Saturday, December 11, 2010

WikiLeaks: Pope Benedict, child abuse and Vatican sovereignty

There is quite a WikiLeaks splash across the newspapers today, purporting to disclose the secret, manipulative and Machiavellian antics of the Vatican. The Guardian reminds us that the Roman Catholic Church is ‘the only religion in the world with the status of a sovereign state, allowing the pope's (sic) most senior clerics to sit at the top table with world leaders.’ It continues: ‘The cables reveal the Vatican routinely wielding influence through diplomatic channels while sometimes denying it is doing so. The Vatican has diplomatic relations with 177 countries and has used its diplomatic status to lobby the US, United Nations and European Union in a concerted bid to impose its moral agenda through national and international parliaments.’

Wielding influence while denying it is doing so?

Isn’t that just effective lobbying?

Apparently, we learn:

‘The Pope is responsible for the Vatican's growing hostility towards Turkey joining the EU.’

‘…Ratzinger was the leading voice behind the Holy See's unsuccessful drive to secure a reference to Europe's "Christian roots" in the EU constitution.’

‘…Ratzinger "clearly understands that allowing a Muslim country into the EU would further weaken his case for Europe's Christian foundations".’

‘…the Vatican planned to use Poland as a trojan (sic) horse to spread Catholic family values through the structures of the European Union in Brussels.’

‘…that Poland will hold the line at the EU on “life and family” issues that arise…’

‘The Holy See will continue to seek to play a role in the Middle East peace process while denying this intention.’

‘…that Pope Benedict XVI's invitation to Anglican opponents of female priests to convert en masse to Catholicism was so inflammatory that it might lead to discrimination and even violence against Catholics in Britain…’

‘…Williams was given little warning.’

‘“Benedict XVI…had put Williams in an impossible situation.”’

‘“If Williams reacted more forcefully, he would destroy decades of work on ecumenical dialogue; by not reacting more harshly, he has lost support among angry Anglicans."’

‘…the decision had shifted the goal of the Catholic-Anglican ecumenical dialogue "from true unity to mere co-operation"…’

‘…some Vatican officials believed the pope (sic) had been wrong not to consult the archbishop (sic) before making the announcement.’

‘"The Vatican decision seems to have been aimed primarily at Anglicans in the US and Australia, with little thought given to how it would affect the centre of Anglicanism, England, or the archbishop (sic) of Canterbury…”’

‘Anglican-Vatican relations were facing their worst crisis in 150 years as a result of the pope's (sic) decision.’

‘“The crisis is worrisome for England's small, mostly Irish-origin, Catholic minority. There is still latent anti-Catholicism in some parts of England and it may not take much to set it off." He warned: "The outcome could be discrimination or in isolated cases, even violence, against this minority."’

‘US diplomats wonder "whether the damage to inter-Christian relations was worth it – especially since the number of disaffected Anglicans that will convert is likely to be a trickle rather than a wave".’

And that the relationship between Pope Benbedict XVI and the Archbishop of Canterbury is ‘at times awkward’.

You don’t say.

None of this is new (except perhaps the hyperbolic threat of the Ordinariate leading to violence): much of it is common knowledge, and that which has not previously been reported may be known by anyone with a little intelligence and an ounce of discernment.

But there is one revelation which irks ever so slightly:

‘The Vatican refused to allow its officials to testify before an Irish commission investigating abuse of children by priests and was angered when they were summoned from Rome.’

The response was one of self-interest and self-preservation: the Vatican used its sovereign status in response to the Irish child abuse investigation:

‘The Vatican believes the Irish government failed to respect and protect Vatican sovereignty during the investigations.’

‘The Murphy Commission's requests offended many in the Vatican, the Holy See's Assessor Peter Wells (protect strictly) told DCM, because they saw them as an affront to Vatican sovereignty. Vatican officials were also angered that the Government of Ireland did not step in to direct the Murphy Commission to follow standard procedures in communications with Vatican City. Adding insult to injury, Vatican officials also believed some Irish opposition politicians were making political hay with the situation by calling publicly on the government to demand that the Vatican reply. Ultimately, Vatican Secretary of State (Prime Minister equivalent) Bertone wrote to the Irish Embassy that requests related to the investigation must come through diplomatic channels via letters rogatory.’

