Archbishop Christophe Pierre, the Vatican's apostolic nuncio to the U.S., addresses a gathering of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Baltimore on Nov. 12, 2018. RNS photo by Jack Jenkins

Vatican instructs U.S. bishops to halt voting on sex abuse measures

BALTIMORE (RNS) — Observers are calling this week’s U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops assembly a high-stakes opportunity for the bishops to address their role in the ongoing child sex abuse crisis that has rocked the church this year.

But USCCB president Cardinal Daniel DiNardo opened the event Monday (Nov. 12) by declaring that the Vatican had issued a last-minute directive for bishops to hold off on the votes, saying they should wait until after a global meeting of church leaders at the Vatican in February about sexual abuse.

“At the insistence of the Holy See, we will not be voting on the two action items,” DiNardo said, noting that the Vatican had informed him of the shift the day before. He added that he was “disappointed” by the news and acknowledged others gathered likely share his concerns.

Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago then stood to suggest that the bishops still discuss the "action items" on sexual abuse and hold a non-binding vote, as well as convene a special session in March on the issue after the February meeting. Action on the crisis, Cupich said, “is something we cannot delay — there's an urgency here.”

The news was followed by an address from the Vatican’s apostolic nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Christophe Pierre, who spoke about the abuse crisis at length.

"One case of abuse is one case too many, so the people of God must remain vigilant,” he said.

RELATED: How the Great War gave us the US Conference of Catholic Bishops

DiNardo, who has himself faced allegations this year of being too slow to rein in abusive priests, then offered a presidential address focused on the crisis, though he noted it had been altered due to the delay ordered by the Vatican.

“To the survivors (of abuse) I have let down … please forgive me. For those who have lost faith in the church, please forgive us for our failures,” he said. He later added: “Whether we will be remembered as guardians of the abused or of the abuser will be determined by our actions today, and this week, and in the months ahead.”

The bishops had been poised to address the crisis in three potential ways: the creation of a commission to oversee allegations of abuse against bishops, affirming new “Standards of Episcopal Conduct” for bishops, and outlining protocols for bishops who leave office following sexual misconduct.

After the gathering, Zach Hiner, executive director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, expressed frustration at the decision to push off the votes.

"We're disappointed that the Vatican has prevented the USCCB from taking even symbolic steps toward accountability for the clergy sex abuse crisis," he said in a statement to Religion News Service.

"Given that nearly one-third of American bishops have been accused of mishandling claims of sexual abuse, this meeting came at a critical moment and presented an opportunity for those bishops to begin working toward real accountability and prevention. Instead, the Vatican has kicked the can down the road. Hopefully this means that at the meeting [in February], the Vatican will be implementing real reform and not empty codes of conduct."

Peter Isley, one of the founding members of SNAP, also called the vote delay “totally unacceptable.”

During services on Monday, bishops heard from abuse victims who detailed harrowing accounts of the the long-term toll their experience took on their lives, relationships, and faith.

"We felt at times homeless in the city of God," said abuse victim Teresa Pitt Green.

At an afternoon press conference, DiNardo reiterated his disappointment with the unexpected decision, noting "we are not ourselves happy about this." But while DiNardo and Bishop Christopher Coyne of Vermont said bishops “absolutely want” to take action on the issue, they plan to respect the wishes of the Vatican's Congregation for Bishops and push back the vote out of a desire to maintain a "collegial" role in the church.

"I think don’t this in any (way) signals a change in direction,” DiNardo said.


  1. ” Action on the crisis, Cupich said, “is something we cannot delay — there’s an urgency here.” amen, and amen

  2. So the control-freaks in the Vatican are making sure that the control-freaks in the USCCB fully understand that the control-freaks in the Vatican are in charge.

  3. “The bishops had been poised to address the crisis in three potential ways: the creation of a commission to oversee allegations of abuse against bishops, affirming new ‘Standards of Episcopal Conduct’ for bishops, and outlining protocols for bishops who leave office following sexual misconduct.”

    I am not sure that this includes the huge part of the crisis which is the way bishops cover-up for the abuse of others. Perhaps it is addressed in their ideas about a “commission to oversee allegations of abuse against bishops” if covering up the abuse committed by another is also “abuse.” Or, unless covering up abuse is a part of the “Standard of Episcopal Conduct.” More, I am not sure a Bishops Conference has the power to actually act to hold one of its members in any significant way for covering up sex abuse – what can another bishop or group of bishops do except say “shame on you?”

    I want a lay led oversight commission, but it is of little use if it doesn’t have some power to speak to those who are authorized within the Church to act against a bishop – and now that is only the pope. So what has to happen for any real reform to occur is for the Church to agree to invest power in lay led commissions, to bring them inside the power structure of the Church with power of their own. Maybe a change could also be made to empower regional structures to act when a bishop goes awry. but by “structures” I don’t just mean a bishops conference that is only a bunch of bishops talking to each other – it must include lay voices, too.

    So, I think Pope Francis has to lay some ground work on changes to Church laws that will cut the power of insiders to police themselves and will provide for some power from the laity. He will also have to empower smaller units of the “business” of Roman Catholicism so there are some intermediate layers of management – that is not only different levels of clericals.

    Just food for thought.

  4. I guess you would have to be Catholic to know what this was about.

  5. “I want a lay led oversight commission ….” and people in Hades want ice water.

    In the real world in a hierarchical church whose leaders claim to be successors to the Apostles, lay oversight is anathema, as the Reformers in the 16th century discovered.

  6. It is probable the Holy See want the world’s bishops to speak with one voice.

    Some of the actions the Americans bishops took in 2002 were less than satisfactory and in at least one case self-serving.

  7. :…they plan to respect the wishes of the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops and push back the vote out of a desire to maintain a “collegial” role in the church.”
    Victims be damned, protection of the clergy takes priority. Every. Damn. Time.

  8. Do the right and moral thing. Tell the Vatican to sthu. The RCC has had decades to come clean. It’s failed over and over.

  9. DiNardo, quoted: “Whether we will be remembered as guardians of the abused or of the abuser will be determined by our actions today, and this week, and in the months ahead.” 

    Actually, that ship has already sailed. The bishops already demonstrated — conclusively — that they’ve protected abusers, repeatedly, and did so at the cost of further abuse. 

  10. Yes, the hierarchs “claim to be successors to the Apostles”, but educated and informed Catholics know this claim is a bunch of hooey. “Successors”, my rear end.

  11. I am rather sure your rear end is in no way involved.

  12. Why not just have the Vatican tell you to sthu?

    Why would either the Vatican or the American bishops give a fig about the opinions of an anti-Catholic?

  13. Oh, I capisce. That you think I don’t, doesn’t mean I don’t. 

    To be clear, you said, in response to the conference’s decision to delay action, “It is probable the Holy See want the world’s bishops to speak with one voice.” 

    That necessarily means — according to you — the Church is placing unity (i.e. “speak with one voice”) ahead of taking action to establish accountability (assuming there’s a chance they may have done that). 

    So you were very clear. And as I said, I capisce. Really! 

  14. I thought it was quite clear; which sentence caused you confusion?

  15. You’re just another garden variety anti-Catholic, nothing more, possibly less.

  16. So you’re defining a desire to hold hierarchs responsible for their actions “anti-Catholic.” Is that it? If so, why? Everyone is accountable to others … why not the Catholic bishops? Is it because they’re just-so-very-extra-special or something? 

  17. Re: “‘Successors’, my rear end.” 

    Indeed! Looking just at the history of the Popes — setting aside all the other hierarchical offices — shows their appointments often to be capricious and arbitrary, and their character and morals often suspect. If you want a little early medieval entertainment, look up the period known as “the Pornocracy” (or in nice, official-like, Catholic Churchian Latin, the saeculum obscura). 

    Yeah, that was a truly sacred and enlightening period, with many vaunted saints sitting in the Chair of St Peter. It all started with Sergius III and his mistress — who just happened to be the daughter of a powerful Roman nobleman, basically a “Pope-maker,” who may have had an illegitimate son who later became Pope John XI. 

    And that’s just a tiny bit of the antics that went on in the Apostolic Palace back then. 

    Oh, and an event that, in a way, led up to the start of the “pornocracy” was another wonderfully holy affair, the Cadaver Synod (which, you’ll be happy know, also has a nice, official-like, Catholic Churchian Latin name, the synodus horrenda). Yeah, a Pope (Stephen VI) actually put a dead body on trial — i.e. his predecessor’s predecessor, Pope Formosus — for … well, you just have to read about it to believe it. 

