.” But he pointed out that the Vatican was not forwarded the case until 1996, years after civil authorities had investigated the case and dropped it.
Father Lombardi emphasized that neither the Code of Canon Law nor the Vatican norms issued in 1962, which instruct bishops to conduct canonical investigations and trials in secret, prohibited church officials from reporting child abuse to civil authorities. He did not address why that had never happened in this case.

more (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html?pagewanted=2)


---
molesting little deaf boys. does it get any lower?

nick-taylor
March 26th, 2010, 05:16 AM
I was raised as a Roman Catholic and even went to an RC school where evolution was highly placed above the joke of creationism and we were taught to have an open mind. I've not been to chuch in probably 6-7 years but I have always held the belief that while I don't believe in God, heaven/hell and the writings of the Bible; if you are good, have an open mind, respect others and don't commit crimes or inflict pain or stress on others you would be more likely to find a potential 'God'.

For the Church, what these acts illustrate is that the entire organisation (from priest to pope) is corrupt and complicit in illegal acts that are downright disgusting. 200 deaf boys for (literally) Christs sake!

I doubt the Pope or anyone with authority within the Church will be held accountable in a court of law, but fortunately there will be a defined response: these acts will accelerate the contraction of the Catholic religion. All the other world religions will eventually follow suit as people realise that religion is a form of control.

http://pistulunestaminchiazza.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/ratzinger-palpatine-727057.jpg

Fabrizio
March 26th, 2010, 05:37 AM
"and even went to an RC school where evolution was highly placed above the joke of creationism and we were taught to have an open mind."

^ These are just among the reasons why many of us love the Church.

As a Catholic I seperate the men from the religion and it's spiritual teachings. Men are mortal and will sin. But this is a big one and will cause great damage. What there has to be is a complete investigation of this and treated as a criminal case under state law.

Ninjahedge
March 26th, 2010, 08:10 AM
One has to realize that religion is a philosophy based on what many hopes to be a devine architect.

Regardless of whether or not this master planner exists, many religions offer a way to live harmoniously with others around you. Whether by fear or by love, they have all been workings of a societies base psycological makeup that in turn helps many deal with the unknowns in their lives in ways that makes life easier to handle.

Flood? It's Gods Way.
Fire? Yep, God again.
Death? God had a reason.....etc etc

But the key to many of the religions out there that have lead the most peaceful existance has been tolerance. The more tolerant and accepting one has been, the more open to discussion, the happier people have been living under its philosophy.

The more hatefull, xenephobic, retributive and punishing the religion, the more apt those following it would follow suit and live a more hateful, xenephobic, punitive and combative life.




The thing that really irks me right now is that the Catholic Church has become just what its "founder" would have dreadded. An Organization. An Institution. "The Man".

Jesus was a (holy) peace loving hippie that fed the poor, healed the sick and, lets not forget these two, overturned the tables in the market and forgave the sins of the people around him. He was not one to heap on pennances and punishments. He was not one to condemn, but yet that seems to be the "way" with an organized religion with so much heirarchy that they actually have an almost regal system of rule.


Oh, and dressing up your chief guy all in gold Mieter hats and the like is a real hoot too. I think people like Mother Terresa had it right, and so much can be learned by following HER example rather than what the leaders of that same religion profess to be The Way.

Fabrizio
March 26th, 2010, 08:20 AM
The thing that really irks me right now is that the Catholic Church has become just what its "founder" would have dreadded. An Organization.

Whoa... wait a minute.... the Catholic Church has become an organization? Since when?

----------

"Oh, and dressing up your chief guy all in gold Mieter hats and the like is a real hoot too."

Actually the Popes daily dress is extremely modest. It's basically a tunic. The rest for mass and occasions has historic significance.

--

ZippyTheChimp
March 26th, 2010, 08:26 AM
many religions offer a way to live harmoniously with others around you.Not the norm, by any means.

Fabrizio
March 26th, 2010, 08:36 AM
Ninja wrote: "I think people like Mother Terresa had it right, and so much can be learned by following HER example rather than what the leaders of that same religion profess to be The Way."

Actually Mother Teresa was not without contraversy... but let's remember however: there are thousands of priests and nuns out there who do wonderful and selfless work for the benefit of others.

--

Ninjahedge
March 26th, 2010, 11:04 AM
Whoa... wait a minute.... the Catholic Church has become an organization? Since when?

----------

"Oh, and dressing up your chief guy all in gold Mieter hats and the like is a real hoot too."

Actually the Popes daily dress is extremely modest. It's basically a tunic. The rest for mass and occasions has historic significance.

--

Does not matter when Fab. Gold/wealth is considered a sin (or whatever appellation you want to assign it if you want to split hairs...) until you hit the top?

Nuh uh.

White frock him and ditch the pageantry.

Ninjahedge
March 26th, 2010, 11:05 AM
Not the norm, by any means.

I was referring more towards the gentry within the religion itself....

The only time THEY have problems is when they find someone that does not agree! ;)

Ninjahedge
March 26th, 2010, 11:08 AM
Actually Mother Teresa was not without contraversy... but let's remember however: there are thousands of priests and nuns out there who do wonderful and selfless work for the benefit of others.--

I am aware of that, and I tried to couch my reply in deference to them. I do not want to seem like I hate the basic tenets of the religion itself, just what the bureaucracy has become of what was a home grown peacefully rebellious call to worship.

