Pope Francis McCarrick and the Latest Sex Scandal

2015 Pope Francis embracing Cardinal McCarrick

Some of you may have been wondering, "Why is this Catholic apologetics site so silent on defending the Church in this latest sex scandal?" Well, to be blunt - this is NOT a matter of the Faith for a Catholic apologist to defend! There is no Catholic teaching here to be brought up in question and/or needing a defense. If anyone reading this has such a teaching in mind - bring it up - otherwise stop trying to attack the Catholic Church for the alleged deeds of some men IN the Catholic Church.

Secondly, there's nothing "new" in these allegations - and some are more than 30 years old! Does that make the allegations less concerning? No, but to represent this as new news is not quite honest.

As for Pope Francis covering this up, he wasn't even pope at the time of the alleged events took place, in fact, Pope John Paul II was in charge.

Back to the heart of this discussion - if Card. McCarrick is guilty of these allegations, then it is a despicable and indefensible situation - AND he would be in VIOLATION of Church AND scriptural teaching on this subject. So, what would a Catholic apologist, one who defends the Faith, have to defend here?  The answer is NOTHING.

Questions for Catholics - Part 6 - Doctrine of Demons?

Let me begin by saying that this subject is not really a matter of Catholic apologetics.  It is NOT Catholic teaching to be part of and/or endorse the sex crimes which SOME priests were involved in.  There is no excuse for the behavior of the priests and even some of the bishops and hierarchy involved in this - so I will not defend them.  I will entertain Prasch's questions so that I am not accused of avoiding this topic - but the reality remains, those men were wrong and they violated Catholic teaching in what they did, for some what they failed to do.  Ultimately those involved violated the trust of the faithful while providing fodder for the ignorant to use this in apologetics and/or as an excuse in opposing Catholicism when Catholics oppose their actions (or lack thereof) as well.  

Now again, I’m only stating a fact. Why is there so much of this in the Roman church and so less in other churches? Why is there so much of it in the Latin rite but so little in your Eastern rite? I'm reading from the epistle of St. Paul to Timothy. In 1 Timothy 4:1…

But the Spirit…

…that is, the Holy Ghost…

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons…

…doctrines of devils.

by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage…

Why? In the New Testament, why if St. Paul, specifically instructed by the Holy Spirit, say requiring celibacy is a doctrine of devils, does your church practice it? When you outlaw what is natural, people will do things which are unnatural. When God created sex He said it was good in the book of Genesis. That is why even in your own church you find it only in the Latin rite, not in the Greek. That is why you don't find it among rabbis or Protestant ministers in anything like the same proportion. It’s a doctrine of devils.

Actually, the numbers are just as high, if not higher, in non-Catholic religions.  You just hear about such scandals more in the Catholic Church (see links) because the Catholic Church is held up to be the standard bearer, the moral leader, etc. and when she fails, her enemies are ready to pounce.  The fact of the matter is the Catholic Church has made great strides toward curtailing such abuses under Pope Benedict XVI - and that goes mostly unheralded.

The point Prasch is really getting to is the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.

St. Peter was married, his wife’s name was Deborah. Most of the apostles were married. To forbid it would be a doctrine of devils. 

That which Scripture condemns is forcing celibacy on all people, which some cults did and perhaps still do.  They don't last very long though because a cult which requires celibacy literally dies out after a generation!  St. Paul recommends celibacy (verse) and while recommending it for all who can endure it - for those who cannot, he says it is better to marry than to burn.  No one is forced to become a Catholic priest, so no one has to be celibate.  If one is called to the priesthood of the Latin Rite, then they know - right up front - that one of the expectations in answering that calling is a celibate lifestyle.

What can be more demonic, more Satanic, more evil, than having sex with little children and doing so in the name of Jesus Christ? How can something be so Satanic? Because it comes from a doctrine of demons. How can you as a Roman Catholic believe in a religion that practices what is plainly and clearly called a doctrine of devils, and you see the fruit of it in the newspapers every single day of the year? How can you defend it? How can you defend a doctrine of devils and the devastation it causes to little children?

