Home / Lauryn Hill blasts Vatican audience

Lauryn Hill blasts Vatican audience

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

From Yahoo News:

US hip-hop singer Lauryn Hill stunned leading members of the Roman Catholic Church when she accused them of moral corruption, exploitation and abuse from the stage during a Christmas concert at the Vatican.

Hill, 28, launched her diatribe in front of an audience of 7,500 guests at a packed Paul VI hall, used by Pope John Paul II for indoor public audiences.

“I’m not here to celebrate, like you, the birth of Christ, but to ask you why you are not in mourning for his death in this place,” Hill said, reading from a prepared statement as she came on stage for her performance as part of a all-star gala concert.

“Holy God has witnessed the corruption of your leadership, of the exploitation and abuses which are the minimum that can be said for the clergy,” she added, calling on the hierarchy to “repent”.

Stunned hierarchy in the front row at Saturday night’s concert included one of the most senior figures in the Church, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, who is head of the Italian bishops conference.

I don’t know just what to think of this little display. On the one hand, she’s certainly being rude. She was asked to come sing Christmas carols, not give a speech.

On the other hand, she’s absolutely right. The whole church hierarchy has been very willful in not doing the right things for many long years. The chosen moral blindness of these supposed spiritual leaders has hurt a great many people.

Also, she’s got the right audience. She addressed herself to just exactly the culpable people who badly need rebuking. If she’s going to make a public display, these were just the people to make it to.

Powered by

About Gadfly

  • Sandra Smallson

    I’m appalled by Ms Hill’s behaviour. She is no saint herself. This self righteous behaviour needs to be curtailed by people in this world. Ofcourse it is deplorable what some, I repeat, SOME priests seem to be doing to Altar boys etc. What I am sure is annoying to a lot of people is that nothing is being done to the pedophiles, the church in the eyes of many does not seem to be taking action. Well, the church is caught b/w a rock and a hard place. How can they preach forgiveness and judgment is for God, and then proceed not to forgive these priests and judge them?

    Why exactly did Ms hill agree to perform for such an audience if she was so appalled by their behaviour? She could have refused to perform and read her statement at that point. I am not defending the behaviour of the priests and bishops but I do not think I am in any position to be throwing stones at anybody when I’ve got my own sins to worry about. Nobody ever knows what these priests are up to but they will answer to their God. If you go to mass, the fact that the priest might be a pedophile does not tarnish the sacred nature of the mass you have attended, it tarnishes the priest and the priest alone.

    I think Lauryn Hill should not have attended the event at all if she had such strong views about the vatican and using that opportunity to attack the vatican is just daft. Is she even catholic?

  • Eric Olsen

    I bet she won’t be asked back. This was certainly rude, but maybe they needed to hear it.

  • ClubhouseCancer

    Bravo Lauryn!

    People who speak truth to power are always criticised, and always vindicated. It’s just too bad she had to ruin the Christmas of the leaders of that organized crime syndicate.

    Instead of giving one thought to those evil Cardinals and their feelings, why not keep a good thought for the thousands of victims of the depraved rapists they’ve supported and employed?

  • Lauryn rules! Gotta wonder, though, why she took that particular gig. I guess this audience did need a hard dose of truth for a change.

  • heheh. Man, i’d have liked to have seen the looks on their faces…

  • Jonathan

    Wow. That’s amazing, Truly spectacular. Rude or not it’s still pretty fucking cool.

  • bhw

    I think Hill was pretty damned balls-y! Saying it right there at the Vatican!

    As for the first commenter’s points about priests and forgiveness, the church is free to forgive its pedophile priests while they serve out their prison sentences. I don’t think repeatedly sending the fox back into the hen house counts as forgiveness. Seems like it counts as willfully ignoring the law and the safety and well being of the children of your church.

  • Sandra Smallson

    I hope Hill is as “Ball-sy” in her own household. Somehow, I doubt it very much. As for the person who refers to the priests or the vatican as “organised crime”..what can anybody say to a person like you? Nothing!

  • Eric Olsen

    Based upon her previous statements here, I am surprised Sandra responded to this the way she did. Are you Catholic, Sandra?

  • Sandra Smallson

    Why are you surprised that I responded to this the way I did? From my previous comments, what did you think my response would be? Plus, what is it about my previous comments that makes you think I would respond the way you thought I would?:) Okay, when you are through with that(please, indulge me:) then, I will respond and answer your question:)

  • Eric Olsen

    Simply because you tend to be suspicious of authority, certainly authoritarians. That’s about it.

  • Sandra Smallson

    Oh..ok. I don’t know what to say to that actually:) I’ll try and explain why I responded the way I did. I am Catholic. However, I dont see the vatican as “authority”. So, the issue of my being suspicious of authority does not arise in this case, I dont think. Plus, I dont think I am necessarily suspicious of authority.

    I see the vatican as the head of the Catholic church but authority to me comes from God. The Catholic church rules are in the Bible. These are rules that other christian denominations are supposed to follow. Ofcourse some have left for whatever reason and chosen to interprete the rules to suit their own purposes. A criticism of the Catholic church is that it applies those rules too strictly and makes no room for changing times. With all my sins I am sure I agree but those things are not an issue with me because if I say I am a christian and a catholic, these are the rules. No one is forcing me to be a catholic. If I don’t like it, I leave it and find another faith. Like Madonna and her kaballah business..lol.

    Catholicism is my faith. The Priests and Bishops that are abusing these children should be dealt with in the way in which other pedophiles should be dealt with. However, because I believe that my being a catholic has more to do with God than any Priest’s personal life, I feel no need or desire to change faith. If I am not Catholic then I would rather be non-denominational and just float around cos I can’t think of any other denomination that I would like to associate myself with.

    Therefore, Ms Hill using an invitation to perform in Xmas celebrations to verbally attack the vatican on an issue that the vatican are well aware of and have been attacked from all angles because of, is simply an exhibition of a certain lack of etiquette and class. Her point would have been better made if she had refused the invitation on those grounds and made an announcement to that effect. Going there and making a complete fool of herself might mean she may not be in her right senses due to err..certain things which I am sure are not too hard to fathom. She was just being silly and at her age that sort of silliness is pitiful.

    She has made no difference because she is certainly not the first to tell the vatican this, she is definitely not the most influential to tell them this, and she wont be the last to tell them this. They know they have to find a way to practise what they preach which is forgiveness but at the same time to be seen to be dealing with the matter to prevent it happening over and over again. Lauryn’s outburst only served to make her look discourteous and a complete fool.

  • Eric Olsen

    Discourteous certainly, but not a fool in my view.

  • ClubhouseCancer

    Hundreds of priests raped thousands of children. These scumbags were protected by their criminal accomplices in the Vatican. And you save your vitriol for Lauryn Hill. Amazing.
    Raped. Thousands. Of children.
    This cannot be said enough by enough people.
    The Catholic Church has proved itself evil to its bloated core. It is part of the Church culture for priests to rape children. Has been for as long as anypne can remember. American bishops are lucky they are not all in prison, as they should be, for assisting in the rape of children.

    Not once in your post do you even condemn the church or the rape of children (read it again.)

    Here’s what you wrote:

    They know they have to find a way to practise (sic) what they preach which is forgiveness but at the same time to be seen to be dealing with the matter…

    I guess that about sums it up.

  • Catholic as well. I see the Vatican and church leadership as organized crime, you betcha. I support the laity, not the bigoted pedophile-enablers in, as CC put it, clown hats. And the pope… don’t get me started.

  • Describing the Catholic leadership as “organized crime” seems to be really pushing the point a bit.

    However, they have resisted for many years with all their might taking responsibility for stopping horrible child abuse in their ranks. Newspaper editorials or demonstrations and even legal actions seem to have minimal impact on this.

    Ms. Hill might be considered rude or ingracious or whatever. OK. But hey- all have sinned and fell short of the glory of G-d.

    On the other hand, she was directly addressing some of the specific guiltiest parties in the whole matter. They were sitting right in front of her.

    At some point, maybe this is appropriate. I don’t wish to denigrate the whole priesthood, but these top people have continually personally facilitated the ongoing abuses of thousands of children over many long years. Perhaps they should be getting the idea that they are not safe from rebuke and condemnation even from the pulpits of their own church- nay, ESPECIALLY from their own pulpits.

    Until they have THOROUGHLY cleaned up their act, they deserve no peace or respite.

    By rights, many of these people should be absolutely in prison as accessories. They’re fortunate to get off this easily.

