Priest removes gay couple from volunteer posts in Lewistown Catholic church

[trotsky]

On Aug. 6, four days after the Rev. Samuel Spiering arrived as the new administrator of St. Leo the Great Catholic Church in Lewistown, he met with parishioner Paul Huff to ask him if he and his partner, Tom Wojtowick, had gotten married.

After Huff confirmed the fact, the priest asked to meet with the two men the next day. At that second meeting, Spiering dismissed the pair from their volunteer posts in the church and told them they could no longer receive Communion, a sacrament at the core of a believer’s faith.

...

“As a Catholic bishop I have a responsibility to uphold our teaching of marriage between one man and one woman,” Warfel said. “And I think there’s very solid scriptural teaching on it and our sacred tradition is very strong on it.

...

“Everyone is welcome to the journey of conversion,” Warfel said. “But there are certain convictions, beliefs or behaviors that are in direct contradiction to what we believe and teach, and this would be one of them.”

Full story here.

[MADem]

1. Why should Rev. Spiering give a shit? If the Pope says "Who are we to judge?" I don't

quite see why this assclown thinks he's the one to be doing any judging, here.

I'm glad the parishoners are raising cain over this.

[Goblinmonger]

4. He said "who are we to judge"

but he didn't say they got to have any rights, sacraments, or support if they are acting on their homosexuality.

And he said that about gay priests. Not the common folk.

[MADem]

5. I looked at what Frank said, and it sounded to me like his version of DADT.

He couldn't get his "Congress" (the College of Cardinals) to play ball, he didn't want to be poisoned, so he staked out an interim position to put a successor in a position to kick the ball into the goal.

He's been telling priests to stop fucking around with who's doing what to whom, and focus more on serving the population. Thus, his baptism of all those "illegitimate" babies, his washing the feet of that "Muslim WOMAN!!!!" and his taking away of perks and big houses from those fat-bellied bishops and cardinals, etc.

[trotsky]

6. No, if you look at the context of when he said "who am I to judge"...

which you can find right here, you will see that it was specifically about the so-called gay "lobby" within the Vatican, i.e. priests.

The other important part of the context is his full quote: "If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge that person?"

What this actually means is: "If a person is gay but does not engage in a homosexual relationship, thus complying with Catholic teachings while denying their own intrinsic sexuality, then who am I to judge that person?"

[MADem]

7. We are going to have to agree to disagree.

I think he knows full well what's possible under his imprimatur, and what's not.

You're the one "interpreting" for the Pope, here. I'm not going to presume that he meant more or less than what he actually said, that being, "If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge that person?"

Seek the Lord?

Have good will?

I'm not judging...


That's how it came across to me. Nothing about who is zooming who in that sentence at all....

[LiberalAndProud]

8. If we limit his words to what is said, then, the priest did the right thing

according to current Catholic doctrine. Would that be an accurate statement?

[MADem]

10. No. If he's following the lead of the Pope, he's sticking his beak in where it doesn't belong.

I'd say someone who volunteers for the church is a person of good will. Obviously, many of the parishoners agreed with the volunteers, and not this "new guy" priest who is dividing the parish.

[LiberalAndProud]

11. Do you think the priest is interpreting the Pope's words differently,

willfully interfering with the Pope's intent, or some other motive?

[MADem]

15. I think he's doing the opposite of what the Pope said to do, because he's a busybody little shithead

and that's probably the reason why the poor people of a small town in Montana got stuck with him.


I'd have a look at his history--I would not be surprised if he was a hated troublemaker at other parishes, and the squabbling little misfit has been squeezed like a pimple until he pops at other locations at well. There's probably a parish or three in his past that has been THRILLED to see the back of him. He may well be a beneficiary of "Fuck Up, Move Up."

My take is this tone deaf idiot doesn't work or play well with others--he's a rigid martinet who doesn't really give a shit about "serving" the parishoners. They should put his ass in a skid-row ministry running a feeding center. That might help him put his priorities in order--can't turn anyone away for not being "up to snuff" in those environments.