    But before you conclude papal weirdness and immorality was a feature only of the early Middle Ages, guess again! Later Popes were up to all sorts of no good. Popes Benedict IX (early 11th century) and Alexander VI (turn of the 16th) — among others! — had reputations which were, shall we say, not exactly flattering to the memory of Jesus’ own apostles, of whom they were supposedly successors. Pope Urban VI (late 14th century) had some cardinals executed because he suspected they were plotting against him (in fairness, they may well have been; much of the Church and many of the nobility despised him by that point because he was such a horrific d-bag). 

    I could go on — student of ecclesiastical history that I am — but it would be pointless. It’s actually very common for those chosen as the supposed successors of the apostles, to fail to live up to their presumed standards … and in many cases those failures are blatant. 

  18. Besides being a garden variety anti-Catholic, you seem to have a tendency to rant.

  19. This news report, like most others, fails to call things by their right name — not a good sign because this failing here involves a weaseling odious to the senses and the intellect. Instead, Church protocol, policy, and politics substitute for a clarity free of pussyfooting. After all, the Church faces a long and widespread sex scandal that has come to light for all to see.

    The word “misconduct” sugar coats (1) the actuality of sex crimes by priests and (2) the acts of their enablers, bishops. These sex crimes violate criminal law apart from any Church sanction or punishment for misbehavior.

    This word in addition skips over naming of the sources of the sex crimes: pedophiles, pederasts, and homosexuals within the ranks of the Catholic clergy.

    By these shortcomings, remedies seem made distant. (1) Removal of bishops for enabling sex crimes for decades and (2) removal of all pedophiles, pederasts, and homosexuals within the ranks of the Catholic clergy for their sex crimes against innocents.

    The Church must purge itself of these wrongdoers and evildoers in order to regain its standing as a moral compass out of time working in our age.

  20. The Church officials play with words. After all, the word “abuse” here substitutes for sex crimes against innocents by pedophiles, pederasts, and homosexuals within the Church ranks.

    These wrongdoers invaded the Church, and then the Church harbored them when instead it should have expelled them all posthaste.

    Today, the Church finds itself in the mode of damage control. This mode involves two courses of action. One, the Church must identify all pedophiles, pederasts, and homosexuals within the Church ranks. Two, the Church must defrock and remove all these wrongdoers, for their potential and actual sex crimes. Such criminals put their carnal knowledge first above the mission of the Church.

    Interestingly, the Church has described homosexuals as suffering from “a profound disorder of mind.” Yet, the Church welcomed these ill individuals to the Church ranks. Now the Church must correct this error by ridding itself of these individuals and by blocking more of them from entering the Church ranks.

    We shall see if the Church rights itself by taking corrective action to avoid a repeat of rampant sex crimes by priests.

  21. You haven’t explained why a desire for the hierarchs to be held accountable for their actions, makes me “anti-Catholic.” And if you don’t like my “rants,” well … don’t read them! You’re really grasping for things to complain about, aren’t you? It’s kind of hilarious, actually. 

  22. More anti-Catholic ranting.

    Were it not a sign of intense hatred and bigotry, it might be kind of hilarious, actually.

  23. The Sipe Report, 1990, analyzing data, stated that only 50% of US Catholic priests are celibate. If indeed this is the case the Catholic church has a big secret to hide and is intrinsically disordered with a propensity to lie. In the movie “Spotlight,: dramatizing how the sex abuse scandal was exposed in the Boston archdiocese headed by Cardinal Law. Sipe’s metrics on the number of abusive priests (6%) was used as the clue that enabled the Boston Globe reporters to identify the abusive priests (the church was hiding their numbers and identities).

  24. The abuse is worldwide in the Catholic church. The Vatican knows this and wants to be ready as each country’s abuse problem breaks into headlines.j

  25. Nope. The Church is wrong on sex, sexuality, assumptions about gender, understanding of gender identity. And you are wrong to assume that child or adult sex abuse would not exist if gay priests were removed from the priesthood. Sex abuse is not a function of the abuser being heterosexual or homosexual, but is a perversion of its own. It may have been exacerbated by very poor human formation in seminary, especially with respect to sexuality.

    The vast majority of sex abuse in families involves heterosexuals. That may be true because most people are heterosexual and the actual incidence of sex abuse by homosexual and heterosexuals may be distributed equally across the two groups.

    There are many homosexual and heterosexual men who are very honest, mature, generous, intelligent, loving, priests. It isn’t sexual orientation that creates a good or bad priest, but many good human qualities that are nurtured and allowed to flourish in the development of a priest.

  26. TOO little, too late…the old Catholic boat is dead in the water, already sunk like a rock. ALL that is left is fake rhetoric. The LORD is somewhere else. HIS true disciples will keep looking and WILL FIND HIM!! PEACE

  27. Thanks for some history. The earliest betrayal, of course, was Judas, chosen by Jesus as one of the Twelve. This episode raises two questions: (a) Did Jesus know beforehand that Judas would betray him? (b) Regardless of one’s answer to (a), why does God — all-knowing, all-loving, etc. — allow evil in the world, i.e., sickness, bad conduct, natural disaster? The best that the Church can offer is that Jesus did not fight or prevent his execution so that greater good might come about afterwards. It’s all mystery.

    As for the succession argument, there is no evidence the Twelve served as heads/bishops of local churches, much less ordained anyone to the episcopate/leadership. It’s been noted elsewhere that the Twelve exercised a unique, unrepeatable ministry because (a) they had personally witnessed Jesus’ ministry before his arrest, etc., and (b) they had been appointed to “go forth” by Jesus himself. No other historical figures can rightfully claim such ministerial background.

    To complicate matters, it’s been pointed out by a theologian that many (most?) of the bishops at the Council of Trent believed their episcopal consecrations/ordinations did not confer any priesthood *above that* of the men they had ordained to the “priesthood”, i.e., presbyterate. These bishops regarded their office as an honorary one preoccupied with administrative/governance responsibilities only. This bit of history is important because it deals with Rome’s stress on “intent”. Thus, using the Vatican’s own criteria for so-called “validity” of ordained ministry, one can argue that many/most Catholic clerics and bishops today cannot rightfully claim “valid” ministerial ordinations. Depending on their particular “lines of succession”, some clerics and bishops may be considered validly ordained, but others have no basis for such claim. We simply cannot legitimately differentiate “valid” from “invalid” ordained presbyters and bishops unless — somehow — historians and theologians can learn the thinking of individual bishops at Trent. Some folks, of course, would argue that the Church can “supply” what is necessary to make ordinations valid, regardless of Trent. I would argue, however, that the Church cannot “supply” what it does not have!!! (This is the “ecclesia supplet” argument.)

    Thanks for your information.

  28. Have every priest , bishop sign a statement saying they did nothing wrong , didn’t cover for anyone else .
    If they cant sign , they’re gone .

  29. Connelly/Arnzen, or whatever his name really is, can always be counted on to defend the Vatican and to ignore the fact that most Catholics disagree with the Vatican on such issues as contraception, abortion, the need for parochial,schools, women priests,. etc.

  30. The worldwide and long duration scandals are analyzed by Spanish scholar/journalist Pepe Rodriguez in two important books — The Sex Life of the Clergy (La vida sexual del clero. 1995) and Pederasty in the Catholic Church: Sexual Crimes of the Clergy Against Minors, A Drama Silenced and Covered Up by the Bishops (Pederastia en la iglesia catolica: delitos sexuales del clero contra menores, un drama silenciado y encubierto por los obispos, 2003). Both are available from Amazon in Spanish.

    We should also note that on Nov. 6 Arizonans crushed by 65 to 35 a measure to divert public funds to Catholic and other private schools. That was the 30th such state referendum since 1966 and was crushed by an average of 2 to 1.

    Edd Doerr

  31. You have yet to explain what I’ve said or done that is inherently “anti-Catholic” in nature. You accuse me of “hatred and bigotry,” likewise offering zero compelling evidence of any such thing. 

    So cough up clear and specific evidence to support your accusations, or slink away to whine and snivel that I’m being mean to your Almighty Grand & Holy Church. Waaaaah wah waah, little baby. Waaah wah. 

  32. Re: “This episode raises two questions: (a) Did Jesus know beforehand that Judas would betray him? (b) Regardless of one’s answer to (a), why does God — all-knowing, all-loving, etc. — allow evil in the world, i.e., sickness, bad conduct, natural disaster?” 

    Because he’s actually a malevolent being, and not “loving” at all. That’s why. 

    Re: “As for the succession argument, there is no evidence the Twelve served as heads/bishops of local churches, much less ordained anyone to the episcopate/leadership.” 

    You’re absolutely correct about that. The first generation of Christians didn’t have “priests” or any concept of ordination. Some were leaders or “elders” of their congregations, and some were not — but that’s all. There might have been a ceremony involved in designating leaders/elders, and if there were, it may not have been any more than the laying on of hands, but there can’t have been any more than that. It was subsequent generations of Christians (and by “subsequent,” I mean perhaps the 3rd, 4th or 5th) who began looking back to try to discern “tracks” of descent; who created offices (deacons, distinct from elders, and bishops, above the elders and deacons); and who created ordination rites connected with those offices. 

