The Divinity of Christ

The doctrine of Christ's divinity is the central Christian doctrine, for it is like a skeleton key that opens all the others. Christians have not independently reasoned out and tested each of the teachings of Christ received via Bible and Church, but believe them all on his authority. For if Christ is divine, He can be trusted to be infallible in everything He said, even hard things like exalting suffering and poverty, forbidding divorce, giving his Church the authority to teach and forgive sins in his name, warning about hell (very often and very seriously), instituting the scandalous sacrament of eating his flesh—we often forget how many "hard sayings" he taught! When the first Christian apologists began to give a reason for the faith that was in them to unbelievers, this doctrine of Christ's divinity naturally came under attack, for it was almost as incredible to Gentiles as it was scandalous to Jews. That a man who was born out of a woman's womb and died on a cross, a man who got tired and hungry and angry and agitated and wept at his friend's tomb, that this man who got dirt under his fingernails should be God was, quite simply, the most astonishing, incredible, crazy-sounding idea that had ever entered the mind of man in all human history. Christ was either God or a bad man. The argument the early apologists used to defend this apparently indefensible doctrine has become a classic one. C.S. Lewis used it often, e.g. in Mere Christianity, the book that convinced Chuck Colson (and thousands of others). I once spent half a book (Between Heaven and Hell) on this one argument alone. It is the most important argument in Christian apologetics, for once an unbeliever accepts the conclusion of this argument (that Christ is divine), everything else in the Faith follows, not only intellectually (Christ's teachings must all then be true) but also personally (if Christ is God, He is also your total Lord and Savior). The argument, like all effective arguments, is extremely simple: Christ was either God or a bad man. Unbelievers almost always say he was a good man, not a bad man; that he was a great moral teacher, a sage, a philosopher, a moralist, and a prophet, not a criminal, not a man who deserved to be crucified. But a good man is the one thing he could not possibly have been according to simple common sense and logic. For he claimed to be God. He said, "Before Abraham was, I Am", thus speaking the word no Jew dares to speak because it is God's own private name, spoken by God himself to Moses at the burning bush. Jesus wanted everyone to believe that he was God. He wanted people to worship him. He claimed to forgive everyone's sins against everyone. (Who can do that but God, the One offended in every sin?) Now what would we think of a person who went around making these claims today? Certainly not that he was a good man or a sage. There are only two possibilities: he either speaks the truth or not. If he speaks the truth, he is God and the case is closed. We must believe him and worship him. If he does not speak the truth, then he is not God but a mere man. But a mere man who wants you to worship him as God is not a good man. He is a very bad man indeed, either morally or intellectually. If he knows that he is not God, then he is morally bad, a liar trying deliberately to deceive you into blasphemy. If he does not know that he is not God, if he sincerely thinks he is God, then he is intellectually bad—in fact, insane. The strength of this argument is that it is not merely a logical argument about concepts; it is about Jesus. It invites people to read the Gospels and get to know this man. A measure of your insanity is the size of the gap between what you think you are and what you really are. If I think I am the greatest philosopher in America, I am only an arrogant fool; if I think I am Napoleon, I am probably over the edge; if I think I am a butterfly, I am fully embarked from the sunny shores of sanity. But if I think I am God, I am even more insane because the gap between anything finite and the infinite God is even greater than the gap between any two finite things, even a man and a butterfly. Josh McDowell summarized the argument simply and memorably in the trilemma "Lord, liar, or lunatic?" Those are the only options. Well, then, why not liar or lunatic? But almost no one who has read the Gospels can honestly and seriously consider that option. The savviness, the canniness, the human wisdom, the attractiveness of Jesus emerge from the Gospels with unavoidable force to any but the most hardened and prejudiced reader. Compare Jesus with liars like the Reverend Sun Myung Moon or lunatics like the dying Nietzsche. Jesus has in abundance precisely those three qualities that liars and lunatics most conspicuously lack: His practical wisdom, his ability to read human hearts, to understand people and the