  • Clubhouse Cancer wrote: “The Catholic Church has proved itself evil to its bloated core. It is part of the Church culture for priests to rape children. Has been for as long as anypne can remember. American bishops are lucky they are not all in prison, as they should be, for assisting in the rape of children.”

    Amen, CC, amen. Jail for the enablers. Jail for Baltimore’s Cardinal William Keeler. I wrote him a letter saying exactly that — he and his cohorts in crime and spiritual violence deserve to be behind bars. Courtesy? For them? As if. I have to pray hard for those more outraged over a concert and fucking etiquette than over the unconscionable sins of the Fathers.

  • Sandra Smallson

    Nothing any of you have said has made a blind bit of difference to my point. I stated several times that I feel these pedophiles must be dealt with and those who condone them have no excuse. However, why should that lead me to condemn the catholic church as a whole? That is a brand of racism. Serious stereotyping here. So, because an alarming amount of young black men are uneducated and criminals, ALL young black men are uneducated and criminals so they should be condemned as such? We all know not all pedophiles are priests so we must condemn the professions and the work places of those other pedophiles as well?

    I dont understand how you go from being annoyed at the church for delaying “justice” on these priests, to saying the church should be condemned, it is organised crime and that is basically what it exists for and is the culture of the church? I hope you dont have such outbursts in public because sensible people might begin to think you are suffering from an unhealthy does of paranoia that can lead to all sorts of things. By the way, practise is a variant of practice, though it is chiefly British so I will forgive your ignorance.

    Natalie if you believe all that CC says, and all that of the Catholic church, then you do yourself no favours by remaining a Catholic. If you cannot distinguish b/w the priests and the church for what it stands for and those innocent priests that do what they are there for, then you are better off not being catholic at all. How can you agree with CC’s inability to distinguish and still say I am catholic? Then what sort of person can believe that thier church is organised crime with a culture to condone pedophiles and still remain a member of that church? Unbelievable!

  • Sandra Smallson

    I feel no need to condemn the Catholic church because there is nothing at all to condemn the church for. Just like Muslims cannot be condemned for those lunatics/fundamentalists who use the Islamic religion to carry out atrocious terrorist activities. I condemn all Pedophiles be them Priests or bank managers. I condemn anybody be them a bishop who allows a pedophile to stay in an environment where they will be able to commit further horrendous acts. I do not condemn the Catholic church in any way, shape or form.

    Anybody who feels confident enough to condemn the entire catholic church and go on with this outdated rant of the deranged on how the Catholic church is organised crime, and the Pope is a member of the mafia, and the culture of the church..blah blah blah..we’ve heard it all before. You are not the first people to chant deranged rants about the catholic church, you wont be the last, you are saying nothing revolutionary.

    Some Priests and Bishops have dismissed such Pedophiles. Some haven’t. This is a matter of pedophiles and what some of the church clergy/leaders are doing about it which some say is ..Nothing at all, which everybody agrees is wrong..but to tell me to CONDEMN the Catholic church? What a deranged request!

  • Sandra Smallson

    I meant dose of paranoia not does…

  • ClubhouseCancer

    Your post says it all.

    This poor sentence makes no sense at all:
    “I condemn anybody be them a bishop who allows a pedophile to stay in an environment where they will be able to commit further horrendous acts. I do not condemn the Catholic church in any way, shape or form.

    “Sic” means “thus,” and is used to indicate that the quoted phrase appears exactly as quoted. I used it cuz I’m not British and I wanted to quote you accurately.

    My objections to your post are not personal (note the lack of words like ‘ignorance’ and ‘deranged’), but are intended to ask you to think more deeply about these issues. Blind adherance is at your own peril.

    I never mentioned the mafia, and my charges are not “outdated,” but rather fresher than today’s headlines. I mean that the church is an organized crime organization because they have systems set up to allow child rape to happen and to be covered up. This is a heinous, soul-deadening crime, and these people (the bishops, remember?) committed it at the behest of the church.

    Please use yourt brain and think about these things, please. Your post indicates either a lack of cohesive thought or a rush to put it together. No one is calling you a bad Catholic. Please think of the children who have been raped. There are thousands.

  • I call myself Catholic because that is the religion in which I was born, raised, and educated. Officially, I left the church over a decade ago; only recently have I gone back to using the term to describe myself. I have many problems with the institution. Indeed, I do believe that its leaders are involved in organized crime. However, the people, IMO, are the true church, not the leaders. My criticism is aimed at the leaders and at the terribly flawed institution and its traditions. Much of Catholicism is good, many of the people are good, many of the priests are good. Yes, that needs to be said. But Hill’s criticisms are valid and need to be said LOUDLY until the institution changes and puts Jesus’ mandate over its leaders’ vile quest for self-perpetuation at any price. The point was made that the leaders tend to be insulated. That being the case, perhaps Hill’s unexpected outburst was just the thing to bring a little truth to these people.

    Look, Sandra: NO INSULTS.

  • Sandra, you shouldn’t take Hill’s comments as a condemnation of ALL Catholics, or the entire church. Take them in an “if the shoe fits” way- and it surely would fit many of the muckity-mucks of the organization sitting right there in front of her.

    Again, remember that the overreaching “organized crime” label was NOT from Hill’s remarks.

  • it’s not the church that is bad, it’s (some of) the the people who run it.
    And no-one’s saying catholics should change faith/the catholic faith is evil, or at least i hope they aren’t, as that is close to equivalent to what Islamists say about all other religions.

  • Sandra Smallson

    Al, I did not take what Hill said as a condemnation of the Catholic church as a whole..I took what CC said as a condemnation of the catholic church as a whole. CC, what gives you the right to tell me to look more closely and think more deeply about the church? Who are you supposed to be? You are just somebody with an opinion on the catholic church.

    This is my opinion and because it does not agree with yours does not mean I have not looked deeply. I would rather be outright insulting than be patronising or condescending with poorly disguised subtlety.

    Natalie, like someboday said..”If the shoe fits…” so, its not a matter of insults. If the shoe fits..one must call a spade a spade. People who go around pronouncing the Catholic church as an organised crime unit and breeding pedophiles should not be amazed if some may find their rants deranged. Does that mean that person is deranged? Oh, well..the utterings are definitely deranged. I make no apologies whatsoever.

    Like someone said, its NOT the CHURCH that is BAD, its some of the people who run it. I can’t imagine that somebody who proclaims to use his brain disputes such a thing. CC, there is no difference in me calling you deranged and ignorant to you telling me to use my brain and not blindly follow. Thereby, insinuating I am not using my brain and I just follow blindly. I just choose not to pussy foot around the insults.

    As far as I am concerned, your posts indicate you are ignorant and your rants are mutterings that only people who are deranged can possibly say or understand. Think of the children who are raped? Ha! You really need to calm down. I am thinking of the children who are raped, but with that brain you advice I use. Posting nonsense about the Catholic church being organised crime and breeding a culture of Pedophiles does suggest that you, Clubhouse cancer, are not using YOUR brain.

    I no longer have any interest in continuing this discussion with you CC,. Like I said, you are saying nothing new, or fresh. You deceive yourself if you think you are. So, its a complete waste of my time to argue with you in any attempt to try and make you see sense, that the church is not to be condemned but some of the people that run it might deserve condemnation. Its an outdated mob mentality that even Jesus himself cannot change.

    Personally, I have lost interest, but one word of advice, why dont those of you that take my comments sometimes as insults, think deeply and maybe you might come to see them as characterisations instead. I don’t think it is too far fetched to read CC’s post on this matter and think him ignorant and perhaps deranged. As for you Natalie, I sent no insult you way. I simply found it unbelievable that you called yourself Catholic and agreed with CC. I still do but I have no interest in your justifications any longer.

  • ClubhouseCancer

    Perhaps someday you’ll actually read and think about this stuff, which is important. Maybe your apparent anger is keeping you from doing so.

    In the meantime, you could be nicer, but just like my asking you (not telling you) to think about the issue more deeply, that’s just a suggestion. Fellow man, and all that.
    This place is really set up for debate and offering opinions. To me, name-calling makes it harder to do that, so I always try not to.

    Thanks for an enlightening exchange.

