« Community Organizer College | Main | Ron Bloom: Another Mao Fan in the White House »

This proves Catholics aren't real Christians.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

In the first place, Catholics believe salvation is a gift from God and that we can't work our way into heaven without God's Grace, so the scripture verse you quote is very much in alignment with Catholic belief.

In the second place, Catholics believe Christ told us to ACT according to his teachings and that he told us that by helping the poor we were helping HIM and that you prove that you truly believe HIS teachings by acting upon them.

In the third place, this video has nothing to do with salvation by works alone, so you're clearly not responding to it in good faith.

How many charities are aciualy fronts for left-wing socialists radicals

Sadly, too many, Spurwing.

No? Catholics think that if they give their money to pedophhile bishops to give to baby killers they can buy their way to heaven

They are EVERYWHERE!

Why would anyone attend a "church" that took up money for CCHD? Why would anyone belong to a pseudo-Catholic church that has "bishops" that protect pedophiles (and often partake of this perversion themselves)? The same "church" has as a leader one who then promotes such bishops (i.e.: William Levada, Joseph O'Connor, Josepj Benardin, Francis George). Obviously, what calls itself "The Catholic Church" today, and is headed by Mr. Ratzinger, is no more Catholic than Nancy Pelosi.

Be aware, good citizens, there ARE GOOD Catholics out there (though they may be hard to find). Also, liberal infiltration is not limited to the Catholic Church. It can be found in any "Christian denomination". So please, patroits, let us not fall into internal fingerpointing!

Pro Multis are called, but few are chosen.

The Catholic church (and many others) have been playing "bitch" for the left a long time. Is it any wonder they have pedophiles priests? Fits right in with the leftist agenda.

"No? Catholics think that if they give their money to pedophhile bishops to give to baby killers they can buy their way to heaven"

Right, the Catholic Church is known for it's pro-abortion bend. Also, please name all those Bishops who have been accused of having sex with pre-pubescent children, while you're at it.

Whoosh? Is that the sound of the wind whipping through your head?

Thank you, Uncle Joe, for pointing out that the struggle between good and evil is happening everywhere, including within each and every Christian denomination. The point of posting this is to get good Catholics to stop funding an evil organization, not to stir up vile, anti-Catholic haters. If you aren't Catholic and no one is asking you to donate to this disgusting organization it doesn't apply to you.

The Church of Christ (NOT the United Church of Christ which is an obamanation, see e.g. Trinity Church that spawned Obama)rejects denominationalism and DOES not have pedophile preachers or homosexual bishops. The Church of Christ adhere's strictly to the Bible and does not accept homosexuality. It also does not participate in political campaigns of any sort including CCHD.

Also, please name all those Bishops who have been accused of having sex with pre-pubescent children, while you're at it.

Like all catholics you worship the pope and his acolytes. No wonder the Catholic Church gets away with raping kids for decades, when its members stick their fingers in their ears and sing 'LA LA AVE MARIA - I CAN'T HEAR YOU - LA LA LA HAIL MARY HEAR OUR PRAYER'

Bishop Raymond Lahey
Bishop Lawrence Soens

To name but two. The Bishops are worse than Obama at covering up their priest's kiddie sex, they just get them moved to fresh hunting grounds. They should apply for jobs as Education Czars

But what can you expect from apostate idolaters who pray to idols of Mary.

Judith? Must be good at getting head after sex.

A. The Catholic Church's official teachings state that homosexual acts are sinful (see the Catechism for more information). This is not the case in MANY nominally Christian denominations

B. There are homosexual preachers in every denomination. I'm not the one denying that there are homosexual priests, but you seem to be denying that there are homosexual ministers (talk about blind and dumb).

C. The Catholic Church IS the Church established by Christ while He walked the earth (a time before the official Canon of the Bible was even complete). The early Christian Church was based on the OT as illuminated by the ORAL TRADITION AND TEACHINGS OF CHRIST AND LATER HIS APOSTLES. The Canon of the Bible was not established upon Christ's death, nor even before the last Apostle died, so obviously, there is more to Christianity than the Bible Alone. I agree that Christ didn't intend for there to be denominations, but that's not the fault of the Catholic Church which is the only Christian Church besides the Orthodox Christian church with origins back to the first century.

D. Mary is the mother of Christ, for which Catholics give her honor. I might add that Christ also honored her as he followed all the Commandments, including "Honor thy mother".

Catholics do not worship Mary, in fact, the Catechism makes it clear that would be a grave sin.

Your poor understanding of Catholic teachings makes you look foolish, Whoosh, but worse, it makes you look like a liar and a person filled with hate. Do you honestly believe you are walking in Christ's footsteps with your vile behavior?

Oh, and I was talking about US Bishops who actually were actively molesting children as Bishops. Lahey is not a US Bishop, and Soen, while he may have been involved in some bad behavior with teenagers (Who can know for sure when people wait for 20+ years to accuse someone?) He never was accused of molesting pre-pubescent children, and he certainly never was accused of molesting anyone, while acting as a Bishop.

You are wrong to think I don't know about the sexual improprieties of a small percentage of priests and the Bishops who moved them around. I'm very familiar with these abuses, but I also am aware they happen in all other church's and that these things have happened since before Christ was born. They are individual sins and need to be treated as such. If the Catholic Church were ever to officially treat them as something other than a sin (and I mean the CHURCH, not a human representative of the Church), I may have to start looking for another spiritual home. I can tell you one thing, though, it would never be with people who sounded anything like you, Whoosh.

Judith M.:

Here is a partial list of bishop pedophiles (just from the US):

Bishop Daniel Ryan (Illinoid)solicited sex from a underage male prostitute and was caught "in the act" in the back seat of his car by police. Male prostitutes in the area were well acquainted with Ryan's activities and referred to him as "the Bish". After these events and being removed from his duties Ryan continued to assist in confirmations, etc., in the Joliet diocese.

•Archbishop Robert Sanchez of Santa Fe, New Mexico, resigned in March 1993 following accusations that he had abused five teenage girls.

•Bishop J. Keith Symons of Palm Beach, Florida, resigned in 1998 after having admitted he had molested five altar boys decades earlier.

•Bishop Patrick Ziemann of Santa Rosa, California, resigned in 1999 after he was sued for abusing an altar boy for over 20 years and a priest for two years.

•Bishop Anthony O’Connell of Palm Beach, Florida, resigned in March 2002, after he confessed to having abused a boy.

•Bishop J. Kendrick Williams of Lexington, Kentucky, resigned in June 2002, facing allegations he had abused minors and an 18-year-old man.

•In August 2002, it came to light that late Bishop James Rausch of Phoenix, Arizona, had abused a minor.

If you would like more information, I will be glad to provide it, as this is part of the public record.

My point is that one should avoid the modern Catholic Church like the plague - not because of its traditional moral teachings - but because of its scandalous example (also including giving communion to known abortion supporters).

"In the first place, Catholics believe salvation is a gift from God and that we can't work our way into heaven without God's Grace, so the scripture verse you quote is very much in alignment with Catholic belief."
Judith, I'm not trying to be rude or disrespectful, and correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Catholics believe that receiving the Sacraments (i.e. baptism, communion) is necessary to gain salvation?
If so, I think that would qualify as salvation through works.

