News

Vatican defrocks former US Cardinal McCarrick over sex abuse

FILE - In this Feb. 13, 2013 file photo, Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick poses during an interview with the Associated Press, in Rome. On Saturday, Feb. 16, 2019 the Vatican announced Pope Francis defrocked former U.S. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick after Vatican officials found him guilty of soliciting for sex while hearing Confession. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini, file)

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis has defrocked former U.S. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick after Vatican officials found him guilty of soliciting for sex while hearing confession and sexual crimes against minors and adults, the Holy See said Saturday (Feb. 16).

McCarrick, 88, is the highest-ranking churchman to be laicized, as the process is called. It means he can no longer celebrate Mass or other sacraments, wear clerical vestments or be addressed by any religious title.

The scandal swirling around him was particularly damning to the church’s reputation in the eyes of the faithful because it apparently was an open secret that he slept with adult seminarians. Francis removed McCarrick as a cardinal in July after a U.S. church investigation determined that an allegation he fondled a teenage altar boy in the 1970s was credible.

The punishment for the once-powerful prelate, who had served as the archbishop of Washington and had been an influential fundraiser for the church, was announced five days before Francis is set to lead an extraordinary gathering of bishops from around the world to help the church grapple with the crisis of sex abuse by clergy and systematic cover-ups by church hierarchy. The decades-long scandals have shaken the faith of many Catholics and threatened Francis’ papacy.

The Vatican’s press office said that on Jan. 11, the Holy See’s doctrinal watchdog office, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, had found McCarrick guilty of “solicitation in the sacrament of confession, and sins against the Sixth Commandment with minors and adults, with the aggravating factor of the abuse of power.” The commandment forbids adultery.

The officials “imposed on him the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state.”

McCarrick, when he was ordained a priest in his native New York City in 1958, took a vow of celibacy, in accordance with church rules on priests.

The pope “has recognized the definitive nature of this decision made in accordance with (church) law, rendering it as ‘res iudicata,'” the Vatican said, using the Latin phrase for admitting no further recourse.

“Today I am happy that the pope believed me,” said one of McCarrick’s chief accusers, James Grein.

In a statement issued through his lawyer, Grein also expressed hope that McCarrick “will no longer be able to use the power of Jesus’ church to manipulate families and sexually abuse children.”

Grein had testified to church officials that, among other abuses, McCarrick had repeatedly groped him during confession.

Saying it’s “time for us to cleanse the church,” Grein said pressure needs to be put on state attorney generals and senators to change the statute of limitations. “Hundreds of priests, bishops and cardinals are hiding behind man-made law,” he said.

McCarrick moved from his Washington retirement home to a Kansas religious residence after Francis ordered him to live in penance and prayer while the investigation continued.

McCarrick’s civil lawyer, Barry Coburn, told The AP that for the time being his client had no comment. Coburn also declined to say if McCarrick was still residing at the Kansas friary.

McCarrick had appealed his penalty, but the doctrinal officials earlier this week rejected that, and he was notified of the decision on Friday, the Vatican announcement said.

The Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., where McCarrick was posted at the pinnacle of his clerical career, from 2001-2006, said in a statement it hoped that the Vatican decision “serves to help the healing process for survivors of abuse, as well as those who have experienced disappointment or disillusionment because of what former Archbishop McCarrick has done.”

Complaints were also made about McCarrick’s conduct in the New Jersey dioceses of Newark and Metuchen, where he previously served.

It marks a remarkable downfall for the globe-trotting powerbroker and influential church fundraiser who mingled with presidents and popes but preferred to be called “Uncle Ted” by the young men he courted.

The Vatican summit, running Feb. 21-24, draws church leaders from around the world to talk about preventing abuse. It was called in part to respond to the McCarrick scandal as well as to the explosion of the abuse crisis in Chile and its escalation in the United States last year.

Despite the apparent common knowledge in church circles of his sexual behavior, McCarrick rose to the heights of church power. He even acted as the spokesman for U.S. bishops when they enacted a “zero tolerance” policy against sexually abusive priests in 2002.

That perceived hypocrisy, coupled with allegations in the Pennsylvania grand jury report detailing decades of abuse and cover-up in six dioceses, outraged many among the rank-and-file faithful who had trusted church leaders to reform how they handled sex abuse after 2002.

The allegation regarding the altar boy was the first known to involve a minor — a far more serious offense than sleeping with adult seminarians.

Francis himself became implicated in the decade-long McCarrick cover-up after a former Vatican ambassador to the U.S. accused the pope of rehabilitating the cardinal from sanctions imposed by Pope Benedict XVI despite being told of his penchant for young men.

Francis hasn’t responded to the claims. But he has ordered a limited Vatican investigation. The Vatican has acknowledged the outcome may produce evidence that mistakes were made, but said Francis would “follow the path of truth, wherever it may lead.”

Vatican watchers have compared the McCarrick cover-up scandal to that of the Rev. Marcial Maciel, perhaps the 20th-century Catholic Church’s most notorious pedophile. Maciel’s sex crimes against children were ignored for decades by a Vatican impressed by his ability to bring in donations and vocations. Among Maciel’s staunchest admirers was Pope John Paul II, who later became a saint.

Like Maciel, McCarrick was a powerful and popular prelate who funneled millions in donations to the Vatican. He apparently got a calculated pass for what many in the church hierarchy would have either discounted as ideological-fueled rumor or brushed off as a mere “moral lapse” in sleeping with adult men.

About the author

Nicole Winfield

About the author

Frances D'Emilio

201 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • One wonders what took Pope Francis so long to perform this long-overdue action? Perhaps the new bombshell exposé about to be published this week, “In the closet of the Vatican?”

  • The Vatican is throwing an 88 year old bone to the homophobes in the Church who have deluded themselves into believing that their medieval bigotry is a gift from God.

  • Because this concept of God allows it to happen so frequently and mostly without discovery. These Priests do this over and over again while preaching that any sex outside of marriage is an abomination.

  • “The allegation regarding the altar boy was the first known to involve a minor — a far more serious offense than sleeping with adult seminarians.”

    What a coincidence- not just a minor, but a young man,although Ted’s depredations against adults, equally serious, have been common knowledge for decades. It’s almost as if there is a conspiracy to say “teh Geyz is pedophiles, they is indeed! don’t look at the church!”

    Agnus ecclesia, qui Tollis peccata sacerdotum, Dona nobis piaculum.

    And before The Usual Suspects do their Great Leap Forward to decry the corruption of the church by The Horrible Homosexuals, let me pre-empt your petty viciousness by agreeing with you, more or less. Well, more less than more. Men carefully corrupted by the church so that Self hatred and deflective secrecy become their Modus Operandi (hurray!!! more Latin!!!), pretty much run the church, have have done so for centuries, using it as their own private hunting preserve, according to a new book. What a monument to hypocrisy!!! What monuments to self hatred, deception, lies, moral corruption, lack of empathy, and a clear indication that they don’t believe, and never have, any of the scheiss they have been slinging for all of those centuries!!!

    For the pedophiles, rather than getting help dealing with their issues, they chose to hide out in the church, preferring to see children molested than any much deserved scandal tainting their image of themselves or their access to children. For the homosexual hating homosexuals, Rather than living their lives openly, authentically, and peacefully, they continue to attack people like me, who has never molested anyone, for doing what they are too frightened, too hypocritical, and too self serving to do. People like ME are the danger, they project mightily— projectile moral diarrhea you might call it.

    And don’t even get me started on Enabler, errr, ummm, Cardinal Pell, who has THIS to say in 2012: “The Biblical story of Adam and Eve is a myth constructed for religious purposes.” in short, the cardinal has been preaching what he knows to be a lie for his entire life. No Adam and eve? Then no original sin, no need for Jesus, and no need for the church. Pell is out of a job, just like Mccarrick.

    No, people like me are most assuredly not the problem. Faithless priests, pedophile priests, hypocritical priests, power loving priests, wealth loving priests, lying priests, dishonest priests, sexually disturbed Priests, self hating priests are your problem, and have been for centuries.

    Agnus sacerdotum, qui tollis peccata ecclesia, Dona nobis piaculum.

    I would suggest you burn the whole thing down, but then, I would be accused of hating your church, hating religion, hating god, or hating you, though I’m not sure about the difference in the latter two cases.

    There is just no winning in this.

