You lack sufficient understanding of abuse to continue any more dialog with you! This is a waist of your time and my time.
Good day

Anonymous,
Sorry if you went through serious trauma as a child. Sorry if a Catholic priest did it. Sorry that neither you nor your mother had the sense to go to the cops when it happened, but instead remained silent for many years. Anytime anyone is raped--whether by a priest, minister, teacher or boy scout coach--they clearly should go to the cops.

As to who paid what for the funeral of your mother: it is not something that needs comment because it is not at all relevant to the discussion. You got what you call your "blood money" (apparently as a settlement or judgment for your claim of rape) and you chose not to spend it on that funeral. If your brother chose to bury your mother in a Catholic service and to spend his "blood money" on that despite the fact that the family was not going to go to the funeral, that is really something you ought to take up with him.

As to your thought that your story might have changed my beliefs: no it hasn't. It is not that I don't believe you. I neither believe you nor disbelieve you. Internet testimonies are not something anyone should act upon without further corroboration.

I will accept for the sake of the discussion, though, that you were raped as a child. Is pedophilia scandalous? Of course, but it does not change the fact that when I look at the issue of belief in God, I believe in Him and that He came to us as Christ Who founded one and only one Church, and did so in the First Century AD. It is the Catholic Church, which has saints and sinners in it. It has done a lot more good than evil in its Two Thousand Years on Earth.

If one cannot believe in anything that has ever done any evil, one can't believe in any human institution. Not the United States; not any church, not the schools, not the synagogues, not the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Campfire Girls, 4H Club, etc.

Semi-literate

Thanks for your views. Thanks for the correction on my illiterate statement. Yes I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed.

With that being said I should qualify my position.

I was raised Catholic. I was an alter boy. I was baptized and confirmed. I was also in Catholic school.
My mom just died 6 months ago and died with a change of hart on her beloved church.
A reporter came to document her last statements on her changed views on the church. She was deeply catholic and attended church weekly. She gave tidings when she could not feed her children my brother and I.
She paid for us to go to catholic school when it was not affordable.
Her hart was broken when she found out her children were being raped at the catholic school.
It divided our family again when she died.

End result my brother paid for a catholic service we would not be attending with the blood money we were paid for the damaged lives we have lived through since we were 6 and 7. I can't ask you if you know how it feels to be sodomized at 6 and or the blood that leaks from the damaged area as you more than likely have no idea what that feels like. At least I pray you don't know first hand.

My colluded point was this!

I anesthetized myself for years so I would not have to face what happened to me as a six year old child. Hence the disability in writing and spelling."Scool was not a good place from early on" The good catholic that you are has taken notice of my weakness and tried to one more time hurt me with it! Would god do that? I don't want your pity. But your actions here are representative of how victims across the country are treated. We are not leapers we were young boys and girls assaulted as children. The church has been talking about abuse since 400's and done nothing to stop it! They have issued secret documents to continue to cover up abuse.
Crime of Solicitation, Crimen Sollicitationis
www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/ethics/crimineextracts.htm

I'm not anti-Catholic. You say this as a knee jerk reaction to your own beliefs being questioned or assaulted and facing the true problem and that is your own beliefs need a bit of change. If I've done that to you good. Please don't ignore the facts because our church is in the face of evil that has become part of the church. Voice of the faithful "VOTF" is a great following and they remain catholic.

My mom booted the catholic priest that came to give her last rights. My older brother after her death would not listen to her changed views from us and buried her catholic. She would not take the sacristies or do confession or attend church in the last 3 years. She had seen the movie "Deliver Us from evil" and "Our Father" and cried.
She was no longer Catholic!

You are a witness to the start of change within the church.

Folks,
This is a semi-literate paranoid thinking he can read minds:

"...The only ones that have stayed on are good people that cow toe to the powers that be with the Bishops...It's well known that many Bishops are not in compliance with the charter. They are continuing to let abuse occur by not reporting....

Yes the Pope did address the hand selected victims at the Washington DC Franchise of the RCC. But it only took him 20 years to do that and that is more over the loss of revenue from his franchises in America. It has little to do with a heart felt moment by the Pope. It's because victims will not give up."

Semi-literate as in:"good people that cow toe to the powers that be with the Bishops"

Anonymous's assertion that unreported pedophilia is occurring is either paranoia or wishful thinking. Anonymous gives no particulars: date, place, perpetrator, bishop and victim.

And the cheap shot of referring to "franchises" is just more anti-Catholic rant. As though the Pope were some shill for a hamburger joint. Anti-Catholics always want to cut the Pope down to size with irreverence, so that he is reduced to being no different from the guy who runs the Crystal Cathedral or some other shaman like Joel Osteen. In fact, the Pope's recent US visit was of a different order of magnitude than anything any protestant minister trying to pump up the volume in his "franchises" has ever produced.

That is because the Catholic Church is the Worldwide Church of Christ with almost four times the adherents as the US has people. Rather than franchises, it had "dioceses" for more than a millennium before Martin Luther was even a gleam in his old man's eye. It currently has about 195 "dioceses" in the USA with more adherents than the ten largest protestant sects combined.

Come out with a new defense. The only ones that have stayed on are good people that cow toe to the powers that be with the Bishops.

It's well known that many Bishops are not in compliance with the charter.

They are continuing to let abuse occur by not reporting.

Yes the problem is becoming less and less prevalent. But it's certainly not from forthright action by any one in the RCC including the Pope as it was his job to cover it up for the last 20 years. Yes the Pope did address the hand selected victims at the Washington DC Franchise of the RCC. But it only took him 20 years to do that and that is more over the loss of revenue from his franchises in America. It has little to do with a heart felt moment by the Pope.

It's because victims will not give up.

Folks,
Dog and Pony notes that two leaders of the USCCB WatchDog Committee have quit and claimed the bishops are not following their charter. Okay, but other members of the Watchdog Committee disagree and think the work of the Commission is valuable and effective. So they stay on.

It's kind of like the Kean Commission or many other commissions that have been formed over the past 40 years or so. Commission members often disagree with one another.

If ex-Gov. Keating is so clearly right and those who remained so clearly wrong, he could well have a very lucrative career testifying for the plaintiffs' lawyers all over the country. But the Church's lawyers would have known about that possibility too. Yet they allowed him to leave. So, apparently they had a different view of Keating's critique. And so too do would the other members of the Commission who have stayed on. They include judges, doctors, social workers, a lawyer, etc.

Two leaders of that board have quit because they have said Bishops are not following the charter including ex Gov Keating.
If Bishops are not following the charter the charter is serving one purpose and that is the dog and pony show for lay people. Why are the Bishops not showing transparency as the charter orders. Because the Bishops feel they are above our laws in the USA.

When we see a Bishop in handcuffs we will start to see change. And not till that time will change come at all in the church's across our country.

Folks,
While admitting my point that the pedophilia problem is not limited to the Catholic Church in particular or religion in general and that Governmental officials have the same problem in their organizations (most notably in schools), Anonymous argues:

"Catholic and any and all religions are supposed to be our moral leaders. Yet they hide support and assist pedophiles to commit crimes against our children. I do expect that from our elected officials. But not our moral leaders. Moral leaders are no better than the officials you point out as having the same problem in our public system. Our moral leaders are high elected officials in the church. They are the ones making the bad decisions. This could have been addressed a very long time ago in any one of the meetings the Bishops have yearly. They are forever giving pronouncements on everything down to what people eat or drink or how they live. This very important problem was not accidentally missed in the Bishops meeting. In the 1985 conference of Bishops a report was given out to all Bishops saying that this child pedophilia would be a billion dollar baby."

Anonymous is obviously right that the initial response of the Catholic Bishops was not the proper one, but their conference (the USCCB) has been on record for several years now taking a zero-tolerance position that does NOT cover up cases of pedophilia. That position is administered by a watchdog committee, as well. If Anonymous takes a look at the Reports of the USCCB (which meets twice a year, btw), he will see that the Pedophilia Issue has been addressed repeatedl and publicly over the course of the last several years.

