As a former catholic, I would like to see Ratmonger and his pedophiles taken down, even if it means the end of the catholic church. There are plenty of Protestant Churches that could take the former catholics and most if not all allow their clergy to be married and some ordain women. Disagreeing with the pope is what "PROTESTant" is all about.

Are you saying there is no pedophilia in Protestant churches? Surely you are not that ill informed

I have an idea:

How about a Roman Catholic Church without its idiotic religion?

Imagine a billion-plus people being able to come together to help people who need it without some bigoted agenda!

It's probably too much to ask, though.

Bill

"are you saying there are no pedophilia in Protestant Churches"....

Is that your solution? Deflect to Prostestant Churches...does that make you feel better to put your head in the sand to what has taken place in the Catholic Church to deflect to what may be going on other places?

And so take a few minutes Bill and hook me up with some links that will demonstrate thousands, tens of thousands of acts of pedophilia in Protestant CHurches and a few links to show how those were covered up for 3-4 decades.

While you are at it....can you add a link to show Protestant Churches have paid out "billions" in hush money?

Nice try.......that dog don't hunt here!

Protect the fetus

Abuse the Child

Protect the Abusers

b dune,

Not that hard to find and as these articles will show, predators reside in churches of every denomination:

http://www.examiner.com/article/bishop-eddie-long-pays-15-million-hush-money-gay-sex-scandal

http://articles.boston.com/2005-06-11/news/29223426_1_face-child-church-floor-report-abuse

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-551557.html

I don't think Bill was attempting to deflect from the Catholic Church but rather emphasize that organized religion seems filled with transgressions.

"Idiotic religion"? "Bigoted agenda"? Tell us, stonedog34, are you against all religions/faiths/denominations, Christians in general, or just Catholics in particular? I agree that scripture does not support the Catholic church's ban on married priests. But wouldn't you be considered a bigot also with your baseless name-calling and obvious prejudice?

A Roman Catholic Church with women cardinals?

Hell yes! Not that I'm pro-Catholic I just want to wear the scarlet robe with matching shoes. Do you have to be a virgin?

Celibacy is contrary to the teachings of the apostles and Jesus himself. Just because the Paul praised those who were celibate, does not mean anyone is required to live celibately. Even Roman Catholic Popes had wives and families until an edict proclaimed otherwise and still did not prevent some having wives and children. It is high time that this group admit its error and remove man's law from precedance over God's. Officials of he church should be able and indeed ought to marry and raise families. It was Paul, the so-called scion of celebacy, who required that Bishops and Deacons have wives and families in order that they might know how to rule the Family of God. Celibacy as a law is in error. God does not require it. He expects men to have families!

voiceofreason-2321747

Tell us, stonedog34, are you against all religions/faiths/denominations

No, just the ones that use things like a person's sexual orientation or gender or ethnicity to discriminate against other human beings. And the ones that make up stupid rules for their clergy that apparently serve as a gateway for pedophelia. Oh, and the ones that spend all their time blathering on about how people who don't think like them are going to rot in hell for eternity.

Just those religions/faiths/denominations.

Sometimes we are reminded that the Shoes of the Fisherman were not intended to be red Pradas at $4,000 a shoe.

Right now in the US, so many priests have left the priesthood that there are 25,000 ex-priests in a country with 40,000 preists. The average age of priests here is also in the early 60's.

What we are seeing is a Church in desperate turmoil. They are watching the priesthood literally disappear before their eyes and everything they try to do seems to make it worse. In many ways they think they are protecting the Church itself, but they are simply wrong.

The most recent attacks on American nuns are a good example of religious dysfunction and impending death of the Church. Nuns were berated as a group for emphasizing social justice and helping the poor instead of emphasizing anti-abortion, anti-gay and political conservatism viewpoints. They were especially called to task for "harboring" certain "feminist" attitudes (read as women in the ordained clergy.) This is a perfect example of what Christ preached --- social justice and helping the poor ---- being completely downgraded and more "modern" elements of political ideology being elevated in their place in the misguided belief that this will somehow attract political conservatives to the Church.

There probably is no easy answer. Once the Vatican circled the wagons under JP II, the defensive strategy wa pretty much etched in stone. The political situation in the US pretty much guarantees that there will be no rebellion in this quarter as is being seen in Ireland. So, folks, prepare yourself for 20 years of watching a termnal cancer patient slowly waste away and die in agony. And that patient, to the very end, will claim that it was his right to smoke.

Until 1248, priests were allowed to marry. As the police procedurals are so fond of saying on TV, 'follow the money.' Well, follow the wealth, in this case. As priests began to accumulate a moderate amount of 'wealth' the Pope & Co didn't want it to go to his children when he died, so they had a 'revelation' that priests should not be married. If one reads history outside of the Church Approved book list, one finds out all sorts of interesting things, like Jesus was probably married, and possibly if not probably a father, and that women held priestly positions in the early church. Perhaps it is time to have a Holy Irish Catholic Church? A Holy American Catholic Church? and leave the Ratsinger and his cronies alone in Rome!

Can you even imagine in 2012, supporting an organization that completely excludes women from the hierarchy? Let alone one that has hidden pedophiles. And has secretly married priests because it won't allow priests to have sex, let alone marry? The whole idea is preposterous and unnatural. The end of the Catholic Church would go a long way to ending evil in the world....as so many good Catholics stand by and do nothing......

