How to Save the American Catholic Leadership from Itself

By John Zmirak Published on August 9, 2018

This is not a banner year for Catholic Church. We learned last month that Theodore McCarrick, former Cardinal Archbishop of Washington, D.C. was an aggressive homosexual. He preyed on seminarians, promoting those who succumbed to his advances, and punishing those who refused them. (His former bedmates he called “nephews,” and they called him “Uncle Ted.” Are you vomiting yet? Read on.)

McCarrick molested an underage boy — and not just any boy. No, it was the son of a family he’d befriended, whom he had baptized as a baby. Roll that around in your head for minute. Imagine holding a baby in your hands, pouring the water of salvation over his head. Watching him grow older, visiting with his parents. Then choosing your opportunity to sexually molest him. This is a work of Satan.

Uncle Ted Groomed and Picked Our Bishops

The man who earned that millstone helped pick bishops all across the United States. Names include Cardinal Blaise Cupich of Chicago, Cardinal Tobin of Newark, and Cardinal Kevin Farrell, now running the (cough) Vatican office for Laity, Family, and Life. Farrell shared an apartment with McCarrick for years, but claims he had no idea about McCarrick’s sordid habits. Right. We believe that, don’t we?

Imagine holding a baby in your hands, pouring the water of salvation over his head. Watching him grow older, visiting with his parents. Then choosing your opportunity to sexually molest him. This is a work of Satan.

McCarrick’s colleagues knew all about his taste for seminarians. Most knew about the legal settlements two separate dioceses made with underage male victims. Prominent Catholic laymen even knew, including William Donohue, of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights. Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston knew, but still went on a fundraising cruise with McCarrick to Cuba.

McCarrick Exempted Himself and Other Bishops from Sex Abuse Rules

It has emerged that McCarrick was key in crippling the anti-abuse Charter of 2002, issued the last time homosexual predation swamped the Catholic priesthood. He changed its language to exempt himself, and other bishops, from any consequences. This at a time when two thirds of Catholic bishops (according to the Dallas Morning News) were complicit in cover-ups.

This week, another of McCarrick’s protégés, Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C. proposed yet another panel of bishops, to investigate itself. At that, a nationwide chorus of outrage and bitter laughter erupted from Catholic laymen.

Too many Catholic laymen are cowed by a clerical collar to the point where they fawn like old timey English butlers.

Rightly, they said that any committee convened to discipline these bishops be led by laymen. That’s good, but it doesn’t go far enough. 

Laymen Are Not Enough.

Too many Catholic laymen are cowed by a clerical collar to the point where they fawn like old timey English butlers. (“Yes, Your Eminence. Of course, Your Eminence. May I kiss your ring?”) 

Too many of the “prominent Catholics” on the A-list who would likely make the committee probably knew about McCarrick. But they said nothing, did nothing. The kind of people who buy tables at the Al Smith Dinner featuring pro-infanticide Barack Obama. Who golf with the cardinals complicit in this squalor…. They would do more harm than good. They’d just be a lay fig leaf on another gay clericalist coverup. The problem, we’ve now learned, extends even to some “conservative” dioceses

Straightening Out the Priesthood

Unless the Church takes radical steps to undo it, the American priesthood could be swamped by a homosexual subculture, as normal men rightly repulsed by the queenly cabal of cardinals find other uses for their lives.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

Are you wondering why so many parishes flout the Church’s biblical teaching on homosexuality? Follow the blog of the heroic apostle Joseph Sciambra, himself a repentant escapee from the gay lifestyle and the porn industry, to see how many prominent bishops and priests are cooperating with the LGBT agenda. The details are too seedy and scandalous for me to repeat here, but if you need proof go read the reporting of this loyal son of the Church.

Sex Abuse Victims Must Lead Here

I have some concrete suggestions. Yes, fast and pray, of course. But we should already be doing that. And it’s not enough. Prayer alone wouldn’t have stopped the Muslims at Vienna or Lepanto, without courageous soldiers and intelligent strategy.

So, let me offer some battle plans for the soldiers out there. So, let me offer some battle plans for the soldiers out there.

  • The abuse panel should be 90 percent lay, with a fair representation of Catholic mothers of sons.
  • It must include at least 20 percent sex abuse victims — people who filed complaints that were found to have merit, or resulted in legal settlements against priests.
  • Any final document should require the sign-off of two thirds of the victim members on the panel. In other words, they can’t be window-dressing. They should wield a veto.

Grab the Purse Strings and Squeeze

So much for the panel. Let’s pray that it issues strong, even draconian recommendations. Catholics should withhold participation in “bishop’s appeals” until those recommendations are put into practice by their bishop. Wealthy Catholics who make major generic gifts to the Church should stop. Today. They should organize a campaign like “St. Escrow’s,” which I floated some weeks ago. Every bishop should see the monies he’d counted on go instead into an escrow account. It will only be released after he opens his books and seminary records to the auditors sent by the laymen, and they are satisfied with his efforts at reform.

What about ordinary lay Catholics, not the moneybags? Remember that 8% of what you give your parish, however faithful, gets taken by the bishop. Start writing personal checks, written out to your pastor. He can spend that however he wishes. No bishop has a claim on it.

A Time to Prune

In order to root out the gay subculture which clearly commands some of the highest echelons of the Church, bishops will have to get much, much stricter, and implement Benedict XVI’s ban on gay seminarians. Seminary classes will dwindle. Some will close. The staffs of entire seminaries where this subculture has reigned? Their Eminences and their Excellencies will need to fire them. Or else St. Escrow’s won’t open its coffers. We won’t get fooled again.

Without organized, relentless financial pressure from faithful laymen, I don’t see bishops making the kind of drastic reforms we need. (Some might still refuse, and subsist on the millions they bring in from federal contracts via groups like Catholic Charities.) But we owe it to Christ to try.

Think of it as setting a small, contained forest fire to stop a much bigger conflagration. If we can’t put out the flames, within our lifetime the American Church could be a vast field of ashes, relieved only by all the millstones.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Chip Crawford

    Hebrews 12:27 And this word, Yet once more, signifies the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.

    Do we owe it to Christ to try things, like taking a stab at them? Why stumble around in the dark, asking God to bless your plan. Why not go to God for His plan, which is already blessed? James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that gives to all men liberally, and upbraids not; and it shall be given him. People who know God can come to him in all of their quandaries. He’s made himself available. Put another way, if Jesus is your lord, are you supposed to just do what you think up instead of asking him for what he would say to you, what he wants you to do or think about it? For many, the issue is the simple way of hearing from him. Looking up and considering the scriptures which speak of being led by the Spirit, led of God and all such contain light for that path. He may tell you something, and often does, that you would not have thought of, an angle or prospect you haven’t seen, something about your own participation and involvement, a tweak, a major shift, all for your good and fulfillment of your place and calling according to him.

    • You mean finally bridging the gap and admitting the trads are little more than protestants.

      God allows these things to cull the weak and allow evil ideas like this to surface. This time it is the evil of a laity with power ambitions.

      • Chip Crawford

        The carnal mind is at enmity with God – that’s what he says – should you hopefully some day care about that. No, I said what I meant. You just do not understand it you have established elsewhere, so default back to your worldly, political take. There’s good news! Man made structures will all crumble and fall, especially those weighted down with sin’s disease and erosion from within. God doesn’t have to allow it. They allow it by choosing to sin against him, against nature and against their role as leader. It’s cause and effect; reaping what one sows, the Bible says. However, they may never have taken on the responsible part of it to begin with, just the pompous hierarchical position. Yes, God does clean house. Let the faithful hear God’s voice and follow his wise leading. I have to explain that to you, I know. Not talking about an audible voice, but the inward witness from the Holy Spirit who indwells the disciple – of God, not church structure.