‘The Irish Embassy to the Holy See offered to facilitate better communications between the Irish commission and the Holy See, but neither party took any further action.’

‘Regarding the request for the Nuncio to testify, Keleher said the GOI understood that foreign ambassadors are not required or expected to appear before national commissions. Nevertheless, Keleher thought the Nuncio in Ireland made things worse by simply ignoring the requests.’

As these investigations continue all over the world and the disturbing reports emerge detailing many thousands of cases of child molestation and rape and evidencing a chronic and systematic cover-up, one must hope that the Holy See has learned a little humility and realises that assertions of diplomatic immunity and national sovereignty are not remotely appropriate responses to the crisis.

And that they owe the Archbishop of Canterbury and Her Majesty the Queen an apology.


Anonymous bluedog said...

You're on cracking form today, Your Grace, asking for an apology from an organisation which takes its own claims of infallibility very seriously indeed. Better not go to Rome for a while. Just let the dust settle.

11 December 2010 at 10:03  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

I can't see that there is anything in these "leaks" which one didn't know or suspect already. Indeed, I would go further and say that I wished our country would defend our interests as strenuously as the Vatican defends the interests of the Roman Catholic Church.

11 December 2010 at 10:26  
Anonymous len said...

The Pope is a direct violation of everything in scripture.
He heads up a religious system which is based on error.But that error is made 'infallible'so it is beyond question by those subjected to it and even to those who are not!.
The canonisation of Cardinal Newman was clearly a Vatican attempt to drive a wedge into the Anglican Church and to 'lift' any disaffected Anglicans.
Self interest and self preservation seem to be the main priorities of the Catholic system fortunately for us Jesus Christ`s response was the opposite!.

11 December 2010 at 10:55  
Blogger Bishop Alan Wilson said...

Your Grace, many thanks for cutting through a lot of the hyperbolic bears-latrines-in-the-woods stories to the aspect that matters. Since the medieval Investiture Controversy some good Christians have been profoundly disturbed by the attempt to make the Church an all-embracing state. The Reformation can be seen as a "Nationalization" of the Church, or, orobaly more like it seemed at the time to most educated English, a reassertion of the more ancient doctrine (enshrined in medieval conepts of praemunire and clearly taught in the first epistle of Peter) that the Church, in temporal matters, should be subject to the Prince, not the other way round.

11 December 2010 at 11:40  
Anonymous JayBee said...

The Pope is responsible for the Vatican's growing hostility towards Turkey joining the EU.

Torture and murder of Christians, vandalising Christian graves, and general religious persecution of the Church must have clouded his judgement.

11 December 2010 at 12:28  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Cranmer you are too kind. The Catholic Church is a thoroughly corrupt organisation. I’m sure that there are many decent Catholics who would recoil at this description but it is true. In addition to its despicable global cover-up of paedophile priests it continues to deny contraception to vulnerable and ignorant people across the globe in order to enforce its coercive regime whilst its leader waltzes around in a white frock that he hopes will enhance his absurd claim to “holiness”. It has the audacity to claim moral authority whilst it behaves without adhering to any of the conditions that should apply to moral behaviour. That many are in still in thrall to it continues to amaze me but that is the danger inherent in any religious belief, namely the certainty that you are right.

11 December 2010 at 12:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And as we know, there’s no ‘child abuse’ in any other religion or denomination except the Roman Catholic church.

‘He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.’

11 December 2010 at 12:42  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

To suggest that “Benedict XVI…had put Williams in an impossible situation” over the offer of an Ordinariate deflects from the real victims, Anglican 'traditionalists'.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is happy for people to do what they think is right for them as evidenced by his prayers and blessing for the departing bishops. It is Women and the Church (WATCH) and their fellow travellers who have put His Grace in an impossible position by doing everything in their power to deny traditionalists the honoured place promised them when Synod passed the measure to allow women priests. They have made it clear that they are not to be trusted yet they expect to be bishops. No wonder the Anglican Communion is going downhill fast.

11 December 2010 at 13:12  
Blogger Eddy Anderson said...

Timothy J Moore has written an interesting piece on this at Political Reboot. His argument is that, in practice, the wikileaks have not really been that damaging to the Catholic Church--primarily because it's bruised enough already.