Again, there is no defending the evils SOME men in the Church committed against children - and I won't defend them.  Those who are still alive should be turned over to the secular authorities and let justice take its course - and that is precisely what has been happening in recent years.  Unfortunately, it did go on for many years in the past without the legal ramifications - but again, THAT is changing for the better.  

The above being said, it is absolutely ridiculous to believe and assert that it is a "doctrine" of the Catholic Church for any adult, priest or otherwise, to molest children.  Come now, Mr. Prasch, you really don't believe that nonsense and/or propaganda, do you?  If you insist upon keeping this up on your website, then I must demand of you to present the official Catholic teaching which endorses what you allege.  In light of the fact that there is no such teaching, you should remove these false allegations from your website.

Jesus said, “Suffer the children unto Me for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”. (Mt. 19:14; Mk. 10:14) He said it would be better if a millstone were tied around your neck and cast into the sea than hurt one of these little ones. (Mt. 18:6; Mk. 9:42; Lk. 17:2) He didn’t say rape them as your clergy does. Not all of your clergy, no, but your hierarchy protects and covers up for it, and other clergy have admitted on the witness stand they knew what was going on for years and kept their mouth shut to protect their colleagues who did it, instead of the children who suffered it, It is a doctrine of devils.

Again, there is no such "doctrine" of the Catholic Church which endorses the actions of these (relatively few in number) men who committed such atrocities.  Not all priests did this, in fact relatively few did.  Not all in the hierarchy protected the offenders - though it is admitted again that some did.  As has already been stated too, the Catholic Church has made great strides in ridding the Church from such criminal behavior, in fact over 400 priests have been defrocked for sexual misconduct and handed over to secular authorities. 

Why do you believe in something so wicked, something so antagonistic to the nostrils of Christ, something that’s unthinkable in the dimension of evil and occupies? Why do you believe in a church that teaches a doctrine of devils? That's my question: Do you really believe such people are the guardians of your soul?

We don't have these beliefs.  No Catholic in their right mind believes what you allege is one of our "doctrines."   Are you really so ignorant to believe that we actually have such "doctrines?"  

The sex scandal is largely over.  Have we caught ALL the guilty parties?  I'd say not likely, but we've caught most of them and we're still working on "cleaning house" over this one.  There are now many safeguards in place and through education more and more priests and laity are being made aware of how to detect such abuses and report them to the proper authorities.  It was a terrible chapter in the history of the Church, but again - it was never a "doctrine" or anything close to be officially endorsed by the Catholic Church.  As such it really isn't something which should be part of Catholic apologetics, but so many (ignorant) anti-Catholic apologists keep bringing up the topic that we, Catholic apologists, cannot just ignore them.  

Questions for Catholics Index

Part 5 - Eucharist and John 6

Pope Misquoted?

In a recent MSN article it is reported that two percent of Catholic priests "are" pedophiles.  

But the Vatican issued a statement saying some parts of a long article in the left-leaning La Repubblica were not accurate, including one that quoted the pope as saying that there were cardinals among the abusers.
The article was a reconstruction of an hour-long conversation between the pope and the newspaper's founder, Eugenio Scalfari, an atheist who has written about several past encounters with the pope.

It would appear the allegation is actually "in the Catholic Church" and is not a statistic restricted to Catholic priests.  Also in the article it says:

The pope was quoted as saying that, while most paedophilia took place in family situations, "even we have this leprosy in our house".

Note, "most paedophilia took place in family situations" - this would not be related to priests.  So the number of two percent relates to ALL cases, most of which are "family situations" so the number of priests involved would be much smaller - AND - the Vatican also has a zero tolerance for this. Also in the MSN article the Pope is reported as saying:

He vowed zero tolerance for abusers and said bishops would be held accountable if they covered up crimes by priests in their diocese.

So, if there is "zero tolerance" there would not be any known and "active" priests involved.

We need to be careful about what we read and especially about what we might repeat.

Evangelicals Even Worse In Sexual Abuse Scandal

It's something many Catholic apologists have said for years, it is refreshing to hear it coming from the "Evangelical" side now as well.  A grandson of the Rev. Billy Graham has come forward...