        • Of course you are for this as your entire heresy is based on a man-centered eschaton.

          • Hmmm…

            What??!! Dear soul, I fear you have actually gotten your knickers quite in a wad ….

          • And you have responded to each one of my posts even with gibberish like this. Are you made nervous by what I am saying?

      • Kevin Quillen

        “God allows these things to cull the weak and allow evil ideas like this to surface.”
        You mean like queer priests?

        • Sure, how else would you put yourself as being as vile as you have shown here ?

          • Chip Crawford

            When everyone is “vile,” then no one is vile. You need to vary the names you call those who disagree with you or still better, perhaps stop being so disagreeable.

  • Tim H

    John, I’ve been wondering when someone would start making recommendations for this panel. I agree that the bishops cannot do this. Your suggestions look good. But we need to think about the next steps. I have two big concerns. I’m worried we’re thinking of the laity we had in the 1950s – strong Catholic identity, strong sense of family, strong faith. I dont know that we have much of any of that anymore.

    First, any panel selection and then the panel itself is going to be under intense pressure from various factions. I do not want this to become a nest of social justice warriors.

    Second, I don’t want this panel to become some kind of permanent bureaucratic mechanism. I think it should have a sunset clause, a mechanism where its continued existence is evaluated every 2 or 4 or 5 years. Related to this,
    I don’t want this to turn into a mobocracy that gets to determine who becomes a bishop – where the selection of bishops just becomes a popularity contest or something worse based on a specific awful set of criteria. The left would eventually take this over.

    • The problem is that this “panel” idea is little more than an attempt for the laity to try to create an anti-Church within the Church to usurp power for themselves.

      I reject any such evil idea, ESPECIALLY from “good and wholesome trads” who usually end up far more tyrannical than any “lib.”

      • Tim H

        Yes, we’re in a terrible spot. We can’t trust the bishops and we can’t trust the laity.

        • I do agree that the bishops are not trustworthy, but they are held accountable by their office.

          The laity have no such accountability, and from some blogs I can tell that they are hungry for blood.

          • Hmmm…

            Sounds like you and Tim should form a nice support group. You both seem so concerned … Also, I hope you have alerted the police concerning this blood lust you have noted.

          • The power structure of the world loves anything that seeks to undermine the Holy authority of the Church.

          • Hmmm…

            Actually, God and His good book, the Bible, are the judge of that.

          • What happened at Pentecost?

            Also, how can a “book” replace the Church that wrote said “book?”

          • Hmmm…

            Jesus sent the Holy Spirit into the earth, and he is still here. He can be received by whosover will.
            The Holy Spirit wrote the book, not men or a church. This is about God, the creator, not the created. God chooses to use men as vessels for his work. Any man or group or church loses authority from God when they begin to consider themselves the treasure instead of merely the vessel. Your question reveals that might be what has happened to you and likely your circle.

          • “By whosoever will?” Is this your version of crowley’s “do as thou wilt?”

            Seems your eagerness let you give up your plot easily.

            And the NT of the Bible was written by the very last prophets of the Church, the apostles who were the first Bishops of the Church. The OT was written by older prophets. The major/minor prophets of the OT match the last prophets (apostles) that would become the bishops.

            God has not left the Church. God has left you to a reprobate mind though, and the devil has taken advantage of that.

            The fact that you assert yourself “by whosoever will” and call the Apostolic Succession of the Church as “crippled,” show your ambitions. Your support for a communist-style revolt shows that as well.

            So I ask one more time: WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO EVERY “COMRADE” ONCE REVOLUTION IS OVER?”

            You think you will get power through this “revolution,” so did they. But what did they actually get?

          • Hmmm…

            Some “whoever will” verses. God offers, man must choose. His promises and call are to those whosoever will respond to him. God asserts himself this way. You reveal your scriptural illiteracy, certainly nothing near a working knowledge of God’s Word.

            Deut 18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
            Ezra 7:26 And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.
            Mt 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
            Mt 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
            Mt 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
            Mr 8:34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
            Mr 8:35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.
            Mr 10:43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
            Lu 9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.
            Lu 9:24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
            Re 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

          • So now you claim you are a prophet? This time a prophet who has “by whosoever will” now decided to take the authority and power of the Church for himself.

            God Himself is the head of the Church, so by trying to usurp the Church, you are trying to usurp God. Puts your crowley-like Freudian slip into perspective.

            You happen to assert yourself this way, as the only person who seeks to gain anything from
            This is those who wish to usurp God. Using scripture against God is a bit futile, no?

          • Hmmm…

            I shared what God’s word says about whosoever will, what he said. Believers are to reference and live by and know and go by God’s word. Having to explain that is telling. I am showing you what the word says, not using scripture against God. Good lord, man, what is wrong with you? If you are putting your RCC in the place of God, perhaps that’s the problem. We seem to be learning the depths of your aberration here.

          • The Church is founded by God and has God at the head. Therefore you are tying to use scripture against God.

            Also, interesting you try to claim to “know” what God wants “by whosoever will.” So you “do what thou wilt” because you “know” what God wants?

            Is this “knowing” the same “gnosis” that the devil claims would make men “be like gods?”

          • Hmmm…

            I am trying to educate you to what God’s word says since you are going by something in opposition to it. You are the one going against God. You assert stuff that is contrary to his word, which is what he means and what he wants. Believers are to use the word to establish truth, for themselves and in debate and sharing. You are not God. My sharing the word with you is not the same as sharing it with God. The whosoever verses speak for themselves. The point is that God offers much to those who respond to him, not this one select group who can even depart his calling on their lives and still be above censure. That’s false. You cannot establish that by scripture. His calling is subject to a man or woman, group’s response to him and their continued walk and fellowship with him. You obviously haven’t seen the holy boldness belonging to believers and take it amiss. I am sorry for that, but your charges are not appropriate in response. Perhaps you could actually learn something in the process.

          • Where in that giant mass of words do you address anything I said in the message you are directly replying to.

            Seems you are either talking past me or responding to what you wish I would have said instead of what I actually did say. Another tactic of gnosticism.

            If you persist in not addressing what I actually say, I will just block you.

          • Hmmm…

            You are merely rude and likely spooked by the request for scriptural validation for your claims and assertions as to what God did or means. It is an honest request. If you do not think so, please state why not. Thank you.

          • No, you said that scripture does not support God’s own Word found in scripture. You never asked for any scripture in the post I replied to.

            As for scripture, I would suggest getting something like the Ignatius Study Bible annotated by Dr Scott Hahn. Then come back and tell me a real Bible does not support the Church.

            It makes no sense to quote from the Bible to someone who operates with an edited version.

          • Hmmm…

            I did not say that about scripture. Bogus. You are establishing a pattern of making false claims like that here with others as well. I have many good bibles. I never claimed the word of God did not support the church. Again, that is a wildcat, haywire statement unfounded in the record here. I ask you again to validate with a Bible verse or verses that the church is indivisible. You have not, but offered an excuse, a deferral. Please stay with facts.

          • Yes you did, as God founded the Church and is at the head of the Church. By trying to use scripture against the Church, you are calling God a liar. Also strange because if God is a liar about the Church, then why do you trust anyone else said?

            Is it because you can take verses out of context to make it out like God will do whatever you want him to? “By whosoever will,” as you said?

            The Church being indivisible is based upon 2 things:
            – Scripturally, God promised that “the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”
            – By reason, since truth cannot contradict itself, and therefore God cannot contradict Himself, therefore the Church created by God and based in truth cannot contradict itself.

            Indicisible means that the Church cannot contradict itself. Not that we will not have heresies where we have to purge heretics.