real, unspoken question behind their words, his ability to heal people's spirits as well as their bodies; His deep and winning love, his passionate compassion, his ability to attract people and make them feel at home and forgiven, his authority, "not as the scribes"; and above all His ability to astonish, his unpredictability, his creativity. Liars and lunatics are all so dull and predictable! No one who knows both the Gospels and human beings can seriously entertain the possibility that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, a bad man. No, the unbeliever almost always believes that Jesus was a good man, a prophet, a sage. Well then, if he was a sage, you can trust him and believe the essential things he says. And the essential thing he says is that he is the divine Savior of the world and that you must come to him for salvation. If he is a sage, you must accept his essential teaching as true. If his teaching is false, then he is not a sage. The strength of this argument is that it is not merely a logical argument about concepts; it is about Jesus. It invites people to read the Gospels and get to know this man. The premise of the argument is the character of Jesus, the human nature of Jesus. The argument has its feet on the earth. But it takes you to heaven, like Jacob's ladder (which Jesus said meant him: Gen 28:12; Jn 1:51). Each rung follows and holds together. The argument is logically airtight; there is simply no way out. What, then, do people say when confronted with this argument? Often, they simply confess their prejudices: "Oh, I just can't believe that!" (But if it has been proved to be true, you must believe it if you really seek the truth!) Sometimes, they go away, like many of Jesus' contemporaries, wondering and shaking their heads and thinking. That is perhaps the very best result you can hope for. The ground has been softened up and plowed. The seed has been sown. God will give the increase. But if they know some modern theology, they have one of two escapes. Theology has an escape; common sense does not. Common sense is easily convertible. It is the theologians, now as then, who are the hardest to convert. The first escape is the attack of the Scripture "scholars" on the historical reliability of the Gospels. Perhaps Jesus never claimed to be divine. Perhaps all the embarrassing passages were inventions of the early Church (say "Christian community"—it sounds nicer). In that case, who invented traditional Christianity if not Christ? A lie, like a truth, must originate somewhere. Peter? The twelve? The next generation? What was the motive of whoever first invented the myth (euphemism for lie)? What did they get out of this elaborate, blasphemous hoax? For it must have been a deliberate lie, not a sincere confusion. No Jew confuses Creator with creature, God with man. And no man confuses a dead body with a resurrected, living one. Here is what they got out of their hoax. Their friends and families scorned them. Their social standing, possessions, and political privileges were stolen from them by both Jews and Romans. They were persecuted, imprisoned, whipped, tortured, exiled, crucified, eaten by lions, and cut to pieces by gladiators. So some silly Jews invented the whole elaborate, incredible lie of Christianity for absolutely no reason, and millions of Gentiles believed it, devoted their lives to it, and died for it—for no reason. It was only a fantastic practical joke, a hoax. Yes, there is a hoax indeed, but the perpetrators of it are the twentieth-century theologians, not the Gospel writers. The second escape (notice how eager we are to squirm out of the arms of God like a greased pig) is to Orientalize Jesus, to interpret him not as the unique God-man but as one of many mystics or "adepts" who realized his own inner divinity just as a typical Hindu mystic does. This theory takes the teeth out of his claim to divinity, for he only realized that everyone is divine. The problem with that theory is simply that Jesus was not a Hindu but a Jew! When he said "God", neither he nor his hearers meant Brahman, the impersonal, pantheistic, immanent all; he meant Yahweh, the personal, theistic, transcendent Creator. It is utterly unhistorical to see Jesus as a mystic, a Jewish guru. He taught prayer, not meditation. His God is a person, not a pudding. He said he was God but not that everyone was. He taught sin and forgiveness, as no guru does. He said nothing about the "illusion" of individuality, as the mystics do. Attack each of these evasions—Jesus as the good man. Jesus as the lunatic, Jesus as the liar, Jesus as the man who never claimed divinity, Jesus as the mystic—take away these flight squares, and there is only one square left for the unbeliever's king to move to. And on that square waits checkmate. And a joyous mating it is. The whole argument is really a wedding invitation. ~Peter Kreeft

