Sunday, June 4, 2017

Acts 2


Mark Nanneman said...

Sharing a religious image, and one with the Blessed Virgin Mary in the center! You're already halfway living like a desert hermit monk, and you live in old Catholic country, you should go ahead and convert already!

Most of the world says that anyone can be saved no matter what they believe, as long as they are a "good" person. Others say that only those of the "Abrahamic faiths" can be saved. Others say anyone who "accepts Jesus" can be saved. The Roman Catholic church says, and has always said, "Extra Ecclesiam Null Salus". Outside the Barque of Peter, as outside the Ark of Noah, all are lost.

If the world is right, or the protestants are right, and either being a "good person" or "accepting Jesus" is enough to save you--then you will do yourself no harm converting to Catholicism, as you can both "Accept Jesus" and be a "good person" in the Catholic Church.
Indeed, the Church requires both of these of you, as the Church has always taught that both Faith and Good Works are necessary for justification and salvation.

But if the world and the protestants are wrong, and only the Catholic Church is right, then nothing else will matter if you are not in her.

"[25]But when the master of the house shall be gone in, and shall shut the door, you shall begin to stand without, and knock at the door, saying: Lord, open to us. And he answering, shall say to you: I know you not, whence you are.
[26] Then you shall begin to say: We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. [27] And he shall say to you: I know you not, whence you are: depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity." (Luke 13:25-27)

Consider the probabilities. You risk nothing believing the Catholic Church, and you risk EVERYTHING believing the world, and the protestants. The Catholic Church is founded on Christ and his apostles, who left homes, wives, possessions and families to follow Him, and their Church takes its name from His "Universal" mission to her. The protestant churches, on the other hand, are all founded on men like Luther who left their sparse monk cells, vows of poverty and chastity and obedience, for wives and castles and gold, and they take their name from their "Protests" against authority and social order, sadly.

John Wells said...

The Catholic Church has twisted the path. The rules are really quite simple. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Not through haughty popes or cardinals or bishops or through lamenting you sins to priests each week or by good deeds alone. Anything beyond the simple truth that Jesus spoke is part of the deceit of Satan.

Margery Billd said...

Are you Catholic Mark?

Mark Nanneman said...

I'm afraid you have been mislead somewhere by someone. Out of charity I present the following considerations:

1) Where does Jesus say "Anything beyond the simple truth that [I speak] is a part of the deceit of Satan"? Isn't this saying itself "beyond the simple truths that Jesus spoke"?

In Acts 15, St. Peter declares things are beyond the "simple truths" Jesus spoke, ruling at the Council of Jerusalem that that the Gentile converts are to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols, from eating blood and animals slaughtered by strangulation--and He explicitly says the Holy Spirit guided him in this decision (not the deceit of Satan)! Yet these rules are "beyond the simple truth that Jesus spoke" but they are declared none-the-less by Peter, and all the apostles consent to and obey his ruling.

"[6] And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. [7] And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe...

...[28]For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: [29] That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well. [30] They therefore being dismissed, went down to Antioch; and gathering together the multitude, delivered the epistle." (Acts 15:6-7, 28-30)

2) Also, St. James explicitly commands that sins be confessed to other men (and not to God alone) and that the sick be sacramentally anointed by priests of the Church. Therefore it is proved by scripture that the True Church of Christ has confession of sins and priests, therefore any church that does not have confession of sins and priests is out of the question.

"[16] Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much." (James 5:16)

"[14] Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord." (James 5:14)

P.S. As an aside I do not understand why protestants and others react so strongly to confession of sins to a priest. Almost everyone last one of the people who complain about confession has or would gladly go tell all their deepest darkest secrets to their bartender, psychiatrist, doctor, lawyer or best friend, or even post about them on some web forum--but for some reason confessing sins to a priest who can actually do something about them is abhorrent. It's like how a child will put anything in its mouth, but won't take any medicine, or like how cats are afraid of water.

Margery Billd said...

Yes, that is right Mark.

Ronald Mahan said...