The CHURCH is the sum of its human representatives. Real Christians left the catholic church when it abandoned Christ's teachings by corruption. The current corrupt and deviant nature of the Catholic church is a clear sign that they have abandoned God.

If it were just a 'small percentage of priests' then you might have a case, but the perversions and corruption is at all levels and all countries contaminated by the Catholic Church. Even you have succumbed, listen to yourself "I was talking about US Bishops who actually were actively molesting children as Bishops" Good God does it matter that he was 'only' a priest when he raped little boys? Just because he's so old he can't get it up any more is no excuse. What does it matter what the 'official position' is, when the entire church (including you) shields and excuses them. Just as the 'official position' is not to worship Mary, every Catholic Church has an idol of Mary (I bet yours does too) and every catholic prays to Mary when Jesus is the only path

My church doesn't welcome people who excuse and hide perverts. God doesn't either as you'll find out soon enough.

Adam, Catholics believe receiving the Sacraments play a role in salvation because they believe Christ instituted them for that purpose--to help us on our path back to Him by providing us with inward grace through Him. That’s why there are three things necessary for an act to be a sacrament: the outward sign; the inward grace; and the Divine institution by Christ. If Christ had not chosen these signs specifically to convey Grace they would have no meaning on their own. So yes, Catholic believe in partaking in the Sacraments are efficacious in helping us to lives of cooperation with God’s Will, which most Christians consider an important facet in salvation (our free will working in cooperation with God‘s free gift of grace, but even our will to do God‘s will is a gift from God, because without Him we could do no good.).

I wonder why no one has brought suit in Federal or State courts challenging property tax exemptions for church owned property? Where is the ACLU on this question?

Yes, Uncle Joe, I know that some Bishops were accused of sexual abuse of minors (note that IS different from pedophilia, which involves pre-pubescent children, not teens). That's all very bad, of course, but I think it gives a rather distorted view of the problem within the Church given that these accusations were often decades old. I'm quite sure you'd find as much if not more trouble within the protestant churches if you were to conduct a similar investigation. I read a report about insurance claims for this sort of thing in protestant denominations and there were quite a few claims of this nature. In our state a Lutheran church was shut down because it's pastor had been in such egregious acts of abuse which were covered up by the Church. The point isn't to say, "Well, you guys do it, too." But to point out that where there are men, there is sin, and there is no such thing as a sin-free church. What concerns me isn't that there are sinners in the Christian denominations, that I fully expect, but that some Christian church's officially teach that sin is not sin. That is not the case in the Catholic church, as you will find no evidence that it was official Church teaching that these men were doing anything but heaping mortal sin after mortal sin upon their souls.

If the Church is the sum of its human members, Whoosh, you're dragging down the averages with your repulsive, anti-Christ-like behavior.

The percentage of priests involved in these cases after the virtual colonoscopy that's been performed on the Catholic Church is approximately 1% of all priests. That's too high in my book, because I'd prefer it to be zero, but it's certainly no higher than it is in any other denomination. Yes, I know, there has been a lot more publicity surrounding the the Catholic Church, but that doesn't change the facts. Protestant ministers sexually abuse their congregants as much, if not more, than Catholic priests, at least according to insurance company statistics--and that is WITHOUT a full blown investigation into sexual abuse within protestant denominations.

I'm not complaining that the media brought this problem to light, mind you. It's good for these things to be brought into the open so that victims can have some sense of justice and further damage can be prevented. With that said, your claims that Catholics support abuse and protect pedophile priests appear to be like most of your claims (false). Neither I, nor any other Catholic I know has any desire to protect priests who sexually abuse their parishioners from justice, nor to protect Bishops who knowingly put young Catholics at risk for abuse by moving known problems around. To want to protect such behavior would be to put our own children at risk, which no sane person would want.

Uncle Joe, are you a Traditionalist?

Dear Judith M.,

I pretty much agree with your last post as it points out that we all are stained with original sin (except the Virgin Mary - I can here the protest-ants screaming at that). I definitely agree that there are problems with homosexuality and pedophilia in protestant, and other religions. But I must insist that the problem with sexual perversions, particularly pedophilia, is much higher in the so-called "catholic" church clergy, per total clergy, than it is in the general public or protestant circles. What has been uncovered is the tip of an ice berg. These particular sins are rampant and instiutionalized in the modern pseudo-catholic church and are worse the higher one climbs in the hierarchy. This explains why JPII and Benedict have consistantly elevated men to title of Bishop, who are most responsible for covering up such crimes. It has long been known that several seminaries and monasteries specifically recruited homosexuals. I have personally seen favorable, digusting literature on homosexuality prominently displayed in seminary libraries and interviewed ex-monks who were told to leave monasteries if they didn't approve of homosexuality. I have seen what happens to priests who report that their parish pastor annually marches in the gay pride parade dressed as a woman. You are misinformed to think that this is a small percentage problem. Unlike some protest-ants, I do judge people by their works much more than by their words (just take Obama, for instance).

I have absolutely no love for what most people think is the catholic church today. I do love the Church of the Saints, Our Lady and of holy traditon (you know, the one that gave us the Bible at the Council of Nicea that these protest-ants so like to quote from as if it is the only source of traditon). There are still a few good priests around if you look a bit. But they are the exception!

I apologize to Moonbattery for getting so off topic. I promise not to do it again.

Rape and buggery of under age children is a sin whether you call it pedophilia or not. You take it as dogma that if the child is not pre-pubescent 'it's not ppedophila'.

Pedophilia definitions:

Random House dictionary: "sexual desire in an adult for a child."

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary: "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object"

Judith: "It's not pedophila, no no no no no, just anal rape of underage boys, it's not 'official', everyone does it, the church says it's bad, but condones it and gives them some new kids to play with, besides it happened soooo long ago, nothing that happened in the 70's matters now, he wasn't a Bishop when he buggered those kids, just a priest - oooh and that one was a Canadian so it doesn't count"

God will judge catholics, He won't care about tecnical definitions of puberty

I think the Catholic Church had a problem with pederasty, Uncle Joe, not pedophilia. The vast majority of the abuse was homosexual and ephebophilic in nature. Does that make it all good? Of course not. Homosexual acts are crimes against nature, and priests take a vow of chastity so they should not be engaging in sexual acts with anyone, regardless of their age.

I hope you don't give up on the Mystical Body of Christ altogether, Uncle Joe. It would be a shame if the sins of some unholy priests separated you from the source and summit of all that is good.

My prayers are with you, Uncle Joe.

I think the Catholic Church had a problem with pederasty, Uncle Joe, not pedophilia. The vast majority of the abuse was homosexual and ephebophilic in nature. Does that make it all good? Of course not

Then why do you keep beating that drum as a defense? It's irrelevant whether the children were 13-16 or under 13 - as many of them were.

Matthew 18-6: But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

That goes for those who condone or make excuses for them too.

The only source of all that is good is God and His Word, not the Whore of Babylon

Here's a newsflash for you, Whoosh: God is going to judge you, too. Every nasty and hateful thing you say, every perverse thought, and every act of yours that pushes people further from God rather than bringing them closer. Ponder that for awhile.