          • Kevin Quillen

            “”the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”
            In all this thread, this is all you have??? For all your claims, there should be plenty of scripture to back them up. Weak, just weak.

          • That is the Word of God that you sneer at. A direct quote from Christ Himself.

            Why do you reject this and spit in the face of Christ? Because your ego is displeased by the truth?

          • Kevin Quillen

            “So you “do what thou wilt” because you “know” what God wants?”
            The purpose of the Bible is to teach us what God wants. Duh! I can read and with the help of the Holy Spirit, can understand.

          • Interesting trap to fall into.

            “do what thou wilt” is one of the most famous quotes from alester crowley, it implies that one has usurped God and therefore wine has no accountability to God

            “Know” in the post above refers to “gnosis,” which is the gnostic idea that you can “know” reality into being whatever you want it to be.

            So you therefore claim that you have usurped God via scripture and therefore you can fill in the peices with your ego. Worst evil in this message of all is that you claim your ego and the Holy Spirit are one and the same.

          • Kevin Quillen

            He is guilty of the same thing the Pharisees were guilty of. Blinded by their traditions, they could not recognize Christ. I liked your post above about the “Rock.” I see the Rock as the “revelation” of who Peter knew Christ was. That revelation is the saving grace.

          • Kevin Quillen

            Touche’

          • Hmmm…

            And what about when a church becomes markedly UNHOLY?

          • The Church. Which is indivisible, which means it cannot contradict itself.

            The only unholy thing is your thirst for power here.

          • Hmmm…

            See my reply below starting with “Jesus sent the Holy Spirit.”

          • Yes, the post where you gave up the plot and said that anyone can take the full authority for themselves “by whosoever will” was your exact quote.

            mini-crowley, your frantic attempt to sneer at what I am saying away proves that I am right over the target. You have sent a reply to every single one of my posts in this thread, even if you had nothing to say, you still replied just as an attempt to distract. Just one more tactic you took from marxism.

          • Hmmm…

            You are obsessed, possibly unhinged.

          • You have no argument. Who is more unhinged? The guy defending the indivisibility of the Church (God’s own declaration, not mine) or the guy spouting any nonsense he can to fill space?

            Even better, is it the guy who says God is in control (again, God’s own declaration, I’m just repeating it) or the guy who says that God has descended to make you a prophet “by whosoever will?”

          • Hmmm…

            I am not a guy and you make absolutely NO sense …

          • I would say you don’t act like much of a man by how childish you are, so your sex makes no difference here. I am also weirded out by how you reply to every single message I have, regardless of if you have anything to say or not.

            I can only imagine that if I don’t have a private profile, you would reply to every post I have made.

          • Hmmm…

            You ARE weirded out; I’ll agree with that much.

          • Seems you give two kinds of replies. Single-sentence gibberish like this one, or drawn-out non-sequiturs that don’t even address the post you are responding to.

            I’ll give you one more post of this tired game before I block you.

          • Tim H

            Not sure what is meant here. I’m actually quite upset with the bishops. I have no idea what teapot means about the bishops office protecting them. I just think its prudent to recognize that there will be large secular forces at work (leaving aside the diabolical spiritual forces for the moment). But I do agree to some extent with teapot that we can’t make this some kind of revolution from the laity that attempts to become permanent. I just don’t know how to prevent that.

      • Hmmm…

        My, the plot commences to thicken … What, pray tell, are “trads?”

        • So now you pretend that an entire self-contained subculture called “traditionalists” don’t exist?

          Why are you becoming EXACTLY like marxists?

          • Hmmm…

            Let’s not get out ahead of your skis here. I did find out trads is short for traditionalists and you are very fond of your conspiracy notion. Tsk, tsk. And, I’m not a pickle jar; don’t label me; far too little to go on for that accusation … I’m sure you want people to like you maybe, so ….

          • Truth is what I care about. If I wanted to be “liked,” I would be trying to join the pitchfork mob to be “one of the guys.”

  • fondatorey

    This is a spiritual problem, not a practical one. Administrative measures are fine but only address the symptoms.

    There won’t be a change until there is a conversion of heart by the Bishops. Public, penance, public renunciation of their sin. A public turn to Jesus Christ and towards the constant teachings of the church.

    What we are dealing with is a spiritual problem caused by the mass apostasy of clergy (leading the flock astray) going into and coming out of VII. There is no solution other than a spiritual one.

    • Except there are people who are salivating for a chance to try to assert themselves over these bishops, using the wayward ones as an excuse. They are the real ones to worry about.

      • Bryan

        You seem to reject Mr. Zmirak’s plan but I haven’t seen any offer of you own. Maybe you’re already working on it.
        If it’s the Bishops that are supposed to be a part of addressing this problem and not the laity, but the Bishops are a main source of the problem, how should they police themselves and should they be trusted to do so vigilantly?

        • Here is the plan, stop letting “professional Catholic” talking-heads try to usurp the authority of the Church.

          The office of the Bishops keeps them in check.

          You are mistaken in thinking that your planned “revolution” will give power. Ask yourself how many communists and marxists made this same mistake. What happened to those people and where are they now?

          • Bryan

            I’m sorry but that isn’t much of a plan. Also, as it has been implemented so far, hasn’t seemed to work. If the office of the Bishop is supposed to keep them in check, why are so many that were predators or knew about the predatory behaviors of others still in power or promoted? Am I correct to assume that the office of Cardinals is to keep them in check as well? If so, why did it let Cardinal McCarrick continue to prey on seminarians after settlements with more than one dioceses? It seems as if the offices are broken or non-functioning.
            These seem like reasonable questions to ask. And they seem like questions that need to be addressed in order for the reasonable laity to restore their trust in Bishops, etc.
            I’m not Catholic so I’m not completely familiar with all the goings on and the nuances of the Church and it’s officers. Maybe there are better systems already set up that should be capable of dealing with this.
            That said, I also understand your concerns about a laity that is “hungry for blood” that would “try to create an anti-Church”. This is no excuse for socialist style workers overthrow of the system. If a plan like Mr. Zmirak’s were to be pursued, then for as much care was required to meet the criteria he set out for selecting the members of the panel, as much care needs to be given in selecting men and women who are not simply blood-thirsty (even the victims) but who have clear and sober judgement and who understand the issues at hand. In my opinion they should be people who would meet the qualifications laid out by Paul in hi epistles for overseers and elders, even if that’s not the function they serve in at their local church.
            I also agree with what some others have said, that this panel should have a limited scope and authority so that it does not last indefinitely, doing nothing more than wasting time. It should also have enough authority to actualize or initiate real changes. And once that authority is exercised, the panel should be disbanded, hopefully to never be formed for such a purpose again.
            I think this covers all of the issues you’ve laid out so far.

          • Hmmm…

            Yes, and why is he relating to Communists and Marxists? Oops!

          • Because communists and marxists also thought their “revolution” would end with a gain of person power over whatever authority they want to usurp.

            So I ask, what actually happened to those communists and marxists?

          • Hmmm…

            A … revolution … ? Sir, you really are quite funny …

          • Not my question, what happened to them?

          • Hmmm…

            Apparently, from the online, media and street mobs, they are still among us.

          • Not the ones I am talking about. I am talking about the Russian and Chinese “useful idiots” that actually took part in “revolution.”

            Where are they? Or more accurately, what happened to them the second after they outlived their usefulness?

          • The problem is that once this council is in place, they will use their power to ensure they will not become obsolete. People never give up power.

          • Bryan

            I agree that is a potential problem. However there are still men and women who believe in the principle of public service. They are harder to find but they do exist. So yes, extreme care must be taken in selecting this panel.
            However, you response doesn’t really deal with how to police the Bishops who have a recent record of obviously not being able to police themselves. I agree that power can corrupt. But it seems that something other than the status quo is required at this point.

