Doctor Cleveland's picture

    Patrick Kennedy's Orders from the Vatican and the Abuse Scandal

    The Bishop of Rhode Island has told Congressman Patrick Kennedy not to take Communion at Mass any more. They are now publicly feuding about whether or not the bishop ordered his priests not to give it to him. Forty-nine years after JFK promised not to take orders from the Church hierarchy, that hierarchy is sanctioning his nephew for not taking orders. The nominal issue is abortion. The underlying issue is the Church's sexual abuse scandal.

    It's no accident that the vogue for Catholic bishops denying American Catholic politicians Communion, or announcing publicly that Catholic politicians should not take Communion, began in 2004, during the first national election after the abuse scandal came to light in the Archdiocese of Boston during 2002 and 2003. Nor is it any accident that the first major target of ecclesiastical ire, Senator and then-Presidential-candidate John Kerry, was from the Boston Archdiocese, where the . It might seem strange that the Catholic hierarchy would decide to strike the tone of moral condemnation shortly after epic revelations of child abuse and serial coverups, but at least some of the hierarchy reputedly came away from the national scandal furious that the Church had not been given more political cover by Catholic politicians. And the fall of Bernard Cardinal Law, who has since risen again in Rome, seems to be regarded by at least some bishops as a grievance.

    To be fair, the Church has put some needed and belated reforms in place, as a safeguard against future child abuse. But those reforms do not extend to the mindset of the Catholic magisterium, which is very much a top-down, self-replicating hierarchy, and which has become far more traditionalist and far more centrally controlled during the Papcies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. (John Paul served so long that most Catholic bishops, and virtually all of the power players, were appointed or advanced by him, and reflect his own conservative and hierarchical mindset.) They certainly don't want anything like the scandal to happen again, and of course think child molestation is terrible. But the idea that their own autocratic approach to leadership, their lofty unaccountability, might be near the root of the problem is beyond them. The tacit principle that the bishops are to judge and not to be judged is deeply embedded in the institutional culture of the current Church. They mourn the suffering of the victims, but are still far from anything like insitutional humility or repentance.

    This can be gleaned from the pattern of high-profile Church promotions since 2003, in which bishops who were fairly unresponsive to the abuse victims have been advanced, and many who were sympathetic to the victims have not. The most glaring example is Bernard Cardinal Law, leader of the conservatives among the American bishops, who presided over Boston's pervasive enabling of sexual predators and was forced to resign in 2002. In 2004, just before some American bishops decided John Kerry wasn't fit to take Communion, Law was appointed to a lucrative and prestigious sinecure in Rome (as cardinal archpriest of a basilica), and given even more administrative power in the Vatican than he had held before. In 2005, during the election of Benedict as Pope, someone apparently cast a vote for Law. As in, a vote for Law to be Pope. It came on the last ballot, when the winner was clear, and was therefore a strictly a symbolic vote. But since Cardinals may not vote for themselves, the symbolic gesture was not Law's own. (But could easily have been a gesture by Benedict XVI himself, who could only vote symbolically by the same rule.)

    If Benedict and his Vatican have been warm and forgiving toward Bernard Law, they have been just the reverse to the Boston Catholic politicians who preferred the law rather than Law, and most of all to the Kennedys. Benedict was notably chilly after Ted Kennedy's death. And in 2005 the Vatican even took the spiteful step of overturning Joe Kennedy's annulment, granted in 1996. (This doesn't affect the legality of Kennedy's second marriage, which is governed by civil rather than canon law, and so late after his remarriage it's primarily a symbol of displeasure.) Time magazine even allowed one Vatican official to trash Ted K anonymously after the funeral:

    One veteran official at the Vatican, of U.S. nationality, expressed the view of many conservatives about the Kennedy clan's rapport with the Catholic Church: "Why would he even write a letter to the Pope? The Kennedys have always been defiantly in opposition to the Roman Catholic magisterium." (Magisterium is the formal term for the authority of Church teaching.)


    "Here in Rome, Ted Kennedy is nobody. He's a legend with his own constituency," says the Vatican official. "If he had influence in the past, it was only with the Archdiocese of Boston, and that eventually disappeared too."

    Of course, the idea that Catholic politicians could protect the hierarchy from the abuse scandal is deeply unrealistic. Any elected official who seemed to sympathize with the coverup, even remotely, would be political toast. But it's only slightly more realistic to insist that pro-choice politicians, elected by pro-choice voters, abandon their supporters because a bishop told them to. But abortion isn't the whole story here. The point is for Patrick Kennedy, and other politicians like him, to be taught obedience.



    All across the nation Catholic Diocese’s have been sued, not because priests were abusing children, but because they were abusing children and those in authority did nothing, thereby protecting these predators. Planned Parenthood does the same thing, all across our country, and they get rewarded by our Government to the tune of $500 million plus of our tax dollars. A million dollars a day to protect child predators. Thank you taxpayers. In the State of Illinois this last year five PP centers closed, two due to allegations of protecting child predators. This is happening all over the country. Go to "" and read about how this is happening, and on your dime.

    Isn't it odd that Google's first entry in their news section is this anonymous attack on the Catholic Church?

    What is even odder, the writer demonstrates no understanding of how the Catholic Church is run. In local matters, the bishop of the diocese is supreme. Appeals from his decisions go to Rome and are considered there. "The Vatican" had nothing to do with Bishop Tobin's disciplinary action.

    It is to be expected that the cowardly writer, hiding behind the title "anonymous" also chooses to confuse the issue - Kennedy's loadly advocating the sin of abortion - with the molestation scandal of 2002. If that had not occurred, he would probably had used the Crusades or the Inquisition to muddy the waters.

    The point is this: The Church stands for something. If the Church does not stand up for her beliefs, the Church means nothing. Anonymous wants the Church to remain impotent. He does not want the Catholic Church to stand up to liberal bias and the hate emanating from the Obama Administration. The Manhattan Declaration is making this clear. We WILL fight against unjust laws; there will be no more accomodation in the vain hope of "getting along" with unrepentant sinners.

    If one is going to be a Catholic, one is expected to follow the rules. For the Kennedys it has long been shown that they remember they're Catholics when it comes to weddings and funerals. In between they act like everyone else. And they have not done this alone. The Pproblem has been that any number of cowardly bishops and priests have allowed Catholics to do what they wish and make Catholicism meaningless in their lives. This era is over. The ageing hippy-post Vatican II generation of bishops, priests and feminist nuns has proven sterile and they are dying off. Real shepherds of the flock are taking their places and the Church will go back to strength in the Holy Spirit.

    And if this raises the hackles of the knee-jerl liberals, homosexuals, abortion-mongers and Hollywood-New York perverts, make the most of it.

    Sean Wright

    What does "loadly" mean?

    It's called a typo Orlando. Did you notice the 6 pt type this blog uses to leave messages with? Some of us have weaker eyes than folks you like you with wearker minds.


    Wipe the drool off the keyboard and stop whining, perv-protector.

    What's that?

    It's not drool? It's froth?

