A bishop counsels a distraught layman

The hierarchy exists for ... oh, the heck with it ...

"Laymen did complain, over and over. And it did them no good. They were told that they were the ones with the problem."

Remember that discussion about the demise of liberal Catholicism?

What Rod wrote about laymen being told they were the ones with the problem seems to come straight from the liberal Catholic handbook. Time and time again when orthodox Catholics in my parents' generation would go to the parish office or the Catholic school office to discuss matters like heresy being taught in the classroom, heterodoxy in the liturgy (even non-Christian rituals being incorporated into the Mass!) etc., they would be dismissed with the words, "You're the only one who has a problem with this. No one else is worried about it. Why are you spending your time and energy on this?" etc.

Eventually the orthodox Catholics started finding each other; one of the first things they realized was that even if twenty or thirty of them had complained about the same exact thing they were all sent away with the same lie: Nobody but you has a problem with this.

I'm not saying that liberal Catholics were responsible for the Scandal, of course; it was more complex than that. But the same tactics used by liberal Catholics since the early 1970s to get the people to line up behind all of the changes, both the authorized ones and the clearly unauthorized ones, being made in the Catholic churches and schools of this country were the tactics later used by Catholic officials to brush aside any real concerns that Catholics, lay or clergy, had about the moral situation of any priest.

I wonder to what extent the Catholic Church understands that willful blindness to scandals such as this (and dismissiveness of lay people who complain) is a huge stumbling block to potential converts. I'm a Rome-leaning, Baptist-born-and-bred, traditionalist Anglican who has oft been tempted to inch closer to the Tiber, but reads of incidents like this and simply cannot imagine putting my spiritual welfare - and that of my family - into the hands of what oft appears to be an utterly indifferent - if not corrupt - U.S. hierarchy. No doubt this type of spiritual duplicity and abuse is present in every church, but there's something comforting in being in a church that doesn't make itself out to be the One True Church and therefore disappoints less when it shows the marks of human fallenness and, perhaps more importantly, cannot - without coming across as a cult - deny its members the exit option in the event things get really bad. If the Catholic Church is indeed the one true church and the anathemas of the Counter-Reformation end up being correct re the eternal destiny of us Protestants, I expect to share my spot in hell with a fairly large company of bishops and priests bearing millstones about their necks.

Richard:

If you haven't already done so, you might want to explore [Eastern] Orthodoxy in addition to Roman Catholicism. While there are a lot of surface similarities to Catholicism, including episcopacy, sacramentalism, apostolicity, claim to being the one true church, etc., there are a lot of differences in terms of focii and emphases related to soteriology, Christology and Triadology.

Reading Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition (5 volumes) is also a good and unbiased way to understand the different emphases of East vs. West and judge which, if either, is the continuation of the Patristic tradition(s). (Pelikan was Lutheran at the time he wrote these, and they're fairly objective; no axe to grind, just lots of good reading, and highly-praised/recommended by just about everyone; cheap, too, at Amazon.) A short history like Henry Chadwick's The Early Church that covers the first 1,000 years is also a good read. I hear the same about Hubert Cunliffe-Jones A History of Christian Doctrine, which I own but haven't delved into much.

But as I've often quipped, the same thing can be said about reading church history as is said about learning how laws and sausages are made. Wear your boots and pray a lot. :^)

east: You probably would not see this as pertinent, but those of us not of your "one, true faith" take utmost offense at being dismissed as irrelevant, inferior, and somehow "untrue". Why can't Catholics, Baptists, Witnesses, etc, be content to live and let live and respect that others have a different view, rather than take a haughty, elitist view that their view is the only, one, true correct view?

"Utmost offense"? Really? I don't believe you.

Why on earth is it "haughty" and "elitist" to believe that one's religion is true? Catholicism, like most religions, make exclusive truth claims. It cannot be true, and at the same time Protestantism (or Islam, or paganism, or atheism) be true. For that matter, why it not haughty and elitist to insist that your relativism is exclusively true? Why are you not offended to the utmost by Richard Dawkins, who claims that all religions are untrue?

Because, I think, you're not offended by exclusivist claims at all. You're just offended by Catholicism.

I don't, by the way, agree with my pal Erin that the "only important question" is whether or not the ecclesiological propositions put forth by Roman Catholicism are true. For Christians, the truth isn't merely propositional; it's also personal, as the Truth itself became incarnate. For reasons having to do with our fallen humanity, it is possible that under certain circumstances and for certain people, it becomes difficult to impossible to live in personal relationship to the Truth that is Christ because of the kinds of things Richard raises. And in that circumstance, one may lose the ability to believe the propositional truths of the Catholic Church (or any church, I might add). That's more or less what happened to me.

