Being Methodist Means Never Facing Moral Issues

I just wanted to check in. I won't make a comment, because you know my self-imposed rule about discussing religion.

Interesting essay, though, I'll go that far.

..."I told her it was because our church had failed her. Instead of giving this woman guidance and moral direction, she is adrift in a sea of moral relativism. Had the church been doing its job, the difference should have been clear to her."

Scottie, you could not have been more accurate. I'm speechless.

In my own opinion (of course), without going into stating a whole post here, "churches" have quit teaching the unbelievable characters and stories found in the The Holy Bible as they are written in order to attract those who do not want to be "judged." They have quit sharing these moral stories in order to get a greater audience, appealling to the masses, if you will.

In effect, they have alienated their base.

I have more, but what a post.

May God bless you on y'alls journey.

Well, I don't like to get into arguments over religion either like BrianR.

My basic belief on this subject is that each chooses the religion they feel most comfortable with.

I am a Catholic and still believe in the basic teachings of the church. I know there have been pedophiles in the priesthood, and that some in the church covered it up for a long time. But, the Catholic teachings I believe are still very good ones. The absolute anti-abortion stand is one I have always adhered to and I believe this is a good one in Catholicism.

I'm sure God will guide you to the place in which you will find what you want.

Besides my Catholicism, I practice some eastern religious practices. So, I'm a split. :-)

All that being said, I am not one of these people who believe that one religion is better than another etc. I just don't get into those kinds of arguments. Those disagreements seem fool hardy.

I had someone on these blogs tell me that since I am a Catholic I am not a Christian. I was a little stunned to hear that. I just laughed it off.

Faith is something to be felt I think. And, each person looks for something in particular in their faith. That's the way I look at it and say welcome to all religions, except radical Islam.
That one scares me.

As a recovering Catholic, you attend a Lutheran Church? Haha. We like to say that "bad" Catholics are Lutherans. I am Catholic by Baptism and attend Lutheran services.

Scottie,I will say that I like to talk religion. I don't mind debating...I see that you dislike with what the church is lacking. Honestly, I have not been very good myself about attending Church. My pastor died suddenly and I have not been able to rectify my feelings and go to church...(I feel as if I'm mad at God.)

That being said, don't you think a parent has some of the respsonsibility to reinforce the moralities that we know to be wrong? As you said, no rational person would maim or kill women and children first...and in war, they do try to avoid it.
You are right that there is no moral equivalent innocent lives lost in war or to abortion. An that the friend of the Missus(I LOVE that!) isn't getting I think is because the values weren't put there in the first place.
My 14yo son- so smart said on the partial birth decision, "Mom, there is no such thing as accidental abortion." And, frankly, he's 100% correct.
And, that has to do with teaching him morality,right from wrong. The church should certainly add something to that, but solely? I don't think so.
I am not sure I conveyed myself well on that. I feel as if I was going to get off the map!

Reinforce the moralities of right and wrong.
PS New blog post.

Tnanks for the kind words bro. I understand.

I try to go to church every Sunday. It's one of the "heavy ten" you know. I converted to Baptist after I got fed up with the Catholics. Catholosism has mnay good things about it, and much of my moral guidance is based on the catecism I received from them growing up. I tried the Baptist church and was struck with their attitude that the answers are in the good book, READ IT! And discuss it. And live it. Both the Catholics and the Baptists were pretty good at relating the lessons of the bible to everyday life.

I started going to church with the Missus to her church when we started to date. I had to go to church somewhere, and since the Missus and the boys were Methodists, I went to church with them. But as time goes on, I just don't feel spiritually nurished there. No behavior is ever challenged, nothing is ever deemed wrong.

We are getting a new preacher in a month or two. I'm waiting to see what he does. If he challenges this parish to think about these things, he's likely to stir up a firestorm among the members that have become so complacent and confused. Time will tell.

A Catholic is a Christian with a huge bureaucracy behind them. Kind of the original franchise in Christianity, yes?

While I've left the Catholic church, I haven't forsaken God or the teachings and morality I grew up with. I'm not angry, or rebelling, or anything of that sort. But I do have some expectations of a church, and the Catholics just weren't doing it for me anymore. Too bureaucratic, too rote, and finally too weak to deal with pure evil in their midst.

These failings weren't God's doing, but the failures of men, and the corruption of the process for the sake of power accumulated over centuries. As a foundation for morality, as a framework for understanding God's will, as a bearer of ancient truth, the Catholics do many things right. Shoot, some of my best friends are Catholics!

Lutheran eh? I don't know much about them at all really. I was baptised a Catholic, and again as a Baptist later in life. I've gone to many churches of ambiguous denomination over the years. Like Pep, I think all churches have something to offer, and that God will judge us as individuals, not as church members.

As for the parents having some responsibility for teaching morality, the Missus' friend is a parent. How can she expect to teach morality to her offspring when she is so confused herself? To understand something, study it. To master something, teach it. I really think our church's failure to confront anything as unacceptable is failing its members in the long run.

Scottie, this was a wonderful and thoughtful post.

I'm Catholic on hiatus. I too was disgusted by the pedophile issue, especially because it hit my childhood diocese in So. Illionois pretty hard. I personally knew 5 priests who were caught, including 2 from my parish. Another was recently defrocked by the Pope. This guy ran a diocesan summer camp I attended and from which I have some of my fondest childhood memories. When I read about his case, I remembered how as kids we heard "stories" about some boys at the camp, but usually in the context of an adolescent joke. The b*stard ran that place for 30+ years. But with this issue, I figure if the Church survived the 4th Crusade and Liberation Theology, it will survive pervert priests.

Anyway...I'm slowly working my way back in to good standing. We have a tremendous archbishop, Raymond Burke, in St. Louis and the priests I've heard at masses around the area do not peddle Catholicism Lite. In fact Bishop Burke has openly taken to task Catholic politiciams who are pro chioce and so forth. He even recently quit the board of the local Catholic Children's hospital when it invited MO native Sheryl Crow to sing at a benefit. He wasn't pleased with her embryonic stem cell ads that ran in MO last November. Of course in the local media he's a cranky old conservative dinosaur...not someone who stands up for his beliefs and his Church.