While comparing evangelicals to Catholics on abuse response, ”I think we are worse,” he said at the Religion Newswriters Association conference, saying too many evangelicals had “sacrificed the souls” of young victims.

He doesn't cite statistics here - and I'm sure many "Evangelicals" would like to see his statistics too, but he's not just someone out in left-field in expressing his opinion.  Boz Tchividjian, a Liberty University law professor, is also the executive director of Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment (GRACE), which has investigated child sex abuse allegations.  It's not only refreshing to see an "Evangelical" admitting to this - but also working to do something about it.

Full article here:
http://www.religionnews.com/2013/09/26/billy-grahams-grandson-evangelicals-worse-catholic-church-sex-abuse/

Remember the "share" buttons!  Pass it on!

After Birth Abortion?

Article Response by: Scott Windsor

Yes, you read it correctly!  There was an article recently published (February 23, 2012) in the Journal of Medical Ethics (JME) which is entitled:  "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?"  The logic, or really the lack thereof, is based in their belief that many abortions (reality is very few of the overall picture) occur because of a detected abnormality in the unborn child.  Quoting the article:

Such an issue arises, for example, when an abnormality has not been detected during pregnancy or occurs during delivery. Perinatal asphyxia, for instance, may cause severe brain damage and result in severe mental and/or physical impairments comparable with those for which a woman could request an abortion. Moreover, abnormalities are not always, or cannot always be, diagnosed through prenatal screening even if they have a genetic origin. This is more likely to happen when the disease is not hereditary but is the result of genetic mutations occurring in the gametes of a healthy parent. One example is the case of Treacher-Collins syndrome (TCS), a condition that affects 1 in every 10 000 births causing facial deformity and related physiological failures, in particular potentially life-threatening respiratory problems. Usually those affected by TCS are not mentally impaired and they are therefore fully aware of their condition, of being different from other people and of all the problems their pathology entails. Many parents would choose to have an abortion if they find out, through genetic prenatal testing, that their fetus is affected by TCS. However, genetic prenatal tests for TCS are usually taken only if there is a family history of the disease. Sometimes, though, the disease is caused by a gene mutation that intervenes in the gametes of a healthy member of the couple. Moreover, tests for TCS are quite expensive and it takes several weeks to get the result. Considering that it is a very rare pathology, we can understand why women are not usually tested for this disorder. 

They posit:

A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human.  

First off, it is not moral to kill ANY innocent human being!  The child, whether pre-born or born, is still a human being who has done nothing to merit the death sentence.  When mother and father conceive a child, they have not done so alone - for they are willing participants in God's gift to mankind - they cooperate in procreation of a new human being.  While it may be difficult to understand God's Will all the time, especially in the case of birth defects which are the result of a genetic disorder, we are not called to sit in God's Judgment Seat and decide if an innocent life should be destroyed, whether still in the womb or postpartum.  Once LIFE begins it should be allowed to take the natural course - God's Will - until it passes away naturally.  

Down Syndrome (CDC picture)

For some "birth defects" life is not very long, for others it can last decades.  The article goes on to justify abortion in the cases of Down Syndrome.  They rationalize that if the parents had known their child would be born with Down Syndrome, they would likely opt for an abortion.  Why?  Because it is difficult to care for a child with Down Syndrome?  Because children with Down Syndrome often have other health concerns and mental retardation?  Certainly it is difficult to deal with this disease, but it is not impossible!  We are never given more than we can handle (1 Corinthians 10:13) and if a parent feels tempted to kill their child, whether preborn or born, let them know that God will also provide you with the means to withstand the temptation (ibid).  Will your journey through this life be "easier" if you kill your child?  Perhaps, but murder is still murder and a serious offense against God and mankind.  

I have to add, for 23 years I taught gymnastics and was involved most of those years with Special Olympics, including having the honor to coach the Arizona State Special Olympics Champion for 3 of those years, and that child had Down Syndrome!  She was very special in my life and I will always remember her fondly.  Her parents chose LIFE and received many blessings for it, and I too was blessed by their decision.   