I tell Protestants I know who are considering Catholicism but who have ruled out Orthodoxy to carry on, but to do so with eyes wide open. The church of the books and magazines and the Catechism may well be very far from the church you'll live with day in and day out. You've got to make sure you're able to deal with that in a positive way, and not get depressed, angry or bitter.

I have considered Orthodoxy - in fact, my interest in Orthodoxy was key to my developing interest in Rome. I think for many cradle fundamentalists Orthodoxy is, at least initially, the more palatable option because of the absence of a pope and its less scholastic approach to defining dogma re, e.g., the Eucharist. Orthodoxy, of course, has its own problems as well.

I understand, and respect, the assertion by Catholics and Orthodox believers that their church is the one true church. At the same time, I think it's reasonable to ask whether it's precisely this assertion that is, in part, responsible for the attitude of the hierarchy to scandals and to scandalous clergy: In any institution that views itself as a monopoly - whose "consumers" lack a viable exit option - the focus eventually shifts from serving the consumers (or the flock) to serving the (perceived) needs of those running the institution. To get a sense of what I'm talking about, consider your friendly cable company: Your customer service sucks precisely because you can't get what they offer anywhere else; why should a church that prevents its members from voting with their feet be any different? Catholics and Orthodox are right to point out the excessive consumer mentality among Protestant, and particularly evangelical, churchgoers; it seems only fair to point out that the churches that make exclusive claims for their institution (as opposed to, say, the truth of the gospel per se) suffer from an analogous defect.

In the end, though, it comes down to this: As a husband and a father, I believe that God has entrusted me with the spiritual well-being of my family, and that I will be judged on how I handled that trust. The stories that Rod tells lead me to believe that I would be abusing that trust to submit my family to an institution that demands my exclusive allegiance without a credible reciprocal commitment (1) that my family will not be exposed to false teaching within the church and (2) that my family - and especially my kids - will not have the authority of the institution used to coerce them into acquiescing in their own abuse or to shield the perpetrators of such abuse from spiritual discipline and temporal punishment in the event that it does occur. If this consigns me to hell, at least I will go with a clean conscience.

Richard:

May the force be with you!

I do not insist that my Judaism in the only true way. I say that it is my way. It's simple, really.

Is that really "Judaism," though? I.e., is it "Judaism" to assert that it's just one faith among many equally-valid ways or faiths?

I don't see how one can read the Old Testament without concluding that the Jewish belief, as espoused by Moses and the Prophets, is that YHWH is the only true God, and that while Gentiles aren't covenantly required to obey and proclaim Him, those who do not serve YHWH worship false and imaginary gods. Ergo, Judaism/YHWHism is the only true way, and all other ways are false, either because they are the ways of fools (i.e., those who deny God) or because they are the ways of false gods.

Of course, if reverence for and adherence to Moses and the Prophets and worship of YHWH is not central to one's definition and practice of Judaism, then I suppose one could say that one's "Judaism" doesn't view other faiths that way. But is that "Judaism"?

Words of encouragement. I.e., you are balancing/weighing all your obligations to God in making your decisions, and thinking and praying this through carefully and deliberately.

Nothing you wrote made me think that you were going "New-Age" on us.

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you. (How's that?)

Eric,
Reasonable questions. Yet, I'll not answer here, as I don't wish to take Rod's thread too far off in another direction.

I will say that Judaism says there's a place for all the righteous (all those who do good deeds and help to heal the world) in the afterlife, the World to Come, or Olam Haba. "Grace" or "salvation" isn't reserved for a select few.

BTW, although I understand you're used to calling the Torah the "Old" Testament, it's really more properly referred to as either Torah (Hebrew for the 5 Books of Moses), or at least, the Hebrew Bible. It's not "old" to us.

Bishop Galante apparently dismissed this new convert, who actually gave a damn about the integrity of the Church he had chosen, in favor of this morally corrupt priest. As Erin points out, and Fr. Dwight, this is not a one-off thing.

If I recall, there were a number of people grumbling about whom Jesus chose to spend his time with and who he ignored.

Does that make Mr. Dreher and Mr. Sandifer wrong? No, but that laymen were incorrectly told that they were making mountains out of molehills doesn't mean that it is always wrong, either.

