The video goes on particularly about homosexual priests raping altar boys. It's not just boys: girls too have been subject to highly inappropriate behaviour. Girls too have a right to be heard.
The RC church has brought a lot of this upon itself with the very stupid and unbiblical edict that priests cannot be married. I am certain that if the young (male) priests had a healthy sexual outlet (with their wives) there would have been less abuse of vulnerable children of either sex. Unlikely to be any changes there, current pope is dead against relaxing this man-made rule.
I honestly find it near unbelievable that the RC church (along with other churches, Anglican for example) have tolerated and covered this up for decades. Such an utter lack of integrity in the overseers (bishops, and what have you), and disdain for the victims.
I feel rather sorry for hardworking decent priests who do their best to live with integrity and to live a life that honours God. I foresee swivelly eyes wondering, "What about you, then? Who did you abuse?"
Heh, suppose it bankrupted the church, and the Vatican had to be sold and converted to an orphanage. LOL. But that's not going to happen. It's just not going to happen.
In a sense, it's already bankrupting the church. There's a one-two punch that's causing the problems.
1) Maintaining an unmarried priesthood. IMHO, if they opened up the deaconate more (deacons can be married but they're not priests), it would partly address the problems to the RCC as a whole of unmarried priests. (Not enough candidates, I don't think I can serve and be celibate, etc.) This would take some pressure off the need to keep people on the books.
2) A lax attitude on priests caught abusing the flock. The RCC should be the ones HARDEST on their people breaking the rules. The whole idea, centuries ago, on having them separate was to try to ensure local leaders wouldn't just trump up charges and accuse innocent priests. So, if he's caught, he's tried in-house, and may wish he was tried outside. (As it is now, priests caught can be defrocked/depriested, and then handed over to the civil authorities.)
The current pope takes this issue very seriously, but I don't know what will be done- or, indeed, CAN be done. He's up against centuries of inertia whenever he tries to change anything, and there's hardliners who want to go "up" whenever he says "down,"
So, how is it bankrupting the church? Fewer candidates for leadership positions, young people who don't think the RCC has a place for them, and so on. Fewer people in the pews, which means fewer of everything.
Rules come up as necessary based on what's happening on GSC at a given time. We did not develop the rules with any pretense about having foreseen and accounted for every situation.
That said, I am absolutely embarrassed that we have to tell people not to use offensive slurs to refer to fellow human beings.
I don't care if it's a quote or if... COME ON. GROW THE F- UP! Seriously, we left a cult where they talked about people using these degrading pejoratives. Feel free to think that way, but do not feel free to use slurs to refer to our fellow human beings.
When you say "they", are you referring to the individuals or the organization?
I don't know, its Ann Barnhardt's quote. She's stated show knows officials who work right there in the Vatican and the context was the Vatican so I assume its the Vatican she's talking about.
Rules come up as necessary based on what's happening on GSC at a given time. We did not develop the rules with any pretense about having foreseen and accounted for every situation.
That said, I am absolutely embarrassed that we have to tell people not to use offensive slurs to refer to fellow human beings.
I don't care if it's a quote or if... COME ON. GROW THE F- UP! Seriously, we left a cult where they talked about people using these degrading pejoratives. Feel free to think that way, but do not feel free to use slurs to refer to our fellow human beings.
I agree with you but it was her quote not mine. I've never used the word f----t; I use the word from the Bible which is sodomite.
The video goes on particularly about homosexual priests raping altar boys. It's not just boys: girls too have been subject to highly inappropriate behaviour. Girls too have a right to be heard.
The RC church has brought a lot of this upon itself with the very stupid and unbiblical edict that priests cannot be married. I am certain that if the young (male) priests had a healthy sexual outlet (with their wives) there would have been less abuse of vulnerable children of either sex. Unlikely to be any changes there, current pope is dead against relaxing this man-made rule.
I honestly find it near unbelievable that the RC church (along with other churches, Anglican for example) have tolerated and covered this up for decades. Such an utter lack of integrity in the overseers (bishops, and what have you), and disdain for the victims.
I feel rather sorry for hardworking decent priests who do their best to live with integrity and to live a life that honours God. I foresee swivelly eyes wondering, "What about you, then? Who did you abuse?"
Heh, suppose it bankrupted the church, and the Vatican had to be sold and converted to an orphanage. LOL. But that's not going to happen. It's just not going to happen.
Here's another quote (or page) from Ann Barnhardt who as I said helped me get back to the Roman Catholic faith while exposing the evils inside the church. As I understand it, priestly celibacy (a gift from God) was required for complete devotion to the church, the priest being married to the church and having no other devotion or loyalty. That was the godly standard they have (and still have for the present). The recommendation from the Pope she mentions is either stay celibate or quit, which to me is honest. Where I believe they've blown it big time is the lack of honesty; instead of being honest and quit they go on doing their own thing which has warped into rampant flamboyant sodomy. So it appears to be the sin of narcissism.
Wherever does this nutty person get this stuff from?
In case you’re not seeing where this is going, consider that of the Twelve Apostles, only St. John was a virgin. That means the other eleven Apostles were either married or widowers. Folks, when the Apostles were ordained priests and bishops in the Upper Room by Our Blessed Lord, every one of them who had living wives became immediately, permanently CONTINENT, if they hadn’t become so already. EVERYONE understood this up until not too terribly long ago. OF COURSE a man who is offering the Holy Sacrifice at the Altar is NOT NOT NOT having sex with his wife. OF COURSE he is living in continence.
(1) only St John is a virgin? Missed that chapter and verse.
(2) "when the Apostles were ordained priests and bishops ..., every one of them who had living wives became immediately, permanently CONTINENT" - that is, by this person's definition, abstaining from sexual activity within marriage.
How's that supposed to fit with 1 Cor 7?
