Originally posted by NemesioThe essential mission of the Church is to preach the Gospel. When priests or bishops fail to do that, that is what outrages me.
I did not put it in bold because it is hardly surprising. The priest has
the greatest likelihood of noticing the error since he is the one most
affected by it. That a priest was most likely to detect the theft doesn't
exclude that his brother priest was the thief (either because they were
working together in a pastor-curate situation or because the di ...[text shortened]... went empty.
This should outrage anybody but especially Roman Catholics.
Nemesio
As to the rest, I don't disagree. But, like ivanhoe, I see no reason why I should make a public show of outrage for what is an internal matter. Yes, financial safeguards are critical and should be in place and perhaps the pace of reforms in that area is too slow.
When I put money in the collection plate I don't do so with the expectation that it will go to feed some poor man or woman. I do so with the expectation that it might go to pay the heating bill for the priest, or maybe essential repairs for the church, or maybe the education of seminarians as well. If I want money to go specifically to the poor, there are other Church organisations like CAFOD and CARITAS that I can and do give to. Naturally I'm not putting money in so priests can take vacations with their girlfriends or boyfriends, or so they can go to Vegas and gamble it away.
Originally posted by NemesioContrary to the Marauder I do not call all of my opponents "hypocritical cowards". You Nemesio, deserve to be called that way.
Hello, no1marauder.
You are constantly trying to smeer the RC Church under the guise of "genuine" moral indignation. As I have understood the Church is your employer. Your whole attitude and the way you express yourself show some kind of conflict that you are struggling with. Maybe you want to settle some scores with Her this way. Your actions show aspects of revenge and resentment. Your whole attitude of "caring" for the Roman-Catholic Church is feigned and therefore extremely hypocritical.
In particular your frequent "well meant advice" for the Church brings your hypocrisy again and again to a whole new level.
I have to agree with Nemesio on this one. Far too many faithful place their badges in front of their hearts (or heads, for that matter). Imagine if we were talking about adminstrative policies of the US government instead of something as emotionally charged as organizational/denominational faith.
Even in that field of human experience (national alliances based upon citizenry), some will be subjective based upon their emotional attachment to their citizenry, while others are able to remain objective, despite their citizenship. What keeps the latter objective is a scale of values not dependent upon the object of their affection.
Nemesio is (in my opinion) expressing his outrage because of his love for what the Church should be.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHImagine if we were talking about adminstrative policies of the US government instead of something as emotionally charged as organizational/denominational faith.
I have to agree with Nemesio on this one. Far too many faithful place their badges in front of their hearts (or heads, for that matter). Imagine if we were talking about adminstrative policies of the US government instead of something as emotionally charged as organizational/denominational faith.
Even in that field of human experience (national alli ...[text shortened]... sio is (in my opinion) expressing his outrage because of his love for what the Church should be.
Now imagine a Frenchman asking an American why he doesn't show the French more outrage at such policies.
EDIT: For clarification, I'm not saying that the French do not have the right to or ought not to criticise US Govt administrative policies; or that non-Catholics shouldn't criticise the Church. I just find it quite absurd that someone from outside insists that I show him my outrage about internal matters.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFreaky: "Nemesio is (in my opinion) expressing his outrage because of his love for what the Church should be."
I have to agree with Nemesio on this one. Far too many faithful place their badges in front of their hearts (or heads, for that matter). Imagine if we were talking about adminstrative policies of the US government instead of something as emotionally charged as organizational/denominational faith.
Even in that field of human experience (national alli ...[text shortened]... sio is (in my opinion) expressing his outrage because of his love for what the Church should be.
".... his love for what the Church should be.
Your description is accurate ! ...... The Church should be dead and burried according to him ... well, not until he's found a job somewhere else ...
Originally posted by lucifershammerI believe the world should know of our outrage at the trespass of any unreasonable despot. The US is extremely vocal and upfront about our self-governance. Some would say too vocal and upfront but I would disagree. Any experiment worth undertaking should be open to all but the most sensitive inquiry.
[b]Imagine if we were talking about adminstrative policies of the US government instead of something as emotionally charged as organizational/denominational faith.
Now imagine a Frenchman asking an American why he doesn't show the French more outrage at such policies.
EDIT: For clarification, I'm not saying that the French do not have ...[text shortened]... d that someone from outside insists that I show him my outrage about internal matters.[/b]
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe Church should be dead and burried according to him ... well, not until he's found a job somewhere else ...
Freaky: "Nemesio is (in my opinion) expressing his outrage because of his love for what the Church should be."