Catholic and any and all religions are supposed to be our moral leaders. Yet they hide support and assist pedophiles to commit crimes against our children. I do expect that from our elected officials. But not our moral leaders. Moral leaders are no better than the officials you point out as having the same problem in our public system. Our moral leaders are high elected officials in the church. They are the ones making the bad decisions. This could have been addressed a very long time ago in any one of the meetings the Bishops have yearly. They are forever giving pronouncements on everything down to what people eat or drink or how they live. This very important problem was not accidentally missed in the Bishops meeting. In the 1985 conference of Bishops a report was given out to all Bishops saying that this child pedophilia would be a billion dollar baby.
The oracle has come to fruition. The religious groups around the world are so worried about saving face that they let children be raped. So because this may occur in city schools is no excuse for continuing the abuse of children and certainly no excuse to hide the abuse of children by people who are supposed to be moral leaders.

FYI all

The topic of pedophilia and sexual abuse of minors has been discussed also on other blogs in this forum, earlier threads of Prof Arroyo and Prof Thistletwaite titled Benedict Protect our Children.

If the real concern is to protect children and not to bash the Catholic Church, then it is imperative that reliable data be collected also about abuse in ALL other religious and non-religious organizations. By far the most important place to look for sexual abuse of children is in families. Sounds terrible, but unfortunately that is where the maximum abuse takes place and children are damaged far more and feel completely helpless. The number of cases reported is only the tip of an extremely large iceberg.

Get real and honest all you folks concerned about the real safety of children. We live in a world where unfortunately some even fathers and step-fathers are sexual predators of their own children or stepchildren. With women having multiple sex partners and relationships, children are exposed to non-biological males all the time which increases the risk of sexual abuse.

I stand corrected on abuse in public schools. Thank You. I'm surprised at this today and thought this was ingrained to the Church type schools.
More later

Folks.,
In response to Dinner Out's most recent attack on the Cqatholic Church, I submitted (a half an hour ago) a long response that included a substantial quote from an Oct. 2007 Report on an AP Investigation of Teacher Pedophilia. That has been held up for review (perhaps because of its length) so I wanted to post this shorter version that does not quote from the report but does supply a link to the msnbc report onb the report. Here is the short version:

Dinner Out,

After I made the clearly accurate statement that pedophilia goes on in public schools, protestant churches, etc. without the same kind of societal outrage as you direct toward the Catholic Church, you try to differentiate your venom toward the Catholic Church as follows:

"The public schools do not move pedophiles around from state to state or country to country. Public schools have not covered up factual evidence or had shredding parties at Universities after cannon law parties. To attempt and draw a conclusion from state schools and clubs and other organizations is misrepresenting the facts of the cover ups in the (RCC)Roman Catholic Church on the abuse on a country wide level or even be on a national level."

WRONG again. Public schools routinely cover up what is going on in the schools through the confidentiality laws that protect the teacher disciplining process. For example, One of the earlier Teacher Pedophilia cases was the one involving the Bronx High School of Science Teachers who headed up the NYC Chapter of the North American Man Boy Love Association. Despite the obvious insanity of having such a proud pedophile teaching, the NYC Schools refused to disclose what wa going on citing confidentiality concerns. And the teacher stayed teaching for years.

Or consider the implications of the 2004 report to the U.S. Department of Education that looked at student survey results and teacher disciplinary records, in which researchers found nearly 10 percent of students are targets of sexual suggestions or contact by teachers at some point in their school career. While only 4 percent of educators who were investigated for sexual misconduct were females, students surveyed said 43 percent of inappropriate behavior came from female teachers. Clearly, there is massive covering up going on in the public schools, but the Government has a different concern there: to protect ITS pursestrings.

Finally, the AP released an in-depth report on Teacher Pedophilia in October 2007 that shows that cover-ups and concerns with liability are rampant in the public schools. Here is the link to an article on the report that shows the types of cover-ups in public schools that you claim occur only in the Catholic Church:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21392345/

The public schools do not move pedophiles around from state to state or country to country. Public schools have not covered up factual evidence or had shredding parties at Universities after cannon law parties. To attempt and draw a conclusion from state schools and clubs and other organizations is misrepresenting the facts of the cover ups in the (RCC)Roman Catholic Church on the abuse on a country wide level or even be on a national level.

Denver was shot down twice for pressure from lay Catholics that could not see past the information Chaput jammed down their throats in mass on Sunday. The negative anti catholic propaganda campaign Chaput sold unsuspecting Catholics was hog wash. The Catholic Church paid lobbying groups alone millions in Denver. Denver lay Catholics were strong armed by the RCC.
The only group campaigning against all the new child friendly laws is the RCC hierarchy. Because the Roman Catholic hierarchy is and has been the guiltiest in letting the pedophiles prey on children and then the RCC committed crimes them selves by covering up for the guilty.
Your argument might fool some of the lay Catholics reading this blog but you are just twisting facts and damaging lay Catholics with your bull.
People are coming around as we volley is this blog. Just watch a couple law and orders and you will get the publics take.
This is about getting rid of the cancer in the RCC community. It is happening slowly. The RCC hierarchy are men who have been most guilty and have blood all over the place from damaged children.(Have ya heard about the kid riding his bike home with a bloody seat?) The RCC has been breading pedophiles who now sit in high positions in the church. Rooting them out is a start to change that is happening all over. It will happen and is as in LA. It will just take some time.

The culpability of the hierarchy is obvious if one reads Leon J. Podles or Jason Berry or just log on to www.bishop-accountability.org/ or see the movie Deliver us from evil.

Do you think that Washington DC is going to keep the legislation in the closet forever as well? ( )????? will fold and force a few to follow like Brown and Gram and Bowsner and Alexader or who will fold. It will be heated. We will see over the long haul won't we! One quit playing both sides of the fence today in DC. LOL Who was it? You will see soon enough.

LA will start another wind storm. Watch my friend and see the outcome and the healing it will do in the country. Cries will be heard around the world.

Dr. Takit Inthebrown

DinnerOut,
I was unfamiliar with the posting conventions on this board and therefore failed to fill in the box above the comment with my handle last time (I thought the website would remember me from my prior posting. That is why I was called Anonymous. On to the substance of your reply about the supposed state of the evidence in front of a Los Angeles Grand Jury.

It is clear that you are simply hoping that Cardinal Mahoney will be indicted. I should think though that he will not be indicted. The GJ should no more indict Mahoney than they should indict the presidents of most of the school boards in this country where so many male and female teachers are engaging in couplings with any students they can get. Clearly, there is plenty of pedophilia going on in public school districts-as well as in Protestant churches, Jewish synagogues and in soccer locker rooms and boys and girls scout troops, etc--but it doesn't get much reporting. Certainly, higher ups in the school hierarchy are not indicted because they usually cannot be said to have aided and abetted the commission of the offense. Well neither can most members of the Catholic Hierarchy.

Yet there are many bigots that would like to impose an unfair standard on the Catholic Church. Look what happened to the legislation in Colorado that would uniquely have singled out churches. When the churches pushed back and asked the Legislature to apply the same rules to public schools, the hypocrites in the Legislature backed down. It is one thing to load up the churches with liability, but not the public schools. Heaven forfend: that might entail a tax increase, and one that would not be going to the legislators pet projects.

What this really breaks down to is that bigots would love to bag a cardinal, but that is more a reflection of their hatred than of any culpability of the hierarchy.

DinnerOut,
I was unfamiliar with the posting conventions on this board and therefore failed to fill in the box above the comment with my handle last time (I thought the website would remember me from my prior posting. That is why I was called Anonymous. On to the substance of your reply about the supposed state of the evidence in front of a Los Angeles Grand Jury.

It is clear that you are simply hoping that Cardinal Mahoney will be indicted. I should think though that he will not be indicted. The GJ should no more indict Mahoney than they should indict the presidents of most of the school boards in this country where so many male and female teachers are engaging in couplings with any students they can get. Clearly, there is plenty of pedophilia going on in public school districts-as well as in Protestant churches, Jewish synagogues and in soccer locker rooms and boys and girls scout troops, etc--but it doesn't get much reporting. Certainly, higher ups in the school hierarchy are not indicted because they usually cannot be said to have aided and abetted the commission of the offense. Well neither can most members of the Catholic Hierarchy.