2But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife. 5Do not deprive one another, except by mutual consent and for a time, so you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again, so that Satan will not tempt you through your lack of self-control.
There you have it. To avoid sexual immorality, have a spouse and do what spouses are supposed to do. Don't not get married, and don't not have sexual activity within the marriage.
A wife is supposed to be a helper for her husband (y'all know that from Genesis 1!!), not a distraction. And one thing she can help him with is his God-given sexual desires.
And how's abstinence fit with Titus 1?
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife,having children who are believers...
If the elder/church leader abstains from sexual activity, he isn't "blameless" - he's defying the command of the Lord as set out above in 1 Cor 7.
This is a trustworthy saying: If anyone aspires to be an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,temperate, self-controlled, respectable...
Some versions say blameless; no doubt you'll agree that above reproach = blameless. So again, the overseer is to be blameless (see previous point) and self-controlled (so he's not going to be overly- or underly- demanding concerning sexual activity. He needs to be self-controlled enough to DO the act (to please his wife) even if he doesn't necessarily want to, for himself. There's a whole list of things that said overseer should be fulfilling - and "continence" is not one of those things. Paul knew perfectly well how to discuss sexual matters and marital relations. If he meant, "be sexually abstinent" he would have said so. But he didn't.
And so far as I recall, Jesus didn't discuss it at all. The only sexual matter that I can recall him discussing is adultery (which he endorses is wrong) - he doesn't discuss or even consider "continence" or sexual abstinence of any kind. Nor (for completeness) does he discuss homosexuality, prostitution or other like matters.
And (I feel I shouldn't really need to say this, but...
Gen 1: 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
28God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it...
The very first command to human beings. Go, and make more people. Get out there and HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS with each other, with that person who is your wife, your closest, deepest helper.
And nothing that I can think of within the Bible countermands that, but rather reinforces sexual relations between spouses as "status normal."
Wherever does this nutty person get this stuff from?
(1) only St John is a virgin? Missed that chapter and verse.
(2) "when the Apostles were ordained priests and bishops ..., every one of them who had living wives became immediately, permanently CONTINENT" - that is, by this person's definition, abstaining from sexual activity within marriage.
How's that supposed to fit with 1 Cor 7?
There you have it. To avoid sexual immorality, have a spouse and do what spouses are supposed to do. Don't not get married, and don't not have sexual activity within the marriage.
A wife is supposed to be a helper for her husband (y'all know that from Genesis 1!!), not a distraction. And one thing she can help him with is his God-given sexual desires.
And how's abstinence fit with Titus 1?
If the elder/church leader abstains from sexual activity, he isn't "blameless" - he's defying the command of the Lord as set out above in 1 Cor 7.
Some versions say blameless; no doubt you'll agree that above reproach = blameless. So again, the overseer is to be blameless (see previous point) and self-controlled (so he's not going to be overly- or underly- demanding concerning sexual activity. He needs to be self-controlled enough to DO the act (to please his wife) even if he doesn't necessarily want to, for himself. There's a whole list of things that said overseer should be fulfilling - and "continence" is not one of those things. Paul knew perfectly well how to discuss sexual matters and marital relations. If he meant, "be sexually abstinent" he would have said so. But he didn't.
And so far as I recall, Jesus didn't discuss it at all. The only sexual matter that I can recall him discussing is adultery (which he endorses is wrong) - he doesn't discuss or even consider "continence" or sexual abstinence of any kind. Nor (for completeness) does he discuss homosexuality, prostitution or other like matters.
And (I feel I shouldn't really need to say this, but...
The very first command to human beings. Go, and make more people. Get out there and HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS with each other, with that person who is your wife, your closest, deepest helper.
And nothing that I can think of within the Bible countermands that, but rather reinforces sexual relations between spouses as "status normal."
Continence? I thought being incontinent had to do with urinating.
Wherever does this nutty person get this stuff from?
(1) only St John is a virgin? Missed that chapter and verse.
(2) "when the Apostles were ordained priests and bishops ..., every one of them who had living wives became immediately, permanently CONTINENT" - that is, by this person's definition, abstaining from sexual activity within marriage.
How's that supposed to fit with 1 Cor 7?
There you have it. To avoid sexual immorality, have a spouse and do what spouses are supposed to do. Don't not get married, and don't not have sexual activity within the marriage.
A wife is supposed to be a helper for her husband (y'all know that from Genesis 1!!), not a distraction. And one thing she can help him with is his God-given sexual desires.
And how's abstinence fit with Titus 1?
If the elder/church leader abstains from sexual activity, he isn't "blameless" - he's defying the command of the Lord as set out above in 1 Cor 7.
Some versions say blameless; no doubt you'll agree that above reproach = blameless. So again, the overseer is to be blameless (see previous point) and self-controlled (so he's not going to be overly- or underly- demanding concerning sexual activity. He needs to be self-controlled enough to DO the act (to please his wife) even if he doesn't necessarily want to, for himself. There's a whole list of things that said overseer should be fulfilling - and "continence" is not one of those things. Paul knew perfectly well how to discuss sexual matters and marital relations. If he meant, "be sexually abstinent" he would have said so. But he didn't.
And so far as I recall, Jesus didn't discuss it at all. The only sexual matter that I can recall him discussing is adultery (which he endorses is wrong) - he doesn't discuss or even consider "continence" or sexual abstinence of any kind. Nor (for completeness) does he discuss homosexuality, prostitution or other like matters.
And (I feel I shouldn't really need to say this, but...
The very first command to human beings. Go, and make more people. Get out there and HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS with each other, with that person who is your wife, your closest, deepest helper.
And nothing that I can think of within the Bible countermands that, but rather reinforces sexual relations between spouses as "status normal."
Remember that the RC church doesn't always go by "chapter and verse" but by tradition and experience as well. They go by visions and experiences of later saints and believers as well. (Am thinking of the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God here as well.) I don't have all the background on why priests should remain celibate but am sure its there. We can do a search on YouTube, am sure there are many videos about it there.