          • Hmmm…

            Since the bishops have become seriously corrupted by THEIR power, isn’t that the main issue?

          • Not at all. Are you saying the structure God put in place is not enough? The bishops are the successors of the apostles and delegate that authority to priests. That is real authority separate from any personal flaws.

            You want it for yourself, but don’t realize that it cannot nihilistically taken by force.

          • Hmmm…

            Structure is not paramount. These men reap what they sow; that is spiritual law of God’s word and design. You need to learn the word, how his system works, and get in line with that rather than you, yourself going with something of your or man made origin. What God did not plant will be plucked up. God is long suffering, but for the sake of the people he loves, and whom real church leaders are called to serve, they must be Godly in performance of their charge. Many of these leaders are actually predators, wolves among the flock, tearing them. You are indeed ignorant of God’s word if you do not know his attitude toward such. Your charges toward me are just silly. Perhaps you cannot understand someone loving God and his word since you appear so man and position centered. Any church, anyone dealing in God’s things must put him first, love him and love what and whom he loves. They certainly shouild know what those are!

          • If you put God first, then why do you seek to usurp and tear down what God has established? So because you claim that you ambition is inspired by God, that God has to just go along with whatever you desire?

          • Hmmm…

            If men or a church or a group depart from God, then he can raise up others who will follow him. It happens all the time. Or he deals with them until they get it straight. You seem to have made the RCC God. I know you assert it is what he established and so it is somehow irrevocable. Show some verses in God’s Word where he says that? It’s time you backed up these wildfire claims with some solid word. Of course, you can’t …

          • So your argument is that God (who is at the head of the Church and has declared the Church indivisible) has now failed God, and now you are chosen to replace God as the head of the Church? Do I have that right.

            It is strange to claim that God wants you to take over when you realize what exactly God has said about the Church He personally founded. You are now claiming that the “God” you personally take orders from is opposed to God Himself who established the Church as His Bride and Mystical Body.

          • Hmmm…

            Please furnish scripture establishing your assertion that God has declared the Church indivisible. From there, the assertion that I have taken over has no founding or substantiation. There’s nothing said here by me to that effect. I do not believe any such silly thing and find it absurd. Again, what is your scriptural basis for the “indivisible” quality of the church, and what do you mean by that? And, do you consider the RCC alone to be “the church?”

          • There is no way you can take over, that is the joke. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, and you have 2000 years of history to attest to that.

            The Miracles at the Battle of Lepanto, Gates of Vienna, Maret, etc all prove that.

            The Miracles at Czestochowa, Vistula, and against the nazi occupation of Poland prove that even more, as there was not even a defense when the armies against the Church were miraculously defeated.

            What I said is that you WANTED to do it, and convinced yourself that you could. Not that you had any chance of doing it.

            As for the Church being the Church, yes. Outside of heresies that pretended to be a replacement for the Church, there has only ever been One True Faith.

          • Hmmm…

            How are you qualified to say what I want to do, or know that I convinced myself of anything. Telling someone what they mean, think and intend is quite manipulative and invalid. You have not referenced or provided your scriptural basis for the church’s indivisibility. Thank you

          • I can read your posts. You have certianly sent me one for every message in this thread. Everytime I reply I get sent another, so it is not like I have a lack of evidence.

            Also I did. God declared that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” A direct quote.

            I also gave real world examples of it in action. Are you saying reality doesn’t matter?

          • Hmmm…

            “What I said is that you WANTED to do it, and convinced yourself that you could. Not that you had any chance of doing it.”
            This is your telling me what I want to do, or know, etc. Please state how you are qualified to do so. Please provide the posts here establishing what you allege above.

            My posts sends are a new topic, just introduced in this latest reply. And I have not ” sent me one for every message in this thread.” I can read the thread as well and see many posts here I have not answered. It is a matter of record for others to validate as well. Another bogus insert.

            Now, how does “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” equate with the church being “indivisible,” and what exactly do you mean by that word? (BTW, I know you are new to scriptural quotation, but it is customary to give chapter and verse.)

            I also asked you if you consider the RCC to be the church alone? In other words, do you deny the validity of other denominations as being part of the church?

          • No, you have replied to every one of my messages. You haven’t given anyone else this treatment.

            Are you also saying you have never heard the sentence “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it?”

            The Church being indivisible means that the Church cannot contradict itself. Therefore the Church cannot be wrong, as God cannot be wrong nor can the truth be wrong; and the Church is founded/headed by God and is based in truth.

            And yes, the Church is the Church alone. heresies and schisms are just that, heresies and schisms. Especially the exponentially-increasing “denominations” of the “shattered apostasy” (also called the prot heresy).

          • Hmmm…

            No, you said: ” sent me one for every message in this thread.” I have not done that. Please read and be accurate.

            The first petra is small stone or pebble. The second, “upon this rock” is large stone, boulder. Jesus did not build his church on Peter the pebble.

            “The Church being indivisible means that the Church cannot contradict itself. Therefore the Church cannot be wrong, as God cannot be wrong nor can the truth be wrong; …” What verse states this cannot be wrong? Does your “as God cannot be wrong” equate the church with God?

            Not only can you not substantiate that the RCC is the only church, but many could make a case that it is NOT even a part of the actual church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

          • Yes, every one of my messages. This detraction is as silly as trying to make St Peter seem small as if if you pretend he is small then you can pretend to be bigger.

            St Peter’s (English, male) actual given name was Cephas (Hebrew, male), the Greek equivalent is Petrus (Greek, male) not Petra (Greek, female). So now you are not only mixing languages, but masculine and feminine.

            Similarly, the Church being the Church is shown by Apostolic Succession and history as well as reason. Minimizing the Church to assert your heresy is about as sane as trying to minimize St Peter to claim the real rock of the Church is small and feminine like you.

            Reason:

            God is indivisible, truth is indivisible; therefore the Church founded by God and headed by God, and founded upon the truth, is also indivisible.

            Scripture:

            Your name is Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

          • Hmmm…

            You stated every message in the thread. That would include others’ as well. I did not respond to every message in the thread.
            I do not try to make Peter small and do not pretend he is as you assert, and your conclusion that your false premises conclude another false premise that I pretend to be bigger is erroneous. That is rather childish communication. It is false attribution, lying.

            I gave you Strong’s words for the Greek words used in the passage and their variable meanings. You chose to ignore that and pose something entirely different, then, again, giving false attribution to me for flaws in your product. It was an irrelevant example as well.

            Your reason and scripture models are farcical, your own words in the former case and the scripture not giving any support to your premise whatsoever.

            Clearly, you are not often called upon to validate your attributions, as you do not even know how to do so properly. One problem you appear to have is that there is actually no validation for your assertions. You just assert absurdities and claim pretenses as fact. You certainly do not demonstrate a regard for what God himself has said and indicated throughout his Word.

          • No, you responded to every one of MY messages. Not all of them, you had no responses for a few.

            Moreover “nuh uh,” is not an argument. I think we’re done here.

          • Hmmm…

            Wise conclusion under the circumstances.

          • No, no panel at all. Power corrupts.

            Are you saying that the office of these Bishops are not sufficient? As if God Himself made a mistake and you know better?

            Try not to join luther in getting nails driven into his forehead for eternity.

          • Bryan

            It is a given that power corrupts, yet God gave some men to be in authority and to wield power. The Pope has power, but even he can be corrupted. Or believers can be deceived and can elect a man who is not worthy of being Pope. I’m not saying I know better than God. I’m saying that men can be deceived. Men are fallen and can be corrupted. David, a man after God’s own heart, Solomon, his son, were corrupted by their power and other influences and committed many sins. The Church has history with this corruption as well. It is not exempt.
            It seems that your solution is to let God sort it out. Certainly God could strike down any person with homosexual leanings within the priesthood and then the Church would be left with… what? Less egregious sinners as leaders and many holes to be filled? If that’s God’s way to deal with this particular event, that would certainly be spectacular and get the eye of many people. But that doesn’t seem likely to be the solution God uses.