Your essay reminded me of a great PJ O'Rourke piece from years ago. Writing in general about liberal beliefs, he wondered how much therapy somone has to go through in order to be pro-choice and anti-death penalty. Being pro both or anti both makes sense, or at least is consistent. But how in the world does one arrive at the opinion that it's fine for a 16 year old to kill her baby without her parents knowing, but an atrocity if a man who killed that 16 year old and the her unborn baby is executed?

I mark well that the failings in the Catholic church are the failings of men. Many lapses result from the glorification and corruption of men, not from a desire to gloify God.

Celebacy is the result of the church's unwillingness to support the widows and children of priests and to prevent one group in the church from acquiring power and another from losing it, not through any commandment from God.

Annulments of longstanding marriages to circumvent the church's own policies are an abomination that denies reality and makes a mockery of marriage. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder. And the clergy is comprised of men.

Selling indulgences to raise money was not inspired by a fear or respect of God's wishes. That abuse led to the shattering of the Catholic church. God doesn't need money folks; churches might, the clergy might, but God most assuredly doesn't. The creator of everything has no need for the creations of mortal men.

Protecting priests that abused their tremendous power and prestige to molest members of their congregations is so morally repugnant it defies description. Doing so for decades in hundreds of cases is more than a moral lapse, it's cynical CYA of the highest order and a sacriligeous betrayal.

I just can't follow the Catholics anymore, they've lost their way. That is a macro argument, not a micro one. I'm sure most individuals are better than the church as a whole. And I think the Lord will be particularly harsh with those that have corrupted his message to agrandize and reap power for themselves.

At least the God I believe in will.

BTW, do you have a link to the PJ O'Rourk piece? I'd love to read it if you have it handy.

Scottie, the examples in your essay, along with many others, are the reason I gave up on organized religion years ago. I celebrate God in my own way.

Good luck with your quest and please share with us if you find what you're looking for.

This is a particularly sensitive subject, you've got courage to address it. I was born, raised and educated Catholic. The men running the Church have failed it. The core of the faith is true. The problem in our society as I see it, is people pursuing Religion instead of Spirituality. The Ceremony over the Reason for the Ceremony so to speak.

Boy is there some room for comment here. But first, from politics subject to religion, do you have a wall of separation here? Is there one on order, if not? Just kidding but a pretty good cross-section you put forth. Aside, I saw the rev (see if I can remember? no)in Chicago or other northern area speaking to media about illegal invasion ?(I mean immigration) But of course the left won't condemn them for that position -- its p/c. But could he not stress that as his position and not particularly the church's?


“We are in an existential struggle with an ideology that sanctions… It kills people that speak out against it…”

Well said, and silence about that is the way to address the issue? Oh, the rationalizations could be endless, like “you probably see enough about it on the news..blah,blah” We cannot step on the toes of someone, even if a certain amount of them are random murderers. Back up, wait, lets not mention the 47+ million of government sanctioned aborted? Well as I said, I am sure the one thing they won’t lack is excuses. Can’t offend someone or cause controversy you know.

I meant to add good article (keep it up). Does it make you wonder what or how they preached in both world wars?

Here's the full O'Rourke quote, which I found here:

http://bornagainredneck.blogspot.com/2007/04/p-j-orourke-republican-party-reptile.html

"No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you'd have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal view."

I can't recall which book it's in. I'm thinking either "Republican Party Reptile" or "Parliament of Whores." I have both in the basement, but pretty well buried. Otherwise I'd look.

As for the Catholic stuff...You need to check your sources on celibacy. It's been part of the Church since the 4th century, and largely based on St. Paul's writings. And note that it is a Church discipline, or regulation, not a doctrine. It was definitely not imposed through “a commandment from God.” As with male priests, and unlike abortion, celibacy does not fall under papal infallibility, which is why the Pope has to now and then say, "This is still in the rule book" What you mentioned is one of those anti-Catholic myths/conspiracy theories that have floated around for centuries.

It was RevWalter Coleman (Chicago)
Suppose this Rev or others of us have to face illegal alleged terrorists held up in a mosque, temple etc. -- as he has aided in. Is that something we want to see? What about observing the laws of our country? We are not exempt.

Rev. Coleman’s plight for a member:
[surrounding the ELVIRA ARELLANO and son matter]
Coleman: “But she has always said that she would fight what she considers to be an unjust law, so that her son will know that he’s a child of God and not a piece of junk that can be thrown away. So the option of sanctuary when she requested it seemed like a good option to give her a holy space to continue a campaign of civil disobedience against an unfair law that is separating families throughout this country.”

Because we don’t like a law, is reason to hold them out in a church to resist arrest?
Is that really justifiable? Lets dismiss that a moment. Where are other church members and clergy ON the issue? Does the Rev have supreme authority, there? I don’t know. But where are any others within/without the church speaking on or addressing it? In this case he is nothing but a political activist, used as a pawn by the left I would add.

Yet when needed to address the cultural problems of the current world, where are they? What Scottie says doesn’t apply to one church or denomination. (I’m sure most would agree) It could be they are afraid if they do address that it may offend someone, or cause someone to leave.
In this case Coleman was not afraid to offend other law-abiding members. Its odd what they [are] willing to take a stand(risk) on.

.

THat is what freedom of religion is about. However I resent all being tarred with the same brush. Criticism where due across the board but to say there is no place for it. Or that it all misses the point. Some like Rosie bug me creating a myth there is little difference between Christianity and the radicals. This is why it is important the churches know when members believe they are out of step. That in radicalism might not just get you ousted but could get one killed.

I respect your views. I am not pushing anything, but I don't want it infered that I have not found what I am looking for. The problem for churches though is it can easily go the other way, toward appeasment...to all kinds of things. (Hence, emerging church)

I an heartened to have gathered so many opinions on this. I'm going to take each of you in turn, but such thoughtful comments require a thoughtful response on my part. Give me some time to work through these, and thank you all.

Thank you for the kind words. I think the larger a church gets, the more administration is required. But the central "product" isn't a function of the accounting department, or the choir director. A church needs leadership. Its first mission should be guiding the souls in the congregation to be closer to the Almighty.