Rocky, read the Barnhardt article. Then you're better placed to comment. However, to make it easier for you and others, here's what's said in that article. I have to say the tone is rather rabid and she seems to be as "out there" as a certain VPW.
Before we continue, we should define terms. There are three terms that we all need to define and use properly: celibacy, chastity and continence. The word “celibacy” is often mistakenly used to mean “a person that does not have sex”. This is incorrect – celibacy means to NOT BE MARRIED. Chastity means to observe all laws relating to sexual purity given one’s state in life. So, married people are called to chastity within their marriage, even if they are having sex, because sex between married persons is obviously not sinful or against the law. Finally, the word “continence”. Continence means to abstain or “hold back” from “the licit gratifications of marriage”, that is, sex. So, a person can be non-celibate, that is, married, but live in continence with their spouse, that is, abstaining from sex.
Celibate doesn't mean what she says. Unmarried is unmarried. Celibate is celibate; means not engaging in sexual intercourse (which, if one were unmarried, might well be the case). The two words are not interchangeable, never have been. "Continent" (not a land area!) means in this context control of bladder and bowels. Possibly extendable to control of ejaculate; but note, control as a part of normal sexual intercourse.
There is this on Wikipedia.
Coitus reservatus (coitus, "sexual intercourse, union" + reservatus, "reserved, saved"),[1] also known as sexual continence, is a form of sexual intercourse in which the penetrative partner does not attempt to ejaculate within the receptive partner, but instead attempts to remain at the plateau phase of intercourse for as long as possible, avoiding the seminal emission.
and article continues
The Oneida Community, founded in the 19th century by John Humphrey Noyes, experimented with coitus reservatus which was then called male continence in a religiously Christiancommunalist environment. The experiment lasted for about a quarter of a century...
Of course, it doesn't stop the RC church using its own version of Wayspeak to define terms as it wishes, regardless of what the clear, non-jargon, meaning of that term is.
Remember that the RC church doesn't always go by "chapter and verse" but by tradition and experience as well.
Oldies, what weight the traditions of men? Jesus said (Matt 15, also in Mark):
15 Then Jesus was approached by Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem, who asked,†2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they don’t wash their hands when they eat.”
3 He answered them, “Why do you break God’s commandment because of your tradition?4 For God said: Honor your father and your mother; and, Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must be put to death.5 But you say, ‘Whoever tells his father or mother, “Whatever benefit you might have received from me is a gift committed to the temple,” 6 he does not have to honor his father.’† In this way, you have nullified the word of God† because of your tradition.7 Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you when he said:
8This people†honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
9They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines human commands.”
And, of course, it's not limited to traditions such as the giving of "gifts of money" to the temple - what about the gift of one's own body to the church.
If you prefer what Paul might have to say:
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Oldies, what weight the traditions of men? Jesus said (Matt 15, also in Mark):
15 Then Jesus was approached by Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem, who asked,†2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they don’t wash their hands when they eat.”
3 He answered them, “Why do you break God’s commandment because of your tradition?4 For God said: Honor your father and your mother; and, Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must be put to death.5 But you say, ‘Whoever tells his father or mother, “Whatever benefit you might have received from me is a gift committed to the temple,” 6 he does not have to honor his father.’† In this way, you have nullified the word of God† because of your tradition.7 Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you when he said:
8This people†honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
9They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines human commands.”
And, of course, it's not limited to traditions such as the giving of "gifts of money" to the temple - what about the gift of one's own body to the church.
If you prefer what Paul might have to say:
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
I get what you're saying, but the RC interpretation of scriptures and traditions sometimes vary from the scriptures and traditions of protestants. Not all, but some. The more I delve into it and pray about it, the meaning becomes clear for me. I try to get at the bottom-line meaning, then see if its something I can believe and agree with. I think the important thing is attend to having your heart close to God's heart as Jesus said.
Ok, I'm aware that the common usage of "celibacy" and "chastity" is that they are synonymous, and that's what almost everybody means when they say either- no conjugal relations, period. I also know that they have not always been synonymous. I'd read- but not from a scholarly source- that "chaste" meant "no conjugal relations" and "celibate" meant "unmarried", and that one could be celibate but not chaste (unmarried but having conjugal relations), or chaste but not celibate (married but not having conjugal relations)- but the latter would be pretty strange. So, I just did a check on some other sources. Here's what they said.
"Believe it or not, you can be celibate without being chaste, and chaste without being celibate. A celibate person is merely unmarried, usually (but not always) because of a vow of celibacy. The traditional assumption is that such a person is not having sex with anyone, which leads many to confuse the word with “chaste,” denoting someone who does not have illicit sex. A woman could have wild sex twice a day with her lawful husband and technically still be chaste, though the word is more often used to imply a general abstemiousness from sex and sexuality. "
"The words are related but also have distinct meanings. Continence, in the wider sense, simply means “self control,” especially related to the body. It comes from the Latin continentia, which means “a holding back.” However, over the years, the word “continence” has also developed the more specialized meaning of sexual restraint or the complete abstaining from sexual intercourse. In this case, it is similar to a state of living as a celibate.
Celibacy’s wider meaning refers to anyone who lives in an ongoing state of refraining from sexual intercourse. And in this sense, anyone who is unmarried should live “celibately.” However, a person could eventually marry and the celibacy would cease. More strictly, “celibacy” refers in the Church to a vowed, perpetual state of refraining from sexual relations that religious and priests undertake. Here the celibate state is ongoing and expected to be maintained for life.
Chastity is the virtue whereby we refrain from all unlawful sexual activity and intercourse. It is a virtue all are called to have, but its manifestation will vary based on one’s state in life.
