Many were long dead before the cover-up was discovered. Others HAVE been removed from duties. As far as obstructing justice charges go...that's up to the legal system to take care of, and not the Vatican. If you want them charged, write your congressman.

Allow me to point out that since the Vatican is its own state, it was able to prosecute the pope's former butler, Paolo Gabriele, in the Vatican City court (with his sentence to be served in the Italian prison system). So why hasn't the Vatican prosecuted those who have covered up the centuries-old child abuse cult within the church?

I'll take this post as admitting you did not read the entire piece written by the pope and will continue to use a minority of quotes to get to the point you want. If you think the Catholic church has changed its stance on the abortion issue or its importance you are 100% wrong. It is that simple. You are wrong. If you are not a practicing Catholic please don't try and tell me what my Church teaches.

Good to see you're now playing the "If you're not a practicing Catholic ..." card.

Allow me to point out that since the Vatican is its own state, it was able to prosecute the pope's former butler, Paolo Gabriele, in the Vatican City court (with his sentence to be served in the Italian prison system). So why hasn't the Vatican prosecuted those who have covered up the centuries-old child abuse cult within the church?

 

I'm very very well aware of the fact that the Vatican is its own state. And to answer your question, if you look at the cover up that did take place (I said "did take place"...not "is taking place"), those people weren't in the Vatican.

 

Also, just to serve my own curiosity...are you a practicing Catholic?

Allow me to point out that since the Vatican is its own state, it was able to prosecute the pope's former butler, Paolo Gabriele, in the Vatican City court (with his sentence to be served in the Italian prison system). So why hasn't the Vatican prosecuted those who have covered up the centuries-old child abuse cult within the church?

 

Because the Church (and institutions associated with the Church) are working with the local authorities and court systems within the United States legal systems. There is no cover-up anymore. The Vatican "state" does not have a legal affect here.

 

By the way, you are now playing the "sex abuse" card.

Good to see you're now playing the "If you're not a practicing Catholic ..." card.

 

Are you Catholic? Are you a lapsed Catholic? Just trying to get perspective on your position.

Allow me to point out that since the Vatican is its own state, it was able to prosecute the pope's former butler, Paolo Gabriele, in the Vatican City court (with his sentence to be served in the Italian prison system). So why hasn't the Vatican prosecuted those who have covered up the centuries-old child abuse cult within the church?

 

I seriously doubt the Vatican has the legal authority to extradite anyone, clergy or not.

Because the Church (and institutions associated with the Church) are working with the local authorities and court systems within the United States legal systems. There is no cover-up anymore. The Vatican "state" does not have a legal affect here.

 

By the way, you are now playing the "sex abuse" card.

I love the certainty from you and others that "there is no cover-up anymore." If you really believe that, then I have a piece of Noah's Ark to sell you. As far as others inquiring of my faith, that is a matter between me and the Almighty and not germane to this discussion.

 

I do have one obvious question for the conservative Catholic faithful that hasn't been asked or answered yet: If Burke wants to deny Pelosi from participating in the eucharist, then shouldn't same apply to women who take the pill?

Your viewpoint is in the minority. The Pope said the church has become too obsessed with hot-button issues like abortion and needs to become more merciful. After last week's papal print interview, the Vatican's PR department has been working overtime to mitigate the "damage." Burke's attack on Pelosi is part of that follow-up strategy.

 

Pope Francis's comments were meant to say that for several decades, abortion and gay marriage have been two issues that have taken up such a large amount of the church's teaching that other issues have been pushed aside for too long and need to be given some attention also. The church's teaching on abortion, gay marriage, women priests, etc. have not and will not change, just the focus of what is being discussed will be shared with other issues which we have certainly seen. A hot botton issue for Francis are those on the lowest levels of society. But to think that publications, announcements, decisions regarding abortion and gay marriage will stop or become rare is simply incorrect and Cardinal Burke's announcement was completely in communion with Francis's papacy.

The church has overstepped its bounds when it refuses communion to someone.

 

It has? I would say protecting the integrity of the Eucharist is a huge responsibility of the church (I cannot recall the specific scripture to support this) and in some cases that may require making some very unpopular and controversial decisions, such as denying the Eucharist to a public figure who has publicly and continuously acted against the church on a key teaching of the church and therefore has removed HERSELF from being in communion with the church.

It has? I would say protecting the integrity of the Eucharist is a huge responsibility of the church (I cannot recall the specific scripture to support this) and in some cases that may require making some very unpopular and controversial decisions, such as denying the Eucharist to a public figure who has publicly and continuously acted against the church on a key teaching of the church and therefore has removed HERSELF from being in communion with the church.

 

I would say that removing such a person from the church itself has more Biblical merit than does refusing them communion.

 

Let's not forget...when Jesus first instituted the Lord's Supper, his betrayer also took part. Jesus did not deny him the bread & wine, even though he knew what Judas was up to.

I seriously doubt the Vatican has the legal authority to extradite anyone, clergy or not.

Would you agree with me then that the least the Vatican should do is remove from office those in positions of authority who have been convicted of child-sex-crime-related cover-ups? Why is Robert Finn still the bishop of Kansas City?