    Great. Ok everyone, you know the drill.


    quinn demonstrates the major tactic of the Left - when you can't argue facts, indulge in ridicule, mockery and insult. Perpetrators of this tactic use it to conceal their ignorance of truth and show their reliance on misdirection to attain their ends in the hope of smothering opposition.


    Moron much?

    quinn - remedial English might assist your communication skills


    Sean (What a good Catholic name) The post was written by Dr. Cleveland not Anon.

    Dear Michael (what a splendidly angelic name!)-

    You're absolutely right. I sontinued reading the response to Dr Cleveland's opening salvo and wrote my post in a fury with this 6 pt font. Goes to show you how one can fall into error if he doesn't check his facts. Thank you for reminding me that I still have something in common with Leftists, even if in a minor way.

    By the way, glad you like my name! I've always been fond of it. I leave self-laothing to the misfits on the Left.



    The Great Commission and the commandment to serve the poor didn't say to exclude those with whom you disagree with. What does serving the poor in DC have to do with gay marriage?

    When the Church hierarchy gets over itself and goes back to truly serving the poor and being an influence for good in society, perhaps they will be followed. Just because they are in a position of authority doesn't mean people have to mindlessly follow them. Christ led by example and, while not approving of everything people did, at least would speak to them and acknowledge their humanity.

    The New Testament leaders didn't appeal to the government to do their bidding; they went out and changed society by converting it. Perhaps the hierarchy should go back and read the New Testatment, rather than being just another political interest group.



    Hi Mike -

    Thanks for demontrating that, like other Evangelicals who continue to remain ignorant of history you only seek to demonize the Catholic Church which you demonstrate you know nothing about. 

    Your diatribe about the Church appealing to government also shows you made no attention to Dr Cleveland's premise - that Congressman Patrick Kennedy supports abortion against the commandment, "Thou shalt not murder" and, three years ago, was told by his bishop to stop presenting himself to partake in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist so as not to profane the Body and Blood of Jesus nor to be guilty of the sin of sacrilege. Bishops do this on a regular basis for anyone who is publically supportive of policies that are inherently sinful and transgress the Law of God.

    Mike, if you're going to join the conversation, at least know the topic you're commenting on and get past thinking the Catholic Church is Satan's Harlot.

    Thanks -


    This is an excellent example of "begging the question". Your antecedent (that abortion is murder) assumes the consequent (that abortions should be outlawed because they are murder). If you really wish to participate in meaningful debates, you really need to acknowledge your assumptions first.

    I suspect that very few Catholics know much about Church history, and although I have no doubt that Pope Benedict knows more about it than I do, I'm quite certain that you don't. You really should spend some time educating yourself if you really wish to participate in meaningful debates. While you're at it, read up on the Bible, too. Perhaps you can start with The Sermon on the Mount.

    Pardon, Nebton -

    I stated scientific truth: an embryo is not potential human life, it is human life. That is not begging the question, it is a statement of fact. Now, I suggest you look the defintion of murder as the uinjust taking of human life. If an embryo is human life and, as such, unable to commit a crime, then taking that life because of inconvenience on the part of the mother is murder.

    As for Church History, I am quite sure I know much less then the current Supreme Pontiff, Benedict XVI, whose books are chock full of history and theology. I am in the middle of his "Jesus of Nazareth" which I recommend to you. However, Nebton, I'll match my knowledge of the history of Western Civilization against yours any day. I say the history of Western Civilization since, until c 1517, it was always Church History.

    Speaking of assumptions, more of the fallacious logic you folks indulge in, I suggest you look over Matthew 5:21: "You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment'" - this is part of the Sermon on the Mount. And may I add: "Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked them, but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these,"" Matthew 19:13, 14.

    The women who kill the children in their wombs really ought to reread those parts of the Gospel a little more closely, too, don't you agree Nebton?  

    A very good day to you. Hope you had a good Thanksgiving.


    Until you recognize that your "statement of fact" is an axiom (AKA an assumption), we really have little room for discussion. I'm not asking you to abandon your axiom, but I am asking you to recognize it as such. It is an axiom, an assumption that is a fundamental part of your worldview. It is not a "scientific truth", and it is also largely semantic as it depends on the definition (hence the reason it is semantic) of "human life".

    Having a different set of axioms (which we do) does not necessarily make either of us wrong. Euclidean geometry is no more or less "wrong" than Riemannian geometry. However, if you want to discuss the relative merits of each, you need to start by recognizing that they have different core axioms.

    No, it is not an axiom. Medical science says life begins at conception. That is not an opinion, either. If life begins at conception, the deliberate destructino of what is conceived is murder.

    But thanks for the reply.


    Medical science says life begins at conception.

    You keep saying that, yet you haven't provided a single article from a peer-reviewed scientific journal backing up that claim. I've read (and written) several articles in medical science journals, and trust me that medical science says no such thing. Unfortunately, I cannot prove a negative. However, it is quite easy to prove the positive: if you continue to insist medical science says life begins at conception, please provide a peer-reviewed reference. (Note: I am not saying that medical science says life doesn't begin at conception. Rather, I am saying this is not a question that medical science attempts to answer. I.e., it's a matter of opinion and/or faith, no matter how much you might want to deny that.)

    Yes, I keep saying it because it is true. If you want to go to a peer-reviewed journal to find this, be my guest. This is a blog, Nebton, not a journal. If you don't like what I state, terrific. I am quite secure in knowing that I don't have to prove myself to you. You, however, demonstrate how insecure YOU are by demanding that I be your lackey and "prove" a scientific fact.

    Nebton, quit taking yourself so seriously. You'll live longer.


    Ah ha. The "I know you are but what I am" defense. Stellar.

    I've taken your advice and provided all of the scientific articles that suggest life begins at conception: If you feel that I've omitted any articles in the previous list, feel free to add to it.

    The Catholic Church is undergoing the same process as the Republican Party: to the extent overall membership falls, the "true believers" grow as a proportion, gaining increased clout and driving out moderates. It will take years, but in both cases it's a death spiral.

    Your argument is exactly backward, acanuck. The Catholic Church has been losing members for the past 40 years because we have had the bishops who allowed these scandals with their ephebophile priests to start and continue. Do you ever read the Pew Survey? 1 out of every 10 Americans is an ExCatholic. Primarily because their teachers knew little about the Church and the kids parents lived lives diametrically opposed to the Gospel. It's hard to think that a belief is correct if one's own parents divorce, shack up, destroy small businesses with their corporations, wink at friends who sleep around, guzzle beer and watch nothing but football on the weekends.

    Secularistic hedonism is, in the long run, sterile. Same as liberalism as practiced in the US and Western Europe for the past half century. Liberalism, actually atheisitc communism, a parasitic infection of the body politic, not a truly living entity.

    Now that the homosexuals are either out of the priesthood, shacking up with boyfriends in Venice or Greenwich Village, or new bishops have them under a lot more scrutiny; there will be a much less molesation of young what the folks in West Hollywood call "chickenhawks". When 100,000 priests worldwide left the active ministry between 1965-75, bishops panicked, dropped the standards of men admitted to seminaries and began ordaining just about anyone in trousers.

