New Catholic Rule: Pro-Gay Politicians Don’t Get Holy Communion or Funeral Rites


What separation of church and state? Show us a religious entity that hasn’t involved itself in politics, and we’ll show you a check with six zeroes. But we’re not just talking about folks like New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan inserting himself into the gay marriage debate. We’re talking about Archbishop Raymond Burke, who just called for the banishment of gay-supporting politicians. Or at least denying them communion and funeral rites.

It was a direct shot at Sen. Ted Kennedy, the LGBT advocate whose funeral was attended by Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley and fellow bigshot Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. This, despite many conservative Catholics indignation over Kennedy’s civil rights support. (And that comes despite this correspondence between Kennedy and the Pope.)

Addressing’s 14th Annual Partnership Dinner, Burke argued “neither Holy Communion nor funeral rites should be administered to politicians who support abortion or same-sex marriage. To deny these is not a judgment of the soul, but a recognition of the scandal and its effects. … It is not possible to be a practicing Catholic and to conduct oneself in this manner.”

Burke, the former archbishop of St. Louis who now carries the grand title Prefect of the Vatican’s Apostolic Signatura, came out swinging not just against Kennedy (though he didn’t name him), but also his colleagues McCarrick and O’Malley, who was urged not to preside over Kennedy’s funeral.

But there’s another side to this argument: What politician, or human being, would want to take communion from a church who considers civil rights work to be sinful? Who would want to have his funeral presided over by a church who deems your friends and loved ones less than? Actually, plenty of folks, and Kennedy — a good Irish Catholic boy — obviously was among them. It doesn’t make much sense to us, but we understand the power of faith.

It’s just a shame Archbishop Burke wields so much of it.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #catholicchurch #raymondburke #religion stories and more


  • Kurt

    While Burke has a following among some extremely wealthy, ultraright Catholics (like those who threw the testimonial dinner for him), he is considered an out of the mainstream nut job by most of his fellow bishops.

    He was such a disaster as archbishop of St. Louis, he was moved out of that ministry to be given a bureaucratic desk job in Rome (as was done for the disgraced Cardinal Law).

  • Jason

    “… It is not possible to be a practicing Catholic and to conduct oneself in this manner.”

    Apparently, it IS possible to be a practicing Catholic and a fucking bigoted cunthole.

  • unreligious

    But of course it is possible to be a practicing Catholic and a priest no less and molest girls and boys. Yet they still received communion.

  • Bill

    It is always funny when the diddle-little-kids church comes out to speak on morality.

  • schlukitz

    These Jebus people seem totally incapable of practicing what Christ actually preached.

    “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. …”

    In other words, “Judge not lest ye be judged.”


  • Charles Merrill

    It is unbelievable to me that Kennedy or anyone could think we are UNDER GOD and that he was being judged by a supreme being. He was a Democratic Senator, not a Theocratic Senator. Frankly I was shocked at the insanity of the ritual carried out by the pointed hat monsters around Kennedy’s coffin. They were supposedly sending Kennedy’s soul up to heaven from the coffin though smoke from the incense pot. The world leaders at the funeral accepted it, like it was reality and god was up there watching. Insane.

  • Craig Swinson

    Evidently you can be a pedophile priest and still keep your job, get communion, funeral rights, and be shuffled around to different locations and still ply your trade on young children!

  • Jim

    @Craig Swinson: i was JUST about the say the same thing! So messed up!

  • Lloyd Baltazar

    OUCH. As a Roman Catholic myself, one of the greatest things that a Roman Catholic can be denied of in the Church is holy communion or funeral rites—and of course, the dreaded excommunication of a church member.

    As far as I know, only suicide cases are to be denied of funeral rites in the Roman Catholic Church. It sucks that the archbishop wants to extend that punishment on Catholic politicians that support Gay marriage.

    The message is simple—-you cannot be a Roman Catholic and support LGBT rights.

  • Lloyd Baltazar

    IT IS a judgment on the soul to be denied of funeral rites in the Roman Catholic church. That is tantamount to the denial of a Roman Catholic baptism.

    The only case I am aware of in which Roman Catholic funeral rite to be denied of is if a person committed suicide or cremated bodies… that warrants a prohibition of Catholic Funeral rite. But obviously, since the Archbishop now holds a position in the Holy See, he has the power to make such adjustments. These things will scare off many Roman Catholics, including myself who do not want to be denied of the Church’s funeral rites, but also do not want to compromise who I am as a gay person.

  • schlukitz

    Is it just me, or does the guy standing behind the Archbishop in the pic look gay?

    Secret trick, perhaps?

  • vernonvanderbilt

    @schlukitz: Yup, he’s totally gay. My gaydar is infallible, even more so than Pope Rat.

  • Jaroslaw

    It is always tempting to point out duplicity, hypocrisy etc. and I understand the frustration and annoyance. The Church should have come out far earlier and far stronger against child molesting priests. But at the same time it is not like they had an official policy endorsing and recommending the practice! Nor does it mean they incorrect in all areas.

    If anyone or any group had to be perfect before speaking NO ONE would ever say anything! Ultimately the person responsible is the person who committed the crime.

    That said, it seems like if the Church has a problem with a particular person, just boot them out. There must be canon law to address such things.

  • Lloyd Baltazar

    There IS a canon law in the Roman Catholic Cathechism that “boots” members out from the church. Such agenda is already being initiated in the upcoming Vatican III, where the Roman Catholic church wants to restore its traditional Christian supremacist teachings and excommunicate those who choose to compromise on its doctrinal teachings. There are many Roman Catholics who are displeased at the modernism that has infiltrated through the Church, and they want to revert the teachings back to Pre-Vatican II.

    It’s just sad because in this day and age, you cannot truly be a full Roman Catholic and uphold who you are as a a gay person—less be condemned by the Church.

  • BearBudMN

    Things like this are why I have been moving over to the Episcopal Church. TEC has been working hard to make room at their altars for all kinds of people. This past Summer, TEC’s convention in Anaheim, CA made the resolutions to accept the discernment of gay and lesbian Priests to be considered for the role of Bishop along with Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. In addition, they gave permission for individual churches where same sex marriage is legal to put together rites for the celebration of same sex marriage ceremonies. TEC Convention also took action to promote acceptance and tolerance for transgendered individuals.

    I not only was a Catholic (I still consider myself one in many ways), but I worked in many Catholic Parish’s as a music director. During those years, I saw more corruption among Catholic clergy as well as dysfunctional relationships between Priests and lay people, Bishops and their people.

    So far The Episcopal Church has proven to be a much healthier system, and more importantly it is open to diversity, despite much opposition in some parts of the country and the world.