  • Sandra Smallson

    LOL..sorry, I could not help myself. You really are some piece of work CC. LOL. You deserve nothing but name calling. Name calling makes it harder to do so? To air opinions? But amateur psychoanalysis makes it easier to do so?
    You assuming/presuming that my “apparent anger” has prevented me from seeing this matter the way “YOU” would like me to see it? Begging me to please use my brain since my post indicates a lack of cohesive thought or rushed judgment? Again, because it does not agree with your reasoning? Ha! And you think calling you deranged and ignorant is such name calling that this place is not for?

    At this rate I think I only scratched the surface with my name calling. This last post of yours leaves room for more. However, I know you have entertained me long enough. Please, do not tempt me again. I normally pay for this kind of amusement.

  • bhw

    Like someone said, its NOT the CHURCH that is BAD, its some of the people who run it. I can’t imagine that somebody who proclaims to use his brain disputes such a thing.

    I was raised Catholic and I use my brain, and here’s what I think: The church, overall, is bad and has a looooong history of badness emanating from the top down [a.k.a, the people at the top in a hierarchical, authoritarian organization must take the heat for the policies and “culture” they create, as well as for the deeds of those under them]. However, within the church there are many good people who try to help others.

  • Sandra Smallson

    BHW, I can’t be bothered to rehash it all because that will just be repetitive, but please enlighten me on the CATHOLIC CHURCH POLICIES that encourage Pedophila.???..Plus, what is the CULTURE that the “authorities” have created that encourage Pedophilia? If some within the church are good, how can the church overall be bad???

    I am not even going to go into the leaders taking heat for those under them because that just opens a can of worms. A principal should take the heat for the teacher who sleeps with an underaged student. A chief medical doctor should take the heat for a junior doctor who carries out a mercy killing….

  • Well said, bhw.The Catholic Worker tradition, the social-justice ethic… those are the wonderful things about the Catholic Church. The problems, well, those are things eerily similar to the gripes Luther had about 500 years ago. I would give anything to be able to embrace my Catholicness fully, but until there is fundamental change within church leadership and culture, that won’t happen. Just this morning, I considered attending Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve — had to nix the idea almost immediately. ‘Tis a shame.

  • bhw

    but please enlighten me on the CATHOLIC CHURCH POLICIES that encourage Pedophila.???

    I didn’t say the church encourages pedophilia. Those are your words. However, the placing of known pedophiles back into parishes where they will have direct, authoritative contact with children constitutes, in my mind, a policy that enables pedophilia, a crime of the worst sort. Why not send the criminals to the cops instead of back to work with kids?

    Plus, what is the CULTURE that the “authorities” have created that encourage Pedophilia?

    See above. Also, the complete culture of silence about the pedophilia — or any transgressions — committed by the clergy. The church believes its clergy to be above the law. Otherwise, it would report criminal behavior against children to the real authorities, the police. The church prefers to cover up the sex crimes its clergy commits. It’s bad enough that the crimes happen; it’s worse that the church — the institution — actively covers it up. That’s the culture I’m referring to.

    If some within the church are good, how can the church overall be bad???

    The institution of the church is bad because of its authoritarian, self-governing, above-the-law attitude. [I would also add patriarchal, but that’s just me.] Individuals within the organization, the worker bees who get down and dirty with the people who need them, are just dandy. But they can’t negate the bad deeds of the organization and its criminal policies. [In case you were wondering, covering up a crime is itself a crime. Implementing a systemic, organization-wide cover-up constitutes a criminal policy.]

    I am not even going to go into the leaders taking heat for those under them because that just opens a can of worms.

    However it is precisely this can of worms that’s the problem! The leaders covered up CRIMES. In so doing, they committed crimes themselves, though they’ll never be charged.

    A principal should take the heat for the teacher who sleeps with an underaged student.

    If the principal knows about it after the fact and doesn’t fire the teacher and call the cops, then yes. If the principal continues to let the teacher have access to underage students, then yes.

    A chief medical doctor should take the heat for a junior doctor who carries out a mercy killing….

    Again, if the chief doc knows about it after the fact and doesn’t fire the junior doc and call the cops, then yes.

    You seem to be forgetting that powerful people in the church, including the Pope himself, have known about these crimes and instituted a policy of covering them up. They have repeatedly returned known pedophiles to work with children, not once reporting a crime. They have documented a culture of silence about these crimes.

    Call me crazy, but I think that’s a bad organization.

  • Eric Olsen

    The conflict within the church, to me, is caused by an inherent romanticization of ritual and tradition, which offers structure and comfort but also tends toward authoritarian hierarchy. The equation of the Church with infallibility and role of necessary intermediary between God and man also bolsters these issues.

    And of course the requirement of “celibacy,” which really means a prohibition against marriage and children, tends to attract a higher-than-general-population percentage of those who have no interest in marriage in the first place.

    Luther was right.

  • bhw

    Eric, I’m amazed he had only 99 treatises!

  • Same here.

  • Eric Olsen

    I don’t want to be a smug Lutheran, but …

    Seriously, the greatest theological issue I have is the “required intermediary” deal – it is no more appropriate now than in Luther’s time for any church to set itself up as the required conduit to God. Aren’t we less human, and a step further removed from the divine if we cannot have a direct relationship with God?

  • bhw

    I think the intermediary is the biggest difference, Eric.

    But then there’s what I call the “voodoo” element to Catholicism, too. Like the whole transmogrification thing where Catholics believe the priest actually changes wine into blood, bread into body.

    Catholicism genreally just adds lots of layers of ritual, belief, and deification that aren’t in the bible.

  • bhw

    BTW, Eric. I just finished speaking with god on your behalf.

    He says you need to pick up some size 1 diapers on your way home.

  • Eric Olsen

    thanks for the message – man, I forgot how relentless are the responsibilities of a new parent.

  • ClubhouseCancer

    I’m not sure what’s so funny about child rape, SS, and I think it inappropriate to “LOL” about it.

    Even so, and despite the insults, I ask what you think the Catholic Church’s responsibility for these crimes is, and what you think church members, the church heirarchy, and the criminal authorities should do about these crimes.

    You’ve also stated, correctly, that I’m not saying anything new here, and that people have been leveling such criticisms for some time. Why do you think that is?

    These are some of the questions I think are key to the discussion, and I’d like your views.

  • Sandra Smallson

    BHW: We are both aware the hundreds of millions of catholic priests in the world. We are also aware of the hundreds of thousands of catholic parishes in the world. For you to generalise because of the publicised cases of certain parishes allowing alleged pedophoiles to continue preaching meaning that, the church straight through has a policy of covering up these imbeciles is totally wrong. What is the definition of a policy? It is impossible for the church to have such a policy and it does not. I am not denying that there are no church clergy who molest children. I am not denying that in some cases nothing has been done to them. They have been allowed to attend confession and go to therapy and some in the church think that is the end of it. The priests whom they have confessed to, feel bound by their oath not to reveal details of the confession. Some in the church feel that the sinners are now reformed characters and should be given another chance. Like I said, it makes no sense to many people. It makes no sense to me. These people should be handed over to the police. However, the Catholic church operates on the Bible and like I said before, they can’t preach forgiveness in one breath and then proceed to ostracise the priests. Thats the problem they have. Still, this does not justify protecting the pedophiles from the Law. These things are not the basis of my argument.

    What I am saying, which I dont think should be hard to understand, is that the CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NOT a place that has a policy to harbour Pedophiles, or a culture to breed them and allow them to carry out more acts and nothing you have said has shown evidence of the fact that these accusations against the church are true. The same way they take in the priests is the same way they have shelters all over the world that take in all brands of criminals from rapists to thieves. That is what the Catholic church believes is her duty. Not to judge but to forgive. Afterall, what did Jesus say? You might as well have an argument with Christ about it because you can blame the catholic church all you want but if the Bible is to be believed ,if these people ask for forgiveness, Jesus Christ will forgive them. So, why shoot the messenger?!

    Now, what proof do you have that the Pope having been made aware of a pedophile in a certain church, assisted in the cover up of that pedophoile by doing nothing about it? Other than hearsay? There is a well publicised case of a Bishop in America who was accused and nothing was done about him. There are also several cases of Priests and bishops who have been called to the vatican and prevented from preaching in parishes and being banned from seminars where potential priests are being trained. There are a variety of cases, no doubt. In a majority of the cases where something has been said, something has been done.

    You can take what I have written above also as a response to your saying the church believes the clergy is above the law. That is not their reasoning.