    Now that we are seeing strong, manly bishops and priests we will stop the chickification of the culture, as well as ending the feminisation of the clergy. Women who want to be ordained can be Episcopalians, if they have any decency and finally leave the Catholic Church they tried to change and failed. 

    You see acanuck, if you're a Catholic you really need to believe the whole ball of wax or head out and join something much less satisfying.

    Wanna try a different tack now, acanuck?



    Apparently, bestiality's still ok with the Catholic Church.

    Musta been hard for you though, growing up, carrying all that shame about Donkey Daddy.

    C'mon, BRAY for me Sean.

    You know, quinn, if one wants to know what a preacher's favorite sin is, just listen to the sin he condemns the most. Thanks for letting us know your preferences.

    My best to you and Fido.


    And now.... let's watch our favorite moron walk boldly into the jaws...

    "If one wants to know what a preacher's favorite sin is, just listen to the sin he condemns the most."

    Hmmmm.... Now which sin do you rail against most, Sean? Tough call, but my guess would be it's.... the petticoated perverted lisping pansy swishes?

    Bit of a surprise coming out by you, must say. Serious self-haters tend to pretty much lock themselves in.

    Good try, quinn - but I'm not a preacher.

    If we continue with this tack, quinn, we learn that you have very odd sexual predispositions - and a great deal of angst since you are unable to complete the act with any of the partners you keep brining up.

    Again, my best to you and Fido


    "manly bishops and priests"




    Having deep seated doubts about our sexuality are we?

    Yes Michael - manly.

    Bishop Tobin is standing up to the Kennedys. That takes guts. Something his predescessor lacked.

    For the past 40 years or so, Michael, the Church in the US and Europe has suffered under a lot of petticoat cardinals and bishops. But the times, as Dylan sang, they are achangin'. The ordained pansies leading the dioceses in Milwaukee, Phoenix, Santa Rosa and Seattle have had to resign, the Holy Spirit having outted them for what they are. Thank you, God! The Church periodically experiences a time of purification. Read your history, Michael. The Church has suffered through even worse and surged past it, eventually, when the laity refused to take hierarchical shinanigans any longer.

    Read also the autobiography of former archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland - he was the guy caught embezzling half a million dollars from the Archdiocese to give his boyfriend, who decided to shake him down. In his book, good ol' Rembert finally admits that he was always a swish and it's just terrible the Catholic Church dosen't recognize gay marriage etc ... (you can almost see him stamping his foot as he wrote this). Now there's a guy with the courage of his convictions - AFTER being forced out of office in disgrace. Or maybe I should say, dithgrath.

    Keep it up Michael. I look forward to your next small-minded post continuing your mockery while you ignore the facts - or, more likely, don't know them to begin with.


    Wow. I thought you were just havin' a bad day.

    But you really are a hater.

    Hater? Because I admire a strong retort to stupidity?

    quinn, you have a lot of issues I see. Mostly about logic and sex.


    The Catholic Church simply doesn't consider child molestation to be anywhere near as serious as abortion, period, end of discussion.  In the eyes of the church abortion is murder; in the eyes of most Americans abortion is the destruction of tissue that is potentially a person and a free choice of the adult who is carrying that tissue.

    Child molestation, on the other hand, is viewed as no worse (or little worse) than any other sexual indiscretion, such as masturbating, having an adulterous affair or even wearing a condom when having sex with your wife.  Sex in general is evil, so no particular form of sex is worse than any other, unless you're talking about adult homosexuality, which is apparently far worse than child molestation.

    In short, Catholic values and American secular values are centuries apart.  This isn't to say that the Catholics are wrong about everything -- contemporary American society devalues the family and paternal authority to a dangerous degree, while exaggerating the sorts of issues that sell tabloid newspapers -- but it is hard to see how the church is ever going to cross this gulf.  The damage that has been done may be permanent.


    Wos, Douglas -

    Back to the "judgment by confusion" tactic of Anonymous again. Neat. The question has to do with doctrine. Public sinnners, nor those who advise others to sin, aer allowed to partake of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, less for the profanation to the Savior, but to keep the sinner from the sin of sacrilege. I'll grant you this Doug, you at least have the courage of your convictions and are not the coward Anonymous is.

    Now, I realize that you believe none of thie. I understand you judge an entire Church by the actions of 1% of its clergy and the stupidity of several of its leaders. But that is another issue entirely, Bud. You just need to beat the dead horse of molestation, knowing that the priests involved are now serving time, It's over, got it? And get this, Doug - a greater percentage of MARRIED gym teachers, more NARRIED evangelical ministers, more MARRIED atheist professors molsst children than all the Catholic priests put together.

    I don't expect you to believe that since you are driven more by blind, unreasoning hatred than by logic. You are a true child of the media.

    Anonymous erred by saying that the "Vatican" ordered this. The Vatican did not. Bishop Tobin did. Anonymous, like you, Doug, never read the Catechism of the Catholic Church It is the bishop's responsiblity first of all, to correct sinners.

    Doug, why not bring up Galileo next. You have nowhere else to go. Get your head out of your TV set. READ more, learn more. Stop accepting propaganda. Do like me and research, investigate.


    Could you please provide statistics for your assertion that gym teachers, evangelical ministers, and atheist professors molest more children than Catholic priests? I think when you sling around accusations, you should at least attempt to provide evidence to support it.

    Although, it doesn't exactly make it okay for Catholic priests to have molested children just because they're not the only ones doing it. One reason that the reaction was so strong against the church isn't only that it happened. It's that figures of authority in the church knew it was happening and went to great lengths to cover it up while the perpetrators were simply moved around and put in positions where they could continue to molest. The church's position on abortion is a gigantic hypocrisy in light of this absolute refusal to protect children.




    Ok, smart ass big mouth chick doing her chickification thing! BOY, I'll bet you'd turn on those knee-jerl liberals and Hollywood-New York preverts with their preversions, what with having AN ABILITY TO TALK!!!! WOW!!! I KNOW YOU RAISE MY HACKLES!!! Yessirreee Bobert, you're not at all like my last "girlfriend," pretending to be proper Catholic and all, leading me on with the baaaaa'ing all the time, and then turning out to be -


    Oh yeah. Stats. Ok. 17% of gym teachers. Only 8% of evangelical ministers. But a full 88% of atheist professors, with Richard Dawkins doing DOUBLE the preversions.


    Love, Sean.

    P.S. Wish DF were here. He'd be winning big points. Although, Sean DOES sound a touch like him... Waiiiiiit  a minute....

    Thanks, quinn.

    Hate to blow up your amazingly created universe, quinn, but I am a man. I am married. I have children. From what I see you are lightyears away from achieving any of those goals.

    To clarify your objections, I protested the chickification of the clergy. Ever been in the diocesan offices of the poof who is the Archbishop of Los Angeles and a lot of other bishop's administrative offices?

    They used to be run by priests, now, in an effort to democratize the Church and give women more power, these offices are now run by women. A lotta them. And for some reason most of these women are exnuns or nuns who are married but have refused to leave their orders and whose superiors refuse to remove them in defiance of Rome. When the women are not nuns or former nuns, they are policiticised women, dyed in the wool feminists.