  • RC may have an argument against moralistic therapeutic deism (MTD), whose god is something like a combination Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist However, from Genesis to Revelation, including the Book of Job, the Biblical perspective is that evil is going to exist until the very end, even, perhaps especially, among the priestly class. See, for example, 1 Samuel and the parts of the gospels. Jon D. Levenson’s book Creation and the Persistence of Evil is a thoughtful and scholarly Jewish perspective on his subject with the Holocaust as a modern backdrop. The Calvinist perspective on human evil has often been termed the doctrine of total depravity.

  • “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” declares the LORD. Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: “You have scattered my flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the LORD. ….. “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’ (Jeremiah 23)

    Without the real garment of righteousness, they are just dirty goats who work to impress. All religions are same without the life of Jesus, inside or outside of Christendom.

  • “Agnus ecclesia, qui Tollis peccata sacerdotum, Dona nobis piaculum.”

    If you’re going to try to spice up your anti-Catholic diatribes with a bit of Latin, you might want to actually learn a little Latin.

    “Agnus ecclesia”, which I assume you meant to mean “Lamb of the church”, translates as “Lamb assembly”. You’ve got two nouns there.

    “Dona nobis piaculum” translates as “give us appeasement.”

    A “piaculum” is a sacrifice for appeasing a deity, usually an animal sacrifice. In your context it doesn’t make sense, although if you were intimating McCarrick was an animal you’d probably get little disagreement.

    “What monuments to self hatred, deception, lies, moral corruption, lack of empathy, and a clear indication that they don’t believe, and never have, any of the scheiss they have been slinging for all of those centuries!!!”

    sort of puts a wrap on your pretensions that you’re not an anti-Catholic git.

    I’ve bookmarked the post for future use.

    “People like ME are the danger, they project mightily— projectile moral diarrhea you might call it.”

    Unless you’re a Catholic, a priest, and dealing with children it has nothing at all to do with you.

    This particular homosexual was a Catholic, a priest and then bishop, and dealt with children.

    He entered the seminary under false pretenses, became ordained knowing he was violating Canon Law doing so, facilitated the entry of other homosexuals into the Church, undercut the discipline of people who he knew were guilty, undercut the efforts to control abuse, and is the equivalent of Vidkun Quisling and Judas Iscariot.

    So, unless you’re alleging YOU are like Vidkun Quisling and Judas Iscariot, and if you tell me you are I will believe you, the entire matter has literally nothing to do with you.

  • Hmm. Your two questions are interesting — and the second question never occurred to me, till you brought it up now.

    This is a post I might have expected from a conservative or “anti-gay” person. But no complaints from me; carry on.

  • The Catholic Church was responsible for the systematic covering up of the rape and torture of children and nuns from Ireland to Australia. One of the men responsible for this, Cardinal Bernard Law, remained Archpriest of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome. A disgraceful episode in the church’s history (that is far from clean anyway).

  • An important decision was made – to actually hold McCarrick accountable. I do wonder what would have happened if there had been no child sex abuse, but only the abuse of power in coercing seminarians/priests? We had the abuse of power issue with Cardinal O’Brien of Scotland, but I don’t think child sex abuse was involved. In O’Brien’s case the decision was he had to resign but he got to keep his title.

    Does it take child sex abuse for a cardinal/bishop to be defrocked, or is abuse of power for sex enough?

    I think McCarrisk cannot be held accountable under civil law for the child sex abuse because of statute of limitations – does anyone know? But, I hope he does continue to keep a very low profile. Perhaps the monastery where he has been staying will allow him to stay – he gets food, clothing, shelter, and health care. More, I wonder if his pension should be withheld or greatly reduced to provide support/help for those he abused?

  • No, the Catholic Church’s Canon Law prohibited and prohibits the rape and torture of children and nuns, and the systematic rape and torture of children and nuns.

    Those who betrayed the Church and the faithful should be removed (and McCarrick is the first), punished, and steps taken to prevent the rise of additional Quislings.

  • The fact remains, whatever Canon Law says, members of the Catholic Church at the highest levels systematically covered it up and enabled it for decades. And even when this was exposed, many of those who consciously created and contributed to the cover up continued and continue to hold their positions in the church without consequence.

  • “Cardinal Pell (said) in 2012: ‘The Biblical story of Adam and Eve is a myth constructed for religious purposes.’ in short, the cardinal has been preaching what he knows to be a lie for his entire life. No Adam and eve? Then no original sin, no need for Jesus, and no need for the church.”

    Good assessment Ben, thanks. THAT gig, is why the theory of evolution (which teaches that there never was any original first-human-pair-on-Earth, no “Adam & Eve”), is outright incompatible with Christianity.

    Sure, this is just a side note. But long before the Catholics and Methodists allowed themselves to get cornered by Homosexuality, they first allowed themselves to get cornered by Darwinism. The slopes do get slippery, folks.

  • There is a difference between very bad individuals acting independently and “systematic covering up of the rape and torture” by “the Catholic Church”. The first happened, the second is imaginary.

    We see an example of how Satan turns even the high and mighty with Judas Iscariot.

    The fact the good and equal both exist in this life together, even within the churches, is only shock to those who were not paying any attention.

  • To be precise, a Catholic is not compelled to believe that the story of Adam and Eve is a literal account.

    A Catholic IS required to believe that there was an Adam and Eve.

    “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.” – Pope Pius XII, “Humani generis”, 1950

  • Can we conclude from the fact that the talking snake approached Eve rather than Adam that the talking snake was hetero. So the talking snake was not part of the Gay Goliath?

  • To gain some idea of what an exposé Liebreich “Fallen Order” is, she basically translated existing documents from the Vatican Archives documenting the investigation of the Piarist Order and its suppression in 1646.

    In other words, real secret stuff …. not.

    The various Christian denominations have NEVER denied that sinners commingle with saints in the Church.

    In the New Testament Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve Apostles, recruited by Christ personally goes to the Dark Side.

    If you think this is interesting and unique, perhaps we should return to documenting the various abusive escapades in history of homosexuals.

  • Since the snake appears to have been your ancestor, ask one of the older folks in your family for the straight scoop.

  • CORRECTION: “The decades-long scandals have [NOT] shaken the faith of many Catholics”. Wishing it so by Ashiests, Eggnogshticks, ElleGeeBeeTease & Nones-sensicals, doesn’t make it so. Only faithlessness can shake faith. No pedophile or other sex-starved animal can ever take away faith. Only unbelief can do that. That’s why “the number of people who acknowledge no religious affiliation (known as religious nones) … is not necessarily the same as being atheist. … [For of] the proportion of Americans who call themseles ‘unaffiliated’ … [ONLY] 3% of the total population … call themselves atheists and [ONLY] 4% … identify as agnostic.”

    BOTTOMLINE: Catholicism is alive and well.

    Source: The Economist, May 16, 2018, “The elusive phenomenon of churches without God: When a group sings, talks and bonds like a religion but may not be one”.

  • Mark, Christ taught that all scripture is “Breathed out” by God – showing the truthfulness of the scripture. (2 Timothy 3:16)
    Also, Peter taught that scripture:
    2 Peter 1:20-21English Standard Version (ESV)
    20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
    So, I would need to disagree with you about Adam and Eve

  • Catholics, Orthodox, and several other Christians do not require belief in the literal accuracy of the Old Testament stories like Adam and Ever in the Garden.

    They also do not require a rejection of evolution but reject the notion that it was not directed by God.

    What they permit is a belief that there was an original human man and woman, that their condition was free of illness, death, and sin, and that through their first sin all that was lost.

    As stated in Romans 5:

    18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

    19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

    This is a middle position between something like the Episcopal Church, where you can be a bishop and teach the Bible is a bunch of myths and fairy tales, and something like Rose who wandered through here believing man and dinosaur walked the earth together.

    Btw, a Catholic is also free to take the story literally.

    It is theological truth conveyed that requires belief.

  • Adam was in Jesus’ genealogy:
    Luke 3 ESV
    38… the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

    1 Corinthians 15:45 English Standard Version (ESV)
    45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”;[a] the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

    1 Timothy 2:14 ESV
    And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

    Romans 5:14 ESV
    Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

    Jude 1:14 ESV
    It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,

    Adam was a real person. Paul spoke about his transgression. Jude taught about his children.
    Adam was a real person

  • Crafty finesse of English there, Nicole Winfield and Frances D’Emilio! – “The Rev. Marcial … Maciel’s sex crimes against children were ignored … by … Pope John Paul II, who later became a saint.”