I looked this little shit up, on edit--he was ordained in LATE 2012, and he has already burned through at least one parish (Sacred Heart, Miles City, MT). and his title at this latest gig is "administrator." Doesn't sound to me like they have much confidence in this little turd's leadership talents.

[LiberalAndProud]

18. Examining the priest's history might be difficult.

It is possible that what you suspect may be true.

[MADem]

19. I just did! See edit, above.

He's been in the "priest game" for under two years and he's already got a parish in the rear-view mirror. HIGHLY suggestive of "Does not work or play well with others."

I think he's one of those fuck up/move up types that they pass around and force others to suffer with.

He needs to go to a skid row ministry, sooner rather than later. That'll get his shit correct.

Ahhh, but wait, on edit yet again... there's MORE! The little shit spent some time "judging" people who are allowed to get annulments (in truth, that's a cash game--if you have money, you can get one, but he was a deputy in that process, so he didn't have anything near final say, but may have gotten an idea in his pin-head that he had something to do with canonical "law" by association with the tribunal--see http://diocesegfb.org/tribunal-services_343.html and http://diocesegfb.org/tribunal_303.html ).

[LiberalAndProud]

20. Do you have links? Would be interested.

Also, I'm a PK. Having a short tenure at one parish doesn't necessarily reflect on the quality of the priest. This much I know.

[MADem]

23. I keep editing while you're replying, sorry! Look up to my last post, and here's another

link as well:

His old parish: http://home.catholicweb.com/sacredheartmc/index.cfm/NewsItem?ID=58880&From=About


Himself as a recent seminary grad: http://www.catholicfoundationmt.org/Harvest%20Articles/October%20Harvest%202012%20Page%209,%20Time%20to%20Celebrate%20Seminarian%20Education.pdf

He's the little shit in the middle in the pic to the right.

[LiberalAndProud]

31. I'm still reviewing your links.

Does Rev. Spiering continue to serve as Deputy Defender of the Bond?

The reverend may be all of those things you named him to be. It is possible that he doesn't have the support of the church hierarchy. I will try to stay tuned, as Rug advised.

[MADem]

33. Not sure--hard to know if they're good (or not) on web page updates!

It just seems to me that they'd let a newbie get his feet on the ground someplace before shipping him off to new digs--and he didn't even get a promotion at the new joint, either.

He might be one of those shit-stirrers who goes looking for an argument and likes to wrap people up with an over-reliance on rules and regs (which was the paradigm for previous Popes, this one, though, not-so-much, I'm guessing). He wasn't in the parish a WEEK before he pulled this stunt, and got the bishop to back him up. What's up with that, I wonder? The bishop goes along with Newbie's scuzzy, opposed-by-the-parishioners decision - making process without so much as a by-your-leave? Hmm.

Maybe the church is a drain on resources and they want to close/sell it? One way to do that is to deal a death blow to the income stream by doing stuff to piss off the regular givers...?

I'll try not to edit after-the-fact this time!! Thanks for being patient with me!

[LiberalAndProud]

34. ... got the bishop to back him up ...

Should we examine the bishop's motives as well?

We do agree that one should probably reconsider donating to a parish that takes social stands we find repugnant, but that is a double-edged sword for the church. I tend to think that scripture and tradition may well prevent the reconfiguration this congregation was trying to achieve.

[MADem]

36. Wouldn't be a bad idea--this guy was there for less than a week before he lowered the boom.

He had to be pretty confident (or pretty obtuse, hard to know) that he'd get the thumbs-up from the big(ger) boss. For all we know there might have been prior consultation...heck, this fresh young just-outta-seminary priest could be the bishop's hit man, running around firing people who aren't "pure" enough to suit!!!

It will be interesting to see how many parishioners--and their checkbooks--stay away, and what the future of the diocese might be as a consequence.