11 December 2010 at 13:54  
Blogger Jakian Thomist said...

As a Catholic, I welcome these leaks, especially those in relation to Ireland, let's hope these act as an impetus to ensure that the abuse survivors are put first - by all organisations not least the one that claims infallible teaching authority but never claims impeccability.

These leaks give us an insight into how Vatican diplomacy can work in good and bad ways - the bad has the adequately described by your grace. The good, for example - the Vatican's role in the release of captured British sailors - undoubtedly subject to an innocent oversight on your grace's part...

11 December 2010 at 13:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Apology to the Queen - for what? Apology to Williams - for what?
Union with the Anglicans became impossible after the ordination of women. And that church is decending into chaos. Hardly surprising for a church founded on the unbridled and murderous lust of Henry XIII. A man so desperate for a male heir he refused to accept that according to canonical law he had no grounds for an annulment to his first wife.

The Pope is clearly attempting tp preserve Christian truth in the face of hostility towards Catholicism.

Since Vatican 1, over 150 years ago, Papal infallability has been exercised twice by Pontiffs - yes, twice. On one occassion to end the destructive theological debate about women priests. It's reserved for question of doctrine, faith and morals and is expressed in the Pope's role as Pastor - directly passed to him by Christ.

So the Pope wants to preserve the Christian foundation of Europe and is opposed to Turkey, previously the Ottoman Empire, joining. How shocking!

How shocking of the Catholic church's Pontiff to exercise a christian influence in a world that is abandoning Christ.

Mr Eman

11 December 2010 at 14:31  
Blogger Doorkeeper said...

Nice piccy of the Pontiff, Your Grace. I think I first saw it on Paul Merton's wall.

As for Mr. Eman's comments, well, personally I'm still waiting for Henry XIII to be be-coronated, but murderous lust seems to be a bit of a class thing, so no doubt he'll be proved right.

Now you must excuse me while I go & fold some service sheets - it is the lack of just such which truly would cause my bit of the Anglican communion to decend (sic) into chaos.

11 December 2010 at 16:54  
Anonymous len said...

Anonymous Mr Eman,
"The Pope is clearly attempting tp preserve Christian truth in the face of hostility towards Catholicism."

I would like to ask where exactly does the Pope figure in Christian truth and how and when did the Pope become 'infallible'?. Also all teachings of the Sacred Magisterium are considered infallible in Catholic theology.

Papal 'infallibility 'considers Peter to be the first Pope of Rome, with every Pope his successor. The epistle to the Colossians was written about A.D. 64 , during the very time that Peter was supposed to be Pope (A.D. 29-67), yet Paul makes no mention of Peter as head of the church at Rome (Colossians 4:7-11). Perhaps Paul forgot this event on which the whole Catholic Church is based?.

Jesus said the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth , not the Pope.Jesus Christ, not Peter, is the only foundation of the Church upon which believers must build (1 Corinthians 3:11; Ephesians 2:20-22). Any modified plan of salvation is dangerous and is another gospel. "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:8)

11 December 2010 at 22:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And as we know, there’s no ‘child abuse’ in any other religion or denomination except the Roman Catholic church."

Report: Protestant Church Insurers Handle 260 Sex Abuse Cases a Year

Read more:

12 December 2010 at 00:09  
Anonymous Atlas Shrugged said...

Anonymous Mr Eman,
"The Pope is clearly attempting tp preserve Christian truth in the face of hostility towards Catholicism."


Spiritual leaders are supposed to lead individual members of their congregation to the divide spirit of creation, and therefore enlightenment towards their extra terrestrial journey yet to come.

They should never be politicians, or become under any circumstances HEADS of any STATE, never mind their own. As for owning their own BANK!!! What in the name of our saviour could possibly be Christian about that???????

By truth I take it you mean the motherhood and apple pie type truths the Vatican is so pleased to endlessly repeat. Telling the TRUTH the whole truth and nothing but the truth is however a whole new ball game the Vatican does not even know the rules to, never mind actually play.

IMO we should be very careful not to take so called leaks at face value, from wherever, or whoever they come. This includes myself, all I ask is to NOT BE MODDED, so people can have a chance to think for themselves.

