Updated 11:59 pm.EST, Sun November 22, 2009

World|Wed, Nov. 21 2007 02:28 PM EST

Canadian Anglicans Facing 'Full-Blown Schism,' Bishop Says

By Lillian Kwon|Christian Post Reporter

As conservatives in Canada move toward discussion on the possible formation of a breakaway Anglican body this week, one diocesan bishop says the Canadian church is now facing "a full-blown schism."

  • Canadian Anglican Church
    (Photo: AP Images / CP, John Woods)
    An Anglican church delegate contemplates a motion on the blessing of same-sex unions at the Canadian Anglican Church General Synod 2007 in Winnipeg, Canada, Saturday, June 23, 2007.

Traditionalist members of the Anglican Network in Canada are expected to present the option of forming a separate Anglican body to those who want to remain "biblically faithful" in the global Anglican family but are in "serious theological dispute" with the national church. Details will be outlined at the network's national conference, which opens Thursday.

“This is a full-blown schism now within the Canadian church and it is a direct attack upon the catholicity of the church and the gospel of Jesus Christ,” said Bishop Michael Ingham of New Westminster in a recent interview with Anglican Journal, the church’s editorially independent newspaper. “It is one thing to hold differing opinions as many Anglicans obviously do on matters of sexual ethics. It’s quite another thing to establish alternative ecclesial bodies, which is schism.”

Divisions have deepened over what conservatives contend is the Anglican Church of Canada's liberal direction on homosexuality and scriptural authority.

Last week, the southern Ontario Diocese of Niagara became the third diocese in the national church to approve blessings for same-sex couples. The dioceses of Ottawa and Montreal recently passed similar motions and their bishops said they will consult widely before deciding whether to implement the decisions.

The Rt. Rev. Donald Harvey, retired bishop of Eastern Labrador, announced last week that he was relinquishing his ties to the Anglican Church of Canada and would affiliate with the orthodox Province of the Southern Cone, the Anglican church in South America.

Harvey, moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada, said he will be resuming full-time Episcopal ministry on behalf of "biblically faithful Canadian Anglicans who are distressed and feel they no longer have a home in the Anglican Church."

“The network says the church has already crossed the line in the sand, and they either repent and reverse some of the decisions they’ve made or we will find it difficult to be able to follow them where they seem to be leading," he told The Telegram newspaper.

“If [that] means separating from the Anglican Church of Canada, we will go with the communion of the world.”

Although the homosexuality debate has drawn the most attention, Harvey noted that even if that issue was resolved in the Anglican Communion, there would still be conflict.

"I do not like what some of the leaders … are now doing to [the church]. They are diluting that faith, and doing their best to make it acceptable to a society, that, in the long run, won’t appreciate it anyway," he said.

Harvey’s departure comes as Ingham, whose New Westminster diocese was the first Anglican jurisdiction to formally authorize the blessing of same-sex unions, warned clergy in his diocese that he would discipline those who take part in ordinations planned by Harvey next month. Ingham asserted that only the bishop of the diocese or another bishop to whom the bishop has delegated authority may ordain priests or deacons.

The Council of General Synod further stated that Harvey's secession was unnecessary to provide pastoral care to parishes and that such actions are "not a valid expression of Anglicanism."

"Interventions in the life of our church, such as ordinations or other episcopal acts by any other jurisdictions are inappropriate and unwelcome,” council members said on Saturday. “In particular, we cannot recognize the legitimacy of recent actions by the Province of the Southern Cone in purporting to extend its jurisdiction beyond its own borders.”

The Nov. 22-23 conference of the Anglican Network in Canada will unveil what Harvey calls its "lifeboat" on Thursday, according to The Telegram. Details have not been given but Harvey suggested it could be a historic moment.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2
  • Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    i noticed that stuff in the movie. to me it was merely "white noise". i.e. taking "artistic freedom" in showing might have possibly happen. Although it is false, because the Catholics don't take jewish traditions and beliefs into consideration. it is merely conjecture. and to me, it just made the movie more dramatic, at best. I will say this...Mel did a very accurate account of Jesus being whipped. I'm glad he decided not to water that down. Other than that, it was just the same as any other passion movie I've seen...even from non-catholics.

  • Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I saw the movie "The Passion of The Christ" by Mel Gibson. I own it. And I think it's the height of pride to say that it is a "Catholic version". I watched it, and was shown the way it reads in my Bible. It is the Biblical version. So, now Catholic claim to own the crucifixion of Christ.

    Hahahaa...now I know for sure how smart you are. the 14 stations of the cross and the five sorrowful mysteries of the rosary. Every mystery and every station is there, in order — including one event drawn entirely from tradition, St. Veronica wiping the Lord's face.

    The film highlights Catholic eucharistic sensibilities by presenting the Last Supper, not chronologically before the Garden of Gethsemane, but in flashback intercut with the Crucifixion itself. This juxtaposition of the Crucifixion and the Last Supper reflects the Catholic dogma that the Mass, along with the cross, is a true sacrifice, and the sacrifice of the altar and of the cross are one.

    Another key scene with eucharistic overtones occurs after the scourging at the pillar, as the two Marys, Jesus' mother and the Magdalene, get down on their knees and begin mopping his spilled blood off the flagstones. This image is bound to leave more than a few Protestants scratching their heads. Only in light of the Catholic sensibility regarding the precious blood of Christ in the Eucharist does it begin to make sense.

    I could go on and on about the Catholic converts during the making of the film, Caviezel currently studying Catholic theology at Notre Dame, Mel Gibson....but it would just be way too easy. I needed a comment for sure that proved to me that you didn't know what you were talking about and this is it. Take care and keep watching the movie :)

  • Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I know this guy I quoted isn't a leader. I wasn't refering to him. I was just asking what you said about the Protestant leaders opinions on the Pope.

  • Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And you say that many great Protestant leaders say that the Pope is great man of God?

  • Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    continued...
    "John 14:6 says, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Nowhere does it say that Peter, Pope Benedict XVI or anyone else can supplant Jesus as the leader of the church.

    It is these kinds of missives by Pope Benedict XVI that do nothing to support or build the community of faith. All it does is divide.

    Protestant leaders: Don't buy into the foolishness. Let Pope Benedict XVI keep running off at the mouth and making pointless declarations. If you keep bringing good news to the poor, setting the captives free and assisting those who seek to know Jesus, then you'll make more headway in doing the work of Jesus than any 16-page document will."

  • Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    continued...
    "This is nothing but a naked attempt by Pope Benedict XVI to "own" Jesus by virtue of the Catholic Church considering the apostle Peter as its leader. He refuses to acknowledge the reality that Jesus didn't consider a church to be most important. What was? The Great Commission.

    The Bible records in Matthew 28:16 that Jesus called his 11 disciples (the other, Judas, hung himself after betraying Jesus) to Mount Galilee and decreed, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age" (New International Version).

    It doesn't matter what Pope Benedict XVI has to say, or for that matter, any other religious leader. A Christian believes in Jesus Christ and what He had to say, not what a man of God has to say. This is not an attempt to completely dismiss religious leaders, but is further evidence of what happens when ego is more important than the work of Christ."

  • Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    continued...

    "And the reality is that we were never really encouraged to study the Scriptures. The standard practice was for all of us to read the same pamphlets passed out by the church, recite the readings from the New and Old Testaments, listen to the Scripture chosen for us in the Gospel and hear a normally bland homily.

    That isn't always the case at some Catholic churches. If you visit St. Sabina in Chicago, Father Michael Pfleger will surely have your soul jumping with his strong sermons and willingness to engage the community to get involved in direct action.

    Yet as I reflect on my years as a Catholic, it pretty much was a wasted experience, as there was more identification with the church, and not with Christ.

    And that's why Pope Benedict XVI is meaningless, along with his decision to re-state the primacy of the Catholic Church. This week, the pope released a document correcting interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, which some say modernized the church. But for hardliners like Pope Benedict XVI, the liberals went too far in some of their declarations.

