What are your thoughts about the Catholic Church?

[Unveiled Artist]

Just considering the sex abuse issue: how tolerant would you be of any other organization that hid sexual abuse by its staff, shielded accused staff members from prosecution, advised its local organizations not to require mandatory reporting of abuse issues, and shuffled its assets around to stop them from being seized to compensate victims of abuse?

It is weird that all of this hidden stuff happens yet the parishes around me don't let you become a priest if you have sexually assaulted and have any criminal record. They even search your sex history by asking close family and friends if you engaged in homosexual relations.

Maybe the, what five or six parishes I went to and two archdioceses I looked up is going against their own Pope's rules to hide abusive priest, I don't know. I do think the criminal background check is a step closer to being a Church rather than be accused of a bad organization.

The Archdioceses of Baltimore, VA (USA)

Holy Synod of Bishops (Overall background check)

I mean, I live in a place owned by my local Catholic Dioceses and I cannot live here if I committed any sexual abuse, from any time, on any record.

 

[metis]

I made a mistake: it was actually 1997. Regardless, if you know of any relevant changes to canon law since then, I'm all ears.


Will the New York Times do?



Vatican Letter Warned Bishops on Abuse Policy

Or how about the original letter (link in the article)?

"In particular, the situation of 'mandatory reporting' gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature."

Edit: until such time as I see something officially from the Catholic Church that clearly says that mandatory reporting no longer violates canon law, I'm not going to assume that any Catholic organization's mandatory reporting policies will actually be followed.

Thanks for the link, but what that letter did really doesn't deal with Canon Law, which is the basic law of the RCC. Still, the letter is deplorable, no doubt.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thanks for the link, but what that letter did really doesn't deal with Canon Law, which is the basic law of the RCC.

How on Earth did you come to that conclusion?

Edit: did you actually read the letter?

Still, the letter is deplorable, no doubt.

Indeed.

 

[metis]

How on Earth did you come to that conclusion?

Edit: did you actually read the letter?

Yes, I did, but here: Code of Canon Law

or here: Canon law - Wikipedia

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, I did, but here: Code of Canon Law

or here: Canon law - Wikipedia

Neither of those are the letter.

Regardless, the letter clearly states that mandatory reporting contravenes canon law. If you're arguing that canon law doesn't actually say this, then you're insinuating that the Vatican misrepresented canon law.

I'm certainly not an expert in canon law, but I comsider it highly unlikely that the Vatican, knowing that the Irish bishops would have canon lawyers at their disposal, would misrepresent canon law to undermine the Irish Church's abuse policies. And even if this was the case, it certainly wouldn't reflect well on the Vatican, and still raises questions about whether present-day diocesean abuse policies will be followed.

 

[MJFlores]

Every church is different that what it was 2000 years ago, especially since "necessity is the mother of invention" and change. If you have any religious affiliation, I can guarantee you that your church and your denomination do not match what existed with the Way.

The differences between what used to be the Church of Christ in the first century and the Church that was revealed in the second to the fourth centuries are profound. So profound that its faith does not derive from the Scriptures.

Sure there are minimal differences in the church I am in, we sing hymns, offer our thanks and listen to preaching from the bible but we do not have dogma (strange teachings), Mary worship, Saint worship, Mass or things like that which did not exist in the first century church.

“It is necessary to note that we should recall the reader’s attention to the profound differences between this fully developed Christianity of Nicaea and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth….What is clearly apparent is that the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth was a prophetic teaching of the new type that began with the Hebrew prophets. It was not priestly, it had no consecrated temple, and no altar. It had no rites and ceremonies. Its sacrifice was ‘a broken and contrite heart’. Its only organization was an organization of preachers, and its chief function was the sermon. But the fully fledge Christianity of the fourth century, though it preserved as its nucleus the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, was mainly a priestly religion, of a type already familiar to the world for thousands of years. The center of its elaborate ritual was an altar, and the essential act or worship the sacrifice, by a consecrated priest, of the Mass.” (The Outline of History, pp. 552-553)

“We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame, nay with pride, that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ, in the same way that the great oak cannot be identified with the tiny acorn.” (The Spirit of Catholicism, p. 2)


“ ‘Without the Scriptures’, says Mohler, ‘the true form of the sayings of Jesus would have been withheld from us….Yet the Catholic does not derive his faith in Jesus from Scripture’.” (Ibid. p. 50)

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The vast majority of church teachings come from ancient pagan beliefs and if Jesus returned today He would not recognize His teachings in the modern church. Constintine was a pagan who claimed he converted to Christianity and then forced people to join the church. Actually he forced his pagan ideas on the church and converted it to a pagan institution.