In my current case, I'm watching a church die before my eyes. The congregation is withering away and those that remain keep doing the same thing, serving the same "product" and expecting a different result. I am hopeful the new preacher can lead us in a new direction.

I agree that the larger the church, and the more connected to a remote hierarchy, the more difficult it is to focus on the "product", but this is not an insurmountable problem and I certainly wouldn't tar all large churches with that brush. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't be sensitive to its existence, given how often it happens.

That last post was for Doc Steech. I'm sorry Zeus. And Zeus, thank you for your support in my hour of frustration, 'preciate it.

I concur completely. My argument with respect to the Catholic Church is a macro argument, not a micro one. As I said earlier, the church has failed its members in some pretty serious ways, but not in every way. And this doesn't impugn the individual members so much as the leadership and the hierarchy.

I have erected precisely the same wall here as the one referred to in the Constitution (i.e. no wall at all!)

It is precisely the controversial issues that require spiritual leadership. Abortion is one such issue. If a church won't clearly teach the inherent value of every life, born or unborn, how can we expect society as a whole to accept this truth? Even if the church expects to transfer this message to society by osmosis alone, osmosis still requires something to transfer.

Thank you twice. Once for the article reference, and again for correcting a misconception I've long held. But the main thrust of my point is still valid; celebacy isn't a requirement laid down by God, but one imposed by man.

If any church wants to have an effect on illegal immigration, it is perfectly free to try to influence the congregation on the MORALITY of the issue, encourage its parishiners to sponser legal immigrants, and hold that as a clear position.

As I said in an earlier post, I don't think a church should ignore the laws of our society or encourage illegal acts

You can't expect a church to advocate the moral position that abortion is wrong on the one hand, and then expect them to be silent on the moral obligations of society with respect to immigration on the other. In neither case should the church advocate illegal behavior.

Rosie's myth is another result, and classic example, of the moral relativism prevalent in our society.

The two groups are not rationally comparable at all, but in order to demonize Christians, she is willing to inflate the fear she has as a practicing homosexual toward Christianity (which tells her she is wrong) and overlook the violent tendencies of the radical Islamists in order to diminish the legitimacy of those that have moral objections to her lifestyle.

I don't think it occurs to her that in doing so she is legitimizing a culture that would stone her to death while delegitimizing one that has made her very rich.

You're welcome and I too agree that idea of celibate priests was man's creation. But it was created and still exists for religious reasons and so it is in fact a requirement of the Church. Saying it's now unnecessary casts aside 2000 years of accumulated Church knowledge and teachings. Catholics making that argument are akin to those who say the US Constitution is a "living document" which needs to be repeatedly reshaped to fit the times. I'm not saying you need to agree with that aspect of the Church, but you may gain some understanding if you read about its origins and why it still exists. Or you can just rely on my expert knowledge of all things Catholic. (Kidding!!)

Unless I'm missing something, freedom of religion is exactly what I spoke of...nobody is "tarring" anybody...I "choose" to celebrate God in my own way, and I welcome you to do the same. You can do whatever you like.

I respect your opinion, and nobody is "inferring" anything...I wish you the best of luck.

Zeus

I had to check twice, but sure enough, you did write "the Papists" in making a glib point about Roman Catholicism. I thought that disparaging term went out of fashion in the 19th century. Perhaps it's making a comeback in certain circles.

Hey Brother,

I rarely find the time to comment...but I want you to know, they're always being read...you and Brian.

Time challenged as I am...never miss it.

Zeus

Thank you for a slice of your time. I am gratified you are finding something here that keeps bringing you back.

As for xpressit, the confusion may have been due to my tagging a response to Doc Steech with your handle. As these threads get longer and longer, it is sometimes difficult to scroll to the comment, and then back to my own, and back and forth until I'm satisfied I've answered property. I fully intended to answer you first as your comment was first, but I responded to Doc Steech and put your nane on it. Mybad, sorry.

" . . . you did write "the Papists" in making a glib point . . . "

If the term "papist" has been dormant for over a hundred years, please consider that it may not have been intended as a perjorative here in this century.

This tends to be reinforced by your characterization of the comment as "glib". Let your hackles down a bit my friend. You have demonstrated an unbelievable depth of knowledge on things Catholic, please don't hold the rest of us to the same standard. I doubt the term was intended as it was received. Benefit of the doubt?

If you intended "Papists" as a perjorative, you have erred and should apologize. No need for cheap rhetorical tricks like that from a man of your obvious intelligence.

How much of the 2000 years of accumulated Church knowledge and teachings have arisen out of the committee Constantine put together to save his Empire, and how much came from the teachings of Jesus? I'm not challenging anything you've put forward, only saying something I often wonder.

The term Papist wasn't what raised my hackles. Rather it was the portrayal of Catholics as money grubbing seditionists. As reinforced by his latest comments, I just figured people who think...bad word choice...people who express such opinions had an updated, and perhaps broader, vocabulary.

Anyway...hackles lowered, and I'll shut up about it.

(btw...Thanks for the knowledge comment and for putting this back in perspective.)

Please don't take this as flippant, but the short answer is, all of it. Plus it's a great question because this is exactly where misunderstandings occur on both sides.

Roman Catholicism claims three sources for its beliefs and teachings: the Bible, Sacred Tradition (Church dogma based on Christ's teachings), and Living Magesterium (the Church's teaching authority; i.e. the Catholic Church as the true church of Christ). There have been numerous councils held over the centuries to debate and define the finer points and refine the Catechism of the Church. The most recent was Vatican Council II in the 1960s, which lead to a revised catechism (the first since the 16th century) in the 1990s.

There's really not space here to delve into all of that. However, Wiki has pretty good articles on the subject. Just search for Roman Catholic Church. There are also good articles on criticisms of the Church. If you're REALLY interested, check out a copy of the Catechism. It's the Catholic user's manual. I'm not evangelizing here, but if you've got questions (Why do they worship Mary?) that's a good place to look.

Anyway...the bottom line is that people who disagreed with that triple source of teachings (and other things of course) started the Reformation. Keep in mind that the earky leaders of the movement, such as Martin Luther, were trying to reform the Church, not start their own. That's a point that sometimes gets lost. But regardless, they are destined to burn in...oops. (C'mon Scottie...You didn't think I could make it through a whole comment without a wisecrack.)