One positive aspect of this article can be the fact that they level the playing field a bit more!  They are not differentiating between a child within the womb and a child who was just born - IF it has some sort of anomaly.  Therefore our argument against abortion can hold more weight too!  If it is immoral to kill a child who has been born - then by the logic put forth by this article in the JME would make it just as immoral to kill a child who has not yet been born!  The scary side of this is if they can actually convince parents and "doctors"(1) to kill a child who has been born, we open ourselves up to even more horrendousness being supported by "doctors" who promise to "give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion." (2)

I submit it is just as immoral to kill the unborn as it is to kill the born.  A new human being begins life at conception, not at birth.  EVERY abortion prevents a human heart from beating.  It must be recognized, regardless of the medical rationalizations presented here, that nearly half the pregnancies in the United States are "unintended" and forty percent of those end in abortion. (3)  In the period between 1973 and 2008 nearly 50 million "legal" abortions occurred." (ibid).  So to attempt to rationalize "after birth abortion" for medical reasons and base that upon alleged medical reasons for having abortions would be opening us up to far more atrocities regarding our children.  

My daugher, Julianne. 1988-2011.

I also speak as one who is the father of a child who was born with numerous medical issues.  We were confronted by the medical staff at the hospital who organized a meeting with us, our pediatrician, other family members and priests from our parish - and we had to come to a decision to allow our daughter to continue struggling or we could have ended her life then and there.  In essence, we were given the option to have an "after birth abortion" 23 years ago!  Granted, at the time it would have been quite simple - she was on life-support equipment and would not have survived without it at that point.  No one in that room would have faulted my wife and I if we had chose "the easy way out."  Both of us saw it as just that - and we didn't have to go home and think about it, we chose LIFE for our daughter!  Was it an easy life for her or us?  By no means!  We struggled through cancer, paralysis, heart conditions, pulmonary conditions, a brain tumor, ventilators, breathing machines, wheelchairs, numerous surgeries - but my daughter LIVED for 22 years!  She entered eternity on February 6, 2011.   I would not trade any of the trials and tribulations we went through at the cost of not having her for all those years!  She was, and remains, a blessing to our lives.  

So, in answer to the question asked in this article, "Why should the baby live?"  I have to respond that ALL life is precious!  Whether you are called to have perfect babies, or if your child has some sort of challenge, it is NOT your call to end the life of that child.   

Scott Windsor<<<

Footnotes:
(1) I quote "doctors" because any "doctor" who would do this goes directly against the Hippocratic Oath each doctor takes.
(2) Hippocratic Oath: http://www.doctorslounge.com/oath.htm
(3) Guttmacher Institute:  http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Down Syndrome image from Center for Disease Control website: 
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/DownSyndrome.html

Abortifacient Pill?

In a recent discussion about contraception I pointed out that "the pill" can be and sometimes (perhaps often) an abortifacient as it does not always prevent ovulation.  When ovulation occurs so can conception.  Due to another "side effect" of "the pill" if conception does occur, the uterine wall is not in a condition to accept the newly conceived child, and thus it is expelled from the uterus and dies.  When this does occur "the pill" is not contraceptive - for it did not stop conception, rather it is abortifacient - it causes an early abortion.  A life which had just begun has ended all too soon.  

Now the person I was speaking to insisted that "the pill" is not an abortifacient, or that perhaps in the case of "the mini pill," if you miss a dose, it could be.  The person insisted that while on "the pill," if taken as prescribed, ovulation cannot occur - and where there is no egg, there can be no conception.   I do not expect that everyone reading this will be convinced, but I do believe that if one reads through the articles objectively, there should be enough irrefutable evidence here to at least get even the toughest to convince to question and do their own research.

Well, rather than argue without having my facts ready and documented, I let it go and went back to do some research to post here.

Ovulation While On "The Pill?"