Jesus, as he was then, would never be allowed in to the higher levels of the Church now... Ultimate oxymoronic irony........



BTW, I never changed your name Fab... I wonder why the reply thing did......:confused:

ZippyTheChimp
March 26th, 2010, 11:25 AM
I was referring more towards the gentry within the religion itself....No difference. Those that buy into it are part of it.

Fabrizio
March 26th, 2010, 11:35 AM
Maybe the Tabriz thing is God telling me I should be a Muslim.

Ninj: Anyway... look... I have to be honest: I have a hard time with your posts... now you are saying that gold/wealth is a sin. It's not.

And ...uh... ditch the pagentry?: pagentry in the Church is celebration, joy, culture, a link with history.... etc. I'm not saying you must agree with it... but it does have another meaning to many.

Ninjahedge
March 26th, 2010, 12:20 PM
No difference. Those that buy into it are part of it.

Let me rephrase it then.

Most religions work on a premise that allow more harmoneous relation between people based on a comon unifying belief. Pack instinct, people have an instinct to follow each other.

So most religions have, at least on the surface, a sort of "help your neighbor" clause put into it. Provided, of course, your neighbor is "one of you" as well.

Some religions are more obvious of this exclusion, but some, like Christianity as it stands in the Catholic Church, are not. Do not even get me started on some of the denominations we harbor in the south (Baptist, I think?) and their inherent "we love all people, so long as they agree with us!....

Anyway, whatever. The statement I made was a generalization that can, with small effort, be picked apart on individual issues, but the premise stays the same. Religions teach solidarity. Very few say "kick your neighbor". At least, not as such.

Ninjahedge
March 26th, 2010, 12:25 PM
Ninj: Anyway... look... I have to be honest: I have a hard time with your posts... now you are saying that gold/wealth is a sin. It's not.

then why is it forbidden to be posessed or won by lower priests?


And ...uh... ditch the pagentry?: pagentry in the Church is celebration, joy, culture, a link with history.... etc. I'm not saying you must agree with it... but it does have another meaning to many.

I know. People are shallow. We can't give money without a Run/Walk or a Fruit Cake sale. We can't believe in God without dancing around with colored eggs on Easter, or having a parade of ornately costumed "officials" walking through a huge plaza to tell everyone that, in a nutshell, God is still around and you should all follow what Jesus talked about....

Religions that do not do this do not attract the sheeple.

Look at the televangelists! the whole point of a sermon is to take the word to the people, to give a more personal message. But you get that many people together, it is no longer personal. It is a popularity contest which ties directly into human beings desire to be part of the strongest pack.


Odd, for a religion that started with 12 people following a prophet that hated the establishment and organized religion.....

Fabrizio
March 26th, 2010, 01:14 PM
Ninj, the Catholic Church (especially the Catholic Church) is also about austerity. It's the Church of the opulence of the Vatican and the austerity of a monestary. (It's very cool.)

And in other cultures (like here in the Mediterranean where this all got started) pagentry and celebration whether it's for the pig slaugter or the Easter procession... it's how we live (thank God). We're not Calvinists.

--

Ninjahedge
March 26th, 2010, 02:07 PM
Ninj, the Catholic Church (especially the Catholic Church) is also about austerity. It's the Church of the opulence of the Vatican and the austerity of a monestary. (It's very cool.)

As a cultural center and a reference to such, it really is extroadinary (been there done that! ;) )


And in other cultures (like here in the Mediterranean where this all got started) pagentry and celebration whether it's for the pig slaugter or the Easter procession... it's how we live (thank God). We're not Calvinists.--

I am not saying we have to forego celebration, but we havea tendency to lose site of the real reasons behind the parade and focus on the floats....


I like celebration myself, I just find it odd what we celebrate, how and why. Sometimes we celebrate not for the event, but for the celebration itself. That is fine when you are having a party, but for Christ? Some of the very things he protested against the organized religious institutions of his day are being performed in his name today.....

Humanity keeps coming back to what it likes and is comfortable.

Isn't that right, Neo?

ZippyTheChimp
March 26th, 2010, 02:42 PM
Odd, for a religion that started with 12 people following a prophet that hated the establishment and organized religion.....


Matthew 5:17
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them..

Ninjahedge
March 26th, 2010, 03:48 PM
Really.

You have to post context or the quote is worthless Zip. What was Matthew positioning for? What was his direction? Was he saying that he is not there to stop the Law of God, but merely to suggest that the Law of Man no longer follows it?

He does not protest the origin or basis of the religion, but his actions were not exactly extolling the current state of Judaeism. They wanted change, and you cannot change by staying the same and agreeing to continue what has come before in perpetuity......

ZippyTheChimp
March 26th, 2010, 04:12 PM
What was Matthew positioning for?What's the difference what Matthew was positioning for?

The passage is a quote from Jesus. If you don't believe it is, and is the thoughts and intentions of Matthew, then what (if not the Gospel) information do you base your statement on what Jesus hated?

Your posts are full of contradictions. Like religion promotes harmony. But wait, only among those within the sect.

To all others (the majority of humans), religion is exclusionary. So on a global perspective, religion promotes disharmony.

You're talking in circles.

Ninjahedge
March 27th, 2010, 07:20 PM
What's the difference what Matthew was positioning for?

Context.


The passage is a quote from Jesus. If you don't believe it is, and is the thoughts and intentions of Matthew, then what (if not the Gospel) information do you base your statement on what Jesus hated?

