I'm Starting to Like This Pope

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

Facing scandal and division, U.S. Catholic bishops to hold unprecedented retreat

Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich, center left, with Pope Francis in Rome in 2015. (RNS/Rich Kalonick)

Vatican City — The Catholic bishops of the U.S. announced Oct. 23 that at the behest of Pope Francis they will meet for a weeklong retreat in Chicago in January.

The unprecedented move reflects the depth of the crisis they are facing with the sexual abuse scandal and the long-standing divisions within their ranks over the broader direction of American Catholicism.

The pope is even sending an elderly and revered Franciscan priest, the Rev. Raniero Cantalamessa, who holds the title of Preacher of the Papal Household, to lead the retreat — just as he does each year at Lent for the pontiff and the Roman Curia.

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, archbishop of Galveston-Houston and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a statement thanking Francis for sending Cantalamessa, who is 84 and rarely travels abroad, "to serve as the retreat director as we come together to pray on the intense matters before us."

DiNardo is currently in Rome along with other top leaders of the U.S. church, as well as more than 260 other bishops from around the world, for a monthlong meeting of global church leaders and several dozen young adults to discuss Catholicism's outreach to youth.

The discussions at this meeting, called a synod, are a hallmark of the Jesuit pope's preference for seeking reconciliation and solutions through common reflection and frank dialogues.

In fact, it was Francis who suggested that the entire U.S. hierarchy hold a collective retreat when DiNardo and other leaders met with him in the Vatican in September to ask for Francis' help amid a growing crisis.

Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich, who is also in Rome for the synod, will be the official host of the January retreat at Mundelein Seminary north of Chicago. He told Religion News Service in an interview Tuesday that Francis sent the bishops a letter asking them "to come together to reflect on the situation as pastors but also to find a deeper sense of our own unity with each other and with him."

Cupich, who is seen as a strong ally of Francis in the hierarchy, said he expects all active bishops and cardinals and many retired prelates, about 250 to 300 bishops in all, to attend the Jan. 2-8 retreat.

[…]

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

"Viganò/Ouellet" Intra-Thread Trackbacks: pg 80 / pg 80 / pg 80 / pg 81 / pg 81 / pg 81


Ex-papal envoy denounces ‘scourge of homosexuality’ in abuse crisis [Opinion]

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò speaks at a dinner honoring then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, at right, in May 2012. (CNS/PMS/Michael Rogel)

All this summer, combating wacky right-wing conspiracy theories felt like an endless game of whack-a-mole. Now, as the cool winds of autumn cause the red and orange leaves to rustle and fall to the ground, the generic has become the specific and discriminating journalists are called upon to play the game of Whack-a-Viganò.

You would have thought that the letter from Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the conservative prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, chastising Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and characterizing his previous testimonies as a "political frame job" might have caused the ex-nuncio to rethink his stance. Ouellet, appointed to his post by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010, had worked closely with Viganò and he was not conspicuous in his support for some of Pope Francis' reform efforts. His letter must have stung. It should have invited a reassessment by the Vatican's most famous crybaby. It did not.

Instead, Viganò has come out with a third "testimony" and the third time was not the charm. Viganò begins with his usual self-promotion, explaining that his is the voice of conscience and anti-corruption. He notes he is issuing this third epistle on the feast of the North American Martyrs and he clearly sees himself as the victim of persecution, as he did in the famous Vatileaks memos.

But Viganò also unintentionally reveals his true motives in this third screed in a way he did not previously. He writes:

I have been accused of creating confusion and division in the Church through my testimony. To those who believe such confusion and division were negligible prior to August 2018, perhaps such a claim is plausible. Most impartial observers, however, will have been aware of a longstanding excess of both, as is inevitable when the successor of Peter is negligent in exercising his principal mission, which is to confirm the brothers in the faith and in sound moral doctrine. When he then exacerbates the crisis by contradictory or perplexing statements about these doctrines, the confusion is worsened.

Therefore I spoke.

So, he spoke not because his concern for the victims of clergy sex abuse at long last got the better of him. He spoke because he didn't like the pope's approach to theology, especially moral theology. And Viganò clearly thinks he can and does stand in judgment of the pope. This, from the man who labeled Kentucky clerk Kim Davis a conscientious objector and presented her to the pope as such, even though it was obvious to all that Davis went to jail not because the government refused to let her perform her religious obligations but because she tried to force her religious obligations on others through the exercise of her civil office.

[…]


U.S. bishops, including then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick (third from right), celebrate the Eucharist in the crypt of St. Peter's Basilica during their January 2012 "ad limina" visits to the Vatican. (CNS/Paul Haring)

[…]

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

Pope wraps bishops’ summit saying Church under attack from ‘great accuser’

Pope Francis poses for a group photo with bishops and partecipants during the last day of the synod of bishops, at the Vatican, Saturday, Oct. 27, 2018. (Credit: Fabio Frustaci/ANSA via AP)

ROME — Closing a month-long gathering of bishops in Rome, Pope Francis on Saturday said the Catholic Church is under attack by the devil and urged bishops from around the world to defend the institution because “you don’t touch a mother.”

“Our mother, [the Church] is holy, but we the children are sinners,” he said. “Sinners, all of us. Let’s not forget this expression from the fathers [of the Church]: The Church is holy, the Mother is holy, with children who are sinners.”

“At this moment, [the devil] is accusing us very strongly,” the pope said. “And this accusation becomes persecution.”

This persecution can take the form of violence against Christians, as the one lived in regions in the Middle East, which was referenced before the pope’s remarks by Iraqi Cardinal Raphael Sako. But, Francis said, this persecution can take other shapes, “constant accusations, to dirty the Church.”

[…]

“The Church is not dirty,” the pope said. “The children are, but the mother isn’t. This is the moment to defend the mother with prayer. It’s a difficult moment, because through us, the great accuser wants to attack the mother. And you don’t touch a mother.”

Francis’s words came at the last day of deliberations of the Oct. 3-28 Synod of Bishops on young people, the faith and vocational discernment. The official closing of the gathering will take place on Sunday, as he says Mass in St. Peter’s Square.

