Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 675596 comments on the CBC News story from Jul 10, 2007, titled Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican. In it, CBC News reports that:

The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBC News.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#413432 Jan 5, 2013
disciple wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that the Republicrats are at fault. But I don't put the blame on the people that govern I put it in the people that elect them.
By the way I'm not a republican nor a democrat. I'm a tea partier which you may consider as most lefties do worse than republicans.
I believe that as a father I need to give my children a biblical based education so they can come up with their own conclusions about their government and life in general.
They won't be blaming they will be achieving.
You are fortunate to see grandchildren, I would like to get there if the Lord gives me that much time.
as I looked over this post again, this sentence of yours sticks out.

By the way I'm not a republican nor a democrat. I'm a tea partier which {you may consider as most lefties do} worse than republicans.

why would you wish to insult me by calling me a "leftie" which is symbolic of a communist and they are athestic?

I thought that we (you and I) had agreed to leave the insults behind us, and besides that, it is impossible for a person like myself who is "apolitical" to be on the right, the left, the center or a tea partier
Michael

Canada

#413433 Jan 5, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Try clicking on Michaels link and tell me if his quote is found in it.
I did and couldn't see it. Its not in there.
His goal is to slander the CC for his own pathetic agenda. He succeeded.
Try this link. 276 catholic clerics (boston)

They wouldn't list the names if credible information wasn't available.

Know any of these priests?

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ma_bosto...
Pad

Fishers, IN

#413434 Jan 5, 2013
preston wrote:
<quoted text>sometime, and I hope it never happens to you, but dad was in lots of pain from a tumor fastened onto his heart, and my mon did, in his last day, allow him to drink in our home.
the pain of the cancer along with withdrawal symptoms was more than she could bear. and dad laid there and hardly ever complained, I know that I couldnt bear that pain as he did.
sometimes a person has to do what is right, not what is correct.
If in fact that your family had to use alcoholic beverages to aid in the bearing of Pain,who am I preston to argue with you? It is not for me to condemn anyone who uses alcohol and for whatever reason.Your statement points a finger at me as that I would condemn you somehow,or your family.Don't even go there.

If you know the proper use,and your family has been able to use the alochol beverages to alleviate some sort of suffering,I would be the last person to claim you folks were wrong to do so.I reject any notion from you that places me in a judging manner toward especially those who suffer!
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#413435 Jan 5, 2013
Free Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
1% of priests, 10% of priest, or 4% as shown by the John Jay Report -- none of these individual crimes have anything to do with the DECADES-LONG, WORLDWIDE COVER-UP -- by a single institution claiming to be uniquely selected and guided by Jesus.
The point is.......... BUSTED!!!!
It's not a "cover-up" when the prevailing course of treament in the psychiatric community recommends counseling and being sent to a new parish. If we knew then what we know now about recidivism, things would have been different.

And if it was 4% decades ago and now it's 0.000175%, that tells me the Church is trying to be accountable.
Michael

Canada

#413436 Jan 5, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said "no big deal" you jackass, I said it's part of the human condition. Sin will never be eradicated as long as the human race exists. And there are tons of official documents produced over the centuries and 99.99% of them DON'T deal with sexual abuse, so you have no point.
Mike, there were 7 credible accusations in 2011. That's 0.000175% of the priest population.
That IS being accountable.
So, your saying throughout the years it hasn't really been a big problem.......I see.

Check out this list below start with the A's and go through to the Z's.

It might take awhile.....

http://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/Pri...
Michael

Canada

#413437 Jan 5, 2013
ANTHONY this might be easier. Pick out your state of Minnesota, then pick your, diocese out of the 6 in Minnesota and see if you recognize any of these names?

http://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/Pri...