  • Sandra Smallson

    I dont understand the next part of your post at all. you are getting a bit carried away. Implementing a cover up? What are you saying? Do you think if the churches in Africa find pedophiles, they do nothing about it because it is church policy to do nothing about it? Do you think that those churches in the UK who found Pedophiles and prevented them from remaining in the Parish did that because they were flouting the rules of the catholic church, which is to harbour pedophiles?

    I am aware that assisting in a cover up is a crime. If a priest molests a child and confesses to another priest, it is that priests solemn oath to say nothing about it to anyone. All he can do is encourage the confessor to report himself or seek help. If that Priest comes back and says he is a reformed character it is the christian faith to forgive, not judge and accept the priest back. Ridiculous as it sounds. They cant claim to be the catholic church and the church of christ and practise what the Bible preaches and not do exactly that just to satisfy the changing modern times. They have to follow the Bible.

    It is unfortunate for people who believe that all that christian belief and biblical talk should be thrown out the window and these people be punished, but the Catholic church has chosen to apply the Biblical teachings strictly to the discomfort of many of its members. I don’t want to point out the failings of other christian denominations:) This is a thrill we Catholics since time immemorial have left to the other denominations to enjoy.

  • Sandra Smallson

    Eric, you can call it romanticization. Call it what you will. At the end of the day, its a religion, its a belief. Its a faith you have. You either believe it or you dont. Catholics, Christians, believe in Christ and his teachings. We believe that his teachings are in the Bible. Now, applying these age old teachings in this modern age no doubt appear authoritarian etc. But they are what they are. The church is not infallible. As long as they apply the laws of the Bible strictly, they cant be blamed. Still, the Bible leaves room for a lot of interpretation and this is where faults may lie in different churches. However, the core rules are set in stone. People are either of christian faith or are not. If they are not of Christian faith, oh well. If they are of Christian faith, its no use complaining about the strict authoritarian nature of the church and so on. They are simply applying the teachings which you are supposed to believe and follow. If one finds that one can no longer follow these teachings and rules because they dont sit right in his/her mind due to whatever personal motivations, like your friend Luther did back then, then there are a variety of options in this modern age that allow for modern problems. I believe Martin luther started his reformation movement on a variety of his reasons some of which have been fictionalised no end along with his supposed exploits like the nailing of his 95 theses to the church.

    The Bible was written so long ago, one hopes that God will forgive us the pressures of the new world. Still, no amount of calling it authoritarian helps the Christian who wishes to remain so, because its a faith. You either believe it, or you don’t.

    As for the issue of celibacy..Again. this is in the Bible. So there is no need blaming any church. I cant remember where but I am definite it is in teh Bible and was said by one of teh apostles. It is preferable for a priest, a man of the cloth to be unmarried, so that he can devote all his time to the teachings of the Lord. Luther did what he had to do to satisfy his own personal views and still sit right with his God. To each his/her own but I do not see his movement as anything that I ought to compare with what is in teh Bible. He was a man with major opinions and was dissatisfied with teh Catholic church. Back then, some abused the power of the church, some probably still do. However, the core belief of the church has always remained the same and so has her teachings. These Priests are not saints, they are human beings too with human failings. So, it is possible that some are lunatics and criminals.

    Their misdeeds in no way tarnish the Catholic church or its teachings. That is my main point. It is not condoning the behaviour of the priests. It is being able to distinguish b/w humans and the entity that is the Catholic church and what her teachings are.
    Neither Luther or Henry V1 could do anything about it and thank God for that.

  • uh…

    oh, forget it.

  • Sandra Smallson

    ..Eric, you needn’t have an issue with the “intermediary deal”. It is not an issue at all and this is what many misunderstand. My mother is what I call a Roman catholic. All catholics are Roman Catholics but when a catholic puts Roman infront, it just means a strict Catholic. My mother truly believes in confessing to the priests. I dont think I have to.

    Again, it is in the Bible:) Its all about the Bible folks and any qualms you have, like I said before, direct to Christ. No need shooting the messenger. Priests, men of the cloth, who chose to devote their lives to christ were given that “power”. I put that in inverted commas because I dont mean they have the power to forgive sins directly. Christ said to his Apostles, any sins you forgive, I have forgiven. The Apostles in turn spread that through out the Priests and the church. They forgive through Christ. It IS CHRIST that forgives, the Priest is just doing what Jesus says he can do. This is where the Catholic doctrine of confession stems from. It is not by some extended addition to the Bible according to BHW.

    I haven’t been to confession in over 15 years. No catholic thinks that means by sins have not been forgiven. Many sermons in church encourage a direct relationship with God so it is wrong to imply that because of this doctrine of confession, the Catholic church claim they are a required conduit to God. Again, one of the many misunderstandings of the Catholic church. It is not required. They would prefer it because it is part of the doctrine but no where and no way do they say that not doing that means you can not talk directly to God.

    Dear oh dear BHW. LOL. I mean, really. Catholics do not sit there and think the bread has actually turned to body and the wine blood. Geez! It is a belief. Just like we believe there is a Christ but we haven’t seen him. The same way they believe that the bread and wine they are taking is a symbol of the body and blood of Christ. This stems from the passover feast once again. Where they had bread and wine:) All, in the Bible. Its not an addition by the Catholic church. Oh crikey!

    What are these additions they make that are not in the Bible? Enlighten me again. LOL. Did you go to your cathecism lessons at all? I am thinking not:) You would have definitely understood better and not be so disillusioned. Then again, perhaps its all the likesof Luther etc that have added to the confusion of the modern world.

  • Eric Olsen

    Sandra, I don’t question your personal faith, nor do I want to diminish it, but I do feel the need to clear up a few things.

    Jesus said the church was his wife and that is where the celibacy thing for priests comes into play. The Bible does not require celibacy of priests, the Catholic Church simply decided that since Christ was celibate, thier priests should be as well.

    Since priests are human and not the manifestation of God on earth, however, this has encouraged a few problems that occur much less often when the priesthood is allowed to marry, have children, and express their humanity in this way.

    Also, the Bible does NOT say that organized religion and in particular the Catholic Church, which did not exist when the Bible was written, are required intermediaries between God and man. An entire hierarchy was created that other Christian denominations do not follow, including rituals of intercession, confession, the whole deal with the saints, relics, etc.: the hierarchical structure of buffer between God and man that is conveniently self-perpetuating and -aggrandizing and lucrative as hell for the Church.

    This is not in the Bible – this is a Catholic creation and has led to every manner of corruption and cover-up, the habits of which have been on grim display regarding the molestation of children.

    The Church can forgive as per the instructions of the Bible, but the Church has done far more than that by shielding and deflecting for known repeat offender pedophiles, and all involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, just like any other cohort of offenders.

    That the Church even now has not been sufficiently forthcoming, contrite, cooperative regarding this blight is the issue at hand, and why Hill may have been rude but certainly wasn’t wrong.

  • Sandra Smallson

    CC: I am beginning to think you have personal issues on this matter. I am in no way laughing about Child rape and you know that. I am laughing at your outlandish and baseless accusations against the Catholic Church. These are obviously coloured by personal views about the sensitive matter of child molestation.

    I have exhausted myself so I am sure you will find in all I have written what I think the church should do about these pedophiles and the matter in general.

    Why do I think you are not the first to refer to the Catholic church as organised crime? Why have people been saying these things? Because people will always say things CC. We are all adults I presume? Surely, we know that people will always say things. Every criticism you hear about anything has been said before. The inaccuracies are always louder than the truth. Repetition of untruths never make them true. A fabrication remains a fabrication. it just becomes old. Its the nature of the beast. Human nature. Nothing new.

  • yea, the celibacy thing is in the bible.

    but, there are priests who are married…those who have switched to catholicism from other christian churches.

    apparently, the “out-clause” is not in the king james version of the bible.

  • Sandra Smallson

    Eric you are so mistaken its not even funny. I am not even aware of Jesus saying teh church was his wife. I shall make sure I find out the reference and put it on here. Peter or paul or John..lol..one of the 4..said it is preferable for Priests men of teh cloth to be unmarried so that tehy will have no distractions but be able to devote their entire time to Christ. This is no fabrication. it is in teh Bible in plain English. THAT IS EXACTLY where the catholic church decided on teh celibacy of Priests from. Iam catholic so I SHOULD KNOW:) Pls note the word “preferable”. This is why teh church decided that its own Priests will vow to celibacy. Your claim is unheard of.