  • “Adam was a real person”

    Was Adam’s son Cain also a real person? Was Cain’s wife also a real person? Was she his sister? Or was she perhaps a female Neanderthal that Cain found in the Land of Nod? And then Cain built a city in the Land of Nod populated by …? Some Neanderthals that were living in the Land of Nod, contemporary with Adam and Eve?

  • No, the second is documented fact, in multiple cases.

    It is also a fact that Mark Connelly (Bob Arnzen) is a prolific li​ar.

  • Pius XII’s instructions do seem very clear, don’t they? And there is always the Official Catechism.

    But Ben’s weapon isn’t aimed at Item #2. It’s aimed at Item #1. It’s aimed at the many many Catholics and Protestants (and even some Evangelicals) who accept the line, “Adam and Eve is a non-literal account”.

    Ben’s weapon, used by Monod, Bozarth, etc, is custom-built to pin down anybody who accepts the “Non-Literal Adam & Eve” line. For there’s NO chance in Hades, of ever deriving a Literal Fall from two non-literal humans, (especially a non-literal Adam & Eve whose very existence is publicly denied as part of science.) Yet both Catholic and non-Catholic Christians do require a Literal Fall, for Christ’s Atonement on the Cross doesn’t make any sense if the Fall never took place. A Literal Fall is clearly mentioned as actual history in Genesis and Romans.

    So Ben says, “To deny the historicity and literalness of Adam and Eve, is to automatically deny the historicity and literalness of the Fall and the Atonement, thus putting Jesus on the Unemployment Line.” He’s right.

  • “But Ben’s weapon isn’t aimed at Item #2. It’s aimed at Item #1. It’s aimed at the many Catholics and Protestants (and even some Evangelicals) who accept the line, ‘Adam and Eve is a Non-Literal account/’”

    Let’s start with what exactly Ben had in mind.

    Ben, who hates Christians (Christers, Christianists) because a majority of them stand in the way of what he wants (naked leapfrog on parity with marriage, Christian bakers forced by law to bake cakes with dildoes on them), periodically suggests that Christians can’t even get along together and in fact don’t even recognize each other as Christians.

    So I know immediately he is NOT looking for an exegetical discussion.

    Next, we know that the two first parents were not literally named “Adam” and “Eve”.

    “Adam” in the Old Testament the word is used both as a common and a proper noun, and in the former acceptation it has different meanings. Thus in Genesis 2:5, it is employed to signify a human being, man or woman; rarely, as in Genesis 2:22, it signifies man as opposed to woman, and, finally, it sometimes stands for mankind collectively, as in Genesis 1:26.

    “Eve” occurs only five times in the Bible. In Genesis 3:20, it is connected etymologically with the verb meaning “to live”: “And Adam called the name of his wife Eve [hawwah]: because she was the mother of all the living”. The Septuagint rendering in this passage is Zoe (=life, or life-giver), which is a translation; in two other passages (Genesis 4:1 and 25) the name is transliterated Eua. The Biblical data concerning Eve are confined almost exclusively to the second, third, and fourth chapters of Genesis.

    But the theological truth being communicated is that there were literally a first man, a first woman, with human souls, human minds, our first human forebears.

    So, perhaps we need to define “non-literal”.

    That is why Pius XII wrote what he wrote, since the entire Christian message rests on there being a first man and woman, destined for better than we have, sinning, damaging their progeny and the creation, and requiring a Savior to put things right.

    That is the literal Bible message, not that their names were “Adam” and “Eve”.

    So when Ben says, “To deny the historicity and literalness of Adam and Eve, is to unavoidably deny the historicity and literalness of the Fall and the Atonement, thus putting Jesus on the Unemployment Line.” he’s wrong.

    What he actually demonstrates is that Satan can quote Scriptures, but for his own purposes.

  • Since God’s Creation turned out to be a screwed-up mess, perhaps Christ was atoning for God’s screw-up.

  • A concept is an abstract idea. Murder is a physical act. Is slaughtering an animal for food to feed your family a sin? If you had to slaughter a human being because your starving family, would it be a sin. Would letting your family starve to death be a sin? It depends on your concept of what constitutes a sin. Some people believe the death penalty for some who has raped and murdered a child is a sin. I do not!

  • Is “alwayspuzzled” a real person?

    Or is “alwayspuzzled” simply a placemarker for a very angry bitter individual who is Permanently Offended that he/she/it is not the center of attention and that people would actually believe in a religion?

  • It’s like watching, hearing, filming a bunch of Lord of the Flies juvies having an addictive turn at pulling the life out of a crab limb by limb. So that’s William D. Lindsey’s favorite pastime. Sounds so familiar, that one. Disqus ID: “William D. Lindsey … I’m a theologian who writes about the interplay of belief and culture. My husband Steve (also a theologian) and I are approaching our 43rd year together.”

  • What makes the case of Maciel incomprehensible is that it carried on long after the media had started reporting on it, and that, in turn, only began decades after his antics had become well-known within Church circles. The Hartford Courant, for example, began covering his abuse of children and seminarians back in the mid ’90s. They ran a series of articles about the matter over the years. (This story was of interest to the Courant because Maciel’s order has, or had, its HQ and a seminary in Connecticut.) But they were hardly the only outlet that covered it. Yet, Maciel and his order repeatedly skated, in spite of this well-worn news. It took the Vatican a full year after the death of Maciel’s champion and defender, John Paul, for them finally to summon the courage to sanction him — and even that was mild. 

  • Re: “Catholicism is alive and well.” 

    Of course it is. It’s far too large and too powerful to be easily undermined. Still, it’s possible for something to remain alive, yet for there to be a deadly rot dwelling deep within it. Metaphorical example: In the forest across the road from where I grew up there was an immense oak tree. It was much bigger and taller than any around it, and it was impressive. But lightning struck it during a thunderstorm, one night, and in the morning when we went out to see it, it was gone. Shattered. A stump with some branches lying around it. Turns out it had actually been hollow, so there was nothing left after the lightning strike. 

    So go ahead and brag about how your Precious, Sacred, and Perfect Holy Church Established By The Almighty Jesus “is alive and well.” I’m sure it looks that way to you, and maybe to a lot of people. But at its heart, it’s a moral and intellectual sewer, run by a cadre of crooked old men whose ethics are little different than mafiosi and who’d happily sell out their own mothers in order to preserve what power and money they still have. 

    If it makes you happy to be part of that particular Church, then you obviously have that right. But it speaks volumes about your own character that you’d not only continue to be part of such an amoral cesspool, but would actually brag about its antics and how fantastic an organization it is. As they say, you are what you praise, and you’re praising an immoral and unethical organization. 

    The only thing that saddens me is that there’s not likely to be any kind of lightning strike to finally shatter the rotten facade which is the R.C. Church. It will simply continue rotting from within. It might take centuries for its moral and ethical failures to finally kill it, but someday it’ll happen. It certainly could be fixed, and that rot-from-within corrected and healed, but first, the Church’s followers (like yourself) need to stop praising how magnificent it is, quit sniveling about about horrible it is that all those insolent, profane non-believers and LGBT folks keep criticizing it, grow up for once, and take ownership of it, fercryinoutloud. Until they do so, they’re part of the rot and are only propagating it, rather than repairing it. 

  • Having sex is a physical act also. It is a moral act also. It is a sin to have sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. Its called either fornication or adultery.

  • Well, thank you.

    Now ask Bob/David/Utah/Mark whether he believes in a literal Adam and Eve. And then read tired Cato,ic’s insanely funny description, an attempt to please both you and Cardinal Pell.

    But Floyd dear, it isn’t a weapon I’m using. That would be you. I don’t need to attack your faith and cause disputes among the faithful. Y’all do that so well all by yourselves. I’m merely reporting.

  • Why would you ask that just now, JP – “Now will this man server prison time?” The article is clear on that: Theodore McCarrick was/is indeed, as you now put it, a “man server”.

  • My part-time job over the weekend is picking up Oxymoronic Litters strewn about Planet Disqus, Sector RNS. I’ll show you what I’ve got:

    OXYMORON 1: “For something to remain alive … there [has] to be a deadly rot dwelling deep within it.” PsiCo the Eggnogshtick, for example.