I am not suggesting that all leaks are either partial or complete lies, as the greatest lies are often hidden among by many self-evident truths.

If the powers that be lied to us all of the time, even the most profane would not believe a word they say by now.

If I was employed to make people believe a certain type of enormous lie, I would first tell at least 100 truths. I would also insure that some of these truths would be at least somewhat embarrassing to my employers. Hitler and his henchmen knew how to play this type of incredibly clever game, and so do our ruling class and their secret services.

Oh and I would also try to get myself arrested on clearly trumped up rape charge, just to give myself credibility with the idiot lefties and righties of this world.

I say again BE CAREFUL, BE VERY CAREFUL indeed, there is something, in fact many things that do not add up about this chap, or his site.

This is all to much BBC, for my liking.

IMO we are being set up for one great big horrendous LIE to come, which, in the most part we will fall hook line and sinker for as per usual.

I could be wrong, however I increasingly doubt that I am.

12 December 2010 at 00:18  
Anonymous not a machine said...

It is plesing to see some minds beginning to interpret , the deluge of purloined information a little differently to the puesdo liberating experience it was being promoted as.
Indeed his holiness may have erm being a little forward in 2009 , however I am more inclined to think he may have been concerned about the "pernicous athiesm" enchanting so many in our country .
In another way it jolted a new dialogue which I still believe will bear some fruit, as we all put our faith in the trinity .

Len has pointed out some gliches and god does work with good protestants as well as good Roman Catholics, and perhaps we do need to question what may be stumbling blocs encouraged in some quarters by athiests seeking propoganda .Lens case is very stark and I doubt if approached from the way it is put you could reach an agreement .It does miss the point that some popes have been great thelogians , evangalists and devtoted to the work with the poor , which for me poses the question that god perhaps doesnt choose institutions when earnestly called upon , and is perhaps not as corporate bodied as we sometimes think , but is supportive to all those who love him with mind, body and soul .

I can work with the holysee as a christian , I do not see my common book of prayer as irellevant to gods work , our theologies do have common understandings even if our churches do not . It is not loss to work and pray together , it is gain and the love resonates more strongly as we do not seek to capture it into sect , which it cannot be anyhow. We do after all share to seek the same destination , not by poor/weak theology but by the best .
I am quite sure his holiness walks in the monastary gardens are not without the same conversations/questions/guidance to the same god as I seek , even if far more refined and indwelling than I can do.

12 December 2010 at 01:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ien - Jesus promised the Apostles the Holy Spirit would lead the church in truth and commissioned Peter to head his church. The church was empowered to forgive or retain sins and promised the 'gates of hell' would not prevail against it.

Why not read some Catholic accounts - or even the Anglicaqn 39 articles? And yes, ecumenical councils, if agreed by the Pontiff in his presiding role, determine matters of doctrine and faith authoritively. There is a debate about the ordinary magisterium i.e. the faith as proclaimed and practiced by Bishops throughout the world. Where there is doubt or division a council will be convened or the Pope will act 'ex cathedra'.

Atlas Shregged - there's nothing 'apple pie and motherhood' about Roman Catholism! I thank God the Vatican is an independant state! Today it exercises influence and does not attempt to run other states. That is from times long past and had more to do with politics than christianity.

Mr Eman

12 December 2010 at 01:13  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Atlas Shrugged - there's nothing 'apple pie and motherhood' about Roman Catholism! I thank God the Vatican is an independant state! Today it exercises influence and does not attempt to run other states. That is from times long past and had more to do with politics than christianity.

You are certainly right about Roman Catholism not being anything to do with motherhood and apple pie. It is good that we can agree on that.

Could you please tell me who said it was?

I suppose you also believe that The RCC is still the richest single institution known to planet earth, simply because God loves it so much.

Many things tell me otherwise, my personal experience of how the world works being one of them. 30 odd years in the world of business for example.

In my experience:

Where there is lots of money there is corruption to a lesser, or higher degree.

Where there is lots more money, as well as interest to be payed, there is masses of corruption of all kinds, including very much political corruption, assassination, subversion, and a whole long list of other nasty things I can't be bothered to list right now.

However, where there is as much money as the Vatican has long since had.......Need I say more?

