The exchange between church and state officials came the week after Pope Benedict XVI lamented that Mexican society was troubled by corruption, drug trafficking and organized crime, during a meeting with bishops from northern and central Mexico at the Vatican.
“At no time, under no condition, may anyone receive illegal money,” said Fox spokesman Ruben Aguilar. “No one may in this way aid in the laundering of money, and nobody can be in favor of organized crime acting with impunity.”
Aguilar was responding to comments made Monday by Roman Catholic Bishop Ramon Godinez, of the central state of Aguascalientes, who said that donations linked to drug trafficking are not out of the ordinary — and that it’s not the church’s responsibility to investigate their origin.
Uh — where do we even begin on this one?
“If they have money, they have to spend it; I don’t know why such a scandal has been made of this,” Godinez said in a follow-up interview with the Televisa television network Tuesday. “If a drug trafficker gives, we are not going to investigate if he’s a trafficker or not.
“Let me explain: We live on this, on the offerings of the faithful. And we do not investigate where they acquired the money.”
On Monday, the bishop said money can start out being dirty but “can be transformed” when it enters the church, Mexican news media reported.
A 21st Century take on transubstantiation?
Is placing people in power for purely political reasons cronyism or corruption? At what point does cronyism become criminal corruption?
The selection of utterly unqualified people to lead critical organizations, for purely political accomodation reasons, is corruption, pure and simple. FEMA is just the tip of the iceberg. That example in itself is worthy of criminal investigation and prosecution.
Before we go criticising corruption in other countries, we would well do to examine the deep political corruption that exists within our own societies.
The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of accepting blood money for favors. In the past, bishoprics were often bought. Wealthy donors were often given special absolutions, annulments, and / or prayers. Nothing has changed much.
Pat, you’re remarks are full of ignorant hate, and I’m calling your bluff. John, you’ll have to wait a minute. Pat, you can’t make blanket statements of this kind unless you have facts or context. “Blood money for favors”? Such as when and for what? Give specifics. “Wealthy donors were often given special absolutions, annulments, and / or prayers”? Provide some examples and flesh out your indiscriminate tirade. What are you getting at? And “bishoprics were often bought”? Too generalized again. Apparently you think the CHURCH has ever allowed this in its doctrines or official practices. In fact, the Church has never condoned or endorsed these or many of the actions taken by some individuals some of the time. Dvorak ignores the chilling fact a corrupt Mexican govt that allows the killing, robbing, and raping of Americans — but wants us to accept its poor — wants to impose itself on a church. Worse, Dvorak could have mentioned bishops in Mexico and elsewhere have consistently said the trade in illegal drugs is immoral and against church teaching. Instead, he used his free speech rights, which I support, to bash the beliefs of a billion-plus people, which is indefensible. It was a stretch, but hate finds a way I guess. Pat, make these ignorant oversimplifications about the Church then you better say the same about your own government (or church, or synagogue, whatever if you have any affiliations). Oh, no you say? Why? Because you can’t condemn a country or its government because of the actions of a few? Please. You probably believe Oliver North is a hero and G.W. Bush runs a squeaky-clean administration. As for you Mr. Dvorak, this was a non-story; but, you chose it. Why? Because you could add your unintelligent remark bashing a particular faith? Again: Why? Could you not find a story about Simon Wiesenthal to then crack on Judaism? Oh, right. Off limits. How about Islam or gays? I didn’t think so.
LOL..the Catholic Church accusing someone else of “organized crime”. They ought to rename themselves the Roman Catholic Church of Hypocrisy. Did this particular accusation come from one of the pedophiles? They don’t have any right to “cast stones”.
“Wealthy donors were often given special absolutions, annulments, and / or prayers”? Provide some examples
John Kerry got an annulment over his wife’s objection, and the previous pope was complaining about too many annulments in America. Also, this was one of Martin Luther’s main objections.