My conscience is clear regarding the priestly sex abuse scandal, Whoosh. I never partook in any sexual abuse, nor did I ever partake in any cover-up. I found out about what was going on the same way most people did--in the news--and I supported the removal of priests who were credibly accused of sexual abuse. Seriously, how will God "judge" me for that?

And my correction of your misuse of the term pedophilia stands. As wrong as ephebophilia/pederasty is, it is not pedophilia, and the vast majority of the priest sex abuse cases were pederasty. Defending your inaccuracy in describing these cases speaks volumes about your lack of love for the truth.

Last anonymous was me.

It didn't take long after the start of the Protestant Reformation for the heresy of Protestantism to take hold. Reforming the Church was a necessary and important task in order for those good protesters to return the Church to the correct reasoning found in Catholic Orthodoxy. But all too soon the need of reforming the Church turned into the goal of destroying of the Church. The revolt had lost its innocent anger, continuing today in Protestant attacks on everything in the Catholic Church.

Which brings us to Protestant attacks on the Mother of God. Nowhere in the original Reformation was the Blessed Mother on the list of targets for angry (and often justified) Protestants. She was as equally revered by Luther as She was by the Catholic Church. And wisely so. Soon, though, the Protestant revolt turned into the rudderless skepticism that continues today. When these attacks turned to the Mother of God, GK Chesterton says the sound was recognizable: it was "a hiss out of hell."

With 30,000+ Protestant denominations, one wonders how the Bible-only crowd justifies the needlessness of an official interpreter of Scripture. The Catholic Church wisely sees the need of an authority for Biblical interpretation because without it we get, well, 30,000+ "churches" and millions of individual distortions of the Book that has become the object of worship. A literalistic reading by those who profess Sola Scriptura is the most simplistic (and ultimately divisive) reading of the Bible, as is a literal reading of any piece of literature. No, the Catholic Church understands that the Bible by itself cannot be the basis of agreement when it is a cause of so much disagreement; and it cannot be the common ground of Christians when it is separated from Tradition and from the authority of the One True Church.

OK folks. Let's put a acorn in it and help get rid of B.O. and his stinkers!

Love ya all!
Thanks for your prayers!

Judith, you misunderstand. I want to bring you away from the false teachings and corruption that is what the Catholic Church has descended to, into the shining light that is God's love. But God cannot look upon sin and those who accept teachings from and try to hide sinners are seperated from Him. Surely you must get tired of having to always defend the den of vipers, in your heart you know that your Church is corrupt and aboninable - else why initiate this post with your call to defy the Bishops Council?

I know I am saved, what you call my hatred is not for you but for the corrupt and degenerate cabal you support. I hate sin, and it does not matter whether the little girls that were raped and assaulted had attained menarche. Puberty is not a clear defined point as you seem to be claiming. It can start at 8 or as late as 16, so you have no grounds whatsoever for asserting that 'the vast majority' were post pubescent is wishful thinking, or did you personally examine every sufferinf child? The only truth is that raping or assulting children is a sin, condoning or hiding sin is also a sin, and supporting an organisation that commits and condones sin is a sin - even if they mouth platitudes. How many Acorn emplyees does it take to make the organisation corrupt 0.1%, 1%, 10%, 100%? by your reasoning every single one has to be.

Tit 1:16 - They profess that they know God; but by their works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate

You may call me hateful, words do not hurt me.
Matt 15:9 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies

I forgive you. Matt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged

Geez, folks, the Catholic vs. Evangelical arguments over claims of truth are soooooo 1988....

While a bit of the back-and-forth "We're the REAL church!" - "No, you're the Whore of Babylon! We're the true Christians!" stuff still goes on (primarily on the web), the 1990s saw quite a bit of arm-in-arm locking between Evangelicals and Catholics, primarily because Evangelicals put down their (supposed) proof-texts against the Church long enough to realize that the Catholic Church was their greatest ally in what has been termed the "Culture Wars": the rather hostile secularization taking hold in the public square that seeks to exclude out of hand any religious expression and/or sensibility and the subsequent pushback to such a trend. These days, for the most part, Catholics and Evangelical Protestants are content to disagree amicably on doctrine, while standing together to preserve the religious liberty that is one of the foundations of the American republic.

It is a shame that fools like "Whoosh" (and the silly website he linked to; for starters, a class in basic Greek would help them avoid a lot of their stupid Biblical claims) are still clinging to dishonest and disingenuous portraits of the Catholic Church, and (worst of all) deigning to claim to know the personal judgment that awaits another.

That is all.

Take care, folks...

GR

I forgive you too, Rumpledforeskin.

Whoosh,

I neither need nor desire your forgiveness, sir.

Interesting play on my handle, though: it gives us all an idea as to the nature of the thoughts that pervade your thinking. That kind of disorder can be treated, you know.

Cordially,

GR

You have it anyway, if we only forgave those that desired it, there wouldn't be much point

Mat 6:14-15 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

If I really had a disorder I could always get a job as a Catholic priest. But that would be a bit grimm.

Whoosh,

Right now, you're just shoveling childish taunts and Bible verses (minus any understanding), feigning to be a "Christian" in lieu of contributing anything of any worth at all. When you acknowledge that you a) have little-to-no understanding whatsoever of the Bible, the Church, or actual history, and b) you have neither the actual facts about the Church's sexual scandal, nor the wisdom or maturity to understand what it does and does not mean for the Church, Catholics, and non-Catholics, then perhaps you will be someone worth having an exchange with. Then you will have my respect. Right now, you only have my pity.

GR

Oh, Whoosh. If you only saw yourself the way others do, you'd know that reading these verses reminds people of you:

Tit 1:16 - They profess that they know God; but by their works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate

Matt 15:9 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies

Matt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged

You need prayers, Whoosh, and lots of them. There is clearly a lot of evil in your heart and mind and I pray that God frees you from that burden.

I neither need nor desire your respect, sir.

OK.
I am a Catholic.
I am a lawyer.
I was part of a series of complaints by young men who were abused by a priest.
But the energy that drove the investigation was another priest. He dug and dug, found witnesses, facts. He then uncovered another. One of them went to prison. One suicided.
All of the young men, their families, remained Catholic. THey recognised that this behavior is repugnant, evil, criminal. They also recognised that the Church is a human institution and being human has failed humans in it. An actual apostle was Judas.
As for the ignorant Whoosh and his demented friends, you are anachronisms more than anything.

Good story from the real world, Jim. Are you a prosecutor?

You're right, it's so 1988 to hate child rapists and the organisations that hide and shield them. In this post-modern world of moral relativity nothing is really bad

And of course as long as there are some good guys in it the organisation is cool. I take it you'll be contributing to Acorn too after all some of them called the cops on O’Keefe.

And even though the leaders of the Church in the US (the US Conference of Catholic Bishops) are "swindlers who con Catholics out of cash on behalf of bureaucrats and community activist rackets that promote abortion" they're really nice folk too, so we'll keep going to the church and contributing.

I guess I'm the demented one.

Good story from the real world, Jim. Are you a prosecutor? No. defence.
As for you, whoosh. You are unspeakable.

Who are you arguing with, Whoosh? Nothing you are saying seems remotely connected to anything anyone here has been saying.

I'm curious, Whoosh, are you connected with Fred Phelps in any way? You act a lot like him.