His short, improvised remarks came around 8:00 p.m. in Rome after grueling day-long voting on the final document, which was approved with a comfortable majority and released shortly thereafter.

Francis said that he takes two things from the synod in his “heart.” The first was a reminder that the Synod of Bishops is not a “parliament,” and that what happens in it is “protected,” meaning not fully shared with the outside world, so that the “the Holy Spirit can act.”

Second, Francis said that the result of the synod is a “document” that might or might not have an impact outside of the synod hall, “but it must have an impact on us. It must work in us.”

The main audience for the document, the pontiff said, are the participants of the synod, who are now called to study it, pray on it, and allow the “Holy Spirit to work in our hearts.”

[…]

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

Pope Francis says it’s a ‘contradiction’ for a Christian to be an anti-Semite

This photo made with a fisheye lens shows people standing beside hundreds of bouquets of flowers stacked in front of the memorials for victims of the deadly shooting a week ago at the Tree of Life Synagogue after an outdoor service on Saturday,Nov. 3, 2018, in Pittsburgh. Eleven people were killed and six others injured in a shooting during services last Saturday. Credit: (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)

ROME — Following one of the most brutal attacks on the Jewish community in the history of the United States, Pope Francis condemned anti-Semitic attitudes “present in our own times” and stressed the importance of religious freedom and interreligious dialogue.

“As I have often repeated, a Christian cannot be an anti-Semite; we share the same roots. It would be a contradiction of faith and life,” the pope said during a Nov. 5 audience with delegates of the World Congress of Mountain Jews on their first ever visit to the Vatican.

“Rather, we are called to commit ourselves to ensure anti-Semitism is banned from the human community,” he added.

[…]

Pope Francis recalled his visit to Lithuania in September, where he prayed before a monument commemorating the many who lost their lives during the Holocaust. He also mentioned the raid of the Roman Ghetto during German occupation and the Kristallnacht, which the pope said destroyed places of worship in an effort to erase faith.

The effort to replace God with an “idolatry of power and the ideology of hatred,” underlines the importance of religious freedom, Francis said, which is “a supreme good to be safeguarded, a fundamental human right and a bulwark against the claims of totalitarianism.”

In order to fight anti-Semitism, the friendship between Jews and Christians must be strong, the pope said, something that can be achieved through dialogue. “In these times, we are called to promote and to expand interreligious dialogue for the sake of humanity,” Francis said.

“The Holocaust must be commemorated so that there will be a living memory of the past,” Francis said, “Without a living memory, there will be no future, for if the darkest pages of history do not teach us to avoid the same errors, human dignity will remain a dead letter.”

[Jocose]

[tuttle]

+JMJ+

Pope wraps bishops’ summit saying Church under attack from ‘great accuser’

Pope Francis poses for a group photo with bishops and partecipants during the last day of the synod of bishops, at the Vatican, Saturday, Oct. 27, 2018. (Credit: Fabio Frustaci/ANSA via AP)

ROME — Closing a month-long gathering of bishops in Rome, Pope Francis on Saturday said the Catholic Church is under attack by the devil and urged bishops from around the world to defend the institution because “you don’t touch a mother.”

“Our mother, [the Church] is holy, but we the children are sinners,” he said. “Sinners, all of us. Let’s not forget this expression from the fathers [of the Church]: The Church is holy, the Mother is holy, with children who are sinners.”

“At this moment, [the devil] is accusing us very strongly,” the pope said. “And this accusation becomes persecution.”

This persecution can take the form of violence against Christians, as the one lived in regions in the Middle East, which was referenced before the pope’s remarks by Iraqi Cardinal Raphael Sako. But, Francis said, this persecution can take other shapes, “constant accusations, to dirty the Church.”

[…]

“The Church is not dirty,” the pope said. “The children are, but the mother isn’t. This is the moment to defend the mother with prayer. It’s a difficult moment, because through us, the great accuser wants to attack the mother. And you don’t touch a mother.”

Francis’s words came at the last day of deliberations of the Oct. 3-28 Synod of Bishops on young people, the faith and vocational discernment. The official closing of the gathering will take place on Sunday, as he says Mass in St. Peter’s Square.

His short, improvised remarks came around 8:00 p.m. in Rome after grueling day-long voting on the final document, which was approved with a comfortable majority and released shortly thereafter.

Francis said that he takes two things from the synod in his “heart.” The first was a reminder that the Synod of Bishops is not a “parliament,” and that what happens in it is “protected,” meaning not fully shared with the outside world, so that the “the Holy Spirit can act.”

Second, Francis said that the result of the synod is a “document” that might or might not have an impact outside of the synod hall, “but it must have an impact on us. It must work in us.”

The main audience for the document, the pontiff said, are the participants of the synod, who are now called to study it, pray on it, and allow the “Holy Spirit to work in our hearts.”

[…]

What's the Pope aiming at here? The devil is accusing the church of what... sexual abuse or the collusion of the pope and the higher ups with covering up sexual abuse?

[hugodrax]

+JMJ+

Pope wraps bishops’ summit saying Church under attack from ‘great accuser’

Pope Francis poses for a group photo with bishops and partecipants during the last day of the synod of bishops, at the Vatican, Saturday, Oct. 27, 2018. (Credit: Fabio Frustaci/ANSA via AP)

ROME — Closing a month-long gathering of bishops in Rome, Pope Francis on Saturday said the Catholic Church is under attack by the devil and urged bishops from around the world to defend the institution because “you don’t touch a mother.”

“Our mother, [the Church] is holy, but we the children are sinners,” he said. “Sinners, all of us. Let’s not forget this expression from the fathers [of the Church]: The Church is holy, the Mother is holy, with children who are sinners.”

“At this moment, [the devil] is accusing us very strongly,” the pope said. “And this accusation becomes persecution.”

This persecution can take the form of violence against Christians, as the one lived in regions in the Middle East, which was referenced before the pope’s remarks by Iraqi Cardinal Raphael Sako. But, Francis said, this persecution can take other shapes, “constant accusations, to dirty the Church.”