Why did the church only pick 4 apostles to be included in the scripture? Were the others too boring? Did they not agree with the church's position several centuries after Jesus' death?

Can o' Worms.


Your posts are full of contradictions. Like religion promotes harmony. But wait, only among those within the sect.

No, that is not a contradiction. Are you sauying that people from a religious group are not harmoneous? That they do not work to make great numbers of people work together to spread "the word'?

Religion itslef is the one that contradicts itself, not me. A doctor that shoots a man is still one that heals others. Saying that he does both is not a contradiction.


To all others (the majority of humans), religion is exclusionary. So on a global perspective, religion promotes disharmony.

There are many that would accept others that wanted to become part of that religion. They are only exclusionary of others with dissimilar beliefs.


You're talking in circles.

Look who I am talking to. ;)

ZippyTheChimp
March 28th, 2010, 01:01 AM
Context.I thought the context was what Jesus hated (according to you). Not what Matthew was thinking. Not what four other apostles were thinking. Not what the church was thinking several centuries later. See post #49.


Are you sauying that people from a religious group are not harmoneous? That they do not work to make great numbers of people work together to spread "the word'?Since you love analogies: National Socialism promoted harmony, at least among the practitioners. Before you go off on Adolf, consider that I already read your following remark, and one good absurdity deserves another.


A doctor that shoots a man is still one that heals others. Saying that he does both is not a contradiction.Whut?

Ninjahedge
March 29th, 2010, 08:06 AM
Zip, you just pulled a Godwin. I am outta here. :rolleyes:

ZippyTheChimp
March 29th, 2010, 08:21 AM
Zip, you just pulled a Godwin. I am outta here. :rolleyes:


Before you go off on Adolf, consider that I already read your following remark, and one good absurdity deserves another.:rolleyes:

Ninjahedge
March 29th, 2010, 08:32 AM
Nah, you can't call on socialism, say "before you say Adolf" when I never did, then eye-roll on Godwin being called.

I never had any intension of bringing him into the mix here.

Sometimes a duck is just a duck.

ZippyTheChimp
March 29th, 2010, 08:34 AM
Zip, you just pulled a Godwin. I am outta here. :rolleyes:


Nah,:rolleyes:

Ninjahedge
March 29th, 2010, 08:53 AM
Yes dear.

stache
March 29th, 2010, 11:35 AM
Ok you two...

Fabrizio
March 29th, 2010, 04:14 PM
Since Easter is coming up I thought I'd post a little of our idol worship Italian style.

Note that these are not scenes from a Hollywood movie, no fancy art director was flown in from Milan... the exquisite taste and color coordinated everything comes from the heart. Evey inch of these scenes is touched by art.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/00k.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/00a-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/00b-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/00d.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/00c-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/bb.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/ll.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/00i.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/00g.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/aa.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/00f.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/00h.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/00j.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/cc.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/dd.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/ee.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/kk.jpg

Fabrizio
March 29th, 2010, 04:24 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/000e.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/000c.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/0001.jpg

Fabrizio
March 29th, 2010, 05:09 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/000aa2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/000aa3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/000aa4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/000aa.jpg

MidtownGuy
March 29th, 2010, 05:45 PM
Very beautiful. And I'm sure some people were involved in coordinating things.

Statun-Ilandur
March 29th, 2010, 06:02 PM
Take out the modern and or Christian themes or symbols and I can visualize Tiberius, walking, following his step-father Augustus in a sedan chair around the Roman Forum circa 10 C.E. (A.D.).

MidtownGuy
March 29th, 2010, 06:06 PM
To return to the topic, the Catholic News Service has this piece out today, pretty much defending the Pope when he was Ratzinger and putting the blame on the media.
---


(http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1001299.htm)Vatican intensifies defense of pope on sex abuse decisions (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1001299.htm)

By John Thavis
Catholic News Service (http://www.catholicnews.com/)

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Vatican and other church officials have amplified their defense of Pope Benedict XVI and his decisions regarding priestly sex abuse, and rejected accusations of a continued cover-up of such crimes.

After a series of reports in the New York Times and other media criticizing the pope for alleged "inaction" on sex abuse cases, Vatican authorities emphasized that it was the pope who, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, pushed for harsher measures against abusers and made it easier for the church to defrock them.

On March 27, the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, ran the full texts of two landmark documents that in 2001 placed the sexual abuse of minors by priests among the most grave sins, and established that allegations be handled by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by Cardinal Ratzinger.

The same day, the newspaper ran a front-page commentary by British Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster that had appeared in the Times of London, expressing shame over priestly sex abuse but strongly defending the pope's efforts to curb it.

"What of the role of Pope Benedict? When he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he led important changes made in church law: the inclusion in canon law of Internet offenses against children, the extension of child abuse offenses to include the sexual abuse of all under 18, the case by case waiving of the statute of limitations and the establishment of a fast-track dismissal from the clerical state for offenders," Archbishop Nichols wrote.

"He is not an idle observer. His actions speak as well as his words," he said.

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said the recent media focus on the sex abuse cases and the way they were dealt with by the hierarchy comes as no surprise.

"The nature of the question is such as to attract the attention of the media, and the way in which the church deals with it is crucial for her moral credibility," he said in a commentary on Vatican Radio.