@Voter-in-LA

The question is not one of "deflecting", as you put it. And, the question is also not one of whether or not the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) has a monopoly on pedophilia. It is -- and has been, for a long time -- an issue of whether or not a celibate religious leader will be tempted, at some point, to act out some "base desire" (where the word base is associated with anything that is beneath one's dignity or personal honor).

The Catholic Church Hierarchy has long-denied that celibate men can (and do) become perverts.

"IF" there are perversions of this type, in the "Protestant world", the offenders are quickly rooted out, and the man is fired from his job (as well as turned over to the authorities). People just do not see an orchestrated effort, by any of the Protestant Sects, to cover up the sins of their pastors. WHY the Catholic Pope (and Cardinals) do that is a huge mystery, to the rest of the world.

Caveat: I am neither a Catholic nor a Protestant. I see the inherent downside of any organized religion. Independent thinkers do not need the "crutch" of organized religion, to help them, in their life: or, if they do, then when that broken leg, of theirs, heals up really well, they simply don't need that crutch, anymore. (Those without a broken leg, don't need a crutch, at all).

Voter in LA #1.5

Thanks for your response. And maybe you are right in your interpretation of Bills post...and your links were informative....however...

My challenge to Bill was not to find a $15 milliion dollar payout....but rather links to equate to the billions the Catholic Church has paid out.

My challenge to Bill was not to find "incidents" of pedophilia in Protestant Chruchs but rather incidents that have involved tens of thousands over the past 30-40 yrs in the Catholic Church.

This "epedemic" of pedophilia on an "epedemic scale" has been limited to the Catholic Church and the massive efforts by the Church to cover it up reaches epic proportions.

What is also evident is the averge Catholic Church goer has done little if anything to hold their Church responsible.

No problem getting hundreds together in a matter of hours for an anti abortion march.....where have the marches been to end this ongoing epidemic in the Catholic Church?

Let me guess--the Vatican will soon send a letter telling them to concentrate on anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage activity...

Pull a Henry VIII ... just leave the church and start up a new one! People do it all the time. Get the Irish and U.S. Catholic Churches to pull away from Rome and I bet Rome will start paying attention!

Back in the day, that was known as the Reformation (starting your own church) and Counter Reformation (the Catholic church responding and fixing some of the problems of the time, i.e. sale of Indulgences).

Quick history lesson: The great schism happened In 1054. The roman church after having tried exerting it's force over the rest of The Church centers in the world, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople etc.. split off form the rest of the world becoming, schismatics. Then later on protestants split from the Catholics, causing all the heresies that we see nowadays.

The True Church continues on to this day, The Orthodox Church.

Orthodox priests can be married. Orthodox deacons and sub deacons can be married. The ban on Marriage is a heresy of the roman church.

technically, priests should be married to the church, as nuns are. hence "father" "sister" etc. The church is one whole big happy family. unfortunately, abuse occurs within the family.

the pope is pretty progressive, with approving condoms and all (finally!) But religion is supposed to be based on the stone age. It's not supposed to change with time, science, or politics... unless the Bible changes (NOT people's interpretation of the Bible, which is how we have 100000+ Christian demoninations)

good grief!

A Roman Catholic Church with women cardinals? And priests who are not celibate?

Unless the Catholic church wishes to disappear from earth, they need to have these changes effectively done soon. The "celibacy"of the priests has only opened the door to pedophiles and malicious men, who want to use the church to commit crimes against children.

The only reason to "celibacy"was to keep the wealth of the Catholic church inside the church. I guess that is a null point now, with all the lawsuits for child molestation around the world.

The catholics have a REAL PR problem as long as they keep this "celibacy"crap around

OK, it will take time, but one virtually CERTAIN-TO-SUCCEED way to precipitate change in the Catholic hierarchy & clergy on this issue is for all Catholics who in their hearts & consciences think that the graced path for the Church is to admit married clergy of both genders is:

All such Catholics, whether lay or Religious or clergy, could discourage all single men in their lives from becoming priests until such time that the Church hierarchy changes its policies. Of course, the number of priests has been declining rapidly over the past 50 years, but if a further concerted effort were made to discourage new men from stepping up, the population of priests could be pushed sufficiently low somewhat quicker.

In this way, the majority of the Church (its members) could take personal active concern for the failings of the Church over the years, and by such actions give spiritual guidance to the Church at large. It's not solely the hierarchy & clergy who have access to God's grace & strength, and if we sometimes see things more clearly than the hierarchy we should accept the graces to change things toward a holier state of affairs.

"without reform, the Irish Catholic Church will virtually disappear within the next two decades."

Proposed reforms are a good move and are a must to keep with the times.

A religion has to reform with times, or else slowly the religion will vanish.

Here Islam is at its worst state with its followers moving backwards to seventh century tribal and desert days.

Islam does not need enemies. Its followers are seeing to it that the Islam is wiped out from the map in this century itself.

Or, as the American cartoonist, Charles M. Schulz, used to say,

"Good Grief, Charlie Brown!"

You conjecture. It is every bit as likely that adherence to doctrine which the Pope is sworn to uphold will be the ground from which a revitalized Church dedicated to truth emerges.

The more important question - what is God's will in this matter? I can see no precident nor explicit command in scripture for a priest to not marry. In fact, one of the qualifications for an overseer in the congregation is that a man should be a "husband of one wife". Going back even further in history, the Jewish priests who served at the temple in Israel were allowed to marry. They had to or there wouldn't have been any new Levites to carry on the priesthood - the problem Catholics are facing now.