[…]

“The Church is not dirty,” the pope said. “The children are, but the mother isn’t. This is the moment to defend the mother with prayer. It’s a difficult moment, because through us, the great accuser wants to attack the mother. And you don’t touch a mother.”

Francis’s words came at the last day of deliberations of the Oct. 3-28 Synod of Bishops on young people, the faith and vocational discernment. The official closing of the gathering will take place on Sunday, as he says Mass in St. Peter’s Square.

His short, improvised remarks came around 8:00 p.m. in Rome after grueling day-long voting on the final document, which was approved with a comfortable majority and released shortly thereafter.

Francis said that he takes two things from the synod in his “heart.” The first was a reminder that the Synod of Bishops is not a “parliament,” and that what happens in it is “protected,” meaning not fully shared with the outside world, so that the “the Holy Spirit can act.”

Second, Francis said that the result of the synod is a “document” that might or might not have an impact outside of the synod hall, “but it must have an impact on us. It must work in us.”

The main audience for the document, the pontiff said, are the participants of the synod, who are now called to study it, pray on it, and allow the “Holy Spirit to work in our hearts.”

[…]

What's the Pope aiming at here? The devil is accusing the church of what... sexual abuse or the collusion of the pope and the higher ups with covering up sexual abuse?

Wish I had an answer for you, but my papal translation button isn't infallible yet.

I took it to mean the Church is under attack because of the actions of the clergy (I'd add "and the faithful" knowing my own jacked up life) and that we should all be cognizant that our actions can lead to a further inroad for the Devil.

But man...I dont know if that's what he's saying or not. For all I know he's discussing the price of yerba mate in Argentina.

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

People unable to give have become slaves to possessions, pope says

Pope Francis meets Merina from the Macuxi tribe in Brazil during his general audience in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican Nov. 7. (CNS/Paul Haring)

Vatican City — Life is for loving, not amassing possessions, Pope Francis said.

In fact, the true meaning and purpose of wealth is to use it to lovingly serve others and promote human dignity, he said Nov. 7 during his weekly general audience.

The world is rich enough in resources to provide for the basic needs of everybody, the pope said. "And yet, many people live in scandalous poverty and resources — used without discernment — keep deteriorating. But there is just one world! There is one humanity."

"The riches of the world today are in the hands of a minority, of the few, and poverty — indeed, extreme poverty, and suffering — are for the many," he told those gathered in St. Peter's Square.

The pope continued his series of talks on the Ten Commandments, focusing on the command, "You shall not steal," which reflects respect for other people's property.

However, he said, Christians should also read the commandment in the light of faith and the church's social doctrine, which emphasizes the understanding that the goods of creation are destined for the whole human race.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the "primordial" universal destination of goods does not detract from people's right to private property, he said. However, the need to promote the common good also requires understanding and properly using private property.

"No one is the absolute master over resources," he said, which reflects the "positive and wider meaning of the commandment, 'Do not steal.' "

Owners are really administrators or stewards of goods, which are not to be regarded "as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself," the pope said, citing the catechism.

Being in possession of material goods brings with it much responsibility, the pope said.

[…]

[Nature of a Man]

+JMJ+

People unable to give have become slaves to possessions, pope says

Pope Francis meets Merina from the Macuxi tribe in Brazil during his general audience in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican Nov. 7. (CNS/Paul Haring)

Vatican City — Life is for loving, not amassing possessions, Pope Francis said.

In fact, the true meaning and purpose of wealth is to use it to lovingly serve others and promote human dignity, he said Nov. 7 during his weekly general audience.

The world is rich enough in resources to provide for the basic needs of everybody, the pope said. "And yet, many people live in scandalous poverty and resources — used without discernment — keep deteriorating. But there is just one world! There is one humanity."

"The riches of the world today are in the hands of a minority, of the few, and poverty — indeed, extreme poverty, and suffering — are for the many," he told those gathered in St. Peter's Square.

The pope continued his series of talks on the Ten Commandments, focusing on the command, "You shall not steal," which reflects respect for other people's property.

However, he said, Christians should also read the commandment in the light of faith and the church's social doctrine, which emphasizes the understanding that the goods of creation are destined for the whole human race.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the "primordial" universal destination of goods does not detract from people's right to private property, he said. However, the need to promote the common good also requires understanding and properly using private property.

"No one is the absolute master over resources," he said, which reflects the "positive and wider meaning of the commandment, 'Do not steal.' "

Owners are really administrators or stewards of goods, which are not to be regarded "as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself," the pope said, citing the catechism.

Being in possession of material goods brings with it much responsibility, the pope said.

[…]

I more or less agree with this principle - though I wish the pope would draw a distinction between genuine giving, and merely giving in an insincere way motivated by pride rather than generosity (such as the donations of gold by the Pharisees which Jesus mentioned).

As well as draw a distinction the genuinely "poor and needy", and the "impoverished or destitute" as a whole, which would include people who create their own poverty via immoral and selfish lifestyle choices, such as addiction to drugs, buying frivolous things. (This is independent of one's income level, since if a "wealthy" person invested most of their time and money into their addiction, they'd still be living a lifestyle akin to that of a homeless addicted person).

[tuttle]

The Pope is the Problem is the headline of this article.

Quoting the Washington Post:

The bishops of America’s 196 Catholic dioceses and archdioceses gathered in Baltimore on Monday morning, meeting for the first time since sexual abuse scandals rocked the church in the summer. They planned to vote on measures to tackle the crisis and prevent further crimes.

In the opening minutes of their meeting, the bishops heard a surprising report: Pope Francis had asked them not to vote on any of their proposals.

The pope does not want U.S. bishops to act to address bishops’ accountability on sexual abuse until he leads a worldwide meeting in February of church leaders, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, told the gathered bishops as the meeting opened Monday morning.

“At the insistence of the Holy See, we will not be voting on the two action items,” DiNardo said. He said he was “disappointed” by the pope’s directive.

Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, called the last-minute order from the Vatican “truly incredible.”

“What we see here is the Vatican again trying to suppress even modest progress by the U.S. bishops,” said Doyle, whose group compiles data on clergy abuse in the church. “We’re seeing where the problem lies, which is with the Vatican. The outcome of this meeting, at best, was going to be tepid and ineffectual, but now it’s actually going to be completely without substance.”