Yet there are many bigots that would like to impose an unfair standard on the Catholic Church. Look what happened to the legislation in Colorado that would uniquely have singled out churches. When the churches pushed back and asked the Legislature to apply the same rules to public schools, the hypocrites in the Legislature backed down. It is one thing to load up the churches with liability, but not the public schools. Heaven forfend: that might entail a tax increase, and one that would not be going to the legislators pet projects.

What this really breaks down to is that bigots would love to bag a cardinal, but that is more a reflection of their hatred than of any culpability of the hierarchy.

GEORGIASON

You wrote, "I notice none of you Catholics dare answer my standard question: Do you really believe that the immortal souls of billions of human beings created by God will never achieve eternal salvation, because they are not Catholics? How can any human being endowed with God's gift of reason and logic believe such a monstrous thing?"

Actually, I have answered that question many times but I will answer it again.

I am a Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith.

God's Plan which is unfolding before our very eyes is ultimately for the salvation of ALL HUMANITY, not as could be implied, even tho I am not saying that you implied it, that salvation can be had by people that are not "officially" members of the "Catholic Church", but that still there will be some that won't be saved.

I repeat ALL WILL BE SAVED, I look past heaven to the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth which will be established at the dawning of the seventh day.

The six days of creation are quite literal but not in the 24 hr day literalness, I refer to them as God Days or periods of time. We are in the sixth day of creation and have been for who knows how long, I don't. Jesus, Himself, said, "Night is coming when no man [as in mankind] can work", yes, spiritual night will be decending upon us but the dawning of the seventh day shall also arrive when God will declare VICTORY in favor of the Holy Ones.

Jesus invited us to be active participants in God's Plan of Salvation when He said, "Come follow Me". Jesus asked us to be "Good Friday" people. When Jesus was on the cross, He said, "Father forgive them", there is no asterick as in, except for and He asks us to do the same as in forgiving all.

Christianity is not about knowing God's Name but it is about following Jesus. Some follow Jesus without even knowing or acknowledging it while others say they are following Him but aren't, only God knows.

As I have said before: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and also that it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

God gave us free will and we are responsible for what we do and we will all be judged.

By the way, God did not create hell, hell is not some monolithic place, if someone dies and wakes up in hell, so to speak, they will know that not only did they build it but they have no one else to blame but themselves.

Jesus, Who is God-Incarnate, took upon Himself ALL OF THE SINS OF MANKIND, or if you prefer all of mankind's wrongdoings or whatever you wish to call it since some seem to have an aversion to admitting that they have ever done anything wrong or in some cases to believe that there is no such thing as something being wrong.

By the way, I am not talking about legal or illegal but about what is right or wrong. Something can be legal but wrong and some things can be illegal but not wrong and also sometimes the motive for something can be the difference between something being right or wrong.

I am not here to tell you or anyone else what is right or wrong, I am here to tell the world that God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable, the captives shall be released and the dead shall rise.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Autonomous --Your post is no less plagued with presuppositions than my faith in Christ.

For example, you argue that a..." life comprised of actions always trumps a life of words." Are you thereby suggesting that words (and thoughts) are not actions?

Do you also presuppose that a secular ethics can be formulated without presuppositions about what is right and wrong? What are those presuppositions in your view?

Do you believe yourself to be somehow exempt of any conditioning by your beliefs, because of your beliefs? Is that why you identify yourself as 'autonomous'? Isn't that more than just a little presumptuous, even for an atheist humanist?

Hey anonymous! You’re named after what?
How about joining the red mass with Mahoney this coming year! You’re invited if he's not ducking from the tracer rounds.
Presumption of innocence is correct. It’s factual information that enough evidence exists to hang a few complicit people very high. Maybe a Cardinal will swing from pearly gates about now. So it's really just a question of how many will hang? Care to guess how many will hang? Because I've no idea!
"I know nothing" (Hogan's Heroes) and just guessing that enough papers exist in Steve Cooley's joining offices to do a lot of good for the community.

Bill Hodgman is a man on a mission and just sane enough to be totally confident. He will do what should have been done before 660 million dark red blood money bucks were spent.
Red Herring I think not/large black sea bass? Yes! I do see a large hook in the distance with steal leader and with some wishful thinking we might land a big one. Need a gaff for the one at the top.

Your Good Friend

Dr. Jack Mehoff

If there was ever any doubt as to why people turn away from Catholicism and Christianity in general,
the perfectly and utterly absurd Catholic rationalization just below as spelled out by Anon2 is probably the prime reason - this kind of thinking either suddenly or gradually stops making sense for the born-again non-theist. They simply lose their irrational fear.

Was there ever anything so passive-aggressive, so completely unreasonable (if not downright malicious and even sadistic) as this idea of folks condemning themselves wholesale to eternal damnation and suffering by failing to buy into Catholic doctrine hook, line and sinker?? In the meantime, God/Jesus skates - it wasn't his/their fault! No, this is an act of self-damnation by failure to believe - another dose of the fear factor X10.

And here we also have the fundamental problem of believing that any human is or ever was divine. Can this kind of thinking result in anything but an inevitable distortion of the truth? But that's another issue for another day.

While one may gravitate to other religions as a result of their loss of faith, just as often the 'suddenly awakened one' drops religion altogether. We see many such former believers on these on these threads.

Once shed of such religious conditioning, it thereafter becomes alternately offensive and amusing to hear this arcane philosophy of global damnation for non-believers offered as some kind of absolute and unavoidable truth - as we see with Anon2. This is a prime source of more than a few of the contentious exchanges we witness on these threads.

Curiously, we see Islam condemned for the same kind of authoritarian and intolerant inflexibility, when it is so very clearly and abundantly present in Catholicism and other forms of Christian fundamentalism.

Atheists in great numbers are simply people that have somehow lost their religious conditioning and their fear of believing wrongly. Whether or not consciousness survives death is still an unsettled question - at least in my mind.

However, it is with certainly that I proceed with the conviction that a life well lived and guided by a sense of ethics, compassion, fair play, and justice for all, far surpasses the value of a myth well believed - when the end inevitably arrives. A life comprised of actions always trumps a life of words.

And this is exactly why a philosophy of secular humanism so often replaces the metaphysics of religious belief when that big day of rebirth finally arrives for the twice-born non-theist.

Folks,
"Dinner Out" throws out this classic "red herring":

"Los Angeles does have a secret grand jury working on the Californian complicit Catholic hierarchy as I write this now!"

Hmmm...even if there is a GJ Proceeding that does not mean that the "complicity" of the hierarchy has been established. Something about the Presumption of Innocence. Bigots' wishes notwithstanding, it applies even to the Catholic hierarchy.

Yet Dinner nevertheless throws out the red herring that the hierarchy is complicit. Is this unsupported accusation based on Dinner's inside knowledge of the secret GJ deliberations--which would be criminal to release--or is he just engaging in some wishful thinking?

GeorgiaSon: You wrote: "I notice none of you Catholics dare answer my standard question: Do you really believe that the immortal souls of billions of human beings created by God will never achieve eternal salvation, because they are not Catholics? How can any human being endowed with God's gift of reason and logic believe such a monstrous thing?"

It's contradictory that an all merciful God as revealed in Jesus Christ would want to condemn billions of people to eternal suffering. In my view, God would want exactly the opposite.

If, however, as most Christians believe, Jesus Christ is the incarnation of God, then it follows that by rejecting Jesus Christ one rejects eternal salvation. So it is is one who condemns one's self.

Even so, I believe God would always leave the door open. However, once disbelief, and all that flows from it, crystalizes in a person, it would seem impossible to open that door. The person just won't want to, and thereby chooses separation from God.