    Not to mention the women who demand ordination so the chickification of the clergy can be complete.

    You don't know who demoralized priests are in these dioceses. Come February 2011 there will be many Te Deums sung by priests when the cardinal arvhbishop is forced to resign. 

    quinn, I'd try to find a doctor to get you to take anger management classes. You lose your objectivity when you allow your passions to rule your intellect.

    Whatever there is of it.

    Happy Thanksgiving,


    You're a liar and a hater, Sean.

    And yeah, being a man, from a large farm family, I'd probably resort to an old-time beat-down on a blowhard like you.

    It's how I manage my anger.

    Apparently, you manage yours by spewing hatred at women and gays on the Internet.

    I like my way better. I come out of it with sore knuckles.

    Whereas you? You get to go to Hell.

    Have a nice trip.

    You're very funny, quinn. Anononimity gives you courage. It is as I have pointed out before. When you are unable to respond with facts to support your side of an argument, you resort to verbal violence here, as readers have seen, and threaten physical violence otherwise.

    The point of the discussion, quinn, is that Bishop Tobin told Patrick Kennedy where to get off, you may recall. As the bishop of the diocese in which Kennedy resides, he is not only within his rights, Tobin has a duty to tell Kennedy that he is placing his soul in danger of sacrilege if he continues to profane the Body and Blood of Cherist without repentance for accepting and approving sinful actions.

    Now, you may deny that abortion is sinful, fine. However, if one professes to be a Catholic, it can only be supposed that one agrees with Catholic teaching. If one does not accept Catholic teaching, why not leave the Church and find some other branch of Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism etc that is more congenial to your beliefs?

    For Kennedy to remain in the Church yet disagree with its teachings, he demonstrates a spiritually fraudulent nature. He may be too lazy or too stupid, or too worried about what voters will think if he leaves, but an honest person would formally cut his ties with an association whose politcies he does not accept. Kennedy would show courage to formally leave active memberwship in the Catholic Church if he is unable to accept the Church's teaching about the sanctity of life.

    So, this comes down to Kennedy either acquiescing to the bishop's demand to follow Catholic teaching, or for him to get out.

    The most probable answer is that Patrick Kennedy is too craven to follow their inmost beliefs and leave since if could cut into their voter base.

    Therefore, Patrick Kennedy is a spiritual fraud.

    And I really have to consider a spiritual fraud to be a political fraud and a coward and to follow my conscience in voting against him.

    Conversely, were Patrick Kennedy to leave the Catholic Church over his belief in pro-abortion policies, I'd not consider him a political fraud or a coward and be much more likely to vote for him since I can see he is willing to stand up for his beliefs. If he has courage in that regard, it is likely he will also show political courage.

    I hope that sunk in, quinn. God knows I'd have to have you burst a knuckle - or a blood vessel thinking.



    Sometimes people leave organizations on points of principle. I would agree that sometimes this is a courageous thing to do. Sometimes I support them more for taking such a stance.

    However, sometimes people stand and fight, to bring an organization back to what they believe. Organizations, even our dear churches, change over time. Should every traditional Catholic have left when it was - in your own view - run by less-than-moral people?? With some organizations, people feel such a strong identification that they won't leave even if they are the last person that feels it should go in a particular direction.

    All of this is obvious, but you seem to want to go on an anti-Kennedy tear, likely to be followed by some speech on the unchanging nature of the church's principles, etc. etc.

    But mostly, what is obvious is that you wanted to go on an anti-gay rant, thus all the name-calling, and thus the distortion of the numbers even in the one report YOU cherry-picked.

    Like I say, you're a hater Sean. You should think about it. I'm just goofing around replying to you, but your hatred is pretty obvious.

    Go away and fix it. And don't be talking too much about Christians and Christianity until you have.

    Thanks for beeing semi-literate, quinn.

    The point is clear - abortion is murder and murder is a sin. Congressman Kennedy supports the sin of abortion and his bishop has told him not to present himself for Communion. What is so hard to understand?

    The Church is not going to change its stance - we go all the back to AD 70 in the Didache, teaching that abortion and infantcide is murder and is a sin and is not something that Catholics may engage in doing.

    Anti-gay? No, I have no problem with homosexuals. I do have a problem when they wish to change the language and attempt to change the concept of an institution that has been clear for at least three millennia.

    I have no problem with homosexuals getting a legal certificate allowing them the right to cohabit, visit each other in the hosptial, be named as beneficiaries in insurance politicie and so on - which, if you recall, was all they demanded 10 years ago.

    Like all immature humans, give them an inch and the take a mile.

    As the Manhattan Declaration has said, no law of the Obamarama and his lickspittles in Congress or governmental bureaucracy will make Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and thoughtful Evangelicals to change the Bible to suit guys who like to play hide the salami in their backdoors.

    The attempt to say "The Church has no business in politics" is not only misleading, it is a lie. The Church wants respect for our beliefs, guranteed by the 1st Amendment.

    Now, quinn, responde to that point by point if you can.

    Have a good Thanksgiving? I did.


    About Sean...In my many decades of life the only men I've come across who hate women so virulently were actually homosexual or bisexual, and unable to deal with it.  Hating themselves so much, they turn their self-hatred onto women, and blame women for everything they don't like about the world.  Twenty or thirtry years ago around one in ten gays I got to know were like this, but the number has really decreased in recent years - I think because gays are now able to be more accepting of their own nature, and not given to self-hatred.

    But women be careful - these men can be physically dangerous. 

    Mother, your attempt to besmirch my character is one of those fallacious arguments used by feminists bullies who have no answer in a discussion.

    If you are a woman, and not quinn under a different screen name, I really find you despicable, and not an honest representative of your gender.

    I pity you, if indeed you are a woman.


    ure Orlando -

    For the clerical molestation in the Catholic Chruch in the US, I refer you to the study completed by faculty members of the John Jay College of Criminal Law, published in February. 2004, suveying the problem going over the careers of the more than 90,000 US priests from 1950-2002. According to the study, Just over 1% of these priests were charged with and admitted or were convicted of sexual molestation. Of the cases of molestation, 80% were ephebophilic, that is, cases of mature men becoming attracted to pubescent or post pubescent boys.

    Sorry I'm not as familiar with how the rest of the 20% of molestations broke down. I seem to recall that 10% concerned priests and consenting women, in other words, what used to be called clerical concubinage, but I can't say for sure. Just to remind you, that would be 10% of the 1%. To put it another way, that's 98 point something percent of all the rest of priests in the US maintained their vow of celibacy.

    For the rest - gym teachers, eveangelical ministers - who are mostly true pedofiles rather than ephebophiles - you can check out the stats on Again, I seem to recall them at about 8%. That would be 800 times more molesters in those professions than among the celibate clergy.

    Orlando, unlike secularists, I believe in facts, and I apologize I had to rely on a faulty memory for the rest of my answer.

    Happy Thanksgiving,


    Facts, huh. Wiki's article on the 2004 Jay study says the survey of the dioceses substantiated 6700 accusations against 4,392 priests, or 4% of all 109,694 priests. Odd too, that 1/3 of the cases came in '02-03 alone - might almost make you think there were more coming.