    As for the intermediary, I am right again and being catholic I also should know better why the catholics do that. Rather than what a non-catholic has criticised as a reason as to why catholics do that and you have chosen to tell me on here. It is precisely because Jesus said to teh apostles, whichever sins you forgive, I forgive. Did you not note in my post where I said it is not a requirement? It is preferable? It is not a strict rule? So, that criticism holds no weight at all.

    As far as the pedophiles, i have written at length about it and i am not going to do so again. My response to your post was about your claims on what the catholic church “added” that you could not understand, like they pulled it out of thin air. They did not. Any Catholic symbol or doctrine can be traced back to the Bible without doubt and thats a fact.

  • Al – is it just me or is green text on white background with holiday scheme death on the eyes?

    Sandra – Madonna and the Catholic Church are two hot buttons for you. Got it.

    As for the topic, IMHO Lauryn Hill was out of line. She wasn’t brought in to admonish the internal politics of the church, she should have ripped a page from Silent Night.

  • Eric Olsen

    The Biblical points are that it is purely a matter of voluntary preference for priests to be celibate and for the Church to act as mandatory intermediary, which the Church has conveniently chosen as its canon – these things aren’t Christian, they are Catholic.

  • Sandra Smallson

    I dont understand your point Eric. At this rate I dont need to. I have told you these things are in the Bible and are not catholic but Christian and in the Bible. You insist otherwise. Hopefully, one of us will find the passages and if I remember correctly the points I made were not complicated. One of those rare times where the biblical language was as simple as possible.

    TDavid, you are better off shutting up. How small is your you know what? Jesus! I think you will find that whatever point I am making, I make it as I want to make it. If you are intimidated by the way I make my point, you know who to see. Madonna and catholicism are hot topics for me? LOL..really, some people just have no idea. I’m sure if you wait long enough you will find some meek ladies on here who will say, yes sir, david, three bags full, sir.

    If you can’t handle a debate, dont join in. You made a point about lauryn Hill, but it was necessary to refer to me? Dont they advertise what you need in tabloids? You need to grow bigger balls amongst other things.

  • bhw

    However, the Catholic church operates on the Bible and like I said before, they can’t preach forgiveness in one breath and then proceed to ostracise the priests.

    You’re serious? The church doesn’t believe in — nor do you think they should believe in — society’s law and order? So if I’m a priest or a nun and I murder someone, the church thinks I shouldn’t go to jail if I say I’ve repented? Because the bible says we should forgive? Sorry, I don’t buy that line, not one bit. “Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s”….

    For you to generalise because of the publicised cases of certain parishes allowing alleged pedophoiles to continue preaching meaning that, the church straight through has a policy of covering up these imbeciles is totally wrong. What is the definition of a policy? It is impossible for the church to have such a policy and it does not.

    I’m not the one who’s wrong. From here:

    BOSTON — A lawyer for clergy sexual abuse victims said he has documented evidence the Vatican ordered Catholic Church officials in 1962 to keep charges against priests “a secret of the Holy Office” and not to notify law enforcement authorities.


    Attorneys for abuse victims have been trying to track down the Vatican paper for more than a year, Durso said. They first learned of it from references on the Vatican’s Web site. It is called “On the Manner of Proceeding in Cases of Solicitation,” and outlines orders telling religious supervisors to treat accusations of sexual abuse as a church secret.

    That kinda sounds like a policy to me.

    The church is a top-down organization, much like the military. It has rules and regulations and codes of behavior about everything, including how to keep illegal sexual solicitation by its clergy a church secret.

    Cover-ups don’t happen by accident; they happen by design. And the buck stops with the Pope, since he’s the top dog and makes official church policy.

  • LOL Sandra, whatever, try as you must but you cannot bait me on this one.

    I was teasing you there on your passionate commenting about this topic (and the other one). Maybe you should get your own blog and then talk to Eric about becoming a blogcritic and write posts in addition to your comments. You might get a little mileage out of your words, so to speak.

    With that said, if you want to get all nasty and rude with me, then join me on a topic I’m actually interested in (sorry, not Madonna and not the Catholic Church) and I’ll be glad to go toe to toe with you debating until long after the sun goes down. There’s like hundreds of other topics I’ve weighed in, so just pick any one of them.

    As for the size of my balls, the last time I looked you weren’t anywhere near my underwear, so how would you know? 😉

  • bhw

    Dear oh dear BHW. LOL. I mean, really. Catholics do not sit there and think the bread has actually turned to body and the wine blood. Geez! It is a belief. Just like we believe there is a Christ but we haven’t seen him. The same way they believe that the bread and wine they are taking is a symbol of the body and blood of Christ. This stems from the passover feast once again. Where they had bread and wine:) All, in the Bible. Its not an addition by the Catholic church. Oh crikey!

    I’m sorry to hear that you find your own religion’s doctrine’s so hilariously unbelievable. Catholics absolutely DO believe that the bread is changed to body and the wine to blood. You may not, but the priest on the alter DOES. It’s not symbolic, it’s a real transformation, according to the church. And it has nothing to do with Passover. Try the last supper and that bit about hanging on the cross.

    It’s called Transubstantiation [I was being sarcastic when I called it transmogrification earlier]. It is a FUNDAMENTAL doctrine of the Catholic Church. Read and learn.

    Someone wasn’t paying attention in CCD!

  • i’d comment, but my Stigmata is acting up…

  • LOL, BHW and Mark.

    There is just too much to say in answer to some of the ignorance and misinformation being presented to even begin. But yeah, either some student did not pay close attention in class or some CCD and history teachers did not do a very good job.

  • Sandra (#48), I have great respect for much Roman doctrine, but I’m afraid you’re sadly mistaken on a couple of things. Paul does not say that priests should be celibate at all. I suspect you’re thinking of 1 Cor 7, specifically verses 7 and 8, where Paul does say that he wishes all would remain single. That’s one of the most interesting passages in the New Testament, very important to keep in mind while exegeting Scripture, because Paul specifically switches back and forth between instructions that he says are his own, and instructions from God. The ones that are from him, identified with, “Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.” are exactly the ones in which he says the single life is better. Of course, even within that context he says, “But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.”

    Frankly, it is difficult for the Roman church to hold the hardline on this when they allow married priests in some cases, as they do. If you can convince a married Orthodox priest to convert to the Roman church, you’ll see what I mean.

    Since you’re claiming something can be found in Scripture that goes further than this, feel free to give the reference here. There isn’t one.

    Incidentally, while I note that you keep falling back on your membership in the Roman church as your basis of authority, you might actually be better off consulting a Lutheran. After all, ’twas Luther who brought many of these points to the attention of the church and the world and was excommunicated without a trial for his trouble.

    The passage on forgiving sins is another interesting one. It comes from Matthew 16 primarily. It is part of the passage on which the Roman church primarily bases their doctrine of Papal authority, because in verse 16 Peter correctly proclaims that Jesus is the Christ, and in verses 17 and 18 Jesus replies that He will build His church using language that some believe suggests that Peter is the foundation of that church. That Jesus goes on in verse 23 of the same chapter to refer to Peter as satan and tell him that he is a hindrance and does not have his mind set on things of God somehow doesn’t enter into the equation any more than does Paul’s later correction of Peter when Peter was embarrassed of us Gentiles.

    Still, that’s a side issue. The root question is whether or not that statement by Jesus somehow creates an entire organization of priests to stand in as intermediaries between us and God, in direct contradiction to many statements in the New Testament to the contrary, including Timothy’s description of one mediator between God and man, and various others.

    I’m tempted to stop there, allowing the clear and direct statement of Scripture to overshadow the stretching of a statement regarding sins into something entirely different, but I’ll say one more thing.

    Actually, re-reading your comment, I realize that you are basically quoting something else, John 20:23. My bad, Roman Catholics usually quote the other one. In this case, though, please note that this was post-Resurrection and pre-Ascension. Jesus breathed on the disciples present, told them to “receive the Holy Spirit,” and also told them that they could forgive sins. This had been a major point of His ministry on earth, and a big source of controversy with the religious leaders of His day. Now it was granted to 10 of the 12 disciples (one having hanged himself and Thomas being absent that day.) Is there any direct indication in Scripture that this same ability was in any way passed on from them to anyone else? If not (and there isn’t), should it not be considered something that goes along with the other statement of Jesus at the same time, “receive the Holy Spirit?” Considering that post-Acts 2, all believers are considered to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit, wouldn’t that mean that we all have the power to forgive sins?

    This view is backed up by Paul, who describes all believers as part of a royal priesthood, not just single men wearing cassocks. Another big point of Luther’s, incidentally.

