Lost Catholic - Corruption in the RCC

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I am of Italian descent and, thus have been born and raised a Roman Catholic. I would like to start of by saying that although I am not a theologian, I am highly educated with professional accounting designations, an MBA and I am current in the PH.d. program for Finance. During my studies I have always been interested in learning and elective course to further learn about my religion. But, with more learning came more despair, confusion and anger.

I am now upset with the history of Catholicism. My mani source of anger arises from the death of Pope John Paul I. Many articles that I have read reveal scandals with the Mafia regarding the Vaticans portfolio of wealth were about to exposed by the Pope (being business savy, I understan what was at stake). Furthermore, many articles claim that the Pope was murdered because of His potential stance on birth control. I do not want to go into detail about all of the corroborating evidence pointing to a murder, but I am hoping that someone can halp me understand what happend and what I should feel about this matter.

The second issue I have is with the recent trend of molestation and sexual assult scandal dealing with our preists. What am I supposed to feel about this??? How can I still have faith in Catholicism??

The third issues took place a long time ago and deal with the sale of Indulgences. If the church tried selling indulgences today it would be prosecuted under the RICO law. Indulgences gave birth to the Protestant Reformation, which is a sad shame because it divided our union under Christ.

There are many more allegded scandals and corruption in the RCC that other may want to get into in this discussion. I am seeking the advice and vast knowledge of this message group to help me understand and accapt these issues. Thank you for your help.

Ambivalent Soul

-- Needed Answers (Catholic@mymail.com), July 14, 2003

Answers

Ambivalent, I understand your frustration with such scandals, but you must realize, it isn't the Church that is corrupt but members OF the Church. The Church as a whole is not at fault, rather it is the individuals who committed such acts.

-- R. (__@___.com), July 14, 2003.

Ambivalent - You can still have faith in Catholicism because the sexual abuse of children is everywhere. It is in protestant religions, the boy scouts, among just married men with no affiliation to a group. The scandal is a problem but it has been blown way out of proportion. Not even 1% of priests in the US are child molestors. Now the coverup is bad but the Church is cleaning house and I am hopeing for a bright future. Second the selling of indulgences was a very complicated issue. It started out as getting an indulgence for donating money to the church. It was like this because many of the people that were donating were very poor people. So the pope allowed an indulgence because these people were giving from their need and not from their surplus. But than this was corrupted by a few people. Not the whole church.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), July 14, 2003.

Dear Ambi,
If you were born & raised as a Catholic you have had close to the same religious experience I had. Unless you didn't practice the faith you were taught.

The other two posters seem to accept you on your brief words here. Now, supposing you are actually an anti- Catholic, attempting by subterfuge to bring various charges against the Church, expecting to bring down somebody's confidence in his Church? I suppose you'd say just what you've started with here. ''I was born & raised as a Catholic.'' Not a theologian, but very gifted otherwise; too smart to be taken in.

Why did you lose your faith? Are you suggesting we might restore your faith to you? Or-- do you wish to shake the faith of others? Will you tell us honestly? If you persuade us you are speaking honestly, we have great things to tell you. Let us know if we can help you. Show your cards and forget about ambivalence.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 14, 2003.


"I am now upset with the history of Catholicism".

A: Just what have you been reading? What are your sources? "Many articles" in WHAT claim that the Pope was murdered because of His potential stance on birth control? I am quite well read, and I have never encountered such an article. "Many articles" WHERE "reveal" scandals with the Mafia?? This sounds to me like Chick Publications, or a similar source of mindless anti-Catholic bigotry. A genuinely educated individual wouldn't be caught dead quoting such drivel. But then, you haven't revealed your sources for these purpoted "many articles" you claim to have read. So, we should wait until you do so, so that we might be in a better position to appreciate their possible worth, or lack of same, as contributions to "the history of Catholicism".

"The second issue I have is with the recent trend of molestation and sexual assult scandal dealing with our preists. What am I supposed to feel about this??? How can I still have faith in Catholicism??"

A: What kind of a foolish question is that? Who would judge a system of belief by the actions of a few men who act in direct opposition to the very principles of that belief system? You don't judge the value of a medicine by its effect on those who pour it down the sink, but rather by its effect on those who take it and use it as it was intended to be used. First of all, there is no "trend" among priests regarding sexual assault. It would be miraculous indeed if, out of any group of 50,000+ men, ALL of whom are sinners, there were NONE involved in sexual misconduct. The same is true of doctors, lawyers, teachers, ministers, rabbis, or any other group you can name. How can I still have faith in the medical profession? In the educational programs of our nation? Indeed, many of these perpetrators were Americans, and some were even American leaders. How then can I still have faith in America?? Your question makes exactly as much sense as these questions - none!

"The third issues took place a long time ago and deal with the sale of Indulgences"

The Church still grants indulgences today, just as it always did. This is an integral and valid element of full Christianity. The administrative abuses in the granting of indulgences which developed in the Middle Ages have long since been reformed, but not by the so- called "Reformers", who abandoned the Church of God, and reformed nothing at all. Indulgences didn't give birth to the Protestant Rebellion. One proud and arrogant priest did. HE divided Christianity, and in so doing introduced a flawed tradition which guaranteed the ongoing division of his manmade version of "Christianity". Meanwhile, the true Church of Jesus Christ continued to grow, and continues today, strong and pure, teaching the fullness of Christian truth, undivided, holy, universal, and apostolic. If you can no longer place your faith in this Church, a gift given to you by God Himself, with a divine guarantee of His presence and truth until the end of time, then there is little point in having faith in anything less.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 14, 2003.


Paul wanted sources, well here they are:

"In God's Name" -- David A. Yallop "A Thief In The Night" -- John Cornwell Rafael Rodríguez Guillén has also written much about corruption in the RCC. "Betrayal: The Crisis in the Catholic Church" -- Boston Globe , Matt Carroll , Kevin Cullen , Thomas Farragher , Stephen Kurkjian , Michael Paulson , Sacha Pfeiffer , Michael Rezendes , Walter V. Robinson "GOODBYE, GOOD MEN: How Liberals Brought Corruption Into the Catholic Church" -- by Michael S. Rose

As mentioned, I am not an expert theologian and I do not know if these sources are reputable or credible, that is why I asked my question. When citing work for a finance paper I know that I can trust specific journals to publish unbiased and objectives reports (e.g. Journal of Finance). How do I know that the an article dealing with religion is not biased?? If the vatican makes a statement, it would be safe to assume that it is baised towards a vested interest. Likewise, if an anti-Catholic (which I am NOT!!!!) publishes an article, it is likely biased against the RCC. Is there a credible and unbiased source of religious information???

Also, to see tone of some of the responses again saddens me, I came here asking for guidance and clearance and I am greeted with defensiveness and almost hostility. The reason I possed these questions is to better understand the RCC and to be able to defend it when others bring up these accustaions, because right now I do not have the answers. I am hoping you can provide me with some answers.

I look forward to your response to this matter, and to all other questions asked in this forum.

-- Ambivalent Soul (Catholic@mymail.com), July 14, 2003.



Hi Ambivalent:

I am not sure about the conspiracy theory surrounding the death of John Paul I, but the other scandals you mentioned are of course part of the historical record. The sale of indulgences was stopped by the counter-reformation, so is not a live issue today. I think everyone agrees that it was a sinful practice that should have never been allowed.

Regarding the other issue you mention, I share your feelings. "What am I supposed to feel about this?" I don't know, but anger seems more appropriate than defending evil.

"How can I still have faith in Catholicism?" Faith is a supernatural gift, so this question may be better expressed as a prayer. But have you read the story of the virtuous Jew in Boccaccio's Decameron?

The virtuous Jew had a Christian friend who was deeply troubled by the idea that such a good man was going to Hell. He spared no effort to convert his Jewish friend, but to no avail. Finally, the virtuous Jew decided to visit Rome to judge Christianity for himself based on the behaviour of its top leaders.

His friend now gave up all hope of conversion, because the immorality of the Papal court was a byword. But surprisingly, when the Jew came back from Rome, he expressed a firm desire to join the Catholic Church! His reason? How could a Church full of such evil people survive and prosper unless it had God at its head?