By the way...Two excellent, non biased books on the Reformation and Christianity are:

The Reformation by Diarmaid MacCulloch
http://www.amazon.com/Reformation-Diarmaid-MacCulloch/dp/014303538X/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-1117435-7475326?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178383465&sr=1-1


History of Christianity by Paul Johnson
http://www.amazon.com/History-Christianity-Paul-Johnson/dp/0743282035/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-1117435-7475326?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178383757&sr=1-2

I've been counting the hours until I got the patronizing "I only mean the leadership" reply. We are all Catholics...oh...whatever, man. I promised Scottie I'd shut up about it. So I will.

Thanks...

I'll defer to Scatbug on your question as he is much more deeply steeped in the historical aspects of the Catholic church than I. I cannot profer an intelligent answer to your question. And I know I don't know.

The context in which I used the term "Papist" was in reference to the Catholic church leadership, which is corrupt to the bone, and has lost its moral leadership long, long ago.
No glib point intended, these pedophile protectors within the Catholic heirarchy are simply evil and probably criminal. No apologies in order,here.
{Fair enough, and while a bit harsh, you are entitled to your opinion]

And where is my apology from Nee for calling me a "Bad Catholic?"
[You can't be serious! You unapologetically eviscerate the Catholic hierarchy and bifurcate the Lutherans into crazy and non-crazy, then expect an apology for a glib jibe from Nee? Sorry, no sale on that one.]

Not to mention an apology from you for erroneously insisting on an apology from me.
[Since my REQUEST for an apology was contingent upon your intent, this is also over the top. Having clarified your intent, and your determination to stand by your position, whether you apologize is entirely up to you. Had you made a cheap shot, would I be out of line to ask you to reconsider? I think not.}

Gotta love these religious discussions, but hey, I'm not the one who initiated this.
{Yet you are a part of the conversation. So get down off your cross, build a bridge with the lumber, and GET OVER IT!]

St. Steech
[Sainthood requires five miracles. And they can't be card tricks Doc.]

Thank you for your excellent to Dave Cat. Well done, and fascinating.

Your second post segregating the church hierarchy from the flock clarifies matters. I agree in spirit with the thrust of that position, and it closely echoes my own. The leadership has betrayed the trust of the flock in a most heinous way with the molestation scandal.

Also, these priests were not pedophiles, a dodge to distance the radical gay activists from this scandal. Pedophiles target the pre-pubescent. The term doesn't spring to mind, but I will find it. I believe Tammy Bruce addressed this in her book "The Death of Right and Wrong".

Thank you for recognizing Doc's right to have a different perspective on this Scatbug. And I understand your side as well. You guys are not going to agree on this, even you and I are probably not enitrely on the same page. But I have an abiding respect for your position, and I do care what you have to say. Thank you for your efforts to keep the conversation civil.

Okay Doc, now you are just baiting Scatbug and spoiling for an argument over points you have both already made here. I have also weighed in on these points.

We can disagree without being disagreeable. I don't see how Scatbug can respond to you without the situation becoming untenable. Let's leave it at that, Doc. Enough is enough.

...can only do so much in an hour+ on Sunday morning. One needs to supplement. If you're interested in some good supplemental Bible studies on tape/mp3/etc go to: http://www.berachah.org

Many folks stay where they're at and just pop in an mp3 Bible study on the way to and from work. Bible Doctrine works wonders. Fills in the gaps. Also, all study material from Berachah is free. DD

I grew up in the Church of Christ, went to a Methodist Church during college, attended Baptist Church while dating and after marrying my wife, and now attend a Calvary Chapel. To me, denomination matters far less than results. By that I mean:

1) Are they teaching The Bible, or are they watering it down to make it palatable?
2) Are they evangelical? Are they reaching out in Gods name both to bring people knowledge of God and to help people with their material needs?

Two years ago, we left the Baptist denomination that my wife grew up in because it seemed that everything boiled down to petty arguments. I am not talking about serious issues like whether the Church accepts homosexual leadership, takes a stnad on life issues, takes a stand on war, etc...I am talking petty like should the person handing out bulletins wear a tie, or what percentage of the worship service should remain hymns and what part can be more modern music. Most Churches that fail to focus their attention on Gods Will and Gods word become either petty and irrelevant and legalistic, or become morally relative. Either way, it is a failure in vision.

Very good post, you can see the angst that this direction taken by your denomination has caused for you.

I'm surprised by the statement "Unfortunately, whatever moral authority the Catholic Church once had has been squandered by protecting scores of the vilest predators for decades with full knowledge of what they were doing. I just can’t follow them anymore." I read somewhere that those evil priest amount to less than 1% of the entire membership of RC priests, and you don't think there are more than 0 and less than 1 % of pedophile Baptist's or Methodist's, or the rest of them. No one church is pure, not because the church is evil, but because men are evil and that goes for some pastors, reverends and fathers.

Also when you say “whatever moral authority”, whatever? Sounds like you think they just made everything up. Sounds like you aren’t a recovering Catholic as apposed to a once nominal Catholic, never fervent in your beliefs but hanging on the threads waiting for something else to come along.

Speaking of moral authority, The RC Church is the only church that can trace it's roots back to it's creation when Jesus gave Peter the key's and a succession to Peter in the Church has been unbroken since then. The Church is a creation of Jesus and there has been evil in it, just like the world although created by God has had its up’s and downs with evil. Both creations are sublime and wondrous, but both because of men will always battle evil and battle it until the end. But, maybe Christ couldn’t see that far ahead to think that something He created might someday be compromised by evil?

Your moral authority is also selective, because the same weight and rightfully so you apply to pedophiles and the Church doesn’t apply to your choice for Methodism to any absolute doctrine against abortion, contraception and homo sexuality that the RC Church makes applying to everyone.

It’s hard to figure it out; because there are over 40,000 church’s started by men since the inception of the One True Church. With all those man made church’s one has to spend a lot of time to find all those beliefs that your church meets to apply to what you believe, mostly because each man or woman whose other than Catholic Church they have started might believe something different than another church in the same denomination.

Lastly the bible tells us that it is to be found in “scripture and tradition”, not scripture alone. Tradition, that since the founding by Christ sounds pretty good to me, unlike that tradition started in 1600 up to the 21 centurey and beyond.