Do we have any evidence that:

* Fr. Mallison is lying that he broke off involvement in SSA on his own?
* That he has since been anything other than a faithful, chaste priest?

Obviously Mr. Dreher and Mr. Sandifer are of the opinion that Fr. Mallison's involvement in SSA irreversibly compromises him and renders him unfit for ministry. I disagree with this notion, and believe it is contrary to the narrative of forgiveness and redemption that is our hope of salvation.

Back to the point at hand, if the priest was sincere in removing himself from the offensive acts and web site, it is then totally between him and his bishop as to whether he is fit for ministry. I would say the burden of proof is on those who say the priest lied or the bishop lied and that some type of coverup was intended and that the offense continued ... and proof has to be more than "there are all these bad priests and bishops out there, so this must be true."

Is there no rejoicing in heaven any more over repentence? Wasn't St. Paul a bit responsible for some anti-Christian persecution before he became ... a saint?

I don't "feel" one way or the other about it, Johnnie, and frankly I don't care one way or the other how you "feel" about it. I think it is extremely unlikely that any Catholic parent has to worry about his child being abused by clergy. The thing that is far more likely to happen is that the Catholic parent, if he or she is orthodox in the faith, is likely to face more obstacles to living out the faith authentically from the institution than he is likely to find help. That's not necessarily a reason not to become Catholic, but it is something that ought to be seriously considered, especially by people with children.

As I've written before, Terry Mattingly, when he was considering leaving the Episc Church with his family for either Catholicism or Orthodoxy, heard my case for Catholicism. He said that one big obstacle for him with Catholicism was his children. I thought he was talking about sexual abuse (this was 1996), and I got all flustered about it, saying that his kids would be safe. He said no, that he worried about parish life, and the fact that in many, many parishes, the substance of the Catholic faith is not being passed on to children, because it is not expected to be. Terry pointed out that he's a religion reporter by trade, and he tracks these trends closely. I didn't have anything to say to that, because I knew it to be true, at least in my own experience. I responded by saying that he should focus on the case for Catholicism's ecclesiological claims.

Years later, when I had kids of my own, I understood what he was trying to tell me. No church -- Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, whatever -- is only about its doctrine. It is about how the doctrine is taught, experienced and lived in community. Anyone considering converting to any particular faith had better get his head out of the books and contemplate seriously what kind of experience he and his family are likely to have from week to week in the parish. That should be part of discernment.

John McG:

I think you forgot to use a smiley to end your post. :)

Richard, I'd like to break down the question a bit; sorry if this is too off topic, but I think it explains why people *don't* leave the Catholic Church over the corruption du jour.

Catholics don't adopt some smug elitist attitude, some "We're number one!" approach to the faith (well, some individuals may, but that's usually not a good thing). I realize that to eastcoastlady any claims regarding the truth of one's faith might fall into that category, but it's not really the case.

For me, as a Catholic, there are two things to consider: do I believe that Christ intended to begin an actual, physical Church for his followers as opposed to some kind of less-tangible spirutual reality, and do I believe that Church which Christ began still exists today?

Both of these questions involve much more study and discussion than is possible in a combox, but looking at Holy Scripture and at Christian tradition I think it's not difficult to believe that the answer to the first question is "yes." In fact, twice in the recent past I've driven past Protestant churches, one Baptist and one a newer sort of organization, which were proudly proclaiming on their signs out front: "Under Same Management for Over 2,000 Years!" So the notion that Christ did, indeed, start a church is not that hard to accept. The question then becomes, which one?

Now, I don't wish to be unfair to my Protestant brothers and sisters, but just consider those signs for a moment. Has the Baptist Church been around for 2,000 years? Has the little nondenominational church (whose founder is still living as far as I know)? Can any Church, in fact, trace its origins back to the time of Christ?

As my own Church says, two can--the Catholic and the Orthodox. So if any Church out there is doing what Christ intended in terms of sacramental life, of teaching and of preaching, and so on, it's going to be one of them.

I obviously believe that it's the Catholic Church, for reasons which, again, aren't even remotely possible to discuss in a comment box--but in neither case is it possible to look at the hierarchy, the priests and bishops, and say, "Well, this Church has sinners, even great sinners, in leadership while this *other* Church does not." Both of our Churches have suffered from extremely bad leadership both now and in the past, so if Christ had somehow promised us an earthly Church free from sinful leaders, we'd have to keep looking.

As my own Church says, two can--the Catholic and the Orthodox. So if any Church out there is doing what Christ intended in terms of sacramental life, of teaching and of preaching, and so on, it's going to be one of them.

