markomalley

Galen, Since we are quoting things, Extracted from, Wikipedia Entry, "Pope Joan." Again, anti-Catholic sentiment has some deep roots...in many circles it makes it easier to believe the bad rather than research the facts.

Absolutely, Trefor. In a 2,000 year history, with about 1/2 of that where the Papacy was in fact a major European power, there could be no doubt that covetous men would try and succeed from time to time in getting into the office through simony or other methods. There is a difference between looking at some men who ascended to the position and judging the entire institution based upon aberrations, as the tract quoted above attempted to do. It would be the equivalent of judging the entire UK, as a country, by the actions of a couple of medeival kings. It would be the equivalent of making a statement that all homosexuals are pedophiles, because a miniscule percentage are. It is logically flawed and intellectually dishonest.

White Dove, Do you have a source for this tract? Jack Chick, maybe? Or did you copy it from the highly reliable and completely objective site? As to the contents, I am familiar with John XII and, without a doubt, he was some kind of a "winner." However, I would take issue with the statements pasted in here against Pius XI. In fact, he did sign an agreement with the Fascists of Italy...but that agreement was to relinquish claim to the Papal States in exchange for an agreement of sovereignty and independence for the Vatican City State. As to support for the Fascists, though, he actually was very critical of them, as shown in his encyclical, Non Abbiam Bisogno. (And, for those interested, there can be no doubt about his attitude toward Nazis after reading , an encyclical published in 1937) But this Pope was best known for his writings on Labor, particularly Quadragesimo Anno (1931). Shoot, even the Wikipedia has some good things to say about him! And, by the way, Clement VII's name was Guilio de Medici, from Florence, not Geneva, and he reigned from 1523-1534, not 1378-94. Too bad your tract got that one wrong too. Frankly, I don't have either the time or inclination to bother to refute all the garbage that is in that tract you pasted into your post. But, I would love to know the source of it. Folks, this kind of bigoted, warped crap is just a typical example. I am very, very glad that White Dove posted this garbage...it is just the typical twisted mess that is pummelled into peoples' heads over time that then makes people want to believe the worst when they hear something, rather than to even bother attempting to discern objectivity in analyzing a situation like clergy abuse.

A box. TV size, or something where he can crawl in. Crayola markers to draw on that box. Targets used to have cardboard castles that were remarkably inexpensive, where the kids could draw on them and play in/on them. If I recall correctly, we paid about $5 or $6 for them last Christmas when we got one for some neighbors -- it was the favorite of their 3 girls (6,5, and 2). Helped keep sanity in that family for a couple of weeks!