Nothing you are saying seems remotely connected to anything anyone here has been saying.

I'm talking about the leadership of your church - you know the ones about which Van Helsing and you said at the top of this page ...

The ultra-left hasn't just taken over our government. It is also co-opting religion. Yet another example:

There ought to be a special place in hell for swindlers who con Catholics out of cash on behalf of bureaucrats and community activist rackets that promote abortion .

Why should it be surprising to anyone that the same leaders that covered up child rape are also conning Catholics our of cash on behalf of bureaucrats and community activist rackets that promote abortion?

Or is that too 'remotely connected' for you?

Phred Phelps is extreme, but to my knowledge he hasn't raped any kids. Not even pubescent ones twenty years ago, so he's one up on Bishop Lawrence Soens.

Do you honestly believe that every leader in the Catholic Church is corrupt? Do you honestly believe that everyone in your church is without sin? You alone are proof that that is not true.

You act like I'm surprised that there are some Church leaders who are on the wrong path. I am not. Satan attacks what is good from within. Do I need to remind you that it was Judas Iscariot, a man who was handed picked by Christ to serve as one of his first apostles that handed Christ over to be crucified? St. Peter, the leader of the apostles, denied Christ three times in the midst of His Passion, but went on to redeem himself by suffering great persecutions for the sake of Christ. Do these clear examples of the earliest Church leaders behaving sinfully invalidate Christ's church. They do not. They are proof that Christ created a Church for human beings, not angels, and that the struggle between good and evil often happens WITHIN each human being.

And actually, it's been claimed that Phelps raped and beat his own sons, but in your frenzy to hate the Catholic Church I can see why you might overlook such minor infractions in your eyes.

Хорошая статья, узнал много нового!)

Откуда Вы?

It's spam, Judith.

Thanks, Van. Do you know what they're selling?

You can find out by clicking on the commenter's name. But I wouldn't do it, because the link goes to a Russian porn site.

Thanks, Van. I knew I shouldn't click on the link, thanks for taking the hit for me...;)

Whoosh,

As you continue to seek further replies from me to your foolhardy diatribes, please - in lieu my making further comments to you - refer back to my comment at October 21, 2009 1:54 PM. In the meantime, perhaps an entry-level course in Patristics, New Testament studies, or theology would be a better use of your time than to continually flaunt your ignorance in a public comment thread.

GR

And actually, it's been claimed that Phelps raped and beat his own sons, but in your frenzy to hate the Catholic Church I can see why you might overlook such minor infractions in your eyes.

I have no brief for Phelps and my eyes are open to his sins, but I can find no record of Phelps raping anyone. Perhaps you could find a link? He seems not to have spared the rod (Proverbs 13:24) but this in any way excuses the corrupt Catholic church which has its own history of beating children in its residential schools.

I certainly do hate any organisation that condones, covers up and protects child rapists. Of course any organisation of human beings will contain sinners. The Catholic church leaders however cover up the sins of child-rapists, move them to fresh hunting grounds, elevate them to Bishops, and pay off their victims to keep them quiet. You yourself point out the corruption in your leaders in the video above. I'm not making this up. By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive.

It's OK, Rumpledforeskin, if you have something sensible to add, then by all means add it, but I do not seek any more of your platitudes

Phelps son, Nate, wrote a book about his molestation and abuse experiences. Is that good enough for you? It's interesting to note that you were completely unaware of it, though. How many other sins in protestant churches are you unaware of? Plenty, I'm sure, including the sins that no doubt abound in your own church.

You remind me of the Pharisees in scripture. You praise God with your lips, but your heart is far from Him and your behavior is all the proof one needs to know this is true. I bet you thank God for not making you a sinner, too.

Phelps son, Nate, wrote a book about his molestation and abuse experiences. Is that good enough for you? It's interesting to note that you were completely unaware of it, though.I'm sorry I am unaware of it. Do you have the title, or maybe you could provide a link at Amazon because I've looked and I still can't find it.

I have read what Nate has written online about his father and, while he sounds a severe parent, I can't find anywhere where Nate accuses him of sexual molestation.

Not that it really matters since I am not a member of Westboro and never will be, this is simply a way for you to distract from the well documented and systemic corruption of your church.

Yes, we have sinners in my church. I am a sinner and am not worthy of Jesus love. If I discovered that the leaders and teachers of my church are unrepentant sinners, hiding, condoning and excusing child rape I think God would tell me it was time to leave and find a true church. If all the churches are corrupt then take your Bible and pray in a field with your family. You don't need false priests to interpret it for you.

3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts

Don't get led away, Judith.

Whoosh,

I see that your reading comprehension is somewhat lacking. What part of my previous comment did you not understand?

GR

Which part of if you have something sensible to add, then by all means add it, but I do not seek any more of your platitudes did you not understand?

Forget about Fred and address this:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2007/06/18/80877.htm

This is just the tip of the iceberg, I'm sure. 260 new sex abuse cases against minors every year from protestant churches based on limited insurance statistics. Can you imagine what they'd find if they did a full cavity search of every single protestant denomination like they did with the Catholic Church. You see, because when you publicize something like this and start showcasing offenders in the media, it tends to draw more accusers. I'd love to see it happen, wouldn't you? Think of how many poor protestant children are at risk because no one cares enough to take their cases public.

At least there were people in the Catholic Church who took those difficult steps, as Jim noted from his personal experience working on a sex abuse suit.

Oh, and I didn't say that the Catholic Church was corrupt, I said that there are people in it were corrupt. That will be regardless of where you worship, even if you limit the size of your church to your family.

There you go again, Judith, more excuses: "Every one else is doing it".

The church is not the bricks, mortar and idols of Mary, it is the spiritual leaders and members. When the shepherds abandon God and do not cut off the hands that offend, but simply put them in another pocket, the church has become corrupt. How can the sheep trust their shepherds when they are wolves? The sheep need to find a new pasture. There may be other wolves in hiding but that is no reason to accept wolves that do not hide.

You seem fixated on pullng down all churches because your own has fallen. That's sad. I know the Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on sin and corruption, but if my church were to become corrupt I would find a new one.

Forget about Fred If you say so, you brought him up and I do not like to be accused of wifully ignoring anything. I don't think his lost son has written a book (yet) or ever said he was sexually abused, but if I am wrong, please correct me.

I am not intent on pulling other churches down, Whoosh just pointing out that they have exactly the same problems with sexual abuse of minors ad the Catholic Church. And that's one big problem you have with convincing me that I should leave the Church that I believe was established by Christ, Himself. Not by a mere mortal, like all other Christian denominations, but by Jesus Christ, while he was still living amongst us.

The fact that you would be so willing to leave your church due to the sins of its members is proof positive that you don't believe you are in the Church Christ established. As a Catholic Christian, my duty is not to run away when confronted with sin, but to confront it, and to do what is in my power to reform it. Where would I go if I left Christ's Church? To another church with the same problems, but without the benefit of having been established by Christ, Himself? Thanks, but no thanks. I'm sticking with the original, because it's the only Church Christ promised he would stay with until the end of times.

