"God has once again brought an Easter out of Good Frida

[Jetstorm]

I know exactly what you are going through Eunice. I am a member of the United Methodist Church, born and raised. I love this church. I am a firm believer in the principles of John Wesley and the faith and the ideas which he espoused. And yet, I look at my church, and I can only come to the conclusion that John Wesley would roll over in his grave if he knew some of the stuff going on with us.

What happened in the Episcopal Church this week could very well be happening in the UMC fifteen, ten, heck, maybe just five years from now. The UMC is afraid to take ANY kind of stand that will offend progressive thought from the East Coast of the United States. In the last thirty years, we have caved in on the Bible as absolute truth, we have caved in on ecumenicalism, we have caved in on evolution, we have caved in on women pastors, we have caved in on abortion, and now the cry is emanating from the "progressive" wing of our church that we should now cave on homosexuality. Already I have seen news stories of Methodist ministers blessing gay unions and performing civil unions for gay couples on the two coasts. And my church's stance on the whole deal with Iraq was absolutely appalling. I could live with them being against this war for a variety of reasons (except humanitarian, because as evil as Hussein was to the Iraqi people, that argument was simply a non-starter), I could even live with them being against ANY war out of principle. But many UMC bishops went out of their way to take cheap, partisan shots at President Bush, himself a Methodist (Archbishop Griswold, leader of the Episcopal Church in the U.S., did the same thing with Bush Sr. in the Gulf War, as I recall. He attacked W as well). One even took out a full page ad in the New York Times questioning whether or not our President was even a true Christian.

I don't even go to University UMC down here at LSU. They actually let the anti-war loons (they were more than just anti-war, they were vicious Ameri-haters) meet and plan events at the church. The only reason I stay is because I still go to church with my folks when I'm back home, and it's still a good Methodist church, where they actually still talk about Jesus. But I am getting fed up, and I don't think me or my future family can grow spiritually if I stay. I'm probably headed over to the Southern Baptist Convention (the Church I was raised to view as "The Dark Side") really soon, because they seem to me to be the last mainstream Protestant denomination that fully holds to the Bible as the complete, absolute true word of God and MEANS IT and FOLLOWS IT. Catholicism is great, but I just have too many doctrinal differences with them (the whole saints thing and all). Unless I see some drastic changes in the UMC, I will have no choice. While it hurts to leave the church I love and grew up in, I just cannot rest easy knowing what's going on. I have to do what I know God expects of his true believers. I want to be able to go to church again without feeling weird about it.

Many more have left before me. The UMC is now down to 7 million members nation wide, a distant second. And our bishops are wondering why the Baptists are whipping us in membership. Either they just don't get it, or just don't want to see the truth.

[Dirtydawg]

Here's an idea. Why don't you find a church you can be comfortable with, regardless of denomination and attend it. You don't have to be a member. Find a church with people you have something in common with and go. There are plenty of Baptist churches out there that don't exactly teach proper scripture either. If you don't like the preacher's sermon, so what. I joined my church (Baptist), not because I adhere to the Baptist doctrine, but because my friends and peers are members there, and we can fellowship together. They've been Baptists all their lives and don't subscribe totally to the Baptist doctrine. However, we all do have many of our beliefs in common. You're not always going to agree with what your preacher teaches. When you die and go to Heaven, God is going to check to see what denomination you are.

[american]

Baptists have a doctrine?

[Dirtydawg]

Baptists have a doctrine?

I don't know, to be honest, with you. Do they? Maybe I should have used a different word.

[american]

Most Baptist groups are largely democratic. Such practices as autonomy of local churches and "priesthood of the believer" are prominent. Roger Williams fled the narrow minded theocratic form of government the Puritans had in Massachusetts and established a Baptist church in Providence, RI (probably the first in the Americas). The government in RI practiced religious tolerance.

The new Southern Baptist Convention, on the other hand, is attempting to prohibit women clergy, boycott Disney, etc. In fact, the new SBC is on the verge of getting out of the Baptist World Alliance. Perhaps it will have a fundamentalist doctrine at some point in the near future. After all, Jerry Falwell joined it a few years ago.

[markay714]

You get some differences in Southern Baptists according to the locale - one I visited in Virginia actually had the pastor wearing a robe. True, every SBC church does have the right to do most things according to their own accord within their church - some actually even have women deacons (not one that I would choose to join). Jerry Falwell's church is actually not a contributing member really to the Cooperative Program (pays for our missions organization, offices, etc.). I think you have to give $100/year to be a member church of the SBC - something like that - and I think that's what they do.