    OXYMORON 2: “There was nothing left after the lightning strike. … [The] immense oak tree … was gone. … In the morning … we went out to see … nothing … [which, by our definition, was a] stump with some branches [and] hollow” – according only to PsiCo the Eggnogshtick, of course.

    OXYMORON 3: “Precious, Sacred, and Perfect Holy Church Established By The Almighty Jesus ‘[being] alive and well’ – as per Matthew 16:18, ‘Upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it’ – [i]s a moral and intellectual sewer … an amoral cesspool … an immoral and unethical organization … Established By The Almighty Jesus”! Which makes PsiCo the Eggnogshtick & his ilk-species a whole lot worse than any denizen of such “Precious, Sacred, and Perfect Holy … sewer [and] cesspool”! GLORY TO GOD & JESUS.

  • Re: “My part-time job over the weekend is picking up Oxymoronic Litters strewn about …” 

    No, your full-time job … er, make that, what you do 24 hours a day, 7 days a week … is to litter Disqus with oxymorons and sanctimonious drivel. 

    Re: “PsiCo the Eggnogshtick, for example.” 

    Yes, I’m an “Agnostic.” (That’s spelled A-G-N-O-S-T-I-C for those, like you, who’re too ignorant to know the word.) And you know what, dude? There’s not Thing One you can ever do about it! You have no power to change it. This means you can either, 1) accept that reality and live with it; or 2) keep bellyaching about it here like a sniveling crybaby. 

    Re: “… as per Matthew 16:18, ‘Upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it’ …” 

    I do not recognize the authority or metaphysical power of your scripture. Spew it at me all you like, but all I’ll do is laugh at you for being childish enough to think I’m going to be impressed by it. 

    Re: “Which makes PsiCo the Eggnogshtick & his ilk-species a whole lot worse than any denizen of …” 

    Hey dude. For the record, I’m not part of a vast institution whose employees assault children, women, seminarians, etc. and use its resources to intimidate victims, cover up those crimes, etc. So kvetch and whine all you like about me being an agnostic. But YOU have made a choice to align with abusers and criminality promoters. YOU, personally, support that criminality. I was raised Catholic but long ago left that stench-ridden sewage pit. You, however, have remained in it … and did so consciously. You have the stink of R.C. abuse all over you. I don’t. 

    Let me finish by saying, right out: I’m proud to be a Catholic apostate and present Agnostic. You can keep whining about it, but between us, I’m the one who’s shown character, intellect and maturity. You, on the other hand, only have shown immorality, ignorance, and immaturity. Every time you snivel and wail about me being an “agnostic,” you just reinforce your own proven childishness. 

    So please. Keep it up. Keep proving me right about Catholic apologists like yourself. Go right ahead! I enjoy every bit of your infantile spew. It would be hilarious if not for the generations of vile abuse and obstruction of justice that lies behind it. 

  • It wasn’t declared to be incest until many years later – probably when the bloodlines became too weak to handle it. It served it’s purpose and filled the earth

  • First define “literal Adam and Eve”.

    Of course you’re trying to fashion a weapon.

    Of course you haven’t a clue but copied and pasted from someone else.

  • I guess I do have to give you something that is a bit better as an answer. I’m not sure you’ll like it, though. On the other hand, that isn’t my problem, but yours.

    For centuries, though not quite millennia, the Catholic Church taught that the story of Adam and Eve is exactly what you believe: a literal telling of history, though exactly how there were eyewitnesses to the only two people on earth is not explained at all, no more than how Moses managed to describe his own death and funeral. (You admitted it was a later interpolation, but would not admit it pretty much destroyed your pretenses of the Bible being the literal word o’ god). But no matter.

    Now, understanding that the entire weight of scientific evidence stands against this, and not being stupid, uneducated, deplorable people, the Catholic Church, as well as the bulk of non-fundamentalist churches, says that Adam and eve is not a literal retelling of history, but a myth, an allegory, anything but what they for literal centuries literally claimed was literally true. It’s an “explanation for evil in the world”— a completely unnecessary and irrelevant explanation for what history, sociology, evolution, common sense, and psychology make obvious. No faith or religion necessary.

    “In Adam’s fall, we sinned all.” “Ne had ne the apple take(h) was, the apple take(h) been, ne had ne Our Lady a been a heavenly queen! Blessed be the day the apple take(h) was!” So go the medieval lyrics. Even THEY knew that.

    So what changed? Did God’s word change? You say no, it didn’t change, because God‘s word never changes. For the centuries that they claimed that Adam and eve was literally the truth, literally what happened, and literally the basis for the entire Christian faith, were they lying? Or just mistaken? Do they not realize that they were lying for all these entries, or just mistaken, and clearly changed their story because they don’t wish to lose the power, money, and control that comes with the lie? Or did they just change their story? Who is telling the truth now? Who is mistaken? You? Them? Me?

    Not quite on a side note, though it may sound that way, we went to a crab feed last night at a local fundy church, apparently primarily a black church. They do good work in the community, so our friend told us. so we were happy to support them. And we like crab, which used to be forbidden, but god’s word changed. They also had a female pastor, but god’s word changed— or more accurately, was ignored, interpreted, and convenienced into what worked for the two pastors— AS ALWAYS. And do you know where god’s word really changed? The council of Jerusalem, the book of acts, and Paul’s letters. Even a casual reading between the lines indicates that Paul’s sales project wasn’t selling as expected, and the only way to keep the merchandise moving off the shelves and wrest control from Jesus’s actual disciples, or rival leaders, or however the internecine rivalries were going— I don’t have the patience to read that stuff again— was to open up the faith to non Jews. Circumcision would of course not sell, so out went circumcision. The dietary and ceremonial laws also changed, for exactly the same reasons. Bacon! Paul even found a non-Jesus-y reason to allow divorce, contradicting the Clear Word o’ God on the subject. He found other things to contradict in Jesus’s clear words on several subjects.

    It doesn’t take a genius to see any of this, just a willingness to not accept blind faith in what you know ain’t so.

    So, contrary to your claims, and according to Real Christians (TM) just as real as you are, God’s word will always change to suit the purposes of people who need god to serve them, regardless of their claims to just the opposite. Pell is no different in this than any other Christian, no different than the fundy pastors last night, no different than you, and no different than…

    McCarrick, like the many other faithless priests– how many thousands of them have been Revealed as “credible” (hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!) abusers in the past few months?— and according to that nice new book, how many HoHo’s (homosexual hating homosexuals) infest the Catholic Church— hurray for the Palmarians!!!!— hurray for Martin Luther!!!!…

    …but I’m losing track…

    So let’s boil it all down. The Word o’ God never changes, except when convenient or necessary. Adam and Eve is a myth, an allegory, anything but what it was claimed for centuries it literally was— the literal truth. And you will stand by that claim for the simple reason that here, at least, you will be honest and consistent, and here at least, I will agree with you. Without its literal truth, Christianity falls, and you know it.

    As. Do. I.

    Jesus, who never had a thing to say about homosexuality, is nevertheless interpreted to mean exactly that, because that suits YOUR purposes and your issues, and you will damn to hell anyone who thinks otherwise, for exactly the same reasons, based upon bad interpretations of whatever Paul had to say about something or other, for exactly the same reasons. (ever wonder what that thorn in his side was? No, of course not! It’s better to marry than to burn! It’s better to be celibate than to burn, even though they are neither)! It’s better to support the Faith than to be honest, as that nice new book says, even though it means throwing your gay brothers and sisters under the ecclesiastical bus, because that works out for those faithless priests. Protect the church by enabling the pedophiles? That also works and for exactly the same reasons.

    That is your Christianity, dear. And that is one of many reasons I am an atheist.

    You’re welcome.

  • Again, your moral code is based on your concept of sin. If two people, consenting adults, who love each other, that want to have sex without being married, it is only your judgement that makes it a sin.

  • PSI CO: “I’m not part of a vast institution [that spawns Neil deGrasse Tyson, David Silverman, Lawrence Krauss, Al Franken] … I’m an … A-G-N-O-S-T-I-C”.

    HpO: Right-O. An Eggnogshtick.

  • No. My moral code is based on what God has said is sin. He will hold all fornicators and adulterers to account in the judgment.

  • God is just a concept of imagination. But if you are right, most of your clerics will be put in the hellfire.

  • Which “heterosexuals”, though? If by “those heterosexuals” you mean born-from-above, fired-up and die-hard followers of THE Christ Jesus of the gospels, epistles and revelation, then, I say, Oh “those”? Well, now see, they’re all “part of a vast institution” that can never, according to God & Jesus, spawn “the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, [whose] part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. … Outside [that vast institution, see] are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.”