The author goes on to say this (among other negative things about the Pope): "Any illusions that Francis was part of the solution to this crisis should now be dispelled. He is the chief stonewaller."

I don't think the Pope is the problem...but he certainly isn't helping. Things like not allowing bishops to take action against the sexual abuse crisis don't really have that 'let's get this problem fixed immediately and without delay' ring to it.

[hugodrax]

The Pope is the Problem is the headline of this article.

Quoting the Washington Post:

The bishops of America’s 196 Catholic dioceses and archdioceses gathered in Baltimore on Monday morning, meeting for the first time since sexual abuse scandals rocked the church in the summer. They planned to vote on measures to tackle the crisis and prevent further crimes.

In the opening minutes of their meeting, the bishops heard a surprising report: Pope Francis had asked them not to vote on any of their proposals.

The pope does not want U.S. bishops to act to address bishops’ accountability on sexual abuse until he leads a worldwide meeting in February of church leaders, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, told the gathered bishops as the meeting opened Monday morning.

“At the insistence of the Holy See, we will not be voting on the two action items,” DiNardo said. He said he was “disappointed” by the pope’s directive.

Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, called the last-minute order from the Vatican “truly incredible.”

“What we see here is the Vatican again trying to suppress even modest progress by the U.S. bishops,” said Doyle, whose group compiles data on clergy abuse in the church. “We’re seeing where the problem lies, which is with the Vatican. The outcome of this meeting, at best, was going to be tepid and ineffectual, but now it’s actually going to be completely without substance.”

The author goes on to say this (among other negative things about the Pope): "Any illusions that Francis was part of the solution to this crisis should now be dispelled. He is the chief stonewaller."

I don't think the Pope is the problem...but he certainly isn't helping. Things like not allowing bishops to take action against the sexual abuse crisis don't really have that 'let's get this problem fixed immediately and without delay' ring to it.

Tuttle,

I’d be very suspect of anything you read in the Washington Post regarding Catholicism. They once ran a full page ad urging Catholics to leave the Church funded by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It was vicious. Coupled with their inflammatory editorial section, they had to specifically address The issue and deny that the Washington Post and/or its ownership and editorial board were anti-Catholic. They lost my subscription over it, and I usually have a pretty good sense of humor about those things.

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

Bishops' meeting bombshell: Vatican says no voting on abuse crisis [Opinion]

Bishops attend morning prayer Nov. 12 during the fall general assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Baltimore. (CNS/Bob Roller)

The plenary meeting of the Unites States Conference of Catholic Bishops opened with a bombshell. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, president of the conference, announced that the Holy See had insisted the U.S. bishops not vote on any concrete action items regarding the clergy sex abuse crisis, pending the February meeting of the presidents of all episcopal conferences that Pope Francis has announced.

[…]

… But, the obvious place to start finding an answer [regarding the Pope's last-minute intervention] came in the address delivered by Archbishop Christophe Pierre, the apostolic nuncio, immediately following the announcement. He did something too few bishops and other commentators have done, or even sought to do, this year: He placed the sex abuse crisis in the broader ecclesiological context. He began by saying:

Actually, the events of this past year, which we have lived and continue to experience, have been both challenging and sobering. With humility and apostolic courage, we must accept our responsibility as spiritual fathers, facing reality with the grace that comes from the Lord. The church is always in need of renewal for the sake of her saving mission of mediating the presence of Christ in the world and this is impossible unless we rebuild trust among the People of God, a task, which, looking to the future, demands time, effort, sacrifice and, most of all, true repentance and reform on our part.

"Our responsibility." "Impossible unless we rebuild trust." "True repentance and reform." He went on to quote from Pope Francis' programmatic apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium: "What makes obsolete structures pass away, what leads to a change of heart in Christians, is precisely missionary spirit."

The U.S. bishops' conference proposals were too narrowly focused on procedures and policies which might help police the crime of sex abuse but they did not get to the root of the problem, the clerical culture that led bishops to think more about their own reputations than about the welfare of children exposed to sexual predators.

As I noted this morning, there are two meta-narratives competing to become the overarching frame for the bishops' response to the sex abuse mess, the "blame the gays" narrative we saw at First Things and on EWTN in recent weeks, or the clerical culture narrative. Pierre clearly applied the latter:

We cry for the injustices perpetrated upon victims of abuse. We vow to fight a clerical culture that tolerates the abuse of authority. When abuse occurs, it is our sin and we must take it as such. These are not the sins of the media or the products of vast conspiracies. These are things we must recognize and fix. Our Holy Father has said it must end, and it must — not simply because he has said it, but because each of us in our hearts know that this is the only right thing to do.

He did not "blame the gays." He did not suggest that a failure to clearly articulate the church's sexual ethics was the problem. He did not echo the complaints and concerns, still less the technocratic and puritanical solutions, discussed at the conference on "Authentic Reform," that my colleague Heidi Schlumpf reported on. The problem is "a clerical culture that tolerates the abuse of authority." Punto.

[…]

The stakes for the February meeting have been raised. The bishops will now discuss what message they wish to have DiNardo convey at that meeting. People can complain that the bishops needed to do something this week, but if the problem is clerical culture, no one decision or set of decisions will remedy that problem. The bruised and bloodied body of Christ must hang on this particular cross of misguided episcopal leadership for awhile. Conversions usually do not happen in a moment. Many of our bishops have not ever been on the road to Damascus, only on the road to irrelevance and self-reference. They have not fallen from their horse, they have fallen from their pedestals, and not a moment too soon.

I am betting Francis grasps this, or most of it. He sees how the U.S. bishops have been corrupted by money, not in a petty way, but in a more troubling way, in which they are selected for leadership of the Christian community in large part because of their ability to raise money so as to preserve the institution and its immense, suffocating infrastructure, instead of for their missionary zeal. Those of us who hope the church can rise from its current ashes and sackcloth must also hope the pope understands how fed up the people of God are with this hierarchy and how confronting the negligence of bishops is for many of us a threshold concern: If he does not get this right in February, then people will no longer care to belong to this church.