Satori, you said: With 5 choices, I tried to give a spectrum from "evil" to "fully approve" in the best manner possible. My limited writing ability and the limitations of one question with 5 selections restricts my ability to develop a poll. As to my poll implying that Catholics are somehow monolithic, you'll note that two of the moderate choices offered have the expression "most" in the description, thus implying a diversity of thought. The approach to this was, frankly, a response to a statement you made, "Until things change, any Catholic who knowingly sends money to Rome, directly or indirectly, is funding institutionalized pedophilia." This statement is a very broad-brush statement that implies a shared responsibility for any practicing Catholic. To make an accusation that a minimum of 27 million people (44% of the Catholic population of 62 million -- in 2002) are responsible for the actions of a very small percentage of a very small sample of that overall population of 62 million is simply ludicrous, along the lines of a statement that every single German was singly and personally responsible for Hitler or that every single Russian had a personal responsibility for Stalin. It was a bigoted and highly offensive statement that has no more place in a discussion than some of the posts the far-left wingers posted on the 'tacks board during the past presidential campaign. Frankly, Satori, I would have thought it to be beneath you to make that kind of comment. I was curious if this bigotry was either a thoughtless comment posted by you, an honest, heartfelt, sincere form of bigotry, or represented a general consensus among a significant percentage of GSers. Had the latter been the case, that would have been my second-to-last post on GSC. I am relieved to see that, at least according to this poll, it is, apparently, not the consensus. I've avoided discussion of this issue on other threads because there have not been enough facts presented to have an intelligent discussion on the issue and, it being such an emotional issue, a presentation of facts would not be favorably met. In my experience (which, I am sure am shared by at least a few others), in any conflict between two people, there are at least 3 "truths." The subjective "truth" that reflects the experience through the eyes of the participant accounts for two of them. The subjective "truth" seen by supposedly neutral observers accounts for others. The "objective" truth, seen without the filter of human experience will actually lie somewhere in the middle of all of this muddle. We have been saturated by one perspective, that of the victim advocacy group, by a media whose objective may or may not be "truth," but whose objective certainly involves newspaper sales and/or Nielsen ratings. Let me give you a few numbers to illustrate my point. From 1950 to 2002, there have been a little over 4,300 priests accused of 10,832 incidents of abuse (this is a separate number from the number where the accusations were shown to be valid). This works out to be an overall number of less than 3% of the total number of clergy throughout that period of time. To look at predators, though, you find even a smaller number: 772 priests received 4 or more allegations against them from 1950-2002 (that is about 0.49% of the total). Out of that, 149 priests (0.093%) were responsible for 26% of the total number of allegations. It is interesting to me, though, that out of these 10,832 allegations of abuse over this 52 year period, over 1/3 of them were reported in 2002. The majority of those allegations reported in 2002 referred to alleged incidents that occured prior to 1979 (80%). The total number of incidents rose from approximately 50 priests being accused of 50 incidents in 1960, to a peak of approximately 460 priests being accused of 800 incidents in 1981. The number rapidly dropped off after that period and returned to the approximately 50 priests/ 50 incidents by 1995. The number has stayed relatively level since that time (the study data stopped in 2003). The scandal first was widely reported in the media in the late 1990s or 2000, if memory serves correctly (as a resylt of the Geoghen (sp?) and Shandley (sp?) cases). So its doubtful that reaction to media and/or public pressure caused a change back in 1981. So, wouldn't it be interesting to explore what change happened in the late 70s/early 80s that would cause such a drop? Source: John Jay Study of Clergy Sexual Abuse, 2002. You don't hear about that with the advocacy groups, nor will you hear the media report it extensively. I wonder how many journalists who have reported on abuse stories have even taken the time to read the John Jay study (to my knowledge, the only comprehensive study on the subject -- if I'm wrong, please cite something so that I can take a look at it). Satori, I would have expected you to treat the media with great caution and at arms length, particularly after the biased reporting we saw during the last political season. Red meat reporting is red meat reporting, whether the object of the report is Pres. Bush or the Catholic Church. Frankly, I don't care to continue a discussion of this topic on the public board. I guarantee you that somebody is going to say I'm defending pedophiles, just from the above 3 paragraphs I've written. Let me assure you, I don't. The Church as an institution made some serious, horrible policy mistakes that resulted in many mentally ill men being ordained who had no business being put in a position of such great trust, ultimately resulting in unspeakable damage being done to thousands of teenaged boys (80.9% of the victims were male, 52% of victims were between 13 and 17 -- 79.3% were 10 or over). If you or anybody else would like to continue on, leaving the invective at the door, I'd be happy to continue in a private discussion. I would just prefer not to do it in an environment where the only thing guaranteed is that somebody, who knows who, will not read an entire post and will start sniping based upon what they misread.

Satori made a statement in another thread that said, "Until things change, any Catholic who knowingly sends money to Rome, directly or indirectly, is funding institutionalized pedophilia. " I would like to find out if he speaks for most GSers. And so, the question: (I appreciate your responses) Catholics are:

Exc: Satori said, So, I just want him to come out and draw the conclusion for what he is alleging there. Lay it out on the table.

Satori, I hate to sound obtuse, but I just want to remove any ambiguity from your statement in your last post. So, do I understand that you are saying that any practicing Catholic is guilty of conspiracy to commit pedophilia?

For what its worth, "doctrine of Christ" is used twice in the Textus Receptus, translated from "didache tou christou" in both instances. Both instances are in the subject verse. It is rather interesting that there is another, non-canocial document, known as the Didache, that most likely predates this document, being dated at somewhere between 65 and 80 AD. The document was widely distributed through the Church communities as a catechical document. (Remember the canon of scripture was not established until over 300 years after these documents were in circulation) What makes it more interesting is that this is the only verse that uses the phrase "didache tou Christou." (You can look it up on the BLB, Strong's words 1322 and 5547). Didache is used a number of places and Christos is used a number of places, but that is the only place they are used in that fashion. (The "doctrine of Christ" phrase in Heb 6:1 is "tou christou logon" -- christos logos, vice "didache tou christou" -- didache christos). Something to consider...

Many of us remember the Baltimore Catechism. Whether or not you're Catholic, the answer to "why", imho, is just that simple.

Shellon, congrats But one thing though...either you are WAY to young to be a grandmother or I'm getting too old. My best to all.

I am very thankful for Rico Magn*lli's life. He provided the ultimate display of what the modern way corpse was all about. His witness was fantastic. In fact, I give him a major part of the credit for me being where I am today. After all, I could have ended up a financially and spiritually bankrupt cultie ((shudders)). In fact, until working with Rico, I had a hard time believing that some of the outrageous rumors I'd heard were true. After working with him, nothing I'd heard about corpse-nazi's would have surprised me. So, he has some fantastic teaching countering the counter to the teaching of the re-teaching of the updated teaching on debt submitted to the bod which was the bot which was the extension to the mogfart who was the foot-l!cker-cum-successor to the summa-cum-MOGness. Whatever.