And then there was one

At mass last week, during the homily our priest talked about life as a journey. We have many people that are with us during the journey- friends and relatives, spouse, children- as well as countless people we will encounter but never know their name. We get very used to our lives being filled with other people. Most of us don't want to be alone. We like noise- TV, radio, crowded restaurants, movie theaters- it makes us feel somehow alive and connected to life. If we don't have plans to go somewhere on the weekend, we complain that we're bored. It is hard for us to deal with time alone, and we feel lonely and left out when not surrounded by people. It occurred to me that no matter how much noise or how many people we surround ourselves with, at some point we WILL be alone. Totally, achingly alone. It won't matter how important we have been, how much money we make, or how many friends we have. We all will experience dying alone, by ourselves. Sure, there may be others around us at that time. But the instant we take our last breath, we are on our own to face our creator. There will be no supportive friends or relatives- just us alone, face to face with God. What an odd concept for such a noisy, busy world! It's coming to us all, at an unknown time. Just you and me, God. What will I say to you? What will you say to me?

Abortion: A Woman's Right/A Baby's Death

The HHS Mandate prompts me to post this, as well as those who continue to push for "women's rights." I haven't posted on this page for a long time but thought everyone should know what abortion actually is. This is graphic stuff. How is a suction (vacuum) aspiration abortion performed? Suction aspiration, the most common abortion method, is typically performed when the fetus is 6-12 weeks, but can be used up to 16 weeks.  The cervix is dilated, and a hollow plastic tube with a sharp tip is inserted into the cervix and then into the uterus.  An aspirator attached to the tube tears the body of the fetus apart and suctions the pieces through the tube. Source: Willke, John, MD and Barbara Willke. 2003. Abortion: Questions & Answers. Cincinnati: Hayes Publishing Company. How is a D&C Abortion Performed? In a D&C (dilation and curettage) abortion, typically performed in the first trimester, a curette (a sharp looped knife) is inserted into the uterus to scrape its walls.  The curette is then used to dismember the fetus and placenta. Source: Willke, John, MD and Barbara Willke. 2003. Abortion: Questions & Answers. Cincinnati: Hayes Publishing Company. How is an Intracardiac Injection Abortion Performed? In an intracardiac abortion, a needle is guided into the fetus’ heart with the aid of ultrasound, and poison (often potassium chloride or digoxin) is injected, causing an immediate heart attack.  Intracardiac injection is most commonly used for “pregnancy reduction” abortions following in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures, if multiple embryos were implanted to increase the likelihood of pregnancy.  In these cases, the procedure is typically performed between 10 and 12 weeks gestation.Intracardiac injection is also used in late term abortions when there is likelihood of delivering a live baby, in order to avoid state laws that would require the baby to be resuscitated and given medical care. Sources: Clowes, Brian, PhD. 2001. The Facts of Life. Front Royal: Human Life International. Jain, John K. and Daniel R. Mishell, Jr. 2001, February. Misoprostol regimens for termination of second trimester pregnancy, Human Reproduction, 16(2).abortion  facts How is a D&X or “Partial Birth” Abortion Performed? A D&X (dilation and extraction) or partial-birth abortion is typically performed in the late second or third trimester.  As with a D&E abortion (see above), the cervix must first be dilated, usually with laminaria (dried seaweed sticks).  Forceps are then inserted into the uterus to grasp the fetus’ legs.  The fetus is delivered breech while the head remains inside the birth canal.  Using blunt-tipped surgical scissors, the base of the skull is pierced, and a suction catheter is inserted to extract the contents of the skull.  This causes the skull to collapse, and the dead fetus is then fully delivered. Despite the fact that the United States Supreme Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2007, D&X abortions are still being performed.  An abortionist can avoid violating the law by first injecting the fetus with a lethal intracardiac injection to ensure that the fetus will already be dead when it is partially delivered. Sources: Goldberg, Carey. 2007. Shots assist in aborting fetuses. Boston Globe, August 10, Health and Fitness section. Willke, John, MD and Barbara. 2003. Abortion: Questions & Answers. Cincinnati: Hayes Publishing Company. How is a D&E Abortion Performed? A D&E (dilation and evacuation) abortion is typically performed in the first half of the second trimester (13-20 weeks), but can be used up to approximately 28 weeks.  At this stage of pregnancy, the fetus’ tendons, muscles, and bones are more developed.  In a D&E abortion, forceps are inserted into the uterus to forcibly dismember the fetus, and the pieces are removed one by one. Larger fetuses must also have their skulls crushed so the pieces can pass through the cervix. Typically, the cervix must be dilated for a period of one to three days prior to a D&E abortion.  This is most often done by inserting laminaria (dried seaweed sticks) into the cervix.  Therefore, a D&E abortion usually requires two visits to the abortion facility. Source: Clowes, Brian, PhD. 2001. The Facts of Life. Front Royal: Human Life International. How is an Instillation (Saline) Abortion Performed? In a saline abortion, amniotic fluid is removed from the uterus and replaced with a saline solution, which the fetus swallows.  The fetus is killed by salt poisoning, dehydration, brain hemorrhage and convulsions. Saline abortions, typically performed in the second and early third trimester, are rarely used today, due to the risk of particularly serious health complications to the woman. Source: Clowes, Brian, PhD. 2001. The Facts of Life. Front Royal: Human Life International. How is a Prostaglandin Abortion Performed? In a prostaglandin abortion, a dose of prostaglandin hormones is injected into the uterine muscle, which induces violent labor resulting in the death of the fetus.  Prostaglandin abortions, typically performed in the second and early third trimester, are rarely used today, due to the relatively high chance that the fetus will survive the abortion and be born alive. Source: Clowes, Brian, PhD. 2001. The Facts of Life. Front Royal: Human Life International. How is a Chemical (Medical) Abortion Performed? In a chemical abortion, also called a medical abortion, a woman is administered an abortifacient compound called mifepristone (also called RU-486 or Mifeprex). Mifepristone blocks the action of progesterone, the natural hormone vital to maintaining the lining of the uterus. As the nutrient lining disintegrates, the embryo starves.  Subsequently, the woman takes a dose of artificial prostaglandins which initiate uterine contractions and cause the embryo to be expelled from the uterus.  Abortions by mifepristone are usually done prior to 49 days gestation. Read more: Abortion Facts - Abortion Facts http://www.whyprolife.com/abortion-facts/#ixzz22QoPnrpx

