Pages

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

The spotless bride of Christ

The Church is the Bride of Christ

796 The unity of Christ and the Church, head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of bridegroom and bride. The theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist.234 The Lord referred to himself as the "bridegroom."235 The Apostle speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride "betrothed" to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him.236 The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb.237 "Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her."238 He has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring for her as for his own body:239

This is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many . . . whether the head or members speak, it is Christ who speaks. He speaks in his role as the head (ex persona capitis) and in his role as body (ex persona corporis). What does this mean? "The two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the Church."240 And the Lord himself says in the Gospel: "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."241 They are, in fact, two different persons, yet they are one in the conjugal union, . . . as head, he calls himself the bridegroom, as body, he calls himself "bride."242

III. THE CHURCH IS THE TEMPLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

797 "What the soul is to the human body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church."243 "To this Spirit of Christ, as an invisible principle, is to be ascribed the fact that all the parts of the body are joined one with the other and with their exalted head; for the whole Spirit of Christ is in the head, the whole Spirit is in the body, and the whole Spirit is in each of the members."244 The Holy Spirit makes the Church "the temple of the living God":245

Indeed, it is to the Church herself that the "Gift of God" has been entrusted. . . . In it is in her that communion with Christ has been deposited, that is to say: the Holy Spirit, the pledge of incorruptibility, the strengthening of our faith and the ladder of our ascent to God. . . . For where the Church is, there also is God's Spirit; where God's Spirit is, there is the Church and every grace.246

798 The Holy Spirit is "the principle of every vital and truly saving action in each part of the Body."247 He works in many ways to build up the whole Body in charity:248 by God's Word "which is able to build you up";249 by Baptism, through which he forms Christ's Body;250 by the sacraments, which give growth and healing to Christ's members; by "the grace of the apostles, which holds first place among his gifts";251 by the virtues, which make us act according to what is good; finally, by the many special graces (called "charisms"), by which he makes the faithful "fit and ready to undertake various tasks and offices for the renewal and building up of the Church."252

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p2.htm


Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret. The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.

It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.

Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of justice'.

The letter, 'concerning very grave sins', was sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office that once presided over the Inquisition and was overseen by Ratzinger.

It spells out to bishops the church's position on a number of matters ranging from celebrating the eucharist with a non-Catholic to sexual abuse by a cleric 'with a minor below the age of 18 years'. Ratzinger's letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric'.

The letter states that the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 10 years.

It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'.

'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.

The letter is referred to in documents relating to a lawsuit filed earlier this year against a church in Texas and Ratzinger on behalf of two alleged abuse victims. By sending the letter, lawyers acting for the alleged victims claim the cardinal conspired to obstruct justice.

Daniel Shea, the lawyer for the two alleged victims who discovered the letter, said: 'It speaks for itself. You have to ask: why do you not start the clock ticking until the kid turns 18? It's an obstruction of justice.'

Father John Beal, professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America, gave an oral deposition under oath on 8 April last year in which he admitted to Shea that the letter extended the church's jurisdiction and control over sexual assault crimes.

The Ratzinger letter was co-signed by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone who gave an interview two years ago in which he hinted at the church's opposition to allowing outside agencies to investigate abuse claims.

'In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of paedophilia is unfounded,' Bertone said.

Shea criticised the order that abuse allegations should be investigated only in secret tribunals. 'They are imposing procedures and secrecy on these cases. If law enforcement agencies find out about the case, they can deal with it. But you can't investigate a case if you never find out about it. If you can manage to keep it secret for 18 years plus 10 the priest will get away with it,' Shea added.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection

39 comments:

  1. If this is how the one true church conducts business, I hesitate to ask how a false church would behave.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "If this is how the one true church conducts business, I hesitate to ask how a false church would behave"

    Regardless of what the "one true Church" does, the false church (which is no church at all) behaves in such a way that questions and doubts the "one true Church". In short, the behavior of the false church is marked by opposition and protest, if you like, protestantism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Regardless of what the "one true Church" does,

    This includes but is not limited to propogating false doctrines such as purgatory, Mariolatry, and idol worship, moral scandals such as simony, pedophilia, and homosexuality.

    the false church (which is no church at all) behaves in such a way that questions and doubts the "one true Church".

    In light of the above, don't you think that the 'false church' has a legitimate right to question the claims of your synagogue of sa...err 'true church'?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Javier: I think Dozie would make a distinction between "propagating false doctrines," which, to Catholics, represent "the fullness of the faith," and the "moral scandals," for which "the one true church" is not guilty. These are "the sins of the children of the church." (See John Paul II's many "apologies," which were on behalf of "the children of the church," but not "The Church" itself.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "In short, the behavior of the false church is marked by opposition and protest."