  • Charles Merrill

    @Lloyd Baltazar: I certainly admired Senator Kennedy and all that he did for LGBT rights, health care and discrimination, however, he neglects to mention LGBT issues to “His Holiness”. This statement in his letter weakens his entire fight for social justice and dismissing his political career as “human failings”. Submissive nonsense to a god who isn’t there.
    “I have always tried to be a faithful Catholic, Your Holiness, and though I have fallen short through human failings, I have never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings of my faith. I continue to pray for God’s blessings on you and on our church and would be most thankful for your prayers for me.”

  • I pliss

    So I guess the same goes to the the Priest and Bishops that were found guilty of child molestation of little boys get the same treatment….right?

  • Lloyd Baltazar

    @Charles Merrill: You are forgetting that Sen. Kennedy is a Roman Catholic. He was baptised, raised, married, and sought a Roman Catholic Funeral as his death wish.

    Do you really expect him to pass up his chance at a Roman Catholic funeral rite for the sake for LGBT rights? NO, I don’t think so. He is not that crazy to have the Church damn his immortal soul for the sake of a few faggots. Especially when he is battling Brain Cancer.

    YOU HAVE NO CLUE how ESSENTIAL a funeral rite is to a Roman Catholic. Just because Sen. Kennedy supported LGBT rights, that does NOT mean he was willing to sacrifice judgment on his soul for not receiving holy communion, extreme unction and a Roman Catholic funeral rite.

  • schlukitz

    Extreme unction?

    Sound pretty unctious to me. ;o)

  • Lloyd Baltazar

    Extreme unction is the death blessing you get the moment before you die, and in order to qualify for it, you have to pledge your allegiance to the Church and renounce all sins you have committed against the Church which in turn gains you a Roman Catholic funeral rite.

    I cannot see a reason why Senator Kennedy would want to pass up that chance when he was dying from Brain Cancer. Especially not for a few faggets.

    Yes, I am gay myself.

  • Jason

    @Lloyd Baltazar:

    Lloyd Baltazar said: “I cannot see a reason why Senator Kennedy would want to pass up that chance when he was dying from Brain Cancer. Especially not for a few faggets.

    Yes, I am gay myself”


    You are a self-loathing, hypocritical collaborator.

  • Lloyd Baltazar

    @Jason: Sorry, I don’t sugar coat my words for you sweetie. I was just telling it like it is. If you don’t like the bitter truth, then I suggest you don’t join the Roman Catholic church. At least now you know how the Catholic system works.

  • Puck

    Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
    Please contact me for details of where you can send the cheque to. lol

    Sides it technically falls under the hate the sin love the sinner crap. Its not grounds for excommunication or denial of last rites. Even if they refused based on non-reconciliation of the faith grounds. (your a sinner and they know it, and you havent repneted) all they have t do beforehand is attend confession, than presto, their eligible again

  • schlukitz

    @Lloyd Baltazar:

    As a recovering RC Catholic, I am very well aware of the meaning of extreme unction. Then you said…

    Especially not for a few faggets. (Your misspelling, not mine)

    That is the second time around that you have used the pejorative term “faggots” to describe gays, including yourself.

    I was being facetious when I first used the term unctious, but now I am being serious in saying that I do, indeed, find your continued usage of that word to be exceedingly unctious.

    Whether you get forgiven for your sins or not the moment before you die is of no concern to me whatsoever.

    How you treat and refer to your gay brothers and sisters, while you are still on this planet is, however, of great concern to me.

  • reluctantcommenter

    The Eucharist is an important sacrament for Catholics because they believe Christ is truly present in the wafers and wine they eat and drink. The Catholic Church is willing to expel people from the religious experience they believe is essential to their salvation in order to leverage support for the political goals they desire. It leads a person to wonder if the Church’s aim is to save souls, or exact power.

  • schlukitz

    @Lloyd Baltazar:

    At least now you know how the Catholic system works.

    Yep. And it ain’t pretty!!!

  • Charles Merrill

    @Lloyd Baltazar:
    This raises the question, “What did Senator Kennedy really stand for on his death bed ?
    Was it the fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church or Civil Rights for Gays, Lesbians, Bi-sexuals and Transgendered people ? Separation of church and state are not two different sides of the same coin.

  • schlukitz


    It leads a person to wonder if the Church’s aim is to save souls, or exact power.

    Given the position and actions of the church, there doesn’t seem to be much need to wonder. ;o)

    It’s pretty obvious that the church is all about power.

    The more, the merrier!

  • reluctantcommenter


    The Catholic church is guilty of far more than having a few bad apples. They harbored sex offenders…men who broke civil law as well as the law of their Christian God. They might not have had a written policy endorsing sex abuse, but it went on for decades. That’s an institutional problem. The Catholic Clergy clearly felt their religious mission was above the mental health and security of innocent people. They deserve every word of criticism they receive.

  • Brian

    @Lloyd Baltazar: “The message is simple—-you cannot be a Roman Catholic and support LGBT rights.”

    Thank-you for making it simple Lloyd. Catholics teach that “homosexuality is wrong, sinful and deviant.” Catholics are Christian – a “Christian religion.

    Religion teaches that homosexuals are wrong. Until we stop that we can never be equal. +70% of Americans believe we are “morally wrong.” Religion did that.

    Instead of apologizing for Catholics (or any other religious denomination) how about we fight back? We are Not Wrong.

  • Lloyd Baltazar

    @Charles Merrill: The separation of Church and state has nothing to do with Senator Ted Kennedy’s wish to be granted a Roman Catholic funeral rite. That was a personal matter directed under a dying man’s personal wish—and his extent of willingness to do whatever he can to achieve that goal.

    You want to know if he renounced LGBT on his death bed? Both Cardinal Sean O’Malley and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick attended the funeral, didn’t they? And Sen. Kennedy was granted a Roman Catholic funeral rite in the end. SO What do YOU think he said on his death bed? Did you not read Sen. Kennedy’s letter to Pope Benedict XVI?

  • Charles Merrill

    @Lloyd Baltazar:

    The soul is an invention of religion, superstition, and the supernatural to keep the faithful afraid of death, and submissive to their laws. There is no hereafter, so live now and don’t let others make you feel guilty because religious dogma says you will burn in hell for being LGBT.
    So there.

  • Lloyd Baltazar

    @Charles Merrill: SAYS YOU. Sorry, but neither you or the LGBT community can confirm/deny that as a true fact for me. Thank you for your philosophical opinion.

    But I would rather prefer to find out for myself through my own ways. Now stop being fairy-hurt because Sen. Kennedy chose allegiance to the Church on his deathbed rather than the homosexuals he fought for while was living on this planet.

  • TomEM

    The minions of the Bishop of Rome should refrain from inhumane pronouncements upon humanity.

    Most (at least 82%) of the people on the planet are *not* Roman Catholics [ http: //].

    What’s more; even among that major minority, lots were added to the roster when they were too young to have chosen otherwise.

  • Brian

    @Charles Merrill: It’s very difficult for anyone who has been infected with religion. It usually happens at a very young age, before they can “reason,” and the impact of the “penalty of Hell” is ever-present.