[…]

[tuttle]

The Pope is the Problem is the headline of this article.

Quoting the Washington Post:

The bishops of America’s 196 Catholic dioceses and archdioceses gathered in Baltimore on Monday morning, meeting for the first time since sexual abuse scandals rocked the church in the summer. They planned to vote on measures to tackle the crisis and prevent further crimes.

In the opening minutes of their meeting, the bishops heard a surprising report: Pope Francis had asked them not to vote on any of their proposals.

The pope does not want U.S. bishops to act to address bishops’ accountability on sexual abuse until he leads a worldwide meeting in February of church leaders, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, told the gathered bishops as the meeting opened Monday morning.

“At the insistence of the Holy See, we will not be voting on the two action items,” DiNardo said. He said he was “disappointed” by the pope’s directive.

Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, called the last-minute order from the Vatican “truly incredible.”

“What we see here is the Vatican again trying to suppress even modest progress by the U.S. bishops,” said Doyle, whose group compiles data on clergy abuse in the church. “We’re seeing where the problem lies, which is with the Vatican. The outcome of this meeting, at best, was going to be tepid and ineffectual, but now it’s actually going to be completely without substance.”

The author goes on to say this (among other negative things about the Pope): "Any illusions that Francis was part of the solution to this crisis should now be dispelled. He is the chief stonewaller."

I don't think the Pope is the problem...but he certainly isn't helping. Things like not allowing bishops to take action against the sexual abuse crisis don't really have that 'let's get this problem fixed immediately and without delay' ring to it.

Tuttle,

I’d be very suspect of anything you read in the Washington Post regarding Catholicism. They once ran a full page ad urging Catholics to leave the Church funded by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It was vicious. Coupled with their inflammatory editorial section, they had to specifically address The issue and deny that the Washington Post and/or its ownership and editorial board were anti-Catholic. They lost my subscription over it, and I usually have a pretty good sense of humor about those things.

I hear ya. I really do. There are certain sites I'll see a story from and be leery, but this story is being reported by more than just the post. And to be fair that was just the paper the article I linked to quoted. How bout the WSJ? https://www.wsj.com/articles/vatican-b ... 1542043668

The point is that the vote was halted by the pope, not the source who reported it (unless the source reported it falsely). I linked to that specific article (from The American Conservative...no doubt it leans to the right...but that should be obvious) because I find the insight and commentary interesting from author (a former Catholic) who has been following all of this.

[hugodrax]

The Pope is the Problem is the headline of this article.

Quoting the Washington Post:

The bishops of America’s 196 Catholic dioceses and archdioceses gathered in Baltimore on Monday morning, meeting for the first time since sexual abuse scandals rocked the church in the summer. They planned to vote on measures to tackle the crisis and prevent further crimes.

In the opening minutes of their meeting, the bishops heard a surprising report: Pope Francis had asked them not to vote on any of their proposals.

The pope does not want U.S. bishops to act to address bishops’ accountability on sexual abuse until he leads a worldwide meeting in February of church leaders, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, told the gathered bishops as the meeting opened Monday morning.

“At the insistence of the Holy See, we will not be voting on the two action items,” DiNardo said. He said he was “disappointed” by the pope’s directive.

Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, called the last-minute order from the Vatican “truly incredible.”

“What we see here is the Vatican again trying to suppress even modest progress by the U.S. bishops,” said Doyle, whose group compiles data on clergy abuse in the church. “We’re seeing where the problem lies, which is with the Vatican. The outcome of this meeting, at best, was going to be tepid and ineffectual, but now it’s actually going to be completely without substance.”

The author goes on to say this (among other negative things about the Pope): "Any illusions that Francis was part of the solution to this crisis should now be dispelled. He is the chief stonewaller."

I don't think the Pope is the problem...but he certainly isn't helping. Things like not allowing bishops to take action against the sexual abuse crisis don't really have that 'let's get this problem fixed immediately and without delay' ring to it.

Tuttle,

I’d be very suspect of anything you read in the Washington Post regarding Catholicism. They once ran a full page ad urging Catholics to leave the Church funded by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It was vicious. Coupled with their inflammatory editorial section, they had to specifically address The issue and deny that the Washington Post and/or its ownership and editorial board were anti-Catholic. They lost my subscription over it, and I usually have a pretty good sense of humor about those things.

I hear ya. I really do. There are certain sites I'll see a story from and be leery, but this story is being reported by more than just the post. And to be fair that was just the paper the article I linked to quoted. How bout the WSJ? https://www.wsj.com/articles/vatican-b ... 1542043668

The point is that the vote was halted by the pope, not the source who reported it (unless the source reported it falsely). I linked to that specific article (from The American Conservative...no doubt it leans to the right...but that should be obvious) because I find the insight and commentary interesting from author (a former Catholic) who has been following all of this.

Glad you’re reading around. There’s a lot of bunkum being written these days on every conceivable subject. Unfortunately the WSJ article is paywalled for me so I couldn’t read it. I’m suspicious in general of the press these days because it all just seems to have an ax to grind.

But I want to make it clear that I might have an ax to grind, too. I don’t know what’s going on anymore than the next guy and I want things fixed. I live in Pittsburgh—the diocese that got into the hottest water since Boston. Twice. I have a Bishop that forced a second collection plate last week to give to the synagogue. Wrap your mind around that one. Hey, do you spit upon His Most Holy Name and utterly deny His divinity, mocking those who believe? Here, have some of our parishioner’s money to rebuild your synagogue. We want to make sure you can spread your message that He is not risen. Some of the money that we’re also spending on criminal defense because we were diddling our parishioner’s kids.

I’m angry, but I don’t want a deflection of that anger, if that makes sense. We have some good bishops and some bad bishops, but right now my finger is pointing squarely at the Bishops as the ones that cocked this one up. The Bishops that, when they wrote the zero tolerance policy, specifically exempted themselves. I’m not saying the Pope is right and I’m not saying he’s wrong. But I will say I wouldn’t put the bishops in charge of their own investigations. They had that chance and they blew it.

