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

[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 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.

A tiny event, noteworthy for its rarity in American colonial history, and the judge was sent from England; even Cotton Mather didn't like the outcome or believed in witches. It was just another case of peasants adhering to their pre-Christian traditions than informed Christians doing any persecutions; even the 12th century educated Catholics laughed at claims of ' magic' and 'witchcraft' as being peasant rubbish and superstition, and didn't exist in real life.

Christiandom learned this from its very beginning.

 

[Gracie]

I'm just curious why Meriweather is so determined to change the OPs mind about being Catholic.

I am not "determined" to change his mind. As a fellow Catholic I am pointing out the great blessings and graces in following the Way that Christ taught. This was not the first time the Church stumbled, nor will it be the last. When weakness befalls some (as it did in Pennsylvania), it simply makes sense that the strong clean up and rebuild. When discovering termites, how many leave their houses to these destroyers? Very few. Most are determined to get rid of the bugs and reclaim their home as their own. The Church was built to be part of the Kingdom. It is up to us to see that it remains so.

Blackrook is going to do as he chooses, and I respect that. Still, we are called to encourage our brothers in Christ, so I am not going to stand aside and do nothing when he has not yet made the decision, but says he is still thinking it over.

Yes...you seem determined to get in his face to not dump what he clearly is not happy about. So no...you are not respecting his wishes on what he chooses to do.

 

[Gracie]

So who in the Catholic church will pick up that whip and drive out these pedophiles?

All of us. It began over twenty years ago and continues to this day.

Perversion in the catholic church continues to this day..yes. Thanks for clarifying that.
And your driving them out hasn't helped much, has it?

 

[Meriweather]

Yes...you seem determined to get in his face to not dump what he clearly is not happy about. So no...you are not respecting his wishes on what he chooses to do.

It was clearly not my intent if you would re-read my post. Should you re-read it and jump to the same conclusion, then you have two subsequent posts of me stating your perspective of my post is not my intent.

My post to you stated:

Blackrook is going to do as he chooses, and I respect that.

Further, if I recall correctly, I only addressed one post to Blackrook. Not sure how one post which raises other issues to consider rises to the level of "getting in his face" unless you are advocating I should not have responded at all.

 

[airplanemechanic]

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.

Catholics pray to Mary. Mary was not holy, Mary was blessed, but not holy. Mary was a sinner like you or me. That's bullshit and you know it. Hell pope John Paul II prayed to Mary. Romans 3:23 states clearly she was a sinner.

And yes, if you pray to someone, living or dead, you are violating one of the ten commandments. Nowhere in the bible does it state that you are to pray to anyone but the father, the son or the holy spirit. Why would you pray to dead people? Dead sinners at that? Asking someone for prayers is fine but Catholics PRAY to these people. They have a rosary. Holy Mary, (wrong, shes not holy) pray for us sinners. (why does she need to pray for me? I need to pray for her. She was sinner like me.)

Catholics say that doing earthly things can get you forgiveness. The bible clearly states no earthly accomplishments would get you forgiveness. You are only forgiven by God. Romans 11:6 states this clearly. Repeating the "our father" prayer 50 times doesn't get you anything other than a sore throat.

Catholics go to confession. You are only to confess your sins to God. Not man.

Catholics pray to a pope. Find the word "pope" in the bible. That's a catholic thing. The pope is a sinner like me or you. And whats even worse, Catholics call the pope the "holy father." Calling ANYONE other than God holy is blasphemy. Only God is holy.

I could go on and on. Catholics are whackadoodle and have some hidden version of the bible they use that nobody else does. The entire protestant faith was born out of the objection to Catholicism and the weird crap it teaches.

 

[Gracie]

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.

Catholics pray to Mary. Mary was not holy, Mary was blessed, but not holy. Mary was a sinner like you or me.

And yes, if you pray to someone, living or dead, you are violating one of the ten commandments. Nowhere in the bible does it state that you are to pray to anyone but the father, the son or the holy spirit. Why would you pray to dead people? Dead sinners at that? Asking someone for prayers is fine but Catholics PRAY to these people. They have a rosary. Holy Mary, (wrong, shes not holy) pray for us sinners. (why does she need to pray for me? I need to pray for her. She was sinner like me.)

Catholics say that doing earthly things can get you forgiveness. The bible clearly states no earthly accomplishments would get you forgiveness. You are only forgiven by God. Romans 11:6 states this clearly.

Catholics go to confession. You are only to confess your sins to God. Not man.

Catholics pray to a pope. Find the word "pope" in the bible. That's a catholic thing. The pope is a sinner like me or you. And whats even worse, Catholics call the pope the "holy father." Calling ANYONE other than God holy is blasphemy. Only God is holy.

I could go on and on. Catholics are whackadoodle and have some hidden version of the bible they use that nobody else does. The entire protestant faith was born out of the objection to Catholicism and the weird crap it teaches.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Meriweather]

Catholics pray to Mary. Mary was not holy, Mary was blessed, but not holy. Mary was a sinner like you or me.