 

[England my lionheart]

I fully agree with the idea that the Vatican should, imo, go with allowing contraception that doesn't produce abortions.

Preventions better than cure huh,the vatican should do lots of things but they don't and won't.

The amount of charity work, especially with the poor, is enormous, and I know this from first-hand experience even though I'm not Catholic. Even the LDS and Mennonite churches are so impressed that they both contribute to Catholic Relief Services, for just one example.

IMO the " charity work" only feeds the cycle,

 

[metis]

Neither of those are the letter.

Regardless, the letter clearly states that mandatory reporting contravenes canon law. If you're arguing that canon law doesn't actually say this, then you're insinuating that the Vatican misrepresented canon law.

I'm certainly not an expert in canon law, but I comsider it highly unlikely that the Vatican, knowing that the Irish bishops would have canon lawyers at their disposal, would misrepresent canon law to undermine the Irish Church's abuse policies. And even if this was the case, it certainly wouldn't reflect well on the Vatican, and still raises questions about whether present-day diocesean abuse policies will be followed.

Canon Law is the "Constitution" of the RCC, therefore it would take priority over any letter.

Finally, I have stated already on several occasions that what was done both locally and at the Vatican when they failed to deal adequately with the abuse scandals was deplorable, but I also added that changes have been made to try and rectify this, both at the Vatican and also here in the States. Therefore, I don't know why you keep harping on this? You made your point, I agreed with the gist of it, so...

 

[metis]

Sure there are minimal differences in the church I am in, we sing hymns, offer our thanks and listen to preaching from the bible

Do you greet each other with a "holy kiss"? Are your women silent in church? Do you women keep their heads covered in public? Do your women wear fancy clothes or makeup? Does your church have bishops/overseers that can trace their appointments back to the apostles? Since the CoC does not recognize and follow the latter, it simply cannot be equated with the Way, especially since the scriptures establish what we now call "apostolic succession", which one can see clearly in Acts and some of the epistles.

but we do not have dogma (strange teachings), Mary worship, Saint worship, Mass or things like that which did not exist in the first century church.

Mary and saints are not considered deities in Catholicism, but it is believed that they can appeal to God and Jesus. This shows up in the church in the early second century as a belief that is never questioned, whereas we do know that it was believed that they could serve as intercessors in what became called "the communion of saints". The belief was that just because one was dead, that does mean they were completely gone. IOW, do you believe in heaven?

“ ‘Without the Scriptures’, says Mohler, ‘the true form of the sayings of Jesus would have been withheld from us….Yet the Catholic does not derive his faith in Jesus from Scripture’.” (Ibid. p. 50)

One teaching found in RCC Canon Law is that no other teaching can go against what is written in the scriptures.

Secondly, what I believe the author is pointing out is that just reading scriptures per se doesn't necessarily mean that the reader is a Christian, thus the power of the HS is necessary to create and bolster faith. Also, there's the role of tradition, both early and on-going, that's important as well.

 

[metis]

Constintine was a pagan who claimed he converted to Christianity and then forced people to join the church. Actually he forced his pagan ideas on the church and converted it to a pagan institution.

That is historically false as Constantine left the theological decisions to the bishops as he was certainly no theologian. There simply is not one single teaching that can be traced back directly to Constantine, and if you doubt that, then show us one with a link to the source.

 

[metis]

IMO the " charity work" only feeds the cycle,

That's not even remotely logical.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Canon Law is the "Constitution" of the RCC, therefore it would take priority over any letter.

For the reasons I gave earlier, I'm going to take the Catholic Church's assessment of canon law over yours.

And like I said, if the Vatican misrepresented canon law to get the Irish bishops to drop mandatory reporting, I really don't think this is any better.