-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 15, 2003.

"I would like to start of by saying that although I am not a theologian, I am highly educated with professional accounting designations, an MBA and I am current in the PH.d. program for Finance."

The first thing you have to do is to separate out anything that smacks of status in the eyes of the world. This isn't to question whether you are bright or well-educated, or to say that those things are negatives in and of themselves, but simply to say this: they don't matter to God, and are irrelevant in themselves in regards to salvation. See, what He is looking for is someone to go the way of the Cross with Him, which actually consists of lowliness, weakness, and simpleness. In other words, if you wish to follow him, prepare to drop out of the world while yet somehow managing to be involved in it. This seems a paradox, and it is truly a difficult task to contemplate and even more so to actually pull off.

Catholicism, when really and truly practiced in this day and age, will make sense to no one. No one will understand what the hell you are talking about, what you are on about, what your intentions are. It's practice is in complete opposition to the world, and from the world's standpoint, it is the ultimate in insanity. Rest assured that the world will go out of it's way to point out your insanity. Half the battle is remain steadfast in spite of this; the other half is to learn to enjoy it.

"During my studies I have always been interested in learning and elective course to further learn about my religion. But, with more learning came more despair, confusion and anger."

Good for you. You must be coming to some sort of reckoning of the disparity of what the World is asking of you, and What the Holy Ghost is asking of you, most likely through the promptings of the Mother of God. Welcome to the Holy Darkness, the dark night of the soul, the knife's edge of uncertainty that haunts us and propels us from the ways of this world and ever onward to the things of God.

"I am now upset with the history of Catholicism."

The history of Catholicism, or the history of the Enemies' attempts to dismantle the One True Church? Cause for further consideration. Look deeper.

"My main source of anger arises from the death of Pope John Paul I. Many articles that I have read reveal scandals with the Mafia regarding the Vaticans portfolio of wealth were about to exposed by the Pope (being business savy, I understan what was at stake). Furthermore, many articles claim that the Pope was murdered because of His potential stance on birth control. I do not want to go into detail about all of the corroborating evidence pointing to a murder, but I am hoping that someone can halp me understand what happend and what I should feel about this matter."

Something very strange happened, sure, but rest assured you'll never know, nor does it matter if you know or don't know. There are a great many mysteries in this world, all of which take part in the larger Mystery of Iniquity which has been hounding us since the Garden. Your job is to counter this enemy; you do so by dying, dying with Christ, silently and in a hidden way. You forsake this life, and concern yourself with the next.

"The second issue I have is with the recent trend of molestation and sexual assult scandal dealing with our preists. What am I supposed to feel about this??? How can I still have faith in Catholicism??"

By understanding that it is the forces of the Enemy that have infiltrated the Church that have done this, seeking the Church's downfall. But this will never ultimately happen, because the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. You are a member in a hidden society called The Mystical Body of Christ, and by your future prayers and sacrifices within this hidden society, you will play a part in the destruction and routing out of these enemies of the Church, and will have a hand in the Triumph of the Great Mother of God. You can wield the sword of the Virgin to this end.

"Ambivalent Soul"

This is the problem, but that can change.



-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 15, 2003.


Here's a link to the story in the Decameron that I mentioned.

And here's the punchline as said by Abraham the virtuous Jew:

To the best of my judgment, your Pastor, and by consequence all that are about him devote all their zeal and ingenuity and subtlety to devise how best and most speedily they may bring the Christian religion to nought and banish it from the world.

And because I see that what they so zealously endeavour does not come to pass, but that on the contrary your religion continually grows, and shines more and more clear, therein I seem to discern a very evident token that it, rather than any other, as being more true and holy than any other, has the Holy Spirit for its foundation and support.



-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 15, 2003.

Dear Ambivalent,

Thanks for posting the sources of your "information". I am not personally familiar with all of them. However, I have read "Goodbye, Good Men" by Michael Rose, which is typical of popular works being generated by schismatic, anti-Vatican II "Catholics" seeking to undermine the authority of the Church in the name of so- called "traditionalism"... and the Boston Globe is widely known as one of most anti-Catholic, pro-Abortion, pro-homosexual secular newspapers in the country. I have refused to purchase it for years, even though I live not far from Boston. You would do well to expand your horizons, and get some of your "Catholic" history from Catholic, or at least neutral sources.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 15, 2003.


Methinks, Paul, you lean more than a little to the left.

NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER!

The real truth behind the current scandal rocking the Catholic Church...

order online

How did the American Catholic priesthood go from an image of wise, strong men like Spencer Tracy in Boys Town and Bing Crosby in Going My Way, to an image of "pedophile priests"?

In Goodbye, Good Men, investigative reporter Michael S. Rose provides the shocking answer – an answer the mainstream news media has missed.

He uncovers how radical liberalism, like that found on many college campuses, has infiltrated the Catholic Church and tried to overthrow her traditional beliefs, standards, and disciplines – especially Church teachings on sexuality. In bringing the "sexual revolution" into the Church, liberals have welcomed – even preferred – radicalized active homosexuals to orthodox seminarians in the name of "diversity" and "tolerance." That "tolerance" has now been exposed as a toleration of criminal acts.

Here, in stunning detail, is the story behind the headlines – the story that made those very headlines possible. As Dr. Alice von Hildebrand says, Goodbye, Good Men "holds the key to a phenomenon which, to many, is also an enigma: Why are so many seminaries empty? Michael S. Rose has the courage – a courage that many Church leaders lack – of giving us the fearful but uncontestable answer: because vice has penetrated into many of them, and those who do not condone vice are excluded."

A riveting work of extraordinary reporting, Michael S. Rose shows how the very institutions charged with inculcating Catholic theology and discipline have come to prefer gay priests to straight ones, pop psychology to religious devotion, and Playboy to the pope.

Praise for Goodbye, Good Men

"Goodbye, Good Men provides additional evidence that the problems behind the headlines run deep and wide. Recognizing that and acting on that recognition will, please God, lead to a Church renewed in fidelity to what she teaches."

--Rev. Richard John Neuhaus Philadelphia Inquirer

"Mr. Rose is a courageous man: he is willing to say publicly that the emperor has no clothes—that most of our [Catholic] seminaries, from the point of view of doctrine, morals, piety, and simple good manners, are a disaster."

--Rev. Kenneth Baker, S.J. Editor, Homiletic & Pastoral Review

Goodbye, Good Men."

--Mary Jo Anderson Crisis Magazine

"As an expose in the best sense of the word with meticulous documentation, Michael Rose's bombshell should be required reading for every bishop committed to the much-needed renewal of our Church."

--Dr. Joseph Nicolosi Inside the Vatican

"Few books in the past thirty years have shed more light on the continuing crisis in the Catholic Church. In particular, anyone who wishes to understand the pedophilia scandals, and how they could have occured, must read this book."

-- James Hitchcock Professor of History, St. Louis University

"American Catholics everywhere are reeling from appalling revelations about priestly pedophilia, and asking themselves, 'How could this possibly have happened?' Readers of Goodbye! Good Men, staggered by Rose's revelations about seminary life, will answer, 'Now I see. Here's how.' This book is not to be missed by anyone who cares about the Catholic faith."

-- Ralph McInerny Professor of Philosophy,University of Notre Dame and author, What Went Wrong With Vatican II?

"This book holds the key to a phenomenon which, to many, is also an enigma: Why are so many seminaries empty? Michael S. Rose has the courage -- a courage that many Church leaders lack -- of giving us the fearful but uncontestable answer: because vice has penetrated into many of them, and those who do not condone vice are excluded. True vocations are disqualified."

-- Alice von Hildebrand, Ph.D. author, Soul of a Lion

"Goodbye! Good Men may be dismissed by some. But for those of us who were there -- for those of us who were in seminaries in the 1970's and the 1980's, this book has a sure and certain ring of truth to it. Anyone who is appalled by the current scandals in the priesthood, anyone who has been saddened for years by the visible weakening of the vigor of the Catholic Church in our country will find in Michael S. Rose's careful prose an important part of the answer to the question, 'How can these things be?' The tale Rose tells in his book is unbelievable -- but it is true. He has performed a great Some very solid heavy hitters here disagree with you Paul.