Yet to say one believes or not in Jesus Christ can hardly be enough. Christians and non-Christians alike should really be asking what they really mean when they assert that they believe or do not believe in Jesus Christ or God. After all, who is Jesus Christ? Who is God?

Didn't Jesus ask repeatedly: "Who do people say that I am?

Thomas Baum,

Thank you for your kind response to my posts. Yes, it's been quite a while since we've conversed.

A while back it seemed to me that after sixteen months of continual posting on On Faith, I'd pretty much given what I had to give to these discussions, and also pretty much gotten what I could get from reading the posts of others (which were a lot of good things).

I still feel the same way, I think, but plan to be around here from time to time.

I like your "Take care, be ready", but in a universe which, whatever other dimensions it may
have, is also inescapably material and physical, is it really possible to follow your advice/admonition?

All best wishes to you.

ANONYMOUS

You wrote, " A spiritual experience of feeling God in your heart is an expression I could easily understand. But "meeting" God? Not so much."

As far as you having a hard time understanding my saying that I met God, to tell you the truth if you could understand it and said that you did, that would surprise me to no end.

It may be hard to put it into words but I just knew that it was God the Father, no more, no less.

How God works in other people's life and how He may reveal Himself to them is up to God but as I have said before: God knew that I needed to know some things but there are still others things that I just believe but sometimes with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I look at them, so to speak, differently than some others.

You do not have to understand and for that matter I do not have to understand or even to be able to put it into words but it did happen and in the bible it even speaks of it, it was quite a surprise to me, to put it very mildly.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Los Angeles does have a secret grand jury working on the Californian complicit Catholic hierarchy as I write this now!

Folks,
Georgiason poses this strawman:

"I notice none of you Catholics dare answer my standard question: Do you really believe that the immortal souls of billions of human beings created by God will never achieve eternal salvation, because they are not Catholics?"

This is very silly. That is not the Catholic position but an evangelical position. Pope John Paul II was very famously criticized by (some)evangelicals for writing that Muslims, Jews, and other religionists as well as other christians will be saved. That is because of Protestantism's unfortunate reliance on the unbiblical dogma of "Sola Fide" ("By Faith Alone").

So, Georgiason, you are going to have to try justifying your bigotry on other grounds. HINT: if you want to join the Church Jesus founded in the First Century AD, don't look anywhere in Protestantism; those churches were all founded by men in the 16th Century or later.

GeorgiaSon

Read the Vatican Council II document, for your question is adequately answered.

I swear, as I read the posts on this page, I hear the sound of wood splintering as a square peg is nailed into a round hole. To hit the nail on the head of my poor metaphor (no boos, please), the wood is the doctrines of the Catholic Church and the hole is the 21st Century, which, whether you believe it or not, you are living in.

I notice none of you Catholics dare answer my standard question: Do you really believe that the immortal souls of billions of human beings created by God will never achieve eternal salvation, because they are not Catholics? How can any human being endowed with God's gift of reason and logic believe such a monstrous thing?

Thomas Paul Moses Baum, thanks for trying to explain that you meant you "met" God and did not "see" God. It is still quite confusing to me. A spiritual experience of feeling God in your heart is an expression I could easily understand. But "meeting" God? Not so much.

It is good that you take the time to share your spiritual insights with us. Thank you. I only have problem with your "I met God" phrase.

The essay by Rabbi Or N Rose titled 'We believe, God knows,' is very insightful to this discussion

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/06/in_praise_of_hillel_shammai_ju.html

If Auxiliary Bishop Geoffrey Robinson of Australia is considered radical, then how much more the late Dom Bede Griffiths OSB, an English Benedictine monk, an Anglican, then atheist convert to Catholicism, who came to India when he was over fifty years of age and died there in 1993 aged eighty seven!

Fr Bede's book, A New Vision of Reality, reflected his radical vision for Christianity and the Catholic Church in the third millennium. One may not agree with everything Fr Bede has written and some things he suggested may not be practical or wise, but he himself admitted that he was merely suggesting ideas that need to be developed by others in the coming centuries.

Dom Bede Griffiths, the visionary, lived an extremely simple and ascetic life, like a Hindu sannyasi, and was very high in the hierarchy of holiness. He was an intellectual giant, having studied at Oxford University, with a tutor and friend no less than C S Lewis himself. Fr Bede envisioned a Christianity that would live in living relationships with other religions, learning from other religions and enriching and deepening its own understanding of God, without losing any of its unique place in God's plan of salvation through Jesus Christ.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I'm not familiar with the details of the US Cardinal Roger Mahony vs Auxiliary Bishop Geoffrey Robinson of Australia conflict. Since I have not read Bishop Geoffrey's book it is not appropriate for me to make any comment about it, in order to understand the reasons why Cardinal Mahony may not have been able to give official Church approval to Bishop Robinson to talk about it in official RCC locations under his care. Since Bishop Robinson wrote the book with the conviction that the Holy Spirit was speaking through him, and he was *invited to the US* to talk about it, one can understand why he took up the invitation.

This is an issue with two differing perspectives. Could both have been right in their own way and was listening to their own conscience as they understood it?

I'm a simple lay Catholic who wishes that ALL Catholics would be committed to living a life Jesus Christ wants us to live, a Jesus who promised to continue speaking to us through the Holy Spirit after His physical life on earth was ended (John chapters 14 -17). Jesus Christ was no wimp and spoke truth to the religious authorities of His day without fear and hesitation. So those who criticize the Catholic Church with love and unconditional love for it are in very good company.

Here a brief Australian introduction to Bishop Robinson's book:

Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church: Reclaiming the Spirit of Jesus

ISBN :9781920721473 ISBN 13: 9789781920721475

Author(s): Robinson, Bishop Geoffrey, Publisher : John Garratt Publishing

Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church is now in its fourth reprint! The book has been published in the UK and in Spanish. It is to be published in the USA by Liturgical Press shortly.

Drawing on his own experience in responding to abuse, Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, in this explosive work, methodically offers a critique of the church’s use and misuse of power, from the pope proclaiming infallibly down to the preacher claiming a divine authority for every word spoken from the pulpit.

Going back to the bible and, above all, to the teaching of Jesus, he presents an approach to sexual morality that is profound, compassionate and people-centred.

He stresses the priority of the hierarchy of holiness over the hierarchy of power.

He offers nothing less than a vision for a church of the third millennium – a church that wants to see in its members the responsibility appropriate to adults rather than the obedience appropriate to children, and wants to help all people to grow to become all they are capable of being.

Readers will love or hate this book, but will not be able to be neutral.

Each chapter ends with a relevant meditation.

http://www.johngarratt.com.au/product.php?isbn=9781920721473

Dear Ryan,

You write "Bishop Robinson ought, out of love of God and the Church, not to flout the Cardinal by preaching within in places within the Cardinal's canonical jurisdiction where the Cardinal lacks power to enforce his authority."

Costa Mesa and San Diego are not the the Los Angeles diocese. Robinson did comply with Mahoney's directive.

Ryan, Ryan, Ryan,

Once again, a partial list of references that historical Jesus exegetes use in their studies. Peruse them well!!!

1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm -- the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject.

2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication
30-60 CE Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter

3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html--"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html

8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm

9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

10. 7. The Gnostic Jesus
(Part One in a Two-Part Series on Ancient and Modern Gnosticism)
by Douglas Groothuis: equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm

11. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2

12. The Jesus Database- newer site:
wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=Jesus_Database

13. Jesus Database with the example of Supper and Eucharist:
faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb016.html

14. Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

15. The Journal of Higher Criticism with links to articles on the Historical Jesus:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

16. The Greek New Testament: laparola.net/greco/

17. Diseases in the Bible:
etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-08022006-125807/unrestricted/02dissertation.pdf
18. Religion on Line (6000 articles on the history of religion, churches, theologies,
theologians, ethics, etc.
religion-online.org/

19. The Jesus Seminarians and their search for NT authenticity:
mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

20. The New Testament Gateway - Internet NT ntgateway.com/

21. Writing the New Testament- existing copies, oral tradition etc.
ntgateway.com/

22. The Search for the Historic Jesus by the Jesus Seminarians:
members.aol.com/DrSwiney/seminar.html

23. Jesus Decoded by Msgr. Francis J. Maniscalco (Da Vinci Code review)jesusdecoded.com/introduction.php

24. JD Crossan's scriptural references for his book the Historical Jesus separted into time periods: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

25. JD Crossan's conclusions about the authencity of most of the NT based on the above plus the conclusions of other NT exegetes in the last 200 years:
faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

26. Common Sayings from Thomas's Gospel and the Q Gospel: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf

27. Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by title with the complete translated work in English :earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

28. Luke and Josephus- was there a connection?
infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

29. NT and beyond time line:
pbs.org/empires/peterandpaul/history/timeline/

30. St. Paul's Time line with discussion of important events:
harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/pauls_life.htm

31. See www.amazon.com for a list of JD Crossan's books and those of the other Jesus Seminarians: Reviews of said books are included and selected pages can now be viewed on Amazon. Some books can be found on-line at Google Books.

