Pope Francis calls for 'Decisive Action' Against Sex Abuse Priests

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Afterthought
I realize this may be going off topic, but why allow him to participate in Confession at all? This is an arcane practice that allowed the church to get dirt on people so they would have more power anyways.

Confession is a sacrament of the Church based on scripture interpretation. It's a part of the faith.

Originally posted by sd211212
he is acting just how the "last" pope is predicted to act. He needs support from the sheeple to come back to the beloved church. something is amiss here

So when the church does bad .. something is amiss. And when they get a good pope in who is trying to clean up .. something is amiss. I guess no matter what, they are wrong?

Now you have it! It is all a dog and pony show for the masses. The Church, most churches, at the top levels are evil incarnate.

P

reply to post by FlyersFan


I remember reading about a memoir of him having a inter-faith conversation I think where he stated that the church's credibility can bounce back and that it was not as much of a concern to him as it was to out these pedophiles from the church and deal with fall out later because the church has endured worse. The memoir If I recall correctly were a collection of conversations with another individual of another faith that were done a couple years ago and were documented and released in a book. So no direct quotes but I am sure someone here knows what I am speaking of. Of course due process and all is smart but I don't see these people being swept under the rug anymore after being investigated internally. I think the new POPE will make an example of every last one of them who deserves it and will cooperate with the authorities wherever applicable.

Doubtful on the "decisive action" statement. Almost all of the cases coming to light today concerning allegations of abuse occurred 30-40 years ago. Most of these accused priests are now dead.

Today, the Church does a much better job of screening applicants to the priesthood. Background checks, profiling questionnaires, extensive training of prospective priests on issues related to sexuality and managing impulses, psychological evaluations to root out risk factors, etc.

None of these screening tools were available 40 years ago.

Most priests today enter the seminary at a much later, more mature age, as opposed to entering the priesthood right out of high school as they did in generations past. There are also fewer priests now then there were in decades past.

With all due respect to the new papacy, I am highly doubtful that the rhetoric will match any meaningful actions. Time will tell, but from what the Pope has shown already, he is a master politician.

The priesthood in the Temple in Jerusalem never took vows of celibacy as far as I can tell. The Torah commands man to be "fruitful and multiply". The celibacy rule has no biblical basis as far as I can tell. The only slight reference I have found is in the book of Jeremiah, where Jeremiah is hesitant to have children because of the pending destruction of Jerusalem.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

Good evening CookieMonster09. Mind if I agree with you?

The priesthood in the Temple in Jerusalem never took vows of celibacy as far as I can tell. The Torah commands man to be "fruitful and multiply". The celibacy rule has no biblical basis as far as I can tell. The only slight reference I have found is in the book of Jeremiah, where Jeremiah is hesitant to have children because of the pending destruction of Jerusalem.

No real problems with that at all, although Corinthians does mention that it would be better for the widows and the unmarried should remain unmarried, but that's not a strong argument.

In the Catholic Church, celibacy is not a doctrine, it's not a matter of faith. It could be rescinded should it be judged that the need has arisen. Celibacy is a Church discipline. Does it have any arguments for it? I think so. Honestly, from what I've seen of priests, they would be shortchanging their wifes were they to marry. Their schedule is a killer, free time is rare, and they are on call for the needs of their parishoners. It also helps them to have a more spiritual focus in their lives. If they decide to go to the church at 3 a.m. for prayers, they don't have to consider their spouse sleeping nearby.

Their dedication is tremendous, and while a wife might be an aid she also might be a hindrance. Is celibacy good or bad? I'll leave that to the Church and the men who accept it as part of their calling.

No real problems with that at all, although Corinthians does mention that it would be better for the widows and the unmarried should remain unmarried, but that's not a strong argument.

It's more of a suggestion, and he goes on before this verse to mention that those that are called to married life should pursue it.

The Torah given by G-d is pretty straightforward: Be fruitful and multiply. G-d does not tell His people to be celibate.

Honestly, from what I've seen of priests, they would be shortchanging their wifes were they to marry. Their schedule is a killer, free time is rare, and they are on call for the needs of their parishoners. It also helps them to have a more spiritual focus in their lives. If they decide to go to the church at 3 a.m. for prayers, they don't have to consider their spouse sleeping nearby.

Their schedule is so difficult because of the shortage of priests. That only compounds the problem

However, we see many faiths that place similar burdens on their ministers and rabbis. Yet, none of them restrict their ministers and rabbis to remain celibate. Only the Catholic Church.

Their dedication is tremendous, and while a wife might be an aid she also might be a hindrance. Is celibacy good or bad? I'll leave that to the Church and the men who accept it as part of their calling.

I'll take the Torah's words over the idolatrous Catholic Church any day of the week. At least the Torah is logical, rational, and intelligent. Trying to understand the Catholic Church and its obtuse rules is a lesson in futility.