Your, slip........ is showing.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 15, 2003.



I have personal experience with one of the Bishops cited, in the negative, in this book.

Although it regards a different subject altogether, it is consistant with his leaning towards the very liberal aspects of the hijacked Vatican II modernism.

It definitely confirmed my suspicions.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 15, 2003.


Dear Karl,

What took you so long? :-) If there is anyone on this forum who would be drawn to this book, it is you, for the author approaches his subject the same way you do - by taking isolated incidents of a genuine problem that does indeed require some attention, and magnifying them into a supposed pervasive, universal crisis affecting the entire Church of God, while ignoring any and all data that would provide a reasonable balance. It is interesting that most of the rebuttals which have appeared in print have come not from ultraconservative "heavy hitters", but from ordinary seminarians and recently ordained priests who are telling us "this sort of thing doesn't happen in my seminary". But a dozen testimonies from those who actually know will never take precedence over one testimony by a conservative literary heavyweight, regardless of their relative degree of actual experience. Rose's approach to the seminary situation is much like the Glode's approach to the sexual abuse situation - take the cases that actually exist, throw them in the face of the public day after day, publishing 20 or more articles on each isolated incident until another incident become available, and before long the unknowledgeable masses who constitute the bulk of the paper's readership will form the only possible conclusion ... priest = pervert. It must be so. Otherwise why would there be such constant front-page attention given to this "widespread, pervasive crisis"? Never mind that this "crisis" involves fewer than 1% of priests (and by "involves", I mean that charges have been brought - not that anything has been proven). There is no doubt that some of our seminaries need improvement, just like some of our bishops. There is no doubt that a few seminaries may be as bad as Rose claims, just like a few bishops are. But such cases do not constitute just reason for a blanket condemnation of either the episcopacy or the formation of priests on a national scale. Such alarmist approaches sell books, but don't contribute much to knowledge.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 15, 2003.


Ambivalent, The sale of indulgences was wrong. As Catholics today, we hear very little about indulgences except the negative. Most priests shy away from even attempting to explain indulgences. They are a black mark on the Church.

I have read David Yallops' book and find that it makes some strange leaps. It however does outline abuses in the Vatican bank. Most world banks had the same problem at that time, ie. money laundering etc.

Most priests to whom I have spoken were just as appalled at the sexual abuse cases as we were or more so.

What continues to be troubling to me is when the Church as an institution acts like a corporation instead of a Church. Human nature, I guess.Every institution when confronted with lawsuits circles the wagons.

It takes courage to step up to the plate and say we as a Church are above this. I believe this is now happening. We have had two back to back wonderful Bishops heading the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (Fiorenza and Gregory).

We are on the right road. If anything, the Holy Spirit is cleaning house.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), July 15, 2003.


Paul,

I was referred to this book by a couple of people, one is a priest for 20 years. Both are practicing Catholics in good standing. I seriously doubt the priest is a pervert. He, in fact, has been a long time friend and very supportive in my annulment battle.

You are very defensive about allegations, which carry significant impact on the Church. If the Church were more forthcoming when these allegations are raised they might actually prevent the issues from being co-opted by those who are only interested in damaging the Church in anyway they can, truthful or not. Your own attitude seems to assume that such allegations are false from the start. While they may, indeed be so, each deserves a hearing and based upon that objective hearing, if they are true then discipline needs to be administered, as appropriate.

That, I personally have not seen one speck of evidence of in my case. What I have alleged, I have proven. Even the black and white, documentary proofs I have submitted, years ago, remain unanswered.

That is not an allegation. That is a fact.

The Catholic Church is RIGHTLY ATTACKED for its secrecy, even involving proven victims, when it is not publically holding to account its clerics who have done grave harm to individuals, in their official capacities especially, and even in their personal lives when they use their priestly authority, in abuse whatever the form it is in.

Until I see many of the clerics whom, I KNOW have done seriously wrong things, punished in public and FORCED to admit their actions and FORCED to make proper restitution, I will view EVERY act of the Church regarding allegations of wrongdoing, with deep suspicion.

It is attitudes like yours, Paul, which help perpetuate clerical injustices by failing to demand justice from the Church. You defend it blindly, without apparent desire to follow up on the facts.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 15, 2003.


If Karl were impartial he wouldn't continue baiting us here with his grandiose denunciations. He has a large axe to grind. So much so that nothing he ever can say will carry weight with this forum. He is NOT an impartial witness to the Church's problems and her hierarchy's faults.

He might have cause for complaint. We know there have been serious faults within the Church and we never denied that.

That isn't the point, though. What he's interested in amidst us is denigrating the Catholic Church. Karl has only negative and malicious things to say here. He is gone from the faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 15, 2003.



"What am I supposed to feel about this??? How can I still have faith in Catholicism??"

Have faith in the Catholic Church, because it was a lack of faith on the priests part that caused them to sin. If you lose faith in the Catholic Church, you lose faith in Truth - which ultimately leads to sin and scandle.

Don't be a part of this.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), July 15, 2003.


Yes the Chruch might have been rightly attacked for it's secrecy. I'll give you that. But the issue of pervert priests is a very complicated one. For the simple fact that the Church is an institution of God so bishops must try hard to save the souls of everyone. This includes the bad priests. But remember we must not throw out the baby with the bath water. You must also notice the ages of these bad priests. Most are in the 70s. Why? I asked my parish priest about this. He said it was because during the time that these people were becoming priests the Church did a bad recuiting job. Most of these priests came to seminary right out of 8th grade. Most were to immature to know what they were really doing. But the Church has changed. People that are becoming priests must undergo many physcological testing. The Church is trying to make sure this doesn't happen again. We are going to be getting some great priests soon. As my bishop says "I would rather have a few great priests instead of many middle of the road priests."

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), July 15, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Ambivalent Soul.

You already have lots of good help from others, so I will not go back over their "territory." I will focus on a specific subject of great concern to you. You wrote:

"My main source of anger arises from the death of Pope John Paul I. Many articles that I have read reveal scandals with the Mafia regarding the Vaticans portfolio of wealth were about to exposed by the Pope (being business savy, I understan what was at stake). Furthermore, many articles claim that the Pope was murdered because of His potential stance on birth control. I do not want to go into detail about all of the corroborating evidence pointing to a murder, but I am hoping that someone can halp me understand what happend and what I should feel about this matter."

Later you mentioned that you were influenced by two books:
"In God's Name: An Investigation into the Murder of Pope John Paul I" by David A. Yallop (1984)
"A Thief in the Night: The Death of Pope John Paul I" by John Cornwell (1989)

I want to let you know that I have been reading about these books since they were first published more than ten years ago. I have concluded that the first one is pure rubbish, a fiction written for sensationalism and to rake in a lot of cash. The second is better (debunking the first), but cannot be fully relied upon because the author was subsequently revealed to be a fallen-away Catholic who hates strong popes and has more recently abused the subject of Pope Pius XII to try to undermine the authority of the papacy in general.

Concerning Yallop, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights reported:
"The controversial 1984 best seller alleges that Pope John Paul I was killed by the Mob. The book was denounced by the Vatican as a collection of 'absurd fantasies.'"

Earlier this year [even this month?], Newsmax.com published the following helpful information:

------------------ QUOTE: ------------
After a mere 33 days as pope, John Paul I died under circumstances that have sparked theories about the cause of death, including the suggestion that he was murdered.

Books such as Jean-Jacques Thierry's 1983 "The Truth About the Death of John Paul I" and ex-Catholic David Yallop's 1984 best-seller, "In God's Name: An Investigation Into the Murder of Pope John Paul I," asserted that homicide was the cause of the sudden demise.
Archbishop John Foley of the Pontifical Commission on Social Communications asked British investigative reporter John Cornwell, like Yallop a lapsed Catholic, to investigate. The result was Cornwell's 1989 book, "A Thief in the Night: Life and Death in the Vatican."