    Age. 6% of victims were 7 years of age or younger. 16% of the victims were between age 8 and age 10. Only 15 percent of the victims were 16 to 17 years of age; 51 percent were between the ages of 11 and 14.

    So here we have a study commissioned by the Church, 5 years old now already, in which reports of abuse were soaring, and even then, you've got the numbers wrong - always tending in the direction that lets the church more off the hook. Odd that.

    Yeah, you're just a shining exemplar of Christian faith. Last I checked, Haters go to Hell.

    You're overdue.

    quinn, so far, to any honest observer, you are the one who has shown hate from the get-go. You have threatened me with physical violence, questioned my manhood and sexual proclivities, mocked my religious belief, insulting me at every turn ... I have only smiled condescendingly at your childishness and have asked you to respond to the matter at hand in a calm and logical manner.

    Is that so much above your abilities, quinn?


    Sean. I checked your facts. You've been braying about wanting to deal with numbers. So why did you distort the ones in the study that YOU cherry-picked?

    And yes, you're still a hater, Sean. It was you who came on here hurling names and hatred at gays from the very start. But it seems to me that you're just one of those people who tries on a pose for a time, this one being that of a man who likes to feel put upon, the poor persecuted minority, being stomped down by all these WIMMINS and PANSIES and LIBRUSL.

    Good God, Sean. Man up, will you? Women and gays are no threat to you. Don't be such a little suck. And ll this puffed out chest talk you do about MANLY Churchmen, you do realize that to anyone reading it, it rings false, don't you?

    Drop the hate. Live big - be a bigger person. Show some compassion. And drop this horrendously ill-suited tone you put on. "Smiled condescendingly?" Good Lord man, you can't even WRITE this stuff as though you believe it.

    quinn 0- I realise you are a child of trendiness and fashion. You have read little of what I have posted.

    Leave off following the celebrities and their relativism, attitudes that change with each season. There are absolute truths.

    Marriage, says Jesus in Matthew 19. is between a man and a woman. Now, if you want to start the First Church of the Immaculate Dildo and make homosexual love you sacrament, by all means do so. But don't make me deny Jesus to accept your silliness.

    You keep telling me not to be afraid of women or homosexuals. I'm not afraid of them. I am agraid of the cancer of relativism that they introduce into the culture. This cancer has already destroyed the nuclear family, which is always the most important part of any society.

    This far and no farther, quinn. You can't tell me that day is night and night is day simply because some minority nutcrackers want me to change the language so they will feel accepted.



    The hierarchy of the Catholic church will do anything to protect the rights of the unborn child, but they must think that the value of that child's life decreases once he/she comes out of the womb.  if they were consistent, they would have protected thousands of innocent children and vulnerable adults from the soul murder by sexually predatory priests who raped and sodomized them.  Instead, they perpetrated the crime/sin by moving them around and lying about them. Why are these bishops and priest allowed to not only receive Communion, but consecrate the hosts into Jesus' Body and Blood.  Did not Jesus Himself say something about a millstone being tied around their necks and them being thrown in to the water to drown?  This is the epitome of hypocrisy.  To add salt to the wound, those who are actually found guilty of complicity in the soul murder of hundreds of innocent children are actually promoted - like Cardinal Law in Rome!  When these men come face to face with their Maker they need to remember that God is a merciful God, but God is also just.

    At last, Gabe! Thank you. Finally someone making a valid point based on solid facts.

    The problem is completely with the US and European hierarchy. They ordained a bunch of sexually immature (ie homosexual) priests, and a bunch of those guys got promoted to bishop also.

    Your scriptural citation is on the mark, Matthew 18:6: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." Jesus loves children, He saves His worst imprecation for those who cause children to lose faith in Him.

    There are a great many bishops - and many more Catholic school teachers and professors - who have had to ,and will have to, stand before the tribunal of Jesus and face their Creator knowing of the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of children who gave up the Faith because of their efforts to secularize the Gospel.

    Thank God that, due to the efforts of Popes John Paul and now Benedict, good, holy, reverent, decent priests are being ordained. But the ecclesiastical nightmare will not be over until the last of the ageing hippies amid the priesthood and the dying orders of nuns give up their efforts to destroy the Church by remaking it into their own images

    One more point, Gabe, concerning the Sacraments. The Sacraments are channels to the power of Jesus Christ, affected through His power, not that of an unworthy priest. If you think that the sins of a priest could pollute the Mass or Baptism or Confession or Anointing, you are making sin more powerful than God and that is impossible.

    However, Gabe, you can take comfort knowing that your objection has a historical precedent. After the severe persecution of Diocletian i the early 300s, priests and bishops, among a lot of the Faithful, denied the Faith to save their lives. When they wanted to return after Diocletian resigned, many Christians said they could never return and priests or bishops who had burned incense to the emperor could never again administer the Sacraments. The man who led this attack was named Donatus. His theory became known as Donatism.

    The pope of that time disagreed with Donatus, as did a later council. Again they pointed out that it is the power of God that makes bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, not the priest. Ordination makes a priest a channel of that power. It is not in the name of the priest that sins are absolved or in the name of a priest that bread and wine become flesh and blood, or that the grace of Baptism is imparted.

    So don't be a Donatist, Gabe. It is Jesus who lives in the Church since it is His own Body and we are members of it (John 15;5, Col 1:24, 25).

    Happy Thanksgiving,



    You know what, Sean? You're right. The Kennedys should stay the hell away from church and the church should stay the hell away from politics.

    DeFending life was not political until officious office holders of the US government decided to indulge in social engineering.

    Orlando, you're smarter than falling for the bullying political cant "keep the Church out of politics." A better politicy would be "Keep government out of micromanaging the lives of citizens and taking on itself arbitration of morality."

    The Pope is infallible in matters of Faith and Morals, according to Catholic teaching. Not the Supreme Court, The Messiah Obamarama, or the Congress.



    Yes, I'd like very much to keep the government out of micromanaging the lives of citizens and taking on itself arbitration of morality. It can start by staying the hell away from my decisions about my own body.

    Okay, Orlando.

    You may decide to cut off your arm, disembowel yourself, or do anything else you wish.

    When another human life is within a body, the rules change.

    Isn't it odd that, until a very short time ago, every civilized nation had laws against abortion - and had those laws on the books for centuries? Why is it now, when medical science admits that human life begins at conception, we have decided to commit suicide as a species in order to satisfy a few women who want us to think that, despite medical science, zygotes and embryos are only "masses of tissue".

    Junk science is the realm of Rob Reiner and Betty Freidan.

    It is not the realm of Catholic teaching - nor the universal law that, at one time, ruled all nations.



    A few women? Heh. You can try to marginalize women if it makes you feel superior, but there are more pro-choice women than anti-choice Catholics.

    there are more pro-choice women than anti-choice Catholics???

    Prove it.

    Now Orlando joins the fallacious logic crowd. Apparently you like the idea of genocide.