          • So the pope isn’t worthy because you say so? Or because some whisper in your ear said so? Either way, seek deliverance or possibly exorcism.

            The Church is headed by God. You don’t know this as you have grown up your whole life in a heresy crafted in the 1500’s to assert a totalitarian German government over the Church.

            By saying the Church is corruptible, you are using “words of traitors or third‐rate lies of dishonest historians” against God who declared the Church He is the head of as “indivisible.” You therefore are saying that God made a mistake and therefore that God is unreliable. You make these claims because you have spent decades of your life referring to your own ego and internal desires as “the Holy Spirit.”

            By saying the Church is corrupt, you are saying that God is corrupt. Therefore you want to reorder the Church to a man-centered eschaton just like your heresy.

            To quote the Blessed Lord: “get behind me, satan.” I would suggest reading a book like “Bearing False Witness” or “Why Catholics Eat Fish on Fridays?” or “The Great Heresies” before you persist in blaspheming, but your protestantism will not survive the assault.

          • Bryan

            God is incorruptible. Man is not. God uses men to accomplish his purpose for the Earth until He decides it is the end of time. But it is not because men, even men of the Church, are good, perfect, or worthy.
            God was the head of the Israelite nation during the judges and the kings. Were any of those men and women perfect? No Pope since Christ has been perfect either. Peter was admonished by Paul. Paul despaired at times. Do you think the Pope doesn’t have sins to confess on a daily basis?
            I have in no way disparaged God or impugned His character by saying Man is evil. Even saved saints continue to sin, sometimes seriously. God, in His mercy will forgive, but many times he allows the natural consequences of our actions play out. In this case, Cardinal McCarrick can be forgiven and even healed, but he certainly could not remain in his office.
            No one has so far advocated for a revolution of the type you are ascribing to the articles author or anyone else who has dialogued with you. Honestly, I have no desire to see a Catholic Revolution. It would be counterproductive. It would weaken the Church’s witness. It would be slap in the face of Christ. What is being sought is a restoration of the officers of the Church who have erred in the sin of homosexuality or by allowing it to fester within the officers of the Church. Restoration and redemption are the goal, not revolution. Even if revolution is the goal of some, it is not of the ones here based on the comments so far.

          • You have disparaged God by claiming the Church is divisible and headed by men. No, the Church is indivisible and headed by God.

            The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ. Take your post, replace every instance of Church for “Mystical Body of Christ” and “Bride of Christ” and that is what you sound like to a guy who actually knows what he is talking about. It is not a pretty picture.

            Secondly, you see it fit to even blaspheme the saints. Saints are those in Heaven. So people continue to sin in Heaven? That is what you are saying.

            Unless you are saying that you and other prots self-describe as “saints,” which is an entirely different form of (even worse) blasphemy. The first statement (that saints sin in Heaven) is just absurd, that you claim you are already Saint by your own self-righteousness is outright diabolic.

          • Bryan

            Your first point is not much of a point at all. And not because the Church isn’t worthy, isn’t important, or whatever other conspiracy you wish to condemn me of.
            Your second point takes what I wrote and adds absurdity to come up with people sinning in heaven. That is your conclusion. That is not even close to what I wrote. Even if you only take your limited view of the saints, none of them were by any means perfect while on this earth. Certainly they were justified before God but they, like all of us, worked out their sanctification by the Spirit at work in them. They never achieved perfection in this life. If you choose not to see that then there isn’t much hope for any form of reason going forth.
            You seem to not even be concerned about the issue at hand, the Bishops, Cardinals and other officers of the Church who have fallen into the sin of homosexuality or who have, by their action or inaction, enabled these men. Did you forget that that was the start of the whole conversation?

          • No, it is a point. Take all of your blasphemous statements against the Church and replace every word of “Church” with “Mystical Body of Christ” or “Bride of Christ” to see what I see when I read your posts. If you do that (and you seem to be scared to do that), even you will see what I mean about what you are saying.

            You said, and I directly quote:

            Even saved saints continue to sin, sometimes seriously.

            A saint is someone in Heaven, FULL STOP. Now since a saint is someone in Heaven, replace “Saint” with “someone in heaven” in your statement and you get:

            Even saved someone in Heaven continues to sin, sometimes seriously

            See how bad that looks? Either you are committing blasphemy by claiming people sin in Heaven, or you are committing an even worse blasphemy by saying you are already in Heaven and just waiting to be let in.

          • Kevin Quillen

            “A saint is someone in Heaven, FULL STOP. Now since a saint is someone in Heaven”
            Philippians 1:1 “To all the SAINTS in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons”
            Saints in Philippi? How could this be? I thought they were in Heaven. You would serve your “church” better by just shutting up.

          • Saints mean those who are set apart, but it also refers to servants. Specifically it refers to those in Heaven.

            In proper Catholic Bibles, the word there is servant.

            The mistranslation there is purposeful, as it diabolically declares that you are accepted into Heaven upon mere “knowing” that you are. Once more echoing crowley’s statement that he has usurped God and therefore can no longer be held accountable by God; this is what you live by.

          • Bryan

            Do you now have anything to add to our conversation about what started this: Namely, the issue of the homosexual Bishops, Cardinals, and other officers of the Catholic Church who have fallen into the sin of homosexuality or who have, by their action or inaction, enabled these men? You’ve said in essence that the office should take care of this. However, it seems clear that the office has not done so and is either incapable or unwilling to do so at this time. If the office won’t keep it’s ministers in check, what is the next recourse?

          • Fallen in? They were purposely put in by the kgb and various communist parties in the world from 1920 to 1950 and then changed seminaries once they were bishops.

            I know more about this than you, and that is being kind. I am also not a fool in thinking witch hunts are effective.

            The office of the Bishop protects the Church from wrongdoing as they still have Apostolic Succession and are still valid to a point. Once these plants die off, there will be little remnant of their mission.

            God is in control here, by pride you hunger for control.

          • Bryan

            So realistically most of the plants should die off in a few years, 10 years at most right? So by waiting them out, the Church will be rid of the homosexuals from the ranks of its officers?
            I have to hand it to you, that is one way to solve the problem without what you’ve termed as a “revolution”.

          • Kevin Quillen

            Do you realize the irony of your position? Probably not.

          • What would that irony be? A petty deflection out of despair to hide your power hunger?

          • Starlord616

            I hate to break it to you but Luther was right because power corrupts. In any large organization there is going be corruption. The Vatican is far from being a immune to that. I heard stories about priest having big houses that got from people leaving money to the church.

          • Chip Crawford

            Time does not permit and only eternity will reveal the extent of the corruption on every level. When God is pushed out of a group in favor of greed and acquisition, power and control, the devil is given place which he immediately assumes and kicks it all up a notch. However, the Holy Spirit never stops drawing hearts open to God and works within where he is able. May the genuine hearts in the midst of the cesspool be guarded and guided, either out altogether or into places where they can exert (actually introduce) Godly influence.

          • Starlord616

            I agree with you.

          • It’s the mark of the beast devil worshipper again. Why are you here? To advocate for your master’s will and justify any attack on the Church?

            luther was a drunk rapist heretic who was the propaganda minister for for the German government to make people worship the government as it was turning into an empire.

            That power corrupts is Lord Acton, not luther. Case in point, your devilry and delusion that you will get power for trading your will (you can’t actually sell your soul for various reasons).

            I am sure half-remembered things you have heard are quite damning, but I will suggest you read a book called “Bearing False Witness” by Rodney Stark.