In an article in the current "Crisis" magazine, veteran journalist Sandra Miesel looks at Yallop's and Cornwell's investigation and concludes that Yallop "had a vested interest in arguing for murder" while Cornwell did not.
"Yallop's shrill editorializing against what he sees as a rich, sex-obsessed Church - 'Vatican Incorporated' - clearly slants his book," Miesel writes. "He piles on peripheral material about Mafia hits, the sins of John Cardinal Cody and political corruption to heighten the luridness."

In his book, Cornwell demolishes Yallop's theories, and he concludes on the basis of medical evidence that his Holiness died of a pulmonary embolism, the same disorder that recently killed NBC correspondent David Bloom. The descriptions of the pope's symptoms are eerily similar to those displayed by Bloom in his final days, including excruciating pain in his legs.

Much of the confusion surrounding the pope's death arose out of the conflicting accounts of the finding of the body and when it was found. He was discovered propped up in bed, surrounded by reading materials and clutching what Cornwell maintains was a binder containing sermons. Yallop suggests darkly that what the pope held was a list of Vatican officials to be ousted.
Miesel probes Yallop's and Cornwell's conclusions and comes down on Cornwell's side, allowing him to disprove the lurid rumors of dark Masonic conspiracies, high church officials being secret members of a Masonic lodge in Rome and connections with the Vatican Bank scandals and even the Mafia.

Yallop maintains that the pope was about to approve the birth control pill, an absurdity Cornwell disposes of, and take other actions that some in the Vatican bitterly opposed, and says that the pope had to be disposed of before he could take any such steps. The official Vatican version of the discovery of the body has it that elderly housekeeper Sister Vincenza found it about 5:30 a.m. The nun summoned both papal secretaries: the Revs. Diego Lorenzi and John Magee. ...
------------------------------- UNQUOTE -----------------

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 15, 2003.


Ambiguous should also recall for an instant who has denounced the Mafia in public, very forcefully. The successor to John Paul I, our Holy Father John Paul II--

So much for the Mafia operating in charge of a ''Vatican portfolio of wealth''. If Amb is really money-wise, he wouldn't have to learn these details here.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 15, 2003.


Eugene c. chavez said "Ambiguous should also recall for an instant who has denounced the Mafia in public, very forcefully. The successor to John Paul I, our Holy Father John Paul II--" Well I would like to also point out that Bill Clinton public announced that he did not have sexual relations "with that women", wlthough he did.

The point many people seem to missing is that information from the Vatican can, and more than likely is, baised to safegaurd vested interests. It amazes me that Eugene would make such a comment, Eugene you must be able to discern the truth from political hype, and believing everything a leader of an organization says does not accomplish that goal.

-- Ambivalent Soul (Catholic@mymail.com), July 15, 2003.


You're more malicious than I thought, and no longer ambiguous at all.

The Pope right after your so-called murder is an enemy of the Mafia. He publicly castigated the Italian mob; if the Vatican was any way involved with the Mafia, the Pope would have remained silent. YOU SAY, ''people seem to [be] missing is that information from the Vatican can, and more than likely is, biased to safeguard vested interests. (I corrected your bad spelling, PhD.) Here you clearly accuse the Vatican of having ''vested interests'' to protect. So ambiguous of you; yes!

You only said one correct thing in your introduction: Lost Catholic. Pretty unambiguous now.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 15, 2003.


Interesting things about PJI.

Thanks for the post, John G. Helpful. I never paid much attention to the rumors.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 15, 2003.


AS,

From what I have heard JPII has always been unhappy with the clerical abuse cases in the U.S.

But the individual bishops should be responsible for their actions, and their coverups, where there actually are coverups, should be made known and the offending bishop(s)held publically accountable.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 15, 2003.


Eugene,

I am more objective on a bad day then you are on your best.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 15, 2003.


Scott,

Secrecy in and of itself may be needed to avoid real scandal. But the facts should NEVER be withheld from victims, whose claims are found to be reputable.

I do not know that I agree with your generalization about the priests of certain ages. I do think that there are real efforts among some bishops to prepare their priests more faithfully and these bishops deserve credit. I heard there was some house cleaning when the Arch. George took over Chicago, but to what extent I do not know.

Psychological tesing is no more the answer for the priesthood than it is for marriage. It is generally, psychobabble. Might as well use a computer to select priests. Wrong tack, hope it is not used widely. I am sure we will lose some good priests for it.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 15, 2003.


Jake,

You said it--Truth. When its pursuit is sidelined, the Church suffers. When it is ignored or worse covered up you, indeed, have scandal and you set the stage for more of the same.

That is precisely why the Church must constantly be scrutinized by those laity interested in truth, not just with some axe to grind, as some in here accuse me, wrongly, of.

I am after truth and sometimes its pursuit bruises egos. Even mine. But it is really a small price.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 15, 2003.


Karl - The tests are not to show if the future priest is an able body, they are there to make sure that the priest does not have any serious mental illness, like schizophrenia. Semonary decides the rest. The point is that we must weed out the people that are only using the priesthood as an excape. We must also weed out people that are not mature enough to handle the respocibilities of the job.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), July 15, 2003.

Karl,
You aren't objective at all. You are on Karl's side. I'm up-front on the Catholic Church's side and never denied it. This poster says he's ''ambivalent''; but clearly he's anti-clerical at very best. Nothing impartial about him/her.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 15, 2003.

I'm not so sure, Gene. Karl seems to be, let's say, off on the correct tangent. I haven't read all of everything he says, but something flows from between the words. Take heart, Karl:

"As soon as your worldly friends perceive that you aim at leading a devout life, they will let loose endless shafts of mockery and misrepresentation upon you; the more malicious will attribute your change to hypocrisy, designing, or bigotry; they will affirm that the world having looked coldly upon you, failing its favour you turn to God; while your friends will make a series of what, from their point of view, are prudent and charitable remonstrances. They will tell you that you are growing morbid; that you will lose your worldly credit, and will make yourself unacceptable to the world; they will prognosticate your premature old age, the ruin of your material prosperity; they will tell you that in the world you must live as the world does; that you can be saved without all this fuss; and much more of the like nature... all this is vain and foolish talk..."

-- St. Francis De Sales

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 15, 2003.


Hi Emerald,

I just wanted to say thanks for a great quote from St. Francis de Sales. In my own life, I totally identify with the quote. It's a little cross worth bearing, though.

God bless you,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 15, 2003.


Cool; I just found that tonight because my wife drug it out from somewhere and I was just picking through it. It's from Introduction to a Devout Life.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 15, 2003.

Something flows, Emerald? Between words?

''That is precisely why the Church must constantly be scrutinized by those laity interested in truth, not just with some axe to grind, as some in here accuse me, wrongly, of--''

What flows inside this statement? Karl (impartial Karl) is a layman ''interested in the truth''--? Or has an axe to grind against the Catholic clergy?

Karl said to me: ''I am more objective on a bad day then you are on your best.''

That's what I responded to. Not in my own defense, necessarily. But to show everyone Karl is never objective. All he ever says is, the Church has been corrupt in her handling of ONE CASE. The case of one divorced Catholic he SUBJECTIVELY favors: himself. And, when on my best day I'm not as objective as Karl, it's in defense of the clergy he keeps attacking.

What ''flows'' all the time is one paranoid idee fixe: Only when Karl is favored are the others objective.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 16, 2003.


May it come to pass that the clergy defend the Faith with as much vigor as you defend the clergy...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 16, 2003.

Emerald,

If they did there would be only one side of this issue because truth would prevail.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 16, 2003.


May that vigor be spent on upholding the faith, and not belittling the faithful. It is our faith God rewards. Your present exasperation with the Church is pleasing to the devil, and will receive another reward.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 16, 2003.

To quote Ambivalent Souls "it's dangerous to believe everything the head of an organization says"

Well, the head of the Catholic Church is Jesus. I believe everything He says. He appointed Peter as head of His Church. He also promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church. His current appointed representative on earth is the Pope. All of this I firmly believe.

If you don't believe what the Pope is saying (infallible on articles of faith) then I am sad to say you are not a Catholic. In essence you are either saying Jesus lied, or God has made a mistake in His appointment of a leader for His Church. Both of which are laughable.

