I think I might be done with the Catholic Church...

[Lysistrata]

You're never going to get them all. New ones come in all the time. If they let priest marry, you'd have normal people as clergy.

The issue is accountability. The powers that be need to make them accountable so that when they are discovered they are dealt with appropriately.

No, they need to not let in pedophiles in the first place. Catching them after the fact doesn't cure the problem. Hetero married couples would stem that flow.

Celibacy wasn't a requirement early in the Church's history; the Protestant Catholics allow married priests, I believe, the Anglican/Episcopalians. The Apostle Peter was married, so it's kind of bizarre the Roman C's don't allow it.

Clerical celibacy - Wikipedia


First century
Some of the earliest Christian leaders were married men. The mention in Mark 1:30, Luke 4:38, and Matthew 8:14-15 of Saint Peter's mother-in-law indicates that he had married (Matthew 8:14-15: "when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.") According to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), Peter was married and had children and his wife suffered martyrdom. Pope Clement I wrote: "For Peter and Philip begat children".[10]


...


On the other hand, George T. Dennis SJ of Catholic University of America says: "There is simply no clear evidence of a general tradition or practice, much less of an obligation, of priestly celibacy-continence before the beginning of the fourth century."[22] Peter Fink SJ agrees, saying that underlying premises used in the book, Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, "would not stand up so comfortably to historical scrutiny".[23] Dennis says this book provides no evidence that celibacy had apostolic origins.[22]

Similarly, Philippe Delhaye wrote: "During the first three or four centuries, no law was promulgated prohibiting clerical marriage. Celibacy was a matter of choice for bishops, priests, and deacons. ... The apostolic constitutions (c. 400) excommunicated a priest or bishop who left his wife 'under pretense of piety' (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 1:51)."[24]

Reform may be on the way, however ...

Married Catholic priests? There are perhaps 120 in the U.S. already. Here's how


Pope Francis made headlines across the globe when he suggested he was open to the idea of ordaining married men as a way to alleviate priest shortages in remote areas.

Some raised their eyebrows and took note, whereas other Catholics shrugged, pointing out that paths, although they are narrow, already exist for married men to enter priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church.

Experts say as many as 120 Catholic priests in the U.S. are married.

That's largely because of a policy change made by Pope John Paul II in 1980, which offered a path for married Episcopal priests to continue their ministry after converting to Catholicism.

Under the pastoral provision, Father Paul Sullins, a former Episcopal priest, was ordained in the Catholic Church in 2002 after converting four years earlier.

Celibacy happened around 1120 C.E., around the time of Abelard and Heloise. Heloise wrote extensively about their love affair, her uncle's ordered dismemberment of Abelard's private parts, and her love for him still. Do not take this as an endorsement of post-Reformation protestants. Remember that these religions, all of them, still make it a point of disrespecting female people.

More silly rubbish. People who can't read links usually post that sort of stuff.

And, Christianity elevated the role of women in society, despite all the idiotic noise to the contrary. It was your beloved 'free thinking pagans' who thought little of women. Still do. One of the reasons Christianity was considered so radical was this elevation of women as having souls. See Joachim Jeremia's Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus for that Fun Fact.

Explain why female people have never been accepted as full members of the Christian faithful. Why no female priests, ministers, bishops, cardinals, or popes, all seemingly due to the lack of a penis. I remember that a college history professor said that there was a vote at some all-male convention as to whether female people had souls. Otherwise, he said, we would be walking you down the street on leashes. Explain this conduct, please.

Remember Tertullian writing that a female person is "a temple built upon a sewer"?The open misogyny of Timothy? Please explain.

 

[BreezeWood]

Indeed. At the end of the day it's the people who are the Church, not the bureaucrats; they can only get away with what the congregations let them get away with.

the bigot finds a thread of truth about themself.

Catholics obviously need to quit letting these dispicable faggots posing as 'priests' intimidate them and purge the vermin.

to bad bigot, its what they prey for just thinking it will be someone else is their error.

Ah, Angry Faggot spammer shows up yet gain, to trll threads on topics he knows nothing about. Poor faggot, can't get universal approvals of his fellow faggots and their beloved pedophile demographic..

.

Ah, Angry Faggot spammer shows up yet gain, to trll threads on topics he knows nothing about. Poor faggot, can't get universal approvals of his fellow faggots and their beloved pedophile demographic..

tell us bigot, is there a similarity between the 1st century and mid- 20th century - as that John Lennon was a messiah the same as Jesus ... and others, followers of the original religion of Antiquity, that you disdain.

* I already know you despise lennon so save us that part ... and please don't confuse yourself with what I refer to as sinless, vulnerable people. you are just an a-h.

lol John Lennon was a narcissist; who cars what he said abi=out anything? Oh yeah, you idiot fashion victims think he was 'profound n stuff'. lol what a hoot. You Xian bashing bigots are rather silly.

.

lol John Lennon was a narcissist; who cars what he said abi=out anything? Oh yeah, you idiot fashion victims think he was 'profound n stuff'. lol what a hoot. You Xian bashing bigots are rather silly.