Upon this Rock I will build my church(es?)

I was driving down the road the other day and had to turn around and get a picture of this sign (click on the picture for a larger image). I had to chuckle when i thought how silly such denominationalism is — and the series of infighting and splits that must have brought this name about.

Think about it! Christians were first called Christians in Antioch in Acts 11:26. Jesus used the word Church in Matthew 16 and 18. From the 1st century, Christian communities were referred to as Catholic — the Catholic Church, as can be seen as early as the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch. And Catholic it from then on. 

Then in the 16th century, Luther came along and broke with the Catholic Church and decided to ditch the name. His group became known as Lutheran. Then a large group broke away from Luther and his new denomination because they rejected the infant baptism of Catholics and Lutherans. They were called Anabaptists — “ana” meaning again — baptizing again.

This group was obviously spawned from the break with Luther in the 16th century (see my article on Baptist Successionism). They eventually shortened the name from Anabaptists to simply Baptists.

Then someone decided to start their own little church within the Baptist tradition when they began to send missionaries around the world — usually to convert Catholics. Their parent group of Baptists must not have been sending missionaries. It was worthy of a split. They must have set themselves apart and taken the name MISSIONARY Baptist Church.

But what happened then? Maybe the Missionary Baptist Church got old fashioned and stoggy and so there was another split and the Progressives started their own denomination. They happily called themselves the PROGRESSIVE Missionary Baptist Church.