Thank you for you comment and the link. I am certain that studying the bible is a step in the right direction.

While I don't expect a lot in an hour, in three years I've listened to over 150 hours of sermons at this church. Am I wrong to point out that in that time, not once have I heard the church or the preacher take a moral position on marriage, homosexuality, abortion, war, euthanasia, or any other serious moral question we face today? That can't happen by accident in a church trying to convey a sense of moral leaderhip.

The Darbin as a typo, not a poke at you.

You have truly captured what I am trying to say. Thank you for your kind words and support. Like you I am coming to the belief that the denomination means less than the leadership. I will wait for the next preacher to arrive and get his feet under him at the Missus' church before I do anything, but something has to give. Once you are aware of the problem, you have an obligation to do something about it.

"I read somewhere that those evil priest amount to less than 1% of the entire membership of RC priests"
[Yes, and 100% of the leadership above them participated in the cover-up. The part of the church that failed was the entire leadership as well as the fallen priests.]

"Also when you say “whatever moral authority”, whatever? Sounds like you think they just made everything up."
[Their authority is earned by their actions, and my distain for their behavior is likewise earned. Are you saying I made this scandal up?]

"Sounds like you aren’t a recovering Catholic as apposed to a once nominal Catholic, never fervent in your beliefs but hanging on the threads waiting for something else to come along."
[You have no basis to make any assumption about the depth of my beliefs. If I weren't deeply committed to living a proper life centered on Christ, would I write this article? Wouldn't I just go along to get along? And if I did, wouldn't I be just as culpable as those that turned a blind eye to the evil in the midst of the RC church and did nothing?]

"Your moral authority is also selective, because the same weight and rightfully so you apply to pedophiles and the Church doesn’t apply to your choice for Methodism to any absolute doctrine against abortion, contraception and homo sexuality that the RC Church makes applying to everyone."
[I didn't choose Methodism, it was thrust upon me. And I AM questioning the nature of the doctrine they are providing the congregation.]

"Lastly the bible tells us that it is to be found in “scripture and tradition”, not scripture alone. Tradition, that since the founding by Christ sounds pretty good to me . . ."
[Then by all means follow it. But do so with the full knowledge that the church is currently led by men that sanction and enable those that molest teenage boys with their full knowledge and have done so for decades. A group that includes Monsignors, Bishops, Archbiships, and Cardinals actively participated in covering up the behavior of the few rather than dealing with them swiftly. Given the length of time it went on and the heights of leadership aware of the problem, is this now a part of the "tradition" to which you refer? You can have it; I'll pass.]

Scottie,

Appreciate the reply; thanks although in your blame for 100% of the church leadership you failed to mention the pope? If you think there where and are not more holy and committed men to Christ in the Church since day one until today then I feel you’re simply wrong. Also I agree with your opinion on the pedophiles and their protectors, they indeed will have to make amends to those they hurt including leading those astray in the Church and more importantly to God for any salvation, if I am allowed to make a judgment. Jesus never said I’ll make those in the church free from sin, even the pope goes to confession.

Now Christ did say to Peter, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' It seems to me you feel Christ was wrong and the gates where assaulted and the assault prevailed. He didn’t say if anything prevailed then go ahead and start new church(s) to correct the problem and if at first you don’t succeed then, try, try again.

Christ also said, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53). The Catholic Church has always taken this statement literally and hasn’t changed since the apostles continued to teach it, after Christ gave them the authority to teach it. Not a symbol but the real presence. This doctrine taught in the Church like all others has continued at the behest of Jesus, regardless of the sins of man and there are lots of sins.

Lastly I am turning no blind eye to what those in command did in the Church, they deserve even more punishment that the law now gives for the evil act, the deception and the failure to act. Good luck on your questions of doctrine in your church and if I might recommend reading the early Church fathers it may help in seeing how man humbly interpreted the word of Christ.

Regards

Thanks for your kind words earlier. I very much appreciate (and always have) your sense of fair play and honesty. Obviously we disagree on this Catholic Church issue, but to me it's a healthy disagreement. And it certainly has caused me to reexamine my opinions and improve the way I argue my position.

I just want to make a couple of points about this leadership issue. Obviously there is a division between the clerical element of the Church and the laity. However, we are all still one Church. And we are not just one Church organizationally. More importantly we are a Church based on faith: faith in God of course, but also in the Church itself and in the belief that it was created by the Holy Spirit. To say 100% of the leadership is corrupt is not just statistically impossible. It is also spiritually impossible, for us at least. Statistically, if 100% of our leadership is corrupt, then we have 0% leadership. So we might as well sell St. Peter’s and become Episcopalians. And if we have 100% corruption on a spiritual level, then the foundation of the Church is cracked down to the tomb underneath that great Basilica.

Obviously I’m not expecting agreement and a request for instruction on how to pray the Rosary. But in my mind, that unified nature of the Church is essential to understand the Catholic perspective. I read an article by a law professor today about the molestation scandal. He called it the most serious crisis the Church has ever faced. I disagree with the thought that having church members fed to lions was worse, but I’d certainly agree that it’s the most serious challenge since the Reformation, especially in terms of leadership. And I have faith that we can overcome this, but only as one Church. If criminal culpability can be established on individual priests, bishops and even laity, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowed and sentenced without mercy. It will be incumbent upon the rest of us to carry on the true Tradition of the Church. (btw…If it means anything, I haven’t attended Mass for about two years because of this and other issues. But it’s up to me to find my way back.)

On to a much more important topic and an issue vital to the Republic...I have posted some exciting news concerning the Environment.

interestiong discussion! Scottie, I'm a Baptist. Come on over, the water is fine. Your seat on the front row is saved.

And redemption is granted to those that confess with a pure heart and a sincere mind. Bravo my friend, you are truly a class act, if a poor comedian. Please feel free to return with your thoughts here at the Heartland. You add spice to the discourse, akin to cyanne pepper perhaps, but spice nonethless. God bless you.

Thank you for you civil and obviously heartfelt reply. The church cannot be perfect for it is an institution of men, and all fall short of God's glory. I do not question the doctrine, I was raised in the Church and have a sound grasp of the sacraments.