[LiberalAndProud]

38. ...

:nodding thoughtfully as I read your post:

[Raster]

28. DING! Winner!

"I think he's doing the opposite of what the Pope said to do, because he's a busybody little shithead"

[okasha]

41. I agree this idiot needs a large dose of reality.

I think the best place for him would be in a large inner-city parish/ministry with one or more senior priests who can teach him what "pastor" means.

[trotsky]

46. What do you suppose the odds are of that happening?

Do you think he will face discipline from the church hierarchy?

[rug]

12. Stay tuned.

Ever since he announced the extraordinary session of the synod of bishops last year, the Argentinian pontiff has raised the hopes of many liberals that the church may ease its ban on divorced and remarried Catholics receiving holy communion – a move that could affect millions of people around the world.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12215267

The rationale to withhold Communion from Catholics who remarry without an annulment of the prior marriage is that they are openly living in sin. That is the same rationale for withholding Communion from Catholics who are living in a same sex relationship.

If remarried straight Catholics will be admitted to Communion, gay Catholics will as well.

And then Fr. Spiering can go fuck himself.

[LiberalAndProud]

14. That's interesting.

I see he's getting pushback on many fronts.

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/566513/20140917/pope-francis-virgin-mary-trinity-church-christ.htm

[rug]

21. That's utter drivel.

IBT is recycling this story from these assholes. Really shoddy reporting, from content to source.

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=24994

I suspect he was talking about the notion of Mary as a CoRedemptrix which has been floating around for centuries, going nowhere. And that has nothing to do with a "second Trinity".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix

Either way, that has nothing to do with the synod.

[LiberalAndProud]

22. I didn't give it much credence either.

My takeaway from the article is that it is difficult to change the status of women in the church, even if you're Pope. Maybe I got the wrong impression.

[Raster]

29. I am NOT a Catholic, however, if Communion is the act of becoming One with the Christ...

...then what right or authority does ANYONE have interfering with or attempting to negate that sacred interaction? Seriously, how can any human claim to represent the Deity when some of their actions are specific to interfere with another's relationship with God?

[rug]

39. It's also a communion with other humans at the same time.

Many churches offer open Communion, notably the Lutherans and Episcopalians. The RCC presently holds that, to share communion with others of the congregation, one should hold the same belief about the Eucharist, that after Consecration it is the essential body and bloof of Jesus (though not in its physical attributes). Many don't believe that and others believe it is simply a symbolic memorial. It does allow communion with other churches that have the same belief about the Eucharist, namely the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Ill believe it when i see it.

Say, do you hold the same, 'go fuck himself' opinion of Francis himself? Mr. 'same sex marriage is a move by the father of lies' himself?

Spiering hurt one couple. Francis, a whole nation of them.

[rug]

43. Not in the least. They're two different species.

I could probably extract stray comments from you a decade ago and point.

It's too bad you don't see the difference.

[trotsky]

13. You can believe what you want.

But nothing has changed with the RCC. Homosexuality is still "intrinsically disordered" according to official church teaching. Wonderpope Frank could change that instantly if he wanted to - but he hasn't.

You're interpreting his words to mean he thinks being gay and in a relationship is A-OK - but he didn't say that.

[MADem]

16. A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

I knew where DADT was going the second it was issued, I knew it wasn't "the answer" but I could see where it was going.

I think Frank has taken that single step. On many fronts, not simply the issue of gays in the Catholic Church.

[trotsky]

17. As pope, he could move those thousand miles in just one step.

He has that power and authority.

But he doesn't use it. He hasn't changed one single thing about the official church teachings or policy - as we can see with incidents like the one described in this thread continuing to this day.

[MADem]

24. You go nowhere if you go it alone.

He's got to pull a bunch of intolerant assholes with him. It's not an easy game he's playing.

There's a reason why that rumor that JP The First was "offed" persists.