Oh, and you still haven't commented on the apparent problem with sex abuse of minors in protestant denominations that were detailed in that insurance journal. It's quite clear it's a very real problem and that they have a lot of work to do in coming even close to creating the safe church environment the Catholic Church has. It sounds like the Baptists are really having problems preventing their pervert ministers from moving from one town to the next and creating a whole new group of victims. They don't even have a Bishop to send them off for mental health treatment, the perverts can just pack their bags, move to the next town, and set up a new church with fresh victims. And as the article mentioned, they really have no good way to track molestation within protestant denominations because they are so decentralized, and given that the numbers in the article were insurance cases, that means there is a WHOLE lot more cases that have not been uncovered.

This is why I'm not interested in discussing Nate's he-said, he-said, saga. There's a much bigger issue that needs addressing within protestant churches all across the country.

And that's one big problem you have with convincing me that I should leave the Church that I believe was established by Christ, Himself. Not by a mere mortal, like all other Christian denominations, but by Jesus Christ, while he was still living amongst us.

You are still confusing 'Church' with bricks, mortar, money and idols. The Church the Lord established was built on people, not an opulent palace in Rome.

Matt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Catholics left Christ over 500 years ago so true Christians left Catholics and stayed with Christ. Now you are trying to pull all churches down your level with imaginary abuse cases. Your church used your money to cover up, hide and pay off victims. It's not the sin it's what the church did about it that makes the church corrupt.

This is why I'm not interested in discussing Nate's he-said, he-said, saga. So why did you bring him up then? Why not be honest and acknowledge that you lied about Nate's non existent book and Fred Phelps sexually assaulting his children. You remember that 'thou shalt not bear false witness' thing? or don't they teach that in your church any more?

If Catholics left the church, how come protestant denominations look nothing like the Christian Church prior to the Reformation? Are you saying the Church had always been wrong until Luther and Calvin came along? And what about the fact that they were at each others throats and couldn't agree on theology.

Do you say the apostles creed? Do you stumble when you hit the part that says "I believe in the Holy Spirit,the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints"? Or the Nicene Creed, where it says "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic"? Both these prayers came long before the Reformation, and neither one seems to refer to any protestant denomination.

And no, I'm not confusing the Church with a structure, but with a divinely instituted entity that is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error. They could shut down every Catholic parish and as long as there were priests and bishops, it would still exist as a Church.

Here's one thing I found about the book he wrote, which has not yet been published due to legal issues:

"During 1993–94 interviews with the Topeka Capital-Journal, the four Phelps children (out of thirteen, Mark, Nate, Katherine and Dotty) who had left the church asserted that their father’s religious beliefs were either nonexistent to begin with or have dwindled down to nearly nothing. They insist that Westboro actually serves to enable a paraphilia of Phelps, wherein he is literally addicted to hatred. This statement would serve as the inspiration for the title of the book about Phelps’ life, which was never published due to fear of lawsuit, but became public when the author sued the publisher, who maintained that it was a work for hire and therefore could not be taken to another publisher, attaching a copy of the manuscript to the suit as an exhibit thus making it public record. The record was eventually sealed, although the document had already been released over the Internet."

And the reason I mentioned Fred Phelps in the first place is because you remind me of him. You are a hateful man, just like him.

But let's get back to all that sex abuse in the protestant denominations. How do you think you are going to get away from it when there is not a single denomination free of it and they all have been known to cover up abuse?

Here's one thing I found about the book he wrote, which has not yet been published due to legal issues So perhaps I can be forgiven for having been unaware of it since it doesn't exist. I note that the interview you quote says nothing about "Phelps raped and beat his own sons" so again I can be forgiven for overlooking that too, since it's just another example of you bearing false witness.

I believe that if you have been caught in a falsehood, the Christian thing would be to apologise, but if you can't bring yourself to admit to an error, it's all right, I forgive you. You know little of Fred Phelps and even less of me, so I also forgive you your unkind words about me, you know not of what you speak.

Big churches are like big government, they become corrupt. The good news is that armed with God's word you don't need a Pope to tell you what to think.

I'm certainly not going to apologize for stating that Fred Phelps is an accused child abuser. This is what Wikipedia says about him (you didn't look very hard, did you?)

Two of his sons, Mark and Nate, allege that their father is a child abuser who repeatedly beat them with a leather strap and a mattock handle (similar to an axe handle).[35] They insist that the church is actually a carefully planned cult that allows Phelps to see himself as a demigod, wielding absolute control over the lives of his family and congregants, essentially turning them into slaves that he can use for the sole purpose of gratifying his every whim and acting as the structure for his delusion that he is the only righteous man on Earth.[36] In 1995, Mark Phelps wrote a letter to the people of Topeka to this effect; it was run in the Topeka Capital-Journal.[37] The children's claim is partially backed up by B.H. McAllister, the Baptist minister who ordained Phelps. McAllister said in a 1993 interview that Phelps developed a delusion wherein he was one of the few people on Earth worthy of God's grace and that everyone else in the world was going to Hell, and that salvation or damnation could be directly obtained by either aligning with or opposing him. As of 2006, Phelps maintains this belief.[36] Phelps and his family picket approximately six locations every day, including many in Topeka and some events farther afield. On Sundays, up to 15 churches may receive pickets.[38] By their own count, WBC has conducted over 30,000 pickets, in all 50 states, in over 500 cities and towns.[39] Their travel budget exceeds $200,000 annually.[40]

Nate has alleged that his father's violence toward his mother and his family was due to an addiction to amphetamines and barbiturates, which Phelps used to help meet the demands of law school. The stress of schoolwork, combined with the difficulties faced by the simultaneous use of uppers and downers, heightened Phelps' "quick, violent, and indiscriminate" temper. [41]

I will retract my claim that Phelps sexually abused his sons, for the time being, because although there are hints that that might be the case even in the Wikipedia article (i.e., he made his children satisfy his every whim), and I thought I recalled hearing that claim being made in a special that was done about the Phelps family, I cannot confirm it, because I don't have access to the program.

I wonder, however, if you will apologize to me for accusing me of making up the claims that Fred Phelps is a vicious and sick man. I most certainly did not make them up, they were out there for anyone with even the most rudimentary Internet research skills to find, as the Wikipedia article shows. If you won't apologize, I understand. I forgive you anyway.

"Big churches are like big government, they become corrupt. The good news is that armed with God's word you don't need a Pope to tell you what to think."

Small churches are corrupt as well. It boils down to the fallen nature of man. And there is nothing more provably false than the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Do you want me to prove it? Please site the Bible verse that states the Bible ALONE is the sole rule of faith.

Since I know you will fail at this task, let me add that even Martin Luther gave credit to the Catholic Church for assembling and maintaining the Scriptures that you seem to think were dropped ex machina from the sky at the time Christ ascended into heaven. If the Church could not be trusted with such an important task because it was corrupt (and it's always had corruption, even when Christ was still alive), how can you trust the Bible you have is accurate?

What's more, I find it hilarious that you tell me I can trust the Word, when I've read the Word and have concluded from it that your ideas about Christianity are completely wrong. You tell me I'm deceived, but I've come to my conclusion based on how I interpret scripture. Explain that, Mr. Sola Scriptura!

You claimed that Phelps raped his sons. I have explicitly agreed that he beat his children and was a severe parent, but I questioned your charge of raping his sons. You then sneered at me for overlooking his (nonexistent) sexual abuse and overlooking Nate's (nonexistent) book about it.