I was surprised the first time with your response in reference about lennon when first reading one of your posts - response for about what may have been had they not been killed - another similarity with the 1st century - * your reply was pathetic.

too bad you are such a bigot just break the bread and admit you are a christian, everyone will then understand who you are.

 

[Picaro]

The issue is accountability. The powers that be need to make them accountable so that when they are discovered they are dealt with appropriately.

No, they need to not let in pedophiles in the first place. Catching them after the fact doesn't cure the problem. Hetero married couples would stem that flow.

Celibacy wasn't a requirement early in the Church's history; the Protestant Catholics allow married priests, I believe, the Anglican/Episcopalians. The Apostle Peter was married, so it's kind of bizarre the Roman C's don't allow it.

Clerical celibacy - Wikipedia


First century
Some of the earliest Christian leaders were married men. The mention in Mark 1:30, Luke 4:38, and Matthew 8:14-15 of Saint Peter's mother-in-law indicates that he had married (Matthew 8:14-15: "when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.") According to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), Peter was married and had children and his wife suffered martyrdom. Pope Clement I wrote: "For Peter and Philip begat children".[10]


...


On the other hand, George T. Dennis SJ of Catholic University of America says: "There is simply no clear evidence of a general tradition or practice, much less of an obligation, of priestly celibacy-continence before the beginning of the fourth century."[22] Peter Fink SJ agrees, saying that underlying premises used in the book, Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, "would not stand up so comfortably to historical scrutiny".[23] Dennis says this book provides no evidence that celibacy had apostolic origins.[22]

Similarly, Philippe Delhaye wrote: "During the first three or four centuries, no law was promulgated prohibiting clerical marriage. Celibacy was a matter of choice for bishops, priests, and deacons. ... The apostolic constitutions (c. 400) excommunicated a priest or bishop who left his wife 'under pretense of piety' (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 1:51)."[24]

Reform may be on the way, however ...

Married Catholic priests? There are perhaps 120 in the U.S. already. Here's how


Pope Francis made headlines across the globe when he suggested he was open to the idea of ordaining married men as a way to alleviate priest shortages in remote areas.

Some raised their eyebrows and took note, whereas other Catholics shrugged, pointing out that paths, although they are narrow, already exist for married men to enter priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church.

Experts say as many as 120 Catholic priests in the U.S. are married.

That's largely because of a policy change made by Pope John Paul II in 1980, which offered a path for married Episcopal priests to continue their ministry after converting to Catholicism.

Under the pastoral provision, Father Paul Sullins, a former Episcopal priest, was ordained in the Catholic Church in 2002 after converting four years earlier.

Celibacy happened around 1120 C.E., around the time of Abelard and Heloise. Heloise wrote extensively about their love affair, her uncle's ordered dismemberment of Abelard's private parts, and her love for him still. Do not take this as an endorsement of post-Reformation protestants. Remember that these religions, all of them, still make it a point of disrespecting female people.

More silly rubbish. People who can't read links usually post that sort of stuff.

And, Christianity elevated the role of women in society, despite all the idiotic noise to the contrary. It was your beloved 'free thinking pagans' who thought little of women. Still do. One of the reasons Christianity was considered so radical was this elevation of women as having souls. See Joachim Jeremia's Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus for that Fun Fact.

Explain why female people have never been accepted as full members of the Christian faithful. Why no female priests, ministers, bishops, cardinals, or popes, all seemingly due to the lack of a penis. I remember that a college history professor said that there was a vote at some all-male convention as to whether female people had souls. Otherwise, he said, we would be walking you down the street on leashes. Explain this conduct, please.

Remember Tertullian writing that a female person is "a temple built upon a sewer"?The open misogyny of Timothy? Please explain.

Yes, I know you don't know squat, just parrot rubbish you got somewhere else.

Anything else you want us to know about you?

 

[Picaro]

Indeed. At the end of the day it's the people who are the Church, not the bureaucrats; they can only get away with what the congregations let them get away with.

the bigot finds a thread of truth about themself.

Catholics obviously need to quit letting these dispicable faggots posing as 'priests' intimidate them and purge the vermin.

to bad bigot, its what they prey for just thinking it will be someone else is their error.

Ah, Angry Faggot spammer shows up yet gain, to trll threads on topics he knows nothing about. Poor faggot, can't get universal approvals of his fellow faggots and their beloved pedophile demographic..

.

Ah, Angry Faggot spammer shows up yet gain, to trll threads on topics he knows nothing about. Poor faggot, can't get universal approvals of his fellow faggots and their beloved pedophile demographic..

tell us bigot, is there a similarity between the 1st century and mid- 20th century - as that John Lennon was a messiah the same as Jesus ... and others, followers of the original religion of Antiquity, that you disdain.

* I already know you despise lennon so save us that part ... and please don't confuse yourself with what I refer to as sinless, vulnerable people. you are just an a-h.

lol John Lennon was a narcissist; who cars what he said abi=out anything? Oh yeah, you idiot fashion victims think he was 'profound n stuff'. lol what a hoot. You Xian bashing bigots are rather silly.