I just finished a novel where the main character, when offered Communion, refused on the grounds that "cannibalism in any form didn't appeal to him".

 

Interesting in that during the first few centuries of Christianity, the Roman elite used to mock Christians for something as silly as eating the flesh of some guy named Jesus. If those brave and faithful early Christians felt compelled to do so, so will I.

 

In the Gospel when Jesus said to reach the kingdom we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, he lost numerous followers right then and there. He turned to the twelve and asked them if they will leave where Peter replied "Where will we go", ie "while this teaching sounds bizarre, we trust in you Lord" The Jews in that day were heavily forbidden to drink blood, so anyone who did not bail was showing incredible faith and trust.

I love the certainty from you and others that "there is no cover-up anymore." If you really believe that, then I have a piece of Noah's Ark to sell you. As far as others inquiring of my faith, that is a matter between me and the Almighty and not germane to this discussion.

 

I do have one obvious question for the conservative Catholic faithful that hasn't been asked or answered yet: If Burke wants to deny Pelosi from participating in the eucharist, then shouldn't same apply to women who take the pill?

 

So..... You're going to try to teach me a lesson on the beliefs of my church by quoting a Fox News article that directly quotes only 1/2000th of the Pope's entire message about what you take as easing up on the "right-wing rhetoric", and then you're going to sling mud at my church and its leadership in the Vatican over what you are alleging to be an ongoing cover-up of what may well be the biggest scandal in its entire history....yet when a few of us practicing Catholics ask you for some perspective on your faith - particularly whether or not you're simply identified as a Catholic or not - we are told that that is "not germane to this discussion"? That's some astounding logic.

Would you agree with me then that the least the Vatican should do is remove from office those in positions of authority who have been convicted of child-sex-crime-related cover-ups? Why is Robert Finn still the bishop of Kansas City?

 

Bible and church history are riddled with scandals that at times SEEM to go unpunished. Concerning priestly scandal and those in authority, we look to the Old Testament and we see:

 

•The first priest (Adam) didn't protect his wife and as a result they completely ruined a perfect humanity (Genesis 3)

•Abraham taking Hagar as a second wife (Genesis 16)

•Lot has gets drunk and has sex with his two daughters (Genesis 19)

•Jacob tricking his father into giving him the blessing deserved on his brother (Genesis 27)

•Judah having sex with his daughter-in-law (Genesis 38)

•Reuben having sex with his father's wife (Genesis 35)

•Simeon and Levi killing a whole town of men (Genesis 34)

•Moses murdering an Egyptian (Exodus 2)

•Eli's (the high priest) two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, were abusing the people who were making sacrifices (1 Samuel 2)

•David was guilt of adultery and murder (2 Samuel 11)

 

In the New Testament:

•Judas, who was a bishop, stole from the purse, and, oh yes, got God murdered. (John 12, Mark 14)

•Peter tried to prevent the salvation of the world and caused a scandal with the gentiles. (Matthew 16, Galatians 2)

 

Now concerning this present time that you're speaking of....as you can see nothing is new. Finn being left in power IS a scandal...BUT, I can't help but think that we can't leave Jesus because of Judas. Are we to think that we can go and start our own church that is sinless? No, because as soon as any humans join it, the scandals will begin. We all beg Jesus for mercy for us all, but we can't FORCE Justice in places where we have no power.

 

I have no idea of exactly what goes on in the Vatican, what the Pope directly knows and what he doesn't know. I do know that he is in charge of 1.2 BILLION souls, and that he may miss out on something important here or there. That's a sad fact of humanity....we lack omnipotence. We have to rely on others to help us. Even the Pope has to do that. Fact is, what others decide to do isn't necessarily always the right thing to do.

At the risk of sounding pretty judgmental, I would say that in the eyes of the Catholic Church, maybe not? I think that would very possibly depend on how you go about "supporting" abortion though. Pelosi clearly supports abortion. She speaks in favor of it on a governmental level, and sponsers and votes in favor of laws that enable pro-abortion legislation to become law. The Church's teaching is that life begins at fertilization. Supporting anything that prevents that life from seeing its natural cycle of growth and death is the destruction of God's plan, and ending that life early is, in the eyes of the church, murder.

 

Now, I should also say that the decision to deny someone the Eucharist is one that can ONLY be made by a bishop, and clearly I am not one of those. I don't know all the ins and outs of how they make the decision on whether or not to deny someone the Eucharist, but I can definitely say that I don't see any problem with denying Nancy Pelosi of it.

 

First, I asked for your opinion so it's hardly being judgmental.

 

You perfectly illustrate the problem with being Catholic and a member of Congress. Our reps are supposed to represent the entire district - not just Catholics.

 

If I remember correctly you are in the minority in that you believe women who have abortions should be jailed(correct me if I'm wrong). I do not believe that even though I believe abortions are immoral. If I'm a member of Congress there is no way I'd vote for anything that makes abortions illegal. I do NOT want members of Congress putting their religion first when it comes to policy and law.