You keep making an-hominen attacks at me - accusing me of hatred and being like your imaginary caricature of a son-raping demon. When I question you on claims you've made up you sneer at me for being ignorant about your fabrications. I have not attcked you personally, only your church whose priests DID beat children in their care every bit as severely as Phelps did, as well as actually raping them.

Now you grudgingly retract your claim about Phelp's rape (for the time being) but refuse to aplogize for it or for comparing me to this imaginary rapist.

Given the detailed accusations Nate Phelps has made about his father it seems unlikely that he would forget to mention rape, so you should make your retraction unconditional and not just 'for the time being', even if you vaugely remember hearing gossip somewhere. Lev 19:16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people

If you will point out where I accused you of "making up the claims that Fred Phelps is a vicious and sick man" I will apologize. As it is I have only accused you of making up the claims that he's raped his sons.

Really Judith, you are not a very good advertisment for your church

What's more, I find it hilarious that you tell me I can trust the Word, when I've read the Word and have concluded from it that your ideas about Christianity are completely wrong. You tell me I'm deceived, but I've come to my conclusion based on how I interpret scripture. Explain that, Mr. Sola Scriptura!

Yes you need the Holy Spirit to arrive at a proper hermeneutic.
2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

You don't need men, especially not ones that cover up and condone sin. Without the Holy Spirit it the Gospels are foolishness.

2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man

I'm not surprised you don't trust the Word. Your trust has been abused by men.

Look, I am a wretched sinner and if I said something untrue about Fred Phelps, I apologize. However, I deny completely and absolutely that I purposely lied about him. I thought what I wrote was true at the time I wrote it.

"I'm not surprised you don't trust the Word."

I trust the Word, I simply don't trust your perverse interpretation of it.

For example, the quote you chose was uttered by an apostle, not some schmoe, such as yourself, that has not been given authority directly from Christ or indirectly through apostolic succession.

No where does scripture say that every person is able to individually interpret scripture infallibly.

Do you know how I can tell you aren't filled with the Holy Spirit? Your filthy mouth, for one thing. Another sure sign that there is too much you and not enough God is your pride and arrogance. For example, you said you knew you were saved. Really? Are you so much better than St. Paul, who worked out his salvation in "fear and trembling," that you are confident your salvation is guaranteed? Didn't Christ make it clear that not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" was going to be saved?

if I said something untrue about Fred Phelps, I apologize. However, I deny completely and absolutely that I purposely lied about him. I thought what I wrote was true at the time I wrote it.

I see you are well versed in the art of notpology, you must be a politician. You spread a falsehood, there's no 'if'. That you believed it to be true is no excuse, since you had no grounds for the claim. You thought it was true when you likened me to him - a child rapist in your mind - which you have yet to apologize to me for. I do not enjoy being likened to a child rapist but although it's difficult I forgive you

If you do not know you are saved then I pity you. I am not 'confident', I 'know' I am saved. If you had a real relationship with God you would know too.

If you don't have a real relationship with God then no wonder you need an authority to tell you what to think.

Apostolic succession is false doctrine that has no foundation in God's word. Your Popes may have occupied the same office but that makes as much sense as saying Obama is Washington

The apostles were eye-witnesses of Christ. (Acts 1:15-26). Paul defended his apostleship by saying, 1 Cor. 9:1 Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?. They were chosen by the Lord, to witness to mankind what they saw and knew first hand of Him.

Acts 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be witnesses for me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and even to the very ends of the earth.

In Acts 26:16 the Lord says to Paul,

2 Pet. 1:16 For we were not following fictitious tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eye-witnesses of his grandeur.

In what way was Ratzinger an eye-witness of the Lord?

"Apostolic succession is false doctrine that has no foundation in God's word. Your Popes may have occupied the same office but that makes as much sense as saying Obama is Washington"

You aren't very good at analogies, are you? The analogy I'm making is that Obama is a successor to the office of President. Is Obama a successor to the Office of President? Why, yes, he is. For my analogy to resemble yours I would have to be saying that Pope Benedict is Rome.

"2 Pet. 1:16 For we were not following fictitious tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eye-witnesses of his grandeur."

Do you think Christ was so stupid that he would set up a Church where the leadership died with the first apostles? The Church that Christ established was set up for SUCCESSION of leadership. Do you want scriptural proof? Check out Acts and read about the replacement of Judas with Mathias. It is clear from scriptures that the early Church not only had the power to replace its leadership as necessary, it expanded it as necessary.

The quote for Acts is further proof that the apostles had a special mission. The Holy Spirit descending at Pentecost was the institution of the Church and it fell upon its leaders (ie., the first bishops were the apostles and all Bishops in the Church can trace their positions back to succession from the first twelve.)

And regarding your arrogant claim that you "know" you are saved. I pity you. St. Paul knew Christ better than you could ever hope to, and this is he said about holding on to salvation:

"Do you not know that the runners in the stadium all run in the race, but only one wins the prize? Run so as to win.

Every athlete exercises discipline in every way. They do it to win a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one.

Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadowboxing.

No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified."

How can you, as sinful as you obviously are, claim that you are assured salvation when Paul did not make such a claim?

For my analogy to resemble yours I would have to be saying that Pope Benedict is Rome.Washington as in 'George Washington' not 'Washington DC'.

the first bishops were the apostles and all Bishops in the Church can trace their positions back to succession from the first twelve.

Yet these very same bishops are the ones who "con Catholics out of cash on behalf of bureaucrats and community activist rackets that promote abortion." and condone, hide and excuse child rape, until they were forced by secular law to acknowledge their sins.

What insight does 'tracing their positions back' give them? Obama can trace his 'position' back through Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan ... Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Washington. Then there was a schism where the US wnet their own way and we get to George III, George II, George I, Anne, Mary II, Willian III, James II, Charles II .... Ethelbert, Ethelwulf, Egbert, Offa.

It does not mean that Obama has the knowledge and wisdom of Offa or even Washington (George not DC). The US split from Britain because of corruption and oppression by the leaders, just as True Christians split from Rome. The Kings and Queens of England claim Divine Right to rule, just as the Pope does, and can trace their lineage way back too. It's meaningless and vain and does not edify.

Tim 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

You place God's word as subordinate to the traditions of your church. But those traditions change over time as the church has lost it's way - as evidenced by your Bishops 'conning Catholics...'

God's word is unchanging.

You view salvation to be earned as a process, I see it as a gift.

How can you, as sinful as you obviously are, claim that you are assured salvation when Paul did not make such a claim?
There are no sins so great they cannot be washed clean by the blood of the Lord. I am not assured, I have received salvation
Jihn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
And Paul did so make such a claim 1 Cor 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

"Yet these very same bishops are the ones who "con Catholics out of cash on behalf of bureaucrats and community activist rackets that promote abortion." and condone, hide and excuse child rape, until they were forced by secular law to acknowledge their sins."

Really? Have all the bishops sinned in this way? Now I must call upon you to back up your claims or apologize for your calumny. Do you have any idea how many bishops there have been over the last 50 years and how few have been accused of these crimes? Of course you don't, and yet you continue to sin by spreading gross fabrications of their universal guilt. Shame, shame, shame. If you can't prove that all or even most of the bishops have been guilty of these evils, then the Christian thing to do would be to apologize for your calumny.