There was a struggle back in the 80's over inerrancy of scripture (primarily) and liberalism in the seminaries which was ultimately won by the conservatives. Some churches have gone and created their own "fellowship" of "moderate" churches having given up the fight in the SBC.

Think you've always gotta check out the church and find one that you agree with for the most part. There isn't one that anybody will agree with 100% of the time, but certainly when you can't agree with major doctrinal issues its time to move on down the road.

[american]

Jerry Falwell attends SBC, this time as a messenger
June 11, 1998 - Volume: 98-44

By David Winfrey


SALT LAKE CITY (ABP) -- Jerry Falwell has spoken at the Southern Baptist Convention Pastors’ Conference, preached in the pulpits of Southern Baptist churches and put Southern Baptists on the trustee board of his Liberty University.
So in many respects his registering for the first time ever as a voting messenger to the SBC annual meeting was simply confirmed the trend in which he has been moving for several years, said the pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va.

"I’ve been attending the Southern Baptist Convention for many years. This is the first time we have taken 10 messengers and voted," Falwell said in an interview during the June 9-11 convention in Salt Lake City. "I don’t know why we decided to send messengers this time as opposed to earlier, but we did."

Falwell and seven other members of Thomas Road Baptist Church registered as messengers, according to Registration Secretary Lee Porter. The church reported giving $10,000 to SBC causes last year through a new state convention formed by conservatives in Virginia.

"We have officially joined about a year ago," Falwell said, adding that he has no intention of leaving some of the other independent groups he has supported through the years. "We still hold membership in and give support to other groups that we’ve been affiliated with for 42 years."

Falwell said his decision to join the SBC follows the completion of the denomination’s move toward a more conservative stance.

"All six of the seminaries now have biblical inerrantists as presidents. All the Southern Baptist agencies now are headed by inerrantists, and the thing that many of us thought never could happen— that is the return of the denomination to biblical authority—has happened," he said.

Falwell said other churches also have joined the convention for the same reason. "I’m sure others will."

"There is now no reason why we shouldn’t be a part of it," he added. "We now feel the liberty to support the convention and to participate."

Falwell said he doesn’t expect criticism from independent Baptists for the decision to formally join the SBC.

"We are still in good fellowship," he said. "We have not abandoned the Baptist Bible Fellowship (a group of independent Baptist churches)."

He said he doesn’t intend to take an SBC leadership role, noting his responsibilities for Liberty University, the "Old Time Gospel Hour" broadcast and the 20,000-member church occupy his time.

"I don’t have any plan to get politically involved, just spiritually involved," he said. "I really, at age 64, don’t have the energy to take on anything new."

Falwell, a longtime friend of newly-elected SBC President Paige Patterson, said he does intend to be involved in Patterson’s goal of baptizing 1 million new Christians during the year 2000.

"We’re training 1,000 pastors right now," he said. "Church planting is a major priority with me and has been all of my ministry. It is with Paige Patterson, and we plan to coalesce with our graduates in planting a lot of new Southern Baptist churches."

[weunice]

I'm probably headed over to the Southern Baptist Convention (the Church I was raised to view as "The Dark Side") really soon, because they seem to me to be the last mainstream Protestant denomination that fully holds to the Bible as the complete, absolute true word of God and MEANS IT and FOLLOWS IT. Catholicism is great, but I just have too many doctrinal differences with them (the whole saints thing and all).

I completely understand your reasoning here ... The Catholic church in all of its wild claims stands for truth and it has a history of not wavering on its stances despite public outcry (see birth control and married priests in recent years) ... To me that is a very good sign.

...

As sure as the sun shines our priest came out and blasted the decision but stated that our church will remain in the Episcopal church. Apparently a few folks from all over town showed up because an article indicated that our priest was one of the few in town that did NOT support what happened. They wanted to hear what he had to say. The first thing he got up and said was "For those of you who are upset at the Episcopal church over this, you need to examine your heart. You are upset for the wrong reasons. This church has been going this way for a long time." Then he pointed out that we have had ordained male priests who were living with a female partners, having sexual relations and not married. He noted that folks finally got upset when it was homosexual sin. He said that he loved the Episcopal church (a sentiment that we all agree with) and that he feels that the conventions are attended by a vocal minority. He pleaded for us to get more active and he said that if any of us chose to leave the church he would fully support us and only asked that we allow the church to pray for us as we go on our journey. It was one of the best things I have ever heard him say and I do not think masses of folks will leave the church ... In a way, I think he is right. There is a place for folks here as long as they are willing to stand up and ACT.