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

Bishops must be blameless servants, not princes, pope says

Pope Francis celebrates the Eucharist during morning Mass in the chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae at the Vatican Nov. 12. (Credit: CNS photo/Vatican Media)

ROME — A bishop must be “blameless” and at the service of God, not of cliques, assets and power, especially if he is ever to “set right” what needs to be done for the Church, Pope Francis said.

A bishop must always “correct himself and ask himself, ‘Am I a steward of God or a businessman?’” the pope said in his homily during Mass in the Domus Sanctae Marthae Nov. 12, the feast of St. Josaphat, 17th-century bishop and martyr.

The pope’s homily looked at the day’s first reading from St. Paul’s Letter to Titus (1:1-9) describing the qualities and role of a bishop.

The apostle underlines how a bishop must be a steward or “administrator of God, not of assets, power and cliques,” the pope said.

Most of all, he said, a bishop must be “blameless,” the same quality God asked of Abraham when he said, “walk in my presence and be blameless.” It is a quality that is the cornerstone of every leader, he added.

According to the apostle, a bishop must not be licentious, rebellious, arrogant, irritable, a drunkard, greedy or obsessed with money. A bishop with even just one of these defects, the pope said, is “a calamity for the Church.”

A bishop must be hospitable, temperate, just and holy; he must have self-control, love the good and be faithful to the Word, to the true message as it was taught, the apostle says.

If this is what a bishop should be, the pope said, then “would it be wonderful to ask these questions at the beginning, when inquiries are made to elect bishops? To know whether one may keep going with other inquiries?”

Above all, the pope said, a bishop “must be humble, meek and a servant, not a prince.”

This is “the word of God” that comes from the time of St. Paul and isn’t something recent from the Second Vatican Council, the pope added.

[…]

[Del]

The Pope is the Problem is the headline of this article.

Quoting the Washington Post:

The bishops of America’s 196 Catholic dioceses and archdioceses gathered in Baltimore on Monday morning, meeting for the first time since sexual abuse scandals rocked the church in the summer. They planned to vote on measures to tackle the crisis and prevent further crimes.

In the opening minutes of their meeting, the bishops heard a surprising report: Pope Francis had asked them not to vote on any of their proposals.

The pope does not want U.S. bishops to act to address bishops’ accountability on sexual abuse until he leads a worldwide meeting in February of church leaders, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, told the gathered bishops as the meeting opened Monday morning.

“At the insistence of the Holy See, we will not be voting on the two action items,” DiNardo said. He said he was “disappointed” by the pope’s directive.

Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, called the last-minute order from the Vatican “truly incredible.”

“What we see here is the Vatican again trying to suppress even modest progress by the U.S. bishops,” said Doyle, whose group compiles data on clergy abuse in the church. “We’re seeing where the problem lies, which is with the Vatican. The outcome of this meeting, at best, was going to be tepid and ineffectual, but now it’s actually going to be completely without substance.”

The author goes on to say this (among other negative things about the Pope): "Any illusions that Francis was part of the solution to this crisis should now be dispelled. He is the chief stonewaller."

I don't think the Pope is the problem...but he certainly isn't helping. Things like not allowing bishops to take action against the sexual abuse crisis don't really have that 'let's get this problem fixed immediately and without delay' ring to it.

Tuttle,

I’d be very suspect of anything you read in the Washington Post regarding Catholicism. They once ran a full page ad urging Catholics to leave the Church funded by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It was vicious. Coupled with their inflammatory editorial section, they had to specifically address The issue and deny that the Washington Post and/or its ownership and editorial board were anti-Catholic. They lost my subscription over it, and I usually have a pretty good sense of humor about those things.

The link is to an article by Rod Dreher ("The Benedict Option"). It launches with the quoted excerpt from WaPo... but then he compiles an assortment of reactions from more reliable sources.

But I concur.... Do not trust WaPo alone as a reliable source. Even in the excerpt above, WaPo tries to make it sound like a new wave of child abuse has been revealed. We have actually discovered a network of gay priests and bishops.

[tuttle]

The Pope is the Problem is the headline of this article.

Quoting the Washington Post:

The bishops of America’s 196 Catholic dioceses and archdioceses gathered in Baltimore on Monday morning, meeting for the first time since sexual abuse scandals rocked the church in the summer. They planned to vote on measures to tackle the crisis and prevent further crimes.

In the opening minutes of their meeting, the bishops heard a surprising report: Pope Francis had asked them not to vote on any of their proposals.

The pope does not want U.S. bishops to act to address bishops’ accountability on sexual abuse until he leads a worldwide meeting in February of church leaders, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, told the gathered bishops as the meeting opened Monday morning.

“At the insistence of the Holy See, we will not be voting on the two action items,” DiNardo said. He said he was “disappointed” by the pope’s directive.

Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, called the last-minute order from the Vatican “truly incredible.”

“What we see here is the Vatican again trying to suppress even modest progress by the U.S. bishops,” said Doyle, whose group compiles data on clergy abuse in the church. “We’re seeing where the problem lies, which is with the Vatican. The outcome of this meeting, at best, was going to be tepid and ineffectual, but now it’s actually going to be completely without substance.”

The author goes on to say this (among other negative things about the Pope): "Any illusions that Francis was part of the solution to this crisis should now be dispelled. He is the chief stonewaller."

I don't think the Pope is the problem...but he certainly isn't helping. Things like not allowing bishops to take action against the sexual abuse crisis don't really have that 'let's get this problem fixed immediately and without delay' ring to it.

Tuttle,

I’d be very suspect of anything you read in the Washington Post regarding Catholicism. They once ran a full page ad urging Catholics to leave the Church funded by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It was vicious. Coupled with their inflammatory editorial section, they had to specifically address The issue and deny that the Washington Post and/or its ownership and editorial board were anti-Catholic. They lost my subscription over it, and I usually have a pretty good sense of humor about those things.

I hear ya. I really do. There are certain sites I'll see a story from and be leery, but this story is being reported by more than just the post. And to be fair that was just the paper the article I linked to quoted. How bout the WSJ? https://www.wsj.com/articles/vatican-b ... 1542043668

The point is that the vote was halted by the pope, not the source who reported it (unless the source reported it falsely). I linked to that specific article (from The American Conservative...no doubt it leans to the right...but that should be obvious) because I find the insight and commentary interesting from author (a former Catholic) who has been following all of this.