    I haven’t read everything in detail, and there is plenty in this thread, but I suggest that future statements about the Scriptural basis of this belief or that doctrine ought to be accompanied by Scripture references demonstrating that this is in fact so.

    You see, that pesky Luther was one of many who made it possible for us all to read Scripture in our own languages rather than relying on single cassocked men who often couldn’t read Latin themselves (Latin being the only language in which Scripture was available at the time without going back to the original Hebrew and Greek). Now that we can read things for ourself, well, an awful lot of various Roman doctrines have fallen by the wayside. Some sadly persist, but usually without the claim that they are general Christian doctrines or that all Christians must necessarily agree.

    Also, in #51, is it really a good idea to take the Lord’s name in vain like that? He doesn’t put too many limits on speech overall, so feel free to swear in general, but please, ixnay the esusJay!

    bhw #54, I believe that the Roman view of transubstantiation is a bit more advanced than you give it credit for, though I still think it is incorrect. I debated this point recently with a Lutheran — their belief in the Real Presence is similar to but not the same as the Roman belief — and I just don’t buy any of it, but please give them a little more credit than that.

  • For the record, I’m an Episcopalian / Anglican, which means nothing by itself, but I’m also a recent convert to the church, and I’ve always been interested in the history of Christianity overall.

  • Eric Olsen

    Phillip, the Biblical neutron bomb.

  • Okay, I re-read all the comments, and I’ll add only this: Jesus tells a parable in Matthew 25 that involves Him as a bridegroom, makes a reference again in Mark 2:19 that is mirrored in Luke 5:34-35.

    Then of course there is the whole bit in Revelation about the marriage feast of the Lamb, and we the church as His bride, but I won’t even go into that. Suffice it to say that Eric isn’t completely pulling this stuff out of his butt!

  • Isn’t there something in the Bible about penis size and debating?

    No wait, that was Playboy. Damn!

  • Sorry, Eric. I just don’t like to see things blamed on Scripture that aren’t even there. Differing opinions over the significance or application of a passage are one thing, but this nonsense, eek. I’ve devoted my life to this stuff, and um, well, Luther was right.

    Except about Jewish people. He was wrong about that. And the Real Presence, that too. But most everything else. <grin>

  • by the way, i used ta be catholic…so i get to make jokes about Stigmata & stuff without going to hell.

  • Phillip – people have been (mis)interpreting the Bible’s message for years to mean all kinds of things that are debateable (one reason — the subjective nature — that I usually opt to stay away from these religious discussions).

    It doesn’t really surprise me that someone in our midst here would be following suit.

  • TDavid, sadly, Sandra’s misinterpretations aren’t even new, but leftovers from a time when many priests couldn’t even read the Bible for themselves, let alone the rest of us who weren’t allowed. I have a bit more respect for original heresies than warmed-up nonsense. But then again, nothing is new under the sun, and all new heresies are just the old ones all over again.

  • Sandra Smallson

    Phillip Winn, your post is actually the most interesting postso far. I have read your references and since I do not have my references on hand, I am happy to take yours. I am glad you made the correction regarding the intermediary deal. Like you said, this man Luther “allowed” others to now read teh Bible in the way people could understand rather than what teh Apostles may have meant. This is where I say interpretations. There must be something wrong with me because I dont see your post as disputing my posts necessarily:) You are supplying the references and giving your interpretations of them. I am giving my interpretations of them as I believe them to be and as teh catholic church believes them to be. The reason there is not one universal church is because everybody has their interpretations of what it is the apostles said.

    My posts are far too lengthy so I will forgive you missing a few words. i never said Paul said Priests should be celibate. I believe I said whoever said it, said it would be preferable. Ofcourse, I have paraphrased with teh word preferable but what you have posted is exactly what I said. I then added, taht teh Catholic church prefers for their Priests to be celibate. There are some catholic churches that are now taking in married priests. Modernisation? Perhaps, but does this not just go to prove my point that to generalise is uninformed at best and foolishh at worst. Condemnation of teh catholic church as a whole on some priests being pedophiles and not being dealt with in the way society demans they be dealt with is not a semnsible thing to do at all, no matter which way you look at it.

    You are pointing out contradictions in scripture? 🙂 I’m sure you could point out a thousand more if asked. The point remains that teh catholic church whether rightly or wrongly take their authority for teh confession doctrine from that very part of the scripture that deals with jesus encouraging teh Priests to absolve people of their sins and he would consider them absolved. Love the ixnay the esusjay bit. Just one of my of my multitude of sins.

    As for the wine into blood bit, what further argument can one put forward? LOL..or is it teh words that seem to eb causing the confusion. I repeat, just as we believe there is Jesus born of a virgin, yet we have never seen him. Its the same way catholics believe the bread and wine symbolism. Its a belief. A faith. It does not mean they claim they can actually see the wine turning into blood. Oh yah..the Last supper, not passover..thank you for your correction BHW. By teh way, you and natalie are part of teh problem. If you were a priest and she a nun, you would be both highly ranked in this organised crime institution. having all these issues and problems with your religion and still remaining with that faith? You do yourselves no credit. You are almost as bad as these priests who allegedly keep quiet over these child molestations. You should denounce teh catholic faith immediately. i should think you would find it appaling to be associated with such an institution. Shame on you both. You are not helping the problem, you are part of it. Just as an aside Natalie, your name might be a synonym for ignorance judging from your posts. You wouldn’t know “information” if you fell over it.

    Bhw: Let me know when they find this paper. They’ve been looking since when? I guess the Catholic church of today must pay for the sins of the catholic church of yesteryr just as the white man must pay for the sins of yester yr and the Germans must pay for the sins against jews of yestr yr. Honestly, forget CCD lessons, you need a refresher in common sense lessons.

  • Mark, you may escape hell, but not purgatory! You know, that’s right there in 2 John 2:1. Or was that 3 Peter? <grin>

  • bhw

    New topic: The Holy Spirit is neither Holy nor a spirit.


    Philip, can you explain what you mean by ” but please give them a little more credit than that” when talking about Transubstantiation? I’m asking honestly; I don’t know who “them” are and what I should give them more credit for.


  • but i went from catholic->atheist…so i basically “absolved myself”.

    the only remnants left are a strange & curious love of pleated, plaid skirts.

  • Sandra Smallson

    Phillip, are you 200 years old? I doubt it. So what you know about how the Priests interpreted the Bible back then is hearsay from research/reading. Same thing as what I know is hearsay from reading. Thats why religion is a BELIEF. It is not SCIENCE. It is not proof positive. I can’t prove there is a God to the scientologists, they can’t prove there is no God to me.

    So, you are in no position to call my interpretations..misinterpretations. I think your interpretations could be misinterpretations..certainly, they are YOUR interpretations. Most of all, your doubts are what I call a consequence of over education which sometimes tends to confuse simple things.

    Your school of thought is supposed original thinkers..my school of thought is the traditional apostles. You know no better than me and I know no better than you because neither of us met Jesus. Okay? Good.

    Tdavid: When I am trying to get your goat as they say, you will know it. I was simply telling you as it is. I’m sorry I did not get the joke, amybe some other time I’ll laugh. I am also sorry I can’t be bothered to go looking for you on blog critics and I am sorry that I have no desire to get ” mileage” for my words or join blogcritics.org or whatever it is you said. I am sure I will come across you at some point and if I feel the need to respond to something you have said, I will do so in precisely the same way I have done ever since I joined this place. If I think you are a little cuckoo, I’ll say so, if not, I wont. Meanwhile, I think we can both co-exist beautifully without you becoming a nuisance when I post on whatever topic. Okay? Enjoy.

  • If you’ve read my post and find any agreement with your own, you haven’t read well enough. Perhaps you were confused by the fact that I can spell three letter words correctly?

    You’d really choke on Luther’s 95 theses!

  • Sandra Smallson

    The non believers are making a dyslexic out of me. I am sure you are all kind enough to read what may be typed backwards as what it should be..e.g teh..eb..the..be..etc etc.

    Something I forgot to mention, how can you go from giving me the references to passages I refer to, to accusing me of putting things in the Bible that are not there? There is an old wives tale of what happens to people who have read the whole Bible? You seem to have read a fair bit of it..one is hoping the old wives were wrong..but….:)

  • Sandra Smallson

    Phillip, I did not say you were in agreement with me. I said you supplied references to the points I was making. I think you may have confused yourself with the amount of Bible passages you seem to have stored in your head. A cluttered head is a cluttered mind. Tut-tut! I think a re-reading of your own posts will assure you of what I have said. Ha ha..about the three letter word spellings..no, really, its funny.