[trotsky]

25. Actually, the church has to go where he goes.

He's the pope. That's how it works.

[MADem]

26. It didn't go where JP the First went, though, did it?

If you take my meaning.

[trotsky]

27. Are you suggesting that everyone else at the Vatican is basically a mobster?

Who will murder popes they won't like?

[MADem]

30. Haven't you been following the news out of Vatican City, lately?

There's valid reason to question the 'sacred' vocations of some in that crew. Note I said 'some'--I don't go for broad-brushing. At no time did I ever suggest that "everyone else at the Vatican is basically a mobster."

Of course, it only takes a few.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/17/italian-police-probe-vatican-mafia-links-in-teen-s-disappearance-30-years-ago.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/vatican-mafia-enrico-de-pedis-ugo-poletti-2012-4


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/9323288/Prosecutors-investigate-Vatican-Bank-mafia-link.html

[trotsky]

32. Are you suggesting these "few" would assassinate the pope?

So basically a "few" bishops or whatever are the ones who REALLY run the church, the pope can only do what they allow or else they'll whack him?

[MADem]

35. Just because a few people might take it upon themselves to act in a criminal fashion

doesn't mean that they are REALLY "running" anything, never mind the church.

A guy who robs a bank doesn't suddenly acquire the title of "teller" or "bank president" by committing a crime, after all.

But if you've lived in Italy (and I have, for many, many years) you understand very clearly that there are elements in that society that are criminal, that are well-developed, and that do form alliances with a variety of people and organizations for the purposes of enhancing/enriching their criminal enterprises. They can, and do, co-opt agents of government, law enforcement, and other public entities.

It's not a surprise, and it is something that anyone "going against the grain" has to be prudent about, and take precautions against.

[trotsky]

37. No, that seems to be exactly what you're saying.

That if Frank took any action too drastic or too progressive, this "shadow" Vatican would have him murdered.

Clearly that means they are the ones who really run the RCC, and not the pope, since he answers to them. With his life.

Which makes the RCC look even worse.

[MADem]

40. No, I'm not. Not "this shadow Vatican." I don't know how I can possibly make it clearer, but do let

me try:

In any organization, there are bad actors. They aren't "controllers" but they sometimes think that their way is the only option. These people aren't in charge of anything, but they are crazy and ruthless. They might WANT to be in charge, but they keep getting thwarted by younger people with newer, fresher ideas, along with a few wiser old ones like this new Pope who understands that if the Vatican were to be branded by an ad agency, their theme would have to be "CHANGE...or DIE."

Eventually, speaking of change, those jerks will die off--just like the Latin Mass and No Meat on Friday crowd has done. It'll be a tough row to hoe for the acolytes of these fundies to stick with the bullshit they've been shopped. I doubt they believe it either, they're just grinning and bowing to get ahead, because some of these jerks are in power. Their power and trappings are being constrained (see Law, Above The, Recently Retired Cardinal who got an earful from Frank, along with that clown in Germany who got his mansion yanked out from under him as just two examples).

And then there's this: http://www.towleroad.com/2014/09/pope-francis-to-exile-anti-gay-conservative-cardinal-raymond-burke-video.html

[trotsky]

45. Oh, you've made it quite clear.

According to you, there are unnamed but powerful individuals who actually set the agenda for the Vatican. They do so through the threat of violence - specifically, harm to the current pope - should he attempt to disrupt the status quo. This is exactly your claim.

[MADem]

47. That's quite the opposite of what I actually said, but do go on with your bad self!

[trotsky]

50. It's good that your claim is now the opposite of what you claimed earlier.

And that you no longer believe there are individuals who would potentially assassinate the pope (a la JP the first) if he made too many changes.

Which brings us back to the question, though, of why Pope Frank isn't following through with actual changes? If there is, as you now admit, no evil cabal preventing him from doing so...?

[MADem]

52. You need to just stop doing what you are doing--it is disruptive and OBVIOUS, and I am pointing it

out.

