Friday, March 12, 2010

Old Wine Skins Falling Apart...

With the recent revelations of sexual abuse in Germany, which open the possibility of some responsibility being with the Pope's brother, and maybe even Benedict himself, it appears that clergy abuse of minors is not simply an "American problem." There are obviously mixed opinions at the Vatican regarding the situation. In the past week, has documented Vatican responses that vary from "that was in the past, we have control of it" to "we need to examine the role of women in the decision-making processes of the Church."

When the sexual abuse crisis was at its height in America in 2001, some in America wanted John Paul II to take the stand here in America as he was our bishops's boss. Now, with the new revelations that make themselves known everyday in Germany, could the German government be in position to call in Benedict as a material witness regarding his time as Archbishop of Munich and Freising?

I know better than to be overly optimistic regarding quick changes in the Catholic Church, but this scandal epitomizes the problem that is present with the current state of power relationships in the Church. One wonders if the those such as Benedict and his brother hoped that they would be dead before these German revelations came to light. In any case, the next few months will be very interesting...

A Faithful Catholic


Dad29 said...

and maybe even Benedict himself

Benedict and his brother hoped that they would be dead before these German revelations came to light

You're pushing the envelope VERY far. If you can't substantiate those remarks, you might want to reconsider leaving them out there.

CatholicSoldier said...

The real old wine skins that are falling apart are the Modernists and Progressives. One only needs to look at those orders and realize that they have no youth and no vitality. Orthodox Christianity has been challenged many times, the most recent was the anarchy unleashed by the Modernists who misused and twisted the Council, but ultimately, the Church endures because it is protected and because it is of Christ.

CatholicSoldier said...

And I do have to agree with Dad29 on his comment, you are really going out there with NOTHING but your hope to substantiate your dreams.

Anonymous said...

Oh, you papal can kissers. Still holding out for the greatest scandal in religion. I'm sure Christ directed these priest to molest boys. You're just too much!!

CatholicSoldier said...


Last time I checked the Papacy was instituted by Christ through St. Peter.

At no point did I say that God directed those priests to molest boys, you are making up words in a pitiful attempt to bolster your anti-Catholic argument.

Anonymous said...

Well CS, why did God shose those who defend and practice child molestation as his special 'representatives?

Incidentally you need to check your Bible. Where does it say God chose the Pope as his special representtive? There is one passage in St. Matthew, but same story is not found in Mark and Luke. Certainly something that important would be in ALL the gospels. If, as you argue B16 is God on earth.

Even Catholic scholars assume the Matt. version is a later addition.

CatholicSoldier said...

The Catholic Church (emphasis there) believes that Christ instituted the Church under the leadership of St. Peter. You can take issue with scriptures, but fundamentally, that is the Truth.

"You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church".

If you take issue with that declaration, you are not Catholic. Go to St. Peter's and look at the dome. St. Peter was the leader of the Ancient Church. He was the Bishop of Rome and his successors viewed as the leader of the Christian Community.

You probably also read those scholars who have modernist readings of the Miracles, don't you? And of course, when Christ refers to Himself as God, He can't be meaning that?

"Do not be too progressive that you are outside of the Church".

Anonymous said...

But my friend CS. The exact passages about the "rock" are NOT found in 2 of the synoptics. Certainly the "binding and Loosing" would be of such world shaking significance they CERTAINLY be included in the two Gospels where they are absent. I assume the Bible would be more authoritative than a Knights of Columbus pamphlet.

Check it out yourself, man.

Anonymous said...

CS, I know about as much about computers as you know about church history:)

The binding and loosing passage is found in Matt. but not in the other two synoptics. Now certainly a passage of this importance would be found in Mark and Luke since it would be of earth shaking significance,

Certainly the Bible is more authoritative than a Knights of Columbus pamphlet.

Terrence Berres said...

Again, can you explain how you can be in a position to judge the handling of abuse cases by Archbishop Mahony, and now Archbishop Ratzinger, but not Archbishop Weakland?

CatholicSoldier said...


Actually you know nothing about the Church.

Is the Bible the inspired word of God?

The Gospel of John leaves out the words of institution, does that mean Christ did not institute the Eucharist?

How is it that the Early Church recognized the authority of St. Peter and his successors?

I agree, the Bible is authoritative. Therefore, the Gospel of Matthew is authoritative. Just because the Gospel of Luke and Mark don't contain word for word what we find in Matthew, does not make Matthew any less valid. Remember, St. Matthew was an eye-witness.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

I wonder where you look for guidance on the scriptures: Fr. Richard McBrien? The Jesus Seminar? Hans Kung?

Anonymous said...

Of course,CS, you are nothing but a fundamentalist. You belong in an Assembly of God church.Just pick out a passage and say God wrote it.

CatholicSoldier said...


Oh I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing what the Catholic Church taught, not what Modernists and Progressives believe. I'm sorry, had you told me we were only dealing with Catholic-Lite theology I could have changed my tune, but I assumed this was a discussion about Catholic Teaching on Sacred Scripture.

Anonymous said...

CS, what part did God play in selected the really bad popes? But I guess if they were dresses and designer shoes they must be God. Am I reading you right.

BTW, when B16 did he repeat the Hitler pledge?

I've ask this before, but I'll try again. Does God in calling men to the priesthood favor homosexuals?

CatholicSoldier said...


When losing an argument, chance the topic. That is your tried and true response.