    But what ticked folks off was his assertion in the 16-page document by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that the only denominations that can call themselves true churches are ones that can trace their roots back to Jesus Christ's original apostles.
    He even suggested they suffer from defects."

  • Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    http://www.creators.com/opinion/roland-martin/supremacy-of-catholic-church-and-pope-irrelevant-to-other-christians.html
    "Non-Catholics who are up in arms of the proclamation by Pope Benedict XVI that the only true church in the world is that of Catholicism shouldn't even bother getting upset. Just chalk it up to an old man trying to get a little attention.

    For him to even suggest that only the Catholic Church can provide true salvation to believers in Christ shows that he is wholly ignorant of the Scriptures that I have known all my life.

    Sorry, let me take that back. I've really only known the Bible for the last 13 of my 38 years. That's because those first 25 years were spent as a die-hard Catholic.

    That's right, I was born and raised in the Catholic Church. One of the first meetings to build the church I was raised in — Our Lady Star of the Sea in Houston — took place in my grandparent's living room. Many of my Saturdays and Sundays were spent serving as an altar boy, Catholic Youth Organization leader, dedicated student of Catechism, and constantly reciting the Holy Rosary."

  • Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I saw the movie "The Passion of The Christ" by Mel Gibson. I own it. And I think it's the height of pride to say that it is a "Catholic version". I watched it, and was shown the way it reads in my Bible. It is the Biblical version. So, now Catholic claim to own the crucifixion of Christ. And so now you have a mega-church, and everyone must think that it's right because everyone else is doing it...and they walk right into a web of false teachings. Big doesn't mean right. And longevity doesn't either. There are many other religions that boast even being around longer than Catholicism...does that make them right?
    And it's nice to know that I am saved and gong to heaven without the Blessed Church or His Holiness.

  • Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Where are the Galatian Catholics? And the Corinthian Catholics? As I recall...Paul wrote to many churches in different countries. So using that knowlege, it is presumptuous to assume that Rome is it. And as far as your speak on The Church goes...I kinda agree with you on that. That's why I'm glad I'm part of the Church. But going to church, or "being a member" of a church or even "THE CATHOLIC Church" doesn't make you saved anymore than sitting in a garage makes you a car. Salvation comes only one way.
    "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12
    "And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:30-31
    I dont see anything about a church (or Church) there. I could quote more if you want.
    Christians hold true to the Word of God. We don't follow the dictates of a church that teaches things contrary to the Word of God. And you keep going off on how you are so special that you have a link. So? You're not the only one. So what does that prove?
    And yes, it is the Catholic Church that put the Bible together...and has fallen from the Truth since. If you are pinning The Church's holiness on something it didn centuries ago, well, that's just sad. "We put the Bible together, so we are sooo holy...AND the only way to salvation." God could have pick a bunch of monkey to do it. After all, He did make a donkey speak.

  • Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Please spare me some quip about not having our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ at the center of our faith. Has over 2,000 years proven nothing? Yes, there have had to be some changes made along the way - indulgences being one of the most obvious, but this is a Church that is 2,000 years old. I guess you are surprised that in 2,000 years some things have changed? The Church has and will stand the test of time.

    Here's a good book for you:
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0761529241/lewrockwell/

    Or if you would prefer to watch a good movie to understand Catholicism then I recommend you rent the mission with Robert DeNiro or The Passion of the Christ.

    A personal favorite is the Lord of The Rings. Tolkien always said the Lord of the Rings was Catholic and I like to think of the end battle as the enemies of the Church attacking the Vatican. In the end good always triumph over evil :)

  • Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    What I'm telling you isn't new and that's why an incredibly large number of protestant theologians have a deep respect for the Catholic Church. Even this website we are chatting on has a Catholic link. The Holy Roman Catholic is not some new religious group that is looking for respectability. It is the Church that put the bible together, it is the Church that was around from day one. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is the world's largest, and Christianity's oldest, religious body. The Church comprises almost one-fifth of the total human population. She is far and away the most popular religious concept the world has ever known. Deal with it.

  • Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    No one would have access to Christ's salvation if the Church were not in the world. In that sense the Church is necessary. But Christ's salvation is not limited to the boundaries of formal membership in the Church. In other words, we know from Christ's teaching in the Bible that the Church is necessary, but the Church holds out hope for those outside the Church that they too may be saved.

    Acts 4:12 says that salvation is found in no one other than Christ, "for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." This verse and many others make it abundantly clear that Christ is the only Savior of the world. That is precisely why the Church says that its existence in the world is necessary for salvation: because we would not know of Christ had it not been for the Church. In Acts 4:12, Peter is pointing to Christ as the Savior, but he does so as an authoritative witness to Christ, as his chosen apostle. The people to whom Peter was preaching would not know of Christ except through his witness as the leader of the Church. So we can say that the proclamation of Christ by the Church is necessary for salvation. Outside of Christ there is no salvation and, by implication, outside the Church there is no salvation.

    Thus, we don't know what God will do for those outside the Church, so it's best not to presume to judge. We can only hope and pray that God will have mercy on them.

  • Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You want to go straight from Christ's crucifixion to St. Paul to Luther and just pretend that the 1500 years that people were following the Catholic Church means nothing. You already stated that we put the bible together, and Paul was in direct communication with the Church in Rome because that was/is the Church. What separates your interpretation from the bible from the church down the street? Which is right the southern baptist interpretation of the bible or the northern baptist interpretation of the bible? on what authority is that based?

    The Catholic dogma is indeed that outside the Church there is no salvation, but your interpretation of what this dogma means is flawed. The Church does not presume to know who will be in heaven with God. It makes no judgments in this matter whatsoever. The ancient phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus (literally, "outside the Church no salvation") has been a widely accepted principle since the earliest days of Christianity. Since the Church has no authority to deny long-established principles, it cannot simply throw out time-honored truths to suit the current fads of thinking.

  • Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And its interesting that most (if not all) protestants teachings is that Jesus is the only way to heaven, and yet the Blessed Church claims that IT is the only true way. The Pope didn't die for me and my sins. And he is just as much a sinner as I am. Just a much more powerful one, at that.

  • Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Paul spoke of Rome's sin. I find it disturbing that the Catholics are proud of their heritage. Especially when Roman Catholic was instituted by a government in order to maintain control over the religion.
    But still, you haven't addressed the fact of Catholics false teachings.

  • Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Paul knew where to address the letter because he knew where the TRUE AUTHORITY was and is to this day. Thus, many protestant leaders are very aware of that fact and continue to deeply respect that authority. Is it any wonder that the Pope can make the comment about the Catholic Church and salvation on Friday and have all the world's protestant leaders lined up on Saturday? They know their bibles and they know the authority of the Catholic Church when it comes to the word of God.

  • Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    As for your comment about Paul the Apostle, I'm sure you wouldn't argue about the historical FACT, that:

    Paul's greatest Letter, Romans was written precisely to the Church in Rome-that Church with which all Catholics are still in communion! We have held Paul's Letter as well as the witness of his very life (he was martyred and buried in Rome) and maintain his teaching still.

  • Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:05 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Is it any wonder the Holy Roman Catholic continues to grow 2,000 years after its founding? The last time I checked the approx. number was 1.1 billion Roman Catholics. Of coarse that number doesn't include the Anglican Schism that is occurring and the different Anglican groups who are petitioning to join the Church. Thus, the special meeting of the Pope with the cardinals over the weekend.

  • Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:03 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I guess as Catholics the difference is we just have a longer list ...Jesus Christ, the apostle Paul, Peter,...that even includes members of his family (Mary).

  • Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:14 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    yeah, there are a couple that I particularly like. Jesus Christ, and Paul the apostle. Both of which speak contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches.

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    As I stated previously I don't have to merely quote Catholics or Catholic institutions I can basically go down the list of the who's who in the evangelical movement and quote them, so what's your point? Any of them that you particularly like?