.

lol John Lennon was a narcissist; who cars what he said abi=out anything? Oh yeah, you idiot fashion victims think he was 'profound n stuff'. lol what a hoot. You Xian bashing bigots are rather silly.

I was surprised the first time with your response in reference about lennon when first reading one of your posts - response for about what may have been had they not been killed - another similarity with the 1st century - * your reply was pathetic.

too bad you are such a bigot just break the bread and admit you are a christian, everyone will then understand who you are.

Ah, so now you're going to just babble? Understandable; you're mentally ill like your fellow homos, so it's to be expected.

 

[Lysistrata]

The issue is accountability. The powers that be need to make them accountable so that when they are discovered they are dealt with appropriately.

No, they need to not let in pedophiles in the first place. Catching them after the fact doesn't cure the problem. Hetero married couples would stem that flow.

Celibacy wasn't a requirement early in the Church's history; the Protestant Catholics allow married priests, I believe, the Anglican/Episcopalians. The Apostle Peter was married, so it's kind of bizarre the Roman C's don't allow it.

Clerical celibacy - Wikipedia


First century
Some of the earliest Christian leaders were married men. The mention in Mark 1:30, Luke 4:38, and Matthew 8:14-15 of Saint Peter's mother-in-law indicates that he had married (Matthew 8:14-15: "when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.") According to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), Peter was married and had children and his wife suffered martyrdom. Pope Clement I wrote: "For Peter and Philip begat children".[10]


...


On the other hand, George T. Dennis SJ of Catholic University of America says: "There is simply no clear evidence of a general tradition or practice, much less of an obligation, of priestly celibacy-continence before the beginning of the fourth century."[22] Peter Fink SJ agrees, saying that underlying premises used in the book, Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, "would not stand up so comfortably to historical scrutiny".[23] Dennis says this book provides no evidence that celibacy had apostolic origins.[22]

Similarly, Philippe Delhaye wrote: "During the first three or four centuries, no law was promulgated prohibiting clerical marriage. Celibacy was a matter of choice for bishops, priests, and deacons. ... The apostolic constitutions (c. 400) excommunicated a priest or bishop who left his wife 'under pretense of piety' (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 1:51)."[24]

Reform may be on the way, however ...

Married Catholic priests? There are perhaps 120 in the U.S. already. Here's how


Pope Francis made headlines across the globe when he suggested he was open to the idea of ordaining married men as a way to alleviate priest shortages in remote areas.

Some raised their eyebrows and took note, whereas other Catholics shrugged, pointing out that paths, although they are narrow, already exist for married men to enter priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church.

Experts say as many as 120 Catholic priests in the U.S. are married.

That's largely because of a policy change made by Pope John Paul II in 1980, which offered a path for married Episcopal priests to continue their ministry after converting to Catholicism.

Under the pastoral provision, Father Paul Sullins, a former Episcopal priest, was ordained in the Catholic Church in 2002 after converting four years earlier.

Celibacy happened around 1120 C.E., around the time of Abelard and Heloise. Heloise wrote extensively about their love affair, her uncle's ordered dismemberment of Abelard's private parts, and her love for him still. Do not take this as an endorsement of post-Reformation protestants. Remember that these religions, all of them, still make it a point of disrespecting female people.

Why is the truth "funny" Picaro?

It isn't. Why do you ask?

This all really did happen in history, and the misogynist faction continues to this day, openly. Do you deny this? Don't run away. Answer. There have been women who have been ordained as priests on boats. Why can't they be ordained on land in proper churches? Come on with your explanation.

 

[airplanemechanic]

The Catholics are the only church that has you pray to anyone other than the trinity. They are whackadoodle. All their teachings go directly against bible scripture.

 

[Meriweather]

I don’t believe the god of the Bible exists

People who interpret the through they perspective of 21st century culture and modern English are truly ignorant of the God the Bible presents. Which may be why the Bible also advises that each individual seek and search out God in their own lives. Do you think I (or anyone else) believes in the version of God you created via your limited understanding of the Bible?

 

[Lysistrata]

No, they need to not let in pedophiles in the first place. Catching them after the fact doesn't cure the problem. Hetero married couples would stem that flow.

Celibacy wasn't a requirement early in the Church's history; the Protestant Catholics allow married priests, I believe, the Anglican/Episcopalians. The Apostle Peter was married, so it's kind of bizarre the Roman C's don't allow it.

Clerical celibacy - Wikipedia


First century
Some of the earliest Christian leaders were married men. The mention in Mark 1:30, Luke 4:38, and Matthew 8:14-15 of Saint Peter's mother-in-law indicates that he had married (Matthew 8:14-15: "when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.") According to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), Peter was married and had children and his wife suffered martyrdom. Pope Clement I wrote: "For Peter and Philip begat children".[10]


...