But Father Lombardi pointed to the "many positive signals" that indicate the church has understood the problem and addressed it. For example, he said, a recent report showed that the number of reported sex abuse cases declined between 33 and 36 percent in U.S. dioceses and religious institutes between 2008 and 2009.

"It must be recognized that the decisive measures currently being implemented are proving effective: the church in the United States is on the right road to renewal," he said.

"This, we feel, is an important piece of news in the context of recent media attacks, which have undoubtedly proved harmful," the spokesman said.

Father Lombardi said impartial observers would recognize that the pope and the doctrinal congregation are continuing to guide bishops and help them "combat and root out the blight of abuse wherever it appears." The pope's strongly worded letter to Irish Catholics earlier this month demonstrated his commitment to "healing, renewal and reparation" in the church, he said.

German Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican's top ecumenical official, said the pope's letter to Irish Catholics was "courageous." It indicated that the church was on an "irreversible" path toward greater transparency and severity in dealing with sex abuse by priests, the cardinal told the newspaper Corriere della Sera March 27.

Pope Benedict has never tried to protect abusers, and the criticism aimed at him is really an attack on the church itself, Cardinal Kasper said.

"He was the first who, even as a cardinal, felt the need for new and stricter rules, which didn't exist before. That some newspapers are now using terrible cases to attack the pope head-on is something that goes beyond every limit of justice and fairness," he said.

Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher of the papal household, mentioned the sex abuse scandal in his weekly Lenten meditation. In his talk to the pope and Roman Curia officials March 26, Father Cantalamessa said the church and its members are called to purify themselves and, if there is humility, then "the church will end up more resplendent than ever from this war."

"The media's tenacity -- and we have seen it in other cases -- in the long run will bring about the opposite effect that they had hoped for," he added.

Addressing the pope specifically, Father Cantalamessa reminded him that God told Jeremiah that before his detractors he would make him "a solid wall of brass. Though they fight against you, they shall not prevail. For I am with you to deliver and rescue you."

French bishops, assembled at their annual spring meeting, sent a "message of support" to Pope Benedict, saying they were with him "in the difficult period our church is going through."

Italian Archbishop Giuseppe Betori of Florence told Vatican Radio March 26 that the media was manipulating information in order to falsely accuse the pope of inaction on sex abuse. He said he had dealt directly with the doctrinal congregation under Cardinal Ratzinger on abuse allegations, and found that the congregation demonstrated "the maximum attention and the maximum severity."

ablarc
March 29th, 2010, 06:18 PM
Italian Archbishop Giuseppe Betori of Florence told Vatican Radio March 26 that the media was manipulating information in order to falsely accuse the pope of inaction on sex abuse. He said he had dealt directly with the doctrinal congregation under Cardinal Ratzinger on abuse allegations, and found that the congregation demonstrated "the maximum attention and the maximum severity."
... and yet ... and yet ...


... is maximum ... enough?

lofter1
March 29th, 2010, 06:24 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/000aa2.jpg


Nice outfits ^ but a bit ironic ...

Guys dressed almost exactly like that burned a cross on the front lawn of my Grandmother's family home in Indiana back in the early 1920's, in a town where our extended family made up nearly all the Catholics in the area (near to, but not this Indiana town (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119451711/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0) where outfits like this were popular (http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/imh/100.2/safianow.html)). The family didn't budge (not for another 20 years, anyway).

Fabrizio
March 29th, 2010, 06:31 PM
Lofter: That is ironic and sad.

They are from the "Processioni degli Incappucciati" ... this particular processione dates back to the 1500's.

ZippyTheChimp
April 1st, 2010, 12:20 AM
March 31, 2010

Op-Ed Columnist


Should There Be an Inquisition for the Pope?

By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

It doesn’t seem right that the Catholic Church is spending Holy Week practicing the unholy art of spin.

Complete with crown-of-thorns imagery, the church has started an Easter public relations blitz defending a pope who went along with the perverse culture of protecting molesters and the church’s reputation rather than abused — and sometimes disabled and disadvantaged — children.

The church gave up its credibility for Lent. Holy Thursday and Good Friday are now becoming Cover-Up Thursday and Blame-Others Friday.

This week of special confessions and penance services is unfolding as the pope resists pressure from Catholics around the globe for his own confession and penance about the cascade of child sexual abuse cases that were ignored, even by a German diocese and Vatican office he ran.

If church fund-raising and contributions dry up, Benedict’s P.R. handlers may yet have to stage a photo-op where he steps out of the priest’s side of the confessional and enters the side where the rest of his fallible flock goes.

Or maybe 30-second spots defending the pope with Benedict’s voice intoning at the end: “I am infallible, and I approve this message.”

Canon 1404 states that “The First See is judged by no one.” But Jesus, Mary and Joseph, as my dad used to say. Somebody has to tell the First See when it’s blind — and mute — to deaf children in America and Italy.

The Vatican is surprised to find itself in this sort of trouble. Officials there could have easily known what was going on all along; archbishops visiting Rome gossip like a sewing circle. The cynical Vatican just didn’t want to deal with it.

And now the church continues to hide behind its mystique. Putting down the catechism, it picked up the Washington P.R. handbook for political sins.

First: Declare any new revelation old and unimportant.

At Palm Sunday Mass at St. Patrick’s, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York bemoaned that the “recent tidal wave of headlines about abuse of minors by some few priests, this time in Ireland, Germany, and a re-run of an old story from Wisconsin, has knocked us to our knees once again.”