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    In his book The Purpose Driven Life, Warren says, “God warns us over and over not to criticize, compare, or judge each other.” In fact, while God’s Word warns against judging hypocritically or judging by our fallible human traditions it plainly instructs us to judge everything by God’s Word, especially doctrine and church practice. Acts 17:11 and 1 Thess. 5:21 are examples of this.

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Cardinal John O’Connor believed that salvation is through the sacraments of Rome, that the Pope is the Holy Father and Vicar of Christ, that the Catholic priesthood mediates between God and man, that Mary is the sinless Queen of Heaven, that dead “saints” can answer prayer, that the mass is the literal body and blood and re-sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that Christians go to purgatory, etc.

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    continued...
    "In 1983, Cal Thomas, Moral Majority’s director of communications, said that the group is composed of Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Protestants and some “non-religious” members. He noted that they do not pray in their meetings. Jerry Falwell told a meeting of the Religious Newswriters Association that “if we ever opened a Moral Majority meeting with prayer, we would disintegrate” (The Flaming Torch, Jan.-Feb, 1983, p. 14)."
    "In the Fundamentalist Journal for December 1986, a photo of Falwell shows him addressing the students at Notre Dame University, a major Roman Catholic school. By the way, not only is Notre Dame University a hotbed of Catholic dogma; it is a hotbed of theological Modernism. The professors teach that the Bible is a mixture of truth and myth, that Adam and Eve were not historic, that the world evolved, that Jonah was not swallowed by a whale, etc."

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    check out what the fundemental baptists (whom Jerry claimed to be) think about him at http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/falwellandrome.htm
    Here are some interesting quotes
    "Though Jerry Falwell claims to be a fundamental Baptist, he acts like a New Evangelical. He is a groundbreaking ecumenist who is helping pave the way for the creation of the end times one-world harlot “church.” He has long worked with Roman Catholics, Charismatics, and others who are opposed to the doctrine that he professes."
    "In an interview with the National Catholic Register published in the May 9, 1982, issue, Falwell said that Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II are “the greatest men in my lifetime.” He did not give any warnings at all about the pope’s false gospel that is cursed of God. While admitting that there are differences between Roman Catholics and “conservative Protestants,” Falwell made the amazing statement that Roman Catholics accept “the new birth experience.” Surely the man knows that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the new birth is in baptism and that in no sense do Catholics believe in “the new birth experience” in a scriptural manner. While attending the St. Louis 2000 ecumenical conference with press credentials, I asked many conservative charismatic Roman Catholics who work for various Catholic ministries when they were born again, and not one of them gave a scriptural answer. Many of them did not even know what I was talking about."

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Trust me I don't have to just quote from Catholic people/institutions. I could go down the list of prominent evangelicals ...who do you want next - Jerry Falwell?
    In his autobiography Strength for the Journey, Falwell referred to the "Catholic brothers and sisters in the Moral Majority" (p. 371). Falwell stated on record that Pope John Paul II was one of the greatest men in his lifetime. In his journal Catholic figures published a few times. I guess the statement from Falwell that pertains to you is:
    "Extremists who declare that the Papacy is anti-Christ, or who dehumanize others with emotive declarations of their own bigotry, are insensitive to others and lack the love of Christ".

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ron Paul is not a Catholic but speaks the truth. Billy Graham knows this is also the truth. You do a search of Billy Graham and Catholic and you will see a lot of people complaining. How could Billy Graham accept an honorary degree from a Catholic university and express basically what Ron Paul did - because it is the truth.

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    It's size and influence makes it one of the last institutions in the world to be able to stand up to the new world governments as Ron Paul points out:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul244.html

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    let me rephrase that...
    The point is that you claim an objective analysis and then quote a Catholic.

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The point of my first comment about Thomas Plante is that you are not being objective, by the way.