There are not just these two. Even before the split between Constantinople and Rome, other apostolic, catholic and orthodox churches formed over the Chalcedon decision. Your decision/opinion about who split from who - i.e., who kept versus who left the apostolic faith - depends on where you stand. "Eastern" Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism may be the two largest groups of what was once (if you don't count the "heretics") one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, but they are not the only two.

Erin is spot on.
I'll add that the Catholic Church suffers somewhat, in comparison to others, because it is the big kid on the block. I seriously think that people pay more attention to it, and when its members or especially its leaders fail, it makes a bigger splash.
As for how the Faith is taught, I think that there was a problem in teacing and passing the Faith in certain locations over the past 20 years, but I also think that has turned around significantly as we have returned to traditional devotions and practices. Also, the quality and orthodoxy of the recent seminarians and recently-ordained priests seem to be really having an effect.

The thing that is far more likely to happen is that the Catholic parent, if he or she is orthodox in the faith, is likely to face more obstacles to living out the faith authentically from the institution than he is likely to find help

And of course that's not the case in the OCA, right? The commentators at the Yahoo Ortho list and at ocanews.org would beg to differ.

For the record: I am a Catholic parent, and I have never faced the slightest obstacle from the Catholic Church in "living out the faith authentically." Never.

And I could not imagine bringing up my kids in any communion other than the Catholic Church.

One note, the parallel between "miserable poverty" and a potential convert's current religion is not meant as an insult to other religions, but rather an echo of Richard's own words that he would rather go to hell in good consicence than join a Church as Mr. Dreher has described it.

Perhaps I should not have been so flip in expressing a preference for hell over joining the Catholic church. That's not what I meant. As I understand it, the Catholic church currently teaches that even those in other Christian ecclesial bodies can be saved (at least so long as they do not believe that the Catholic church is the One True Church). What I meant to say initially was that, if the anathemas of the Counter-Reformation prove (contrary to what appears to be the current teaching of the church) to be true, and I end up in hell because I'm outside the church, I expect to see lots of American bishops and priests there with me. I carried that thought into a subsequent post perhaps a bit too carelessly. I do not believe the choice is between converting to Rome and ending up in hell . . . only, again, if those Counter-Reformation anathemas are correct, at least I will be there in good conscience for two reasons: (1) because I disbelieve in good conscience that God has ordained one visible church as his own to the exclusion of all others and (2) because I have, to the best of my ability, carried out my spiritual duty to my family in choosing a church for us to attend.

Thanks Richard -- that makes many of my comments no longer operative.

Richard- sorry to butt in, but I think your impression is just wrong. It is not a battle in most Catholic churches to have children educated in the Faith. I have read about parishes where that may be the case, but reading about them is like reading about life on another planet. That is not my experience. I have had no troubles like that in any Catholic church I have attended since I converted in the 1970's.

I don't know how many times I have to say this but I'll say it again until I'm blue in the face:

1. Bishop Galante's attitude reflects the kind of contempt that self-benighted, isolated, arrogant bureaucrats demonstrate to those whom they claim to serve. That attitude is the direct and natural consequence of a system of episcopal training that encourages (nay, demands) blind deference toward its members, ostensibly in the name of "apostolic succession." The fact that many of these false shepherds are apostolically descended from Judas is quite beside the point for too many Catholics.

The Soviet apparachiki weren't any different. In fact, if you take the Soviet apparachiki and their immediate subordinates and have them exchange places and ideologies with the Catholic bishops and their subordinates, their behavior won't substantially change!

That's not to equate Catholicism with Marxism. That does say, however, that, sometimes, human behavior trumps ideology.

2. John McG, if the Catholic Church is the "One True Church," then it will experience such a judgement from God as to shake the foundations of even the most thirsty Kool-Aid drinking Catholic. Remember, judgement begins in the House of God. Don't believe that? Read Matthew 23. Read anything written by Jeremiah or Ezekiel concerning the false shepherds of their own day.

Don't you think that the decrease in vocations and the tremendous loss of diocesan money and property because of the clerical sex-abuse crisis is God's way of scourging an effectively apostate Church that has become infatuated for far too long with power, prestige and wealth?

Remember what Pope Paul VI said: "The smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary."

Remember, also, what St. John Chrysosdom said: "The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."

Truer words have rarely been spoken.

If God wishes to punish the Church or the bishops for their wicked ways, I'm quite sure He is capable of doing so without my help.