We will likely still leave, but like I said, it has NOTHING to do with this.

I will say this ... I am pretty sure of two persons within our church who agreed with the decision. It is a small church. We have about 75 regular attendees. I am almost certain that the rest did not.

That is not to say that our church is very represenative of the Episcopal church as a whole but it is just an example.

[Dirtydawg]

I completely understand your reasoning here ... The Catholic church in all of its wild claims stands for truth and it has a history of not wavering on its stances despite public outcry (see birth control and married priests in recent years) ... To me that is a very good sign.

Especially it's stance for covering up for priests who molest young boys.

[weunice]

C'mon Dirty that was very low of you. You would have to be sick in the head to support such behavior and the way that this has been handled by men is deplorable but to my knowledge there is no teaching within Catholic doctrine that supports such behavior or the covering up of such behavior. To say that the Pope is disappointed in the American church is an understatement in the least and it is clear to everyone that the matter has not been handled appropriately.

If I were to judge a church on the sins of its members and represenatives, I would not be attending ANY church (Christian or other faith) and you know as well as I do that this involves some pretty nasty sins committed by members of the Catholic Church that have been well documented throughout history. I read in Christianity Today during the priest scandals a statistic about how often similar charges are brought up against Protestant pastors, music ministers and childrens ministers and it was NOT pretty. The point of the statistic?

John 8:7b - "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/005/24.25.html

Key quote: "Further, accusations of sexual misconduct involving minors or adults are nearly as common among Protestants as among Roman Catholics. "

http://www.thelinkup.org/ - especially read the second half of the statistics page.

[Jetstorm]

Agreed. That was a low blow Dirtydawg. A few Roman Catholic bishops in a few parishes made the mistaken choice of trying to keep the abuse scandal discreet. There was no massive in-Church conspiracy to cover up the whole thing. The Pope was deeply troubled by the whole thing, and the biggest mistake he made was, instead of handling it himself, he trusted his Vatican bureaucracy to deal with it, which only made it worse.

The Catholic Church also did not understand the insidious enemy they were up against. I would suggest reading the book "Goodbye Good Men: how Liberals brought Corruption into the Catholic Church" by Michael Rose, which chronicles how radical homosexual and man-boy love groups, using "Progressives" within the Catholic Church as useful idiots to further their aims, infiltrated the Church with the intent of destroying it from within by liberalizing Catholic doctrines and, once they were in positions of power, conferring secret and tacit approval by the American Catholic Church to homosexuality and man-child love. Catholic seminary candidates who were actually Godly men who actually believed in the Catholic doctrines on sex and love were systematically driven off, turning Roman Catholic seminaries into bathhouses.

The Vatican and orthodox Catholics in the U.S. did not see this until very recently. This was where they made the mistake of A) trying to handle the matter quietly to respect sinners privacy of confession (and to avoid scandal and embarrassment for the Church) and B) thinking that these people really were good at heart and could be saved. Catholic doctrine is fluent in the language of secrecy and forgiveness. They didn't understand they were face to face with pure evil, and that when that happens, you've got to get mean! You've got to show zero tolerance for sin!
Because I've never heard of a one-time child molester. You must isolate these people, otherwise they will continue to sin and hurt people.

Every single priest found to be molesting a child should have been immediately defrocked, ex-communicated, and shunned. Instead, for reasons I still cannot fathom, the bishops and archbishops continued to drone on about the need for "forgiveness" and "understanding." While that's all well and good, you can't leave people in positions where they can still sin and still hurt children.

But I don't believe the Catholic Church is caving in. In fact, now that they have been forced to look the problem square in the face and admit it's there, the healing and the reform can begin. The true believers are not so few that they can't return the Church to godly status. They can, and I think they will. The Catholic Church has always been, and will always be, a strong moral bastion. No amount of infiltration will change that.


But they, like Episcopals, Methodists, like any church, have issues they need to deal with.

[american]

Sex Crimes Cover-Up By Vatican?