Thus for the married, chastity means fidelity to one’s spouse in body, mind and heart. Any sexual contact with anyone outside of the marriage is adultery. Further, the viewing of pornography and fantasizing about someone other than the spouse is a form of unchastity. The use of contraception is also annexed to unchastity because it willfully excludes openness to the procreative dimension of sex.
For the unmarried, chastity means refraining from any form of genital sexual relations, to include inappropriate touching, immodest or inappropriate conversations, the viewing of pornography, masturbation and sexual fantasizing."
"These are informal ways of speaking that use these words the way they are popularly understood.
In this piece, though, we are going to look at what these terms mean when they are being used in a formal, Catholic context.
2) What is continence?
Continence refers to what people think celibacy and chastity refer to—that is, not having sex.
The term also has other meanings, but in a formal, Catholic context, it means not using the sexual faculty.
That includes not just ordinary, regular sexual acts, but all sexual acts. If you are refraining from any and all sexual acts, you are being continent.
It comes from the Latin word continentia, which means “a holding back.” By the late 1300s, this had come to mean refraining from sex.
More recently (in the 20th century), it has come to refer from holding back other bodily functions as well.
3) What is celibacy?
Celibacy is the state of not being married.
People associate it with the priesthood because, in the Latin rite of the Church, the norm is for priests to be unmarried—to be celibate.
However, properly speaking, anyone who is unmarried can also be said to be celibate.
It comes from the Latin word caelibatus, which simply means “the state of being unmarried.”
4) What is chastity?
Chastity is the virtue of being sexually pure.
It comes from the Latin word castitas, which originally meant “purity,” and which came to refer specifically to sexual purity.
Chastity will take different forms depending on whether one is celibate or married, we are about to see." (etc, check the link for more.)
I find it fascinating that both Catholic sources seemed to agree with each other just fine- but that the woman quoted earlier disagreed with both. They said that a married person was supposed to be physically faithful to their spouse and have conjugal relations with only them, and an unmarried person was to have no conjugal relations with anyone. (If I misread, please enlighten me.)
I'm a lot less inclined to take her word on subjects. She's depicted the Vatican as some sort of den of illicit sex. There may well be some people doing something there, but I find it strains credulity to think that the majority of the hierarchy stationed there are all in on some illicit sex ring. Pope Francis was chosen, in part, because of his notable piety and his humility. He struggled with this sort of thing as a bishop and cardinal before becoming Pope, and "what to do about these priests" is something he's been very concerned about during his time as Pope as well. I'm not going to depict the hierarchy as all having the same virtues as Francis to the same degrees, but I just can't buy that the whole place is some sin palace.
" Folks, when the Apostles were ordained priests and bishops in the Upper Room by Our Blessed Lord, every one of them who had living wives became immediately, permanently CONTINENT, if they hadn’t become so already. EVERYONE understood this up until not too terribly long ago. OF COURSE a man who is offering the Holy Sacrifice at the Altar is NOT NOT NOT having sex with his wife. OF COURSE he is living in continence."
I've noticed, in my experience, whenever someone makes outrageous claims with no evidence to back them up, they often accompany them with "this is beyond question" or "it is obvious that" or "any educated person knows" or "only a fool would question the idea that". It's a PRETENSE at an explanation, and it's a DODGE. I'm going to skip the "Upper Room" stuff, fun though it would be, to keep the focus where it is. ACCORDING TO HER, as soon as JC "ordained" his leaders ("priests and bishops"), all of the married ones (which, according to her, was nearly all of those leaders) immediately and permanently ceased having conjugal relations with their wives. She offered no SUPPORT for this claim, other than to insist it was obvious it was true ("OF COURSE he is living in continence.")
Considering her approach and positions, I would not be surprised if she just wanted the RCC demolished as an organization and its properties and assets sold off.
Twinky, thanks for the suggestion but I think I'll save my reading time for other subjects.
Frankly, the intellectualizing (by Catholicism related sources) seems to lend itself to self-justifying rationalization. Kinda like how VeePee (and Loy) built an entire subculture on self-justifying rationalization, notably (but not limited to) matters of sexuality.
I get what you're saying, but the RC interpretation of scriptures and traditions sometimes vary from the scriptures and traditions of protestants. Not all, but some. The more I delve into it and pray about it, the meaning becomes clear for me. I try to get at the bottom-line meaning, then see if its something I can believe and agree with. I think the important thing is attend to having your heart close to God's heart as Jesus said.
Oldies, it's not a variation between RC and Prot interpretations - what I quoted is straight Biblical verses. In English, of course, but I'm afraid I can't show it you in "the original." If one wants to look at traditions and interpretations, then Jewish and rabbinical traditions would be more appropriate. And rabbis are not only expected to be married, but to have lots of children. As were leaders in the early Christian church; re-read Paul's epistles on this topic - expected to be married and have well-raised kids. That's well pre-RC and pre-Prot divisions.
In fact, here's the story of Zechariah for you, from Luke 1. It's clear that he and his wife had been trying for years for children and it was only on this occasion that they were successful.
In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest of Abijah’s division named Zechariah. His wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 Both were righteous in God’s sight, living without blame† according to all the commands and requirements of the Lord.7 But they had no children because Elizabeth could not conceive, and both of them were well along in years.
8 When his division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, 9 it happened that he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to enter the sanctuary of the Lord and burn incense. 10 At the hour of incense the whole assembly of the people was praying outside. 11 An angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing to the right of the altar of incense. 12 When Zechariah saw him, he was terrified and overcome with fear. 13 But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, because your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will name him John.
A Pennsylvania Catholic priest stole nearly $100,000 from his parish and spent the money on a beach house and relationships with adult men, prosecutors say.
Monsignor Joseph McLoone, formerly a priest at St. Joseph’s Catholic Church in Downingtown, has been charged with felony theft and related crimes, the Chester County District Attorney’s Office announced Wednesday.