    That’s why it seems foolish to attempt to persuade politicians (like HRC has unsuccessfully done for 28 years, wasting nearly $200 million) because if they do something contrary to Christian Doctrine they would be guaranteeing a trip to Hell. That’s pretty powerful stuff.

    This is why “lobbying” politicians hasn’t worked and won’t work until we change beliefs. Religion (primarily Christian in the US) must stop creating the belief that homosexuals are wrong by ending that teaching. Until that happens, we cannot be equal. It’s not about “accepting” or “tolerating” us, either – there is nothing wrong with us.

    We need to direct our LGBTQ resources towards ending that harmful belief. We must have the courage to put equality before religion.

    The path to LGBTQ Equality must include ending those beliefs. Religion must change, or suffer the consequences. If we can boycott orange juice and stop the religious hatred of Anita Bryant and friends in the late 70s, we can boycott the true source of our problems – religion.

    LGBTQ people and “progressive” Christians should lead this fight. What do you say Lutherans? How about you Bishop Vicki Gene? How about MCC and UCC taking a stand? Declare: “Homosexuals are not wrong, sinful or deviant.” Hurry up, our equality is waiting.

    Let’s get started.

  • rudy

    @Jaroslaw: “If anyone or any group had to be perfect before speaking NO ONE would ever say anything! ”

    Which is exactly what the Catholic Church with its “infallible” pope pretends to be.

  • TomEM

    @Lloyd Baltazar: Your use of the word “philosophical” is questionable.

  • Charles Merrill

    @Lloyd Baltazar: In the end, he did choose allegiance to the Pope and that is troubling. It proves the Pope is in control of many minds in this country, including yours. I am one year younger than Senator Kennedy, but I had a liberal arts education and taught to think outside the conventional box of religion. Kennedy studied business and followed his mothers faith as well as rising in power due to the Catholic vote in Massachusettes. He never was exposed to free abstract thought and existentialism. His religion of a “daddy in the sky” brought him solace and acted like a valium, but he could have gotten that from hugging a real person and not feeling guilty about life.

  • Lloyd Baltazar

    FUCK YOU. Don’t bring my personal life into this discussion. I have two formal degrees and I grew up in a private boarding school in Switzerland with my two loving straight parents. That was uncalled for, Faggot.

    If you have an issue with the holy Pontiff, go take up your complaints to Vatican. Don’t blame me because you don’t know the difference between a Roman Catholic funeral rite and a recanting politician named Sen. Kennedy.

  • Jaroslaw

    Reluctant Commenter – yes, I’m aware it went on for decades. In no way did I excuse this. I’ve made this point before – our society didn’t condemn child abuse as a mental illness either in the past. Child support for women was an afterthought for most lawmakers until recently. Understanding changes over time – just like we no longer have the “comical drunk.” There is nothing funny about drunken driving that kills people.

    My only point is while the Church understandably should be at a higher level, (I think it is on most things) the bottom line is even a major mistake does not completely invalidate it just the same as if you made a mistake, does not mean everything you say in the future is invalid or untruthful.

    RUDY – the Pope’s of all the centuries have made less than one dozen infallible statements. This is not at all what I’m talking about and it shows you don’t know what you’re talking about See above.

    LLOYD – I also concur, stop using the word faggets/faggots.

  • Brian

    “Last Rights” is fitting, because in the end, Senator Kennedy put Religion before Equality.

  • Charles Merrill

    @Brian: Even though the liberal Christians say they don’t believe the Bible or Qur’an passages that are illegal in today’s civil law, they don’t make moves to change a word. As you say, indoctrinated from childhood.
    People like Jon Stewart, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie and Bill Maher are doing their part. Not all of us have the media access.

  • The Milkman

    @ Miss Baltazar:
    Wow, TWO degrees? And a boarding school in Switzerland that allowed you to bring your parents with you? My word. That kind of pedigree certainly should shut down any kind of criticism of your deeply disturbing statements.

    Switzerland? Really? WOW. That must bring ALL the boys to the yard.

  • schlukitz

    Beware of blindsiding, fellas.

    Balthazar has rolled out the big cannons on post no. 41.

    He means business. ;o)

  • Jason

    @Lloyd Baltazar:

    oh snap.

    some of us need not have our existence validated by a lecherous palpatine looking drag queen in a VERY tall hat in order to feel ok with ourselves.

  • Charles Merrill

    @Lloyd Baltazar: Your personal life?
    If anyone clicks on your name they see you are for marriage equality. Oh, I forget, Catholic’s believe in virgins, angels and miracles to solve problems. The Catholic church is totally against SSM and worked to pass Prop 8 in California.

  • HiredGoons

    I frankly don’t really care two flips about the opinion of anyone who chooses to dress like that.

  • Rev. Jimmy Jones

    All of you mackerel snappin’ papists are gonna get it in the end (pun intended) when it is revealed that the cult you belong to is none other than the Whore of Babylon herself and her days are numbered.

  • rudy

    @Jaroslaw: “you don’t know what you’re talking about…”

    How sad to resort to insult because you cannot back up your own statements.

    Most educated people rely on facts and science to make conclusions; the Vatican relies on Authority which it claims comes from God.

    This is why Holy Mother Church speaks so much nonsense until 500 years after the fact, in order to not look completely ridiculous, she’s gets down on her knees to apologize to Galileo.

  • Robert, NYC

    Regarind, Theordore McCarrick…..Richard Sipe, the former Benedictine monk and sociologist knows more about the dimensions and details of the Catholic clerical sex abuse crisis than almost anybody.

    He alledges that while acting as adjunct professor at a Pontifical Seminary, St. Mary’s Baltimore (1972-1984) a number of seminarians came to him with concerns about the behavior of Theodore E. McCarrick then bishop of Metuchen New Jersey. It was widely known for several decades that Bishop/Archbishop now Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick took seminarians and young priests to a shore home in New Jersey, sites in New York, and other places and slept with some of them. He established a coterie of young seminarians and priests that he encouraged to call him “Uncle Ted.” Sipe had some of McCarrick’s correspondence where he referred to these men as being “cousins” with each other.

    Catholic journalist Matt C. Abbott already featured the statements of two priests (2005) and one ex-priest (2006) about McCarrick. All three were “in the know” and aware of the Cardinal McCarrick’s activities in the same mode as he had heard at the seminary. None of these reporters, as far as Abbott knew, had sexual contact with the cardinal in the infamous sleepovers, but one had first hand reports from a seminarian/priest who did share a bed and received cards and letters from McCarrick. The modus operendi is similar to the documents and letters Abbott received from a priest who describes in detail McCarrick’s sexual advances and personal activity. At least one prominent journalist at the Boston Globe was aware of McCarrick from his investigation of another priest, but until now legal documentation had not been available. And even at this point the complete story cannot be published because priest reporters are afraid of reprisals.