Oh and don't believe the official figures, because no one else does with more then a GSE in accountancy.

Why do you thank God the Vatican is an independent state?

Christians belong in a congregation not a church, especially an established one. If you don't believe me, no matter, try reading your bible a little more attentively.

Do you believe that Christians are so needing of a gold plated church to visit, that they would give up on Christ simply because the Vatican was still situated in part of Italy?

WHY? please explain, what are you so afraid of. Because it certainly can't be God, or his word.

You seem to like quoting your Bible. Could you please take the time to read the bit concerning whores, churches, temples, and MONEY CHANGERS.

Having done so, your more considered thoughts on the matter would be most welcome.

12 December 2010 at 02:27  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Anonymous Eman

Now if I was going to deceive you I would not tell you a blatant lie,too obvious.
What I would do is to tell you lots of truth but twist it slightly and make a few(lot) of additions so that the content and meaning would change to become something else, confusing? that`s exactly what its meant to be.(Did God really say that,let me explain that for you because I am infallible)If you search your Bible you may be surprised to find a lot of Catholic theology is not in there!

12 December 2010 at 09:46  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Eman,
'During the Reformation, authentication of scripture was governed by the discernible excellence of the text as well as the personal witness of the Holy Spirit to the heart of each man. Furthermore, per sola scriptura, the relationship of Scriptural authority to pastoral care was well exampled by the Westminster Confession of Faith which stated:
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.'
(Do we really need the Pope and his entourage to decipher the Bible for us? to act as some sort of 'go between'?. Jesus Christ is the ONLY mediator between man and God.

12 December 2010 at 09:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Atlas shrugged - lot of bitterness in your heart. Roman Catholism isn't situated in Rome - the Pope is. It is a universal church. And what's wrong with it having a bit of money? The Vatican City represents so much more than a physical presence. Also, I think you'll find the theology on usery a bit more refined than simply lending money.

Ien - the bible is complex, ambiguos and often contradictory. Its interpretation and application in changing times is something to be cautious about. Witness the plethora of sects following the protestant reformation and before that the numerous heresies addressed by the churcn fathers. Indeed Mohommed based his perverted understanding on the old and new testaments. Truthfully I believe it needs careful and knowledgeable reading.

I agree the obvious is obvious - but this subjective and I believe there is an objective message too. Yes we do need assistance. Why else did Christ establish a church? Why did St Paul teach? Why did the early church spend so much time trying to understand the message?

Mr Eman

12 December 2010 at 10:35  
Anonymous Tancred said...

The rampant hatred directed against Catholics by Protestant Jihadists never ceases to amaze.

For so-called Christians you are remarkably un-Christian and uncharitable in your sentiments.

It's wholly likely just spite as it must hurt to be a member of a "religion" that sprang out of Henry VIII's codpiece, that was responsible for the forced conversion of a nation and the destruction of over a 1000 years of Christian heritage in these isles.

Ah well, it's all coming apart now.

I will pray for your souls.

12 December 2010 at 10:38  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter it."

"And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. "

"And I will give you (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed, even in heaven.”

12 December 2010 at 12:26  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

"Then, when they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him again: “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was very grieved that he had asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” And so he said to him: “Lord,you know all things. You know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my sheep."

"Now the names of the twelve Apostles are these: the First, Simon, who is called Peter, ..."

“And the Lord said: “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan has asked for you, so that he may sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail, and so that you, once converted, may CONFIRM your brothers.”

12 December 2010 at 12:39  
Anonymous len said...

In about 58 A.D. Paul wrote a letter to the church at Rome. In the last chapter of that epistle, Paul salutes twenty-seven persons, but he never mentions Simon Peter. If Peter where "governing" the church at Rome, it is most strange that Paul should never refer to him.

Romans 1:13 shows that the church at Rome was a Gentile church. At the Jerusalem conference (Gal. 2:9), it was agreed that Peter should go to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.