    Most of that was a game of building prestige. Anyone who could somehow trace their mentor(s) back to an apostle, could then claim greater authority over those who couldn’t. This had begun by c. 120 or so (as seen in the pastoral epistles). By this time the game of being able to trace one’s mentorship back to an apostle ramped up considerably (since having a clerical office held increased significance and control over the congregation). 

    By the time of the christological conflicts of the 4th century, that distinction became a weapon that the various schools of thought within Christianity used against one another. Particularly, which scriptures one used to support one’s dogma became a consideration … were they written by apostles or their cohorts? Note, it’s about this time that certain books, e.g. The Shepherd of Hermas — which had long been considered sacred — appear to have started losing favor, and that’s because their authors lacked apostolic associations. 

  33. Thanks for your link. Interesting. Merits study.

  34. To improve self-knowledge, obtain and consider feedback from one’s adversaries/opponents. No man is an island. The Church of Rome exists within, not outside of, the larger society. I may or may not agree with certain comments from our fellow blogger, but I would be foolish not to reflect on their value, if any, to my own thinking and beliefs.

  35. You overlooked including *heterosexuals* among the preverts. You ignore the widespread conclusion among social and other scientists that homosexuality is not the cause of sexual abuse of children and other vulnerable people.

  36. Those who willingly ignore the catechism of the church are by definition not catholic. They may have been baptized catholic, but they are no more catholic than you or the Irish you cite often to denigrate the church.

  37. So writing “your Almighty Grand & Holy Church” is not, in your view, anti-Catholicism.

    That is certainly one of the major characteristics of bigotry – the perpetrators are tone deaf to their bigotry.

  38. Bishop William Howard Love is from Texas and is a theological conservative.

    He opposes the inclusion of non-celibate homosexual men and women in the ordained ministry and the blessing of same-sex unions, condemns abortion, and opposes assisted suicide.

    The track record would indicate he won’t last long but now that Katharine Jefferts Schori is gone (three years ago this month) he may actually be able to sustain a loyal opposition stance.

  39. Re: “So writing ‘your Almighty Grand & Holy Church’ is not, in your view, anti-Catholicism.” 

    No, it’s not. It is, instead, something known as “sarcasm.” You might have heard of it. It’s kind of a well-known word. But hey, maybe the concept is new to you. Here’s a definition that might help:

    BTW that sarcasm is directed at you — Church-worshipper that you are — rather than the Church. But hey, I guess you missed that part, too. 

    Re: “That is certainly one of the major characteristics of bigotry – the perpetrators are tone deaf to their bigotry.” 

    Again, it’s “sarcasm,” not “bigotry,” and it’s YOU the sarcasm is directed at. Maybe you need some more definitions in order to comprehend it:

    Oh, and I assume you missed it, so I’ll say it right out: Those dictionary links to “sarcasm” definitions are yet more “sarcasm” … and to repeat, directed at you and not your Church. Just so we’re clear on that part and there are no questions. 

    Note too: Your obvious failure to comprehend what I post, requires me to explain myself at length, as I just did, because I can’t count on you to get what I’m saying. I guess that means you’ll kvetch and moan about what you call my “tendency to rant,” but sadly, it’s YOU who (in this case) forced me to go on at greater length than I’d have wanted. So if you object to the length of my posts, maybe do a better job of reading comprehension, and you won’t have that problem again. No? 

  40. “No, it’s not.”

    Actually it is.

    “It is, instead, something known as ‘sarcasm.’”

    Directed at a church it’s anti-whatever the church, in this case Catholic.

    It’s also ranting.

    And attacking people with religious beliefs: “directed at you — Church-worshipper that you are” is also anti-whatever the church is.

    “Again, it’s ‘sarcasm,’ not ‘bigotry,’ …”

    Again it’s bigotry.

    Basically what you’re saying is you have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation, know little or nothing about Catholicism, or me, and so you fire off “sarcastic” shots aimed at attacking the church and what you believe to be an adherent.


    And you deny you’re doing it.

    More indication of bigotry.

  41. Re: “Directed at a church it’s anti-whatever the church, in this case Catholic.” 

    No, directed at YOU and your Church-worship. Is there some reason you don’t understand words? 

    Re: “It’s also ranting.” 

    Again, caused by the need for me to explain myself to you at length because of your inability to comprehend words. 

    Re: “Again it’s bigotry.” 

    Nope. It’s sarcasm. 

    Re: “Basically what you’re saying is you have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation …” 

    … says the guy who’s incapable of conversing intelligently due to his infantile, sanctimonious rage at anyone who insolently dares refuse to bow and scrape before the altar of the Church he worships. 

    You really are hilarious … but what’s really precious is, you’re totally unaware of it! 🙂 

    Re: Bigotry. 


    Re: “And you deny you’re doing it.” 

    Because I’m not. 

    Re: “More indication of bigotry.” 

    And that is an indication of your immaturity and sanctimony. Like I said, you’re funny, but don’t even know it. 

  42. You’re just digging a bigger hole and making it clearer that my assessment was accurate.

    And now you’re REALLY ranting.

  43. Oh! I thought you would join me in my joy over what he has done! Read it Mark. It is inspirational.

  44. May the Lord bless him richly! Someone in that assembly heard Christ!

  45. Re: “You’re just digging a bigger hole and making it clearer that my assessment was accurate.” 

    Quite the opposite. You just revealed your childish sanctimony and lack of reading comprehension. 

    Re: “And now you’re REALLY ranting.” 

    … a complaint I predicted you’d hurl at me, in your desperate attempt to find something — anything! — to bellyache about. 

    Waaaaah wah waah, little baby. Waaah wah! 

  46. You certainly set some sort of record for juvenalia, self-justification, lack of insight, religious bigotry, and pathological need for attention.

    It’s been unpleasant talking to you and even more unpleasant reading you.

  47. Re: “You certainly set some sort of record for juvenalia, self-justification, lack of insight, religious bigotry, and pathological need for attention.” 

    … says a bellicose, infantile whiner who worships the Catholic Church and is actually incensed that not everyone else does so. And your projection is noted. 

    Oh, and in case you need to understand what that word means, here’s a little help:

    (Yes, that’s yet more of the sarcasm you seem never to catch onto. I have to figure you’re blinded by your self-righteousness.) 

    Re: “It’s been unpleasant talking to you and even more unpleasant reading you.” 

    More of your childish sanctimony. Keep it up, dude. You just keep proving me right, with your every posting! And really, you have no idea how hysterically funny you are! 

  48. Most if not all of the sexual abuse in the church involved homosexual priests and teenage boys.
    Most if not all of the cover up is done by homosexual bishops and cardinals with their own “issues”.
    Pretty simple.

  49. Yup; that’s all we need: a bunch of soccer mom laity who know nothing of the faith but want to make sure we all go home feeling good about our sins…

  50. Well, Parker12, if the coverup was done by homosexual bishops then most bishops are homosexual. But, we know that most are not although surely many are.

    It isn’t homosexuality that is a problem. It is pedophilia, ephebophelia, and a stunted maturity that causes sex abuse, whether the abuser is a priest, brother, bishop, cardinal, the pope himself. Or it could be a married man who abuses his own child or an uncle who abuses his nephew. It could be a teacher, Boy Scout leader, or your next door neighbor. It is not based on sexual orientation. The abuser is then protected by scardy cat and incredibly stupid bishops who think they have some greater “brotherhood” to a priest than to a lay person, and evidently doesn’t even consider the harm done to the one abused. They protect the good name of the ontologically changed, their own reputations and that of the Church. It is a clerical culture that is the problem. It is also a problem that bishops haven’t been parents, haven’t been through the intense emotions of parenting, particularly protecting a child. They just don’t get it.

    Child abuse is committed by both heterosexual and homosexual men and even some women Sexual orientation is not the predictor of who will sexually abuse a child or young person. You are simply wrong

  51. The proposal is part of an effort that has been going on solidly for at least sixty years with zero results.

    The reason why it has borne zero results can be deduced by reading Lumen Gentium.

  52. Not in the church. It’s a homosexual issue covered up by homosexual bishops. The latest synod in Rome shows the hierarchy intent to move to “normalizing” homosexuality within the church.

  53. Parker is entitled to his opinion, however disrespectful it might be to many Catholics.

  54. The “old Catholic boat” seems to be doing okay, increasing exponentially, cleaning house, and righting the ship.

    It has done this before.

  55. The abuse is worldwide, yes.

    It’s only in the Catholic church, no.