On the other hand, George T. Dennis SJ of Catholic University of America says: "There is simply no clear evidence of a general tradition or practice, much less of an obligation, of priestly celibacy-continence before the beginning of the fourth century."[22] Peter Fink SJ agrees, saying that underlying premises used in the book, Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, "would not stand up so comfortably to historical scrutiny".[23] Dennis says this book provides no evidence that celibacy had apostolic origins.[22]

Similarly, Philippe Delhaye wrote: "During the first three or four centuries, no law was promulgated prohibiting clerical marriage. Celibacy was a matter of choice for bishops, priests, and deacons. ... The apostolic constitutions (c. 400) excommunicated a priest or bishop who left his wife 'under pretense of piety' (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 1:51)."[24]

Reform may be on the way, however ...

Married Catholic priests? There are perhaps 120 in the U.S. already. Here's how


Pope Francis made headlines across the globe when he suggested he was open to the idea of ordaining married men as a way to alleviate priest shortages in remote areas.

Some raised their eyebrows and took note, whereas other Catholics shrugged, pointing out that paths, although they are narrow, already exist for married men to enter priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church.

Experts say as many as 120 Catholic priests in the U.S. are married.

That's largely because of a policy change made by Pope John Paul II in 1980, which offered a path for married Episcopal priests to continue their ministry after converting to Catholicism.

Under the pastoral provision, Father Paul Sullins, a former Episcopal priest, was ordained in the Catholic Church in 2002 after converting four years earlier.

Celibacy happened around 1120 C.E., around the time of Abelard and Heloise. Heloise wrote extensively about their love affair, her uncle's ordered dismemberment of Abelard's private parts, and her love for him still. Do not take this as an endorsement of post-Reformation protestants. Remember that these religions, all of them, still make it a point of disrespecting female people.

More silly rubbish. People who can't read links usually post that sort of stuff.

And, Christianity elevated the role of women in society, despite all the idiotic noise to the contrary. It was your beloved 'free thinking pagans' who thought little of women. Still do. One of the reasons Christianity was considered so radical was this elevation of women as having souls. See Joachim Jeremia's Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus for that Fun Fact.

Explain why female people have never been accepted as full members of the Christian faithful. Why no female priests, ministers, bishops, cardinals, or popes, all seemingly due to the lack of a penis. I remember that a college history professor said that there was a vote at some all-male convention as to whether female people had souls. Otherwise, he said, we would be walking you down the street on leashes. Explain this conduct, please.

Remember Tertullian writing that a female person is "a temple built upon a sewer"?The open misogyny of Timothy? Please explain.

Yes, I know you don't know squat, just parrot rubbish you got somewhere else.

Anything else you want us to know about you?

I take it that you are intellectually incapable of replying. This stuff happened in history for sure. Run away, little boy. It appears that you have no rebuttal.

 

[Votto]

Indeed. At the end of the day it's the people who are the Church, not the bureaucrats; they can only get away with what the congregations let them get away with.

the bigot finds a thread of truth about themself.

Catholics obviously need to quit letting these dispicable faggots posing as 'priests' intimidate them and purge the vermin.

to bad bigot, its what they prey for just thinking it will be someone else is their error.

Ah, Angry Faggot spammer shows up yet gain, to trll threads on topics he knows nothing about. Poor faggot, can't get universal approvals of his fellow faggots and their beloved pedophile demographic..

.

Ah, Angry Faggot spammer shows up yet gain, to trll threads on topics he knows nothing about. Poor faggot, can't get universal approvals of his fellow faggots and their beloved pedophile demographic..

tell us bigot, is there a similarity between the 1st century and mid- 20th century - as that John Lennon was a messiah the same as Jesus ... and others, followers of the original religion of Antiquity, that you disdain.

* I already know you despise lennon so save us that part ... and please don't confuse yourself with what I refer to as sinless, vulnerable people. you are just an a-h.

Well if he had not started the evil USSR in 1917 we might all have a little more respect for him

Damned atheists!

 

[Meriweather]

The Catholics are the only church that has you pray to anyone other than the trinity. They are whackadoodle. All their teachings go directly against bible scripture.

Sigh. Why do people have to make things up and present them as truths? If you wish to understand Catholic teaching better, begin with who makes up the Body of Christ. (All who believe, both the living and those who have passed on.) When Catholics pray together and ask others to join in that prayer, we include everyone in the Body of Christ. We are all praying to God, not to one another.

 

[airplanemechanic]

The Catholics are the only church that has you pray to anyone other than the trinity. They are whackadoodle. All their teachings go directly against bible scripture.

Sigh. Why do people have to make things up and present them as truths? If you wish to understand Catholic teaching better, begin with who makes up the Body of Christ. (All who believe, both the living and those who have passed on.) When Catholics pray together and ask others to join in that prayer, we include everyone in the Body of Christ. We are all praying to God, not to one another.

I didn't say that. I said that Catholics pray to people other than the trinity. I didn't say anything about them praying to each other.

I know the truth about the Catholic church. I was a Catholic for 25 years before I converted to a protestant.