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "An objective analysis of the situation suggests, first, that the Catholic church is no worse than others when it comes to the incidence of child molesters in its ranks"
    And then you use Thomas Plante from Santa Clara University as your source. Santa Clara is a Catholic university, which makes me assume that Mr. Plante is Catholic as well. If not Catholic, someone in a position to be persuaded by the Catholic Church.
    And your comment on Catholic Church beng the most powerful religious institution in the world. Size isn't everything. And bigger doesn't mean right. Or is it "He who has the most, makes all the rules"? China has the biggest army in the world...doesn't mean that what they promote is correct. It just means they could flex their might to get what they want. Same goes for the Catholic Church. If the Catholic church was only half as big as the protestant movement would it have the influence it does now? No. So that means that its power is not in the fact that it's correct, but in it's size.

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Why, then, the disproportionate focus on problems within the Church? In part, that emphasis stems from a few truly horrifying high-profile cases and multi-million dollar legal settlements.

    Then there is also the status of the Catholic Church as the most visible, powerful religious institution in the world: General resentment of organized religion will often focus on the Church of Rome, the most centrally organized and hierarchical faith on earth.

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    An objective analysis of the situation suggests, first, that the Catholic church is no worse than others when it comes to the incidence of child molesters in its ranks. Second, whatever the failings of the Catholic hierarchy in dealing with this appalling problem (and they are legion), those sins pale in comparison to the blatant hypocrisy of the Church's enemies on this issue.

    Thomas Plante, a California psychologist at Santa Clara University who treats priests who have molested minors. "The best data we have is that approximately 5 percent of priests have a predilection toward minors," he declared. "That seems consistent with other clergy who are not priests (such as Protestant ministers or rabbis)." Moreover, Plante cites research suggesting that among the general population, 8 percent feel sexually attracted to children – a higher percentage than among priests or other clergy. Such numbers, or course, reflect those who feel sexually drawn to contact with kids, rather than indicating the percentage who actually act upon this inclination.

    The Washington Post, an establishment liberal journal with no reason to whitewash the church, approvingly cites Gary Schoener, a psychologist in Minneapolis whose Walk-In Counseling Center has consulted with more than 1,000 victims of sexual abuse by clergy. He also affirms that the percentage of abusers among Catholic priests is no higher than among Protestant ministers.

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:09 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And people get upset at the televangelists for not wanting the government to get involved in their situation.

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 11:07 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    It's the same old story. Priest molests children in his parish. Priest's boss finds out about the molestation. Rather than turning the priest over to the police so he can be prosecuted for one of the most heinous crimes imaginable, the church hierarchy instead puts the priest into their own private, intra-church counseling while merely telling his parishioners that he is taking a leave of absence.

    Upon completion of that counseling, they move the offending priest to another parish where the public has no idea that he has a history of molesting children and they once again put him in a position of authority over children. To no one's surprise, he molests more children. One of those children grows up and sues the diocese for negligence for their actions and the diocese goes to court and argues that the case should be dismissed because of the free exercise clause of the Constitution.

    Read that again. It wasn't a joke. They actually argued that if the Court rules on the issue they will "will become unconstitutionally entangled in religious doctrine, practice, or church polity" and that it will require the Court to "regulate the manner in which a Catholic bishop selects, assigns, supervises, and disciplines priests and that such regulation violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution." The word 'chutzpah' comes to mind.

    Thankfully, a court in Rhode Island has rejected that claim and denied the motion to dismiss the case.
    http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/09/molestation_covered_by_ministe.php

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:02 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You said "masses are a build up to receive Jesus in the Eucharist". You talking about receiving Christ as their Savior? Or talking about recieving His sacrements?

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:57 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    How ever you slice it, the Catholic church promotes false and non-Biblical teachings.

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:50 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You missed my point again, did ya?

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:50 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    But wait! According to the opnions of most Catholics i've spoken to...the Catholic Church is infallible! They answer to no one, because they are the ultimate authority.
    And you bring up Jimmy Swaggart...sure people became dissillusioned, or upset over what he did. How is that different from the child molestation cases against many catholic priests?

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    It's kinda like going to a professional football game because you like the peanuts.