  56. So, let’s hear how:

    “Because he’s actually a malevolent being, and not “loving” at all. That’s why. ”

    is not anti-religion, or anti-Christian.

    I am betting on “sarcasm” or some other bs excuse for your inherent malevolence.

  57. If homosexuality is not a significant component of the problem, then it is hard to explain the 80+% of the abuse being male-on-male.

    It is easier to believe that a clique of conspirators with an agenda lowered the bars in the seminaries for folks with their own agenda, and another 15-20% who should not have been ordained took advantage of the situation.

    And, of course, if you have dirt, you’re less likely to expose other people’s dirt.

  58. Too many pedophile clergy, too many 1000’s of abused and scarred for life children, 1000’s now dysfunctional adults. Saying “we’re sorry” doesn’t cut it any more. Cathedrals are emptying out around the world, rightfully so.

  59. Not necessarily true that because the abuse was primarily male on male it was about homosexuality. It was also about opportunity and it was also about dominance.

    But mostly it is about poor human development in seminaries. Take the acknowledged homosexuals out of seminaries and continue with poor human development and you just have an equally bad if not worse situation. Children will act up.

    Now, admittedly, with the new protections put in place by the U.S. bishops, the greater awareness by parents, better awareness of police and DA’s that abusers may also be priests, and with the incredible instant worldwide communication that doesn’t let bishops hide anymore – there will probably be much, much less actual abuse occurring. But it won’t have much if anything to do with the sexual orientation of priests.

    Yeah, “it is easier to believe that a clique of conspirators with an agenda lowered the bars in the seminaries.” And you fell for it.

  60. Parker seems unaware that I have had many items published in Catholic journals.

  61. Odd, then, that the public schools which have produced multiple times that of the Catholic Church in abuse in the United States, have done almost nothing to correct the problem, enjoy public monies and avoid your scorn.

    At least you know who and what you hate, and who and what you look the other way about.

  62. By definition it was homosexual unless you have some particularly new and clever definition of “homosexual” that you’ve coined specifically for discussing these events.

    The research to this point indicates that the problem individuals entered seminaries impaired and were not correctly weeded out.

    Seminaries are not designed to take individuals with significant psychological disabilities and renovate them.

    The only one falling for anything appears to be …. you.

  63. I ‘m a retired public elementary and middle school teacher, 71 years of age. I never met a pedophile teacher in
    any of the states I worked in. Your head is where the sun don’t shine.

  64. I would provide the statistics, except you’ve just made it clear that facts are of no interest to you, and personal assessments of other people who have facts is where you’re comfortable.

    and on, and on, and on over the years.

  65. Re: So, let’s hear how: ‘Because he’s actually a malevolent being, and not “loving” at all. That’s why.’ is not anti-religion, or anti-Christian.” 

    I have no idea where the “anti-religion” or “anti-Christian” stuff you just spewed could have come from. To say that the Abrahamic deity is actually malevolent, is not “anti” anything. That’s just how it is. If I were to have said, instead, that “the sky is blue,” wouldn’t make me “anti-red” either. It’s just a statement of fact. 

    Re: “I am betting on ‘sarcasm’ or some other bs excuse for your inherent malevolence.” 

    The logic of it all is inescapable. If the Abrahamic deity exists, s/he/it can only be malevolent. No other conclusion is possible, logically. Oh, and don’t whine or moan at me because I said it. I didn’t invent the notion of an omnipotent being. I thus refuse to be held responsible for the logical ramifications of that assertion. All I do is point them out. If that conclusion is distasteful, go blame the people who invented the Abrahamic deity, not me. 

    Oh, and nice try at claiming I’m the one who’s malevolent … but I caught your snide little quip. It’s as childish as anything you’ve ever posted. Please, keep going! Continue demonstrating your infantilism. It’s truly entertaining to see you repeatedly live down to all my expectations of militant religionists — and it only confirms my decision to leave Christianity, and all its raging irrationality, behind. 

  66. “To say that the Abrahamic deity is actually malevolent, is not ‘anti’ anything.”

    Sort of like pointing out that you appear to have one or more bolts loose and are unable to engage in simple logic is not “anti” anything?

    “Oh, and nice try at claiming I’m the one who’s malevolent …”.

    You ARE malevolent.

    But remember my writing that is not “anti” anything.

  67. Re: “Sort of like pointing out that you appear to have one or more bolts loose …” 

    Not true. I have a handle on logic. Militant religionists don’t. 

    Re: “… and are unable to engage in simple logic is not ‘anti’ anything?” 

    Actually, the conclusion that the Abrahamic deity must be malevolent, is ruthlessly logical. To assume anything else, is illogical. Again, I’ve got a handle on it. You don’t. 

    Re: “You ARE malevolent.” 

    Your hilarity continues! 

    Re: “But remember my writing that is not “anti” anything.” 

    Actually, you’re anti-logical. But that’s OK. I realize you just don’t know any better, having long ago been blinded by your childish sanctimony. 

    Really. I get it. I’ve been were you are. I understand your thinking far better than you’ll ever realize. 

    Which is partly what makes you so damned funny. 

  68. A disgruntled Episcopal bishop. The Church of Rome has them, too.

  69. Yes, good for me — and would be good for you, too. Remove your filters and blinders.

  70. Okay, but I’m not sure what point you wish to make. For my part, I’ve named the categories of sex offenders that we find in the news media reports. Yet, you’ve set me thinking. For example, a heterosexual becomes a pederast when he engages in sexual relations with a boy for carnal knowledge. i’m not an expert in the varieties of sexual orientation. I look more at the sex crimes by priests against innocents that violate religious vows and secular law.

    Their sex crimes drag down the Church as well. But then the Church brings on this condition by harboring pedophiles, pederasts, and homosexuals within the ranks of the Catholic clergy.

  71. The reported sex crimes against innocents involve pedophiles, pederasts, and homosexuals within the ranks of the Catholic clergy. By the word “innocents,” I mean to distinguish the sex crimes that happen to minors. Further, I do not assume that the absence of homosexuall priests would end sex crimes against innocents. The pedophiles and the pederasts would continue their sex crimes. News reports also say homosexual priests engage in sex with adult seminarians. You appear to ignore that the Church and external law define the crimes and the criminals in this matter.

  72. Except I don’t believe I’m the one with filters and blinders.

  73. You really do like to go on and on, don’t you?

    Other than malevolence and anti-religiousness, you don’t seem to have much content to justify your lengthy rants.

  74. Re: “You really do like to go on and on, don’t you?” 

    … says the guy who likes to go on and on! 

    Re: “Other than malevolence and anti-religiousness …” 

    Keep bellyaching about my insolence. Go ahead. Have fun! It only further confirms your childish sanctimony. 

    Re: “… you don’t seem to have much content to justify your lengthy rants.” 

    … says the guy who has zero content to go with his rants! Project much? 

    Oh and FWIW, fuming and railing at me over things you do, is called “hypocrisy,” and that’s something your own Jesus explicitly forbid you ever to engage in: So I’d be careful, if I were you. 

  75. The only reason why I might be careful would be if you had my home address.

  76. The mother ship is calling to coordinate and control its satellites. The story has to be the same regardless of local civil law, social norms or the truth.

  77. What should not be done is to assume that all homosexuals should be removed from the Church because some abused their positions in the church to dominate or coerce youths or seminarians into bed. So did some heterosexuals abuse youths out of pedophilia or ephebophelia, or out of an immaturity regarding their own sexuality – someone with the sexual maturity of a 13 year old still figuring out his sexuality.

    In addition heterosexual priest have affairs with vulnerable women – which is an abuse of power. And, some of those who were pedophilia’s were heterosexual in orientation and were pedophelias who sought dominance. We should, then, kick out all heterosexual men because some abuse their power. More ways to generalize would be to determine if the proportion of abusers was greater for a particular race or ethnic group, kick out all those of that race or ethnic group.

    The problem is in the broad sweep assumptions that all those with a particular label are the same. Fits in with old forms of discrimination like job opening signs that said “Catholics need not apply” or a sign over a drinking fountain that said “Whites Only.”

    Do homosexual priests engage in sex with adult seminarians? Probably. But it is entirely possible that most don’t.

  78. OK, so now you’re implying I’m a physical threat to you. What did I ever post that suggested I might do you harm? Please, let me know what it is. And please, be specific. 

  79. You appear to be a potential threat to anyone you disagree with based on your obvious anger levels and lack of impulse control.

    Fortunately the anonymity of the medium provides some protection.

  80. Re: “You appear to be a potential threat to anyone you disagree with …” 

    Your evidence for that is … what, exactly? Disclose it, or admit I’ve never said anything threatening. 

    (The latter is the truth, of course, but being an infantile religionists, you won’t show the maturity or courage to admit it.) 