This rule of celebate priests was wrong 1800 years ago and it still us, but to change it now is to admit that you have been wrong for 1800 years.

cgtrav,

"may also be the start of the end of the Catholic church worldwide."

Many people probably would like to see that be the case, but I wouldn't be overly optimistic about the demise of the Roman Catholic Church. It has already been around for 2,000 years, longer than any other man-made institution and will probably be around for a long time to come still. The famous British historian, Thomas Babington Macaulay, who was neither a Catholic nor a Catholic sympathizer, nevertheless felt compelled to write a lengthy passage in which he marveled over the longevity of the Catholic Church. This pedophile scandal is a serious one, but the Catholic Church has weathered many other scandals and rebellions during its 2,000 year history, including the Protestant rebellion 500 years ago, at which time the Catholic Church was already nearly 1,500 years old. Catholics, of course, believe the longevity of their church is because it was founded by Christ himself who said "the gates of hell" would not prevail against it and that it would last until the end of time. Whether or not that is true I don't know, but one thing is for sure: they know how to endure through every sort of scandal, rebellion, war, and change in politics, and I wouldn't be looking for them to be going away soon.

@Will-1091857

I'd go with a less hard-line approach.

If you equate changing an old rule as "being wrong for 1800 years", then you will never get anything to change.

However, if you equate changing an old rule with "it is simply no longer needed, and will benefit the Church if changed", then you will get a much more favorable response from the higher-ups.

Grant you, there are still some hard-liners out their that still feel one must choose between serving God or having a family. They still believe one cannot serve God if they are "distracted" by the demands of married life. There are even those who still view sex as a sin, EVEN within the bounds of Holy Matrimony.

@Bill Deacon,

You are confusing doctrine and dogma. For a Catholic dogma is the principles of the Church that are fixed and unchangeable. They are contained in their entirety in the Nicene Creed (or one of its re-wordings that did not change or delete anything.) Only when speaking of a matter of dogma is a Pope ex cathedra or infallable. And even that is a matter of doctrine, not dogma.

Doctrine, unlike dogma, is not fixed or unchangeable. Doctrine is the whole body of religious traditions and teachings that have accumulated over two centuries. It is still official doctrine that the Sun circles the Earth, as just one absurd example. It was doctrine when the Church supported Hitler's extermination of Jews. Doctrine was the Church's support for slavery for hundreds of years and especially in Brazil. Doctrine led the American Catholic leadership to oppose giving the vote to women on the basis that women were created to serve men and giving them the vote would upset that apple cart. Doctrine can and does change.

@Will,

And interesting point is that celibacy has always meant :life without marriage." Only in modern times has that been extended to include "continence" or life without sexual activity. Prior to about 1790 or so, sexual activity by priests was more the rule than the exception, and especially homosexual activity. "Carmina Burana" is taken from s set of baudy songs and poems written by seminary students and cleregy in the 11th thru 13th centuries if you want to see what that attitude was for around 1,000 years.

The church has never taught that celibacy is necessary to the priesthood. Rather, the tradition holds that that a priest performing the sacraments represents Jesus Christ, who was single. This idea of the priest in persona Christi, in the person of Christ, is also a prime rationale for why women cannot be Catholic priests. Many groups of Catholics, for example Marionites, not only permit, but encourage marriage as a fullfillment of the complete pastoral duty. Currently there are about 80 married Roman Catholic priests in ther US and hundreds more in Marionite and other congregations within the Roman Catholic fold.

Stephen,

"They still believe one cannot serve God if they are "distracted" by the demands of married life."

Right! And for Will who says he cannot see any Scriptural basis for priestly celibacy, he might try looking at 1 Corinthians 7:32-34 where the apostle Paul writes, "I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided." That is one of the Scriptures the Catholic Church bases priestly celibacy on.

@Mickey,

Here are some you missed:

“Because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife” I Corinthians 7:2

“Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working?” I Corinthians 9:5-6

“A bishop then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach…he must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity” I Timothy 3:1-4

Prior to about 1790 or so, sexual activity by priests was more the rule than the exception, and especially homosexual activity.

It's absolutely fascinating to think that the Catholic church, which denounces homosexuality, is a closet gay. That is so twisted.

Mickey - I believe, with the right leadership and changes, the church could have weathered the pedaphilia scandal, however, it isn't a scandal that will ultimately bring the church down. It is that there are fewer and fewer men who are willing to make the life long committment of being a priest. Even those that are willing to make the committment when they are young, often realize that they can't continue to live that way and leave the priesthood - not because they become disillusioned with God or the church, but simply because they want to do what most men want - get married and have a family. They preside over weddings and offer guidance to couples. They soon discover that having a relationship with Christ is not the same as having a wife there who they can touch, talk to and have her speak back; have children who love and look up to them.

I grew up Catholic and went to Catholic school. They had trouble getting priests back then. Many of the boys in my class still attend the church with their families. How many of them might have gone on to priesthood if they could have gotten married? Who knows...But I don't know one person who went to my Catholic school who went on to become a priest or a nun. As was mentioned in the article, if there are no priests, there is no mass. No mass, no congregation, no church, etc. I saw it happening when I was in school 35 years ago, and it is much worse now.

Sally Lu,

Excellent post! I think you are right. If there is anything that is likely to bring the Catholic Church down it is changing social viewpoints together with an increasingly secular world view based on materialism and naturalism (what the Catholic Church calls "modernism"). But that is the foe of Christianity in general; not just Catholicism.