But the Progressives started infighting about something or other and finally a group of elders or deacons rose up and split off again and started a new group down the street named the NEW Progressive Missionary Baptist Church.

Now what? Who knows! Tomorrow they may split again and make the FIRST New Progressive Missionary Baptist Church and the Second. And then it will probably split again into the NEWEST First New Progressive Missionary Baptist Church or the Holy First New Progressive Missionary Baptist Church. And then we will add multiple sects to the already 33,000 Protestant denominations.

Or maybe they will just chuck it all and call themselves the First Baptist Church and start all over again.

And probably, as actually happenings hundreds of times a day, many will leave these sects and return to the REAL First Missionary Church which understands true baptism and is always progressive. I happen to be speaking of the Catholic Church!

Man, am I ever glad that I left that nonsense and became a Catholic. I think the first name of the Church was the best — and the first teaching as well.

(Shared from Steve Ray's blog. If the picture didn't show up, it was of a church sign for the New PROGRESSIVE Missionary Baptist Church)

Fellowship of the Unashamed

I AM A PART of the Fellowship of the Unashamed.


The die has been cast. The decision has been made. I have stepped over the line. I won’t look back, let up, slow down, back away or be still.

My past is redeemed, my present makes sense, and my future is in God’s hands. I am finished and done with low living, small planning, the bare minimum, smooth knees, mundane talking, frivolous living, selfish giving, and dwarfed goals.

I no longer need preeminence, prosperity, position, promotions, applause, or popularity. I don’t have to be right, first, the best, recognized, praised, regarded, or rewarded. I now live by faith. I lean on Christ’s presence. I love with patience, live by prayer, and labor with the power of God’s grace.

My face is set. My gait is fast, my goal is heaven. My road is narrow, my way is rough, my companions are few, my Guide is reliable, and my mission is clear.

I cannot be bought, compromised, detoured, lured away, turned back, deluded, or delayed. I will not flinch in the face of sacrifice, hesitate in the presence of adversity, negotiate at the table of the enemy, ponder at the pool of popularity, or meander in the maze of mediocrity.

I won't give up, shut up, let up or slow up until I have stayed up, stored up, prayed up, paid up, and spoken up for the cause of Christ.

I am a disciple of Jesus. I am a Catholic. I must go until He comes, give until I drop, speak out until all know, and work until He stops me. And when He returns for His own, He will have no difficulty recognizing me. My banner is clear: I am a part of the Fellowship of the Unashamed.

On Sexual Abuse in schools and churches

This was written by John Martignoni and worth sharing:

The priest sexual abuse scandal that was brought to light in the first few years of this new millenium is indeed a shameful chapter in the history of the Catholic Church. Every priest who preyed on and abused any child, in any manner, did an absolutely horrible thing and should be justly punished for their actions.

Having said that, however, I wish to offer a few observations that need to be kept in mind, particularly by those who would, seemingly gleefully, exploit this scandal to further their own anti–Catholic agenda. And, I want to make clear, that nothing I say below is any way, shape, or form, meant to excuse or somehow justify anything that was done by these priests who acted in such a shameful manner.

The first thing I would say is this: Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone. If anyone says something to you about the priests scandal, the first thing to do is to acknowledge that is was shameful, sinful, horrible, disgusting, and is indeed a blight upon the Church. But, if someone is trying to use the scandal to promote their anti–Catholic bigotry or some such thing, then the second thing to do is to ask this person if they can name a single Protestant denomination that has not had a minister or ministers commit sexual abuse. Or, one that has not had a minister or ministers commit murder, steal, lie, cheat, engage in adultery, or any one of a number of sins against God and man. They cannot do it because there is no such denomination.

Which means that if the sins of the leaders of the Catholic Church somehow prove that the Church is not of God, or that it is indeed the Whore of Babylon as many of them contend, then the sins of the leaders of any particular faith tradition “prove” that that faith tradition is not of God. Which means then, that there is no faith tradition that is of God, because there is not a single one that has leaders who are 100% without sin.