    In other words, show me “the dogs and … the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars” who claim to be born-from-above, fired-up and die-hard followers of THE Christ Jesus of the gospels, epistles and revelation; and God & Jesus shall show them the way to their homes sweet homes in “the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death”!

    Source: Revelation 21:5 and 22:15.

  • Yeah, now that McCarrick is 88 years old. Probably doing him a favor. He doesn’t have to do any dreary Last Rites, Masses or Confessions. What’s not to like?

    When are the going to defrock, Cardinal Law, now in his cushy Vatican job — and others who knowingly moved predators around to various parishes for decades?

  • No, it’s just called great sex if done responsibly.

    Now the Catholic and Southern Baptist clergy…that is irresponsible sex. For the Catholics…a few Hail Mary’s after confession and they are scot-free….the Baptists…Hellfire !!

  • The account never says. This is just a story so it doesn’t have to be logical, consistent or accurate.

  • Too late to defrock Law. He was given a Vatican funeral with full honors. Francis participated in the funeral mass. That pretty much says it all.

  • Yes or no, you wanna “defrock” Pope Francis?

    But, more importantly, what do you wanna do about Neil deGrasse Tyson, David Silverman, Lawrence Krauss & Al Franken “who knowingly” whatever-you’re-getting at?

  • I am not Irish either.

    The surname “Browning” is from county Cumberland in England.

    Cumberland – when the surname was first noted – was part of Scotland, just like McCarrick.

    Do try to control your urges.

  • “No, it’s just called great sex if done responsibly.”

    I’m sure you’ve done a lot of solo practice.

  • “Still, it’s possible for something to remain alive, yet for there to be a deadly rot dwelling deep within it.”

    Finally, something you’re personally familiar with from experience – giving the appearance of life, but rotting within.

  • One thing it says is that Law was not an abuser.

    Of course coming out of your background, guilt really is not an issue for you when you know how much you dislike someone.

  • “For centuries, though not quite millennia, the Catholic Church taught
    that the story of Adam and Eve is exactly what you believe: a literal
    telling of history,”

    Actually, no.

    What it taught was that there were original parents, one of each sex, with human souls.

    If you had bothered reading the Fathers and the early exegetes you’d know that.

    But if you had done that you wouldn’t be a neo-pagan living in Sodom on the Bay, eh?

  • You have belief in God mixed up with atheism. Atheism is all about the musings of men without critical thinking skills.

  • You did not respond to the point made by “Adina”, namely, that “[t]he Catholic Church was responsible for the systematic covering up of the rape and torture of children and nuns…”

    Canon law be damned. The worldwide rot in the Church of Rome had little if anything to do with canon law. It had to do, instead, with a sick and toxic ecclesial culture.

    You wrote, “No, the Catholic Church’s Canon Law…blah, blah, blah.” You just refuse to “get it”.

  • And JPII continues to be an official “Saint” of the Church of Rome. It’s time to *de-saint* the guy.

  • I don’t think Francis is *deliberately* tossing an “old bone” to the homophobes in the Church, but his action is precisely that in terms of its reception by bigots. The gay-bashers will “make hay” about McCarrick’s laicization, and, for the most part, they will blame the current pope even though this pile of crap remains the legacy of “Saint” JPII et al.

  • No, merely more evidence that ecclesiastics (not all by any means) can behave as if there were no God.

  • God cannot sin. On the other hand, God permits evil (harmful behavior, natural disaster, sickness/death/etc.). In Christian theology, did the Father plan to have Jesus murdered? Debatable. I, for one, would say “No”. Roman authority regarded Jesus as a threat to good order, and *certain* Jewish leaders wanted him killed for religious and practical reasons. Thus, the crucifixion ordered by Pontius Pilate and carried out by his soldiers.

  • Of course Maciel and McCarrick were not ignored by “Saint” JPII. He merely tolerated them and/or reinforced a behavioral norm that no one should report bad news about them to the Chair of Peter. People “in the know” surely knew about Maciel and McCarrick but went along with a culture of silence.

  • “Law was not an abuser.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA………………………….What a crock!

    Law abused his episcopal authority by not confronting abusers and holding them accountable.

    (i’m wondering if you might not be a church “plant”)

  • “You, on the other hand, only have shown immorality, ignorance, and immaturity.”

    My impression is that our fellow blogger has occasionally failed to take his/her meds.

  • Dare show us all, then, Juggledswitch, where in “The Sexual Abuse of Children in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston: Executive Summary and Scope of Investigation”, dating July 23, 2003, the Attorney General of Massachusetts accuses Bernard Francis Law of trying to evade that investigation or breaking the law of the land.

    You have 48 hours. GO.

  • Feel free to GO to a nice summary by political scientist Thomas Reese, SJ: “But it was [Law’s] failures in supervising the priests of Boston that brought him down. Whether through stupidity or arrogance, he failed to deal with the priests who abused children, including serial abusers. When the bishops privately discussed the issue, he encouraged stonewalling. He even passed on bad priests to other bishops without telling them of their abuse. His attempts to hide the truth made matters worse.”

    A NYT obituary stated, in part:

    “[D]emands for his resignation…peaked in December 2002, when church documents released by plaintiffs’ lawyers showed that Cardinal Law had for years transferred abusive priests without telling parishioners or law-enforcement officials, and that he had been more protective of the priests, and less of their victims, than he had allowed.
    ***********
    “[H]e left an archdiocese in turmoil, facing 500 lawsuits, $100 million in damage claims and probable bankruptcy. As the highest-ranking American prelate deposed in the scandal, he became a focus of anger and feelings of betrayal among many American Catholics.

    “The cardinal testified before a grand jury and gave depositions in civil cases, but he was not charged with a crime or held liable for damages. In 2003, he was castigated by the Massachusetts attorney general, Thomas F. Reilly, who said that as many as 1,000 children had been sexually abused by 250 priests in the Boston archdiocese over 40 years, and that Cardinal Law had known of the problem even before he arrived in 1984 and had tried to suppress any publicity about it to save the church from disgrace.”

    What I wrote earlier is correct. Not all executive failures are punishable by state law, but they remain failures and hurt people.

    Now GO.

    Really.

  • This de-frocking is crap !

    McCarrick was the first bishop in the newly created diocese of Metuchen, NJ in 1981. He was then promoted to bishop of the Archdiocese of Newark, NJ, NJ’s largest city in 1986.

    I knew about McCarrick’s escapades with his seminarians and his taking them to his home on the Jersey shore.

    A NJ priest friend told me about this 40 yrs ago ! All the hierarchy and clergy in NJ knew about McCarrick.

    He is being made a sacrificial scape-goat by the powers of the RCC. He is being thrown to the wolves as proof-positive the Church is cleaning house.

    What he did was, and is, rampant throughout the Church.

    HYPOCRISY

    I’s the rai·son d’ê·tre of the RCC

    Throw RICO at them….

  • ” Since the snake appears to have been your ancestor, ask one of the older folks in your family for the straight scoop.”

    (Mark Connelly aka Bob Arnzen referring to the commenter, replying to C/A’s comment)

    Connell/Arnzen is admittedly the son of Holy Mother Church aka The Great Whore of Babylon.

    C/A keeps changing his name because he doesn’t know who his father is.

    We know his mother is a whore, and I would venture he is a bastard son from his ancestor’s lineage – Tomás de Torquemada

  • “Talking about ancestry….”

    Apparently since you lack a last name your own ancestry is obscure.

    “C/A keeps changing his name because he doesn’t know who his father is.”

    I have had the very same name since I joined Disqus on September 5, 2017.

    “We know his mother is a whore”

    And you’ve narrowed your father down to 23 suspects.

  • The application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91–452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970) and codified at 18 U.S.C. ch. 96 as 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968 is aimed specifically on racketeering and allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because they did not actually commit the crime personally.

    Since each and every abuser, and each and every prelate who failed to report an abuser, was violating both Catholic teaching and Catholic Canon Law, and acting independently in doing so, RICO cannot be applied.

    It can’t be applied even if a drooling semi-literate anti-Catholic demands it be applied.

  • Punishment under canon law is such a pitiful substitute for civil justice. It seems unlikely, however, that McCarrick will face the latter thanks (in no small part) to the RCC’s cover-up culture.