Over the next six years, prosecutors say McLoone funneled church money into this private account. He allegedly stole all of the donations collected yearly on All Souls Day, and took money from other special collections throughout the year, as well. Prosecutors allege he also doubled the standard parish fees for weddings, funerals and special masses, pocketing the difference.
The priest used the money to pay for a beach house in Ocean City, New Jersey, as well as traveling, dining and “spending on adult men with whom he maintained sexual relationships.”
He allegedly made thousands of dollars in payments directly to men he met on the dating app Grindr through online money transfer services, according to a police complaint obtained by PhillyMag.
The priest ultimately stole $98,405 from St. Joseph’s Parish, prosecutors allege.
In early 2018, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia learned that McLoone had created a bank account in his parish’s name that wasn’t showing up in the church’s official records. In a press release about the matter, the archdiocese said its officials confronted McLoone, who acknowledged that some expenditures from the account were for personal expenses of an “inappropriate nature.” Those expenses were related to “relationships with adults” that violated the archdiocese’s standards for ministers, the archdiocese said.
McLoone has been on administrative leave since spring 2018. He was arrested on Wednesday and has reportedly posted bail.
Honest living by LGBTQ people certainly is nothing to scorn such people about.
But if this guy had been working in a non-profit organization that refrained from judgment about his personal life, and if the organization paid a reasonable wage, Mr. McLoone could have had his life without having to embezzle/steal.
Is it at all parallel to enjoy worshiping at Catholic masses with full knowledge that the constraints on the clergy foster deception and perverse conduct (theft of church funds is quite perverse, IMO) as opposed to TWI cultists still loyal to that corporation/cult when they know full well how dishonest the top leadership has been over the decades?
I was raised RC, and had 10 years of RC education and experience, and direct involvement so I learned the Catechism many times over. But even today I would say that aside from any really theological considerations, if you read the Church's position on itself and who and what it thinks it is (and the above links are just a small part of it)
You can understand why it's a completely SNAFU and very much FUBAR.
I went through all of this when I was a kid, and at the tender age of 10 was put on notice I was going to get kicked out for being a "Communist". Because I had a lot of questions, y'know, the dangerous kind 10 year olds have. That was before EVERY ONE of the priests and nuns who taught me and had authority over me quit, left their vows and vocation and went off to get married or become nurses or do whatever it was they felt was worthy of their time, but not before they'd manipulated as many young minds as they could to mold to the Catholic Way, which in at least one instance included knowledge of what one priest was .... doing in his spare time.
I love people, lotsa Catholics. Know lots of them, and all of them are disgusted with their church's behavior and attitude. Some of them go to church services too but I'll guaran-eff-ing-tee they don't take their grand kids without close supervision. 'S just the way it is, unfortunately.
The doctrine however is completely whack. Many of the simplest tenets of Christ and what he taught are mangled and munched beyond recognition. This isn't an idle criticism, it's a response to how RC's explain themselves, via the Catechism they use to do so.
Edited by socks It took over 3 years to get these toothpicks glued and stacked to perfectly emulate Mount Rushmore, using over 456,00 wood toothpicks, which is why we - NOSTOP!!!! don't - NO - THAT'S NOT AN EXIT!!! - F----!!!!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
9
10
14
Popular Days
Sep 12
12
Sep 13
10
Aug 19
9
Aug 30
6
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 15 posts
socks 9 posts
Rocky 10 posts
WordWolf 14 posts
Popular Days
Sep 12 2019
12 posts
Sep 13 2019
10 posts
Aug 19 2019
9 posts
Aug 30 2019
6 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
This is a baffling statement. Can you expound a bit more?
Rocky
Now you're getting into church politics. Probably leads to a rabbit hole that would be counterproductive here. However, like waysider suggested, perhaps you could clarify/expound on that first se
WordWolf
More or less, that's what I said (I used more words, not less. ;) )
waysider
When you say "they", are you referring to the individuals or the organization?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
The video goes on particularly about homosexual priests raping altar boys. It's not just boys: girls too have been subject to highly inappropriate behaviour. Girls too have a right to be heard.
The RC church has brought a lot of this upon itself with the very stupid and unbiblical edict that priests cannot be married. I am certain that if the young (male) priests had a healthy sexual outlet (with their wives) there would have been less abuse of vulnerable children of either sex. Unlikely to be any changes there, current pope is dead against relaxing this man-made rule.
I honestly find it near unbelievable that the RC church (along with other churches, Anglican for example) have tolerated and covered this up for decades. Such an utter lack of integrity in the overseers (bishops, and what have you), and disdain for the victims.
I feel rather sorry for hardworking decent priests who do their best to live with integrity and to live a life that honours God. I foresee swivelly eyes wondering, "What about you, then? Who did you abuse?"
Heh, suppose it bankrupted the church, and the Vatican had to be sold and converted to an orphanage. LOL. But that's not going to happen. It's just not going to happen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
In a sense, it's already bankrupting the church. There's a one-two punch that's causing the problems.
1) Maintaining an unmarried priesthood. IMHO, if they opened up the deaconate more (deacons can be married but they're not priests), it would partly address the problems to the RCC as a whole of unmarried priests. (Not enough candidates, I don't think I can serve and be celibate, etc.) This would take some pressure off the need to keep people on the books.
2) A lax attitude on priests caught abusing the flock. The RCC should be the ones HARDEST on their people breaking the rules. The whole idea, centuries ago, on having them separate was to try to ensure local leaders wouldn't just trump up charges and accuse innocent priests. So, if he's caught, he's tried in-house, and may wish he was tried outside. (As it is now, priests caught can be defrocked/depriested, and then handed over to the civil authorities.)