    Abbott goes on to say that he knew the names of at least four priests who have had sexual encounters with Cardinal McCarrick. He had documents and letters that record the first hand testimony and eye witness accounts of McCarrick, then archbishop of Newark, New Jersey actually having sex with a priest, and at other times subjecting a priest to unwanted sexual advances.

    How convenient that the roman cult swept this one under the carpet. I wouldn’t mind betting there are skeletons in Dolan’s closet too.

  • Michelle McNeil-Brown

    It sickens me to see this kind of abuse of power wielded by the Catholic church, using shame, humiliation, and degradation to control people and to shun others. What more has to happen for this toxic, controlling religious system to collapse?

    That is my most ladylike response. I will practice self-restraint with regard to my not-so-ladylike response!

    I should thank God every day that I am not a Catholic.

  • Chitown Kev


    No, actually you don’t have to believe in religion to have a concept of having a “soul.” Reading enough Plato and Aristotle can do that too.

  • Andrew

    Catholics believe homosexuals are wrong, sinful and deviant. That’s what they were taught. We have to end this “inheritance” of beliefs. These religious “beliefs” prevent our equality.

  • Jaroslaw

    Rudy: Where did I insult you? You made an incorrect statement in your post 38 or at the very least strongly implied that the Church “claims” everything it says is infallible via the Pope which it does not.

    It is a fact that of all the Popes who ever lived made less than a dozen infallible statements. If the facts insult you, then you are insulted. Sorry.

  • vernonvanderbilt

    @Jaroslaw: Allegedly infallible.

  • ricky

    the catholic church gives church funerals to priests that are child molesters that commit suicide. if i comitted suicide, no catholic funeral.

  • alan brickman

    bye bye tax deference…it’s just that simple…

  • nokkonwud

    I was born and raised Catholic. I received all the sacraments – baptism, first communion, confirmation – and stayed Catholic until I could no longer live under their teachings that I was an unredeemable sinner because I was Gay and could never change.

    Today, I am a Liberal, Gay, and an activist (little a) and I still believe in God and Christ and try to live according to Christ’s teachings as well as I am able. Christ is about love and good works. Helping the sick and the poor and being a voice for those who have no voice. There need not be an “either, or” with God.

    But, I will never join any organized religion.

  • rudy

    @Jaroslaw: Neither the number of times used nor the restrictions on the use of infallibility claims has any bearing on my statement whatsoever.

    The Catholic Church does not wander into error because it is too scientific or rational, but because it’s truth claims are based on power: “I am right because I say I’m right.”

  • schlukitz

    I still wanna kn ow how they did that Jonah in the belly of a whale for three days and three nights trick? ;o)

  • schlukitz

    @Chitown Kev:

    Apparently, New Age folks get into this soul stuff too.

    They refer to it as the “higher self” and Shirley McLaine made reference to this higher self, many times over, in the five books she wrote.

    One of her books, “Out On A Limb”, as you probably know, was made into a film in which she claims to have left her body and several other rather unnatural “experiences” that have no verification by anyone. Fascinating reading, but hard to take seriously. You either have “faith”, or you don’t.

    All we have is her word. Kinda like the church, you know. LOL

  • Brian

    @BearBudMN: “So far The Episcopal Church has proven to be a much healthier system, and more importantly it is open to diversity, despite much opposition in some parts of the country and the world.”

    Acceptance and tolerance are not enough. Episcopalians must end the Christian belief that homosexuals are wrong, sinful and deviant. That belief is what prevents our equality. Vicki Gene got a raise and LGBT people got nothing. When will Episcopalians reject the lies about homosexuals?

    Until we end the belief that we’re wrong, we’ll never have equality. 70% of Americans believe homosexuals are “morally wrong.” They got that belief from religion.

  • rudy

    @schlukitz: Taking me down memory lane again.

    I remember Shirley and her followers recalling past lives under hypnosis. They were kings, pharoahs, shamans – I don’t think anyone ever had a past life as a janitor.

  • Robert, NYC

    @Lloyd Baltazar:

    Lloyd, cremation is permitted in the RC cult provided the cremains are interred in a catholic cemetery in order to have the full funeral rites. That has been in effect for quite some time. I know because I attended one eight years ago, there was a full requiem mass followed by interment.

  • Robert, NYC


    Brian, it seems that all cults can reject the lies about us be rejecting the Leviticus reference while deliberately ignoring the other nonsense they conveniently reject. The following link will explain…

  • Robert, NYC

    Ooops, I meant…”by rejecting” in my last post.

  • Jaroslaw

    #58 Rudy – this is your statement;

    Which is exactly what the Catholic Church with its “infallible” pope pretends to be.

    They pretend to be perfect? I don’t think so – I’ve heard Priests, Bishops & Archbishops apologize. So what do you mean then? But for your statement in post 35, you are clearly referencing infallibility.

    Nor do I disagree with you that they are “right” because they have power. But…

    AGAIN – to everyone, Rudy, Vernon – I am not defending every action the Catholic church takes – if the Pope claims to make infallible statements occasionally, and that is their policy/dogma, then it is. That is a historical fact in the same way it is a fact Mormons believe in the Angel Moroni and the golden tablets. It does not make it necessary for YOU to believe it, but I tire of the bashing for no discernable purpose. If a priest molested a child, he should go to jail. That does not make all priests bad. If the Church erred, it erred. It does not make everything they say or do bad. Which is all I’ve been saying.

  • Charles Merrill

    @Chitown Kev: And before Plato’s Greece to ancient Egypt. The concept of the soul going to a better place is a desire for immortality.

  • schlukitz


    You noticed that too, eh? LOL

  • vernonvanderbilt

    @Jaroslaw: Okay then, since I’m the leader of my religion, I issue the following proclamation:

    The RCC is one of the biggest forces of evil in this world, and must be opposed at all times.

    Since I’m in charge here, that statement is infallible. I could get used to that. I’m gonna start making a list of more infallible statements. This could be fun.

  • schlukitz

    Why should it be wrong for gays to strike back at an institution that has made us wrong (and miserable) for it’s entire existence?

    Why shouldn’t their discrimination, hatred and bigotry and sexual abuses be exposed for all to see? What the church is doing with respect to denying LGBT people their rights with our tax money, is an example of bullying on a grand, world-wide scale,and they need to stop it!

    When the entire hierarchy of the church works overtime and spends huge quantities of money to deny us our civil-rights and prevent me and some 36,000 bi-national couples from uniting with our families (seven years in my case), why should I and my brothers and sisters be expected to feel all warm and fuzzy about any of these people, much less, show them any respect or consideration? What respect and consideration are they showing to us, I ask?

    They can apologize all they want, but it still does not put right all the harm they have done to LGBT in the past and continue to do up to the present day…and without apology, I might add. They continue to be adamant in their condemnation of LGBT people.