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 6, 2003

(CBS) For decades, priests in this country abused children in parish after parish while their superiors covered it all up. Now it turns out the orders for this cover up were written in Rome at the highest levels of the Vatican.

CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales has uncovered a church document kept secret for 40 years.

The confidential Vatican document, obtained by CBS News, lays out a church policy that calls for absolute secrecy when it comes to sexual abuse by priests - anyone who speaks out could be thrown out of the church.

The policy was written in 1962 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani.

The document, once "stored in the secret archives" of the Vatican, focuses on crimes initiated as part of the confessional relationship and what it calls the "worst crime": sexual assault committed by a priest" or "attempted by him with youths of either sex or with brute animals."

Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases "in the most secretive way...restrained by a perpetual silence...and everyone {including the alleged victim) ...is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office...under the penalty of excommunication."

Larry Drivon, a lawyer who represents alleged victims, said, “This document is significant because it's a blueprint for deception.”

Drivon said this proves what he has alleged on behalf of victims in priest-abuse lawsuits: that the church engaged in a crime – racketeering.

“It's an instruction manual on how to deceive and how to protect pedophiles,” Drivon said. "And exactly how to avoid the truth coming out."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said the document is being taken out of context, that it's a church law that deals only with religious crimes and sins. And that the secrecy is meant to protect the faithful from scandal.

“The idea that this is some sort of blueprint to keep this secret is simply wrong,” said Msgr. Francis Maniscalco, a spokesman for the Conference.

“This is a system of law which is complete in itself and is not telling the bishops in any way about how to handle these crimes when they are considered as civil crimes,” Maniscalco said.

But Richard Sipe, a former priest who has written about sex abuse and secrecy in the church, said the document sends a chilling message.

“This is the code for how you must deal with sex by priests. You keep it secret at all costs,” Sipe said. “And that's what's happened. It's happened in every diocese in this country.”

According to church records, the document was a bedrock of Catholic sex abuse policy until America's bishops met last summer and drafted new policies to address the crisis in the church.

[weunice]

http://www.catholicexchange.com/e3ne...icle_id=154369

CBS News Story Distorts 1962 Vatican Document (Analysis)
Thursday, August 07, 2003 12:00:00 AM GMT

Boston, Aug. 07 (CWNews.com) - A CBS network news report, claiming that the Holy See orchestrated a cover-up of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, is based on a gross misinterpretation of a 1962 Vatican document.

In a sensationalist report aired on August 6, CBS Evening News claimed to have discovered a secret document proving that the Vatican had approved-- and even demanded-- a longstanding policy of covering up clerics' sexual misdeeds.

The document cited by CBS does nothing of the sort.

In fact the network's story misrepresented the Vatican document so thoroughly that it is difficult to attribute the inaccuracy to honest error.

The CBS story is based on a secret Instruction issued to bishops in March 1962 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, then the prefect of the Holy Office (now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). That document sets forth the canonical procedures to be followed when a priest is charged with the ecclesiastical crime of "solicitation"-- that is, using the confessional to tempt penitents to engage in sexual activity.

[The Vatican document, in an awkward English translation, can be downloaded from the CBS News site. CBS also offers the Latin original.]

The Vatican document deals exclusively with solicitation: an offense which, by definition, occurs within the context of the Sacrament of Penance. And since that sacrament is protected by a shroud of absolute secrecy, the procedures for dealing with this ecclesiastical crime also invoke secrecy.

In short, by demanding secrecy in the treatment of these crimes, the Vatican was protecting the secrecy of the confessional. The policy outlined in that 1962 document is clearly not intended to protect predatory priests; on the contrary, the Vatican makes it clear that guilty priests should be severely punished and promptly removed from ministry.

It is important to keep in mind that the 1962 Vatican Instruction dealt exclusively with "solicitation" as that term is understood in ecclesiastical usage, under the terms of the Code of Canon Law. The policies set forth by Cardinal Ottaviani do not pertain to the sexual misdeeds of clerics, but to the efforts by priest to obtain sexual favors though the misuse of their confessional role.

It is also important to note that because solicitation takes place inside the confessional, only the accused priest and the penitent could possibly have direct evidence as to whether or not the crime took place. If the solicitation led to actual sexual activity, that misconduct could be the subject of an entirely separate investigation, not bound by the same rules of secrecy.