LG, you said it. I just heard that an estimate of about 2 billion people will be watching this worldwide. Speaking of influence, though, even in death this man has incredible influence. What other event could could get the presidents of the United States and Iran to sit next to each other?

It was an executive order, at least in regards to the Federal government buildings. As to civilian buildings and personal displays, that is probably just respect.

Without a doubt it was the fellowship. I was thinking to myself, at the time, that it was such a pity that something like TWI was needed. If the churches were doing their jobs properly, there wouldn't have been a need for something like TWI.

Congrats you two! And congrats on the hopeful news in re: your prayer request...prayers continuing on that one.

The man was the spiritual leader of over 1.1 billion people from all over the world. He has visited a higher percentage of those people, through trips to 120 countries during his pontificate, than any other pope in history. He helped to bring together those 1.1 billion people after years of relative chaos. While firmly re-affirming traditional Catholic teaching, he reached out to non-Catholics and non-Christians in an unprecedented fashion. He has sponsored ecumenical meetings between the Church and Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, etc., with a goal of identifying what common ground exists and provide some kind of a framework for building on common ground and resolving differences. He sponsored an unprecedented prayer meeting for world peace(that was roundly criticized in some Protestant circles btw), where he brought together Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu (not sure if there were others) leaders in the town of Assissi, home of St. Francis. He has visited mosques, churches, shrines, synagogues, etc. Again, unprecedented for a leader of Christianity. To repeat, the purpose was not to compromise on Catholic teaching, but to find common ground. JPII was uncompromising in his championing of the dignity of human life. Yes, we have all heard about his position against abortion. But, unlike some pro-life leaders, he carried this out through its natural end. He likewise opposed the death penalty and euthanasia. And he believed in the responsibility of communities to care for the young, the poor, the sick, and the disabled, as a result of this belief in the inherent dignity within people. He used the "bully pulpit" not only to preach to his followers, but to consistently call world leaders to account for their actions that offended basic human dignity. And that has made a difference for millions. "Be not afraid" was the phrase he used to open his papacy and he consistently applied that thought throughout his papacy and, in fact, his life. Others have spoken about his work against communism. He also stood against the Nazis during his youth, even before he was ordained as a priest. He helped raise the Polish nationalist movement throughout the occupation, through participation in literature and in theatre. His seminary studies were done in secret...had the Nazis found out about this seminary's teachers and its students, they would all have been killed. Talk about bravery: of course he was shot in 1981. Just months after that incident, he went to the prison and counseled with and prayed with the man who tried to kill him. He was loved by the young -- shoot, look at the ages of many who were standing in line for hours and hours -- what should be striking is the age of those in line. He was like a father/grandfather to those people Bottom line: he was a great man, by any measure. And he was loved by hundreds and hundreds of millions of people. 4 million pilgrims come to pay their respects? If there was a little more notice, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if double that would show.

TTessa, Thanks for your reply. I agree with you that everybody should be able to direct their own health care, or desire to not receive such health care. The reason I ask about policy here is primarily for the case that there are no relatives to act on behalf of the individual, especially if the individual has not expressed his or her wishes in writing. When the state is responsible to make decisions for an incapacitated individual, what guidelines should the state follow? But, in addition to that case, are there any limits that should be followed by a person's representatives, if that person hasn't expressed his or her wishes earlier in writing? Should a representative be able to say, "I know Ttessa wouldn't want to live like this, so go ahead and give her a Versed/Potassium shot now, so she won't have to suffer through this?" (btw, Versed is a major tranquilizer and potassium will stop the heart) That's where the policy comes into play: if the individual hasn't written down his or her wishes, what are the limits within which others may act on the individual's behalf? But, again, congratulations on your rehab. I know enough folk with disabilities, including stroke victims, to at least appreciate the challenges that you've had to deal with and continue to have to deal with.

Thomas, I understand completely. I did not say a blasphemer. The word heretic means: "one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine" -- Martin Luther dissented from several beliefs. Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, and consubstantiation vice transsubstantiation are but a few. But, I was referring to those groups whose beliefs are heterodox as compared to the Magesterium. Having said that, though, I too am thankful for the negotiations that have been going on between the Lutherans and the Church. There have been tremendous efforts, particularly under JPII, to bring groups back into communion with the Holy See. (but somehow I think a discussion of the differences between consubstantiation and transsubstantiation would likely bore folks here to death :D-->) btw, check this document out for an example: JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION

TTessa: First, congratulations on your rehab. I have had relatives who have had to undergo very long, arduous rehabiliation paths and realize, as much as anybody who has not done so personally, how difficult that is. Can I tell you, though, I really don't want to talk about the Schindler/Schiavo case in specific anymore, particularly whether or not that she should have been euthanized or not. There was so much spin put on the case by both sides that I don't think I'd believe anything in regards to that case. One side said that they were using a morphine drip to depress the breathing function (on a woman that was being dehydrated); the other side was represented by a pro right-to-die lawyer who has written about having a spiritual experience with a comatose woman where she told him to "let me die." (lawyer=liar, right-to-die lawyer = lawyer with a religious/political agenda to lie for a higher cause). Frankly, even if the husband's side decided to authorize the release of all of his late wife's medical records, there would be a question about them, as there is sworn testimony indicating that the husband was observed pulling pages out of his wife's chart. (Not that this sworn testimony isn't perjured, but, there is the possibility that it is true...in which case, there is a question about its accuracy). I think truth was a victim in this case. Now, having said this, I am curious about your views on a couple of things: I can appreciate what you're saying that having a mind trapped in a body would be a living hell. Your first-hand experience adds a lot to that. I assume that you advocate euthanizing the patient in the Schindler/Schiavo case. What about your case? Should you have been euthanized rather than rehabilitated? (I'm genuinely asking this) Assuming the answer to the above is no, at what point do you think society euthanize somebody? Suppose somebody can only be rehab'd partially? (Enough to go to the bathroom, transport themselves in a wheelchair, eat/drink soft foods, etc., or maybe not even that much) Should such a person be euthanized quickly, immediately upon discovery of the damage, or should an effort to be made to rehabilitate them before deciding to put them to death? How many resources (time and money) should be expended in an effort to rehab them before killing them? What about people who are born with disabilities (mentally handicapped, etc.)? Should they be euthanized too? I have met too many people in my travels around this life who do not share your opinion to believe that your opinion is universally true. But it is obviously your reality. And that makes it very valid. So I'm curious how you'd apply it. Thanks.

A Saluki? :D-->

Valid question. The biggest thing he did was to correct a lot of problems that were going on in the seminaries. You will please note that the dates of the vast majority of the abuses with kids actually happened in the 70s and 80s. You will note that the vast majority of the abuses happened in a few dioceses...yeah, there were some all over, but the bulk of them were concentrated in only a few places. I would also like to mention that the vast majority of priests who have been found to abuse those kids were ordained during the 60s and 70s. Again, there were some big problems in the seminaries during those years. A lot of those problems have been fixed. I'm not saying "all" of them, but you can definitely tell differences in priests ordained in the past 10 years, compared to priests ordained during the 60s and 70s. As to the cover-up...there is a lot to that, but the bottom line is that the church is "scandal-phobic." They like to keep things quiet. Thus they created a far bigger scandal than what there would have been had they been more open. Also, a lot of what happened was so variable because each bishop runs his own church, with input from the Vatican...its not like the Vatican has tight administrative control over each diocese in the world. So that's why you see such a difference in how different dioceses handled the problem. You saw the worst problems by far in Boston, but there are other places where the priest was removed from pastoral responsibilities immediately and not transferred. But, the bottom line is what did he do about it? I think he did a lot to fix the underlying problems that caused it, not so much to fix the problem that already existed (at least not much visible to us...maybe more in the background).

IMHO the way to understand what the Pope is to understand the various titles applied to him: - He is the Bishop of Rome. That is a no-brainer. - He is the Vicar of Christ: (Before you get up in arms, please note the following) - He is the successor of St. Peter. There have been 263 Popes since Jesus first made the statement to Simon, "You are Peter, and upon this rock..." - He is Prince of the Apostles. The apostles either paid deference to Peter, or, they left communion with him. Since that time, the bishops (the successors to the Apostles) pay deference to the successor of Peter. - He is supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church. This refers to his teaching/doctrinal/pastoral role. - He is the Patriarch of the West. This refers to his role in religious governance -- his spot in the hierarchy. - He is the Servant of the Servants of God. In this function, consider the scene where Jesus washed the apostles' feet. - He is the Primate of Italy. Also a hierarchial title, relating to the leader of several provinces. - He is the Metropolitan of the Province of Rome. Another hierarchial title, relating to the leader of a province. - He is the Sovereign of Vatican City State. Remember that the Vatican is a sovereign country. He is the head of state. (This used to be a lot more significant during the times of the Papal States) I know there are a lot of folks that reject all of the above and, well, fine. But, for those who are interested, hopefully that helps. When there is a Pope like the one we just had, you can see a lot of those titles lived out. I'm the last one in the world to say that all of them have been good or that all of them have done the right thing. But that's what they are supposed to do.

What are similar houses going for in your area? Have they increased in value? What affect would the modification have on the house's resale value? If you talk to a realtor in your area, they may be able to provide you some broad numbers that you could use. There are financeers that will allow you to get home equity loans for up to 120% of the home's value. Also, you could try refinancing the home for the value after the remodel is done (just going for one large loan, rather than a second mortgage)...

MJ, just as a point of interest, consider the following: They have elected the successor to Peter in largely the same manner (yes, a few changes, but not significant) for the past 2,000 years. Just something to consider...