 

[Picaro]

Celibacy wasn't a requirement early in the Church's history; the Protestant Catholics allow married priests, I believe, the Anglican/Episcopalians. The Apostle Peter was married, so it's kind of bizarre the Roman C's don't allow it.

Clerical celibacy - Wikipedia


First century
Some of the earliest Christian leaders were married men. The mention in Mark 1:30, Luke 4:38, and Matthew 8:14-15 of Saint Peter's mother-in-law indicates that he had married (Matthew 8:14-15: "when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.") According to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), Peter was married and had children and his wife suffered martyrdom. Pope Clement I wrote: "For Peter and Philip begat children".[10]


...


On the other hand, George T. Dennis SJ of Catholic University of America says: "There is simply no clear evidence of a general tradition or practice, much less of an obligation, of priestly celibacy-continence before the beginning of the fourth century."[22] Peter Fink SJ agrees, saying that underlying premises used in the book, Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, "would not stand up so comfortably to historical scrutiny".[23] Dennis says this book provides no evidence that celibacy had apostolic origins.[22]

Similarly, Philippe Delhaye wrote: "During the first three or four centuries, no law was promulgated prohibiting clerical marriage. Celibacy was a matter of choice for bishops, priests, and deacons. ... The apostolic constitutions (c. 400) excommunicated a priest or bishop who left his wife 'under pretense of piety' (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 1:51)."[24]

Reform may be on the way, however ...

Married Catholic priests? There are perhaps 120 in the U.S. already. Here's how


Pope Francis made headlines across the globe when he suggested he was open to the idea of ordaining married men as a way to alleviate priest shortages in remote areas.

Some raised their eyebrows and took note, whereas other Catholics shrugged, pointing out that paths, although they are narrow, already exist for married men to enter priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church.

Experts say as many as 120 Catholic priests in the U.S. are married.

That's largely because of a policy change made by Pope John Paul II in 1980, which offered a path for married Episcopal priests to continue their ministry after converting to Catholicism.

Under the pastoral provision, Father Paul Sullins, a former Episcopal priest, was ordained in the Catholic Church in 2002 after converting four years earlier.

Celibacy happened around 1120 C.E., around the time of Abelard and Heloise. Heloise wrote extensively about their love affair, her uncle's ordered dismemberment of Abelard's private parts, and her love for him still. Do not take this as an endorsement of post-Reformation protestants. Remember that these religions, all of them, still make it a point of disrespecting female people.

More silly rubbish. People who can't read links usually post that sort of stuff.

And, Christianity elevated the role of women in society, despite all the idiotic noise to the contrary. It was your beloved 'free thinking pagans' who thought little of women. Still do. One of the reasons Christianity was considered so radical was this elevation of women as having souls. See Joachim Jeremia's Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus for that Fun Fact.

Explain why female people have never been accepted as full members of the Christian faithful. Why no female priests, ministers, bishops, cardinals, or popes, all seemingly due to the lack of a penis. I remember that a college history professor said that there was a vote at some all-male convention as to whether female people had souls. Otherwise, he said, we would be walking you down the street on leashes. Explain this conduct, please.

Remember Tertullian writing that a female person is "a temple built upon a sewer"?The open misogyny of Timothy? Please explain.

Yes, I know you don't know squat, just parrot rubbish you got somewhere else.

Anything else you want us to know about you?

I take it that you are intellectually incapable of replying. This stuff happened in history for sure. Run away, little boy. It appears that you have no rebuttal.

You never answer anybody else's questions, so go fuick yourself; you're just a troll and whiner. You posting nothing truthful or historical.

 

[Votto]

The bishops allowed 1000 children to be molested by priests, a grand jury has found.

I might be done with carrying the water of a Church that has failed on such an epic level to live up to their own moral rules.

As long as my father is alive, I will continue to go to Mass with him, because I don't want to break his heart.

But after that, I think I'm done.

I don’t blame you, but I suspect this terrible event is overblown. I doubt it happened as the State claims.

I would suggest that many of the "credible allegations" may in fact not be substantial BUT they must be fully investigated. If they are far OFF the mark then I will be glad, but those who ARE guilty should face the full force of the Law.

Greg

.

I would suggest that many of the "credible allegations" may in fact not be substantial BUT they must be fully investigated. If they are far OFF the mark then I will be glad, but those who ARE guilty should face the full force of the Law.

Greg

who are you kidding, christian, your church, its leaders have always been your type

View attachment 211019


never crossing the line. since the 4th century to the present time christianity has been a political agenda of persecution and victimization against the innocence of life those in particular that are not sinners. the (recent) revelations of child abuse are the tip of your iceberg uninterrupted for centuries - you fear the sinless and wrote your book in defiance of the original religion of Antiquity and will perish with your documents demise.

The reason that there has been so much corruption over the years in the Catholic church is theocracy.

When you mix the sinful activities of men when it comes to politics and power and then say God is at the helm, trouble starts. Constantine adopted the fledgling Christian religion as his own as a political ploy. He saw the new religion was spreading despite the persecution, so he figured it would be a good religion to adopt to use to obtain power. However, Constantine was not even a Christian. He continued to worship the same pagan gods he had always worshiped, although it is rumored that he converted on his death bed. This led to such injustices as Inquisitions and Crusades, etc.