The current pope takes this issue very seriously, but I don't know what will be done- or, indeed, CAN be done. He's up against centuries of inertia whenever he tries to change anything, and there's hardliners who want to go "up" whenever he says "down,"
So, how is it bankrupting the church? Fewer candidates for leadership positions, young people who don't think the RCC has a place for them, and so on. Fewer people in the pews, which means fewer of everything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Rules come up as necessary based on what's happening on GSC at a given time. We did not develop the rules with any pretense about having foreseen and accounted for every situation.
That said, I am absolutely embarrassed that we have to tell people not to use offensive slurs to refer to fellow human beings.
I don't care if it's a quote or if... COME ON. GROW THE F- UP! Seriously, we left a cult where they talked about people using these degrading pejoratives. Feel free to think that way, but do not feel free to use slurs to refer to our fellow human beings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I don't know, its Ann Barnhardt's quote. She's stated show knows officials who work right there in the Vatican and the context was the Vatican so I assume its the Vatican she's talking about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I agree with you but it was her quote not mine. I've never used the word f----t; I use the word from the Bible which is sodomite.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Here's another quote (or page) from Ann Barnhardt who as I said helped me get back to the Roman Catholic faith while exposing the evils inside the church. As I understand it, priestly celibacy (a gift from God) was required for complete devotion to the church, the priest being married to the church and having no other devotion or loyalty. That was the godly standard they have (and still have for the present). The recommendation from the Pope she mentions is either stay celibate or quit, which to me is honest. Where I believe they've blown it big time is the lack of honesty; instead of being honest and quit they go on doing their own thing which has warped into rampant flamboyant sodomy. So it appears to be the sin of narcissism.
https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/01/04/cut-the-crap-no-sex-for-priests-deacons-and-subdeacons-even-if-married/
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Wherever does this nutty person get this stuff from?
(1) only St John is a virgin? Missed that chapter and verse.
(2) "when the Apostles were ordained priests and bishops ..., every one of them who had living wives became immediately, permanently CONTINENT" - that is, by this person's definition, abstaining from sexual activity within marriage.
How's that supposed to fit with 1 Cor 7?
There you have it. To avoid sexual immorality, have a spouse and do what spouses are supposed to do. Don't not get married, and don't not have sexual activity within the marriage.
A wife is supposed to be a helper for her husband (y'all know that from Genesis 1!!), not a distraction. And one thing she can help him with is his God-given sexual desires.
And how's abstinence fit with Titus 1?
If the elder/church leader abstains from sexual activity, he isn't "blameless" - he's defying the command of the Lord as set out above in 1 Cor 7.
Some versions say blameless; no doubt you'll agree that above reproach = blameless. So again, the overseer is to be blameless (see previous point) and self-controlled (so he's not going to be overly- or underly- demanding concerning sexual activity. He needs to be self-controlled enough to DO the act (to please his wife) even if he doesn't necessarily want to, for himself. There's a whole list of things that said overseer should be fulfilling - and "continence" is not one of those things. Paul knew perfectly well how to discuss sexual matters and marital relations. If he meant, "be sexually abstinent" he would have said so. But he didn't.
And so far as I recall, Jesus didn't discuss it at all. The only sexual matter that I can recall him discussing is adultery (which he endorses is wrong) - he doesn't discuss or even consider "continence" or sexual abstinence of any kind. Nor (for completeness) does he discuss homosexuality, prostitution or other like matters.
And (I feel I shouldn't really need to say this, but...
The very first command to human beings. Go, and make more people. Get out there and HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS with each other, with that person who is your wife, your closest, deepest helper.
And nothing that I can think of within the Bible countermands that, but rather reinforces sexual relations between spouses as "status normal."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
First you say it's a quote. We already said we don't care if it's a quote. Then you not only repeat the slur but you expand on it.
Come on!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Continence? I thought being incontinent had to do with urinating.
Are they talking about celibacy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Remember that the RC church doesn't always go by "chapter and verse" but by tradition and experience as well. They go by visions and experiences of later saints and believers as well. (Am thinking of the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of God here as well.) I don't have all the background on why priests should remain celibate but am sure its there. We can do a search on YouTube, am sure there are many videos about it there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Sorry about that! Thanks for the correction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
yes. continent = celibate
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Rocky, read the Barnhardt article. Then you're better placed to comment. However, to make it easier for you and others, here's what's said in that article. I have to say the tone is rather rabid and she seems to be as "out there" as a certain VPW.
Celibate doesn't mean what she says. Unmarried is unmarried. Celibate is celibate; means not engaging in sexual intercourse (which, if one were unmarried, might well be the case). The two words are not interchangeable, never have been. "Continent" (not a land area!) means in this context control of bladder and bowels. Possibly extendable to control of ejaculate; but note, control as a part of normal sexual intercourse.
There is this on Wikipedia.
and article continues
Of course, it doesn't stop the RC church using its own version of Wayspeak to define terms as it wishes, regardless of what the clear, non-jargon, meaning of that term is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Oldies, what weight the traditions of men? Jesus said (Matt 15, also in Mark):
15 Then Jesus was approached by Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem, who asked,† 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they don’t wash their hands when they eat.”
3 He answered them, “Why do you break God’s commandment because of your tradition? 4 For God said: Honor your father and your mother; and, Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must be put to death. 5 But you say, ‘Whoever tells his father or mother, “Whatever benefit you might have received from me is a gift committed to the temple,” 6 he does not have to honor his father.’† In this way, you have nullified the word of God† because of your tradition. 7 Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you when he said:
8 This people† honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
9 They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines human commands.”
And, of course, it's not limited to traditions such as the giving of "gifts of money" to the temple - what about the gift of one's own body to the church.