Can you ovulate while on "the pill?"  YES!  While the "combination pill" is designed to prevent ovulation, there are "break-through ovulations" and while rare, they DO happen.  When this DOES happen the egg can be fertilized, thus conception CAN occur - but due to the other properties of the "combination pill" the uterus will not be in a condition to accept the fertilized egg, thus the newly conceived baby will be aborted.

http://www.ivillage.com/can-you-ovulate-while-pill/6-n-145796

Changes in the Pill

The original contraceptive pills, 30 years ago, contained a high dose of the hormone estrogen.  Because of this, almost 100% of their effect was to suppress ovulation.  But there were side effects from this high estrogen content, and that was primarily the substantial risk of blood clots.  If these broke loose and went to the heart, lung or brain, they were very dangerous, and sometimes fatal, even for young women.

During the years since that time, the drug companies have progressively reduced the amount of estrogen in the pill so that now, depending on the pill, it is only 1/20^th, or even 1/30^th as much as it was when the pill was first introduced.  With this reduction in estrogen, there has been a drop in the complication of blood clots, but, with the reduced estrogen, there has been an increase in what we call “breakthrough ovulation.”  The estrogen level is so low that it doesn’t suppress ovulation all of the time anymore, and sometimes there is what we call a breakthrough ovulation—ovulation which breaks through the effect of the drug and is simply a plain old ovulation.  It just happens.  Fertilization, then, can occur.  But if fertilization occurs, implantation within the nutrient lining of the womb is prevented by another action of the same pill.  That action is a hardening of the lining of the womb.  What occurs, then, is an induced micro-abortion at one week of life.

The bottom line, then, for the commonly used contraceptive pill is this:  In 97 or 98% of the time, the effect is one of preventing pregnancy.  But, in perhaps two or more percent of the time, the effect is abortifacient.  There is no way in the normal clinical practice of obstetrics of knowing which is happening, or when.

http://www.lifeissues.org/abortifacients/pill.html

Conception - Life Begins!

3-7% of Women on The Pill Actually Get Pregnant!

Based upon what we know of "break-through ovulations" we must ask, if 3-7% of women on "the Pill" actually get pregnant, how many more of these "break-through ovulations" occur and conception happens?   Due to the other effect of "the Pill" in making implantation in the uterus nearly impossible (again pointing to the 3-7% where it was actually successful!) what is really happening is an early abortion.  In these cases after about one week of life the embryonic baby dies and is aborted.  The article linked to this section is a doctor's explanation of these facts.

http://www.ccli.org/contraception/mdexplains.php

More Evidence of Break-Through Ovulation and Even Pregnancy

Q. But none of these things happened to my girl friend. She always took her tablet at breakfast time, has not had any stomach upset and hadn’t taken any other medicines. How come she is now pregnant?

A. One possible answer is that your girl friend had what is known as ‘break-through ovulation’. As the name suggests, a woman ovulates even though she always takes her daily dose of the pill, is not sick, and is not taking any other medications.

Proof that break-through ovulation (sometimes also called ‘escape-ovulation’) does occur even under perfect health conditions was first shown by Dr. Nine Van der Vange, State University of Utrecht, The Netherlands, Dept. of Obstetrics. & Gynaecology in 1984.

Dr Van der Vange’s research used high resolution ultra-sound which visually showed that women ovulate on the popularly prescribed low dose pill. A blood test confirmed that ovulation had occurred. The pill can have a break-through ovulation rate that can be as high as 17 ovulations per 100 women who used the pill for one year.

Other researchers have shown that the low dose pill has an even higher rate of break-through ovulation of almost 27 ovulations per 100 women per year.

http://www.pfli.org/faq_oc.html 

Pregnancy Does Occur While On The Pill

Ovulation can occasionally occur even when a woman never misses a pill [between 1 and 3 of very 100 women get pregnant while on the pill, and "research indicates that figure may be considerably higher, up to 4% for 'good compliers' and 8% for 'poor compliers'" (Potter, "How Effective Are Contraceptives?" Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996; 135:13S-23S.)].

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-bcpill.html

All Forms of "The Pill" are Abortifacient 

Convenience-minded women in general either do not know or no longer care that all birth control pills on the market today are abortifacients. 

http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/249?task=view

If you're still reading to this point, GOOD!  I pray that God guides you to make the proper decisions in your life - and decisions which do not prematurely end the life of any human being.

Feel free to leave a comment here on this blog.