  81. “Except I don’t believe I’m the one with filters and blinders.”

    Thanks for your example of denial.

  82. And thank you for YOUR denials and pretensions of theological expertise.

  83. Why should I? You’re the one who needs help. You feel threatened by me even though I’ve never posted anything threatening. 

  84. Seek help sooner rather than later.

    Once you do, they’ll let you know why it was a good idea.

  85. I look more at the sex crimes by priests against innocents that violate religious vows and secular law.”

    If you haven’t done so already, peruse the John Jay Study at See also

    Bottom line: “Sexual orientation, by itself, is not a risk factor for crime,” per Thomas G. Plante, PhD, ABPP. Correlation is not causation, per

  86. Below is a link to the TRUTHFUL John Jay study. As you well know, the 2011 John Jay “study” was a whitewash job with false conclusions, helmed by one of “Bernardin’s boys” in the American episcopate – who is today chief episcopal spokesman for the promotion of and “normalization” of the abnormal, namely, sodomite perversion, within the Catholic Church.

  87. My goodness gracious, it’s you, Mr. Lombardo, and I’m well familiar with your views about homosexuality. Sorry, sir, we disagree.

  88. No, it’s not “we disagree,” as though there are two valid sides to the argument over the intrinsic psychological, psychiatric, and spiritual disorder of same-sex attraction. An accurate description is: “I’m right, and I have TRUTH on my side. You’re wrong, and you continue to purvey your lies and falsehoods, perverting and falsifying the eternal and unchanging truths which God gave to man in the Catholic faith.”

  89. No “pretentions of theological expertise” on my part. Simply using some of my retirement time to learn more about the Christian faith and the Catholic tradition within it. Would that you demonstrate the same.

  90. OK, you are on the wrong side.

    Catholicism is not a “faith”. The faith in this instance is Christianity, you know, the one named after its namesake, Christ. Our particular faith *tradition* is Catholicism, you know, the one associated primarily with the Vatican in the Vatican city-state surrounded by Rome, Italy.

    I “walked away” (so to speak) from the Church of Rome 12 years ago this coming December 31st. I could no longer stomach a pope hell-bent on undermining the progressive spirit of Vatican II by trying to minimize its impact — just as his predecessor, “Saint” JPII tried to do. I support interfaith efforts to build good will around the world. I strongly advocate ecumenism and condemn language like yours presenting the Church of Rome as “the one true Faith” (what a crock in light of the fact that “church” and “faith” are different realities). Catholics are rejecting the “Triumphalism” put forth by folks like you, sir. They are rejecting Latin in the liturgy, the current transliteration used in the worship of the assembly, and the idea that the ordained somehow are “ontologically superior” to the laity. Thank God.

    I suggest you take a brisk walk, health permitting, to try to work off your obvious anger at change taking place in the Church of Rome. Perhaps someday I can have reason to return to a Catholic (genuine) communion of local churches inspired by Vatican II. Heck, I might even shake hands with you during the Novus Ordo liturgy!

  91. I put much of the blame for the dramatic drop in Catholic church attendance squarely on the shoulders of JPII and B16 who applied a minimalist interpretation to Vatican II. They refused the insight of John XXIII who acknowledged the importance of attending to “the signs of the times” to make the church relevant to future generations. If the conciliar fathers went further than Good Pope John might have foreseen, the (great) majority did so because they enunciated Gospel-based truths, not the condemnations/anathemas of past church councils.

  92. We have reached somewhat different conclusions.

    You appear to have rejected the Catholic tradition, for one example.

  93. Au contraire, I have embraced the Catholic tradition and rejected the orthotoxy of Catholic Triumpalism.

  94. Not at all.

    Silly assertion of yours that it was a silly assertion of mine.

  95. The truth will out, as they say. Thanks for the link. Rome, I suspect, has effectively lost the Church in Ireland. The “orthodox/traditionalist” culture is toxic in the extreme. It’s important to forgive, but it’s equally important never to forget. Hierarchs are the least competent to fix the credibility problem. The laity need to address clericalism — both of the lay as well as of the ordained kind — and try to implement needed ecclesial renewal, the best chance of true reform and the main theme of Vatican II, by the way. The hierarchs have too much to lose in renewal, much less with simple so-called “reforms”. I can’t help but sometimes wonder if Jesus looks at Catholicism and concludes, To hell with it. Major overhaul including doctrine on ministerial orders is required. Otherwise, it’s eventually back to samo-samo when the dust eventually settles.


    THIS is truth. Your “doctrine of universal salvation” (from the theology of the one-man “Joseph Jaglowicz Protestant Church”) is pure falsehood.

    And I suspect that you deliberately mis-read my comment above. YOU are on the wrong side of the argument on the psychological, psychiatric, physical, and spiritual disorder that is same-sex attraction – just as YOU are on the wrong side of every single discussion regarding the one and only Church established by God on the face of this earth, namely, the Catholic Church.

    Your reply, aside from a pack of lies, reeks of the same condescending, smug, sneering, arrogant narcissism as your whole comment history. In short, it reeks of the deadly sin of PRIDE.

    I suggest that YOU take a good, long walk to try to work off your obvious anger with God and with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church which He established here on earth – namely, the Catholic Church – because neither God nor Holy Mother Church dances to your tune (nor should they). Meditation on the following passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church would profit you greatly – particularly if it brings you to the confessional, after which, with a firm purpose of amendment of your life, you spend the rest of your days preaching, teaching, and defending all of the eternal and unchanging truths of Holy Mother Church, rather than denying, perverting, and falsifying them (and sneering at those who DO preach, teach, and defend them, and who rebut and refute your many lies and falsehoods).


    1830 The moral life of Christians is sustained by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. These are permanent dispositions which make man docile in following the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

    1831 The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord. They belong in their fullness to Christ, Son of David. They complete and perfect the virtues of those who receive them. They make the faithful docile in readily obeying divine inspirations.

    (Let your good spirit lead me on a level path.110

    (For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God . . . If children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ.)

    1832 The fruits of the Spirit are perfections that the Holy Spirit forms in us as the first fruits of eternal glory. The tradition of the Church lists twelve of them: “charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity.”

  97. The universal salvation doctrine, which has never been condemned by the Church of Rome, is fully consistent with the “good news (of our salvation)”, i.e., the Gospel. It is not to be confused with the doctrine of apokatastasis, which, so far as I know, has not been embraced by the church.

    We disagree on homosexuality. Mainstream science is on my side, not yours.

    RE: my so-called “PRIDE”, a false accusation on your part. Shame on you, sir.

    I haven’t been to confession in roughly 12 years. The sacrament needs a complete overhaul, a step that can be taken by the Vatican. (If you don’t agree, I suggest you study the history of this sacrament.) The current “form” of this sacrament props up clericalism.

    I’ve no problems with your quote from the CCC. If your comments/behavior on this thread are any indication, it would appear you do!!!

    Go for a walk.

  98. I see that you are still in need of several stiff doses of TRUTH, to counteract the lie-filled, meretricious, heterodox fantasy world which you have constructed for yourself. To that end:

    It’s bad enough that you lie to yourself about your religious heterodoxies and heresies, but it’s far worse when you double down over and over and over on-line, in an effort to tear down the faith of those Catholics who are poorly formed in the faith. Those are the tactics of the Lefebvrites and their sycophants and supporters. Shame on YOU.

    Whether “mainstream science” is on the WRONG side of the argument over the psychological, psychiatric, physical, and spiritual disorder that is same-sex attraction depends on how you define “mainstream science.” I assume that your narrow and inaccurate definition of said term excludes such quite truly and legitimately mainstream scientists as Dr. Paul McHugh, Dr. Michelle Cretella, and the American College of Pediatricians – and that it includes the craven cowards of the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other groups and individuals who have, over the course of the past 45 years, caved in to purely political pressure from the pro-sodomite lobby within and without their organizations and have voted to remove same-sex attraction from their diagnostic and statistical manuals of psychiatric and psychological disorders, for reasons which had then and have today absolutely NO basis in science, natural law, right reason, or common sense. (This is an “inconvient truth” which the Lavender Outfit seeks today to cover up, to deny, and to lie about, after decades of openly boasting about the political pressure applied and the complete lack of any scientific basis for said change. Worse yet, said organizations have gone further in their push to present the big lie that these perversions of human sexuality (given to us by God) and the disordered, destructive, depraved, demeaning, degrading, debasing, and dehumanizing lifestyles which are part and parcel of acting out sexually on these perversions are somehow “normal.” And now they’re pushing quietly to “normalize” pedophilia and ephebophilia within those organizations, couching such depraved behavior with the term “intergenerational relationships.”) Definitely NOT the people whom you should want on your side of any argument – or cite, particularly since they’re wrong, too…..