EastCL: And logically, I could hit you with many reasons not to believe as you do and why it makes total logical sense not to see Jesus as God incarnate.

Of course you can. And that's fine. I'm not the least bit offended. You and I could both be wrong in our theological conclusions (and an atheist, as well as a Muslim, would by definition agree that we are), but we can't both be right. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

Bill, don't restrain your inner Martin Luther! :)

Seriously, in one sense you're right: Christianity is the one true faith.

But that begs the question: what is Christianity? We can say that it means "following Christ," but again, what does that mean?

Some Christians think that following Christ means receiving Him in the Eucharist, and worshiping Him every Sunday.

Some think that most of the sacraments were later inventions and that Christ Himself didn't mean for His followers to take Him literally when he spoke about the Eucharist.

Some think you can be a good Christian and use contraception or be divorced and remarried; some do not.

Some think you can be a good Christian and have an abortion; some do not.

Some think you can be a good Christian and drink alcohol; some do not.

Some think you can be a good Christian and be in favor of torturing our enemies; some do not.

Some think you can be a good Christian and remain an active homosexual; some do not.

What does it mean to be a Christian, to follow Christ? How are we to determine this? If we are to stand up for Christianity, for what exactly do we stand?

You are right--we need to have solidarity with each other, but a lot of that solidarity comes from being honest about our shared beliefs and respectful about our differences. The reason the whole "one true Church" debate gets started in threads like these is that a common theme in them seems to be, "Look at all this corruption! How could anyone who is a sincere Christian stay in a Church like this?"

My answer to that question is always going to echo St. Peter's answer to Christ in the sixth chapter of John's Gospel; if I didn't believe that the Catholic Church was the one Christ founded as the ordinary means of salvation for all people such an answer would make no sense.

These are matters of faith, of belief, not of proof or of fact. Further, it's precisely the feeling of having to prove oneself rightversus another's point of view that is the cause of so much strife, anger, and many other negative emotions and acts. You can say all you want, for example, that "God has shown and proven Himself to me," and from your perspective, it may be true, but that doesn't make your point of view any more right than mine.

That's just your opinion. You have no proof that you're correct. You have no proof that it is not you who is missing the point, even if it's your own point. And if you argue with me about this, then you are the strife-causer, because you say that your feeling (and action) of having to prove yourself right is the cause of so much anger and strife.

If you want to end strife and anger, then concede that you're wrong. Otherwise, according to your own belief, you are the one responsible for adding more strife and anger to the world. :^)

A more crude way to put it: If Jesus Christ wasn't God incarnate, and the Christian Bible is nothing more than a collection of thoughts with no metaphysical weight and binding moral authority, then I've got to tell you, I'm pretty cheesed off that I spent those years between my conversion and my marriage not getting laid.

don't know why that bolding happened.

About your cruder post, Rod - think of all the productive work you got done while you weren't wasting time chasing loose women...

I'm pretty cheesed off that I spent those years between my conversion and my marriage not getting laid.

But think of all the child support you don't have to pay! :^)

Rod, forget it. I used to respect that even when you posted things with which I disagree, you did research and presented reasonable discussion.

I may indeed believe deeply that "the Christian Bible is nothing more than a collection of thoughts with no metaphysical weight and binding moral authority,", and offer empty apologies that you couldn't get your rocks off during that intervening period, at least not with a partner.

And if you think I don't think it's important to know the difference between right and wrong and how to live and treat others based on what I believe God wants us to do, well, then, you're wrong. There - I've said it.

It's much more likely at this point that if we were stuck in a room together, I'd be more likely to kill myself than you. Some here might see that as a good thing.

Maybe what I really need to say is that Christians are not the only ones with a valid moral compass and you need to get off the idea that you are the only ones that have that idea right. There - I've said it again - you're wrong.

Your approach to dealing with other not like you, that is, non-Christians, and the insatiable need to show them that you have it right and that they have it wrong - well, you're wrong. (Wow, I'm getting good at sounding like you!)

Reading how you responded to my post, for example, the whole atheist bull, as well as once again saying things I did not say and drawing strange inferences, for example, "God exists for me, but not for you"; well, thanks but no thanks to further discussion on the issue. It's clearly pointless to discuss this issue with someone who won't see the point that, as Eric said, certain things are unverfiable. It's what you believe. In this case, I believe you're wrong.

And now, I believe I could use a drink.
Okay, j/k, at work and too early in the day. But I sure do feel like having one!