I'm glad we've established that Sacred Scripture is the inspired Word of God as taught by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

If we turn to Matthew 16:18-19 again, you will see that Christ also promises that the "Gates of Hell will not prevail against it". The Church has had a number of really bad popes (number is probably an understatement, but any list must be topped by Alexander VI), yet, despite their own significant personal shortcomings (or worse), they never changed the teachings of the Church. Think how significant that is and what it conveys as to the truth of Christ's words to St. Peter.

I see you are bringing up the old Pope Benedict XVI is a Nazi line, the old fallback of the anti-Catholics at the NYTs and one that frankly, does not deserve a response.

Homosexuality is an intrinsic disorder. Can a gay man be a priest, yes, insofar as his sexuality is not part of how he defines himself. Archbishop Dolan gave a splendid answer on this a few weeks ago on the local ABC affiliate in NYC. I think you would find it quite instructive. Does God favor someone with homosexual tendencies? -- No, he favors the person, not the tendencies.

That is the fundamental problem with you, for you the Church is all about sex, when, if you look at it, it is so much more.

I'll pray for you this morning that you might come to a greater appreciation of the Catholic Church and come to believe. We are nearing Easter, so there is no better time to come home.

(And next time, try to stay on topic).

Anonymous said...

CS, you never stay on topic. I DON'T believe WROTE the Bible. No one else with any education believes such. What about the contradictions? All over the place.

I do not agree with you that B16 is God. You "think" he can't make a mistake in "faith and morals." So he must be GOD.

Did B16 take the Hitler oath. Just a yes or no please.

Every day we find more coverups by B16.

If God "calls" priest why does he favor homosexuality?

CatholicSoldier said...


You never stay on topic and of course, unless the answer is the one you want, it isn't an answer.

The Bible is the Inspired Word of God, to believe otherwise is to cease to be Catholic.

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth. That is not to say the Pope is God, he is not, he is only a man. But Jesus Christ promised St. Peter, His Vicar, the keys and the promise of eternal protection. That is a fundamental Catholic belief. You obviously do not believe that, you are therefore, not Catholic.

You are attempting to implicate Benedict XVI with something from his youth. What was St. Ignatius' life like prior to his conversion? What about St. Augustine? Remember, in Nazi Germany everyone was brought into the Hitler Jugen. Whether or not Pope Benedict XVI ever took the Hitler Oath is ultimately immaterial to the matter at hand, his fitness to the Papacy.

And I answered your last question, again, not to your liking, but for you, everything is about sexuality.

I will continue to pray for you and point out your errors. You still have time.

CatholicSoldier said...


I'm not sure if you caught this, but care to post a retraction?

"After learning more about this case, I realize that the analysis above is not quite accurate, and the effort to implicate the Pope is even more far-fetched than I had originally thought. The accused was not a priest of the Munich archdiocese, but a priest from the Diocese of Essen, who had been sent to a facility in Munich for counseling. So the then-Cardinal Ratzinger was not responsible for his treatment; his only connection with the case was his decision to let the priest stay in a rectory in the Munich archdiocese while he was undergoing treatment there. There is no evidence that the Pope was aware the accused priest was an accused pedophile; he was evidently informed only that the priest had been guilty of sexual improprieties, and probably concluded that he was engaged in homosexual activities with young men."

Anonymous said...

There are many views of all of this and that is fine but please don't attack one another.

What is missing in this sexual abuse crisis is the Reconciliation. There have been individual priests/bishops who have expressed their regret as to their involvement and have asked for forgiveness. There have been a few individual churches that have had Reconciliation services for their small communities that had many abused people but I have yet to see anything on a diocesan or higher level.
When I question people about why don't dioceses that have had many abuse cases have a diocesan Reconciliation service. I am told the dioceses don't want to admit there was a problem. By having a Reconciliation Service specifically for the healing of abused people (which is all people in the community), the diocese is pointing out there is/was a problem and by admitting to the problem, the diocese fears they would lose even more money. If the diocese is concerned more about the money than the spiritual welfare of its people, that is a very sad state. I think that many of the victims want healing and reconciliation and I would venture that reconciliation services would heal more than any dollar amount and thus perhaps minimize much of the suing.
Now that these new stories have come out, I pray that all the people involved are reconciled. This is everyone in the Church!! This is a huge issue. The results of something this big will change the Catholic Church. The result will all depend on how it is handled. Again, I pray that the Spirit continues to guide.

Anonymous said...

CS. was B16 in the German army? How many Nazi's did Pius excommunicate/ Did the Church aid Nazi to escape? Is there any record of the Ratzinger's opposion to the Naz?

Do you believe b16 tried to stop his old brother from physical slapping his students

CS, your effort to defend B16, the Church and your effort to excuse b16 is amazing, If the Pope is always right if a person can make no mistakes would he be GOD-like/

You never answered my question as to whether God calls more homosexuals than heterosexuals to the priest? Can God see the furure?

Anonymous said...

CS,I'M concerned with sex?Didn't you get that backward. Even MALE priest cannot evwn think of sex. And women play almost no role in the Chuch. The church has always been anti-sex, anti-women. And having children keeps people from being "chosen" by God as his representative on earth.

And again, why does God only allow males to represent him? And HE has a definite prejudice toward homosexuals?

How many Nazis were excommunicated by Pius?

Anonymous said...

I'M obsessed with sex???The church allows only males to have any say in church matters. The church clearly demeans women. And those priest. And why does God so strogly support only males, against homosexuals.

Priest are forbidden even to have sex thoughts.

How many marrried persons have been declared saints?

And what about JP beating himself with a belt?

How many Nazis did the pope excommunicated?

Hey, folks this may be a repeat. Power went off.