    To accept your definition of the heretical “doctrine of universal salvation” would require denial of the Sacrament of Penance as well as denial of the eternal and unchanging truths of the one true Church established by God on earth (namely, the Catholic Church) on the four last things (death, judgment, Heaven, and Hell), particularly the Church’s teachings on judgment and on Hell. I may not and will not jump off that cliff, as you have apparently done – nor should anybody else do so.

    The only changes which need to be made in the Sacrament of Penance within the Church are (a) the elimination of face-to-face confession, (b) encouragement to all Catholic parishes to offer the Sacrament of Penance every day, and (c) encouraging priests not to shy away from chewing out those sinners who need chewing out, both those who are truly penitent and those whose confession shows gross impenitence. None of this would be satisfactory to YOU, of course, because the problem would still remain that God does not dance to your tune and enable you in your sins. It would require some true humility and penitence on your part to make a good Confession – and would first require that you rid yourself of every last vestige of the deadly sin of PRIDE which you put on display daily in your comments. (That was not a “false accusation” or a lie; it is the TRUTH, if you would but open your eyes to see and your mind to contemplate. Shame on YOU for falsely calling me a liar.)

    Sit down today, examine your conscience, go to confession – and pray the Rosary and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy.

    From Abraham Lincoln’s 27 February 1860 address at Cooper Union in New York City come the following still timely, relevant, and appropriate words:

    A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them.

    Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation.

    The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

    These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly – done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated – we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas’ new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

    I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, “Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery.” But we do let them alone – have never disturbed them – so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying.

    I am also aware they have not, as yet, in terms, demanded the overthrow of our Free-State Constitutions. Yet those Constitutions declare the wrong of slavery, with more solemn emphasis, than do all other sayings against it; and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrow of these Constitutions will be demanded, and nothing be left to resist the demand. It is nothing to the contrary, that they do not demand the whole of this just now. Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation. Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal right, and a social blessing.

    Nor can we justifiably withhold this, on any ground save our conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it, are themselves wrong, and should be silenced, and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality – its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension – its enlargement. All they ask, we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask, they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, as being right; but, thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this?

    Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored – contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man – such as a policy of “don’t care” on a question about which all true men do care – such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance – such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.

    Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.

  99. The only “action on the crisis” which His Royal Highness, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago, wants is either (a) INaction or (b) outright approval and enabling of the sodomites in the clergy and the hierarchy (which includes all too many priests and male religious and female religious in the Archdiocese of Chicago), as well as approval of those homosexualists in the clergy, hierarchy, religious orders, and laity who prop them up.

    It was 1961 when the Catholic Church issued an order to all of its bishops to NOT ordain any same-sex-attraction-afflicted man who presented himself as a candidate for the priesthood – which indicates that Holy Mother Church knew there was a serious enough problem even then. Had the world’s Catholic bishops acted properly then (particularly in the U.S.), in purging their seminaries of every vestige of same-sex attraction, not only in candidates for the priesthood, but also in their formation faculties and their academic faculties, would we be at this crisis stage? Probably not.

  100. Please be specific about which “Catholic” journals have published your articles.

    As you well know, there are authentically Catholic journals and sites (e.g., Crisis Magazine, Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register (particularly since they got rid of Mr. Shea and Ms. Fisher), The Catholic Thing, First Things, LifeSite News) – and then there are heterodox Catholic journals, which pervert and falsify the Catholic faith on a regular basis (e.g., National “Catholic” Reporter, America Magazine, Commonweal, Crux Online, Chicago Catholic).

  101. At least he didn’t say “SAINT John Paul II, my ass” – as he has in past comments, and, in the process, not only libeling a true Saint of Holy Mother Church, but also calling down judgment of myself.

    He reminds me of the character played by William Bendix in the 1961 British film “Johnny Nobody.”

  102. How about a Joseph Ratzinger quote from the 1986 book-length interview “The Ratzinger Report” – or, for that matter, from one of the books which he wrote and published during his Papacy – to support your points, rather than an out-of-context quote from 52 years ago?

    Whoops!!!!! There ARE no such quotes from Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI to support your points. Historical fact and magisterial truth trump Church of Joseph Jaglowicz false doctrine when the two are in conflict. TRUTH trumps, rebuts, and refutes lies every time.

    This is the guiding principle of the “Church of Joe”:

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

    Those words were spoken 85 years ago – by Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels.

  103. Sure, the Catholic Church has disgruntled bishops:

    Danneels, De Kesel, Coccopalmerio, Kasper, Maradiaga, Marx, Wuerl, McCarrick, Cupich, Joseph Tobin, McElroy, McGrath, O’Malley, Gregory, Lucas, Hanefeldt, Farrell, Wester, Stowe, Listecki, Kicanas, Rodriguez, Garcia-Sillier, Barber, Wenski, Baldacchino, Delgado, Noonan, Parkes, Lynch, Gaydos, Braxton, Bartosic, Hicks, Casey, Conlon, Thompson, Biegler, Aymond, Cheri, O’Connell, Bootkoski, Malone, Jenik, Barres, Steib, Bransfield, Callahan.

    What do all of those U.S. bishops have in common? They’re all directly or indirectly “Bernardin’s boys,” carrying on the discredited and disgraceful legacy of Joseph Louis Bernardin (a legacy which should be passed over in silence, not celebrated) in their many perversions and falsifications of the eternal and unchanging truths which God gave to us in the Catholic Church – the only church which God established here on earth.

  104. The problem with any report issued by A.W. Richard Sipe is the bias of the author. He was a heterodox ex-Benedictine monk who, quite consistently over the years, took public swipes at Church teachings on clerical celibacy (in particular in the poorly-written book SEX, PRIESTS, AND SECRET CODES, of which he was one of three co-authors).

  105. You obviously blindly follow t he bishops, so I will not bother to reply except that First Things is one of the journals in which I have appeared.

  106. Ooooohhh; I was tattled on today by alwayspuzzled in my response to NavyLady on the American Catholic article.
    What a bunch of whiners….
    To his credit, mr silk defended me.

  107. Yes, I read it.

    My impression is that he defended it because he did not care for the way alwayspuzzled tattled.

    The same comment to someone else might have gotten nicked.

    He’s doing arbitrary and capricious quite well.

  108. The way I see it, there are only 2 or 3 regulars that defend the faith on any given day. Without us, it would be the homosexual athiest hour.

  109. Ha – now puzzled is going after silk for defending me. I so badly want to throw in a one-liner; but that’ll get me rung up for sure.

  110. Canon 989 reads: “After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is ob-liged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year.”

    I have been an unaffiliated Catholic, not a “Roman Catholic”, for nearly 12 years. Why confess my sins to a so-called “priest” when this ministerial title is contrary to the Gospel and is quite likely invalid sacramentally? Why confess my “grave” sins when doing so supports continued clericalism in the Church of Rome? I want no part of it. The Church needs to revamp this sacrament. I’ve suggested a weekly short community service, presided by the bishop or presbyter (not “priest”), at which members of the assembly are given opportunity to reflect silently on their sins and shortcomings and verbally thank God for God’s unconditional love, mercy, and forgiveness. There would be no auricular confession at all before or after the rite of reconciliation. This sacramental revamp would also free bishops and presbyters from being instructed by the State to reveal anything told by a penitent since there’d be no “confession” of sins.

  111. There you go again — expressing your anger and frustration with progressive Catholicism. Oh, well…so be it. Hope it makes you feel better.

    Cardinal Bernardin was a good servant of God. Wikipedia has an entry on him at

    So “God” gave us the “Catholic Church – the only church which God established here on earth”???
    By “God”, are you referring to Father, Son, or Holy Spirit? We know the Son, Jesus, established no church during or after his Resurrection. He instructed the Twelve merely to go forth, preach, and baptize. No institutional apparatus. No ministerial ordination. No so-called “apostolic succession” (what a self-serving bunch of crap). The “churches” (note the plural, by the way) set up local communities of believers for social and other support after they no longer enjoyed the varied community services of the synagogues. There is no evidence the Twelve served as heads/bishops of local churches or ordained anyone to serve in this capacity. At the Council of Trent (if you weren’t already aware), there were not a few bishops who believed their “priesthood” was no different from that of the men under their ecclesiastical jurisdiction (there goes the so-called “validity” doctrine out the window). Unless we know, for example, that your pastor was “validly” ordained, we must presume — and not just assume — he was not “validly” ordained! We’d need to know his “line of ordination” to try to learn what the relevant bishops in history thought of their “priesthoods”. Not to worry, though. Jesus never claimed any kind of “priesthood”, ordained or otherwise (if you disagree, please cite gospel, chapter, and verse). His followers (the lone exception being HEBREWS, which is typology that proves nothing) likewise regarded Jesus as a “prophet”, not a “priest”.