The Founding Fathers also saw this problem as they made sure no state church was created in America. They were tired of the state controlling people from the pulpit as they did in England.

Christ warned that his kingdom was not of this world nor could be.

Today the Catholic church continues to go down this road as they give sermons on the virtue of big government and tell people that they will go to hell for building walls while ignoring, in large part, abortion which their official church doctrine says is genocide.

Then again, they did turn a blind eye during the Holocaust as well, again, all for their political survival, so I guess it's not to be unexpected.

Opposing the Left is as big a threat to the Catholic church as opposing Hitler back in the day I reckon.

 

[Votto]

Indeed. At the end of the day it's the people who are the Church, not the bureaucrats; they can only get away with what the congregations let them get away with.

the bigot finds a thread of truth about themself.

Catholics obviously need to quit letting these dispicable faggots posing as 'priests' intimidate them and purge the vermin.

to bad bigot, its what they prey for just thinking it will be someone else is their error.

Ah, Angry Faggot spammer shows up yet gain, to trll threads on topics he knows nothing about. Poor faggot, can't get universal approvals of his fellow faggots and their beloved pedophile demographic..

.

Ah, Angry Faggot spammer shows up yet gain, to trll threads on topics he knows nothing about. Poor faggot, can't get universal approvals of his fellow faggots and their beloved pedophile demographic..

tell us bigot, is there a similarity between the 1st century and mid- 20th century - as that John Lennon was a messiah the same as Jesus ... and others, followers of the original religion of Antiquity, that you disdain.

* I already know you despise lennon so save us that part ... and please don't confuse yourself with what I refer to as sinless, vulnerable people. you are just an a-h.

After rejecting the Christianity of his staid Anglican upbringing in the late-’50s and flirting with a form of Hinduism embraced wholeheartedly by George Harrison in the late-’60s, wasn’t John Lennon finally done with religion and spirituality during the last decade of his life? Didn’t he become a hard-nosed philosophical materialist?

No—although we might be forgiven for thinking otherwise: After all, according to his 1970 song “God,” Jesus and Buddha were two of many persons or things he no longer believed in. And in the song that has become an anthem to atheism, “Imagine,” Lennon challenges us to imagine no religion or heaven—that the world would be a better place without faith in God.

But his expressed atheism of 1970 and ’71 told only part of the story. Throughout the ’70s, Lennon regularly consulted psychics and dabbled in Tarot cards, séances, astrology, numerology, and other occult practices. Upon reading (and recently re-reading) Steve Turner’s Gospel According to the Beatles, however, what surprises me most was Lennon’s renewed interest in, and tantalizingly brief embrace of, that thing to which he seemed most adamantly opposed: Christianity.

This change of heart didn’t come from reading, say, Chesterton or Lewis, as we might have liked. It came by way of televangelists such as Oral Roberts and Pat Robertson. Turner describes it as follows:

Next came one of the most extraordinary turnabouts in John’s life. A television addict for many years…, he enjoyed watching some of America’s best-known evangelists—Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, Jim Bakker, and Oral Roberts. In 1972 he had written a desperate letter to Roberts confessing his dependence on drugs and his fear of facing up to “the problems of life.” He expressed regret that he had said that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus and enclosed a gift for the Oral Roberts University… “Explain to me what Christianity can do for me. Is it phony? Can He love me? I want out of hell.”[1]

Lennon and Roberts exchanged a series of friendly, heartfelt letters, which can be found at the library of Oral Roberts University.

The correspondence and his exposure to TV evangelism didn’t appear to have any effect until he suddenly announced to close friends in the spring of 1977 that he’d become a born-again Christian… Over the following months he baffled those close to him by constantly praising “the Lord,” writing Christian songs with titles like “Talking with Jesus” and “Amen” (the Lord’s Prayer set to music), and trying to convert nonbelievers. He also called the prayer line of The 700 Club, Pat Robertson’s program.[2]

Yoko Ono, who always discouraged Lennon from following “gurus,” opposed his newfound faith, although he took Ono and his son Sean to church at least once.

Those close to the couple sensed that the real reason [Ono] was concerned was that it threatened her control over John’s life. If he became a follower of Jesus he would no longer depend on her an the occultists. During long, passionate arguments she attacked the key points of his fledgling faith. They met with a couple of Norwegian missionaries whom Yoko questioned fiercely about the divinity of Christ, knowing that this was the teaching that John had always found the most difficult to accept. Their answers didn’t satisfy her, and John began to waver in his commitment.[3]

Such is often the case with freelance conversions, I suppose, separated as they are from the wisdom and guidance of mature Christians. It’s hard enough to maintain one’s Christian faith within a healthy community of believers!