Pad

Fishers, IN

#413438 Jan 5, 2013
LTM wrote:
<quoted text>
I am glad you don't want to fight neither do I.
I just want to share bibical truth with you.
Jesus did not disobey Leviticus 10:9-10 by “creating” alcoholic wine to be consumed against His Father’s will. He created unfermented “wine” or high quality grape juice.
Not to mention that fermentation is an aging process that happens over a long period of time. It’s a process of decay. Decay is death. Jesus created that high quality grape juice instantly, not over time, without decay and without death! All of Jesus’ miracles are rooted in Life and Love. God’s Life. God’s Love.
People who use the “water into wine” excuse are simply being deceived by one verse of Scripture taken completely out of Biblical context. They need to be delivered. This is why Jesus said we must have two or three confirming passages of Scripture, in context, to verify all doctrine or behavior. Otherwise, we shouldn’t accept it at all.(Matthew 18:16)
Often, after sharing this revelation with shocked,“wine bibbing” Believers, they almost always respond,“Well, Paul told Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach. I’m just doing it for my stomach.”(1Timothy 5:23)
I then explain that Paul knew the difference between fermented and unfermented “wine” and obeyed the Bible, too. It was common in his day to put grape juice in water to kill water-borne bacteria, which caused stomach ailments such as Timothy’s. This is what Paul told Timothy to do. He was not telling Timothy that it was acceptable to “catch a holy buzz in the Name of the Lord.”
The Bible calls fermented wine and all strong drink a “mocker.” It calls those who use it “deceived” and “unwise.”(Proverbs 20:1)
It leads to poverty.(Proverbs 21:17)
It will bite you like a serpent.(Proverbs 23:32)
The Bible also calls God’s children “Kings”(Revelation 1:5,6) and says,“Wine is not for Kings.”(Proverbs 31:4)
Say,“Jesus, I choose You and Your Word.”(Romans 10:13) He’ll forgive you for what you didn’t know. However, now you do know!
Oh, yes, my intoxicated friend who insisted that Jesus was a wine drinker, which makes it okay for everyone. Within weeks of rejecting my Scriptural, loving correction, he raped a 13 year old child while intoxicated. He’ll pay for that for the rest of his life. He was bitten by the mocking serpent of strong drink.
Someone always says,“Something like that would never happen to me. I can handle it.” Interesting I have never met one person who could handle it, they are lying to themselves.
Alcoholic drinks are destroyer of mind, body, and soul Jesus would never approve drinking it not even a little, because a little is to much for some people.
VERY well put!And i agree with it as we human beings have proven over the centuries that often we cannot control what happens to us when we are drunk.
I cannot tell you haow many guys I have known who got drunk at parties or social gatherings,and tried to have sex with an unwilling woman.
Michael

Canada

#413439 Jan 5, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a "cover-up" when the prevailing course of treament in the psychiatric community recommends counseling and being sent to a new parish. If we knew then what we know now about recidivism, things would have been different.
And if it was 4% decades ago and now it's 0.000175%, that tells me the Church is trying to be accountable.
What a bunch of baloney!

So what you are saying is if 30 years ago someone witnessed a man raping a child he would call a psychiatrist instead of calling the police?

I remember 30, 40, 50 years ago if a man raped a woman THE POLICE WERE CALLED, not a psychiatrist.

What about the lies Anthony anytime a parishioner would ask why is Father Smith being moved? The answer from the rest of the clergy would be, he is needed elsewhere. THE TRUTH WAS NEVER TOLD, because the church didn't want the truth to be told.

If you witnessed a young boy being abused 30 years ago, would you call a psychiatrist or 9-1-1!

I rest my case!

Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#413440 Jan 5, 2013
Robert Dye wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the argument he is making is that legislation against an offense proves knowledge that the offense is taking place, or has taken place in the past.
.
This argument has some merit.
.
Where I think it falls apart is what the anti-Catholics think it means.
.
When there is a directive against disclosures regading abuse committed during the sacrament of confession, the anti-Catholic folks call that a cover-up.
.
And it COULD have been ... but there is a quite reasonable explanation of it.
.
If Suzy comes to me and tells me that Fr. Smith sexually abused her when she went to him for confession, I cannot repeat that with breaking the seal, nor can I grant Fr. Smith the right to confront his accuser.
.
It would be much simpler if Suzy would just go th the Civil Authority and report. If she won't do that, there is very little I can do, except under the utmost secrecy.
.
This is not to protect the accused ( well, except that he REALLY should be able to confront his accuser, but I don't know that this is an absolute in Canon Law. Should be, but may not be), but rather to protect the right of the accuser, who has a right to secrecy over the fact that she went to confession.
.
I *never* have the right to divulge that fact, any more than I could divulge what she confessed.
.
The directive from the pope that all accusations regarding an offense committed DURING THE SACRAMENT OF CONFESSION be held in a diocese's "secret archives" (roughly equivalent to "personnel files" for any group or corporation, as these are considered "confidential documents") was an attempt to address the confidentiality of the matte, to not break the seal of the confessional.
.
Our directive is that we are to make IMMEDIATE report of any allegation of sexual abuse of a minor to DHS. I have never seen a directive as to what to do if someone tells me in the contexts of the confessional. I would push such a person to make the report themselves.
.
If someone told me that Fr. Smith had commited sexual abuse (and they are telling ME this outside of the confessional), my response would be to call DHS, and tell them Suzy had made an accusation against Fr. Smith. "When?" Why, she just told me. "No,*when* does she say this occurred?" I forget. You have your job. Go ASK the peson who made the accusation.
.
Rob
Point taken father, yet I'm certain Mike doesn't care one whit about what it does mean.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#413441 Jan 5, 2013
Pad wrote:
<quoted text>If in fact that your family had to use alcoholic beverages to aid in the bearing of Pain,who am I preston to argue with you? It is not for me to condemn anyone who uses alcohol and for whatever reason.Your statement points a finger at me as that I would condemn you somehow,or your family.Don't even go there.
If you know the proper use,and your family has been able to use the alochol beverages to alleviate some sort of suffering,I would be the last person to claim you folks were wrong to do so.I reject any notion from you that places me in a judging manner toward especially those who suffer!
it was not the pain per se, it was the withdrawal from the beer to go with it,

and you know me well enough to know that If I want to say something to you, I would. it was more that I would not want it to happen to you, in any way shape of form.

imagine him dying, as we saw it, and in pain that drugs cant alleviate, and we knew that, a woman who had loved her man and saw him sufferring and him wanting a beer(or more). so she broke her cardinal rule and relented.

that and that alone was the only point that I was wanting to make.
Michael

Canada

#413442 Jan 5, 2013
Why would Roman Catholic priests have to form a UNION if there wasn't issues between them and their superiors?

To date nearly 1,000 roman catholic priests have joined the ranks of forming an association in the USA. Modeled after the Priest Associations in Ireland, Germany, and Austria with more to come.

...They want a greater voice in the church and they indicate there appears to be a BRICK WALL between them and the hirearchy when it comes to dialouge.

..They indicate there are 3 distinct groups of priests with different agendas in the church.

So much for one big happy family!

http://fathernormsnotebook.blogspot.ca/2012/0...
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#413443 Jan 5, 2013
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember Anthony the bulk of clergy caught committed the crimes years before when the victims were children. Today 20-25 years later the victims now have to courage to come forward and accuse the perpitrators for the crimes they committed in the 1980s or 90s.
You don't believe that there are many more who have never been caught?
Have you received a speeding ticket EVERY time you went over the speed limit? NO! Did you get a ticket everytime you coasted slowly through a stop sign without a complete stop? NO!
..... You don't believe that a large number of victims WOULD NEVER come forward out of embarassement and shame and many of their parents would fear in never accusing a clergy member of such wrong doing.
I would bet there are many.
In 2011 there were 7 credible accusations. That's 0.000175% of the priest population. If you multiply that by 100 it's 0.0175%. That's less than any other large organization on the planet. It's still terrible and the guilty should go to prison, but the Church is making tremendous improvement. That's being accountable.
Clay

Melrose Park, IL

#413444 Jan 5, 2013
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
Try this link. 276 catholic clerics (boston)
They wouldn't list the names if credible information wasn't available.
Know any of these priests?
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ma_bosto...
Wait a sec .. you just got caught deceitfully quoting something that wasn't even in the link you provided..
NOW you post a link with hundreds of ACCUSED Priests- many of whom have been cleared.

Boy, you're on a roll today.

Clay says Michael is as sick as any guilty clergy for using child sex abuse as a platform for his vendetta against Catholicism.
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#413445 Jan 5, 2013
Michael wrote:
<quoted text>
What a bunch of baloney!
So what you are saying is if 30 years ago someone witnessed a man raping a child he would call a psychiatrist instead of calling the police?
I remember 30, 40, 50 years ago if a man raped a woman THE POLICE WERE CALLED, not a psychiatrist.
What about the lies Anthony anytime a parishioner would ask why is Father Smith being moved? The answer from the rest of the clergy would be, he is needed elsewhere. THE TRUTH WAS NEVER TOLD, because the church didn't want the truth to be told.
If you witnessed a young boy being abused 30 years ago, would you call a psychiatrist or 9-1-1!
I rest my case!
You should just give it a rest.