The gospel ministry of Paul was motivated by a great principle which he clearly repeats in Romans 15:20: "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation." A like avowal is made in I Corinthians 10:15,16. Where no other apostle has been, there Paul wanted to go. Having written this plainly to the people at Rome, his desire to go to the Roman city would be inexplicable if Peter were already there, or had been there for years.
Paul's first Roman imprisonment took place about 60 A.D. to 64 A.D. from his prison the Apostle to the Gentiles wrote four letters - Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. In these letters he mentions many of his fellow Christians who are in the city, but he never once refers to Simon Peter.Why?
Paul's second Roman imprisonment brought him martyrdom. This occurred about 67 A.D. Just before he died Paul wrote a letter to Timothy, our "II Timothy." In that final letter the apostle mentions many people but plainly says that "only Luke is with me." There is never a reference to Peter.Why?

12 December 2010 at 13:47  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Eman, Did Simon Peter consider himself the 'rock' on which the church was built?
(1 Peter 2)

The Living Stone and a Chosen People

"As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”

Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,

“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”


“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”
( I don`t know how things can be made any clearer than the words of Peter himself!)

12 December 2010 at 13:53  
Blogger Dave said...

The Church of Rome is a human organisation, and in common with all human organisations, puts its own survival at number one in its list of priorities.

If they really believed that God will supply their every need, why do they sit on piles of cash and assets?
Ditto the Church of England.

Denominations. Doncha just love em?

Actually no. I hate them all. And I believe Jesus would hate them too, while continuing to love their adherents.
Did he not say "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do"?

I'm quite capable of reading my Bible without outside help.
I do not need an intermediary applying spin to what are quite easily understood passages.
And yes, every denomination is likely to denounce me as a heretic.
I'm content with that.

Twenty years ago Peter De Roza wrote a book called "Vicars of Christ" which laid bare all the corruption and bad teaching in the Church's history. How the Church's teaching was supposed to be unchanging but wasn't. How it is impossible for any priest to claim an unbroken link back to Paul as signified by the laying on of hands. What if one of Ratzinger's predecessors was ordained by one of the many anti-popes?
It's all nonsense. It's all about money and power and control and greed.

And funny, enough, reading De Rosa's book caused me to accept Jesus as my Lord and Saviour and become a Christian.

Denominations? No thanks

12 December 2010 at 13:59  
Anonymous len said...

I am sure that Jesus loves all people in all denominations but what he hates are religious systems that lead people astray, that deceive people, that keep people out of Heaven. Interestingly the only people Jesus condemned were the leaders of the Religious System, the Pharisees.
MT 23:25 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

MT 23:27 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

12 December 2010 at 20:46  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

Good Lord, such animosity towards the Apostolic church in general and the Roman Catholic church in particular.

And such arrogance too. Sadly the prostestand rebellion, leading to the French Revolution, has caused people to deny their need for guidance. So many interpretations of the bible. So many interpretations of Christ's words. No wonder atheism and secularisation is so strong today.

12 December 2010 at 22:52  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Eman The reason atheism and secularisation are so strong today.?
A bit more complex and diverse that you suggest!

Darwin`s Evolutionary Theory gave birth to Communism and a few other ism`s, it is also the Atheists 'bible'.
Marx's dedication to Darwin of his greatest work, Das Kapital, shows the common mind that they shared. In the German edition of his book that he sent Darwin, Marx wrote with his own hand, "To Charles Darwin from a true admirer, from Karl Marx."

Professor Malachi Martin, of the Vatican's Pontifical Bible Institute explains the relation between Marx and Darwin in these words:

. . . when Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution, Marx regarded it as far more than theory. He seized upon it as his "scientific" proof that there was no kingdom of Heaven, only the kingdom of Matter. Darwin had vindicated Marx in his rejection of Hegel's [idealism]. Ignoring the fact that Darwin's theory of evolution was just that a theory. . . Marx adapted Darwin's ideas to the social classes of his day. . . Darwin's theory of evolution being what it was, Marx reasoned that the social classes, like all matter, must always be in struggle with each other for survival and dominance.

13 December 2010 at 00:55  
Blogger Eddy Anderson said...

len, I fail to see your point regarding the connection between Darwin and Marx. To my mind, the biggest connection between them is that both have had their ideas completely distorted!

13 December 2010 at 07:37  
Blogger FOS said...

Pope.....this whole vatican stuff is a hoax...a front for criminals to carry out their sick perversion.....I say the pope needs to be jailed Period....makes one sick to the stomach this

25 April 2012 at 16:07  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older