And yes, if you pray to someone, living or dead, you are violating one of the ten commandments. Nowhere in the bible does it state that you are to pray to anyone but the father, the son or the holy spirit. Why would you pray to dead people? Dead sinners at that?

Catholics say that doing earthly things can get you forgiveness. The bible clearly states no earthly accomplishments would get you forgiveness. You are only forgiven by God.

Catholics go to confession. You are only to confess your sins to God. Not man.

I could go on and on. Catholics are whackadoodle and have some hidden version of the bible they use that nobody else does.

Christ taught that where two or three are gathered in his name, he is there as well. Asking Mary or any other saint (all members of the Body of Christ) to join one in prayer so that two are three are gathered in Christ's name violates no commandment, but follows the teaching of Christ. Those who are alive in Christ are not "dead."

Catholics believe in what Christ taught--Repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Repentance means turning away from sin and to obedience to God. So yes, giving up earthly stealing and then turning to earthly giving to others (obedience to God) can result in forgiveness as God promises. Remember that Christ warned giving something up was not enough--more evil is sure to descend unless one replaces wrong acts with right ones.

Christ initiated the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and many people went to him to hear their sins are forgiven. If people do not wish to hear this forgiveness or receive the graces inherent in the Sacraments Christ taught, they remain free to do as they wish. Many of us truly appreciate what the sacraments do for us and thank God for them.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Catholics pray to Mary. Mary was not holy, Mary was blessed, but not holy. Mary was a sinner like you or me.

And yes, if you pray to someone, living or dead, you are violating one of the ten commandments. Nowhere in the bible does it state that you are to pray to anyone but the father, the son or the holy spirit. Why would you pray to dead people? Dead sinners at that?

Catholics say that doing earthly things can get you forgiveness. The bible clearly states no earthly accomplishments would get you forgiveness. You are only forgiven by God.

Catholics go to confession. You are only to confess your sins to God. Not man.

I could go on and on. Catholics are whackadoodle and have some hidden version of the bible they use that nobody else does.

Christ taught that where two or three are gathered in his name, he is there as well. Asking Mary or any other saint (all members of the Body of Christ) to join one in prayer so that two are three are gathered in Christ's name violates no commandment, but follows the teaching of Christ. Those who are alive in Christ are not "dead."

Catholics believe in what Christ taught--Repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Repentance means turning away from sin and to obedience to God. So yes, giving up earthly stealing and then turning to earthly giving to others (obedience to God) can result in forgiveness as God promises. Remember that Christ warned giving something up was not enough--more evil is sure to descend unless one replaces wrong acts with right ones.

Christ initiated the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and many people went to him to hear their sins are forgiven. If people do not wish to hear this forgiveness or receive the graces inherent in the Sacraments Christ taught, they remain free to do as they wish. Many of us truly appreciate what the sacraments do for us and thank God for them.

Ok but you didn't rebut anything I said. Mary is NOT holy. Period.

 

[bodecea]

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.

A tiny event, noteworthy for its rarity in American colonial history, and the judge was sent from England; even Cotton Mather didn't like the outcome or believed in witches. It was just another case of peasants adhering to their pre-Christian traditions than informed Christians doing any persecutions; even the 12th century educated Catholics laughed at claims of ' magic' and 'witchcraft' as being peasant rubbish and superstition, and didn't exist in real life.

Christiandom learned this from its very beginning.

King James (of KJV of the Bible fame) very much believed in witches and watched and condoned many witch trials in Great Britain.

 

[Lysistrata]

I notice that when ever the situation in which female people are treated as second class in Christian faiths and/or are denigrated by supposedly "Christian" writers is mentioned, everyone runs away and rates the posts as "funny." Any honest people out there willing to face the fact? Are there any honest Christian guys?

 

[Meriweather]

Mary is NOT holy. Period.

And?

 

[Meriweather]

I notice that when ever the situation in which female people are treated as second class in Christian faiths...

Citizenship isn't a factor in Kingdom living, where the first are last, and the last first. Servants are kings.

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

Catholics pray to Mary. Mary was not holy, Mary was blessed, but not holy. Mary was a sinner like you or me. That's bullshit and you know it. Hell pope John Paul II prayed to Mary. Romans 3:23 states clearly she was a sinner.

And yes, if you pray to someone, living or dead, you are violating one of the ten commandments. Nowhere in the bible does it state that you are to pray to anyone but the father, the son or the holy spirit. Why would you pray to dead people? Dead sinners at that? Asking someone for prayers is fine but Catholics PRAY to these people. They have a rosary. Holy Mary, (wrong, shes not holy) pray for us sinners. (why does she need to pray for me? I need to pray for her. She was sinner like me.)

Catholics say that doing earthly things can get you forgiveness. The bible clearly states no earthly accomplishments would get you forgiveness. You are only forgiven by God. Romans 11:6 states this clearly. Repeating the "our father" prayer 50 times doesn't get you anything other than a sore throat.

Catholics go to confession. You are only to confess your sins to God. Not man.

Catholics pray to a pope. Find the word "pope" in the bible. That's a catholic thing. The pope is a sinner like me or you. And whats even worse, Catholics call the pope the "holy father." Calling ANYONE other than God holy is blasphemy. Only God is holy.