Glad you’re reading around. There’s a lot of bunkum being written these days on every conceivable subject. Unfortunately the WSJ article is paywalled for me so I couldn’t read it. I’m suspicious in general of the press these days because it all just seems to have an ax to grind.

But I want to make it clear that I might have an ax to grind, too. I don’t know what’s going on anymore than the next guy and I want things fixed. I live in Pittsburgh—the diocese that got into the hottest water since Boston. Twice. I have a Bishop that forced a second collection plate last week to give to the synagogue. Wrap your mind around that one. Hey, do you spit upon His Most Holy Name and utterly deny His divinity, mocking those who believe? Here, have some of our parishioner’s money to rebuild your synagogue. We want to make sure you can spread your message that He is not risen. Some of the money that we’re also spending on criminal defense because we were diddling our parishioner’s kids.

I’m angry, but I don’t want a deflection of that anger, if that makes sense. We have some good bishops and some bad bishops, but right now my finger is pointing squarely at the Bishops as the ones that cocked this one up. The Bishops that, when they wrote the zero tolerance policy, specifically exempted themselves. I’m not saying the Pope is right and I’m not saying he’s wrong. But I will say I wouldn’t put the bishops in charge of their own investigations. They had that chance and they blew it.

Thanks for your transparency and honesty. I feel for you and pray God guides you through this.

[tuttle]

The Pope is the Problem is the headline of this article.

Quoting the Washington Post:

The bishops of America’s 196 Catholic dioceses and archdioceses gathered in Baltimore on Monday morning, meeting for the first time since sexual abuse scandals rocked the church in the summer. They planned to vote on measures to tackle the crisis and prevent further crimes.

In the opening minutes of their meeting, the bishops heard a surprising report: Pope Francis had asked them not to vote on any of their proposals.

The pope does not want U.S. bishops to act to address bishops’ accountability on sexual abuse until he leads a worldwide meeting in February of church leaders, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, told the gathered bishops as the meeting opened Monday morning.

“At the insistence of the Holy See, we will not be voting on the two action items,” DiNardo said. He said he was “disappointed” by the pope’s directive.

Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, called the last-minute order from the Vatican “truly incredible.”

“What we see here is the Vatican again trying to suppress even modest progress by the U.S. bishops,” said Doyle, whose group compiles data on clergy abuse in the church. “We’re seeing where the problem lies, which is with the Vatican. The outcome of this meeting, at best, was going to be tepid and ineffectual, but now it’s actually going to be completely without substance.”

The author goes on to say this (among other negative things about the Pope): "Any illusions that Francis was part of the solution to this crisis should now be dispelled. He is the chief stonewaller."

I don't think the Pope is the problem...but he certainly isn't helping. Things like not allowing bishops to take action against the sexual abuse crisis don't really have that 'let's get this problem fixed immediately and without delay' ring to it.

Tuttle,

I’d be very suspect of anything you read in the Washington Post regarding Catholicism. They once ran a full page ad urging Catholics to leave the Church funded by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It was vicious. Coupled with their inflammatory editorial section, they had to specifically address The issue and deny that the Washington Post and/or its ownership and editorial board were anti-Catholic. They lost my subscription over it, and I usually have a pretty good sense of humor about those things.

The link is to an article by Rod Dreher ("The Benedict Option"). It launches with the quoted excerpt from WaPo... but then he compiles an assortment of reactions from more reliable sources.

But I concur.... Do not trust WaPo alone as a reliable source. Even in the excerpt above, WaPo tries to make it sound like a new wave of child abuse has been revealed. We have actually discovered a network of gay priests and bishops.

That's one of the reasons I've been following Dreher on this. First, if he has a bias, it's known. He's up front with why he left the RC for EO, and you can tell he still loves the RC. But more to the point, while he pulls no punches for the pope, I think he's pinpointed exactly the reason for the scandal and why it's been covered up (by that I mean the real evidence of cover up, not just conjecture), and that's why you've mentioned, a network of gay priests and bishops.

[hugodrax]

The Pope is the Problem is the headline of this article.

Quoting the Washington Post:

The bishops of America’s 196 Catholic dioceses and archdioceses gathered in Baltimore on Monday morning, meeting for the first time since sexual abuse scandals rocked the church in the summer. They planned to vote on measures to tackle the crisis and prevent further crimes.

In the opening minutes of their meeting, the bishops heard a surprising report: Pope Francis had asked them not to vote on any of their proposals.

The pope does not want U.S. bishops to act to address bishops’ accountability on sexual abuse until he leads a worldwide meeting in February of church leaders, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, told the gathered bishops as the meeting opened Monday morning.

“At the insistence of the Holy See, we will not be voting on the two action items,” DiNardo said. He said he was “disappointed” by the pope’s directive.

Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, called the last-minute order from the Vatican “truly incredible.”

“What we see here is the Vatican again trying to suppress even modest progress by the U.S. bishops,” said Doyle, whose group compiles data on clergy abuse in the church. “We’re seeing where the problem lies, which is with the Vatican. The outcome of this meeting, at best, was going to be tepid and ineffectual, but now it’s actually going to be completely without substance.”

The author goes on to say this (among other negative things about the Pope): "Any illusions that Francis was part of the solution to this crisis should now be dispelled. He is the chief stonewaller."

I don't think the Pope is the problem...but he certainly isn't helping. Things like not allowing bishops to take action against the sexual abuse crisis don't really have that 'let's get this problem fixed immediately and without delay' ring to it.

Tuttle,

I’d be very suspect of anything you read in the Washington Post regarding Catholicism. They once ran a full page ad urging Catholics to leave the Church funded by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It was vicious. Coupled with their inflammatory editorial section, they had to specifically address The issue and deny that the Washington Post and/or its ownership and editorial board were anti-Catholic. They lost my subscription over it, and I usually have a pretty good sense of humor about those things.