    Exactly: opposition and protest against sola scriptura, sola fide, and biblical Christianity. The Reformers protested against idolatry; Rome protests against the church of God.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, the one true church always has the one true fall guy to take the blame for malfeasance by the hierarchy. Hence, we see Benedict 16 passing the buck to his subordinates.

    ReplyDelete
  7. (Waiting to see when idiots like Steve Hays is going to publically condemn the Boy Scouts as a corrupt organization...but I still do not have much confidence in his ability to make the necessary logical distinctions regarding the Church and her membership in her)

    ReplyDelete
  8. http://www.blogger.com/profile/08198636431187051339

    I wouldn't let this guy around my kids, that is for sure!

    ReplyDelete
  9. So Steve, when are you going to condemn the Boy Scouts as a corrupt organization? Or is it that your condemnations only extend to Catholics?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "This includes but is not limited to propogating false doctrines such as purgatory, Mariolatry, and idol worship, moral scandals such as simony, pedophilia, and homosexuality".

    It is painfully obvious you have no idea what your limitations are.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Alexander said:

    http://www.blogger.com/profile/08198636431187051339

    I wouldn't let this guy around my kids, that is for sure!

    3/23/2010 4:45 PM


    Yet, oddly enough, in light of actual cases of documented pedophilia within the Roman Catholic Church as well as cover-ups and other abuses, Alexander would probably have no problem letting his kids around many Catholic priests, bishops, Ratzinger himself, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Alexander:

    Well, since you bring up my profile (for reasons unknown to me, you weren't clear on what exactly constituted a danger to your children): if you have any concerns about my own children, feel free to email me at csebold at gmail.com and we can verify each other's identities, then I'll send you contact information for the police in my home town.

    I'm so glad that somebody is thinking about the children, after all.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Okay Charles. I'd suggest getting a different pic...one which doesn't have freakish stare. Since it is completely appropriate to make unsubstantiated accusations and condemnations against others here on this blog, you shouldn't be much opposed to my concerns to ever have someone who looks like you around my children. If this is a problem for you, then perhaps you should take it up with Steve. Or is it only appropriate to make unsubstantiated accusations against Catholic clergy? Oh...that's it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yet, oddly enough, in light of actual cases of documented pedophilia within the various Protestant denominations as well as cover-ups and other abuses, Patrick would probably have no problem letting his kids around many Protestant pastors, volunteers, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Alexander said:

    Okay Charles. I'd suggest getting a different pic...one which doesn't have freakish stare. Since it is completely appropriate to make unsubstantiated accusations and condemnations against others here on this blog, you shouldn't be much opposed to my concerns to ever have someone who looks like you around my children. If this is a problem for you, then perhaps you should take it up with Steve. Or is it only appropriate to make unsubstantiated accusations against Catholic clergy? Oh...that's it.

    Of course, Charlie is more than capable of defending himself, but I'll point out that Alexander is outright lying. If this is a problem for Alexander, then perhaps he should stop lying.

    Yet, oddly enough, in light of actual cases of documented pedophilia within the various Protestant denominations as well as cover-ups and other abuses, Patrick would probably have no problem letting his kids around many Protestant pastors, volunteers, etc.

    Yet, oddly enough, in light of the fact that I don't belong to "various Protestant denominations" let alone one that has covered up pedophilia, Alexander would apparently have no problem continuing his campaign of defamation.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sorry, I misunderstood your intention. It isn't all children that you want to protect from my "freakish stare," just your own. Nobody will ever doubt your allegiance to Rome with statements like these. Everybody thinks like that - until something happens with their own parish priest.

    ReplyDelete
  17. ALEXANDER SAID:

    "Okay Charles. I'd suggest getting a different pic...one which doesn't have freakish stare."

    What does Alex even care what another man looks like? Normal men care about the appearance of the opposite sex, not their own kind.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Alexander said...

    "Since it is completely appropriate to make unsubstantiated accusations and condemnations against others here on this blog, you shouldn't be much opposed to my concerns to ever have someone who looks like you around my children."

    I wonder what the bar association would think of Alexander's unsubstantiated defamation. Isn't that a breach of professional ethics?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Of course, Charlie is more than capable of defending himself, but I'll point out that Alexander is outright lying. If this is a problem for Alexander, then perhaps he should stop lying.