Chris,

Don't beat up on me! I'm not an apologist for Catholicism. I just thought I would point out a verse the Church uses to defend celibacy. I don't interpret the Bible; they do, and that's a difference between Protestantism and Catholicism. In Protestantism every individual has the right to interpret Scripture according to the dictates of his own conscience (at least in theory). In Catholicism, on the other hand, if you want to know what the Bible means, ask the Church. They will be more than happy to tell you just exactly what it means. There is no room for "private interpretation" in Catholicism.

@Will-1091847

The Apostle Paul, in writing to a lowly bishop named Timotheus (whose father was Greek, and therefore he was named "Timothy"), seems to indicate that a "good bishop" would indeed be a husband of one wife. And. the wording, there, whether it is just plain archaic, or not, seems to suggest--also--that there were "less sober-minded individuals" who were "husbands of more-than-one wife" (to contrast this, with just "one").

WHERE'S THE CELIBACY IN THAT, ONE WONDERS?

Whatever the truth is, concerning the matter, it is indeed something that Paul (the Apostle) wrote about. IF Peter--also an Apostle--suddenly vanished from Jerusalem, only to be found serving as a lowly bishop, in Rome, then MAYBE the Catholic Church might have some claim upon an unbroken chain of authority.

But, it would seem highly unlikely that, once an individual were "installed" (vis-a-vis, ordained) to the highest possible position of service (viz., apostle) at the time, 2000 years ago, that he then would "demote himself" to the office and station of a bishop. Even Ratzinger XVI would not be seen leaping from Pope to Bishop, in a single bound! (Although many people do see the popes as being faster than a speeding bullet, a la Clark Kent.)

Nataliya S,

"Even Ratzinger XVI would not be seen leaping from Pope to Bishop, in a single bound! (Although many people do see the popes as being faster than a speeding bullet, a la Clark Kent.)"

You make some good points, but don't forget that the Pope is a Bishop. He is the Bishop of Rome, and that is the title he uses to refer to himself when he is trying to make peace with the Protestant churches in an ecumenical setting. The theory is that whenever the various churches in the ancient world had disputes among themselves about one thing or another, they always looked to the Bishop of Rome to resolve the dispute since he was supposedly the successor of the apostle Peter. That is the theory, at least, but if you look at the actual history of Christianity, you will find that that was by no means always the case, though it often was.

@skeptical,

This was not because the Church was a "closet gay." It was because seminaries and universities were "men only" and generally cloistered. This severely limited the options of available sex partners. Kinbda like being in jail today.

@Mickey,

Not beating up on you. Just saying that there is more to the issue than a single quote. As a rule of rheteric, picking out a single Bible verse to prove your point is called "Texas Sharpshooting." LOL

Chris,

"This was not because the Church was a "closet gay." It was because seminaries and universities were "men only" and generally cloistered."

I think another reason for the large number of homosexuals in the Catholic priesthood (and there are sociologists who would agree with me) is because it provides the perfect cover for closeted gays. In the old days, when it was dangerous to be known as being homosexual because of the extreme hostility toward such people, if you were not married by a certain age, people began to suspect that it might be because you are homosexual, and gays were often asked the uncomfortable question, "Why aren't you married?" Now if you were a priest, no one would even think of asking you such a question since, of course, priests are forbidden to marry by the church. So what better cover could there be for a gay person who wants to hide his sexuality? I think that is one reason why gay men have long been attracted to the priesthood. That may be changing nowadays though with everyone and his brother and sister coming out of the closet, and the attitude toward gays gradually becoming somewhat less hostile. As for beating up on me, I was just kidding you. That particular verse is one that is given for justifying priestly celibacy, but I'm sure it is not the only one they have in their arsenal.

"...they know how to endure through every sort of scandal, rebellion, war, and change in politics, and I wouldn't be looking for them to be going away soon."

It's because they aren't going anywhere. The Catholic church is the strong-arm of the Anti-Christ. The Catholic church started every scandal, rebellion, war, and change in politics since the inception of modern time. Not to mention the strangle-hold they and the U.S Congress have over every major piece of literature written that will refute much of what the Catholic church and Bible are based on now.

Hold on to your butts people! It's going to get bumpy here soon!

Mickey (#3.3)

You are accurate when you said, "Catholics, of course, believe the longevity of their church is because it was founded by Christ himself who said "the gates of hell" would not prevail against it and that it would last until the end of time."

Your analysis of the longevity of the church is a testament to this. It hasn't gone away and is unlikely to do so because Jesus clearly said that this is so.

As far as your analysis on the interpretation of the bible between Protestants and Catholics, you are also accurate. It is founded in 2 Peter 1:20 that says "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation"

The incredible statements on this page are pretty comical to say the least. It is nice to see an accurate representation of the facts.

workin hard,

"It is nice to see an accurate representation of the facts."

Thanks for the compliments, workin hard! I try my best not to tell lies.

Mickey

I wouldn't call the "comical" stuff on this page lies. More like wildly uninformed opinion.

workin hard,

"I wouldn't call the "comical" stuff on this page lies. More like wildly uninformed opinion."

Yes, what you say is true. Have you ever read the book The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice by Philip Jenkins (published by Oxford University Press in 2003)? If not, I would recommend it as an addition to your summer reading list. Jenkins is Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Pennsylvania State University. In that book he argues that anti-Catholicism, the virulent strain of hatred against Catholics that has had a long tradition in American history but was once thought dead after the election of John F. Kennedy to the presidency, is alive and well in our country, but that few people seem to notice it. He gives many examples of it in his book from the media, the anti-Catholicism of the academic world, newspapers and magazines, movies and book publishers. He shows how the recent pedophile priest scandal has revived many of the old anti-Catholic stereotypes. It's a very good book that I think you would enjoy. Many of the comments you find on NewsVine whenever the Catholic Church is the topic of discussion reflect the truth of what he says in his book.