32. Father Edward Schillebeeckx's words of wisdom as found in his books.

33. The books of the following other On Faith panelists: Professors Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, Karen Armstrong and Bishop NT Wright.

34. Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, NY, 1977, 878 pages, with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

35. Luke Timothy Johnson's book The Real Jesus,

Folks,
Someone named Rev. Peter posted that: "The more I learn about how the Roman church operates, the more I realize that it is exactly the same way the communist party used to operate. The CP must have used the RC's organizational manual when they set up their political organization."

WRONG! Had the Communist Party followed the Roman Organizational Manual it would have "gone forth to all Nations baptizing and teaching all them to observe all that Christ commanded." (Matt. 28:18-20). Instead, the Communists tried to rule a little nation called Poland and thereby took on the Catholic Church. Despite the fact that the Pope had no divisions, Stalin's boys lost. Now Communism has been consigned to the dustpin of History and the "Una Sancta Catholica et Apostolica Ecclesia" has continued along on its 2000 Year Journey.

Focusing more specifically on the Mahoney-Robinson issue: the Catholic Church, going as far back as Irenaeus in the Second Century AD and Paul/Timothy in the First, learned something the protestants with their tens of thousands of denominations have, unfortunately, proceeded to forget. (2 Tim. 1:6,13,14-2 Tim. 2:1). If Christ's word is to be heard, it is by listening to the Church (Matt. 18:17; ). If, though, the voice of the Church is indistinct because different people are saying different things in the name of the Church, the Church cannot be heard. To prevent the possibility of Christ's word being confused, the Church, since apostolic times, has appointed bishops who oversee the Church in a particular area. The bishops make sure that the authoritative word of Christ is proclaimed in a clarion way. To the extent a preacher is preaching inconsistently with the bishop, he should not be preaching in the bishop's diocese.

"[T]o achieve change, I think, the Church needs more cooperation and less invective towards opposing points of view." This probably would achieve change, but not necessarily improvement. The diocesan bishop has the responsibility to safeguard the validity of what is taught in his diocese. The bishop of L.A. did so, and for that he should be applauded.

Rev Peter,

"The more I learn about how the Roman church operates, the more I realize that it is exactly the same way the communist party used to operate."

What, are you serious? You mean raffles and bingo in the parish hall to put a new roof on the school?

"The CP must have used the RC's organizational manual when they set up their political organization."

You mean the Code of Canon Law? Have you read it? You can find it online if you like: http://www.vatican.va/archive/cdc/index.htm

"No wonder so many ex-communists became Catholics and so many ex Catholics became communists. There wasn't really that much difference."

Who ever heard of that? To whom are you refering in the above?

Mike,

Yeah, you're right - it's horrifying to see how many of our bishops have adopted extremely self-interested, defensive policies. One hopes that they are trying to secure their diocese's wellbeing by an aggressive risk management policy, rather than simply trying to cover their rears by leaving others' hung out to dry. God will have to judge because (I think) the rest of us really don't know enough. I do know that one diocese decided, long ago, that rather than pay out for nondisclosure agreements, it would defend its priests unless they felt there was a really credible case. Most of the cases didn't even make it through the grand juries because the accusations were so shoddy.

You, or someone commenting on the same vein, noted how many of the canonized saints were treated very badly BY THE CHURCH during the lifetime. I could list dozens off the top of my head. That only makes my point though - the Church isn't meant to be a mausoleum for self-righteous walking dead, but rather a hospital for real-live sinners. Remember what sinners did to our Lord Jesus Christ when He walked the earth? The saints are those who have so successfully conformed themselves so thoroughly to His image. Why should they expect to be treated any differently than Him? In fact, our Lord predicted that they would be treated as badly. The saints have prepared themselves to be treated badly rather than to sin - that's why they're saints.

"Rome fell once and our family is
praying that it will fall again, and fall hard."

Our Lord commands us to pray for our enemies, and for those who persecute us. Doing so is another hallmark of the saint.

God bless, Mike.

HAL IN OK

You wrote, "Bishop Robinson was free to say anything he wanted in the US, just not in Cardinal Mahoney's house."

It is NOT Cardinal Mahoney's house, it is God's House.

Cardinal Mahoney might have juridiction, so to speak, but it is not his house.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

NORRIE HOYT

Hi, hope you are doing fine. Haven't spoken to you in awhile. Concerning your two posts at 11:13 and 11:25 PM at the 11:25 PM post you wrote, "But since Jesus's teaching brought both light and life into the world, I feel the misquotation in my previous post is also true."

I totally agree, one of the things that Jesus said was, "I have come to bring sight to the blind", and our spiritual blindness is what really needs sight being brought to it.

It seems to me that some of the people that Jesus brought physical sight to in the bible already had spiritual sight whereas some of the religious authorities of His day were indeed spiritually blind.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

ANONYMOUS

To the Anonymous of 6-24-2008 at 10:51 PM you wrote, "Thomas Baum, no one has seen God face to face for no one can see God and live. The Bible states that. You have had a spiritual experience coming from the Holy Spirit. But when you claim you have seen God, one begins to question the authenticity of your spiritual experience. Share your wisdom but maybe you should reconsider your statement that you have "seen" God. God is spirit and for that reason alone nobody can see Him face to face."

On my post, I did not say that I saw God the Father, I said that I met God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, specifically, God the Father came into my heart and God the Holy Spirit came into my body and God the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus.

Jesus, Himself, said, "I Am the Way, The Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except thru Me", did He not?

Also He said, "to the Father", He did not say to God, so there could be myriad ways to Jesus.

It also says that the Father reveals Himself to whomever He wishes.

It also says, "Remember I have chosen you, you haven't chosen Me", God chose me and I said YES.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

ANONYMOUS

To the Anonymous of 6-24-2008 at 8:47 pm you wrote, "Thomas Baum, I do believe that you are being led by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church needs to open up the leading of the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised. At the Last Supper Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to everyone who believed in Him."

First off, thank you for your post.

Second, I would to repeat that I am Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith but thank God that it is not up to the Catholic Church who the Holy Spirit comes to and what gifts that person receives and what that person is to do, that is up to God, like I have said before, I have said YES to God and even tho I sometimes refer to it as my "job" that I have been chosen to do, I think of it as OUR "job" as in God and I.

Third, yes, Jesus did say, "I will send the Holy Spirit to you" and that you is us.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

The more I learn about how the Roman church operates, the more I realize that it is exactly the same way the communist party used to operate. The CP must have used the RC's organizational manual when they set up their political organization. No wonder so many ex-communists became Catholics and so many ex Catholics became communists. There wasn't really that much difference.