A few priests? At this point, it feels like an international battalion.

A re-run of an old story? So sorry to remind you, Archbishop, that one priest, Father Lawrence Murphy, who showed no remorse and suffered no punishment from “Rottweiler” Ratzinger, abused as many as 200 deaf children in Wisconsin.

Archbishop Dolan compared the pope to Jesus, saying he was “now suffering some of the same unjust accusations, shouts of the mob, and scourging at the pillar,” and “being daily crowned with thorns by groundless innuendo.”

Second: Blame somebody else — even if it’s this pope’s popular predecessor, on the fast track to sainthood.

Vienna’s Cardinal Christoph Schönborn defended Pope Benedict this week, saying that then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s attempt in 1995 to investigate the former archbishop of Vienna for allegedly molesting youths in a monastery was barred by advisers close to Pope John Paul II.

Third: Say black is white.

In his blog, Archbishop Dolan blasted church critics while stating: “The Church needs criticism; we want it; we welcome it; we do a good bit of it ourselves,” adding: “We do not expect any special treatment. ...so bring it on.” Right.

Fourth: Demonize gays, as Karl Rove did in 2004.

In an ad in The Times on Tuesday, Bill Donohue, the Catholic League president, offered this illumination: “The Times continues to editorialize about the ‘pedophilia crisis,’ when all along it’s been a homosexual crisis. Eighty percent of the victims of priestly sexual abuse are male and most of them are post-pubescent. While homosexuality does not cause predatory behavior, and most gay priests are not molesters, most of the molesters have been gay.”

Donohue is still talking about the problem as an indiscretion rather than a crime. If it mostly involves men and boys, that’s partly because priests for many years had unquestioned access to boys.

Fifth: Blame the victims.

“Fr. Lawrence Murphy apparently began his predatory behavior in Wisconsin in the 1950s,” Donohue protested, “yet the victims’ families never contacted the police until the mid-1970s.”

Sixth: Throw gorilla dust.

Donohue asserts that “the common response of all organizations, secular as well as religious,” to abuse cases “was to access therapy and reinstate the patient.” Really? Where in heaven’s name does that information come from? It’s absurd.

And finally, seventh: Use the Cheney omnipotence defense, most famously employed in the Valerie Plame case. Vice President Cheney claimed that his lofty position meant that the very act of spilling a secret, even with dastardly intent, declassified it.

Vatican lawyers will argue in negligence cases brought by abuse victims that the pope has immunity as a head of state and that bishops who allowed an abuse culture, endlessly recirculating like dirty fountain water, were not Vatican employees.

Maybe they worked for Enron.


Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

Fabrizio
April 1st, 2010, 04:35 AM
^ A cute flippant article as usual from Dowd that does little to actually inform about the case. The Pope is not infallible except in cases of Church doctrine. He is not above sin. And Popes have resigned in the past. There needs to be complete transparency here. If the Pope is to be found negligent or an enabler here then he should resign.

From today's Times:

Vatican Official Defends Pope’s Handling of Case
By RACHEL DONADIO
Published: March 31, 2010


VATICAN CITY — A top Vatican official issued a detailed defense of Pope Benedict XVI’s handling of sexual abuse cases and extensively criticized The New York Times’s coverage, both in its news and editorial pages, as unfair to the pope and the church.

In a rare interview and a 2,400-word statement posted Wednesday on the Vatican Web site, the official, Cardinal William J. Levada, an American who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, praised Pope Benedict for vigorously investigating and prosecuting sexual abuse cases. He said The Times’s coverage had been “deficient by any reasonable standards of fairness.”

Cardinal Levada singled out several Times reporters and columnists for criticism, focusing particularly on an article describing failed efforts by Wisconsin church officials to persuade the Vatican to defrock a priest who had abused as many as 200 deaf boys from 1950 to 1974. The pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was head of the Vatican’s doctrinal office when the case was referred there, in 1996.

He said the article wrongly “attributed the failure to accomplish this dismissal to Pope Benedict, instead of diocesan decisions at the time.” On Wednesday, the archbishop of Milwaukee said the pope should not be held responsible for mistakes that were made in Wisconsin, according to The Associated Press.

The Times article drew on documents obtained from lawyers suing the church that showed that Vatican officials had at first ordered a secret canonical trial, then asked the archdiocese to suspend it after the priest pleaded for leniency to Cardinal Ratzinger. Wisconsin church officials protested the suspension, but followed it. The priest, the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, died a few months later.

News coverage of the abuse has clearly touched a nerve in the Vatican. As the church grapples with abuse cases that have come to light in several European countries, Benedict has come under scrutiny for how he and his subordinates handled sexual abuse allegations against priests while he served as an archbishop in Germany as well as when he was the Vatican’s top doctrinal enforcer.

In 1980, when the pope was archbishop of Munich and Freising, he approved the transfer of a priest who had abused boys to therapy and was copied in on a memo saying that the priest had been allowed to resume pastoral duties shortly after his therapy began. The priest was later convicted of molesting other boys.

“This is different, because it’s the pope and because it’s a pope who is most self evidently beyond accusation, particularly in this area,” said a senior Vatican official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly.

Cardinal Levada said he believed that “the evidence is clear” that Father Murphy represented an “egregious case” and deserved to be defrocked.