Be Proud You Are A Catholic!

Sam Miller - a non-Catholic of Jewish descent spoke out about the way Catholics have been treated in the scandals of a few years ago (some still lingering).  I found it a bit interesting and then also found someone attempting (unsuccessfully) to debunk what Miller said...  Here's an article posted by "ConnieTalk" in 2008 presenting the positive side of Miller's speech:

Cleveland Man Incensed over Catholicism Targeted in the Media
ConnieTalkMay 2, 2008
http://www.connietalk.com/catholicism_in_media_050208.html
Sam Miller, prominent Cleveland businessman - Jewish, not Catholic - is fighting mad about the seemingly concentrated effort by the media to disparage the Catholic Church in the United States. The following are excerpts of a speech by well-known Cleveland businessman Mr. Miller at the City Club of Cleveland, given on Thursday, March 6. Even though of the Jewish faith, Miller has been a staunch supporter of the Cleveland Diocese and Bishop Anthony Pilla. It was published in the May-June issue of the Buckeye Bulletin.

"Why would newspapers carry on a vendetta on one of the most important institutions that we have today in the United States, namely the Catholic Church?  Do you know - the Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students everyday at the cost to your Church of 10 billion dollars, and a savings on the other hand to the American taxpayer of 18 billion dollars. Your graduates go on to graduate studies at the rate of 92%, all at a cost to you. To the rest of the Americans it's free.
The Church has 230 colleges and universities in the U.S. with an enrollment of 700,000 students. The Catholic Church has a non-profit hospital system of 637 hospitals, which account for hospital treatment of 1 out of every 5 people - not just Catholics - in the United States today.
But the press is vindictive and trying to totally denigrate in every way the Catholic Church in this country. They have blamed the disease of pedophilia on the Catholic Church, which is as irresponsible as blaming adultery on the institution of marriage. Let me give you some figures that you as Catholics should know and remember. For example, 12% of the 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual intercourse with a parishioner; 38% acknowledged other inappropriate sexual contact in a study by the United Methodist Church, 41.8 % of clergywomen reported unwanted sexual behavior; 17% of laywomen have been sexually harassed. Meanwhile, 1.7% of the Catholic clergy has been found guilty of pedophilia. 10% of the Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia. This is not a Catholic Problem.
A study of American priests showed that most are happy in the priesthood and find it even better than they had expected, and that most, if given the choice, would choose to be priests again in face of all this obnoxious PR the church has been receiving.
The Catholic Church is bleeding from self-inflicted wounds. The agony that Catholics have felt and suffered is not necessarily the fault of the Church. You have been hurt by a small number of wayward priests that have probably been totally weeded out by now.
Walk with your shoulders high and you head higher. Be a proud member of the most important non-governmental agency in the United States. Then remember what Jeremiah said: "Stand by the roads, and look and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is and walk in it, and find rest for your souls". Be proud to speak up for your faith with pride and reverence and learn what your Church does for all other religions. Be proud that you're a Catholic."
Thanks, Pete!
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2008/05_06/2008_05_02_ConnieTalk_ClevelandMan.htm

I then found THIS article, allegedly debunking the claims of "Sam Miller:"

"Jewish" Sam Miller lie exposed

 by Paul King Monday, Apr. 18, 2011 at 12:45 AM 

The "Jewish" Sam Miller who Catholics love to spam (defending the Catholic Church) is a liar and joke.  Sam Miller made up totally false figures in his speech (and admitted it later): -
The lies in question: -

Now let me give you some figures that you as Catholics should know and remember. For example, research by Richard Blackman at Fuller Theological Seminary shows that 12% of the 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual intercourse with a parishioner; 38% acknowledged other inappropriate sexual contact. In a 1990 study by the United Methodist Church, 41.8% of clergywomen reported unwanted sexual behavior by a colleague; 17% of laywomen said that their own pastors had sexually harassed them. Phillip Jenkins concludes in his book "Pedophiles and Priests" that while 1.7% of the Catholic clergy has been found guilty of pedophilia, 10% of Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia."