  • Coupling these sinning clerics with The Great Kibosh of All Religions shows that the god concept is dead. Long live secular morality!

  • No, Jughead, noone’s interested in your lame summation before a Jury of Jugheads: “Not all executive failures are punishable by state law”. Your simple task is to cite where in “The Sexual Abuse of Children in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston: Executive Summary and Scope of Investigation”, dating July 23, 2003, the Attorney General of Massachusetts accuses Bernard Francis Law of trying to evade that investigation or breaking the law of the land.

    Not much time, you’ve got only 40 hours left.

  • Then if you are correct, it was not God’s plan to have Jesus die for all your sins, and therefore God did nothing to stop this collaboration between Jews and Romans to brutally murder His Son. Please think before you post. Either way, your God could have stopped it. After all, God helped Samson to defeat 2,000 Philistine soldiers with the jaw bone of an asss, He help Noah build an ark for him and two of every species on earth to survive the great flood, He helped Jonah and was miraculously saved after being swallowed by a large fish, in whose belly he spends three days and three nights, not a hair on any of these biblical characters were harmed and they lived out their lives.

  • SOMEWHAT GOOD NEWS:

    “People who know him say [Theodore] McCarrick, now a frail 88, hasn’t seemed able to fully accept what’s happening. The former cardinal could still face civil suits. … In the meantime, McCarrick’s lawyers will fend off at least one possible civil suit, as New York just passed an extension of the window for victims to sue, and New Jersey is expected to as well – both states where victims have alleged McCarrick misconduct.”

    Source: Michelle Boorstein, :Theodore McCarrick was defrocked by the Vatican. But is it justice?”, Washington Post, February 16, 2019.

  • FYII (For Your Insult to Intelligence***):

    “The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act … focuses specifically on racketeering and allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because they did not actually commit the crime personally.”

    (***Then again you’re just one Highly Devolving Ashiest, which is insulting enough to your fellow species. Prove me wrong anytime.)

  • Are you blaming the Roman Catholic Church for the failure of various prosecuting attorneys?

    Aren’t you the same guy who was touting the PA AG a few articles back?

    Are do you just choose the horse for the race, sometimes black, sometimes white?

  • No, it was the phalanx of the likes of Bernadin, Weakland, McCarrick, et al who assured the Pontiff it was all sour grapes.

  • I’m referring to how the church hierarchy dealt with abuses by clergy for decades. Yes, this applies to McCarrick’s case, and yes, they deserve blame for it. Or, as the previous Pope put it some years ago in a slightly different context:

    “Today we see in a truly terrifying way that the greatest persecution of the Church doesn’t come from enemies on the outside but is born from the sins within the Church…The Church needs to profoundly relearn penitence, accept purification, learn forgiveness but also justice.”

    As for attorney failures, there’s not much anyone can do when the statute of limitations runs out. Good for McCarrick, right?

    I have no idea what you’re talking about with regard to the “PA AG.” You must have me confused with someone else. Your last statement is also senseless.

  • “Coupling” = “Two people in a romantic relationship; a couple.”
    – Oxford Universities Dictionary.

    Not choosing your words wisely much, O Great Shish “Kibosh”?

    “Long live secular [shish kebab]!”

  • “I’m referring to how the church hierarchy dealt with abuses by clergy for decades.”

    Oh, you’re referring to how some members of a particular church’s hierarchy dealt with clergy abuse.

    There for a minute it sounded like you had actual evidence of an organized conspiracy.

    “As for attorney failures, there’s not much anyone can do when the statute of limitations runs out.”

    So, it isn’t the church’s hierarchy, it’s bad laws.

  • Might want to check other definitions like joining two pieces of machinery before making comments.

  • In fact, I DO NOT BELIEVE it was “God’s plan to have Jesus die for all [our] sins.” I embrace, instead, the earliest Christian belief that Jesus taught by word and example the Father’s desire that we love one another. Jesus did not embrace retribution but rather stressed the importance of extending forgiveness to our “enemies” including sinners. In sharing what the Father desires of us in terms of human behavior, Jesus taught that God is, indeed, Love itself and is not a hypocrite as some fundamentalists would have us believe. What God asks of us, God will likewise do, i.e., initiate finding people “lost” in sin and bring them home in love, not condemnatory judgment. It is only in this way that a sinner acquires the capacity to repent. Mercy imposes no conditions but is freely given out of love, regardless. For the earliest Christians, priesthood consisted of voluntarily helping others in need. It was not cultic in nature as later ancient Christian writers would redefine it. Sacrifice, therefore, was *self-sacrifice* and not cultic in nature. Jesus was not sacrificed by the Father. Jesus voluntarily out of love sacrificed himself. Later ancient writers would introduce the notion that Jesus was sacrificed by the Father. In their view, the Father had to be appeased before the Father would lift our collective punishment of eternal damnation.

    I’ve no problem with believers, Jewish or Christian, seeing God intervening in human history to help them. However, the earliest Christian doctrine saw Jesus helping folks in need whether they were sinners or the disabled, etc. The new law was love of enemies and sinners, not retribution. (In this latter case, longstanding Christian doctrine regards evil as a mystery. While God cannot sin, God can bring good out of evil because Love will always prevail.)

    I’m not going to suggest that you (your words) “think before you post.” Instead, as a Christian, I suggest you study earliest Christian belief in order to avoid repeating ideas erroneously attributed to the earliest ancestors in the Christian faith.

  • I did not accuse Cardinal Law of “trying to evade that investigation or breaking the law of the land.” It was YOU, not I, who introduced this verbiage into our exchange. Stay on point, Anonymouse.

    “Juggledswitch.” “Jughead.”

    A tad bit frustrated, are ya’?

    So be it. Your problem, not mine.

  • I don’t think he is paid by the RCC. I think he’s apologetically lost/blind/etc. (He may even be a troll who could care less about the RCC and wants to stir up anger in his/her outrageous comments.) In any event, I reply to his/her verbiage only when I think it appropriate to do so. S/he supposedly “blocked” me; I don’t care.

  • “bad laws”

    Yes, I have argued previously that statue of limitations laws for abuse of children need to be reformed and updated to reflect what society now knows about abuse.

    Also, apparently there was a failure of the press to report what they knew.

    According to a post on February 17, 2019, 1:54 PM by Rod Dreher in his blog, the New York Times [!] back in 2012 mysteriously spiked a story that had McCarrick nailed. As Rod would say, read the whole thing because there is more in the post.

  • The Vatican might say that since JPII was canonized, this action cannot be undone. To which I reply, Hogwash!

    CCC-828 states, “By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God’s grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors. ‘The saints have always been the source and origin of renewal in the most difficult moments in the Church’s history.’ Indeed, ‘holiness is the hidden source and infallible measure of her apostolic activity and missionary zeal.'”

    The CCC Glossary states, “CANONIZATION: The solemn declaration by the Pope that a deceased member of the faithful may be proposed as a model and intercessor to the Christian faithful and venerated as a saint on the basis of the fact that the person lived a life of heroic virtue or remained faithful to God through martyrdom (828; cf. 957).” Per CCC-957, “Communion with the saints. ‘It is not merely by the title of example that we cherish the memory of those in heaven; we seek, rather, that by this devotion to the exercise of fraternal charity the union of the whole Church in the Spirit may be strengthened. Exactly as Christian communion among our fellow pilgrims brings us closer to Christ, so our communion with the saints joins us to Christ, from whom as from its fountain and head issues all grace, and the life of the People of God itself.'”

    The online CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA has an article on “Beatification and Canonization” at http://newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm from 1907.

    On the basis of what I’ve perused in the above sources, not to mention the widespread scandal created by official ministers of the Church, as well as JPII’s notorious lack of response to reports of clerical and episcopal sexual abuse, I think Rome MUST nullify his canonization. JPII, whatever his role in the Soviet Union’s downfall, cannot truthfully be described as “as a model and intercessor to the Christian faithful and venerated as a saint on the basis of the fact that the person lived a life of heroic virtue.” JPII in no way should be seen as some kind of “model” in his disgraceful approach to ministerial sexual abuse of children and other helpless people. There is nothing “heroic” in turning a blind eye to repeated complaints about prevert clerics and bishops.

    JPII may be in heaven because of God’s mercy, but he ain’t no friggin’ “Saint”. Not by a long shot.