But he also said he was not second-guessing the decision to suspend the trial. He said a canonical trial would be “useless if the priest were dying.” “Have you ever been to a trial? Do you know how long they take?” he said. “If the man had had a miraculous recovery and doctors said he’d live another 10 years, I’m sure a letter would say fine, ‘Start the trial.’ ”

Sitting in a receiving room at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with a view of Saint Peter’s out the window and an oil portrait of Cardinal Ratzinger on the wall, Cardinal Levada expressed pain at the case of Father Murphy.

“I think the evidence is clear from the documents that he was a serial abuser of children, helpless children often times, he had no respect for the sacrament of confession, even using that to accomplish his abuse,” he said. “It’s one of the saddest and the most egregious cases I’ve seen.”

At that point a canon lawyer who sat in on the interview but declined to speak on the record intervened about the nuances of the unfinished trial, effectively deflecting questions about why it had been suspended.

Cardinal Levada said that although Father Murphy never faced judgment in a criminal or canonical court, the priest had not evaded it altogether.

“As a believer,” he wrote in his statement, “I have no doubt that Murphy will face the One who judges both the living and the dead.”

Cardinal Levada said Benedict had played a “very significant role” as the “architect” of the Vatican’s 2001 norms that sent sexual abuse cases directly to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and streamlined procedures for bishops to report sexual abuse cases. Those norms ushered in a flood of abuse trials, many of which are still unresolved.

here to secrecy in ecclesiastical trials, which caused some confusion about whether clerics should report abuse to the civil authorities. In recent weeks, Benedict and the Vatican have emphasized that the clergy should report evidence of crimes to the civil authorities.
Related

Events in the Case of an Accused Priest (April 1, 2010)
“He was prefect when the church put into place a very important standard and practice for helping bishops deal with these cases,” said Cardinal Levada.

In light of media reports that have questioned what Benedict knew about abuse cases, Cardinal Levada said, “Anyone can say, ‘Why didn’t you do this?’ ‘You could have done this better.’ That’s part of life, but certainly it’s not the case to say that he is deficient,” Cardinal Levada said. “If anything, he was the architect of this step forward in the church and I think he deserves his credit.”

Benedict named Cardinal Levada, a theologian, a former archbishop of Portland and San Francisco, and a former chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, to succeed him as prefect after he became pope in 2005.

A full 80 percent of the abuse cases to come through the congregation in the past decade are from the United States, according to the head of the internal tribunal that handles abuse cases, Msgr. Charles Scicluna.

Cardinal Levada said that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had a staff of about 45 and devoted about a third of its time to disciplinary issues.

“I would say it’s an increasing amount of the work of the congregation,” he said, adding that he anticipated having to expand its staff.

He said it should not be seen as leniency that some 60 percent of the abuse cases that the congregation had considered since 2001 did not result in trials. In cases of “moral certitude” trials aren’t necessary, he said, and other disciplinary measures can be taken, while murkier cases requiring more evidence might require trials.

“A canonical trial is an instrument appropriately used, but it would not be the normal procedure,” he said.

The senior Vatican official said that the pope himself was “serene” in the face of news reports but probably upset on behalf of Catholics. “I can’t imagine he wouldn’t be troubled that the faithful are troubled,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/world/europe/01vatican.html?pagewanted=2&ref=global-home


--------

Also Dowd mentions this Bill Donohue head of the The Catholic League. What an embarrassing windbag. Who appointed this guy? He'd last not even a day in Europe. It is appaling to me that American Catholics let this guy speak for them. But please know that he has criticism in the US among Catholics as well. His tone is all wrong. And although the Catholic Leauge is not affiliated with the Vatican they should put a stop to this organization and this guy too.

The Catholic League: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_League_(U.S.)


Catholics United (againt Bill Donohue...)

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/04/17/catholic-leagues-bill-donohue-declines-debate-with-catholics-united

--

ZippyTheChimp
April 1st, 2010, 10:28 AM
Does the pope change hats when he's infallible?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/000aa2.jpg

A good image for the RC church. They should make April 1st a Holy Day. They've been fooling people for a millennia; the dogma is Mumbo-Jumbo from the Dark Ages.

Fabrizio
April 1st, 2010, 11:30 AM
They also come in black too.... which is pretty cool looking if you ask me.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/ronaldo/0000a.jpg

lofter1
April 1st, 2010, 02:23 PM
The black is more appropriate.

I lost all respect for the Catholic Church when a local priest declined to perform a Mass after my mother's death -- apparently because I had never been (to my knowledge) baptized (Mom was Catholic, Dad otherwise). I explained that the rites would do a world of good for my Grandmother, a staunch Irish Catholic then in her 81st year. But the priest remained unmoved. Eventually a $50 "donation" persuaded the good father. It was a bitter day.

Fabrizio
April 1st, 2010, 02:30 PM
50$ was all it took?

When my Grandfather was close to death the Priest came to visit and convinced him to donate a nice tract of land that sits along an important highway in New Jersey.

Well at least my Grandad is in heaven.

lofter1
April 1st, 2010, 02:59 PM
I was young and broke. 50 bucks was a lot at the time.

Interesting to find what it takes to get into heaven.

Ninjahedge
April 1st, 2010, 03:08 PM
Tithing means completely different things when it goes from helping support what you believe in, to a mandate to get into heaven.