"What insight does 'tracing their positions back' give them? Obama can trace his 'position' back through Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan ... Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Washington. Then there was a schism where the US wnet their own way and we get to George III, George II, George I, Anne, Mary II, Willian III, James II, Charles II .... Ethelbert, Ethelwulf, Egbert, Offa."

Do you think that Obama does not have authority over our country at the moment because he's not as wise as Washington? I assure you, he does. Some bishops today are better than some of the apostles, some are worse. Do you think any current Bishop could top the sin of Judas, who having lived with Christ and witnessing his miracles, sold Him to be tortured to death for 30 pieces of gold? What makes you think being a bishop means a man is perfect, rather than simply ordained by God to fill a role of great responsibility which is his to either squander or use well (with, of course, serious consequences being attached to squandering such a great responsibility).

"Tim 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain."

There you go again, misinterpreting because you've cut yourself off from the source of spiritual truth, Mother Church. St. Paul wasn't talking about the Catholic Church, a Church which he BELONGED to at the time he wrote these things. He was talking about the Jews who refused to believe in Christ and continued trying to pursue salvation with their "laws" (small "l" as in Levitical laws) as well as other heretical sects.

"You place God's word as subordinate to the traditions of your church. But those traditions change over time as the church has lost it's way - as evidenced by your Bishops 'conning Catholics...'"

Again, you show your abysmal ignorance of the Catholic Church. We do not subordinate God's Word to Holy Traditions (capital "T"). They work hand in hand and cannot contradict one another. You also are mistaking customs with Traditions. They are not the same, by any stretch of the imagination. Traditions do not change, customs and disciplines do.

The fact that certain Bishops are either overly gullible or actually evil in supporting the CCHD has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the teachings of the Church. The two are not at all connected, because having a CCHD collection is NOT a tradition of the Church, nor is it mandatory that any Catholic give to it. The Bishops will be judged for their involvement based on their individual culpability. I also might add that there are some bishops who refuse to allow the collection, so this is by no means done everywhere.

"God's word is unchanging."

True, but why do you Protestants keep changing your interpretations, then? I mean, some denominations officially allow actively homosexuals ministers. The Catholic Church never had an official position that allowed homosexuals in the priesthood, in fact, they had one that prohibited them from being in the priesthood. The fact that the homosexuals broke the rules of the Church is not a reflection on the Church, but on their own personal sinfulness.

In the Catholic Church, teachings do not change, they develop as theological truths are made manifest through Biblical study and research. The word Trinity doesn't appear in scripture, do you deny the Trinity? If not, why do you think all true Christians believe in the Trinity even though it's not in scripture? Because the Church determined it was true through study and discussion and finally agreement that it was true. Also if you believe in the Trinity, I'm sorry to inform you that that is prove positive that your "doctrine" of sola scriptura is false, even as you practice it.

"You view salvation to be earned as a process, I see it as a gift."

Do you purposely ignore people when they correct you about your erroneous understandings of Catholic beliefs? I already addressed this same issue earlier in this thread. Catholics believe that even the DESIRE to want to do good is the result of God's Grace acting in our lives and is completely unmerited. Got that? We don't believe we can save ourselves. We can't even WANT to save ourselves without God's Grace. So if you continue spreading this lie, that's another calumny for which you should apologize.

Where Catholic differ from many (not all protestants) is that we don't think a mouth profession is sufficient to guarantee you a place in heaven. Haven't you read the letter of James? It explicitly says faith without works is DEAD. Do you think a dead faith will save you?

"There are no sins so great they cannot be washed clean by the blood of the Lord. I am not assured, I have received salvation."

No kidding, but then again, that's what Catholics believe. You said you *knew* you were saved. There's a big difference between believing Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to save all if they participate in the process, and believing that all will be saved just because they give lip service to Christ.

"And Paul did so make such a claim 1 Cor 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

That verse doesn't mean that every believer will be saved regardless of how they live their lives AT ALL. For one thing, justification means that you experience authentic INTERNAL conversion thanks to Christ's gift of Grace working in your soul. And what did James say about authentic internal conversion? That it manifests itself in acts of love and charity and that faith without works is dead.

You can't use this verse to claim that Paul meant salvation cannot be lost. For one, because it doesn't make any such claim, and for two, because that would contradict what he said in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 9, and scripture cannot contradict itself.

Now you're sounding like Bill Donahue, downplaying and trivializing the real, documented widespread abuse and the systematic cover up that went up to the highest levels.

That verse doesn't mean that every believer will be saved regardless of how they live their lives AT ALL. For one thing, justification means that you experience authentic INTERNAL conversion thanks to Christ's gift of Grace working in your soul. And what did James say about authentic internal conversion? That it manifests itself in acts of love and charity and that faith without works is dead.

Indeed, acts of love and charity come as a result of Christ's grace, they are not necessary to earn it.

I wonder where acts of child rape or covering up and excusing them come from?

:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Your tree is full of rotten fruit, but as long as it's not every single fruit, you're happy sucking on a lemon.

No wonder you don't know if you're saved.

No proof for your assertions that the entire hierarchy or even a large percentage was involved in these crimes, ay? Either put up the evidence or admit that you are perpetuating a lie.

"Indeed, acts of love and charity come as a result of Christ's grace, they are not necessary to earn it."

If you don't have acts, your faith is dead, and that IS scriptural. So yes, acts are necessary, not because they earn you salvation, but because without them there is no reason to believe you have a saving faith and James said PRECISELY that in his NT letter.

"Your tree is full of rotten fruit, but as long as it's not every single fruit, you're happy sucking on a lemon."

I can point to several obvious fruits from the Catholic Church: Mother Teresa, Irena Sendlar, Maximilian Kolbe, Edith Stein, and all the canonized saints throughout history. I might add that all the people I listed actually FOLLOWED Catholic teaching rather than disobeying it. I think that's the real measure of whether a tree is good or bad, whether good fruit grows from the true tree, not whether a particular branch happens to be diseased. I also note that you have not particularly impressed me as a shining example of Christ's love from your sect, can you name some people I might recognize who are? Because so far you're batting zero with your own example.

I hope for salvation, but I am not presumptuous about it, as you are. I understand that through my own actions (not through any inadequacy in Christ's work) that I can lose my salvation. St. Paul made that very clear in 1 Corinthians, and I note that you can't deny he said just that. You just keep on verse mining hoping that you can bury that his clear words with verses that you think contradict what he was saying. They don't, of course.

You do like making up straw men. Not every person in an organization has to be corrupt for the organization to be corrupt and I never claimed it did. I'm sure that lots of Acorn employees are really nice people, with a good work ethic, who are nice to their moms.

It's no lie that child abuse was widespread in the Catholic Church.

How much of a fruit has to be rotten before you will refuse to eat it? 5%, 51% or 100%?