  • the question, mark, which you studiously avoid, is why does the church take so long to isolate and cast out those who are outrageous sinners ?

    your attempt to change the subject — its not really secret (that is relevant how ?) — other’s may have done the same (do they claim to represent the christ on earth ?) are just total nonsense .

  • most catholics and those who respect the catholic church are angry at the pitiful and slow reaction to this scandal . tradtionalist or progressive catholics share that .

    and then there are those, as mark/bob, who seem to get angry only by such scandals becoming publicly known . he does not represent the majority of catholics .

  • The media was complicit in a cover-up, just as they generally have been complicit in looking the other way at the much bigger abuse problem in the public schools.

    The reason for the statutes of limitations have to do with being able to defend against charges, not on anything we know about abuse.

    Past a certain point it is basically impossible to defend these cases.

  • cou·pling
    Dictionary result for coupling
    /ˈkəp(ə)liNG/
    noun
    noun: coupling; plural noun: couplings
    1.
    a device for connecting parts of machinery.
    a fitting on the end of a railroad vehicle for connecting it to another.
    2.
    the pairing of two items.”the coupling of coaching and personal training”

  • “Secular morality is the aspect of philosophy that deals with morality outside of religious traditions. Modern examples include humanism, freethinking, and most versions of consequentialism. Additional philosophies with ancient roots include those such as skepticism and virtue ethics. Greg M. Epstein also states that, “much of ancient Far Eastern thought is deeply concerned with human goodness without placing much if any stock in the importance of gods or spirits.”[1]:45 An example is the Kural text of Valluvar, an ancient Indian theistic poet-philosopher whose work remains secular and non-denominational.[2][3][4] Other philosophers have proposed various ideas about how to determine right and wrong actions. An example is Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative. “

  • Kant developed an ontological argument for God. Nietzsche claimed that Kant was merely a sophisticated apologist for traditional Christian faith.

    Nietzsche (widely popular with the Nazis) and Rousseau (widely popular with the French Revolutionaries) were secular philosophers much better known and much more influential than the philosophers you named. Who gets to determine and propagate what is the true secular morality and why? Other than being secular, the secular philosophers don’t seem to have much in common. And did any of them or their followers fail to live up to their own standards?

  • Since the law has a presumption of innocence, the loss of evidence over time is actually a much greater burden on the prosecution or the plaintiff than on the defense.

    A short window in statutes of limitations is a criminal’s good friend and enabler and the young victim’s enemy in seeking justice. Thanks to the press, the public now has a much greater appreciation now for how long it takes for young victims to come forward and how hard it is for them to do so after the trauma of abuse. Hence legislatures have been changing their laws.

    The evidence against Mr. McCarrick seems to have survived the passage of time, at least sufficiently for him to be reduced to the lay state, which I assume has a high evidentiary requirement.

    Secular institutions should face the same laws and scrutiny as religious. I have not seen evidence that, say, the NY Times has covered up abuse in secular schools.

  • Let us not complicate the issue of good behavior and morality by simply following the dictates of three words: Do No Harm!

  • As we find out the in real world, the presumption of innocence is less presumptuous the more heinous the alleged crime.

    https://www{DOT}reuters.com/article/us-australia-abuse-archbishop/australian-court-quashes-catholic-clerics-abuse-cover-up-conviction-idUSKBN1O50ED

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria

    Trial courts in the USA – and apparently in Australia – more often than not feature elected judges who as a political creatures often lack judicial temperament and are subject to pressure by the electorate.

    A reasonable statute of limitations set when the climate was ahysterical and sound prudent judgment was used in their construction is a better guarantor of justice than statutes of limitations fashioned while the press whips public sentiment into a “Hang’em high!” peak of fury.

    Justice, rather than how long it takes for young victims to come forward and how hard it is for them to do so after the trauma of abuse, should be the sole criterion.

    The New York Times has not spent one nanosecond examining the public school abuse problem.

  • Who were the earliest ancestors in the Christian faith, and what first hand original writing of the doctrines of Jesus can you provide the readers? Please be specific

  • Orwell demonstrated that even simple words and concepts can be molded like wax. The phase “do no harm” is traditionally associated with the Hippocratic Oath. The oath stressed unyielding devotion to the preservation of individual human life. In its original form, the oath prohibited euthanasia and abortion as well as sexual relations with patients. The most common modern revision of the oath, written in 1964, fails to list any of the original prohibitions against euthanasia, abortion, and sexual relations with patients. Harm has been functionally redefined to be in tune with the modern secular Zeitgeist.

  • Expanding on the Hippocratic Oath (also Wiccan oath): Do no harm in all aspects of life to include prohibition of euthanasia, abortion and sexual relations with patients.

  • “Who were the earliest ancestors in the Christian faith…?”

    I’m not going to do your research. That said, you might want to begin, for example, with Jaroslav Pelikan’s THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION: A HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE, Vol. 1: THE EMERGENCE OF THE CATHOLIC TRADITION (100 – 600).

    “… and what first hand original writing of the doctrines of Jesus can you provide the readers?”

    See my response above.

    “[T]here is zero evidence that Jesus ever wrote anything in his lifetime, nor was there anything written about him during his lifetime.”

    True, based on extant evidence to date.

    “[S]eparating fact from fiction also has its place.”

    True, but your assertion is irrelevant here. In the final analysis, belief is based on faith, not empirical proof.

  • So which secular philosopher is right? Hippocrates after over 2000 years is often honored as the father of medicine. Maybe after 2000 years the author of the new oath will be honored as the father of abortion, euthanasia, and sexual relations between physicians and their patients, i.e. a culture of death and sexual exploitation of the vulnerable by those entrusted with their care.

  • “The New York Times has not spent one nanosecond examining the public school abuse problem.”
    _____________

    That’s because you spend hours over-exaggerating the “public school abuse problem” in a futile, dishonest and pathetic attempt to deny its extent in the RCC.

  • Your examples are cases where given time the courts got it right, hardly an argument against statutes of limitations.

    Justice should take into account how long it takes a victim to come forward, given the trauma of the abuse. A short statute of limitations serves in many cases as a get out of jail free card.

    The evidence against Mr. McCarrick seems to have survived the passage of time. Do you think the Church was wrong to reduce Mr. McCarrick to the lay state after so many years had passed since his offenses and while public public sentiment was strongly against him due to press reports? You could certainly argue that the press had whipped public sentiment into a “Hang’em high!” peak of fury in his case. As I recall the Church has revised and extended the statute of limitations in canon law. Was the old limit more prudent than the current one? Why was it changed? Why did the Church drop its opposition to the change in the statute of limitations law in New York?

    Do you think Mr. McCarrick should face civil litigation?

    As for the NY Times, see https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/sexual-harassment-at-school/?mtrref=duckduckgo.com&gwh=293B081E66EF397294D8289C9B7D8C98&gwt=pay

  • “Your examples are cases where given time the courts got it right, hardly an argument against statutes of limitations.”

    Remember I am arguing for statutes of limitations, not against them.

    “The evidence against Mr. McCarrick seems to have survived the passage of time.”

    Since we don’t know what evidence survived, we can’t use that as support for lengthening the statutes of limitations. The criterion for evidence in a trial according to Canon Law, and criterion in a criminal trial in the USA, are different.

    ” Was the old limit more prudent than the current one? Why was it changed?”

    Write the Pope and ask him, he was the one who revised it.

    His Holiness Pope
    Francis

    Apostolic Palace

    00120 Vatican City

    So 11 years ago Tara Parker-Pope

    https://www{DOT}nytimes.com/by/tara-parker-pope

    wrote a few paragraphs on school abuse and then the New York Times promptly dropped the topic.

    Compare that with:

    https://graphics.chicagotribune.com/chicago-public-schools-sexual-abuse/index.html

  • Well, you walked into that one:

    https://graphics.chicagotribune.com/chicago-public-schools-sexual-abuse/index.html

    https://www{DOT}chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-chicago-council-school-abuse-hearing-20181128-story.html

    https://www{DOT}washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/rahm-emanuel-racism-and-chicago-public-schools-massive-underreported-sex-abuse-scandal

    Essentially the same situation exists in New York City, but for reasons known only to the “newspaper of record” it does not get the coverage.

  • “In the final analysis, belief is based on faith, not empirical proof.” –Yes, but belief has to have some bases in fact.