Actually, according to reports before and during the election, Kerry admitted to seeking an annulment; however, many of those same reports indicated it was refused and Kerry’s campaign would not confirm whether it was refused. Interestingly, Kerry’s current wife refused to cooperate in the process, so it is likely he did not get it; but, whether he got one or not I don’t know and don’t care.
An annulment is a declaration by a tribunal, not by individuals. To grant one, the tribunal must look at the law and facts surrounding the wedding and ask is the wedding binding. If it is binding, the parties are bound by the commitment no matter how horrible the union might be. But, if legal requirements for a marriage were not met, the parties can seek an annulment to marry again under church law. Getting an annulment has nothing to do with being rich or poor regardless of how you try to twist it. With some critics though, it’s always about money so I’m not sure how to disabuse you of this notion; some ideas are too hard to uproot.
As for annulments in America and Pope John Paul II’s feelings about it, you still do not provide a source or reference so I can only reply in general terms and provide this bit of information: in 2004, the Vatican did hint again, as it has done for a few years now, they would like to cut down on the number of annulments; however, as of today no new rules have been announced. You can find reports on this from the “National Catholic Reporter.”
So, you’re partly right, but I don’t see what that really has to do with the accusation about money and wealth. There is no connection. Rather, the Church is trying to rein in Americans, because 70-80% of annulment applications annually come from the U.S. alone. This is a problem more endemic to America and its “liberal” members we refer to as “Cafeteria Catholics” (those who want to pick and choose what to believe); it is not a flaw of or caused by the Church itself. You are confusing the two — either innocently or on purpose I don’t know and can’t judge. Nevertheless, there is a significant portion of Catholics in the U.S. who do follow the Church’s teachings, whether you see it or not.
One observation that needs to be brought up is this: Catholics do not have a monopoly on hypocrisy in these or other faith matters. I have to laugh at the “casting stones” commentaries (let’s review: the Mexican government made the news by launching its attack, not the other way around). As an institution — if I must use that word — its doctrines are consistent even though some members do not follow them, but every church has this in some degree, as do political parties and other organizations. Even Judaism and Islam have opposing groups; the difference is Catholics are fair game for all kinds of half-truths and lies, which are publicized through the mass media constantly, while others are left alone due to fear or some strange kind of scrupulosity about avoiding offending anyone. I believe Christ warned His followers of this kind of treatment, so we’re okay with it.
Fox
Contrary, I am not full of hate, ignorance, or any other of your diatribe.
I would gladly cite examples of 14 yr old French Bishops, Popes put there by Spanish and French Kings, dual Popes, and wealth families with their own priests to grant absolutions. To put together enough references will take too long for this topic. It is almost expired.
On your own you could research the Medici, the Hapsburgs, and Bourbons. Each is filled with Church intrigue. While at it, you could check out the Catholic Churches behavior in the New World, especially the Spanish branch.
Your statistics have all the earmarks of denial though. Any study that states something is between 0.2 and 1.7% is unworthy of serious contemplation.
Second, comparing two separate surveys is silly when the question and responses are different. These are apples and oranges. But most important is the Protestant churches would go out of their way to aid any investigation and rid themselves of molesters. The Catholic Churches response has been to hide the molesters in different locations to continue their criminal behavior.
Third, for the record, my family was Irish Catholic until we saw the light, I believe Oliver North should have served time, Bush should be impeached and charged with war crimes, and Pope Benedict (aka Herr Ratzenberger) should be charged with conspiracy for willfully impeding child molestation investigations.
And last, what the Catholic Church does in practice and what it preaches are two entirely different things. When I look at the rich trappings of the Catholic Empire and read the humble teachings of Christ, I shake my head at the hypocrisy.
Oh, still there? Well, that was enjoyable to find on my first day back. I guess I’m going to have to lower myself because I’m tired and weak today. Mostly tired … and fed up. My reservoir of charity only goes so deep.
What a great, long weekend. Particularly wonderful was meeting in the D.C. dungeons late Monday night to plot our takeover of the world, maybe see how many millions of bucks we can swindle out of rich folks.