Too many of the rules in the Church are black and white. At least the rabbis debate, and give exceptions, and analyze these situations from a hundred different angles. The Church is much, much more dogmatic. And, as in the case of the celibacy rule, among others, its myopic vision has dire consequences for the faithful.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

Dear CookieMonster09,

It seems I was a little premature in concluding there was no scriptural basis for celibacy. Here's an opinion from another writer:

In 1 Corinthians, for example, Paul actually seems to prefer the celibate life: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . . Those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided" (7:27-34). This is not to say that all men should be celibate, however; Paul explains that celibacy is a calling for some and not for others by saying, "Each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:7).

Jesus Himself speaks of celibacy in Matthew 19:11-12: "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it." Again, the emphasis is on the special nature of celibacy, one for which not all men are suited, but one that nevertheless gives glory to "the kingdom of God."

Perhaps the best evidence for the scriptural support of celibacy is that Jesus Himself practiced it!

With respect,
Charles1952

In 1 Corinthians, for example, Paul actually seems to prefer the celibate life: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . . Those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided" (7:27-34). This is not to say that all men should be celibate, however; Paul explains that celibacy is a calling for some and not for others by saying, "Each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:7).

Genesis 1:27-28:

"And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.'

Perhaps the best evidence for the scriptural support of celibacy is that Jesus Himself practiced it!

The Bible contains no explicit mentions of Jesus being either married or not married. Most theologians, however, assume that he was celibate and unmarried.

Rabbis were and are not forbidden to be married. In the Torah, there is no commandment for G-d's people to remain celibate. In fact, most traditional Jewish families are quite large, and among the Orthodox, having 8-10 kids or more is quite common.

I'll believe it when I see it. I like Francis so far. If I were pope I would say the following;

"If a priest or nun is found guilty of abusing a child sexually they will be excommunicated immediately, if the guilty predators seek to be rehabilitated or seek to be re-communicated with the church they must go through a 5 year probationary period, whatever the case all guilty predators will never be able to hold official roles in the church for the rest of their lives, period."

It would take big balls for the pope to make a statement like that. I hear a lot of talk I'll believe it when I see a lot of actions. No more relocation, no more allowing the guilty child rapists to hold their official church titles, they need to be excommunicated and never hold authority ever again, and be jailed if possible. Church or no church anyone who conducts themselves this way are very sick and need to be punished and the punishments need to be specific to prove the seriousness of the crime.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
The Torah given by G-d is pretty straightforward: Be fruitful and multiply. G-d does not tell His people to be celibate.

1 - Celebacy doesn't cause pedophilia. Psychology 101. It doesn't work that way.
2 - The Torah given by God? Really? Many here could argue against that very well.
3 - What Jesus and His Apostles said - Celibacy and the priesthood

Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).

Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).

Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom":

"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

I'll take the Torah's words over the idolatrous Catholic Church any day of the week. At least the Torah is logical, rational, and intelligent. Trying to understand the Catholic Church and its obtuse rules is a lesson in futility..

Ah yes .. the old Jewish laws are sooooooo logical. Death for masterbation. Eat shellfish and suffer hellfire. Moses telling the Jews that they should slaughter all their enemies except the young virgin girls who the soldiers could keep as sex slaves. God making the earth 6,000 years ago. Noahs Ark and the Adam and Eve story which were fables stolen from the Summerians and rewritten from a Jewish perspective. etc etc ... yeah ...lots of logical, rational and intelligent stuff coming from all that ....

Celebacy doesn't cause pedophilia. Psychology 101. It doesn't work that way.

Doubtful. The laws of biology require men to release their energies. To repress nature is against natural biology. Unfortunately, the easiest access for these wicked, twisted priests to release their energies is amongst the weakest of society.

Celibacy is against the natural order. Man, from the beginning, was given a mate.

Regardless of secular sources, the word of G-d does not command celibacy. There is no biblical basis for celibacy. The truth be told, the Roman Catholic Church implemented the rules of celibacy for monetary and estate reasons, so as to keep the wealth of the Church from passing on to wives and heirs.

The alleged "theological" reasons given for celibacy are just the cover story, and easily refuted by the word of G-d. None of the Jewish high priests were required to be celibate. It was the gross misinterpretation of G-d's laws - as well as pure greed - by the Roman Catholic Church that implemented celibacy among the priesthood.

Ah yes .. the old Jewish laws are sooooooo logical. Death for masterbation. Eat shellfish and suffer hellfire. Moses telling the Jews that they should slaughter all their enemies except the young virgin girls who the soldiers could keep as sex slaves. God making the earth 6,000 years ago. Noahs Ark and the Adam and Eve story which were fables stolen from the Summerians and rewritten from a Jewish perspective. etc etc ... yeah ...lots of logical, rational and intelligent stuff coming from all that ....

No, each of your examples are taken completely out of context. The Torah is quite logical.

Masturbation? The Torah does not mention masturbation. There is the discussion of Onan, which had to do with the evil of Onan in marrying his deceased brother's wife (which he was expected - but not required - to marry according to Torah law in order to continue his brother's ancestral line) but Onan wickedly and willingly failing to procreate with her for selfish and evil reasons. G-d struck Onan down as a result. Rabbinical interpretation of this story is that man should not waste his ability to procreate.

The laws of kosher are scientifically proven to be healthier choices than non-kosher foods. Shellfish, for example, we now know is among the most common food allergens. We also know that shellfish contains a high concentration of arsenic. G-d's kosher laws keep people healthy.