When Dylan’s Christian conversion became public in 1979 with the release of Slow Train Coming, Lennon—Dylan’s nearest rival in the pantheon of rock idols—reacted strongly. In response to Dylan’s “Gotta Serve Somebody,” Lennon wrote a bitter “answer song” called “Serve Yourself,” posthumously released on the John Lennon Anthology.

When asked in 1980 about his response to Dylan’s conversion, John was less than honest. He said he was surprised that “old Bobby boy did go that way,” but “if he needs it, let him do it.” His only objection, he said, was that Dylan was presenting Christ as the only way. He disliked this because “There isn’t one answer to anything.”… In what can now be seen as an allusion to his own born-again period, which hadn’t yet been made public, he said, “But I understand it. I understand him completely, how he got in there, because I’ve been frightened enough myself to want to latch onto something.[4]

 

[Likkmee]

The bishops allowed 1000 children to be molested by priests, a grand jury has found.

I might be done with carrying the water of a Church that has failed on such an epic level to live up to their own moral rules.

As long as my father is alive, I will continue to go to Mass with him, because I don't want to break his heart.

But after that, I think I'm done.

Break his heart ! He needs to know the truth about the filthy scumbags he's taken lifes advice from his entire life. Catholicism is a religion of idolatry and a complete farce from day one.

 

[Picaro]

The reason that there has been so much corruption over the years in the Catholic church is theocracy.

It became a state bureaucracy that outlived the state that made it the dispenser of the state's charities and social services. when it became wealthy in its own right, via wills and such from local lords and wealthy merchants leaving them lands and gold, by the 12th Century it became a target for the 2nd sons of the nobility as a benefice seller, and its wealth became a target for bankers and monarchs.

When you mix the sinful activities of men when it comes to politics and power and then say God is at the helm, trouble starts. Constantine adopted the fledgling Christian religion as his own as a political ploy. He saw the new religion was spreading despite the persecution, so he figured it would be a good religion to adopt to use to obtain power. However, Constantine was not even a Christian. He continued to worship the same pagan gods he had always worshiped, although it is rumored that he converted on his death bed.

Actually he adopted it as an arm of the state because he admired their commitment to their faith and their successful social services programs. He was superstitious, and saw their resistance to the heavy persecutions under the previous Emperor and the other leaders of the tetrarchy as impressive and noble, while the pagans were obnoxious and dishonest. One of the other tetrarchs tried to get his pagan temple priest to copy the Christians' social services, Lucinius iirc, but they failed miserably, too corrupt an venal to pull it off. Being the more stable, he issued edicts preventing their persecution, at least in the territories he controlled. the other one continued to persecute Christians in his territories, until his eventual defeat.

He didn't 'rewrite' anything, he was too superstitious to do any such thing; the orthodox version that existed from the beginning was too well known for anybody to get away with such a thing for one, and for two after hundreds of years of being slaughtered by everyone around them, and with the very worst just occurring in recent memory and still going on, only idiots think they would have stood for any such thing, either; they were afraid of no one, and everybody knew it. It's complete rubbish that he demanded they change their bibles to reflect his wishes or anybody else's and they suddenly did so; only idiots will try and sell that stupidity as fact, as they were afraid of no one, especially Roman Emperors. It's a ludicrous claim, made by weirdos who want to rewrite the books themselves and make up rubbish they want to peddle, since they don't like the original theology they dream up lies they think will give credibility to their own rewrites.

Darrell Bock has an excellent little book for lay people on this issue re the orthodox versus the Gnostics and other fraudsters and the alleged '4th century Rewrites' fallacy. There were far too many copies around by the 4th Century for that idiotic claim to fly. The Missing Gospels covers a lot of ground re the assorted claims, most of which originate with Walther Bauer's theories in the 1920's or so and the discoveries of some old scrolls in Egypt. Most of these weirdos get their rubbish from the likes of Elaine Pagels and other pseudo-intellectuals making silly claims.

The Founding Fathers also saw this problem as they made sure no state church was created in America. They were tired of the state controlling people from the pulpit as they did in England.

Well, some felt that way, others didn't; the Baptists invented the concept originally, but some states did have a state religion they favored with privileges; the Constitution only limited the Federal govt. from interfering with the states' rights to do so. Massachusetts was the last to do away with their state sectarianism, in 1836 or so. This was due largely to demographic changes over the years in the states themselves, not Federal law.

And yes, given its history and origins as a government institution, the Catholic Church's bureaucrats do indeed favor it being a state religion again. They didn't really have much of a shot at that total control in the Middle Ages, though, despite all the noise claiming they did, since the individual feudal lords mostly appointed most of the Church officials in their own lands, and the Vatican had to pretty much go along with that practice, with only minor and temporary deviations over the centuries. Most of the peasantry and local nobility kept their local pagan pre-Christian superstitions and traditions, despite the lip service to the political realities. Even the monks noted this about the peasants on their lands; Europe was never all that 'Catholic' in real life.

 

[Votto]

The bishops allowed 1000 children to be molested by priests, a grand jury has found.

I might be done with carrying the water of a Church that has failed on such an epic level to live up to their own moral rules.