As to the claim that a lot of priests through the past centuries were homosexual, I strongly doubt that anyone has thorough & accurate (& one that circumvents a gay priest's or his mate's tendencies to hide the fact) statistical samplings of even the last 10 years, let alone some lengthier period.

I also dispute the claim that the Catholic Church outlaws a person responding personally to God's grace through Scripture. What 50,000 page book is there that interprets each verse of Scripture?... and this is on top of the fact that Bible scholars are continually researching old Scriptural sources (without having original Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek manuscripts) and continually offering different linguistic translations. One of the effects of Vatican Council 2 (1960's) was for the Catholic Church clergy & hierarchy to encourage laypeople to read the Bible; admittedly, in some corners of the Church clergy/hierarchy previous to Vatican Council 2, there were "pastoral statements" made cautioning lay people from reading Scripture without clear guidance from a priest, due to concerns for the chance of "misinterpretation".

Mickey

Thanks for the tip. I added it to my Amazon wish list.

One I'm fond of is I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman L. Geisler & Frank Turek. It's written by a couple of Protestants but does a nice job of showing that athiests have some believing to do when it comes to understanding the universe and the creatures (including us) in it. It basically shows that an athiest has to really stretch their "beliefs" if they are to dismiss God as our creator.

Math+Sci+JusticsFuelProsperity,

"I also dispute the claim that the Catholic Church outlaws a person responding personally to God's grace through Scripture. What 50,000 page book is there that interprets each verse of Scripture?..."

It's true that Vatican II made some minor changes, but the following rather lengthy quote from a book entitled "Christian Apologetics: A Defense of the Catholic Faith" by Father W. Devivier, SJ should give you a pretty good understanding of the Catholic view of the Bible and private interpretation. It has the Church's "nihil obstat" and "imprimatur", so it is considered official and authoritative:

V. THE PROTESTANT RULE OF FAITH DIFFERS FROM THAT OF
CHRIST.

The Bible, nothing but the Bible,
freely interpreted by every one, such has been from the beginning and
still is the Protestant rule of faith.

We Catholics
profess also the greatest respect for the Holy Scriptures, but we receive it
from the hands of the Church, which, in virtue of her infallibility, guarantees
its inspiration. Moreover, with the Scriptures we receive from the same hand
with equal veneration Tradition, that is, the word of God not contained in the
Sacred Scriptures. Finally, far from claiming, like Protestants, that every one
has the right to determine the meaning of Scripture, far from declaring every
man the judge and arbiter of his belief, we say that it belongs to the Church,
assisted by the Holy Spirit, to fix the catalogue or canon of the Holy
Scriptures, to determine the meaning of the sacred text and unerringly
interpret Tradition. In a word, the Catholic Rule of Faith is the teaching
authority of the Church, her living and infallible voice and doctrine.

Thesis.----The Protestant Rule
of Faith is Untenable. [10]

FIRST ARGUMENT.----This rule of faith is contrary to the will of Christ, and
condemned by Scripture itself.

a. Protestants, if faithful to their rule of faith, must prove to us by clear
texts from Scripture that the Apostles received from their Divine Master the
command to write the teachings which fell from His lips. Far from being able to
do this, they find as we do, when they read the Bible, that Christ, after
founding His Church upon Peter and the twelve Apostles, did not say to them, Go
distribute Bibles, but, "Go teach all nations, preach the kingdom of God
to them; teach them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you; he that heareth
you heareth Me."

b. Christ
giving example in His Own Person preached, but He wrote nothing. Nowhere do we
find that He founded a religion to be taught by writing, still less that it was
to be done exclusively by writing. "Christ," says St. John
Chrysostom, "left no written instructions to His Apostles; but instead of
books He promised them the Holy Spirit, Who would inspire them what they should
say."

c. The
Apostles, to whom Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would recall all that He
had taught them, did as their Master commanded them. It was by preaching that
faith was propagated in the world. It was only occasionally that a few of the
Apostles committed their teachings to writing. The other Apostles wrote
nothing, and yet they converted whole nations.It was only at
the end of the first century, about sixty-seven years after the death of
Christ, that the books of the New Testament were completed; yet the faithful
could not have been without a rule of faith during all these years. Moreover,
the sacred writers constantly refer to a parallel oral teaching; they formally
declare that they wrote only a very small portion of Our Saviour's, teachings;
and they exact the same respect for what they taught by word of mouth as for
what they had written. (2 John v. 12.) "Stand fast,
brethren," says St. Paul to the Thessalonians, who were already
Christians, "and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by
word or by our epistle" (2 Thess. ii. 14). And to Timothy (2 Tim. ii. 2):
"The things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same
commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others."
d. It is well known that we have no biblical authority, no authority but
tradition, for example, for the substitution of Sunday for the Sabbath, for the
validity of Baptism administered by heretics. If there be in the Church a
certain and unchangeable rule, followed by all the Fathers, proclaimed by all
Councils, and observed by all her Doctors, it is assuredly this: To follow most
faithfully the command so often repeated by St. Paul: "O Timothy, that
keep which is committed to thy trust" (1 Tim. vi. 20). Keep, as St.
Vincent of Lerins explains, not what you have discovered yourself, but what has
been entrusted to you; not what you have yourself invented, but what has been
handed to you by others; not what your own mind has told you, but what you have
learned from your predecessors; not what you have established by your
individual efforts, but what you have received from hand to hand, by a public
and official tradition, whereof you are not the author, but a simple guardian.