My comments were quite clear, yet you insist on trying to twist them.

Says a lot about you. None of it terribly recommending, either.

Snark will just get you a reputation. And not a good one, either.

If you want to know Frank's strategy, you'll have to ring him up and ask him. Given how you aggressively and quite blatantly and shamelessly misrepresent what people (like me) say, I wouldn't hold out hope of getting much in the way of an audience.

[trotsky]

54. What exactly did I misrepresent?

When you said, in post #26:

It didn't go where JP the First went, though, did it?

If you take my meaning.

What is your meaning? Do you think an individual or group assassinated him?

[MADem]

55. The man ended up DEAD, that was my meaning.

So, it didn't go where he went, did it?

And you can read as well as the next person--try reading what I write the first time, so I don't have to repeat myself.

[trotsky]

56. So again, what does that mean?

Your statement came in response to me asking why Frank doesn't just take the church in the direction he allegedly wants to go. Your response says that JP I tried but ended up dead. To me, that implies the same thing would happen to Frank. That he would die.

Why are those two things linked? (Changing the church, and dying?) Why did you link them?

[MADem]

64. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218153332#post63

[Goblinmonger]

57. "If you get my meaning"

which means that you don't feel he died from natural causes and instead someone killed him because he was making too many changes that they didn't like.

You aren't alone believing that. But at least own it. And when someone wants to discuss how that might either be silly or it might mean that Francis really has no power, you need to actually keep a consistent point of view in the argument. If you get my meaning.

[MADem]

60. You can read what I wrote as well as the next person. Why you choose not to is curious.

Are you taking on the goad role, while your pal takes on bait?

I specifically took pains to characterize that death as rumour, but I guess you were too busy playing "gotcha" games to read that bit, is that it?

Here is my point, made Very Simple Indeed:

Italy and The Vatican are not immune to the environments that surround them. Those environments include criminal elements who have intersected with Vatican interests in the past. This does NOT -- for anyone obtuse enough to not take the point the first few times I made it -- mean that there is an "organized conspiracy" afoot. All it takes is ONE disgruntled asshole. Just one.

Now, do you get my meaning...or are you STILL "confused?"

[trotsky]

62. "All it takes is ONE disgruntled asshole."

So are you saying that the new pope doesn't want to change things for fear of being assassinated by one disgruntled asshole somewhere?

[MADem]

63. Nope, not saying that, either.

You're in goad/bait mode, and I'm tired of your misrepresentations, misstatements, and deliberate obfuscations.

Go on and play gotcha with someone else, mmmkay?

[trotsky]

65. I'm sorry that your position on this is so inconsistent and that you don't like it pointed out.

You apparently simultaneously believe and do not believe that John Paul I was assassinated for being too progressive.

You apparently simultaneously believe and do not believe that the latest pope cannot take the church in a progressive direction for fear of suffering the same fate.

Rather than actually address these inconsistencies, you have ratcheted up personal attacks on me and blamed others for simply not understanding you - while offering up nothing to further explain your position. That's OK, I can take it, but I think my behavior on this thread has been decidedly more civil than yours.

Take care.

[MADem]

66. I'm sorry you're not having any luck playing the game you so anxiously want to play.

Not really, though.

Take care, yourself. And next time, take time to read what people actually say, and don't put words in their mouths. You'll do better if you don't a) Assume or b) Try to finish off a comment with a "So then that means you are saying" blurb to suit your own biases.

And I haven't "personally attacked" you--not once. Though you've made plenty of insinuations about me. Polish that mirror--that reflection is YOU.

[trotsky]

72. I am sorry to have angered you.

I accept full responsibility for the actions and words that upset you so much.

For the record, I am still unsure if you think JP I was assassinated or died of natural causes. I am also unsure whether you think the current pope might be assassinated if he tried to change too much about the RCC. Whatever other things you need to accuse me of, please feel free. But those items do remain unresolved.

