Tracking Earth's Future via Current Events, etc.

[mad_gater]

True, IIRC celibacy is a "directive" and not a "law" within the CC.


Ho do you feel when you see things like this then:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/calls-to-w...109-293ep.html
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/nati...112-298h3.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226514893187

I'm just as upset as everyone else would be at clerics who should know better than to abuse their authority in such a fashion. I just hope and pray justice is carried out in a sensible fashion rather than a "witch hunt against all clergy" kind of fashion. The case brought forth in the second link, however. Why did this guy wait so long? he's gotta know that, presuming Australia law has such things as statutes of limitations on various crimes, that they would likely be in effect by now. The abuse happened what, about 40 - 50 years ago? Here in the US that would definitely run afoul of statutes of limitations, which are put in place for very good reason. Memories of a time period that occurred so long ago can become degraded over time and cast any legal proceedings into enormous doubt. Heck in this guy's case most of the guilty parties, if such abuse actually did take place....are likely dead. And it is good that in recent years more is being done to ensure the safety of our children in our churches. When I was applying for jobs in the child care field I went through child sexual abuse training offered by my local diocese called VIRTUS. And I do hope that ecclesiastical and civil authorities in Australia can work together in a peaceful manner to further improve child safety standards.

[Gatefan1976]

I'm just as upset as everyone else would be at clerics who should know better than to abuse their authority in such a fashion.

But they have, and they have been shielded from being held accoutable for it.

I just hope and pray justice is carried out in a sensible fashion rather than a "witch hunt against all clergy" kind of fashion.

Thats why they stated it would cover *all* religious organizations, not just any one of them.

The case brought forth in the second link, however. Why did this guy wait so long? he's gotta know that, presuming Australia law has such things as statutes of limitations on various crimes, that they would likely be in effect by now.

Are you kidding, or just being obtuse here?
These are people you trust your kids with, people who claim "higher values", yet they have abused that trust, and they hold ALL the cards. Report them, they will provide witnesses against, blame them, and they will deny it. You can't make a case under such conditions.

The abuse happened what, about 40 - 50 years ago? Here in the US that would definitely run afoul of statutes of limitations, which are put in place for very good reason. Memories of a time period that occurred so long ago can become degraded over time and cast any legal proceedings into enormous doubt. Heck in this guy's case most of the guilty parties, if such abuse actually did take place....are likely dead.

Did you other to notice that they are not going after "individuals", but a case of systemic abuse?

And it is good that in recent years more is being done to ensure the safety of our children in our churches. When I was applying for jobs in the child care field I went through child sexual abuse training offered by my local diocese called VIRTUS. And I do hope that ecclesiastical and civil authorities in Australia can work together in a peaceful manner to further improve child safety standards.

YOU do the right thing, YOU stand for what you percieve as the core values of not just Christianity, but your overall view of it. That does NOT mean others do. Sorry dude, but thats just the way it is.

[mad_gater]

As I said the only thing I read that was worrisome were lines like "Catholic Church failed these people" when it is clearly not the institution itself that failed but a failure of those guilty to live up to the high moral standards of Church teaching.....so forgive me for worrying about this becoming a witch hunt not only against the Catholic Church but against these "all religions" spoken of in the articles....witch hunts get started rather easily these days

[lordofseas]

As I said the only thing I read that was worrisome were lines like "Catholic Church failed these people" when it is clearly not the institution itself that failed but a failure of those guilty to live up to the high moral standards of Church teaching.....so forgive me for worrying about this becoming a witch hunt not only against the Catholic Church but against these "all religions" spoken of in the articles....witch hunts get started rather easily these days

The Catholic Church can do no wrong.

[Gatefan1976]

As I said the only thing I read that was worrisome were lines like "Catholic Church failed these people" when it is clearly not the institution itself that failed but a failure of those guilty to live up to the high moral standards of Church teaching

No, and here is where the core of our differences truly lie.
The "church" (any church) used it's auspices to hide the criminal activities of it's members (it's most important members mind you) in order to cover thier own butts, and the "church" (again, any church) should be held accoutable for those actions as "co-conspirators". The CC cops it so much because they have taken an active role in smearing the "gay community" and not just telling, but using thier political clout to "make policy" as well, while at the same time hiding "gay actions" from thier very own *ordained* members. (let alone that by any stretch of the imagination these are rapes as well)

.....so forgive me for worrying about this becoming a witch hunt not only against the Catholic Church but against these "all religions" spoken of in the articles....witch hunts get started rather easily these days

Why is the church afraid of it's own "historic policies"?
Or are you going to try to tell me that priests/inqusitors never had the backing of "mother church"?

[Seastallion]

Just so it is understood, the Catholic church is NOT the original early church. They didn't even come into existence until a few hundred years after the death of Jesus, under the guidance of Constantine, the so-called 'first Christian Roman Emperor'. The Eastern Orthodox church which doesn't answer to the Pope, claims to be just as old as the Catholics. In reality, there were several early Christian groups that were NOTHING like the Catholic church. The biggest difference was that the Catholics acquired the backing of the Roman state. Those other christian groups continued to be persecuted, although Catholics no longer were.