You forgot to mention another fruit of Catholicism who was intimately responsible for the deaths of Irena Sendlar Sendler, Maximilian Kolbe and Edith Stein. "I am now, as before, a Catholic and will always remain so"

What, Whoosh, afraid to take responsibility for your lies so you switch to "anonymous"? There were 13,000 confirmed cases of sexual abuse of minors in 50 years in the Catholic Church (most of them in the 60s and 70s). Approximately 1% of Catholic clergy were credibly accused of such crimes over that time, so acting like it is anywhere close to 50% is a LIE. 1% is far lower than the percentage of people in the general population who have been accused of the crime, and given that the incomplete data that we have on protestant denominations seems to indicate that there are at least 260 NEW cases each year (260 x 50 equals 13,000), there is reason to believe the current problem in protestant denominations is far worse. If you can find something that indicates the abuse in the Catholic Church was even one-tenth of what you are claiming with your wild accusations of 50%, I'll let you off the hook, but you won't, so why don't you do your conscience a favor and admit that you are engaging in gross calumny?

Hitler was clearly not Catholic in any meaningful sense of the word. He rejected the faith of his childhood completely and absolutely and he persecuted the Catholic Church. It's absurd to act like someone who rejects his faith (to the point that he plotted to raid the Vatican and kidnap the Pope) is a representative member of that faith. When a Catholic embraces the Catholic faith with all his or her heart, they become saints like the people I listed. When they reject it, they become monsters.

But, again, where are the examples of good fruits from your sect? Because you aren't one of them.

More straw man inventions. You are the one stuck on the idea that somehow anything less than 51% is acceptable. It's not an election. I have claimed it was widespread and systemic and it was, I never once claimed that it was a majority of priests.

According to the John Jay College of Criminal Justice report for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops it was not 1%, but 4% of priests. The report did not include the number of bishops who knowingly covered up re-assigned priests who had abused children. Several dioceses destroyed records so their crimes would remain hidden, Cleveland, Dallas, Fairbanks, Manchester, Oakland, Springfield, Tucson, Worcester.

Obviously not all abused children came forward either so the actual abuse is indubitably higher. From the same report These numbers include allegations that were not substantiated or were not investigated. Because many victims of sexual abuse never tell anybody about the abuse, however, the actual number of priests who engaged in sexual abuse of a minor during the last half century was likely higher, not lower.

You would clearly like to pretend that these child rapists, their facilitators (and Hitler), were not fruits of the Catholic Church while cherry picking some nice fruits. Of course they have turned their backs on Jesus and are no longer Christians, they are monsters but they are still Catholic monsters and every bit as much fruits of the Church as the saints.

I deeply apologize for not signing the previous comment, it was a shameless attempt to confuse you, since I knew you would never guess who it was. I know you would never do that and I hope you can forgive me for the deception.

4% were ACCUSED, that's different from a credible claim. 10% could not be substantiated in any way. 20% came far too late to do anything about them (the priest was already dead were no longer working as priests). The point is, it's still well below the typical incidence in the general population, and no organization has come under closer scrutiny over this matter than the Catholic Church, inspite of the fact that the problem is just as bad if not worse in protestant denominations, and don't even get me started on the amount of abuse that happens in public schools.

Catholics have been working to correct this abuse and bring justice to victims for almost two decades. Most protestants (although I know several protestants who acknowledge that the problem also occurs in protestant denominations) have not even acknowledged that they have a problem. It's wrong to bash Catholics, including innocent Catholic priests, for the wrongs committed by a small percentage of them and if you were just individual you would know that.

"You would clearly like to pretend that these child rapists, their facilitators (and Hitler), were not fruits of the Catholic Church while cherry picking some nice fruits. Of course they have turned their backs on Jesus and are no longer Christians, they are monsters but they are still Catholic monsters and every bit as much fruits of the Church as the saints."

The only way you could claim Hitler or the abusers were fruits of the Catholic Church is if the teachings of the Church impelled them to act as they did. In fact, the Church opposed Hitler's ideas, particularly the ones relating to racial purity. There is documentation galore of this. Further, the Catholic teachings on chastity are clear and in no way could be construed to approve of sex abuse. No, these people sinned of their own free will and in so doing chose sin over the Church that Christ established.

But you still have not named any good fruits from your sect. Why is that? Are there none?

Here's a quote that I thought you might find of interest Whoosh. I respect Bishop Persell's realism and honesty. You would do well to adopt a similar attitude:

"We would be naïve and dishonest were we to say this is a Roman Catholic problem and has nothing to do with us because we have married and female priests in our church. Sin and abusive behavior know no ecclesial or other boundaries." Rt. Rev. William Persell, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago, Good Friday Sermon, 2002. "

The point is, it's still well below the typical incidence in the general population
Nonsense. Only 2.7% of adults in the U.S. have ever served time in prison for ANY reason link.
Among the State prison inmates in 2000:
-- nearly half were sentenced for a violent crime (49%)
-- a fifth were sentenced for a property crime (20%)
-- about a fifth were sentenced for a drug crime (21%) which leaves only 10% or 0.27% of the population for all other crimes
The only way you could claim Hitler or the abusers were fruits of the Catholic Church is if the teachings of the Church impelled them to act as they did. You mean like the Catholic Tradition of taking young male virgins and making them take unnatural vows of celibacy? Or the Catholic Tradition of anti semitism?

No, these people sinned of their own free will and in so doing chose sin over the Church that Christ established.Remember we are not talking of the sheep here, we are talking of the shepherds. It was the Bishops that covered up these sins, destroyed records and facilitated abuse. They chose sin and the church.

We follow the Bible and do not boast of our works (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Experts agree that sex abuse is a common problem:

http://www.apa.org/releases/sexabuse/

Your statistics are meaningless because they only look at incarcerated individuals and many sex abusers are never incarcerated (including protestant ministers who offend). Not only that, but "violent" offenders can include sex offenders (and precious few priest offenders fell into that category).

"You mean like the Catholic Tradition of taking young male virgins and making them take unnatural vows of celibacy? Or the Catholic Tradition of anti semitism?"

So I guess that Christ being a celibate male and Paul pointing out that making oneself a eunuch for the kingdom of God mean nothing to you. Not surprising. After all, Luther was a priest who couldn't keep his vows, no wonder he passed on the belief that NO ONE could keep them.

The simple fact is that the Church makes no one become a priest, so you are lying about the Church MAKING men take vows of celibacy. It is a vow entered into freely without coercion. And I see you must be in denial regarding what the Bishop said about abusive behavior knowing no ecclesial or other boundaries. Your naivete is breathtaking.

You also lie about anti-semitism being a Catholic Tradition. Anti-Semitism is a grave sin according to Catholic teaching and if it hadn't been for the Catholic Church, a lot more Jews would have died in the Holocaust.

If anything, it was the Protestant Reformation that was rife with anti-Semitism, and don't forget, Germany WAS the epicenter of the Reformation. Coincidence that the Holocaust occurred there? I think not.

The underlying sentiment of almost ALL your posts is that your sect is superior to the Catholic Church. Your pride is bursting through at the seams and yet you can't give me one good reason to think that the fruits of your belief system are better than the fruits of the Catholic Church. Catholics recognize others who live lives of heroic virtue. This is quite different from tooting your own horn (which you seem quite adept at). If you don't have anyone from your sect that is a gleaming example of Christian love, just say so, don't hide behind a false modesty. Or are you afraid to say who is a model Christian from your denomination because you are ashamed of how your behavior will reflect on them?