I am proud to be a Lutheran protestant - the church that Luther founded. I suspect even Mark knows the Catholic Church of those days had strayed from the teaching of Christ - and needed reform. In doing this - I believe Luther (a former Catholic priest ) helped the Catholic Church return to Christ's teaching. I believe acceptance of Christ as our Savior is all that has ever been required to get to heaven. Therefore - any person that accepts Christ can make it to heaven - regardless of their denomination or lack of a denomination. I think to believe otherwise - would be to deny Christ's true love for the children of GOD. Jesus even loved the sinner crucified next to him on a cross - and took him to heaven because he accepted Christ.

pamit said...

Goodness gracious. So some Christians think that theirs is the one-and-only way to get into heaven, and that other Christian sects are going to hell? "But if the world and the protestants are wrong, and only the Catholic Church is right, then nothing else will matter if you are not in her." Really? So believing that Jesus is the savior is not enough, ya gotta toe some other line to get into heaven. Sheesh.

"You risk nothing believing the Catholic Church, and you risk EVERYTHING believing the world, and the protestants." I'll take a moment to point out that this is the exact same argument that believers use against us non-believers.

This is one (of many) reasons I am an atheist. If Christians bicker among themselves about which group is "on the right path", you know it's hokum.

Unknown said...

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life."
(John 3:16)

Mark Nanneman said...

@ Ronald Mahan, re: " I believe Luther (a former Catholic priest ) helped the Catholic Church return to Christ's teaching."

If Luther "helped the Catholic Church return to Christ's teaching", which you claim, then why aren't you a Catholic? Luther fixed the Catholic Church, so be a Catholic and not a Lutheran, if that's what you claim. Why do you follow a church named after a man? Well did Christ prophesy of you in John 5: "I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive." (John 5:43)

Regarding the salvation of the good thief, there's a tradition that the same man protected or helped Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus when they fled Herod to Egypt. For all we know he was baptized by the disciples of Jesus when they were baptizing. Being a follower of Christ doesn't mean you can't sin badly--Judas was an apostle and another thief. Either way, the good thief died before Pentecost, even before the death of Christ and the rending of the veil in the Temple, so the Old Dispensation was still in effect and the law mandating baptism and membership in the Catholic Church was not yet decreed by Christ, which he did AFTER the crucifixion.

"And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16)

Mark Nanneman said...

@ Pamit, re: "This is one (of many) reasons I am an atheist. If Christians bicker among themselves about which group is "on the right path", you know it's hokum."

So disagreement is evidence to you of "hokum"? What does anyone in the world agree on? I pity you, there must be so little truth in your worldview.

Because people disagree about how to run a country, is the whole idea of civilization "hokum"? Because people disagree about the best way to build a house, is the whole idea of housing "hokum"? Because people disagree about the best way to be an atheist, is atheism "hokum"?

Regardless, if there is only One True Faith, all the debate you see is not actually "Christians bickering among themselves". What you see in most cases is all the fakes, frauds, phonies, wannabes fighting among themselves (for "among the proud there are always contentions" [Proverbs 13:10]) and fighting against the One True Christianity.

Ronald Mahan said...

Mark - please do not imply words I never spoke. I said Luther "helped the Catholic Church " No. where did I claim Luther "fixed the Catholic Church"! I am a Lutheran because that was the faith of my parents and grandparents. One of my grandparents (from Germany) was formerly a Catholic - but he converted over to the Lutheran Church before I was even born. Also why won't you admit that the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages needed some reforming - to bring its back to Christ's teachings? I refer to the selling of indulgences and other things Luther protested. Guess you forgot that Jesus ran the money changers out of his Father's house in Jerusalem. Your church did eventually stop selling indulgences - didn't they? Makes one wonder whose idea that was - if Luther didn't suggest it first - in the protest he nailed to the door of his Catholic Church?

Ronald Mahan said...

And I loved that grandfather who had earlier converted from the Catholic faith to the Lutheran faith. His name was Anton Schober and he was a baker by profession. But our name for him was simply Pop Pop. He was a loving grandfather who built his grandchildren - a small merry -go- round & sand pit in his backyard for their entertainment - and walked us to the Lutheran Church for Sunday School & church services every Sunday. My grandfather & grandmother owned a car - a Model A Ford - which my grandmother latter drove church bringing my mother & my smaller brothers & sisters. My father was in the Army during this period - because we were at war with Germany & Japan. But I assure all - that we did not misbehave in church - because that loving grandfather was also a rather strict on discipline when we were in church.

pamit said...