SECOND ARGUMENT.----This rule of faith is condemned by the teaching of the
history of the Church. According to the testimony of St. Irenreus, there were,
even in his time, many barbarous nations who believed in Christ, though paper
and ink were unknown among, them. These countries did not have the Holy
Scriptures, and yet the same Saint attests that they preserved the faith pure
and intact by means of tradition. Do we find anywhere in the history of
later times that the baggage of the ministers of the Church consisted of books
which they distributed before they preached? How, moreover, would this have
been possible before the invention of printing, that is, during the fourteen
centuries when copies of the Bible were few and very expensive? During this
period the majority of the faithful had little means of instruction save the
oral teaching of the ministers of the Church, and yet they were Christians.

From all that
we have said it is evident that the Church was founded without the Bible, and
that it existed before the Bible. The Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the
Epistles, and the Apocalypse did not form the Christian communions or the
Church, but they were addressed to these communions already formed. Thus St.
Augustine had good reason to declare that he would not believe the Gospel
except on the authority of the Catholic Church. [11]

THIRD ARGUMENT.----In any case, if the Bible freely interpreted by all were the
only rule of faith, very large classes even of the present day would be
deprived of the means of salvation, for there is a large majority that cannot
read, or whose laborious life leaves them no time to read. And yet, according
to Protestant teaching, every one must verify for himself the inspiration of
Holy Scripture, the true meaning of each verse, as well as the authenticity,
integrity, and fidelity of the version in his hands. If God had given, the
Bible as a rule of faith, if He had, as Protestantism insists, made it a law
for all Christians to read the Bible for themselves, He would have made the
entrance to the Church, to eternal salvation, impossible for nearly all men,
particularly for the poor. Now one of the special marks which Christ has given
of His Divine mission is that the poor shall have the Gospel preached to them,
and He declares them His favorite children (Luke iv. 18; vii. 22).

FOURTH ARGUMENT.----Without the authority of the Church it is impossible to
establish the full canon of Scripture and to offer to the faith of believers a
clearly and positively defined body of doctrine. In fact Protestants, even the
most learned among them, cannot be certain that the Bible is inspired, that is,
that it contains the word of God, not simply that of man. Nor can they be
certain what books form part of the Bible. The testimony of history, the
agreement of manuscripts, criticism, furnish only a human authority, upon which
it would be impossible to make an act of Divine faith. Criticism, moreover, has
led Protestants to cut off successively from the list of the sacred books
nearly all the books of the Old and the New Testament; and many of them even
deny that any part of the Scripture is inspired. [12]

CONCLUSION.----The following simple dilemma suffices to prove the falseness
of Protestantism: During the first period of its existence either the Church of
Christ was buried in error or it had preserved the integrity and purity of its
doctrine. In the first case, the promises which guaranteed the stability and
perpetuity of the Church were not fulfilled, consequently the Author of these
promises was not God nor was He sent by God. Hence we have no need to concern
ourselves with His work, still less with the work of Luther or Calvin. If, on
the contrary, the Church of Christ remained pure in its doctrine, this Church
was the Church of Rome or it was another. If it was another Church,
Protestantism ought to have allied itself with that other Christian society,
which was the true Church. Now this it did not do. If this true Church was the
Church of Rome, then

Protestantism had no right or reason to separate from her, and in rebelling
against her it proclaimed its own illegitimacy.

May our
separated brethren remember that their ancestors were Catholics, and that in
adopting the Catholic faith they are not changing to a new religion; they are
only returning to the bosom of the Church which their fathers unfortunately
abandoned three centuries ago.

The Roman Catholic Church does not and has never accepted the Protestant doctrine of private interpretation of scripture nor does it accept the Bible as the only authoritative source of Christian truth.

workin hard,

"I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist"

I like the title of that book! It does really take a great deal of faith to be an atheist, just as it takes a great deal of faith to be an evolutionist. To believe that living organisms of such incredible complexity as human beings could have evolved purely by blind, unguided chance requires an astounding leap of faith. And yet the same people deride religious folks for their faith in God. Sorry about the lengthy quote above, but I had to set Math straight about the teachings of the Catholic Church, and I didn't know how else to do it. He seems to confuse Catholicism with Protestantism.

...The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided." That is one of the Scriptures the Catholic Church bases priestly celibacy on.

So, when you think about it, the Catholic Church should have no problem with priests playing around, just as long as they don't get involved in a long-term relationship. Now, a doctrine like that would do wonders for the recruitment problems being experienced by seminaries.

To believe that living organisms of such incredible complexity as human beings could have evolved purely by blind, unguided chance requires an astounding leap of faith.

Evolution is not "blind, unguided chance." Since there is quite a bit of evidence in favor of evolution, and none whatsoever in favor of god(s) (except wishful thinking), I think that I'll stick with evolution.

Barry-NJ,

"Evolution is not "blind, unguided chance."

Then who or what is it guided by?

And, if those priests could truly "harness all that love", then your children would be spared, indeed!

BUT, lies, deception, prevarications, and cover-ups seem to be the "order of the day", when it comes to the shameless acts of perversion that play themselves out, on a stage named celibacy.