"In this respect, the Church was far from alone. When the Church was sending accused priests to psychological treatment, "the criminal justice system was doing the very same thing with convicted offenders – sending them to treatment instead of prison."

"From the 1950's to the 1980's, these treatment-based interventions for sexual criminals were not only enormously prevalent in the United States, but surveys of ordinary citizens showed that they were enormously popular …

"[T]he science of human sexuality and sexual offending is extraordinarily young. Virtually all of the information we utilize today regarding the treatment and supervision of sexual offenders has been discovered since 1985."
– Dr. Monica Applewhite, Ph.D.

"No one would hold a brain surgeon to today's standard of care for professional decisions he made in 1970. Yet the decisions made in 1970 by Catholic bishops, who routinely consulted with mental health professionals about sick priests, are being judged by today's standards. Today, the confidence of the mental health community about the likelihood of curing sexual disorders is far less than it was in 1970."
– L. Martin Nussbaum, "Changing the Rules" (America magazine, 2006)

http://www.themediareport.com/fast-facts/
Michael

Canada

#413446 Jan 5, 2013
Robert Dye wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the argument he is making is that legislation against an offense proves knowledge that the offense is taking place, or has taken place in the past.
.
This argument has some merit.
.
Where I think it falls apart is what the anti-Catholics think it means.
.
When there is a directive against disclosures regading abuse committed during the sacrament of confession, the anti-Catholic folks call that a cover-up.
.
And it COULD have been ... but there is a quite reasonable explanation of it.
.
If Suzy comes to me and tells me that Fr. Smith sexually abused her when she went to him for confession, I cannot repeat that with breaking the seal, nor can I grant Fr. Smith the right to confront his accuser.
.
It would be much simpler if Suzy would just go th the Civil Authority and report. If she won't do that, there is very little I can do, except under the utmost secrecy.
.
This is not to protect the accused ( well, except that he REALLY should be able to confront his accuser, but I don't know that this is an absolute in Canon Law. Should be, but may not be), but rather to protect the right of the accuser, who has a right to secrecy over the fact that she went to confession.
.
I *never* have the right to divulge that fact, any more than I could divulge what she confessed.
.
The directive from the pope that all accusations regarding an offense committed DURING THE SACRAMENT OF CONFESSION be held in a diocese's "secret archives" (roughly equivalent to "personnel files" for any group or corporation, as these are considered "confidential documents") was an attempt to address the confidentiality of the matte, to not break the seal of the confessional.
.
Our directive is that we are to make IMMEDIATE report of any allegation of sexual abuse of a minor to DHS. I have never seen a directive as to what to do if someone tells me in the contexts of the confessional. I would push such a person to make the report themselves.
.
If someone told me that Fr. Smith had commited sexual abuse (and they are telling ME this outside of the confessional), my response would be to call DHS, and tell them Suzy had made an accusation against Fr. Smith. "When?" Why, she just told me. "No,*when* does she say this occurred?" I forget. You have your job. Go ASK the peson who made the accusation.
.
Rob
Rob:

Over the years there have been thousands of instances that clergy have abused children. A mortal sin each time.

These very clergy who taught me as a child that I could NEVER receive the Eucharist with such a sin on MY SOUL without confession/repentance, yet these men so holy gave themselves the eucharist every mass they said without confession/repentance first and often carried on dozens of times committing the same sin over and over.

Any priest/bishop who was aware of another clergy member who had abused a child, how could those other priests allow the molesting priest to hear someone else's confession when he has worse sins on his own soul and how could the good priests allow this molesting priest to give himself holy communion during mass when the good priest knew damn well this priest was sinning?