The truth of Constantine was that he recognized the growth of Christianity in his empire, despite persecution, and he decided it would be wise to harness the religion to his own ends, rather than have it split his empire apart. Having come to that decision, he then searched for a mold-able christian group that would fit his aims. In the course of that search he came across the Catholics who at the time, still hadn't pinned its theology down, and were divided between two competing ideals (the other being Arianism). To shore the theology up, Constantine called for the councils of Nicaea, held only a few miles away from Constantinople. It was during those councils in 325 A.D., that they finally established the doctrine of the Trinity, which was not agreed upon until that time.

The theology of the Trinity was a weapon used by Constantine to appeal to the polytheistic elements of his empire, by fusing polytheism (or tritheism) with monotheism, to form the convoluted ideal that is called the Trinity, even though NOTHING in the early history of the early church or Judaism ever promoted any such thinking. The Early Church had been seen as a sect of Judaism, until it was later declared its own religion. As such, the early church believed strongly in the idea of "One God", and held no such notions of a trinity at all. To further cement this idea, the Catholic church altered the baptismal method to use the titles of the trinity, rather than how the early church had always done it, calling specifically on the name of Jesus, rather than the titles. This is evidenced repeatedly in book of Acts, which is the only 'history' book in the New Testament concerning the early church.

Groups that used the baptismal formula found in Acts that existed at the time the Catholic church came into being were the Monarchians or the Sabellians among others. The Catholics condemned these groups as being heretics and continued their persecution, but the point being, the Catholics were not, the "original" church despite what they claim.

One of the fathers of the Protestant movement, Martin Luther, himself returned to the earlier mode of baptism using the name of Jesus, rather than the titles of the trinity. So the idea that Christians are in any way united on theological grounds is completely false, or even that all christian theology is based on the Bible. A great deal of Catholic doctrine is NOT found in the Bible at all. About the only thing 'christians' have in common is claiming Jesus as their patron.

[mad_gater]

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/art...of-the-kingdom

[aretood2]

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/art...of-the-kingdom

History has it that the primitive church fractured into independent churches that slowly started working together. Eventually there were dominant groups such as those that became the Eastern Orthodox church. So who is the continuation? Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic? Small groups of churches, locally, fell under Bishops (overseers/supervisors) which were a remnant of the Apostolic or Primitive church. They formed Synods which were councils. Each Synod was independent. They formed networks. Metropolitan churches of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were the main religious groups, if you can call them that. This was about around the end of the 2nd century. Rome was a center of Christian thought, that is the latest ideas of Christianity, but so were the other two. It makes sense that the capital of the Empire would hold more sway than Alexandria and Antioch. Interestingly enough Greeks had their Greek pride that allowed them to negate Roman rule when the time came that the Roman Catholic Church consolidated itself.

It was a Roman, Tertullian, who worked in Rome that wrote about the Trinity late in the 2nd century. Theophilus wrote something similar in Antioch (perhaps laying the framework for accepting Tertullian's beliefs with the backing of the influence of the Roman Metropolitan Church). Irenaeus in Gaul also expressed ideas that were ambigious when it came to Christology. This lended itself to also be used to spread Tertullian's ideas. All of this at the end of the 2nd century. It was at this time that Christians began playing around with different versions of the cross, the "T" type cross in Roman area.

There were other centers or Metropolitan churches, but they were minor and usually picked sides over time moving into the third century. That's when people who didn't believe in trinity started getting labeled as heretics. Arius was on of the more notable examples. Historians believe that he was conservative, meaning he wanted to preserve a view of Christianity. Arius did not like the mixing of Christian and Greek Pagan ideas that was happening at the time. He could be called the reactionary force of past changes to Christianity by the different Roman clergy.

Arius and various supporters of his nontrinitarian views were present at the First Council of Nicaea. His followers continued on after him well into the dark ages (or early middle ages) until they were eradicated.

The Alexandria church would give way to the Coptic Orthodox Church. Antioch gave way to the Nestorian church (or the Church of the east). Churches that rejected Roman supremacy gave way to the Eastern Orthodox church. So who is the successor of the Primitive Church? Given that Peter died before John, and so did Paul. John was in the middle east, thus he was sent to Patmus, in the middle East. Antioch and Jerusalem were the centers for the Primitive Church at the very end of the Apostolic age. You only have tradition to support Rome as the successor. Without the Apostles, the Primitive Church fractured, and over centuries reorganized into different movements that were eventually forced together by a Pagan ruler. Not all were too happy by that. Thus you had Arians, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholic with the minor Coptic church in Africa. The Catholic Church was born in the 4th century, its predecessor had its beginnings in the latter part of the 2nd century when the previously fractured primitive church began reorganizing itself.

[lordofseas]

Whatever. All different versions of the same untruth.

[Gatefan1976]

Whatever. All different versions of the same untruth.

What untruth?

[lordofseas]

What untruth?

God. Jesus. Burning bushes and talking snakes.

[Gatefan1976]

God. Jesus. Burning bushes and talking snakes.

It's a belief structure dude, not a fact structure.

[lordofseas]

It's a belief structure dude, not a fact structure.

Which shields it from criticism, mockery, and supposed blasphemy?

[Gatefan1976]

Which shields it from criticism, mockery, and supposed blasphemy?

Not at all, have you ever seen me holding back with my criticism of organanized religion?

[lordofseas]

Not at all, have you ever seen me holding back with my criticism of organanized religion?

Would I recognize if you had or not?