Hi Mark. It's not just "disagreement" that you are writing about, between two groups of Christians. That's why I quoted you: you are saying that nothing less than the Kingdom of God shall be denied the group that YOU say is wrong.

Disagreement is healthy; Christians telling other Christians that they are going to hell, is hokum. Next?

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Jesus said:

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another;
as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples,
if ye have love one to another."
(John 13:34-35)

Mark Nanneman said...

@ Ronald Mahan, re: "indulgences".

Q1. Tell me, you don't think there's anything wrong with granting an indulgence (a remittance of the temporal punishment due to sin) to someone who gives the Church material goods, money, or service?
A1. No.

Q2. How can you possibly say that it's okay to grant indulgences for money!?
A2. Think about this logically. What if we substituted water for money? What if the Catholic Church was accused of granting indulgences in exchange for glasses of water given to thirsty monks and nuns and orphans. Would this scandalize you?

"And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, HE SHALL NOT LOOSE HIS REWARD." (Matthew 10:42)

And think about it the other way around. Imagine that YOU are guilty of grave, horrid sins committed in your past, you suffer no peace, your relationships suffer, your body suffers, your business suffers, your sleep suffers, calamity follows you everywhere like a cursed man, and then grace and light comes into your life, you convert and confess your sins to a priest and you save your soul; but you are aware that because of the seriousness of your sins in your past life you will have to either do many good works or be prepared to suffer much time burning in purgatory, like metal getting purged in the forge. But you are an old man, and weak, you have not the time or the strength to go around doing good works to the poor, etc. But you do have land and money, and you think "well I can give this land and this money to the Church, the Church can use it to build a hospital for the poor, etc., that is how I can do my good works and pay off my purgatory debt quicker!" Do you really think that, if you give money and land to the Church, that God is not going to reward you for your offering???

"If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and **thou shalt have treasure in heaven**: and come follow me." (Matthew 19:21) This treasure in Heaven is not an empty, sentimental metaphor, it is a greater glory in the afterlife, with which God rewards us according to our good works. Good works are not limited to just giving money or food to the poor bums and wretched drunks on the streets; they can also be, and the best ones are, bestowed upon Christ and his Church.

Consider the story of the Prostitute washing the feet of Christ, which scandalized the Pharisee Simon:

"And turning to the woman, he said unto Simon: Dost thou see this woman? I entered into thy house, thou gavest me no water for my feet; but she with tears hath washed my feet, and with her hairs hath wiped them. Thou gavest me no kiss; but she, since she came in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint; but she with ointment hath anointed my feet. Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much." (Luke 7)

Q3. What did you mean by "a remittance of the temporal punishment due to sin" anyway?
A3. Grave sins demand punishment in this life (temporal) and in the next life (eternal). A Christian can obtain forgiveness of the eternal punishment due to his sins, but he usually still has to suffer the temporal punishment due to his sins either during life or in purgatory. It is like if stealing were a capital punishment somewhere. Maybe the Judge is moved to mercy and reduces the sentence of the accused so that he might live, but he'll still require him to make restitution of what he has stolen, or to work off the debt somehow. If we cannot work off our debt in this life, then we must work it off by burning in purgatory for a time after death.

Mark Nanneman said...

@ Ronald Mahan re: "Indulgences" [continued]

Q4. Purgatory is not in the bible. The Catholic Church invented it to sell these indulgences.
A4. Actually, Christ taught the doctrine of Purgatory in the Sermon on the Mount:

"Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Amen I say to thee, **thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing**." (Matthew 5)

and St. Paul taught it in 1 Corinthians 3:

"Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, HE SHALL RECEIVE A REWARD. If any man's work burn, HE SHALL SUFFER LOSS; but he himself shall be saved, YET SO AS BY FIRE."

Q5. Well, if indulgences were Christian, then they'd be in the scriptures. They're not taught in the scriptures, therefor they're an invention of the devil.
A5. Actually, indulgences are also in the scriptures.

