Is pedophilia permissable?

Not to cause a hysterical outburst of condemnation, but I've been carefully reading all these reports about sexual abuse that occurred many years ago, but I haven't noticed any reports about any of these "victims" being FORCED to engage in any thing.(you, know, the just say NO philosophy)

I'm not saying sex relations with children is ok, because it most certainly isn't. However, in the interest of being objective, some one who is "abused" REPEATEDLY over a period of years, leaves me a little baffled. I can see being abused once, but 5 or 5,000 times stretches this whole "victim" thing beyond belief.

I repeat, I am not approving of any of this stuff, but it seems like people are ready to stone to death anyone even ACCUSED of anything. I find that very immoral. Especially when people are coming out of the woodwork whinning about something that happened 30 years ago. Sorry, but that's a bit much.
Now, as for the Priests, Cardinals, Bishops, whoever, that are guilty of abusing kids and covering it up, I would think that the Cathoic Church would be very aggressive in getting rid of the whole bunch of them, including ALL homosexal seminary students, priests , and of course those that also abuse young girls,etc. If I were still Catholic, I wouldn't care if it emptied the seminaries and got rid of 80 per cent of the priests. So be it. This may end up being the best thing to happen to the Church in years. It is obvious that a purging is necessary. Better to have a bunch of dedicated priests (which I know many of) than to have a bunch of homosexual, child molesting, depraved Priests pretending to be imitators of Christ.
James2

[ April 27, 2002, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

Indeed, Carson, we are praying for you.

Heheh.. Eucharistic adoration is a very powerful form of prayer. While you're at it, try that.

 

Hi Joe,

you ought to become a Christian

What must I do to "become a Christian" that I haven't done already? I've entrusted myself and my salvation solely to Jesus and I pray to him every day with absolute trust in his plan for my life. Yet, I'm still not a Christian?

At best, the Pope and the church are incompetent as leaders ... criminally evil men, etc.

That's interesting. Thank goodness for the Holy Spirit! Without him, I'd be running for cover.

God bless,

Carson

 

Hi Joe,

Interesting reply.

I think you have entrusted your salvation to an evil and corrupt Church and not to Christ Alone.

I'm sorry, did I just make a post enunciating exactly to whom I entrust my salvation?.. or was that just me?

If that wasn't true, you would feel no need to defend the evil actions of Law and others.

Or, have I?

You believe in a works salvation which is not Biblical.

I don't believe that I'm saved by the works of the law at all. That's what St. Paul condemned throughout his epistles, and I hold to Pauline theology.

Works do not bring salvation, they are the evidence of salvation (James 2).

Of course works don't bring about salvation. Only Jesus' passion, death, and resurrection does. Do you actually think I trust on my own works for salvation?

I would think that if you were truly a Christian, you would want to take a strong stance for righteousness in your own church.

I do. So, I guess I'm truly a Christian.

Yet you have yet to do so. Why don't you call for the removal and prosecution of the priests, Law and other evil and corrupt leaders?

Oh, that's right - I forgot to vote on that today, or summon together my revolutionary army, or call the Pope. I'll get right to it.

If the Holy Spirit were truly active in your life, you would not follow the false teachings of the Catholic Church and would never defend the actions of the evil leaders in the RCC.

Here again you accuse me of defending evil actions. Accusations, accusations, false accusations.. The gifts of the Spirit are so manifest that I can hardly keep from rejoicing.

Jesus, I trust in you (not Joe).

God bless,

Carson

 

In all fairness, Joe, even though I tend to disagree vehemently with Carson on a myriad of subjects, he did not contribute to this thread until late in the conversation (page 7) and his first statement was:

Not to speak for Carson, but I don't believe that he was one of those who blindly defended Laws or the pedophile priest. I believe he recognizes the evil that was perpetrated.

My apologies if I have spoken out of turn, Carson.

[ April 28, 2002, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

Joe,

I think it would be appropriate for me to lay before you what I believe concerning merit really quick.

Catholic theology recognizes three types of merit.

(1) Strict Merit

Strict merit is the type in which a thing is earned by the exchange of something of equal value. For example, when I work, I merit my salary in the strict sense, because I have given my employers something of equal value. Thus, my employers are obligated to pay me because I have given them a work product having a value equal to my salary.

Protestants often have the idea that Catholics believe they can even earn their own salvation by “being good.” But that is not what Catholics believe. On the contrary, the Catholic Church teaches that only Christ can merit anything in the strict sense.

When Catholics speak of merit, they have in mind one of the two other types of merit.

(2) Congruent Merit

Congruent merit is the type in which we perform an action that may be rewarded, but there is no obligation to reward it. For example, when Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac, God rewarded Abraham. Another example is with Jehu in 2 Kings 10:30.

(3) Condign Merit

Condign merit is the type in which we perform an action that has a promised reward. In this case, there is a moral obligation to give the reward, even if the action has little or no intrinsic value. For example, if I promised you one hundred dollars if you would pick up a pebble, I would be obligated to pay you the money if you picked up the pebble. Obviously, picking up a pebble isn't worth a hundred dollars; it’s not worth anything at all. But you could merit that money, in the condign sense, by performing the action I had promised to reward.

It is the same with God. Moved by His grace, we can perform acts that please Him, acts that He has promised to reward. Even a casual perusal of the Bible will show that man may merit condignly from God.