I hear ya. I really do. There are certain sites I'll see a story from and be leery, but this story is being reported by more than just the post. And to be fair that was just the paper the article I linked to quoted. How bout the WSJ? https://www.wsj.com/articles/vatican-b ... 1542043668

The point is that the vote was halted by the pope, not the source who reported it (unless the source reported it falsely). I linked to that specific article (from The American Conservative...no doubt it leans to the right...but that should be obvious) because I find the insight and commentary interesting from author (a former Catholic) who has been following all of this.

Glad you’re reading around. There’s a lot of bunkum being written these days on every conceivable subject. Unfortunately the WSJ article is paywalled for me so I couldn’t read it. I’m suspicious in general of the press these days because it all just seems to have an ax to grind.

But I want to make it clear that I might have an ax to grind, too. I don’t know what’s going on anymore than the next guy and I want things fixed. I live in Pittsburgh—the diocese that got into the hottest water since Boston. Twice. I have a Bishop that forced a second collection plate last week to give to the synagogue. Wrap your mind around that one. Hey, do you spit upon His Most Holy Name and utterly deny His divinity, mocking those who believe? Here, have some of our parishioner’s money to rebuild your synagogue. We want to make sure you can spread your message that He is not risen. Some of the money that we’re also spending on criminal defense because we were diddling our parishioner’s kids.

I’m angry, but I don’t want a deflection of that anger, if that makes sense. We have some good bishops and some bad bishops, but right now my finger is pointing squarely at the Bishops as the ones that cocked this one up. The Bishops that, when they wrote the zero tolerance policy, specifically exempted themselves. I’m not saying the Pope is right and I’m not saying he’s wrong. But I will say I wouldn’t put the bishops in charge of their own investigations. They had that chance and they blew it.

Thanks for your transparency and honesty. I feel for you and pray God guides you through this.

I doubt that you intended to give me a good hearty laugh this morning, but I thank you for it nevertheless. Has modern Christianity really devolved into the language of group therapy?

[tuttle]

The Pope is the Problem is the headline of this article.

Quoting the Washington Post:

The bishops of America’s 196 Catholic dioceses and archdioceses gathered in Baltimore on Monday morning, meeting for the first time since sexual abuse scandals rocked the church in the summer. They planned to vote on measures to tackle the crisis and prevent further crimes.

In the opening minutes of their meeting, the bishops heard a surprising report: Pope Francis had asked them not to vote on any of their proposals.

The pope does not want U.S. bishops to act to address bishops’ accountability on sexual abuse until he leads a worldwide meeting in February of church leaders, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, told the gathered bishops as the meeting opened Monday morning.

“At the insistence of the Holy See, we will not be voting on the two action items,” DiNardo said. He said he was “disappointed” by the pope’s directive.

Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, called the last-minute order from the Vatican “truly incredible.”

“What we see here is the Vatican again trying to suppress even modest progress by the U.S. bishops,” said Doyle, whose group compiles data on clergy abuse in the church. “We’re seeing where the problem lies, which is with the Vatican. The outcome of this meeting, at best, was going to be tepid and ineffectual, but now it’s actually going to be completely without substance.”

The author goes on to say this (among other negative things about the Pope): "Any illusions that Francis was part of the solution to this crisis should now be dispelled. He is the chief stonewaller."

I don't think the Pope is the problem...but he certainly isn't helping. Things like not allowing bishops to take action against the sexual abuse crisis don't really have that 'let's get this problem fixed immediately and without delay' ring to it.

Tuttle,

I’d be very suspect of anything you read in the Washington Post regarding Catholicism. They once ran a full page ad urging Catholics to leave the Church funded by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It was vicious. Coupled with their inflammatory editorial section, they had to specifically address The issue and deny that the Washington Post and/or its ownership and editorial board were anti-Catholic. They lost my subscription over it, and I usually have a pretty good sense of humor about those things.

I hear ya. I really do. There are certain sites I'll see a story from and be leery, but this story is being reported by more than just the post. And to be fair that was just the paper the article I linked to quoted. How bout the WSJ? https://www.wsj.com/articles/vatican-b ... 1542043668

The point is that the vote was halted by the pope, not the source who reported it (unless the source reported it falsely). I linked to that specific article (from The American Conservative...no doubt it leans to the right...but that should be obvious) because I find the insight and commentary interesting from author (a former Catholic) who has been following all of this.

Glad you’re reading around. There’s a lot of bunkum being written these days on every conceivable subject. Unfortunately the WSJ article is paywalled for me so I couldn’t read it. I’m suspicious in general of the press these days because it all just seems to have an ax to grind.

But I want to make it clear that I might have an ax to grind, too. I don’t know what’s going on anymore than the next guy and I want things fixed. I live in Pittsburgh—the diocese that got into the hottest water since Boston. Twice. I have a Bishop that forced a second collection plate last week to give to the synagogue. Wrap your mind around that one. Hey, do you spit upon His Most Holy Name and utterly deny His divinity, mocking those who believe? Here, have some of our parishioner’s money to rebuild your synagogue. We want to make sure you can spread your message that He is not risen. Some of the money that we’re also spending on criminal defense because we were diddling our parishioner’s kids.

I’m angry, but I don’t want a deflection of that anger, if that makes sense. We have some good bishops and some bad bishops, but right now my finger is pointing squarely at the Bishops as the ones that cocked this one up. The Bishops that, when they wrote the zero tolerance policy, specifically exempted themselves. I’m not saying the Pope is right and I’m not saying he’s wrong. But I will say I wouldn’t put the bishops in charge of their own investigations. They had that chance and they blew it.

Thanks for your transparency and honesty. I feel for you and pray God guides you through this.

I doubt that you intended to give me a good hearty laugh this morning, but I thank you for it nevertheless. Has modern Christianity really devolved into the language of group therapy?

Ha! Sadly, probably, yes.

But I only put it that way because I wanted to make sure I was being read as genuine rather than a smartass, which is a high possibility considering I'm playing for the other team while discussing some crazy, horrible, sinful stuff. I don't ever want to come off as gloating or smug when I'm in the middle of this discussion. I really do appreciate you revealing what you did because you didn't have to. It helps me be more specific in prayer.