          • Starlord616

            I’m far from perfect but I would never think of selling my soul. I am a God fearing person. I was actually inspited after listening to Walter Martin. He was one of theologian greats in the 20th century. I would recommend that you listen to his book the kingdom of the cults. You can find it on YouTube. I fear that we are in a time of crisis like how it was in 1930s in Europe.

          • Why is the number of the beast in your profile?

          • Starlord616

            I just picked that number to see who would notice it .

          • Anyone fall for that excuse?

          • Starlord616

            I give you credit for knowing about that number. But I’m telling you the truth. I have always liked picking obscure stuff my screen names.

          • “Obscure” as in occult?

          • Starlord616

            Nope I love studying history and religion . I can tell that you’re British or you are a Anglo -phile

          • Again, who are you fooling?

          • Starlord616

            You fool yourself more than I could ever do.

          • For the last time, your name includes the number of the beast.

          • Lisa

            At Willow Creek Church this week, the pastors and elders all resigned because of guilt by association with Bill Hybels. Godly people will give up power if it helps the church survive.

          • Chip Crawford

            Yes, Godly people … It sadly appears (and has for centuries) that bishops and such no longer have time for and/or hold themselves above what is Godly. Sadly, history reveals the descent on that path of less of God and more of their own entitlements and aggrandizements.

          • You mean at a random heretic gathering, they disbanded because they had no divine protection.

            The Church has Apostolic Succession, which is something you serve your dark master in wanting abolished.

          • Chip Crawford

            Your stumbling block is buying into the lie of infallibility and “divine right” sort of thing. You mistake the office with the person as one part of the error. Of course, I know you are taught that, but you become the lemming to go along with that hoax. The NT is full of admonitions and guidelines for ministers’ SERVICE to the flock. The RCC revisionists frown on those parts, since they are all about FLEECING the flock.

            Your bishops are required by God to live up to his requirements for ministry and will give account to Jesus on the day of judgment, Meanwhile, they are reaping what they sow. They have REQUIREMENTS not ENTITLEMENTS. The qualifications and requirements are thusly:
            1 Timothy 3:
            1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
            2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
            3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
            4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
            5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
            6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
            7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

            Your persuasion of the office itself governing and regulating a man is bogus, self-serving and an ill conceived (not by God) notion. God teaches believers to act in Jesus’ stead on this earth, endowing them with spiritual authority (which they must take up). Ministers are charged to equip Christians for the work of the ministry. Most Catholics are so grossly untaught on these points, they, including you, mistake them for power grabs. You prefer the more effortless glorification of “offices” and so forth, the magical endowment. God never operated that way and never will. If you knew him, his ways or his true word, you would not be so vulnerable to these false teachings.

          • No, you are mistaking the office with the person. Who a bishop is or what he does is meaningless as the power of a Bishop and therefore the Priests they consecrate is in Christ and not in themselves.

            The idea that it depends on themselves is the donatist heresy. Seems that protestantism is a mix of all the heresies that came before 1500, and in many cases all the ones that came after it too,

          • Chip Crawford

            You are unregenerate and in the throes of the devil’s manipulation. Unless you repent and receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you will NOT see God. Setting aside God’s word, design and plan in favor of men’s ideas you cite and doctrines of demons is damnable. Repent and escape the flames of HELL blazing in your path.

          • Projection of this kind is a mortal sin. Did I go over that already?

          • Chip Crawford

            I am not projecting. I received the Lord Jesus as my personal savior decades ago, as did other members of my family. We have walked with the Lord ever since. By this time, we have a working knowledge of his word that he gave to settle with finality all matters of dispute. There is no mortal sin. That is a doctrine of demons. Your last question is the type of arrogance that goes with deception and being apart from the Father God. May you humble yourself before the living God and receive his forgiveness, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.

          • If you blaspheme this much, and are so assured of your own salvation, then it is not Christ you received.

          • Chip Crawford

            H–o–w pitiful is this … Considering assurance of salvation to be blasphemy …

            You have a mean religion sir. Jesus is peace and assurance, the savior. The Gospel is called Good News starting with that reason.

          • It is absolutely blasphemous as it assumes the forgiveness of God, implying he is a fool who serves you as a servant.

          • Chip Crawford

            You are merely ignorant of God’s provision. No one need assume anything about God’s ways and deeds. His word reveals them should you care to actually read his provision and plan.

            1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
            Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
            1 John 1:9 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

          • You assume salvation to the point of calling yourself a saint.

            Insulting God by assuming automatic forgiveness is textbook blasphemy, and precludes all future forgiveness.

          • Chip Crawford

            Get out of the textbooks and get into God’s Word.

            God is honored when one believes his word and takes him up on his offer of salvation. It is why he gave his Son for us and his word and the Holy Spirit, and so much more, all revealed in his word.
            I have not however mentioned the word “saint,” but the Bible calls a born again person a saint.

            When it comes to a wide, wide gap between the ruminations of an infidel and the living, breathing word of the living, breathing God, I’ll go with God and his word every time. Add to that years of walking with him in nothing less than a love affair and adventure.

          • God is not honored when you assume that He is your slave. How can you not see that taking his gifts for granted is insulting?

          • Chip Crawford

            Don’t tell me what God is to me and what I am to him. You are not qualified to do so. He has made himself available. Stop playing the fool by not taking him up on it. THAT is an insult to so great provision made for you.

            Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

            What is provided by grace must be accessed by faith. I have taken God up on his offer. If you have not, don’t come around griping to me with your whiny, phony, dead religion.

            Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine
            heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

          • The Church is, and so is reason.

          • GaryLockhart

            “But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without
            works is dead.” James 2:20

          • Chip Crawford

            That would be corresponding action, not earning salvation. The corresponding action for salvation is to “confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus.” Then: ” For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” The scripture is plain here in its two functions. If you don’t act on the word, it is not activated. Before the James verse, it states that the devils believe also, but they don’t act on God’s promises. It is not about earning salvation by good works, trying to stack up enough, hoping when you die that you have more good works than bad works. Grace is a huge word and it nullifies that notion. Jesus paid the price in our stead, to earn our salvation. Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

          • GaryLockhart

            “Considering assurance of salvation to be blasphemy …”

            Arrogantly invoking the false doctrine of once saved always saved proves how shallow your faith is. Sad.

            “Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall.” 1 Corinthians 10:12

            “Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.” Philippians 2:12

          • Chip Crawford

            Playing leapfrog with someone’s words is dishonest. Playing with the word of God is worse, but it is now clear you are not a student of it, but more invested in moldy old writings of other lost, unsaved and errant men. I do Not hold the once-saved, always-saved interpretation. Just as one must deliberately choose to obey God’s word concerning salvation to receive it, they have to deliberately choose to undo those words of agreement and renounce their commitment. That’s very hard to do.

            The verses you cite are not on point. I’ll address them if you like, but they do not make your “case.” The matter runs deeper. The BLOOD OF JESUS has been shed! He’s made a way that he makes salvation available to whosoever will receive his sacrifice in their stead. What has been provided by grace must be received by faith. One must take him up on his offer, receive it. I can tell you from experience that passing from death to life, having a new heart and being regenerated in the inner man are very, very real. It’s the greatest miracle. I do not want out! No, Jesus did the work; he paid the price, took out place. These are matters to write books about and study with zeal. Man didn’t give this and man can’t take it away. As for me, I don’t want out. I celebrate my salvation and redemption and continue to renew my mind in God’s word every day.

            Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

          • GaryLockhart

            “There is no mortal sin. That is a doctrine of demons.”

            Scripture contradicts you.