Do as we say, not as we do......
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#413447 Jan 5, 2013
Michael wrote:
Why would Roman Catholic priests have to form a UNION if there wasn't issues between them and their superiors?
To date nearly 1,000 roman catholic priests have joined the ranks of forming an association in the USA. Modeled after the Priest Associations in Ireland, Germany, and Austria with more to come.
...They want a greater voice in the church and they indicate there appears to be a BRICK WALL between them and the hirearchy when it comes to dialouge.
..They indicate there are 3 distinct groups of priests with different agendas in the church.
So much for one big happy family!
http://fathernormsnotebook.blogspot.ca/2012/0...
The new union is being led in part by Rembert Weakland, retired Archbishop of Milwaukee, an admitted homosexual with one of the worst records of protecting victims from predator priests.

Do you really think we should support this group?
Clay

Melrose Park, IL

#413448 Jan 5, 2013
Michael wrote:
ANTHONY this might be easier. Pick out your state of Minnesota, then pick your, diocese out of the 6 in Minnesota and see if you recognize any of these names?
http://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/Pri...
I read MPLS/saint Paul.. I saw two priest out of 30 on your link that were guilty since 1950.

The rest weren't convicted of anything. Yet, you posted their names anyway. I pray for their poor parents.
This is called slander Michel. You're one of the most sick vile human beings I've ever come across.

Thousands upon thousands of the names you posted did nothing wrong. Does that make you feel good about yourself?
Michael

Canada

#413449 Jan 5, 2013
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
In 2011 there were 7 credible accusations. That's 0.000175% of the priest population. If you multiply that by 100 it's 0.0175%. That's less than any other large organization on the planet. It's still terrible and the guilty should go to prison, but the Church is making tremendous improvement. That's being accountable.
Agreed!

What is troubling Anthony is the history of the church leaders, who opted to create rules that allowed victims to suffer, primarily to protect the church, and in essence protects the criminal.

makes no common sense!

...If one of your daughters was molested when she was young and the perpitrator went to a priest for confession and the priest knew about it, wouldn't it pain you to know that the church has created rules, to protect the criminal and not your daughter as no one would ever be caught for the crime committed?

I know how I would respond!

Michael

Canada

#413450 Jan 5, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
I read MPLS/saint Paul.. I saw two priest out of 30 on your link that were guilty since 1950.
The rest weren't convicted of anything. Yet, you posted their names anyway. I pray for their poor parents.
This is called slander Michel. You're one of the most sick vile human beings I've ever come across.
Thousands upon thousands of the names you posted did nothing wrong. Does that make you feel good about yourself?
What do you mean they did nothing wrong?

If that was slander that website would have been taken down 2 years ago. Its been up since then and still available.

The arch diocese of Boston paid out nearly $600,000,000 in lawsuits. Do you think that was the result of a handful of priests?

$200,000,000 lawsuits paid out in San Diego California.

$600 MILLION paid out in another california diocese in 2002. Los Angeles.

Thats nearly $1 Billion just in California alone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/us/08church...

something is wrong Clay! Wake up!

Michael

Canada

#413451 Jan 5, 2013
Clay wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait a sec .. you just got caught deceitfully quoting something that wasn't even in the link you provided..
NOW you post a link with hundreds of ACCUSED Priests- many of whom have been cleared.
Boy, you're on a roll today.
Clay says Michael is as sick as any guilty clergy for using child sex abuse as a platform for his vendetta against Catholicism.
The church would have fought the lawsuits in California if they didn't believe they were true. Who writes checks for bogus claims?

The bishops of both in SanDiego and LosAngeles apologized to the victims. The bishops admitted guilt.

$860,000,000 MILLION dollars in California and hundreds of victims.

HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?

....and for some wacko reason you still want to blame me......

YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON IN YOUR CHURCH.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pope Benedict XVI Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) 1 hr Married in 10,520
News Pope Francis meets 4 Imams to open a Christian-... Apr 21 Joe 30
News Pope opens free laundromat for the poor Pope Fr... Apr 12 True Christian wi... 1
News Role of women in the modern Catholic Church 'un... Apr 9 South Knox Hombre 1
News What Pope Francis and Obama may talk about (Sep '15) Apr 7 Teana Trump 53
News Pope Francis to stop off in Cuba on way to Unit... (Apr '15) Mar 31 whirlingmerc 9
News Pope Francis will do 'everything he can' to vis... Mar 31 Gods r Delusions ... 1
More from around the web