Yeah, Big John, and all of those modern ideas and changes in society at large are working so well!

The point you miss is that the Church represents truth in the face of an ever changing world. It is precisely because the world moves and changes that the Church must not follow but rather lead. The gulf between the world and the Church merely illuminates the extent to which the world has moved, not the recalcitrance of the Church.

There are a lot of old religions that are no more , they have been dead for centuries , The Catholic Church should have listened to Martin Luther in the 15 th century , Any time you mix mans docterine into any religion it becomes a Cult , because they are no longer do what the Bible says , GOD will finally take them out , There are many other Cult religions right behind the Catholics .

When Martin Luther left the Church he stated 95 things the Church was doing wrong and today there are still 78 of those things unchanged , but this Church has had many problems since they started in the 4 th century .

@Big John

Just as addicts need their fix, die-hard Catholics need their crutch.

Did you forget about the married Catholic Popes and the the Popes who had relations with their own children. While we are at it how about those Popes that ordered the assassination of Cardinals and Kings to protect their power. Such a pious group of leaders.

I'm pretty sure workin hard is not defending the Catholic Church here. She is saying Protestants have a much healthier world view and allow their leaders to have fulfilling personal lives, whereas the Catholic Church is illogical in it's treatment of it's clergy.

Originally, they were called the "Apostles".

I agree that priests should marry if they wish. The Catholic position is largely based on the example of Christ and teachings of St. Paul, who recommended chastity for those who could bear it. Celibacy by the way is NOT the "reason" for pedophilia and child sexual abuse. Many children are sexually abused by married heterosexuals.

No, their position is solely based on obtaining the wealth of their deceased clergy, which would have passed on to their heirs if they had any. The crap about Christ and St. Paul was their way to disguise their true intentions.

Gee if only Miff and Nick were Cardinals they could straighten this all out for us.

The reason the Catholic Church insisted on priest staying celibate was to not allow them to have children. They didn't want to have potential inheritors. Why? So that whatever wealth the priests would acquire would stay in the church. That was at a time when the Church was financially very powerful and owned a lot of properties.

Meaning what? What problem do you have with a married clergy? At one time the Catholic Church did have married priests, and it still does in some instances, legally. Celibacy has nothing to do with dogma, or with the Church holding fast to Truth in an ever changing world. If Jesus had been married, would His teachings have been the less? Sex is a gift. Celibacy is a gift. Monastics should be celibate, as they live in community, but parish priests should be able to marry. Holding onto celibacy because "it's always been this way" is pointless, and also untrue. The Church is capable of holding to Truth, keeping cherished traditions, AND renewing itself. If you say otherwise, then you cast God in stone and deny Him the ability to inspire His Church, which is a living thing, not a museum that must never change.

The first Church ..... The Jews ..... GOD laid out the law and rules for priest , one tribe was to have all of the priest in it , married and their sons would be priest " apprentist " behind them , why did the Catholics change that , and what is a nun ???

Good point.

Nope - it was only ever about the money. They didn't want any of the dead priests' money going to his wife and children. They wanted to keep all the money in the Church - and that is still their number ONE priority - MONEY!!

Homosexuality was an abomination to God, since the time of Moses.

And, even before the time of Moses, during the "Abrahamic Era", the cities of Sodom & Gomorrah were held up, as examples of all of the perversions that were possible: which, collectively, became known as sodomy, in the English language.

So, NO. Gay priests are to be removed, and/or excommunicated.

The church does not need the filthy perversions of sodomites, within it.

END OF THE MATTER (Away with your perversion!)(Be gone!)

"Homosexuality was an abomination to God, since the time of Moses."

The Bible also says that eating figs is an abomination, that women should be stoned to death for various reasons, and that it's okay to own slaves. But go ahead, pick and choose what's important to you in Scripture and dispense with the rest as being irrelevant.

No need to "throw out the baby with the bathwater" -- just because the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy has lost touch with the realities of life & society the world 'round, doesn't mean that the Church, the Body of Christ, composed of all its members, is irrelevant or wilting. How in heaven the male hierarchy thinks they can speak wisely & pastorally to families & married couples & women is baffling!-- such claims on the male hierarchy's part seem to be greatly lacking in humility. The role of Bishops/Apostles guiding the small early centuries' Christian communities is radically different from the present situation of attempting to guide the spiritual lives of billions today, worldwide. But the Catholic Church can survive, with renewed spiritual authenticity, without necessarily having the Rome-centered institutional hierarchy persisting in its present form.

I obviously don't know the details of your story, however it is possible the priests both gave the same advice. Natural Family Planning (NFP) is the only form of birth control the Catholic Church endorses. It includes (without getting too graphic) taking the woman's temperature every day, and basically paying attention to her body in order to determine when she is ovulating and when sex will or will not result in a child (it's actually very effective, despite my crappy description). When a woman IS ovulating, and the couple does not want a child, they simply don't have sex. So the priest who suggested birth control probably was recommending THIS form (as I've never met a priest who openly endorsed any other form). While the priest who recommended abstaining may have meant abstaining during ovulation. But once again, I have no idea, as it's your story.

allielcea----the priest adivising birth control pills knew that she was affluent and educated and gave her the only answer she would accept. her mind was made up. she just wanted no guilt in her decision. the priest wanted to keep her in the flock--win / win. call it religious politics.