          • GaryLockhart

            The correct translation of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is below. As a celibate Bishop himself, St. Paul did not mandate that a Bishop “must” be married. His instruction to Timothy is that if Timothy were to choose a married man, he could only have been married once.

            “A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” 1 Timothy 3:1-7

            St. Paul also wrote the following which you more than likely have never read, or more accurately, have never had read to you.

            “But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit: not to cast a snare upon you; but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment.” 1 Corinthians 7:32-35

          • Chip Crawford

            You, sir, give every indication of being a card carrying Pharisee. Your denigrating attitude and distraction with man’s thoughts and devices reveal the bereft quotient of God’s spirit life within you. As much as a dead spirit can interpret the things of God, you mainly use them to fit your pride and your organization’s motivations, rather than going to God to find what he would say about it. Paul went on to say that was his idea but he thought he had the spirit of God on the matter. He also stated the present distress, the horrendous persecution going on at the time. There was also the factor that they thought the return of Jesus was any day. Context has much to do with the applicability of God’s word. He also said those words to the flock in general and not to the leaders in particular. New Testament believers are all priests before God. Those playing with God’s word, as many in your group have done wholesale for their own ends, who never give God a millisecond of time, mainly because they do not know him and their mindset and lifestyle are opposed to him, are simply not to be trusted. Thankfully there are many Catholics who do know and love the Lord, give him their honor and devotion and fellowship with him as lifestyle. May we all come to the unity of the Spirit, and may your soul be saved in the day of judgment.

      • Hmmm…

        Source of your information please.

        • Dozens of articles over the past few weeks from trads asking for bishops to be removed, even for all bishops to be removed to destroy Apostaloc Succession. Now we have this talking head advocating for an “accountability council” of laity over the bishops?

          This is a bald-faced attempt at a coup.

          • Hmmm…

            Merciful heavens! Has the UN been alerted to all of these nefarious goings on??? Why, just consider: dozens, you say, of Articles!! Trads involved, oh no! Possible destruction of the Apostate Successsion!! Someone asking for “accountability,” the nerve of them! Laity, those plebes daring to raise their heads!!! a Coup, no less. Everyone grab your smelling salts! Bar the doors. Man the lifeboats!! Sound the air raid sirens!!!

          • Thank you for proving my point by calling the authority of the Church that allows the Sacraments as “apostate succession.”

          • Hmmm…

            Oh do go put your overheated head in a cool bucket of water and stop pontificating all over the place. You are in danger of playing the fool here, if it’s not already too late.

          • Why are you frantically replying to all my messages as if as a distraction?

          • Hmmm…

            You are the fevered one here, dear.

    • tz1

      If you are running a 105F fever and it is going up, you will be brain dead if the “symptom” isn’t addressed through ordinary methods.

      Make sure the patient lives and is not maimed, then address the root cause.

      The Spritual problem is not new. See St. Philip Damien’s “Book of Gomorrah” – someone should do a freely available translation.

  • Zeke Clinton

    Conduct the investigation but don’t take action until we have another Pope. It wouldn’t do for Francis to fill all the resulting vacancies.

    • givelifeachance2

      This is the elephant in the room. We wouldn’t need a commission if we had a pope who was capable of”judging”.

  • tz1

    The error is that of diversity. Are you also going to have a quota based on race and other things?

    The abuse panel should be 90 percent lay, with a fair representation of Catholic mothers of sons.
    It must include at least 20 percent sex abuse victims — people who filed complaints that were found to have merit, or resulted in legal settlements against priests.
    Any final document should require the sign-off of two thirds of the victim members on the panel. In other words, they can’t be window-dressing. They should wield a veto.

    While I understand the idea, it is like requiring a black lesbian accused of a crime be tried by a black lesbian judge.

    Why can we not simply seek the most just, fairest, least biased we can find, as well as the most smart, diligent, and persistent at seeking evidence?

    That said, the US Government gives BILLIONS to Catholic charities and things like refugee relief services ($100m/yr) so they don’t need your STEENKING offertories.

    Send them to your local crisis pregnancy clinics. Ireland has no snakes, and Wyoming has no Abortion clinics (nor ACLU!), but part of it is Serenity crisis pregnancy centers with ultrasounds.

    Or just freaking help the next victim you find on the road like “The Good Samaritan” did after praying – but not too long – for discernment. If your next door neighboor is suffering, and you are sending cash to Zimbabwe, you are doing what Charles Dicken’s called “Telescopic Philanthropy” (bleak house).

    (I don’t expect the Yellowstone supervolcano to erupt except in a rapture-armageddon like event, but am far less sure about Mt. Ranier or the various left coast earthquake faults, or LaPalma out east).

    • Because the idea is ultimately absurd and marxist in origin. Why else would it contain a version of the “progressive stack?”

      If one is so faithless and insulting to God as being in charge as the founder/head of the Church to claim a worldly council (no doubt staffed by the writer of this article at the helm) can be placed above the Apostolic authority of the Church, why not go all the way into leftist, neocon nonsense?

      This is little different than the devil claiming God was mistaken for creating humanity and then declaring that he would “build his throne above the heavens.”

  • Mario Cataldo

    Do we have enough orthodox bishop-capable priests to replace the vast majority of those who will have to resign when this all comes out? Because that is the only way this is going to get cleaned up once there is any indication of foul play — followed by the resignation or laicization of homosexual priests under them. This will shrink the church, close parishes, possibly merge dioceses for lack of a bishop, but the cleansing would be thorough and the church would be smaller but stronger as Benedict XVI predicted. I’ll tell you one thing, we would start getting real life-transforming homilies and solid food at Mass for the first time in say 60 years. We have nothing to lose as we are going to contract regardless, because the current apostasy in the church is by its very nature self-demolishing.

  • Craig Roberts

    It’s official. Hell’s not hot enough and eternity is not long enough.

  • Kevin Quillen

    Perhaps if Priests could marry. So, why can’t they? What is the scripture to base this on?

    • James

      It is a discipline and not a command of God. The Eastern rites have always had married priests and the Latin rite will validate the orders of married Anglican priests. It comes from Paul’s opinion that it is better to be unmarried so that one can better serve the Lord.

      If married men could be priests, they would be a lot fewer gay incidents, but then we’d hear about the all ones who were cheating on their wives. Protestants should know better than to suggest that marriage is a cure for sexual misconduct.

      • Chip Crawford

        And Catholics should know that by the time the decision came to require celibacy in priests, they cared little for the “sayings” of Paul, except where convenient. The great ill of esteeming their own thoughts and councils above the word of God had already taken root. The exception would of course be their gratuitous additions to it.

        • GaryLockhart

          Incorrect. Rather than parrot urban legends do yourself a favor and get edified by a deliberate reading of “The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy” by Christian Cochini. Unless of course you enjoy coming across as just another ignorant fool.

          • Chip Crawford

            Repent and believe the Gospel; find God and cease to do the devil’s bidding

          • GaryLockhart

            Believe the corrupted, heavily abridged and edited version of Scripture that people like you rely on which didn’t see the light of day until over 12 centuries after the Canon had been closed by Pope St. Innocent I in 405 AD? No thanks.

          • Chip Crawford

            The Gospel is the good news of God’s redemption plan in Jesus
            Come as a child (humbly and trusting) and he will receive you
            As opposed to being heady, high minded, buying into the tower of Babel built out of early “Fathers'” rebellion. God is never limited to man’s actions. While keeping his hand extended should they choose to come back to him and others come for the first time, he continues to work through those who will allow him to, who did not yield to the devil and the pressures of the flesh, but love him and receive his lordship

          • Kathy

            Looks like I’m a member of your fan club, but just agree with the majority of everything you are posting.

          • Chip Crawford

            Likewise. Feel free to raise issue, make comments.