And, in point of fact, according to studies and surveys done in the last few years, it appears that the incidence of sexual abuse within Protestant denominations is higher than it is within the Catholic Church. Again, not to excuse the actions of a single miscreant priest, but to point out that if non–Catholic Christians are going to be righteously angry about the priest sexual abuse scandal (and they should be), they need to also recognize and be righteously angry about the sexual abuse scandals that are going on inside of their own congregations and denominations.

The Washington Post did a survey a few years ago that showed less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 men who have been priests in the previous 40 years had been accused of child sexual abuse. Now, there are undoubtedly a number of priests who committed child sexual abuse and were never accused, but there are undoubtedly a number of priests who were accused of child sexual abuse who never actually committed such abuse, but we can’t know for sure what these numbers are either way. The N.Y. Times also did a survey and found that about 1.8 percent of priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 had been accused of child sexual abuse.

So, those are the figures relating to the Catholic clergy, but what about the Protestant clergy? In a 1984 survey, 38.6 percent of ministers reported sexual contact with a church member and 76% said they knew of another minister who had had sexual intercourse with a parishioner. In 1990, a study found that 10% of ministers admitted to having had an affair with a parishioner and 25% admitted to having “some sexual contact” with a parishioner. In a 1993 survey, 14% of Southern Baptist ministers said they had engaged in “inappropriate sexual behavior.” In a 2000 report to the Baptist General Convention, it was noted that in the 1980’s, 12 percent of minsters had “engaged in sexual intercourse with members” and nearly 40% had “acknowledged sexually inappropriate behavior.” One thing to note here, is that these figures dealing with the Protestant clergy do not focus specifically on child abuse, but include all manner of sexual sins. The point, though, is that it appears the incidence of sexual abuse amongst Protestant clergy is as serious, if not more serious, than it is among Catholic clergy.

However, specifically in regard to child abuse, in 2002, the Christian Science Monitor reported that, “Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual–abuse allegations are Protestant.” In Pedophiles and Priests, a work by Penn State professor Philip Jenkins, it was determined that between .2 and 1.7 percent of priests are pedophiles, while between 2 and 3 percent of Protestant clergy are pedophiles. So, according to this study, the number of pedophiles among Protestant clergy range from just slightly higher than Catholic clergy to as many as 10 to 15 times higher than Catholic clergy. Finally, the New York Times reported in 2007, that just three insurance companies that insure Protestant churches said they receive an average of 260 reports a year of children young than 18 being sexually abused by members of the clergy, church staff memers, volunteers, or congregants. In other words, the problem is not one that is found solely within the confines of the Catholic Church.

So, why do you hear so much about the incidence of sexual abuse among the Catholic clergy and little to nothing about the incidence of sexual abuse among the Protestant clergy? A few reasons, but I believe the most important one is that the nice people in the media hate the Catholic Church more than they hate any other Christian church and will use any excuse to try to bring her down. They hate the Church’s stance on abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, contraception, and many other such things. So, because they hate the Church so much, they go after her with great gusto every chance they get, and this priest abuse scandal was like waving a red flag in front of a bull for them.

Another reason for the spotlight shining so brightly on the Catholic Church, is that the abuses of a number of different priests were exposed all at the same time so it seemed like the problem was larger within the Catholic Church compared to anywhere else. The fact is, most of the abuse cases go back to the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s. So, when they came out, they didn’t trickle out here and there, they came out all at once. And, because of the size of the Church, compared to any single Protestant denomination, it makes it seem like the problem is more prevalent in the Catholic Church because of the numbers you hear talked about. So, you hear about 40 or 50 priest abusers in one archdiocese on national media one night, while in the back pages of the Eastaboga Times you read about the sexual abuse perpetrated by Pastor Jones over at the 1st Baptist church. The thing is, though, that when you add up all of the Pastor Jones abuse situations in all of the Protestant denominations, it is apparently a bigger problem than that which exists in the Catholic Church.