The crime of "solicitation" has always been viewed by the Catholic Church as an extremely serious offense, calling for the strongest available penalties. Cardinal Ottaviani stresses that any confessor who solicits sexual favors from his penitents should be suspended from ministry and stripped of all priestly privileges. These penalties apply to all cases of solicitation, whether they involve minor children or adults of either sex. The 1962 document is not concerned with all instances of solicitation; it does not concentrate on the solicitation of children.

The CBS report claimed:

The confidential Vatican document, obtained by CBS News, lays out a church policy that calls for absolute secrecy when it comes to sexual abuse by priests-- anyone who speaks out could be thrown out of the church.
That is inaccurate.

While it is true that the Vatican document threatens excommunication for anyone who discloses the proceedings of an ecclesiastical trial for "solicitation," it does not bar the priest's accuser from making separate charges about the priest's sexual misconduct. In fact the document makes it clear that during the canonical trial, the accuser should not be questioned about any sexual activity that he may have undertaken with the priest; the accuser is to be questioned solely about what occurred within the confessional.

Thus, someone who was sexually abused by a priest would be free, under the 1962 Vatican policy, to bring criminal charges against that priest for his sexual conduct, while simultaneously charging the priest with "solicitation" in an ecclesiastical court.

In fact, the Instruction from Cardinal Ottaviani stresses (in section 18) that every Catholic has a solemn duty to bring canon-law charges against a priest who attempts to solicit sex through the confessional. The importance of that obligation is underlined by the fact that a Catholic who fails to report solicitation is subject to excommunication. Moreover, the penitent remains under this solemn obligation to report solicitation even if the priest has already confessed his crime.

The document on which CBS based its distorted story is a densely worded 24-page document, couched in the technical idiom of canon law, and accompanied by a 36-page Appendix that provides the formulas to be used in an ecclesiastical trial. No careful reader could fail to recognize that this was a specialized document, providing a set of procedures for a particular ecclesiastical offense. Why, then, did CBS News draw a broad general conclusion from a tightly focused legal document? Why did the network fail to distinguish between the ecclesiastical crime of solicitation and the public offense of pedophilia? The questions are worth pondering.

[weunice]

You can believe who you want to believe but consider your bias before reading each article (this applies to me as well) ....

[american]

Your point is well taken.

Nevertheless, I fear many in power still don't get it. Even with the revelations of systemic abuse and coverup and the ensuing preciptous drop in church giving, many aren't cooperating to make changes. A case in point:

Gov. Keating Resigns U.S. Conference Of Bishops
Supporters Are Shocked And Disappointed

POSTED: 4:55 p.m. EDT June 16, 2003
UPDATED: 8:18 p.m. EDT June 16, 2003

BOSTON -- Gov. Frank Keating's resignation letter to the President of the U.S. Conference of Bishops was released late Monday afternoon. In it, Newscenter 5's Amalia Barreda reported that he makes reference to but does not take back his words likening the secrecy of some Catholic bishops to organized crime.

In his letter he writes, "My remarks, which some bishops found offensive, were deadly accurate. I make no apology."

For those who looked at Keating as a no nonsense crusader for the truth, his expected resignation from the national review board studying the clergy sexual abuse crisis is a shocking disappointment.


"Governor Keating was a passionate believer in the truth and he pursued it passionately. At a time when the church needs to be doing exactly that, "said Steve Krueger, spokesman for The Voice of the Faithful.

Voice of the Faithful calls it an unfortunate use of misspoken words when the former Oklahoma Governor compared the secrecy under which some Catholic bishops still operate to "La Cosa Nostra." He specifically singled out Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony as one of the would be 'mafiosos' because of his reluctance to cooperate with a grand jury investigation into priest sexual abuse.

"When we hear public reports of bishops indicating that they are not going to release records that they previously agreed to release, one can't help but ask themselves what is going on?" Krueger said.

That question about the behavior of church hierarchy might also be asked in the wake of Monday's stunning news that Phoenix police searched the home of Bishop Thomas O'Brien Monday because the bishop is being investigated for a fatal hit and run accident Saturday night. O'Brien recently agreed to a reduced role in the Phoenix diocese as part of a deal to avoid prosecution for protecting sex abusing priests.

No doubt this week's developments will make for interesting conversation at the next meeting of American Bishops scheduled to begin Thursday in St. Louis.

"We will be there to both engage our bishops in dialogue as well as to hold them accountable," said Krueger.

--------------

It does appear that Law was replaced by a good man, however.