-- Steve (Steve@MTEP.com), July 18, 2003.


True, Steve--
When we meet somebody--- of Italian descent and thus have been born and raised a Roman Catholic,--------as our visitor claims to be; it's odd he refers to the Catholic Church as an ''organisation''.

No Italian Catholic who took his faith seriously would say that. Our Holy Father is more than the head of an organisation. Maybe Ambivalent Soul let business-speak creep into his faulty knowledge of Christ's Church.



-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 18, 2003.


You may not be a total idiot, Sir. But you post idiotic things in public. I know you're inviting reaction, and I'll gladly flame you if you wish. It gives me no pleasure, though.

Your feelings about the Church are altogether unholy and blasphemous. You betray the Holy Spirit, and count Him for nothing. All you can suggest is that somehow you're aligned with Saints Paul & Augustine and Pope Pius X --A dubious connection. Much closer to the truth is, you act in the tradition of Savonarola, Luther, Calvin and Knox. Your grasp of theological reasoning is slippery because you act with fists, not faith. You come here with clenched teeth, clenched fists and hatred. Go your way, Great Pretender. We're faithful here to Christ's promises; and to the Holy Spirit who loves and strengthens our Holy Father the Pope. May the glory of God ever shine on him and our holy bishops. Amen!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 19, 2003.


Dear Bruce,

The rules of the forum clearly forbid the cutting and pasting of anti- Catholic literature from anti-Catholic sites. The TRADITIO site from which you copied your post is a schismatic site, opposed to the Vicar of Christ, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, true Catholic Tradition, and the authority of the Church. Therefore I had no choice but to delete your post.

Moderator

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 19, 2003.


Paul, it is your right to do so, however wht is said bears out what is obviously happening to our church. I will not sit idly by like the 3 monkey's,,,hear,speak see no evil. The Church is in freefall and the buck stops with the pope. He is not above having feeet of clay. His leadership fr 25 years has bee disasterous for millions of souls. You do ot nee to read books to see that. A visit to most churches will bear that out, sad to say.

-- Bruce (Bruce@msn.com), July 19, 2003.

Bruce,

It is apparent that most of your misinformation was indeed obtained by reading books. Or, have you personally visited "most churches"? I have personally attended the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at more than fifteen parishes in the past year, in one capacity or another, and while I have observed an occasional minor liberty taken with liturgical norms, I have seen nothing remotely similar to what you describe.

I'm not naive. I do realize that such things occur. But given the thousands of parishes in the United States, it would be remarkable indeed if a small minority of pastors had not succumbed to the concerted efforts of a small group of "progressive" extremists who seek to undermine the Church from within. These people, while claiming to be Catholic, and claiming to be motivated by a genuine concern for the good and the future of the Church, reject the authority God Himself has placed in the Pope, and the truth Jesus Christ Himself guaranteed to His Church. As such they become de facto schismatics. Rarely do extremists have much of real value to offer in the way of meaningful reform. With them, it's "my way or no way". They are in freefall until they return to the Church. Anyone who cannot see the blessing and gift which John Paul II has been and still is to the Holy Catholic Church, a blessing which will surely be confirmed by timely canonization, should not take the liberty of calling themselves Catholic.

Now, to save me some typing time, please reread the above paragraph once more, only this time substitute "traditionalist" for "progressive". The ship which is the Church of the Living God moves ahead steadily toward its final destination, with Christ at the helm as He promised, while self-proclaimed "traditionalists" flounder in the water on one side, and "progressives" flounder in the water on the other. Better grab a lifeline and climb aboard before you simply get left behind.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 19, 2003.


"Anyone who cannot see the blessing and gift which John Paul II has been and still is to the Holy Catholic Church, a blessing which will surely be confirmed by timely canonization, should not take the liberty of calling themselves Catholic."

What? WHAT?!?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 19, 2003.


If the shoe fits you, Empty; wear it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 19, 2003.

Meaning what...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 19, 2003.

Extremes are dangerous and counter-productive.

I would like to differentiate between a moderate or even a progressive and being a liberal or an extremist.

I have called myself a progressive in the past. In reality, I'm probably more of a moderate. However, I believe debate can, should be made on non-doctrinal issues, disclipines etc.

But,please take this in the spirit in which it is intended. If nothing changed in the Church, I would, and believe all should, love the Church and live by it's teachings.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), July 19, 2003.


Gene, I don't know what your talking about; honestly, I think that's one of them arguments by attitude or something. Heaven only knows.

Paul let it slip, man... I can't believe he actually let that slip. That's the interiorly-held position of all anti-traditional Catholics, but it is rarely ever expressed up front; usually, only in an effectual way.

The hidden question in that statement is this:

"What makes a Catholic a Catholic?"

And imho he just answered it; that's his real take on it. Catholic to Paul means that you have to think very, very highly of the current Pontiff. Or, you aren't a Catholic.

There's no doubt about, he just said it. People don't understand true submission to the ordinary and solemn magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. Geez, they even think that ordinary means "standard" or "normal" or "common" instead of what it really refers to, which the Holy Orders.

Pope St. Pius X was the first canonized pontiff in what, about 367 years I believe it is. But somehow if we don't begin the canonization process of Pope John Paul II before he has even departed from this life, we don't have the priviledge of calling ourselves Catholic.

That's it right there; that's the one of two bolts, from what I can gather, thats is what's holding down the boom of the cantilevered post-conciliar Church. The other one is how it is that the Holy Ghost guides His Church. Again, what about the Sacraments? What about our doctrines?

"...while self-proclaimed "traditionalists" flounder in the water on one side, and "progressives" flounder in the water on the other."

This is where the dialectic will grab you. It's a ticking trap; see... there is no right and left, and there is no extremism involved either. I see this even among certain traditionalists. Play the left/right game, and you've lost on the first role of the dice... it is a game that cannot be won. Understand that the very positing of a left, a right, and middle course, when applied to truth itself is impossible. It can be applied to the pursuit of truth, but never truth itself. What is IS, and what is not IS NOT. There is no middle way when it comes to truth. Our Catholicism deals in essences and realities, not in relations.

When you play the left/right game, seeking the middle, what you have done is to have made truth a matter of relation. Note that in the above statement Paul makes, that our union is found in relation in that what makes Catholics Catholics is a certain relation to each other in the Body of Christ. If you take this course, note then that the body could conceivably move in relation to truth. And while that does necessarily imply error, it's certainly no safe place to be. Departure is an inevitable possibility, and in fact is what seems to be happening. Thank the Heavenly Court that truth being truth is immutable; same as it ever was.

Again, our unity is in our doctrines, and in our salvific Sacraments. The Pope demands our submission, as, he is the one that safeguards this august Unity in that he upholds our doctrines and salvific Sacraments. That's what makes Catholics Catholics, and One. One Faith, One Baptism.

Truth and Submission do not extend beyond the Deposit of the Faith.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 19, 2003.


Gene and Paul, I feel very relaxed for a change!
For once, I don't have to write a negative post, exposing "Emerald" as a heretic who ought to depart. This time, he has chosen to commit verbal hara-kiri, saving me the trouble.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 19, 2003.

Here is a web-site claiming that the Pope is the ANTICHRIST! These guys seem to have a lot more in common with lunatic fringe Protestantism than they like to admit.

Emerald, how about people who said that Mother Teresa was a "living Saint"? Were they exhibiting the sin of presumption? Or the virtue of pious hope?

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 19, 2003.


I forgto to mention that that is a "traditional Catholic" website.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 19, 2003.

John,
You're quite right to give him a wide berth. Emerald is beating the gong for his great love. Is that the Church? Is it religion?

No; it's bombast. His great love is symphonic composition. Emerald is the Franz Liszt of old-time religion. We can live with him. He's harmless, as long as we don't disturb him while he writes. Our Lord is safe; Emerald won't lock the holy tabernacle up on us, or even come to our Masses.

Now and then we feel a need to say to him; ''Aw, Shove it, Boy-San! Save it for the Rice Christians! We are veterans of the heretical food-fights.'' But we must find better subjects to debate now. He will never understand.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 19, 2003.