Which means, again, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Now, is the situation in the Protestant churches something for Catholics to gloat over? “Yeah, we’ve got sexual abuse in our Church, but at least it’s not as bad as what you Protestants have, hah!” No, that should not be the reaction of anyone who calls themself a Christian. Sexual abuse, whether of children or of adults, is a crime that destroys lives, and it is something that we all need to pray comes to an end in both the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches. Just as no one should be trying to exploit the situation of the priest abuse scandal to “score” points against the Church, Catholics should not try to exploit the situation of the minister abuse scandal to “score” points against the Protestant denominations. We should all be equally outraged against all of these abuses and work and pray to lessen the incidence of such despicable acts.

One more thing to keep in mind, though, which provides a bit more perspective on the whole situation, particularly as to the motivation of the media – by all accounts, while the sexual abuse problem is bad in the Catholic world and the Protestant world, it is apparently many times worse in the public school systems around this country. It has been reported, by the Journal of Education Research, that as many as 17.7 of males who graduated high school, and 82.2 of females, reported sexual harassment by faculty or staff during their years in school. And consider this, in the State of New York, teachers accused of sexual misconduct cannot be fired. In a 1994 study of 225 cases of sexual abuse by educators, every single one of them admitted the abuse, but not a single one was reported to authorities, and only 2 or 3 of them lost their license to teach. Studies show that up to 5% of teachers sexually abuse children. So, have you heard about this on the nightly news? Of course not! Why not? Because the teachers’ unions and the mainstream media outlets are allies in many areas.

So, is the media zealous in their pursuit of these priest abusers? You bet they are and, quite frankly, I’m glad they are – or else a lot of this crap may have never seen the light of day. My criticism of the media is not that they shouldn’t be exposing abuse within the Church, they should be. My criticism of the media is that their outrage over the sexual abuse of minors appears to be rather selective, depending on who is committing the abuse. They need to go after all incidences of sexual abuse wherever it is found.

So, if someone comes up to you and starts railing on the Church because of the priest abuse scandal, you can agree with them 100% that it is something heinous and scandalous and that every one who perpetrated these crimes and/or covered them up, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and their conversions should be prayed for to the full extent of Christian charity.

But, if they try to use the scandal to start questioning the underlying legitimacy of the Church…its authority…its teachings, then point out the facts as I have above, but also mention that the Church nowhere taught that the actions of these men were ever moral. These men in fact committed acts that were directly contrary to the Church’s teachings and to their oaths. Nor did the Church ever condone these actions. And that a few Bishops covering up for these abusers does not constitute the approval of the Church, it constitutes sin. Even if it is ever found out, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Pope himself knew about the sexual abuse and sought to cover it up or to somehow excuse it, that does still not constitute approval of the Church. It constitutes sin. The Pope can sin right along with the rest of us.

The sexual abuse scandal in the Church should rightly be condemned by one and all, but sexual abuse by ministers outside of the Catholic Church should be condemned just as strongly, as should sexual abuse within the schools. The Church should not escape scrutiny and criticism, but scrutiny and criticism should be applied without prejudice to all. Those who try to exploit the sexual abuse scandal to further their own agenda are loathsome people. Those who simply question the Church regarding the scandal should be given the full facts and the full context of the situation, and should be made to understand that it is not our problem alone.

Our Sad Society

"What has come to pass in our society is most lamentable. There is a terrible moral and religious void. Today all seem frantically directed toward material conquests: make money, invest, surround oneself with new comforts, live the "good life." Few think also of "doing good." God, who should fill our life- has, on the contrary, become a very distant star, to which people look only at certain moments. People believe they are religious because they go to church; but outside of church they want to lead the same life as many others, marked by small or big deceits, acts of injustice, sins against charity, and thus they totally lack coherence." Pope John Paul I

How true today as it was years ago when this was written, and we continue our downward spiral.