Rod: It very much matters whether one recognizes the God of Israel, or, I dunno, Thor. It matters a lot whether or not Jesus was God incarnate, and the promised Jewish messiah, or just a crazy rabbi with a messiah complex.

Eleazer Williams: Welcome to the wacky world of Abrahamic religions.

As my great-grandmother was from Normandy, I very much resent the aspersions cast upon the ancestral deities of the Norsemen. Until the wacky Abrahamites monopolised the cultic cosmos, gods-fearing polytheists lived in religious harmony. It is a lamentable practice today to take potshots at peaceful polytheists: it is (pace Philip Jenkins) the last acceptable prejudice.

The Jewish god is (until effeminated by the later messianic sect of Christians) a god of war and real estate. For the preputial sacrifice of the god's chosen freemen and their slaves, a considerable tract of prime Mediterranean real estate was promised if the then occupants were conquered and killed. This is an extremely xenophobic god.

The Christian god is deemed "triune" which is theological sesquischizophrenia -- not quite polytheistic, but sufficiently so as not to appear outré to the religious of the Pax Romana. The human avatar Yeshua of the Hebrew war god Yahweh need not have been a crazy rabbi, merely an exceptionally devout mystic. His betrayal and execution was mythologised with the raison d'être of atonement of a presumed "original sin", which had not been an element of the Hebrew credal system.

And as to the pretensions of the Mohammedan god, a theologic farrago of various Christian and Jewish heterodoxies --- well, our present geopolitical dilemma is ample testimony to the chaos engendered by his votaries.

Contrast all the strife of the Abrahamic traditions with the religious harmony of true polytheists. Do the worshippers of Aphrodite persecute and kill those of Venus, or Ishtar? Is not Father Zeus the same as Juppiter? Does not Poseidon drown as many mariners as Neptune? And there is, to be sure, no theodicic scandal in a pissed-off Poseidon.

Polytheists do not kill because they worship different gods; they kill for more earthly reasons: survival.

The Jews toast: le shana ha ba'a b'Yerushalayim! - next year in Jerusalem! But whether they have there found the Shekhinah is still moot. Let us rather recover the Presence of the True Emanations, lift a chalice of Chian and say: τῷ ὑστέρῳ ἔτει Ἐλευσῖνι -- next year at Eleusis!

His betrayal and execution was mythologised with the raison d'être of atonement of a presumed "original sin", which had not been an element of the Hebrew credal system.

Not in the East/Greek, or among the earliest Church Fathers. St. Augustine is largely responsible for the doctrine of "original sin" as part of his theology related to infant baptism, grace and predestination, IIRC.

You're right about one thing, I think. The sin/fall of Adam gets very little mention in the rest of the Tanakh. Part of the problem in doing a concordance search is that the Hebrew word "Adam" is the word for "man," so one would have to see if the instances of "adam" might in fact be references to "Adam" and not simply "man." But in most translations of the Tanakh (i.e., "The Old Testament" for Christians) there is very little mention of "Adam" and/or his sin/fall after Genesis 3. I wonder if its prominence in Pauline soteriology was, besides coming from revelation, in part influenced by some intertestamental or sectarian literature/theology, e.g., Enoch, Jubilees, Qumran, etc.?

Mike, lighten up. Rod talked about not getting laid; I used a different phrase. "getting laid" could be seen as offensive by some. Sorry if it offended you but its intent was nothing different than what Rod said.

Lots of people post things others find offensive. If you're going to pick out one (perhaps not the best-phrased) sentence fragment and forget the rest of the discussion, then more's the shame for you by not paying attention to the larger discussion.

And apologies to john e - it was his words I took about certain things being "unverifiable".
Posted by: eastcoastlady | May 22, 2008 9:09 AM

No worries - and I too have enjoyed your postings. Hope you stick around.

John E - thanks for your kindness.

Mike - sentence fragments give an indiction as to who a person actually is....
If you're going to point a judgmental finger, then you'd better be careful what kind of "indiction" (sic), or "indication", your typos give about you.

My father died a long time ago.
My mother is indeed proud.

Okay, fbc. Here's my take.

"Not".

I don't know how the Orthodox Lectionary works, but last Sunday, we mackerel-snapping papists heard:

Whoever believes in him will not be condemned,
but whoever does not believe has already been condemned,
because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

I'm no Scripture scholar, but that sure sounds to me a lot like "Believe in me and go to heaven," and "you have to believe in Jesus so you can go to heaven when you die."