    The plain fact is, a few “do gooders” doesn’t put right all the harm so many of the “do badders” are doing. I, for one, am still smarting from Prop. 8 in CA and I refuse to go quietly into that dark night.

    I think that gay people have certainly earned the right to “bash” back. If we are not going to tolerate bullying in our schools, I see absolutely no reason why we should tolerate bullying from the church or any other institution including our government.

    They threw the first punch. The ball is in their court if they truly want our respect and for the fighting to end, all they have to do, is cease and desist. That shouldn’t be such a hard thing to do, should it?

    Respect is not a gift. It must be earned and so far, the church has done little to earn my respect.

  • vernonvanderbilt

    @schlukitz: Hancockian co-sign. Bravo.

  • Chitown Kev


    The really horrific part of it is that they have both tax exempt status and civil rights protections. We don’t.

  • Jaroslaw

    #74 Schlukitz – by all means disagree with the Catholic Church about their position on Gays. I do. Where did I say not to?

    But it is counterproductive, untrue and bashing to say the church pretends to be perfect; it cannot say another thing ever because of child molesting priests etc. If people held anything else to this standard, they would have to move out of the USA. [i.e. Do you realize we are the only country that claims to be so moral and for the most part “Christian” and yet we are the only country that used nuclear weapons to annihilate civilians? (Nagasaki/Hiroshima)]

  • schlukitz


    Thanks, Vernon. That’s a film I must check-out.

    @Chitown Kev:

    Thanks to you too, Kev. I know. Doesn’t that just frost your balls?

  • schlukitz


    Where did I say not to?

    I was referring specifically to the comment you made toward the end of your post no. 70.

    It does not make everything they say or do bad.

    Given the horrible history of the church, I would have to take grave issue with that. The church’s history speaks as mute evidence and I don’t need to make a case against it. They’ve done a good job of that on their own without our help and they have made many people suffer, not just LGBT people.

    Please understand that I am not attacking you personally. I am attacking the church who has for my entire life, attacked me. That makes it very personal for me and as a gay person, I find it hard to understand why any LGBT person would want to defend an institution that is so dedicated to the wounding, defiling, discrediting, the destruction of our community and all of the unhappiness that they have created for us.

    I don’t mean to be making a Godwinian statement by saying this, but it is a little like asking me to respect Mussolini and Hitler, in spite of all the good things some the Nazis may have done during their tenure.

    I think we can all agree that the planet is much better off without them and, quite frankly, I feel much the same about religion.

    I am not trying to make you out to be a bad person and I am sorry if I offend by my comments. It is not my intent to do so, but that’s what comes up for me.

  • schlukitz


    P.S. I was just nine years old when this inhumane act occurred and the horror of it has never left me in all the years since.

    And to think that Truman was considering dropping even more atomic bombs on Japan, had Hirohito not surrendered when he did.

    So much for the “morality” of a “Christian Nation”!

  • Jaroslaw

    Dear Schlukitz – thank you for your gentle response, I’m not offended, I just don’t know what else I can say to make my point. Goverments, groups, mobs, relgions of all strips and individuals have all inflicted incredible inhumanity on inhabitants of this planet. I don’t excuse any of it nor am I unaware of it. It just seems like when people get going here, one would have the impression the Catholic church is the only villain.

    But the idea that the world will automatically be a better place without religion is an unprovable concept too isn’t it? I do know women who travel the world and they say things are much better overall for citizens of Christian countries. When I think about all the Catholic schools, orphanages, hospitals, colleges, people like Mother Theresa it is difficult for me to say the Church is all or mostly bad.

    If someone disagrees with the doctrine of infallibility that’s fine but what purpose is served to make a joke out of it like Vernon does in #72? Further, that has nothing to do with what Rudy said (and someone else I think) either. What’s the point? Just to jump on some high schoolish mentality of lets just say mean things (even if true) because we can?

  • vernonvanderbilt

    @Jaroslaw: I wasn’t making a joke of anything, you heretic. I was stating the truth of my sincere beliefs. Just because you don’t think I’m infallible doesn’t mean I’m not. Geez, how about a little tolerance around here. It’s not my fault I was appointed by God to run my own religion. I’m just doing God’s will.

  • Jaroslaw

    Joke isn’t the right word. Sorry your Holiness. I hope you noticed I capitalized the “H”

  • rudy

    @Jaroslaw: @Jaroslaw: You’re playing a shell game.

    You fight off criticism of the church by citing the good works of lay people , nuns, priests, etc.

    The Catholic Church is a feudal organization.

    Those good people you speak about do not ever, ever get to run it. Were this true, you can be quite sure the pope would not be talking about birth control or leading the flock to vote to deny gay rights. Every poll in the US shows Catholic voters to be little different on issues than any other religion. Most European Catholics are so disgusted with their Church, they barely if ever attend mass.

    To this day, the Popes continue condemning “modernity” and the “secular state” – talk that was inspired by Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and company.

    The Church absolutely hated the American Revolution. Feudalsim was and is their preferred form of government whereby only kings have rights and the Pope crowns the king making him ruler of all the world. It was because of the spread of democracy that popes of that time decided to consolidate power in the Vatican, take away independence from bishops and the laity, and have themselves declared infallible (Vatican Council I, 1869).

    Right now priests, theologians, nuns, deacons, and even lay people who assist at mass who support equality for gays and women are in danger of losing their position in the church or even being excommunicated. The Church may have apologized for excommunicating Galileo, but when it comes to silencing dissent it is unrepentant.

    If you were raised Catholic you would know that whenever any child asks how there could have been an Inquistion or about any of the numerous horrific atrocities committed or instigated by the Church in its 2000 year violent history, the standard answer is, “The Church is good – these events are due to human failings.”

    I don’t believe that for a moment. Right now, most Catholics are BETTER than their Church – and especially its leadership.

    “It is false and absurd and rather mad that we must secure and guarantee to each one liberty of conscience; this is one of the most contagious of errors…To this is attached liberty of the press, the most dangerous liberty, an excrebale liberty, which can never inspire sufficient horror.”
    – Pope Gregory XVI, 1832

  • ricky

    @schlukitz: totally looks like a cock gobbler.

  • vernonvanderbilt

    @Jaroslaw: Damn right. Show me the proper respect for my position as the ultimate authority on truth and morality on the planet.

  • schlukitz

    Thanks to everyone on this thread who let me know that they too thought the young man standing behind the Archbishop is gay.

    While my tachometer and speedometer may not be quite as reliable as they once were, it is reassuring to know that my gaydar is still functioning perfectly. ;o)

  • Jaroslaw

    Rudy #83 It is not a shell game to examine an organization in its entirety and understand that nothing is all good or all bad. This is 99% of what I’ve been saying throughout this post. I’m not deflecting criticism by citing good works – it is being realistic. Nowhere have I defended bad behavior by anyone.