Ryan,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Even though
I do not agree with you on several aspects, I
understand where you are coming from. For many
years I was there, and now we have escaped that
total mind control and absolute authority.
How many priest our family has known that
have been accused by money hunger people and
hung out to dry without due dilegence. Now their
name is MUD, their priestly career is over,
and are tossed out on their nose to start a
new life, of which they did not deserve this
treatment at all. The Roman Church can thank
their good friends at SNAP for publishing a
complete list of clergy who many are innocent.
How many priest have been falsely accused
and have commited suicide because they cannot
go through life knowing they have been branded
a child molester, when they were innocent ?
What about the thousands of people who have
been murdered by the Roman Church through the
centuries because they were accused of this
or that. Power,creed, control is the only
thing that Rome understands, and you will
not change my opinion on that, nor thousands of
others who have been treated as a second-class
citizen because of their better-than-thou attitude. Rome fell once and our family is
praying that it will fall again, and fall hard.

Jack: The article is very well-written. The
combining of issues, the mix of problems, is the
very stuff of which the Mahony/Robinson conflict
is made.

As to the Republican-with-Obama-in-his house
analogy given by an earlier respondant, it is
quite apt.

The problem is that Cardinal Mahony thinks of
Church property as "his house" in which he may
prescribe the boundaries of intelligent debate,
vs. "the people's who built it's house" or even
"God's house" in which he does not have the
privilege to control everything.

CCNL,

Your exegetes provide not only an "historical" method (kinda - but not one that stands up to the scrutiny of trained historians working in secular matters) positively CRAMMED with a bunch of philosophical presuppositions that are neither historical, nor ahistorical, neither scientific, nor unscientific. The denial of the possibility of miracles, for instance, is not an historical thesis, but a philosophical one.

Most of your historical-critical exegetes aren't trained as historians at all, coincidentally.

CCNL,

You've listed every possible scripture passage as a "later addition" but have not once given a single shred of evidence - only a list of citations. Most of your citations, for that matter, only cite each other.

Anthony
This is a poorly written article. you have too many issues: pedophilism, the hierarchical nature of the church, Archbishop Mahoney's personal querks, and general political classifications - next time just pick one or two of these topics and develop it more.

Luke 14:26 is one of the oddest passages in the NT and was said, as per the studies of many NT exegetes, by the historic Jesus. Adds to the Jesus was a simple preacher man conclusion however.

And "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends," was not from Lk 15:13 but was from John 15:13. This passage, as per the studies of many NT exegetes, not said by the historical Jesus but an embellishment to add pizzazz to the simple preacher man's biography.

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/357_Life_for_Others

Paul C,

And you realize that orthodox theology is fed to us by a bunch of "celibate" old European white guys don't you?? And then there are the "nothing known about the gospel writers" problems. See Father Raymond Brown's 878 page book, An Introduction to the New Testament. These authors definitely were not any of the 12 Apostles i.e. four books written by non-witnesses to the simple preacher man's life.

And then there is Paul who prophesied that there would be an imminent second coming. Still waiting but his prophecy did fill the coffers and did make many converts who bought into the tall tales. Televangelists, popes and bishops still use this gimmick.

Mike,

"The Gospel of Jesus Christ is about love, compassion, and tolerance."

That's not entirely true. I've read all four of them, and I never even see the word 'tolerance' in there. Jesus was very intolerant of the pharisees, for instance. He was cool with tax collectors and prostitutes, but not with their lifestyles, and made sure they heard him say, "Go and sin no more."

As for compassion and love, of course that is very central to Jesus' message - but he seems to have meant something very different than what we mean by those words. As a simple test of this fact, when we think 'compassion' do we think of trying to remove someone's suffering, even going to great lengths to do so? That's what most of the world means when they say compassion.

That's not what Jesus seems to have thought. The word means "to suffer with" in Latin, and that's what Jesus did - he entered into our condition and died with and for us. When you say the Gospel is about compassion, do you mean something like "a willingness to die with and for others"? That's what Jesus did.

When you say that the Gospel is mostly about love, what do you mean by love? Is it a feeling? An attraction? An affection? How does that square, in that case, with Jesus' harder, more unpleasant sayings: "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple," (Lk 14:26).

Jesus certainly loved us very much, but had no illusions about what love entails. He himself, on the night he was betrayed, said "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends," (Lk 15:13).

Jesus knew that true love is hard as tacks - both hard to do, and sometimes hard to receive. That's because love is about reality. Our world likes to be 'tolerant' (by which it often means "permit all sorts of bad acts") thinking that this tolerance is loving. Love is much stronger than merely 'tolerating' someone. Love is wanting the best for another, and the most heroic love is being willing to suffer in order to see the other benefit. Bad actions are bad because they hurt people, even if in ways that aren't immediately obvious. That's why love never lets evil go unchallenged - even if sometimes the lover must tolerate an evil for the time being.

"Pope Benedict is determined to take the church
back to the old days - and he will not suceed,
because you can never go back, never!"

I don't think so. I think he just doesn't want to see tradition chucked on the principle that it is older than us, or inconvenient for our lifestyle or way of thinking. He'd probably be the first to state that we cannot go back to 1954, and that we should idealize it, either.

"Someday I pray that Pope John XXIII will get
up out of his coffin and go screaming down
the halls of the Vatican , making them
realize that Vatican II was inspired by the
Holy Spirit, and if the Roman Church buries
the spirit of Vatican II..."

Beware of the 'spirit' detached from the letter. Our Lord himself said, "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them," (Mt 5:17).

Did you know that Vatican II called for a reform and renewal in the liturgy? Of course you did. But did you know that the document on the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) says, among other things, this:

"36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters."

Clearly not what happened. There are a lot of things that Vatican II said that haven't happened yet. Rejecting the "letter" is counterproductive. How can we know the "spirit" of Vatican II, its intent, if we do not know what was actually said? How many of us Catholics have actually read even one single document from the council, forward to back? Most of them aren't very big. We should try it. Then maybe we can collaborate with the spirit of Vatican II in a meaningful and harmonious way.

My point is that a lot has gone haywire since Vatican II, in all conceivable directions. I think the late Holy Father and now Holy Father Benedict are both just trying their best to pull things together so we can move forward again.

Mike, to me it sounds as if you or someone you care about struggles with living the life of Christ as prescribed by the scriptures and by the Church. I really, really appreciate the difficulty of doing so, and the struggles entailed. It's not easy. We need lots and lots of grace. If you want me to share some of my own struggles to do so, you can always email me at withouthavingseen at gmail dot com. It also sounds as if maybe you or someone you care about has been hurt by insensitive coparishioners or churchmen, or have taken personally some teaching that isn't intended as a personal attack. Please, as you search for a spiritual home, be careful to find one that is not too comfortable for you, because then you will have only a placebo to make you think all is well, rather than a Divine Physician to diagnose the spiritual ills we all suffer, and to prescribe a good course of treatment. The purpose of the Church isn't to make people feel good - Jesus did that for precious few. It's not what he promised us. He promised us a daily cross (Lk 9:23), and let me tell you, I feel like mine are real pains in the backside most days. The purpose of the Church is to call us to conversion and to give us the means to attain it, so that we can BE good. It requires all the more humility from us because so many of the people in the Church, top to bottom, are big boneheads like me. It's really hard, and I wish you the best in your search. I'll say a prayer for you; please kindly pray for me as well.

CCNL:
You do realize that history is interpreted from the vantage point of the historian, right?

What's the fuss folks? Archbishop Mahoney simply said that Bishop Robinson was not free to preach in the Churches of his Archdiocese. If you're a conservative Republican would you allow Barack Obama to rally his followers in your living room?

Bishop Robinson was free to say anything he wanted in the US, just not in Cardinal Mahoney's house.

There was a popular song some years ago called "Stop in the name of love."

I think Cardinal Mahoney ought to heed that advice and step down from a precipice.

For William Kraal.

You wrote: "Religion poisons everyone it touches."

No it doesn't.

To the contrary, my faith in JESUS CHRIST and Catholic religion have been the most beneficial gifts in my life. Both have helped me through difficult times and, more importantly, have significantly helped me in relating to others.