          • Chip Crawford

            Jesus reacted very harshly to process over people. It’s not God’s way.

          • Kathy

            Sorry, not sure exactly what you mean.

          • Chip Crawford

            The Gospel is the good news of God’s redemption plan in Jesus
            Come as a child (humbly and trusting) and he will receive you
            As opposed to being heady, high minded, buying into the tower of Babel built out of early “Fathers'” rebellion. God is never limited to man’s actions. While keeping his hand extended should they choose to come back to him and others come for the first time, he continues to work through those who will allow him to, who did not yield to the devil and the pressures of the flesh, but love him and receive his lordship

      • GaryLockhart

        “and the Latin rite will validate the orders of married Anglican priests.”

        Incorrect. Their is no validation of Anglican orders since Anglican orders are invalid. That is why married Anglican converts who seek ordination in the Latin Rite under the 1980 Pastoral Provision must have approval of the local Ordinary, undergo extensive theological training and agree that if their spouse precedes them in death they will adopt the discipline of celibacy for the remainder of their life.

    • Harry Callahan

      Or, if women could be priests? Seeing how so many seminaries are shrinking, it won’t be long until there aren’t enough men to provide pastoral leadership….the church will be forced to ordain women……

      • GaryLockhart

        Never happen. As then Pope John Paul II declared definitively on 22 May 1994 in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

        “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which
        pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

        • Harry Callahan

          When the only men interested in becoming priests are homosexual, then what?

      • LawProf61

        Where women become “priests,” we get sermons on how “abortion is a blessing.” (See, e.g., Katherine Ragsdale, former head of the Episcopal Divinity School.) No thank you. Married priests, fine.

      • Margaret

        NO.

    • GaryLockhart

      Once ordained a Priest may not marry and remain in the clerical state. However, 21 of the 22 Churches sui juris which comprise the Catholic Church, ordain, as a norm, married men. All 21 of those Churches have both a shortage of Priests and examples of intrinsically disordered sexual deviants masquerading as Priests.

      As for the discipline of celibacy for Priests in the Latin Rite, the Scriptural basis is the following.

      “Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.” Matthew 19:11-12

      “Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. And many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first.” Matthew 19:27-30

      “Then Peter said: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee. Who said to them: Amen, I say to you, there is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, Who shall not receive much more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.” Luke 18:28-30

      “But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit: not to cast a snare upon you; but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment.” 1 Corinthians 7:32-35

  • Chip Crawford

    What about the pedophilia? Are school children still being funneled from their classrooms over to the rectory by nuns or other teachers? Are seminary students still at high risk? Or are there no long any attending?

    • Diogenes71

      According to the exhausting report by John Jay Law School, there was very little pedophilia; less than 4%. It was homosexual men preying on post-pubescent males. Homosexual predators unable or unwilling to conrol themselves.

  • Jose Allen

    It will be a mistake to dwell on what has happened, what each of us think should be done, what alternatives like married clergy, women priests etc. should happen in the future. The present task is to rout out all of the corruption . Pope Benedict was probably sidelined for his determined efforts, spiritual, intellectual and physical to defeat the poison in the heart of the Church. Priests who knew too much and often said too much were ‘fingered’ as possible abusers, dismissed, warehoused and abandoned by the bishops and priests we now know are the real culprits. I live in a diocese that has had two good bishops (yes, we laity can sense who is good and who is bad) and we have at any one time about 30 plus ordinands. The diocese was cleaned up by a previous bishop in a quiet way but it took a while for the ‘Sixties Swingers ‘ in the priesthood, the religious and the ex priests and religious to move on (mostly towards their maker) , but his quiet work resulted in the appointment of an excellent bishop and then subsequently his successor, who have reformed the diocese. There is still much work, the evil one seeks any crevice in which he can hide,and there are a few crevices, still, but by and large Christ’s Church is winning at least in this diocese. Let us not dwell on issues of the past or batty issues like women priests (that ,in one fell swoop, killed off the mighty Church of England) but rather concentrate on Christ and his mission for us, just as Pope Benedict (our shining light in this dark and dangerous time ) wanted and implored us so to do.

    • Chip Crawford

      Not one word sourcing God … Astonishing. He’s given scant reference as the Maker …
      Hint, Hint: might just have something to do with your having the devil embedded instead

      • Jose Allen

        If that remark was addressed to me then it was cheap and nasty. The whole underlying concern by the laity is that Jesus is not being preached. We know where our redemption lies and it goes without saying that our concern is for the Faith. To suggest that we are not God centered is an insult , but from your site that is what I would expect.

        • Hmmm…

          Your group is so naturally oriented, so corporate laddered, you don’t even know the difference. You’ve added some Christ references to your paragraph after the previous comment. But it’s all about what you have to do and dependence on clergy. I’ve seen this all through, this equating your church with Christ or God. It is not the same and no amount of prickly retorts will show otherwise. If you want to get into a works program, which is something your group seems to understand, how about forming prayer groups and begin to learn to pray together, seeking God and rely upon him to bring an awakening to Him, with genuine salvations coming, Holy Spirit dealing. The cleansing will come along with effectual inspiration as to what God wants done instead of your trusty committees and panels, bandaids and such.

  • givelifeachance2

    This does not go far enough. The victims number in the billions with spiritual blood still gushing. We have to show the good men that it’s safe to come into the priesthood. So, ANNUL the “priesthood” of any homosexual. And demand that Humanae Vitae be preached at every single mass, every week, for fifty years. This latter is easily measured by big pewsitter and so can be implemented right away. No HV sermon, no check in the basket. Just a note explaining to which faithful charity it was diverted.

    • Poterion

      Overdone and fanatical!

  • dave in wmbg

    We must protect our children and teens. We cannot allow them to be alone with any deacons, priests, bishops or cardinals under any circumstances. It may be generations before we can trust our clergy with our young people.

    • Chip Crawford

      Really. The title leaves out the saving of the innocent flock from wicked and twisted leaders.

      That’s always been a feature of the RCC – hierarchical dominance instead of the Biblical ministering to God’s flock

      • Zmirak

        Saving church leaders from themselves means stopping them from sinning and exploiting people–not saving their credibility or their finances. That should be obvious to any fair-minded reader.

        • Chip Crawford

          Sorry you feel that unfair, but assuming the flock are included is not obvious. They continue to be given an unfair lack of consideration in all of this.

    • Poterion

      See how many vocations you get with your attitude.

  • Jose Allen

    Unfortunately people who like to bash Catholics are reading this column and comments too. I got some of the usual flames from people who seem to think that because we don’t mention God in every sentence we are beyond the pale. We must be careful that our dirty linen (not that we messed in it ourselves) is not washed in public. The enemies of The faith use any opportunity to destroy The Church. We have to discuss the problems, but either do it in private sites or accept that those outside The Church will take every opportunity to chastise us. Anyway, God be with Y’All, faithful Catholics.. as my daughter said “We survived the Borgias, we can survive this” !!

    • Chip Crawford

      The founder of this site is not a Catholic. If you have problems with sunlight and have to air your shadowy premises in a corner, then that should tell you something. Many on here know and seek to follow the Lord and his Word, the genuine article. The spurious and counterfeit definitely yield an outcry.

      “the Borgias” really? Please. Get over yourself.

    • Poterion

      Honestly, to check with the Church’s enemies…let them do their best, the gates of bell shall not prevail. This filth should not be hidden. It’s time for some chastisment. We deserve the protties coming after us. Look what our leaders have done

  • Poterion

    Bravo! Push for this type of review board, send the info to Rome and demand action if Rome Faith k s to act go to t h e press. Better the poison is cleaned out instead of left to pollute the body.

Inspiration
Don’t Let a Pit Become a Grave
James Robison
More from The Stream
Connect with Us