  • There is an old wives tale of what happens to people who have read the whole Bible? You seem to have read a fair bit of it..one is hoping the old wives were wrong..but…

    I’ve never heard that. What is the old wive’s tale?

  • Sandra Smallson

    I am aware of Luther’s theses, and my excuse is my belief and faith in the Catholic church which is why I believe the Bible and everything it says. what is your excuse for regurgitating another man’s views and using them as authority? You are a poor man’s something..I dont know what or who..but a poor man’s something. Still, I am reluctant to say derogatory things about you, because I think your first post was interesting. Subsequent posts have betrayed you ofcourse, as you got carried away and struggled to feel amongst. It is a problem you face regularly in life, no doubt:) Okay, I’m off to sin..dazzle me on my return, please. Then again, ignore me if you like. I am fine either way:) I’m that sort of gal:)

  • Sandra Smallson

    Tom, it says if you read the whole Bible, you are likely to go mad. Insane.

  • Tom, it’s an old Roman tale, spread by the church to keep the people from actually reading Scripture for themselves. The alternative, of course, is to do as Sandra seems to have done, and read none of it, instead accepting the statements of the Roman church as authoritative on everything, even when they state the precise opposite of what Jesus or Paul or Timothy has plainly said.

  • Sandra, I’ve quoted Scripture, you’ve quoted nothing but your paraphrases of the official Roman canon. I mentioned Luther only because he had been brought up several times; I didn’t rely on him for anything.

    I’m pleased that you feel comfortable in ignoring all attacks on your beliefs, it’s just a shame that your beliefs are based on what your church tells you instead of on Scripture itself.

  • Sandra Smallson

    Is that all? I expected something better, greater..instead I get this damp squib? You should hang your head in shame. I am not dazzled in the slightest(yawn)

    Alright Phillip, now there’s a good boy, whatever gets you through the night. First of all. this is a problem that many of your kind face. I NEVER QUOTED any thing. I referred to passages in the Bible. I even stated that I had no references on hand but I knew/know for certain that they are in the Bible. You arrived with said references and even wrote some of them down. Wild accusations of people quoting/misquoting, interpreting/misinterpreting the Bible are par for the course when dealing with people like you who have studied the Bible. Its not always a bad trait but in your case it seems it may be.

    If you can see a difference in the relevance of the references you kindly provided as they pertain to my points and not in the differing interpretations/misinterpretations, whichever way you want to look at it thats really your palava. There is no difference Phillip. The difference b/w you and I is in the interpretation and like I said, I dont consider you or your knowledge an authority of any sort. I prefer to rely on the Bible and what I believe are the interpretations on my reading and thankfully go with the teachings of my faith. Which ofcourse, is exactly the reason IT IS my faith, because its interpretations sit well with me..Get it?! Probably not, but who cares…huh?:)

    If it makes you feel better to say Sandra is not quoting from scripture, even when Sandra quoted nothing, then go ahead. Sandra referred to scripture and you, apparently unwittingly, provided those references. Now, you keep quoting from scripture, I’m sure God is watching us all:)

    I damn well hope he is..I hope the Pope surfs this site, my belief in my faith will please them both I’m sure. Perhaps the good Lord can now go about answering some of my prayers. Take care Phillip and let me know that part of the Bible says a man will come and teach the world how to read the Bible. Enter, Mr Martin luther and cronies:)

  • bhw

    Its the same way catholics believe the bread and wine symbolism. Its a belief. A faith. It does not mean they claim they can actually see the wine turning into blood.

    No, the bread still looks and tastes like bread [or a wafer] and the wine still looks and tastes like wine. And yet the Catholic church says that the Transubstantiation has occurred. After consecration by a priest, it *is* the flesh and blood of Christ, not a *symbol* of his flesh and blood.

    “First of all, the holy council teaches and openly and plainly professes that after the consecration of bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is truly, really and substantially contained in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist under the appearance of those sensible things.”

    That’s what I was taught to believe, and that statement pretty much says it all to me. Jesus is contained, not symbolized, in the bread and wine. I’m not sure what you think happens when a priest consecrates the Eucharist, but this is what the church says. Check with your priest if you need to.

    Oh yah..the Last supper, not passover..thank you for your correction BHW.

    You say Old Testament, I say New. You say tomato, I say tomata. Oh heck, what’s the difference?

    If you were a priest and she a nun, you would be both highly ranked in this organised crime institution.

    I’d actually have to be a nun in priest’s garb, since women aren’t allowed to be Catholic priests.

    You are almost as bad as these priests who allegedly keep quiet over these child molestations.

    Ah, yes, I see how you might come to that conclusion: criticizing the mighty Catholic church is almost as bad as covering up the sexual assault of children and sending the offenders to new parishes to repeat their crimes.

    BTW, the priests didn’t “allegedly” keep quiet. They and their superiors did keep quiet. That would be why the Boston Archdiocese lost its most favored Cardinal Law and why it is now settling civil suits for approximately $80 million.

    You should denounce teh catholic faith immediately. i should think you would find it appaling to be associated with such an institution.

    Already have [long ago] and was, respectively.

    Bhw: Let me know when they find this paper.

    Check the news article again: they *found* the paper. Attorneys submitted it as evidence in July when they asked for a federal investigation and charges of obstruction of justice to be brought.

    I guess the Catholic church of today must pay for the sins of the catholic church of yesteryr just as the white man must pay for the sins of yester yr and the Germans must pay for the sins against jews of yestr yr.

    Yes, the Catholic church must pay today because many of the same people who allowed the pedophile priests to move from parish to parish are/were still alive and kickin’ [such as Cardinal Law]. The “wall of silence” was only recently broken because the victims are now adults and are willing to fight the Church. If they hadn’t spoken up, the practice of sweeping substantiated reports of sexual abuse by clergy under the rug would still be in place.

  • Pete Freans

    Ms Hill can say anything she wants. I really don’t know who she is, I don’t listen to her music, and I’m unclear why she is seen as some authority on this subject. Does anyone know if Ms. Hill is Catholic? Does she have an appreciation of our traditions, or has she had a crash course in Catholicism through the media (I.E., the Catholic Church is composed of mysogynists, racists, and pedophiles)? As a caucasian, do my opinions on issues affecting African-Americans have any weight? Or as a Catholic, does the Jewish clergy have an obligation to listen to my critiques of the Jewish Faith?

    I am disgusted at the behavior of Catholic priests, but I will not discard 2000 years of tradition because of human weakness. It will require much self-sacrifice by this Church to overcome it at a personal and institutional level. Our tradition, in case Ms Hill doesn’t know, is based in large part on our weaknesses and our human frailties. Ultimately our hope is that we can be closer to Christ in spirit and in action. I certainly don’t need a musician to point that out to me.

  • Jackie

    I just came across these postings and I must say, Sandra you are very ignorant. You obviously have been brain washed. You seem to but Catholics and Christians in two different category, I would like to know why. Also, you might want to do some research and find out how the Catholic Church was formed. Peter was sent to the Jews not to the Gentiles (as the romans are considered). Paul was sent to Rome and states that quite often in his letters. So how the Catholics end up with Peter being in Rome has been an age old question?? I understand how you can defend the Catholic Church, because I myself belonged to a cult and was not allowed to read any other literature other than that written by church leaders and today I read as voraciously as I can and I am soooo happy I do not live in this ignorance anymore. I can only pray for you that one day your eyes will be opened to see the “TRUTH” that no priest can forgive your sins, only God. That the Virgin Mary cannot save you or forgive your sins, and that 2000 years of TRADITION does not make a wrong right!

  • Pete Freans

    Nowhere, and I do repeat, NOWHERE does the Catholic tradition advocate child abuse. And any suggestion that it does is simply wrong. Most of these comments ultimately have nothing to do with the welfare of children. In other words, it has everything to do with “your faith is foolish, and let me count the ways.” I would suggest that people read Aquinas, Augustine, and Ignatius before firing off accusations that Catholics live in a fantasy land, or that we are to be pitied. There is a wealth of Catholic academic thought that speak of universal truths that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddists share. The Vatican library is filled with manuscripts of good and evil, by, you guessed it, human beings. Now if you don’t believe in anything, it is quite easy to criticise.