Roman Catholicism will always struggle with the problem of sexual misconduct by the clergy as long as there is a male only structure that is bound to the doctrinal error of "men-only priests."
Women played a large part in the early life of the Church and did not take a back seat as some would have them do.
My faith is that which is not dependent upon one man or woman, but that which holds that I am searching for the real and true "Anointed One," in all beings. This is not as some suppose animism, or pantheism, but a true and historical Christianity which looks to define the hidden G-d in all men and women, seeks the light of G-d in all and does not discriminate against anyone based upon class or station in life. Should the following happen, then I will change my outlook, I would need the living G-d, to come to me and say audibly, become a strict and obedient Catholic, who does stray from the Holy Fathers teaching and follows it to the letter.
Since this has not happened as of yet, I will continue to look to find G-d in all men and women without regard to the outward looks but looking inward seek and find the G-d within.

I had dinner with Jeffrey Robinson wile he was in the USA. I found the Bishop to be getting an education or a beginning of an understanding of the complexities of US Bishops and the ties to the abuse and theft with-in the Catholic Church in the USA.

He said he had trusted Bishop’s from the 40 in Australia that he could trust and talk to on a regular basis. He said the US Bishops were different

I told Jeffrey at dinner about the Bishops opposing any and all of the new legislative efforts around the US that would protect children. New laws that replace the out dated archaic laws that have protected pedophiles for many years. New laws that would protect children only! I filled in the good Bishop on the US Bishops telling the legislators and lay Catholics lies that new laws written to protect children are anti catholic laws and that the flocks should call on legislators in their respected areas and oppose the new laws. The flocks make the calls and oppose the new laws with out reading the legislative effort. They trust the priests and do not take the time to read the legislative effort before making the calls.

He understood and took a very high road with little response.

I think Jeffrey was understanding and shaken at the core when I was finished telling him about the deceit in the USA by the Bishops and Cardinals.

The conversation then lead to his meeting with the Pope. How he was marginalized and side lined or silenced when speaking in Rome to the Pope about the effects of his own abuse on himself as a child.

He was saddened with the truth in the USA.

He said the problem was coming from the top down.(ROME)

Los Angeles does have a secret grand jury working on the Californian complicit Catholic hierarchy as I write this now!

I hope we all read about the findings in the paper soon.

Peace

RELIGION POISONS EVERYONE IT TOUCHES!!!

Paul C.,

The Reality of History!!!!

In view of the fact that Bishop Robinson’s recent book addresses the element of sex, I submit the following: 60 mgs of Cymbalta taken daily will more that quiet the clerical libido with no interference in normal daily activity. In sexually radicalized situations, the dosage maybe doubled. (Antidepressants are regularly perscribed for males having a tendency ejaculate prematurely.) Incidentally, there are a number of windbags and blowhards on this blog who fancy themselves armchair theologians and biblical scholars. They make apodictic statements with no support except their own tendentious musings. A simple axiom from Logic 101 prevails: "What is freely affirmed is freely denied."

Of course what St. Paul said was "The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life" (not "light").

But since Jesus's teaching brought both light and life into the world, I feel the misquotation in my previous post is also true.

So the teaching of Jesus, of love and toleration, forming a single beam of divine radiance, has been diffracted by the Roman Church into some hundreds or thousands of "canons" to tell people what they must do in particular situations.

Did not the Apostle Paul, Saint Paul, say "The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth light"?

Is the Church of Rome then, if not The Antichrist, at least anti-Christian?

This is exactly one of the reasons why thousands
of people are leaving the Roman Church. The
Gospel of Jesus Christ is about love, compassion,
and tolerance. According to Rome, it's about
power, authority, and money. Have you ever
heard the old saying " Sometimes you are to close
to the forest to see the trees" ?
Pope Benedict is determined to take the church
back to the old days - and he will not suceed,
because you can never go back, never !
Someday I pray that Pope John XXIII will get
up out of his coffin and go screaming down
the halls of the Vatican , making them
realize that Vatican II was inspired by the
Holy Spirit, and if the Roman Church buries
the spirit of Vatican II, they will have to
answer before the throne of God !
For me and my family, we will join one of
the Independent Catholic Churches where all
are treated with dignity and respect !

Thomas Baum, no one has seen God face to face for no one can see God and live. The Bible states that. You have had a spiritual experience coming from the Holy Spirit. But when you claim you have seen God, one begins to question the authenticity of your spiritual experience. Share your wisdom but maybe you should reconsider your statement that you have "seen" God. God is spirit and for that reason alone nobody can see Him face to face.

Mahoney should be in prison along with Rivera of Mexico for their complicity in hiding Father Aguilar from US Justice. Both are an abomination to God and aren't worth the price of their fancy pointed hats.

Thomas Baum, I do believe that you are being led by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church needs to open up the leading of the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised. At the Last Supper Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to everyone who believed in Him.

Blind obedience makes for easy management of any institution, but it does not make for a better institution. It misses out on the wisdom of the Holy Spirit spoken through those who are not in authority.

CCnL:
What did discipleship of JD Crosnan offer you that Jesus Christ didn't?

It is quite scary when blind obedience is put above everything else, including the leading of the Holy Spirit. At the first Pentecost the Holy Spirit came down on all the believers.

We are not in paradise before the fall when Adam and Eve had direct contact with God. To make such comparison about the role of a priest is akin to blasphemy. No priest is God, for God's sake!

It is had to keep track, but I believe Cardinal Mahoney's Archdiocese has paid out more money in
settlements--in the hundreds of millions--than any other archdiocese in the world to settle cases involving the sexual abuse of young children by his priests.

The LA district attorney's office spent a long time investigating His Eminence's cover-up. I guess that
anything that makes us see the truth might make us--OH NO--doubt the hierarchy in other things.

The truth shall make us free when the wall of lies comes tumbling down. Many bishops have learned nothing and forget nothing, and do nothing.

Hmmm, actually the Matthew 16 passage about Peter the Rock was, according to many NT exegetes, not said by the historic Jesus but was a later add on to add pizzazz to the life of a simple preacher man.

Ditto for the passages from John i.e. (Jn 10:11, 16). (Jn 21:16).

Google it and see!!!

RYAN HABER

You wrote, "Of course, when we properly understand what our conscience is, we must always obey it.". Yes, that is what I said and it is also a teaching of the Church.

I wrote, ""Jesus extended the invitation to us to, 'Come follow Me', He did not say, 'come follow My Church, did He?'"

You replied, "Well, actually, he did. In Lk 10:16, he tells the disciples whom he sends out to teach, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

What is the Church? Is It the people? Aren't we suppose to be disciples? God's Plan is not static, it is unfolding before our very eyes. Jesus invited us to "Come follow Me" meaning Jesus, not His Church, because if we say we are following the Church, we are ultimately following ourselves. By the way, I heard, I listened, I said YES.

By the way, Christianity is a covenential relationship between God and a person and those persons are what make up the Church and according to Vatican II, the Church is not confined physically to the institutional church, for lack of a better term. Being a member in good standing with the catholic religion does not necessarily mean that one is catholic or christian, it just means that you are in good standing. Also, catholic means univeral and there is a reason for that.

As it says in the bible, "Should I follow God or should I follow man", remember the church is made up of people and also remember that it is God's Plan not ours.

You wrote, "No, it is not Peter's Church, but St. Peter was very clearly given custodianship over it: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,".

Aren't we all called to be rocks, living stones.

In the version that I read, it says, "the gates of the netherworld" which include both hell and spiritual death.

How many people that the Church points out to us to get inspiration from were treated, shall we say, rather shabbily when they were physically alive, I do not want an answer but it is something to think about.

Jesus did not say that the Church would never do wrong but that it had a mission and that mission is summed up in "the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it". As a matter of fact, Pope John Paul II went around the entire world making public penances for the sins that the Catholic Church has committed in the past, not members but the Church itself.

I don't tell others what to do or how to live their lives but I, personally, do not worship the Church, I cherish my Catholic Faith and I am grateful to God for letting me know some things but it is God Who chose me thru His Church to do the "job" that He chose me for and no one human, demonic or satan, himself, is going to stop me.

Something to think about, when Jesus was born, the angels gave two messages and they are: "This is Good News for ALL people" and "Peace to whom God's Favor rests".

The Divine Commission that Jesus gave us is "PROCLAIM THE GOOD NEWS", is it not?