In the 14th~16th centuries the Catholic Church controlled all aspects of everyones lives through the use of fear. People at the time actually believed that The Church could simply condemn them to the realms of Hell if they, the people, didn't follow the dictates of The Church. Think in terms of the reality shown by the "The Bonfire of The Vanities" which actually happened in 1497 in Florence, Italy, when the city was under THE RULE of the Dominican priest Girolamo Savonarola. Thomas Wolfe's book of the same title was about the lack of control anyone has over their lives regardless of their wealth, wisdom, or success. The historic Bonfire was the actual lack of control that any citizen of Florence had over their lives due to the complete control that the Catholic Church had over every aspect of everyone's life. The citizens put up with this for many centuries because The Church brought the people to their knees by the simple use of 'fear'. If you were excommunicated by this crazy religion it meant you were destined to spend eternity in Hell, and you could be excommunicated for practically anything. Remember, this was a time when you could buy your way into Heaven by giving The Church enough money to be forgiven of all of your sins. People today, Catholics today, have no idea what it was like to live in Europe during the power of this absolute criminal dictatorship known as Catholicism.

Perhaps God's omniscient plan in Cardinal Ratzinger becoming Pope Benedict XVI is that this Pope's term would wake up faithful Christians to the point to where the next pope chosen will be holier, wiser, humbler, and more attuned to respecting human lives within family situations.

You are correct, but that policy didn't stop those antics. Case in point - the Borgia and Medici popes.

Sso true! But what is the saying about power and corruption? As I recall, the Borgia and Medici popes had almost unlimited power, being of enormously powerful families. And, as I recall, not only powerful, but homicidal also.

"Thought police"? Who amongst Jesus & the first 20 in His closest circle was Chief of Thought Police? Did the 12 Apostles have to sign a "full & unconditional assent" to adhere to 18 (or whatever) membership requirements? Did Jesus give a gag order to His admirers that they should never freely discuss & dispute certain off-limit topics?

The quote of Pope John Paul 2, via pfromupnorth here, was not made as an infallible statement.

Wake Up! Read my post #23! it's right above you as to why they can't marry!

EROCK: In addition to Gloria's comments in posting #23, please refer to my posting #22.

The Ukrainian Catholic Church does have married priests. For the first 1000 years of the Catholic Church there were married priests. The first Christians who spread the faith were married. The prohibition against a married clergy is Church law. It could be changed. Maybe the next Pope will be more open to change.

With regard to all the anti-Catholics on this post, The Catholic Church was founded by the Messiahin full-fillment of the old testament. Jesus said to St. Peter: Upon this rock I shall build this church. Long after you the church will stand strong!

I respectfully disagree about who founded the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus founded "the church" in general. The Roman Catholic Church was not founded until the 4th Century by the Emperor Constantine.

Deb you're right!

Yet, at that time, there was no difference in the Church founded by Jesus and the one that gained approval by Constantine. The difference was that a dying monarch converted as a way to unify the empire...and it did.

DebP

The Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ when he gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter. There has been a complete lineage of Popes from that time until today. Some good, some bad. They were called Christians until later when the term "Catholic" (universal) came about.

Workin Hard,

I realize that you are trying to be a good representative of what you learned in CCD. Unfortunately most of what you were taught is neither historical or Biblical. The "keys" were symbolic and if you read a chapter prior in Matthew's gospel the "keys" were given to ALL of the Apostles not just Peter. Also, the concept of a "chair of peter" as some sort of succession is quite literally "made up". This is the dark side of Romanism. It is cultic in nature and simply a tool to convince its followers that there is no other "church" but theirs and to leave it would mean hellfire. The reality? Romanism was 5th in line after the Great Church in Jerusalem, then the Coptic Church, then the Church at Antioch (Syriac speaking), and then the Greek Church and finally came the Roman Orthodox Church. All of these Churches still exist today. The current form of Romanism is little more than a twisted relic and does not represent God or Christ or the verity of the Scriptures. When I came out of Romanisn and realized it was a cult I had to go through withdrawals. I was one of the lucky ones. Roman doctrine is not Biblical and leads to perdition. I trust you can make it out. It won't be easy for you trust me. Since then I have gained advanced degrees in Biblical linguistics and genuine Christian theology. I am published in these fields. Good luck.

OK I'm an agnostic but the idea that Constantine "started the Roman Catholic Church" is just Protestant propaganda. Its basically a way to try and get around the historicity of the original sect. Just like Landmark Baptists latter came up with their strange line of succession because they realized that the historical presence of the Catholicism was a major boon. Therefore it is in the interest of Protestant sects to discredit it. The term Catholic as a title for the Church, and its monarchial bishops were already in place by the end of the first century. Also when one reads the Early Church Fathers the doctrines of Catholicism are already firmly in place long before Constantine was a twinkle in his father's eyes.

This does not mean the Jesus founded it but all Christian denominations that exist today sprang from the various Catholic Rites and it is for better or worse the historical Christian Church. What Christ intended we may never know, but Catholicism is the institution established by his followers. Does that make Catholicism "right"? No of course not, but for better or worse its the root of all modern day Christianity. If Protestants dislodge themselves from Catholicism then they literally have no historical feet to stand on.

That sad. These sorts of arguments are all kind of silly. If there's a God then he obviously in not all the concerned about religion otherwise there would be an obvious sign post pointing towards which one is correct. Since he's never bothered to establish that sign post then there is no reason to take any religion all that seriously. They might make you feel good (nothing wrong with that), or they might appeal to ego (not healthy but whatever) but since God hasn't made it blatantly clear what "correct" belief is I have to conclude he's not all that wound up on it.