Q6. What! Where?
Q6. In addition to the quotes I gave above concerning the reward for even giving a cup of cold water, and the forgiveness of the Prostitute's sins, who washed Christ's feet with her tears, there is also the story of Mary Magdalene's anointing of the feet of Christ in John 12.

"Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of right spikenard, of great price, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. Then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, he that was about to betray him, said: Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

NOW HE SAID THIS, NOT BECAUSE HE CARED FOR THE POOR; BUT BECAUSE HE WAS A THIEF, and having the purse, carried the things that were put therein. Jesus therefore said: Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of my burial. For the poor you have always with you; but me you have not always."

And in Matthew's telling Jesus says:

"Amen I say to you, wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which she hath done, shall be told for a memory of her. Then went one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, to the chief priests, And said to them: What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you? But they appointed him thirty pieces of silver."

Jesus here CLEARLY teaches that good works and riches spent on HIS BODY (and what is the Church but HIS BODY) are preferable to good works done to the poor (those these also are necessary). And what is more, He rewarded this good work, this expensive offering from a converted PROSTITUTE, by making her one of the most famous converted sinners in the history of the world, by making her GOOD WORK, her EXPENSIVE, LUXURIOUS OFFERING, a part of the VERY GOSPEL that He sends EVANGELISTS out to preach to the ENDS OF THE EARTH. If she had just converted at the preaching of Jesus, and merely "accepted" Him with "Faith Only", and did no good works, and made no expensive offerings to Him or His Church, none of us would ever have heard of her and she would be FORGOTTEN.

And who took scandal at this "waste" and "luxury" and immediately broke charity with Christ, betrayed Him and the Church, and sold Him out for a cheap handful of silver, making his name infamous for all of eternity as the quintessential traitor?

Mark Nanneman said...

@ Sam Finn, re: "Jesus Said..."

The same Evangelist you cite (John) also has this to say:

"Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you." (1 John: 9-10)

Your quote from John 13 is, first of all, an instruction especially to Christians in their relations to other Christians. "Love ONE ANOTHER". Obstinate heretics and schismatics have broken this unity and therefore are not worthy of social acceptance, though they must always be forgiven and accepted back upon conversion. Also, notice that Jesus qualifies his commandment to "Love one another" with "As I have loved you." Anyone who reads the Gospels honestly will be aware that Jesus was, when it suited the occasion, a practitioner of what one might call "tough love". As someone already mentioned he drove the money changers out of the temple with a whip. He also berated the pharisees and lawyers with some of the most famous and cutting rants in all of history. In John 8, just a few chapters before your quote, he straight up called the pharisees sons of "your father the devil". The evangelists frequently note that people in his presence "dared not ask him any more questions", as if they were afraid of getting anymore of his "straight talk". To the weak he was gentle, to the obstinate he was a hammer, and all of this was love.

Ronald Mahan said...

Mark makes it sound like I asked him a whole lot of questions on indulgences - ie., This last post of his lists six imaginary questions. ?? - none of which are my questions. I did ask a few questions - but did not receive a direct answer to any question I asked of him.

And I want to draw attention to the fact Mark certainly did not comment on Christ running the money changers out of his Father's house. This is burned in my memory - because it is the only time I know of Jesus using physical force to correct a problem. I mean like he could easily have instead - had a few Angels take care of the issue. But he clearly gave me the message that he considered this - an unacceptable abomination in his Father's house. Therefore- I don't believe Christ would approve of the selling of indulgences in his Father's house. Mark - you evaded my question - does the Catholic Church still sells indulgences? A Yes or No answer will be adequate.

Mark Nanneman said...

Ronald, there is a difference between driving the money changers out of the Temple, which Christ did do, and using supposed money changers as an excuse to leave the Temple, raise up an army against the Temple, then sack the Temple and loot all of it's gold and art for your own personal treasure, which is what the Protestants did everywhere. Read the history of England, after Henry VIII split with Rome. They sacked all the monasteries, and they even went so far as to fence in all the common land that the Church offered the poor to graze their cattle on. Before the Protestant revolution, they say, you were almost always within walking distance of a monastery, convent or hospital that would give you a meal and a place to stay for the night, free of charge. The Protestants everywhere shut down all these social services the Church operated for free to the poor, and replaced it all with rents and taxes and insurance rackets, etc. Perhaps medical care is better in the 21st century, but when you factor in the lifelong debts caused by the bills and insurance rates, because medicine is now a business instead of a charitable service, it's hard to argue it's better now in this post-Catholic world.