Dear Emerald,

There have been some "current Pontiffs" that no-one in their right mind would think highly of. So thinking highly of every "current Pontiff" is not a requirement for being Catholic. But THIS current Pontiff is such a saintly and gifted man of God that even a great many mainline Protestants recognize him as such. All the more tragic that some who call themselves Catholic fail to recognize him as such.

As for our sacraments and our doctrine, I see no signs that the Holy Spirit, who has protected them for 2,000 years, has now ceased to do so. They are in good hands, as they will be until the end of time. God does not require the assistance of self-proclaimed "traditionalists" to accomplish that divine plan.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 19, 2003.


"For once, I don't have to write a negative post, exposing "Emerald" as a heretic who ought to depart. This time, he has chosen to commit verbal hara-kiri, saving me the trouble."

How so?

John, what you're going to have to do is to explain exactly how. Until then, it's just a claim, my friend. You really don't know what you are talking about. It is kind of cute to watch... until I start to think about how serious these accusations are, and how you say I have been refuted this time, that time and the time before.

You have never refuted me over these things. What you have done is to avoid a serious examination of your position and my position and the Church's position. And hurl accusations. That's all; to falsely accuse me, and have done so outside of an office which allows you that right.

Gene, your agreement with him, likewise, is of little use unless John has made his case. And he hasn't; he merely postulates things, and his, what you call ham-fistedness, is the only glue that holds it together.

No one can clearly spell out my supposed heresy, or my supposed schism. It's just not true. I would reckon the supposed unwillingness to engage the issues while citing a general "disgust" of the person is evidence of this; the fact of the matter is, you just don't like traditional Catholics. It really comes down to that; you don't like them. They don't give you the warm fuzzies, and certainly not the laud which you hold precious.

My heresy? My schism? It isn't there. I'm sorry, friends, it isn't there. But you're not allowed to make those determinations anyways. It should be sufficient to acknowledge this: by using your private judgement in these matters of assigning schism and heresy to any individual, you violate your own principle, no matter how badly you understand the real thing, of yeilding to the authority of the magisterium. Not even a priest is allowed to make these determinations; it belongs to a higher order.

"Emerald, how about people who said that Mother Teresa was a "living Saint"? Were they exhibiting the sin of presumption? Or the virtue of pious hope?"

I would ask them why the nameless helping nuns at her side were to be considered any less so. Limelight is not of the essence.

People sin when they say I'm not a Catholic.

And they lie when they say I am a heretic.

And they lie when they say I am in schism.

And they have

NO

Coherent

Arguments

Whatsoever;

It's

All

JUST

Talk.

Thank you very much, gentlemen. You walk way, way aside of your place in these matters; you operate well in over your heads.

Do not think that the sheer impetus of your longevity in this corner of the universe equates to possession of the truth. There's no need to get angry. After all, it's my fault, right? This forum, it's your own, your... precious.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 20, 2003.


Enough with this. As a matter of following the Faith, I should just let you go on with the false accusations about me; just kind of sock it in and be at peace about it. Looks like you caught me in a weak moment, though.

Tell you what, Gecik... you want me out of the forum? Then do this:

Rescind your false accusations publicly against me of schism and heresy. Do that, and I will leave. I will never come in here again under this name or any other; I will never again post another post here. All I need out of you is a little truth and a lot less sin against charity.

Do it and I'll leave. Better yet, do it because it's the truth.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 20, 2003.


Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei, 1988:
I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the church's law. [emphasis added]


-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 20, 2003.

I go to an indult.

Assumptions... see, they don't really work well.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 20, 2003.


This link may also be of interest:

Vatican I and the SSPX

It seems clear that the SSPX is in schism (which of course doesn't mean that Emerald is. :-) Moreover, it is an organization that all Catholics are firmly directed to avoid.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 20, 2003.


I've never been to an sspx Mass.

But if an indult wasn't around, I would go to one... with out fear of making any mistake whatsoever.

Here's a little acid test quick-proof in the from of a letter from Msgr. Camille Perl of the Pontificia Commissio Ecclesia Dei dated January 18, 2003. I snipped the part that pertains, but it's anywhere on the web. Just google it:

"1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X."

His second question was "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass" and we responded stating:

"2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."

His third question was: "Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass" to which we responded:

"3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified."

So see, it's a lie when people claim that those who attend the sspx masses are in schism, do not fulfill their Sunday obligation, and whatever whatnot false and depraved accusations they make against them.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 20, 2003.


Besides that, if those making the accusations really, really understood the issues instead of just acting like they did, they would read the whole document and find that the issue of schism revolved around the ordination of four biships...

...and absolutely having nothing to do with the matter of assisting at the Mass of Trent, the Tridentine Mass.

Nothing.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 20, 2003.


"If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin."

To this day, I'm still trying to figure out who is doing this.

"Come on, hurry! Get the kids in the car. If we don't get down there in time, we'll be to late to manifest our desire to separate ourselves from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him!"

I mean, really.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 20, 2003.


There may be a clarification on that issue in a letter from Msgr. Perl on this page.
While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that
the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass,and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.
Lots of interesting stuff on that page, including a comment on Feeney. Here it is (from the same letter from Msgr. Perl):
The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.

:-)

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 20, 2003.


Just to be clear, Stephen, I'm not in the least bit put off by you at all, just in case you might think as much. In fact, your approach to the conversation is appealing.

I'm put off by Gecik continually calling me a heretic and a son of Beelzebubba. Hey, my own real father is a saintly man, a rock of virtue who is aged and ailing and hurting. Gecik needs to see me for what I am; a Catholic, a jerk, and a husband of a beautiful wife and the father of four with one on the way. I have lost everything for the Faith; this whole thing about me being out to destroy the Church is a crock.

For probably, what, 7 or 9 months I've been keeping my cool with Gecik, mostly by joking around about stuff and not going into flame mode. I don't want to switch to flame mode; I don't think it's right, I don't think it is Godly. But I'm human with my limits, and unfortunately, the limits are within arm's length.

I would love to move forward with all this in a decent manner, yeah I would; I would love that. But if it's going to be taken as a presupposition that I am anti-Catholic and seeking to undermine the Church, then there's no hope of a decent rambling on any particular matter.

Hey Gecik, I love you man. Perhaps all my poking and prodding isn't what the Blessed Virgin would have me be doing. It's a matter I think about quite frequently. I hereby apologize for my part in this escalation without qualification, but in turn it would be nice, not necessary, but nice, to see you realize that hey, I'm a traditionalist. You and I, we don't agree it seems, on the overall tone and feel of Catholicism.

My position is simple: the Church is under grave Satanic attack, and while it always has been, it's an all out campaign this last century. It's horrible, and it is more horrible still to witness the Faithful not be privy to it. I believe that personal penance and detachment from worldly things, and intense prayer and devotion to the Blessed Virgin is the only solution. That's my position in a nutshell. That's all; that's it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 20, 2003.


Jmj

"That's my position in a nutshell. That's all; that's it." [E]

If that were "all," we would never have reached our current "dire straits" -- because I can almost complete agree with that "position." But your "position" consists of quite a bit more.

"Tell you what, Gecik ... you want me out of the forum? Then do this: Rescind your false accusations publicly against me of schism and heresy. Do that, and I will leave. I will never come in here again under this name or any other; I will never again post another post here." [E]

Actually, I don't "want [you] out of the forum". I think you know that what I have always "want[ed]" is something else.
However, since you have made the above offer (rather than the "something else" that I have actually wanted), I will say this ...

1. To my knowledge, neither the Vatican nor his bishop has "de iure" (formally, by law) declared Mr. P____ "Emerald" _____ to be a heretic, excommunicated.
2. To my knowledge, neither the Vatican nor his bishop has "de iure" declared Mr. P____ "Emerald" _____ to be a schismatic, excommunicated.
3. I acknowledge your freedom to reject my past-stated opinions of your status vis-a-vis the Catholic Church. I also acknowledge your freedom to believe that I should not have expressed those opinions.

Now, sir, I will see if you are a gentleman who can keep his promise and can leave the forum in peace. It was interesting to have made your acquaintance.

