Catholic Church News
While reading the "Tablet" this week I came across two "telling" articles. One was about the diocese of Spokane complaining that the court wrongly ruled that the parish and the school are part of diocesan property and therefore includable in church "assets" that get counted when making any financial settlements of sexual abuse claims. Bishop Skylstad claims he can no more lay claim to the parish property, than he can a parishioners house. I take it the assumption is that parish and school belong to the parishioners, and NOT the church. Yeah, right! IF the parishioners own the parish and school property, well then why is it that in the northeast part of the country diocese are closing some of their schools AGAINST the wishes of the parents?
I have always maintained that the catholic church and all other denominations as well, are businesses. This just again proves my point. If in fact they were truly concerned and sorry for what happened to the victims of clergy sexual abuse, then they wouldn't be doing this in Spokane and elsewhere. No, they would instead be doing what they "claim" they were going to do, help the victims above all else. By this action the church shows its true colors, that of a business who cares nothing about those it hurt. More proof? Some say this appeal process could take up to 10 years. So much for the concern about the victims huh?
Second story pales in comparison but nonetheless show the anti christian ways of the catholic church. The vatican is sending a delegation to inspect all seminaries and interview seminarians to ascertain their sexual proclivities. I oppose homosexuality as well, but lets face it, they exist in all phases of our existence, from CEO's to migrant workers and everything in between. The problem is not in who they got the "hots" for, but in what they do about it. As long as they keep their choices to themselves, we're all good. Granted the church definitely needs to be on guard for those who want to get "frisky" with the kids and even each other, but that's it. Same as they would do if a priest and a nun were getting it on, or a priest and any other female. To remove homosexuals because of the sexual preferences is just wrong. Otherwise while their at it they might as well remove straight priest also, because they have just as much chance of "temptation", or more, than a gay priest.
What do you say we go for eunuchs only as priests. That might work. Yes the only way the church can be sure of being safe is to hire only those people with NO sex drives, say like the average housewife maybe. Oh no, women can't be priests! Too bad, I think I was onto something there.
posted by D. Coder | 4:05 PM
3 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
To Whom It May Concern;
Here is a quote from "Scandal To Hope", Fr. Benedict Groeschel
"Christianity when it is properly taught, condemns all sinful behavior, but not the sinner. Its founder, Jesus Christ, said, “I did not come to judge the world but to save the world” (John 12:47).
There are many forms of sexual activity that are forbidden by Christian tradition as well as by
Judaism, from which our faith comes. This particular problem has become a scene, a lifestyle,
and a subculture. As Professor Jenkins — who is not a Catholic — and any number of others have
pointed out, the present scandal involving clergy [in the Catholic Church] is not about pedophilia.
It is about active homosexuality with minors.
In his book, Jenkins reviews a study of more than twenty-two hundred priests of the Archdiocese of Chicago during a forty-year period. Of those twenty-two hundred priests, only one had
been convicted of pedophilia. Pedophilia is sexual activity with a prepubescent youngster, a child.
After puberty, sexual activity with a young person is just as illegal and immoral, but it’s either homosexual or heterosexual fornication.
[...] The media are calling it “pedophilia,” but that’s a phony name."
Page 26 "FROM SCANDAL TO HOPE", Fr. Benedict J. Groeschel. C.F.R.
This might give some insight into why the Church is taking the stand that it is. But, there are many sideline "quarterbacks" that will not be happy no matter what course of action The Church decides to take! As Jesus said a very long time ago;
Luke 7:32 They are like children sitting in the market place and calling to one another, 'We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not weep.'
to say that Pedophilia is sexual activity with a "prepubescent" youngster, a child is accurate but misleading. By leaving out important details such as what ages constitute prepubescent may lead one to think "well their talking about 7, 8 & 9 year olds, no priest would ever do that"! Well The APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition, Text Revision has in its "Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia":
sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
I believe many shall we say "encounters" occured in the upper part of this age group, and the "why"is simple. By age 15 or 16 (the ages at which you and the church would have us believe all these thing occured) a child is wise enough to know that what is happening is not correct. So in that case younger is "safer" so to speak. You then go on to say
"After puberty, sexual activity with a young person is just as illegal and immoral, but it’s either homosexual or heterosexual fornication."
as you are so quick to pointout, both are sins of equal "evil"so why do you feel the need to put a different "spin" on it?
The church has many "spin" experts, like yourself, that can explain away almost anything, hence the ability to convince people that what they eat and drink in church is not an unleavened wafer and some wine but actually human skin and blood: and all the while also having no one even consider this as cannibalism.
Maybe you could attract more of the younger crowd by calling communion what it is, a snack of "ritz and ripple"
Post a Comment
<< Home