  112. I quote from Joseph Ratzinger’s book, THEOLOGICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, which was published by Paulist Press/Deus Books in 1966. The quote, a self-standing part of a larger quote, appears on page 16 if you wish to check it out. It is not “out of context” unless Ratzinger has changed his mind since publication, the possibility of which, come to think of it, cannot be ignored.

    As for your allegation of my lying, shame on you. On the other hand, we know ecclesiastical dignitaries around the world were lying on many things — and not just about clerical sexual abuse of children and vulnerable adults, episcopal malfeasance, etc. DON’T WE, SIR??? (ANSWER: YES.) And such ecclesiastical lying has occurred for centuries. Regarding sexual abuse alone, see SEX, PRIESTS, AND SECRET CODES: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S 2,000 YEAR PAPER TRAIL OF SEXUAL ABUSE by Richard Sipe and Thomas Doyle.

    The Church of Rome is in drastic need of *renewal*, i.e., “to make new again”, the main theme of Vatican II. “The truth will out” — and it’s coming out in spades, thanks to historians, theologians, canonists, and other professionals. Praise be God.

  113. I’ll get back to you so I have time to read your links and reply.

  114. You wrote, “I want no part of it.”

    I think the thousands of posts you’ve made on conservative Catholic websites reveals the untruth of that statement. “I can’t get enough of it,” or “I can’t quit you,” like the addict says to his drug, is closer to the truth in your case.

  115. My comment, “I want no part of it,” refers to my lack of interest in going to traditional confession again. Otherwise, I am very much interested in what is occurring in the Church of Rome today and, sadly, what was occurring in the church during the reactionary and authoritarian papacies of JPII and B16. As for my comments appearing on conservative Catholic websites, the moderators have always removed them and/or blocked future participation on my part. So be it. It’s good to see opposing Catholic viewpoints on this thread since it gives me the opportunity to share what I’ve learned with others, Catholic or otherwise. Censorship of ideas, of course, betrays the weakness of conservative/reactionary/fundamentalist Catholic moderators who cannot defend their own beliefs and opinions in response to what I present.

    You are engaging in *eisegesis*, i.e., “an interpretation…that expresses the interpreter’s own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text” (per

    I encourage you to continue following me since I offer information that Roman Catholic officialdom does not want “the sheep” to know. “The truth will out.”

  116. Thanks but I don’t open links from people I don’t know.

  117. I hear you Dominic. The only difficulty lies in the fact that this is happening in all of the churches – unfortunately. I wonder if the RCC sees more of it because they have more priests; I don’t know.

  118. I respond by paragraph:

    + Your first paragraph is typical reactionary/fundamentalist Catholic b.s., the kind of language that serves no useful purpose but might raise your blood pressure.

    + Your first link repeats much of the misinformed assertions and charges made by self-described “orthodox” writers about homosexuality vis-a-vis Catholic ordained ministry and perversion. Fortunately, increasing numbers of Catholics reject such bigotry.

    Your second link essentially accuses progressive church leaders and laity of endangering the Church of Rome by their willful disobedience to Jesus’ teaching. The writer is entitled to his opinion. Suffice to say, I think he’s wrong.

    Your third link is a letter from Bishop Morlino of the Madison, WI diocese about revelations of clerical sexual abuse. I’ve no problem with much of what he writes (allowing, of course, for his much more conservative — and reactionary — perspective and choice of language). Unfortunately, he repeats the typical “orthodox” language about homosexuality vis-a-vis the “priesthood”, to wit: “The Church’s teaching is clear that the homosexual inclination is not in itself sinful, but it is intrinsically disordered in a way that renders any man stably afflicted by it unfit to be a priest.” How inaccurate and thus untruthful. One can just as truthfully have Morlino write, “The Church’s teaching is clear that the heterosexual inclination is not in itself sinful, but it is intrinsically disordered in a way that renders any man stably afflicted by it unfit to be a priest [sic].” As a so-called “charism”, celibacy is a gift to comparatively few of the ordained and is not essential to serving the church in the presbyterate (the historically correct term, by the way). Since Morlino is a bishop, I should like him to reflect on sacred scripture’s requirements for episcopal ordination in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6. The Church of Rome needs married presbyters and bishops. (Would any woman be willing to marry Bishop Morlino? Good question.)

    + What I’ve shared on the internet is thoroughly orthodox and not at all heretical. The fact that self-described “traditionalist/orthodox” blog moderators will not permit me to comment on their sites reveals their inability to dispute what I present in terms of Catholic doctrine and church history. Censorship seldom if ever works in favor of the proverbial “gatekeepers” who have appointed themselves guardians of supposed “orthodoxy”. Their problem, not mine.

    + Dr. Paul McHugh, his accomplishments notwithstanding, is to discussions of homosexuality what the late Dr. Linus Pauling, two-time Nobel laureate, was to debate about the purported benefits of vitamin C. Mainstream science has discredited their claims. Per Wikipedia, the American College of Pediatricians “was founded in 2002…as a protest against the [American Academy of Pediatrics’] support for adoption by gay couples.” Wikipedia also states, “The American College of Pediatricians has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a ‘hate group’, and a ‘fringe group’ which closely collaborates with the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) with ‘a history of propagating damaging falsehoods about LGBT people, including linking homosexuality to pedophilia’. In response to an ACPeds brief, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote that ACPeds is a fringe group that has acted to promote ‘unscientific and harmful “reparative therapies” for LGBTQ students.'” The ACP has an estimated 500 members whereas the American Academy of Pediatrics, founded in 1930, has an estimated membership of 64,000. I’m unaware of mainstream (read: respected) organizations “pushing quietly to ‘normalize’ pedophilia and ephebophilia…, couching such depraved behavior with the term ‘intergenerational relationships.'” I doubt any such advocacy attempts by individual members would be accepted by the general public or by overall professional organizational memberships. Your remaining comments constitute “a prolonged outburst of bitter, outspoken denunciation” (the definition of ‘tirade’). You don’t advance your cause, and you undercut your attempt at argumentation with such ineffective behavior.

    + It is a historical fact the Church of Rome has never condemned the doctrine of universal salvation, which is fully consistent with the Gospel. Simply put, Jesus instructed his followers to initiate forgiveness without limit and without the sinner expressing “repentance” beforehand (only one passage on this topic mentions repentance). To quote CCC-125, “The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures ‘because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior’.” Just because ancient Christians decided to require severe penitential practices, etc. does not render moot the teaching of Jesus, whose name, I remind you, means “God saves”, not “God saves if…”. The Lord’s teaching comes first, not that of others who attached conditions to God’s love. When a sinner expresses repentance, it means that God took the first step to search for the sinner “lost” in the wilderness of sin and to reconcile him or her (cf. Luke 15’s three parables). Divine forgiveness, not human repentance, occurs first. This is the Gospel truth!

    + Regarding the “form” of reconciliation (the historically accurate name of this sacrament, by the way), it needs to be changed to reflect the Gospel, not your unorthodox preferences. I doubt any presbyter or bishop would feel sate “chewing out” a penitent. We don’t need fisticuffs, etc. in the church. Again, your anger and frustration is on display here. Not recommended.

    + Your link to “The Seven Deadly Sins: The Sin of Pride” does not pertain to educated and informed Catholics sharing what they’ve learned about ecclesiology (history, theology, etc.). I’ve enjoyed learning and sharing what I’ve learned. I encourage you to ask God to help you cultivate an open mind receptive to new information and insights. Remember that clericalism, the root of problems in the church today, is as much the fault of the laity as it is of the ordained. Knowledge is power, and it is very much needed by folks like you to participate in ecclesial renewal, the primary theme of Vatican II. The church is changing in the long haul for the better, but it’s a bumpy ride. Look to change with hope, not with FEAR.

    + I do not pray the rosary. In fact, this practice was developed in the Middle Ages precisely because Catholic worship had become the domain of the ordained, with the laity relegated to receiving communion either before or after mass, not during it. The rosary is not my form of piety; neither is the chaplet.

    + What are the key points in Lincoln’s speech that you think are relevant to our discussion about the Church of Rome?

  119. Don’t worry, Mr. Lombardo and you share the same viewpoint about homosexuality.

  120. “Cathedrals are emptying out around the world, rightfully so.”

    None more rightfully so than Holy Name Cathedral, in downtown Chicago, during the heterodox “Reign of Terror” presided over and led by His Royal Highness, Cardinal Blase Joseph Louis Bernardin Cupich, the Archbishop of Chicago.