Turning to the sacrament of confession; In order to be forgiven one must confess with a sincerely repentent heart, AND make ammends for the transgressions committed.

The Church seems immune to its own doctrine. Do you think the hierarchy has confessed its sins to the body of the Church with a sincerely repentant heart? Has the Church sincerely repented of its abominable behavior? Has it demonstrated its desire to learn from its mistakes and determined to avoid such behavior in the future? Has it sought to make amends?

It appears to me to have circled the theological wagons and stonewalled those its behavior has damaged and denied its culpability. Does it deserve forgiveness under its own doctrine given its subsequent behavior? To sin is human; to arrogantly subvert one's own teachings as not applicable to oneself is hippocracy of the highest order.

All I know is, I'm a sinner, forgiven by grace...Rom 6:23...For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord...and

Rom 8:37, 38... No, in all things we are more than coquerors, through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God, that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Praise be to God for his mercy and grace, his everlasting love, and his hope for the future!

Job 19: 25, 26, 27...I know that my Redeemer lives and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes- I, and not another. How my heart yearns within me!

God made us to love him, and serve others! In this fallen world nothing is perfect, and that's why Christ came to take our sins and imperfections onto himself, and offer himself as the perfect sacrifice, as our substitute, to give us eternal life, and a future!

Until then, we will put up with the fallen nature we have...but then we will be like him!

God bless!:)

Let me clarify my point. Obviously the entire hierarchy isn't corrupt, but each fallen priest answered to a monsenior or bishop above them. And each of those bishops answered to an arch-bishop. And each of those arch-bishops answered to a cardinal. And ultimately, the they all answer to the Pope himself. I still have not observed anything approximating an act of contrition on the part of any of these parties.

As for this being the greatest crisis the Church has ever faced, I think that the current scandal is greater than the throwing of the martyrs to the lions. And here is why. The sacrifice of the martyrs was imposed upon the faith from without. The current scandal exposes a far more corrosive and debilitating dynamic on the faith from within.

The current scandal was knowingly enabled and magnified by the Church through inaction and participation in the furtherance of the sacrilege by moving these evildoers around to new fields of opportunity, allowing these monsters to prey on the faithful.

In effect, the church knew it had wolves in its midst, and instead of protecting the flock from these predators, it moved them from one unsuspecting herd to another. The Lord is my shepard, the Church can no longer be; particularly given its lack of recompense and contrition. If the Church is no longer obliged to protect and nurture the flock, it has failed in its highest obligation.

The martyrs willing gave up thier lives for their faith. Had the Church willingly served them up for slaughter, then the two would be comparable.

Thank you for the kind invitation. The water truly is fine, and it's deep too! No sprinkling a drop or two . . . total immersion!

Thank you for your kind and wise words. God Bless You dear.

I think I am having a crisis of church more than a crisis of faith. Apparently this forum ranged very wide on the subject of religion in general and Catholicism somewhat moreso.

I am deeply grateful that all that have participated thus far have been truly thoughtful, sincere and added constructively to the conversation.

Now I'm off to Scatbug's place for what I hope will be a little levity and comic relief.

Sometimes you just have to visit several churches in your area to find the right one that teaches God's word!:)

Don't be discouraged!;)

I am bouyed by the support and encouragement of my friends here on TH, you included. I think you may be correct, the denomination may be secondary to the local leadership.

Scotti,

If I didn't come by your blog on Townhall then I would just forget it but your blog invites replies. If you really believe what you say, that the entire Catholic hierarchy is culpable for the actions of a few, then there’s no expectation to think you have anything but contempt for the Catholic Church. Also, I don’t have a problem with your right to blog here or Townhall putting your blog on their web site, but they should make it clear that yours is an anti Catholic blog and you are firm in your beliefs of being an anti Catholic.

I don't think your beliefs will ever change and I know the doctrine of the Church won't change and hasn't since Christ ordered Peter to start this church and it isn’t going to change because you feel everyone, 100%, all of them, the leadership of the RC church are Culpable. You also didn’t reply as to if the Pope should also be held accountable?

You also never replied to my statement that yes there are pedophiles in every church, even your Methodist Church. By the way Sheila makes a statement “all I know is, I'm a sinner, forgiven by grace...Rom 6:23...For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord...and” Scottie heed those words but she sadly failed to mention that Christ said “go and sin no more” or sin again and get back down and ask forgiveness. Just because you get down and accept Christ on Monday doesn’t mean you have a pass to do anything you want on Tuesday.

Anyway, I'll continue to read you blof and I'm sure there will be more that we can agree on than not.

"If I didn't come by your blog on Townhall then I would just forget it but your blog invites replies."
[Correct, I want to engage with other people and hear other positions]

"If you really believe what you say, that the entire Catholic hierarchy is culpable for the actions of a few, then there’s no expectation to think you have anything but contempt for the Catholic Church."
[If you've read my posts on this thread, you know that your summary is vastly oversimplified. But I do hold the Church hierarchy in contempt for its behavior and lack of contrition for it.]

"Also, I don’t have a problem with your right to blog here or Townhall putting your blog on their web site, . . ."
[That's big of you!]

" . . . but they should make it clear that yours is an anti Catholic blog."
[That is a stretch at best, ad hominem at worst.]

"and you are firm in your beliefs of being an anti Catholic."
[I am not anti-Catholic, but I am completely disillusioned with the leadership of the Catholic Church for reasons I've outlined quite extensively here.]

"I don't think your beliefs will ever change and I know the doctrine of the Church won't change and hasn't since Christ ordered Peter to start this church and it isn’t going to change because you feel everyone, 100%, all of them, the leadership of the RC church are Culpable. You also didn’t reply as to if the Pope should also be held accountable?"
[100% of the priests that molested members of their flocks, and 100% of the Bishops that knew about it and moved these predators, and 100% of the arch-bishops that were aware of the problem and approved these moves, and 100% of the cardinals that were aware of this problem and hushed it up are all absolutely culpable. Ultimately the Pope himself is responsible for this behavior being allowed in his church and for his refusal to condemn this and for furthering it by moving cardinals to Rome to prevent their possible criminal prosecution. Is that specific enough for you. Every single guilty party on this list, including the POPE.]