    You must have missed my earlier point where I said to Schuklitz that if it were even possible to free the world from religion, one cannot automatically assume things were be better. They might be worse – it is an unprovable concept because it has never happened in the history of the world and almost certainly never will.

    The tradition of Papal infallibility goes back much further than 1870 and Vatican I – it was simply formally defined – to imply as you do it was dreamed up then is simply false and misleading. Same with the Assumption of Mary; it was always believed, it was just formally acknowledged in 1950.

    I do not correct you to defend the Church, but if you’re going to criticize you have to be accurate otherwise what is the point?

    As to what Pope Gregory said in 1832 – liberty of conscience is not allowed now in the USA, if that means doing whatever you want. Murder is still illegal, you can’t marry until your 18. No one can do whatever they want. To fully discuss this, I’d have to see the entire context of the statement and what it was in response to. Same with the newspaper statement – I remember learning about yellow journalism in school. Perhaps that is what he was referring to. Also, remember the movie Citizen Kane? Newspapers can be a powerful force for negative things.

    As to the rest of your post, you’re absolutely right – the Church is Feudal, the people that are good usually don’t run it. etc. etc. etc. So tell us something we don’t know – that human (even if God inspired) institutions are not perfect.

  • rudy

    For Christ’s sake, I never said anything like that. I am not going to waste any more time on “infallibility” though – there are entire books on the subject which while not “dreamed up” by Vatican I was made into a controversy by it because a council of bishops made it official dogma.

    But back to your statement in #69 where all this started “If a priest molested a child, he should go to jail. That does not make all priests bad. If the Church erred, it erred. It does not make everything they say or do bad. Which is all I’ve been saying.”

    The child molesting was not the scandal – the cover up was.

    It was Ratzinger (now the Pope Benedict) blaming the victims and the media that was the scandal. It was Cardinal Law telling victims the Seal of Confession demanded their silence that was the scandal. It was the Church behaving like Exxon in an oil spill that the scandal.

    To call such behavior “an error” is absurd. The Church did what it has historically ALWAYS done – put it’s wealth, power and prestige before justice, truth and morality.

    PS Pope Gregory was absolutely not concerned with “yellow journalism.” He was lamenting that the Church could no longer determine what people were permitted to read or write.

  • Jaroslaw

    Rudy- dicussing infallibility is only a waste of time because you want to make sweeping statements and not explain what you mean. I have asked you at least twice and you won’t say.

    It is YOU who is making this a “waste of time”.

    Who disputed the cover up was a scandal? Stop splitting hairs. We are not writing a treatise here – It should be clear how I feel since I’ve acknowledged error & sin whatever you want to call it and talked about the good things too. The only question that I can see is whether or not individual members decide to stay in or not. If that isn’t your point, what is?

    You want to microanalyze every word I say, but then you go on and make HUGE blanket statements like “The Church did what it has historically ALWAYS done…”

    So now you know everything the Church has ever done eh?

  • Happy Indeed

    One more thing – I went to your wikipedia link – bottom of post 89. It mentions Church censorship of books and individuals but it also stated that people who were once on the list later became saints. The article also mentioned (I’m paraphrasing) something about every book or person who mentioned things contrary to Catholic teaching was not banned/censored – there was a specific element of heresy – in other words even in the dark ages there were alternate schools of thought.

    This however, is so ethereal and in the realm of theory and divorced from reality because the vast majority of human beings were much more under the control of the various kings/governments and simply trying to get enough food to stay alive and 99% of people couldn’t read anyway as to make this (censorship) irrelevant. Further there was no mass communication like we have now (TV, Radio/telephone/internt) so the influence of a particular person or thought was by definition extremely limited.

  • rudy

    @Happy Indeed:
    I’m not sure I understand your point.

    While the 16th century was the beginning of the end for feudalism and the Holy Roman Empire, separating the influence of church from state is not easy. Bishops, who held much more power than they do today, were recruited from the ruling classes. Popes crowned kings who in turn enforced papal whims in exchange for legitimacy.

    For instance, before his falling out with the Vatican, Henry VIII was titled “Defender of the Faith” by Pope Leo X in 1521 for denouncing Martin Luther. Henry’s Lord Chancellor of England, Thomas More, rounded up Protestants, tortured them, and burned them alive for simply saying they did not believe in “transubstantiation.”

    Some Cardinals had small armies. Some religious orders acted as beaurocracies for kings; some were actually militant.

    Again, the American Revolution and separation of Church and state was a great idea, but for the popes, it was a huge loss of their temporal power and they hated it.

  • Happy Indeed

    My point is you’re making all encompassing statements about scandals and church power, while true, are only part of the story. One cannot apply the morals and values of today to centuries past. Surely you know that civil rights legislation was not past here in the U.S. until 1964, almost 100 years after the civil war. I say that to convey the idea no church, no group can be completely at odds with the society they live in or they cease to exist.

    While it is sad that popes & kings had “incestuous” relationships, if not the Catholic Church, some other group would have taken its place. I guess rather than all this bashing, I’d rather see energy used to effect real systemic change. This does not mean, of course, to ignore the lapses by Cardinal Law in your previous example, but realize life is what it is, the past cannot be changed and accept anything with humans will have failings. Are you advocating abolishing all religion or just the Catholic church? As was said earlier, one cannot possibly make the assumption that life without religion would be better since it has never happened; nor is it reasonably likely to ever happen; indeed things might worse.

    At the bottom of post 89 you cite Wikipedia, I assumed you were buttressing your idea that the Church is all evil when the article had many places where the Church changed its mind about books/person who were previously censored. And while no one would argue the Catholic Church is a liberal place for new ideas, again, the Wiki article indicated there was quite a bit more diversity than most people realize. And much more say, than you were ever find in the Moral Majority, 700 club and other like churches.

    So to get back to post 92 – I’m well aware that separation of Church and State was an unpopular concept, but it doesn’t mean that that opinion was solely or even primarily due to the evilness and power envy of Popes and Cardinals. Societies’ collective consciousnesses/values change over time. I’m sure the majority of Popes did what they thought were right. For example, not too long ago, women were thought to be completely inferior to men, feeble mentally, physically and every other way. Girls were forced to be wives and mothers and had almost no rights whatsoever in most societies. Parents obviously bought into these ideas because most didn’t know any better. In the late 20th and now the 21st century someone would be thought a neanderthal indeed for demanding his daughter be married at 14; and go to jail for not sending her to school! Which was not only acceptable in prior eras but expected.

  • Happy Indeed

    Also,I would like to say quickly that I think we often just exchange one set of problems for another.

    In prior times, women were vilified for adultery and other sexual sins (while somehow the men who participated were often but not always excused) – unwed persons had terrible stigmas based on religion mores and institutional churches influence over the laws (I’m thinking here of colonial times in particular)

    Now we have the welfare state where you literally can’t ask someone WHY they would have three or five kids with three or five different fathers knowing the men never had a job. For the sake of the children, government benefits are dished out with few expectations. People don’t know their neighbors and Capitalism is king.