    I do give thanks to God that, to date, I have lived through the tenures of three outstanding, loyal, faithful, orthodox, orthoprax Archbishops of Chicago – namely, Cardinal Albert Gregory Meyer, Cardinal John Patrick Cody, and Cardinal Francis Eugene George. I hope that, by God’s grace, I will live to see at least one more such Archbishop assigned to Chicago – but the possibility of that happening will not come into play until Pope Francis resigns or dies (whichever comes first) and a new, orthodox, orthoprax Pope is elected.

  121. Please rest assured that I do NOT provide links infected with viruses, nor, unlike our mutual foe (the arrogant, smug, snide, condescending, bullying, heterodox/heretical 70-year-old fallen-away Catholic who is afflicted with a bad case of logorrhea and whose posts are classic examples of Joseph Goebbels’ “Big Lie” technique), do I provide links to sites which pervert or falsify the Faith.

    The link above is actually to the website of the Madison Catholic Herald, the newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Madison (Wisconsin). The text is Bishop Robert C. Morlino’s letter to the faithful regarding the ongoing sexual abuse crisis in the Church, written on 18 August 2018. It’s well worth reading – full of TRUTH.

  122. Bishop love got Christ’s intent very accurately – just like it had come from the Lord’s mouth.

  123. But Jesus didn’t discuss sex between persons of the same sex, much less the more complex issue of sexual orientation. Jesus answered questions about traditionally accepted marriage, i.e., between persons of the opposite sex. People of his time didn’t know about sexual orientation including its scientific underpinnings. Bishop Morlino, contrary to your wishes, cannot cite any scriptural passage in support of his misinformed opinion that his viewpoint “come[s] from the Lord’s mouth.” It doesn’t.

  124. How do you know He didn’t discuss sex? His disciples taught against homosexuality, so somewhere they got that info. Think about these things Joe.
    He did say marriage was a man and a woman – countless times
    As I keep telling you, “sexual orientation” doesn’t exist – it is this culture’s means of “normalizing” immorality. Do I need to post the article on pedophilia for you again?
    It does come from the Lord’s mouth. Read Leviticus 18. Sheesh Joe!

  125. How do I know? Because the Gospel says nothing of the matter. Jesus gave us the central teaching to love God and neighbor. “The whole law and the prophets hang on these two commandments.”

    No, Jesus did not say “marriage was [between] a man and a woman” — not once or “countless times”. He answered the question of divorce and remarriage involving God’s original intent, namely, that such practice was not in accord with God’s intent and therefore constituted adultery. He was addressing the only kind of marriage of which his listeners were aware, namely, what we today refer to as “heterosexual” marriage. His listeners did not know what we know today about “sexual orientation”.

    Leviticus says nothing about homosexuality or sexual orientation. We also know that homosexuality is not the cause of pedophilia. I do not accept the view of a small minority of psychologists et al who agree with you and thereby prostitute their professional training and experience to religious belief.

    Sheesh, sandinwindsor!

  126. “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” John 21:25 – Also, Jesus’ disciples taught against the sin of homosexuality.
    When answering the question of divorce, He explained what marriage is – a man and a woman.
    You may also be interested in 1 Corinthians 7 – 1 Corinthians 7 – Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.” No exceptions. Nero was reputed for marrying a man during that time period.
    “Sexual orientation”, is this culture is a means to “normalize” immorality. I will post the link for you about Pedophilia being a “sexual orientation”.

    Leviticus speaks about homosexuality. In fact, it goes far enough to discuss how the land vomited out the Canaanites because of immorality, showing this was not a prohibition only for Israel and their guests. I suggest you read Chapter 18.
    The results or veracity of the studies completed by psychologists is not contingent on your opinion. I have said that homosexuals have a greater propensity toward pedophilia, but never have I indicated that it is a cause.
    All of that said, Christ died for homosexuals also. Should they follow His requirements – repent and believe – they will be saved from Hell, otherwise, if they follow the trash this culture spews, they will not see the Kingdom of Heaven.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-11English Standard Version (ESV)

    9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

  127. I respond by paragraph:

    + RE: John 21:25, you are engaging in a not-so-subtle form of eisegesis, i.e., interpreting this passage to try to make it mean what you want it to mean. If the subject of same-sex relations (sexual, romantic, etc.) was important to Jesus, he would have said something about it. He did not.

    RE: John 14:15, it applies to all of us who embrace the Christian faith. LGBTQ folks who embrace our faith do not violate Jesus’ teaching in their behavior if it involves mutual fidelity and genuine commitment.

    RE: 1 John 5:2, ditto.

    RE: Leviticus 18:22, it does not apply to what we know today as “sexual orientation” and more specifically here as “homosexuality”. Just as humankind has learned over the centuries about physical reality, so it has learned about the human being. We learn and apply what we learn in both broad areas of God’s creation.

    + RE: 1 Cor 7: Paul is discussing what his listeners knew about human sexual relations — in their day and place!!! With a comparatively few exceptions, for example, human society no longer allows or tolerates letting a sick child die “because it is God’s will”. Again, we learn and apply what we learn for the betterment of God’s children. Paul’s listeners, again, knew nothing of man’s ability to fly above the ground. We have this ability today. I’ve read your link to THE STAR article before (courtesy of you). Per the reporter, “Now, many experts see it as a biologically rooted condition that does not change — like a sexual orientation.” A former colleague is quoted as saying “that only 50 to 60 per cent of convicted sex offenders are pedophiles. The rest have sexually abused children for reasons beyond attraction — personality disorders, chaotic households or violent impulses.” It’s interesting the news reporter mentions “homosexuality” only once, to wit, “One of the concerns with labelling pedophilia a sexual orientation is the potential for parallels to be drawn with homosexuality.” In other words, neither the reporter nor the research scientists quoted are linking homosexuality with pedophilia or any other perversion. You are engaging — again — in eisegesis, i.e., reading into an article what is not there. You are also engaging in shameful behavior by trying your level best to associate homosexuality with sexual abuse of children. There is no such link per mainstream behavioral and other scientists. As for the possibility of pedophilia being “hard-wired”, so to speak, in the brain, society-at-large will not accept any such orientation as healthy and, therefore, tolerable.

    + Contrary again to your belief, Leviticus does not address homosexuality. You write, “I have said that homosexuals have a greater propensity toward pedophilia, but never have I indicated that it is a cause.” Whether a “greater propensity” or a “cause”, there is no scientifically demonstrated link between sexual orientation and perversion.

    + RE: 1 Cor 6:9-11, I quote from the USCCB commentary:

    ” [6:9–10] A catalogue of typical vices that exclude from the kingdom of God and that should be excluded from God’s church. Such lists (cf. 1 Cor 5:10) reflect the common moral sensibility of the New Testament period.

    “[6:9] The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the ‘cupbearer of the gods,’ whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Rom 1:26–27; 1 Tm 1:10.”

    Regrettably, the USCCB commentary uses the phrase “homosexual practices” in this explanation. An accurate phrase would have been “same-sex practices” to specify anal intercourse (and fellatio?), both of which are likewise engaged in by *heterosexual* couples, both married and unmarried. History can help us here: In Roman slave society, a master or other superior figure engaged in anal sex to demonstrate *control* over a male slave. The USCCB explanation at least strongly hints at such behavior being religiously oriented.

  128. get back to me when you can maintain your opinion with scripture

  129. Get back to me whenever you wish. Your doing so gives me the opportunity to correct your narrow-minded interpretation of sacred scripture.

  130. You try to justify your points with the opinions of men. I gave you scripture. When you can reply with scripture, we can talk – pretty simple.

    Colossians 2:8English Standard Version (ESV)
    8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-11English Standard Version (ESV)

    9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

  131. “I gave you scripture.”

    Yes, as misinterpreted by you with respect to the discussion at hand.

  132. They’ve *been* teaching it for centuries, and that’s the problem: They still teach on this subject as though it were two thousand years ago. At least they eventually condemned slavery, albeit nearly two thousand years after Jesus approved the “beating” or “severe beating” of disobedient slaves!!!

  133. You cannot change the truth, Joe. It does not change

  134. Truth (lower case) does not change, but our understanding of it can grow. Slavery comes to mind.

  135. Oops —

    So Mr. Sipe “took public swipes at Church [of Rome] teachings on clerical celibacy [in] SEX, PRIESTS, AND SECRET CODES”?

    I have his book, and his “swipes” are amply documented regarding sinful hierarchical behavior over the centuries. Rome brought on the historically grounded moral denunciations.

    The wrongdoers are the ecclesiastics, not the critics.

  136. “At least [Jaglowicz] didn’t say ‘SAINT John Paul II, my ass’ – as he has in past comments, and, in the process, not only libeling a true Saint of Holy Mother Church,…”

    “Saint”, my rear end.

  137. Understanding of truth can contradict itself while truth itself, as you’ve noted, cannot contradict itself.

Leave a Comment