You also never replied to my statement that yes there are pedophiles in every church, even your Methodist Church.
[But the Methodist Church isn't the one moving these predators from parish to parish with full knowledge of their actions and the danger they pose, are they?]

By the way Sheila makes a statement “all I know is, I'm a sinner, forgiven by grace...Rom 6:23...For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord...and” Scottie heed those words but she sadly failed to mention that Christ said “go and sin no more” or sin again and get back down and ask forgiveness. Just because you get down and accept Christ on Monday doesn’t mean you have a pass to do anything you want on Tuesday.
[I find your insinuations offensive. You cannot defend the Catholic Church's actions, so you seek to attack me personally without a scrap of substance to back it up. Would you hold yourself out as a "Good" Catholic? And the sin no more part doesn't seem to apply to priests that went forth and sinned, and were moved, and sinned, and were moved, and sinned, and were moved . . . all the while leaving a trail of betrayed trust, wounded souls and damaged lives.]

Anyway, I'll continue to read you blof and I'm sure there will be more that we can agree on than not.
[Wonderful]

Fair enough, and there's not much to disagree with what you wrote...but those watching their bretheren being fed to the lions could have given up and I'm sure many did. And undoubtedly others did turn on their fellow Christians. If the Church did not pass that crisis, there would have been nothing. Anyway, that's why I framed the example the way I did.

However, I do think your argument is very persuasive and I can see where my comparison falls apart. And going back to read your original post, I can see how you and I are in similar quandries regarding faith, church etc. The one difference I can recognize is that perhaps I still have some blinders on, or at least haven't allowed my questioning to go deep enough. Maybe for me it does need to reach down to that tomb beneath St. Peter's.

I'm a Baptist. Come on over, the water is fine. (referring to The Baptismal water.) Your seat is reserved on the first row!

Great discussion and topic, BTW.

Since a lot of the discussion centers around the abusive priests, I thought I'd throw this out (and hopefully Scatbug can vet it for accuracy, cause I'm going from memory on this one).

IIRC, one of the things that Vatican II did was to officially allow for non-practicing homosexuals to become priests. To me a lot of Vatican II was putting water in the sacramental wine, so to speak (but hey, it was the 60's, right?). To my knowledge virtually all (96% is a figure that I seem to recall) of the abuse was to boys, i.e. same-sex (gee, ever wonder why it wasn't called the gay priest scandal?). Which was extensively covered up. Which brings me to the following, WTF was Rosie complaining about wrt to the Catholic Church and gays anyway? That covering up wasn't enough, they should have thrown them a parade?

but well said, Scottie.

The Methodist Church (though not the only) has become too soft, and through its rationale (one of the big things it likes-- reason) it has forgotten what made it special-- the touch of Christ.

Suffice to say, Wesley is turning in his grave now...

Interestingly, in looking at church attendence, the churches that are flourishing are those that hold Christ and His word dear. Those churches that fully embrace what Christ stood for and what is written in the Bible are those that are growing.

am I the only one who sees the parallels between churches and RINOs, i.e. get a little too caught up in the temporal here and now and lose out at both the pews and the voting booth? Not only that, but you're losing your core, base, the true believers who'd stick with you if you'd stuck with them. When these folks start to go, that's when you see a lot of 'churn', if that's an expression that could be applied to Scottie's situation.

Well stated, philosophocon.

We are indeed in the same ethical boat I think. I do not condemn the Church, but I do find the leadership's lack of contrition an insurmountable obstacle to rejoining and following them as moral guides.

We're in a sort of ethical pergatory my friend. I have not lost faith in God, or my committment to Christ, or my desire to live a proper Christian life. I feel deep compassion and sadness for the flock of the Catholic Church, and overwhelming despair at the choices the hierarchy has made. The bitter irony is that the sanctuary to which I would turn when so spiritually troubled is the very Church that lies at the root of my current confusion and pain.

Take me to the river. . . . put me in the water!

The priests were ephebophiles (attracted to adolescents), not pedophiles (attracted to children). The radical gay spin machine sucessfully deflected the story as pedophilia in order to deflect the attendant bad publicity away from their agenda.

A good treatment of this particular point can be found in David Kupelian's, "The Marketing of Evil" and in Tammy Bruce's, "The Death of Right And Wrong". Both authors make this point in some depth. This is not an epidemic of pedophilia, notwithstanding the MSM's portrayal to the contrary.

You are absolutely correct sir. And thank you for participating in this discussion. I seem to have struck a nerve of sorts with this.

Good comparision, and appropos. Excellent comparative.

No one likes being told they are wrong...

I had tried to post a comment several times and it wouldn't post, or so I thought. I was just reading back through your comments and saw that the first one had posted... I didn't mean to repeat myself.

Yes, it's total immersion for us. I always did think that the sprinkles were a bit wimpy. What I like about Baptists is that we stick to the scripture. Sin is sin and can't be rationalized. Thankfully the scripture also has the answer for how to be forgiven.

re: your Methodist church

Does luke-warm come to mind?

Nice discussion here; even with the dust-up, everyone remained pretty civil. I'll check in later (if card tricks don't count, I've got some figuring to do...).

We might not like it, but we need it. We need to be reminded from time to time that we are far from perfect, that we don't deserve God's grace, and how truly fortunate we are despite our shortcomings.

Anything worth having is worth working for. Grace isn't a cakewalk, nor should it be. It is a perpetual struggle against the base side of our nature. The trait in shortest supply in our country these days seems to be humility.

Both times. I've been baptised in the Baptist church (is that redundant?). I even keep a picture of me coming up from under the water in my bible. Of all of the denominations I've been exposed to, the Baptists seem to have the most things right. My first church was the Catholic Church, and it made sense to me before its leadership lost its way. My second church was the Baptists, and I do love that old time religion so. If the new preacher doesn't work out at my current parish, I'm going back to the hell fire and brimstone bible thumping Baptists.

It's in the good book! Read it, learn it, live it! Pure, simple, and direct.

I am truly blessed with good posters here. All have sincere points of view, most are articulate and expressive. It's been a great give and take on a pretty volitile subject. One of my best threads ever.

My current church seems like the rice cake of spiritual nurishment. You can eat it, but it's hard to imagine what you're getting our of it.