".... his love for what the Church should be.
Your description is accurate ! ...... The Church should be dead and burried according to him ... well, not until he's found a job somewhere else ...
That's not something I've picked up in his posts. Perhaps I missed those statement, but it would nonetheless be incongruous with what posts of his I have read.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBeing open to inquiry is not the same thing as requiring everyone to be an open book. Being vocal within is not the same thing as being vocal without.
I believe the world should know of our outrage at the trespass of any unreasonable despot. The US is extremely vocal and upfront about our self-governance. Some would say too vocal and upfront but I would disagree. Any experiment worth undertaking should be open to all but the most sensitive inquiry.
If you are an American, the world has no right to demand that you show it your outrage at matters that are internal to the US. If you choose to do so, that's your decision and you're free to make it. An Englishman has no right to demand that you write to the Times expressing your dissatisfaction. Nor a Frenchman that you write to Le Monde.
Originally posted by lucifershammerBeing open to inquiry is not the same thing as requiring everyone to be an open book.
Being open to inquiry is not the same thing as requiring everyone to be an open book. Being vocal within is not the same thing as being vocal without.
If you are an American, the world has no right to demand that you show it your outrage at matters that are internal to the US. If you choose to do so, that's your decision and you're free to m ...[text shortened]... ]Times[/i] expressing your dissatisfaction. Nor a Frenchman that you write to Le Monde.
I disagree. We made our case for existence to the world, and our experiment was meant to be for the world. Such notice as was given, we are necessarily held to the standards by which we declared our independence. In such an open and honest evaluation, even our mortal enemies make us stronger.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBy your principle, every husband is obliged to share with you, a complete stranger, what he really thinks about his wife or his in-laws.
[b]Being open to inquiry is not the same thing as requiring everyone to be an open book.
I disagree. We made our case for existence to the world, and our experiment was meant to be for the world. Such notice as was given, we are necessarily held to the standards by which we declared our independence. In such an open and honest evaluation, even our mortal enemies make us stronger.[/b]
Correct?
Surely it would only make his family stronger.
Originally posted by lucifershammer
The essential mission of the Church is to preach the Gospel. When priests or bishops fail to do that, that is what outrages me.
The Roman Catholic Church, especially (and to Her credit) emphasizes the Living Gospel, or
preaching the Gospel with our words and our lives. And, most significantly, the Church
emphasizes the notion of 'self as sacrament,' that as Jesus gave His life for others, so too must
the faithful give their lives as testimony.
Preaching an Orthodox sermon and ignoring profound theft from the Church coffers which feed the
hungry is meaningless -- not all who say 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven. No,
when the Church turns a blind eye to the hungry Christ, the thirsty Christ, the imprisoned Christ, the
naked Christ, and the sick Christ, the Church is, most certainly and unequivocally not preaching
the Gospel.
As to the rest, I don't disagree. But, like ivanhoe, I see no reason why I should make a public show of outrage for what is an internal matter. Yes, financial safeguards are critical and should be in place and perhaps the pace of reforms in that area is too slow.
It is this tacit acceptance which permits it to continue. A church (or Church) which does not
use its offerings and tithes responsibly is not preaching the Gospel.
When I put money in the collection plate I don't do so with the expectation that it will go to feed some poor man or woman. I do so with the expectation that it might go to pay the heating bill for the priest, or maybe essential repairs for the church, or maybe the education of seminarians as well. If I want money to go specifically to the poor, there are other Church organisations like CAFOD and CARITAS that I can and do give to. Naturally I'm not putting money in so priests can take vacations with their girlfriends or boyfriends, or so they can go to Vegas and gamble it away.
Well, I don't know what kind of church you go to, but at the parish in which I work, all the
bills get paid, all the school repairs get done, and we still manage to shuffle a pretty penny off to
local charities. When the Offering runs a little short, the bills still get paid, and the school repairs
still get done, but the charities get less or none at all.
And, at least in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, there have been a rash of closings of old and beautiful
buildings, some which make me tear just to think of. These buildings were closed because both the
parish and the Diocese were unable to maintain them. Now, this particular diocese has been an
especially well-guarded one with excellent measures in place to safeguard against theft (a model
for the other 180-something dioceses around the country, I am made to understand), but I have to
wonder: if what could be millions or even 10s of millions of lost, wasted, stolen money had been
retained by measures put in place by the least savvy mom-and-pop businesses, would some of
these churches still be opened? Would the faithful have been less frustrated with the lackadaisical
attitude the USCCB has taken on this widespread issue and thus remained in the pews?
Nemesio