[MADem]

73. I am not angered and I've not "accused" you of anything.

Your actions are right here, in this thread, for all to see.

I am not in the business of predicting the future. I think it's prudent to be cautious in any country where crime and corruption are rampant. Those two statements are what they are--don't pull strings or read any more into them than what I said.

[trotsky]

74. So, just to clear up any remaining confusion on my part...

Do you believe John Paul I was assassinated? Yes or no. I don't want to read into anything you've said, I just want that yes or no answer. Thanks much in advance.

[MADem]

76. I have no idea what the answer is to that question.

I guess, for the third time, I will have to reiterate the word "rumour" that I have used only twice before in this over-long conversation.

rumour (ˈru ː mə ) or rumor
n
1.
a. information, often a mixture of truth and untruth, passed around verbally
b. (in combination): a rumour-monger.
2. gossip or hearsay
3. din or clamour
4. fame or reputation
vb
5. (tr; usually passive) to pass around or circulate in the form of a rumour: it is rumoured that the Queen is coming.
6. to make or cause to make a murmuring noise
[C14: via Old French from Latin rūmor common talk; related to Old Norse rymja to roar, Sanskrit rāut he cries]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

[trotsky]

79. If it's a rumor, and if you don't believe it...

then why repeat it? By doing so you could be slandering completely innocent people.

[MADem]

80. There you go AGAIN.

I don't know the answer

is NOT the same as

I don't believe it.


Or, even

I do believe it.


If someone brings me proof either way, I can have a basis for a decision. It's a rumour. That's all it is. It's been repeated often enough, though, that's why it's a rumour that has persisted down the years, and not just a one-off wild-ass speculation.

What "innocent people" are being slandered? No particular "innocent person" has been either NAMED, or ACCUSED of anything, here. You're mounting a defense for a non-existent entity, perhaps to continue the argument?

You just showed everyone how you take a comment and "add" your little twist to it. It's an ugly practice. Stop inferring. You're incorrect when you do, at least in this conversation.

[trotsky]

81. Wow. All I did was ask for clarification.

You seem to have worked your way into an untenable position, and rather than just acknowledge it, you're lashing out at me. I will only note that you are now ordering me to "stop inferring" when you where the one who told me to start inferring in the first place. "If you get my meaning."

Whatever, I'll leave you alone now. Sorry to have bothered you so much. Please feel free to get your last word in, and say whatever you need to about me that will help you feel better.

[MADem]

82. No, you did not "ask for clarification."

You postulated that I might not believe the rumour, and then doubled down with an insinuation that I was "slandering completely innocent people" (people who can only reside in your imagination, because I named no people). The person in the "untenable position" of goading and baiting me is YOU, I'm afrraid.

Let's memorialize exactly what you said, now:

If it's a rumor, and if you don't believe it...

then why repeat it? By doing so you could be slandering completely innocent people.

I didn't tell you to "start interfering," either--that's your mind inventing scenarios, again.

I really do hope you will leave me alone--all you've done up to now is make assumptions about what I've said or meant, engaged in relentless word/meaning twisting, and refused to take what are simple observations at face value.

And as for your last sentence, check your mirror--again. Maybe you should stop making assumptions about what others say or mean, and you'll have more productive discussions as a consequence.

[Goblinmonger]

48. You're not really helping make the RCC look better here.

If what you say is true, then who cares what Francis thinks, or wants, or does. It isn't going to matter. If he makes changes that these people you refer to don't like, they are going to "off" him. "If you get my meaning."

Of course when that was pointed out to you, your "meaning" changed. But clearly you are saying that popes that make changes that a small number of people don't like get killed.

[MADem]

49. Why would you think I have appointed myself as their advocate?

I'm just calling it as I see it. I am not trying to make them "look better."

If you seriously think that the Mafia/Camorra/Ndrangheta/Cosa Nostra doesn't have DEEP influence 'on the boot'--to include the Vatican and national and local governments, you're whistling in the dark.