  • Brian

    So, I guess we can conclude from these comments that their are “good” Catholics and “bad” Catholics. Ahhhhh, how am I supposed to identify the good ones?

    A little more than 60% of all Catholics believe homosexuals are wrong, sinful and deviant (Bad Catholics). The 40% that put equality before religion need to wear a button or sign or something (Good catholics).

  • Happy Indeed

    you can’t win on this website sometimes. I thought others just said the laity is AHEAD of the Church and now Brian says they are behind the general population.

    Well Brian – I guess you take each Catholic person individually (like you do everyone else in life).

  • rudy

    @Happy Indeed:
    1. Historians should not apply the morals and values of today to centuries past, but this conversation is ABOUT morality. Still, just to make certain I’m not doing that, let’s look at this in reverse: what in the Gospels could have led the Church to imagine that Jesus would condone the torture and execution of heretics?
    2. Doesn’t the fact that the U.S. went from slavery to electing a black president in 200 years and the Vatican has failed to ordain a woman in 2000 say something about the capacity for moral growth in each system?
    3. Is it possible for the Church “to effect real systemic change” without making a clear repentance for past misdeeds?
    4. It is impossible to “abolish all religion” except under a tyrannical political system, so there is no point thinking about it.
    5. I do not say “the Church is all evil;” I say preserving power, prestige and wealth is its first concern and the basis for making its worst choices. Quakers, for instance, do not have that burden of great wealth, so as a Church, their decision-making is less compromised. (Remember that camel passing through the eye of a needle verse?)
    6. Luther’s replacement of papal authority with Bible-thumping is no improvement and led to the wretched fundamentalist faiths you mention. That said, the Reformation forced people of different faiths to learn to live peacefully together in the same nation which is the foundation for secular democracy.
    7. Yes, there was always some latitude even in the Middle Ages, but question the wrong dogma and you could end up toast. Literally.
    8. Of course we “exchange one set of problems for another.” Isn’t it nice that we can discuss them on Queerty and not have to worry some friars will show up in the middle of the night and haul us off to the Inquisition?

  • B

    Lloyd Baltazar wrote, “Do you really expect him to pass up his chance at a Roman Catholic funeral rite for the sake for LGBT rights? NO, I don’t think so. He is not that crazy to have the Church damn his immortal soul for the sake of a few faggots. Especially when he is battling Brain Cancer.”

    At the risk of allowing reality to rear its ugly head, Senator
    Kennedy did in fact receive the traditional funeral rights, and was no doubt astute enough while alive to know that the rantings of one archbishop do not constitute church policy anymore than the rantings of one U.S. senator constitutes U.S. policy. After all, we have had nutty senators – john Ashcroft, who was such an embarrassment that he lost an election to a dead guy, is a prime example.

  • Happy Indeed

    Rudy – I typed detailed answers to your points and my page was interrupted so I lost it all. Unfortunately my new answers will be much shorter since I don’t want to type them all again.

    You seem to have moderated your position quite a bit from where we started…..but I’m happy to be having a rational discussion – so often on here people are out to lunch.

    1. I didn’t say we couldn’t learn from the past, I said we cannot judge the past with today’s standards; if I didn’t that is what I meant. Jesus made some pretty strong statements about right and wrong and the consequences (millstone/children for only one example) and right or wrong, the disciples thought he gave them temporal authority.

    2. Ordaining a woman is not a moral growth issue. While I may be in favor of it personally, I can’t see the parallels between that and electing a Black president. Also to go back 2000 years in your comparison – the US started in a place of relative enlightenment and is unique in the world which you must know. That is like giving one child a pencil and another a computer and wondering why the results are different. I also don’t think men and women are 100% interchangeable but that discussion is for another day.

    3. Repentance is good for an individual, but does it really mean anything for an organization? Think of all the recent government apologies – people who didn’t do the deed are apologzing to people (mostly) long dead. What is the point? I would however be in favor of enlightened mission statements and directives which hold people accountable.

    4. We agree of course, but looking back at the postings, you must realize why I made the statement.

    5. I know you didn’t “say” the Church is all evil, but one could definite get the impression from your postings – not trying to put words in your mouth or over exaggerate anything you’ve said, but that is the only way I could express what I was trying to say. I’m well aware that acquiring money and power brings with it the new problem of trying to keep it. That is a given, just as human history progresses, societies get more complicated and not less. However, to compare with the Quakers, while they’re wonderful people, they have little influence. I need to write so much more to explain what I mean here, so I hope you get the drift. Hopefully this example will do it; I went to Catholic college and the Sisters were very savvy financially. A friend who was also a Franscican priest lamented this and while I agreed to a point I also asked him “but aren’t all of your schools closed because you couldn’t pay the bills?”

    6. I’ll take your word for it since it makes sense, but I never studied this assertion.

    7. Yes, I’m aware of the stake burnings, we agree again.

    8. Who said I’m not coming for you? Ha ha!

  • B

    Rudy wrote, “Luther’s replacement of papal authority with Bible-thumping is no improvement and led to the wretched fundamentalist faiths you mention.”

    In fact, John Calvin was active during the same time period
    and his ideas exerted a major influence on the Puritans, and
    we all know what happened when those dudes arrived on our
    shores. They were so into the evils of sin, that they were
    unwanted everywhere they went in Europe.

  • rudy

    1. Are you saying that Christ would be pleased that a church claiming his authority would torture and execute people over interpretations of scripture? Isn’t that behaving exactly like the High Priests at the crucifixion?
    2. Bigotry is certainly a moral issue. Catholic bishops have denounced racism as a sin since the 70s, but the Celibate Boys Club is not going to address sexism and homophobia anytime soon as they are among the worst perpetrators.
    As to American democracy being advantaged by the Enlightenment, yes, of course. Again, the Popes made a terrible error clinging to monarchy and condemning Liberalism and human rights – and they lost their empire anyway.
    3. As you’ve had a Catholic education, you know the difference between an apology and repentance.
    Let me use for this the example the Southern Baptist Convention which broke ties with northern Baptists in 1845 to embrace a Biblical literalism for the purpose of supporting slavery. At an annual meeting in the 1990s, the SBC finally repented its historic racism, but at the same meeting it repeated all the usual lies about gay people and announced its commitment to fight against gay rights. Now if you’ve been dishonest, bigoted and have oppressed one minority for 150 years, simply changing the target for your bigotry is not repentance. You have to examine why you went wrong and “if your eye offends you, pluck it out.”
    The Vatican, too, has made many apologies. Do you think that it no longer executes its critics and dissenters is a result of genuine repentance or because secular democracy denies it such power?
    5. I think if the Chuch had stayed the course charted by John XXIII, these things would all have been addressed. Unfortunately, the heirarchy made a huge turn to the right. Underestimating the gay and women’s movement, they became irrelevant to Europe. Purging Liberation theologists opened up Latin America to evangelicals. And failing to address the abuse scandal honestly has hurt them here. Now the battle is for Africa. Church history suggests to me that every time there is a challenge, they dig in their heels – and it never works

  • Happy Indeed

    1. At first blush, no, Jesus probably would not want his Church torturing people etc. I’m not a historian though, and it is interesting that almost every human society misunderstands or misuses authority to some degree so I guess it seems God does want this. Otherwise how to explain that there are no totally benevolent societies? 60 minutes did a story on one in the Far East so laid back it was beyond belief – even stray dogs didn’t fear people and seemed to be fed – but the power hungry Chinese are sure to conquer it. So I guess I’ve answered my own question as to why there are none.