ZippyTheChimp
April 1st, 2010, 03:11 PM
I guess the camel and the eye of the needle no longer applies.

scumonkey
April 1st, 2010, 04:12 PM
Interesting to find what it takes to get into heaven.
a little deaf boy? :p

Ninjahedge
April 2nd, 2010, 07:48 AM
More than one, sad to say... :(

eddhead
October 14th, 2011, 03:51 PM
Boy,it gets better and better.... Let's face it. The Catholic chuch is in a tailspin.
October 14, 2011

Kansas City Bishop Indicted in Reporting of Abuse by Pries

By A. G. SULZBERGER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/a_g_sulzberger/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and LAURIE GOODSTEIN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/laurie_goodstein/index.html?inline=nyt-per)[

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The Roman Catholic bishop of Kansas City, Robert Finn, and the diocese he leads have been indicted by a county grand jury on a charge of failure to report suspected child abuse in the case of a priest who had been accused of taking lewd photographs of young girls.

The indictment is the first ever of a Catholic bishop in the 25 years since the scandal over sexual abuse by priests first became public in the United States.

Bishop Finn is accused of covering up abuse that occurred as recently as last year — almost 10 years since the nation’s Catholic bishops passed a charter pledging to report suspected abusers to law enforcement authorities.

The bishop has acknowledged that he knew of the existence of the photos last December but did not turn them over to the police until May.
During that period Bishop Finn and the diocese had reason to suspect that the priest, the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, might subject a child to abuse, the indictment said, citing “previous knowledge of concerns regarding Father Ratigan and children; the discovery of hundreds of photographs of children on Father Ratigan’s laptop, including a child’s naked vagina, upskirt images and other images focused on the crotch; and violations of restrictions placed on Father Ratigan.”

The indictment was announced on Friday by the Jackson County prosecutor, Jean Peters-Baker. It had been under seal since Oct. 6 because the bishop was out of the country. He returned on Thursday.

“This is about protecting children,” Ms. Peters-Baker said.

The bishop and the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph were charged with one count each, a misdemeanor.

Bishop Finn appeared in court at 1 p.m. and pleaded not guilty, as did lawyers for the diocese.

Bishop Finn said in a statement, “We will meet these announcements with a steady resolve and a vigorous defense.”

He said that he and the diocese had given “complete cooperation” to law enforcement. He also pointed to steps he had taken since the scandal first became public, which included commissioning a report to look into the case and reinforcing procedures for handling allegations of abuse.
Father Ratigan was arrested in May and has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of taking indecent photographs of young girls, most recently during an Easter egg hunt last spring.

His case prompted a civil lawsuit filed in August that asserts that between December 2010 and May 2011, Father Ratigan attended children’s birthday parties, spent weekends in the homes of parish families, hosted the Easter egg hunt and presided, with the bishop’s permission, at a girl’s First Communion.

The case has generated fury at a bishop who was already a polarizing figure in his diocese, and there are widespread calls for him to resign. Parishioners started a Facebook page called ’”Bishop Finn Must Go” and circulated a petition. An editorial in The Kansas City Star in June calling for the bishop to step down concluded that prosecutors must “’actively pursue all relevant criminal charges” against everyone involved.
Stoking much of the anger is the fact that only three years ago, Bishop Finn settled lawsuits with 47 plaintiffs in sexual abuse cases for $10 million and agreed to a long list of preventive measures, among them to report anyone suspected of being a pedophile immediately to law enforcement authorities.

Bishop Finn, who was appointed in 2005, alienated many of his priests and parishioners, and won praise from others, when he remade the diocese to conform with his traditionalist theological views. He is one of few bishops affiliated with the conservative movement Opus Dei.

ZippyTheChimp
October 14th, 2011, 04:02 PM
It's long past the time to discard the requirement of celibacy for Catholic clergy.

eddhead
October 14th, 2011, 04:04 PM
No kidding. Not to mention to reenforce the requirement to keep their filthy hands off of innocent children.

Ninjahedge
October 16th, 2011, 08:41 PM
Self imposed celibacy usually indicates that the person has something they consider "bad" about their attractions.

So many gay (not bad, but bad in the eyes of the church) men, or absolute deviants (Pedos, abusers) take the faith to "absolve" themselves.

The gay guys, ironically, usually make the better priests... trying their hardest to work away a perceived sin. But the others? Kid (no pun) in a candy shop.

Is this true for ALL priests in the church?

HELL NO.

But the %%s are definitely skewed from the "norm".

I agree with Zip, time to get rid of that imagined fear of influence from "the fairer sex" through relations with the clergy and bring the catholic church into the 21st century.

Hell, 1970 wouldn't be bad at this point.

stache
October 16th, 2011, 09:24 PM
The church first imposed celibacy so priests could not marry. A priest having a wife would involve inheritance issues and the church, naturally, wanted all of that $ for themselves. Back in the early '70's a friend of mine was studying to enter the priesthood in Louisiana. There was a rec room with a juke box in the abbey basement. He said every night it essentially became a gay bar, with all the guys dancing with each other and later on in the evening everyone decided who their sex partner would be for that night.

Merry
October 17th, 2011, 06:18 AM
Self imposed celibacy usually indicates that the person has something they consider "bad" about their attractions.

So many gay (not bad, but bad in the eyes of the church) men, or absolute deviants (Pedos, abusers) take the faith to "absolve" themselves.

I sincerely hope you meant "Self imposed celibacy..." within the priesthood and not the general populace!