God bless you.
John
PS: Be aware of the fact that I posted a message earlier today (one that you won't like) on the thread started by Victoria. Kindly do not mistake it as something posted subsequent to this current post (i.e., as though I were contradicting or withdrawing what I have stated above).

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 20, 2003.


"Now, sir, I will see if you are a gentleman who can keep his promise and can leave the forum in peace."

It's not clear if this is the right thing for me to do or not; I don't know.

Of course, in matters of negotiation I'm looking for something, shall we say, a little less ambiguous than the above... such as an outright admission of my individual non-schism and non-heresy. Based solely, of course, on content posted to the forum.

In other words, something along the lines of "I hereby declare, say and define that Emerald, in his history of posting at this forum, has not shown himself to be a heretic or schismatic, but nay, simply a fallen jerk and nothing more" or something along those lines.

The above offer skirts the essence of the offer, and therefore the bargaining table remains active. Unless of course, the moderator dishes me out of his own accord; this I have no control over.

If it's up to me then, I'm not sure whether my posting here is a healthy thing or not; I have absolutely no idea. God only knows.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 21, 2003.


Jmj

"Now, sir, I will see if you are a gentleman who can keep his promise and can leave the forum in peace."

Actually, it wasn't really "I" who needed to "see if you are a gentleman who can keep his promise" -- for I already was nearly certain that you would not. My only glimmer of hope that you might surprise me was that you would perhaps still retain a bit of good character from bygone days -- enough to be honest and honorable. I will still hold on to that glimmer of hope until this new message elicits a response.

Now, however, both I and those who had previously admired you (and must have assumed that you were a gentleman) can see you that you seem incapable of the honesty and humility it would take to live up to your promise.

The problem, in a nutshell, seems to be this:
You love yourself too much -- and want to see your brilliant and delightful words in the public limelight -- want to see them too much to leave. The thought of losing your "audience" -- your "public" -- seems unbearable to you. And it's not good enough that you can post those "brilliant" words in other Internet forums (where you would be completely welcome). No. You must post them here, exactly where you know that you will continue to be disruptive (so very contrary to God's will). You insist on posting them here, even though you ought to be able to foresee that it interminably will cause you the same frustration and anger that led to your astounding outburst above (seven messages on the same day, almost without interruption).

It is so sad to see a human being descend to the "shucking and jiving" you have now resorted to -- in a new message that you had previously denied yourself the right to post. Now you have the nerve to speak of "negotiating" your departure? Tsk! Now you would even prescribe the words I must use, words wherein I -- I! -- am to declare you free of heresy and schism? Tsk-tsk! You were apparently so blinded by the panic that overtook you when you realized that you were required to leave the forum that you reached out and contradicted your very self!!! Here's how (if you don't already realize it) ...

Whereas, earlier in this thread, you claimed that I had no ability and no right to "private[ly] judg[e]" you a schismatic or heretic ... now you claim that I suddenly have the ability and right to "declare, say, and define" that you are NOT one of those. Oh, the pathetic irony of it!

In my previous post, I intentionally avoided expressing myself one way or the other about your status -- because you expressly had not recognized my right to do so. You should have been pleased that I told everyone "within earshot" that there is no official declaration stating that you are outside the Catholic Church. What I told everyone clearly satisfied your needs and demands. What I told everyone also obliged you to keep your promise to depart. I will add one thing: If you leave honorably, you needn't worry that I will trash you "behind your back." The day you leave, the alias "Emerald" will drop out of my vocabulary.

If you will not now do the honest thing and depart, then I can only pray that you may some day, before it is too late, repent and receive God's forgiveness.
John
PS: Even though you should leave without writing another word, I would not consider it a breaking of your promise if you were to post a final "farewell message."

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 21, 2003.


"Actually, it wasn't really "I" who needed to "see if you are a gentleman who can keep his promise" -- for I already was nearly certain that you would not."

And that matters because ________?

"My only glimmer of hope that you might surprise me was that..."

I don't want to surprise you... I don't look to be impressing you. It's not a concern of mine; it's not the object of my desire. It isn't a reference point for me when discerning the truth. You're just another person on an internet forum. No more, no less as am I. This is NOT meant to be an insult; it's merely the way I think I as a Catholic should view other people. They are what they are, and you try to be patient with them and try not to place them too high on a pedestal or put them "beneath your dignity", as we are all fallen and all priceless.

"you would perhaps still retain a bit of good character from bygone days -- enough to be honest and honorable."

I personally don't hold your determinations of who's a good or bad character above the opinions of anyone else. I don't think you have the ability, nor is it your place, to determine such things. It's dangerous territory.

"I will still hold on to that glimmer of hope until this new message elicits a response."

Your glimmers are your business. Again, you are just another person, just one in many.

"Now, however, both I and those who had previously admired you..."

Stop the presses! Stop. Hear me clear: I don't want to be admired; it is poison to me and it should be to anyone else. I do not want to be admired, and it is not an objective of mine. It is not a worthy objective for anyone for that matter.

"(and must have assumed that you were a gentleman) can see you that you seem incapable of the honesty and humility it would take to live up to your promise."

I couldn't have been more clear. State outright and clearly, without exception, the truth: which is that I am not a heretic, and that I am not a schismatic, based of course on what you have seen posted to this forum. Do that, and I will never post again. Never under a new name, never under a new IP address, never through another person or through their computer. I mean exactly that, with no endruns or exceptions or any manner of loopholes.

"The problem, in a nutshell, seems to be this: You love yourself too much -- and want to see your brilliant and delightful words in the public limelight -- want to see them too much to leave. The thought of losing your "audience" -- your "public" -- seems unbearable to you."

Take a good look in the mirror.

"You must post them here, exactly where you know that you will continue to be disruptive (so very contrary to God's will)."

You don't know what God's will is, let alone for me, Gecik. It's only "disruptive" because you disagree with it.

"You insist on posting them here, even though you ought to be able to foresee that it interminably will cause you the same frustration and anger that led to your astounding outburst above (seven messages on the same day, almost without interruption)."

There's no astounding outburst above. It's all in your head, John.

"It is so sad to see a human being descend to the "shucking and jiving" you have now resorted to -- in a new message that you had previously denied yourself the right to post."

Ahh, you're not qualified to know what descending is and whatnot. You just disagree with me, that's all, about any number of things about what constitutes authentic orthodoxy in Catholicism. It's my contention that you frame it as "descending" and "anger and frustration" simply because you know in the back of your head that a lot of the stuff I post about really isn't off the wall at all, and there really is something to it. Of course, you would say it ain't so, and I of course will say, yes it is so.

"Now you have the nerve to speak of "negotiating" your departure? Tsk! Now you would even prescribe the words I must use, words wherein I -- I! -- am to declare you free of heresy and schism? Tsk-tsk!'

Tsk yourself. Do it.

"You were apparently so blinded by the panic that overtook you when you realized that you were required to leave the forum that you reached out and contradicted your very self!!!'

lol!

"Here's how (if you don't already realize it) ... Whereas, earlier in this thread, you claimed that I had no ability and no right to "private[ly] judg[e]" you a schismatic or heretic ... now you claim that I suddenly have the ability and right to "declare, say, and define" that you are NOT one of those. Oh, the pathetic irony of it!

It's called the benefit of the doubt and it makes perfect sense since I am clearly not a manifest heretic, which by the way, is an official designation. Nowhere on this forum have I contradicted, to my knowledge, the Deposit of the Faith. That clears that one up.

However, if you disagree and claim that I am a "manifest heretic", then, John... prove it. Make it manifest; be my guest... start a thread. I'm sure you know that I would be more than happy to defend myself, and I think you know that I could do it sudcessfully, too. Why? Because I have no intention of being a heretic, and I have searched high and low for the right place to be and have turned over many stones in the pursuit of finding the right place to be, at least when it comes to understanding the doctrines of the Catholic Church. I'm no expert, but neither is this forum, and here, I could hold my own just fine. After all, it's this forum that got me to looking for the right books in the first place.

"In my previous post, I intentionally avoided expressing myself one way or the other about your status -- because you expressly had not recognized my right to do so. You should have been pleased that I told everyone "within earshot" that there is no official declaration stating that you are outside the Catholic Church."