Yep, nothing like a good old Republican National Committee strategy session with Karl Rove and Bill Frist to cap off a day.
So, anyhow, going from point to point, no particular person was actually referred to; so, internalizing it that way was very revealing. But, to be fair I can see how you might have taken some of my remarks … er, diatribe. Right.
I apologize; however, you quickly and early on resorted to Ad Hominem attacks, finally jumping in with both feet by calling what I hoped was a rational, thoughtful response as “diatribe” and then referring to Pope B. as “Herr Ratzinger,” etc. Each post from you just grows in anger, intolerance, and ignorance of what and where the true problems are. And, it’s clear by the way you jump to new material so quickly your depth of knowledge is strikingly shallow. Yes, reading your posts sure does make me regret thinking you possess even a whit of illogical hate. My mistake.
Can I pop your bubble? To set you straight, on my very own, with no strong-arm tactics from a bishop, I began re-reading Church history, also (post 2002 scandals). Some of it makes one want to vomit. Yes, you read correctly. It shook my faith … my faith in SOME of the men within the Church, not THE FAITH itself then or now. The Church doesn’t go in for it; it never will.
As an amateur expert in history, can you recommend any histories of Protestants and Protestantism? Any on Luther that include the zanier rantings he made and the double life he led (celibate yet with a mistress, etc.)? Or what about Jimmy Swaggart? Perhaps Jim Bakker? How about Benny Hinn? Better, I’ll take some history of the distasteful actions of PROTESTANT missionaries against Native Americans, like Spalding who has a town named after him in Idaho; and yet, Reverend Spalding remains, to be understated, unloved by the same Nez Perce (actually, Nimiipuu) he tried to “evangelize” by such charitable means as whipping a woman because she was not a Christian and her husband was. Got any of that lying around?
I could go on… but then I’d be giving you the other side of a story you’d rather not know. It would send you on a tailspin into Agnosticism or something.
Here is the underlying, most important fact you fail to appreciate (or admit): the difference between the actions of men and the deposit of faith found in the Church. The latter has always and will continue to exist incorruptible regardless of the actions of the former. Christ … well He was either a lunatic or exactly who He said; and, He established one Church, resting it in the hands of mere men knowing — I’m sure — exactly what might transpire. Peter himself, the first Pope given the keys by his Master, failed that Master more than once. Yet, we hold his writings to be inspired Gospel, and his character and sacrifice an example to follow. The other disciples, they too failed their Master; yet, they also are held in esteem. Even by non-Catholics. You want more history? Go ahead; you’ll find people failing constantly. To name just two very early figures: Moses faltered when told to bring forth water from a rock; David gave in to his lust for another man’s wife. Where does it begin?
In reading Church history, if you really did, then you chose to merely focus on the wicked acts and errors of some people (none ever approved of by the Church in its doctrines or teachings); then, you judged everything as corrupt, in contradiction to the plan of Christ. This is a conceit formed by a judgmental mind. I read the same history, and I come away appalled but amazed at God’s grace to raise saints at the right time, especially when corrupt people held any power.
Change is gradual, not instantaneous. Remember that? No? Well, since you hate the Church so much, perhaps you should be sure to toss out your Bible, today, if you haven’t already. See, you got that from the Church. What, you didn’t know this? Then you really don’t know your history, or you deny what you don’t like.
As for those surveys, your cliche-ridden statements indicate you’ve been listening to too many Fox News talking heads and memorizing their snarky comments. You certainly have their methods down pat (pun intended). I doubt you would know an accurate survey from a dead King James. But, since Philip Jenkins is a well-known and highly respected Ph.D. who is highly capable of defending his own research, you can contact him at jpj1@psu.edu and take up the statistics with him personally. Maybe you can give him an education on research methodology, because I can’t keep fishing in such shallow intellectual waters any longer. While you are at it, contact the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. They are probably the most respected institution of their kind — I know this — and they have similar results from their official studies. Go on, look at the data. What are you afraid of?