The REAL figures are 5.4% (http://www.bishop-accountability.org) of Catholic Priests and a fraction of one per cent of Methodists have been accused.
He later apologized when questioned.
It also turns out that Sam Miller is Jewish by blood but is a Christian who has donated to a number of Christian Causes including the Salvation Army. Not one penny has he given to any non Jewish charity or cause.

He is a publicity hound who made up all the facts and figures in his speech.
None are factual.
Typical of Catholic Smoke and Mirror con tricks.
NOTES
The U.S. bishops have reported receiving allegations of abuse by 5,948 priests in 1950-2010, or 5.4% of the 109,694 U.S. priests active since 1950.
Other percentages
After the March 2009 release of audit documents by the NH AG, the names of 74 accused Manchester priests are known, or over 8.9% of the 831 diocesan priests, which extrapolates to 9,768 nationally.  Covington diocese states that 9.6% of its priests have been accused, which extrapolates to 10,531 nationally. Over 10% of Providence RI priests have been accused, which extrapolates to over 10,969 nationally Richard Sipe estimates that 9% of U.S. priests have offended, which extrapolates to 9,872 priests nationally
www.bishop-accountability.org

 Almost every Catholic publication, blog and comment board has carried a story about a "Jewish" businessman defending the Catholic Church. The whole story is based on total lies and deceptions but still is circulated by the faithful.

It must be noted that the very site which is cited by Paul King is one of THE sites initially carrying Sam Miller's comments!  We must also note that Mr. King does not "document" his claims.  He merely cites the "Bishop Accountability" website, which, while it is notorious for publishing articles against the Catholic Church as well as King's "response" - it also published the initial article from Mr. Miller!  

King states, regarding the facts, "None are accurate," but he doesn't cite Miller's source(s) nor does he present any valid documentation of his own facts!  Simply citing the Bishop Accountability website is NOT documentation!  He would like us to believe him at his word that "the whole story is based on total lies and deceptions," but King only presents unsupported figures based upon individual diocesan statistics - which, even there, if we could believe his numbers the method he projects them onto a national level is a complete non sequitur.    He claims Miller "made up the facts and figures in his speech," but Miller cites his sources!  One of the sources of Miller's facts can be seen in an article entitled: "Sexual Harrassment in the United Methodist Church 2005" (click for link).  So much for King's (false) allegation that Miller made up all his facts!  I'm sure I can dig up more substance to back up Miller's facts, but even this ONE proves King's statement to be a lie!

Now, I realize there were indeed SOME priests and bishops involved in the scandal and cover-up, but as Miller stated - the number is VERY small and those offenders have been and are still being rounded up and turned over to proper authorities.  Some individuals were indeed harmed by these criminals, and that is indeed what they are - criminals, but overwhelmingly most Catholic priests and bishops are good, well-meaning individuals.  It's not fair to paint with a broad brush here - even in the face of those directly affected by the crimes of those few individuals.  Is it fair to punish ALL Catholics for the sins of a few?  THAT is ONE of Miller's points, which King seems to miss and/or refuses to admit to.  Another is all the GOOD Catholics do for society, which King completely ignores.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Healthy Porn?

Recently on a group (which I have since departed) one of the participants posted an argument for the healthiness of pornography in society.  The argument was essentially that "in the west" things are getting more and more open regarding sexuality, whereas "in the east" things are still more repressed.  The "healthy" argument states that pornography gives a "healthy release" of sexuality, and that all humans are sexual beings so such a release is necessary - be it in a physical sexual relation, or through pornography.

The point this proponent of porn misses is that ALL pornography is misdirected.  Why is it so?  The sexuality of persons involved in porn are being exploited by the producers of it.  Granted, some in the porn "industry" are paid, some quite well, but their bodies are being exploited in an immoral way.  Right now I can hear those in favor of porn crying out, "Don't force your morality on me!"  Well, "my morality" is not only based upon Judeo-Christian values, but upon the rights of each individual.  Let us examine this a bit more carefully.