    Check the last survey of the poblic, my friend. Pro-Abortion - pardon - "pro- choice" women in the US are in the minority says Pew Research.

    Try again?  


    I am not, nor am I likely to become, your friend. There are about 65.5 million Catholics in the U.S. According to the Pew study you mentioned, about 47% of the population thinks abortion should be legal in all or most cases. There are about 250 million adults living in the United States. That means approximately 117.5 million people in the United States believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. The last time I checked 117.5 million is greater than 65.5 million. But I'm not so good with the math.

    Well, gosh, Orlando .. so, if a larger percentage of people think black is white and up is down, you're ready to go along with them.

    Orlando .. get a life. Read more science, history and ethics.

    And I know you wd not be my friend. That is the difference between a Christian and whatever you profess.

    Boun Natali!


    You asked me to prove it. I proved it. And now you're changing your tactics because your argument fell apart in the fact of statistical fact? I'm really not sure why you keep coming back here. You're intellectually dishonest, you haven't made one cogent argument, and you're not changing anyone's mind. What's the point?

    I'm sorry, but it's one thing when you talk smack about other people's religion, but now you're descrating mine, science:

    Why is it now, when medical science admits that human life begins at conception…

    Can you provide a single peer-reviewed scientific study that "admits" that? Science can talk about when neurons begin to form networks in the brain (about 20 weeks), or when gamma waves can be detected in the brain (gamma waves are often associated with consciousness, although I've seen them arise spontaneously in artificial neural networks that I've created, and I'm fairly certain those ANNs are not conscious), etc., but when "human life begins" is mainly a question for semantics.

    Really. Stop making stuff up, OK?

    I haven't made up anything. Once again, I don't feel any need to justify myself and you do. Tough. You don't like it, move to Hollywood - they love anti-intellecualism there.

    Keep slugging!


    So, let me get this straight: seeking facts and sources (AKA for you to "justify" your wild claims) makes me anti-intellectual? I think you're the one from Hollywood. They love to make up stories. (Of course, theirs are usually more believable, like Independence Day.)

    PS: I've noticed that if you do have sources, you've got no problem "justifying" your points, but when you get caught in a fabrication, you suddenly "don't feel any need to justify [yourself]".

    I'd just like to note that I'm praying for Sean's spiritual redemption.


    Happy Thanksgiving

    I'd just like to note that the font is 13px, which is approximately 10pt, except when expanded by quinn's deft hand.

    Happy Thanksgiving

    For Sean. Bit of Girl Talk.

    That is some serious fun right there. Thanks, Q.

    Yeah. Gotta love Girl Talk.

    One more in honor of Sean's special announcement - "Hands In The Air."

    Love the last minute, where he drives Sly up over Free Ride.


    You keep being confused. Again, quinn, I'm a man, not a girl.

    But this may explain your sexual confusion as well.


    Boy, are you dumb.

    All prayers for my betterment are welcome Dr Cleveland. In the meantime, I'll say one for you, too.

    Anyone who bleats such nonsense about the Catholic Church is certainly in spiritual need.

    And if this offends your political sensibilities - since it cannot offend your non-existent spiritual sensibilities - make the most of it.


    All prayers are gratefully accepted, Dr Cleveland. But I understand that you are being sardonic.

    Bon Noel!


    I think that the really sad thing dealing with the subject of the Roman Catholic Church, at any level, is that like many organizations there are a few who fall into the extreme level of less then desirable activities, and that those are the ones who cause the problems....I am not saying that the hierarchy was wrong in how they handled the problem because there is a problem and they made it worse then it should have been..l...What I am saying is that the priests and others involved in the church who honestly didn't know what was going on are receiving a bad rap.....We see stupidity in other branches of the faithful and it is as heinous as what this one church has been going through....Even the LDS church stated that they have the same problems.....Those that love to see the mighty fail are waiting for the next drop of blood and will convene again to gnaw at the bones.....but is it being constructive when the debate overshadows the good that many others have received from the good leaders.....To be Catholic is a public badge of faith and many a non-Catholic doesn't understand that it is more then a church it is also a lifestyle that they may not fully understand, it has to be lived and constantly worked on.....A Catholic desires from its leaders stability and continuity as well as understanding and compassion when needed......Sadly we are seeing some stellar stupidity on the stuff that shouldn't matter and a diversionary tactic being used on those subjects that should be dealt with in an expedient manner

    A well thought out post, bill, and one to earn you a great deal of enmity from the thoughtless numbskulls who populate this particular blogger's hatemongering.

    However, I DO say the hierarchy was wrrong, and exascerbated the problem by sticking their heads in the sand, listeing to the feminists in the Church that got them into the problem to begin with by demanding that they hire Dr Fred Berlin, the psychiatrist who claimed to be able to cure molestation, lying his head off while accepting one grant after another from the USCCB.

    Newly-consecrated bishops of the Catholic Church are only just now correcting the situation their immediate predescessors created by giving up their authority in the name of "democracy" and craven cowrardice, caving in to feminist demands which have weakened the Church.

    The feminisation of the Church, along with the feminization of the Army and the rest of the body politic has been horrendous for the US and other Western Europen countries that have succumbed to modern elitist liberalism. This is just a disguised version of the communism embraced by Chaves of Venezuala and the Castro brothers in Cuba. 

    Otherwise, God bless you, bill, for standing up for the Faith. But we cannot shut our eyes to human failings wiithin the Body of Christ.

    And for those of you who find this post ridiculous, I realize you are not students of history but, without a doubt, loving supporters of Barack Hussein Obama, uh! uh! uh! and the rest of his agenda to weaken the US and stifle the opposition of the Catholic Church.


    I think you do make a valid point, but I think you're misunderstanding the arguments being made here if you feel that there is delight in the failures of the Roman Catholic Church. Rather, the main point of the blog, I believe, is to point out the hypocrisy inherent in the Catholic Church, as well as problems arising from religious inbreeding. (I mean inbreeding in a figurative sense, as used often by faculty at schools who almost always choose to hire professors who have graduated from schools other than their own to avoid this precise problem.)

    You're really behind the times, Nebton.

    Of the 265 Catholic colleges and universities in the US, the Newman Guide to Colleges was able to list only 29 that still teach unadulterated Catholicism. Some campuses have been forced to remove the name "Catholic? from their names since they no longer teach real Catholic belief - Marymount in New York comes to mind.

    The statement by Dr Cleveland began with Bishop Tobin's denial of the Eucharist to Patrick Kennedy, not hypocrisy. Of course, Cleveland's reasoning soon muddled itself into child molestation. Hyposcrisy? I think you are not paying attention. I also lambasted bishops who thought more of themselves than of children. You must have missed that post.

    The teaching and belief of the Catholic Church do not depend on human logic. They come from Jesus Christ. Now, you may or may not believe that and that is certainly your right. But, hypocrite or not, insisting on the truth is necessary to any institution.

    Nebton, wd you tell me that a decision of a judge to sentence a properly tried thief or rapist is null and voiod ebcause the judge is committing adultery with his baliff? Is justice dependent on the whim of the person administering it or because it is an expression of the will of the citizens of a commonwealth keeping people from bullying others?