Finally, I have stated already on several occasions that what was done both locally and at the Vatican when they failed to deal adequately with the abuse scandals was deplorable, but I also added that changes have been made to try and rectify this, both at the Vatican and also here in the States. Therefore, I don't know why you keep harping on this? You made your point, I agreed with the gist of it, so...

My point is that there's no good reason to think that they've rectified anything.

In the past, the Catholic Church has put up window dressing to make it seem like they were dealing with the problem when they actually weren't, so new window dressing isn't especially impressive.

... especially when the Vatican itself has stated officially that key measures of any responsible policy on abuse would be illegal under the Church's own rules.

 

[metis]

My point is that there's no good reason to think that they've rectified anything.

Scroll down to section 6: Catholic Church sexual abuse cases - Wikipedia

 

[MJFlores]

Do you greet each other with a "holy kiss"? Are your women silent in church? Do you women keep their heads covered in public? Do your women wear fancy clothes or makeup? Does your church have bishops/overseers that can trace their appointments back to the apostles? Since the CoC does not recognize and follow the latter, it simply cannot be equated with the Way, especially since the scriptures establish what we now call "apostolic succession", which one can see clearly in Acts and some of the epistles.

Mary and saints are not considered deities in Catholicism, but it is believed that they can appeal to God and Jesus. This shows up in the church in the early second century as a belief that is never questioned, whereas we do know that it was believed that they could serve as intercessors in what became called "the communion of saints". The belief was that just because one was dead, that does mean they were completely gone. IOW, do you believe in heaven?

One teaching found in RCC Canon Law is that no other teaching can go against what is written in the scriptures.

Secondly, what I believe the author is pointing out is that just reading scriptures per se doesn't necessarily mean that the reader is a Christian, thus the power of the HS is necessary to create and bolster faith. Also, there's the role of tradition, both early and on-going, that's important as well.

Born as a Catholic and baptize as one. 85% in my country is Catholic. Left the Catholic religion when I was 46 years old. Do I know Catholic? Sure been educated in Catholic schools:

Elementary to Secondary Ed. at
Don Bosco Technical College - Wikipedia
College Ed. at
San Sebastian College – Recoletos - Wikipedia
Masters Ed at
De La Salle University - Wikipedia

But that was a long time ago. Apostolic Succession? Studied about it, found out that Peter never went to Rome and died in Jerusalem. Archeological findings in the last century proved this. Whose bones are under St. Peter's basilica? We truly won't know.
Saint Peter's Jerusalem Tomb

I think that is too much for now, you might not process it if I go further.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Scroll down to section 6: Catholic Church sexual abuse cases - Wikipedia

(BTW: I was confused by "section 6" for a minute until I realized that the desktop version of the site might have section numbers. The mobile version doesn't)

I skimmed it. I mainly saw:

- cases where there were legal judgements against the Church... so not really Church-driven policy changes, and

- statements about new policies, which are the sort of thing I touched on earlier: given the Vatican's letter, I have no confidence that a stated policy will actually be implemented properly.

Edit: if you had something else in mind that I've missed, feel free to quote it.

 

[pearl]

.Yet the Catholic does not derive his faith in Jesus from Scripture’.”

You are peddling falsehood.

Vatican II says that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" (Dei Verbum 11).

] ‘Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.

 

[pearl]

Born as a Catholic and baptize as one

There is no such thing as 'born a Catholic', one is not baptized a Catholic, one is baptized a Christian, the only way to enter membership in the Catholic Church.

 

[metis]

Studied about it, found out that Peter never went to Rome and died in Jerusalem.

False,, and ev3n most Protestant theologians that I have read or heard say that Peter was in "Babylonia", which is feminine and was a symbol for Rome. Irenaeus and Clement mention Peter dying in Rome in a mutual conversation written just after 100 c.e.. There simply is not any piece of evidence that Peter died in Rome.

Archeological findings in the last century proved this.

Again, false.

I think that is too much for now, you might not process it if I go further.

Ever read BAR?

 

[England my lionheart]

That's not even remotely logical.

Really,think about it,preventions better than cure,catholics in some of the poorest places have unwanted children and stds that can't be cured or fed which may mean orphaned children running the gauntlet in an orphanage run by perverted priests who,if they survive, start the cycle once again.