    What lie have I made?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I wonder what the bar association would think of Alexander's unsubstantiated defamation. Isn't that a breach of professional ethics?

    First of all, what in the world are you talking about?

    Secondly, by all means, please let me know how I engaged in defamation. What claim have I made other than stating that I wouldn't allow him around my kids?

    Let's see what you got Steve.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Everybody thinks like that - until something happens with their own parish priest.

    Yeh, but the point is why is it acceptable to make accusations (of whatever type they might be) against Catholics in general?

    If you have proof of wrong doing by a certain individual, then by all means take action against that person. Sweeping generalizations that have not been substantiated are just idiotic. Steve seems to have this immature idea that the entire Church is corrupt due to isolated cases of mismanagement. The Church has never taught that any of her prelates would be free from sin. The freedom to choose evil remains; otherwise, name one pseudo-Christian protestant "church" that has sinless members. If it isn’t pedophilia (which there are plenty of documented cases that there are cases of pedophilia in protestant churches) then it is some other sin that should equally corrupt.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Alexander said: Yeh, but the point is why is it acceptable to make accusations (of whatever type they might be) against Catholics in general?

    I suppose the substantive difference is in the response by the two churches to the accusations. I don't have hard numbers, but I would estimate that the Catholic Church attempts to cover up or conceal a higher percentage of accusations than Protestant ones.

    Another difference might be in the percentage of accusations directed at each group, with the Catholic priests again shouldering the larger portion.

    Another different would be the way in which the Pope has responded, and Popes before him have responded. I've heard many half-hearted apologies, but can't think of any priests who have been defrocked by the Vatican. I've seen some "resign" but how many have been decried by the Pontiff himself?

    Adding to that the historical lapses and corruption that's plagued and even marked the Vatican, I should say that the Pope as an office doesn't have very high ground upon which to stand. Popes like Leo X, and Alexander VI were horrifying examples... but because they were considered infallible, they've not been denounced as unacceptable Popes by current ones.

    Any of that sinking in?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I suppose the substantive difference is in the response by the two churches to the accusations. I don't have hard numbers, but I would estimate that the Catholic Church attempts to cover up or conceal a higher percentage of accusations than Protestant ones.

    If you don’t have hard numbers, then why bother making the accusation? This might work for those who have retarded themselves with bias, but I much prefer to deal with empirical evidence. Secondly, a little more precision in your statement would also be helpful. When you state that “the Catholic Church attempts,” who exactly are you referring to? Making broad condemnations is indicative of thoughtlessness.

    Another difference might be in the percentage of accusations directed at each group, with the Catholic priests again shouldering the larger portion.

    Empirical evidence??? Secondly, are you implying that since there might be more of such cases found amongst Catholic clergy, then this nullifies the corruption of protestant clergy?


    Another different would be the way in which the Pope has responded, and Popes before him have responded. I've heard many half-hearted apologies, but can't think of any priests who have been defrocked by the Vatican. I've seen some "resign" but how many have been decried by the Pontiff himself?

    I don’t know. I haven’t been privy to the inside memos, and neither have you...unless you have those memos. Secondly, if it is indeed true that the Pope (or other Bishop) has taken action to conceal and obstruct justice, then a reasonable person who hold them responsible and not the entire religion, especially in light of the fact that the Church teaches against these sins, and it is the articles of faith to which us good Catholics adhere.


    Adding to that the historical lapses and corruption that's plagued and even marked the Vatican, I should say that the Pope as an office doesn't have very high ground upon which to stand. Popes like Leo X, and Alexander VI were horrifying examples... but because they were considered infallible, they've not been denounced as unacceptable Popes by current ones.

    This is so fraught with fallacious reasoning that it indicates that this has more to do with a defect in reasoning than it would in any possibility of enlightenment. Every “institution,” if you will, is corrupt because every human being in that case is a sinner. The problem as I see it here is the inability of you knuckleheads to distinguish the man from the office. The person filling the office might be corrupt, but the office itself isn’t.

    Steve only seems to have outrage against the reported cases of abuse found in the Catholic Church. Intellectual honesty is absent from this corrupted man.

    ReplyDelete
  24. ALEXANDER SAID:

    "Steve seems to have this immature idea that the entire Church is corrupt due to isolated cases of mismanagement."

    The priestly abuse scandal hardly involves "isolated cases of mismanagement." But, of course, a Catholic apparatchik like Alex will excuse anything his denomination does. However, there will be hell to pay for all the culprits, including shameless enablers like Alex.