Also, keep in mind that Christ did not condemn the actual selling of sacrificial offerings--his own parents brought two doves to offer for him at the Temple:

"And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord: As it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord: And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons." (Luke 2:22-24).

Are we to imagine that Joseph and Mary bought some seed and a net, and sat around trying to catch these birds all day--or did they just buy them from a vendor on their way to the Temple?

Christ was condemning the abuse of turning this legitimate service into a money making racket that preyed upon the worshipers who were under necessity to offer sacrifices, and often came from far away with foreign currency. And He also condemned the abuse of conducting all this within the Temple itself. Again, he "reformed" the situation by miraculously driving them all out with very little violence (he had a "little whip" if you read it carefully), and as I wrote above, he didn't just leave Jerusalem and His religious obligations and start a new religion over in Samaria.

There certainly were abuses by individual Church men in the granting of indulgences for Church offerings, but this all on them so long as you don't up and leave the Church. If some bad Cleric "sells" you an indulgence to make himself rich, do you think God doesn't still count it in your favor, if you offered it in good faith? Remember that Christ kept Judas around with him for years, even though he was stealing from the purse, and neither John nor Peter nor Paul nor any of the others nailed a rant to Jesus's door and went off and started their own religion.

Mark Nanneman said...

Whoops, meant to type "neither John nor Peter nor any of the others" above--obviously Paul wasn't around yet while Judas was alive!

Mark Nanneman said...

It's also interesting to note that, for all the talk of Christ driving out the money changers that the Protestants like to bring up in excusing their rebellion--nowhere on earth do bankers, money-changers and lenders exercise greater power over everyone than in Protestant countries. Just look at New York and London. They didn't drive the money changers out of the temple, they just invited them to take over the whole world!

It's also Protestant England that gave us the whole doctrine of mammon and selfish individualism via Adam Smith and the other Capitalist thinkers--you can even argue that England and Germany (the first countries to go full Protestant) are responsible for Communism, which is sort of a crude materialistic mockery of the Old Catholic economic order, via Karl Marx, Engels, Adam Weishaupt et al.

WhyR said...

Sheer volume of cant- catholics win!! So there.

Ronald Mahan said...

Let's review - WhyR says the Catholics win based on the sheer volume of cant by Mark. In my book that is only one vote. Based on the majority of Protestants in America - this discussion would certainly be won by protestants if more Americans voted!

WhyR said...

While we're on the subject of catholicism, ever wonder where all the money for those elaborate cathedrals and hoards of gold relics and the billions in the vatican's vaults came from? Not from passing the plate on Sunday. Aside from the indulgences, much if not most came from all those poor unfortunates who fell into the machinery of the inquisition. Once they were adjudged guilty, and they were ALL found to be guilty; confessing to any crime to avoid the horrors of torture, their lands and property were forfeit to the church, and their families converted to serfs or worse. The church could have whatever or whomever it coveted, and that attitude continues among many of the church patriarchy to this day; exploiting the vulnerable and credulous for their own sick ends. It's no accident that pedophiles would gravitate to the priesthood- their crimes of exploitation were of a piece with church practice and were buried away from public scrutiny. A new, more human pope should not distract us from the old one, the Hitler Youth boy who got out of Dodge as soon as the rocks began to be turned over and their horrors were exposed. Never forget the catholic church's victims- its good works are pitifully small by comparison. Nobody should be taken in by this evil enterprise.

WhyR said...

Ronald Mahan, the comment you refer to was sarcasm.

Mark Nanneman said...

Why, WhyR, I knew you were being sarcastic. So the Catholic beats the Lutheran in both Cant and sense of humor. I will concede that the Lutheran has me down for the count when it comes to schmaltz, however.