It was a step in the right direction. Much better than the outright untruths you've been leveling at me and others for so long. But sorry John, I'm looking for you to actually state the truth.

"What I told everyone clearly satisfied your needs and demands."

No; I'm sorry, it doesn't. I want a full-on confession that you have not dealt justly, accurately and fairly with your Traditional Catholic "brethren". Heaven only knows what occurs by way of email.

"What I told everyone also obliged you to keep your promise to depart."

See above.

"I will add one thing: If you leave honorably, you needn't worry that I will trash you "behind your back." The day you leave, the alias "Emerald" will drop out of my vocabulary."

This is neither here nor there to my mind.

"If you will not now do the honest thing and depart, then I can only pray that you may some day, before it is too late, repent and receive God's forgiveness."

The need for repentence on my part is a matter of fact as it is for all humans on the planet, but for NONE of the things you supposed it would be for. Because you suppose wrongly.

"PS: Even though you should leave without writing another word, I would not consider it a breaking of your promise if you were to post a final "farewell message."

Again, John, I don't hold your opinions in any higher regard than anyone else's.

Your best bet is to get the moderator to ban me, by hook or by crook; whichever way you see fit.

I am in union with Holy Mother Church, and I hold NO heresies. All to the best of my knowledge, as we all seek out our salvation in fear and trembling. Or at least, we should be.



-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 21, 2003.


You know what, I hate this. I don't want to be doing this.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 21, 2003.

Yeah, I can understand what you mean in that "afterthought" message. After posting the big one, you read it and saw what a complete jackass you had made of yourself. Your whole presence here is a farce and a waste of everyone's time (yours, mine, and others'). You are a schismatic and heretic par excellence -- whether you admit it or not.

Your denials are irrelevant. You have ZERO respectability left to anyone who is a God-fearing orthodox Catholic -- i.e., except for the respect due to your basic dignity as a human being. Even such misguided people as the two recently banned fundies (David Ortiz and Kevin) are more respectable (religiously) than you are. Misguided and offensive they may be, but they are at least honest. They are not phonies like you. And that is why you need to be banned far worse than they needed to be. I pray that the Moderator will come to realize that very, very soon.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 22, 2003.


Look, I don't really see a problem defending myself against false accusations of schism and heresy. I don't think a person needs to defend themselves against everything all the time, but every now and then, enough is enough, especially when it includes more people than just myself.

As far as everyone else and what they think, so be it. I'm pretty sure you're right that 95% of the regulars think I'm a flaming jerk. But if it's where the truth is at stake, that's a price that has to be paid, and I don't mind paying it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 22, 2003.


*Greets John and Emerald with a holy kiss*

Just stopped by to say hello, and whoa! I stumbled right into a family feud.

It's heartbreaking, too, because Emerald and John, you've been two of my favorite posters.

In the name of all that is holy, stop this evil stone throwing, get down on your knees, and say a prayer for each other.

This is a Catholic forum, and you're not able to delete the things you say to each other. It remains for all time, and for all readers. Stop and consider that for a moment. If you really want to argue in this destructive manner, perhaps the better avenue would be via email, Instant Messenger, a chat room, or some mutally agreed- upon back alley somewhere.

(Reminds me of the time it came to blows after daily Mass in my own home parish when a men led in a decade of the rosary before Mass that a woman thought was exclusively "her" decade. They wound up with the woman exiting her pew and punching the guy before Mass, and him kicking her in the tush on the front steps of the Church following Mass!)

Keep it Catholic. Keep it holy. (((hugs)))

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), July 23, 2003.


Regarding Ambivalent:

A few remarks need to be addressed. It is completely remarkable that anyone is capable of referring to Pope John Paul II and Bill Clinton in the same sentence without being able to see the world of difference between the two men.

One was a temporary leader of a nation bent on preserving liberties, yet refusing to allow the most inalienable of all rights, that of LIFE, to its own most helpless and innocent citizens.

The other is the long-suffering Vicar of Christ, the leader of the Mystical Body of Christ, the pillar and foundation of Truth.

If you are disappointed in Church history, I suggest you go back to the very beginning. One out of 12 priests was willing to sell out his Lord and Savior for a few silver pieces, and the first pope denied he even knew Jesus three times! Yet, 2,000 years later, here we are.

The Church still stands and still pronounces the Truth to all who will listen.

Empty churches a sign of Pope John Paul II's poor leadership? I disagree! Those who've left the Church have done so for one of two reasons: Ignorance of Her Truths, or refusal to accept and obey them. We all have free will.

It doesn't take a high degree of intelligence to figure this out...it only takes a pure heart.

Pax Christi. <><

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), July 23, 2003.


Those who've left the Church have done so for one of two reasons: Ignorance of Her Truths, or refusal to accept and obey them. We all have free will.

Aaaah, Anna! To a certain extent I can agree with what you wrote here, but on the other hand........The Pope is our Father, we are his children.

Sure we each have free will, and are ultimately responsible for our own souls. But.........

A father must be a good example to his children at all times. He must exemplify virtue. He must not do anything he would not expect or allow his children to do, in sight of his children. He must discipline his children. He must reprove his children. He must be firm. He must lay down the law. He must not back down. He must not compromise. He must do all this and more at the command of the Father in Heaven. And should he fail, should he be responsible for the loss of his children's souls by his example or lack thereof, should he be negligent in all those things.....well, we all know the corresponding Bible verse: "It is better for a millstone to be tied around one's neck and thrown to the bottom of the ocean, than to scandalize the least of my children." (Close enough.)

If he fails as a father, the guilt of the child's sin also rests in him.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), July 23, 2003.


Isabel said:

A father must be a good example to his children at all times. He must exemplify virtue. He must not do anything he would not expect or allow his children to do, in sight of his children. He must discipline his children. He must reprove his children. He must be firm. He must lay down the law. He must not back down. He must not compromise. He must do all this and more at the command of the Father in Heaven.

And isn't this exactly what our Holy Father has done?

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 23, 2003.


At times yes, but at other times, no.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), July 23, 2003.

Hi Isabel,

I think you may be coming down on the Holy Father a bit too harshly. I think he's been as a perfect a father as one can humanly be to millions of children, worldwide.

He's not omnipotent; he's not omnipresent.

He's done nothing to bring scandal upon little ones, as the Bible verse you quoted regarding the millstone around the neck punishment...

Humans make mistakes, and when not speaking ex-cathedra, JPII is just as fallible as you or I.

I confess I've been a poorer mother 1,000 times over to the 12 kids I've got, than the Holy Father has been to his millions.

The judgement you're passing against the pope, and sins attributing to him are not due to his deliberate commission of scandalous acts, and I don't believe he bears a burden of guilt for the atrocious acts of some disturbed individuals who have been permitted into the priesthood.

Pax Christi. <><

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), July 23, 2003.


Ambivalent, There are many books on Church history. Each of them was written by someone with a perspective. That's just the way it is. Read with a critical mind. Apply the same logic and reckoning that you use as an accountant. Things have to add up ... yes? The Church is - and always has been - a Church of sinners. That's why Jesus came. The recent scandal should break everyone's hearts, but not their faith. Remember Peter's denials. Remember Thomas' doubts. One of the first disputes in the Church was about sinners and forgiveness. The Church came down on the side of forgiveness. Now, I'm not dismissing and I'm not ameliorating what's been going on with some priests, but I'm not going to be another one of their victims. I've thought a lot about what makes someone "Catholic" or not. Here's just my own thought. It isn't in the history (The 'protestant reformers' took monasteries, killed monks and nuns) it's in the acknowledgement of what Jesus did. Did Jesus create a Church? Did he promise it the protection of the Holy Spirit? If you answer yes to those two questions then it leads you to Catholicism (Or at least it did me:) ) If you want to read some EXCELLENT history read "The Faith of the Early Fathers", by William Jurgens. See if you recognize the Church of the first and second centuries. Read St Justin Martyr and see if you recognize the Mass. By all means, come to the Eucharist and pray for God to help you. It's there brother, just keep knocking, seeking, and asking.

john

-- John (johnpnaok@cs.com), August 06, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