The "slaves" you mentioned were not slaves. Slaves are people owned by other people. In Torah law, an individual never has complete ownership of anything. These "slaves" rested on the seventh day and Jewish holidays, could not be physically or sexually abused and were obligated in many mitzvot (good deeds). They were really more like indentured servants. These indentured servants were released after 7 years - G-d's laws of the Sabbatical year requires their release.

I could continue, but we can agree to disagree. If you study Torah law carefully, and in context, the laws of the Torah are quite logical and rational. By contrast, the Church's laws are oftentimes dogmatic, irrational, and against the logic of the Torah.

The Jewish Sages - and this is debated - place Rome as the land of the Edomites/Esau. This belief is sometimes refuted in both directions by various theologians - for and against - but Rome clearly has all of the biblical character traits of Esau.

You have to remember, the Church is headquartered in Rome for a reason. Many of the past Popes, including Pope Francis (an Argentinian but of Italian ancestry) were and are Italian. Much of the Church is still steeped in Italian culture and Roman paganism, which are completely the reverse of the Torah. Rome has turned the Torah on its head - Ignoring the very basic fundamental rules and guidelines set down by G-d in the Torah.

When the earliest Christians sought to convert the Gentiles, the issue arose over what Torah laws the Gentiles had to follow. It was eventually determined that the newly converted Gentiles would follow some, but not all of the laws of the Torah. These are referred to as the Noahide laws - The basic laws that the Gentile nations need to follow, but not the full Torah laws. The belief was that if Gentiles would be exposed to Judaism "lite", they would eventually seek the entire Torah in all its wisdom and want to become a part of the Jewish people - following the laws of Sabbath, kosher, etc.

Christ was Jewish, as were His disciples. St. Paul was Jewish. They all followed the Torah. Some have suggested that Christ somehow replaced or did away with the Torah, but this is theological hooey. Christ sought to renew the Torah in the heart of his Jewish brethren and disciples. Christ said, "For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law (I.e., the Torah), till all be fulfilled."

reply to post by charles1952


I personally always thought it was due to St. Paul's teachings primarily and the short lived sect of Christianity that grew out of his preachings. Some also refer to the purity of the birth of Christ from his mother Mary but no clue. I always leaned towards the St. Paul aka Paul The Apostle thing myself. I could be wrong though.

this Pope has a lot of energy, I hope he uses it to actually make the church a relevant force for good.

reply to post by Flint2011

Dear Flint2011,

Thanks for the response and the link. A lot of Church teachings and practices come from Paul and the Christians of the first 100-200 years after Christ, some took longer to develop.

What I don't understand in this thread is "Who cares?" People can choose to become members or not, priests or not. Everybody knows what the rules are, sign up or don't.

Priestly celibacy is not a principle that anyone has to believe to be saved, it's not a piece of doctrine, it's just how the Church wants it's priests to be. It may change some day or it may not. For some posters here I would suggest calming down and looking at important things.

With respect,
Charles1952

I pray he gets rid of this cancer that has caused the downfall of the Catholic Church. Starting with the eradication of these sick pedophiles, to annulment, this anti-Christian crap has to go!
But we'll just watch and see.

reply to post by charles1952


I am very familiar with the influences Paul has had on the Christian church and most particularly on the Catholic church. His story is very interesting. I find Paul to be some what more modern for his time and more realistic and quite opinionated and even a bit of a hard liner in his views and teachings. Paul came about being an apostle through one of the most difficult lessons one could ever learn according to his story in the bible. One tough guy for sure.

I am an atheist (Not a zealot one either). However, I have nothing against religion or people of religion (Religion does not offend me). I quite frankly enjoy learning about theology and religious traditions and foundations. It's a core part of human history.

I personally care about discussing these things. It's interesting. What I don't do is debate and argue about it. I see it from an academic point of view even though I am not an academic in degree I am one by intent and curiosity.

I think it's quite unique how such expectations and rules exist in the Catholic religion for Priests. It's a defining commitment to one's true character to take on such standards in a religious practice. I can respect that.

reply to post by Flint2011

Dear Flint2011,

Wonderful to hear back from you, and I'm glad to share your opinions:

I quite frankly enjoy learning about theology and religious traditions and foundations. It's a core part of human history.

I personally care about discussing these things. It's interesting. What I don't do is debate and argue about it.

Where would you like to go from here? I'd be happy to tag along, if you want any company, and we can talk about such things.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I have no where to go from here. I just wanted to chime in and share what I thought and understood. Thanks for the reply though.

reply to post by Flint2011

Dear Flint2011,

There's an interesting thread over here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

May I suggest that, if you have the time, you read through it? It's still pretty short and looks promising.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by FlyersFan


Sure, if you keep talking about it and promoting the idea.

Send love, not fear to such figures.

They need the former more.

reply to post by charles1952


Nothing new there for me to see there. Thank you for the link though.

I will admit that I am not a fan of the Protestant theology at all though. It does not even inspire a notion of curiosity in me. I did the basic research into it and left it at that. Was not impressed nor interested.