  • Jackie

    Can you expand on some of these “universal truths.” And of course an organization is not going to publish that they advocate child abuse, it something that is not written, just like a corporate culture. Each company that I have worked for has its own intangible corporate culture. In the same way the Catholic Church has an unpublished modus operandi that allows evil things to perpetuate because of tradition and because of an outward image that it tries to maintain. Some of these traditions are not necessarily right. For example In ITim 3:2 it says, “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
    Please do not tell me that the Bible is against men of the cloth marrying, where it clearly states here that they SHOULD be married. That is a Catholic Church tradition and NOT a Bible absolute. There are a alot of wrongs that have permeated the Catholic Church over the years which has been masked by rituals and pomp and circumtance to look good and Holy, but does not have the SUBSTANCE thereof!!!

    P.S. Although this has not hit the media…. you should investigate how many Priests have knocked boots with Nuns. My aunt grew up Catholic and went to a Catholic school and saw it quite frequently.

    I will quote myself again…

    …wrongs….masked by rituals and pomp and circumtance to look good and Holy, but does not have the SUBSTANCE thereof!!!

  • benjamin g

    what about the rise of Hitler the rise of Musolin, pedeofiles, governments destabilisation, Rwanda genocide, christmass/pagan celebrations, the aiding and abbeting of AIDS through refusal to accept condoms, the worshiping of a man instead of Jehova, guydom, control of governments, above the laws of countries, answerable to the Pope only. the Pope replases Jesus, iraq silence, to name but a few.

  • Pete Freans

    Should the Catholic Church abandon its charity work across this world? Should the Church close its schools which studies indisputably show have produced better prepared students academically than public schools? Should it dismantle its entire structure because of this scandal? What, pray, do you suggest is the answer? Maybe if we all publicly declare, “How stupid I have been all these years! Martin Luther was right afterall! Maybe the “The Matrix” has something to do with this?”, then will the fires quell?

    The only relevant answer, I will argue, will come from within our Church as it has for centuries past. And I look forward to the day when we can destroy this cancer entirely, and the Church can continue its work.

  • ruttfrack

    not to to change the subject ….just thought maybe this might shine a bit more light on the vaticans wall of silence about other issues…
    Take a look at the Holy See’s Financial Workings by Jonathan Levy, an attorney involved in efforts to force the Vatican Bank to return gold stolen by the Nazis to its rightful owners.
    also check….

    I’ve also looked into the authentication of Christianity and it doesn’t all seem to fit. Maybe someone could explain how it all works? You might want to check this out too:

  • rawlins

    Bravo Ms. Hill i felt those comments needed to be made, and to whoever wanted to know if she is that “ball-sy” in her own home…yeah she more than likely is (she’s a GEMINI) and she said herself that she is very outspoken and that her and her husband used to beef all the time.

  • jody1

    the vatican is a WHORE!!!

  • Eric Olsen

    the world is a vampire

  • Tom Cruise made a horrible Lestat.

  • Nancy

    Yeah, he did. I was SO repulsed by his role in IWAV – the last person I’d have cast as Lestat. Frank Langella, were he the right age – perfect. Argh. Brad Pitt wasn’t exactly a very good Louis, either. Casting in that (except for the kid, and I could understand why they couldn’t get someone the ‘right’ age – about 5 or 6 – for that role!) in general was suck city.

    BUT…I think Lauryn Hill is a hero. Good girl, for telling the truth where it needs to be told, and then some. The vatican reminds me of Jabba the Hutt: bloated, rotten, corrupt, ruthless.

  • I’m inclined to give Benedict a chance. The last guy just completely fell down on the job with the pedophile issues, but maybe the new guy will do better.

    Also, I was very pleasantly surprised with Cruise’s performance as Lestat.

  • Nancy

    Al, I’m not: remember, Bennie was the #2 guy in the vatican for the last 20+ years, and possibly the actual acting #1 during the last couple when JP2 was so sick. Bennie aka The Rat was the one who helped pull Law out of there when the feds were closing in on him for aiding & abetting, Bennie certainly knew what was going on & passed along any directives (if he didn’t issue them himself) concerning stonewalling any diocesan records, etc., & Bennie was the one authorized expenditures for legal countersuits, et al against the victims! Pretty sorry record. So no, I’m not inclined to give him the benefit of jack shit. He’s been in it up to his eyebrows all along as the head of the Office Of The Propagation Of The Faith, aka The Holy Inquisition…or didn’t you know?

  • Dr. Tristan, M.D.

    If only the pedophile priests who raped and assaulted our poor little children were subjected to HALF the public ridicule and scorn directed at Ms. Lauryn Hill for HER chastisement OF the Organized Crime Family (ie.-the Vatican and Catholic Church) that DID perpetuate, condone, and COVER-UP these sick malicious priests putrid behaviors ……….

    instead of condemning HER …!!!!

    She should be made a national Hero for her actions…!!!!!

  • Lestat and pedophile priests. Tom Cruise and Benedict XVI. This is a thread of religious diversity.

    Nancy, I understand your misgivings on Benedict and his papacy. I think, though, that one has to look at the position he was in under John Paul II. Ratzinger was the Church’s pit bull. That was the nature of the office he held. What I have seen emerge since he became Benedict XVI, is a more genteel, reasonable man. While he maintains the conservative hard line policies of his predecessor, I get the impression that we will find Benedict XVI a bit less rigid and perhaps a good choice for ‘interim’ Pope. The College of Cardinals was wise to select him after the reign of Wojtyla.

    The American electorate could actually learn something from this concept of ‘interim’ Pope. I’m a strong advocate in the election of an ‘interim’ President to succeed G.W. Bush.

    Insofar as IWAV is concerned, the only thing Cruise had in common with Lestat was androgyny. Cruise’s own sexual insecurities influenced his approach to being Lestat and ruined it for me. I would have preferred Sting, Christian Bale or Hugo Weaving.

  • Nancy

    Silas, you’re not getting my point: Ratzinger KNEW pederasty & pedophilia were going on, and did not stand up for the victims or what was right or moral. Instead, he was complicit in the coverups, bullying of victims, the whole 9 yeards. He had a chance – many chances – to speak up, to speak out – and he didn’t. He failed the entire point of his life & his calling, in the most miserable & abject, craven manner. The whole point of being a priest, a bishop, a cardinal, a pope, is to stand up & DEFEND the innocent & helpless, not help to cover it over, no matter who issues the orders. They are on oath to God & JC to be the shepherds of the flock – not to defend the shepherds & exploit the flock!

    No matter how ‘nice’ or reasonable he may seem, by helping to hide, by condoning coverups, he became complicit & an accessory to the crimes, just as much as Law, and/or anyone else who knew & did nothing or actively worked against justice for the victims.

    He should most certainly NOT have been ‘rewarded’ by becoming pope! That he was selected also argues as to the moral depravity & cynicism of his co-cardinals, who would have had to have been blind, deaf, dumb, & retarded not to be well aware of the scandal, & his likely activities therein. They, like he, were & are more concerned with the corporate image of the church & their own welfare, positions, & power, than in seeing justice & mercy done; in so doing, they are in direct violation & make a mockery of, everything they and their church purport to stand for, and what/who they claim to worship. Yet every day these men celebrate mass, take communion (a statement that one believes oneself to be in a state of grace & sinlessness!), & go on with their lives, when they ought to be, one and all, doing public penance, to say the least, on the behalf of the official church as well as themselves. Pharisees….

  • OK, I understand your point of view, Nancy. And, again, when demanding accountability from Church management on their role in covering up the pedophile scandals one has to take into account the local law enforcement and politicians. It infuriates me that the media doesn’t go there, especially in the Boston market. As liberal as the local media is perceived of being they are beholden to politicians and corporations along with 95% of the news media in this country. They say Boston is the birthplace of America’s liberty. It’s also the breeding ground of secrets and lies.

  • serenus


  • I didn’t read the comments, but this is exactly why Lauryn Hill is so rad.

    I kinda love her and always have.

    That is all.

  • Truth Still Stand

    If you know the history of the church, its been a history of brutality in order to control and gain power…. If Lauryn did any thing wrong, then God is wrong in his words to man. She stood up for the common law which is God’s law and confronted them in a way they are not used to. Who ever is uncomfortable with her actions is the reason why they continue to do the things they do. That was a direct message from God through his vessel. I have great respect for her for doing that…..it was fearless!
    “Whats done in the dark shall come to light”.