I'm not sure if the answer is a definite yes regarding homosexual priets, but during the Vatican II era, there was an end to the denial that there had been homosexual priests throughout the Church's history.

I make that distinction based on some reading I did over the weekend. I came across a story about a conference of clerical and lay Catholics held to review a 50 year study on the sexual abuse problem. Every single case since 1950 was analyzed to look for patterns of behavior. Without bogging down in details, it was absolutely clear that these acts were perpetrated by homosexual priests failing in their sacred vows. (The cover-up of course is another and equally horrendous aspect.) The report also pointed to a contributing culture of rebellion in the Church on matters of sexuality and fundamental Church dogma which matched societal trends beginning in the 1950's and '60s, well before Vatican II. ("This was a period of great rebellion within the Church", was the comment.)

Anyway...Bringing this back to your question, one of the recommendations was that the Church explicitly ban the admission of homosexuals to the seminary. I got the impression that this was not a call to overturn standing official policy, but rather a call to once and for all define the Church's stance on the sexuality of its priests.

Hope that helps...

to God, I must wonder if the changing standards of the church(es) isn't a result from them receiving updated orders from The Almighty. Being raised Catholic, I was certainly taught that the Kingdom of Heaven could only be reached through penitence for ones sins and an attempt to "go and sin no more".

Is it possible that admission policy has changed? Instead of St. Peter standing sentinel at the golden gates perhaps there now stands a scruffy tattooed carney, cigarette dangling from his lip, next to a sign that says "you must be this ___ tall to enter". The bar does seem to be lowering. Kinda makes you wonder if all those good people who got there under the old standards aren't seriously concerned about their property values as they watch their neighborhood decline.

Well done. It seems your humor translates well even with religion. Property Values indeed.

I have to say I don't think the Church has lost its way, nor do I think the standards for proper conduct have changed. I do think the current leadership seems to have abandoned these ideals even as the flock yearns for their return.

(not sure how well this works in writing)

In the small town where I grew up everyone knew of Nookie Green. Now Miss Green was, shall we say, a woman of "loose morals". As I said, her reputation was quite well known throughout the town so that, even if you didn't actually "know" her you certainly knew of her by name.

Now I, as a young alter boy, was quite shocked one Easter Sunday, to see this halter topped, mini-skirt wearing young woman come bouncing up the aisle and sit smack down in the front pew. She wasn't sitting in a very ladylike pose either and her charms were on display for those of us with the proper vantage point (of which I made sure I had) to see. I kept noticing Father Michael' eyes returning to that section of the front pew until about halfway through the mass he leans down and whispers to me "Excuse me son, but look down there in the front pew. Isn't that Nookie Green"?

To which I replied: "Gee no Father, I think it's just the way the light shines through the stained glass window".

That was absolutely awful! Nevertheless, it seems an appropriate cherry to put on top of this thread. Thanks.

If I had told answered the question of why Jesus crossed the road I'd be banned for life. I am sure I'll "have some 'splaining to do" for that one when my time comes.

nobody expects anything than bad jokes from me. I benefit from the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Here's your shot, make it a good one. Surely you can't do much worse than Kilroy did. And no Mother Theresa Jokes! Have at it. Don't let the fact that this is on the What's Hot section here at TH right now and that it has an audience of maybe a dozen or more people rattle you.

Now that was a good religious joke. Very well done Doc. LOL for real.

Just picked up on your "rice cake" comment. Too funny.

It seems to me that the American Catholic church started its decline (can we say "jumped the shark" about a church?) in the late 60's and early 70's. Sally Field as The Flying Nun rang (or perhaps strummed) in the beginning of those asinine guitar folk masses. And don't get me started on that gawd awful Singing Nun

http://deckers66.homestead.com/

Thus began the era of the "Pink Palaces" -- as the Seminary in Baltimore is called.

It all really turned me a bit sour on the Catholic Church. Sure, I still have a special place in my heart for some of the rituals, A Latin Mass is very cool to attend. Nothing like St. Patricks Cathedral in NY or a trip to Notre Dame but like everything else in the world, it still bears the stain of the 60's generation.

Thanks for the addition to the help line over at Brians place too!

If you have obsessive compulsive disorder press 8, press 8, press 8, press 8 . . .

If you suffer from low self esteem, press 0 and hang up, your call is not that important to us.

I could have almost made an article on that idea.

Maybe on my next Odds & Ends essay I'll put in:
"If you forget to unwrap a rice cake before you eat it, does the nutritional content go up? Can you tell by the taste? Why are there unsalted rice cakes, were the salted ones just too tasty?"

Maybe an entire article "Ripping on Ricecakes". I bet that would get a few replies. Any ideas?

...If I remember I think there was something called the "Velvet Mafia."

that's right... the Velvet Mafia. Largely a protection racket that sheltered gay priests from being scrutinized too closely by straight priests.

Move over and make room for me under that rock, and keep your hands to yourself. I like you, but let's not get carried away.

Thanks for a new term that no amount of Alamo is going to erase Jimmy. Ewwwwwww

What can I say but AMEN to that. Have you seen my earlier essay on abortion? It seem apropos given the recent discussions here at TH. If you haven't seen it, give it a quick read. Worth five minutes of your time.

just replied to a comments by you and Celt on my blog (I took an opposing view); drop by and continue the discussion. Your input is always valued.

I used to be a Catholic. Spent 22 years in the Catholic Church, until one day while stationed with the old 58th Infantry Brigade in Panama, I heard this from a pretty lady: "Come to me all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest"

Now who but an Infantryman could understand that passage. So I accepted Christ, and have been a Baptist ever since.

If you are looking for some advise. Try listening to Charles Stanley on Sundays. Also D.James Kennedy. There are others. Dr. Stanley is a Baptist and Dr Kennedy is a Presberterian.

I used to go to a great Presberterian church in another state. It reminded me of my Catholic roots. But it also gave me the guidence that you're talking about.

Of course I also read my Bible. So I know when a pastor is trying to snooker his congregation.

Anyways, go the bornagain route and you'll find what you are looking for. You'll be surprised what doors will open up for you.

Thanks for the kind words my friend. I appreciate it.

You're very welcome, my friend.