    The attempt to demonize the Catholic Church because its members are sinners is a very poor argument. The problem is that the antiCatholic media gives you your knowledge of the Catholic Church. Molestation, the Inquisition, the Crusades, Calileo, that's the secularist mantra. Selective history continuously repeated. Small minds cannot think beyond these things. This is how Hitler developed the Big Lie against the Jews.

    I sure hope your mind can embrace more than mantra, Nebton.



    The hypocrisy I'm talking about is denying the Eucharist to Kennedy while promoting those protecting child molestors. (Denying the Eucharist to Kennedy would not be hypocritical if they were also denying it to the child molestors instead of protecting them.) If you don't see any hypocrisy there then you're too far down the rabbit hole.

    I also lambasted bishops who thought more of themselves than of children. You must have missed that post.

    Your posts have little to do with the actual arguments being made in the original entry, and they have nothing to do with the post I was responding to, as far as I can tell.

    The attempt to demonize the Catholic Church because its members are sinners is a very poor argument.

    It's not the members, it's the leadership that's at issue here. Nice Hitler reference, by the way. That's always a good way to prove you're in control of your faculties.

    No, I don't see the hypocrisy, Nebton.

    I see cowardice and weakness on the part of many US bishops. We are still having to put up with idiot bishops like Cardinal "Transparency" Mahony in LA, whose DA had to take him to the Supreme Corut to get him to show files on priests.

     What has not yet penetrated, however. Nebton, is that Bishop Tobin was not involved in the molestation issue. Your brush is very wide and you want to tar the entire episcopacy with it. Once again, I KNOW there are a lot of bishops not worthy of the title. That does not diminish the fact that Patrick Kennedy is committing sacrilege each time he goes to Holy Communiion. Now, I understand that spiritual belief like that makes no difference to you. But that is the entire point of Jesus establishing His Church.

    Sacrilege. A word seldom used any longer since it is so widespread and since we have so many wuss bishops. The feminized Church in the US is at the core of this problem.


    >>>You keep telling me not to be afraid of women or homosexuals. I'm not afraid of them. I am agraid of the cancer of relativism that they introduce into the culture. This cancer has already destroyed the nuclear family, which is always the most important part of any society.

    This statement mesmerizes me.   How does one have the nuclear family without women?     How do homosexuals going about their own business, having a loving relationship between them destroy the nuclear family.      If Sean is so intent on this, why is he not clamoring to outlaw divorce?   He claims he has no problem with gays but uses language/terms that belie his statements by demeaning gays.  

    I fully agree that, if the catholic church wishes to have credibility on the subject of sanctity of life, why did they not protect the abused teens - boys and girls?   Why do they not encourage adoption of inner-city unwanted children?   Why do they oppose allowing loving gay couples adopt the unwanted children?   Why do they oppose allowing those gay parents from marrying so they can have a legal nuclear family?  

    In my opinion the catholic church is a rich cult that is only interested in furthering their own existence.  Why else forbid poor third-world couples from using birth control when they clearly cannot afford to feed/clothe/educate those children?   I say it is just to increase membership for the cult.


    If Sean is so intent on this, why is he not clamoring to outlaw divorce?

    Bingo. Give the man a cigar. I won't accuse the Catholic Church of hypocrisy on that one as I think they're consistently against divorce (unless you tithe enough to win yourself an annulment, of course), but the anti-gay Republicans sure do seem to be whistlin' Dixie there.

    Sure wish I cd read that type. I made out my name but that was about it.


    Let me attempt to summarize the core of Sean's position, stripped of the ad hominem arguments.

    Sean evidently believes that the Church hierarchy has erred by being too accountable to outside forces. He identifies these outside forces at various points as feminists, gays, and others, but rather than quibbling over the details of who he thinks the outside pressures are, it's important to recognize his central argument, which is that the Church authorities have compromised too much. He feels that the sexual abuse of minors ultimately stems from the bishops' compromises and concessions, and that the solution is to be less accomodating in the future.

    I, on the other hand, believe that the root of the problem is that the bishops viewed themselves accountable only to their superiors in the Church. They dealt with child-molesting priests in ways that protected the institutional Church and not the parishioners. (Or, to put it another way, they imagined "the Church" as everything but the parishioners.) They kept things quiet, because scandal would hurt "the Church." They worked to keep payouts to the victims in order to protect the financial health of "the Church." They recycled pedophile priests from assignment to assignment because "the Church" couldn't afford to lose any more priests, and because they imagined the confraternity of priests, God's anointed, as the heart of "the Church." They did not act to protect the members of the Church, least of all the weakest and most vulnerable members of the Church. I believe that it the bishops were too oriented toward "the Church" and not enough to the world around them. I believe that if they had consulted the laity more, the recycling of abusive priests would not have happened. (The laity of the Catholic Church, of course, includes all of the actual parents in the Church.) Obviously, Sean and I disagree fundamentally.

    I believe that the hierarchy has been given an opportunity to reexamine the way they wield their authority, and to imitate Christ in the practice of that cardinal Christian virtue, humility. Sean sees this as an attack on the Church, and a sign of my spiritual desolation. Spiritually desolate I may be, but humility and reflection are always good medicine, even for the Princes of the Church.

    Sean's proposed solution is twofold. First, to purify the Church from what he sees as modern and liberal influences, and second, to purge "ephebophile" priests from the ranks. By this, I take him to mean gay priests, rather than simply those who have expressed sexual interest in juveniles. (Obviously, I am all for removing pedophiles, but Sean's definition of "ephebophiles" likely extends further than mine.) What holds these two proposals together is the conviction that "the Church" only goes wrong when it strays from its old principles, and never needs to rethink them. For Sean, the scandal is actually a call to reassert traditional authority more firmly, and to judge more sternly.

    Sean's position is not just his. It is distinctly a minority position in the American Church, but it is the position of the minority aligned with and favored by Rome. (Note for example, Sean's contention that only a small minority of Catholic universities teach "real" Catholicism; for Sean most American professors of Catholic theology aren't bona fide Catholics.) The bishops who favor denying Communion to Catholic politicians are very much a minority in the U.S. Council of Bishops, and the majority has urgently pleaded with them not to do any such thing. However, that minority position is clearly backed and enabled by the Vatican hierarchy, who hand out promotions and control careers. (Sean's initial claim that I misunderstood how the hierarchy worked, because every bishop is the authority in his own diocese, ignores this reality. The bishop is answerable to his superiors, and can advance only by pleasing them.) Bishop Rourke, who invented this new communion-denial policy, and champions its theology, has since been rewarded by becoming Archbishop Rourke of St. Louis. More recently, he has been appointed to a seat on the Congregation of Bishops, the Vatican committee in charge of promotions. If that isn't an endorsement of his policy, and an active step toward spreading it, nothing else is.

    By this, I take him to mean gay priests, rather than simply those who have expressed sexual interest in juveniles.

    To be fair to Sean, I think he really means any sexually active priest, since they've all taken a vow of celibacy (er, unless they were Anglican priests who have recently been welcomed back into the fold, I suppose). I am, however, possibly reading between the lines something that Sean is not intending.