But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you (Matt. 6:3-4)

But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked (Luke 6:35)

You know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free (Eph. 6:8)

But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous (Luke 14:13-14)

Surprisingly, the Bible says that even eternal life itself can be merited in this sense of condign merit, because God has promised it as a reward.

A time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out – those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned (John 5:28-29)

God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life (Rom. 2:6-7)

So when you see Catholic theology speaking of merit, you'll understand that strict merit is definitively out of the picture, and that Catholics follow the Bible regarding congruent and condign merit.

God bless,

Carson

 

Joseph:
So I used a little hyperbole. My point is let's remember that an accusation can be false. So let's be careful to give the accused a day in court before they are condemned. If that is a emotional, illogical response, so be it. Although, I think your attack on Carson fits that description alot better!!! (I do agree with all 6 of your points, however).

[ April 28, 2002, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

You're correct Joe - I do uphold the seal of confession, just like the law of the land does.

 

Joe,

I notice that you can't simply outrightly admit that you were wrong in your accusation, and now you're searching through past threads looking for any little bit of dirt that you can scrape up on me. Is this how Christians treat one another? Or how a Christian treats a non-Christian? (considering the fact that you've outrightly judged my relationship with the LORD)

It would be good if you would openly acknowledge that your accusation was a little quick to the gun and misapplied.

I uphold the virtue of justice. I believe that others should receive their due, that where punishment is due, punishment should be given. I also believe that mercy and justice kiss at the cross.

Perhaps you should recognize, first of all, the concept of the attorney-client privilege in the positive law of the United States.

Secondly, you should understand that the Bible requires us to confess our sins to other human beings (James 5:16). On the Protestant model one confesses to just anybody and does so for purely therapeutic purposes, not for absolution. However, in this model the confessor-confessee privilege would be just as needed. People need to know that their sins will not be publicly broadcast or they will not confess them to begin with.

Since you do not have a guaranteed confidentiality in this area (you can only take another person's word and hope they will not reveal it, as there is nothing hanging over their head if they do), it is not surprising that there is actually very little confession of sins going on in Protestant communities.

The seal of confession allows Catholics to be Biblical in precisely this area, whereas your lack of the seal prevents you from being Biblical, yet you attack the seal without regard for its necessity and the fact that the sins would never be confessed to begin with if it didn't exist.

Prov 11:13. He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but he who is trustworthy in spirit keeps a thing hidden.

You also fail to recognize that I wholeheartedly understand the fact that the Magisterium and the whole of the Church along with it are sinners. We sin, Joe, just like you. Isn't that a surprise? I don't cover that fact up, and I believe that a public display of the past scandals in the Church is representative of what God can do with such rubble. Take Peter for instance.

You're so involved in your sword-wielding that you've forgotten the new commandment Jesus gave to both you and me, a commandment that, to my prompting, you blindly drove past. Jesus tells us, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another." If you're not loving, if I'm not loving, then we're not being Christians. And, Jesus loves us by dying for us. Are you willing to pray, love, and die for Cardinal Law?

My suggestion is to get on your knees and pray for justice instead of ranting and raving, picketing the web board. That's effective and that is the way of the LORD whom we both profess.

God bless you and have a beautiful Sunday,

Carson

[ April 28, 2002, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Joe: I watched Tim Russert this morning before church and he was discussing this topic with some priests on his guest panel. Tim asked them at least six or seven times in different ways about whether or not the church was going to address the homosexuals in the priesthood. All he got was hems and haws. This is a real problem. On my earlier posts, I had put up some links. The homosexual agenda years ago was to infiltrate the priesthood and because it has been politically incorrect to call Sin a SIN, this is what the root of the problem is, I do believe. The panelists wouldn't even go so far as to say they would defrock these priests, only reassign them! Disgusting. Defrock and prosecute, that is what should be done! (Of course a personal relationship with Jesus Christ would help! )

In today's bulletin: The confused old man prayed for God to clean out the cobwebs in his thinking. After a few days, he changed his prayer: "God, never mind about the cobwebs, just kill the Spider!"

The cobwebs (pedophilia) are just the symptom. The real problem is the SPIDER!

 

EagleLIves911,

Priests take a vow of celibacy. Therefore, regardless of sexual orientation, a good priest will never act out on any of his immoral, sinful thoughts.

So, if a priest who is homosexual, and sometimes has homosexual thoughts, does not act out on that, how is that worse than a heterosexual priest, also not acting out on anything, have immoral, heterosexual thoughts?

Neither are having sexual relations; they are celibate. They both will have immoral thoughts.

And yet one is worse than the other, and before God's eyes, as you presume.

How?

 

GraceSaves, you're kidding, right?

I may be wrong here, but at one time, I believe the Catholic Church used to stand for a few things. Speak out against sin, not cover up.

Now I have heard this in recent days from people who ARE Roman Catholics, so didn't just make this up. (Alan Keyes, for one)

The problem to begin with is that homosexuals had an agenda to infiltrate the priesthood and did. Thus, because the Roman Catholic church was afraid of not being politically correct or something, they started allowing these to come into the priesthood by droves. Now there is this problem with pedophilia going on. So it was the homosexual political agenda that added fuel to the fire. That was my point.

Yes, priests are supposed to be celebate. So, I don't understand your point here.

But for starters you might read Romans Chapter 1 to see what God has to say about homosexuality.

The whole thing is totally disgusting and should not be justified by anyone, let alone a Roman Catholic!