Also, you've imbibed quite a bit of enlightenment era anti-Catholic propaganda. The truth is the Inquisition was necessary because there was an organized infiltration of the Catholic priesthood by fakers who weren't true believers, and they were planning all sorts of evils--particularly in Spain (coincidentally, the same thing happened last century--but there was no inquisition to sniff out and stop the infiltrators--so now we've had a series of fake Popes who actually participate in other, non-Catholic religious ceremonies, and a plague of fake priests teaching the worst kinds of heresies, and committing the worst kinds of crimes, but that's another subject).

It's important to know that only baptized Catholics fell under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition, so Jews and Muslims and Protestants and others who weren't pretending to be Catholic for financial and legal reasons had nothing to fear from it.

Consenting to baptism in the Catholic Church means subjecting yourself to her laws, one of which is excommunication and deprivation of certain rights and protections for obstinately holding and preaching heresies after a couple warnings. It is like how becoming an American citizen makes you in a sense liable for the death penalty if you're caught spying for or aiding an enemy foreign power. If a baptized Catholic was preaching heresies, or found secretly practicing Judaism or Islam or witchcraft on the side in a Catholic Kingdom with an Inquisition in process, the Church would investigate and turn them over to King or the Prince if guilty. The secular authority would then decide what to do with them--which yes did involve some executions--which were in normal practice at the time.

Protestant founder Henry VIII executed people for religious beliefs. John Calvin executed people for religious beliefs. Luther riled up the Peasant rebellion that slaughtered many Catholic religious, and then when he realized he was going to get blamed for it, had a change of heart and called upon the Princes to ruthlessly put down the Peasants--which they did, killing hundreds of thousands of them. Maybe 2,000 people were burned total in the "Inquisition".

Again, I find it remarkable that enemies of the Catholic Church never cease complaining about the wealth of the Church, which is put to use and display in public buildings and institutions that any bum or urchin off the street can walk into and marvel at and enjoy. This is what you people complain about, but if some Protestant, some Atheist or some Jew squirrels away a billion ill gotten dollars into an underground vault that no one will ever lay eyes on again, or if they build some skyscraper or luxury hotel with spikes on the sidewalks and guards to keep out the riff-raff, you just shrug or say "good for him!".

WhyR said...

You don't seem to address the prevalence of pedophilia in the priesthood...
Those "urchins off the street"...
By the way, catholic sense of humor? Assumes facts not in evidence.

Mark Nanneman said...


There's a lot that I could say about this--but you'd scoff and dismiss it as "cant", I'm sure. Question for you, the Catholic Church has historically always stressed very strict rules concerning female modesty in dress and behavior, and has always condemned subjecting children to "sex education", and has taught children that the "solitary vice", sodomy, fornication, adultery, even acts within marriage that cannot result in children b/c of their nature or a birth control device, are all mortally sinful. The Church has always advocated strict censorship of sensual and perverse books, literature, music, dances, and pornography that children and anyone really, could be exposed to. Back when Catholics had control of nations, sodomites and pedophiles were imprisoned and often executed for corrupting the youth.

The point is, the people that bring up the so-called "priest" problem are the same people who complain about the Catholic Church being too authoritarian and repressive on child sexuality, and society in general. If some Bishop tomorrow were to snap out of the liberal American spell, and burn all the sex ed books in his schools, separate the girls and the boys into different buildings, excommunicate anyone who lets their children watch TV or listen to modern music, fire all the lay teachers, and chain up all the pervert "priests" in a dungeon--people like you wouldn't stop shouting until the government Waco'd him.

Unknown said...

Truth. This is simply, lovely.

Unknown said...

I am busy catching up on a whole lot of TFL blog reads. This one really got my attention. Had I not known I would have thought this is a Northern Ireland blog...I went to a Catholic Convent school/boarding school when I was a child. Weekdays I lit my candles attended mass and said my Hail Mary's but on Sunday the nuns send me to attend my Protestant Church. I felt loved and at home in both.I knew and felt the presence of the Lord in both. That's what the believe of an innocent child is. It's a pity that when we grow up we somehow somewhere loose that innocence. Everyhing has to be an argument or fight. It's no wonder Jesus said ...let the children come to me.