    ReplyDelete
  25. ALEXANDER SAID:

    "First of all, what in the world are you talking about?
    Secondly, by all means, please let me know how I engaged in defamation. What claim have I made other than stating that I wouldn't allow him around my kids?"

    You suggest that children wouldn't be safe in his company.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Steve,

    I am all for prosecuting and imprisoning those involved. I am not in favor of engaging in the fallacious accusations which you favor.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This is what I said Steve: I wouldn't let this guy around my kids, that is for sure!

    That could be for any number of reasons.

    Again, where is the defamation?

    Let's see it!

    ReplyDelete
  28. ALEXANDER SAID:

    "That could be for any number of reasons."

    Yes, any number of defamatory reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  29. But, of course, a Catholic apparatchik like Alex will excuse anything his denomination does.

    Defamation?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Alexander said...

    "I am all for prosecuting and imprisoning those involved."

    I assume that includes Pope Benedict XVI and the other complicit bishops.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yes, any number of defamatory reasons.

    Enlighten us.

    Bring a lawsuit.

    Or, stop embarrassing yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I assume that includes Pope Benedict XVI and the other complicit bishops.

    Do you have proof?

    ReplyDelete
  33. ALEXANDER SAID:

    "Bring a lawsuit."

    I'm not the one you defamed. I'm speaking on behalf of a second party. That's what honorable men do. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

    ReplyDelete
  34. There's a mountain of proof. At it's getting taller by the day.

    Of course, the church of Rome has been trying by every means to conceal the proof. And that, of itself, is culpable.

    But you're a Catholic apparatchik for whom nothing can falsify your damnable faith in your whorish denomination.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'm not the one you defamed. I'm speaking on behalf of a second party. That's what honorable men do. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

    I haven’t defamed anyone. You haven’t shown how I have defamed him. I realize that you believe yourself to be this all-knowing-sage, but reality is quite different.

    To the larger issue, I think it is quite obvious that you are not an honorable man. Honorable men do not have double standards, treating one group in one way and another group differently. An honorable man only makes accusations against another when there is verifiable proof that such accusation will stand. An honorable man would not condemn innocent people.

    You are not honorable. You are an anti-Catholic pseudo-Christian pig.

    ReplyDelete
  36. ALEXANDER SAID:

    "I'm not the one you defamed."

    You publicly insinuated that children are unsafe in his company. Yes, that's defamatory.

    If someone took out a full page ad in the NYT saying the same thing about you, you would demand a retraction.

    "To the larger issue, I think it is quite obvious that you are not an honorable man. Honorable men do not have double standards, treating one group in one way and another group differently."

    The larger issue is that I'm holding you (and other Catholics) to your own standards. Catholics don't think the church of Rome is comparable to other institutions. Rather, they view the church of Rome as a divine institution. The bride of Christ, temple of the Holy Spirit, &c. The think the pope is the vicar of Christ, &c.

    "An honorable man only makes accusations against another when there is verifiable proof that such accusation will stand. An honorable man would not condemn innocent people."

    When an institution like the church of Rome engages in a systematic cover-up, then, by its own evasive actions, it forfeits the benefit of the doubt.

    You might as well whine about how I don't give the syndicate the benefit of the doubt.

    Moreover, Pope Benedict XVI, as well as various bishops, are far from innocent. The public evidence is already quite damning. And that's despite their best efforts to withhold incriminating evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  37. You publicly insinuated that children are unsafe in his company. Yes, that's defamatory.

    If someone took out a full page ad in the NYT saying the same thing about you, you would demand a retraction.


    I stated that I would not want my children around him. I left the cause unstated. There was no defamation.

    Regarding the rest of your commentary, when the day comes that you begin acting like a reasonable person, at that time perhaps objective people will find you more convincing.

    ReplyDelete
  38. ALEXANDER SAID:

    "I stated that I would not want my children around him. I left the cause unstated. There was no defamation."

    That's because you're a coward. Hence, you resort to innuendo. That way you can always feign innocent. But God is not mocked.

    "Regarding the rest of your commentary, when the day comes that you begin acting like a reasonable person, at that time perhaps objective people will find you more convincing."

    Of course, you only speak for yourself–which isn't saying much. You're in no position to speak for "objective people" in general. And since you're just a doglike partisan, objectivity is scarcely one of your own attributes.

    ReplyDelete
  39. In the "Charlie and the Catholic Priests" with my kids debate, I would like it known that I would side with Charlie every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

    ReplyDelete