God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable, the captives shall be released and the dead shall rise. Hell and spiritual death, in case you are wondering is what the end of the above sentence is referring too.

Take care, be ready, night is coming but the dawning of the seventh day will surely arrive also.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

What is the deal?

I remember Arroyo as a defender of Catholic values and tradition when he was a mere member of the On Faith panel.

Now, with his own "column," he now tows the Post's anti-Catholic line...

Sell your soul, Anthony? Perhaps a couple of horns could be placed by Sally "I hate Catholicism" Quinn on your profile pic.

PS - notice that oh-so objective feature down below:
"Crisis in Catholic America - fewer faithful, fading trust etc."

Do you think they could have picked a worse photo of B17?

Typical for the anti-Catholic WAPO

Thomas, my man,

"The present Pope has said that we are to follow our conscience even if it goes against the teaching authority of the Church."

Of course, when we properly understand what our conscience is, we must always obey it. It is our last, best judgment about moral rightness in any particular decision. If we ever do what we believe to be wrong, then we are wrong. Of course, we might do what we believe to be right, and be mistaken. For that reason, a well-formed conscience is a duty, and it is not one that happens naturally. We must take great pains to learn right from wrong, particularly if our parents have not taught us well. If we neglect to do so, we shall be held accountable for that. For a Catholic, who understands that the Church has authority to teach definitively on matters of faith and morals, the idea that one's conscience could go against the Church - I mean Church teaching, and not a particular churchman - is unthinkable. For a Catholic, to go against the teachings of the Church is to go against Christ, both because he authorizes her teaching, and because she is His Body, His Bride.

"Jesus extended the invitation to us to, 'Come follow Me', He did not say, 'come follow My Church, did He?'"

Well, actually, he did. In Lk 10:16, he tells the disciples whom he sends out to teach, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." In Jer 3:15, the prophet speaks for God, saying, "And I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding." During his Good Shepherd discourse, our Lord says of himself, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep... And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd," (Jn 10:11, 16). As if to fulfill the prophecy of Jeremiah, He says to Peter after the Resurrection, "Tend my sheep," (Jn 21:16).

"Also, He did say that It was His Church, He did not say, now it is your church, Peter, did He?"

No, it is not Peter's Church, but St. Peter was very clearly given custodianship over it: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," (Mt 16:18-19). Nobody in his right mind in Jesus' day or in ours can possibly construe giving someone a set of working keys as anything but an act of confidence and sharing of authority, at least in the owner's absence.

Thomas Baum, we must be very careful when speaking of the Church to remember that she is made of humans, but her constitution is divine - else there is no point to being a part of her. Our Holy Church is not like any other religious organization ever. The Church is made up not only of her constituent members - Mary, the saints, the living bishops, the scoundrels, the sinners, you and I. Because of her Head, Christ, there is always and everywhere a dimension of the Church that entirely transcends and supercedes all her other parts. It is the one and only Bride of Christ, coheir with Him by His grace to His glory. If every single member of the Church fell into mortal sin at once, it would in no way impugne the Church's divine establishment and destiny.

That is not arrogant, but humble. I might fit in among nice members of some denomination - but I have no place in God's own family. It is only by his grace that the likes of you and I are admitted. To downplay the unique sanctity of the Church because her members are a bunch of hoodlums is to divorce her from her Lord. To act as if she and He can be separated is to separate oneself from both.

Paul C has a good point to add to Prof. Stevens-Arroyo's rather clear piece.

Cardinal Mahoney has long advocated and carried out in his archdiocese many of the changes sought by Bishop Robinson. My suspicion is that His Eminence thinks that Bishop Robinson goes rather too far.

Here it seems unlikely that a matter of otherwise clear morality is in question, so let's go strait to a simple test. It is usually the first, final, and most basic test in the discernment of spirits once issues of morality have been dealt with. The test is obedience. The canonized mystic seers to whom our Lord appeared were all in their lifetimes subjected to it, by religious superiors, spiritual directors, bishops, and even the Vatican. It was because Bernadette obeyed that she was given a fair hearing. The numerous crackpot "visionaries" running around the Church these days are largely discounted by Holy Church because they are largely disobedient. The importance of obedience comes into perspective when one recognizes it as the ONLY virtue required by God of Adam and Even in the story of the Garden of Eden.

Has Bishop Robinson obeyed his superiors?

Well, who are a bishop's superiors? An auxiliary bishop like Bishop Robinson owes obedience to the ordinary of the place where he serves, as far as the affairs of that place go at least. Any bishop owes authority to the Holy See in matters not reserved by Church law to that bishop based on his office. And the ordinary of each diocese is owed the rights and duties stipulated by Church law by those in his diocese. While a bishop may preach wherever he will, generally speaking, the Code of Canon Law still grants that he may not do so against the wishes of the ordinary of the place where he desires to preach:

"Can. 763 Bishops have the right to preach the word of God everywhere, including in churches and oratories of religious institutes of pontifical right, unless the local bishop has expressly forbidden it in particular cases."

If Cardinal Mahoney has forbidden a particular bishop to preach in a particular place and time within his archdiocese, he is within his rights to do so, and carries in that command the weight of the will of the Church, and thus of God. Cardinal Mahoney's jurisdiction over preaching is not only over churches and oratories, but over the entire territory of the diocese. It is only because the archdiocese holds legal titles to certain portions of that (the churches, etc.) that he can enforce Church law there with the aid of the civil authorities. Bishop Robinson ought, out of love of God and the Church, not to flout the Cardinal by preaching within in places within the Cardinal's canonical jurisdiction where the Cardinal lacks power to enforce his authority.

If Bishop Robinson had refrained from speaking, his silence would have spoken volumes about his love of and deference to the Church, his desire to see her healed, his humility, and thus his sincerity. As it is, Bishop Robinson has shown that he prefers the popularity of the mob over good grace, his willingness to maim and embarrass the Church to "heal" her, and a puffed up arrogance about the importance of his words.

Within the Church we do have a free discussion. Certain points of dogma are given - part of being Catholic, or even Christian at all. A huge host of issues might be discussed politely. I suspect even the discussions of ordaining women would gain more hearing (if not an affirmative response) if only its proponents ever said anything new. That said, Bishop Robinson gave up his freedom of speech when he agreed to preach the Gospel with every fiber of his being and every moment of his waking life. From then on out, he became a servant of the Word of God. Servants do not freely decide how or whether they will be about their master's work. Presumably, nobody forced Fr. Robinson to accept the nomination to the episcopacy. For that matter, he made his oath of fidelity before that - when he was ordained a deacon, perhaps some 45 or 50 years ago. He ought not have taken up a teaching office IN the Church if he was unwilling or unable to teach WITH the Church.

It is also shameful that he should deliberately drag our Church family's dirty laundry into public view. Aggreived parties, who find no recourse in quiet, of course have a right to draw attention to their case in a broadened circle and at higher levels. Bishop Robinson isn't an aggreived party. He's selling books.

The present Pope has said that we are to follow our conscience even if it goes against the teaching authority of the Church.

Jesus extended the invitation to us to, "Come follow Me", He did not say come follow My Church, did He?

Also, He did say that It was His Church, He did not say, now it is your church, Peter, did He?

He also said, "And the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against It", this is the whole mission of the Church, He did not say that the Church would be perfect or anything like that but He did say that the Church not only had a mission but that It's mission would be accomplished, did He not?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum

Dr. Stevens- Arroyo,
perhaps you can clarify the dispute a bit more to make it easier for us to discuss. I don't thing the real issue is whether one bishop can or should censor another. What exactly is Bishop Robinson advocating that made Bishop Mahony feel he needed to censor him. You suggest that the issue is Bishop Robinson wants to give the laity more power. But what kind of power? Its one thing to have open discussions on issues. Its another to attack the authority of the church in doing so. That was what Martin Luther did. Simplistically speaking, he thought that indulgences were wrong. However, rather than open up a discussion on indulgences specifically, he attacked the Pope's authority generally, leading to excommunication and schism.