I could go on and on. Catholics are whackadoodle and have some hidden version of the bible they use that nobody else does. The entire protestant faith was born out of the objection to Catholicism and the weird crap it teaches.

Now try and explain the stupidity of the protestants. The biblical inerrancy/infallibility crap that arose from the Reformation. The garbage being dished by the grahams, the jeffress, focus on the family, the family research council. I'm not fond of the RC's, but what explains this shit? Calvin? Darby? Southern baptists? Assembly of God??? "Endtimes"? "The rapture"? Where did this shit come from?

 

[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.

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]

.

“Imagine,” Lennon challenges us to imagine no religion or heaven—that the world would be a better place without faith in God.

I know very little about john lennon verbatim, about the same as jesus - my point was the religion at least of Antiquity is still alive and each generation has new messiahs, yours this go around Votto is undoubtedly - trump ... as we know the progression can be regressive its been that for christianity since the 4th century.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm not a Catholic. But I can also see that from the bottom up, it might appear different that it actually is.

Rather, in sports or a play, the perspective is much different for the players than it is for the onlookers.

Sure, and a lot of religious people will deliberately not see what is inconvenient for them to see.

 

[Meriweather]

I'm not a Catholic. But I can also see that from the bottom up, it might appear different that it actually is.

Rather, in sports or a play, the perspective is much different for the players than it is for the onlookers.

Sure, and a lot of religious people will deliberately not see what is inconvenient for them to see.

In the 1980s, lots of religious people saw exactly what was reported and went to work to fix it. This happened inside the Church, but the news media was not/is not interested in that aspect of the story. Why aren't more asking about what the news media is not telling us? I know what they were not asking back then--and I know what they are not asking now. You see, I have a foot in both places.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm not a Catholic. But I can also see that from the bottom up, it might appear different that it actually is.

Rather, in sports or a play, the perspective is much different for the players than it is for the onlookers.

Sure, and a lot of religious people will deliberately not see what is inconvenient for them to see.

In the 1980s, lots of religious people saw exactly what was reported and went to work to fix it. This happened inside the Church, but the news media was not/is not interested in that aspect of the story. Why aren't more asking about what the news media is not telling us? I know what they were not asking back then--and I know what they are not asking now. You see, I have a foot in both places.

Right, and in the 1980s these people went to fix the church, and yet it wasn't fixed.

This shit is coming out of the closet like a bad horror movie, still.

 

[Meriweather]

Right, and in the 1980s these people went to fix the church, and yet it wasn't fixed.

This shit is coming out of the closet like a bad horror movie, still.

Did you miss the part of the report that said it covered incidents dating back to 1947? Did you miss the news coverage of the 1980s that already told this tale? Did you not investigate what the Church did in response to the 1980 stories? Did you miss the part in the current report that states that changes were "finally" put into effect over twenty years ago?

Did you miss the part where the Grand Jury was not digging up new cases, but were trying to extend the statute of limitations so that those who were abused over thirty years ago might still have some redress? These are not new cases.

No one is arguing that these were heinous events. We are simply pointing out they took place in the mid-twentieth century, and by the late twentieth century both Church and society are handling child molestation much differently than society handled it back then.

 

[onefour1]

The prophet Amos declared:

Amos 8:11-12
11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.

This was due to a great apostasy of the church. Shortly after the martyrdom of the Apostles. The church began to descend into a state of apostasy.

Because of this apostasy, the church would be taken from the earth for a time but at some future time be restored.

Revelation 12:5-6
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Acts 3:20-21
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

You can read about this apostasy in the link below:

The Great Apostasy

 

[frigidweirdo]

Right, and in the 1980s these people went to fix the church, and yet it wasn't fixed.

This shit is coming out of the closet like a bad horror movie, still.

Did you miss the part of the report that said it covered incidents dating back to 1947? Did you miss the news coverage of the 1980s that already told this tale? Did you not investigate what the Church did in response to the 1980 stories? Did you miss the part in the current report that states that changes were "finally" put into effect over twenty years ago?

Did you miss the part where the Grand Jury was not digging up new cases, but were trying to extend the statute of limitations so that those who were abused over thirty years ago might still have some redress? These are not new cases.

No one is arguing that these were heinous events. We are simply pointing out they took place in the mid-twentieth century, and by the late twentieth century both Church and society are handling child molestation much differently than society handled it back then.

Catholic Priests Abused 1,000 Children in Pennsylvania, Report Says

"The grand jury said that while some accused priests were removed from ministry, the church officials who protected them remained in office or even got promotions. One bishop named in the report as vouching for an abusive priest was Cardinal Donald Wuerl, now the archbishop of Washington. “Until that changes, we think it is too early to close the book on the Catholic Church sex scandal,” the jury wrote."

"But several bishops, including Bishop David A. Zubik of Pittsburgh, rejected the idea the church had concealed abuse."

"Church officials followed a “playbook for concealing the truth,” the grand jury said, "

Hard to know what will happen in the future, what is happening right now.