    Perhaps you're right. And perhaps I too have been reading something between the lines.

    In either case, a purge of priests and seminarians is impractical in a number of ways. The American Church, especially, has such a shortage of priests already that it's near the breaking point. In fact, that shortage was one of the reasons the bishops covered for abusers, because they struggle every day with the difficulties of keeping parishes staffed and felt like they couldn't afford to lose even one ordained priest.

    Bless you, Cleveland for redeeming this interminable thread with an astute and informative analysis. (No disrespects to the participants...some of the participants, anyway.)

    Yes, the good doctor has summed up the basic issues with clarity and finality. I for one see no need for further discussion.

    Yes - the bishops have given up much of their authority to be seen as more "democcratic". I suggest you read more about Dr Fred Berlin who tricked the bishops into believing that molestors can be cured. Having worked wiithin the Los Angeles archdiocesan offices, now completely overrun by feminist nuns (and ex-nuns and married nuns who refuse to leave their orders) demanding ordination, abortion rights and more awareness of global warming. They are secularized gnostics, of course.

    As regards your paragraph about bishops, I agree with you pretty much entirely. The bishop put the facade ahead of the substance. They hired thug lawyers to intimidate parents into silence. They shuffled priests around without accountability. And when everything bit them in the behind, they said a lot of nice words then continued in the same old liberalistic way - pretend there is not problem. I wrote about this in my Tidings column 2002 that the bishops had done nothing to protect children, the most beloved of Christ's flock as the gospels all agree. However Dr Cleveland, you seen unaware of the chain of command in the Church. The bishops to not answer to their superiors. They have no superiors. In their dioceses each is the vicar of Christ. True, Rome can overrule them, the national conference night, but it just doesn't happen. Collegiality has seen to that.

    As happened to JPII throughout his pontificate, his encyclicals were politely read and the bishops applauded his scholarship and sanctity - and then relegated them to the circular file. AmChurch prefers Rome to keep its distance.

    Oh, and I very much agree with you - humility has been lacking in the hierarchy for decades. That, I'm happy to say, is ending. B16 is appointing a lot more worthy men as bishops and the priests coming out of the seminaries are of a lot more spiritual breed than has been ordained in the last 40 years. I take it Dr Cleveland is not familiar with the "pink mafia" in seminaries that did some pretty vulgar and sacrilegeous things.

    As for the colleges, sorry to disagree with you, Dr. Those facts came from the Newman Guide. And I gave the links. Sorry you are not aware of the great confusion in Catholic campuses. You have had the facts. I suggest you look at them more closely rather than attempting to bully me with your harumphing,

    The problem I see with your attempt to explain me, Dr, is that you do not believe the Catholic Church is a spiritual institution. You see the facade the bishops tried to protect and not the substance.

    Bishop Tobin is hoping to protect Patrick Kennedy from going to hell as a public sinner, who also is leading others astray. It makes no difference if you believe abortion is good, the Catholic Church does not. Patrick Kennedy professes to be a Catholic. If so, he should abide by the rules of the organization of which he is a voluntary member.

    Now you quoted some statitstic, Dr, about what average Catholcis think. And what difference does that make? Catholicism is not run by the majority which changes evry other year. If we did, we'd be like the 1000s of sects that spring up with some new version of the Gospel. Mob rule is ahorrent to Cathtoli spirituality.

    We believe that we are guided by "the Spirit of Truth who will lead you into all truth" (John 1613). All truth is not some of the truth. Not part of the truth. It is ALL the truth. If the Church says abortion is a sin (which it hs since about AD 70 in the Didache) then it is sin. You don't like that? Fine. Stay out.

    If Patrick Kennedy had any courage, as I have said before, he wd leave the Church. I wd have much more respect for him. As it is now, he is just an embarrassment - same as John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn, former executive director of Emily's List - who was too cowoardly to continue an interview when I asked how a "good Italian Catholic" as she called herself cd front for an organization that funds women's campaigns based solely on their promotin abortion), and the other psuedo=Catholics who demean the Church with their presence.

    THEY, much more than the bishops, Dr Cleveland, are the true hypocrites.

    Your note... "for Sean most American professors of Catholic theology aren't bona fide Catholics" ... Yes, that's so. An overwhelming percentage of professors of Catholic theology in Catholic universities and colleges do not have the mandatum from the local bishop that is necessary to teach Catholci theology. (See the Apostolic Constitution, Ex Corde Ecclesia). A good many professors of Catholic theology are not even Catholic.

    "Bishop Rourke, who invented this new communion-denial policy, and champions its theology, has since been rewarded by becoming Archbishop Rourke of St. Louis. More recently, he has been appointed to a seat on the Congregation of Bishops,"

    You mean Bishop Burke.

    And the rule he upheld was not new or made up by him. It is in Canon Law and has been the rule of the Church since the 1st century. I suggest you read the letters of St Ignatius of Antioch, St Irenaeus of Lyons St Cyril of Jerusalem on the matter.

    Public sinners, as well as those promoting sinful behavior are liable to excommunication or, may be denied reception of the Most Holy Eucharist as a mater of discipline for one thing, and to keep them from sacrilege for another.

    Dr Cleveland - I still maintain that you do not know how the Catholic Church works.

    A very Merry Christmas






    Pardon - I made see I wrote too quickly - I meant the Lavender Mafia


    I find it interesting that you tell me:
    Your brush is very wide and you want to tar the entire episcopacy with it.
    because I have the audacity to call out the Catholic leadership (not the "entire episcopacy") for their failure to properly handle the molestations. Yet, you then write:
    Having worked wiithin the Los Angeles archdiocesan offices, now completely overrun [emphasis added] by feminist nuns (and ex-nuns and married nuns who refuse to leave their orders) demanding ordination, abortion rights and more awareness of global warming. They are secularized gnostics, of course.
    Presumably, you don't even recognize why I find that funny.

    I understand why YOU think it's funny. I see that you all hate Sarah Palin too. You guys are stereotypes.

    I realize your dogma has been updated, invested now with priestly molestation and hierarchical cupidity to hang over the Catholic Church, the rattenest organization in the history of the universe. No need to lug in Crusades or Inquisition - but you will keep throwing Galileo in our faces.

    The priestly scandal is over now. The pope is getting rid of unworthy bishops. Find a new tack now. Oh, wait, you ahve it! Keeping good Catholics like Patrick Kennedy from Communion because he has abandoned Catholic teaching for the much more liberal idea of murdering babies in their mothers' wombs.

    But that brings us back where we started. If Patrick Kennedy was at all honest he'd leave and become an Episcopalian which allows any perversion and just ignores the teaching of Jesus so they can say they love humanity.

    Well, since we are back where we started, and you folks are none the wiser - or at least pretend not to be - there is no more need for me to clutter up your sorry universe.

    Be sure to take your final digs. Folks like you set great store in having the last work. As for me, I know when to stop.


    God know you all need it badly. (My final dig! - just to give you a springboard, Orlando, Nebton and good ol' Dr Cleveland)



    Latest Comments