If you prefer what Paul might have to say:
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I get what you're saying, but the RC interpretation of scriptures and traditions sometimes vary from the scriptures and traditions of protestants. Not all, but some. The more I delve into it and pray about it, the meaning becomes clear for me. I try to get at the bottom-line meaning, then see if its something I can believe and agree with. I think the important thing is attend to having your heart close to God's heart as Jesus said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok, I'm aware that the common usage of "celibacy" and "chastity" is that they are synonymous, and that's what almost everybody means when they say either- no conjugal relations, period. I also know that they have not always been synonymous. I'd read- but not from a scholarly source- that "chaste" meant "no conjugal relations" and "celibate" meant "unmarried", and that one could be celibate but not chaste (unmarried but having conjugal relations), or chaste but not celibate (married but not having conjugal relations)- but the latter would be pretty strange. So, I just did a check on some other sources. Here's what they said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Washington State University professor chimed in on this.
https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/31/celibate-chaste/
"Believe it or not, you can be celibate without being chaste, and chaste without being celibate. A celibate person is merely unmarried, usually (but not always) because of a vow of celibacy. The traditional assumption is that such a person is not having sex with anyone, which leads many to confuse the word with “chaste,” denoting someone who does not have illicit sex. A woman could have wild sex twice a day with her lawful husband and technically still be chaste, though the word is more often used to imply a general abstemiousness from sex and sexuality. "
The other 2 sources were Catholic sources.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Our Sunday Visitor Newsweekly" chimed in.
https://osvnews.com/2015/01/14/celibacy-vs-chastity/
"The words are related but also have distinct meanings. Continence, in the wider sense, simply means “self control,” especially related to the body. It comes from the Latin continentia, which means “a holding back.” However, over the years, the word “continence” has also developed the more specialized meaning of sexual restraint or the complete abstaining from sexual intercourse. In this case, it is similar to a state of living as a celibate.
Celibacy’s wider meaning refers to anyone who lives in an ongoing state of refraining from sexual intercourse. And in this sense, anyone who is unmarried should live “celibately.” However, a person could eventually marry and the celibacy would cease. More strictly, “celibacy” refers in the Church to a vowed, perpetual state of refraining from sexual relations that religious and priests undertake. Here the celibate state is ongoing and expected to be maintained for life.
Chastity is the virtue whereby we refrain from all unlawful sexual activity and intercourse. It is a virtue all are called to have, but its manifestation will vary based on one’s state in life.
Thus for the married, chastity means fidelity to one’s spouse in body, mind and heart. Any sexual contact with anyone outside of the marriage is adultery. Further, the viewing of pornography and fantasizing about someone other than the spouse is a form of unchastity. The use of contraception is also annexed to unchastity because it willfully excludes openness to the procreative dimension of sex.
For the unmarried, chastity means refraining from any form of genital sexual relations, to include inappropriate touching, immodest or inappropriate conversations, the viewing of pornography, masturbation and sexual fantasizing."
----------------------------------------------------------
The National Catholic Register had something on it.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/what-are-celibacy-chastity-and-continence-9-things-to-know-and-share
"These are informal ways of speaking that use these words the way they are popularly understood.
In this piece, though, we are going to look at what these terms mean when they are being used in a formal, Catholic context.
2) What is continence?
Continence refers to what people think celibacy and chastity refer to—that is, not having sex.
The term also has other meanings, but in a formal, Catholic context, it means not using the sexual faculty.
That includes not just ordinary, regular sexual acts, but all sexual acts. If you are refraining from any and all sexual acts, you are being continent.
It comes from the Latin word continentia, which means “a holding back.” By the late 1300s, this had come to mean refraining from sex.
More recently (in the 20th century), it has come to refer from holding back other bodily functions as well.
3) What is celibacy?
Celibacy is the state of not being married.
People associate it with the priesthood because, in the Latin rite of the Church, the norm is for priests to be unmarried—to be celibate.
However, properly speaking, anyone who is unmarried can also be said to be celibate.
It comes from the Latin word caelibatus, which simply means “the state of being unmarried.”
4) What is chastity?
Chastity is the virtue of being sexually pure.
It comes from the Latin word castitas, which originally meant “purity,” and which came to refer specifically to sexual purity.
Chastity will take different forms depending on whether one is celibate or married, we are about to see." (etc, check the link for more.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I find it fascinating that both Catholic sources seemed to agree with each other just fine- but that the woman quoted earlier disagreed with both. They said that a married person was supposed to be physically faithful to their spouse and have conjugal relations with only them, and an unmarried person was to have no conjugal relations with anyone. (If I misread, please enlighten me.)
I'm a lot less inclined to take her word on subjects. She's depicted the Vatican as some sort of den of illicit sex. There may well be some people doing something there, but I find it strains credulity to think that the majority of the hierarchy stationed there are all in on some illicit sex ring. Pope Francis was chosen, in part, because of his notable piety and his humility. He struggled with this sort of thing as a bishop and cardinal before becoming Pope, and "what to do about these priests" is something he's been very concerned about during his time as Pope as well. I'm not going to depict the hierarchy as all having the same virtues as Francis to the same degrees, but I just can't buy that the whole place is some sin palace.
" Folks, when the Apostles were ordained priests and bishops in the Upper Room by Our Blessed Lord, every one of them who had living wives became immediately, permanently CONTINENT, if they hadn’t become so already. EVERYONE understood this up until not too terribly long ago. OF COURSE a man who is offering the Holy Sacrifice at the Altar is NOT NOT NOT having sex with his wife. OF COURSE he is living in continence."
I've noticed, in my experience, whenever someone makes outrageous claims with no evidence to back them up, they often accompany them with "this is beyond question" or "it is obvious that" or "any educated person knows" or "only a fool would question the idea that". It's a PRETENSE at an explanation, and it's a DODGE. I'm going to skip the "Upper Room" stuff, fun though it would be, to keep the focus where it is. ACCORDING TO HER, as soon as JC "ordained" his leaders ("priests and bishops"), all of the married ones (which, according to her, was nearly all of those leaders) immediately and permanently ceased having conjugal relations with their wives. She offered no SUPPORT for this claim, other than to insist it was obvious it was true ("OF COURSE he is living in continence.")