    2. Bigotry according to who? I already mentioned the status of women – barely human at various times in history in the vast majority of the world and very occasionally heads of state. Here in our lovely Christian world, women got the right to vote only in the late 19th & early 20th centuries. The majority of people felt perfectly comfortable with the status quo prior. Obviously because of how they were raised. But does that make them automatically a bigot because they don’t think like you? Has our overall society improved with children being raised by day care centers? Or has women working given men permission to fly the coop? Or even if both parents are in the home, they work to have a standard of living far higher than their grandparents but my guess is the children would rather have their parents at home than a new gadget every week. Seems like an exchange of one problem for another.

    3. Yes, I know the difference between repentance and apology. Not sure I see the need for either, already said that. Does the Vatican not execute critics because secular democracies don’t allow it? Hmmmm. You’re assuming they executed all or most of them prior? Probably a bit of both …repentance and not allowed. I’m not willing to concede to you though, that the Church is all bad and concern for power and money drive 99% of its actions which is what you keep coming back to.

  • rudy

    Church, government, business – structure is destiny.

    Evangelical Christianity has all the inherent corruption you’d expect from a sect where preachers who could amass personal wealth and television empires.

    Anglicanism, with a monarchical figurehead, resembles Catholicism before the papal power grab. With it’s power resting in itr bishops, it has far more diversity h to the point of near schism.

    Churches that value individuality, truth and spirituality, like Quakers, Unitarians, Old Catholics, etc. remain small because they do not participate in the corrupting business end of religion but they they tens to their members and don’t have long lists of crimes to atone for.

    Roman Catholicism remains the official church of a vanquished empire. Its proscribed and unequal roles by gender of nun and priest are going unfilled. It has the Anglican Church as a model for successfully married clergy (and hypocritically admits married Anglican priests) but clings to celibacy which, along with the absence of women in the hierarchy, is the cause of the child abuse scandal. Add to this the centralized power that fires its most important theologians, and you are left with a Pope who tells AIDS-infected Africans that the use of condoms is sinful and faulty, derides legal same-sex marriages as “artificial” and gay love as “disordered,” and tries to bring it’s nazi wing back into the fold only to be embarrassed when they won’t stop denying the Holocaust.

    “I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. POWER TENDS TO CORRUPT, AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”
    – Lord Acton in response to Vatican I’s declaration of Papal Infallibility, 1887

    Correct then; correct now.

  • Happy Indeed

    I thought you weren’t going to talk about infallibility anymore and your tome implies the Church can do no wrong (or presents itself as such via the Infallibility doctrine) – which I’ve said how many times (Yes it can) and said doctrine has nothing to do with that AND I’ve already referred you to information that the tradition goes much further back than the official pronouncement in the 1880’s. But here you go quoting it again.

    It is not hypocritical in the slightest to admit married Anglican priests – after all, the Church allows them to see the “error” of their ways* and they must vow not to remarry. Where is the hypocrisy?

    I totally agree with your second sentence above about TV preachers and/or other Evangelical/Pentecostal sects – they are so corrupt they make the Catholic Church look positively pure by comparison.

    Paragraph – yes the unequal roles of Nun & Priest go unfilled – the quest for self fulfillment and selfish NESS in our society are probably at an all time high in the history of the world. No mystery here. This is not to say some bristle at faults in the Church but as I will continue to hammer away your posts are only talk about the Catholicism’s negative side. My guess is at least 80% of the reasons people don’t pursue vocations is for selfish reasons. As you yourself point out, most Protestant clerics live a life of luxury in comparison- and it is not just TV preachers. There is church here in Mich that bought an old seminary and the entire EXTENDED family is on the payroll driving Lincolns, Jags and Mercedes. Another church justified a several million dollar home saying a minister is at least as important as a football player. What one has to do with the other is beyond me.

    As to the absence of women in the hierarchy and celibacy – where is your data to “prove” this is the cause of the child abuse scandal? You’d make a better argument to say “sexual activity” is a venial sin that can be forgiven but bringing a child into the world fatherless and/or abortion are much more serious sins and THAT probably contributes to the theological problems with why many priests “feel” child sex is the lesser sin. Or it could be a simple as a problem in the selection process. But it is no less a sin in my view that NO Protestant minister (or so few they are statistically invisible) can “give up sex” and/or marriage for the kingdom. Surely some could if they “truly” have the calling, no?

    Several years ago, a VERY good looking MARRIED protestant minister was robbing banks here in Mich to pay for HOOKERS. Similarly a married Episcopal priest had sex with underage boys. I subscribed to the newspaper for three full years without missing an issue. When it was Catholic, it ALWAYS made the front page and the other denominations were buried in the back of the paper with much smaller articles and photos. So my point is objective data is impossible to find.

    I noticed also that you didn’t address my “bigot” comment in the previous post. I’m sure you know that wasn’t directed at you personally but was yet another example of trying to apply 21st century values to 18th century situations, but I think my example makes a point nonetheless.

    Here is another example of something so foreign, I can hardly believe it is true but I’ve read it in several vastly different sources – but it illustrates how very differently people think across the decasdes – mindset/values etc. In the very early 1900s the military was trying to ferret out homosexuality – they actually had guys go undercover, have their dicks sucked. blatantly come on to perceived Gay soldiers, have all kinds of sex, even live with them in “Gay” off base homosexual apartment buildings (there were places known to a few, where guys could cross dress, have sex with each other, dance, party etc.) And the government would have these “planted” guys testify against the “real” homos and discharge and/or prosecute them. This couldn’t possibly have been secret, the books I read detailed large scale “projects” across many states – can you imagine anything like this happening today?

    My point is simply reading the history from centuries past may not tell us the whole story even if it is factually true. I again will say it is impossible for a completely corrupt Church as you keep implying to produce such figures as St. Thomas More, St. Augustine, Pope John Paul II, Mother Theresa. Countless people I know personally have benefited greatly from Catholic schools, orphanages, hospitals and nursing homes.

    How do we throw out the dirty water without the Baby in it?

Comments are closed.