As long as my father is alive, I will continue to go to Mass with him, because I don't want to break his heart.

But after that, I think I'm done.

Break his heart ! He needs to know the truth about the filthy scumbags he's taken lifes advice from his entire life. Catholicism is a religion of idolatry and a complete farce from day one.

All of the disciples of Jesus died a martyred death save one, but only because he survived an attempted execution.

Those are your real Christians.

Likewise, the early church was thrown to the lions, yet they just kept growing in number.

 

[Votto]

The reason that there has been so much corruption over the years in the Catholic church is theocracy.

It became a state bureaucracy that outlived the state that made it the dispenser of the state's charities and social services. when it became wealthy by the 12th Century it became a target for the 2nd sons of the nobility as a benefice seller, and its wealth became a target for bankers and monarchs.

When you mix the sinful activities of men when it comes to politics and power and then say God is at the helm, trouble starts. Constantine adopted the fledgling Christian religion as his own as a political ploy. He saw the new religion was spreading despite the persecution, so he figured it would be a good religion to adopt to use to obtain power. However, Constantine was not even a Christian. He continued to worship the same pagan gods he had always worshiped, although it is rumored that he converted on his death bed.

Actually he adopted it as an arm of the state because he admired their commitment to their faith and their successful social services programs. He was superstitious, and saw their resistance to the heavy persecutions under the previous Emperor and the other leaders of the tetrarchy as impressive and noble, while the pagans were obnoxious and dishonest. One of the other tetrarchs tried to get his pagan temple priest to copy the Christians' social services, Lucinius iirc, but they failed miserably, too corrupt an venal to pull it off. Being the more stable, he issued edicts preventing their persecution, at least in the territories he controlled. the other one continued to persecute Christians in his territories, until his eventual defeat.

He didn't 'rewrite' anything, he was too superstitious to do any such thing; the orthodox version that existed from the beginning was too well known for anybody to get away with such a thing for one, and for two after hundreds of years of being slaughtered by everyone around them, and with the very worst just occurring in recent memory and still going on, only idiots think they would have stood for any such thing, either; they were afraid of no one, and everybody knew it. It's complete rubbish that he demanded they change their bibles to reflect his wishes or anybody else's and they suddenly did so; only idiots will try and sell that stupidity as fact, as they were afraid of no one, especially Roman Emperors. It's a ludicrous claim, made by weirdos who want to rewrite the books themselves and make up rubbish they want to peddle, since they don't like the original theology they dream up lies they think will give credibility to their own rewrites.

Darrell Bock has an excellent little book for lay people on this issue re the orthodox versus the Gnostics and other fraudsters and the alleged '4th century Rewrites' fallacy. There were far too many copies around by the 4th Century for that idiotic claim to fly.

The Founding Fathers also saw this problem as they made sure no state church was created in America. They were tired of the state controlling people from the pulpit as they did in England.

Well, some felt that way, others didn't; the Baptists invented the concept originally, but some states did have a state religion they favored with privileges; the Constitution only limited the Federal govt. from interfering with the states' rights to do so. Massachusetts was the last to do away with their state sectarianism, in 1836 or so. This was due largely to demographic changes over the years in the states themselves, not Federal law.

And yes, given its history and origins as a government institution, the Catholic Church's bureaucrats do indeed favor it being a state religion again. They didn't really have much of a shot at that total control in the Middle Ages, though, despite all the noise claiming they did, since the individual feudal lords mostly appointed most of the Church officials in their own lands, and the Vatican had to pretty much go along with that practice, with only minor and temporary deviations over the centuries. Most of the peasantry and local nobility kept their local pagan pre-Christian superstitions and traditions, despite the lip service to the political realities. Even the monks noted this about the peasants on their lands; Europe was never all that 'Catholic' in real life.

The Salem witch trials come to mind in terms of the state and church getting together.

Politics and the struggle for power and money ruins everything.

Luckily, Christendom seems to have learned this lesson as where Islam has not. In fact, it is impossible to separate Islam from the state due to the need for Sharia law. They demand the witch hunts to continue.

 

[Meriweather]

I didn't say that. I said that Catholics pray to people other than the trinity. I didn't say anything about them praying to each other.

I know the truth about the Catholic church. I was a Catholic for 25 years before I converted to a protestant.

Then who do you claim Catholics pray to--Buddhists? Hindus? Catholics ask other members of the Body of Christ (including those who have passed on) to join them in prayer to God. Asking someone for prayers (whether living or dead) is not the same as our praying to God. Any Catholic of 25 years would know that.

 

[Meriweather]

Opposing the Left is as big a threat to the Catholic church as opposing Hitler back in the day I reckon.

More likely, when we are in Church we focus on the Mass, not politics. Christ's focus was on people getting along with others in their families, communities, and personal lives. While national wars are being fought overseas, difficulties in interpersonal human relations continue at home. The Church doesn't say to us, "Excuse us a few years while we go moderate a war." Instead, it continues presenting Christ's teachings to us and how we might use them to improve and resolve the personal bickering and differences in our own lives.