And my "meaning" didn't change. Again, I'm not a spokesman for that organization, which has had brushes with criminality as a consequence of individuals

taking actions within that enterprise, some in the recent past.

Read the papers, keep up with the news--you'll see. Stop trying to characterize me as something I am not, because it doesn't do anything for you. Here, let me get you started:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/14/prosecutor-pope-faces-mafia-threat/

ROME (CNN) - Pope Francis' crusade against corruption in the Catholic Church, including an overhaul of the scandal-scarred Vatican Bank, has put the new pontiff in the Italian mafia's crosshairs, according to two organized crime experts.

"The strong will of Pope Francis, aiming to disrupt the gangrene power centers, puts him at risk. He disturbs the mafia very much," Nicola Gratteri, a top anti-mafia prosecutor in Italy, told CNN on Thursday.

"I don't have precise information about a plan of the mafia against Pope Francis," Gratteri continued. "But if I did, I wouldn't say."

Gratteri, a deputy prosecutor in Reggio Calabria, a city in southern Italy, is a well-known foe of Calabria's notorious mafia, known as 'Ndrangheta....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3029390a-5c68-11e3-931e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3E3mPtJdQ

On June 28 this year, Italian police arrested a silver-haired priest, Monsignor Nunzio Scarano, in Rome. The cleric, nicknamed Monsignor Cinquecento after the €500 bills he habitually carried around with him, was charged with fraud and corruption, together with a former secret service agent and a ­financial broker. All three were suspected of attempting to smuggle €20m by private plane across the border from Switzerland.
Prosecutors alleged that the priest, a former banker, was using the Institute for Religious Works – the formal name for the Vatican’s bank – to move money for businessmen based in the Naples region, widely regarded in Italy as a haven of organised crime. Worse still, Scarano (who, together with the other men, has denied any wrongdoing) had until only a month earlier been head of the accounting department at the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See, the treasury of the Vatican.


The arrest, and the headlines that screamed across the Italian press, was the latest shock for the Holy See. The year had already witnessed an emotional upheaval in the church with the resignation in February of the aged Pope Benedict XVI – the first time in 700 years a pope had stepped down voluntarily. But this new crisis demanded cold, hard resolve. For regulators and politicians in Europe who had pushed for change in the Vatican’s scandal-plagued bank over the previous four years – from the Bank of Italy under Mario Draghi to officials in Mario Monti’s government and in Brussels – it served as evidence of their concerns. Those worries also jolted a number of international financiers determined to press for reform....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/cardinals-who-oppose-vatican-change-on-marriage-have-strong-irish-connections-1.1936941

Traditionalists in Rome’s College of Cardinals have decided to get their revenge in first, so to speak, prior to the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops which begins in Rome on October 5th.
The five men concerned include heavy-hitters such as German cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), and Irish American cardinal Raymond Burke, prefect of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature. Both will be taking part in the Extraordinary Synod.
Involved too are Cardinal Carlo Caffarra of Bologna, Italy, Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, former president of the Vatican’s Committee for Historical Sciences, and Cardinal Velasio De Paolis, former president of the Vatican’s Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See. All contributed essays to the book Remaining With Christ’s Truth, to be published on October 1st.....

[Goblinmonger]

67. This is all about finding out why Francis really doesn't do something.

You, and others, think it is awesome what Francis is saying. There are those of us less impressed that think he is just a PR machine and really isn't changing anything at all. That was brought up to you. To which you replied that if he moved too fast he might get killed. I think that is a fair summarization of your position. When it was then pointed out that that makes Francis basically powerless and those that would kill him holding the actual, power, you shifted and said that wasn't the case. I think that is fair as well. Now you are saying it is just the action of some few individuals (though the article you provide says the Italian mafia is looking at him which seems to be more than just random individuals and a pretty powerful organization, but I'll ignore that for now). Which, now, means to me that Francis doesn't do anything because if he did, he is afraid a random individual might kill him.