The truth is, abuse of all kinds does occur elsewhere. Protestants themselves know this (I even provided you results from THEIR studies, for goodness sake), so don’t try to insult the data by posing. It is an offense against the victims, particularly those YOU deny. Calling the figures into question just because the facts disappoint your preconceptions is simply intellectual dishonesty. Nice try, though; at least it’s something intellectual and not simply hysterics.
Furthermore, not all abusers were hidden from the law to continue their behavior. In MOST cases, the Church was acting upon recommendations from secular mental health professionals when it began dealing with the abusers. So, where then does the blame game end, and why in one ballpark? The Church is dealing with it now, unlike other groups, like public school systems for example. Even with allegedly professional assistance, very, very few priests were hidden or moved to continue abusing. Think about how many you heard about in the news compared to teachers abusing students? No, really think about it. Not many, right? And here’s another stat to dwell on, which of course you’ll insult: only 3 percent of the accused priests made up almost 28 percent of the allegations. So, to be clear, most of the abuse was done by a small minority.
Now, one more time for emphasis: the abusers did not act with the approval of the Church. Why are we still discussing this, and how did we get from “drugs bad” to “priests abuse”? You are all over the road here, but I don’t mind. Things need to be corrected before I sign off … I have a lot of work that is more important than banging my head on your brick wall.
One funny thing I have to ask though is, so your family was Irish Catholic? … ooookay …. so what? But that was only until you “saw the light”? What does that mean? You became Scottish Rastafarians or Teutonic Mormons? This is quite a sudden turn into non-sequitur territory. Again.
Anyway, the Pope? You have no grounds or proof the current or any pope should be charged with anything, and deserves little if any comment. How conceited are you? For one thing, your beliefs and accusations are evidence only of the hate you hold. In any case, local problems are always left to the local bishops and the American bishops have been dealing with the issues. Cardinal Law, yeah him I can’t really figure out. But he’s been humiliated and only God can judge him. Remember, neither you nor anyone else should be judging anyone.
Finally, this stuff about rich trappings and an empire? Pure Ad Hominem garbage. Non- and Anti-Catholics usually end up resorting to this stuff, but the fact is while the Church does have many “treasures” (mostly given to it by earnest and faithful people), it is not as “rich” as you think. The Vatican’s budget is estimated at approximately $260 million only. Once more: Million. Not Trillion. Not even Billion. There is not a lot of influence you can buy with that amount of money. Should the Church sell everything and give it to the poor, this would benefit everyone only a little for one day, then there would be nothing left. All the inspirational treasures would be in the hands of secular, greedy, rich people; there would be nothing left for us to admire and find inspiration. Today, however, the Church’s missionary and charitable work is the largest in the world. In the world. When the tsunami hit the Indian Ocean and killed so many people, destroying everything in its path, the Church’s organizations gave more in terms of money, goods, and man hours than all other organizations combined. It was just doing its job on the sly, with no trumpet blasts and self-serving TV ads like the Red Cross.
I’m done here, so go ahead I’ll give you the last word. I’m no saint, never claimed to be, and since I have no patience for apologetics I’m not a great role model for you (I’m sure you’ll twist this, too); nevertheless, I have the facts, I know the faith, I TRY to live it, and I know how this will all end because of things like this:
“Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt. 5:11-12).
Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age” (Matt. 28:18-20).
All these anti-catholic diatribes make one obvious logical fallacy: they mistake the actions of individual Catholics for official Catholic doctrine. Well, time to wake up: the two are quite DIFFERENT.
I suppose I could cite allt he sins of other denominations and the fact that sexual molestation is just as high (or higher) among protestant clergy. But that really misses the point too. But if the anti-Catholics want to stick to that reasoning, then they are in for a suprise if they should ever bother to examine the bloody history of their own congregatons or secular movements.