The rights of each individual do not include the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, where there is no fire.  Likewise, no one has the "right" to display their pornography where my 14 year old child can view it.  The ease of access to pornography, especially on the Internet, is an exploitation of those who may view it and be influenced by it, not to mention that those who are "viewed" are being exploited - whether they are reimbursed financially for this exploitation or not.

Why is pornography a morally wrong thing?  The participation in "the marriage act" by couples who are not married is a corruption of "the marriage act."  "The marriage act" is a gift from God, and it's a wonderful gift intended to bond husband to wife as they part from their respective parents.

The physical basis for "the marriage act" is also human reproduction.  This too is a wonderful gift from God allowing us to participate in the process of procreation with the Creator.  Any deviation from the physical completion of "the marriage act" is also a corruption of that gift.  Thus the "self gratification" which often accompanies pornography is itself a corruption of God's gift intended for married couples, not only as an expression of their love for one another - but also for the blessing of children to the family.  How many in the porn "industry" are engaging in "the marriage act" with the intent to produce children - or at least not with the intent to prevent the conception of children?  Once the intention becomes to prevent conception - or worse to terminate conception, right there the participants and supporters of this production (right down to the consumer) have crossed the line of immorality in regard to "the marriage act."

I have also heard the argument, "What if a husband and wife are using the porn to 'enhance' their own sexuality?"  One has to ask what led to this?  Why is not a healthy sexual relationship between a husband and his wife enough?  What led them to seek out external stimulation?  Is it rooted in one or the other seeking such "entertainment" outside "the marriage bed" and perhaps justifying their own guilt by introducing it to "the marriage bed?"  Then there's the support of the porn industry by such a married couple - it is a tacit endorsement of the immorality being conducted by the porn "industry."  How many of the participants in pornography are married to each other in a monogamous relationship?  Yet each time someone buys or rents such, they are lending their support to the porn industry.

What it essentially boils down to is pornography is hedonistic immorality.  Those who support porn do so because it pleases themselves, and they basically don't care about the ramifications it has upon others and society and more importantly the eternal well-being of souls.  Why should their lack of caring for the eternal well-being of souls (because many of them may not even believe in an eternal soul) be allowed to trample over the rights of those who DO believe in eternity?  And then they want the "freedom" to push THEIR morality upon the rest of us!  When laws are attempted to restrict the availability of pornography are proposed - the proponents are all over screaming for their "right" to "freedom of expression."  Again, I remind the reader, this is like screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire except this is on a spiritual level.  People in the theater may be hurt or even killed by this unordered exercise of what someone may feel is their "right."  Likewise, on the spiritual level, souls may be harmed or even "killed" by the actions of the porn industry - and they have NO RIGHT to endanger the souls of others, especially of minors.  Non-believers have no right to force their morality on me or my family!

The subject addressed thus far has been "porn" or what some would call "hardcore porn," but this can also be addressed to many of the television shows available to everyone, everyday being broadcast over the air or through cable to the television sets in virtually every household "in the west."  These programs (and some commercials too), which may not explicitly show every aspect of "the marriage act" as "hardcore porn" does, still portray non-married couples living together and sometimes even showing them in the bedroom engaging in "the marriage act," (be it under sheets or through camera angles which don't "show anything").  How is this not the pushing of the (lack of) morals by these television producers and actors upon others?  Certainly we can exercise our right to change channels, but not always is there a parent around who can enforce such an act within their house.  I must admit, there are times when I have been watching television and before you realize it, the scene has changed to something I'd rather not my children see.  When one thinks about it, WHY would we not want our children to see such things?  The "WHY" there is huge because if it's not "OK" for them to see it, why is it "OK" for an adult to watch it?  Simply because an adult can "sort things out better?"  Why put such deviancy in our minds to begin with that WE have to "sort it out?"

That being said, one cannot even drive down the road without being exposed to sexually centered advertising.  Society "in the west" has become so numbed to the exposure of sexual content in selling just about everything from beer to sex itself - that the reality of this exposure doesn't even register as something wrong, misdirected or immoral.

In short, if it is MY morality to not expose myself and my children to pornography, even the "soft porn" on television or billboard signs, and I have a RIGHT to my morality, then what gives another the "right" to force their more liberal morality upon me and my family?