So that's the reason he isn't making change?

Or is it that the "individuals" you are speaking of are actually pretty organized and powerful. Which brings us back to the initial response to you which is "so that shadow organization holds the power and not the Pope." For you to act like I'm not the one getting it is pretty silly.

[MADem]

69. You are putting words in my mouth. Why?

You, and others, think it is awesome what Francis is saying.

Please point to where I said "Gee, I think it is awesome what Francis is saying!" (Giggle giddy?)

You need to just STOP applying intent and motive to what are simple observations and NOTHING more. You're getting it wrong and it doesn't make you look good at all.

Your "summarization" (I'm guessing you mean "summation?&quot is neither fair nor accurate. You have decided--though I've told you otherwise--that I am an advocate. I am not. I'm an observer who is very familiar with the culture of Italy--and it's a culture where anyone who doesn't watch their back--with or without conspiracies, or "organizations that hold the power" (in your mind, not mine) --is not just a fool, they're a damn fool. That's a first world country with a very high crime rate, particularly in the major metropolitan centers, and the crimes are usually crimes against persons, from theft on up.

Have a nice day. This gets more pointless with each exchange. Not sure why you persist in your assumptions and string-pulling, but I can't make it my problem any longer. It's just a waste of time.

[Warren Stupidity]

77. He's just being polite. The words fell out of your mouth, so he put them back.

[MADem]

78. Well, not really. In fact, not at all. But thanks for playing, I guess. nt

[rug]

83. It fell out of somewhere but not where you think. Or from whom.

[rug]

53. That's all right. There are a lot more posters in this thread not helping skepticism look better.

[Goblinmonger]

58. Yeah. I don't see that.

Of course when one is busy contorting themselves into a pretzel rather than have a rational discussion from a consistent point-of-view, it might look differently. Or if you are a straight up apologist for the RCC, it might look different. If you get my meaning.

[rug]

59. I'm not surprised.

[MADem]

61. You, apparently, were unable to get mine.

And you're proud of it, too.

You should know that's not a particular achievement. If you get my meaning.

[Goblinmonger]

68. Oh, I got it.

I got all three of your positions. They just don't make any logical sense together. Apparently me and others pointing that out makes us "not getters." Or something.

[MADem]

70. No--you got all three of YOUR (assumed and invented) positions.

You kept trying to put words in my mouth, I objected, and that annoyed you.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

2. See?

This is why church attendance/membership ts falling off!

[cap]

3. Ummm ... The Catholic Church includes prison ministries

For people who have committed crimes. The church does not deny its own pedophiles communion or participation in church activities sowhy are they doing this to gay people?

[LiberalAndProud]

9. It's a question of leadership, isn't it?

Last edited Fri Sep 19, 2014, 01:14 PM - Edit history (1)

The question is, should gay couples be in leadership positions in the church? The answer, as I'm understanding it, is no.


or maybe yes

[Donald Ian Rankin]

44. "Priest upholds Catholic doctrine" is not newsworthy.

The problem is not the priest, it's the church.

On edit: Thinking about it in slightly more detail, I'm not quite as sure as I was - the Catholic teaching that homosexuality is sinful is very clear and unambiguous, but I'm less sure on the details of their position on offering communion to sinners (which I presume they think includes everyone).

[shenmue]

51. They were volunteers

Not cool. Not cool! Let them stay.

[MADem]

71. I guess a load of parishoners voted with THEIR feet, too.

With any luck, they were Big Check Writers.

It's amazing how that pain in the wallet cuts the deepest...

[rexcat]

75. If they actually left the RCC...

That would be significant but if all they did was change to another parish not much will change since the RCC still gets their cut of the "basket" collection. What is important here is how the diocese handles this matter but I would not hold my breath waiting for change concerning this matter since all the priest was doing was following church doctrine.