Considering her approach and positions, I would not be surprised if she just wanted the RCC demolished as an organization and its properties and assets sold off.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Twinky, thanks for the suggestion but I think I'll save my reading time for other subjects.
Frankly, the intellectualizing (by Catholicism related sources) seems to lend itself to self-justifying rationalization. Kinda like how VeePee (and Loy) built an entire subculture on self-justifying rationalization, notably (but not limited to) matters of sexuality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Oldies, it's not a variation between RC and Prot interpretations - what I quoted is straight Biblical verses. In English, of course, but I'm afraid I can't show it you in "the original." If one wants to look at traditions and interpretations, then Jewish and rabbinical traditions would be more appropriate. And rabbis are not only expected to be married, but to have lots of children. As were leaders in the early Christian church; re-read Paul's epistles on this topic - expected to be married and have well-raised kids. That's well pre-RC and pre-Prot divisions.
In fact, here's the story of Zechariah for you, from Luke 1. It's clear that he and his wife had been trying for years for children and it was only on this occasion that they were successful.
In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest of Abijah’s division named Zechariah. His wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 Both were righteous in God’s sight, living without blame† according to all the commands and requirements of the Lord. 7 But they had no children because Elizabeth could not conceive, and both of them were well along in years.
8 When his division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, 9 it happened that he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to enter the sanctuary of the Lord and burn incense. 10 At the hour of incense the whole assembly of the people was praying outside. 11 An angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing to the right of the altar of incense. 12 When Zechariah saw him, he was terrified and overcome with fear. 13 But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, because your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will name him John.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
We're never going to agree about priestly celibacy or otherwise, Oldies, but I will definitely agree with you about the above.
Peace!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Speaking of incontinent Catholic priests, apparently one of them just got pinched for misappropriation of collections money.
A Pennsylvania Catholic priest stole nearly $100,000 from his parish and spent the money on a beach house and relationships with adult men, prosecutors say.
Monsignor Joseph McLoone, formerly a priest at St. Joseph’s Catholic Church in Downingtown, has been charged with felony theft and related crimes, the Chester County District Attorney’s Office announced Wednesday.
Over the next six years, prosecutors say McLoone funneled church money into this private account. He allegedly stole all of the donations collected yearly on All Souls Day, and took money from other special collections throughout the year, as well. Prosecutors allege he also doubled the standard parish fees for weddings, funerals and special masses, pocketing the difference.
The priest used the money to pay for a beach house in Ocean City, New Jersey, as well as traveling, dining and “spending on adult men with whom he maintained sexual relationships.”
He allegedly made thousands of dollars in payments directly to men he met on the dating app Grindr through online money transfer services, according to a police complaint obtained by PhillyMag.
The priest ultimately stole $98,405 from St. Joseph’s Parish, prosecutors allege.
In early 2018, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia learned that McLoone had created a bank account in his parish’s name that wasn’t showing up in the church’s official records. In a press release about the matter, the archdiocese said its officials confronted McLoone, who acknowledged that some expenditures from the account were for personal expenses of an “inappropriate nature.” Those expenses were related to “relationships with adults” that violated the archdiocese’s standards for ministers, the archdiocese said.
McLoone has been on administrative leave since spring 2018. He was arrested on Wednesday and has reportedly posted bail.
Prior to McLoone’s appointment, St. Joseph’s Catholic Church was led by Monsignor William J. Lynn, who in 2012 became the first American Catholic official convicted for covering up child sexual abuse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Honest living by LGBTQ people certainly is nothing to scorn such people about.
But if this guy had been working in a non-profit organization that refrained from judgment about his personal life, and if the organization paid a reasonable wage, Mr. McLoone could have had his life without having to embezzle/steal.
Is it at all parallel to enjoy worshiping at Catholic masses with full knowledge that the constraints on the clergy foster deception and perverse conduct (theft of church funds is quite perverse, IMO) as opposed to TWI cultists still loyal to that corporation/cult when they know full well how dishonest the top leadership has been over the decades?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p1.htm
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm
And worth a read this one -
ARTICLE 9
Paragraph 4. Christ's Faithful - Hierarchy, Laity, Consecrated Life
"I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH"
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm
-----------------------------------------------
I was raised RC, and had 10 years of RC education and experience, and direct involvement so I learned the Catechism many times over. But even today I would say that aside from any really theological considerations, if you read the Church's position on itself and who and what it thinks it is (and the above links are just a small part of it)
You can understand why it's a completely SNAFU and very much FUBAR.
I went through all of this when I was a kid, and at the tender age of 10 was put on notice I was going to get kicked out for being a "Communist". Because I had a lot of questions, y'know, the dangerous kind 10 year olds have. That was before EVERY ONE of the priests and nuns who taught me and had authority over me quit, left their vows and vocation and went off to get married or become nurses or do whatever it was they felt was worthy of their time, but not before they'd manipulated as many young minds as they could to mold to the Catholic Way, which in at least one instance included knowledge of what one priest was .... doing in his spare time.
I love people, lotsa Catholics. Know lots of them, and all of them are disgusted with their church's behavior and attitude. Some of them go to church services too but I'll guaran-eff-ing-tee they don't take their grand kids without close supervision. 'S just the way it is, unfortunately.
The doctrine however is completely whack. Many of the simplest tenets of Christ and what he taught are mangled and munched beyond recognition. This isn't an idle criticism, it's a response to how RC's explain themselves, via the Catechism they use to do so.
Edited by socksIt took over 3 years to get these toothpicks glued and stacked to perfectly emulate Mount Rushmore, using over 456,00 wood toothpicks, which is why we - NOSTOP!!!! don't - NO - THAT'S NOT AN EXIT!!! - F----!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.