If so, is there any concrete evidence to substantiate "Self imposed celibacy..." and "So many gay..."? Perhaps ignorance on my part, but I've not heard that before.

I rather thought that the exclusion of sexual activity (be it heterosexual or homosexual) and/or a normal family environment from a priest's life was the main problem.


It's long past the time to discard the requirement of celibacy for Catholic clergy.

I agree. Apart from the obvious, it's not physiologically normal.


The church first imposed celibacy so priests could not marry. A priest having a wife would involve inheritance issues and the church, naturally, wanted all of that $ for themselves.

So, that's what they mean by giving of oneself completely in god's service, then, not just one's body? :rolleyes:

Ninjahedge
October 17th, 2011, 09:53 AM
It is not as cut and dry as you would want to believe.

But just figure it this way, if one of the requirements is NO SEX for a man of breeding age, what kind of person do you think you will attract?

Obviously you will get some very devout individuals, but there are others that you will attract for reasons that are not 100% on the mark....


As for the reasons for imposing the restriction, I can see where stache is coming from. I would not be surprised about that at all. But being married myself, I know that almost ANY decision I make is influenced by my wife. Good bad or otherwise.

It is hard to control an individual and their own outlook when they have influences that may be stronger than their boss or even their God....

eddhead
October 17th, 2011, 10:16 AM
The church teaches us to be ashamed of our sexuality and reenforces that shame through its celibacy dogma. As a result, it attracts a certain type of person to the priesthood, a person who has unhealthy attitudes about sex and a need to repress their sexual being. This is why a disproprinate percentage of cathlic clergy have deviant sexual issues (and I am not talking about gay sex bertween consenting adults or even priests which is not deviant) that manifest themselves in pedophila. They grow up being ashamed of their sexuality, seek refuge in the priesthood, try to repress thier feelings, and develop deviant proclivities.

The Church has to get itself out of the 17th century.

I do not see the same issues with self imposed celibacy.

Ninjahedge
October 17th, 2011, 11:45 AM
In order to become a priest you need to be celibate.

In order to become a priest you need to WANT to be come a priest.

You must impose the restrictions of the clergy on yourself, therefore the celibacy is self imposed. That was what I was going on Edd....

It is like saying you don't agree with killing just because you joined the Marines....

stache
October 17th, 2011, 11:56 AM
It's all fornication unless the lady conceives.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHZBCXjM1DY

eddhead
October 17th, 2011, 12:07 PM
In order to become a priest you need to be celibate.

In order to become a priest you need to WANT to be come a priest.

You must impose the restrictions of the clergy on yourself, therefore the celibacy is self imposed. That was what I was going on Edd....

It is like saying you don't agree with killing just because you joined the Marines....

Everybody who is a priest is a self imposed celibate (or supposed to be ) ... not everybody who is a self-imposed celibate is a priest however.

Ninjahedge
October 17th, 2011, 12:27 PM
I know.... Geez man, you wanna tell me how I should point my little horsie and castle thingie too? ;)

lofter1
October 17th, 2011, 01:00 PM
It's all fornication unless the lady conceives.

If at first you don't succeed, try try again. And again. And ...

mariab
October 17th, 2011, 01:40 PM
It should be abolished, but the vow of celibacy is not the crux of the problem. These men would have been pedophiles sooner or later. Same as the kids' athletic coaches, the affable, helpful neighbor who drives the kids back & forth to daily activities, everyone's favorite uncle, etc. They are criminals just like any other, with or without the collar. It is more glaring because they are supposed to protect those they serve.

When the vow of celibacy is abolished, & if priests are allowed to marry & produce children, checkpoints still need to be in place so that there can be no more of the tragedies we've learned have happened the last few decades.

eddhead
October 17th, 2011, 01:45 PM
As bad as pedophila is when it exists within the general population, it is worst in the church. Catolics are taught to revere priests and to hold them as trusted authority figures. For a child, having such absolute trust violated can be devastating.

But your right, the root cause is not the church or celibacy. That is just the magnet.

Ninjahedge
October 17th, 2011, 02:34 PM
It is also a concentrator.

When someone is taught that something is a sin, and they feel it needs to be atoned for, they may be more inclined to devote themselves to their religion a bit more than the "regular guy".

It is not a 100% filter, not by any means, but the combination of trying to atone AND being in a position of power and respect is a bit difficult....

The fact that the church CONTINUOUSLY hides this and our government keeps handling it with feather touches is really the biggest calamity.

lofter1
October 17th, 2011, 07:38 PM
Once you confess then it's all OK, right? Even after the 3rd or 100th time, eh?

stache
October 17th, 2011, 08:32 PM
Yes. Like magic, you can be absolved of any sin, including screwing kids.

scumonkey
October 17th, 2011, 08:48 PM
All it it takes is a:
Bless ME father for I have sinned...
Penance (1 decade of the rosary)
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41L0%2BXx05VL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
Absolution .

lofter1
October 17th, 2011, 08:52 PM
One of the eternal beauties of organized religion!

They make the rules to keep the sheep within the fold.

Ninjahedge
October 18th, 2011, 08:47 AM
Once you confess then it's all OK, right? Even after the 3rd or 100th time, eh?

When did I say that?

If you have unholy "thoughts", maybe pledging yourself to the Lord will atone for that.....


I ain't writing the rules here bubbie, I am just saying what people may be thinkin'!