    I believe in the theory of evolution, however, there is literally thousands of pieces of real evidence to to support the theory. Fossils show a very slow pattern of gradual change over geological time, and that we now have molecular and DNA evidence to link all the diverse lineages of life on earth, which is called evolution. What single piece of scientific evidence can you provide that makes you believe in the six day creation of the world and everything in it theory? In other words, what is the bases of your belief.

    Theory –1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

  • Does this occur in public schools all around the world, as it does in the Roman Catholic Church? NO. Do the principals and superintendents meet to collude on avoiding prosecution and exposure? NO. And because you’re obsessed with public schools, does that mean your pederasty organization doesn’t have a big problem? NO.

    People like you enabled this problem in the church. You’re still enabling it.

  • Atheists question religious beliefs. God is just a concept and every religion has a different idea about this concept and what He expects of us. 1.5 billion Muslims pray to God five times a day for favor and guidance. There are now 57 declared Muslim States at the United Nations. Is that because God favors them for their devotion to Him?????

  • To add: That is because Priests also believe that they are above the law or this crime would have never kept perpetuating itself for centuries.

  • “So, it isn’t the church’s hierarchy.”
    ____________________

    After thousands of purposefully hidden cases, bogus “confidentiality agreements”, a consistent practice of minimizing the problem, moving perpetrators around from parish to parish (when hierarchy knew they were perps), and worst of all, a policy of manipulating and mistreating victims who come forward, how the could you possibly draw this conclusion? You are part of the problem.

  • You blame the media, you blame the public schools, you blame anti-Catholic sentiment — essentially, you blame everyone and anyone except for those directly responsible.

    The million-dollar question is… Why? Why do you choose to minimize, deny and deflect?

  • “The media was complicit in a cover-up”
    _______

    Does this sound like complicity and cover-up?

    https://www.dallasnews.com/life/faith/2018/08/19/two-thirds-bishops-let-accused-priests-work-morning-news-investigation-revealed

    Roughly two-thirds of the top U.S. Catholic leaders have allowed priests accused of sexual abuse to keep working, a practice that spans decades and continues today, a three-month Dallas Morning News review shows.

    Church spokesmen did not dispute the results of the study, which is the first of its kind and depicts a far broader pattern than has emerged this year in Boston. That archdiocese’s employment of known child molesters has made international news and led Pope John Paul II to summon American cardinals to Rome in April.

  • “You blame the media, you blame the public schools, you blame anti-Catholic sentiment — essentially, you blame everyone and anyone except for those directly responsible.”

    If you can find an actual post of mine blaming anyone but the perpetrators for actual proven abuse, cite it. You won’t be able to.

    They found more recent abuse in Chicago public schools, and more actual hiding of perpetrators, in the last five years than the so-called Grand Jury report found in the state of Pennsyvlania over 70 years.

    But you keep pointing to the Catholic abuse, as does the media.

    From this we can reach some conclusions:

    – your issue is not abuse, your issue is anti-Catholicism.

    – the media is interested in selling advertising, and they can do that better beating the Catholic issue into the ground than they can examining where the real problems are.

  • Zero indictments call into question your “thousands of purposefully hidden cases, bogus ‘confidentiality agreements’, a consistent practice of minimizing the problem, moving perpetrators around from parish to parish (when hierarchy knew they were perps), and worst of all, a policy of manipulating and mistreating victims who come forward”, but does confirm your basic anti-Catholic bias.

  • “Does this occur in public schools all around the world, as it does in the Roman Catholic Church?”

    YES.

    “Do the principals and superintendents meet to collude on avoiding prosecution and exposure?”

    YES.

    But that does not happen in the Catholic Church, as evidenced by the lack of indictments despite over 5,500 bishops.

    “And because you’re obsessed with public schools”

    I simply provide perspective and context.

    You’re the one who appears to be obsessing.

    “People like you enabled this problem in the church. “

    People like you are why the 800 pound gorilla of abuse is being swept under the rug.

  • Your citation seems to confirm my contention that the news media is doing nada about the real abuse and focusing 100% on the Catholic Church, despite the fact that all the evidence is that the problem peaked more than 20 years ago and the steps taken have worked.

  • Thanks for underscoring my point. You’re a very neurotic human being, whose sole moral compass appears to point towards bashing the Catholic Church.

  • Then why are there hundreds, probably thousands more alleged perpetrators than have been reported? Is that how your pederast organization takes care of business? And do I have to remind you that the topic is CLERGY sexual abuse?

  • “Then why are there hundreds, probably thousands more alleged perpetrators than have been reported?”

    There are allegations little men from outer space land on earth and take people away to toy with them.

    The magic word you’re looking for is “proof”.

    “Is that how your pederast organization takes care of business?”

    Apparently pederast organizations are A-OK in your book as long as they are not Catholic.

  • BS. You’re an endless apologist for your organization’s clergy child sex abuse problem. Deflection and denial. That’s what you do. .

  • The Chicago Public Schools are the tip of an iceberg.

    You’re a neurotic anti-Catholic, to the core.

  • Your ultra-sensitivity toward the justified criticism of your church trumps your empathy for children and families.

  • Hope you are just trying to be funny. Of course if people stopped to legitimately question religions beliefs there would not be atheists, they would all just follow blindly.

    By the way, nice dodge to a simple question.

  • That is what the atheist does-” all just follow blindly.” No atheist ever gives any facts that proves atheism is true.

  • No, I am biased against someone with a loose bolt who CLAIMS to be against child abuse, but resolutely refuses to deal with the fact that the Catholic abuse is a minor issue in the great sea of abuse.

    You’re just an anti-Catholic with an axe to grind, nothing more.

  • Who do atheists follow blindly as there are no leaders or dogma to follow???? Atheists ask the hard questions that you cannot answer.

  • In what universe and under which God is the sexual abuse of children by alleged men of God a “minor issue”? Jesus had terrible words for those who would abuse children. Thank you once again for showing your true colors.

  • That was an elaborate website designed to manipulate people toward their idea – “All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness… (John 1:1-5)” That is one of the biggest fairy tales of all time. It just is not the science that depends my faith in ancient test. The Jews developed a lot of fairytales and fantasy in ancient times, and the Catholics are still doing it. Catholics are slow to come around—

    Galileo agreed not to teach the heresy anymore and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. It took more than 300 years for the Church to admit that Galileo was right and to clear his name of heresy.

    After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves
    By ALAN COWELL, Published: October 31, 1992
    New York Times–ROME, Oct. 30, 1992— More than 350 years after the Roman Catholic Church condemned Galileo, Pope John Paul II is poised to rectify one of the Church’s most infamous wrongs — the persecution of the Italian astronomer and physicist for proving the Earth moves around the Sun.

    7 November 1992 Vatican admits Galileo was right–
    Galileo before the Holy Office —Joseph-Nicolas Robert-Fleury
    In 1633, the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church forced Galileo Galilei, one of the founders of modern science, to recant his theory that the Earth moves around the Sun. Under threat of torture, Galileo – seen facing his inquisitors – recanted. But as he left the courtroom, he is said to have muttered, ‘all the same, it moves’.

    Last week, 359 years later, the Church finally agreed. At a ceremony in Rome, before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II officially declared that Galileo was right. The formal rehabilitation was based on the findings of a committee of the Academy the Pope set up in 1979, soon after taking office.

  • You’re not going to convince me, and I’m not going to convince you. As Uncle Ed used to tell us kids watching his daytime TV show 60+ years ago, “So long like a hot dog!”

  • “In what universe and under which God is the sexual abuse of children by alleged men of God a ‘minor issue’?”

    In what post did I claim sexual abuse of children was a minor issue?

    None.

    You do like to rant.

  • When someone claims that something physical exists, the burden of proof is always on them. I cannot prove that something that does not exist exists. I believe God exists as a concept of our imagination, so as a concept, God definitely exists.

  • Facts never convince people who have already made up their minds regardless of any facts or new information that would cause an objective person to re-think their position from time to time.

    I remember Mr. Ed, the talking horse ran from January 5 to July 2, 1961, and then on CBS from October 1, 1961, to February 6, 1966. Then I was drafted into the military to go an kill the so-called “Godless Communists” in Vietnam. They said that so much on TV that people actually started to believe it. Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

  • Not always. The atheist could refute with facts why the evidence for God is false. Or you you demonstrate why the existence of God is illogical. If you can’t disprove the existence of God with facts and sound reason and you still persist in being an atheist then that means you are self deceived.

ADVERTISEMENTs