    Wow! That my friend is why you will never understand Catholicism because if you don't understand the Eucharist then you don't understand Catholicism

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:45 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    so, that justifies all the false teachings of the Catholic church? The eucharist? We take part in the communion that Jesus told us too. What's your point? And if the main reason that people become Catholics is because of the eucharist, that's just sad. They need to learn the real reason why we go to church. It's kinda like going to a professional football game because you like the peanuts. Meanwhile, theyre missing out. And I suppose you don't hold to the teaching of the ministries of pastor, apostle, teacher, evangelist,and prophet, do you? The situation with these televangelists is another topic. But they are no more misleading then the Catholic church. They mislead with their money, Catholics are misleading with their tenets. The difference is...the televangelists are being held accountable. Who will hold the Catholic church accountable?

  • Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet,

    I do not dispute that the Catholics put the Bible together. But that's what hurts so much, is that God used them in that way,,,and they are now teaching things that aren't even in the very Bible that God had them put together.

    Do you want me to tell you a secret? Do you want to know why the numbers of the Catholic church increased even during the priest scandal? because people don't go for the sole reason to hear the gospel according to the priest they go for the Eucharist. It's the #1 reason Catholics remain Catholics and convert to Catholicism. Are masses are a build up to receive Jesus in the Eucharist. The bible readings are nice and the homilies are nice, but to be honest the televangelists are a lot more appealing then the old priest who gives the homilies at my church. I like the always smiling Joel Osteen, or the bible banging Hagee or Jack Van Impe, but I don't go to Church for a pep talk I can read the bible at home. Do you know that of all the evangelists that are to appear in front of the Senate Committee only 1 is accountable to a governing body(Baptist) all the rest are not accountable to anybody, they just get a bible and camera and off they went. When a Jimmy Swaggart stumbles where do all the followers go? I guess it is like Forest Gump when he stops running and then all the people are left out on the highway wondering where do we go from here?
    I'm not saying that the Catholic Church hasn't made mistakes in its over 2000 years indulgences/Galileo... the Church has matured and continues to mature but I will always go to the Catholic mass because it is built on a progression to receive Jesus Christ. My Lord and Savior ALWAYS takes precedence over the personality of the priest.

  • Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    i suppose "verbal" would be a better choice of a word than "oral".

  • Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    so enough of this false teaching of an "alternative" oral truth outside the Word of God.

  • Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    2 Timothy 3:15-17

    "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works"

  • Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I do not dispute that the Catholics put the Bible together. But that's what hurts so much, is that God used them in that way,,,and they are now teaching things that aren't even in the very Bible that God had them put together. But until they had put it together, the writings were still there. They just were'nt in an organized form. The letters from Paul were still floating around being adhered to by believers, as were the Gospels.

  • Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    When Jesus spoke to Satan in the wilderness, He didn't say "It has been said..." He said "It is written!"

  • Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So what are you saying, the early Christians were lost because they didn't have the bible and had to rely on the church? Have you ever studied the role of the Catholic Church in compiling, preserving, and revering the Bible throughout history?

    First there were Jesus and the twelve apostles, and then there was Paul, and then there was Martin Luther. What happened to the one thousand five hundred years of history in between? What about the historical fact that the Catholic Councils established the canon of the New Testament in the fourth century?

  • Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    But the argument of oral passage of truth is a good defense, since it's creditbility can only be proven as far as the oldest person to hand down such information. It would be like me saying..."My great gradnfather told me before he died that he knows the real truth behind the assasination of President Lincoln." That's all well and good, but it's only as believable as I make it. There is no proof. I have heard of cultures (usually ancient cultures) passing on stories verbally. That was because they had no written language or one that was so primitive that it was usless in such situations. All through history as we know it, everything has been recorded in written form. God wrote the Ten commandments out for us. That is the way God intended it. Therefore there could be no dispute. The facts of events can change dramatically over just a few short generations when passed along verbally. The Bible is the only word of God. All teachings and beliefs will be judged by it.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Church
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Baker Publishing Group

This full-text Bible is perfect for children who have outgrown Bible storybooks, but who would struggle to read the small type of most Bibles. The large, easy-to-read 12.5 point ty

Featured Advertiser Links